Ali Imran Atta<\/p>\n
The Biden administration\u2019s foreign policy priorities are in some ways defined, however, there is little chance of a significant shift in its policy toward Pakistan. For several years, the US viewed Pakistan solely through the lens of Afghanistan, and there is no obvious sign that the Biden regime will depart from that strategic approach. As a long-serving Senate candidate, President Joe Biden, himself, is a rare witness to a new era in US foreign policy in which the United States did not win a single war it initiated, from Vietnam to the Afghanistan conflict. He recognized the futility of fighting wars to resolve challenges that could not be settled by force, particularly in countries whose culture and history are far from America\u2019s understanding.
\nIt is not a surprise that he opposes \u201cforever wars\u201d as president. But have these \u201cforever wars\u201d ended? Let us examine history and trends. Biden\u2019s foreign policy strategy combines elitist enthusiasm for major power rivalries, traditionalist devotion to alliances, and populist conviction that military strategy must meet the needs of America\u2019s middle and working classes. Thus, his policy aims to rebuild strength at home while competing with China abroad, the latter influenced by America\u2019s fear of losing its position as the world\u2019s leading great power to Beijing. Biden began his anti-China campaign by endangering to dissociate the economy, escalating the conflict over Taiwan, and increasing the geostrategic stakes by rallying allies against Beijing. But he was only partially successful. Both China and the United States have backed down. Consider the implications of a war over Taiwan, the world\u2019s largest producer of semiconductors, for the global economy. Biden and President Xi Jinping emphasized the importance of engaging and competing while managing strategic competition responsibly at their recent summit. However, with Europe affected by the Kyiv war and going to face economic challenges that necessitate engagement with China, Washington\u2019s gains have been mixed. NATO was strengthened, but so was Europe\u2019s desire for a wholesome China policy which was not merely an extension of America\u2019s hegemonic rivalry with China. America is rebalancing geopolitics and geo-economics on its own. Biden is attempting to make a special effort to recalibrate ties with the Global South, where the United States is making headway to China. This is one of the reasons for the resurgence of US-Pakistan relations. However, the problem with the American framework is that it is impossible to know what the upcoming election and political climate will deliver to US foreign relations. The desire to fight may return. Since becoming a superpower, the United States has entered and exited wars rashly, causing implications for both it and its allies. Warfare was sparked by devastating dignity among its army strength and encouraged by the strong alliance, as justified in Jack Snyder\u2019s book \u201cMyths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition.\u201d Engaging in warfare has often happened to Americans, given their historical experience.
\nThey are unconcerned about the intellect or moral code of wars. It is as though an American war is just. As a result, when they inevitably lose, the debate is infrequently about whether the war was a bad idea. It is always about cutting your losses and leaving. So, in the end, Americans will never know why they went to war or why they came home. This is an excellent formula for continuing to enter and exit future wars. For a country founded on religious liberty, war was exclusively characterized as a mission from God, a conflict between good and evil and even a moral conflict. Though it was occasionally a force for good, it frequently concealed imperialist goals. America\u2019s sense of \u2018exceptionalism\u2019 has effectively integrated with post-Cold War geostrategic, complicating its traditional militarism. Driven by a supreme sense of power and the arrogance of the monopolar moment, and thereafter ravaged by 9\/11, America standardized, distorted growing world difficulties, and needed to resort to unilateralism.
\nAs a result, wars in Afghanistan and the Middle East have frustrated. What can be taken to avoid future American wars? The realization, hopefully, that US strength is not absolute. On many issues, America has gone it alone. Its wars entangled bad partners, regional rivalries, and bilateral conflicts, in addition to unleashing new military assets of instability. They also harmed America\u2019s reputation and credibility. Other barriers to war have emerged both at domestic and internationally. National opposition to war exists. Furthermore, war is impossible without European cooperation, which might not be viewed as a given in the future. Europe is pursuing diplomatic diversification, and allies such as Saudi Arabia and India have developed polygamous relationships with major powers. Consider the recent Sino-Arab summit. Global national priorities are now geo-economics, which is based on geopolitics. Pakistan must maintain friendly relations with the United States, but military cooperation is optional. Pakistan should never again be America\u2019s war partner. Washington\u2019s war objectives will always differ from Pakistan\u2019s. As has been the situation in the past, these same costs will exceed the benefits. Meanwhile, shifting regional geopolitics have resulted in a new force alignment.
\nThe growing bilateral agreement between the United States and India, as well as the China-Pakistan axis, reflects these new geopolitics. Pakistan must proceed with caution as it seeks to reestablish relationships with the United States. While we must work with the US to achieve peace in Afghanistan, it is not in our best interests to become involved in any new US \u2018game\u2019 in the region. The use of Pakistani territory for America\u2019s post-withdrawal counter-insurgency strategy risks entangling the country in yet another conflict. We certainly need a wide-ranging relationship with the US, but we should avoid getting drawn into any new \u201cgame\u201d on America\u2019s behalf. Our friendship with America will undoubtedly be reset.<\/p>\n
The writer is a freelance columnist.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Ali Imran Atta The Biden administration\u2019s foreign policy priorities are in some ways defined, however, there is little chance of a significant shift in its policy toward Pakistan. For several years, the US viewed Pakistan solely through the lens of Afghanistan, and there is no obvious sign that the Biden regime will depart from that […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[3752,503,12052],"class_list":{"0":"post-306420","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-article","7":"tag-ali-imran-atta","8":"tag-joe-biden","9":"tag-us-foreign-policy"},"yoast_head":"\n