US, Pakistan need to establish each other’s limitations

[Tiki Tam Tam]

It is not 'wise to listen to them', their policy prescriptions aren't much more than 'bomb into submission' - an appearance of 'listening', and occasionally acting, is indeed pragmatic.

As to a 'better idea', what the military is attempting in FATA is the 'better idea'. Since ideology cannot be destroyed, it must be molded to suit our aims, and eventually conform to the mainstream.

Pakistan's concerns stem from possible US 'invasions' of FATA - the occasional air strikes are a necessary annoyance (part of the occasional show of having 'listened to the US') and followed by rapid condemnation ensure that the majority of the opinion in Pakistan and FATA remains focused on the US and its 'nefarious intentions'.

It works out to Pakistan's advantage in that respect.

Any serious ground invasion to achieve any sort of tangible results in FATA and Afghanistan cannot take place without a massive redeployment from Iraq to Afghanistan - yet as you said the US does not want to abandon either.

The status quo will continue, and Pakistan will hopefully have time to marginalize the more virulent anti-state Taliban/AQ groups in FATA.

AM,

It is actually wise to listen to them since Pakistan relies so much on them. One cannot bite the hand which controls the trade and the loans from WB and IMF that engines Pakistan’s economy and the military eqpt. That is the uneasy truth that Pakistan has to get used to!

One cannot appear to listen and do something else. That would be running with the hares and hunting with the hound and that is how it breaks the faith as it has happened.

While it is good to break the ideology, I am afraid it is too deep rooted in belief that it is the true path, it is impossible to break with sops and lollies. Frankly, I don’t see any path where one can break the beliefs of these fanatics, who has no time for reason and logic or even for their own lives!!

One can’t stop the US actions, no matter how shrill is the protestations. Wasn’t there another of the strikes that killed the AQ Chemical and Biological expert, amongst others?
And the US does not care for the ‘protests’, since they know that it is for the gallery!!

It does not work out to Pakistan's advantage in that respect since the Pakistani awam is not that illiterate or unworldly as you make it out to be.

The US will beef up Afghanistan with troops from Iraq. The are desperate to play to their domestic audience that indeed things are near normal in Iraq and so they can switch to another spot.

I sure hope that Pakistan marginalises the Taliban and other terrorists`!

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

I do not underestimate the Americans...have worked with many and befriended more, and I do not think that they are soft and can take and give just as good as any others. However there is a cost associated with staying in Afghanistan which may not be worth it in the long run to pay....the issue in Afghanistan is becoming less and less of the AQ and more of Pakhtuns feeling alienated and sidelined.

Americans will not leave Iraq because there are other issues to safeguard...Afghanistan's challenges are different and aside from a security consideration, not as strategically important as those of Iraq. While I am not suggesting that Americans will leave Afghanistan and the Tribal areas in its current form, eventually some understanding will be reached allowing the Pakhtun tribes scattered across Pakistan and Afghanistan to assert themselves better in Afghanistan. There simply is no other option. For any US President, that would be the win...forget about eliminating tribals in FATA or winning them over through reform in the next 10 years. Its a much bigger task that requires a lot of long term effort (mostly economic and social).

The cost of the US staying in Afghanistan is worth the US’ while. Geostrategy cannot be abandoned.

By its presence in Afghanistan, it sanitises all other big power interest in Afghanistan, be it Russia or China or anyone else.

Afghanistan is the cockpit into Pakistan and South Asia, a peep into China (Xinjiang) and into the underbelly of Russia i.e. CAR (Central Asian Republics) and also exert influence on the oil and economy of those nations!

It also allows the US to squeeze Iran from both sides!!

Therefore, it would be wishful thinking that the US will upstake and leave! They will continue to have a sizeable presence both in Iraq and Afghanistan since both are cornerstone to their survival as the sole global superpower.

 

[blain2]

The cost of the US staying in Afghanistan is worth the US’ while. Geostrategy cannot be abandoned.

By its presence in Afghanistan, it sanitises all other big power interest in Afghanistan, be it Russia or China or anyone else.

Afghanistan is the cockpit into Pakistan and South Asia, a peep into China (Xinjiang) and into the underbelly of Russia i.e. CAR (Central Asian Republics) and also exert influence on the oil and economy of those nations!

It also allows the US to squeeze Iran from both sides!!

Therefore, it would be wishful thinking that the US will upstake and leave! They will continue to have a sizeable presence both in Iraq and Afghanistan since both are cornerstone to their survival as the sole global superpower.

Even if they decide to prolong their stay, they will take into consideration some ground realities. The Americans have done business with the Taliban of Mullah Omar so I am not too worried about them having a presence and influence in Afghanistan. They can ensure that they have some influence one way or the other...eEventually Pakistani considerations with regards to the Pakhtun issue will be addressed by the Americans to make their own stay less troublesome.

What remains to be seen is how comfortable the others (Russians, Iranians, Chinese etc.) make this stay for the Americans....Americans will make sacrifices in men and material to attain a favorable environment so they can pull out while ensuring their interests are safeguarded, however the American public will not support an indefinite basing of US forces in Afghanistan in the form of an occupational force especially when the Pakhtuns continue to take pot shots and inflicting casualties over the next 5-10 years.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Salim,
Don't mistake my opinion as bravado that 'Pakistan does not have to listen' - it does, but it does not have to do so at the expense of its own interests.

I am advocating 'selective listening', rather than completely ignoring or completely kowtowing. In essence, I am paraphrasing what the title of the thread suggests, 'understanding and establishing each others limitations".

NATO has its compulsions that preclude it from taking action against the narcotics and weapons trade that fuels the Taliban on both sides, and it has no allies in Afghanistan other than Karzai and his motley crew. Pakistan has its own - what is necessary is that Pakistan conveys why it is restrained from 'doing more' than it is.

What I am pointing out is that unless the US wants to destabilize the region more than it already is (and perhaps it does, to allow more space to India vis a vis China), and help in ushering in an Islamist government in Pakistan, it has little room to do more than the occasional air strikes and continued pressure, both of which are acceptable to a degree from Pakistan's POV.

A resolution to the Afghan issue will not come about without all the parties involved having their concerned addressed - so understanding each others positions and constraints is essential.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Salim,
Don't mistake my opinion as bravado that 'Pakistan does not have to listen' - it does, but it does not have to do so at the expense of its own interests.

I am advocating 'selective listening', rather than completely ignoring or completely kowtowing. In essence, I am paraphrasing what the title of the thread suggests, 'understanding and establishing each others limitations".

NATO has its compulsions that preclude it from taking action against the narcotics and weapons trade that fuels the Taliban on both sides, and it has no allies in Afghanistan other than Karzai and his motley crew. Pakistan has its own - what is necessary is that Pakistan conveys why it is restrained from 'doing more' than it is.

What I am pointing out is that unless the US wants to destabilize the region more than it already is (and perhaps it does, to allow more space to India vis a vis China), and help in ushering in an Islamist government in Pakistan, it has little room to do more than the occasional air strikes and continued pressure, both of which are acceptable to a degree from Pakistan's POV.

A resolution to the Afghan issue will not come about without all the parties involved having their concerned addressed - so understanding each others positions and constraints is essential.

The US does not want to destabilise the region. It merely wants to ensure
Afghanistan is in her sphere of influence and have their advanced guard in the region for quick reaction to protect her interest.

India has no role in this because the US will hardly allow anyone to poach her preserve.

If an Islamist govt comes to Pakistan, then it will be easier for the US to be more actionable.

Remember, the US is in Afghanistan solely for her interest and purpose and for nobody else!!

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Even if they decide to prolong their stay, they will take into consideration some ground realities. The Americans have done business with the Taliban of Mullah Omar so I am not too worried about them having a presence and influence in Afghanistan. They can ensure that they have some influence one way or the other...eEventually Pakistani considerations with regards to the Pakhtun issue will be addressed by the Americans to make their own stay less troublesome.

What remains to be seen is how comfortable the others (Russians, Iranians, Chinese etc.) make this stay for the Americans....Americans will make sacrifices in men and material to attain a favorable environment so they can pull out while ensuring their interests are safeguarded, however the American public will not support an indefinite basing of US forces in Afghanistan in the form of an occupational force especially when the Pakhtuns continue to take pot shots and inflicting casualties over the next 5-10 years.

Nothing is troublesome for the US.

They have overcome their phobia of bodybags. In fact, bodybags steel their resolve even more!

Like the Islamic people feel that the War on Terror is a War on Islam and are united in thought, the US feels that 9/11 is a War on the US and are equally resolved as the Islamic people. Make no mistake about that!

The present state of the world economy has led the US to be more resolved to ensure that the mineral wealth that powers economy is under their control and money is a big deal to the Americans! They would rather die than be beggared!

China is too concerned with her own problems to add to her problems. Russia is laughing up its sleeve that someone else is teaching Pakistan a lesson for them. Iranians are too busy looking West and are not too fond of Sunnis either or allowing them to dominate the Islamic world!!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The US does not want to destabilise the region. It merely wants to ensure
Afghanistan is in her sphere of influence and have their advanced guard in the region for quick reaction to protect her interest.

India has no role in this because the US will hardly allow anyone to poach her preserve.

If an Islamist govt comes to Pakistan, then it will be easier for the US to be more actionable.

Remember, the US is in Afghanistan solely for her interest and purpose and for nobody else!!

An Islamist government may perhaps make it easier for the US to be 'actionable', though an Islamist government in Iran has held the US at bay for a while now (not because of any military might, but because 'enough' US interests can be damaged, and enough damage on the global economy inflicted), but 'more action' leads to the very problems I outlined - the region becomes more unstable.

An Islamist, democratically government in Pakistan will be openly hostile to any unilateral US action in Pakistan, and there will be no more room for even tacit approval of ops in FATA.

The only choices left will be open aggression against Pakistani SF's deployed to keep the US out, which is unlikely to happen, as in the case of Iran.

Therefore, I in fact see less room for "Action", barring open hostilities between Pakistan and NATO.

A non-ideological government that cares enough for the economy and the welfare of the people to continue to support the US to a degree (as it is currently) while attempting to control the Taliban from within, keeping in mind public opinion and other dynamics, remains the best option.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

An Islamist government may perhaps make it easier for the US to be 'actionable', though an Islamist government in Iran has held the US at bay for a while now (not because of any military might, but because 'enough' US interests can be damaged, and enough damage on the global economy inflicted), but 'more action' leads to the very problems I outlined - the region becomes more unstable.

An Islamist, democratically government in Pakistan will be openly hostile to any unilateral US action in Pakistan, and there will be no more room for even tacit approval of ops in FATA.

The only choices left will be open aggression against Pakistani SF's deployed to keep the US out, which is unlikely to happen, as in the case of Iran.

It is valid that Iran has been able to shore up against the US - just about! That is because Russia is playing the spoiler. But in so far as an Islamist ruled Pakistan is concerned, Russia would not lift a finger in support because Pakistan supplied the forces that threw them out of Pakistan. China would not endanger itself to start a war with the US - they did not do so when even when they could in the Indo Pak conflicts. And anyway, China is mortally worried about the Islamic influence oozing into Xinjiang or subverting the Huis! Iran will never help a Sunni Islamist nation! They want to be the leaders and knights in shining armour of Islam and not allow any space to the Sunnis.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It is valid that Iran has been able to shore up against the US - just about! That is because Russia is playing the spoiler. But in so far as an Islamist ruled Pakistan is concerned, Russia would not lift a finger in support because Pakistan supplied the forces that threw them out of Pakistan. China would not endanger itself to start a war with the US - they did not do so when even when they could in the Indo Pak conflicts. And anyway, China is mortally worried about the Islamic influence oozing into Xinjiang or subverting the Huis! Iran will never help a Sunni Islamist nation! They want to be the leaders and knights in shining armour of Islam and not allow any space to the Sunnis.

It isn't about who will help - it is about destabilizing the region, and how much damage Pakistan can inflict when it sees the writing on the wall (as would Iran, were a US or Israeli attack/invasion imminent).

China, and the world, will be affected far more by a Pakistan that is completely unstable with little central control and a population that will in fact then have legitimate cause to hate the West and be completely radicalized. Stabilizing Afghanistan, or anything else in the region, is going to be a distant dream at that point.

The best solution remains that which I articulated at the end of my last post:

"A non-ideological government that cares enough for the economy and the welfare of the people to continue to support the US to a degree (as it is currently) while attempting to control the Taliban from within, keeping in mind public opinion and other dynamics, remains the best option."

 

[blain2]

Nothing is troublesome for the US.

They have overcome their phobia of bodybags. In fact, bodybags steel their resolve even more!

Like the Islamic people feel that the War on Terror is a War on Islam and are united in thought, the US feels that 9/11 is a War on the US and are equally resolved as the Islamic people. Make no mistake about that!

The present state of the world economy has led the US to be more resolved to ensure that the mineral wealth that powers economy is under their control and money is a big deal to the Americans! They would rather die than be beggared!

China is too concerned with her own problems to add to her problems. Russia is laughing up its sleeve that someone else is teaching Pakistan a lesson for them. Iranians are too busy looking West and are not too fond of Sunnis either or allowing them to dominate the Islamic world!!

The issue is not about body bags or their phobia with these bags...the economy is in dire straits...the debt is spiraling out of control..it is an issue that has made to the top leaving both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in the lurch...what both the Presidential candidates are talking about is an exit strategy with a favorable outcome thus all this talk of getting Pakistan to do more. So it does not take a genius to figure out that that the Counter Insurgency in Afghanistan may not need to be shouldered by the US Armed Forces. It will be some time before the exit, but it will happen. They have to find the right kind of support structure to leave in place before exiting which would ensure that American interests are safeguarded. The situation in Afghanistan is not like that of the Middle East where countries (KSA, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain) are fine with a US military presence. Due to such differences, long term American military presence in Afghanistan is suspect. What I do not rule out is that there will be considerable US influence over the Country and if they include the Pakhtuns, all the better for them.

 

[muse]

Agnostic

There is a book called "The Tipping Point" - you may find it informative when it comes to the idea that "ideology cannot be defeated" .

 

[muse]

Editorial from khaleej times

A relationship under strain

29 July 2008
FOR the first time in nearly a decade, the US is hosting a Pakistani leader who is NOT Musharraf. Prime Minister Gilani is supposed to be the elected leader of his country. He was picked up by the governing PPP and the alliance that includes Nawaz Sharif's PML after the extraordinary upheavals and elections earlier this year.

You would think the historic mandate this government were gifted following the assassination of Benazir Bhutto would make Prime Minister Gilani an effective leader at home and abroad.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. As Gilani visits Washington for his first high profile encounter with the US leadership, he is dismissed as a lightweight at home and is taken with little seriousness abroad.

His first 100 days have been remarkably unremarkable after all those grand promises by the coalition. No government has perhaps ever generated so much hope and optimism and then crashed to such all-round disappointment.

But if this is the state of affairs, credit should largely go to Gilani's own party and allies. He has been given an impossibly difficult task with little or no power. His hands are virtually tied behind his back even as his long-harried people hope for miracles and deliverance from their woes.

But the most difficult challenge Gilani faces is on external front, especially from the increasingly impatient Americans. He is in Washington at a time when there are growing calls in the US media and establishment to "deal with Pakistan."

Even an otherwise reasonable politician like Barack Obama has to be seen to be plumping for 'military action' inside Pakistan to bring peace to Afghanistan that he insists is the 'main front' of the US war.

During his interaction with President Bush and other US leaders, Gilani is sure to be pressed all over again to "do more" for America's terror war.

Again, the Pak leader finds himself on a sticky wicket in dealing with the US as well because even though he is the elected leader of Pakistan, the buck still stops elsewhere — perhaps with Musharraf, with the army and PPP boss Zardari.

Which is why the PM is unlikely to find the going easy in Washington. Nevertheless, he has no choice but try his best to persuade the friends in White House that Pakistan is indeed doing all it can to fight the militants along the Pak-Afghan border.

In fact, if he has to win the respect of his people back home — and the US allies — he will have to assert himself warning his hosts to stop pushing the nuclear-armed Pakistan around like a banana republic.

The country has already paid an exponential price by joining Bush's war, the most recent being the assassination of Benazir, not to mention the thousands of innocent civilians who have been caught in the crossfire of militants and security forces. So the least the US politicians can do to acknowledge Pakistan's contribution is stop lecturing and demonising it.

 

[Interceptor]

It matters not what people think.

It matters what Bush thinks.

And more than that Cheney on whose policies of Energy and Defence the whole subchiz rests!!

He is the American equivalent of Rasputin!

and Rasoutin's fate was death, the end.

Not really...

Pakistan needs to make its own policies, and have a consensus based foreign policy that would reflect its surroundings not on the say of other, we must make the rules before inviting other player, otherwise we will be cheated.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

and Rasoutin's fate was death, the end.

Not really...

Pakistan needs to make its own policies, and have a consensus based foreign policy that would reflect its surroundings not on the say of other, we must make the rules before inviting other player, otherwise we will be cheated.

Actually, there is nothing wrong with Pakistan. It is as good as any other country.

It has just to ensure that the civil govt is supreme and not the Army or the ISI.

I think Icecold called Gilani is Mr 10%'s candidate! Very insulting!

Imagine the civilian PM of Pakistan's position! He passes an order and the Army and the ISI forces him to back down in a day and that too when he is on foreign soil!!

Paksitanis themselves have no respect for the Nation themselves, so why blame others? Musharraf in a pique said Pakistani women get themselves raped to go abroad!

I am not criticising Pakistan, but it is time to see how loose actions can ruin a Nation's reputation.

Manmohan can also be said to be Sonia's stooge. Yet, he show that he is is the Boss, when against all advice including of Sonia, chucked the Communist, faced the Trust vote and laid his Fate on the table. It is another matter how the Congress and their new found allies did what they did!

We are equally lousy. Only it is that we come out better!

 

[IceCold]

Actually, there is nothing wrong with Pakistan. It is as good as any other country.

It has just to ensure that the civil govt is supreme and not the Army or the ISI.

I think Icecold called Gilani is Mr 10%'s candidate! Very insulting!

Imagine the civilian PM of Pakistan's position! He passes an order and the Army and the ISI forces him to back down in a day and that too when he is on foreign soil!!

Paksitanis themselves have no respect for the Nation themselves, so why blame others? Musharraf in a pique said Pakistani women get themselves raped to go abroad!

I am not criticising Pakistan, but it is time to see how loose actions can ruin a Nation's reputation.

Manmohan can also be said to be Sonia's stooge. Yet, he show that he is is the Boss, when against all advice including of Sonia, chucked the Communist, faced the Trust vote and laid his Fate on the table. It is another matter how the Congress and their new found allies did what they did!

We are equally lousy. Only it is that we come out better!

This is because Manmohan stood up even when all odds were against him, when Gillani would do something like that then tell me. Till then i am happy that ISI remains out of the civilian control. By the way i can understand the paranoia that you guys have about the ISI.