Pentagon Seeks Wartime Powers For Dealing With Pak

[sohailbutt]

"Also, let me make one thing clear here, I donot have any harsh fellings about US people, they are just like every body else in the world, it is actually the US Government's policies which I criticize."

You should know better having lived in Great Britain for a bit but let me educate you on civic responsibility-

WE VOTED FOR OUR LEADERS.

It's o.k. to hate us as people. We assume responsibility for those lawfully appointed to serve and lead us. They are a reflection of my nation's collective will and vision.

If not, they wouldn't be where they are.

All countries choose their leaders and leadership whether they know it our not. Change it anytime you wish...

...should you dare.

Point well taken, S2, yes you are right about your leader's, if you read my post again i never said anything about hating American people, all i talked about was your administration, but anyway, you have linked your administration to American people, as they voted for them, so next time I would be more alert talking about America as a Nation.

 

[Hellfire]

First, read the title of the thread. The discussion on the constraints faced by Pakistan in applying overwhelming military force, drawbacks and advantages is on a thread that is still open, and you can therefore read through that thread and pick up on where it left.

Dear AM

I have read the topic and have the faculties to comprehend what they mean and have been consistent in my approach towards the same. As such the conclusion does come that granting of such wide ranging powers to CENTCOM does in fact better facilitate intraforces interaction between the two nations.

As such the PA hesitancy in sealing the border is confusing. And the submission that there is a hesitancy in being seen as 'toeing the US line' needs a clarification in logical continuation of the thread for its not at all clear that in view of changed circumstances, how do PA suffer/are handicapped by such a view if held?

The fact remains that when (and not if) PA succeeds in limiting the threat posed by TTP, any tag be it 'US Lackey' or 'US hired Army' or whatever, looses its credence as the main enemy who is trying to project this view (TTP & Co.) in order to exploit it would be annhilated.

As such, I think you have intentionally just killed a discussion for there is no rationale for PA using this pretext to NOT act. Ultimately, PA is the victor in this war IMO and if it gets unreserved US cooperation in terms of equipment/protective measures/battlefield surveillance radars/electronic sensors etc with a little bit of pro-active apporoach thus enabling better execution of operations, lesser collateral damage and lesser number of own casualties, then its a redundant argument.

Thanks.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Dear AM


As such the PA hesitancy in sealing the border is confusing.

Why doesn't the US seal the border? Since you think it can be done so easily, perhaps you should contact them with your ideas on how to do so.

As such, I think you have intentionally just killed a discussion for there is no rationale for PA using this pretext to NOT act.

A comprehensive exchange of views around the constraints on the Army is on a very recent thread. Why start another parallel discussion on the same issue from the beginning?

Please read through those posts and continue there.

Thanks.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Here is a link to the thread for those interested:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/war-terror/24858-solving-afghanistan.html