What's new

Featured America Has Lost a Proxy War against Pakistan

Path-Finder

BANNED
Feb 7, 2013
20,658
1
30,057
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Better glitter than conspiracy theories, right?
its conspiracy when it doesn't suit your narrative. its an outdated response. Instead of just labeling it conspiracy theories how about looking at it objectively. But we all know those of us who have been on forum long enough, how you operate.
 

VCheng

ELITE MEMBER
Sep 29, 2010
40,831
55
34,761
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
its conspiracy when it doesn't suit your narrative. its an outdated response. Instead of just labeling it conspiracy theories how about looking at it objectively. But we all know those of us who have been on forum long enough, how you operate.
Let's stick to the facts, shall we, and on topic in this thread.

USA has no reason at all to conduct a proxy war against Pakistan. None at all. Creating chaos in a nuclear armed religious country will surely create more headaches that it can ever resolve. That is why USA and China have an understanding over Pakistan to ensure it does not descend into chaos. However, it is also up to Pakistan to be able to help itself since many of its internal issues are slowly spiraling out of control.
 

Path-Finder

BANNED
Feb 7, 2013
20,658
1
30,057
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Let's stick to the facts, shall we, and on topic in this thread.

USA has no reason at all to conduct a proxy war against Pakistan. None at all. Creating chaos in a nuclear armed religious country will surely create more headaches that it can ever resolve. That is why USA and China have an understanding over Pakistan to ensure it does not descend into chaos. However, it is also up to Pakistan to be able to help itself since many of its internal issues are slowly spiraling out of control.
that is a generic statement and again trying to absolve the yanks of any wrong doing and saying that Pakistan has this this and this problem. the yanks are bathed in milk and free of any malpractice or mal-intention.

it dont work that way!
 

VCheng

ELITE MEMBER
Sep 29, 2010
40,831
55
34,761
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
that is a generic statement and again trying to absolve the yanks of any wrong doing and saying that Pakistan has this this and this problem. the yanks are bathed in milk and free of any malpractice or mal-intention.

it dont work that way!
I am not absolving or accusing any one here. Both USA, and Pakistan, just like all other sovereign nations, are equally entitled to pursue their own respective national interests, as best as they possibly can. The better players win, but only until the next round.

Dat be da way it works. Always.
 

Path-Finder

BANNED
Feb 7, 2013
20,658
1
30,057
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
I am not absolving or accusing any one here. Both USA, and Pakistan, just like all other sovereign nations, are equally entitled to pursue their own respective national interests, as best as they possibly can. The better players win, but only until the next round.

Dat be da way it works. Always.
thats fair.
 

PradoTLC

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 17, 2007
4,635
1
5,368
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Arab Emirates
How America turned the "good war" into a "dumb war."

When President Joe Biden declared the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan after twenty years of fighting, he declared that the original objectives for the invasion had been achieved. “We were attacked, we went to war with clear goals,” he gravely intoned. “We achieved those objectives. Bin Laden is dead and Al Qaeda is degraded in Afghanistan, and it’s time to end this forever war.” Curiously, he omitted where exactly the founder of Al Qaeda had met his end.

The reaction was as swift as it was predictable. The New York Times, framing the debate along familiar terms, asked, “Will Afghanistan become a Terrorism Safe Haven Once Again?” The ranking member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services, Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, warned Afghanistan would “become a safe haven for terrorists once again.” That there already exists “safe haven” for terrorists in and near the country was not mentioned.

Shortly after Biden’s announcement, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin reportedly expressed “appreciation for Pakistan’s support” during peace negotiations in Afghanistan with the Taliban. It is not clear whether Secretary Austin had in mind the full breadth of Pakistan’s activities in Afghanistan when referring to its “support” for these ongoing and inconclusive diplomatic talks.

Carl von Clausewitz declared that “the first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish…the kind of war on which they are embarking; neither mistaking it for, not trying to turn it into, something that is alien to its nature.” This most fundamental task of accurate conceptualization has also been the most overlooked and underrated in the formulation and implementation of U.S. military strategy.

As complex and confusing as the situation in Afghanistan is for foreign observers and visitors, the most fundamental lacuna in the analysis and strategy behind U.S. objectives in the country is a manifest failure to clearly acknowledge and accept the situation on the ground in Afghanistan for what it is: the United States has been waging and losing a proxy war against an alleged ally.

The mission to transform a barren, mountainous, landlocked, and impoverished country in one of the most remote parts of the Eurasian landmass—after decades of armed conflict and revolutionary upheaval—into a stable democracy with no safe havens for terrorism is tragic and difficult enough. It becomes indefensibly absurd when also claiming to do so in partnership with a country that bears the most responsibility for the continuing chaos and carnage in Afghanistan.

Axis or Ally?

Among all the moral compromises made by Washington in its diplomatic relationships during the War on Terror, the U.S. relationship with Islamabad might be the most destructive and counterproductive. Less than five months after the shock of the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush announced the existence of an “Axis of Evil” that represented the greatest threat to world peace. Notably, none of the countries identified had any role in the attacks, nor had any of their citizens. What was stranger yet about the composition of this “axis” was that these countries, as hostile as their regimes were to U.S. interests, did not include the world’s worst offender. When examining what went wrong in the U.S. war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, it bears reviewing the central role Pakistan has played in sabotaging any prospects of victory.

It has long been an open secret that Pakistan has actively and consistently thwarted U.S. operations against the Taliban and Al Qaeda since the attacks of September 11, 2001. For as long as the U.S. has been in Afghanistan, however, the polite fiction of Pakistan as a reliable ally has persisted despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. As a state sponsor of terrorism, Pakistan has matched or exceeded the actions and patterns of sanctioned regimes in Iran and North Korea. The flagrant involvement of its so-called “deep state” in the finances and operations of known terrorist groups as a matter of course has also been far more direct and intimate than any of the suspected links attributed to the Gulf Arab states or their citizens. Yet in stark contrast to intense U.S. pressure on its Arab allies to crack down on terrorism, or U.S. sanctions on Iran and North Korea, Pakistan’s rulers have enjoyed relative impunity since 2001.

After the United States invaded Afghanistan, Pakistan gave shelter to elements of both Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Osama Bin Laden himself would take up residence in an elite suburb in close proximity to Pakistan’s military academy in Abbottabad. After Bin Laden was finally found and killed, Pakistani authorities retaliated against local informants cooperating with U.S. intelligence. In spite of the evidence, there would be no major changes to the U.S. relationship with Pakistan.

The designation of Pakistan as a “major non-NATO ally” under President Bush was followed by the next administration proclaiming that an “effective partnership with Pakistan” would be a core element of the U.S. war against the Taliban. Pakistan’s ostensible efforts to confront its own proxies would be supported by generous aid from the United States. As the Pentagon pressured the White House to escalate the war, increasing numbers of U.S. troops and civilian officials were being sent into harm’s way and tasked with implementing near impossible projects of social transformation. At the same time, the United States sent aid to the country that directed efforts to arm and train the Taliban insurgency. The absurd implications of U.S. policy and strategy are such that it would be as if America had waged the Vietnam War while also sending aid to Hanoi.


mostly agree except on Al Qaida.. the author is wrong there. Except for the alleged OBL "episode" Pakistan has cooperated well against al Qaida this is according to the Bush gov.


lets look it another way l.....ets say Pakistan did act against Afgan taliban .... then what would happen?..

the useless NA gov in Kabul would have full control in Afganistan and that too under puppet Indian control. Imagine impact for Pakistan of a hostile gov in Afganistan and it;s borders. Pakistan would be incredible difficultly. Constant terror attacks via RAW, CPEC would never gain it's full potential etc.

in short Pakistan would be in a very bad situation.

Now coming today's reality, taliban are set to win although not as easy as most people think. With Taliban in full control Pakistan borders will be normalized and trade and mining could begin and Pakistan's economic security would yield it;'s benefit.


so all in all good job ISI or who ever called the strategic shot of playing "double game" it serves our interest well...

to the losers ie Americans, indian, northern alliance afgooon nothing personal it just business.
U.S. objectives in the country is a manifest failure to clearly acknowledge and accept the situation on the ground in Afghanistan for what it is: the United States has been waging and losing a proxy war against an alleged ally.

wrong.. you chose bad partners and you didnt help afgan people... 90% your fault.
 

akramishaqkhan

FULL MEMBER
Feb 28, 2017
348
0
702
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
So a friend, who works at the Pentagon with nearly 25,000 employees, of a family friend, who is also a client, confirmed it? That is enough to convince anybody, surely.


Except #1, all of your claims are baseless, except in your own mind.
@VCheng the Office of the Sec of Defense & Pentagon - stated that we are in discussions with the Pakistanis and others in the region in identifying our options. I doubt they were talking to the Paks about setting up a Kabadi Match. Come on dear - of course the US asked for some basing rights. Maybe once they realized IK's hard position which he and others artfully stated in the open, they realized it was a lost cause and did not push it.
 

VCheng

ELITE MEMBER
Sep 29, 2010
40,831
55
34,761
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
@VCheng the Office of the Sec of Defense & Pentagon - stated that we are in discussions with the Pakistanis and others in the region in identifying our options. I doubt they were talking to the Paks about setting up a Kabadi Match. Come on dear - of course the US asked for some basing rights. Maybe once they realized IK's hard position which he and others artfully stated in the open, they realized it was a lost cause and did not push it.
Has it occurred to you that it may be that the Pakistani side that is eager to ensure some form of continuing US involvement in the region, preferable with Pakistan being able to offer its services to ensure that long term US goals are met? As long as US has overflight capabilities, there is simply no need to deal with the headaches that would come with an actual base inside Pakistan.
 

akramishaqkhan

FULL MEMBER
Feb 28, 2017
348
0
702
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Has it occurred to you that it may be that the Pakistani side that is eager to ensure some form of continuing US involvement in the region, preferable with Pakistan being able to offer its services to ensure that long term US goals are met? As long as US has overflight capabilities, there is simply no need to deal with the headaches that would come with an actual base inside Pakistan.
To be honest I have thought about it. And there is a strong possibility. I agree about your views on overflight. That should assuage American needs.
 

VCheng

ELITE MEMBER
Sep 29, 2010
40,831
55
34,761
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
To be honest I have thought about it. And there is a strong possibility. I agree about your views on overflight. That should assuage American needs.
The recent B-52 over Kandahar is a case in point. I remain sure that both USA and Pakistan will find a way forward for mutual goals, regardless of public posturing and media interviews.
 

akramishaqkhan

FULL MEMBER
Feb 28, 2017
348
0
702
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
The recent B-52 over Kandahar is a case in point. I remain sure that both USA and Pakistan will find a way forward for mutual goals, regardless of public posturing and media interviews.
I agree. They both will settle into a not so optimum option for both. Moeed's visit is intended to lock that initial agreement.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom