Pakistan doesn't reopen border despite US apology

[Tuahaa]

Looks all drama to me.
1. What's the expectation from Pak after this incident ? Seriously, apart from initial condemnation, dont see any reaction from Pak. I believe both Gov and Military are clueless on what needs to be done.

Not clueless, reluctant.

2.

I dont understand what's the point in closing out one route, while keeping another route open. Pls dont play the major vs minor supply route. But in principle you want NATO to use your land or not? The situation sounds comical though.

It's logical. If all the routes were closed, imagine the problem the international community would create for Pakistan.

But I would support closing all lines forever.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Band mutthi laakh ki, khul gayi toh khaak ki!

Pakistan is making hay while the sun shines. The day the US leaves A'stan, they will dump Pakistan like they did earlier.

for better or for worse...we survived a decade of sanctions; what else could they do this time? Pakistan's sole interest is stability in Afghanistan, and a regime that is friendly (non-hostile; not reliant or subservient to our enemy in the eastern sector).

between you and me and whoever reads this, I want the American tax-payers to NOT have their moneys being mis-used and mis-spent --the same as I wish for Pakistan. They have unemployment and other fiscal issues at home that should be tended to first.

at the same time, I don't think U.S. will sit idly while General Tso in Beijing and Ivan in Moscow compete for influence and hedge their bets in neighbouring Afghanistan.

 

[General General]

Looks all drama to me.
1. What's the expectation from Pak after this incident ? Seriously, apart from initial condemnation, dont see any reaction from Pak. I believe both Gov and Military are clueless on what needs to be done.

2.

I dont understand what's the point in closing out one route, while keeping another route open. Pls dont play the major vs minor supply route. But in principle you want NATO to use your land or not? The situation sounds comical though.

The major vs minor plays a great role. The Torkham pass supplies armoured vehicles, spares for the vehicles and most importantly: fuel. The other pass to the south provides mostly clothes and other smaller equipment. By blocking the Torkham pass, Pakistan is effectively making the NATO to slow down. They will still able to carry out their duties in Aghanistan, but at a far reduced pace. Therefore, essentially, Pakistan is making the NATO forces to sit still and listen to the harm they caused.

 

[srsrsr]

But I would support closing all lines forever.

I'm all for it. My respect for Pak would tremendously increase, if that can be done.

Look at this, where ever US goes, for whatever reason, only chaos gets created - nam, korea, iraq, afg. US easily gets out of the mess, but the countries it screwed gets decades and decades to come up. There's never been a happy story with US involvement. I sincerely hope Pak doesnt gets added to that list.

US is the only country, that to secure its home it sends troops away from home!!!!!!

I see some folks raising about the aid issues, economic collapse, if US doesnt cooperate. Seriously these are modern-day-fear tactics which should at best ignored. What the worst could happen ? Economy going down? Sure that can be overcome by say couple decades of struggle - not a bad thing, if that would bring the country to be self-deterministic and economically strong/stable. I think the country and subcontinent has shown these characteristics in the past.

Unfortunately I beleive none of leaders have the vision or strength or capability to take on the hit in short term but work towards long term goal.
I kind of liked Musharraf (army version, not sure of the new avatar he's donned), for he was very practical in his approach, no political agenda (then). Not sure where he got derailed [ was is the judiciary confrontation?], but me thinks he could have been a good chance.

 

[Avatar]

Do you guys think that this move is actually a good one on behalf of Pakistan's interests ?

The supply route was one of the few good reasons that USA needed Pakistan for. Denying that could force USA to rethink it's strategy. The US aid money is also pretty crucial for Pakistan, and being an important ally in WoT gives Pakistan most of it's bargaining power.

 

[darkinsky]

as soldiers are dead, the govt has woken up but what about the innocents died in 3000 attacks??, do they have any answer at all??

is pak govt for civilians or just army??

 

[Spring Onion]

Do you guys think that this move is actually a good one on behalf of Pakistan's interests ?

The supply route was one of the few good reasons that USA needed Pakistan for. Denying that could force USA to rethink it's strategy. The US aid money is also pretty crucial for Pakistan, and being an important ally in WoT gives Pakistan most of it's bargaining power.

You probably dont know anything about the region i guess. Supply routes is just one aspect. Though this is a big aspect which NATO/US can not ignore thats why they are coming to apology even.

 

[darkinsky]

i guess he has no knowledge about pakistan at all

 

[Musafar]

as soldiers are dead, the govt has woken up but what about the innocents died in 3000 attacks??, do they have any answer at all??

is pak govt for civilians or just army??

Good question.

26 drone attacks, over 200 dead in the last month and no one blinks an eye lid. No real idea if they were actually Terrorists OR farmers, Bedouins, tribal villagers, kids, women, no one cares if homes, mosques, were flattened by tomahawk missiles nor will anyone care to find out - just an anonymous source that keeps parroting the to the media the line that "a high value target was hit" - civilian life is indeed VERY cheap.

 

[Thomas]

Pakistan is fully aware of that. The U.S. is not an all-weather ally of Pakistan, it's not even a fair-weather ally, but it is a when-in-need ally. The question is not if the U.S. will abandon Pakistan, but when.
However, Pakistan should open the border soon along with the warning that the border posts will be armed with AA weapons. Just like the U.S. troops had a right to "self-defend" themselves, so do Pakistani troops.

The U.S. is not investing billions in Pakistan so it can abandon it all at some time and date. You can bet that any past cross border raids conducted were becuase the U.S. felt it had no choice. And If it does pull out from its relationship it will be because it was given no choice. I have no doubts that some in the ISI and Pakistan military still support the Haqqani Taliban. Just as I know some here would like to see the U.S. fail in Afghanistan and the so called good Taliban reinstalled as the Governing body. If your not willing to let the Taliban govern in Pakistan then why would you wish it on the Afghan people? do you consider thier lives to have less value then a Pakistani?

I know most here do not support the Taliban in any way, shape, or form. But can you seriously say that Pakistan is going after all Taliban operating from Pakistan territory including the Afghan Taliban?

 

[Avatar]

You probably dont know anything about the region i guess. Supply routes is just one aspect. Though this is a big aspect which NATO/US can not ignore thats why they are coming to apology even.

What do you mean ? Obviously it was an accident by USA and they apologized for it. Although innocents die, a lot of terrorists are also killed in these drone attacks. In the long run the terrorists would definitely kill a LOT more innocents if it wasn't for the drone strikes.

I am curious to know how the accident happened. Maybe the Pakistani soldiers in an engagement with the Taliban and got accidentally hit by a barrage ?

 

[darkinsky]

The U.S. is not investing billions in Pakistan so it can abandon it all at some time and date. You can bet that any past cross border raids conducted were becuase the U.S. felt it had no choice. And If it does pull out from its relationship it will be because it was given no choice. I have no doubts that some in the ISI and Pakistan military still support the Haqqani Taliban. Just as I know some here would like to see the U.S. fail in Afghanistan and the so called good Taliban reinstalled as the Governing body. If your not willing to let the Taliban govern in Pakistan then why would you wish it on the Afghan people? do you consider thier lives to have less value then a Pakistani?

I know most here do not support the Taliban in any way, shape, or form. But can you seriously say that Pakistan is going after all Taliban operating from Pakistan territory including the Afghan Taliban?

the question is, why US is interested in afghanistan in first place, pakistan has its interests and like u kept the iranian dictator raza shah pehelvi, its pakistan interest to keep good taliban as govt in pakistan!!!

 

[General General]

The U.S. is not investing billions in Pakistan so it can abandon it all at some time and date. You can bet that any past cross border raids conducted were becuase the U.S. felt it had no choice. And If it does pull out from its relationship it will be because it was given no choice. I have no doubts that some in the ISI and Pakistan military still support the Haqqani Taliban. Just as I know some here would like to see the U.S. fail in Afghanistan and the so called good Taliban reinstalled as the Governing body. If your not willing to let the Taliban govern in Pakistan then why would you wish it on the Afghan people? do you consider thier lives to have less value then a Pakistani?

I know most here do not support the Taliban in any way, shape, or form. But can you seriously say that Pakistan is going after all Taliban operating from Pakistan territory including the Afghan Taliban?

Indeed some elements in the Pakistan army and ISI still individually support the Afghan Taliban, however you have also to look at Pakistani interests. Pakistan currently has two choices: A government in Afghanistan that leans towards India and will not spare a second in attacking Pakistan on every stage.
The other option is members of the previous government, who are not exactly friendly towards Pakistan, but they are not hostile to them either.
As for the money that the U.S is providing, it's aid, not investment. How many hydro-electric dams has the U.S built for Pakistan in the last decade of alliance? Even knowing that Pakistan has a shortage of nearly 5,000 MW of energy. And by aid of course it means to "buy" the co-operation of Pakistan. Unless the U.S. does not truly invest in something that changes the state of Pakistan, I don't see any reason for Pakistan to go all-out for it.
I could explain this point, but someone else has already done a fairly decent job.--> http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...n-unwilling-pursue-militants.html#post1183992

 

[Hawkish]

It is essential for Pakistan and US to get rid of Taliban, Illas Kashmiri, Haqquani network and LeT. These groups conduct global operations and need to be eliminated. As long as they are in Pakistan, there will issues with drone strikes. Do you realize they killed 3000 of US civilians and planning to do a similar attack in Europe?

Pakistan cannot offered to keep the routes closed for a long time. It is just days, it will be open.

 

[Avatar]

Indeed some elements in the Pakistan army and ISI still individually support the Afghan Taliban, however you have also to look at Pakistani interests. Pakistan currently has two choices: A government in Afghanistan that leans towards India and will not spare a second in attacking Pakistan on every stage.
The other option is members of the previous government, who are not exactly friendly towards Pakistan, but they are not hostile to them either.

To put it more bluntly, you are willing to do to millions of Afghans what you would not do to yourself, just so that you feel less insecure ?

2) How can a macro agency constitute of micro agents heading in opposing directions ?