The Taliban collection (2006 onwards)

[carl]

I wonder the right question is being asked. Perhaps we should be asking what insurgent strategy the ISI is currently using?

If the ISI is trying to run the same game on us they ran on the Russians, I don't think there is an ultimate goal beyond Afghanistan in chaos and most any strategy will do.

[reed11b]

I wonder the right question is being asked. Perhaps we should be asking what insurgent strategy the ISI is currently using?

If the ISI is trying to run the same game on us they ran on the Russians, I don't think there is an ultimate goal beyond Afghanistan in chaos and most any strategy will do.

I find myself nodding my head in agreement. But what are our options w/ Pak? Any funding we pull out the Chinese will be more then happy to replace. Supporting India would do little to help us in A-stan, and other neighbours are either outright hostile (Iran) or have such limited infrastructure as to be of limited assistance. Not being defeatist, just admitting I have no idea what could be done. I would love to hear ideas on this.
Reed

[carl]

Ultimately, the Pakistanis will have to realize the wishes of the ISI are probably not to the long term benefit of the country. They are the ones who will have to reign them in, or reign the military in, or both. Apparently, much of what drives them is the perceived need to confront India, Kashmir, revenge for past defeats etc; and a weak Afghanistan is a flank they won't have to worry about. So somehow, there has to be a change in that attitude. How we can effect that, I haven't a clue.

It has to be done somehow though because if the de-facto sanctuary that exists in Pakistan isn't removed, I don't see how we can win in Afghanistan.

[davidbfpo]

Reigning in the Pakistani military and or the Pakistani ISI? Who is going to do this?

IMHO Pakistan's politicians invariably allow the military to decide national security policy - for all manner of reasons and history. The ISI has long followed a policy in line with the military's direction. I'm not immersed in what has happened there recently, but recall it was the decision of a senior prosecutor or judge to call for all ISI's prisoners to be released that prompted Musharraf's declaration of an emergency (on another thread at the time).

The policies followed by the USA and the UK have avoided confronting this question - who decides what the soldiers / spies do? Hence the "stop, go" policies of Musharraf, so well described in the NYT story: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/ma...ll&oref=slogin

In some respects Afghanistan is a "sideshow" to Pakistan.

I cannot see the Pakistani military changing to our benefit their policy stance; so what can the Pakistani politicians do? Clearly mobilising popular support is easier on "softer" issues and history indicates the public know their politicians are weak - often leading to military intervention.

The solution escapes me.

davidbfpo

[Ron Humphrey]

In some respects Afghanistan is a "sideshow" to Pakistan.

I cannot see the Pakistani military changing to our benefit their policy stance; so what can the Pakistani politicians do? Clearly mobilising popular support is easier on "softer" issues and history indicates the public know their politicians are weak - often leading to military intervention.

The solution escapes me.

davidbfpo

beyond anyone considering it would seem to come down to making the border region the Pak military's problem rather than diversion. That however may be more readily accomplished by our common enemy there long before we figure out how to accomplish that?

If it all comes down to priorities how do you encourage another countries priorities to come more in line with your own?