Saturday, November 05, 2011
U.S. Congress urged to re-think Pakistan relationship
From The Hindu
There is deep concern within the United States Congress about the Obama administration’s strategy of relying on Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence to broker a deal with various militant groups in the Af-Pak region, it emerged at a Congressional hearing this week.
In a House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Thursday titled “2014 and Beyond: U.S. Policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan,” Congressmen discussed the thorny question of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship, particularly in the context of the impending U.S. troop drawdown and its implications for regional stability.
In that regard Representative Steve Chabot, Republican of Ohio, cautioned, that although working with the ISI might make sense in the context of reconciliation, it risked rewarding the very elements responsible for sheltering insurgents who kill Americans and Afghans alike.
Mr. Chabot added, “None of this, of course, even begins to address the implications of this policy for India, which has been, continues to be, and I hope will remain, a close ally and friend of the U.S.”
Representative Gary L. Ackerman, Democrat of New York, noted in a similar vein, “It's not a secret that Lashkar-e-Taiba, which was responsible for the horrific November 2008 massacre of civilians in Mumbai, India, an attack that clearly implicated the Pakistani military, operates openly in Pakistan.” He said that the Government of Pakistan had made no effort to interfere, disrupt, arrest or shut down any of these groups or their activities.
Strategic concerns were focused on the question of post-2014 Afghanistan, and answering some of the questions of Congressmen Ashley Tellis, Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said, “Reconciliation with the Taliban is a sensible strategy in principle, but it faces enormous obstacles to success in practice.”
Mr. Tellis pointed out that it was not clear whether the Taliban had a genuine interest in reconciliation, especially given that they did not believe that they had been decisively defeated by the U.S. and they looked to the security transition as heralding the moment when the U.S. would leave the region.
Experts at the hearing also argued against sustaining U.S. military aid to Pakistan, particularly when such support entailed the supply of offensive assets such F-16 fighter aircraft. Commenting on this arrangement Christine Fair, Assistant Professor, Center for Peace and Security Studies at Georgetown University, said, “Let's be very clear about the F-16 canard. We didn't give them the F-16s because we thought it would enhance their counterterrorism or their counterinsurgency capabilities. We did it to placate Musharraf. We did it to placate Kayani. And it hasn't gotten us anywhere.”
Dr. Fair added that so far Pakistan has wanted weapons systems that could “deal more effectively with India and have very little utility for their domestic threat,” adding that catering to this demand from Pakistan “completely undermines our regional interests in every possible way, be it democratisation of Pakistan, be it regional stability vis-a-vis India and Pakistan.”
Labels: ISI, Pak militancy, US-Pak ties
U.S. refuses to back down on ISI-terror connections
From The Hindu
The toxic fallout is continuing in the spat between the United States and Pakistan over allegations that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence openly connives with terror groups such as the fearsome Haqqani network.
The latest public rebuff of this bitter saga was delivered to Pakistan on Friday in a statement by Pentagon Spokesman John Kirby, who said to media that “there has been a long-standing historical relationship between the ISI and extremist groups.”
Declining to get into the “specifics” of the intelligence that the U.S. possessed on the support that the Haqqani network enjoyed in Pakistan, Mr. Kirby however said: “All I can tell you is that we are confident that the ISI continues to support and even encourages the Haqqanis to launch these attacks.”
His comments came in the wake of sharp recriminations between top officials in the U.S. and Pakistan, which was set off by a statement by U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen on Thursday, who said that “the Haqqani network acts as a veritable arm of [the] ISI.”
Admiral Mullen also cited specific instances of alleged ISI-Haqqani network cooperation in terror attacks, noting that “With the ISI support, Haqqani operatives planned and conducted... [the September 10 Kabul] truck bombing, as well as the [September 14] assault on our embassy.”
In his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee Admiral Mullen added that the U.S. was in possession of “credible evidence” that the ISI was behind these and other attacks earlier in the summer in Afghanistan.
Following this damning indictment, senior Pakistani officials, including Chief of Army Staff Ashfaq Kayani and Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, reacted angrily and respectively warned that blaming Pakistani agencies for such attacks was “very unfortunate and not based on facts,” and that the U.S. could “lose an ally” in the fight against extremism.
Ms. Khar, who is in the U.S. for the United Nations General Assembly, said, “You cannot afford to alienate Pakistan. You cannot afford to alienate the Pakistani people,” adding that the U.S. had not shared any evidence with Pakistan about its evidence on the ISI-Haqqani network connections.
Yet it was obvious that the Pentagon was not backing down from Admiral Mullen's comments. “The chairman stands by what he testified before the U.S. Senate,” Mr. Kirby said, adding that the terror outfit's activity “has become more brazen, more aggressive, more lethal, and the information has become more available, that these attacks have been supported or even encouraged by the ISI.”
Labels: ISI, ISI-terror links, terrorism, US-Pak ties
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Involving Pakistan might have jeopardised the operation: CIA
From The Hindu
Leon Panetta, Director of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), has said that although the U.S. considered including other countries in the plan to launch an assault on Osama bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad the CIA ruled out participating with Pakistan at the outset because “it was decided that any effort to work with the Pakistanis could jeopardise the mission.”
Mr. Panetta said in a media interview that if the U.S. agency had shared such critical intelligence with Pakistan, “they might [have alerted] the targets.” Running a high-altitude bombing raid from B-2 bombers or launching a “direct shot” with cruise missiles were considered as an alternative, he said.
Those options were, however, ruled out due to the possibility of “too much collateral,” Mr. Panetta said to Time magazine. He pointed out, though, that the direct-shot option “[had still been] on the table [till] as late as last Thursday as the CIA and the White House grappled with how much risk to take in the mission.”
He said that he had worried about the potential consequences of involving Pakistan in the covert operation, saying: “What if you go down and you are in a fire-fight and the Pakistanis show up and start firing?”
Leon Panetta, Director of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), has said that although the U.S. considered including other countries in the plan to launch an assault on Osama bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad the CIA ruled out participating with Pakistan at the outset because “it was decided that any effort to work with the Pakistanis could jeopardise the mission.”
Mr. Panetta said in a media interview that if the U.S. agency had shared such critical intelligence with Pakistan, “they might [have alerted] the targets.” Running a high-altitude bombing raid from B-2 bombers or launching a “direct shot” with cruise missiles were considered as an alternative, he said.
Those options were, however, ruled out due to the possibility of “too much collateral,” Mr. Panetta said to Time magazine. He pointed out, though, that the direct-shot option “[had still been] on the table [till] as late as last Thursday as the CIA and the White House grappled with how much risk to take in the mission.”
He said that he had worried about the potential consequences of involving Pakistan in the covert operation, saying: “What if you go down and you are in a fire-fight and the Pakistanis show up and start firing?”
Labels: Abbottabad operation, Osama killing, US-Pak ties
Sunday, April 24, 2011
ISI sees LeT as strategic asset against India: U.S. Congress
From The Hindu
The use of terror groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba by Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence came in for a lambasting at the House of Representatives during a hearing yesterday on foreign policy priorities and needs amidst economic challenges in South Asia.
In a well-attended hearing at the Rayburn Building on Capitol Hill, members of Congress pressed top Obama administration officials on the core question of why, after $20 billion had been pumped into Pakistan over the last decade and over a billion dollars had been supplied under the Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill, anti-American sentiment in Pakistan was still so strong.
Putting it bluntly, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Steve Chabot, Republican of Ohio, said, “The question is basically we spent all this money and they still hate us. What should we do about that?”
Congressman Chabot also added that despite efforts “The fact remains that Pakistani and U.S. strategic interests diverge on certain issues – especially those concerning Islamist terrorist groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba, which the Pakistani ISI continues to view as a strategic asset vis-a-vis India.”
Mr. Chabot also said that “years of Pakistani mistrust of the U.S. has resulted in a relationship in which cooperation on certain issues is often accompanied by obstruction on others,” adding that the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009 was supposed to convey to Pakistan that the U.S. interest is in a strategic partnership and not just a transactional relationship.
Congressman Gary Ackerman, Democrat of New York, said in a similar vein that the U.S. itself had “failed India” in that it had not used its diplomatic leadership and agenda-setting capability to “focus global attention to the threat to India from Pakistan-based terrorists, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba, that continue to raise money from all over the world.”
Contrarily Mr. Ackerman said that the U.S.’ relations with India were still too narrow and shallow, and “Some of the responsibility is ours, some is theirs.” In particular Congressman Ackerman noted that on the economic side “There is still too much opportunity being lost to outdated rules, regulations and laws limiting the attractiveness and accessibility of India as a destination for business and investment.”
Responding to some of the questions from the panel Robert Blake, Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, highlighted the State Department’s optimism regarding the recent resumption of talks between India and Pakistan and the demonstration of good will by both sides.
He had positive words especially for the fact that “Both countries made important strides during the home secretary talks last week by agreeing to set up a hotline between their two governments to share information about the threats of terrorism and to share and facilitate the work of commissions investigating terrorist attacks.”
Mr. Blake also underscored the growing importance of trade and investment in boosting the bilateral relationship, explaining that during President Barack Obama’s visit to India last November, trade deals in excess of $14.9 billion in total value were announced, “with $9.5 billion in U.S. export content supporting almost 54,000 jobs.”
Contrary to some recent statements emanating from Congress regarding U.S. jobs lost to outsourcing by Indian companies, Mr. Blake noted that India was also “among the fastest-growing sources of investment into the U.S.” and in the last decade, investment capital coming from India to the U.S. grew at an annualised rate of 53 per cent, touching $4.4 billion in 2009.
“The strategic partnership with India will remain among our top foreign policy priorities,” Mr. Blake said.
The use of terror groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba by Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence came in for a lambasting at the House of Representatives during a hearing yesterday on foreign policy priorities and needs amidst economic challenges in South Asia.
In a well-attended hearing at the Rayburn Building on Capitol Hill, members of Congress pressed top Obama administration officials on the core question of why, after $20 billion had been pumped into Pakistan over the last decade and over a billion dollars had been supplied under the Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill, anti-American sentiment in Pakistan was still so strong.
Putting it bluntly, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Steve Chabot, Republican of Ohio, said, “The question is basically we spent all this money and they still hate us. What should we do about that?”
Congressman Chabot also added that despite efforts “The fact remains that Pakistani and U.S. strategic interests diverge on certain issues – especially those concerning Islamist terrorist groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba, which the Pakistani ISI continues to view as a strategic asset vis-a-vis India.”
Mr. Chabot also said that “years of Pakistani mistrust of the U.S. has resulted in a relationship in which cooperation on certain issues is often accompanied by obstruction on others,” adding that the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009 was supposed to convey to Pakistan that the U.S. interest is in a strategic partnership and not just a transactional relationship.
Congressman Gary Ackerman, Democrat of New York, said in a similar vein that the U.S. itself had “failed India” in that it had not used its diplomatic leadership and agenda-setting capability to “focus global attention to the threat to India from Pakistan-based terrorists, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba, that continue to raise money from all over the world.”
Contrarily Mr. Ackerman said that the U.S.’ relations with India were still too narrow and shallow, and “Some of the responsibility is ours, some is theirs.” In particular Congressman Ackerman noted that on the economic side “There is still too much opportunity being lost to outdated rules, regulations and laws limiting the attractiveness and accessibility of India as a destination for business and investment.”
Responding to some of the questions from the panel Robert Blake, Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, highlighted the State Department’s optimism regarding the recent resumption of talks between India and Pakistan and the demonstration of good will by both sides.
He had positive words especially for the fact that “Both countries made important strides during the home secretary talks last week by agreeing to set up a hotline between their two governments to share information about the threats of terrorism and to share and facilitate the work of commissions investigating terrorist attacks.”
Mr. Blake also underscored the growing importance of trade and investment in boosting the bilateral relationship, explaining that during President Barack Obama’s visit to India last November, trade deals in excess of $14.9 billion in total value were announced, “with $9.5 billion in U.S. export content supporting almost 54,000 jobs.”
Contrary to some recent statements emanating from Congress regarding U.S. jobs lost to outsourcing by Indian companies, Mr. Blake noted that India was also “among the fastest-growing sources of investment into the U.S.” and in the last decade, investment capital coming from India to the U.S. grew at an annualised rate of 53 per cent, touching $4.4 billion in 2009.
“The strategic partnership with India will remain among our top foreign policy priorities,” Mr. Blake said.
Labels: Indo-Pak ties, Indo-US ties, Kashmir issue, LeT. ISI, US Congress, US-Pak ties
Subscribe to Comments [Atom]
