Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DE, why I say what I say.

    I read it today. You should too.

    South Asian Geopolitics: Has Pakistan Lost its Plot?

    The PDF.
    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!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Oracle View Post
      So, Pakistan has been asked to act against terrorists that target India too. That came very fast. If US (not UNSC) sanctions Pak, can the Russians and the Chinese do business with them?
      Sovereign countries can do business with them. So govt to govt. Private companies will not

      Which suggests CPEC should be fine since its mostly china state funded, but i could be wrong : )

      Indian facing outfits were on the list since day 1, if you notice talk about JuD running for office..

      but the priority for the moment is afghan facing ones as they cause far more damage
      Last edited by Double Edge; 31 Oct 17,, 16:38.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Oracle View Post
        Much thanks for 'Tis' relief: India and Afghanistan tell US for Chabahar

        The current USGov can't see eye to eye with Iran, but why allow India to commence trade via Iran? In the past when Iran was under sanctions, India was given a free pass to buy Iranian gas citing India's energy needs. Trade with Afghanistan can't be the only reason. Is US considering its position vis-a-vis Iran for a second supply route for NATO forces in Afghanistan?
        It's a pressure tactic for the Paks

        Then there is LEMOA. US forces can be resupplied in India.

        Does it mean we can resupply them elsewhere too : )

        “We are trying to convince them that their expectations should not be influenced by India. Our [Pak-US] bilateral ties should not be dictated by India,” one of the officials told The Nation.
        Now that the boot is on the other foot they don't like it so much. Why ? we had to put up with their crap from many decades of Indo-US relations being just that, dictated by Pakistan

        What has happened to this much vaunted re-hyphenation : D

        International affairs expert Dr Huma Baqai believed Pakistan had rightly rejected the US proposal of a joint operation against the militants on the Pakistani side of the border with Afghanistan.
        Hmm, so that is one push back already

        Originally posted by Oracle View Post
        Pakistan wants regional alliance against 'foreign presence' in Afghanistan: ex-ISI chief

        This guy is one of the biggest supporters of Islamic terrorism, worldwide.
        This is the official Taliban position. No talks unless the foreigners leave.
        Last edited by Double Edge; 31 Oct 17,, 17:06.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Oracle View Post
          DE, why I say what I say.

          I read it today. You should too.

          South Asian Geopolitics: Has Pakistan Lost its Plot?

          The PDF.
          What in there have you said ?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
            Does it mean we can resupply them elsewhere too : )
            Via Iran? Until ties get normal, Iran would not let its soil be used to supply goods for US forces.

            Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
            This is the official Taliban position. No talks unless the foreigners leave.
            No. This is the official Pak Army position.

            Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
            What in there have you said ?
            I have said a lot of things, many like - Pak started terrorism in 1947, PA won't leave terrorism as it's not in their interests. Etc etc.
            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!

            Comment


            • Senators overwhelmingly condemn US policy on South Asia

              The dragon in the room

              A SOUTH ASIAN crisis is still brewing after US Secretary Rex Tillersonís speed visits to Afghan*istan, Pakistan and India. The brief encounter in Islamabad confirmed the gulf in Pakistan-US positions.

              What the US and India want from Pakistan is impossible for it to deliver.
              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!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Oracle View Post
                Via Iran? Until ties get normal, Iran would not let its soil be used to supply goods for US forces.
                The US & Iran have a weird relationship. Remember the Iran contra affair, same scenario. Sell arms to Iran, illegally by US law, to fund rebels in Nicaragua. The CIA right now is under pressure to deliver. They know the place. When the CIA moved into Afghanistan after 9/11. Iran helped. Taliban toppled. Then we had the axis of evil speech. What happens next.

                US moves on Iran's sworn enemy Saddam. Both of these actions are in Iran's interest

                Iran then uses its influence to empower Shias in Iraq. Sunnis sidelined, IS forms, US & Iran are on the same side.

                Syria started with both opposed but ended up on side with the Russians as well. Another Iran win

                Iran is supporting shias in Afghanistan by maintaining militias there. Neither the US or Iran wants the Taliban back

                To top it all, the US then signs a nuke deal with Iran to the consternation of the Arabs & Israel.

                The US & Iran do not have diplomatic relations but all US actions in the region add up to one big net positive for Iran. The US is Iran's most hated best friend.

                Now tell me why would Iran be opposed, the two don't rub up as much in Afghanistan as happened occasionally in Iraq.

                The mullahs will cut a deal with anyone. Ideology does not get in the way of pragmatism. Anything is possible : D

                No. This is the official Pak Army position.
                Pak army never stated it, i'm saying since day 1 the Taliban refused talks until the foreigners left.


                I have said a lot of things, many like - Pak started terrorism in 1947, PA won't leave terrorism as it's not in their interests. Etc etc.
                You're in good company with the underlined bit

                I hold on to what the administration and it numerous officers have said now we watch. Will they stick to what they said or not. Too early to tell

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Oracle View Post
                  What the US and India want from Pakistan is impossible for it to deliver.
                  How that line gets repeatedly drilled into the heads of Paks, Indians & Americans is truly amazing. Give up, do not even try..

                  The US has decided to ‘stay on’ indefinitely in Afghanistan. It knows it cannot defeat the Afghan Taliban. It is unwilling to accept an equitable political settlement. It wants to utilise Afghanistan as a base to contain China, resist Russia, push back Iran and coerce Pakistan to target the Afghan Taliban, in particular the Haqqanis, in order to make its ‘stay’ in Afghanistan as ‘comfortable’ as possible. The US also wants Pakistan to suppress the Kashmiri militants and restrain its nuclear and missile programmes. These latter aims are, of course, fully shared by India.
                  No, its only confirmed for the next three years and even that is uncertain..but if we believe this then we can get China, Iran & Russia to mess with the US at the Paks behest

                  In his public remarks, Tillerson cloaked US demands in the garb of concern for Pakistan’s stability. In fact, Pakistan is most certain to be destabilised if it accepts the US and Indian demands
                  Yes, you will need to conduct more zarb e azabs and bear more peshawars, one at a time

                  In the Zarb-i-Azb and subsequent operations, Pakistan expelled the Afghan Taliban and Haqqani fighters from its soil. Some Taliban leaders periodically cross into Pakistan, Iran and other neighbouring countries. In the past, Washington encouraged Pakistan to maintain contacts with Taliban leaders to promote a political settlement in Afghanistan. Now, however, it wants Pakistan to kill or capture them.
                  yes, its a trade

                  If Pakistan does start doing so, it would produce two outcomes: one, the Afghan Taliban would join the Pakistani Taliban, Jamaatul Ahrar and the militant Islamic State group in perpetrating terrorism against Pakistan; and two, it would foreclose the possibility of a political settlement in Afghanistan since there would be no one left in the insurgency with the authority or stature to negotiate such a settlement. This will prolong Afghanistan’s civil war, the suffering of its people and instability in the region.
                  This is the test to tell if the Paks are keeping to their side of the deal

                  Once the Taliban have nowhere to run they will settle for talks which is the objective. Once they do so all the others fall in line. No more fighting.

                  The consequences of forcibly suppressing the Kashmiri militant groups are similarly predictable. Two of these organisations, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, were placed on the Security Council’s terrorism list when the previous government in Islamabad agreed to this under US pressure. But these groups and others, like the Hizbul Mujahideen, enjoy considerable popular support in Pakistan. Military and police action against members of these pro-Kashmiri groups who have not committed any crime will produce a public outcry and possibly a violent reaction and intensify, not restrict, extremism. A programme for deradicalisation of extremist groups through job creation and social reintegration is the best option. This would be easier if India halts its oppression in held Kashmir and agrees to a peaceful resolution of the dispute.
                  No, India should continue its operations, why stop now, finish the job but the deradicalisation and job creation is a good idea

                  Not only has the US not opposed Indian brutality in held Kashmir and aggression and threats against Pakistan, it has itself threatened Pakistan with sanctions, drone strikes and military intervention unless it complies with US demands. American drone strikes appear to be already under way. If Pakistan does not respond to unilateral US strikes, India may feel emboldened to carry out its threats of military incursion. A South Asian conflict could be ignited by miscalculation if not design.
                  Good , so now we know Trump isn't full of hot air. Note there is zero contrition here, its we will do as we always do but if there is a war then we are not responsible and its all your fault

                  Still waiting for results from Pakistan..nothing delivered so far and already the whining has started

                  To twist an idiom, it is time for the dragon in the room (China) to make an appearance.
                  hah, not with Kim hogging the limelight

                  Rest is how China should do this and that

                  The forthcoming visit of President Trump to China offers the opportunity for a powerful President Xi Jinping to convey China’s opposition to America’s India-centric policies and destabilising demands on Pakistan, and to propose a plan for comprehensive Sino-US cooperation to advance security and prosperity across Asia, including South Asia and the developing world.
                  Obama tried the shared leadership thing with the G2 back in 2009, by 2011 he concluded it wasn't working and the pivot began. Trump is even less likely to accommodate China
                  Last edited by Double Edge; 02 Nov 17,, 01:21.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                    The US & Iran have a weird relationship. Remember the Iran contra affair, same scenario. Sell arms to Iran, illegally by US law, to fund rebels in Nicaragua. The CIA right now is under pressure to deliver. They know the place. When the CIA moved into Afghanistan after 9/11. Iran helped. Taliban toppled. Then we had the axis of evil speech. What happens next.

                    US moves on Iran's sworn enemy Saddam. Both of these actions are in Iran's interest

                    Iran then uses its influence to empower Shias in Iraq. Sunnis sidelined, IS forms, US & Iran are on the same side.

                    Syria started with both opposed but ended up on side with the Russians as well. Another Iran win

                    Iran is supporting shias in Afghanistan by maintaining militias there. Neither the US or Iran wants the Taliban back

                    To top it all, the US then signs a nuke deal with Iran to the consternation of the Arabs & Israel.

                    The US & Iran do not have diplomatic relations but all US actions in the region add up to one big net positive for Iran. The US is Iran's most hated best friend.

                    Now tell me why would Iran be opposed, the two don't rub up as much in Afghanistan as happened occasionally in Iraq.

                    The mullahs will cut a deal with anyone. Ideology does not get in the way of pragmatism. Anything is possible : D
                    The issue here is Trumph, not Iran. It depends on how well he can repair ties with Iran, and to an extent Russia if US has to win in Afghanistan. Mind you, Russia is supplying fuel and arms to the Taliban to keep ISIS in check. The whole ISIS issue that Russia is so worried about could be another ISI plan.

                    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                    Pak army never stated it, i'm saying since day 1 the Taliban refused talks until the foreigners left.
                    Why would Pak army say it? They have 100s of bulls eye painted on their back. Taliban/Haqqani/Civilian govt are all loudspeakers of the Pak army.


                    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                    You're in good company with the underlined bit

                    I hold on to what the administration and it numerous officers have said now we watch. Will they stick to what they said or not. Too early to tell
                    You can believe what you continue to hear. Being optimistic is good. I however, hold on to my position. Butchers doesn't change their profession and become saints.
                    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!

                    Comment


                    • US, India seek to pierce China terror shield
                      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!

                      Comment


                      • Not one of them has anything to say about terrorism. They develop that skill after they leave office and become more outspoken when out of the country.

                        But when they are in a position to make a difference its nothing. The only person that actually said something was their foreign minister. A little bone thrown
                        Last edited by Double Edge; 02 Nov 17,, 04:45.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Oracle View Post
                          The issue here is Trumph, not Iran. It depends on how well he can repair ties with Iran, and to an extent Russia if US has to win in Afghanistan. Mind you, Russia is supplying fuel and arms to the Taliban to keep ISIS in check. The whole ISIS issue that Russia is so worried about could be another ISI plan.
                          He said the deal was terrible. he wants to or says he will cancel it. Typical Trump threatening to overturn an existing agreement to gain leverage. Congress has sixty days to decide, where they end up either puts what i said to bed or not. If they vote to keep the deal and impose additional sanctions then it will be harder to get Iran to cooperate

                          Iran does matter, whether they can see any opportunity here or not. They've been sanctioned before they don't want to go down that path again. Which means there could be some give from their side what with all the strategic bonuses they've enjoyed over the years. Rouhani is going to have to push here. His mandate depends on it

                          Comment


                          • Interesting, let's see how long China keeps this up. Not long i expect.

                            China's decision came even as Beijing itself demanded extra security from Pakistan for its new envoy from ETIM terrorists — many of them trained in Pakistan.
                            Those are the people who go after Chinese in Pakistan

                            Comment


                            • US shares names of 20 terror groups with Pakistan

                              Khawaja Asif says his ministry not in control of foreign policy

                              US Congressman calls for more vetting of people coming from Pakistan
                              Last edited by Oracle; 02 Nov 17,, 07:53.
                              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!

                              Comment


                              • He made it clear that he had not “unwittingly” criticised American generals for their failure in Afghanistan, saying the new US policy was ineffective because it was influenced by the generals who suffered defeat in Afghanistan.

                                “The Americans have devised a framework for their policy for South Asia, which is in fact focused on Afghanistan. It was devised by generals who have struggled in Afghanistan for the last 15 years. I do not think any policy can be made by people with that baggage and mindset,” he remarked.
                                And why is that ?

                                because earlier the white house wouldn't let the military get on with the job, same story with many countries where civvies outrank the military. Very clearly mentioned on the first page of this thread in the PBS newshour clip. Same thing people have banged on about for over ten years on this board

                                Of course this never happens in Pakistan and is principally why their military runs circles around everyone. Is why Pakistan is the only country in the world not merely fighting but winning the war on terrorism


                                “If America frames its policy free from the influence [of these generals], it will be much more successful and effective. When they make Pakistan scapegoat, they are in fact covering up their own failures [in Afghanistan],” he repeated. “I am saying this very ‘wittingly’.”
                                No! that is exactly the reason why after 16 long years we are still in this fix.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X