RescueRanger
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2008
- Messages
- 16,370
- Reaction score
- 244
- Country
- Location
Pakistan the next American enemy?
- Thread starter RescueRanger
- Start date
Argus Panoptes
BANNED
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2013
- Messages
- 4,065
- Reaction score
- 0
No Sir, there is not need to worry, since we have it on good authority that Pakistan will surely survive, but USA may or may not be here in the next 25 years.
So as long as we can rough it out for the next few years, we will be all right. China will soon be #1 and USA will go the way of USSR, and we will be riding high. All is well. There is nothing to worry about, apparently.
(I do have a few nagging doubts though.)
Menace2Society
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- May 2, 2011
- Messages
- 10,410
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
They already tried and failed and now have made the sensible decision to make peace and leave the region. If they had carried on trying they would have bankrupted themselves.
They can't break us, nobody can. We are modern day Sparta.
They can't break us, nobody can. We are modern day Sparta.
Star Wars
BANNED
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
- Messages
- 12,446
- Reaction score
- -14
- Country
- Location
Looking at the past American actions on supporting supposed " freedom fighters " in Syria and Libya your Baluchistan might be next on the list of oppressed people being ruled by evil people ( not my opinion mind u) ....
you dont think they tried?? with the help of your dear country!!
they tried sectarian conflict first in KPK and FATA and lately in Baluchistan but luckily we blame our weather problems on America so why wont we not only blame but also believe all this is Pakistan is being done by America. Americans are dis-hearted almost giving up. They joined Indian hoping they will know better about us and how to break us but now they will go back cursing these chutias
now they are wondering how many billions spend on this was it worth it. The best part is all money $$ spent on disturbing/breaking Pakistan actually helped our bad economy.
CENTCOM
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2010
- Messages
- 1,519
- Reaction score
- 34
- Country
- Location
Our failure to understand the importance of working together to stabilize the region only undermines our common sacrifices. We’ve seen the negatives of staying on the opposite sides of the fence. We are committed to creating a healthy working relationship and preventing any issues from arising. And that’s why you see our officials from the highest level meet and address our shared concerns regularly. It is in our best interest to have a safe and secure Pakistan. In a written statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee last week, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, also emphasized the importance of shared cooperation between our forces. This is what he said: “Our engagements, and especially our security assistance programs, are essential for effective military cooperation between our two countries. These relationships allow us to engage Pakistan in clearly defined areas of shared concern such as maintaining regional stability, curbing violent extremism, and countering the threat of improvised explosive devices.”
Ali Khan
DET, United States Central Command
Gandhi G in da house
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 9,475
- Reaction score
- -24
- Country
- Location
They already are. Some Americans see it as clearly as daylight. Some still have that head in the sand approach.
anonymus
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,870
- Reaction score
- -7
- Country
- Location
DESERT FIGHTER
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2010
- Messages
- 46,973
- Reaction score
- 95
- Country
- Location
A new-look foreign policy?
By M Ziauddin
Published: July 24, 2013
Let us stop looking at China through the eyes of our 1960s’ generation. It is no more a country fenced in under a bamboo curtain looking out only through a narrow Pakistani window. It has gone global since 1979. Today, China is an economic giant, second only to the US in size. With India alone, the size of its annual trade is $60 billion, expected to reach $100 billion soon against an annual trade of no more than about $12 billion with Pakistan and anticipating no dramatic change for the better in the near future. Against this backdrop, when one describes the Pakistan-China relationship as being higher than Himalayas, deeper than oceans and sweeter than honey, it sounds more like a boring cliche. Of course, this description could be true to some extent if applied to our strategic relationship with China. But strategic relations without the underpinning of strong economic ties have been known to have withered away when either of the two partners would, dictated by changing self-interests, develop new or mutually opposing strategic interests. That this has not happened to the Pakistan-China relationship so far is no guarantee that it would never happen. So, to avert that eventuality, we need to start focusing vigorously, without losing any more time, on attracting as much Chinese investment as possible in the manufacturing sectors, which have become economically unviable in China because of rising labour costs in that country.
The way the decades-long Pentagon-GHQ strategic relationship, sans any significant trade or investment ties, has gone into a tailspin in recent years reinforces this argument. Had these relations been buttressed by meaningful bilateral economic cooperation rather than keeping them solely dependent on defence cooperation they would, perhaps, have survived the recent widening of the trust deficit between the two, with Washington and Islamabad suspecting each other’s Afghan endgame intentions. So, let us also stop looking at the US through the eyes of our Cold War generation. Superpowers don’t have friends. They have clients. If we don’t wish to remain a client of the US anymore, we better not be on its wrong side as well. Let us not try playing games with it, like using the China option to neutralise US influence in the region or using the Afghan Taliban in our ‘custody’ and our access to the inaccessible-to-the-world Mullah Omar to play the spoiler in the Afghan endgame. In the first place, China would never go that far for our sake. Secondly, without the assistance of Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which the US would see to it would not be forthcoming this time around, there is no future for a Talibanised Afghanistan. Also, no one in the neighbourhood, including China, Pakistan, Iran or the Central Asian countries, would feel secure with the Taliban back in Kabul.
So, the best option for Pakistan is to remain relevant in the endgame, not by being a US client or being a spoiler but by being a pragmatic facilitator in the global efforts to restore peace and stability to Afghanistan through an Afghan-led and Afghan-owned reconciliation process. The signals coming from Washington are very clear. The US wants to give India a role in the post-withdrawal Afghanistan. That is, perhaps, why US Secretary of State John Kerry visited New Delhi last month and currently, the US Vice-President, Joe Biden, is visiting India. Both have avoided Pakistan. We had only a low-level US official visiting us in recent weeks in the person of Af-Pak US representative James Dobbins. So, pragmatism further dictates that we stop wasting our breath resisting India’s entry into the Afghan endgame. India has galloped way away from Pakistan economically, enhancing the asymmetry already existing between our two countries. Its economic ties with the sole superpower, the US, and the emerging Asian superpower, China, have expanded the vested interests of the two in New Delhi’s political well-being. Let us profit from the emerging situation by enhancing our own economic ties with India without, of course, giving up our historic positions on bilateral disputes. By the way, nothing and nobody can undo the geographical, cultural and ethnic ties that exist between Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is a gift of nature. So, as a first step, let us offer MFN status to India and follow up by providing a New Delhi transit trade facility to Afghanistan and beyond. This will also guarantee that India, in its own economic interests, would ensure peace in Pakistan by keeping RAW on a leash.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 24th, 2013.
By M Ziauddin
Published: July 24, 2013
Let us stop looking at China through the eyes of our 1960s’ generation. It is no more a country fenced in under a bamboo curtain looking out only through a narrow Pakistani window. It has gone global since 1979. Today, China is an economic giant, second only to the US in size. With India alone, the size of its annual trade is $60 billion, expected to reach $100 billion soon against an annual trade of no more than about $12 billion with Pakistan and anticipating no dramatic change for the better in the near future. Against this backdrop, when one describes the Pakistan-China relationship as being higher than Himalayas, deeper than oceans and sweeter than honey, it sounds more like a boring cliche. Of course, this description could be true to some extent if applied to our strategic relationship with China. But strategic relations without the underpinning of strong economic ties have been known to have withered away when either of the two partners would, dictated by changing self-interests, develop new or mutually opposing strategic interests. That this has not happened to the Pakistan-China relationship so far is no guarantee that it would never happen. So, to avert that eventuality, we need to start focusing vigorously, without losing any more time, on attracting as much Chinese investment as possible in the manufacturing sectors, which have become economically unviable in China because of rising labour costs in that country.
The way the decades-long Pentagon-GHQ strategic relationship, sans any significant trade or investment ties, has gone into a tailspin in recent years reinforces this argument. Had these relations been buttressed by meaningful bilateral economic cooperation rather than keeping them solely dependent on defence cooperation they would, perhaps, have survived the recent widening of the trust deficit between the two, with Washington and Islamabad suspecting each other’s Afghan endgame intentions. So, let us also stop looking at the US through the eyes of our Cold War generation. Superpowers don’t have friends. They have clients. If we don’t wish to remain a client of the US anymore, we better not be on its wrong side as well. Let us not try playing games with it, like using the China option to neutralise US influence in the region or using the Afghan Taliban in our ‘custody’ and our access to the inaccessible-to-the-world Mullah Omar to play the spoiler in the Afghan endgame. In the first place, China would never go that far for our sake. Secondly, without the assistance of Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which the US would see to it would not be forthcoming this time around, there is no future for a Talibanised Afghanistan. Also, no one in the neighbourhood, including China, Pakistan, Iran or the Central Asian countries, would feel secure with the Taliban back in Kabul.
So, the best option for Pakistan is to remain relevant in the endgame, not by being a US client or being a spoiler but by being a pragmatic facilitator in the global efforts to restore peace and stability to Afghanistan through an Afghan-led and Afghan-owned reconciliation process. The signals coming from Washington are very clear. The US wants to give India a role in the post-withdrawal Afghanistan. That is, perhaps, why US Secretary of State John Kerry visited New Delhi last month and currently, the US Vice-President, Joe Biden, is visiting India. Both have avoided Pakistan. We had only a low-level US official visiting us in recent weeks in the person of Af-Pak US representative James Dobbins. So, pragmatism further dictates that we stop wasting our breath resisting India’s entry into the Afghan endgame. India has galloped way away from Pakistan economically, enhancing the asymmetry already existing between our two countries. Its economic ties with the sole superpower, the US, and the emerging Asian superpower, China, have expanded the vested interests of the two in New Delhi’s political well-being. Let us profit from the emerging situation by enhancing our own economic ties with India without, of course, giving up our historic positions on bilateral disputes. By the way, nothing and nobody can undo the geographical, cultural and ethnic ties that exist between Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is a gift of nature. So, as a first step, let us offer MFN status to India and follow up by providing a New Delhi transit trade facility to Afghanistan and beyond. This will also guarantee that India, in its own economic interests, would ensure peace in Pakistan by keeping RAW on a leash.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 24th, 2013.
Menace2Society
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- May 2, 2011
- Messages
- 10,410
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
They can talk about giving India a post NATO role all they want, ground realities are Afghans are our brothers and we will work closely to ensure a foreign invader never comes again on our shores.
Be it NATO, India or anyone else.
Current Afghan govt is not legitimate, they are not democratically elected. The voice of the people demand Taliban, and they control 80% of territory if not more.
Once NATO leave Karzai will be no more and India will be pushed aside. To counter this India will create civil war in the country, this is their history, this is what they do when things don't go their way, create suffering to others. Afghans know this and so do we, we will be prepared.
The $2billion a year India have spent since NATO arrived will be a complete waste, you can't just buy Afghans affection, they know exactly what your intentions are.
Be it NATO, India or anyone else.
Current Afghan govt is not legitimate, they are not democratically elected. The voice of the people demand Taliban, and they control 80% of territory if not more.
Once NATO leave Karzai will be no more and India will be pushed aside. To counter this India will create civil war in the country, this is their history, this is what they do when things don't go their way, create suffering to others. Afghans know this and so do we, we will be prepared.
The $2billion a year India have spent since NATO arrived will be a complete waste, you can't just buy Afghans affection, they know exactly what your intentions are.
RescueRanger
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2008
- Messages
- 16,370
- Reaction score
- 244
- Country
- Location
They can't do in Baluchistan what they have done in Syria. Too many factors including Iran, china and of course war fatigue. Others have tried but failed.
Star Wars
BANNED
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
- Messages
- 12,446
- Reaction score
- -14
- Country
- Location
They can't do in Baluchistan what they have done in Syria. Too many factors including Iran, china and of course war fatigue. Others have tried but failed.
They are having hard time in Syria as it is and not to mention loosing the fight .. So any plans on Baluchistan will only happen once Syria and Iran has been Delt with ... This whole Middle east war has been preplanned long time back .... Oil for Blood
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
- Article
