What's new

US spells out terms of engagement with Pakistan

But now the times have changed. USA is losing leverage over Pakistan.
The ability of USA to bomb Pakistan back to stone age is same as it was in 2000. The Chinese or Russian ability to change anything on the ground has only marginally changed. The real issue is and was Pakistan having leadership to stand up against US bluster. I find it amusing how people pull everything out the blue to cover Musharaf's lack of guts - something that was exposed in Kargil fiasco.

According to Musharaf's actions he was more then prepared to have PM house stormed to save his own a*ss but did not feel that having brave Pakistani's soldiers stuck on icy caps were worth storming PM house to remove the alleged weak link in Kargil operation - Nawaz Sharif.
 
.
The ability of USA to bomb Pakistan back to stone age is same as it was in 2000. The Chinese or Russian ability to change anything on the ground has only marginally changed. The real issue is and was Pakistan having leadership to stand up against US bluster. I find it amusing how people pull everything out the blue to cover Musharaf's lack of guts - something that was exposed in Kargil fiasco.

According to Musharaf's actions he was more then prepared to have PM house stormed to save his own a*ss but did not feel that having brave Pakistani's soldiers stuck on icy caps were worth storming PM house to remove the alleged weak link in Kargil operation - Nawaz Sharif.

I never denied USA could drop A-bombs on Pakistan, genius.

But if USA did, the world would be against them for the mass murder and collateral damage it would cause.

Please don't mention Nawaz Sharif. He is another corrupt goon.
 
.
The ability of USA to bomb Pakistan back to stone age is same as it was in 2000. The Chinese or Russian ability to change anything on the ground has only marginally changed. The real issue is and was Pakistan having leadership to stand up against US bluster. I find it amusing how people pull everything out the blue to cover Musharaf's lack of guts - something that was exposed in Kargil fiasco.

According to Musharaf's actions he was more then prepared to have PM house stormed to save his own a*ss but did not feel that having brave Pakistani's soldiers stuck on icy caps were worth storming PM house to remove the alleged weak link in Kargil operation - Nawaz Sharif.
Sir please read your first para your ans is there
 
.
Sir please read your first para your ans is there
I was never good at Rubik's Cube when I ws young. Now that I am old I get a darned headache out of anything that is not simple and straight forward. Instead of giving me a puzzle. Please spoil me by telling me what you mean. Thanks.
 
.
WASHINGTON: As the United States and the new Pakistani government prepare for their first face-to-face talks in Islamabad on Wednesday, the Trump administration has made it clear that Pakistan will have to back the US strategy in Afghanistan if it wants good relations with Washington.

The strategy — as defined by both the State Department and the Pentagon this week — is to use a combination of military and diplomatic pressures to force the Taliban to work with Kabul for restoring peace in Afghanistan.

Washington believes that a working relationship between the Taliban and Kabul can lead to an honourable withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan.

Washington sent its first clear message to Islamabad last week when US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo telephoned Prime Minister Imran Khan and asked the latter to take “decisive action against all terrorists operating in Pakistan”.

Initially, Islamabad disputed the US version of this conversation, but later withdrew its objection.

The second message came earlier last week when US Defence Secretary James Mattis said at a news briefing in Washington that Secretary Pompeo and the US military chief were going to Islamabad to urge Pakistan to play its role in fighting terrorists.

Official underlines importance of Islamabad’s help in encouraging Afghan Taliban to come to negotiating table

Then on Saturday, the Pentagon announced that it was seeking to reallocate $300 million in aid to Pakistan due to Islamabad’s lack of “decisive actions” in support of America’s Afghan strategy.

But so far, the most detailed explanation of the US terms of engagement came from a senior Pentagon official — Assistant Secretary of Defence for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs Randall G. Schriver.

In his talk at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, Mr Schriver emphasised several key points: no restoration of US security assistance to Pakistan before the war in Afghanistan ends, more restrictions may be imposed and Washington has serious concerns about Pakistan’s growing economic ties with China.

But he also said that the Trump administration was willing to give Imran Khan and his team some “space” to make their policies.

“In terms of separating what was said during a campaign and what he said since the election, we want to give him (Mr Khan) space to find the opportunities to improve things with India,” he said.

Mr Schriver also dispelled the perception that Washington was trying to destabilise Pakistan.

“We are not interested in a failed Pakistan by any stretch of the imagination. So, we want them to be successful,” said the top US official while indicating that Washington could also work with international financial institutions to help boost the ailing Pakistani economy because “economy is going to be the key” to Pakistan’s success.

In earlier statements, US officials had indicated that they might not support Pakistan’s bid to seek an estimated $12 billion from the International Monetary Fund until what they said Islamabad stopped supporting certain Taliban groups in Afghanistan.

Mr Schriver not only offered conditional support to Pakistan’s efforts to seek international or bilateral loans, but also acknowledged the key role that Islamabad has to play in bringing the Taliban to the negotiating table.

“There is no question we need Pakistan’s help in encouraging, persuading, pressuring Taliban to come to the negotiating table, deal with the national unity government under President Ghani and talk about a future where they are included, not through force, but through a political process,” he said.

He defended the Trump administration’s decision to suspend security and certain economic assistance to Pakistan, saying: “We have made decisions on curbing assistance and putting constraints on our relationship with Pakistan as a means to try to persuade them to adopt that course and use their influence on the Taliban.”

But such decisions were regularly evaluated, he added.

“We are still evaluating as to the impact of that. It’s certainly not where we want it to be. But it’s something that, I think, we will stick with and certainly the end stage should be one that we can all agree on,” he said.

Mr Schriver also said that the US was not yet ready to resume its assistance to Pakistan.

“I think our approach of cutting assistance and pressuring Pakistan on their relationship with the Taliban — persuading them to come to the table, dealing with terrorist networks — will be sustained,” he said. “It is a matter of dealing with suspicions and distrust and the mix of all this.”

Explaining why the Trump administration wanted to end the Afghan war now, Mr Schriver said: “Seventeen years is long enough to be involved in a war. We need this to end. We want this to end.”

Responding to a question about the Pakistani economy, Mr Schriver said: “I don’t have a good answer on the economic difficulties and challenges that Pakistan finds itself in. What I can say is, if you look at other examples where countries went all-in or largely-in with China, the results have not been particularly good. There has been an erosion of sovereignty and an erosion of control. There are many examples of that.”

The US, he said, was willing to help Pakistan.

“So, if our friends in Pakistan want to talk about a way out of that or want to talk about ways to strengthen their economy and deal with that, I am sure we would be open to that in trying to work with Pakistan — bilaterally or through international institutions — to try to get them on a better path,” he said.

Published in Dawn, September 3rd, 2018


https://www.dawn.com/news/1430630/us-spells-out-terms-of-engagement-with-pakistan
Arms denied, support stopped. USA, when will you realize that you are not in any position now.
But, ah, such is life.
 
.
He could have negotiate a better deal is a fact but he could not stop them from attacking Afghanistan is also a fact.
 
.
But if USA did, the world would be against them for the mass murder and collateral damage it would cause.
What world? Somalia? Niger? Poland/ India? USA in broad daylight trashed Iraq and effectively murdered a million Iraqi's. It then went on to play the same game on Syria. Do you see any 'world' arresting USA or holding it accountable?
 
.
What world? Somalia? Niger? Poland/ India? USA in broad daylight trashed Iraq and effectively murdered a million Iraqi's. It then went on to play the same game on Syria. Do you see any 'world' arresting USA or holding it accountable?
I am talking about using nuclear weapons!

The world would be against USA for using nuclear weapons, because of the collateral damage it would cause.
And don't bring up nuking Japan because at that time nuclear weapon collateral damage was not very well known as that time.

The world wouldn't give a damn if USA invaded Pakistan. That I agree with you.
 
.
He could have negotiate a better deal is a fact but he could not stop them from attacking Afghanistan is also a fact.
Did I say differant? Nobody expected Musharaf to have a war with USA. But a deal that did not give Afghanistan to India/Northern Alliance might be the least we could expect.

I am talking about using nuclear weapons!
When did I mention nuclear weapons? I quoted Armitage from 2001 "bomb you to stone age".
 
.
Anyways.
Did I say differant? Nobody expected Musharaf to have a war with USA. But a deal that did not give Afghanistan to India/Northern Alliance might be the least we could expect.

When did I mention nuclear weapons? I quoted Armitage from 2001 "bomb you to stone age".
You mentioned A-bombs in one of your posts. That USA could A-bomb Pakistan.

Unless that was a typo of course, you could say that.
 
. .
Whatever the USA does vis-a-vis Afghanistan, she's goanna lose no matter Pak supports or not!!! Fighting in Afghanistan is fighting against the DESTINY!! The British imperialists learnt it long time back...
I humbly but totally disagree with you sir Their policy or let us say the policy of the deep state (zionist, neocons.etc) is to destroy as many muslim states as they can i think their score ist not bad iraq Afghanistan Yemen Syria libya iran economically turkey economically. So


Sir i missed you
Please cross Turkey out!!! As for economy, this $ assault has become a blessing in disguise...
 
.
Did I say differant? Nobody expected Musharaf to have a war with USA. But a deal that did not give Afghanistan to India/Northern Alliance might be the least we could expect.

When did I mention nuclear weapons? I quoted Armitage from 2001 "bomb you to stone age".
When one is rattled one makes bad decisions
That's the problem with dictatorship one man show.
 
.
Nope. Quote me please? I quoted Richard Armitage "bomb them to stone age".
Alright, my apologies. It appeared you did not say A-bomb.

I may have misread. I saw your original post in #92

Nope. Quote me please? I quoted Richard Armitage "bomb them to stone age".
Even if USA does have ability to bomb Pakistan whenever they want, they cannot do it without a legitimate reason or justification.
 
.
When one is rattled one makes bad decisions
That's the problem with dictatorship one man show.
Bingo. The problem was Musharaf was not as cool as he makes out. He was no Napoloen or Hitler. Like I said in the Kargil fiasco he blamed Nawaz. The question that nobody has asked him is you had Nawaz thrown out of office when his **** was on the line in the air but when Pakistani soldiers were fighting and dieing in Kargil he did not remove Nawaz. He later blamed Nawaz for the fiasco.

What happened in 2001 was when facing threat of USA he had no backbone and no popular support in the country so he sold out Afghanistan to come out as Bush's b*tch with few billion dollars which he then showered on the country to give a impression that his government was doing good.

Even if USA does have ability to bomb Pakistan whenever they want, they cannot do it without a legitimate reason or justification.
They can. Well so thought Musharaf.
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom