The US & others working with Pakistan

[davidbfpo]

After he mayhem in Lahore, targeting Christian children celebrating Easter, although the BBC reports most casualties were Muslim; the Pakistani state has responded. This article is a backgrounder:https://theconversation.com/pakistan...l-ahrar-56888?

A BBC report:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35910124

Note the Pakistani Army appear to have decided to respond in the Punjab, a province currently dominated by the Prime Minister's party.

[omarali50]

After he mayhem in Lahore, .. the Pakistani Army appear to have decided to respond in the Punjab, a province currently dominated by the Prime Minister's party.

This seems to imply that the Prime Minister is less interested than the army or that the army is taking an unusual/leading role in some virtuous action. This is a bit misleading (though understandable, given the fact that people overseas are mostly getting their information from sources that the army has long mastered and manipulated); one aspect of Pakistani internal politics is reliably unchanging: that the army will use any and all crises to further elbow the civilians aside and to undermine their authority, usually in self-defeating and completely unnecessary ways (unnecessary in the sense that the civilians are frequently not resisting "the right thing", though there can be rare exceptions to that). Thus the first thing the army did after the latest horrendous attack is to start sending out press releases and tweets via the ever vigilant and extremely efficient ISPR about how it has started taking action in Punjab and to make sure that their supporters/agents in the media amplify this unilateral action and undermine the credibility of the counter-terrorism department and police (both of which have in fact been active recently against the terrorists) as much as possible. When the hapless (more hapless in PR, than in law enforcement) civilian regime tried to point out that these were joint operations and that they were fully on board, the army chief supposedly stated that the army was NOT doing any joint raids. Every retired air marshal and general has been on TV making sure everyone gets the message.
This would all be fine if the army was as capable in this area as they pretend. But they have a long long history of pushing aside civilians (frequently corrupt and modestly incompetent civilians) and failing to do what even the corrupt civilians were managing to do. Thus everything from the Water and Power authority to the Railways to everyday policing deteriorated under army rule (they have also deteriorated under civilian rule, the story is unpleasant all around, but part of that is also due to how the army has undermined civilian institutions for decades, undermining trust in them and tolerating corrupt politicians who do its bidding while making sure anyone half-effective is cut to size).
In the case of the police and the administration the issue is not just that the army does not really know how to handle stuff even at the British Raj level (which outdated level is about the best the civilian administration could manage), but that the army introduces dual responsibility in administration; everybody knows the real power lies with the army, but the civilian chief or police are still responsible on paper, so both sides have no incentive to take any responsibility. It never works well, but the army will do it anyway.
This is more of the same.
They would do much better if they cooperated with the civilians (pushing, if necessary, from behind the scenes, in the national interest; but then again, who does that?) but that is never job 1. Job 1 is grabbing more power.

[omarali50]

I turned this comment into a blog post..

http://brownpundits.blogspot.com/201...is-on-job.html

[davidbfpo]

Hat tip to WoTR for an article which explores, even explains, why for the first time a US drone strike occurred in Baluchistan - hitting the Afghan Talban leader:http://warontherocks.com/2016/06/why...o-baluchistan/

Here are two passages:

The bottom line is there’s no reason to believe the United States would pass up a golden opportunity to take out a leader of the Taliban insurgency simply for the sake of diplomatic niceties.....President Obama did suggest that killing Mansour was simply meant to pave the way for the Taliban to agree to reconciliation talks with Kabul.

[davidbfpo]

I had not seen reports of the Afghan and Pakistani border guards exchanging gunfire @ Torkham border crossing, in the Khyber Pass and Pakistan then closing the border there:

... the recent bloody border clashes between the Afghan and Pakistani military forces illustrate the common aversion of the Afghans towards their antagonistic eastern neighbours, Pakistan. The incident, which left three border guards and two children dead on the Afghan side of the Torkham crossing in eastern Afghanistan, stirred anger throughout the country.

Link:http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/06/pakistan-double-games-afghanistan-160619065803423.html?


The author is an Afghan analyst.

[davidbfpo]

There has been a "lot of water has flowed under the bridge" since the last post, notably the advent of President Trump and the US-Pakistan relationship appears to have changed - even if General Mattis suggests a deal is still possible.

The Soufan Group's latest briefing provides a good overview and is even optimistic.
Link:http://www.soufangroup.com/tsc-intel...stan-tensions/

Forum veterans will recall this relationship has had "hard times" before and Pakistan has "turned the tap off" on overland transportation of supplies from Karachi to Afghanistan. The alternative route, the Northern Distribution Network, is fraught with issues and I understood it was no longer actually working.
The old, closed thread on logistics:Supply routes to Afghanistan

Just how the non-Afghan campaign, waged by the military and contractors can manage with overland transport is a moot point. Yes some items can be flown in, others cannot and would Pakistan still allow overflying?

A July 2017 WoTR article, thanks to a lurker:https://warontherocks.com/2017/07/th...ons-of-supply/

[davidbfpo]

Two viewpoints, one from Londonistani (UK national, now @ Chatham House) who knows Pakistan over many years working there and the second by Richard Olson, a former US Ambassador to Pakistan & SRAP.

Londonistani examines the strategic situation Pakistan is in now minus US support, an often ambivalent China, India being a perceived capable enemy neighbour and an inability to fund what it wants to do.

Link:https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/...tan-s-problems

Mr Olson ends with:

The United States can address Afghanistan only with a political initiative. The ultimate answer to the Pakistan conundrum is to start a diplomatic initiative to bring peace to Afghanistan by opening talks with the Taliban. Much of diplomacy is taking away the other side’s talking points, or excuses.The Trump administration has publicly stated that it sees the conflict ending only through a negotiated solution. It is difficult to understand why no such diplomatic initiative had been started.

Link:https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/09/o...id-engage.html


Whatever one thinks of President Trump talking to the Taliban is not going to happen; though others may and the Afghan state talks to all manner of people - that is their way of resolving conflicts.