No announcement yet.

US plan to improve Afghan intelligence operations branded a $457m failure

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Watching Paks reaction after the speech. The civilian side has been busy condemning it, however the military has been more circumspect and quiet. If there are no sanctuaries why all the hot air. If this is business as usual why the commotion.

    A tougher approach | Dawn (op-ed) | Sep 05 2017

    On Pakistan’s side, the public reaction isn’t surprising. The mistrust vis-à-vis the US was always going to make a standoffish approach intuitive for many in Islamabad and Rawalpindi. They were also concerned that appearing weak would invite even harsher US rhetoric. Also, the general anti-US leaning of the public implied that a hard-hitting response would check the government’s popularity box.

    If this was business as usual, we’d expect the huffing and puffing to go on for a bit before both sides got back to pretending they are on the same page. Even if this is still the plan, there are strong undercurrents that may make the outcome fundamentally different. Pakistani officialdom seems to have derived two extraordinary conclusions from Trump’s speech.

    First, many seem convinced that the US is resolved to take Pakistan to task in the short run. The articulations of what the US might do range from diplomatic and economic pressure; to excessive use of drones; to the US even staging an Osama bin Laden type raid to embarrass Pakistan. The national security apparatus is contemplating untoward scenarios and mitigation options.

    I asked someone relevant why options to find a conciliatory way out are not featuring prominently. The response? The US is going to create one excuse or the other to come after us. So it’s not the time to show flexibility.

    Second, there is consensus across the policy spectrum that US intentions in Afghanistan are sinister: the principal US goal, I am told, is to retain military bases indefinitely — not to settle Afghanistan but to undercut China and Russia. The prime target for now is going to be CPEC. India will be a key partner in this endeavour.

    Only one Pakistani policy direction can flow from this thinking: a decidedly negative one for the Pakistan-US engagement in Afghanistan.

    These are not new thoughts. America’s worst critics in Pakistan have often insinuated such motives. The difference is that the mainstream is on board this time, including those who have traditionally been convinced of the merits of continuing to work with the US.
    Have heard that underlined bit before, now i know its source. Makes sense, the meaning of this yarn is Russia & China should support Pakistan to thwart these evil designs. Maybe not so strange is the Russians are also promoting that line of evil US designs against Russia

    The prognosis on the US side isn’t any better. One, perhaps for the first time, one can’t rule out a US decision to act on its coercive threats. While often overlooked in the Pakistani discourse, the US policy debate on Pakistan has always recognised the cons of going down the punishment path. Ultimately, those advocating calm have tended to win out.

    They may still. But frustration levels with Pakistan are as high as I have ever seen them. And the narrative on the Pakistan policy has finally converged on the punishment approach. Fair or not, there is a belief that Afghanistan will only be won if the Afghan Taliban and Haqqani network presence in Pakistan is neutralised; and that the only hope of making this happen is to use a stick-heavy approach. Even those who are sceptical seem to think it’s worth a try.
    Before, people said US is letting Pakistan off easy because US was advised stick heavy won't work

    Now US wants to try stick heavy and people still say stick heavy won't work. If stick heavy was never tried before how do these folks know it won't work ?

    The current anti-engagement mood in Pakistan makes their task easier: the US must act upon its threats to call Pakistan’s bluff or it will be seen as rewarding its intransigence.

    Nothing good can come out of a collision. US coercion has no chance of getting it what it wants from Pakistan; yet, Pakistan can’t pretend it won’t hurt badly if the US flexes its muscle. Meanwhile, the fallout of the increased bitterness will make things worse in Afghanistan. The only way out, again, is engagement. It is going to take some doing in the current environment. But they must — for the alternative this time round may not be business as usual.
    He's saying Pakistan better cooperate or else, in not so many words.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 06 Sep 17,, 02:46.


    • #17
      Curious behaviour by China at the BRICS though welcome. That technical hold on Masood Azhar that China uses won't last long.

      BRICS declaration may strain China-Pakistan ties: Chinese scholar | Livemint | Sept 04 2017

      Chinese scholar Hu Shisheng says China will have a lot of explanation to do to Pakistan in the coming months over the BRICS declaration naming terror groups operating from that country
      Published: Mon, Sep 04 2017. 10 11 PM IST
      K.J.M. Varma

      Beijing: The move to name some Pakistan-based terror groups in the BRICS declaration would “irritate” Islamabad and may strain its ties with China, a Chinese scholar said, in a rare criticism of the government’s decision.

      Hu Shisheng, director of the state-run China Institute of Contemporary International Relations, said Chinese diplomats will have a lot of explanation to do to Pakistan in the coming months. “How will we carry forward?”

      Hu also said that naming the Haqqani network, which operates in Afghanistan and targets the NATO forces stationed there, in the document was “beyond my understanding”.

      “The head of the group is also the actual head of the Afghan Taliban. It will make China’s role for Afghan political reconciliation process more difficult. Or you can say we have no role to play in future,” the expert told PTI.

      His criticism of China came after the BRICS declaration in Xiamen named the terrorist groups—including the Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Jaish-e-Mohammad, Taliban, and Haqqani Network—for causing violence in the region.

      “It is beyond my understanding how China agreed to this. I don’t think it is good idea,” Hu said. “I think some persons who prepared this declaration got mislead. Otherwise I could not understand why,” he said.

      In the light of the inclusion of the JeM, China may reconsider its stand on blocking a proposed UN ban on the leader of the group, Masood Azhar, the Chinese expert said.

      Hu said the declaration will augment pressure on Pakistan, especially after US President Donald Trump rebuked Islamabad for harbouring these terror groups on its soil. “This will irritate Pakistan. I don’t think when the BRICS declaration was made, Pakistan was consulted. In the coming days Chinese diplomats have to explain to Pakistan,” Hu said.

      “I am not against listing LeT and JeM as terrorist groups. But there are more deadly groups than these—like Lashkar-e-Jhangvi al-Alami of Pakistan, which was behind killing of two Chinese youths in Balochistan,” he added.

      China may have agreed to name these to include the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, which is active in its restive Xinjiang region. It is also said to have bases in Pakistan. “(But) This is too costly to China... Pakistan will be very upset,” he said, adding that this could be a victory for India, which “has done a lot of work”.

      However, another Chinese scholar, Wang Dehua, head of the Institute for South and Central Asian Studies at the Shanghai Municipal Centre for International Studies, said the BRICS declaration will set an example for the world community. “To successfully counter all kinds of terrorism, the first important concern is violence caused by the Taliban, ISIS, al-Qaeda and its affiliates and should reach consensus on which terrorists we should attack,” he told PTI.

      On potential listing of Maulana Masood Azhar as a global terrorist by the UN, he said China may have had its reasons to block the move but, “I guess after India has given more facts, China may have changed its former stand”.

      Wang said all BRICS members should now adopt a comprehensive approach to combat terrorism. “May the BRICS member states make more contributions to counter terrorism, world peace and stability,” he said. PTI


      • #18
        And this..acts of contrition included

        China, Pakistan Poised To Clash Over Militant Sanctuaries | RFERL | Sept 06 2017

        Abubakar Siddique
        September 06, 2017

        For years, China had Pakistan’s back as it faced criticism over its alleged support for or inability to curb Islamist militant organizations often accused of fomenting insurgencies and terrorist attacks in neighboring Afghanistan and India.

        Beijing now looks ready to publicly prod Islamabad to come clean on the issue in what would be a remarkable change after Chinese officials have reportedly tried to convey the same message privately for some time.

        Differences between Beijing and Islamabad over the presence and handling of Islamist militants based in Pakistan are now coming to the fore despite the two capitals being keen on showcasing their alliance as rock solid.

        Islamabad is scrambling to limit the fallout from a recent summit of leaders of emerging economies in the BRICS grouping that took place in the Chinese city of Xiamen this week.

        In their September 4 statement, the leaders of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa “expressed concern on the security situation in the region and violence caused” by the Taliban, Islamic State (IS), Al-Qaeda and its affiliates including the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM), the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), the Haqqani network, Lashkar-e Taiba, Jaish-e Mohammad, Tehreek-e Taliban Pakistan, and Hizb ut-Tahrir.

        While the statement didn’t name Pakistan specifically, some of the 10 groups still shelter inside the country despite official bans and claims of government crackdowns against them.

        Moreover, India, Afghanistan and the United States have frequently asked Islamabad to move against some of the groups. Even those such as ETIM, IMU, IS, and TTP are seen as recruiting from Pakistan or have benefited from sheltering there in recent years.

        An overlooked but more revealing change in Beijing’s posture was the condemnation of “terrorist attacks resulting in death to innocent Afghan nationals.”

        While calling for an immediate cessation of violence, the BRICS declaration reaffirmed support for Afghanistan: “We support the efforts of the Afghan national defense and security forces in fighting terrorist organizations.”

        The declaration appears to be a departure from Beijing’s efforts to publicly defend Pakistan, where it is currently investing more than $50 billion in infrastructure and energy development. Collectively called the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, these investments are a showcase project of Beijing’s One Road One Belt grand strategy to propel the country’s global reach and influence through trade.

        Last month, Chinese State Councilor Yang Jiechi reportedly told U.S. State Secretary Rex Tillerson, "We must value Pakistan's important role in the Afghanistan issue and respect Pakistan's sovereignty and reasonable security concerns."

        Yang, who outranks China's foreign minister, spoke with Tillerson on August 23 after U.S. President Donald Trump warned Islamabad that Washington “can no longer be silent about Pakistan’s safe havens for terrorist organizations.”

        A day earlier, Beijing was all praise for Pakistan’s counterterrorism efforts. “For many years, it [Pakistan] has made positive efforts and great sacrifices for combating terrorism and made important contributions to upholding world peace and regional stability,” said Hua Chunying, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman.

        Beijing’s changing stance comes after consistently backing Islamabad on international forums. On Pakistan’s urging, China prevented the United Nations from listing Jaish-e Mohammad leader Masood Azhar as a globally designated terrorist twice this year. The organization is, however, mentioned in the BRICS declaration.

        According to Pakistani daily Dawn, in an October meeting Pakistan’s most senior civilian foreign office bureaucrat conveyed a blunt message to the country’s political and military leaders.

        Then Foreign Secretary Aizaz Chaudhry, now Pakistan’s ambassador in Washington, told participants that despite its public backing Beijing is pushing for a change in Islamabad’s course.

        “Chinese authorities have conveyed their willingness to keep putting on technical hold a UN ban on Jaish-e Mohammad leader Masood Azhar; they have questioned the logic of doing so repeatedly,” the paper reported.

        The explosive story stirred a political storm in Pakistan as the country’s powerful army rejected it as a “fabricated” and pushed for a probe, which eventually resulted in several senior civilian officials losing their jobs.

        However, there was hardly any official discussion over whether Islamabad needed to change its course.

        Pakistani Foreign Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif, however, confirmed that now even allies are urging Islamabad to clean up its act.

        “Did we prove to the world that we are acting 100 percent on the resolve we showed [to end terrorism] in 2014?” he asked in an interview with Pakistan’s Geo television.

        Following a massacre at an army school in December 2014, Pakistan civilian and military leadership agreed on a comprehensive National Action Plan on counterterrorism. But the plan’s implementation has been patchy at best.

        Asif sees no escape from taking the militant organizations head on.

        “As long as we close our eyes to these [terrorist] organizations, we will keep on facing similar embarrassments [such as the one at the BRICS summit],” he said. “Let’s put our house in order and then talk to the rest of the world.”

        Pakistan’s top diplomat empathically rejected the notion that militant organizations such as Lashkar-e Taiba, Jaish-e Mohammad, and the Haqqani network were of any value to his country.

        “Every Pakistani must ask whether the people [militants] we nurtured during the past 30 or 40 years are still our [strategic] assets today. Are they our assets or liability? We have to define this on our national level. I am talking about what my children and their children will endure [if we fail].”

        Scheduled to soon tour China and Russia, Asif is adamant that the country’s current civilian and military leaders are united in making a clean break with the past.

        “First we need to confess our sins and then hope for atonement,” he said.


        • #19
          US shuts Pakistan's Habib Bank over terror financing concerns

          Seems the noose is getting tighter.
          Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!


          • #20
            No Free Passes For India In The New Great Game In Afghanistan | Swarajya | Sept 5 2017

            Good read with a regional perspective. Vikram Sood is the former head of R&AW, India’s external intelligence agency.

            The US has remained extremely deferential to Pakistani hypersensitivity about Afghan rearmament.

            The ANSF thus never had the equipment and adequate training to be able to function as an army that was both an effective counter-insurgency force and able to engage against conventional trans-border threats.

            Ironically, foreign observers are now dismissive of the Afghan army’s capabilities as if the present state is entirely the fault of the Afghans themselves.

            Consequently, despite the estimated $780 billion spent mostly by the US over 15 years, the Afghan army remains underequipped and undertrained.

            A smarter, well-equipped, well-trained army comprising locals fighting on and for their own land would have been far greater value for money than well-equipped highly trained foreign troops.
            Telling it like it is. We've heard a lot of bs about how the afghans were incapable of fighting and here we find out why

            Can't arm the Afghans because the Paks don't like it (!) well maybe this could change
            The Paks get to harbour whomever they want (!)

            Today, no one really wants to discuss the two major problems afflicting Afghanistan; one, the opium trade that sustains the Taliban and the impoverished Afghan farmer; and two, the support Pakistan has rendered the Taliban and continues to.

            Much is being made out of the presence of so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in Nangarhar province of Afghanistan, bordering Pakistan. But informed opinion from Afghanistan asserts that there is no such entity like ISIS in the country. Some elements merely fly the ISIS flag. These are really those belonging to the Haqqani Network, closely associated with Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). The ISIS has brand equity amongst western nations, and now with Russia. Additionally, it provides Pakistan with deniability in its operations in Afghanistan. This might make the Haqqani faction look good, even humane, in the bargain. If the narrative about the Taliban among some powers can change to suit the occasion, so can that for the Haqqani Network. The ISIS is becoming a convenient diversion from the main threat to Afghanistan — the Taliban.

            If the ISIS is seen as a global threat, then the correct way of handling it is through global efforts and not through appeasement of a regional menace — the Taliban.

            The trouble is everyone knows this has to be done, but no one follows it up. Merely spraying opium cultivation with pesticides is not enough. It is essential to cut off this source of funds to the Taliban and the drug lords. Tonnes have been written about counter-insurgency but much less has been written or done about the drug menace.

            Instead of a concerted counter--terror action against the Taliban, we are now seeing some of the most powerful powers of the world meeting to decide how best to acquiesce to them. As a result, what the world will have, including the world they seek to protect, is more of the same. Maybe even worse. The end of the Afghan jihad was seen as a victory of the faith over a superpower. A deal with the Taliban will lead to similar interpretations with consequences for all of us, including Pakistan.
            Security analyst Sameer Lalwani has summed up the various policy recommendations available for handling Pakistan. He said: “(T)he greatest obstacle to any turnaround in Afghanistan is that there is the absence of a realistic strategy to deal with Pakistan”. If there is no strategy to change Pakistan’s behaviour – coercion, inducement or brute force — the situation in Afghanistan will not improve substantially. This is the crux.
            The Russian angle

            From Russia with ambition

            The Russians, Chinese and Iranians are wooing the Taliban as Pakistan sits secure and smug that its policies of investing in the Taliban are seemingly beginning to give dividends. The only holdouts to this fervour are the Afghans themselves and the Indians. Quite naturally, the suitors have to construct a convenient storyline as each of the players have their own interests in mind; Afghanistan is only incidental.

            The Russians see an opportunity in the weakening of US stature in the Middle East. Events in Iraq and Syria have left the Russians in an advantageous position. Moscow probably sees its navy having an assured presence in the Mediterranean through the Syrian coastline, and if they have access to Iran via Afghanistan, then they have access to the Persian Gulf. This may be an adequate counter to the Chinese presence in Gwadar and Indian interests in Chahbahar. The Russians thus see for themselves a new opportunity in the region provided they can handle two negative but related factors. One is that of the rising Islamist threat to themselves through Afghanistan and Central Asia. The second, related to this, is the never-ending problem of narcotics, which is now the centrepiece to any solution in Afghanistan.

            Russia wants to be strategically relevant in the entire region in opposition to US interests. The clash between Russia and the US and its European allies has been building up since Georgia in 2008, onto Crimea in 2014 and finally, Ukraine. The allegations that Russia had interfered in the last US presidential elections have also exacerbated relations.

            Russia has moved a considerable distance away from its stance in the 1990s when along with India, Iran, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, a joint effort was made to keep the Taliban at bay. This was successful until the assassination of Ahmed Shah Massoud on 9 September 2001. The suicide bombers had travelled via Pakistan. The implications of this major event were lost in the catastrophe of 9/11.

            The Russians have met Taliban representatives several times in the past two years. It is possible that the Russians seek to get the Taliban to destabilise the Ghani Government seen by the Russians as a US-backed regime. Besides, neither the Russians, Chinese nor Iranians have taken too kindly to the US decision to maintain its bases in Afghanistan for power projection into Central Asia. President Vladimir Putin’s special envoy to Afghanistan, Zamir Kabulov, has said Russia “will not tolerate this”.

            Kabulov has also said that the ISIS is a bigger threat to the region than the Taliban. The storyline is that in the interest of peace in Afghanistan, the Taliban be considered as a political and social movement. The Russians believe that the ISIS cannot be eliminated without cooperation from Pakistan. This cooperation means being on the same page about the Taliban. It is interesting that none of the powers — America, Russia, China and Iran — is willing to even talk about the role that the Pakistan-backed Haqqani Network will be playing in the game that is unfolding.

            The Russians do have genuine worries though. An estimated 50,000 Russians die every year due to heroin addiction. This is a huge number in any country but even more in a country with a declining population. Fifteen years ago, the Muslim population in Russia was about 10 per cent; today it is more than 13 per cent. Moscow is now home to about 1.5 to two million Muslims, making it the second largest Muslim city in Europe. The Muslims are mostly Sunni but many were without the traditional Muslim moorings. This is beginning to change with increasing radicalisation.

            Russia does have a serious problem if one considers that an estimated 5,000 to 7,000 ISIS cadres speak Russian of which half are Russian citizens and the rest from Central Asia. This makes Russian the second most popular language in the ISIS. The Russian contingent have their own command and control structure. Inevitably, the fear now is that these jihadis will return to Russia. By 2015, these battle-hardened cadres were finding their way home.

            The China angle

            Chinese checkers

            The Chinese seek to move into empty spaces that might be vacated by an America that is looking for exits and solutions that are not seen as failures. Yet the Chinese have until recently refrained from getting militarily involved and have let the Russians lift the heavy load for them in Syria. They themselves give the image of a responsible country with deep pockets, but most do not quite see the tight fists inside them. Their investments in Afghanistan designed for extracting mineral resources are less than India’s. China’s strategic interest in Afghanistan and Central Asia revolves around the One Belt One Road project, of which the CPEC is a subsidiary project. China sees an opportunity in Iran, which would enable it to have access to the Gulf through Afghanistan and to the Caspian Sea through Iran.

            China’s security interests hover around keeping Xinjiang free of Islamist influences i.e. the Taliban and ISIS varieties. Banning beards of a certain length and veils may be a part of this attempt to provide conformity, but also indicates a growing fear among China’s rulers about this restive province. This may not be enough and hence the Chinese have been using the Pakistani connection for contacts with the Taliban. They will go along with the Pakistani distinctions between “good Taliban” and “bad Taliban”. It suits China to have direct contact with the Taliban, which gives both the Taliban and Pakistan greater legitimacy and the Chinese hope to secure themselves somewhat in Xinjiang. India may have provided some limited military assistance lately (M-25 attack helicopters) but the Chinese also have conducted joint patrols with Afghan forces to indicate their availability in the face of an US drawdown.
            The Iran angle

            Iran is decidedly uncomfortable with a strong Sunni presence on its borders. The Iranians are also apprehensive now of the recently formed Saudi-sponsored Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism, a collection of Sunni nations. Policies in and about Afghanistan are more likely to remain a reflection of a larger US-Russia antagonism and a high level of mutual suspicion accompanied by rising ambitions and fears of China and Iran.

            The Iranians have been concerned about events in Afghanistan from the time the Afghan jihad started in the 1980s. The presence of Soviet troops in their neighbourhood and a jihad bankrolled by the Saudis along with archenemy America’s active assistance was a cause of deep concern. Later in the 1990s, they cooperated with India and Russia to try and stem the Taliban tide but many arrangements fell off the table after 9/11. The growing uncertainties in Iran’s neighbourhood and the fears about ISIS have also pushed the Iranians to seek a solution to the problems in Afghanistan that involve the Taliban. Iran has sheltered Taliban elements in the past. Obviously, Iran’s leaders remind themselves that they need a peaceful and secure border with Afghanistan and for that would need to come to terms with the Taliban.

            A triangular relationship between Iran, Russia and China had been evolving for some time. China and Iran signed a military cooperation agreement in November 2016, which envisages bilateral military training and closer cooperation on regional issues, with Syria and terrorism being on the top of the Iranian list. Around the same time, the Russians also announced that the two countries were negotiating an arms deal worth $10 billion to supply Iran with T-90 tanks, artillery systems, aircraft and helicopters.
            Russians and Iranians aren't looking at this from the afghan pov, they are looking at it from the prism of their country's relations with the US pov (!)
            Last edited by Double Edge; 16 Sep 17,, 02:17.


            • #21
              James Dorsey is an interesting character

              Jihadist Support For Rohingya Puts Pakistan And China On The Spot | HuffPo | Sept 12 2017

              The problem for Pakistan and China is not simply that Mr. Azhar is a wanted fugitive who is able to write in a magazine that is published by a group that although banned continues to publicly raise funds and recruit fighters.

              The problem is also not just that the article indicates jihadist exploitation of the Rohingya issue at a time that the Islamic State (IS) responds to setbacks in Syria and Iraq by expanding operations beyond the Middle East.

              The problem is that the article puts Pakistan and China in a position of shielding the leader of a group that has been designated as terrorist and who has no compunction about his support for jihadist figures like Mr. Bin Laden.

              China has repeatedly vetoed Mr. Azhar’s designation by the United Nations Security Council, allegedly at Pakistan’s behest. The council is scheduled to again discuss designating Mr. Azhar in early 2018.


              • #22
                Good news

                Afghan air force gets upgrade with arrival of first Black Hawks | Stars & Stripes | Sept 19 2017


                • #23
                  Who will speak for Pakistan?

                  So what makes it so hard for our so-called leaders to call a spade a spade when it comes to the US? After the initial outrage at Trump’s South Asia policy, we witnessed their shameful eagerness to clutch at reconciliatory straws thrown their way by lesser US officials so that they could start beating about the bush once again.
                  And now we are being told that Pakistan and the US have agreed to stay engaged to achieve the ‘shared objectives of peace, stability and economic prosperity in the region’.

                  This ingenious consensus is reported to have emerged during a meeting between our Prime Minister and the US Vice President on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session underway in New York.

                  Did the Vice President take back all the nasty things his President had said about Pakistan and the threats he’d hurled at us? Or did our Prime Minister promise to ‘put our house in order’ and ‘do more’ like a good boy? Most importantly, what signals are we sending to our partners in the region?

                  Clearly, if anyone shares the objectives of peace, stability and economic prosperity in the region, it is these partners.
                  The US occupation of Afghanistan is actually aimed at ensuring that these objectives are never met.
                  Disregarding his campaign promise, Trump has decided to continue the occupation and its disruptive agenda.
                  Let’s get this straight: The US occupation is not about fostering peace but sustaining perpetual war.
                  It is not about ending instability in Afghanistan but exporting it to its neighbors.

                  It is all written on the wall and it doesn’t take an Einstein to read it.
                  Don’t we know what the US has been up to in Afghanistan all these sixteen years? Haven’t we seen it lord over the expansion of chaos and violence; patronizing drug-lords and war-lords, murdering and droning innocents, supervising the spawning and spreading of terrorism? Don’t we know what the US has been up to in other parts of the world; in Iraq and Syria, in Libya and Yemen, just to name a few nearby examples?
                  Rest of the article can be read here.
                  Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!


                  • #24
                    Peace deal made with militants for money

                    Militants were paid to repay Al Qaeda debt | Dawn | Feb 9 2005

                    12yr old article

                    Payments were made as part of a package after the militants insisted that they needed to pay back a huge sum they had taken from Al Qaeda in their fight against Pakistani forces.
                    Buys a temporary peace then the money runs out and its back to square one again. Pay up or fight them and the second option was later used in Wazirstan
                    Last edited by Double Edge; 21 Sep 17,, 17:34.


                    • #25
                      More acts of contrition

                      Intelligence Bureau accused of ‘protecting’ terrorists by one of its own spies | Dawn | Sept 26 2017

                      A serving assistant sub-inspector of IB, ASI Malik Mukhtar Ahmed Shahzad, has accused his senior officers of not taking action against terrorism suspects and filed a petition before the Islamabad High Court (IHC) requesting it to refer the matter to the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) for a thorough probe.
                      Remember Dr. Shakil Afridi

                      Pakistani Doctor Who Helped Locate Bin Laden Marks 6 Years in Jail | VOA | Apr 28 2017

                      6 down anther 27 to go

                      Representing Afridi is not just fraught with frustration, current counsel Qaram Nadeem has not seen his client in 34 months, it’s also dangerous.

                      Nadeem’s predecessor, Samiullah Afridi, gave up the case and moved to Dubai after threats from al-Qaida affiliates. He was gunned down in March 2015 after returning, with Taliban splinter groups Jundullah and Jamaatul Ahrar claiming responsibility.

                      “The tribal tribunal has adjourned his case for 30 times so far, as the state prosecutor abstains from appearing before the court,” Nadeem told VOA. The last hearing, scheduled for April 12, was called off with the prosecutor a no-show once again.
                      Last edited by Double Edge; 26 Sep 17,, 20:03.


                      • #26
                        Afghan president responding to his forces and american 'promiscuous use of force'


                        • #27
                          J&K: Two infiltration bids foiled, 5 terrorists gunned down

                          This is as of today. To even dream about Pakistan changing it's track-record w.r.t creating, arming and supporting terrorist groups is a mirage. Islamic terrorism has been and still continues to be Pakistans' greatest export. I am wondering what more will the addition of US troops in Afghanistan achieve.
                          Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!


                          • #28
                            It isn't the additional troops, its what sanctions can and will be imposed. Does Pakistan want to follow a path of increasing isolation

                            How effectively the Afghans can respond, foil and deter operatives in their space

                            In any case the time frame of this policy is the next three and a half years and longer if Trump gets a second term

                            Listening to Ghani we find out why the Afghan airforce is in such a poor state.


                            US was buying Russian equipment for the Afghans as that's is what they are familiar with. After Ukraine, US sanctioned Russia.

                            Now the US cannot buy weapons from the Russians for the Afghans and has to find alternatives
                            Last edited by Double Edge; 02 Oct 17,, 17:14.


                            • #29
                              DE, apart from the link I posted in my earlier comment, below are two more links as of yesterday.

                              2 kids among 3 civilians killed in Pak LoC shelling

                              Terrorists attack BSF camp in Srinagar; 3 jawans injured

                              Sanctions, discussions, did they work on India? Has it worked on Nkorea? It didn't work in case of Pakistan, think Pressler. Russia helped us, China is helping NK and Pak. For sanctions to be effective, China has be fully onboard, and that means giving up on NK and CPEC. China might give up on NK, but they will never give up on Pak. What sanctions and discussions do is, give more time to those countries to keep working clandestinely on their nuke program, and when the talks fall through, they would be ready to test an ICBM.

                              Now let's talk about the links I posted. Before he became the NSA, Mr. Doval in a speech in Shastra University talked about Pakistan and terrorism. He said Pak might do another Mumbai and lose Balochistan. The problem here is India has 2 Mumbai's every year if people/security forces KIA is taken into account. Nobody wants to talk about de-nuclearizing the Paks and removing the Pak army from its dominant position in Pakistan because of the mess it would create. Fine, by all means apply sanctions and don't punish Pak militarily. But what's stopping us to support the Balochis and other dis-satisfied groups and pay back Pak in the same coin. A stable Pak is not in Pak Army's interests, India needs to believe and adopt this policy too.
                              Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!


                              • #30
                                DE, I have seen videos of US Apaches killing Taliban/Al-Qaida fighters. 4/6/10, maybe more. What do you think an Afghan air-force would do, if they get their hands on some aircrafts? Use a million dollar missile to kill 10 Talibans? This approach has not worked out for the Americans, and Afgahnistan is not in a position to pay for those. These are merceneries who work for money. Cheap guns for hire. Either pay them to hit back at Pak, or bomb Pak.
                                Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!