Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 52

Thread: America’s whipping boy

  1. #1
    Banned Regular
    Join Date
    09 Oct 14
    Posts
    125

    America’s whipping boy

    THE kings of yore often kept a whipping boy who could be used to vent their frustrations on and be blamed for their mistakes and misfortune. Today, America appears to have adopted Pakistan as its favourite whipping boy.

    Pakistan’s historically close relationship with the US is on a divergent path due to America’s growing alliance with India designed to contain China’s rising power. This process of divergence is likely to be accelerated by US pressure on Pakistan to do three things: release Shakil Afridi, the doctor recruited by the CIA to take DNA samples from Osama bin Laden’s Abbottabad hideout; take military action against the Haqqani network and refrain from deploying theatre nuclear weapons against India.


    The demand for Afridi’s release may be designed to secure continued publicity for US ‘success’ in killing Bin Laden and to assure current and potential CIA spies that they will enjoy American ‘protection’. The expectation that Pakistan would override its own judicial system and overlook Afridi’s treasonous behaviour reflects the normal American arrogance. Unfortunately, there are precedents where Pakistan has allowed other traitors to exit the country. Many known foreign agents roam free in Pakistan.

    In Afridi’s case, it has become difficult for Pakistan to compromise on its ‘principles’ because of public American coercion. Perhaps some gestures from Washington, such as finally offering a formal apology and adequate compensation for the ‘accidental’ killing of 29 Pakistani soldiers by US gunships in November 2011, may have enabled Afridi’s quiet extraction on ‘humanitarian’ grounds.

    The American pressure to take action against the Haqqanis is a more serious issue.
    The network has become an important component of the Afghan Taliban after Sirajuddin Haqqani was appointed as deputy to Mullah Mansour, the new Taliban leader. President Ashraf Ghani’s declaration that he no longer wants Pakistan to bring the Afghan Taliban to the negotiating table but only to attack them is an expression of frustration and desperation. The international consensus remains that a negotiated settlement between Kabul and the Afghan Taliban remains the only road to peace in Afghanistan. Pakistan’s prime minster rightly pointed out during his last visit to Washington, that “Pakistan cannot be asked to bring the Afghan Taliban to the table and kill them at the same time”.

    The design seems to be to have Pakistan fight the US and Kabul’s fight against the Haqqanis.

    In any event, Pakistan’s Zarb-i-Azb operation has destroyed the infrastructure of the several militant groups which were located in North Waziristan, including the Haqqanis. Most of the group’s fighters and commanders have moved into the adjacent areas of Afghanistan. Some remnants may be holed up in the forests and valleys along the border.

    The cross-border flow of fighters, whether Afghan Taliban or Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), can be restricted significantly by fences and other barriers along the Pak-Afghan border. However, Pakistan’s plan to fence the border at certain points has been vigorously opposed by the Kabul government. Nor has Kabul (or the US) been forthcoming in responding to Pakistan’s proposals to establish an effective coordination mechanism to control cross border movements.

    The design seems to be to have Pakistan fight the US and Kabul’s fight against the Haqqanis, and if it does not, to blame it for their military reversals and failure to halt the Taliban’s ascendancy in Afghanistan. At the same time, Kabul at least, if not the US, wants to keep the border open, thus enabling the TTP — which is apparently sponsored and supported by Afghan and Indian intelligence — to continue its cross-border attacks in Pakistan from its safe havens in Afghanistan.

    It is notable that the areas where the TTP has established safe havens were vacated by the US and Afghan forces just as Pakistan was launching its Zarb-i-Azb operation. Islamabad cannot but conclude that the US demand regarding the Haqqanis not only lacks a coherent political and military rationale, but amounts to a measure of complicity in the Indian design to destabilise Pakistan’s frontier regions.


    US pressure on Pakistan to halt the deployment of tactical or theatre nuclear weapons amounts to a pre-emptive strike to prevent Islamabad’s response to India’s Cold Start doctrine which prescribes a sudden and massive attack against Pakistan.

    At the recent (and final) US-sponsored nuclear security summit, President Obama admonished India and Pakistan for “moving in the wrong direction” (in their strategic programmes). Yet, the pressure for restraint is applied only against Pakistan. If the desire is to avoid a dangerous nuclear scenario, priority ought to be accorded to addressing the cause of Pakistan’s planned deployment of theatre nuclear weapons: the Indian ‘operationalisation’ of its Cold Start doctrine. Indian strike units have been moved to forward positions and equipped with the capabilities to undertake a rapidly mobilised general offensive against Pakistan.

    Pakistan can display restraint on theatre nuclear weapons only if India reverses this process of operationalisation of this aggressive posture. Far from dissuading India, Washington is vying to supply it with all manner of advanced arms and technologies which will inevitably further enhance New Delhi’s capacity for military aggression against Pakistan. The US is thus attempting to prevent a crisis which it is itself helping to create.

    In response to the US demarches, Pakistan should clearly outline what steps of restraint and reversal it expects India to take in order to convince Islamabad to hold back from deploying the theatre nuclear weapons. Since the US has intervened on this issue with Pakistan, it can be asked, in the absence of a Pakistan-India dialogue, to secure India’s agreement to such measures of restraint which would be reciprocated by Pakistan.

    Despite America’s slings and arrows, Pakistan is obliged to avoid a confrontation with Washington. On the other hand, the US would be ill advised to continue bullying Pakistan into compromising its vital interests. In extremis, even a whipping boy can ‘turn’ on his tormentor.

    The writer is a former Pakistan ambassador to the UN.

    http://www.dawn.com/news/1258387

  2. #2
    Banned Regular
    Join Date
    09 Oct 14
    Posts
    125
    The stability of this region require not only Pakistan commitment but also american and the regional countries.

    Pakistan is asked again and again to act Against haqqani but the TTP leadership is safe inside Afghanistan and provided support by NDS and RAW.

    if Mullah Mansour can be tracked into Iran and than down to Balochistan than why can't Mullah Fazlullah and other TTP leadership can't be targeted in inside Afghanistan.

    Well it would be safe to assume that "America need to do more in Afghanistan if they want Peace in this region".

  3. #3
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,062
    ^ typical Pakistani weaseling.

    how long did it take for Pakistan to take action against the TTP which took over FATA? funny how Pakistan bitched and moaned about how US missile strikes against the TTP and then suddenly went quiet after the TTP attack on the Peshawar school.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  4. #4
    Contributor anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Sep 12
    Location
    Mumbai
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by barangai View Post
    At the same time, Kabul at least, if not the US, wants to keep the border open, thus enabling the TTP — which is apparently sponsored and supported by Afghan and Indian intelligence — to continue its cross-border attacks in Pakistan from its safe havens in Afghanistan.
    Regardless of what the pakistani state claims, the policy of "warfare by proxy" was completely dismantled by india in 1996. It was done by the then indian prime minister I. K. Gujral. That historic policy was named the "Gujral Doctrine". It faced many criticisms but the policy stood.

    The civil war between the durand line is entirely local, fueled by ethnic and ideological differences. If 20 years later since the gujral doctrine, the pakistani state still feels the need to use "india" for creating some kind of a sober effect on the infighting locals then that tells me that the civil war has gone beyond the states control.

    Lastly, the "cold start" argument is pure bullshit. Regardless of how much you despise your pimp daddy, he is the significant reason why the 1971 war ended abruptly and why the mumbai attacks didn't get an indian response.
    Last edited by anil; 10 Jun 16, at 20:45.

  5. #5
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,286
    I've always considered the relationship between the US and Pakistan post cold war to be transactional in nature rather than an alliance of shared interests, culture, or friendship.

    There is certainly some genuine collaboration going on, but the US also gives Pakistan tens of billions in military, scientific, and economic aid. That level of funding comes with strings attached, some of which will require Pakistan to undertake actions that may not be in Pakistan's interests. Pakistan isn't a client state that is compelled to comply with US demands, but rather has to balance what the US asks of it against the largess it receives and act accordingly.

    From what I understand, the US is hunting Fazlullah, and narrowly missed him in a missile strike in November of 2014 near the Afghan border.

  6. #6
    Banned Regular
    Join Date
    09 Oct 14
    Posts
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    ^ typical Pakistani weaseling.

    how long did it take for Pakistan to take action against the TTP which took over FATA? funny how Pakistan bitched and moaned about how US missile strikes against the TTP and then suddenly went quiet after the TTP attack on the Peshawar school.
    Actions against TTP throughout FATA except NW started in 2007 including in SW,Bajaur,swat and operation thunderstorm.

    Drones strike were never favored in Pakistan even now because of the collateral damage.

  7. #7
    Banned Regular
    Join Date
    09 Oct 14
    Posts
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by anil View Post
    Regardless of what the pakistani state claims, the policy of "warfare by proxy" was completely dismantled by india in 1996. It was done by the then indian prime minister I. K. Gujral. That historic policy was named the "Gujral Doctrine". It faced many criticisms but the policy stood.

    The civil war between the durand line is entirely local, fueled by ethnic and ideological differences. If 20 years later since the gujral doctrine, the pakistani state still feels the need to use "india" for creating some kind of a sober effect on the infighting locals then that tells me that the civil war has gone beyond the states control.

    Lastly, the "cold start" argument is pure bullshit. Regardless of how much you despise your pimp daddy, he is the significant reason why the 1971 war ended abruptly and why the mumbai attacks didn't get an indian response.
    Indian involvement in terrorism spread in Pakistan is now acknowledged internationally.India has never stopped funding terrorist activities in Pakistan despite all the superficial Gujral doctrine or whatever it is since i have heard about the the first time.

    Infact the first sign of proxy war in South asia was started by India after creating,funding and provided manpower to Mukhti bahini.

  8. #8
    Banned Regular
    Join Date
    09 Oct 14
    Posts
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    I've always considered the relationship between the US and Pakistan post cold war to be transactional in nature rather than an alliance of shared interests, culture, or friendship.

    There is certainly some genuine collaboration going on, but the US also gives Pakistan tens of billions in military, scientific, and economic aid. That level of funding comes with strings attached, some of which will require Pakistan to undertake actions that may not be in Pakistan's interests. Pakistan isn't a client state that is compelled to comply with US demands, but rather has to balance what the US asks of it against the largess it receives and act accordingly.

    From what I understand, the US is hunting Fazlullah, and narrowly missed him in a missile strike in November of 2014 near the Afghan border.
    America not only provide aid to Pakistan but india too or many other countries,Infact India is the largest recipient of American Aid leaving behind Israel and Pakistan when summed up of the past 6 decades.

    Pakistan also provide free access to nato supply line and i remember a report which mentioned that alternative route cost America more than 100 Million Dollars per month when Pakistan blocked the route after Salala check post attack.Nothing is for free.

    Yes once

  9. #9
    Contributor anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Sep 12
    Location
    Mumbai
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by barangai View Post
    Indian involvement in terrorism spread in Pakistan is now acknowledged internationally.India has never stopped funding terrorist activities in Pakistan despite all the superficial Gujral doctrine or whatever it is since i have heard about the the first time.
    You seem to be talking to yourself

    The so-called terrorism in your country(pakistan) is actually a civil war raging between either side of the durand line. Your states attempt to suck a foreign country into your domestic war is nothing short of delusive. I think you know and understand this completely but don't have a workable choice.

  10. #10
    Contributor anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Sep 12
    Location
    Mumbai
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by barangai View Post
    America not only provide aid to Pakistan but india too or many other countries,Infact India is the largest recipient of American Aid leaving behind Israel and Pakistan when summed up of the past 6 decades.
    Unlike the military aid to pakistan, the aid to india is non-military and most importantly "unaccounted". Most of it goes to fund NGOs of the suspicious kind. Foreign funding is a big deal for india and we know were cutting the right strings because the US ambassador and the white house spokespersons release comments condemning it.

    Quote Originally Posted by barangai View Post
    America not only provide aid to Pakistan but india too or many other countries,Infact India is the largest recipient of American Aid leaving behind Israel and Pakistan when summed up of the past 6 decades.
    Unlike the military aid to pakistan, the aid to india is non-military and most importantly "unaccounted". Most of it goes to fund NGOs of the suspicious kind. Foreign funding is a big deal for india and we know were cutting the right strings because the US ambassador and the white house spokespersons release comments condemning it.

    Indian PM Singh claims anti-nuclear protests funded by U.S. NGOs
    http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2012/03/01...d-by-u-s-ngos/

    India bans Greenpeace in ongoing row over foreign donations
    http://www.dw.com/en/india-bans-gree...ons/a-18832539

    Activists bristle as India cracks down on foreign funding of NGOs
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...f7c_story.html

    Ford Foundation funding to non-FCRA NGOs, Teesta Setalvad's Sabrang Trust
    http://articles.economictimes.indiat...-category-ngos

    Govt puts Ford Foundation on 'watch list'; curbs on funding
    http://www.rediff.com/news/report/go...g/20150424.htm
    Last edited by anil; 11 Jun 16, at 08:39.

  11. #11
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Posts
    2,502
    The article highlights the typical Pakistani attitude, prevalent throughout the Pakistani civilian government, Army, ISI and even the civil society blaming everyone else for their own mess. Why did Benazir Bhutto gather the warlords/mujaheddin post the Soviet war and create Taliban? Why did the Pak Army & ISI combine create, nurture, train and arm LeT, JeM? What about the Kunduz airlift? Where was Osama Bin Laden found? This type of bitching from time to time is past its expiry date. Nobody gives an iota of thought or respect to anything coming out of Pakistan remotely seriously. One who sleeps with dogs, get fleas.

  12. #12
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Posts
    2,502
    US pressure on Pakistan to halt the deployment of tactical or theatre nuclear weapons amounts to a pre-emptive strike to prevent Islamabad’s response to India’s Cold Start doctrine which prescribes a sudden and massive attack against Pakistan.

    At the recent (and final) US-sponsored nuclear security summit, President Obama admonished India and Pakistan for “moving in the wrong direction” (in their strategic programmes). Yet, the pressure for restraint is applied only against Pakistan. If the desire is to avoid a dangerous nuclear scenario, priority ought to be accorded to addressing the cause of Pakistan’s planned deployment of theatre nuclear weapons: the Indian ‘operationalisation’ of its Cold Start doctrine. Indian strike units have been moved to forward positions and equipped with the capabilities to undertake a rapidly mobilised general offensive against Pakistan.
    Mr. Ex-Diplomat, maybe you need to ask the Pak Army and ISI to stop sneaking Pakistan trained terrorists into India, and Cold Start won't come into play. US is slowly ending freebies funded by the American tax-payers, maybe it's time to understand the gravity of the situation and that the policy of state directed terrorism towards India, Afghans and NATO troops ain't working and won't bring in billions of dollars in aid anymore. Seriously, which Army begs the Americans for money to fight terrorists in their own land, that they themselves have created? No shame, yeah? Accepting mistakes, making policy corrections and cleansing terrorists from the hell-hole would be a start.

    Quote Originally Posted by barangai View Post
    Indian involvement in terrorism spread in Pakistan is now acknowledged internationally.India has never stopped funding terrorist activities in Pakistan despite all the superficial Gujral doctrine or whatever it is since i have heard about the the first time.

    Infact the first sign of proxy war in South asia was started by India after creating,funding and provided manpower to Mukhti bahini.
    Acknowledge internationally? Do you have any proof or is it the denial mode you're on like many other Pakistanis? If you have not heard about the Gujral doctrine, than you're not fit to comment on Ind-Pak affairs.

    And in-fact the first proxy war in South-Asia started on 22-Oct-1947 by rebels & Pastun tangos from NWFP, backed by the Pak Army. Read some real history before spouting BS.

    In the meantime, US to Pakistan: Ensure your territory not used for planning terror attacks on India
    Last edited by Oracle; 11 Jun 16, at 12:30.

  13. #13
    Dirty Kiwi Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Wellington, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,746
    back to the old 'you're not giving us enough welfare so we'll court China' game again I see.
    http://tribune.com.pk/story/1120372/...-aid-pakistan/
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility

    Gottfried Leibniz

  14. #14
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    15,915
    Quote Originally Posted by anil View Post
    You seem to be talking to yourself
    How else is he going to get that self-reassuring echo chamber effect?
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, than to take rank with those poor, timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat ~ Theodore Roosevelt

  15. #15
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Posts
    2,502
    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    back to the old 'you're not giving us enough welfare so we'll court China' game again I see.
    http://tribune.com.pk/story/1120372/...-aid-pakistan/
    Some notable pearls of BS from the article ->

    Even within Pakistan, questions are being asked about the ease with which Mullah Mansoor was able to transit through Balochistan.
    Graduate of Columbia and the writer doesn't know that the Taliban is the darling of the ISI. The Mullah had a flying carpet, which explains the ease of transit.

    The American narrative often sees Pakistan as an impediment to desired counterterrorism outcomes.
    It's a world narrative now, with the exception of China.

    Even as the strategic imbalance in South Asia continues to disadvantage Pakistan, failures in Afghanistan are offloaded onto Pakistan’s doorstep.
    This is the result of breeding snakes.

    How strange that every Pakistani narrative is about blaming the US, rather than take a look into the ghostly shadows of their Army-ISI nexus in creating numerous Islamic Jihadi groups, some of which probably are out of their control. The Pakistani Army & the ISI are the best Goebbels we have in the world right now, no doubt about it, which is why their foolhardy citizens lap up every shit they spew.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Greatest hot sauce in America, owned by the most clueless CEO in America
    By cataphract in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 04 Nov 13,, 19:03
  2. South America wants a bloc excluding North America
    By Tin Man in forum International Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 24 Feb 10,, 07:43
  3. End-O-America???
    By Robert W in forum International Economy
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 22 Mar 09,, 20:29
  4. Will this help America?
    By Blue in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 19 Mar 09,, 15:19
  5. What America Should Do
    By USAUSAUSA in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 14 May 07,, 23:21

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •