Pakistan shows who’s the boss

[Leviza]

Pakistan can VETO Obama’s Afghan Strategy​

Islamabad now has final say on U.S. military policy.
BY ROBERT HADDICK | OCTOBER 1, 2010


In apparent retaliation for a NATO helicopter attack on a Pakistani border outpost this week, Pakistan has closed the Torkham border crossing into Afghanistan to convoys supplying NATO forces. An International Security Assistance Force statement claimed the helicopter attack was a response to an attempted insurgent attack on a coalition base in Afghanistan. Pakistan claimed that the helicopter strike killed three soldiers in its Frontier Corps.

Trucks and tankers bound for NATO bases in Afghanistan are now stuck on the road outside Peshawar. Although this dispute will likely be resolved quickly, it shows that Pakistan has a veto over President Barack Obama’s military strategy in Afghanistan. Specifically, Pakistan has now vetoed the possibility of a U.S. military campaign into the Afghan Taliban’s sanctuaries inside Pakistan. Such a veto is understandable from Pakistan’s perspective, but not so much from those of the NATO and Afghan soldiers who would like to get at the stubborn enemy finding sanctuary inside Pakistan. In a strange irony, the more the United States has built up its forces in Afghanistan, the stronger Pakistan’s veto power over U.S. military decisions has become.

The Sept. 30 helicopter attack that prompted the border closing was the last in a string of such attacks that began a week ago. On Sept. 24, NATO helicopters responded to an attack on a combat outpost near the Pakistan border by firing on insurgents inside Pakistan. Helicopters returned on two following days, were fired on again from Pakistan, and again returned fire.

NATO commanders apparently view these cross-border helicopter strikes as incidents of “hot pursuit” and actions of self-defense while under fire. Pakistani officials, by contrast, no doubt view this string of attacks as a case of NATO probing to see what it can get away with. For Pakistani officials, it became one slice of the salami too much. These officials have accustomed themselves to the CIA’s drone campaign inside Pakistan, a campaign that accelerated sharply in September. If U.S. policymakers thought they could get Pakistani officials to get accustomed to ever more aggressive air raids into the sanctuaries, Pakistan’s closure of the border is designed to bring those thoughts to an end.

According to Foreign Policy’s Josh Rogin, the Obama administration continues to place Pakistan at the center of its Afghan strategy. The issue for U.S. officials is how to persuade Pakistan’s government to align its behavior with U.S. interests. According to Rogin, the Obama administration has opted for rewards rather than pressure, rejecting the advice of former National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair to conduct airstrikes and raids inside Pakistan as the United States would see fit.

It is sensible to try a strategy of persuasion and rewards first before resorting to pressure and coercion. However, Pakistan’s closure of the Torkham crossing has revealed that the large buildup of U.S. and coalition forces inside Afghanistan has removed the option of applying pressure on Pakistan. Although the United States has negotiated with Russia to obtain an additional supply line into Afghanistan from the north, the tripling of U.S. forces in Afghanistan since Obama took office means that there is no escaping Pakistan’s strong leverage, amounting to a veto, over U.S. military operations. Bob Woodward’s new book Obama’s Wars, describes how National Security Advisor James Jones threatened Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari with a strong military response (airstrikes on 150 suspected terrorist camps inside Pakistan) should there be a spectacular terrorist attack inside the United States sourced from Pakistan. Jones’s threat is an empty bluff, or at least it has become one now that there are 100,000 U.S. troops dependent on a fragile supply line through Pakistan.

Pakistan’s closure of the Torkham crossing shows that it will allow NATO to execute any military operations it wants just as long as these operations don’t serious threaten the Afghan Taliban, Pakistan’s invaluable proxy ally. Obama and his generals would no doubt like to wield the leverage that Pakistan wields over them. But creating such a reversal of fortune would require a military strategy that doesn’t require endless daily supply convoys snaking through Pakistani territory.

 

[Sachin Tendulkar]

Pakistan is the boss!!
US is the slave!(NATO included )



Pointless read!!

 

[karan.1970]

Dude.. Dont be happy .. This is typical hysterial build up by the US. If anything its detrimental to Pakistan and not an ego boost.

 

[somebozo]

Pakistan is the boss!!
US is the slave!(NATO included )



Pointless read!!

Dude.. Dont be happy .. This is typical hysterial build up by the US. If anything its detrimental to Pakistan and not an ego boost.

With no supplies the NATO forces could turn into sitting ducks...India has never engaged in the Afghan theater and ran away like a good old ally when USSR was being butchered there. Fighting in Afghanistan without Pakistan is anything but possible. Even the Russian realized that and armed India on their side to take care of Pakistan had it not been for timely help from USA. And Pakistan doesn't even need to place an official seige of NATO convoy. They can always stimulate the invisible terrorist hand to constantly hunt down NATO trucks and loot / burn them. Making enough disruptive impact on NATO forces in Afghanistan. They have been lured into a trap and they just realize that.

 

[Leviza]

Pakistan is the boss!!
US is the slave!(NATO included )



Pointless read!!

First read and then say something ..... its not any Pakistani saying anything......

typical

 

[Durran3]

Mosharraf Zaidi

During the process that lead to President Barack Obama's announcement of a surge in Afghanistan last year, Pakistan's role in the situation in Afghanistan became of a greater importance than any other single factor. From the perspective of both the US military and its civilian leadership, the "safe haven" that Al-Qaeda enjoys in FATA represents a danger to American lives. Bob Woodward's new book about the process that led to the surge is called "Obama's Wars". In it, the reader can almost hear US officials speak about Pakistan, in graphic detail. It is an exciting read, and something to experience for every Pakistani interested in the country's future and its relationship to the rest of the world.

The NATO attack on an FC post at 5:25 am on September 30 that killed three Pakistani paramilitary soldiers needs to be seen in the context of the Afghanistan surge and US government's approach to its war in Afghanistan. Since Obama hit the reset button in his speech at West Point on December 1, 2009, the war in Afghanistan is layered upon a foundation of US national security "truths" about which there is virtual consensus in Washington DC.

This first of these is that the "new" war is between Al-Qaeda and the United States -- the Kandahari Taliban are a sideshow. The second is that Pakistan's tribal areas (FATA) are now the primary theatre of war between Al-Qaeda and the US. The clandestine operations of the American intelligence community, lead by the CIA, and the US military's so-called "black ops", or covert actions, conducted by the Joint Special Operations Command are the central instruments of America's war on Al-Qaeda -- wherever that war may take America. Right now, it takes them to FATA, over, and over, and over again. For US policy makers, this is a no-brainer, If Al-Qaeda is in FATA, then so is the United States, right behind them, chasing them, hounding them, and killing them.

Pakistani hypernationalists will often spew weak, unsubstantiated and ridiculous things to rail at the imperialism of the US war effort. But what most Pakistanis, hypernationalist or not, have little to say about, is how this problem can be solved without proactive American action. To put it more kindly, and as it is likely framed in for-the-record discussions between Gen Kayani and Gen Patraeus -- how can threats from Al-Qaeda and its allies in FATA, be eliminated, without America help? To hear some folks tell it, Pakistan is virtually doing everything it possibly can, given the limitations imposed on this country by its financial situation, by the poor credibility of a an elite seen to be corrupt and disloyal to the concerns of the average Pakistani, and by the politics of waging war on one's own territory and people.

Exhibit A for these folks is the commitment demonstrated by the Pakistani military's repeated operations in FATA. Indeed, these operations may be vital to Pakistani national security. The simplistic notion that war operations in FATA undertaken by the Pakistani military are being conducted to please America ignores the fundamental reality posed by Al-Qaeda, and indeed by the motley crew of alphabet soup groups like the LeT, SSP, JeM and others. We don't have to cheerlead America's war to understand the implications of the war that terrorists are trying to take to the rest of the world. Simply put, any international action by these groups, whether in India, or the United States or elsewhere, will produce retaliation -- a prospect that puts the national security of Pakistan in grave, grave danger. Military operations in FATA however do not inspire confidence, because they are not anchored in a coherent strategy or plan of any kind.

Pakistan has to deal with threats to its internal security, such as those posed by the TTP and their ilk. It also has to deal with threats to its national security from outside -- including the threat of retaliation if a terrorist group based in Pakistan successfully attacked another country, or indeed even the threat of conspiracies hatched by other countries.

Right now, Pakistan has no strategy that adequately addresses these twin threats -- both of which find fertile soil in FATA. The internal governance mechanisms to deal with security, like anti-terror legislation, police reform, decentralization, or intelligence triangulation have barely moved an inch while all hell has broken loose since mid 2007. Not surprising, given the lack of a counterterrorism strategy. The external governance mechanisms have a long record of failure in resolving security issues -- from the compromised neutrality of the UN system, to the impotence of SAARC, and indeed, credibility-starved OIC. Even if they worked, Pakistan's schizophrenic foreign policy regime would probably have dried the pool of any sympathy out there for Pakistan. High and dry, with an uncontrollably angry enemy within, and lots of enemies outside, Pakistanis must be careful before remonstrating too strongly against NATO's aggression in FATA. Pakistan is conducting military operations and aerial bombardment itself. Pakistan gave the US fly-by rights, and access to airfields long ago. Simply put, the American war in ****** does not exist without strong, concerted, deliberate and assiduous Pakistani efforts. Indeed, Pakistani government officials last year were among the most ardent supporters of Obama's Afghan surge. Simply put, Pakistan has repeatedly welcomed and enabled the US war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan knows exactly where the center of gravity for this war lies. The fact that NATO was behind the trigger last week is a technicality. Yet acting against terrorists should not be controversial, it should be unquestionably job number one. Those terrorists are sworn to killing innocent people -- and they have fulfilled that promise over, and over, and over again.

That is why opposition to America's continued presence in Afghanistan, to drone attacks in FATA, and to what is going to become much more frequent US visits to FATA across the Durand Line needs to do better than burn flags and fabricate conspiracy theories. Any opposition that is motivated by emotions should be solemnly rejected. Genuine opposition must be based on rule of law, both domestic and international, on the rights of Pakistani citizens, both Pakhtuns and all others, and on the need for clarity, accountability, and transparency in public policy -- here in Pakistan and elsewhere. To mount serious opposition, notwithstanding mistakes and violations by other parties, Pakistanis and their friends need to be able to articulate compelling answers to two critical questions that Pakistanis should have been asking their military and political elite all along. First, what is the plan to protect Pakistani lives and property from attacks by terrorists on Pakistani soil? Second, what is the plan to restrict the operations of known terrorist groups who plan to attack other countries? Sadly, thus far, there is no Pakistani plan.

It should be exceedingly clear that countries that have no plans of their own, are going to have plans made for them. Blocking NATO supply routes is not a counterterrorism strategy, and it cannot be how national security should work in a country of 180 million people. It is cheap theatrics. The problems in FATA weaken internal Pakistani security and are a Pakistani national security problem. The life and death struggles of Pakistan's brave soldiers -- including the three FC soldiers killed by NATO -- and its resilient people deserves much better than these cheap reactive theatrics.

 

[hecj]

behind scene story is different.even if pak is the boss then y dont they say u.s to leave.even u.s drone attacks have killed thousands,they are still going on.

and more the no of drone attacks,more will be the aggression and more tali's will be produced.so americans are smart and ur govt is satisfying the local ppl that they have done action.

 

[Leviza]

This first of these is that the "new" war is between Al-Qaeda and the United States -- the Kandahari Taliban are a sideshow. The second is that Pakistan's tribal areas (FATA) are now the primary theatre of war between Al-Qaeda and the US. The clandestine operations of the American intelligence community, lead by the CIA, and the US military's so-called "black ops", or covert actions, conducted by the Joint Special Operations Command are the central instruments of America's war on Al-Qaeda -- wherever that war may take America. Right now, it takes them to FATA, over, and over, and over again. For US policy makers, this is a no-brainer, If Al-Qaeda is in FATA, then so is the United States, right behind them, chasing them, hounding them, and killing them.

First thing first who decide where is Al-Qaeda? CIA
This so called WOT is actually 'WAR on Muslims' and these people in CIA and others Start saying Al-Qaeda is in XYZ area to justify the 'WAR on Muslims'
Finally how many times its been proved that CIA creates the reports and they are always baseless
eg. MODs in Iraq Nothing Found and if you see Britsh newspaper you will soo whats going on thier blair and group

Al-Qaeda is just a Tool for CIA and Other Agencies and we as a Pakistan Nation Who trust in One Allah need to make first Wall so that this WAR started by one Foolish Element in CIA Tools (still no proves jsut CIA reports again) has some limits and is not spread to other muslim areas

I hope you got m point

 

[somebozo]

Al Quaida is a self created boogieman. If alquaida did really exist all the countries now should be lining in front of their men to train their armed services. After all who can engage the USA with such primitive weapons unless they had some secret trick under the sleeve.

 

[hecj]

then u.s drone attacks kill whom?

 

[Leviza]

then u.s drone attacks kill whom?

98% Innocent Pakistanies ... I hope your facts are right now...

 

[karan.1970]

98% Innocent Pakistanies ... I hope your facts are right now...

Then why is your govt actually providing them with airbases to stage those drone strikes from??

 

[karan.1970]

no feed to troll

Post reported...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/forum-information/41367-troll-fatwas.html

 

[Leviza]

NATO commanders apparently view these cross-border helicopter strikes as incidents of “hot pursuit” and actions of self-defense while under fire. Pakistani officials, by contrast, no doubt view this string of attacks as a case of NATO probing to see what it can get away with. For Pakistani officials, it became one slice of the salami too much. These officials have accustomed themselves to the CIA’s drone campaign inside Pakistan, a campaign that accelerated sharply in September. If U.S. policymakers thought they could get Pakistani officials to get accustomed to ever more aggressive air raids into the sanctuaries, Pakistan’s closure of the border is designed to bring those thoughts to an end

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

JUSTIFIYABLE ...if one Pakistan granade kills 2-3 NATO soliders the world would be all over this news ... 24 hours a day ...

Its not a joke that civilians and soliders are getting effected

Understandable stance to make a point