Comments on: The “sound and fury” of U.S.-Pakistan ties (Part II)

By: KPSingh01

KPSingh01 — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:21:13 +0000

There are also sources that mention about Pak military killing civilians. There was an air strike by Pak air force a few months ago that killed many civilians. This is an unfortunate thing during wars where civilian populations are around war zones.

By: Mortal1

Mortal1 — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:46:10 +0000

Many western media sources are now claiming that most of those who died in the drone strike, were indeed militants. It’s hard to figure out the truth, these days.

By: DaraIndia

DaraIndia — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 08:57:10 +0000

When inaction needs to be justified call in existential threat. So while AQ and Taliban are ETs the Quetta Shura and Haqqani is to be supported for the cause of internal security.
Jihad against another country/countries needs to be justified – “Urging militant groups to be outwardly focused, he said, is perceived by Pakistani officials as a method to safeguard internal security”. In other words be an existential threat to others we love you for it.

That is mature foreign policy – heads I win tails you lose!

By: prasadgc

prasadgc — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 07:23:46 +0000

The Daily Times believes that the unprecedented protest by Gen Kayani was because the drone strike claimed a senior leader of the Haqqani network, not because civilians were killed: http://bit.ly/eE4W5i

It may signal that (1) the US has independent sources of intelligence about the “good” Taliban that the ISI wants to protect, and (2) is not afraid to ruffle Pakistani feathers to get at them.

Regards,
Ganesh Prasad

By: SilverSw0rd

SilverSw0rd — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 02:24:05 +0000

Myra,

When are you finalizing your Pakistani citizenship?

Have you ever written a piece that did NOT exclusively represent the ISI’s world view?

By definition, if a country sees a group or an entity as an “existential threat” it cannot support such groups. In other words, the above two positions are in fundamental conflict. Given that the latter position has been the enduring one, one can deduce that Pakistan really does NOT see Al Qaeda and like groups as an existential threat.

By: netizen

netizen — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 01:56:50 +0000

“Urging militant groups to be outwardly focused, he said, is perceived by Pakistani officials as a method to safeguard internal security.” by Mr.Peter Lavoy.

This statement addresses the nub of the matter.

Religious indoctrination, instilling hatred through public education so as to produce jihadi terrorists who would indulge in bombing buses, trains, temples, hijacking plane, attacking parliament in neighbouring countries WILL HAVE CONSEQUENCES internally.

External Jihad and Internal Peace are contradictory goals and have been unachievable by Pakistan. Because they are contradictory.

That’s why “Karachi project” which is supposed to burn down Mumbai and Delhi is actually burning down Karachi:

http://tinyurl.com/4ptxsmw

From Federal B area to Kharadar: Killers on motorcycles hit over 12 men in a day
By Faraz Khan
Published: March 21, 2011

KARACHI: There was a steady uptick in the body count on Sunday when at least one dozen men were killed in drive-by shootings.

“Well, they’re all at it, killing each other,” remarked Gulshan-e-Iqbal SHO Kanson Dean, adding that it was tit-for-tat violence. “We’re doing what we can.”

By: netizen

netizen — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 01:37:18 +0000

“Security of people of Pakistan, in any case, stands above all.”

The problem with the above claim is that what Kayani claims to in the interests of “security of people of Pakistan” may not be in the interests of the “security of the peoples” of Afghanistan, India, Iran,USA, Russia, China, Tajikistan, rest of the world.

Unless Kayani thinks in either of the following:

(1) Kayani is entitled to decide what is in he interests of the “security of the peoples” of Afghanistan, India, Iran,USA, Russia, China, Tajikistan, rest of the world.

AND/OR

(2) the “security of the peoples” of Afghanistan, India, Iran,USA, Russia, China, Tajikistan, rest of the world is irrelevant, and is not a topic worthy of discussion.

Rest of the write-up attempts to bamboozle the reader, reiterating well known Pak positions.

By: KPSingh01

KPSingh01 — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 00:37:05 +0000

Pakistan can take the step to ease its tensions with India. They can make an honest effort to open up diplomatic ties and people to people interactions to diffuse all paranoia. India has no interest in gobbling up Pakistan or dismembering it. No one wants to mess with a nuclear armed and radicalized Pakistan. Therefore they need to give up this existential threat perception which appears completely meaningless today. They have to realize that Pakistan cannot equate itself with India and try to drag itself to match up with India. If this perceived existential threat can be given up, then Pakistan can definitely focus on its internal stability. It wants to nurture many militant groups for a long term score settling with India. That is the main reason for the hesitation in taking them on. But the longer the US stays, the more difficult it is going to become for Pakistan to direct these elements against India. They have been created for outward offensive. But the US presence has prevented that from happening and the elements have started taking on Pakistan inwardly. Pakistan needs to work on putting off this internal fire and stop planning them for setting India on fire in the future. It will not happen. It is beginning to burn Pakistan internally. Blaming the Americans or Martians is not going to help. India is not the enemy anymore. It might have been in the past. This is a new India that wants to mind its own business.