The US & others working with Pakistan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

Are we so cowardly as a nation just because they have nukes we can't make the hard right decisions?

Pakistan isn't a failed state, it is a terrorist State, and the sooner we start dealing with it as such the sooner (although not soon) we'll set the wheels in motion for this crisis to be solved.

---

I'm not sure we can solve Pakistan's crisis.

In any event the constraint on our action is less their nukes than our dependence on their territory to supply our forces in Afghanistan. As long as we maintain forces in Afghanistan of a size that requires sea/land transport, our options with regard to Pakistan are limited.

If we want a free range of action WRT Pakistan, we have to either phase down our presence in Afghanistan to a point allowing support entirely by air (and thus making us entirely dependent on less than reliable staging points to the north) or work out a deal with the Iranians (fat chance). Geography is fairly emphatic on that point.

This quote is from the Washington Post story linked after the quote.

Quote:

---

Today, almost 40 percent of surface cargo arrives in Afghanistan from the north, along a patchwork of Central Asian rail and road routes that the Pentagon calls the Northern Distribution Network. Military planners said they are pushing to raise the northern network’s share to as much as 75 percent by the end of this year.

---

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...H_story_1.html

Things seem to be changing.

(I found this at Pundita's blog.)

There's a long-running thread 'Supply Routes to Afghanistan' on:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=6386

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-al-Qaeda.html

Quote:

---

US military aid cuts to Pakistan 'will harm efforts to take on al-Qaeda'

The US has halted $800m in assistance in protest at Pakistan's decision to expel military trainers and in frustration at the perceived slow pace of hitting militant hide-outs in North Waziristan.

However, security and diplomatic sources in Pakistan believe the move will prove counter-productive.

Hamid Gul, a former director of the country's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, said withholding aid would simply turn public opinion more "caustic" and delay any large-scale campaign against militants.

"Why should they go into North Waziristan now? They were making commitments to do it, but these threat, master and slave treatment, this arm twisting, will not work," he said.

---

The Hamid Gul quote is almost amusing in a dark way. "If you don't pay, we won't fight and we'll say nasty things about you. if you pay, we still won't fight, and we'll say slightly less nasty things about you"... or something like that.

A curious mixture of how personalities and national interests interact, which ends with:

Quote:

---

These issues of potentially vital cooperation between India and Pakistan would be difficult under any circumstances, but without a reasonably functioning U.S.-Pakistan relationship based on common interests, they may well be unachievable.

It is often said that Pakistan never misses a chance to miss a chance. If it misses this one, the world will pass it by, and its isolation will only deepen. The same may hold true for the United States. Its influence in the Indian Ocean is slipping as China and India flex their growing economic muscle. It will have to make a course correction as it approaches the end of its military enterprise in Afghanistan. Pakistan is as good a place to start as any, and the two generals, Pasha and Petraeus, might be the right players for the first step.

---

Link:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...istan?page=0,0

Quote:

---

For Britons and Americans watching the hard-fought progress of our Coalition troops in Helmand, the harsh reality is that Nato could do everything right in Afghanistan and still lose the broader regional campaign against terrorism if Pakistan fails to contain its internal militants. This makes the fight in Pakistan, and finding means to help Pakistanis help themselves, the most important battle in the world.

---

I relocated this article written in July 2009 by David Kilcullen and cite only the last paragraph as it is fitting; so my emphasis and repetition:

Quote:

---

..the fight in Pakistan...the most important battle in the world.

---

Link:http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/al...urzon-do.thtml

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...ass-extremists

Quote:

---

Summary:

Policymakers have converged on economic development as a key to ending terrorism, in the belief that poorer people are more susceptible to the appeals of violent groups. In fact, in Pakistan, the poor are less supportive of militant groups than the middle class.

---

Here's the scary part, or senior leaders embrace this dogma, yet the facts don't support it, so we have a policy of nation building that has resulted in hundreds of our troops being killed and thousands maimed to pursue armed economic development and economic development isn't the underlying issue for terrorism.

Quote:

---

Yet there is no evidence that economic development changes attitudes toward violent militant groups, or even that it is the poor whose attitudes are problematic. A number of scholars, including Claude Berrebi, Alberto Abadie, and Alan Kreuger and Jitka Malečková, have found that people who join terrorist groups are predominantly from middle-class or wealthy families. Public opinion scholarship, such as that of Najeeb M. Shafiq and Abdulkader Sinno, and Mark Tessler and Michael Robbins, suggests that differences in income and education do not explain variation in support for suicide bombing and other forms of violence

---

.

I remain a strong advocate for providing intelligent economic assistance for a number of reasons, not the least which is humanitarian, but let's not pretend that economic development will address the underlying issues of terrorism. Let's be honest about what economic development can and can't do, and separate it from the terrorism issue except in "specific" situations where it may be relevant. Sadly we have wasted billions of development dollars in war fighting efforts that could have been spent more effectively in nations not at war and produced real results, possibly preventing future wars. Instead we largely underfunded our global interests to surge efforts into Iraq and Afghanistan.

Lt. General and former ISI Chief Assad Durrani has supplied to The Atlantic journal a text entitled 'The ISI: AN EXCEPTIONAL SECRET SERVICE'. Link:http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...inside/242471/

The intermediary writes:

Quote:

---

Durrani is not a booster for the Taliban; he is a hard core realist -- and his view is that Pakistan's generals prize the Taliban for its ability to give them "strategic depth". Whether you agree or not, his assessments are very much worth reading in full.

---

There are some moments to pause when reading, especially when you reach the Epilogue, cited in full:

Quote:

---

I do not know what all the ISI knew about Bin Laden's whereabouts before he was reportedly killed, or when the Pakistani leadership was informed about the US operation on that fateful night. But the fact that we denied all knowledge or cooperation -- even though the military and the police cordons were in place at the time of the raid, our helicopters were hovering over the area, and the Army Chief was in his command post at midnight -- explains the Country's dilemma.

---

The Atlantic intermediary ends with:

Quote:

---

The most important takeaway from this fascinating snapshot of the ISI, the Taliban, and Pakistan's view of America and its strategic choices is that Pakistan will never be a predictable puppet of US interests.

---

The most important takeaway from this article is that the generals are not under adult supervision and there is no sign that they can be brought under adult supervision. The mess will continue....

I missed the FM's appointment, she is a young lady, hence the storyline:

Quote:

---

Hina Rabbani Khar, Pakistan's new foreign minister, secured a diplomatic breakthrough in New Delhi after sweeping India off its feet and into a "new era" of trade and co-operation in the war on terrorism.

---

Ends citing an Indian lady commentator:

Quote:

---

She's incredibly young pretty, glamorous and has no fear of appearing flash. She wore pearls when she arrived and diamonds for the talks. We're so obsessed with her designer bag and clothes that we forget she first held talks with the Hurriyat [Kashmiri separatists]. She could be Pakistan's new weapon of mass destruction.

---

Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...rms-India.html

Surely the FM is a 'new weapon of distraction'?

Umass grad.
I think she is an improvement over the last foreign minister, who had pretensions above his humble station and has been shown the door. She is good looking and has no ideas of her own. What more could one want?

Pro-military websites are already hinting he was a spy: http://rupeenews.com/?p=37555

The truth, of course, may be another matter.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_1...29-503543.html

very professional. Is it good to know that they were not amateurs? or would the US be happier thinking its just some local kidnappers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davidbfpo

I missed the FM's appointment, she is a young lady, hence the storyline:

Ends citing an Indian lady commentator:

Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...rms-India.html

Surely the FM is a 'new weapon of distraction'?

---

I am quite new to this forum, but I know the Pakistan-Indian conflict from buttom-up, being , perhaps, slightly biassed because of Indian origin...

My theses to this conflict are as follows:

1. Having behaved as irresponsible as they have in the past, there are no legitimate interests of Pakistan whatsoever.

2. Accepting this, they - the Pakistani - have to disarm immediately to a level consistent with internal security.

3. Failing to do this voluntarily, a combined Indian/US/NATO-operation should be able to identify and disable the 10-odd storage sites for their nukes.

4. Using the internal fault lines of this punjabi-dominated country, Pakistan can then be dismembered at will. Beluchistan and Sind are ripe for secession and could be used for a very comfortable supply line, in fact facilitating the cut of Taliban supply lines...

Just my two cents

Hat tip to Circling the Lion's Den for the pointer to:

Quote:

---

Pakistan's policy elite believe their state has two overriding objectives in the endgame in Afghanistan..

The first is to ensure that any settlement does not lead to instability in Pakistan, particularly amongst Pashtuns; second, to ensure that the Afghan government is not antagonistic towards Pakistan and does not allow its territory to be used against Pakistani state interests - presumably a reference to alleged Indian interference in Baluchistan. These two objectives translate into three outcomes for the government, say the authors; first the need for stability; second, a government in Kabul that adequately represents Pashtuns and - as far as some of those questioned were concerned - includes participation by Mullah Omar's Quetta Shura and the Haqqani Network; and third, a limit on India's activities in Afghanistan to ensure it is restricted to development work.

(Ends with)Many participants recognised a dilemma for Pakistan over US policy in the region. While they argued that the US military presence exacerbated tensions and led to instability, they also felt an early US withdrawal would lead to added instability in Afghanistan. Most thought it was in Pakistan's interests for reconciliation talks to take place as quickly as possible, although they recognised that there could be no return to Taliban rule in the whole of Afghanistan. Good material in this report which casts light on a subject that is seldom aired.

---

Link to commentary:http://circlingthelionsden.blogspot....me-by-pak.html

Link to the report by USIP and Pakistan's Jinnah Institute:http://www.jinnah-institute.org/imag...hanendgame.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by German Gurkha

My theses to this conflict are as follows:

1. Having behaved as irresponsible as they have in the past, there are no legitimate interests of Pakistan whatsoever.

2. Accepting this, they - the Pakistani - have to disarm immediately to a level consistent with internal security.

3. Failing to do this voluntarily, a combined Indian/US/NATO-operation should be able to identify and disable the 10-odd storage sites for their nukes.

4. Using the internal fault lines of this punjabi-dominated country, Pakistan can then be dismembered at will. Beluchistan and Sind are ripe for secession and could be used for a very comfortable supply line, in fact facilitating the cut of Taliban supply lines...

Just my two cents

---

I've read something along these lines before. How widespread do you think these ideas are in India, especially amongst the politicians and the military?

Regarding that "Jinnah institute" report: http://criticalppp.com/archives/56832

I assume most of the American establishment has not yet fallen out of love with the Pakistani establishment, so they are likely to be sympathetic to Sherry Rahman's piece...but Senator Mark Kirk does seem to have wandered off the reservation..

The Jinnah report's stated purpose is to present the viewpoint of Pakistan's "foreign policy elite", a completely corrupt group. It also states it would be good if the same exercise were undertaken with the US foreign policy elite, a completely feckless and willfully blind group. So if the malevolent and the spineless really understand each other, all will be well. I find that unpersuasive.

Bill Moore asked why we put up with this. I think we do it because this is all about maintaining the positions of the elites in both countries. The Pakistani feudal/military elite want to keep their power. The American elites want to keep theirs and and also they have an natural affinity for foreign elites over their own countrymen. The General sahibs may have their faults but at least they aren't NASCAR fans. So the American elites will not ever admit, short of overwhelming political pressure, that the Pak Army/ISI is the enemy because they think it will reduce their power and influence. Better some of those NASCAR fans have their legs blown off and die than their betters be humiliated.

Sen. Kirk (I looked it up) said this:

Quote:

---

Pakistan has become the main threat to Afghanistan. Pakistan's intelligence service is the biggest danger to the Afghan government. It is also a tremendous threat to the lives of American troops. Let me be clear: many Americans died in Afghanistan because of Pakistan's ISI...

As much as the Pakistani officials claim otherwise, the Haqqanis are backed and protected by Pakistan's own intelligence service. Statements by Pakistani government officials to the contrary are direct lies.

---

Most importantly this:

Quote:

---

Should Pakistan not change its ways, we can also do one other thing: an American tilt towards India to encourage the world's largest democracy to bankroll an Afghan government that fights terror and the ISI

---

If he can get enough of his colleagues to come around to that point of view things will change. I hope he can. There is a chance too because all those colleagues can't afford to contemn the Americans as the American foreign policy elites do.

Ironically enough crossing and weakening the Pakistani military/feudal elite may be the only chance Pakistan has.

Here is a link to the text of Sen. Kirk's speech.

http://kirk.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=283

(don't get on me for being political shill. when a sitting Senator calls the Pakistan gov liars, viewing the text is helpful.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carl

"Should Pakistan not change its ways, we can also do one other thing: an American tilt towards India to encourage the world's largest democracy to bankroll an Afghan government that fights terror and the ISI.".

If he can get enough of his colleagues to come around to that point of view things will change. I hope he can.

---

I am not convinced that India could conjure up "an Afghan government that fights terror and the ISI", or that America could make them try. Sounds like an emotionally appealing idea, but not a very practical one.

Dayuhan:

I am not sure they could either. But at least the Indians wouldn't fool themselves about what was what. And it would get the serious attention, the immediate serious attention of the Pakistani military/feudal lords.

It would be better for India, Pakistan and Afghanistan to cooperate, open trade routes, permit cultural exchange and avoid spending all their time dreaming up ways to kill each other.
While there are lobbies in every one of these countries that have visceral (and frequently irrational) hatreds of each other, they are not equally placed at the heart of the state. The Afghan elite includes many that hate Pakistan or wish to move the border to the Indus, but most of them are pragmatic enough to compromise, should compromise become a possibility. Similarly, India's ruling elite does include Hindu Nationalist elements whose problem with Muslims crosses the line into irrational hatred, but India is a functioning democracy and has other fish to fry now that economic growth appears to be a real possibility. They can see the benefits of scenario A (above) even better than the Afghan elite. Unfortunately, Pakistan's ruling elite has the biggest mountain to climb in this matter. While the truly insane paknationalist fringe is not proportionally larger than the insane fringe in Afghanistan or India, the peculiar history of Pakistan and its ideological choices permit this lunatic fringe to have greater legitimacy and power at the heart of the state. "Rational" calculations of economic interest and suchlike are more easily suppressed in the service of this ideology. I used to think that practical considerations will force the elite to give up its "paknationalist" dreams (this term is shorthand for an ideology you can study in detail on sites like paknationalist.com or rupeenews.com) and I think there are signs that such a change in thinking has occurred in some sections of the elite, but the problem is not going to be easily solved. The rise of China could eventually be a source of economic growth in the entire region, but right now its making it easier for the paknationalist fringe to believe that they have picked "the winning side" and (even though China may not want what they want) has given a boost to their confidence that may be just enough to push Pakistan over the edge.
"Over the edge" meaning that in crucial debates in the next few months or years, this could tip the balance in favor of those who are unwilling to compromise with Afghanistan and India. That will be bad news for Afghanistan, maybe for India (primarily because they may get involved in some quagmire or even in a direct shooting war when their best option is to focus on growth and internal reform) but it will be terrible news for Pakistanis. We could be left fighting a civil war in Afghanistan AND Pakistan that could eventually end in a hard coup and an attempt at Islamization and fascism that will momentarily make the trains run on time and then collapse into chaos.
Enough doom and gloom for one morning.
btw, I think India's ability to assist ISAF in Afghanistan is less than Senator Kirk seems to believe.

Omar:

I read somewhere that Pakistan is already in the initial stages of a civil war with factions of the Army and ISI at odds with each other. Do you think there is some truth to that or is it overstated?

I think its overstated. I think there are definitely Islamist sympathizers who help out their old friends even when the high command has classified them as "bad jihadi", but the army remains united. The majority of the officers are pragmatists and careerists. They believe some subset of the paknationalist viewpoint, which is not necessarily the full-frontal Jihadi viewpoint. A much smaller minority is truly Jihadist.
The problem is that the paknationalist viewpoint itself is problematic. Its leading lights are not classical jihadis (shireen mazari, ahmed qureshi, aslam beg, etc) and have in the past been very eager recipients of American largesse (with Aslam Beg even thought by true-blue Jihadis to be a CIA agent involved in bumping off Zia), but they are baby fascists who (like many a Nazi in the 1930s) like to think that they are not being immoral, they are just being more honest about things that the two-faced bastards in the West do while blabbering about human rights and democracy and whatnot. Since there is just enough truth in such an attitude to make a lawyerly argument possible, they can convince themselves and their followers that they are just doing what everyone else does but doesnt admit (thus, India and America and England all employ terrorists, shelter assassins, order the killing of civilians and so on and yet they all gang up and wont let poor Pakistan do the same). From here, its not too far to thinking that we need our terrorists and our proxies and our "useful lies" too. Add to that the very brittle and defensive sense of "un-indian identity" and smaller size vis a vis India and the jihadis seem like a very good idea. That, and a smattering of Islamism is all the true jihadis need to make monkeys of this lot.....so you dont have a civil war because they are not really planning to fight against all jihadist groups...but you will still have a civil war in the end because the jihaidis are not following the script offered to them....they have ambitions beyond being tools of some stupid "strategic thinker" in Islamabad.
Its a very tight noose. They just dont have the intellectual tools (the "vocabulary") needed to change course. Right now they think America will leave, china will get richer, we will be out of trouble in a few years. They are, of course, very wrong. Because they dont understand the problems that need to be solved and are tying to solve the wrong problems (or imaginary problems) things blow up in their face every few years.
I am sure in pakistan I will be accused of extreme naivete because I am ignoring the role of the CIA in all this. But i think that while the CIA may indeed have supported paknationalism in the good old days (and its been claimed that some British establishment types played a role in creating pakistan, so this role as Western hired gun in the area may predate SEATO and CENTO) things change...

Once again Hat Tip to Circling the Lion's Den for a pointer to action taken in Quetta, Pakistan to arrest three AQ cadres:http://circlingthelionsden.blogspot....e-friends.html

Unless of course ISI knew where they were and a policy decision was taken to arrest them. Given the "revolving door" practice in the past "making up" maybe generous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carl

I've read something along these lines before. How widespread do you think these ideas are in India, especially amongst the politicians and the military?

---

Officially, such a policy does not exist in the Govt or the military.

But that there are sub-nationalism in Pakistan on the rise, of that there is no doubt.

Pakistan is not quite on the self destruct mode, but if the terrorism within is not controlled or the Punjabi domination, things could turn ugly.

It is not possible for India, Pakistan and Afghanistan having a common viewpoint, especially India and Pakistan.

The relative peace and all the façade of peace negotiation are because of the US nudging them, at times vigorously!

Even this week there was a terrorist attack on the Delhi High Court and when the next one will come, who knows? In such an environment, the common Indian naturally does not find any useful outcome will be there from the talks, more so, when Pakistan has made no move to even start serious investigation regarding the Pakistan end of the Mumbai carnage, given enough evidence from a third party - the US.

India can surely shore up an Afghan govt if there is an international consensus. Given the Indian antipathy towards unilateral action that may appear unnecessarily 'aggressive'.

India has shored up its defensive capability in the NE against China and is comfortably poised.

To have troops for Afghanistan, it will have to withdraw its UN contingents.

Its experience in CI over six decades will give it a head-start.

It is also worth noting that China is not too pleased with Pakistan acting as a base to destabilise China in Xinjiang. Hence, one wonders if they will be displeased if Pakistan is boxed in and the Pakistan based terrorists are directed to Indian assisted Afghanistan and in Kashmir, if India does help Afghanistan.

Possible, but would it be desirable?

Hat tip to the Australian think-tank the Lowry Institute and this article by an Australian in Islamabad, which rightly notes the impact for the Pakistani public:

Quote:

---

When looking at the most obvious change on the ground in Pakistan since 9/11, most would say security.

The threat of suicide bombings is very real. Headlines leading up to this year's anniversary of 9/11 reported stories like 'Peshawar, where every day is 9/11'. Cities like Peshawar and Quetta endure regular suicide attacks. Sadly, the frequency of attacks is not reported much in the Western media unless there are mass casualties or someone 'important' is killed (twenty deaths or fewer does not seem to create much of a stir).

The South Asia Terrorism Portal keeps track of the attacks, using local media reports. Last month (the holy month of Ramadan), there were 46 bombs detonated in Pakistan; the month before there were 62 blasts. That is enough to make everyone think twice about staying too long in a market place, wonder if the person next to them in a mosque is wearing a suicide vest, or if the woman in a burqa could be the next suicide bomber.

---

Link:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/...acrifices.aspx

The Pakistani state may not have many admirers here, yes we often are told the Pakistani public distrust the USA, but for the Pakistani public battered by all manner of disasters, such as the current floods, adding the post-9/11 fear factor there is little to look forward to.

I keep posting this link in different discussions, but it really does have relevance here..so, with apologies for excessive cross-posting: http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksd...-thoughts.html

The BBC's headline 'US envoy links Haqqani militants to Pakistan government':

Quote:

---

There is evidence linking the Haqqani militant network to Pakistan's government, the US ambassador to Pakistan has said in a radio interview.

"This is something that must stop," Cameron Munter told Radio Pakistan, when discussing Tuesday's militant assault on the Afghan capital, Kabul.

---

Riposte by Sirajuddin Haqqani, the son of the leader of the network, has told the Reuters news agency...

Quote:

---

Gone are the days when we were hiding in the mountains along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Now we consider ourselves more secure in Afghanistan besides the Afghan people, he said. He also said that the group would take part in peace talks with Kabul and the US if the Taliban endorsed such talks as well.

---

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-14960725

Public diplomacy like this strikes me as odd, given the stance taken by the Pakistani state and the often reported low esteem or hatred for the USA amongst the Pakistani public.

Saying so in public is not the issue...there is a real disconnect between the aims of the paknationalists and the US...and the US seems relatively clueless about the mindset it is dealing with (meaning I think "paknationalists" understand their American interlocutors better than the average American diplomat understands Pakistan's establishment...in both cases, I am not talking about understanding the people or the society at large).
See, for example: http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/09/...lenial-change/

Raymond Davis 2.0?
It seems that the corpse commanders may be ready to fold (in their own fashion, keeping "all options open" and focused on short term survival): http://www.dawn.com/2011/09/26/comma...ensions-2.html

See also: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...6-9-2011_pg3_4

and: http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/09/...-do-%E2%80%93/

I liked this comment by the Pakistani Army spokesman, Maj-Gen Athar Abbas:

Quote:

---

Gen Abbas acknowledged that army’s Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence maintained contacts with the Haqqani network, but said that didn’t mean it supported it. (My emphasis) No intelligence agency can afford to shut the last door of contact. Maintaining contact doesn’t mean that you are endorsing or supporting that terrorist organisation.

---

Link:http://www.dawn.com/2011/09/26/comma...ensions-2.html

Not exactly what I'd say in the midst of a repeated crisis; I am mindful the UK during 'The Troubles' via SIS (MI6) maintained links with the Provisional IRA and the UK government repeatedly denied the government was talking to them.

"maintaining links" is hardly the issue here. And I assume you agree that it is not the issue here.
What the Pakistani "deep state" wants and what the US (or NATO) want are two different things. Its not about links or occasional contacts in Dubai.
In any case, NATO's problems may be over if and when they leave the region (which they probably should, since they clearly dont even understand their "allies", much less their enemies). Pakistan's problems (and, by extension, India's and Afghanistan's and maybe even China's) will only accelerate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...c7K_story.html

Going from bad to worse? It seems that tragedy is turning into farce. Pakistan should do something quickly to help the US before the US loses the war (see below). Pakistan's rational and far-sighted response may now be America's best hope!
Many of my Pakistani friends are happy because they think this is a zero-sum game: what is bad for the US is good for Pakistan. I disagree. First of all, I dont think the US is done yet. Confused, yes. Done? probably not.
But even if we imagine that everything goes downhill for the US from now onwards and they eventually pull out defeated, it is not likely to be a fatal blow (Some Paknationalists imagine a Soviet Union scenario, but their knowledge and analysis are both terribly off in this case). The US, while chastened and shocked (as after Vietnam?) will not be seriously wounded by defeat in Afghanistan; What happens to the economy at home will be far more crucial than what happens in Afghanistan and Pakistan, neither of which have a big role in the economy, and the role they do have is entirely negative.
Pakistan is another matter. I dont think stoppage of US aid is going to be a necessarily fatal problem (severe sanctions are another matter, but maybe China can prevent those?). And the inevitable military coup (perhaps a "hidden one" in which a civilian caretaker regime is installed by the army) may even lead to a temporary improvement in administration in the core region for a while; but this "victory" will not solve deep seated problems in the structure and direction of the state. In fact, it will likely make them worse as the jihadi faction starts looking for a victory dividend. Even in the best case scenario, it will be very tough. In the worst case scenario, we may collapse before the last American takes off from the embassy roof. The risks in case of "victory" are enormous.
Does this mean that someone in Pakistan will in fact sort out the confusion and help the US out just to save itself? While that may appear logical, it does not appear likely. This is a genuine mess. The kind where nobody is sure what will happen next.
A joke from the nineties suddenly appears to be prescient: Nawaz Sharif was portrayed as something of a simpleton, getting by on the advice of his shrewd father (abba ji). Here is the joke:
Nawaz Sharif: Abba ji, the economy is in terrible shape and nothing is working. What can we do now?
Abba ji: Son, there is only one solution. Start a war with America. They will bomb the country and utterly destroy it. Then they will occupy us and launch a Marshall plan and we will be rebuilt with their money. Look how rich Japan and Germany have become after losing a war to America.
Nawaz Sharif: But abba ji, what if we win?

the above comment mutated into this blog post: http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/09/29/what-if-we-win/

Interesting article on the Haqqanis and Waziristan:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...iristan?page=2

And comment on the wider Pak/USA issues:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...kes-on-the-isi

Both above the paywall :D

As if by magic our occasional correspondent Hamid Husain has supplied a commentary on the current situation, particularly on what stance the Pakistani Army leadership will take. See the attachment (which has been slightly edited).

Nice job by Hamid Hussain. The bottom line is that "victory" for the ISI will hurt them even worse than "defeat", but they are too dumb to realize this. Kamran Shafi has been telling us for years: "the Rommels and Guderians will take us for the mother of all high jumps". They are incorrigible and incapable of learning. Kiyani sahib is better than average, but even he gets his forecasts from the same "think tanks" that have war-gamed the whole thing, anticipate massive American economic collapse in 2012 (its in the Mayan calendar; I am NOT kidding) and takeover of patron duties by China.
Its sad and tragic.
See this wonderfully apt cartoon and enjoy: http://www.brownpundits.com/wp-conte...4019852_n1.jpg

A passage in an article on logistical and political relationship nearly escaped my eye:

Quote:

---

At the same time, Pakistan has been looking to China as a foil for its dependence on the US with a series of high-level meetings during the past week. However, yesterday it emerged that China Kingho Group had pulled out of a $19bn deal in southern Pakistan because of security concerns, according to The Wall Street Journal – suggesting Islamabad may not be able to rely on its giant neighbour as an alternative to the US.

---

Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...n-fallout.html

IIRC there have been posts on the not so enthusiastic Chinese relationship with Pakistan; which IMO weakens Pakistan's policy towards the USA, as China is not even a poor alternative partner.

The Double Mirror
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...071153,00.html

Why We're Stuck with Pakistan
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...071131,00.html



There is a trust deficit.

How much is the 'trust' and how much is the 'deficit'?

There seems to be no 'escape' route or is there?

Now with more pictures: http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksd...-win.html#more

A BBC story, based on a Pakistani MP talking about a briefing to the parliamentary defence committee:

Quote:

---

Pakistan's army chief Ashfaq Kayani has warned the US that it will have to think "10 times" before taking any unilateral action in North Waziristan...

(Slightly edited) General Kayani is quoted saying "If someone convinced me that all problems will be solved by taking action in North Waziristan, I'd do it tomorrow...If we need to take action, we will do it on our schedule and according to our capacity."

---

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-15364956

I fully accept this is Pakistani "spin" and may reflect more on Pakistani politics than any prospect of a US military incursion across the Durand Line.

It just occurred to me reading Kayani's latest pronouncement, that Pakistan is Oceania from the novel 1984. They actually use Newspeak as the official language.

I was watching an Indian TV channel (Times Now), which had a Pakistani Air Marshal and the head of the Geo TV.

They were very aggressive and in fact the Geo TV head stated that all the terrorist heads when handed over by Pakistan, works for the US Afghanistan 'clique'. He quoted some of the so called terrorist organisations handed over to the US who were carrying out raids inside Pakistan! And these were not being reported in the international or Indian media.

I wonder how far that is true.

This is an earlier debate with a Pakistani diplomatic and a US authority giving their views.

http://www.timesnow.tv/Debate-US-ult...ow/4384711.cms

I really must study the geography of the lands on either side of the Durand Line, this report in The Guardian puzzles me; it is headlined: 'US troop withdrawal leaves Pakistan vulnerable to attack by insurgents' and sub-titled: 'Taliban exploiting a security vacuum in the wake of American forces departing from eastern Afghanistan'.

Link:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...tan-vulnerable

So in one place Pakistan fears a US incursion in North Waziristan and in Kunar & Nuristan the USA has withdrawn, so the Pakistanis are shelling across the border.

The details are always complicated, but there IS a zoomed out view: Pakistan is trying to ride in both boats and is in serious danger of falling between them. I know I repeat this endlessly, but I think Pakistan needed to choose a long time ago and needs to choose now and if it still does not do so, will have to choose in the future (probably after the Chinese get hit by some random Uighur strike that uses some of the same infrastructure initially constructed for very different purposes). The Islamist militant network is not compatible with other plans (like pipelines, exports, fashion shows and whatnot) that the elite also desires. Whether it was a CIA idea in the first place or whether India pays some of them or whether the CIA itself is playing a double game are details...the bottom line remains the same. Those men in black balaclavas who walk around Miranshah and blow up informants by putting dynamite at their feet are bad news...they are not "strategic assets".
This has not yet sunk in.

Or rather, it has sunk in, but only as an isolated fact. And there is still some hope that we can "retain some asymmetric capbilities".
Or, its sunk in, but the people in charge have no idea how to sell the story to their audience.
Many layers of confusion.

Anatol Lieven's book has been discussed before in this thread (and others)...here is a good review by someone who is a little more resistant to the bull#### emanating from well dressed army officers than Lieven Bahadur seems to be: http://www.theindiasite.com/10105/