September 26, 2011

US-Pakistan tense standoff — what next?

Why officials are loud but President Obama and Zardari are cool, calm and composed? 
(An exclusive objective analysis)
The Terrorland Report

AFTER the allegations of the United States of America that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence has links with a group of the Taliban known as the Haqqani Network, saying that the ISI had helped the Network in attacking on the US Embassy in Afghanistan recently, there is a tense standoff between the two countries.

Looking at the tone of the American officials, the common people in Pakistan fear that that Sole Super Power (SSP) of the world is going to invade Pakistan like Afghanistan and Iraq. The Pakistani military and civilian officials also seem in hysteria from media reports.  

Everyone believes that Army Chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani is running the affairs of Pakistan while the civilian elected government and Parliament are just cosmetic needs to meet global demands. From the honorable departure of former military dictator Gen. Musharraf to restoration of the Chief Justice of Pakistan, the Kerry-Lugar bill issue to meeting of all Federal Secretaries at the GHQ, and many other examples are being counted how the Pakistan Army is actually ruling the country. So, Gen. Kayani is the main character to take decisions on part of Pakistan.

Amid escalating tension, Pakistan Army Commanders held a day-long meeting yesterday but, as it happens traditionally, no press release was issued by the military’s public affairs wing, the Inter-Services Public Relations. However, the mainstream English language newspapers have reported about the meeting through their “sources” in the military establishment.

The News writes:

Pakistan’s top military commanders resolved to respond materially and effectively to any attack launched on Pakistan from the US-controlled and managed Afghanistan. They rubbished the recent US allegations accusing the Inter-Services Intelligence of having links with the Haqqani network.

The Express Tribune writes:

Pakistan will not take military action against the Haqqani network, despite intense US pressure over the past few days. The commanders vowed to resist US demands for an offensive in North Waziristan but also discussed the possible implications of unilateral action by the US on Pakistani territory, said a military official. “We have already conveyed to the US that Pakistan cannot go beyond what it has already done,” the official told The Express Tribune on condition of anonymity.

Dawn writes:

A source privy to discussions at the (Army) conference, however, revealed that de-escalation efforts were afoot. “Escalation is harmful. In the cost-benefit analysis there appears to be no benefit of a confrontation.” His claim was corroborated by another senior official. But there was nothing to suggest that the army had agreed to act against the Haqqani network under US pressure. The army is rather asking for developing strategic coherence and clarity about US goals in Afghanistan and thinks that operational differences would be addressed.

Now here are some basic questions regarding the current US-Pakistan tense standoff. The Terrorland Team has given their possible answers:

Whose 'war' is it anyway?
Pak Army Chief Gen. Kayani (left) and US top commander 
Admiral Mullen at start of the standoff in Spain. (Reuters)

1- It's not a 'war' between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

2- It's actually a 'war' btween the Pentagon and GHQ. 

3- It's also a 'war' between the CIA and ISI.

What the US is doing now?

1- Diplomatically isolating Pakistan in the world.

2- Creating economic hurdles.

3- Preparing for a possible military strike if its demands are not met.

What the US will possibly do if there is a real war with Pakistan?

1- Increase in drone attacks in the tribal areas and possibly others settled area in Pakistan.

2- Ground troops may enter Pakistan from the west (Afghanistan) and there is uncertainty in the east (India) as well. 

3- Surgical air strike at over 100 military targets across Pakistan.  

What Pakistan can possibly do to ease tension?

1- Pakistan Army Chief will get some more aid and start action against the Haqqani Network inside Pakistan.

2- Pakistan Army Chief will take 'action' against some officials of the ISI for 'helping' the Haqqanis.

3- Pakistan Army Chief, in the first ever egoistic standoff, will insist on the traditional narration of the military establishment and will face the American forces.

4- When the US starts attack, Pakistan will knock at the doors of friends, neighbors and the United Nations, but until then irreparable damages would have been done to Pakistan as a nation state.  

What would be the ultimate result of the standoff?

1- Neither the US nor Pakistan can afford the long-term consequences of a formal or real war as both are equipped with nuclear arsenal.

2- At public level, the majority of Pakistanis never expects that, after helping their country for about 64 years, now the American government will send bombs to destroy the over 184 million people suddenly.

3- The standoff will make the Pakistan Army to change its traditional rule in the republic and globally.

4- There will be no war that is why US President Barack Hussein Obama and his Pakistani counterpart Asif Ali Zardari both are cool, calm and composed!!

5- However, ex-US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has said: "Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy." Therefore, ultra caution is needed as the military officials are very loud... a tiny slip can bring devastation!

6- There is hope for a renewed friendly relationship between the US and Pakistan that should, and would be, based on equality, respect and mutual trade not aid. 

Must-read related posts  


  1. The Pakistan's military authorities have no spine to withstand the US pressure. The top-brass generals have their personal stakes and fortunes abroad and at home, thus they cannot simply afford losing these kinds of luxuries. The above-mentioned analysis is close to reality, I believe.

  2. Pakistan is gonna buddy up with a winner
    this time - China.

    They'll regret it later ... but right now
    it'll seem like the right move.


  4. End of days for the Cowboy's affair with daughter of the east


    The political leadership of Pakistan met at the Prime Minister house on Thursday in a nine-hour marathon meeting to discuss the way forward in light of the serious allegations by the US and respond to the imminent threat to territorial integrity of Pakistan.

    All parties unanimously came to the decision that the allegations made by the US against the ISI over having links with militant wings of the Haqqani network were baseless. Being a peace loving country, Pakistan, despite the odds, would pursue peace via dialogue, with a parliamentary committee being set up to monitor the progress of implementation of the resolution.

    The full text of the resolution can be found below:


    Of the conference of the leaders of all the political parties

    Islamabad, September 29, 2011

    On the invitation of Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani, the leaders of Pakistan’s political parties met in Islamabad on September 29, 2011 to consider issues relating to national security

    1. The conference was briefed by Foreign Minister Ms. Hina Rabbani Khar and Director General ISI, Lt. Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha on the security environment of the country and the regional situation.

    2. After in-depth deliberations, leaders of all political parties unanimously resolved, as follows.

    i. As a peace-loving country, Pakistan desires to establish and maintain friendly and cordial relations with all countries of the world on the basis of sovereign equality, mutual interest and respect.

    ii. All Parties Conference recognized that there has to be a new direction and policy with a focus on peace and reconciliation. “Give peace a chance” must be the guiding central principle henceforth.

    iii. Pakistan must initiate dialogue with a view to negotiate peace with our own people in the tribal areas and a proper mechanism for this be put in place.

    iv. We need to further enhance our brotherly bilateral relations with Afghanistan at three levels on priority basis: government to government, institution to institution and people to people.

    v. The APC recognized the sacrifices of the people and the Security Forces of Pakistan, especially the people of Khyber Pukhtunkhwa and tribal areas. The international community needs to recognize these tremendous sacrifices as well as the colossal magnitude of destruction in Pakistan.

    vi. Pakistan can enhance its self-reliance comprehensively. Trade, not aid, should clearly be the way forward. We should also focus on internal economic and tax reforms as well as resource mobilization and the curbing of corruption.

    vii. Defence of Pakistan’s sovereignty and its territorial integrity is a sacred duty which shall never be compromised.

    viii. National interests are supreme and shall guide Pakistan’s policy and response to all challenges at all times.

    ix. Pakistan shall continue to endeavor to promote stability and peace at the regional and global planes, in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law.

    x. All earlier unanimous resolutions of the Parliament, the recommendation of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on National Security must be implemented.

    xi. APC rejected the recent assertions and baseless allegations made against Pakistan. Such assertions are without substance and derogatory to a partnership approach.

    xii. The Pakistani nation affirms its full solidarity and support for the armed forces of Pakistan in defeating any threat to national security.

    xiii. A Parliamentary Committee be formed to oversee the implementation of earlier resolutions as well as this Resolution and progress on the same be made public on monthly basis.

  6. A New Pakistan Policy: Containment
    Published: October 14, 2011

    It is time to move to a policy of containment, which would mean a more hostile relationship. But it should be a focused hostility, aimed not at hurting Pakistan’s people but at holding its army and intelligence branches accountable. When we learn that an officer from Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, is aiding terrorism, whether in Afghanistan or India, we should put him on wanted lists, sanction him at the United Nations and, if he is dangerous enough, track him down. Putting sanctions on organizations in Pakistan has not worked in the past, but sanctioning individuals has — as the nuclear proliferator Abdul Qadeer Khan could attest.

    Offering Pakistan more trade while reducing aid makes sense. When we extend traditional aid, media outlets with ties to the ISI cite the aid to weave conspiracy theories that alienate Pakistanis from us. Mr. Obama should instead announce that he is cutting tariffs on Pakistani textiles to or below the level that India and China enjoy; that would strengthen entrepreneurs and women, two groups who are outside the army’s control and who are interested in peace.