What's new

Pak rebuffs US on Haqqani network crackdown

This is just the latest variation on the Pakistani "if we do as you say to protect yourselves, we'll be committing suicide" theme the GoP uses to drum dollars and equipment out of the U.S. as an excuse for poor performance. Is there some reason it is more credible today than in the past?
 
Hi
For looking partners in Afghanistan its better to make good relations with Pashtuns of Pakistan. Otherwise you will meet there non-Pashtun Afghans.
Be careful. Trust your brothers ( if you consider them as brothers) or play your dirty games of killing Pashtuns and the results will be on your face . As always. Check the history dear. We know how to die and also know how to free bad souls. But you will sorry for that. You dont want to loose.
But if you come to this game... you are new here.Take care.
regards
 
This is just the latest variation on the Pakistani "if we do as you say to protect yourselves, we'll be committing suicide" theme the GoP uses to drum dollars and equipment out of the U.S. as an excuse for poor performance. Is there some reason it is more credible today than in the past?

Oh for the love of GOD there are far more better ways to squeez money and wepons out of US .
and btw SWAT and South Waziristan OPS cannot in any way be termed as poor performance. However the US milletery equiped with all the latest hightech gadgets backed by drones and rapid airstrikes failing to secure objectives in afghanistan during a lenthy time of 8 years is deffinately a very poor perfromance .
 
If Pakistan will not help in the ISAF to close down Haqqani's safe havens in Pakistan, then the US should attack these foreigner safe havens with an accelerated drone strike program. While this may upset the Pakistani Islamic radical parties, that is better than allowing Haqqani to operate with impunity in FATA. After all, Haqqani and his forces are foreigners aren't they? They aren't Pakistani citizens or legal immigrants are they? They are violating Pakistan's sovereignty. The US will help Pakistan to regain its sovereignty over all of FATA. You are welcome!! :agree:

Hey Buddy. Agree with you. We have a list of Indian convicts as well you can take down for us - Bow to your power and might. Please do us a favor and unlike Pakistan, we are willing to pay you for this help. Lets work together to clean up some unwanted mess.
 
Can't we prop up a new ally in Afghanistan? I hate the idea of Pakistan consorting with Mullahs, although I completely understand that not doing anything is also not an option as we don't want India on our east and west.

A new ally in Afghanistan will be necessary. Also have we received any guarantees that the Haqqani network would vacate Pakistan once the Americans have left?

Like it or not. Democracy is going to sustain in Afghanistan. You are going to have India on your right and left. Jihad is out of business.
 
If the US had not allowed the Indians to gain control of Afghanistan this would not have been an issue today.

This is counterproductive and quite lame. One cant interfere in another country but cry wolf if others do so. If the US had not allowed the Pakistanis to gain control of Afghanistan post US exit from Afghanistan this would definitely not have been an issue today.
 
Last edited:
"Siraj Haqqani is the one who is training, influencing, commanding and leading," Anders said. "Kidnappings, assassinations, beheading women, indiscriminate killings and suicide bombers - Siraj is the one dictating the new parameters of brutality associated with Taliban senior leadership."

Siraj's ascension to power may partly due to the decline of his father's health. Jalaluddin has long been believed to be ill, and rumors have persisted he died in June after a bout of hepatitis.


Read more: Targeting Taliban commander Siraj Haqqani - The Long War Journal

Over the last six months, three out of the four most spectacular terrorist attacks occurring in Afghanistan have been carried out by the Haqqani Network

Read more: The Haqqani Network: Reign of terror - The Long War Journal

One ISI analyst loudly calls my name at the end of a briefing and then recites a summary of Pakistani casualties since Sept. 11, 2001, from terrorism. The list totals 5,362 dead and 10,483 wounded.


Dont worry we will only use then against India, they are a buffer, its an important strategic relationship. How many times have we heard the same things before, how many times do people need to be reminded a rabid dog doesnt just attack the people you send it against.

How many would like to bet that by 2015 Siraj Haqqani will be the next TTP.
 
If Pakistan will not help in the ISAF to close down Haqqani's safe havens in Pakistan, then the US should attack these foreigner safe havens with an accelerated drone strike program. While this may upset the Pakistani Islamic radical parties, that is better than allowing Haqqani to operate with impunity in FATA. After all, Haqqani and his forces are foreigners aren't they? They aren't Pakistani citizens or legal immigrants are they? They are violating Pakistan's sovereignty. The US will help Pakistan to regain its sovereignty over all of FATA. You are welcome!! :agree:

ya kill him when he is in afghanistan (3 weeks in a month). and if u are so bothered about his network then y dont u first get hold of afghan provinces which are already under his control. no one is stoppin u from doin that.
 
If Pakistan will not help in the ISAF to close down Haqqani's safe havens in Pakistan, then the US should attack these foreigner safe havens with an accelerated drone strike program. While this may upset the Pakistani Islamic radical parties, that is better than allowing Haqqani to operate with impunity in FATA. After all, Haqqani and his forces are foreigners aren't they? They aren't Pakistani citizens or legal immigrants are they? They are violating Pakistan's sovereignty. The US will help Pakistan to regain its sovereignty over all of FATA. You are welcome!! :agree:

Perhaps the US should first focus its overwhelming 'drone power' on the provinces it abandoned to the Taliban in the North East, the ones where certain Afghan taliban commanders and Pakistani Taliban commanders are cooperating to conduct attacks in Bajaur and Mohmand in Pakistan.

Perhaps the US should focus on eliminating the weapons smuggled into Pakistan from Afghanistan to supply the Pakistani Taliban, and stop the smuggling of weapons into Afghanistan from the CAR's and Iran in the first place.

Control the territory under your own area of responsibility first.

And if 'drone attacks and air strikes' could have defeated an insurgency, you would not still be fighting in Afghanistan nor sending an additional 40,000 troops there. Wake up already.
 
If the US had not allowed the Indians to gain control of Afghanistan this would not have been an issue today.

India has no troops in Afghanistan, and even the civilian economic assistance is lower than that provided by Canada and Japan. Complaints about India are only a mask for the real problem.

The real problem is that Pakistan's Talib pals have no hope of winning a democratic election. Furthermore if the Afghans are allowed to be independent then they will naturally be friendly with India, as was the case in the Zahir Khan era.

Therefore, Pakistan needs the US to demonstrate sensitivity to Pakistani interests by handing over Afghanistan to the Taliban.
 
Last edited:
India has no troops in Afghanistan, and even the civilian economic assistance is lower than that provided by Canada and Japan. Complaints about India are only a mask for the real problem.

The real problem is that Pakistan's Talib pals have no hope of winning a democratic election. Furthermore if the Afghans are allowed to be independent then they will naturally be friendly with India, as was the case in the Zahir Khan era.

Therefore, Pakistan needs the US to demonstrate sensitivity to Pakistani interests by handing over Afghanistan to the Taliban.

Actually India does have troops in Afghanistan in the guise of providing security to its "civilians". We're saying those troops and civilians have a day job and a different night job.
 
Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari has resisted a direct appeal from President Obama for a rapid expansion of Pakistani military operations in tribal areas and has called on the United States to speed up military assistance to Pakistani forces and to intervene more forcefully with India, its traditional adversary.

In a written response to a letter from Obama late last month, Zardari said his government was determined to take action against al-Qaeda, the Taliban and allied insurgent groups attacking U.S. forces in Afghanistan from the border area inside Pakistan. But, he said, Pakistan's efforts would be based on its own timeline and operational needs.

The message was reinforced Monday by Pakistan's military chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani, who told Gen. David H. Petraeus, the head of the U.S. Central Command, that the United States should not expect "a major operation in North Waziristan" in the coming months, according to a senior U.S. defense official. North Waziristan, one of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas on the Afghan border, is a sanctuary for the Afghan Taliban.

The letters between the two leaders, while couched in diplomatic niceties and pledging mutual respect and increased cooperation against insurgents, reflect ongoing strains in a relationship that is crucial to both.

The long-term success of Obama's new Afghanistan strategy depends on Pakistan moving forcefully against Taliban havens in the FATA and Baluchistan. U.S. ground troops are prohibited from operating inside Pakistan. To bolster Pakistan's government and military, the administration proposed, and Congress approved, a tripling in economic and development assistance and increased military aid.

In return, the United States wants Pakistan to "move on our mutual interests, which includes the Haqqani network and includes the Taliban in Pakistan," Vice President Biden said Tuesday in an interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." His reference was to the North Waziristan-based faction led by Jalaluddin Haqqani and his son, Siraj, and the main Afghan Taliban organization, which are fighting U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

Pakistani counterinsurgency operations this year have primarily targeted separate but allied groups -- the Pakistani Taliban based in South Waziristan and operating in the Swat Valley region -- whose attacks are directed toward Pakistani government targets.

"We're committed to this war, but we'll fight it on our terms. . . . We will prioritize targets based on our interests. We don't want them to be dictated to us," a Pakistani intelligence official said. He added: "The Pakistani Taliban is the clear and present danger. They are what matters most. Once we are done with them, we will go after the Haqqani network."

The official, like others interviewed for this article, agreed to discuss the sensitive U.S-Pakistan relationship only on the condition of anonymity.

U.S. officials and regional analysts have long suspected that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence directorate maintains relationships with Haqqani, a former Taliban defense minister in Kabul, and his top commanders. Analysts say the ISI and some in the Pakistani military regard Haqqani as a valuable asset who could be useful in promoting Pakistani interests in Afghanistan -- including efforts to keep Indian influence there at bay -- after U.S. forces begin to depart.

Officials who described Petraeus's meeting with Kiyani in Islamabad said the U.S. general expressed some irritation at Pakistan's complaints against the United States but accepted what one U.S. official called Kiyani's explanation of "the limits of their forces in terms of capacity."

Pakistan, another U.S. defense official said, is "already doing an extraordinary amount." They are "a sovereign nation," he said, and "all we can do is keep encouraging them to keep it up."

Kiyani, the official said, expressed concern that stepped-up U.S. operations in Afghanistan are pushing insurgents into Pakistan. He said that the military has begun raids into North Waziristan and is working with tribes in the area to expel Uzbek and Arab insurgents.

Conspiracy theories abound in Pakistan regarding U.S. intentions and actions, and Zardari, with a weakening hold on power and under strong military and political pressure, is anxious not to be seen as kowtowing to U.S. pressure. Both the military and the civilian government publicly deny cooperation with U.S. attacks on insurgent targets inside Pakistan, launched from CIA-operated unmanned aircraft, and the U.S. military's use of two Pakistani air bases -- Shamsi in Baluchistan and Shahbaz in Jacobabad in Sind province.

The Pakistani military, which ruled the country for a decade until Zardari's election last year, retains significant control over defense and foreign policy. It has been reluctant to shift its focus away from what it sees as an ongoing threat from neighboring India toward increased counterinsurgency against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Closer Indian-U.S. ties and the expansion of India's conventional capabilities have increased suspicion of U.S. aims.

Zardari did not mention India by name in his three-page letter to Obama, which sources reviewed for The Washington Post on the condition that no direct quotes be used. But he made repeated reference to Pakistan's core interests, unresolved historical conflicts and conventional imbalances. He called on Obama to push Pakistan's neighbors toward diplomatic rapprochement. India broke off direct talks with Pakistan last year after terrorist attacks in Mumbai.

Pakistan's domestic counterterrorism efforts, Zardari said, were based on the country's own threat assessment and timetable. He noted that military operations in the Swat Valley alone had cost Pakistan $2.5 billion and said that Pakistan expected the United States to provide increased material support.

Despite additional U.S. assistance, the Islamabad government has repeatedly complained that the United States has been slow and stingy, and that it attaches far more strings on aid to the civilian government than to its military predecessor.

Nearly every aspect of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship is brittle. Widespread anti-Americanism has focused on the increased presence of U.S. officials administering stepped-up military and economic assistance. In response, the Pakistani government has held up approval of 200 to 300 visas, adding to U.S. irritation.

washingtonpost.com
 
"...Moreover, the Pakistanis do not want to alienate Mr. Haqqani because they consider him an important player in reconciliation efforts that they would like to see get under way in Afghanistan immediately, the officials said.

Because Mr. Haqqani shelters Qaeda leaders and operatives in North Waziristan..."


Now this WOULD BE a source of tension given our feelings about A.Q. and, supposedly, your own expressed and parallel sentiments WRT to the same.

Implicit in this whole argument has been the sanctuary provided these organizations for over eight years. It's an accepted reality even among Pakistanis here and the shift has been notable over the last few weeks.

That establishment of sanctuary wasn't simply for lack of resources but reflects a calculated policy choice by the nat'l security apparatus of Pakistan.

As for Konar and Nuristan, I'm sure that the GoA and its forces will get to those regions if and when. I guarantee that if you can plead lacking adequate means to address the radicalization of your tribal areas between 2002-2006, then so too can the GoA who are a mere shadow of even Pakistani capabilities.

In any case, should the TTP be working closely with their afghan taliban brothers to rain misery on your souls from their own newfound sanctuary, don't say blowback of all this wasn't forewarned repeatedly.

We're heading south to Kandahar and Helmand-damnably close to the Baloch border. Hope to stir up the nests enough to run some HVTs back across your border and justify a PREDATOR strike or two.

If you're not a "banana republic" do something NOW instead of awaiting one more PREDATOR attack-wherever it may be.
 
Pakistan cannot presently afford an all-out confrontation from a grand alliance of militants. The cost of doing that is so much without any actionable intelligence regarding Taliban in Quetta . Pakistan already on the brink of actualizing itself as the “heart” of a struggle between the West and so called jihadist. Btw the US frenzy seems to indicate that by jettisoning a dozen people out of Quetta, the Afghan war will come to a swift end which appears to be US frustration at the incompetency of her Generals in Afghanistan.
 
If you're not a "banana republic" do something NOW instead of awaiting one more PREDATOR attack-wherever it may be.

In fact US could not get strategic victory in Afghanistan now wanted just to pressurise Pakistan to show world nations that Pakistan is cause of US failure.

Haqqani ,Bhadar or Hikmatyar are controlling their fighters in their allocated provinces , drones success rate is very low , mostly targeting inocient civilians.

Either US defeat Talaban or quite from Afghanistan in next 18 months.
 
Back
Top Bottom