U.S. "warms to idea" of Pakistani negotiations with Haqqanis

Who benefits? The Pakistanis, who would obtain a tool for buying time indefinitely, saying they need to see the "dialogue" through, and that now is not the time (it never is) for firmer action that could upset a delicate situation. They don't need to do much to look busy.

Who else benefits? The Haqqanis, who can also buy themselves time and an air of legitimacy, playing to false hopes that there is a "pragmatic" element that can be split off and a working relationship established through "engagement." All the while, they will continue fighting and plotting attacks, and they will use the prospect of cutting off talks as an instrument of blackmail.

"US warms to idea of Pakistan talks with militants," by Sebastian Abbott for the Associated Press, October 23:

ISLAMABAD (AP) — Despite some tough talk, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's recent visit to Pakistan seemed to subtly soften Washington's stand on a key point of contention between the two countries: whether Islamabad should take military action against Pakistan-based insurgents fighting American troops in Afghanistan, or try to engage them in peace talks.
Clinton seemed to acknowledge during her two-day visit that ended Friday that help with a negotiated settlement is perhaps the best the U.S. can hope for from Pakistan. This shift in the U.S. stance could give Washington and Islamabad new room to cooperate on ending the Afghan war.
But serious barriers to negotiations remain. The U.S. believes that military force is still needed to push the Taliban and their allies to make concessions. Pakistan, which Washington alleges supports some of the militant groups, prefers on the other hand to reduce violence to induce the insurgents to come to the table.
Islamabad is also worried about being blamed if peace talks fail. It has long-standing ties with the armed groups, but the militants are unpredictable and resistant to pressure. Pakistan is furthermore unsure of exactly what kind of deal the U.S. and Afghan governments might strike with the insurgents, and the atmosphere is permeated by feelings of distrust on all sides.
The U.S. has long demanded that Pakistan take greater military action against Taliban militants and their allies who use Pakistani territory to regroup and to send fighters to attack forces in Afghanistan. Recently, the U.S. has pushed for an assault on the Haqqani militant network, which the U.S. alleges is supported by the Pakistan military's spy agency, the ISI. The U.S. deems the Haqqanis the greatest threat to American troops in Afghanistan.
Pakistan has denied supporting the Haqqanis, but has also made clear that it will not conduct an offensive against the group's safe haven in the North Waziristan tribal area, a position that has not changed despite the two-day visit by Clinton and other senior national security officials, including CIA chief David Petraeus and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey.
Many analysts believe Pakistan's refusal is driven by its belief that the Haqqanis could be key allies in Afghanistan after foreign forces withdraw, especially in countering the influence of archenemy India.
The Pakistani military, however, says that its failure to act against the Haqqanis is just a question of limited resources. It claims its troops are stretched too thin by operations in other parts of the tribal region of northwest Pakistan that are deemed a higher priority — a stance reiterated by the Pakistanis following talks with Clinton's delegation.
"There is limited capacity, and if the organization is overstretched and starts to develop cracks, that is counterproductive," said a senior Pakistani security official, speaking on condition of anonymity to comment on the outcome of the closed-door talks.
Clinton seemed to soften the U.S. stance during a town hall meeting in Islamabad. When asked whether the U.S. expects Pakistan to militarily tackle the Haqqani network or force them to the negotiating table, she said, "It's more the latter."
Clinton also confirmed that the U.S. had tried to reach out to the Haqqanis directly in peace efforts. She is the first U.S. official to publicly acknowledge the overtures, which were first reported by The Associated Press in August. She said the meeting was organized by the ISI. [...]
Pakistan doesn't believe the U.S. plan to use military action to force militants into peace talks will work — a disagreement that has bedeviled the process.
"In our culture, it may not work if you want to negotiate with the same adversary you are fighting," said the Pakistani security official. "You have to declare a pause in fighting if you want to give peace a chance."
Clinton made clear the U.S. feels otherwise, saying during the town hall meeting that experience has shown that only a combination of fighting and talking "will convince some to come to negotiations and will remove others who are totally opposed to peace and want to continue their violent attacks."
Pakistan is open to approaching the Taliban and their allies about participating in peace talks, but can't provide any guarantees that its efforts will succeed, said the security official.
"Contact does not mean that they are in our pockets," said the official. "Contact means we will suggest to them that they participate."
Both the Taliban and the Haqqanis have been difficult partners for Pakistan over the years....
| 8 Comments
del.icio.us | Digg this | Email | FaceBook | Twitter | Print | Tweet

8 Comments

In our culture, it may not work...

What culture is that, the one laid out rat there in the Ko-Ran?

*** 66:2 ***

Allah hath made lawful for you Moslems absolution from your oaths to Infidels...

*** 9:3 ***

And an announcement from Allah and Mohammed to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the Infidels...

It would be all too easy for me to sit here and call Hillary a dumbass, there, I just did boy that was quick, but she comes from a long line of persons unable to connect the dots between these and other Ko-Ranic commands and the people they're dealing with. Blindness is ok, but please account for the contents of Moslemism if you're gonna spend our money on them.

Uanpologetic idiocy at State has a strong lineage, to include John Bolton and his kind, to be sure, and those before them: Zig, Henry, Condi, Larry, Al and but there are many more, almost all of them mailed in from the prestige mills dotting the northeast, all unable, unwilling, and unapologetic about accounting for the Islam in Moslemism.

The unquestioned act of according Islam the sacrosanct status of being a religion means that we must proceed apace in self-administered handcuffs. That's doing business as usual, so why the heck not? Who are we to question these experts?

The Haqqanis, the Taliban, the LeT, al Qaeda... hey, let's just call a spade a spade and call them what they are: Moslems.

*** 33:51 ***

You may have whomever you desire; there is no blame.

Be sure to use the "o" when in the extremely unlikely event that you do that: it pisses em off. For a belief system so obsessed with the human male orgasm, they sure don't like the "o" usage. Which is odd, but Moslems are odd people. In a commonplace sorta way.

This is the classic 'carrot and stick' approach. The carrot comes in the form of 'outreach' and the 'stick' in the form of drone strikes.

But Islam is impervious to carrot and stick. It responds with a 'hudna and lies' approach - 'hudna' gives them time to reload their guns and get new jihadis to the front line, and the 'lies' are just any and everything they say to gain an advantage. Why?

Because 'Peace' is the last thing they want. They want war because that's what Al Qur'an tells them to do.

So, finally, you have to grind them into the dust for decades. Never let up on these clowns!

Talks lead to concessions....and it doubtful that the muslims will be the ones conceding anything.

Unfortunately the state department seems willing to give the farm to the muslims, then call it a successful foreign policy on the Sunday morning talk shows.

"U.S. "warms to idea" of Pakistani negotiations with Haqqanis" -

I guess we have learnt nothing about Pakistan for screw.. us around over sixty years. I guess we never will - hence you can't blame the Pakies for doing what they are good at doing - keeping the terrorists in their backyard. When we leave they will be all over Afghanstan. Way to go Hillary ! Great to see our tax-$ spent on a good cause. Why do we elect so many clowns to the Offices?

They have been warning Pakistan for years and paying Jizia for a long time just like the Barbary Pirates.

From the article:

"In our culture, it may not work if you want to negotiate with the same adversary you are fighting," said the Pakistani security official. "You have to declare a pause in fighting if you want to give peace a chance."
______________________________________________

Translation?

Hudna.

Precisely - after Osama was caught in Abbottabad rather than their 'wild west frontiers', that should have been enough for the US to end diplomatic ties and go out on an all-out war. Instead, just some bold rhetoric, followed by such a cop-out. And even HRC praising Pakistan for everything they 'have done' was inane - if their problem was that they were doing everything and needed to 'do more' as she said, that wouldn't be a problem. Instead, the problem is that they've been playing both sides, but in reality, they're on the side of the Taliban.

A few targeted strikes on their favorite possessions - their nuke sites, as well as a complete destruction of their nuclear capabilities - is what's needed to bring some sanity to islamabad. Once they see that the price tag for opposing the US is as high, or higher, than the price tag for opposing the Jihadis, they will, in their own words, think 10 times before backing the next anti-US activity.

Leave a Comment

NOTE: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.

Site Meter