Why Are We Sending This Attack Helicopter to Pakistan?

[Bratva]

Seems like Mr.Haqqani wrote this article while he was on his periods.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

@Horus close this thread.

cant keep on closing everything we don't agree with
just maintain the decorum and don't loose your wit.

Haqqani must know that this is a legit buy not an undercover steal.
like below
US contractor pleads guilty to sending military data to India - Newspaper - DAWN.COM
one American Contractor is charged for selling military secrets to Indians
@Solomon2 is India following Israeli lead here? is it an accepted norm that Strategic US partners must spy and steal from America?

 

[Paksanity]

Mr Hussain is right. These weapons can and may be used against India and Baloch insurgents. What he fails at is the legitmacy of this use. If either or both of the above attack Pakistan how is it wrong to use them?! Off course we will use them against anyone who threatens us. Use of violence is permitted to a state that faces violence. How is it wrong, Mr Hussain?

That is how you maintain balance in a region and ensure security. Pakistan as a state has the right acquire weapons for its security and use them when left with no choice. That is how world works.

 

[Jaanbaz]

Kala farangi.

 

[Solomon2]

The 'by Hussain Haqqani' written right below the headline sure implied that he did. But if he didn't, I'll take back my comment about him pretending to be fully American.

I don't know. But ever since Natan Sharansky was condemned by the Soviets to prison for a misleading headline I've always given authors the benefit of the doubt. (Furthermore, Sharansky's show trial embarrassed the Soviet gov't, which had trusted in the truth of the headline.)

It will last long enough, now that the Afghan government is reasonably strong and co-operating to secure the Durand Line. It is fully and completely serious, there is no doubt about it. It always was serious, only now it's more complete with the comprehensive Zarb-e-Azb operation instead of occasional, smaller-scale ones as was tried in the past.

I'm amazed you can write that with a straight face.

The rest of the world hasn't rejected the principle of using Non-State Armed Groups either. Until recently your own US was using Syrian rebels that have resulted in ISIS, along with anti-Russia elements like the Chechen rebels. Russia supports groups in Ukraine and Syria, while India has constantly supported Balochi rebels in Pakistan for a long time now.

I think you've mixed up truth and want-to-be-truth here: the Chechens have long held to the credo that one can't be a man without killing a Russian (MiG Pilot, 1975) and I don't think Pakistan has ever provided proof of Indian support of Baluchi rebels (solitary confessions alone aren't evidence.)

Asymmetric, proxy and non-state warfare is now dominant in the world - Pakistan isn't alone and Pakistan completely rejecting all non-state groups won't change anything unless other nations follow suit; and even when they do, as long as the underlying conflicts remain, blood will be spilled in one way or another.

Interesting. Why wouldn't Pakistan completely rejecting non-state actors change everything since these were, since the very beginning, given the leeway to operate outside the law?

Your suspicion is flawed. The Zarb-e-Azb operation started long before the Peshawar attack and was just as serious; the main change caused by the Peshawar attack was in the civilian aspect, with extremism, hate-speech and mullahs being cracked down on by civilians within the urban areas - very little changed in the military offensive in the tribal areas, except a huge rise in individual soldiers' determination.

This is possible.

You mean like this?: Kashmir - 19 year old Muslim protester shot dead by Indian forces.
Good point, wrong country.

No, H.H. and Shuja Nawaz described ISI and "freelancers" killing Kashmiris who strove for independence rather than union with Pakistan.

if you convince Muslims that religious hate is part of Islam, you'll increase that hate tenfold.

That's what I'm saying.

Abandoning Islam means LOSING. It means accepting that Islam is violent and hateful, which means conforming to the terrorists' ideology. It also means increasing religious extremism since you've basically accepted that Islam itself is what the terrorists say it is, and that to follow Islam one must follow those terrorists. You might want Muslims to lose the ideological fight against terrorism, I sure as hell don't..You suspect absolutely wrong and you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to Pakistani internal politics. Islam has nothing to do with officials' corruption, absolutely nothing -

I'm not a Muslim. To me, Islam is what people who claim to be Muslims do, in context. Terrorists like ISIS and the Taliban wipe out or dominate peace-minded people from the territory they control. To combat their reality of Islam as violent and hateful you have to build another reality. Pakistan has not done a good job of it - the white stripe gets thinner every day and justice operates outside the law, or is a luxury of the rich, or can be defrayed with bribes.

None of the parties in power today or for the last few decades was/is religious, based on religion or in any way related to religion. The most corrupt government Pakistan has ever had was in fact the Liberal and Secular PPP under Zardari, which ruled right before the current government. Absolutely nothing will change in officials' corruption even if Islam is eradicated from the face of the Earth. Nil, zero. They'll stay as corrupt as ever.

Oh, I agree. Which is why you need to reach for a different solution: accountability.

Every Muslim knows what I'm talking about, I don't need to emphasize on anything. That's why not.
-Honesty
-Integrity
-Morality
-Trust
-Modesty
-Justice
-Accountability
-Humanitarianism
-Shura, i.e democratic participation
-Charity
-Distribution of wealth
-Respect
-Welfare

And to promote this for real do you not have to give up the position that anyone who decries failings in such is automatically guilty of treason?

 

[moisrar47]

 

[Umair Nawaz]

cant keep on closing everything we don't agree with
just maintain the decorum and don't loose your wit.

Haqqani must know that this is a legit buy not an undercover steal.
like below
US contractor pleads guilty to sending military data to India - Newspaper - DAWN.COM
one American Contractor is charged for selling military secrets to Indians
@Solomon2 is India following Israeli lead here? is it an accepted norm that Strategic US partners must spy and steal from America?

Ye Haqqani kisi din boht buri maar khae ga mujse......Main iski umer ka leehaz b nai karuga.

 

[nwmalik]

Mr Zardari needs to explain this.
I still remember letters from Benazir Bhutto against sale of F16 to Pakistan.

 

[hussain0216]

I dont blame haqqani a traitor is a traitor


But how poor was Zardari and the PPP that this was the phucker they chose to protect Pakistani interests in the USA

This was the guy who was pushing for visas for dubious CIA officials against the ISI wishes


Parties like the PPP, MQM are worthless categorically unable to take care of Pakistan

Their suppoters should wake up they should never see power again

 

[Dalit]

The most shameless part of this article is the title .
Why are "we" selling.
This we reflects the entire story. He is writing the article as an american , who is crying against pak. Military purchases.
This "we" by hussain haqani is shameless

What is the surprise? Everyone knew all along that this guy was only doing the bidding of everyone except Pakistan. People like him aren't loyal to Pakistan, but we always realize afterwards.

As for his plea for not selling choppers to Pakistan. I say shove them where the sun doesn't shine.

 

[Solomon2]

...Has he forgotten that Pakistan's policy has ALWAYS been of maintaining minimum deterrence? When has Pakistan sought parity with any nation?.

Z.A. Bhutto, in his 1967 book The Myth of Independence, advocated Pakistan seek to address India as an equal and advocated conquering a substantial portion of India proper, in addition to Kashmir. (He already knew the Kashmiris, after the 1965 debacle, didn't want to join Pakistan, otherwise they would have cooperated with Pakistani infiltrators rather than cooperate with Indian security forces.)

 

[Sage]

If DiCk had wings, his mouth would be an air port !

 

[My-Analogous]

From our very own Hussain Haqqani. I don't know why he is so anti-Pakistani? How in the world did he end up as our ambassador to USA?

Why Are We Sending This Attack Helicopter to Pakistan? - WSJ
The Obama administration’s decision this month to sell almost $1 billion in U.S.-made attack helicopters, missiles and other equipment to Pakistan will fuel conflict in South Asia without fulfilling the objective of helping the country fight Islamist extremists. Pakistan’s failure to tackle its jihadist challenge is not the result of a lack of arms but reflects an absence of will. Unless Pakistan changes its worldview, American weapons will end up being used to fight or menace India and perceived domestic enemies instead of being deployed against jihadists.

Competition with India remains the overriding consideration in Pakistan’s foreign and domestic policies. By aiding Pakistan over the years—some $40 billion since 1950, according to the Congressional Research Service—the U.S. has fed Pakistan’s delusion of being India’s regional military equal. Seeking security against a much larger neighbor is a rational objective but seeking parity with it on a constant basis is not.

ENLARGE
The AH-1Z Viper. PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES
Instead of selling more military equipment to Pakistan, U.S. officials should convince Pakistan that its ambitions of rivaling India are akin to Belgium trying to rival France or Germany. India’s population is six times as large as Pakistan’s while India’s economy is 10 times bigger, and India’s $2 trillion economy has managed consistent growth whereas Pakistan’s $245 billion economy has grown sporadically and is undermined by jihadist terrorism and domestic political chaos. Pakistan also continues to depend on Islamist ideology—through its school curricula, propaganda and Islamic legislation—to maintain internal nationalist cohesion, which inevitably encourages extremism and religious intolerance.

Clearly, with the latest military package, the Obama administration expects to continue the same policies adopted by several of its predecessors—and somehow get different results. It’s a mystery why the president suddenly trusts Pakistan’s military—after mistrusting it at the time of the Navy SEAL operation in May 2011 that found and killed Osama bin Laden living safely until then in the Pakistani garrison town of Abbottabad.

One explanation is that selling helicopters and missiles is easier than thinking of alternative strategies to compel an errant ally to change its behavior. This is a pattern in U.S.-Pakistan relations going back to the 1950s. Between 1950 and 1969, the U.S. gave $4.5 billion in aid to Pakistan partly in the hope of using Pakistani troops in anticommunist wars, according to declassified U.S. government documents. Pakistan did not contribute a single soldier for the wars in Korea or Vietnam but went to war with India over the disputed border state of Kashmir instead in 1965.

During the 1980s, Pakistan served as the staging ground for the jihad against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and received another $4.5 billion in aid, as reported by the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations to Congress. Pakistan diverted U.S. assistance again toward its obsessive rivalry with India, and trained insurgents to fight in the Indian part of Kashmir as well as in India’s Punjab state. It also violated promises to the U.S. and its own public statements not to acquire nuclear weapons, which it first tested openly in 1998—arguing that it could not afford to remain nonnuclear while India’s nuclear program surged ahead.

Since the 1990s, Pakistan has supported various jihadist groups, including the Afghan Taliban. After 9/11, the country’s military dictator, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, promised to end support for the Islamic radicals. Based on that promise, Pakistan received $15.1 billion in civil and military aid from the U.S. until 2009. In February, Gen. Musharraf admitted in an interview with the U.K.’s Guardian newspaper that he continued to support the Afghan Taliban even after 9/11 because of concerns over close relations between Afghanistan and India. Thus the U.S. was effectively arming a country that was, in turn, arming insurgents fighting and killing American troops in Afghanistan.

After the Dec. 16, 2014, attack on a Peshawar school, where the Taliban massacred 160 people, including many schoolchildren, Pakistan claimed it had changed its policy toward terrorist groups and would no longer distinguish between “good” and “bad” Taliban. The Pakistani military has since sped up military action against terrorist groups responsible for mayhem inside Pakistan. But the destruction, demobilization, disarmament or dismantling of Afghan Taliban and other radical groups is clearly not on the Pakistani state’s agenda. There has been no move against Kashmir-oriented jihadist groups.

Given Pakistan’s history, it is likely that the 15 AH-1Z Viper helicopters and 1,000 Hellfire missiles—as well as communications and training equipment being offered to it—will be used against secular insurgents in southwest Baluchistan province, bordering Iran, and along the disputed border in Kashmir rather than against the jihadists in the northwest bordering Afghanistan.

If the Obama administration believes Pakistan’s military has really changed its priorities, it should consider leasing helicopters to Pakistan and verify where they are deployed before going through with outright sales.

With nuclear weapons, Pakistan no longer has any reason to feel insecure about being overrun by a larger Indian conventional force. For the U.S. to continue supplying a Pakistani military that is much larger than the country can afford will only invigorate Pakistani militancy and militarism at the expense of its 200 million people, one-third of whom continue to live at less than a dollar a day per household.

Mr. Haqqani, the director for South and Central Asia at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C., was Pakistan’s ambassador to the U.S., 2008-11.

Mr. Haqqani if you are MAN enough (which you are not ) then come and face you case first.

 

[TankMan]

I like your post, particularly with the passion with which you are posting.. but I disagree.

Proof of the pudding lies in eating. All we see of Islam is hate, discrimination, violence, intimidation. You can't use words to make everyone forget what they see daily.

Firstly, all you see of Islam is the negatives because ''Muslim gives charity'' or ''Muslim does something good'' doesn't make headline news. I hope you don't seriously believe that all 1.5 billion Muslims do is hate, discriminate and intimidate- because if that was the case, we wouldn't be sitting here typing. And we definitely wouldn't be discussing this on a Muslim country's defence forum.

The fact that you also mention that if someone manages to convince the Muslims that hate is part of Islam, it will increase 10 fold - also tells us one more thing - Islam discourages any independent thinking.

And how do you get to that conclusion? Looks like you've misunderstood; I didn't mean that anyone could actually convince Muslims that hate is part of Islam. It was a purely hypothetical example I used to illustrate how pointless it is to argue that hate is part of Islam. The only thing this tells us is that some people are extremely devoted to their faith - not, in any way, that Islam somehow 'discourages independent thinking'.

It actually encourages independent thinking very much, as evidenced by the fact that fields like science, medicine, mathematics and philosophy flourished during the time Islam was at its peak. If Islam was opposed to independent thinking, logically such feats of independent thinking wouldn't have been possible under Islamic rule. But it was possible.

No words of yours or others with the cliche 'Islam means peace' will be believed because seeing is believing.

Similarly if and when Islam actually shows all the good things you mentioned, you will not need to say these good words to convince the rest of the world that Islam is good.

Historically Islam has showed a lot of those good things I mentioned, and that too on a large scale. Nowadays it is visible but on a smaller scale since the good deeds of Muslims are rarely associated to Islam but the bad deeds are always associated to Islam.

Words don't matter, actions do. So far.. short on action, big on words.

To paraphrase a Latin proverb, 'when we are healthy, we all have advice for those who are sick'. What kind of action would you like from my part, dear Sir? I'd be delighted if I could just walk over to Syria and sweet talk all the fighters into dropping their weapons and trying peace. But I can't.

What would you, as a normal person, have done if you were in this position? I'm honestly curious as to what you think we should do, not being sarcastic or anything.

 

[Mutakalim]

Who decides that, exactly?

People of Pakistan.