Is Pakistan a friend or foe of the West?

PAKISTAN, A FRIEND TO THE WEST? OR AN FOE OF THE WEST?

Imran Khan the former cricketer who has become a rising star of Pakistani politics, as voiced his support for a court sanctioned military removal of the Government. this is just one more thing that is engulfing this nuclear armed state. added to which is the Pakistani entanglement in the US led conflict in Afghanistan. What is the Western worlds future relationship likely to be with this state? can the Western world trust Pakistan? or is this a nuclear time bomb ticking away for us all in the Western world?

its my own view that Islamabad is a capital that is out of control most of the time. driven by political corruption that finds itself in the hands of different warlords within the Army and outside the Army. all this adds up to one of the most dark and dangerous counties within the world today. but what is your view of this? [/i]

headquartered at Mangla Cantonment
6th Armoured Division headquartered at Gujranwala
17th Infantry Division headquartered at Kharian
37th Infantry Division headquartered at Kharian
11th Independent Armoured Brigade
Independent Air Defense Brigade
Independent Artillery Brigade
Independent Infantry Brigade
II Corps – headquartered at Multan
1st Armoured Division headquartered at Multan
14th Infantry Division headquartered at Okara
40th Infantry Division headquartered at Okara
Independent Armoured Brigade
Independent Air Defense Brigade
Independent Artillery Brigade
Independent Infantry Brigade
IV Corps – headquartered at Lahore
2nd Artillery Division headquartered at Gujranwala
10th Infantry Division headquartered at Lahore
11th Infantry Division headquartered at Lahore
3rd Independent Armoured Brigade
212th Infantry Brigade
Independent Artillery Brigade
XXX Corps – headquartered at Gujranwala
8th Infantry Division headquartered at Sialkot
15th Infantry Division headquartered at Sialkot
2nd Independent Armoured Brigade
Independent Anti-Tank Brigade
Independent Artillery Brigade
XXXI Corps – headquartered at Bahawalpur
26th Mechanised Division headquartered at Bahawalpur[25]
35th Infantry Division headquartered at Bahawalpur
13th Independent Armoured Brigade
101st Independent Infantry Brigade
V Corps – headquartered at Karachi
16th Infantry Division headquartered at Pano Aqil
18th Infantry Division headquartered at Hyderabad
25th Mechanised Division headquartered at Malir[25]
31st Mechanised Brigade headquartered at Malir
2nd Armoured Brigade headquartered at Malir
Independent Armoured Brigade
Independent Artillery Brigade
X Corps – headquartered at Rawalpindi
12th Infantry Division headquartered at Murree
19th Infantry Division headquartered at Mangla
23rd Infantry Division headquartered at Jhelum
Force Command Northern Areas – headquartered at Gilgit
111th Infantry Brigade headquartered at Rawalpindi
8th Armoured Brigade headquartered at Kharian
Independent Artillery Brigade
XI Corps – headquartered at Peshawar
7th Infantry Division headquartered at Peshawar
9th Infantry Division headquartered at Kohat
Independent Armoured Brigade headquartered at Nowshera
XII Corps – headquartered at Quetta
33rd Infantry Division headquartered at Quetta
41st Infantry Division headquartered at Quetta
Independent Infantry Brigade headquartered at Turbat
Independent Armoured Brigade headquartered at Khuzdar
21 Artillery Division headquarters at Pano Aqil
Army Air Defence Command – headquartered at Rawalpindi, Punjab
3rd Air Defence Division headquartered at Sargodha
4th Air Defence Division headquartered at Malir
Army Strategic Forces Command – headquartered at Rawalpindi, Punjab
21st Division headquartered at Pano Aqil
22nd Division headquartered at Sargodha

The Ghauri-III is an intermediate-range ballistic missile being developed by Pakistan. Based on the previous Ghauri I and II missiles, it has three liquid fuel rocket stages. Currently its range is longer than any other ballistic missile in Pakistan's arsenal. The Ghauri-III reportedly started development around 1999 with a planned range of over 3,000 km.Few details are known, but Ghauri III is presumed to be road mobile, being transported and launched by a transporter erector launcher. The warhead, like other Pakistani ballistic missiles, is believed to be either conventional or nuclear and guided by an inertial guidance system.

The Shaheen III (Urdu: شاهين) (White Falcon) is a Pakistani intermediate-range ballistic missile speculated to be in development with a range of 4000-4500 km. It is a member of the solid-fueled Shaheen series missile family and is envisioned to replace the less advanced liquid-fueled Ghauri-III system whose development was canceled in May 2000 according to Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, Pakistan's former top scientist

Babur (Urdu: بابر) (named after the first Mughal Emperor Zahir ud-Din Babur), also designated Hatf VII, is the first land attack cruise missile to be developed by Pakistan.
Launched from ground-based transporter erector launchers, warships and submarines, the Babur can be armed with a conventional or nuclear warhead and has a reported range of 700 km (430 mi). The missile is designed to avoid radar detection and penetrate enemy air defences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_Army#Aircraft_inventory

Oh, you noticed!

I get the impression - though I don't have tangible evidence to point towards - that Pakistan's so-called "alliance" is merely leverage against India. It wasn't so long ago when both nations were rattling their nuclear sabers at each other, and some were fearing that an Asian apocalypse was about to occur. Now that those fires are dying into embers and the Kashmir region seems less of a hot button issue, it's as though Pakistan is now surreptitiously trying to shed its "alliance" with a Western power without quite making the US an outright enemy.

Surely "respect" is earned, not taught?

If someone asked you the question "which nation has suffered the most military casualties in the war on terror" I suspect that quite a lot of people would say Afghanistan or the United States, but they would be wrong, the answer is Pakistan.

The big big problem for Americans, and westerners in general is their lack of both knowledge and understanding of attitudes and public opinion in Pakistan.

For example, there is a general mistrust throughout all areas of society of the west, the United States and NATO, such attitudes are due to many reasons - American support for Israel, legacy of empire, Pakistani alliance with China, the perceived western backing of enemy number 1 "India".

The Taliban, Al Quada, terror groups and extreme forms of Islam also have little backing amongst the population of Pakistan, most Pakistanis are fed up of the terrorist attacks, the bombings and the killing of innocent people.

It is between these two deeply held opinions that the government of Pakistan must operate, the fight against terrorism does have widespread public support, but been allied to NATO and the United States is viewed with suspicion.

The United States and its allies cannot win the war on terror without Pakistan.

But the United States keeps shooting itself in the foot by continualy sending unmanned drones accross the border into Pakistan, and in many PROVEN INSTANCES, killing either civillians or Pakistani servicemen, this goes down like a lead baloon with the Pakistani public, the opposition to working with America and NATO grows stronger.

I am afraid that the United States and NATO fail to heed warnings from Pakistan, in the end it will be the United States and its allies which will lose out if the government of Pakistan is ignored.

It's possible that both Pakistan and The West would prosper if each ignored the other.

"Teaching" respect is what bullies are reputed to do.

witchfinder wrote:
The United States and its allies cannot win the war on terror without Pakistan.

Then it is in the best interests of the government of Pakistan and the people of Pakistan to cease being enemies of "the United States and its allies", because if al qaida and taliban beasts are left to roam free and ravage who they choose, the beasts will ravage the whole of Pakistan, as they continue to ravage Afghanistan and the portion of Pakistan they now control.

Shirina wrote:I get the impression - though I don't have tangible evidence to point towards - that Pakistan's so-called "alliance" is merely leverage against India. It wasn't so long ago when both nations were rattling their nuclear sabers at each other, and some were fearing that an Asian apocalypse was about to occur. Now that those fires are dying into embers and the Kashmir region seems less of a hot button issue, it's as though Pakistan is now surreptitiously trying to shed its "alliance" with a Western power without quite making the US an outright enemy.

i agree with you Shirina. Yet Pakistan is quite a deeply troubled country with many deep issues within it. It has played its part in the war with Afghanistan, but at a very high cost to themselves. I just have a strong feeling that they are quite a large group within Pakistan who see the West as more of an enemy. However, we have in the West not helped ourselves over Pakistan. but this still a very big hot spot in my mind.

witchfinder wrote:If someone asked you the question "which nation has suffered the most military casualties in the war on terror" I suspect that quite a lot of people would say Afghanistan or the United States, but they would be wrong, the answer is Pakistan.

The big big problem for Americans, and westerners in general is their lack of both knowledge and understanding of attitudes and public opinion in Pakistan.

For example, there is a general mistrust throughout all areas of society of the west, the United States and NATO, such attitudes are due to many reasons - American support for Israel, legacy of empire, Pakistani alliance with China, the perceived western backing of enemy number 1 "India".

The Taliban, Al Quada, terror groups and extreme forms of Islam also have little backing amongst the population of Pakistan, most Pakistanis are fed up of the terrorist attacks, the bombings and the killing of innocent people.

It is between these two deeply held opinions that the government of Pakistan must operate, the fight against terrorism does have widespread public support, but been allied to NATO and the United States is viewed with suspicion.

The United States and its allies cannot win the war on terror without Pakistan.

But the United States keeps shooting itself in the foot by continualy sending unmanned drones accross the border into Pakistan, and in many PROVEN INSTANCES, killing either civillians or Pakistani servicemen, this goes down like a lead baloon with the Pakistani public, the opposition to working with America and NATO grows stronger.

I am afraid that the United States and NATO fail to heed warnings from Pakistan, in the end it will be the United States and its allies which will lose out if the government of Pakistan is ignored.

Their is a great deal I agree with in here Witchy. but are we really friends or foe witchy? that is the big question in my mind.

RockOnBrother wrote:
Stox,

My friend, a quiet scholat, a Pakistani Muslim who quietly taught anyone who would listen that Muslims are called upon to treat Jews and Christians with dignity, honor, respect, and deference (he showed to me the text in the Qur'an that says exactly that), was executed almost twenty-three years ago, upon his return to Pakistan, for teaching that.

I said it then, I say it now; Pakistan is our enemy.

Rock
I have a copy of the Qur'an in English and have read it and understand it very well. however, this is not about the Qur'an or even the Muslim religion in my view. what we are talking about is quite a large group who hide behind religion. but in truth have a deep dislike of what the west stands for in a whole rang of issues. its my own view that its this group who are the enemy within Pakistan. for me, they suffer a lack of tolerance of Western ideals. its this that we need to over come with them. but is this at all possible? this is the million pound question in my mind.

This is easy to understand.

The west did not sell pakistan nukes, so they are not a friend of the west.

Pakistan allowed the taliban into their parliament, so are not a friend of the west. They only fight the taliban because of power issues.

RockOnBrother wrote:
Stox,

One of those Western ideals is tolerance, and indeed respect, for those whose religious beliefs differ from your own. My friend appreciated that ideal, and taught that idea from the Qur’an. As you have observed, this ideal is distasteful to many Pakistani authorities.

A bit more detail. My friend was in the US, his family was in Pakistan. He wanted his family to know freedom of speech, thought, and religion. He had faced persecution in Pakistan prior to coming to the US for teaching, from the Quran, what he taught me and anyone else who would listen, from the Qur’an, that Muslims are called upon to treat People of the Law (Jews) and People of the Gospel (Christians), together, People of the Book, with dignity, honor, respect, and deference.

My friend knew that a return to Pakistan might cost him his life. He risked that possibility because extracting his children from the oppressive atmosphere of Pakistani religious intolerance required his personal presence in Pakistan. My friend walked into the lions’ den with his head held high. I mourn him.

Rock
very sad to read your post. but you are so right in your summary of the Qur'an and tolerance it should teach. its this intolerance within a quite a large group that in my view put many at risk. its how we deal with this issue that worries me the most.

How very Interesting this is, go to the website and read the whole thing.

Imran Khan: "I hate US policy, not Americans"
By Mehdi Hasan
http://www.newstatesman.com/asia/2011/11/pakistan-khan-interview-party

Imran Khan is in full flow. "When people don't want to be ruled, you can't rule them," he says. "The Afghans have stood up against every invader. They lost one million men against the Soviet Union. One million!"

The cricketer-turned-politician is getting louder and louder as he explains the reasons for his opposition to the west's decade-long war in Afghanistan. "Why do they [the United States and the United Kingdom] think they are going to win?"

For Khan, whose own Pakistani family is descended from Pashtun tribesmen, the conflict is "basically a war of independence". He does not accept the arguments about counterterrorism or counter-insurgency advanced by western governments. "The Americans claim that it is because of the Haqqani [militant] groups that they cannot win in Afghanistan," he says. "Are they saying that the three, four or five thousand, maximum, fighters of the Haqqani network are the reason 140,000 Nato troops, part of the greatest military machine in the history of mankind, cannot win in Afghanistan? Because of 5,000 fighters?"

Nor is he impressed by Barack Obama's decision to set a timetable for full withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. "What has he achieved? And what are they doing right now? There have been more night raids this year than ever before. If even Hamid Karzai [the Afghan president] is complaining about night raids, there has got to be something wrong, because they kill innocent people. And they strengthen the Taliban. It's totally counterproductive."

He shakes his head wearily. "Obama's biggest blunder is that he fell in the trap of generals and generals always want more troops and more action

In January 2009, after Obama was elected to the White House, Khan wrote an open letter to him in which he pointed out that "the roots of terror and violence lie in politics - and so does the solution". "I told him, 'Do not own Bush's war [in Afghanistan].' I said: 'You're not going to win this.'"
Khan and I meet at the home of his former mother-in-law, Lady Annabel Goldsmith. She is trying to quieten three barking dogs as I arrive at Ormeley Lodge, the Goldsmith family's 18th-century Grade II-listed Queen Anne house near Richmond Park in Ham, where Khan stays on visits to London, in an upstairs apartment on the edge of the grounds.

John Brennan, a counterterrorism adviser to Barack Obama, told journalists that it was "inconceivable" that Bin Laden did not enjoy a "support system" in Pakistan. While both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have emphasised Pakistan's importance in fighting al-Qaeda, the circumstances of his discovery are damaging.

Carl Levin, a Democrat who heads the Senate armed services committee, summed up these concerns at a press conference:

I think the Pakistani army and intelligence have a lot of questions to answer given the location, the length of time and the apparent fact that this facility was actually built for Bin Laden and its closeness to the central location of the Pakistani army.

From the Pakistani side, there are questions, too – the US reportedly did not trust the ISI with news of Bin Laden's whereabouts, which will not go down well, given existing tension over increased numbers of CIA agents in the country and public anger at ongoing incursions on Pakistani soil in the form of drone attacks.

The former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf told CNN:

America coming to our territory and taking action is a violation of our sovereignty. Handling and execution of the operation [by US forces] is not correct. The Pakistani government should have been kept in the loop.

Clearly, there are murky waters here – and many questions that might not be answered publicly. Logging on to Twitter yesterday, I was disturbed to see many tweets of the "Get them!" variety, calling for action against Pakistan. But many of those passing comment clearly have very little knowledge of the country's state systems and the atmosphere there.

I've just returned from a trip to Karachi, where I was struck by quite how prevalent anti-American sentiment is. What might look to westerners like public sympathy for extremists is more often based on support for those holding their ground against the west, rather than agreement with extremist ideas. In an excellent article in today's Financial Times, Ahmed Rashid suggests that now might be the time to challenge this narrative:

He was a hero to some Pakistanis because he defied the west and because the country is desperately short of heroes. Perhaps Pakistan's leaders can now have the courage to turn around the mythology and show what Bin Laden really was – a political leech who introduced suicide bombing, helped to create the Pakistani Taliban and promoted intolerance in a country that was at relative peace with itself until he appeared on the scene.


http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/05/bin-laden-pakistan-obama

The relationship between Pakistan and the west is complex, firstly, do we mean the relationship between the people of Pakistan or the government of Pakistan, and how the west is viewed is different from the eyes of the military, the judiciary and the government.

Generaly speaking the west is viewed with suspicion, there is a belief that there is some kind of crussade against Islam and Muslims, the United States in particular is singled out for its backing of Israel.

The killing of Osama Bin Laden is probably supported by most people in Pakistan, though the way in which it was done is most definately not supported in Pakistan, and allthough we in the west can see and understand why the Americans did what they did, for the vast majority of Pakistani s it was humiliating and an attack on their sovereignty.

The relationship between the UK and Pakistan is different to the relationship between other western nations and Pakistan, there are more cultural and sporting ties between the two nations, and a common history, though never the less there is some suspicion and mistrust towards the UK.

The west, NATO and the allies involved in fighting terrorism must understand the feelings and opinions of Pakistani people, if the right path is followed, then most Pakistani s will be on the side of defeating both terrorism and extremism.

What the western allies must do is respect the feelings of Pakistani people and respect the difficult tight rope that the government of Pakistan is trying to tread.

Many countries in Asia and Africa would prefer just to be left alone.
Why do the Western powers seem to find that so difficult to comprehend?

oftenwrong wrote:Many countries in Asia and Africa would prefer just to be left alone.
Why do the Western powers seem to find that so difficult to comprehend?

Oftenwrong
a very good question indeed, something I myself have asked many times. as who is to say the Western powers are even right in the first place. its ok for us to all say they are dead right, as we live in the Western world. but in the East this view is not shared by them. I can only think we are living in the past. when what was said and done was followed by the east. but these days have long pasted in my view. the days of the gun boat has well pasted.