What's new

US & NATO Behind Rabbani Assassination?

Pakistan will do what it has said it will do all along - try and assist in arriving at a negotiated end to the conflict and work to prevent groups with terrorist agendas against Western/US interests from finding support and sanctuary in the region.

Well, whatever has been done by Pakistan to date, has not been successful in preventing the present situation from evolving. So would it not be appropriate to at least consider a change that will result in a more effective strategy? If so, then what change is needed on the Pakistan side that will enable the US to back off?
 
Well, whatever has been done by Pakistan to date, has not been successful in preventing the present situation from evolving. So would it not be appropriate to at least consider a change that will result in a more effective strategy? If so, then what change is needed on the Pakistan side that will enable the US to back off?

Clearly Pakistan is not alone in this hammam, is it? There is an occupying power in Afghanistan, can you se your way into suggesting that it may wish a rethink of the direction it is taking?
 
Well, whatever has been done by Pakistan to date, has not been successful in preventing the present situation from evolving. So would it not be appropriate to at least consider a change that will result in a more effective strategy? If so, then what change is needed on the Pakistan side that will enable the US to back off?
The US has never really taken Pakistan on board in the context of implementing a policy in Afghanistan that was closer to Pakistan's position on ending the conflict, so I don't agree that Pakistan needs to adjust its position.

The US has so far gone it alone in terms of implementing whatever it wanted to in Afghanistan, time now for it to take a back seat, eat humble pie, listen, and allow proposals by other nations to be given a chance to succeed.

---------- Post added at 05:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:18 PM ----------

And so the "conspiracy theories" have started.
At least we are arguing 'motive' behind why the US could have wanted Rabbani dead, instead of nonsensical allegations against Pakistan ala Mullen, where even US commentators are hard pressed to find a motive for Pakistan to support the Haqqanis in attacking the US embassy.
 
And so the "conspiracy theories" have started.

Of course.

Blaming everything from natural calamities to bad governance to economic mismanagement on the US very conveniently allows the whole nation to ignore the actual causes.
 
Neither the Haqqanis not the Taliban of Mullah Omar have said anything about 'refraining from attacks', so I don't see why Rabbani pointing the finger at the Haqqanis would upset them to the point of the Haqqanis assassinating him.

That's not what I implied.

Rabbani was the key negotiator. If he pointed fingers at a particular group/party, meant that group/party could call itself off the negotiation process. Rabbani was killed while meeting someone he thought could help him negotiate with Mullah Omar Taliban. So he wanted Mullah Omar on the table, while sidelining the Haqqanis. What I am saying is, is it not possible that Haqqanis got Rabbani killed for not considering them worthy of negotiation?


What does Pakistan gain from 'trapping the US in Afghanistan'? That many Pakistanis believe the US is out of its league in trying to accomplish what it initially set out to do does not automatically imply that Pakistan would therefore like to see the US continue to flail about in Afghanistan and wreak yet more violence and instability that directly impacts Pakistan.

Pakistan does not want the US to just get out, as it will bring the kind of instability for which Pakistan is not ready at the moment. However, Pakistan does not want the US to stay in Afghanistan indefinitely either, otherwise it will be impossible for Pakistan to wield the influence it desires in that area. So what better than letting the US be present, but only till it can afford, and by the time it is forced to leave, Pakistan will be ready for a complete take over?

It sounds confusing, because it is very much. But in clear manner, Pakistan wants the US to stay in Afghanistan, and yet not for a long time with complete control, because that would diminish the prospects of Mullah Omar or Haqqanis at the center.

Correct, if the article is to be believed, and Rabbani opposed any long term agreement to house US forces in Afghanistan, then his assassination both removes a critic of the stated US desire to have a long term presence in Afghanistan, as well as giving them an excuse to remain there - a long term US presence in Afghanistan is something Pakistan opposes.

I think it is well known that the US wants a long term presence in Afghanistan, but not at the same magnitude it has now. Also, that if the forces critical of the US presence come to the position of power in Afghanistan, the US may have to pack up whatever presence it will be left with in Afghanistan. Hence, the US would rather desire to have those in power who do not view its presence in a hostile manner.

I don't know if Rabbani was so critical of the US's minimal presence in Afghanistan, if you can provide some material on that, it would be very helpful. After all, per the accounts he rushed back from Iran only at the calls of UK/US embassies to proceed with the negotiations with that supposedly Talibani who ended up killing him.


The US wants to reduce its military strength in Afghanistan, but its negotiations over a SOFA with Afghanistan to obtain some sort of long term basing rights would indicate that it does want to maintain a presence in Afghanistan, which would allow it the flexibility to intervene militarily in the region. Rabbani's assassination then helps this particular US goal.

Again, I am not so aware of how critical was Rabbani with respect to the US forces' presence in the country. From all that transpired in the recent times, he didn't seem as critical of the US forces, as he was of the Taliban and even more so of Haqqanis. I hope you do not misinterpret my words as I am not implying that Rabbani wanted the US to rule the country. But I just want to know up to what degree was he critical of the US presence there.
 
Clearly Pakistan is not alone in this hammam, is it? There is an occupying power in Afghanistan, can you se your way into suggesting that it may wish a rethink of the direction it is taking?

The US has never really taken Pakistan on board in the context of implementing a policy in Afghanistan that was closer to Pakistan's position on ending the conflict, so I don't agree that Pakistan needs to adjust its position.

The US has so far gone it alone in terms of implementing whatever it wanted to in Afghanistan, time now for it to take a back seat, eat humble pie, listen, and allow proposals by other nations to be given a chance to succeed....................

And how does one get the bolded parts done?
 
Of course.

Blaming everything from natural calamities to bad governance to economic mismanagement on the US very conveniently allows the whole nation to ignore the actual causes.
If the US can concoct an ISI bogeyman to blame for its failure to interdict attackers that managed to travel and bribe their way through several hundred miles of ISAF controlled and patrolled territory, into one of the most heavily guarded areas of Afghanistan in the heart of Kabul, and then claim that somehow the "Haqqani network manages to carry out attacks in Afghanistan and escape back to NW', then surely this particular thread appears far more rational in comparison.

Unless of course the Haqqanis have managed to master the Harry Potter magic of 'apparation' - how on earth else could the Haqqanis manage to 'travel and escape into NW' after carrying out attacks hundreds of miles into ISAF controlled Afghanistan?
 
With Rabbani gone, the Northern Alliance is leaderless.
It seems the Afghan Taliban has the clear upper hand.
If NATO leaves Afghanistan, the Taliban may return to form the government and Hamid Karzai may go back to India for political asylum.

What are NATO going to do? 2014 isn't too far away now.
 
If the US can concoct an ISI bogeyman to blame for its failure to interdict attackers that managed to travel and bribe their way through several hundred miles of ISAF controlled and patrolled territory, into one of the most heavily guarded areas of Afghanistan in the heart of Kabul, and then claim that somehow the "Haqqani network manages to carry out attacks in Afghanistan and escape back to NW', then surely this particular thread appears far more rational in comparison.

Unless of course the Haqqanis have managed to master the Harry Potter magic of 'apparation' - how on earth else could the Haqqanis manage to 'travel and escape into NW' after carrying out attacks hundreds of miles into ISAF controlled Afghanistan?

I like the humorous style, but I take it that you are blaming the recent attacks on a conspiracy by the US, and hence perfectly in keeping with the en masse national delusions that have led Pakistan to the very edge of an abyss. Such a pity.
 
Of course.

Blaming everything from natural calamities to bad governance to economic mismanagement on the US very conveniently allows the whole nation to ignore the actual causes.

It gives them the feeling of victim hood and how the whole world has wronged them and believe me that is very comforting....but till the water goes above the head and that is approaching very fast in the case of Pakistan.

These semantics employed by arm chair generals will not stand in the face of live ammunition going to be employed by the real generals if they feel the threshold has been breached.

For ex:-


I like the humorous style, but I take it that you are blaming the recent attacks on a conspiracy by the US, and hence perfectly in keeping with the en masse national delusions that have led Pakistan to the very edge of an abyss. Such a pity.

9/11 - conspiracy by Jews
WOT - conspiracy by America/Israel to destroy Muslim world
Asking Pakistan to join WOT - conspiracy by America to weaken Pakistan
Iraq war - conspiracy by america to weaken a fellow Muslim nation
TTP - Conspiracy by RAW/CIA/Mossad to de-stabilise Pakistan
Frequent Bombings - Conspiracy by TTP (RAW/CIA/Mossad) to kill innocent Pakistanis.
Raymond Davis - CIA conspiracy
Earth Quake - HAARP
Floods - Indian conspiracy
Balochistan - Indian conspiracy
Karachi - CIA/Indian conspiracy
May 2 - US conspiracy and OBL was not there.
PNS Mehran - CIA/RAW conspiracy to weaken Pakistan and get rid of its nukes.

But 26/11 - again Indian false flag conspiracy.
 
I like the humorous style, but I take it that you are blaming the recent attacks on a conspiracy by the US, and hence perfectly in keeping with the en masse national delusions that have led Pakistan to the very edge of an abyss. Such a pity.
When the US can resort to inane conspiracy theories and magical transportation abilities of the Haqqani network, then having a discussion over the potential motives of the US in conducting the Rabbani assassination is rather tame and rational in comparison.
 
When the US can resort to inane conspiracy theories and magical transportation abilities of the Haqqani network, then having a discussion over the potential motives of the US in conducting the Rabbani assassination is rather tame and rational in comparison.

I assure you all the logistics involved are not magical, and thoroughly understood.
 
Back
Top Bottom