What's brewing in Washington?

[Developereo]

Whatever the US view is of the region, there are two things that can be safely said: it is going to be long-term, and it is not going to be Pakistan-centric. I think it would be better for Pakistan to understand this point of view and then seeing how Pakistan can offer to fit within that vision, rather than trying to change it outright, as the next question shows.

Absolutely. That was my whole point that, in America's great game, Pakistan is an expendable element. America sees no useful role for Pakistan in its long term strategy and it is seen as being worth more dead than alive.

The biggest common interest is fighting terrorism; Pakistan can go a long way in denying the use of its territory and indeed even its support to some of these elements it regards as assets and not terrorists, which is a huge mistake.

While terrorism is important to an extent, it is only a minor irritant in the big picture. American policies are formed by the wider geopolitical game. For example, most of the 9/11 hijackers -- and AQ leadership, funding, etc. -- were from the oil rich Arabs, yet they have escaped any repercussions because they are still important in the game.

So, even if Pakistan hands over the Haqqani tribe (assuming it can), it won't change the American narrative on Pakistan. They will find some other excuse to berate and marginalize Pakistan.

 

[Developereo]

pakistan cant do much now america is really against pakistan there are only two options either pakistan listens to every word america says do what it says and then destroy itself by being a lapdog or it can say no incur america,s wrath..... its a dying power it will do anything to keep itself on the top. pakistan should keep good relations with america and ignore there media since there is nothing we can do its become normal to get ratings bash pakistan and keep distance from them the further we are from america the better but keep happy relations

It would be an ideal solution but, unfortunately, the world is not ideal. It is unlikely that the US will leave Pakistan alone, given its location and the game unfolding in the region. Pakistan has to play defence, even as it focuses on its economy and inner strength. The need of the hour is to keep America off Pakistan's back.

 

[Omar1984]

What's brewing in Washington?For its part, the Pakistani military seems to have wised up. In the past, they played America's game, partly to get military support to balance Russian patronage of India, and partly as lucrative personal sellout. However, the military now understands that for every F-16 they get, India will get 10 F-35s, so American military support is worthless against their primary opponent. The ISI also understands full well America's real goals in Afghanistan and why it is imperative to thwart them.

Assuming the above reflects the current American agenda, and given that the US is perhaps the single most important country in the world, the question for Pakistan is how to negotiate the waters ahead.

How can Pakistan convince America to re-calibrate its view of the region, to convince it that it is more useful alive than dead? What are the common interests that Pakistan can propose to change the American administration's mindset? And, just as importantly, what are likely to be the main roadblocks derailing any Pakistani efforts?

(Thanks to Kakgeta for reviewing.)

Glad that Pakistan army and ISI have finally woken up. As for what to do next? Pakistan should not trust the U.S. government, the Zionist lobby in Washington is very powerful and it makes the foreign policy. Zionists only care for Israel and want to destroy all of Israel's enemies. Pakistan is not considered friendly to Israel, so U.S. will not want a prosperous Pakistan.

My advice is to stop this "friendship" with U.S. and become closer with China and Russia, and Pakistan needs to get out of this war OF terror. U.S. is destroying its status and economy to please Israel. U.S. is now printing trillions of dollars after China refused to loan anymore money, and it will no longer be the sole superpower. China is emerging. So no point being Amreeka's chamcha anymore when an emerging friendly superpower is in our north-east border.

As for india, if they could have attacked Pakistan they would have after Mumbai incident 2008. indians are all talk nothing else.

 

[Developereo]

My advice is to stop this "friendship" with U.S. and become closer with China and Russia

Well, America is the undisputed superpower and, for better or for worse, it will not leave Pakistan alone. Pakistan must find a way to win America's support or, failing that, keep it at bay.

As for Russia, we need to be careful. Economic and technological relationship is fine, but we shouldn't expect anything more.

 

[Omar1984]

Well, America is the undisputed superpower and, for better or for worse, it will not leave Pakistan alone. Pakistan must find a way to win America's support or, failing that, keep it at bay.

As for Russia, we need to be careful. Economic and technological relationship is fine, but we shouldn't expect anything more.

There is no way Pakistan can win American support. Today's America is not the same America of 1960's, 1970's, or 1980's. Zionists now control Washington D.C., Zionists control the American media, and Zionists control the U.S. foreign policy.

Do you believe U.S. spent 4 trillion dollars in Afghanistan and Iraq to find Osama and Weapons of Mass Destruction? Recall what has happened in Pakistan for the past 11 years. Watch U.S. media and Presidential debates. The U.S. has blind love for Israel, and will do anything to fight for Israel's interests in the world, even if it means they print trillions of more dollars and their people go hungry.

 

[Edevelop]

Is lobbying part of Western Democracy?

 

[Developereo]

There is no way Pakistan can win American support. Today's America is not the same America of 1960's, 1970's, or 1980's. Zionists now control Washington D.C., Zionists control the American media, and Zionists control the U.S. foreign policy.

Do you believe U.S. spent 4 trillion dollars in Afghanistan and Iraq to find Osama and Weapons of Mass Destruction? Recall what has happened in Pakistan for the past 11 years. Watch U.S. media and Presidential debates. The U.S. has blind love for Israel, and will do anything to fight for Israel's interests in the world, even if it means they print trillions of more dollars and their people go hungry.

I agree with you that the Zionist lobbies are powerful and entrenched, and likely to pose the greatest roadblock to any Pakistani efforts at normalization. So where does that leave us? Do we just give up or is there any way to reassure the Zionists?

I don't believe that opening relations with Israel will do anything. As long as the general public mood is anti-Israel, these lobbies are not going to be fooled. Pakistan will get no benefit by sucking up to them.

 

[deckingraj]

India and Russia were in bed together in Afghanistan.

Who told you that....???You are giving us mroe credit then what we deserve there... Anyhow did we intervene the way Pakistan intervened??? This is what i am trying to tell you from so many posts now which you stubbornly refusing to acknowledge....Also to let you know our economic condition were really pathetic and we were on the verge of bankruptcy during that era...So i am not sure if we were in bed but our role cannot be more then a dead meat(if u know what i mean!!!)

We are not talking about today, but the Cold War era. Post Soviet implosion, the NAM charade has outlived its usefulness.

Now once again you are being stubborn...I have given you examples of today and not cold-war era...Let me give you one for the future where NAM is helping/going to help us...We are having decent relations with China(our trade is more than $60 billion) and the same time reaping benefits of partnership with USA...However unfortunately you guys are moving more and more in China camp to back off USA...do you see the difference b/w NAM and joining blocks???

In that era, who was the primary weapons supplier for India, for Pakistan?

If you are talking about 71 then Russia helped us a lot..In fact even today russian help is immense...I mean how many countries are willing to lease there state of art nuclear submarine to us???? share their 5 generation plane tech with us???...Having said that UK was a major supplier as well during that time...In fact throughout our history we have managed to buy weapons from both blocks...UK/France from one side and Russia from the other side...b/w our economy was not good at that time and it was USSR who being a friendly nation was giving us all the assistance she could...However now our economy has improved and you see that we are diversifying weapons purchase...If this is not NAM then can you please enlighten me what is NAM for you????

In 1971, which side sent actual military support to India? to Pakistan?

US/China/Middle-East nations to Pakistan and Russia to India...but wait what's the point???

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

It is probably a duck...b/w what are you going to say if one's understanding about quack is wrong???

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I believe you have taken it all wrong as far as NAM is concerned...Probably you are confusing NAM as an ideology with NAM as a strategy...Before 62 debacle our PM was following NAM as an ideology...He was of the opinion that defense forces are waste of resources and should be shown the door(Man, what a MORON!!!)...and it was the same PM who was jumping up and down for US intervention when China was thrashing us....We learned from our mistakes and changed our course...Now India follow's NAM as a strategy....In short do not get aligned to any block but that doesn't mean close your eyes...It is because of this strategy we are friends to even arch rivals of past/present/future....

 

[deckingraj]

I agree with you that the Zionist lobbies are powerful and entrenched, and likely to pose the greatest roadblock to any Pakistani efforts at normalization. So where does that leave us? Do we just give up or is there any way to reassure the Zionists?

I don't believe that opening relations with Israel will do anything. As long as the general public mood is anti-Israel, these lobbies are not going to be fooled. Pakistan will get no benefit by sucking up to them.

Give me a direct threat that Zionist face from Pakistan??? Why would they waste their time in pushing you down when you are of no significance to them??? Why is it so hard to understand that in geo-politics i need to be of some worth before a bigger party is going to give me some respect...I will not use Pakistan as an example as temper can raise so let me use India as an example...US was almost indifferent to our existense for almost 5 decades...Once our economy improved and China grew exponentially India become strategically important for USA...Now my question to people who are blaming things on ZIONIST would be what is that Pakistan can bring to the table for which US should show interest in you??..Right now the only thing you have is so called terror safe heaves which US want to bust badly....This is bringing you in collision path with US and that is the crux of the problems you are facing...

I mean what is wrong in applying some logic...When Pak just joined WOT lot of goodies came your way...Along with that came suspicion of double game. Now both are contradictory...it is but obvious that either will grow at the expense of other...

 

[Developereo]

I believe you have taken it all wrong as far as NAM is concerned.

You make good points and I don't deny that India is playing all sides. In fact, I said as much in the OP. However, this is not a debate about NAM in general, but in the specific context that I wrote. Here, let me quote it again:

Up through the Cold War, there was a clear alignment of US and Pakistani interests to balance the Soviet-India nexus (the NAM charade was amusing at best).

In that context, there was a clear alignment of India-Russia v/s Pakistan-US, any pretense to NAM notwithstanding.

 

[VCheng]

Absolutely. That was my whole point that, in America's great game, Pakistan is an expendable element. America sees no useful role for Pakistan in its long term strategy and it is seen as being worth more dead than alive.
...................................
So, even if Pakistan hands over the Haqqani tribe (assuming it can), it won't change the American narrative on Pakistan. They will find some other excuse to berate and marginalize Pakistan.

Well, America is the undisputed superpower and, for better or for worse, it will not leave Pakistan alone. Pakistan must find a way to win America's support or, failing that, keep it at bay.

...........................

So please explain to me why you think Pakistan is an inevitable US "target", and what should Pakistan be doing to get out of being one?

 

[Rig Vedic]

How can Pakistan convince America to re-calibrate its view of the region, to convince it that it is more useful alive than dead?

This desire to justify Pakistan's existence to the Americans dates back to Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

The legendary Life magazine reporter/photographer Margaret Bourke-White covered partition and the birth of Pakistan and published photo-essays from newly independent India and Pakistan in her magazine practically every week during 1947-48. In 1949, the essays were published as a book by Simon and Schuster titled Halfway to Freedom: A report on the new India in the words and photographs of Margaret Bourke-White .

On pages 91-93, Bourke-White describes her discussion with the country`s Founder-Maker Mohammad Ali Jinnah when “Pakistan was one month old”.

“What plans did he have for the industrial development of the country? Did he hope to enlist technical or financial assistance from America?” she asked Jinnah.

“`America needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs America,` was Jinnah`s reply. `Pakistan is the pivot of the world, as we are placed` … `the frontier on which the future position of the world revolves.` … `Russia,` confided Mr Jinnah, `is not so very far away.`”

“In the weeks to come,” Bourke-White wrote, “I was to hear the Quaid-i-Azam`s thesis echoed by government officials throughout Pakistan. `Surely America will build our army,` they would say to me. `Surely America will give us loans to keep Russia from walking in.` But when I asked whether there were any signs of Russian infiltration, they would reply almost sadly, as though sorry not to be able to make more of the argument. `No, Russia has shown no signs of being interested in Pakistan.`”

“This hope of tapping the US treasury was voiced so persistently that one wondered whether the purpose was to bolster the world against Bolshevism or to bolster Pakistan`s own uncertain position as a new political entity. Actually, I think, it was more nearly related to the even more significant bankruptcy of ideas in the new Muslim state — a nation drawing its spurious warmth from the embers of an antique religious fanaticism, fanned into a new blaze.”

Delusions of grandeur | Opinion | DAWN.COM

 

[Developereo]

So please explain to me why you think Pakistan is an inevitable US "target", and what should Pakistan be doing to get out of being one?

The first part I already explained in the OP. The second part is the question I am posing to readers to get suggestions.

---------- Post added at 09:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:35 AM ----------

This desire to justify Pakistan's existence to the Americans dates back to Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

Amazon.com: High School English Grammar and Composition (9788121904001): H Martin: Books

 

[VCheng]

The first part I already explained in the OP. The second part is the question I am posing to readers to get suggestions............................

The first part, as your OP seems to suggest is that USA needs India's support for its "great plan", and for that, it needs to offer "Pakistan's head on a platter". Further, the only thing standing in the way of this design is the ISI/PA, and that is why Pakistan is facing America's "wrath".

.................... Reading between the lines, America knows that the price of India's cooperation in the greater game is Pakistan's head on a platter. To that end, the only thing standing in the way is the Pakistani security apparatus (army and ISI). ............................

The focus of America's wrath, then, is squarely upon the Pakistani security apparatus. The American agenda is to erode the respect and morale of these agencies. ...............................

Actually, I find all of that quite predictably delusional, but I am also perfectly willing to let is slide, since you admitted it being written primarily for your domestic Pakistani audience.

I am more interested in the answers to the questions posed in the final paragraph, but I think I have an idea what those might be. I am sure it will be interesting to discuss them later.

 

[Developereo]

The first part, as your OP seems to suggest is that USA needs India's support for its "great plan", and for that, it needs to offer "Pakistan's head on a platter". Further, the only thing standing in the way of this design is the ISI/PA, and that is why Pakistan is facing America's "wrath".

The US is the reigning superpower by far. It doesn't "need" India for anything, but it never hurts to have cooperation.

Actually, I find all of that quite predictably delusional, but I am also perfectly willing to let is slide, since you admitted it being written primarily for your domestic Pakistani audience.

The audience is anyone with a brain to see the game being played out and with knowledge of history. Suggestions are welcome from anyone, but would be most applicable to Pakistanis, domestic or otherwise. It's unfortunate that you don't consider yourself amongst the group that would be interested in repairing/advancing Pak-American ties.

I am more interested in the answers to the questions posed in the final paragraph, but I think I have an idea what those might be. I am sure it will be interesting to discuss them later.

That's OK. I never expected anything more than meaningless, vague one-liners from you.