Bharat Rakshak

A designation of the ISI as a formal state sponsor of terrorism might also be in order. No doubt the Pakistani military would react angrily to such steps, but many civilians in Pakistan​—​including President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani​—​who chafe under heavy-handed military dominance might quietly welcome them.

The transcript of US secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s Q&A following the Kumpuris Distinguished Lecture Series at Arkansas on Friday was released by state department in Washington only on Monday after careful vetting, and it becomes an authoritative policy position on the US-Pakistan ties.

It comes just in time for Delhi to assimilate a few stunning geopolitical realities before tuning into Afghan president Hamid Karzai’s ORF Memorial Lecture at the Indian capital on Wednesday.

Unsurprisingly, Clinton strove to bury the war cries and instead carry forward the US’s great reconciliation with Pakistan. She put Pakistan back on its high pedestal as not only the US’ close partner in the war on terror, but as “critical” for the “ongoing stability and peace in the region.” Clinton paid fulsome praise to Pakistan for the high sacrifices it is making in the war on terror — more than the US’s own, in fact.
Shockingly, Clinton made it a point to take note that Pakistan lives in a “very difficult security enviornment”, characterised amongst other things by its “deep concerns about India”, which of course places Washington in a “challenging position” – defined, presumably, by the US’ own regional concerns and strategies as well as its so-called “indispensable partnership” with India.

Equally intriguing was Clinton’s admission that US is as much responsible for the Haqqani network’s existence today as Pakistan could be. She sensitises the American opinion by even produced a YouTube to underscore the legitimacy of the Pakistani allegation that the US did encourage it to hobnob with the Haqqanis, who were once America’s blue-eyed boys. She clarified, inter alia, that she is not condoning still the “serious, grievous, strategic error” by Pakistan in supporting the Haqqanis, who are like a “wild animal in the backyard.”

Interestingly, Clinton doesn’t spell out what precisely the US now expects Pakistan to do vis-a-vis Haqqanis — except to say Islamabad should “prevent any attacks against us [US troops] emanating from Pakistan.” Does she want Pakistan to smash up the Haqqanis and erase them out of the AfPak region? She doesn’t say so. Does she say US won’t have any truck with Haqqanis? She doesn’t say so. In fact, by acknowledging that Haqqanis were once US’s valued interlocutor, she implied that they can as well be so again in future. Put plainly, US wants Pakistan to domesticate the “wild animal”.

The hard reality is that the US has got Haji Malik Khan, Sirajuddin Haqqani’s uncle and the ‘brain’ of the Haqqani network in its custody for almost a week by now, and there is no need to second guess that the CIA interrogators and state department’s diplomats have already begun “engaging” the Haqqanis. Clinton’s words of gratitude, hailing Pakistan as a factor of regional security and stability, is timely.
Time for Delhi to ponder what is there in all this for India’s interests? Maybe, Karzai will explain the art of the possible. Or, maybe, Marc Grossman, US’s special representative, who is visiting the Indian capital this week, will comfort our policymakers and and advice them to let bygones be bygones (such as those murderous attacks on the Indian mission in Kabul) and gently accept the fait accompli in the larger interests of the US-India “indispensable partnership” of the 21st century.
The moment of truth has arrived in the 10-year old US invasion of Afghanistan, which Delhi euphorically welcomed in October 2001. The then PM A.B. Vajpayee, in fact, said that it was going to be the best Diwali he ever had in his life — since India’s “natural ally” was taking up habitation in the region.

arun wrote:Trusting the US blindly is even more of a lost cause .

Altair wrote:

jrjrao wrote: Whither or wither Pakistan?
To think there is an Indian solution, as some do in the Obama administration, is to simply guarantee a regional war-- and U.S. military involvement beyond 2014.

Who are these "some" in Obama Administration? As far as I have understood US, they always prefer the option which has a military involvement. And more often than not they exercise military option.

arun wrote:The UK’s Telegraph reports that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan through its Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has claimed victory over the US after American officials backed away from accusing the ISI / ISID of supporting the Islamic Terrorist Haqqani network:

Pakistan claims victory over US Haqqani spat

Rangudu wrote:MKB is a lost cause.

The economy has been in a state of meltdown for months because of the violence, a lack of investment, and an energy crisis, while inflation is at an all-time high. Now there is large-scale capital flight as wealthy Pakistanis relocate outside the country.

Although Pakistan has received $20.5bn (£12.8bn) from the US in aid since 2001, about 70% of that has gone to the military. Spending on education and health has declined dramatically. Since it came into power in 2008, the Pakistan People's Party government has failed to offer good governance and is mired in corruption scandals.

Ethnic unrest has increased immeasurably with a separatist insurgency in Balochistan and the growth of the Pakistani Taliban, which has led to the state in effect losing control of between 10% and 15% of the country's territory.

Many Pakistanis now acknowledge that there has been a national failure of both the civilian and military elite to give the country leadership. The elite lacks all sense of responsibility towards the public, refuses to pay taxes or provide adequate services to the people and is viewed as corrupt.

[...]

Internal extremism

The military and political elite's use of Islamic extremists to pursue foreign policy goals and agendas for several decades in India and Afghanistan has now backfired and created an internal extremist movement - the Pakistani Taliban which has brutally targeted the armed forces and civilians.


Sectarian attacks against Pakistan's minorities have increased sharply There has been little change in this scenario and the military's thinking since the 1950s, although the Cold War has ended, globalisation has come and gone, and democratic movements are bursting out all over the Muslim world.

[...]

Pakistanis have begun to fear the worst - international isolation, internal anarchy, the danger of civil war, a possible coup by Islamic militants. All of these scenarios were implausible a few years ago but are now well in the realm of possibilities.

[...]

Pakistan is on the edge of a precipice and one faulty step - either by the Americans or the Pakistan army - could plunge an already beleaguered state into meltdown.

KLNMurthy wrote:

Rangudu wrote:MKB is a lost cause.

He should be officially designated as uncle Salya.

Carl wrote:^^^ Arun, of course! But to use every oblique diplomatic statement to undermine a certain angle of strategic thinking (Indo-US coordination) indicates an inflexible agenda here.

Added: Nevertheless, I do believe his "warnings" can be evaluated better by less prejudiced people, and so I keep posting his stuff here.

RCase wrote:Qadri negotiations and Shabaz Tasser kidnapping - This is too predictable even for a novice like me to figure out that Islamic law will be invoked to free Qadri.

I think the pakis live in an alternate reality. They must be perpetually staring into a mirror!

The (un)law minister for Punjab is working towards ensuring justice (sic).
Mr. Khar talks of a vibrant and peaceful nation of Pakistan in her UN address.
The GoP perpetrates terrorist acts and claims they are victims of terror.
They talk of people exercising their free will, but have their 'sensitivities' to protect by imposing their will on a people.
The majority of them are moderates, there is more extremism directed at the pakis by the YYY.

Rudradev wrote:

Carl wrote:Karzai also seems to have caved to the proponents of Track B... MKB points out that Karzai refrained from blaming TSP at Rabbani's funeral.

In angry chants at a hilltop cemetery, grieving followers blamed the Taliban for Afghanistan's woes, Pakistan for allegedly stirring up the conflict and their own government for trying to reconcile with insurgents. Shouts against the United States, which backs the government but is withdrawing troops, reflected frustration that a decade of Western support has failed to unite their divided land.

Rangudu wrote:Ramana

Maybe so, but MKB's near hero-worship of TSPA and Kiyanahi is quite pathetic. If what he's saying is true, Karzai would not be coming to India to sign a strategic accord with clear security dimensions - something he refused to do even in the heydays of 2002-04. Unkil's takleef at the hand of his own pet vipers is also a significant takleef to us.

Carl wrote:

Rudradev wrote:Karzai also seems to have caved to the proponents of Track B... MKB points out that Karzai refrained from blaming TSP at Rabbani's funeral.

For whatever its worth:
Mourners blame Pakistan at funeral for former Afghan president

In angry chants at a hilltop cemetery, grieving followers blamed the Taliban for Afghanistan's woes, Pakistan for allegedly stirring up the conflict and their own government for trying to reconcile with insurgents. Shouts against the United States, which backs the government but is withdrawing troops, reflected frustration that a decade of Western support has failed to unite their divided land.

jrjrao wrote:Peter Hartcher starts off right, but then reaches a conclusion similar to Borchgrave:
Tolerance runs out in Pakistan's lethal game

Prem wrote:To be True to the tribal tradition, have Haqqanis made any attempt to finish Quetta Shoora to remove any chance of future opposition to them in this Pushtun civil war? There cant be 2 swords in one sheath.

ramana wrote:Prem Hackany are eliminating people who inform US

Kursan squad

With Afghanistan-based militants greatly emboldened and violence on the rise, the U.S. says it has had enough. It has called Pakistan up over its Haqqani policy—a desperate mixture of self-preservation, self-delusion, and self-defeat—and wants the Haqqanis eliminated. Pakistan finds itself in a familiar pickle. The Haqqani heir, Sirajuddin, has recently said his network has relocated to Afghanistan, but at the same time he has also dared the U.S. to attack North Waziristan and face defeat. Pakistan is not spoiled for options. Taking on the Haqqanis is stirring the hornets’ nest and unleashing forces the Army and Islamabad—already challenged by the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, and any number of terrorist spinoffs—are ill equipped to manage.
For the Pakistan military, the Haqqani network is not a high-priority adversary. The forces are stretched thin and cash strapped, and they lack the capacity and hardware for counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations. In fact, U.S. and ISAF forces, which do not share these problems, have themselves failed to militarily tackle the Haqqani network in Afghanistan. Inevitable blowback aside, opening a full-scale front in North Waziristan also threatens Army supply routes in South Waziristan, an agency the Army has been holding since 2009.
Adm. Mike Mullen says he and Gen. Ashfaq Kayani had agreed on a game plan for the Haqqanis and their safe havens in North Waziristan, but that Raymond Davis and Abbottabad threw things off. It is more complicated than that. Officials in Rawalpindi have in the recent past described Jalaluddin Haqqani as an “elder statesman,” who has helped Pakistan push back the Taliban at crunch time and whose men have never turned their guns on Pakistan itself. Pakistan maintains communication links with the Haqqanis, who are important players in the AfPak endgame. Pakistan is not alone in this assessment of the Haqqanis; the intelligence agencies of other countries also maintain links with them. In fact, the Army says it facilitated contacts between the U.S. and the Haqqanis just last year. As foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar pointedly reminded the world recently, Jalaluddin had been close to the Americans during the Afghan jihad

Afghan President Hamid Karzai, in a thinly veiled attack on Pakistan, has said a "double game" is being played in the fight against militants.

In a televised speech, Mr Karzai said Islamabad had not co-operated on security issues in Afghanistan "which is disappointing for us".

He said he would convene a loya jirga (Afghan assembly) following the killing of peace envoy Burhanuddin Rabbani.

Afghan investigators say Mr Rabbani's killer was a Pakistani.

Pakistan's brain, and ours.

It looks as though the relationship between the U.S.A. and Pakistan is on its last legs.

Color me happy. Cutting the Pakis loose would save us a ton of money, to start with. We've given them more than twenty billion dollars just in military aid since 2001, according to the Congressional Research Service. Throw in development assistance, refugee relief, food and health aid, and debt forgiveness, you can easily double that. And all that while Osama bin Laden was living in a nice little house in Abbotabad, doing his Target store shopping with Pakistani military officers.

The thing about dealing with foreign countries is, we tend to think that our preoccupations are also theirs. This isn't the case. You know those drawings you get in books about brain science, where the part of the brain concerned with body sensations is shown as a little man, all his parts scaled in proportion to how much brain matter they demand? So his tongue is enormous but his feet are tiny — you must have seen that thing.

The mentality of a nation works much the same way. We think of Pakistan in terms of Afghanistan, terror, Islam, and so on. When Pakistanis think about the outside world, you know what they think about? INDIA.

Since the British decamped in 1947, India and Pakistan have fought four wars, the most recent one just twelve years ago. India dominates Pakistani thinking. Among educated Pakistanis, that goes with an inferiority complex vis-a-vis India — the belief that India is the big sophisticated power and Pakistan the country cousin. Not that exactly, but the belief that other countries think that.

Here's a guy who knows a thing or two about Pakistan: Pervez Musharraf, who was actually President of that country until three years ago, and a four-star general to boot. He gave an interview to the London Daily Telegraph last week in which he said the following, quote: "The United States doesn't understand the sensitivities of Pakistan — that the United States is in league with India, that Indians are allowed to do whatever they are doing in Afghanistan." End quote.

Sure, Musharraf has an agenda. He's currently exiled in London as part of a complicated power play by his political enemies. Still, you see the India obsession shining through there. To us, Afghanistan is a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalist terror. To Pakistan, it's a pawn in the power game with India.

That's some of what's going on with the September 12 bombing of our embassy in Kabul. The bombing was carried out by the Haqqani group, a militant outfit allied with the Taliban. Maulvi Haqqani, the group's chief, had a cabinet post in the Taliban government before 2001.

Now here's Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, telling the United States Senate that the Haqqani's are, quote, a "veritable arm" of the Pakistan intelligence service.

So here's what they're saying to each other in Pakistan Intelligence HQ, imaginary quote: "Ah, screw the Americans. They'll keep the stuff coming because they're afraid if they don't, we might hand off a nuke to someone, or get into bed with China. We can do what we like, they'll keep paying — don't worry about it. Meanwhile, these scumbags in Kabul, they're just fronting for India. Let's teach the buggers a lesson …"

In an election season here, with huge problems of debt and spending, candidates better get ready to be asked what there is to show for ten years' chasing Islamists around back-country Afghanistan, and tens of billions of dollars in aid to Pakistan. If this is a new version of the Great Game, what are the stakes? A lot of us out here in voter land would like to see some quid pro quo out of the Pakistanis: say, for the next billion in military aid, how about Maulvi Haqqani's head in a bag?

And then maybe some strategic rethinking. Start with this thought: If we really do need allies in that neck of the woods, what would be wrong with India?


http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/ ... 30.html#05

Dipanker wrote:Karzai 'accuses Pakistan of double game' over militants

Afghan President Hamid Karzai, in a thinly veiled attack on Pakistan, has said a "double game" is being played in the fight against militants.

In a televised speech, Mr Karzai said Islamabad had not co-operated on security issues in Afghanistan "which is disappointing for us".

He said he would convene a loya jirga (Afghan assembly) following the killing of peace envoy Burhanuddin Rabbani.

Afghan investigators say Mr Rabbani's killer was a Pakistani.

Mr Rabbani had been tasked with negotiating with the Taliban, but was killed by a suicide bomber claiming to be a peace envoy from the insurgents.

After the killing on 20 September, Mr Karzai said Kabul would no longer hold peace talks with the Taliban but would instead focus on dialogue with Pakistan.

shiv wrote:The shortest "natural route" from India to Afghanistan is due west from Srinagar. Peshawar lies almost exactly west of Srinagar at a distance of 300 km. The Afghan border is about 350 km from Srinagar and th eroute does not have to cross mountains. It does however go through PoK south of Muzzafarabad,, then north of Abbottabad heading through NWFP up to Peshawar

Basically an India-Afghanistan route is less of Pakistan and more of Taliban land. If the Durand line is dissolved and a Paktun state established theer could be a direct link from India to Afghnaistan.

What are your plans for Afghanistan's future and peace negotiations?

In every message from the Islamic Emirate and especially in the latest message by Ameerul Momeenin [Mullah Omar], this has been very extensively covered, you should not expect us to say anything other than what Ameerul Momeenin has said.

What are your relations with Mullah Omar?

Ameerul Momeenin Mullah Omar is our leader and we follow him, we have responsibility for certain areas within the Islamic Emirate's administration and accordingly follow instructions. In every military operation, the Emirate gives us a plan, guide and financial support. We conduct it thoroughly. There is no question of a separate party or group.

What every mujahideen needs, like food and costs, has been provided for by the leadership of the Emirate. So the media should not say whatever our enemy is saying so they can divide us.

For the past 10 years, the enemy has been trying to divide us or at least make sure people are concerned and our holy struggle gets a bad name; sometimes they call us ISI and sometimes they are calling us a separate group; they are doing this to hide their defeat and confuse ordinary people.

Afghans don't have good memories of [political] parties, so I advise people not to listen to the enemy at this crucial stage of jihad; they should continue with their support of the Islamic Emirate.

Our advice for the people and government of Pakistan is that they should carefully note the American double standard and irreconcilable policy. They should give precedence to their national and Islamic interests. They should take [it as a given] that the Americans will never be satisfied until they loot them completely.

Siraj Haqqani's interview with BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-15148488