Clinton issues blunt warning
KABUL/ISLAMABAD US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered a blunt warning to Pakistan ahead of her visit to the country on Thursday, saying it was time for Islamabad to decide whether it would help or hinder the US-led war on militants.
Clinton, in Kabul for meetings with Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai, used a news conference to announce her visit to Islamabad, where she was accompanied by the new US top military officer and new CIA chief to deliver what amounts to an ultimatum.
“We must send a clear, unequivocal message to the government and people of Pakistan that they must be part of the solution and that means ridding their own country of terrorists who kill their own people and cross the border to kill in Afghanistan,” Clinton said.
“We’re going to be fighting, we’re going to be talking and we’re going to be building. And they can either be helping or hindering, but we are not going to stop our efforts.”
Clinton’s visit to Pakistan had not been announced due to security concerns.
Clinton will be joined for talks in Islamabad Friday by new CIA director David Petraeus and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, a clear sign that Washington is determined to get its message across.
US officials had earlier said Clinton would seek to strike a constructive tone in discussions with Pakistani leaders, who have strongly denied backing insurgents and accused the United States of ignoring Pakistan’s own interests in the battle against militants.
But Clinton Thursday took a clearly combative tone, saying Islamabad had a choice to make. “It is a time for clarity. It is a time for people to declare themselves as to how we are going to work together,” she said.
Asked in an interview about US troops’ accounts of firing on their positions in Afghanistan emanating from the areas of the country’s border bases, Clinton said: “I’ve heard those. They deeply concern me.”
“How much of it is intentional, how much of it is to send a message, how much of it is in support of the insurgents or in retaliation to what they are doing — we’re trying to sort all that out,” Clinton told ABC News in Kabul.
Clinton noted that General John Allen, the top US commander in Afghani-stan, has raised the issue with military chief General Ashfaq Kayani and said that firing from both sides of the border ‘needs to end’.
The top US diplomat said that firing between militaries was “manageable”, but that the larger issue was the safe havens for extremists inside Pakistan. “It is something entirely different for there to be, in settled areas of Pakistan, the headquarters of groups that are directing actions against our troops, that are running operations against our troops, that are killing Americans and Afghans. And that’s what has to stop,” Clinton said.
The Pentagon said on Monday that cross-border firing from the country into Afghanistan rose between July and August but did not comment on the reasons.
The New York Times, which spoke to US forces on the Afghan side of the border, said that the firing has increased dramatically since May when US forces launched a secret raid that killed Osama Bin Laden.
The newspaper said it was unclear whether the fire — usually 107mm rockets — was the result of an emboldened insurgency, retaliation by the Pakistani military over the Bin Laden operation or a mixture of both.
Pakistan argues that it has already made tremendous sacrifices, losing 3,000 soldiers and thousands of civilians in bomb attacks on its soil, and that it is constrained by public opinion which is strongly critical of the United States.
Analysts say that Clinton would be sending a tough message to Pakistan.
“I think they’ve decided that they want to have a final word about the Pakistan-US relationship, especially with reference to Afghanistan,” said Tanvir Ahmed Khan, Pakistani foreign secretary from 1989-90.
The addition of Petraeus could be especially significant, said political analyst Hasan Askari Rizvi.
“America will produce evidence before the army chief, that you are involved (in supporting the violence in Afghanistan). With David Petraeus coming as well, they have definitely brought evidence,” he said.
“He will provide evidence that you are involved, ISI is involved,” he added, referring to Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence, its powerful spy agency. “But nothing will come out in public.”
US and Afghan officials have drawn links between elements within the country and both September’s 20-hour attack on the US embassy in Kabul and the assassination of Afghani-stan’s top peace envoy.Turning to the Haqqanis, Pakistan has made its choiceThe ISI’s ties to an insurgent network undermine any hope of real cooperation with the USBy Keith YostSTAFF COLUMNISTSeptember 30, 2011
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.
Friday, 30 September 2011 20:22Asif Haroon RajaThe sole super power priding to be the strongest nation in the world with all its economic indicators in the positive was viciously hit from within by 19 Arab hijackers on fateful day of 11 September 2001. Two hijacked Jumbo aircraft struck Twin Towers in New York in quick succession. Later on, the third aircraft hit part of Pentagon building and the fourth one was shot down short of Pennsylvania. 2973 Americans died in the process. The whole American nation sank into state of shock, fear and nervous breakdown. Dignity of the strongest nation lay shattered. Once the clouds of fright dispersed, those at the helm of affairs fumed with anger and put their heads together how to wreak vengeance on the perpetrators of incomprehensible and unforgivable crime.Zionist controlled media upped the ante to stimulate hatred against Islam and its adherents. Within hours of the tragedy, Israeli former PM Ehud Barak blamed Osama Bin Laden (OBL) and prompted American administration to invade Afghanistan. The whole world went into mourning and termed the terrorist acts as the biggest catastrophe ever happened. All officials, writers and anchors of print and electronic media of the world comity shed copious tears of sympathy over the loss of lives and trauma caused and condemned the terrorists and their patrons severely.Based on hearsay and assumptions, OBL led al-Qaeda based in Afghanistan was nominated as the accused even before carrying out investigations and accordingly war preparations were unleashed with frenetic speed and urgency. The US took no time to build an international coalition for the crusade. In order to make the military adventure appear compelling and purposeful, George W Bush led neo-cons coined the theme of ‘war against global terrorism to make the world safe and secure’. On 28 September 2001, the UNSC passed a resolution sanctioning invasion of a sovereign country with a view to combating terrorism.The US then bluntly demanded physical support from all those willing to be with the US in its hour of crisis instead of offering mere sympathies. Option of staying neutral was ruled out and term ‘you’re with us or against us’ brandished. Gen Musharraf declared as a pariah by USA and western world because of his military coup against a democratic government in October 1999 was put the same question on the night of 12 September by Colin Powel. He had already been briefed by the then DGISI Lt Gen Mahmud who was on a visit to Washington about the ugly mood of American leadership. He had been warned by Richard Armitage that the US would send Pakistan into Stone Age if it refused to cooperate. When Musharraf said that he was with the US, he was given seven demands which he promptly accepted. Subsequently he did bring the requirements of Washington to the notice of civil and military policy makers and all agreed with him that he had taken the right decision. It enabled US-NATO military to mount an offensive as early as 7 October 2001 which changed the complexion of world dynamics.Bugles of war were sounded and forces of destruction let loose on a hapless and impoverished nation which had no connection with 9/11. Whole range of destructive weaponry like daisy cutters, cluster bombs, stealth bombers, cruise missiles and depleted uranium were brought into play to rain molten lava from the air. The only fault of Mullah Omar and his Shura was that they refused to hand over OBL without providing them proof of his complicity. The US couldn’t oblige since it didn’t have any and had engineered the whole drama for altogether different motives. Its ranting and raving was a put up show. It is now widely believed that 9/11 attacks were engineered by Zionists under the framework of Dragon policy, framed by Mossad and RAW in 2001 for carrying out false flag terrorismNew rules on terrorism were formulated which envisaged punishing the terrorist networks and those who harbored, supported or aided them in any form. Thin line between terrorism and freedom struggle was also washed out to benefit Israel and India. Pakistan was a target prior to 9/11 and remained so subsequently but was treacherously made to believe that it was an ally of USA. The proposal of ‘with us or against us’ was a coercive call meant to frighten the military ruler to submit to America’s plan and facilitate its invasion.Occupation of Afghanistan and formulation of new rules on terrorism gave a godsend opportunity to India to punish its arch rival Pakistan on account of its venture in Kargil and its overall policy of defying Indian hegemony in South Asia. While the US military and NATO got busy in mopping up operation in Afghanistan, India had its own set of priorities. It was desperate to regain its influence in Afghanistan and to bash Pakistan. While the US had politely declined India’s advice that Indian military would attack Pakistan from the west in concert with US-NATO attack on Afghanistan from the north, it agreed to its suggestion to deceive Pakistan by pretending to be its close ally and then forcing it to become frontline state, severing ties with Taliban, sharing intelligence, making available its airbases, airspace, Karachi Port and land routes via Chaman and Torkham for logistic support.Behind the ruse of helping Pakistan in fighting terrorism nabbing runaway terrorists, CIA and FBI opened outposts in selected regions of FATA and Balochistan and also gained control over immigration department on all major airports. In short time, CIA started dominating ISI in matters of intelligence acquisition since it had superior means at its disposal.Indian leadership then tasked RAW to chalk out a comprehensive covert war plan to destabilize and emasculate Pakistan’s institutions. In concert with Israel, Dragon Policy was put to use. This highly sophisticated operation is multi-faceted cohesion between intelligence, military, media and politics aimed at fragmenting nations which pose a threat to global agenda of international Zionism.In order to gauge the reaction capability of Pakistan armed forces after its 70,000 troops had got deployed along western border and also to take the steam out of Kashmir movement,India stage managed a terrorist attack on Indian Parliament in Delhi in December 2001. In return for defusing highly volatile situation after ten-month military standoff, the US pressured Gen Musharraf to let India fence the Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir, stop infiltration across LoC, ban Jihadi groups supporting Kashmiri freedom fighters and give a written commitment that Pakistan would not allow its soil to be used for terrorism in neighboring countries or for supporting freedom struggle in occupied Kashmir.India also decided to bring Pakistan on its knees by building dams and controlling water in three rivers of Jhelum, Chenab and Indus. It had already heavily bribed regional political parties in Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to prevent construction of Kalabagh Dam at all cost since it had the potential to meet future agricultural and energy needs of Pakistan.In order to subvert Islamic values and to divide the society, India and USA first helped Pakistan in increasing TV channels and then penetrated chosen channels to promote liberalism, secularism and obscenity. Media was also used to spread misgivings and despondency among aggrieved segments and to then instigate dissidents and quislings to pick up arms against the state forces.RAW didn’t find any difficulty in giving final shape to the plan to destabilize Pakistan covertly since all it had to do was to dig out old files of 1980s in which RAW in collaboration with KGB and KHAD had carried out cross border terrorism against Pakistan using Afghan soil for a decade. KGB’s file on Baloch insurgency in 1970s was also consulted to revive old contacts among Marris and Mengals. RAW teamed up with CIA, Mossad, MI-6 and its own creation RAAM to carryout similar operations in FATA and Balochistan since all had common objectives. CIA facilitated entry of RAW agents in Pakistan and over the years the two agencies established an extensive network all over Pakistan.Concurrently, Indian military planners started rehashing war plans and speeding up force modernization program. Latest state-of-art weaponry was purchased from advanced countries for all the services and missile and nuclear capabilities were upgraded. Israel not only became the biggest arms supplier of India but also helped India in up-gradation of its nuclear and missile programs and in fighting freedom fighters in Kashmir.To reciprocate Musharraf’s generosity in defusing Kashmir movement, India agreed to ceasefire along the LoC in Kashmir and signed peace treaty with Pakistan. This was yet another ruse to make Pakistan lower its guards. Once the momentum of freedom struggle waned, Indian planners then began to give final shape to new doctrine of Cold Start which was Pakistanspecific and accordingly trained its mechanized battle groups supported by mechanized artillery and air force. Tactical nuclear weapons were manufactured to support independent battle groups. Indian Navy was geared to affect a naval blockade in Arabian Sea at an opportune time.While India got down in real earnest to prepare its armed forces for the fourth round, Pakistan Army was pushed into the inferno of war on terror in which it was pitched against own people in FATA and Balochistan. In order to keep it embroiled irreversibly, all the five aligned intelligence agencies started funding, training, equipping and launching terrorists fromAfghanistan. TTP in FATA, TNSM in Swat-Malakand and BLA-BRA-BLF in Balochistan are foreign supported militias. Members of these outfits belonging to tribal areas are among the best fighters in Pakistan. These assets were bribed and turned into anti-state elements. Drones were also introduced by CIA to further stir up terrorism. Flames of terrorism initially lit inSouth Waziristan and interior Balochistan were gradually spread inwards towards other parts of Pakistan. Foreign hands keep pouring kerosene on embers of terrorism. Consequent to sustained psychological war, Pakistan has been charge sheeted with multiple crimes without providing shred of evidence to substantiate allegations.Resultantly, Pakistan today is a scene of violence, death and destruction. Whereas Pakistan has suffered the most in US dictated war on terror and is the biggest victim of terrorism, the sponsor of the war instead of sympathizing has declared that Pakistan is the most dangerous country in the world and nursery of terrorism. According to Adm. Mike Mullen, Pakistan is exporter of terrorism and aligned with Haqqani network based in Miranshah, a bustling town of North Waziristan (NW) and epicenter of economic activity. ISI has been directly accused that it had a hand in recent attacks in Kabul. A case has been cleverly built up on the pattern of endgame of Vietnam War in which story of safe havens was played up and Cambodia made a scapegoat to cover up US military’s failure.The US leaders embarrassed from series of debacles in recent weeks are trying to make Pakistan a sacrificial lamb in order to hide US military’s failures. They are trying to enact 9/11 like situation and have given an ultimatum to Pakistan that it is either with the US or with the Haqqani network. Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Mike Mullen, Petraeus and Panetta who are firing threatening salvos should be realistic and try to understand that the American public as well as the world today is no more ignorant and will not get duped by psychological war again and again. They should know that neither the military and economic situation of USA is as strong as was in 2001, nor Pakistan is under a military dictator who could take decisions on behalf of the nation unilaterally. Rather, the US has become economically impoverished because of global economic meltdown and US excessive defence spending, and militarily weak and timid owing to the beatings it is receiving at the hands of Taliban in Afghanistan. Moreover, after the US lies about WMDs in Iraq were exposed, who would believe its Haqqani network story?Judging from the barrage of accusations and threatening posture, it can be assumed that the US has finally decided to stick out its neck into North Waziristan where the neck choppers are impatiently waiting. If the US Special Forces opt for another unilateral action, it will undoubtedly add to the woes of Pak security forces, but repercussions of the venture would be unbearable for USA since it would amount to digging the last nail in the coffin of adventurers in Afghanistan. Any hostile act by US forces would greatly help in unifying the otherwise divisive nation.For a change PM Gilani and FM Hina Rabbani are giving bold and sensible statements and are not showing any signs of weakness. A call for an All Parties Conference has been given by Gilani to solicit support of all political forces. Religious parties and groups are getting restive and have expressed their resolve to stand behind armed forces in case of US physical intervention. As opposed to juvenility displayed by US military leaders, Gen Kayani remained cool, calm and collected and gave measured and sensible statements. Consequent to last Corps Commanders Conference, the Army has readied its response actions in anticipation to all possible options the US could exercise with or without India and has expressed its full determination to face the challenge squarely.Even the militant groups currently fighting Pak security forces in all probability would turn their gun barrels outwards, as they had done in 2009 when Indian forces were rearing to attack. In short, every Pakistani is firmly of the view that the US is unreliable, double-dealer and a cheat. They agree with Gilani that America and not Pakistan should do more since Pakistan has sacrificed a lot to help USA but the US instead of being grateful is leaving no stone unturned to degrade Pakistan. They say with one voice that enough is enough and it is high time thatPakistan should distance itself from fair-weather friend and get rid of deceptive US aid tied to harsh conditions. They say that time has come to throw away the crutches provided by unpredictable USA and that Pakistan should learn to stand on its own feet. They also suggest that our policy makers should takeout its eggs from the US basket and shift them into the basket of China who has proved by its deeds to be trustworthy and an all-weather friend. We should also strengthen our backyard by developing very intimate relations with Iran which is in the firing line of USA.The writer is a retired Brig and a defence analyst. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Pakistan turns into Gordian Knot for USFont Size: Larger|SmallerThursday, October 13, 2011MURAT YETKİN – email@example.comISTANBUL – Hürriyet Daily NewsUS worst-case scenario of seeing Pakistan’s nuclear arms at hands of extremists risks turning the nation into the real target
for NATO’s missile system
This file photo shows US Secretary of State Clinton (R) with Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Khar who was in New York last month for the UN General Assembly. AFP photo
Ten militants, including a local coordinator of the al-Qaeda-linked Haqqani group, were killed by U.S. drones yesterday in Pakistan as Marc Grossman, the U.S. special envoy for Pakistan-Afghanistan affairs, arrived in the country, agencies reported yesterday.
That was just one of the many U.S. military operations in Pakistan since the start of this year, the biggest of them being the killing of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in a farmhouse near the country’s capital, Islamabad.
The United States “is fighting a war” in Pakistan, U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said Oct. 11 in response to a question after a speech he delivered at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, D.C.
“They [the Pakistani government] have given us cooperation in operations in trying to confront al-Qaeda,” Panetta was saying. Then came the crucial part: “But at the same time, we have great differences, particularly with regards to the relations they maintain with some of the militant groups in the country.”
The Haqqani group is one of the groups that Panetta implied. There are others linked to Taliban factions and all of them are fighters in Afghanistan. The South Waziristan region of Pakistan, bordering Afghanistan, is the bases for tens of thousands of Islamist militants.
The Haqqani group, whose key members were hit yesterday by Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)-coordinated drones, is regarded as one of the most dangerous by the U.S. The former U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, told Congress recently that Washington regards this group as “a veritable arm” of Pakistan’s Directorate of Inter-services Intelligence (ISI).
The ISI is practically controlled by the army and the government doesn’t exercise effective control over the organization. Last year, powerful (among the most powerful 20 names of the world, according to Time magazine) army commander Gen. Ashfaq Parwaz Kayani had objected to a $1.5 billion slice of a $7.5 billion U.S. support to Pakistan over the next five years just because it suggested civilian control over the ISI.
It was not a coincidence that after delivering a statement that there was no point in carrying out peace talks with the Taliban and other groups and that one should talk to Pakistan, Afghan President Hamid Karzai signed a security cooperation agreement with his Indian counterpart Manmohan Singh on Oct. 4. India and Pakistan have a border conflict over Kashmir and are nuclear rivals because of that.
Panetta also said in the same occasion that the U.S. “cannot resolve the issues of Afghanistan without resolving the issues of Pakistan.”
The message delivered by Grossman to Pakistani authorities was probably in parallel to what U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said yesterday in Washington, D.C. It was like an ultimatum to Pakistan.
Clinton said the U.S. could not “abandon Pakistan.” “But,” she said, Pakistan has to be part of solution in Afghanistan, “or they will continue to be part of the problem.”
It is clear that the U.S. has no reluctance to carry the war in Afghanistan into Pakistan.
But that is not the whole story.
In his Wilson Center speech, Panetta highlighted an interesting correlation between the fight against terrorism and nuclear weapons. “The situation in Pakistan,” he said, “is likely to remain volatile and fragile as we try to reduce terrorist safe havens in a nation that continues to expand its nuclear arsenal.”
It is not difficult to come to the conclusion that what the U.S. is actually afraid of involves the nuclear arsenal of Pakistan, whose long-range missiles might fall into the hands of Al-Qaeda-linked groups with ISI backing and then be used against American targets.
Therefore, the real target of the NATO-backed U.S. missile shield project, under which early-warning radar sites will be deployed in Turkey, might have less to do with Iran and its intentions regarding Israel. But Pakistan could be regarded as the weakest link.
After all, Iran might not have long-range rockets or nuclear warheads at the moment, but Pakistan certainly does.Thursday, October 13, 2011
Washington issues an ultimatum to Pakistan, October 20, 2011,
This is an impressive triumvirate that Washington sent to the region “AfPak.”First. Evidence, especially the determination of Americans to put pressure on Pakistan to stop its double play in the Afghan war.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in Islamabad on Thursday, flanked by David Petraeus, the new CIA director, and Chief of Defence Staff Martin Dempsey, who has replaced Mike Mullen. Before leaving his post, he had thrown a cat among the pigeons by accusing the Pakistani secret service ISI’s Afghan militants of using the Haqqani network to attack coalition troops in Afghanistan. The old mujahedeen Jalaluddin Haqqani and his son Sirajuddin, which has some 15,000 combatants, commuting between the Pakistani tribal area of North Waziristan and three Afghan provinces that face it, say Western intelligence services. Islamabad sees in them an advantage in a post-conflict Afghanistan.
The Pakistanis, who have still not recovered from the “syndrome Bin Laden” (A number of al-Qaeda was killed by an American commando in the heart of Pakistan where he was hiding for several years), have taken very little accusations of Mike Mullen. Civilian and military alike, they took off it. And General Kayani, the powerful army chief, usually so reserved, multiplies the swaggering statements against the United States. In short, the visit of the envoys from Washington to Islamabad looks stormy.
Before joining the Pakistani capital the trio had spent the day in Kabul. From there, Hillary Clinton had put a real ultimatum to Pakistan . ”There is no more room to maneuver. The terrorists are on both sides of the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. They kill the two peoples, “she said at Pakistani officials. Continuing: “Make no mistake, those who continue to allow such practices will pay a high price “ . Appearing alongside Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Clinton still says that the “era of transparency had come” and that Pakistan would be “help or hinder” efforts to find a solution to both military and political conflict Afghan.
“We believe that to a large extent – a very, very large extent – the Taliban are in control of part of the Pakistani establishment , whether in Pakistan, where they have their headquarters, and that of Pakistan is that they launch their attacks, “Hillary Clinton has hammered again.
Two days ago, General Ashfaq Kayani, speaking before the Committee on Defence of Parliament (an extraordinary fact in itself), had also issued an ultimatum in his own way in the United States. ”Pakistan will conduct an offensive in North Waziristan, and if he wants whenever he wants,” he said. Continuing: “If someone could convince me that an attack in North Waziristan solve all the problems, I order tomorrow.”
The Pakistani army chief had continued: ”The United States should think 100 times” before acting unilaterally in Pakistan. ”Pakistan is neither Iraq nor Afghanistan.”
- In October 2008, Jesus killed my archenemy with Leukemia and Pancreatic Cancer after my prayers.
- I love the divine bomb in my lungs. Hallelujah.
- I already have a huge jumbo, gigantic, colossal crush on Jesus
- Goodbye, my almost lover and ultimate beauty.
- Lord Jesus Christ is my Lion King. He is my Emperor.