Pakistan’s Impending Defeat in Afghanistan

[AnnoyingOrange]

---

---

This could be the first sign of Pakistani defeat in Afghanistan: Afghan Taliban deny taking orders from Pakistan - AlertNet

[Developereo]

...... while India sees a good opportunity to create a base for opening up Pakistan's western flank to a low grade conflict that will mire and bleed Pakistan, just like India in Kashmir.

That is why it s a great pity that Pakistan's policies have the distinct danger to create an adversary out of USA when that could have been easily avoided. Surely Pakistan must realize that USA as a partner is much more conducive to Pakistan's interests than an adversary that India will find to its liking in the Afghan theater.

I don't believe Pakistan had that option to begin with.

In my opinion, the US had decided long ago that its interests are better served by nurturing India as a thorn in China's side. Part of that strategy requires weakening Pakistan so it doesn't remain a thorn in India's side.

The US administration is not stupid. It knows that the best way to achieve stability in Afghanistan is with Pakistan's cooperation rather than by antagonizing it. The US knows that Pakistan is not married to the Taliban: if Pakistan could have been assured that its concerns would be properly addressed under a NATO Afghanistan, then Pakistan would have felt no need to hedge its bets and would have cooperated much more fully with NATO.

The only reason to sideline Pakistan is because American interests demand curtailing Pakistani influence in Afghanistan and installing an India-friendly regime.

[dk33]

...... while India sees a good opportunity to create a base for opening up Pakistan's western flank to a low grade conflict that will mire and bleed Pakistan, just like India in Kashmir.

That is why it s a great pity that Pakistan's policies have the distinct danger to create an adversary out of USA when that could have been easily avoided. Surely Pakistan must realize that USA as a partner is much more conducive to Pakistan's interests than an adversary that India will find to its liking in the Afghan theater.

Some analysts are arguing that the US has already, for a while now been 'opening up Pakistan's Western flanks through a low grade conflict/terrorism'.

“Bring ’em on!” – US tells Pakistan

June 28, 2012
M K Bhadrakumar

Is the United States starting a low-intensity war against Pakistan? The signs look ominous. Washington’s wrath will only increase in the coming months.


Is the United States starting a low-intensity war against Pakistan? The signs look ominous. The relentless drone attacks through the recent months are destabilizing Pakistan’s tribal areas, especially the areas adjacent to the border with Afghanistan. The US’ excuse is that the drones are hunting down the militants belonging to the so-called Haqqani group. But they are causing a lot of civilian casualties so much so that the United Nations officials begin to wonder if these wanton killings would constitute ‘war crimes’.

Indeed, the destruction caused by the drones is fuelling antagonism in the minds of the people who live in the tribal areas. They blame their government in Islamabad for doing nothing to protect them. On its part, Pakistan government keeps protesting to the US about the violation of its territorial integrity but the US ignores the demarches and continues with the drone attacks.

The US would know that the drone attacks do not provide the conducive setting for a normalization of the US-Pakistan relationship. Yet, it is not prepared to give up the drone attacks. There seems to a game plan to systematically destabilize the Waziristan area and to provoke the Pakistani military leadership.

Meanwhile, there has been a concerted attack by assorted militants of dubious backgrounds on Pakistani troops from across the border in Afghanistan. Exactly who they are or who are their mentors no one knows. In a cross-border strike on Monday, the militants used extremely brutal method to behead Pakistani soldiers. Evidently, they were making a point – showing their thumbs up at the Pakistani military leadership.

To add to the tensions, for the first time, the militants have publicly admitted that they do enjoy ‘safe haven’ on Afghan soil. This is something Pakistan has hinted at in recent period but it is now coming into the open. Again, they are taunting the Pakistani military leadership. The former US President George W. Bush would say, “Bring ‘em on!”

Coinciding with these developments, US’ commander in Afghanistan John Allen undertakes a visit to the Pakistani Army Headquarters in Rawalpindi on Wednesday, ostensibly for the purpose of discussing the reopening of the NATO’s supply routes through Pakistan. But his real intention would have been to fathom the mood of the generals in Rawalpindi following these provocations. He probably wished to reinforce the signal to the Pakistani side that the US might hit back at Pakistan with cross-border terrorism unless Pakistan cracked down on the Haqqani group. Allen did this nicely and diplomatically – but unambiguously – by proposing ‘joint operations’ by the US and Pakistan forces along the border region.

Allen met the Pakistani army chief Parvez Kayani in a one-on-one meeting. Kayani seems to have protested about the safe havens available for the militants on Afghan soil and called on the US-led coalition troops in Afghanistan to stop “miscreant attacks on Pakistani border posts.”

This is going to be a cat-and-mouse game. Pakistan is hunkering down and the US is losing patience. The decision in Washington seems to be to carry the war into Pakistani territory and incrementally inflict such unbearable losses that Pakistan finds it impossible to defy the US’ regional strategies.

Quite obviously, the US has concluded it has no alternatives but to step up the pressure and escalate tensions in a calibrated way. The US has been taken by surprise at Pakistan’s ‘strategic defiance’. The fact of the matter is that the present directions of Pakistani foreign policy hold the serious threat of undermining the US’ regional strategies with regard to permanent military presence in Central Asia, US’ containment strategy toward China (and Russia), projection of the NATO as a global security organization and of course the so-called New Silk Road Initiative.

The possibility that with Russian and/or Chinese participation, Pakistan might proceed with the Iran gas pipeline project infuriates the US to no end. Pakistan’s manifest enthusiasm for Russia’s participation in the TAPI [Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India] gas pipeline project rubbishes the US’ expectations that American companies could secure lucrative energy contracts via involvement in the project. The US apprehends that during the visit by Russian President Vladimir Putin to Pakistan in September, the two countries may begin a qualitatively new level of relationship with major projects in the energy sector.
If that happens, the US’ containment strategy toward Iran also begins to unravel.

In sum, the US’ patience is wearing thin. The common wisdom in the international community, historically speaking, has been that the Pakistani elites with their comprador mentality might say a few hot words now and then but would ultimately be loyal foot soldiers of the US agenda. The basis of this supposition is that ultimately the class interests of the Pakistani elites would prevail as the crucial determinant of statecraft. Of course, the US has had to pick up the tab for the services rendered by Pakistan but that was only to be expected.

The US establishment has been attuned to this paradigm characteristic of the cold-war era. That is why the US establishment is shocked to see that the Pakistani elites (military leadership, in particular) are no longer what they were supposed to be – Washington’s hirelings serving the US’ global agenda.

Washington’s wrath will only increase in the coming months. We are witnessing the commencement of a US-inspired low-intensity war against Pakistan being waged by obscure militant groups based in ‘safe havens’ inside Afghanistan. Call it by whatever name one likes, but the project aims at breaking Pakistan’s strategic autonomy.

To be sure, Pakistan comprehends what is going on. But what are its policy options? ‘Hot pursuit’ across the border into Afghanistan across formidable terrain may seem an option. But it isn’t an option. It may turn out to be a trap, as the US may also choose the precedent and send its own troops into Pakistan. Carefully planted media leaks recently revealed that the thought of cross-border attacks on Afghanistan by US troops did cross the American mind more than once in the past. Suffice to say, Allen’s proposal to Kayani on ‘joint operations’ is a double-edged sword.

“Bring ’em on!� – US tells Pakistan | Russia & India Report

This could be the first sign of Pakistani defeat in Afghanistan: Afghan Taliban deny taking orders from Pakistan - AlertNet

Not really, the Afghan Taliban have stated the same numerous times over the past several years.

Btw , if you really wanted Afghanistan to be sovereign and independent you should not worry about what policy they have towards you .

That is an invalid argument - any country would worry about a neighboring State that did not accept ones territorial integrity or existence. Pakistan's concerns over Afghanistan are not merely tied into some paranoia about 'friendship between Afghanistan and India', but to concerns based on history of a lack of acceptance of Pakistan's territorial integrity, and the potential for Afghanistan to tie up with India to inflame conflict within Pakistan to achieve its goals.

As has been argued numerous times, if Afghanistan really does not pose a threat to Pakistan, then it can unilaterally declare the current border between Pakistan and Afghanistan (which is recognized as the international border in the UN and across the world) as the international border. Such a move would go a long way in assuaging Pakistani concerns over Afghan intentions towards Pakistan.

[nick_indian]

If USA would have Won Then we would have lost as india would have been sitting in Afg after US left , however Neither did US Won nor is India going to be able to stay in Afg after US left , so no We have not lost yet .

I don't quite know how you came to this judgement .Firstly the Americans are not leaving Afghanistan in 2014 . When they will really leave like in Iraq , nobody knows .So whether India will be there or not nobody knows yet .

What do you mean by India will be sitting there anyway ?
Are you saying that you don't want Afghanistan to have friendly ties with India and you don't want any Indian presence there of any kind ?

Some analysts are arguing that the US has already, for a while now been 'opening up Pakistan's Western flanks through a low grade conflict/terrorism'.

“Bring ’em on!” – US tells Pakistan

June 28, 2012
M K Bhadrakumar

Is the United States starting a low-intensity war against Pakistan? The signs look ominous. Washington’s wrath will only increase in the coming months.


Is the United States starting a low-intensity war against Pakistan? The signs look ominous. The relentless drone attacks through the recent months are destabilizing Pakistan’s tribal areas, especially the areas adjacent to the border with Afghanistan. The US’ excuse is that the drones are hunting down the militants belonging to the so-called Haqqani group. But they are causing a lot of civilian casualties so much so that the United Nations officials begin to wonder if these wanton killings would constitute ‘war crimes’.

Indeed, the destruction caused by the drones is fuelling antagonism in the minds of the people who live in the tribal areas. They blame their government in Islamabad for doing nothing to protect them. On its part, Pakistan government keeps protesting to the US about the violation of its territorial integrity but the US ignores the demarches and continues with the drone attacks.

The US would know that the drone attacks do not provide the conducive setting for a normalization of the US-Pakistan relationship. Yet, it is not prepared to give up the drone attacks. There seems to a game plan to systematically destabilize the Waziristan area and to provoke the Pakistani military leadership.

Meanwhile, there has been a concerted attack by assorted militants of dubious backgrounds on Pakistani troops from across the border in Afghanistan. Exactly who they are or who are their mentors no one knows. In a cross-border strike on Monday, the militants used extremely brutal method to behead Pakistani soldiers. Evidently, they were making a point – showing their thumbs up at the Pakistani military leadership.

To add to the tensions, for the first time, the militants have publicly admitted that they do enjoy ‘safe haven’ on Afghan soil. This is something Pakistan has hinted at in recent period but it is now coming into the open. Again, they are taunting the Pakistani military leadership. The former US President George W. Bush would say, “Bring ‘em on!”

Coinciding with these developments, US’ commander in Afghanistan John Allen undertakes a visit to the Pakistani Army Headquarters in Rawalpindi on Wednesday, ostensibly for the purpose of discussing the reopening of the NATO’s supply routes through Pakistan. But his real intention would have been to fathom the mood of the generals in Rawalpindi following these provocations. He probably wished to reinforce the signal to the Pakistani side that the US might hit back at Pakistan with cross-border terrorism unless Pakistan cracked down on the Haqqani group. Allen did this nicely and diplomatically – but unambiguously – by proposing ‘joint operations’ by the US and Pakistan forces along the border region.

Allen met the Pakistani army chief Parvez Kayani in a one-on-one meeting. Kayani seems to have protested about the safe havens available for the militants on Afghan soil and called on the US-led coalition troops in Afghanistan to stop “miscreant attacks on Pakistani border posts.”

This is going to be a cat-and-mouse game. Pakistan is hunkering down and the US is losing patience. The decision in Washington seems to be to carry the war into Pakistani territory and incrementally inflict such unbearable losses that Pakistan finds it impossible to defy the US’ regional strategies.

Quite obviously, the US has concluded it has no alternatives but to step up the pressure and escalate tensions in a calibrated way. The US has been taken by surprise at Pakistan’s ‘strategic defiance’. The fact of the matter is that the present directions of Pakistani foreign policy hold the serious threat of undermining the US’ regional strategies with regard to permanent military presence in Central Asia, US’ containment strategy toward China (and Russia), projection of the NATO as a global security organization and of course the so-called New Silk Road Initiative.

The possibility that with Russian and/or Chinese participation, Pakistan might proceed with the Iran gas pipeline project infuriates the US to no end. Pakistan’s manifest enthusiasm for Russia’s participation in the TAPI [Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India] gas pipeline project rubbishes the US’ expectations that American companies could secure lucrative energy contracts via involvement in the project. The US apprehends that during the visit by Russian President Vladimir Putin to Pakistan in September, the two countries may begin a qualitatively new level of relationship with major projects in the energy sector.
If that happens, the US’ containment strategy toward Iran also begins to unravel.

In sum, the US’ patience is wearing thin. The common wisdom in the international community, historically speaking, has been that the Pakistani elites with their comprador mentality might say a few hot words now and then but would ultimately be loyal foot soldiers of the US agenda. The basis of this supposition is that ultimately the class interests of the Pakistani elites would prevail as the crucial determinant of statecraft. Of course, the US has had to pick up the tab for the services rendered by Pakistan but that was only to be expected.

The US establishment has been attuned to this paradigm characteristic of the cold-war era. That is why the US establishment is shocked to see that the Pakistani elites (military leadership, in particular) are no longer what they were supposed to be – Washington’s hirelings serving the US’ global agenda.

Washington’s wrath will only increase in the coming months. We are witnessing the commencement of a US-inspired low-intensity war against Pakistan being waged by obscure militant groups based in ‘safe havens’ inside Afghanistan. Call it by whatever name one likes, but the project aims at breaking Pakistan’s strategic autonomy.

To be sure, Pakistan comprehends what is going on. But what are its policy options? ‘Hot pursuit’ across the border into Afghanistan across formidable terrain may seem an option. But it isn’t an option. It may turn out to be a trap, as the US may also choose the precedent and send its own troops into Pakistan. Carefully planted media leaks recently revealed that the thought of cross-border attacks on Afghanistan by US troops did cross the American mind more than once in the past. Suffice to say, Allen’s proposal to Kayani on ‘joint operations’ is a double-edged sword.

“Bring ’em on!� – US tells Pakistan | Russia & India Report


Not really, the Afghan Taliban have stated the same numerous times over the past several years.


That is an invalid argument - any country would worry about a neighboring State that did not accept ones territorial integrity or existence. Pakistan's concerns over Afghanistan are not merely tied into some paranoia about 'friendship between Afghanistan and India', but to concerns based on history of a lack of acceptance of Pakistan's territorial integrity, and the potential for Afghanistan to tie up with India to inflame conflict within Pakistan to achieve its goals.

As has been argued numerous times, if Afghanistan really does not pose a threat to Pakistan, then it can unilaterally declare the current border between Pakistan and Afghanistan (which is recognized as the international border in the UN and across the world) as the international border. Such a move would go a long way in assuaging Pakistani concerns over Afghan intentions towards Pakistan.

So you are saying that until and unless Afghanistan accepts the Durand line , Pakistan will continue to harbor the Afghan Taliban and hold an entire nation to ransom ? It can't be anything else .

[Saleem]

you are wasting badwidth discussing something that is not there ---- the west european concept of "nation"-state (following the treaty of westphalia theory) ceased to exist after the invasion of afghanistan - the situation has now reverted to concept of nations on basis of faith -- thus the pakhtun & erstwhile pakistan are one nation ------

[dk33]

So you are saying that until and unless Afghanistan accepts the Durand line , Pakistan will continue to harbor the Afghan Taliban and hold an entire nation to ransom ? It can't be anything else .

I said nothing of the sort - I merely pointed out that fallacy in your argument that one State should not be concerned about the polices of another State towards it, when those policies involve one State trying to usurp the internationally recognized borders of the other State.

How the State chooses to 'modify the behavior' of the hostile state is a separate point.

[foxbat]

That is an invalid argument - any country would worry about a neighboring State that did not accept ones territorial integrity or existence. Pakistan's concerns over Afghanistan are not merely tied into some paranoia about 'friendship between Afghanistan and India', but to concerns based on history of a lack of acceptance of Pakistan's territorial integrity, and the potential for Afghanistan to tie up with India to inflame conflict within Pakistan to achieve its goals.

As has been argued numerous times, if Afghanistan really does not pose a threat to Pakistan, then it can unilaterally declare the current border between Pakistan and Afghanistan (which is recognized as the international border in the UN and across the world) as the international border. Such a move would go a long way in assuaging Pakistani concerns over Afghan intentions towards Pakistan.

And till that time, Pakistan will continue to use Taliban as a strategic asset against Kabul. Kind of sound similar to Pakistan's strategy against India for Kashmir. Hasnt this strategy caused enough damage in Pakistan yet without yielding any tangible results till date?

[dk33]

And till that time, Pakistan will continue to use Taliban as a strategic asset against Kabul. Kind of sound similar to Pakistan's strategy against India for Kashmir. Hasnt this strategy caused enough damage in Pakistan yet without yielding any tangible results till date?

See my response to nick_indian in post #39 above.

Both of you are conflating my argument that it is 'valid for a State to be concerned about another State that seeks to undermines its territorial integrity' with the argument over the 'tactics/strategy used by one State to modify the behavior of the hostile State'.

[nick_indian]

I said nothing of the sort - I merely pointed out that fallacy in your argument that one State should not be concerned about the polices of another State towards it, when those policies involve one State trying to usurp the internationally recognized borders of the other State.

How the State chooses to 'modify the behavior' of the hostile state is a separate point.

But that is the point to really discuss is it not ?

Ofcourse, Pakistan is concerned about what Afghanistan's policies will be towards it . I never said there is anything wrong with that .What is wrong is for a country to try to influence or coerce another country into adopting a friendly policy like India did with Lanka(LTTE) and what apparently Pakistan is doing with Afghanistan( Taliban). What is really the topic of debate is , what is Pakistan willing to do to ensure that Afghanistan does not adopta hostile policy towards Pak ?That has been the West's accusation that you continue to harbor The Afghan Taliban to ensure a Pak friendly govt. there .

This is not a separate point , this is the main point . Developoreo said previously in his post that if NATO would take care of Pakistan's concerns with India in Afghanistan then Pak may co-operate more fully with NATO .

Does it not obviously mean that Pak is not co-operating fully with NATO on the Afghan Taliban ? If there is another meaning then please educate me .

[funtoosh]

any way you look at it you lose (mrs robinson)

[KingMamba93]

The author is talking about a strategic defeat and not a military defeat .

I know what the author meant still could have been worded much better if she just wrote strategic before defeat.

This could be the first sign of Pakistani defeat in Afghanistan: Afghan Taliban deny taking orders from Pakistan - AlertNet

They DON'T take orders from Pakistan. That was never an issue, the issue was if they have safe havens in Pakistan.

PS- Even if they did hardly doubt they would admit to it.

Is this guy high? Pakistan need not win in Afghanistan. USA on the other hand has to win. Pakistan's view of Afghanistan has always been - if it is ours well and good, otherwise at least it will be screwed up for everyone else. So Pakistan has nothing to loose. They have already lost it with the fall of Taliban.

Exactly however although the Taliban have fallen they are not done. After 2014 give it 2-3 years max and they will regain control of the country that is why NATO is trying so hard to negotiate with them.

.

It is very clear that taliban will take over Afghanistan, No Second thought in that, In my Opinion Karzai Government can survive for next 5 years because of the equipment and Aid provided by US, Again a Civil War,After taliban take over, The situation will not be favour to paksitan as TTP and Lashkar E Islam are in bed with other factions of Taliban.

Regarding India: India can expect a rise in Insurgent attacks in Jammu & Kashmir as the NATO withdraws, As Pakistan will again concenterate on Kashmir front,

b) There is also another problem for pakistan, Unlike the Past, Indian Intelligence networks have been established a network in Tribal areas of paksitan, In the past Indian administration did'nt authorize covert operations against paksitan, But now present government is not like that. If paksitan tries to do in kashmir , India will also do something in Waziristan.

C) For United States: United States and their NATO counterparts have to heavily rely upon Drone attacks, Airstrikes for Future counter terroism purposes, They have to strengthen their homeland security, as Safe heavens available for militants is more now. For this may use airbases in Tajiskistan and uzbekistan.

Agreed with most points except TTP is not in bed with Afghan Taliban. In fact the Afghan Taliban have many times tried to persuade TTP to stop their war against Pakistan.

US, Russia join hands on Pakistan, Afghanistan | DAWN.COM

No country in the region except Pakistan wants Taliban rule in Afghanistan .Not Russia ,Not Central Asia , Not India ,Not China , Not Iran .

The Afghans do dislike their government but most of them still dread Taliban rule far more than democracy .Also do consider that 58 % of Afghan population in non-Pashtun who almost entirely not support the Taliban and even amongst the 42 % Pashutns of Afghanistan , there a major difference of opinion regarding the Taliban.

Pakistan is bound to lose this one .



To the bold part ,

And to what extent is Pakistan ready to go to ensure that Afghanistan doesn't have a hostile policy towards it ?That is where Pakistan's role in harbouring the Afghan Taliban comes in.

Btw , if you really wanted Afghanistan to be sovereign and independent you should not worry about what policy they have towards you . Today almost all Indian's neighbours have good relations with both china and Pakistan .We don't care . The same Pakistan will have to start allowing Afghanistan to formulate whatever foreign policy they want to even if it means Afghanistan laying claim to NWFP in Pakistan .



As long as American drones are there and American soldiers are there in Afghanistan which they will leave around 20,000 of post 2014, there is no way for Taliban to come back to rule Afghanistan.The ANA forces are also maturing now . The insurgency will continue for decades but they won't take over like they did in the 90s .

Wrong most of the population in Afghanistan figures the Taliban will soon come back into power. Some even prefer Taliban rule to that of foreign puppets.

BBC News - Why Taliban are so strong in Afghanistan

Not to mention the fact that the Taliban controls most of Afghanistan as we speak.

[tarrar]

Nothing new. Failure of US war on imaginary terrorists have failed completely & now they are looking at Pakistan so that they can throw all the blame on Pakistan. INSHAALLAH Pakistan will not be used a scape goat, US will pay & all the US military personal will continue to die in Afghanistan & suffer massive casualties.

This could be the first sign of Pakistani defeat in Afghanistan: Afghan Taliban deny taking orders from Pakistan - AlertNet

Lozzz on you.

[aakash_2410]

Ironically, the OP makes just as much sense if you reverse the participants and their proxies.

In other words, the Afghan situation can be summarized as follows: Pakistan's aim is to make sure Afghanistan doesn't revert to becoming a launchpad for anti-Pakistan proxy activity by India and others, as it has been in the past. Pakistan achieved that goal post-Soviet withdrawal, which is why the US had to step in and re-install a pro-India, pro-US puppet regime. This puppet is not welcome by most of the regional players, including Pakistan, China and Iran -- the only country that wants NATO presence in Afghanistan is India, for obvious and less-than-altruistic reasons.

Pakistan will have achieved victory if this puppet regime fails to gain legitimacy in Afghanistan and, judging by its abject unpopularity, Pakistan (and the other regional players) are winning against NATO's imposed order.

Absolutely wrong! The last thing Iran wants is Taliban back in power and similar case with China. They don't want to see Taliban back in power. EVERY SINGLE country in the world (the ones that matter to Afghanistan) doesn't want to see Talibans back, apart from Pakistan/Saudi Arabia.

In fact these 2 were the only countries who recognise Taliban rule along with UAE.

[VCheng]

I don't believe Pakistan had that option to begin with.

I would disagree. Pakistan had a great chance, now squandered, to continue to be a US ally. Both sides are at fault, USA for abandoing Pakistan post-USSR withdrawal in Afghanistan, and Pakistan for not realizing the magnitude of the changes in US policy brought on by 9/11 and thus playing by an obsolete rule book.

In my opinion, the US had decided long ago that its interests are better served by nurturing India as a thorn in China's side. Part of that strategy requires weakening Pakistan so it doesn't remain a thorn in India's side.

Again, I disagree. US interests would have been best served by having Pakistan as an ally. Indeed, what weakens Pakistan, such as a pitiful economy, dismal social development and failing governance, is not USA's fault at all, but it has now become convenient to paint it as the scapegoat for Pakistan's internal failings.

Both India and China are mature enough to see the value of economy-based growth and influence, and the futility of a cold war between them. India also realizes that with nuclear deterrence in place, the way to whittle Pakistan down to size lies in other non-military means, primarily economic. Thus, USA has very little leverage to influence this thinking in both China and India. After all, nobody is a fool in this game.

The US administration is not stupid. It knows that the best way to achieve stability in Afghanistan is with Pakistan's cooperation rather than by antagonizing it. The US knows that Pakistan is not married to the Taliban: if Pakistan could have been assured that its concerns would be properly addressed under a NATO Afghanistan, then Pakistan would have felt no need to hedge its bets and would have cooperated much more fully with NATO.

Well, consider that the "hedging its bets" strategy is what has landed Pakistan in the present predicament, and one can see that it has failed Pakistan terribly. It was ill-advised to begin with, but persisting with it has only deepened the hole that Pakistan has dug for itself. The old advice about the first thing to do when one finds oneself in a hole to stop digging any further is quite applicable in this case too.

The only reason to sideline Pakistan is because American interests demand curtailing Pakistani influence in Afghanistan and installing an India-friendly regime.

Not at all. Indian interests demand that, not USA's. Pakistan's failed policies have side-lined it, but like I have said before, those who have made the policies are finding it convenient to direct the blame on to USA, instead of where it belongs: at home.

Some analysts are arguing that the US has already, for a while now been 'opening up Pakistan's Western flanks through a low grade conflict/terrorism'.............................

....... but only because Pakistan is failing to do what needs to be done.I have said before, and I will say it agian: All of FATA will be cleaned up, one way or another. Either Pakistan does it, with US help if need be, or it will be done for them by "other means".

[KingMamba93]

---

---

Absolutely wrong! The last thing Iran wants is Taliban back in power and similar case with China. They don't want to see Taliban back in power. EVERY SINGLE country in the world (the ones that matter to Afghanistan) doesn't want to see Talibans back, apart from Pakistan/Saudi Arabia.

In fact these 2 were the only countries who recognise Taliban rule along with UAE.

Iran, China, and Russia don't care who is in charge as long as Afghanistan doesn't become a training ground for their terrorists. The proof is in the pudding per say as Iran and Russia have recently gotten closer with Pakistan as they see the return of the Taliban inevitable.