Q+A: NATO and Pakistan: Uneasy allies in an uncertain war

[fatman17]

Q+A: NATO and Pakistan: Uneasy allies in an uncertain war

By Chris Allbritton

ISLAMABAD | Mon Nov 15, 2010


ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - When a NATO summit in Lisbon kicks off on November 19 to discuss the future course of the war in Afghanistan, Pakistan's role in the conflict -- from logistics to eliminating militants' safe havens -- will loom large.

One of Pakistan's values to NATO rests on its worth as a conduit for materiel to landlocked Afghanistan. Recent closures of a main supply route after cross-border incursions by NATO helicopters highlighted Pakistan's ability to give NATO headaches if its strategic needs are not addressed.

Pakistan's tolerance of militants' havens in its border regions is also a source of tension.

Here are some questions and answers on Pakistan and its relationship with NATO and militants, as well as the long logistical chain from Karachi to Kabul.

WHAT'S THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PAKISTAN AND NATO?

Like the one with the United States, it's prickly. Since September, Pakistan has seen a surge in drone attacks as well as a cascade of leaks, criticism and border incursions on the part of NATO forces in Afghanistan, one of which killed two Pakistani troops.

Citing security reasons, Pakistan closed vital Western force supply routes to Afghanistan and wrung an apology from the then-U.S. ambassador, Anne Patterson, for the two deaths.

Washington and the alliance, for their part, are concerned that some elements of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) are still supporting insurgent groups. The White House also sent an assessment of the Afghanistan war to Congress that said Pakistani forces had avoided direct conflict with al Qaeda and the Taliban, in part for political reasons.

WHAT'S AT STAKE FOR PAKISTAN IN AFGHANISTAN?

According to Stratfor, a private intelligence firm, Pakistan wants to regain influence in Afghanistan by using Afghan Taliban militants taking shelter in Pakistan. The United States and its allies need to eliminate the militants and their sanctuaries so it can withdraw from Afghanistan.

This means that while Pakistan and NATO may have a similar goal -- a peaceful Afghanistan -- they do not agree on how to achieve it or what the end-state might look like.

All sides know Pakistan is needed for any settlement because of its influence over senior Taliban leaders, who are believed to be hiding in its lawless northwestern border areas with Afghanistan. But to what extent can Islamabad shape one?

Islamabad's biggest fear is a repeat of history. After Soviet troops were defeated in Afghanistan in 1989, U.S. interest evaporated and Pakistan was left with a mess next door, where civil war broke out.

So Pakistan is betting on the Taliban to do its bidding, whether through negotiations, in the event of a Taliban takeover, or a return to chaos and civil war. That's why it is maneuvering to get its Taliban proteges included in the talks.

HOW MUCH LEVERAGE DOES PAKISTAN HAVE OVER NATO?

More than NATO would like but less than Pakistan thinks. In addition to its flexible policy toward militants, Pakistan hosts the two main supply routes for non-lethal supplies to NATO troops in Afghanistan. The one that was closed off in October goes through the Khyber Pass in northwest Pakistan to the border town of Torkham and on to Kabul.

That is the easiest land route for supplies and military equipment into Afghanistan, by ship to the Pakistani port of Karachi, and then by truck through Pakistan into Afghanistan. The other passes through Pakistan's Baluchistan province to the southern Afghan city of Kandahar.

The U.S. military and NATO have not given details of the supplies they get via Pakistan but the U.S. embassy in Islamabad said 40 percent of supplies for the Afghan war goes through or over Pakistan. Sensitive gear such as ammunition, weapons and critical equipment is flown in, the Pentagon says.

Such closures are little more than a pinprick to the alliance's war effort, however, because Pakistan doesn't dare close the routes for long. It cannot afford to antagonize NATO or the United States, which provides $2 billion in military aid a year. Keeping foreign money flowing may be more important than ever as Pakistan tries to recover from floods that caused billions of dollars in damage.

Taliban militant attacks had already forced the United States and other Western forces to look for alternatives through Central Asia and Russia into northern Afghanistan and a Northern Distribution Network (NDN), as the United States refers to it, was launched in 2009.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Can NDN be more Reliable ? It includes more Land. and the millitants may find a place in UZBEKISTAN to disrupt it.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

In Paris, Petraeus Hails Pakistan Efforts​

PARIS: A top French lawmaker says Gen. David Petraeus has praised Pakistan’s “good cooperation” in the fight against insurgents and said that allied training of Afghan forces is advancing quickly.

The top US and Nato commander in Afghanistan is in Paris for meetings with officials.

Axel Poniatowski, who heads the National Assembly’s foreign affairs commission, says Petraeus briefed lawmakers about how the allies have trained 260,000 Afghan troops.

The lawmaker says Petraeus told the panel that Pakistan has committed necessary forces and obtained “satisfactory results” notably in the South Waziristan and Punjab regions.

Petraeus did not speak to reporters Monday. He is to speak in public at a Paris university Tuesday. – AP

In Paris, Petraeus hails Pakistan efforts Latest news, breaking news, world news, international news and current affairs

 

[fatman17]

ASIA PACIFIC
Date Posted: 24-Nov-2010


Jane's Defence Weekly

Pakistan keeping NATO at arms length.

Farhan Bokhari JDW Correspondent -Islamabad

Pakistan has publicly welcomed a timeline set out by NATO at the Lisbon summit to hand over security arrangements in Afghanistan to Afghan forces by 2014, although officials remain sceptical that the Western alliance can secure control of the country in advance of that date.

"We welcome NATO's decision to remain engaged [in Afghanistan] until 2014," a foreign ministry official in Islamabad told Jane's . "This helps to dispel the impression that the alliance is seeking to wrap up this operation quickly and pull out."

However, a number of Pakistani security officials warned that the prospect of installing a functional Afghan military and security apparatus by 2014 appeared to be remote.

"After more than 30 years of conflict, Afghanistan as a state rests on a very weak foundation," said a former Pakistani intelligence official who was closely involved with the training of US-funded anti-Soviet Afghan resistance fighters in the 1980s.

"States which are structurally weak and where the society is in disarray cannot expect to create a focused and efficient armed force. Already, the reports coming in to Pakistan suggest that the experiment to create an Afghan security apparatus continues to be in the failing mode."

A Pakistani intelligence official based in Peshawar, close to the Afghan border, said the Afghan army and police continued to suffer large-scale desertions, especially in southern Afghanistan where the Taliban have widened their control.

"You have two issues. First, the Western world has not spent much money on creating economic opportunities for ordinary Afghans, so there is a lot of frustration," he said. "Second, the Taliban appear to be making progress in some areas by inflicting losses upon Western forces. They are attracting people to their side in areas where they are winning. That includes people from the so-called Afghan army and police."

Western diplomats in Islamabad warned that Pakistan is unlikely to increase its support for the mission in Afghanistan as long as its success is in question.

"In Pakistan's calculus, the Western effort is up against a tremendous challenge. Without a clear sense of a real winner, why would Pakistan want to step up its effort to support our effort?" a Western diplomat said.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

desertion rates......


for God's sakes, the President's brother is himself involved in the narcotics trade!

then there is the case of the taleban imposter who was receiving millions of American tax-payer dollars to talk utter bullshyt


the Americans, NATO --- they are all being DUPED day in and day out. It is a totally failed strategy that is bound for failure from this point onwards.

Had they provided the economic opportunities mentioned in the posted article above --if not when they FIRST abandoned Afghanistan, then at least circa 2002 --- things would have been much different. Of course we must almost remind ourselves --- you can only help people who want or can help themselves

it is clear that on aggregate levels, the Afghans themselves don't give a damn.....if they were, they would stop being such a divided, factionalized society and think country-first




actually, the only way I see a victory for NATO ('victory' as perceived by the West in the past) then I see nothing short of daily mei lei massacres taking place, napalm bombs and the whole 9 yards

and with media and rights groups all over the place, we all know that can't happen.....


I wish the best for Afghanistan and hope the whole world will mobilize to bring economic relief and investment to the country --investment that brings good and little to NO cost or ''inconvenience'' to other stake-holders (i need not delve into it further)

as long as the Pakhtuns are not given a voice and as long as they feel marginalized, then even a miracle falling from the sky wouldnt solve the overall problem in the country; and everyone else suffers as well