Pakistan: Alliance Over if US Troops Expand War Across Border

[Solomon2]

I hope so too. Because currently the US side wants Pakistan to make all the sacrifices and concessions and essentially give the ISAF/US a graceful exit at our expense.

The demand is, as I understand it, that Pakistan let Afghanistan exist as an independent state without Pakistan meddling to create disorder or re-establish an unpopular regime that cannot survive unless it is a Pakistani dependency. A stable Afghanistan would benefit Pakistan far more than the above alternatives; the only "sacrifice" Pakistan would be making is that of corrupt influence, which empowers and enriches a few Pakistanis yet contributes to destabilizing Pakistani rule-of-law and the state itself.

 

[Ahmad]

I hope so too. Because currently the US side wants Pakistan to make all the sacrifices and concessions and essentially give the ISAF/US a graceful exit at our expense. I do not think Pakistan is able to do so and neither is it fair or in Pakistan's interests to do so. Some accommodation is in order on all sides.

Yes, walking in separate ways will at least bring an end to all these.

If Pakistan is willing to go for a power-sharing deal in Kabul (against a demand calling for only a Pashtun-led government, then others also need to give in a bit and come to a compromise.)

Pashtons are having their fair share in the gov, as a matter of fact the non pashtoons are the ones that are left with little share especially hazaras and uzbeks. Pashtoons have enjoyed 100% dominance of gov in the past and now anything lower than that means nothing to them, this is a big prblem. and i cant understand why paksitan is always pushing/hoping for a pashtoon dominant gov? this is a mistery to me, given the fact that pashtoon govs were the ones that didnt recognize pakistan's existence, they are the only ones that want pakistan's peice of land, unlike the other groups that recognize pakistan's full territorial integrity. only time will tell if the taliban are friend of paksitan, let tthem once be free of all the fights and then we will see if they are foe or friend to paksitan, we need to consider the fact that pakistan doulbe crossed them in favour of americans and the issue of ethnicity is anther thing which will make them uneasy about paksitan, the taliban both in pak and afgh are not only religious groups, but also pashtoon nationalist movement, only time will tell us.

 

[blain2]

Though I disapprove of the taunting tone of his, the warning is something worth considering. Where as these figures officially mentioned? Any detailed economic analysis released by your government on such a high sum of losses? I am sure that if the damage has been so extensive, your government would have been far more vehement than the non-participant role currently played by your president and prime minister.

Please for one moment, do think what the imminent breakup of this alliance would mean. The losses even if we are to go by the figures you mentioned here, are not going to be recovered by the breaking of this alliance. On the contrary the economic and financial assistance that you receive from United States would also dry up. Not to mention American comeback in some way for attempting to break this alliance.

The losses suffered by your country are great and my sympathies are with your people, but being head strong in such a scenario would be ill-advised. No one is willing to help you to the level of United States. Not even the Chinese (if I am to assume the deep ties that you have as has been mentioned here a lot) since their projects in your country is not extensive enough to immediately keep your economy afloat.

Please consider what this action would mean in medium term. To keep employment rate reasonable and hence form a basic plank on which your economy could rebuild its foundations right now, is not independently working especially with militancy at all time high in your region.

It was impractical of your elite to depend on one country so much initially rather than following the policy of strategic neutrality. But now breaking away is certainly not the right solution.

A line has to be drawn if Pakistan's cohesion as a nation state is to be maintained. Its one thing allowing UCAV strikes against a loosely federated territory against targets that are hard to get to for even the Pakistani forces and an entirely different thing to allow ISAF troops to move on the ground at will against Pakistani civilians in the tribal areas and built up cities (there has been mention of Quetta). No Pakistani government will stand and no Pakistani military personnel worth their salt will allow this to go unchallenged (even as woefully ill-equipped we may be in the face of US/ISAF).

The current war cannot be won by coming over to Pakistan and starting a fight over here. If there are attempts made to do so, cutting off the collaboration is the first thing that will happen regardless of the financial repercussions. The opinion on the street would be more accepting of cutting off the collaboration and dealing with the economic hardships than allowing others to come on the ground and take unilateral action inside of Pakistani territory.

 

[blain2]

Pashtons are having their fair share in the gov, as a matter of fact the non pashtoons are the ones that are left with little share especially hazaras and uzbeks. Pashtoons have enjoyed 100% dominance of gov in the past and now anything lower than that means nothing to them, this is a big prblem. and i cant understand why paksitan is always pushing/hoping for a pashtoon dominant gov? this is a mistery to me, given the fact that pashtoon govs were the ones that didnt recognize pakistan's existence, they are the only ones that want pakistan's peice of land, unlike the other groups that recognize pakistan's full territorial integrity. only time will tell if the taliban are friend of paksitan, let tthem once be free of all the fights and then we will see if they are foe or friend to paksitan, we need to consider the fact that pakistan doulbe crossed them in favour of americans and the issue of ethnicity is anther thing which will make them uneasy about paksitan, the taliban both in pak and afgh are not only religious groups, but also pashtoon nationalist movement, only time will tell us.

Ahmed,

As I have said, Pakistan is willing to move forward with a compromise on a national unity government that would include Tajiks and others.

Pakistan did not double-cross anyone. Lets clear that myth. No less than Saudis and Pakistanis at the highest level talked to them about sending OBL over to a neutral Muslim country to prevent the Americans from launching their attack and they refused. Pakistan was very clear with them that Pakistan would not be able to help them.

As far as them being friend of foes of Pakistan, they have been neither when they ruled Afghanistan. If was just that we did not have the concerns around Indian encirclement of Pakistan through Afghanistan.

The Taliban were also more realistic in dealing with Pakistan concerning the issue of Durrand line. Why make an issue of it by forcing its negation when nothing really changes on the ground (borders and trade are wide open etc. etc.). They let sleeping dogs lay and that was fine by us. Post their departure this issue has cropped up again.

I feel a lot of time my Afghan friends tend to put a very simplistic spin on Pakistan's interests and actually make us look like we are just out to meddle in all things Afghan. The reality is that we have more than enough problems of our own and simply do not want to go back to the days of the 60s and 70s when our western borders with Afghanistan were as troublesome as our border with India. This is a real concern for us Pakistanis and it would only help the situation if Afghans of all ethnic backgrounds understood this concern.

 

[Solomon2]

A line has to be drawn if Pakistan's cohesion as a nation state is to be maintained. Its one thing allowing UCAV strikes against a loosely federated territory against targets that are hard to get to for even the Pakistani forces and an entirely different thing to allow ISAF troops to move on the ground at will against Pakistani civilians in the tribal areas and built up cities (there has been mention of Quetta).

Which is why the U.S. has repeatedly urged Pakistan to get its act together by extending the rule of law to these territories. Pakistani sovereignty over some of these areas is nonexistent, hence arguments about "maintaining Pakistani cohesion" are fictional; it's already gone. I suppose the presence of ISAF would merely highlight this humiliating fact.

The opinion on the street would be more accepting of cutting off the collaboration and dealing with the economic hardships than allowing others to come on the ground and take unilateral action inside of Pakistani territory.

Pakistan's politicians are not brave; they want to pretend their hands are clean and ISAF is using drones to attack Pakistanis without their consent. So how likely is it that they could work up the courage to pander to the crowd and give ISAF the boot if it chose to invade? Or would they rather pretend such a thing simply isn't happening?

 

[Jigs]

Dream On...

Btw upon which sane logic you can say that the alliance is faked ... Blv me its not ...

I would have to disagree. Both countries have very different interests in keeping this alliance. The whole joint terrorism combating may be a interest of both but other things are at play here.

 

[Ahmad]

Ahmed,

As I have said, Pakistan is willing to move forward with a compromise on a national unity government that would include Tajiks and others.

Musharaf once i remember saying in his interview that pashtons must the ones to rule afghanistan, and that provoked a huge criticism in and around afghanistan.

As far as them being friend of foes of Pakistan, they have been neither when they ruled Afghanistan.

Perhaps because they were never free from fighting their opponents and needed pakistan, they were still fighting a huge battle when americans attacked them. Who knows what would they do/would have done if they didnt feel the need from pakistan.

The Taliban were also more realistic in dealing with Pakistan concerning the issue of Durrand line.

perhaps you know little about their ethno nationalistic desires, as i have said before, it is not only a religious, but also ethno nationalist movemtent.

 

[blain2]

Which is why the U.S. has repeatedly urged Pakistan to get its act together by extending the rule of law to these territories. Pakistani sovereignty over some of these areas is nonexistent, hence arguments about "maintaining Pakistani cohesion" are fictional; it's already gone. I suppose the presence of ISAF would merely highlight this humiliating fact.

Fictional to maybe you because you have not lived in the region, but this is the way it has been and I do not see anything changing in the near future. Much of the FATA is as wild a country as the rest of Afghanistan. We have a Corps+ in the tribal areas and the numbers by themselves are more than what you have mustered in the entire of Afghanistan, and we are no closer to securing the tribal areas now than we have been in the past. This is the nature of the terrain and its remoteness. The humiliation can be taken by the government because they could care less about what happens after they are done ruling, but the people do not take it very easily. This is something that needs to be understood by all.

Pakistan's politicians are not brave; they want to pretend their hands are clean and ISAF is using drones to attack Pakistanis without their consent. So how likely is it that they could work up the courage to pander to the crowd and give ISAF the boot if it chose to invade? Or would they rather pretend such a thing simply isn't happening?

Pakistani politicians are bloody thieves and this is the reason we are in the mess we have on hand but I think the wikileaks have actually raised the public awareness about the double-dealings of our leadership and there will be a lot of challenges politically and internal security wise if they try to look the other way with ground operations by ISAF.

 

[blain2]

Musharaf once i remember saying in his interview that pashtons must the ones to rule afghanistan, and that provoked a huge criticism in and around afghanistan.

See the Time article I posted on the first page. This is not the in-vogue thinking in the security establishment of Pakistan.

Perhaps because they were never free from fighting their opponents and needed pakistan, they were still fighting a huge battle when americans attacked them. Who knows what would they do/would have done if they didnt feel the need from pakistan.

Perhaps but this all the more speaks to Pakistan not being the puppeteers of the Taliban. We can only hope that they realize that making Pakistan insecure is detrimental to both Pakistan's and Afghanistan's interests.

perhaps you know little about their ethno nationalistic desires, as i have said before, it is not only a religious, but also ethno nationalist movemtent.

It could well turn out to be that case, however I think the Pakistani Pashtuns are fairly well integrated into the Pakistani political, economic and cultural identity. Pakistan provides a better development platform for the Pakistani pashtuns than Afghanistan and this is one hope that we have that Pashtuns will continue to see Pakistan as their country (and we certainly do not put any bar on their dealings, travels, relations with their kith and kin living in Afghanistan). So I am not too worried about the Pashtun nationalism at this point in time. In reality, Pashtun nationalism has never been put down in Pakistan. It has its place in the Pakistani culture and is accepted as part of a Pakistani identity. This in my view has been a success story on the Pakistan side to bring the Pashtuns into the national mainstream.

A significant number of our very senior officers in the armed forces are Pashtun and given the importance of the military's influence, this Pashtun aspect should not be missed.

 

[Ahmad]

See the Time article I posted on the first page. This is not the in-vogue thinking in the security establishment of Pakistan.

I do hope that paksitan have come off its past policies, anything that removes the mis trust will help us all.

Perhaps but this all the more speaks to Pakistan not being the puppeteers of the Taliban. We can only hope that they realize that making Pakistan insecure is detrimental to both Pakistan's and Afghanistan's interests.

i put it in a different way, the puppet start to desobey the master.

It could well turn out to be that case, however I think the Pakistani Pashtuns are fairly well integrated into the Pakistani political, economic and cultural identity.

I am sure they are integrated in pakistan and consider it as their home, that is not what i am talking at all. when i say pashtoons, i mean the afghansitani ones.

Pakistan provides a better development platform for the Pakistani pashtuns than Afghanistan

you see the difference in pakistan and afghansitan. in pakistan the pashtons are considered equal citizens although they are not more than15-17% of the population. in afghanistan the pashtons had monopoly on the gov for realy long time and all they did was to discriminate the non pashtoons badly, we were never allowed in the army, all the officials especially the top ones and centre of power was pashton, the only group that were allowed in some lower level offices were tajiks and that was because the tajiks have the highest literacy rate and are skilled people, they simply needed them. our farms and land were taken and given to the pashtoons, we were even killed in large numbers, no wonder why afghanistan is so much fractured today.

So I am not too worried about the Pashtun nationalism at this point in time.

but i am pretty sure that pakistan is worried about pashtoon nationalism on the other side of the border. pashtons in afghanistan no matter nationalist or no nationalist doesnt recognize durand line.

In reality, Pashtun nationalism has never been put down in Pakistan. It has its place in the Pakistani culture and is accepted as part of a Pakistani identity. This in my view has been a success story on the Pakistan side to bring the Pashtuns into the national mainstream.

I am personally against any type of ethno natioanlism be it from any side, but if they exit and if we have to live with it, then i dont see a problem if that nationalism dont cross the limit and go to fascism.

A significant number of our very senior officers in the armed forces are Pashtun and given the importance of the military's influence, this Pashtun aspect should not be missed.

lucky pashtiooins of paksitan, we never had this opportunity in our own home.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Which is why the U.S. has repeatedly urged Pakistan to get its act together by extending the rule of law to these territories. Pakistani sovereignty over some of these areas is nonexistent, hence arguments about "maintaining Pakistani cohesion" are fictional; it's already gone. I suppose the presence of ISAF would merely highlight this humiliating fact.

That is indeed the ultimate target for the PA but PA will pursue it on its own time line rather than acting merely upon US wish...!
And yes the presence of ISAF would greatly effect the cause of public support as PA will be viewed as a force of Infidels which would make such an adventure far more costlier in terms of material, time and life.
Pakistan would take decades to recover from such a war and instability that would follow as its being fought on our lands.

 

[Dalai Lama]

Very interesting read... but this begs the question: What happens if the alliance ends?

 

[r3alist]

The demand is, as I understand it

source please?







surely americans can understand the major issue of american troops actively in pakistani soil?

surely they are not such a maniac state?


anyhow, i still maintain that pakistan should think very carefully before upsetting the balance, the us has been good partner to some extent, thats the truth.

 

[graphican]

I do not think USA would be able to prolong this war even for another 6 months. They are simply exhausted and would want to engage Pakistan into the war and let Pakistan fight their war for them. They are looking for a shoulder to left their burden, that could be any country but never Pakistan. Sorry we are not Idiots!

 

[foxhound]

YouTube - The War You Dont See - 2010 film by John Pilger - spsyed review

Pakistan should stand firm, at no circumstances should allow the USA or NATO/ISAF forces to cause further any mayhem before they intend to leave.

Pakistan needs to ensure that it spends some monies on the US lobbies that are pro-pakistan - Most of the enmity are from right wing christian and zionist lobbies (also not to mention strong Indian lobbies). These hawks are bent on weakening Pakistan and ensuring that the the people of pakistan continues to fight amongst themselves.
The US and its allies are losing this war, Politically they all know it, Militarily it has been shambles (there are a massive amount of special forces in this region and massive air power at their disposal - but all to no avail). The US has a lot of evil bastards that want to dominate the world and attack any nation that may seem to be getting strong. The US people are good people but DUMBASSES...that they cannot think on their own...the media has brainwashed their thinking.....look at John Pilgers video....the war the media does not show!