"Hard talk with Pakistan does not work, they just dig in deeper", observe American analysts. NYT

[Mrc]

That is what UNSCR 1373 denies: it says that a member-state's sovereignty is null if another nation attacks terror groups on its territory. If the U.S. "switches" to supporting India, the Indians may be emboldened to take action against terror bases in Pakistan. Then Pakistan can either escalate the battle (without U.S. or Chinese support) or else yield to India's will. Pakistan might possibly keep the terror camps aimed at Afghanistan but will lose those it operates in support of Kashmir. Is that the outcome Pakistan really wants?

Kabhi ao to Sahi khushboo laga Kay...hawa main farting hi krtay rahtay ho

Two sovereign nations pursuing their own respective national interests as best as each one can, nothing wrong with that. The better player wins.

Wait and see who wins here

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

Why won't Pakistan pursue a good-neighbor policy, like the U.S. has with Canada? Military thinking would demand each face the other armed to the teeth but the politicians control and it is their job to evaluate the key question of intent. And over 150 years ago they determined there was no need for quarreling and the relations have been friendly ever since.

Pakistan needs to be ruthless with Afghanistan. They resent what we have and what we have achieved. They opposed our creation right from August the 14th 1947. They seek our destruction. I know EXACTLY how we can end the afghan problem permanently but I will get banned if I spell it out here. The afghans are potentially a bigger threat to us than india. We need to ensure they never rise or prosper.

 

[idune]

Why won't Pakistan pursue a good-neighbor policy, like the U.S. has with Canada? Military thinking would demand each face the other armed to the teeth but the politicians control and it is their job to evaluate the key question of intent. And over 150 years ago they determined there was no need for quarreling and the relations have been friendly ever since.

Really, that is how much you can scrape out of your fertile brain?

Current US interest in Afghanistan is long term stay because it does not have much influence in Eurasian/OBR block that getting stronger. For that, US is actively inventing and exploiting conflicts to justify its stay. Please, explain why US brought and transported IS fighters in Afghanistan with full knowledge of puppet regime???

Once, US remove its military from Afghanistan, sure a non military path can be pursued with much ease. Otherwise, son of that land will resist US occupation force with whatever means they have. That is law of nature for thousands of years. Same goes true for US, Americans have every "right" to resist occupation.

And Canada is subservient US state, why do you think Pakistanis or any other country would want that??? Because, you think US wants to impose its will and others just need to accept that like Canadians? Well, then that is the root of the problem, unless you are too shallow or too deceptive to admit that.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

U.S. Warning to Pakistan: Stop Backing Terrorism

• 
  Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson, center right, with the Pakistani foreign minister, Khawaja Muhammad Asif, center left, in Islamabad on Tuesday.
  POOL PHOTO BY ALEX BRANDON
  By GARDINER HARRIS
  OCTOBER 24, 2017

ISLAMABAD — Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson stopped in Islamabad on his way to New Delhi on Tuesday to deliver what he hoped would be a sobering message to Pakistan: Stop funding or providing shelter to terrorist groups. Now.

It is a message the United States has been giving the Pakistanis in various forms since the Sept. 11 attacks, and it is one the Pakistanis have by turns harkened to, bristled at and shrugged off — sometimes in the same meeting — for years.

In tackling the deeply dysfunctional relationship between the United States and Pakistan, the Trump administration is finding that it is not unlike some difficult marriages: all but impossible to fix, but also impossible to end.

There were few signs on Tuesday that this 16-year-old dynamic had changed.

Mr. Tillerson met with three of Pakistan’s top leaders at the elegant prime minister’s residence in Islamabad: Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi; the foreign minister, Khawaja Muhammad Asif; and, most important, the Army’s chief of staff, Gen. Qamar Javed Bajwa.


At a formal greeting before a portrait of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, who is considered the father of Pakistan, Mr. Tillerson began with reassurances. “Pakistan is important, as you know, regionally to the U.S. security relationships and so important regionally to our joint goals of providing peace and security to the region and providing opportunity for a greater economic relationship as well,” he said.


Mr. Abbasi, wearing a traditional white kurta next to Mr. Tillerson’s dark suit, responded cheerfully but pointedly. “The U.S. can rest assured that we are strategic partners in the war against terror and that today Pakistan is fighting the largest war in the world against terror,” he said.

The United States believes that Pakistan has for years supported terrorist groups, like the Haqqani network, that attack American troops in Afghanistan, undermining the 16-year effort to defeat the Taliban. But for just as long, the United States has relied on Pakistani air and land routes to supply both American and Afghan forces.

Without Pakistan, the United States would not be able to keep troops in Afghanistan — but it also might not need to, some American observers suggest.

“What do you do when your allies are part of the problem?” asked Daniel L. Byman, a counterterrorism expert at Georgetown University. “The desire to turn our backs on these people is there, but then you worry that terrorists will have more operational freedom and it will cost you more in the long run.”

In public, the Pakistanis say they have killed more terrorists at greater cost in lives lost than any other nation. In private, they say they must hedge their bets against the inevitable day when American troops leave Afghanistan.


In the days leading up to Mr. Tillerson’s visit, the United States conducted a flurry of airstrikes along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, fulfilling President Trump’s promise in August to intensify attacks against the Taliban and Haqqani network, which has run a virtual factory in Pakistan since 2005 to supply suicide bombers in Afghanistan.


Local news media outlets reported more than a dozen missile strikes that killed scores of Haqqani fighters. The strikes, many of them in Pakistani territory, are deeply irritating to Pakistan, which considers them a threat to its sovereignty.

Along with the attacks, the Trump administration has toughened its rhetoric. In a speech last week that offered effusive praise for India, Mr. Tillerson warned, “We expect Pakistan to take decisive action against terrorist groups based there that threaten its own people and the broader region.”

Senior Pakistani army and intelligence officials expressed confidence in background interviews in recent days that the Trump administration cannot sustain a hostile stance for too long. The Pakistanis are keenly aware that the United States relies on them not only for supplies of material, but also for intelligence.

The Obama administration worked to reduce its reliance on Pakistan in part by reaching a reconciliation with Iran, the only other viable option for supplying troops in Afghanistan. India is building a port in the Iranian city of Chabahar, where supplies could be landed and shipped to Afghanistan.

C. Christine Fair, an associate professor at Georgetown University, argues that Pakistan represents a far greater threat to American interests than Iran does. It was Pakistan that provided nuclear technology to North Korea and Libya, and Pakistan’s proxies have killed more American troops than Iran’s, she said.


But the Trump administration’s hostility toward Iran — Mr. Trump has threatened to tear up the Iran nuclear accord — has closed off such a strategy, so the United States must rely on Pakistan.


“It’s like a woman trying to leave an abusive marriage when she has no money,” Ms. Fair said. “How do you do that?”

Will tougher rhetoric change Pakistani behavior? Experts are skeptical.

“Getting tough on Pakistan, which we’ve tried before, never works,” said Ryan C. Crocker, a former ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. “In fact, it has the opposite effect. They just dig in deeper.”

Salman Masood contributed reporting from Islamabad, and Eric Schmitt from Washington.




The last parts are pretty amusing , good going to our ninja's who tie the hands of even the most powerful nation on earth...
@Horus @DESERT FIGHTER @war&peace @The Eagle @Zarvan @El Sidd @HAKIKAT

It's hilarious to watch the world's most powerful nation and military squirm at having to deal with Pakistan they admit there is nothing they can do to us. The americans are frustrated that we are not weak and powerless like Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya etc......

 

[YeBeWarned]

The difficulty is that the two countries are pursuing different endgames: the U.S. wants a an independent and prosperous Afghanistan existing under rule-of-law while Pakistan seeks a satellite Afghanistan under the sway of its own pet Talibs; Pakistan remains wedded to the strategy that incubated 9/11.

and Hitler wanted to adopt all the Jews and love them forever ... Al Bhagdadi wants to become leader of UN human rights Organization .

 

[American Pakistani]

Clown trumpy administration need to resign from offices and give the chair to those who are qualified. Being a macho don't solve problems, that's what happened here. Trumpy's little brain failed to foresee the consequences of tilting too much into indian side. The more hard you get on Pakistan, the more problems you create in already destabilized region.

The only way to deal with Pakistan is to open up the US market for Pakistani goods. Help Pakistan strengthen their export income which will create more jobs in Pakistan, hence stability.

 

[El Sidd]

Why is it even an observation? It's simple maths.

Two nations who disagree on one of their mutual policy.

The one who planned long term has the edge over short haul sprinter.

Let Afghans breed their own Abraham Lincoln and George Washington rather providing them with skeletal fault lines of hate and oppression.

As long as Americans stay in Afghanistan the Afghans will milk them.

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

The difficulty is that the two countries are pursuing different endgames: the U.S. wants a an independent and prosperous Afghanistan existing under rule-of-law while Pakistan seeks a satellite Afghanistan under the sway of its own pet Talibs; Pakistan remains wedded to the strategy that incubated 9/11.

Thus Pakistan opposes any reconciliation with the Taliban that leads to peace in a Afghanistan absent of Pakistani political domination. As if economic influence wasn't enough! Really, this looks like the product of a military mindset unobstructed by political moderation: dominate or be dominated, etc. Afghanistan's problems are rooted in Pakistan's issues, so the emphasis should be there. Probably the only weak lever the U.S. exercises is to cut off the flow of U.S. "aid" but it seems that Pakistan is both the arsonist and firefighter so the U.S. has been afraid to take that step.

So far.

You're wrong in your perception!!! It's not Pak or anyone else, it's the Afgan (read Pashtun) themselves!!!!! They won't live under foreign or their proxies domination - this is the bottom-line!!! As for the help from Pak, if there's any, Taliban folks don't give a damn for they feel they built the foundations for the Muslim existence in the subcontinent with their blood, sweat and intellect, not the other way round!!!

 

[Solomon2]

I respect Pakistan's right to choose its policies, and reap the consequences thereof, for better and worse, just like any other sovereign nation.

So there have to be consequences; mere threats aren't sufficient.

But Pakistan is neither a democracy nor even what the newspaper Dawn considers a civilized country: constitutions,laws, etc. don't apply, only authority. Which means that U.S. efforts aimed at the macroeconomic level won't affect the decision-makers: rather, punishment has to be more personal, like the way the U.S. puts specific Iranian and North Korean officials on "terrorist" lists, forbidding their financial transactions, purchases of luxury goods, etc.

It will be very odd to be "allies" with a country whose top generals and secret agencies' officials are sanctioned and maybe even subject to lawsuits from their own citizens under the Alien Torts Act. Do you think you'll file a suit of your own, Syed?

 

[VCheng]

So there have to be consequences; mere threats aren't sufficient.

But Pakistan is neither a democracy nor even what the newspaper Dawn considers a civilized country: constitutions,laws, etc. don't apply, only authority. Which means that U.S. efforts aimed at the macroeconomic level won't affect the decision-makers: rather, punishment has to be more personal, like the way the U.S. puts specific Iranian and North Korean officials on "terrorist" lists, forbidding their financial transactions, purchases of luxury goods, etc.

It will be very odd to be "allies" with a country whose top generals and secret agencies' officials are sanctioned and maybe even subject to lawsuits from their own citizens under the Alien Torts Act. Do you think you'll file a suit of your own, Syed?

USA is of course free to pursue its own policies, including the types of sanctions you mention if deemed to be necessary. Whether they achieve the desired results or not is debatable at this point in time.

 

[Signalian]

“Getting tough on Pakistan, which we’ve tried before, never works,” said Ryan C. Crocker, a former ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. “In fact, it has the opposite effect. They just dig in deeper.”

That is actually a quite promising image from pakistan's side. Recent and past incidents have shown that USA has ditched/embargoed/penalised Pakistan many times, but Pakistan keeps coming back stronger.

As for the USA assumption that Pakistan is not fighting terrorists or Haqqani network, it's not Pakistan's job to fight USA's war for USA, which USA actually wants apart from making a scapegoat of Pakistan, however every terrorist be it Haqqani or any other inside Pakistan is being targeted by PA.

 

[Solomon2]

USA is of course free to pursue its own policies, including the types of sanctions you mention if deemed to be necessary. Whether they achieve the desired results or not is debatable at this point in time.

What about yourself?

 

[VCheng]

What about yourself?

Individuals cannot operate in the domain of sovereign states in pursuit of national interests. What do you mean by your question?

 

[hussain0216]

the U.S. wants a an independent and prosperous Afghanistan existing under rule-of-law

USA knows deep down Pakistan will not change its SPOTS

They will support Taliban And maintain proxies to trouble India

I think its up to USA to simply drop Pakistan AND move 100% into Indian Camp

I think this process has begun

Oh happy days

 

[Solomon2]

Pakistan needs to be ruthless with Afghanistan. They resent what we have and what we have achieved. They opposed our creation right from August the 14th 1947. They seek our destruction. I know EXACTLY how we can end the afghan problem permanently but I will get banned if I spell it out here. The afghans are potentially a bigger threat to us than india. We need to ensure they never rise or prosper.

You can substitute "U.S.A." and "Canada" for "Pakistan" and "Afghanistan" and you pretty much have the military attitude of the opposing sides for the first few decades of America's independence. Difference is, in the U.S. and Great Britain the pols could over-ride assessments purely based on the military capability of the opponent by mending the political situation between the two countries. The borders were demarcated and unmanned, the Great Lakes demilitarized, the Loyalists and their descendants firmly refused compensation or right-of-return, and both countries sought cooperation and mutual advancement.

Individuals cannot operate in the domain of sovereign states in pursuit of national interests. What do you mean by your question?

See Alien Tort Statute.