Pakistan Army - All is not well

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Agno, you are either being naive or I am afraid lying. You will have a hard time convincing anybody that Pakistan, believes in a neutral Afghanistan as a stable Afghanistan. The truth from Pakistan's interference in Afghan affairs suggests that for Pakistan, a stable Af means a pro-Pak Afghanistan. And this interference is not since the 80's. Its been on for much earlier as I read from an article by a Pakistani author in PDF itself.

Since we are bandying about insults, let me state either YOU are being naive or lying. Pakistan's interventions in Afghanistan were the result of Afghanistan's hostility towards Pakistan and its claims on Pakistani territory. Afghanistan supported separatists in Afghanistan going back to the first uprising in Balochistan led by the Khan of Kalat's brother (IIRC). There was also the failed Afghan attempt to ignite a separatist uprising in the Tribal belt and NWFP.

So Pakistan has had a vested interest in trying to influence Kabul given Kabul's continued interference in Pakistani affairs and its claims on Pakistani land. A neutral Afghanistan, accepting of Pakistan's territorial integrity, by default removes the major strategic irritant on Pakistan's Western front.

Bhutto's economic and trade motives in supporting the Taliban as a stabilizing force in Afghanistan are documented by both Ahmed Rashid and Steve Coll in their works Taliban and Ghost Wars respectively.

The history of Pak-Afghan relations, and the motives (trade, CAR energy resources, an Afghanistan that does not claim Pakistani territory and co-exists peacefully with Pakistan) all support my arguments above.

There is nothing other than the usual brainwashed Indian 'evil ISI supporting terrorists' canards supporting your contention.

 

[deckingraj]

Agno, you are either being naive or I am afraid lying. You will have a hard time convincing anybody that Pakistan, believes in a neutral Afghanistan as a stable Afghanistan. The truth from Pakistan's interference in Afghan affairs suggests that for Pakistan, a stable Af means a pro-Pak Afghanistan. And this interference is not since the 80's. Its been on for much earlier as I read from an article by a Pakistani author in PDF itself.

Bolded part is true for any country and not specific to Pakistan...Any government would like to have a "pro" goverment especially in their neighbourhood...India would always like to have a pro-india govt in her immediate neighbourhood as a priority and beyond that if possible. For example - Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, bhutan, Maldives etc...Nothing wrong with it...The problem is if this pro-pak govt. is Anti-India...There is a distinct difference b/w being pro-pak and anti-india...

The best thing that can happen to AF is if both India and Pak leave them alone and use it to access Central Asia...This would bring lot of development in AF and masses would benefit from it...

 

[Srinivas]

Just because we changed the name of one of our province it means that their is something similar to J&K going on in PK ?? Man you and your thoughts.. believe in which helps you sleep at night buddy.


Mod sorry being off topic again.. but this issue needed to be addressed and he is off topic on Pakhton Khawa..you missed him

Buddy this is not off topic at all. I am referring to patunkhawa since because that is where PA is facing militants. It is from this region the militancy is originating. This is related to the thread title right.
Or else change the title to "pakistan's diplomacy aftermath US with drawl from afganistan" .
Buddy just because some senior members here are discussing off topic doesn't mean i am off topic.

 

[deckingraj]

There is nothing other than the usual brainwashed Indian 'evil ISI supporting terrorists' canards supporting your contention.

Comon Agno this is a bit far fetched...Are you saying that Pakistan does not use/consider terrorist groups as strategic assets to gain influence in AF??? Are you saying that only reason Pakistan want to have influence in AF is to gain access to CAR and to stop AF claim Pakistan terrotiry???

Care to explain why would you need to have influence on a Land Locked Country to access CAR?? Mind i do not see anything wrong in a country to have a "pro" government especially in her immediate neighbourhood however calling every theory as brainwashed indian evil ISI supporting terrorist canards won't work and neither i am claiming that your argument is flawed...However it is surely not complete...

Highjacking of Indian Airlines flight IC 814 Kathmandu-New Delhi resulting in the release of JEM chief is still fresh so lets not use words to ignore the obvious....

 

[T-Faz]

Buddy this is not off topic at all. I am referring to patunkhawa since because that is where PA is facing militants. It is from this region the militancy is originating. This is related to the thread title right.
Or else change the title to "pakistan's diplomacy aftermath US with drawl from afganistan" .
Buddy just because some senior members here are discussing off topic doesn't mean i am off topic.

If you cared to see the Pakistan map, you would notice that the areas where insurgency is rife is not in Khyber Pakhtunwa but in the FATA.

North-West Frontier Province - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The militancy is originating from FATA, I do not thing you should contribute much to this thread, you can after reading the wikipedia pages however.

Federally Administered Tribal Areas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Contrarian]

The only premise agno is that Iran continues to be a nuisance for Pakistan to be thought of as the major access point for CAR's.

Because if Iran comes around to being a 'good boy' then all trade gets routed to Iran and thenceforth to sea.
As regards to what goodwill or bargaining power you will be able to generate via investments in Afghanistan, $500mn is peanuts compared to what is being spent over there by countries. And Pakistan has a fragile economy, other countries like India are growing far faster.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Comon Agno this is a bit far fetched...Are you saying that Pakistan does not use/consider terrorist groups as strategic assets to gain influence in AF??? Are you saying that only reason Pakistan want to have influence in AF is to gain access to CAR and to stop AF claim Pakistan terrotiry???

Pakistan does not use terrorist groups as strategic assets any more than the US and India have used them for their own goals in various Latin American nations and East Pakistan respectively.

So if you are willing to condemn Indian and US use of such groups, then we can approach the Pakistani use of them.

Secondly, yes, the two major motives behind Pakistani intervention in Afghanistan have been the desire to stop Kabul's continued interference in Pakistani affairs and claims to Pakistan territory, and later the desire to access the CAR's.

There is no evidence supporting any other motive other than the usual canards I referred to.

Care to explain why would you need to have influence on a Land Locked Country to access CAR?? Mind i do not see anything wrong in a country to have a "pro" government especially in her immediate neighbourhood however calling every theory as brainwashed indian evil ISI supporting terrorist canards won't work and neither i am claiming that your argument is flawed...However it is surely not complete...

We don't need to necessarily have 'influence' in Afghanistan, we just need a neutral or pro-Pakistan Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the history out of Kabul has been one of hostility towards Pakistan and of claims on Pakistani territory, to the point where it appears that without some sort of Pakistani influence over Kabul (Pakistani investment in Afghanistan or benefits to Kabul from a energy corridor between CAR's and Pakistan) Kabul will not change its behavior.

I have already explained why a neutral or pro-Pakistan Afghanistan is to Pakistan's favor and how trade with the CAR's would help encourage positive behavior on the part of Kabul.

My assertion is that the major motives for Pakistan wanting influence in Afghanistan and/or a neutral or pro-Pakistan Afghanistan are:

1. The need to put an end to Afghan interference in Pakistan and an end to its claims on Pakistani territory (which have no basis under international law)

2. Trade with and through Afghanistan and the the CAR's, specifically in energy.

If you disagree with the above, then you need to provide some credible long term Pakistani interests that override the benefits from the above two motives to be considered valid.

Highjacking of Indian Airlines flight IC 814 Kathmandu-New Delhi resulting in the release of JEM chief is still fresh so lets not use words to ignore the obvious....

The hijacking was not arranged or planned by Pakistan so raising it does not serve as any sort of justification for your arguments. An event occurred and the hijackers found a country to land the aircraft in where India had little influence. But that does not somehow mean that Pakistan was looking to influence Afghanistan just so that IC 814 could be hijacked years later - that is a nonsensical assertion on your part.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The only premise agno is that Iran continues to be a nuisance for Pakistan to be thought of as the major access point for CAR's.

Because if Iran comes around to being a 'good boy' then all trade gets routed to Iran and thenceforth to sea.

As regards to what goodwill or bargaining power you will be able to generate via investments in Afghanistan, $500mn is peanuts compared to what is being spent over there by countries. And Pakistan has a fragile economy, other countries like India are growing far faster.

The major nuisance is stability in Afghanistan, otherwise Pakistan continues to offer a somewhat shorter route for many potential CAR energy lines. Secondly, as I pointed out, Pakistan's growing energy requirements continue to make pipelines solely fulfilling Afghan-Pakistan demand a viable proposition. The potential for extension to India will always be an additional sweetener for such deals.

$500 million may be small compared to the amounts spent by Western nations, but it is not insignificant for a country with Afghanistan's economic travails. Given that Pakistan is Afghanistan's largest trading partner by far, and the other 'indirect' economic linkages, Pakistan's economic influence over Afghanistan is significant, even if Afghanistan chooses to ignore it out of an irrational hostility towards Pakistan (something Pakistan is working to change). Energy trade with the CAR's and transit fees to Afghanistan for energy delivered to Pakistan will only enhance that influence.

 

[Solomon2]

why drag in past policies, that appeared pretty sensible at the time, in the case of Pakistan?...Back to 'Pakistan's role', we'll find out as time goes on I suppose. At the moment it appears to be focused on building relationships with Karzai and some other power-centers in Kabul.

Exactly because current U.S. policy is visible and in action, but Pakistan's is obscure or invisible. So who can tell if Pakistan's policy will be constructive or not?

What was better, the taliban ushering in 7th century normalcy or different mujahideen groups bombing Kabul from all angles.

I don't see that as an either/or question today.

Also US did not have a problem with the taliban in Afghanistan then, they even started negotiating pipelines and what not in the late 90's with them.

In the 90s the USG was plenty worried about the Taliban - especially the support given it by Pakistan. I don't see how any "pipeline negotiations" would indicate otherwise.

The US admin itself said couple of times on record that it can work with the moderate Talibans , If you mean workable Talibans then certinly yes , We will play a role in bringing them back..

So the Afghans are right, that Pakistan is intent on interfering in their country to promote Taliban terror? Or merely, as the U.S. intends, to integrate some "moderate" Taliban into peaceful government?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Exactly because current U.S. policy is visible and in action, but Pakistan's is obscure or invisible. So who can tell if Pakistan's policy will be constructive or not?

What is current US policy towards an end goal in Afghanistan?

Can you point to a specify set of official policy prescriptions that lead to that 'end goal'? Rhetoric about 'stable Afghanistan with a XYZ size Army etc. and defeating the Taliban are not policy prescriptions, they are end goals.

The way I see it, the US has no tangible policy leading to its own preferred end goals either. The situation is in flux, and all the major players appear to be keeping all their options open, with NATO and Pakistan at least agreeing on militarily defeating/weakening the Taliban in their respective areas of control.

 

[JonAsad]

Buddy this is not off topic at all. I am referring to patunkhawa since because that is where PA is facing militants. It is from this region the militancy is originating. This is related to the thread title right.
Or else change the title to "pakistan's diplomacy aftermath US with drawl from afganistan" .
Buddy just because some senior members here are discussing off topic doesn't mean i am off topic.

Do u now know what i was talking about buddy ? i am refering to post no 50??

its FATA not Pakhtun Khawa

 

[Srinivas]

If you cared to see the Pakistan map, you would notice that the areas where insurgency is rife is not in Khyber Pakhtunwa but in the FATA.

North-West Frontier Province - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The militancy is originating from FATA, I do not thing you should contribute much to this thread, you can after reading the wikipedia pages however.

Federally Administered Tribal Areas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is militancy in the kyber paktun khwa also buddy. That is what i am mentioning in that post.

 

[Contrarian]

The major nuisance is stability in Afghanistan, otherwise Pakistan continues to offer a somewhat shorter route for many potential CAR energy lines. Secondly, as I pointed out, Pakistan's growing energy requirements continue to make pipelines solely fulfilling Afghan-Pakistan demand a viable proposition. The potential for extension to India will always be an additional sweetener for such deals.

Pakistan's growing energy requirements can not alone make for a broad based relationship unless Pakistan finds other customers for the energy being supplied. While it may make one pipeline viable, what you are talking about is much more.
Pakistan is too small a market for the kind of relationship you are advocating.

The ONLY way to achieve what you are advocating is-also sell energy to either India or China. China alone is one of the biggest markets. And selling to India means that there is access to markets like BD as well.

$500 million may be small compared to the amounts spent by Western nations, but it is not insignificant for a country with Afghanistan's economic travails. Given that Pakistan is Afghanistan's largest trading partner by far, and the other 'indirect' economic linkages, Pakistan's economic influence over Afghanistan is significant, even if Afghanistan chooses to ignore it out of an irrational hostility towards Pakistan (something Pakistan is working to change). Energy trade with the CAR's and transit fees to Afghanistan for energy delivered to Pakistan will only enhance that influence.

While Pakistan is by far the biggest player in Afghanistan, any amount delivered to Afghanistan will have to be looked at relatively. It maybe big in absolute terms, but banking on small amounts like this(relatively) for relationships and influence of the kind you talk about are unreasonable.

Like i said, there are two flaws in your analysis-You assume Iran does not become an international player. Iran with its massive investment in Road and Rail connectivity directly to Afghanistan from its ports plans to make more than a dent in Pakistan's ability to capture that market.
India is also investing in Iranian ports.

You realize that its more than just the CAR market that Iran can swing if and when it gets its international relations right.

The second flaw is of economies of scale. Pakistan does not satisfy that criteria by a good margin.

One more thing- as someone said before, all this talk is subject to a variety of factors that are not being counted. Off the top of my head i can think of atleast one-Russia has a stake in a LOT of energy in that region apart from *significant* influence. They have a LOT of say in where and what pipelines get laid-Russia wants to capture the entire energy market.
Heck they are BUYING energy from other neighbouring countries in bulk so they have more control over where and how the energy flows. They are close with Iran, and India and there are dozens of other things that come into play -which i am not adequately qualified to comment on without research.

But its safe to say that you have an idea of why I think what you are proposing is very difficult to happen-the talk about Pakistan buying significant energy to have influence.

Ofcourse, Afghanistan has to listen to what Pak says, but i doubt that listening to Pak means going against Indian interests with the kind of lobbies being present there now and growing.

 

[T-Faz]

In the 90s the USG was plenty worried about the Taliban - especially the support given it by Pakistan. I don't see how any "pipeline negotiations" would indicate otherwise.

My friend, I am about to lay the smack down on you because of what you just wrote, it is exactly the opposite of what the angelic USG thought at that time.

1994-1997: US Supports Taliban Rise to Power


Journalist Ahmed Rashid, a long-time expert on Pakistan and Afghanistan, will later write in a book about the Taliban that the US supported the Taliban in its early years. “Between 1994 and 1996, the USA supported the Taliban politically through its allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, essentially because Washington viewed the Taliban as anti-Iranian, anti-Shia, and pro-Western. Between 1995 and 1997, US support was even more driven because of its backing for the Unocal [pipeline] project.” He notes that many US diplomats “saw them as messianic do-gooders—like born-again Christians from the American Bible Belt.” [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 326] Selig Harrison, a long-time regional expert with extensive CIA ties, will later say that he complained at the time about how Pakistani ISI support of the Taliban was backed by the CIA. “I warned them that we were creating a monster.” [Times of India, 3/7/2001] There is evidence the CIA may have helped supply the Taliban with weapons during the first months of their rise to power (see October 1994).

October 1994: CIA and ISI Allegedly Give Help and Secret Cache of Weapons to Taliban

The CIA supposedly backs the Taliban around the same time the Pakistani ISI starts strongly backing them (see Spring-Autumn 1994 and 1994-1997). According to a senior Pakistani intelligence source interviewed by British journalist Simon Reeves, the CIA provides Pakistan satellite information giving the secret locations of scores of Soviet trucks that contain vast amounts of arms and ammunition. The trucks were hidden in caves at the end of the Afghan war. Pakistan then gives this information to the Taliban. “The astonishing speed with which the Taliban conquered Afghanistan is explained by the tens of thousands of weapons found in these trucks….” [Reeve, 1999, pp. 191] Journalist Steve Coll will later similarly note that at this time, the Taliban gain access to “an enormous ISI-supplied weapons dump” in caves near the border town of Spin Boldak. It has enough weapons left over from the Soviet-Afghan war to supply tens of thousands of soldiers. [Coll, 2004, pp. 291] Another account will point out that by early 1995, the Taliban was equipped with armored tanks, ten combat airplanes, and other heavy weapons. They are thus able to conquer about a third of the country by February 1995. “According to the files at one European intelligence agency, these military advances can be explained mainly by ‘strong military training, not only by the Pakistani services, but also by American military advisers working under humanitarian cover.’” Later in 1995, a Turkish newsweekly will claim to have learned from a classified report given to the Turkish government that the CIA, ISI, and Saudi Arabia were all collaborating to build up the Taliban so they could quickly unite Afghanistan. [Labeviere, 1999, pp. 262-263]

September-October 1995: Unocal Obtains Turkmenistan Pipeline Deal

Oil company Unocal signs an $8 billion deal with Turkmenistan to construct two pipelines (one for oil, one for gas), as part of a larger plan for two pipelines intended to transport oil and gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan and into Pakistan. Before proceeding further, however, Unocal needs to execute agreements with Pakistan and Afghanistan; Pakistan and Ahmed Shah Massoud’s government in Afghanistan, however, have already signed a pipeline deal with an Argentinean company. Henry Kissinger, hired as speaker for a special dinner in New York to announce the Turkmenistan pipeline deal, says the Unocal plan represents a “triumph of hope over experience.” Unocal will later open an office in Kabul, weeks after the Taliban capture of the capital in late 1996 and will interact with the Taliban, seeking support for its pipeline until at least December 1997. [Coll, 2004, pp. 301-13, 329, 338, 364-66] Entity Tags: Ahmed Shah Massoud, Unocal, Taliban, Turkmenistan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Henry A. Kissinger

May 1996: US Seeks Stability in Afghanistan for Unocal Pipeline

Robin Raphel.Robin Raphel. [Source: Mark Wilson / Agence France-Presse]Robin Raphel, Deputy Secretary of State for South Asia, speaks to the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister about Afghanistan. She says that the US government “now hopes that peace in the region will facilitate US business interests,” such as the proposed Unocal gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan.

August 13, 1996: Unocal, Delta Oil Plan Afghan Pipeline

Unocal and Delta Oil of Saudi Arabia reach agreement with state companies in Turkmenistan and Russia to build a natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan via Afghanistan; the agreement is finalized in 1997. [Unocal, 8/13/1996]

Nothing in the region happens without the know how and approval of mighty USA, nothing. If you say otherwise the USA is not the superpower and China is the main man. What a complicated world we live in in, some one needs to make a film about all these great achievements and Pakistans central role.

Thank you for your time and I will take my elite member ship now.

 

[RiazHaq]

The Pakistani army’s war against the Taliban continues to make headlines. But there are several other reasons for the global interest in that institution.

The Pakistani army is one of the world’s largest and it is armed with nuclear weapons. It has fought three major wars with India and a few minor ones.

Brian Cloughley’s “History of the Pakistan Army” has just gone into its third edition and that makes him eminently qualified to rate the army’s combat effectiveness. He is a Briton who served as a colonel in the Australian army.

Here's a quote from Col Cloughly:

“The (Pakistan) army had to retrain almost from scratch to meet the new challenge and it has done remarkably well in completely altering the training priority and emphasis in such a short period.”

Haq's Musings: Assessing Pakistan Army's Capabilities