Accommodating Pakistan's Interests in Afghanistan Posted by Michael Cohen

Over at World Politics Review I have a new piece looking at the disconnect between America's political and military strategies for dealing with Pakistan:

At the heart of the U.S. war in Afghanistan lies a striking and unresolved contradiction. While the U.S. has sent approximately 100,000 troops to this impoverished, landlocked country to combat a fearsome local insurgency, the actual focal point of U.S. policy in the region largely revolves around protecting and stabilizing a country just across Afghanistan's eastern border: Pakistan.

It's an ironic but not altogether surprising strategy. After all, Pakistan remains home to Osama bin Laden, his key lieutenants and other terrorist organizations intent on striking American targets. The country maintains a significant nuclear capability, and its ongoing conflict with India has the potential to spark a regional conflagration.

Yet, for a policy that is so apparently solicitous of Pakistani needs, it is quite disconnected from actual Pakistani interests, particularly with regard to Afghanistan. In fact, the campaign to coax the Pakistani military into turning against its Afghan Taliban allies as well as the U.S. military strategy in Afghanistan that seeks to defeat the Taliban and strengthen the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai undermines rather than furthers Pakistan's interests. In essence, U.S. policy consists of political and diplomatic efforts to convince Pakistan to act against its perceived interests. Instead, the United States needs to more seriously address Pakistani concerns about Afghanistan's future.

You can read the whole thing here

Comments

[Mike M.]

Very smart piece, no doubt. But I don't see how 10 years of war later we get to here: "Instead of seeking to marginalize or even eliminate the Taliban in Afghanistan, the United States and NATO should adopt a political strategy that ensures that the Taliban -- and in turn Pakistan -- have a political voice in Afghanistan's future."

The Taliban didn't attack us. But they refused to hand over the people who did. If they had just given us the criminals we never would have had to invade in the first place. Now what you're suggesting would be akin to throwing up our hands and saying "You protected our 9/11 attackers but you can still run Afghanistan." I just don't see how, unless the Taliban wants to hand over Al-Qaeda's top people as we demanded in the first place, that we can let them back into power again. It's too ridiculous.

[Madhu]

I'll say the same here I said in comments above: a negotiated settlement will not assuage Pakistani Army/ISI "fears."

Once again, I'll repeat here: doesn't Kargil disprove this theory? The strategic imperative to use proxies against India continues even if there is a negotiated settlement in Afghanistan. The proxies will continue their focus on Kashmir, be housed elsewhere regionally, and the money used for support will be Chinese and American.

Please see: history of Pakistan, the 90s.

[Madhu]

Okay, this is really mean, but why is American punditry on South Asia so generally dire whether from the left or the right?

It's a genuinely perplexing question.

[Madhu]

Sorry about that last comment. Seriously, I really mean to apologize. It's just that I'm frustrated.

Adopting such an approach, might also pay dividends for the U.S. in getting Islamabad to devote resources to taking on jihadist groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Haqqani network and, of course, remnants of al-Qaida. Continuing the current strategy will only ensure that U.S. and Pakistani policymakers will remain at loggerheads, and that progress in Afghanistan will remain uncertain.

Why on earth would a negotiated settlement in Afghanistan lead to a lessened support of the above mentioned proxies, assuming the proxies are even controllable?

It simply doesn't make sense when viewed through the history of the region. Why stop that which you can use in the future? You now have your strategic depth so you can go on offense and use your proxies to move forward on other goals: obtaining aid monies from the West and China, Kashmir, intimidating internal opponents to said policies.

Sigh. I feel like Joshua Foust or something.

[grace]

Welcome to our website,you now that the boots are very comfortable.I believe you will get the boots you want.http://www.etoboots.com

[burberry scarf]

From Basingstoke, where it started more than a century ago, to Berlin,
the Burberry outlet story just keeps getting better. Burberry boss
Angela Ahrendts was crowned retail queen at the World Retail Congress in
the German city last week when she was given the Outstanding Leadership
Award for her work in turning around the beige-black-red-and white
scarf and trench-coat maker; it is now one of the world’s most
sought-after brands. Ahrendts told the audience that part of Burberry
scarf ‘s success has been in going digital, with more than two million
Facebook fans able to watch most of its catwalk shows live. Whether
Ahrendts, who has seen the shares nearly triple to 1,020p on her watch,
can keep marching at this pace is the big unknown; the answerh lies
somewhere in the East, where she is expanding fast.

With this King leading the Roundheads against the Cavaliers, can the Puritans win?


Mervyn King, the Governor of the Bank of England, hasn’t lost his
touch. In New York last week, he took his radical, if not puritanical,
ideas right to the heart of the powerful at the Buttonwood Gathering,
when he criticised the big banks and even hit out at the new Basel 3
rules as being too soft.

That was the gentle bit. If anyone
thought King was wavering in his belief that some sort of separation or
break-up of the banks is the thing to do, they should have heard the
next part of his speech: “Of all the many ways of organising banking,
the worst is the one we have today.” He went on to question our
fractional reserve banking system which has existed for centuries; the
way banks take in deposits and then – in such cavalier fashion – lend
them out for longer-term loans at higher risk; ie, leverage. In his own
words: “For all the clever innovation in the financial system,Pink Burberry Giant Check Scarf its
Achilles heel was, and remains, simply the extraordinary – indeed absurd
– levels of leverage represented by a heavy reliance on short-term
debt. ” As he added, any solution to this must ensure that the costs of
“maturity transformation” (the costs of bailouts) fall on those who
enjoy the benefits; the bankers.

This is fighting stuff, but then the future structure of banking is at stake, and the battle will be bloody.


The big question is: Which side will the Independent Banking Commission
take?Light Blue Burberry Giant Check Scarf If commissioners prove to be Roundheads and go for reform, will
they be brave enough to stand up to the firepower of the Cavaliers? Wall
Street and the City will fight furiously to keep the system exactly as
it is. But with this King leading the Roundhead charge, hopefully
they’ll show their mettle.

[sesli sohbet]

Yet, for a policy that is so apparently solicitous of Pakistani needs, it is quite disconnected from actual Pakistani interests, particularly with regard to Afghanistan. In fact, the campaign to coax the Pakistani military into turning against its Afghan Taliban allies as well as the U.S. military strategy in Afghanistan that seeks to defeat the Taliban and strengthen the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai undermines rather than furthers Pakistan's interests.
seslisohbet seslichat

[冷夜]

attack us. But they refused to hand over the people who did. If they had just given us the criminals we never would have had to invade in the first place. Now what you're suggesting would be akin to throwing up our hands and saying "You protected our 9/11 attackers but you can still run Afghanistan." I just don't see how, unless the Taliban wants to hand over Al-Qaeda's top people as we demanded i

[冷夜]

is now one of the world’s most
sought-after brands. Ahrendts told the audience tha

[bedava porno]

Sigh. I feel like Joshua Foust or something.