Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Pakistan will not take military action against Haqqani network

Discussion in 'South Asia & SAARC' started by MyRaven, Sep 26, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MyRaven

    MyRaven 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    51
    Pakistan will not take military action against the Haqqani network despite growing U.S. pressure, even as the country’s top military commanders have agreed on the need to de-escalate the situation, according to media reports on Monday.

    These decisions were made at a special meeting of the Corps Commanders chaired by Pakistan Army chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani on Sunday.

    The commanders vowed to resist U.S. demands for an offensive against the Haqqanis in North Waziristan but also discussed possible implications of unilateral action by the U.S. on Pakistani territory, a military official was quoted as saying by The Express Tribune.

    The decision is “likely to chip away at the deteriorating relationship between the two countriesâ€, the report said.

    “We have already conveyed to the U.S. that Pakistan cannot go beyond what it has already done,†the military official said.

    However, the Dawn newspaper quoted its sources as saying that the meeting of the Corps Commanders, probably the first held on a Sunday, had agreed on the need to de-escalate the situation.

    The meeting held on a holiday “reflected the seriousness of the crisis†created by a series of allegations by U.S. officials and a source told the daily that de-escalation efforts were afoot.

    “Escalation is harmful. In the cost-benefit analysis, there appears to be no benefit of a confrontation,†the source said. The Dawn too reported that “there was nothing to suggest that the army had agreed to act against the Haqqani network under U.S. pressureâ€.

    There was no official word from the military on deliberations at yesterday’s six-hour meeting.

    Before the meeting got underway, a brief statement had said Gen. Kayani had called a special meeting to “discuss the prevailing security situationâ€.

    Tensions between the two sides have spiked since U.S. military chief Adm Mike Mullen alleged last week that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency had backed the Haqqani network in carrying out several attacks in Afghanistan.

    Gen. Kayani rejected the accusation as “not based on factsâ€.

    Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani on Sunday asked Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar to cut short her visit to the U.S. and to return to Pakistan to participate in a meeting of the top political leadership that will assess the tensions between the two sides.

    At the same time, the Pakistan Army publicly acknowledged its contacts with the Haqqani network, apparently confirming that the security establishment has no intention to go after one of the most feared Taliban factions.

    “Any intelligence agency would like to maintain contact with whatever opposition group, whatever terrorist organisation...for some positive outcome,†chief military spokesman Maj Gen Athar Abbas told CNN.

    Such contacts do not mean the ISI supports or endorses the organisation, he said.

    “If someone is blaming us (as) the only country maintaining contacts with the Haqqanis, there are others, too,†he said.

    Responding to the possibility of unilateral U.S. strikes in North Waziristan, Gen. Abbas said that any such action would fuel anti-U.S. sentiments in Pakistan.


    The Hindu : News / International : Pakistan will not take military action against Haqqani network
     
  2. Star Wars

    Star Wars Captain SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,027
    Likes Received:
    304
    They keep blowing Pakistani Civilians to kingdomkom and the Pakistan army does not find any benefits in confronting them ? If PA do not confront them the PA is either bowing down to them or PA is the Haqqani network...
     
  3. Jungibaaz

    Jungibaaz Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    5,744
    Likes Received:
    2,114
    Haqqanis are in NW, NW has a problem of an un secured border, meaning any action here will needed to be met by action of a similar magnitude by US/NATO and ISAF forces in A'stan, PA need assurance of this before making a move, but hear this.... Haqqani network isn't really Pakistani, it may have operatives in Pakistan, they've said that they don't operate in Pakistan.

    Now if all the above went in the way of dealing with supposed HN in NW, you would need troops and money.
    Pakistanis don't particularly like to fight the US' war anymore, especially when the supposed enemy is friendly to your state.
    We've lost lives, money and time fighting for others, not spec of recognition or gratitude, in fact the opposite.

    Now... IF by a miracle, NW ops becomes a reality. It wont be a walk in the park..... outsiders have no clue what NW ops requires.... the area is lawless, it is ruled by warlords and tribesmen, mostly who would oppose any aggression on their land. The land itself is way worse then terrain in other KPK/FATA areas and worse terrain then in A'stan, the most battle hardened fighters are in NW, in good numbers.

    Don't believe the BS some media outlets feed you, Pakistan is not to blame.
    Besides lets not forget who used and supported HN before it bit them in the @SS.
     
  4. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,359
    Likes Received:
    2,378
    Country Flag:
    United States
    Haqqani attacks Afgan, attacks US troops, and were responsible for the attack on the US embassy recently.
    They are based in Pakistan and Pakistan is protecting them from US attacks and Pakistan is takeing no actions against a terrorist organization based on Pakistan soil was well as the possibility they providing support. That officially makes Pakiistan terrorist state.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2011
  5. Jungibaaz

    Jungibaaz Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    5,744
    Likes Received:
    2,114
    correction... HN operate mostly in A'stan, they were protected, armed and bought up by non other than the US.

    Haqqanis, Afghan taliban, TTP etc are all linked! all of them, getting rid of them in Pak wont change a damn thing for A'stan... ye know why?

    weapons come from Afghanistan, the money via opium comes from Afghanistan, fighters/insurgents come from Afghanistan and take shelter in NW. You can't win in Pak without winning in A'stan, on the other hand, if you win in A'stan, then you've already won in Pak.

    Now as I've said before NW ops is an impossibility unless the border is secured and the same happens across the border, or else our efforts will go to waste and we'll turn many non-hostile factions against us.

    So please remember, Pakistan is not to blame for US failures.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2011
  6. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,359
    Likes Received:
    2,378
    Country Flag:
    United States
    Allways makeing excuses, if they were in USA they would be dead or in prison, the fact is they are in Pakistan and being protected by Pakistan.
     
  7. Jungibaaz

    Jungibaaz Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    5,744
    Likes Received:
    2,114
    Did you even read my reply properly? come on mate!

    HN operate in A'stan, they get their money and arms from A'stan, the HN in NW are not Pakistani, they are Afghan, you failed to deal with them. You had armed them, funded and protected them, don't blame us.

    You expect us to go further into an un-winnable war because of your failures and turn a non-hostile faction as well as many others against us? with no reassurance from our allies???

    Not going to happen!

    end with pics.... do you recognize these guys? who are they???

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Go figure!
     
  8. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,790
    Likes Received:
    15,448
    Country Flag:
    India
    Ronald Reagan and Haqqani himself.
     
  9. UNAM

    UNAM 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2011
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    57
    if haqqanis are not troubling pakistan then pakistan's decision is somewhat correct, if a snake is not troubling u then why risking urself to kill it????? but they also need to keep the thing in mind that these type of ppl can backstab anytime.
     
  10. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,359
    Likes Received:
    2,378
    Country Flag:
    United States
    Terrorist organizations are not acceptable in the 21st county, any country that permits them to exist will have to be punished or destroyed eventually. There is also the danger to the country from the terrorist that Pakistan is protecting.


    Pakistan argument is that because the US supported this group 20 years ago because of a Russian Invasion of Pakistan its now ok for Pakistan to continue to protect if not support a terrorist organization dedicated to attacking americans.
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2011
  11. ManuSankar

    ManuSankar Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,323
    Likes Received:
    588
    This is an interesting article from a western point of view

    Opinion: Turning to the Haqqanis, Pakistan has made its choice

    A pitfall of writing for this newspaper as frequently as I do is that sometimes a major event comes along and I find that I’ve already said most of what I wish to say. Such is the case with Admiral Michael G. Mullen’s recent admonishment of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence for its ties to the Haqqani insurgent network.

    It’s difficult for me to add more than what I’ve already written in “While Karachi Slowly Burns” (Sept. 10, 2010), or “Mission Accomplished” (May 6, 2011). Pakistan is a state with a major security problem — India — and two mutually-exclusive strategies to deal with that problem: a stable security partnership with the United States, or an increasing reliance on jihadi proxies. The former is a realistic path, as Pakistan and the United States have considerable mutual interests, while the latter is a monumental blunder, built on the quixotic notion that terrorists and guerrillas can somehow bleed India down to parity despite its seven to one advantage in men and materiel.

    We have long hoped that Pakistan would choose America, not terrorists, as the guarantors of its security, but that hope has been in vain. Now, Admiral Mullen, Pakistan’s greatest remaining booster in the U.S. foreign policy establishment, has delivered what amounts to an ultimatum: either Pakistan severs its connection with the militant groups that are attacking NATO forces in Afghanistan, or America will sever its connection with Pakistan. The Pakistanis have refused to abandon the Haqqanis, and so the die is cast. The dissolution of the relationship between the United States and Pakistan is a fait accompli; it is inconceivable that the U.S. Congress will renew billions of dollars of aid for a country that is actively (and now publicly) engaged in the killing of U.S. troops.

    The decision by the Obama administration to deliver the ultimatum to our nominal ally is not without its downsides. Our counter-terrorism efforts, as well as our war-fighting in Afghanistan, rely a great deal on Pakistan’s cooperation. However, in the long run, given Pakistan’s behavior, long-term U.S. interests in South and Central Asia are best served by a realignment toward India. The Obama administration deserves praise for its execution of this realignment. Years have been spent carefully setting the stage, giving the Pakistanis every opportunity to edge themselves back from their suicidal geopolitical strategy while simultaneously testing the waters of a U.S-India partnership. And the choice of timing is impeccable: U.S. forces in Afghanistan are higher than they have ever been before, giving the U.S. its maximal leverage against Pakistan, but the president’s political capital to remove those forces is also at its zenith, which undercuts Pakistan’s main source of leverage over the U.S. — namely, its supply routes to Afghanistan.

    It is important that Obama (or the next president of the United States) appreciates the gravity and finality implicit in Pakistan’s rebuff of Mullen’s ultimatum. Already, some pundits are selling the cutesy notion of the U.S. being “frenemies” with Pakistan, as if international relations followed a script out of some Hollywood high school drama. But there is no intermediate status between friends and enemies to be found here — as the U.S. withdraws its support from Pakistan, Pakistan will compensate for this loss by relying even more strongly on militant groups like the Haqqanis to provide for its national security. The break-up, once initiated, can only accelerate.

    In the long run, the U.S. playbook on Pakistan should grow to resemble that of India’s. The way to neuter an enemy is to carve them up into multiple states — such was Germany’s treatment by the allies after World War II, as well as the Soviet Union’s fate after its fall. India has already cut Pakistan in half, dividing it between modern Pakistan and Bangladesh. It seeks to do so again, exploiting the ethnic fault lines in Pakistani society to carve it up even further. With its parting shots in Afghanistan, the U.S. should use its military might to aid in this strategy.

    In its least extreme form, this strategy might merely ensure that Baloch-dominated provinces within Afghanistan retain a high degree of autonomy from the Afghan federal government. In its most extreme form, the U.S. could funnel arms to Baloch nationalists in southern Pakistan or take direct action in support of a free Balochistan. Where the U.S. should fall on this spectrum of policy choices is open to debate — what must be avoided is the naive optimism that Pakistan will have a Damascene moment and suddenly become the ally that the U.S. requires. Now is the time to restructure Afghanistan in the way that makes Pakistan weakest, not to dither in a nonexistent middle ground.

    History will look upon Pakistan’s embrace of jihadists as one of the greatest geopolitical missteps of the 21st century. To prevent itself from appearing with Pakistan in history’s list of blunderers, the U.S. must make its break with Pakistan a decisive one and resist the urge to force nuance into a situation that deserves none.
    IntelliBriefs: Opinion: Turning to the Haqqanis, Pakistan has made its choice
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2011
    1 person likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page