U.S. efforts fail to convince Pakistan's top general to target Taliban

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Believe me, forces in Afghanistan would love it if the terrorists ran back (or were forced back) into Afghanistan, where they could be engaged and destroyed. Since U.S. boots in Pakistan are out of the question, that's the entire problem in a nutshell... how to get at the bad guys. Thus, the pressure on Pakistan to act.

These are the same that are bombing innocent Pakistanis at Mosques and markets. Beyond the tragic loss of life, try to understand how this is seen... most nations, if faced with such an enemy from within, would be pouring everything it has into snuffing them out, and stabilizing the region.

These enemies of all (TTP, Taliban, al-quaeda) could be caught between a hammer and an anvil along the border if both sides acted in a coordinated manner. That is what is hoped for.

That is not the 'entire problem in a nutshell'. Primarily, cross-border sanctuaries in North Waziristan are an issue along the Eastern Afghan border and the Afghan provinces in proximity to NW, not all of Afghanistan.

It is absurd to argue that NW is able to provide sanctuary to insurgents across Afghanistan, given that the Taliban are not capable of 'teleportation'. Those insurgents hide, live and carry out attacks from among the local Afghan communities, not out of NW.

 

[CaptainJackSparrow]

Almost two-thirds of India's infantry and armored units are deployed on the Pakistani front, as are most of its Air-force assets.

In 2001-02 Pakistan had to deal with the massive (though failed) Indian military mobilization of Operation Parakaram.

Yet India didn't attack Pakistan.

In 2008 India once again considered a military mobilization and potentially punitive strikes inside Pakistan.

Yet India didn't attack Pakistan.

I fail to see how any of this constitutes 'an imaginary or self made ghost'.

Doesn't it? Don't you trust your nukes?

We didn't attack you after Kargil

We didn't attack you after Parliament attack.

We didn't attack you after Mumbai.

What else do you want? A written assurance?

Your nukes have served you well so far, haven't they?

If India is willing to move forces away from the Pakistani border, Pakistan will be able to redeploy its forces to the Afghan front - its simple as that.

BTW, looking at it from another paradigm, you are behaving like you are doing the world a favour by attacking the taliban and their ilk.

You aren't! They are killing your people as well. It's your war too.

 

[ares]

Almost two-thirds of India's infantry and armored units are deployed on the Pakistani front, as are most of its Air-force assets.

In 2001-02 Pakistan had to deal with the massive (though failed) Indian military mobilization of Operation Parakaram. In 2008 India once again considered a military mobilization and potentially punitive strikes inside Pakistan.

I fail to see how any of this constitutes 'an imaginary or self made ghost'.

If India is willing to move forces away from the Pakistani border, Pakistan will be able to redeploy its forces to the Afghan front - its simple as that.

But you forget ..by moving against Taliban .. Pakistan is doing itself, and not India a favor...however if Pakistan moves against anti-India groups(so that no more terrorist attacks can be preprated against India from its territory) as per a deal India can move some of its troops away from the border.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Yet India didn't attack Pakistan.

Yet India didn't attack Pakistan.

Because Pakistani military deployments on the Indian border and LoC prevent any chance of Indian military aggression with any guarantee of success.

Doesn't it? Don't you trust your nukes?

Nuclear weapons are a last resort in the face of an existential threat, as defined by the Pakistani leadership. They are not a guarantee against limited military aggression, an idea that Indian military officials have themselves argued in favor of.

We didn't attack you after Kargil

You couldn't without expanding a limited conflict in disputed territory to a full scale war - again, no guarantee of success.

We didn't attack you after Parliament attack.

You mobilized your military to do just that, but were prevented by the fact that the Pakistani military deployed against the Indian front prevented any 'easy Indian military victory'.

We didn't attack you after Mumbai.

Same as the above.

What else do you want? A written assurance?

A deployment of Indian forces away from the Pakistan border and LoC, barring the border security forces necessary for guarding against infilitration, smuggling etc.

Your nukes have served you well so far, haven't they?

The military deployed on the Indian front has served us well.

BTW, looking at it from another paradigm, you are behaving like you are doing the world a favour by attacking the taliban and their ilk.

You aren't! They are killing your people as well. It's your war too.

It is, which is why we have over 150,000 troops deployed in FATA and engaged in active combat. However, given Pakistan's limited resources and the threat from India, any expansion of the conflict into other areas has to be a Pakistani decision that takes into account our constraints and ability to handle the fall out from an expansion.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

But you forget ..by moving against Taliban .. Pakistan is doing itself, and not India a favor...however if Pakistan moves against anti-India groups(so that no more terrorist attacks can be preprated against India from its territory) as per a deal India can move some of its troops away from the border.

Pakistan has arrested LeT leaders involved in the Mumbai attacks, but so long as India refuses to compromise on Kashmir, I fail to see why we should forcibly act against groups fighting for Kashmiri Freedom from Indian occupation.

And in any case, India does not need two thirds of its infantry and armored formations to prevent infiltration alone - those military assets are there for a war against Pakistan, not to prevent infiltration.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

"Nine years into the Afghanistan war, we're fighting various strands of militancy, and we still have an army chief who considers India the major threat," said Cyril Almeida, an editor and columnist at the English-language newspaper Dawn. "That's mind-boggling."

Cyril Almeida is dissapointing as yet another Army bashing liberal hack. After the 'fake wikileaks' controversy, he had no qualms about throwing his 'journalistic integrity and objectivity' out the window and accusing the ISI of perpetrating it, without a shred of evidence to back it up, in an interview with a Western newspaper.

The need to suck up to the Western media and bash the Pakistani military to somehow validate ones 'liberal and independent credentials' has gone to new lows.

 

[ares]

Pakistan has arrested LeT leaders involved in the Mumbai attacks, but so long as India refuses to compromise on Kashmir, I fail to see why we should forcibly act against groups fighting for Kashmiri Freedom from Indian occupation.

Because your priority of placing Kashmir before Pakistan ..is destroying Pakistan itself.

If you move against anti-India groups..it will ensure India will move its army away from the border..thereby freeing your troops to move against Taliban..who are presently bombing your cities.

 

[BATMAN]

Militants of SAWAT were not local.
It has been confirmed by the locals and army both but if some one wish to mislead the people than such media shall be replied by our foreign ministry.

Anyhow, US forces need to do more to monitor the influx of Indian trained TTP from crossing into Pakistan, while the situation is that border is completely empty and they do not permit the limited resourced Pakistan army to do the needful.

Big question, why US declined barbing the border.
Shouldn't US spend few million dollars once in this war and fence the selected border areas, even better if mine them or use cheap drones for patrolling.

I think many private Pakistani companies had been supplying such drones to US to control cross border movement on its mexico border than why not at the border adjoining FATA?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Because your priority of placing Kashmir before Pakistan ..is destroying Pakistan itself.

No it is not - corruption, mismangament and poor governance is destroying Pakistan, as well as the ghosts of the Afghan Jihad against the Soviets, which had nothing to do with Kashmir directly.

If you move against anti-India groups..it will ensure India will moves its army away from border..thereby freeing your troops to move against Taliban..who are presently bombing your cities.

Pakistan has moved against the LeT leadership and individuals involved in the Mumbai attacks.

Any broader action against Kashmiri insurgents/freedom fighters can only be done as part of an agreement towards settlement of the Kashmir dispute.

And as I pointed out, Indian does not need the massive miltary presence it currently has to prevent cross-border or cross-LOC infiltration.

 

[Veeru]

Almost two-thirds of India's infantry and armored units are deployed on the Pakistani front, as are most of its Air-force assets.

In 2001-02 Pakistan had to deal with the massive (though failed) Indian military mobilization of Operation Parakaram. In 2008 India once again considered a military mobilization and potentially punitive strikes inside Pakistan.

I fail to see how any of this constitutes 'an imaginary or self made ghost'.

If India is willing to move forces away from the Pakistani border, Pakistan will be able to redeploy its forces to the Afghan front - its simple as that.

Its for defense not to attack pakistan is it hard to understand? And we are upgrading our soviet era toys and that too for deterrence not attack.

 

[ares]

No it is not - corruption, mismangament and poor governance is destroying Pakistan, as well as the ghosts of the Afghan Jihad against the Soviets, which had nothing to do with Kashmir directly.

Corruption.. misgovernance are present India too and perhaps more than Pakistan, yet..

Yes it is ghost of Afghan Jihad you are facing but as explained above how little change in tactics will help you get rid of the ghost ..otherwise ghost of kashmir Jihad is also in the making.

Pakistan has moved against the LeT leadership and individuals involved in the Mumbai attacks.

Yet the organisation itself continues to work unabated.

Any broader action against Kashmiri insurgents/freedom fighters can only be done as part of an agreement towards settlement of the Kashmir dispute.

Well its your choice, don't act now(after all its you who are suffering your past ghosts)..but we do not bow to terrorism and continued militancy against India will not get you anywhere.

And as I pointed out, Indian does not need the massive miltary presence it currently has to prevent cross-border or cross-LOC infiltration.

Yes we do not need our strike corps to fight against militancy ..but we need them to ensure a credible deterrence against Pakistani state's participation in anti-India terrorism.

 

[Rafi]

It is the people of Pakistan who will never support moving against the Kashmiri Mujahideen, regarding the war in the tribal areas, I think the Army will only move when the domestic threat is eliminated, that will remain our priority.

The Afghan taliban threat is secondary, to Pakistani domestic security

 

[ares]

It is the people of Pakistan who will never support moving against the Kashmiri Mujahideen, regarding the war in the tribal areas, I think the Army will only move when the domestic threat is eliminated, that will remain our priority.

The Afghan taliban threat is secondary, to Pakistani domestic security

That is, what is called.. placing Kashmir before Pakistan.

 

[mjnaushad]

That is, what is called.. placing Kashmir before Pakistan.

Kashmir is Pakistan.......

 

[Jinnah]

The second best line in the article is:

For his part, Kayani complains that he is "always asking Petraeus what is the strategic objective" in Afghanistan, according to a friend, retired air marshal Shahzad Chaudhry.