Topic

Pak: us Relation after 9/11

Name
Naveed Ullah
father name
Abdul Muttalib
Roll No
24
Department
History
Semester
1 Semester
st

Subject

Submitted to
M Tariq Kakar
Date
00- 00 - 0000

1
 Remarks

University of Balochistan

2
 Contents
PAK:US RELATIONS AFTER 9/11 ................................................... 4
Abstract: .................................................................................... 4
Introduction: .............................................................................. 4
Historical background:............................................................... 6
Post September 11: ................................................................... 8
The attack of 9/11: .................................................................... 9
USA response over 9/11 attack: ................................................ 9
PAK: US relation after 9/11: ..................................................... 10
Nature of relations: opportunities and interest. ..................... 11
Hurdles and difficulties in relation: .......................................... 11
Drones attack in Pakistan (2005-2012) .................................... 12
Current situation: ..................................................................... 12
How to improve the relation: ................................................... 29
Conclusion: ............................................................................... 30
Reference: ................................................................................. 30

3
 PAK:US RELATIONS AFTER 9/11

Abstract:
PAK:US relationship have been of a great importance
since 1947. Both countries have been cooperating each
other in political, social and diplomat grounds. The US
is always supported Pakistan in different fields and has
been assumed one of the crucial stakeholders in this
region. Now, Pakistan association with USA has been a
question of critics among scholars of Political Science.
This study signifies ways and means of reviewing
connection with the US. Which is at the heart's core of
Pakistan foreign policy.

Introduction:
The Happening of 9/11 flabbergasted the world
community. All the nations criticized terrorism in all its
forms and bestowed helping hand to the USA in order to
deter the peril of terrorism. Prior to it, the USA and
Pakistan were at loggerhead for the determinants of
atomic tests and overt backing the Taliban on part of
Pakistan. So, The USA pushed Pakistan through Pressler
and Brown amendments. As a serene and stable
circumstance is essential for the sovereignty of a state,
after 9/11 two states came close to each other in the light
of growing hazard from terrorism. Pakistan started its
4
coalition against such common threats, despite the fact
that Pakistan is bearing internal security perils.
Historically, there has been various ups and downs in
PAK:US relations, Pkistan has no option but act against
terrorists.
At 9/11 tragedy, Pakistan was long way from US allies,
however The USA urgently compelled Pakistan support
in light of the fact that without Pakistan assistance on war
against terrorism in Afghanistan it would be fiasco to
fight on her own.
USA called Pakistan to make Afghanistan a stable
country, to eliminate terrorism on local as well as
international level. Before 9/11 tragedy, USA foreign
policy was based on clash against communism in south
Asia when soviet invasion in Afghanistan took place in
1979 . However after 9/11, USA obtained policy of ‘Do
more’ but coldness in relations happened in 2001 on
account of Raymond Devas issue, Abbottabad Osama
execution dispute, and Salala check post incident.
Although many splits in relation of both nation can not
divided them in light of war against terrorism and this
war will strengthen two nation. When Trump reached at
the helm of power, he mobilise his connections with
Pakistan to bring Taliban to the table. Pakistan have been
and will be significant ally for the USA given
significance of its strategic location.

5
Historical background:
The US diplomacy has gone into profoundly ups and
downs for last sixty years in respect of US Pak tie. The
timeline of their links are as listed below:
 In 1950, Liaqat Ali Khan was invited by soviets and
Americans. He decided to visit USA,thus ushered an
era of Pak: US relation
 In 1954, Pakistan went nigher to the US by joining
SEATO. Thus, she followed capitalist bloc.
 In 1955, Baghdad pact was shaped between British,
Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Pakistan (later called CENTO
when Iraq left the bloc).
 Late 50s and early 60s US assistance commenced
flowing to Pakistan. First US base unlocked at
Badaber near Peshawar.
 In 1960, U2 incident occurred when the USSR shot
down the US spy plane on its soil, its was taken off
from Badaber base. In consequence, The USSR
cautioned pakistan of consequences. So, pakistan
strived to mollify the USSR by closing that Base.
 In 1965, Indo-Pak war took place, the US-Pak
relations grieved a setback when USA placed arms
sanction on both nations, Pakistan was totally
dependent on US arms while India did not. It was
the first betrayal by Americans.
 In 1971 war, India seized East Pakistan. Pakistan
asked her old time ally for support. Unfortunately,

6
 the USA did not support and deliberately assisted in
the dismemberment of Pakistan.
 In 1970, during Bhutto regim, Pakistan shifted
cooperation to other regional partners. Zulfiqar Ali
Bhutto envisioned policy of trinity (Islamisation,
communism and populism). In the course he
fabricated near links with The USSR, time tested
ally-China, and Islamic world.
 In 1977, CIA governed ‘Tehrik-i-Nizam Mustafa’
by Jamaat-i-Islami. They commenced movement
against Bhutto regime. Finally, Bhutto government
was ousted and marshal law was imposed by
GeneralZia Ul Haq.
 In 1979, Iranian revolution, and soviet invasion in
Afghanistan drew the world heeds to the region. The
USA turned to Pakistan for a goal. Their interest
converged against the speared of communism in the
region and beyond.
 In 1980, Pak: US relationship commenced once
again as US badly needed a trustworthy ally in the
region.So, Pakistan was the only country to deliver
that service. Pakistan became a front line state in
combat against communism.
 In 1989-90, fall of communism, USA completely
ignored Pakistan, while India moved towards
capitalist bloc in same era. Zia-ul-Haq killed in
plane crash, it was considered to be a work of CIA.

7
  In 1990, USA imposed embargoes on Pakistan and
halted Pakistan aid flowing it was third betrayal by
the USA
 In 2001, after 9/11 tragedy, Pakistan once again
become powerful supporter of USA against war on
terrorism.

Post September 11:

After September 11, attack in 2001, Pakistan once again
become an important ally in the war on terror with united
states. Pakistan was crucial contributor of Taliban in
Afghanistan as a part of their ‘strategic depth’ objective.
Consequently, USA had lifted penalty on Pakistan and it
had been received 20 billion dollars as military
assistance.
 In 2002-03, Pakistan deploy 80000 battalions in
FATA to crush militant groups.
 In 2005 USA indicates disappointment and initiated
drone attacks in tribal regions.
 Furthermore, huge love of civilian have seen in
FATA, but USA reveals discontent and adopted
policy of ‘Do more’.

8
The attack of 9/11:
It was pleasant morning in New York , people were busy
in their day-to-day work September 11 was not only one
darkest day for folk of USA but also for other nations.
Its horrors might be remembered in the history of USA.
It was 8.45 am, when American airline Boeing 767
attacked world trade tower. Meanwhile, another aero
plane 175 wrecked to pentagon. Therefore, thousand of
people were killed the next planes crashed in
Pennsylvania, 44 people killed.

USA response over 9/11 attack:

The 9/11 invasion become landmark in the history of
USA, as compare to pearl Harbor happening, huge
number of people were assassinated and hundreds billion
dollars had been lost. The congress, stakeholders and US
media directly condemned on Al-Qaeda and announced
it the core perpetrator of 9/11 strike. It was because Al-
Qaeda was involved in explosion of US embassy in
Kenya and Tanzania and it had also involved in stroke
before 9/11 on world trade center. Now the world had
looking toward president Bush, who claimed that, “I am
goinlg to explain our leadership, what I saw the damage
in New York city of USA. We are going to meet
contemplate and analyze, but there is no query about it.
We will survey those who did it. We will get them out of

9
their holes. We will not only incorporate those who
challenge America. We will deal those who harbor them
and feed them and house them".
After 9/11 USA decided to get the world powers backing
to attach Al-Qaeda. All countries support US efforts
against war on terror.

PAK: US relation after 9/11:

When 9/11 incident took place, then USA was move near
to India in south Asia and Pakistan was under penalties
in the form of Pressler amendment, Symington
amendment and democracy embargoes. At that time
Pakistan was in terrible economic crisis.
USA took less time to blame Taliban for 11 September
2001 assault and demanded Taliban to hand over Osama-
bin-Ladin who was guest of Taliban network after soviet
left Afghanistan in 1996.
In the region, the USA needed more support of Pakistan
against Haqqani network, Al-Qaeda and Taliban due to
strategic significance of Pakistan. Pakistan geostrategic
area was much suitable for USA then other neighboring
country.
USA launched diplomacy through numerous officials.
First, exchange was made with Pakistan embassy. US
ambassador in Pakistan negotiated with Pakistani
government.
10
After several negotiation on official level, USA
mandated logistic and intelligence support and airspace.
On 19th September 2001, president Musharraf addressed
the nation and identify four concerns Pak: stability and
external security hazards, Kashmir problem, Nuclear and
missile assets. After one day president Bush addressed to
joint session of congress and jeopardize Pakistan that you
are with us or not, against war on terror.

Nature of relations: opportunities and interest.

The PAK: US relation after 9/11 have been based on the
following terms
 Working together in battle against terror.
 To enhance the regional stability of south Asian
states.
 Aid to Pakistan in numerous area of life
 To eliminate mistrust between people of two
countries.
 Geostrategic significance of Pakistan

Hurdles and difficulties in relation:

 Anti-American thoughts of people.
 Trust deficit.
 Nuclear issues.
 Boosting Islamic militancy.
 Ariel drone attacks.
11
 Drones attack in Pakistan (2005-2012)
Year incidents killed injured
2005 01 01 0
2006 0 0 0
2007 01 20 15
2008 19 156 17
2009 46 536 75
2010 90 831 85
2011 59 548 52
2012 12 87 06
Total 228 2179 250+

Current situation:
IT was an unwinnable conflict but lies coated the
destruction. For almost two decades, the American
people have been misinform by their leaders over a
conflict that has gone untrue. The US went into
Afghanistan in 2001 out of revenge, with little
understanding of a land which is of ten described as the
`graveyard of empires`.

Even if the world`s greatest military power assumes that

it has not lost the conflict, it is not won it either. All three

12
American presidents since 2001 George W. Bush,
Barack Obama and Donald Trump and their military
commanders were not eligible to make good on their
pledges to earn in Afghanistan.

An investigative report `The Afghanistan Papers` in the

Washington Post indicates how facts were altered to hide
the bleak reality of the battleground. Based on thousands
of pages of government documents and confidential
interviews, the report furnishes insightful detail into the
lies and destructions that are part of the 18-year US-led
battle in Afghanistan.

It took a three-year legal battle for Washington Post to

disclose the transcripts of the interviews amassed for a
project of Sigar, a federal agency tasked with stopping
corruption and inefficiency in America`s war effort. `The
Afghanistan Papers` has echoes of the Pentagon Papers,
a report on the private military history of the Vietnam
War that was leaked in 1971 and uncovered the
fabrications of the government. It`s like history repeating
itself with no lessons learnt.

The feeling of frustration and misery affirmed by the top

officials in the interviews are in contrast to the public
statements by the American civil and military leadership.
13
As highlightedin the report, the lack of a clear strategy
and clashing objectives has dogged the war from the
outset.

How clueless the Americans were when they occupied

Afghanistan in October 2001 to avenge the 9/11 attacks
was well interpreted by the three-star army general,
Douglas Lute, the `war czar` during the Bush and Obama
administrations. `We were devoid of an essential
understanding of Afghanistan we didn`t know what we
weredoing,` Gen Lute told interviewers in 2015 as
quoted in the Washington Post report. `What are we
trying to do here? We didn`t have the foggiest notion of
what we were undertaking.

There have been basic disagreements on the purposes of

the US operation in Afghanistan within US
administrations. While some officials wanted
Afghanistan to become a political democracy, others
wanted the fighting to alter Afghan culture, including its
views on women`s rights. Some glanced at the broader
picture, wanting a regional equilibrium of power among
the nearby states, according to the report. Perhaps, the
biggest confusion among various US departments has
been whether Pakistan is a friend or an adversary.

14
Unsurprisingly, the conflict has dragged on, making it
the longest the United States has ever battled. Tens of
thousands of Afghans have been assassinated in the
conflict that has cost a trillion dollars, and there is no sign
yet of it ending anytime soon.

Since 2001, over 775,000 US armies have been deployed

in Afghanistan.

Of those, over 2,000 died there, while more than 20,000

were injured in action. The report shows a complete
bureaucratic deterioration in Congress, Pentagon and the
State Department, resulting in military loss.

The report also opposes the many public statements that

were made by American presidents, military
commanders and diplomats who kept on convincing their
countrymen that the American war effort in Afghanistan
was resulting in dividends. Barack Obama went so far as
to announce the conflict a `good war`.

According to the report, there have been maintained

efforts by the US government to gradually mislead the
public. `It was familiar at military headquarters in Kabul
and at the White House to distort statistics to give rise to
15
it appear the United States was winning the war when
that was not the case.

According to a senior counterinsurgency adviser to US

military commanders referred to in the report, there were
various modifications in the facts to present the best
picture possible. `Surveys, for instance, were entirely
unreliable but reinforced that every-thing we were doing
was right and we became a selflicking ice cream cone,`
he told the interviewer.

The report referring to senior officials also highlights the

`US government`s botched attempts to lessen runaway
corruption, create a competent Afghan army and police
force, and put a dent in Afghanistan`s thriving opium
trade`. Most of the US aid money was siphoned off by
Afghan officials and warlords aligned with the United
States.

Afghanistan has become a narco state as an outcome of

some very flawed policies.

Despite spending billions of dollars on construction and

training the Afghan National Army and other protection
personnel, Afghan armies have not been capable of
16
fighting the Afghan Taliban without American
assistance. More than 64,000 Afghan soldiers have been
massacred fighting the militia. The casualty rate is much
higher among Afghan soldiers than the US forces.

In confidential interviews, Afghan security troops were

described
by US military coaches as `incompetent, unmotivated
and rife with deserters`. They also impeached Afghan
commanders of appropriating the salaries of tens of
thousands of `ghost soldiers` much of the money coming
from the American taxpayer. None communicated
confidence that the Afghan army and police could ever
`fend of f, much less defeat, the Taliban on their own`.

But in their public statements, US generals would

announce that they were making steady improvement on
`the central plank of their strategy: to train a strong
Afghan army and national police force that can protect
the country without foreign help`.

Although, the downfall of the US forces in Afghanistan

has long been evident, the magnitude of confusion and
turmoil in Washington over the Afghan war is very
revealing. The damning report has come out at a time

17
when the stalled conversations between the US and
Taliban have been revived and it is likely to have some
consequence on the negotiations between the two sides.
It certainly gives the Taliban more confidence.•
SIGAR confidential Papers

EIGHTEEN years ago, the United States occupied

Afghanistan to drive out the Afghan Taliban, but is now
seeking their assistance to get out of the country itself.

The US-Taliban talks may have been canceled but are bound
to resume as there is no option to a negotiated end to the
war. Nevertheless, the end of the conflict will do little to
bring peace to Afghanistan.

It will solve America`s dilemma; but Afghanistan and

Pakistan will have to solve theirs.

Afghanistan and Pakistan have had a tortuous shared

history that has left a difficult legacy of divided ethnicity
across a disputed border.Each has responded by
becoming friendly with the other`s enemies. They will
face much greater challenges as intra-Afghan talks start,
which they must sooner or later. The Taliban and Kabul
18
will not only be talking but also Eghting, hence
presenting a challenge to both countries that cannot be
resolved through strategies deñning their past
interaction.

We have made errors in Afghanistan and paid for them.

I hope we are not going to make another one by persisting
with our traditional support for the Taliban in this new
conflict that will be so different. On the one hand, the US
and Afghanistan will be more dependent on Pakistan to
manage the Taliban threat. On the other, Pakistan will
have less leverage with the Taliban as the latter, with the
US drawdown, would feel powerful and be less
amenable to Pakistan`s influence.

Pakistan`s biggest challenge will be to deter the Taliban

from calling upon their old and new supporters like the
foreign and Pakistani jihadists to join the warfare in a
replay of the war of the 1990s. This confrontation will
loom large over Pakistan`s tentative effort against
militant organisations and its efforts to stabilise the
economy and strengthen democracy amid continued
anxieties from an assertive and prominent India.

Finding a sound strategy to deal with this confrontation

should be at the centre of Pakistan`s priorities. How to
19
view post-drawdown Afghanistan and treat the Taliban
accordingly has to be at the heart of this strategy.

Will we see Afghanistan as a danger or an opportunity?

If we see it as a warning we will keep dealing with the
Taliban as an asset and risk becoming an accessory to
their yearnings for power.

If the Taliban return to strength they will have reverse

strategic depth in Pakistan, provoking radicalisation of
sections of our society. A disempowered Taliban on the
other hand might tear away at Pakistan`s tribal regions
amid the turmoil of an unfinishedwar that will cause a
spillover of refugees, drugs and extremism into Pakistan.

Treating Afghanistan as a hazard is thus not a policy

option. If the Taliban win, that is bad; if they lose that is
terrible.

The Afghan Taliban are not the national friction

movement that some of us understand. They just happen
to be a major player in one of the eternal efforts for power
in Afghanistan. There are confrontations within the
dispute in that country, and Pakistan should not be a
party to them.
20
We need to deal with Afghanistan as an opportunity, in
that its stabilisation would improve our own stability,
and look upon the Taliban as a challenge not an asset.

In that case, Pakistan would have no choice but to work

with the elected government in Kabul to strengthen its
negotiating hand and compel the Taliban into a
powersharing arrangement. Kabul too should realise that
if it wants Pakistan`s help it must seek friendly
associations with Islamabad.

Pakistan cannot bring stability to Afghanistan but it can

certainly block it.

Pakistanis strategically vitalbecause ofits location at the

crossroads of Afghanistan, Russia, China, India and Iran.
It could benefit from its location by assisting as a corridor
fortrade and energy.

But that would not occur without Afghanistan`s

stabilisation and promoted Pakistan India connections.
Afghanistan`s stabilisation may well be the only pull
Pakistan will have with India; provided the prospects of
transit rights to Central Asia and access to pipelines,
21
Pakistan`s value as an economic partner will surge
provoking India to seek Islamabad`s friendship.
Hopefully, the probability of friendly relations with
Pakistan would furnish India with an incentive to solve
the Kashmir dispute.

Pakistan`s foreign policy will have to discover a balance

between communicating the country`s external defense
challenges and meeting its improvement needs at home.
No issue impacts Pakistan`s inner and outward
challenges as much as stability and the vitality of
Afghanistan; and there is no greater impediment to
Afghanistan`s stabiliseation than the Taliban. No country
has as much leverage with them as Pakistan, which must
play its cards well

The USA-Taliban dialogue.

IT was an unwinnable dispute but lies covered the
collapse. For almost two decades, the American
people have been misinform by their leaders over a
war that has gone wrong. The US went into
Afghanistan in 2001 out of revenge, with little
understanding of a land which is of ten interpreted
as the `graveyard of empires`.

22
Even if the world`s greatest military power believes
that it has not lost the war, it has not won it either.
All three American presidents since 2001 George
W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump and
their military commanders were not able to make
good on their pledges to win in Afghanistan.

An investigative report `The Afghanistan Papers` in

the Washington Post discloses how facts were
distorted to hide the bleak reality of the
battleground. Based on thousands of pages of
government documents and confidential interviews,
the report gives insightful detail into the lies and
failures that are part of the 18-year US-led war in
Afghanistan.

It took a three-year legal trial for Washington Post

to publish the transcripts of the interviews collected
for a project of Sigar, a federal agency tasked with
ending corruption and inefficiency in America`s
war effort. `The Afghanistan Papers` has echoes of
the Pentagon Papers, a report on the private military
history of the Vietnam War that was leaked in 1971
and uncovered the fabrications of the government.
23
It`s like history repeating itself with no lessons
learnt.

The feeling of frustration and desperation

communicated by the top officials in the interviews
are in contrast to the public statements by the
American civil and military leadership. As
highlightedin the report, the scarcity of a clear
strategy and conflicting objectives has dogged the
war from the outset.

How clueless the Americans were when they seized

Afghanistan in October 2001 to avenge the 9/11
invasions was well described by the three-star army
general, Douglas Lute, the `war czar` during the
Bush and Obama governments. `We were devoid of
a fundamental understanding of Afghanistan we
didn`t know what we weredoing,` Gen Lute told
interviewers in 2015 as quoted in the Washington
Post report. `What are we striving to do here? We
didn`t have the foggiest notion of what we were
undertaking.

24
There have been basic disagreements on the
objectives of the US operation in Afghanistan
within US governments. While some officials
required Afghanistan to become a political
democracy, others wanted the war to shift Afghan
culture, encompassing its views on women`s rights.
Some gazed at the broader picture, wanting a
regional balance of power among the nearby states,
according to the report. Perhaps, the biggest turmoil
among several US departments has been whether
Pakistan is a friend or an opponent.

Unsurprisingly, the conflict has dragged on, giving

rise to it the longest the United States has ever
battled. Tens of thousands of Afghans have been
assassinated in the war that has cost a trillion
dollars, and there is no sign yet of it ending anytime
soon.

Since 2001, over 775,000 US battalions have been

deployed in Afghanistan.

25
Of those, over 2,000 died there, while more than
20,000 were wounded in warfare. The report
expresses a thorough bureaucratic breakdown in
Congress, Pentagon and the State Department,
resulting in military downfall.

The report also opposes the many public statements

that were made by American presidents, military
commanders and diplomats who kept on convincing
their countrymen that the American war effort in
Afghanistan was yielding dividends. Barack
Obama went so far as to announce the confrontation
a `good war`.

According to the report, there have been

strengthened achievements by the US government
to deliberately misinform the public. `It was
common at military headquarters in Kabul and at
the White House to alter statistics to prepare it seem
the United States was winning the clash when that
was not the case.

26
According to a senior counterinsurgency consultant
to US military commanders named in the report,
there were various differences in the truths to
illustrate the best picture feasible. `Surveys
for ,
example, were completely unreliable but
reinforced that every-thing we were doing was
right and we came to be a selflicking ice cream
cone,` he told the interviewer.

The statement quoting senior officials also

highlights the `US government`s botched
attempts to lessen runaway corruption, build a
competent Afghan troop and police force, and
put a dent in Afghanistan`s growing opium
trade`. Most of the US assistance was siphoned
off by Afghan officials and warlords aligned
with the United States.

Afghanistan has become a narco state as a

result of some very flawed policies.

27
Despite spending billions of dollars on building
and training the Afghan National Army and
other security personnel, Afghan forces have
not been capable of fighting the Afghan
Taliban without American support. More than
64,000 Afghan soldiers have been killed
fighting the militia. The casualty rate is much
higher among Afghan soldiers than the US
forces.

In confidential interviews, Afghan security

forces were interpreted by US military trainers
as `incompetent, unmotivated and rife with
deserters`. They also impeached Afghan
commanders of appropriating the incomes of
tens of thousands of `ghost soldiers` much of
the money coming from the American
taxpayer. None asserted confidence that the
Afghan army and police could ever `fend of f,
much less defeat, the Taliban on their own`.

28
But in their public statements, US generals
would announce openly that they were making
steady development on `the central plank of
their strategy: to equip a robust Afghan army
and national police troop that can safeguard the
country without foreign help`.

Although, the failure of the US forces in

Afghanistan has long been obvious, the
magnitude of turmoil and violence in
Washington over the Afghan war is very
revealing. The damning report has come out at
a time when the stalled talks between the US
and Taliban have been renewed and it is likely
to have some impact on the negotiations
between the two sides. It certainly provides the
Taliban more confidence.
How to improve the relation:
There are following ingredients, which are responsible to
boost PAK: US relation.
I. To eliminate the Anti-American sentiments.
II. To boost the infrastructure of Pakistan

29
III. Need of dialogue to lessened violent extremism in
Afghanistan and tribal areas
IV. People to people contact and travelling without
constraints.
V. Indian ingredient must be ignored

Conclusion:
PAK: US relation abruptly altered after 9/11 incident that
Pakistan become close alloy of USA against war in terror
in south Asian region. America still engaged in war in
Afghanistan after long period of 20 years. So role of
Pakistan having great significance in Afghan problem
because without Pakistan efforts, proper solution of
Afghan war is meaningless. Pakistan`s foreign policy
will have to locate a balance between addressing the
country`s external security challenges and meeting its
advancement needs at home. No problem impacts
Pakistan`s internal and external challenges as much as
peace and the equilibrium of Afghanistan; and there is no
greater barrier to Afghanistan`s stabilisation than the
Taliban. No country has as much leverage with them as
Pakistan, which must play its cards well

Reference:
1. Archived copy , archived from the original on 2012-
04-24 retrieved 2012-04-24.

30
2. Riedel Bruce o 2013 Aviodling Armageddon America
Inda And Pakistan to the Brink and back Brooking
institution press pp 170 & nbsp, 2016 ISBN 0-8157-
2408 X
3. 2014 BBC World Service poll
4. Canada Great Britain are Americans most favored
nation Gallup com 2015-03-13 Gallup
5. US Pakistan relations an unhappy alliance los angels
times May 07-2019
6. US Pakistan Military Cooperation Council on forging
relation retrieved June 26-2008
7. Provost Claire July 15-2011 Sixty years of US aid of
Pakistan get the data the guardian London Retrieved
October 2011
8. US Pakistan Relation US State Department
9. Redshirt cowasjee (13 March 2011) A recap of soiled
Pakistan relations Dawn newspaper Pakistan institute
of international affairs 1950 Retrieved 26 February
2012
10. Kazmi Muhammad Raza 2003 Liaquat Ali Khan his
life and work United Kingdom Oxford University Press
2003 p354

31
11. Hasnat Farooq Afghanistan’s unremitting Crise and
its repercussions of Pakistan in Pakistan Unresolved
issues of State and Seciety edited by Syed Farooq
Hasnat and Ahmed Faruqi Lahore Vanguard book 2008
12. The Express tribune war on terror Pakistan reminds
Americans of its sacrifices with and ad 22 September
2011
13. The economics time Pakistan war on terror since
9/11 cost DS 68 Billion economics survey 2010-2011
14. Shahbaz Rana the express tribune Myth vs Reality
US aid to Pakistan dwarfed by economics cost of war
20th march 2011
15. Kimberly amide how the 9/11 attacks still affect the
economy to day about.com us economy
16. Khan Akber Nasir the US policy of target killing by
drones in Pakistan IPRI Journal XI no 1,2011
17. Munawir Sabir Geo Staragic importance of Pakistan
CSS fourm 15th April 2012
18. Okely Robert B and Hammes T.y Prioritizing
strategis interest in South Asia Strategic Forum 25,
June 2010
19. Zahid Hussain the Struggle with militant Islam
frontline Pakistan Lahore Vanguard Books , 2007 . p 80

32
21. Suspected U.S Missile Stricken Kills 18 in Pakistan
associated press January 23,2009
22. DR Noor Ul Haq Kerry Lugar Bill 2009 p.3

33