The American-Pakistani Relationship: Where Is It Going?

[bombshoo]

The article itself is about a month old but still relevant. Basically it outlines U.S. foreign relations with Pakistan within the last year by going over several events that have contributed to the damaged relationship between the countries. Here is basically an abridged version of the article:

2011: New low for US-Pakistan relations

The year got off on a terrible footing when a US citizen, Raymond Davis, shot dead two Pakistanis at a road junction in Lahore. A car that came as back-up for him also hit and killed a motorcyclist...

On 17 March, just a day after Mr Davis was released, the CIA conducted one of its deadliest ever drone attacks in Pakistan...

It was with a sense of shock that Pakistan greeted the news in May that Osama Bin Laden had been found and killed in a US raid in the Pakistani garrison town of Abbottabad, a short distance from the country's foremost military academy...

Islamabad and Washington appeared to have just about brought their relationship back from the brink when tensions suddenly sky-rocketed again in September.

There was a truck bombing in the Afghan capital, Kabul, followed a few days later by a prolonged attack on the US embassy there.

The Haqqani wing of the Taliban said they were responsible. America's most senior military officer, Adm Mike Mullen, unequivocally blamed Pakistan....

2011 ended with another serious blow to relations. 24 Pakistani soldiers were killed in a Nato bombing raid on a border post.

It led to Pakistan blocking supply routes to coalition forces in Afghanistan and to Pakistan's boycott of the Bonn conference on the future of Afghanistan.

Washington has talked of "regret" but has yet to offer an apology, to the anger of many here. It has, however, acknowledged that there were mistakes made by Nato troops....

For the full article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-16369301

My real questions are with these type of events happening regularly where is the relationship going to go, or where do you think it should go? What will the American-Pakistani relationship be in the next five years? Can these two countries even really call themselves allies anymore?

Some things to think about: Should the U.S. continue to support the Pakistani government, should it finally just openly side with India, should it attempt to stay in the middle as a means to help resolve their conflicts or should the United States just entirely leave the region to its own devices? What about the Afghan War? Will the United States even need Pakistan as an ally once it has pulled its troops from Afghanistan? What about Pakistan's nuclear program? Is it hypocritical to support them but not allow for Iran to seek nuclear weapons? Should more be done about the nuclear situation in South Asia in general?

 

[History_Buff]

The nuclear situation can't be helped. India and Pakistan has held those weapons for a long time now, and they're not about to give them up.

Looking at this from a Western perspective, there's no way we should be giving Pakistan all the support we give them if they continue using the Taliban as a militant wing of the ISI. My advice to the US would be to make it clear that the aid disappears unless Pakistan can get it's house in order.

 

[Godwynn]

Where Is It Going?

To hell in a hand basket.

 

[kramerfan86]

I would cut off financial support. I wouldnt go as far as to openly side with India but in the backrooms I would certainly make it clear to India they are considered a much more valuable friend. Overall Pakistan is a bit of a scummy government that does just enough to get their billions of dollars in gifts but makes sure its never enough to actually get the job done IMO.

 

[Theige]

moar bombing

 

[Cutlass]

The problem is that the nominal elected Pakistani government isn't really in control of the army or intelligence services. And the intelligence services see the Taliban as an ally, and the US as unreliable. They don't care what happens in Afghanistan, so long as Afghanistan is not allied with India. All they care about really is India, and doing whatever is needed to hurt or check their old enemy. Do if harming India means harboring and aiding enemies of the US, then so be it. We aren't really relevant to their decision making process.

So in effect Pakistan is the friend of our enemies, because our enemies are the enemies of Pakistan's enemies.

And that friendship with our enemies means more to them than any friendship they may feel towards us. In part that is because we are seen as unreliable. And that's a legitimate fear. We wouldn't be having a problem with the Taliban if it wasn't for our own screwups. We can't really be relied on for anything in the region.

And so, for those unelected people who make the real decisions in Pakistan, we just aren't really relevant to their decision making process. And so we cannot fight our enemies without treating a "friend" as though they also are our enemy.

No win situation.

 

[NickyJ]

Where Is It Going?

Six feet under?

 

[innonimatu]

So in effect Pakistan is the friend of our enemies, because our enemies are the enemies of Pakistan's enemies.

Kautilya would have been proud!

 

[GamezRule]

Well, I think the biggest thing with Pakistan is that we rely on them for ground connections with Afghanistan. Otherwise we would probably have invaded them by now.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Well, I think the biggest thing with Pakistan is that we rely on them for ground connections with Afghanistan. Otherwise we would probably have invaded them by now.

What reason would we have to invade them?

 

[GamezRule]

About the same that we had to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Well, both of those wars had actual reasoning behind them, no matter how flawed (though I would argue that the logic behind Afghanistan wasn't flawed, but I digress).

Pakistan on the other hand, well, there really isn't much ado with them that would require a full blown invasion, unless the Western border goes to hell even more than it is now.

 

[GamezRule]

Anybody who thinks invading Afghanistan is a good idea has flawed logic. History tells us things never go good for invaders of Afghanistan.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Anybody who thinks invading Afghanistan is a good idea has flawed logic. History tells us things never go good for invaders of Afghanistan.

Why? All history shows me is conquest after conquest after conquest.

 

[History_Buff]

Anybody who thinks invading Afghanistan is a good idea has flawed logic. History tells us things never go good for invaders of Afghanistan.

Nor is Afghanistan some unconquerable wasteland, doomed forever to a state of constant warfare. Its a nice anecdote, but it's doesn't much matter.

The key is simply that Afghans respect authority and stability(in the, we demand to not be blown up sort of way, not the culturally cowed neuvo-colonialist way), which Karzai has so far failed to deliver, mostly because the U.S. has been hesitant to allow him to use foreign aid money to run the system of patronage that's always dominated there. Not having money means handing out authority positions to former warlords, and we all know how that tends to go.

But there is extreme reluctance to change him out as ruler, since locally he can play himself off as the only President the U.S. will support. If he goes, all the foreign aid goes, and it's back to 1992 for everyone.

It's a shame we completely ignored Ahmad Massoud. He's probably the best hope for a stable Afghan government that there's been since Najibullah's government collapsed.

 

[Ronojoy1917]

The United States I think, will not bother trying to call Pakistan an ally once they pull out of Afghanistan, but then they might find themselves in an uncomfortable situation where they realize that for years they have been supporting an unstable nation that hates them and also has nuclear weapons. Rather than Iran, a slightly more stable nation that also hates them. but who does not yet have those weapons. I think it will be rather hard to avoid seeing that.

The US should never take sides in anything like the Kashmir issue or any problems between India and Pakistan. If relations between the two countries are truly to be mended and enmities forgotten, the last thing anyone needs is for India to be associated with and perceived to have the support of the hated United States.

 

[GamezRule]

Why? All history shows me is conquest after conquest after conquest.

Modern history.

 

[wilycoyote]

Modern history.

It is a good thing history is static and nothing can ever change, and thus this argument has any merit at all. If Afghanistan can't be conquered by America, it has nothing to do with Russia. Has technology not changed between wars? Are the American and Russian forces identical at time of their wars? Were their commitments identical? And so on.

By this logic, since in recent history USA#1, I don't want to hear that America is on decline because history NEVER changes!

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

If we just stop delivering aid to Pakistan, this relationship can really get going!

Straight off a cliff!

 

[innonimatu]

Anybody who thinks invading Afghanistan is a good idea has flawed logic. History tells us things never go good for invaders of Afghanistan.

Why? All history shows me is conquest after conquest after conquest.

And thus you prove the original point: logically all those conquerors got, in turn, conquered out of the place!