US strikes in Pakistan will continue: Gates

[S-2]

"...therefor one must see on the comparative advantages Pakistan has, and right now it is the supply route."

That's not certain. Didn't you note my comment below?

"So be it. Use it.

I think it's important. I don't think it's insurmountable. If so, you've got us over a barrel. If strained, maybe we talk.

If not, you'll have some visibly p!ssed off Americans showing Pakistan what cards WE hold."

Three outcomes of your proposed supply-route closing noted in my comment. Closing a NATO supply route will making clear your disinterest in the U.N. Afghanistan mission.

The defeated afghan taliban army retreated to and have encamped within your nation. Your concerns about your "sovereign" status pale in comparison to the carnage that these men have reaped upon Afghanistan in the interim. Equally, your concerns about your own growing insurgency make clear the latent threat that had existed by your duplicity.

Now you reap the whirlwind.

Try this- cut your supply routes, make what accomodation is possible with the militants and terrorists, accept the utter absence of foreign military and civilian aid, and prepare yourselves for war. War from within and without.

It will come as sure as the sun rises in the east.

I'd approach the notion of cutting NATO supplies in the most circumspect manner possible. You'd better make damned certain that you understand our abilities, current and projected capacities, un-used transportation assets and full supply needs before doing so.

You also will need a firm understanding of other agreements now in place and their status-contingent, active, or in disrepair. Finally, you of all people should recognize the mercurial nature of politics in central asia.

My suspicion at this board is that there exists a very poor understanding of Russian military and economic capability. So too the Chinese. I'll simply say that neither nation is interested in seeing Afghanistan slip to chaos for obvious reasons tracing to their own muslim insurgencies.

I might be wrong but I suspect that your "leverage" will prove illusory. Worse, you'll only come to realize that after-the-fact to your extreme detriment. It would be, in short, disastrous for Pakistan to play that card under any conceivable circumstance for the near and medium term.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Our poet's words are a direct challenge and threat to my citizens, nation, and myself. Don't tell me now that well in the future you'll be coming after me.

Your intent is clear now even if your means aren't.

His words were immediately followed by yours before I could even make my first reply-

Ensure that Babylon is not destroyed, that the US does not play the role of a tyrant, that the blood of innocents is not needlessly shed, and you won't have anything to worry about.

Do all of the above and you deserve everythign that comes your way.

A while back you pointed out the conditions that had to be met for your statement, a statement that in my opinion was a "direct challenge and threat to my citizens, nation, and myself", to be applicable. I believe the same applies here.

So long as Pakistan is not made the US's sacrificial pawn in the region, and the two sides continue to work together to bolster common interests and address legitimate concerns, I see no issues here.

 

[S-2]

"So long as Pakistan is not made the US's sacrificial pawn in the region, and the two sides continue to work together to bolster common interests and address legitimate concerns, I see no issues here."

Nor I.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If they cut the supply route right now Washington will (probably) listen, but for how long, that i cant speculate.

Pak Force UL,

Pakistan does not have many options, the US does. Guess how long before the Indians join in the fun if Pakistan cuts off the US?

Its about limiting our losses and selecting the best choice out of many poor choices.
Yes the airstrikes exacerbate the situation to some degree, but if coordination with the ISI/PA occurs, and innocent casualties are minimized, the pot of popular sentiment will not 'boil over'.

Until such time as we can manage to control the areas we are fighting in currently, and can move more forces into the areas where these strikes occur, the strikes do us a favor in one respect. Again, we have to ensure that a degree of cooperation exists to minimize innocent or unwanted casualties.

 

[fatman17]

pakistans current predicament is one of diminishing returns:

economy stuttering and on IMF life-blood line.
mubbai terrorist attack issue still open. india mounting diplomatic pressure.
obama to continue drone attacks policy - pakistan's protests falling on deaf ears.
bajaur insurgency not fully eliminated.
swat situation nearing the tipping point. govt.'s complete ignorance of the situation. army's belated action.
US finalizing alternate supply routes. US$80m/month on the line.

 

[Contrarian]

Guess how long before the Indians join in the fun if Pakistan cuts off the US?

I just love how India is made out the Uultimate Villain of Pakistan in every second post!

The ominous bogey: "What if" India "joins in", "how long' for India to "join in"!

 

[Jihad]

Actually, Agno is pretty correct, the Indians seem to be very nosy when Pakistans interests are at stake.
But anyways, interesting debate guys, I enjoy reading all of your posts, very informative.

 

[PakForce Unlimited]

"...therefor one must see on the comparative advantages Pakistan has, and right now it is the supply route."

That's not certain. Didn't you note my comment below?

"So be it. Use it.

I think it's important. I don't think it's insurmountable. If so, you've got us over a barrel. If strained, maybe we talk.

If not, you'll have some visibly p!ssed off Americans showing Pakistan what cards WE hold."

Ok, i think you have misunderstood what i posted or i have not formulated my post good enough to explain my intent.

First of all, i know what consequences will follow if the threat is used, note that i wrote that it is in Pakistans interest not to destabalize the region further, Pakistan knows good what will happen if US withdraws and how this will rebound into Pakistan and destabalize it furhter. You also pointed out some of those consequenseswhich can go wrong if the bilateral relationships goes downtown. Nobody wants that.

What i meant with the supply line is not actually block the supply line and start armageddon but rather consider this as a strategy that can be used if the unilateralism increases. There is a difference between them two, and i hope i have made my self more clear this time

As Agnostic Muslim pointed out

"Its about limiting our losses and selecting the best choice out of many poor choices."

We have no other choice than co-operation with the USA, but there must be more increased co-operation to limit the civilian losses when these drones attack (But if there is a ongoing co-operation, a secret one with the present government, they should announce it publically and not try to hide this, so the blame can be equally divided and this discussion would then also become, pointless.)

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I just love how India is made out the Uultimate Villain of Pakistan in every second post!

The ominous bogey: "What if" India "joins in", "how long' for India to "join in"!

That was an analysis on my part that I think is accurate.

If the US sees Pakistan as contributing to the problem more than assisting, then the potential of involving India in Afghanistan becomes more likely.

 

[roadrunner]

Russia refused America a supply route last I heard.

I don't think America is going to be able to afford it very soon.

The Pakistan route is their cheapest option.

 

[jeypore]

That was an analysis on my part that I think is accurate.

If the US sees Pakistan as contributing to the problem more than assisting, then the potential of involving India in Afghanistan becomes more likely.

I agree, it would be benefial to India also not only US.

 

[PakForce Unlimited]

I just love how India is made out the Uultimate Villain of Pakistan in every second post!

The ominous bogey: "What if" India "joins in", "how long' for India to "join in"!

No one is trying portray India as the "ultimate villain" of Pakistan. But you must recognize that Pakistan will always "watch" over its back on every geo-political action or decision it makes. The Indo-Pak relationship is of this character that no one will let the other get the upper hand, and will try to counter any action\decision made by the other part, in secret or openly.

It is in Indias geo-political interest to se what Pakistan is upto and when one can take advantage to get the upper hand in Pak-Indo relations. The same applies for Pakistan. Thats how politics works when two countries have engaged each other in three wars.

 

[belarusian]

The drone attacks should be halted. They are not a rational way to obtain any rational objective.

More importantly, the United States should stop making war in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

There is no enemy. The enemy is an illusion.

The US National Intelligence Council's report on global trends,
published this month, predicts that the terrorist organisation al-Qaeda
"may decay sooner" than many experts expect because of its "unachievable
strategic objectives, inability to attract broad-based support, and
self-destructive actions."

http://www.gwynnedyer.com/articles/Gwynne Dyer article_ Terrorism is Marginal.txt


The 9/11 attack was not asymmetric warfare directed against the United States. There are no terrorist states.


quote #2

Terrorism is only as important as you let it be. The people who do
it, whatever their goals, are by definition few, weak and marginal. If they
were many, strong and central, then they would be a major political
movement or a government, and they wouldn't feel the need to resort to
terrorism. Since they are not, the wisest course is to treat them as common
criminals.


Pakistan and Afghanistan are weak and marginal states that are criminal sanctuaries.

Remote control assassination doesn't come to grips with the actual problem.

 

[roadrunner]

The drone attacks should be halted. They are not a rational way to obtain any rational objective.

More importantly, the United States should stop making war in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

There is no enemy. The enemy is an illusion.

The US National Intelligence Council's report on global trends,
published this month, predicts that the terrorist organisation al-Qaeda
"may decay sooner" than many experts expect because of its "unachievable
strategic objectives, inability to attract broad-based support, and
self-destructive actions."

http://www.gwynnedyer.com/articles/Gwynne Dyer article_ Terrorism is Marginal.txt


The 9/11 attack was not asymmetric warfare directed against the United States. There are no terrorist states.


quote #2

Terrorism is only as important as you let it be. The people who do
it, whatever their goals, are by definition few, weak and marginal. If they
were many, strong and central, then they would be a major political
movement or a government, and they wouldn't feel the need to resort to
terrorism. Since they are not, the wisest course is to treat them as common
criminals.


Pakistan and Afghanistan are weak and marginal states that are criminal sanctuaries.

Remote control assassination doesn't come to grips with the actual problem.

I liked the article.

Though I disagree that Pakistan is necessarily a criminal sanctuary or a weak state. Al Qaeda is broadly diffused all over the world, as the suicide attacks have happened all over the world.

However in the last 6 years Arabs and Uzbeks have been pushed into the region. This is a problem.

 

[Pashtun]

I liked the article.

Though I disagree that Pakistan is necessarily a criminal sanctuary or a weak state. Al Qaeda is broadly diffused all over the world, as the suicide attacks have happened all over the world.

However in the last 6 years Arabs and Uzbeks have been pushed into the region. This is a problem.

Arabs and Uzbeks are living there since the Soviet-Afghan war. That's where they came to fight the Red Menace, and stayed back, married among locals, and started their families.

They were no problem until 6 years, and became problem all of a sudden when United States decided to include Pakistan into WoT?