What's new

Does Pakistan Really Want a Stable Afghanistan? TIME

EjazR

SENIOR MEMBER
May 3, 2009
5,148
1
6,076
As U.S. and Pakistani Relations Fray, Fears Grow Over the Endgame in Afghanistan - Global Spin - TIME.com

In recent weeks, ties between Islamabad and Washington have grown more strained than a cup of sickly sweet South Asian chai. A prolonged kerfuffle over Raymond Davis, the American CIA agent who gunned down two Pakistani men allegedly pursuing him in Lahore, sparked protests across the country and triggered a diplomatic crisis that, while temporarily calmed, likely led to the next severe test of U.S.-Pakistan relations: last week's Pakistani demand that the U.S. drastically curb its CIA activities in the country and scale back its drone attacks. There were more drone strikes this weekend and Pakistani ire shows no sign of abating.

But a Monday op-ed by Huma Yusuf, Pakistan fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, in the Pakistani daily Dawn pours cold water on the "histrionic" reaction of many Pakistani politicians to the latest drone attack, suggesting that, while the "Pakistanis have believed that their unified outrage can coerce the US into suspending the strikes... the consensus in Washington is that the drones are here to stay for the foreseeable future." Moreover, Yusuf adds that many in Pakistan's tribal areas prefer these targeted attacks as they "cause less collateral damage than the Pakistan Army's conventional bombing tactics, and they've disrupted a variety of militant operations."

So what's really stoking the political furore? Beyond Pakistan's own fraught domestic politics, an April 18 article in the New York Times situates the tensions between Washington and Islamabad north of the border, in the spiraling mess that is the war — and desperate American search for an endgame — in Afghanistan:

Broadly, the Americans seek a strong and relatively centralized Afghan government commanding a large army that can control its territory. Almost all those ends are objectionable to Pakistan, which while it calls for a stable Afghanistan, prefers a more loosely governed neighbor where it can influence events, if need be, through Taliban proxies.

The Times piece is grim, though not altogether surprising reading, pointing to a fundamental lack of trust between American and Pakistani diplomats and a growing sense that both sides' visions for an ideal end as the U.S. and NATO scale down their troop presence in Afghanistan widely diverge. For decades now, as is well documented, Islamabad has nurtured and tolerated the presence of Pakistan-friendly Taliban in Afghanistan as "strategic depth" in a broader South Asian geo-political contest with India. The key architect of this policy has been Pakistan's military, the country's most powerful institution and one whose raison d'etre for most of its existence has been as a counterweight to Pakistan's larger neighbor to the southeast.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Apoorva Shah singles out the Pakistani military chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, a man many in Washington hoped would prove a reliable ally, for being too possessed by an "India-centric" focus:

Washington has tried engaging with Gen. Kayani, but doesn't seem to be succeeding... Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen clearly wishes to ensure that his counterpart focuses on the Taliban in the west of Pakistan, instead of India on the east. But he has not succeeded.

Instead, it seems the more bellicose and fundamentalist-friendly in the country's military firmament are now pushing to actively undermine U.S. efforts in Afghanistan. Arif Jamal, a prominent Pakistani scholar and journalist, claimed in an April 15 story in Foreign Policy that we may soon see a similar blockade of American supply shipments into Afghanistan as took place in September 2010 -- this time with the clear connivance of some in the Pakistani military. Says Jamal:

A group of former Pakistani servicemen are currently preparing an unofficial "plan B" to once again halt the flow of supplies to U.S. troops in Afghanistan, with the knowledge of the Pakistani military. According to this plan, if the Americans do not agree to the new terms of cooperation from Pakistan [the departure of CIA operatives and greater sharing of drone technologies with the Pakistani military], various civilian and political groups will block the highways leading to Afghanistan at some date in the not-so-distant future. Sources tell me that the legendary former Pakistani intelligence chief Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul, one of the key coordinators of [U.S.-funded] weapons and money to the anti-Soviet mujahideen and a vocal supporter of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden, is playing a key role in the preparation of this plan.

If true, such a development is entirely in keeping with the complex, schizophrenic U.S.-Pakistani relationship, one that is front-loaded with years of tragic irony and now seems to be lurching down another dark alley.
 
First, it seems that the US is going to any steps to provide some excuse for a defeat.

Second, Pakistan honestly wants a strong Afghanistan because it is the basic right of the Afghan people. Sadly many media outlets still prefer to sell the same story of Pakistan vs. Afghanistan. We are engaging with the Afghan government directly, instead of asking the US of what it thinks is good for us. Both Pakistan and Afghanistan have realized that our interests are better served if we take responsibility and not rely on others esp. those who seek to misuse Afghan land for their own gain.
 
Pakistan,like other countries,is not dumb.We surely have learnt that a stable neighbor is beneficial or in the opposite case.....well you can see how it turned out for Pakistan.
It's funny that this article was published in an American magazine,because the unexpressed question in the minds of millions of people is 'Does America truly desire stability in the middle eastern and Asian countries!?
 
As U.S. and Pakistani Relations Fray, Fears Grow Over the Endgame in Afghanistan - Global Spin - TIME.com

In recent weeks, ties between Islamabad and Washington have grown more strained than a cup of sickly sweet South Asian chai. A prolonged kerfuffle over Raymond Davis, the American CIA agent who gunned down two Pakistani men allegedly pursuing him in Lahore, sparked protests across the country and triggered a diplomatic crisis that, while temporarily calmed, likely led to the next severe test of U.S.-Pakistan relations: last week's Pakistani demand that the U.S. drastically curb its CIA activities in the country and scale back its drone attacks. There were more drone strikes this weekend and Pakistani ire shows no sign of abating.

But a Monday op-ed by Huma Yusuf, Pakistan fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, in the Pakistani daily Dawn pours cold water on the "histrionic" reaction of many Pakistani politicians to the latest drone attack, suggesting that, while the "Pakistanis have believed that their unified outrage can coerce the US into suspending the strikes... the consensus in Washington is that the drones are here to stay for the foreseeable future." Moreover, Yusuf adds that many in Pakistan's tribal areas prefer these targeted attacks as they "cause less collateral damage than the Pakistan Army's conventional bombing tactics, and they've disrupted a variety of militant operations."

So what's really stoking the political furore? Beyond Pakistan's own fraught domestic politics, an April 18 article in the New York Times situates the tensions between Washington and Islamabad north of the border, in the spiraling mess that is the war — and desperate American search for an endgame — in Afghanistan:

Broadly, the Americans seek a strong and relatively centralized Afghan government commanding a large army that can control its territory. Almost all those ends are objectionable to Pakistan, which while it calls for a stable Afghanistan, prefers a more loosely governed neighbor where it can influence events, if need be, through Taliban proxies.

The Times piece is grim, though not altogether surprising reading, pointing to a fundamental lack of trust between American and Pakistani diplomats and a growing sense that both sides' visions for an ideal end as the U.S. and NATO scale down their troop presence in Afghanistan widely diverge. For decades now, as is well documented, Islamabad has nurtured and tolerated the presence of Pakistan-friendly Taliban in Afghanistan as "strategic depth" in a broader South Asian geo-political contest with India. The key architect of this policy has been Pakistan's military, the country's most powerful institution and one whose raison d'etre for most of its existence has been as a counterweight to Pakistan's larger neighbor to the southeast.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Apoorva Shah singles out the Pakistani military chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, a man many in Washington hoped would prove a reliable ally, for being too possessed by an "India-centric" focus:

Washington has tried engaging with Gen. Kayani, but doesn't seem to be succeeding... Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen clearly wishes to ensure that his counterpart focuses on the Taliban in the west of Pakistan, instead of India on the east. But he has not succeeded.

Instead, it seems the more bellicose and fundamentalist-friendly in the country's military firmament are now pushing to actively undermine U.S. efforts in Afghanistan. Arif Jamal, a prominent Pakistani scholar and journalist, claimed in an April 15 story in Foreign Policy that we may soon see a similar blockade of American supply shipments into Afghanistan as took place in September 2010 -- this time with the clear connivance of some in the Pakistani military. Says Jamal:

A group of former Pakistani servicemen are currently preparing an unofficial "plan B" to once again halt the flow of supplies to U.S. troops in Afghanistan, with the knowledge of the Pakistani military. According to this plan, if the Americans do not agree to the new terms of cooperation from Pakistan [the departure of CIA operatives and greater sharing of drone technologies with the Pakistani military], various civilian and political groups will block the highways leading to Afghanistan at some date in the not-so-distant future. Sources tell me that the legendary former Pakistani intelligence chief Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul, one of the key coordinators of [U.S.-funded] weapons and money to the anti-Soviet mujahideen and a vocal supporter of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden, is playing a key role in the preparation of this plan.

If true, such a development is entirely in keeping with the complex, schizophrenic U.S.-Pakistani relationship, one that is front-loaded with years of tragic irony and now seems to be lurching down another dark alley.


This article is full of so many conspiracy theories, lies, and contradictions :disagree: And its a blog:eek:
 
A group of former Pakistani servicemen are currently preparing an unofficial "plan B" to once again halt the flow of supplies to U.S. troops in Afghanistan, with the knowledge of the Pakistani military. According to this plan, if the Americans do not agree to the new terms of cooperation from Pakistan [the departure of CIA operatives and greater sharing of drone technologies with the Pakistani military], various civilian and political groups will block the highways leading to Afghanistan at some date in the not-so-distant future. Sources tell me that the legendary former Pakistani intelligence chief Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul, one of the key coordinators of [U.S.-funded] weapons and money to the anti-Soviet mujahideen and a vocal supporter of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden, is playing a key role in the preparation of this plan.

If true, such a development is entirely in keeping with the complex, schizophrenic U.S.-Pakistani relationship, one that is front-loaded with years of tragic irony and now seems to be lurching down another dark alley.

If this piece was written before Mr. Imran Khan did exactly the same, it was surprisingly prescient!
 
OK - fair enough - but first lets get some business out of the way -- Pakistan does have the right to want what she thinks is a non-hostile Afghanistan - are we all agreed to that ?? Good, now lets examine some of the basic proposition which by virtue of being expressed by Americans seem to have become beyond criticism and are immediately true and good - consider:

Broadly, the Americans seek a strong and relatively centralized Afghan government commanding a large army that can control its territory. Almost all those ends are objectionable to Pakistan, which while it calls for a stable Afghanistan, prefers a more loosely governed neighbor where it can influence events, if need be, through Taliban proxies
.

For anyone including Afghans on the forum, when has the central model served Afghanistan?? During the Monarchy? When Populations were maintained by expelling them and creating problems between population groups with the govt siding with which ever group helped further the interests of the ruling clique? And was the army not used to put down one rebellion after another? And why were there so many rebellions?? Hint: armies have to be paid for.

And of course the great hero, the lunatic Sardar Daud, he had it altogether, right?? And the Communist torturer Najibullah? and now, the "pet"

What if the proposition above does not have merit, that is to say that going central has failed Afghanistan's diverse peoples and histories and ambitions -- after all, if local governance is good for US and India, why is it bad for Afghanistan??

So, does that mean that because Pakistan will see a large army in the same way that the large army of the communists broke down into war lordism when the money runs out, is a bad thing??

And the next problem for US "friends" - Pakistan as a transit route --- But why not light a candle instead of cursing the darkness - forget Pakistan as a transit route --- Now, if you can't do that and if you think you absolutely need this, perhaps a greater degree of circumspection?? Nah, screw that.
 
Every country puts his interests firsts..............for America currently its getting out of Afghanistan.........preferably stable afghanistan..............for Pakistan .......god knows what they want
 
Pakistan has the right to expect a non hostile Afghanistan as much as India has a right to expect a non hostile Pakistan.

It is about how that can be achieved.
 
If this piece was written before Mr. Imran Khan did exactly the same, it was surprisingly prescient!

the author of this article states that the Pakistani military is backing the blockade, how do they know that, what proof do they have???? as i said its conspiracy theories!

The date of this article is
Posted by Ishaan Tharoor Monday, April 18, 2011 at 11:22 pm

Read more: As U.S. and Pakistani Relations Fray, Fears Grow Over the Endgame in Afghanistan - Global Spin - TIME.com
Monday, April 18, 2011 at 11:22 pm
while Imran Khan has been rallying for the blockade for almost a month now:
By AZHAR MASOOD | ARAB NEWS

Published: Mar 26, 2011 01:08 Updated: Mar 26, 2011 01:08

ISLAMABAD: Former skipper of Pakistan’s cricket team Imran Khan who also heads the Tehrik-e-Insaf party on Friday announced a three-day blockade of NATO supply lines to express his party’s protest against drone attacks in Pakistan and the disrespect shown by Christian preacher Terry Jones toward Islam’s holy book.

So this rubbish article full of conspiracy theories is not "prescient" as you say.
 
A blockade means someone from Pakistan is endangering lives of Afghans and foreign security forces.
I reckon it means Pakistan is in a state of war with Afghanistan.
 
the author of this article states that the Pakistani military is backing the blockade, how do they know that, what proof do they have???? as i said its conspiracy theories!

The date of this article is while Imran Khan has been rallying for the blockade for almost a month now:


So this rubbish article full of conspiracy theories is not "prescient" as you say.

It remains a strong possibility though.

Given the way things work in Pakistan, Imran may have been prompted by more than a wink and a nod.

Otherwise what suddenly changed after all these years?
 
It remains a strong possibility though.

Given the way things work in Pakistan, Imran may have been prompted by more than a wink and a nod.

Otherwise what suddenly changed after all these years?

yeah, could be. But until there is solid evidence this will remain a conspiracy theory.
 
A blockade means someone from Pakistan is endangering lives of Afghans and foreign security forces.

as if they were already any safer. They made Afghanistan a hell for themselves (the foreign security forces that is).


I reckon it means Pakistan is in a state of war with Afghanistan.

how does it mean Pakistan is at war with Afghanistan?
 
as if they were already any safer. They made Afghanistan a hell for themselves (the foreign security forces that is).

Sorry, I couldn't understand what you are saying.

How does it mean Pakistan is at war with Afghanistan?

You have to start thinking like a poster in a defence forum.

Attacks (including drone) on terrorist hideouts is GoP's state policy.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom