The Trump administration formulated its Afghanistan policy after six months of careful deliberation. Apparently, Pakistan was either not consulted during this process or its views were not taken into account before Islamabad was asked to make an indefinite commitment to what portends to be an unending war.

To make matters worse, the US administration chose to not only involve India beforehand in the policy making but also designated it as an important partner in Afghanistan. Considering the demands that have been made, Pakistanis feel they are being asked to sacrifice their interest and risk the lives of their soldiers to give India greater influence over Afghanistan. It is hard to imagine if there was anything worse that could be done to make it more difficult for Pakistan to help the US.

Given the past experience, it gives rise to many suspicions. For instance, when Musharraf had laid down the country for the US without a moment’s thought after 9/11, then President George Bush was telephoning former British Prime Minister Tony Blair that he "wanted to go beyond Iraq in dealing with WMD proliferation, mentioning in particular Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea and Pakistan"

It may be naïve to think that things can be smoothened over by claiming that what has happened was in the past and things will be different in the future or that the deal can be sweetened in some way. Pakistan surely must know that promises made in war times are seldom for keeping.

There are many issues that are not clear at all. Foremost among these is the US objective in Afghanistan. The talk about fighting terrorism using military force makes no sense. Since President George W. Bush declared war against terrorism, there has been a five-fold increase in terrorist incidents worldwide. According to the Global Terrorism Index, only seven per cent of terrorism cases worldwide have been brought to an end through military action.

There is no peace in Afghanistan after using military force for 16 years. It has caused horrendous avoidable civilian casualties (upwards of three million since 2001, including 900,000 infants under five according to Professor Gideon Polya in his book, Body Count: Global Avoidable Mortality Since 1950). It didn’t work for the Soviets either when they tried to pacify Afghanistan for 10 years using military force. Nor did it work for the US earlier in Vietnam.

So why are we going down the same beaten path again?

In many ways it seems like déjà vu -- eerily similar to the way Secretary Robert McNamara and General Westmoreland kept misleading the American people about the situation in Vietnam.

Pakistanis rightly fear they will be made the scapegoat when the end comes as it did in Vietnam, and they will be left to deal with the aftermath in Afghanistan once more.

It is quite possible that the objective may not be peace but something quite different -- to maintain permanent US military presence as admitted by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich in the Washington Post that the strategy was to minimise American casualties in Afghanistan to the point where few Americans would care. "The fact is, if you slow down the casualty rate and you’re not losing young Americans, the American people will support gradually growing allies for a long time" that will make long-term troop presence in Afghanistan acceptable to the American people as happened in the case of Germany, Japan and Korea (David Rhode in The New Yorker of August 22, 2017).

This will have widespread implications for the entire region, including Pakistan.

Pakistan cannot be expected to go along with it for any support it provides to the US in this instance is likely to adversely impact its relations with China, Russia and Iran in particular. After what has been done to the Muslims in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Syria and other places, no government of a Muslim country can afford to be seen aiding and abetting the West.

The threats and bullying by President Trump after all Pakistan has done for the US has made the situation particularly difficult for Islamabad. It is extremely insensitive to not acknowledge that Pakistan may have vital interests that must take precedence.

Terrorism is not simply a concern for the US. Terrorist outfits, including Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA), have been operating against Pakistan with impunity out of Afghanistan under the US nose for years with help and support from the Afghan and Indian authorities. It is an issue that is seldom mentioned, let alone addressed by the US. Does it mean that the only terrorists that are of concern are those that act against the US interests and not those of its allies?

Afghan Taliban may be considered enemies by the US, but they have never done Pakistan any harm. More than this, they are fellow Muslims. Most of them also happen to be Pashtuns as are nearly 40 per cent of Pakistani troops. Pakistan will risk a strong reaction within the army and the country if it were to take on Afghan Taliban just because the US labels them as enemies.

Accusing Pakistan of providing sanctuaries to Afghan insurgents is meaningless. The latter control half of Afghanistan, if not more. This would not be possible if they did not enjoy popular support within the country. There is no need and it makes no sense for them to seek protection and operate over long distances from bases in Pakistan.

It is unrealistic to expect Pakistan to stop the movement of people across the open border with Afghanistan. There is no way it can prevent Pashtun tribesmen on its side of the border from interacting with and going to the aid of their brothers in Afghanistan nor could Nato while it had 130,000 troops in the country. The US was unable to block the Ho Chi Min trail with three quarters of a million American plus more than a million South Vietnamese troops and untold number of aircraft. This was just one trail as against hundreds that exist between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The US needs Pakistan to have access to Central Asia, particularly since Iran is no longer an option. Given this, making all kinds of accusations and threats to Pakistan when it is needed the most makes little sense. It also gives rise to suspicion that there may perhaps be more to it than meets the eye.

As things stand, if Pakistan is unable to meet its demands, what option is left for the US? Pakistan’s non-Nato ally status can be revoked which has never been of significance in any real terms. Imposing economic sanctions will have only a limited effect on the economy because not all the countries will go along with it. There may be other, more insidious ways to make it harder for Pakistan but none of these is likely to make it a willing or useful partner. The US needs a strong and stable Pakistan for more than one reason.

Any aggressive military acts by the US against Pakistan will only lead to total breakdown and possibly unexpected and unwelcome consequences. The ill will that such actions will create will render any future cooperation next to impossible.

Just how this will be good for the US is impossible to visualise.

A difficult situation has been created due to unrealistic demands by the US -- and by the way it has been handled. It has heightened suspicion and mistrust in Pakistan. There is no quick solution in sight. The best that can be done is to limit the damage and take the time to jointly reconsider and re-evaluate various options.

The proposed military option is definitely not the way to proceed. There is every likelihood that Pakistan will not agree to be a part of it nor will it accept an increased Indian footprint in Afghanistan.

There is urgent need to de-escalate the situation. For the US to have a presence in Afghanistan it needs to think in terms of winning hearts and minds of the people. Indiscriminate killing is not the way to go. It just creates more enemies. Confrontation is counterproductive and can only make things worse for everyone.