New Pakistani Leaders Tell Americans There’s ‘a New Sheriff in Town’

Ray · 03-27-2008, 01:35 AM

Quote:

New Pakistani Leaders Tell Americans There’s ‘a New Sheriff in Town’

By JANE PERLEZ
Published: March 26, 2008

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The top State Department officials responsible for the alliance with Pakistan met leaders of the new government on Tuesday, and received what amounted to a public dressing-down from one of them, as well as the first direct indication that the United States relationship with Pakistan would have to change.

On the day that the new prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gillani, was sworn in, Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte and the assistant secretary of state for South Asian affairs, Richard A. Boucher, also met with the Pakistani president, Pervez Musharraf, whom they had embraced as their partner in the campaign against terrorism over the past seven years but whose power is quickly ebbing.

The leader of the second biggest party in the new Parliament, Nawaz Sharif, said after meeting the two American diplomats that it was unacceptable that Pakistan had become a “killing field.”

“If America wants to see itself clean of terrorists, we also want that our villages and towns should not be bombed,” he said at a news conference here. Mr. Sharif, a former prime minister, added he was unable to give Mr. Negroponte “a commitment” on fighting terrorism.

The statements by Mr. Sharif, and the cool body language in the televised portions of his encounter with Mr. Negroponte, were just part of the sea change in Pakistan’s domestic politics that is likely to impose new limits on how Washington fights militants within Pakistan’s borders.

That fight, which has recently included American airstrikes in the lawless tribal areas where the Taliban and Al Qaeda have made sanctuaries, has become widely unpopular, particularly in the last few months as a surge in suicide bombings here has been viewed as retaliation for the American attacks.

Asif Ali Zardari, the leader of the Pakistan Peoples Party, also met with the Americans but did not speak to reporters afterward. Husain Haqqani, an adviser who attended the meeting with him, said, though, that the American officials had been given notice that the old ways were over.

“If I can use an American expression, there is a new sheriff in town,” Mr. Haqqani said. “Americans have realized that they have perhaps talked with one man for too long.”

Neither Mr. Negroponte nor Mr. Boucher spoke publicly about the meetings, but the Pakistanis said the Americans expressed willingness to work with the new government.

Mr. Sharif and Mr. Zardari boycotted the swearing-in of Mr. Gillani as prime minister by Mr. Musharraf at the presidential palace, another sign of their determination to sideline Mr. Musharraf.

Distancing himself from Mr. Musharraf, Mr. Gillani, moments after taking the oath of office, said, “We have to give supremacy to the Parliament so that we can jointly take the country out of these crises.”

He later received a call from President Bush offering congratulations. According to Mr. Gillani’s office, Mr. Gillani told Mr. Bush that “Pakistan would continue to fight terrorism in all its forms” but that a “comprehensive approach” was required, “combining a political approach with development programs.”

The new chief of staff of the Pakistan Army, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, also seemed to eager to show he was his own man, relieving two generals on Monday who had been close to Mr. Musharraf.

The timing of the American visit was harshly criticized in the Pakistan media for creating the appearance that the United States was trying to dictate policy to a government not even hours old. The two American diplomats met Mr. Sharif as Mr. Musharraf administered the oath of office to Mr. Gillani.

“I don’t think it is a good idea for them to be here on this particular day,” said Zaffar Abbas, the editor of the English-language newspaper Dawn. “Here are the Americans, right here in Islamabad, meeting with senior politicians in the new government, trying to dictate terms.”

An editorial on Tuesday in The News, one of Pakistan’s most-read English dailies, was headlined “Hands Off Please, Uncle Sam.” The Americans should understand, the editorial said, that the newly elected Parliament was now their proper partner, not Mr. Musharraf.

An aide to Mr. Sharif, Ahsan Iqbal, said Mr. Sharif told Mr. Negroponte that the strategy of the partnership against terrorism needed to be reassessed. “Nobody supports terrorism, but there are different ways to counter it,” Mr. Iqbal said.

“Mr. Sharif asked Mr. Negroponte if he thought that using the military was the only solution,” Mr. Iqbal said. “Mr. Negroponte agreed that there are other dimensions that can be adopted.”

Some of those questioning the American visit noted that Pakistan had been an ally of the United States since its independence 60 years ago. Still, they added, many Pakistanis now resented that the campaign against terrorism dominated the relationship.

Washington should learn from the outcomes of the election last month in which Mr. Musharraf’s party was trounced and an alliance of religious parties in the North-West Frontier Province, adjacent to the tribal areas, was also defeated, said Javangir Tareen, the leader of a faction of the Pakistan Muslim League, who was a member of Mr. Musharraf’s early cabinet.

“The people have spoken and rejected the religious parties, and at the same time they have rejected the people who will automatically nod to the United States,” Mr. Tareen said.

An independent analyst on the Pakistani military, Shuja Nawaz, who lives in Washington, said Pakistani officials had told him they discouraged the American diplomats from coming this week.

But the Pakistanis were told that Mr. Negroponte was on a trip that included other already arranged stops and that Tuesday was the only possible day for him. Mr. Nawaz called the visit “ham-handed,” and said it could be seen as Washington wanting to keep acting as the “political godfather behind Musharraf.”

The American Embassy in Islamabad said that the two diplomats would stay in Pakistan until Thursday, and that they would meet other officials on Wednesday, though the embassy declined to identify them.

The changes in the military hierarchy by General Kayani seemed intended to display his independence from Mr. Musharraf, who appointed him chief of the military in December. General Kayani reassigned two of the most important corps commanders, the 11 powerful generals in charge of regional posts: Lt. Gen. Shafaat Ullah Shah, the corps commander of Lahore, Pakistan’s second biggest city; and Lt. Gen. Sajjad Akram, the corps commander at Mangla on the Indian border.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/wo..._r=1&ref=world

Musharraf has been in the vanguard as the US ally in the WoT.

The desire for a democratic Pakistan seems to have gone astray. Musharraf apparently is on his last legs, what with his bête noire, the ex Chief Justice and the Judges being released even before Gilani, the new Prime Minister was sworn in and now, the hand picked Generals of Musharraf have been shunted out to sinecure posts.

Nawaz Sharif, the ex PM and the exile from Saudi Arabia is no friend of the US and possibly has been adequate brainwashed by the Wahaabis. He is in no mood apparently to allow Pakistan to be the “Killing fields” as he so quaintly put it. His statement, “If America wants to see itself clean of terrorists, we also want that our villages and towns should not be bombed,” however is worth checking, if indeed he has said so. America is not infested with Islamic terrorists; so what does he mean? Incorrect reporting, or Sharif’s lack of command over English?

There maybe a new Sheriff in town. But will this Sheriff be able to control the badlands that Pakistan has become?

Of course, it has to be conceded that the timing of the visit of the US personage does seem to give the impression to the Pakistani awam (people) that the US actually was controlling the last govt and wants to continue to do the same.

One wonders if the new Pakistan govt is merely posturing for the awam.

After all, if Pakistan does not play ball, it might lose out on the largesse that it has been receiving from the US in the name of assistance to fight terrorism, be it in arms that really have no connection with fighting terrorism (remember the report that it had been diverted basically for the defence of Pakistan vs India?) or money for economic purposes.

There is also the danger the US may lean heavily in India’s favour on the rebound. That surely will not auger well for Pakistan.

There is also the possibility that India may be invited into Afghanistan, a situation the US has scrupulously avoided in deference to Pakistan’s sensitivity.

What exactly will work out for the future and how will the new Pakistan govt’s stand impact the WoT.

It is pertinent to factor in what would be the stance of the next US Administration that will come in after Bush.

Will it have the same ardour to the WoT and will the US geostrategic vision be the same as Bush’s?

kuku · 03-27-2008, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray

Nawaz Sharif, the ex PM and the exile from Saudi Arabia is no friend of the US and possibly has been adequate brainwashed by the Wahaabis. He is in no mood apparently to allow Pakistan to be the “Killing fields” as he so quaintly put it. His statement, “If America wants to see itself clean of terrorists, we also want that our villages and towns should not be bombed,” however is worth checking, if indeed he has said so. America is not infested with Islamic terrorists; so what does he mean? Incorrect reporting, or Sharif’s lack of command over English?

I think the Americans are busy sending in the flying robots into Pakistan shooting all the poor innocent villagers armed to the teeth.
And this makes Mr. Sharif angry, hence if Americans want to get things done in that region and make sure no one able to burn a American flag is left alive, they should let the Pakistanis handle the situation.
I dont know, may be.

Quote:

What exactly will work out for the future and how will the new Pakistan govt’s stand impact the WoT.

It could be a lot more hulla gulla with the same Dish.

Adux · 03-27-2008, 02:34 AM

The question is, will the Chinese be able to fill the US hole if it leaves Pakistan or vice versa. Will it show the diplomatic audacity of US foreign policy makers. China for all its popularity in Pakistan has never helped Pakistan in the times of its needs, be it Kargil or 1971. While the US has come to the aid of Pakistan in both the occasions

Ray · 03-27-2008, 05:35 AM

U.S. Steps Up Unilateral Strikes in Pakistan

Officials Fear Support From Islamabad Will Wane

By Robin Wright and Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, March 26, 2008; 10:45 PM

The United States has escalated its unilateral strikes against al-Qaeda members and fighters operating in Pakistan's tribal areas, partly because of anxieties that the country's new leaders will insist on a scaling back of military operations in that country, according to U.S. officials.

Washington is worried that pro-Western President Pervez Musharraf, who has generally supported the U.S. strikes, will almost certainly have reduced powers in the months ahead, and so it wants to inflict as much damage as it can to al-Qaeda's network now, the officials said.

Over the past two months, U.S.-controlled Predator aircraft have struck at least three sites used by al-Qaeda operatives. The attacks followed a tacit understanding with Musharraf and Army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani that allows U.S. strikes on foreign fighters operating in Pakistan, but not against the Pakistani Taliban, the officials said.

About 45 Arab, Afghan and other foreign fighters have been killed in the attacks, all near the Afghan border, U.S. and Pakistani officials said. The goal was partly to jar loose information on senior al-Qaeda leaders, including Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants, by forcing them to move in ways that U.S. intelligence analysts can detect. Local sources are providing better information to guide the strikes, the officials said.

A senior U.S. official called it a "shake the tree" strategy. It has not been without controversy, others said. Some military officers have privately cautioned that airstrikes alone -- without more U.S. special forces soldiers on the ground in the region -- are unlikely to net the top al-Qaeda leaders.

The campaign is not specifically designed to capture bin Laden before Bush leaves office, administration officials said. "It's not a blitz to close this chapter," said a senior official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of ongoing operations. "If we find the leadership, then we'll go after it. But nothing can be done to put al-Qaeda away in the next nine or 10 months. In the long haul, it's an issue that extends beyond this administration."

Musharraf, who controls the country's military forces, has long approved U.S. military strikes on his own. But senior officials in Pakistan's leading parties are now warning that such unilateral attacks -- including the Predator strikes launched from bases near Islamabad and Jacobabad in Pakistan -- could be curtailed.

"We have always said that as for strikes, that is for Pakistani forces to do and for the Pakistani government to decide. . . . We do not envision a situation in which foreigners will enter Pakistan and chase targets," said Farhatullah Babar, a top spokesman for the Pakistan People's Party, whose leader Yousaf Raza Gillani is the new prime minister. "This war on terror is our war."

Leaders of Gillani's party say they are interested in starting talks with local Taliban leaders and giving a political voice to the millions who live in Pakistan's tribal areas. Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte and Assistant Secretary of State Richard A. Boucher heard the message directly from tribal elders in the village of Landi Kotal in the Khyber area yesterday.

"We told the visiting U.S. guests that the traditional jirga [tribal decision-making] system should be made effective to eliminate the causes of militancy and other problems from the tribal areas," said Malik Darya Khan, an elder. "We also told them that we have some disgruntled brothers" -- an indirect reference to local Taliban and militants -- who should be pulled into the mainstream through negotiations and dialogue, he said.

"The tribal turmoil can be resolved only through negotiations, not with military operations," Khan added. But he and others have said little specifically about how the new government should cope with foreign fighters, causing the Bush administration to engage in heavy lobbying on that issue.

President Bush called Gillani on Tuesday, for example, to stress the importance of the U.S.-Pakistani alliance and to emphasize that "fighting extremists is in everyone's interest," a White House spokesman said.

Daniel Markey, a former State Department policy planning staffer who is now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said "the new faces" in Pakistan's leadership "are not certain how they want to manage their relationship with the United States. You can't blame them," because they are pulled in opposite directions by their electorate and the Bush administration.

But Kamran Bokhari, a Pakistani who directs Middle East analysis for Strategic Forecasting, a private intelligence group in Washington, said the new government will almost certainly take a harder line against such strikes. "These . . . are very unpopular, not because people support al-Qaeda, but because they feel Pakistan has no sovereignty," he said.

The latest Predator strike, on March 16, killed about 20 people in the Shahnawaz Kot village in South Waziristan, a mountainous enclave on Pakistan's western border with Afghanistan. According to accounts confirmed by Pakistani officials, at least three missiles hit a compound owned by Noorullah Wazir, a tribal leader in an area implicated in numerous cross-border attacks by Islamic militants into eastern Afghanistan.

The attack destroyed Wazir's home and damaged nearby buildings. Among those killed were several Arab and Afghan militants, Pakistani officials said. The identities of the dead have not been publicly confirmed, although U.S. and Pakistani sources say that no prominent al-Qaeda or Taliban leaders were among the victims.

An attack in the early hours of Feb. 28 struck a house in the village of Kaloosha, also in South Waziristan, killing 12 people described by local authorities as foreign militants. And on Jan. 29, missiles fired by a CIA drone in nearby North Waziristan killed Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander and the man believed to be behind a bombing last year that killed 23 people at a U.S. military base in Afghanistan.

All three of the precision attacks against small clusters of Islamic militants were carried out by CIA-operated MQ-1B drones -- pilotless, camera-equipped aircraft operated by remote control and armed with 100-pound Hellfire missiles.

U.S. intelligence officials estimate that al-Qaeda has several hundred operatives in the Waziristan tribal region. "But as we learned on 9/11, it only takes 19," said the senior U.S. official. "These are not Tora Bora bomb-everything operations," he added, referring to the blanket bombing of Afghanistan's mountainous area where al-Qaeda leaders were hiding in late 2001.

A spokesman at CIA headquarters declined to comment on the strikes. The agency officially maintains a policy of strict secrecy regarding its counterterrorism operations in the border region.

But other U.S. officials said that after months of prodding, the Bush administration and the Musharraf government reached a tacit understanding this year that gave Washington a freer hand to carry out precision strikes against al-Qaeda and its allies in the border region. The issue is a sensitive one that neither side is willing to discuss openly, the officials said.

Asked for comment, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell denied that the two governments have an "arrangement" or an "understanding," but said that they face a mutual enemy and that "everything we do to go after terrorists operating there is in consultation and coordination with the Pakistani government."

Thomas H. Johnson, a research professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., said: "People inside the Beltway are aware that Musharraf's days are numbered, and so they recognize they may only have a few months to do this. Musharraf has . . . very few friends in the world -- he probably has more inside the Beltway than in his own country."

The administration's intensified anti-al-Qaeda effort also has benefited from shifting loyalties among residents of the border region. Some tribal and religious leaders who embraced foreign al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters as they fled from Afghanistan in 2001 now see them as troublemakers and are providing timely intelligence about their movements and hideouts, according to former U.S. officials and Pakistan experts.

They see traffic coming and going from the fortress homes of tribal leaders associated with foreign elements, and they pass the information along," said Shuja Nawaz, a Pakistani journalist in Washington and the author of a book on Pakistan's army. "Some quick surveillance is done, and then someone pops a couple of hundred-pound bombs at the house."

Yet despite a series of strikes, some U.S. military officers and experts question whether the strategy will be effective and worth its political costs.

"Jarring information loose is a method, but is it the most productive method? No. You need exploitation, troops on the ground. It's a huge operational stress, and it's probably not going to get the senior leadership," said a military officer with long experience in the region.

Local politicians also complain that the strikes only encourage militants to undertake retaliatory actions in urban areas. The politicians point to the recent string of suicide bombings of high-profile government targets in Rawalpindi, Lahore and Islamabad as evidence that militants are determined to take revenge for losses in the tribal areas.

"There's no way Pakistan can afford to follow a policy that is causing a war at home," said Khawaja Imran Raza, a top spokesman for former prime minister Nawaz Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League-N faction. "There's a need to revisit the policy and there's a need to reassess because the domestic cost is so huge. We have lost a prime minister -- our top opposition leader. We have lost generals, and just look at our losses in Lahore."

In 2005, the United States also attacked al-Qaeda sites in tribal areas, killing top operative Abu Hamza Rabia. In 2006, a Predator strike targeting three top al-Qaeda operatives killed only local villagers.

U.S. strategy could backfire if missiles take innocent lives. "The [tribal] Pashtuns have a saying: 'Kill one person, make 10 enemies,' " Johnson said. "You might take out a bad guy in one of these strikes, but you might also be creating more foot soldiers. This is a war in which the more people you kill, the faster you lose."

Foreign correspondent Candace Rondeaux in Islamabad and special correspondent Imtiaz Ali in Peshawar, Pakistan, contributed to this report.
U.S. Steps Up Unilateral Strikes in Pakistan - washingtonpost.com

Ray · 03-27-2008, 05:42 AM

The situation is very interesting.

It clearly indicates that the US is not concerned as to whether there is a New Sherriff in town or otherwise.

How will this pan out if the US totally disregards the new govt in town??

Ray · 03-27-2008, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kuku

I think the Americans are busy sending in the flying robots into Pakistan shooting all the poor innocent villagers armed to the teeth.
And this makes Mr. Sharif angry, hence if Americans want to get things done in that region and make sure no one able to burn a American flag is left alive, they should let the Pakistanis handle the situation.
I dont know, may be.

.

Even with their own man in place, nothing substantial occurred.

Sharif is no chum of the US and he is propping the Zardari clique.

Therefore, leaving it to these chaps is as good as Afghanistan lost!

Would the US and NATO citizens accept that their martyrs lives were lost in vain?

That is the million dollar question.

Does India now have a role in Afghanistan? I am deliberately asking this so that brains could be picked in this hypothetical surmise that may never take place!

Adux · 03-27-2008, 06:26 AM

Sir,

Rest assured Northern Allaince will love to have us there; we have such history with them and the tajiks, but the question is there political will in India to take such a decisive action as you suggest, at the aftermath of 9/11 with Vajpayee at the helm is one thing, and i think it is impossible when we have a whimpy PM with a traitorous left and at a time when the War on Terror in the eyes of the earlier supporters have gone astray. Most of the support US got at the wake of 9/11 is now lost and unrecoverable.

And even if that means strategic benefits for us, will the pacifist indian populace and leaders understand the logic and national security benefits behind such an action?

Ray · 03-27-2008, 06:28 AM

You have a point!

Adux · 03-27-2008, 06:35 AM

Sir,

One that note a question to history buffs here, was there ever a pacifist population in this world, who understood idiocracy of their ways and changed their mentality to a more aggressive one. Is there a such an instance, just want to know if I can have hope for my people,

Thank You

Adu

kuku · 03-27-2008, 07:39 AM

Current Year we will not be able to go, Muslim lovers are in parliament.
Next elections if the "leftist" element is missing and a offer is made, i think the government will take it.

They already have presence in Afghanistan, and have had the presence for a long time now.

I do not think the offer to go to Afghanistan will be made, Iraq might be on the table, however unless major oil flows into Indian refineries no hope of Indian Government doing that.

All of this requires the leftist elements out of Delhi (may be even this world).

The Indian Mulim population will cry and Bit#h a lot, may be run a protest or two, however they have enough trouble of their own, they can not even gather enough support to play spoil sport in all of the money that goes to Israel and the weapons that come to India.

If all else fails, hey we can send more BRO and ITBP chaps to make more roads and bridges.

Adux · 03-27-2008, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kuku

Current Year we will not be able to go, Muslim lovers are in parliament.

Kuku,

There is nothing wrong with being a muslim lover, as long as you love all the other religion equally and keep the consitution of India paramount. I know what you mean by it, appeasement or unequal treatement of the majority is actually creating a lot of resentement in the Hindu majority.

Quote:

Next elections if the "leftist" element is missing and a offer is made, i think the government will take it.

Lefties aside, most Indian politicans dont want to seen as agressors. NAM comes to mind. Indian muslims nor the populace never will understand that the Indian Troops are welcome in Afghanistan unlike the Pakistani's or Americans. Our history with the North Allaince and Ahmed Shah Masood(god rest his soul) goes back a long way.

Quote:

They already have presence in Afghanistan, and have had the presence for a long time now.

But the question is can we change the presence to a strategic benefit of ourseleves and the Afghans.

Quote:

I do not think the offer to go to Afghanistan will be made, Iraq might be on the table, however unless major oil flows into Indian refineries no hope of Indian Government doing that.

I dont think Iraq offer will made neither should we ever set our foot over there in the present scenario, We have been opposed to the Iraq war unlike the Afghan war.

Quote:

All of this requires the leftist elements out of Delhi (may be even this world).

I have just a lit candle at the Edapply church and broken a coconut at the Ernakulam Shiva temple for just that.

Quote:

The Indian Mulim population will cry and Bit#h a lot, may be run a protest or two, however they have enough trouble of their own, they can not even gather enough support to play spoil sport in all of the money that goes to Israel and the weapons that come to India.

We should bother bit about that, It is our responsiblity to teach our citizens nationalism, security and importance of strategic depth. We shouldnt do not a decisive action such as going into Afghanistan without a national consensus favouring the decision. If people of turkey can understand, then so can Indian Muslims, They are not some foriegners but our people, whatever their faults maybe.

Quote:

If all else fails, hey we can send more BRO and ITBP chaps to make more roads and bridges.

That is already on the cards.

kuku · 03-27-2008, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adux

Kuku,
There is nothing wrong with being a muslim lover, as long as you love all the other religion equally and keep the constitution of India paramount. I know what you mean by it, appeasement or unequal treatment of the majority is actually creating a lot of resentment in the Hindu majority.

I don't think there is however there is a difference of opinion on many political issues.
No not the hindu-muslim debate, its more about the difference in political choices.

Quote:

Lefties aside, most Indian politicans dont want to seen as agressors. NAM comes to mind. Indian muslims nor the populace never will understand that the Indian Troops are welcome in Afghanistan unlike the Pakistani's or Americans. Our history with the North Allaince and Ahmed Shah Masood(god rest his soul) goes back a long way.

But the question is can we change the presence to a strategic benefit of ourseleves and the Afghans.

Frankly i dont think anyone cares in India about what and where the Army is sent, the only problem is the issue that the political opposition makes of it, thats why a political consensus has to be formed before such a step is taken.

If the congress and BJP can agree in principle on the security issues, that will not be a problem, even if they dont get married and stay together.

I think on the issue of Afghanistan they can find common ground.

Quote:

I dont think Iraq offer will made neither should we ever set our foot over there in the present scenario, We have been opposed to the Iraq war unlike the Afghan war.

If that can translate into energy security(some exclusive rights), and a friendly government we should try out best, especially if the offer comes from the Iraqi government.

This progress we have and predict might just run out of fuel.

Quote:

I have just a lit candle at the Edapply church and broken a coconut at the Ernakulam Shiva temple for just that.

i will try to vote.

Just to piss some commies off i think i will go to JNU, with the broken sickle and hammer T-shirt.

Quote:

We should bother bit about that, It is our responsiblity to teach our citizens nationalism, security and importance of strategic depth. We shouldnt do not a decisive action such as going into Afghanistan without a national consensus favouring the decision. If people of turkey can understand, then so can Indian Muslims, They are not some foriegners but our people, whatever their faults maybe.

however there is a divergence of opinions on such matters, and there will never be a political agreement on anything, show me 4 indians and i will show you an argument.

I don't think they have any faults, however they do represent a different opinion on some matters.

Quote:

That is already on the cards.

New roads? brilliant.
We should not forget our Afghani friends.

Adux · 03-27-2008, 09:54 AM

Kuku,

What India lacks is a National Agenda which all the political parties agree on, Like in the United States.

Adu

T_igger_cs_30 · 03-27-2008, 11:33 AM

If I may ask your opinion Sir,
If India was invited into Afghanistan by the coalition, do you think they would accept?

antimony · 03-27-2008, 11:49 AM

Quote:

What India lacks is a National Agenda which all the political parties agree on, Like in the United States.

Kind of confused on this one...
Are you saying the Americans have a National Agenda? That doesn't sounds at all correct. Even within one party leaders have different views. Obama is strongly anti-war whereas Hillary seems to be in an oscillation mode. The libertariqans want to get out of Iraq while the neo-cons want to dig in. When the democrats won Congress last year, they started making noises for withdrawal but ended up not hijacking the Bush "SURGE" policy. The fallout there is limited to a handful of divergent views, probably because the number of major parties is limited to 2, iunlike India.

If your assertion was that both US and India lack a coherent national agenda, then that means I have misread your statement

03-27-2008, 07:39 AM	#10 (permalink)
kuku Contributor Join Date: 02-28-08 Location: delhi Posts: 617 Country:	Current Year we will not be able to go, Muslim lovers are in parliament. Next elections if the "leftist" element is missing and a offer is made, i think the government will take it. They already have presence in Afghanistan, and have had the presence for a long time now. I do not think the offer to go to Afghanistan will be made, Iraq might be on the table, however unless major oil flows into Indian refineries no hope of Indian Government doing that. All of this requires the leftist elements out of Delhi (may be even this world). The Indian Mulim population will cry and Bit#h a lot, may be run a protest or two, however they have enough trouble of their own, they can not even gather enough support to play spoil sport in all of the money that goes to Israel and the weapons that come to India. If all else fails, hey we can send more BRO and ITBP chaps to make more roads and bridges. Last edited by kuku : 03-27-2008 at 07:47 AM.

03-27-2008, 11:33 AM	#14 (permalink)
T_igger_cs_30 *Military Professional* Join Date: 01-04-07 Location: Canada Posts: 1,943 Country:	Ray If I may ask your opinion Sir, If India was invited into Afghanistan by the coalition, do you think they would accept? __________________ $<img src=http://C:\Documents and Settings\Wayne Smith\My Documents\002...My Pictures border=0 alt= />$ FEAR NAUGHT I don't work here ...I am an analyst!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The Pakistani "Loose Nukes" Conundrum	Hari_Om	South Asian Defense Topics	7	05-25-2006 09:31 AM
Pakistan's Role in State Sponsored International Terrorism

03-27-2008, 02:34 AM	#3 (permalink)
Adux Banished Join Date: 07-29-05 Location: Cochin Posts: 2,931 Country:	The question is, will the Chinese be able to fill the US hole if it leaves Pakistan or vice versa. Will it show the diplomatic audacity of US foreign policy makers. China for all its popularity in Pakistan has never helped Pakistan in the times of its needs, be it Kargil or 1971. While the US has come to the aid of Pakistan in both the occasions

03-27-2008, 05:35 AM	#4 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 26,149 Country:	U.S. Steps Up Unilateral Strikes in Pakistan Officials Fear Support From Islamabad Will Wane By Robin Wright and Joby Warrick Washington Post Staff Writers Wednesday, March 26, 2008; 10:45 PM The United States has escalated its unilateral strikes against al-Qaeda members and fighters operating in Pakistan's tribal areas, partly because of anxieties that the country's new leaders will insist on a scaling back of military operations in that country, according to U.S. officials. Washington is worried that pro-Western President Pervez Musharraf, who has generally supported the U.S. strikes, will almost certainly have reduced powers in the months ahead, and so it wants to inflict as much damage as it can to al-Qaeda's network now, the officials said. Over the past two months, U.S.-controlled Predator aircraft have struck at least three sites used by al-Qaeda operatives. The attacks followed a tacit understanding with Musharraf and Army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani that allows U.S. strikes on foreign fighters operating in Pakistan, but not against the Pakistani Taliban, the officials said. About 45 Arab, Afghan and other foreign fighters have been killed in the attacks, all near the Afghan border, U.S. and Pakistani officials said. The goal was partly to jar loose information on senior al-Qaeda leaders, including Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants, by forcing them to move in ways that U.S. intelligence analysts can detect. Local sources are providing better information to guide the strikes, the officials said. A senior U.S. official called it a "shake the tree" strategy. It has not been without controversy, others said. Some military officers have privately cautioned that airstrikes alone -- without more U.S. special forces soldiers on the ground in the region -- are unlikely to net the top al-Qaeda leaders. The campaign is not specifically designed to capture bin Laden before Bush leaves office, administration officials said. "It's not a blitz to close this chapter," said a senior official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of ongoing operations. "If we find the leadership, then we'll go after it. But nothing can be done to put al-Qaeda away in the next nine or 10 months. In the long haul, it's an issue that extends beyond this administration." Musharraf, who controls the country's military forces, has long approved U.S. military strikes on his own. But senior officials in Pakistan's leading parties are now warning that such unilateral attacks -- including the Predator strikes launched from bases near Islamabad and Jacobabad in Pakistan -- could be curtailed. "We have always said that as for strikes, that is for Pakistani forces to do and for the Pakistani government to decide. . . . We do not envision a situation in which foreigners will enter Pakistan and chase targets," said Farhatullah Babar, a top spokesman for the Pakistan People's Party, whose leader Yousaf Raza Gillani is the new prime minister. "This war on terror is our war." Leaders of Gillani's party say they are interested in starting talks with local Taliban leaders and giving a political voice to the millions who live in Pakistan's tribal areas. Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte and Assistant Secretary of State Richard A. Boucher heard the message directly from tribal elders in the village of Landi Kotal in the Khyber area yesterday. "We told the visiting U.S. guests that the traditional jirga [tribal decision-making] system should be made effective to eliminate the causes of militancy and other problems from the tribal areas," said Malik Darya Khan, an elder. "We also told them that we have some disgruntled brothers" -- an indirect reference to local Taliban and militants -- who should be pulled into the mainstream through negotiations and dialogue, he said. "The tribal turmoil can be resolved only through negotiations, not with military operations," Khan added. But he and others have said little specifically about how the new government should cope with foreign fighters, causing the Bush administration to engage in heavy lobbying on that issue. President Bush called Gillani on Tuesday, for example, to stress the importance of the U.S.-Pakistani alliance and to emphasize that "fighting extremists is in everyone's interest," a White House spokesman said. Daniel Markey, a former State Department policy planning staffer who is now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said "the new faces" in Pakistan's leadership "are not certain how they want to manage their relationship with the United States. You can't blame them," because they are pulled in opposite directions by their electorate and the Bush administration. But Kamran Bokhari, a Pakistani who directs Middle East analysis for Strategic Forecasting, a private intelligence group in Washington, said the new government will almost certainly take a harder line against such strikes. "These . . . are very unpopular, not because people support al-Qaeda, but because they feel Pakistan has no sovereignty," he said. The latest Predator strike, on March 16, killed about 20 people in the Shahnawaz Kot village in South Waziristan, a mountainous enclave on Pakistan's western border with Afghanistan. According to accounts confirmed by Pakistani officials, at least three missiles hit a compound owned by Noorullah Wazir, a tribal leader in an area implicated in numerous cross-border attacks by Islamic militants into eastern Afghanistan. The attack destroyed Wazir's home and damaged nearby buildings. Among those killed were several Arab and Afghan militants, Pakistani officials said. The identities of the dead have not been publicly confirmed, although U.S. and Pakistani sources say that no prominent al-Qaeda or Taliban leaders were among the victims. An attack in the early hours of Feb. 28 struck a house in the village of Kaloosha, also in South Waziristan, killing 12 people described by local authorities as foreign militants. And on Jan. 29, missiles fired by a CIA drone in nearby North Waziristan killed Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander and the man believed to be behind a bombing last year that killed 23 people at a U.S. military base in Afghanistan. All three of the precision attacks against small clusters of Islamic militants were carried out by CIA-operated MQ-1B drones -- pilotless, camera-equipped aircraft operated by remote control and armed with 100-pound Hellfire missiles. U.S. intelligence officials estimate that al-Qaeda has several hundred operatives in the Waziristan tribal region. "But as we learned on 9/11, it only takes 19," said the senior U.S. official. "These are not Tora Bora bomb-everything operations," he added, referring to the blanket bombing of Afghanistan's mountainous area where al-Qaeda leaders were hiding in late 2001. A spokesman at CIA headquarters declined to comment on the strikes. The agency officially maintains a policy of strict secrecy regarding its counterterrorism operations in the border region. But other U.S. officials said that after months of prodding, the Bush administration and the Musharraf government reached a tacit understanding this year that gave Washington a freer hand to carry out precision strikes against al-Qaeda and its allies in the border region. The issue is a sensitive one that neither side is willing to discuss openly, the officials said. Asked for comment, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell denied that the two governments have an "arrangement" or an "understanding," but said that they face a mutual enemy and that "everything we do to go after terrorists operating there is in consultation and coordination with the Pakistani government." Thomas H. Johnson, a research professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., said: "People inside the Beltway are aware that Musharraf's days are numbered, and so they recognize they may only have a few months to do this. Musharraf has . . . very few friends in the world -- he probably has more inside the Beltway than in his own country." The administration's intensified anti-al-Qaeda effort also has benefited from shifting loyalties among residents of the border region. Some tribal and religious leaders who embraced foreign al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters as they fled from Afghanistan in 2001 now see them as troublemakers and are providing timely intelligence about their movements and hideouts, according to former U.S. officials and Pakistan experts. They see traffic coming and going from the fortress homes of tribal leaders associated with foreign elements, and they pass the information along," said Shuja Nawaz, a Pakistani journalist in Washington and the author of a book on Pakistan's army. "Some quick surveillance is done, and then someone pops a couple of hundred-pound bombs at the house." Yet despite a series of strikes, some U.S. military officers and experts question whether the strategy will be effective and worth its political costs. "Jarring information loose is a method, but is it the most productive method? No. You need exploitation, troops on the ground. It's a huge operational stress, and it's probably not going to get the senior leadership," said a military officer with long experience in the region. Local politicians also complain that the strikes only encourage militants to undertake retaliatory actions in urban areas. The politicians point to the recent string of suicide bombings of high-profile government targets in Rawalpindi, Lahore and Islamabad as evidence that militants are determined to take revenge for losses in the tribal areas. "There's no way Pakistan can afford to follow a policy that is causing a war at home," said Khawaja Imran Raza, a top spokesman for former prime minister Nawaz Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League-N faction. "There's a need to revisit the policy and there's a need to reassess because the domestic cost is so huge. We have lost a prime minister -- our top opposition leader. We have lost generals, and just look at our losses in Lahore." In 2005, the United States also attacked al-Qaeda sites in tribal areas, killing top operative Abu Hamza Rabia. In 2006, a Predator strike targeting three top al-Qaeda operatives killed only local villagers. U.S. strategy could backfire if missiles take innocent lives. "The [tribal] Pashtuns have a saying: 'Kill one person, make 10 enemies,' " Johnson said. "You might take out a bad guy in one of these strikes, but you might also be creating more foot soldiers. This is a war in which the more people you kill, the faster you lose." Foreign correspondent Candace Rondeaux in Islamabad and special correspondent Imtiaz Ali in Peshawar, Pakistan, contributed to this report. U.S. Steps Up Unilateral Strikes in Pakistan - washingtonpost.com

03-27-2008, 05:42 AM	#5 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 26,149 Country:	The situation is very interesting. It clearly indicates that the US is not concerned as to whether there is a New Sherriff in town or otherwise. How will this pan out if the US totally disregards the new govt in town??

03-27-2008, 06:26 AM	#7 (permalink)
Adux Banished Join Date: 07-29-05 Location: Cochin Posts: 2,931 Country:	Sir, Rest assured Northern Allaince will love to have us there; we have such history with them and the tajiks, but the question is there political will in India to take such a decisive action as you suggest, at the aftermath of 9/11 with Vajpayee at the helm is one thing, and i think it is impossible when we have a whimpy PM with a traitorous left and at a time when the War on Terror in the eyes of the earlier supporters have gone astray. Most of the support US got at the wake of 9/11 is now lost and unrecoverable. And even if that means strategic benefits for us, will the pacifist indian populace and leaders understand the logic and national security benefits behind such an action?

03-27-2008, 06:28 AM	#8 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 26,149 Country:	You have a point!

03-27-2008, 06:35 AM	#9 (permalink)
Adux Banished Join Date: 07-29-05 Location: Cochin Posts: 2,931 Country:	Sir, One that note a question to history buffs here, was there ever a pacifist population in this world, who understood idiocracy of their ways and changed their mentality to a more aggressive one. Is there a such an instance, just want to know if I can have hope for my people, Thank You Adu

03-27-2008, 09:54 AM	#13 (permalink)
Adux Banished Join Date: 07-29-05 Location: Cochin Posts: 2,931 Country:	Kuku, What India lacks is a National Agenda which all the political parties agree on, Like in the United States. Adu

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)