Pakistan Bleeding America

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
U.S.- Pakistan ties are entering an even more dangerous phase, going by the language that the two sides are employing ever since a public airing of differences over covert U.S. activities in Pakistan

It's a game of smoke and mirrors and some of it could be bluff and bluster, but there is little doubt that Pakistan and America are stuck in an unhappy relationship, attacking each other as much as the militants they joined forces against ten years ago.

Foreign Policy has a piece which quotes an unnamed official as saying that Pakistani leaders want the United States to "bleed a little like the Soviets " in Afghanistan just as it prepares to withdraw from the country. America will abandon the region once again, the leaders are convinced, ending the flow of aid to Pakistan and leaving it in the lurch.

More immediately, the NATO supply line for the troops in Afghanistan that runs through Pakistan is a tempting target, and some in Pakistan are already plotting to use that to get back at the United States for violating Pakistan's sovereignty with impunity. The Foreign Policy piece says ex-Pakistani servicemen are planning to disrupt the supply line by organising civilians and political groups to block highways that are used by the trucks carrying everything from fuel to water for the troops, if Washington ignores Pakistan's demands on curtailing its covert war inside Pakistan. These include reducing drone strikes to only high-value targets, greater transparency about CIA activities, and a reduction in the number of U.S. military trainers. If Pakistan adopted such a plan to choke off the re-supply routes, Pakistan can turn Afghanistan into a graveyard for U.S. troops, former chief of the Inter-Services Intelligence Lt.General Hamid Gul boasted in a TV appearance.

The supply line has been targeted in the past, including last year when the Torkham crossing was blocked in retaliation for a cross-border U.S. helicopter strike in which three members of Pakistan's Frontier Corps were killed. But Pakistan was forced to reopen them under U.S. pressure and it's hard to see Islamabad resist Washington beyond a point.

In any case the language from America's supporters is also getting equally menacing. Here's an editorial from The Wall Street Journal that says Washington must present Pakistan with a stark choice, in the manner it did immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks when it reportedly threatened to bomb the country into the Stone Age if it didn't cooperate in the war against al Qaeda and the Taliban in next door Afghanistan. Regardless of how Pakistan acts, the United States has a vital national interest in going after al Qaeda and the Taliban who hide in sanctuaries inside Pakistan and that fight must go on, the newspaper said in the editorial titled The Pakistan Ultimatum.

Pakistan can choose to cooperate in that fight and reap the benefits of an American alliance. Or it can oppose the U.S. and reap the consequences, including the loss of military aid, special-ops and drone incursions into their frontier areas, and in particular a more robust U.S. military alliance with India.

In the wake of 9/11, the Bush Administration famously sent Secretary of State Colin Powell to Islamabad to explain that the U.S. was going to act forcefully to protect itself, and that Pakistan had to choose whose side it was on. It's time to present Pakistan with the same choice again.

With that kind of mood in Washington, it's hard to see the allies burying the feud anytime soon.

http://http//blogs.reuters.com/afgh...akistan-ties-bleeding-america-in-afghanistan/
What is Pakistan doing?

Another dismembering a country with 1000 cuts?

How far is Hamid Gul right that Afghanistan will be the graveyard of the Americans?

Is it time, as the Wall Street Journal states, to send Pakistan back to the Stone Age and if so, how?
 

AOE

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
437
Likes
23
In reality Pakistan is actually being bled dry. It has spent over $30 billion US in its marginal fighting in the WOT, and has US drones/agents in the country attempting to do their job for them. If the Pakistanis overstep their bounds, it would mean that aid will be cut off and the possibility of US intervention in the region would increase. They know that China will not come to their aid, especially given the PRCs focus on the east at present.

Afghanistan will certainly not be the graveyard of the American forces, as the polls indicate there is support for coalition troops bringing democracy to the region; especially if the alternative means Taliban rule which is very unpopular. It is just a conflict that will take decades to fix the region.
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
Afghanistan will certainly not be the graveyard of the American forces, as the polls indicate there is support for coalition troops bringing democracy to the region; especially if the alternative means Taliban rule which is very unpopular. It is just a conflict that will take decades to fix the region.
If "bringing democracy to Afghanistan" means more regimes like Karzai's, then I'm afraid Afghanistan is f*****.

Karzai was elected due to immense corruption and fraud in the election process. The only reason why he's in power is because he has America's support. Karzai has very little support from the Afghan people, and it has gotten to the point where American soldiers are being used as door-to-door ambassadors to sell the Karzai regime to the Afghan people. What we are seeing is a classic example of a puppet regime being established.

The solution is not simple either. Pakistan wants to use Afghanistan to satisfy its goal of "strategic depth" against India, and to accomplish this it is willing to support Islamist elements in Afghanistan; in particular, the Pashtuns, who form the majority of the Taliban, but a minority of the overall Afghan population. In order for Afghanistan to achieve some degree of stability, Pakistan needs to go.

The American-backed puppet regime in Afghanistan is a good idea if America's long-term goal is to balkanize and destabilize Pakistan. If not, then the plan was doomed to fail from day one.
 

AOE

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
437
Likes
23
If "bringing democracy to Afghanistan" means more regimes like Karzai's, then I'm afraid Afghanistan is f*****.

Karzai was elected due to immense corruption and fraud in the election process. The only reason why he's in power is because he has America's support. Karzai has very little support from the Afghan people, and it has gotten to the point where American soldiers are being used as door-to-door ambassadors to sell the Karzai regime to the Afghan people. What we are seeing is a classic example of a puppet regime being established.

The solution is not simple either. Pakistan wants to use Afghanistan to satisfy its goal of "strategic depth" against India, and to accomplish this it is willing to support Islamist elements in Afghanistan; in particular, the Pashtuns, who form the majority of the Taliban, but a minority of the overall Afghan population. In order for Afghanistan to achieve some degree of stability, Pakistan needs to go.

The American-backed puppet regime in Afghanistan is a good idea if America's long-term goal is to balkanize and destabilize Pakistan. If not, then the plan was doomed to fail from day one.
I'm well aware of the corrupt elements within the UN that allowed or helped Karzai to be elected, and frankly I don't support their move. Heck, I don't support many decisions the UN makes, but that's a separate topic for now. This is not what I meant in the post that you quoted. If you watched the videos in my intro thread by Christopher Hitchens, you would also note that his position (which you basically explained here up until the last line) is one that I completely agree with.

If the US wants to destabilize and balkanize Pakistan, then 'good riddance' is all I can say. Pakistan is a terrorist breeding ground and I think the world would be a better place without it, but this does not mean that the attempt to bring about peace, democracy, and prosperity to Afghanistan is a vain one. As you have said yourself at one point; they are a country that is still partly stuck in the Middle Ages, and will be the biggest challenge to see if democracy will succeed.
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top