Page 23 of 36 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast
Results 441 to 460 of 708

Thread: The US & others working with Pakistan

  1. #441
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    There is an interesting story in Foreign Policy today about the Ijaz memo.

    http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...or_offers_to_r

    The story states that after initially stating he had not received such a memo, Mr. Mullen has now recalled that he did get the memo. He didn't judge that it was of any importance though so he says he didn't pass it on.

    The chairman of the JCS gets a memo from a businessman who was apparently well connected, purporting to speak for the civilian part of the Pakistan gov, offering to jettison part of the ISI and he didn't pass it on.

    I am a mere flyover person and a forever civilian to boot, but I do not believe Mr. Mullen is being forthright.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  2. #442
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    861

    Default

    It is not yet clear who was behind the memo and what they hoped to accomplish; did the Zardari regime really fear a coup at a time when the army was on the backfoot and faced real public humiliation in Pakistan in May 2011? And if they were, why pick this circuitous route to look for American help? And how would a regime that is unable to control the army and fears a coup, be able to turn around and completely defang the same army with US help a few days later? Are they that stupid? Or is there more to the story?

  3. #443
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Co-operative Merchandising or Conspiracy ?

    From Ben Wittes (Lawfare), Check Out Where CIA Gear Is Manufactured!



    Regards

    Mike

  4. #444
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    861

    Default

    That shouldnt be too surrprising. Pakistan is a major textile exporter and lots of such apparel comes from Pakistan...and we are also a "major non-NATO ally"

  5. #445
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Nope, Agreed ...

    it's not surprising. But, it is ironic.

    Regards

    Mike

  6. #446
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Omar:

    I read that the Ijaz memo is a very big thing in Pakistan. How big is it? Is it something that will have a big effect on things or is it just something that will pass and be little remembered in a year?
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  7. #447
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    861

    Default

    It is a very very big deal right now. The pro-army media machine is in overdrive, asking for Haqqani's head and hinting that even Zardari may have to go. Pro-Zardari journos have sent emails saying they think this may all be some sort of convoluted plot by the ISI to get rid of Zardari. This being Pakistan, you can never tell.

    If the memo did come from Pakistan, then Zardari is not too smart, but if Haqqani passed it on, then neither is Haqqani. Since Haqqani sahib is a certified high IQ survivor, I really have a hard time believing he would give such a poorly written and poorly organized concoction to a fixer like Mansoor Ijaz.
    The truth will probably never be known with certainty.

  8. #448
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    861

    Default

    btw, this is interesting reading: http://nadeemmalik.wordpress.com/201...-bbm-messages/
    http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrin...ID=78185&Cat=9
    http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/89...d-in-memogate/

    between the devil and the deep blue sea.
    One is tempted to think "serves all parties right".

  9. #449
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    861

    Default

    Tangentially related, my op-ed in "The Hindu": http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article2644338.ece

  10. #450
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    123

    Default

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-15901363

    Nato helicopters 'kill Pakistan checkpoint soldiers'

    Pakistani officials have accused Nato helicopters of firing on a military checkpoint near Pakistan's Afghan border, killing 26 soldiers.

  11. #451
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,366

    Default Supply route suspended

    Blueblood,

    Thanks for the alert, as the BBC reports it raises the logistic issue again:
    Within hours of the alleged attack it was reported Pakistan had closed the border crossing for supplies bound for Nato forces in Afghanistan - a move which has been used in the past as a protest.
    The supply routes to Afghanistan thread is here:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=6386
    davidbfpo

  12. #452
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    123

    Default

    You're welcome David, but what happened to the Northern Distribution Network? It was supposed to carry out 80% of traffic from mid 2011.

    Any conformation by NATO on this assault?

  13. #453
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,366

    Default Two points

    Blueblood,

    You asked:
    what happened to the Northern Distribution Network?
    There are some comments on the NDN on the other thread; the use of Pakistani facilities remains essential.

    As for the border post attack no updates spotted yet. ISAF has issued a holding statement:http://www.isaf.nato.int/article/isa...an-border.html
    davidbfpo

  14. #454
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,366

    Default Pakistan reviews co-operation with ISAF plus

    Slowly comments are being made, although the ISAF investigation has yet to report (yes, I know it takes time) and this is the logistic issue:
    About 49 per cent of Nato supplies reach Afghanistan through Pakistan.
    Pakistani reaction includes:
    asked the US to vacate the Shamsi air base, where the CIA is believed to base predator drones, within 15 days.

    The Government will revisit and undertake a complete review of all programmes, activities and cooperative arrangements with US/Nato/Isaf, including diplomatic, political, military and intelligence
    Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-soldiers.html
    davidbfpo

  15. #455
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,366

    Default Stop, Start, Review; oh we've done that already?

    In the past I have remarked that Pakistani policy has been a series of 'stop, start' moves and this incident has added a 'review'. One begins to wonder what is going on when you read this (my emphasis):
    The committee also said the United States would be asked to vacate, within 15 days, the Shamsi air base, which the US has used to launch drones.

    However, our correspondent notes that Pakistan has made a similar demand before and the base may already be empty.
    Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-15905777

    Note a few days ago the British Home Secretary was in Pakistan saying:
    ..the UK and Pakistan share a "powerful interest" in fighting extremism and terrorism....the ties between the countries "feel stronger than ever" after meeting Pakistan's Interior Minister Rehman Malik during a visit to the country.

    "Pakistan is on the front line and you have made tremendous sacrifices," Mrs May said.
    Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15868852

    I would contend that this episode is a good illustration that Pakistani politics, notably popular antipathy to the US, quickly overwhelms such polite, diplomatic sound bites and international co-operation is oh so fragile. This last UK ministerial visit is I readily admit peripheral to Pakistani national security policy; I doubt if ISI and the Army met her.

    We are still waiting for the ISAF investigation to report before a judgement can be made.
    davidbfpo

  16. #456
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default Interesting article in the current Foreign Affairs...

    ... calls for a much less cooperative policy toward Pakistan. Nothing really revolutionary, but interesting because it appears in what is effectively the publication of record for the US foreign policy establishment. It will be interesting to see what response, if any, emerges.

    The article is worth a read; it requires registration but not payment.

    http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...gh-to-pakistan

    Key excerpts:

    The only way the United States can actually get what it wants out of Pakistan is to make credible threats to retaliate if Pakistan does not comply with U.S. demands and offer rewards only in return for cooperative actions taken. U.S. officials should tell their Pakistani counterparts in no uncertain terms that they must start playing ball or face malign neglect at best and, if necessary, active isolation. Malign neglect would mean ending all U.S. assistance, military and civilian; severing intelligence cooperation; continuing and possibly escalating U.S. drone strikes; initiating cross-border special operations raids; and strengthening U.S. ties with India. Active isolation would include, in addition, declaring Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism, imposing sanctions, and pressuring China and Saudi Arabia to cut off their support, as well.
    Second, the United States must show that it can neutralize one of Pakistan's trump cards: its role in the war in Afghanistan. Washington must therefore develop a strategy for Afghanistan that works without Pakistan's help. That means a plan that does not require transporting personnel or materiel through Pakistan. Nearly 60 percent of the NATO supplies sent into Afghanistan are already routed through the north, through Russia and Central Asia. The U.S. military is hoping to increase that number to 75 percent. Without Pakistan, therefore, the coalition could still support a substantial force in Afghanistan, but not one as big as the current one of 131,000 troops. The basic objective of that force would necessarily be counterterrorism, not counterinsurgency. Counterterrorism is less personnel- and resource-intensive because it aims only to prevent the country from becoming a haven for Islamist extremists, not to transform it into a well-functioning democracy. Given the Obama administration's current plans to withdraw 24,000 U.S. troops by the summer of 2012, with many more to follow, such a strategy is already inescapable.
    I have some doubts on some of this... for one thing, I'm not sure that "pressuring China and Saudi Arabia to cut off their support" would accomplish much, as these countries are not notoriously amenable to US direction. I also suspect that relying completely on transit of supplies through Russia and Central Asia may pose complications down the line: there will be a quid pro quo somewhere. Still, worthy of a look if only for what it might indicate in terms of shifting mainstream opinion.
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    H.L. Mencken

  17. #457
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    861

    Default Pakistan's new defence secretary...

    Newly appointed defence secretary Naeem Lodhi wrote two articles that may shed light on what the deep state is thinking: http://pakpotpourri2.wordpress.com/?...m+khalid+lodhi

    I know many people will find these articles unexceptional, but keep in mind the rather deep connections between all the various categories of taliban and militants and you can see where the problem may lie...

    btw, to speak of LET as a product of "poor governance" is rather interesting. I had not seen that coming.

  18. #458
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    861

    Default

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/ma...pagewanted=all

    It never enters Keller's head to ask if GHQ's vision of "Pakistani interests" is atually IN Pakistan's interest. And even if it is, if American interests (for whatever reason) run counter to it, then how will more pleasant playdates with pakistani generals change that equation?
    He IS right about American being clueless and confused a lot of the time (which may be par for the course for distant superpowers and a good reason not to get involved in any faraway bull#### if you can help it). But what IS America's interest per Keller bahadur? and how would HE achieve that interest? Instead of spending 10 pages describing how everybody he happened to meet in Pakistan didnt like American policy, he might want to first tell us what he thinks the policy IS and why it is the wrong policy?
    The whole "obsession with India" shtick is swallowed whole in this article as if it makes perfect sense. It does not make sense. It is what causes otherwise "moderate" (meaning whisky drinking) generals to keep protecting jihadi militias in pakistan and keep trying to bring down liberal politicians. It is the narrative that has kept an otherwise promising nation hostage for 65 years.. Keller never questions the narrative at all. And he never gives a moment's thought to the possibility that all those nice "westernized" dudes having eggs benedict with him may occasionally be telling him lies or at least spinning things like crazy...
    it is possible that Kiyani sahib and some other generals also know that the old jihadi policy is suicidal, but they cannot seem to change it or change the propaganda narrative coming out of their own media managers (or their own defence secretary, see above)....
    And in the interest of fairness, I would add that it is also possible that I have no idea what is going on in secret. I don't. But neither does Keller. On the surface, his case looks full of holes to me.

  19. #459
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    861

    Default

    btw, here is leftist Eqbal Ahmed 13 years ago (Keller might have benefited from reading him): http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1998/392/foc12.htm

  20. #460
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Quote of the Week!

    "He IS right about American being clueless and confused a lot of the time (which may be par for the course for distant superpowers and a good reason not to get involved in any faraway bull#### if you can help it)."
    Superb!

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 39
    Last Post: 03-21-2014, 01:56 PM
  2. NATO's Afghanistan Challenge
    By Ray in forum OEF - Afghanistan
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 05-13-2011, 04:11 AM
  3. Step 1: Decentralize Afghanistan
    By IntelTrooper in forum OEF - Afghanistan
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 07-25-2009, 12:57 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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