The whole double game started b/c US
refused to listen to our concerns & started installing anti-pak, pro-india leaders. They had their own agenda.
THAT's the root cause. Army saw this, realized they couldn't trust the Americans & decided to help the Taliban. US in turn supported TTP & Baloch separatists.
Those 7 demands were accepted b/c Musharraf was overly eager to present himself as a partner in the WoT farce in order to legitimize his rule. A constant theme throughout his rule.
The ROOT cause of this whole drama was the Americans. Establishment's main goal therefore was to kick out the US and the OPENLY hostile afghan regime. Much easier to stabilize the region when the main cause of instability & an openly hostile gov is not there. The only issue after 2009 was a face-saving exit via negotiations b/w Taliban & the puppet gov. But in the end, only they themselves negotiated with Taliban & left in a hurry which meant that there was still a big mess to resolve.
They're not pleased b/c we turned against them in the beginning. Hard to trust when we've already helped remove them once, regardless of our own circumstances. Trust can be rebuilt with the Afghan ppl but it's a decades long project which PDFers don't have the patience for.
They were never going to be pleased either way. However, the US isn't investing b/c they're mad at us. It's our own shitty economic policies that keeps private investors away.
Btw, let's stop pretending that they they're pissed off about Afghanistan. The real stick in our relations is China.
Baloch separatists are mainly an Iran-based problem now not Afg.
They always did
. They've always been soft on India compared to us. They didn't even want Pakistan to exist in the beginning. They wanted a united India.
They can try but if the trust deficit b/w us & Taliban is any indication they aren't going to get too far.
There's a system. It's not perfect but there is one. Incompetent politicians & adventurous generals prevent us from extracting full benefits of it.
You wanted strategic depth on day 1 of US withdrawal or something?
Let's go back to the start to understand what happened. Bush administration did NOT dispatch US Army but used Northern Alliance to topple Afghan Taliban. But Bush administration decided to create transitional government and chose Hamid Karzai to take charge of it in 2002.
The establishment might have reservations about rule of Northern Alliance but accepted transitional government in Afghanistan with Karzai at its helm in 2002.
Do you know that Karzai was living in Quetta before the war? He was a well-known figure in diplomatic circles of Pakistan and Afghanistan because of his political interests. Both CIA and ISI were in touch with him as well.
Afghanistan's president of 13 years exits the stage, and leaves behind him a slew of missed opportunities.
foreignpolicy.com
Karzai was also willing to negotiate with Afghan Taliban for bringing them to the fold. But Pakistan could be more persuasive than him.
Concerns do NOT matter.
What matters is that WHO is giving WHAT type of assurances to the Other Party, and is it possible to live up to given assurances?
Recheck your own statement:
"Those 7 demands were accepted b/c Musharraf was overly eager to present himself as a partner in the WoT farce in order to legitimize his rule. A constant theme throughout his rule."
You came close to identifying a part of the problem. Pervez Musharraf was COAS and undisputed leader of the establishment and Pakistan (at large) back then. It was logical for the Other Party to take his words, decisions, and assurances at face value.
Musharraf's decision to join War On Terror is NOT the point of contention here. This was correct decision and it was necessary to dismantle Al-Qaeda Network for its global crimes.
The point of contention is that American demands were unconditionally accepted without making it clear to them that Pakistan (at large) does not find it practical to dismantle Afghan Taliban. This led to a mismatch of expectations between US and Pakistan for HOW to reshape political landscape of Afghanistan from the get go.
Is it OK to "agree" with demands of the Other Party but proceed to do something else to placate domestic voices? This is controversial approach and it has wider consequences - something that Pakistan is finding out in the present.
Afghan Taliban managed to regroup in 2004 and conducted large-scale operations across Afghanistan in a major show of force in 2006. But US-led forces managed to rout Afghan Taliban from various locations in return. Afghan Taliban now realized that it was not practical to challenge US-led forces out in the open so they decided to sabotage US-backed Afghan government from now on.
TTP emerged in 2007 and called for Pakistan Army to withdraw from Tribal Areas. Pakistan's revisited establishment (PPP-led government + President Musharraf + COAS Pervez A. Kayani) made two separate attempts to negotiate with TTP for a peaceful settlement in 2007 and 2008 but both attempts failed.
Pakistan Army conducted its 1st military operation against TTP in 2008.
Obama administration ordered hit on TTP's fearsome founding father Baitullah Mehsud in 2009 in support of Pakistan's military operation.
Border warrior turned high priest of suicide bombers killed with his family in attack on farmhouse in tribal badlands
www.theguardian.com
Obama administration also declared TTP a terrorist organization in 2010 for its links with Al-Qaeda Network.
But Pakistani leadership made yet another attempt to negotiate with TTP for a peaceful settlement in 2011.
Then another in 2013.
A number of rounds of direct and indirect talks between the govt and the TTP have failed to bring lasting peace.
www.dawn.com
Obama administration was putting pressure on Pakistan to go hard on TTP and its allies instead. Obama administration also ordered hit on TTP's then chief Hakimullah Mehsud in 2013. But what was the reaction to this move?
www.nbcnews.com
Yet another in 2014.
But Pakistan Army conducted its 2nd operation against TTP later in 2014. Credit goes to COAS Raheel Sharif for this move.
But much had changed in Afghanistan by then. Obama administration had withdrawn the bulk of NATO forces from Afghanistan, and Ashraf Ghani was in power.
Even Ghani wanted to build rapport with Pakistan but it didn't work out for him.
---
See above.
I understand that Bush administration was hellbent on punishing Afghan Taliban for supporting Al-Qaeda Network. It did not pay heed to following proposal:
ISLAMABAD: The US could have averted a long and costly war in Afghanistan had it heeded the advice of Pakistani and Saudi officials after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the former head of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) told Arab News in an exclusive interview. General Ehsan ul Haq...
www.arabnews.com
It was worth a try as PLAN A to see if it works.
I do not believe that the war could be averted though. Afghan Taliban were a stubborn bunch and refused to entertain Musharraf's proposal to make a deal with US. They thought that they could fight US out in the open if it comes down to it. They had to pay a hefty price to realize how serious US was about dismantling Al-Qaeda Network and they have to make a deal with US to come back no matter what.
My contention is that the establishment should have told Americans in very clear terms that it is not practical to dismantle Afghan Taliban and Pakistan cannot do much in this regard either because the entire Pashtun belt is involved in this matter.
Simply stating that there is no military solution to problems in Afghanistan was not a convincing rationale IMHO.
The establishment thought that it could keep its support for Afghan Taliban under the wraps? No, it could not. This approach caused more harm than good.
Now both Afghan Taliban and US treat Pakistan with indifference.
Afghan Taliban have conveyed to Pakistan that TTP is Pakistan's problem.
US did not offer much to ex-COAS Qamar J. Bajwa either when he visited US and spent a week there. Joe Biden refused to meet him. US offered to provide necessary parts for maintaining F-16s at most.
---
See above.
But yes, it will not be easy to win over Afghans. Not anytime soon.
---
Political environment makes lot of difference.
---
US does have problems with China TBH.
US also understands that Pakistan is very close to China and this relationship is decades in the making.
US does not expects much from Pakistan but to dial down Anti-Americanism and be mindful of its global interests.
Pakistan should welcome investments from both countries and avoid Camp Politics much like India in times of the Cold War. This will be good enough.
---
Perhaps.
---
Yes, US decides its options on long-term basis. US could see much potential in India from the start.
Never heard of US not accepting Pakistan's existence. Afghanistan was the only country in the world to have problems with Pakistan's existence.
---
India has hard cash and capacity to develop Afghanistan if it comes down to it. This is sufficient to build rapport with Afghans.
Some pointers:
The Islamic Emirate, in reaction to West’s travels, called on Washington to lift restrictions on Afghanistan.
tolonews.com
India and Afghanistan to restart trade through the air route after the signing of a new Air Corridor Agreement.
www.indianarrative.com
Taliban on Wednesday said that India may restart 20 stalled projects in Afghanistan.
www.ndtv.com
Well?
WE must understand that Afghanistan is a sovereign country and can make its own decisions. There is a limit to what can be dictated to it.
---
Pakistan's Civil - Military disconnect is apparent to all. This is due to incompetent politicians and adventurous generals as you put.
Nevertheless, Pakistan should reflect on how it handled the War On Terror saga and learn from it.
Blameshifting should be dialed down. Do point out mistakes of others but do not make excuses for your own.
Do not make promises that cannot be upheld.
Do not play double games with a superpower. Because it will return the favor at some point.
Do not keep Public in the dark. Believe in it.
Too much transparency to expect, I know.
---
LOL
