ISLAMABAD (AP) — You know a friendship has gone sour when you start making mean jokes about your friend in front of his most bitter nemesis.

So it was a bad sign this week when the U.S. defense secretary joshed in front of an audience of Indians about how Washington kept Pakistan in the dark about the raid that killed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden a year ago.

"They didn't know about our operation. That was the whole idea," Leon Panetta said with a chuckle at a Q&A session after a speech in New Delhi, raising laughs from the audience. The Bin Laden raid by U.S. commandos in a Pakistani town infuriated Islamabad because it had no advance notice, and it was seen by Pakistan's powerful military as a humiliation.

The U.S. and Pakistan are starting to look more like enemies than allies, threatening the U.S. fight against Taliban and al-Qaida militants based in the country and efforts to stabilize neighboring Afghanistan before American troops withdraw.

Long plagued by frustration and mistrust, the relationship has plunged to its lowest level since the 9/11 attacks forced the countries into a tight but awkward embrace over a decade ago. The U.S. has lost its patience with Pakistan and taken the gloves off to make its anger clear.

"It has taken on attributes and characteristics now of a near adversarial relationship, even though neither side wants it to be that way," said Maleeha Lodhi, who was serving as Pakistan's ambassador to the U.S. at the time of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks and was key in hurriedly putting together the two countries' alliance.

The latest irritant is Pakistan's refusal to end its six-month blockade of NATO troop supplies meant for Afghanistan. Even if that issue is resolved, however, the relationship may be on an irreversible downward slide. The main source of U.S. anger is Pakistan's unwillingness to go after militants using its territory to launch attacks against American troops in Afghanistan.

On the Pakistani side, officials are fed up with Washington's constant demands for more without addressing Islamabad's concerns or sufficiently appreciating the country's sacrifice. Pakistan has lost thousands of troops fighting a domestic Taliban insurgency fueled partly by resentment of the alliance with the U.S.

Panetta's comments about the bin Laden raid may have been unscripted, but others he made while in India and Afghanistan seemed calculated to step up pressure on Pakistan. He stressed Washington's strong relationship with India — which Islamabad considers its main, historic enemy — and defended unpopular American drone attacks in Pakistan.

He also said in unusually sharp terms that the U.S. was running out of patience with Islamabad's failure to go after the Pakistan-based Haqqani network, considered the most dangerous militant group fighting in Afghanistan.

Many analysts believe Pakistan is reluctant to target the Haqqanis and other Afghan militants based on its soil because they could be useful allies in Afghanistan after foreign forces withdraw, especially in countering the influence of India.

Pakistan lashed out at Panetta on Saturday and denied the country was providing safe havens for militants.

Panetta "is oversimplifying some of the very complex issues we are dealing with in our efforts against extremism and terrorism," the Foreign Ministry said. "We strongly believe that such statements are misplaced and unhelpful in bringing about peace and stability in the region."

A senior U.S. official described the relationship as "the worst it has ever been."

"This is from Washington's point of view and from Pakistan's point of view, and even among the real well-wishers on both sides who are appalled and befuddled that we can't get past all of this and move beyond," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

After years of frosty relations caused by Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, Washington and Islamabad were thrust together on Sept. 11, 2001, when al-Qaida attacked New York and Washington. The U.S. demanded Pakistan support the war against bin Laden and his Taliban hosts in Afghanistan. The U.S. directed billions of dollars in aid to Pakistan and sought to convince Islamabad it was not simply interested in a "transactional" relationship based on counterterrorism cooperation, but wanted a long-term strategic partnership.

U.S. officials have largely abandoned that argument over the past 18 months as the relationship has suffered repeated crises.

"Because of the toxic atmosphere on both sides, the two countries cannot even work in a transactional way," said Lodhi, the former Pakistani ambassador.

In January 2011, a CIA contractor sparked outrage when he shot to death two Pakistanis in the city of Lahore who he claimed were trying to rob him. Anger over the incident was still simmering when the U.S. killed bin Laden in May.

In November, American airstrikes killed 24 Pakistani troops at two Afghan border posts. The U.S. has said it was an accident, but the Pakistani army claims it was deliberate.

Pakistan retaliated by kicking the U.S. out of a base used by American drones and closing its border to NATO supplies meant for troops in Afghanistan. Negotiations to reopen the route have been hampered by Islamabad's demand for much higher transit fees and Washington's refusal to apologize for the deaths of the Pakistani troops.

The U.S. has attempted to bridge the difference over money by offering to repave highways used by the supply trucks, said a U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

But Pakistani officials have made clear the route will not reopen without some kind of apology. The U.S. has expressed its regret over the incident but has refused to apologize for fear it could open the Obama administration up to criticism by Republicans upset with Pakistan.

A senior U.S. defense official, Peter Lavoy, arrived in Pakistan on Friday to participate in the negotiations. But Panetta's comments could complicate matters.

Such statements do "water down the willingness to cooperate with the United States," said Imtiaz Gul, director of the Islamabad-based Center for Research and Security Studies.

President Barack Obama showed U.S. anger over the supply issue at a NATO summit last month in Chicago by refusing a one-on-one meeting with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari.

However, the U.S. and Pakistan both have reasons to walk the relationship back from the brink.

The U.S. continues to receive some intelligence cooperation from Pakistan on militants and has been able to continue drone strikes in Pakistan's tribal region despite public protests, likely because of tacit agreement by Pakistani military leaders. Both could be threatened if the relationship heads farther south.

Just as important is Pakistan's support on the Afghan war. Pakistan is seen as key to striking a peace deal with the Taliban and their allies in Afghanistan that will allow the U.S. to withdraw most of its combat forces by the end of 2014 without the country descending into further chaos.

Pakistan is keen on freeing up over a billion dollars in frozen U.S. aid, which will only be released if it reopens the supply line. Also, Pakistan can ill afford to become a true enemy of the U.S. at a time when it is struggling to contain its own Taliban insurgency and right its stuttering economy.

But politics on both sides make breaking the impasse difficult, particularly with U.S. elections this fall and Pakistani elections due early next year — possibly even sooner.

Historically, Pakistan's army has steered the relationship with the U.S. But fearing public backlash in a country where anti-American sentiment is rampant, the generals have tossed the NATO supply line issue to Pakistan's weak and unpopular civilian government. The politicians are reluctant to do anything that could hurt their election prospects.

"The longer Islamabad delays and dithers, the opinion in Washington is hardening," said Lodhi. "Time is the enemy of a reset in relations."

US, Pakistan beginning to look more like enemies - NY Daily News

The ISI is a state within a state with its own right wing agenda, our state leadership is incompetent, we're blowing the US for Aid and fighting a war that was never ours... basically our country is in one fucked up shape right now.

__________________
[QUOTE=PKB;2306646]Naveen is hot n sexy :)[/QUOTE]

blah blha blah

ur argument doesn't make sense on one hand ISI is right wing and other hand they working against Taliban and Al-qaeda by participating in WOT. The hatred for anything pakistan has really blinded u

__________________
My Blog: http://www.sohnidhurti.com

ISI - responsible for double dealing with the taliban and the US double crossing both....from '79 onwards

America - responsible for leaving whenever anything's half finished...since forever...

sufferers - US, that is, the word us, not United states.

__________________
SPARTANSSSS!!!!!! EAT HEARTY, FOR TONIGHT WE DINE IN HELLLLLLLL!!!!!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

ISI ex - cheif so called father of Talibaan was killed by TTP, which is al-qaeda affliated, Pak ISI is the agency which has apprehended and handed over most Al-qaeda members then any agency in the world, it was ISI tip that 1st let to farhaj al-libi arrest and later osama bin laden arrest.

ISI job is to safeguard national interest of pakistan, not US or any other country. I would be shocked and demand ISI head if they don't have contacts with Afghan Taliban or Afghan resistance group, contacts doesn't mean support, Pak actually holding Talibaan high command in jail as per action of ISI, one of high commander died while incarcerated and Talibaan not happy abt it.

Anyone who say ISI controls Talibaan lives in a fool's paradise, when faisal al tariki of KSA and ISI head met with Mullah Omar pre-invasion of Afghanistan they both urged Mullah Omar to hand over Osama Bin laden, as Mullah Omar had previously agreed to do so 1st to KSA (deal went down post missle attacks on afghanistan by Clinton Admin) and then on suggestion of Gen. Ziauddin Butt (ISI) who suggested that OBL be tried by judges of 4 islamic countries for embassy bombings, Mullah Omar agreed later decided not to, infact Time recounted the story of just b4 Afghan Invasion both ISI and KSA intelligence cheifs met with Mullah Omar asking him to hand over OBL to avoid invasion and he flatly refused.

Its bs to say Pak supporting Taliban for simple rational reasons

1 - Pak is broke and relies on money from outside. As per Bush era accountability report pak used the money to fight taliban on pak defence against India, which india confirmed and US agreed,

2 - even if pak was supporting the Taliban with money its not enuff and is peanuts compare to what ISAF is spending.

3 - It is reported by ISAF and endorsed by US that majority of talibaan money comes from 2 sources drug trade and tax the impose on every truck passing through afghanistan, all news media in west reported how US and NATO money is fueling the insurgency.

4 - FATA region was autonomous and they joined pak on condition they would not be subject to Pak laws that was a promise made to them by Jinnah and was enshrined in constitution, hence its use to be called Ilaqa-e-Ghair, pak uniltarelly broke the agreement by sending in army and starting a war on behest of US and we have to pay the price, as with all in the past these ppl rather die then surrender after heavy losses pak strated to struc deals with local leaders, every one we struck deal with was killed by US.

5 - The area which borders pakistan one can accuse pak of providing sanctuary and support, but once they crosss the border how come they not apprehended, and on the other side of the border on the western and southern border who is helping hikmatyaar group and taliabn continue fighting? surely ISI is not that powerful that it can sneak arms all across the afghanistan?

6 - How much Iran has invested and built in Afghanistan, do anyone think they doig out of thier love for afghani ppl?

I can go on and on, simple fact remain post 2007, US concluded they losing the war and needed a escape goat that has been pakistan.

__________________
My Blog: http://www.sohnidhurti.com

boss ISI ka role aaj se nai hai, ojhri camp kai waqaey ka aaj tak kuch nai hua...how many of these general sahib's got rich during the afghan war??? this is not a question of what they are doing now. I am sure now the ISI HAS to do as its told particularly after the Salala incident, but its more about the trend that has been seen over the past. That is why i am saying that the americans are being ass-holes to us right now but its not a one-way street. We have a history in this issue. I hope that in the future we never enter a war we arent supposed to be in whether against the soviets or against the americans.....

__________________
SPARTANSSSS!!!!!! EAT HEARTY, FOR TONIGHT WE DINE IN HELLLLLLLL!!!!!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Sir things aren't as black and white as you are pretending them to be. And neither the other side story is as absolutely angelic as you are trying to preach here. I don't care what Taliban in Afghanistan do or however their business goes about. The point Lahorii made about state within a state was in regards to internal meddling of ISI in matters it should stay away from.

Case in point, the brutal murder of Journalist Saleem Shehzad. The column he wrote where he exposes all the the dirty work was evidence enough pointing towards the dirty mess. I suggest you to read on that matter thoroughly before making making such judgments here. Who are you going to blame for his murder? MQM? PPP? Liberal West?????

Moreover, where are the missing people? from Balochistan, Sindh, Punjab, KP, all over Pakistan? Where are those missing people and why is SC not giving the case as much attention as it deserve instead of just going after PPP.

__________________
kya bood-o-bash poocho ho purab ke sakino! hum ko gareeb jan ke, hans hans pukar ke...
jis ko falak ne loot ke veeran kar diya, hum rehne walay hain usi ujray dyar ke -

bhai in questions par cyborg bhai ka formulaic jawaab hai

1. Saleem shehzad was a foreign agent...isi liye maara gaya, found out 'state secrets'

2. missing persons are rebels and they deserve what has happened to them since they are enemies of the state...


'due process' doesn't figure in this analysis

__________________
SPARTANSSSS!!!!!! EAT HEARTY, FOR TONIGHT WE DINE IN HELLLLLLLL!!!!!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

And I won't be surprised at all if he comes up with such HOLY reasons

__________________
kya bood-o-bash poocho ho purab ke sakino! hum ko gareeb jan ke, hans hans pukar ke...
jis ko falak ne loot ke veeran kar diya, hum rehne walay hain usi ujray dyar ke -

1st of all my reply regarding ISI was strictly with regards to Afghan war and I answered accordingly. As Ahmed/ mentioned other side is not angelic and thats what im trying to portray that it takes 2 to tango.

2 - ISI is no angel and has done lot of crap which u all have highlighted and some that you didn't highlighted.

3 - Pak army has fucked up a lot not recently but from start, the shameful episode of 1971 to kargil debacle, which one could have swallowed if not what they did post cease fire when the assholes generals cut off the retreating lines leaving our jawans at the mercy of the enemies that alone i could never pardon mushy for.

My point is and remains

1 - This war on terror whether we like it or not is ours and we have to fight it and I have mentioned several times I don't agree with IK on tlking with TTP, they are animals and no tlk is required they must lay down the arms and then we can consider the tlking after they submit themselves to law.

2 - ISI should be reigned in, starting from a legislation that would make it a crime for ISI to interfere in domestic issues.

3 - Military has to be accountable for all the crap there shouldn't be any holy cows in miliutary, no general can get away with nething. We can start doing so by starting article 6 proceeding from Ayub to mushy.

lastly ISI or army are no angels and I never claimed them to be, but it takes 2 to tango, the crap US been doing post 2007 against pak logically requires pak to respond in kind, and when it comes to defending ISI or military against foregners will do so in any way be it jignostic or over the top, as saying go, they might be SOB but they are our SOB.

__________________
My Blog: http://www.sohnidhurti.com

problem is very simple.

in the US, there are republicans, democrats, and other parties. all have very different views about their country - what it should look like, what it values, how to make it better, and so forth. this is not a uniquely american trait, this is a universal human trait. the problem is that americans have UNITY. they are americans first, all those other things second. in pakistan, there is nothing known as unity. the only time we truly unite is when the pak cricket team is playing, or india gets involved in our matters. thats about it. we need to first understand what the core values are that make us pakistani that ALL pakistanis can agree on, and then use that base to further our national interest. a lot of soul searching is required to make that happen.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is very interesting topic that u have mentioned i believed i opened a thread abt it but no one was interested in this debate. I agree with u, the main issue is what is our core national issue, what unite us what make us a nation, rest of all is secondary, we have failed on the 1st issue since inception of pak.

There are those who says the inception of Pak in name of muslim is the problem it would have never worked, 1971 fall of dhakka and insurgencies in Baluchistan and Sindh seems to validate this.

I don't know the simple answer to this qts but i agree with u till we resolve this we cant solve nething else.

__________________
My Blog: http://www.sohnidhurti.com

please read Mavericks post. his first point is essentially what i meant. The ISI has it's own agenda!

I have read it and find it factually incorrect I have provided my response to it plz read it carefully.

To point out obvious incorrection:

1 - No Taliban existed in 79
2 - Pak was allied with US on war against USSR all through 1980.
3 - The so called double dealing of ISI was regarding pak nuclear program its not double dealing its taking care of Pak interests.
4 - Geneva convention post USSR withdrawl was the turning point where US wanted us to accept it and Pak refused knowing the concequences, in return the whole military leadership was blown up by US and civilian govt was presented with sanctions.

Oh and BTW u being from india seriously shouldn't talk abt pak supporting terrorism or how we dealing with terrorims regarding human rights cuz we learned all from u guys.

__________________
My Blog: http://www.sohnidhurti.com

حکومت پاکستان اور افواج پاکستان امريکی پاليسيوں کی وجہ سے تان ان دہشت گردوں کے خلاف نبرد آزما نہيں ہیں۔ ان دہشت گرد قوتوں کے خلاف جنگ کی وجہ يہ ہے کہ يہ مجرم پاکستانی شہريوں، اعلی حکومتی عہديداروں، فوجی جوانوں اور قانون نافذ کرنے والے اداروں کے اہلکاروں کو روزانہ قتل کر رہے ہیں۔ کراچی ميں سی آئ ڈی کی عمارت پر حاليہ حملہ دہشت گردی کی اس لہر کی تازہ مثال ہے جس نے معاشرے کی بنيادوں کے لیے خطرات پيدا کر ديے ہيں
اس حملے کے ذمہ دار افراد نے ذمہ داری بھی قبول کر لی ہے اور اپنی خونی ايجنڈے کو جاری رکھنے کے لیے دھمکی بھی دی ہے۔ اب اگر حکومت پاکستان اور افواج پاکستان ان افراد اور گروہوں کے خلاف کاروائ کرتی ہے جو ان حملوں کے ذمہ دار ہيں تو کيا آپ اسے امريکہ کی جنگ کہيں گے؟ ان حملوں ميں کسی امريکی کی موت نہيں ہوئ۔ حکومت پاکستان اور فوج کی کاروائ پاکستان کے عوام کی حفاظت کو يقينی بنانے اور ان افراد کو انصاف کے کٹہرے ميں لانے کے ليے ہو گی جن کے ہاتھوں پر پاکستانی خون ہے۔ کسی بھی رياست اور فوج سميت اس کے تمام اداروں کی يہ بنيادی ذمہ داری ہوتی ہے کہ اپنے شہريوں کی حفاظت کو يقينی بناۓ۔

دنيا کی کوئ بھی فوج اپنے فوجيوں کی جان کی قربانی اور اپنے وسائل صرف اپنے عوام کے بہترين مفاد میں ہی صرف کرتی ہے۔ امريکی حکومت پاکستانی فوج کے بہادر سپاہيوں کی بے پناہ قربانيوں کو پوری طرح تسليم بھی کرتی ہے اور اسے قابل احترام بھی سمجھتی ہے، جنھوں نے پاکستان کے معصوم شہريوں کی جانوں کی حفاظت کے ليے اپنی جانوں کا نذرانہ پيش کيا ہے۔

ذوالفقار – ڈيجيٹل آؤٹ ريچ ٹيم – يو ايس اسٹيٹ ڈيپارٹمينٹ

digitaloutreach@state.gov
U.S. Department of State
USUrduDigitalOutreach - Government Organization - Washington, DC | Facebook