Just to play devils advocate but what happens if they stop sheltering terrorists in the big cities (I will take your word for it) succesfully. Then how do they resolve the issue of the FATA and the Afghani Taliban that shelter there and launch raids across the border?
That's never going away. So the war in Afghanistan will just go on and on and on. I think once we get the Afghani military trained and equipped to a point that they can hold their own against the Taliban we should withdraw and leave them to it.
There would have been some juicy contracts for US defence companies when the Afghani armed forces was raised and equipped initially. Might as well milk it for all its worth.
As for the US giving the Pakistanis aid. I don't really care either way.
Sometimes it's better to keep your friends close but enemies closer.
Potentially dangerous move to give up any friendliness posturing and purse jingling towards public hostility and confrontation. Who knows just how important their intel is to our WoT.
Pakistan is very capable of stirring a bunch of shit up that can mean major trouble for us.
I think we're doing a disservice evaluating this tweet based on the potential merits of his stance. An unprovoked slam on a foreign state who functions as a strategic ally published via twitter completely disconnected from the state department, UN, our allies, and any actual backbone in established foreign policy is a reckless and hazardous act. And it makes me wonder why Trump chose to make the tweet at that particular moment.
Pakistan is hella scared of the US. they consider US the big daddy and one of the few countries, that can bring the Pak army's indirect rule to a end real quick. It's important to understand pak army has been running the country, blackmailing the political leaders , killing and living the life as kingmakers in a wretched feudal society. When Bush went and theatended war and Armitage mentioned that he would reduce Pakistan to the stone age, there was immediate turnaround in Afghanistan and relations with India for a few months. Then the state dept charlatans got in and it was back to business.
pakistan only understands force and when big daddy walks into the room with a stick; they listen right away. Now they are aligning with China, who they think can counteract the US, but the chinese are not stupid enough to give unqualified blank checks.
I’m fine with cutting both.
No they're not, this might've been true after 9/11 & Rumsfeld(?) threats but not anymore. Not when their latest sugar dad China is pouring billions, trying to make it their colony ~Pakistan is hella scared of the US. they consider US the big daddy and one of the few countries, that can bring the Pak army's indirect rule to a end real quick. It's important to understand pak army has been running the country, blackmailing the political leaders , killing and living the life as kingmakers in a wretched feudal society. When Bush went and theatended war and Armitage mentioned that he would reduce Pakistan to the stone age, there was immediate turnaround in Afghanistan and relations with India for a few months. Then the state dept charlatans got in and it was back to business.
pakistan only understands force and when big daddy walks into the room with a stick; they listen right away. Now they are aligning with China, who they think can counteract the US, but the chinese are not stupid enough to give unqualified blank checks.
https://www.reddit.com/r/China/comm...n_eli5_on_how_china_fucked_their_own/czc7g6d/That's what the beltroad bullshit's all about. China has overcapacity and wants a way to dump it on everyone else. There are reasons why the IMF and Worldbank won't finance crazy projects for tiny poor countries... because it flat out enslaves them and nothing good comes from it. This is the shit China's pushing though. And hey look at that, without fail every last economy that went all-in on China is fucking hurting now. There's the lesson to be learned.
If it's just blustering and threats, that's all well and fine. I don't really trust twitter diplomacy and the temperament of Trump to thread this needle.
I have no doubts our military is capable of breaking the Pak military handily, just as we did with Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq. The problem is always "what comes next." For us, it's been a multiple decade, multi-trillion$ quagmire that can't be governed and stabilized.
Don't think we need a third one of these, esp in a country that has nuclear weapons? Oh yeah, then there's that NK thing too...
So I would say we have guns pointed at each other's heads. Best option is to be cool with each other, but watch and push carefully.
I'd much rather cut Saudi aid.
I was curious and actually looked up the amount you guys give themI'd much rather cut Saudi aid.
I was curious and actually looked up the amount you guys give them
$732,875
Trump's base responds well to demonization of the Other. Pandering to them is what passes for policy in the Trump White House. It's foreign policy by whims of domestic politics.
In pictures-
Nonetheless, why Pakistan? Why now? It seems like an easy target on the foreign stage that supports his idea that the US is coddling foreign states. I think that this is pivotal, especially because they aren't at the center of anything acutely going on right now. I liken the behavior to that of a man who gets yelled at by his boss then goes home and kicks his dog.
Or maybe a man who violently sexually assaults his wife because his scalp reduction surgery hurts.
If he aggravates the Pakis to a sufficient degree we'll be forced out of Afghanistan & we'll have somebody to blame other than ourselves. Or he just needs some Muslims to demonize to justify his moves wrt Israel. Or just because it froths up the base & keeps them nicely irrational & under his spell. Or just to stay in the Headlines.
It's Trump. None of it really makes sense.
I disagree with that. But I work in a psych hospital, so I'm more used to interpreting the behavior of irrational people. Failing to find logical consistency in Trump's positions, behavior, and speech is driving a lot of people to think they are missing some motivation or facts necessary to make sense of things. I think what makes no sense is expecting logical consistency in the first place.
I think we have a right to expect logical consistency in our President. As you say, there is none outside the context of narcissism when it comes to Trump. In that, he's quite consistent.
There is definitely the Bush Benefit. If anybody other than a Bush had been President on 9/11, the House of Saud would have ceased to exist on 9/12.I wasn't thinking direct monetary.
There is a endless supply of angry jihadis going to fight against the tajiks and the "northerners" non pashtuns. You have to understand, pakistan has half of pahstun land and so the "leadership" ensconced in the big cities, help with funding , radicalization and arms dissemination. The Pak army then supplies money, intelligence and weapons to the leadership who safely prioritize which part of Afghanistan they are gonna hit.
when they think the US is not paying attention they hit a few US kaffirs as well , so that the US then gives the pak army more money to protect the routes and for catching low level taliban. I mean they have the milking of US lives and money into an art. Their economy is run on aid from foreign countries. More than half their economy [ over and underground] is run by the Army. Imagine this, the army running cement factories, farming. Pakistan is truly a jihadi army that has a country
so to answer your question, let's say the top leadership killed in Afghanistan [ if they have no sanctuaries in Pak], no arms , training and safe haven sent to militant groups by the Pak army/ISI, the groups fighting within Afghanistan will be rolled up very quickly [kinda like how the US kicked all the Taliban ass and beat the shit out of them in 2001 in three weeks or so], the conflict will come to an end real soon
No way man, way too much money to be made; this is war a-go-go.are we done with our global war on drugs yet?
Oh yeah we have a right to expect that of our president. And I don't fault anyone for struggling with it. I'm just pointing out what I see and how it's failing us. I think we have a right to expect our president not to be a sex offender. And the right to expect our president to be transparent about his finances and divest his business interests from his political post. And the right to expect our president not to declare major media outlets categorically "fake news". And the right to expect our president to consult with his staff before firing off tweets. And the right to expect our president to consult with his staff period -- or at least inform them of his impending behavior. And there's a whole lot more.
We have a right to expect much different, but we aren't getting it. I think we have to grieve those expectations and try to keep what might be reasonable professional behavior from confounding our analysis of what he provides.