Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

America asks Pakistan to launch an attack against militants. Pakistani Army Chief tells America to do it themselves.

It's more complicated than that, but here is yonder news article:

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Pakistani-Army-Chief-to-US-Focus-on-Afghanistan-132131323.html

Pakistan's army chief says the United States should focus on stabilizing Afghanistan instead of pressuring Pakistan to confront militants in its northwest tribal region.

Again the complications:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/opinion/20iht-edlet20.html

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/canada-in-afghanistan/Column+Afghanistan+worst+suspicions+about+Pakistan+confirmed/5564009/story.html

Pakistan and America have been on less stable ground with one another politically and publically ever since earlier this year when American forces did not tell Pakistan that they went and killed Osama Bin Laden.

Since then, Pakistan has been tying closer bonds with China. China has recently backed for Pakistan to be a new non-permanent Security Council member of the UN. Other things here:

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Drifting-away-from-US-Pak-pulls-closer-to-China/Article1-754759.aspx

Right, they just want the US and Taliban/AQ to wear eachother down while Pakistan does nothing and congratulates itself on any victories... or even supports Taliban/AQ.

America should start making friendly overtones with India.

Let's see Pakistan sit up and pay attention then...

I dont wish to act politically correct or anything, but as far as Im concerned, Pakistan is a boil on the arse of the world.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:America should start making friendly overtones with India.

China and India do have a tense relationship; they share borders, have a similar population size, but India lacks the resources or economy that China has exhibited.

Whether India becomes pressured to seek a partnership with a powerful nation remains to be seen. So far, India thinks it can go it alone and become a regional superpower.

To be fair, we have repeatedly violated their national sovereignty, and continue to do so. Really, we're lucky that they aren't outright hostile to us.

dogma wrote:To be fair, we have repeatedly violated their national sovereignty, and continue to do so. Really, we're lucky that they aren't outright hostile to us.

Do we know what kind of agreements that America has in place of Pakistan regarding these incursions? Such as it is, we do give money to Pakistan and in turn, what sort of deal do we have in place with them?

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3453.htm

The Barack Obama administration has reaffirmed a U.S. strategic partnership with Pakistan. In particular, the U.S. Congress passed the Kerry-Lugar-Berman (KLB) legislation to authorize $1.5 billion in non-military assistance to Pakistan annually for 5 years, which President Obama signed into law on October 15, 2009.

So we do have a partnership with them. Their people are hostile to us however.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2009/08/13/pakistani-public-opinion/

Only 22% of Pakistanis think the U.S. takes their interests into account when making foreign policy decisions, essentially unchanged from 21% since 2007. Fully 64% of the public regards the U.S. as an enemy, while only 9% describe it as a partner.

However-

By a margin of 53% to 29% Pakistanis say it is important that relations between the two countries improve.

and

Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 1,254 adults in Pakistan between May 22 and June 9, 2009. The sample, which is disproportionately urban, includes Punjab, Sindh, Baluchistan, and the North West Frontier Province (NWFP).

So we only have a small sampling of what Pakistanians feel toward America.

But the point is is that the relationship is complex; America has a partnership with Pakistan despite recent freezing of political ties, their people do not like us but otherwise wish to continue working with us, and how far does our involvement with Pakistan truly go such that they still allow us to blow things up within their borders and have not done anything to stop it short of a war of words (in so far as I know) and political wrangling in public?

dogma wrote:To be fair, we have repeatedly violated their national sovereignty, and continue to do so. Really, we're lucky that they aren't outright hostile to us.

Oh the hillariousity. Pakistan is integral to the continued instability of Afghanistan, yet demands we stabilize it. Maybe they should get their house in order, not that I honestly expect that to happen as an unrealistic possibility. An unstable state however has no place to demand others stabilize a state for any reason other than comedy.

LordofHats wrote:
Oh the hillariousity. Pakistan is integral to the continued instability of Afghanistan, yet demands we stabilize it. Maybe they should get their house in order, not that I honestly expect that to happen as an unrealistic possibility. An unstable state however has no place to demand others stabilize a state for any reason other than comedy.

Well, or pragmatism, an unstable Afghanistan inhibits Pakistani stabilization and we had more than one hand in destabilizing Afghanistan.

In brief, an unstable state asking another state to stabilize another state is no more amusing than a stable state whining about how its tendency to destabilize other states has lead to the former.

How is Pakistan's current societal structure looking and stability?

I last checked in, Pakistani ties with China grow closer, the populace was simmering in 2009, Afghans and Pakistanis are as such looking at each other like the latter does with the Indians, and terrorism was a growing cocern for all.

dogma wrote:Well, or pragmatism, an unstable Afghanistan inhibits Pakistani stabilization and we had more than one hand in destabilizing Afghanistan.

In brief, an unstable state asking another state to stabilize another state is no more amusing than a stable state whining about how its tendency to destabilize other states has lead to the former.

Pakistan's situation is no better or worse now than it was half a century ago, in Britain's wonderful management of its former empire.



Because dividing countries in this manner was just brilliant Some countries just don't have the juice to survive and Pakistan has been unstable for its entire existence (so has Afghanistan for that matter, less stable now though for sure). But Pakistan can hardly blame the US or Afghanistan for its problems. It's government is weak and always has been, and it spent twenty-years fighting border wars for a population that only half cares it exits.

WarOne wrote:
Do we know what kind of agreements that America has in place of Pakistan regarding these incursions? Such as it is, we do give money to Pakistan and in turn, what sort of deal do we have in place with them?

Nothing formal, we just sort of send aid to bolster their military, and bribe them to let us do our thing in the hinterlands.

dogma wrote:

WarOne wrote:
Do we know what kind of agreements that America has in place of Pakistan regarding these incursions? Such as it is, we do give money to Pakistan and in turn, what sort of deal do we have in place with them?

Nothing formal, we just sort of send aid to bolster their military, and bribe them to let us do our thing in the hinterlands.

Pakistan also has the benefit of the US dealing with radicals within their borders for them. They get nervous just thinking about it because their own population has large segments that would oppose actions against some of these groups, and western Pakistan is the 'trouble area' for the government. It's actually kind of a win-win for them right now.

LordofHats wrote:
Pakistan's situation is no better or worse now than it was half a century ago, in Britain's wonderful management of its former empire.

There is far less internal conflict with respect to the state.

LordofHats wrote:
Because dividing countries in this manner was just brilliant Some countries just don't have the juice to survive and Pakistan has been unstable for its entire existence (so has Afghanistan for that matter, less stable now though for sure). But Pakistan can hardly blame the US or Afghanistan for its problems. It's government is weak and always has been, and it spent twenty-years fighting border wars for a population that only half cares it exits.

That's true, and nice, but has nothing to do with not telling American to stabilize Afghanistan. Either Pakistan is right to make the request, because our invasion really did make that particular element of their security dilemma much worse, or they are right to tell us to do it ourselves because they have other things to worry about.

You sound like a patriot who whines when his country is told it asked for something stupid.

I have no problem with them saying "stabilize Afghanistan", but them trying to say "stay out of Pakistan's business" is inherently contradictory to stabilizing Pakistan when many of the leaders of the groups which are destabilizing Afghanistan are hiding out in Pakistan.

Including the ones in Pakistan's government.

dogma wrote:There is far less internal conflict with respect to the state.

That depends on how you look at it. There are large sections of Pakistan that the government can't control and doesn't bother trying. It's not violent, but its not stable either. Just cause the internal discord is non-violent doesn't mean there is none, but I suppose we could rank non-violent instability as better than violent instability. I don't care too much about the distinction the effect on government power is pretty much the same.

LordofHats wrote:That's true, and nice, but has nothing to do with not telling American to stabilize Afghanistan. Either Pakistan is right to make the request, because our invasion really did make that particular element of their security dilemma much worse, or they are right to tell us to do it ourselves because they have other things to worry about.

Honestly, they probably said it because their game with the US involves pretending that they mind what we're doing. I don't think they do, but while the government probably likes us taking out radicals for them, the population almost certainly doesn't.

You sound like a patriot who whines when his country is told it asked for something stupid.

U.S.A.

Actually my position is, Pakistan's government has a problem with us? Who cares. They'll probably get overthrown in a decade anyway.

LordofHats wrote:Actually my position is, Pakistan's government has a problem with us? Who cares. They'll probably get overthrown in a decade anyway.

It would probably be unfortunate if that were to happen.

Pakistan is a nuclear nation now. Any political instability at the national level would raise grave concerns for local neighbors (India/Afghanistan) and possibly cause some sort of intervention.

WarOne wrote:Pakistan is a nuclear nation now. Any political instability at the national level would raise grave concerns for local neighbors (India/Afghanistan) and possibly cause some sort of intervention.

India will most definitely get involved. Depending on what we're doing at the time when it happens (and it will happen as the more moderate government officials get pushed out by the radical ones) we might throw our hat in as well. It's one of the reasons we have such a small problem violating territorial integrity to take out radicals within Pakistan right now.

Its one of my plausible scenarios for WWIII *puts on tin foil hat*

I would like to see a better relationship with India instead of Pakistan. We give Pakistan money and they hide Osama Bin Laden near a military academy.

halonachos wrote:I would like to see a better relationship with India instead of Pakistan. We give Pakistan money and they hide Osama Bin Laden near a military academy.

India has to choose its allies carefully. Aligning with the US could also tie India to China indirectly if America continues to work with China.

Such as it is, it has been opined that India could try and forge its own destiny:

http://blogs.cfr.org/asia/2011/10/19/india%E2%80%99s-message-to-china-and-the-united-states-we%E2%80%99ll-go-it-alone/

It most certainly is competing with China in overseas markets.

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp%3Fcol%3D%26section%3Dbusiness%26xfile%3Ddata/business/2011/October/business_October350.xml&sa=U&ei=FC6fToO1Jqfh0QGO1oA_&ved=0CH0QqQIwCQ&usg=AFQjCNHK0ATeQoHsf73dFmAA0QsSYOO3wQ

http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2011/10/18/india-raises-its-game-in-burma/?mod=google_news_blog

LordofHats wrote:

dogma wrote:Well, or pragmatism, an unstable Afghanistan inhibits Pakistani stabilization and we had more than one hand in destabilizing Afghanistan.

In brief, an unstable state asking another state to stabilize another state is no more amusing than a stable state whining about how its tendency to destabilize other states has lead to the former.

Pakistan's situation is no better or worse now than it was half a century ago, in Britain's wonderful management of its former empire.



Because dividing countries in this manner was just brilliant Some countries just don't have the juice to survive and Pakistan has been unstable for its entire existence (so has Afghanistan for that matter, less stable now though for sure). But Pakistan can hardly blame the US or Afghanistan for its problems. It's government is weak and always has been, and it spent twenty-years fighting border wars for a population that only half cares it exits.

Ahh the old "boil on the arse of the world" map...

LordofHats wrote:
That depends on how you look at it. There are large sections of Pakistan that the government can't control and doesn't bother trying. It's not violent, but its not stable either.

Sounds stable to me. A region can be stable without being governed by the internationally accepted territorial authority.

LordofHats wrote:
Just cause the internal discord is non-violent doesn't mean there is none, but I suppose we could rank non-violent instability as better than violent instability. I don't care too much about the distinction the effect on government power is pretty much the same.

Then what renders the US (or any stable nation) stable, if non-violent discord can denote instability?

LordofHats wrote:
Actually my position is, Pakistan's government has a problem with us? Who cares. They'll probably get overthrown in a decade anyway.

Well, the military has a problem with us, seemingly, and if the government is overthrown they're the most likely replacements.

dogma wrote:Then what renders the US (or any stable nation) stable, if non-violent discord can denote instability?

I don't know. I find a good bit of difference between disliking what your government does but recognizing its authority anyway and not recognizing its authority at all and ignoring it. The government lacks the control to enforce law and order within its own borders, whether the discord is violent or not. I don't consider that a stable state. It's quite the precarious situation. For now it seems that the radicals are more interested in fighting the US in Afghanistan, or maybe they disregard the Pakistani government so much that they don't even consider it?

EDIT: Then again, China is in the same situation, but I would consider China stable. Maybe the problem is less that the government doesn't control areas of its territory, and more that the people in those areas are likely to turn against it given a good opportunity? Must you be engaged in violent rebellion to destabilize a state? Questions questions.

Too late. The only way the US can stabilise Afghanistan now is to bomb the other half until its more level.

Yo would be it be cool if you guys maybe toned down the whole "boil on the arse" stuff? It's pretty freaking offensive especially to Pakistani people such as myself.

I know it's not a nice place by any means in fact it's a pretty terrible place to live in, but to me it sounds like some of you guys are half a step away from blurting out some kind of slur. I honestly I don't know how mattyrm gets away with some of the nonsense he posts...

Ok soapbox over, proceed.

LordofHats wrote:
I don't know. I find a good bit of difference between disliking what your government does but recognizing its authority anyway and not recognizing its authority at all and ignoring it.

How do you define what your government is? If certain sections of Pakistan do not recognize the Pakistani state, and the Pakistani state doesn't care about those sections, then why is Pakistan unstable because we insist on having a particular set of borders for our political maps?

LordofHats wrote:
The government lacks the control to enforce law and order within its own borders, whether the discord is violent or not.

They seem to have law enforcement bodies, and those bodies seem to enforce law and order. Is the US unstable because of cartel activity in the American Southwest?

In a sense, I'd say yes. It's not as unstable as the regions of Pakistan we're talking about, but the cartels are definitely a destabilizing force that the US government needs to pay more attention to.

I'll be up front about this, because I definitely ask a lot of leading questions around here, but the matter of stability as thing which states can be is a pretty big question in comparative politics. "What is a stable state?" is a question that's asked quite often.

dogma wrote:then why is Pakistan unstable because we insist on having a particular set of borders for our political maps?

Cause they're political map and ours are kind of the same. For now Pakistan benefits from a lack of organized leadership in the relevant elements of the country. It won't be that way forever.

dogma wrote:They seem to have law enforcement bodies, and those bodies seem to enforce law and order. Is the US unstable because of cartel activity in the American Southwest?

Is there a difference between wanting to sell illegal goods in spite of the law and not recognizing governmental authority? The drug cartels certainly enjoy it when they end up in court. Usually I'm all for analogy, but there's a difference between small segments of a population violating a single set of laws, and large segments of the population ignoring they exist. Drug cartels also aren't likely to desire the overthrow of the US government (or actually achieve it) anytime soon.

I'll be up front about this, because I definitely ask a lot of leading questions around here, but the matter of stability as thing which states can be is a pretty big question in comparative politics. "What is a stable state?" is a question that's asked quite often.

Oh you sneaky little Platypus How dare you probe my mind! *tightens tin foil cap*

LordofHats wrote:
Cause they're political map and ours are kind of the same. For now Pakistan benefits from a lack of organized leadership in the relevant elements of the country. It won't be that way forever.

Well, not really, if Pakistan doesn't care about large chunks of what we define as its geographic territory, then they aren't the same. And while you are correct that it won't last forever, that's true of basically all political things (and really just all things).

LordofHats wrote:
Is there a difference between wanting to sell illegal goods in spite of the law and not recognizing governmental authority? The drug cartels certainly enjoy it when they end up in court.

Well, yeah, but so would any rational person. Not recognizing the legitimacy of X doesn't mean you can't use it.

LordofHats wrote:
Usually I'm all for analogy, but there's a difference between small segments of a population violating a single set of laws, and large segments of the population ignoring they exist. Drug cartels also aren't likely to desire the overthrow of the US government (or actually achieve it) anytime soon.

Nor is the Taliban likely to overthrow the Pakistani government.