Where Americans are wrong - Looking through the lenses of Pakistan

[graphican]

Let's repeat the obvious; Pakistan will not compromise on its security towards Afghanistan. Pressure or no pressure, money or no money, Pakistan will not give up its power share in Afghanistan for existential reasons. If it has relationships with Afghan factions, it will keep them. American demands, threats or tweets cannot alter this security paradigm. But there is a possibility in which Pakistan can help Americans fully and we’ll come to that later.

The only question we can ask for now is that: should Pakistan continue to provide its limited support to American forces for their continued existence in Afghanistan? Yes or No?

If Americans provide support to Pakistan, Pakistan will provide them a chance to win THEIR war THEMSELVES, and if they stop supporting Pakistan, Pakistan will reciprocate and withdraw its limited support - as well.

In any case, Americans will have to fight and win THEIR war in Afghanistan THEMSELVES, and this will have to happen with Pakistan STILL keeping its influence in Afghanistan. But why should Pakistan keep its influence still - is because Pakistan will continue to have stakes in Afghanistan regardless of outcome of this war. If Americans lose their war, it must not turn into Afghanistan-Pakistan war after. Weather Americans win or lose, Pakistan will not have a hostile Afghanistan.

Now Americans need to understand this for real; Pakistan is not against American victory in Afghanistan - if it happens. If Americans win, that will be an equally acceptable situation for Pakistan – provided the new Afghanistan under America is a non-hostile state. But this doesn’t seem happening, does it? America has a limited control over Afghan territory. Their weak control doesn't give Pakistan confidence that it should side with Americans only and give up its influence over the resistance forces.

From Pakistan’s perspective, there can be two possible scenarios: Americans may or may not win – but in either case, Pakistan will continue to border with Afghanistan and it has to prepare its fallback strategies for both outcomes. To take Pakistan on their side fully, Americans will have to win 90-95% of war already. Until then, Pakistan at best will offer a passive support - letting American win or lose for themselves. If Americans would win – fine it will deal with them happily but if they lose, Pakistan would want to keep a certain level of control over the future of Afghanistan – no brainier.

And in case Americans win, there is a second if after the first. If Americans were winning, Pakistan will only support them if it knows that in future Afghanistan, India wouldn't have a role to play. If USA cannot guarantee (which it never did) an India free Afghanistan, it will continue to see resistance from Pakistan, even when Americans had control over 90-95% of territory. It’s simple again - Pakistan will not let its enemy exist on two sides of its borders.

Another mistake Americans are making is that they are fighting this war from the centre of Afghanistan towards the borders of Pakistan. If America wants to get Pakistan on their side earlier, they must fight with Haqqanis and Taliban’s first and clear up areas bordering Pakistan and march towards the centre of Afghanistan. Understand, Pakistan’s security concerns are legitimate – and it cannot help Americans when Haqqanis and Taliban have a controlled territory touching its borders.

What can Pakistan do at best?

Pakistan at best can fence the border and deny cross-border activity. It has offered this before and that is the maximum stretch of its doability. It will neither act against Haqqanis nor Taliban itself BUT will not prevent America to act against them either on its own. Non-hostility and neutrality is the maximum cooperation Pakistan can afford to offer, unless Americans change the weights in the equation of war.

Now where are Americans wrong?

• Americans have a limited control over Afghan territory and their lack of control doesn't give Pakistan confidence that Americans will be able to sustain and turn the power equation of Afghanistan. When Americans will be defeated, Pakistan will still be here and will have to manage Afghan's chaos - alone.
• Americans have involved India in the Afghan equation and from Pakistan's perspective, its urine in the milk. In a (hypothetical) American controlled Afghanistan, if Pakistan will have to manage India on eastern and western borders, then why would it let Americans control Afghanistan the first place?
• Americans are deluded when they think money spent on Pakistan is buying them war leverages, but fact is that their money is buying them Pakistan’s neutrality and a passive support. They will still have to fight and win their war themselves. Pakistan will not participate in this war other than permitting cargo through its territory or preventing cross-border activity.
• America is fighting the Afghan war from the wrong ends. To get Pakistan on their side earlier, it needs to clear up Pak-Afghan border first. Pakistan cannot offer Americans support when powerful fractions are sitting in Afghanistan right next to its borders.

Pakistan is not American enemy – yet it cannot permit Americans to win and turn Afghanistan into an enemy state – or lose and still turn Afghanistan into an enemy state for Pakistan.

For Americans, it’s a matter of victory or loss 12,000 KM away from their homeland but for Pakistan, it’s a matter of survival as Afghanistan will continue to exist regardless of what happens to Americans and their war in Afghanistan.

To get Pakistan on their side, Americans will have to address its legitimate concerns. If they won’t, American president may continue to tweet.

By @graphican;
Defence.pk

 

[Valar.]

Well written. Kudos

 

[war&peace]

America didn't came to Afghanistan to win it rather it wants to perpetuate its presence and keep an eye on the region i.e. Iran, Pakistan, China and Russia. Afghanistan under America will never be non-hostile towards Pakistan. I have a simple question why does America wants to bring india into Afghanistan that does not share an inch of a border with the land-locked country while ignoring Pakistan who was the main partner / alley in war against soviet occupation and who is still an ally and allows NATO supplies through its land / air.
Enough is enough, our leadership has been fooling around and now it is time to put a tap on the NATO supplies

 

[Ahmet Pasha]

We need such people on RT,CNN,ALJAZEERA etc etc not likes of old uncles giving more credence to views of western politicians.

 

[graphican]

America didn't came to Afghanistan to win it rather it wants to perpetuate its presence and keep an eye on the region i.e. Iran, Pakistan, China and Russia. Afghanistan under America will never be non-hostile towards Pakistan. I have a simple question why does America wants to bring india into Afghanistan that does not share an inch of a border with the land-locked country while ignoring Pakistan who was the main partner / alley in war against soviet occupation and who is still an ally and allows NATO supplies through its land / air.
Enough is enough, our leadership has been fooling around and now it is time to put a tap on the NATO supplies

What you are saying is true on its own. At the moment there is not a single public reason for America to continue its existence there. When it can leave Iraq without bringing stability there, why is it continuing to exist in Afghanistan - and for what cause?

 

[HRK]

If Americans win

Americans have lost a war they have won years ago ...

 

[captainvancouver]

Americans will never leave Afghanistan as the insurgents pose little threat to their bases. In fact, American only lost 17 soldiers in 2017.

They have never left Germany or Japan.

Umm.. and the Americans still have bases in Iraq.

 

[graphican]

Americans will never leave Afghanistan as the insurgents pose little threat to their bases. In fact, American only lost 17 soldiers in 2017.

They have never left Germany or Japan.

Umm.. and the Americans still have bases in Iraq.

If they don't want to win, they should stop asking Pakistan for help. If you are right then American demands are futile and nonsensical.

 

[Taimoor Khan]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/09/opinion/pakistan-trump-aid-engage.html


How Not to Engage With Pakistan

By RICHARD G. OLSONJAN. 9, 2018


While perhaps it is emotionally satisfying to penalize a country that has supported American enemies in Afghanistan for the past 16 years, the administration’s approach is unlikely to work. Pakistan has greater leverage over us than many imagine.

For the past 16 years our military efforts in landlocked Afghanistan have been dependent on transit through and especially overflight of Pakistani territory. Absent an implausible similar arrangement with Iran, other options are not good. Supply through the Central Asian states to the north is theoretically possible, but would rely on Russian good will. Enough said. Without Pakistani cooperation, our army in Afghanistan risks becoming a beached whale.

The harsh truth is that American leverage over Rawalpindi and Islamabad has been declining.


Thus, the Trump administration’s attempt at humiliating and penalizing Pakistan is unlikely to work. Pakistan, like most countries, reacts very badly to public attempts to force its hand. It is likely to respond by showing how it can truly undercut our position in Afghanistan.



Richard G. Olson was the United States ambassador to Pakistan from 2012 to 2015 and the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan from 2015 to 2016.







Those in American establishment who have been exposed to this region understand the ground situation then idiots like Indian b|tch Nikki Haley and other Zionist scumbags who got nothing but verbal diarrhea to offer.

 

[Salik]

Urine in milk is very inappropriate example dear @graphican . There was no milk from the very beginning in the first place.

Afghanistan didn't recognize Pakistan in 1947. So it is nothing new if there are two opponents in both sides.

India has development projects in Afghanistan. There's free trade, so face it rather closing your eyes. Still the same way U.S. shouldn't have role in Afghanistan too.

By the way, how can you stay neutral and have relations with some factions at the same time?

 

[graphican]

Urine in milk is very inappropriate example dear.

India has development projects in Afghanistan. There's free trade, so face it rather closing your eyes. Still the same way U.S. shouldn't have role in Afghanistan too.

Urine in the milk is to indicate level of unacceptability towards Indian involvement. Pakistan doesn't' hate Indian developments if they were developments per say, Indian role in Afghanistan has been worse than urine. 70,000 Pakistanis died because India was doing its "developments" through 24 consulates along Pakistan border. Such development are neither required by Pakistan nor by Afghans.

 

[MultaniGuy]

Americans have lost a war they have won years ago ...

USA never won the war. The Afghan Taliban still control 40% of Afghanistan territory.

 

[Salik]

Urine in the milk is to indicate level of unacceptability towards Indian involvement. Pakistan doesn't' hate Indian developments if they were developments per say, Indian role in Afghanistan has been worse than urine. 70,000 Pakistanis died because India was doing its "developments" through 24 consulates along Pakistan border. Such development are neither required by Pakistan nor by Afghans.

Many countries have development projects in Afghanistan, including Pakistan. So it's level playing field at the moment. Afghans who will have stronger say will decide whose projects stay and whose leave.

 

[graphican]

Many countries have development projects in Afghanistan, including Pakistan. So it's level playing field at the moment. Afghans who will have stronger say will decide whose projects stay and whose leave.

Salik, I cannot argue with you. You need to educate yourself a lot before you would understand a single word I say next. If you favour and advocate Indian presence in Afghanistan, I would really leave you to continue to enjoy your ignorant bliss.

 

[AbulHaqGhaznavi]

It's for the Afghans to decide what their future holds with help of Almighty. We'll not take this non-sense of strategic depth and "hostile" regime in Kabul excuse to dictate our foreign policy. Of course we don't have problem with working among everyone who wish us success, but not by force or proxies. Two can play that game.