What's new

U.S. cooling on Pakistan, warming to Uzbekistan

mehboobkz

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
2,462
Reaction score
-6
Country
India
Location
Singapore
The United States has begun divorce proceedings with Pakistan, and not a moment too soon.

After Adm. Mike Mullen shot his broadside at Pakistan's intelligence service last month, accusing it of helping the Haqqani militant group attack the U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan, Pakistani politicians responded with angry denunciations - followed by smug, sanctimonious assertions that Washington has no choice but to continue putting up with Pakistan, no matter what it does.

"You cannot afford to alienate Pakistan," Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar averred. And Prime Minister Yusaf Raza Gilani confidently asserted: "You can't live with us - or without us."

Think again. A few days later, the Obama administration opened negotiations to improve relations with Uzbekistan, Afghanistan's authoritarian neighbor to the north. The purpose: to step up shipments of military supplies for American troops in Afghanistan using the "northern distribution route" rather than the route from Pakistan. Recently, Pakistani gunmen attacked one of those supply convoys, burning two trucks and killing a driver - the latest of numerous similar attacks.
FOREIGN MATTERS / U.S. cooling on Pakistan, warming to Uzbekistan

Late last month, the White House said, President Obama called Uzbekistan's president, Islam Karimov, to congratulate him on 20 years of independence from Russia - a month after the actual anniversary. That indicated the beginning of a serious charm offensive. A few days earlier, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved a motion to lift restrictions prohibiting the United States from offering military assistance.

That set off Human Rights Watch and 20 other similar groups, bleating about Uzbekistan's poor human-rights record, including its habit of jailing human-rights officers and putting children to work.

Well, wait just a minute! Consider the alternative. Pakistan kills human-rights workers - and its own children. It uses gang rape as a government-sanctioned punishment. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan records several hundred incidents a year in which women and children are hanged, set ablaze, electrocuted, poisoned, stabbed, axed to death, strangled or buried alive as punishment for an indiscretion committed by someone else in the family.
 
The US would have to start warming up to the IMU, if it wants a secure route through the Central Asian countries into Afghanistan.
 
US will be at her fiery best getting the trasit from ujbekistan. we all know how yanks behave after isolating the rival.
 
I think OBAMA should be blamed for this mess, had he not announced the withdrawal plans, things would have been different.
 
until they have withdrawed from this region, they need us, simple as that, and we need them to a certain extent.
 
Think about this, why would they want to stop this route?

The supplies are generally coming smoothly.

So they must feel uncomfortable with this dependence? Is it because they want to step up military action and not worry about the supply route issue???
 
Russia needs to Pinch Uzbakistan , because , letting US open a military base is ludicrous

Only bad things can happen with this union

borat.jpg
 
Russia needs to Pinch Uzbakistan , because , letting US open a military base is ludicrous

Only bad things can happen with this union

borat.jpg

until they have withdrawed from this region, they need us, simple as that, and we need them to a certain extent.

You lot need to see this again carefully.

News for you, mate:
[URL="http://www.afghanshipping-logistics.com/home/2-company-news/16-nato-opens-northern-supply-route-to-afghanistan"NATO opens northern supply route[/URL]


The negotiations ARE with Russia involved. Do you seriously think that CAR nations can negotiate without Russian nod?

US can offer a lot to Russia in terms of political gains to get them to say 'yes' (European BMD shield participation is the catch along with WTO membership). But you have very little to offer them to say yes to you. Once the route develops, your last option is out.
 
Think about this, why would they want to stop this route?

Let's see:

-Millions of $$ worth weapons, fuel, medicals getting torched or blown to bits everytime.
-Pakistan playing the "oh really? we didn't honestly know about it" character all the time knowing everything on both sides.
-No guarantees for supplies to reach directly, escalating the transit costs to the same level as basic costs in CAR.
-Political threats all the time with you holding the route hostage; NATO doesn't like being submissive to mistaken cases.


The supplies are generally coming smoothly.

Read the first point above. Some smooth..:coffee:

So they must feel uncomfortable with this dependence? Is it because they want to step up military action and not worry about the supply route issue???

They want to ensure that their enemies never rise again. You're not the enemy in their list but are interested in becoming one repeatedly through blackmails, double-agent roles, bandwagoning China and claiming undue credit for conducting military operations against your own internal troubles (nothing to do with WOT being fought).

What else is left for comfort?
 
You lot need to see this again carefully.

News for you, mate:
[URL="http://www.afghanshipping-logistics.com/home/2-company-news/16-nato-opens-northern-supply-route-to-afghanistan"NATO opens northern supply route[/URL]


The negotiations ARE with Russia involved. Do you seriously think that CAR nations can negotiate without Russian nod?

US can offer a lot to Russia in terms of political gains to get them to say 'yes' (European BMD shield participation is the catch along with WTO membership). But you have very little to offer them to say yes to you. Once the route develops, your last option is out.

See my post again. I did not specifically say supply route. What I meant was that both need eachother until at least the pullout, both need each other's cooperation. In EVERY field.
 
See my post again. I did not specifically say supply route. What I meant was that both need eachother until at least the pullout, both need each other's cooperation. In EVERY field.

But I am talking about supply route. There's nothing else on the platter that you can offer. The war that you're fighting against TTP is your own internal conflict. TTP hasn't targeted USA or NATO till date and its only Afghanistan's Taliban that are doing so. Which means TTP is more or less your internal problem whether US stays there or not. They might originate from real Talibs but their objective is you lot. NATO usually isn't that considerate to bleed for others; especially not when you lot have cost them billions through duplicity of roles.

If the routes change (the one and only card in your basket), everything changes. No more convoys being blown to bits, no more chewing down of proposed pressure on you, no excuses on your army's part to be taken in etc. Which means Afghanistan will become the temporary base to launch attacks against Taliban hiding inside your borders. Drone strikes will likely continue without any route blackmailing.

That's what I meant.
 
Back
Top Bottom