US should dump Islamabad-HussainHaqqani

[Cyberian]

It could take another few years, at least, for both countries to figure out how to best realign themselves, with each other, and others in the region, after 2014 and beyond. The problem I see is that our economy may not give us that much time. We need to figure out our alignments relatively quickly.

Salaam to all the Muslims,



China is Pakistan's largest trade partner now. The bilateral trade crossed the $12 Billion at the end of 2012, while's Pakistan's trade with the United States has diminished to $5.2 Billion. Currently, Pakistan and China are working hard to boost their bilateral trade to $15 Billion by 2015 and all the economic indicators are positively pointing to that direction as well.

I think it's about time ordinary people in Pakistan accepted the new reality and get over this "Pak-US" nonsense they keep talking about.

Salaam to all the Muslims.

 

[Argus Panoptes]

Salaam to all the Muslims,



China is Pakistan's largest trade partner now. The bilateral trade crossed the $12 Billion at the end of 2012, while's Pakistan's trade with the United States has diminished to $5.2 Billion. Currently, Pakistan and China are working hard to boost their bilateral trade to $15 Billion by 2015 and all the economic indicators are positively pointing to that direction as well.

I think it's about time ordinary people in Pakistan accepted the new reality and get over this "Pak-US" nonsense they keep talking about.

Salaam to all the Muslims.

What new reality? Changing masters is meaningless if the slave remains a slave.

 

[Cyberian]

What new reality? Changing masters is meaningless if the slave remains a slave.

Salaam to all the Muslims,



Nonsense. I don't hear/see China ordering Pakistan what to do? Do you?

Instead, Pakistan says we need help here and here, China looks into it and comes back with a solution - no strings attached.

Salaam to all the Muslims.

 

[Argus Panoptes]

Salaam to all the Muslims,



Nonsense. I don't hear/see China ordering Pakistan what to do? Do you?

Instead, Pakistan says we need help here and here, China looks into it and comes back with a solution - no strings attached.

Salaam to all the Muslims.

No ordering yet because China is not the master - yet. And nothing in life is free. There are ALWAYS strings attached. Always.

 

[muse]

To put it simply, he who pays the piper calls the tune, Sir. What Mr. Haqqani contends may not be that far off the mark for the Pakistani leadership.

Either the people of Pakistan are what Mr. Haqqani contends they are or they are not -- To my thinking periods of intense pain for society can be the most productive, depends on how motivated society is and what kinds of ideas gain currency - We already know that Pakistan is in serious need of economic structural reforms, including the will to collect taxes - we can use the period of time that the US and her allies turn the screws on us, so to speak, as being the period where we sort our house out, that we do what is right for Pakistan economy and Pakistani interests.

So we are our own piper, the less the need for anyone in DC to feel they must be in position of opposition to us in order to further their interests -- and anyway, are we not now in pain with the support of the US's Wahabis to our Islamists and sectarians?

This period should be used to reorganize ourselves, from the bureaucracy, to the armed forces, to an economy in which every Pakistani is welcome to participate.

 

[Argus Panoptes]

Either the people of Pakistan are what Mr. Haqqani contends they are or they are not -- To my thinking periods of intense pain for society can be the most productive, depends on how motivated society is and what kinds of ideas gain currency - We already know that Pakistan is in serious need of economic structural reforms, including the will to collect taxes - we can use the period of time that the US and her allies turn the screws on us, so to speak, as being the period where we sort our house out, that we do what is right for Pakistan economy and Pakistani interests.

So we are our own piper, the less the need for anyone in DC to feel they must be in position of opposition to us in order to further their interests -- and anyway, are we not now in pain with the support of the US's Wahabis to our Islamists and sectarians?

This period should be used to reorganize ourselves, from the bureaucracy, to the armed forces, to an economy in which every Pakistani is welcome to participate.

Noble words, Sir, but please do keep in mind the distinct possibility that "turning the screws", as you put it, could cause us to simply collapse and disintegrate, rather than being able to put our house in order. We may be our pipers, but not anytime soon.

 

[muse]

keep in mind the distinct possibility that "turning the screws", as you put it, could cause us to simply collapse and disintegrate, rather than being able to put our house in order. We may be our pipers, but not anytime soon.

Rubbish! We've been here before, remember. And what would collapse bring the US? How would US interests be furthered by the collapse of Pakistan?

No, we need to move away from the "huff and puff and blow your house down" line of thinking.

 

[Argus Panoptes]

Rubbish! We've been here before, remember. And what would collapse bring the US? How would US interests be furthered by the collapse of Pakistan?

No, we need to move away from the "huff and puff and blow your house down" line of thinking.

Do you really mean to imply that we have the necessary unity of national purpose to achieve what you have said above? On what basis are you concluding that we can put our house in order independently? While you are correct in saying that US interests would not be served by a collapsing Pakistan, please do remember that holds true only if we toe the US lines largely, if not completely.

Yes, we do need a new line of thinking, but what you are suggesting is certainly premature at this point in our national history, given our disjointed society and economy.

 

[muse]

Do you really mean to imply that we have the necessary unity of national purpose to achieve what you have said above? On what basis are you concluding that we can put our house in order independently? While you are correct in saying that US interests would not be served by a collapsing Pakistan, please do remember that holds true only if we toe the US lines largely, if not completely.

Yes, we do need a new line of thinking, but what you are suggesting is certainly premature at this point in our national history, given our disjointed society and economy.

Unity of purpose is something that is CREATED, it's not something that is jut sitting around - so can we put our house together "Independently" - Actually, I don't know of how else it can be done, after all, how can someone else put what we claim as our house, together? It has to be done independently - you seem to think of this as some sort of Herculean task, it's not.

 

[Argus Panoptes]

Unity of purpose is something that is CREATED, it's not something that is jut sitting around - so can we put our house together "Independently" - Actually, I don't know of how else it can be done, after all, how can someone else put what we claim as our house, together? It has to be done independently - you seem to think of this as some sort of Herculean task, it's not.

Okay, Sir, please do present your case as to who will create this unity of purpose and how, and why it won't be the Herculean task that I contend it is, based on what factors? I will try to elaborate on my position to counter your evidence.

When I look around Pakistan and its present state, I really do not see any grounds for cheer. None. But please show me what evidence I am missing.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

by the way, not everything the former Pakistani ambassador (or was he US ambassador to Pakistan?) said was incorrect; the issue here is his willingness to operate beyond the scope of his job description and his willingness to spread rumors and bad repute over a vital organ of the state - the Army

 

[Argus Panoptes]

by the way, not everything the former Pakistani ambassador (or was he US ambassador to Pakistan?) said was incorrect; the issue here is his willingness to operate beyond the scope of his job description and his willingness to spread rumors and bad repute over a vital organ of the state - the Army

So is his "crime" is nothing more than believing that the Army should be subservient to civilian authority? If his willingness to to operate beyond the scope of his job description such a problem so as to be considered treason, would you say the same when an Army COAS operates beyond the scope of his job description to declare Martial Law?

I would be grateful if you could help me understand these questions, Sir.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

it's not his job to analyze civil-military relations and besides there was no signal at all that khakis were about to takeover; in fact quite the opposite signals were repeated over and over again from General Headquarters.

he was just paranoid and his paranoia caused him to act selfishly at the expense of national prestige and honour

no ambassador can behave this way in a host country

 

[Argus Panoptes]

it's not his job to analyze civil-military relations and besides there was no signal at all that khakis were about to takeover; in fact quite the opposite signals were repeated over and over again from General Headquarters.

he was just paranoid and his paranoia caused him to act selfishly at the expense of national prestige and honour

no ambassador can behave this way in a host country

What if he was following the directives of the democratically elected government leaders in doing what he was told? Or was he supposed to follow the GHQ's orders instead?

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

What if he was following the directives of the democratically elected government leaders in doing what he was told? Or was he supposed to follow the GHQ's orders instead?

excellent questions you ask:

in order as asked:


1.) A question disguised as an answer ----if the govt he was representing ordered him to discuss DOMESTIC INTERNAL MATTERS with foreign govt officials would this not alarm you?

2.) Not necessarily. GHQ has its liasons already (attaches) stationed at the embassy.


GHQ hadn't issued any orders; they were frustrated silent observers.