What's new

Obama offers Pakistan enhanced partnership

EjazR

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
5,148
Reaction score
1
Obama offers new role for Pakistan

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama has offered Pakistan an expanded strategic partnership, including additional military and economic cooperation, while warning with unusual bluntness that its use of insurgent groups to pursue policy goals "cannot continue."

The offer, including an effort to help reduce tensions between Pakistan and India, was contained in a two-page letter delivered to President Asif Ali Zardari this month by national security adviser James Jones. It was accompanied by assurances from Jones that the United States will increase its military and civilian efforts in Afghanistan, and plans no early withdrawal.

Obama's speech Tuesday night at West Point, N.Y., will address primarily the Afghanistan aspects of the strategy. But despite the public and political attention focused on the number of new troops, Pakistan has been the hot core of the months-long strategy review. The long-term consequences of failure there, the review concluded, far outweigh those in Afghanistan.

"We can't succeed without Pakistan," a senior administration official involved in the White House review said. "You have to differentiate between public statements and reality. There is nobody who is under any illusions about this."

This official and others, all of whom requested anonymity in order to speak freely about the closely held details of the new strategy, emphasized that without "changing the nature of U.S.-Pakistan relations in a new direction, you're not going to win in Afghanistan," as one put it. "And if you don't win in Afghanistan, then Pakistan will automatically be imperiled, and that will make Afghanistan look like child's play."

Proffered U.S. carrots, outlined during Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's October visit to Islamabad, center on a far more comprehensive and long-term bilateral relationship. It would feature enhanced development and trade assistance; improved intelligence collaboration and a more secure and upgraded military equipment pipeline; more public praise and less public criticism of Pakistan; and an initiative to build greater regional cooperation among Pakistan, India and Afghanistan.

Obama called for closer collaboration against all extremist groups, and his letter named five: al-Qaida, the Afghan Taliban, the Haqqani network, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and the Pakistani Taliban organization known as Tehrik-e-Taliban. Using vague diplomatic language, he said that ambiguity in Pakistan's relationship with any of them could no longer be ignored.

Jones, a retired Marine Corps general, was more precise in conversations with top Pakistani government and military leaders, U.S. and foreign officials said, stating that certain things have to happen in Pakistan to ensure Afghanistan's security. If Pakistan cannot deliver, he warned, the United States may be impelled to use any means at its disposal to rout insurgents based along Pakistan's western and southern borders with Afghanistan.
 
.
Obama offers new role for Pakistan

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama has offered Pakistan an expanded strategic partnership, including additional military and economic cooperation, while warning with unusual bluntness that its use of insurgent groups to pursue policy goals "cannot continue."

Thats freaking hot. Hopefully it wont be money, a product Zardari can't steal for himself would be nice.
 
.
Obama offers new role for Pakistan


Jones, a retired Marine Corps general, was more precise in conversations with top Pakistani government and military leaders, U.S. and foreign officials said, stating that certain things have to happen in Pakistan to ensure Afghanistan's security. If Pakistan cannot deliver, he warned, the United States may be impelled to use any means at its disposal to rout insurgents based along Pakistan's western and southern borders with Afghanistan.

Hmmm... Now why does it sound less like a warning and more like a forecast?:confused:
 
.
Hmmm... Now why does it sound less like a warning and more like a forecast?:confused:

Nah. They know doing something like that would just be suicidal, like Afghanistan.

$1Trillion dollars and counting....
 
.
Washington Post

WASHINGTON —— President Obama has offered Pakistan an expanded strategic partnership, including additional military and economic cooperation, while warning with unusual bluntness that its use of insurgent groups to pursue policy goals "cannot continue."

The offer, including an effort to help reduce tensions between Pakistan and India, was contained in a letter delivered to President Asif Ali Zardari this month by national security adviser James Jones. It was accompanied by assurances from Jones that the U.S. increase its military and civilian efforts in Afghanistan and plans no early withdrawal.

Obama's speech Tuesday night at West Point, N.Y., will address primarily the Afghanistan aspects of the strategy. But despite the public and political attention focused on the number of new troops, Pakistan has been the hot core of the months-long strategy review. The long-term consequences of failure there, the review concluded, far outweigh those in Afghanistan.

"We can't succeed without Pakistan," a senior administration official involved in the White House review said. "You have to differentiate between public statements and reality. There is nobody who is under any illusions about this."

This official and others, all of whom requested anonymity in order to speak freely about the closely held details of the new strategy, emphasized that without "changing the nature of U.S.-Pakistan relations in a new direction, you're not going to win in Afghanistan," as one put it. "And if you don't win in Afghanistan, then Pakistan will automatically be imperiled, and that will make Afghanistan look like child's play."

Proffered U.S. carrots, outlined during Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's October visit to Islamabad, center on a far more comprehensive and long-term bilateral relationship.

It would feature enhanced development and trade assistance; improved intelligence collaboration and a more secure and upgraded military equipment pipeline; more public praise and less public criticism of Pakistan; and an initiative to build greater regional cooperation among Pakistan, India and Afghanistan.

Obama called for closer collaboration against all extremist groups, and his letter named five: al-Qaida, the Afghan Taliban, the Haqqani network, Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Pakistani Taliban organization known as Tehrik-e-Taliban. Using vague diplomatic language, he said that ambiguity in Pakistan's relationship with any of them could no longer be ignored.

Jones, a retired Marine Corps general, was more precise in conversations with top Pakistani government and military leaders, U.S. and foreign officials said, stating that certain things have to happen in Pakistan to ensure Afghanistan's security. If Pakistan cannot deliver, he warned, the United States may be impelled to use any means at its disposal to rout insurgents based along Pakistan's western and southern borders with Afghanistan.
Expansion of the relationship will require overcoming significant public and political mistrust in both countries. Officials said that they recognize the difficulty in delivering on U.S. threats. "Our leverage over Pakistan is very limited," the administration official said.
 
. .
I fail to understand the American drama at this point... We are kicking the **** out of militants and yet they are sending out negative statements.
 
.
Mixed messages here on another level, as US officials in the WAPO article are quoted to be admitting.

"Officials said that they recognize the difficulty in delivering on either U.S. promises or threats, and that "our leverage over Pakistan is very limited," the senior administration official said."


Quite frankly, given the US's own admission that it does not want to see Pakistan destabilized by Afghanistan, any US 'threat' of military action in FATA (beyond the existing measures) is dead on arrival given that an escalation would only destabilize the GoP and Pakistan.

So, the 'threat' of military escalation neutered, on to those promises of 'an enhanced relationship' ... any tangible proposals we might see anytime soon? COIN assistance is already happening, perhaps the idea is to ramp it up a notch to remove the 'resources shortfall' that Pakistan is arguing costrains it from expanding the operations too quickly.

However, the way the article phrases 'strategic relationship' and points to 'military assistance' suggests increased conventional military assistance - probably the only thing that would ease Pakistani concerns in terms of countering aggression from India while it allocates greater resources to the Western front.

But what is Pakistan looking for in terms of conventional assistance from the US? An enlarged F-16 order subsidized by the US? Beyond that Pakistan is in the US defence market primarily for small ticket items like artillery etc.

Increasing the F16 order without having it subsidized by the US seems improbable given the deal with the Chinese on the J-10. Besides, the US door to weapons sales to Pakistan AT COST is open, so I am uncertain as to what 'carrots' the military component of this 'enhanced strategic relationship' actually offers.
 
.
Mixed messages here on another level, as US officials in the WAPO article are quoted to be admitting.

"Officials said that they recognize the difficulty in delivering on either U.S. promises or threats, and that "our leverage over Pakistan is very limited," the senior administration official said."


Quite frankly, given the US's own admission that it does not want to see Pakistan destabilized by Afghanistan, any US 'threat' of military action in FATA (beyond the existing measures) is dead on arrival given that an escalation would only destabilize the GoP and Pakistan.

So, the 'threat' of military escalation neutered, on to those promises of 'an enhanced relationship' ... any tangible proposals we might see anytime soon? COIN assistance is already happening, perhaps the idea is to ramp it up a notch to remove the 'resources shortfall' that Pakistan is arguing costrains it from expanding the operations too quickly.

However, the way the article phrases 'strategic relationship' and points to 'military assistance' suggests increased conventional military assistance - probably the only thing that would ease Pakistani concerns in terms of countering aggression from India while it allocates greater resources to the Western front.

But what is Pakistan looking for in terms of conventional assistance from the US? An enlarged F-16 order subsidized by the US? Beyond that Pakistan is in the US defence market primarily for small ticket items like artillery etc.

Increasing the F16 order without having it subsidized by the US seems improbable given the deal with the Chinese on the J-10. Besides, the US door to weapons sales to Pakistan AT COST is open, so I am uncertain as to what 'carrots' the military component of this 'enhanced strategic relationship' actually offers.

Well Anglo! It is a guess work but i think KL bill and its conditionality can be a good yard-stick. I am talking abut the part of bill containing conditions for military assistance. So, The COST is very high... we better refrain from US arm market ( Which I believe Pakistan military is already doing).
 
.
Mixed messages here on another level, as US officials in the WAPO article are quoted to be admitting.

"Officials said that they recognize the difficulty in delivering on either U.S. promises or threats, and that "our leverage over Pakistan is very limited," the senior administration official said."


Quite frankly, given the US's own admission that it does not want to see Pakistan destabilized by Afghanistan, any US 'threat' of military action in FATA (beyond the existing measures) is dead on arrival given that an escalation would only destabilize the GoP and Pakistan.

So, the 'threat' of military escalation neutered, on to those promises of 'an enhanced relationship' ... any tangible proposals we might see anytime soon? COIN assistance is already happening, perhaps the idea is to ramp it up a notch to remove the 'resources shortfall' that Pakistan is arguing costrains it from expanding the operations too quickly.

However, the way the article phrases 'strategic relationship' and points to 'military assistance' suggests increased conventional military assistance - probably the only thing that would ease Pakistani concerns in terms of countering aggression from India while it allocates greater resources to the Western front.

But what is Pakistan looking for in terms of conventional assistance from the US? An enlarged F-16 order subsidized by the US? Beyond that Pakistan is in the US defence market primarily for small ticket items like artillery etc.

Increasing the F16 order without having it subsidized by the US seems improbable given the deal with the Chinese on the J-10. Besides, the US door to weapons sales to Pakistan AT COST is open, so I am uncertain as to what 'carrots' the military component of this 'enhanced strategic relationship' actually offers.

Going beyond simply providing more Block 52 F-16s, the enhanced military assistance could include more advanced avionics and offensive capabilities for the F-16, AWACS, ground-to-air missile systems, as well as Apache helicopter gunships - all of the above could be provided by the US at a subsidized cost.
 
Last edited:
.
AWACS and SAM...

Hmmm.... but of which quality and quantity? We must finish our military reliance on US forever.
 
.
I fail to understand the American drama at this point... We are kicking the **** out of militants and yet they are sending out negative statements.

AA - Lets call a spade a spade - we are selectively kicking the crap out of TTP.

The fact is that the PA is still reluctant to act against the Afghan Taliban or the Haqqani Network who are seen as 'strategic assets'. Unfortunately the symbiotic relationship between Al Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban/ Haqqani network has made the establishment's hedge increasingly untenable.

The days of pursuing policy goals on the backs of pseudo-religious mercenaries infused with global jihad aspirations are coming to an end.

On the LeT front, the group has always been viewed by the military establishment as its blue-eyed boy - the cream of the crop nurtured to fight India in Kashmir. While the LeT leaders accused in the Mumbai attacks have been indicted, the establishment is clearly not doing much to dismantle the LeT infrastructure in Muridke and AK for obvious reasons.
 
Last edited:
.
I've deleted 4 threads on the same issue. Please look for existing threads on the same topic before starting new ones.
 
.
Going beyond simply providing more Block 52 F-16s, the enhanced military assistance could include more advanced targeting and offensive capabilities for the F-16, AWACS, ground-to-air missile systems, as well as Apache helicopter gunships - all of the above could be provided by the US at a subsidized cost.

Right, could be any of those systems, which (barring the Apache) would be considered defensive, and therefore easier to assuage Indian concerns over.

The more advanced targeting capabilities for the F-16 are already being provided, and the existing F-16 MLU program will raise the capabilities of the older F-16's in many areas to be at par with the block 52's.

Personally I think that a fee trade agreement with the US or access to civilian nuclear technology (unlikely until Pakistan can show continuity in its civilian government system along with stability for an extended period of time) would have been strong indicators of a long term relationship, but there has been no movement on either of those two issues.

That brings us back to the military component, and barring subsidized US weapons sales (with at least some offensive systems) I fail to see what the 'enhanced relationship' is and how it serves to act as a 'carrot' for the military to dedicate greater resources to the Western front.

I suppose we'll find out tomorrow how accurate the WaPo article was in terms of the 'enhanced relationship' claims, though the 'do more' mantra is pretty much guaranteed given the comments from Gordon Brown.
 
.
Pakistan often misuses US aid against India and America knows that..but still america wants to cooperate with pakistan by sending more aid in its war against TTP...that's a clear cut American game....use Pakistan as long as they are needed....and when they are of no use..throw them in dustbin...usual American use and throw policy
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom