What's brewing in Washington?

[53fd]

What's brewing in Washington?

In most competitive endeavors, having a winning strategy is only half the battle. Arguably, it is the lesser half, the more important being the ability to anticipate and neutralize the opponent's strategy. In serendipiditous instances, you can even use the opponent's strategy right against them. The most glaring example of this is the co-opting and use of jihadi elements by certain nameless countries against the Pakistani army and populace itself.

In the context of this thesis, and in light of recent events, it's natural to ask what exactly is America's strategy towards Pakistan? What's brewing in Washington?

The unwritten assumption here, of course, is that America is Pakistan's opponent. Much has been said about anti-Americanism in Pakistan, but where's the other side coming from? What are the dimensions of America's view of Pakistan? To tackle that conundrum, we must first take a very brief historical tour of America's relationship with the region. 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). It is important to note that, even during the Cold War, the US anticipated China's rise and viewed it as a nemesis-in-waiting. That status got elevated to primacy after the Soviet collapse and Russia's descent into irrelevance. To counter the perceived Chinese threat, and cognizant of the tension between India and China, the US decided to promote India as a counterweight. The US has made no bones about where it views India in its geopolitical plan, and it continues to sponsor India's membership in any number of internal forums. Certainly, India's economy is a draw, but the primary focus of US policies is the geopolitical agenda. You don't get to stay top dog by being complacent.

So, how does all this relate to Pakistan? Does Pakistan being an Islamic country have any relevance here? What about Afghanistan and the war on terror? I submit that these are irrelevant red herrings in America's great plan. Terrorism is not, and has never been, a serious threat to American dominance. In fact, it has been a boon for governments all around to enact invasive legislation and increase control over their own people. For its part, the Afghan war on terror is just a front for continued American military presence in this important geopolitical location. As for Islam, again America doesn't care since most Muslim countries are irrelevant on the global stage. The few countries that matter are solidly under the American thumb.

Coming back to the regional calculus, India is playing it smart. It plays the double game of friendly overtures to Pakistan and China while, at the same time, making sure America understands that India wouldn't mind at all (wink, wink) if Pakistan and China were to 'suffer' at America's hands. 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 feudal politicians have long since been bought -- if not by America directly, then through the Arab proxies -- and can be counted on to do their master's bidding. The few oligarchs that haven't been bought have been exempt precisely because of their incompetence and, hence, unworthiness.

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. Their weapon of choice is the 'free' media and the method of choice is the famous 'leak', or alleged quotes by 'unnamed officials'. The Western media, now exposed as being a fully complicit agent of government propaganda, is Pakistan's number one enemy. It is the enabler for government policies by setting the public mood -- by 'manufacturing consent' as Chomsky noted.

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.)

Excellent piece. Very insightful. It has been clear that the US establishment is, to put it mildly, at loggerheads with Pakistan's "security apparatus", & would work tirelessly to allay their influence in the region. This is done by quoting unnamed officials, leaking dubious reports, even trying to influence civil society to turn against the "security establishment". If one watches US Senate/Congressional hearings, strategies to lower the ISI's influence are openly discussed. The US/NATO having links to militant groups is pretty dandy, but it only becomes wrong when the ISI is in contact with them. The Pakistani security establishment will do anything & everything to look after/safeguard its national integrity & security interests, & if others can't deal with that, that is their problem.

 

[VCheng]

The only important part is the last paragraph and the questions posed therein.

 

[53fd]

Worrying or not, Pakistan will have to learn to deal with this prospect, and its consequences, as best as it can.

So you're trying to say that the current Karzai regime that has been in power since the last 10 years is not antagonistic to Pakistan? Which is not doing anything to destabilize Pakistan's Western front? I don't understand what prospect you are thinking Pakistan should learn to deal with. Care to explain?

 

[SQ8]

^^^ "not" more and more convinced or "now" more and more convinced? Please clarify.

That would be now...a typo resulting from my room being extremely cold and my poor fingers not responding.

 

[deckingraj]

So you're trying to say that the current Karzai regime that has been in power since the last 10 years is not antagonistic to Pakistan? Which is not doing anything to destabilize Pakistan's Western front? I don't understand what prospect you are thinking Pakistan should learn to deal with. Care to explain?

I believe he is trying to discuss question posted by thread starter in his last para....Anyhow as far as i know most of the people believe that Karzai is nothing but a puppet...so let's not put anything on him...In this so called great game he is a small pawn...Right now the strings are in US hands...

What Pakistan needs to learn is to understand which way the world is going...Countries who fail to read writing on the wall are isolated bunches...You have North Korea and Iran as an example...Iran with its huge oil reserves is still hanging in there, can Pakistan afford that?? hell, no...US is a super-power and Pakistan due to reason a-b-c is in direct conflict with her interests...This is not a situation where third world country should be finding herself....

 

[VCheng]

That would be now...a typo resulting from my room being extremely cold and my poor fingers not responding.

That makes sense. So what you say is this:

...................
I am now more and more convinced that it has been decided by the "men who hold the strings" that Pakistan needs to be cut down to size and Balochistan is the best way to do that while hurting Iran as well................

So who do you see as "holding the strings"?

 

[deckingraj]

What are their limitations and boundaries to reach? Where they will stop? As a result what can be more worrying than antagonist kabul govt and unstable western border? Would you be in peace without Balochistan and Pakhtoonkhwa?

These are layman's views and i see nothing wrong with it.. Beside whatever the current scene we see is may not compeletely the result of what we think. The difficulties that occupations forces facing are mainly due to their misunderstanding of Afghan culture and ethnic favoritism.

I believe the discussion is about problems faced by Pakistan due to strained relations with US and steps that should be taken to fix it...It seems that you are in the group who feels that relations with USA has no future....I might be wrong but correct me if i am...

---------- Post added at 01:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:35 PM ----------

So who do you see as "holding the strings"?

Who else should be other than people of Pakistan???

 

[VCheng]

...............
Who else should be other than people of Pakistan???

"Should be" does not mean "is" in this case obviously.

 

[SQ8]

Who else should be other than people of Pakistan???

"Should be" does not mean "is" in this case obviously.

In this the men holding the strings arent all sitting in Pakistan. And while they may have Pakistani assets on the ground ranging from a low grade officer to a three star.. these men hold the strings of a much larger nation(s).
Never has been the time more ripe to push for the breakaway of Balochistan(or at least start a full fledged and not sporadic) independence movement there akin to what happened in east Pakistan. Combine that with an increase in sectarian violence and you have the final stamp of Banana republic. Another terror attack and you have the excuse to remove the nukes, then who cares about the Pakistan problem.
They have tried the development efforts, AID.. everything.. that has not changed a thing on the ground when it comes to growing extremism and anarchy. Why not just help a "controlled" demolition of the building.
After all, its not like the establishment or the people are getting any wiser..

 

[VCheng]

.............Why not just help a "controlled" demolition of the building.
After all, its not like the establishment or the people are getting any wiser..

Exactly what I have been saying about a controlled implosion, sadly. That scenario, once impossible, becomes increasingly plausible with each passing day.

 

[GURU DUTT]

In this the men holding the strings arent all sitting in Pakistan. And while they may have Pakistani assets on the ground ranging from a low grade officer to a three star.. these men hold the strings of a much larger nation(s).
Never has been the time more ripe to push for the breakaway of Balochistan(or at least start a full fledged and not sporadic) independence movement there akin to what happened in east Pakistan. Combine that with an increase in sectarian violence and you have the final stamp of Banana republic. Another terror attack and you have the excuse to remove the nukes, then who cares about the Pakistan problem.
They have tried the development efforts, AID.. everything.. that has not changed a thing on the ground when it comes to growing extremism and anarchy. Why not just help a "controlled" demolition of the building.
After all, its not like the establishment or the people are getting any wiser..

since you a MODS you can get away with that but for other's?????????

anyway that is what i pointed out many time's so did the like's of V Cheng & few other senior's here but alas most think it is just too funny???
anyway thanks for the HARD Facts's

 

[VCheng]

since you a MODS you can get away with that but for other's?????????

anyway that is what i pointed out many time's so did the like's of V Cheng & few other senior's here but alas most think it is just too funny???
anyway thanks for the HARD Facts's

Worry not, the truth is the truth, even if sanctioned or banned. Nobody can stop it!

 

[Masterio92]

I believe the discussion is about problems faced by Pakistan due to strained relations with US and steps that should be taken to fix it...It seems that you are in the group who feels that relations with USA has no future....I might be wrong but correct me if i am...

I have no issue with US or else provided they give up their struggle for hegmonic influence and stop foreign interventions. And i am very optimistic about our relations with any country given our strategic location. The positive relations will get like snow-ball even if the circumstances get un favored.

 

[Developereo]

There are no easy answers, true. Pakistan has some serious choices to make in whether it can afford to pay the price of using terrorism as a strategic asset. That is key.

I will refer you again to the OP. I specifically disposed of this terrorism furphy, because I do not believe it will make an iota of difference if Pakistan hands over the entire Haqqani tribe.

Terrorism is a red herring in the great game.

What I do here is not the topic, is it?

Actually, the topic is how to improve Pak-American relations. Since you claimed to be "at the forefront" of such efforts, it would be useful for the rest of us to know the details.

 

[VCheng]

I will refer you again to the OP. I specifically disposed of this terrorism furphy, because I do not believe it will make an iota of difference if Pakistan hands over the entire Haqqani tribe.

Terrorism is a red herring in the great game.

I disagree: terrorism is the core issue.

Actually, the topic is how to improve Pak-American relations. Since you claimed to be "at the forefront" of such efforts, it would be useful for the rest of us to know the details.

How can discussing me be useful? That has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

US-Pakistan relations need to be improved by co-operating in eliminating all terrorism sanctuaries, including those being protected by Pakistan as its strategic assets. That will go a long way for sure.