What's new

Is Biden Demanding Use of Pakistani Military Bases After Pullout From Afghanistan?

Turkey has been conducting an active diplomacy with all sides of Afghanistan's issue in recent days. However, these efforts may stall due to the US attitude towards Turkey and Pakistan.
What Turkey needs to do is teach Pakistan some basic lessons in how to play the Americans and squeeze everything out of them. Look at Erdogan. Dines with Europeans, plays USA, chills with Putin, shakes hands with Xi of China all in order to advance Turkey's interests. You guys have massive NATO bases and US soldiers in your country. I don't see Turks crying about it.
 
The US could very well end up demanding such a thing, which could serve two purposes. One, it would help keep US forces engaged in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and two, it would to some degree help the US regain some lost influence within Pakistan, and counter China's expanding footprint.

If Pakistan is serious about geopolitical neutrality, then allowing a US base could potentially be a good idea. HOWEVER, it is almost certainly going to back fire for Pakistan, as it could anger the hardliners within Pakistan, threaten Chinese investments, because Beijing is almost certainly going to protest the decision. Finally, it could lead to the Afghan Civil War spilling over into Pakistan, as Afghan militants will almost certainly start targeting Pakistan as a result of hosting US forces.
IN OTHER WORDS IT WONT WORK FOR PAKISTAN..

we have been burnt several times to say yes to any such deal

but the question is , if not Pakistan then who will provide access to Afghanistan ?

iran ?
central asia & russia?
or china?

obviously its going to be Pakistan..


IMO its not who will provide access, it is at what cost (to USA/Pakistan) and how much access (CIA based drone access or full scale military access)
because even if Pakistan says no, USA will still use is airspace
 
If Pakistan is serious about geopolitical neutrality, then allowing a US base could potentially be a good idea.

If Pakistan is serious about geopolitical neutrality it can request the US to engage economically.

Biggest issue has been Pakistan has always delegated it's relationship with the US solely through the military spectrum.
 
beggars dont dictate terms..... We better stay out of it!

Totally agree, beggars don't dictate terms. But, If we were beggars and could not dictate terms we would not have been asked. So, In this particular case we are being begged (Highly unlikely) or asked (High probability) or could also be that we are being ordered (if we assume you are right and we are in fact beggars in this particular case, Which means, no point talking about this cause then we have to agree).

But, i do not believe the first and last options are whats happening. i believe its more like we are being asked and in that case the onus is on us, Do we or don't we. We have a choice, we say hit the highway or come on in. But come on in does not mean, do as you please it means do as we say. If they don't agree to our terms then we can stay out of it and continue as we are. But there is no harm in giving them the options i mentioned, since we benefit a lot and if they do not accept, we do not lose anything. That is what i meant, Agree, but to our terms. And if they accept, hallelujah!!! if they say F off then we too can say F off.
 
But, i do not believe the first and last options are whats happening. i believe its more like we are being asked and in that case the onus is on us, Do we or don't we. We have a choice, we say hit the highway or come on in. But come on in does not mean, do as you please it means do as we say. If they don't agree to our terms then we can stay out of it and continue as we are. But there is no harm in giving them the options i mentioned, since we benefit a lot and if they do not accept, we do not lose anything. That is what i meant, Agree, but to our terms. And if they accept, hallelujah!!! if they say F off then we too can say F off.
Well this depends, whether the ameican will keep their promise which in our case, history is not on their side. also benefits can be militarily enhancements but there in another angle to this, angle of geopolitics. If that base is used in anyway lets say spying on China or Iran than our relations will get screwed even though the main culprits will be americans. Lastly, american reputation regarding keeping their word is not something to be admired buddy!
 
Well this depends, whether the ameican will keep their promise which in our case, history is not on their side. also benefits can be militarily enhancements but there in another angle to this, angle of geopolitics. If that base is used in anyway lets say spying on China or Iran than our relations will get screwed even though the main culprits will be americans. Lastly, american reputation regarding keeping their word is not something to be admired buddy!

Having a relationship with the Americans since our independence and being back stabbed by them many times as well as repaying them in kind when they have done so (case in point this war in Afghanistan) has shown us that we have figured out how to deal with them.

Spying on Iran and China does not require a base in Pakistan; they have satellites and their own Human Intel on ground in those respective countries for that. The base we will provide will be for air operations and a few spec-ops next to the afghan border, not close to either countries, so that is not the issue at all (regardless of the amount of boots they send, like i said, all should be monitored).

Keeping their promise of delivering what we need diplomatically, economically and military, Yes, that is where we kind of mess up every time. But, I believe this time we will be more clever and only open the base to them once all has been delivered and once we have been taken of the FATF list (Priority). September is far away for achieving FATF, Zulus, Turkish Helicopter engine, F-16's (the 8 or so as well as providing kits for upgrading the rest in Turkey or Pakistan). And the rest can follow after giving them permission to enter the base

I has said this a long long long time ago. Ever since US pivot to Asia, Pakistan was always the "Pivot". So it is about time we play our role to our advantage and make the most of this situation Diplomatically, Economically and Militarily. it could do wonders for us

So lets straighten our shoulders, chin up and face them the same we did during this senseless war due to their back stabbing antics. Taking a tackle (because of our carelessness in planning and execution) should not happen whatsoever, but knocking them off their feet (if they push us around) should be done without hesitation.

I had also said long long long time ago on PDF, do not complain about the game being played next door, learn it and beat them at it; and we did. So lets not play against them this time, lets play with them but since this is OUR country, we are Captain and Umpire (no BS'ing around).

P.S I am not disagreeing with you, just giving a different view on the matter.

Cheers
 
So we are hardliners if we oppose a US base...At least choose your words wisely.
No, most people will oppose it, but what do you think the hardliners that will oppose it will do? Riot, which is what they always do. Most people won't riot or act violent, but hardliners will certainly do so.

Read my comment properly, instead of asking me to choose my words wisely.
 
If Pakistan is serious about geopolitical neutrality it can request the US to engage economically.

Biggest issue has been Pakistan has always delegated it's relationship with the US solely through the military spectrum.
The US is simply uninterested at this point to deal with Pakistan at all. Even the military engagement is out of necessity, not want.

While I agree with you, so long as Pakistan continues on the path of CPEC, the US will not engage with Pakistan when it feels it doesn't need to.

Of course, this behavior by the US is foolish, as it indicates that the US government has this false idea that Pakistan needs the US more than the other way around, when that's simply not true anymore. Many analysts and think tanks have told the US government repeatedly to engage with Pakistan economically, in order to compete with China. Even USAID had to fight tooth and nail against the US to give support to the Pakistani government in the past, which is largely why the USAID program in Pakistan is considered a failure, due to US infighting over the Pakistan policy.

Anyway, I'm rambling. The point is, I agree, but its unlikely to happen due to the US not wanting to engage.
 
Seems like Imran Khan becoming PM of Pakistan is equivalent of winning a lottery for Biden, Modi and Ayatollas !
 
IN OTHER WORDS IT WONT WORK FOR PAKISTAN..

we have been burnt several times to say yes to any such deal

but the question is , if not Pakistan then who will provide access to Afghanistan ?

iran ?
central asia & russia?
or china?

obviously its going to be Pakistan..

IMO its not who will provide access, it is at what cost (to USA/Pakistan) and how much access (CIA based drone access or full scale military access)
because even if Pakistan says no, USA will still use is airspace
Well, IF the US is serious about reopening a base in one of the surrounding nations, they could go to central Asia where they've had bases in the past. The problem is that if those nations agree, then the cost will be high, besides, I don't think they'll agree.

With Pakistan, there is very little the US can offer to Pakistan to get Pakistan to agree to such a base. On the other hand, Pakistan could end up accepting anyway, if it means that the US will remain engaged with Pakistan, as the US-India relationship is a major concern for Pakistan.
 
No, most people will oppose it, but what do you think the hardliners that will oppose it will do? Riot, which is what they always do. Most people won't riot or act violent, but hardliners will certainly do so.

Read my comment properly, instead of asking me to choose my words wisely.
Stop clutching straws and dont think everyone here is an illiterate to see what you wrote..
And this is definitely a valid excuse for Pakistanis to riot on if their state doesn't listen ..As a Canadian sitting outside you have no moral standing to call them hardliner .
 
US to revive special #export zones in Pakistan & Afghanistan. #Karachi -born US Senator Van Hollen urged President #Biden to resume the US-Pakistan dialogue with a call to Prime Minister Imran Khan. #US needs Pakistan’s help to end the Afghan conflict



A bipartisan bill will soon be introduced in the US Senate to set up duty-free export zones along the Pak-Afghan border, says a senior US lawmaker.

The proposed legislation will allow these trade pockets, known as the Reconstruction Opportunity Zones or ROZs, to export certain duty-free goods to the United States, said Senator Van Hollen, a key Democrat on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

Mr Van Hollen told a full committee hearing on the US policy in Afghanistan on Tuesday that elements within the Biden administration already support this proposal.

The Karachi-born US lawmaker also urged President Joe Biden to resume the US-Pakistan dialogue by calling Prime Minister Imran Khan because the US needs Pakistan’s support to end the Afghan conflict. He told the key witness, Zalmay Khalilzad, that he too had acknowledged Pakistan’s importance in resolving this dispute in previous statements.

Ambassador Khalilzad, a Trump appointee retained by the Biden administration as a special US representative, too recognised Pakistan’s “special role” in facilitating peace talks and backed Senator Van Hollen’s call for re-engaging Pakistan.

In 2009, the US House of Representatives passed a bill to establish ROZs in Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan. Mr Biden too had backed this legislation, which was never implemented.

“We will be reintroducing that as a bipartisan bill soon,” Senator Van Hollen told the committee, adding that he believed increased trade in this region would contribute to peace.

“This would be a condition-based tool that the president of the United State will have the authority to calibrate, based on conditions on the ground,” he added.

“Is it the kind of tool that you believe could be useful in shaping some of the decisions about the future of Afghanistan?” he asked Ambassador Khalilzad.

“We support the idea of increased trade between Afghanistan and Pakistan, between Afghanistan and Pakistan and Central Asia, and we support increased trade between us and Afghanistan and Pakistan,” the envoy responded. “It seems to me that it is a very worthwhile concept to explore and work on.”

“I know other parts of the administration are looking at it as a positive tool that we can deploy in trying to shape the future of this region,” the senator said, adding that the proposed bill would soon go to the Senate Finance Committee.

The senator then engaged Ambassador Khalilzad in a discussion over Pakistan’s role in the Afghan conflict, pointing out that “the country that has the most direct, potential influence here is Pakistan.”

He reminded Mr Khalilzad that he too has acknowledged Pakistan’s importance, calling it a country that “has direct interest in stability in Afghanistan” and reasons to dislike “chaos and a full-blown war there.”

“Of course, Pakistan fought its own war with the Pakistani Taliban, did it not?” the senator asked. “It did,” Mr Khalilzad replied.

“You have pointed out that Pakistan has helped to facilitate your negotiations with the Taliban in Doha, is that right?” Senator Van Hollen asked again. “It has,” the envoy said.

“How would you characterise Pakistan’s support now?” the senator asked.

“They have been supportive of our efforts to press the Taliban to reduce violence, to enter negotiations with the government of Afghanistan, to be an active participant in peace negotiations including in a (planned) conference in Istanbul,” Mr Khalilzad said.

“Pakistan has a special responsibility given its influence over the Taliban and we appreciate what Pakistan has done so far but we are not there yet,” he said. “We look forward to working with them to get to a peace agreement between the Taliban and the Afghan government in coming weeks and months.”
 
Stop clutching straws and dont think everyone here is an illiterate to see what you wrote..
And this is definitely a valid excuse for Pakistanis to riot on if their state doesn't listen ..As a Canadian sitting outside you have no moral standing to call them hardliner .
Riots don't hurt government, they hurt the common people, because the damage is likely going to be done to privately owned property.

Im not clutching at straws, you're just desperate to prove me wrong on a point you clearly are now desperately moving the goal post on.

But keep strawmaning me, maybe it'll work one day.

As for me being Canadian, I have family in Pakistan, I have every right to speak on matters that may end up effecting them. I know its difficult for you, but I suggest you use your brain, before you end up putting your own foot in your own mouth.
 
Back
Top Bottom