Pakistan’s Impending Defeat in Afghanistan

[idune]

There are different players vying for Pakistan attention and cooperation for their version of Central Asian great game. On top of that Pakistan strategic defiance on US and NATO so far baffled Washington. Traditional US calculation expected that combination of pressure and despair will force Pakistan to fall in line and oblige to NATO demand. But that calculation failed utterly (so far). Neither civilian administration willing to take risk of public wrath nor military leadership sees value in obliging over their own blood. As a result US and NATO is standing to lose big as great game intensifying. It is only expected US and western think tanks and their associates will produce write up analysis that paint the grim picture for Pakistan future; remember pressure and despair are US tool and tactics. What these think tanks and analysts do not say is – prospect and proposition from other interested parties (like Russia, China and Iran) to Pakistan. These analysts definitely do not talk about grim prospect of the US “Silk Road” plan if Pakistan holds Russian and Chinese and Iranian hand. Perhaps reading the following article can give the broader picture of quagmire US is in and perhaps reading should be "US and NATO's Impending Defeat in Afghanistan and Central Asia".

http://www.defence.pk/forums/strategic-geopolitical-issues/191412-russia-house-indian-ocean.html

 

[Developereo]

Developoreo said previously in his post that if NATO would take care of Pakistan's concerns with India in Afghanistan then Pak may co-operate more fully with NATO .

Does it not obviously mean that Pak is not co-operating fully with NATO on the Afghan Taliban ? If there is another meaning then please educate me .

I spelled out quite clearly Pakistan's concerns vis-a-vis NATO's involvement in Afghanistan. If NATO's aim were only to dislodge the AQ ideology, then Pakistan would be on board. However, since the WOT is only part of the reason, with NATO's larger regional goal gaining prominence over time, then Pakistan needs to be wary of NATO's larger agenda. Particularly since that larger geopolitical agenda is directly inimical to Pakistan's --and the region's -- interests. Except India's.

Absolutely wrong! The last thing Iran wants is Taliban back in power and similar case with China. They don't want to see Taliban back in power. EVERY SINGLE country in the world (the ones that matter to Afghanistan) doesn't want to see Talibans back, apart from Pakistan/Saudi Arabia.

I specifically made a distinction between their nationalist ideology and the AQ mindset. The latter is rejected by all and is in no one's interests, including Pakistan. However, the nationalist ideology is respected and appreciated by all, since it translates into a headache for the foreign NATO forces. In case you didn't know, NATO claims Iran is supplying weapons to the Taliban.

I would disagree. Pakistan had a great chance, now squandered, to continue to be a US ally. Both sides are at fault, USA for abandoing Pakistan post-USSR withdrawal in Afghanistan, and Pakistan for not realizing the magnitude of the changes in US policy brought on by 9/11 and thus playing by an obsolete rule book.

You are ignoring my post and rejecting that NATO has an ulterior agenda beyond the WOT. Like I wrote, the WOT is just a Trojan horse for NATO to position itself in a geopolitically perfect location in the region.

Again, I disagree. US interests would have been best served by having Pakistan as an ally. Indeed, what weakens Pakistan, such as a pitiful economy, dismal social development and failing governance, is not USA's fault at all, but it has now become convenient to paint it as the scapegoat for Pakistan's internal failings.

No one is blaming the US for Pakistan's internal problems, although the former has made no secret about its support for various insurgencies within Pakistan. Leaving that aside, the US goal of China-containment is also not a secret, and neither is Pakistan's close relationship with China and rivalry with India.

It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that, if the US wants to promote India as the local hegemon, where does Pakistan fall in that equation.

India also realizes that with nuclear deterrence in place, the way to whittle Pakistan down to size lies in other non-military means, primarily economic.

The fact is that India does not have as much clout on the international stage as it claims. Most of Pakistan's image problems are caused by Pakistan's own incompetence, not India's brilliance. India still needs the US (media, financial and diplomatic muscle) to keep downward pressure on Pakistan. The US controls major international institutions; India does not.

Well, consider that the "hedging its bets" strategy is what has landed Pakistan in the present predicament, and one can see that it has failed Pakistan terribly. It was ill-advised to begin with, but persisting with it has only deepened the hole that Pakistan has dug for itself. The old advice about the first thing to do when one finds oneself in a hole to stop digging any further is quite applicable in this case too.

As I wrote above, Pakistan's goal is to safeguard Pakistan's interests, not America's. Since there are legitimate questions about NATO's hidden agenda in Afghanistan, and every indication that this agenda is inimical to Pakistan (from BLA to TTP support), it is natural that Pakistan should hedge its bets.

Not at all. Indian interests demand that, not USA's. Pakistan's failed policies have side-lined it, but like I have said before, those who have made the policies are finding it convenient to direct the blame on to USA, instead of where it belongs: at home.

India is the recipient of American benevolence simply because their interests align. It is not about love, friendship or diplomacy. The only aspect India can claim credit for is to keep reaffirming to America, in not so many words but clearly enough, that it shares America's 'concerns' about China's rise.

....... but only because Pakistan is failing to do what needs to be done.I have said before, and I will say it agian: All of FATA will be cleaned up, one way or another. Either Pakistan does it, with US help if need be, or it will be done for them by "other means".

The conflict in Afghanistan and Waziristan will continue to simmer as long as the US needs the WOT cover story to maintain its presence in the region. TTP fighters will mysteriously find refuge in Afghanistan right under NATO's eyes; Afghan Taliban, allegedly hiding in Pakistan, will manage to travel hundreds of kilometers through NATO territory to launch attacks in Kabul, and the US administration will continue to beat its chest about fighting the good fight while diverting attention from the local dismal economy.

 

[53fd]

When the Taliban becomes a legitimate part of government in Afghanistan & ends the conflict, the TTP, Al-Qaeda will not get 'material support' from them; & the TTP/Al-Qaeda will only seek ideological inspiration from them. This is a big advantage for Pakistan post-2014.

The Taliban have shown they have no international agenda, they call themselves Afghan nationalists, & once they are recognized as a legitimate part of government; they will not resort to the "ways" they are resorting to right now.

Pakistan has done well not to stir too many hornet's nests, unlike Afghanistan; where each & every region is in turmoil & hit by the militancy (in Pakistan, it is just the Western border regions). Pakistan has successfully managed to confine/contain the violence to certain areas, whereas, the arena has been expanding in Afghanistan. Pakistan has done well to separate the Afghan elements of the insurgency from the Pakistani elements in the AfPak border regions, & as long as Pakistan does not create any more unneeded enemies, & does not burn bridges in Afghanistan; it will be a strategic victory for Pakistan.

 

[RazorMC]

The article is flawed to the core. None of the mentioned outcomes are a threat to Pakistan's interests but are only made to seem so.

First, the US announces a withdrawal timeline. A clear appeal to the Taliban to reduce their activites for a couple of years until they get a free rein.

Then comes the withdrawal followed by the promised "free rein".

Next comes the "blame Pakistan" game for Taliban's resurgence and all the I-told-you-so routine.

It has been quite evident for some time who the actual loser is going to be.

 

[SBD-3]

There are different players vying for Pakistan attention and cooperation for their version of Central Asian great game. On top of that Pakistan strategic defiance on US and NATO so far baffled Washington. Traditional US calculation expected that combination of pressure and despair will force Pakistan to fall in line and oblige to NATO demand. But that calculation failed utterly (so far). Neither civilian administration willing to take risk of public wrath nor military leadership sees value in obliging over their own blood. As a result US and NATO is standing to lose big as great game intensifying. It is only expected US and western think tanks and their associates will produce write up analysis that paint the grim picture for Pakistan future; remember pressure and despair are US tool and tactics. What these think tanks and analysts do not say is – prospect and proposition from other interested parties (like Russia, China and Iran) to Pakistan. These analysts definitely do not talk about grim prospect of the US “Silk Road” plan if Pakistan holds Russian and Chinese and Iranian hand. Perhaps reading the following article can give the broader picture of quagmire US is in and perhaps reading should be "US and NATO's Impending Defeat in Afghanistan and Central Asia".

http://www.defence.pk/forums/strategic-geopolitical-issues/191412-russia-house-indian-ocean.html

Very rightly said. As the autor of the orignal article says that Pakistan chose to stay with Taliban. I would rather argue that Pakistan's most fisable strategy was to side with Taliban for the time being because the afghan civil war also had the dark aspect of sectarian basis i.e. Shias (Northern Alliance) Vs Deubandis/AH (Talibans). There were massacures of local population whenever both of sides got deep into oneanother's territories (something that authors often omitt completely). Iran was quick to side with NA (as they did with Syria and Hizbullah in Lebnon). Their decision was more driven by sectraian basis than promoting anything peaceful in Afghanistan. For Pakistan, same dilemma prevailed i.e. siding with sunni pukhtoon afghans or with hazara shia afghans? Pakistan's regional stake was more alliegned with Talibans since the majority of Pukhtoons in Pakistani areas were also Sunnis and siding with NA could have had a much worse effect. It remains a fact that creating peace in Aghanistan will always remain a significant challange since even when Americans leave will pukhtoons accept Northern alliance led government? (Just like what happened in Iraq). Will Iran and other involved partners be willing to develop a general consensus on promoting peace and harmoney in Afghanistan. The more the stakeholders, the less chances of successful consensus.

 

[majesticpankaj]

For years, Pakistan has ignored the Obama administration’s pleas to crack down on militants who cross from Pakistan to attack American forces in Afghanistan. Recent cross-border raids by Taliban militants who kill Pakistani soldiers should give Islamabad a reason to take that complaint more seriously.



Last week, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Pakistan’s army chief of staff, raised the issue in a meeting with Gen. John Allen, the commander of American and NATO forces in Afghanistan. He demanded that NATO go after the militants on the Afghan side of the border, according to Pakistani news reports. General Allen demanded that Pakistan act against Afghan militants given safe haven by its security services, especially the Haqqani network, which is responsible for some of the worst attacks in Kabul.

Fighting extremists should be grounds for common cause, but there is no sign that Pakistan’s military leaders get it. They see the need to confront the virulent Afghan-based insurgency that threatens their own country and has killed thousands of Pakistani soldiers and civilians. But they refuse to cut ties with the Haqqanis and other militants, who give Islamabad leverage in Afghanistan and are the biggest threat to American efforts to stabilize that country.

Pakistan’s political system is growing ever more dysfunctional, even as the need to take on the border chaos becomes more urgent. Obama administration officials are “reaching the limits of our patience,” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said recently. But the United States cannot just walk away. It needs Pakistan’s help in reopening a critical supply route to Afghanistan and in urging the Taliban to engage in peace talks so that combat troops can be withdrawn from Afghanistan by the end of 2014. It also needs to monitor Islamabad’s growing nuclear arsenal.

Some in Congress want to designate the Haqqanis as a terrorist organization. That would be unwise because such a move could lead to Pakistan’s being designated a terrorist state subject to sanctions and make cooperation even harder. The United States has no choice but to try to work with Pakistan, including the army, when it can.

Officials hope the crisis in relations caused by the killing of Osama bin Laden and other events will pass. Meanwhile, they are holding the Pakistanis more at arm’s length and setting narrower goals; President Obama declined to hold an official meeting with President Asif Ali Zardari at the NATO summit meeting in Chicago in May.

The United States has little choice but to continue drone attacks on militants in Pakistan. It has urged India to become more involved in Afghanistan and on Thursday, a conference was held in New Delhi to urge companies to invest there. That makes sense as long as India’s activities are transparent. Pakistan is paranoid about India, which it sees as a mortal adversary.

After 2001, Pakistan had a chance to develop into a more stable country. It had strong leverage with the United States, which needed help to defeat Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Pakistan received billions of dollars in aid and the promise of billions more, which Washington has begun to suspend or cancel. But the army continues its double game — accepting money from the Americans while enabling the Afghan Taliban — and the politicians remain paralyzed. Soon, most American troops will be gone from Afghanistan. And Pakistan will find it harder to fend off its enemies, real and perceived.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/02/opinion/crippled-chaotic-pakistan.html?_r=2

 

[Thorough Pro]

You don't have to read the full article or look at the writers pic to tell that it came out of an *** hole.