Afghan endgame: Pakistan, US agree on ‘blueprint’
The Afghan endgame took the centre stage during extensive talks between the US and Pakistan during US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to Islamabad last week.
As a result of those marathon discussions, both Pakistani and US officials have now disclosed that the two countries agreed on a “blueprint” that seeks a peaceful end to the decade-old war in Afghanistan.
Secretary Clinton led an unprecedented high-powered delegation, including the American military and intelligence chiefs, but her discussions with Pakistan’s top civil and military leadership were not, it seems, confined to bilateral relations or a plan on how to deal with the Haqqani network.
“You can say it is a breakthrough as we have agreed on a broader framework and a concept of reconciliation for Afghanistan,” said a senior Pakistani official, who asked not to be identified. A US diplomat also confirmed the development.
The Pakistani official said the two sides will now work out details such as clearly defining the role of those countries involved in the reconciliation process in Afghanistan.
Pakistan, he said, was ready to use its contacts with the Afghan Taliban to bring them to the negotiating table with the US, but would not become a guarantor of the process. “The US is willing to agree on things which we have been telling them for months,” he added.
The move is also an acknowledgement that Pakistan cannot be bypassed in such matters related to Afghanistan, he pointed out. In the past Pakistan has voiced concerns over attempts by the US as well as Afghanistan to keep Islamabad at bay over their peace overtures with the Taliban.
Despite an agreement in principle on the way forward for Afghanistan, there seem to be certain issues on which the two countries have yet to come up with a common strategy.
For example, Pakistan insists on a ceasefire in Afghanistan as a first step to enter meaningful negotiations with the Taliban, while the US appears to want to fight and talk simultaneously.
“We’re obviously working with the Afghans to fight those who will not reconcile, but we also must have a track for talking to those who are willing to come in off the battlefield within the parameters that we and the Afghans have set and that we have supported,” said a senior State Department official. “So I don’t think there’s any different disagreement between us, that we have to fight and squeeze even as we talk,” he added.
Islamabad is also opposed to the idea of attaching preconditions such as renouncing violence and accepting the Afghan constitution for talks with the Taliban.
On the question of the Haqqani network, a Pakistani official said the US still has reservations and will continue to apply pressure. “They want us to take certain actions to dismantle their (the Haqqani’s) ability and capability to target US forces in Afghanistan.”
Published in The Express Tribune, October 24th, 2011.
COMMENTS (29)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1732003896-0/Zendaya-(1)1732003896-0-165x106.webp "article")
1732004108-0/Express-Tribune-(5)1732004108-0-270x192.webp "pti rules out talks with govt ahead of nov 24 protest")
1732000275-0/Untitled-design-(9)1732000275-0-270x192.webp "dhaka university lifts ban on pakistani students")
1732002687-0/Untitled-design-(11)1732002687-0-270x192.webp "five held for stealing railway equipment")
@Khan: when u say "US remove those barbarians from Afg," are u referring to the russians?? but the usa brought the ussr into af'stan! it was all part of a cold war strategy to break up the soviet union. the usa agitated, assisted, supported, trained, and armed extremist groups all around the ussr's borders to get russia engaged in a war that would bankrupt them. read about operation cyclone which the usa began in 1978. even iran would not be in the hands of the mullahs if it were not for the usa's activities there. [of course, then the usa was dumb and arrogant enuf to fall into the same trap that it had set for the ussr]
or were u referring to the taliban? these days, its hard to tell who the barbarians are.
@Aurangzeb: We have to begin somewhere since we have signed the pact, dont u agree?
Why is it difficult to understand that one of our goals in Afghanistan is to make it secure and stable, so it does not regress back to chaos and lawlessness? We have been training the Afghan security forces, so they can protect the lives and property of the people of Afghanistan. The fact is that the ANA is inching closer to becoming self sufficient and capable of independently protecting the nation.
The United States did not enter Afghanistan to occupy it. Our intentions have always been to free Afghanistan from the grip of the terrorists and give the people a chance to live their lives in peace and prosperity. We are very close to that objective. Afghanistan has been cleared of most big name terrorists. Just recently our forces have captured or eliminated over 200 Taliban terrorists. The endgame in Afghanistan will be a terrorist- free and peaceful Afghanistan where all its citizens will have equal rights.
Maj TG Taylor DET-United States Central Command www.centcom.mil/ur
Now will they start releasing the billions in aid meant for our Army?
Karzai's regime is so weak and incompetent, that its survival now depends on the "endgame", which was played "during extensive talks between the US and Pakistan during US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to Islamabad last week". It shows that the answer to Afghanistan's future lies in Pakistan.
Some of these comments are proof of the lack of being able to read true history on a country just makes the people headaches rather than people to hold a productive conversation with. Winning a war has never, ever been dependent on softening the fall of the opposing side. You can tear through leaving it all in chaos without looking back and you have won. Homeland wise, the US has not had an attack on it that worked since 9/11. If you want to know most of the motives behind people calling for troop withdrawal is not only families wanting their family members back. It's also because of losing sympathy. That, is the "pointless" and "waste" that has been talked about. Why bother with people who are happy killing themselves? Our borders are fine. Bring them home, why waste money and lives on those people now if they act the way they do? The war between the people and the US government is the fight taking place that is effecting the troop pullouts. Not any militant group chasing them off. The area is just becoming as despised as you like to say the US is in the region. Which, I might add is odd considering every single time something coming from someone who has experienced the things the US has been holding off, without any true obligation to do so, for the stability of the region, likes them much more than any of your politicians.
The recent visit of Secretary Clinton to Islamabad and her sudden change of tone, and heart, was no surprise to anyone. It clearly suggests that, for its economic compulsions, the US wants to get out of the Afghanistan mess it has created itself, as soon as possible. It wants to do so without compromising on its broader objectives and its interests in the region. It seeks to broker a peace deal with the Taliban factions through Pakistan and is pressuring Pakistan to push Haqqanis, the most powerful of Taliban, to the negotiating table. It thought Pakistan could arm-twist Haqqanis into submission through a military operation in North Waziristan. The US thinks that Pakistan, for a variety of reasons, has the “capacity to encourage, to push, to squeeze ... terrorists, including the Haqqanis and the Afghan Taliban, to be willing to engage on the peace process”. This reflects the reality that the United States is desperate and is running out of options in Afghanistan. This explains the clear pattern of sweet-talk, coerce and sweet-talk again.
@Nasir Read the name once again its "Raj-USA". @Mirza, you are trying to behave smart by posting some crap on these news but actually you are just a naive person. Its actually the other way round, US was asking for military action but Pakistan was advocating peace through talks so who agreed with whom, I think its absolutely clear.
@Khan: You must be totally insane. Who have America gotten rid of? Taliban are ruling Afghanistan... thats exactly why Americans are talking to them in the first place. America wanted a puppet government in Afghanistan and get rid of Taliban, and they have achieved neither, because their own Karzai has no power... This is a loss as was vietnam...
It is important that we give importance to the 'end game' as it might determine the future of this region. the only way forward is that these three counties America, Pakistan and Afghanistan work together and put their differences aside!
"The Pakistani official said the two sides will now work out details such as clearly defining the role of those countries involved in the reconciliation process in Afghanistan."
the devil lives in the details :)
@Raj - USA: It seems you are highly affected by US media. Use your brain and analyze the situation on ground. US, Afg and India want to corner Pakistan by eliminating its influence on Afg Taliban so that they can follow their strategy leaving behind Pakistan in chaos.
“You can say it is a breakthrough as we have agreed on a broader framework and a concept of reconciliation for Afghanistan,” said a senior Pakistani official, who asked not to be identified.
Looks like Pakistan has abandoned its pipe dream of ruling Afghanistan through its proxies. Good sense seems to be percolating down, following some tough stand taken by the US.
By having direct talks with the talibans and Haqani's, USA shall control the talks and ensure that Pakistan is not able to play its double game. If talks are held through Pakistan, Pakistan could have influenced talibans. Now this is not possible. Talibans are neither patriotic, nor religious and do not have any morals. Each group has its own version and interpretation of Koran which keeps changing to the needs of the time. So, they can easily be purchased and could even be made to guard Afghanistan against pakistan. They have never recognized Durrand Line and property disputes arises only between brothers and relatives, not with friends.
@Khan: Are you for real ? You correctly say that war is about objectives and not the human loss anymore, but you argue that the USA 'didn't lost'... why ? Their objectives were to have a hand over Afghanistan, and Central Asia per se (economic pressure on China if possible), they didn't succeed, so even if 1 billion Afghans were killed (God forbids), it will not be ' a Taliban success', but an American failure definitly.
Just accept facts, the USA lost. Dot.
No one wants to show their weakness to the world, American's have big ego and can't be seen laying down arms first, they want other side to lay down arms first.
Afghan resistance is not winning and American occupation isn't losing...
When Pakistan had to agree with the US, what was all that fuss about? To fool Pakistani people? USA should not release much cash this time till the desired actions and results.
American's have bowed down to Powerful Pakistan yet again :) I wish if Army Chief could also negotiate on drone attacks and charge money for logistic use of
Pakistan infrastructure, they should pay at least $10billion to people of Pakistan -Not Corrupt Rulers-
Kiani also needs to negotiate to expel american intelligence network that is the fundamental source of terrorism in Pakistan
If this report turns out to be correct, it would be a great news. US needs to end that war, bring troops home, focus on its and world economy but keep an eye on Zawahiri & co thru drones and intel. No matter who rules afghanistan as long as they dont turn it into training camps for militants, they are willing to provide better services to their wounded nation and try to become better nation, Afghanistan: A Healthy Heart Of Asia
@DILU: Sadly its true. Taliban intrinsically are a single track party. They simply cannot dilute their ideology and accomodate other groups and ideologies. Their rigidity is their greatest strength. All deviants are Wajib-ul-Qatel for them. So you can bet 100 to 1 that it will be fight till death and destruction all around.
@DILU so whats the difference between then and today ?!
So PAK has switch on Afghan Taliban to turn on and off.
finally US has taken a wise step to negotiatewith real afghans(taliban) to end the long war that has crippled the development of Afghanistan,Pakistan and US as well.
@Bangash: If Afghans left alone then it is almost certain that history from 1989 to 1996 will repeat itself i.e. different factions will start killing each other.
It seems they plan to leave Afghanistan sooner than we think...
@Hairaan: your comments are immature as usual ... are you naive enough to not understand difference between of what US came here for and what it has achieved? No single country has ever occupied any other country forever, but there are always goals and aims which they achieve. Some people call Russian withdrawal their defeat, yes they couldn't achieve their objectives but at the same time nearly 2 million Afghan were killed vs few thousand Russian. US remove those barbarians from Afg and get their targets at will every second day via drones, they came to get OBL & Co and they did or are you not even aware about that?
So finally US has accepted its defeat in Afghanistan.
Why are Pakistan and the US interfering in Afghanistan ?!