Trump ponders crackdown on Pakistan over terror ties despite experts' warnings

[airmarshal]

US has failed to secure Afghanistan therefore time and again it tries to punish Pakistan.

Pakistan too should change its stance on Afghanistan and take a tougher and more vocal line. There is no peace in Afghanistan without Pakistan help. If US and its allies allow Pakistan enemies to take hold in Afghanistan and use its soil to attack Pakistani people then Pakistan too take a stance.

This is not 2003/2004. Pakistan has enough evidence Afghanistan has been used by terror groups supported by its enemies to attack Pakistan. There is no reason back down.

 

[Post Colonnial]

You should not be talking about credibility at all as an Indian. Because No nation is as dishonest as Indians are and I am only judging from the statements of Indian media and their politicians.

right there is the hole in your argument - you generalized all media. all politicians and on top of that generalized these two into whole of India. See how you guys lose credibility?

 

[Khanate]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out given all the divisions within United States and the fact that President Trump has a lot on his plate domestically. Not to mention, he is wagging an information war of sorts on U.S. media.

Having said that, the problem United States faces in Afghanistan is that there are few options. U.S. can declare Taliban a 'terrorist' group and then try to finish them off but that will kill the peace process itself. And the move will not have any significant impact on Taliban's base. Worse, such a move places Taliban outside of any framework which guarantees the war in Afghanistan will go on forever.

Since there are few options left in Afghanistan, Pakistan has become the new focus. Unfortunately, the entire thrust of the U.S. argument is predicated upon the false premise that Pakistan has or may have influence over Taliban. We don't. Here's a history lesson for those who have forgotten:

• Pakistan asked Taliban, led by Mullah Omar, to resolve all outstanding border issues. They didn't.

• Pakistan asked Taliban to protect Buddhas of Bamiyan. They didn't.

• Pakistan asked Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden to United States. They didn't.

• Pakistan asked Taliban, led by Mullah Mansoor, to see through the Murree Peace Process. They walked away.

This is just a short list but it conveys my point hence the idea that putting pressure on Pakistan will magically resolve Afghanistan quagmire is absurd. And these days Taliban are more diversified than ever before. They have much broader contacts with China, Russia and Iran. In any case, interesting times ahead.

 

[Rollno21]

India is behind China simply because it is a multi-ethnic entity and not a real nation state like China that has 90% Han dominant ethniity. When a country like India is spending all it's time trying to hold it's many people's together economic development will naturally take a back seat.

I am not sure what you mean by India is spending all it's time trying to hold it's people together.
If you compare India and China spending on their internal security to their defence budgets which is actually spent on external threats,and money spent on internal security is not included in the defence budget.
China actually spends more on it's internal security than it's defence .

 

[Mian Babban]

Yes up to 50% may not be Pakhtuns, but the birth rates of Pakhtuns outstrip those of other ethnic groups

High birth rates but also very high infant mortality rates...........all the poor families , of every ethnicity, have high birth rates in Afghanistan and all of them have high mortality rates due to poor health facilities.

The community which bore the brunt of foreign invasions throughout history , is Pashtun and each invasion had drastic impact on their population and strength. For example entire clans got wiped out in their resistance to Nadir Shah Afshar invasion on their lands (the one who looted Delhi in 1739). The community of present-day Afghanistan, which was affected least by foreign invasions, is Hazaras of Hazarajat. Hazaras did not suffer much during Russian and Anglo-Afghan wars and before, and were quite safe in their lands.

Taliban has no writ over most of Northern and Western Afghanistan.

Taliban have presence in all of the Northern and Western Afghanistan. They are even formidable in Badakhshan.

 

[Zee-shaun]

The NEW WORLD order is arriving .............

IN THIS NEW WORLD India will play a massive role not just in South Asia BUT ALL over ASIA

USA will be used by INDIA to increase its influence in middle East and SE ASIA

We see it with india having growing economic and security ties with

Israel - india main hitechg weapons source worth billions
UAE - growing trade and security links
Oman - listening posts for indian navy on Omani soil
South Korea - future shippibuilding
Japan & Australlia - Navy drills and training for future joint operations.

YOU CANNOT JUST RELY ON ONE NATION TO PIGGY BACK ON




This is pure sentiment and over reliance on historical cultural links . That is a typical Pakistani statement .. we are important because we have Pashtuns and understand the situation

YOU HAVE IGNORED the crucial weakness.
Pakistan has fostered and nurtured or best turned blind eye to terror groups
Pakistan has lied and cheated USA by hiding OBL and used WOT as a pretext to raise USA grant aid
Pakistan cannot control jihadi culture within its own borders
Pakistan is in the grip of its generals and isi who have a ideaology that is harmful to USA long term strategic ally India.

Thus USA no longer beleives you to have the best interests of the region at heart

YOU HAVE OWN NATIONAL interest

THESE COLLIDE WITH USA and its main ally INDIA

GET USED to this attitude ...........this is the future INDIA will be the vital nation in this region as far as USA is concerned

Yes yes, we have seen the trailer already

 

[Musafir117]

Pakistan with China and Russia should start open talks with Taliban as two stupids leaders left no chance for us. If we have our own type Govt there we could easily eliminate the terrorists sitting in Kabul with help of Indian.
@waz if they can show their cards what we waiting for? Lanat bhejo F16 or any military equipment support and instead make good strong relationships with Russia.

 

[Mrc]

This divorce between pak and US is going to be messy... both sides have things to lose US more than pak...

So I would like pak military to go apes on first signs of trouble

 

[Icarus]

bombing pakistan is not realistic. if it was an option they would taken pakistan out the days after 9/11

Do you genuinely have the depth of a saucer? For someone going by the name of "wiseone", you seem to be unnaturally dense. I could have explained my point to a shovel this many times and made it understand.
Everyone else on the thread gets the analogy, no idea why you miss the most obvious point.
Its like asking someone tea and they start arguing with you over the deforestation of hills to grow that tea. It may be true but its not at all relevant to the discussion and overlooks my most immediate point in its entirety.

So here it is one more time. THE ANALOGY REFERS TO ASSIGNING BLAME FOR FAILURE ONTO A THIRD COUNTRY.

 

[LeGenD]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out given all the divisions within United States and the fact that President Trump has a lot on his plate domestically. Not to mention, he is wagging an information war of sorts on U.S. media.

Having said that, the problem United States faces in Afghanistan is that there are few options. U.S. can declare Taliban a 'terrorist' group and then try to finish them off but that will kill the peace process itself. And the move will not have any significant impact on Taliban's base. Worse, such a move places Taliban outside of any framework which guarantees the war in Afghanistan will go on forever.

Since there are few options left in Afghanistan, Pakistan has become the new focus. Unfortunately, the entire thrust of the U.S. argument is predicated upon the false premise that Pakistan has or may have influence over Taliban. We don't. Here's a history lesson for those who have forgotten:

• Pakistan asked Taliban, led by Mullah Omar, to resolve all outstanding border issues. They didn't.

• Pakistan asked Taliban to protect Buddhas of Bamiyan. They didn't.

• Pakistan asked Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden to United States. They didn't.

• Pakistan asked Taliban, led by Mullah Mansoor, to see through the Murree Peace Process. They walked away.

This is just a short list but it conveys my point hence the idea that putting pressure on Pakistan will magically resolve Afghanistan quagmire is absurd. And these days Taliban are more diversified than ever before. They have much broader contacts with China, Russia and Iran. In any case, interesting times ahead.

Taliban isn't unstoppable - politics on the other hand:

When US invaded Afghanistan in 2001, it had a very good military strategy to contend with Taliban and Al-Qaeda Network back then. Hammering was so severe that a large number of militants were killed and survivors fled across the border. Afghanistan became peaceful for about 2 years straight which was a big relief for the region.

However, something had to be done about (Taliban and Al-Qaeda Network) militants who fled to Pakistan - towards this end, US motivated Pakistani military establishment to commence its operations against such elements. Collaboration was very good and it seemed that the noose was tightening around militants in the entire region and they would be eliminated en masse.

Perfect.

Then deeper realities began to rear their ugly head:

1. Sympathy for Taliban within Pakistani ranks
2. Emergence of TTP
3. Politics
4. India
5. Corruption

And war effort began to drag and drag and drag....

Militant forces are not standing armies with expensive assets and a state to defend; they tend to be ideological and mobile; they draw life from regional politics and corruption; they take advantage of sentiments of affected people and socio-economic injustices in the region to gain more recruits. More importantly, they have the edge of being localized movements and fight on their terms.

American 'war machine' is designed to smash professional armies and conquer states in a short span - chasing highly mobile militants around on daily basis like a regional counter-terrorism force is a long-term task and not practical for a 'war machine' that is deployed thousands of miles away from the homeland when logistics requirements are accounted for.

Another reality is that US expended lot of resources on Iraq rather than concentrate on Afghanistan:

Do you think the failures in Afghanistan are a result of small-scale tactical errors or larger strategic blunders?

Tactically, every time I saw US or UK troops fight the Taliban, they won. I rarely saw the Afghan army or police succeed against the Taliban. Strategically, it was a massive failure. We didn't even try nation-building seriously until 2008 or 2009, and by then I think it was far too late—we had put some of Afghanistan's worst warlords back into power, which enabled support for the Taliban. And it meant that the population was very mistrustful of us and were very resentful of the government we were trying to impose. So much damage was done that by the time we actually took the mission seriously in 2008 or 2009 it was almost too late.

The big problem, of course, was the rush to Iraq. We thought we'd defeated the Taliban in a matter of days or weeks [in 2001], and then rushed all the best men and equipment to Iraq. And that's the problem. I think the quote from George W. Bush back then was "we don't do nation-building"—they weren't interested in anything beyond a shock-and-awe bombing campaign to get rid of the Taliban, declaring victory, and then moving on. People always describe [the Afghanistan War] as "America's longest war," and technically that's true, but we took the first six or seven years of the war off.

How does the Taliban win so many victories against Afghan government forces? Is it better trained?

I think Taliban fighters battle in areas that they come from, which means they have relationships with the local population and can move around freely. They're fighting for their homelands, so they'll fight for years and years and years—whereas if you send some [troops] from the north of the country to the south, a lot of them don't really want to be there and they don't have that same level of commitment.

Also, doing what the Taliban do is relatively easy. Laying IEDs, attacking civilian targets, doing hit-and-run ambushes—that's much easier than clearing areas of Taliban, holding on to those areas, building up government infrastructure.

Source: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xd73vn/how-the-us-lost-afghanistan

----

To be honest, this is not the time to give up on Afghanistan.

Trump administration is mulling a new strategy for Afghanistan. Let us see if it delivers.

 

[sparten]

What actual leverage does the US have wrt Pakistan.
Most "Aid" is reimbursements or Coalition Support Funds, and Pakistanis would be happy not to get either, since it means our fascilities could be used for actual productive economical things and we don't have to use our armed forces willy nilly.

Most Pakistani Weapon Systems are not obtained from US. We have either alternative suppliers or make our own.The F16 deal and the newer AH-1Z agreement are the only one which comes to mind. And in both cases the forces seem to be operating on the assumption that hurdles are likely; so they have looked into alternates at the same tome, the WZ-10 for instance.

Direct action. Versus a nuclear power? And a good chance of getting China involved?

Economic Pressure: Hardly any US investments in Pakistan, on contrary US businessmen have complained about being cut off from CPEC.

Iran type sanctions: Probably their only realictic choice. But one which will become more and more difficult to execute as CPEC projects mature and Pakistan becomes more and more essential to world tade.

 

[LeGenD]

What actual leverage does the US have wrt Pakistan.
Most "Aid" is reimbursements or Coalition Support Funds, and Pakistanis would be happy not to get either, since it means our fascilities could be used for actual productive economical things and we don't have to use our armed forces willy nilly.

Most Pakistani Weapon Systems are not obtained from US. We have either alternative suppliers or make our own.The F16 deal and the newer AH-1Z agreement are the only one which comes to mind. And in both cases the forces seem to be operating on the assumption that hurdles are likely; so they have looked into alternates at the same tome, the WZ-10 for instance.

Direct action. Versus a nuclear power? And a good chance of getting China involved?

Economic Pressure: Hardly any US investments in Pakistan, on contrary US businessmen have complained about being cut off from CPEC.

Iran type sanctions: Probably their only realictic choice. But one which will become more and more difficult to execute as CPEC projects mature and Pakistan becomes more and more essential to world tade.

Aid in whatever shape or form - reduces costs of operations against militants.

We still operate American hardware in large numbers and maintenance requirements are not local.

China won't get involved in military terms.

US is the largest export destination for Pakistan. That is something in terms of business.

As a student of public administration and commerce, I shall make this clear - Pakistani economy cannot weather heavy economic sanctions due to a number of reasons. First, Pakistani economy is functioning on loans from US and China in large part. Second, heavy economic sanctions will ruin prospects of foreign investment and CPEC will suffer a major setback. Third, Pakistani industry is far from being self-reliant under the pressures of energy crises and imports from China. Fourth, Pakistan isn't a major oil-producing country like Iran. A lot is at stake in this situation.

 

[litman]

only our leaders cant understand a basic reality that US is not our friend. the never were and they never will be. but pak leaders have always served them well.

 

[wiseone2]

Do you genuinely have the depth of a saucer? For someone going by the name of "wiseone", you seem to be unnaturally dense. I could have explained my point to a shovel this many times and made it understand.
Everyone else on the thread gets the analogy, no idea why you miss the most obvious point.
Its like asking someone tea and they start arguing with you over the deforestation of hills to grow that tea. It may be true but its not at all relevant to the discussion and overlooks my most immediate point in its entirety.

So here it is one more time. THE ANALOGY REFERS TO ASSIGNING BLAME FOR FAILURE ONTO A THIRD COUNTRY.

The only problem with your analogy is that it is INCORRECT
No one in USA blamed the government of Laos for the Vietcong insurgency.
The Government of Pakistan is being accused (rightly or wrongly) for supporting the Taliban insurgency.
Is there some part of the above you do not comprehend ?

• Pakistan asked Taliban, led by Mullah Omar, to resolve all outstanding border issues. They didn't.

• Pakistan asked Taliban to protect Buddhas of Bamiyan. They didn't.

• Pakistan asked Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden to United States. They didn't.

• Pakistan asked Taliban, led by Mullah Mansoor, to see through the Murree Peace Process. They walked away.

There is no proof for any of the above

 

[Icarus]

The only problem with your analogy is that it is INCORRECT
No one in USA blamed the government of Laos for the Vietcong insurgency.
The Government of Pakistan is being accused (rightly or wrongly) for supporting the Taliban insurgency.
Is there some part of the above you do not comprehend ?



There is no proof for any of the above

The only thing incorrect around here is your understanding of the entire South East Asian containment strategy. Now that the discussion has become detracked anyway, can you please tell me that if no one in the USA indeed blamed Laos for being proxy to the VC and NVA, then why did the US go and bomb the country at the rate of 8 bombs per minute?