US & Pakistan Dispute and Tensions over Haqqani group

[iPhone]

US CENTCOM Chief in Pak

ISLAMABAD: United States (US) head of Central Command General James Mattis called on Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani to discuss matters of regional security and defence, Express 24/7 reported on Saturday.
Express 24/7 correspondent Sumera Khan said US official had arrived in Islamabad late Friday.
Sources said the issue of Haqqani network was discussed in detail during the meeting. General Kayani highlighted the fact that statements from US officials alleging Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) support for the group was disturbing cooperation between the US and Pakistan.
The issue of cross-border raids was also discussed during the meeting.
The meeting between the two top officials comes after allegations that the ISI had helped militants attack the US embassy in Kabul.
In a hard-hitting statement before a Senate panel on Thursday, US Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen openly accused Inter-Services Intelligence agency of supporting Haqqani insurgents in planning and executing a 22-hour assault on the US Embassy in Afghanistan last week and a truck bomb that wounded 77 American soldiers days earlier.

 

[Porus]

I am tired of these political skirmishes that erupt between US and Pak every second week over the issue of Haqqani Network. We know it, and the Americans know it that Pakistan army is harbouring the Haqqani Network that has been allowed to establish its headquarter somewhere near Miramshah.

Our Napoleons think that the Haqqanis will help them to secure and promote the interests of Pakistan Army in Afghanistan once the Americans have packed up and left Afghanistan. Our clever and brave Generals must have learned by now that the Afhgans don't take dictation from any one and the short-lived rule of the Taliban in the 90s has proved it, but only if our Napoleons were able to learn from their mistakes.

Now instead of making verbal accusations and allegations the stupid cowboys should move their derrieres and take every possible military action to finish off the Taliban Network in NW. It will be bad for the Napoleons of Rawalipindi but it will be good for the citizens of Pak and Afghanistan, above all the poor people of FATA will get a relief who are paying the price with their lives and property for the dumbness of our Napoleons.

 

[araz]

Vcheng,

You literally killed them---they really don't have any national interest---if they had--they would have hung all the al qaeda members on light poles---pakistanis---my countrymen---so ruthless and so innocent they are---have no identity---a nation that is at a loss---a nation in search of its true self----doesn't know if they are a PARTRIDGE or a QUAIL---.

Pakistan needs to stand up in front of the u s like israel does---. The americans have no respect for weak pu-ss's---pakistan must not allow itself to be bit-ch slapped by american generals and mr Panetta at will---. This ar-se kissing must stop----.

The problem with pakistan is that they don't know what to say when and how to say and who will say it---of all of these things---the most important one is ---- who is going to say it----.

Two people say exactly the same thing----but one's point comes across stronger and the others makes not much of an impact. Pakistan needs to learn this art---pakistan need to find that spokes person.

Mastan
Crucify me if I am wrong , but I have said this again and again that as far as I can remember, every placement of a leader in Pakistan since at least Zia's time has been to serve US interests. Take Zia's route of Bhutto and see it in the light of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the turmoils of the 90s without any US interests in the region and then Musharraf and then 9/11 and the capitulation. It gives you an idea of how the army has served Us interests and then see BBs murder and Zardari's installation. We have had a series of spineless decision makers in power at key times in the Nations history who have traditionally towed the US line. Kiyani;s appointment has perhaps changed things and the US is stamping its feet. But is it because it can't get its way or its well on its way. I think the choice is one of do or die, because Ido not see any benefit in persuing US line anymore. However, the crunch question is whether the Generals are willing to take the plunge and do something for national interest once and for all, or do we see a new pheonix emerging out of the ashes of Pakistan. Either way I see a lot of sufferings in the days to come.
Araz

 

[LEGENDARY WARRIOR]

I saw a news bar on Geo news which said that Pakistan has stopped 144 NATO food supply trucks and 150 NATO oil tankers from entering into Afghanistan.

Now its not there. . .

 

[araz]

Mr Camacho,

I guess you missed it---intentionally or not---if the u s had troops on its side of the border from across waziristan----there would be no cross border crossings---with all the sophisticated equipment and all the technology at hand---if the u s is complanining about these issues then there is deception it its diction----. If the u s was really ineterested in stopping these incursions---they would be guarding the border 24/7----again I say----there is deception here---pakistan is being setup again---and pakistanis are at a loss to understand what is happening in the arena.

The pakistanbis believe that as long as they keep their heads in the sand---it is business as usual.

I think the people understand what is happening, the polity on the other hand is too busy looting to care.The question is where does the army heirarchy stand, the middle rank is probably with the masses.
Araz

 

[VCheng]

If that is the case then we deserve every bit of what we get next, because I am saying it out loud and clear, even if we comply with this , there will be another demand tomorrow. Its time to stand and be counted.
Araz

It is not just a matter of complying with "demands": there needs to be a total revamp, top to bottom, and redirection of the ship of state. Anything less would be a band-aid. To stand up would require a spine, which is non-existent, as you yourself point out in this reply:

Mastan
Crucify me if I am wrong , but I have said this again and again that as far as I can remember, every placement of a leader in Pakistan since at least Zia's time has been to serve US interests. Take Zia's route of Bhutto and see it in the light of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the turmoils of the 90s without any US interests in the region and then Musharraf and then 9/11 and the capitulation. It gives you an idea of how the army has served Us interests and then see BBs murder and Zardari's installation. We have had a series of spineless decision makers in power at key times in the Nations history who have traditionally towed the US line. Kiyani;s appointment has perhaps changed things and the US is stamping its feet. But is it because it can't get its way or its well on its way. I think the choice is one of do or die, because Ido not see any benefit in persuing US line anymore. However, the crunch question is whether the Generals are willing to take the plunge and do something for national interest once and for all, or do we see a new pheonix emerging out of the ashes of Pakistan. Either way I see a lot of sufferings in the days to come.
Araz

Why should things have changed with Kayani's appointment? He is a product of the same processes that led to the previous selections, and nothing has changed those, hence he is very likely as subservient to the US as those before him.

While I am sorry at the suffering that will be the result, you put it best when you said above "we deserve every bit of what we get next".

(I hope I was more succinct and direct than before. I am trying to simplify my posts so that they may be understood more clearly.)

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

The death of an unlikely peacemaker


Zafar Hilaly
Saturday, September 24, 2011




It’s not surprising that the Taliban targeted Burhanuddin Rabbani. They made no bones about their loathing for the former Afghan president and his mission, as the head of the Afghan High Peace Council. Rabbani had burnt his boats with the Taliban long ago. His support of the war lords Dostum and Ismail Khan in 1995, and subsequently of the American invasion, had cast him beyond the pale. And his recent efforts to wean away elements of the Taliban had infuriated them.

That a savvy politician like Rabbani should have been duped by his assassin was surprising considering that Afghan history is replete with treachery, deceit and double dealing and that Ahmed Shah Massoud, his fellow Tajik, had been a victim of similar duplicity. Mullah Omar’s statement in August, hinting that the Taliban were interested in talking to Rabbani seems, in retrospect, to have been a carefully planned ruse to lure Rabbani to meet with his Taliban assassin on the pretext of receiving a missive from the Taliban leader. Predictably, some Afghans are blaming Pakistan, which is hardly surprising considering we are traditionally viewed as the source of all evil in Afghanistan.

Rabbani’s murder is proof, as if it was needed, that the Taliban do not intend to share power in a future Afghanistan. And that peace talks, if and when held, are likely to be nothing more than two periods of cheating between two periods of fighting because that’s how it has always been in Afghanistan. In the circumstances, to believe that peace talks will yield a workable solution, or for that matter, that Pakistan has a constructive role to play, is to live in cloud cuckoo land. We are considered far too partial towards the Taliban to undertake such an exercise.

Hence, increasingly, it seems the outcome of the current Afghan war is likely to be decided on the battlefield. In any case pseudo-religious/ideological movements, like that of the Taliban, are usually nurtured by the belief that they are doing God’s work, in other words, the Taliban are reclaiming Afghanistan for Him and hence God’s cause does not tolerate power-sharing or compromise agreements except perhaps as devices to achieve its goal. To such a mindset, therefore, peace with the adversary amounts to a pact with the devil.

Another impediment to peace stems from the fact that the Americans too are in a contrary mood. Their desire, as expressed by their Ambassador to Afghanistan, Ryan Crocker, is ‘to inflict more pain on the Taliban’ to make them amenable to a settlement when talks are held. Considering that the pain threshold of the Taliban seems infinite, mere talks, what to say of peace, must be many moons away. Moreover, the recent American ultimatum to Pakistan to act against the Haqqani network or else, and Pakistan’s seeming reluctance to oblige, has the potential to transform the Afghan war into a much larger conflict far eclipsing the current Taliban-led insurrection against Kabul and making prospects of peace even more remote.

Pakistan’s policy towards the Afghan peace initiative, like our Afghan policy in general, has been to keep ringing changes in policy and tactics to suit the requirements of the moment in order to keep ahead of the game. It’s tailored to please both our allies and their adversaries but, as it happens, ends up pleasing neither.

Thus we began by saying we had ‘no favourites’ among the different Mujahideen groups in the early 80s but as Hikmatyar’s primacy emerged he became our favourite to the consternation of the others, especially Ahmed Shah Massoud, who felt betrayed. We then ‘ditched’ Hikmatyar and switched our support to the Taliban in 1994, when their movement gained momentum and seemed to be prevailing over other Mujahideen groups. Ironically, one other reason for the U-turn was that the Taliban at the time seemed our best hope to be rid of Rabbani’s pro-Indian regime in Kabul. Thereafter, wanting to stay on the winning side, when the Americans arrived, we jettisoned the Taliban although typically we never quite sundered the relationship.

In the case of Hamid Karzai too, we initially welcomed his appointment but soon changed our minds when he revealed his marked preference for India. However, when Mr Zardari arrived on the scene in 2008 we clasped Karzai to our bosom.

Presently we are shedding crocodile tears lamenting Rabbani’s death when actually it’s more a case of ‘good riddance’. His death will further fuel anti-Pushtun and anti-Pakistan sentiments and render Karzai’s desire for peace and reconciliation among the Afghan ethnic groups an even more forlorn hope.

When it comes to our Afghan policy we have been accused of having nothing to offer but our own confusion. But this is not entirely true. A consistent theme of our policy has been to exclude Indian influence in Afghanistan and to support whichever Afghan group opposes India. This explains our bitter opposition to current American policy and our yearning for an outcome favourable to the Taliban in Afghanistan.

But because pleasing America remains an overwhelmingly powerful compulsion, US-Pak policy strains often clash and a lot of speedy footwork is required to reconcile them. Somehow we have managed thus far, although one has no idea how much longer this may hold true especially now that Washington seems to be taking its gloves off when it comes to dealing with us.

 

[President Camacho]

In either case the repercussions are to be faced by us! loss of soldiers lives, suicide attacks,loss of trade, to name a few.
Araz

Then it sounds more like a hostage situation, that is, if we consider the fact that Haqqanis and their militiamen are neither part of the Pakistani government, nor appointed by the same to control the area where they reside. After all, it is because of their presence in the area that people have to face the menace of drones almost every day.

Makes me wonder what purpose they serve, and at what cost.

 

[President Camacho]

White House stands by Mullen as tension rises

ISLAMABAD: Simmering tensions between the United States and Pakistan reached a boiling point yesterday as the White House urged Islamabad to cut its ties to the Haqqani network while Pakistani leaders rejected the US claim as unfortunate and incorrect.

“It is critical that the government of Pakistan break any links they have and take strong and immediate action against this network,” White House spokesman Jay Carney told a briefing in Washington.

“So that they are no longer a threat to the United States or to the people of Pakistan, because this network is a threat to both,” he added.

The White House backed the allegation that Admiral Mike Mullen, the US Joint Chief of Staff Chairman, had made in the Senate on Thursday, claiming that Haqqani operatives launched an attack last week on the US embassy in Kabul with ISI’s support.

“We believe, we know, that the Haqqani network was responsible for the attacks on the Kabul embassy, our embassy in Kabul, the Isaf headquarters and a number of other recent attacks that caused death and injury not only to Afghans but to US soldiers,” Carney said.

“And we know that the Haqqani network operates from safe havens in Pakistan and that the government of Pakistan has not taken action against these safe havens.”

Pakistan’s failure to act against the Haqqani network had been “a long-standing concern of the United States and one that we’ve discussed with Pakistan in public and in private”, he added.

“Senior officials, including Chairman Mullen and Secretary Clinton, met with their Pakistani counterparts to make this point earlier in the past week or so, and we will continue these discussions and seek action on the part of Pakistan.”

“We have an important relationship with Pakistan. That relationship and the cooperation that we have had with Pakistan have assisted us greatly in our efforts to defeat Al Qaeda. And it is important to remember that Pakistan has suffered mightily at the hands of terrorists, and they paid a terrible price for it,” he said, adding: “It is a complicated relationship, as you’ve heard me say before. And when we have issues that we need to discuss with the Pakistanis, we’re very candid and forthright in doing so and those conversations will continue.”

Other US officials who spoke to the media claimed that growing US frustration over Pakistan’s alleged collusion with Afghan militants had forced them to go public with their accusations.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Own your mess, Pakistan tells US​

Source: Arif Taj September 25, 2011 on 3:11 AM

PM says allegations against Pakistan betray confusion and policy disarray within US establishment; Says Pakistan’s interest will guide its national policy; Hina Khar says US must not cross established ‘red lines’

In a loud and clear message that Pakistan’s national interest will guide its policy, Islamabad on Saturday unambiguously warned Washington against any hot pursuit inside its territory or making the country a scapegoat for the US failure in Afghanistan.

With Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani strongly rejecting the US assertions of complicity with the Haqqanis and of Pakistan launching a proxy war, Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar also hit out at the US, warning it against crossing the “red-lines” and making it a “scapegoat” for failed objectives (in Afghanistan). “We have established red-lines with them (the US) ... those red-lines have to be accepted and followed by every country ... if any established rules of engagement are broken, all doors and options will be opened up,” Khar told a private TV channel to a question about the possibility of the US sending troops into Pakistan.

Making a policy statement, Prime Minister Gilani said, “Pakistan’s national interest will guide our policy.” He said several countries had maintained direct contacts with the Haqqanis. “Singling out Pakistan is not fair ... Pakistan cannot be held responsible for the security of the US NATO/ISAF forces in Afghanistan ... while there have been terrorist attacks in Kabul and Wardak, there have also been numerous attacks on Pakistan launched from sanctuaries and havens in Nooristan and Kunar in Afghanistan... it is as much the responsibility of the Afghan National Army, NATO and ISAF not to allow such cross-border militancy,” the prime minister said, adding that joint operations and coordination were essential.

“Let’s be objective and not get carried away by emotions,” he stressed. He said the propaganda blitz against Pakistan was indeed unfortunate. “It vitiates the atmosphere and is counter-productive ... it tends to ignore the sacrifices made by the people of Pakistan and negates all that we have endeavored to achieve over the last several years... More than 35,000 Pakistanis have fallen victim to the acts of terrorism and many more have been injured,” he said.

He recalled Pakistan had taken resolute action against terrorists and militants. “We have done so in our national interest … the US knows very well the full account of large number of al Qaeda operatives that were interdicted, captured and killed by our security forces ... terrorists are targeting innocent civilians, bombing our markets and places of worship and carrying out targeted assassinations against security and law enforcement personnel,” he said.

The PM said allegations (against Pakistan) betray a confusion and policy disarray within the US establishment on the way forward in Afghanistan. “Clearly, there is a concern over the deterioration of the security situation in Afghanistan ... recent attacks in Kabul, including on the US embassy, were disquieting. We condemn these attacks,” he said.

He stressed the need for close policy coordination between Afghanistan, Pakistan and the US, saying: “We need to develop a clear and coherent strategy together. A clear roadmap so that Afghanistan, Pakistan and the US are on the same page and work together for achieving the stated goal of reconciliation and peace. It is with this in view that we established the Trilateral Core Group which has met four times.”

He observed that blame-game was self-defeating and it would only benefit the enemies of peace. “Only terrorists and militants will gain from any fissures and divisions ... Pakistan’s credentials and sacrifices in the counter-terrorism campaign are impeccable and unquestionable,” he said. Gilani said Pakistan had emphasised the need for deeper engagement in recent interaction with the US, including the foreign minister’s meeting with the US secretary of state, and at the military and intelligence level.

“However, this can only take place on the basis of mutual respect…let’s avoid mutual recrimination and recommit ourselves to working together for eliminating terrorism and for reconciliation and peace in Afghanistan,” he said, reiterating that a stable and peaceful Afghanistan was in the interest of Pakistan.

Own your mess, Pakistan tells US | Pakistan Today | Latest news, Breaking news, Pakistan News, World news, business, sport and multimedia

 

[Solomon2]

Is it true that Zardari has NOT denied the GoP-Haqqani connection?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Gen Kayani warns of ‘hot pursuit’ to curb cross-border attacks
​

Source: SHAIQ HUSSAIN September 25, 2011 on 3:22 AM

Army chief warns CENTCOM chairman against unilateral military action in North Waziristan Agency
Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani demanded on Saturday a halt to repeated cross-border terrorist attacks into Pakistani territory from Afghanistan and warned that Pakistan Army would eliminate the “miscreants” responsible for these assaults no matter where they were if NATO and the Afghan army did not take any action against them.

Gen Kayani was discussing defence and military ties between Pakistan and the United States in a meeting with US Central Command (CENTCOM) Chief General James Mattis in Rawalpindi on Saturday. Sources said the meeting lasted for over an hour, in which matters related to recent US allegations against the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) regarding the Haqqani network, bilateral relations, cross-border attacks from Afghanistan and the deteriorating Pak-US relations were discussed in length.

Gen Kayani made it clear to Gen Mattis that the series of baseless allegations against Pakistani security agencies of having ties with the Haqqani network should come to an end as this could affect ties between the two countries. However, the focus of deliberations remained the recent US allegations against the ISI, blamed by American officials – most notably the formerly sympathetic Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen - for running a “proxy war” in Afghanistan and exporting terrorism to the embattled country through the Haqqani network.

NO NORTH WAZIRISTAN OPERATION: “General James (Mattis) once again asked for an all-out military operation in North Waziristan against the Haqqani network allegedly based there, but General Kayani told him that as of now that offensive is not possible,” said a security official here, requesting anonymity. “The army chief also warned the top US military official against any unilateral military action in North Waziristan, saying that such a move would have catastrophic repercussions for Pakistan-US cooperation in the fight against terrorism,” the official added.

He said another important issue that was raised by General Kayani during the meeting was that of recent cross-border attacks by Taliban militants in Chitral and Dir from Afghanistan. “Pakistan believes that the NATO and Afghan National Army (ANA) are doing nothing to stop these attacks,” the official said. “General Kayani warned if the attacks continued and there was no prevention on the part of NATO forces and Afghan troops, Pakistan Army would take it upon itself to eliminate these ‘miscreants’ wherever they were found,” he said.

General Kayani also demanded a joint investigation into the cross-border attacks, he added.

Gen Kayani warns of

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Is it true that Zardari has NOT denied the GoP-Haqqani connection?

Even Gillani and Kayani have not denied it, and Kayani and the ISI have maintained that they had contacts with Haqqani over the past few years, and that these contacts were to keep communication channels open, and not indicative of any support for their activities.

Pakistan has been pretty open about these contacts.

And the US has little room to complain given that it is proposing setting up a 'Taliban Office' in Qatar, along with various other contacts to explore political reconciliation, all at the same time as the same Taliban continue to attack US forces and are attacked by US forces.

 

[Solomon2]

I raise the point because there is a difference in international law if the head of state - even if a mere figurehead - denies such a connection to his nation, rather than a P.M. or a general.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I raise the point because there is a difference in international law if the head of state - even if a mere figurehead - denies such a connection to his nation, rather than a P.M. or a general.

In Pakistan the President is a figurehead, similar to the monarch in Britain - the real power lies with the Prime Minister.