What's new

Our Indian problem in Afghanistan

Areesh

ELITE MEMBER
Mar 30, 2010
45,158
3
95,581
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
By David Pollock
Monday, November 8, 2010

President Obama's trip to India offers a crucial, and counterintuitive, opportunity missing in all the talk about Afghanistan: how to accommodate Pakistan's interests in that country. Unless we find a way to do that, Pakistan will not stop its tolerance of or support for the Afghan Taliban or other extremists on its border with Afghanistan - nor will it let us eradicate them. While serious analysts agree that such a shift is necessary for any U.S. success in Afghanistan, many fail to follow this logic to its conclusion: that we must persuade Pakistan it can crack down on Afghan extremists without jeopardizing its cross-border interests.

What are those interests? First and foremost, to minimize the presence and influence in Afghanistan of Pakistan's own archrival, India. Yet somehow this point is absent from most American debates about these issues, probably because of our narrow focus on terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism. In fact, the United States has stoked Pakistani paranoia by encouraging India to become the region's major economic player in Afghanistan, to train Afghan officials, and exercise other influence on the Afghan government and people.

To Pakistani perceptions, this raises the threat of foreign influence in Afghanistan, and increases Pakistani determination to hang on to the Taliban, the Haqqani group and other insurgent networks to both counter Indian influence and protect Pakistani interests in Afghanistan. This in turn makes it impossible for the United States to succeed in its declared goals of stabilizing Afghanistan and securing it against violent extremism while safely reducing the American military presence.

India, of course, is an increasingly important regional and global partner for U.S. foreign policy. But it is in India's self-interest to contain extremist pressures in Afghanistan and Pakistan - and one paradoxically clever way to do that is to lower India's profile in Afghanistan. During his visit, Obama should drive home the point that such self-restraint would best serve our common interest in stabilizing the region.

Pakistan's other major interest is to promote a friendly regime in Kabul. This is hardly as simple as it sounds. Afghans are famously proud and prickly about their independence, and some are still not fully reconciled to Pakistani rule over some 30 million Pashtuns across the border. In fact, Afghanistan has never recognized that border along the Durand Line, drawn by the British raj in 1893 to mark the limits of Afghan rule.

Recently, however, and entirely apart from, or even against American advice, the Afghan and Pakistan governments have moved to resolve some of their differences. Afghan President Hamid Karzai abruptly removed the chief of his National Security Directorate, Amrullah Saleh, who was widely viewed as anti-corruption but also anti-Pakistan (a point that received much less attention in the U.S. media). In return, Islamabad stopped blocking Afghan trucks from using Pakistani roads and negotiated an Afghanistan-Pakistan Transit Trade Agreement allowing Afghan traffic all the way to India.

There is much the United States should do to capitalize on this momentum. Most urgent is to start working closely with Pakistan on our Afghan reconciliation and reintegration policies, instead of ignoring Pakistan's expressions of interest in these plans. We should also tell Islamabad that we are encouraging Kabul to send security personnel for Pakistani (rather than Indian) training - and then do so. We should encourage Kabul to pursue reasonable confidence-building measures, such as letting Pakistan know about pending Afghan government appointments in the border provinces. We should advise Pakistan that the United States recognizes the Durand Line and will work with the Afghan government to lay this ancient issue to rest.

All these small steps will help convince Pakistan that it can work more confidently with us and with the Afghan government, without playing the old double game of keeping insurgents and extremists in reserve. While we cannot buy or bully Pakistanis into abandoning their interests in Afghanistan, we can show them new ways to secure those interests. Properly understood, this is no longer a zero-sum "great game" in the region.

Adjusting our policies to accommodate Pakistani interests is essential to U.S. national interests in Afghanistan. And contrary to conventional wisdom, it is consistent with the long-term interests of our friends in the Afghan and Indian governments in countering the violent extremists who threaten us all.

David Pollock, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, was a senior State Department adviser for the broader Middle East from 2002 to 2007 and served on the secretary's policy planning staff from 1996 to 1999 and again in 2001.

Our Indian problem in Afghanistan
 
More evidence, if it was needed that US policy makers do not know what they want - perhaps it's not important what they want - Pakistan should be clear and resourceful in the pursuit of her interests which must not be construed or be allowed to be perceived as a zero sum game -- Pakistan can be a lot more nimble in their approach to regional players such as Russia, Iran and China and Uzbekistan, even as they engage the US and India.
 
More evidence, if it was needed that US policy makers do not know what they want - perhaps it's not important what they want - Pakistan should be clear and resourceful in the pursuit of her interests which must not be construed or be allowed to be perceived as a zero sum game -- Pakistan can be a lot more nimble in their approach to regional players such as Russia, Iran and China and Uzbekistan, even as they engage the US and India.

I would like to ask a question to you muse, does this mean that Pakistan while fighting the WOT is also protecting the Taliban directly, in order to secure its strategic interests in Afghanistan ?? This is something the Pakistani government never agrees with. They always give the reason for the "safe havens" as the long and porous border shared between u two. This is the obvious reason provided by the author in the article and he seems to say that Pakistan is doing this because of Indian presence in Afghanistan. Is my understanding right??
 
I would like to ask a question to you muse, does this mean that Pakistan while fighting the WOT is also protecting the Taliban directly, in order to secure its strategic interests in Afghanistan ?? This is something the Pakistani government never agrees with. They always give the reason for the "safe havens" as the long and porous border shared between u two. This is the obvious reason provided by the author in the article and he seems to say that Pakistan is doing this because of Indian presence in Afghanistan. Is my understanding right??

What's so hard to understand that ??

This is what US also knows, NATO also knows, everyone should know. If Pakistani govt doesn't tells it as its official policy, it doesn't means this is not so.

India is one factor, it includes others too. As even without the Indians, the current setup in Afghanistan is very much likely to create problems for Pakistan and with others help, mainly Indian to be exact, they will be more bold in their endeavors.
 
I would like to ask a question to you muse, does this mean that Pakistan while fighting the WOT is also protecting the Taliban directly, in order to secure its strategic interests in Afghanistan ?? This is something the Pakistani government never agrees with. They always give the reason for the "safe havens" as the long and porous border shared between u two. This is the obvious reason provided by the author in the article and he seems to say that Pakistan is doing this because of Indian presence in Afghanistan. Is my understanding right??

Apologies for the late response - No, it does not mean that at all - So what does it mean? If you have been following my posts over the years, you will know that I am no supporter of the Talib (any kind of Talib, whether Afghan, Pakistani or any other variety ) however, I am persuaded now that US policy in Afghanistan is not just wrong, but dangerous -- Look, the war has been going on for 10 years now, think about that, 10 years - what the heck kind of policy is that????

And look at the kinds of duplicity the US policy is a vehicle for, ask yourself, have US interests been served?? You may find yourself asking,m "What are US interests that it needs a 10 year war and one which is destabilizing what it says is her Major Non-NATO Ally?"

And if you figure out an answer to this, please enlighten all of us -- On the other hand, Pakistani policy has been clear from the start, a friendly and if not friendly, then a not hostile, government in Afghanistan -- at every step the US policy served interests that negate that ambition - US policy is now so closely identified with a single component or element or party to the Afghan civil war that the minute, the second the US leaves, the whole thing will fall apart, leaving Pakistan in even more of a pickle -- and the longer it stays and does not involve all political players in the game, the greater the problem it creates for Pakistan - do you see that??

So US policy, to my thinking, makes itself irrelevant - see, throwing money and it's just paper to them, they have blown close to half a trillion on this fools errand already -- imagine if they had agreed to invest even half of that in the region on the condition that the neighboring countries cooperate to bring an end to the civil war.

US policy makers can mouth all the "terrorism" BS they want to and which their apathetic and fearful populace can stomach, reality of Afghanistan is civil war and a the lack of a political settlement.

So my point is why should Pakistan be tied to this failure? Pakistan ought to pursue her interests with all other players, and it should engage the US and India, but so long as these powers are hostile to Pakistani interests, I don't see how that engagement can be fruitful - so Pakistani policy has to be broader and attempt those solutions we can make happen and those which we cannot be a part of, whether made in USA or not, we should work to influence.
 
@muse: That's a pretty nicely worded statement. However, you said that

Pakistani policy has been clear from the start, a friendly and if not friendly, then a not hostile, government in Afghanistan

Given the recent history, isn't the Taliban one of the few, if not the only group in Afghanistan that is overtly friendly towards Pakistan?

So technically what indushek said was not wrong that Pakistan is securing it's strategic interests in Afghanistan by supporting the Taliban.
 
Afghanistan cannot live without Pakistan, most of her food, building material, exports, everything come from us, in fact even now millions of Afghans are living as illegal immigrants in Pakistan.
 
So technically what indushek said was not wrong that Pakistan is securing it's strategic interests in Afghanistan by supporting the Taliban.


Indeed, it is patently wrong - In Indian media it may seem that Pakistan have friends only among the Pashtun, and this is not just entirely mistaken but also immature - recall that Ahamd Shah Masood was a Pakistani asset during that madman, Daoud's time (look up the Tajik revolt during Daoud's time) and similarly given the large populations of Uzbek and Turkoman and even Hazara who made Pakistan their home during and after the Afghan Jihad, a significant number of political players were cultivated - the same is true of populations who chose to make Iran their home during this time.

Events in Afghanistan follow a political trajectory, today a friend and tomorrow less than a friend based on political compulsions -- Talib definitely have support among Jamaat e Ulema e Islam, because their vision for society is similar but I don't think anybody in Pakistani policy circles seriously imagines the Talib as a serious asset, however, given the cluelessness of US policy, that is to say they very early on made a strategic choice which left the Pashtun out of the power game and because the Talib exploited this and present themselves as Pashtun nationalists, they earn acceptance.

Look, Afghan and Pashtun are inter-changeable word, they both denote the same ethnicity -- and remember that a majority of Pashtun are Pakistani, this without a doubt creates a political pull - and so long as US policy is determined to create a military win over a political one, it will create problems for the region and Pakistan will suffer due to this instability.

I encourage Indian readers to develop a more sophisticated view of happenings in Afghanistan and Pakistan, simple media formulations are for simple minds.
 
I'll be the first one to admit that I don't know anything about different ethnic groups in Afghanistan. The term Taliban holds different meanings for me and you. For me, as well as most of the world unfamiliar with the region, Taliban is simply a group of religious radicals from that region who believe in bullet rather than the ballot. They are the ones who are threatening our way of life, throughout the world, by attacking us. Therefore, for us, the war is against ALL of the sub-groups of these fanatics.

So to us, the continuous support of Pakistani establishment for one group of these fanatics over the other for it's strategic gains is a matter of serious concern.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 2, Members: 0, Guests: 2)


Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom