OEF: a lingering Afghan small war for the West (catch all)

[Azor]

By Christine Fair at War On The Rocks: https://warontherocks.com/2017/06/pa...-to-cure-them/

Introduction:

For the last 16 years, the Washington policy community has debated how the United States should deal with its problematic partner in its war in Afghanistan: Pakistan. During the Obama administration, there was a growing consensus that Pakistan was the problem, even if there was no agreement on how to manage it. Despite disagreements, at the end of the Obama administration, there was a grudging acknowledgment that the Washington needed to show some real stick while pulling back on the carrots. In apparent protest to this growing conviction that a more coercive suite of policies is needed, on June 16, Steve Hadley and Moeed Yusuf argued in The New York Times that any successful U.S. strategy in Afghanistan requires the “United States must understand and address Pakistan’s strategic anxieties,” which center around India and its neuralgic fantasies about India’s imagined pernicious role in Afghanistan. Both men should know better. This argument is not only flawed — it is deadly. Not only can the United States not address Pakistani anxieties, but U.S. efforts to do so have undermined vital U.S. interests in the region.

Highlights:

• Pakistan created its own anxieties with India by invading Kashmir and refusing to abide by UNSCR 47
  
• Bush (George W.) tried to appease Musharraf in order to secure stability in Afghanistan, yet the Pakistanis increased their support for the Taliban during this period
  
• Afghanistan’s opposition to Pakistan’s inclusion in the UNGA and claims on Pashtun and Balochi areas of northern Pakistan helped spur the latter to use Islamist terrorists to stage cross-border subversion and guerrilla warfare against Afghanistan
  
• Pakistan only received a slap on the wrist when $300 million of $1 billion in military funding was withheld by the U.S.
  
• Pakistan needs to be held accountable for its support of the Taliban and other Islamist terrorists, which have attacked India, the U.S. and American interests

[davidbfpo]

WoTR have rightly asked how can the USA and allies campaign in Afghanistan when all the best routes to supply the war pass through less than friendly nations: Iran, Pakistan and the 'stans.
Link:https://warontherocks.com/2017/07/th...ons-of-supply/

There is a closed thread on the issues (closed in 2013):Supply routes to Afghanistan

Oddly I cannot recall any public commentary on the requirement for overflying Pakistan, for combat missions; whether from bases in the region (Diego Garcia and Qatar for starters) or from aircraft carriers.

[davidbfpo]

Another commentary by Professor Paul Rogers, which after a week of violence and takes an optimistic outlook, if goodwill and more prevails:

The main conclusion of In Afghanistan: more is not the answer (5 July 2017) is that the stalemate may hold, providing Nato states continue to maintain support. But there is little evidence that inserting several thousand more troops, as Trump may do, will have any substantive effect. A potentially much more effective strategy would be an effort by multiple parties, including Nato states, Russia, Iran, China, Pakistan, India, and of course Afghanistan itself. The required focus would be an integrated commitment to working together, with the aim of negotiating towards de-escalation.

Link:https://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-r...rthen-imagine?