Trump: "Been paying Pak billions of dollars and they're housing the very terrorists we are fighting"

[R0H1T]

Wow, India can do all that for Afghanistan while most of it's own population lives in abject poverty? No wonder Trump is making financial demands from India, they have got too much money to go round everywhere except home.

Whoa, took you long enough to go off on a tangent. No wonder many of you didn;t have answers to any of the genuine questions I asked earlier in the thread.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Whoa, took you long enough to go off on a tangent. No wonder many of you didn;t have answers to any of the genuine questions I asked earlier in the thread.

My post directly addressed yours, there was nothing off tangent about it. Unless you are saying your own post was off tangent, then I suppose mine by following would be guilty of same.

 

[waqar goraya]

Trump administration may now be actually looking at striking the funders and supporters of Taliban.Elements that have helped and abetted Taliban.

He should attack CIA headquarters.

 

[the Great Khan]

Whoa, took you long enough to go off on a tangent. No wonder many of you didn;t have answers to any of the genuine questions I asked earlier in the thread.

which questions?

 

[the Great Khan]

He should attack CIA headquarters.

[MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION] is having one of his (bleep) dreams again. Not happening my friend. Keep dreaming. but if they do well lets just say all hell will break loose because it will kill off many many redlines and will in effect lead to an acute escalation.

 

[R0H1T]

which questions?

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...ts-we-are-fighting-quot&p=9405129#post9405129

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...ts-we-are-fighting-quot&p=9405147#post9405147

Off topic but I notice no one had the answers.

 

[Yossarian]

It could also be read as India helping reshape the economy of Afghanistan which we can obviously. As others have said, poppy makes up a huge chunk of Afghan economy, Taliban are the biggest benefactors, some of that poppy also ends up in Northern India like Punjab.

If we can systematically dismantle the poppy trade & move Afghans away from heroin, cocaine et al Taliban may well find it hard to fund their endless wars. It wasn;t Afghan war that killed the USSR, many like to boast it was on this forum, it was the economy which collapsed under it's own weight, A strong economy would;ve meant that USSR would still be intact today, the only way you can be rid of Taliban (short of nuking them) is to make their war untenable, part of it is seizing their territory, the other major part is economy.

A strong economy will give Afghans many levers to drive out Taliban, to drown out their philosophy. The people will chose what looks better, pays better & probably smells better. Most rational people do that, unless inspired by ISIS.

You obviously don't know much about the recent history of Afghanistan, otherwise you wouldn't be making such ignorant comments as that.

Under Taliban rule, poppy/heroin production actually almost completely disappeared. It only came back after the Taliban were removed and the Americans took over.

Afghanistan became the world’s largest source of illicit opium under the Taliban rule in the late 1990s. A short-lived Taliban ban on opium cultivation in 2001 brought the production to a record low of 185 metric tonnes that year, compared to 3,276 metric tonnes in 2000. It also caused a 20-times price increase, from an average of $30 in 2000 to $700 in 2001 per kilo, prompting massive resumption of cultivation in 2002.

This year, the area under opium poppy cultivation in Afghanistan has increased by 8 per cent, from 74,000 hectares in 2002 to 80,000 now. Opium production has increased by 6 per cent, from 3,400 to 3,600 tonnes.


https://www.un.org/press/en/2003/socnar880.doc.htm

So in 2000-2001, under Taliban rule, opium production reduced from 3,276 metric tonnes to 186 metric tonnes.

2002 (after Taliban rule removed and Americans took over) "massive resumption of cultivation", production reached 3,400 tonnes

2003 (American rule), production increased again to 3,600 tonnes.

Source: United Nations.

https://www.un.org/press/en/2003/socnar880.doc.htm

 

[R0H1T]

You obviously don't know much about the recent history of Afghanistan, otherwise you wouldn't be making such ignorant comments as that.

Under Taliban rule, poppy/heroin production actually almost completely disappeared. It only came back after the Taliban were removed and the Americans took over.



So in 2000-2001, under Taliban rule, opium production reduced from 3,276 metric tonnes to 186 metric tonnes.

2002 (after Taliban rule removed and Americans took over) "massive resumption of cultivation", production reached 3,400 tonnes

2003 (American rule), production increased again to 3,600 tonnes.

Source: United Nations.

https://www.un.org/press/en/2003/socnar880.doc.htm

You obviously didn;t pay attention to what I wrote. Does Taliban gain anything from the current poppy trade, arms sale & even taxing areas under their control?


What's their role in narcotics or any number of illicit activities from across the border, don;t give me historical references as I;m talking about what's happening now?

Also you didn;t address the biggest point in that post, USSR didn;t lose to Taliban as much as it lost the ability to wage wars & still keep the USSR intact, with their economy. So outside of economic solutions that benefit Afghans, also punitive actions whenever possible, how do you think Taliban can be defeated or do you think they're here to stay? Forget about the Americans, I;m talking Taliban vs NA, do you support the former?

 

[R0H1T]

Just to ad to the former ~

Afghanistan became the world’s largest source of illicit opium under the Taliban rule in the late 1990s. A short-lived Taliban ban on opium cultivation in 2001 brought the production to a record low of 185 metric tonnes that year, compared to 3,276 metric tonnes in 2000. It also caused a 20-times price increase, from an average of $30 in 2000 to $700 in 2001 per kilo, prompting massive resumption of cultivation in 2002.

So you're saying this was the US' fault or that if the biggest source of income for Afghans increased 20x in price you wouldn;t see a resurgence in cultivation, conveniently missed by you?

 

[Yossarian]

You obviously didn;t pay attention to what I wrote. Does Taliban gain anything from the current poppy trade, arms sale & even taxing areas under their control?


What's their role in narcotics or any number of illicit activities from across the border, don;t give me historical references as I;m talking about what's happening now?

Also you didn;t address the biggest point in that post, USSR didn;t lose to Taliban as much as it lost the ability to wage wars & still keep the USSR intact, with their economy. So outside of economic solutions that benefit Afghans, also punitive actions whenever possible, how do you think Taliban can be defeated or do you think they're here to stay? Forget about the Americans, I;m talking Taliban vs NA, do you support the former?

Yet more ignorance. The Taliban didn't exist during the time the Soviets were in Afghanistan. The Soviets left Afghanistan in 1998. The Taliban didn't become active until the early 1990's (they started off as a bunch of religious students) and only came to prominence around late 1994.

So you are technically correct in that the USSR didn't lose to the Taliban, primarily because the Taliban as such didn't even exist during Soviet rule in Afghanistan!

 

[R0H1T]

Yet more ignorance. The Taliban didn't exist during the time the Soviets were in Afghanistan. The Soviets left Afghanistan in 1998. The Taliban didn't become active until the early 1990's (they started off as a bunch of religious students) and only came to prominence around late 1994.

So you are technically correct in that the USSR didn't lose to the Taliban, primarily because the Taliban as such didn't even exist during Soviet rule in Afghanistan!

So we're rewriting history now, when did the USSR dissolve?

The USSR also didn;t lose just because of an ideology, I could bring in Mujaheddins but then that'd go the usual route.

Stop dancing around, what do you think caused the collapse of Soviets ~ an Afghan war or the economy? The Afghan war could be interpreted as the last straw, but USSR didn;t lose just because they were fighting against guerrilla warfare.

 

[Yossarian]

The Soviets left Afghanistan in 1998

.Mistake. Soviets left in 1989

 

[Yossarian]

So we're rewriting history now, when did the USSR dissolve?

The USSR also didn;t lose just because of an ideology, I could bring in Mujaheddins but then that'd go the usual route.

Stop dancing around, what do you think caused the collapse of Soviets ~ an Afghan war or the economy? The Afghan war could be interpreted as the last straw, but USSR didn;t lose just because they were fighting against guerrilla warfare.

So after posting a load of drivel, you've now decided to change the topic to how and why the USSR collapsed!!
In that case, whilst we're at it, lets also discuss the Bolshevik Revolution and Lenin, or even the rule of Czar Nicholas II, and the events leading up to it.

 

[R0H1T]

So after posting a load of drivel, you've now decided to change the topic to how and why the USSR collapsed!!
In that case, whilst we're at it, lets also discuss the Bolshevik Revolution and Lenin, or even the rule of Czar Nicholas II, and the events leading up to it.

After explaining all that, needlessly I guess, you come back with the same trope?

Now repeat after me ~ how do you defeat Taliban?

Hold the door, hold the door, hold the door

 

[Yossarian]

After explaining all that, needlessly I guess, you come back with the same trope?

Now repeat after me ~ how do you defeat Taliban?

Hold the door, hold the door, hold the door

You don't. Or rather, can't. As the American's have already stated, which is why they want a negotiated settlement.

Problem is most American politicians and many generals don't seem to understand the simple fact that these Taliban are not outsiders but that they are the sons, fathers and brothers of the people that live there, the people that the Americans wish to 'liberate', and as soon as the 'foreigners' kill one of them, other family members rise up to take their place and 'seek revenge' for the death of their family member(s). Even more so if those innocents killed by the 'foreigners' are then labeled by them as simply being 'collateral damage'.

So unless the Americans wish to wipe out the vast majority of the Afghan, mainly rural, population, they simply cannot 'win'.

But unfortunately, it's not just the Americans, but now also many Indians (as yourself) who don't realise that.

 

[www787]

After explaining all that, needlessly I guess, you come back with the same trope?

Now repeat after me ~ how do you defeat Taliban?

Hold the door, hold the door, hold the door

It is like asking, how to defeat and root out Hindu radical extremists of Indian politics and other democratic system.

 

[R0H1T]

You don't. Or rather, can't. As the American's have already stated, which is why they want a negotiated settlement.

Problem is most American politicians and many generals don't seem to understand the simple fact that these Taliban are not outsiders but that they are the sons, fathers and brothers of the people that live there, the people that the Americans wish to 'liberate', and as soon as the 'foreigners' kill one of them, other family members rise up to take their place and 'seek revenge' for the death of their family member(s). Even more so if those innocents killed by the 'foreigners' are then labeled by them as simply being 'collateral damage'.

So unless the Americans wish to wipe out the vast majority of the Afghan, mainly rural, population, they simply cannot 'win'.

There's a third option, choice. If the Afghans see a better lifestyle, more freedom, education & employment why would they choose the Taliban?

If Taliban is just an ideology, or ideologically driven group, then a more modern ideology with greater freedom will win. If it's just a bunch of old hags that want revenge with the US then they'll eventually be outnumbered by the many born in & around Kabul. No ideology outlasts the people that inhabit the land, the ideologies & traditions always mould according to the people of that time & how they see the world, they evolve.

 

[Yossarian]

There's a third option, choice. If the Afghans see a better lifestyle, more freedom, education & employment why would they choose the Taliban?

If Taliban is just an ideology, or ideologically driven group, then a more modern ideology with greater freedom will win. If it's just a bunch of old hags that want revenge with the US then they'll eventually be outnumbered by the many born in & around Kabul. No ideology outlasts the people that inhabit the land, the ideologies & traditions always mould according to the people of that time & how they see the world, they evolve.

'Better lifestyle' and 'Freedom' are subjective. Is the criteria for a 'better lifestyle' and 'freedom' the same for a Hindu radical extremist and a Sikh priest from the Golden Temple or Christian Missionary in India the same? In parts of Afghanistan, family and clan loyalty, traditions, even the need to avenge the death of a family or clan member, supersede everything else. In some parts, even supersedes religion and religious beliefs. And that's why the Americans cannot win, because they are a foreign force fighting against all that.

 

[R0H1T]

'Better lifestyle' and 'Freedom' are subjective. Is the criteria for a 'better lifestyle' and 'freedom' the same for a Hindu radical extremist and a Sikh priest from the Golden Temple or Christian Missionary in India the same? In parts of Afghanistan, family and clan loyalty, traditions, even the need to avenge the death of a family or clan member, supersede everything else. In some parts, even supersedes religion and religious beliefs. And that's why the Americans cannot win, because they are a foreign force fighting against all that.

Freedom is not subjective, lifestyle is.

What do you mean, all of them can do whatever they want to, it's the state machinery that may handle or interpret some of their actions differently?

They don't, you ask 99% of sane people out there, what would they rather have ~ blood for blood or a better life, future for them & their children? Almost all of them will choose the latter, except sycophants.

Who cares, America's win or loss doesn't matter, the avg Afghani must win his freedom, from both of these oppressors. You seem to be obsessed with the American presence in Afg, you think 20k troops will change the lives of millions or alter their destiny. They're at best a peacekeeping force although their capabilities are severely limited right now.

 

[sshakir411]

oh man, hearing Indians talk about Taliban is like hearing Indians trying to play Rock music...total fail. Also sounds like they have no clue on Afghani culture if they think Taliban is going to go away if the big bad Pakistani generals end their support. This is a clear example of pre-cooked frozen meals served to them by their state sponsored doordarshan

 

[cricketjoshila]

[MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION] is having one of his (bleep) dreams again. Not happening my friend. Keep dreaming. but if they do well lets just say all hell will break loose because it will kill off many many redlines and will in effect lead to an acute escalation.

We will see what happens and what not.There are more than one way to skin the cat.

 

[Markhor]

Lesson for Pakistan and USA alike, how many policies have failed in Afghanistan, I hardly remember anything ever worked in last 3/4 decade:

Pakistan Army using Afghans as religious bombs, failed miserably:

Its never easy to control or use afghanis to your benefit...We(US and Pakistan) tried to using them in Russian war, Pakistan tried to continue to use their warrior skills a decade later as well, but end up creating more mess...Pakistan has become more like Afghanistan than other way around. Pakistan has become more religious extreme, it attracts now extremist all over the world to, what Afghanistan was in 80s, Pakistan has become in 2000s and 2010s...This building nation on high dose of religion has failed for both of us(Pakistan and Afghanistan), you are make you society poor, more suitable to abuse by everybody...

Good Taliban, Bad Taliban policy of Pak Army, backfire big time:

In last 8/10 years, Pakistan has switched to Good/Bad Taliban policy, that is somewhat a repeat of 1980s policies. This is hardly any different, so are the results. Culturally Army and nation is still following a vision that is breeding ground for extremist of all kinds. Same amount of money and energy of nation is spend on wrong ideology. Culturally we are still in very wrong direction, nothing has changed on cultural front in last few decades.

US Army nation building, again failed:

US Army has hard time penetrating socially, culturally, politically, they had no success what so ever in last 17 years. They are not nation builders(in same time period, they failed in middle east too), staying there indefinitely means more failure. They have not achieved much in 17 years with more boots on ground. What possibly they will achieve in next decade or so? - They have stated nation building is not their priority, what else they will do, to "change conditions on the ground"??

India is probably happy with Status Co

India is not going to get their hands dirty in Afghanistan. They are happy with whats going on, this status co has helped de-stablize one of their main enemy, more the mess is better for them...Pakistan and China is in between, how much trade they can do anyway, where as arming the Good/Bad(depending upon your point of view) Taliban is an easier and more profitable investment, which probably they have been doing in last decade or so...

Same is the case with Saudi Arab(and Iran), they were using earlier Afghanistan and now Pakistan as bedding ground for their religious wars. For them money is only investment they need to make, which they are getting for free from Oil, their is not much blood or sweat they have to suffer.

Pakistan and Afghanistan has lost the most in those 3/4 decades, and they will continue to loose more. Pakistan has been more stupid than anybody else in that time frame, we have let our country ruined and learned nothing, we have double down on those policies...Two main enabler of those policies (Army and Religion) are still two most beloved pillars in society, despite what has happen in last 40 years, you can tell we are not very bright nation

Good post, agreed on all fronts.

Pakistan made a big mistake doing America's bidding in Afghanistan in the 1980s. You cannot promote and glorify jihad overseas and expect no blowback at home. Not only did Pakistan pay a price for radicalising its own population, but finds itself still grappling with the illegal arms and drug smuggling trade that flourished as a result of the war which has exacted a terrible human cost to KPK province.

The policy of "strategic depth" has totally failed. Has Pakistan gained an inch of Kashmir as a result of these policies ? Is Afghanistan any more pro-Pakistan after all these years ? No ! Anti-Pakistan sentiments in Afghanistan is at an all-time high while its government moves closer to Delhi. In order to make the future a success we need to be honest about our history, accept past failings and change course.

Regional countries should cooperate and make Afghanistan a decentralised state. History has shown it's not a country with much appetite for centralised authority. The Taliban should govern the majority Pashtun provinces, and the Uzbeks, Hazaras and Tajiks govern the provinces where they are a majority. In ethnically mixed areas and in central government, there should be a powersharing arrangement between the Pashtuns and non-Pashtuns. Rights for minorities in these provinces must be guaranteed to avoid ethnic discrimination.

Given foreign aid represents a sizeable amount of Afghanistan's GDP, the international community have significant leverage which it must use. Pakistan itself should exert any influence it has on the Afghan Taliban into accepting powersharing.

 

[Yossarian]

They don't, you ask 99% of sane people out there, what would they rather have ~ blood for blood or a better life, future for them & their children? Almost all of them will choose the latter, except sycophants.

It's quite clear that you haven't a clue about the Afghan tribsmen's family and clan loyalties, and their concept of 'honour' and retribution. This is obviously so far above your head that I don't really blame you for not understanding it. (note, I said understanding it, and not necessarily agreeing with it)

 

[Varun]

oh man, hearing Indians talk about Taliban is like hearing Indians trying to play Rock music...total fail. Also sounds like they have no clue on Afghani culture if they think Taliban is going to go away if the big bad Pakistani generals end their support. This is a clear example of pre-cooked frozen meals served to them by their state sponsored doordarshan

Doordarshan is a quality channel - content wise. Unfortunately nobody has been watching it for the better part of this century.

 

[gasgemba]

Good work from trump. We know pakistan does harbour terrorists so at least this might force a change for the good. I'm certain good pakistanis are ecstatic about this as well.

 

[yasir]

Good post, agreed on all fronts.

Pakistan made a big mistake doing America's bidding in Afghanistan in the 1980s. You cannot promote and glorify jihad overseas and expect no blowback at home. Not only did Pakistan pay a price for radicalising its own population, but finds itself still grappling with the illegal arms and drug smuggling trade that flourished as a result of the war which has exacted a terrible human cost to KPK province.

The policy of "strategic depth" has totally failed. Has Pakistan gained an inch of Kashmir as a result of these policies ? Is Afghanistan any more pro-Pakistan after all these years ? No ! Anti-Pakistan sentiments in Afghanistan is at an all-time high while its government moves closer to Delhi. In order to make the future a success we need to be honest about our history, accept past failings and change course.

Regional countries should cooperate and make Afghanistan a decentralised state. History has shown it's not a country with much appetite for centralised authority. The Taliban should govern the majority Pashtun provinces, and the Uzbeks, Hazaras and Tajiks govern the provinces where they are a majority. In ethnically mixed areas and in central government, there should be a powersharing arrangement between the Pashtuns and non-Pashtuns. Rights for minorities in these provinces must be guaranteed to avoid ethnic discrimination.

Given foreign aid represents a sizeable amount of Afghanistan's GDP, the international community have significant leverage which it must use. Pakistan itself should exert any influence it has on the Afghan Taliban into accepting powersharing.

Main problem is if you screw a country and leave it alone, all kinds of fundamentalist/nationalists brew in decade or so, not even decade it takes no time now. Locals need to survive, they will go for anything and everything they can get. Iraq/Syria/Libya/Afghans/Pakistan/Yemen/Iran are just example of last 10-15 years...National building is almost a must, people need proper education and infrastructure, otherwise they will be zombie soldiers for religious/nationalist/racist armies...If you don't have appetite for nation building than don't go to war on a country than is 1000X weaker than you...

This is an important lesson for developed Western nations(not just them upcoming powers too) that don't bomb blindly, even if you are powerful, war never ends with bombing, its much more complicated than that, Army is small part of War, you need a long term strategy, which has been missing in almost all cases...US as sole superpower has not been very thoughtful in their military ventures...I don't think they can continue like that. All these ventures are costly, since without nation building, these countries are worse then before...We all live on a same planet that is getting smaller and smaller by every minute, you have to think about others, since you will be living with them. Nobody is going away with bombs, that was 1000 year old model, not applicable anymore...

Pakistan has a central govt, but in last 30/40 years, Madarassa grew from 5K to 40K. Madarassa system is completely junk education, no education is better than that, their whole purpose is to build holly zombie warriors, it adds no value to 21C economy or society. On top of that we build a Tabligi infrastructure layer on entire society, that is again a very bad foundation for 21C society, nothing good can come out from these religious ventures, we are far worse then where we were 30/40 years ago, we are following a wrong vision...Central Govt and Strong Military is no help in this regard. My main problem with our society is that despite failures we are not willing to change our vision, continuing down the wrong path, nobody can help you if you are not willing to change!!

 

[Tommo]

How to pi55 America off and restore balance.

1) Indefinately close American and NATO supply route.
2) Seal the border with Afghanistan; make it full proof.
3) Build Pakistan-Iran oil pipeline
4) Offer China a naval base in Gwader.
5) Kick all afghan refugees out
6) Start work on ICBM
7) Start work on nuclear submarine; SLBM (submarine launched ballistic missile).
8) Open ties with Iran.
9) Maintain defacto 'mediator' role between Arabs and Iranians.
10) Hire lobbies in America to push Pro- Pakistan narrative
11) Defence deal with Russia, Invite Putin.
12) More SAM batteries, near Afghanistan border.
13) Upgrade air-force with possibly Chinese aircrafts in the short term i.e J10C or D version. Therefore reducing chance of an attack on Pakistan.

 

[big_gamer007]

When Trump offers anything more than talk then we should care about it otherwise it's all just empty words which hardly matters to any Indian..

 

[Muhammad10]

Pakistan rejects 'insinuations' in Trump's Afghanistan speech

(CNN)Pakistan's National Security Council issued a strongly worded rebuttal on Thursday to President Donald Trump's remarks that Pakistan provided "safe havens for terrorist organizations."

"The (National Security) Committee outrightly rejected the specific allegations and insinuations made against Pakistan," the council said in a statement. "To scapegoat Pakistan will not help in stabilizing Afghanistan. In fact, being its immediate neighbor, Pakistan has an abiding interest in peace and stability in Afghanistan."

The rebuttal comes days after Trump's speech Monday in which he announced that the US military would expand its presence in the war in Afghanistan, now in its 16th year.

In particular, Trump had harsh words for Pakistan, the US ally that borders Afghanistan to the south. He said Washington could "no longer be silent about Pakistan's safe havens for terrorist organizations."

"We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars. At the same time, they are housing the very terrorists we are fighting ... that must change immediately," Trump added.

In its statement, Pakistan defended its role in the lengthy war and said it has worked to promote peace in Afghanistan.

"The Committee observed that Pakistan has consistently supported all international efforts for a stable and peaceful Afghanistan," the council's statement said. "On its own part, Pakistan has taken indiscriminate actions against all terrorist networks and sacrificed tens of thousands of troops and civilians in this fight."

US officials have long accused Pakistan's leadership of not doing enough to stabilize Afghanistan and have suspected that Pakistan knowingly hid terrorists.

For example, when US soldiers killed Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Ladin in a raid in Pakistan in May 2011, White House officials did not inform Islamabad ahead of time. In addition, Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar died in April 2013 in Pakistan, a spokesperson for Afghanistan's president said in 2015.

"Pakistan has much to gain from partnering with our effort in Afghanistan (and) much to lose from harboring criminals and terrorists," Trump said in his speech Monday.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/24/world/pakistan-trump-afghanistan/index.html

 

[Waseem]

Good work from trump. We know pakistan does harbour terrorists so at least this might force a change for the good. I'm certain good pakistanis are ecstatic about this as well.

This was posted for you:

oh man, hearing Indians talk about Taliban is like hearing Indians trying to play Rock music...total fail. Also sounds like they have no clue on Afghani culture if they think Taliban is going to go away if the big bad Pakistani generals end their support. This is a clear example of pre-cooked frozen meals served to them by their state sponsored doordarshan

 

[UN talkz]

Pakistan sets terms for help in anti-terror fight

• Top security meeting rejects Trump’s allegations of duplicity

• Warns against scapegoating Pakistan for failures in Afghan war

• Takes exception to role assigned to India in new regional policy

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan’s top civilian and military leadership on Thursday strongly rejected US President Donald Trump’s allegations of insincerity and duplicity in the fight against terrorism and set conditions for future counterterrorism cooperation with Washington and Kabul, specifically the removal of
hideouts in eastern Afghanistan.

The government’s formal and comprehensive response to the Trump administration’s policy on Afghanistan and South Asia came after a meeting of the National Security Committee (NSC), which was chaired by Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi and attended by ministers for defence, foreign affairs, finance, and interior, the national security adviser, services chiefs and heads of intelligence agencies and military operations.

The NSC was specially convened for deliberations on the US policy and formulating the ‘comprehensive response’.

The government had earlier given a preliminary response to the policy after a meeting of the federal cabinet. The army too had expressed its views through a statement after a meeting between Chief of the Army Staff Gen Qamar Bajwa and US Ambassador David Hale on Wednesday.

The statement issued after the NSC meeting was a detailed rejoinder to all elements of concern in the new US policy and President Trump’s speech — the allegations about sanctuaries, claims about taking billions and billions of dollars in aid from Washington, fears about nuclear security, and the formalisation of India’s role in Afghanistan.

The bottom line of the response is that Pakistan remains committed to international efforts for peace and stability in Afghanistan, but it also wants its concerns to be addressed, including the main issue of sanctuaries on Afghan soil.

The demand for elimination of sanctuaries was thrice mentioned in the unusually long statement.

Counterterrorism cooperation with the US and Afghanistan, the NSC said, was contingent upon: “focusing on core issues of eliminating safe havens inside Afghanistan, border management, return of refugees and reinvigorating the peace process for a political settlement in Afghanistan.”

At another point, the NSC underscored that it would “more specifically” want “effective and immediate US military efforts to eliminate sanctuaries harbouring terrorists and miscreants on the Afghan soil, including those responsible for fomenting terror in Pakistan”.
Separately, it said: “Pakistan is committed to not allowing its soil to be used for violence against any other country. We expect the same from our neighbours.”

The United States, it may be recalled, had already signalled its willingness to address the issue of removal of safe havens in Afghanistan from where terrorists have been launching attacks in Pakistan. In the first statement issued by the State Department on behalf of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson after President Trump’s speech, it had been said that it was “vital to US interests that Afghanistan and Pakistan prevent terrorist sanctuaries”.

Pakistan has long demanded action against those sanctuaries, but there has been no serious action so far, except for a brief campaign after the Army Public School tragedy in December 2014. Several terrorists wanted by Pakistan reportedly move freely within Afghanistan and, at least according to one statement by former TTP spokesman Ehsanullah Ehsan, after he surrendered to security forces earlier this year, the terrorists were given special identification documents by the Afghan authorities to facilitate their movements there.

Terrorists from their sanctuaries in Afghanistan carry out attacks on Pakistani border posts and, according to the ISPR, multiple attacks attempted on the night of Aug 13 were foiled because of improved security arrangements.

New Indian role

In very categorical terms, the NSC expressed its reservations about the role assigned to India in the new regional policy that extends from economic assistance and development in Afghanistan to peace and security in South Asia and the broader Indo-Pacific region.

Pakistan fears that India with its new role would work to exacerbate its security concerns.

Questioning the role given to India, the NSC said: “India cannot be a net security provider in the South Asia region when it has conflictual relationships with all its neighbours and is pursuing a policy of destabilising Pakistan from the east and the west.”

The committee also pointed towards Indian interference in the internal affairs of neighbouring countries and use of terrorism as an instrument of state policy.

“The committee condemned state-inflicted repression on the people of Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir and reiterated Pakistan’s continued diplomatic, political and moral support for their struggle for self-determination,” the statement said.

Pakistan’s worries about Indian role would be a major irritant in Pak-US engagement on the new policy.

Secretary Tillerson had said the US would engage with Pakistan “in a very serious and thorough way on its expectations and the conditions that go with that”.

Foreign Minister Khawaja Asif was earlier scheduled to travel to the US for bilateral talks with Secretary Tillerson next week, but the trip has been delayed for a later date after his tour of China and other friendly countries.

Nuclear security

In his speech, President Trump renewed the fears of nuclear security when he identified as a major US interest in Afghanistan and Pakistan the effort to “prevent nuclear weapons and materials from coming into the hands of terrorists”.

The NSC dismissed those apprehensions as baseless and reminded that Pakistan has an internationally-recognised “robust and credible command and control system” and it is “a responsible nuclear weapon state”.

Terrorist sanctuaries

The committee went to lengths to reject the US accusation of terrorist sanctuaries on Pakistani soil that was also rebuffed in the preliminary statement as “false narrative”.

It was said that Pakistan’s indiscriminate action against all terrorist groups was proven by the improved security environment in the country.

Pakistan’s commitment to fighting terrorism, it maintained, was also demonstrated by its counterterrorism cooperation with the US in the past, something which was also acknowledged by Mr Trump.

“We consider the lives of the citizens of other countries as sacrosanct as those of our own,” the statement said.

President Trump’s claim of “paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars” was said to be “misleading”. The statement said the money given to Pakistan was reimbursement of the “part of the cost of ground facilities and air corridors used by the United States for its operations in Afghanistan” and not any “any financial aid or assistance”.

The NSC called for recognition of the sacrifices made by Pakistan in the fight against terrorism in terms of tens of thousands of civilian and security personnel martyred and $120 billion in economic losses suffered by the country’s economy. It warned that scapegoating Pakistan for failures in the Afghan war would not help in achieving the objective of stabilising war-ravaged Afghanistan.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1353723/pakistan-sets-terms-for-help-in-anti-terror-fight

 

[the Great Khan]

We will see what happens and what not.There are more than one way to skin the cat.

and the US has run out of ideas.

 

[cricketjoshila]

and the US has run out of ideas.

You wish they had.They have enough economic and military strength to bring any country to its knees.If they can cripple the economies of Iran and Russia,well you can think.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

You wish they had.They have enough economic and military strength to bring any country to its knees.If they can cripple the economies of Iran and Russia,well you can think.

Pakistan is too useful to the US as a staging post in Asia, why would it want to cripple them?

 

[the Great Khan]

You wish they had.They have enough economic and military strength to bring any country to its knees.If they can cripple the economies of Iran and Russia,well you can think.

thats the point. They've tried it all. Contrary to popular Indian belief the US cannot afford to wipe us out anymore. They tried it by using the same methodology they have used in Syria and have failed. As for economics well ok let hthem but that will make things worse because pakistan will then be fighting for its existence and the US will definitely lose any minor leverage they have. To the extent they will be actively resisted.

But you keep dreaming your dreams like the rest of your ilk.

 

[MenInG]

https://www.dawn.com/news/1355318/us-attaches-new-conditions-to-pledged-military-aid

WASHINGTON: The Trump administration has held back previously promised military aid of $255 million to Pakistan by attaching new conditions which, the State Department says, will allow it to review the level of its cooperation with Islamabad before making new commitments.

“The Department notified Congress on August 30 of our intent to obligate $255 million in FY 2016 Foreign Military Financing for Pakistan. At the same time, the Department is placing a pause on spending those funds and on allocating them to any specific FMF sales contracts,” said the State Department in a statement sent to Dawn.

Also read: 'Peanuts, not billions of dollars': Nisar assails Trump's claims of aid for Pakistan

The FMF provides grants and loans to help countries purchase US weapons and defence equipment and for acquiring defence services and military training in the United States.

“Consistent with our new South Asia strategy, this decision allows us the flexibility to continue reviewing our level of cooperation with Pakistan prior to committing new security assistance resources to projects in Pakistan,” the State Department said.

Puts $255m into escrow account that Pakistan can access only if it ‘does more’

In its notification to the US Congress on Wednesday, the administration said it was putting the entire amount into an escrow account that Pakistan could access only if it did more to eradicate alleged terrorist safe havens in the tribal areas and stopped cross-border attacks in Afghanistan.

See: Top Afghan officials allegedly speak with Taliban nearly everyday

The previous US administration had committed the money in 2015, promising to release it to Pakistan in 2016. The Trump administration did not refuse to release the funds but attached new conditions to further delay the release.

The $255 million in military assistance was the largest portion of an estimated $1.1 billion of US aid Congress had authorised in 2016.

Although figures released to the US media estimate the volume of annual US assistance to Pakistan at $1.1bn, hundreds of millions of dollars are withheld every year under different restrictions imposed since 2011, when relations between the two countries began to deteriorate after Osama bin Laden’s discovery in Abbottabad.

“The duelling messages sent to Pakistan — promising aid but attaching strings if the country’s counterterror efforts fall short — are part of an increasingly confrontational turn in an alliance that has long been strained,” commented The New York Times.

In its statement, the State Department said that while the US valued its cooperation with Pakistan and wanted to see it continue, it also wanted Islamabad to do more to eradicate terrorism.

“The President has been clear that we are looking to the Pakistani government to take decisive action against militant groups based in Pakistan that are a threat to the region. It is vital to US interests that Pakistan prevent terrorist sanctuaries,” the message said. “Pakistan has much to gain from partnering with our efforts in the region.”

The statement also referred to the remarks US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson made last week, saying: “We are ready to work with [the Pakistanis] to help them protect themselves against these terrorist organisations.”

The US claims to have provided Pakistan more than $33bn in aid since 2002. But Laurel Miller, Washington’s special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan till June, told PBS News last week that the actual amount was much less.

“Over an extended period, the US has provided substantial support (to) Pakistan, primarily security related, but that’s been dwindling quite considerably over past years and is expected to dwindle further,” she said.

“And as a consequence, it’s not really a major point of leverage with the Pakistanis anymore. The US is not providing billions of dollars any longer to Pakistan.”

But President Trump said he would use US assistance to Pakistan to persuade Islamabad to change its policies.

The New York Times, however, reported that the US did not want to stop all its assistance to Pakistan.

“Rather than lose such a carrot, Trump administration officials said they wanted to use the money as incentive for Pakistan to change its behaviour,” the newspaper said.

But diplomatic observers in Washington pointed out that the Obama administration too tried to use the sale of eight new F-16 fighter jets to change Pakistan’s policies, as did Congress, but it did not work.

 

[Yossarian]

But diplomatic observers in Washington pointed out that the Obama administration too tried to use the sale of eight new F-16 fighter jets to change Pakistan’s policies, as did Congress, but it did not work.

Trump still thinks he's doing an episode of The Apprentice.

 

[Snak3eye5]

Real question is how much does Pakistan really need the money that it really matters what Us does or says...If relations have been strained since the capture of Ossamma then why is the Us persisting with this strained relationship. It's because they need leverage and we're the only entry point into Afghanistan and they need us as much as we need them. I'll call their bluff once the money stops coming and we will also close all ties with Us. Us can get Indias help who if I knew any better will always try to keep their hands clean and want nothing better than getting involved in this war unless it impacts them in any way....

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

Real question is how much does Pakistan really need the money that it really matters what Us does or says...If relations have been strained since the capture of Ossamma then why is the Us persisting with this strained relationship. It's because they need leverage and we're the only entry point into Afghanistan and they need us as much as we need them. I'll call their bluff once the money stops coming and we will also close all ties with Us. Us can get Indias help who if I knew any better will always try to keep their hands clean and want nothing better than getting involved in this war unless it impacts them in any way....

Now substitute the bold part with one of following: Corrupt officials, politicians, lobbyists etc.

US or CIA or whoever pays its instruments working tirelessly in Pakistan with this 'billions of dollars' aid'