"Hard talk with Pakistan does not work, they just dig in deeper", observe American analysts. NYT

[El Sidd]

Jab tak choona bikta hai
paint ki demand nhi ayi abhi

distemper paint ya oil paint?
wallpaper laga rahen hain Afghan border pe...wo kaam aega

 

[TMA]

The difficulty is that the two countries are pursuing different endgames: the U.S. wants a an independent and prosperous Afghanistan existing under rule-of-law while Pakistan seeks a satellite Afghanistan under the sway of its own pet Talibs; Pakistan remains wedded to the strategy that incubated 9/11.

Thus Pakistan opposes any reconciliation with the Taliban that leads to peace in a Afghanistan absent of Pakistani political domination. As if economic influence wasn't enough! Really, this looks like the product of a military mindset unobstructed by political moderation: dominate or be dominated, etc. Afghanistan's problems are rooted in Pakistan's issues, so the emphasis should be there. Probably the only weak lever the U.S. exercises is to cut off the flow of U.S. "aid" but it seems that Pakistan is both the arsonist and firefighter so the U.S. has been afraid to take that step.

So far.

No. the US wants a satellite Afghanistan to contain Russia, China and Pakistan.

 

[fitpOsitive]

But money and aid will work, as in past. I don't know why USA is not using this, time tested option for Pakistan.

 

[S.Y.A]

The difficulty is that the two countries are pursuing different endgames: the U.S. wants a an independent and prosperous Afghanistan existing under rule-of-law while Pakistan seeks a satellite Afghanistan under the sway of its own pet Talibs; Pakistan remains wedded to the strategy that incubated 9/11.

Thus Pakistan opposes any reconciliation with the Taliban that leads to peace in a Afghanistan absent of Pakistani political domination. As if economic influence wasn't enough! Really, this looks like the product of a military mindset unobstructed by political moderation: dominate or be dominated, etc. Afghanistan's problems are rooted in Pakistan's issues, so the emphasis should be there. Probably the only weak lever the U.S. exercises is to cut off the flow of U.S. "aid" but it seems that Pakistan is both the arsonist and firefighter so the U.S. has been afraid to take that step.

So far.

first of all, what a joke! a person belonging to an illegitimate, genocidal state is criticizing Pakistan for pursuing its interests.
2ndly, it is the U.S. who seeks a satellite Afghanistan under the sway of its own pets; thus it is USA that opposes any reconciliation with the Taliban that leads to peace in a Afghanistan absent of American political domination.

Afghanistan's problems are rooted in Pakistan's issues, so the emphasis should be there. Probably the only weak lever the U.S. exercises is to cut off the flow of U.S. "aid" but it seems that Pakistan is both the arsonist and firefighter so the U.S. has been afraid to take that step.

Afghanistan's problems are rooted in USA's issues, so the emphasis should be there.
it seems that USA is both the arsonist and firefighter so Pakistan has been afraid to oppose the US.

it is Pakistan that is increasing the presence on the border, it is Pakistan that is trying to regulate thr border, it is Pakistan who is trying to build a fence there and prevent unregulated border crossings. The US and Afghans are instead opposing it. Makes one wonder whether they are truly committed to the War on Terror. seeing that they have failed to destroy terrorist hideouts in Afghanistan, and have yet to capture/neutralize ttp's leadership residing Afghanistan.

 

[Taha Samad]

The problem is not as simplistic as the Indians, Afghans and American or even Pakistan try to portray. Everyone is running after there own interests, which do not align.

Below is my take on it:

USA:

1. Americans have failed to control Taliban activity in Afghanistan. The generals in Pentagon just want to present Pakistan as scapegoat of their own failures to American Public & Politicians. According to US's own reports only 60% area is under govt. control/influence. https://www.longwarjournal.org/arch...ests-40-percent-of-afghan-districts-sigar.php

Afghanistan:

1. They are plagued by ineffective governance and corruption. They can't control their own country and like Americans they are just doing blame game to divert criticism.
2. Also they don't want to accept Durand Line as IB, otherwise it would be very easy to fence it with help of USA. Also due to the same reason they oppose any such efforts of Pakistani sides and until recently Pakistan caved into this opposition, its only recently Pakistan became more assertive saying: "enough is enough, we are fencing our side, do whatever you have to do".
3. Also they have become a partner in sponsoring proxies working against Pakistan along with India. Recently killed TTP terrorist outside NDS office is an example.

India:

1. It wants to increase its influence in Afghanistan and while there may be other benefits it may reap out of growing influence but one is definitely destabilizing the old foe Pakistan by using proxies(TTP, BLA etc).

Pakistan:

1. In initial days of WOT, Pakistan was reluctant to take action against talibans fleeing Afghanistan and taking refuge in Pakistan's tribal/border area's. Remember back then this was very porous soft border, historically because Afghanistan has objected to anything that turned its status to IB. The lack of action on Pakistani side was primarily because of fear of reaction of local public. Remember in 2004,05,06 people considered that Musharaf has unduly indulged us in America's war against Islamic Countries. Iraq War on a flimsy excuse of WMDs fuelled this feeling further. Even local tribal population was against army's presence. Also Pakistani public has always had negative view of American policies around the world specially with regards to issue of Palestine. So US-Pak alliance was an unnatural one which was viewed with anger in Pakistani public.
   
2. It was only in 2007/08 that Pakistani public view started to change slowly, after countless terrorist activities by groups like TTP. Swat Op, SWA Op followed. But it was a slow and it was not until 2014 (APS attack) that Pakistani Public and Armed Forces took the decisive action(Zarb-e-Azb) against terrorists on Pakistani Terrority in NWA(including Haqqani Network). Pakistan has more or less removed training camps and cells from its territory in NWA.
   
3. Any presence of Haqqani Network on Pakistani soil now is probably limited to few leaders here and there hiding in the bigger cities. But camps/bases have been more or less been removed after Op Zarb-e-Azb in NWA.

Bone of Contention:

1. US demands Pakistan to eliminate leadership hiding in Pakistan thinking that doing so will reduce Haqqani Networks effectiveness in Afghanistan
2. Pakistan feels that US/Afghanistan needs to clear its area, hence making any hidden leadership in Pakistan irrelevant; without that putting hand on haqqani leadership will be futile since new one will emerge. Pakistan also feels doing will result in Haqqani's targeting Pakistan instead. Hence the words: "We won't fight Afghan War on our turf". Lastly Pakistan evaluation of current situation is that US/Afghan govt. is not going to succeed and hence we might need to engage again with Taliban/Haqqani in eventual end game. So Pakistan does not want to do irreparable damage to its interests. Pakistan may also feel that with border fence getting completed in a years time, any remaining unauthorized movement of insurgents across the border will be checked, hence gradually Haqqani Network will be forced to shift its remaining activities to Afghan side anyway.
   
3. With growing closeness of India/Afghan govt. and the de-stabilizing activities of their intelligence agencies in Pakistan; may well be pushing Pakistan to the point where it actually does not want the current Afghan regime to succeed.

Long Terms Solution:

Afghanistan, Pakistan need to sit down and agree to the fact that USA, India and others will go away some day but we will stay neighbors. So rather than becoming victims of some one else's design lets solve our issues between ourselves.

1. Accept Durand Line as IB.
2. Promote friendlier and cordial ties.
3. Both sides agree that if you can't help; at least don't make the situation worse.
   1. Pakistan does not want to invoke Haqani's wrath, but won't provide support to them so Afghanistan can finish them off on their territory.
   2. If Afghanistan can not stop India from carrying out covert activities from its land at least stop NDS from getting involved in such activities.
   
   

 

[MultaniGuy]

@Solomon2 is a pathetic troll , stop feeding his bullshit guys by enabling him, ignorance is the best policy when encountared with propoganda....

Exactly my point, forget the Zionist kike, he is just an idiot.

lol USA wants Afghanistan to contain Russia and China.

@Solomon2, stop bulshitting.

We all know the truth. USA just wants a satellite Afghanistan to contain Russia and China.

But it won't succeed since the odds already against USA.

 

[Haris Mansoor]

The difficulty is that the two countries are pursuing different endgames: the U.S. wants a an independent and prosperous Afghanistan existing under rule-of-law while Pakistan seeks a satellite Afghanistan under the sway of its own pet Talibs; Pakistan remains wedded to the strategy that incubated 9/11.

Pakistan also wants a prosperous Afghanistan and be like US to Canada, tried it in 2004 when Pakistan offered weapon and training to ANA but then USA doesn't want Pakistan's influence on Afghanistan and thus forced Karzai to make connection with india, which is not in Pakistan's favor therefore Pakistan has to look for a power in Afghanistan that is friendly toward Pakistan. If USA want's Pakistan to be on their side, they must put and end to Indian presence in Afghanistan.

 

[MultaniGuy]

Pakistan also wants a prosperous Afghanistan and be like US to Canada, tried it in 2004 when Pakistan offered weapon and training to ANA but then USA doesn't want Pakistan's influence on Afghanistan and thus forced Karzai to make connection with india, which is not in Pakistan's favor therefore Pakistan has to look for a power in Afghanistan that is friendly toward Pakistan. If USA want's Pakistan to be on their side, they must put and end to Indian presence in Afghanistan.

Exactly, USA does not want Pakistani influence in Afghanistan.

@Solomon2 even your American generals say they can stay in Afghanistan forever, go tell that to your quadruple amputee soldiers like John peck and Taylor Morris.

You just can just google the names.

 

[T-123456]

Propaganda is countered with Logic
Ignorance is stupidity and follishness and a state adopted by weak minds...

 

[ISI-1]

The difficulty is that the two countries are pursuing different endgames: the U.S. wants a an independent and prosperous Afghanistan existing under rule-of-law while Pakistan seeks a satellite Afghanistan under the sway of its own pet Talibs; Pakistan remains wedded to the strategy that incubated 9/11.

Thus Pakistan opposes any reconciliation with the Taliban that leads to peace in a Afghanistan absent of Pakistani political domination. As if economic influence wasn't enough! Really, this looks like the product of a military mindset unobstructed by political moderation: dominate or be dominated, etc. Afghanistan's problems are rooted in Pakistan's issues, so the emphasis should be there. Probably the only weak lever the U.S. exercises is to cut off the flow of U.S. "aid" but it seems that Pakistan is both the arsonist and firefighter so the U.S. has been afraid to take that step.

So far.

And a ZIONIST yehudi has all facts and truths before him to deliberate cliched statement?

 

[Solomon2]

Pakistan also wants a prosperous Afghanistan and be like US to Canada, tried it in 2004 when Pakistan offered weapon and training to ANA but then USA doesn't want Pakistan's influence on Afghanistan and thus forced Karzai -

Don't you think that by 2004 the U.S. could no longer "force" Karzai to do anything?

And a ZIONIST yehudi has all facts and truths before him to deliberate cliched statement?

I don't have access to any secrets but other than that if you have specific criticisms go ahead and make them, otherwise you're mocking without any basis.

first of all, what a joke! a person belonging to an illegitimate, genocidal state is criticizing Pakistan for pursuing its interests.

I'm a pro-Zionist American. That Israel is labelled "an illegitimate, genocidal state" in defiance of facts (and dictionaries) by political diktat is one of Pakistan's problems.

 

[Basel]

That is what UNSCR 1373 denies: it says that a member-state's sovereignty is null if another nation attacks terror groups on its territory. If the U.S. "switches" to supporting India, the Indians may be emboldened to take action against terror bases in Pakistan. Then Pakistan can either escalate the battle (without U.S. or Chinese support) or else yield to India's will. Pakistan might possibly keep the terror camps aimed at Afghanistan but will lose those it operates in support of Kashmir. Is that the outcome Pakistan really wants?

By your logic Pakistan have right to attack Afghanistan and India to take out terrorists support.

 

[VCheng]

By your logic Pakistan have right to attack Afghanistan and India to take out terrorists support.

Of course.

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Why won't Pakistan pursue a good-neighbor policy, like the U.S. has with Canada? Military thinking would demand each face the other armed to the teeth but the politicians control and it is their job to evaluate the key question of intent. And over 150 years ago they determined there was no need for quarreling and the relations have been friendly ever since.

<groan!>

 

[VCheng]

<groan!>

Both!