[Zain Abbass]

Clinton arrives in Pakistan to write new chapter in relations
From Jill Dougherty, CNN
October 28, 2009 -- Updated 1236 GMT (2036 HKT)

* U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrives in Islamabad, Pakistan
* Her mission is to shore up strained relationship with the nuclear-armed nation
* Clinton said relationship is about more than security and anti-terror campaigns
* Clinton confirms U.S. may deal with Taliban factions that break with al Qaeda

RELATED TOPICS

* Pakistan
* Hillary Clinton
* The Taliban

Islamabad, Pakistan (CNN) -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived Wednesday in nuclear-armed Pakistan, a country hit hard by terrorism, economic crisis and rising sentiment that it is paying too high a price for its partnership with the United States in fighting extremists.

Clinton is expected to meet with top Pakistani officials, including president Asif Ali Zardari, but a major challenge during this visit is to convince Pakistanis that the U.S. wants a partnership that goes beyond fighting al Qaeda and other extremist groups.

Talking with reporters en route to Pakistan, Clinton said she wants to "turn the page" on what has been, in the past few years, "primarily a security-anti-terrorist agenda."

"We hold that to be extremely important, and it remains a very high priority," she said. "But we also recognize that it is imperative that we broaden our engagement with Pakistan."

Clinton said there have been misconceptions about American intentions.

"We have a relationship that we want to strengthen, but we don't want it to be lopsided. We don't want it to be just about security and just about our anti-terrorist agenda," she said.

"It is unfortunate that there are those who question our motives, who perhaps are skeptical that we are going to commit to a long-term relationship, and I want to try to clear the air up on that while I am in the country," she said.
Nine months is not a lot of time to turn around a relationship that has a lot of scars to it.
--Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Pakistan and the U.S.

Clinton said there has been "real progress in creating a base of trust that we are going to build on, but it is still a relatively short period of time. Nine months is not a lot of time to turn around a relationship that has a lot of scars to it ... there's just a lot of scar tissue."

At least 90 people -- most of them women -- were killed Wednesday in a Pakistani marketplace when a car packed with 330 pounds (150 kilograms) of explosives detonated at Peshawar's Meena Bazaar, according to North West Frontier Province's information minister Mian Iftikhar Hussain.

Clinton blasted the militants responsible for the attacks while speaking at a joint news conference with her Pakistani counterpart in Islamabad.

"If the people behind the attacks were so sure of their beliefs, let them join the political process, let them come forth to the people and make their case that they don't want girls to go to school, that they want women to be kept back, that they believe they have all the answers," Clinton said.

"They know they are on the losing side of history, but they are determined to take as many lives with them as their movement is finally exposed for the nihilistic, empty effort that it is."

Clinton denied the recently enacted Kerry-Lugar foreign aid bill, which gives Pakistan $7.5 billion over five years, sets conditions on Pakistan that impinge on its sovereignty.

"They are not conditions on Pakistan so much as they are metrics for measuring whether we think our aid is being productive," she said.

Pakistan has several dozen nuclear weapons, and Clinton said she will discuss nuclear proliferation while in Pakistan. "We do believe the arsenal is safe," she said, but we do worry about proliferation."

Clinton also praised Pakistan's military operations under way in South Waziristan. "We believe that what the Pakistanis are doing in standing up to extremism in Pakistan is in our national security interest.

"I think it's important for Americans and others to recognize the high price the Pakistanis are paying," she said.

U.S. officials earlier this year publicly doubted the government's resolve. But Clinton, in two interviews with Pakistani television networks released as she arrived, she said the operation in South Waziristan "appears to be a very well-planned and implemented effort to go after those who threaten Pakistan."

Clinton confirmed the United States is evaluating engaging with Taliban factions willing to disassociate themselves from al Qaeda.

"What we want to do is separate those out," she said, "and we're going to engage in that and will look to the government of Pakistan -- particularly the military and intelligence services -- to help guide us in that."

Clinton's trip comes at a critical time as President Obama draws closer to deciding on his strategy on Afghanistan, which is closely tied with stopping Taliban and other extremists who take refuge in Pakistan, crossing the border to fight in Afghanistan. Her trip will include a major outreach to the Pakistani media, a town hall with students and meetings with Pakistan's civil society and business leaders.

In her Pakistani television interviews, the secretary went out of her way to stress that she has close Pakistani friends, loves Pakistani food and enjoys dressing in the traditional "shalwar kameez," a tunic and trousers, the Pakistani version of a pantsuit.

http://edition.cnn.c....nton.pakistan/

[Zain Abbass]

Pakistan wants to build long term partnership with US: PM
Updated at: 2320 PST, Wednesday, October 28, 2009

ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani on Wednesday said that Pakistan wishes to build a long term and stable partnership with the US based on mutual trust and respect.

Talking to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Prime Minister urged the US administration to support Pakistan by enhancing trade between the two countries through increased market access rather than aid.

The US should hence start negotiations on Free Trade Agreement with Pakistan, he added.

Prime Minister Gilani said that the financial assistance from the US should be rooted through the government system.

The Prime Minister said that the US should ensure early reimbursement of Coalition Support Fund (CSF) and reimbursement of Pakistan's Counter Insurgency Capabilities Fund.

The Prime Minister said that Pakistan has made great sacrifices in combating terrorism, militancy and extremism.

He also apprised the US Secretary of State on the progress of law enforcement operation in Waziristan.

The Prime Minister underlined the fact that the civilians and defence establishment as well as all the political forces of the country were fully united behind it which was reflective of the nation's firm resolve to root out the evil forces from Pakistan's territory.

He called upon the US to expedite replenishment of the urgently needed military hardware to strengthen the hands of Pakistan's armed forces in the ongoing operation.

The Prime Minister termed the drone attacks being launched by the US in FATA region and consequent collateral damage as a source of major concern for Pakistan and urged the US administration to provide the drone technology to Pakistan.

The Prime Minister welcomed the US offer to reinvigorate Pakistan-US strategic dialogue and stressed the need of strategic stability in South Asia for maintenance of peace.

He firmly asserted that Pakistan will never compromise on its legitimate security interests and will continue to maintain the minimum credible deterrence for its defence.

The Prime Minister called upon the US for mediation between Pakistan and India on core interests i.e. Kashmir, water issues as well as help Pakistan enhance its defence capability to maintain balance of power.

The Prime Minister urged early release of Dr. Afia Siddiqui on medical grounds.

The US Secretary of State congratulated the Prime Minister on taking very difficult decisions to fight the terrorism.

She acknowledged that Pakistan had proven its resolve in the fight against militancy and the US would support Pakistan in every possible way to succeed.

She said that she had come to listen and understand the concerns and problems that the government of Pakistan was facing in these challenging times.

She assured the Prime Minister of her government's sincerity in developing a long-term strategic partnership with Pakistan by overcoming the differences and through mutual consultations.

US Secretary of State apprised the Prime Minister of her earlier announcement that the US will assist in providing more than10,000 tube wells to Pakistan and refurbish power transmission infrastructure at the Tarbela Dam.

She said that the US government would be providing additional assistance of $ 10 million through UNHCR for the internally dislocated persons of Waziristan, $ 20 million food aid through World Food Programme and $ 25 million to help Pakistan's efforts in reconstruction of terror affected areas of Swat.

She reaffirmed that the US was ready to revitalize the strategic dialogue with Pakistan but wanted them to be result oriented.

Referring to the current political situation and forthcoming run of Presidential elections in Afghanistan, the Secretary of State said that both US and Pakistan had stakes in the stability of that country.

She hoped that the Transit Trade Agreement between Pakistan and Afghanistan would be signed by the end of this year to strengthen the trade and economic links between the two countries.

She said that the US would welcome Pakistan's input in its strategic review of its Afghan Policy.

She also commended the Prime Minister for his stance of reconciliation and the desire for improving relations with India through resolution of all the outstanding issues by resuming the composite dialogue.

She said that while she was aware that it is a difficult process, the US government would support the efforts for early resumption of the composite dialogue between India and Pakistan.

The US delegation included, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, US Ambassador to Pakistan Anne W. Patterson and other government officials.

From Pakistan side Minister for Defence, Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar, Foreign Minister Makhdoom Shah Mehmood Qureshi, Finance Minister, Shaukat Tareen, Interior Minister Rehman Malik, Senator Sughra Imam and other senior government officials were present in the meeting.

http://thenews.jang....es.asp?id=90311

[Zain Abbass]

October 29, 2009

U.S. Quietly Aids Pakistani Drives on Taliban
By ERIC SCHMITT

WASHINGTON — Even as the Pakistani government plays down the American role in its military operations in Taliban-controlled areas along the border with Afghanistan, the United States has quietly rushed hundreds of millions of dollars in arms, equipment and sophisticated sensors to Pakistani forces in recent months, said senior American and Pakistani officials.

During preparations this spring for the Pakistani military campaigns in Swat and South Waziristan, President Obama personally intervened at the request of Pakistan’s top army general to speed the delivery of 10 Mi-17 troop transport helicopters. Senior Pentagon officials have also hurried spare parts for Cobra helicopter gunships, night vision goggles, body armor and eavesdropping equipment to the fight.

American military surveillance drones are feeding video images and target information to Pakistani ground commanders, and the Pentagon has quietly provided the Pakistani Air Force with high-resolution, infrared sensors for F-16 warplanes, which Pakistan is using to guide bomb attacks on militants’ strongholds in South Waziristan.

In addition, the number of American Special Forces soldiers and support personnel who are training and advising Pakistani Army and paramilitary troops has doubled in the past eight months, to as many as 150, an American adviser said. The Americans do not conduct combat operations.

The increasing American role in shoring up the Pakistani military’s counterinsurgency abilities comes as the Obama administration debates how much of a troop commitment to make in neighboring Afghanistan. It also takes place as Taliban attacks are spreading into Pakistani cities. It is unclear whether Pakistani authorities are using any of the sophisticated surveillance equipment to combat the urban terror.

Underscoring the complexity of the relationship between the allies, Pakistani officials are loath to publicize the aid because of the deep-seated anti-American sentiment in Pakistan. And they privately express frustration about the pace and types of assistance, which totals about $1.5 billion this year.

At a military briefing on Saturday, the Pakistani Army spokesman, Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, said the fight in South Waziristan was a purely Pakistani enterprise, unaided by the United States or anyone else. “Let us finish the job on our own,” he told reporters.

Hasan Askari Rizvi, a military analyst in Lahore, said that publicly acknowledging the military aid — an open secret in Pakistan — could hand militants fresh ammunition for propaganda attacks. “The Pakistan military would not like to talk about the U.S. assistance,” he said, “so that the Islamists, most of whom are opposed to military operations, do not get additional reason to criticize the military and the government.”

American officials in Pakistan, whom the Pakistani government directed earlier this year not to discuss the United States role in providing humanitarian aid to hundreds of thousands of people displaced from their homes by the fighting in Swat, said the same edict applies to war assistance.

“The Pakistanis insist on ‘no American face’ on their war. Period,” said one senior American military officer in Southwest Asia, who would speak only anonymously because he did not want to jeopardize his relationship with his Pakistani counterparts.

Given the reticence of Pakistani and American officials to speak openly about the assistance, it is difficult to assess how effective the American aid has been in the current combat operations.

Beneath their official silence, many senior Pakistani military officials seethe at the months, or even years, of delay by the Pentagon in delivering promised hardware and troop reimbursements. They also gripe that the United States is denying them the best technology, such as Predator drones or Apache helicopter gunships.

“We are grateful for the generosity but believe that we have now learned to fight with what all we possess and not what has been promised,” said one senior Pakistani officer, who was granted anonymity to provide a candid assessment.

Shuja Nawaz, director of the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center, sharply criticized the Obama administration in an essay on the organization’s web site last week, saying, “Pakistan still does not have all the weapons or assistance that it needs to do the job right.”

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton acknowledged the frustrations in an interview this week with Dawn, a Pakistani daily newspaper, before arriving on a trip to Pakistan.

“We both have bureaucracies,” Mrs. Clinton said. “We know how it is sometimes that things get delayed or they’re slower than we want, but we’re really trying to accelerate everything we can to help the Pakistani military.”

But Mrs. Clinton did not provide any specific details. “U.S. current military assistance either demonstrates U.S. resolve and offsets anti-Americanism, or is deliberately underplayed to boost Pakistani military and political credibility, and the latter meets our policy objectives more closely,” said an American adviser in Pakistan, who was granted anonymity to discuss internal United States policy.

The United States has provided Pakistan with about $12 billion in military assistance and payments since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The Pentagon reimburses Pakistan about $1 billion a year to cover its costs of fielding more than 100,000 forces along the Afghan border in counterinsurgency operations.

But in the past year, the Defense Department has significantly increased the shipment of military equipment to Pakistan to combat the increasingly violent insurgency.

Most significant was Mr. Obama’s involvement in speeding the delivery of 10 Russian-built Mi-17 transport helicopters, at the request of the Pakistani army chief of staff, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. Four of the helicopters were leased to Pakistan in June, and the rest were provided under different authorities to move Pakistani army soldiers in the border region near Afghanistan.

“The President was engaged on this issue in the spring,” said a White House official, who spoke anonymously because he was discussing Mr. Obama’s involvement.

So was Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who repeatedly pressed his staff to find the Mi-17’s in American inventories, and figure out a way to provide them to Pakistan.

This year alone, the Pentagon is sending more than $500 million in arms, equipment and training assistance to Pakistan, to help train and equip the Pakistani military for counterinsurgency operations.

Included in that package is nearly $13 million in electronic eavesdropping equipment to intercept militants’ cell-phone calls. In July, the Pentagon supplied Pakistan with 200 night vision goggles, 100 day/night scopes, more than 600 radios and 9,475 sets of body armor.

The Pentagon has also sharply increased programs to bring Pakistani officers to the United States for training, particularly in counterterrorism.

“We’ve put military assistance to Pakistan on a wartime footing, as up to now it has been in a peacetime process,” said Lt. Col. Mark Wright, a Pentagon spokesman. “We are doing everything within our power to assist Pakistan in improving its counter-insurgency capabilities.”

Jane Perlez contributed reporting from Islamabad, Pakistan.

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.c....29weapons.html

[arsalanam]

Zain Abbass, on 29 October 2009 - 01:17 AM, said:

October 29, 2009

U.S. Quietly Aids Pakistani Drives on Taliban
By ERIC SCHMITT

WASHINGTON — Even as the Pakistani government plays down the American role in its military operations in Taliban-controlled areas along the border with Afghanistan, the United States has quietly rushed hundreds of millions of dollars in arms, equipment and sophisticated sensors to Pakistani forces in recent months, said senior American and Pakistani officials.

During preparations this spring for the Pakistani military campaigns in Swat and South Waziristan, President Obama personally intervened at the request of Pakistan’s top army general to speed the delivery of 10 Mi-17 troop transport helicopters. Senior Pentagon officials have also hurried spare parts for Cobra helicopter gunships, night vision goggles, body armor and eavesdropping equipment to the fight.

American military surveillance drones are feeding video images and target information to Pakistani ground commanders, and the Pentagon has quietly provided the Pakistani Air Force with high-resolution, infrared sensors for F-16 warplanes, which Pakistan is using to guide bomb attacks on militants’ strongholds in South Waziristan.

In addition, the number of American Special Forces soldiers and support personnel who are training and advising Pakistani Army and paramilitary troops has doubled in the past eight months, to as many as 150, an American adviser said. The Americans do not conduct combat operations.

The increasing American role in shoring up the Pakistani military’s counterinsurgency abilities comes as the Obama administration debates how much of a troop commitment to make in neighboring Afghanistan. It also takes place as Taliban attacks are spreading into Pakistani cities. It is unclear whether Pakistani authorities are using any of the sophisticated surveillance equipment to combat the urban terror.

Underscoring the complexity of the relationship between the allies, Pakistani officials are loath to publicize the aid because of the deep-seated anti-American sentiment in Pakistan. And they privately express frustration about the pace and types of assistance, which totals about $1.5 billion this year.

At a military briefing on Saturday, the Pakistani Army spokesman, Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, said the fight in South Waziristan was a purely Pakistani enterprise, unaided by the United States or anyone else. “Let us finish the job on our own,” he told reporters.

Hasan Askari Rizvi, a military analyst in Lahore, said that publicly acknowledging the military aid — an open secret in Pakistan — could hand militants fresh ammunition for propaganda attacks. “The Pakistan military would not like to talk about the U.S. assistance,” he said, “so that the Islamists, most of whom are opposed to military operations, do not get additional reason to criticize the military and the government.”

American officials in Pakistan, whom the Pakistani government directed earlier this year not to discuss the United States role in providing humanitarian aid to hundreds of thousands of people displaced from their homes by the fighting in Swat, said the same edict applies to war assistance.

“The Pakistanis insist on ‘no American face’ on their war. Period,” said one senior American military officer in Southwest Asia, who would speak only anonymously because he did not want to jeopardize his relationship with his Pakistani counterparts.

Given the reticence of Pakistani and American officials to speak openly about the assistance, it is difficult to assess how effective the American aid has been in the current combat operations.

Beneath their official silence, many senior Pakistani military officials seethe at the months, or even years, of delay by the Pentagon in delivering promised hardware and troop reimbursements. They also gripe that the United States is denying them the best technology, such as Predator drones or Apache helicopter gunships.

“We are grateful for the generosity but believe that we have now learned to fight with what all we possess and not what has been promised,” said one senior Pakistani officer, who was granted anonymity to provide a candid assessment.

Shuja Nawaz, director of the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center, sharply criticized the Obama administration in an essay on the organization’s web site last week, saying, “Pakistan still does not have all the weapons or assistance that it needs to do the job right.”

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton acknowledged the frustrations in an interview this week with Dawn, a Pakistani daily newspaper, before arriving on a trip to Pakistan.

“We both have bureaucracies,” Mrs. Clinton said. “We know how it is sometimes that things get delayed or they’re slower than we want, but we’re really trying to accelerate everything we can to help the Pakistani military.”

But Mrs. Clinton did not provide any specific details. “U.S. current military assistance either demonstrates U.S. resolve and offsets anti-Americanism, or is deliberately underplayed to boost Pakistani military and political credibility, and the latter meets our policy objectives more closely,” said an American adviser in Pakistan, who was granted anonymity to discuss internal United States policy.

The United States has provided Pakistan with about $12 billion in military assistance and payments since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The Pentagon reimburses Pakistan about $1 billion a year to cover its costs of fielding more than 100,000 forces along the Afghan border in counterinsurgency operations.

But in the past year, the Defense Department has significantly increased the shipment of military equipment to Pakistan to combat the increasingly violent insurgency.

Most significant was Mr. Obama’s involvement in speeding the delivery of 10 Russian-built Mi-17 transport helicopters, at the request of the Pakistani army chief of staff, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. Four of the helicopters were leased to Pakistan in June, and the rest were provided under different authorities to move Pakistani army soldiers in the border region near Afghanistan.

“The President was engaged on this issue in the spring,” said a White House official, who spoke anonymously because he was discussing Mr. Obama’s involvement.

So was Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who repeatedly pressed his staff to find the Mi-17’s in American inventories, and figure out a way to provide them to Pakistan.

This year alone, the Pentagon is sending more than $500 million in arms, equipment and training assistance to Pakistan, to help train and equip the Pakistani military for counterinsurgency operations.

Included in that package is nearly $13 million in electronic eavesdropping equipment to intercept militants’ cell-phone calls. In July, the Pentagon supplied Pakistan with 200 night vision goggles, 100 day/night scopes, more than 600 radios and 9,475 sets of body armor.

The Pentagon has also sharply increased programs to bring Pakistani officers to the United States for training, particularly in counterterrorism.

“We’ve put military assistance to Pakistan on a wartime footing, as up to now it has been in a peacetime process,” said Lt. Col. Mark Wright, a Pentagon spokesman. “We are doing everything within our power to assist Pakistan in improving its counter-insurgency capabilities.”

Jane Perlez contributed reporting from Islamabad, Pakistan.

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.c....29weapons.html

After Peshawar bombing it is really difficult to think objectively...I would think if there is any one in Current US Administration who really cares about US interests rather than Indian lobby interests, and fake agendas of preaching Indian democracy as model to China etc , should work immediately so that Apache Attack Hellis , bunker buster bombs , surveillance Drones and laser guided ammunition can be provided to Pakistan Army...We will win war against Taliban with or without US help but any Pakistani who truly loves Pakistan will really appreciate that kind of US help rather than press conferences and condolence messages which Pakistan is getting these days.

[Inam H Marwat]

Matthew P. Hoh-- senior US representative in Afghanistan-- who recently resigned from his job describes some harsh facts. According to his resignation latter, in Afghanistan there is Pashtun insurgency and whole history of Pashtuns since time immemorial reveals that Pashtun never ever surrendered to foreign occupation and therefore, Pashtuns insurgency is very justified and legitimate against the US because we are invading them. This war will lead us to invade some parts of Pakistan as well. The escalating insurgency in Pakistan is due to the US poor strategies and policies in Afghanistan.

In the following post, I will post the resignation letter in original and some important points will be highlighted.

Regards

[Inam H Marwat]

Resignation Letter from US Foreign Service Officer Matthew P. Hoh

US Foreign Service Officer Matthew P. Hoh,
Senior Civilian Representative, Afghanistan

September 10, 2009

Ambassador Nancy J. Powell
Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20520


Dear Ambassador Powell,

It is with great regret and disappointment I submit my resignation from my appointment as a Political Officer in the Foreign Service and my post as the Senior Civilian Representative for the US Government in Zabul Province. I have served six of the previous ten years in service to our country overseas, to include deployment as a US Marine office and Department of Defense civilian in the Euphrates and Tigris River Valleys of Iraq in 2004-2005 and 2006-2007. I did not enter into this position lightly or with any undue expectations nor did I believe my assignment would be without sacrifice, hardship or difficulty. However, in the course of my five months of service in Afghanistan, in both Regional Commands East and South, I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States’ presence in Afghanistan. I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end. To put simply: I fail to see the value or the worth in continued US casualties or expenditures of resources in support of the Afghan government in what is, truly, a 35-year old civil war.

This fall will mark the eighth year of US combat, governance and development operations within Afghanistan. Next fall, the United States’ occupation will equal in length the Soviet Union’s own physical involvement in Afghanistan. Like the Soviets, we continue to secure and bolster a failing state, while encouraging an ideology and system of government unknown and unwanted by its people.

If the history of Afghanistan is one great stage play, the United States is no more than a supporting actor, among several previously, in a tragedy that not only pits tribes, valleys, clans, villages and families against one another, but, from at least the end of King Zahir Shah’s reign, has violently and savagely pitted the urban, secular, educated and modern of Afghanistan against the rural, religious, illiterate and traditional. It is this latter group that composes and supports the Pashtun insurgency. The Pashtun insurgency, which is composed of multiple, seemingly infinite, local groups, is fed by what is perceived by the Pashtun people as a continued and sustained assault, going back centuries, on Pashtun land, culture, traditions and religion by internal and external enemies. The US and NATO presence and operations in Pashtun valleys and villages, as well as Afghan army and police units that are led and composed of non- Pashtun soldiers and police, provide an occupation force against which the insurgency is justified. In both RC East and South, I have observed that the bulk of the insurgency fights not for the white banner of the Taliban, but rather against the presence of foreign soldiers and taxes imposed by an unrepresentative government in Kabul.

The United States military presence in Afghanistan greatly contributes to the legitimacy and strategic message of the Pashtun insurgency. In a like manner our backing of the Afghan government in its current form continues to distance the government from the people. The Afghan government’s failings, particularly when weighed against the sacrifice of American lives and dollars, appear legion and metastatic:

Glaring corruption and unabashed graft;
A President whose confidants and chief advisors comprise drug lords and war crimes villains, who mock our own rule of law and counternarcotics efforts;

A system of provincial and district leaders constituted of local power brokers, opportunists and strongmen allied to the United States solely for, and limited by, the value of our USAID and CERP contracts and for whose own political and economic interests stand nothing to gain from any positive or genuine attempts at reconciliation; and
The recent election process dominated by fraud and discredited by low voter turnout, which has created an enormous victory for our enemy who now claims a popular boycott and will call into question worldwide our government’s military, economic and diplomatic support for an invalid and illegitimate Afghan government.

Our support for this kind of government, coupled with a misunderstanding of the insurgency’s true nature, reminds me horribly of our involvement with South Vietnam; an unpopular and corrupt government we backed at the expense of our Nation’s own internal peace, against an insurgency whose nationalism we arrogantly and ignorantly mistook as a rival to our own Cold War ideology.

I find specious the reasons we ask for bloodshed and sacrifice from our young men and women in Afghanistan. If honest, our stated strategy of securing Afghanistan to prevent al-Qaeda resurgence or regrouping would require us to additionally invade and occupy western Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, etc. Our presence in Afghanistan has only increased destabilization and insurgency in Pakistan where we rightly fear a toppled or weakened Pakistani government may lose control of its nuclear weapons. However, again, to follow the logic of our stated goals we should garrison Pakistan, not Afghanistan. More so, the September 11th attacks, as well as the Madrid and London bombings, were primarily planned and organized in Western Europe; a point that highlights the threat is not one tied to traditional geographic or political boundaries. Finally, if our concern is for a failed state crippled by corruption and poverty and under assault from criminal and drug lords, then if we bear our military and financial contributions to Afghanistan, we must reevaluate and increase our commitment to and involvement in Mexico.

Eight years into war, no nation has ever known a more dedicated, well trained, experienced and disciplined military as the US Armed Forces. I do not believe any military force has ever been tasked with such a complex, opaque and Sisyphean mission as the US military has received in Afghanistan. The tactical proficiency and performance of our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines is unmatched and unquestioned. However, this is not the European or Pacific theaters of World War II, but rather is a war for which our leaders, uniformed, civilian and elected, have inadequately prepared and resourced our men and women. Our forces, devoted and faithful, have been committed to conflict in an indefinite and unplanned manner that has become a cavalier, politically expedient and Pollyannaish misadventure. Similarly, the United States has a dedicated and talented cadre of civilians, both US government employees and contractors, who believe in and sacrifice for their mission, but they have been ineffectually trained and led with guidance and intent shaped more by the political climate in Washington, DC than in Afghan cities, villages, mountains and valleys.

"We are spending ourselves into oblivion" a very talented and intelligent commander, one of America’s best, briefs every visitor, staff delegation and senior officer. We are mortgaging our Nation’s economy on a war, which, even with increased commitment, will remain a draw for years to come. Success and victory, whatever they may be, will be realized not in years, after billions more spent, but in decades and generations. The United States does not enjoy a national treasury for such success and victory.

I realize the emotion and tone of my letter and ask that you excuse any ill temper. I trust you understand the nature of this war and the sacrifices made by so many thousands of families who have been separated from loved ones deployed in defense of our Nation and whose homes bear the fractures, upheavals and scars of multiple and compounded deployments. Thousands of our men and women have returned home with physical and mental wounds, some that will never heal or will only worsen with time. The dead return only in bodily form to be received by families who must be reassured their dead have sacrificed for a purpose worthy of futures lost, loved vanished, and promised dreams unkept. I have lost confidence such assurances can anymore be made. As such, I submit my resignation.

Sincerely,

Matthew P. Hoh
Senior Civilian Representative
Zabul Province, Afghanistan

Cc: Mr. Frank Ruggiero
Ms. Dawn Liberi
Ambassador Anthony Wayne
Ambassador Karl Eikenberry

[Zain Abbass]

The new lobbyists vying for US attention

While US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's visit to Islamabad highlighted the often bumpy relationship between the United States and Pakistan, the BBC's Diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus reports on the struggle between the Indian and Pakistani lobbies for influence in Washington.

I have come to a downtown Indian restaurant in Washington DC to try to gauge the balance of forces in a growing battle for influence on Capitol Hill.

Across the table is Sanjay Puri, the chairman of US Inpac - the US India Political Action Committee.

Sanjay Puri says that Inpac's goal is to give a political voice to some 2.7m Indian-Americans.

"This is not about representing India's interests," he insisted.

"We look at things from an American perspective.

"It is in America's interests," he went on, "to have strong trade ties with India.

"It is important for us to have a strategic relationship with India, which happens to be the democracy in a region where we need a stable partner."

Across town, in a small office building not far from the Senate, I visited Taha Gaya, the executive director of Pal-C - the Pakistani American Leadership Centre.

'Not fighting'

Taha is a law graduate and has worked as a congressional staffer on Capitol Hill.

Describing himself as a second-generation Pakistani-American, he seeks to lobby on behalf of his community and insists that he is not fighting the Indian-American lobby.

"There is no doubt that India is the growing economic power in the region," he told me - but he said that there was also "no reason why Pakistan should not benefit from the economic growth of its neighbour next door".

Taha Gaya explained that on some issues the two lobbies had sometimes worked together.

“ Our activities are not aimed against the people of Pakistan or against the State of Pakistan ”
Sanjay Puri

But the Mumbai attacks last year changed all that.

"When Mumbai happened," he explained, "we saw a resurgence of participation from the older generation of Indian-Americans - those who had grown up in India" - who, he claimed, reverted to what he described as "the old more negative dynamic".

Inevitably then the two lobbies seem destined to be on different sides of the barricades.

The recent US foreign aid bill for Pakistan is a good example. Pro-India groups lobbied hard for all sorts of conditions to be inserted into the bill.

Sanjay Puri was part of this campaign. This was not about supporting India's interests, he insists, and neither was it motivated by hostility towards Pakistan.

"Our activities are not aimed against the people of Pakistan or against the State of Pakistan," he told me.

"It is about accountability and transparency. We are very active in making sure that when US taxpayers' money is being spent, especially in these difficult economic times, there has to be a level of transparency."

The Indian-American community, he told me, "is supportive of aid that relates to democracy in Pakistan, education, reforms progress on women's rights and so on".

"But if Pakistan says that it needs F16 jets to hunt down terrorists," he adds, "I don't think the average American is going to buy that."

For a referee in this struggle, I turned to Professor Walter Andersen, director of the South Asia programme at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University.

A former diplomat, he has watched the development of these US-based lobbying groups with great interest.

The galvanising event he told me, was the struggle over the US-India nuclear deal which came to a head in 2008.

The US wanted to help India with civil nuclear technology but was prevented from doing so by legislation banning the export of fuel or know-how to any country that had not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. So the Bush administration sought to make an exception for India.

"The Bush team very smartly contacted the India lobby," Professor Andersen told me, "and worked very closely with it."

The US Chamber of Commerce and its India section also got involved because of the prospect of business.

"So you had American business interests, the administration and the Indian-American lobby all very actively pushing for this. There was a lot of opposition. In some ways it went down to the wire," he noted, "but their persistent effort paid off."

The battle may be joined on Capitol Hill but Professor Andersen notes that it is an increasingly unequal struggle.

"As Americans look at India and Pakistan," he told me, "the gap is growing in terms of positive and negative; much more positive on the Indian side and much more negative on the Pakistan side."

"The negativity on the Pakistan side," he explains, "is related to the violence there and the sense that there has been double-dealing by the Pakistani government. On the one hand they say they are with us and then maybe parts of the military really do support some of these jihadi groups for Pakistani foreign policy purposes."

Mumbai attacks

Perceptions of India, he explains are very different.

It is viewed as a vibrant democracy with a dynamic economy. And of course India is seen by many Americans as confronting a similar terrorist threat to that faced by the United States.

Professor Andersen also emphasises the impact of the Mumbai attacks.

"These had almost three days of continuous coverage on US television," he told me. "There was American interest in what happened; there was American sympathy and Pakistan, by contrast, came off quite badly."

All in all, the growing strength of the India lobby is a factor complicating the Obama administration's approach to the region.

"I suspect that that the Obama administration was not at all happy with the conditionalities that were written into the appropriations bill for Pakistan," Professor Andersen said.

"The pro-India groups were explicit that they wanted such conditionalities and they had friends in the Senate and the Congress who went along."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.u....as/8331612.stm

Published: 2009/10/29 16:36:31 GMT

[Inam H Marwat]

Kennan in the US was one of the intelligent strategists and planners after World War 2. One of the documents written by Kennan titled, "Policy Planning Study 23" or more precisely PPS 23, for the State Department planning staff in 1948.

I quote excerpt from PPS 23, exactly defining the code of ethics for domestic and international relations which is devoid of ethics.

"We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its population....In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity....To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives....We should cease to talk about vague and...unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by "idealistic slogans", the better".

PPS 23 remained very secret document, however, to pacify the public, it was thought necessary to trumpet the "idealistic slogans" from time to time.

Regards

[Zain Abbass]

Counter-terrorism plan for Pakistan within weeks:
US By Our Correspondent
Sunday, 01 Nov, 2009

On Friday, President Obama met his services chief, his seventh such meeting since he began consulting his senior military and civil officials on the proposed strategy. – Photo by Reuters. World
US in negative mood, but Republicans losing ground: Poll OUTLOOK CHANGING
US in negative mood, but Republicans losing ground: Poll WASHINGTON: President Barack Obama will soon come up with the most effective strategy for moving forward in the fight against extremists in Pakistan, chief White House adviser David Axelrod said on Sunday.

‘I expect the president will make a decision within weeks,’ Mr Axelrod told a US television show, CBS’s ‘Face the Nation’.

‘And the question is: what is the most effective strategy moving forward in the context of Pakistan,’ said Mr Axelrod while explaining how would the new strategy deal with the problem of extremism in the Pak-Afghan region.

On Friday, President Obama met his services chief, his seventh such meeting since he began consulting his senior military and civil officials on the proposed strategy, to seek their advice.

‘Al Qaeda launched on us from Afghanistan. They’ve been driven to the mountains of Pakistan. We don’t want them to return to Afghanistan and make Afghanistan a base again. And that’s what this is about,’ said Mr Axelrod.

Another White House adviser, Valerie Jarrett, told ABC News the US had to ‘look at what’s going on on the ground. We have to look at what our allies are doing. We have to look at the state of the government in Afghanistan’ before announcing the new policy.

Senator Joe Lieberman, an independent lawmaker who heads the powerful Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, backed the two White House officials, telling the CBS audience that the main purpose of the new US policy should be to prevent the Taliban and Al Qaeda from coming back into control in that region. Al Qaeda’s revival, he said, ‘will destabilise Pakistan and the whole region’.

The remarks indicate the widespread concern in the United States over Al Qaeda’s presence in Fata and show why US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton minced no words in admonishing Pakistan over its alleged reluctance in rooting out the terrorist group.

http://www.dawn.com/....weeks-us-hh-04

[Zain Abbass]

http://www.brecorder....term=&supDate=

our men helping terrorists, Shuja tells CIA chief

PEER MUHAMMAD
ISLAMABAD (November 21 2009): Pakistan on Friday expressed its serious concerns over the US Central Intelligence Agency's interference in the country's internal matters, including its covert support to some terrorists and the terrorist activities they carried out over the past few weeks or months and presented to the visiting CIA chief some proof in this regard.

Sources said that during the meeting of CIA chief Leon E. Panetta, who is on an unannounced visit to Pakistan, Director General Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Lieutenant General Ahmed Shuja Pasha said that CIA officials were assisting the terrorist elements who were carrying out terror attacks on Pakistan and asked him to shun such practices.

Sources said that ISI chief told him that Pakistani intelligence agencies had incriminating evidence about the CIA officials' involvement in providing assistance to perpetrators of some terrorist activities within Pakistan, which had negative impact on Pakistan's efforts towards war on terror.

The sources said that ISI chief also told the CIA top official that Pakistan was fully committed to flushing out terrorists from Pakistani soil, adding that there is no reality about the presence of any "Quetta Shura" and the presence of al Qaeda or Taliban leadership as perceived by the US.

Sources further said the CIA chief also met President Zardari. The President emphasised that US must fully share its Afghan policy with Pakistan and that his country's input should also be included in the new policy. It has also been learnt that the President also underlined that the US policy towards Afghanistan must take into account Pakistan's concerns relating to the possible surge of US and Isaf forces in Afghanistan, which may entail negative implications for the situation in Balochistan.

The CIA chief also met Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani. The Prime Minister conveyed to the US that its new Afghan policy should not disturb the regional balance in South Asia. Gilani emphasised that the US must fully share the contours of its roadmap for Afghanistan and ensure incorporation of Pakistan's input in its new policy. In the meeting, the US Afghan policy review also came under discussion.

He stressed that the new Afghan policy of US government should not disturb the regional balance in South Asia. Gilani said it was imperative to remove misgivings, build trust and seek to align the respective strategic concepts of both Pakistan and the US to steadfastly move forward in strategic partnership between the two countries.

The Prime Minister stressed the need for close co-ordination between the intelligence agencies of both sides to effectively counter the prevalent misperceptions in the relationship. The Director of US Central Intelligence Agency assured the Prime Minister that the US was fully conscious of Pakistan's pivotal role in the war against terrorism and restoration of stability in Afghanistan.

"The US considers Pakistan a strategic partner with whom it wants to build a long-term and sustained relationship even beyond the co-operation in countering the militancy and extremism," he added. He agreed with the Prime Minister that operational functioning between the two militaries and intelligence agencies was the need of the hour against the threat of terrorism.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2009

[Nasir A Khan]

@Inam Hamid
Thanks for sharing the Resignation Letter.

Here G H Gul

http://http://www.yo...h?v=715AkHRZHDw

[Zain Abbass]

US-India deal; Pakistan not to accept restrictions: PM
Updated at: 2021 PST, Thursday, January 14, 2010

ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani Thursday ruled out US win in Afghanistan without Pakistan’s help and that US attitude of imposing restrictions on Pakistan after striking a deal with India is unacceptable.

He said this while addressing the National Assembly session in Islamabad.

The Prime Minister admitted that despite 60-year long relations with the US, trust deficit exists between the two countries.

He said the US has been told that drone attacks proves to be counter-productive because they only incite tribesmen to take up militancy and join the extremists. “The whole world has realized that the strikes by unmanned aircrafts incite negative sentiments,” he added.

The Premier said efforts are being made to persuade the US on the matter of drone strikes.

“We have made it clear and continue to convince the US that Pakistan needs trade and not aid,” he told the house.

He said Pakistan is not in favour of building relations with anyone at the expense of country’s integrity. We want relations with international forces on equal level.

The US has also been conveyed the concerns of Pakistanis regarding Dr. Aafia Siddiqui and tried to convince it to release her to gain popularity in Pakistan. He said a lawyer has been appointed for Dr. Aafia.

[Zain Abbass]

State Department seeking 3.2 billion dollars for Pakistan for 2011 : Clinton

2010-02-25 15:40:00
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said her department is seeking 3.2 billion dollar as aid for Pakistan during the next fiscal beginning October 1.

Addressing the Senate appropriations committee, Clinton said the money would be utilised to "combat extremism, promote economic development, strengthen democratic institutions, and build a long-term relationship with the Pakistani people".

This includes funding through the Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill, through which the United States has pledged to give 1.5 billion dollars as non-military aid a year for the next five years.

The State Department's financial requests for 2011 and USAID together accounts 52.8 billion dollars, which is 4.9 billion more than the 2010 budget.

Highlighting the importance of the huge monetary aids, Clinton said with that money Washington aims to strengthen ties with countries across the globe and help countries meet challenges.

"With that money we will address global challenges and strengthen partnerships," The Dawn quoted Clinton, as saying.

"The defence budget for Iraq will be decreasing by about 16 billion dollar, and that's a powerful illustration of the return on civilian investment," she added. (ANI)

[Zain Abbass]

Lawmakers’ tiff reveals complex US-Pakistan ties
Wednesday, 10 Mar, 2010

WASHINGTON: A weekend tiff involving lawmakers from Pakistan's tribal areas and airport security personnel in the United States underscores how tough it is to reverse years of US-Pakistani mistrust.The six lawmakers were en route from Washington to New Orleans on Saturday when two were tagged for further screening at the capital's airport — scrutiny they found insulting. They scrapped their two-week US trip, which was sponsored by the State Department, and went home midway through.

The airport incident was splashed across Pakistani media on their return, with the parliamentarians claiming they were told they would not be subject to full-body electronic scans.

Washington says those assurances were not given.

“This situation could have been avoided,” said an official at the Pakistani Embassy in Washington.

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said he regretted how the procedures were perceived by the lawmakers. A US airport security official said the measures were “an essential part” of the multilayered approach to keep the public safe.

Either way, the outcome was embarrassing for the Obama administration and feeds into a pattern of Pakistani hostility and suspicions over US intentions in the region.

“We are genuinely trying to improve relations but it doesn't mean there will not be misunderstandings along the way,” said Larry Schwartz, a senior spokesman for the US Embassy in Islamabad, who accompanied the parliamentarians.

While in Washington, the group met State Department officials, including the special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, as well as members of Congress.

The program is one of many by the United States to boost people-to-people ties but the discordant ending to the visit underlines how hard it is to reach that goal.

“It is impossible to characterise the US-Pakistan relationship both historically and today in anything but the most complex and contradictory terms,” said Alexander Thier from the US Institute of Peace.

“Behaviour on both sides is duplicitous. The Pakistanis do not feel they are equal or respected partners by the United States. They feel mistreated.”

Security cooperation

The trust deficit, said former US ambassador to Pakistan Wendy Chamberlin, is one of the chief obstacles to improvements in the relationship.

“The majority of Pakistanis distrust the United States because they believe we favour military dictators over civilian leaders and we are quick to abandon economic aid once we have achieved our security goals,” she said.

There have been signs recently of better understanding, with Washington praising Pakistan after the arrest in Karachi of a top Afghan Taliban commander, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar.

But the high-level arrest raised questions over whether the detention had more to do with Pakistan securing its own interests in the region than helping Washington as it fights militants in neighbouring Afghanistan.

Why Pakistan chose to arrest Baradar at this time and the circumstances of the detention are also unclear, with a variety of explanations from apparent promises by Washington to put more pressure on India to a role for Islamabad in reconciliation talks with the Taliban.

Experts point out that any newfound cooperation from Pakistan is not uniform across the government and its institutions, citing tensions between the military and President Asif Ali Zardari, the weak civilian president.

Moreover, any shift in government and military ties has not yet translated into a boost in public sentiment, with deep suspicion over US-funded projects after Congress passed $1.5 billion a year in new civilian aid over the next five years.

“I don't think the Obama administration has found the key yet towards more favourably influencing public opinion,” said James Dobbins, an expert on the region with Rand Corporation.

What Pakistan's government says in public is often not reflected in private conversations with US officials.

For example, Pakistan's government does not broadcast support for US pilotless drone attacks against militants because of public anger over those strikes but US officials say it has endorsed them privately.