The US & others working with Pakistan

[carl]

I don't know Omar. ADM Mullen in the same story also said

'Washington was "committed to sustaining that relationship," he continued.

"But we recognize it's under great stress right now and we need to see our way through it."'

On the one hand the esteemed Admiral says "We don't like what you're doing." On the other hand he says "But we really don't care."

I wish it wasn't so but at the end, it sounds like the same old thing to me...so far.

[Bill Moore]

The ADM is on the way out, the former SECDEF is out, and some of our folks in uniform that consistently pleaded with our nation's leadership to have more patience are out. I hope we can start a new relationship based on reality, verus the way we would hope the Pakistanis are. The American people need to start making their voices heard on this issue, and convince our leaders to stop funding one of the major State sponsors of terror. We need to refuse to be held hostage by a few nuclear weapons. Easier said than done, but the money we're pouring into Pakistan now, at least part of it is being used to support terrorists, insurgents and expand their nuclear program.

Why we do find it acceptable that Pakistan supports terrorists and insurgents that are killing our folks? Why do we find it acceptable they murder reporters who expose the truth? 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.

[Dayuhan]

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.

[carl]

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

[davidbfpo]

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

[Dayuhan]

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

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.

[davidbfpo]

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

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