Rifts emerge over tackling the Taliban

[S-2]

Nicely done.

The question of engagement with a dictatorship is an interesting, double-edged, dilemma. It is an ongoing issue with many of the current Afghan power-brokers as well. It has even been offered up by the GoP to rationalize it's "connections" with its proxies.

At what point does keeping a finger in the pie to retain "influence" become counter-productive? America, in EVERY case, would prefer to work with stable civilian institutions of state as the proper interlocutors of our aid and and political objectives.

Where it's not the case, to what degree, duration, and in what manner should we attempt engagement before backing away? How to "back away" become the next conumdrum then and to what degree as innocents suffer within Pakistan when we do so.

This "tug-pull" is constantly at our side. Further, our civil administration is ultimately answerable to our congress. As such, their input to our policy choices must be factored. That legislative input is mercurial as, with any politician, their objectives are a function of their internal constituencies as much as external issues.

Anyway, unusually precient thoughts by a "home-boy".

A pleasure making your acquaintance.

 

[Spitfighter]

The US is stuck working with Pakistan, they cannot stop aiding them nor can they take matters into their own hands and expand operations within the country without seriously destabilizing it. The GoP has very little credibility to begin with, any such move by the Americans will only incite the Pakistani population further and the US will once again be stuck supporting an unpopular regime.

Pakistan will not budge unless its concerns vis via India are addressed, an unrealistic expectation given how we've fought 4 wars and have been in a cold war throughout our existence. It will take more than a miracle for both sides to reconcile their differences within the limited time frame that Pakistan has to act, and even then, there is little to suggest that Pakistan can roll back decades of support to Islamic extremists.

Pakistan has not followed through on its commitments to the WoT because it doesn't know how to do so without shooting itself in the foot, without realizing that it is fatally poisoning itself with its duplicity.

Pakistan is caught between a rock and a hard place and the people are in complete denial. The longer this game continues, the worse off they will be. Pakistan has precious little time to act against the virulent ideology that it has proliferated across its land over the years. There is much confusion about who the real enemy is, so much so that they have taken to calling the Taliban 'Indian agents'. As such, one wonders how long Pakistan can afford to keep distinguishing between extremist elements without seriously setting themselves up for failure.

The US is heavily invested in Afghanistan and a nose dive in the situation there will leave Pakistan in a very precarious position unless it takes decisive action against every extremist within its boundaries right now. Pakistan cannot wait for another cue (9/11) to take action.

Pakistan needs to take strong, credible action while it still can so every country in the region can throw its weight behind the government and tackle terrorism at the root, yes this means India too. The onus is on Pakistan to demonstrate its willingness to fight terror on all fronts or it will be too little too late, the extremists are more than capable of launching sophisticated attacks abroad any such attack (unless its India ) would spell disaster for Pakistan.

 

[SQ8]

Nicely done.

The question of engagement with a dictatorship is an interesting, double-edged, dilemma. It is an ongoing issue with many of the current Afghan power-brokers as well. It has even been offered up by the GoP to rationalize it's "connections" with its proxies.

At what point does keeping a finger in the pie to retain "influence" become counter-productive? America, in EVERY case, would prefer to work with stable civilian institutions of state as the proper interlocutors of our aid and and political objectives.

Where it's not the case, to what degree, duration, and in what manner should we attempt engagement before backing away? How to "back away" become the next conumdrum then and to what degree as innocents suffer within Pakistan when we do so.

This "tug-pull" is constantly at our side. Further, our civil administration is ultimately answerable to our congress. As such, their input to our policy choices must be factored. That legislative input is mercurial as, with any politician, their objectives are a function of their internal constituencies as much as external issues.

Anyway, unusually precient thoughts by a "home-boy".

A pleasure making your acquaintance.

Actually .. if the lady at the embassy is right.. Ill be your home boy in a few months. The rest of my family is anyway..
Anyhow.. thanks fer d compliment.

 

[S-2]

"Actually .. if the lady at the embassy is right.. Ill be your home boy in a few months. The rest of my family is anyway.."

Congratulations and welcome to America.

"Anyhow.. thanks fer d compliment."

My pleasure, sir.

 

[waraich66]

"...US is in picture what India and afghans are doing and it has closed its eyes."

To $1.1B in delivered Indian aid to Afghanistan?

And Pakistan?

Your problems are of your own making. You make an exceedingly bad neighbor for most with your duplicitous employment of proxy forces in all directions and for a terribly long time.

Those malevolent souls have infected your internal tribal society and rendered many of your brave soldiers dead at the hands of their own citizens. What a tragic turn of events!

Blowback and you're reaping what you've sown.

Forty nations and myriad NGOs abound in Afghanistan. No noise of surreptitious Indian operations from any of these nations or organizations.

It doesn't make sense. The risks to the immense goodwill accrued by the Indians in Afghanistan far outweighs the anticipated gains from such conduct regardless of Pakistan's long history of exactly such.

I think Pakistan ISI have solid evidence that is reason indian prime miniter accepted to investigate our alligations that is india is involved in Balouchistan insurgency.

 

[S-2]

"I think Pakistan ISI have solid evidence that is reason indian prime miniter accepted to investigate our alligations that is india is involved in Balouchistan insurgency."

No Evidence India Is Supporting Terrorism in Pakistan- Holbrooke: Daily Times April 25, 2009

Not then-

Special Briefing On July 2009 Trip To Afghanistan, Pakistan, And Brussels- Dept. of State USA 29 July 2009

QUESTION: And secondly, sir, in the last two weeks, Pakistani leaders have said – have given public statement about India’s involvement in Baluchistan. Have Pakistani leaders brought this to your notice? Have they given you any credible evidence of India’s involvement in Baluchistan?


AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: Have they?


QUESTION: Have they given you any credible evidence of India’s involvement in Baluchistan?


AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: I would be misleading if I said it didn’t come up, but the narrow answer to your question is no.


...and not now either. Seems clear enough. Bogey-man for domestic (that means you) consumption.

 

[dabong1]

"I think Pakistan ISI have solid evidence that is reason indian prime miniter accepted to investigate our alligations that is india is involved in Balouchistan insurgency."

No Evidence India Is Supporting Terrorism in Pakistan- Holbrooke: Daily Times April 25, 2009

Not then-

Special Briefing On July 2009 Trip To Afghanistan, Pakistan, And Brussels- Dept. of State USA 29 July 2009

QUESTION: And secondly, sir, in the last two weeks, Pakistani leaders have said – have given public statement about India’s involvement in Baluchistan. Have Pakistani leaders brought this to your notice? Have they given you any credible evidence of India’s involvement in Baluchistan?


AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: Have they?


QUESTION: Have they given you any credible evidence of India’s involvement in Baluchistan?


AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: I would be misleading if I said it didn’t come up, but the narrow answer to your question is no.


...and not now either. Seems clear enough. Bogey-man for domestic (that means you) consumption.

Hahaha.....the same US govt that said iraq had WMD is now telling us the india is not involved in Baluchistan

 

[S-2]

"Hahaha.....the same US govt that said iraq had WMD is now telling us the india is not involved in Baluchistan"

You don't read well. What have you heard or seen from the other thirty-eight nations in Afghanistan who aren't American nor Indian? How much buzz from the Turkish or UAE contingent? And the other thirty-six?

How about Russia? The PRC? Iran?

NGOs? They ALL over the place-many liberal with an anti-American overtone to their particular bent- who've they bumped into that's suggest as much? Anybody?

No.

All sorts of independant media that are hardly mouthpieces of state...and not all from the west. No stories of consequence that have compelled further, deeper investigation.

As yet there's nothing here. If proxy war from Afghanistan upon Pakistan HAD BEEN a consideration of India, it wouldn't be now. No nation's THAT stupid-least of all India.

More to the point (which challenges your powers of analysis), given the huge aid investment in Afghanistan by the GoI ($1.1B or more at this point- I quit counting when it exceeded your efforts to create goodwill by at least ten fold), a vigorous Indian multi-party parliamentary oversight, and the immense goodwill generated among Afghans and foreigners alike by this aid-there'd be FAR too much to risk and FAR too little to gain.

What can India bring to this fight within Pakistan that isn't provided by opium and gulf state donors? They're salafi/wahabbists on your soil- both your "good" and "bad" taliban with the exact same objectives and sources of funding.

All that goodwill generated by India would be lost on everybody if discovered otherwise- and for such miserable effect on the ground.

Baluchis don't need India to conduct a nationalist-inspired uprising either. That's historically a fact and shall continue so long as you fail to fully address some very legitimate grievances that make their independance so attractive as an alternative. The long Baluchi coastline and border make easy their access to ANYTHING.

As such, they've plenty of monetary support from sunni associates in the Gulf as well. Many there see Baluch struggles in Iran as ENTIRELY legitimate. Many of those baluchi forces attack Iran from Pakistani territory. What's to keep that money and what they purchase from being used in Pakistan as well?

Nothing.

Further, have you considered the Iranian influence here among your Baluch nationalists? If gulf-state patrons aid Baluchis in Pakistan to attack Iran, why wouldn't Iran aid Baluchis in Pakistan to seek their freedom from Pakistan? Do you believe the Iranians actually tolerate such conduct?

Iranians are MASTERS of proxy war themselves.

Finally, there's Pakistan. First, virtually all globally now understand your quest for "strategic depth" and it's horrific manifestation under Pakistan's vision for Afghanistan. We've had the Taliban gov't of Afghanistan between 1996-2001 as character witness.

You made exceedingly self-interested and poor mentors. But those really weren't your objectives anyway. Hardly an egalitarian approach to all, Pakistan's overt favoritism of the pashtu against those who make the absolute majority of the nation-Hazara, Uzbek, Tajik, and Turkoman- makes clear the limited extent of your altruism.

Your objective is to push Pashtu aspirations away from the Punjab heartland and into tajik, uzbek, hazara, and turkoman lands while preventing India from being able to envelop you from two sides.

Plain enough. The problem here is that this objective is pursued by the use of proxies. Their employment by you is clear to see by all. So too their sanctuaries on your lands. So too the active assistance of elements of both your government and society. This behavior by Pakistan in Afghanistan and India is ignoble and scorned in the eyes of the internat'l community.

Nothing's changed except for a very inept propaganda campaign of dissemblance and crude equivocation conducted by your Ministry of the Interior, ISPR, and your military to morph your national persona into some caricature of victimization.

So only Pakistan has motive to suggest such of India and it's utterly unsurprising that you have. Sadly, you've found no third-party like even the PRC ( which HATES India) to carry your mantle.

Why, oh WHY hasn't anybody believed?

You've no traction anywhere on this.

 

[dabong1]

"Hahaha.....the same US govt that said iraq had WMD is now telling us the india is not involved in Baluchistan"

You don't read well. What have you heard or seen from the other thirty-eight nations in Afghanistan who aren't American nor Indian? How much buzz from the Turkish or UAE contingent? And the other thirty-six?
.

Can you give us a breakdown on the numbers each one of these thirty-eight nations that is in afganistan has or is the majority just the US-UK.

Do tell us how many nations opposed the iraq war?