AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
In case somebody missed it, that's a threat: Obama has declared the U.S. will act unilaterally on Pakistani soil if GoP doesn't adequately cooperate in short order.
It's an empty threat.
The only way the US can act unilaterally in Pakistan to actually affect the course of the insurgency is through an occupation - otherwise, if that unilateral action in Pakistan has no Pakistani support, you won't be getting anywhere in dealing the alleged insurgent leadership or 'havens' - they'll just keep being pushed deeper into Pakistan.
The real 'threat', if you want to call it that, here is more of an argument of shared US-Pak interests (and there may be a lot more substance that will be shared privately) - the shared interest is that both Pakistan and the US recognize the threat from extremists to Pakistan, and both recognize the threat to Pakistan from an unstable Afghanistan.
What might sway Pakistan is how extensive this 'new relationship' with Pakistan ends up being. Obama talked about improving Pakistan's COIN capacity and engaging with Pakistan by investing in the economy, infrastructure and education and making sure its 'security' is not impacted (a reference to holding back Indian transgression perhaps).
The 'threat' here is that a US failure in Afghanistan, and a perceived 'unhelpful Pakistan', would have to face both an unstable Afghanistan for decades and no US assistance or relationship, while the US relationship with India continues to expand (which it would do in any case).
Its a rather rudimentary attempt to put my thoughts into words at this point, but IMO that will be the gist of the US approach with Pakistan.