Yes, A.M., the heroin is a problem. How does that address mullah nazir's intent to wage war on Afghanistan from within your country? It is his clear intent to which you acede.
The heroin is directly feeding the supply chain of the Taliban, in Pakistan and Afghanistan, as such its continued existence is just as strong an influence as Mullah Nazir's intent.
Take it up with UNODOC. That's the vast majority of the dope. Fact is, we aren't there and the British are. Fact is that this war affects everybody and has since 9-11. Fact is that there are 41 nations in Afghanistan.
Are you attempting to muddy the waters or simply that poorly informed here. That "justification" is offered by the British. It's our war but their justifications, eh? Come on?
If America had it's way, we'd burn the fields. How do you think the taliban got so far so fast? Take a look at their 1999 opium numbers sometime and compare to 2001. I'd say that the impact on the farmer by the taliban gov't was likely onerous. You?
Personally, I'd buy it up. All of it. At above-market-price. Production would go through the roof but it might be controlled as to it's eventual destination while gainfully occupying the good guys (farmers) and putting the distributors, labs, and dope lords on the shelf.
I am not taking it up with anybody - its your war, your superpower military with meetings aboard CBG's, and if you cannot even reign in your allies and implement a coherent and sustained policy to address one of the most fundamental driving factors behind the insurgency, then you are really up **** creek without a paddle and have no grounds to be criticizing Pakistan for abdicating its responsibilities.
It is precisely because it is your war that the justifications from various parties in Afghanistan, whether the US or her lapdogs, are US justifications. The dichotomy is in your position, not mine - the US wanted to play global cop, now control your constables.
Really? Now I'm the uninformed one. Can you provide me with this change in American policy? I'm unaware of any abiding interest. Enemy casualties are reported where known. That's done in Pakistan too. Trumpeted, actually. That said, can you show me where U.S. small-unit commanders face pressure to report "kills" to superiors and attain "quotas". You know...the Vietnam thingy so many seem determined to affix in Afghanistan. Maybe like you also? I hope not as they're decidedly not the same.
"US policy therefore does not offer a long term, comprehensive regional approach that works towards stability, focusing instead only on short term, short sighted tactical goals, and is therefore inherently anti-Pakistan."
Nothing long-term about $15 Bil, eh?
Pakistan Welcomes $15 Bil Aid Package
Sorta reminds me of your comment about the Foreign office and Parliament's aid approval recently. Remember what you said about it's final disposition within Pakistan?
I am not referring to reporting or trumpeting enemy casualties, that is not what I was getting at, but rather the argument advanced by you that the Predator attacks should continue regardless of the cost to Pakistan in terms of stability because of some platitudes about innocent 'Afghan Civilians'. If this policy continues, I do not see willing Pakistani approval for it. IMO, the US is essentially arm twisting the GoP through financial pressure to agree to its demands, and those demands, if Mullah Nazir and the breakaway Taliban factions carry out their threat of joining the TTP and redirecting into Pakistan, have serious repercussions for Pakistan's stability. That is my rationale for arguing that US policy is focused on body counts, not long term policy.
You raised the issue of the 15 billion aid package, its all hot air until the money actually shows up. What about the ROZ's? How long have those been discussed? No intentions of an FTA, or even preferential market access - that idea was shot down by the US even when bilateral relations were good.
With Pakistan staring at default, why no move to release these 'long term assistance funds'? Why the continued delay in reimbursement of an estimated 800 million USD for operations and logistical support in FATA? Instead, we actually have a US controlled institution like the IMF forcing the World Bank to cancel an already approved 300 million USD loan to Pakistan, ostensibly so it can impose its own stringent conditions - more arm twisting, and no relief in sight.
So, lots of talk, about a proposed 15 b package, ROZ's and the 'Friends of Pakistan', but the policies on the ground are 'just kill more bunnies', regardless of the repercussions. Until I see tangible evidence of a long term policy, there isn't one.
I know that McKeirnan is going to use SOF to chase down drug labs and people in the chain. That's new. "Simmering" reads too much like the accomodation of which we've seen so much failure. You are acquiescing to their ambition to fight in Afghanistan from Pakistani soil.
A.M., you've repeatedly held to the contention of Pakistan under assault from Afghanistan. No doubt that you've experienced since 2006 the blow-back long predicted but this is a problem anticipated immediately in 2001. The taliban pulled back into Pakistan. It was expected that they would attack back into Afghanistan eventually and this in fact transpired. That it took until 2006 to also come to fore in Pakistan didn't mean that AQAM weren't long there.
"electronic intercept equipment" is interesting. Can you comment with authority to what essential items you are missing to do your job?
Let me suggest something different. You've read it but not addressed it as far as I'm aware. A bomb blows up outside the Indian embassy in Kabul. What do any of us KNOW? I personally don't know a thing other than...
there are conversations. Lots of them. Kiyani doesn't permit the ISI's restructuring but shortly thereafter you've a new chief. There are more conversations on the USS Roosevelt. Shortly thereafter operations commence in Bajaur and, with that, PREDATOR begins making any number of interesting strikes.
What was said do you imagine that so thoroughly turned your nation's security apparatus 180 degrees overnight? I'm sure that it wasn't a great big "pretty please with sugar on it".
Finally, I've gotta ask you out of deep respect for your intelligence whether you actually think that we- America, CIA, whatever, are bestest buddies with Baitullah Mehsud? Can you provide me with this incontrovertible evidence that we knew absolutely where he was, had the aircraft/PREDATOR available to get him, and CHOSE not to do so. You know,
"Ah...we could, you know, get him but , ummm...we'd really rather not. Hey, thanks for the data but PREDATOR's on holiday".
Mehsud's no friend of the U.S. I'm sure that there's a link around here about our good buddy and how we saved him for yet another day's work in Pakistan. I'd like to read it please.
Again, I will believe the US has ceased abdicating its responsibility in Afghanistan when these raids take place with regularity, when the drug numbers actually start coming down, and when the UNDOC and the British aren't being made scapegoats anymore. The US is the overarching entity in Afghanistan, the rest would not be there were it not for the US, and therefore their actions are US responsibility. Just as you argue the GoP has the sole responsibility to put its house in FATA in order, so does the US in Afghanistan.
I cannot give you 'exact equipment', I do not know what exactly is being sought. I do not know whether Gen. Pasha was able to move on that when he met with Hayden. I do know that PM Gillani took that request with him, and that gripe has been echoed in statements by the Pakistani military leadership under the civilian government and Musharraf.
What I think turned the military apparatus around I have outlined above. Pure and simple economic arm twisting. Whether the people replaced were guilty or not cannot be determined. Quite frankly, given the choices, shuffling a few generals around to relieve US jitters is not a major compromise in my opinion. There is no unanimity in the US intelligence community on what happened in Kabul either (the Islamabad station chief being removed, and some military officials describing the CIA as seeing AQ under every rock), and quite frankly the paranoia displayed by the US intelligence community in the run up to Iraq, and their strong links with an Afghan intelligence apparatus run by Northern Alliance Warlord, Ahmed Shah Massoud's deputy intelligence chief does not instill confidence either.
Incontrovertible evidence such as that indicating that Pakistani officers supported Haqqani in attacking the Indian embassy? Where is that? Where is the incontrovertible evidence indicating that intelligence shared with Pakistan ended up with the Taliban? Why should 'anonymous sources', and 'officials' in the Western media be given credibility while those in the Pakistani media rejected? Your nation does not have any infallible, glorious past, as is evident by your covert and ugly interventions in Latin America, Asia and the Middle East, and neither does ours. Self-serving hubris, foundations laid in 'manifest destiny' perhaps, is what has guided the US. So 'reputation' is no barometer for credibility here - if it is, it only validates deceit and perfidy in pursuit of 'national interest'.
What it essentially boils down to is this, I see no evidence that US policy has moved beyond, "GI Joe, how many body bags can you show!". I see no evidence of any long term support for Pakistan (economic, trade, strategic - nothing). I see no evidence of substantially more effective policies and actions to reign in the drug trade, I see no evidence of US pressure on India to free up resources tied up on the Eastern front. And until I do, there is nothing 'mutually beneficial' here.