US-PAKISTAN RELATIONSHIP

[jeypore]

No matter Mr. Khan how US has executed the afgan war or with religious tone that you have mentioned, there is that tenacity of the US people to erricate these talibs on the land they are, even with a current president who is not a religious zealot. Likewise, the same tenacity is not shown from there biggest allie on fight against terrorism, In so doing has really dragged this further, and created more chaos.

----this aggression was doomed for failure right from the day of its inception.

This aggression is rightfully so, whenever the war is acted upon in the most cruelist kind, 9/11 was a wake up call for the world and the cancer that is plaguing the world today. I do not believe it is doomed for failure, mistake have been made and new lesson have been taught, Infact I see a brighter future because certain countries are focued on the real treath, and the dedication of erridication.

 

[TruthSeeker]

The "aggression" , really it was retribution, in Afghanistan was over with by the end of 2002. What has happened since is not aggression on the part of the US, NATO and the GoA, but an attempt at nation-building in the face of aggression from the irhabis and their supporters. The sad fact is that Afghanistan is too little a nation and we have not been able to make it one. It is a collection of tribes still waiting for its Jinnah.

 

[muse]

A quote from the introduction to Ahmad Rashid's "Descent into Chaos: The U.S and the disaster in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia.



"It was an Orwellian experience to visit Washington during Bush's first term. Outsiders like me found it remarkable that a U.S. president could live in such an unreal world, where the entire military and intelligence establishments were so gullible, the media so complacent, Congress so unquestioning-all of them involved in feeding half-truths to the American public. "Official intelligence analysis was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions." wrote Paul Pillar, a former senior CIA official. I feared the worst kind of criticism when I made these points to young American students during a tecture tour of U.S. university campuses just before the Iraq war begna. However, my ideas were well recieved and applauded. It became apparent to me that most Americans had the right instincts by they were poorly educated about world history, geography and politics that they could not make political decisions for themselves about the world outside and left such choices to their leaders. The necons counted on just this ignorance and compliance to conduct their foriegn policy.

Compared to the pre-9/11 isolationism, the necon ideology now focused on keeping the American public in a constant state of fear, with looming exsaggerated threats and potential war...."

 

[TruthSeeker]

Compared to the pre-9/11 isolationism, the necon ideology now focused on keeping the American public in a constant state of fear, with looming exsaggerated threats and potential war...."[/SIZE][/FONT]

By bringing in the "neocon" argument what are you really implying? That the 9/11 response was hi-jacked to serve Israel?, hence the move into Iraq? We stay in Afghanistan, the "thorn in our relations with Pakistan, because our war with al Qaeda, and its buddies, is not done there until the Afghanis can behave like a nation. I don't understand what is the point about "neo-cons". What do you think their agenda/philosophy is/was? As far as I understand it, it may be summarized by the phrase: "Let's make the world safe for Israel." How is that relevant to the US/Pakistan relationship?

 

[jeypore]

muse;357690A quote from the introduction to Ahmad Rashid's "Descent into Chaos: The U.S and the disaster in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia.



"It was an Orwellian experience to visit Washington during Bush's first term. Outsiders like me found it remarkable that a U.S. president could live in such an unreal world, where the entire military and intelligence establishments were so gullible, the media so complacent, Congress so unquestioning-all of them involved in feeding half-truths to the American public. "Official intelligence analysis was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions." wrote Paul Pillar, a former senior CIA official. I feared the worst kind of criticism when I made these points to young American students during a tecture tour of U.S. university campuses just before the Iraq war begna. However, my ideas were well recieved and applauded. It became apparent to me that most Americans had the right instincts by they were poorly educated about world history, geography and politics that they could not make political decisions for themselves about the world outside and left such choices to their leaders. The necons counted on just this ignorance and compliance to conduct their foriegn policy.

Americans have lived in a isloation society to the world. Infact, Ronald Reagan theme was long it does not affect my home, strategy, in so doing acted as a policeman to the world. There is nothing new to this that Mr. Rashid's is so surprise about. It really took a wake up call for the Americans for the real threat to American.

Compared to the pre-9/11 isolationism, the necon ideology now focused on keeping the American public in a constant state of fear, with looming exsaggerated threats and potential war....

And why not!!! It should never happen again.

And this Neocon business. One just needs to see the countries that implement the Neocon ideals and see where they stand in the world today.

 

[zraver]

@ S2

US need first to understand what is wrong with US policies in muslim world?

Not a damn thing, as a sovereign nation we are free to deal with who we want. If you don't like it too bad. People in the Muslim world generally tend to judge America by what would be good for them, not good for America. But the proper equation is what is good for America. Pakistan chooses based on whats good for Pakistan, and India whats good for India. When the US said join us or else, what was good for Pakistan was to join us.

The friction, and a source of a great deal of anger is the way the US walked away from Pakistan, turned on Serbia etc. Often what leaders think is good for a country really isn't. George H.W Bush and Bill Clinton were absolute dunces at international relations. They punished Pakistan for domestic American reasons.

They knew the war wasn't over but they didn't care. However, Pakistan needs to realize that it was Pakistan that pursued the bomb in full knowledge of the pre-existing Pressler amendment. Pakistan knowing about the US law and the fact that they had so much wealth at stake pursued the bomb anyway. Only Pakistan holds the blame over those F-16's, not the US.

if you want to look at a country engaging in duplicitous action, look at China. Do you really think they gave you nuclear and missile technology because they are your buddies? They knew it would lead to isolation from the US. By early 2001, Pakistan was a virtual Chinese client state serving Chinese interests.

Which brings up a reoccurring blind spot I see among Pakistanis. They are proud of thier nation and think thier nation is an equal its not. Pakistan is a pawn, and always will be so long as it relies on anyone else for sustenance (forgien aid). Aid comes with strings, and those who wear strings are called puppets.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

By bringing in the "neocon" argument what are you really implying? That the 9/11 response was hi-jacked to serve Israel?, hence the move into Iraq? We stay in Afghanistan, the "thorn in our relations with Pakistan, because our war with al Qaeda, and its buddies, is not done there until the Afghanis can behave like a nation. I don't understand what is the point about "neo-cons". What do you think their agenda/philosophy is/was? As far as I understand it, it may be summarized by the phrase: "Let's make the world safe for Israel." How is that relevant to the US/Pakistan relationship?

I think you are off base here with A Rashid's argument. IMO he is reflecting more upon the poor decision making as a consequence of a cloistered environment, poor intelligence and a poor understanding of global events and dynamics, especially in the regions the US involved herself in post 911.

Iraq is a shining example of that, as is the pursuit of policies, including the installation of an Afghan regime comprised of warlords, drug lords and genocidal criminals - many former Indian proxies in the Afghan civil war - that alienated Pakistan and led her to believe that the 'abandonment of Afghanistan', post Afghan jihad, would be repeated.

 

[jeypore]

I think you are off base here with A Rashid's argument. IMO he is reflecting more upon the poor decision making as a consequence of a cloistered environment, poor intelligence and a poor understanding of global events and dynamics, especially in the regions the US involved herself in post 911.

Iraq is a shining example of that, as is the pursuit of policies, including the installation of a regime comprised of warlords, drug lords and genocidal criminals - many former Indian proxies in the Afghan civil war - that alienated Pakistan and led her to believe that the 'abandonment of Afghanistan', post Afghan jihad, would be repeated.

Mr. Am, tone down the Indian hate speech at every corner. Once again you are linking two different senario with one.

Mr. Rashid did not understand, that there should be no external threat to the US, Period. May it be afganistan, Iraq, Iran or North Korea. And these are the possiblities of hurting US.

 

[muse]

Of course the piece I posted was meant to supplement what Mk had posted with regard to his sense that professionals did not plan the war.

It has nothing to do with Israel or any of that.

Agnostic has it right on what Rashid was attempting in his introduction

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Mr. Am, tone down the Indian hate speech at every corner. Once again you are linking two different senario with one.

Mr. Rashid did not understand, that there should be no external threat to the US, Period. May it be afganistan, Iraq, Iran or North Korea. And these are the possiblities of hurting US.

How is pointing out the role of Indian proxies in the regime set up by the US in Afghanistan post invasion 'hate speech'?

I do not believe you have really understood either A Rashid or my point. It is not about tolerating Al Qaeda or extremists, it is merely an academic point about what the US got wrong, pre and post invasion.

 

[jeypore]

How is pointing out the role of Indian proxies in the regime set up by the US in Afghanistan post invasion 'hate speech'?

I do not believe you have really understood either A Rashid or my point. It is not about tolerating Al Qaeda or extremists, it is merely an academic point about what the US got wrong, pre and post invasion.

I do, infact I have saw Mr. Rashid in his numerous interviews on PBS, especially Charlie Rose show. The arguement that he is making is afterall after everything is said and done.

Let me make my point clear, The new paradigm that these terrorist have started would have left any country in the world to be unprepared for the battles ahead. Yet the dedications of what the Americans are showing now trumps any country in the world today.

Besides arguing Mr. Rashid quagmire of Iraq, the way the US took step in afganistan is justified. Needless to say, where the army is trained to battle Soviet Union, falls upon fighting lunatics on horseback with guns and IED. No country in the world would have faired any better or worse.

It is a learning curve effect, while there are results of that learning in Iraq. Afganistan is next. Infact, It clearly shows the definciancy of Pakistan learning curve asking US for Guerilla warfare trainning.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi Truthseeker,

There is no issue here about nation building----there never was one in 2002 either---the u s only wanted OBL's skin. When it failed miserably in accomplishing that menial task---then other issues were propped up to divert the attention from the failures.

As the u s had set its feet squarely on the afghani soil----then other players in the region started playing their hand---the one in the forefront being india. In the past---the taliban had cut away indian influence in the region---now they had a great chance of redeeming themselves by joing hands with their old partners in northern alliance.

The initial stages of afghan war was fought with paid afghan warlord mercenaries and paid informers and both of them conveniently changed sides as the blowing winds over the sand dunes. Nothing substantial, nothing concrete, the sand dunes always changing in form and size, just as deceptive as the changing alliances of the north.

Regardless of whosoever they were---they were bull-headed---they were thick---they could not understand the intricacies and the fineries---I would rather say that they didnot want to understand the details---there was that group in power---who was hell bent on revenge---that is understandable---but then they were not listening to their own people how to fight the war.

In their moment of revenge----america truly acted like their friends the muslims---america just became like the muslims---the muslims firmly believe that only acceptable way to kill the enemy is with the dagger in the heart---other than that---it is no fun---and true to the likeness of their friends, the americans did likewise.

Hypothetically---the white man is more precise in his revenge---surgically ruthless and precise in implementing his planning---masterfully tactfull in delivering the coupe de grace. The afghan war blew all the tact to the wind. The only people who could plan this episode could be muslim fundamentalists---oh please excuse me---christian fundamentalists---both not too far from each other in their mindset.

Nation building became an issue after the failures.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Jeypore,

I am not quibbling about the US learning curve when it came to tactics, nor is AR.

What is being pointed out is flawed US strategies and policies, especially when it came to long term objectives (assuming altruistic intentions), due to multiple reasons, (some of which have been mentioned) that have prolonged the wars and made them exponentially more complex.

 

[EyelessInGaza]

I have read a lot of very informed and insightful analysis about the context and intricacies of the US Pakistan relationship, so it was time well spent.

But I think Pakistani forummers are missing the point, missing the woods for the trees.

In the 1920s or so a US president said that the 'business of America is business'. That sums it up, end of. A nation's interests are permanent, friends and enemies come and go. America's permanent interest is just that, business. Any nation that wishes to engage with America's polity and its people must engage in business with America. Everything else is secondary.

I do not wish to be misunderstood; having lived and worked in the US for five years now, I greatly admire America and Americans. America is racist, it discriminates against the poor, it has no 'heart' as we South Asians understand 'heart'.

But it is also, in my opinion, the least racist country in the world, the one place where you can be everything you want if you work for it. Americans are some of the most generous people in the world. There is no other country like it. It is, again IMO, the greatest experiment in democracy that the world has known.

But America always asks the question - what have you done for me today? Pakistani forummers would do well to understand that. 'We had your back in the 80s against Russia' will not hack it. While the Americans are a honourable people, 'honour' will not hack it when dealing with them. American regimes come and go, opinion swings this way and that, but one thing is permanent - America's business.

To be fair that is the question that Americans ask each other as well - 'What have you done for me lately'? It's the question I am asked - overtly and covertly - every single day I go to work. After the first few months absorbing the intense cultural shock of this reality, it is the question I now ask my subordinates as well. It is professionalism at its most intense.

You think Pakistan is being treated badly? Perhaps. Observe how Americans treat Americans who are no longer relevant to their professional needs. I am not saying it is cruel, although it can be. It's just - business.

Why did the Japanese, from an American perspective, go from cartoon caricatures in WW II to the deadly, powerful businessmen in Rising Sun. How did anime and Manga become so popular in the US? What was the common link?

In a word, business. Create value that is more permanent than the events of a decade or two.

America absorbs influences, America takes cultures from round the world and makes it uniquely American. But to engage with America, to become a significant partner to America, to become part of its culture/ psyche and therefore create an enduring relationship? Business.

Anything else will be a relationship built on sand. Strategies and tactics by themselves will not mean much except for a short span of time.

I have already written a lot. I can elaborate on some of the nuances, but hopefully this perspective will help.

 

[muse]

I miss the "thanks" Button

So, "eyeless" thanks, American diplomacy follows American interests.