The Pakistan Ultimatum

[Xeric]

Matters came to a head in January with Pakistan's arrest of CIA contractor Raymond Davis, after he had shot and killed two armed pursuers. Mr. Davis, who carried an official passport, ought to have been released immediately to U.S. custody under the terms of the Vienna Convention. Instead he was held for 47 days, questioned for 14, and released only after the U.S. government agreed to pay a multimillion-dollar indemnity to the families of the pursuers.

Review & Outlook: The Pakistan Ultimatum - WSJ.com

This says it all about the neutrality and unbiasedness of the article.

 

[ice_man]

The Pakistani army was also happy to cooperate with the U.S. when the targets of the strikes were members of the Pakistani Taliban who had their sights set on Islamabad. But the army has been less cooperative when the targets were the Afghan Taliban based in Pakistan or the ISI's terrorist partners.

the writer lost me here!!! i am sorry but who said this?? or is it the writers opinon? and if it is then well he knows nothing!!!

i thought war on terror started with al qaeda!! now it is a war againast the taliban? and if it is then what about al qaeda & osama bin laden?


as for indians well there TERRORISM is well known in kashmir,gujrat,orissa & north eastern india!

 

[Majnun]

This writer's another neocon crackpot.

 

[muse]

Below is a quote form a piece was published in the News International -- And I wanted to focus on the element of "duality" or "ambiguity" in Pakistani policy and it's consequences - - I think it can give us a useful perspective because ultimately it is linked to a much larger coming transition, I encourage you to see these opinions in the light the interconnections between politics in Pakistan, Pakistan's demise and the hope for it's comeback as a styringer, more vibrant, more powerful political economy :

it’s time for Pakistan’s military leaders to make up their minds and deal with its consequences. They must be upfront with America – because it’s a greatly beneficial “friend” to have and a deadly “enemy” to make – and honest with Pakistanis – because they’re not stupid and can eventually see through duplicity, as they did in the Raymond Davis case.

The military cannot forever hunt with America and run with an anti-American Pakistani public they have helped to create. They cannot instruct the DG-ISPR in Islamabad to convey the impression of tough talking in Langley while asking the GOC 7 Division in Waziristan to give a realistic brief to the media about the critical benefits of drone strikes amidst all the “myths and rumours” of their negativity. This double-dealing confuses the public, annoys a strategic partner, and discredits the military all round when it is exposed.

More significantly, it makes it difficult for Pakistanis to swallow the hard realities and the harder decisions necessary to change them for the sake of the state’s survival and the nation’s growth.

The duality or contradiction in the military’s private and public position vis a vis its relationship with civilians in Pakistan and its relationship with America is a direct consequence of two inter-related factors: First, the military’s threat perception of India’s rising military capability, and second, its fear of losing control over India-centred national security policy to the civilians who are keen to start the process of building permanent peace in the region, thereby diluting the military’s pre-eminent role in Pakistan’s polity.

The military’s scheme of things requires a permanent state of relative hostility towards, and distrust of, India. That is why its national security doctrine is fashioned on the premise that it is India’s military capacity to harm Pakistan rather than its intentions to build a permanent peace that matter.

Of course, this is a perfect and unending rationalisation of its economic and political hold over Pakistan since India’s conventional weaponry is forecast to grow by leaps and bounds on the basis of a robust economy and nationalist unity. But Pakistan’s limping economy is groaning under the burden of the arms race engendered by this philosophy and its civilian polity is fracturing in the grab for diminishing resources. That is why its civilians are increasingly plucking up the courage to stare the army in the face for their political, provincial and economic rights.

The military’s policy of renting itself out to America for its own sake and also complaining about it at the same time for the sake of the Pakistani public is clearly bankrupt. Isn’t it time, therefore, to consider a different paradigm, one in which conflict resolution and peace with India deliver an economic dividend that can be reaped by all in an environment free from destabilising extremism and war in the neighbourhood? In pursuit of an untenable philosophy, what use are dubious non-state “assets” that can become extreme liabilities in an impending national meltdown?

Under the circumstances, General Kayani could do worse than go on the national hookup and defend the truth of the briefing given by his subordinate Maj Gen Ghuyur Mehmud. He will be surprised how quickly a majority of Pakhtuns in particular and Pakistanis in general will back him to the hilt and help change the national paradigm. This is more our war than it is America’s because we live and die here and not far away across two great oceans.

 

[F-16_Falcon]

The Wall Street Journal

The Pakistan Ultimatum
Much as after 9/11, Islamabad has to choose whose side it is on

So Pakistan now demands that the United States withdraw hundreds of American intelligence operatives and special-ops trainers from its soil and stop the CIA drone strikes on al Qaeda, Taliban and affiliated terrorists. Maybe the Obama Administration can inform its friends in Islamabad that, when it comes to this particular fight, the U.S. will continue to pursue its enemies wherever they may be, with or without Pakistan's cooperation.

Or it can oppose the U.S. and reap the consequences, including the loss of military aid, special-ops and drone incursions into their frontier areas, and in particular a more robust U.S. military alliance with India.



Review & Outlook: The Pakistan Ultimatum - WSJ.com

WSJ editorial saying this? I thought it is a respected newspaper. What more they want from Pakistan? What more we can do?

In the wake of 9/11, the Bush Administration famously sent Secretary of State Colin Powell to Islamabad to explain that the U.S. was going to act forcefully to protect itself, and that Pakistan had to choose whose side it was on. It's time to present Pakistan with the same choice again

What you will do if we are not on your side? Bomb to stone age as Colin Powell threatened Mush?

 

[muse]

What more they want from Pakistan? What more we can do?

Well, see Najam Sethi's piece -- but really I would also point something out to our readers - I just want you to note that at least in Pakistan there is wide and public discussion and taking responsibility is part and parcel of that - but look at the issue in the US?? What public debate?

US needs to review her policy and needs to be rid of the policy makers who have managed the policy and brought it to this dead end --

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I just want you to note that at least in Pakistan there is wide and public discussion and taking responsibility is part and parcel of that - but look at the issue in the US?? What public debate?

US needs to review her policy and needs to be rid of the policy makers who have managed the policy and brought it to this dead end --

Exactly - I do think that the self-censorship that the US media engaged in on the Raymond Davis issue, and the lack of objective coverage or debate (such as that in Pakistan that you referred to) indicates how deeply the US State/establishment controls/influences the US media when it comes to foreign policy issues.

 

[Xeric]

Below is a quote form a piece was published in the News International -- And I wanted to focus on the element of "duality" or "ambiguity" in Pakistani policy and it's consequences - - I think it can give us a useful perspective because ultimately it is linked to a much larger coming transition, I encourage you to see these opinions in the light the interconnections between politics in Pakistan, Pakistan's demise and the hope for it's comeback as a styringer, more vibrant, more powerful political economy :

It would have been better if the following (original) paragraph had preceded your quotes:

"......A recent editorial in The Wall Street Journal, a pro-US establishment paper, sums up the American position bluntly. It is titled: The Pakistan Ultimatum: choose whose side it is on. “Maybe the Obama Administration can inform its friends in Islamabad that, when it comes to this particular fight, the U.S. will continue to pursue its enemies wherever they may be, with or without Pakistan’s cooperation... Pakistan can choose to cooperate in that fight and reap the benefits of an American alliance. Or it can oppose the U.S. and reap the consequences, including the loss of military aid, special-ops and drone incursions into their frontier areas, and in particular a more robust U.S. military alliance with India... After 9/11 Pakistan had to choose whose side it was on. It’s time to present Pakistan with the same choice again.

So it’s time for Pakistan’s military leaders to make up their minds and deal with its consequences. They must be upfront with America – because it’s a greatly beneficial “friend” to have and a deadly “enemy” to make – and honest with Pakistanis – because they’re not stupid and can eventually see through duplicity, as they did in the Raymond Davis case. ...."

http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=42073&Cat=9&dt=4/17/2011


----

Nothing, but it just helps one have a better understanding of the backdrop in which the 'suggestions' and "demands" were made by NS.

 

[RazorMC]

If you check the Wall Street Journal background, you'll see it is part of the same company that also owns Fox Broadcasting and Fox News. Both have pro-Republican tendencies.
We should also keep in mind that Fox has been very pro-Republican and targets Democrats frequesntly. IMO the situation in Afghanistan is being highlighted to be displayed as Obama's failure, even though it aws Bush who made this mess.

 

[muse]

And if you dig a little deeper you will note that the Saudi Prince Talal is the second largest investor of newscorp - Al Brince don't like it when you think for yourself that's why he got fair and balanced for you

 

[khurasaan1]

What you will do if we are not on your side? Bomb to stone age as Colin Powell threatened Mush?

Like the way we r handling US with loyalty and being hypocritic to our pplz...we realli deserve stoneage ...

 

[T-Faz]

And if you dig a little deeper you will note that the Saudi Prince Talal is the second largest investor of newscorp - Al Brince don't like it when you think for yourself that's why he got fair and balanced for you

Aren't they the snakes in all this, the coward bandits known as the royal family of Saudi Arabia.

In regards to the topic, I have had enough of these threats emanating from the that hypocritical and violent superpower that we call our 'ally'.

Lets be honest here for a second, this alliance has caused us more harm than good and no matter how much help they extend to us, all they end up inducing is further damage to Pakistan.

This army of ours has truly been the most timid in all this, firstly they did the bidding for US and now their master spy is running around the world trying to garner support against the drone strike.

Pakistan has a few friends left, most of whom will slowly turn the blind eye to what happens in this country. The so called Islamic world will be the tool that destroys Pakistan because those whore puppets will obey their pimp in whatever circumstances that occur.

This is the time to firstly eradicate the militants within and change the ideology being forced onto this nation. Its is highly likely that the US will evade Pakistan once again and this time Pakistani's will have to formulate a better strategy based on past betrayals.

All this militant sponsoring, strategic depth, we are Islamic nonsense has failed terribly and its time out to either put out or back off.

If and I mean if a situation does arise where Pakistan is attacked, I hope it goes with a bang taking many with us.

There is a place close by that belongs to our 'brothers', we can cause a lot of damage if we set fire to their black gold.

Our reply to their ultimatum, if we go down, we are taking you down with us.

 

[foxbat]

^ First, it's not in my words, it's the reality. If I say that 2 + 2 = 4, it's not in my words, it's how it is. I am merely stating the fact. What you're saying might hold for opinions, not facts. Let's get that clear. It's not the whole world or even most of the world. Say it like it is. India and some parts of the west.

Secondly, the main argument you put across, two things to that.

1. TTP was not created by Pakistan. That is not something that can be debated, TTP was not created by Pakistan and it has very little ties with Afghan Taliban.

2. Your argument can be expanded to other countries as well such as US, UK, India itself.

Buddy, its not just TTP. TTP may or may not have been created by Pak (even if the people believing the former will largely outnumber the later, may be because of the large population of India ), but its the overall perception that Pakistan carries in the West including most of Europe as the hotbed of terrorism.

While you may chose to classify your arguments as facts( i dont believe that Pakistan's claimed innocence in terrorist activities is as clear as 2+2 =4.. more like 2+2 = 22), and others facts are arguments, in reality it doesnt change a thing.. does it..??

 

[foxbat]

BTW drone strikes will only work against US interests as far as WoT is concerned. You might kill 10 or 20 terrorists but you will create a 100 new.

That's the reason why US ain't winning this war right now and never will. Right now the best option for the US is to leave with half-decency right now compared to full blown humiliation 4 or 5 years down the road.

All of Pakistani members who are wishing USA away from Afghanistan are looking at the current situation from a Vietnam or soviet Afgh prism. That in my view is an error. NATO/USA is no longer playing an occupation game. A good measure of how they are operating in afghanistan can seen by looking at the monthly casualties figures for USA and NATO troops and comparing them with the opposition. And this talk of USA kicked out of Afg has been going on for last 2-3 years. I remember the jubilation on this forum after Obama made it to the White house and announced the possible withdrawal. Well, the time for his withdrawal from White house is almost here, and there doesnt seem to be any downslide happeneing in the USA presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If any thing USA has become more and more belligerent as far as its operations in Pakistan are concerned.

The sooner you accept that, the easier it will become

 

[foxbat]

Btw, if the US is unwilling to stop the drone attacks, perhaps Pakistan should start covertly supporting Afghan Taliban and give the US hell in Afghanistan.

Oh! The Pak govt is way ahead of you by almost 10 years or so.. And USA is just finding it out