CSS With A CSP

Pakistan Affairs · CSS 2022 · Question 8

Discuss the issues and mistrust in US-Pakistan relations after the withdrawal of the US troops from Afghanistan.

By CSP Qasim Farooq

Understanding the question

Explain the main sources of mistrust after the 2021 withdrawal and the scope for practical cooperation.

Thesis

Withdrawal changed the partnership's purpose but left old mistrust unresolved; practical cooperation required clearer expectations, lawful security arrangements and wider civilian ties.

Outline

  1. A relationship no longer centred on a US deployment
  2. Conflicting assessments of the Afghan Taliban
  3. Counterterrorism priorities and sovereignty concerns
  4. China, India and wider strategic differences
  5. Humanitarian and economic interests
  6. A realistic basis for limited cooperation

Introduction

The US withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021 removed an important organising purpose of US-Pakistan relations. Pakistan was no longer needed in exactly the same way to support a large American military deployment. Yet the withdrawal did not end shared concerns about terrorism, regional stability and economic disruption. It exposed an older problem: each side had often expected cooperation on its priorities without accepting the other's different threat assessment. This answer focuses on the immediate post-withdrawal setting of the 2022 paper.

The Afghan outcome carried conflicting meanings

Washington questioned Pakistan's earlier conduct

US officials had long criticised Pakistan's relationship with Afghan militant networks. The Taliban's rapid return to power reinforced the belief among some American policymakers that Pakistan had not supported US objectives consistently.

That view should be identified as an American assessment, not treated as a complete explanation of the Afghan state's collapse. Decisions inside Afghanistan and the conduct of the international campaign also require examination.

Pakistan expected its concerns and costs to be recognised

Pakistani officials stressed the effects of the war, displacement and militancy on their country. They argued that the United States had pursued changing objectives and left behind an unstable regional setting. This encouraged the belief that Pakistan was valued during immediate need but blamed when the wider strategy failed.

Analytical insight: Both accounts could identify genuine costs while still avoiding responsibility for particular decisions. Mistrust persists when competing narratives replace clear discussion of specific conduct.

Counterterrorism remained necessary but difficult

The parties did not rank every threat equally

The United States focused on preventing Afghanistan from again supporting attacks on its interests and partners. Pakistan was especially concerned about the TTP and violence affecting its own territory. The Afghan Taliban, TTP and Islamic State-Khorasan are distinct organisations; treating them as one actor obscures their different relationships and objectives.

There was room for cooperation against specific threats, but shared concern about terrorism did not automatically produce agreement on targets, methods or responsibility.

Operational cooperation raised sovereignty questions

After withdrawal, Washington still needed ways to assess threats beyond its immediate physical presence. Any arrangement involving access, intelligence or the use of force could raise questions of consent, legal authority and civilian harm in Pakistan.

Earlier experiences, including Abbottabad and Salala in 2011, remained part of the political memory. They made broad assurances less persuasive than clear and workable understandings.

Wider strategic differences shaped the relationship

US ties with India affected Pakistan's calculations

Growing US-India cooperation increased Pakistani concern about the regional balance. Washington did not view all aspects of its India relationship through the India-Pakistan dispute. Islamabad therefore faced a partner whose wider strategy could conflict with some of its expectations.

Pakistan's China relationship created another complication

China remained central to Pakistan's security and economic partnerships. US-China competition increased concern about infrastructure, technology and strategic alignment. Pakistan had reasons to preserve cooperation with both, but could not assume that every issue would permit an easy middle position.

The practical response was to identify areas of compatible interest rather than promise complete strategic agreement.

A narrow relationship was vulnerable to each crisis

When security dominates, a dispute in one field can threaten the whole partnership. Trade, education, health and people-to-people links provide additional reasons to maintain contact. They also create constituencies that value stability even when governments disagree.

Afghanistan's humanitarian needs created a shared interest

Economic collapse, food insecurity and displacement threatened the region. Both countries had reasons to support humanitarian relief and prevent further disorder. However, they differed over how to engage Taliban authorities, apply financial restrictions and obtain commitments on rights and security.

Humanitarian access and diplomatic recognition are separate questions. Helping civilians need not imply acceptance of every action by the authorities, while withholding recognition does not remove the need for practical relief arrangements.

What a more dependable relationship would require

  • Limited, clear commitments: Define the purpose and limits of cooperation instead of promising a complete strategic reset.
  • Verifiable security conduct: Exchange relevant information and assess agreed actions through evidence rather than public accusations alone.
  • Lawful arrangements: Clarify consent, responsibility and safeguards in sensitive security cooperation.
  • A wider civilian agenda: Develop commerce, education, health and other areas with benefits independent of an Afghan military campaign.
  • Regional engagement: Address Afghan stability through sustained diplomacy while rejecting the use of armed groups as policy instruments.

Critical assessment

The withdrawal did not make Pakistan irrelevant, nor did shared concerns erase the trust deficit. The realistic objective was a relationship able to sustain useful cooperation despite important differences. That required both states to distinguish what the other could deliver from what domestic audiences wished it would deliver.

Conclusion

Post-withdrawal mistrust reflected unresolved disagreements over Afghanistan, sovereignty and regional strategy. A stronger partnership required more realistic expectations and clearer conduct, supported by wider economic and civilian links. Cooperation would be more durable when it rested on defined common interests rather than temporary dependence during war.

References

Continue your Pakistan Affairs preparation