USA Pakistan relations deteriorate - USA given notice to leave Pakistan

#1
Government officials immediately blocked Nato supplies to Afghanistan and condemned the early morning airstrike on the Afghan border as a “grave infringement” of Pakistan’s sovereignty.
Pakistan’s prime minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani, called an emergency meeting of his cabinet’s defence committee to consider the response.
In a late-night statement the committee condemned the attack and asked the US to vacate the Shamsi air base, where the CIA is believed to base predator drones, within 15 days.

'Highly likely' Nato was responsible for killing 24 Pakistani soldiers - Telegraph
 
#3
Obviously there's a lot more to this story than ISAF slotting PakMil for the hell of it.

The Grauniad has since expanded on this:
Nato air attack on Pakistani troops was self-defence, says senior western official | World news | The Observer
"Edrees Momand of the Afghan Border Police said that a US-Afghan force in the area near the Pakistani outposts detained several militants on Saturday morning.
"I am not aware of the casualties on the other side of the border but those we have detained aren't Afghan Taliban," he said, implying they may have been Pakistani or other foreign national Taliban operating in Afghanistan."

While the Pak Mil are crying foul - as their troops were kipping, a military infraction is easier to explain than aiding and abetting Pak Taliban Lashgars going cross border with their knowledge!

"For their part, a statement by the Pakistani military claimed that it was they who were attacked first, forcing them to respond to Nato's "aggression with all available weapons".

According to Pakistani officials the 40 or so soldiers stationed at the outposts were asleep at the time of the attack. Government officials said the two border posts that were attacked had recently been established to try to stop insurgents who use bases in Afghanistan to attack Pakistan from crossing the border and launching attacks."

Here in Asia the Beeb showed the first part of their damning two-part doco "Secret Pakistan" yesterday, which is unequivocal about ISI's continual support of Terry and how it was ramped up significantly by 2006.
The furore over this will come as no surprise as the Pak politicos pander to the military and the fundies who will end up in strangling what passes for democracy what rule of law that still exists.

This is one match the Pak's can no longer pretend to fix.
If there is ever to be democratic rule in Pakistan ISI needs to be disbanded and its senior leadership detained.
 
#7
How nuanced. I take it you put your entire braincell into this post. Congratulations
I take it he meant we should stop UK DfID funding for Pakistan.

Nothing to do with any attack but I wouldn't fund them anyway. Calm your froth and I'll explain why.

1. We can't afford it any more.

2. There is no proof that giving them money benefits the UK in any way whatsoever.

Oh stopping funding would include most of the other shitholes we pour our hard-earned into.

Does that explain it for you better?
 
#8
On SST The Memogate Brouhaha (FB Ali)
All of Pakistan has recently been watching with rapt attention the twists and turns of an unfolding scandal that the country’s febrile media has happily termed ‘Memogate’. The ruling party, in full defensive mode, watches apprehensively even as it bobs and weaves with every disclosure. The opposition parties gleefully plot and maneouvre to gain maximum advantage, while the generals nervously button and unbutton their holsters. The privileged upper class pauses in its living of the good life, and ordinary people forget their problems and miseries for a while, as the breathless TV anchors report each new development. Even the Pakistani Taliban declared a ceasefire, perhaps the better to follow the unfolding story without such distractions as setting off bombs or laying ambushes.

At the centre of Memogate is the dapper figure of Mr Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s erstwhile ambassador to the USA (though often referred to as the US ambassador to Pakistan based in Washington, or as President Zardari’s personal representative there). Mr Haqqani is a very clever man, though he nicely illustrates the significant difference between cleverness and wisdom. Born in a relatively humble family, he used his relentless ambition to claw his way up the ladder, switching effortlessly between political parties, from rightwing to left and in-between, and between government positions and journalism and academia.

When his attempts to woo the military ruler, Gen Musharraf, did not bear fruit, he moved to the US in 2002 to take up teaching at a university as well as working with various think tanks (it is said that, in the process, he also acquired US citizenship); in this period he wrote a book that was a scathing critique of the military. In 2005 he became an advisor to Benazir Bhutto and her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, even though he is credited with pinning the sobriquet Mr Ten Percent on the latter when he was in an opposing political camp. When Zardari became president, he appointed Haqqani as ambassador in Washington.

However, Haqqani continued to be a close advisor to Zardari, ensuring continuous contact by basing his wife in the presidency at Islamabad as a media advisor to the president. It troubled him greatly that, even though Zardari’s People’s Party ruled the country, the military retained much power, so he made it his mission to bring the military to heel. His first move was to persuade the government to shift control of the ISI intelligence agency from the military to the interior minister, another crony of Zardari’s. This move fizzled out quickly when the military reacted strongly and the prime minister had to rescind his directive to that effect within a few hours

His second attempt was through the Kerry-Lugar aid bill, in which he had wording put in that would make US aid to the military conditional on civilian certification that the military was behaving. This created a civil-military crisis in Pakistan, and forced the US administration and Congress to backtrack. The military demanded that Haqqani be fired, but Zardari stood by his man in Washington. Haqqani licked his wounds but did not give up his quest. His next opportunity came when, on May 1st this year, a US Navy SEALs team swooped down on a house in Abbottabad and shot up Osama bin Laden. This left the Pakistan military with a lot of egg on their faces, and much answering to do. Haqqani saw their weakened and confused state as an opportunity.

Within the week he flew to London and met with his friend, Gen Sir David Richards, Chief of the Defence Staff. He proposed that Sir David should persuade his US counterpart, Admiral Mullen, to get the administration to back a plan for Zardari to replace the Army chief, Gen Kayani, and the ISI chief, Gen Pasha, with generals more acceptable to the US, who would work under civilian control. This new security establishment (in which Haqqani would become the National Security Adviser) would be fully responsive to American needs in Afghanistan and in the war against terrorists. It would also agree to the US’s desire to place Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal under a transparent and verifiable regime. He confirmed that he was speaking on behalf of President Zardari. The CDS, though sympathetic to these aims, did not agree to act as a go-between with the US.

Disappointed, Haqqani had to find another way to approach the US administration (for obvious reasons, he could not risk doing so directly). He chose Mansoor Ijaz, an American of Pakistani ancestry, a rich investment banker and media commentator (he used to appear on Fox News’ Special Report), with ties to neocon circles (James Woolsey is a friend), and a taste for dabbling in international intrigue (he claims that Clinton administration officials sent him to persuade the government of Sudan to hand over bin Laden to the US). Mansoor, relishing the opportunity to again play a role in some high-level skulduggery, readily agreed.

Ijaz said he had an intermediary who could convey Haqqani’s message to Admiral Mullen ─ Gen James Jones, recently Obama’s National Security Advisor. When he approached Jones the latter agreed to transmit the message, but insisted it had to be in writing. So, Haqqani and Ijaz drafted the now explosive memo, which contained the same promises that had been put to Gen Richards in London. To ensure some urgency to the affair Haqqani began the memo by saying that there was imminent danger of the military removing the civilian government as an aftermath of the bin Laden affair, and the US had to act immediately. He also hoped that the proposal to allow US monitoring of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal would prove to be an irresistible lure.

Gen Jones took the memo to Admiral Mullen on May10, who presumably shared it with top officials in the administration. It was decided that an unofficial memo with only verbal authentication was not an adequate basis for the US to undertake an initiative with potentially such momentous consequences and risks (besides, memories were still raw of how Haqqani had led the US into the Kerry-Lugar fiasco). Haqqani had hoped that the memo would get Mullen to engage further, at which stage he could undertake substantive discussions on behalf of Zardari, and agree with the US administration on how the plan was to be executed. However, Mullen did not respond.

Mansoor Ijaz was also disappointed at the fizzling out of this exciting plot that had come his way. However, his entrepreneurial mind began considering how he could use these events. He shared his neocon friends’ animosity towards Muslim countries that they considered the US’s antagonists (in 2006 he had created a stir by announcing that Iran had a nuclear bomb). He realised that the memo was a potential bombshell that could create internal turmoil in Pakistan, further destabilizing it. On 10 October he published an opinion piece in London’s Financial Times (also described in this report), in which, without naming names (except Admiral Mullen’s), he disclosed the memo story, while also lambasting the Pakistan military, especially the ISI, for numerous sins.

As expected, the column created a furore in Pakistan, with the government vigorously rubbishing Ijaz’s piece. In Washington Admiral Mullen had his spokesman deny that he received any such memo, while Husain Haqqani flatly denied any connection to it, adding that he hardly knew Mansoor Ijaz. But they had not allowed for a shady operator’s thoroughness. He promptly published verbatim transcripts of his Blackberry and email exchanges with Ambassador Haqqani, and threatened to name the intermediary who delivered the memo to Mullen. The admiral suddenly remembered that he had indeed received the memo, but claimed he had paid it no attention. Gen Jones publicly confirmed that he had been the go-between. Haqqani was left mumbling about forgeries, and the general untrustworthiness of his accuser.

A couple of days later ISI chief Pasha flew to London and met Mansoor Ijaz. The latter downloaded all his records onto the general’s computer. When these were checked and declared genuine, Gen Kayani went to see President Zardari. Husain Haqqani was summoned back to Islamabad to give his version, which he presented to a meeting of top government and military leaders. At its conclusion, he was asked to hand in his resignation and face a high-level enquiry commission.

Mr Haqqani’s audacious caper seems to have backfired spectacularly. Far from reining in the generals, President Zardari is weaker than ever. The military is confirmed in its suspicion that he would, if he could, sell them (and Pakistan) to the US. Its doubts about US intentions have increased, especially in respect of its nuclear arsenal. Husain Haqqani, for the time being, sits snug in his wife’s apartment in the presidency, occasionally issuing defiant Tweets (though not on the infamous Blackberry, now impounded, that, as Eliza Doolittle would say, had done him in!). Outside, angry mutters of treason trials are being heard. Memogate rolls on.

Meanwhile, setting a flame to dry tinder, on the night of Nov 25th US aircraft bombed a Pakistani military post on the Afghan border killing some two dozen soldiers, including two officers. All of Pakistan is in an uproar, emergency cabinet meetings are taking place, protests have been lodged, apologies are being issued, the NATO supply route through Pakistan has been closed. As Bette Davis said in a memorable role: Fasten your seatbelts!.
The former Brigadier is right to put these events together, we have Pakistan's US ambassador offering abject terms to a clearly interested DC behind Pindi's back as well as comprehensively ratting them out. This is a Pakistani version of the dolchstoßlegende but in this case for real.

Now a couple of dozen of Pindi's guys are killed in an US airstrike on Pakistan soil.

Things have gone screaming downhill between Pindi and DC since the Abbottabad hit, this looks like the start of a messy divorce. It's a dysfunctional relationship in which a deluded DC has played appeaser to a very bad actor. The ISI has stood behind the Haqqani network and that provided the social infrastructure out of which AQ grew. This should have been addressed forcefully after 9-11 but DC was stuck in a rut following a different agenda and its been left to fester. The last decade has involved Pindi fighting a blatant proxy war against ISAF that now has become public knowledge. Pakistan has also been politically destabilized by the Pashtun war.

There have been incidents before but this constellation of circumstances does not look good. This probably means a much hotter war in Afghanistan minus the Karachi LOS and well before Barry's dumb electorally set drawdown timetable. Pindi has a habit of nuclear brinksmanship combined with transnational terrorist spectaculars. The prospects for a wider Pakistan-US war just rose significantly.

The Iranians will be delighted.
 
#9
I take it he meant we should stop UK DfID funding for Pakistan.

Nothing to do with any attack but I wouldn't fund them anyway. Calm your froth and I'll explain why.

1. We can't afford it any more.

2. There is no proof that giving them money benefits the UK in any way whatsoever.

Oh stopping funding would include most of the other shitholes we pour our hard-earned into.

Does that explain it for you better?
Thank you for explaining it to me. I had no idea that was what he was talking about.

I just feel that it is a simplistic answer similar to the idea that we would be richer as a nation if we sent them all home or stopped tax loopholes.

The idea that it does not benefit the uk is wrong. A huge proportion of our G4 comes through there and to an extent we have to bribe them. Secondly despite their uneven showing they are quite valuable in the war in Afghanistan. Yes I am sure they have links to terrorists but they could make the country a lit more unstable if they wish. Supporting them keeps them at least notionally onside.

However you may think this is all rubbish, I'll leave you to your daily mail.
 
#10
Why do I get the feeling that this current crisis has the potential to change the game in a very bad way?
 
#11
Thank you for explaining it to me. I had no idea that was what he was talking about.

I just feel that it is a simplistic answer similar to the idea that we would be richer as a nation if we sent them all home or stopped tax loopholes.

The idea that it does not benefit the uk is wrong. A huge proportion of our G4 comes through there and to an extent we have to bribe them. Secondly despite their uneven showing they are quite valuable in the war in Afghanistan. Yes I am sure they have links to terrorists but they could make the country a lit more unstable if they wish. Supporting them keeps them at least notionally onside.

However you may think this is all rubbish, I'll leave you to your daily mail.
Real Politik is a dirty business that often resembles the Godfather movies: "Keep your friends close but your enemies closer." I have no problem giving "Humanitarian Aid" to countries who's cooperation we need to buy. However, aid to countries that have nothing to give us in return should be stopped immediately. Pouring money into some worthless African nation in a futile attempt to stop Africans dying of disease, malnutrition or machete's is an expensive luxury we can no longer afford.

In any case, there are close to 7 Billion people in the world, and an increasingly finite amount of resources. The herd needs to be culled.:roll:

Oh, and it's the Sunday Mail, thank you very much.^_~
 
#12
Thank you for explaining it to me. I had no idea that was what he was talking about.

I just feel that it is a simplistic answer similar to the idea that we would be richer as a nation if we sent them all home or stopped tax loopholes.

The idea that it does not benefit the uk is wrong. A huge proportion of our G4 comes through there and to an extent we have to bribe them. Secondly despite their uneven showing they are quite valuable in the war in Afghanistan. Yes I am sure they have links to terrorists but they could make the country a lit more unstable if they wish. Supporting them keeps them at least notionally onside.

However you may think this is all rubbish, I'll leave you to your daily mail.
Is this the stabtoreg talking or his simpleton alter ego?

Everyone with half a brain cell understood the post and that if Pakistan was playing hardball with the NATO/ISAF convoys we could really put them in the hurt by withdrawing aid.

A potential hawl of £500 million a year is invaluable to feed your poor... and your nuclear power stations* and space programme.

*I'm a bit ambivalent on this matter... people should have power, but is a nuke the best way to provide in these, er, sensitive countries?
 
#13
Thank you for explaining it to me. I had no idea that was what he was talking about.

I just feel that it is a simplistic answer similar to the idea that we would be richer as a nation if we sent them all home or stopped tax loopholes.

The idea that it does not benefit the uk is wrong. A huge proportion of our G4 comes through there and to an extent we have to bribe them. Secondly despite their uneven showing they are quite valuable in the war in Afghanistan. Yes I am sure they have links to terrorists but they could make the country a lit more unstable if they wish. Supporting them keeps them at least notionally onside.

However you may think this is all rubbish, I'll leave you to your daily mail.
I am well aware of where the G4 used to come through. We don't need notional onsides and more importantly if it is only notional assistance then WTF are we doing there? Paying the Taliban not to attack until we get across the border so they can attack us there? You are sure they have links to terrorists - everybody is sure.

What does a newspaper have to do with my opinion-forming BTW? Or is that you standard insult to somebody who doesn't agree with you but has right wing views? How about an alternative POV? All you are doing is regurgitating the status quo via a CoC blurb of why we do things the way we do. In which case the Seppos will be paying thePakistanis a **** sight more than we are so see my initial argument of why do we bother - and yet they still stopped the G4.

FYI my papers of choice are the Times and I do read the Guardian - much the same way as I read books on Marxism - know your enemy.
 
#14
It's funny... we have a thread on whether or not the word 'cnut' is the most offensive insult... but many on here seem to regard 'Daily Mail/Wail/Hate reader' as on a par.

Personnally I read the Daily Sport.
 
#15
I am well aware of where the G4 used to come through. We don't need notional onsides and more importantly if it is only notional assistance then WTF are we doing there? Paying the Taliban not to attack until we get across the border so they can attack us there? You are sure they have links to terrorists - everybody is sure.

What does a newspaper have to do with my opinion-forming BTW? Or is that you standard insult to somebody who doesn't agree with you but has right wing views? How about an alternative POV? All you are doing is regurgitating the status quo via a CoC blurb of why we do things the way we do. In which case the Seppos will be paying thePakistanis a **** sight more than we are so see my initial argument of why do we bother - and yet they still stopped the G4.

FYI my papers of choice are the Times and I do read the Guardian - much the same way as I read books on Marxism - know your enemy.
We shouldn't become obsessed with the Pak G4 chain. On our H14 the border was closed for 3 months largely due to diplomatic charges that UK PLC wouldn't cough for. It made not a jot of difference to output. The SLOC is broken; anything of value arrives by air. Food is supplied by contract via KAF & kenya - fuel can be piped down via the stans. The G4 arguement is one of convenience to seemingly justify a sizeable FCO payout via DFID. When we come to leave the Pak SLOC may be of more use, but given the significant investment in rail infra through the NLOC, now may be a good time to buy shares in Khazak Rail!
 
#16
We shouldn't become obsessed with the Pak G4 chain. On our H14 the border was closed for 3 months largely due to diplomatic charges that UK PLC wouldn't cough for. It made not a jot of difference to output. The SLOC is broken; anything of value arrives by air. Food is supplied by contract via KAF & kenya - fuel can be piped down via the stans. The G4 arguement is one of convenience to seemingly justify a sizeable FCO payout via DFID. When we come to leave the Pak SLOC may be of more use, but given the significant investment in rail infra through the NLOC, now may be a good time to buy shares in Khazak Rail!
Oh stop thinking for yourself:)

In fact had we (by we I mean NATO = the Seppos) been a bit cleverer than this (and in Bos) and got the Russkies onside a lot more could have been done with a lot less hassle.
 
#17
One of the fundamental truths about this part of the world that lamentably few acknowledge is that neither Afghanistan or Pakistan are viable nation states in the long term. I use nation states here to refer to the euro-centric post-Westphalian model whereby mass murder and ethnic cleansing (or as we call it, history) resulted in states with reasonably distinct ethnic and geographical boundaries. In contrast, the Durand Line is a work of fiction that no-one living near it considers to be meaningful.

What this means is that you have a coastal part of Pakistan that is reasonably coherent in a nation state king of way; Kabul and the northern kingmakers rocking that ancient eastern city state vibe; and between them a no-mans land where the Pushtun plus others live. Now that central mass isn't going to suddenly fragment along some arbitrary line drawn up by the British Empire to sieze some decent defensive terrain should the Russians ever come calling, it is going to tend to develop as a whole.

Therefore, if that mass ever does develop some kind of central identity, it will de-facto redraw the current border. Pakistan sees it as vital to its national survival that it join up with them. And that is why they will never stop playing politics there no matter how much the US pushes them. Besides, as they have nukes and control US supply lines they know the US won't push too hard.

Karzai has tried in his own special way to use Western blood and treasure to sway the centre to his side, but currently he's looking forward to the pull-out and scrambling to survive the aftermath.

Of course the Iranians, the Russians, the Chinese and so on are all moving to exploit the truly****ed up mess the US has gotten itself into, both directly and indirectly as the US loses focus elsewhere. They'll be quite sad when the US pull out. The whole affair was pointless once AQ had been broken (2002 or thereabouts). Nation building is pointless when there isn't a nation there in the first place.
 
#18
Maybe we should turn this issue on its head, has anybody had the thought that the Pakistanis want to wage a war yet are doing it using Afghanistan as the battlefield. It seems strange that so many “Taliban?” are being taken out on Pakistani soil, so it begs the question: Are the Taliban really Pakistanis?

If that is the case then the UN should be considering closing the borders with Pakistan and declaring it a rogue state, something the Indian government have been covertly practicing for a number of years as it believes the ISI actively supports terrorism.

Reports circulating from reputable sources seem to provide the most concrete evidence yet that the Pakistani ISI is providing funding, training and sanctuary to the Taliban insurgency on a scale much larger than previously thought. Similarly there is a certain truth in the fact that leads one to conclude that Pakistan's relationship with the insurgents runs far deeper than previously realised. Suggestions are being made in some quarters that the organization even attended meetings of the Taliban's supreme council, the Quetta Shura.

The feeling among scholars is that one of the most ominous trends has been the growing influence of Jihadist groups in Pakistan which feel obligated to wage holy war against everything that they perceive as non-Islamic. Their objective would be a Pakistani government similar to the deposed Taliban regime in Afghanistan. The danger this would pose to regional stability is clear, thus the thought is the Pakistani government cannot be trusted.

Until it can be established that said government is trustworthy, consideration should be given to imposing sanctions and cutting aid payments.
 
#19
Oh stop thinking for yourself:)

In fact had we (by we I mean NATO = the Seppos) been a bit cleverer than this (and in Bos) and got the Russkies onside a lot more could have been done with a lot less hassle.
Everything has its price, getting Vlad onside would require a substantial geopolitical horn pulling in by NATO.
 
#20
Maybe we should turn this issue on its head, has anybody had the thought that the Pakistanis want to wage a war yet are doing it using Afghanistan as the battlefield. It seems strange that so many “Taliban?” are being taken out on Pakistani soil, so it begs the question: Are the Taliban really Pakistanis?

If that is the case then the UN should be considering closing the borders with Pakistan and declaring it a rogue state, something the Indian government have been covertly practicing for a number of years as it believes the ISI actively supports terrorism.

Reports circulating from reputable sources seem to provide the most concrete evidence yet that the Pakistani ISI is providing funding, training and sanctuary to the Taliban insurgency on a scale much larger than previously thought. Similarly there is a certain truth in the fact that leads one to conclude that Pakistan's relationship with the insurgents runs far deeper than previously realised. Suggestions are being made in some quarters that the organization even attended meetings of the Taliban's supreme council, the Quetta Shura.

The feeling among scholars is that one of the most ominous trends has been the growing influence of Jihadist groups in Pakistan which feel obligated to wage holy war against everything that they perceive as non-Islamic. Their objective would be a Pakistani government similar to the deposed Taliban regime in Afghanistan. The danger this would pose to regional stability is clear, thus the thought is the Pakistani government cannot be trusted.

Until it can be established that said government is trustworthy, consideration should be given to imposing sanctions and cutting aid payments.
But it is our aid that keeps a moderate government in power. The Pakistani people do not agree with their states support of NATO. If the country was to collapse and become a failed state then it would very easily become an Afghan like country, except with a huge army and nuclear weapons.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top