ARY Agar: Guest Maliha Lodhi on Pak-US relations 24 Feb-2012

[Irfan Baloch]

Dr Maliha Lodhi ( Hilal e Imtiaz)

Her carrier spans from journalism to diplomacy. She is an academic with avid interest in international relations and geopolitical trends in the region. She has remained Pak Ambassador to US ( 17 December 1999 – 4 August 2002) and Pak High commissioner to UK (April 1, 2003 – June 14, 2008).
People that actively follow the Pakistani political talk shows will see a stark contrast in this program compared to the usual mind numbing circular arguments and throat busting rhetoric of the politicians aired day in and day out. She is one of my favourite analyst who is very articulate and knowledgeable. (definately both the Nawaz & Zardari have no use for such people)


The program is about Pak US relations over the 60 years

Foreign policy is executive driven otherwise why have a government?
Foreign policy review must not be country specific. Objectives and interests must be broader
Parliament declarations are Tactical objectives. This is what can only be called reactive policy but it lacks vision for the future. To Justify itself on the helm, government must take charge but it lacks leadership, direction and responsibility thus we have a confused foreign policy.

What Do we demand?
Are we demanding more money? Or are we safeguarding our sovereignty? or do we have a vision for the future based on our national interests. But what interests do we have? Negotiations and dialog should be with a view where the interest are common or where are the clashes. It applies to US and Pakistan too.

One of a usual and overused line by the likes of Kashif Abbasi and Hamid Mir is that when our decisions are made by the GHQ then why blame the government? This half arsed comment is very perfectly dispelled, dismissed by Dr Maliha I would expect members to watch the video and find out her answer if you don’t know that already.

Main points

International relations are not permanent. National interests are.
There are no permanent enemies or friends but gain, national interests are.
Pakistan policy shouldn’t be American centric. Its myopic and losing the bigger picture
The focus must return back to Asia. Because that’s where the west is targeting its future policy
Pakistan already has enough ground in China. Yet our focus and trade efforts are Western based.
All outstanding issues must be resolved with India. (without that) Any progress is bound to fail with a terroist incident.
Stability and normalisation cant be achieved while Kashmir, Sircreek, Siachin and Water disputes remain unresolved.

Re US Afghan policy, its in disarray and confused. Their military & Intel institutions are not on board with the regime on its final solution.


(PS: how is that for a intro? I could have just posted the video without a comment but I want to break this trend. OP has to put an effort by giving a summary of the thread instead of copy pasting a link)


feel free to post your comments (challenge is to avoid the one liners)

Now watch the video




Agar - 24th March 2012 - YouTube

 

[Donatello]

Why don't we have people like her making our foreign policy?

Or better, why don't we have people like her in important embassy posts abroad?

Sherry Rehman, my a$$.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

Why don't we have people like her making our foreign policy?

Or better, why don't we have people like her in important embassy posts abroad?

Sherry Rehman, my a$$.

hey dont be so rude

Sherry Rehman is not your butt. she is a respectable human being. she is one of the few able persons in PPP. I wont be comparing her with Dr Lodhi but Sherry Rehman her own claim to fame and is way better than the typical politicians.

I agree that her posting is strange as is the appointment of Mrs Khar. but hey.. look at the rest of the lot.. it could have been worse.


Sherry Rehman replaced a snake, who is back in Boston University bullying students.

 

[VCheng]

Dr. Lodhi is an intelligent and articulate lady who is surely an asset for Pakistan. I have heard her many times, and am well aware of her contributions, particularly in foreign policy circles.

I watched the whole program with interest, and agree with many of the points IB has summarized in the title post, so I won't rehash them here. In fact, I had been thinking of saying many of these things in an article for the Opinionator Group series here had I not resigned from that group some time ago. However, let me just briefly mention my thoughts on some aspects of the events surrounding the PCNS review presently which may add to the discussion in this thread.

1. There is a real danger that this review is being used by all those involved for their own narrowly defined gains at the expense of the state: (A) the parliamentary members are grandstanding in public for political gains in the upcoming elections, and jockeying for private gains in private related to contracts and trade related to the review. This is only to be expected. (B) The government, made up of equal proportions of fools and sycophants of special varieties, is trying to get a parliamentary stamp of approval on what it realizes it has to do anyway: open up the supply routes, resume co-operation with USA in Afghanistan and regain the IMF crutches to prop up the sinking economy, so that it can hope not to be the sole object of public wrath for allowing these unpopular steps to be implemented before the election. Again, this is expected. (C) The role of the GHQ is more troublesome: it is using this review both internally and externally to continue its hold on power. Internally, it is intentionally forcing the inept and corrupt government into a corner in an attempt to increase its unpopularity with the masses. Externally, it is driving home the point to USA that it is the only entity that can get the business of state done, so that any further attempts to bolster civilian oversight of its activities should be abandoned.

2. Given the above, the GHQ is making the calculation the US policy can be bent in its favor given the present troubles in Afghanistan duing a US election year. While it is likely that some concessions can be extracted for the next two years based on this premise, the role of USA in the region will certainly extend well beyond that timeframe. (Here I disagree with Dr. Lodhi.) The real danger for Pakistan is not in the next two years till 2014, but the five years after that until 2020 or therabouts, and there appears to be no indication that GHQ will be able to consolidate its position in that time period to its advantage.

3. Given that predictions are always risky, I can volunteer to hazard a few at this point in time for discussion in this thread:

- Pakistan will get a carefully worded transactional apology from a senior military figure, but not from the President.
- The supply routes will re-open in a few weeks after the reveiw is formally complete. (Yes, I know I have been wrong about them re-opening with thirty days after the Salala incident, but please see 1C above as the likely explanation for the delay.)
- The civilian nuclear energy deal is a non-starter.
- The IP gas pipeline is highly unlikely.
- The drone attacks will continue, but the frequency is already falling due to a lack of engageable targets, and that trend will continue, which will help tone down the public outrage.
- Any other attempts to use this review to broaden the scope of bilateral relations with USA, for example Kashmir, will fail.
- The use of the "China card" with USA will not yield any tangible benefits for Pakistan.

I think the above should suffice for now; I would be happy to particpate in the ensuing discussion with the hope that it will remain focused, polite, intelligent and appropriately moderated.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

thanks for your commentary
I cant find anything that I can disagree with.

in the opening post I put up a challenge for everyone to be constructive and give his PoV instead of a stale one-liner that proved to be too much for the majority of the members in case if the non-sensational and serious subject matter was not enough to discourage bad forum practices.

but rest assured it will be moderated to ensure that anyone making a good contribution to this subject is not hounded out with inappropriate and off-topic posts.

based on this program, I wanted to flag something that Dr Lodhi has touched. the inclusion of security institutions in the decision making. the usual phrase of "our decisions are made in GHQ" from the politicians and news Anchors is worded in a way to show as if its something unique to Pakistan and fundamentally wrong.
although they essentially form the part of the decision making in any country be it USA or India (two biggest democracies in the world) what is debatable is how much influence should be allowed and that falls on the ability of the government.

if it cant control its institutions then it doesnt have the right to complain. we no longer buy the lame excuse of "had we been allowed to serve the people then thee would have been an atmosphere of joy and happiness and plenty in the country.

our foreign policy and US relations are badly managed and confusing, granted but I wont give an outstanding review to Americans too.

the future in my opinion shouldn't be based on confrontation but selling our case in a way that Americans dont see our goals in the region contrary to theirs and in the meantime consolidate on our common grounds which are peace and stability and preventing terrorists to use the territory to spread terrorism in Pakistan and the rest of the world.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

i dont care about her views about U.S but she discuss about india too.
i watched 5-10 minutes only.

thanks for your comments and your honesty

but the target audience is people of Pakistani origin and its citizens
this thread is not about proving who is right or wrong but presenting differing point of views.

 

[VCheng]

thanks for your commentary
I cant find anything that I can disagree with.

Oh come now, the best discussions are engaged in when there are healthy differences of opinion put forth eloquently.

in the opening post I put up a challenge for everyone to be constructive and give his PoV instead of a stale one-liner that proved to be too much for the majority of the members in case if the non-sensational and serious subject matter was not enough to discourage bad forum practices.

but rest assured it will be moderated to ensure that anyone making a good contribution to this subject is not hounded out with inappropriate and off-topic posts.

Thank you. I can only hope.

based on this program, I wanted to flag something that Dr Lodhi has touched. the inclusion of security institutions in the decision making. the usual phrase of "our decisions are made in GHQ" from the politicians and news Anchors is worded in a way to show as if its something unique to Pakistan and fundamentally wrong.
although they essentially form the part of the decision making in any country be it USA or India (two biggest democracies in the world) what is debatable is how much influence should be allowed and that falls on the ability of the government.

if it cant control its institutions then it doesnt have the right to complain. we no longer buy the lame excuse of "had we been allowed to serve the people then thee would have been an atmosphere of joy and happiness and plenty in the country.

You are absolutely correct that the national security apparatus of any country must be involved in the decision making process. However, it, by definition, cannot be allowed to lead the process. Pakistan's tragedy is that civilian leadership has been so horrible so consistently that any sane person will either pull his hair our, leave the country, or join the army.

While the present circus called government does not give much hope from where I sit, there is still a glimmer of hope that things might improve with the next election.

our foreign policy and US relations are badly managed and confusing, granted but I wont give an outstanding review to Americans too.

Agreed, but the difference is that Pakistan suffers when Pakistan mismanages, and Pakistan suffers when USA mismanages. Hence the onus is on Pakistan to see that things improve.

the future in my opinion shouldn't be based on confrontation but selling our case in a way that Americans dont see our goals in the region contrary to theirs and in the meantime consolidate on our common grounds which are peace and stability and preventing terrorists to use the territory to spread terrorism in Pakistan and the rest of the world.

Yes, and I made a few posts several months ago that Pakistan should sell its case better so that it is not in US crosshairs, but the consensus then was that it was inevitable. I hope that perception has changed, or is in the process of changing.

 

[VCheng]

In the interests of taking this discussion forward, I would like to invite specific comments on the following points I have mentioned previously:

.................... The role of the GHQ is more troublesome: it is using this review both internally and externally to continue its hold on power. Internally, it is intentionally forcing the inept and corrupt government into a corner in an attempt to increase its unpopularity with the masses. Externally, it is driving home the point to USA that it is the only entity that can get the business of state done, so that any further attempts to bolster civilian oversight of its activities should be abandoned.

...................

3. Given that predictions are always risky, I can volunteer to hazard a few at this point in time for discussion in this thread:

- Pakistan will get a carefully worded transactional apology from a senior military figure, but not from the President.
-http://www.defence.pk/forums/members-club/168947-how-create-baby-how-create-boy.html after the reveiw is formally complete. (Yes, I know I have been wrong about them re-opening with thirty days after the Salala incident, but please see 1C above as the likely explanation for the delay.)
- The civilian nuclear energy deal is a non-starter.
- The IP gas pipeline is highly unlikely.
- The drone attacks will continue, but the frequency is already falling due to a lack of engageable targets, and that trend will continue, which will help tone down the public outrage.
- Any other attempts to use this review to broaden the scope of bilateral relations with USA, for example Kashmir, will fail.
- The use of the "China card" with USA will not yield any tangible benefits for Pakistan.

.................

Anyone?

 

[Developereo]

I have a lot of respect for Dr. Lodhi so I was quite disappointed in this interview. In half an hour, she didn't actually say much. Your summary pretty much, well, sums it up.

Where to start....?

As others have pointed out, she is completely off the mark about US plans for Afghanistan. The US is not going anywhere -- they are busy negotiating long term bases in the country. Given its location next to Iran, Pakistan, China, CARS -- not to mention its mineral riches -- there is no way the US is going to leave Afghanistan alone.

She constantly kept repeating that national interests should guide policy. Of course, she is right, but she never elaborated. This is somewhat excusable (not everything needs to be publicly broadcast), but she used it to keep deflecting difficult questions by repeating that phrase. What will be the consequences if the US holds Pakistan responsible for its failure in Afghanistan? What about the dynamics of the Pakistan-India-America relationship and what does it hold for Pakistan's future? How to deal with India's increasing arrogance?

However, I agree with her broad sentiments that Pakistan lacks a coherent long term vision and strategy. Every move is transactional and, even though she didn't say it, based on narrow personal/party interests. I also agree with her view that a Salala apology is meaningless now. I would have liked her to point out the obvious fact that an American apology would not change Pakistan's assessment of its long term interests and is, therefore, irrelevant anyway.

All in all, she is a smart lady. Between her and Sherry Rahman, we need more people like them.

 

[Developereo]

In the interests of taking this discussion forward, I would like to invite specific comments on the following points I have mentioned previously:



Anyone?

- You are reasserting the claim (refuted by Lodhi) that the GHQ is dictating terms to the civilian government.

- The apology is meaningless and should be immaterial if Pakistan was truly guided by its long term interests.

- The drone attacks will continue. Part of their usefulness to America, apart from killing suspects, is the strain it puts on the Pakistani establishment (both security and civilian) to manage public relations.

- Other than a few military purchases, Pakistan has not used the China card. In fact, as Dr. Lodhi pointed out, Pakistan has completely neglected to capitalize (outside the military sphere) on its long term relationship with China.

 

[Free Soul]

To Whom It May Concern

The GHQ of today is hasn’t been any more weak or impotent in the whole History of Pakistan. Still people who want to keep their eyes shut to blatant dishonesty and incompetence of the so called democracy are treading the path of insanity border-lining suicide. Finding the role of GHQ in every sad episode of Pakistan’s failure in domestic and foreign policy is akin to finding Jewish and Hindu plot in every killing and mishap in Pakistan.

The present Govt is so thick that they can’t tell when they have got the upper hand, so much so that the paranoia has reached limits where PIA, Railway, Treasury, Pak Steel .....are being robbed and they turn around and shout hands off ARMY Let Democracy take its revenge.


We seem not to be aware of the fact that, Pakistan getting a carefully worded transactional apology – means nothing , our Govt and Army do know this (or so I hope), but a reactive dumb witted public certainly doesn’t.

Regarding The IP gas pipeline being highly unlikely. If this has expressed in terms of the original 3 nations, Pakistan India and Iran then i would agree. In short - India has more to loose by perusing this –at least in terms of present and near future. But in terms of Pak-Iran relationship and the energy requirements of Pakistan it is very relevant, even our current government has been making the right noises in this regard. US may not like it, they would raise their concerns and threaten Pakistan but this is best and worst US can do in this regard.

Drones would continue - sure, but putting a naive argument relating to less frequent drone attacks to suggestion that US has fewer engage-able targets is case of brain wave gone wrong. The targets were in greatest number during Bush era but Obama proved himself one better by increasing the frequency 6 folds, and the recent decrease is by no way due to a new found love but the displeasure shown by Pakistani Establishment.


Using "China card" is a ridiculous term used by our media, so called analysts and every Tom Dick and Harry.
Good relations with China should never be used as bargaining chip visa vie relations with USA – Maliha states clearly that foreign relations should never be one country specific.

Any other attempts to use this review to broaden the scope of bilateral relations with USA, for example Kashmir, will fail.

^^^ how? What you on about? If one is talking of Bilateral Relations visa vie America then how does Kashmir fit in here?


In my opinion the biggest blunders of Pakistan policy were as follows. (already posted earlier by me)

History of great Allies

SEATO:
The Southeast Asia Collective Defence Treaty, or Manila Pact, signed on 8 September 1954 in Manila, as part of the American Truman Doctrine of creating anti-communist bilateral and collective defence treaties. These treaties and agreements were intended to create alliances that would contain communist powers (Communist China, in SEATO's case). If there wasn’t any threat to Pakistan from Communist block at that time then there should have been one after SEATO.
Think if we were in any such treaty in favour of Communist block, what would have been the response of the US and NATO.
historians have considered the Manila Pact a failure and the pact is rarely mentioned in history books. In The Geneva Conference of 1954, Sir James Cable, a diplomat and naval strategist, described SEATO as "a fig leaf for the nakedness of American policy", citing the Manila Pact as a "zoo of paper tigers".

Dissolution of SEATO was game set match. Pakistan withdrew in 1972 after the cold December of 1971, in which East Pakistan successfully seceded with the aid of India.

CENTO:
Pakistan ally of NATO against Russia, Russia which had no adventurism planned against Pakistan at least at that time.
South Asia became extremely volatile areas during the 1960s, In 1965 and 1971, Pakistan tried unsuccessfully to get assistance in its wars with India through CENTO, but this was rejected under the idea that CENTO was aimed at containing the USSR, not India.
24 February 1955: A military agreement is signed between Iraq and Turkey, and the term "Baghdad Pact" starts to be used. Iran, Pakistan and the United Kingdom join the Baghdad Pact.
1959 March: New regime of Iraq withdraws the country from the alliance.
1965: Pakistan tries to get help from its allies in their war against India, but without success.
1971: In a new war with India, Pakistan again tries unsuccessfully to get allied assistance.
1979: The new Islamic regime of Iran withdraws the country from CENTO.

CENTO made sure that Russia which used to stay mute on the matter of Kashmir in UNO, started Vetoing resolutions regarding Kashmir.

And during the 65 war, when Pakistani Army captured some Indian territory, it found ammunition and equipment in captured Indian posts which had markings of - Shipment for Pakistan.

 

[VCheng]

- You are reasserting the claim (refuted by Lodhi) that the GHQ is dictating terms to the civilian government.

GHQ is the de facto leadership. That remains the reality, unfortunately.

- The apology is meaningless and should be immaterial if Pakistan was truly guided by its long term interests.

If meaningless, then why was it insisted upon initially, and still is?

- The drone attacks will continue. Part of their usefulness to America, apart from killing suspects, is the strain it puts on the Pakistani establishment (both security and civilian) to manage public relations.

Why would USA want to strain the establishment?

- Other than a few military purchases, Pakistan has not used the China card. In fact, as Dr. Lodhi pointed out, Pakistan has completely neglected to capitalize (outside the military sphere) on its long term relationship with China.

Provision of civilian nuclear power plants is another area. The lack of capitalization is part incompetence but also part realization of its futility.

To Whom It May Concern

The GHQ of today is hasn’t been any more weak or impotent in the whole History of Pakistan. Still people who want to keep their eyes shut to blatant dishonesty and incompetence of the so called democracy are treading the path of insanity border-lining suicide. Finding the role of GHQ in every sad episode of Pakistan’s failure in domestic and foreign policy is akin to finding Jewish and Hindu plot in every killing and mishap in Pakistan.

GHQ remains the power center that leads the country, whether overtly or covertly. Therefore, it is the entity to which belong both the accolades and the blame.

The present Govt is so thick that they can’t tell when they have got the upper hand, so much so that the paranoia has reached limits where PIA, Railway, Treasury, Pak Steel .....are being robbed and they turn around and shout hands off ARMY Let Democracy take its revenge.

What "upper hand" are you referring to?

We seem not to be aware of the fact that, Pakistan getting a carefully worded transactional apology – means nothing , our Govt and Army do know this (or so I hope), but a reactive dumb witted public certainly doesn’t.

Ah yes, the government is "thick" and the public is "dim witted", in your opinion. Let me guess: you wear (or wore) a uniform?

Regarding The IP gas pipeline being highly unlikely. If this has expressed in terms of the original 3 nations, Pakistan India and Iran then i would agree. In short - India has more to loose by perusing this –at least in terms of present and near future. But in terms of Pak-Iran relationship and the energy requirements of Pakistan it is very relevant, even our current government has been making the right noises in this regard. US may not like it, they would raise their concerns and threaten Pakistan but this is best and worst US can do in this regard.

Relevant and needed it may be; I just don't see it happening anytime soon realistically speaking.

Drones would continue - sure, but putting a naive argument relating to less frequent drone attacks to suggestion that US has fewer engage-able targets is case of brain wave gone wrong. The targets were in greatest number during Bush era but Obama proved himself one better by increasing the frequency 6 folds, and the recent decrease is by no way due to a new found love but the displeasure shown by Pakistani Establishment.

The "displeasure" of the establishment is not worth much in the formulation of war strategy in the White HOuse, please let me assure you. The drone attacks will continue as an element of that policy as needed.

Using "China card" is a ridiculous term used by our media, so called analysts and every Tom Dick and Harry.
Good relations with China should never used as bargaining chip visa vie relations with USA – Maliha states clearly that foreign relations should never be one country specific.

Dr. Lodhi does state that and I agree; it is just that the reality is quite the opposite.

^^^ how? What you on about? If one is talking of Bilateral Relations visa vie America then how does Kashmir fit in here?

If you remember, Pakistan tried to have the Kashmir issue included in the area of responsibility assigned to Richard Holbrooke, and failed miserably. I was merely reiterating that the failure to have it included in the future will persist, that is all.

 

[Free Soul]

GHQ is the de facto leadership. That remains the reality, unfortunately.
What "upper hand" are you referring to?
Ah yes, the government is "thick" and the public is "dim witted", in your opinion. Let me guess: you wear (or wore) a uniform?
GHQ remains the power center that leads the country, whether overtly or covertly. Therefore, it is the entity to which belong both the accolades and the blame.

This would just result in tit for tat arguments, resulting in nothing, pointless for me to glorify GHQ and for you to discredit it/blame it and vice versa. My word against your word sort of pointless arguments.

Me wearing a uniform or not – how does it make any difference?

If meaningless, then why was it insisted upon initially, and still is?

Then enlighten us with your take on it. I say it should not be insisted upon, it was as deliberate as the drones attacks were and are. It’s like asking a bully for an apology after a confrontation.

The "displeasure" of the establishment is not worth much in the formulation of war strategy in the White HOuse, please let me assure you. The drone attacks will continue as an element of that policy as needed.

I not only think that the drones will continue but even another Salala cannot be ruled over.
But as if US had any purposeful plans of its adventurism in Afghanistan – Pakistan ...then recent incidents like Salala and the US soldier butchering 16 civilians (women and children) in Afghanistan....
You mentioned White House war policy, please do elaborate, seriously I am interested in your opinion.
And Sir please not the same old rhetoric making world a better place so and so forth.

Can you put down the mission objectives that US and NATO set for themselves, when entering Afghanistan post 9/11?

And what are the objectives now?

Have the objectives changed? Were the objectives getting rid of top Al-Qaeda leadership (already been done) Pakistan captured more than 70% of the top leadership, the most vile of the lot.

What i think Sir, is that America is only there because of its ego, and upcoming US elections.
The badies that were there in the tribal areas when the Drone strikes started are still there.. just new faces and some even more brutal.
Sir, I stand corrected that White House doesn’t give a toss about Pakistani Establishment’s displeasure regarding Drones strikes and Salala like incidents.

Relevant and needed it may be; I just don't see it happening anytime soon realistically speaking.

So the Gas pipeline... we sometimes make US believe bigger of itself than it really is. Believe me some times US just shows its displeasure on something and we just totally capitulate. What they say is ‘well all the better’ , as far as i think US doesn’t care much if this pipeline project goes through, how would it make their life any tougher?

Dr. Lodhi does state that and I agree; it is just that the reality is quite the opposite.

And i agree with you too, and that is what Dr. Lodhi was stressing upon, it shouldn’t be like this

If you remember, Pakistan tried to have the Kashmir issue included in the area of responsibility assigned to Richard Holbrooke, and failed miserably. I was merely reiterating that the failure to have it included in the future will persist, that is all.

it wasn’t anyting to do with Bilateral relations with Pakistan and US, it was separate issue Holbrooke was engaging in talks regarding so called af pak where India was bit annoyed in being left out. Rather it was a failure on part of Holbrooke who was working his butt off to get India included somehow or the other, But Pakistan knowingly argued that if you want to include India then bring the Kashmir issue on table too, to which Holbrooke and India were left scratching their head, Pakistan knew it won’t happen and Holbrook’s obsession with making India relevant in Pakistan Afghanistan case took a major dent, think Holbrooke made statements on Kashmir like US does regarding Palestine, Pakistan achieved its objective, bye bye India

 

[Free Soul]

(PS: how is that for a intro? I could have just posted the video without a comment but I want to break this trend. OP has to put an effort by giving a summary of the thread instead of copy pasting a link)

feel free to post your comments (challenge is to avoid the one liners)

Hope it becomes a trend or at least members take a notice of the fact that starting a thread with just a picture or video link is lame.

 

[Developereo]

GHQ is the de facto leadership. That remains the reality, unfortunately.

Again, that is your opinion, albeit shared by the usual suspects in the media. Dr. Lodhi specifically denied that charge -- and she is no fan of the military. Could it be that, in this case, public opinion allies with the military's POV and the civilian politicians dare not defy that public opinion too brazenly?

If meaningless, then why was it insisted upon initially, and still is?

AFAIK, the military's demands go well beyond a mere apology: they have demanded an impartial investigation and consequences for those found responsible.

The "apology" is a weak demand by the civilian politicians to provide cover for their inevitable capitulation to American pressure and their petty self-interests. Eventually, there will be a fake "apology", the civilian leadership will claim victory and return to business as usual (perhaps with a slightly bigger commission).

As Dr. Lodhi kept pointing out, the Pakistani civilian establishment works on a transactional basis, because it has no vision or strategy for managing foreign relations, possibly because they haven't a clue what Pakistan's national interests are.

Why would USA want to strain the establishment?

Weakening the Pakistani security establishment is a key goal of American policy in the region. It ties in with their wider geopolitical goals. Also, weakening the civilian establishment, and creating general chaos, is also in American interests, since it provides cover for various insurgencies in Baluchistan and elsewhere.

It is no secret that Balkanization of Pakistan is seriously being considered in DC.

Provision of civilian nuclear power plants is another area. The lack of capitalization is part incompetence but also part realization of its futility.

What futility? China has been ready to help if Pakistan shows a serious face and can guarantee security for their investments.

The Chinese are too polite, or too resigned, to point out that Pakistan has been unable to get Gawadar up and running and linked up to China after all these decades. Pakistan is a sovereign country: whatever internal tussles there are between army, civilians, extremists, whatever, others don't care. All they want to know is: can Pakistan deliver on infrastructure targets?

Sadly, the answer is a resounding NO, so why blame the Chinese?