The author of this article writes as if the unholy profit complex between the Pentagon™ and Islamabad has nothing to do with keeping a venal army institutionally in power in Islamabad through military aid that is fed back into the US economy with significant arms purchases.

It takes a great deal of naivete to discount the military industrial complex (or GovCorp) motives and it's perpetual war/fiat currency model imposed on as much as the world as it possibly can.

The writer needs to move on from the breast feeding of trivial double speak as spouted by the proponents of the Council for Foreign Relations and move on to some solids but in the mean time a period of silence on the subject of who needs to do what is in order. Particularly when the 'new new bad guys' are simply bad people without Pentagon™ sponsorship.

The author never examines whether this motivation of the Pakistan army is based in fact or not. Fear of India is a bogeyman that helps keep the Pakistan army in power.

The Pakistan army has become a leech that drains the country of treasure. It is a mafia whose budget no one dares to question. The only reason given for continuing to pamper army officers is the one that this author continues to propagate: that only the army can deliver, only the army is effective, only the army is free of corruption. And with our long engagement in Pakistan, we have been an enabler of this army, at the expense of the people of Pakistan.

This advice is bad and will make the situation worse. This madness has to end. It is time to call the Pakistan army's bluff, for the sake of Pakistan.

Good article. However, I think there are also historic ethno-geographic reasons for Pakistan's support of the Taliban, namely tthat a large portion of both Pakistan and Afghanistan are Pashtun.

I also think that, until recently, supporting the Taliban enabled the government to avoid Islamist pressure.

But I think to paint the Army or the ISI with such broad brushstrokes is unfair. It is likely that there are factions within each that support the Taliban while others do not.

Quote: Pakistan and Afghanistan "are natural adversaries"

Education: That's because Pakistan has traditionally run Afghanistan as its colony. Pakistanis are hated in Afghanistan for this reason. That is the reason that any representative regime in Afghanistan will hate Pakistan. If this sounds like bluster, google for "strategic depth". It is the Pakistani army's thought process that they consider Afghanistan to be their backyard where they can do as they please.

Quote: Indians, long angered by Pakistani support for jihadi groups in Kashmir, sense a golden opportunity to threaten Pakistan.

Education: India is not in Afghanistan with offensive capabilities. It is there to prevent Pakistan from using it as a terrorist base. Under Taliban rule, Pakistan systematically ran Kashmiri terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. India is unlikely to be a spectator while Pakistan tries to return to that state of affairs.

Quote: the Pakistan Army is the only force in Pakistani society capable of preventing a jihadi takeover of the state

Education: Pakistani voters have never voted for jihadists. The army which created the jihadists and continues to sponsor them loves to show boat that they can prevent a jihadi takeover. But they have a vested interest in their continued existence otherwise they lose their raison d'être.

Quote: The Pakistani army turned the Pakistani Taliban into an enemy when it sent forces into the tribal areas looking for al Qaeda in response to U.S. pressure

Education: The Pakistani army did that because the Pakistani Taliban attacked the Pakistani government and the Pakistani army. The American pressure was convenient for the Pakistani army to show the US as the bad guys in the process.

Quote: Although the Pakistanis may harbor doubts about their ability to restrain Taliban ambitions over time. ….. the Haqqanis are the Afghan Taliban group most favored by Islamabad and over whom it has the most control

Education: Over Time? The Pakistanis CLAIM that they cannot control the Haqqanis while they are IN PAKISTAN. Is it realistic to expect they will claim to have an ounce of control once the Taliban are in Afghanistan?

Quote: Kashmir is the reason that the Pakistanis began supporting jihadi groups

Education: So the author believes we should reward Pakistani support for jihadi groups by giving them what they want. I am speechless..

To prop up a state at any cost??

I wonder....

I am an Indian liberal who had long held pacifist views towards Pakistan. Even I can not quite understand the twisted logic western media comes up with vis-a-vis Pakistan. They keep parroting this so called "existential" threat as an excuse for support for horrible terrorists. What exactly do they (Western apologists) mean by existential threat? A full scale war by India and breaking up of Pakistan? India did not cross the border during the Kargil War, instead chose to loose 450 soldiers in 10 days! It did not cross the border when fidayeen attacked Indian Parliament and came within 200 feet of then Home minister. India did not cross the border after horrible Mumbai attacks. Why would India risk its prosperity, upward mobility on a war, even a limited one, with Pakistan? What exactly is this existential threat for Pakistan in concrete terms? Author after author suggests India give up its hold over Kashmir to appease Pakistan (although they don't put it that way, surely there is no other acceptable solution to Pakistan!!). I am a liberal, gladly willing to talk about it, but Isn't loosing a portion of land to your enemy, a partition based on religion one more time, itself is an existential threat come real for India, isn't it? Why is it OK for India to have that existential threat but not for Pakistan? What guarantee can these pundits give to India that its aftermath, internal strife that would follow between Indian Muslims and Hindu Right wing will not turn into another opportunity for Pakistan! I want to understand this "existential threat" that everybody from Mike Mullen to Media pundit claims. In all honesty, why don't Americans use the same "understanding" towards Iran, which too feels existential threats and resorts to supporting terrorists? Confrontation with Pakistan is not good for America but surely giving up portion of Afghanistan and portion of Kashmir on platter to Pakistan is not going to solve all of America's problems either!

Look, if India is investing so heavily in Afghanistan than why can't we invest? Why is GHQ so obsessed with neanderthal rogues?....
Army is still not serving its interest of a freindly Afghanistan because by backing warlords and drug-barons, we are permanently alienating Afghans.. No wonder they consider us their enemy,,,

...has recently decreed that a resident of New Delhi--not the poorest city in India--who earns twenty-five rupees (fifty cents) a day is too affluent to be eligible for state support.

With such horrendous poverty around in its own population, why would India spend $2 billion building infrastructure in Afghanistan? The answer is obvious: It's not from an abundance of wealth, and it's not from munificence. It's geopolitics. With a major stake not only in Afghanistan's economy but also in its security machine, India would have a strong presence to the west of Pakistan in addition to the one to the east. In other words, India is creating a pincers in which to hold Pakistan, to render it subservient to Indian policies in the region.

India may have genuine economic interests in a future Afghanistan, and good relations with Pakistan can help it gain transit rights. Any military interest, though, can only be sinister. India shares no border with Afghanistan, whereas Pakistan has 1,500 miles of it. What happens in Afghanistan does not stay there, it spills over into Pakistan. Hundreds of thousands of Powindahs migrate to spend the winter in Pakistan. There are intermarriages, families living on both sides of the border, commonalities of language and culture. And yet India wants a huge presence in Afghanistan?

Anyone with a smattering of history of the region would see the anomaly in such thinking. Pakistan will never accept a major Indian footprint, specially a military one, in Afghanistan. And all the signs say that Pakistan has the will and the capability to scuttle such a development.

Before leaving Afghanistan the Soviet army had created and trained an Afghan force of 300,000. But when the Afghan tribals rose against the pro-Soviet government, those troops scattered like mice. There is no evidence that shows it'll be any different when US forces leave.

"History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."--Anonymous.

The problem with old men like John Schmidt is that they say the same thing over and over. Reading this article, it seemed like the old man has not had a new thought in decades.

This is the problem with American policy in AfPak. Old men and old thinking has created a failed policy. Times change, but old men tell the same old stories - or in this case, the same old analysis.

For example, "Bin Laden is now dead, and even Washington admits that the primary al Qaeda threat to U.S. interests has moved elsewhere."
Moved ELSWHERE? The old man forgot to say that it moved to PAKISTAN. If he wrote this fact, of course, it would undermine his entire same old thesis.

Schmidt also does not explain why the ISI supports terrorists groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba who are Punjabis who kill innocent people in places like Mumbai. The same OLD Kashmir explanation does not work.
Also, Mr. Schmidt, is terrorism wrong? Is it evil? Is it wrong to kill innocent civilians like in New York City on 9/11?
Or are the old men of foreign so smart that they can't tell whether Pakistan's support of Islamic terrorist groups is wrong?

The author seems to be making a case that we need to only understand the motivations of the terrorists, show some consideration for their political aims, give them what they want, and all our problems would be solved!

USA, its generals and the think-tanks have been taken to the cleaners by the Pakistani Generals and politicians.

1) The Taliban + Al Qaeda regime in Afghanistan prior to 9/11 was supported wholeheartedly by Pakistan. There would have been no Taliban if Pakistan had not supported the movement. There would have been no Al Qaeda in Afghanistan if Pakistan had not facilitated their movement to and fro from Afghanistan.

2) It was ISI itself which facilitated the 9/11 attacks on USA, as one knows from the money transfer made to Mohammed Atta in Hamburg, the 9/11 hijacker. Al Qaeda was simply an accomplice of ISI.

3) It was Pakistanis who gave US the impression that Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan, and directed US ire towards Afghanistan, even though all major Al Qaeda figures have been captured in Pakistani cities itself.

4) It was Pakistan which facilitated America's invasion of Afghanistan, with the express condition of having their "assets" in Afghanistan airlifted by none other than USA to Pakistan.

5) Pakistan was able to save all their assets in Afghanistan including all Taliban leaders, most Al Qaeda leaders, all of whom found sanctuary in Pakistan.

6) By getting America occupying Afghanistan, Pakistan had American exactly where it wanted it - dependent on Pakistan for supply routes.

7) Through this dependence Pakistanis have been able to blackmail Americans to finance their anti-Indian war machine and to bolster their economy.

8) What Pakistanis have provided to America were some Al Qaeda members who were dispensable and disposable after they had done their part.

9) When Pakistanis speak of their casualties, they mean the Pushtuns from their paramilitaries, who too are just cannon fodder. It is a big joke when Pakistanis say they have made big sacrifices in the War on Terror. They have only thrown a whole lot of dispensable poor Pushtuns to the wolves. The Pakistanis themselves are sitting pretty in their defense colonies with all the facilities subsidized by the American taxpayer.

10) Pakistanis have basically made America into a monkey, whose hand is now stuck in the Afghanistan jar, and America is begging Pakistan to get its hand free.

11) Let's not forget that Osama bin Laden was ensconsed in Pakistan for almost 10 years under the loving care of the Pakistani Army. When Americans took down OBL in Operation Geronimo, the Americans experienced a unique moment of clarity when Pakistan's mask slipped.

12) Pakistanis completely control the whole anti-American insurgency in Afghanistan. Americans call it the Taliban insurgency. The blood of 1812 US soldiers is on the hands of the Pakistanis. Of course, it is an old habit of Pakistanis to plead for plausible deniability.

13) When Adm. Mullen recently said that the Haqqani Network is a veritable arm of the ISI, there was another moment of clarity for Americans.

So America has paid so much in blood and treasure to prop up the Pakistanis, and America has been made a fool all the way!

And all this author comes up with is how to appease the Pakistanis even more, by first understanding what they want! Ack-thoo! There are many American leaders still intent on putting the mask back on on Pakistan's face!

The Truth is: Pakistani Army is the Godfather of Al Qaeda and Taliban! Pakistani Army is the HQ. of Global Jihad! And it exerts its power by getting America and Saudi Arabia to finance its Global Jihad and getting China to provide it with a nuclear shield. Pakistani Army is the Head of the Snake!

If America takes down Pakistani Army, it would have crushed the Head of the Jihadi Snake! But there are all sorts of journalists interested in convincing the Americans that actually the tail of the Snake is the head!

Pakistan is veritably like the Snake with a Fake Head on its Tail!

The Haqqani fighters are in Afghanistan. Only the women and children live in Waziristan.

The Haqqanis hold sway in Afghan provinces the US considers its strongholds.

The US is suing for peace with the Haqqanis in Afghanistan. Why should Pakistan make war on them?

Is the Indian military presence in Afghanistan not a provocation for neighbours?

Pakistan has refused the negligible US military assistance repeatedly. Why should one harp on this aid being significant or necessary when it is not?

The US has had its butt kicked in Afghanistan. Should face reality and leave the country alone.

The argument of "Anything, anything to head for the door" vis-a-vis NATO options to leave AfPak suggests that, as indicated in this piece http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/open-page/article2521197.ece
in The Hindu newspaper, we may soon have to prime oiurselves for Rub, rinse, repeat

The issue is a simple one. India is and will remain an existentialist threat to Pakistan for as long as the Kashmir issue is not resolved.

Indian military interference and the support to break up Pakistan in 1971 has not been lost on the Pakistani society (politicians, generals, civilians and all other alike see this as a serious threat.)

Pakistan cannot base her defensive strategies on any good Indian intentions, no matter how noble they may be, as intentions can change overnight and they did back in 1971.

People ranting here (mostly Indians) about facts are clueless about facts.

Haqqani and his entire family are ethnic Pashtuns from Afghanistan. If people do not know this then all the posts stating "facts" should be looked at with a massive grain of salt.

Lets deal with these so called "facts" now:

1) The Taliban + Al Qaeda regime in Afghanistan prior to 9/11 was supported wholeheartedly by Pakistan. There would have been no Taliban if Pakistan had not supported the movement. There would have been no Al Qaeda in Afghanistan if Pakistan had not facilitated their movement to and fro from Afghanistan.

>> There would have been no Afghan Jihad had the US and Pakistan not come together to beat the Soviets out of Afghanistan. What came after was essentially the by product of charging up a whole generation of youth in the Muslim world to fight and then leaving them in Pakistan and Afghanistan to cope with. Pakistan cannot be blamed for this solely. There is a need for introspection all around.

2) It was ISI itself which facilitated the 9/11 attacks on USA, as one knows from the money transfer made to Mohammed Atta in Hamburg, the 9/11 hijacker. Al Qaeda was simply an accomplice of ISI.

>> Talk about silly conspiracy theories. As if Pakistan has anything to gain from attacking the United States and getting herself painted with a giant bull-eye!!!

3) It was Pakistanis who gave US the impression that Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan, and directed US ire towards Afghanistan, even though all major Al Qaeda figures have been captured in Pakistani cities itself.

>> No Pakistan had no such involvement. All of the intelligence resided with the US side. The screw up was that we could not get to the AQ leadership in the Tora Bora mountains and once that happened, all of these folks moved into Pakistan and were captured in the cities. Some basic reading on the background of those captured would reveal these facts!!!!

4) It was Pakistan which facilitated America's invasion of Afghanistan, with the express condition of having their "assets" in Afghanistan airlifted by none other than USA to Pakistan.

>> Yes as an ally of the United States because that was a demand the US placed on Pakistan. Pakistan herself had no reason or interest to see the US barge into the neighborhood in such a manner. Lets place the onus on where it belongs instead of silly and baseless accusations for all the ills on Pakistan.

5) Pakistan was able to save all their assets in Afghanistan including all Taliban leaders, most Al Qaeda leaders, all of whom found sanctuary in Pakistan.

>> What assets? They were available on a platter in the Tora Bora mountains and we failed to get them. Lets take owenership of this failure. It wasn't like Pakistan airlifted OBL et-al out of Afghanistan.

6) By getting America occupying Afghanistan, Pakistan had American exactly where it wanted it - dependent on Pakistan for supply routes.

>> Are you serious? Dependent on Pakistan for supplies while the country gave up $60B in trade and FDI just because it became a corridor for supplies to the US troops in Afghanistan? Exposing the entire country to US presence and surveillance is a move you think worth it for Pakistanis in any conceivable way?

7) Through this dependence Pakistanis have been able to blackmail Americans to finance their anti-Indian war machine and to bolster their economy.

>> Now we come to the major heart burn for Indians like yourself. So Indian war machine, which dwarfs that of every other South Asian country, is fine and which by the way is primed solely at Pakistan, yet if Pakistan and the US talk security, you folks have heartburn for the next 5 decades.

8) What Pakistanis have provided to America were some Al Qaeda members who were dispensable and disposable after they had done their part.

>> Yes but these some were a lot more than what any other country has been able to do for furthering our anti AQ efforts.

9) When Pakistanis speak of their casualties, they mean the Pushtuns from their paramilitaries, who too are just cannon fodder. It is a big joke when Pakistanis say they have made big sacrifices in the War on Terror. They have only thrown a whole lot of dispensable poor Pushtuns to the wolves. The Pakistanis themselves are sitting pretty in their defense colonies with all the facilities subsidized by the American taxpayer.

>> You must be out of your mind. The Pakistanis have lost 30,000 dead which include Pakistanis of all ethnicity and religion in the past 10 years. The troops who are dying include the Punjabis, Sindhis, Pashtuns, etc. etc.
The Pashtuns are Pakistanis at the end of the day so your point about the cannon fodder is misplaced.

10) Pakistanis have basically made America into a monkey, whose hand is now stuck in the Afghanistan jar, and America is begging Pakistan to get its hand free.

>> Maybe this is the case, but it is not of Pakistan's making. The Indian involvement in Afghanistan has made things a lot more complicated for us there. Maybe the Indians should also be mindful of the interests of the United States and back off so there can be some stability in Afghanistan. The US intelligence has reported that Indian consulates in Afghanistan are involved in certain activities which undermine Pakistan's interests and these should be considered seriously.

11) Let's not forget that Osama bin Laden was ensconsed in Pakistan for almost 10 years under the loving care of the Pakistani Army. When Americans took down OBL in Operation Geronimo, the Americans experienced a unique moment of clarity when Pakistan's mask slipped.

>> To this day, the USG has presented no proof that the Pakistani military was complicit in anyway with OBL's hiding. Unless you have some facts to put forth, what you say is nothing but hyperbole.

12) Pakistanis completely control the whole anti-American insurgency in Afghanistan. Americans call it the Taliban insurgency. The blood of 1812 US soldiers is on the hands of the Pakistanis. Of course, it is an old habit of Pakistanis to plead for plausible deniability.

>> Yes the blood of everyone is on Pakistan's hands. As if Pakistan asked us to launch a war in Afghanistan. As if the Afghan Pashtuns have no clue about fighting against occupation and the Pakistanis do the fighting for them. Lets get your head out of the sand and look around in Afghanistan. There is no way that this insurgency can be sustained without local support in Afghanistan. No matter what kind of support they may be getting from Pakistan, the actual fighting in Afghanistan is being done by Afghans and they are getting support from their Pashtun kin inside of Afghanistan. If the blood of 1812 Americans is on the Paks, then I wonder, what you would say about the blood of 3400 Pakistanis who have died as a result of the TTP terrorists who find support and succor inside of Afghanistan and launch attacks on Pakistanis (in the past 3 months, Pakistanis have suffered 90 KIA as a result of these cross border attacks from Afghanistan).

13) When Adm. Mullen recently said that the Haqqani Network is a veritable arm of the ISI, there was another moment of clarity for Americans.

>> What Adm Mullen said was negated the following day by our very own state dept so what to make of this good cop/bad cop act going on with Pakistan for so long?

Please stop pushing the Indian agenda here. If anything, its the Indians who want us Americans to fight their war/s with Pakistan. If we want stability in that region, we need to be mindful of the interests if Afghanistan's direct neighbors which include Pakistan but NOT India. Given the long history in Kashmir, nothing peaceful can be achieved in Afghanistan for as long as this issue between Pakistan and India is not resolved.

The whole thrust of this article seems to be is that the world should give into the delusions, paronoia and back stabbing of the Pakistani army. While it may be true that the Pakistani army's dangerous tango with jihadi outfits started as a strategic tool to offset any real or imagined Indian threat(mostly deliberately imagined), this tango now stems from the jihadi mindset that has infected the Pakistani army officer corps. This jihadi mindset now colours the Pakistani view of the world and how they wish to shape it. The Pakistani army and a substantial portion of its population believe that it was they who brought the Soviiet Union down and now its the turn of the US!

India has always objected to and voiced its displeasure with Pakistan's relations with BD/SL just because you consider it to be your zone of influence. Secondly, Pakistan has no "security" agreements with any of these countries. Your agreement with Afghanistan is primarily aimed at Pakistan, otherwise there would not be a need for any. Secondly, for as long as there is a war going on and things are not settled, everyone is jockeying for influence and this includes India, Iran, US, Russia and Pakistan. So why should Pakistan not be allowed to have a say when we and the Indians are also, through military and economic coercion, getting Afghans to do things the way we want them? At least Pakistan has a physical contiguity with Afghanistan and a very long historic tie in due to the Pashtun population on both sides of the border, as such Pakistan has just as much right to try to wean the situation to a more advantageous position.

It just amazes me that after having done the exact same to Pakistan in 1971, with support for terrorists by India, you cry about Pakistan supporting the freedom struggle in Kashmir as something negatively grave. Pakistanis learned this from you the Indians! Resolve the Kashmir issue and many of these issues will get resolved. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Something has to give and Pakistan is not about to give it all up. This should be realized by all.
Pakistan has no ideological alignment with groups such as AQ etc. because they are a threat to the Pakistani state too. We, the US, need to build on this and get our relations back on track with the Pakistanis. The alternates are far worse and will very likely lead to a very long period of instability spanning many decades for all involved.

Obviously Mr. Schmidt has NO problem history repeating itself.

After all the long history of Pakistani duplicity Mr. Schmidt still wants U. S. to trust Pakistan when he claims that U. S. must allow Pakistan to dominate Afghan affairs. Shouldn’t that be Afghan decision? Why should Afghanistan allow Pakistan to dictate who can be Afghan friend and who can not be?

How long does Afghanistan have to suffer at the hands of Pakistan with U. S. blessings?

Is Afghanistan a sovereign state in Mr. Schmidt’s book?

Is ’wanting strategic depth’ a valid excuse to terrorize neighbors like Pakistan terrorizes Afghanistan and India or even take over a neighbor like Pakistan took over Afghanistan in 1996 and wants to do so again once U. S. troops depart? Should India create terrorist outfits to terrorize Pakistan and take it over because India feels sandwiched between China and Pakistan?

...shooting their mouths off in comments. They make it look as though Pakistan were a superpower, holding US, India and everyone else to ransome. Pakistan has few regional ambitions, and no global aims. It is concerned merely with its own survival.

Pakistan may not be very smart in many areas, but it certainly knows about its security needs, and is determined to ensure them. It is also capable of doing so.
Aligning with "terrorists?" Just google US alignment with similar groups. Central and South America are full of "terrorists" we have supported, financed, trained and equipped. The Taliban are heirs to the Mujahedeen whom Reagan likened to George Washington, and who compelled the Soviet army to withdraw in defeat.

The Taliban are going a step further. They are determined to inflict defeat AND humiliation on us. And our strategy, or lack thereof, ensures this will happen.
This is Afghanis-Nam. Or is it Viet-Stan?

correction - Its this stubborn desire to think of the Pakistani PoV as a non-starter which has got us in this situation. Great points above!

Pakistan started it in 1947 by pushing in Pashtun mujahiddins to destabilize the princely state of J&K. They thought the J&K should be part of Pakistan because it was majority Muslim. Wrong, the legalese of the accession of princely states said "whichever dominion the current ruler chooses to accede to" ... the Maharaja of Kashmir (Hindu) as well the the elected Prime Minister (Muslim) preferred accession to India. That they were forced by the Pakistani backed invasion in order to get Indian Army support is a moot point from history. But Pakistan's land grab is as old as the Two Nation theory (the very creation of the country is a land grab by Punjabis / Mohajir from the other ethnicities in Pakistani territory like Pashtuns, Sindhis, Balochis, Baltis etc.)

India paid back the Pakistanis in 1971 by supporting the Bengali nationalists who didn't want to live under the yoke of Urdu / Punjabi speaking western Pakistanis. And ZA Bhutto stole power in spite of having lost to the Awami League of Sheikh Mujib in elections.

Pakistanis claim they were left to fend for themselves after they helped the USSR exit out of Afghanistan using US arms, who forced the Pakistanis to become a pawn of the USA ? No one. So Pakistanis themselves are responsible for their decisions. And then they foisted those good for nothing Koran spouting illiterate mujaheddins into Indian Kashmir, once again hoping to force the Kashmir issue to their gain.

Pakistan has failed to get Kashmir by force, they will fail again and again till they run dry, of money, energy and blood. The rest of the world will go on with progress, the decrepit Pakistani state and its starving unlettered multitudes will then find their country quartered and fenced off into ethno-linguistic based, de-Islamized political fragmentary states. The Pashtuns are waiting for that to happen, they can then remove the Durand line for good, and unify the Pashtun heartland, and live by their own rules.

Stable future:
1) Denuclearize, disarm and de-islamize Af-Pak Polity.
2) Dismember Af-Pak into ethno-linguistic fragmentary states:
- Create ethno-linguistic states, with population exchange if necessary.
(a) Punjabis
(b) Seraikis
(c) Pashtuns (both sides of Durand Line)
(d) Karakoram (Gilgit-Chitral-Swat-Baltistan)
(e) Sindh
(f) Baluchistan
(g) Hazaristan (for Afghan / Pakistani Hazaras)

Put Pakistani Shias in an adjacent area to Hazaras if necessary, with population exchange from Pashtun areas, also if necessary in mixed ethnicity areas. Then set up Constitutional Republics with each sovereign ethnic states or a Sovereign Federation of republican states (like India).

Enough is enough, these people are a menace to themselves as well as their neighbours, and they have been so for a long, long time. They are culturally in the Iranian/Indian sphere, if 1000y of Islam has not made them Arabized then nothing will (it was unlikely anyway ... ). It is time the world gave them fewer choices and solved their multiple (mostly fake) identity crises arising from being in the borderlands of influential civilizations. Give them less choices and they will eventually take to the most logical one (ethno-linguistics, not religion) and settle down. Any other option is going to perpetrate the mayhem and hinder their development.

We are talking the fate of ~210 million people here. Something ought to be done to bring down the bloodbath. Somehow I feel the Soviets would have done this properly if the US had not interfered like the asses that they are, and armed the already radicalized Islamist thugs in the 1970s.

@ Noquarter

WHY did the ISI attack the US embassy in Kabul if they are our friends??? Why does the ISI fund the Haqqanis if they are our ally??? Why does Karzai believe he must talk to the Paksitanis instead of the Taliban because the Taliban "can't lift a finger" without Pakistan saying so???

The hard truth is that Pakistanis LOVE Al Qaeda and the Taliban and the proof is that they both have found safe haven in Paksitan and receive direct support from the Terrorist Pakistani state. I am an AMERICAN not and Indian and you better believe AMERICA is going to make Pakistan pay the price.>>>>>>>

What proof do we have that the Pakistanis have attacked the US embassy? Just because a non-entity in the form of an Afghan governor said so? What intercepts and proof of planning have we put in front of the Pakistanis that they were behind these attacks? What plausible benefit does Pakistan get out of attacking our troops and getting so much heat for it?

They would be trying their level best that they do not piss us off and carry on dealing with us.

AQ and Taliban both found refuge in Pakistan after we failed to take them out in Afghanistan. The problem lies with how we went after them. As far as making them pay, for what? That they watch over their interests just like the rest of the world does? I really could care less whether you are an Indian or any other Tom, Dick or Harry but at the end of the day, its the Pakistanis who have to live there and not us.

We should have left after taking out AQ many years ago. Now we have started a war against the Pashtuns which won't end on a happy note for us. This is the sad reality and we need to realize it. Pakistan is already all the worse for it given the intense strife, infighting, bombings and economic problems they have faced as a result of this war. There isn't a whole lot more that we can dish out to them without hurting our own interests in the region for many decades to come.

There is a time for bravado and now is not it. We should continue to work and talk with the Paks and allow a bit more give and take in this relationship. When the other side thinks that they are the only ones giving, then it means this relationship is skewed.

It seems the author resides in an alternate universe. There is not strategic parity between India and Pakistan. He seems to belong to the old school of pre 9/11 US foreign policy when US was trying hard to create a fascade of parity between Pakistan and Russian, Indian partnership. That was then this is now. It is actually quiet surreal for someone to argue on the lines of logic Mr Schmidt is uselessly pursuing. US must get rid of such thinkers and embrace the reality, especially after discovering OBL in Pakistan. The enemy is Islamic terror, no matter what the cause. How can anyone justify terrorism, there is no good terrorism.

good analysis of pakistani aims in the region and here one can find a mutal interest between US and Pak that Taliban have a legitimate share in Afghan government, army and all institutions. As Pukhtuns are 50% in Afghanistan, so they got to have share accordingly.

As for as Pak-India relations , they can never normalize untill the Kashmir dispute is resolved as per the wishes of Kashmiri people. Kashmiris want freedom for themselves more than joining India or Pak, thats the solution.

Pakistan has 180 Million people, and nukes, it's not a small weak nation like Libya or Iraq, its here to stay. 10 years of India and America trying to destroy it has failed. Now USA is leaving the region, and China and Pakistan are going to have to think about dividing India as China wants Anchul Pradesh, and Pakistan wants free bets Kashmir. We will see what China and Pakistan want and take? accordingly. After that no hate just peace and love. I am concered about Hindu terrorist modi as well.

Also as long as there is hate and fight over resources , Land , religion , or just plain leader of the nation want to dominate the world ,There will be problems and wars ,Do you know USA and west has actually been interfering in the world politics and army approaches since 1980 or even Earlier ,All the parts of Africa , Vietnam, Iran ,Iraq , Kuwait wars, Gulf wars ,? Afghanistan , Taliban , West has always been doing this bet365,and when you see why , you will know, tryin to keep peace ...

Very informative article here, Professor Schmidt. But your analysis is a bit outdated and a lot of facts / points have been much overlooked.

"Bin Laden is *NOW* dead, and even Washington admits that the primary al Qaeda threat to U.S. interests has moved elsewhere."

Of course, it's time for "Washington" (NATO) to create a new bogeyman to perpetuate this supposed "war on terror" for their own "fun and profit".
Enter the Haqqani Network. These new bad guys can be strongly funded by the CIA as an opposition force to justify American military presence in Afghanistan.

Clearly, the World Police is clearly at it again. People should start accepting the fact that the United States government designs new “incidents” and designates new “enemies” to advance their agenda of global hegemony, and further increase the profits of their military industry. It's amusing and ridiculous at the same time to know that many folks still believe that Bin Laden launched the 9-11 attacks. Stop to think folks!

Much love,
Lisa O.