Your argument is based on the assumption .
- US will leave : I am sorry to break it to you but no they are not leaving,
Sorry to break it to you but the US has already left
The token presence will continue to ensure the Kabul government does not collapse
we have a strategic security agreement with them and we will provide bases to their military for decades to come, like South Korea model.
Again reading history is very important: Pakistan was a party to two strategic agreements: CENTO and SETO at the height of the cold war -- that did not mean the US sided with Pakistan in its quarrels with India, as Pakistanis foolishly thought the US was bound to. Further: Afghanistan simply does not have any locus standi vis-a-vis Pakistan [notice the difference is statements McCain et. al. gave in Islamabad vs Kabul]
And please: Afghan embarrass themselves by comparing Afghanistan to Korea -- have you been to South Korea or are familiar with South Korea's development trajectory? I assure you people roll their eyes if not on your face when you make that comparison. Afghans should find a better analogy. To give you some example of what the world order looks like: Madeline Albright once quipped that Pakistan would be on par with Congo, had it not been a nuclear power -- now extend that to Afghanistan.
- Whatever conclusions you infer from the Torkham incident is your right, but you are right that AF is not a banana republic, you act against our interests, we will return the favor like another sovereign state.
But how:
a. by throwing a tantrum at the UNSC
b. by crying foul on social media?
c. If you mean that you will support the TTP -- well you are already doing that and the yes -- this nuisance will continue -- it might also behoove people to study how external actors supported the PKK in Turkey -- the results are there for people to inspect: other than nuisance value it did not have a critical impact on security and/or economy
- lastly I agree with you that civilians on both sides suffer, and that comes back to my central thesis, which is peace will only come with AF-PK government have genuine conversation with each other and address each other's grievances.
The key is differential suffering -- how many deaths can Pakistan sustain and brush off to safeguard what it sees as it's national interest?
Conflict between AF-Pak has no winners, we are both losers in the end.
I think the more accuracy statement would be that it is not cost free -- but it can certainly have winners: just see how India fared by supporting the Mukti Bhani -- Pakistan Lost, India Won --> India went on to prosper -- Pakistan payed a disproportional price. India has continued to pay a minor price for Pakistan's belligerence but there is simply a scale difference between the two.
Now extend that to the differential price a country like Afghanistan will have to pay -- a look at the the 1990s will give you a glimpse. Remember Afghanistan of 1980s was a far stronger a far more robust entity than the one you have today -- now you have 80 TV channels but not a single decent engineering college -- not a single decent business college (the AAU MBA program is a disgrace)
And the favor will be returned, yes AF will suffer much higher than Pakistan but Pakistan will feel the heath as well.
---> Again, agree: that is the only formulation of the strategic calculus of the GHQ that seems to make sense (other than sheer incompetence of course)
---> And again, I am at a loss to understand how this has any relevance -- again refer to above illustrations on what the implications are for Afghanistan (and also Pakistan)
--->For Pakistan the violence levels are drastically down [the opposite is true for Afghanistan] -- the violence levels have plummeted in Pakistan [Pakistan's economic status has recently been upgraded - which actually looks like it will have a short term negative effect on FDI].
----> Plus you can see the case of 1980 and 1990 for Turkey and Pakistan and 1960s for India (Bangladesh) and the ultimate offender is Iran [the speed at which the sanctions regime has been repealed has been surprising even to me]
Sadly another generation that will have to live with the consequences of policy making of the generals like Durrani Sahib on both sides.
----> But that generation will be Afghan -- the choice is Afghanistan's -- Remember Japan, Germany, and the like have surrendered -- they surrendered when the cost outweighed some flimsy nationalistic pride. Pakistan's ask is far more reasonable and not without precedent -- Sovereignty is not a binary concept but rather a continuum
----> Pakistan's generation will suffer from decreased opportunities -- but Afghanistan's generation will be lost from what drives today's world: education, healthcare, etc.
----> Also note the GHQ is the only party that has institutional experience at what it is purportedly trying to do -- the Afghan institutions are embryonic
. Afghanistan is doomed and there is no one else to blame but yourself .
