The US & others working with Pakistan

[Ken White]

rather it was due in part to the fact that such an initiative would require getting a fractious Congress to agree to put up the money and most of us would deem that a highly unlikely prospect for several reasons. Those reasons, ranging from simple bias in a few cases to the long term impact on US spending in the view of most are compounded by the India - Pakistan relationship conundrum.

I supposed it would be surprisingly cheap in comparison to military actions & sanctions.

Arguable at best but a part of the problem is the US Congress view of spending money -- it is generally predicated on very short term efforts that will realize a benefit for the incumbents. Long range thought is, very regrettably, not in the makeup of too many in Congress.

The members of this forum/board are so proud about their "non-kinetic" approaches...

Most also are in favor of other approaches that will work and are not prone to favor those that come equipped with obvious difficulties that may not be overcome; to wit (from your original post)

...Even the military aid is expensive and equals just consumption, not investment.

True, however, you're asking us for an investment and like most investors, we'd prefer that there be a guarantee of no harm and a good expectation of some small profit. Lacking that, the desire to invest is reduced. Another factor leading to non-response is, I think, that in dealing with other Nations since 1945, we've discovered that spending massive amounts of money will not buy love and indeed can often be counterproductive. You may have noted that our net government to government foreign aid has declined considerably over the years -- lack of return for the investments involved is a significant contributor to that.

The result would be that the youth migrates from the backwardish tribal areas into the cities. The population in the cities would be busy with business/jobs and with the exploitation of their new wealth.

In an ideal world -- indications lead me (and, I suspect, most observers) to believe that the Imams would fight that tooth and nail and it would not happen. That too is, IMO, a reason for the lack of response.

Pakistani parents would more often than ever before consider (free!) secular schools as important for their youth instead of religious schools.

Possible but also highly improbable in the near term -- which, as sadly stated above, is Congress' focus.

Poverty isn't the reason for terrorism, but it sure helps to recruit jihadists and it helps populists of all political wings.

True -- but so is this;

A major problem of such a project would be the relationship to India, though.
India is a bit large and difficult to influence. Well, unless you look at it from the perspective of U.S. national security spending...

Now, back to your most recent post:

As I said, it represents a mainstream reply from European peace & conflict studies, a whole academic field.

It would also represent the thoughts of many in this country; mostly those that lean a little to the left and who oppose conflict on principle. Fortunately or unfortunately, viewpoint dependent, the fact is that the majority of people in the US do not lean that way, they're pretty well centric in their views -- and they're very pragmatic. Moderate centrists far outnumber both left and right leaning persons in the US; those folks tend to be pretty thoughtful and realistic (they also tend to be quiet; that old 'silent majority'). Your suggestion would be nice in an ideal world and it would have great merit were it proposed for a nation with a western orientation. Pakistan is not such a nation -- and most Americans are well aware of the subtle differences therein involved. Yet another factor in no responses, perhaps.

Another pair of very minor factors are your noted "European peace & conflict studies, a whole academic field." Rightly or wrongly, that mass of moderate American is suspicious of anything emanating from Europe and anything from the vales of Academe. Neither font of knowledge and rectitude has proven to really have all the answers. Au contraire...

Are we so hard-wired to consider force (even "non-kinetic" one) as answer to international security concerns?

No, I don't think so. History since 1945 and most particularly in the last 30 years seems to point away from that. Recall that we would not be in Afghanistan or Iraq lacking the attacks on the World trade Center and the Pentagon.

(Or is the English-speaking countries bias here so overwhelming and the understanding of rather foreign approaches to security concerns too small?)

Pragmatic versus dogmatic, I think.