Chairman of the US Senate Intelligence Committee Dianne Feinstein has written to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that on the basis of the testimony given by the outgoing chairman of the joint chiefs of staff committee Mike Mullen, the Haqqani group "meets the standards for designation" as a terrorist organization. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has agreed with Mullen's testimony.
In such a scenario, logically, the US would have to consider at some stage declaring Pakistan as a state sponsoring terrorism, putting at risk the entire future of the "war on terror".
There is no future of "war on terror" anyway if it's not against TSPA.
TSPA is just playing with semantics when it says that Haqqanis are doing terrorism when it's well known that for every terror attack they are getting phone instructions from ISI in real time just as it was during 26/11 and Kandahar.
I guess Unkil should start playing with semantics and a carrot and stick policy also in following order:
(a) Declare Haqqanis as a terrorist organization : Most probably nothing will change
(b) Declare ISI "S" wing as a terrorist org as anyway most people in that are retired TSPA/TSPN officers and not serving.
With that give the carrot, that rest of ISI has been really helpful in war on terror but a rotten wing is a terror org. (This may have some effect)
(c) Declare ISI as a whole as a Terror org saying that TSPA is helpful in terror fight but whole of ISI is rotten.
Give carrots to TSPA, but tighten on ISI. (This may have little bigger effect, but still not game changing).
(d) Declare TSPA as a terrorist org and say that TSPA is terrorizing not only Afghans but also pakistanis, so it needs disbanding.
This may also work more, but still it may not be the solution.
Bottomline is, instead of declaring the whole of TSP as a terror org, pick and choose orgs within TSP like Chinese food, and play with semantics, just like TSPA does, to weaken its hold on terror central.