News from both sides of the Durrand Line

And even not if they were to control all of Afghanistan.

Given the level of sympathy and infiltration the Taliban has done inside the Pakistani military they'd never need contest Punjab or those places. A coup de'tat from within would accomplish the same job. (And it wouldn't be the first time for Pakistan.)

FF Shinra: I'm going to actually disagree, and say that Pakistan has been fully colonialistic regarding Afghanistan.

Exhibit A:

They stripped Afghanistan of much of its resources for very little in compensation in the 90's.

Exhibit B:

Towards the end of the Battle of Kunduz, Pakistan evacuated much of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and Pakistani Military Advisors.

Exhibit C:

You read that right. Many of the Taliban Fighters aren't even Afghani. In fact, most of them were Pakistani, even in the 90s. In addition, the Pakistani Military was accompanying the Taliban in many cases.

After 9/11, we made the mistake of leaving Pakistan alone. We ensured our own defeat my not dealing with both Pakistan and their Talibani Puppet. We should have created a major coalition, and dealt with them both after 9/11.

I would go as far as to say the highest levels of Pakistan always knew where Bin Laden was.

In response to Exhibit A: That has more to do with the Luddite philiosophy of the Taliban's interpretation of Islam not giving any value to those resources. Pakistan's industries took advantage of that, rather than enforced it.

Your example of Exhibit B hasn't really refuted anything I said, since I never denied Pakistan had control over the Taliban, just that they were never overt about it while they were in power, outside of strategic considerations.

As for Exhibit C, Afghan and Pakistani nationalities matter less than their ethnicities. The Pakistanis in question are Pashtun, which is a necessity because Pashtuns only listen to other Pashtuns. A Punjabi could never directly control a nationalist organization such as the Taliban.

As for the relationship between AQ and Taliban and Pakistan, I have no doubt the ISI knew about OBL but before 9/11 this wasn't a big deal. After 9/11, the ISI hedged their bets (keeping all options open), but I doubt the leadership knew about anything after that (if only to not have them as liabilities making deals to sell out what the ISI sees as the state interest).

@Tom - If the Taliban comes back to power in Afghanistan, the new hypernationalist strain would actually have them at war with Pakistan for control of the Pashtun regions south and East of the Durrand Line. The Pakistani Taliban haven't been able to move beyond the province of Khyber-Paktunkhwa and the Pashtun regions of Balochistan.

As for their abilities to conquer outside of those regions, bear in mind that the people of Balochistan (physically the biggest and most resource-laden area of Pakistan) HATE HATE HATE the Pashtuns, for nationalist reasons (they've been wanting to seperate since Pakistan came into existance) as well as because the central government has already tried using the Taliban and other Pashtun militias to enforce the state's writ in the province, to disappointing results.

With Sindhis, they're the most Sufi-minded of the Pakistanis (thus not supportive of the ideology of the Taliban) and also they have a strong ethno-nationalist bent. They're pissed at all the other ethnic groups enterting Sindh (particularly in Karachi, which is why there is so much strife there), and so if the government is toppled by an Islamist coup, they and Balochistan would break with the federation immediately.

With the Punjab, most of that Islamist support is actually in the south of the province, away from the centers of power in Lahore and Islamabad/Rawalpindi (which is also the main recruiting ground for the Pakistan Army's officer corps. Thus the idea that they'd be the ones to take over Pakistan is unlikely.

I'm a bit more cynical. In addition, Pakistan made active attempts to kill those against their little puppet. The fate of Ahmed Shah Massoud is a great example of what I speak.

In the long run, Pakistan must be pulled apart. In 2001, we should have done a much larger war.

With who? The Russians were staying as far away from us as was possible in the days after 9/11. The Chinese likewise. The Germans didn't commit significant numbers of troops, neither did France so there goes two of the "strongest" NATO powers. The British and Canadians are/were too small to put up the troops needed.

Who were our friends that could actually supply significant troop strength in those days? Nobody! We would have had to deal with Pakistan effectively alone.

The days of "coalitions" are dead. If you aren't the US, Russia, China or India it seems nobody has significant enough military power of any kind.

...and if you're not, you're going to be losing power, not gaining it for the next few years (and that does include the US, which has an increasing number of ageing platforms).

Its not a case of cynicism. There is nothing idealistic about Pakistan's actions, I'm just saying thats whay their actions are. As to why, there is a multitude of reasons. But this isn't a case of cynicism.

Thank you.

http://www.dawn.com/2011/12/13/us-lawmakers-freeze-700-mln-to-pakistan.html

They have frozen another 700 million. Yay for taxpayers, nay for strategy....

Better for our strategy either way. The way things are shaping up, we are almost to the point of military confrontation with Pakistan. Almost. (One more act of bizarre paranoia by the ISI or Pakistani military and we will be on the road to military confrontation.)

Don't have the money or the public opinion for it (because unlike Libya, we'd have to be the primary attackers and we'd have to go all in rather than just air strikes). Especially in an election year. More likely, another confrontation would lead to total breakdown of relations and pariah status for Pakistan. Not war though. Pakistan may suck at attacking other countries, but they play a mean defense when its clear who the enemy is (which isn't the case with terrorists for a variety of reasons).

Removing the $700 billion doesn't do jack for our strategy because all it does is piss them off while at the same time removing our leverage from them. We get no positive gains, strategically.

We get no positive gains either way. We give them money it goes to the Taliban (seriously we've tracked actual Pakistani government aid going to Taliban fighters).

It's better we save our coin than try and influence a losing aid battle.

Not ALL of it goes to the Taliban is the point. Yes, some of it does, but some of it also goes to the pro-US faction of the ISI (which people tend to forget DOES exist because we focus on the Taliban loving faction). If we cut it off entirely, that pro-US faction gets screwed and we essentially make the Talibanization of Pakistan a self-fulfilling prophecy. Also, we run into the problem we had back in 1990, aka we lose all influence and another lost generation comes about, which essentially blinded our intelligence in the area, which allowed us to miss Islamabad getting nukes AND AQ activities in neighboring Afghanistan.

The ramifications aren't worth the frankly mere emotional benefit from cutting off the funds.

News: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/us-commander-reports-progress-in-repairing-ties-with-pakistan/2011/12/13/gIQArw96rO_story.html

Things are getting back on track. Supposedly.

What can we do to Pakistan that isn't war or mass assassination to put their little irritating asses back into line and stop them from double-dipping, if anything?

I'd start secretly threatening nuclear warfare even if I never pulled the trigger. Let them know that if they choose poorly it will mean the complete destruction of Pakistan.

In that part of the world it is better to be feared than loved.

And that's why no sane President would ever let you near the people who make decisions relating to nuclear weaponry in the US.

Edit: Clarification.

There are times when the threat of nuclear force is appropriate. If, for example, there was an invading force posing a credible threat coming at the US, I wouldn't be opposed to tactical nuking the military force.

But that's about as likely as me being President of the United States in 2012. And I won't even be able to vote in 2012, let alone run for President.

Point is, Pakistan doesn't give a damn. They'll sacrifice their people if it means they get what they want, I'd be willing to bet. Threatening them with nukes won't do us any good.

edited 13th Dec '11 5:54:44 PM by USAF713

@USAF

In my opinion, we have to prepare for the long game, not just be reactionary. Being reactionary has fucked us EVERY.SINGLE.TIME. with this country in particular, and thats what cutting the money off is.

For the short game, we need to understand that our actions (which directly or indirectly lead to violence against the people) are extremely unpopular, which is making them primary targets for recruitment from our enemies, pressuring the government to abandon us, and giving power to anti-Western populists like Imran Khan. Once upon a time, we could have done something about this, the last chance being right around the time Musharraf fell from power. Now its not likely that we can have a positive relationship with Pakistan in the short term. Instead, we should give them what they ask for from us (that being to leave them alone, which takes precedence even over their wish to control Afghanistan), and thus do what we know won't work (that they can survive on Saudi and Chinese funding alone). We should also perhaps eat our pride and admit defeat in Afghanistan and then leave in order to show Pakistanis that no, its not merely the war in Afghanistan causing the violence in Pakistan, its the failure of the state causing it. Remove the excuses against us.

For the long game on the other hand, we should do several things. One, we do not end any of our civilian programs, nor our military training programs. Through them both we facilitate allies, behaviors, practices that are not conducive toward extremist behavior. In short, we recreate the interpersonal relationship we had with them prior to the 90s, except put more emphasis into it. In addition, we should seperately create relationships with their provincial players and major pressure groups, including the Islamist political parties. If we have a hand on the pulse of all the players, we can understand situations better AND perhaps manipulate them in ways that do not piss them off but get what we want too. Third thing we should do for the long game is open economic relations. Get their textile industries to want to produce for us. Use our economic interest in them to help them with their power problems, upgrade their factories (something the Russians are doing with their huge steel mill). With our normal diplomatic staff, just focus on ensuring the stability of the arsenal and other things that are in their interest as well as ours. We stay away from Kashmir as per usual. Coordinate with our Indian efforts so we aren't screwing one over for the other. Unlike in Israel, we are still seen in the Kashmir conflict as a truely neutral arbiter and we need to maintain that role.

There are probably other things, but thats just the top of my head.

@ Tom - Considering how the winds work in the subcontinent, India would be just as screwed if not more so from radiation. You'd fuck them over in the name of emotionalism.

edited 13th Dec '11 5:56:00 PM by FFShinra

^^ Who said I'd be the adviser in this case? Don't get started with this "It's insane" shit. Harsher methods have been used in diplomacy before and worked.

edited 13th Dec '11 5:55:44 PM by MajorTom

@FF,

I understand, and I expected that answer. I was just hoping there might be something good to be found around here between horrible suggestions of (optional: nuclear) war.

What is the military situation in Afghanistan, exactly? I haven't followed it very closely. And what role do the Pakistanis play in it?

Edit: @Major Tom,

Any suggestion that the United States Military should even contemplate first-strike against civilian populations is madness, period.

edited 13th Dec '11 5:58:16 PM by USAF713

Effectively secure. (Hot spots here and there and occasional intrusions but you can't stop everything in some impermeable line. Taliban presence in Afghanistan is roughly less than 1000 fighters at any given time mostly concentrated along the Pakistani border region.)

Clearly. Which is why you say it's lost when the reality of the situation is anything but. This ain't Vietnam in 1973 with poorly armed and trained NVA stragglers popping up in every valley in the Central Highlands making the media believe the country's about to be overrun when reality said otherwise.

Principal source of funding, recruits and safe havens.

Harry Truman and Dwight D Eisenhower would like a word with you. (And General MacArthur.) They contemplated and endorsed first strike nuclear attacks against Japan in 1945.

edited 13th Dec '11 6:02:08 PM by MajorTom

@Tom You have to make decisions based on what COULD work not on the fact that gambles and mad policies in the past worked (all of which were based on pure luck and/or good timing). Analysis is an absolute requirement. Threatening nuclear war because of frustration is emotional, not logical.

Afghanistan is not secure. If it was, we'd have left this year, not 2014.

edited 13th Dec '11 6:02:25 PM by FFShinra

^ Logic doesn't exist anymore when dealing with Pakistan. The government barely exists at all and factions within it are more or less at war with each other.

There's no logic that can reach all of them save the ultimate emotional response: threat of annihilation.

Oh and Afghanistan is effectively secure, the same way Turkey is not in civil war despite the terror campaign of the PKK. The incidents and violence are too small to say the country is in complete chaos from Tora Bora to Mazar-e-Sharif to Kandahar and Kabul and everywhere in between.

edited 13th Dec '11 6:05:45 PM by MajorTom

You need to reread my long post a couple of posts up. You also need to realize threats do not phase Pakistan, but instead give them even more fuel to resist. The entire state is built on fear, so threatening them just strengthens them.

Logic is the ONLY way to deal with Pakistan. The problem is that we have never done so, relying on emotion only.

And Afghanistan is not secure because it only remains so as long as the US military stays, which it cannot do forever. The Taliban continue to win the PR war and thus all of our gains are temporary at best. Try again.

edited 13th Dec '11 6:06:26 PM by FFShinra

So which logic does work? Dangle money and hope they side with us? That hasn't been working in case you haven't been paying attention.

Citation Needed. Even the BBC do not believe a Taliban PR victory is possible anymore. At least outside Pakistan.

edited 13th Dec '11 6:07:55 PM by MajorTom

I have told you in the post a few posts up what we do. Read that rather than presume my strategy.

And BBC is owned by one of the ISAF powers. They are not a neutral source of information. The better source would be Indian and Russian papers on the issue because while they both want the US to succeed for their own reasons, they have no dog in the fight with regards to security.