Pakistan US Relations After the US attack on PA Soldiers

[mr42O]

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

It is well said---but there are hardly a few who are saying this---that has been pakistans biggest problems---it has lost the war in the united states public forum by not understanding the strength of the media---.

Pakistan has not fought in the american public forum since Musharraf----and PPP didnot come to restore pakistan's image on CNN or the FOXNEWS, because these were the same stations they used to lambast pakistan's isi.

Pakistani generals need to get their heads out of the sand----they need to talk to the american public on the american public forums more often---they have been fighting this ever losing battle of trusting the generals and politicians---but america doesnot work that way----you need to work like israel---if you have the public in your pocket---the govt will be with you by default----india has learnt that lesson well---. The only fool that is left out of this square is pakistan---and pakistani generals.

 

[MastanKhan]

Well said mk

Hi,

Did I really----I am feel like playing the flute in front of the buffaloe. I have been saying this for the last 20 plus years and they have been listening to it, but have not changed a bit.

 

[Mytime]

Pakistan was forced to help US and took the decision hesitantly 10 yrs back , however this opportunity has given it the right to say a firm NO forever

 

[iPhone]

many local papers here have run this tragic news and has sympathised and regreted the loss of the brave soldiers. These same papers have lambasted Pak for the past six months. I don't know what CBS has been saying on 6:30 afternoon news (they've covered and criticized Pak extensively as well) was unable to catch them all week. But yes, American media and public responds postively to such news.

We have good looking female FM, papers here have run even a beautiful picture of hers along side hilary's old and wrinkled and frowning face. These little detail matter. Have her do a couple of press conferences, along side our new foreign secretary. Both females will generate a positive image for Pak in American media.

 

[bdslph]

Pakistan should be the best buddy to USA not Israeli
Israel bring problem and Pakistan bring happiness Pakistan don't give headache to any one
Pakistan civilians are killed with the drones attack still Pakistan did not say anything
Pakistan was sacrificing there own people FOR other happiness
and also there sacrifice did not go down the world is safer from terrorist

what else do they need from Pakistan, in every steps military action is not right some times you have to do talking incentives

no one would do that much if it was even me

i also saw this that Pakistan doing all this for 18 billions USD they received from USA no one does that much for money
Pakistan would have had earned more if they did not go to so called war on terror

 

[F.O.X]

Pakistan have Helped the most , Lost the most , Suffered the most , Got blamed the most of any country, and yet fought to Stop this so called terrorism and at the end our prize was Death of our 35000 civilians & soldiers , i would it was a Perfect deal .

 

[Splurgenxs]

Half of all bad things tht happen to an individual ...happens with his own consent.
Same is with countries..The entire blame can't be put on one side or the other...

What i do hope is after all this ,Pakistan becomes a more tolerant ,humble , mature and responsible country.
I hope it finally gets an Identity bigger than itself.

 

[longbrained]

But the question is what Pakistan got in return? Except misery and exorbitant cost. Pakistan stood by America against India when India was a soviet ally. Pakistan stood up against Soviet Union for US even allowing US bases in Pakistan with U2's flying from it over Soviet Union. Pakistan paid a heavy price protecting US interests in communist Afghanistan. All these for nothing. No other nation has done so much for US ever. Turkey just stood up with US during the cold war and got every imaginable economic and military benefit. Pakistan got only abuse in return.

 

[Devil Soul]

Anti-terror cooperation: Pakistan to rewrite rules of engagement
By Kamran Yousaf
Published: December 5, 2011
ISLAMABAD:
Pakistan has decided to scrap all existing anti-terror cooperation agreements with the United States in a development that may not only take the uneasy alliance between the two countries to the point of no return but also impede world efforts at bringing sustainable peace in Afghanistan.
The decision, which was taken after consultations at the top civil and military levels following the Nato airstrikes, is part of a review of political, diplomatic and military ties with the US, officials familiar with the development told The Express Tribune.
This, however, does not mean the government is seeking a complete breakdown in the relationship with the US. Rather, it is aiming to enter a fresh agreement that clearly states in writing Pakistan’s ‘red lines’ and firm assurance from Washington not to violate those in the future, added the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
The country’s insistence on re-drafting the rules of engagements is part of what is believed to be tough conditions set out for the resumption of business as usual with the US.
Since the November 26 Nato attacks at Pakistani border posts in Mohmand Agency, Islamabad appears to have hardened its stance — a move that could jeopardise the US campaign in Afghanistan.
Pakistan has already boycotted the key international conference on Afghanistan, scheduled to begin on Monday in the German city of Bonn, in protest and as an attempt to send a clear message to the US that it will not become part of any reconciliation process if its sovereignty continues to be violated by Nato forces.
“It is not possible to continue cooperation under the existing arrangements following the Nato attack,” said a senior military official.
Pakistan can now only restart its cooperation with the US after a new agreement that clearly defines rules of engagements, the official pointed out.
The review the government intends to undertake may also affect the CIA-led drone campaign in the country’s tribal areas.
Though, Pakistan publicly condemns the use of pilot-less drones as violation of its sovereignty, it is believed that there exists a secret understanding with the US.
“This will now be renegotiated,” disclosed another official.
US has ‘taken advantage’
Officials believe that the US has taken advantage of “the level of freedom given to them to pursue war on terror on Pakistani soil.”
The repeated incursions by the US-led Nato forces is also attributed to the ‘loose arrangements’ agreed between the two countries during the former military ruler General Pervez Musharraf’s regime.
When approached, Director-General Inter-Service Public Relations (ISPR) Major General Athar Abbas said cooperation with the US would be revisited in line with the government’s decision. However, he would not share further details.
Despite Pakistan’s tough stance, the US has not yet indicated or approached the government that it is willing to renegotiate terms of engagement.
“The only thing they (US) are saying at the moment is, ‘wait for the findings of the investigations into the Nato attack’”, said a foreign ministry official.
The inquiry, which was ordered by the US Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, will be made public on December 23.
Irrespective of the US probe, Pakistan military is clear that the attack was ‘deliberate’ and a simple apology won’t normalise relationship.
US error blamed for airstrike
A report in The Telegraph said on Sunday that the US officers gave incorrect information to their Pakistani counterparts to seek clearance regarding the Nato airstrike.
The report quoted a Pakistani military official, while talking to The Sunday Telegraph, saying that the US gave wrong information to the border coordination unit about a suspected Taliban position before the attack while seeking clearance from the Pakistani side to carry out the attack.
“The strike had begun before we realised the target was a border post,” he said. “The Americans say we gave them clearance but they gave us the wrong information.” (with additional input from wires)
(Read: A grave crisis in Pakistan-US relations)
Published in The Express Tribune, December 5th, 2011.

 

[Doctor09]

full review of anti terror policy is essential now .....

 

[pkd]

Pakistan has reached breaking point with the United States and its replacement with a genuinely independent foreign and domestic policy. Previously, the ruling political and military elite, for personal and institutional reasons, never truly attempted to seek separation from a bad, exploitative and increasingly humiliating marriage with Washington. But the attack on Pakistan's military check posts on the border with Afghanistan created circumstances that forced the ruling elite's hand and finally pushed them over the line that they had kept avoiding to cross for decades. This event has proven beyond any doubt that the US agenda was to completely subjugate Pakistan and punch so many holes into its defence lines that these would become dysfunctional. But it is also true that while this event would have provoked Pakistan into some sort of a firm reaction, the response would not have been as wide-ranging as it has turned out to be if it was not for three other events. The first of these is the Rymond Davis case which for the first time publicly disclosed the nature of CIA's secret war in Pakistan and proved the audacity with which US was operating on Pakistani soil in complete contempt of Islamabad's status as an ally in the so called war against terror. It also revealed and further generated deep-seated anti-US sentiments at the grass root level and shocked the ruling elite into accepting that their policy of total compliance with Washington's agenda had lost all public support that is if it ever had any public support. The second event was the OBL operation. That particular event was a direct insult and injury to the core of Pakistan's establishment which had tried so hard to cultivate close ties with Washington's political and military bureaucracy. It showed to the Pakistani establishment that no matte how hard they tried, they would always be dispensable for Washington that would always treat them as a speck on its strategic shoe. The incident also brought to light the possibility of US attempting a similar raid against Pakistan's nuclear assets and then using international sanctions forcing Islamabad to accept its new 'non' nuclear status. But what really created an unprecedented hatred and uproar in the inner sanctum of the Pakistani establishment was the Memogate. This particular document revealed the possibility of the US attempting a change within with help of cronies and henchmen. The Torjan horse nature of the memo's content left little room for complacency in formulating a reaction that would cut off the multiple sources of US influence in Pakistan. The deadly attack on the check-posts provided the perfect trigger to touch off a response that had been developing for months. This response is likely to be spelt out clearly in the next couple of days starting today. It need to be close watched because this might be the most far reaching foreign policy revision that Pakistan's ruling elite is attempting in decades.

Long -Term Break from the us- Syed Talat Hussain

 

[regular]

I hope and this break will be true and for GOOD......Insha-Allah!.......

 

[Devil Soul]

Pak-US crisis fuels disagreements within Obama admin
Published: December 06, 2011
WASHINGTON - Non-stop crisis between the US and Pakistan this year have brought into sharper focus the differences among the US military, its intelligence network and diplomatic corps, officials said.
The issues with Pakistan, including the Nov 26th NATO border airstrike in which 24 Pakistan soldiers died, point to how the US State Department feels diplomacy has been pushed behind military and intelligence priorities, The Washington Post reported on Monday.
US diplomats told the Post because of this there is little good will to cushion blows when incidents such as the airstrike occur.
The airstrike led Pakistan to decide against taking part in this week’s major international diplomatic meeting in Bonn, Germany, to discuss Afghanistan future, its peace plan with the Taliban and the winding down of the 10-year war there. The newspaper said US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tried but could not convince Pakistan to change its mind.
Many US diplomats see the latest crisis with Pakistan as a disconnect between what one State Department official called short-term security objectives and long-term diplomatic goals, the Post said.
The newspaper said the war against al Qaeda and other terrorist groups has led to expansion of the US military and intelligence personnel in other countries.
‘In a lot of ways, diplomacy is this historical anachronism’, the official told the Post.
The newspaper said while US diplomats say they share the impatience of the US military and the intelligence agency, it is also the US goal to convince the Pakistanis that the US wants to help and not harm Pakistan.
Another State Department official told the Post ‘this whole sovereignty thing is so strong because we do precisely what we want in [Pakistan] territory and this drives them crazy. Knowing they can’t do anything about it drives them even more crazy. When we get in a hurry, we don’t even bother to fake it’.
US Ambassador Cameron Munter has said that an apology from Obama would help assuage Pakistani fury over the airstrike. The Pentagon and the White House have insisted on waiting for the investigation to run its course.
Far more than his predecessors, Munter has questioned the timing of drone attacks — including in the immediate aftermath of previous crisis over the fatal shooting of two Pakistanis by a CIA contractor in January and the US raid that killed Osama bin Laden in May — and asked the White House to clarify whether he has a veto over specific raids, the Post said, citing current and former White House and State Department officials.
The Post said the US Defence Department and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) have their own complaints with the US Embassy, which they sometimes see as coddling a dysfunctional Pak government and interfering with core US counterterrorism objectives.
Until his retirement in September, Admiral Mike Mullen, who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was the most public face of the bilateral relationship. Mullen’s trips to Pakistan for face-to-face meetings with Pakistan’s Army chief, Gen. Kayani, were far more frequent than Clinton’s visits with the civilian authorities, the dispatch said.
When Mullen publicly accused Pakistan’s military of supporting Afghan insurgent groups in Congressional testimony just before leaving office, some State Department officials said they felt blindsided.
On a subsequent visit to Pakistan in October, Clinton insisted on leading a delegation that included CIA Director David Petraeus and Mullen’s replacement, Gen. Martin Dempsey.
But the State Department’s efforts to assert at least the appearance of control over US policy are regularly undermined by a steady stream of Congressional visitors to Pakistan who ‘all want to visit Kayani’, an administration official said.
‘They don’t want to talk to their civilian counterparts’ in Pakistan’s Parliament, ‘and they only want to stay a few hours’, the official said.
Major General (Retd) Mahmud Ali Durrani, a former National Security Adviser to Gilani and former Pakistani Ambassador to the US, agreed with that reality and the impression it leaves in Pakistan.
‘You look at the visitors from Washington’, Durrani was quoted as saying in the Post. ‘They would go and spend time with the President, then most of the serious discussions they had with the Army chief’, he said.
‘In my view’, he said, ‘there is one and only one issue’ between Pakistan and the United States, ‘and that is counterterrorism. And that is in the lap of the security establishment. So that, in itself, is a problem’, he added.
Pak-US crisis fuels disagreements within Obama admin | Pakistan | News | Newspaper | Daily | English | Online

 

[pkd]

ONE CAN only watch in horror as relations between the United States and Pakistan continue to deteriorate, for there will be no chaos-free exit from Afghanistan without Pakistan. We have become accustomed to the loud accusations of perfidy leveled at Islamabad — it is playing a double game, Americans say, protecting terrorists who are attacking our troops in Afghanistan. But to make an enemy out of Pakistan is to lose sight of the fact that Pakistan is far more important to US interests than Afghanistan ever was.

Republican contenders for Barack Obama’s job fall over each other suggesting ways to be tough on Pakistan. But it was Jon Huntsman who put his finger on the problem.

“I would recognize exactly what the US-Pakistani relationship has become, which is merely a transactional relationship,’’ Huntsman said. American aid should be contingent on Pakistan’s keeping up the fight on terrorism and on keeping American supply lines to Afghanistan open, he said.

And that’s the trouble. For although the Obama administration still talks about a strategic relationship with Pakistan, it has long since become a transactional one. Here’s your money, the United States seems to say, so now do what we say and do it now!

Pakistan, on the other hand, would have liked a true strategic relationship in which the United States would take cognizance of Pakistan’s strategic fears, needs, and national interests. Instead, US officials keep scolding Pakistan for not subordinating its strategic interests to America’s.

For example, is it reasonable to demand that Pakistan attack the militant Haqqani network within its borders while at the same time Americans have been trying to negotiate with Haqqani leaders? Since the United States is planning to leave Afghanistan, Pakistan sees a need to maintain relationships with some of the players, especially among the ethnic Pashtuns, who will continue to be involved in the Afghan drama long after the United States has left the stage.

And what a curious doctrine is this “fight, talk, and build’’ that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton keeps talking about. Wasn’t that what we tried to do in Vietnam - bomb Hanoi to make the North Vietnamese come to their senses and do what we wanted? From Pakistan’s point of view, what would Americans say if a Pakistani intelligence officer stepped out of his car in an American city and shot two Americans dead; took their photographs and sped away, as CIA contractor Raymond Davis did to two Pakistanis did in Lahore in January?

Obama was correct to go after Osama bin Laden without telling the Pakistanis, because someone in the Pakistani hierarchy might have tipped off the world’s most wanted man. But we could have included some Pakistani commandos in the attack. We could have asked Pakistan to send us some soldiers to train with ours, and then put a few in the helicopters without them even knowing where they were headed, which would have preserved security. Hypocrisy? Yes, but a little hypocrisy to get bin Laden and still save Pakistan face would have been worth it in order to soften Pakistan’s humiliation about an obvious violation of Pakistani sovereignty.

And now NATO has killed 24 Pakistani soldiers along the Afghanistan border. What actually happened last week is in dispute. Both sides may have thought they were being attacked by the Taliban. But one thing is clear. Pakistani soldiers were killed inside Pakistan by American planes and helicopters inside Pakistani airspace.

What was the US-led coalition doing so close to Pakistan? It would have made more sense not to operate so close to the frontier, even if it meant that some Taliban might escape. After all, they can find sanctuary deeper in Pakistan. Limited wars always include restraints. America’s war in Afghanistan is not going to end with a Taliban surrender on the deck of a battleship, as World War II ended. There will be compromises, and one of them needs to be that the United States doesn’t violate Pakistani sovereignty.

America seems oblivious to how unpopular its drone strikes are, or that Pakistan has lost many more soldiers fighting Islamist extremists than has NATO. The average Pakistani views the whole Afghan campaign as America’s war that has brought them only misfortune and death.

It is said that Pakistan has a weak civilian government and that its military and intelligence services are running the show. But can something similar be said of the United States? The US military out-maneuvered an inexperienced president into a deeper Afghanistan commitment than even the Bush administration was willing to make. Is the military-intelligence complex striving to keep the United States involved in Afghanistan longer than it might otherwise be, and getting into heedless and unnecessary confrontations with Pakistan?

In Pakistan, the US continues to make errors - Opinion - The Boston Globe

[SUB][/SUB]