After failing to kill the Kerry Lugar Bill, the Bharati (aka Indian) lobbies are out in full force trying hard to drive a wedge between the Pakistan Army and the Pentagon as well as attempting to cause friction between the Civilian Government and the Pakistani Military leadership. Siffy news is one of most virulent Anti-Paksitani news site out there. This site and the lobbyists are now conjuring up the propaganda that the Pakistani Army is sparing the Anti-American insurgents while concentrating on the Anti-Pakistani elements. Duh! Its a matter of priorities. Pakistan faces Indian sponsored terror in its cities almost on a daily basis.The Army will go after those terrorists who are responsible for the bombs going off in Islamabad. The duty of the Pakistani Army is to go after Anti-Pakistani elements—not Anti-French, Anti-Korean and Anti-German elements. Those countries have the ware withal to deal with their enemies.
A batter of rented writers are spewing their usual baloney against Pakistan and the valiant efforts of the Pakistani Army. The Pakistanphobes are busy writing their little stories. Here is Siffy News and their usual claptrap. One the one hand, they are chagrined at the Pentagon’s eulogy which refutes Bharati claims, and on the other hand, they continue to sow seeds of dissention and doubt.
Senator Kay Hagan of the India Caucus had come prepared to besmirch Pakistan. However the Foreign Relations Committee cleverly avoided to give her a microphone. Hagan and her Bharati sponsors went home very disappointed. The Siffy goat droppings rehash old conspiracy theories which have been discredited and bunked by the US and also by Pakistan.
Let's face it. When it comes to the Pentagon [ Images ], the Pakistani military can do no wrong. Even if it's going after only the Pakistani Taliban [ Images ] and not the Afghan Taliban, which it apparently continues to promote for strategic depth against India [ Images ] and as a hedge in case the US decides to cut and run as it did in the immediate aftermath of the erstwhile Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan nearly three decades ago.
During the past few days, top US military officers with direct command of American troops in Afghanistan and strategic policy toward Pakistan and the south and central Asian region, testifying before Congressional committees continued to heap praise on the Pakistani Army's forays against the Pakistani Taliban and extremist groups in the Swat Valley [ Images ] and South Waziristan. In the process they chose to conveniently ignore the concerns of US lawmakers about the dual-track policy by Pakistan Army [ Images ] Chief General Ashfaq Kiyani's troops and the Inter Services Intelligence.
When pressed, they argued that the only way to address the Pakistani army hedging its bets was by providing Pakistan more security assistance and building up the kind of strategic partnership that assured it that this aid and US support would be there for the long haul.
US Central Command Commander General David Petraeus, who was appearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was asked by the panel's chairman Senator John F Kerry as to what the US strategy was toward the Pakistani military that was clearly hedging its bets and going after only the Pakistani Taliban and not the Afghan Taliban. Petraeus said it is imperative for the US to demonstrate to Pakistan that a "sustained, substantial commitment" would be forever available.
Petraeus said, "First of all, the developments of the last 10 months really are quite significant. Because the Pakistani leadership -- all the political leaders, the civilian populace, the clerics and the military -- have all united in recognising that the internal extremists represent the most pressing existential threat to their country -- more pressing than the traditional threat to the east. And, they have taken action in response to that recognition."
But when pressed as to how Pakistan ultimately takes on the Afghan Taliban and eschews funding and promoting this group, the four-star general said, "Frankly, the effort to demonstrate a sustained, substantial commitment to Pakistan -- frankly the Kerry-Lugar bill (which provides $1.5 billion (about Rs 67,000 crore) annually in American largesse to Pakistan over five years) is a hugely important manifestation of that -- the level of security assistance, foreign military financing, the Pakistan Counter-Insurgency Capability Fund and so forth are also very important, given the history that we have with that country and having left it as you know a couple of times before."
"So, this is a process of building trust, mutual confidence and building a relationship in which the mutual threats we face are addressed by those who are on the ground," he said, and added, "And, again we have to recognise the enormous sacrifices, that the Pakistani military, frontier corps and police have made in these operations and also the losses that their civilians have sustained."
Petraeus reiterated that "it's about building a partnership that can transcend these issues that we have had before where we have left after supporting one operation or the other."
Earlier, in his prepared testimony, he had acknowledged that "the Afghan Taliban are, to be sure, distinct from the Pakistani Taliban and their partner groups, some of which shelter Al Qaeda [ Images ]. They are part of a syndicate of extremist groups that includes both Laskhar-e-Tayiba -- the group that carried out the 26/11 Mumbai [ Images ] attacks -- and the Haqqani network, among others."
Petraeus also admitted that this syndicate "threatens the stability of Pakistan and, indeed, the entire subcontinent. Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar [ Images ] is recognised as 'commander of the faithful' by (Osama) bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders, as well as by Al Qaeda affiliates and extremist groups throughout Pakistan and beyond."
Earlier, General Stanley McChrystal, US Commander in Afghanistan, appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, also lavished praise on the Pakistani army saying that "their recent actions over the last year or two against their own internal insurgency are really a good indicator of just how serious they are about conducting counter-insurgency operations and reducing instability on their side."
Even the US Ambassador to Afghanistan, and retired lieutenant general Karl Eikenberry, when asked pointedly about the Pakistani army's dual track when it came to taking on the Pakistan Taliban and sponsoring the Afghan Taliban for strategic depth vis-à-vis India, only acknowledged that "the security relationship between India and Pakistan has consequences for Afghanistan," but then said he would rather "concentrate of Afghanistan and Pakistan."
He then went on to talk about how in concert with the US Ambassador in Islamabad [ Images ], Anne Patterson, "we are looking and continuously searching for ways to facilitate political dialogue between Kabul and Islamabad."
"We have an array of programmes to try to develop mutual trust and confidence," Eikenberry said and went to disclose how Federal Bureau of Investigation
Director Robert Mueller "hosts trilateral initiatives led by himself but partnered with the ministry of interior of Afghanistan and Pakistan."
The envoy also said, "Another important area that has been underway for several years is to improve intelligence exchanges and cooperation between the US and Afghanistan and Pakistan and those efforts led by Central Intelligence Agency Director Leon Panetta and his counterparts in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And, that's been a very robust program as well."
And Senator Kay Hagan who had wanted answers about Pakistan's dual-track policy from McChrystal or Eikenberry, she was sorely disappointed as both had effectively filibustered and run out her allotted time for questions.
Hagan's comments and question for the record was that "ever since the partition of India, Islamabad has attempted to utilise its proxies to install a friendly Pashtun government in Afghanistan that would preserve the de facto border and prevent Pashtun aspirations of a homeland and prevent Indian involvement in Afghanistan."
She asserted that Pakistan "continues to pursue a dual track policy of disrupting the Pakistani Taliban in the tribal areas, most notably in South Waziristan, while elements of its military support the Afghan Taliban networks most notably in North Waziristan and the Afghan Taliban high command in its Balochistan province."
Hagan said, "The key question is if elements of Pakistan's military can be persuaded to change this dual-track policy," and that in order to do that "we've got to address Pakistan's regional concerns, taking into account the relationships with Afghanistan and India." Siffy News. For the Pentagon, the Pakistan Army can do no wrong December 11, 2009 14:20 IST Tags: Pakistan Taliban, Pakistani Taliban, US, Afghanistan, David Petraeus
Bluster before Exit: Obama’s last hurrah—30,000 troops "for 18 months" then withdrawal by 2011 
International Council of Security and Development (ISOC): Taliban control “virtually all” of Afghanistan 
Michael Moore to President Obama
Obama's mini surge: Withdrawal in 2011! as predicted by Rupee News
Delhi’s worst nightmare: A “Taliban” (Pakhtun) government in Kabul
Obama’s new Grand bargain: More aid, intelligence cooperation & a few threats
Perpetual Mimitic War: Strategy for continued Failure in Afghanistan 
Obama's Afghan surge without robust implementation of an "Exit Plan" is a 'Straightjacket' named quagmire & defeat
Can the drama of a Joe Biden’s "resignation" end the Afghan war fiasco? 
Pakistan: Hillary Clinton still doesn't have a clue
Pakistan: Why Ms. Clinton doesn’t get it 
Hillary Clinton admits to US support for Bin Laden & creation of Taliban
The rude US Ambassador Patterson in hot soup 
"The best way to get out of Afghanistan fast is (for) people to think we're staying." Sen. John McCain of Arizona. 
"There is no military success ultimately to Afghanistan. Senator John Kerry 
Kerry Lugar Bill backlash: Pakistan rethinks Afghan policy & US alliance-Hit RAW hard in Afghanistan
Without speedy withdrawal--we are running the risk of replicating the fate of the Soviets” Mr. Brzezinski 
Brzezinski: Don’t start new wars. Use diplomacy in Pakistan
“Can Karzai get away with a stolen election”- Carter 
Admiral Mullen is still wrong 
The crusty specious, Admiral is mistaken about Afghanistan
Obama’s Afghan timeout vs. Mullen’s surge 
Afghan temp Surge: McChrystal malarkey hides incompetence of NATO, ISAF & US forces 
McChrystal right on India: Delhi must scale back Afghan operations
“Taliban’s Winning Strategy in Afghanistan”: Overcoming “culture of poverty” 
The US occupation has not brought security to Afghan women 
Afghanistan’s Bravest Woman Malalai Joya: “Taliban are logistically & militarily growing stronger as each day dawns.” “Afghan women and men are not ‘liberated’ at all”
Bluster before exit: US capitulates to Afghan Taliban: Negotiating retreat schedule 
The silent "K" in Holbrooke's portfolio 
AfPak countercurrents beyond the Oxus to AfPakAzUzbKazTurkKyr-istan 
Tick Tock Tick Tock-2011: Obama’s shrinking Afghan timeline 
Truth not Orwellian propaganda: Best article on Afghanistan anywhere
US bluff: Other arduous US Supply Chain routes to Afghanistan not feasible 
Afghanistan fiasco: Cleaning up the Am-Brit failures in Kabul again 
Solutions to "Obama's Vietnam"--AfPak
David Kilcullen incessant paranoid hallucinating Pakistanphobic rhetoric destroys his credibility 
Obama must avoid creating a backlash in neighboring Pakistan by heavy-handed U.S. military intervention there: David Kilcullen 
Can Obama pull US out of the Afghan quicksand? Choosing China & Pakistan over Bharat (aka India)
NATO not buying the Obama Doctrine or surge after Surge?
Afghanistan & Pakistan: Can the US Prevail? No!
Fixing Afpak: Inability to implement exit strategy spells inevitable US military catastrophe in Kabul 
Obama's sane policy should be implemented-- Negotiate with the Taliban
Betrayals, blackmail in Bakiyev-- cloaking failure as success hiding the defeat, declaring victory, withdrawing from Afghanistan within 18 months 
Obama's new policy was supposed to be a Marshal Plan & end to bombing raids in Pakistan
Convincing the US tin ear of the Pakistani point of view 
Rahm Emanuel blames the “Ho Chi Minh Trail” for Afghan defeat 
Obama’s Neocon: Bruce Riedel’s rancid racism against Pakistan is bad US history 
Bigoted Bruce Riedel's diatribes not valid for Pakistan & Afghanistan? 
Mr. Bruce Riedel’s irrational rhetoric exacerbated US-Pakistani relations
Obama team's consensus: Much of Pakistan’s problems originate in Afghanistan
Obama advisor Weinbaum focus on talks resurrected in new Afghan strategy 
Ahmed Rashid's bad advice about Pakistan 
Afghanistan: Con man Ahmed Rashid sold the America down the river--and made a buck doing it
Afghan Surge fiasco: Ahmed Rashid’s bad advice 
Obama adviser insights into Afghan policy: Result same old same old
Why troops surges in Afghanistan are doomed to failure?
Rand report: End GWOT. Defeat Al-Qaeda with police & Dollars 
Hindu Kush Curtain Call: The End Game in Afghanistan 
Harvard questions: Afghanistan Lost? Barnett Rubin & Maleeha Lodhi solutions to quagmire 
The Pakistani perspective: Peace deals only way to precipitate face saving for US & Obama’s smooth Exit strategy from Afghanistan
After NATO rejection Obama has few options left in Afghanistan 
Pakistan First by Shireen Mazari: The devastating affects of appeasing India and kowtowing to the USA
Pakistan to US: No pay-No play: Tough lessons in geography!
People talk glibly of ‘the total disarmament of the frontier tribes’ as being the obvious policy…but to obtain it would be as painful and as tedious an undertaking as to extract the stings of a swarm of hornets, with naked fingers.” Winston Churchill 
PEANUTS: Puny US Aid to Pakistan is too little too late. Marshall Plan, & Trade concessions missing 
Graveyard of Empires: AfPak-TurkTaj-UzbKaz-AzKyr -istan 
Obama's "Vietnam": Khyber & Hindu Kush 
Afghanistan:-- Pakistan's Eminent Domain 
“India supporting the terrorists in tribal areas & Balochistan” FM Qureshi 
India’s dark shadow on Afghanistan 
Evidence against India-ISI Chief confronts Leon Panetta about stopping CIA/RAW Terror in Pakistan
No comments:
Post a Comment