How the U.S. can punish Pakistan (Forbes)

[Rank]

How the U.S. can punish Pakistan (Forbes)

double trillion defict
massive corruption
unemployment on top
infrastructure (from 1 - today 9 / 10 no)
stuck in bullshit war start by zionist against Muslims around the world
stuck in Afghanistan from everyside

country like this punish Pakistan whom all kind of routes (not possible from India) and from Air... US cant afford massive supply from aiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrrrrr. staying in Afghanistan a country where 80% control under Taliban and only 1 signal they will create graveyard of these americans like roooooooooossss

LOLZ @ How the U.S. can punish Pakistan (Forbes)

 

[lem34]

I am so happy when I see threads like this where americans and some indians suggest punishment of pakistan because esp american racist zionists are pakistans eternal enemies and if they want to punish pakistan army and or ISI it must be because we are doing something right to wind them up so much. long live pakistan its army and agencies

The way the americans could punish us is by becoming best freinds with india .lol

 

[GORKHALI]

The way the americans could punish us is by becoming best freinds with india .lol

Are you scared of India ??India is nobody friend or brother or Uncle but partner that also in equal terms.Keep your words for yourself ,much suited to your country,Brotherhood ,friendship etc..

 

[Doctor09]

How USA can punish Pakistan ? lolz funniest question of the year
what happened to the US threats to Pakistan ? they cant do anything but only spread false propaganda to pressurize Pakistan....
i wonder if we decided to punish USA for its double standards and anti Pakistan activities then what will happen to US troops in Afghanistan ....... Stop barking USA

 

[Tshering22]

...Actually, there is a lot that a creative Administration could do.

Shrink or end U.S. dependency on Pakistan as a supply line. Use our Central Asian allies to move more cargo by air and develop a supply line through India. Yes, the land route through India would be far longer and, on the Afghan side at least, roads and bridges would have to be improved. But we did the Berlin Airlift, we can do this. This would cost Pakistan in port fees, customs and prestige. And the symbol of using its enemy, India, would be deeply felt. It would be best to develop the India route in secret and announce its opening at a time of our choosing. It would be costly and prone to sabotage—but so is our current way of moving supplies. And so was the Berlin Airlift.

First bolded part is already being tried. Your president is in talks with Russia allowing a direct sea-to-Kabul supply route in exchange for Russian participation in European missile shield program. There are some things being ironed out but yeah, it is in the works.

Now about bolded and underlined part; I am not sure any government will allow that. Supply routes, bases etc are usually done by client states that are in some or the other way heavily dependent on the asking nation. While we'd be pleased of your action against Pakistan, knowing our political mindset, I doubt that would ever be possible. There are a few reasons:

1- The border of India and Pakistan is a hot zone. Meaning that almost 95+% of Pakistani troops are on the border with only 1-3% being on Afghan-Pakistan border. The border is heavily guarded every inch on both sides and heavily fenced and shielded (including lakes in J&K and northern Punjab areas where MARCOs and Army units patrol for hours daily round the clock). Thinking of a route which would go unnoticed by Pakistan from India to their territory is pure imagination. We are only second to North and South Korean DMZ in terms of military heatedness.

This was from US perspective. Now coming to Indian political thinking (by this I mean strategic minds, not lousy politicos)

2- India is not a client state. Meaning that while we are friendly, bases, routes etc are not exactly in Indian thinking of being independent. Naturally there will come some amount of restrictions if this were to happen hypothetically, which the Indian tri-services will not agree as many of our bases will be compromised due to being situated near border. South Korea might be hi-tech and modern, but that's where the difference ends. Any political party ruling, especially the incumbent power, would face hell if they could even think of such a thing. Occasional joint-raids and cross-training with Israel and other countries (including US) is fine enough secretly, but route or base would never be possible. Even during our leaner days in Cold War, the government didn't allow Russians to have a full-fledged base despite being 100% dependent on them for economic reasons as well as military reasons.

Afghanistan is your safest bet. It is not strong enough and now after seeing what's happening from Pakistan, Afghans won't really mind you guys there until you solve the Jihad problem. We're doing our bit in helping them develop basic infrastructure (apart from things that I don't know about).

The finest viable solution is to forget Kissinger mentality of thinking Russians as a threat and allow them participation in the missile shield while taking the CAR route. Russia is as much suffering from Jihad as much as you or we are suffering. They're not the enemies anymore. In fact, considering that you and them did a joint anti-drug operation in Afghanistan, I think getting them onboard will only widen the scope of winning this war. They are the closest to Afghanistan via Tajikistan and are seriously concerned about Jihad spreading into CAR and its underbelly.

There will be clandestine support to US from our military that we civilians cannot know, but I doubt it would be rational to get supply routes.. this hypothetical route you said is like having a dynamite wick burning straight into a fuel depot.

Stop selling military gear to Pakistan that it doesn’t need to fight terrorists. Why sell anti-submarine technology or anti-aircraft equipment or advanced avionics for jet fighters to Pakistan, when no terrorist outfit was a navy or an air force? Of course, this weaponry is designed to counter India, the world’s largest democracy and a friend to the United States. And much of this technology, like the wreck of the SEAL helicopter that crashed at bin Laden’s compound, is ultimately shared with China, which is not an American ally.

I doubt you "sell" them anything since it is usually paid off in US military assistance programs from your own government's pockets. So technically, you pay for it, you make the weapons and you also get to hear anti-US sentiments from Pakistan. Basically three losses with zero gain. Add the Chinese support factor here and you see where you stand to gain from this rather weary relationship.

Call AT&T. Every month, the phone giant pays the government of Pakistan millions of dollars. Here’s how it works. Pakistan has to pay for access to AT&T’s satellites and undersea cables and AT&T pays for access to Pakistan’s phone network. Since roughly three times as many calls originate in America than they do in Pakistan, virtually every month AT&T owes Pakistan more than Pakistan owes AT&T. By executive order or congressional action, AT&T could be required to pay those funds into an escrow account in New York instead. The money would only be released on a monthly basis as Pakistan turns over named terrorists for trials in the United States or a place it designates. This amounts to bribing Pakistan with its own money, but it would work—especially if done in secret.

I am sure Zardari won't mind being an accomplice here as our Pakistani friends would easily accept this fact.

Something similar could be done with foreign aid as well as payments from Visa and Mastercard.

I never knew banking was involved directly into strategic programs with Pakistan! Wow! Thanks for the info.

Inside the foreign policy bureaucracy, the complaint has long been that the relationship with Pakistan is “transactional, not strategic.” Attempts to transform the relationship have always failed—and no one tried harder than Admiral Mullen. Why not make it explicitly transactional and get value for our billions?

link

What transactional? The only transactions that have happened in the last 10-15 years is one way and that too in money, material, political and security aspects all put together. Come on people, do the math and see where all this is going towards.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Pakistanis are reactionary people......and when backed into a 'corner' we will not respond to threats.

diversify your supply line options and pay MUCH more money for logistics (and bribes). Be our guests. AT&T? Pfffft.....who cares.

so-called "aid" money? You are out of touch with reality. Most Pakistanis are calling for that aid to be cut off anyways --and Imran Khan himself rightfully said that its counter-productive (which it is)

stop selling military gear to Pakistan -- well let's look at the current realities.....the recent inductions (e.g. F-16 new block, AMRAAMs, target pods etc.) were all from deals inked as far back as 2004. USA offered 18 additional F16s which Pakistan has so far given no signal of procuring. The Pressler Amendment experience was too much for Pakistan.

in fact I see Pakistan moving closer to China, and Turkiye (a NATO country with a fairly decent edge in def. production); perhaps also countries like Brazil, South Korea and South Africa further down the line.

USA was to offer shadow UAVs (which are inferior to the Falco UAV which Pakistan is already producing, in cooperation with Italy). Even those junks -- the U.S. is with-holding (or perhaps we just declined to accept them).



so basically ---- your "threats" encompass things we already have worked around. Yes - a TOTAL cutoff in relations or "un-doing" of agreements signed (such as mango exports) -- it will just make the US (which is all about capitalism and free trade) look like the biggest loser.



threats will get you nowhere.......it only earns you middle finger

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Weak. The US has tried to find an alternate route,if there existed one it would already have shifted its supply lines

much to U.S. peril -- they have bad relations with Iran (which could have been the 2nd cheapest supply route via Chah Bahar).....they've been talking about "new supply route" since late 2008, why haven't they switched?


by the way -- Pakistan gave a huge concession by allowing those NATO trucks. We are getting screwed by the deal. There are other non-visual costs which are not being addressed. If Pakistan was smart, we'd have taxed the hell out of those trucks based on the amount of kilometers they drive, and based on the value of the goods that are being transported.

we don't need thousands of trucks sitting at Torkham, making potholes and more pollution than we already have anyways.

 

[HZR2011]

Stop selling military gear to Pakistan that it doesn’t need to fight terrorists. Why sell anti-submarine technology or anti-aircraft equipment or advanced avionics for jet fighters to Pakistan, when no terrorist outfit was a navy or an air force? Of course, this weaponry is designed to counter India, the world’s largest democracy and a friend to the United States. And much of this technology, like the wreck of the SEAL helicopter that crashed at bin Laden’s compound, is ultimately shared with China, which is not an American ally.

First stop F-16's to pakistan... I really wonder how americans think that F-16 can help defeat terrorists!!!

 

[Solomon2]

threats will get you nowhere.......it only earns you middle finger

I agree. Nor do I much believe that the recommendations in the article are sufficient or (in the case of an Indian route to Afghanistan) physically possible.

The article is posted as an indicator of how mainstream media is changing its attitudes towards Pakistan.

 

[KS]

...Actually, there is a lot that a creative Administration could do.

Just stop the remittance tap from US and friendly EU allies and issue a statement favouring Indian position on Kashmir.

That's enough for them to get their acts straight.

Please view any post he puts on here. They are full of Pakistani hatred. Indians and Pakistani have banter but not raw hatred. We like him on here as firstly it reminds us to stick together and secondly its a reminder what real extremism hatred is really like. If you are offended my apologies its not meant for you

You sure about that ?

I'm not so sure. Not that I care,but still it caught my eye.

 

[Drawn_Sword_of_God]

yeah the US can punish us by building mcdonalds in pakistan. we have seen the result of that in america, after a decade the pakistan people will become fat and lazy then the US can invade us xD

 

[KS]

yeah the US can punish us by building mcdonalds in pakistan. we have seen the result of that in america, after a decade the pakistan people will become fat and lazy then the US can invade us xD

I have to admit that was damn funny

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

I agree. Nor do I much believe that the recommendations in the article are sufficient or (in the case of an Indian route to Afghanistan) physically possible.

The article is posted as an indicator of how mainstream media is changing its attitudes towards Pakistan.

such "changing attitude" has been going on for years....now that Pakistan is not complying blindly to foreign demands, it puts Pakistan in the "bad books"

if standing up for her own national interests puts Pakistan in "bad books" --then so be it. The standard Pakistani on the street doesn't even follow U.S. media much so all those spicy headlines are for your own domestic consumption; the wary tax-payer wondering why billions squandered in war torn regions overseas are not producing even a modicum of results.

for example, you may recall that "bipartisan commission" created by american congress in 2008, estimated that at least $31 billion and as much as $60 billion has been lost in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade due to lax oversight of contractors, poor planning, infrequent competition, and corruption....that's only one side of the picture. America shouldn't even be giving aid to ANY country --many i've spoken to (in nation's capital) are angry about the aid going to your israeli friends

First stop F-16's to pakistan... I really wonder how americans think that F-16 can help defeat terrorists!!!

they have been used against terrorists on a good handful of occasions....though yes, they have "multiple uses" as far as Pakistan's defence is concerned. You'd have to be a naiive idiot to believe otherwise.

F-16s have indeed served Pakistan well.....i'm sure the incompetent fool who was flying that israeli made heron drone (from your soil) could attest to that.

Contrast with:

read the context of his sentence, o Solomon...

he meant to say "condemn"

 

[Devil Soul]

the title should be what more can US do to FURTHER punish PAK ............

 

[Cheetah786]

...Actually, there is a lot that a creative Administration could do.

Shrink or end U.S. dependency on Pakistan as a supply line. Use our Central Asian allies to move more cargo by air and develop a supply line through India. Yes, the land route through India would be far longer and, on the Afghan side at least, roads and bridges would have to be improved. But we did the Berlin Airlift, we can do this. This would cost Pakistan in port fees, customs and prestige. And the symbol of using its enemy, India, would be deeply felt. It would be best to develop the India route in secret and announce its opening at a time of our choosing. It would be costly and prone to sabotage—but so is our current way of moving supplies. And so was the Berlin Airlift.

I guess all fees and expenses reimbursed to India would also be considered aid.

Direct the Voice of America to focus on corruption in Pakistan. Hard news reporting of payoffs to politicians and generals in Islamabad would electrify the opposition in Pakistan. America’s government-funded news service could also interview responsible opposition leaders, who would call for an end to military rule and the return of civil rights for women and minorities. This means working with Pakistan’s secular Left and its reformist lawyers. Again, the Obama Administration should feel at home championing the same message as the president outlined in his famous Cairo speech.

We all Pakistanis will welcome Americans pointing out corruption in Pakistan but wouldn't that mean Americans losing there corrupt partners in Pakistan but as a Pakistani i welcome that.

Stop selling military gear to Pakistan that it doesn’t need to fight terrorists. Why sell anti-submarine technology or anti-aircraft equipment or advanced avionics for jet fighters to Pakistan, when no terrorist outfit was a navy or an air force? Of course, this weaponry is designed to counter India, the world’s largest democracy and a friend to the United States. And much of this technology, like the wreck of the SEAL helicopter that crashed at bin Laden’s compound, is ultimately shared with China, which is not an American ally.

darn no more soya beans for us i guess if last sanctions were any indication we were progressing along at much faster base then getting soybeans.

Call AT&T. Every month, the phone giant pays the government of Pakistan millions of dollars. Here’s how it works. Pakistan has to pay for access to AT&T’s satellites and undersea cables and AT&T pays for access to Pakistan’s phone network. Since roughly three times as many calls originate in America than they do in Pakistan, virtually every month AT&T owes Pakistan more than Pakistan owes AT&T. By executive order or congressional action, AT&T could be required to pay those funds into an escrow account in New York instead. The money would only be released on a monthly basis as Pakistan turns over named terrorists for trials in the United States or a place it designates. This amounts to bribing Pakistan with its own money, but it would work—especially if done in secret.

lol so you are going to not pay us for our services

Something similar could be done with foreign aid as well as payments from Visa and Mastercard.

Foreign Aid is given to corrupt politicians that in return do favors for the US government i guess as a Pakistani i welcome you please do it sooner then later.

Inside the foreign policy bureaucracy, the complaint has long been that the relationship with Pakistan is “transactional, not strategic.” Attempts to transform the relationship have always failed—and no one tried harder than Admiral Mullen. Why not make it explicitly transactional and get value for our billions?

link

Ahhhhhh by given civilian nuclear tech to India and also selling her arms but refusing to give us any weapon that can change the balance of power you want Pakistan to trust you well gash darnet why didnt you say .