The US & others working with Pakistan

[carl]

1. That it is important for the leader of Pakistan to not be perceived as selling out his/her country by subjugating the interests of Pakistan and the Pakistani people to the interests of some foreign power in exchange for favor and economic benefit. Arguably recent leaders of Pakistan have done this with the US.

2. That it is important for the leader of Pakistan to reestablish the tradition of non-interference with the tribal populaces shared with Afghanistan and to refrain from excessive efforts to exercise governmental control over the same.

3. Pakistan is in a challenging situation, and must carefully balance relationships with powerful neighbors, such as China and India; while at the same time also balancing the often odd demands of far away powers such as the US. No easy task between these nuclear powers. To add a degree of difficulty most of us Westerners cannot fully appreciate is the relationships the government must manage with the many diverse and distinct populace groups that live within and expand across her borders.

4. No Pakistani leader will be able to make everyone happy or answer to every powerful party's demands. To attempt to make all happy will make none happy, and only failure can come of that. One must choose, and recent choices seem to have been poor ones for Pakistan. For Americans, we must learn that an honest "no" is a far better answer to live with than a disingenuous "yes."

As to point 1. I think they already run that game on us. They talk all the time about the primacy of Pakistani interests, but then when they want the money, they say what good buddies they are. They choose to run the game.

As to point 2., I agree to an extent. They should stop supporting the expansion of the wild eyed Jihadis in the areas despite the opposition of the local people. The relatives of all the tribal elders killed by the Jihadis and the people represented by them would like that and would probably like to see a few killers come to trial.

Also, I read once that one of the problems of the border areas is that they are not subject to the same laws as the rest of the country. That results in some inequities.

As to point 3., no doubt.

As to point 4., I am somewhat puzzled. As far as I can see, there is no "leader" of Pakistan. The closest thing is Kayani sahib who is primarily interested in fostering the well being of his group, the army, everything else being secondary.

But your use of the word leader raises a question. Do you think it would be beneficial for Pakistan to have a system whereby there was something like a "leader"? Do you think the country would benefit if there was a civilian leader who could call up Kayani on the phone, tell him he wanted his resignation within 20 minutes, and be obeyed?

Your are darn right that we should learn to live with an honest no rather than a lying yes. But we have been the ones rewarding the lying yes, for years. Why on earth should they stop the lying yes if we give them money for it? That is our fault, not theirs. We're the frog, they're the scorpion.

[VCheng]

To me this excerpt seems pretty relevant:

from: http://dawn.com/2012/04/24/negotiating-with-america/

The US agenda included transformation of Pakistan’s armed forces and their mission. Relations with Pakistan would not have plunged so low if Washington had not embarked upon a policy to tame Pakistan’s military establishment. The coercive approach ran into a major crisis with Nato’s fateful air attack on the Pakistani border post of Salala. The Pakistan Army has since demonstrated that it can leverage its strength better than the hapless civilians devoid of popular support.

Given the present realities, the iron law of necessity demands that Pakistan and the US successfully negotiate the parameters of their future relations. In Pakistan, the project is endangered by two sets of people: a powerful lobby in the political class, diplomacy, economic ministries and the media that yearns to get back to a golden past that never existed and agitational groups that thrive on pathological anti-Americanism. In Washington, the threat comes from segments of the establishment that are still not willing to factor into policy Pakistan’s strategic concerns and the aspirations of its people to achieve a semblance of what the political scientists fashionably call ‘sovereign equality’.

[carl]

Translation of the passage quoted by VCheng "It's the Yankees fault and things would be so much better if they would just understand the Pak Army/ISI's strategic concerns." or more simply "Just do what we want and keep the money coming."

[VCheng]

Translation of the passage quoted by VCheng "It's the Yankees fault and things would be so much better if they would just understand the Pak Army/ISI's strategic concerns." or more simply "Just do what we want and keep the money coming."

Pakistan Army has perfected the milking of the foreign bogeyman concept to a high art over the decades, and is finding it to its purpose to paint the India-USA (Hindus and Jews - "Hanood-o-Yahood" in local parlance- what could be juicier?) nexus as the existential threat to its captive nation.

From USA's point of view, it will be a long hard struggle to bring this out-of-control nuclear-capable terrorist-spawning monster under some form of decent civilian control, given the absolutely horrible robber baron trash that passes as politicians these days in Pakistan.

Couple this with the increasingly insurmountable social problems ranging from water to power to education to the economy, and John Le Carre himself could not lay the stage for a more dramatic thriller for the next decade or two.

Am I being hyperbolic? Not at all, for I have some idea of what I speak about here.

[VCheng]

The following Op-Ed peice from DefPk gives an insight into the kind of thinking that pervades the Pakistani mindset these days:

http://www.defence.pk/drives-america...ms-region-721/

excerpts:

Since the end of Second World War America has been constantly in a state of war. This strategy of endless war justifies the existence of its massive war industry. Nationalistic or religious unrest is fomented in its areas of “interest” followed by moving in as a “savior”, with or without a UN “mandate”. ........................

In the hearing of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs held on February 8, 2012, the American designs on this region were brought into the open. What was before routinely dismissed as a conspiracy theory has now been clarified: “Let's stick it to the Pakistanis”.

...................

The larger picture is that this would eventually help them in isolating, containing and restraining China.

The current setbacks against Taliban are merely a nuisance for the Americans.

The region is ready for their next move: There is ample unrest. Iran is isolated and crippled under sanctions. It has hostile Sunni Arabs on its western side and an Afghanistan occupied by hostile American forces on its eastern side. Pakistan’s economy and law and order are in shambles, due to inept government and the American War on Terror.

With this single goal in mind, the American policy suffers from severe myopia. For now it doesn’t matter for policy-makers if:
- The Committee leaders holding the hearings and presenting resolutions calling for an independent Balochistan can even pronounce the name properly.
- The Committee Congressmen have enough insight about the people, its politics and geographical makeup; or
-The Baloch diaspora originating from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran have enough influence over their Congressmen. (If so, it would be welcome and can be used to legitimize America’s intervention.);

.........................

[davidbfpo]

VCheng,

As I have posted before what happens to Pakistan if the USA decides it has had enough and stops / reduces the flow of financial support?

One wonders if the Pakistani military are prepared to think through the implications of such a reduction for their own institution. The civil Pakistani economy may be able to replace some of the funding, although IIRC revenue raising is a little difficult.

[carl]

VCheng:

The USA can't do much about bringing Pakistan under decent civilian control. I would be thrilled if we would just stop giving money to the killers in the Pak Army/ISI. If we did that at least it might start them, only start them mind you, down the path to realistic thinking. Beyond that, I don't think we can do anything despite the people inside the beltway thinking we can guide and influence anybody, anywhere, anytime.

I didn't think you were being hyperbolic at all.

[Ray]

VCheng,

As I have posted before what happens to Pakistan if the USA decides it has had enough and stops / reduces the flow of financial support?

One wonders if the Pakistani military are prepared to think through the implications of such a reduction for their own institution. The civil Pakistani economy may be able to replace some of the funding, although IIRC revenue raising is a little difficult.

If the US stops giving money and arms, Pakistan will be in a cul de sac.

It will turn to China with the bowl. And that would not be to US' advantage.

China is keen to have the Pakistani pear drop into its waiting hands so that Pakistan has no options but to stop all terrorists going into China and upsetting her attempt to change the demographic pattern in East Turkmenistan and assimilating them into the Han culture.

However, China has no qualms about niceties and so it will drive a hard bargain. As it is China is in control of Northern Areas with its Army working overtime out there. Pakistan will be owned!