US takes Pakistan into confidence over anti-IS alliance

[volatile]

Some A-10 warthogs will do along with all surplus F-16 will provide little help in fighting Americans created force IS

 

[Solomon2]

looking at our previous encounters who knows.. maybe a litter bit longer like the 50s.

The 1950s, when the U.S.A. took over as Pakistan's patron from the Brits, arming Pakistan to the teeth for the purpose of countering potential Communist aggression. That relationship cooled due to Pakistan's invasion of Kashmir in 1965. Using American weapons for conquest was seen by Americans as a betrayal: Pakistani leaders, on the other hand, felt fully justified in lying to get the weapons and military aid they wanted and spread the story to their own people that it was the Americans who betrayed Pakistan by failing to support Pakistan!

...when despite their material support we don't do what they ask us since we have been left with cleaning up the mess few times already.

It was Zia's idea, imposed over American opposition, to destroy the weak Soviet-sponsored Afghan government and leave a mess behind instead. You broke it, you own it - and so the U.S. withdrew. The rest of the story was written by Pakistan, until the U.S. invaded Afghanistan from the Taliban in 2002.

 

[haviZsultan]

The 1950s, when the U.S.A. took over as Pakistan's patron from the Brits, arming Pakistan to the teeth for the purpose of countering potential Communist aggression. That relationship cooled due to Pakistan's invasion of Kashmir in 1965. Using American weapons for conquest was seen by Americans as a betrayal: Pakistani leaders, on the other hand, felt fully justified in lying to get the weapons and military aid they wanted and spread the story to their own people that it was the Americans who betrayed Pakistan by failing to support Pakistan!

It was Zia's idea, imposed over American opposition, to destroy the weak Soviet-sponsored Afghan government and leave a mess behind instead. You broke it, you own it - and so the U.S. withdrew. The rest of the story was written by Pakistan, until the U.S. invaded Afghanistan from the Taliban in 2002.

Lol. Where do you get your information from. Your bum? Tyoical American arrogance and shifting the blame onto others to hide your failure. I hate the Taliban but I am surely glad that you have a bloody nose and have been kicked out of Afghanistan.

First if you think US was betrayed and did not know in 60's that Pakistan would use these arms for India then why did it continue selling arms to Pakistan during and after 1965? Lockheed C130's were delivered even during the war. And what do you mean you thought we wouldn't use those arms on India. We had partition in which 1 million were killed, 48 war on kashmir and aerial scouting by India in 60's. So stop pretending to be noble. You knew exactly that those weapons would be used against India which was an ally of the Soviets, yet you let us have them.

Lets see what Wikipedia says our PAF had during the 65 war:

The PAF fleet at the time consisted of 12 F-104 Starfighters, some 120 F-86 Sabres and around 20 B-57 Canberra bombers.[8] The PAF claims to have had complete air superiority over the battle area from the second day of operations.[9]

All American. Now according to your pathetic logic, US was angry at us for waging war on India in 65. If so then why did by 71 we had bought even more sabres than in 65. That don't make no sense sir yankee, why did US continue to sell weapons after 65? Because like all other countries US engages with we were a tool. To be used and discarded whenever you Yanks thought it fit.

Now coming back to Zia. Zia was convinced by the US to wage war in Afghanistan, not the other way around. We could attack India, Israel but taking on the Soviet Union without any support was suicide. It was US that pledged to protect us and betrayed us later including by passing the presler amendment though not limited to it. But Americans are both genocidal and can rape history. We just rape history in Pakistan. Calling our useless war against the Soviets useful but Americans can throw atom bombs at unsuspecting countries and justify them, remember Hiroshima, Nagasaki?

 

[Solomon2]

Lol. Where do you get your information from -

On the 1965 war from the declassified Foreign Relations of the United States 1965: South Asia. On the endgame of the Afghan-Soviet war there are multiple sources but the first that comes to mind is Deception: Pakistan, the United States, and the Secret Trade in Nuclear Weapons[/quote]

Tyoical American arrogance and shifting -

Your question was reasonable but your rudeness, unsupportable insults, and retreat into diversions and denial are really inexcusable. If you apologize I will think better of you but if not, then not.

 

[hamayunpk]

I think they actually told us to brace ourselves, another 50,000 of us are going to fall by a mess created by them, and then they will end up imposing some idiotic sanctions over us because of ABB getting caught near abbotabad.

Well played, very well played.

And since when Iran and specially Hizbollah are your friends?
And I am pretty sure they will end up supporting Daesh against Taliban in Afghanistan, just saying..... Who knows what CIA is cooking.

 

[haviZsultan]

On the 1965 war from the declassified Foreign Relations of the United States 1965: South Asia. On the endgame of the Afghan-Soviet war there are multiple sources but the first that comes to mind is Deception: Pakistan, the United States, and the Secret Trade in Nuclear Weapons

Your question was reasonable but your rudeness, unsupportable insults, and retreat into diversions and denial are really inexcusable. If you apologize I will think better of you but if not, then not.

Keep watching fox news...

 

[Irfan Baloch]

I think they actually told us to brace ourselves, another 50,000 of us are going to fall by a mess created by them, and then they will end up imposing some idiotic sanctions over us because of ABB getting caught near abbotabad.

Well played, very well played.

And since when Iran and specially Hizbollah are your friends?
And I am pretty sure they will end up supporting Daesh against Taliban in Afghanistan, just saying..... Who knows what CIA is cooking.

I hope not.
because Daesh is a death cult, nothing else.

 

[VCheng]

I hope not.
because Daesh is a death cult, nothing else.

You may think that, but the real danger is that a lot of people think of it as a budding caliphate that will bring peace and prosperity and all things great and good with a resurgent Islam. Guess which viewpoint has more supporters?

 

[Irfan Baloch]

The 1950s, when the U.S.A. took over as Pakistan's patron from the Brits, arming Pakistan to the teeth for the purpose of countering potential Communist aggression. That relationship cooled due to Pakistan's invasion of Kashmir in 1965. Using American weapons for conquest was seen by Americans as a betrayal: Pakistani leaders, on the other hand, felt fully justified in lying to get the weapons and military aid they wanted and spread the story to their own people that it was the Americans who betrayed Pakistan by failing to support Pakistan!

It was Zia's idea, imposed over American opposition, to destroy the weak Soviet-sponsored Afghan government and leave a mess behind instead. You broke it, you own it - and so the U.S. withdrew. The rest of the story was written by Pakistan, until the U.S. invaded Afghanistan from the Taliban in 2002.

unlike today USA had no special love statement for India that was in USSR camp and also clouded with the Communist regime and the Soviets in the Afghans freedom fight against the occupation. although there was a bit of betrayal on USA part when our military supplies that we had already paid for were not only blocked but were found to be in possession of the Indians when we ran over their positions and they ran away leaving the American crates marked "shipment for Pakistan" (well thats how our side of story goes).
as for war against the Soviets , Americans were willing and major partners and had their Vietnam score to settle Charlie Wilson never mentioned being pressed or pressured by Gen Zia to enter in the fight against Soviets.

well that was history, what about now? you not optimistic I see?

You may think that, but the real danger is that a lot of people think of it as a budding caliphate that will bring peace and prosperity and all things great and good with a resurgent Islam. Guess which viewpoint has more supporters?

I dont beleive that such supporters are in such big majority than what seems to be the case. its mostly out of ignorance or jsut a simple if someone is against America it HAS to be RIGHT .. kind of thinking. .. our parliament avenue would have become execution square if your fears were true..things should be better yes and there are some overt very bad people who have access to media and means to influence people and disrupt the country but its not Libya or Syria

 

[VCheng]

I dont beleive that such supporters are in such big majority than what seems to be the case. its mostly out of ignorance or jsut a simple if someone is against America it HAS to be RIGHT .. kind of thinking. .. our parliament avenue would have become execution square if your fears were true..things should be better yes and there are some overt very bad people who have access to media and means to influence people and disrupt the country but its not Libya or Syria

Such supporters are not in a majority - yet. But they are working steadily in many ways. Parliament Ave may not be an execution square this time around, but just around the corner the Lal Masjid is still spewing its ideology of hate and radicalism, and the same holds for hundreds of such centers across the country. Indeed, take a look around PDF as a microcosm of Pakistani society, and take away from it even the limited education and you have an idea of just how precarious the position is of civil society. Generously add anti-Americanism and some juicy conspiracy theories, and you have the entire three-tier cake, just waiting for the party.

 

[Solomon2]

How to fight Daesh

JOSEPH S. NYE
[ "All roads to understanding American foreign policy run through Joe Nye."]
Published — Wednesday 9 September 2015

The terrorist organization, Daesh, has captured the world’s attention with gruesome videos of beheadings, wanton destruction of antiquities and skilled use of social media. It has also captured a large part of eastern Syria and western Iraq, proclaimed a caliphate based in Raqqa, Syria and attracted foreign militants from around the world.

US President Barack Obama says that Daesh must be degraded and ultimately defeated. He has appointed Gen. John Allen to lead a coalition of some 60 countries in the task, relying on air strikes, special forces and training missions. Some critics want him to send more American troops; others say that the United States should settle for a doctrine of containment.

In the current US presidential campaign, some candidates are calling for “boots on the ground.” They are right: Boots are needed. But the soldiers who wear them should be Sunni Arabs and Turks, not Americans. And that says a lot about the nature of the triple threat that the US and its allies now face.

Daesh is three things: A transnational terrorist group, a proto-state, and a political ideology with religious roots. It grew out of Al-Qaeda after the misguided US-led invasion of Iraq; and, like Al-Qaeda, it appeals to extremist elements. But it has gone further, by establishing a caliphate and is now a rival to Al-Qaeda. Its possession of territory creates the legitimacy and capacity for offensive jihad, which it wages not only against infidels but also other Muslims.

Daesh is extremely adept at using twenty-first-century media. Its videos and social-media channels are effective tools for attracting a minority of Muslims — primarily young people from Europe, America, Africa and Asia — who are struggling with their identity. Disgruntled, many are drawn to “Sheikh Google,” where Daesh recruiters wait to prey upon them. By some estimates, there are more than 25,000 foreign fighters serving in Daesh today. Those who are killed are quickly replaced.

The tripartite nature of Daesh creates a policy dilemma. On the one hand, it is important to use hard military power to deprive the caliphate of the territory that provides it both sanctuary and legitimacy. But if the American military footprint is too heavy, the terrorist organization’s soft power will be strengthened, thus aiding its global recruiting efforts.

That is why the boots on the ground must be Sunni. The presence of foreign or Shiite troops reinforces Daesh’s claim of being surrounded and challenged by infidels. So far, thanks largely to effective Kurdish forces, who are overwhelmingly Sunni, Daesh has lost some 30 percent of the territory it held a year ago. But deploying additional Sunni infantry requires training, support, and time, as well as pressure on Iraq’s Shiite-dominated central government to temper its sectarian approach.

After the debacle in Libya, Obama is reluctant to overthrow Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime, only to see Daesh take control of more territory, accompanied by genocidal atrocities against Syria’s many non-Sunnis. But Assad is one of Daesh’s most effective recruiting tools. Many foreign militants respond to the prospect of helping to overthrow a tyrannical Alawite ruler.

The US diplomatic task is to persuade Assad’s supporters, Russia and Iran, to remove him without dismantling the remains of the Syrian state structure. A no-fly zone and a safe zone in northern Syria for the millions of displaced people could reinforce American diplomacy. And providing massive humanitarian assistance to the refugees (at which the American military is very effective) would increase US soft power enormously.

As it stands, the funding and coordination of America’s soft-power strategy is inadequate. But we know that hard power is not enough, particularly to contest the cyber territory that Daesh occupies — for example, by developing a capacity to take down botnets and counter hostile social-media accounts.

Even if the US and its allies defeat Daesh over the coming decade, we should be prepared for a similar Sunni extremist group to rise from the ashes. Revolutions of the type the Middle East is experiencing take a long time to resolve.

Looking ahead in a region where the US has interests, American policymakers will need to follow a flexible strategy of “containment plus nudging.” However, US foreign policy toward the Middle East will have to develop a higher level of sophistication than the current debate reveals.

well that was history, what about now? you not optimistic I see?

Are you willing to deploy the Pakistani Army overseas to fight Daesh? Not just for a month or a year, but for a generation? To fight jihadists abroad and at home not in a battle but as a culture? I would guess not, which is why I'm not optimistic.

 

[Osmanovic]

How to fight Daesh

JOSEPH S. NYE
[ "All roads to understanding American foreign policy run through Joe Nye."]
Published — Wednesday 9 September 2015

The terrorist organization, Daesh, has captured the world’s attention with gruesome videos of beheadings, wanton destruction of antiquities and skilled use of social media. It has also captured a large part of eastern Syria and western Iraq, proclaimed a caliphate based in Raqqa, Syria and attracted foreign militants from around the world.

US President Barack Obama says that Daesh must be degraded and ultimately defeated. He has appointed Gen. John Allen to lead a coalition of some 60 countries in the task, relying on air strikes, special forces and training missions. Some critics want him to send more American troops; others say that the United States should settle for a doctrine of containment.

In the current US presidential campaign, some candidates are calling for “boots on the ground.” They are right: Boots are needed. But the soldiers who wear them should be Sunni Arabs and Turks, not Americans. And that says a lot about the nature of the triple threat that the US and its allies now face.

Daesh is three things: A transnational terrorist group, a proto-state, and a political ideology with religious roots. It grew out of Al-Qaeda after the misguided US-led invasion of Iraq; and, like Al-Qaeda, it appeals to extremist elements. But it has gone further, by establishing a caliphate and is now a rival to Al-Qaeda. Its possession of territory creates the legitimacy and capacity for offensive jihad, which it wages not only against infidels but also other Muslims.

Daesh is extremely adept at using twenty-first-century media. Its videos and social-media channels are effective tools for attracting a minority of Muslims — primarily young people from Europe, America, Africa and Asia — who are struggling with their identity. Disgruntled, many are drawn to “Sheikh Google,” where Daesh recruiters wait to prey upon them. By some estimates, there are more than 25,000 foreign fighters serving in Daesh today. Those who are killed are quickly replaced.

The tripartite nature of Daesh creates a policy dilemma. On the one hand, it is important to use hard military power to deprive the caliphate of the territory that provides it both sanctuary and legitimacy. But if the American military footprint is too heavy, the terrorist organization’s soft power will be strengthened, thus aiding its global recruiting efforts.

That is why the boots on the ground must be Sunni. The presence of foreign or Shiite troops reinforces Daesh’s claim of being surrounded and challenged by infidels. So far, thanks largely to effective Kurdish forces, who are overwhelmingly Sunni, Daesh has lost some 30 percent of the territory it held a year ago. But deploying additional Sunni infantry requires training, support, and time, as well as pressure on Iraq’s Shiite-dominated central government to temper its sectarian approach.

After the debacle in Libya, Obama is reluctant to overthrow Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime, only to see Daesh take control of more territory, accompanied by genocidal atrocities against Syria’s many non-Sunnis. But Assad is one of Daesh’s most effective recruiting tools. Many foreign militants respond to the prospect of helping to overthrow a tyrannical Alawite ruler.

The US diplomatic task is to persuade Assad’s supporters, Russia and Iran, to remove him without dismantling the remains of the Syrian state structure. A no-fly zone and a safe zone in northern Syria for the millions of displaced people could reinforce American diplomacy. And providing massive humanitarian assistance to the refugees (at which the American military is very effective) would increase US soft power enormously.

As it stands, the funding and coordination of America’s soft-power strategy is inadequate. But we know that hard power is not enough, particularly to contest the cyber territory that Daesh occupies — for example, by developing a capacity to take down botnets and counter hostile social-media accounts.

Even if the US and its allies defeat Daesh over the coming decade, we should be prepared for a similar Sunni extremist group to rise from the ashes. Revolutions of the type the Middle East is experiencing take a long time to resolve.

Looking ahead in a region where the US has interests, American policymakers will need to follow a flexible strategy of “containment plus nudging.” However, US foreign policy toward the Middle East will have to develop a higher level of sophistication than the current debate reveals.

Are you willing to deploy the Pakistani Army overseas to fight Daesh? Not just for a month or a year, but for a generation? To fight jihadists abroad and at home not in a battle but as a culture? I would guess not, which is why I'm not optimistic.

Joe Nye the politics guy.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

the ISI, CIA, other Western intelligence, and the Afghan govt.(as well as the Afghan taleban/resistance fighters) are all on the same page vis a vis Daesh.....

 

[Woody Nerd]

Regarding the topic i have a question to which i would like expert's opinion @Horus @Xeric @Syed.Ali.Haider @fatman17

Let me summarize: US is pressurizing Pak to join its coalition against IS while threatening to withhold Coalition support fund in case of refusal. Apparently we already have much on our plates and are unable to commit large number of troops/equipment for this alliance.

However, the point to note is that since the start of zarb-e-azb majority of terrorists have reportedly moved across the border into nangarhar province, where they are increasingly joining IS, with possible ties to khad and flushed with indian financial support($400 just for joining). Without eliminating them one would consider zarb-e-azb incomplete(#porous border). Now, the question is how? Afghan Gov is not a pragmatic option. Whereas our historic "friends" inside afg are already busy in various battles, supporting them to eliminate IS will open a path of proxy war that could take 2-3 bloody years. IS presense is anatagonistic to our *assets in afg.

Hence, i just want to float an idea: what if we conduct airstrikes and special operations inside afg against IS leadership that is residing just across our border, and we do it while riding on this US coalition against IS so that afg gov has little to object to. Finding no leadership, the IS members would fall in line, synonymous with our interests in Afg.To me it makes sense to completely eradicate the problem once an operation is launched, not delaying it to some other opportunity in the future. The reason we dont see any more terrorist groups active in pak is because they have moved into afg, and are flourishing under IS umbrella, flourishing with indian money, waiting to strike back. We all know that rules can be bent, alliances modified, it would just require diplomatic effort to attain endorsements for our strikes, as part of the coalition. To me it seems it will solve our problem of cross-border terrorism, problem with the coalition fund, and *make a vacuum for our "friends" to move in close to jalalabad, and it will remove threat to iran(with whom our trade relationship is building up fast). Our leadership needs to look at this pressurizing by US as an opportunity to solve our own problems. So the question is: how viable is this prospect in terms of practicality on ground, by your assessment? Thanks.

[QUOTE="Imran Khan, post: 7603731, member: 6381"]we already bleeding like dog from WOT alliance no thanks[/QUOTE]

yes but that was against our assets in Afghanistan. This would be against Indian interests in afg, in my opinion.

 

[Genghis khan1]

Nawaz sarif should order one:

Yap sure Pakistan, Go ahead and join another alliance, but this time make sure to start your wish list from Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and F-35s in Coalition Support fund...
Susan Rice might laugh but just tell her Realpolitik, Deal or No Deal.