Public sentiment on US-Pakistan relations is predominantly critical and divided. Many express skepticism and disappointment regarding the US's engagement with Pakistan, highlighting historical betrayals and a lack of trust, particularly among Indian commenters. Comments also reflect a mix of sarcasm regarding India's diplomatic failures, a feeling of being sidelined, and pride from some Pakistani users about their country's perceived strategic leverage over both the US and China. Concerns about Pakistan's internal issues and its role in harboring terrorism contribute to the overall skepticism.

United States

Pakistan

India

**Reminder:** Please be courteous to each other and report any violations of the subreddit rules.

 * Debate the point, not the person.
 * Be respectful and avoid personal attacks.
 * No hate speech.
 * Report rule-breaking content to the moderators.

 


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/pakistan) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

We just reduced everything to its most simplistic and basic form leaving no room for nuance and layers.

Pakistan army is NOT a US puppet. Pakistan army is heavily influenced by US. There is a gigantic difference.

Pakistan army like any entity has its own interests. When its interests are aligned with US it will do what US wants them to do (hang Bhutto). Sometimes US can also exert pressure and make Pakistan army do things it does not really want to do (fight the taliban). But there are instances when Pakistan army will not listen to US or go against US interest because its in the best interest of Pakistan army (let Osama hide in Pakistan).

Think of it this way. Are you your parents puppet ? People, Organizations and Countries do not exists in a vacuum. They are being influenced all the time by outside forces. This is how the system works. Its a matter of balancing, prioritizing and aligning interests with these outside forces.

1nv1ct0s

Pakistan army has one and only objective. Maintain power and control over the country. Its elites get rich and live well. To that end they will do anything. They are heavily influenced by the US but they've found the level of support needed lacking so they've also run to china.

Shoddy-Reach9232

Not a puppet exactly but US does have and employs its soft power whenever needed

ZainTheOne

It obviously isn’t a puppet. But they haven’t made the best decisions for us either. And of course ppl get recruited whether in the military or in the civilian. It’s complex and a lot of money/power/leverage is used.

As for China, we are fortunate to have a superpower next to us. They are friendly and really we need to get ourselves sorted. There is no reason other than individual greed to align with US but sadly there are many who will accept the cheque.

putoption21

When your assumption leads to a contradiction, that might mean your assumption was wrong

Bibbedibob

It uses both super powers. And enjoys benefits from both of them. Simple.

maowk

In the past, US did not had any issues with China. It's a pretty recent policy shift. The reason being China leveraged the influx of US businesses to accelerate its economic development, ultimately reaching a level of power that has alarmed US &amp; Western nations. 

However, we since the late 1950's have been in a master slave relationship with the US or I would say- always a pro West General was installed that aligned with their foreign policy. We even sided with US in the Vietnam war but did not send troops on ground. We lend them our bases as early as in 1960 when the first ever US spy plane took off from Pakistan to monitor Soviets-which was eventually taken down by Soviets.

Historically, India tended to align with Russians and had a more adversarial stance toward the US due to their support for Pakistan. At the same time, China was also closer to the West. During the Soviet era, we received substantial military funding to combat the Soviets in Afghanistan. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of China, Western powers began supporting India especially in efforts to counterbalance China.

Military Generals have long played both sides of the wicket. From leveraging relations with China as the strategic neighbor while maintaining ties with the US whose influence in Pakistan is well‑known. Today, following the regime change, Asim Munir and company have publicly reaffirmed alignment with the West. However, behind the scenes, the real game could be different i.e. extract maximum leverage from both Washington and Beijing.

ahsan_shah

We simply could not have won the recent clash with India without Chinese intelligence

arhamshaikhhh

The one thing that the Army is not is incompetent. Pakistan Army just like any other army around the world when they come in to power the main goal and achievement is themselves and not the nation or it's people.
 That is exactly what has happened here, The Army is busy developing its own agendas rather than developing the nation.
For that reason the politicians that come into power are absolutely incompetent and business oriented rather than bureaucrats who work on politics to develop a nation to progress with its.

AqilUSabri

The Pakistan Army is more like a 'dollar army'. The Pakistan Army aligns itself with whoever benefits it the most. Whether it's the USA, China, or the Arab nations, it only cares about its own gain. As long as you are in its interest, the Pakistan Army will stand with you.

Anythingaddict

It simply a propaganda for right wingers and foreign proxies to wage war against Pakistan and to destabilise it, just like they did with Syria, Libya or Lebanon.

No denying we are also incompetent to not cash on opportunities.

Dapper-Two-2299

[deleted]

For everyone who is mad about pakistan giving access to usa for Afghanistan... back we didn't had jf17s and j10s with long range a2a missiles.. we didn't had long range anti air systems like hq9 and hq19s which we now have... America even use to threaten china with its aircraft carriers which is not the case anymore... usa cannot use its military might against pakistan now while in the past that was a possibility so the army did what was best for the country..

Jaysonk98

Despite what others will have you believe they are not puppet of US, nor China. They leverage both for what they see as necessary for pursuing the national interest of the country.

It should be noted that the military has a very different way of describing 'national interest' than what a normal person would. 

Their version of national interest do not include protection, prosperity of the people or democracy. They define national interest as maintaining and enhancing hard power and territorial integrity, without getting too much attention from international powers.

When required they will go against international powers, but they really really prefer not to do so. 

When US creates road block for Pakistan to get advance weapons to enhance hard power they buy it from China, but at the same time they really really don't want to be seen as doing China's bidding or it's proxy same goes for reverse.

Successful-Silver485

You cant buy Pakistan army.. but you can rent it..

pewdiapie

Let me rephrase it for you, The top brass of Pak Army is a puppet of their personal and individual interests and gains instead of the nation they represent.

Zain5633

Generals intrests= money and power ( where it flows they flaws), with a staggering population crossing 240millions, who cares about people.

docshamzee

It's not a puppet... grow up. Our army and government are heavily trying to pursue better relations with America, doesn't make us a puppet.

Latter-Hope-542

India’s “non-aligned policy” has seen many view it as a unreliable partner in the west. Case in point would be its tip toeing of line of the Ukraine-Russia conflict. On the other hand Pakistan has deeply worked with the west at various points in its history. For example the U.S. used Pakistani air bases to launch U2 spy planes to spy on the USSR, it was largely due to Pakistani facilitation that U.S.-Chinese rapprochement took place which completely changed the landscape of the Cold War, there is also obviously the massively important Pakistani role in helping arm the mujahideen against the Soviets in the 80s, and finally Pakistan was very effective in the early years of the war on terror is capturing Al qaeda operatives who had fled across the border from Afghanistan. So there’s a deep history of cooperation there with Pakistan that just isn’t there at all with India and Pakistan has been much more willing to lend the west a hand when asked unlike India. There’s also the fact that the Pakistani military which has essentially run the country since 1958 is massively pro American, so there has always been a pro American force in the Pakistani leadership.

Thats-Slander

India is not interested in the kind of "alliance" American foreign policy people expect

Significant-Luck9987

Confident_Access6498

It's always been about maintaining a balance of power in the region afaik. If India was the inherently weaker nation, I think it would have been the other way around.

vote4boat

Why commit to one side or the other if they don't have to? Especially given that India isn't going to commit either.

GottmanRuleEggs

I’m pretty sure Pakistan has been given up on.

It’s geopolitically relatively recent, since we needed them for Afghanistan, but they’re pretty much buying all their equipment from China for the last several years and relations are kinda crumbling across the board.

Of course, that could swing back the other way; wouldn’t be the first zigzag in the US-Pakistan relationship.

PG908

The US doesn't want a strong India either. Supporting Pakistan serves its own interests and helps keep India in check.

veerKg_CSS_Geologist

Pakistan is basically the Turkey of South Asia ,  strategically annoying but too useful to ignore. Honestly, it is better than India from a great power perspective… because it’s weaker,  easier to push around, more dependent, and always ready to play ball (for a price). 

I wouldn’t be surprised if some genius finally gives up on it one day, because just feel  like it   LMAO.

medicsansgarantee

Given India's and Russia's shared history and cooperation, it's unlikely America could fully draw India into its camp. America was ready to bomb India and was murdering Indian nuclear scientists before the USSR stepped up to protect them in 1971.

MonsterkillWow

&gt;India be more interested in aligning

That is not realistic, India has a historic policy of "non-aligment". They were the most important member of the non-aligned countries block during the cold war. They are not showing any signs what so ever of wanting to change their historic position.

MarzipanTop4944

India is not willing to be another "Ukraine" for the U.S. to throw its people into a meat grinder war against China.

India ideally wants a mutually beneficial relationship.

Also, if the US gives up on Pakistan, then China's Belt and Road Project will happen a lot faster. 

Right now within Pakistan the ruling elites are divided between Pro China and Pro US factions. 

Pro US factions do everything they can to delay BRI projects in Pakistan whereas Pro China factions attempt to accelerate them.

Losing Pakistan would also lose US drone and surveillance bases near the Iranian border as well. It would also give Iran a direct line to China making oil transfers to China a lot easier.

StepAsideJunior

The OP is forgetting that Pakistan shares a 300 mile border with Iran, which the US has been opposed to since 1979. That proximity alone maintains American interests in Pakistan.

Given Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and its role in nuclear proliferation (how North Korea got the bomb), it comes down to LBJ’s maxim that it is better to have them inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.

WhoNotU

I see a few reasons:

* There is a lot of work required to turn India into a complete enemy of China and a reliable ally of the USA. India benefits from its ambiguous position with Russia, China, and the USA. This allows it a wide range of diplomatic and economic moves that it would lose by aligning fully with one side. I think US diplomacy understands that and doesn't believe it's worth the trouble to try turning India into a US-aligned country.
* Pakistan has an unreliable but essential intelligence service for countering Islamist terrorism. Cutting ties with them would make the fight against global Islamist groups operating in Pakistan even more difficult than it already is.
* Pakistan joining an Iranian axis would be a significant threat to US interests in the region.
* Unlike Russia, China is not a threat to most of the Asian continent (aside from a few places like Taiwan or maybe South Korea). So there is no need to create an anti-China alliance like NATO in Europe. China is more often seen as a competitor than a threat to US interests. However, with Trump and the ongoing militarization of China, that could change in the future.
* I don't think USA is really concerned about India becoming too powerful, and there is no scenario where Pakistan get submitted by India (that would just turn the entire region in a warzone for decades).

Separate-Courage9235

U.S.-Pakistani relations have certainly cooled but there’s clearly some ties left after forging a nearly six decade long alliance 

It also helps to have your foot in the door in the event of a collapse of the Pakistani government. Hundreds of nuclear warheads in one of the most mountainous regions in the world is something I’d want contacts in a military apparatus for

elykl12

Then Pakistan falls directly into the hands of China. Hell the whole reason IK was removed was due to US pressure over Pakistan/IK trying to develop relations with Russia.

FederalSandwich1854

It’s simple a broken collapsing Islamic state with nukes is way scarier to the world order then a crazy corrupt half functioning atomic Islamic military autocracy

ExampleNo2489

Trick-Expression-727

A foreign analyst once said there are three governments inside Pakistan . The civilian government which is usually very friendly with the United States. The military regime which is more nationalist anti India but a reliable partner for the U.S. The only issue with the military establishment with Pakistan is they do destroy democratic institutions and the stability of the country. Military coups inside a nuclear state is not the best combination in the world.

Lastly the ISI intelligence community which has often helped the Taliban and Al-Qaeda . The ISI is most guilty of betraying the U.S the most to the point where the ISI was often tipping off the Afghan Taliban whenever America shared info about potential airstrikes in Afghanistan.

We should be friendly with the civilian government and cautiously friendly with the military but extremely hostile to the ISI.

I also recommend reading , Directorate S by Steve Coll.

combrade

In case China and India would do business that would benefit both sides

Dragon2906

China is already a handful for the US to deal with. Imagine there's another China. Do you think the Indians would bow down to the US when they get strong and powerful themselves?

No-Satisfaction-275

Cause US has realized India is not only untrustworthy but also militarily weak and cannot compete with China at any level so the need to pick sides has gone down relatively fast

moongroup

The US would benefit more from war in this region than anywhere else on earth. A war involving India, Pakistan, and China would consume military resources at such a high rate that all three would be weakened terribly.

ExcellentWinner7542

Isn't Pakistan more aligned with China than USA? Didn't they give the military equipments of USA to China for reverse engineering?

Confident-Ask-2043

IvanThePohBear

The US continues to prop them up because of the fear of a broke country selling their wmds or otherwise doing something heinous with them.

It's the real concern with the UK as well, beyond just seeing a long time and stalwart ally being destroyed from within by choice.

India doesn't really factor in as much as they would like to think, in almost all matters.

Goaterush

uncannyfjord

Because the USA wants to use India to reach its goals and for manufacturing, but at the same time not let India grow too big so that it can challenge usd and military authority 

If Pakistan collapses, who gets the nuclear weapons?

nash3101

pakistanis are employed to do this whole day ... running narratives in the comment sections

The West  especially the U.S.  doesn’t stop India from acting against Pakistan out of concern for Pakistan. They do it because they *need* India stable. If India gets dragged into a full-scale war with a nuclear-armed Pakistan, it could suffer major damage — economically, militarily, and politically. That weakens India and removes a key counterweight to China in the region.

It’s not about fairness; it’s about balance of power. The West wants India strong *enough* to check China, but not so aggressive that it destabilizes South Asia. If India gets wrecked, China gets a free hand. So, the West pressures India into restraint not because they’re “against” India, but because they’re playing long-term chess.

Plastic-Glove-6224

Containing China has been ineffective for decades. It is recommended to do more of your own things. The foundation of a country lies in its internal affairs. Indians may debate less and do more practical things, even if it is just picking up garbage, which is also a contribution.

SmoothBaseball677

India like China, is a potential for a superpower. The US will not allow India to rise because India interests will always be for india.

Just like siding with some Indo Pacific countries is important to contain china, siding with Pakistan is important to contain India

Ancher123

India isn’t going to bow down to the USA so not an ally, but not a foe. As it should be. Pakistan is a weak state that can be manipulated.

Smart_Spinach_1538

Have you considered that India is the country that might need countering?

Would Saudi Arabia remain friendly to the West if it occupied Iraq and Iran?

machinationstudio

It was neutral in the last dispute btw India and Pakistan and has largely allied with India against China.

If you want to ask why the US dosen’t cut off Pakistan completely, it’s likely due to a mixture of liking Modi only slightly more and foreign policy inertia.

spinosaurs70

India’s untrustworthy. They’re basically the kid who will start shit and then run to their bigger friend for protection. While they need the protection, they will suck up to whomever provides it but won’t hesitate to stab them in the back.

RoutineTry1943

there are two gov in USA ONE IS PENTAGON ( PRESIDENT ) AND ONE IS CIA 

CIA USE PAKISTAN FOR RUSSIA ,INDIA, AND CHINA SO THAT THEY CAN  BE AGGRESSIVE ON ANY OF THEM ANYTIME .

CIA HAS ITS NUCLEAR TESTINGS IN PAKISTAN TOO AND AS WE KNOW THE WHOLE NUR KHAN BASE IS OWNED BY CIA  NOT A SINGLE PAKISTANI IS ALLOWED THERE WITHOUT PERMISSION.

AND CONTAINING CHINA IS NOT EASY BECAUSE CHINA IS INTERVINED IN GLOBAL TRADES AND GLOBALISATION.

Abject-Astronomer761

India is untrustworthy and does not stick to its word. Pakistan does

puppiesandrainbows1

Oddly enough, both India and Pakistan, have a common adversary in the PRC. 

It's militantly atheist and continually expanding it's territory.

It doesn't matter what you believe. Even if it's borders.

Right-Influence617



🔗 **Bypass paywalls**:

* [www.reddit.com](https://archive.is/submit/?submitid=&amp;url=https://www.reddit.com/r/GeopoliticsIndia/comments/1klg8z8/why_does_us_in_particular_and_west_in_general/)

 

**📜 Community Reminder**: Let’s keep our discussions civil, respectful, and on-topic. Abide by the subreddit rules. Rule-violating comments will be removed.

❓ Questions or concerns? [Contact our moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/GeopoliticsIndia).

GeoIndModBot

Maybe cuz India acted as a fence sitter in Russia Ukraine issue?

Temporary_Editor958

About the IMF loan: India which earlier said that they'll oppose the loan ended up abstaining. This clearly shows there was some negotiation about the loan, i.e., the loan was used as a leverage within the backdoor deal that we all know has passed.

IMO the biggest proof that Pakistan was on the absolute backfoot was that within the ceasefire, they could have restored status quo within the IWT but failed. We crossed *the* biggest red line they had and all they did was deploy forces across the border, which are now being called back as we speak, probably at Pakistan's request as both KPK and Balochistan erupted the moment there was pressure on their eastern front.

In other words, I believe the loan was passed with Indian support. In return, Pakistan drops their demand to restore the IWT. Obviously Pakistan is the big loser in this- they would've gotten the loan anyway, now they have the loan but their biggest cities were bombed (I'll be damned if this doesn't cause atleast some capital flight, which they can barely afford), and they lose their food and water security. This will worsen their control over Sindh, as Sindh faces water scarcity over Punjab's disproportionate water usage. As water resources dwindle, Sindh will be affected far more than Punjab.

 The next few years for Pakistan will be an economic hell. 

Don't care about the other commenter messaging about Pakistani defence orders. They're teensy in comparison to Indian support and defense orders (P-8i, Apache, our support to Israel is absolutely critical for the country, Globemasters)

DickBlaster619

moon_burger

In my opinion, it is clear that the Pahalgam attack was a planned move to create unrest between India and Pakistan—possibly orchestrated by the USA or China-Pakistan nexus—due to the ongoing trade war between China and the USA. A viral clip from a Pakistani official suggests that Asim Munir planned the attack for personal interests. As we all know, the USA has been accused of indirectly funding terrorism, and China openly supports Pakistan. So, it seems likely that either the USA or China was involved.

Recently, ThePrint India published an article revealing that since June, satellite images of the Pahalgam stalemate were being purchased by a Pakistani company, whose founder is a US-sanctioned criminal. In retaliation, India has started to dominate Chinese and American military equipment markets by relying on its indigenous defense systems and Russian military products.

In my view, the Western and Pakistani media are spreading lies and propaganda about Indian aircraft losses and other damages. If the truth came out—that India successfully destroyed their aircraft, airbases, and drones—the demand for US and Chinese military gadgets would decline, which neither of those countries wants.

After all of this, the US suddenly announced a trade agreement with China. Some reports even suggest that India struck a Pakistani nuclear site, causing panic in both Pakistan and the USA, which may have led them to propose a ceasefire with India.

YellowlovesBrown

The IMF vote was payback for India refusing to part ways with Russia in favor of Ukraine. Ironically, it looks like Russia voted in favour of Pak too. India was the only abstention. Most of them win if ground war continues because they get more military contracts.

It’s important to understand that SEA gets very little importance from US/ UK/ EU anyway except when we’re defence or trade customers. India-Pak issues are seen as domestic conflicts much as JD Vance said originally. They just keep funding Pak in the hopes that the government stays in power because a failed factional state with nukes is the worst outcome imaginable.

Godi media hasn’t helped things by being ill-informed, belligerent chest thumpers that no one outside our country takes seriously. Worse, people dismiss Indian news outlets entirely now.

Increasingly, thanks to social media, people lack historical context. I had a long conversation where an American absolutely jumped down my throat for being a nationalist (apparently all Indians are) and said we had continued supporting Pak by not suspending IWT(!) 

Others less nonsensical say it’s a self-inflicted issue for India. Ukrainians and EU people hate us because we are seen as cozy with Russians. I don’t know why they don’t blame US or China as much. Saudis have been allies with Pak. Hamas/ Palestine too. Chinese and Pakistani have a very significant social presence and were actively waging an informational warfare that we lost. 

So yeah, we’re pretty isolated diplomatically.

Prottusha1

https://www.youtube.com/live/sR6TGjp3Tu0?si=hJCUHmfgg10P5Ma9

Video that must be used as frame of reference by both India and  Pakistan

Dogaseven70

Pakistan was meant to be a military outpost to the Brits (Anglo Saxon clan) to check the Soviets (The Great Game)

The USA has been the leader of the pack since the Suez crisis. Over time, USA Has massively benefited during the Soviet invasion (Mujahideen phase) and recently Afghanistan where Pak actively created the Taliban cells + as a access route/logistics hub as there is alnd route from the Arabian sea. 

India's turn to Soviets was due to this + had to be done during the 71 war when the Americans and British sent their fleets  (in support of Pak) over to the Indian Ocean.  

All this coupled with IMF bailouts and their liberal media using the talking points which have anti India (and not so anti Pak) biases.

It's just recently (post 2008 nuclear deal) is when India has started to pivot to the USA due to the China factor and also diversity weapon supplies from the Russians. 

And it's all the game the great powers play - use a counterweight to each small/regional power to keep them in check. India's counterweight is Pak, China's counterweight is India (and other countries - Japan,  Philippines)

AncientDebris

Dear OP, let us look at certain known behavioural and historical facts.

In international politics leadership is based on economic and military superiority. Once a nation tastes leadership status it is addicted to it. All efforts are made by such nations to maintain status quo. These efforts could be as direct as military interventions or regime change operations or indirect as insurgency support and instability generation in geographical areas considered as likely threats. The aim being to delay or deny higher power status to aspirants. 

Geographically, the only country, other than the established powers, that has the geopolitical largesse (demography, size, resource, location etc) to rise to the forefront of international politics is India. So, in the list of aspirants, India stands in front. Obviously, there would be effort to deny or delay this rise as much as possible.

The most important natural faultline in this region is the creation of the state of Pakistan on religious basis. This was done by UK and its allies with the intention to keep this area divided with deep set and irreconcilable differences based on religion. Since 1948, these differences have led to major armed confrontations in the area. The inability of Indian leadership to create a value factor in the two important fields of economics and military, since then, made us an easy country to manipulate. In the absence of direct manipulation due Cold War realities, Pakistan was the proxy that was used to tweak us. Post Cold War, Pakistan was used to check India's rise through Kashmir and later, through religious radicalisation and terrorism. 

Nuclearisation of Pakistan was a master stroke, 'allowed' by the US only to keep India, Iran + West Asia in check. It also made the equation, India=Pakistan (militarily) viable. Iran and its moneyed allies came into the sway of the Islamic Bomb in Pakistan and it slowed their own independent growth towards this dream. Ofc, US understood the danger of the game it was playing, but it seems it just did not care. China came late into the game, understood the importance of Pakistan to US intentions and set about changing the rules. India's rise was slow and with lack of character, vision and political leadership, we did not do much to change the situation. This would have continued indefinitely but for the rise of Narendra Modi as the PM in 2014.

This is the short sweet summary of how I look at the events unfolding in this region geopolitically and culminating with Op Sindoor. The last ten years have been seminal for the nation and there is no looking back. Pakistan's nuclear bluff has been called. Things have changed in this region now. The relationship between this three plus one (USA, China, India and + Russia) is not very clear now but will be very soon.

AbhayOye

Its geography - Pakistan borders Iran and Afghanistan who are not friendly to the US. Even when Soviets were in Afghanistan, they used Pakistan as a proxy to get weapons into Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. This is a deep alliance which stretches back to those Cold War years, when Pakistan aligned themselves to US because they did not like Soviets on their border.

When the US was in Afghanistan in 2000s, they used to get supplies through Pakistan, and had or still have CIA black sites there. 

Stability in Pakistan is important for them as part of their larger Middle East strategy. 

India has only recently come into their view as a strategic ally due to the rise of China. But they still have doubts about our ability to actually stand up to China and so don’t want to commit fully to us.

Melodic_Inside

Well, Pakistan’s importance to the US comes down to where it is and what it’s surrounded by. It borders Afghanistan, Iran, India, and China, four countries that have each been on the US radar for varying reasons. Back when the US invaded Afghanistan in 2001 is when Pakistan became crucial. The US needed supply routes, drone access, and local intel, and Pakistan offered all of that, albeit imperfectly. There wasn’t a better alternative for the US at the time anyway. From 2001 to around 2014, when NATO combat operations started winding down, Pakistan was basically viewed by the west as a necessary evil in the region.

Then there’s the nuclear factor. Pakistan became a nuclear state in 1998, 14 years after India's first successful nuclear test "Operation Smiling Buddha" in 1974. The US didn’t love that, but it accepted it and shifted to a policy of managing the risks. The worst case scenario for the US is either a India Pakistan war turning nuclear or Pakistani nukes ending up in the hands of Lashkar-e-Taiba or Jaish-e-Mohammed. So the US keeps communication channels open because it has to prevent these worst case outcomes.

Post 9/11, the "counterterrorism" relationship got deeper. The US pumped billions into Pakistan’s military and intelligence through aid and coalition support funds. At the same time, Pakistan quintessentially played a double game by publicly supporting the US war on terror while quietly letting groups like the Taliban operate in its tribal areas. This hypocrisy reached its peak in 2011 when Osama bin Laden was found and killed in Abbottabad, basically down the road from a major military academy. Even after that, ties continued because again, there were no better options in the region. The US needed someone with reach into Afghanistan’s militant networks, and Pakistan was the only one with that access.

China also plays a significant role; they've been investing in Pakistan since the early 2010s under the Belt and Road Initiative. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor launched gave Beijing access to Gwadar Port on the Arabian Sea and deepened its influence in the region. From the US perspective, this is a slow strategic loss. China gains a maritime route, economic leverage, and possibly even naval presence in the future. So the US has to keep a close relationship with Pakistan, albeit begrudgingly. On a current note too, I'm not really surprised that China supports Pakistan so firmly. They're clearly using Pakistan as a proxy platform for showcasing Chine defence capabilities. Military hardware, munitions, diplomatic support on the global stage, China gives Pakistan everything.

Also, during the Cold War, especially from the 1950s to the 1980s, Pakistan was aligned with the US, joining alliances like SEATO and CENTO. Then again during the Soviet Afghan War, the US and Pakistan worked together to arm and fund the mujahideen. That era built long-standing institutional links, especially between intelligence and military communities, that haven’t completely faded.

About the IMF loan, I do agree that it feels somewhat like a diplomatic failure that Pakistan was yet again bailed out while having a reputation for funding terrorism that directly targets India. Perhaps our relationships with the US and EU are not as great as the government would like to have us believe (shocker). However, there’s always the chance that backdoor diplomacy is playing out in ways we may or may not be assuaged to after the fog of war has lifted, so can't really know for certain for now.

histaltlephrastus

In simple terms, India aspires to be a big guy and everyone knows it has the potential to become a big but it’s not big yet. We don’t know when it will become big enough. No one supports anyone in becoming bigger and powerful than themselves till there is a no way to stop you. 

On the other hand Pakistan is a useful fool. Need bases to spy on Russia, throw some money and you will get bases in Pak. Secret talks with China, Route for Afghan invasion, may be a base in future if Iran doesn’t behave. You throw money at Pak, you can choose whatever you want like a vending machine. head of states, their foreign policy, Chiefs and what not.

They are a great utility in geopolitics. 

If China wasn’t a potential threat, India wouldn’t have a significant geopolitical importance. Even now it’s hard to get India to do anything for western interests. Pak on other hand just waits for your command. Who would you choose.

testuser150

Pakistan is the only Islamic nation and a nuclear power. Iran is trying to be, but finding it difficult.

US doesn't want these nukes to be slipped into the hands of any terrorist or nation state from islamic origin. 

That's why Saudi and Qatar support Pakistan. If any of these 2 nations get nukes, they don't want US anymore. Once that's the case, middle east plus russia read OPEC+ will control oil prices. US loses edge and ground. 

Pakistan should and will be leashed by US, we came very close to change the order and that's why US intervened. Also I think this is in India's best interest because then US will make sure Pakistan does not prosper economically. 

What we need to do is  make sure somehow China is with India (super far fetched) because then India Russia China can change the world order. I honestly don't think this will happen in the near future.

rohitmishra3001

Just like we have good relations with Russia - American and financial relations with China, America wont give up on Pakistan until India drops Russia, China - Russia - America all three of them has made India and Pakistan fools from ages, Like Russia wont do business or deals with Pakistan as its Chinas customer and vice versa with India

Live_Plan_8990

I think you’ll find that Pakistan is very dispensable

ifyouarenuareu

Right after 9/11 I spoke to a NYC taxi driver who said the war in Afghanistan would be a disaster because Pakistan was an ally

Andreas1120

Say what you will about the British, they weren't this delusional at their peak.

oldschoolguy77

This article is nuts Pakistan hasn't been a reliable friend to the US for 20 years. Splitting India off from Russia has to be the primary objective of US forign policy in the region.

Jeb_Kenobi

I am not swayed by any of this author’s points. Pakistan has ultimately NOT been a good ally to the US, they have forged closer ties with our adversary (China) and do not support our interests in international forums. They are clearly not stable, both economically and politically. 

What do we get from Pakistan that we couldn’t get from India instead? The nation that is a democracy and its shaping up to be the next manufacturing hub for the western world. Our dollars would go further in bringing India into our orbit vs throwing more influence into a lost cause.

Segull

The only reason Pakistan is “indispensable” is because they’ve blackmailed the US and West telling them the nukes would fall into the hands of the terrorists if the government/army were to fall. 

They used that bullshit against India for two decades telling Delhi they’d use nukes if India were to retaliate for terrorist attack on Indian soil (2001 Parliament, 2003 Akshardham, 2008 Mumbai). India called their bluff big time this time around. 

Let’s call Pakistan what it is: Numero Uno terrorist state. They don’t add anything else financially or strategically to the remainder of the subcontinent. The Afghanis want nothing to do with Pakistan except bring more of the Pashtuns (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) into their country. The Balochis and Sindhis are actively seeking secession. Gilgit (mostly Shias) have little or no choice. Punjab is the only part of Pakistan tied into the future of the nation.  Pakistan is a freaking radioactive state. China only takes interest to keep India busy on the western front and to minimize their exposure of the Malacca strait by diverting oil through the Gwadar port via pipelines into Xinjiang.

hinterstoisser

Pakistan is harboring, funding and supporting terrorists, there is plenty of evidence for that. The only argument the author seems to make against that is that even if Pakistan withdrew its support there would still be Islamic insurgency in Kashmir is a lame argument. Let’s say it is so - you’d still have less terrorism to deal with and less civilian dead. India would have no casus bellum to retaliate against Pakistan

manVsPhD

NATO is strategically indispensable to Washington and they don’t seem to care about that….

wiscobrix

I appreciate the author playing devil’s advocate. If you are not familiar with his other work, it is worth reading. 

I agree that out of all the Eurasian Great Powers, India is the closest to regional hegemony. But this is because it’s basically been part of American foreign policy to be hands off in that region, and America has largely been so for the past 50 odd years since the creation of Bangladesh. 

I disagree that America is delusional about India’s role in any sort of Taiwan contingency. They know India will stay out of it unless the fighting spills over into the littoral Indian Ocean.

I also disagree that ignoring or excusing Pakistan’s nuclear proliferation is justified. It isn’t. Likewise he downplays the fact that they harbored Bin Laden.

He also ignores that they gave the downed Blackhawk Helicopter from the Seal Team 6 raid to China and says that America should continue selling arms to Pakistan, when in all likelihood these would simply end up once again reverse engineered by the Chinese. 

I agree that India’s illiberal government should not be overlooked. But America did not become a liberal democracy until 1965, well into its political development. India remained nominally secular with universal suffrage until 2014 when Modi comes in. What we’re seeing isn’t the finished product and is not necessarily the end stage of its political development. It is a cause for concern, and should be closely watched, but India also shouldn’t be written off.

He adapts a fallacy a lot of others fall into when discussing India and China: that the two states’ illiberalism are equivalent. They are not. China is fundamentally, on every level, substantially more illiberal than India ever was at its worst. The same can be said about Pakistan.

ManOrangutan

Pakistan received tens of billions in financial and military aid after it was known that they were hiding Bin Laden and allowing their territory to be used by Taliban troops  launch attacks that killed thousands of US Soldiers.
Besides giving North Korea blueprints for building its atomic bomb it seems Pakistan can do no harm that Washington would reconsider keeping it as a major non-nato ally.
Pakistan is doing what it was created to do : bleed India by a million cuts.

CampEmbarrassed170

# Pakistan is Strategically Indispensable to Washington

Trump: Paki-who?

Link50L

Idk between the fact they harbored OBL, sponsored terrorism in Kashmir and India, supported the Taliban led Insurgency against Us forces in Afghanistan while playing both sides their, turns a blind eye to Baluchi sunni Jihadis that magically cross borders to attack Iranian shia, as well as shared important technology that helped a hostile North Korea, as well as the AQ Khan scandal , and it Maddrasses, and the red mosque being a a source of radicalization that results in the 7/7 and 7/21 attacks in London, the San Bernadino attackers had ties to the Bahauddin Zakariya University in the city of Multan , Pakistan (a hub of Islamic fundamentalism) , and had ties to abdul Aziz of the fundamentalist Red Mosque in Islamabad, as well as Pakistani Isi ties to the 9/11 attacks and terrorist attacks in Afghanistan, as well as a Khorsan Provience (isis Af-pak wing) linked to the Moscow Crocus Hall attack, etc. As well as Pakistan pivot towards china, Pakistan being on the FAFT, and Pakistan helping Iran evade Sanctions, and growing Oajistani economic ties with Russia evading western sanctions, as well as Pakistani Isi smuggling (through syndicates like D-Company and Afghan tribes) of heroin into the west during the Soviet-Afghan war, the Afghanistan civil war and us led war on Afghanistan, etc. I'm convinced that Pakistan is a country that neuters and uses the fundamentalists even at our expenses, ships drugs into the west (especially heroin and opioids), been link to terrorism through their Pakistani Isi intelligence agency, as well as played both sides in the us led war in Afghanistan, is pivoting towards China , helping countries like Iran and Russia evade sanctions and very unstable, even dangerous.

Trump is dropping the ball for not fully pivoting towards India, the same with the Europeans,  Pakistan whole national idenity is build on poltical Islam, pan-islamism , and a uneasy alliance (and sometimes rivalry) between the milltary, the mosque/Maddrasses/Islamists, the tribes and certain corrupt poltical dynasties.

Our support for increasingly Islamist nations like Turkey , and Pakistan seem based on outdated cold war propositions, that ended back in 1991.

Psychological-Flow55

So how do they reconcile Pakistan harboring terrorists like Osama?

Jazzlike_770

China has a deep water naval base in Pakistan. 
   i suspect the west has already lost Pakistan.

RobotAlbertross

The US probably has to have some kind of relationship with Pakistan as long as India has one with Russia.

Another big factor is not wanting China to have complete control. I doubt India wants that either.

lostinspacs

SS: some paragraphs I think are worth highlighting -

 The strategic concern with India is that, of all the great powers, it is closest to consolidating domination over its neighbors in its region. Only the U.S. has ever achieved the status of regional hegemon, which it attained in the 1890s when Great Britain abandoned Canada to its fate. China, separated by the sea, Brazil, disconnected by the Andes, and as a yet non-expansionist Nigeria, all outnumber their regional neighbors in population. According to University of Chicago Professor John J Mearsheimer, in his The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, countries are tempted to start wars to conquer their own continental regions, even if there is a low prospect of success, because the security payoff is tremendous. These were the motives of the Hapsburgs, Louis XIV, Napoleon Bonaparte, Wilhelmine and Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and now Communist China. 

The U.S., which is the only country ever to have achieved continental hegemony, pays very little for the cost of its local defense because of the protection of the Oceans. In what is called a strategy of offshore balancing, Washington is then able to project power to support smaller countries draining the resources of the regional hegemonic candidates on other continents. This thereby increases the cost of any retaliation against the U.S., such as the costly Soviet backing of Cuba, Nicaragua and Grenada during the Cold War. Pakistan, a growing democracy, has repeatedly demonstrated itself to be a reliable offshore ally of the U.S. during the Cold War and the Global War on Terror. Pakistan-based U-2 aircraft overflew the USSR from bases in Peshawar and coordinated with Israel for the transfer of small arms to the mujahidin in Afghanistan in the 1980s, while India leaned significantly farther than the anti-Western Non-Aligned Movement, to cooperate with Moscow. 

Democratic peace theory, the foundational idea propounded by U.S. Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Bill Clinton, that democracies never war against each other, may no longer apply to developing countries that overcompensate for bad development policy with extreme nationalism. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a member of the paramilitary sectarian Hindutva RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh), and who was at one time barred from the U.S. for his facilitation of massacres in Gujarat in 2002, is implementing a broad range of policies that target India’s 200 million Muslims. This is not a salient domestic political issue in the U.S. where Hindu-Americans are influential, but it is provocative to Muslim countries crucial for dealing with China, like Indonesia. Increasing press subordination to Modi’s administration suggest that liberal democracy is not irreversible in India, as warned by Harvard professor Samuel Huntington.

Washington believes that New Delhi fits neatly into its China containment coalition. However, it is unaware that India has no intention of joining a war to defend Taiwan, has little ability to confront the Chinese PLA in the Himalayas given their relative nuclear weakness, and its oulook continues to promote neutralist ideas that justify its commitment to BRICS-led de-dollarization. When India was working on its Surya ICBM, it selected Washington D.C. as its default target, a fact that drew protests from the U.S. administration. India is also more inclined to ally with Russia, which it needs to counter-balance China, although its relations with Iran are fraying over Israel. Rather, a Sino-U.S. war over Taiwan would provide New Delhi the rare opportunity of occupying or Balkanizing an isolated Pakistan, an outcome contrary to U.S. interests.

India, following Mearsheimer’s aforementioned logic, should be willing to gamble to seize or break-up Pakistan, given the observed security payoff when it dismembered East Pakistan in 1971. The medium term priority for the U.S. should be to contain Communist China, given that the latter’s economy is four times that of India, but a longer term perspective will be needed as China’s economy will only be double India’s in 2050. India has almost half as much more arable land as China, is a net food exporter, and has a larger population with a median age a decade younger. In the longer-term India may liberalize, but at the moment it is practically adjacent to the oil-producing states of the Persian Gulf and sits astride the busy Indian Ocean commercial lanes. It is also complemented by a substantial diaspora population along the entire Indian Ocean littoral. Climate change is expected to reduce the Himalayan headwaters that feed both China’s and India’s rivers, but it is also projected to increase the monsoon rains watering India.

Pakistan is an ideal offshore balancer: sufficiently democratic to permit sensitive arms transfers, appropriately moderate in its foreign policy to qualify for financial assistance, and in constant need of external backers. Nor is there a bidding war for Islamabad’s allegiance. All of Beijing, Washington and Riyadh have counselled Pakistan to address the Kashmir dispute with restraint. Pakistan’s military has also demonstrated repeated battlefield and technical expertise. 

Modi’s threat to cut Pakistan’s water supply poses an existential threat. Royal Roads University Professor Thomas Homer-Dixon in his Environment, Scarcity and Violence, showed that poor countries suffering from environmental decay usually collapse. However, militarily equipped states, like Israel which attacked Syria in 1966 and 1967 over Arab League attempts to divert key waterways, are far more likely to begin wars to avert water shortages. Given that India’s military personnel are a little more than twice Pakistan’s, based on forces required to offset Chinese deployments in the Himalayas, Pakistan enjoys a slight and temporary military superiority against India. This may embolden Pakistan to seize large defensible portions of the Punjab, as it attempted in 1965. Or it may lead to an Indian pre-emption, and a Cold Start doctrine strike to split Pakistan’s Sindh province from the Punjab, isolating Islamabad from seabound imports.

Mundane-Laugh8562

It would be in interests of both India and West if we admitted that our partnership is extremely fragile and will not last long. There is nothing that binds us together. India being democracy is nonsense talking point. If that parameter was really important then it shouldn't have taken 80 years for both to start their partnership. Both should maintain respectful distance from each other and continue their alliance with our already partners. Iam of opinion that we(India) should do everything in our power to keep our relationship with Russia and if anyone has any problem with that they can stay away. Unfortunately gujjews have different opinions and jaishankar also needs to make sure his son who is settled in USA doesn't get deported.

They were so ‘phenomenal’ that they were able to hide OBL for years within a mile of their military academy without the CIA getting a whiff of it

panem-et-circenses21

Didn't Pakistan sell nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya, and Nirth Korea?

Negative_Gravitas

I wonder what changed after they hid bin laden for a decade

HeftyArgument

Looks like Pakistan is all set to be used in war against Iran.By US and Israel.

So much for social media accounts with Pakistani flags screeching ‘Free Palestine’ all over social media and on streets…lol

This will be good realization for Pakistan who live in denial and call Zia-Ul-Haq’s murder of Palestinians in Jordan ‘fake news’

Very_Patient

macross1984

Pakistan 🤝America against anti- terrorism ???🤣🤣🤣


Who r you kidding dude. One thrives on terrorism and the other on supplying it.

Griffindor-69

Shifts in US-Pakistan relations marked by high-level meetings aim to focus on economic and security partnerships amidst regional challenges.

US-Pakistan Relations

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want