Pak Tea House » Afghanistan, Great game, Imperialism, Pakistan, strategy, USA, World » Pakistan And US – A Balancing Act
Pakistan And US – A Balancing Act
By Yasser Latif Hamdani
There are some fundamental truths that both Pakistanis and Americans need to understand about our mutual relationship especially in Afghanistan :
1. Pakistan and US are natural allies. I know the fashionable in India and the US like to talk of a “natural alliance” between their two countries but both India and the US must realize that theirs can be at best a mercantile relationship. Natural alliances are not necessarily based on hollow idealism and grandiose but ridiculous propositions like the “arcs of democracy”. If this was true, Pakistan and Russia would be natural allies but they are not. Natural alliances are based on convergence of geo-strategic objectives and in the case of Pakistan the long term interests of Pakistan and US will always coincide in this region.
2. The US needs Pakistan MORE than Pakistan needs the US: The importance of Pakistan to the US is fundamental. Not only does Pakistan geographically sit at the crossroads of great energy pipelines of the world but will be an important conduit for China – the next global economic superpower. It’s premier port city – Karachi – is give or take two hours by plane from Bombay, Delhi, Dubai, Kabul and ofcourse Islamabad. US maintains an active presence of its intelligence officials all over Pakistan and it is here that US has its eyes and ears in the region. As in 1970-1971, US will look to Pakistan to play not only the role of bridgebuilder with China but perhaps will seek to exercise influence through it. The post-US scenario in Afghanistan is a daunting challenge and a clash between US and Indian/Russian interests in Afghanistan is likely and in this the US will lean on Pakistan. Furthermore former President Richard Nixon , shortly before his death, identified four Muslim countries as holding the key to US interests in the 21st century i.e. Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey and Egypt. These four are the most modern nation states in all of the Islamic world, with established economies and strong ties with the US. As the third world and Muslim world will move out of US sphere, Pakistan’s importance for US policy makers will only increase.
3. Pakistan also needs the US. Crazed fundamentalists and armchair revolutionaries in Pakistan love to cry hoarse against America. The truth is that Pakistan needs US as well. If Pakistan does not settle terms with the US, the US will most likely be forced to go to the next option which will unacceptable for us. That the US aid is peanuts compared to what the two Afghan wars have cost us is undeniable, but Pakistan needs the US at this critical hour when our economy has taken a nose dive. Let us also not forget that the US is Pakistan’s largest trading partner and that balance of trade is in our favor by a long shot. If Pakistan is important to the US, Pakistan’s importance for other powers such as China is also directly proportional to its influence with the US.
Pakistani political leadership – and by this I mean PPP and PML-N in main- must tread carefully. The game plan of a cynical and wretched entrenched establishment is to present itself as the suitable alternative to civilian democratic leadership. Old habits die hard and the US feels much more comfortable dealing with one-man shows. Therefore the leadership must resist any urge to outflank the establishment on its anti-American rhetoric- it is a trap. The long term objectives of Pakistan’s civilian political elite should be as follows:
1. Long term sustainability of the constitutional democratic process, however unsavory it may be.
2. Peace and trade with India are also key to Pakistan’s progress. India will be the South Asian economic powerhouse. If Pakistan plays its cards right vis a vis US, China and India, it too can create a prosperous mid-sized economy. It is therefore counterproductive to declare a 1000 years war on India.
These two objectives can and will run counter to perceived American interests. If history is any judge, Americans are likely to support the establishment and other elements whenever a government in Pakistan gets out of line. In 1977, the Americans were funding the Jamaat-e-Islami and its leader Mian Muhammad Tufail who were instrumental in General Zia’s coup. In 1999, the right wing Muslim nationalist PML-N and right Hindu Nationalist BJP had turned a remarkable new leaf in Indo-Pak relations, when a miltiary coup was staged against the peace process- first through an act of war and then through a direct coup in Islamabad. What followed was a military dictatorship in Pakistan which came to be one of the most closest US allies in Pakistan’s history.
Some of my American friends ask me why so many of my compatriots hate them. That is a simple one really and I am surprised how many well informed Americans ask this question. They hate you because as a people Pakistanis haven’t seen the benefits of the assistance and aid that you’ve given Pakistan. Had the Americans chosen to deal with a democratic dispensation, instead of putting their eggs in military basket, some of that aid and assistance would have reached down to the common man. In this respect atleast, Kerry Lugar Bill is a huge improvement and Pakistan’s political leadership is well advised not to play into the ghairat lobby’s high pitched rhetoric.
Filed under: Afghanistan, Great game, Imperialism, Pakistan, strategy, USA, World · Tags: 1999, Afghan War, alliance, BJP, China, cold war, Constitution, Democracy, Ghairat Lobby, India, Iran, Jamaat-e-Islami, Mian Tufail, Natural Allies, Pakistan, Pakistan Army, Pentagon, PML-N, PPP, US
174 Responses to "Pakistan And US – A Balancing Act"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- Rex Minor
said @Kalchakra
Very well said! But do you have any... - Sachbol
said Parliament-Certified Muslim
Ahmadis are not p... - Milestogo
said There is no such thing as Sunni Islam. There is on... - kaalchakra
said Not sure what the problem is with seeing Pakistan... - tajender
said Pak hindus were hoping that saeed will protect the... - Parliament-Certified Muslim said @ Majumdar
According to Article 2 of the Constitu...
- tajender said AHEM,u people preapre a story far away from ground...
- Parliament-Certified Muslim said @ Sachbol
Aha so you think that Ahmadis are not...
- Skeptic
said Fingolfin,
Why blame the mullahs? The real proble... - PMA said Dr. Jalal & Dr. Bose both are academician &...
Hoss Sahib: You wrote the following:
1. You appear to be beholden to the past.
2. “Nuclear deal is not US-only” Nonsense. The deal is with the US. The other countries got involved because of the deal with the US. If the US backs out of the deal, no country would provide any help to India.
3. India is hooked up with the US in many ways. The nuke deal means India would spend $100 billion in the next few years for the US technology and would be depending on the US for the supply and spare parts. That makes India more dependent on the US.
Let me skip #1 for the moment and go to #2.
Your statement is Not true. While India and US may still pen important bi-lateral deal(s) the importance of this deal to India was to be able to access Uranium and nuclear related technologies for its power generation from the 46 nation strong nuclear supplier group (NSG) which was a cartel put together under the leadership of the US after the 1974 Indian nuclear tests, specifically with the stated aim of checking nuclear proliferation. After the US-India deal, the NSG granted a waiver to India. Once this waiver was granted, any one of the 46 countries (a group that includes nations like Russia, France etc. that were eager to deal with India on their own) are now free to deal with India independently, even if the US Congress backs out of the deal.
Similarly #3 is also not true for the reasons already stated above. India can spend its money where ever it gets the best deal since it is now free to deal with other countries.
Now coming back to #1 I think the statement applies to you much more specifically since you are looking at the India\US\Pakistan relationship from the prism of the cold war when the world was divided into two blocks; if one regional power tilted towards one superpower its adversary automatically tilted towards the other.
It is now 2010 and the cold war has been over for 21 years.
The West, specifically the US won it but it now realizes that its days as a unipolar hegemon are limited.
China and other nations are fast catching up and some day surely in the near future the US may still be ahead but it will merely be a first among a handful of equals.
To its credit the US seems to have gracefully accepted that fact and contrary to all the conspiracy theorists, does not seek to stunt China’s economic growth nor confront it militarily.
Actually it does not need to. If you read the policy papers from many respected US policy think tanks, the consensus is that the peaceful rise of China (and others) is not necessarily a bad thing if they all can be accommodated in the current world order.
All the US seeks to maintain is worldwide free trade, intellectual property rights, individual freedoms; and the physical and material security of the West, all gains of the era of enlightenment.
Towards this goal the US would like China to play a more active and a constructive role in the current (Western designed) international organizations, the UN, the G 20 the IMF etc. The goal is to keep the current consensus on free trade agreements, the commitment to the individual freedoms and to keep the regional\ethnic conflicts in check as they are today.
Towards this goal also, the US policy makers also realize (as you mentioned) that perhaps in the next 30 to 50 years India too may be as strong as China is today and will have to be accommodated.
Thus they are advocating that India too should be engaged, especially today when it is not very strong and ambitious.
So where does it leave Pakistan? Not in a bad place.
The fact that US is trying to woo India does not mean it hates Pakistan. Just like the US knows that India will be in China’s position in maybe 30-50 years it realizes Pakistan with a projected population of 500 million, too will be in India’s position in that time frame and thus needs to be addressed as well.
So for Pakistan too, the US does not have any evil designs; it would like it too integrated in the current (admittedly US designed) World order.
The US planners are not anti Pakistan; it is only that the thought of this nuclear armed country (with a young population which is larger than Russia today), going rogue that gives them nightmares. Therefore they sincerely want a democratic and stable Pakistan.
The war in Afghanistan (and Iraq) were never a part of the US game plan these were distractions imposed on the US by OBL and our own idiotic president GWB.
The tragedy of South Asians is that they don’t realize how many crucial cards they hold and how close they are to making the next century a South Asian century if only they can summon up the vision.
For this, they have to first learn not to be beholden to the past, as unfortunately you still are.
For these reasons outlined above I believe YLH is far ahead of many because in spite of some minor weaknesses of his article, he has the right idea regarding the US, Pakistan and India.
Regards.
@Hoss
Without commenting in detail on your rejoinder, I have to inform you that I was mistaken – rather comprehensively so, according to a very reliable source – on point 4. The details are irrelevant, except to say that there is some thinking about airlift capabilities which extends well beyond what was generally known, and that there may be, if there is not already in place, a deal for theatre airlift capability. Personally, I am astonished, but the damn thing is a reality. I thought that in the interests of accuracy, this correction is necessary.
Incidentally, although still feeling battered and bruised by your cavalier treatment, I can still summon up enough energy to say the following:
1. Your $10 billion figure is obviously a reference to the MRCA (MMRCA, correctly speaking) deal, and it is a far cry from being one that can go anywhere near the US.
2. The portion of US sourcing in the total purchase list over the next decade is likely to be very small – with a fairly accurate degree of predictability as of today.
3. I can in fact reproduce a wish-list – for all three services but not the Coast Guard – with approximately 90% + accuracy. That was not the point here. As already mentioned on earlier occasions, this is not a militarist blog, and such references would be misplaced and perhaps even obnoxious to some.
Now I shall retire to repair my armour and hammer out the nicks in my military cutlery. Don’t go away.
@vajra
People keep linking the Indian IT,ITES industry with Indo-US relations – as in – one is dependent on the other. If the relations go sour, the business ties will also nosedive. How much of this is true (if at all)?
When sanctions were imposed, did everything come to a screeching halt ?
Luq
@Hayyer
How did India betray Afghans in Soviet Invasion. I have not come across any piece of evidence where India supported Soviet Invasion in any way. India did not share borders with Afghanistan and it has a policy of not doing military intervention in Afghanistan. I would say what India did as a neutral country was far better than US/Pakistan role which unleashed demons like Osama.
updike (January 18, 2010 at 4:34 am):
Two-nation Theory of All India Muslim League was a counterpoint to the One-nation Theory of Indian National Congress. Both theories have got the former British Indian Empire into the mess that it is today.
Gorki
January 19, 2010 at 10:59 am
“After the US-India deal, the NSG granted a waiver to India.”
In the absence of a deal with US India wasn’t going to get this waiver. So it is because of the US that India gets this waiver. Now what are the prospects of the waivers withdrawn if the US and India disagree and later rescind the deal? The waiver depends on the US approach and not on what India can do. This is the beauty of the deal; India can’t pull out of the deal but the US can.
Anyway, the rest of your post is like the benevolent US sitting on top of the world and planning how it can help the world and play god. Iraq war was just one idiotic act by one person who happened to be the US president, so were the Vietnam War and the Korean War and the turmoils that were US sponsored in South America. The US is always looking to do the good thing but sometimes it has some bad presidents.
I did not realize that you are so naïve.
The US does things based on its best national Interests. Sometime those things are bad for other countries sometimes they are not. We need to look at the merits of every single case. There no such thing as one idiotic president and some rogue elements in the US administration. I don’t know what world you live in. It sure is not real.
Majumdar (January 18, 2010 at 10:50 am):
Pakistan needs to put its house in order. It needs to give a greater say to the smaller provinces in the center and a larger role in the national affairs. Just like it should have given Bengalis their due share in the center. No Balochistan is not under Pakistani ‘occupation’. An intelligent person like you should not repeat such nonsense. And I hope you are right about India. So far there is nothing on the ground to prove your point. If anything the evidence is to the opposite.
Gorki (January 18, 2010 at 11:34 am):
I enjoy your light hearted humor.
@Luq
There was very little effect on Indian business.
1. US businessmen are greedy pigs. So are businessmen everywhere in the world, but this lot are greedier and piggier than any other. At the height of the outsourcing uproar in the US, when a protectionist lobby seeking to protect overpaid programmers doing COBOL maintenance wanted to ban outsourcing to other countries, the biggest US companies, software and smokestack alike, banded together and put enormous pressure on Congress not to cut back on H1B visas. You have seen what happened recently: how enormous support was given to banks and thoroughly mis-managed automobile makers, who insisted on maximising quarterly profits and executive bonuses by producing visibly limited scope SUVs while the rest of the world was rapidly shifting to fuel-efficient technologies. This while holders of bonds and securities on these very same corporation were shafted.
IMO, if US business wants to do business with India, they will do business with India, and nobody can do much about it.
2. Indian businessmen turned out to be clever, greedy pigs. In the 80s, when I entered the IT industry, nearly 95% of overseas revenue was due to body-shopping: on site manpower placements. There was a strange and wonderful seven-step brokerage of services; there were flourishing sub-cultures of ‘facilitators’ and ‘multipliers’ who spread all over the place. Anybody with a fax at home and a brother-in-law working in Bangalore became an IT sourcing expert.
This has changed dramatically. The unbelievably bad quality of those days has changed 180 degrees in the last 20 years. At one stage (I am not sure of the current figures), 90% of CMM Level 5 certificates were issued to Indian companies. With this, the nature of work has also changed. The project-based model of task allocation and monitoring was refined; project management methods were smoothed out.
But most important, at present, Indian companies have taken over the entire management of the IT infrastructure of major US corporations. This is not packing off some on-site anonymouse or ten; this is recovering the entire management and maintenance of one’s infrastructure, re-creating large armies of programmers all over again like the ‘good’ old days.
Any changes on account of a political freeze: zero.
3. The boom in manpower placements happened precisely during the period when there was the greatest restriction on India in terms of equipment accessibility. At one stage, a robustly configured MAC would have been a banned item from a Department of Commerce point of view.
There was no visible impact on IT of the sanctions and consequent restrictions in doing business.
I could go on but……..
The problem with the whole one nation two nation fifty nation debate is that we wish to prescribe objective tests for purely subjective issues such as nationality. Identity and nationality are ideas. If enough people believe in them they are real. Citizenship denotes a relationship between a state and its subject.
Thus any national idea is equally true and equally false.
Hayyer (January 18, 2010 at 11:46 am):
It is not question of “natural allies” or “natural enemies”. I do not believe in either of that. It is the respective principles on which these two countries were created out of the British Indian Empire that are at odds. That is why one constantly tries to undermine the other. However nothing remains the same for ever. Ultimately things on ground will change like they did in 47 and then in 71. It is matter of how stars are aligned.
About commonalities: I agree with your examples of ‘North India-Pakistan’ and ‘Bangladesh-W. Bengal-Orissa-Assam’. That is not where the problem lies. The problem for Pakistan is that for ‘Ganges-Indus alliance’ to take place (which many here at PTH insist upon), she would have to let its ‘west bank’ go as it is not part of that ‘alliance’. (let us leave the Indian case alone for now because it is a more complex one). Such ‘alliance’ also means end of Pakistan as we know it. Many here at PTH have misunderstood me on this issue and have resorted to question my person.
As I have said before, and still maintain, that for Pakistan to function as an entity, its ‘east bank’ has to let the ‘Ganges Valley’ go no matter how strong or historical are the links between the two regions and realign itself with its own ‘west bank’. Without that Pakistan has no future. And on their part the North Indians must allow Pakistanis to develop their own Pakistani identity free of Indian confusion. And yes on that point you understood me correctly.
Hoss Sahib:
“The US does things based on its best national Interests. Sometime those things are bad for other countries sometimes they are not.”
That is true.
Only now that the US has emerged a winner from the cold war, and it has the world exaclty where it wants it, it no longer needs to do things it did then to win.
Examples of US conduct in Vietnam or South America in the cold war are as irrelevant in today’s context as say the dropping of the A-bomb on Japan in WWII.
Since you brought up the past US conduct, remember then that once Japan was subdued, the US treatment of this defeated nation was better than any other example such example; ever.
I have never claimed that US is a paragon of virtue, if anything it is a modern day version of ancient Rome; join it and you will get a fair treatment, peace, prosperity and will be left alone in religious and other matters; cross it and you will face a full fury of a superpower.
Only, in the current context US interests converge remarkably with those nations who want to follow the US, Western Europe and the Japanese model of prosperity through peaceful growth within the framework of the international order already in place.
You may call it a US desire to extent the Pax Americana into the future.
Regarding the issue of the NSG waiver to India, you yourself seem to answer the question here:
“Now what are the prospects of the waivers withdrawn if the US and India disagree and later rescind the deal?”
The answer is: None.
Which means India is now no longer beholden to the US and even if its own deal wit the US falls through, it can now still deal independently with Russia, France etc!!
So what is the confusion about?
Regards.
Good overall site enjoyed reading will def bookmark.
Suv:
The Soviets invades Afghanistan to prop up a tottering bungling left regime that had refused to take sensible advice and shot itself in many places. The whole world condemned the invasion except friends of the Soviet Union. If you read Indian statements of that period you will notice a wretched evasiveness.
Why was India’s act a betrayal? Because the Afghans had been good friends of India against Pakistan. Whether over the Durand line or support to Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and Pakhtunistan, or whatever. Yet they lost all goodwill and Pakistan became the last resort for millions of Afghans. Pakistan also helped them regain their independence. It is another matter that what they substituted for the Russians was as bad if not worse.
PMA:
“The problem for Pakistan is that for ‘Ganges-Indus alliance’ to take place (which many here at PTH insist upon), she would have to let its ‘west bank’ go as it is not part of that ‘alliance’. (let us leave the Indian case alone for now because it is a more complex one). Such ‘alliance’ also means end of Pakistan as we know it.”
To us here in India, at a distance and not a part of Pakistan’s internal discourse it is difficult to comment. The question that occurs to me is-would it have been so if partition had not taken place. The Afghans have been in India for a long time and both Calcutta and Bombay had flourishing Afghan communities. The Afghan dynamic has long been part of the subcontinent.
“As I have said before, and still maintain, that for Pakistan to function as an entity, its ‘east bank’ has to let the ‘Ganges Valley’ go no matter how strong or historical are the links between the two regions and realign itself with its own ‘west bank’. Without that Pakistan has no future. And on their part the North Indians must allow Pakistanis to develop their own Pakistani identity free of Indian confusion. And yes on that point you understood me correctly.”
All I can say to that is good luck. While most Indians visiting PTH do not want to interpose themselves in the self discovery of Pakistan the Indian ‘confusion’ is not something that can be just imagined out of existence; there is no delete button to collective memory or historical record. Pakistan will have to find ways of coping. I suppose like the Indian case the Pakistan identity is a work in progress.
How to manage a forum
1) If you can’t refute someone’s arguments then delete them.
2) Delete the most powerful arguments, but let remain less important ones so as to create the impression of being tolerant and open-minded.
3) Change from : “Call someone a dog and shoot him: to “Shoot someone and then call him a dog”.
@Updike
1. Which argument of yours, precisely, has not been addressed?
Surely you are not under the impression that people have not noticed that you make statements, tendentious statements, sweeping statements, statements contrary to the facts and then ignore the inevitable corrections which emerge from others. If by sticking one’s head in the sand, one could make uncomfortable responses go away, you would no doubt have something to talk about. As it is, it is clear that you don’t even know that your argument has been answered.
2. AFAIK, only some of your later mails have been deleted. Your earlier mails are still available, in painful, excruciating detail. They have all been dealt with, by various people, with various occasions.
What powerful arguments are you talking about? that have been deleted?
You didn’t, I notice, come back on any refutation of your views, whichever id you wrote under.
3. Don’t whine.
You set out to upset people, insult them, attack their religious beliefs, and were unable to justify these obnoxious and delinquent acts logically. Why do you complain when you are edited out?
Nobody stops you from abandoning your and selecting a more logical line of argument. Try it some time.
Hayyer (January 20, 2010 at 10:10 am):
Thanks for understanding. I wish I can say the same about the man who hails from a place only stone throw away from my own. Nation building is not an easy task. We in Pakistan have lot of work to do. In the last sixty years we have come a long way. But we have a way to go yet. In order to be a nation we have to work on a program of national integration where each and every citizen could relate to his country and become part of the nation. We have to build our own national institutions and an all encompassing ‘Brand Pakistan’. It is not a question of deleting history. We must never do that. It is a question of taking care of the present and safeguarding the future. To me that is what Pakistan is all about. I am very optimistic of our future. We will get there one day. God willing.
>There was no visible impact on IT of the sanctions
>and consequent restrictions in doing business.
So, what is all that noise coming from hossp?
>I could go on but……..
What was the impact of sanctions on procurement of dual use technology both for Pak and India. The requirements were sourced through a different route or alternate technology developed?
Why were the sanctions lifted so abruptly ?
Luq
@Hayyer
On the contrary by not interfering militarily in Afghanistan India earned goodwill of Afghan people. No foreign army has done anything good for Afghan people and India’s track in that respect is clean. Freedom fight supported by US and Pakistan has caused such nightmare to people in Afghanistan and become a global security threat that perhaps Afghanistan under Soviets would have been better for Afghans and rest of the world.
Regarding Khan Abdul Guffar Khan, India and Congress literally abandoned him and it is pity that such a great leader had to spend rest of life in prison. He taught non-violence to people in NWFP. His Khudai Khidmatgars valiantly faced bullets and blows of British without resorting to violence and now the people of NWFP are strongest votaries of Taliban. How sad!
Why Pakistan refuses new attacks
BBC News
With its announcement that it will launch no new offensives against the Taliban in 2010, Pakistan’s army appears to have opened a new innings in its favourite game with the West, says the BBC’s Syed Shoaib Hasan in Islamabad.
For the United States, the statement by the Pakistan army could not have come at a worse time.
Its main intelligence agency, the CIA, is still coming to terms with the death of seven personnel in a suicide attack in Afghanistan by an al-Qaeda “double agent”.
That attack, the worst suffered by the agency in four decades, was apparently planned and carried out by Taliban militants in Pakistan’s tribal areas.
Under pressure from the US, the Pakistan army launched an operation there in the main Taliban stronghold of South Waziristan in November 2009.
The army has since been able to secure that territory and push out the militants.
While some have been captured, most senior Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders have fled the region.
Intelligence officials say they have now taken refuge either in other nearby tribal regions or the neighbouring Balochistan province.
Mission impossible
Top US officials, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, have been calling for the military to go after the militants in these regions.
All this comes at a time when Pakistan’s government is already under a great deal of domestic criticism.
This is mainly due to increased missile strikes by the US targeting Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders in the tribal areas.
These have turned a sometimes ambivalent tribal population against the Pakistan military.
Analysts say the tribesmen see the strikes, which have claimed more lives of civilians than of militants, as contiguous with the military operation.
But US officials have continued to press for more action, painting doomsday scenarios for Pakistan.
The latest such warning comes from US Defence Secretary Robert Gates, who said in India that al-Qaeda was planning to carry out attacks to provoke war with Pakistan.
But the Pakistan military appears to have its own views on the subject, and their say is likely to count the most.
Their latest decision is likely to sends shivers through all Western capitals which have a stake in Afghanistan.
For Washington, in particular, the military’s U-turn will have far-reaching consequences.
Without Pakistani soldiers pressurising the Taliban in the tribal areas, it will be mission impossible for US forces in Afghanistan.
Diplomatic wrangling
Even with the additional 40,000 troops, it will not be possible to contain the insurgents.
With 2010 already being called a defining moment in the current conflict, the military has risked the all-out ire of the US with its decision.
But it appears to have thought out the move, given that it has gone public at a time when the US defence secretary is in Pakistan.
The military believes it has strong reasons not to move against the militants.
Many senior military officials have been angered by what they see are recent moves by the US and the UK to expand India’s involvement in Afghanistan.
They see this as being specifically targeted against Pakistani interests.
There is also the matter of promised US aid to Pakistan, most of which has been delayed due to diplomatic wrangling.
US officials say much of the aid has been held up because of delays in processing visas for officials attached to the projects.
But Pakistani intelligence officials say that many of these officials actually end up involved in activities “beyond their charter of duties”.
In common parlance, its means the officials are seen as spies.
Extremely unhappy
The military’s decision has also put the Pakistan government, with which it has been at odds of late, in an embarrassing position.
The military’s unhappiness at the government stems from what it sees as its pandering to US demands at every turn.
One example which intelligence officials quote at liberty, is the manner in which US special forces personnel are allowed to enter and move around Pakistan without being documented by immigration.
Officials say the military is extremely unhappy with the interior ministry on this count.
The shaky PPP-led government, for its part, is too busy rolling from one political crisis to another to really take this matter in hand.
On a more direct note, Pakistan’s military has also been demanding that the US give it more advanced helicopters and transfer its drone technology.
They say as the frontline state against the Taliban, such equipment is needed for greater success.
The US has, however, rejected these demands so far.
Suv:
“On the contrary by not interfering militarily in Afghanistan India earned goodwill of Afghan people.”
That sounds like a government handout. India could not have interfered militarily because it is not contiguous with Afghanistan. No goodwill there for India.
” No foreign army has done anything good for Afghan people and India’s track in that respect is clean.”
Foreign armies do not go out to do good, generally speaking, and Afghan armies have been no different when they went out. The army that did go in from the east was that of Ranjit Singh and it destroyed the pleasant city of Peshawar. So if you want to consider Ranjit Singh Indian the track is not clean. On the other hand Ranjit Singh’s empire was mostly Pakistani, so you may have other reasons for objecting to this example.
@Hayyer
India was a bit player as it did not have a common border with Afghanistan as you correctly pointed out. Indian action had so little bearing that what India did cannot be labelled a betrayal of Afghan people.
I was referring to India track record as a sovereign country after 1947 not as historical sub continent. If you go back then many armies like Mauryan had invaded what is now Afghanistan.
It is not mandatory that foreign armies do bad in a country. Germany under occupation of Allies did get a Marshall plan, Japanese and Koreans were helped by US in many ways but in Afghanistan unfortunately everyone tried to grind their own axes.
Although Rahe nijaat has been pursued with vigor, there are two points of concern.
1 > The TTP and Al Qaeda may have been underestimated.
2 > Other terrorist groups have still not been tackled.
Whereas we who would like to see good relations with Pakistan recognize that there are efforts being made, most people are still quite skeptical
@ylh
Sorry, I was out of town and could not read your idiotic comments, nor was able to send you a reply. You have a very basic education and a limited knowledge of the world. Moreover, you do no longer have the ability to learn further or widen your knowledge. In my view you have narcissistic opinion about yourself. I do notice that your comments might have some acceptance from your fellow countrymen and those from India, although they are empty in substance and far from the real world. You have never come to terms that Mr Jinnah was neither a genious nor a holy man but you have the audacity to criticise those leaders who do not visit his grave and continue to remind people what sort of Pakistan he envisaged. Today after more than sixty years Pakistan is nothing more than the Pakistan Army. Pakistan Army has a closed territory to rome about and this is called Pakistan. You cannot stretch your intellect to understand this reality! You do not have to urge the readers to follow the footsteps of Mr Jinnah, for this is a sure recipe for a dismal future for any one and the country.
Instead, I would prefer that the modern enlightened and intellectual muslim journalists encourage fellow citizens to follow the foot steps of no other than Prophet Mohammad(pbuh), the only prophet of God who completed his mission and assignments given to him by God almighty. Unfortunately, this field has been left to the clergy who have not been able to reconcile the teachings of Islam with traditions and modern times.
Have a nice day! And try not to use the abusive vocabulary. Bloody Civilian should tell you that Pashtoons do not react favourably.