What's new

Pakistan gets the driver’s seat in Afghan peace process

Paan Singh said:
1)You are right that its unending war and U.S dint came here to solve this issue.They are here for few time and going to withdraw 85% or more its force.Why should they let their soldier killed?ANA will fall or not ..its just thinking ..no bosy can say about it coz ANA is basically force of northern alliance and they are anti taliban.This is wat m saying that U.S will use this force against taliban and may be pakistan with backing of airforce or drones etc ..but ground role of U.S forces is almost finished after 2014.

and regarding to killing of U.S soldiers by afghans,they are varios factors which made them to do so ..

U.S forces insults afghans,their women and abuse them even ...and may other cases too ..
dont look from same angle every time ,there are many factors ;)...

2)Look,presently U.S dont have options and they cant stay here due to cost.They have plans to stay here for long atleast for decade and for it,they will have to bring parties and they will have to fulfill their demands.so U.S is inviting them coz they want peace or settlement so that they can go easily from here and manage to stay here after 2014 by keeping few forces and dont forget that they use ur route and NDN is not functional properly.if U.S goes on fighting then they wont be able to go from here n will get involved in more war ...so their first priority is safe passage and they will have to give something to every party.

3) Yes,they are :) .

AS i said that talibans have realized that they cant control a-stan like before and they are on board to get something.
Situation of a-stan is not like before and you may see taliban party or role in govt but if you say that U.S will give every thing then forget abt it ...

i m following the news related to it ;) ..they are having meetings in UAE

karzai will be removed after 2014.
Click to expand...

Obviously Afghans are ready to fight for another 10 years whilst Americans are unwilling and cant afford to ... Whatever US came for , hasn't been achieved ... The thing is that keeping a token force is not going to benefit US a bit , because they have failed with much larger force and resources since '01 ... If people are seriously thinking that merely keeping a few thousand soldiers which are more likely to consist of trainers and advisors can suddenly make them win this war after withdrawal in 2014 , then they seriously need to think again and again consider the realities on ground ... ANA has fault lines of magnitude that you cant imagine , basically they are just another militia with clean uniforms and shiny weapons , otherwise they are just a bunch of people with drug problems , low morale , zero discipline and inhumane practices ... As @Rafi pointed out , they are most likely to splinter into factions themselves and become a part of the civil war which is more likely to take place ...

I am just saying that the same Afghan army ( ANA ) that is being trained and raised by US , is attacking it ... I do not need to look at it from different angles , because the hatred is there is their hearts and I expect nothing better after the coalition departs ....

2)So basically US doesn't have options and cant afford to stay here but they are going to achieve this by inviting other parties ? Whom , may I ask ? Iran ? Pakistan ? Russia ? India ? Even if i become a devil's advocate here and presume that they are going to , wouldn't the invited party be more interested in protecting its own interests than America's ? :azn: This is no solution , either you are keeping a very large force and fighting with Taliban and other people or you are leaving ... Inviting others or keeping few forces isn't going to help the eagle ... This absurdity of leasing lands for a time period for defense ai'nt gonna work in this era ... Actually , the SDN is a leverage of Pakistan over US , not the other way around ...

3) With just one condition " Every single coalition soldier leaves the country for good " :D Is US okay with that because they aren't ready to listen anything else ...

I know they cant , they just dont realize it ... You are expecting rationality from people that do not use their minds at all ... Why do you think that the negotiations haven't progressed ? Because of the very same condition I mentioned above , you can read up comments of think tanks and analysts , they will tell the same story ... Have I said that US will give everything to Taliban ? :azn: But dont expect Taliban to do it too ... The real question is that can US offer something to every party involved ( every significant militia and faction ) and still keep the neighbors of Afghanistan ( even a few ) happy ? The answer is a flat NO ! Every country bordering the land of Afghanistan supports different factions that do not go well with other ... Situation of Afghanistan is worst than ever before and we expect a civil way to follow after US abandons that country , this time of worse magnitude than what followed Soviet war ...

Karzai doesn't matter at all , what difference he's making now ? He can keep his office till 2050 , the real power holders are sitting elsewhere ...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Capt.Popeye said:
That complete withdrawal is not likely. For one thing there will remain US Airbases in Afghanistan. While troops on the ground will also be concentrated in Cantonment like areas. Some how the portents of "Plan B" are surfacing.
Click to expand...

^
Exactly, the US can never cut and run from Afghanistan, it cannot afford to. Obama key bal waisey he grey nahi hoon gai!
 
RescueRanger said:
^
Exactly, the US can never cut and run from Afghanistan, it cannot afford to. Obama key bal waisey he grey nahi hoon gai!
Click to expand...

@RescueRanger,
RR, may I put forward a 'contrapuntal view' (atleast to many people here): that the continued presence of the US (maybe in reduced numbers) can be helpful to Pakistan.

I'll just say that much for now......
What is your take on that? Then I'll amplify my point.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Capt.Popeye said:
@RescueRanger,
RR, may I put forward a 'contrapuntal view' (atleast to many people here): that the continued presence of the US (maybe in reduced numbers) can be helpful to Pakistan.

I'll just say that much for now......
What is your take on that? Then I'll amplify my point.
Click to expand...

Actually i have always said, that a US presence across the border is better for Pakistan. We have all the cards atm, we make a a good amount of money from the containers and routes, not to mention there is now a booming market in High Risk Haulage, carriers like APL and Move One have made offices in Karachi and charter airlines have set up office in Isbd and Karachi. All this adds to the economy and provides jobs etc.

Then comes the the fact that whilst there is a active US presence in Afghanistan, it relives some pressure from Pak Army. Until the US are in Afghanistan, also since they need Pak for negotiations, we can later on in the year bring up issues to the table, issues like Shamsi airbase etc.

Politically this is good mileage for the parties in the country and spices up the bland nonsense of local fiscal matters, policies and governance. Furthermore, it would serve Pakistan to keep the US for as long in Afghanistan as possible ( i know this is a very selfish viewpoint) but it would be the ideal strategy.

Just my observation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RescueRanger said:
Actually i have always said, that a US presence across the border is better for Pakistan. We have all the cards atm, we make a a good amount of money from the containers and routes, not to mention there is now a booming market in High Risk Haulage, carriers like APL and Move One have made offices in Karachi and charter airlines have set up office in Isbd and Karachi. All this adds to the economy and provides jobs etc.

Then comes the the fact that whilst there is a active US presence in Afghanistan, it relives some pressure from Pak Army. Until the US are in Afghanistan, also since they need Pak for negotiations, we can later on in the year bring up issues to the table, issues like Shamsi airbase etc.

Politically this is good mileage for the parties in the country and spices up the bland nonsense of local fiscal matters, policies and governance. Furthermore, it would serve Pakistan to keep the US for as long in Afghanistan as possible ( i know this is a very selfish viewpoint) but it would be the ideal strategy.

Just my observation.
Click to expand...

Thank you Sir, for your response @RescueRanger.
Some of the advantages are definitely economic as you have rightly said.
And as you have very correctly identified, there are military advantages as well. The US Military can 'harry' or at the very least 'contain' some elements that can be very problematic to Pakistan. Unfortunately, there has not yet been too much 'congruence' between Pakistani and US thinking on this. But I hope that will happen going forward. I do believe that there are just too many 'variables' in Afghanistan now even for Pakistan's comfort. The dividing line between 'allies' and 'foes' is increasingly blurring to the point of becoming non-existent. Alignments of the past will suddenly become ethereal, IMHO. That is where Pakistan needs help (if I may use that expression) to handle matters. Ideally, Afghanistan needs more people to be involved; but not in the militaristic sense. I do even envision a role for Iran. But given the prickly Iran-US relationship at present, that is some more distance over the horizon. But it will steadily become more apparent.

About the politcal aspects (internally) in Pakistan about a continouing US presence, my feeling is that most Politicos in Pakistan are ok with the idea; never mind public utterances. If the US disappears completely from Afghanistan, then who can be bashed?

Finally, if there is at all a sincere desire to stabilise Afghanistan, then some reasonable effort has to be made to involve the Afghans themselves and make them accountable and enabled to sort out their affairs.
After all Afghanistan is not anybody's "Baap ki Zamindari" except of the Afghans themselves.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But on a serious note; what does Pakistan really expect to achieve from being on the driver's seat and the ride? Can any one, particularly from Pakistani point of view throw some light on the issue?
 
To control the inevitable. Crash landing of Afghanistan. It's not our fault that you were fickle in your behavior, chose the wrong side and decided to backstab-us from day one, without any remorse. Karma, just like gravity is a biach!

You do the deed you pay the cost.

Sabawoon_Noorzai said:
But on a serious note; what does Pakistan really expect to achieve from being on the driver's seat and the ride? Can any one, particularly from Pakistani point of view through some light on the issue?
Click to expand...

Mate, more than policy it's geography and the ethnic divide, both of which were in our favor from day one.

KRAIT said:
Pakistan's policy worked. Impressed.
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

ghazi52
Pakistan Afghanistan Border Clashes
Replies
7
Views
885
ghazi52
ghazi52
ghazi52
Six killed, 13 wounded in Kabul suicide bombing
Replies
1
Views
748
ghazi52
ghazi52
ghazi52
Miscreants torch school, detonate IED at police vehicle in KP’s Buner
Replies
0
Views
445
ghazi52
ghazi52
Cash GK
Martial Law in Disguise: 10 Years Imprisonment for Political Rallies in Pakistan
Replies
0
Views
362
Cash GK
Cash GK
ghazi52
PTA gets five proposals for 5G spectrum auction
Replies
0
Views
433
ghazi52
ghazi52

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Military Forum Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom