GlobalVillageSpace
Media Partner
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2017
- Messages
- 993
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
The flaws in the master plan
Global Village Space |
Afrah Jamal |
The master plan chalked out in a piece, ‘Calling Pakistan’s Bluff’ by Whitney Kassel and Philip Reiner in Foreign Affairs (14 July 2017) came laden with glaring flaws. And not just because it decided to present some decidedly soggy looking carrots paired with far too many sticks that threatened to expand U.S. boots on the grounds while pacifying Pak leadership with a limited supply of shiny new military hardware. The pros and cons of such an approach have also been explored by the writers but the overarching theme appeared to support such a move. The piece can now be seen in tandem with recent attempts to strong arm Pakistan by the U.S. Congress that call for curbs on military aid among other things. Some of it has already come to pass with 50 million dollars reimbursement held back from the Coalition Support Fund because Pentagon doesn’t feel enough has been done to justify the hefty price tags.
Read more: Of promises, meddling and delusions: the story of Pak-USA ties
No to Boots on the Ground
“The United States must rethink its approach to neighboring Pakistan, whose active and passive support for terrorist groups such as the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani network undermines Afghanistan’s stability. Whether one believes—as many do—that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) is directly funneling weapons and money to these groups”-Whitney Kassel and Philip Reiner in Foreign Affairs
The article proposed a set of recommendations that question the wisdom of alienating Pakistan yet at the same time put forth suggestions that could potentially lead to a complete breakdown of relations, a move that both countries can ill afford at the moment. “The United States should covertly and overtly attack the insurgent groups that threaten its interests across Pakistan, without apology or concern for the fallout in the U.S.–Pakistani relationship.”
“The United States should covertly and overtly attack the insurgent groups that threaten its interests across Pakistan, without apology or concern for the fallout in the U.S.–Pakistani relationship.”–Whitney Kasseland Philip Reiner in Foreign Affairs
The Abbottabad raid was a one off thing. Drone attacks in the tribal belt considered the wild west of the region, with or without tacit support/agreement of Pak leadership is within bounds. But the counterproductive nature of NATO led operations that push that agreement beyond the badlands to urban centers, without Pakistan’s support/knowledge / say so is precisely why they have not been attempted before. Also, such a measure would be in direct conflict with proposed plans for conducting coordinated operations with Afghanistan formulated to pursue targets on both sides of the divide.
Read more: Pakistan Army engagement in Middle East: Walking a fine line
The True Cost of an Alliance
While the article did try to imagine the consequences and the futility of such a step, it continued to keep that option open, alongside military aid made conditional to Pakistan’s willingness to target insurgents within its borders.
Given that Khyber-4 (an offshoot of Radd-ul-Fassad) launched to deny Daesh a foothold in the region is already underway, a lack of communication and failure to coordinate with all security forces in the region would seriously compromise the integrity of Pak led missions and jeopardize the safety of friendly forces operating in that area.
Both these scenarios are problematic for a multitude of reasons. Given that Khyber-4 (an offshoot of Radd-ul-Fassad) launched to deny Daesh a foothold in the region is already underway, a lack of communication and failure to coordinate with all security forces in the region would seriously compromise the integrity of Pak led missions and jeopardize the safety of friendly forces operating in that area. The enemy would have a field day with such a hair-brained offensive. Moreover, support for the war effort would start to fade, as the article fears.
Read full article......
The flaws in the master plan
Global Village Space |
Afrah Jamal |
The master plan chalked out in a piece, ‘Calling Pakistan’s Bluff’ by Whitney Kassel and Philip Reiner in Foreign Affairs (14 July 2017) came laden with glaring flaws. And not just because it decided to present some decidedly soggy looking carrots paired with far too many sticks that threatened to expand U.S. boots on the grounds while pacifying Pak leadership with a limited supply of shiny new military hardware. The pros and cons of such an approach have also been explored by the writers but the overarching theme appeared to support such a move. The piece can now be seen in tandem with recent attempts to strong arm Pakistan by the U.S. Congress that call for curbs on military aid among other things. Some of it has already come to pass with 50 million dollars reimbursement held back from the Coalition Support Fund because Pentagon doesn’t feel enough has been done to justify the hefty price tags.
Read more: Of promises, meddling and delusions: the story of Pak-USA ties
No to Boots on the Ground
“The United States must rethink its approach to neighboring Pakistan, whose active and passive support for terrorist groups such as the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani network undermines Afghanistan’s stability. Whether one believes—as many do—that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) is directly funneling weapons and money to these groups”-Whitney Kassel and Philip Reiner in Foreign Affairs
The article proposed a set of recommendations that question the wisdom of alienating Pakistan yet at the same time put forth suggestions that could potentially lead to a complete breakdown of relations, a move that both countries can ill afford at the moment. “The United States should covertly and overtly attack the insurgent groups that threaten its interests across Pakistan, without apology or concern for the fallout in the U.S.–Pakistani relationship.”
“The United States should covertly and overtly attack the insurgent groups that threaten its interests across Pakistan, without apology or concern for the fallout in the U.S.–Pakistani relationship.”–Whitney Kasseland Philip Reiner in Foreign Affairs
The Abbottabad raid was a one off thing. Drone attacks in the tribal belt considered the wild west of the region, with or without tacit support/agreement of Pak leadership is within bounds. But the counterproductive nature of NATO led operations that push that agreement beyond the badlands to urban centers, without Pakistan’s support/knowledge / say so is precisely why they have not been attempted before. Also, such a measure would be in direct conflict with proposed plans for conducting coordinated operations with Afghanistan formulated to pursue targets on both sides of the divide.
Read more: Pakistan Army engagement in Middle East: Walking a fine line
The True Cost of an Alliance
While the article did try to imagine the consequences and the futility of such a step, it continued to keep that option open, alongside military aid made conditional to Pakistan’s willingness to target insurgents within its borders.
Given that Khyber-4 (an offshoot of Radd-ul-Fassad) launched to deny Daesh a foothold in the region is already underway, a lack of communication and failure to coordinate with all security forces in the region would seriously compromise the integrity of Pak led missions and jeopardize the safety of friendly forces operating in that area.
Both these scenarios are problematic for a multitude of reasons. Given that Khyber-4 (an offshoot of Radd-ul-Fassad) launched to deny Daesh a foothold in the region is already underway, a lack of communication and failure to coordinate with all security forces in the region would seriously compromise the integrity of Pak led missions and jeopardize the safety of friendly forces operating in that area. The enemy would have a field day with such a hair-brained offensive. Moreover, support for the war effort would start to fade, as the article fears.
Read full article......
The flaws in the master plan
