Egypt's Spring Revolution (2011-2013)

[carl]

We've created a tremendous conflict of interest for Pakistan that is tearing at the fabric of the government's ability to keep a handle on things as they seek to balance their interest in maintaining positive relations with the US against their interest in being able to exert control over Afghanistan through their Pashtun agents.

Is the Pak Army/ISI's desire to exert control over Aghanistan one we should honor any more than India's desire that they don't?

[Ken White]

Is the Pak Army/ISI's desire to exert control over Aghanistan one we should honor any more than India's desire that they don't?

When I was wandering about the Region years ago, the Afghans liked the US and Americans. A good part of that was, they said, due to the fact that only they and we had beaten the British, not once but twice (actually in all four cases, the British decided the hassle wasn't worth the effort but no sense being pedantic...).

They were nearly neutral on Indians, mentioning only their status as kuffar. They did not like Russians or the British at all -- and they hated the Pakistanis due to their excessive desire for control of Afghanistan and the Pakistani attempts to divide the Pathan (as they were then). There were also some flatlander comments...

Of course, that was forty years ago and it's probably changed a bit -- but I bet not much...

[Bob's World]

Is the Pak Army/ISI's desire to exert control over Afghanistan one we should honor any more than India's desire that they don't?

Personally I am a consistent (and fairly lonely) voice that the U.S. needs to take into greater account the impact on Pak-Indian deterrence of the actions (both policy and physical) that we take in the name of the War on Terrorism.

"Loose Nukes" are not all that likely based upon what I understand, but certainly the likelihood of deliberately exchanged nukes is higher now than it was 10 years ago.

I would never say that Pakistan has a right to an unstable Afghanistan ( be that worked through their Army or intel service with Pashtun agents, or however else). I only state that Pakistan believes that they have a vital national interest in it being so.

If the U.S. is any example, a nation will go to any lengths, and get into situations that make outside observers scratch their heads in wonder, in the pursuit on vital national interests. And I doubt any will argue that Pakistan faces far more of an "existential threat" against India than the U.S. does from AQ taking sanctuary in the FATA.

My only point was the observation that our demands on Pakistan to support our efforts against AQ and the Taliban creates a very dangerous conflict of interest for the government, that erodes the stability of the nation. On one hand they need a solid relationship with the US, so they agree to do what we ask (sort of, and thus our frustration at the seeming lack of competence from what is a very competent security force); while at the same time seeking to continue their covert operation to secure instability in Afghanistan.

Now the US finds ourselves in a similar conflict of interest of our own making. On one hand we stand for "universal rights" and democracy; but on the other hand we support the Mubarak government as a critical Arab ally that sits on the key terrain of both Israel's flank and the Suez canal. Such relationships are rationalized based upon vital national interests, yet when they create conflicts of interest they are damaging as well.

We have an opportunity to begin cleaning the effects of a post WWII policy/strategy/engagement program in the Middle East that has about reached the breaking point. We do not want to wake up on the wrong side of history there, and if we continue to cling to an unsustainable past that is the most likely result. We have a tremendous opportunity here, but it is a delicate game of showing greater support to the people, greater alignment of our actions and policies with our stated principles as a nation; but condemning of the actions of "allied" governments who have been enabled in their slides toward despotism by their relationships with the US. If we just yank the rug on these clowns we could create a massive violent chaos in the Middle East that is good for no one.

We must empower a controlled change. We focus on the empower aspect, and allowing the current governments to establish processes with their people to hear their grievances and give them their due consideration as they seek reasonable evolutions of government. This is tricky stuff. Far easier to just send in TLAMs, but the potential return is far greater and holds the key to reducing acts of terrorism emanating from the Middle East.

So far what I have heard from our President and our Sec State; coupled with what I have seen in terms of physical responses are in synch with how I see this. I don't know what the back room actions are, but I can only hope they are in synch as well. In synch or not, agree or not, I think we can all share in the hope that they work. Inshah Allah.

[carl]

I would never say that Pakistan has a right to an unstable Afghanistan ( be that worked through their Army or intel service with Pashtun agents, or however else). I only state that Pakistan believes that they have a vital national interest in it being so.

If the U.S. is any example, a nation will go to any lengths, and get into situations that make outside observers scratch their heads in wonder, in the pursuit on vital national interests. And I doubt any will argue that Pakistan faces far more of an "existential threat" against India than the U.S. does from AQ taking sanctuary in the FATA.

My only point was the observation that our demands on Pakistan to support our efforts against AQ and the Taliban creates a very dangerous conflict of interest for the government, that erodes the stability of the nation. On one hand they need a solid relationship with the US, so they agree to do what we ask (sort of, and thus our frustration at the seeming lack of competence from what is a very competent security force); while at the same time seeking to continue their covert operation to secure instability in Afghanistan.

If Pak Army/ISI does not have a valid right to exert control over Afghanistan, but only has a belief that it must because of a belief that it is in Pakistan's national interest, isn't it foolish of us to act in deference to that belief? Wouldn't it be wiser to do our best to disabuse them of that belief and not act in any way to further it? They are on a road to destruction because of it so we might be doing them an unappreciated good by frustrating their accomplishment of that goal.

[Bob's World]

Pakistan believes it to be a vital national interest. Every nation gets to pick their own positions on such things.

It is typically when the U.S. presumes to impose our vital national interests onto or over the vital interests of others that we tend to get into conflicted positions such as we are now with Pakistan.

This is not about the ISI or the Army, they are agents of this vital national interest, not the determiners of it. Similarly this is not about "rights." There are many who would argue the U.S. had no right to assist the Northern Alliance in their victory or to invade Iraq. But the U.S. relied upon our belief we had a vital national interest at stake, and that no one could stop us from enforcing it. I suspect Pakistan feels much the same way in regard to Afghanistan.

This is a game that every nation gets to play. Increasingly, non-state actors as well.

[carl]

We've created a tremendous conflict of interest for Pakistan that is tearing at the fabric of the government's ability to keep a handle on things as they seek to balance their interest in maintaining positive relations with the US against their interest in being able to exert control over Afghanistan through their Pashtun agents.

Pakistan believes it to be a vital national interest. Every nation gets to pick their own positions on such things.

This is not about the ISI or the Army, they are agents of this vital national interest, not the determiners of it.

I would never say that Pakistan has a right to an unstable Afghanistan

Bob's World:

All of these things listed above you have said, and they bring to my mind two questions. First, do you believe the Pak Army/ISI is correct in it's view that it must exert control over Afghanistan, is that actually a vital national interest of Pakistan? Second, I restate my original question, is the Pak Army/ISI's desire to exert control over Afghanistan one we should honor any more than India's desire that they don't?

[Bob's World]

Bob's World:

All of these things listed above you have said, and they bring to my mind two questions. First, do you believe the Pak Army/ISI is correct in it's view that it must exert control over Afghanistan, is that actually a vital national interest of Pakistan? Second, I restate my original question, is the Pak Army/ISI's desire to exert control over Afghanistan one we should honor any more than India's desire that they don't?

I believe that Pakistan's position is reasonable, as is their position in regards to the Durrand line. Most military professionals doing a basic assessment of the terrain and the threat would probably come to the same conclusion. If Pakistan is reduced down to just the Indus river valley a quick push by India could foreseeably take their entire country. They would cease to exist as a nation. A fearful, nuclear armed state with its back up against the Hindu Kush and a rival nuclear state to their front is NOT a healthy situation for anyone. I think there are workable solutions, but before the US can get to sitting down and discussing workable solutions we to first be willing to recognize their reasonable perspective in regards to what their national interests are and how highly they prioritize them.

Second, to rephrase your question a bit: Is sustaining a set of conditions that supported a workable situation of deterrence between India and Pakistan one that I think is more important than disrupting that balance to grant India a clear advantage? I have to go with sustaining the status quo. Like our own Cold War with the Soviets, it was sometimes a bit dicey, but it worked. I can't imagine if some external power would have come along and ceded Canada into the Warsaw Pact, allowing the Russians to positions military forces all along our northern border, that we would have said "oh, ok."

We probably would have seen such a situation as threatening our national survival and we would have broken out our complete bag of dirty tricks to do whatever it took to put things back as they were before. Perhaps not a perfect example, but I want to try to convey how big of an issue i believe this to be for Pakistan. We just do not understand all of the dynamics of the relationship between India and Pakistan to go in and make major alterations like we have.

Pakistan is in a tough situation, and India is just one of their concerns. They also have the Pashtuns and the Baluchs to balance. One more mess Great Britain cobbled together as they executed their passage of lines at the end of WWII and said "Here you go Yanks, good luck!"

[davidbfpo]

Bob's World just stated:

One more mess Great Britain cobbled together as they executed their passage of lines at the end of WWII and said "Here you go Yanks, good luck!"

Yes the British exited South Asia in 1947, ending that imperial era, although we stayed in a few other places till later (more in a moment). At no stage did we conduct a handover to the USA and wish you luck IMHO.

The UK did stay around South Asia, notably through the Cold War, remember CENTO? Effectively the UK relied on diplomacy, although we offered a nuclear umbrella to India after the Indo-China conflict (1961 IIRC) and after 1967 our East of Suez role dwindled. The USA for mainly Cold War reasons got involved in Pakistan, with a dribble of aid into Afghanistan.

IMHO the USA between 1947-1980 paid very little attention to South Asia, you had your own distractions elsewhere in South-East Asia and only returned when the USSR intervened in Afghanistan.