The US & others working with Pakistan

[omarali50]

I would make the following assertions (supporting arguments can be culled from many many past posts):
1. A safe haven is the most important element for the survival of any such movement. There would probably be many scattered Taliban if there was no Pakistan next door, but they would not be a well organized alternative in the face of overwhelmingly superior military force without such a sanctuary AND (perhaps even more important) without the assurance that "one day the infidels will leave and the ISI will still be here, so fence sitters should think about the future and remember certain lamp posts in Kabul".
2. There would be no NATO occupation if there was no Pakistan next door, since the international jihadi network was founded and grew in Pakistan (with very generous CIA support), not in Afghanistan....Afghanistan became a base later and remained dependent on help from Pakistan..how many Jihadis landed at Kabul airport to join duty and how many landed (and at a reduced rate, still land) at Pakistani airports? The mismanaged and misguided occupation of Afghanistan is ONLY justifiable as a very indirect and badly thought out way of making Pakistan change direction. Invading Pakistan not being a real option in any case, the question is if THIS indirect approach was handled correctly or not.
3. This is also not to argue that NATO could not have effed it up without any help from ISI...just that it would have taken more incompetence than they usually exhibit. With average/usual incompetence factored in, this occupation could still have forced a compromise on almost all Afghan power-brokers, leaving small bands of true believers to gradually outlive their welcome in faraway valleys.
4. This is all "could have been". By now, it may be too late. If we are lucky, China will handle the "forced modernization" of Afghanistan in the next iteration of history's nasty cycle. By "lucky", i mean if we dont have any nuclear bombs go off. I am optimistic on that count, but who can guarantee such an outcome?

[carl]

Ken:

Solution to what, Afghanistan, or Pak Army/ISI support of the Taliban?

What is politically acceptable differs depending upon who is making the decision and when they are making it. Politically acceptable to Ronald Reagan in his time or George Bush in Oct 2001 most probably will differ from what is politically acceptable to Mr. Obama and the never changing crew of blind rats inside the beltway now. Viable would be a matter of determination and political will. Those things are dependent upon the leadership. Have they the stomach for it? Potential for success is a matter of judgment, basically an opinion.

I can give you my opinion as to what would get the Pak Army/ISI to cease its' proxy war against America if you would like that.

[Ken White]

Solution to what, Afghanistan, or Pak Army/ISI support of the Taliban?

The latter. The solution to Afghanistan was not to stay. We blew that. Next best thing is to depart reasonably decently. That's in the works. However, you continue to write that the Pakistani Army and / or ISI are responsible for the Taliban and something needs to be done about that -- IMO that brings up really two questions:

What should be done about that relationship today in view of US presence and supposed goals in Afghanistan? That issue is the focus of my question.

A secondary question is -- if we were not in Afghanistan or after we leave do we or should we care about that relationship and if so, what should we do about it.

Both questions couched in view of actual and not desired political constraints.

What is politically acceptable differs depending upon who is making the decision and when they are making it...Those things are dependent upon the leadership. Have they the stomach for it? Potential for success is a matter of judgment, basically an opinion.

That's the rub, isn't it?

Today, now, current climate -- what Reagan or Bush might have done (and we probably disagree significantly on those possibilities...) are immaterial.

I can give you my opinion as to what would get the Pak Army/ISI to cease its' proxy war against America if you would like that.

I would -- provided that opinion considers political reality and isn't just wishful thinking. I can think of several solutions. Unfortunately, not one would be accepted by the policy makers in DC. You and I may not like their approach but they are there. That's reality.

[carl]

I would -- provided that opinion considers political reality and isn't just wishful thinking. I can think of several solutions. Unfortunately, not one would be accepted by the policy makers in DC. You and I may not like their approach but they are there. That's reality.

Do you want my opinion as to what would stop the Pak Army/ISI from continuing its' proxy war upon American soldiers or would like an opinion as to what is acceptable to the blind rats? Those are two different questions. I will give you my opinion as to what would stop the Pak Army/ISI if you want it; without the qualifier, if that is the question you are asking. To add the qualifier is to cut off the response before it is given. I won't try to enter and explore the gyri and sulci of rodent brains and try to figure what they would like today and might be scared of tomorrow.

Omar:

This is great! "The mismanaged and misguided occupation of Afghanistan is ONLY justifiable as a very indirect and badly thought out way of making Pakistan change direction"

I never thought of it like that but it is true. The heart of the matter almost. Good job. The rest of your post was cogent and well written. I admire your ability with the written word.

[Ken White]

Do you want my opinion as to what would stop the Pak Army/ISI from continuing its' proxy war upon American soldiers or would like an opinion as to what is acceptable to the blind rats?

You can call them all the names you wish -- that doesn't change the reality that they make policy and you do not. I want your opinion on a realistic solution with a chance of implementation, not on what you (or I) would do if we could get away with it. We can't. That's reality.

Wishing is not reality

Those are two different questions. I will give you my opinion as to what would stop the Pak Army/ISI if you want it; without the qualifier, if that is the question you are asking.

IOW, you cannot offer a realistic solution but you, with no responsibility for what is done or not done, propose to continue to fulminate about the issue. Kewel...

To add the qualifier is to cut off the response before it is given.

Actually, that's not necessarily correct though it is certainly a way to avoid answering. It is not an effort to cut off the response. It is an effort to ask you -- nicely -- to consider realities instead of what one might wish could be done. You can denigrate those policy types and call them names but you cannot by so doing remove the fact that they have to consider things that you do not or seem unwilling to address...

Have fun.

[carl]

Ken:

It appears to me that you are not interested in my opinion and only posed the original question in order to set the stage for you to express yours. It would be easier if you just expressed your opinion of my position in the first place instead of engaging in convolutions.

I am guessing you don't think much of my opinion. Fair enough. But I would point that things can change and one of the occasional advantages of our type of political system is that citizens, by expressing their opinions, amongst other things, can change the political realities.

The argument that "they" have to consider things that I don't is just a reformulation of the "defer to your betters" argument which I reject. I especially reject it when considering a decade of things going from bad to worse.

[Ken White]

It appears to me that you are not interested in my opinion and only posed the original question in order to set the stage for you to express yours.

Not at all -- I have no opinion on what to do because I know I do not know enough to have a valid opinion on a complex topic with a long and convoluted history.

It would be easier if you just expressed your opinion of my position in the first place instead of engaging in convolutions.

I have stated my opinion on your opinions on the topic on several occasions earlier. I stated it once again just above: "I want your opinion on a realistic solution with a chance of implementation, not on what you (or I) would do if we could get away with it. We can't. That's reality...Wishing is not reality...You can denigrate those policy types and call them names but you cannot by so doing remove the fact that they have to consider things that you do not or seem unwilling to address..."

I don't think I can state it much more clearly.

I am guessing you don't think much of my opinion. Fair enough.

No need to guess, I've been quite clear in stating that I do not. For the record, it is not just your opinion on this, it's a general attitude that I have toward anyone who tends to espouse what appear to infeasible solutions; I tend to ask them to consider what they wish for and give it a simple feasibility check. IMO, if that is done, better solution / suggestions / opinions can appear. It's not a case of saying 'You're wrong...' It is simply asking if the solution or idea can work in the real world.

But I would point that things can change and one of the occasional advantages of our type of political system is that citizens, by expressing their opinions, amongst other things, can change the political realities.

Very true, I agree and encourage that from everyone. I do, however, suggest that they be realistic and deal in the realm of the possible and not on what they wish things could be...

That's all I'm doing here and now.

The argument that "they" have to consider things that I don't is just a reformulation of the "defer to your betters" argument which I reject. I especially reject it when considering a decade of things going from bad to worse.

You may have enough information to say that things have gone from bad to worse over the decade. I do not. What I have seen are some typical ups and downs.

No, it is not such an argument. Not at all. I certainly do not consider them your or my betters -- but I do acknowledge that they have responsibilities to voters or statutes and intermeshing polices and therefor operating constraints that you and I as private citizens simply expressing opinions do not have. I have in the past and am once again simply suggesting that you consider that...

I do not disagree with what you suggest -- I just do not believe it is at all realistic.

[carl]

Not at all -- I have no opinion on what to do because I know I do not know enough to have a valid opinion on a complex topic with a long and convoluted history.

This quote was based upon the first sentence of a paragraph that I wrote. The thought needed a two sentence paragraph to express. If you had commented upon the paragraph, the above quote would not have been needed. The following quote would have sufficed. I would prefer that you comment upon the whole thought, but I can't always have what I want.

I have stated my opinion on your opinions on the topic on several occasions earlier. I stated it once again just above: "I want your opinion on a realistic solution with a chance of implementation, not on what you (or I) would do if we could get away with it. We can't. That's reality...Wishing is not reality...You can denigrate those policy types and call them names but you cannot by so doing remove the fact that they have to consider things that you do not or seem unwilling to address..." I don't think I can state it much more clearly.

No need to guess, I've been quite clear in stating that I do not. For the record, it is not just your opinion on this, it's a general attitude that I have toward anyone who tends to espouse what appear to infeasible solutions; I tend to ask them to consider what they wish for and give it a simple feasibility check. IMO, if that is done, better solution / suggestions / opinions can appear. It's not a case of saying 'You're wrong...' It is simply asking if the solution or idea can work in the real world.

I would say that infeasible and what can work in the real world are matters of opinion. Your opinion and mine differ. I think yours is wrong. You think mine is wrong. Your general attitude towards those who tend to espouse what appear to be infeasible solutions seems to me to be more about disagreement with your opinion

Very true, I agree and encourage that from everyone. I do, however, suggest that they be realistic and deal in the realm of the possible and not on what they wish things could be...

Again, a matter of opinion. Political actions, tendencies and realities are not described by the laws of physics. They change and can be changed. What you think realistic and withing the realm of the possible may not be what I think.

That's all I'm doing here and now.You may have enough information to say that things have gone from bad to worse over the decade. I do not. What I have seen are some typical ups and downs.

I am eagerly awaiting the ups.

No, it is not such an argument. Not at all. I certainly do not consider them your or my betters -- but I do acknowledge that they have responsibilities to voters or statutes and intermeshing polices and therefor operating constraints that you and I as private citizens simply expressing opinions do not have. I have in the past and am once again simply suggesting that you consider that...

I have considered that, and have rejected it. I believe they are simply wrong, easily fooled and unable to consider anything anything that hasn't been done before because it hasn't been done before.

I do not disagree with what you suggest -- I just do not believe it is at all realistic.

That is the crux of the disagreement, what is realistic and what is not. Because action not taken hasn't been taken doesn't mean it can't be taken or won't work. It can very well mean that the people who haven't taken it are just dunderheads, a realistic possibility. I think that we place unneeded limits upon what we can do if we reject action because we don't think there is a realistic possibility that it will be accepted and acted upon.

I haven't suggested anything in response to your latest question yet, because the question is so circumscribed by carefully contrived qualifications that it can't be answered without limiting the possibilities.

I still think it would have been much easier if you had just stated your idea of what you thought my ideas were and countered them in a nice paragraph or two. Your ideas of what my ideas are may have even been right.

[Ken White]

I have considered that, and have rejected it. I believe they are simply wrong, easily fooled and unable to consider anything anything that hasn't been done before because it hasn't been done before.

Yep. I totally Agree. And that's the unchanging reality...

That is the crux of the disagreement, what is realistic and what is not...I think that we place unneeded limits upon what we can do if we reject action because we don't think there is a realistic possibility that it will be accepted and acted upon.

Yep, we do differ on that. I think the ten years you mentioned -- and the next few -- show which of us correct on that issue.

I haven't suggested anything in response to your latest question yet, because the question is so circumscribed by carefully contrived qualifications that it can't be answered without limiting the possibilities.

I'm not sure which question(s) you're referring to unless it's this bit:

"What should be done about that relationship today in view of US presence and supposed goals in Afghanistan? That issue is the focus of my question.

A secondary question is -- if we were not in Afghanistan or after we leave do we or should we care about that relationship and if so, what should we do about it.

Both questions couched in view of actual and not desired political constraints."

If you believe that "actual and not desired political constraints" is an effort to approach "so circumscribed by carefully contrived qualifications that it can't be answered without limiting the possibilities." then we can disagree on that as well. Those aren't my qualifications and they aren't contrived -- they just are.

I still think it would have been much easier if you had just stated your idea of what you thought my ideas were and countered them in a nice paragraph or two. Your ideas of what my ideas are may have even been right.

It's not up to me to state what I think your ideas are, if you want those ideas understood, you should state them clearly.

What I do know is that you continually state that firmer action should be taken -- a perfectly valid opinion -- but every time you're asked how to avoid the political constraints you get defensive and say they shouldn't exist. Fine, we can agree on that -- BUT, they do exist. You can wave 'em away with your magic wand, the folks in DC don't have that luxury.

[omarali50]

Its probably not my place to say this, but I will say it anyway: I think the exchange has become more about our natural determination not to be bested by our opponent and less about the topic....

[Ken White]

Its probably not my place to say this, but I will say it anyway: I think the exchange has become more about our natural determination not to be bested by our opponent and less about the topic....

and I think you may well be right. We've been bested because we were stoooopid -- and we need to just get over it and move on...

[carl]

Its probably not my place to say this, but I will say it anyway: I think the exchange has become more about our natural determination not to be bested by our opponent and less about the topic....

Omar, you are insightful as always and made me laugh.

[omarali50]

Interesting: http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/11/...anatol-lieven/

[Ken White]

you may have missed the point.

And that point is?

[omarali50]

More, more, more: http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/11/...#comment-15021

Do you believe that senior American officials were being fooled? or that they were stupid enough to think this is a clever strategy that yields vast benefits that the uninitiated cannot grasp? complicit? or incompetent? or both?
From the pakistani side, the scary thing is, we may be about to win...that was not the plan..or shouldnt have been. If that was the plan, then it was a terrible plan; to win on the side of the taliban and the jihadists? what kind of genius came up with that plan? ...too competent for their own good?

[davidbfpo]

Omarali50,

The indirectly linked in The Atlantic is good, but is essentially repeating many of the aspects SWC will know, albeit with an emphasis on the custody of Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

Link:http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...ngle_page=true

If the situation evolves to the point where external action is taken to reduce the Pakistani nuclear arsenal, has this option been subjected to the degree an attack on Iran has? That policy option has been subject to at least two SWC threads, I cannot recall one on Pakistan.

[moses78lc]

This recently popped up on Strategy Page, and while I understand it is meant to be a brief analysis, I'm scratching my head a bit at some of it.

Taliban created in Pakistan? I've thought all along that the Taliban was essentially a manifestation of fundamentalist action taken by Mullah Omar and followers in response to the rampant warlordism that enslaved Afghanistan.

One blurb does interest me in a positive way though, since I have tried to get it straight in my head for a very long time why ISI has interest in instability within Afghanistan. Does the following quote really boil down its involvement this simply?



-------------------------------
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htt.../20111026.aspx

Instead of scratching heads, if we scratch history; we will come to know the genesis of the problem. US created mujahid in Afghanistan to fight ex USSR. after ex USSR defeat left afghanis and Pakistan alone. Both war torne countries had to struggle for survival. Over and above US put sanctions on Pakistan, Pressler. Now if you tell us that mujahid in Afghanistan have come up from no where, do you think every body will believe you? This self deception will not work. Face the reality. The vacuum created by US was to be filled and was filled by Al Qaida, who supported Afghans and served their own purpose. US is spending trillions now, if 1/1000 of this money was spent on developing Afghnistan immediately after ex USSR withdrawal, Americans would not have been on wall street now. This is not the only case. Consider some also and you will come to know how how big powers work.

Mess was created in Iran by giving them weapons and support in Shah Iran time and now US is facing trouble from Iran.

Soon you will see; the mess created in Libya will require cleaning of weapons been given to Libyan to fight Gaddafi, just wait for few months.

If new regime comes in Syria,you may see news of a surge in weaponized society there also.

No surprise if Egyptians also develop a same society.

This all the mess is created by powers to serve short time purpose. SO what is the solution?
BUILD TRUST, EVOLVE COOPERATIVE SECURITY MECHANISM. Donot bring minorities in power in other countries by giving thm weapons and creating nofly zones. Live with democratic norms allover the world. In own country one likes democracy and in other if one wants government of own liking; the system will always be short lived. In other countries the government should be of the liking of majority; a democratic way. Learn tolive with democratic way all over the world not only in own countires.

[moses78lc]

More, more, more: http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/11/...#comment-15021

Do you believe that senior American officials were being fooled? or that they were stupid enough to think this is a clever strategy that yields vast benefits that the uninitiated cannot grasp? complicit? or incompetent? or both?
From the Pakistani side, the scary thing is, we may be about to win...that was not the plan..or should not have been. If that was the plan, then it was a terrible plan; to win on the side of the taliban and the jihadists? what kind of genius came up with that plan? ...too competent for their own good?

Answer to your question lies in differentiating between Pashtun and Taliban. All Taliban are Pashtun but All Pashtun are not Taliban. 50% of Afghanis are Pashtun. Afghanistan cannot get stable without pashtun. Give Pashtun their rights and Taliban will diminish otherwise they will increase.

Please also read regional power interests. Supporting minorities will enable other powers to support majorities and trouble will increase. We must learn from China.

Read history of Afghanistan; they always had strong tribal and loose central control system. In their complete history they never accepted foreign rule and they never will. Pashtuns are fighting for traditional freedom. The moment hey are free and have economic activities the myth of Taliban will disappear. If they are not free, it will be a hundred year war. Can world, at this critical and economically difficult period afford to continue fighting? In my opinion true democracy and not the forged own liking based "so called" democratic government be established and support Afghanis economic activity.

[Ray]

I find it repeated the none could subjugate the Afghans.

Historically true.

However, one should also delve into what was the Aim of those who 'invaded' Afghanistan? Even during the period of the Great Game, was the aim to capture Afghanistan or ensure a buffer?

If Pashtuns were 'unconquerable', then what is NWFP (a part of British India) and who are the people there?

[omarali50]

Some recent developments in Pakistani politics and our speculations on the same: http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/11/...-fail-to-bark/

(PS: i post these partly for colonel Roberts, since he is interested in local democratic aspirations)