With the endgame in Afghanistan demanding crucial policy decisions, Hillary Clinton has reached Islamabad to hold talks with Pakistan’s civil and military leadership. Both sides need to realise that any wrong move at this juncture would badly hurt their vital interests. There is a need for give and take between the two instead of a recourse to pressure or hostility. The US needs to realise the fragility of the democratic system in Pakistan where the government cannot survive if it is forced to take unpopular decisions. As things stand, whatever combination of parties takes over subsequently would follow the same course even more stubbornly.
The military establishment which has stepped back from its quest of strategic depth in Afghanistan is still keen to ensure that after the US-led Nato forces leave, there is a friendly rather than a hostile government in Kabul which is by no means unnatural. Pakistan has passed through a bitter experience in the early years of the Cold War when unfriendly administrations in Kabul incited tribes in FATA and encouraged and supported the secessionist Pakhtunistan movement. With a history of wars and major issues with India still unresolved, it is maintained that the country would be in a nutcracker if it was to face two hostile countries on its eastern and northern borders. Pakistan, thus, wants a resolution of the Afghan issue which does not create problems for it. While Islamabad recognises that militancy poses an existential threat, it is convinced that in the absence of the US assistance it has no option but to limit its focus, taking on some militant groups and holding talks with others. This is all the more natural when it finds Washington doing the same in Afghanistan.
The US wants an end to the Afghan war at the earliest. Pakistan wants a solution that does not add to its security headaches. The two sides have to adopt a flexible attitude that leads to a conclusion favourable to both.