ARY Agar: Guest Maliha Lodhi on Pak-US relations 24 Feb-2012

[Irfan Baloch]

apology

the guest states that no matter how well meaning. An apology after 5 or 6 months regarding border attack is meaningless. secondly as pointed out. demanding an apology from a stronger party is futile and can end in further humiliation and hurt.
even the British haven't been that fortunate in this regard. All they got in the past is an expression of regret & a phone call by a general or some government official to the family of the victim(s). (ref Brit convey attack in Iraq, bungled rescue operation in Afghanistan).
there was an expression of regret over the loss of life from US so Pakistani government can savour it.

American withdrawal/ End game

I understand the disagreement from Developereo over the comments of Dr Lodhi that America wants to leave Afghanistan. my understanding is that America might not be withdrawing in a sense the Soviets did. it can possibly be on the lines of Iraqi withdrawal if you will. And that’s what Dr maliha Lodhi was saying in my opinion. Americans will be taking a backstage, letting the ANA do the front role (they call it ending the major combat operations).
The smaller force will concentrate on securing and protecting the recently discovered Afghan mineral riches worth trillions of dollars so that the "Free world" can benefit from that. there are other noble causes as well that will demand a small presence of Americans (with a mix of special ops and black ops ) they can include strangulating Iran, containing China and work with its regional partner India to work towards the Balkanisation of Pakistan as is suggested in some American circles. Bringing up Balochistan issue up to congressional hearing and giving Baloch nationalists prime time and coverage beyond their wildest dreams is just a taster.

Pakistan’s foreign policy /future strategy or lack of it
There is indeed consensus that there is no coherent policy. The state institutions and governments treat each other as contenders rather than partners and both have long list of arguments why they are better because the other one is bad.
This situation is definitely not helping Pakistan in its image and thus our decisions are made for us by others for better or worse. How this can change? I don’t know. If politicians have the complaint about GHQ interfering into the affairs of the governance then the GHQ has the complaint about the lack of vision and leadership from the politicians that was with a view of serving the state not the family and offshore business interests.

Another fact that has escaped discussion is the lack of understanding and appreciation of the general public of Pakistan. Since there is no demand from them, the decision makers in Pakistan don’t feel compelled to have such vision. Those who do are discarded and sidelined due to the way our politics is designed.
Secondly, the public is so much bogged down with energy, unemployment, price hike and security issues that having a far reaching long term vision is the least of its concerns. It does however finds time in watching and reading sensationalist tv shows and news articles. Insult matches of a traditional “P’and” have taken a national stage in the news channels. The Pakistani audience has a lot of appetite for that and as the stock exchange’s Say’s law states, “supply creates its own demand”. These mudslinging articles and tack shows have their audience.
The proof cant be more evident than the views and participation of Pakistani members in this thread. Its next to nothing.
As is the usual phrase used in the scifi programs and movies. “It doesn’t compute” for many of us.
(it being the subject matter of this thread)

Oh come now, the best discussions are engaged in when there are healthy differences of opinion put forth eloquently.

dont you think you should have wished for guessing that 500M jackpot this weekend?

looks like you got a lot of catching up to do now

 

[Free Soul]

is it possible that america is shipping out raw gold ores out of afghanistan via its transport airplanes to cover the war cost?or do u have any information that mining equipment is making it into afghanistan via Pakistani nato supply route?

it’s a so old school way of thinking, it will take us off topic, I will just say this much that modern day corruption is not done by under table handing money over to other party ... likewise it does not matter whether or not US fills up oil tankers and ships them out of Iraq, or mines Gold from Afghanistan and tansports truck loads out of the country, they just need to get the international contract for their blue eyed corporations and its job done. Catch my drift?

Let’s try to stay on course here, Dr.Lodhi's interview, how in matter of 30 mins she conveyed what others couldn’t and can't in 4 years. Pakistan’s foreign policy... check thread starter’s intro to the thread.

Cheers

 

[Aamir Hussain]

What do you expect, most of us are either fighting the ghazwaz, or the crusades in our minds- it reflects in our mindset. We are mentally still mired in the mercantilism and colonial era -- it is in our blood hence such remarks are commonplace in our psyche.

 

[Jango]

Not going to get in this GHQ power thing here.

But a good point there in the OP is that we seemed to be confused that what our demands are from the US.

At one occasion we ask the US to give money in exchange for NATO routes, on another occasion, we ask for the US to stop drones, then to do something else etc etc.

At times it seems that we have no set agenda of what to ask with the US and what not to. Resolutions are made and then forgotten. New resolutions are put up, and then forgotten.

This is exactly what happens when politicians , corrupt and inept politicians( most of them) are the ones making the decisions, in most cases, without any expert advice. The expert advice in their eyes is of the cabinet, which is again made up of politicians. So IMO, a set guideline should be formulated, which should be adhered to every time we put up our demands.

As Dr. Lodhi kept pointing out, the Pakistani civilian establishment works on a transactional basis, because it has no vision or strategy for managing foreign relations, possibly because they haven't a clue what Pakistan's national interests are.

Totally agree with that point.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

the discussion continues

same subject matter but this time 2 more foreign experts join Dr Maliha Lodhi and arrive on the same conclusion without even consulting each other

gist is
- Govt is clueless & lacks leadership
- The theme is still PAK-US relations
- Approaching elections mean that public opinion on both countries is also affecting the decisions
- throughout history (with few exceptions) our relation is based on bargains.
- Parliamentary debate is a lost cause and lost opportunity
-PAK-US relations indeed need a review but that need was yesterday



News Night With Talat - 26th March 2012 - YouTube

 

[Jango]

the discussion continues

same subject matter but this time 2 more foreign experts join Dr Maliha Lodhi and arrive on the same conclusion without even consulting each other

gist is
- Govt is clueless & lacks leadership
- The theme is still PAK-US relations
- Approaching elections mean that public opinion on both countries is also affecting the decisions
- throughout history (with few exceptions) our relation is based on bargains.
- Parliamentary debate is a lost cause and lost opportunity
-PAK-US relations indeed need a review but that need was yesterday

For point number 1,no doubt in that. Our government concentrates on Bhuttoism and the time they spent in jail more than the country. Just the other day, saw a PPP person saying that the country is following the principles of Bhutto!!!

Points 2 and three are also valid.

Point number 4 is a important one. Why is parliamentary debate a lost cause? IMO, the Parliament in theory is a very important organ in the state, and it has a very important role. But the current bunch of people sitting in there, have nothing better to do in there except to sleep, talk and chat, display rowdiness, do walk-outs and whatnot.

This represents a comical attitude and shows just how much these people care and regard their jobs as a joke. The MNA's who try to formulate laws, concentrate on amendments and their petty fights rather than the country

In short, wat I said in my last post applies here. Waderas, Chaudharys and matric pass people cannot formulate your foreign policies. Some are well qualified persons, but they are in a small amount. People like Ahmed Mukhtar , Aslam Raisani, and some other people are not fit for the National Security council.

And the last point, the reviews need to be logical ones. Not ones in which they demand to the US that all operatives be taken out, and the ones in the country be registered.

They are CIA, not some two nut agency, no intelligence agency tells you their number of operatives just like that.

 

[Free Soul]

Dr. Lodhi continues...

The debate is causing more confusion
Foreign policy is always an Executive function; It is lead by chief executive (PM)

Whoever is the chief executive has to guide the policy. Set the objectives and direction, and the ways to achieve the objectives are debated.

What do we really want? What are we asking for?
Better prise? Sovrenity? Or are we resuming the same old nonsense again?

And is Pakistan- just for a meaningless apology- confusing its strategic interests

Policies only speak for themselves when they are implemented.

Currently in public arena no one has got a clue as to where we are going.
Currently what objectives converge and what diverge visa vie America.

It is easy to make out that US wants to get out of Afghanistan, and Afghanistan and Pakistan want the same, so this can be worked on. With every passing day America is getting in more of a disarray in Afghanistan.

Time is ripe to negotiate that we will not participate in any military endeavour Visa vie the war in Afghanistan and tribal areas that go against our and people’s interests.

(Maliha Lodhi starts at 5 min 15 secs)

Dunya News-POLICY MATTERS-30-03-2012 - YouTube

P.S.
The presenter is a well balanced and level headed lady but i get the impression that she does not know the art of contacting a seamless interview / debate, Her interruptions are annoying at times. Naseem Zahra on other programs when taken on phone puts very intelligent and learned arguments across.

 

[Aamir Hussain]

Need to define and recognize what is the biggest threat to the existance of the State of Pakistan.

If it is the external threat/forces, we would need to put in differnet set of solutions in place. In case it is an internal threat, we would need to bring about a different game plan in to action.

IMHO, we are obsessed with US. In my opinion, the immediate threats that we DO NOT face are:

1. We have neutralised India to a large extent. If we do not bring the Kashmir issue to the front burner, things between us will remain at a relatively even keel.

2. The nuclear arsenal is not under threat as we have crossed the critical mass level and the fact that no nuclear power has ever been defanged. It can be rehtoric on the part of vested interests but in reality, it is a non-starter. But that does not mean that we leave our "Eggs" lying around in the open for everyone to take a swipe at.

3. The so called" Grand Designs" and hunger for oil, gold, copper, etc. is not the reason that countries are interested in us, it is our location and who gets to use this location to project power is the concern for both China and US. This challenge can be taken care of very easily with deft diplomacy and playing China and US against each other. Let us make Gawader a neutral port, let both countries berth their warships there. We should be neutral in this great game. There is a total of 300 billion Barrels of "Tight" and cheaper oil out there, this issue is not going to go away any time soon. Therefore, we need to put in place a workable, but long term strategy in place which can be defended and worked upon without long term reprecussions form both sides. Let us not be the mercenery that we love to be in times like these. US has its own priorities, so does China has other goals to meet, we happen to be an important part of their strategic imperatives.

The bigger problem from my perspective is the problem of extremism within. It is hurting the State of Pakistan like no external threat ever had before. We have lost more soldiers than the both wars combined. This misplaced jihad has ripped apart the very fabric of this country. Extremism, and false sense of promoting muslim brotherhood at the expense of the existance of this country seems to be a accepatable cost by so called Islamic Reformist.

If this is the case than our options are very clear, all else can wait, we need to get this fast moving gangrene (It is no longer the slow growing cancer) cut out and done away with.

 

[Jango]

Need to define and recognize what is the biggest threat to the existance of the State of Pakistan.

If it is the external threat/forces, we would need to put in differnet set of solutions in place. In case it is an internal threat, we would need to bring about a different game plan in to action.

IMHO, we are obsessed with US. In my opinion, the immediate threats that we DO NOT face are:

1. We have neutralised India to a large extent. If we do not bring the Kashmir issue to the front burner, things between us will remain at a relatively even keel.

2. The nuclear arsenal is not under threat as we have crossed the critical mass level and the fact that no nuclear power has ever been defanged. It can be rehtoric on the part of vested interests but in reality, it is a non-starter. But that does not mean that we leave our "Eggs" lying around in the open for everyone to take a swipe at.

3. The so called" Grand Designs" and hunger for oil, gold, copper, etc. is not the reason that countries are interested in us, it is our location and who gets to use this location to project power is the concern for both China and US. This challenge can be taken care of very easily with deft diplomacy and playing China and US against each other. Let us make Gawader a neutral port, let both countries berth their warships there. We should be neutral in this great game. There is a total of 300 billion Barrels of "Tight" and cheaper oil out there, this issue is not going to go away any time soon. Therefore, we need to put in place a workable, but long term strategy in place which can be defended and worked upon without long term reprecussions form both sides. Let us not be the mercenery that we love to be in times like these. US has its own priorities, so does China has other goals to meet, we happen to be an important part of their strategic imperatives.

The bigger problem from my perspective is the problem of extremism within. It is hurting the State of Pakistan like no external threat ever had before. We have lost more soldiers than the both wars combined. This misplaced jihad has ripped apart the very fabric of this country. Extremism, and false sense of promoting muslim brotherhood at the expense of the existance of this country seems to be a accepatable cost by so called Islamic Reformist.

If this is the case than our options are very clear, all else can wait, we need to get this fast moving gangrene (It is no longer the slow growing cancer) cut out and done away with.

Gwadar can be a very key point in the upcoming years. It's strategic location along the oil routes puts it in a very good position for Pakistan. Let's see how we use it to our benefits.

 

[VCheng]

Some good discussion since my last post in this thread:

...............
Then enlighten us with your take on it. I say it should not be insisted upon, it was as deliberate as the drones attacks were and are. It’s like asking a bully for an apology after a confrontation.

I not only think that the drones will continue but even another Salala cannot be ruled over.
...................

What I find interesting is the enduring insistence that the attack was deliberate, without any discussion of what would be the motivation for USA to do that?

It was a classic example of the Swiss cheese model of mistakes lining up to produce a horrendous error. Nothing more.

Can you put down the mission objectives that US and NATO set for themselves, when entering Afghanistan post 9/11?

And what are the objectives now?

Have the objectives changed? Were the objectives getting rid of top Al-Qaeda leadership (already been done) Pakistan captured more than 70% of the top leadership, the most vile of the lot.

Those questions are perhaps worthy of their own thread to which I would look forward to participating. I would leave this thread of Pakistan policy with regards to USA, as was the intent of the original post.

What i think Sir, is that America is only there because of its ego, and upcoming US elections.
The badies that were there in the tribal areas when the Drone strikes started are still there.. just new faces and some even more brutal.

Concepts like "ego" and "baddies" simply do not apply to formulation of US policy. The pursuit of national interest reigns supreme over "ego", and words like "baddies" are for public consumption only.

Sir, I stand corrected that White House doesn’t give a toss about Pakistani Establishment’s displeasure regarding Drones strikes and Salala like incidents.

I would only add that the Pakistani establishment should seriously reconsider its own sense of exaggerated importance internationally. It would do it, and Pakistan, a world of good.

So the Gas pipeline... we sometimes make US believe bigger of itself than it really is. Believe me some times US just shows its displeasure on something and we just totally capitulate. What they say is ‘well all the better’ , as far as i think US doesn’t care much if this pipeline project goes through, how would it make their life any tougher?

It is not a matter of US displeasure. The IP project needs financing and technical expertise, plus a basic economic justification of sufficient gas supply affordable by Pakistan. Right now, this project fails in all three aspects, and my assessment is based on this factors alone.

it wasn’t anyting to do with Bilateral relations with Pakistan and US, it was separate issue Holbrooke was engaging in talks regarding so called af pak where India was bit annoyed in being left out. Rather it was a failure on part of Holbrooke who was working his butt off to get India included somehow or the other, But Pakistan knowingly argued that if you want to include India then bring the Kashmir issue on table too, to which Holbrooke and India were left scratching their head, Pakistan knew it won’t happen and Holbrook’s obsession with making India relevant in Pakistan Afghanistan case took a major dent, think Holbrooke made statements on Kashmir like US does regarding Palestine, Pakistan achieved its objective, bye bye India

Pakistan has made several attempts to use the WoT as leverage to use US influence to bring India to the table over Kashmir. Or do you deny that?

..............
AFAIK, the military's demands go well beyond a mere apology: they have demanded an impartial investigation and consequences for those found responsible.

The "apology" is a weak demand by the civilian politicians to provide cover for their inevitable capitulation to American pressure and their petty self-interests. Eventually, there will be a fake "apology", the civilian leadership will claim victory and return to business as usual (perhaps with a slightly bigger commission).

I agree with you that the apology is more for public consumption rather than anything substantive.

As Dr. Lodhi kept pointing out, the Pakistani civilian establishment works on a transactional basis, because it has no vision or strategy for managing foreign relations, possibly because they haven't a clue what Pakistan's national interests are.

Well said.

Weakening the Pakistani security establishment is a key goal of American policy in the region. It ties in with their wider geopolitical goals. Also, weakening the civilian establishment, and creating general chaos, is also in American interests, since it provides cover for various insurgencies in Baluchistan and elsewhere.

It is no secret that Balkanization of Pakistan is seriously being considered in DC.

Could you please explain your statements above better, specially as to why such destabilization of a nuclear armed country would further US interests? USA has long accepted Pakistani nukes as deterrence that ensures peace with India. Why change that?

What futility? China has been ready to help if Pakistan shows a serious face and can guarantee security for their investments.

The Chinese are too polite, or too resigned, to point out that Pakistan has been unable to get Gawadar up and running and linked up to China after all these decades. Pakistan is a sovereign country: whatever internal tussles there are between army, civilians, extremists, whatever, others don't care. All they want to know is: can Pakistan deliver on infrastructure targets?

Sadly, the answer is a resounding NO, so why blame the Chinese?

China will follow its national interests first and foremost, as a rising power should, of course. All I mean to convey is that Pakistan should not rely on Chinese support any more than is realsitic. After all, how many textile producsts does China buy from Pakistan?

apology

the guest states that no matter how well meaning. An apology after 5 or 6 months regarding border attack is meaningless. secondly as pointed out. demanding an apology from a stronger party is futile and can end in further humiliation and hurt.
even the British haven't been that fortunate in this regard. All they got in the past is an expression of regret & a phone call by a general or some government official to the family of the victim(s). (ref Brit convey attack in Iraq, bungled rescue operation in Afghanistan).
there was an expression of regret over the loss of life from US so Pakistani government can savour it.

There was an accident. There was a report that highlighted the causes. There was a statement of regret. There was a determination that no punishment was necessary. There were measures taken to reduce the likelihood of such an accident being repeated.

Any insistence by Pakistan that go against the above will go nowhere.

American withdrawal/ End game

I understand the disagreement from Developereo over the comments of Dr Lodhi that America wants to leave Afghanistan. my understanding is that America might not be withdrawing in a sense the Soviets did. it can possibly be on the lines of Iraqi withdrawal if you will. And that’s what Dr maliha Lodhi was saying in my opinion. Americans will be taking a backstage, letting the ANA do the front role (they call it ending the major combat operations).
The smaller force will concentrate on securing and protecting the recently discovered Afghan mineral riches worth trillions of dollars so that the "Free world" can benefit from that. there are other noble causes as well that will demand a small presence of Americans (with a mix of special ops and black ops ) they can include strangulating Iran, containing China and work with its regional partner India to work towards the Balkanisation of Pakistan as is suggested in some American circles. Bringing up Balochistan issue up to congressional hearing and giving Baloch nationalists prime time and coverage beyond their wildest dreams is just a taster.

US presence in Afghanistan is not a requirement for it to pursue its wider goals in the region, as other assets are amply available. The smaller force that would remain is simply to ensure that Afghan territory cannot be used as a base for another attack on USA.

Pakistan’s foreign policy /future strategy or lack of it
There is indeed consensus that there is no coherent policy. The state institutions and governments treat each other as contenders rather than partners and both have long list of arguments why they are better because the other one is bad.
This situation is definitely not helping Pakistan in its image and thus our decisions are made for us by others for better or worse. How this can change? I don’t know. If politicians have the complaint about GHQ interfering into the affairs of the governance then the GHQ has the complaint about the lack of vision and leadership from the politicians that was with a view of serving the state not the family and offshore business interests.

I agree with this paragraph.

Another fact that has escaped discussion is the lack of understanding and appreciation of the general public of Pakistan. Since there is no demand from them, the decision makers in Pakistan don’t feel compelled to have such vision. Those who do are discarded and sidelined due to the way our politics is designed.
Secondly, the public is so much bogged down with energy, unemployment, price hike and security issues that having a far reaching long term vision is the least of its concerns. It does however finds time in watching and reading sensationalist tv shows and news articles. Insult matches of a traditional “P’and” have taken a national stage in the news channels. The Pakistani audience has a lot of appetite for that and as the stock exchange’s Say’s law states, “supply creates its own demand”. These mudslinging articles and tack shows have their audience.
The proof cant be more evident than the views and participation of Pakistani members in this thread. Its next to nothing.
As is the usual phrase used in the scifi programs and movies. “It doesn’t compute” for many of us.
(it being the subject matter of this thread)

Good point.

dont you think you should have wished for guessing that 500M jackpot this weekend?

looks like you got a lot of catching up to do now

Well, I was hopnig to win the jackpot over the weekend, but since I did not, I had to return to work (and DefPk).

(The catching up will take some time, but at least I have started.)

........................

The bigger problem from my perspective is the problem of extremism within. It is hurting the State of Pakistan like no external threat ever had before. We have lost more soldiers than the both wars combined. This misplaced jihad has ripped apart the very fabric of this country. Extremism, and false sense of promoting muslim brotherhood at the expense of the existance of this country seems to be a accepatable cost by so called Islamic Reformist.

If this is the case than our options are very clear, all else can wait, we need to get this fast moving gangrene (It is no longer the slow growing cancer) cut out and done away with.

Good point. That extremism you mention is the real danger to Pakistan, not any perceived US policy of fragmenting Pakistan as others have contended above.

 

[Free Soul]

Those questions are perhaps worthy of their own thread to which I would look forward to participating. I would leave this thread of Pakistan policy with regards to USA, as was the intent of the original post.

And I would very much agree with you Sir. I would suggest you start a thread, present a case, and let’s try to open the thread in a section less affected by Trolls. I would be happy to take part in a mature discussion - not just arguments for the sake of arguments. Ta

Pakistan has made several attempts to use the WoT as leverage to use US influence to bring India to the table over Kashmir. Or do you deny that?

My comment was in response to this one of yours ’ Pakistan tried to have the Kashmir issue included in the area of responsibility assigned to Richard Holbrooke, and failed miserably’

And Holbrooke failed there not Pakistan.

We can discuss Kashmir at length. There have been many diplomatic mistakes made by Pakistan visa vie Kashmir, the biggest blunders have been CENTO and SEATO in my opinion.

It was a classic example of the Swiss cheese model of mistakes lining up to produce a horrendous error. Nothing more.

How very convenient. Well I won’t stress on Salala anymore because calling it deliberate or a mishap well - what difference does it make? I wish not to dishonour our fallen.

 

[Developereo]

Could you please explain your statements above better, specially as to why such destabilization of a nuclear armed country would further US interests? USA has long accepted Pakistani nukes as deterrence that ensures peace with India. Why change that?

We have discussed this elsewhere on this forum. The US wants a strong India to be thorn in China's side, and part of that plan requires emasculating Pakistan. Clearly, the US believes that it has a strategy to "manage" Pakistan's nukes if the country should descend into chaos. It is interesting to note that, precisely in time with recent US actions, Pakistan has furiously started doubling its nuclear stockpile. Now nobody believes that Pakistan intends to use these nukes against the US, but a larger stockpile is harder to confiscate and neutralize than a smaller one.

China will follow its national interests first and foremost, as a rising power should, of course. All I mean to convey is that Pakistan should not rely on Chinese support any more than is realsitic.

China has been very supportive of Pakistan because there is a confluence of interests. Pakistan has failed to leverage the relationship by extracting more technical know-how and investments from China The fault, as I pointed out, is all Pakistan's because the domestic situation in terms of electricity, security, etc. is in shambles.

After all, how many textile producsts does China buy from Pakistan?

Why should China buy Pakistani products if they are not competitive? We need to stop thinking in terms of entitlements and earn our place as a worthy ally.

 

[53fd]

This is how I predict things will turn out:

a) The US will become increasingly marginalized in Afghanistan, & will look to cement whatever it has in Afghanistan, to have a presence in that country. The current events taking place in Afghanistan show that the ANA & the ANF are posing a growing threat to the US & NATO Forces:

Afghan Army, Police Pose Growing Risk to U.S., NATO Troops | NewAmerica.net

b) Afghanistan will be divided on ethnic lines. The US will try to bring the Taliban on its side, asking them to disassociate themselves with the ISI. The US will negotiate with the Taliban in the Pashtun South in the form of a power sharing deal with the current Afghan government, whereby the Pashtun Taliban will be allowed to administer South Afghanistan, whereas the current government will administer North Afghanistan & the rest of the country. Which is why the drone strikes program is taking place in North & East Afghanistan where groups that pose a threat to the current regime are being targeted, whereas the Taliban are free from the drone strikes. A deal will be brokered with the Taliban, allowing the TAPI through Kandahar. The US would like to maintain its bases in (Parwan) Eastern & (Herat) Western Afghanistan respectively, to keep a 'check' on Pakistan & Iran respectively, in case a threat emanates from there. However, with the ways things are panning out in Afghanistan, it looks the US will find to have a significant long-term presence in Afghanistan.

c) What will happen to Pakistan, & how does it see the end-game in Afghanistan? As recent terrorism trends show, the violence from the WOT is decreasing significantly, & boiling down into sectarian violence (which posed a significant threat in the 90s). Pakistan might get Afghanistan & the current Afghan regime to cooperate with it, as well as the other neighboring countries, but for Pakistan to have a progressive alliance in the region, it needs to curb the sectarian violence & all the other religious/separatist/ethnic violence in the country. The US will want to make sure (overtly or covertly) that these types of violence in Pakistan continue.

Pakistan will play China & the US off each other, grow increasingly antagonistic with the US, without breaking ties with it. It will have friendlier ties with China, but will not be dependent on China.

Whether the Pakistan regime has the strength & will to go against US wishes, & look after its national geopolitical, economic interests remains to be seen. This Zardari regime certainly does not have it. But with the latest parliamentary review, as well as the statements coming out from the top, & the prevailing geopolitical conditions: it looks like Pakistan will defy the wishes of the US. If not now, somewhere in the near future. Other countries in the region also look set to defy the US wishes in the region.

With each passing today, the US in Afghanistan looks like a dejected creature. However, despite all the political & diplomatic failures of the US in Afghanistan, Pakistan; no one can doubt the strength of the US military in Afghanistan & elsewhere, & it will be foolhardy for any nation to take them on openly. The US military strength is the biggest advantage (& the biggest disadvantage for the neighboring countries) they have in maintaining its presence in the region post 2014, & will play a huge role in deciding the end-game for the AfPak region. The US will try to prop up India's presence in Afghanistan, & will be more open to it in its overtures, but India will fail to make a big impact in Afghanistan in the long run.

 

[VCheng]

And I would very much agree with you Sir. I would suggest you start a thread, present a case, and let’s try to open the thread in a section less affected by Trolls. I would be happy to take part in a mature discussion - not just arguments for the sake of arguments. Ta.............

Pray tell where might this section be? If it exists, I don't see it from my membership level.

We have discussed this elsewhere on this forum. The US wants a strong India to be thorn in China's side, and part of that plan requires emasculating Pakistan. Clearly, the US believes that it has a strategy to "manage" Pakistan's nukes if the country should descend into chaos. It is interesting to note that, precisely in time with recent US actions, Pakistan has furiously started doubling its nuclear stockpile. Now nobody believes that Pakistan intends to use these nukes against the US, but a larger stockpile is harder to confiscate and neutralize than a smaller one.

A strong India is a separate issue; I would like to discuss your justification as to why emasculating Pakistan follows supporting India. Pakistan's policy may be India-centric, but India's policy is not Pakistan-centric, and surely USA's policies are global.

As I have said before, USA has tolerated Pakistan nukes as a means of ensuring deterrence in South Asia, and the case as to how or why this would change has not been made yet.

China has been very supportive of Pakistan because there is a confluence of interests. Pakistan has failed to leverage the relationship by extracting more technical know-how and investments from China The fault, as I pointed out, is all Pakistan's because the domestic situation in terms of electricity, security, etc. is in shambles.

I would agree that internal troubles prevent Pakistan to make the most of its relationship with China, or many other countries too, for that matter.

Why should China buy Pakistani products if they are not competitive? We need to stop thinking in terms of entitlements and earn our place as a worthy ally.

The sentence in bold is important, and one that I agree with; however, that is easier said than done. Changing the entitlement mentality will be the hardest.

 

[Developereo]

A strong India is a separate issue; I would like to discuss your justification as to why emasculating Pakistan follows supporting India. Pakistan's policy may be India-centric, but India's policy is not Pakistan-centric, and surely USA's policies are global.

We are specifically focused on US policy in this region, not their overall global policies. As for India, as much as they claim to have moved on beyond Pakistan, the fact of the matter is that India can never attain regional hegemony with a defiant Pakistan next door. Subduing Pakistan is a necessary milestone before anyone (especially in the region) will take India's military rise seriously.

The US feels that a direct confrontation between nuclear India and Pakistan is too dangerous, so neutralizing Pakistan must be done through convert means. "Death by a thousand cuts" recast.