The US & others working with Pakistan

[carl]

Here is a link to an article that Madhu pointed out to me. It is about working, no, dealing with, no, doing whatever it is we do with the Pak Army/ISI. It has the most wonderful title-Malice in Wonderstan.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2013/05/13342035

[omarali50]

Hallelujah!

http://www.viewpointonline.net/what-...e-taliban.html

[davidbfpo]

Christine Fair wades into the fray with a ten point article on War on the Rocks, none of the points made will come as a surprise here:http://warontherocks.com/2014/01/ten...ove-to-peddle/

[MoorthyM]

Christine Fair wades into the fray with a ten point article on War on the Rocks, none of the points made will come as a surprise here:http://warontherocks.com/2014/01/ten...ove-to-peddle/

Perhaps.

However, the real overlooked point is that, arguably, Pakistan has been able to get away for decades because the U.S.-based expertise on Pakistan hasn’t been up to snuff.

Unfortunately, this deficiency continues to this day, with none other than Dr. Christine Fair herself muddying the waters.

For example, in an article (title: "Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Pakistani State") published in Survival over two years ago, she suggested this: “Containing Pakistan per se is not feasible, nor is attempting to do so even desirable.”

Now, an opposite advice in her latest article published in lawfare blog: “[The U.S. should] develop more coercive tools to contain the threat that Pakistan poses to itself and beyond.”

As Amb. Husain Haqqani points out in his new book Pakistan's strategic outlook has changed little in almost four decades. And yet, our eminent political scientists are yet to figure out what makes Pakistan tick!

With al-Qaeda variety now resurgent, policy-makers in the US and in Europe must be wondering who they can turn to for advice.

[davidbfpo]

A rather critical commentary by a Pakistani writer on his nation's greatest weakness:http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-New...gnty-for-money

[omarali50]

I am sure most people have seen this by now

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/ma...=tw-share&_r=1

She says surprisingly little about the US end of this axis; were they incompetent or complicit? Is there a third choice?

Anyway, it seems the end is nigh (for the US as worldcop and/or imperial power, depending on how you look at these things). That may not be a bad thing for the US. I suspect American culture is not really ideal for either job. Better to stick to things the US understands better.
But it may be bad news for many others.
Would it be correct to say that China is to be the most likely cop in the "Afpak" region? or will there be a free for all with Russia, India and smaller regional powers all having a go?

[carl]

Omar:

Thanks for the link. I had not seen that.

Incompetent or complicit? Both. Initially incompetent. You yourself well described one of the ways the Pak Army/ISI played them, the whole romance of the Raj bit. That was but one facet of the incompetence.

But they aren't completely stupid people and that is where the complicit comes in. When they realized they been had and more importantly what fools they had been to have been had so completely, they became complicit because they had to cover that up. Their primary motivation became avoiding embarrassment, hundreds of dead 21 year old NASCAR fans and thousands of dead Afghan and Pakistani dirt farmers were small price to pay if the right people continued to look good.

So after that it took on a life of its own. It is almost as if the multi-stars and genii inside the beltway were blackmailing themselves. The Pak Army/ISI didn't have to do anything to keep the deception going. Once it was set up it ran on its own.

The only price they had to pay was to give up OBL. Somehow we found out on our own where he was, sort of probably. They let us confirm it and then they let us take him. That was it. They give up one obsolete guy and the game went on. They won in exchange for Mr. Obama getting to say we got him.

Maybe you are right the Americans as presently constituted can not be what we were. It will be bad for the world though. There is no other country suited to maintain the system of free oceanic navigation the British and us set up and maintained. Bad for us too as an island trading nation.

[jcustis]

I am sure most people have seen this by now

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/ma...=tw-share&_r=1

She says surprisingly little about the US end of this axis; were they incompetent or complicit? Is there a third choice?

Anyway, it seems the end is nigh (for the US as worldcop and/or imperial power, depending on how you look at these things). That may not be a bad thing for the US. I suspect American culture is not really ideal for either job. Better to stick to things the US understands better.
But it may be bad news for many others.
Would it be correct to say that China is to be the most likely cop in the "Afpak" region? or will there be a free for all with Russia, India and smaller regional powers all having a go?

That article is derived from a book which I will be sure to order once it comes out.

I was just in Islamabad and Rawalpindi. One of our movements took us just a few blocks from the Red Mosque, and we passed by ISI HQ multiple times. I have a growing interest in the US-PAK relationship, especially since I served in south Helmand (where the smugglers and insurgents were usually detained with pocketfuls of rupees!)

[flagg]

I am sure most people have seen this by now

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/ma...=tw-share&_r=1

She says surprisingly little about the US end of this axis; were they incompetent or complicit? Is there a third choice?

Anyway, it seems the end is nigh (for the US as worldcop and/or imperial power, depending on how you look at these things). That may not be a bad thing for the US. I suspect American culture is not really ideal for either job. Better to stick to things the US understands better.
But it may be bad news for many others.
Would it be correct to say that China is to be the most likely cop in the "Afpak" region? or will there be a free for all with Russia, India and smaller regional powers all having a go?

By the author's own word she had the story of Pakistani support for the Afghan insurgency since 2007 and the story on Pakistani support for OBL since 2012.

Why the 7+ and 2+ year delay on the respective/combined stories?

I'd rather know the clearly very long story of going to print behind this story.

Why now?

Why not then?

I'm assuming massive pressure from the US Administration due to US reliance on Pakistani logistics support for Afghan operations.