What's new

U.S. to offer more support to Pakistan

fatman17

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
32,563
Reaction score
98
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
U.S. to offer more support to Pakistan

By Karen DeYoung

Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, January 8, 2011

The Obama administration has decided to offer Pakistan more military, intelligence and economic support, and to intensify U.S. efforts to forge a regional peace, despite ongoing frustration that Pakistani officials are not doing enough to combat terrorist groups in the country's tribal areas, officials said.

The decision to double down on Pakistan represents the administration's attempt to call the bluff of Pakistani officials who have long complained that the United States has failed to understand their security priorities or provide adequate support.


That message will be delivered by Vice President Biden, who plans to travel to Pakistan next week for meetings with its military chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, and top government leaders. Biden will challenge the Pakistanis to articulate their long-term strategy for the region and indicate exactly what assistance is needed for them to move against Taliban sanctuaries in areas bordering Afghanistan.

The strategy, determined in last month's White House Afghanistan war review, amounts to an intensifying of existing efforts to overcome widespread suspicion and anti-American sentiment in Pakistan, and build trust and stability.

President Obama and his top national security aides rejected proposals, made by some military commanders and intelligence officials who have lost patience with Pakistan, to allow U.S. ground forces to conduct targeted raids against insurgent safe havens, officials said. They concluded that the United States can ill afford to threaten or further alienate a precarious, nuclear-armed country whose cooperation is essential to the administration on several fronts.

The conclusions were referred to in a publicly released, five-page summary of the review as unspecified policy "adjustments." Several administration officials said that the classified review identified areas where stronger effort was needed rather than specific new programs.

The review resolved to "look hard" at what more could be done to improve economic stability, particularly on tax policy and Pakistan's relations with international financial institutions. It directed administration and Pentagon officials to "make sure that our sizeable military assistance programs are properly tailored to what the Pakistanis need, and are targeted on units that will generate the most benefit" for U.S. objectives, said one senior administration official who participated in the review and was authorized to discuss it on the condition of anonymity.

Pakistan has complained in the past that promised U.S. aid, currently projected to total more than $3 billion in 2011, has been slow to arrive and that requests for helicopters and other military equipment have remained unfulfilled.

Beginning with Biden's visit, the time may be ripe for a frank exchange of views and priorities between the two sides, another administration official said. The Pakistanis "understand that Afghanistan-Pakistan has become the single most important foreign policy issue to the United States, and their cachet has gone up." But they also realize that they may have reached the point of maximum leverage, this official said, "and things about their region are going to change one way or the other" in the near future, as Congress and the American public grow increasingly disillusioned with the war and a timeline for military withdrawal is set.

"Something is going to give," he said. "There is going to be an end-game scenario and they're trying to guess where we're heading."

On intelligence, the administration plans to address Pakistan's complaints that the Americans have not established enough outposts on the Afghan side of the border to stop insurgent infiltration, while pressing the Pakistanis to allow U.S. and Afghan officials to staff border coordination centers inside Pakistan itself.

The intelligence coordination is part of an effort to build political, trade and security links between Pakistan and Afghanistan as a way of assuaging Pakistan's fears that India, its traditional adversary, is building its own influence in Afghanistan. "We think there's a lot of room for improvement on that front," the senior official said.

The administration also plans "redouble our efforts to look for political approaches" to ending the war, including a recognition that Pakistan "must play an important role," if not a dominant one, in reconciliation talks with the Taliban, he said.

An intelligence estimate prepared for the review concluded that the war in Afghanistan could not be won unless the insurgent sanctuaries were wiped out and that there was no real indication Pakistan planned to undertake the effort.

But the White House concluded that while Taliban safe havens were "a factor," they were "not the only thing that stands between us and success in Afghanistan," the senior official said.

"We understand the general view a lot of people espouse" in calling for direct U.S. ground attacks, he said of the intelligence estimate. But while the administration's goal is still a Pakistani offensive, the review questioned whether "classic clear, hold and build" operations were the only way to deny the insurgents free access to the borderlands, and asked whether "a range of political, military, counterterrorism and intelligence operations" could achieve the same result.

That view represents a significant shift in administration thinking, perhaps making a virtue of necessity given Pakistani refusal thus far to launch the kind of full-scale ground offensive the United States has sought in North Waziristan.

"The challenge is that when you talk about safe havens in Pakistan, you imagine some traditional military clearing operation that then settles the issue," the official said. While the Pakistani military has cleared insurgents from most of the tribal areas, it remains heavily deployed in those areas, where little building has taken place.


The operations, involving 140,000 Pakistani troops, have pushed the Taliban and al-Qaeda into concentrations in North Waziristan, where the United States has launched a withering barrage of missile attacks from remotely piloted drone aircraft, guided in large part by Pakistani intelligence.


Kayani, the Pakistani military chief, has said he will eventually launch an offensive in North Waziristan. But he has told the Americans that he cannot spare additional troops from Pakistan's half-million-man army, most of which is deployed along the Indian border, and that he lacks the proper equipment to conduct operations he fears will drive insurgents deeper inside Pakistan's populated areas.

U.S. military commanders have pushed numerous times over the past 18 months for more latitude to allow Special Operations troops to carry out missions across the Pakistan border, officials said. The CIA has similarly sought to expand the territory inside Pakistan it can patrol with armed drones, prodding Pakistan repeatedly for permission to fly drones over Quetta, a city in Baluchistan where the Taliban's political leaders are thought to be based.

The senior administration official, who called the proposals "ideas, not even operational concepts much less plans," said they were rejected by the White House in the most recent review, as they have been repeatedly in the past, as likely to cause more harm than good. "We've got to increasingly try to look at this through their lens," the official said of Pakistan, "not because we accept it wholesale, but because their actions are going to continue to be driven by their perspective."


"In the long run," he said, "our objectives have to do with the defeat of al-Qaeda and the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. If you're not careful here . . . you may do something in the short run that makes gains against the policy objective in North Waziristan but proves self-defeating in the long term."
 
.
What part of "we don't have sufficient troops to launch a massive assault on North Waziristan" do they don't understand. When we talk about providing necessary equipment, it either falls on deaf ears or the progress is so slow that it hardly matters. Continuing pressure on Pakistan is going to be counter productive because in the end Its our *** on the line and not anyone else.
And by the way US should be more concerned about the security of their own nuclear arsenal rather then worrying about ours. These are the kind of things that worsen the already deteriorating US image in Pakistan.
 
.
What part of "we don't have sufficient troops to launch a massive assault on North Waziristan" do they don't understand. When we talk about providing necessary equipment, it either falls on deaf ears or the progress is so slow that it hardly matters. Continuing pressure on Pakistan is going to be counter productive because in the end Its our *** on the line and not anyone else.
And by the way US should be more concerned about the security of their own nuclear arsenal rather then worrying about ours. These are the kind of things that worsen the already deteriorating US image in Pakistan.

"We've got to increasingly try to look at this through their lens," the official said of Pakistan, "not because we accept it wholesale, but because their actions are going to continue to be driven by their perspective."

i think they are beginning to 'come around'!!! lets see what happens next week - its important to them and that is why they r sending their VP to Pakistan.
 
.
"We've got to increasingly try to look at this through their lens," the official said of Pakistan, "not because we accept it wholesale, but because their actions are going to continue to be driven by their perspective."

i think they are beginning to 'come around'!!! lets see what happens next week - its important to them and that is why they r sending their VP to Pakistan.

Right sir but then again all we have been seeing up till now is tall claims being made and very little being done on ground. Honestly speaking i don't have high hopes even now but then again, i will be glad if proved otherwise. Lets see what happens this time around.
 
.
i think this a right time to ask for Apaches,ah-1z cobras
c-130j & at least 72 f-16 block 52+
reschedule our foreign loans
 
.
i think this a right time to ask for Apaches,ah-1z cobras
c-130j & at least 72 f-16 block 52+
reschedule our foreign loans

Buddy your post is reminding me of a song

"Dreams dreams when we just had started things..
Dreams me and you..
It seems it seems
I cannot shake those memories..
I wonder if you have the same dreams too..".

No USA is not in position for countless reasons to do that. They would Promise us to provide 4 things after 4 years if we do 8 of their dirty jobs. I think enough was yesterday.. today we need a shift in our policies. Look at the fact that they have held our promised money back these days and we are expecting they would give us more and lethal tech..? Lets be rational.
 
.
Some reality...
Pakistan can go after the TTP et al BUT can NOT go after the current in residence Afghan Taliban.

While it may be unpopular to go after the TTP who are Pakistani, it is perceived, in away, acceptable as they are against the nation and its people. OK simple view but I am trying to keep the point to the basics.

So far this has required a reasonable amount of resources, not to mention loss if life and relocation of non combatants, destruction to villages etc.
Till that is restored it is futile to add a second front to the PA efforts, ie NW fight against the Afghan taliban.
 
.
so we will push the militants into southern afghanistan - then what?

nato will push them back to pakistan - we are playing ping pong with the taliban.

this is not a solution.

it is a recipe for perpetual chaos.
 
.
"We've got to increasingly try to look at this through their lens," the official said of Pakistan, "not because we accept it wholesale, but because their actions are going to continue to be driven by their perspective."

i think they are beginning to 'come around'!!! lets see what happens next week - its important to them and that is why they r sending their VP to Pakistan.

I think/hope they realise that little can be done re the Afghan Taliban till the other problems are resolved.
If not you will be not only fighting the TTP and its residue but the Afghan Taliban, who have so far stayed out of internal matters at least on the obvious surface. Add to that the many people and 'families' they have married into. It is not a mice picture.

Once Pakistan has stabalised ex TTP held areas, including relocating people back, infrastructure etc, then you can look at the next problem.
 
.
^its going to be a 'hard sell' no matter which way one looks at this issue.
 
.
U.S. to offer more support to Pakistan

MoneyFalling.jpg
 
.
TROJAN.EXE

You may call your location C:\Windows\System32 but you certainly seem to actually stem from an 8 bit system.

Time to try out for a real upgrade...
 
.
^its going to be a 'hard sell' no matter which way one looks at this issue.

You are not disagreeing with me again..

General Kayani I suspect knows full well the problems of any option. None are gong to be sweet in everyones eyes. Seems he is doing what is required, looking at the real long term issues while US is looking at their current situation as a NOW matter not long term future one involving Pakistan and Afghanistan.
 
.
TROJAN.EXE

You may call your location C:\Windows\System32 but you certainly seem to actually stem from an 8 bit system.

Time to try out for a real upgrade...

i'm on a 64 bit system. the only 8 bit system around here is yours but being a ratus its expected.
 
.
U.S. to offer more support to Pakistan

By Karen DeYoung

Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, January 8, 2011

The Obama administration has decided to offer Pakistan more military, intelligence and economic support, and to intensify U.S. efforts to forge a regional peace, despite ongoing frustration that Pakistani officials are not doing enough to combat terrorist groups in the country's tribal areas, officials said.

The decision to double down on Pakistan represents the administration's attempt to call the bluff of Pakistani officials who have long complained that the United States has failed to understand their security priorities or provide adequate support.


That message will be delivered by Vice President Biden, who plans to travel to Pakistan next week for meetings with its military chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, and top government leaders. Biden will challenge the Pakistanis to articulate their long-term strategy for the region and indicate exactly what assistance is needed for them to move against Taliban sanctuaries in areas bordering Afghanistan.

The strategy, determined in last month's White House Afghanistan war review, amounts to an intensifying of existing efforts to overcome widespread suspicion and anti-American sentiment in Pakistan, and build trust and stability.

President Obama and his top national security aides rejected proposals, made by some military commanders and intelligence officials who have lost patience with Pakistan, to allow U.S. ground forces to conduct targeted raids against insurgent safe havens, officials said. They concluded that the United States can ill afford to threaten or further alienate a precarious, nuclear-armed country whose cooperation is essential to the administration on several fronts.

The conclusions were referred to in a publicly released, five-page summary of the review as unspecified policy "adjustments." Several administration officials said that the classified review identified areas where stronger effort was needed rather than specific new programs.

The review resolved to "look hard" at what more could be done to improve economic stability, particularly on tax policy and Pakistan's relations with international financial institutions. It directed administration and Pentagon officials to "make sure that our sizeable military assistance programs are properly tailored to what the Pakistanis need, and are targeted on units that will generate the most benefit" for U.S. objectives, said one senior administration official who participated in the review and was authorized to discuss it on the condition of anonymity.

Pakistan has complained in the past that promised U.S. aid, currently projected to total more than $3 billion in 2011, has been slow to arrive and that requests for helicopters and other military equipment have remained unfulfilled.

Beginning with Biden's visit, the time may be ripe for a frank exchange of views and priorities between the two sides, another administration official said. The Pakistanis "understand that Afghanistan-Pakistan has become the single most important foreign policy issue to the United States, and their cachet has gone up." But they also realize that they may have reached the point of maximum leverage, this official said, "and things about their region are going to change one way or the other" in the near future, as Congress and the American public grow increasingly disillusioned with the war and a timeline for military withdrawal is set.

"Something is going to give," he said. "There is going to be an end-game scenario and they're trying to guess where we're heading."

On intelligence, the administration plans to address Pakistan's complaints that the Americans have not established enough outposts on the Afghan side of the border to stop insurgent infiltration, while pressing the Pakistanis to allow U.S. and Afghan officials to staff border coordination centers inside Pakistan itself.

The intelligence coordination is part of an effort to build political, trade and security links between Pakistan and Afghanistan as a way of assuaging Pakistan's fears that India, its traditional adversary, is building its own influence in Afghanistan. "We think there's a lot of room for improvement on that front," the senior official said.

The administration also plans "redouble our efforts to look for political approaches" to ending the war, including a recognition that Pakistan "must play an important role," if not a dominant one, in reconciliation talks with the Taliban, he said.

An intelligence estimate prepared for the review concluded that the war in Afghanistan could not be won unless the insurgent sanctuaries were wiped out and that there was no real indication Pakistan planned to undertake the effort.

But the White House concluded that while Taliban safe havens were "a factor," they were "not the only thing that stands between us and success in Afghanistan," the senior official said.

"We understand the general view a lot of people espouse" in calling for direct U.S. ground attacks, he said of the intelligence estimate. But while the administration's goal is still a Pakistani offensive, the review questioned whether "classic clear, hold and build" operations were the only way to deny the insurgents free access to the borderlands, and asked whether "a range of political, military, counterterrorism and intelligence operations" could achieve the same result.

That view represents a significant shift in administration thinking, perhaps making a virtue of necessity given Pakistani refusal thus far to launch the kind of full-scale ground offensive the United States has sought in North Waziristan.

"The challenge is that when you talk about safe havens in Pakistan, you imagine some traditional military clearing operation that then settles the issue," the official said. While the Pakistani military has cleared insurgents from most of the tribal areas, it remains heavily deployed in those areas, where little building has taken place.


The operations, involving 140,000 Pakistani troops, have pushed the Taliban and al-Qaeda into concentrations in North Waziristan, where the United States has launched a withering barrage of missile attacks from remotely piloted drone aircraft, guided in large part by Pakistani intelligence.


Kayani, the Pakistani military chief, has said he will eventually launch an offensive in North Waziristan. But he has told the Americans that he cannot spare additional troops from Pakistan's half-million-man army, most of which is deployed along the Indian border, and that he lacks the proper equipment to conduct operations he fears will drive insurgents deeper inside Pakistan's populated areas.

U.S. military commanders have pushed numerous times over the past 18 months for more latitude to allow Special Operations troops to carry out missions across the Pakistan border, officials said. The CIA has similarly sought to expand the territory inside Pakistan it can patrol with armed drones, prodding Pakistan repeatedly for permission to fly drones over Quetta, a city in Baluchistan where the Taliban's political leaders are thought to be based.

The senior administration official, who called the proposals "ideas, not even operational concepts much less plans," said they were rejected by the White House in the most recent review, as they have been repeatedly in the past, as likely to cause more harm than good. "We've got to increasingly try to look at this through their lens," the official said of Pakistan, "not because we accept it wholesale, but because their actions are going to continue to be driven by their perspective."


"In the long run," he said, "our objectives have to do with the defeat of al-Qaeda and the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. If you're not careful here . . . you may do something in the short run that makes gains against the policy objective in North Waziristan but proves self-defeating in the long term."

more military, intelligence and economic support, :welcome:

United States has failed to understand their security priorities or provide adequate support. :coffee:


what assistance is needed for them to move against Taliban sanctuaries in areas bordering Afghanistan :azn:


some military commanders and intelligence officials who have lost patience with Pakistan :sniper:


Pakistan's complaints that the Americans have not established enough outposts on the Afghan side of the border to stop insurgent infiltration :tdown:

Kayani, the Pakistani military chief, has said he will eventually launch an offensive in North Waziristan. But he has told the Americans that he cannot spare additional troops from Pakistan's half-million-man army, most of which is deployed along the Indian border, and that he lacks the proper equipment to conduct operations he fears will drive insurgents deeper inside Pakistan's populated areas :tup:


U.S. military commanders have pushed numerous times over the past 18 months for more latitude to allow Special Operations troops to carry out missions across the Pakistan border, officials said. The CIA has similarly sought to expand the territory inside Pakistan it can patrol with armed drones, prodding Pakistan repeatedly for permission to fly drones over Quetta, a city in Baluchistan where the Taliban's political leaders are thought to be based.
:blah:


In the long run," he said, "our objectives have to do with the defeat of al-Qaeda and the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. If you're not careful here . . . you may do something in the short run that makes gains against the policy objective in North Waziristan but proves self-defeating in the long term."
:hitwall:
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom