A_Gupta wrote:Assume for an instant that Stratfor's George Friedman is correct, about this "Since a stable Pakistan is more important to the United States than a victory in Afghanistan - which it wasn't going to get anyway - the United States released pressure and increased aid. If Pakistan collapsed, then India would be the sole regional power, not something the United States wants,' Friedman said."
To me, the logical implication is that if Pakistan could break the al-Qaeda/other international terrorist groups' link with the Taliban; i.e., if the Pakistani Army could convince/force its clients in Afghanistan and Pakistan not to threaten the US or NATO countries, the the US would be happy to give Pakistan free rein in Afghanistan. After all, that meets all US objectives.
It follows that Pakistan is unable or unwilling to deliver this delinking. Pakistan has not kept even the L-e-T to a local scope (India, Afghanistan). It might be the usual Paki method of taking a maximalist position, or it might be that Pakistan genuinely has lost control.
It follows that the duplicity is not that Pakistan supports the Taliban. The duplicity, from the P.O.V. of the US, if Friedman is correct, is that Pakistan has not delivered on keeping its terrorist proxies confined to South Asia.
shiv wrote:If what Friedman says is true and we assume that Paki nukes have US PALs - it is likely that the US has made it clear to India that war with Pakistan means that Pakistan will be free to unlock their nukes.
This is contrary to what I have believed and stated so far.I have believed hat the US has cajoled and compelled India into cooperation on the suggestion that moving the nukes would get some of them out of control. But this news could mean that the US will not object if the nukes are moved for mating in a war with India. I am still not sure that this is good for the US in the long term. It is bad for India from any anglle anyway.
These two posts fundamentally are summary of the zillion posts and zillion versions of BR threads regarding this tango between India-TSP-US. In addition to what George Friedman has put so bluntly and honestly, we should add India's closest friend Robert Blackwill's comments recently and also the one that he made immediately after India's parliament attack. He clearly said that " Existance and integerty of pakistan is non-negotiable as it is US national interest. We are not here to fight India's war. "
What US wants is a tap (owned by TSP) when opened the water (Jihadi Terror) should always fall in a designated vessel (was Russia and India and later just India). However, as the tap got wornout, it started leakings. The leaked water started reaching western nations and created a one time flood in the form of 911. US was working to fix the leak for a while and became serious to fix the leak after 911. However, there was never a plan to remove the tap. The tap is required. India is just a catalyst so that the leaks are fixed. Nukes are a hedge so that India and others does not remove the tap forever. Now just add the billions of dollars in aid being delivered etc. to this picture and we get the same story.
Fundamentally nothing has really changed geopolitically between US-TSP and India. US's friendship with India is just for pure commercial purposes.
TSP knows this game so well and they were extremely confident that US will never knockout TSP and hence they played the alleged-double game against US. It is neither unexpected nor shocking for US that TSP is actually using the war on terror to help Taliban. They know that Pakistan has to be allowed to do whatever they are doing inorder to get the tap-leaks plugged.
The only challenge in the whole game was for TSP in convincing the entire jihadi-machinery that this whole thing is supposed to be meant only-for-India and not a global thing. The entire engagement of US in South Asia is to wait patienty and help/facilitate TSP to plug the tap-leaks. In the persuit, it asked India also to take some hits because it is a necessary step to facilate TSP meet the "challenge".
The wikileaks is a platform to tell the world what US actually wanted and it is like a status report. It is also the way to tell that as soon as we are satisfied that the "water-leak" is taken care off, we will be off Af-Pak. I am sure in the coming days we will also see the strategy that US want to put in place so that TSP could meet the "challenge".
Did US succeed in helping TSP meet the challenge?
(1) Yes - it has put a lot of human and electronic intel in Af-Pak area to know when the attacks are coming to west.
(2) As long as jihadis are busy in attacks in India, Russia etc. it achieved its goal
(3) It may allow some not-so-important western nations (like Spain, Iceland etc.) to take those once in a while attacks. It may feel that it is ok to take once in a while terror attacks on US interest abroad viz. US-Cole etc. Minimal life loss once in a while to jihadis is not that big of a loss and worth the loss in the US-National interest.
Did the US succeed in helping TSP stay on course and intact?
(1) US is working on a plan to see Pasthuns are less angry. TSP may just allow them to do whatever they want in Punjab. TSPA may gift Pastuns to go and rape as many women as they want in Punjab. The rentier state can rent the selected portions of Punjab to Pasthuns to buy peace and put back the machines on course.
(2) Allow Taliban to takeover Afghanistan so that they can lead Afghans and also they have Punjab for flesh. TSPA will make sure the tap water goes to designated vessel.
(3) Drug market eminating from Af-Pak is force multiplier to motivate all the officials from the countires there so that the financial-cuts could make them rich while helping the jihadi finances
US will stay as long as it takes to achieve the above.
What's for India in all this?
It has to wait before thinking doing these big-boy items as it has to take care of those who does not have a flushable lavatory. Until then India has to spin itself for talks-with-anyone, Nuke deals and everything that will get few more dollars. [Note: not meant to take potshots on any BR member. I honestly believe this is the thought process in a substantial section of Indian policy makers.]
