The Pak-US Relationship

[Neo]

Biden for abiding ties ​

January 12 2009

Despite the popular belief that the Democrats were 'natural allies' of India in the election of Barack Obama as the 44th US president, the people of Pakistan see the possibility of an even-handed American behaviour in South Asia.

Of course, there is no precise reason for such optimism - and some of the Obama moves do tend to undermine that feeling, but a hope has risen for better and productive relationship with America.

It is no surprise then that during his recent visit here, Senator Joseph Biden was warmly received and decorated with the country's highest civil award. An unmistakably futuristic tone underscored his statement that the Obama government would help Pakistan strengthen democracy, fight terrorism and meet its socio-economic and capacity-building requirements.

The US administration, he said, believes in a "long, real and broad" relationship with Pakistan and the US would like to start with "the present, rather than past". This is something different from the 'do-more' mantra relentlessly dinned into our ears. His contribution as the main sponsor of Biden-Lugar bill and his behind the scenes role, and at times frank and open criticism of ex-president Pervez Musharraf, for not reviving democratic process in Pakistan is on record.

His remark at the presidency that he felt the spirit of Benazir Bhutto around the place bespeaks of the senator's life-long commitment to democracy.

To an average reader of American constitution, Senator Joseph Biden's worldview, as we came across during his recent visit here, may appear to be exotic, perhaps unrealistic. Some may say as vice-president he would have a very limited role, much less important than as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which had placed him in a pivotal position with regard to US foreign policy. Generally speaking, yes. But that is not applicable in case of every vice-president.

For instance, Dick Cheney's role in firming up foreign policy for the Bush administration was far more substantial than any of the two secretaries of state in George W. Bush's administration. The fact is that both Barack Obama and his nominee for the office of secretary of state, Senator Hilary Clinton, lack the expertise that Senator Biden has. This guru of international diplomacy and foreign relations is bound to acquire the linchpin position in making and executing foreign policy for the Obama administration.

The Biden-Lugar bill is essentially development-oriented. By pledging to triple the non-military assistance, the bill reflects the Vice-President-elect's vision that ongoing insurgency in Pakistan's tribal region is primarily rooted in the backwardness and poverty of the people. Until that is taken care of, the Pakistan government must be fully prepared and equipped to fight terrorism - that is what the senior American politician has tried to convey to his Pakistani interlocutors.

Indeed his commitment to upgrade the guerrilla-fighting capacity of Pakistani forces is part of that vision. He seems to be rightly cognizant of the fact that President Obama's promise to win in Afghanistan would be fulfilled only when Pakistan is treated as a friend and ally, a departure from the Bush times which Pakistan believes is coming.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Key American Senator advocates long term economic support for Pakistan

WASHINGTON, Jan 15 (APP): Calling the return of democracy in Pakistan ‘historic’, a key Republican Senator Lindsey Graham who visited Islamabad as part of a bipartisan delegation last week, has voiced his full support for bolstering US economic assistance for the country over the long‑term. Graham, who is being drafted as counselor on foreign policy by President‑elect Barack Obama, told newsmen along with Vice President‑elect Joseph Biden that the United States must assist Pakistan economically through Biden‑Lugar legislation as the country’s help is vital to anti‑terrorism success in Afghanistan.

“As to Pakistan, (there’s been) historic change in Pakistan. We have a civilian government duly elected by its people, taking over from what has been in the past a dictatorship,” said the senator, an important Republican voice on the Hill and a top supporter of former presidential candidate Senator John McCain.

Sitting next to president‑elect, Lindsey Graham said he found tremendous goodwill for Obama in Pakistan.

“I cannot tell you how much enthusiasm we saw in Pakistan for this new president.”

“There is a moment in time here for this country (US) to re‑engage the international community, to make sure that we have international support to stabilize Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq.”

The South Carolina lawmaker said the Biden‑Lugar legislation “pending before the (US) Senate would create economic aid in a variety of fashions to Pakistan over a ten‑year period, is a must.”

He argued strongly that the US must enhance economic aid for Pakistan, despite facing economic hardships at home.

“And I know people at home in South Carolina have lost their jobs. We are about to encourage a trillion dollars of debt here soon to stabilize a weakened economy never seen since the great depression”. But to those American taxpayers, the money is needed in Pakistan because we cannot succeed in Afghanistan without Pakistan.

“So I support expenditures of public treasure into Pakistan under the Biden‑Lugar legislation. I think it will go a long way toward helping us correct some of the problems we have in Pakistan and Afghanistan.”

 

[RabzonKhan]

Obama supports Pakistan economic aid expansion’

January 15, 2009
* US secretary of state-designate says Pakistan determined to curb extremism

WASHINGTON: United States secretary of state-designate Hillary Clinton on Wednesday assured lawmakers of president-elect Barack Obama’s support for a congressional measure tripling non-military assistance for Pakistan.

Clinton also vowed to pursue a ‘positive’ relationship with Pakistan towards addressing the ‘tough and complicated’ problem of extremism afflicting the region. “Yes, the president-elect does support the legislation that you (Senator John Kerry) were part of, vice president-elect Joseph Biden and Senator (Richard) Lugar also.

We want to try to begin to some extent to separate our military aid from our non-military aid.” “The tripling of non-military aid is intended to provide resources that will both support the Pakistani people and also give some tools to the democratically-elected government to try to start producing results for the people of Pakistan,” she told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at her confirmation hearing. Senator Kerry had asked Clinton to confirm that the new administration remained committed to the Biden-Lugar measure that sought to enhance economic assistance for Pakistan to $1.5 billion annually over a number of years. She said Pakistan faced the complex problem of extremism but its government was determined to curb the menace. app

 

[RabzonKhan]

Obama’s Pakistan policy to be different

By Anwar Iqbal
Monday, 19 Jan, 2009

WASHINGTON: Pakistani ‘friends … had lent me money when I was tight … taken me into their homes when I had no place to stay,’ writes Barack Obama, who on Tuesday takes oath as America’s first non-white president.

In his book, ‘Dreams from My Father,’ Obama speaks high of his Indian and Pakistani friends. His views, however, changed drastically during the election campaign when he declared that if elected he would order raids inside Pakistan with or without Islamabad’s approval.

But now that he is set to occupy the White House in less than 24 hours, it has become obvious that his policies would be different from the election rhetoric.

Recent statements by key members of his team indicate that the Obama administration is not about to launch a military strike on Pakistan. Instead, it would seek to strengthen US engagement with that country.

Also, there will be no economic sanctions despite a strong lobbying by the Indian caucus, which wanted to censure Islamabad for its alleged involvement in the Mumbai terrorist attacks.

‘In the Pakistani military there's not one junior officer who doesn't know who Sen. [Larry] Pressler is. In the United States military, there isn't a junior officer who has a clue who Senator Pressler is,’ said Admiral Mike Mullen while talking about the impact on Pakistan of previous US sanctions.

Admiral Mullen, who will continue as chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff under Obama, emphasized in this interview to the Newsweek that the United States needs to maintain a close relationship with the Pakistani defence establishment.

And recent statements by members of the Obama team indicate that such views will influence the Obama administration’s policies towards Pakistan.

Earlier this week, Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton told a congressional panel that instead of sanctioning Pakistan, the new administration will support a bipartisan bill that seeks to triple US aid to Islamabad.

And Senator John Kerry, the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, warned that US air raids into Pakistan were counter-productive and were ‘creating some terrorists and losing some ground in the effort to win hearts and minds.’

This change of heart is apparently caused by a closer look at realities in South Asia. Since the election on Nov. 4, the Obama team has received extensive briefings from the members of the outgoing Bush administration on the Afghan-Pakistan situation.

Although the briefings were not made public, statements by senior US military officials reveal that at least the Pentagon advised the Obama team against antagonising Pakistan and also warned it that sending additional troops to Afghanistan is not going to win the war against terror.

‘We cannot just take the tactics, techniques and procedures that worked in Iraq and employ them in Afghanistan,’ said Gen. David Petraeus, commander of US forces in the Middle East and Central Asia when asked if a troop-surge can produce the same results in Afghanistan as it did in Iraq.

And The Washington Post reported on Saturday that senior US officials were not very optimistic about the success of the US military and counter-insurgency drive in Afghanistan.

The officials warned that this ‘costly and belated’ plan was already facing widespread public resistance in Afghanistan, which ‘could delay and possibly undermine Washington’s effort to defeat militants.’

US bombing raids that also kill innocent civilians have further complicated the situation and a protracted US military engagement is likely to create more civilian casualties and public animosity, the officials said.

Such assessments are causing many in Washington to acknowledge that they need Pakistan’s cooperation if they need to win the war in Afghanistan, a point stressed by several lawmakers as well during Senator Clinton’s confirmation hearing.

 

[was]

 

[RabzonKhan]

Obama pledges to work closely with Pakistan

January 23, 2009

WASHINGTON: US President Barack Obama on Thursday vowed to work closely with Pakistan and deepen engagement with the people of the South Asian country as part of efforts to overcome security challenges along the Pak-Afghan border through a regional approach that will also focus on the creation of economic opportunities for the people of two countries.

Partnership: “We will seek stronger partnerships with the governments of the region, sustain cooperation with our NATO allies, deepen engagement with the Afghan and Pakistani people and a comprehensive strategy to combat terror and extremism,” said Obama while naming former diplomat Richard Holbrooke as America’s special representative for the two countries, in the presence of Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the State Department.

Envoy: On his maiden visit to the State Department, Obama was confident that Holbrooke would be able to help forge and implement a ‘strategic and sustainable’ US approach in the critical region.

However, he said that progress would not come immediately in Afghanistan, as the Taliban violence had escalated ‘dramatically’ and the narcotics problem had worsened. He also criticised the Afghan government’s failure in delivering basic services.

The new US president also pledged to work towards “achievable goals that contribute to our collective security”.

Ambassador Holbrooke, 67 – who served as US ambassador to the United Nations – is credited with negotiating Dayton peace accords in 1995 that ended the Bosnian conflict.

In his brief remarks, Holbrooke said he would coordinate a foreign assistance programme in the two countries to bring coherence in the US efforts.

Also, former Senate Majority leader George Mitchell was assigned the task to oversee US policy on the Middle East. Obama said the new envoy would head to the Middle East as soon as possible, “in a bid to get lasting peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians”. He also called on Israel to open Gaza border crossings to aid and commerce, as part of a lasting ceasefire following the conflict with Hamas. agencies

 

[RabzonKhan]

Pakistan a US ally under serious threat, not Al Qaeda platform’

Daily Times Monitor
February 05, 2009

LAHORE: Unlike the Bush administration, which focused on Pakistan as a Taliban and Al Qaeda “platform” for terror attacks, senior Obama administration officials say they see the country as a major US ally under serious threat.

A Washington Post report said on Wednesday the administration sought early congressional action on an assistance programme introduced in the Senate last summer by then-Senators Biden and Obama. It said the new president was unlikely to encounter resistance on his goals as a recent review by the Joint Chiefs of Staff also called for a broader approach to the region. The officials acknowledged, however, that a comprehensive Pakistan policy would take some time and money. Richard Holbrooke, the new Afghanistan-Pakistan envoy, expects to spend weeks gathering information before offering advice. Obama’s 60-day deadline for a new overall strategy, meanwhile, coincides with the NATO summit.

However, officials would not comment on whether Obama has reissued a covert action ‘finding’, signed by former President Bush, which authorised SO-CIA ground raids within Pakistan.

No coherence: In Afghanistan, nearly $60 billion has already been spent on reconstruction – more than in Iraq - but efforts remain ‘fragmented’ and “lack coherence,” according to US government auditors. The approach of the warm weather “fighting season” imposes its own deadlines. “I worry a great deal about how much time we have,” says Joint Chiefs chairman Admiral Mullen.

 

[fatman17]

U.S.-Pakistan relationship must get out of its rut

By MICHAEL SMERCONISH

The Philadelphia Inquirer

For years, I have been critical of the relationship between the United States and Pakistan as it pertains to the unsuccessful hunt for Osama bin Laden. I recently had the extraordinary chance to voice my opinions to former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in a one-on-one interview.

I told Musharraf that I believed we had outsourced the hunt to his government in return for payments that now total $11 billion, only to then have him place faith in the same tribal warlords believed to be offering safe harbor to the 9/11 fiend.

Musharraf wasted no time in telling me I was naïve, and “none of what you are saying is true.” Though I appreciated his earnest rebuttals, they confirmed some suspicions.

I remain concerned that Musharraf doesn’t share our priorities, that he doesn’t place the same weight on capturing or killing bin Laden as many of us in the U.S. do. In the months and years after the attacks, the former president told me, the Pakistani troops deployed to eradicate the forces of Islamic fundamentalism were not assigned the specific mission of finding bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. The objective, he said, was to eliminate foreigners and al-Qaeda forces from the tribal areas.

I told him I found this lack of a specific mission to get bin Ladin particularly problematic in light of his 2006 and 2007 non-interference accords with the leaders of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, which include the areas where bin Laden probably is hiding.

Musharraf conceded that the 2006 deal “fell flat,” but he argued that the accord negotiated in 2007 was stronger because it contained four central elements. Signers would eradicate al-Qaeda from their areas; halt all cross-border Taliban activity; punish any violator; and delineate a system to ensure that the punishments were carried out. He defended both accords, saying that the Pakistani military killed hundreds of Taliban and al-Qaeda sympathizers and lost 1,500 of its own troops in the process.

However, a 2007 U.S. National Security Estimate concluded that Musharraf’s agreements had actually given bin Laden’s forces the leeway to regroup. This view was echoed last year, when the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, issued a report with a title that said a great deal: “Combating Terrorism: The United States Lacks Comprehensive Plan to Destroy the Terrorist Threat and Close the Safe Haven in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas.”

The former president said views such as mine were easily offered far from the realities of what he has confronted in the tribal regions — the terrain is vast and unmanageable, the people look the same and all carry weapons, and there are no defense lines.

“They are all fighters. They all fight. They are tribes, and they don’t want (or) like intrusion on their area. This area, even the British never intruded in the area for three centuries. They never went in.…

“It’s very difficult to understand what I’m saying for a person who’s living here in very settled and developed conditions. We can’t even imagine what this area is and what the people are. We can’t imagine what a tribal society is, uneducated. They are maybe living in Middle Ages; they are living two, three hundred years behind us.”

No doubt that is true. And in my two long conversations with Musharraf in the span of three days, it was easy to see why the Bush administration found him to be our best hope for stability in an untamed part of the world. But his defiant arguments and force of personality were insufficient to overcome my belief that, seven years removed from 9/11, justice eludes us because of flaws in our approach.

President Barack Obama promised to bring change not only to Washington, but also to our approach with Pakistan. Many, including me, are anxious to see him deliver on that promise.

© 2009, The Philadelphia Inquirer

E-mail Michael Smerconish at showmail1@mastalk.com.

 

[fatman17]

Pakistan, US lack trust: Mullen

February 14, 2009

WASHINGTON (Agencies) - US Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen has said it has become difficult for the US to see the issues in regional context due to lack of trust with Pakistan.

A whole generation of the Pakistani military officers either does not have proper knowledge about the US or lacks trust in it. This generation considers that Pressler Amendment in 1990 cut Pakistan’s military aid.

According to Mullen’s column posted on The Washington Post’s website Saturday and set to be published Sunday, he said we kept Pakistan alienated for 12 years. Referring the statement of a Pakistani official, he said Washington had left Islamabad alone and both countries could not chalk out a coordinated and comprehensive strategy against terrorism due to trust deficit.

Mullen said we are trying to change the situation. In this connection a team of US specialists imparting expertise to the trainers of Pakistani anti-terror staff.

Mullen said more Pakistani officers will be invited to the war colleges of United States for study and I hope that more US aid and technical assistance will be provided. He said close relations with Pakistani Army Chief General Asfhaq Parvez Kayani is one of his priority besides other military and civil leaders of the country. I also visit Pakistan if I takes up any tour to the region.

Mullen also said that the United States must work throughout the region with other countries, including Pakistan, to combat extremists.

“Afghanistan and Pakistan are fighting a common foe,” he said. “Extremists punish both nations for their attempts to resist an increasingly violent ideology. Any effective strategy must be inclusive of the security challenges in Afghanistan and Pakistan, if not also the countries surrounding them.”

He said the war will be lost if the US can’t find a way to protect the Afghan people and gain their trust.

 

[Neo]

US-Pakistan relations under review​

EDITORIAL (February 25 2009): It has been reported in a section of the Press that the United States is currently working on an economic package for Pakistan and Afghanistan as an integral component of its new security strategy in the region. This strategy is under review by the Obama Administration, headed by Richard Holbrooke, Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Pakistan's Foreign Minister Shah Mehmud Qureshi is in the United States at present with a delegation comprising senior military and civilian officials. Chief of Army Staff as well as the Chief of the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) are also reportedly in the US. Thus all the stakeholders are in the US and one hopes that the result is the formulation of a more comprehensive and targeted policy that has the capacity to effectively deal with all issues, military, economic as well as political, pertaining to our security concerns.

With respect to economic concerns it is relevant to note that the Pakistani government's loss to the economy due to the War on Terror is estimated at approximately 35 billion dollars. This figure reflects the physical damage done to areas where this war has been ongoing and includes not only the destruction of homes and other buildings, including schools and offices, but also the massive number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) who can only be relocated at great cost.

Over and above this expenditure is the military hardware that has been destroyed as a consequence of the war and for which the US government had already committed full payment; unfortunately there are considerable pending dues in this regard. Meeting these heavy costs is a challenge for the present government especially considering that the country continues to be embroiled in an economic imbroglio.

With the government struggling to meet its obligations as accepted in the Letter of Intent (LoI) submitted to the International Monetary Fund's Board as a prerequisite to get approval for the 7.6 billion dollar stand-by arrangement it is hoped that some relief in the form of payment is received soon. Loss of exports mainly due to inability of buyers to visit Pakistan plus tourism, etc, is on top of all this.

Both the US and Pakistan are in agreement that dealing with the menace of fundamentalism and extremism in the long run requires the provision of a basic level of social sector facilities in the restive regions which would consist of providing education and healthcare to all; as well as employment opportunities which, in turn, would dry out the recruitment drive of the Taliban. A total of 60 billion dollars is considered a reasonable figure to meet all our requirements, short term as well as medium and long term. Few consider this a likely prospect.

The global financial crisis has forced many a country, including the United States, to invest huge sums of money into their domestic economy in an attempt to provide a stimulus to their economy, a policy that will result in rising budget deficits. President Obama has pledged to the American public that he will slash the annual deficit in half by the end of his four-year term - a pledge that would, undoubtedly, have repercussions on the US foreign aid package.

Thus it is evident that at present the US alone is unlikely to provide assistance to Pakistan that comes close to our expectations. A similar situation is evident in other countries and it is doubtful if the Friends of Pakistan meeting would produce any different results. The recent enhancement in the Indian defence budget is primarily aimed at exerting more pressure on Pakistan. We need not fall into the trap and implode from within.

With respect to the political issues as a part of our security concerns it is evident that until and unless Kashmir is resolved through a proactive US role Pakistani forces would continue to find it difficult to focus on the war on terror. It is unfortunate that in spite of proclamations to the contrary the decision of the Obama administration to drop India from Holbrooke's title after India's reservations is unfortunate. However Pakistan must be emboldened as Holbrooke did visit India during his first trip to Pakistan and Afghanistan. His visit was little, nevertheless significant appreciation of ground realities.

 

[Neo]

Obama administration seeks more aid for Pakistan​

Anwar Iqbal
Saturday, 28 Feb, 2009

Two top US defence officials – Secretary of Defence Robert Gates and Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen – held extensive talks with Army Chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani in Washington.—AP​

WASHINGTON: The Obama administration’s budget for 2010 includes an unspecified amount of military and civilian aid for Pakistan.

Although Pakistan has asked for drone aircraft, helicopters and other equipment, the US administration has not yet said what equipment it was willing to provide.

Two top US defence officials – Secretary of Defence Robert Gates and Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen – held extensive talks with Army Chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani in Washington earlier this week.

Mr Gates also met a Pakistani delegation, which included the ISI chief and was headed by the foreign minister.

‘Well, I think one of the themes that, certainly, in my meetings with Pakistanis have been, how can we work more closely together? How can we help them be effective? How can we help ourselves by helping them?’ said Secretary Gates explaining what Pakistan expected from the United States.

‘Clearly, more intelligence is an important aspect of that. In terms of the drones specifically, that hasn't come up in my talks, but figuring out ways to help them have better intelligence to guide their operations, I think, is a positive thing and we ought to do as much as we can,’ he added.

Admiral Mullen also stressed the need to help Pakistan, saying: ‘It's very important that we help resource them and develop this comprehensive strategy with Pakistan over a number of years. And I'm delighted to see that kind of support in the ‘10 budget.’

Explaining what he believes Pakistan needs to fight terrorists, Admiral Mullen said: ‘The kind of capabilities —not just drones but other military capabilities support more precision, faster reaction, better operations, which is one of the things we focus on to try to assist the Pakistani military for a long time —certainly, newer —new capabilities, as we learn lessons.’

Pakistan, he said, has asked for equipment that would allow enhancing its defence capabilities and ‘I think we need to be mindful of that in trying to help them get better.’

Asked what kind of capabilities he was looking at, Admiral Mullen said: ‘In this case, it's the full spectrum of intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, but it's what we've learned and used and how can we best, in the future, assist them in their operations with those kinds of capabilities.’

The fiscal year 2010 budget, sought by the Obama Administration, refocuses US resources to increase economic and military assistance for both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

According to the State Department, the budgetary request made to Congress in the new fiscal year, beginning October 1, 2009, ‘increases non-military aid to Afghanistan and Pakistan to revitalise economic development and confront the resurgence of the Taliban.’

The budget increases non-military assistance to both countries, providing additional funding for governance, reconstruction, counter-narcotics, and other development activities that will help counter extremists.

The budget expands the number of civilian personnel in Afghanistan and Pakistan in an effort to stabilise these countries, build government capacity, and successfully manage expanded assistance programs.

The administration’s request provides $533.7 billion for the Department of Defence base budget in 2010, a four-per cent increase over 2009, which includes appropriating resources on achieving the US objectives in Afghanistan.

Pakistan has been recognised as a keystone for regional stability. ‘In addition, we must leverage allied support to help struggling states such as Pakistan, which are the keystone for regional stability,’ a Defence Department budget request overview said.

 

[qsaark]

I don’t care what Americans say, but being a Pakistani, I believe, I repeat again, I believe, our complete independence from US is in our best interest. There is no point in getting happy or optimized about US's 'positivism'. In fact I only see it an attempt of US to re-gain its every day losing grip over Pakistan. If we hold a free and fare referendum today, I can swear upon that more than 95% Pakistanis would vote against the US. Sweets are generally good, but for a diabetic patient, they aren’t anything less than poison. American friendship is like that, for Pakistan it is poison.

 

[lowe1941]

I don’t care what Americans say, but being a Pakistani, I believe, I repeat again, I believe, our complete independence from US is in our best interest. There is no point in getting happy or optimized about US's 'positivism'. In fact I only see it an attempt of US to re-gain its every day losing grip over Pakistan. If we hold a free and fare referendum today, I can swear upon that more than 95% Pakistanis would vote against the US. Sweets are generally good, but for a diabetic patient, they aren’t anything less than poison. American friendship is like that, for Pakistan it is poison.

If that independence is seen as supporting Radical Islam and that is almost certain that it will,, all aid will cease,,,the USA will become a strong supporter of India,to counter Pakistan,,lot of Pakistanis in the USA wont be welcome because Pakistan will be seen as supporting terrorism,,,trade will dry up or stop all togather...the way a lot of american see this conflict This Clash between Muslims and the Civilized world we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations.. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras, .....a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentalityh that belongs to the 21st Century. The rest of the world is busy with the conquest of space, genetic engineering and the wonders of the computer, while Muslim countries countries are fascist, autocratic or theocratic, where women are subjugated and minorities persecuted. Islamic countries are sick with poverty and have been for centuries.

Pakistan has to decide if they want to live in the modern world or in the past...

 

[qsaark]

Pakistan has to decide if they want to live in the modern world or in the past...

One can still live in a modern world without being a puppet of US.

 

[lowe1941]

One can still live in a modern world without being a puppet of US.

The USA is not looking for puppets,, but allies against terrorist supported by Radical Islamist...right now Pakistan is turning into a breeding ground for Radical Islamist as the terrorist attack by Pakistanis on India proves...if India or the USA has go to thru Paksitan to get to the terroist, then thats just the way it will be....