Imran Khan in Washington: He came, he saw, he conquered - writes Michael Kugelman

[krash]

Just a guess, but perhaps when the Orange Ape stopped US support last year or thereabouts? At least at that time, if not a few years prior to that, given what happened during Obama's term in office.

Again, incorrect. Pakistan was always a part of what is only now seen by the US as the solution to Afghanistan, i.e. negotiations over the table with the Taliban for peace through US' withdrawal. We actually pitched the idea. The US only recently saw the sense in it.

Can't forget the time when the US offered to negotiate only to kill the Taliban negotiator on his way to the negotiations.

Curious. What do you think the US' objectives of a "win in Afghanistan" are?

Exactly what they have admitted, to run away as respectably as possible.

 

[Solomon2]

Exactly what they have admitted, to run away as respectably as possible.

U.S.-AFGHANISTAN RELATIONS
​

Afghanistan remains an important partner of the United States in the fight against terrorism, working with us to eliminate al-Qaeda, ISIS-Khorasan (ISIS-K) and their affiliates in Afghanistan. In order to strengthen Afghanistan’s capabilities as a partner, and to improve the lives of the Afghan people, we continue to invest U.S. resources to help Afghanistan improve its security, governance, institutions and economy. Our strong bilateral partnership is guided by the Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement between the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the United States of America (SPA) signed in May 2012, which outlines respective economic and political commitments, as well as by the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) signed in September 2014, which outlines mutual security understandings. In July 2012, following the entry into force of the SPA, President Obama designated Afghanistan a Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA). President Trump’s conditions-based South Asia Strategy, announced in August 2017, seeks to set conditions for a political process between the Taliban and the Afghan government that ultimately leads to a peace agreement and an end the conflict in Afghanistan. President Trump was clear that military power alone will not end the war but can set the conditions for a political process that leads to lasting peace...​

Certainly the U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan has declined but there's nothing in there about "run[ning] away as respectably as possible."

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

A bird in the hand is worth a million in the bush!!! Pak simultaneous puts so many “brownies” with the same venue:

• A location to counter China - trench to trench
• A foothold at the pivotal seat of controls in the “Heart of Asia”, a “sour grape” for the Imperialists since the time immemorial
• Countering Hindutuva madness of the threat to approach the “forbidden tree” on 02-28 following the marginalization of the IAF after having been supported by the entire known world. Absolutely unacceptable
• Black gold (off-shore) and all the benefits pertaining it
• etc.

 

[krash]

U.S.-AFGHANISTAN RELATIONS
​

Afghanistan remains an important partner of the United States in the fight against terrorism, working with us to eliminate al-Qaeda, ISIS-Khorasan (ISIS-K) and their affiliates in Afghanistan. In order to strengthen Afghanistan’s capabilities as a partner, and to improve the lives of the Afghan people, we continue to invest U.S. resources to help Afghanistan improve its security, governance, institutions and economy. Our strong bilateral partnership is guided by the Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement between the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the United States of America (SPA) signed in May 2012, which outlines respective economic and political commitments, as well as by the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) signed in September 2014, which outlines mutual security understandings. In July 2012, following the entry into force of the SPA, President Obama designated Afghanistan a Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA). President Trump’s conditions-based South Asia Strategy, announced in August 2017, seeks to set conditions for a political process between the Taliban and the Afghan government that ultimately leads to a peace agreement and an end the conflict in Afghanistan. President Trump was clear that military power alone will not end the war but can set the conditions for a political process that leads to lasting peace...​

Certainly the U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan has declined but there's nothing in there about "run[ning] away as respectably as possible."

Hah. Should we go by one vague official statement? After all, not too long ago America's goal was to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban and provide freedom to the Afghans under their draconian rule.

Regardless,

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/07/19/graham-warns-against-afghanistan-withdrawal/

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/07/trump-pakistan-extricate-afghanistan-190722193747363.html


"President Trump’s conditions-based South Asia Strategy, announced in August 2017, seeks to set conditions for a political process between the Taliban and the Afghan government that ultimately leads to a peace agreement and an end the conflict in Afghanistan. President Trump was clear that military power alone will not end the war but can set the conditions for a political process that leads to lasting peace..."


We will soon know the details of this political process.

 

[VCheng]

Again, incorrect. Pakistan was always a part of what is only now seen by the US as the solution to Afghanistan, i.e. negotiations over the table with the Taliban for peace through US' withdrawal. We actually pitched the idea. The US only recently saw the sense in it.

Can't forget the time when the US offered to negotiate only to kill the Taliban negotiator on his way to the negotiations.

As you said above, we will soon know the details of the political process and thus Pakistan's role and position in it, and what all parties get out of the process at the end.

For now, enjoy it while lasts as long as DT's desire to be seen as a great statesman keeps a hold on his whims.

 

[Solomon2]

We will soon know the details of this political process.

Some speculation from NPR:

Opinion: Trump Gave Pakistan What It Wanted, But Afghan Peace Is Far From Guaranteed
July 24, 2019 4:13 PM ET
SHAMILA N. CHAUDHARY

President Trump greets Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan at the White House on Monday.
Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images

Shamila N. Chaudhary (@ShamilaCh) is a fellow at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies Foreign Policy Institute and senior fellow at New America. She served as director for Pakistan and Afghanistan on the National Security Council during the Obama administration.

On Tuesday, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan wrapped up a three-day visit to Washington, D.C., at the invitation of President Trump. The much-anticipated visit followed last year's cuts in U.S. aid to Pakistan and wrangling between the two leaders on Twitter, where Trump accused Pakistan of deceit and Khan retorted that Pakistan wasn't to blame for U.S. failures in Afghanistan.

And it was, of course, Afghanistan that figured centrally in Khan's visit, which took place as U.S.-led peace talks continue with the Afghan Taliban. When describing U.S. policy in Afghanistan in a talk on Tuesday, Khan invokedAlbert Einstein's definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Khan wanted to let everyone know that under his watch and Trump's leadership, the insanity was now over.

By the time he wrapped up his visit, Khan had secured what Pakistan has always wanted: a seat at the table on Afghanistan, and the Pakistani perspective acknowledged. (Trump even said he'd like to mediate between India and Pakistan over the disputed territory of Kashmir, something India sees as a purely bilateral issue. The State Department later walked Trump's statement back).

The extent to which Pakistan will go to protect what it has gained this week remains to be seen, as does the extent to which the U.S. will want to keep Pakistan happy.

This week, Khan hinted at a future meeting in which he would engage directly with Afghan Taliban leadership. If so, such a meeting would present a tremendous opportunity for Pakistan to cement its seat at the table in the broader infrastructure of the peace talks. The United States will unequivocally appreciate and capitalize on the additional channel of communication to pressure the Afghan Taliban — something to which Trump alluded on Monday during his press conference with Khan.

"I think Pakistan is going to help us out to extricate ourselves," Trump said, later remarking that he preferred this to his "plans on Afghanistan that if I wanted to win that war, Afghanistan would be wiped off the face of the Earth. It would be gone. It would be over in — literally, in 10 days. And I don't want to do — I don't want to go that route."

Khan likes to point out that he long supported a political solution in Afghanistan, before any other leader or government did. Likewise, Trump repeatedly calls out the failure of the Obama administration in prioritizing nation-building over ending the war. Their overlapping perspectives have created a convergence on Afghanistan in which Trump offers Pakistan a legitimate role — perhaps a longstanding one — in shaping the future of Afghanistan.

Pakistan's interest in Afghanistan's future relates to its concerns about the Indian presence there, which it believes poses direct threats to its security. Moving forward, India will continue to feature prominently in how Pakistan views Afghanistan.

But also driving Pakistan's interest in shaping Afghanistan's future is a pragmatic desire to gain influence in a rapidly fluctuating and complex geopolitical environment. When Pakistan looks to Afghanistan, it doesn't only see India. It also sees China, the United Arab Emirates, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other countries involved in a pursuit of transit routes, mineral extraction, port development and more.

Furthermore, no single country — namely, the United States — picks the winners and losers. Rather, current and future geopolitical competition in Afghanistan is defined by all countries playing all sides with each other, and by Afghanistan itself.

It is within this context that Pakistan must redefine itself from a pariah state that created and bolstered the Afghan Taliban — stoking U.S. anger and mistrust — to a collaborative, regional actor that engages all stakeholders and centers of power in Afghanistan and the region.

With these motivations in mind, Pakistan doesn't need to think twice about whether or not to pressure the Afghan Taliban to acquiesce to American demands for a cease-fire and engaging in an intra-Afghan dialogue.

The Trump-Khan view of how the war ends in Afghanistan strikes an important point — that Pakistan's interests and challenges in Afghanistan demand more attention than previous American governments afforded it. This week, Trump seemed to remedy that. But in the future, factors external to U.S.-Pakistan relations will test this spirit of renewed pragmatism.

Pakistan's strained relations with the Afghan government, the Afghan government's own intra-Afghan dialogue and the involvement of other interlocutors such as China all demand a careful diplomatic approach that considers the multiple relationships in play. To date, those relationship dynamics fluctuate from friendly and collaborative to antagonistic and disengaged. The future likely holds more of the same. And if the United States and Pakistan move too fast on their track, Pakistan will lose what little political space and legitimacy it holds with the Afghan government — and the United States will lose another avenue toward pressuring the Afghan Taliban.

Khan and Trump's focus on Afghanistan this week overshadowed the question of Pakistan-based militancy, which might have yielded more criticism from the Trump administration had Pakistan not recently detained anti-India militant leader Hafiz Saeed — and had Trump been less eager to take credit for it, as he did on Twitter.

Herein lies a fundamental roadblock in Pakistan securing its seat at the table: American demands of Pakistan to fight militancy extend beyond the Afghan Taliban to include Pakistan-based groups that threaten India. The White House fact sheet covering Monday's Trump-Khan meeting says as much: "Pakistan has taken some steps against terrorist groups operating within Pakistan. It is vital that Pakistan take action to shut down all groups once and for all."

Previous U.S. governments have similarly pursued Pakistan's collaboration in Afghanistan alongside asking Pakistan to eliminate the ability of Pakistan-based militants to operate on its territory. In that regard, the Trump administration is no different, offering Pakistan a say on Afghanistan in exchange for action against the likes of Saeed, who has been jailed and released numerous time before. Neither the Bush nor Obama administrations succeeded in pursuing both. The chance for failure remains high for Trump as well.

 

[Spectre]

As you said above, we will soon know the details of the political process and thus Pakistan's role and position in it, and what all parties get out of the process at the end.

For now, enjoy it while lasts as long as DT's desire to be seen as a great statesman keeps a hold on his whims.

Everything will depend on how well Pakistan can control Taliban.

Taliban has been hurting for close to couple of decades now fighting US forces, Afghan Govt and lately likes of ISIS as well and needs Pakistan support to shore up its back politically and logistically vis-a-vis medicine and munitions, sure new blood flows in but flows out as quickly.

Once some semblance of settlement is reached, Taliban will loose its reliance on Pakistan and their ambitions would rise just like they did in late nineties.

Another terrorist attack on west be it Europe or US from Afghan soil and all hell will break loose specially for the guarantor which would be Pakistan.

I am glad India is not in this game. We made some bets but only financially to the tune of couple of billion which is no big deal and in return we pressured Pakistan quite a lost from the west of its border to keep it busy and paranoid. So money well spent.

Anyhow if the supply line of Jihadis from Afghanistan to Kashmir starts again then we would have to get involved but i doubt Pakistan would be that foolish when they can just as easily light the fire in Kashmir which is already simmering with information warfare which it is doing quite well with local terrorists like Wani and Musa as willing patsies.

In the end everyone ends up Happy!! So good luck

 

[Meengla]

Pakistani policy WRT to Afghanistan has been consistent since Zia ul Haq's time: A broad-based govt or at least a govt. which would not be a platform to encircle Pakistan.

I don't know how many people recall the frenzied diplomacy starting sometime 1986 or so, when the Soviets clearly hinted at withdrawing. Pakistan (and the global community) indeed made a lot of effort was made to make the Afghan factions to live in peace. I am forgetting names but a certain Swiss or another European diplomat's name was on Pakistan TV all the time with meetings about Afghanistan. But to no avail.

What the Americans wanted since 2001 was more than crush the terrorists. I think it's fair to say that Afghanistan was at at least sometime desired as another listening post; another vassal state in a strategic location. Mr. Trump may indeed be abandoning that hard-to-get target. Why? The old adage: Because what's lost on the battlefield cannot be won at the conference table.

 

[Microsoft]

Some speculation from NPR:

Opinion: Trump Gave Pakistan What It Wanted, But Afghan Peace Is Far From Guaranteed
July 24, 2019 4:13 PM ET
SHAMILA N. CHAUDHARY

President Trump greets Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan at the White House on Monday.
Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images

Shamila N. Chaudhary (@ShamilaCh) is a fellow at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies Foreign Policy Institute and senior fellow at New America. She served as director for Pakistan and Afghanistan on the National Security Council during the Obama administration.

On Tuesday, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan wrapped up a three-day visit to Washington, D.C., at the invitation of President Trump. The much-anticipated visit followed last year's cuts in U.S. aid to Pakistan and wrangling between the two leaders on Twitter, where Trump accused Pakistan of deceit and Khan retorted that Pakistan wasn't to blame for U.S. failures in Afghanistan.

And it was, of course, Afghanistan that figured centrally in Khan's visit, which took place as U.S.-led peace talks continue with the Afghan Taliban. When describing U.S. policy in Afghanistan in a talk on Tuesday, Khan invokedAlbert Einstein's definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Khan wanted to let everyone know that under his watch and Trump's leadership, the insanity was now over.

By the time he wrapped up his visit, Khan had secured what Pakistan has always wanted: a seat at the table on Afghanistan, and the Pakistani perspective acknowledged. (Trump even said he'd like to mediate between India and Pakistan over the disputed territory of Kashmir, something India sees as a purely bilateral issue. The State Department later walked Trump's statement back).

The extent to which Pakistan will go to protect what it has gained this week remains to be seen, as does the extent to which the U.S. will want to keep Pakistan happy.

This week, Khan hinted at a future meeting in which he would engage directly with Afghan Taliban leadership. If so, such a meeting would present a tremendous opportunity for Pakistan to cement its seat at the table in the broader infrastructure of the peace talks. The United States will unequivocally appreciate and capitalize on the additional channel of communication to pressure the Afghan Taliban — something to which Trump alluded on Monday during his press conference with Khan.

"I think Pakistan is going to help us out to extricate ourselves," Trump said, later remarking that he preferred this to his "plans on Afghanistan that if I wanted to win that war, Afghanistan would be wiped off the face of the Earth. It would be gone. It would be over in — literally, in 10 days. And I don't want to do — I don't want to go that route."

Khan likes to point out that he long supported a political solution in Afghanistan, before any other leader or government did. Likewise, Trump repeatedly calls out the failure of the Obama administration in prioritizing nation-building over ending the war. Their overlapping perspectives have created a convergence on Afghanistan in which Trump offers Pakistan a legitimate role — perhaps a longstanding one — in shaping the future of Afghanistan.

Pakistan's interest in Afghanistan's future relates to its concerns about the Indian presence there, which it believes poses direct threats to its security. Moving forward, India will continue to feature prominently in how Pakistan views Afghanistan.

But also driving Pakistan's interest in shaping Afghanistan's future is a pragmatic desire to gain influence in a rapidly fluctuating and complex geopolitical environment. When Pakistan looks to Afghanistan, it doesn't only see India. It also sees China, the United Arab Emirates, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other countries involved in a pursuit of transit routes, mineral extraction, port development and more.

Furthermore, no single country — namely, the United States — picks the winners and losers. Rather, current and future geopolitical competition in Afghanistan is defined by all countries playing all sides with each other, and by Afghanistan itself.

It is within this context that Pakistan must redefine itself from a pariah state that created and bolstered the Afghan Taliban — stoking U.S. anger and mistrust — to a collaborative, regional actor that engages all stakeholders and centers of power in Afghanistan and the region.

With these motivations in mind, Pakistan doesn't need to think twice about whether or not to pressure the Afghan Taliban to acquiesce to American demands for a cease-fire and engaging in an intra-Afghan dialogue.

The Trump-Khan view of how the war ends in Afghanistan strikes an important point — that Pakistan's interests and challenges in Afghanistan demand more attention than previous American governments afforded it. This week, Trump seemed to remedy that. But in the future, factors external to U.S.-Pakistan relations will test this spirit of renewed pragmatism.

Pakistan's strained relations with the Afghan government, the Afghan government's own intra-Afghan dialogue and the involvement of other interlocutors such as China all demand a careful diplomatic approach that considers the multiple relationships in play. To date, those relationship dynamics fluctuate from friendly and collaborative to antagonistic and disengaged. The future likely holds more of the same. And if the United States and Pakistan move too fast on their track, Pakistan will lose what little political space and legitimacy it holds with the Afghan government — and the United States will lose another avenue toward pressuring the Afghan Taliban.

Khan and Trump's focus on Afghanistan this week overshadowed the question of Pakistan-based militancy, which might have yielded more criticism from the Trump administration had Pakistan not recently detained anti-India militant leader Hafiz Saeed — and had Trump been less eager to take credit for it, as he did on Twitter.

Herein lies a fundamental roadblock in Pakistan securing its seat at the table: American demands of Pakistan to fight militancy extend beyond the Afghan Taliban to include Pakistan-based groups that threaten India. The White House fact sheet covering Monday's Trump-Khan meeting says as much: "Pakistan has taken some steps against terrorist groups operating within Pakistan. It is vital that Pakistan take action to shut down all groups once and for all."

Previous U.S. governments have similarly pursued Pakistan's collaboration in Afghanistan alongside asking Pakistan to eliminate the ability of Pakistan-based militants to operate on its territory. In that regard, the Trump administration is no different, offering Pakistan a say on Afghanistan in exchange for action against the likes of Saeed, who has been jailed and released numerous time before. Neither the Bush nor Obama administrations succeeded in pursuing both. The chance for failure remains high for Trump as well.

lol what a stupid piece I stopped after this:

"By the time he wrapped up his visit, Khan had secured what Pakistan has always wanted: a seat at the table on Afghanistan"

If anyone had a seat at the table it was Pakistan. Even Trump admitted it himself "They[Pakistan] have a power that other nations don't have with respect to Afghanistan"

NPR should stick to scientific, data driven analysis and leave the subversive political hogwash and promotion of degeneracy (pushed by their masters, you know who it is right schlomo) aside.

 

[Zee-shaun]

Hey I wrote the same thing Monday!
Kugelman copied me!

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/imran-khan-wins-america.628108/#post-11637583

 

[VCheng]

Everything will depend on how well Pakistan can control Taliban.

It would be appropriate to remember Hillary Clinton's comments about keeping snakes in the backyard at this time.

 

[Spectre]

It would be appropriate to remember Hillary Clinton's comments about keeping snakes in the backyard at this time.

You pull out their teeth and render them harmless. That way everyone is happy. No more risk of another Pakistan Taliban, Afghanistan is peaceful and will likely consider Pakistan as its savior. Everyone else is also happy as bunch of cavemen would have been rendered inert.

Only looser would be those who consider Militarized Taliban as their asset which they can use for tactical and strategic purposes like keep miking the Cow (US) in the name of Taliban threat and have a ready made group of crazy suicide bombers for covert actions.

 

[Vanamali]

T

With out us or with out our permission..no one . India tried failed nato tried with USA failed USSR tried and failed. No one mark my word..they tried himself they failed they hired india they failed badly.now they came back to real dady. They know only Pakistan can do and Pakistan will not allow anyone sit on his back. Afghanistan is our brother country and we not allowed our brothers fell into enemy hands. Get wellsoon

They know only Pakistanis can sacrifice 90k persons for some ones war...

 

[VCheng]

You pull out their teeth and render them harmless. That way everyone is happy. No more risk of another Pakistan Taliban, Afghanistan is peaceful and will likely consider Pakistan as its savior. Everyone else is also happy as bunch of cavemen would have been rendered inert.

Only looser would be those who consider Militarized Taliban as their asset which they can use for tactical and strategic purposes like keep miking the Cow (US) in the name of Taliban threat and have a ready made group of crazy suicide bombers for covert actions.

It would be interesting to see what happens next, and how the situation evolves. It will by no means be simple.

 

[Spectre]

It would be interesting to see what happens next, and how the situation evolves. It will by no means be simple.

Everything depends on wisdom of Pakistan Military. Can they sacrifice some of their relevance for long term prosperity or not? I am not counting the dog and pony show that is the civilian govt in Pakistan