The US & others working with Pakistan

[Bob's World]

I don't know much about this man, but I do believe he makes some important points. Points that I think are important, and that he seems to stand for are:

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."

[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.

[Ray]

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.

There is no doubt that the leaders of a Nation should not appear as if they have sold their nation to a foreign power or be taken to have subjected the country to vassalage.

However, when a country is solely dependent on a specific foreign country for sustenance as a Nation and requires that foreign country to remain relevant as a Nation, then one has to not live in denial of its sorry state.

If indeed the Pakistan’s are so concerned about their national pride, then they should do something for themselves as a starter rather than await dole to salvage them from pecuniary. Majority of Pakistanis don’t pay tax! It is not that they are poor, it is just that they evade paying tax!

Pakistan's transgender tribe of tax collectors
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-04-14/w...ne?_s=PM:WORLD

Pragmatic parasite
What happened to all the posturing in Pakistan on patriotism and sovereignty?
Most of Pakistan’s ministers, MPs and judges don’t pay taxes. On an average, a Pakistani MP is worth $9,00,000. The assets of its richest MP, Mahboobullah Jan of the ruling PPP, is worth $37 million, according to Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency. Nawaz Sharif paid no income tax last year.
http://expressbuzz.com/opinion/colum...te/382290.html

The Secret Strength of Pakistan's Economy
Nasir’s business, his home, his power and water supply, and even the cup of tea Abid brings him don’t exist in Pakistan’s official figures. They’re part of another economy that doesn’t pay taxes or heed regulations. It probably employs more than three quarters of the nation’s 54 million workers and is worth as much as 50 percent of Pakistan’s 18 trillion rupee ($200 billion) official gross domestic product. And while the documented economy had its smallest expansion in a decade at 2.4 percent in the year ended June 2011, soaring demand for cars, cement for houses, and other goods shows the underground market is thriving.



If the US is bankrolling Pakistan’s survival, both economically and militarily, and that too a country that has an adage that there is nothing called a Free Lunch, one would feel that the US is indeed very restrained and doing its level best to keep itself in check, unless when the situation goes totally against US strategic and political aims.

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.

Indeed that is a correct step. However, such areas cannot be totally divorced from the reality of the nation of Pakistan.

One cannot have laws that are repressive and totally freewheeling. At best, the tribal customs and traditions should not be tinkered, but even so, archaic laws that are out of step with Pakistan and even the world cannot be condoned as being non interfering.

The sovereignty of Pakistan has to run in all areas of Pakistan.

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.

What unique challenging situation is Pakistan in that is no applicable to every other country in the region?

If indeed, Pakistan has diversity, is it not applicable to others too? Say, India or China? India has no regulated border with Nepal and the population cross over either way at will.

Indeed tribesmen, who have had a freewheeling existence, will create problems. However, what is required is not let them loose and instead educated them to understand the realities of the world. If Christian missionaries could ‘tame’ the wild ones of the Orient and Africa or even early Europe, what prevents application of their formula (without proselytising) and tame the wild ones?

It is, however, politically prudent to keep the wild ones wild so as to extract the usual pound of flesh through blackmail, while the locals loot the Nation and yet stay afloat with US munificence!

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."

In short, do I read that let the chaos continue and the US be bled white?

[Ray]

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’.

From a Pakistani newspaper, such comments are natural.

In Pakistan, the civil govt is redundant. It is cosmetic.

The power in Pakistan grows from the barrel of the gun.

What options are there but to make the Pakistan military come to heel?

This very statement proves the point that the Army is the supreme authority in Pakistan and hence requires to be addressed:

The Pakistan Army has since demonstrated that it can leverage its strength better than the hapless civilians devoid of popular support.

The remainder part of the article is pure hogwash in English!

[Bob's World]

In short, do I read that let the chaos continue and the US be bled white?

Chaos can come as much from attempting to exert excessive or inappropriate control over things that are either uncontrollable or simply not one's business to control in the first place.

The US has determined that it must exercise control over the political out come of Afghanistan to make itself safe, and based on that decision they have tied the nation to an impossible task and have thereby elevated and extended violence in Afghanistan by elevating the Northern Alliance into power unnaturally, and equally unnaturally sustained them there; and have facilitated tremendous instability in Pakistan in the actions and expectations we have placed upon them to support this Quixotic quest of ours.

The Chaos we have created is arguably good for India, as it serves to weaken Pakistan and has created opportunities for India to envelop Pakistan in Afghanistan. But that also disrupts the balance of nuclear deterrence and could lead to catastrophic miscalculations by either or both of the parities.

We have chaos now. Dangerous chaos. And it is from misguided attempts to control things that should not be, and perhaps cannot be, controlled.

[carl]

The US has determined that it must exercise control over the political out come of Afghanistan to make itself safe, and based on that decision they have tied the nation to an impossible task and have thereby elevated and extended violence in Afghanistan by elevating the Northern Alliance into power unnaturally, and equally unnaturally sustained them there; and have facilitated tremendous instability in Pakistan in the actions and expectations we have placed upon them to support this Quixotic quest of ours.

The Chaos we have created is arguably good for India, as it serves to weaken Pakistan and has created opportunities for India to envelop Pakistan in Afghanistan. But that also disrupts the balance of nuclear deterrence and could lead to catastrophic miscalculations by either or both of the parities.

We have chaos now. Dangerous chaos. And it is from misguided attempts to control things that should not be, and perhaps cannot be, controlled.

You say we have facilitated instability in Pakistan. The Pak Army/ISI are playing a double game by sponsoring and supporting the Afghan Taliban & Co.. From what I read they are pretty careful not to upset the Pak Army/ISI because they could not succeed without that support. They don't make trouble in Pakistan. The Pak Army/ISI supports them to insure "strategic depth" for its own odd purposes. So how does all that translate into our actions facilitating instability in Pakistan?

Also how does something that advantages India, disadvantage us? India has its problems but if you are looking for allies, India is vastly superior; and they don't take our money and kill Americans with it.

And I don't understand how India can "envelop" Pakistan in Afghanistan. They surely aren't going to base an armored corps there to make a "cold start" easier. The use of the word "envelop" in that context is as strange as "strategic depth".

If India did "envelop" Pakistan in Afghanistan, how does that alter the balance of nuclear deterrence? Pakistan's nukes aren't based in Jalalbad. I don't see how it would change a thing.

Last question, aren't the Pak Army/ISI's actions in Afghanistan being taken because it "has determined that it must exercise control over the political out come of Afghanistan to make itself safe"?

[omarali50]

"the negative effects of the 1990s cutoff" are mostly posthoc propaganda from people who know what works best for the ignorant rich uncle that they want to "touch". The policy of using Jihadis was developed while aid was flowing in the 1980s and continued unabated and expanded when aid was cut off (and the cutoff officially had nothing to do with those policies)..the increase in Jihadist recruitment and usage was not a petulant response to the cutoff. It was focused on wresting Kashmir, creating an "area of influence" in Afghanistan/central Asia, developing muscle against domestic opponents and Islamicate fantasies (with differing proportions for individual policymakers). It was also thought that this policy, as long as it was mostly "India-centric", was not a "red-line" for the Uncle.

It is worth keeping in mind that the person across the table is also a person, with aims or ambitions of his own. And with the ability to churn out propaganda that serves to justify said aims and ambitions.
And to keep in mind that we have a bigger stake in knowing how to play the uncle than the uncle had in playing us. We are therefore naturally better at it.

[carl]

"the negative effects of the 1990s cutoff" are mostly posthoc propaganda from people who know what works best for the ignorant rich uncle that they want to "touch"....

...And to keep in mind that we have a bigger stake in knowing how to play the uncle than the uncle had in playing us. We are therefore naturally better at it.

Omar: Thank you for those two paragraphs and I now stand corrected. I should have learned and remembered that on my own but didn't.

[Ray]

Chaos can come as much from attempting to exert excessive or inappropriate control over things that are either uncontrollable or simply not one's business to control in the first place.

The US has determined that it must exercise control over the political out come of Afghanistan to make itself safe, and based on that decision they have tied the nation to an impossible task and have thereby elevated and extended violence in Afghanistan by elevating the Northern Alliance into power unnaturally, and equally unnaturally sustained them there; and have facilitated tremendous instability in Pakistan in the actions and expectations we have placed upon them to support this Quixotic quest of ours.

The Chaos we have created is arguably good for India, as it serves to weaken Pakistan and has created opportunities for India to envelop Pakistan in Afghanistan. But that also disrupts the balance of nuclear deterrence and could lead to catastrophic miscalculations by either or both of the parities.

We have chaos now. Dangerous chaos. And it is from misguided attempts to control things that should not be, and perhaps cannot be, controlled.

I reckon that if one has to bankroll a Nation to ensure its breathes, then one sure has a right to know how the money is spent and who spends the money and for what cause. And like it or not, dictate terms. To use an English idiom (without prejudice) - Beggars cannot be Choosers!

Now, it the money is given as charity, then it is a different matter. However, I am sure that the US taxpayer will not be delighted that the US has become Mother Teresa. Even Mother Teresa was driven by an aim and she sure dictated the terms.

If one is to foist any Govt, surely they will not foist a faction that is against the one who is foisting the Govt. That is logical. The US has operated with Pakistan ever since the CENTO and SEATO days and they have seen Pakistan up real close during the time when Pakistan played ball to oust the Soviets. It would be correct to believe that the US is aware of the chaos that Pakistan can create in Afghanistan. Hence, one would not expect US to foist a faction that will create such a horrifyingly untenable situation both in governance and in fighting AQ wherein the US loses on both fronts – fighting the AQ and organising the governance of the country.

I am guessing, but it would be logical that at least on one front the US wanted to keep a grip over the situation and the choice was in helping governance; and so of the two, they decided it was safer to have a Northern Alliance heavy potpourri to govern. It maybe added that the Northern Alliance is not one monolithic bloc.

I take it the aim of the US was to get rid of AQ in Afghanistan and not be concerned about Pakistan and its governance. Hence, if instability has been caused, it is not US’ fault! Surely, it is expected that Pakistan Govt and its Army knows how to maintain stability in their country. Or is it being suggested that Pakistan by birth is like a lost cow that has lost its bearing to return home at sunset? In this part of the world, cows roam free and return to the cowshed on their own to the cowshed, though at times, guided by little boys who job is to tend the cattle when grazing free.

Indeed, many outside the US have claimed that US actions are Quixotic. This is the first time a Westerner admits that the US is quixotic! If indeed that is the Gospel Truth, we live in real dangerous and illogical times! I, for one, do not feel that the US is quixotic. They are pursuing their national and strategic aims that are not to the liking of some. I, as a non US person, would admit that some of the policies of the US do make me uncomfortable, but then I am pragmatic enough to realise that the US Govt is not there to make me comfortable and instead make Americans comfortable, who vote them in!

Afghanistan is not advantage India, except that the terrorists are looking towards Afghanistan and less towards India. The force levels on the border with India do not indicate any appreciable change. It was and it still is a desire of India and any sane nation that Afghanistan remains an independent country charting its own destiny. Surely, that is what should be the desire of the international comity of Nations, or have I missed something?

In no way does an independent Afghanistan weaken Pakistan. At least, I have not been able to see the logic where Afghanistan weakens Pakistan, that is, unless of course it is believed that Afghanistan should be a part of Pakistan and to that end, if Afghanistan remains independent and not a part of Pakistan, it weakens Pakistan’s hegemonic ambitions. So, is it being advocated that it is kosher for Pakistan to be hegemonic?

This nuclear issue is another dramatic invention of those who have nothing else to offer for the sake of argument, but some alarmist romantic escapist claptrap. If the US and USSR did not have a nuclear conflagration, what makes one believe that Asians are not that wise as the Europeans and the US? Do people believe that we are genetically and racial born idiots?

If it was such an issue, then it should have occurred as recently as 1999 when Musharraf had to eat humble pie (or crow to use the US idiom) over Kargil! Musharraf has planned it way before in time. Benazir has vetoed it. Yet, Musharraf who has been wearing this idea on his sleeve got a hiding of his life and he would miss the opportunity to unleash his nukes lest he had to eat crow? Fortunately for the world, which may feel that Asians are genetically blessed as prize idiots, it was proved wrong. The Asians did appear blessed with equal sense as the Caucasians, if not more!

India does not have an continuous landmass to Afghanistan and so ‘enveloping’ Pakistan is another of those figments of imagination trotted out by those who are not seized of the issue in all its facets.

[carl]

This nuclear issue is another dramatic invention of those who have nothing else to offer for the sake of argument, but some alarmist romantic escapist claptrap. If the US and USSR did not have a nuclear conflagration, what makes one believe that Asians are not that wise as the Europeans and the US? Do people believe that we are genetically and racial born idiots?

If it was such an issue, then it should have occurred as recently as 1999 when Musharraf had to eat humble pie (or crow to use the US idiom) over Kargil! Musharraf has planned it way before in time. Benazir has vetoed it. Yet, Musharraf who has been wearing this idea on his sleeve got a hiding of his life and he would miss the opportunity to unleash his nukes lest he had to eat crow? Fortunately for the world, which may feel that Asians are genetically blessed as prize idiots, it was proved wrong. The Asians did appear blessed with equal sense as the Caucasians, if not more!

Ray, you don't think that the people inside the beltway, educated at the best schools and renowned for their tolerance and egalitarian outlook actually look down their noses at Indians and Pakistanis do you? That can't be. If it were it would have made it easy for them to be played for fools by the army of one of those nations for years and years.

[Ray]

I would not know.

But the manner in which people out here and the so called 'think tanks' so glibly talk about that it is ever so dangerous a place this Subcontinent is because they have nuclear weapons, does give the impression that people feel that fools inhabit the subcontinent.

While we are not that worried about the bodybags as some are, we still are worried about a nuclear conflagration!

[Bob's World]

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.

[Madhu]

Ray, they really believe that if they train military officers in the US, or sell them lots of expensive American weapons, or send lots of civilian aid, then they can change entire cultures and strategic outlooks. They being the Beltway foreign policy class, including the military.

And no one in that class of people--or the American military--will admit in this lifetime that they were psychologically misdirected.

But everyday people know, instinctively, what happened about a year ago. That telegraphed, more than any event in my adult lifetime, the basic fitness of that class. We got it. Most Americans got it.

Oops, another edit:

Sorry, I really didn't mean to direct that at you Tequila, or anyone else. I just don't understand why people keep repeating the same theories over and over, even when events bring the theories into question. I don't get it.

[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.