No change in Kashmir policy, says US

[LeGenD]

Wars are bad but they do have their good impact. For example the World Wars weakened plundering colonial powers, Britain got bankrupt and had to free the subcontinent. Communism collapsed in the result of Afghan War. America lost in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria giving room to China and making Russia even more powerful. Not just that, America kinda lost a very important ally called Pakistan by pushing it closer to China.

And I do see a war coming over Kashmir, sooner or later, maybe the scale would be that of Kargil or maybe higher. It depends on the circumstances. And this time, Pakistan will use the lessons it learnt from the 'Kargil Experiment'.

Soviet Empire didn't collapse due to Afghan War. It collapsed due to democratic reforms introduced by Mikhail Gorbachev. Learn more form here: http://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/fall-of-soviet-union

Funny thing is that while there is no Communist bloc to counter like in the days of COLD WAR, Socialism has taken roots in a large number of states including many democracies.

American thrusts into Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya were intended to topple regimes of Mullah Omar, Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qaddafi respectively and to dismantle Al-Qaeda Network in various Islamic states (Somalia, Pakistan and Yemen included) - all of these objectives accomplished. This war effort was never about colonizing Islamic states but to prevent 9/11 like incidents in the US mainland and to dismantle forces of terrorism within the Islamic bloc.

Many are confused about American objectives in the so-called War on Terror and mistakenly assume that Americans have failed in this war effort. Since Islamic states are not winning wars themselves - they tend to project their failures onto others.

Per your logic of defeat, US lost the COLD WAR as well because it was not successful in uniting Korea and Vietnam. Modern-era wars are lengthy and complex affairs, my friend. Don't rush to judgments.

China's ascension is also a byproduct of COLD WAR. China was not on good terms with USSR and US decided to transform China into a powerful front against USSR with heavy economic investments. Now that USSR is history and China is an industrial giant - US perceives China's relationship with modern Russia as a threat.

Modern Russia is not a strong player in my books. Greatest problem for Russia is its shortcoming in population growth.

 

[American Pakistani]

Ye tou lolwa hogaya.

 

[el nino]

So once again Pakistan has doors shut in its face over their Kashmir claims by USA and the world .

No body wants to upset India as I see it.

So one last big effort we will plead for China go assist .

Got to give full marks for trying. For over seventy years

 

[Hamzay]

Soviet Empire didn't collapse due to Afghan War. It collapsed due to democratic reforms introduced by Mikhail Gorbachev. Learn more form here: http://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/fall-of-soviet-union

Read this abstract:

The breakdown of the Soviet Union surprised most scholars of international relations, comparative politics, and Soviet politics. Existing explanations attribute the breakdown of the Soviet Union to the reformist leadership of Gorbachev, and/or to systemic factors. These explanations do not focus on the key contribution of the war in Afghanistan. This is surprising since many scholars view wars as key causal factors in empire breakdown and regime change. We argue that the war in Afghanistan was a key factor, though not the only cause, in the breakdown of the Soviet Union. The war impacted Soviet politics in four reinforcing ways: (1) Perception effects: it changed the perceptions of leaders about the efficacy of using the military to hold the empire together and to intervene in foreign countries; (2) Military effects: it discredited the Red Army, created cleavage between the party and the military, and demonstrated that the Red Army was not invincible, which emboldened the non Russian republics to push for independence; (3) Legitimacy effects: it provided non-Russians with a common cause to demand independence since they viewed this war as a Russian war fought by non Russians against Afghans; and (4) Participation effects: it created new forms of political participation, started to transform the press/media before glasnost, initiated the first shots of glasnost, and created a significant mass of war veterans (Afghansti) who formed new civil organizations weakening the political hegemony of the communist party.

https://faculty.washington.edu/aseem/afganwar.pdf

Many are confused about American objectives in the so-called War on Terror and mistakenly assume that Americans have failed in this war effort. Since Islamic states are not winning wars themselves - they tend to project their failures onto others.

You should read this:

Step Back: Lessons for U.S. Foreign Policy from the Failed War on Terror

https://www.cato.org/publications/p...k-lessons-us-foreign-policy-failed-war-terror

JOHN ELLIOTT: WHEN INDIA AND CHINA COMPETE, INDIA ALWAYS LOSES

http://www.newsweek.com/john-elliott-when-india-and-china-compete-india-always-loses-588771

And this is what we should use in our Kashmir policy.

 

[LeGenD]

Read this abstract:

The breakdown of the Soviet Union surprised most scholars of international relations, comparative politics, and Soviet politics. Existing explanations attribute the breakdown of the Soviet Union to the reformist leadership of Gorbachev, and/or to systemic factors. These explanations do not focus on the key contribution of the war in Afghanistan. This is surprising since many scholars view wars as key causal factors in empire breakdown and regime change. We argue that the war in Afghanistan was a key factor, though not the only cause, in the breakdown of the Soviet Union. The war impacted Soviet politics in four reinforcing ways: (1) Perception effects: it changed the perceptions of leaders about the efficacy of using the military to hold the empire together and to intervene in foreign countries; (2) Military effects: it discredited the Red Army, created cleavage between the party and the military, and demonstrated that the Red Army was not invincible, which emboldened the non Russian republics to push for independence; (3) Legitimacy effects: it provided non-Russians with a common cause to demand independence since they viewed this war as a Russian war fought by non Russians against Afghans; and (4) Participation effects: it created new forms of political participation, started to transform the press/media before glasnost, initiated the first shots of glasnost, and created a significant mass of war veterans (Afghansti) who formed new civil organizations weakening the political hegemony of the communist party.

https://faculty.washington.edu/aseem/afganwar.pdf

You should read this:

Step Back: Lessons for U.S. Foreign Policy from the Failed War on Terror

https://www.cato.org/publications/p...k-lessons-us-foreign-policy-failed-war-terror

JOHN ELLIOTT: WHEN INDIA AND CHINA COMPETE, INDIA ALWAYS LOSES

http://www.newsweek.com/john-elliott-when-india-and-china-compete-india-always-loses-588771

And this is what we should use in our Kashmir policy.

These are opinionated pieces mostly - informative but not all-encompassing.

Here is a good summary of why USSR failed: http://www.clearias.com/disintegration-of-the-ussr/

As for US loosing War on Terror - in what sense? They have accomplished most of their objectives from military standpoint. They have also introduced democratic systems in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, of-course, regional challenges remain but they don't affect US.

US commenced War on Terror to prevent 9/11 like incidents in US mainland and to defeat forces that sought to harm US. Towards this end, it smashed Al-Qaeda Network across the world and toppled several hostile regimes. It is now hammering ISIS networks across the world and victory is in sight.

Only weak-minded admit defeat before the 'war effort' is over. It will take a few more years but US will emerge victorious.

 

[Taimoor Khan]

Ignore America and solve this kashmir problem in cooperation with China. Two front war, where China will get north east and Pakistan, the rest of Kashmir.

 

[Hamzay]

It doesn't matter much what US wants; it also wants stability and peace in Afghanistan. Has it happened yet? Pakistan is the boss in Afghanistan and Kashmir; both will have peace when Pakistan allows it. Kashmir also sees instability when China gets involved and it's the reaction to Indian's provocations in Himachal Pardesh.

So forget about what US or India wish. Let them buy and sell to each other in the name of Pakistan and Kashmir. Americans are only interested in Indian rupees.

 

[scorpionx]

Few Pakistanis are rejoicing and few are saying we don't care. I mean, are you fellas confused about what US stand on Kashmir exactly is?

 

[Hamzay]

These are opinionated pieces mostly - informative but not all-encompassing.

Here is a good summary of why USSR failed: http://www.clearias.com/disintegration-of-the-ussr/

If you want to appease yourself holding the above 'belief', it's your choice.

No superpower will collapse simply because a new leadership changes policies in 6 years.

As for US loosing War on Terror - in what sense? They have accomplished most of their objectives from military standpoint. They have also introduced democratic systems in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, of-course, regional challenges remain but they don't affect US.

US stated they wanted to uproot Taliban regime because they were harbouring Al-Qaida. Al-Qaida because it was 'allegedly' harming US interests. Al-Qaida has but spread to other parts of the world with various names; one of them is ISIS. America and Europe have still witnessed attacks; so this objective for a safer West hasn't yet achieved.

16 years after the US invasion, Afghanistan still is under control of Taliban except Kabul. Do you call it a win?

US commenced War on Terror to prevent 9/11 like incidents in US mainland and to defeat forces that sought to harm US. Towards this end, it smashed Al-Qaeda Network across the world and toppled several hostile regimes. It is now hammering ISIS networks across the world and victory is in sight.

First let the US be victorious in Afghanistan, then we will see how successful US has been in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere.

Only weak-minded admit defeat before the 'war effort' is over. It will take a few more years but US will emerge victorious.

US track record hasn't been good in Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan. But you can keep dreaming!

Few Pakistanis are rejoicing and few are saying we don't care. I mean, are you fellas confused about what US stand on Kashmir exactly is?

Well, practically it's not important what US desires. We will manipulate US like we have done before. US needs us anyways in this region, we will play with them, they will play with us. It's all about regional politics.

US had put immense pressure on Pakistan regarding Kashmir in early 1990s; nothing happened though we hadn't then declared our nuclear arsenal. Now Pakistan is way too much stronger than it was in 1990s with a strong ally like China to beat both US and India with a Kung Fu action.

 

[scorpionx]

If you want to appease yourself holding the above 'belief', it's your choice.

No superpower will collapse simply because a new leadership changes policies in 6 years.



US stated they wanted to uproot Taliban regime because they were harbouring Al-Qaida. Al-Qaida because it was 'allegedly' harming US interests. Al-Qaida has but spread to other parts of the world with various names; one of them is ISIS. America and Europe have still witnessed attacks; so this objective for a safer West hasn't yet achieved.

16 years after the US invasion, Afghanistan still is under control of Taliban except Kabul. Do you call it a win?



First let the US be victorious in Afghanistan, then we will see how successful US has been in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere.



US track record hasn't been good in Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan. But you can keep dreaming!



Well, practically it's not important what US desires. We will manipulate US like we have done before. US needs us anyways in this region, we will play with them, they will play with us. It's all about regional politics.

US had put immense pressure on Pakistan regarding Kashmir in early 1990s; nothing happened though we hadn't then declared our nuclear arsenal. Now Pakistan is way too much stronger than it was in 1990s with a strong ally like China to beat both US and India with a strong kick on the butt.

Don't you think the day US realised that Pakistan has fallen completely in Chinese camp, there may be a fundamental shift in their sub-continent strategic thinking? Is not it imminent that the US will lose interest in Middle East and strengthen its presence more in Indian ocean and pacific region?

 

[Hamzay]

Don't you think the day US realised that Pakistan has fallen completely in Chinese camp, there may be a fundamental shift in their sub-continent strategic thinking? Is not it imminent that the US will lose interest in Middle East and strengthen its presence more in Indian ocean and pacific region?

US hasn't yet been able to handle North Korea and it won't be able to fail Chinese intentions in the Indian Ocean and in the South China Sea.

 

[scorpionx]

US hasn't yet been able to handle North Korea and it won't be able to fail Chinese intentions in the Indian Ocean and in the South China Sea.

We will see.

 

[Ocean]

Ye tou lolwa hogaya.

Not really. Dont forget it is kashmir issue due to which india and pakistan are sworn enemies , and also a part reason for china-india animosity. And this two front animosity is what usa has used to sell india massive amount of defense equipment as well as get LEMOA. So kashmir issue staying hot and burning is in usa's interest. Noone can resolve it unless pakistan steps up the game and kashmiris show some gall and fight for themselves. Kashmiris have a history of backing out from freedom fight at decisive moments, why else are they still suffering.

 

[Hamzay]

Not really. Dont forget it is kashmir issue due to which india and pakistan are sworn enemies , and also a part reason for china-india animosity. And this two front animosity is what usa has used to sell india massive amount of defense equipment as well as get LEMOA. So kashmir issue staying hot and burning is in usa's interest. Noone can resolve it unless pakistan steps up the game and kashmiris show some gall and fight for themselves. Kashmiris have a history of backing out from freedom fight at decisive moments, why else are they still suffering.

Everyone, every nation has a past, it doesn't mean they won't learn from their mistakes. Kashmiris are not going to calm down, nor will Pakistan ever give up. Indian buy weapons means Pakistan will also go even, and be stronger day by day. Arms race will go on. And with China, Pakistan, India and USA on stage with Israel behind the two evils, there will definitely be a war over Kashmir, and over Himachal Pardesh and both will have to be cut off from India.

Americans are a warring race, they will definitely get China involved in a conflict with an aim to weaken it. However, Americans have often been a failed planners.

 

[LeGenD]

If you want to appease yourself holding the above 'belief', it's your choice.

No superpower will collapse simply because a new leadership changes policies in 6 years.

You underestimate the power of politics in bringing an Empire down.

Example 1: The (original) Roman Empire collapsed due to political crises - not due to defeats in some fronts.

Example 2: Carthage also perished due to its lack of political and strategic oversight - its greatest warrior Hannibal approached the gates of Rome city itself (unthinkable) and Carthaginian leadership had a golden opportunity to extract concessions from the Roman Empire and end the Punic War on favorable terms at that point. However, Carthaginian leadership chose to push its luck in the battlefield further and....

Example 3: Fall of Ottoman Empire.

Communism was the fabric that held USSR together - political reforms of Gorbachev threatened that very fabric and disintegration soon followed.

Consider the case of EU: suppose that Germany ditches democracy for socialism tomorrow - do you think EU will remain strong after loss of a major member? Brexit is not even close to such an idealistic breakaway and it has already put a strain on the fabric of EU.

Such alliances flourish due to commonalities in political and economic interests. Take that away and they are in danger of collapse.

US stated they wanted to uproot Taliban regime because they were harbouring Al-Qaida. Al-Qaida because it was 'allegedly' harming US interests. Al-Qaida has but spread to other parts of the world with various names; one of them is ISIS. America and Europe have still witnessed attacks; so this objective for a safer West hasn't yet achieved.

And that is why US expanded its operations to other regions such as Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia and Yemen - hammering Al-Qaeda Network in all regions where it had substantial presence, and many Al-Qaeda operatives (Osama Bin Laden included) vanquished. Few might have survived and joined ISIS but Al-Qaeda network is done and dusted.

ISIS is not Al-Qaeda Network but a sectarian caliphate established by Abu Bakar al-Baghdadi of Iraq with global political amibitions.

Yes, US toppled Taliban-led regime in Afghanistan due to its connections with Al-Qaeda Network in 2001. However, ever wondered why US did not kill Mullah Omar when it had the chance in 2001?

Taliban is the name of an ideological movement in Afghanistan with political amibitions. Why would US want to eradicate it completely? US would have to slaughter Southern half of population in Afghanistan - so this is not a realistic goal and it never was.

US will stay in Afghanistan until ISIS is dealt with and Taliban embraces the Afghan democratic political system in full. If Khorasan has an important role to play at some point in future - this is bound to happen.

16 years after the US invasion, Afghanistan still is under control of Taliban except Kabul. Do you call it a win?

I am sorry but these are media-based projections. Taliban splintered after death of Mullah Omar with some elements joining ISIS and the remainder forming two rival groups. One group was led by a Mullah whom US assassinated in Balochistan. The other group is led by a relative of Mullah Omar. These two groups have even clashed with each other at times. Taliban movement is in decline actually with ISIS siphoning its fighters away and internal rifts.

If US stops hammering ISIS in Afghanistan today - ISIS will be top dog in Afghanistan in a span of few years. So who is helping whom my friend?

US wants Taliban groups to give-up their hardline stance and embrace Afghan democratic process - very straightforward. Some already have.

First let the US be victorious in Afghanistan, then we will see how successful US has been in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere.

Iraq and Syria are different fronts with different realities.

Iraqi have embraced democracy and are doing their best to eradicate ISIS.

Syria will change a lot in coming years as well.

US track record hasn't been good in Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan. But you can keep dreaming!

Right.

I see the big picture in these matters and same is true for American strategic planners.

What was the outcome of Cold War? USSR disintegrated and US became the sole superpower in 1991.

US is poised to succeed in War on Terror as well. Just wait for demise of ISIS.

Well, practically it's not important what US desires. We will manipulate US like we have done before. US needs us anyways in this region, we will play with them, they will play with us. It's all about regional politics.

We are not manipulating US. They have been dishonest dicks instead.

US had put immense pressure on Pakistan regarding Kashmir in early 1990s; nothing happened though we hadn't then declared our nuclear arsenal. Now Pakistan is way too much stronger than it was in 1990s with a strong ally like China to beat both US and India with a Kung Fu action.

Seriously now?

US has no role in Kashmir.