Abstract

The relationship has developed throughout the years based on mutual regard and economics rather than transactions, despite being one of Pakistan's first official relationships. Strategically, they have always required one another. The United States wanted Pakistan to prevent the Soviet Union from gaining power, while Pakistan sought to resolve issues generated by its uneven defense with India. The two countries were interdependent due to the fact that the United States required Pakistan to fulfill its economic demands and strategic objectives and Pakistan needed the United States to ensure its security. Pakistan and the United States have discovered methods to collaborate on Afghanistan. When it comes to economic and strategic collaboration, the United States remains skeptical of Pakistan and China. This gives the impression that Washington is trying to appease Beijing with its policy toward Pakistan. Since the United States is ignoring India, Pakistan is concerned for its own safety.

Key Words

Pak-US Relations, Impacts of WOT, Security Perceptions

Introduction

More than twenty years have passed since the United States and Pakistan collaborated in the battle against terrorism. The role of Pakistan in the Pak-U.S. conflict has dominated the news during this time. work together. Abbas, A. (2019). Although the majority of literature portrays Pakistan as a terrorist safe haven, there are many who argue that the United States can't achieve its regional objectives without addressing security concerns with Pakistan. Foreign aid's relative importance to people-focused investments and the differences in objectives between aid givers and recipients have received surprisingly little attention in the literature. 

The strategic location of Pakistan made it an integral component of the fight against terrorism. Its diplomatic, military, and logistical assistance was crucial to the success of US and allied operations in Afghanistan. Pakistan has suffered social and political divisions, economic losses amounting to billions of dollars, and weakened social and political institutions as a result of its decision to join the United States in the war. Ali, M. (2016).  Despite continued governmental backing for the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, its advocates have failed to gain the approval of the American or alliance public. U.S. operations, particularly drone strikes, inside Pakistan and a weakening economy, coupled with reduced U.S. funding, are mostly to blame. Pakistan and the U.S. Following Bin Laden's death, the friendship is currently going through a difficult period. There is a lot of domestic pressure on the United States to maintain its assistance for Pakistan despite the fact that it isn't benefiting the United States, and Pakistan is experiencing its worst economic, security, and political scenario ever. Ali, N. (2015). The insurgencies both within and outside of Pakistan necessitate American assistance if Pakistan is to avoid total collapse. 

However, Pakistan is essential to the United States because it assists American forces in Afghanistan and helps to control terrorist activity in the region. Giving Pakistan more money would boost American prestige in Pakistan, put an end to terrorism, and stabilize the region—all without requiring the United States or Pakistan to change their current course of action. 

Literature Review

There have been several highs and lows in US-Pakistani relations, according to Malik and Alqama (2020). Most of the well-known backers became crucial allies in the United States after the 9/11 attacks, which significantly altered the relationship. On this date, the "War on Terror" started. From a military perspective, it was crucial. Conversely, the goal of the alliance between the two states was to achieve their respective national objectives by eliminating AL-Q and the AT. Pakistan had to practically overhaul her long-supported strategy in Afghanistan due to the US's great might, which was a concern with that new alliance. This prompted the inquiry into the means by which a relatively weak power with some autonomy could strive to increase its comparative strength to a more powerful one. Figuring out who controlled whom and to what extent was just as important as learning about the states' advantages, disadvantages, and limitations. 

According to Taylor (2008), following 9/11, the United States desired and achieved a new relationship with Pakistan. For the purpose of expelling AL-Q and other parties associated with the Taliban from Afghanistan, the new alliance was crucial. There was an instant erasure of the reality that Musharraf's takeover of the military and Pakistan's nuclear weapons programs were the primary targets of US sanctions. Gilani, T. (2006). Even though they kept quiet about it, as they tried to mend their broken relationship, they were both harboring deep resentment toward the other for things they believed the other had done wrong. Pakistan emerged as a key US ally after the events of 9/11 prompted more in-depth discussion and reflection. The new partnership is tricky, though, because the two countries have been together before and had horrible "divorces." So it comes as no surprise that the most recent summit, on which the US has spent $11 billion, is failing to deliver. Hanif, M. (2011, Sep. 5). A troubling revival of the Taliban-AL-Q in Pakistan's tribal areas has made this very evident since the Pakistani military has either failed or been unwilling to take decisive action. This is why the United States needs to make immediate and significant policy shifts. 

The stalemate in US-Pakistani relations. The United States wants Pakistan to do more to combat the network of terrorist armed groups, including the Taliban and Al Qaida, that conduct terrorist acts both within and outside of Pakistan from Pakistan's tribal territories, which is why relations have remained tight. He analyses this impasse. Despite their shared global war against terrorism, some believe that Russia and the United States have divergent regional military goals. Hasnat, F., & Pelinka, A. (1986).  The United States sought to avenge the September 11th, 2001 strikes on American soil and halt Al Qaida's global terrorist ambitions as part of its war on terrorism. In contrast, Pakistan opted to join the conflict independently in order to safeguard itself and the nations bordering it and avoid conflict with the United States. Another consideration is the necessity for a shift in US-Pakistani relations if the two countries are to achieve the loftier objectives outlined in the war on terror. If that were to occur, it may jeopardize military operations targeting terrorists in the border areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan. This means that terrorist attacks will persist in this region and around the globe. Hussain, Z. (2020).  

This study's analysis study was prompted by a qualitative approach to the topic. Researchers employ a variety of resources, including primary and secondary sources as well as digital and print media, to compile their findings, but they place the greatest emphasis on primary sources.

Javaid, U. (2006). Their observations, chats, emails, and Skype sessions, along with formal and informal exchanges with US, Afghan, and Pakistani diplomats and academics, would provide the bulk of this information. In addition, my research relies on interviews and first-hand accounts from Pakistani military officers stationed in or returning from the conflict zone. 

Analysis

In terms of politics, economics, society, and strategy, Pakistan was the most severely impacted country by the US-led GWOT. Pakistan suffered greatly in terms of strategy. The United States' treatment of the Taliban administration and their war on terror made it difficult for Pakistan to maintain its support for the Taliban following 9/11. Pakistan was in a nightmare scenario from a foreign policy standpoint when it had to alter its approach to Afghanistan. As long as the Northern Alliance couldn't exploit the war for its own gain and seize control of Kabul, Pakistan would wholeheartedly back the US-led military operations in Afghanistan against the Taliban. Kayani, S. A. (2011). 

 Pakistan suffered a tremendous strategic setback with the overthrow of the pro-Pakistan Taliban administration in Kabul and the ascent of the anti-Pakistan Northern Alliance government. Many questions and doubts arose in the relationship between Islamabad and the Kabul government, which was backed by the US. The installation of the pro-Pakistan Taliban administration in Afghanistan cost Pakistan more than simply the strategic depth it had laboriously gained. Additionally, it failed to achieve its objective of accessing the Central Asian Republics' rich energy and mineral resources. Khan, A. U., (2018).  Traveling across the western border was now extremely risky. Pakistan redirected tens of thousands of soldiers from the eastern front to the western frontier in order to pursue insurgents who had crossed over. Pakistan was compelled to deploy its regular soldiers to FATA and initiate full-scale operations against the extremists in response to mounting pressure from the US. The result was the establishment of the terrorist organization known as Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), which is a grave danger to Pakistan's national security. Khan, H. (2013). India's larger engagement in Afghanistan, its tight relationships with the Kabul administration, and its assistance with logistics and intelligence for terrorism and insurgency in Pakistan all had detrimental impacts on Pakistan, both regionally and beyond. The debt-service requirements of Pakistan rose as a result of the country's rising debt load. In comparison to the $25.91 billion in military and economic aid it received from the US since September 11, 2001, the total cost of the war on terrorism, including both direct and indirect costs, amounts to $118.32 billion Khan, I., Khattak,  (2014). The period when Pakistan and the United States collaborated to combat terrorism was a dark one for Pakistani society. Pakistan somehow lost the young, active workers who had gone there to do their jobs. More Kalashnikovs, illicit narcotics, and culturally acceptable violence were issues it had to address. Khattak,(2015).

 It exacerbated several problems, including the plight of refugees, the rise in terrorist attacks, the strain on civil society, the state of law and order, and the inherent injustice in Pakistan's social system. A number of issues arose as a result of this, including foreign interference in Pakistani domestic affairs, particularly in the provinces of FATA and Baluchistan, suicide attacks, bombings, deaths of civilians, security personnel, and political leaders, destruction of both public and private property, a general weakening of law and order in Pakistan, particularly in these regions, and nearly daily clashes between security forces and terrorists. In the wake of 9/11, the United States and Pakistan joined together to combat terrorism. Pakistan suffered enormous political, economic, and social losses as a result of terrorism inside the country and events in neighboring Afghanistan and the surrounding region. No nation was more devastated by the US-led invasion of Pakistan than the Pakistani state and people. Mustafa, G., & Bashir, F. (2014).




Impacts on Regional Politics

The events of 9/11 had a significant negative impact on Pakistani politics. The political landscape of Pakistan was transformed when the United States became involved in the country's affairs and their relationship improved. Pakistan faced significant domestic political challenges as a result of its difficulty in opposing the Taliban's proposal. As a result of this decision, Islamic organizations in Pakistan gained ground and became more powerful. Collectively, the religious political organizations succeeded in dissuading Pakistan from endorsing the US-led invasion of Afghanistan. National Counter Terrorism Authority (NACTA (2020, Feb. 10).  (The Mutaheda Majlis-e-Amel (MMA) party was established as a result of their ability to capitalize on and stoke growing anti-American sentiments in Pakistan. There are now provincial governments in KP and Baluchistan as a result of their victories in the 2002 elections. With its meteoric rise to prominence, the MMA eventually became the Pakistani National Assembly's second-largest political party and its designated Opposition Leader. It was a watershed moment in Pakistani politics since the masses had never before cast such large ballots for religious political parties. Iqbal,(2019).

 Among the countries most severely impacted by terrorist attacks worldwide following the War on Terror, Pakistan emerged as the frontrunner in terms of military impact. Many people, both in the military and in civilian life, have suffered greatly because of this. The Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) has carried out several suicide attacks across Pakistan in recent years, spanning from the region formerly known as FATA to the country's main cities. The Sri Lankan cricket team, the Wah Ordnance Factory, the Islamabad Marriott Hotel, the Naval War College, Kamra Air Base, the Lahore office of the Federal Investigation Agency, the General Headquarters of the Pakistan Army in Lahore, and numerous other locations have been targeted and damaged by militants. There have been 99,000 casualties since 2001, according to research presented to the Supreme Court by Pakistan's intelligence forces Shah, N. (2013).. Since 2001, Pakistan has carried out a number of its most significant military operations. From 2002–2006, they were known as al–Mizan; from 2008–2009, as SherDil, Rah–e–Haq, and Rah–e–Rast; and from 2014–present, as Zarb–e–Azab. The execution of hundreds of Taliban and AL-Q members followed their capture in large groupings. The ones that were in most demand were these. Some of the many notable figures are Abu Faraj, Abu Zubaydah, Sharib Ahmad, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, Naeem Noor Khan, Khalfan Ghailani, Amjad Farooq, Abdul Rahman al-Maghrabi, and many more. Teams of investigators ranging in size from 700 to 1000 were dispatched to the United States. U.S. Department of State. (2021).

Effects on the Economy

Peace is essential for economic growth, and it may be impossible to maintain national security in the long run without economic prosperity, therefore it's clear that the two go hand in hand. The growth of Pakistan's economy has been impeded by terrorist attacks. Politics, society, and the environment have all been hit hard in Pakistan in the years after the start of the war in Afghanistan. All of the major economic sectors have had negative growth rates overall. This is due to the fact that the nation hosts millions of refugees and is also a prominent target for terrorists. Fair, C. C. (2005).

 In order to address security concerns and restore damaged infrastructure, the country's scarce resources—including people and material goods—have been heavily reallocated in recent years. Following instructions was critical in this instance. The direct and indirect damages to Pakistan's economy since the terrorist killings on September 11, 2001 amount to around Rs. 10762.14 billion, or over $126.79 billion. Because regular economic and corporate operations have slowed, the cost of doing business has increased. Global and domestic acts of terrorism have damaged Afghanistan's exports. Javaid, U. (2013).

 This has reduced Pakistan's market share, which would slow the country's growth compared to its plans. A 62% decline in GDP occurred between 2014 and 2018 as a result of the country's intense efforts to combat terrorism. Pakistan suffered severe economic losses from 2001 to 2016, according to the Pakistan Economic Survey 2015-2016. According to Dawn News, a Pakistani website, the country's economic losses associated with the battle against terrorism decreased by 62% from 2014 to 2018. In the fiscal years 2010–2011, Pakistan's economy suffered a loss of $23.77 billion. The war on terror was the reason behind this. Kronstadt, K. A. (2012). During 2011 and 2012, the amount decreased to $12 billion. Over the course of the 2016–17 and 2017–18 fiscal years, respectively, Pakistan's economy lost $5.47 and $2.07 billion. Since September 11, 2001, the Pakistani government estimates that the country has lost a grand total of $126.79 billion. Rashid, A. (2009).




Worries over Internally Displaced Persons

The massive increase in IDPs was a major consequence of the fight against terror. Hafiz Pasha reports that 337,772 individuals from KPK and FATA were classified by the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) as having to flee their homes due to the country's security situation. From FATA, 70% of these folks are hailing. More than 500,000 people were identified as internally displaced persons (IDPs) by Amnesty International. Rizvi, H.-A. (2005). A third of the internally displaced people would be estimated to cost RS 2 billion annually. Between 2.75 and 3.55 million people were compelled to flee KPK and FATA as a result of military operations, according to the Pakistan Institute of Peace Studies. In Pakistani history, this migration ranks highest. In South Waziristan, 428 thousand people were forced to flee their homes. The following agencies also had large-scale population displacements: Orakzai (400,000), Malakand (383,000), Khyber (84,000–100,000), and Bajaur and Mohmand (750,000). Bari (2009) claims that extremism is responsible for the emotional and bodily harm that people have experienced. Their lives were transformed by the fear that impacted them. Displaced people had no choice but to close their shops. Schofield, J. (2008). Most of them had lost their jobs. The end effect was a severe blow to Pakistan's economy. Since Pakistan's economy wasn't steady enough to provide these IDPs with complete financial security, many of them had to sell or give up their possessions after being forced to relocate. In 2020, Khalid 

The tourism industry will always take a hit due to terrorist attacks. Many choose to stay in secure areas. Losses in Pakistan's tourist business began piling up as the war against terrorism got underway. Siddiqi, F. H. (2014). Between 2007 and 2008, hotel occupancy fell from 60% to 40%. The tourism industry in the Swat Valley alone lost sixty million rupees (RS) between 2007 and 2009. Foreign visitors spent USD 27 billion in India and USD 6.64 billion in Pakistan in 2017. Pakistan had an increase in tourists after implementing some minor security measures; 1.75 million people visited the country in 2016. Pakistan was one of the world's top tourism destinations in 2017, even though states that have not been affected by terrorism attract more tourists and generate more revenue than Pakistan. Losses in Pakistan's tourist business began piling up as the war against terrorism got underway. Between 2007 and 2008, hotel occupancy fell from 60% to 40%. Zaidi, S. M. A. (2010). The tourism industry in the Swat Valley alone lost sixty million rupees (RS) between 2007 and 2009. Pakistan was ranked 113th out of 130 nations in 2009 for best tourist destination. The Pakistan Association for Tourism estimated that one million people visited Pakistan every year before the 9/11 attacks, according to Arshad (2010). A total of 10,000 were affected by the attacks. An annual average of 20,000 to 25,000 tourists visited Gilgit-Baltistan prior to 9/11. That figure fell to between 5,000 and 10,000 after 9/11. 

Conclusion

In conclusion, The assumption that Pakistan would be better protected from India prompted the country to forge ties with the United States following its independence from British colonial authority. As a result of her widely-discussed and contentious "Warm Water Theory," she supported the Islamic insurgents known as the Mujahideen in their 1979 confrontation with the Soviet invasion. The dissolution of the Soviet Union and the subsequent withdrawal of Soviet forces tested the partnership. At that point, the United States was the sole global superpower, yet it continued to disregard Pakistan. The romance came back to life after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States. The 2001 US invasion of Afghanistan worried her, so she returned to Pakistan for more assistance, which Pakistan gladly provided. Given that Pakistan's security could be jeopardized if the conflict in Afghanistan were to move to Pakistan, the alliance's costs were greater than simply being unreliable and lying. Once again, rebels took control of Afghanistan after the US withdrew. When the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan, Pakistan was in a very similar situation. By bringing Pakistan into FATF and cutting off its help, the US has once again demonstrated its unreliability. 

Recommendations

Much more importantly, the United States must cease viewing Pakistan through the prism of Afghanistan, China, India, and even Iran-Israel. Everyone in that group has to realize that this program is a bust. Because their government has been participating in military alliances and campaigns led by the United States, the people of Pakistan have endured a great deal. Because of its advantageous situation, Pakistan can serve as a model for other developing nations. The United States can play a role in making this happen if it is willing to take risks with Pakistan. The top brass are now complimenting each other, which is a significant shift. To achieve long-term success in Pakistan, however, the United States will need to be prepared to collaborate with Pakistan on matters outside narrow geopolitical agendas and conventional security concerns. If we want to mend fences about India and its disruptive influence in South Asia, we need to examine the country with objectivity and fairness. Furthermore, we ought to promote more interpersonal encounters; for instance, businesses, students, and academics ought to be permitted entry and exit without being subjected to aggressive security checks, and businesspeople ought to be allowed to meet and converse with one another at collaborative expos. If you look closely enough, you'll see that the two nations share a lot of similarities. 

References

• Abbas, A. (2019, July 15). Re-develop, re-visit, and re-set Pak-US ties. Business Recorder. https://fp.brecorder.com/2019/07/20190715497570/

• Ali, M. (2016). U.S. aid to Pakistan during the tenures of Democrat and Republican administrations. IPRI Journal, 16(2), 31-48.
• Ali, N. (2015). Changing geo-strategic environment in South Asia: Pakistan’s foreign policy adjustments. Journal of Politics and International Studies, 1(2), 64-76.
• Malik, N. M., & Alqama, S. K. (2020). Pakistan-US Relations: A Critical Analysis of Influence in post 9/11 Era. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, 40(1), 33-42.
• Taylor, S. J. (2008). Modelling Financial Time series. World Scientific.
• Gilani, T. (2006b). US-Pakistan relations: the way forward. The US Army War College Quarterly Parameters, 36(4). https://doi.org/10.55540/0031-1723.2326
• Hanif, M. (2011, Sep. 5). Pakistanis realise that the trauma is far from over. The Guardian. 
• Hasnat, S. F., & Pelinka, A. (1986). Security for the weak nations : a multiple perspective. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA80602008
•  Hussain, Z. (2020). Pakistan is again a frontline state. Asia Society. https://asiasociety.org/zahid-hussain-pakistan-again-frontline-state
• Javaid, U. (2006). Terrorism: Major threat to Pakistan's national security. Political Studies, 1(11), 11-16.
• Kayani, S. A. (2011). Global war on terror: The cost Pakistan is paying. Margalla Papers , 15(1), 1-16.
• Khan, A. U. (2018, February 16). Deconstructing terror financing in Pakistan (Issue Brief). Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad. http://issi.org.pk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/IB_Asad_February_16_2018.pdf
• Khan, H. (2013). Pakistan's contribution to global war on terror after 9/11. IPRI Journal, 13(1), 37-56.
• Khan, I., Khattak, S. A., & Marwat, M. M. (2014). Pak US Relations: Allies under Compulsion? Journal of Political Studies, 21(2), 81. https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-3729634751/pak-us-relations-allies-under-compulsion
•  Khattak, M. U., & Mushtaq, M. (2015). Pakistan’s counter-terrorism strategy (2001-2014): An analysis. Pakistan Journal of History and Culture, 36(1), 29-45.
• Mustafa, G., & Bashir, F. (2014). Pak-US security relation: Challenges & prospects for Pakistan. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 22(2), 1-24.
• National Counter Terrorism Authority (NACTA). (2020, February 10). Prescribed organizations. NACTA website. https://nacta.gov.pk/
• Iqbal, A., Latif, F., Marimon, F., Sahibzada, U. F., & Hussain, S. (2019). From knowledge management to organizational performance: Modelling the mediating role of innovation and intellectual capital in higher education. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 32(1), 36-59.
• Shah, N. A. (2013). The Use of Force under Islamic Law. European Journal of International Law, 24(1), 343–365. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/cht013
•  US. Department of State. (2021, January 20). U.S. relations with Pakistan: Bilateral relations fact sheet. https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-pakistan
• Fair, C. C. (2005). The US-Pakistan F-16 fiasco. Asian Security, 1(3), 225-249. 
• Javaid, U., & Ali, Z. (2013). War on Terror Partnership: problems and prospects for Pakistan. Journal of Political Studies, 20(1), 51–66. http://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/pols/pdf-files/Umbreen%20-%20Zulfqar_v20_1_2013.pdf
•  Kronstadt, K. A. (2012). Pakistan-U.S. relations. Congressional Research Service. 
• Rashid, A. (2009). Descent into Chaos: The U.S. and the Disaster in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Central Asia. National Geographic Books.
•  Rizvi, H.-A. (2005). Pakistan’s domestic response to terrorism: Security, political and social dimensions. Heidelberg Papers in South Asian and Comparative Politics, 29.
• Schofield, J. (2008). Why Pakistan fights the war on terror: The Chief of Army Staff's position on terrorism. International Studies, 45(2), 93-114.
• Siddiqi, F. H. (2014). The political economy of the war on terror and the US-Pakistan alliance: A case study of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). Journal of Asian and African Studies, 49(4), 403-418.
• Zaidi, S. M. A. (2010). The Talibanization of Pakistan’s tribal areas. Conflict and Peace Studies, 3(4), 15-39.