The American-Pakistani Relationship: Where Is It Going?

[Joecoolyo]

Modern history.

Just because the Ruskie's failed doesn't mean we will.

Also we have the added bonus in that we're not there to conquer the country.

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

Yeah, but not by Afghans! Just more people longing for goats and somewhat barren hillsides.

 

[Incodcito]

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:



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?

Pakistan is basically a battered wife. Either she will submit to the wishes of the batterer or get a frying pan and bash him over the head when he isn't looking.


Of course this analogy has plenty of holes in it, but it comically contains a kernel of truth... in my humble opinion.

 

[History_Buff]

Just because the Ruskie's failed doesn't mean we will.

Also we have the added bonus in that we're not there to conquer the country.

Of course, the Russians weren't trying to conquer Afghanistan either. They were there because the (relatively) legitimate Afghan government asked for their help. A key reason they needed the help was because Pakistan and the US were actively trying to undermine the government.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Of course, the Russians weren't trying to conquer Afghanistan either. They were there because the (relatively) legitimate Afghan government asked for their help. A key reason they needed the help was because Pakistan and the US were actively trying to undermine the government.

Hmm yeah, I worded my post funny, I didn't mean to say the Russians were there to conquer. But rather, since we're not there to conquer, we don't have as hard a time.

Now that I think about it, yeah, that post failed, moving on then.

 

[kochman]

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

You need to keep reading... The conventional war is over quickly, sure... then the conquerors face the mujihadeen, for years and years, and eventually leave with tail between legs.

It is a terrible hole of a country.

 

[Joecoolyo]

You need to keep reading... The conventional war is over quickly, sure... then the conquerors face the mujihadeen, for years and years, and eventually leave with tail between legs.

It is a terrible hole of a country.

Didn't realize the Mujihadeen squared off against the Mongols.

 

[History_Buff]

You need to keep reading... The conventional war is over quickly, sure... then the conquerors face the mujihadeen, for years and years, and eventually leave with tail between legs.

It is a terrible hole of a country.

It's a terrible hell hole of a country now - any country would be after undergoing 25+ years of civil war.

The narrative of Afghanistan as some unconquerable land is hugely overstated. Even the Mujahideen were often foreigners, fueled by foreign aid. The Taliban themselves were mostly a Pakistani organization: their funding was largely Pakistani, and after 1996 around half of their soldiers were Pakistani nationals (some of them active in the Pakistani armed forces), a substantial amount were Arabian, mostly Saudi. More foreigners than Afghans in the Taliban for sure.

 

[say1988]

You need to keep reading... The conventional war is over quickly, sure... then the conquerors face the mujihadeen, for years and years, and eventually leave with tail between legs.

It is a terrible hole of a country.

Except this doesn't show up. It is largely one foreign power conquers the region and is then driven out by the next foreign power conquering the region not some local insurrection. It had an awkward location between various Indian and Iranian powers, with the Mongols and the followers thrown in for good measure.

 

[Traitorfish]

Just because the Ruskie's failed doesn't mean we will.

Also we have the added bonus in that we're not there to conquer the country.

Neither were the Russians.

 

[Tahuti]

It's a terrible hell hole of a country now - any country would be after undergoing 25+ years of civil war.

The narrative of Afghanistan as some unconquerable land is hugely overstated. Even the Mujahideen were often foreigners, fueled by foreign aid. The Taliban themselves were mostly a Pakistani organization: their funding was largely Pakistani, and after 1996 around half of their soldiers were Pakistani nationals (some of them active in the Pakistani armed forces), a substantial amount were Arabian, mostly Saudi. More foreigners than Afghans in the Taliban for sure.

Basically, you say that in order to keep the peace in Afghanistan, one has to know Afghanistan first.

 

[History_Buff]

Indeed. It's a shocker, but there it is.

Really I don't think ISAF is all that far away from succeeding in Afghanistan. If you believe the people who've actually been there, the population is behind the ISAFs, predicated on there being some day to day security in the country. They won't back a horse they don't see as winning.

The only hardcore resistance stems from reactionary Pashtun groups in the South and South-East. But the rest of the country knows what kind of country they like to run.

 

[Tahuti]

The only hardcore resistance stems from reactionary Pashtun groups in the South and South-East. But the rest of the country knows what kind of country they like to run.

They probably have a good reason to be hostile in the first place, but do you also know why? What interests are at stake for them?

 

[Joecoolyo]

Neither were the Russians.

Missed my follow up post

 

[EnglishEdward]

Can these two countries even really call themselves allies anymore?

Right of passage is automatic with alliances in civ games and real life.

So; no Pakistan is no longer an ally because of:

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.

Anyone noticed how west suddenly stopped being critical of Russia since then?

I suspect Putin told NATO any more criticism and he will close supply down lines!

 

[kochman]

I'm kind of shocked at the level of ignorance... in the sense of, someone talking about something of which they have little actual knowledge... in this thread.

Didn't realize the Mujihadeen squared off against the Mongols.

Didn't realize that my point was invalid if it didn't apply to every single attack in history... jeez.
Ah, yes, the Mongols, who destroyed the irrigation system of the country, turning it into the desert wasteland state from which it has never recovered.
The following have faced the mujihadeen... note, they are are in the more recent centuries, which is kind of more indicative than ancient history.
Persians, Brits (thrice), Russia, USA...
That's a pretty big, recent history of insurgency.

It's a terrible hell hole of a country now - any country would be after undergoing 25+ years of civil war.

The narrative of Afghanistan as some unconquerable land is hugely overstated. Even the Mujahideen were often foreigners, fueled by foreign aid. The Taliban themselves were mostly a Pakistani organization: their funding was largely Pakistani, and after 1996 around half of their soldiers were Pakistani nationals (some of them active in the Pakistani armed forces), a substantial amount were Arabian, mostly Saudi. More foreigners than Afghans in the Taliban for sure.

The country has been a dump since the Mongols.
The Mujihadeen were never foreign until the USSR invasion... they were always local versus Persia and Britain.
Now, yes, you are correct, foreigners make up the bulk of the mujihadeen...

Except this doesn't show up. It is largely one foreign power conquers the region and is then driven out by the next foreign power conquering the region not some local insurrection.

Wrong... Try again.
The locals overthrew the Persians... push the Brits away... and against the USSR and USA, greatly assists foreign fighters.

Really I don't think ISAF is all that far away from succeeding in Afghanistan. If you believe the people who've actually been there, the population is behind the ISAFs, predicated on there being some day to day security in the country. They won't back a horse they don't see as winning.

The only hardcore resistance stems from reactionary Pashtun groups in the South and South-East. But the rest of the country knows what kind of country they like to run.

I've actually been there, worked with setting the country "straight", and I think you have no clue what you are talking about.
The problem with Afghanistan... terrain. The idea the west is pushing is a centralized government. To have a centralized government, said government must have the ability to project its power in a meaningful way in all areas of the country. Enter the mountains. The only way to do that is to:
1) Have mobile forces (using helicopters)
2) Have a lot of forces stationed throughout the country

The problem with 1, funding, the problem with 2, funding. 2 is especially hairy because local guerilla raids can decimate 2 by simply massing, attacking, dissolving, rinsing, repeating...

Most of the country doesn't know what type of country they'd like to run. Most of the country barely knows where next week's food is coming from. They want to not be in the center of violence, and whoever brings them some level of stability, they back... if that is the taliban or a central government or whomever... They don't care. They are focusing on way lower levels of Maslow's Heirarchy of Need.

 

[warpus]

The country has been a dump since the Mongols.

That's just not true.

Check out pictures of Kabul from the 50s and 60s.

America.. or Afghanistan?

 

[kochman]

You're right... your photo from the capital in the 50/60s makes it all good... if you were fortunate enough to be amongst the rich families of the time. Yes, even today they still have rich families in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, in the rest of the country...

Even N Korea has some nice places, would you consider it a dump?

 

[Ajidica]

Given what Afghanistan had started from, the actions of the reforming monarchs and the early Soviet administration did wonders. It all went downhill later on though once Reagan decided to give the Muhajideen Stinger missiles and encourage Saudi Arabia and the ISI to get involved.

 

[kochman]

Given what Afghanistan had started from, the actions of the reforming monarchs and the early Soviet administration did wonders. It all went downhill later on though once Reagan decided to give the Muhajideen Stinger missiles and encourage Saudi Arabia and the ISI to get involved.

Yes! It is Reagan's fault!
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha... you really are reaching.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

No one has ever conquered Afghanistan successfully. They might have held it for a while but after a while it gets to expensive and they imperialists leave. The USA will do the same. Poor vast fortunes into a project that gives zero return on investment isn't some thing that can be done forever, especially with a massive budget deficit.


As for Pakistan I completely understand why they are pissed. The USA is bombing their neighbor, bombing Pakistan and behaving like idiots in Pakistan. Imagine if Pakistan said that mexico has problems, bombed the country to pieces and built bases in Texas. The same neocons that say destroy the middle east would be wailing about how unjust Pakistan's mexican adventure would be.