Sooner or later US has to realize that its Afghan troubles are directly tied to Pakistan’s support and shelter of Afghan Taliban networks safely ensconced in Quetta and North Waziristan.

Sooner or later US has to question Pakistan’s bonafides about wanting to fight the scurge of terrorism haunting US Afghan mission.

Sooner or later US has to stop ignoring Afghan Taliban’s Pakistani connections in fueling and sustaining Afghan insurgency as reported by Matt Waldman in ‘The sun in the sky‘ on 6/13/2010, corroborated by WikiLeaks leaks on 7/25/2010 and then further corroborated by Chris Alexander, Canadian ambassador to Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005 and Deputy Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Afghanistan from 2005 until 2009 in his article on 7/30/2010 titled ‘The huge scale of Pakistan‘s complicity‘.

It is NO use keep giving billions of dollars to an ally who wants to keep playing the duplicitous game of running with the hares while hunting with the hounds.

Only way US can eradicate this terrorist threat emanating from Pakistan is to invade and occupy Pakistan for a sustained period of time (atleast five years) to wipe out the terrorist threat to US and the world, safely ensconced not just in tribal areas but in the entire state of Pakistan

And after ten long years of war in Afghanistan, with the American people tired of it, US has neither the desire nor the resources to do so.

With an ally like Pakistan, US Afghan mission was doomed to fail right from the beginning.

The big issue is the fact that we are trying to imply Western World culture and thinking on a country that is not ready for it. Trying to impose our way of law, administration and living is a long, tiring road, its time to cut ties in terms of trying to legislate how those countries are run.

Just as we have, other countries need to gain more independence and learn what is right for them.
Todd, SEO Company

"But Pakistan's problems are political, not technocratic, and so long as the country continues to be lead by urbanized feudals who stash their wealth in Dubai and London, the deep problems will not be acknowledged and prioritized where it counts."

I would hope that James Traub or those who know him read these comments and send it to him.

By comparing the relative evolution of Pakistan and India some definitive conclusions can be reached.

One is that the origin of Pakistan's problems are neither political nor technocratic, it is theocratic.

Here's a video that explains why: http://www.moorthymuthuswamy.com/Pakistan-India.html

By the way, I am author of a book that deals extensively on radical Islam in the south asian context.

The problem with most U.S. policymakers is that they overestimate their capacity to understand the compexity of the issues in far-off places like Pakistan and Afghanistan and their ability to deal with those.

Think about this….

More than one trillion dollars and nine years later the alleged and self-confessed master mind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has not been convicted. Osama bin Laden, Ayman Al-Zahwari, and Mullah Omar have not been caught, dead or alive; the Talibans instead of being eliminated are set to take over Kabul again, and Pakistan which hardly had a Taliban presence on September 11, 2001 has been rocked by bomb blasts and has had its worst year of violence since 2001. And Americans still cannot see what the problem is?

But then if their policies had a bit of wisdom, we never would have had Vietnam, Cambodia would not have been ruined, Shah of Iran would never have been allowed to suppress dissent, Afghanistan would not have been abandoned after 1989, and a just settlement of the Palestine conflict would have been achieved. It is easy to forget lessons of history in the confusion and noise of day-to-day reporting and in the age of 30 second sound bites of electronic media. And it is ok for much over-rated Newsweek and its editor to declare Pakistan as the most dangerous country and the home of Al Qaeda and confess, without much regret or shame, three years later that Al Qaeda is not really that deadly a threat.

Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski who started the American involvement in Afghanistan in 1978-1979 as President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser, warned the U.S. government about the potentially disastrous consequences of its foreign policy in a testimony before the U.S. senate foreign relations committee on February 1, 2007. “If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.”

He dismissed the fears about Al Qaeda saying: “A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD’s in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the “decisive ideological struggle” of our time.”

Yousuf Nazar

www.yousufnazar.com

You don't fix Afghanistan without Pakistan, and you don't fix Pakistan without India. What are we doing about India?

Mr. Traub, I think your article is well-written and insightful, especially the part at the end about viewing U.S. involvement in Pakistan (and similar places) through a longer-term lens.

I hope our policymakers eventually come to grips with the obvious futility of endeavoring to convert Pakistan from a theocratic, militant kleptocracy to a prosperous, liberal democracy, especially in anything close to the short term.

I mean, whatever happened to smart power? U.S. policymakers should be focused on A) learning about Pakistan's nuclear weapons, B) engaging in quiet counterintelligence and counterterrorism activities, C) supporting democratic, liberal institutions where possible and D) encouraging peace with India.

No further interest is warranted. Al-Qaida is a decimated organization that demands a counterterrorism response ONLY, not a ridiculously short-term, intensive nation-building program. Where's the strategic perspective here?

As soon as the U.S and Nato troops go away.. all this pak afghan terror situation should diffuse by itself as the U.S has been meddling in this region just for oil, strategic hand on China and to please India - owing to business interests. All this article and Pakistan Afghanistan word circus and not telling the real game behind U.S meddling for ages.. Just leave the poor third-world people alone and let them be and breath as they like.

While maligning Pakistan on jihadi culture, home grown terrorists and non state actors why people forget that Pakistan was subjected to these evils by CIA and Western Block in 1980's to fight against USSR. After acheiving their aims against USSR, Western World was contended enough to abandon Pakistan on the mercy of this monster and live a peaceful life thousands of miles away.

Pakistan has paid a huge price of collaborating with Western War against USSR and still Pakistani Policy makers have not learned from the past. Rather assuming the postion of front line state in War against Terror, was it not a better course to remain neutral in this conflict? yes of course it was a better option, from a Pakistani perspective if you see.

Pakistan has paid a price of economic loss worth 45 billion dollars , more than 12000 civilian casualities, more than 3000 soldiers killed, more than 150 suicide attacks on its citizens so far in this Western War . Did Us and Western allies compensated Pakistan this much? no...... certainly not...!!!!!

Western World should see Pakistan as a Partner not as a settilite state to coerce in acheiving their objectives. They should safeguard Pakistani Interests in the region rather than threaten "to bomb into stone age "If their demands are not met.! Unless the Pakistani Interests are looked after in the region, a vibrent media, an independent judiciary and more informed public may not allow any govt to bow infront of Western allies.

I think those days are gone, when a dictator in Pakistan kept all the institutions in his firm grip and masses ignorent and decide what ever he feels like..... The World should accept a changing Pakistan making heard its own voice....