US & Pakistan Dispute and Tensions over Haqqani group

[SMC]

What? You're not allowed to have an opinion in Canada?

 

[very]

Hypocrisy on part of US, Assisting Taliban in establishing offices around the world on one hand and asking Pakistan to fight them on the other.

Playing good taliban, bad taliban are we?

+++++111111
100% agree with U sir.
Very true.

 

[Bratva]

Is it necessary Haqqanis Are hiding in Pakistan? Panetta should check Nuristan, Kunar, and surrounding areas before placing all blame on Pakistan. A place where there is very less american presence makes them attractive for insurgents

 

[very]

Did they finish all their enemies from Afghanistan that they asking about Pakistan??

 

[third eye]

I do not understand what ppl are trying to defend.

Here is a group that operates from inside Pak and strikes within a neighbouring country while the PA does not wish to act against this group presumably coz acting against it would make things worse within Pak !

 

[very]

Hypocrisy on part of US, Assisting Taliban in establishing offices around the world on one hand and asking Pakistan to fight them on the other.

Playing good taliban, bad taliban are we?

This proves that the US itself is behind the Talibans and the Haqqani network supporting them and funding them. its so shameful hypoctitic behaviour.

 

[third eye]

Kabul attacks cast gloom over Pak-US engagements | Newspaper | DAWN.COM


Kabul attacks cast gloom over Pak-US engagements

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan-US bilateral engagements scheduled in New York could be an immediate casualty of a recent attack on the American embassy compound in Kabul, which has turned the gradually warming ties frosty once again.

The two sides were to negotiate a framework for future engagement in their meetings on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session.

The agreement, though both sides differ on its precise description, was expected to address major points of discord, including the nature of CIA operations in Pakistan and its working relationship with the ISI, drone attacks and the regional sensitivities of the two countries.

But indications from Washington after Tuesday’s 20-hour assault near the US embassy and Nato headquarters in Kabul aren’t positive.

The North Waziristan-based Haqqani Network has been blamed for the Kabul attack and last weekend’s truck bomb attack in which dozens of American troops were injured.

Now the meeting between Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir and US Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan Ambassador Marc Grossman, which was to discuss the ‘terms of engagement’ for ‘clearing out the cloud in relationship’ is uncertain.

The sense some of the Pakistani diplomats in Washington and Islamabad got from their conversations with American officials is that even if this meeting does take place it would not be productive unless Islamabad addresses US concerns about the Haqqani Network.

A lot would, however, depend on the outcome of a meeting between Army Chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and US Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen in Seville (Spain) on the sidelines of a Nato conference over the next couple of days.

Although the meeting was earlier thought to be meant to add momentum to normalisation of relations, it now appears the two commanders would once again be looking at repairing the dent in ties.

Diplomatic circles are not expecting much from the Sunday (Sept 18) meeting between Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even as Foreign Office Spokesperson Tehmina Janjua in her weekly media briefing on Thursday said: “Pakistan attaches importance to this engagement which will provide an opportunity to discuss all issues.”

The not so optimistic picture about the prospects of the Pak-US engagement by senior Pakistani diplomats in their private conversations is consistent with US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta’s statement warning Pakistan that the US could do everything to eliminate the threat emanating from terrorist sanctuaries in the tribal belt bordering Afghanistan.

The FO spokesperson sharply reacted to Mr Panetta’s comments saying they were “not in line with the cooperation the two countries have in counter-terrorism”.

She stressed that Pakistan’s cooperation was premised on respect for its sovereignty and entailed joint actions.

Ms Janjua recalled that Islamabad too had raised the issue of safe havens in Afghanistan from where insurgents had been attacking Pakistani paramilitary posts and bordering districts.

“There is need to clearly address the issue in a cooperative mode and work for de-escalation in violence as violence is no solution to any problem,” she noted, adding Pakistan was prepared to continue cooperation in countering terrorism.

The military avoided a direct response to Mr Panetta’s diatribe. But an army official, asking not to be named because of sensitivity of the matter, said the Americans were to equally share the blame for the security failure that enabled the militants to launch attack inside Kabul.

“Even if we were to accept that the Haqqani Network operates from bases in North Waziristan, it also needs to be acknowledged that the militants travelled a long distance inside the Afghan territory before carrying out the assault and they should have been intercepted by the Americans, who are far better equipped than us,” he said, adding checking border-crossing was not solely Pakistan’s responsibility.

The official said US criticism of Pakistan was in contrast to the recognition of its role in the fight against terrorism.

 

[very]

Pakistan hits back at Panetta's terror criticism

ISLAMABAD - American criticism of Islamabad's failure to pursue the Haqqani militant network blamed for this week's attack on the U.S. Embassy in Kabul risks damaging anti-terror cooperation between the two countries, Pakistan's Foreign Ministry warned Thursday.

Pakistan's reluctance to attack the Haqqani group, which U.S. officials say has safe havens in Pakistan and is behind much of the violence in Afghanistan, is a major source of tension.

On Wednesday, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other U.S. officials said the Haqqani group was behind the 20-hour assault on the embassy in Kabul. Panetta expressed frustration with Pakistan and issued what was construed in Pakistan as a veiled warning that Washington may take unilateral action against the militants.

Pakistan Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tehmina Janjua said Thursday that Panetta's remarks were "out of line with the cooperation that exists between the two countries in the war against terrorism." Pakistan's army, which controls defense and foreign policy, declined comment on his remarks.

Islamabad has resisted attacking the Haqqanis because they do not pose a direct threat to Pakistan. The army is engaged in a bloody fight with other militant groups. It fears that making enemies of the Haqqanis now could tip the country into even greater chaos.

The army also believes it will be able to use the group, with which it has ties going back to the U.S.-backed resistance against Soviet rule in Afghanistan, to ensure its arch-enemy India does not gain a foothold there once the American troops leave.

Panetta said it was unacceptable that the Haqqanis are able to launch attacks and then flee to safe havens across the border in Pakistan. "The message they (the Pakistanis) need to know is: we're going to do everything we can to defend our forces," Panetta told reporters.

The United States has fired scores of missiles at Haqqani fighters in North Waziristan since 2008, killing many low and midlevel fighters. Those attacks were initially tolerated by Pakistani authorities but have developed into another irritant in ties.

In recent months, Pakistani officials have alleged that militants are crossing over from Afghanistan and attacking Pakistani troops and civilians, leading them to complain of "safe havens" in Afghanistan. Janjua raised this issue, saying NATO and the U.S. should also address it.

its a nice statement, I like that.
So this means that a war is coming towards Pakistan eventually. The Masonics are very happi to plan it.

 

[karan.1970]

They being christian or skin colour being different is irrelevant. A military operating in its own country vs a military operating in a different country is something altogether different, though. They're occupying and invading another country. That's what makes the difference. Pakistan military isn't doing such. It's in its own country.

---------- Post added at 05:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:49 PM ----------

Are you seeing Afg govt demanding NATO army to go back?? Now you are just grasping at straws mate..

Nice try in putting words in my mouth. I only wish this for US troops. Not even for non-US troops. Forget children.




It's merely an analogy. Someone who joins drug gangs knows what they were be doing. In that respect, the same is true for US soldiers.

You said that they wouldn't want to be in Afghanistan if they had the choice. But obviously when they joined the military, they knew they were going to be deployed there. So they did this out of choice, obviously.

Well, next time someone gets killed in Peshawar or any other Terrorism impacted part of Pakistan, we should simply say its his fault. He knew there are daily bomb blasts and terror attacks in Pakistan, specifically in NWFP region, and he decided to stay on.. So he got blown up out of choice, obviously..

 

[Areesh]

I do not understand what ppl are trying to defend.

Here is a group that operates from inside Pak and strikes within a neighbouring country while the PA does not wish to act against this group presumably coz acting against it would make things worse within Pak !

If we consider what you have said as true then PA is also playing good taliban and bad taliban thingy just like USA.

 

[luckyyy]

....Bad Omen for pakistan.....Can not play victim card in US papers and bomb US forces in Kabul.....

very true , things are not good there !!

 

[third eye]

If we consider what you have said as true then PA is also playing good taliban and bad taliban thingy just like USA.

Possible

But the subject at hand is the support the Haqqani group gets from PA / ISI and their reluctance to reign them in.

 

[Areesh]

Possible

But the subject at hand is the support the Haqqani group gets from PA / ISI and their reluctance to reign them in.

Well seriously speaking presence of Haqqani looks more logical in Afghanistan than Pakistan. South Waziristan is already under operation of PA. North Waziristan is continuously bombed by drones and all that. Life in Nuristan or Kunar would be more comfortable for these guys than Pakistani tribal areas. They might have some presence in Pakistan but it would be logical to live in Afghanistan than Pakistan.

 

[Kaniska]

Sometimes I feel pity and bad for US gov...what is new in this news???GOV of USA is saying the same thing since last 10 years? Does any thing got changed...

1- USA is complaining about Pakistan since 9/11.But again USA can not live without Pakistan because its desire to control the Muslim nations. Now it is really boring to hear the same news again and again that Pakistan is responsible for failure of Afgan war..
Dont you think that USA being the smartest nation on the earth, could not understand that Pakistan will never abandon the Islamic Jehadi group that it consider as its assets against India....For Paksitan...getting security related military superiority against India s more important than being aligned with USA....So the moment when USA signaled its shift towards India in strategic level, it is really foolish on part of USA to beleive that Pakistan will assist USA in winning the Afgan war...

2- Now days USA is complaining against Pakistan seems to too repetitive.For each and simple failure, USA is blaming the Pakistan...We have to realize than if Pakistan is such a capable nation to control the jehadi group, then it would have controlled its own Islamist Jehadi group that is terrorizing each urban center in Pakistan. When it is not able to control its Terrorist group witin its own border, how will it control the terrorist in Afghanistan.

3- US has to recognize a fact that a reality check needs to done about Afghan war...What are we getting out of this war? Afghanistan is not Iraq that you will get Oil resource? So if the war is for the people of Afghanistan, then let the people of Afghanistan unite first among themselves rather than differentiating among ethnic lines...When the Afghanistan [eople are not united for their own nation, why should all the outsiders are so desperate to unite them...

 

[Luftwaffe]

Excellent Reply.

Pakistani officials said it was the responsibility of US-led forces to crack down on militants when they enter Afghanistan.

"We are using all our resources to fight terrorism. As far as these issues like Haqqani network launching attacks from Pakistani territory is concerned, has any proof ever been given?" said a senior Pakistani military official who asked not to be identified.

A senior Pakistani government official involved in defense policy said the South Asian country, reliant on billions of dollars in US aid, was doing all it could to stop militants from crossing the border to Afghanistan.

"But if the militants are doing something inside Afghanistan, then it is the responsibility of the Afghan and Western forces to hold them on the borders," he said.

"They let everyone go scot-free on their side (of the border) and then they say Pakistan is not doing enough."