Don't be spooked by Pakistan: ex CIA veteran

[third eye]

Pak has taken so many U- Turns that one is not surprised any more when it happens or even does not happen.

Nothing could be better than a stable , progressive & prosperous sub continent. As things stand now there is a chance for stability & prosperity to reach Pak but progressiveness shall remain elusive till the fundamentalists are not either reigned in by a strong Govt or sidelined by a determined populace who first must accept them as the cause for their grief.

The reason why I sometimes feel optimistic that Pak may pull it off is of its ability to execute U Turns, something like Mush did after the call from US.

 

[muse]

Once again, why does Pakistan need this relationship so bad that it will risk it's own peace and even territorial integrity?

fact of the matter is that neither the US nor Pakistan need each other in the way that so many articles continue to make the point - the US cannot deliver, see S2 has a point when he says that for the US no Muslim majority country is worth having deep relations with - it's home population and therefore it's politicians and policy makers cannot conceive of such a eventuality .

Others call for balance between Pakistan and the US - the US cannot accept this, primarily because there is not balance and the US is being asked to discard her levers of influence and coercion, something no policy maker will agree with.

 

[53fd]

Once again, why does Pakistan need this relationship so bad that it will risk it's own peace and even territorial integrity?

fact of the matter is that neither the US nor Pakistan need each other in the way that so many articles continue to make the point - the US cannot deliver, see S2 has a point when he says that for the US no Muslim majority country is worth having deep relations with - it's home population and therefore it's politicians and policy makers cannot conceive of such a eventuality .

Others call for balance between Pakistan and the US - the US cannot accept this, primarily because there is not balance and the US is being asked to discard her levers of influence and coercion, something no policy maker will agree with.

Pakistan does not need 'this' (imbalanced) relationship, but a more 'balanced' relationship with the US. And yes, Pakistan does need that. I would argue that the US needs that as well. Both Pakistan & the US have some mutual interests in the region, such as the US vacating from Afghanistan post 2014, & both Pakistan & the US need each other for that. Pakistan also needs the US to not be a nuisance in the region, so that Pakistan can tackle the terrorist groups in the FATA effectively, having the support of the Pakistani citizens. The US also needs Pakistan to not be a nuisance in the region, so that the US can tackle the terrorist groups in South, Eastern & Northern Afghanistan effectively.

So when do the problems arise? The problem arises when there is mistrust, when accusations are levied (US accusing Pakistan's North Waziristan for being the safe haven for the Haqqani network that threatens Afghanistan, Pakistan accusing the US of not tackling the safe havens in Kunar & Nuristan for the Al-Qaeda & the TTP fighters that threaten the stability of Pakistan), which threaten to disrupt the relationship of the CIA & the ISI, & distract them from achieving their mutual interests.

 

[muse]

Read Bearden on trust - he says it played practically no role in their earlier relationship -- See, US is only exploiting the Osama in Abbottabad - it knows that it has the Pakistani authorities on the back foot and is pressing it's advantage -

Balance relation -- How can you have a balanced relationship between a rich Western super power and a poor country like Pakistan - it's strujcturally imbalanced -- the imbalance is inherent - but I guess you guys need your F16's

The need for a new paradigm ---- We can't make a go of this one, we should go for a larger more complex relationship??

Let the US go, let taxpayer monies go - so long as Pakistan is poor (guaranteed for a long time to come) the US will be able to throw money and expect service - best to let this relationship tone down - no need for hundreds of CIA, no need for trainers, Baksh the US to the Indian

 

[53fd]

Read Bearden on trust - he says it played practically no role in their earlier relationship -- See, US is only exploiting the Osama in Abbottabad - it knows that it has the Pakistani authorities on the back foot and is pressing it's advantage -

Balance relation -- How can you have a balanced relationship between a rich Western super power and a poor country like Pakistan - it's strujcturally imbalanced -- the imbalance is inherent - but I guess you guys need your F16's

The need for a new paradigm ---- We can't make a go of this one, we should go for a larger more complex relationship??

Let the US go, let taxpayer monies go - so long as Pakistan is poor (guaranteed for a long time to come) the US will be able to throw money and expect service - best to let this relationship tone down - no need for hundreds of CIA, no need for trainers, Baksh the US to the Indian

I understand that he said the institutional trust played no role in the earlier relationship, but that is only because it did not distract either Pakistan or the US from working together to achieve their mutual interests. In fact, the article said that the lack of institutional trust between the CIA & the ISI was compensated by the trust the CIA chief placed in the individual trust of ISI officers. I would argue that the lack of institutional trust is serving as an impediment for the ISI & CIA from achieving their common goals/mutual interests, & is clouding the judgment of people like Mullen (which it didn't do in the past relationship), which then results in the lack of individual trust as well. All of this results in a dangerous situation for the relationship of the ISI & the CIA.

Pakistan lacks the resources needed to tackle all the insurgency groups in the AfPak region. While the US is a super rich Western power, what it lacks (which Pakistan has) is 'leverage' & connections on the ground in the AfPak region. So essentially, if both Pakistan & the US can work together, focusing on their strengths, rather than trying to undermine each other, they can achieve their mutual interests in the region. This is what I mean by a balanced relationship, & one I feel is entirely possible, but only if the institutional mistrust is overcome by both the CIA & ISI, as it is serving as an impediment right now for the US & Pakistan, which it did not in the past.

 

[muse]

OK - but Pakistan and US have parallel goal in Afghanistan - that is to say, that Pakistanis think US policy is anti Pakistan and Us think Pakistan policy is anti US -- See that's really more than perception problem.

And you have once again pointed to "resources" -- this is the root of the unbalanced relationship which you want to see corrected - How can there be balance ?

I think this whole series of "objections" lack of trust, parallel goals, "vital" "need each other" these are all semantics for what Bearden has laid out clearly - to be a player Pakistan need to pray towards Washington - it isn't going to happen, because after that it's Afghanistan and then India, all under US direction - it simply will not happen - Pakistan have other options, the US has only one option, to threaten the territorial integrity of Pakistan, in the name of various freedom loving peoples, such as the Balouch for instance

 

[53fd]

OK - but Pakistan and US have parallel goal in Afghanistan - that is to say, that Pakistanis think US policy is anti Pakistan and Us think Pakistan policy is anti US -- See that's really more than perception problem.

And you have once again pointed to "resources" -- this is the root of the unbalanced relationship which you want to see corrected - How can there be balance ?

I don't think the resources are the root of the unbalanced relationship. I don't think that is the root cause. I think the root cause is the institutional trust deficit between the CIA & ISI, which is clouding the judgments of CIA officials, & resulting in the lack of individual trust as well, & these two things (which didn't happen in the past relationships, despite having certain conflicting interests) are resulting in the derailment of the CIA-ISI relationship.

I think this whole series of "objections" lack of trust, parallel goals, "vital" "need each other" these are all semantics for what Bearden has laid out clearly - to be a player Pakistan need to pray towards Washington - it isn't going to happen, because after that it's Afghanistan and then India, all under US direction - it simply will not happen - Pakistan have other options, the US has only one option, to threaten the territorial integrity of Pakistan, in the name of various freedom loving peoples, such as the Balouch for instance

There have been parallel, conflicting interests for the CIA & the ISI as well, & nothing can change the fact that they exist right now as well. The important thing is not to let the conflicts threaten the overall relationship (it is extremely hard though, of course), & work together on the mutual interests. The problems arise when you cannot even work on the mutual interests together.

Look at the overall picture. It is in both the interests of the US & Pakistan that the US withdraws its troops from Afghanistan. This is the main objective for both the agencies. The differences arise on who should govern Afghanistan once the US leaves. The US is fine negotiating with the Quetta Shoora & Mullah Omar, but it does not want to negotiate with the Haqqani network (& wants to root them out), as they have ties with Al-Qaeda. Pakistan wants the US to negotiate with the Haqqani network. Now, both of these stances look contradictory, 180 degrees apart.

However, what would happen if the US stops bombarding the Haqqani network in North Waziristan, & Pakistan can convince the Haqqani network to distance themselves from the Al-Qaeda (as they are a threat to Pakistan as well)? Just a food for thought.

 

[MastanKhan]

It is a good article, of course from the American perspective. My main trouble in understanding the situation in Pakistan is that there are so many conspiracy theories and conflicting accounts of who is responsible for this and that. My touchstone is the murder of Benazir Bhutto. I cannot comprehend, as someone who has lived in the USA for 65 years, how a society can see a former Prime Minister, and leading candidate in the first election after a period of military rule, killed and not quickly and relentlessly investigate and make public the facts of who was responsible, why and bring them to justice. That is, if Pakistan's society cannot even care enough about BB's killing to get to the bottom of it after, what? three years? then I have no faith that what Pakistan's government, army or news media says. It must all be power games among the elites.

Hi,

She wouldnot be dead if she had not stuck her head out of the roof of the suv----but sh-it happens. Now as for her murder----political murders are rarely solved----the TTP leader who supposedly ordered his death is dead, the shooter and suicide bombers are dead. All the participants are most probably dead----.

Pakistani society never cared about Benazir----those who folowed her---wanted to loot the national resources----after her demise, they are following someone else who would let them get away with the plunder----.

You have missed the point over here----here is what happened----after 9/11 pakistan suddenly got rich----the business was booming and tons of money was coming in-----PPP was on the sidelines and couldnot avail the oppurtunity of diving into the pool---so they created this diversion alongwith Nawaz Sharif----the unrest created distrust in the Musharraf govt----he was forced to have elections where ppp came into power----Benazir died and ppp got the sympathy vote----. Nopw look at pakistan and ppp----look how they have ripped the national exchequer with both hands and feet.

That was all that was behind Benazir's return.

 

[53fd]

Another important aspect of the US-Pakistan relationship is that Pakistan is 'hedging its bets' in the WOT. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Pakistan's strategy is to collaborate with the US on the WOT, to get the US out of the region the way the US wants to. The US wants to dismantle the terror networks inside Pakistan's FATA, & Pakistan is collaborating with the US on that. Pakistan wants to assist the US in dismantling the terror networks of the region. However, Pakistan's current strategy is also devised/caters for the scenario in which the US fails to dismantle the terror networks in the region, as Pakistan has to live in the neighborhood post 2014, which the US doesn't. That is what I mean by hedging its bets. Hence, there is nothing wrong with what Pakistan is doing, as it caters for both the scenarios (whether the US succeeds or fails in dismantling the terror networks in the region). The US unfortunately does not have a clear strategy, & the current one is too inflexible & one-dimensional.

Pakistan has made it clear that it is unwilling to do things that will jeopardize the position of the country if the US fails to dismantle the terror networks in the region. However, Pakistan does not want to impediment the US operations in the region either, & is willing to collaborate with the US to dismantle the terror networks in the region (please read my previous posts). Pakistan is just not ready to put all its eggs in one basket, which the US wants Pakistan to do, & some people don't like that about Pakistan.

 

[VelocuR]

Why Pakistan went to China first place after Abottabad raid? US and Pakistan need each other to ditch China?

Unbelievable, there were previous threads in heat discussions (more than 50 pages) against US's relationship and Military Aids by these same members. Now these members change voice in favor US's relations with Pakistan in WOT. Lol. Great news today by the announcement of Military Aids's released to Pakistan soon.

I must say, Hallelujah!

 

[Mabs]

It is a good article, of course from the American perspective. My main trouble in understanding the situation in Pakistan is that there are so many conspiracy theories and conflicting accounts of who is responsible for this and that. My touchstone is the murder of Benazir Bhutto. I cannot comprehend, as someone who has lived in the USA for 65 years, how a society can see a former Prime Minister, and leading candidate in the first election after a period of military rule, killed and not quickly and relentlessly investigate and make public the facts of who was responsible, why and bring them to justice. That is, if Pakistan's society cannot even care enough about BB's killing to get to the bottom of it after, what? three years? then I have no faith that what Pakistan's government, army or news media says. It must all be power games among the elites.

Not to rain on your parade but do we know who killed JFK or is it still being investigated/kept under the wraps ?

 

[PakShah]

The first article has a lot of idiotic ideas which are against Pakistani interests.

Pakistan must always be prepared for for war with India as Kashmir is disputed.
Pakistan must try its best to keep India out of Afghanistan.
If Afghanistan wants good relations with Pakistan, Afghanistan should have relations with Pakistan based on mutual respect and not try to forge relations with Pakistan's enemies.

 

[Transformers]

The first article has a lot of idiotic ideas which are against Pakistani interests.

Pakistan must always be prepared for for war with India as Kashmir is disputed.
Pakistan must try its best to keep India out of Afghanistan.
If Afghanistan wants good relations with Pakistan, Afghanistan should have relations with Pakistan based on mutual respect and not try to forge relations with Pakistan's enemies.

you are saying like that u never had any war with india???
even ur army acknowledges that they cant afford any war with india any more....
btw,how many wars u want?

 

[53fd]

Why Pakistan went to China first place after Abottabad raid? US and Pakistan need each other to ditch China?

Unbelievable, there were previous threads in heat discussions (more than 50 pages) against US's relationship and Military Aids by these same members. Now these members change voice in favor US's relations with Pakistan in WOT. Lol. Great news today by the announcement of Military Aids's released to Pakistan soon.

I must say, Hallelujah!

From another thread:

The two issues highlighted by the media – restoration of US military aid to Pakistan and the release of a Pakistani helper of the CIA – were not discussed, the sources said.

Another important decision taken at the meetings was to avoid using the media for “putting pressure on Pakistan before sensitive talks”, said a source while pointing out that a series of official leaks to the US media preceded Gen Pasha’s visit to Washington.

 

[VelocuR]

From another thread:

I disagree, there will always leaks coming out from Media in one way or another, US will continue stubbornly to push Pakistan, Pakistan's character is "wait, don't do this or tat, then finally agree in mutual business and then wait wait."

Pakistan will heading to wrong direction again rather than stick with it. I will repeat Pakistanis, are in weak corrupt, double standards, and dishonest country in the world to accept bribe from Foreigners who killed our people. Our senior members' tone here is change in supporting statements which is very disappointed. What happened to the statement "we can use our own resources without external assistances." or China's offers Aids.

"Another important decision taken at the meetings was to avoid using the media for “putting pressure on Pakistan" Believe me, media will continue to tarnish Pakistan. Fabulous.

Any discussing in prevent drones attack deal ?? May God help Pakistan (step backwards than stand in two feets).