Too close for comfort

In the war in Afghanistan it is not always obvious which side Pakistan is on

See article

Readers' comments




Mistaking Pakistan as a Single Entity
The article makes a common wesrern mistake of discussing Pakistan as if it were a single political entity.

I am reminded of the statement of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee that detailed the reasons it's been so difficult to deal with Pakistan's leadership:

"One of the main problems in dealing with Pakistan is that its government is not a monolith, but rather a collection of different power centers that interact in complex ways. There is the elected civilian government, which over the years has not always been strong or stable; the uniformed military, which has seized power at various junctures; the intelligence service, which has its own independence within the military; and, we are told, a shadowy group of former intelligence agents that can act on its own. These different actors alternately compete and cooperate with one another, and their influence periodically waxes and wanes. Equally vexing, each of the players can support U.S. policies one moment, but obstruct them the next. Add to this mix volatile public elements that can be whipped into an anti-American fervor, and you have a partner who can seem, as some have said, to be both firefighter and arsonist."


"The need for caution on the Indian border"

Caution from what? In reality, since when did the Indians harbor any desire to attack Pakistan? "India's going to attack Pakistan" is just a bromide used by the Pak power groups (ISI, army elite, politicians) to fuel their own ego, take attention away from the economic hardships, beg for money from the US and use that money to finance 'non-state' actors like the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba.


Between states there are no eternal friends or enemies; the interests are eternal. U.S and Pakistan relations are function of convergent and divergent interests. If US considered Pakistan as its alley in its war against Soviet Union, it was to achieve to its grand design of disintegrating the Super-Power. Pakistan at that point in time perfectly fitted into the geopolitical scenario, and assisted Americans in fulfillment of their geostrategic plan. The Talibans were then called “Mujahideens” and portrayed as freedom fighters that fought heroically against Soviet invaders. CIA worked hand in glove with ISI and maintained a cordial relationship, throughout the campaign. The situation, however, is different today. Pak-US alliance is a marriage of convenience, marred by mistrust and suspicion. The core of the problem is that the national interests of the two countries are divergent and conflicting. For US policy-makers, the ISI is now an adversary rather than ally. It must be understood and accepted that ISI will always pursue Pakistan’s national interests and therefore will remain under US disparagement. The Americans also know that they cannot reach the end-game in Afghanistan without Pakistan’s/ISI’s help. What makes it more complicated is the fact that they want to achieve it without compromising their own national interests. An acceptable level of trust between the two countries will be established only if the US policy towards Afghanistan shows flexibility in accepting Pakistan’s concern in the whole affair.


Pathetic mollycoddling of a terrorist state. Unfortunately the Economist has always been soft on Pakistan even though Pakistanis are murdering ISAF and British troops. When will the West and publications like the Economist have the spine to call a spade a spade and Pakistan what it really is - a failed state and terrorist sponsor.

Darwins Toothpick

The USA (and their Western allies) walked into a gigantic trap and are now experiencing the Death by a Thousand Cuts, an ancient Chinese execution method. This all happens thanks to its glorious Yale and Harvard educated politicians and its generals educated at West Point where they studied only one book “How to Lose a War for Dummies” which they followed to the letter. Their adversaries used another book that stipulates that you can deceive any non-Muslim at any time under any condition, in fact as a good Muslim you’re obliged to do so.
As soon as the Taliban fled into Pakistan at the beginning of the war one should have known immediately that Pakistan was playing a double game. Pakistan could easily have destroyed the Taliban there and then but with all kinds of excuses refused to do so. One excuse was that it was difficult fighting there. However they surely had the manpower to pull this off. We are talking about an army that somewhere in the nineteen nineties when the tension between India and Pakistan had grown to a fever pitch had mobilized 500,000 troops near the border with India within a fortnight. That big army was only able to finally deploy 15,000 troops in the Swat valley. Talking about a lackluster attitude. Did US generals miss out on these data? Too busy advancing their careers, counting their paychecks, writing their memoirs, playing golf?
Since its war with Japan the USA has lost every single major war. In all of these wars there has been a common characteristic. All the countries it fought against were backed by a big power. Against Korea: China and Russia, against Vietnam: Russia and China. (A total unnecessary war, the Vietnamese were never any threat to a Western country. By studying history Western leaders could have known that they wanted independence.) In the Second Gulf war the uprising was at least partly funded by Muslim extremist from various countries. It is clear that the Taliban have been backed up by Pakistan, the trusted and well funded ally of the USA. The First Gulf war was different in that Iraq at that moment was a solitary adversary but US leadership let victory slip away. As Gen. Colin Powell said: “… to continue it beyond a certain point would be un-American.” So they stopped it without crushing the enemy. Since then its official, losing wars is the most American thing to do and Gen. Powell actually got a medal for his role, i.e. stopping the war too soon, in the First Gulf war.
The Russians could not win their war in Afghanistan because this time their adversary was backed up by the USA as a big power. This war became an enormous opportunity for the Afghans and the Pakistani. Money and aid were pouring in from all directions towards the resistance and into the hands of the corrupt Pakistani government. Psychopathistan has always gotten everything by deceiving the West and it has become an integral part of their culture to fool the Western elite. Nothing new here, also other countries are experts in doing that. Just keep in mind how Khan acquired the A-bomb for Pakistan. It was a sorry thing for them that the war with Russia in Afghanistan ended. The country lapsed into recession after the USA stopped throwing dollars at them. They really don’t mind if this war would go on for another hundred years, in fact they embrace this concept. When this goes on the added bonus is that they can bleed the West dry, if that has not happened already. What our leaders have never understood is the cheer jealousy of Muslims towards the West and its civilization. The Western elite, always keen on letting their own population pay up for its disasters abroad, is still continuous being fooled by those well meaning Muslims.
Just as they did not understand the Vietnamese, because they never studied their history, so they do not understand the Muslim world. They believe the mirage Muslims present to them. This is clearly revealed by the brilliant strategy these Yale, Harvard, West Point and Sandhurst educated fools came up with: “Winning the hearts and minds of the people of Afghanistan, Iraq etc.” Winning the hearts and minds of people who see any kindness and generosity which the West brings to them as a weakness to be ruthlessly exploited? Isn’t there a Chinese proverb which states that if you want to kill a tiger you let it get killed by somebody else? The Muslim world does not need any encouragements to do just that. Coupled with the brilliant strategies of our leaders it is not so difficult to kill this tiger, who behaves more like a chicken without a head running into all kinds of trouble. A new strategy is called for urgently. Luckily I know exactly what this new strategy must be. Sadly I will not be taken seriously by people who have shown every time that they stubbornly are prepared to keep on following a path which leads inevitably to the death by a Thousand Cuts.


Why the US has spent 1.41 Trillion dollars in Afghanistan. I guess it not a philanthropic effort, aimed at alleviating the sufferings of Afghan people. Nor in my opinion, they have any intentions of building a “Jeffersonian Democracy” in Afghanistan. If the campaign was to defeat Talibans or Al-Qaida, the ground situation is that they are still at large and have forced the US to engage them in negotiations (Qatar meeting between US and Talibans). Though a schedule for withdrawal of forces has been announced, yet it has also been said that the US will maintain a strong presence in Afghanistan. I can only see the element of truth in the last part, i.e. “The US has gone to Afghanistan to stay”. There will be cosmetic measures to withdraw the military force but strong presence will be maintained in the form of CIA operatives and Special Forces. The scenario can however change, if coalition support is lost which may happen if unprecedented causality levels are recorded. Another situation could be if there is a growing domestic pressure on US government (Case Vietnam), force pull-out will be rapid. What could be US interests in Afghanistan? To my understanding US have multifaceted objectives in Afghanistan. One: Gaining control and access to Central Asian oil and gas reserves. Two: Threaten Iran. Three: Exert pressure on China and Russia. Four: Provide India the opportunity to expand its influence in Afghanistan and thereby act as a counter weight to China (as of now, India has 6 consulates in Afghanistan). Five: Defang Pakistan’s nuclear capability by presenting it as a fragile and rouge state, incapable to guard its nuclear arsenals from terrorists. Pakistan’s national interests in Afghanistan are not that ambitious. We want a peaceful, tranquil and friendly Afghanistan which may provide us strategic depth. If a Pakistan friendly setup exists in Afghanistan, it would also prevent India from gaining undue advantage in the region thereby averting her destabilizing efforts in Baluchistan and KPK. Pakistan will also like to have its share in reconstruction effort in Afghanistan for economic reasons. The point of conflict between Pakistan and US interests is the future setup, wherein the American government wants to see Northern Alliance leading the country whereas Pakistan expects the “southern pashtoons” to be in the helm of affairs.


The US policies on Afghanistan and Iraq are also not made in White House or Congress; rather these are conceived and casted in Pentagon and Langley. Although there are numerous examples to quote, but two are worth-considering. Gen Colin Powel was deliberately fed wrong information by CIA on WMDs for his briefing to UN Security Council. I believe we all know who sponsored and supported Republicans; the oil tycoons and arms manufacture. Iraq was invaded against all norms resulting in thousands of deaths and humiliation to millions. US army’s atrocities and inhuman behavior with Abu Graib prisoner is least to mention. Arms and Oil business swelled and US interest was served. The world is certainly not safer without Saddam Hussain. The entire US campaign in Afghanistan is based on a 44 pages report prepared by Bruce Riedel, a CIA analyst. Who is not aware of the chief architect of famous “Serge” in Afghanistan, none other than Gen Petraeus. Despite strong reservations from Joe Biden, Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Anthony Blinken Vice President’s National Security Adviser and many others, Gen Petraeus, Gen James Jones, Gen McChrystal and company, completely influenced Obama’s decision on Afghanistan’s future. According to “Obama’s Wars”, by Bob Woodward, the President of United States confessed that he felt “boxed in” by his military and CIA officials, as they presented a very precarious scenario of Afghanistan’s future, if he had not agreed to “troops-Serge”. The point to appreciate is that it is not only in Pakistan where national policies are framed by military and intelligence establishments but also in so called top world’s democracies .

HinduKafir in reply to LandofIndus

Land of Indus

We have enough, Masoods , Barech, YusifZais and Ahmedzais living on the correct side of the border. Hence we have enough tennents who will take the room in Afghanistan

Karzai for that matter too got his education on the right side of the border. So did rest of his cabinet who approves Indian consulates on the wrong side of the border

Solution is as simple as Manmohan Singh proposed, Breakfast in Delhi, Lunch in Lahore and Dinner in Kabul

And for Pakisani interests. They can be flushed down the Indus. We will compensate by a Mujraa and mushaiyara nights. You wont appreciate anything beyond that !!!


It is very naive to not being able to decide 'which side Pakistan is on'?
Believe me, Pakistan (if by Pakistan we mean the establishment of Pakistan) is not on the side of justice, or peace, or sanity in general. Pakistan is definitely not on the side of US and I believe Pakistan is not even on China's side, and it won't be an over statement if I say she is not on the side of Pakistan nation as well. Pakistan is not on the side of its own people who are hungry and illiterate and have an absolutely hopeless future, if present conditions continue.
Then whose side is Pakistan? Pakistan is on the side of terrorism, religious extremism, war and insanity. While everyone believes that Pakistan is on China’s side, they are forgetting that few years back Pakistan had a much closer relationship with US, what the US mistook was partnership. they will surely betray China one day in future! However, there is a country on whose Pakistan may be comfortable: Saudi Arabia. Yes, right, you get the message! Peace.

TheUsualSuspect in reply to ratemin

Any reasonably well-informed person would be able to tell whatever idiot that proposed a random ineffectual attack against Pakistan like this that that was a dumb idea. It did almost nothing, endangered NATO's assets in Pakistan, and possibly fueled further support for the Taliban.

Never assume conspiracy at the top when incompetence at the bottom works just as well as an explanation.

Yukon Dave

In the united states, those that live in areas where the gangs are in control (think taliban) , the people know that the police will get in their cars and go home that night far away from the conflict. Those that live in that neighborhood (think pakistan) would move if they could afford it but cant.

In the end the locals do what they must to survive living in a neighborhood filled with thugs. Those in the nice parts of town still wonder why the locals did not hear any shots and did not see any crime. Some even call all those in the bad parts of town thugs and criminals.

Sound familiar?

More people are killed by gangs in Los Angeles then from terrorism in Israel every year. Due to hard work by the Israelis, Israel tragically lost 9 in 2011 while LA lost 624. About 4,486 American soldiers died in Iraq over 8 years while LA lost 4,916 since 2006.


TE may be missing several crucial points here.

1) As 'ENAsBetter' and 'Darwin's Toothpick' have alluded to below, this essay has not noted sufficiently, Pakistan's 'strategic interests' which are,

a) to maintain her importance as crucial to (in)stability (!) in Afghanistan

b) to continue to use 'non-state actors' [ read: Terrorist Groups, such as the Taliban and Lashkar-e-Toiba ] to cause trouble for India, Afghanistan and the USA
In the bombing of the US and Indian Embassies in Kabul, forensic evidence, such as the mobile phone calls made by the bombers, established clearly the direct involvement of the ISI. Useful to remember too that the Times Square Bomber, 'Shahzad", was helped by the Lashkar Toiba.

There are further points one could make in arguing that Pakistan is NOT the passive victim of US / NATO policies in the Af-Pak region.

2) It is well-known in the world of espionage that a "double agent" needs to provide genuine information / leads to the side he/she is spying on.

Thus, much of the help Pakistan has rendered INSAF is part of the "double game", which serves Pakistan's own 'Agenda'.

Pakistan's ultimate goal is to establish the supremacy of the Islamic world on every country in this world - the Western countries included.

Therefore, Pakistan's friendship with the USA and China is merely a means to this ultimate goal.

Therefore too, Pakistan would like to see a wholly Islamic government in Afghanistan, such as the one headed by Mullah Omar, after the Marxist government of Najibullah was ousted.

TheUsualSuspect in reply to Inshai

Three things. Firstly, "Conflicts of the twenty first century have no rough edges to smooth out rather hypersphere,in topological terms, informatics...." Could you clarify? I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with that type of jargon.

Second, "Chameleons of the size of the USA and others must learn new tricks of the trade..." I'm not even going to get into the second part of that sentence (I disagree with it, for the record), but how exactly is the US a chameleon? It's obvious whose side the US is on- the US's side.

Just curious, where did you get the figure of $1.41 trillion expenditures by the US on Afghanistan?
A source would be interesting to see.
I ask because it seems more likely that expenditures over the past decade for Iraq and Afghanistan combined would breach $1 trillion.
I didn't read this in detail, but has an analysis up to the 2012 budget request -
I think total anticipated expenditures on Afghanistan was like $557 billion (including fiscal year 2012). Not sure it includes civilian aid, or whether any aid to Pakistan directly related to operations in Afghanistan.
Otherwise, if the Taleban didn't deem it so important to host Al Qaeda back in the late 1990s, the US would not think much of Afghanistan. Pretty much ignored the country in the 1990s aside from an air strike by Bill Clinton.
None of the points above make much sense considering the landlocked and unstable nature of Afghanistan and the close proximity of to several of the polities supposedly the targets fo pressure or influence.
And it is something like 500 miles from the Caspian sea, so not so pressing to be in Afghanistan say as opposed to extending influence in Kazakhstan, Turkemenistan, Azerbaijan or heck, even Uzbekistan..


The rise of Taliban was due to the US and Pakistan - the initial victim was India and then the whole world with US being the main target.

As far as Asia is concerned, their is no sympathy for the Americans and the Pakistanis. The sadness is because of the suffering of the Afghan population and the US is directly to be blamed for it's Asian meddling.

Best wishes

Kishore Nair from Mumbai

Solace777 in reply to takeiteasy

your argument can not be any more ignorant. Labelling a country or even an entire government to be supporting "terrorism and religious extremism" is a narrow-minded approach. Please be more mature about it and why even label Saudi Arabia as a "terrorist-loving country"? just because they don't agree with the superpower they are terrorists? please sir, respect others. you get the message! Peace.


Pakistan, like everyone else, is on its own side, that's nothing wrong about it.

the "trust deficit" between america & pakistan is immmense, pakistan inherited the deficit from the previous afghan war, and it looks america is surely to do it again. if you are pakistan, what will you do?

america is on its way out, pakistan and taliban are here to stay, so pakistan must hedge its position.

as for its big neighbour india, there's no trust deficit, they know each other too well, the good thing is the indians don't hide their good will towards their neighbour, just read the posts put out by the indian cohorts.


Pakistan is on Pakistan's side. That much should be obvious by now to everyone. It should also be obvious that India has no room in Afghanistan. ISAF should be supported as long as they are not acting against Pakistan's interests.

In return, Pakistan should support a secular, democratic Afghanistan. Pashtuns (minus Taliban) should be included in Afghanistan. Pakistan should be supported to guard both sides of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, if Afghanistan cannot do it alone.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Car technology: Turbocharged
Schumpeter July 12th, 9:00
Gun laws: Prayers and pistols
Democracy in America July 11th, 17:43
Daily chart: Justice on trial
Graphic detail July 11th, 13:40


Products and events



