Pak Uses Terrorist Outfits as Proxies, Says US Army General

[RescueRanger]

Pakistan uses terrorist outfits as proxies: US army general Joseph Dunford

WASHINGTON: In a tacit acknowledgement that Pakistan continues to rely on terrorist outfits as proxies to serve as an instrument of national security policy, a top American general today told lawmakers that the US and Pakistan have differences on the issue, but asserted that financial and military aid to Islamabad would continue.

"Areas of divergent interest with Pakistan include our views on the use of proxies and the importance of a positive and stable Pakistan-India relationship," General Joseph Dunford, the nominee for the position of US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in a written response to questions during his confirmation hearing.

Dunford said key US strategic interests in Pakistan are preventing al-Qaeda's resurgence in Afghanistan and Pakistan, to limit its ability to attack America, preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and technology, and promoting regional stability, including a peaceful outcome in Afghanistan.

Noting that the relationship with Pakistan is fundamental to the US' vital national security interests, Dunford said the US will need to continue cooperation with Pakistan to defeat Al Qaeda, support Pakistan's stability, and achieve a lasting peace in Afghanistan.

Responding to a question, Dunford said Pakistan has cooperated with the US in its operations against Al Qaeda and other terrorist organisations.

Pakistan's actions in North Waziristan and other areas of western Pakistan have disrupted groups that are a threat to US personnel and objectives in Afghanistan.

"We will continue to work with Pakistan to do more," he said.

Pak Uses Terrorist Outfits as Proxies, Says US Army General

Uncle Sam really has some balls:

Taliban And ISIS say hello!!!

 

[Armstrong]

Nothing we haven't heard before, we silence our detractors through performance alone. Today, I can drive to any town in FATA without an ROD without any danger, can the good general instruct one of his officers to try the same in Nangrahar? Or maybe Raqqa? The US has met Vietnam 2.0 in Afghanistan and Iraq, they barged in on a completely alien party but they couldn't dance to the rhythm and now they need a convenient scapegoat, cue Pakistan.

Yahiii tou mein keh rahaa hoooon !

Someone has to say these things....when the General or someone else's utters such things in public (where the general public is invited) our Consulate General or some kind of Representative ought to be there to ask these rhetorical questions so that the listeners get our side of the story !

Sometimes I can't help but wonder whether from top to bottom....our policy making circles are filled with tuttoooos of the highest order !

There is enough to say US is complicit in promoting terrorism in foreign states. Their only concern is to halt any strike against them or their country. To defend them Afghans and Iraqi's are paying the blood price. Yet a single american soldier when killed sparks fury from US. The US foreign policy epitomizes everything our foreign policy should be.

That country has screwed half the world, has 700+ military bases and troops in countries, is the only state to have used a nuclear weapon and yet this hegemonic state talks like it is the leader of this world. When US falls I will smile and congratulate the rest of the world. Surely.

I don't think I'd smile if the US falls or even if harms comes to the United States; I visited the country and I've got fond memories of that place and the people who live over there and I've got respect for what the US Administration(s), since their Independence, have achieved over the years.

But yeah....returning to the Jeffersonian principles of Non-Interventionism would be a good idea.

 

[VCheng]

Uncle Sam really has some balls:

He works hard to maintain said balls that many others are trying to develop too.

 

[kaonalpha]

 

[Styx]

seal team 6 is talking..

 

[kaonalpha]

seal team 6 is talking..

These guy's

 

[Sam.]

Only in your dreams.

Yeah you are right USA win by 1 %

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Why are you crying, don't you bring every negative news about India? so when you are given answer in your own language. Then shut up and face it.

When was the last time I created a thread, on anything?

Apparently those Ancient Hindus from 2 million years ago could master intergalactic travel, but didn't master basic research before shooting your mouths off.

I suppose the difference is that Americans develop proxies far from our shores, whereas others tend to develop proxies in neighboring countries, or even worse, internally. Proxies have a habit of eventually slipping their leash; at least the American proxies are far away from America, so we can better control the outcome when that happens.

When we start developing proxies in Mexico (or Canada, one can never be too complacent with the Canuckian horde next door), I will change my username to LeveragedKettle. Deal?

Did Gen. Dunford make that distinction or did any member of congress imply that such a distinction should be made?

The statement was a very simple, 'US and Pakistan disagree over the use of proxies', not, 'US and Pakistan disagree over the use of proxies when there is a full moon, the temperature is 70F, and a gentle breeze is blowing in from the North in Detroit'.

The point made by various posters is therefore valid - the US has itself used proxies to as much, if not greater, an extent as Pakistan. I'm not suggesting that the US not advise against the use of proxies (assuming it has stopped supporting proxies), but that US legislators, government and military officials and media analysts provide context in these commentaries about why States, including the US, use proxies and the underlying causes behind such policies.

Does the US HAVE to provide material for a 'fast food joke' on every foreign policy initiative it undertakes?

 

[VCheng]

When was the last time I created a thread, on anything?

............

November 25, 2014:

Modi sulking over Pakistan internationalizing Kashmir Dispute

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

When was the last time I created a thread, on anything?

Apparently those Ancient Hindus from 2 million years ago could master intergalactic travel, but didn't master basic research before shooting your mouths off.


Did Gen. Dunford make that distinction or did any member of congress imply that such a distinction should be made?

The statement was a very simple, 'US and Pakistan disagree over the use of proxies', not, 'US and Pakistan disagree over the use of proxies when there is a full moon, the temperature is 70F, and a gentle breeze is blowing in from the North in Detroit'.

The point made by various posters is therefore valid - the US has itself used proxies to as much, if not greater, an extent as Pakistan. I'm not suggesting that the US not advise against the use of proxies (assuming it has stopped supporting proxies), but that US legislators, government and military officials and media analysts provide context in these commentaries about why States, including the US, use proxies and the underlying causes behind such policies.

Does the US HAVE to provide material for a 'fast food joke' on every foreign policy initiative it undertakes?

To cut to the chase, Pakistan has a problem with proxies. Why compound the problem of proxies controlled by others with its own proxies, who have not always been controllable by Pakistan?

As to the "blame the US for all of the problems of the region," and general hypocrisy, I concede that when we (i.e. the CIA/Elders of Zion/Reptilians) get tired of ordering the rest of the world to destroy itself, we will move on and order the rest of the world to become peaceful. After all, we are the only ones in this world with agency.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

November 25, 2014:

Modi sulking over Pakistan internationalizing Kashmir Dispute

Almost 8 months ago - thanks, exactly my point.

 

[VCheng]

To cut to the chase, Pakistan has a problem with proxies. Why compound the problem of proxies controlled by others with its own proxies, who have not always been controllable by Pakistan?

As to the "blame the US for all of the problems of the region," and general hypocrisy, I concede that when we (i.e. the CIA/Elders of Zion/Reptilians) get tired of ordering the rest of the world to destroy itself, we will move on and order the rest of the world to become peaceful. After all, we are the only ones in this world with agency.

The problem is not the use of proxies. The problem is losing control of said proxies and then suffering the blowback.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

As you target India in every of your post then you should be ready to get it back

Of course - when Modi and his nutcase sycophants come out with outright lies and ridiculous claims about arresting Pakistani spy pigeons, ancient Indians mastering intergalactic travel, 'teaching Pakistan a lesson' etc. etc., then they deserve nothing less.

My response are exactly that, responses/reactions to the nonsensical tirades out of Modi and the sycophantic Indian media and Indian analysts - reactions such as the Indian media headlines and hysteria over a couple of sentences uttered in a confirmation hearing.

India can make South Asia a much better place by just ending her whiny cry baby rants and attitude.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

The problem is not the use of proxies. The problem is losing control of said proxies and then suffering the blowback.

the recent meeting of Kabul government with Afghan Taliban in Murree near Islamabad was hosted by Pakistan with complete support and acknowledgement of America and China. this meeting came out of no where and as a surprise since the Indians seem to be having the control back after the attack in Kabul which was blamed on Pakistan.
it is interesting to see that Americans seem to have a disconnect among them on expressing their views about Pakistan and its role.
by the way this popular notion of blowback is so retarded .
no Pakistani proxy has ever blown back against Pakistan

for record Mukti Bahani, BLA and TTP are NOT Pakistani proxies and they have never ever bothered the Innocent Indian surkar.. and our proxies can never bothered us as is suggested.
I can list down every terror attack and all those from Mullah fazlullah to Bramdagh Bughti who have never ever hurt any other country, have had no role outside Pakistan and have only had fought Pakistani state..

so my dear (and all Lugi walas) your assertion is flawed

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

To cut to the chase, Pakistan has a problem with proxies. Why compound the problem of proxies controlled by others with its own proxies, who have not always been controllable by Pakistan?

Yes, Pakistan has a problem with proxies that have gone out of control, which is a more nuanced comment than the general statement of 'Pakistan and the US disagree over the use of proxies'. The former implies that 'Pakistan's use of certain proxies is problematic' whereas the latter argues that 'any use of proxies is problematic'. The manner in which the discussion over the use of proxies is structured in the US fails to provide context in terms of the US's historical use of proxies and what specifically about the use of proxies by certain states is problematic compared to the use of proxies by other States, including the US.

As to the "blame the US for all of the problems of the region," and general hypocrisy, I concede that when we (i.e. the CIA/Elders of Zion/Reptilians) get tired of ordering the rest of the world to destroy itself, we will move on and order the rest of the world to become peaceful. After all, we are the only ones in this world with agency.

And what part of my post did you distort to come up with this nonsensical tirade?