[inam101]

I have a few questions about role of Pakistan in NATO war (war on terror) in Afghanistan.

First a little background:

• Pakistan shares a long border, 99% of which is informal, I mean, there is no border security forces on both sides, and there is no marking for border.
• The border region is very harsh and Pakistani military had never visited that region since the beginning of 1947.
• There were already more than 3 million afghan refugees (but only a few have returned now).
• After 911, USA asked Pakistan at gun-point to join the war or it will be sent to stone age.
• It can be clear that the above point is very humiliating for Pakistan being a nuclear power.
• USA put demands in front of Pakistan and expected that several will be met. But Pakistan accepted all the demands without any objection.

Second a little analogy
In common life, if someone powerful puts a gun at my face in front of my friends and family and ask me to join him in a long journey for a war in which there is very little for me, and then later I find several opportunities to play a double game, I will definitely do so. I think it is human nature.



Now the questions
Pakistani double game cost NATO the whole war, and they achieved very little in 13-14 years of a war in a country with very technologically poor enemy.
When USA and NATO knew the nature of joining Pakistan in the war on terror,and they saw that Pakistan fulfilled all demands made by USA,

• Why didn't they knew that Pakistan has a grudge?
• Why was a double game from Pakistan not logical/expected to them?
• When they saw that Pakistan is playing double game, why didn't they try to locate its reasons?
• Why their military commanders and political leaders of two parties doesn't (apparently) recognize this even until now?

I think reasons of Pakistani double game are:

1. Joining by force in a war.
2. Geopolitical and economical constraints of Pakistan about which NATO didn't care.

Thanks

[fuser]

After 911, USA asked Pakistan at gun-point to join the war or it will be sent to stone age.

I am not sure its entirely true while I will agree that they went in rather reluctantly, I don't think they were forced into it via a threat of any sort of military action. Care to expand on this point, any sources to prove this point that US threatened Pakistan?

Why was a double game from Pakistan not logical/expected to them?

You are claiming that Pakistan's double game is because of a feeling of grudge, I don't think that's the case, Pakistan is basically looking out for its own interests, it neither can afford to loose US backing nor it can alienate the tribes in the region, so she is doing what she perceive to be something that can manage both concerns successfully.

Why their military commanders and political leaders of two parties doesn't (apparently) recognize this even until now?

They do know. But there is no other choice given the strategic location of Pakistan and successful joint operation of Pakistani and US intelligence in Afghanistan during Soviet invasion of the country, if not Pakistan then who? Iran? China? Pakistan is the only option US got in the region and hence Pakistani deviations from US plans can be ignored.

[Far-Right Sage]

I think he's referring to former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney's reported threat, which was repeated by Musharraf, that he was threatened Pakistan would be "bombed back to the Stone Age" if Islamabad didn't comply, deal with the Haqqani network, and support/help facilitate U.S. and ISAF operations in Afghanistan.

[inam101]

I am not sure its entirely true while I will agree that they went in rather reluctantly, I don't think they were forced into it via a threat of any sort of military action. Care to expand on this point, any sources to prove this point that US threatened Pakistan?

The link for the gun-point reference: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/wor ... moir_x.htm

You are claiming that Pakistan's double game is because of a feeling of grudge, I don't think that's the case,

I mean, the grudge is one reason besides geopolitical and economical constraints. Musharraf was a foji (commando soldier, from special services group (SSG)), and it was also a matter of cowardice and shame. So, the grudge had a major part.

They do know. But there is no other choice...

If they knew, why didn't they save the trillion dollar war by extensively bribing Pakistan for a few billion dollars. Instead they were putting several obstacles in paying the amount for using Pakistani roads and airspace for transportation and the airbases expenses?

[fuser]

The link for the gun-point reference: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/wor ... moir_x.htm

Sorry but I won't take Musharraf word for word, To me it look likes to be targeted at a very specific group for consumption, it just seems to be an excuse (we had no choice), probably it might even be true (although I doubt it is) but regardless I won't take Musharraf's word for it.

If they knew, why didn't they save the trillion dollar war by extensively bribing Pakistan for a few billion dollars. Instead they were putting several obstacles in paying the amount for using Pakistani roads and airspace for transportation and the airbases expenses?

I don't understand you here.

Also foji is not commondo solider, its just solider, fauj is army, fauji is army man, I don't think a word exist in urdu/hindi that literally translates into 'commando', sorry for nitpicking this irrelevant matter but yeah, Musharraf was indeed from special services.

[inam101]

Quote:
If they knew, why didn't they save the trillion dollar war by extensively bribing Pakistan for a few billion dollars. Instead they were putting several obstacles in paying the amount for using Pakistani roads and airspace for transportation and the airbases expenses?

I don't understand you here.

USA had a war in Afghanistan for 13-14 years which cost thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. At the end, when USA is leaving, nothing has changed in Afghanistan. Taliban are still the same powerful.
One major reason is: double game from Pakistan. If Pakistan was able to stop the cross-border traffic of Taliban and other secret help to Taliban, then the situation would be very different.

Why Pakistan played double game?:

• USA was lousy in providing the costs of using Pakistani airbases, roads, and airspace for transportation.
• Pakistan had little resources and weaker economy.
• Pakistan was not happy with USA.
• Other geopolitical interests.

Most of the above problems of Pakistan could be solved by a little economic help, or lets name it: proper bribes.
The economic help would be at most 50 billion USD.
It would have enabled USA to change the shape of war in Afghanistan and win the war.
But it got nothing despite spending trillions of dollars.

The question is: why?

I hope the points are clearer.

Thanks

[One Degree]

I hope the points are clearer.

So basically you are unhappy because the US did not give you a lot of money?

[inam101]

So basically you are unhappy because the US did not give you a lot of money?

Dear, I am asking a question due to some curiosity. You are trying to make it some personal issue.
I may be happy that USA didn't get what it wanted and failed to be a working hegemony due to a war in Afghanistan(world's most backward country).

I am asking a simple question: Why didn't USA political and military leaders didn't save the victory in an expensive war?

You are pointing fingers at me or my motives etc instead of answering or trying to answer the question.

[inam101]

I want to raise another point:

A nation or country can't learn from history when making political and military decisions.

A country or a nation can be scientifically and technologically advanced,
but

can a country or nation be politically and policy-making-wise advanced?

In science, each new generation is standing on shoulders of giants of the past generations,
but in Politics, each generation is as backward as the previous generations.

So, the combined point is:
The reason that USA couldn't save an expensive war in Afghanistan is
because they are backward in politics and socially and in military-wise decision making.

OR

even though USA has been a democracy for more than 150 years,
and there are great politics related scholars filling hundreds of universities and think-tanks
but still USA is backward in politics.

Is this the nature of Politics?

Thanks

[One Degree]

USA had a war in Afghanistan for 13-14 years which cost thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. At the end, when USA is leaving, nothing has changed in Afghanistan. Taliban are still the same powerful.
One major reason is: double game from Pakistan. If Pakistan was able to stop the cross-border traffic of Taliban and other secret help to Taliban, then the situation would be very different.

Why Pakistan played double game?:
USA was lousy in providing the costs of using Pakistani airbases, roads, and airspace for transportation.
Pakistan had little resources and weaker economy.
Pakistan was not happy with USA.
Other geopolitical interests.

It appears you are saying that Pakistan chose to aide the Taliban because we did not pay them not to.
Afghanistan was a failure because we did not pay Pakistan to close their border and end their support.
We did not pay you what you thought you deserved for airbases, etc.
What else am I suppose to get from your statements?
It's all about the money.

[inam101]

It's all about the money.

That is what I am talking about.
Why USA didn't save its money?
Why USA didn't save its war?
Why USA didn't want to win the war in Afghanistan?

I think I am asking about a simple Maths problem.

Saving a small amount of money on cheap oil will destroy my expensive car.
Why not get a little expensive oil to keep the car safe?

Thanks