India welcomes US remarks on Pakistan

[Adux]

India welcomes US remarks (http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=India+welcomes+US+remarks&artid=bSiv/5lDILY=&SectionID=b7ziAYMenjw=&MainSectionID=b7ziAYMenjw=&SEO=Afghanistan,+Pakistan,+US,+India,+Antony,+Obama&SectionName=pWehHe7IsSU=)

Quote:

Continuing its diplomatic offensive against Pakistan, India Friday welcomed the US remarks saying Pakistan in the "epicentre of terrorism" and called upon the world to take action against terror from Pakistani soil.

Defence minister A.K. Antony Friday expressed his satisfaction with the US realisation that global terrorism emanates from Pakistan.

"More than 30 terror outfits are active in Pakistan. It is good that the world has realised that Pakistan is the epicentre of terrorism," Antony told reporters here.

"Now the world must take action against the terror from Pakistani soil," he said.

US President Barack Obama Thursday said Islamist extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan posed a grave threat that his new administration would tackle as a single problem under a wider strategy.

The defence minister reiterated that the Indian armed forces are in a state of "preparedness".

[The Dane]

I'll bet that ISI isn't too happy with the election of Obama..

[Ichabod]

I'll bet that ISI isn't too happy with the election of Obama..

They wouldn't be happy with anyone.

I hope that the US and India broaden their cooperation regarding Pakistan.

[Adux]

Danskeren,

CIA and US establishment over the course of the 7-8 years after 9/11 has grown to trust the ISI and Pakistan less and less, not the other way around. The hyphenation of Pakistan-Afghanistan is a interesting proposition. Obama will not touch(read interfere diplomaticly) Kashmir because of India, but he has no hestiation on the durrand line, The appointment of Holbrooke and Clinton is sounding ominous signals to Pakistan

[Adux]

And also there are couple of things I have to point out to readers

This is not the first time Pakistan is using the US weakness to its advantage, the first time was when the US could not sanction or stop the Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation in the 1980's(Read AQ Khan and Netherlands) because the ISI was in the forefront of fight against the Soviets. The same thing is happening now, the only difference now US blood is directly in line of fire unlike the yesteryear Soviets. Are the Americans making the same mistakes twice?

[Adux]

This is getting better, from the State Department


Holbrooke said at the state department today: (http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/01/115297.htm)

Quote:

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much, Senator Mitchell.

I next have the great personal pleasure of introducing the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Ambassador Holbrooke will coordinate across the entire government an effort to achieve United States' strategic goals in the region. This effort will be closely coordinated, not only within the State Department and, of course, with USAID, but also with the Defense Department and under the coordination of the National Security Council.

It has become clear that dealing with the situation in Afghanistan requires an integrated strategy that works with both Afghanistan and Pakistan as a whole, as well as engaging NATO and other key friends, allies, and those around the world who are interested in supporting these efforts. It is such a great decision on the part of the Ambassador to respond to the call that the President and I sent out, asking that he, again, enter public service and take on this very challenging assignment. And we are grateful that he has.

Ambassador Holbrooke. (Applause.)

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, Madame Secretary, Senator Special Envoy Mitchell, I thank you so much. It's an extraordinarily moving thing for me to return to this building again, having entered it so many years ago as a junior Foreign Service Officer.

...

Mr. President, Madame Secretary, Mr. Vice President, you've asked me to deal with Afghanistan and Pakistan, two very distinct countries with extraordinarily different histories, and yet intertwined by geography, ethnicity, and the current drama. This is a very difficult assignment, as we all know. Nobody can say the war in Afghanistan has gone well. And yet, as we speak here today, American men and women and their coalition partners are fighting a very difficult struggle against a ruthless and determined enemy without any scruples at all, an enemy that is willing to behead women who dare to teach in a school to young girls, an enemy that has done some of the most odious things on earth.

And across the border, lurks a greater enemy still: the people who committed the atrocities of September 11th, 2001.(ADUX: I wonder which country he is talking about? LOL)

We know what our long-term objective is. I hope I will be able to fill out the mandate which Secretary Clinton has mentioned: to help coordinate a clearly chaotic foreign assistance program, which must be pulled together; to work closely with General Petraeus, CENTCOM, Admiral Mullen, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General McKiernan and the command in Afghanistan, to create a more coherent program.

If our resources are mobilized and coordinated and pulled together, we can quadruple, quintuple, multiply by tenfold the effectiveness of our efforts there.

In Pakistan the situation is infinitely complex, and I don't think I would advance our goals if I tried to discuss it today. I wish to get out to the region and report back to the Secretary, the Vice President, and the President.

But I will say that in putting Afghanistan and Pakistan together under one envoy, we should underscore that we fully respect the fact that Pakistan has its own history, its own traditions, and it is far more than the turbulent, dangerous tribal areas on its western border. And we will respect that as we seek to follow suggestions that have been made by all three of the men and women standing behind me in the last few years on having a more comprehensive policy.

...

[MaverickCowboy]

apparently we killed 10 with 2 missles just now.

[Sana Saudagar]

Pakistan drone attack kills nine (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7847423.stm)
The drone attack struck a house owned by a man called Khalil Khan in the village of Zeerakai at 1700 local time. Four Arab militants were killed in the strikes, officials said. Their identities were not immediately clear but officials said one was a senior al-Qaeda operative.

[falcon67]

India needs to do airstrikes ageinst terrorist bases or houses in pakistan to defend themself and also in the other hand they need to streathen their air defense system in case they will respond with nukes but i dont think they stupid enough to do so

[Adux]

India needs to do airstrikes ageinst terrorist bases or houses in pakistan to defend themself and also in the other hand they need to streathen their air defense system in case they will respond with nukes but i dont think they stupid enough to do so

India cant take the chance, it will be un-necessary escalation, best thing India can do is help the US, protect itself and actively work to dismember Pakistan from the inside!

[falcon67]

India cant take the chance, it will be un-necessary escalation, best thing India can do is help the US, protect itself and actively work to dismember Pakistan from the inside!
What do you mean to dismember pakistan? and if for example you will have another terrorist attack(that ofcourse i hope will not happen)im pretty sure your goverment will be under serious pressure to use force

[Adux]

What do you mean to dismember pakistan? and if for example you will have another terrorist attack(that ofcourse i hope will not happen)im pretty sure your goverment will be under serious pressure to use force

A de-nuclearized Pakistan which will not be able to give the nuclear cover to Terrorist!
A Balochistan and Pakutnukawa(Pashtunistan merged with Afghanistan), as long the lines of the Ralph Peters Maps!

[falcon67]

You also have nukes so i would think they will not use fast nukes it will be a suicide so i dont think you need really to worry if you respone

[Adux]

Falcon,

The assumption that Pakistan Army and Government has nothing to do with non-state actors, terrorist and taliban is in itself the first mistake, it is an arm of to do state policy. It always has been!


No point in talking to the Taliban (http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=158530)

Quote:
Then he returned to Pashto. "All those who want a dialogue with the Taliban should go to hell. No dialogue with the Taliban. The army must kill them all. But the army does not want to kill them."

One of these advocates of a dialogue between the government and the Taliban is Masooda Bano. http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/images/smilies/icon_lol.gif After reading her article in The News titled "What a Thought" (Jan 16), I sent her an email asking the following questions.

1) Which Taliban/militant leaders in the Pakhtun areas are you proposing for a dialogue? Please name those leaders.

2) Please elaborate why you think there should be dialogue with those leaders. Please elaborate one by one with reference to each leader?

3) If not the Taliban/militant leaders, who else are you proposing as partners in the dialogue?

4) Under what conditions should a dialogue with Taliban/militants take place, or should it be unconditional?

5) Are you from the NWFP or FATA?

6) If not, when was the last time you came to the NWFP or FATA?

She never replied to my email. An internally displaced woman of Waziristan with whom I discussed Masooda Bano's article has this message for her: "Would you like to live under Taliban rule? If yes, you are most welcome to come to Taliban-occupied Waziristan or Swat. If not, why do you float pro-Taliban suggestions like the dialogue which will force the Pakhtun to live under their inhuman order one way of the other? Or perhaps you believe that the Pakhtun are naturally cut out for brutal life under the Taliban."

All over the NWFP and FATA one can find people who even discuss possibilities of Israel and India to be asked for help. Their argument goes like this: "We are not killed by Israel and India. We are killed by the Taliban and the Pakistani army. So, who is our enemy, then?" Many people in the Taliban-occupied territories of the NWFP and FATA told me they constantly pray for the US drones to bomb the Taliban headquarters in their areas since the Pakistani army is unwilling to do so. Many people of Waziristan told me they are satisfied with the US drone attacks on militants in Waziristan and they want the Americans to keep it up till all the militants, local Pakhtun, the Punjabis and the foreigners, are eliminated.

The Taliban are not a homogeneous group. There are not one, two, three, four or five Taliban leaders. The Taliban are made up of a large number of militant and criminal gangs. (Perhaps the ISI knows the exact number.) http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

The Taliban groups have a broad-based combined agenda--i.e., imposition of their own version of religion on the Pakhtun through terror and violence. But the groups operate independently of each other. They, however, support, or at least do not mess up with, each other's activities in the implementation of the agenda. Thus, for example, a group of local Taliban in North Waziristan have a peace deal with the army. According to the written version of the agreement (which has been seen by NWFP and tribal journalists), the deal binds the Taliban not to allow any activities in their area that can be against the law of Pakistan. But some South Waziristan Taliban gangs, linked with the Punjab-based sectarian groups Sipah-e-Sahaba and Lashkar-e-Jangvi, move through the area of North Waziristan Taliban to come to the area between Kohat and Parachinar to terrorise Shia Pakhtun in the area. After having committed their acts of terrorism in the Shia reas, they go back to South Waziristan via North Waziristan where the Taliban that have agreement with the army never ever try to stop this traffic in the Shia areas.

The NWFP government had an agreement with groups of the Taliban in the NWFP. According to the agreement the arrested Taliban militants for involvements in terrorist activities were to be released after a judicial procedure. Later some Taliban leaders argued that they do not believe in the law of Pakistan and insisted the arrested Taliban must be released without any judicial procedure under the law. The government refused, and this put the agreement in trouble.

[Adux]

You also have nukes so i would think they will not use fast nukes it will be a suicide so i dont think you need really to worry if you respone

Even I dont think they will respond with a nuke, their doctrine is to first explode a nuke bomb on a advancing Indian Army, but Indian Doctrine is scary NO FIRST STRIKE, but even a tactical nuke on Indian Army by Pakistan will be responded by complete Nuclear retaliation!

[falcon67]

Im not talking on invading that muslem country im talking on airstrikes they will not use nukes ageinst warplens...

[Adux]

Im not talking on invading that muslem country im talking on airstrikes they will not use nukes ageinst warplens...

But Pakistan calls itself as an irrational player, and kept a LOW Nuclear Threshold in public. And I think they are bluffing. Pakistan creates, protects and also kills/transfers lower-mid-level terrorist operatives to US. They are playing a dangerous game, and the one who is bleeding is the west, and they dont care about themselves. Human Life is cheap in South Asia.

[falcon67]

Your military/intelligence they dont know where are the pakistani nukes???

[Adux]

Your military/intelligence they dont know where are the pakistani nukes???

I dont think I will ever be privy to that information.

[Blue_0]

Your military/intelligence they dont know where are the pakistani nukes???

The problem lies in the one that came off the line without a serial number and was secreted away somewhere.

[bono]

No one in his right mind will ever use nukes knowing fully well that the other party also them. So your adversary will *not* use the nukes if you have them too. The real problem is that this assumption cannot be used in *actual* war plans. In actual plans they simply have to factor in possible nuke use by the adversary and run *all* simulations under this assumption. This skews the entire planning toward over defensiveness. You don't expect nuke use by enemy but prepare entire plan based on nuke use. Game theory logic lies behind this awkward reasoning process.

[Adux]

An Interesting take on Indian influence in Washington


India’s stealth lobbying against Holbrooke's brief
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/01/23/india_s_stealth_lobbying_against_holbrooke

When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton -- flanked by President Obama -- introduced Richard Holbrooke as the formidable new U.S. envoy to South Asia at a State Department ceremony on Thursday, India was noticeably absent from his title.

Holbrooke, the veteran negotiator of the Dayton accords and sharp-elbowed foreign policy hand who has long advised Clinton, was officially named "special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan" in what was meant to be one of the signature foreign policy acts of Obama's first week in office.

But the omission of India from his title, and from Clinton's official remarks introducing the new diplomatic push in the region was no accident -- not to mention a sharp departure from Obama's own previously stated approach of engaging India, as well as Pakistan and Afghanistan, in a regional dialogue. Multiple sources told The Cable that India vigorously -- and successfully -- lobbied the Obama transition team to make sure that neither India nor Kashmir was included in Holbrooke's official brief.

"When the Indian government learned Holbrooke was going to do [Pakistan]-India, they swung into action and lobbied to have India excluded from his purview," relayed one source. "And they succeeded. Holbrooke's account officially does not include India."

To many Washington South Asia experts, the decision to not include India or Kashmir in the official Terms of Reference of Holbrooke's mandate was not just appropriate, but absolutely necessary. Given India's fierce, decades-long resistance to any internationalization of the Kashmir dispute, to have done so would have been a non-starter for India, and guaranteed failure before the envoy mission had begun, several suggested.

"Leaving India out of the title actually opens up [Holbrooke's] freedom to talk to them," argued Philip Zelikow, a former counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who served until December as a consultant for a lobbying firm, BGR, retained by the Indian Government.

But to others -- including Obama himself, who proposed a special envoy to deal with Kashmir during the campaign -- the region's security challenges cannot be solved without including India. Obama told Time's Joe Klein, that working with Pakistan and India to try to resolve their Kashmir conflict would be a critical task for his administration's efforts to try to counter growing instability in Afghanistan and Pakistan. "Kashmir in particular is an interesting situation where that is obviously a potential tar pit diplomatically," Obama told Klein. "But, for us to devote serious diplomatic resources to get a special envoy in there, to figure out a plausible approach, and essentially make the argument to the Indians, you guys are on the brink of being an economic superpower, why do you want to keep on messing with this? ... I think there is a moment where potentially we could get their attention. It won't be easy, but it's important." Obama also suggested in the interview that he had discussed the special envoy idea with former President Bill Clinton.

Whatever the case, the evidence that India was able to successfully lobby the Obama transition in the weeks before it took office to ensure Holbrooke's mission left them and Kashmir out is testament to both the sensitivity of the issue to India as well as the prowess and sophistication of its Washington political and lobbying operation.

"The Indians freaked out at talk of Bill Clinton being an envoy to Kashmir," said Daniel Markey, a South Asia expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. "The reason they were so worried is they don't want their activities in Kashmir to be equated with what Pakistan is doing in Afghanistan."

"They [India] are the big fish [in the region]," Markey added. "They don't want to be grouped with the 'problem children' in the region, on Kashmir, on nuclear issues. They have a fairly effective lobbying machine. They have taken a lot of notes on the Israel model, and they have gotten better. But you don't want to overstate it. Some of the lobbying effort is obvious, done through companies, but a lot of it is direct government to government contact, people talking to each other. The Indian government and those around the Indian government made clear through a variety of channels because of the Clinton rumors and they came out to quickly shoot that down."

Once Holbrooke's name was floated, the Indian lobbying campaign became even more intense. "The Indians do not like Holbrooke because he has been very good on Pakistan... and has a very good feel for the place" said one former U.S. official on condition of anonymity. "The Indians have this town down."

Initially, when Obama's plans for a corps of special envoys became public after the election, The Cable was told, the idea was for a senior diplomat to tackle the Kashmir dispute as part of the South Asia envoy portfolio and whose mandate would include India. But soon after the election and Holbrooke's name began to appear, the Indians approached key transition officials to make clear that while they could not affect what the new administration did with respect to envoys, that they would expect no mediation on the Kashmir issue.

"I have suggested to others, though not directly to **** [Holbrooke], that his title should not/not include India, precisely so that he would be freer to work with them," Zelikow said. "If you understand Indian politics, this paradox makes sense."

"I did nothing for the [Government of India] on this," Zelikow added. The Indian government "talked directly to folks on the [Obama] transition team and I heard about it from my Indian friends. I think Holbrooke needs to talk to the Indians. But they are trying, understandably, to break out of being in a hyphenated relationship with America (i.e., comprehended on a mental map called India-Pakistan)."

Other sources said India's hired lobbyists were deployed to shape the contours of the U.S. diplomatic mission. According to lobbying records filed with the Department of Justice, since 2005, the government of India has paid BGR about $2.5 million. BGR officials who currently work on the Indian account, who according to lobbying records include former Sen. Chuck Hagel aide Andrew Parasiliti, former U.S. State Department counterproliferation official Stephen Rademaker, former Bush I and Reagan era White House aide and BGR partner Ed Rogers, and former House Foreign Affairs committee staffer Walker Roberts, did not respond to messages left Friday by Foreign Policy. Former U.S. ambassador to India Robert Blackwill, who previously served as a lobbyist for India, left BGR in 2008 for the Rand Corporation. In addition, the Indian embassy in Washington has paid lobbying firm Patton Boggs $291,665 under a six-month contract that took effect Aug. 18, according to lobbying records.

"BGR has been a registered lobbyist for the Indian government since 2005," noted one Senate staffer on condition of anonymity. "The Indian government retained BGR for the primary purpose of pushing through the Congress the civil nuclear cooperation agreement between the United States and India - hence the strategic hires of Bob Blackwill, the former U.S. Ambassador to India, and Walker Roberts, a senior staffer on the House Foreign Affairs Committee responsible for vetting past such agreements. BGR continues to actively lobby on behalf of the Indian government - their lobbyists sought to influence a recent Senate resolution on the Mumbai attacks. So I would be very surprised if BGR were NOT involved here."

(For its part, Pakistan has spent about $1,175,000, on lobbying during the past year, including on trade issues. That includes Dewey and LeBoeuf's work for the Ministry of Commerce, and Locke Lord's work for the Embassy of Pakistan and the Pakistan International Airlines Corp, according to lobbying records.)

It's not clear to experts and officials interviewed exactly who in the Obama transition team was contacted as part of the Indian lobbying effort. The White House did not respond to queries.

Asked about the decision to exclude India from the special envoy's official mandate, former NSC and CIA official Bruce Riedel, who served as the senior lead of the team advising the Obama campaign on South Asian issues, said by e-mail, "When Senator Clinton originally proposed the envoy idea in her campaign it was only for Afghanistan and Pakistan." He didn't respond to a further query questioning why Clinton's campaign comments on the issue mattered as much as Obama's, since, obviously, it was Obama who won the presidency and ultimately appointed her to carry out his foreign policy as the Obama administration's top diplomat.

[Adux]

Hillary reaches out to India, calls Mukherjee (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/PoliticsNation/Hillary_reaches_out_to_India_calls_Mukherjee/articleshow/4023766.cms)

Quote:

NEW DELHI: Making her first move to reach out to India, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today called up External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee to express desire to take the bilateral ties to a new level.

Clinton made the call a day after assuming the high office, significantly at a time when Indo-Pak ties are at a new low because of the Mumbai terror attacks.

Mukherjee congratulated her on assumption of office of the Secretary of State.

"Secretary Clinton expressed her desire to work together with the External Affairs Minister to take the relationship between India and the US to a new level," the External Affairs Ministry said in a statement.

Both ministers agreed that they would like to further strengthen the excellent bilateral relationship between India and the United States.

Mukherjee invited her to visit India at a mutually convenient date.

Hillary Clinton has been here several times earlier and with her husband and former President Bill Clinton as well as on private visits.