Bismillah ar Rahman ar Rahim REALPakNationalists

March 25, 2010

US to speed up arms supply

USA Pakistan Dialogue

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday US pledged a $125 million aid to boost the energy sector in Pakistan, besides allowing Pakistani products access to US markets and speeding up military equipment transfers, Geo News reported.

In a joint press briefing with Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi here after holding the strategic dialogue with the Pakistani delegation, she termed the strategic sitting important not only for Pakistan but also for the US administration.

She pledged American assistance to develop the agriculture sector in Pakistan besides extending assistance to maximise the exports of Pakistan. ‘Pakistani products will now have access to US markets,’ she said, adding that the US would provide cooperation in the establishment of three thermal power plants to lessen the power crisis in Pakistan. The US would also help Pakistan expand the Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP), she said.

Clinton said that the US would sign a letter for ‘significant road infrastructure’ in Pakistan’s troubled northwest without offering a figure. ‘Pakistan is on the frontline of confronting violent extremism that threatens us all, and Pakistan’s civilian and security forces continue to bear the brunt of that fight,’ Clinton said.

Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said that US suspicions of his country have evaporated, with officials no longer questioning Islamabad’s commitment to fight extremism. Qureshi, who was holding a first-of-a-kind ‘strategic dialogue’ with the United States, said ‘the mood was completely different’ from previous visits to Washington.

‘I was at the Senate; I was at the House. It’s a 180-degree difference,’ he told a joint news conference with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. ‘There were no more question marks, there was no suspicion, there was no ‘do more,” he said. ‘There was appreciation for what we had already done.’

‘We’ve agreed to fast-track our requests, that have been pending for months and years, on the transfer of military equipment to Pakistan,’ Qureshi told said. Hillary Clinton, earlier in the dialogue, said that the US supported dialogue between India and Pakistan, while Shah Mehmood Qureshi called for a ‘constructive engagement’ by the United States on Kashmir.

Asked about Qureshi’s remarks later at the joint news conference, Clinton said that the US supported reconciliation efforts between India and Pakistan. ‘The issues that are part of that dialogue need to be addressed and resolution of them between the two countries would certainly be in everyone’s best interest,’ she said, without explicitly mentioning Kashmir.

Clinton said that the United States wanted to be a partner of Pakistan on ‘a full range of matters.’ ‘We can’t dictate Pakistani foreign policy or Indian foreign policy. But we can encourage, as we do, the in-depth discussion between both countries that we think would benefit each of them with respect to security and development,’ she said.

Speaking at an early-morning ceremony, Hillary Clinton said the US had started a ‘new day’ with Pakistan in hearing its concerns. Clinton said she wanted to speak directly to its people, acknowledging that the two nations ‘have had our misunderstandings and disagreements in the past.’

‘There are sure to be more disagreements in the future, as there are between any friends or, frankly, any family members,’ she said. ‘But this is a new day. For the past year, the Obama administration has shown in our words and deeds a different approach and attitude toward Pakistan.’

‘The dialogue we seek is not only with the government of Pakistan, but you the people of Pakistan,’ she said, vowing that both she and President Barack Obama had a ‘personal commitment’ to building ties with Islamabad.

Clinton said stability of Pakistan was in the world’s interest. Pointing to Pakistan’s growing action against extremism, she pledged full support, saying, ‘Its struggles are our struggles.’ Reiterating US support in the fight against terror to the nation, she affirmed that the Taliban were trying to consolidate in Pakistan, and it would be a threat for humanity as well as for the region.

She said that the Taliban wanted to destabilise Pakistan, and ‘we have to work together for their complete eradication.’ She said that the both nations are looking for a successful composite dialogue, as it would not be a one time dialogue.

She also lauded the role of Pakistan towards the establishment of peace in South Asia and termed the security and stability of Pakistan a top priority. ‘Pakistan’s military has mounted successful military operations against terrorists. Pakistan’s security agencies have captured many notorious al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists,’ she said.

She made it clear that during the conversation, the United States will address Pakistan’s energy needs for the citizens of the nation. Clinton said that the stability and security of Pakistan was important for the world and the US would continue its maximum help to strengthen Pakistan.

She said, ‘We know that Pakistan is facing a severe problem due to the energy shortage in the country. And we will not let Pakistan alone in these intermingled problems and the US would always be on the side of Pakistan in its hour of need. The people are facing severe blackouts due to unavailability of electricity. Farmers are worried about the future of the agriculture sector due to the shortage of water in the country.’

Qureshi expressed gratitude for US assistance and pledged that Pakistan would keep up the fight against extremism. But he made it clear that Pakistan wanted benefits in return. Qureshi said that Pakistan was seeking ‘non-discriminatory’ access to energy resources as well as a ‘constructive’ role by the United States on its dispute with India over Kashmir. ‘Such a partnership, we are convinced, is good for Pakistan, good for America and good for international peace, security and prosperity,’ he said.

‘Pakistan is committed to doing its part to facilitate the world community’s effort for peace and stability in Afghanistan,’ Qureshi said. ‘We hope the world community will be equally responsive to our legitimate concerns and help advance common interests,’ he said.

He said the war against terrorism had seriously damaged Pakistan’s economy, as Pakistan has got nothing but bomb blasts in response to waging war against terrorism. Defence Minister Ahmed Mukhtar, US defence Secretary Robert Gates and Pakistan Army chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and Chairman Joint Chiefs Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, senior advisers and officials attended the dialogue.

News Desk adds: The US has also agreed to pay Pakistan its military spending in anti-terror operations in two installments.

Source: http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=27958

March 4, 2010

Pakistan Gets Laser Guided Bombs

Laser guided bombs

The US Air Force plans to deliver 1,000 laser-guided bomb kits to Pakistan this month to help Islamabad in its offensive against militants on the Afghan border, a spokesman said on Tuesday.

The Air Force is providing the kits after having delivered 1,000 MK-82 bombs last month to Pakistan’s military, Lieutenant Colonel Jeffry Glenn told AFP.

The US military assistance underscored Washington’s role in backing Pakistan’s months-long campaign against Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants.

The Pakistani air force was playing “a big part” in operations against the extremists, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said.

“As they had ramped up operations, they’re looking for ways to get additional capability,” he told a gathering of defence reporters.

Pakistan’s air force chief had visited Washington last year and made additional requests for US military assistance, he said.

Donley said the Pentagon had arranged for “expedited” delivery of the MK-82 bombs, which weigh 500 pounds each.

The United States also was due to deliver 18 additional F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan in June, outfitted with sophisticated night-vision equipment, Glenn said.

Confirmation of the arms deal came as Pakistan on Tuesday revealed a vast Taliban and Al-Qaeda hideout dug into mountains near the Afghan border, captured in an offensive against militants.

Source.

March 3, 2010

Debate About Taliban Appeasement Is Over

Pakistan or Taliban: Whose side are you on?

The debate about Taliban appeasement is over. We have wasted too much time and energy fighting about whether or not there is a difference between Afghan Taliban and Pakistani Taliban. We have argued with each other about whether or not we should be fighting Pakistani Taliban and working out deals with Afghani Taliban. Now we know certainly that there is no difference. Whether fighting in Afghanistan or bombing schools in Pakistan, Taliban are the same group. And this group is our enemy.

The News yesterday makes plain the reason – events over the past few days have proved for all that Taliban and Afghanistan and Pakistan are one group of militant butchers.

There are significant and far-reaching shifts in the way in which the ruling establishment perceives and interacts with the Pakistani Taliban and the Afghan Taliban. Until very recently they were seen as discrete entities, separate but having complementarities and some shared interests. Today, there is a recognition – somewhat belated but no less welcome for all of that – that both the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and the Quetta Shura Taliban (QST) are essentially one and the same; jihadi organisations which have the overthrow of the state of Pakistan as well as Afghanistan as their core objective. Over the last eight weeks we have seen nine of the eighteen key members of the Quetta Shura detained by our security forces in several parts of the country. Whilst it is not possible to second-guess what will come next, it may be reasonable to assume that other detentions will follow, and if so, this will weaken the QS and by extension the TTP – which is a very long way from the position long-held wherein a benign linkage was maintained with both groups as a hedge against the future withdrawal of coalition troops in Afghanistan.

When viewed together the TTP and the QS are a large, flexible, adaptive, resourceful and well-equipped single entity that has the capacity to inflict death and destruction to a wide range of targets. Together, they are now seen to represent an institutional threat to our country. They have the ability to terrorise and destabilise large parts of our sovereign territory, and to threaten our infant democracy. That we today recognise this is not just because the Americans have demanded it, but because we have recognised that it is no longer in our best interests to maintain this dubious dark alliance. Other regional players, closer friends than Uncle Sam, have had a role in our rethinking of the concept of strategic depth. It is alleged that the Saudis have played a part, and if true we may have much to thank them for in the future. Now is the time to move away from old and increasingly irrelevant doctrinal positions towards positions that reflect new and emerging realities. Understanding that the TTP and the QS are conjoined is a step in the right direction for both us and Afghanistan, and can only strengthen our hand in fighting militancy and terrorism.

It is no surprise that some of us have held the American with suspicion. They have not always been honest, and they have not always been looking out for anything but their own interests. Even now, America is probably looking out for its own interest, yes. But what has changed has been that this fight is in PAKISTAN’S INTEREST. This is a fight for OUR nation, a fight for OUR culture, a fight for OUR independence.

The people who are attacking and killing our innocents are foreigners from many countries including even those of our Muslim brothers in Egypt, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia. But these killers are not fighting for us, they are killing us. They are butchering our people so that they can invade our country and change our nation into a backwards country ruled by crazed butchers. We will not stand for it.

TTP and QST are two names for the same thing – enemy of Pakistan. The debate is over. Now you must decide for yourself – WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON???

February 22, 2010

On an upward curve

The following article by Lieutenant-General (Retd) Talat Masood was originally published in The News on 22 February.

Pakistan and US FlagsThe military to military relations between the US and Pakistan seems to be gradually improving. There is a greater level of mutual confidence and less talk of ‘do more’. This has been achieved by enhanced cooperation at operational and intelligence level and is benefiting both sides. It seems sharing is taking place even at the planning stage to ensure greater synergy and to make sure that the operations undertaken by the US on the Afghan side do not have a negative fallout on Pakistan or vice-versa. The importance the US attaches to Pakistan is demonstrated by the frequency of visits by the US military leaders as well. General McChrystal, Commander of the US and ISAF forces, must have visited his counterpart no less than three to four times in one month alone. In addition, General Petraeus and Admiral Mullen, too, are keeping close contacts with General Kayani and other military and civilian leaders. This has resulted in expanded cooperation on a broad front. There is cooperation in training on new equipment and sharing of counter-insurgency doctrines and practices. Our army, although professionally capable, is constrained by the past and it is only through extensive training that we can prepare for the conflict that we are currently facing. This is even more relevant to the training of Frontier Corps whose role in counter-insurgency operations is expanding. Supply of weapons and equipment from the US has somewhat improved, but still there are shortages in critical areas like helicopters, surveillance equipment and specialised vehicles.

Similar momentum is being maintained by the US at a broader political and diplomatic level. General Jones the National Security Advisor has had meetings with the top civilian and military leaders in Pakistan to discuss Pakistan’s concerns about India’s involvement in Afghanistan and the renewal of India- Pakistan dialogue process. Ambassador Holbrooke has also made several visits and Senator John Kerry must have been to Pakistan about three times since the inception of the democratic government to see how civilian projects could be expedited.

The most pressing problem for the Americans is ensuring full cooperation for their current operations in Afghanistan. The spate of recent arrests of some top leaders of Afghan Taliban and Al Qaeda including Mullah Ghani Baradar, Ameer Muawiya in Karachi and other parts of Pakistan is another strong indicator of the growing US-Pakistan cooperation. Whether this is going to be a transient phase of their relationship or a permanent inflexion in Pakistan’s policy paradigm may be early to determine. In all likelihood it appears that there is a growing realisation in Pakistan’s security establishment that the previous policy of running with the hare and hunting with the hounds may have run its course. The huge paradox of closely collaborating with the US, receiving substantial economic and military assistance from it on the one hand, and, at the same time being supportive of Afghan Taliban, is no more a viable policy. Besides, the lethal cocktail of Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, Afghan Taliban, Al Qaeda and other jihadi organisations such as LeT, LeJ etc. that were erstwhile considered strategic assets are turning out to be an existential threat to the state. When viewed in this context stakes in the success of the US and ISAF in Afghanistan for Pakistan are fairly high. In the event of US failure, civil war would surely follow and it will immediately trigger off a proxy war accompanied by a humanitarian crisis of great proportions. The last thing that Pakistan would like to see is a chaotic Afghanistan, needless to mention that the success of Afghan Taliban will create a reverse ideological and strategic depth in Pakistan. We do not have to remind that Taliban’s extremist ideology would be a huge setback for our modernisation and relevance to the world. For this reason it is not surprising that arrest of such a large number of Afghan Taliban is taking place in Pakistan. This could weaken Afghan Taliban and may induce them to agree to a negotiated settlement.

It is time a serious policy reappraisal is undertaken for reasons of our internal stability as well as for benefiting from a long term strategic partnership with the US. Pakistan’s military with the consent of Afghan government could use its unique position to persuade Afghan Taliban to agree to President Karzai’s reconciliation offer. A negotiated settlement would provide the US with an exit strategy and help in stabilising Afghanistan which is crucial for Pakistan’s own fight against militants. It is likely that Mullah Baradar could become a collaborator and help in the reintegration policy of the US and the reconciliation efforts of President Karzai. Islamabad’s interests are best served if it widens its engagement and interests with other power centers in Afghanistan and not confine it to only Taliban as was the case in the past. Taliban, too, have to grasp the reality that even in the event of their military victory, a war torn Afghanistan will not have peace or economic viability without support from the international community at least in the foreseeable future.

A subtle shift in the US policy is also discernable. Instead of blaming Pakistan it has started appreciating its contribution in the fight against insurgency. The best part is that several strands of relationship between them are gradually being made to match the set of expectations. If this trend continues, current relationship which could be characterised more of a coalition can be transformed into an alliance.

It seems Washington has played a discreet role in persuading India to recommence bilateral dialogue. This, however, does not imply that the US in any way would subordinate its vital strategic partnership with India to meet Pakistan’s concerns. To expect Washington to immerse in conflict resolution will not be compatible with its larger and more immediate objective of bringing stability to Afghanistan. It will nonetheless continue to encourage both India and Pakistan to engage bilaterally to find solutions to issues.

February 18, 2010

FM Qureshi On Why We Fight

Filed under: Defense — Tags: , , , , — admin @ 12:19 pm

Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi reminded us why we fight this bloody war. It is not for some American interest or western policy. It is for Pakistan’s interest. It is to secure our own future. To preserve our own nation and culture without being taken over by the foreign invaders who call themselves Taliban.

BRUSSELS: Pakistan’s arrest of an Afghan Taliban commander was not done under pressure from its US ally and shows the sincerity of its fight against terrorism, the foreign minister said on Thursday.

“We have done it because it is in our interests to do so,” Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi told Reuters on the sidelines of a security conference in Belgium.

“If you think that Pakistan is deploying over 100,000 troops on the western border under pressure, if you think we are conducting military operations in Pakistan under pressure, that’s the wrong impression,” he said at the EastWest Institute.

“We do not want to see the Talibanisation of Pakistan,” he said. “This is service in a common cause.”

His comments were the first by a senior Pakistani official about the arrest of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, beyond terse statements confirming the event.

Baradar, the most senior Taliban commander ever arrested in Pakistan, was picked up in the southern city of Karachi this month in a raid by Pakistani and US agents.

He was captured as US forces spearheaded one of Nato’s biggest offensives against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Qureshi dismissed a suggestion that the detention showed it had more clout and contacts with militant groups operating on Pakistani soil than it publicly maintains.

“It (the arrest) is a reflection of Pakistan’s seriousness in dealing with terrorism and terrorists,” Qureshi said.

“The world should have been appreciative that a person known to be involved in activities in Afghanistan where there are soldiers from Nato and ISAF was arrested. This is positive.”

Qureshi dismissed the notion that Baradar’s arrest showed that Pakistan could, if it chose, move more forcefully against Pakistani militant groups that see Indian as their main enemy.

He also denied that it was a ploy to ease US pressure on Islamabad for increased help in stabilising Afghanistan.

Some analysts said the Pakistani security establishment realised it must demonstrate cooperation with the United States to stake its claim to a role in any Afghan peace process.

“Can’t the sceptics see the price we have paid for terrorism? The lives lost? The huge economic cost?” he said.

“You can always say the glass is half empty or half full but we feel public opinion has moved against extremism convincingly.”

“We have lost more than anyone else in this fight.”

February 17, 2010

U.S., Pakistan reap benefits of cooperation against Taliban

Filed under: Taliban — Tags: , , , , , — admin @ 1:02 pm

Mullah Abdul Baradar is the most senior member of the Afghan Taliban captured in the eight-year war against the movement.

The joint raid conducted by U.S. and Pakistani special forces suggests a change in tactics by Pakistan’s ISI military intelligence service. For years ISI was reluctant to target the Taliban, a movement initially cultivated by Pakistan to counter Indian influence in Afghanistan.

For more, Daljit Dhaliwal interviews Dr. Hassan Abbas, a former Pakistani government official who is now with the Asia Society and the Quaid-i-Azam Chair Professor at Columbia University’s South Asian Institute.

January 25, 2010

Conspiracy theorist Ahmed Quraishi resurfaces with new hypocrisy

Master Conspiracy theorist Ahmed Quraishi is back – one had not heard from him in a few months making one wonder if he had changed his principal occupation. After all, he has tried in the past to be an employee of Voice of America (VOA) and has also been a member of the American Political Consultants Association –both facts reported with full references by www.pakistanmediawatch.com

In his latest piece Ahmed Quraishi once again attempts to pit Pakistan against the United States, intentionally or inadvertently benefiting Pakistan’s real nemesis – India. He does so by bundling together unconnected stuff into an emotional argument without any citation of sources or proper facts.

Quraishi claims for the umpteenth time that there is a huge American conspiracy against Pakistan. Unlike what Quraishi and others like him are attempting to spin US Defense Secretary Robert Gates never “admitted” in any interview that Blackwater was operating in Pakistan. In reply to a question on whether private US security contractors were working in Pakistan all that Secretary Gates said was that security contractors were indeed operating in Pakistan and the US government would ensure that they abide by Pakistan’s laws.

What Ahmed Quraishi fails to mention is that these contractors – especially DynCorp – have been in Pakistan since Musharraf’s time. Musharraf, in case anyone forgets, was the object of admiration of people like Ahmed Quraishi who have been yearning for a military takeover of the kind that brought Musharraf to power in 1999.

As an all powerful, patriotism defining general, Musharraf is a ‘favorite’ of anti-democrats like Ahmed Quraishi and so Quraishi forgives or ignores all of Musharraf’s actions, focusing exclusively in creating hatred against elected Pakistani leaders and the United States. During Musharraf’s regime Ahmed Quraishi used to accuse everyone – lawyers, media, civil society – of being American agents while clarifying that Musharraf was pursuing an ‘independent foreign policy.’ What he – and others like him – never discussed then was that DynCorp International, a United States-based private military contractor (PMC) and aircraft maintenance company, was allowed by the Musharraf government to enter and work in Pakistan.

What the current civilian government is doing by allowing DynCorp to stay in Pakistan is only a continuation of international agreements undertaken under Musharraf. It is diffuclt to understand how even after allowing DynCorp to operate in Pakistan Musharraf followed an ‘independent foreign policy’ in Ahmed Quraishi’s eyes but by allowing DynCorp to stay the civilian government is kowtowing to Americans?

Mr Quraishi must explain this inherent contradiction in his argument – that is if there is any argument at all. Or is his real problem with elected, civilian rule whereas a dictatorship ruling with the help of secret services is the ideal of the anti-democrats.

Most of Quraishi’s article is a rant against the American media and think tank world for their supposedly anti-Pakistan views and lack of understanding of Pakistan’s security concerns. However, both the American media and the policy world are an assorted group and you find diverse views on every topic, not just US-Pakistan relations. There are pro-Pakistan voices in the U.S. too, which Pakistanis should cultivate rather than drive all Americans away and create more enemies for our country.

Also if Ahmed Quraishi can talk about Pakistan’s security and foreign interests from ‘a Pakistani angle’ why should the American media not discuss US foreign policy issues from an American angle? Why deny to others what you arrogate to yourself?

As always while attacking the American media and think tank world Ahmed Quraishi fails to mention that he had applied for a job with Voice of America and that he is a member of the American Association of Political Consultants.

The ‘senior Pakistani journalist’ Talat Hussain whom Ahmed Quraishi cites as someone ‘who is in the know of things’ is the same person who during Secretary Clinton’s visit to Pakistan in October 2009 made a “$640 million mistake” by wrongly citing how much aid U.S. gives to Kyrgyzstan. Also, Talat Hussain once worked for CNN and Time Magazine while his brother Riffat Hussain has worked in US think tanks but that does not disqualify them from being super-patriots while Talat Hussain (as quoted by Ahmed Quraishi) pokes fun at all those Pakistani journalists and civil society leaders who oppose the Taliban and seek good relations with the U.S.

What hypocrisy !!!

January 23, 2010

Pakistan to Receive Drone Technology From USA

Shadow Drone UAV

Chinese news Xinhua is reporting that USA is giving drone technology to Pakistan:

The United States will supply drone aircraft to Pakistan which will significantly enhance the country’s surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, visiting U. S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday. Talking to reporters in Islamabad, Gates said that 12 RQ-7 Shadow unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) will be part of one billion dollar allocation for Pakistan from its Coalition Support Fund.

He said weapons and equipment will also be provided to Pakistan for the war against terrorism.

In addition, the American Defense Secretary has said that the US will soon make a payment of $500 Million to support Pakistan’s military:

Gates also said the U.S. will soon make a payment of 500 million dollars from the Coalition Support Fund to reimburse Pakistan for its expenses in the war on terror.

This drone technology is far advanced of what Pakistan currently has and will allow for much improved intelligence gathering and reconnaissance against TTP militants, India, and any other aggressors who think that they can encroach on Pakistan’s territory.

President Zardari has been calling on the Americans to transfer drone technology to Pakistan for some time. While this is not the armed drone that is used to launch missiles against militants, it is a great step forward and shows that the Americans are working with us to defend our national security. Surely if we continue to show our military excellence – our military that the Americans are praising as an important partner.

Building this partnership will have two important results. First, it will strengthen our military access to advanced technologies like drones. Second, it will send a clear message to belligerents like Deepak Kapoor.

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates with Army Chief Gen. Kayani

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates with Army Chief Gen. Kayani

January 22, 2010

USA Secretary of Defense Pledges Faithfulness to Pakistan

USA Secretary of Defense Robert Gates

USA Secretary of Defense Robert Gates

USA Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has pledged faithfulness to a partnership with Pakistan in comments to military officers today. The following report is from Dawn newspaper:

The United States has no designs on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons or ”a single inch of Pakistani soil,” US Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Pakistani military officers Friday, adding that fighting terrorists along the Afghan border is in Pakistan’s interest as well as Washington’s.”We have enemies in common along the border, but we also have many other interests in common,” Gates said, and the Pakistani military has choices to make about its resources and focus just as the US armed forces have done.

Addressing the legacy of mistrust and what he called an ”organized propaganda campaign” to misrepresent US intentions, Gates used carefully calibrated phrasing to tick off some of the allegations against the United States in wide circulation in Pakistan.

”I fully understand why some of you may be skeptical about the US commitment to Pakistan,” Gates told officers at Pakistan’s National Defense University.

Many in his audience came of professional age in the 1990s, when the United States had cut off military ties to Pakistan and largely ignored the growth of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The United States wants Pakistan to take on Taliban militants who use its territory as a refuge, but Gates’ rhetoric on the subject during two days of talks in the Pakistani capital was notably mild.

He said he was deeply impressed with Pakistan’s military offensive against militants within its borders.

”The leadership will make the decisions” about when or whether they are going to do something. ”That’s just fine with me,” Gates said during an interview with Pakistani and US journalists.

Asked whether the US was winning in the long battle against al Qaeda terrorism, Gates said the United States has made progress but hasn’t won yet. He said al Qaeda and what he calls a syndicate of affiliated groups are less capable of large-scale, coordinated attacks than they once were and in many cases their leadership has been killed or captured.

The Obama administration has taken a softer tone with Pakistan in recent months, praising the country’s unprecedented assault on militants inside its borders and dropping public appeals for Pakistan to focus on the militants along its western border.

In his speech to military officers, Gates said the US seeks no military bases in the country and has no desire to control Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.

”The United States does not covet a single inch of Pakistani soil,” Gates said.

In meetings Thursday with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, the country’s army chief and others, Gates called the antiterror operations a success so far, ”and he acknowledged to all of them that we realize that has come with a great deal of sacrifice for the military,” Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said following the sessions.

”We are not trying to prescribe a timeline by which they must do things,” Morrell said.

The Pakistani army said Thursday it cannot expand its offensive against militants for at least six months, after time to consolidate gains made against militants who primarily target Pakistan. Remarks from the Army’s chief spokesman did not rule out the offensive that would more directly benefit the United States.

”We are not talking years,” Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas told reporters traveling with Gates. ”Six months to a year” would be needed before Pakistan could consolidate the gains it has made against militants in other parts of the country and then consider going farther, he said.

January 21, 2010

Is Pakistan an Elite Nation?

There is no secret that India is meddling and trying to destabilize Pakistan. This has been well documented. It is also no secret that India is trying to isolate Pakistan by driving a wedge between us and global powers like the USA and UK. The Daily Times published an editorial earlier this week that discusses the US’s India tilt, but they have taken the wrong lesson from events and are playing into the hands of India by acting indirectly as Indian ‘Trojan Horses.’

The editors of The Daily Times conclude that the US attitude is not helpful. But they are looking at the relationship incorrectly. If the US attitude is not helpful to Pakistan, it is because the US does not see helping Pakistan as being in their interest. The US does not have a helpful attitude towards India because of some secret love affair. Rather, they believe that India is a rising power and that it is in their interest to make a close relationship between the two nations.

It perceives India to be an emerging power and is strongly biased towards developing a strong strategic relationship with it. The US has pledged special concessions to India for transfer of nuclear technology, ostensibly for peaceful purposes, but this has raised legitimate concerns in various quarters about the space this allows for enhanced weapons production.

This is exactly the point. The US is trying to build a strong relationship with India because “it perceives India to be an emerging power.” I was reminded of the above paragraph this morning when I read Syed Talat Hussain’s column in today’s Daily Times. Mr. Hussain takes the correct lesson from dealing with the US – when dealing with a world superpower, we must go to them with heads held up as equals, not having an inferiority complex.

Much of this bilateral mess would not have been created had we been clear and forthright in dealing with Washington and if we had worked out the minutest detail of every part of our support to the US, not just in monetary terms but also procedurally, and then inked a proper, honest and honourable agreement and made it public. Instead, we chose the wrong path and, regrettably, continued on it even after the administration changed in Washington. Even today we see piecemeal agreements with the US as sufficient grounds for cooperation and building a mutually beneficial relationship. And when it comes to our defence arrangement with Washington, even a self-contained document is lacking that could offer a broad insight into this important realm.

There are some who say that Pakistan should not have any dealing with the USA and should isolate ourselves from the rest of the world. This is pure rubbish. Pakistan belongs in the community of elite nations. We are the 6th most populous nation in the world, our GDP is in the top 26% of the world’s nations, and we are one of only nine nations in the world that is a nuclear power. So why is it that some individuals continue to say that we should not be having mutually beneficial relationships with the other world powers?

USA is not going to be our rich uncle Sam. But it will be our partner in the business of national and economic security if we will only learn to have the pride to act as an equal. The US is able to negotiate its deals and make its relationships because it is a world power. By rights, Pakistan is also a world power (this is explained in the previous paragraph). Just as US, Russia, China, and yes even India have relationships that benefit each other, so Pakistan should be part of this group also.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress