What's new

Pakistan US Relations After the US attack on PA Soldiers

we Pakistanis don't need Afghanistan for our survival.
we have always got harmed from Afghanistan not in 80s and onward but even before that.from 1947 to 1979 there was no war in Afghanistan but were disturbed by issues like Pakhtoonistan,border troubles,hiding our insurgents and weapons supplying etc.

I am sure that we are going to get harm in any case,the Pashtoons and Taliban blame us that we have attacked them with USA and on other side the non Pashtoon think that we are helping Taliban.

we have got more harmed from Afghan side than India.
 
WASHINGTON, Dec 9: The US military chief has said there still are sanctuaries for militants in Pakistan and that the country’s influence in Afghanistan needs to be tackled.

“In Pakistan, the sanctuary for these militants persists. We have to work hard to end its influence on our Afghan mission,” Gen Martin Dempsey said on Friday.

The chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff also said that Pakistan’s decision to block Nato supply routes reflected badly on its relationship with the United States.

The US military chief indicated that the US was already working on alternative routes to reduce its dependence on Pakistan for supplying its troops in Afghanistan. “We can change the percentages of our reliance upon the Pakistani line of communication.

“We can adjust and we can get it done. It will be more expensive. It will be time-consuming but we have the time to do it,” he said.

“The real problem for me is not the cost. What is troubling me is that they would close the route. What it says about the (US-Pakistan) relationship is troubling for us.”
The general insisted that those who were burning Nato fuel trucks in Pakistan were doing little harm to the US. “When they torch fuel, it is not our fuel they are torching. We do not pay for fuel until it gets to us.”

Gen Dempsey claimed the US military had achieved its “intended purpose” in Afghanistan by reversing the Taliban momentum. He noted that a recent loya jirga in Afghanistan had emphasised the need for establishing a long-term relationship with the United States “in a very encouraging way”.

Gen Dempsey insisted that the Nato attack on two Pakistani border posts was not deliberate. “We did not do it intentionally, regrettably the Pakistani military believes that we did,” he said when asked what caused the attack.

“It is incomprehensible to me, based on our relationship, that they believe so, but they do.”

In an earlier statement, he had said the US-Pakistan ties were troubled, but repairable. His latest remarks at Washington’s Atlantic Council, however, reflected a growing disenchantment with an ally that once played a key role in implementing America’s cold war strategy for Afghanistan.

Pakistan’s military said the Nov 26 attack was unprovoked but the US and Afghan officials have claimed that Nato troops were responding to fire from the Pakistani side of the border.

Expressing his exasperation with the Pakistani perception, Gen Dempsey asked: “What in the world we will hope to gain from it? We did not do it intentionally.”

The US military chief said he had spoken to Chief of Army Staff Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, who was his classmate at a military college in the United States, about the incident and was now waiting for the investigation to conclude. He has also held similar discussions with Nato commanders in Afghanistan, he added.

“We have chosen patience and we are asking them (the Pakistanis) to show some patience too.”

Asked why the Pakistanis were claiming that the attack on their military posts was intentional, Gen Dempsey said: “We are kind of the victims of our own success sometimes. The rest of the world sees (us) as all-knowing, all-seeing and completely precise”.

But this was not always true as “the warfare is not just ugly. It is messy. It is chaotic and it is unpredictable. We are waiting for the investigation to tell us what really happened.”

The killings have served to upend Washington’s attempts to improve ties with Islamabad, which worsened after the secret US raid into Abbottabad to kill Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in May. The Nov 26 incident also threatened to undermine US efforts to stabilise the region before a planned troop withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014.

US needs to tackle Pakistan




The cost may not be his problem or so he thinks. The cost is a big problem for us, US TAXPAYERS who pay this IDIO_S Salary. We the AMERICAN TAXPAYERS have had it with these stupid Generals who think money grows on trees.
 
Dempsey sucks at the spin doctoring... Its not like a stray missile hit the outpost. The US came with gunships and F-18s, kept firing for hours, despite being radioed to stop. Went away, and came back to attack some more.

This can't be spun in a way that it was accidental. They should start talking about impeachment of the President if they want to consider saving this relationship.
 
^^ For NATO it does... especially after they found OBL inside your country. Basically from the words of this Dempsey guy he's like "since you said you didn't know OBL hiding in Pakistan since 5 years, the attack was also just an... accident."
 
Afghanistan is for afghans. Its not anyone's "BACKYARD".
Hey 25% of Pakistan populations is Afghans more than are over there in Afghanistan .. Their roots are from there. Their motherland is Afghanistan hence its part of our land....So U yankeez need get the hell out of our motherland before The Pakistani/Afghan pplz come out and beat ure @$$z out real good......:smokin:
 
It would also end the convoy-protection payments that NATO makes to Taliban-linked warlords, money that ends up buying weapons used against our troops in Afghanistan. This insanity must end’, she said.
:rofl: .NATO is paying protection money to Talibans :rofl:
 
An American-Russian alignment based on opposition to Islamic extremism would provide a common interest to underpin a positive reset of relations’, she said. ‘We also need to shift our stance toward India on the same basis. New Delhi is a friend and a potential ally.

A new dimension America Russia India
 
Let me make a prediction: Pakistan-US relations will soon return to what passes for normal and any major scaling back of ties will remain at the sole discretion of the US. Pakistan simply remains too profoundly and strategically dependent on the US for any other outcome.

Since its inception, Pakistan has defined its security pre-eminently in military terms and pursued an increasingly untenable military balance with India. The strategic arithmetic of this position is as clear today as it was to Pakistani leaders in 1947: an abiding foreign policy of military confrontation with a foe possessing overwhelming strategic superiority can only be sustained with a powerful, external patron who is militarily, diplomatically and economically underwriting Pakistan’s position.

Geopolitical kismet has played a defining role in Pakistan-US relations. But it is no coincidence that the relationship has thrived in periods of military rule. Realising that no abiding interests unite Pakistan and the US, the generals have ruthlessly maximised geopolitical rent-seeking to offset their weak bargaining position against American imperial power.

Yet historically, civilian Napoleons in the establishment and the political class have stood shoulder to tasselled shoulder with the generals. Even Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who likened himself to Hafez alAssad and Kim Il-Sung (comparisons that inspired pride rather than pity in those days), spent much diplomatic capital in upgrading ties with Washington. After all, Pakistan’s military machine, devastated in 1971, needed to be rebuilt to continue the ‘war of a thousand years’ against India.

But the civilian-military entente on India has fragmented since the late 1980s. Most political leaders worth their salt understand that Pakistani peace and prosperity, the legitimacy of civilian rule and the key to keeping the military confined to the barracks, are all tied to a settlement with India. Disposable civilian governments, military adventures like the Kargil fiasco, and even the recent choreographed furore over Most Favoured Nation (MFN) trade status for India are all signposts of military pushback against a potential settlement.

Even now, the military establishment’s real fear is not continuing a servile relationship with the US, but the approaching reality of a return to the 1990s, when Pakistan faded into insignificance for US foreign policy. This fear is now mingled with terror at the prospect of the US forging an alliance with India instead, something a break in relations could hasten.

Thus, Pakistani dependence on the US will remain as long as the country is tied to a paradigm of confrontation with India. And there are no stand-ins in the wings. Despite misinformed assertions to the contrary, China possesses neither the political will, nor the economic clout or military muscle to replace US largesse. With an eye on Uighur unrest, China is also increasingly sceptical of Pakistan’s proxy jihadists, a dangerously infectious disease cultivated in Pakistan’s anti-India military laboratory. More obviously, it makes little sense to swap dependency on the US for China.

Confrontation with India and the resultant dependence on the US has made Pakistan an absurd place where security is measured in externally oriented F-16s even when these contribute to the daily internal insecurities of poverty, ill-health, illiteracy etc. It has also populated the country with horrors: the suicide bomber, the killer drone and ever-deepening intolerance are the enfants terribles of our policy failures. All this has made Pakistanis more violently anti-American than even the Iraqis, Afghans, Cubans or Iranians.

Ironically, the loudest anti-American voices in Pakistan also tend to be the most anti-Indian. They conveniently blind themselves to the reality that to break free of dependence on the US, Pakistan must reboot its strategic security doctrines and must remain steadfast on the path to normalising relations with India. Exteriority and incompleteness are encoded in the DNA of Pakistan’s national vision. This vision has failed. Only in making peace with India can Pakistan make peace with itself.

Pakistan

The writer [Shibil Siddiqi] is a Fellow with the Centre for the Study of Global Power and Politics at Trent University, Canada shibil.siddiqi@tribune.com.pk
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom