EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
US-Pakistan Relations Facing Biggest Crisis Since 9/11, Officials Say
Drone attacks, CIA activities and lack of progress in Afghanistan are fuelling a rift between the US and Pakistan
Bitter disputes over covert CIA activities and drone attacks inside Pakistan, lack of progress over peace talks in Afghanistan, and rising Islamist-led opposition to the presence of foreign forces in the region are fuelling the biggest crisis in US-Pakistan relations since the 9/11 attacks, Pakistani politicians, army sources and intelligence officers say.
An activist of the Jamaat-i-Islami party holds a burning effigy of Raymond Davis during a protest in Peshawar. A senior security official official warned that the new US military offensive in Afghanistan masterminded by General David Petraeus, and the accompanying rise in casualties, were making it more difficult to achieve a peace settlement.
"The whole idea that a big military surge would induce the other side to ask for reconciliation is flawed. It goes against the whole history of Afghanistan."(Photo: AFP/GETTY)
Pakistan is seen by Washington and London as a vital ally in the "war on terror", while the Pakistani government and army say they remain committed partners 10 years after the Afghan conflict began.
But harsh US criticism of Islamabad's counter-terrorism campaigns in Pakistan's western tribal areas, repeated in a White House report last week, and "blowback" from the US military surge in Afghanistan are testing the relationship to breaking point, officials warn.
"We will not accept the stigmatising of Pakistan," said Salman Bashir, Pakistan's foreign secretary. "We need to re-examine the fundamentals of our relationship with the United States to get greater clarity. There has been a pause. Now we must start again."
Rehman Malik, Pakistan's interior minister, said the Americans should stop blaming others for their difficulties in Afghanistan, where violence has worsened in the past year and reconciliation efforts have made little progress. "If the strategy is not right, all the stakeholders have to share responsibility," Malik said.
Pakistan had suffered "unimaginably" since the "war on terror" began, he added. "We are not just fighting for Pakistan, we are fighting for the whole world. If this country is destabilised, the whole region is destabilised … so please, stop the blame game. We are your partners. We are victims, not part of the terrorists."
The rift comes at a dangerous moment for the US and its Nato allies as the Afghan conflict enters the "endgame" and they begin the process of handing over control of security to Afghan forces – and start withdrawing troops in July.
US criticism of Pakistan centres on ongoing suspicions that its powerful spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), continues to support Taliban and other militant groups active in Afghanistan and Kashmir, partly in a bid to retain influence over a post-withdrawal government in Kabul. Last week members of a US congressional committee accused Pakistan of playing a double game, while the White House described its counter-terrorism efforts in tribal areas as disappointing.
Pakistani anger focuses in turn on three main areas: unauthorised CIA activity inside the country, Pakistan's perception that the US is keeping it "out of the loop" on Afghanistan, particularly in respect of mooted peace talks with the Taliban, and what Islamabad sees as the US failure to appreciate the full cost and impact of the "war on terror" on Pakistan's economy and social cohesion.
"The main problem we face is the presence of foreign forces in Afghanistan. This is the main problem for the whole region," an intelligence official said. "The 'war on terror' fuels extremism in Pakistan's society."
Unmanned drone missile attacks launched by the CIA at targets inside the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan have inflamed anti-US feeling in Pakistan, making it increasingly difficult to justify the continuing "war on terror" alliance, a senior security official said.
"In the long term, it [the drone attacks] is completely counter-productive because it alienates the population and restricts our ability to shape our security environment," the official said.
Pakistan's army had conducted several campaigns to suppress Taliban groups and al-Qaida operatives and sympathisers in Pakistan since 2001, including in South Waziristan and Bajaur as well as in Swat, north of Islamabad, the official said. But the army was resisting US pressure to launch another offensive in north Waziristan. "What do they [the US] want us to do? Declare war on our whole country?" the official asked.
"The Americans need to devise a strategy but better still, share the [drone] technology with us," interior minister Rehman Malik said. "There is big anti-American feeling. We would like to urge that the drone attacks be stopped."
Tensions over CIA activities peaked earlier this year when Pakistan arrested a CIA contractor, Raymond Davis, after a shooting incident. Davis was publicly named, held in detention for 47 days and interrogated, before eventually being released after payment of $2.3m in compensation. The affair followed the withdrawal last December of the CIA station chief in Pakistan after his name was published in local media – an unprecedented security breach.
Whether by coincidence or design, a drone attack last month, launched the day after Davis was released, killed dozens of people in north Waziristan and sparked widespread outrage. The Pakistani army chief, General Ashfak Kayani, called the attack a "violation of human rights" and said the dead were tribal leaders, not terrorists. The prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, called the attack "irrational".
Pakistan has since moved to expel hundreds of US personnel, many of whom are believed to work for the CIA or US special operations, by not renewing their visas.
In a tacit acknowledgement of how serious the rift has become, the US invited General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, head of the ISI, for talks in Washington this week. Pasha is understood to have met Leon Panetta, the CIA director, and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff. There have been no further drone attacks since the Waziristan strike.
Salman Bashir, Pakistan's foreign secretary, said Pakistan was deeply concerned about the apparent lack of progress in reconciliation efforts in Afghanistan. Bashir said Pakistan welcomed some of the steps taken so far, such as the establishment of the Afghan High Peace Council and attempts to reintegrate Taliban foot soldiers.
But he said the peace process could not be left to the Afghan government alone. He questioned how serious the US was about direct talks with the Taliban leadership – and whether such a process was even feasible – while complaining that Pakistan was being kept in the dark about US intentions.
"It's between the Americans and the [Afghan] opposition. But we don't know who the opposition is. To start with it was al-Qaida and the Taliban. Now it's al-Qaida affiliates and other groups. So who do you talk to? Is it Mullah Omar? Are there preconditions or end conditions? We need to sort this out," Bashir said.
There was a lack of "strategic coherence" about the US approach in Afghanistan and a growing sense of urgency as the July deadline for the beginning of US troop withdrawals neared, he added.
Bashir is expected to hold fence-mending talks in Washington later this month. Depending on the outcome, Pakistan's president, Asif Ali Zardari, may make his first official visit to Washington in May.
The senior security official said Pakistan could only help the Americans in Afghanistan if it knew what their strategy was. "Share it with us. What is your plan? Do you plan to stay for five years, for 20?"
But the official warned that the new US military offensive in Afghanistan masterminded by General David Petraeus, and the accompanying rise in casualties, were making it more difficult to achieve a peace settlement.
"The whole idea that a big military surge would induce the other side to ask for reconciliation is flawed. It goes against the whole history of Afghanistan."
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

22 Comments so far
Show AllI hate to think of what will happen if those a bombs end up in the wrong hands.
There are NO right hands for nuclear weapons.
Right on, Zero G!!!!!!!
Yes, Pakistanis and Afghanis, kick the U.S. out of your lands!
Pakistani "senior official" says: "The whole idea that a big military surge would induce the other side to ask for reconciliation is flawed. It goes against the whole history of Afghanistan."
Can't we arrest this guy for treason?
Hector,
Why not read a little history and inform yourself before making inane public comments?
Treason for what? Knowing history? The long list of invaders the Afghani people have
kicked out is long.
You could start with a history of Afghanistan and the Talibans' rise to power in Ahmed Rashids' "Taliban". Or maybe read some Tariq Ali.
History and facts often give one informed opinions.
But that just might not be your motive it appears.
Unnecessary anger at Hector. He was being politically sarcastic IN FAVOUR of the Pakistani and against US ignorance.
Thank you, reasonisreligion, for taking time to post this. I'm pretty sure that I posted this thank you yesterday, but I don't see it, so I'll post (again?) now.
Perhaps I should better observe my own view that sarcasm is not often an effective mode of expression.
Thanks again.
Announcing:
"The Raymond Davis Free-Market Solution for World Peace"
With this plan in place, we will be able to close Gitmo, disband the US Homeland Security Department, and redirect our FBI Sting Squads to focus on bankers. Here is how it works:
No precautions against terrorists, foreign or domestic, need be taken. Whenever a terrorist strikes, he or she (or their governments) must pay the families of each of the victims a $2,400 cash settlement. The terrorist is then free to go. Everybody is happy. No long trials or clogged kangaroo courts. No one need to fear because they know that they or their families will get a generous cash payout for compensation. It is "no-fault terrorism". Whoever said that our government was incompetent? They have come up with this foolproof plan which should work just as well here as it did in Pakistan.
Thank you, CIA.
HAHAHA! Awesome idea!
However, BushCo did toy with the idea of a Futures Market in Terrorism, remember? http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2003/07/59818 Just another grand idea to profit from misery -- not that anyone would conceive of engineering terrorist events to profit from them, eh? That huge spike in put options for United and American Airlines the day before 911 was just pure coincidence, which is probably why investigations into it were quickly halted.
economic stimulus
This war sure is costing the USA allot for some oil and gas pipelines across Afghanistan.
Most know that it would be less expensive to use the money spent on this war to go all out into solar, and wind generation.
But, somehow the people continue to vote for war.
rat4 -
Excuse me, but I don't get that last part about "somehow the people continue to vote for war."
When did that vote take place regarding Libya? When was the referendum held on surging the drone war beyond Afghanistan into Pakistan?
In 2006, the Democrats retook the House in large measure due to grassroots disgust with the Republicans' lies and incessant fear mongering/war mongering. In the 2008 presidential election (and in the Democratic Party primaries), Nobel Peace Prize laureate Barack Obama was the peoples' choice. That was true of the Dems' traditional base, and also true of that huge bloc of genuinely independent swing voters who turned against the Bush/Cheney legacy in droves in the fall of 2008, folks voting for the perceived "peace candidate" rather than for sabre rattling and more mindless war.
Maybe I missed it, but I don't recollect the Tea Party people voicing pro-war issues in the 2010 Congressional election uprising against incumbent Republicans, nor Democratic incumbents being swept out of office by the GOP because Obama wasn't being warlike enough. That election was all about anger over the economy, corporatism, and crazy cultural wedge issues, not about peace versus war.
When asked, people don't vote for war. It's politicians who continue to vote for war.
And at least on the nation's most recent bloody foray into Libya, even the politicians over in the legislative branch of government were denied a debate and a chance to vote.
Bill from Saginaw
Just get the fuck out of the Middle East and Asia, goddamn it.
While we cut food money for poor kids (wic), we are paying for losing wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, along with 725 miliary bases around the world (see Chalmers Johnson (Sorrows of Empire).
It is so time to shut down this god damn bull shit. We have people starving in this country in order for fat rich fuquers to make more gobs of money making bombs, building flying war machines, and steal all the oil everywhere. I seriously hope that people in those countries know that some of us believe what they believe, the Amirikkkan empire is pure stinky ass.
he military adventures in Afghanistan throughout the ages are known to scholars and any others willing to do the research. The US was advised very early on that no empire had ever been in control of that country for very long, before being kicked out, wiser but poorer. Unfortunately Americans know it all so you can't tell them anything, they have to fail to learn so let's just say they are smarter and poorer today.
I mean when the smoke clears and everybody goes home, just which one of the two will still be over there in the middle of the death and destruction and which one will be thousands of miles away still bombing the crap out of someone else's country whilst bankrupting their own?
Oh, I am sure there could be more evidence to support the FACT that Pakistan is the 3rd sovereign nation the u.s. has invaded and occupied but with the 4th ongoing invasion of Libya, why bother counting or listing redundant reasons? One note about this is that the u.s. has yet to act as they do against India than they do against Pakistan even though India also has nuclear weapons.
9/11 was an inside job to put America on a collision course of being dominated and controlled by world bankers who wanted our military to do their imperial world domination.
The question is, how patriotic is the military industrial complex, and the DOD ?
Cause right now , I sure as hell dont know.
But one thing is for sure, the three branches of government are not run by the people for the people, and the main stream media might as well all change their logos to that of the CIA, and law enforcement all around our country have internal power struggles that will define local loyalty versus the national Department of Home land Stasi loyalty.
All hail the super bankster war lords and war profiteers.
'Capital must protect itself in every possible way, both by combination and legislation. Debts must be collected, mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible. When, through process of law, the common people lose their homes, they will become more docile and more easily governed through the strong arm of the government applied by a central power of wealth under leading financiers.
These truths are well known among our principal men, who are now engaged in forming an imperialism to govern the world. By dividing the voter through the political party system, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting for questions of no importance. It is thus, by discrete action, we can secure for ourselves that which has been so well planned and so successfully accomplished.'
- Montagu Norman, Governor of The Bank Of England, addressing the United States Bankers' Association, New York, 1924.
The government and its intelligence and security agencies are nothing more than the "legal" henchman of these banksters. They're what the underworld gangsters call the overworld gangsters.