PDA

View Full Version : Pakistan Army chief rejects Taliban offer for talks with conditions



Agnostic Muslim
01 May 13,, 14:32
News Analysis: Pakistan Army chief rejects Taliban offer for talks with conditions
English.news.cn 2013-05-01 17:25:14
by Muhammad Tahir

ISLAMABAD, May 1 (Xinhua) -- In no uncertain terms, the Chief of Pakistani Army, General Ashfaq Pervaiz Kayani on Tuesday rejected the Taliban's offer for talks with conditions and instead asked them to end their rebellion if they want to join the national mainstream.

In February, the Taliban had said that they would join the peace dialogue but only if the government releases their detained five leaders and a guarantee that their three political and religious leaders would not be arrested. The Taliban also refused to lay down their arms during the peace dialogue.

The government has ignored the conditions demanded by the Taliban but the Pakistani Army has not publicly responded to the Taliban initiative.

However, General Kayani, speaking to thousands of relatives of those security men who died in the fighting against the Taliban and other armed groups in the garrison city of Rawalpindi late Tuesday has ruled out talks with the insurgents unless they surrender and abandon their rebellion.

"We sincerely desire that all those who have strayed and have picked up arms against the nation, return to the national fold. However, this is only possible once they unconditionally submit to the state, its Constitution and the rule of law. There is no room for doubts when it comes to dealing with rebellion against the state," the army chief said in a written speech, aired live by all TV channels.

The Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan or TTP had earlier stated that they would not talk to the political government and will await response from the Army as all powers are with the armed forces. The Army, however, had clarified that the political government will make a decision on the matter.

This is the first time that General Kayani came up with an unequivocal statement that if the Taliban want to rejoin the mainstream, they have to end fighting the state and must accept the Constitution.

Without specifically identifying foreign entities, Kayani has also accused "external enemies" of igniting the flames of the unrest in the country.

The Army Chief also slammed those certain elements in Pakistan, who claimed that the armed forces are fighting an American war.

"I would like to ask all those who raise such questions that if a small faction wants to enforce its distorted ideology over the entire nation by taking up arms and for this purpose defies the Constitution of Pakistan and considers all forms of bloodshed justified, then, does the fight against this enemy of the state constitute someone else's war?" Kayani asked rhetorically.

Kayani reminded the critics that even in democratic states, treason or seditious uprisings against the state have never been tolerated and in such struggles their armed forces have had unflinching support of the masses and questions about the ownership of such wars have never been raised.

General Kayani said the country cannot afford to confuse soldiers and weaken their resolve with such misgivings, saying that no one should hurt the sentiments of these "saviors of the nation through our words and deeds."

With the Army chief's statement, the Taliban have now received a categorical response to their dialogue offer and now the ball is in their court and it is up to them whether to give up violence or face the full force of the military establishment.

Pakistan has lost nearly 50,000 people, including security personnel, since the country joined the U.S.-led coalition in the fight against terrorism that began in 2001. The country also suffered nearly 70 billion U.S. dollars in damage and lost economic opportunities during the period.

Pakistanis from all walks of life are now fed up with the daily terror attacks waged by the Taliban and other militant groups and they want the government, particularly the military, to put an end to this campaign of terror so that the country can finally move forward.

News Analysis: Pakistan Army chief rejects Taliban offer for talks with conditions - Xinhua | English.news.cn (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/indepth/2013-05/01/c_132352480.htm)

Agnostic Muslim
02 May 13,, 14:40
It is Pakistan’s war

Amir Zia
Thursday, May 02, 2013
The writer is editor The News, Karachi.

Pakistanis should breathe easy now and feel a bit more confident about their country’s future. Yes, the good news is that the Pakistan Army – the country’s most powerful institution – is not yielding before Al-Qaeda and its local militant allies, who have long been tarnishing the sacred name of Islam by killing unarmed civilians and Pakistani security forces through cowardly acts of terrorism.

All the ambiguity and confusion created by the handful of Al-Qaeda and Taliban apologists, who brand Pakistan’s twin challenge of extremism and terrorism as an ‘American War’, should be removed after Army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani’s recent assertion that the fight against an enemy that defies the constitution of Pakistan and the democratic process and considers all forms of bloodshed justified should not be considered someone else’s war.

“We cannot afford to confuse our soldiers and weaken their resolve with such misgivings,” the army chief said. No country, even the best evolved democratic states, would tolerate treason and seditious uprisings against the state, he said – underlining the importance of the unwavering support of the masses to their armed forces in any such struggle.

General Kayani’s April 30 speech on the occasion of ‘Youm-e-Shuhada’ (Martyrs’ Day) is perhaps one of his most important, timely and profound speeches in which he touched upon two key themes – democracy and Pakistan’s efforts against extremism and terrorism. The message conveyed in this speech should end the atmosphere of uncertainty and any misgivings regarding both the future of democracy in the country and the armed forces’ position on the war on terrorism. It should boost the confidence of both the barracks and the civilians and bring more cohesion and commitment among them in their efforts to defeat extremists and terrorists, who remain bent upon imposing their distorted ideology and narrow and flawed version of Islam in the country, where 99.9 percent of the population is made up of moderate and peace-loving Muslims.

The first part of General Kayani’s speech expressed the armed forces’ commitment of strengthening the democratic process, which has already been proven by the way the army leadership stuck to its constitutional role despite intense pressure by various quarters that it should act to clean up the stables.

The general rightly underlined that the success of democracy doesn’t merely rest on elections, but more importantly on the prosperity and welfare of the masses. Our mainstream political parties must pay heed to this simple and sincere advice of the army chief, who should get equal marks for keeping the country’s fragile democratic process afloat despite all its weaknesses, tales of alleged mega-corruption and poor governance. The major political parties must put their house in order on a war-footing because the country can hardly bear even one year of the kind of directionless and shady rule that was witnessed during the 2008-2013 ‘democratic era’ let alone another full five years of such term.

General Kayani also used the occasion to dispel any doubts that might linger in the minds of many that the elections could be postponed at the last minute against the backdrop of a string of terrorist attacks on leaders, workers and followers of the three main liberal political parties by the Taliban, who apparently want to weaken their electoral prospects. The Taliban threat to the former ruling Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) and the Awami National Party (ANP) advertently or inadvertently benefits the electoral prospects of religious and right-wing parties which are carrying out their campaigns without any fear of terrorism.

General Kayani’s most clear message, however, remains that of taking ownership of the war on terrorists and extremists, who are responsible for more than 50,000 killings of Pakistani civilians and security forces personnel since 2002. He rightly criticised those politicians and religious leaders who waste time in debating the ‘origins of the war on terror’ – incorrectly calling it a US war.

The army chief’s Youm-e-Shuhada speech should be seen as an expansion of the important theme he raised in his April 20 speech at the passing out parade of young officers in Kakul where he emphasised that Islam should always remain a unifying force.

Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf and the Jamaat-e-Islamis of this world should take note since they are trying their best to undermine the sacrifices made by Pakistan’s security forces and civilians in the war on terror by calling the struggle for Pakistan’s future as a US war. They are serving the interests of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban when they demand that the army unilaterally withdraw from the lawless and militant-infested northern region of Pakistan and abandon its international and national responsibility of reining in these non-state actors, who blow up schools, attack mosques, assassinate political rivals and carry out bombings and terrorist attacks targeting civilians and security forces alike.

The barbaric acts and crimes of Al-Qaeda and local terrorists cannot be forgotten nor forgiven no matter what any Imran Khans or Munawar Hasans might say. The state cannot surrender before these forces of darkness wanting to transform Pakistan into a pariah state in the international community and impose their oppressive system using the sacred name of Islam which in fact stands for moderation, human dignity and progress.

All those advocating a policy of appeasement for these extremist forces and who want to strike deals with them stand on the wrong side of history. They can only help prolong Pakistan’s misery for a while at the hands of militants, but eventually they will be defeated. This is as inevitable as day is followed by night.

Since 2002, Pakistan’s armed forces – the military in particular – have been at the forefront in the fight against terrorism. From Pakistan’s point of view, the objectives of the war remain simple; foreign militants should not be allowed to operate from Pakistani soil and be sent packing to their countries of origin. If their countries refuse to take them, which happened in most cases when these militants were caught, Pakistan as a matter of policy will hand them over to the US-led Nato forces.

The second important objective is that non-state actors – be they foreign or local – should not be allowed to use Pakistani territory for global or domestic terrorism. These objectives remain in line with Pakistan’s national interest as well as its responsibility as a member of the international community.

General Kayani would know better all the challenges and pain Pakistan has endured during this protracted conflict since he has remained on key command positions during all these turbulent times – from the head of the Inter Services Intelligence to the vice chief of the army staff and then as army chief.

It is indeed heartening the way General Kayani has articulated the mission statement of his forces of fighting both the external and internal enemies of the country in which defeating terrorists remains a matter of prime importance. Indeed, the military leadership has again raised itself to the challenge as our soldiers battle these enemies of Pakistan and Islam on various fronts. It is now the responsibility of our politicians and all the other sections of society to support this effort in all possible ways. They should all take the ownership of this war to defeat the extremist mindset and counter their narrative.

This is not the time to waver or doubt the legitimacy of this conflict. Our soldiers need all our unconditional support – because they alone have the capacity and ability to win this war for Pakistan.

Email: amir.zia@thenews.com.pk

It is Pakistan (http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-174829-It-is-Pakistans-war)

==============

While the author picks out the PTI and JI, the PMLN, expected by many to form the next government, needs to take note as well.

Agnostic Muslim
10 Jul 13,, 15:59
In Swat, Pakistan Army adamant on fighting 'other Taliban'
By Reuters
Published: July 10, 2013

KALAM: In the past few years, Swat valley has been occupied by insurgents, undergone a bruising counter-offensive by the army and then flooded by waters that washed away acres of fruit orchards and steeply terraced fields.

In October last year, the valley which lies about 250 km north of Islamabad was again in the global spotlight when gunmen shot schoolgirl Malala Yousafzai.

Now, as villagers try to piece together shattered lives, the military is coming under pressure to talk peace with the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).

Leaders elected in May want to open a dialogue with the homegrown militants set on overthrowing the nuclear-armed state. They say the local people are fed up with the violence and that any talks will be legitimised by US efforts to promote peace with the Afghan Taliban.

But the powerful military, which has spent years chasing the TTP into ever-more remote hideouts, is in no mood to negotiate with militants who have killed thousands of soldiers and who they say cannot be trusted. Some villagers back that stand.

“(The Taliban) doesn’t accept the government’s writ, they are not faithful to the constitution, how can a political party talk to them?” said Abdul Rehman, an elder in the village of Kalam, a former tourist hotspot high in the Swat valley and ringed by snow-capped peaks of the Hindu Khush.

The village is famous for repelling TTP attacks.

“We forced them away, first on our own, then with the help of the army,” Rehman told Reuters during a visit organised by a UN organisation funding flood relief work in his village, which is set among pine forests and walnut orchards.

The debate over whether to open peace talks with the TTP has taken centrestage in the country as US troops withdraw from Afghanistan after a 12-year war against the Afghan Taliban.

The military leaders are at pains to distinguish between the Afghan Taliban, to which Pakistan maintains ties and which they argue can be seen as fighting against occupation, and its local imitators who they see as domestic terrorists.

The TTP pledges allegiance to Mullah Mohammad Omar, the reclusive leader of the Afghan Taliban but Omar is careful not to be seen to attack the Pakistani state. The TTP suddenly sacked its spokesman on Tuesday amid signs of strained ties between the groups.

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his prominent rival Imran Khan both offered to talk to the militants while campaigning for May’s federal and provincial elections. While Nawaz won the federal elections, Imran’s party emerged victorious in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the province that includes Swat Valley and remains a hotbed of TTP activity.

The information minister in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa told Reuters that the provincial government had called a meeting of other political parties and stakeholders to prepare for peace talks.

“Time for politicians”

“The United States has opened up a Taliban office in Qatar and is holding negotiations with them, and we are being told to continue to fight and die,” Imran said last month during a visit to Peshawar.

“For the last nine years we have relied on the army to bring peace, but instead the situation got worse,” he said. “It’s now time for politicians to resolve the issue.”

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) says the violence in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is a reaction to US drone strikes and pro-Washington policies by the army, and that talks are the only answer.

But there is no easy solution.

Most of the militants seek refuge in the neighbouring Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata) – districts strung along Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan and run by central writ – and the provincial government cannot control the process.

Fata is used as a base by the TTP, members of the Afghan Taliban and groups linked to al Qaeda.

Nawaz’s federal government can only do so much. The military largely has a free hand regarding internal security, and influences foreign policy, especially relations with neighbours.

It is the army, its intelligence agencies and the Taliban itself who will decide whether to talk or fight.

The TTP has shown interest in talks, but has stepped up attacks after a series of drone strikes on its leaders and also because it doubts the ability of the civilian leadership to convince the military to allow negotiations.

“If we felt that the PTI government or the Nawaz Sharif government were in a position to take a serious step towards peace talks and can oppose the intelligence agencies, then we can seriously think about peace talks,” the group’s then spokesman Ehsanullah Ehsan said in a video released in June.

So far, the military has shown no inclination to relax an offensive many officers feel they can win.

“We have to take the fight to them,” said a regional commander flying a helicopter over Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

Just before the elections, Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani made it clear he would not talk to the militants unless they lay down arms and accept Pakistan’s laws.

“There is no room for doubts when it comes to dealing with rebellion against the state,” he said in an April 30 speech.

Post-war hunger

Locals in Swat said there was good reason to mistrust the militants.

A previous peace deal gave the TTP the breathing space it needed to take power in the valley and then extend influence into neighbouring districts just 100 km from Islamabad in 2009.

That summer, worried by the creeping proximity of Taliban territory to Islamabad, the army launched a full air and ground assault and government forces regained control in a month. But the operation displaced 2 million people, and later, many returned to nothing but dead livestock and flattened orchards.

Floods that ripped through Swat the next year made things worse, destroying many of the tightly packed terraces where corn and wheat grow along steep mountainsides. Acute malnutrition among children has jumped by more than a third.

Saifullah Khan Mahsud, an expert on the situation in Fata, says the army believes it has the TTP on the back foot and is biding time for a fatal blow in border areas like North Waziristan, where the militants and other global groups are holed up.

“At the end of the day it is the military stance that is going to prevail,” he said.

In Swat, Pakistan Army adamant on fighting ‘other Taliban’ – The Express Tribune (http://tribune.com.pk/story/575052/in-swat-pakistan-army-adamant-on-fighting-other-taliban/)

troung
11 Jul 13,, 05:16
And yet those terrorism supporting pieces of garbage do their best to put the Taliban in power in Afghanistan and run terrorists into India.

zraver
11 Jul 13,, 06:41
And yet those terrorism supporting pieces of garbage do their best to put the Taliban in power in Afghanistan and run terrorists into India.

No they don't, we have AM's solemn word in another thread that they are mere criminals, all Pakistan needs is more cow bell, more cops and an less Uncle Sam. Funny how in this thread the TTP and Al Queda are linked in waging war on Pakistan, but when its the US in another thread they are not an armed group just rouge criminal elements...

Agnostic Muslim
11 Jul 13,, 07:06
No they don't, we have AM's solemn word in another thread that they are mere criminals, all Pakistan needs is more cow bell, more cops and an less Uncle Sam. Funny how in this thread the TTP and Al Queda are linked in waging war on Pakistan, but when its the US in another thread they are not an armed group just rouge criminal elements...
There is no comparison to be made between a domestic problem (the TTP violence in Pakistan and the various measures taken by the Pakistani State to combat the TTP threat domestically) and the arguments elsewhere about the international illegality of unauthorized, unilateral US military strikes inside Pakistan.

Agnostic Muslim
11 Jul 13,, 07:08
And yet those terrorism supporting pieces of garbage do their best to put the Taliban in power in Afghanistan ...
Are you referring to the dialog process with the Afghan Taliban being pursued by the US and Afghanistan and being supported by the UK and various other NATO nations? Why call these nations 'terrorism supporting pieces of garbage'?

Tronic
11 Jul 13,, 08:31
And yet those terrorism supporting pieces of garbage do their best to put the Taliban in power in Afghanistan ...
Are you referring to the dialog process with the Afghan Taliban being pursued by the US and Afghanistan and being supported by the UK and various other NATO nations? Why call these nations 'terrorism supporting pieces of garbage'?

You believe that the dialog pursued by the West is to accommodate the Taliban back to power in Afghanistan? Pipe dreams... Don't get your hopes high.

lemontree
11 Jul 13,, 10:26
We need to open a fiction section, there so much of classic stuff written in Pakistani media, it would be a real shame to waste all this.:biggrin:

Agnostic Muslim
11 Jul 13,, 14:29
We need to open a fiction section, there so much of classic stuff written in Pakistani media, it would be a real shame to waste all this.:biggrin:
What exactly do you find 'fictional' about the three articles/op-eds posted in this thread?

Agnostic Muslim
11 Jul 13,, 14:38
You believe that the dialog pursued by the West is to accommodate the Taliban back to power in Afghanistan?
That is what the alleged leaked Afghan government 'peace road-map' itself states:

"The negotiating parties to agree on the modalities for the inclusion of Taliban and other armed opposition leaders in the power structure of the state, to include non-elected positions at different levels with due consideration of legal and governance principles."

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/121213_Peace_Process_Roadmap_to_2015.pdf

zraver
11 Jul 13,, 15:02
do you believe those articles to be legitimate and non-fiction?

Agnostic Muslim
11 Jul 13,, 15:09
do you believe those articles to be legitimate and non-fiction?

Do I agree with a many of the arguments made in the articles? Yes.

Do I know with absolute certainty that the writers of these articles (or the writers in the media anywhere in the world for that matter) did not make errors? Of course not.

No one except for the writers themselves know that, and one can offer counter-arguments backed by facts to discount the arguments made by the writers if one disagrees with them.

zraver
11 Jul 13,, 15:41
Do I agree with a many of the arguments made in the articles? Yes.

Do I know with absolute certainty that the writers of these articles (or the writers in the media anywhere in the world for that matter) did not make errors? Of course not.

No one except for the writers themselves knows that, though one can offer counter-arguments backed by facts to discount the arguments made by the writers.

From those articles

However, General Kayani, speaking to thousands of relatives of those security men who died in the fighting against the Taliban and other armed groups in the garrison city of Rawalpindi late Tuesday has ruled out talks with the insurgents unless they surrender and abandon their rebellion.

Pakistanis should breathe easy now and feel a bit more confident about their country’s future. Yes, the good news is that the Pakistan Army – the country’s most powerful institution – is not yielding before Al-Qaeda and its local militant allies

All the ambiguity and confusion created by the handful of Al-Qaeda and Taliban apologists, who brand Pakistan’s twin challenge of extremism and terrorism as an ‘American War’, should be removed after Army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani’s recent assertion that the fight against an enemy that defies the constitution of Pakistan and the democratic process and considers all forms of bloodshed justified should not be considered someone else’s war.

ZR- From sources you posted and publicly affirmed that you believed to be legit and non-fiction. Its a war, not a police action and a such 1368/CIL/LOAC is the controlling document on US actions and we are right back to that pesky word ALL.

Agnostic Muslim
11 Jul 13,, 15:48
From those articles


However, General Kayani, speaking to thousands of relatives of those security men who died in the fighting against the Taliban and other armed groups in the garrison city of Rawalpindi late Tuesday has ruled out talks with the insurgents unless they surrender and abandon their rebellion.

Pakistanis should breathe easy now and feel a bit more confident about their country’s future. Yes, the good news is that the Pakistan Army – the country’s most powerful institution – is not yielding before Al-Qaeda and its local militant allies

All the ambiguity and confusion created by the handful of Al-Qaeda and Taliban apologists, who brand Pakistan’s twin challenge of extremism and terrorism as an ‘American War’, should be removed after Army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani’s recent assertion that the fight against an enemy that defies the constitution of Pakistan and the democratic process and considers all forms of bloodshed justified should not be considered someone else’s war.

ZR- From sources you posted and publicly affirmed that you believed to be legit and non-fiction. Its a war, not a police action and a such 1368/CIL/LOAC is the controlling document on US actions and we are right back to that pesky word ALL.
What Pakistan chooses to call any domestic security issue (war on drugs, war on crime, war against extremism etc.) does not have any relation to UNSC 1368 and arguments over the illegality of unauthorized and unilateral military strikes by one nation (in this case the US) on another (Pakistan). Pakistan's domestic policies on combating crime and violence are subject to oversight by the Pakistani courts, in terms of whether those policies violate the constitution, and have no bearing on the argument about whether 1368 authorizes some sort of blanket, undefined and unending ability to conduct military operations wherever the US sees fit (which UNSC 1368 does not).

For the record (since you appear to have missed/ignored my previous comments on how Pakistan can more effectively combat extremist violence within her borders), my position is that the 'war against terrorism/extremism' in Pakistan needs to be led by civilian law enforcement and intelligence agencies and cannot be won without improving the capacity and performance of those institutions in conjunction with improved civilian governance. The Pakistani military agrees with this general idea, but has been unwilling to pull back from Swat and FATA because of the inability of the civilian government to reform the aforementioned institutions.

zraver
11 Jul 13,, 16:03
What Pakistan chooses to call any domestic security issue (war on drugs, war on crime, war against extremism etc.) does not have any relation to UNSC 1368 and arguments over the illegality of unauthorized and unilateral military strikes by one nation (in this case the US) on another (Pakistan). Pakistan's domestic policies on combating crime and violence are subject to oversight by the Pakistani courts, in terms of whether those policies violate the constitution, and have no bearing on the argument about whether 1368 authorizes some sort of blanket, undefined and unending ability to conduct military operations wherever the US sees fit (which UNSC 1368 does not).

For the record (since you appear to have missed/ignored my previous comments on how Pakistan can more effectively combat extremist violence within her borders), my position is that the 'war against terrorism/extremism' in Pakistan needs to be led by civilian law enforcement and intelligence agencies and cannot be won without improving the capacity and performance of those institutions in conjunction with improved civilian governance. The Pakistani military agrees with this general idea, but has been unwilling to pull back from Swat and FATA because of the inability of the civilian government to reform the aforementioned institutions.

Your sources testify to AQ operations, havens and allies in Pakistan and is using the army, not the constabulary/police to combat it and this US action is legitimate. Not to mention the US has tracked the leaders, operatives and arms of AQ and Taliban fighting in Afghanistan to Pakistan. I mean, hell we even caught Bin Laden hiding out on a Pakistani military canton.

You call yourself a patriot but support terror groups that kill Pakistanis... Me I call spades- spades- if someone supports the Taliban. AQ, Hagganni, LeT etc they are a terror supporter.

1368 was issued in 2001. I posted the text, it is the controlling authority and it's plain language reading has no limits on when, where and how the US may act to eradicate the scourge of AQ. You on the other hand split hairs, deny and whine trying to say this group of jihadist is bad, but that group over there is good all the while refusing to admit they are one and the same- wahabi jihadist. Pakistan's problems are not due to the US, India or Afghanistan ots due to people like you who think harnessing the power of rabid nutjobs is possible. Your pet monsters have now killed many times more Pakistanis, Afghans and Iraqis than all the dead of terror infidels combined.

The suffering in SWAT and FATA, the violence, repression and poverty is your fault AM. Its the fault of every Pakistani who thought using terror to kill Indians was a good idea.

Agnostic Muslim
11 Jul 13,, 16:10
Your sources testify to AQ operations, havens and allies in Pakistan and is using the army, not the constabulary/police to combat it and this US action is legitimate.
The Army has been authorized by the elected GoP to conduct those operations given the lack of capacity in civilian law enforcement and intelligence agencies - this is a domestic Pakistani decision and a domestic Pakistani issue. Nowhere do I see any authorization/consent for US military strikes in Pakistan as a part of this policy and I fail to see the relationship between domestic Pakistani policies and the argument over the conduct of the US in carrying out unauthorized military strikes in Pakistan.


Not to mention the US has tracked the leaders, operatives and arms of AQ and Taliban fighting in Afghanistan to Pakistan. I mean, hell we even caught Bin Laden hiding out on a Pakistani military canton.
And where the US has provided intelligence Pakistan has cooperated with her by conducting joint or Pakistan only operations to neutralize Al Qaeda members - which was/is the proper and legal way to approach things, and not by violating international law through conducting unauthorized military operations inside Pakistan.


You call yourself a patriot but support terror groups that kill Pakistanis...
That is a blatant lie - please show me where I 'supported terror groups that kill Pakistanis'.

With respect to your comments about 1368, I will wait for a response from the moderators on whether or not they will re-open the Abbottabad thread instead of hijacking this one.

Double Edge
11 Jul 13,, 16:17
This thread started on May 1 2013 contradicts

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/operation-enduring-freedom-af-pak/64116-pakistan-influence-taliban-commanders-helped-afghan-breakthrough.html

dated Jun 20 2013

Just see the comparison of the first paras..


ISLAMABAD, May 1 (Xinhua) -- In no uncertain terms, the Chief of Pakistani Army, General Ashfaq Pervaiz Kayani on Tuesday rejected the Taliban's offer for talks with conditions and instead asked them to end their rebellion if they want to join the national mainstream.

vice


ISLAMABAD | Thu Jun 20, 2013 4:38pm IST

(Reuters) - Pakistan's powerful military has played a central role in convincing Afghanistan's Taliban rebels to hold talks with the United States, U.S. and Pakistani officials said, a shift from widely held views in Washington that it was obstructing peace in the region.

This thread is redundant.

Agnostic Muslim
11 Jul 13,, 16:22
This thread started on May 1 2013 contradicts

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/operation-enduring-freedom-af-pak/64116-pakistan-influence-taliban-commanders-helped-afghan-breakthrough.html

dated Jun 20 2013

Just see the comparison of the first paras..

vice

This thread is redundant.

Two different groups (even though the TTP claim to owe allegiance to Mullah Omar) with two different (near to medium term) goals, operating in two countries with significantly different dynamics leading into the respective conflicts.

Double Edge
11 Jul 13,, 16:42
Oh, my mistake.

PA supports reconciliation of the Afghan taliban but still rules out any with the TTP.

If the Afghan Taliban are reconciled then the TTP in a way don't have a base to operate from across the border. OR at least lets say it becomes harder than present. This should make the TTP more open to the PA in any future talks. Assuming political situation in Afghanistan does not deterioate.

So i can see why the PA would grandstand here, PA won't talk neither will they fight the TTP until PA has the initiative.

If the TTP pledges allegiance to mullah Omar and fights for him in Afghanistan why will he betray them after even if reconciled to the Paks ?

Why should Omar turn against the TTP, that bit isn't clear to me.

Agnostic Muslim
11 Jul 13,, 16:53
Oh, my mistake.

PA supports talks with the Afghan taliban but still rules out any with the TTP.

If the Afghan Taliban are reconciled then the TTP in a way don't have a base to operate from across the border. OR at least lets say it becomes harder than present.
In a sense the end goal of the US, Afghan and Pakistani government's is the same - convince the Taliban (on both sides) to end violence, end support for terrorism and join the political process.

The Afghan Taliban claim that their 'legitimate government' was 'overthrown by the US' and a 'puppet Karzai' imposed on Afghanistan while the US occupies Afghanistan, and they are fighting that 'occupation'. The Pakistani Taliban on the other hand, given two successive national elections in Pakistan, cannot make that argument and therefore derive most of their legitimacy through claims of 'fighting the US occupation supporting Pakistani Army and Government'. While there are tertiary claims about 'imposing Shariah in Pakistan' made by various factions of the TTP, the TTP really have no overarching theological ideology or leadership capable of 'selling' a 'TTP Shariah vision' to the vast majority of Pakistanis. The various TTP factions are primarily led by former truck drivers, laborers etc. instead of 'religious students' or 'religious scholars'.

Agnostic Muslim
11 Jul 13,, 16:59
So i can see why the PA would grandstand here, PA won't talk neither will they fight the TTP until PA has the initiative.

If the TTP pledges allegiance to mullah Omar and fights for him in Afghanistan why will he betray them after even if reconciled to the Paks ?

Why should Omar turn against the TTP, that bit isn't clear to me.
The PA is fighting the TTP everywhere except for North Waziristan, where your comment about 'the PA waiting till it has the initiative' is correct.

One reason why Pakistan is supporting the Afghan dialog process is because of what you point out - that a civil war in Afghanistan between the Afghan Taliban and other Afghan factions will inevitably result in increased collaboration between the Afghan Taliban and extremist groups in Pakistan, which in turn will strengthen those groups in Pakistan. A successful peace process in Afghanistan resulting in some sort of 'power sharing arrangement' that results in the Afghan Taliban largely ending violence reduces the need for Mullah Omar/Afghan Taliban to maintain any sort of 'military relationship' with the Pakistani extremist groups, which in turn can weaken them in Pakistan.

Double Edge
11 Jul 13,, 17:35
You're suggesting that the relationship between the TTP & the Afghan Taliban is transactional. If the Afghan Taliban are reconciled then they no longer need or require less the TTP to fight for them in Afghanistan and so will be less obligated to the TTP.

I can see this having a direct effect of reducing TTP attacks in Pakistan as TTP becomes less confident.

But what about tribal bonds. Both are Pashtun.

What is Pakistan shooting for here ? It seems a low level manageable insurgency is the best that can be had.

zraver
11 Jul 13,, 18:06
You're suggesting that the relationship between the TTP & the Afghan Taliban is transactional. If the Afghan Taliban are reconciled then they no longer need or require less the TTP to fight for them in Afghanistan and so will be less obligated to the TTP.

I can see this having a direct effect of reducing TTP attacks in Pakistan as TTP becomes less confident.

But what about tribal bonds. Both are Pashtun.

What is Pakistan shooting for here ? It seems a low level manageable insurgency is the best that can be had.

Pakistan wants to get the dogs back in the dog house and to be ready to attack and bite on command again. You know- Indians, Westerners, girls, Christians...

Agnostic Muslim
11 Jul 13,, 19:44
You're suggesting that the relationship between the TTP & the Afghan Taliban is transactional. If the Afghan Taliban are reconciled then they no longer need or require less the TTP to fight for them in Afghanistan and so will be less obligated to the TTP.

I can see this having a direct effect of reducing TTP attacks in Pakistan as TTP becomes less confident.

But what about tribal bonds. Both are Pashtun.

What is Pakistan shooting for here ? It seems a low level manageable insurgency is the best that can be had.
Tribal bonds will continue to exist, but I don't see that as a problem so long as Pakistan does not impose 'undue hardship' on the tribes in continuing their cross-border movement and interactions, increases the development projects locally and starts the process of implementing reforms changing the political status of FATA into a province/provinces. A merger into Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is possible, but given that there are significant socio-cultural differences between the Pashtun in KP and FATA, it might be easier to convince the genuine religious elements (in contrast to the thugs leading the various TTP factions) in FATA to join the political process if they feel they have a chance to win and form a government.

And yes, medium term a 'low level manageable insurgency' is the only feasible goal, creating the space for increased development, political processes, economic growth and capacity building of local institutions, which in turn will help contribute to a lasting long-term solution.

Double Edge
11 Jul 13,, 23:58
Tribal bonds will continue to exist, but I don't see that as a problem so long as Pakistan does not impose 'undue hardship' on the tribes in continuing their cross-border movement and interactions, increases the development projects locally and starts the process of implementing reforms changing the political status of FATA into a province/provinces. A merger into Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is possible, but given that there are significant socio-cultural differences between the Pashtun in KP and FATA, it might be easier to convince the genuine religious elements (in contrast to the thugs leading the various TTP factions) in FATA to join the political process if they feel they have a chance to win and form a government.
Can't do development unless there is peace. Cannot fund development unless there is peace. To have peace requires as you say the various group to believe they can win. Win ? when have religious groups ever won anything from the political process in Pakistan. They can't win that's why they run to the streets. They are more dangerous and hence powerful on the streets than in politics. To get into politics for these types is to neuter themselves.

The political status idea i've heard recently. Why has it taken this long to do that in FATA ? Its been a restive area for a very long time, the way FATA is governed is how the Brits of yore did it. Only way to have some semblance of order. This requires political agents and a pull out of your troops from the area otherwise there is a never ending fight. This is when they think they can win because there is nobody left to compete with them. You then just shape & influence things in the background.

Earlier you said Pak troops will not pull out. So the TTP will not lay down arms and your troops will be forced to cause undue hardship on the tribal people. If the TTP ever feels weak the best thing would be to provoke the Pak state.


And yes, medium term a 'low level manageable insurgency' is the only feasible goal, creating the space for increased development, political processes, economic growth and capacity building of local institutions, which in turn will help contribute to a lasting long-term solution.
All of this depends on a peaceful transition in Afghanistan which is not in your hands. Without peace the TTP have every reason to support the Afghan Taliban and continue whatever agenda they have for Pakistan.

This is what the plan looks like
- If afghan transition is peaceful
- If Afghan Taliban return to Afghanistan
- If said Taliban lay down arms
- If TTP think they can win in local elections

A lot of ifs...

So i wonder what sort of contingency plan can the Paks come up with to mitigate all of this.

Firestorm
12 Jul 13,, 07:42
Cross Post from the Abbottabad thread

Commando complex (http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-189142-Commando-complex)

The article is about Musharraf, but it has one interesting tidbit about the PA's relations with the Taliban



Brig (r) A R Siddiqi
Thursday, July 11, 2013

...Responding to a question about the army's nexus with the Afghan Taliban, he was overly eloquent about their role as a standby volunteer body for the army when required. "The Taliban are a success story", he said and, "we should soon bring them around to our way of thinking and action when necessary".

The same evening, Musharraf and I happened to be sitting next to each other at small private dinner. His observation about the Taliban fresh in my mind, I asked him, "Do you, Sir, really believe in what you said about the Taliban during your talk?" "Don't you?", he countered.

"Not quite after the damage they did to Afghanistan. Having made a mess of their country, far worse than what it had been under the Soviet invasion and subsequent occupation for nearly a whole decade".

He smiled and with an unmistakable touch of irony said, "Sir the Taliban are my strategic reserve and I can unleash them in tens of thousands against India when I want..."

After such a definitive statement I chose to hold my horses. After all he was the army chief and I just a retired brigadier out of touch and unaware of the army's operational planning...

The writer is a former head of ISPR. (Inter Services Public Relations)

notorious_eagle
12 Jul 13,, 14:21
Well Musharraf was wrong

If there is one thing the Taliban has proved is that they don't work for anybody but themselves.


So i wonder what sort of contingency plan can the Paks come up with to mitigate all of this.

Only the General Staff and PA Strategists at GHQ can answer this question.

Agnostic Muslim
12 Jul 13,, 16:55
Well Musharraf was wrong

If there is one thing the Taliban has proved is that they don't work for anybody but themselves.


Only the General Staff and PA Strategists at GHQ can answer this question.

That alleged comment by Musharraf ties into a idea I have tossing around in my head since the appointment of Rao Qamar as ACM over the more vaunted F-16 'fighter jock' Shahid Lateef. Do you recall the criticism over the appointment of Rao Qamar on Pakistani boards, especially by many former and active Pakistani and military defence professionals?

Shahid Lateef was considered (and described by many familiar with him) as the 'quintessential fighter pilot' or the air force equivalent of the 'commando' - an excellent record as an F-16 fighter pilot and a tough, confident and aggressive personality and stature to go with it. Rao Qamar was considered the 'quiet and bookish' kind, and that description by many was used derisively to suggest that Zardari had picked a 'meek puppet'. Part of the criticism was valid in the sense that Shahid Lateef had seniority over Rao Qamar, but the fact that seniority only formed part of the argument against Rao Qamar's appointment made me think that a big part of the problem was the culture of 'machismo' that we find so prevalent in Pakistan. Musharraf was a loud, outspoken 'tough guy', and a lot of Pakistanis liked him for those qualities because he was so aggressive and outspoken in defending Pakistan.

From a modern military perspective, I would think that 'tough guy commandos' like Musharraf are not really good material for high level command appointments, certainly not COAS. High level military command appointments in today's world require the 'diplomat soldier' - cerebral, diplomatic and willing to take a back seat in public, someone like Kayani for example, or even Petraeus (if we remove the media hype from the equation). In hindsight I have to question if Musharraf should have even made it past a one star general.

notorious_eagle
12 Jul 13,, 18:01
That alleged comment by Musharraf ties into a idea I have tossing around in my head since the appointment of Rao Qamar as ACM over the more vaunted F-16 'fighter jock' Shahid Lateef. Do you recall the criticism over the appointment of Rao Qamar on Pakistani boards, especially by many former and active Pakistani and military defence professionals?

Yes i do recall the criticisms, and indeed Shahid Lateef was as good as they got. An exceptional Pilot and an Officer, he won the Sword of Honour and was the Top Gun while undergoing training in the US. He was the top dog, could go up mano to mano against the best of the best. His training officer in the US personally commended his exceptional talent and praised his performance to the higher ups in PAF.


Shahid Lateef was considered (and described by many familiar with him) as the 'quintessential fighter pilot' or the air force equivalent of the 'commando' - an excellent record as an F-16 fighter pilot and a tough, confident and aggressive personality and stature to go with it. Rao Qamar was considered the 'quiet and bookish' kind, and that description by many was used derisively to suggest that Zardari had picked a 'meek puppet'. Part of the criticism was valid in the sense that Shahid Lateef had seniority over Rao Qamar, but the fact that seniority only formed part of the argument against Rao Qamar's appointment made me think that a big part of the problem was the culture of 'machismo' that we find so prevalent in Pakistan. Musharraf was a loud, outspoken 'tough guy', and a lot of Pakistanis liked him for those qualities because he was so aggressive and outspoken in defending Pakistan.

True but in defence of ACM Qamar, he was by no means an ordinary Officer. He was DCAS(ops), it is the most important post in PAF's hierarchy because essentially DCAS has to plan, supervise and execute each and every operational aspect of the AF. The performance of the AF speaks for itself, never before in history of Pakistan has this synergy been achieved between PAF and PA. I would have also personally liked to see Shahid Lateef promoted as CAS, but there were other factors especially his medical condition that went against his promotion. But i am glad that an equally competent Officer was promoted to the position of CAS.

But i do understand your point that in Pakistan's history, mediocre but loud mouth Officers have been promoted instead of the competent ones. If seniority and merit was strictly followed; people like Yahya, Musharraf, Ayub or Zia Ul Haq would have never been promoted. It is not only machoism, but also certain political considerations why incompetent Officers have been promoted over competent ones. It was a loss for the nation when Musharraf was promoted over Lt Gen Ali Kuli Khan as COAS, there was no one more deserving than Ali Kuli Khan.


From a modern military perspective, I would think that 'tough guy commandos' like Musharraf are not really good material for high level command appointments, certainly not COAS. High level military command appointments in today's world require the 'diplomat soldier' - cerebral, diplomatic and willing to take a back seat in public, someone like Kayani for example, or even Petraeus (if we remove the media hype from the equation). In hindsight I have to question if Musharraf should have even made it past a one star general.

Indeed, you need a blend of everything. I do believe that seniority should be followed, especially in case of PA. If an Officer has reached the coveted 3 Star Position, that means he is competent and has the leadership qualities to lead the Army. Junior Officers promoted over Senior ones are likely to act rash to prove themselves as independent (Musharraf). The question is, who is going to be the next COAS of PA as Kiyani is due to retire soon:

1. Lt Gen Haroon Aslam (CLS)
2. Lt Gen Rashad Mahmood (CGS)
3. Lt Gen Tariq Khan (Corps I, Mangla)
4. Lt Gen Zaheer ul Islam (DG ISI)

Agnostic Muslim
12 Jul 13,, 18:12
Indeed, you need a blend of everything. I do believe that seniority should be followed, especially in case of PA. If an Officer has reached the coveted 3 Star Position, that means he is competent and has the leadership qualities to lead the Army. Junior Officers promoted over Senior ones are likely to act rash to prove themselves as independent (Musharraf). The question is, who is going to be the next COAS of PA as Kiyani is due to retire soon:

1. Lt Gen Haroon Aslam (CLS)
2. Lt Gen Rashad Mahmood (CGS)
3. Lt Gen Tariq Khan (Corps I, Mangla)
4. Lt Gen Zaheer ul Islam (DG ISI)
Any opinions (first hand or third person) on the candidates?

Gen Tariq Khan has been the most publicly visible of the 4, given his role in leading the Frontier Corps in FATA and his easy availability to the media for interviews during that time.

notorious_eagle
12 Jul 13,, 18:49
Any opinions (first hand or third person) on the candidates?

All four are equally Competent and Exceptional Officers. If any four of them are promoted, i would have no qualms with it.

NS has said that he will promote the Senior most Officer, that means either Lt Gen Haroon Aslam or Lt Gen Rashad Mahmood. The Senior Most Officers were promoted to the top slot for both Navy and Air Force, i believe the same would be followed for the Army too.


Gen Tariq Khan has been the most publicly visible of the 4, given his role in leading the Frontier Corps in FATA and his easy availability to the media for interviews during that time.

He is too publicly visible and considered very Pro American, these could be a disadvantage for him.

It is a very tricky situation because although Lt Gen Haroon is the senior most Officer, he holds the position of CLS which is not considered a very important post. But he has fighting experience like Lt Gen Tariq Khan as he personally lead his troops in Battle of Peochar, it was the largest heli airborne assault in history of Pakistan at an altitude of 7000 feet. He kept their morale up and was on the front lines throughout the battle. Here's a picture of him during the assault:

33316

Double Edge
13 Jul 13,, 02:03
Pakistan wants to get the dogs back in the dog house and to be ready to attack and bite on command again. You know- Indians, Westerners, girls, Christians...
That was the 90's story. In the 10s how do the Paks achieve that without having their own killed in Pakistan from the TTP ?

An Afghan Taliban that has to kill for a living requires proxy TTP for cannon fodder. In exchange for these sacrifices TTP gets sanctuary in Afghanistan and lives to fight for a more 'islamic' Pakistan.

If the paks fail to cross out the ifs then the killing begins. How long can the PA tolerate that ?

So long as ISAF was there it was the 'Americans war' and Paks were collateral damage. But once US leaves or draws down that argument gets weaker. The TTP will provoke the PA who will find it very difficult not to respond, this in turn creates more recruits for the TTP.

For things to improve, Paks have to get the Afghan Taliban to lay down arms and that depends on how fair next years elections are perceived.

zraver
13 Jul 13,, 02:38
When the US leaves, Pakistan will begin more mopen cross border operations. Ostensibly to punish the Taliban, but watch AM;s arguments about the right of self defense not extneding to military operations inside another belligerent power go right out the window. Ultiamtely pakistan will want to exert control over more territory, deny the same to Afghansitan and India and seek to recruit jihadis for J/K

Double Edge
13 Jul 13,, 03:52
When the US leaves, Pakistan will begin more mopen cross border operations. Ostensibly to punish the Taliban.
Oh, you mean going for TTP hideouts in Afghanistan. Mind you this is assuming things go bad and TTP intensifies attacks.

Where are the Afghan Taliban in this case ? returned to afghanistan or still camping in Quetta.

Easier to do if they are still in Quetta. But how will it work if they have already returned ?

Cross border raids in that case will intensify Afghan nationalism.


Ultiamtely pakistan will want to exert control over more territory, deny the same to Afghansitan and India and seek to recruit jihadis for J/K
if the Taliban go back, then they will provide a buffer in the Pashtun areas. This will work even if Taliban lays down arms.

anil
13 Jul 13,, 09:38
When the US leaves, Pakistan will begin more open cross border operations. Ostensibly to punish the Taliban
To punish taliban? NO!!


Ultiamtely pakistan will want to exert control over more territory
Yes, if they cannot control the afghan govt in the centre then they want strategic territories

They want an north-west/south-east afghanistan. Not a north/south afghanistan.
http://i.imgur.com/SJD8idj.jpg

Double Edge
13 Jul 13,, 13:37
Yes, if they cannot control the afghan govt in the centre then they want strategic territories

They want an north-west/south-east afghanistan. Not a north/south afghanistan.
http://i.imgur.com/SJD8idj.jpg
Yeah, for a gameplan that looks good. Now to see the execution.

Agnostic Muslim
27 Sep 13,, 14:12
NE:

On the heels of Nawaz Sharif's interview in the WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303342104579099142009080988.html), in which he appeared to leave open the possibility of another extension for Kayani, comes this piece:

To Stabilize Afghanistan, Retain Pakistan's Army Chief
Posted: 09/26/2013 6:14 pm

The end game in Afghanistan becomes increasingly tortuous, so the world waits with bated breath on who is going to be Pakistan's next army chief. Pakistan's Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has to decide, but his past appointments as army chiefs did not work out for him.

Sharif insists that he has not changed from his previous incarnations as premier. His coterie too remains much the same. Some of them reportedly had a marked influence on him on picking the chief. A poor record coupled with status quo ante does not inspire confidence that the right choice will be made this time too.

General Ashfaq Kayani has had a tumultuous tenure as army chief. Initially he was lauded by the West, who felt he would provide unstinting support to combat the insurgency in Afghanistan, as opposed to the doublespeak many there believed General Pervez Musharraf often indulged in. But Kayani let the international community know that he would decide who and when to take on, no matter how much they prodded him.

India too got a measure of the man after the Mumbai attacks of 26/11, when the then president, Asif Zardari, had reportedly agreed to dispatch the Inter-Services Intelligence's Director General Ahmad Pasha to India, a visit which Kayani is understood to have nixed.

Kayani arguably remains the most powerful man in Pakistan, calling the shots on national security and foreign policy. Western leaders seek him out openly. India too seems to have realized that he is the go-to man. The Times of London reported in 2011 that India's prime minister, Manmohan Singh, had established direct communication with him, in a reversal of Indian policy. Pakistan's Inter-Services Public Relations first declined to comment, and denied the story only after Singh's office did so. Some good tandem was on display, which only seemed to lend credibility to the story.

But Kayani has not let power go to his head. Wikileaks revealed his disdain for Zardari, but he worked his way around him by bonding with former prime minister, Yousuf Gilani, and letting them both continue in office. Was Pakistan facing greater challenges when General Zia-ul-Haq unseated a previous premier, Zulfiqar Bhutto, or when Musharraf dethroned Sharif when the latter was prime minister earlier, or was the ineptitude of the civilians more then? One could argue no on all counts.

If Kayani can be faulted, it is for other reasons. One, his tacit acceptance of indiscriminate drone strikes. Second, his seeming blind spot for Pasha, who led him into tight corners. Fortunately, he replaced him with a more cautious officer. And third, undermining the army's institutional integrity by accepting a second three-year term in 2010, when a new chief could have been blooded with NATO still fully engaged in Afghanistan.

But that was then. Now no one knows how Afghanistan is going to pan out. Pakistan itself is reeling. The retreating Americans are on edge. Afghan President Hamid Karzai blows hot and cold. India is determined to not let Afghanistan turn against it. Will the Taliban triumph and revert to recidivist ways, or will they learn to comport in relatively moderate fashion? How can Afghanistan be prevented from spawning more 9/11s?

Such then are the issues facing Pakistan's next army chief. Kayani has become seasoned. In facilitating the release of the CIA contractor, Raymond Davis, he exhibited diplomacy. After Bin Laden's killing, he stooped before his own force to save his chair. After the NATO raid on the Pakistani border posts in Salala, he dug in his heels before backing off. Throwing a new man in the deep end at this stage would be fraught with risk, not just for Pakistan, but also the world at large.

Reuters recently quoted a Zardari confidant claiming that the contenders for Kayani's job are nowhere near as patient as him when it comes to the screw-ups of civilian leaders. Zardari for his part ducked and weaved, even decamped abroad, when he faced trouble from the army. Sharif though aspires to be the unquestioned boss.

Power though is serving as a reality check. He has now set up the same National Security Council that he refused to do so on the urging of a previous army chief, Jehangir Karamat. No doubt this took some convincing from Kayani. But it also shows that the two have developed a mutual understanding. It would also be prudent for Sharif not to ignore that Kayani has let democracy run its course.

Sharif's visage and statements reveal the enormous amount of pressure he finds himself under, not just from within Pakistan, but also without. He has seen tough times, but his mettle is going to be tested now as never before. If he is going to pull off the great escape from hell, for Pakistan and for the world, he is better off retaining a general who has dealt with the myriad complexities of the region. A novitiate will naturally have a learning curve. Kayani should be given two years to stabilize the situation. Whether he succeeds or not, he must make way for a new man then.

To Stabilize Afghanistan, Retain Pakistan's Army Chief | Sunil Sharan (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sunil-sharan/to-stabilize-afghanistan-_b_3992844.html)

Oracle
27 Sep 13,, 14:54
Pakistan Army chief rejects Taliban offer for talks with conditions

Okay. So, Mr. Kiyani probably would talk it over dinner.

An army of 1225K personnel getting hammered by mule riding terrorists - isn't something complicit here and the statement the General made?

Agnostic Muslim
27 Sep 13,, 14:58
Pakistan Army chief rejects Taliban offer for talks with conditions

Okay. So, Mr. Kiyani probably would talk it over dinner.

An army of 1225K personnel getting hammered by mule riding terrorists - isn't something complicit here and the statement the General made?
Sorry, but I didn't really understand what 'statement the General made' you were referring to nor the part about 'talking it over dinner' ..

Oracle
27 Sep 13,, 15:03
Sorry, but I didn't really understand what 'statement the General made' you were referring to nor the part about 'talking it over dinner' ..

Seriously AM? Aren't you the one poster who creates circles of posts, and of denial. Quoting lines out of context and the ones that suits you. Go wonder.

And that the PA, ISI and the Al-Qaida, Taliban, TTP et al. are in bed together have been proved on the night of May 1, 2011, in Abbottabad, Pakistan by Seal Team 6. Makes every single Pakistani complicit the way you all defend it. I am sorry, but that's the hard truth.

Agnostic Muslim
27 Sep 13,, 15:13
Seriously AM? Aren't you the one poster who creates circles of posts, and of denial. Quoting lines out of context and the ones that suits you. Go wonder. That doesn't really help explain your previous post, and no, I do not ...


And that the PA, ISI and the Al-Qaida, Taliban, TTP et al. are in bed together have been proved on the night of May 1, 2011, in Abbottabad, Pakistan by Seal Team 6. Makes every single Pakistani complicit the way you all defend it. I am sorry, but that's the hard truth.What is the relevance of this comment to the discussion on the Pakistan Army rejecting TTP talks or who the next Army Chief will be?

Oracle
27 Sep 13,, 15:16
That doesn't really help explain your previous post, and no, I do not ...
What is the relevance of this comment to the discussion on the Pakistan Army rejecting TTP talks or who the next Army Chief will be?

My answer is in the first of mine you quoted. Open your eyes, W-I-D-E, and see.

Agnostic Muslim
27 Sep 13,, 15:18
My answer is in the first of mine you quoted. Open your eyes, W-I-D-E, and see.
I asked you to explain that 'first of yours' - again, I don't understand what you are referring to when you talk about 'statement the General made' or 'talking it over dinner'? Which statement by which General? Which dinner? Who is talking with whom over dinner?

Oracle
27 Sep 13,, 15:41
AM, here, watch these videos, you'd understand.

Secret Pakistan: Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSinK-dVrig&list=FLIzJRvUhdvfqDweG1NCxPOQ&index=105)

Secret Pakistan: Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5-lSSC9dSE&list=FLIzJRvUhdvfqDweG1NCxPOQ&index=104)

So, use the grey matter you have and stop the denial.

Agnostic Muslim
27 Sep 13,, 15:43
AM, here, watch these videos, you'd understand.

Secret Pakistan: Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSinK-dVrig&list=FLIzJRvUhdvfqDweG1NCxPOQ&index=105)

Secret Pakistan: Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5-lSSC9dSE&list=FLIzJRvUhdvfqDweG1NCxPOQ&index=104)

So, use the grey matter you have and stop the denial.
Please read through this thread for my views and a discussion on those videos:
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/operation-enduring-freedom-af-pak/63804-secret-pakistan-bbc-documentary.html

Oracle
27 Sep 13,, 15:47
Please read through this thread for my views and a discussion on those videos:
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/operation-enduring-freedom-af-pak/63804-secret-pakistan-bbc-documentary.html


That thread got only your cries, not important for anyone to respond to it, it seems. Move on. But how long? :biggrin:

Agnostic Muslim
27 Sep 13,, 15:49
That thread got only your cries, not important for anyone to respond to it, it seems. Move on. But how long? :biggrin:
Then it would appear that no one had a response, and the points I raised were valid.

Oracle
27 Sep 13,, 15:54
Then it would appear that no one had a response, and the points I raised were valid.

So, raise a toast and celebrate more killings in Indian Kashmir, and everywhere in this world. Afterall, we're all infidels. :biggrin:

Agnostic Muslim
27 Sep 13,, 16:23
So, raise a toast and celebrate more killings in Indian Kashmir, and everywhere in this world. Afterall, we're all infidels. :biggrin:
What does that comment have to do with the discussion?

Oracle
27 Sep 13,, 16:32
What does that comment have to do with the discussion?

AM, you, with your stupid arguments have got some Awesome members banned in here. What more do you want? You'll raise a toast, burn flags, kill innocents. I need no confirmation for that. And my argument is very well placed with what is wrong with Muslims around the world today, including Pakistan. And that includes citizens like yourself who live in denial. All the best to Islamic Slavery.

Agnostic Muslim
27 Sep 13,, 17:39
AM, you, with your stupid arguments have got some Awesome members banned in here. What more do you want? You'll raise a toast, burn flags, kill innocents. I need no confirmation for that. And my argument is very well placed with what is wrong with Muslims around the world today, including Pakistan. And that includes citizens like yourself who live in denial. All the best to Islamic Slavery.
How can I 'get members banned'? I am not responsible for the content of anyone's post except my own.

On what basis are you accusing me of 'raising a toast, burning flags, killing innocents'? What does your comment have to do with the discussion on the Pakistan Army opposing talks with the TTP or the the discussion on the new COAS?

Minskaya
27 Sep 13,, 20:42
Let's keep the discussion centered on the topic plz.

Tronic
27 Sep 13,, 20:47
EDIT: Nvm, Minnie beat me to it.

Agnostic Muslim
04 Oct 13,, 17:59
Kayani may be retained in powerful security role after retirement
By Reuters Published: October 4, 2013

ISLAMABAD: One of Pakistan’s most powerful men, General Ashfaq Kayani, is likely to stay head of the military with a new title when he steps down as army chief next month, government and security sources said, taking over some of the duties of his successor.

The expected move comes at a time when violence is on the rise in Pakistan, tension boils with arch rival India over disputed Kashmir and as Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif seeks to shore up a stable government just months into his job.

And for the United States, it would mean continuity in Pakistan’s approach ahead of a pullout of most foreign troops in neighboring Afghanistan at the end of 2014.

There has been speculation over who will take over as chief of the army, which has ruled the nuclear-armed South Asian nation for more than half of its history since independence in 1947, when Kayani steps down.
Sources and aides close to Kayani said Sharif wanted to make him head of a revamped and more powerful Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (JCSC). One senior intelligence official said Sharif planned to overhaul the JCSC, a largely ceremonial office, into a “central defense body” by restoring its command over the entire military establishment and giving it additional powers.

“The new JCSC chief will be in charge of the nuclear arsenal. He’ll decide on action against terrorists,” said the source, adding that new powers included the right to promote, post and transfer key military officers.

“Basically, the JCSC office will be what it was always supposed to be. The overall boss.”

Sharif has a history of bitter relations with the army but is keen to preserve a semblance of continuity at a time when Pakistan is struggling to contain a growing Taliban insurgency.

But keeping Kayani in a powerful role would entrench the army once again as the real decision maker in Pakistan, with the civilian government playing second fiddle.

Military officials did not return repeated calls seeking comment. The government’s spokesman said he also could not comment until an official announcement on Monday when the current JCSC chief is due to step down.

“THE DEVIL THEY KNOW”
Kayani’s post had already been extended for three years in 2010 – to the discontent of some climbing the ranks below him. Sources close to Sharif said he was unlikely to give him another extension, which would allow movement in the top ranks.

“The JCSC chairmanship is the most likely option for Kayani,” said a close Sharif aide. “He’s an expert on the Pakistani insurgency. He understands the war in Afghanistan.”

Under Kayani’s command, the army has launched several offensives against al Qaeda and Taliban-linked militants in the tribal regions on the Afghan border. In response, militants have extended their attacks to major cities across Pakistan.

Pakistan is trying to bury the legacy of military rule and this year, for the first time, a civilian government completed its full term and stood aside for Sharif’s team to be elected.

Sharif has a difficult relationship with the army, and picking Kayani’s successor will be a defining moment of his second term. Kayani was once intelligence chief to Pervez Musharraf, the army chief who overthrew Sharif in 1999.

Lieutenant General Rashad Mahmood, chief of general staff, has emerged as a possible successor and a Kayani favorite.

Other possible candidates include General Tariq Khan, considered pragmatic on US relations, and Lieutenant General Haroon Aslam, the most senior official after Kayani.

“Nawaz wouldn’t want an overly strong army chief and if Kayani plans to stick around in uniform, then he would prefer someone close to him,” a senior retired army officer said. “Rashad is the man.”

Either way, Kayani is widely expected to stay on in one form or another. “He won’t simply retire and disappear quietly,” one Western diplomat in Islamabad said.

The relationship with the Americans is also key.

The United States has a long-standing alliance with Pakistan, but ties have been strained by concerns that Islamabad is supporting militants fighting US troops in Afghanistan and over U.S. drone strikes on militant targets inside Pakistan.

Fears for Pakistani sovereignty peaked in May 2011 when Osama bin Laden was found and killed in a town not far from Islamabad in a secretive operation by US Navy SEALS.

“Kayani has a good rapport with the Americans and has worked closely with them in Afghanistan,” the prime minister’s aide said. “For Sharif and the US, it’s better the devil they know.”

Kayani may be retained in powerful security role after retirement – The Express Tribune (http://tribune.com.pk/story/613496/kayani-may-be-retained-in-powerful-security-role-after-retirement/)
===
If the intent here is to use Kayani as a means to change the role of the, so far, largely ceremonial CJSC, in addition to continuing to utilize his experience for continued input in policy making related to the ongoing COIN issues and foreign relations, then this could be a good move.

Parihaka
04 Oct 13,, 22:20
From outside it looks like a clear weakening of the Army as an independent power player, a good thing IMO.

Tronic
04 Oct 13,, 22:41
From outside it looks like a clear weakening of the Army as an independent power player, a good thing IMO.

Pari, what makes you think that? The move only seems to be devised to keep Kayani as the operational head of the PA after his extended term as COAS expires. That's about the only change I see happening. I don't see the civvies getting any stronger.

Firestorm
04 Oct 13,, 22:52
Kayani has been the Army chief for six years. PA chiefs really need to learn how to let go.

Blademaster
04 Oct 13,, 23:51
From outside it looks like a clear weakening of the Army as an independent power player, a good thing IMO.

I do not think so. It looks like PA is consolidating their grips on power and making Sharif a figurehead.

Agnostic Muslim
05 Oct 13,, 00:39
Pari, what makes you think that? The move only seems to be devised to keep Kayani as the operational head of the PA after his extended term as COAS expires. That's about the only change I see happening. I don't see the civvies getting any stronger.


I do not think so. It looks like PA is consolidating their grips on power and making Sharif a figurehead.

You have to look at the long term impact of the proposal (though admittedly there are a lot of 'ifs' involved). The CJCSC position is supposed to rotate between the Army, Air Force and Navy. If the proposed reforms of the CJCSC position go ahead as planned, and the CJCSC becomes the 'main military power player', then the policy of rotating the CJCSC position between the three services will weaken the Army's overall position going forward. However, getting the proposal off the ground would require, initially, the appointment of a highly influential Pakistan Army general - one that could command the respect and loyalty of the incoming Army Chief and Corp commanders. General Kayani is uniquely positioned to play that role given his 6 years as COAS, during which time many of Musharraf's appointees have retired or been sidelined, and a new crop of generals promoted by Kayani has taken over the most influential Army command and staff positions.

Blademaster
05 Oct 13,, 00:53
You have to look at the long term impact of the proposal (though admittedly there are a lot of 'ifs' involved). The CJCSC position is supposed to rotate between the Army, Air Force and Navy. If the proposed reforms of the CJCSC position go ahead as planned, and the CJCSC becomes the 'main military power player', then the policy of rotating the CJCSC position between the three services will weaken the Army's overall position going forward. However, getting the proposal off the ground would require, initially, the appointment of a highly influential Pakistan Army general - one that could command the respect and loyalty of the incoming Army Chief and Corp commanders. General Kayani is uniquely positioned to play that role given his 6 years as COAS, during which time many of Musharraf's appointees have retired or been sidelined, and a new crop of generals promoted by Kayani has taken over the most influential Army command and staff positions.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!! Army chiefs giving up slots to the Air Force or Navy? When did I hear that?

Parihaka
05 Oct 13,, 02:17
Pari, what makes you think that? The move only seems to be devised to keep Kayani as the operational head of the PA after his extended term as COAS expires. That's about the only change I see happening. I don't see the civvies getting any stronger.

Because the JCSC is government appointed. Kayani's appointment in no way weakens the Army, but the next few appointments after that? With enough time and appointments to bed in, the Army becomes clearly subservient to the civilian govt.

Tronic
05 Oct 13,, 04:22
Because the JCSC is government appointed. Kayani's appointment in no way weakens the Army, but the next few appointments after that? With enough time and appointments to bed in, the Army becomes clearly subservient to the civilian govt.

Even the COAS is "government appointed". So what is so different about this appointment, except for the fact that it gives even more power to the army over the other two military branches?



You have to look at the long term impact of the proposal (though admittedly there are a lot of 'ifs' involved). The CJCSC position is supposed to rotate between the Army, Air Force and Navy. If the proposed reforms of the CJCSC position go ahead as planned, and the CJCSC becomes the 'main military power player', then the policy of rotating the CJCSC position between the three services will weaken the Army's overall position going forward. However, getting the proposal off the ground would require, initially, the appointment of a highly influential Pakistan Army general - one that could command the respect and loyalty of the incoming Army Chief and Corp commanders. General Kayani is uniquely positioned to play that role given his 6 years as COAS, during which time many of Musharraf's appointees have retired or been sidelined, and a new crop of generals promoted by Kayani has taken over the most influential Army command and staff positions.

AM, from the entire history of JCSC's existence, only 3 chairmans have been from the PAF or PN, 11 have been from the army, including the last 6. And this, when the JCSC's role was only ceremonial and held no power.

Shariff's proposed reforms want to give operational command to the JCSC chair, a position which could be held by Kayani. The "rotation" of the chair from the different arms is not what Sharif is proposing, and is an entirely different thing! My bet is, if Kayani leads a reformed and powerful JCSC, there is no way in hell the army will relinquish and share that power with the other arms. A PA general taking orders from a PAF or PN officer? Now, that'll be a site to see... but it's nothing but pipe dreams where things stand.

farhan_9909
05 Oct 13,, 08:28
last week i watched a video of an interview of fazlullah who is most probably also officially supported by Afghan intelligence agency

He claimed America Don't want to peace process happen between the taliban and Pak Govt.This is the reason the they increase the drone strikes when peace deals are likely to happen

And i think while america forcing Pakistan to release taliban commanders to help afghan peace process should also support Pakistan peace process

Since recently the TTP has claimed that if drone strikes are stopped we will annouce cease fire
I hope the Drone strikes will be stopped for a time period till the peace deals with the tttp are done

Agnostic Muslim
05 Oct 13,, 19:40
Even the COAS is "government appointed". So what is so different about this appointment, except for the fact that it gives even more power to the army over the other two military branches?


AM, from the entire history of JCSC's existence, only 3 chairmans have been from the PAF or PN, 11 have been from the army, including the last 6. And this, when the JCSC's role was only ceremonial and held no power.

Shariff's proposed reforms want to give operational command to the JCSC chair, a position which could be held by Kayani. The "rotation" of the chair from the different arms is not what Sharif is proposing, and is an entirely different thing! My bet is, if Kayani leads a reformed and powerful JCSC, there is no way in hell the army will relinquish and share that power with the other arms. A PA general taking orders from a PAF or PN officer? Now, that'll be a site to see... but it's nothing but pipe dreams where things stand.

As I said there are a lot of 'ifs' involved for the proposal to succeed long term. The Pakistani Army is still a very disciplined institution when it comes to following the military chain of command. The top functional military post, for the Army, has so far been the COAS. If the CJCSC position is reformed to actually wield power, and the first few appointments are Army generals that will command obedience from junior Army generals appointed to the COAS and other Army command and staff positions, then one creates a new military hierarchy (theoretically) that the Army will start to follow.

In addition, the proposal to make the CJCSC more influential is not a Sharif idea - proposals for a unified special forces command (similar to the US JSOC) and a unified military command were raised during the Musharraf years, and have gathered steam with the Army beginning to realize the importance of the Air Force in 'softening targets' prior to ground deployments and providing CAS during ground deployments. Cooperation between the Army and Air Force during some of the operations in Swat and FATA only further strengthened the idea, and of course it has merit in conventional warfare as well.

Again, a lot of 'ifs' involved here, and the biggest variable is whether or not another unconstitutional Army backed government overthrow takes place.

farhan_9909
05 Oct 13,, 19:59
as per the urdu media sources

America wants to see 1 year extension of Kiyani

Tronic
05 Oct 13,, 20:49
As I said there are a lot of 'ifs' involved for the proposal to succeed long term.

My point is, do not tie up the JCSC chair rotation proposal with the reforms proposed (or supported) by Sharif. They are not the same thing!



The Pakistani Army is still a very disciplined institution when it comes to following the military chain of command. The top functional military post, for the Army, has so far been the COAS. If the CJCSC position is reformed to actually wield power, and the first few appointments are Army generals that will command obedience from junior Army generals appointed to the COAS and other Army command and staff positions, then one creates a new military hierarchy (theoretically) that the Army will start to follow.

When I doubt PA's ability of taking orders from PAF or PN officers, I am not questioning their professionalism, but questioning whether they will ever allow things to get to that stage in the first place.



In addition, the proposal to make the CJCSC more influential is not a Sharif idea - proposals for a unified special forces command (similar to the US JSOC) and a unified military command were raised during the Musharraf years, and have gathered steam with the Army beginning to realize the importance of the Air Force in 'softening targets' prior to ground deployments and providing CAS during ground deployments. Cooperation between the Army and Air Force during some of the operations in Swat and FATA only further strengthened the idea, and of course it has merit in conventional warfare as well.

Actually, your CAS examples are precisely the reason why the PA would love a unified command under the army's leadership!

Even if you put PA's history of political meddling aside and only deal with the military aspect, dishing out established mindsets and making it all work in tandem is a whole different story. Army soldiers taking orders from PAF officers? Easier said than done. India first proposed a joint command in the late 80s, started to experiment with it in the 90s, established a miniature model (Andaman Nicobar Command (ANC) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andaman_and_Nicobar_Command)) in 2001, and now almost 30 years later, the three services have still not fully embraced the idea. The IN and the IA have fought turf battles with the IAF and are making their own mini-airforces. And these are branches which have never ruled an entire country, or have held any political power. You can see why I'd be skeptical in this case...

Oracle
05 Oct 13,, 21:10
Could someone please elaborate?

Is PA in control of the whole landmass of Pakistan? If not, what does rejecting talks with the Taliban mean? Jack.

Cheers,

anil
06 Oct 13,, 06:26
Is PA in control of the whole landmass of Pakistan?
Yes and no. The pakistani state gives some form of autonomy to the tribal belt which calms them down.


If not, what does rejecting talks with the Taliban mean? Jack.
The infidels are leaving

farhan_9909
06 Oct 13,, 08:22
Could someone please elaborate?

Is PA in control of the whole landmass of Pakistan? If not, what does rejecting talks with the Taliban mean? Jack.

Cheers,

They Do,Almost 99.5%.And those who thinks that Waziristan or Whole of FATA or KPK are under taliban than they are highly mistaken

Taliban lives in mountains and are spread..they strike and hide.

Minskaya
06 Oct 13,, 11:28
They Do,Almost 99.5%.And those who thinks that Waziristan or Whole of FATA or KPK are under taliban than they are highly mistaken

Taliban lives in mountains and are spread..they strike and hide.
Disagree. The Taliban overtly control whole villages and towns in the territories. The Taliban are also re-emerging in Swat and control the suburbs of Peshawar. Every day, militant groups are increasing their territory holdings and Pakistan is fracturing. If these trends are not soon reversed, Pakistan will reach a 'Humpty-Dumpty' point where it is impossible to put it all back together.

farhan_9909
06 Oct 13,, 12:07
Disagree. The Taliban overtly control whole villages and towns in the territories. The Taliban are also re-emerging in Swat and control the suburbs of Peshawar. Every day, militant groups are increasing their territory holdings and Pakistan is fracturing. If these trends are not soon reversed, Pakistan will reach a 'Humpty-Dumpty' point where it is impossible to put it all back together.

Yes Once but not now.I belong to baka khel and hence i do have knowledge of the ground realities.
in 2006-07 it was normal to see talibs roaming in the bazar of bannu and miranshah.But today even in the once stronghold of talibs "Wana".they are not.

If the Fight between talibs and Pak army was limited to each other.I am sure Pak army or the govt of pakistan would have never exercised the option of dialogue and peace deals.But they involve the bombing of civilian

I believe if the border with Afghanistan is completely fenced.Pak army can take down TTP within few years

Minskaya
06 Oct 13,, 13:29
I believe if the border with Afghanistan is completely fenced. Pak army can take down TTP within few years
Won't happen. In better news...

http://images.thenews.com.pk/updates_pics/malalayousafzai-pakistan-uk_10-6-2013_121323_l.jpg

Queen Elizabeth has invited Malala Yousafzai to visit Buckingham Palace. The Queen said she was highly impressed with Malala's courage after being shot in the head by Taliban gunmen one year ago. Ms Yousafzai is a strong contender for the Nobel Peace Prize.

notorious_eagle
06 Oct 13,, 17:17
as per the urdu media sources

America wants to see 1 year entension of Kiyani

Thats wrong and i for one would not support that. He has served his tenure, he needs to go and let the Institution continue. Gen Kiyani is a professional soldier, i think he will retire gracefully and not follow his predecessors. Most likely it appears that Lt Gen Haroon will serve as the CJCSC and Lt Rashad Mahmood will be appointed as the new COAS. Both are exceptional Officers and i would not see any qualms with their appointments.

farhan_9909
06 Oct 13,, 17:29
Won't happen. In better news...

http://images.thenews.com.pk/updates_pics/malalayousafzai-pakistan-uk_10-6-2013_121323_l.jpg

Queen Elizabeth has invited Malala Yousafzai to visit Buckingham Palace. The Queen said she was highly impressed with Malala's courage after being shot in the head by Taliban gunmen one year ago. Ms Yousafzai is a strong contender for the Nobel Peace Prize.

I hope she wins.She than would be the 2nd Pakistani with Nobel peace prize

farhan_9909
06 Oct 13,, 17:33
Thats wrong and i for one would not support that. He has served his tenure, he needs to go and let the Institution continue. Gen Kiyani is a professional soldier, i think he will retire gracefully and not follow his predecessors. Most likely it appears that Lt Gen Haroon will serve as the CJCSC and Lt Rashad Mahmood will be appointed as the new COAS. Both are exceptional Officers and i would not see any qualms with their appointments.

While we Do respect Kiyani for Being a distinct General in Pakistan history.But this is what urdu media claimed.If you want i can post the link
i would rather want to see Lt General Tariq Khan as the next COAS

farhan_9909
06 Oct 13,, 17:42
Officially confirmed



Will retire on November 29, Kayani confirms

Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani decided to retire from his post. Kayani will step down on November 29 as army chief after serving twice the normal three-year term for the position.
The Inter Services Public Relations issued a press release announcing his decision to retire. Kayani in the press release said that he has no intention of extending his tenure as COAS.

Will retire on November 29, Kayani confirms – The Express Tribune (http://tribune.com.pk/story/614372/chief-of-army-staff-general-kayani-retires/)

Minskaya
07 Oct 13,, 17:25
I hope she wins. She than would be the 2nd Pakistani with Nobel peace prize


Pakistani Taliban vow to attack Malala again
October 7, 2013

Miranshah The Pakistani Taliban on Monday said schoolgirl campaigner Malala Yousafzai had "no courage" and vowed to attack her again if they got the chance. Gunmen sent by the Taliban tried to kill Malala on her school bus on October 9 last year. She amazingly survived being shot in the head and has become a global ambassador for the right of all children -- girls as well as boys -- to go to school. Having spread a message of "education for all" across the globe, the 16-year-old is now among the favourites for the Nobel Peace Prize, which will be awarded on Friday.

But Shahidullah Shahid, spokesman for the main Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) umbrella group, slammed Malala and said they would try again to kill her. "She is not a brave girl and has no courage. We will target her again and attack whenever we have a chance," Shahid told AFP.
Source: AFP (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jml2fg43UNATnjVNh-QK8Wg_0zcA?docId=395f3d44-a95c-460b-a391-95e402244613&hl=en)

Blademaster
07 Oct 13,, 17:49
I can't believe that these scumbags, the Taliban, are still allowed to live. I am not inclined to accord those lower than amoeba blips of existential life any human rights. Kill them without due process and recycle their body matter to feed the larvae maggots that would start the food chain.

lemontree
07 Oct 13,, 19:43
I believe if the border with Afghanistan is completely fenced.Pak army can take down TTP within few years
The TTP are in Pakistan, not Afghanistan, they are the proxies of the Haqqanis who now "own" North and South Waziristan.

farhan_9909
07 Oct 13,, 20:06
Source: AFP (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jml2fg43UNATnjVNh-QK8Wg_0zcA?docId=395f3d44-a95c-460b-a391-95e402244613&hl=en)

I Hope She returns to Pakistan soon and join her school back in Swat.This will certainly give a moral boost to the Local girls.The best she can do for the girls in Pakistan

Even this year the top 3 candidiates for KMU were female from KPK

farhan_9909
07 Oct 13,, 20:10
The TTP are in Pakistan, not Afghanistan, they are the proxies of the Haqqanis who now "own" North and South Waziristan.

Right And wrong

They are in Pakistan but they get everything from across the border.As seen in the case of tirah valley operation.
Pakistan lacks the funds to fence the border with Afghanistan.It takes only 1 hour on a vigo to reach Khost border from my hometown and there is nothing called border in between.

farhan_9909
07 Oct 13,, 21:09
BBC News - Malala: We must talk to the Taliban to get peace (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-24333273)




Malala: We must talk to the Taliban to get peace

A Pakistani teenager shot in the head by the Taliban for championing girls' rights to education has said talks with the militants are needed for peace.

Malala Yousafzai was attacked by a gunman on a school bus near her former home in Pakistan in October 2012.

The targeting of a schoolgirl who had spoken out for girls' rights to education caused outrage in Pakistan and around the world.

notorious_eagle
08 Oct 13,, 02:40
Right And wrong

They are in Pakistan but they get everything from across the border.As seen in the case of tirah valley operation.
Pakistan lacks the funds to fence the border with Afghanistan.It takes only 1 hour on a vigo to reach Khost border from my hometown and there is nothing called border in between.

And this is where the problem lies, we are too accommodating when it comes to dealing with the Afghans. Look at the way the Iranians have dealt with the Afghans, this has resulted in there borders being secure. We on the other hand let the Afghans let loose in our country due to the Mirage of 'Ummah' which does not exist. Pakistan has to generate the financial resources internally, and mine/fence the border with Afghanistan unilaterally if the Afghans are not on board.

cataphract
08 Oct 13,, 06:39
And this is where the problem lies, we are too accommodating when it comes to dealing with the Afghans. Look at the way the Iranians have dealt with the Afghans, this has resulted in there borders being secure. We on the other hand let the Afghans let loose in our country due to the Mirage of 'Ummah' which does not exist. Pakistan has to generate the financial resources internally, and mine/fence the border with Afghanistan unilaterally if the Afghans are not on board.

Lack of funds is a weak excuse. You guys ate grass to make your atom bomb. If the PA really wanted a fence along the border, you would get one.

Tronic
08 Oct 13,, 06:51
Lack of funds is a weak excuse. You guys ate grass to make your atom bomb. If the PA really wanted a fence along the border, you would get one.

Can't really blame the PA. They'd have millions of pissed off Pashtuns in their country for whom the Durand line is non-existent.

farhan_9909
08 Oct 13,, 08:22
And this is where the problem lies, we are too accommodating when it comes to dealing with the Afghans. Look at the way the Iranians have dealt with the Afghans, this has resulted in there borders being secure. We on the other hand let the Afghans let loose in our country due to the Mirage of 'Ummah' which does not exist. Pakistan has to generate the financial resources internally, and mine/fence the border with Afghanistan unilaterally if the Afghans are not on board.

Well the biggest blunder was not getting into the USSR war in afghanitan but allowing the refugees without authentifications and the related necessary work.
Iran played very well,I had come across many Afghan refugees as they say we had much more opportunities in Iran but only because of extreme racial descrimination in iran.they opted for Pakistan especially KPK,Pashtun dominated region in balochistan and FATA.
And now here majority of the Afghan refugees i knew during my childhood are having Pakistani citizenship.

Fencing would require billion of dollars.as it takes more than 20billion dollars for year just to guard the America,Mexico border.The Pak-Afghan border is too much porous and the terrain is hilly aswell

farhan_9909
08 Oct 13,, 08:25
Lack of funds is a weak excuse. You guys ate grass to make your atom bomb. If the PA really wanted a fence along the border, you would get one.

In the Meantime of our Nukes development(1972-98) we had a higher per capita income than 2 other nation(INDIA AND NORTH KOREA).

Zulfiqar ali Bhutto made this statement as to we will make nukes at any cost.

farhan_9909
08 Oct 13,, 08:27
Can't really blame the PA. They'd have millions of pissed off Pashtuns in their country for whom the Durand line is non-existent.

Not,Anymore time has changed,i can bring statement of extremely pashtun nationalist leaders from ANP claiming to advance Today kpk upto amu darya in Afghanistan.

Cactus
08 Oct 13,, 13:58
Not,Anymore time has changed,i can bring statement of extremely pashtun nationalist leaders from ANP claiming to advance Today kpk upto amu darya in Afghanistan.

If Pakistani Pashtun are so nationalistic, why is the Pakistani government (especially the military) so opposed to the Blackwill Plan?

The Blackwill plan would have dissolved Afghanistan, let the Uzbeks and Tajiks join their respective countries (thus solving one major faultline of civil wars in that area), and left the Pashtun to decide for themselves. The Pakistani government went completely bonkers about that proposal, claiming that it is a plot to divide Pakistan and create a Greater Pashtunistan (possibly with Balochistan also joining them and giving them sea-access).

One would have thought that the Pakistani government would love the plan, start an all-out campaign to woo their Afghan Pashtun cousins to join Pakistan in a more federalist constitution, pour money into developing the KP area to make the union more attractive to the war-ravaged Afghans, rein-in/eliminate its double-edged 'non-state' assets, and gain its 'strategic depth' peacefully. We were all surprised when the Pakistanis shot it down immediately. We thought it was because the Pakistani Punjabis (and allied Mohajir elites) don't want to dilute their electoral and resources advantages, and the separatist tendencies were indeed stronger in the Pakistani Pashtuns than nationalist tendencies. You are saying otherwise?

Agnostic Muslim
08 Oct 13,, 14:18
If Pakistani Pashtun are so nationalistic, ...
Yes, they are that nationalistic - I went over this with 1980s on the Quetta thread:


When asked whether they think of themselves primarily as Pakistani or as a member of their ethnic group, roughly nine-in-ten (89%) say they see themselves first as Pakistani.

Majorities among all four major ethnic groups analyzed say they think of themselves first as Pakistani. Close to all Punjabis (96%) – the nation’s largest group – say they see themselves first as Pakistanis, as do 92% each of those who identify themselves as Pashtuns or Muhajirs.

Sindhis are somewhat more likely than other ethnic groups to identify with their ethnicity. Just over half of Sindhi people (55%) say they see themselves as Pakistani first, while close to three-in-ten (28%) say they first identify as Sindhi; another 16% volunteer that they see themselves as both equally.

In terms of Pakistan’s regions, large majorities in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) (98%) and Punjab (96%) say they see themselves as Pakistanis first, rather than identify themselves first by their ethnic background. Ethnic identification is slightly more common in Baluchistan and Sindh. In Baluchistan, the southwestern territory with rugged terrain and sparse population, 32% say they identify themselves first by their ethnicity and 58% say they identify themselves first as Pakistanis. In Sindh, with its concentration of Sindhi people, 72% say they think of themselves first as Pakistani rather than by their ethnic background; 13% think of themselves first by their ethnic identification; and 10% volunteer that they think of themselves as both equally.
Chapter 2. Religion, Law, and Society | Pew Global Attitudes Project (http://www.pewglobal.org/2009/08/13/chapter-2-religion-law-and-society/)

A similar survey on national identity done in 2011 provided similar statistics:

http://www.pewglobal.org/question-se...@36.5-&stdIDs=

cataphract
08 Oct 13,, 18:02
In the Meantime of our Nukes development(1972-98) we had a higher per capita income than 2 other nation(INDIA AND NORTH KOREA).

Zulfiqar ali Bhutto made this statement as to we will make nukes at any cost.

I don't believe any Pakistani was reduced to eating grass in the literal sense because of the bomb, and for that matter nor was any Indian. The point still remains, the difficulty in fencing the border is not economic or technical, it is political.

cataphract
08 Oct 13,, 18:04
Can't really blame the PA. They'd have millions of pissed off Pashtuns in their country for whom the Durand line is non-existent.

I don't believe the reason is Pashtun sensitivities. After all Punjabis from both sides of the border still long for the good old days, and the Punjab border is as fortified as ever. No, the reason for keeping the Afghan border porous is to facilitate the PA's sundry Talibs and Haqqanis.

farhan_9909
08 Oct 13,, 18:05
If Pakistani Pashtun are so nationalistic, why is the Pakistani government (especially the military) so opposed to the Blackwill Plan?

The Blackwill plan would have dissolved Afghanistan, let the Uzbeks and Tajiks join their respective countries (thus solving one major faultline of civil wars in that area), and left the Pashtun to decide for themselves. The Pakistani government went completely bonkers about that proposal, claiming that it is a plot to divide Pakistan and create a Greater Pashtunistan (possibly with Balochistan also joining them and giving them sea-access).

One would have thought that the Pakistani government would love the plan, start an all-out campaign to woo their Afghan Pashtun cousins to join Pakistan in a more federalist constitution, pour money into developing the KP area to make the union more attractive to the war-ravaged Afghans, rein-in/eliminate its double-edged 'non-state' assets, and gain its 'strategic depth' peacefully. We were all surprised when the Pakistanis shot it down immediately. We thought it was because the Pakistani Punjabis (and allied Mohajir elites) don't want to dilute their electoral and resources advantages, and the separatist tendencies were indeed stronger in the Pakistani Pashtuns than nationalist tendencies. You are saying otherwise?

historically Pashtuns were only limited to the ancient pashtunistan region.And still are.Those parts of Afghanistan where tajiks and uzbek are in majority were always as khorosan region.you just cant force them from their historic land without breaking afghanistan and creating khorosan for them.which certainly is not very easy

Much has changed.Pashtuns are now very well integrated within the Pakistani society and the afghan pashtuns has more or less become persian influenced.
In Pakistan we Even being 15% of the total pak population still use pashto as the main communication language atleast in KPK,southern balochistan and FATA.while the pashtuns of afghanistan even in kabul use dari.even though they being the largest community in afghanistan.

I dont want to go enough into details.But being a Pashtun and after the great betrayal by the elite afghan pashtun during the durrand line agreement when we the pakstani pashtuns were sold off to british and merged with british india.The people we had nothing in common at all.

The Pakistan pashtuns today are much more education and almost 3 times the number of afghan pashtuns.Are much better in terms of Wealth.
I dont see a reason of merger with them unless they want to merge with us

farhan_9909
08 Oct 13,, 18:08
I don't believe any Pakistani was reduced to eating grass in the literal sense because of the bomb, and for that matter nor was any Indian. The point still remains, the difficulty in fencing the border is not economic or technical, it is political.

it might be political but not for cross border terrorism.But if we had the funds.i am sure we would have long back fenced the border.
but in near future i see a very much possibility of it being fenced.

cataphract
08 Oct 13,, 18:21
it might be political but not for cross border terrorism.But if we had the funds.i am sure we would have long back fenced the border.
but in near future i see a very much possibility of it being fenced.

Like I said before, I don't think a lack of money is the problem. If the PA really wanted a fence there, all they have to do is bring up the issue with the US. The US would gladly foot the bill for anything that reduces cross-border infiltration, both ways.

cataphract
08 Oct 13,, 18:23
If Pakistani Pashtun are so nationalistic, why is the Pakistani government (especially the military) so opposed to the Blackwill Plan?

The Blackwill plan would have dissolved Afghanistan, let the Uzbeks and Tajiks join their respective countries (thus solving one major faultline of civil wars in that area), and left the Pashtun to decide for themselves. The Pakistani government went completely bonkers about that proposal, claiming that it is a plot to divide Pakistan and create a Greater Pashtunistan (possibly with Balochistan also joining them and giving them sea-access).

One would have thought that the Pakistani government would love the plan, start an all-out campaign to woo their Afghan Pashtun cousins to join Pakistan in a more federalist constitution, pour money into developing the KP area to make the union more attractive to the war-ravaged Afghans, rein-in/eliminate its double-edged 'non-state' assets, and gain its 'strategic depth' peacefully. We were all surprised when the Pakistanis shot it down immediately. We thought it was because the Pakistani Punjabis (and allied Mohajir elites) don't want to dilute their electoral and resources advantages, and the separatist tendencies were indeed stronger in the Pakistani Pashtuns than nationalist tendencies. You are saying otherwise?

I don't think dissolving Afghanistan, as the Blackwill plan proposes, is a realistic idea. I don't know about Tajikistan or Uzbekistan, but Iran has no love lost for the Afghans, even from Herat. We also see the reactions of the Pakistani members here on the Afghan Pashtuns. It's not a case of whether Afghans want a united country, but more of their neighbours not wanting any part of it.

farhan_9909
08 Oct 13,, 18:28
@Cactus

could be of your interest aswell.

A very interesting article written by a Pakistani pashtun
Thepeshwar.com

I am only quoting the Main points.For reading all open the link

The Pashtunistan Concept: Does it have wider support in Pakhtunkhwa? - thePeshawar.com (http://thepeshawar.com/index.php/miscellaneous/thekhyber-monthly/112-thekhyber-february-2013/695-the-pashtunistan-concept-does-it-have-wider-support-in-pakhtunkhwa)


There are about 50 Million Pashtuns spread out across a vast expanse of territory. The majority of Pashtuns are in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (A province of Pakistan) and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (An autonomous region in North-west Pakistan bordering Afghanistan).

The rest of the Pashtuns are in Afghanistan. Population-wise about 29 Million Pashtuns are in Pakistan while less than 13 Million are in Afghanistan. This division of Pashtuns came about in the year 1893 when according to Durand agreement signed between Afghan King Abdur Rehman Khan and Sir Henry Mortimer Durand they were partitioned between Afghanistan and British India. Over a hundred years after this partition the Afghans or bar (Northern) Pashtuns continue to believe that they have a right over the lands of lar (Southern) Pashtuns.

"The Pakistan army has always used the support of the Pashtun to further its interests and the interests of Pashtuns. It's a mutually beneficial relationship. It's tragic that the Afghans consider us enemies," he told me as we met in a restaurant close to my place of work in Karachi.

Feroz shares a dislike of two people. The Mahsuds, a tribe from South Waziristan and the Afghans. I have never agreed with his assessment of the Mahsuds which I feel is a little harsh but I sympathize with some of his views for the Afghans ever since I started noticing their attitudes towards Pakistan.

"They come to our land, make our cities dirty and take our jobs. That's not really a problem. But after we helped them out and hosted millions of their refugees how can they squeak about dividing our land?"

"How much or how little do you agree with the concept that Pashtuns are equal to Afghans? Some Afghans have told me no Pashtun can be a Pakistani," I said.

I remember Feroz laughing wildly. "Afghanistan is a country and Pakistan is a country. Pashtuns are an ethnicity that can belong to either country. The majority is in Pakistan and is therefore Pakistani. This may frustrate the Afghan but the Pashtun in Pakistan is more Pashtun than him and has achieved far more for Pashtuns than the Afghan in terms of culture, sports, art, fashion and music. They have no culture because of the Taliban. Only because we are doing better they want us to sing Afghan songs. Otherwise they wouldn't give a damn about us."

A Pashtun woman I contacted recently to confirm whether Feroz's views were right is Arooj Khan Marwat. Arooj has been to Afghan controlled forums before as well and is as hurt as me by the treatment meted out to us by Afghans there.

"I, as a Pashtun girl from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa will never support their (Pashtunistan) ideology and in my opinion they are Pashtuns from Afghanistan and we are Pashtuns from Pakistan. I respect their language, way of living, and even their people (but) expect the same in return, which we didn't get. They hate us for no reason or may be just because we are Pakistani Pakhtuns. As they hate Pakistan they hate KPK (too). You will hardly find any Afghans who have good thoughts about Pakistan."

For an in-depth analysis of the situation and for proof that Feroz and Arooj were right I finally contacted Alamdar Yousafzai the Chapter head of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa of a Nationalist movement. Surely a leader of Pashtuns who commanded a large number of Pashtun followers would be able to address my concerns and confusions.

Alamdar Yousafzai proudly introduced himself, directly hinting at the fact that he has some sort of power in Pakistan and is not to be trifled with. "I am the leader of a Nationalist movement in Pakistan, one that has a large number of people from Pakhtunkhwa," he boasts.

Alamdar Yousafzai's reputation amongst the Nationalists precedes him. He has served several Nationalist groupings. All he had was dedicated to the cause of Pakistan. He owns land but instead of using the land for profit making ventures he has used it to build schools and educate Pakistanis, most of them Pashtuns from Pakhtunkhwa. He is a well-known and well-respected leader of a movement of over 3000 people, possibly even 12,000 if his role in the UPNM is considered, a united conglomeration of Pakistani Nationalist groups founded to guard the interests of Pakistan.

"Let's be clear I lead about 400 Pashtuns all of whom are ready to die for Pakistan. In the future more will join from our schools. As you know Nationalism is fused within the minds of our children in our schools."

"But surely there may be some who don't share your views? I have heard Pashtuns from our beloved Pakhtunkhwa talking about the division of Pakistan."

"I don't know what crowd you are hanging around with but a traitor has no place in Pakistani society whether a Pashtun, Punjabi or whatever. In Pakistan we are only Pakistanis not Sindhis, Balochs, Punjabis and Pathans. Almost all (Pashtuns) have the brains to understand that and will proudly hunt down such a traitor. I will also tell you that the one who believes in such idiotic ideas is probably sitting in the west and the Americans are shoving money in his mouth."

farhan_9909
08 Oct 13,, 18:32
Like I said before, I don't think a lack of money is the problem. If the PA really wanted a fence there, all they have to do is bring up the issue with the US. The US would gladly foot the bill for anything that reduces cross-border infiltration, both ways.

very much possible under this govt.PTI(imran khan)

the previous govt was of very nationalist pashtuns.and they wanted to enhance the border of FATA/KPK upto amu darya.
About the latter i doubt the USA will pay the bill

farhan_9909
08 Oct 13,, 18:38
I don't think dissolving Afghanistan, as the Blackwill plan proposes, is a realistic idea. I don't know about Tajikistan or Uzbekistan, but Iran has no love lost for the Afghans, even from Herat. We also see the reactions of the Pakistani members here on the Afghan Pashtuns. It's not a case of whether Afghans want a united country, but more of their neighbours not wanting any part of it.

We would always welcome our afghan pashtuns for a possible merger with us.But i doubt they would opt for living under the administration of Pakistan.while the Pakistani pashtuns cant leave and create seperate country just for odd 12million afghan pashtun of whom 2million are legal and atleast 2-3millions illegal afghan refugees already are in pakistan living less than 7-8millions pashtun in afghanistan and more than 35milllions in Pakistan.

The Best for Afghanistan is when coalition forces will leave

*Makes ANA even more powerful and increase the strength to atleast 6lac.
*make sure Afghanistan get atleast 10billion dollars aid per year from the world
*Work on the economy and increase it to atleast 60-70billion dollars GDP till 2020
*Invest in education and target a literacy rate of 70% by 2020
*improve relation with all the neighbours.most important Pakistan and iran.
*Have access to warm water from Both iran(Chabahar port) and Pakistan(Gwadar,Karachi ports)

with all this above.The future of Afghanistan will be very much bright.And once their GDP reach 100billion dollars.they can become very much independent

cataphract
08 Oct 13,, 23:00
We would always welcome our afghan pashtuns for a possible merger with us.But i doubt they would opt for living under the administration of Pakistan.while the Pakistani pashtuns cant leave and create seperate country just for odd 12million afghan pashtun of whom 2million are legal and atleast 2-3millions illegal afghan refugees already are in pakistan living less than 7-8millions pashtun in afghanistan and more than 35milllions in Pakistan.


Is this your personal opinion? I doubt it is shared universally among the Pakistani Pashtuns. The Afghan refugees seem to have managed to create a very bad impression on their hosts, Pashtun and non-Pashtun, and are often blamed for bringing the drugs and gun culture into Pakistan. After three decades of bad blood, what would make Pakistani Pashtuns fond of their Afghan cousins? As you mentioned in your earlier posts, they have also grown apart culturally since 1947.

notorious_eagle
09 Oct 13,, 04:46
Like I said before, I don't think a lack of money is the problem. If the PA really wanted a fence there, all they have to do is bring up the issue with the US. The US would gladly foot the bill for anything that reduces cross-border infiltration, both ways.

Thats a no go

Pakistani representatives in tri-lateral meetings with both Afghan and American representatives proposed several times to fence parts of the borders. Afghans outright rejected it, and Americans were not to welcoming either of this proposal. Fences built by PA in hot areas were destroyed by ANA. If the Afghans don't control the TTP bunnies operating freely in there territory, Pakistan might end up fencing and heavily mining the border unilaterally. Pakistan has thousands of mines rotting in surplus stocks, might as well put them to good use.

Officer of Engineers
09 Oct 13,, 05:34
Pakistan has thousands of mines rotting in surplus stocks, might as well put them to good use.You might want to rethink that.

farhan_9909
09 Oct 13,, 07:57
Is this your personal opinion? I doubt it is shared universally among the Pakistani Pashtuns. The Afghan refugees seem to have managed to create a very bad impression on their hosts, Pashtun and non-Pashtun, and are often blamed for bringing the drugs and gun culture into Pakistan. After three decades of bad blood, what would make Pakistani Pashtuns fond of their Afghan cousins? As you mentioned in your earlier posts, they have also grown apart culturally since 1947.

I would rather recommand you to have a visit to different pashtun forums online.

*Afghan pashtun wants 2 approach

1-Merger of KPK-FATA and southern balochistan into afghanistan creating Loy Afghanistan with more than 70% Pashtun population.Giving the pashtuns in Afghanistan majority of rights

2-the Creation of Ancient pashtunistan region into a new Country named Pashtunistan.Which would be made with the merger of KPK-FATA-Southern Balochistan and parts of pashtun dominated regions in Afghanistan but 1 addition as complete Godar(balochistan) giving the new country access to warm water.

Fictional map of Pashtunistan region/Country with the inclusion of Balochistan

34082

Pashtunistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashtunistan)

Pakistan Pashtuns in Majority want(yes There are nationalist pashtuns from KPK side which almost agrees to the 2nd afghan pashtuns approach or the pashtunistan approach but in smaller number)

Pakistani pashtuns wants the merger of Afghan pashtuns along with there dominated land into Pakistan to be administrated by Pakistan

Not since 1947 but since 1893.The cultural has changed but the Karlani pashtun i have met from Afghanistan side are almost similar to us Pakistani karlani pashtun.

I would always want atleast the merger of karlani pashtuns from Afghanistan into Pakistan no matter what the official stance of other Pakistani is.I see still consider the karlani pashtun equal on either side of the durrandline

farhan_9909
09 Oct 13,, 08:29
Pakistan to mine, fence Afghan border

Pakistan is has once again prepared a plan to fence the border with Afghanistan with barbed wires and landmines to stop the militant infiltration from Afghanistan.
The plan has been prepared after the recent cross-border attacks in the border areas of Upper Dir, Mohmand Agency and Bajaur Agency, reported BBC on Thursday.
The uthorities say wherever possible Pakistan would use barbed wires to stop illegal cross-border movement and landmines would be used only is such areas where it is impossible to lay wires.


The public face of Pakistan Army, the ISPR told BBC that there is a 2,400-km-long border between the two countries and this whole stretch cannot be manned, therefore, fencing is being considered. To a question the ISPR spokesperson said that it is not that fencing would stop infiltration all together but militants would get a tough time and the overall volume and frequency of militant infiltration would decline.

He said the plan is in its consultation stage and it will be discussed at different forums with different interest groups, including the Afghans. According to BBC correspondent, there have been three major cross-border militant attacks in past one month in which the police, the Frontier Constabulary (FC) and Levies have suffered a considerable human and material loss.

The plan to fence the border with Afghanistan has been considered twice in the past, once in 2007 and then in 2009, but it was not fully implemented. Authorities say that at that time only a total of 35-km-long portion was fenced and the work was discontinued for lack of funds.


The measure was then denounced by the Afghan government, the Nato/Isaf forces and the people living on both sides as they said it would divide the population living on both sides of the border.

which not only related by blood but also share many resources in areas across the border. And, this time too, Pakistan may face a stiff resistance on the issue.
Anti-landmine activists are concerned that Pakistans plan to mine its western border with Afghanistan will increase the landmine casualties. Should the contentious plan go ahead, communities on both sides of the border will see many more victims, given significant population flows, they say. According to a former Pakistan Ambassador to the United Nations, more than 14 million people cross the border annually.

Scores of Afghans and Pakistanis have fallen victim to anti-personnel mines laid along the border during the Soviet-Afghan war in the 1980s.
Islamabad is not a signatory to 1997 Ottawa Convention, an international agreement prohibiting the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines and their production.

The regional security environment and its military requirements have constrained Pakistan from joining the Ottawa Treaty, a Foreign Ministry official said. Since our long borders are not protected by any natural obstacle, the use of landmines forms an important part of our self-defence strategy given the nature of our security compulsions [to the east].

Pakistan remains among a handful of countries that still produce mines. It is estimated the country has stockpiles of at least six million anti-personnel mines, the fifth-largest stockpile in the world, according to the Landmine Monitor Report (2006), although no official confirmation of these numbers has ever been given.


Pakistan to mine, fence Afghan border (http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/politics/24-Jun-2011/Pakistan-to-mine-fence-Afghan-border)

Old news but worth a Read

*Pakistan would have to fence the border at any cost before the withdrawal of coalition forces.As no ones know what will happen next
And we cant afford anyone be it civilian or militants to cross into Pakistan this time

Dreadnought
09 Oct 13,, 14:25
IMO, A "fence" will not work. You must dig, deep enough that it would kill a person if they fell, or definately disable a vehicle if it attempted to cross it, wide enough that any one timber found it the area cannot be drawn across it. Like a moat, but much wider, much deeper, and then you mine both sides and definately the bottom, you mine the edges as not to allot anyone to even get close enogh. but you will still need to add the human factor.

For sooner or later they will come, test, and given the state of mind of some of these idiots bound to have a few that will give their lives so their evil friends can atleast get furthur in penetration then they did until they breech it and than you have to repair it again.

Either way it will take the human factor unless they have their military patrol it and a "neutral" set of eyes watching them thats the only way you can deny the border crossings but its only going to be as good as the modesty that patrols it.

farhan_9909
09 Oct 13,, 21:07
TTP ready to reciprocrate govt’s ‘serious’ peace talk efforts: Hakimullah Mehsud – The Express Tribune (http://tribune.com.pk/story/615743/ttp-ready-to-reciprocrate-govts-serious-peace-talk-efforts-hakimullah-mehsud/)


TTP ready to reciprocrate govt's 'serious' peace talk efforts: Hakimullah Mehsud

Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) leader Hakimullah Mehsud said on Wednesday that the government had not followed up on the decision of talks made in the September All Parties Conference, however, if any such effort is made, a government jirga would be welcomed and provided full security.
In a rare television interview, the TTP leader told the BBC that the government should have made the peace talks announcement and called a jirga, as per convention instead of handing over responsibilities to the media.

Mehsud said that the Taliban were ready for peace talks and if serious attempts at negotiations were made, the Taliban would reciprocate.
“If a jirga nominated by the government comes to us, we will ensure its security,” he said, adding that the TTP were not going to start negotiating with the government through the media.

“We don’t want to talk through the media. Neither do we want to listen to the government’s conditions through the media nor do we want to present our conditions via media.”

US Withdrawal from Afghanistan

With many believing that the 2014 US withdrawal from Afghanistan could deflate the militant movements, Mehsud said that the situation in drawdown will not have any affect on Pakistani Taliban and they will continue to carry out their activities.
“We carry our fight in Pakistan for two reasons. One reason is that Pakistan is friends with America and at the behest of America, Pakistan has killed ulema and destroyed madrassas,” he said.
He said that the other reason for their fight against Pakistan was the prevalent “non-Islamic” system in the country.

Drones

The TTP leader reiterated that if America agreed to stop drone strikes, the Taliban would also stop their fight.
He said that that they were aware of the appeals of ulema who want them to stop the war.

“But in the case of us ending the war, we also want a stop to drone strikes. If drone strikes are stopped, we will be ready to stop our jihad.”

Blasts in public spaces

The TTP leader, who carries a $5 million bounty on his head, disowned the recent blasts in public spaces. “Other agencies are involved in that.”
“The purpose of the blasts is to misguide the people against Taliban, so that the people who support us can stop doing so.”
Mehsud said that the TTP have distanced themselves from such blasts before and will do so again.

farhan_9909
09 Oct 13,, 21:10
IMO, A "fence" will not work. You must dig, deep enough that it would kill a person if they fell, or definately disable a vehicle if it attempted to cross it, wide enough that any one timber found it the area cannot be drawn across it. Like a moat, but much wider, much deeper, and then you mine both sides and definately the bottom, you mine the edges as not to allot anyone to even get close enogh. but you will still need to add the human factor.

For sooner or later they will come, test, and given the state of mind of some of these idiots bound to have a few that will give their lives so their evil friends can atleast get furthur in penetration then they did until they breech it and than you have to repair it again.

Either way it will take the human factor unless they have their military patrol it and a "neutral" set of eyes watching them thats the only way you can deny the border crossings but its only going to be as good as the modesty that patrols it.

Good but would cost alot,Digging this deep and thousand of miles.

Better and cheaper solution is to mine the whole border and warn the citizen,Increase the Strenth of border security forces.
When pakistan has enough money to completely fence the border in the style of like the Pak-indo border.

antimony
12 Oct 13,, 01:27
Good but would cost alot,Digging this deep and thousand of miles.

Better and cheaper solution is to mine the whole border and warn the citizen,Increase the Strenth of border security forces.
When pakistan has enough money to completely fence the border in the style of like the Pak-indo border.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.google.com%2Fnewspapers%3Fni d%3D1300%26dat%3D19840323%26id%3D3kFVAAAAIBAJ%26sj id%3Dg5UDAAAAIBAJ%26pg%3D2276%2C1118583&ei=zIhYUrWKNYObjAKW-oCIDw&usg=AFQjCNF3OyqWfnnnlbKkxjW8Nk88dPV9IA&sig2=9IWi1wC6Ub-ORIhaeBB1Yw&bvm=bv.53899372,d.cGE

Congratulations, now you are child murderer

Agnostic Muslim
12 Oct 13,, 02:47
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.google.com%2Fnewspapers%3Fni d%3D1300%26dat%3D19840323%26id%3D3kFVAAAAIBAJ%26sj id%3Dg5UDAAAAIBAJ%26pg%3D2276%2C1118583&ei=zIhYUrWKNYObjAKW-oCIDw&usg=AFQjCNF3OyqWfnnnlbKkxjW8Nk88dPV9IA&sig2=9IWi1wC6Ub-ORIhaeBB1Yw&bvm=bv.53899372,d.cGE

Congratulations, now you are child murderer
He suggested mining the border, along with issuing warnings to all citizens regarding the presence of mines - he did not suggest 'clearing mine fields with children' so why accuse him of being a 'child murderer'?

Officer of Engineers
12 Oct 13,, 03:03
Better and cheaper solution is to mine the whole border and warn the citizen,Increase the Strenth of border security forces.A fence is a far more cheaper and safer option. I hate to be the engineer tasked with maintaining a minefield after a heavy snow fall followed by a deep freeze.

farhan_9909
12 Oct 13,, 08:55
A fence is a far more cheaper and safer option. I hate to be the engineer tasked with maintaining a minefield after a heavy snow fall followed by a deep freeze.

Fence But in the style of Indo-Pak Border.

Like this

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/image/701634/1370618755000/large16x9/768/432/indian-soldiers-patrol.jpg

And the Pak-Afghan border also recieve alot of snowfall in winter.

Officer of Engineers
12 Oct 13,, 09:08
Barb wire. You're telling me about barb wire?

An AP mine costs around $100 each. I'm sure you can get cheaper ones at around $10 each in Pakistan.

So, what are you going to do? Give me maps to civies where the safe routes are? Maps that can be photocopied and given to opposing forces? On top of soil that shifts 2-10 ft every winter? In other words, the mine you planted before winter can be anywhere within a 10 ft radius after winter ... and you're talking 100-200 mines per minefield. So, where are those 100-200 mines after winter ... if they didn't detonate? Or did they detonate? So, after spring, you found 90 mines instead of the 100 you planted. Where are those 10 mines? Do you really want to tell your civies that it's safe to traverse that minefield that you don't know where 10 mines are?

Or if you do, do you really want to give intel to your civies that they can pass along to your enemy?

Son, ask us before you post.

lemontree
13 Oct 13,, 16:59
Right And wrong

They are in Pakistan but they get everything from across the border.As seen in the case of tirah valley operation.

The day you and your countrymen realise that the TTP are Haqqani proxies, that day you will see the light of day.


Pakistan lacks the funds to fence the border with Afghanistan. It takes only 1 hour on a vigo to reach Khost border from my hometown and there is nothing called border in between.
I am well aware of that.

Minskaya
13 Oct 13,, 20:14
Fence But in the style of Indo-Pak Border. Like this

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/image/701634/1370618755000/large16x9/768/432/indian-soldiers-patrol.jpg
farhan_9909,

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-VV962_0102fe_G_20130102165405.jpg

Above is the fence between Israel and Sinai. But even mined you still need patrols and intelligence to thwart incursions. Last week the IDF discovered a Hamas terrorist tunnel (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/10/13/israel-tunnel-gaza-border/2976009/) under the fence that spanned 1.8 km (300 meters inside Israel) and was 22 meters deep. It was intended to either attack or kidnap Israelis. Engineers estimate it was begun in 2011 and utilized 800 tons of concrete and 25,000 concrete slabs with a 220 volt electric feed. This is a perfect example of what Hamas does with construction materials that are allowed to cross the border.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/70454000/jpg/_70454442_70454441.jpg

Doktor
13 Oct 13,, 20:19
farhan_9909,

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-VV962_0102fe_G_20130102165405.jpg

Above is the fence between Israel and Sinai. But even mined you still need patrols and intelligence to thwart incursions. Last week the IDF discovered a Hamas terrorist tunnel (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/10/13/israel-tunnel-gaza-border/2976009/) under the fence that spanned 1.8 km (300 meters inside Israel) and was 22 meters deep. It was intended to either attack or kidnap Israelis. Engineers estimate it was begun in 2011 and utilized 800 tons of concrete and 25,000 concrete slabs with a 220 volt electric feed. This is a perfect example of what Hamas does with construction materials that are allowed to cross the border.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/70454000/jpg/_70454442_70454441.jpg

Minnie,

As a mod, you know your last comment was uncalled.

Minskaya
13 Oct 13,, 20:28
Minnie,

As a mod, you know your last comment was uncalled.
Like terror tunnels, sometimes the truth cuts deeply Doctor.

Tronic
13 Oct 13,, 21:04
Fence But in the style of Indo-Pak Border.

Like this

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/image/701634/1370618755000/large16x9/768/432/indian-soldiers-patrol.jpg

And the Pak-Afghan border also recieve alot of snowfall in winter.

Indian fencing of it's border with Pakistan is more than just a barbed wire. It's an electric fencing lighted up with floodlights, infra-red and motion sensors, UAV patrols on top of normal unit patrols.

Pretty much the only border visible from space:
http://imageshack.us/a/img801/6335/3ug1.jpg

India Pakistan border visible from space | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2033886/India-Pakistan-border-visible-space.html)

The problem in the winters up North is tackled by engineering teams on standby to reconstruct dozens of KMs of fencing damaged or washed away by avalanches and heavy snowfall each year. New methods are being devised to build a more permanent fencing which would be able to withstand the heavy snowfall in the North.

Doktor
13 Oct 13,, 21:54
Like terror tunnels, sometimes the truth cuts deeply Doctor.

I was only referring to the last sentence. I know they do it, but I also know Pals need the concrete to (re)build their homes.

We are far Off now.

Minskaya
14 Oct 13,, 06:43
Indian fencing of it's border with Pakistan is more than just a barbed wire. It's an electric fencing lighted up with floodlights, infra-red and motion sensors, UAV patrols on top of normal unit patrols.
Indeed. Israel uses all of the above methods plus unmanned patrol vehicles that are remotely piloted.

http://ufu.co.il/files/qqx7x2rrifbx9qrgl7xo.jpg

http://www.solveisraelsproblems.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Israeli-soldier-girl-194.jpg

IND76
14 Oct 13,, 06:54
Indeed. Israel uses all of the above methods plus unmanned patrol vehicles that are remotely piloted.

http://ufu.co.il/files/qqx7x2rrifbx9qrgl7xo.jpg

http://www.solveisraelsproblems.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Israeli-soldier-girl-194.jpg

Cute ;)

Tronic
14 Oct 13,, 07:35
Indeed. Israel uses all of the above methods plus unmanned patrol vehicles that are remotely piloted.

http://ufu.co.il/files/qqx7x2rrifbx9qrgl7xo.jpg


That's a neat vehicle. Israel seems to be a paradise for engineers, with the IDF always willing to fund new toys..

farhan_9909
14 Oct 13,, 08:39
Indian fencing of it's border with Pakistan is more than just a barbed wire. It's an electric fencing lighted up with floodlights, infra-red and motion sensors, UAV patrols on top of normal unit patrols.

Pretty much the only border visible from space:
http://imageshack.us/a/img801/6335/3ug1.jpg

India Pakistan border visible from space | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2033886/India-Pakistan-border-visible-space.html)

The problem in the winters up North is tackled by engineering teams on standby to reconstruct dozens of KMs of fencing damaged or washed away by avalanches and heavy snowfall each year. New methods are being devised to build a more permanent fencing which would be able to withstand the heavy snowfall in the North.

If we had invested this much into our Western border with Afghanistan.Infiltration from Afghanistan would had been impossible.

farhan_9909
14 Oct 13,, 08:50
A firm in Pakistan once tried to copy Israel firm made WildCAT MRAP/MPV

34104

But Ended up with this :D

34105

34106

Dreadnought
22 Oct 13,, 20:09
LAHORE, Pakistan — Human rights groups on Tuesday called on the United States to do more to investigate the numbers of civilians killed and wounded by CIA drone strikes targeting al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch say their researchers have documented cases in which civilians who were not near a terrorist target were killed while laboring in fields or in their homes.

Both reports called for more transparency and accountability in the drone program to ensure it is in compliance with international law.

"As evidence emerges of civilian casualties in these strikes, it's time for the U.S. to stop covering its ears and start taking action to ensure the program is legal," Letta Taylor, a senior counterterrorism researcher at Human Rights Watch, told Al Jazeera.

The extent to which non-combatants have been killed in the drone missile program is not known. The missiles, fired from remote-control-guided planes, are launched on a target based on intelligence that the target is a terrorist. The United States has refused to discuss the secret program overseen by the CIA.

The United States has acknowledged that civilians have been killed in the strikes, but insists that the terrorists themselves are to blame for using family or other civilians as human shields.

Targeting known enemies from the air is not against international law even if there is a chance that civilians may be killed in such strikes. Amnesty said the drone strikes in Pakistan could be war crimes if the USA is not taking proper precautions to prevent civilian casualties when targeting terrorists.

It says the only way to know for sure is for the United States to be more transparent about the program. Human Rights Watch issued similar conclusions about strikes in Yemen.

Many but not all in Pakistan are uneasy about the drone program.

"What makes Human Rights Watch come to this conclusion now when the U.S. government has butchered so many people?" asked Mohammad Ejaz, a 27-year-old mechanical engineer in Lahore.

"When a youngster sees his innocent father dying in such an attack, then he is justified in his hatred."

But Nayyar Afaq, a 32-year-old doctoral student at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad, pointed out that some in Waziristan, the rugged tribal area of Pakistan where U.S. drones operate, support the strikes as a weapon against brutal militants.

"The drones are considered to have the most accurate technology to hit their targets," he said. "Many high-valued commanders of al-Qaeda and the Taliban have been successfully eliminated through the drone strikes."

The U.S. carried out its first drone strike in Pakistan in 2004 under President George W. Bush. President Obama significantly ramped up the attacks when he took office in 2009, the majority of which have been in North Waziristan.

In May, Obama defended the program and revealed that the strikes are authorized only against terrorists who pose a "continuing and imminent threat" to Americans. He said the launch happens only when there is a "near-certainty" that civilians will not be killed or hurt.

He said there was no doubt the program is legal and carried out in a legal manner. Administration officials have told the U.S. media that hundreds of strikes have been launched since their start.

Several organizations have tried to track the number of civilian casualties from nearly 10 years of drone strikes in Pakistan, including the Long War Journal website, the New America Foundation think tank and the Bureau of Investigative journalism.

The groups estimate that the attacks have killed between 2,065 and 3,613 people, and that between 153 and 926 may be civilians.

The Amnesty report said the cases of civilian deaths "raise serious concerns that the USA has unlawfully killed people in drone strikes, and that such killings may amount in some cases to extrajudicial executions or war crimes and other violations of international humanitarian law."

Human Rights Watch urged the Obama administration to "explain the full legal basis on which the U.S. carries out targeted killings," and to "publicly clarify all policy guidelines for targeted killings and disclose when each standard went into effect."

Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is in Washington this week to meet with Obama. Sharif has called to an end for the drone strikes. But the strikes originate from an air base in Pakistan and it is assumed the military and government are aware of the program.

"The problem with trying to understand civilian casualties in the drone debate is severely hindered by the lack of on-the-ground reporting," said Daniel Byman, research director at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy.

The Amnesty International report was unusual in that it included accounts from residents of Waziristan. Waziristan "is an area sealed off in part by the Pakistani government," Byman said. "It's rare for reporters and human rights groups and so on to go into these parts."

The claim that some civilians are killed in drone strikes, said Byman, is not controversial. "The controversy comes to how many, and what are the alternatives?"

Thomas Joscelyn, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has argued that drones often kill terrorists who should instead be captured and interrogated to learn what they know about al-Qaeda operations worldwide. John Woo, a lawyer who counseled the Bush administration on legalities in the war on terror, has warned that drones may be wiping out sources of great intelligence on the terror network.

Either way, Byman said, the human rights reports would probably not have much of an impact on public opinion in the USA.

"I think the overwhelming majority of Americans both favor drones and don't think about them much," he said.

Drone strikes may be war crimes, say rights groups (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/10/22/drones-pakistan-civilians-killed/3149679/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+usatoday-NewsTopStories+%28USATODAY+-+News+Top+Stories%29)

Surprise Surprise Jake!:rolleyes: