An interesting group discussion on Pakistani perfidy in the war against terror

[mayfair]

Military reform in the land of the pure

Post-Event Summary
Pakistan's deep state, the military establishment and Inter-Services Intelligence are playing a double game with the United States and do not appear to have any intention of handing over power to the civilian government, a panel of experts concluded Wednesday at the American Enterprise Institute. Kamran Shafi of Pakistan's Express Tribune drove home the distinction between Pakistan and the military-run "deep state." He stressed that a vast majority of Pakistanis are against the concepts of jihad and nuclear proliferation and argued that the U.S. needs to engage the civilian government rather than the military establishment. The U.S. has failed to craft a Pakistan policy consistent with American goals in Afghanistan, asserted Georgetown University's Christine Fair. Despite evidence that Pakistan has undermined U.S. interests and acted as a U.S. enemy, she said, Washington continues to placate the military establishment, undermining U.S. leverage. Eli Lake of Newsweek and The Daily Beast argued that the U.S. does have a strategy in Pakistan: funding, through the CIA, an alternative "deep state" within the Pakistani military that is sympathetic to U.S. goals and willing to collaborate on the fight against al-Qaida. The U.S. cannot disengage with Pakistan, emphasized AEI's Thomas Donnelly. He argued that Washington needs to both recognize the fundamental difference in U.S.-Pakistan relations and develop a new set of carrots and sticks to incentivize Pakistan's power brokers to act in line with U.S. interests. All panelists asserted South Asia's vital importance to U.S. national security interests and argued for continued engagement, noting that there are no short-term solutions to the conundrum Pakistan presents.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

He stressed that a vast majority of Pakistanis are against the concepts of jihad and nuclear proliferation and argued that the U.S. needs to engage the civilian government rather than the military establishment.

Does the civilian government get elected by the peace-loving majority of Pakistanis? What issues do the politicians run on? The US should fund the opposition and isolate the ISI. Black ops, whatever it takes.

 

[mayfair]

Does the civilian government get elected by the peace-loving majority of Pakistanis? What issues do the politicians run on? The US should fund the opposition and isolate the ISI. Black ops, whatever it takes.

C. Unfair replied that the "peace-loving" majority is a myth in Pakistan. Rather's it's a peace loving minority..miniscule. In my opinion even that is debatable.

It took US ten years of having its soldiers killed by Paki proxies to publicly proclaim the Terrorist State of Pakistan's perfidy. Even then there are elements in the State Dept and the Pentagon among others that continue to bat for the Pakis. Have a listen at Thomas Donnelly's views in the above discussion.

 

[matrixvipin]

He argued that Washington needs to both recognize the fundamental difference in U.S.-Pakistan relations and develop a new set of carrots and sticks to incentivize Pakistan's power brokers to act in line with U.S. interests.

:clap:

 

[Bangalorean]

Christine Fair really raped Pakistan here.

 

[mayfair]

Christine Fair really raped Pakistan here.

Probably the most surprising part of the discussion.

Have a look at her tweets.she's gone a step ahead and abused the Pakjabi trolls in what people in Delhi refer to as THeTH dehaati