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

[VCheng]

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

I do not foresee any meaningful changes in national priorities at this time, or for the next few decades.

 

[Rusty]

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

And this is why India is irrelevant.

You People are stuck in the 80s and don't realize that realities change.

For all the nonsense talk you have about the military in power, you fail to recognize the genuine democratic shift in Pakistan.

Days off military coups are gone. We have had 3 democratic transition back to back. Our civil society is thriving, more people then ever are involved in the democratic process.

But hey, no one ever lost money betting on Indian stupidity.

 

[Spectre]

And this is why India is irrelevant.

You People are stuck in the 80s and don't realize that realities change.

For all the nonsense talk you have about the military in power, you fail to recognize the genuine democratic shift in Pakistan.

Days off military coups are gone. We have had 3 democratic transition back to back. Our civil society is thriving, more people then ever are involved in the democratic process.

But hey, no one ever lost money betting on Indian stupidity.

Your post would have been more weighted if Imran Khan didn't require whole host of military nannies like COAS or DG ISI to accompany him to US and keep him in line. Highly unusual as civilian leadership controls foreign affairs in toto in all democratic systems.

What has changed since 80's and 90's is that Pakistani Military has realized that Military Dictators are no longer fashionable so they have found dependent leaderships.

Remember Public Opinion changes like weather, at a time Musharaff was the messiah and today everyone curses him. I wonder how long Imran Khan will hold on, my guess is till he toes the line

 

[Rusty]

Your post would have been more weighted if Imran Khan didn't require whole host of military nannies like COAS or DG ISI to accompany him to US and keep him in line. Highly unusual as civilian leadership controls foreign affairs in toto in all democratic systems.

What has changed since 80's and 90's is that Pakistani Military has realized that Military Dictators are no longer fashionable so they have found dependent leaderships.

Remember Public Opinion changes like weather, at a time Musharaff was the messiah and today everyone curses him. I wonder how long Imran Khan will hold on, my guess is till he toes the line

Stopped reading after the first bit.
This is how delusional you and must Indians are.

The whole point of the trip was to talk Afghanistan... You know.. The place where war is happening... With the military....

Seriously, I'm actually embarrassed for you.

 

[Spectre]

Stopped reading after the first bit.
This is how delusional you and must Indians are.

The whole point of the trip was to talk Afghanistan... You know.. The place where war is happening... With the military....

Seriously, I'm actually embarrassed for you.

How is Pakistani Military involved in this civil war in Afghanistan? Or are they?

In any case military has no role in decision making, PM directs and military obeys and advices. It is sufficient for PM alone and if you stretch it, his Defense, Foreign and National security ministers/secretaries or cabinet rank to visit and discuss policy with their US counterparts.

If needed Military leadership can visit Pentagon but that has to be a separate visit so as to not cast confusion or aspersions on Civilian Leaderships - Governance 101.

 

[Rusty]

How is Pakistani Military involved in this civil war in Afghanistan? Or are they?

In any case military has no role in decision making, PM directs and military obeys and advices. It is sufficient for PM alone and if you stretch it, his Defense, Foreign and National security ministers/secretaries or cabinet rank to visit and discuss policy with their US counterparts.

If needed Military leadership can visit Pentagon but that has to be a separate visit so as to not cast confusion or aspersions on Civilian Leaderships - Governance 101.

I just wrote a big reply to you, but then remembered that when you argue with a pig, you both get dirty and the pig likes it.

You coments are retarded beyond reason and no sensible person would take this trip to mean that the military is in charge.

But then again you guys are still celebrating 300 ghosts and think your a super power with no toilets.


End of the day pakistan is making inroads with US, China and Russia.

Indians can get smart and recognize this, or more likely, continue to live in surgical strike and bury their heads.

Again, no one ever lost money betting on Indian stupidity.

 

[mingle]

This is the key quote.

Reason r many but most is khan is very alike elites of US and UK or West we ppl call him Gora habits atticates so on married in Rothschild family he is western by all means just look appreciation melania tweets from her twitter account. West is khan s strength big issue was for him to bring military on same page and rest. Taliban likes him due to his mother lineage she was from south wazistan plus they also consider him hero. As Ramiz Raja said IK is best brand that Pak produce. I see a great relationship between US pak decades to come beacuse he is not going away anytime soon he wants long term relationship not transaction. I also believe Russia is out from Pak equation I don't think they will buy weapons from them if US offers them.coming months All American corporate bigwigs r coming to Pak for investment conference. Great start and IA will continue for long run.

Another most interesting part of khan is he wants American to stay in Afghanistan not as military but help in reconstruction efforts its big stimulus for US companies as well my take is they will keep some bases in Afghanistan like bagram.

 

[mingle]

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.

Everything takes times its not ur computer its slow and painful process and u have to deal Taliban according to theior traditions and values u can't impose ur values on them. It will slow but very possible.

 

[Clutch]

 

[Thorough Pro]

56 inch kay liay choti si tube? is BC ko balti do bhar kar

 

[Cash GK]

T


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

Those who are afraid for sacrifices they dont deserve to be great..

 

[Baby Leone]

First, Khan’s time in Washington was not flawless. His insistence that there are no restrictions on press freedoms in Pakistan — and more broadly his unwillingness to acknowledge the well-documented crackdowns on dissent in his country — was not a good look, to say the least.

i dont understands this rhetoric by westerners when a UK media watchdog closed a channels for LGBT abuse as per their law, that is okay but when Pakistan media watch dogs do it as per our laws it suddenly becomes freedom issue, BTW trump himself admits that Pakistani media is even more free then US one and more professional too.

 

[Cash GK]

i dont understands this rhetoric by westerners when a UK media watchdog closed a channels for LGBT abuse as per their law, that is okay but when Pakistan media watch dogs do it as per our laws it suddenly becomes freedom issue, BTW trump himself admits that Pakistani media is even more free then US one and more professional too.

Call double standards

 

[Vanamali]

Those who are afraid for sacrifices they dont deserve to be great..

I have wrongly said sacrifice, I should have said, Pak is ready to kill it's 90k citizens for America's war for few bucks....

It's not sacrifice, it is called butchering...

 

[-=virus=-]

Peace in Afghanistan, peace with the taliban.. easier said than done but good luck to President Trump, PM khan and the Afghan government, who, interestingly enough, no one seems to be talking about here.

Doubt the US wants a full military withdrawal, they just don't want to fight there anymore but surely they'll want to keep a military base or two given the strategic location of Afghanistan, to maintain a military presence on China's western flank and keep up the pressure on Iran from the east, and to keep an eye on Pakistan from the north.

Trump and the US are most worried about China and are already in an economic war with them, the BRI is making inroads into Afghanistan.

This whole peace talks in Afghanistan thing is about removing a thorn (afghanistan war) as they prepare for the big game against China. Afghanistan is just one theatre, Trump will challenge China in Africa, the indo pacific, South America, he will push back againist Russia in the Arctic and against the both of them in space, which is why they're going back to the moon and then to Mars.

The Americans are on the march and truly becoming great again on President Trump's watch.