Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 03 Jan 2011 06:01

ramana wrote:There are two streams of Pashtun resistance to US forces: nationalist and Islamist. Think of the resistance as rope with different color strands. The nationalist ones are those leading an insurgency. The Islamists are the ones are leading a terrorist foray. The latter are supported by TSP. The former get logistic support from TSP.

You left out Iranian backed ones operating in the west. But everything you said is fairly accurate.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Jan 2011 09:00

The Iranian backed ones are small strand in the rope. Yes they are important in their regions but not in the overall scheme.

deWalker · Post by **deWalker** » 03 Jan 2011 09:17

I finally saw this video in its entirety today. As has been stated multiple times on this forum, I am super impressed with Saleh's clarity of message.

While I don't necessarily agree with many of GOI's actions or strategies, I do support their unspoken strategy in Afghanistan. I do wish someone, even the opposition, would come out and verbalize what our key goals in Afghanistan are, with the same clarity that Saleh displays. A clear statement will go a long way in eliminating unnecessary pressure points.

msdogra wrote:
Former Afghan Security Director Amrullah Saleh gave the keynote address at the Jamestown Foundation annual conference on terrorism. In his remarks he advocated an aggressive stance against the Taliban and terrorists in Pakistan. He also talked about critics of his views in both Pakistan and the U.S. He also responded to questions from the audience.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/296999-3

more: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary ... ?id=188517

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 03 Jan 2011 13:48

deWalker,

It is highly unlikely that we will get any more clarity on our policies and objectives in Afghanistan, or for that matter any other country, than what is already being stated - i.e. the standard boilerplate about economic and social wellbeing, developmental assistance, etc. In fact, this may even simply be our objectives. An assessment of the strategic consequences of these policies, and a clear statement that XYZ consequence is what we are going for, is not very likely to emerge. The problem with articulating policies in that way is that it then becomes easier for those who would be opposed to such consequences to justify their own actions. This is probably why we prefer the more amorphous statements. The negative, for people in India, is that we (i.e. those who don't need to know) never know what we are actually heading towards. It also helps backpedalling without more internal political consequences than governments wish to deal with.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 03 Jan 2011 15:51

deWalker wrote:
msdogra wrote:"Former Afghan Security Director Amrullah Saleh gave the keynote address at the Jamestown Foundation annual conference on terrorism. In his remarks he advocated an aggressive stance against the Taliban and terrorists in Pakistan. He also talked about critics of his views in both Pakistan and the U.S. He also responded to questions from the audience."
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/296999-3

more: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary ... ?id=188517

Published on Jun 10, 2010
By Mujib Mashal
Afghan Media Criticize Security Officials’ Resignations: NYTimes Blog: At War

Rangin Dadfar Spanta wrote:“With Amrullah Saleh, the Afghan people have lost a huge treasure of commitment, awareness and experience in this struggle against terrorism, Al Qaeda and the ISI. I can’t think of anyone who will be able to even slightly fill the vacuum that he leaves behind. Besides being a highly efficient chief at the N.D.S., he is a man of knowledge and research with an incredible memory and intellect. When he analyzed issues at international meetings, he exhibited tremendous ability at logical reasoning. He was head and shoulder above others.

“I had many differences in arguments with him, but I always saw his presence at the N.D.S. as a huge advantage to this country and this government. Despite my high respects for the president’s decisions, I am extremely mournful about Saleh’s departure. Extremely mournful.”

Refreshing clarity from Amrullah Saleh! Too bad he is not at the helm, but he is definitely leadership material!

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 04 Jan 2011 09:38

This is 15 days old. Sorry if posted before

Peter Bergen reviews the book "Obama's Wars"

The Generals’ Victory

http://www.tnr.com/book/review/the-gene ... s-woodward

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Jan 2011 11:54

Pranav wrote:
US march of folly in Pakistan

Anatol Lieven

Pakistani officers from captain to lieutenant general have told me that the entry of US ground forces into Pakistan in pursuit of the Taleban and Al Qaeda is by far the most dangerous scenario for both Pakistani-US relations and the unity of the Pakistani Army. As one retired general explained, drone attacks, though ordinary officers and soldiers find them humiliating, are not a critical issue because the Pakistani military cannot do anything about them. “US ground forces inside Pakistan are a different matter,” he said, “because the soldiers can do something about them. They can fight. And if they don’t fight, they will feel utterly humiliated before their wives, mothers, children. It would be a matter of honour, which as you know is a tremendous thing in our society. These men have sworn an oath to defend Pakistani soil. So they would fight. And if the generals told them not to fight, many of them would mutiny, starting with the Frontier Corps.”
LINK

With experts like this who mollycuddle terrorists for a larger cause the US will suffer loss of its interests.

Frontier Corps is like border guards and hardly a fighting formation of the Pak Army. And besides these very "brave and martial" troops suffered defeat after defeat from rag tag jihadi terrorists in SWAT etc. So what chance o they have against US troops?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 04 Jan 2011 12:41

ramana wrote:
US march of folly in Pakistan

Anatol Lieven

With experts like this who mollycuddle terrorists for a larger cause the US will suffer loss of its interests.

Frontier Corps is like border guards and hardly a fighting formation of the Pak Army. And besides these very "brave and martial" troops suffered defeat after defeat from rag tag jihadi terrorists in SWAT etc. So what chance o they have against US troops?

He is the apologists for the Pakistan Army. His major article in 2002 - Will Pakistan Survive was written to get support for Pakistan after 911. Has deep connection inside the PA and all the tanzeems.

This lobby is the one which prevents US establishment from taking harsh measures on Pak army and all its connection based on the views that it will destabilize Pakistan and its armed forces. This is a clever piece of argument which they have been pushing for the last 10 years when year of yr terrorists strike inside Pak and also inside India/K
It is considered as safetly value and necessary to let it happen for the stability of the only professional institution inside Pak. This is a bogus argument.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 04 Jan 2011 16:49

Jirga - Salim Safi interviews Gulbuddin Hekmatyar
Old interview dated September 2010

Part 1: Gulbuddin Hekmatyar
Part 2: Gulbuddin Hekmatyar

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 04 Jan 2011 18:21

ramana ji,
but Lieven actually describes a wonderful psychological weakness if the supposed claim by PA is true : (I don't entirely believe it - otherwise - there would notbe 90,000 plus surrendering PA TFTA's in BD at the end of '71). It only confirms what I have always claimed would be a good line of provocation for a future Indian campaign - poke them and make fun of the men for not defending their country on their soil. It should be true more of the civilians (who have more guns than civilians in India) than the PA, with less effort needed to goad them into taking up arms and it will be a wonderful opportunity for us.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Jan 2011 22:13

lalmohanji, Salman Taseer's killing shows there is deep problem in TSP. How can the US and the West be sure that the troops that guard the maal won't seize them in a fit of fundamentalist rage? The issue is bigger than the killing of a politician.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 04 Jan 2011 23:33

The directions in which PA is putting up the greatest resistance or resources and trying to slow down retreat - if plotted should give us the tentative core region where the maal actually is.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Jan 2011 23:47

In a fit of over confidence they shifted it to Kabul during the Taliban times. Right after 9/11 (~9/12) they brought it back.

From their rants they have shifted around to six launch sites for the Nodongs. Under US presurre they have shifted the payloads to some central site with proximate security. The other stuff(plane based) PRC took back as there was fear US would commandeer/custody of them.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 04 Jan 2011 23:48

brihaspati wrote:The directions in which PA is putting up the greatest resistance or resources and trying to slow down retreat - if plotted should give us the tentative core region where the maal actually is.

But that is what Uncle is trying to do.
By supporting Baloch groups they have denied location of the maal in that province

Sindh is also under scanner.
Only Punjab region geo graphy is available for the generals to store their unaccounted items
Chitral, Gilgit could also be other area with PLA giving them support. Missiles and support system is more protected in that region

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Jan 2011 23:51

Balcoh was the testing area. Chagai and the airbase near it were furhtest from Indian reach.

The Chitral/Gilgit are is also off limts as the Brhamos Block II is specially developed for such areas.

IOW the mall is being coralled inexorably! See the houbara run!

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 04 Jan 2011 23:58

As we are after Indic interests, we keep looking one way (PRC) and not the opposite directions. The real backers from the beginning.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 05 Jan 2011 00:11

There is only one way for PA to try to survive - move up north, so that at least they have PRC at the back to beg supplies for and become a second NoKo. But losing the sea access greatly diminishes its market price. The upper Pakjab, and POK is the only place they can hope to hold on to some rump state. Losing agricultural land, losing sea, Baloch minerals, it will be totally dependent on PRC, except drugs trade. But even that would be diverted through the main Baloch corridor.

The area around which they contract would be where their maal is - and this is best placed in northern PakJab. Can be hopefully sent to PRC protection in emergency by road or otherwise. The nuclear stufff is the only thing they hope to hold on to as a guarantor of their existence - just like NoKo. But they cannot hold on to the south and west. US will try to hold these for PA, but I am more inclined to think that the US will abandon Pak overnight - when it will cut more attractive deals with the Talebs expanding both east and west from FATA, and northern Baloch.

Only Iran may help PA a bit out - worried at Balochi corridor. Depends on whether across the pond "friends" of Iran decide to do underhand deals again - like they did with Khomeini against the Shah, and betrayed the latter like the typical slimeball pretenders they always were in history.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 05 Jan 2011 00:52

JE Menon wrote:deWalker,

It is highly unlikely that we will get any more clarity on our policies and objectives in Afghanistan, or for that matter any other country, than what is already being stated - i.e. the standard boilerplate about economic and social wellbeing, developmental assistance, etc. In fact, this may even simply be our objectives. An assessment of the strategic consequences of these policies, and a clear statement that XYZ consequence is what we are going for, is not very likely to emerge. The problem with articulating policies in that way is that it then becomes easier for those who would be opposed to such consequences to justify their own actions. This is probably why we prefer the more amorphous statements. The negative, for people in India, is that we (i.e. those who don't need to know) never know what we are actually heading towards. It also helps backpedalling without more internal political consequences than governments wish to deal with.

Excellently put JEM garu!

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 05 Jan 2011 00:59

Pranav wrote:
US march of folly in Pakistan

Anatol Lieven

Pakistani officers from captain to lieutenant general have told me that the entry of US ground forces into Pakistan in pursuit of the Taleban and Al Qaeda is by far the most dangerous scenario for both Pakistani-US relations and the unity of the Pakistani Army. As one retired general explained, drone attacks, though ordinary officers and soldiers find them humiliating, are not a critical issue because the Pakistani military cannot do anything about them. “US ground forces inside Pakistan are a different matter,” he said, “because the soldiers can do something about them. They can fight. And if they don’t fight, they will feel utterly humiliated before their wives, mothers, children. It would be a matter of honour, which as you know is a tremendous thing in our society. These men have sworn an oath to defend Pakistani soil. So they would fight. And if the generals told them not to fight, many of them would mutiny, starting with the Frontier Corps.”
LINK

Few facts -

* Pakistani Army did not defend its soil in 1971 and they left east-pakistan. The REAL ISSUE then and now is Pakistan Army, which not only fails to protect, but the real perpetrator of hardship and humiliation to Pakistani society.

* Pakistani Army's capability is on continual downhill ski since its inception. It lost against a professional army of India, then organized revolution of Mukti Bahini, and now the disorganized (bad) Taliban. Soon it will lose to normal thieves and murders in the society, which are plenty in Pakistan.

So USA need not worry about Pakistan Army's bravery nor intellectual dilemma.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 05 Jan 2011 01:51

GOI does not have to state any of its plannings or policies in this arena of AFPak policy- it can still send the right signals to the public if it "acts". Deniability does not have to be a hostage to inaction.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 05 Jan 2011 02:24

^ JEM garu covered that aspect as well

"It also helps backpedalling without more internal political consequences than governments wish to deal with."

The problem is with people giving "unnecessary" connection between external developments and internal votebanks/dynamics. Perhaps they see Pak-Af as an internal issue and being a state issue

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 06 Jan 2011 01:52

IOL Says Taleban kidnapped Iranian diplomat to ask for AQ guys release. Hence the release of Adel looks like.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 06 Jan 2011 04:23

self explanatory

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Jan 2011 22:41

Nightwatch report on Af-pak
1/05/2011

Afghanistan: "I think the influence of the Taliban is diminishing, definitely,"German Major General Hans-Werner Fritz, Commander, Regional Command North, told Pentagon reporters.

"They are leaving the area. If they don't leave, they were killed. They were handing themselves over to us by the reintegration program. So they are simply giving up," he argued. Only low and medium level Talibans are present in his region, he said.

"These people are really are giving up; they're coming with their soldiers, or with members of their troops. It might be 10. It might be 15 or more, sometimes. And they are obviously giving up," Fritz said.

"My impression is that also these people, they are war tired on the one hand, and on the other hand, they really get a feeling that they're on loser street," the German Commander said, but could not give any figures to the surrendered Taliban.

Comment: The Germans, who command the northern regional command with 11,000 German, Swedish, Norwegian, Hungarian and Turkish soldiers, have had their hands full in Konduz and the other provinces of the north. They have been trying since 2007 to rid the north of the Taliban fighters and sympathizers with little success until recently.

With a lot of help from US Special Forces, the German-led command appears to have made some headway at last. Unclassified sources indicate that in November 2010, more Taliban fighters surrendered to the government than in any prior month of the insurgency. Almost all of the surrenders were in northern provinces as follows:

Province Surrenders in November 2011
Badakhshan 2

Badghis 50

Baghlan 212

Balkh 1

Konduz 8

Sarepol 8

Takhar ` 11

(Note: data gathering for December 2011 is in progress.)

Today's report by the Pahjwok News Service states that surrenders in Konduz Province also are increasing. German Major General Fritz said 64 fighters recently surrendered in Imam Sahib District, one of seven districts in Konduz Province. Konduz Province contains a hardcore Pashtun population in Chahar Darra District that has been the base of northern expansion and nearly impossible to suppress. There are no surrenders from Chahar Darra.

Past Afghan governments -- always led by Pashtuns -- resettled tens of thousands of Pashtuns from southern Afghanistan to various districts in the north among the Uzbeks and Tajiks. They implemented transmigration in order to have a loyal base in the event the government had to deploy forces against the northern tribes.

The Pashtun enclaves in the north that served as secure bases when Pashtun kings and sultans ruled in Kabul have become safe havens and support bases for the Taliban in the past four years. The Germans have struggled to control them to little avail, until recently.

War weariness appears to be a major factor in the sudden increase in surrenders. The November offensive appears to have backfired in these provinces. Fighters attacked with limited support and concluded it is not worth the effort. The remote provinces of the north, such as Takhar, are difficult for the Taliban and other anti-government organizations to support because they are far from any main roads.

There is no way to assess the permanence of the surrenders, but more than 361 anti-government fighters surrendered in November which is an all time monthly high. Most were in areas the Taliban were attempting to develop as expansion areas, but failed. That is good news.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 07 Jan 2011 02:00

Taliban Singles Out Sen. Lindsey Graham Over Comment on U.S. Bases in Afghanistan
Published January 06, 2011
| FoxNews.com

FILE: Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
A U.S. senator who suggested placing permanent bases in Afghanistan has caught the eye of the Taliban, which issued a statement this week saying South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham has proven the U.S. is trying to colonize the Near East nation.

In a strongly worded, propaganda-style statement in which it called out Graham by name, the Taliban group responded that the senator's remarks "reveal the colonialist intentions of America" under the guise of a War on Terror.
"Such remarks by a well-known official of invading America clearly shows that the war on terrorism has been a drama, produced by Washington," the Voice of Jihad said of Graham's comments

The Taliban Voice of Jihad Online also claimed the U.S. wants to "loot" the nation of its raw materials in order to capitalize on the shift in industrial development from Western nations to Asia and called attacks on Afghan civilian sites like markets and mosques "conspiracies by the invading America."
"They only carry out raids on people's homes like thieves during the night and martyr innocent Afghans," the statement says in a plea for cash and moral support from sympathizers.
The U.S. military and NATO allies "have lost the ability to confront the mujahedeen in broad daylight," it added.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01 ... z1AI23tcJ0

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 07 Jan 2011 02:42

By downing a number of unmanned U.S. spy drones, Iran has won the envy and admiration of some Pakistanis. According to this editorial from Pakistan's 'The Nation', 'We now know that the U.S. can do nothing in response to countries like Iran or Pakistan when they destroy its drones.'"
Downing American Drones: Iran Shows Pakistan the Way (The Nation, Pakistan)

Downing American Drones: Iran Shows Pakistan the Way (The Nation, Pakistan)
worldmeets.us

"In a daring step to protect its frontiers, Iran has shot down two U.S. drones on a spying mission over its territory. It has therefore made it abundantly clear that no matter the consequences, it will brook no violation of its sovereignty."

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Jan 2011 02:52

However its the Paki Military that want US to take out its opponents as they fear to go after them, by themselves and are getting baksheesh from US.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 07 Jan 2011 03:03

Acharya wrote:By downing a number of unmanned U.S. spy drones, Iran has won the envy and admiration of some Pakistanis. According to this editorial from Pakistan's 'The Nation', 'We now know that the U.S. can do nothing in response to countries like Iran or Pakistan when they destroy its drones.'"
Downing American Drones: Iran Shows Pakistan the Way (The Nation, Pakistan)

Well, for one, Iran is not depending on US handouts to survive

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 07 Jan 2011 04:37

What It Will Take to Finish the Job in Afghanistan

Just before he died, Holbrooke told me over dinner his hopes for an Afghan endgame. (Caveat lector: Holbrooke was a close friend and my son's former boss and mentor in the State Department.) There would be no solution, he believed, if the Pakistanis didn't think the U.S. was in Afghanistan for the long haul. He despaired over working with Karzai's government, but he believed that a credible Afghan military could be built - with good reason, since the current ANA is, in effect, a larger version of the old Northern Alliance: more than 90% non-Pashtun. The U.S. has repeatedly assured the Pakistanis that NATO funding of the ANA will keep the Indians out of the picture. If the Pakistanis perceive a reduced Indian threat, they might reduce their support for the Taliban. The U.S. would foot the bill for the Afghan military: $7 billion to $8 billion per year. "But that would be chump change compared to the $100 billion we're spending now," an Administration official told me.
Holbrooke believed tensions could not be reduced without a diplomatic solution. He wanted to cap his long career with a final haggle - this one with the Taliban themselves, leading to a peace conference celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Bonn accord, which established the Karzai government in December 2001. He was at odds with Petraeus about that. The general was looking for something closer to a surrender than a negotiation from the Taliban, and his remains the default position in the Obama Administration. Holbrooke was also skeptical about the efficacy of maintaining a large U.S. force in Afghanistan, although he was curious about what sort of progress I'd find when I visited the Taliban heartland in December. (He collapsed before I could talk to him, on the morning I returned.) But Holbrooke and Petraeus did agree on one aspect of the war: cold storage. Both were convinced that there would never be real stability in Afghanistan until a strong agricultural economy returned

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599204096800

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Jan 2011 04:50

Prem, On November 2009 I wrote:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 47#p770247

and

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 47#p781447

ramana wrote:
Cutting to the chase this is what I see as viable. I can go on and on about the factors that influence Afghanistan but it will be like a RAND report or worse IDSA article.

PLAN:

- US increase troop presence and crushes bad Taliban. Otherwise it will lose and the malaise kicks in.
- US manages TSP while doing this. Not at cost of any other nation.
- The good Taliban get regularized into para-military scouts etc. Crucial to get them under a uniform and get rid of their tribal dress. The Afghan National Army still gets its share of Tajiks and Uzbegs and Hazaras as top layer to guarantee the ethnic rights.
- The Ghilzais and Durranis have to make up and work out a compromise certified by the loya jirga to ensure Pashtun solidarity.
- An all powers conference to declare Afghan neutrality is crucial to return Afghanistan to buffer status like in the 19th century. This is to neutralize any wet dreams of wannabe jihadis. Same time all the ethnic areas will have millat/autonomy status: Pashtuns, Tajiks and Hazaras and Uzbegs. The rights of sub-minorities in these areas are guaranteed by Afghan National Govt eg. Pashtuns in Tajik areas und so weiter.

A G-8/OECD/INDIA and PRC economic program has to be worked out to stabilize the country. US will have the TSP economic stabilization program.

A strong advice is to seek Pashtun autonomy in TSP as a self determination right same as the Kurds in Iraq to satisfy the self determination rights. as this is related to the Afghan issue.

Surrender is not the right thing. Kill the bad and coopt the good. However good are the Pashtun nationalists ie the insurgents. Bad are the Paki supported ones who are terrorists.

The US establishment sees them vice versa under the hashish from TSP.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 07 Jan 2011 05:14

Afghanistan is 1000 Pieces puzzle.
Per Uneven Cohen, there are real chances for Pakistan to collapse within 4-5 years or become 400% Chinese vassal . This means Poaks will cease to be an effective or relevant factor in Afghan end game and isue will emerge /evolve into ICU rivalry. ICU= India China USA. Pashtuns will be divided on which side to take and Russia come back as player to stake its own claim. Neither Mother Russia, nor Uncle or Mother India will want China to win.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 07 Jan 2011 14:12

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/237629
U.S. Strategy for Pakistan and Afghanistan

Chairs:
Richard L. Armitage, President, Armitage International, L.C.
Samuel R. Berger, Chairman, Albright Stonebridge Group
Director:
Daniel Markey, Senior Fellow for India, Pakistan, and South Asia
Publisher: Council on Foreign Relations Press
Release Date: November 2010

Members of the Council on Foreign Relation’s Independent Task Force talked about their new report on U.S. strategy in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The task force is chaired by Richard Armitage and Samuel Berger and aims to assess and provide recommendations for U.S. policy in South Asia, specifically Pakistan and Afghanistan.

They are talking about blackmail on India to talk on Kashmir.
The way the discussion is going on they think that they own Kashmir and they can decide the future of the region
Within 15 min of the Af Pak talk before the Afghanistan topic they discuss Kashmir without giving any reason why Kashmir is going to help them

deWalker · Post by **deWalker** » 08 Jan 2011 08:30

RamaY wrote:
JE Menon wrote:deWalker,

It is highly unlikely that we will get any more clarity on our policies and objectives in Afghanistan, or for that matter any other country, than what is already being stated - i.e. the standard boilerplate about economic and social wellbeing, developmental assistance, etc. In fact, this may even simply be our objectives. An assessment of the strategic consequences of these policies, and a clear statement that XYZ consequence is what we are going for, is not very likely to emerge. The problem with articulating policies in that way is that it then becomes easier for those who would be opposed to such consequences to justify their own actions. This is probably why we prefer the more amorphous statements. The negative, for people in India, is that we (i.e. those who don't need to know) never know what we are actually heading towards. It also helps backpedalling without more internal political consequences than governments wish to deal with.
Excellently put JEM garu!

Sorry for the delayed response - I'm a weekend warrior on BR.

There are some "core" goals that can be explicated - e.g. "we will protect Taiwan from invasion", for example, that establishes a commitment to the republic's goals.

A statement of "We will not allow an unfriendly regime in Afghanistan" will draw the line on what the US (or anyone else) can pressurize us on, whether in private or public.

Anyways, like I said (and so did you), we are in the know, and that does give me the warm-fuzzies.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Jan 2011 21:53

krisna wrote:http://www.toonpool.com/user/1949/files ... 468145.jpg
self explanatory

The Hindu wrote: U.S. support will be over and above the $7.5 billion funding already sanctioned for Pakistan under the Kerry-Lugar bill and a recent announcement of over $2 billion to be directly given to the Pakistani army.

While the latest round of support may be calibrated to the level of assistance needed for Pakistan to launch an offensive against Taliban sanctuaries in areas bordering Afghanistan, administration

officials were also quoted in the Post as saying that moves to deepen the U.S.’ intelligence cooperation with Pakistan would be “a way of assuaging Pakistan’s fears that India... is building its own influence in Afghanistan

Pakistan must play an important role if not a dominant one, in reconciliation talks with the Taliban

according to anonymous official sources, Pakistan understood that its region had become the “single most important foreign policy issue to the U.S. and... their cachet has gone up.

Yet officials said that Pakistan had also realised that it had reached the point of maximum leverage and, “Things about their region are going to change one way or the other in the near future,” as the American public had become increasingly disillusioned with the war.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 08 Jan 2011 22:03

Ruggiero assures Pakistan of US strategic ties
By Baqir Sajjad Syed
http://www.dawn.com/2011/01/07/ruggiero ... -ties.html

ISLAMABAD: Acting US Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan Frank Ruggiero assured Pakistani leaders on Thursday that Washington remained fully committed to its strategic relationship with Islamabad.

“One of the objectives of my visit is to express continuity in America’s policy towards this region,” the acting special representative told reporters here.

A statement issued after a meeting between Prime Minister Gilani and Ambassador Ruggiero said: “Mr Ruggiero informed the prime minister that he had been sent to Pakistan by the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to convey US government’s firm commitment to continue with its strategic partnership with Pakistan.”

Ruggiero was appointed acting special representative to the region after Ambassador Holbrooke’s death last month.

On the first day of his two-day visit, besides meeting Prime Minister Gilani, Mr Ruggiero announced $190 million aid for victims of last year’s floods.

On Friday, the US special representative will meet Army Chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir, PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif and other senior officials. He will also sign an assistance contract for construction of two dams.

Mr Ruggiero’s visit came at a time when Pakistani leaders were worried about a possible shift in US policy towards the country and the region as a whole. These fears were particularly reinforced by the Afghanistan-Pakistan annual review released last month, which specifically mentioned Pakistan’s reluctance to go after Taliban sanctuaries in its tribal areas as a major obstacle to success in Afghanistan.

The pressure being exerted on Pakistan by the US to go after the sanctuaries has brought fresh strains in relations.

Prime Minister Gilani expressed some of those concerns in his meeting with Mr Ruggiero.

The statement by the Prime Minister’s Office clearly showed Mr Gilani complaining about indifference to sacrifices rendered by Pakistan.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 08 Jan 2011 23:26

Re - The Sui cantonment closure - why can't it be a cost decision? These days everything comes down to quick transportation and air force.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Jan 2011 23:40

ShyamD, When did TSP worry about costs which are footed by others?

My take subject to correction is Baloch is going to US and hence the evacuation.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 08 Jan 2011 23:46

I support this estimate too. In any case the TSP is losing control over the whole western border right from the sea to the mountains. So allowing the US some presence there is a way of postponing the inevitable loss of the whole zone.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 09 Jan 2011 04:51

Mmmm... Fair point Ramana. It just felt like they are just doing it for cost purposes and train up baloch and make it like Kurdistan type. But I am fairly certian Gilani trip to Oman had something to do with it. And you could certainly be right - as you know US's assets are in Oman.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 10 Jan 2011 03:41

^^^^,
will TSP really allow uncle inside!! what about bums and paranoia.
what about dlagon. dlagon has sunk money and labor into KKH, gwadar and many other areas, wants to invest in baluchistan. TSpians love the dlagon better, and hate yemricans. (More likely RAPEs hate dlagon less than uncle, for bious abduls both are kuffrs)
how will this affect the dynamics of the region.
1) If there is some loosing of control on western border, huge loss for dlagon unless uncle allows it under its watchful eyes. likely to happen as investments are a must to offer jobs etc. it is also natural resource rich region.
2) gwadar port may be a non starter or may be developed alternatively due to karachi violence. string of pearls strategy whatever it means remains is in trouble. dlagon may be shut off from warm waters/gelf for a long time.
3) with uncle's overbearing presence elephant's influence may be constrained unless it charts an independent course which is highly unlikely.
4) persia will be in trouble. uncle might excite some resistance among eastern persian land to unite with western TSP to keep it under boil among others.
5) uncle will postpone TSP 's collapse. OTOH might accelerate radicalistaion of more bious birathers across TSP.

In many ways it affects all 3 asian major powers in the region.