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

[Jinnah]

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?

Y no indian or american answer that?

 

[ares]

Y no indian or american answer that?

As a matter of fact these day nobody responds to BATMAN (if you have red his posts, you would know why).

US is trying some less labor intensive and more humane(as opposed to mining) techniques like 'eyes in sky' Surveillance blimps.

other than that can you give a reason why Pakistan does not mine or fence Pakistan's side of the border?

 

[mikkix]

I hope it may not for the audience.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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.

There would be nothing to 'defend' if India and Pakistan agreed to jointly move troops away from the border - so long as India maintains a massive military presence on the Indo-Pakistan border and LoC, you cannot expect Pakistan to leave that area undefended, nor to merely take your 'word' for it.

India officially after all still claims the territory of J&K administered by Pakistan.

 

[CaptainPrice]

It's good that Pakistan didn't collapse there.If they've asked us.Mr.Erdogan would surely accept it.

 

[JanjaWeed]

US is living in fools paradise if it thinks that pakistan will accept any admin in afghanistan apart from the one which they can control & dictate. Pakistan will never go against afghan taleban.. afterall it's their ticket to control india from their western border. What US doesn't realise is the fact that any steps taken by pak army anywhere in any conflict will be taken with india in their mind. In this case of afghanistan.. they don't want to be sandwiched from both sides. They will keep this conflict going till their strategic purpose is served. Here US is only running with hair & hunting with the hound!!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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.

Actually, the 'ghost of the Kashmiri freedom movement' stands more of a chance of going the direction of the 'ghost of the Afghan Jihad' way if Pakistan acts against those groups forcibly without any sort of compromise from Indian on resolving Kashmir.

Without progress on Kashmir, any movement against the Kashmiri freedom movement will be considered a sell out of the kashmiri people and their cause for independence from Indian occupation, and provoke a severe backlash domestically in Pakistan.

Yet the organisation itself continues to work unabated.

I disagree - LeT barely exists now. The JuD, its former civilian arm, continues to function under various names in running charitable works and NGO's helping people.

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.

We weren't getting anywhere before the insurgency in Kashmir started in 1989 either - so why should Pakistan invite a backlash domestically by acting against the Kashmiri groups, without any movement from India on resolving the dispute, when India has historically not budged any way?

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.

If you believe the Indian government and military, then the strike corps has not prevented Pakistan from supporting the Kashmiri freedom movement, kargil, Mumbai attacks etc. so it is obviously a failed policy.

The insurgency in Kashmir died down in the last decade precisely because Pakistan cooperated with India on preventing cross-LoC infiltration under Musharraf, and that policy has continued under Kiyani, with infiltration levels and insurgent activity at record lows. All that happened without Pakistan forcibly acting against the Kashmir groups in Pakistan, and continues to be a demonstration of Pakistani restraint and willingness to give dialog a chance. India has yet to reciprocate after the 'back-channel dialog' collapsed in 2007 with Musharraf's political troubles.

 

[muse]

Short term US interests Vs Long term Pakistani interests -- Can these be reconciled?

Such a reconciliation would require a structural and cultural change in the US, to allow policy to follow -- Is there any chance of this happening? Zero chance, if fact, things are going to go further south as the US pursues it's Israel first policy, which exerts strong influence on US policy in South and Central Asia, given it's relationship with India and the lack of relationship with Pakistan. Certainly this view will be seen as highly controversial among some of our readership, however, the above is is a more factual, than less, description and evaluation of why proponents of US short term interests encounter the disconnect when seen in the context of long term Pakistani interests.

An even more poignant view, is to ask whether the US is relevant to long term Pakistani interests - it's certainly dangerous to antagonize the US, however, we cannot ignore the question of US relevance to long term Pakistani interests, in any review by Pakistani policy makers, of the potential role of the US with regard to Pakistan and Muslim majority states in it's region, The US is generally regarded as a net negative player - it may not be something US readers will want to be aware of and it's a reality difficult to ignore.

But what about the relevance of Pakistan to the US? Is Pakistan relevant to long term US interests, as we understand them presently? Mystery to Pakistanis? Certainly not, the US views Muslim majority states and Pakistan in particular, in the context of threats the US chooses to perceive and the fears she harbors, and as such cannot see any future in which the US is connected to Pakistan and other Muslim majority states by anything other than suspicion, hostility and fear.

 

[Fieldmarshal]

We need to realize and fact that like the ussr in the late 80s the us has conceded 70% of the afghan territory to the taliban.
Now when taliban have that much space and room to operate why would u even consider of operation from Pakistan. No ones that stupid.
The prob is simple americans (those who still can think) can see defeat stareing them in their face in afghanistan. n just like in Vietnam they are look for a scape goat to put the blame on and as things stand today with a corrupt and incompetent govt. in place who owe their very existence to the us, the us sees a very very convenient fall guy in the shape of Pakistan.
And thats the crux of the whole issue.
The only hindrance in the plan is PA and how they have played their cards in the shape of isi and its support of the resistance in afganistan, which in more ways than one has baffled the americans and put their panties in a knot.
This frustration of the americans is bad news for Pak as the us in their desperation could do any thing as their plan for pak is not coming to fruitation and some how Pak lingers on.
So in my humble opinion as the last resort one which it has been preparing for a decade now is to nudge india to attack Pakistan. india too has been preparing for this for more than a decade now which can clearly be seen by its defence spending and buying as it has basically changed the face of indian military.

I too would be worried about india and its intentions if i was in Kiyanis shoes

 

[muse]

Please do be careful when talking about US defeat - after all, is that really in Pakistan's interests or anyone else's? Ought the long suffering Afghan nation, not catch a break and plant itself on the route to being a republic of all it's citizens, shouldn't Afghans get the opportunity to be citizens and not just ethnicities and barbarous tribes??

The real issue is the quality(ies), merits, of a US victory and the degree to which long term US policy is accord with Pakistani policy and vice versa.

Even if the US is judged to be irrelevant, it's failure in Afghanistan is sobering, distressing.

 

[ares]

Actually, the 'ghost of the Kashmiri freedom movement' stands more of a chance of going the direction of the 'ghost of the Afghan Jihad' way if Pakistan acts against those groups forcibly without any sort of compromise from Indian on resolving Kashmir.

One way or the other these ghosts will be back to haunt you(in victory or defeat) if you don't act against them(as happened with Afghan jihadis)

Without progress on Kashmir, any movement against the Kashmiri freedom movement will be considered a sell out of the kashmiri people and their cause for independence from Indian occupation, and provoke a severe backlash domestically in Pakistan.

It has to be a give and take thing..if you wan't India to remove its troops from the border, you will have rein in these groups(and risk the backlash) or you could continue on present course, which is slowly but steadily destroying your country.

I disagree - LeT barely exists now. The JuD, its former civilian arm, continues to function under various names in running charitable works and NGO's helping people.

JuD is just another alias for LeT and recently they have again changed their name to Tehrik-e-Tahafuz Qibla Awal (TTQA)

They did their NGO part even before Mumbai attacks too..but there is no reason to believe that this "charitable organisation" has given up terrorism.

We weren't getting anywhere before the insurgency in Kashmir started in 1989 either - so why should Pakistan invite a backlash domestically by acting against the Kashmiri groups, without any movement from India on resolving the dispute, when India has historically not budged any way?

Because of the reason, I have explained above..you need to sort out your priorities

If you believe the Indian government and military, then the strike corps has not prevented Pakistan from supporting the Kashmiri freedom movement, kargil, Mumbai attacks etc. so it is obviously a failed policy.

Yes, thats why a new military doctrine is being brought into effect..to discourage Pakistani state from supporting terrorist activities in India..maybe it will fail(if Pakistani state prove out to be too stubborn) and India will have respond militarily but rest assured India will never bow down to terrorism.

The insurgency in Kashmir died down in the last decade precisely because Pakistan cooperated with India on preventing cross-LoC infiltration under Musharraf, and that policy has continued under Kiyani, with infiltration levels and insurgent activity at record lows. All that happened without Pakistan forcibly acting against the Kashmir groups in Pakistan, and continues to be a demonstration of Pakistani restraint and willingness to give dialog a chance. India has yet to reciprocate after the 'back-channel dialog' collapsed in 2007 with Musharraf's political troubles.

If you do not support cross border militancy ..why still keep such organisations active?

You haven't gotten anywhere, with or without these organisations..finish them once for all ..make a mutual withdrawal treaty with India..concentrate on Taliban, eliminate such extremist elements from your society and rebuild Pakistan.
Your obsession with Kashmir has been your undoing in the past and at the present too.

Or is it just because you are under pressure on your western border and as United States is breathing down your necks, you do not want to open another front on your east..but will reactivate them as soon as US leaves?

 

[TARIQ BN ZIYAAD]

hello

We know how to deal with taliban presence of u.s.a and nato complicate this situation

TARIQ

 

[Mercenary]

Then the drone campaign will continue and later morph into percision bombing by US Heavy Altitude bombers.

 

[blain2]

I think priorities should be right and that is fighting terrorism, extremism and insurgencies rather then a imaginary or self made ghost.

Imaginary and self-made? Easy for you to state that when you are not the one faced with 33 Infantry Divisions, 3 Armoured Divisions, 3 Mech. Divisions and the entire Western Air Command of the IAF on your eastern borders postured to launch attacks on Pakistan when some non-state actor does something in India.

Lets start anew, stop meddling in Balochistan, lets talk about Kashmir issue and lets de-escalate with concrete CBMs on the Indo-Pak borders and then you will see that the militancy threat would automatically become priority #1 for us. Barring that, don't expect us to lower our guard against your sizable military presence right on our borders.

 

[ares]

^For any talks to proceed militancy has to be ended first..as these two, can not go hand in hand.