Will The United States Attack Pakistan?

[muse]

If the Quetta Shura exists, it isn't going anywhere so long as Obama dithers and a long term US commitment to Afghanistan is in doubt

Yes, this is a valid fear in my judgement - I would draw your attention to two pieces, but more directly to the piece below - you will note it's attribution of authorship and substance:



Afghan peace needs a map
By Li Qinggong (China Daily)
Updated: 2009-09-28

Afghanistan's political and social turmoil has been aggravated by different intentions of the participating nations that constitute the coalition forces.

In the short term, the fragile Afghan regime is finding it difficult to tame its restive domestic situation. Still, a prescription could help bring the country out of the mess if key players adopt a peaceful and reconciliatory approach in their push for the end of the war.

The United States should first put an end to the war. The anti-terror war, which the former US administration of George W Bush launched in 2001, has turned out to be the source of ceaseless turbulence and violence in the past years.

To promote much-needed reconciliation among the parties concerned, the US should end its military action. The war has neither brought the Islamic nation peace and security as the Bush administration originally promised, nor brought any tangible benefits to the US itself. On the contrary, the legitimacy of the US military action has been under increasing doubt.

Public opinion within the US on the war has undergone dramatic change. According to a recent poll, opinion in favor of the war has declined from 53 percent in April to 39 percent, while opinion opposed to the war has increased to 58 percent from 46 percent. The US Congress has also cast doubt over the Obama administration's Afghanistan strategy. The opposition from 74 percent Democrats and 70 percent independent votes to the war would be a big restraint on the Obama administration's larger military strides given that the new president cannot afford to bet his political fate on a unpopular war.

Since taking office as president, Obama has been under pressure from the Pentagon for military reinforcements in Afghanistan. The calls of war opponents over that of supporters will give the young US president the best chance to extricate himself from the Pentagon's pressures. If Obama resolutely decides to stop the war, that would not only meet the US public expectations and save more American lives, but also help recover the US' peaceful image and enhance the president's personal political prospects.

Another way to help Afghanistan break the current deadlock is to promote reconciliation among the Afghan government, the Taliban and the country's major warlords, all being key actors that can play an influential role in deciding the country's prospect. In addition to the US factor, the chaos in Afghanistan is also closely related to the long-standing domestic strife between factions. Afghanistan experienced numerous wars and conflicts in history, including invasion by the Soviet Union in the late 1980s and the US war. The war-ravaged Asian nation is undergoing a chaotic battle that has involved the US-led coalition forces, its government troops and domestic warlords, the Taliban and Al Qaeda forces. The disorderly confrontations and strife do no good to anyone but have only caused untold suffering to Afghan people.

Afghanistan's political disorder is also the main cause of its domestic chaos. The country's presidential election on Aug 20 has so far failed to produce a final result.

The recount of votes in more than 600 polling stations alleged to have suffered fraud is expected to last another two or three months, which will add to the chaos. The US has urged Afghan president Hamid Karzai to hold a second round of voting. It seems that Karzai has hammered home the perception that the US is not a reliable partner that can help end Afghanistan's current predicament. Talks, he thinks, is the only way out. The Afghan president is likely to open the process of tri-party peace talks with the Taliban and major warlords provided that the US ends its military action.

Support from the international community is needed to help Afghanistan make a substantive move toward peace. The international community can take advantage of the ever-mounting anti-war calls within the US to prompt the Obama administration to end the war and withdraw US troops. Germany, France and Britain have planned an international conference this year to discuss the gradual withdrawal of Afghanistan military deployment. International pressures may offer Obama another excuse to withdraw US troops. The UN Security Council should carry the baton from the three European nations to convene a conference on the Afghanistan issue and try to reach a consensus among its five permanent Security Council members and draft a roadmap and timetable for resolution of the thorny issue. In the process, a ticklish issue is whether parties concerned can accept the Taliban as a key player in Afghanistan and how to dispose of the Al Qaeda armed forces, an issue that has a key bearing on the outcome of any international conference on the Afghanistan issue.

Surely, an international peacekeeping mission is needed in the absence of US troops. With the aid of international peacekeepers, the Afghanistan government and its security forces can be expected to exercise effective control over domestic unrest and maintain peace and security.

The author is deputy secretary-general of the China Council for National Security Policy Studies

 

[muse]

Earlier we spoke of our fear that the US may once leave Pakistan holding the bag, given the internal domestic political compulsions in the US, Ambassador maliha Lodhi'sw recent Op/Ed piece echoed the China Daily - now look at it from the point of view of an Indian analyst, note the analyst use the above piece as his subject, but you will not fail to see the Pakistancentricism of his analysis:



China maps an end to the Afghan war
By M K Bhadrakumar

The article "Afghan peace needs a map" [1] which appeared in the English-language China Daily newspaper on Monday should receive careful attention. China Daily is government-owned and the article is a very rare piece of focused opinion that proposes concrete steps to be taken on the way forward in unlocking the Afghan stalemate.

The article is credited to the deputy general of the China Council for National Security Policy Studies, Li Qinggong. A conspicuous increase in the Chinese reportage on Afghanistan is noticeable lately. Conceivably, in the period since unrest appeared in Xinjiang, there is heightened concern in China over the deepening crisis in Afghanistan, which impacts China's national security.

The timing of the publication is also important. A tipping point has appeared in the eight-year Afghan war, with the international community furiously debating the pros and cons of alternate scenarios for Afghanistan. The war is at a crossroads, with the Taliban fighting to a stalemate the formidable North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces led by the United States. NATO has all but acknowledged that "victory" over the Taliban in the war may no longer be possible and what is within the realms of possibility is staving off defeat and scoring "success" in the "Afghanization" of the war.

The timing of the article is also significant insofar as the Barack Obama administration is revisiting its seven-month-old Afghan war strategy, which was enunciated in March. Broadly speaking, the pendulum of the American debate is swinging between stepping up the war effort via the augmentation of troop strength in Afghanistan or scaling down the scope of the war to a counter-insurgency operation.

There is much piquancy in that the debate is also unfolding against the backdrop of the tide of American public opinion turning against the US military involvement in Afghanistan. Then, there is the annual debate in the United Nations Security Council on Afghanistan, which began in New York on Monday. Also, the UN proposes to convene an international conference in Afghanistan within this year.

The China Daily article makes several important points. First, it bluntly calls on Washington to forthwith bring the US military operations in Afghanistan to an end. There are no caveats here while making this demand, no alibis. Simply put, the war has only resulted in aggravating the political and social turmoil in Afghanistan, causing great turbulence and violence and it has brought neither peace and stability as the George W Bush administration promised nor any "tangible benefits" to the US itself. "On the contrary, the legitimacy of the US military action has been under increasing doubt."

Clearly, therefore, the urgent necessity arises to promote reconciliation among the warring Afghan groups and this effort needs to commence with the US forthwith ending its military operations.

Second, the dramatic shift in US public opinion - with 58% of people opposing the war, according to the latest estimates - and growing skepticism about the war on Capitol Hill - especially the groundswell of opposition within the Democratic Party - casts shadows on the trajectory of the Obama administration's Afghan strategy. Certainly, Obama "cannot afford to bet his political fate on an unpopular war".

However, Obama can exploit the public and political mood in the US to salvage his presidency from the Afghan war. The article points out that from the time he assumed office as president in January, Obama has been under pressure from the Pentagon to step up the war effort. Now, "the young US president [has] the best chance to extricate himself from the Pentagon's pressures" if he chooses to tap into the rapidly growing anti-war sentiments in the country.

Obama should factor in that, if he decides to stop the war, "that would not only meet the US public expectations and save more American lives, but also help recover the US's peaceful image and enhance the president's personal political prospects".

The article stops short of drawing any historical analogy with the Lyndon Johnson presidency or the Vietnam war, but the warning comes out loud clear that the war can seriously damage Obama's political career and demolish the prospects of a second term as president.

Third, what lies ahead if the US stops its military intervention in Afghanistan? The answer is that it opens the way to a political settlement. And how is it that a settlement can be worked out? The answer is that there is no alternative but to seek a political settlement via national reconciliation. Any reconciliation process must involve all the "key actors that can play an influential role in deciding the country's prospect", especially the Afghan government, the Taliban and the forces that are commonly called "warlords".

Such an approach is predicated on the belief that the Afghan war is also principally a fratricidal strife involving Afghan factions, much as there is currently the "US factor". In actuality, various contending forces are locked in a "chaotic battle" today, which involves the US-led coalition forces, "the Afghan government troops and domestic warlords", the Taliban and al-Qaeda forces. By implication, the battle lines have blurred.

Fourth, the confusion emanating out of the Afghan political scene has added to the already existing "domestic chaos". The presidential election of August 20 has failed to produce a final result and the lingering uncertainty, which may last months, over the recount of votes adds to the confusion, with the US urging President Hamid Karzai to go through a second-round runoff. The article stops just short of alleging that US interference muddies the Afghan political waters.

Fifth, picking up the thread from the above, the article says, "It seems that Karzai has hammered home the perception that the US is not a reliable partner that can help end Afghanistan's current predicament. Talks, he thinks, are the only way out. The Afghan president is likely to open the process of tripartite talks with the Taliban and major warlords, provided that the US ends its military action."

Sixth, the article then turns to the role of the international community. On the one hand, it calls for support from the international community for an essentially intra-Afghan peace process. On the other hand, it suggests that the international community should take advantage of the mounting anti-war sentiments in the US and "prompt" Obama to end the war and withdraw troops from Afghanistan.

Obama may find it useful to cite the "international pressures" as "another excuse" to withdraw US troops. Three major European powers - Germany, France and Britain - have sought an international conference to be held within the year to discuss the vacation of occupation of Afghanistan. The United Nations Security Council should henceforth take the lead role to organize the conference on the basis of a consensus among the permanent five as regards a road map and timetable of Afghan settlement.

A "ticklish issue" still remains as to whether the parties concerned can accept the Taliban as a key player and also as to how to "dispose of" the al-Qaeda forces, and this has a "key bearing" on the outcome of the forthcoming international conference.

Finally, the article proposes that once the US withdraws its troops from Afghanistan, an international peacekeeping mission will be needed to assist the Afghan government and its security forces to exercise effective control. It doesn't spell out the nature of the international force, which can be presumably under the UN or regional auspices.

This is the first time that a Chinese commentary has openly called for the withdrawal of US and NATO troops from Afghanistan in immediate terms as a pre-requisite of peace. What the article doesn't say becomes equally important. One, it differentiates the Afghan problem from the so-called "AfPak" approach. The article doesn't make a single reference to Pakistan, either.

However, it must be assumed that the Chinese perspective disfavors a US military presence in the region as a whole and that includes Central Asia as well as Pakistan. Two, the article puts the primacy on an intra-Afghan search for settlement with the Taliban implicitly as a legitimate Afghan faction. Nowhere does the article even remotely suggest that the Taliban are propped up by Pakistan.

Equally, the article nowhere doubts that the so-called "warlords" can be overlooked as serious protagonists on the political chessboard. This is an endorsement of Karzai's pragmatic approach and a rejection of the opportunistic stance taken by the US and its Western partners to keep out Karzai's allies from the power structure.

Three, the article doesn't visualize the al-Qaeda as a big factor justifying the continuance of the war. Needless to say, the article rejects the contention by NATO that the Afghan war is integral to safeguarding the Western world from threat posed by international terrorism. Again, it is indifferent to the fate of the alliance's much-trumpeted first-ever "out-of-area" operation.

The geopolitics of the war have been completely left out in the article. This is consistent with the Chinese view that the Afghan people should be principally in charge of their destiny. Thus, the article gives the go-by altogether to the controversial thesis propounded by some experts regarding a regional solution to the war, with the US entering into "grand bargains" with the main regional countries such as Russia, China, Iran, India and Central Asian states.

The accent, on the contrary, is on the UN Security Council assuming the responsibility of guiding and monitoring a settlement in Afghanistan, and within that, the five permanent members will be the key arbiters.



Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.

 

[muse]

As we discussed Pakistani fears of US speeding the pace of "Afghanization" and thereby leaving Pakistan holding the bad, we have read a Chinese view, we read how Indian may view that Chinese point of view -- But what does the Indian plan to do if the "Afghanization" process is speeded up??? hain ji? Look at this piece from yesterday's Hindu and see if you can discern why old fences should need mending, now:


Date:01/10/2009 URL: The Hindu : Opinion / Leader Page Articles : Investing in India-Russia relationship


Investing in India-Russia relationship
Vidya Subrahmaniam



With India’s relationship with the United States and China under relentless focus, it is not surprising that the Indian President’s recent visit to the Russian Federation went almost unnoticed. Yet the trip served to remind both sides of a friendship that they once swore by and whose potential remains high despite years of mutual neglect, changed global circumstances and diversification of interests.

At one level, Pratibha Patil’s trip, like any presidential outing, was all ceremony and nostalgia. Dulcet tunes from the Raj Kapoor-directed Shri 420 filled the Grand Kremlin Palace’s incredibly beautiful gold and red Alexander Hall when President Dmitry Medvedev raised a toast to his Indian guest. If the blast from the past was ever so sweet, so was the ritual recalling of the golden years of “Hindi-Rusi bhai-bhai” and the references to India and Russia’s shared civilisational roots.

Yet as the tour progressed, and the Indian presidential delegation was swept up in a whirlwind of high-level meetings and state events, it became clear that the visit was more than a goodwill exercise, that the rhetorical flourishes in the individual and joint statements were not as ornamental as they seemed; indeed, that there were strains in the once rock-solid bilateral relationship that the trip would strive to address — not through dramatic gestures and agreements as might be expected from a Prime Minister-level summit, but via signals and words conveyed by Ms Patil that Moscow would weigh, interpret and absorb.

On the flight into Moscow, Indian officials had admitted to a “sense of drifting away on both sides.” It was only a perception, they hastened to add, yet they had no answers to why such a perception must undermine a relationship they said was strong and based on high levels of trust. The unease was evident in Moscow too, with the intelligentsia — the media, security analysts, policy wonks, etc., — nearly unanimous that India-Russia relations, never the same after the break up of the Soviet Union, had suffered more recently from India’s “obsessive” engagement of the United States, and Russia, in turn looking elsewhere to consolidate its business and strategic interests.

At the people-to-people level, there was goodwill, yes. Older generation Russians spoke with genuine affection about India; after all, the international friendship had dominated their growing up years. As Russian analysts invariably pointed out, “there is nothing but good feeling for India.” But for the younger lot, exposed much more to the West than their parents, India was a fading, distant memory. Awara and the Kapoors had no name recall among them, and for those of us on the Indian side raised on weekly doses of Soviet Land and stories of India-Soviet bonding, the Russia we were visiting turned out to be not the country of our imagination.

Most Russians had not heard of the ongoing “Year of India in Russia” celebrations just as not many in India knew that 2008 was celebrated in India as the “Year of Russia in India.” The “gala concert” that the Indian side had billed as the high point of Ms Patil’s visit turned out to be an indifferent affair with the organisers struggling to find audiences for the below-par performance put up by Indian artistes at the world famous Bolshoi theatre.

That the Indian side was only too conscious of the tensions was apparent from Ms Patil twice choosing to place the relationship in its own context. At Mr. Medvedev’s banquet, she had spoken of countries, including Russia and India, pursuing “multi-vector” foreign policies. “However,” she added, “I can assure our Russian partners that even as we improve our relations with other countries, it will not be to the detriment of our tried and tested friendship.” The Indian President reiterated the point at her meeting with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. India’s relationship with Russia, she said, will not be “at the expense of its relationship with other countries.”

To observers in Moscow, it was plain that by “other countries” Ms Patil had meant the U.S. India would have no reason to “assure” Russia about any other relationship, nor would a visiting Indian President stress a point like this unless there was a felt need to do so. At an informal briefing by Indian officials, a Moscow-based journalist came quickly to the heart of the matter, asking, “Is it not a fact that India is sitting in the lap of the United States?” Clearly upset at the accusation, the Indian side once again emphasised the “unique” nature of the bilateral relationship which ought not to be “viewed from the prism of any other relationship.” Keeping this relationship on track was not only “one of our top foreign policy priorities but is the cornerstone of our foreign policy.” The visitors also drew the reporter’s attention to Mr. Putin’s own reminder that the relationship was truly and really one of a kind: “Russia’s support for India at the Nuclear Suppliers Group in defence and nuclear cooperation showed the truly strategic nature of our partnership. Russia does not have this kind of a relationship with any other country.”

Back in India, reaction to the outcome of the visit has varied from “usual diplomatic hyperbole” to “there is indeed some recognition that this relationship is strategically important and must come to the front burner.” There is unanimity of opinion that the Soviet Union’s “immeasurable” assistance in defence and heavy industry contributed to making India what it is today. Russia has continued this support and, despite some problem areas, remains India’s most important military supplier even today — at a time when India has started to diversify its purchases. A case in point is the nuclear submarine built with 60 per cent Russian assistance.

Not just this. If the Soviet Union unfailingly backed India on Kashmir, Russia has done its bit for advancing India’s nuclear ambitions and in the face of perceived American attempt to roll back the clean exemption given last year by the NSG. Ms Patil was still on Russian soil when Moscow sent word that Russia would not agree to the Washington-authored G-8 curbs on the sale of Enrichment and Reprocessing items and technology.

Nobody, not even the most enthusiastic backer of closer Indo-U.S. ties, refutes Russia’s crucial place in India’s foreign policy scheme more so given the problematic future shape of the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. The U.S. tilt towards India is no longer as visible as it was in the George Bush days, which means that India would need all the help it can muster in the event of the region exploding into a crisis.

The emerging view in India is that India-Russia relations can never reach the heights scaled by India and the Soviet Union simply because there are 15 countries today where there was just one country earlier. India has necessarily to engage the U.S., and it cannot be faulted either for seeking to diversify its military purchases. But equally, there is a need to be transparent with Russia and invest sincerely and visibly in the relationship. There is a solid reason for doing so. The foreign policy interests of India and Russia almost converge, and the two countries uniquely have no conflict of interest.

Yet all this might come to nothing if India and Russia do not improve the currently abysmal levels of bilateral trade. The two countries are hoping eventually to raise trade volumes from the existing $2.5 billion to $10 billion. To place this in proper perspective, one has only to consider trade volumes between Russia and the European Union, which tripled between 2000 and 2007 to $63 billion and even between Russia and Turkey, which rose from $11 billion in 2004 to $38 billion in 2009.

New Delhi has made much of the annual reciprocal visits to India and Russia by the two Prime Ministers. But there has been far more to-ing and fro-ing between Russia and Germany which recognises the strategic importance of gas-rich Russia and wants it integrated into the European economy. If Germany and Turkey could reach out to Russia despite a history of conflict with it, why cannot India which admittedly has never had a conflict of interest with Russia?

As the world’s largest exporter of natural gas, and second largest of oil, Russia has enough and more to satiate India’s energy security needs. India has spent valuable time revisiting done deals with the U.S. (not signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, civil nuclear deal, etc.). It can surely spare some time to rebuild relations with an old friend.

 

[muse]

The US focus on Balochistan
Najmuddin A Shaikh


Contrary to expectations, the last week has not been a good one for US-Pak relations. The passage in the Senate of the Kerry-Lugar proposed legislation for the provision of $1.5 billion annually for the next five years to Pakistan for economic development was initially hailed by the government. President Obama was congratulated for having secured this passage even while he was co-chairing, with President Zardari and Prime Minister Brown, the Friends of Democratic Pakistan meeting in New York. The government did not at that time seem to have any idea of the sort of media storm that would arise with regard to the “conditionalities” attached to the bill.

The debate, which focused on the infringement on Pakistan’s sovereignty that this bill was said to represent, did not seem to take account of the fact that much of what the bill requires the Secretary of State to certify is what the Government of Pakistan is by its declared policy endeavouring to do. It has banned the two militant organisations that are specifically mentioned and it has proclaimed loudly and clearly that it will not allow the use of its territory for terrorist activities against neighbouring countries. It has instituted stringent laws to prevent proliferation and has assured the world that the measures in place are as stringent as any in the rest of the world. It has emphasised that in the new democratic dispensation the role of the armed forces would be the same in Pakistan as in other democracies and all politicians have been at one in berating the United States for having supported military dictators in Pakistan and thus subverting the development of a democratic dispensation.

Admittedly all these certifications represent interference in Pakistan’s internal affairs since all these are matters that Pakistan’s leaders should be dealing with on their own. The Americans however have made no secret of the fact that their interest in Pakistan’s well being, which the assistance package is designed for, flows from their battle against terrorism. Congressman Berman, who piloted the passage of the bill in the House, said clearly that “We can’t allow al Qaeda or any other terrorist group that threatens our national security interests to operate with impunity in the tribal regions or any other part of Pakistan” and “Nor can we permit the Pakistani state — and its nuclear arsenal — to be taken over by the Taliban.”

No one commenting on the bill seemed to be aware that these conditions applied, if my reading of the bill is correct, to military aid (which is in addition to the economic aid package) and not to economic assistance. The full text of the bill as passed by the Senate and on Wednesday by the House is not yet available but this is what one gathers from earlier versions of the bill debated in the Senate and the House

One could even argue, since the battle against extremists will be fought by the Pakistani armed forces, that making military assistance subject to these conditions risks antagonising the very power centre in Pakistan that the Americans should be cultivating. If they have done so, it can only be because they have finally come to the conclusion that only a democratic government with all its flaws can bring about the change in ambience that will rid Pakistan of the menace of terrorism and by natural extension assuage the concerns of a world which believes the epicentre of terrorism aimed at the West lies in the remote and not so remote areas of Pakistan.

Now, of course, another focus has been found for the misgivings and almost paranoid suspicions of American intentions and that is a recent Washington Post interview with Ambassador Anne Patterson, in which she said “In the past, we focused on Al Qaeda because they were a threat to us. The Quetta Shura mattered less to us because we had no troops in the region... Now our troops are there on the other side of the border, and the Quetta Shura is high on Washington’s list.”

Earlier there had been reports from Washington with regard to the ongoing debate on the “strategy for Afghanistan” that those who opposed the increase of troop levels in Afghanistan were advocating an extension of drone attacks to the sanctuaries of the Taliban in Balochistan and particularly against the Quetta Shura. Putting the two together, our commentators suggested that drone attacks in Balochistan were imminent or that at the very least Patterson had been guilty of interference in Pakistan’s internal affairs.

This was not the main issue that should have attracted the attention of the commentators. What we should have focused on was the candid admission by UN official Semple — one of the few westerners who can legitimately claim expertise on Afghanistan — that the Quetta region’s refugee camps are “a great reserve army” for the Taliban. He maintains quite rightly that the Kandahari tribes have strong tribal links across the border and that many of those who have crossed over now have Pakistani ID cards. He dismisses as nonsense the claim that the Taliban live openly in Quetta and even attend weddings etc., and maintains that they have their own agenda and are suspicious of the Pakistanis.

What we should have focused on was the statement by ISPR’s Gen Athar Abbas that of the 10 people identified by US and Afghan officials as members of the Quetta Shura, 6 had been killed, 2 were in Afghanistan and the remaining 2 were insignificant.

What we should have focused on is the daily crossing at Chaman of more than 35,000-40,000 people with nary a check on their movement because of the so-called easement rights and because the Afghans refuse to accept our biometric identification systems at this and other border crossings.

Our view should be that if Patterson’s gaffe — and that is what it would be termed by the British, the Canadians and the Dutch who for the last three-four years have borne the brunt of Taliban attacks in the South — reflects a serious concern about the Afghan-Balochistan border and about the safety of newly deployed American soldiers, then the Americans should take the following steps:

* Persuade UNHCR to shift the refugee camps currently in Balochistan to nearby areas in Afghanistan and continue to supply their needs from Pakistan if necessary. NATO forces could guard these camps to prevent their misuse by the Taliban. Put into these refugee camps those Afghans who have fraudulently obtained Pakistani identity cards.

* Persuade the Afghans to accept biometric measures to regulate the flow of human traffic between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

* Prevent smuggling, which is ruinous for Pakistan’s economy, and which more than anything else breeds the corrupt officials who then permit not only the passage of electronic goods, tea etc. but also narcotics, weapons and, of course, Taliban fighters.

* Secure the assistance of the so-called knowledgeable Pakistanis inside and outside the ISI to identify the Taliban who can be weaned away by monetary and other inducements from the Mullah Omar camp.

On the Pakistan side perhaps we too should:

* Recognise that the Afghan Taliban represent as much of a danger to us as the TTP.

* Acknowledge that the concerns about Balochistan have not emerged just now. As early as May 2003, Carlotta Gall, a New York Times correspondent who was in a subsequent visit to Quetta beaten up by some goons, had written “The border regions of Pakistan, and Quetta in particular, are emerging as the main centre of Taliban support in the region, and a breeding ground for opposition sentiment to the American campaign in Afghanistan and Mr Karzai’s government”. Where there is smoke there has to be some fire.

* Start a serious effort to use our pool of knowledge to identify the midlevel Taliban commanders and their foot soldiers who can be persuaded to give up their loyalty to Mullah Omar in the South and to Haqqani and Hikmatyar in the East and cooperate with a Karzai administration which shows a willingness to share power and to stop the sort of rapacious activities that his allies are currently engaged in.

* Bear in mind that the 5,362 dead and 10,483 wounded we have suffered so far in the war in Swat and the tribal areas — this was the figure that an American correspondent was given in an ISI briefing by Gen Pasha and his colleagues — and the 2000 lives lost in terrorist attacks in Pakistan in 2008 — a figure used by President Zardari in a New York Times article — could multiply many times if the situation in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate.

The writer is a former foreign secretary

 

[faisal4pro]

well done.. do u think presence of US is good for Pakistan? not only me but every defense analyst is saying that US is more bigger threat to identity or even existence of Pakistan.

The widening of embassy, the borrowing of houses, the purchase of land, the marines on the site of tarbela and mangalla, the preparation of operation in southern Punjab where most of our atomic energy commissions operating, the latest bill constraints of bounding pak army, getting permission to operate in any part of Pakistan in the name of war on terror, the clear talk on Pakistan's army role in Kashmir and declaring it a terrorist activity, the blame to run terrorist camps on Pakistan by the US, and alot more! according to u are these signs of development and rapid growth for pakistan?

Brother, taliban or wtever Al-qaida (as i can clearly say, taliban are not alqaida. as alqaida is a terrosit organization, and taliban can be categorized: one who want islam only, ones who want unrest in pak only, ones who want US to leave Afghanistan and ones who want peace in the area) are dangerous for a part or are a minor threat to pakistan as comapred to USA.

However, USA cannot attack Pakistan as their own army official said that Pakistan will be a graveyard of US Army unlike Iraq and Afghanistan. Thier policy is to destroy Pakistan's atomic assets, its armed forces and capture its sensitive place then USA will operate openly.

 

[Mansanpk2009]

The contents of this article appeared on Articlesbase dot com has serious revelations

Quetta the next Baghdad?

The shameful report of US considering to begin assault on Quetta the provincial capital of the troubled Balochistan province of Pakistan has raised huge alarm for the Pakistani nation. This nation is facing the worst trauma due to American conspiracies and ugly actions. With Kerry Lugar Bill for sanction of huge Aid to Pakistan is just a sugar coated poison which Mr. Zardari and his PPP Government happily swallowed and thought that people of Pakistan are fool to accept this as their success. Not a day passed when this report of US Plans to attack Quetta came into light which is not a slap but a booted foot on the face of this democratically elected Government and toothless opposition lead by Mr. Nawaz Sharif.

Since long, USA is insisting that Osama and Mullah Omar are hiding in Pakistan. The conspiracy behind specifically targeting Quetta for this particular reason has many reasons to understand. Balochistan is facing a very potential uprising to fight for its rights and for its Independence too. Right now, due to immense and intense vigilance and actions against Baloch Nationalists and separatists, the movement seems to be dieing quickly and loosing its touch. More over the growing influence of Taliban inside south eastern part of Afghanistan has blocked the access of American and Indian aided agents to enter and create unrest inside Balochistan. To aid and to protect Baloch separatists, American and Indian coalition had no other option but to build reason for American forces to land inside this province and more specifically to Quetta which has an Army Garrison too. The charges on ISI to support Mullah Omar is clearly seen as a direct threat to the very important Army Base in Quetta. Pakistan cannot take any action inside Quetta right now because the hate for the Army is already reaching highest limits inside this province and USA knows that Pakistan is not in a position to start any operation in Quetta.

The smiling face of Mr. Zardari is telling the story that he is more interested in gathering more and more and more money from the world in the name of loyalty and compliance to the black agenda of USA. Rather than doing more, the situation now seems to me as if he is saying to America that “ask more” and the price for every compliance seems to be fixed already.

Pakistani nation is tormented and mentally paralyzed due to price hike, lack of water, electricity and in winter season the natural gas shortage is also predicted. In present circumstances when America is all set to land its forces in Pakistan, our nation will already be made mentally weak to defend itself from such a huge assault on our sovereignty.

The game plan of targeting Quetta has very deep roots. Quetta is believed to be embracing a very huge population of Pashto speaking people which is believed to be loyal to Pakistan. Although majority of Balochi people are also the supporters of Pakistan but targeting Pashtun community is the prime goal of USA. In the name of hunt for Mullah Omar, the game plan is to expel this Pashtun population out of Balochistan which is expected to be the main resistant force to stop any separatist movement in that province. To be more specific the target of probable American operation would only be the Pashtun community of Balochistan. It seems that all corners have been trimmed and all knitting of this ugly action has been completed and it must be the story of just days or weeks when we will hear that American Marines are landing in Balochistan.

It is believed to be highly criminal from the part of our Government to keep people of Quetta in dark about the situation. The magnitude of loss of lives in Quetta would be unbelievable if the city is not vacated in the next few days. The Government seems to be not interested to give any such advice right now on American orders because any havoc would make the so called targeted Taliban leaders to run with the crowd and fade away. Although it is widely believed that Taliban’s spiritual leader is not in Pakistan but in Iran but American insistence on his presence in Quetta has motives described above which is to strengthen the separatists movement in Balochistan.

In present circumstances, it becomes the duty of every Pakistani to defend our motherland and be prepared to fight hand to hand with the American Marines who would find no resistance from our Politicians, our Army, our Navy and our Air force. The attitude of the defenders of our motherland can be seen from the fact that no Drone has ever been knocked down by Pakistani Airforce and their assaults are crossing the limits every day. If the question of our sovereignty is concerned Black water, Dyn-Corp and many others are already operating inside Pakistan with free movement and access with most modern weapons allowed them to be used whenever and wherever they want. It is our people who should decide that are we ready to bow head in front of USA and become slaves again for centuries to come or we will save our motherland from the claws of opportunist politicians and leaders who are puppets of the super power and have their villas ready in offshore islands.

The assault on ISI is visible because those elements inside ISI who are safeguarding the national interest are being targeted repeatedly. There have been many changes made and many forced retirements have been seen in the most effective Intelligence Agency which are effecting negatively to the capability of this agency and may result in its subsequent dilution.

In short, people of Pakistan should be ready both mentally and bodily to accept that our days of Independence are limited now. If we really want to save it, then we should decide now or may be it will be too late to curse our weaknesses and our inability to defend our motherland.

It is now useless to see towards our leaders who are already a sold product and have no interest in saving us from the bloodshed by US Marines, the Drone attacks and they have already taken their salary for throwing us at the feet of America to become slaves not only for now but for generations to come.

 

[Bill Longley]

US of A is not that stupid to attack Pakistan

1) Pakistan has more than 600000 Army
2) US and NATO Supply line run from Pakistan
3.Pakistan is a nuclear Power, with missels reaching US bases in Mid East, Afghanistan and Degio Garcia
4. Any Hostility with Pakistan will not be tolerated by China who has vital intrests in Pakistan and is Strategic Ally. Chinese CinC during Pak India tensions said "Pakistan is Isreal to us"
5) Americans cannot afford to lose only chance of Face saving and withdrawl chance to slip away from its hand

I think all these statements are

1. To throw blame on Pakistan of all US/NATO failures in Afghanistan which btw are result of its un wise policy and show of power
2. to Pressurize Pakistan to allow Americans free hand in Pakistan
3. To please India

Our Policy should be

1. US need us more then we need US. so we should compell americans to remain in limits and behave
2. Decide once for all that should we live as a free honorable state or should become American vessal state

I think the reaction on disgrace full Kerry luger bill in Media and American survays define the mood of Pakistan.

We are fighting War on terror for our own benifit. Now its becomming clear that there are two wars on terror
1. which we are fighting
2. the war which US is fighting in which its killing more innocents then culprits and in a way creating more fanatics

 

[PakShaheen79]

I think it can be a blessing in disguise for Pakistan. As Pakistan can only make progress once US stop sponsoring selective governments in Pakistan.

 

[zulfiqar74]

My response to Kerry luger bill
This is what the Pak govt should direct to the US govt not request, as we still bend over if we request, on how the kerry luger bill should be if they want Pakistan to sign.
Pakistan govt knows and the people know that that current govt is a US sponsored govt then why doesent any one do any thing, it is easy to take down a false govt as it has been constructed on false values that goes against Pakistan soverign.
These are few points that Pakistan should have given as an ammended kerry luger bill. If we want the money it will be on our terms.

1) 20 billion dollor aid for 5 years. only for civil and agriculture modernizing.
2) 5 billion dollor for every year till we are fighting the US led war in Pakistan.

Only 300 diplomatic personal or aide should be allowed in the country.

US will fight the Taliban in the afghanistan side, there should be ONLY UN troops present guarding/ pertolling the boarder of Pakistan and afghanistan and Baluchistan to moniter alqaida or taliban coming across into pakistan.

US cannot perform any sort of attack inside pakistan.

US should provide 24 hours intel to the Pak govt so that they can work efficiently in stopping taliban in Pakistan.

All US bases in Pakistan should be nutralized and handed over to Pakistan.

US cannot say direct or dictate in our govt or military and nuclear policies.

If their sole purpose of giving pak a loan is for the betterment of the civilian aspect of the country then they should stick to then and not snoop around on the military and govt aspect.

There is said my peace

 

[EjazR]

^^^ You are a bit too late; the Kerry Lugar bill has already been ratified by the Pakistani parliament

 

[duhastmish]

loooool why would america go on war agaisnt paksitan.

they are fighting paksitan and afghan's war .

 

[flanker30]

u.s will do this but at the present time ,u.s need pak 4 AF and iran

 

[rideto_live]

My response to Kerry luger bill
This is what the Pak govt should direct to the US govt not request, as we still bend over if we request, on how the kerry luger bill should be if they want Pakistan to sign.
Pakistan govt knows and the people know that that current govt is a US sponsored govt then why doesent any one do any thing, it is easy to take down a false govt as it has been constructed on false values that goes against Pakistan soverign.
These are few points that Pakistan should have given as an ammended kerry luger bill. If we want the money it will be on our terms.

1) 20 billion dollor aid for 5 years. only for civil and agriculture modernizing.
2) 5 billion dollor for every year till we are fighting the US led war in Pakistan.

Only 300 diplomatic personal or aide should be allowed in the country.

US will fight the Taliban in the afghanistan side, there should be ONLY UN troops present guarding/ pertolling the boarder of Pakistan and afghanistan and Baluchistan to moniter alqaida or taliban coming across into pakistan.

US cannot perform any sort of attack inside pakistan.

US should provide 24 hours intel to the Pak govt so that they can work efficiently in stopping taliban in Pakistan.

All US bases in Pakistan should be nutralized and handed over to Pakistan.

US cannot say direct or dictate in our govt or military and nuclear policies.

If their sole purpose of giving pak a loan is for the betterment of the civilian aspect of the country then they should stick to then and not snoop around on the military and govt aspect.

There is said my peace

More than aid it sounds more like a ransom demand

 

[Frankenstein]

America don't have b@llz to attack Iran, how can they even think of attacking Pakistan

 

[Mirza Jatt]

NO !! they will not.