Increasing US’ concerns for the peace deals..

Increasing US’ concerns for the peace deals.. · 06-06-2008, 07:27 AM

A series of concerns and reservations raised by the US officials and media personnel as to the peace deals brokered with the militants belonging to Mehsud tribes and the one struck at Swat region of the country on the heels of American pilot less predator's crude attack on a two story compound in Damadola on 14th of May clearly indicates that the American officials at White house and Pentagon do not want peace deals with insurgents. The missile attack is not the first of its kind awarded to Pakistan---a clear violation of the sovereignty of the state of Pakistan. This is, in fact, the third assault by the US drone on the soil of Damadola. The first attack was rendered by the US drone on Damodola on Jan, 13th 2006. It was alleged at the hour that the strike had been carried out since Dr. Ayman-ul-Zawahiri had been there for lunch. Later it was confessed that the strike was based on faulty intelligence report. But a mere statement could not have compensated for the 14 innocent civilians who embraced death on the occasion. A pilot less predator again hit the area on October 30, 2006 claiming the lives of 82 people, most among them children. The second strike had come just a day before the government and militants in Bajour agency were going to sign a peace deal. And this time again the missile struck the area when govt. and the Mehsud tribes were inching towards peace agreement. Amid peace negotiations and the release of detainees from both sides, the attack on Damadola could not go without producing counter-reaction. It was fitly retorted when a suicide bomber struck a military run bakery near the Punjab regiment centre on May 18, 2008 claiming the lives of four soldiers among 12 causalities. Similarly when the US predator hit the area back in Oct 2006, the newspapers had it on the front pages just one month after in Nov 2006 that the militants reciprocated it killing forty recruits at military training centre at Dargai. Two things are to be noticed in this regard, whenever there are efforts to bring peace in the region by peace negotiations, a missile or a bomb jump from across the border to foil such attempts. This indicates that peace in the region is not in the best interest of America. A volatile and restive FATA area would more suit to the designs of the US; and the turbulence in the tribal area may lend credence and weight to perpetuate war on terror. Second, the attack from Islamabad or Nato-led forces on the militants' sanctuaries on tribal areas of Pakistan has always its reaction and that was witnessed in the shape of blowing up of a military run bakery in the recent past. So here the picture is different from the one presented by Iraq; in Pakistan the response of the US attacks on the militancy is given back by attacking Pakistan's Army and Government machinery. The statements one after the other from the US officials against the peace negotiations are understandable. The trend shows how important this region of Pakistan is for the implementation of war on terror. In a written testimony submitted to Senate foreign relations committee, Deputy Secretary of the State John Negroponte said that Washington was not consulted preceding peace moves with the militants. He has joined the chorus of US officials who, time and again, had been expressing reservations about the deal, reminding Islamabad that a similar effort by Musharraf Government in 2006 only helped militants regroup and rearm. Negroponte had also earlier warned in an interview that if there were found sings of Osama and his cohorts in the tribal area of Pakistan, the US would not hesitate to launch a unilateral attack on their safe havens. Another important development was the addition of the statement raised by Gen. David Petraeus, a top US Military commander nominated to lead the Central Command, endorsed the statement of Michael Hayden, the Director General of CIA, that the next 9/11 type attack on the US soil would come from Al-Qaeda basis in Pakistan's tribal belt and urged the United States to increase its security assistance to the country to help it deal with the terrorist threat. Gen. David Petraeus' voice also shares the concerns of President George Bush, who in an interview with ABC news in the second week of April, said the Pakistan and not Afghanistan or Iraq was now the most likely place where a plot could be hatched to carry out any 9/11 type attack on US. Peace negotiations have evermore been part of war strategies. While there are wars, all the decisions are not enforced forcefully on the point of gun. This is what has been watched by the pages of history that sometimes agreements and deals come in to settle differences and snuff off disputes. To wield steel is never the sole means to end skirmishes and disputes. Dialogue should also be accorded due opportunity to play its vital part and prevail what is sometimes not possible through steel and arrows. But our American counterparts only deem gun to be the only source that can bring peace and harmony in the world. That is why Nato spokesman, Mark Laity, in his recent visit to Pakistan hit out at peace talks and exhorted the Pakistani side to avoid such agreements as might put their troops and mission under threat. But ironically the only threat they encounter is the prevalence of peace; and this is one they do not wish for. In this context, Baitullah Mehsud's statement, in his recent press conference at the Government High School at Kotkai, need to be analyzed when he says that peace agreement can only achieve success when Pakistan proves that it is a sovereign state that takes its own decisions and is not subservient to the US dictates. So Pakistan shall have to, in true letter and spirit, practice the assertions made on the heels of February 18 elections that strikes on its territory could be counter-productive and military action on its side of the border is the exclusive responsibility of its forces.

LINK: The Frontier Post

eXtacy · 07-06-2008, 11:09 AM

hat is why Nato spokesman, Mark Laity, in his recent visit to Pakistan hit out at peace talks and exhorted the Pakistani side to avoid such agreements as might put their troops and mission under threat. But ironically the only threat they encounter is the prevalence of peace; and this is one they do not wish for

Uh-huh.

Suicide bombers give peace.

New laya hai.

06-06-2008, 07:27 AM	#1
Increasing US’ concerns for the peace deals.. ARMANI101 PK Addict Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Islamabad Posts: 1,133 ARMANI101 06-06-2008, 07:27 AM Rating: () A series of concerns and reservations raised by the US officials and media personnel as to the peace deals brokered with the militants belonging to Mehsud tribes and the one struck at Swat region of the country on the heels of American pilot less predator's crude attack on a two story compound in Damadola on 14th of May clearly indicates that the American officials at White house and Pentagon do not want peace deals with insurgents. The missile attack is not the first of its kind awarded to Pakistan---a clear violation of the sovereignty of the state of Pakistan. This is, in fact, the third assault by the US drone on the soil of Damadola. The first attack was rendered by the US drone on Damodola on Jan, 13th 2006. It was alleged at the hour that the strike had been carried out since Dr. Ayman-ul-Zawahiri had been there for lunch. Later it was confessed that the strike was based on faulty intelligence report. But a mere statement could not have compensated for the 14 innocent civilians who embraced death on the occasion. A pilot less predator again hit the area on October 30, 2006 claiming the lives of 82 people, most among them children. The second strike had come just a day before the government and militants in Bajour agency were going to sign a peace deal. And this time again the missile struck the area when govt. and the Mehsud tribes were inching towards peace agreement. Amid peace negotiations and the release of detainees from both sides, the attack on Damadola could not go without producing counter-reaction. It was fitly retorted when a suicide bomber struck a military run bakery near the Punjab regiment centre on May 18, 2008 claiming the lives of four soldiers among 12 causalities. Similarly when the US predator hit the area back in Oct 2006, the newspapers had it on the front pages just one month after in Nov 2006 that the militants reciprocated it killing forty recruits at military training centre at Dargai. Two things are to be noticed in this regard, whenever there are efforts to bring peace in the region by peace negotiations, a missile or a bomb jump from across the border to foil such attempts. This indicates that peace in the region is not in the best interest of America. A volatile and restive FATA area would more suit to the designs of the US; and the turbulence in the tribal area may lend credence and weight to perpetuate war on terror. Second, the attack from Islamabad or Nato-led forces on the militants' sanctuaries on tribal areas of Pakistan has always its reaction and that was witnessed in the shape of blowing up of a military run bakery in the recent past. So here the picture is different from the one presented by Iraq; in Pakistan the response of the US attacks on the militancy is given back by attacking Pakistan's Army and Government machinery. The statements one after the other from the US officials against the peace negotiations are understandable. The trend shows how important this region of Pakistan is for the implementation of war on terror. In a written testimony submitted to Senate foreign relations committee, Deputy Secretary of the State John Negroponte said that Washington was not consulted preceding peace moves with the militants. He has joined the chorus of US officials who, time and again, had been expressing reservations about the deal, reminding Islamabad that a similar effort by Musharraf Government in 2006 only helped militants regroup and rearm. Negroponte had also earlier warned in an interview that if there were found sings of Osama and his cohorts in the tribal area of Pakistan, the US would not hesitate to launch a unilateral attack on their safe havens. Another important development was the addition of the statement raised by Gen. David Petraeus, a top US Military commander nominated to lead the Central Command, endorsed the statement of Michael Hayden, the Director General of CIA, that the next 9/11 type attack on the US soil would come from Al-Qaeda basis in Pakistan's tribal belt and urged the United States to increase its security assistance to the country to help it deal with the terrorist threat. Gen. David Petraeus' voice also shares the concerns of President George Bush, who in an interview with ABC news in the second week of April, said the Pakistan and not Afghanistan or Iraq was now the most likely place where a plot could be hatched to carry out any 9/11 type attack on US. Peace negotiations have evermore been part of war strategies. While there are wars, all the decisions are not enforced forcefully on the point of gun. This is what has been watched by the pages of history that sometimes agreements and deals come in to settle differences and snuff off disputes. To wield steel is never the sole means to end skirmishes and disputes. Dialogue should also be accorded due opportunity to play its vital part and prevail what is sometimes not possible through steel and arrows. But our American counterparts only deem gun to be the only source that can bring peace and harmony in the world. That is why Nato spokesman, Mark Laity, in his recent visit to Pakistan hit out at peace talks and exhorted the Pakistani side to avoid such agreements as might put their troops and mission under threat. But ironically the only threat they encounter is the prevalence of peace; and this is one they do not wish for. In this context, Baitullah Mehsud's statement, in his recent press conference at the Government High School at Kotkai, need to be analyzed when he says that peace agreement can only achieve success when Pakistan proves that it is a sovereign state that takes its own decisions and is not subservient to the US dictates. So Pakistan shall have to, in true letter and spirit, practice the assertions made on the heels of February 18 elections that strikes on its territory could be counter-productive and military action on its side of the border is the exclusive responsibility of its forces. LINK: The Frontier Post __________________ ~Bud-haal Pakistan, Khush-haal Hukmuraan.~
Views: 81

Sponsor Ads Sponsored links
PK Forum Community Advertisement