The US & others working with Pakistan

[Ray]

Ray, a few thoughts:

1. Don Quixote believed his Ends-Ways-Means to be quite reasonable and rational. A warning of his saga is that sometimes others can see what we ourselves cannot.

2. The US believes that exercise of control over who/how Afghanistan is governed is essential to the denial of AQ sanctuary in the region; and that specific actions by Pakistan are essential to that end. Inappropriate foreign influence (as assessed by the affected populaces, not as intended by the foreign power), particularly when coupled with physical occupation and actions (but policy alone can be enough), usually triggers the "resistance response" among those affected populaces. We will know when we have tailored our policies and approaches to more appropriate Ends-Ways-Means when the resistance fades.

This is not just a post 9/11 effect in AFPAK; it is in my opinion the beating heart of the entire "war on terror" as US approaches to the Greater Middle East grew increasingly dated and inappropriate following the fall of the Soviet threat to the region. Our nearly "virtual presence" triggering a very real resistance among those populaces with growing revolutionary pressures internal to their respective states, and a belief inflamed by AQ that success with those revolutionary nationalist issues can only be attained once the resistance against inappropriate Western influence is won.

3. India does not need real estate in Afghanistan to make Pakistan feel enveloped, merely political influence and the physical presence of security forces. The US is so desperate for assistance on this mission that we seem blind to dangers of facilitating an Afghanistan-Indian relationship. The Northern Alliance, on the other hand, is fully aware that this is their next best solution to keeping Taliban influence out once the US withdraws. But then the Northern Alliance does not much care if India and Pakistan go to war because of it, so long as they get what they want from the bargain.

If Don Quixote is taken to be reasonable and rational, I take that you mean the US Administration is reasonable and rational when you call it being Quixotic. That is just what I was saying all along with the caveat that if seen pragmatically, US is doing things that suits her policies and aims even if the do not coincide with the policies of other countries and may even be diametrically opposite.

Some may feel that the show in Afghanistan is basically to deny the influence of AQ. Indeed, that is important since defeating the AQ will make the US safe from terrorist action. However, global action has shifted from Europe to the Asian continent, be it the Middle East, Iran, CAR, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, China and the nations around the South China Seas. Therefore, one wonders if the US is out in Afghanistan merely against the AQ. Some say that Afghanistan is the cockpit of Asia – occupy Afghanistan or have influence there and you can influence / feel the pulse of Asia!

In so far as Pakistan is concerned, could it be that the US felt that Pakistan would be an ally because the US bankrolled and militarily equipped Pakistan to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan? And that mirage turned sour since Pakistan was not the old Pakistan, but a Pakistan owned by the Taliban and their patrons in the Army and the ISI? And in the bargain, the US is doing everything so that the Prodigal’s Son comes home to roost?

The idea of ‘resistance response’ is interesting in the context of Pakistan. How is it that there was none of it when Pakistan sold itself to CENTO and SEATO? Obviously, the US miscalculated the Islamic oneness and anger of the War on Terror where to be a Muslim meant you had to take up arms or resist the Crusaders (as Bush used that word as is in the English idiom, without realising how sensitive that word is to the Islamic world!). This miscalculation hangs like an Albatross around the US’ neck! And do what the US might, the Pakistani population are now too indoctrinated through their madrassa men and the mullahs who are merely after the temporal and not the spiritual! The army knows which side of the bread is buttered and so they are hunting with the hounds and running with the hare and the Pakistan Govt remains moribund as they have done always historically! And the worse canard is that Pakistan is the one who has suffered the most because of terrorism – as if someone else foisted terrorists own them! Since they do not subscribe to the Bible, they conveniently forget – Sow and so shall Ye Reap!

Historically, India has ties with Afghanistan. Indeed, it is essential for India to be politically relevant in Afghanistan. It is the path to Central Asia, which is a happening place in today’s globalised world, be it for trade, natural resources or strategically. India has no military presence in Afghanistan and to believe it does, is yet another figment of imagination.

The US is in no way encouraging India – Afghanistan relationship. If they are, could you spell out, how? Are you suggesting that Afghanistan is some sort of a personal preserve of Pakistan? Should one not feel better is Afghanistan is independent without any other country’s influence? I cannot understand why some of you feel that Afghanistan belongs to Pakistan!

[Bob's World]

Ray

I don't write to overcome your bias, I realize it is deep-set in your very fabric and probably reasonable, but you miss most of my points.

I did not say Quixote was rational, I said he thought he was rational. There is a major difference.

I don't buy your assessment of Afghanistan's geostrategic situation though. I realize that when most things moved by land that Afghanistan was a crossroads for global commerce, but that largely ended once man turned to the sea to ship his goods. Now it plays an important role as a buffer between powers, but a buffer need not be particularly well controlled by anyone, and perhaps works best when it is bit of a stew of influence from the surrounding parties. Development of major pipelines, rail systems or roadways could elevate Afghanistan again as a crossroads, but that is one of many alternative futures, not a current reality.

As to Pakistan, I certainly recognize their are no clean hands there; but one cannot ignore the reality of fact that the most important populace group of the region straddles across the line Britain drew through their middle. Perhaps someday a more capable Afghanistan will exercise influence through that shared populace over Pakistan, but until such time it will logically be the other way. I see this as neither good nor bad, just the reality of the situation. My recommendation is that my government embrace that reality and work with it, rather than our position of the past 10+ years of attempting to force an alternative reality of our own making that we have convinced ourselves is better for us. Better to work with what naturally exists than to expend oneself attempting to force something that is not sustainable of itself.

[Ray]

Ray

I don't write to overcome your bias, I realize it is deep-set in your very fabric and probably reasonable, but you miss most of my points.

I did not say Quixote was rational, I said he thought he was rational. There is a major difference.

This is what you wrote earlier at Post #536

tremendous instability in Pakistan in the actions and expectations we have placed upon them to support tremendous instability in Pakistan in the actions and expectations we have placed upon them to support this Quixotic quest of ours..

I confess I am bit confused.

On the issue of Quixote, you claimed that US was Quixotic on which I commented it wasn't.

And to that you claim that you were implying that Quixote thought of himself as being rational.

What you have written above and underlined indicates that you claimed that it was US' Quixotic quest that you were stating. Therefore, where does the question arise of what Quixote thought of himself?

[Bob's World]

In that the US believes, like Quixote, their pursuits to be rational, but like Quixote, we tilt at what many others can clearly see to be mere windmills.

But I forget, that you too see ferocious giants where none exist. At least none that threaten any interest of the US. India has much more reason to engage to shape this region, but should perhaps best leave well enough alone as well. Is Pakistan a windmill or giants? I guess it depends upon where one stands and what their objectives are.

[Ray]

In that the US believes, like Quixote, their pursuits to be rational, but like Quixote, we tilt at what many others can clearly see to be mere windmills.

But I forget, that you too see ferocious giants where none exist. At least none that threaten any interest of the US. India has much more reason to engage to shape this region, but should perhaps best leave well enough alone as well. Is Pakistan a windmill or giants? I guess it depends upon where one stands and what their objectives are.

The short answer is did the US find the USSR a windmill or giants?

Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
...don't worry about if I "like" or "dislike" Pakistan, I simply assess that they acted rationally and reasonably in seeking to exert influence over Afghanistan...

If that be the case, would it not be that all nations acted rationally and reasonably?

Some would concede that Germany too acted rationally and reasonably by having the policy of Lebensraum and also increasing their 'strategic depth'!

it is a game we forced them to play.

One can take a horse to water, but it cannot make it drink!

What makes one feel that it was not Pakistan than made the US play their game, by creating conditions where the US had no option but to play the game?

[carl]

I don't buy your assessment of Afghanistan's geostrategic situation though. I realize that when most things moved by land that Afghanistan was a crossroads for global commerce, but that largely ended once man turned to the sea to ship his goods. Now it plays an important role as a buffer between powers, but a buffer need not be particularly well controlled by anyone, and perhaps works best when it is bit of a stew of influence from the surrounding parties.

No, that is not completely correct. Afghanistan is not a crossroads for global commerce, but it is a crossroad for regional commerce. It is and will be that until you can dock a container ship in Tashkent. If you want to get something from Karachi to the Stans or vice versa, you have to mostly go through Afghanistan.

When you say a buffer works best when it is a bit of a stew of influence from surrounding parties, that seems like an excellent argument for frustrating the Pak Army/ISI's plans for making Afghanistan a vassal state, making sure the Northern Alliance retains influence and getting the Indians in, rather than keeping them out.

As to Pakistan, I certainly recognize their are no clean hands there; but one cannot ignore the reality of fact that the most important populace group of the region straddles across the line Britain drew through their middle. Perhaps someday a more capable Afghanistan will exercise influence through that shared populace over Pakistan, but until such time it will logically be the other way. I see this as neither good nor bad, just the reality of the situation. My recommendation is that my government embrace that reality and work with it, rather than our position of the past 10+ years of attempting to force an alternative reality of our own making that we have convinced ourselves is better for us. Better to work with what naturally exists than to expend oneself attempting to force something that is not sustainable of itself.

That is the fallacy of the false alternative. What you are saying is Afghanistan will make trouble in Pakistan or the Pak Army/ISI will make trouble in Afghanistan. I don't buy that at all.

Then once you establish the false alternative, you recommend (I think) we back the Pak Army/ISI because that is the way the world is naturally ordered. That choice is to further the aims of people who actively kill Americans. That is not a good choice.

[Madhu]

I don't write to overcome your bias, I realize it is deep-set in your very fabric and probably reasonable, but you miss most of my points.

Wow.

It's like Lord Churchill addressing Gandhi.

Omar Ali (not an American military officer, I know, but no one is perfect) has posted a very interesting article, representing the opinion of one particular populace with Pakistan (gee, populace is an interesting word):

Between 2003 to 2007, over 200 political activists, including tribal leaders in South Waziristan were target killed under mysterious circumstances never investigated by the government of Pakistan. The common denominator among them is that they all were anti-Taliban. Their families hold the ISI responsible for their killing. Many of the eliminated anti-Taliban people were local activist of Pashtun nationalist political parties, PMAP and ANP. Mahmud Achakzai, leader of PMAP, repeatedly visited Waziristan to attend the funeral ceremonies of his assassinated party workers.

http://www.thefridaytimes.com/beta3/...0120420&page=6 - the piece is titled, "Taliban are Pak Army proxies, not Pashtun nationalists - III

Translation: not all Pashtuns support the Taliban.

But at this point I am not going to argue about it anymore. OBL was found in Abbottabad and KSM was found in Rawalpindi. And the Saudis and the Pakistan military and its intelligence services have always worked together. I can think of lots of reasons people might ignore potential connections between the two --and to 9-11--but none of them are flattering to the holders of that opinion. Aw, relax, everyone, I'm talking about the Beltway. CYA might explain a lot.

At any rate, this is all rapidly becoming a waste of my time. It's been quite an education, though.

[carl]

It's like Lord Churchill addressing Gandhi.

Madhu: I stand in awe of your power with the language. That was great!

Please hang around.