|Submited on :||Fri, 7th of Dec 2018 - 05:16:03 AM|
|Post ID :||a3wrc8|
|Post Name :||t3_a3wrc8|
|Post Type :||link|
|Subreddit Type :||public|
|Subreddit ID :||t5_2qhnn|
SS: Lally Weymouth from WaPo conducted a 1 on 1 interview with Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan. She asked him questions about the internal and external problems facing Pak, IMF, Taliban, Afghan peace process, US/China pivot, foreign investment, India, etc. Here's an excerpt from the interview:
Q. Nevertheless, we are where we are. It appears the Americans want peace talks now in Afghanistan to bring about a settlement so the U.S. troops can leave. Do you want to see them go?
A. I talked for years about how there was no military solution in Afghanistan, and they called me “Taliban Khan.” If you did not agree with the U.S. policy, you were [thought to be] anti-American. Now I’m happy that everyone realizes there is only a political solution . . . From Pakistan’s point of view, we do not want the Americans to leave Afghanistan in a hurry like they did in 1989.
A. The last thing we want is to have chaos in Afghanistan. There should be a settlement this time. In 1989, what happened was the Taliban emerged out of the chaos.
Q. There are not many American troops in Afghanistan now.
A. Yes, but the Afghan army is being supported by U.S. dollars. The Taliban clearly realize that for the reconstruction of Afghanistan, they will need American help.
Q. You get the feeling from Trump's tweets that he's done with Afghanistan.
A. This should have happened a long time ago.
Q. Do you have a vision of what you want Pakistan's relationship with the United States to be? Or are you trying to hedge your bets by growing closer to China?
A. I would never want to have a relationship where Pakistan is treated like a hired gun — given money to fight someone else’s war. We should never put ourselves in this position again. It not only cost us human lives, devastation of our tribal areas, but it also cost us our dignity. We would like a proper relationship with the U.S.
Q. What does that mean?
A. For instance, our relationship with China is not one-dimensional. It’s a trade relationship between two countries. We want a similar relationship with the U.S.
Is it me, or is it that this reporter is a bit snotty? It's not just me right?
I was shocked as well. The reporter was clumsily inserting their opinion into each question. I read these interviews to gain insight into the interviewee, not the interviewer.
Reporter is snotty yes
why? i thought both were concise and straight to the point
Just the way the interviewer asked the questions...
Snooty is a synonym for someone with a high opinion of oneself. Snotty is a word for lot of mucus.
Read it carefully. YOu can see she's got her bias, and it showing in some of her questions
Not only that, almost every question is about WoT rather than any other policy. Pretty poor reporting.
Imran Khan wants a transformation of Pakistan. The arrestation of extremist party leaders which called for actions against existing laws, was a first step. What I don't know how far his agenda is reaching the population. The Pakistan media isn't saying quite much about it.
His agenda is lot bigger than just overcoming extremism, and it will be a job well done on his part if he can keep at least half the of the promises he made. There's a lot on his plate and he himself is trying to reach out to people on issues like for for example population control in which he, the CJP, and a well-known Islamic scholar/preacher was called to talk about birth and population control. Talks on issues like where a big no-no, but now since the PM is talking about this on TV, the messages gets disseminated farther.
Prime Minister Imran Khan on Friday has clarified Unites States that Pakistan is not your ‘hired gun’ anymore.
In an interview to Washington Post, Imran Khan responded to a question related to social media war with US president Donald Trump and said, “It was not really a Twitter war, it was just setting the record right. He needs to be informed about historical facts. Pak has suffered enough fighting US’s war. Now we will do what is best for our people and our interests.”
Talking about war against terrorism, Khan told that there are no sanctuaries of Taliban in Pakistan.
Big words, but outcomes are yet to be seen.
Has Pakistan ever been the U.S.'s hired gun??? They hid Osama Bin Laden and allowed Taliban fighters to cross into their country. The US has also always been close with India, which obviously makes US-Pakistan ties difficult.
astonishing that you don't see how Pak has helped US. 1. defeating the soviets in afghanistan 2. war on terror (US and NATO supply routes, air bases, and the rendition progs b/w Musharraf and cia). It wasn't Pak war to begin with and when they sided with US, Taliban became the enemy of state of Pak. Pak had to fight a war within it's borders just because of premature invasion of Afghanistan.
The Cold War was a long time ago.
Pakistan-US relations have worsened as the war in Afghanistan went on. They fought one branch of the Taliban, but they've also provided safe havens for Taliban fighters.
Today, China is the largest supplier of military equipment to Pakistan, while the US conducts extensive military operations and drills with India, Pakistan's geopolitical rival.
Pak has one of the largest refugee population. Most of them are Afghan refugee camp. Are those the safe heavens you talking about? Pak-Afghan border is very pourous and Pak has just started fencing its side with no coop from Afghan and US govt, so this what facilitates cross border infiltration and terrorism. Also i don't know you keep bringing india. It's not even the part of equation. It's solely a US-PAK-AFG issue.
(Brookings Institute) Pakistan’s Role in the Afghanistan War’s Outcome
If the differences between the American and Soviet experience are significant, there is also at least one major similarity: the role played by Pakistan. In the 1980s, Pakistan was the base for the Saudi-American alliance behind the mujahideen. Today, Pakistan is the safe haven of the Taliban insurgency and its logistical supply line. Pakistan also serves as the major logistical line for the NATO forces in Afghanistan. Over 80% of the supplies coalition forces depend on to survive arrive via Pakistan from the port of Karachi. Geography effectively precludes an alternative, unless the alliance is willing to rely on either Russia or Iran for its logistics.
Pakistan and India have one of the biggest rivalries on the world stage today, the US's close relations with India definitely matter to this.
your quote means nothing. comes from a no name person op-ed from some "elite" institute.
Reality check: In real world Trump few days back sent a letter to Khan to work hand in hand for a stable Afghanistan. Neither the word india was thrown anywhere not moti got a letter, so it's clear india is not even part of the equation.
Look, if you're trying to prove that the US and Pakistan occasionally work together, you got me.
BUT Pakistan isn't a "hired gun". They gave NATO logistics in the beginning but now actively thwart US policy in Afghanistan.
You're being ridiculous if you don't think US-India relations matter to Pakistan. Balancing a relationship with Pakistan while also having a relationship with India is near impossible and the last 10 years have shown that.
Especially since the US has cut off the payments to Pakistan!
Yeah probably not the best timing Khan considering India is about to take delivery a load of S-400's and will likely place most in Jammu & Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh. They'll be able to see the entirety of Pakistani airspace and shut it down as far away as Islamabad and Lahore. Unless Pakistan is planning to get a few goat-herders to carry their nuclear weapons over the border they'll be essentially useless now too, and a very expensive program to maintain.
Why is India getting S-400 from Russia a game changer? India is already stronger militarily than Pakistan without these new weapons, so their deployment isn't going to change anything. And India does not have the courage to shut down Pakistani airspace over Islamabad and Lahor. Doing so will lead to the international community condemning India for war mongering. So in practice, nothing will change. Both India and Pakistan will continue their respective border incursions with a handful of troops. The S-400 is not going to change that.
Because the S-400 allows you to penetrate with radar into your neighbours airspace, you can prevent aircraft and large missiles even taking off let alone shoot them down as they approach your border. You can also monitor everything your neighbour does militarily without even having to do traditional spy-style flyovers of their territory or invest in expensive space-based satellite intelligence equipment. The integrated VLR component of the S-400 system can accurately identify birds from 400km away.
It's why Israel has flown a grand total of zero bombing runs into Syria since the much older and outdated S-300 came online, and Israel was doing almost daily attacks before with the most advanced fifth-generation stealth fighters known to man, the F-35.
How can the S400 "prevent aircraft and large missiles even taking off let alone shoot them down"? Unless you are willing to shoot down an aircraft clearly within Pakistani airspace, how is the S400 going to accomplish what you mentioned?
I think you don't understand my point, India and Pakistan aren't at war, but if they were I have no doubt either side would have no issue shooting down each other's jets over their airspace, you don't only act defensively in total war. Why would India wait until those jets clearly on a trajectory to it's territory arrived at it's border when it can take them out 30 seconds after liftoff? You can also "shut down" enemy airspace and starve them of supplies by air, jamming civilian radar traffic etc.
However the main issue is that India can now monitor the entirety of Pakistani airspace, all their training exercises, radar profiles and cross-sections of fighters, drones and other tech can be obtained without even lifting a finger or using other more expensive forms of intelligence.
Normally when a country like Russia wants to gain insight into NATO tech they have to do aggressive flyby's, known as "buzzing", whereby they'll purposefully load an old Soviet era jet filled with intelligence monitoring equipment and fly it into NATO airspace somewhere, like over the Netherlands, then see how long it takes them to get picked up by Dutch radar and how accurate those radar locks are, how long it takes jets to intercept and what the radar cross sections of those jets are. Slowly piece by piece they can build up a hugely powerful body of intelligence that can render features such as new F-35 stealth tech useless.
However if your country has an S-400 system at it's border, Russia, or whichever country operates the system, doesn't even need to do that, they can just see your total airspace and any and all activity taking place within it, and gain all that intelligence including troop movements etc without moving an inch. It's why Israel totally flipped out when Russia announced it was giving Syria the S-300 system, and why Israel has done as I said previously a grand total of zero bombing runs, on Syria or Lebanon against Hezbollah (which used to be a weekly occurrence), since the system was activated.
The S-400 is at wartime a weapon, but at peacetime it's one of the best intelligence gathering tools ever created. It completely removes the "fog of war", and best of all your enemy can't counter it because all aspects such as radar stations and missile launchers are totally mobile and can be moved around at will, daily if you want.
India and Pakistan aren't at war, but if they were I have no doubt either side would have no issue shooting down each other's jets over their airspace
You are overestimating the Indians. India isn't going to shoot down a plane over Islamabad because India is afraid of escalating things beyond its control. The more likely scenario is India will only shoot down a Pakistani plane after it crosses over to Indian airspace.
Normally when a country like Russia wants to gain insight into NATO tech they have to do aggressive flyby's, known as "buzzing",
You are overestimating the Pakistanis. They don't have that many things, air defense wise, worth that type of intelligence gathering. The threat Pakistan posses to India are small unit raids, or unconventional warfare. Pakistani air force is primarily defensive in nature against Indian attacks. It isn't a credible offensive force.
The S-400 is a powerful weapon against a more advanced country. Using it against the Pakistanis is an overkill, and more importantly, do very little in defending against cross-border raids or conventional warfare.
It completely removes the "fog of war", and best of all your enemy can't counter it because all aspects such as radar stations and missile launchers are totally mobile and can be moved around at will, daily if you want.
The counter is to overwhelm the system by firing multiple missiles, some real, some dummies, at the same time. The S-400 cannot track everything at once, and certainly cannot shoot down everything at once. But more realistically, all of this assumes that India will be able to integrate a sophisticated weapon into their military operations. That remains to be seen.
And in 1971 India didn’t have the courage to split pakistan into two
Neither does the US but it decided to stop funding one side and is actively courting the other.
What was the US going to do in response, sell Patriots or thaads to Pakistan? Their military relationship doesn't extend beyond the war in Afghanistan. Any threats from India will see Pakistan develop their own counter measure or obtain from their close ally, China.
The US previously supported Pakistan in it's territorial claims against India including militarily. The S-400 means Kashmir will now be cemented as Indian and not Pakistani, forever. Especially if Pakistan gives the US the middle finger and doesn't intervene this time.
You are overthinking the implications over India getting the S400. India already dwarfs Pakistan in terms of conventional military and the gap is growing all the time. The US wasn't going to do anything about that no matter if Imran Khan gave the finger or not.
Currently, Pakistan's goals isn't to acquire Kashmir (no matter what they tell their population) but to deter any Indian aggression towards the parts that Pakistan controls. That has been the goal ever since the disastrous 1971 defeat. This deterrence is based on nukes and support of militant groups. All it takes is one nuke to slip through the S400 systems.
Asia Bibi is proud to have a leader who is now a China's hired gun.
Remember when their state media wrote "begging" instead of Beijing? lol so fitting https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pakistan-imf-china/begging-in-beijing-pakistan-sacks-state-tv-chief-after-broadcast-gaffe-idUSKCN1NC1Q7