Def.pk op-ed: Mutual Blackmail, ETO for Afg, Pak and Ind

[President Camacho]

Preisdente

Excellent pieces - it seems we have not been too far from correctly breaking down Mr. Ahmad's polemic - and of course identifying the usual suspect.

However, my own thinking is at odds with that of Mr. Ahmad -- it is simply too early to pick sides - we must first allow for the general idea to find some substance to it - simply having the US associate with an idea, is not helpful in judging whether the ideas has the potential of actually solving a problem or creating new ones.

And in that light, the creation of new multilateral superstructure, it seems to me, is one that may create new problems, as it's main purpose is to institutionalize US military presence and create new tensions in the region - While aspirants to newly created posts of "Chaudry" will point to the value of trade, it must be asked why a new multi-lateral system is needed, after all we all recognize the need for greater trade.

I apologize Muse, I had not been aware of that thread that discussed the considerations and insinuations of Khaled Ahmad.

After reading this post of yours I feel you are a bit apprehensive about the US presence in Afghanistan, and treat it as some sort of persona non grata, and you are right in feeling so - after all, what right does the States have to barge into a place thousands of miles away and try to dictate others what they should, and should not do.

But what other country, with all the interest in the region, has such influence on Pakistan as to dictate terms much different from what Pakistan solely wants for Afghanistan? The terms of conditions that shall mold the future of Afghanistan need to take into consideration other parties as well (including Afghanistan), and not only Pakistan and stop at that.

And none of the countries involved, bar Pakistan, will agree to anything left only at the mercy of Pakistan, because everyone watched with dismay what became of Afghanistan at the hands of the Taliban that has always had not just support, but even guidance of Pakistan.

Another point not specifically mentioned, but considered by Mr. Ahmad is that during the Taliban rule, it was never the civilian government in Pakistan that dictated the foreign policy for Afghanistan. It was the Army. The Taliban era is considered a dark era on Afghanistan, and that is all that has been supposed to be achieved by the Pakistan Army while practicing its own foreign policy for that country.

The Pakistan Army in its rule has never facilitated trade in true terms. And it never can, because it is an Army. That is exactly what Mr. Ahmad is trying to say.

Now coming to your point, that I marked in bold... let me ask you something - In spite of all that happened during the Taliban era, what country did, or could, force Pakistan Army into abandoning its support for the Taliban? None except for the US. But the US had absolutely no interest, till 9/11.

All the countries that want strong trade relations in the region will always want the US to be present, in whatever capacity, in Afghanistan - simply to eschew any sort of repetition of the Taliban era.

If the US is sent back, my money is on Taliban, and return of the same era that has been despised all over, and throughout. And even if we say that Afghans really want the Taliban in power, then too, how strong a moral did the Taliban government display? The one that was hijacked by the likes of al Qaeda will have the capacity to start another world war; it almost did, and so it shall not be allowed to come back in power. And no country can influence Pakistan to keep from supporting Taliban to gain some sort of 'geo-strategic depth' in Afghanistan, other than the US.

That is the reason the US has to be included, and it has to be a multilateral system - that will be the best for Afghanistan which shall be the priority here, and not any other of us.

 

[VCheng]

I will respond in detail later, but the discussion so far makes two points that I find interesting enough to explore further:

1. It is recognized that a mutual co-operative path forward is beneficial, no matter what one's list of interested parties is; some have longer lists than other, and some exclude parties that in reality cannot be excluded.

2. There is a clear under-current of wanting to exclude USA, based on various motivations, depending on one's view.

The reasons I support the role of USA as the underwriter of any future co-operative agreements are manifold, but I would like to ask this question of others before I explain my contention further:

Regardless of the number of regional parties in any possible co-operative arrangement in addition to the three core countries, what positive role can the US play, keeping in mind that it would be unrealistic to expect it to just get up and leave the region completely?

 

[Developereo]

China is already India's largest trade partner, and the growth in this trade is only up for the foreseeable future.

Let's leave the India-China dynamics alone for now. It is complicated and will only derail the discussion.

As long as USA has influence over Pakistan to the extent that it does, improving relations with Iran is going to be quite problematic.

So you are saying we should let the US dictate out foreign policy priorities?

A relationship with Iran is FAR more beneficial than anything with India. It will put us in a much better negotiating position to deal with India.

I am more and more convinced that it is time for the east to start building up its own policies independent of the west, there is a far greater chance of people to people understanding between the Chinese and the Indian or Pakistani rather than the west.

India doesn't see it that way. They are making sure to walk a fine line between the West and Asia -- extracting maximum benefit from all to suit India's national interests.

Pakistanis should be smart and think instead of getting emotional over 'Asian brotherhood' against the West.

 

[illusion8]

Would India want a trilateral relationship involving Pakistan and Afghanistan, don't think so, we would much rather prefer dealing with AF on bilateral terms. There is huge trust deficit with regards to Pakistan and India wouldn't think that such a trilateral relation be beneficial to it. Also agreeing to such a relation means acknowledging Pakistan as an equal which again India does not want. The biggest objections to such a deal would be from India and even if the US succeed in pulling this through Pakistan will be cut a raw deal on account of India. sorry to say that.

 

[forcetrip]

Would India want a trilateral relationship involving Pakistan and Afghanistan, don't think so, we would much rather prefer dealing with AF on bilateral terms. There is huge trust deficit with regards to Pakistan and India wouldn't think that such a trilateral relation be beneficial to it. Also agreeing to such a relation means acknowledging Pakistan as an equal which again India does not want. The biggest objections to such a deal would be from India and even if the US succeed in pulling this through Pakistan will be cut a raw deal on account of India. sorry to say that.

That seems to be accurate. So all you have to do is figure out,

a) Are the Americans really leaving?
b) If they leave does India stand anywhere in these agreements even if a decision was finalized giving them some claim?

Another few years will answer all these questions. Guesswork hasn't produced a single answer as yet. India might think that they are not Pakistans "equal" but they keep showing the US that there are no equals when it comes to road side bombs. That land is definitely a booby trap for the US forces in their safe zones. Multiply that by 10 if India thinks their forces can do a better job.

 

[lem34]

Would India want a trilateral relationship involving Pakistan and Afghanistan, don't think so, we would much rather prefer dealing with AF on bilateral terms. There is huge trust deficit with regards to Pakistan and India wouldn't think that such a trilateral relation be beneficial to it. Also agreeing to such a relation means acknowledging Pakistan as an equal which again India does not want. The biggest objections to such a deal would be from India and even if the US succeed in pulling this through Pakistan will be cut a raw deal on account of India. sorry to say that.

The whole idea is flawed. America is no longer in a position to give lots of money and they would have to to get this off the ground. They cant be leaving and be dictating a bit hard for them to swallow I know. If I was the indian govt I would jump at it its good for them. It moves pakistan a little away from china. Kashmir is forgotten about and therefore resolved as far as indias concerned. India no matter how it tries does not have the strategic location that Pakistan has. No amount of wishfull thinking on america and indias part is going to change this reality. The natural deal here and muse in an earlier post inferred to it is iran, afghanistan and pakistanis. Iranians and pakistanis already had influence in afghanistan befor america. amidhavejacket has already been making noises about this. If america really wanted a deal here they have to address one of pakistans core issues. They have to give us our pound of flesh. That is get the indians to do a deal with pakistan on kashmir favourable to us. Under those circumstances Indians are unlikely to play and will take there bat home. In fact I think that would be a seismic move and probably would move pakistan away from china a little if americans could deliver on kashmir. With a deal between iran afghan and pakistan it is more likely that with these chinas influence will rise lol the exact opposite of what america and india wanted. lol Indians have to deal with these three countries and china. They can do it without american interference and push for a deal I think that they would get a deal but not to their liking as pakistan will drive the deal to resolve kashmir. Or they nwould be isolated and probably get a good kicking some time in the future for siding with america

 

[muse]

With a deal between iran afghan and pakistan it is more likely that with these chinas influence will rise lol the exact opposite of what america and india wanted

.

Outstanding!! - However, show me just any kind of evidence pointing to the suggestion that china is working on this or even wants this -- Chinese have been very coy and very quiet on this whole "new silk road" _ I find it very interesting, this quietism of the Chinese - of course it may be too early for them to come out publicly, in the meantime, only Pakistan are doing the heavy lifting - the Iranian are internationally isolated, the Stans sit on fences and Russia as well, seem not to realize that once the US have muscled their way in tot the Central Asian markets, it's not just China that may have reason to feel insecure about their future prospects given not just US bases but the deep penetration of US commercial interests, even if those interests operate in the name of the US's "chaudry"

And of course, the spoiler in all of this are the Arbis - they will do whatever the US commands, absolutely whatever. And if this means making Islamistan out Pakistan and causing friction with China, all the better

 

[lem34]

.

Outstanding!! - However, show me just any kind of evidence pointing to the suggestion that china is working on this or even wants this -- Chinese have been very coy and very quiet on this whole "new silk road" _ I find it very interesting, this quietism of the Chinese - of course it may be too early for them to come out publicly, in the meantime, only Pakistan are doing the heavy lifting - the Iranian are internationally isolated, the Stans sit on fences and Russia as well, seem not to realize that once the US have muscled their way in tot the Central Asian markets, it's not just China that may have reason to feel insecure about their future prospects given not just US bases but the deep penetration of US commercial interests, even if those interests operate in the name of the US's "chaudry"

I love chinese at times I think only they have brains in international relations. Theres another thread on the forum that there is an argument about how many nukes chinese have and the estimates are from 400 to 3500. lol. The chinese play their cards close to their chest. They would never have funded gwador for fun. Whereas chinese are subtle pakistani leaders are dickheads. Have you noticed India they move a few planes within there own borders and take the press with them. The chinese actions speak louder than words. If they wanted to move planes we probably wouldnt here about it until a few years after they had done it. Chinese have an oppurtunity to pull americas european allies away from her as you are aware. America is going to be shafted slowly and gently without realising. I think its just a little early for the Chinese maybe by 5 to 10 years.

 

[cyphercide]

Regardless of the number of regional parties in any possible co-operative arrangement in addition to the three core countries, what positive role can the US play, keeping in mind that it would be unrealistic to expect it to just get up and leave the region completely?

I'm afraid it's a question of leverage.Natural alignment between nations that would be dictated by cultural and regional as well as religious affiliations would leave Pakistan as the major stakeholder in relations with Afghanistan while the United States,China and India would be assigned as outsiders by the same regards.

However on account of everything else,The United States is the current gatekeeper of Afghanistan while China and India have greenbacks to their credit.For the time being,America retains the biggest say on who gets a future stake in Afghanistan.It probably would be defining the "positive roles" for the others and not the other way around.

To answer your question ,it maybe could lead the discussions on reconciliations between India and Pakistan with relation to the nervousness around Afghanistan.Perhaps Afghanistan could serve as common ground to the two nations collaborating for some sort of neutral backyard,America standing as the class monitor between the two(three if you factor in China).Corporate tieups could be feasible.All mere conjecture of course,We simply can't assume America to give up it's dominance without a majority profit margin for herself.

Yet nothing beats the odds on the most positive step that the United States could do for the region;pack it's bags and leave .

I don't see US forces leaving Afghanistan,ever.But one can still dream!

 

[lem34]

Yet nothing beats the odds on the most positive step that the United States could do for the region;pack it's bags and leave .

I don't see US forces leaving Afghanistan,ever.But one can still dream!

Empires never give up out of choice. Their economy and their quantitive easing willl come into play and haunt them in due course and they will have to withdraw.

 

[muse]

Their economy and their quantitive easing willl come into play and haunt them in due course and they will have to withdraw.

Think arbis - they are a curse on us, just as much as our uneducated leadership is. I really don't think US economy will effect these calculations to the degree that some others think -- A US integrated with a Central and South Asian economy is really a very different proposition from one in which Central and South Asia are integrated under the US.

 

[cyphercide]

Empires never give up out of choice. Their economy and their quantitive easing willl come into play and haunt them in due course and they will have to withdraw.

Yet the American establishment stills maintains bases on almost every country they went to war with,Should give you an idea on their mindset.Let's see how it all plays out.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Allow me to be a little off topic, AryanB:

A good series of posts without succumbing to flame-bait and engaging in the same.

Continue with the same please, and leave 'troll removal' to the mods, rather than trying to remove them by turning into a troll yourself.

As more members exercise self-restraint in the face of trolling and flaming, the easier it becomes for moderators to keep the forum 'clean', and the incentive for people to troll (given lack of response to their shenanigans) goes down tremendously.

 

[lem34]

Think arbis - they are a curse on us, just as much as our uneducated leadership is. I really don't think US economy will effect these calculations to the degree that some others think -- A US integrated with a Central and South Asian economy is really a very different proposition from one in which Central and South Asia are integrated under the US.

Arbis could accelarate americas demise but even they cannot stop it they can only delay it. I came onto this forum a few months and have put a number of threads talking about how the reserve currency status will take america down. Since then articles on demise of US dollar have gone up just google it and see. I found one here:

High rates of debt to GDP are the chief danger to any country’s economic future, and any method of borrowing holds its special brand of danger. There are only three ways to fund a government deficit: foreign borrowing, domestic borrowing with monetary expansion, and domestic borrowing without monetary expansion. The U.S. has chosen a combination of the first two. Of the three, the way to get into big trouble very fast is to become dependent upon foreign borrowing. As of December 2010, Japan held over $880 billion or around 20% of U.S. debt, and China held around $1.16 trillion or more than 26% of U.S. debt.

Why are foreign borrowings such a huge risk for the United States? The funds are currently kept in dollars a lot of which is with American banks. That money is yankable and that can cause a run on the dollar. Military leadership addresses the threat of attacks, and administrative leadership must address the clear and present danger of financial withdrawals. The dollar is still the world’s reserve currency, but that advantage doesn’t make the dollar bullet proof. U.S. dollars can be converted to yen or to euros. On October 17, China took a key step to internationalizing the yuan and making it an alternative to petrodollars if not an alternative reserve currency; Hong Kong’s Chinese Gold & Silver Exchange Society now offers gold quoted in yuan


Read more: IMMINENT THREAT: Foreign Borrowings Will Lead To The Destruction Of The US Financial System

I think this problem combined with an overstretched military will be the nail in the coffin. Also although american soldier deaths have been realtivly low this has been due to advances in medecine. For example in the vitnam war deaths to limbs lost was 1 to 3. In afghanistan and iraq its 1 in 10. So when we read 6000 deaths its actuall 60000 or so that have lost limbs and as such need replacing

 

[muse]

See aryan, once upon a time the dollar was backed by Gold - untiel the french showed up with Euro-Dollars and sought Gold from the US - this led the US to get off the Gold Standard --- today the backing of the Dollar in real terms, is Middle East oil -- but there is an even bigger advantage fro the US, every Dollar it prints costs it 19 cents and the rest of the world thrown in 81 cents of value in terms of what is called "confidence" but is in reality the value assigned to outstanding debt denominated in dollar that they hold -- See "Millstone around China" and "Meltdown" threads