I cannot agree with the contention that the American wants to leave - he doesn't - what he is seeking is a smaller footprint (see FP with regard to the smaller footprint) -- in general, the particular set of US policy makers are not seeking an end to conflict, rather they are preparing for a much larger conflict - Is it in Pakistan or any of the immediate neighbors interests to have the American military representing American interests? I would argue, it isn't, it's dangerous and it is in reality an effort to muscle into an arena in which others have built relationships based on development and mutual benefit.
I do agree to a fairly large extent. By "leave", I meant a large troop withdrawl for a small presence is what they will surely maintain for sometime.
I won't agree with the "much larger conflict" though. It's a constantly changing world, evolving daily and that is something I do not see coming anytime soon. However, things can change pretty fast.
Their presence is not welcome but what do you propose right now?
It's a given that instability will follow US/NATO draw down - the important question is why the US seeks to shape events such that instability will follow.
The domestic pressure is too much and I guess they will leave a mess, smaller than Vietnam it may be but it will be a quick and unfulfilled withdrawl.
That we have bourne much harm already cannot be argued against, there is much more yet to come - and therefore the question above, why does the US not seek to shape events to bring stability? Will acting against Pakistani interests bring stability? It is now going on 10 years to mark US presence in Afghanistan, in these 10 years the US influenced it's GIRoA to develop friendly relations with Pakistan? But do note the kind of relations the very same GIRoA developed with Iran - accident? coincidence? American mischief!
What will bring stability? Which group will bring stability? Who can assure and how that a certain group should be relied upon? What will the selected group seek domestically? How much policy independence will it show? Is there any guarantee that it will not flip on the ambitions sought by its protectors?
The Us talks enhanced cooperation, but where is it? in the last 10 years how has the GIRoA behaved? Just look at the ATTA, an incredible event where one party to the agreement is actually acting asa agent of a third country insisting that a third country be a party to a bilateral agreement (something the US has been and continues to push hard for) Is it an accident that Khalqis now dominate all government even district government institutions? Is that a prescription for stability??
I don't think that even the Americans can control the domestic political situation as aptly as they did in the early years. The momentum of the local political scene is shaping events far more than what the US or any third party intends to do.
Don't get me wrong, the US that I remember was a force for stability and Pakistan should have the very best relations with the US - but it is clear the US has very differnt understanding of "best of relations" - the role for Pakistan is second fiddle - fair enough, but Pakistan cannot be expected to grant any other kind of role for the US either. Neither has market access nor access to capital anywhere on the table, the US relationship with Pakistan continues to be based on a single agenda, terrorism as the US defines it -It just won't sell, and this why American citizens need to become more involved in discussing the issues and making themselves more aware, they may (or not) conclude that American policy is effectively in the hands of individuals who, at least by my definition, are fanatics -- this is my first hand appraisal.
You cannot and should not perceive the world in blacks and whites. These are areas with big gaps when it comes to predicting the turn of events and seeking cooperation from forces within Afghanistan has been a challenge for them, let alone from a nation-state like ours.
The US policy is in doldrums but the problem on our side is that there are people in the policy making circles, not just the conservative population, who seem to rejoice and celebrate their problems in the region. We can, and should of course have difference of opinion and policy on a wide range of issues keeping in mind our objectives and goals. However, in the larger scheme of affairs, it is outright ridiculous to assume that an unstable Afghanistan and a confused US will be somehow beneficial for us in the region.
I cannot comment on the leanings of the policy in their policymaking circles since it seems to be a large variety of people with different opinions now than earlier when it was much more of a unified group.
