Historical Perspective of Pakistan-US Relations and the USA’s Afghanistan and South Asia Strategy
CFRPSAIL ABSTRACT President Donald John Trump’s Strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia (SASA) is a serious threat to strategic balance in South Asia having direct implications for bilateral relations with Pakistan, India, Afghanistan and China. It is an attempt of the US policy-makers to tit for tat for growing bilateral relations between Pakistan and China after the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CEPC) and One Belt, One Road (OBOR) projects in Pakistan and in the Asia. It is a new turn in tumultuous relationship between Pakistan and the USA which requires in-depth consideration, analysis and review for its short term and long term implications for national security of Pakistan and already deteriorating bilateral relations between Pakistan and the USA. This Article aims to review brief history of Pakistan-USA relations in particular context of the SASA and its implications with particular reference to Pakistan’s future policy initiatives, guidance and review by both countries. Key words:   SASA, CPEC, Pakistan, USA, relations, national security, economic, strategic balance, regional, implications, South Asia, Afghanistan. ____________________ Introduction: The concept of security is emanating from absence of any threat. If there will be any threat, there will be no security. Security is directly proportional to threat as if there will be more threats, the security will be more vulnerable. If there will be nothreats there will be complete security. However, it is practically impossible to have a zero value of threat i.e. absolute security. Certainly, there will be less or more threat but there is a difference between perception and reality as these are completely psychological phenomena which cannot be measured with real arithmetical values. Security is an important aspect of state behavior which is based on presumptions with latent values instead of realities and patent values. In an anarchic international environment, the security is the central to state priorities. Since the end of Cold War there was beginning of the terror or terrorism as an instrument by non-state actors to achieve their objectives by planning in strategic terms. The US strategists were very ambitious to ensure their successes throughout the world at any cost. Thus, the US strategies after the end of the Cold War were aggressive instead to maintain status quo to address the causes of frustrations against the American people due to aggressive policies of the US administration. Due to this reason the US administration was resorting to excessive use of their military power instead of addressing the psychological factors causing hatred against the USA and American people. The US hegemonic ideas certainly require an aggressive strategy to turn the ideas into realities. However, there is a difference in thinking in a war-room and acting in a war-field. War is the strategy to control and overpower the enemy according to someone’s will.[1]National security dilemmas are leading to a hot or cold war, which are the product of existential challenges and opportunities as well as errors in policy or strategy.[2]In this regard the US administration is guided by recommendations made by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States[3]suggesting use of all available means to eliminate and destroy terrorists and their organizations, to prevent the continued growth of Islamist terrorism particularly and to protect against and prepare for terrorist attacks generally. These are aggressive policy goals and objectives for which the US administration had launched the War on Terrorism.[4] Earlier it was pointed out that the USA is in an ironic position in its apogee of power[5] because any deterrence based only upon the threat of retaliation is less likely to work against leaders of rouge states who are more willing to take risks.[6] Later on it was also concluded that traditional concepts of deterrence will not work against a terrorist enemy targeting innocents.[7] In the above perspective and after constant failures to produce any victorious outcome as well as keeping in view experience of former Presidents after the 9/11 incident, Donald John Trump on August 21, 2017, after a marathon deliberation process of his advisers, policy-makers and strategists in his Remarks on the Strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia (SASA) said “our nation must seek an honourable and enduring outcome worthy of the tremendous sacrifices that have been made, especially the sacrifices of lives…deserve a plan for victory…to fight and win.”.[8] The SASA clearly delineated the strategy for Afghanistan and South Asia while allowing a prominent role to India and deprecating the role of Pakistan in serious words hurling an express warning to Pakistan for providing safe havens to terrorist organizations, the Taliban and other groups that pose threats to the US interests in the region and beyond. It is noteworthy previously Pakistan was the most allied amongst the allies of the USA.[9] However, there is no cavil to say that a sense of resentment and distrust of the USA pervades Pakistan due to impression that the USA used Pakistan “like a used Kleenex” and discarded when the USA’s interests were served.[10] This, impression has nowbecome deep-rooted as the US SASA acted like a last straw on camel’s back. There was a severe reactionamongst the leaders, military and people of Pakistan on the SASA whereas there is a wave of happiness in India as the India got more better and recognized status than desired and expected. Only jubilation in New Delhi is enough to dip the Pakistan-US relations to their lowest ebb. But the statements of the US leaders and administration further deteriorated the level of understanding as a perception was created that Pakistan will be sternly dealt with penal consequences in addition to military action in the terrorist havens located in territories of Pakistan. Interpreting Trump’s Strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia The US policy-makers are applying with full force the neorealism approach. Neo-realism which is the reinterpretation of classical realism or realism made it a more rigorous theory of international politics by application of general laws to explain state behaviour. Neo-realism deals with structural characteristics of an international system of states instead of their component units. Structure refers “ordering” or “arrangement”
US Drone Attacks and National Security of Pakistan-Implications for Pakistan-US Relations
CFRPSAIL US Drone Attacks and National Security of Pakistan-Implications for Pakistan-US Relations Research Paper Dr. G. M. Chaudhry International Relations,National Security March 1, 2026 ABSTRACT: Pakistan is facing multiple threats to its national security requiring effective measures for its national defence and security. However, the US drone attacks have posed serious threats to its defence and security. Right to self-defence of every state is universally recognized and guaranteed under the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. In this scenario, it is necessary for Pakistan to review its national security policy and take all necessary measures to defend its sovereignty and national integrity from all types of external aggression. Hot pursuit of non-State actors did not allow any state to violate international boundaries and sovereignty of any state. There will be no end to violation of state sovereignty by useof latest defence-related technologies and new interpretations of UN Charter and international law to threat national security of any state in this world by powerful states emanating threat to international peace and order. There is a need to sensitize the UN to play its role to prove its relevance for international peace and security as if states are allowed to resort for use of military power against non-State actors then certainly it will lead full scale war sometime gripping the entire world in inferno of war. Pakistan and the United States have a longstanding bilateral relationship and the United States drone strikes will have serious implications for national security of Pakistan and international peace also. Key words :  Pakistan, United States of America (USA), Remotely Piloted Vehicle (RPV), Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), Drone, Predator, South Asian Region, bilateral relations, economic assistance, strategic relations. ____________________ Introduction: Drones proved a technology which has redefined the defence strategy and warfare. The changes in defence strategies directly affect bilateral and multilateral relations of the states. It is has not only changed the intelligence gathering but also given new tactics and tools for tactical and surgical striking limited targets with precision and accuracy. States have to rethink about their bilateral relations due to ease of intelligence and information about activities of the states. Pakistan and the United States having longstanding bilateral relations marred with perceptions and misperceptions which require redefining in the light of national security needs of Pakistan. The United States launched operations within Pakistan’s geographical territories to attack non-state actors and terrorists, aliens and local, who are allegedly carrying terrorist operations against the US people and forces in the United States and other countries. Drones – Changing the Warfare Drone technology is not a new one as the same was being used for different purposes for many years before its use for defence purposes.In Robot Aircraft Today, Jane’s, the authoritative military publishing company, in 1970, mentioned about 120 different types of pilotless planes in its pocket guide which were then known as remotely piloted vehicles (RPV).[1]RPV was a radio-controlled vehicle but initially could not be used for military purposes due to its poor reliability. Historically, German and the US forces tried to use radio-controlled jets during the World War II which failed due to different technical factors. Radioplanecompany started producing for army its propeller-driven remote-control target drones after the war. It was May 1, 1960, when the Soviet Union shot down a high-altitude U-2 reconnaissance jet flown over its territory by CIA pilot Francis Gary Powers, releasing the US Air Force for pilotless jets. The US Air Force awarded a contract to Ryan Aeronautical Company to adapt its jet-powered Q-2 Firebee target drones for photo reconnaissance. Shot down of another U-2 on October 27, 1962, one day before the end of the Cuban Missile Crisis further highlighted the need for pilotless jets. During the Vietnam War the US Air Force used different versions of Firebees, Fireflys and Lighning Bugs for photo reconnaissance which derivatives of Ryan’s jets. Mostly, they were launched from under the wing of a C-130 transport plane to fly their missions while being remotely controlled from a ground station transmitting radio signals susceptible to interference from other radio traffic.[2] Later on Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) was able to develop a little drone weighed 105 pounds when totally empty but could carry 95 pounds of fuel, an uncommonly high “fuel fraction” of 47.5 percent, a key feature of aircraft endurance, namely Albatross.[3] The same was tested on November 30, 1983, successfully, with its flight of many hours. It was followed by development of Amber in mid-1985. After working on Amber, a more sophisticated Gnat was produced which was using information technology in the year 1988. This was the first time the term “Unmanned Aerial Vehicle” or “UAV” was used because of the increasing autonomy in air vehicles made possible by the rapid evolution of computer technology. The US Navy in 1988 has a large number of UAVs being used to defend America. In the same year a new multiservice Unmanned Air Vehicle Joint Program Office (the JPO) was launched by the Pentagon spending a huge amount of $1.2 billion. Gnat 750 was a further improved version of drones from General Atomics. On July 12, 1993, initiated “Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Program” for provision of “urgently needed, critical, worldwide, releasable near real time intelligence information on mobile targets” with John M. Deutch, Under-Secretary of Defence.[4] The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) used Gnat 750 flying over Bosnia launching from a military air base in western Albania called Gjader, located on the inland side of some foothills on the coast of the Adriatic Sea for a Line-of-Sight communication to the skies above Sarajevo, a roughly 140 miles distant required by CIA to provide an intelligence information required by President Clinton about real artillery from decoy, find surface-to-air missile sites and spot tanks and gun movements. This successful experiment encouraged the CIA and Pentagon for extensive use of UAVs for defence purposes. A video of pedestrians crossing a bridge in Mostar, Bosnia, by Gnat 750 further proved its worth for intelligence
US Drone Attacks in Pakistan–National Security Concerns and International Law
CFRPSAIL US Drone Attacks in Pakistan–National Security Concerns and International Law Research Paper Dr. G. M. Chaudhry International Relations,National Security March 1, 2026 ABSTRACT: Since the use of drones by USA as weapons of war had raised serious questions about their legality as the existing rules of international law are silent about legal status of drone attacks. First drone attack was launched in Pakistan’s geographically territory by USA in the year 2004 and since then there are more three hundred drone attacks killing more than 2800 persons and injuring hundreds in addition to loss of moveable and immoveable property worth millions of dollars. Pakistan had protested about violation of its geographical territory and sovereignty as these attacks are serious threat to its national security. However, the US governments rejected such protests under different pretexts and extending application of different principles of international law and UN Security Council and General Assembly Resolutions regarding terrorism and under extended apprehensions about its national security. However, use of armed drones in warfare particularly in war on terrorism in violation of state and territorial sovereignty is a serious research question and a real problem to be analysed within parameters of existing legal regime of international law ultimately leading to some formal and binding treaty relationships amongst the states of the world for maintaining international peace, order and security. ____________________ Introduction Use of drone for military purposes remained an unveiled fact as these unmanned combat aerial vehicles were knowingly used against Pakistan since the year 2004 killing innocent people and destroying properties as well. Since then with recent temporary halting or reduction in frequency of such drone attacks, the matter regarding drone attacks has been debated and dilated nationally and internationally examining different aspects of such attacks from legal and moral aspects. There are lengthy debates to assess implications of drone attacks according to international law as international law is only jurisprudence which may suitably answer about legality of drone strikes at some extent although being a new phenomenon there is need to expound new principles of international law keeping in view all aspects and implications faced due to drone attacks. Now drones are becoming ordinary weapons of destruction during war in US context particularly in its war on terrorism (WoT) which are also being used for the same purpose during peace time like any missile or fighting plane which is intruding in sovereign territorial limits of an independent sovereign state which also is a member of United Nations and subject to provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, international law, international humanitarian law as well as human rights laws. It is also relevant to examine the nature of drones and particularly armed drones which are on warlike missions in territorial limits of another sovereign state. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) commonly known as drone is an aircraft without a human pilot aboard. Its flight is controlled either autonomously by onboard computers or by the remote control of a pilot on the ground or in another vehicle and the typical launch and recovery method of an unmanned aircraft is by the function of an automatic system or an external operator on the ground.[1] There are different sizes, shapes, configurations and characteristics of drones being manufactured and designed by different aircraft-manufacturing companies. Originally, drones were meant for civilian purposes but they are usually deployed for military and special operations as well. These are also used for policing, fire-fighting, non-military security purposes such as surveillance of pipelines but are often preferred for missions that are too “dull, dirty or dangerous” i.e. 3Ds.[2] Drones are manufactured with different flying capabilities and particularly their flight durations which are from a few minutes to 336 hours and 22 minutes for Qineti Q Zephyr Solar Electric manufactured by a British firm.[3] The drones, being like aeroplanes, can easily be categorised as planes and keeping in view their functional use may be civilian or military. By ordinary context and logic, if a drone is being used for civilian purposes, then rules regarding civil aircrafts should apply on it and if it is being used for armed or defence purposes, then rules regarding fighting jet planes should be applied. At the moment there is question regarding legal status of armed drones being used to achieve military targets, thus, law and rules regarding military operations or war will be applicable for such use of drones. The first armed drone attack in Pakistan was conducted on the June 18, 2004, and since then armed drone attacks are continuing causing loss of lives between 2800 to 3600 in addition to injured also having conflicting numbers due to lack of authentic figures from reliable sources.[4] The last reported drone attack was on the January 22, 2016, in ShahindanoDhand, Kurram Agency, FATA, targeting a suspected militant hideouts wounding one unidentified suspected militant.[5] Impact of drone attacks and national security concerns of Pakistan There is a deep-rooted impact on national security of Pakistan due to drone attacks within territorial borders of Pakistan in violation of the Charter of the United Nations, principles of international law and international humanitarian law. However, before examining different legal and moral implications of drone attacks it looks expedient to give details of drone attacks since the year 2004 to 2016 although such statistics are not available from authentic sources except some websites of research and investigative organizations and news reports published in different newspapers nationally and internationally which are as under :–  Year Attacks/Incidents Deaths Injured 2004 01 05 – 2005 02 07 – 2006 02 07 – 2007 04 77 15 2008 33 313 17 2009 55 724 75 2010 118 993 85 2011 59 548 52 2012 46 344 37 2013 26 137 24 2014 17 132 54 2015 14 85 15 2016 2 5 1 Total : 379 3377 375 The above are approximate figures as there were no authentic sources for gathering of data of deceased and injured persons and similarly total number of drone attacks is also a
Pakistan’s National Security and Trump’s Strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia–Redrawing South Asian Regional Strategic Security Paradigm
CFRPSAIL Pakistan’s National Security and Trump’s Strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia–Redrawing South Asian Regional Strategic Security Paradigm Research Paper Dr. G. M. Chaudhry International Relations,National Security March 1, 2026 ABSTRACT President Trumps Strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia particularly focuses on Afghanistan and about the role of Pakistan and India in the US War on Terror in Afghanistan. It is expedient to study the impact of Trumps Strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia (SASA) which has the impact to redraw South Asian Regional strategic security paradigm having serious implications on Pakistan’s national security as well as relations between Pakistan and the United States. The predominant role assigned to India in the Strategy is going to seriously affect the relations also between Pakistan and India as there are longstanding disputes between Pakistan and India and the most important among such disputes are Kashmir and Water Disputes. Pakistan since its alliances relationship remained an important ally and partner of the United States whereas India is following a policy of non-alignment although it is manoeuvring political, economic, strategic and defence-related benefits from both erstwhile power blocs i.e. Soviet and American blocs. However, Pakistan maintained its relations with the USA at the cost of the USSR antagonism but still the USA failed to rescue Pakistan in its troubled times. Pros and cons of US-SASA are reviewed in the perspective of redrawing balance of power in the SAR and also to analyze the implications of the SASA on National Security of Pakistan in regional strategic security paradigm in the perspective of Regional Security Complex Theory. Key words:   South Asia, South Asian Region (SAR), South Asian Regional Security Complex (SARSC), Pakistan, India, China, CPEC, USA, US-SASA, national security, threat perception, balance of power, economic, trade. ____________________ Introduction: The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) is an eight member organization for enhancing cooperating among its members i.e. Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. SAARC was established in the year 1985. There is no doubt that India is the largest country among the SAARC countries economically, population or area-wise and due this reason is called as the largest democracy of the world. The western democracies extend extraordinary respect, economic, political and strategic favours to India. Due to such status, India is posing it as a Regional Super Power in the South Asian Region as well as a mini-Super Power in the world. India is also expecting a super power like treatment from all its neighbours and SAARC members. However, it is a self-proclaimed status by the Indian political analysts without any recognition from any political or strategic power or organization. Due to super power like thinking, the India is having political and hegemonic designs with all its neighbours whether SAARC members or not. There are strained relations between India and the Peoples Republic of China regarding settlement of their international boundary in Himalayan region. However, as the China is an emerging economic and military power and it is difficult for India to challenge the military power of China although skirmishes between Indian and Chinese armies on their border is a routine matter. Pakistan is western neighbour of India although before 1971 there was also a common border between Pakistan and India on eastern side being also a neighbour of East Pakistan. There are ever estranged relations between Pakistan and India due to Kashmir and Water Disputes in addition to other small issues. Even Indian political leaders had never recognized partition of sub-continent into Pakistan and India on the 15th of the August, 1947, by the British Government as Two Nations Theory was never accepted by Indian politicians, leaders and the Hindu population of India. Indian attitude and behaviour towards Pakistan always remained antagonistic and hostile. Due to Indian attitude and hostile behaviour since its establishment Pakistan remained in search of security for its sovereignty and integrity. India used different tactics to undermine the sovereignty and security of Pakistan as an independent state. Immediately after the establishment of Pakistan, a war started in Jammu and Kashmir which was a Muslim-majority state and neighbouring with Pakistan. People of Jammu and Kashmir have historical social, cultural, religious and political relations and due to this reason people of Tribal Areas of Pakistan rushed to help their brethren. However, after cease fire the State of Jammu and Kashmir had been divided as the State of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Indian Occupied Kashmir. The people of Indian Occupied Kashmir are still waiting for a plebiscite according to Indian commitments before the United Nations. Thereafter, India stopped flow of water in rivers entering into Pakistan being uprarian state only to ruin agricultural economy of Pakistan when the Pakistan was in dire need of food supplies immediately after its establishment. There are other issues between Pakistan and India which further heightened the tension between Pakistan and India making friendly and neighbourly existence almost not difficult but impossible. During the initial years the Indian political leaders were continuously hurling such statements which reflected Indian enmity towards Pakistan. There was a constant state of fear and Pakistan was feeling threatened from India for its national security and sovereignty for all times due to Indian economic and military superiority and postures. Pakistani leadership strived hard to seek direly needed economic and defence assistance and cooperation from any country irrespective of ideological tilting as the instant threat was emanating from India being the immediate neighbour sharing only on its western side a border of 2912 kilometres with about 740 kilometres of a disputed Line of Control (LoC) facing Indian Occupied Kashmir. Violation of international border and exchange of fire with armed skirmishes between Indian and Pakistan’s armed forces is a routine matter which is still continuing even todate. Pakistan approached the USA for necessary economic and military assistance which was declined. However, later on with the expansion of communism there was change in the US policy under President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s policy of containment of communism i.e. Domino Theory. US strategic policy-makers
The USA’s Afghanistan and South Asia Strategy: A Threat to Strategic Balance in South Asia and Implications for National Security of Pakistan and Pakistan-US Relations
CFRPSAIL The USA’s Afghanistan and South Asia Strategy: A Threat to Strategic Balance in South Asia and Implications for National Security of Pakistan and Pakistan-US Relations Research Paper Dr. G. M. Chaudhry International Relations,National Security March 1, 2026 ABSTRACT President Donald John Trump’s Strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia (SASA) is serious threat to strategic balance in South Asia having direct implications for bilateral relations of the Pakistan with the USA, India, Afghanistan and China. It is an attempt of the US policy-makers to tit for tat for growing bilateral relations between Pakistan and China after the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CEPC) and One Belt, One Road (OBOR) projects in Pakistan and in the Asia by the China. It is a new turn in tumultuous relationship between Pakistan and the USA which requires in-depth consideration, analysis and review for its short term and long term implications for national security of Pakistan and already deteriorating bilateral relations between Pakistan and the USA. This Article aims to review brief history of Pakistan-USA relations in particular context of the SASA and its implications with particular reference to Pakistan for future policy guidance and review by both countries. Key words:   SASA, CPEC, Pakistan, USA, relations, national security, economic, strategic balance, regional, implications, South Asia, Afghanistan. ____________________ Introduction: The concept of security is emanating from absence of any threat. If there will be any threat, there will be no security. Security is directly proportional to threat as if there will be more threats, the security will be more vulnerable. If there will be not threats there will be complete security. However, it is practically impossible to have a zero value of threat i.e. absolute security. Certainly, there will be less or more threat but there is a difference between perception and reality which are completely psychological phenomenon which cannot be measured with real arithmetical values. Security is an important aspect of state behavior which is based on presumptions with latent values instead of realities and patent values. In an anarchic international environment, the security is the central to state priorities. Since the end of Cold War there is the beginning of the terror or terrorism as an instrument by non-state actors to achieve their objectives by planning in strategic terms. The US strategists are very ambitious to ensure their successes throughout the world at any cost. Thus, the US strategies after the end of the Cold War are aggressive instead of appeasement to address the causes of frustrations against the American people due to aggressive policies of the US administration. Due to this reason the US administration is resorting to excessive use of their military power instead of addressing the psychological factors causing hatred against the USA and American people. The US hegemonic ideas certainly require an aggressive strategy to turn the ideas into realities. However, there is a difference in thinking in a war-room and acting in a war-field. War is the strategy to control and overpower the enemy according to our will.[1]National security dilemmas are leading to a hot or cold war which are the product of existential challenges and opportunities as well as errors in policy or strategy.[2]In this regard the US administration is guided by recommendations made by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States[3]suggesting use of all available means to eliminate and destroy terrorists and their organization, to prevent the continued growth of Islamist terrorism and to protect against and prepare for terrorist attacks. These are aggressive policy goals and objectives for which the US administration had launched the War on Terrorism.[4] Earlier it was pointed out that the USA is in an ironic position in its apogee of power[5] because any deterrence based only upon the threat of retaliation is less likely to work against leaders of rouge states who are more willing to take risks.[6] Later on it was also concluded that traditional concepts of deterrence will not work against a terrorist enemy targeting innocents.[7] In the above perspective and after constant failures to produce any victorious outcome as well as keeping in view experience of former Presidents after the 9/11 incident, Donald John Trump on August 21, 2017, after a marathon deliberation process of his advisers, policy-makers and strategists in his Remarks on the Strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia (SASA) said “our nation must seek an honourable and enduring outcome worthy of the tremendous sacrifices that have been made, especially the sacrifices of lives…deserve a plan for victory…to fight and win.”.[8] The SASA clearly delineated the strategy for Afghanistan and South Asia while allowing a prominent role to India and deprecating the role of Pakistan in serious words hurling an express warning to Pakistan for providing safe havens to terrorist organizations, the Taliban and other groups that pose a threat to the region and beyond. It is noteworthy previously Pakistan was the most allied amongst the allies of the USA.[9] However, there is no cavil to say that a sense of resent and distrust of the USA pervades Pakistan due to impression that the USA used Pakistan “like a used Kleenex” and discarded when the USA’s interests were served.[10] This, impression is now have become deep-rooted as the US SASA acted like a last straw on camel’s back. There was a severe reactions amongst the leaders, military and people of Pakistan on the SASA whereas there was a wave of happiness in India as the India got more better and recognized status than desired and expected by it. Only jubilation in Delhi is enough to dip the Pakistan-US relations to their lowest ebb. But the statements of the US leaders and administration further deteriorated the level of understanding as a perception was created that the Pakistan will be sternly dealt with penal consequences in addition to military action in the terrorist havens located in territories of Pakistan. Interpreting Trumps Strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia The US policy-makers are applying with full force neo-realism. Neo-realism which is the reinterpretation of classical realism or
National Security of Pakistan and The US War on Terror: Implications on Pakistan-US Relations.
CFRPSAIL National Security of Pakistan and The US War on Terror: Implications on Pakistan-US Relations. Research Paper Dr. G. M. Chaudhry International Relations,National Security March 1, 2026 ABSTRACT The United States’ Global War on Terror or simply War on Terror is the combatant action which is without any boundaries throughout the world. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen and other countries of the world are main focus countries and being as such are also facing threats to their national securities, political stability and governance. Terrorists, militants and non-State actors are playing havoc with lives of people and their properties establishing a reign of terror wherein none is feeling secure. To secure its national security objectives, the demands of the US administration are high and constant without effective action over and above the priorities of the governments within their countries. There are huge losses of human lives of innocent people due to state actions as well as due to terrorist activities. Rise of militancy and terrorist activities is an uncontrollable menace. There is need to minutely study and examine the impact of War on Terror on Pakistan-US relations and implications of operations combating militant and terrorist acts on the national security of Pakistan. It is also relevant to analyse reasons and factors for militancy, insurgency and terrorist activities and to find out the possible way outs to get rid of surging militancy, insurgency and terrorism by adopting appropriate means and methods. Key words:   War on Terror (WoT), Global War on Terror (GWoT),militancy, insurgency, terrorism, Pakistan, USA, relations, national security, economic, political, trade. ____________________ Introduction : The Soviet armed forces invaded Afghanistan apparently on the invitation of Afghan President on December 26, 1979. BabrakKarmal belonging to Parcham Party was installed as the President[1] deposing the HafeezUllah Amin. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was highly condemned by the world states and the international community. As apparently, it was on the invitation of the so-called political governments of Afghanistan, thus, no country had right to intervene although there was no such mandate from the people of Afghanistan to Parcham Party as it was not a representative political party. The people of Afghanistan had not accepted the Soviet invasion and started an armed struggle against the so-called Afghan Government as well as against the Soviet armed forces. It was an indigenous struggle against the government of the country. Due to massive bombing and military operations by the Soviet armed forces millions of Afghans fled from Afghanistan and entered in the bordering tribal areas of Pakistan i.e. Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). As there are historical relations between the people of Afghanistan and the FATA as well as the bordering province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa of Pakistan as both the people belong to same race with social, cultural and linguistic similarity. People of the FATA and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa are known for their traditional and cultural hospitability and religious nature welcomed their Afghan brethren who were also kith and kin in some cases as some tribes are divided into both countries and residing in both sides of border with unhindered and unrestricted mobility without any visa restrictions or governmental controls by both the governments i.e. Pakistan and Afghanistan. This was the beginning of Afghan Jihad i.e. holy Islamic war, against the religions as the Soviets were considered as heretics and such holy war was a religious obligation for all Muslims. It was also obligatory for Pakistan to provide shelter to fleeing refugees under International Law as well. In the circumstances, Pakistan was left with no option except to provide boarding, lodging and other possible facilities to large scale muhajreen i.e. Afghan refugees. Although Pakistan was not financially so stable to bear such financial responsibility, however, there was no other alternative. As it was the height of Cold War and the United States of America (USA) was still following the policy of containment of communism under President Eisenhower’s Domino Doctrine. The US National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski recommended to the President Carter for review of the US Policy towards Pakistan as sanctions were imposed against Pakistan due to non-proliferation policy[2]and for allowing military and financial assistance to Pakistan. Reaction on Afghan Intervention : Rise of Militancy and Jihad After Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, the UN General Assembly adopted a Resolution on January 14, 1980, by a vote of 104 in favour, 18 agaisnt and 18 abstentions, deploring armed intervention in Afghanistan and called for immediate, unconditional and total withdrawal of the foreign troops in order to enable its people to determine their own form of government. It was further stressed that Afghan people be allowed to determine their own form of government and choose their own economic, political and social systems free from outside intervention, subversion, coercion or constraints of any kind whatsoever.[3]Similarly, Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) Foreign Ministers in their meeting also took a stronger and tougher position with suspension of Afghanistan’s OIC membership. Non-aligned Movement (MAM) also condemned the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan.[4] The USA revived its relationship with Pakistan with an offer of $400 million which was rejected by President General Zia-ul-Haq of Pakistan.[5] The US feared plunging Pakistan into the Cold War when the Pakistan had already helped the USA in Tehran Hostage case.[6] Making Afghan War as a Jihad and Participation of Islamic Mujahideen However, the scenario was changed after President Ronald Reagan in office as new Assistance Package was about $3 billion over a period of five years.[7] However, off the record there was a broader collaboration between the US CIA and Pakistan’s ISI which had sponsored the religious euphoria in Pakistan and in the entire Islamic world inviting the hard core Muslims for a Jihad (Holy War) against the Soviet forces successfully. Fundamental Muslims financially supported and trained by the intelligence agencies waged a Jihad (Holy War) with the most modern weaponry and military training for use of such weapons like Stinger Missiles, etc. The Soviet Union was never in such a pathetic condition in its warfare. Diego Cordovez, a senior UN
Strategic Balance in South Asia and The USA’s Afghanistan and South Asia Strategy: Implications for National Security of Pakistan and Pakistan-US Relations
CFRPSAIL Strategic Balance in South Asia and The USA’s Afghanistan and South Asia Strategy: Implications for National Security of Pakistan and Pakistan-US Relations Research Paper Dr. G. M. Chaudhry International Relations,National Security March 1, 2026 ABSTRACT Strategic balance is an important aspect of international security studies. Maintaining strategic balance with neighbours and internationally ensures national security of any state. President Donald Trump’s Strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia is an attempt to destabilize strategic balance in South Asian Region which hasa special strategic importance for Pakistan due to China-Pakistan Economic Corridor and One Belt, One Road projects in SAR, Asia and Europe. Special importance is given to India in policy with a special role for reconstruction of Afghanistan which is alarming for Pakistan. Pakistan-US has rollercoaster relations based on realist approach particularly regarding the US national interests in the region. This policy has serious implications for national security of Pakistan and a serious blow to Pakistan-US relations forcing Pakistan to review its national security options in changing geo-strategic scenario by searching new partners for its national security and economic development. Key words:   relations, national security, strategic balance, regional, implications, South Asia. ____________________ Introduction Securitysimply means the absence of any threat. In case of any threat, there will be no security. Security is directly proportional to the level of threat as if there will be more threats, the security will be more vulnerable. If there will be nothreats there will be complete security. However, it is practically impossible to have a zero value of threat i.e. absolute security. Certainly, there will be less or more threat but there is a difference between perception and reality as these are completely psychological phenomena which cannot be measured with real arithmetical values. Security is an important aspect of the state behaviour which is based on presumptions with latent values instead of realities and patent values. In an anarchic international environment, the security is the pivotal to state priorities. The USA is continuously reviewing its national security policies keeping in view changing national and international geo-strategic priorities. After the end of Cold War there was beginning of terrorism as an instrument by the states and non-state actors to achieve their objectives by planning in strategic terms. The US strategists are ambitious to ensure their successes throughout the world at any cost to ensure national security and the US interests internationally. The US national security strategies after the end of the Cold War are aggressive instead to maintain status quo to address the causes of frustration against the American people due to aggressive policies of the US administration. Due to this reason the US administrations are resorting to excessive use of their military power instead of addressing the psychological factors causing hatred against American people and the USA. There is also no doubt that the USA’s hegemonic ideas certainly require an aggressive strategy to turn the ideas into realities. However, there is a difference in thinking in a war-room and acting in a war-field. War is the strategy to control and overpower the enemy according to someone’s will (Carl von Clausewitz 1976:89).[1]National security dilemmas are leading to a hot or cold warwhich are the product of existential challenges and opportunities as well as errors in policy or strategy (Colin S. Gray 2009:7).[2]In this regard the US administration is guided by recommendations made by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (Thomas H. Kean et al. 2003)[3]suggesting use of all available means to eliminate and destroy terrorists and their organizationsto prevent the continued growth of Islamist terrorism particularly and to protect against and prepare for terrorist attacks generally. The US administration launched the War on Terrorism (WoT) to achieve those aggressive policy goals and objectives (Thomas H. Kean et al. 2003).[4]It was also pointed out that the USA is in an ironic position in its apogee of power (Dale C. Copeland 2000:39-60)[5] because any deterrence based only upon the threat of retaliation is less likely to work and produce any result against leaders of rouge states who are more willing to take risks (Brian Bond 1996:20-26).[6]It was also concluded that traditional concepts of deterrence will not work against a terrorist enemy targeting innocents (Michael Howard 1999:129).[7] In the above perspective and after constant failures to produce any victorious results as well as keeping in view experience of former Presidents after the 9/11 incident, President DonaldTrump on August 21, 2017, after a marathon deliberation process of his advisers, policy-makers and strategists in his Remarks on the Strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia (SASA) said “our nation must seek an honourable and enduring outcome worthy of the tremendous sacrifices that have been made, especially the sacrifices of lives…deserve a plan for victory…to fight and win.” (Donald John Trump 2017).[8] The Strategy clearly delineated for Afghanistan and South Asia while allowing a prominent role to India and deprecating the role of Pakistan in serious words. It also hurled an express warning to Pakistan for providing safe havens to terrorist organizations, the Taliban and other groups that pose serious threats to the US interests in the region and beyond. It is noteworthy that previously Pakistan was the most allied amongst the allies of the USA (Rajvir Singh 1985:213).[9]But there is no cavil to say that a sense of resentment and distrust of the USA pervades Pakistan due to impression that the USA benefited from Pakistan “like a used Kleenex” and discarded when the USA’s interests were served (DenixKux 2001:365).[10] Thisimpression has nowbecome deep-rooted as the US Strategy acted like a last straw on camel’s back. There was a severe reactionamongst the leaders, military and people of Pakistan on the Strategy. However, there is a wave of happiness in India as the India got better and recognized status than desired and expected. Jubilation in New Delhi is enough to dip the Pakistan-US relations to their lowest ebb.The statements of the US leaders and administration further deteriorated the level of misunderstanding as an impression was created that Pakistan will
The US War on Terror and Pakistan-US Relations: Implications for National Security of Pakistan
CFRPSAIL The US War on Terror and Pakistan-US Relations: Implications for National Security of Pakistan Research Paper Dr. G. M. Chaudhry International Relations,National Security March 1, 2026 ABSTRACT The United States’ Global War on Terror or simply War on Terror is the combatant action which is without any boundaries throughout the world. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen and other countries of the world are main focus countries and being as such are also facing threats to their national securities, political stability and governance. Terrorists, militants and non-State actors are playing havoc with lives of people and their properties establishing a reign of terror wherein none is feeling secure. To secure its national security objectives, the demands of the US administration are high and constant without effective action over and above the priorities of the governments within their countries. There are huge losses of human lives of innocent people due to state actions as well as due to terrorist activities. Rise of militancy and terrorist activities is an uncontrollable menace. There is need to minutely study and examine the impact of War on Terror on Pakistan-US relations and implications of operations combating militant and terrorist acts on the national security of Pakistan. It is also relevant to analyse reasons and factors for militancy, insurgency and terrorist activities and to find out the possible way outs to get rid of surging militancy, insurgency and terrorism by adopting appropriate means and methods. Key words:   War on Terror (WoT), Global War on Terror (GWoT),militancy, insurgency, terrorism, Pakistan, USA, relations, national security, economic, political, trade. ____________________ Introduction: The Soviet armed forces invaded Afghanistan apparently on the invitation of Afghan President on December 26, 1979. BabrakKarmal belonging to Parcham Party was installed as the President[1] deposing the HafeezUllah Amin. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was highly condemned by the world states and the international community. As apparently, it was on the invitation of the so-called political governments of Afghanistan, thus, no country had right to intervene although there was no such mandate from the people of Afghanistan to Parcham Party as it was not a representative political party. The people of Afghanistan had not accepted the Soviet invasion and started an armed struggle against the so-called Afghan Government as well as against the Soviet armed forces. It was an indigenous struggle against the government of the country. Due to massive bombing and military operations by the Soviet armed forces millions of Afghans fled from Afghanistan and entered in the bordering tribal areas of Pakistan i.e. Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). As there are historical relations between the people of Afghanistan and the FATA as well as the bordering province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa of Pakistan as both the people belong to same race with social, cultural and linguistic similarity. People of the FATA and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa are known for their traditional and cultural hospitability and religious nature welcomed their Afghan brethren who were also kith and kin in some cases as some tribes are divided into both countries and residing in both sides of border with unhindered and unrestricted mobility without any visa restrictions or governmental controls by both the governments i.e. Pakistan and Afghanistan. This was the beginning of Afghan Jihad i.e. holy Islamic war, against the religions as the Soviets were considered as heretics and such holy war was a religious obligation for all Muslims. It was also obligatory for Pakistan to provide shelter to fleeing refugees under International Law as well. In the circumstances, Pakistan was left with no option except to provide boarding, lodging and other possible facilities to large scale muhajreen i.e. Afghan refugees. Although Pakistan was not financially so stable to bear such financial responsibility, however, there was no other alternative. As it was the height of Cold War and the United States of America (USA) was still following the policy of containment of communism under President Eisenhower’s Domino Doctrine. The US National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski recommended to the President Carter for review of the US Policy towards Pakistan as sanctions were imposed against Pakistan due to non-proliferation policy[2]and for allowing military and financial assistance to Pakistan. Reaction on Afghan Intervention : Rise of Militancy and Jihad After Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, the UN General Assembly adopted a Resolution on January 14, 1980, by a vote of 104 in favour, 18 agaisnt and 18 abstentions, deploring armed intervention in Afghanistan and called for immediate, unconditional and total withdrawal of the foreign troops in order to enable its people to determine their own form of government. It was further stressed that Afghan people be allowed to determine their own form of government and choose their own economic, political and social systems free from outside intervention, subversion, coercion or constraints of any kind whatsoever.[3]Similarly, Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) Foreign Ministers in their meeting also took a stronger and tougher position with suspension of Afghanistan’s OIC membership. Non-aligned Movement (MAM) also condemned the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan.[4] The USA revived its relationship with Pakistan with an offer of $400 million which was rejected by President General Zia-ul-Haq of Pakistan.[5] The US feared plunging Pakistan into the Cold War when the Pakistan had already helped the USA in Tehran Hostage case.[6] Making Afghan War as a Jihad and Participation of Islamic Mujahideen However, the scenario was changed after President Ronald Reagan in office as new Assistance Package was about $3 billion over a period of five years.[7] However, off the record there was a broader collaboration between the US CIA and Pakistan’s ISI which had sponsored the religious euphoria in Pakistan and in the entire Islamic world inviting the hard core Muslims for a Jihad (Holy War) against the Soviet forces successfully. Fundamental Muslims financially supported and trained by the intelligence agencies waged a Jihad (Holy War) with the most modern weaponry and military training for use of such weapons like Stinger Missiles, etc. The Soviet Union was never in such a pathetic condition in its warfare. Diego Cordovez, a senior UN official
Pakistan-US Relations: Strategic Policy Option and Their Implications for National Security of Pakistan
CFRPSAIL Pakistan-US Relations: Strategic Policy Option and Their Implications for National Security of Pakistan Research Paper Dr. G. M. Chaudhry International Relations,National Security March 1, 2026 ABSTRACT After the two World War alliances and alignments, Pakistan-United States alliance played the most important role in shaping geography and the Asian politics. It was meant for containment of expansion of communism but ultimately culminated into destruction of communism as an economic and political doctrine with disintegration of political centre and origin of communism i.e. the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). It is an effort to overview the role and importance of Pakistan-US relations in the South Asian Region in their broader Asian perspective with assessment of implications on national security of Pakistan. It is also important to study Pakistan-US bilateral relations as these relations remained like a ride on a roller coaster suffering from rise and fall. Trust and mistrust as well as perceptions and misperceptions always lied in the foundations of these relations although still going on as these relations were never based on ideological similarity but due to geostrategic expediency and convenience and Pakistan is still blessed with same geostrategic location. Therefore, for any effective role of the USA in the Asia, relations with Pakistan will remain a necessity. Key words:   Pakistan, United States of America (USA), national security, relations, national interest, geostrategic, foreign policy, South Asian Region (SAR).  Introduction: Pakistan came into existence on the August 14, 1947, in the heart of Asia with a blessed geostrategic position in the Asian map.Pakistan is located in the western part of South Asia between 61° and 75° 31′ longitudes in the east and 23° 30′ and 36° 45′ latitude in the North which is a temperate zone with a maximum length of 1600 kilometers (900 miles) and width of 885 kilometers (750 miles). This is the land whereat pre-historic and historic Indus Valley Civilization was born, grown and thereafter is buried giving rise to present civilization and culture under the influence of Islamic religion through Muslim sufis (saints) and religious scholars. There is 796,096 square kilometers (about 310,403 miles) of territorial area with a fairly high population growth rate as a sixth most populous country in the world with estimated population of 207.774 millions[1] according to provisional results of the 6th Population and Housing Census, 2017. Pakistan has common border of 595 kilometers with China in the North-East, in the North-West a narrow strip of 16 to 19 kilometers separating it from CARs which remained the part of former USSR although immediately after forcible occupation of Afghanistan in 1979, the USSR annexed the Wakhan area to have direct access and borders with Pakistan for a strategic edge over Pakistan and China as it was the only common border area between China and Afghanistan. In the west there is 2,252 kilometers common border with Afghanistan known as “Durand Line” with its extension towards south with 805 kilometers common border with Islamic Republic of Iran. There is 1,610 kilometers of common border with India with a disputed territory of Kashmir which is still waiting its resolution in the light of United Nations resolutions passed from time to time. The geostrategic location of Pakistan in the biggest continent of Asia has given it a unique position and location in the world geography. Pakistan due to its geographical location has assumed a decisive role to play in keeping balance of power in Asia and particularly between the super powers and China and CPEC is going to become another source of conflict among super powers and in emerging power politics. In this context it is relevant to peruse first the geostrategic location of Pakistan in the Asian continent as depicted in this Asian map: Asian Map The geo-strategic and strategic location of Pakistan has increased its importance manifold in the world politics and international relations as the USA and other western nations attached a great deal of importance to Pakistan’s security requirements due to expansionist policies of the former USSR. There is no doubt that Pakistan had always proved a bulwark in expansionist designs of USSR as if the USSR was able to get access to warm waters of the Indian Ocean and oil-fields of Gulf region, it was bound to pose a formidable threat to the USA and other western countries for their oil supplies and smooth flow of international trade and both are lifeline for economies of such countries and USA. Due to geo-strategic location and importance, the Pakistan also faced threats to its existence and survival in international power politics as the Pakistan suffered from Cold War conflicts of two super powers of the world having direct impact to its geographical integrity and economic survival. Pakistan had become victim of such international intrigues and lost its one part i.e. East Pakistan, due to collusive and collaborative role of then USSR and India, as the then USSR treated Pakistan as a major hurdle in its expansionist designs. It was also the result of ignoring a powerful neighbour while having friendship with far distant nations like the USA, who had failed to rescue and save Pakistan from collaborative aggression of the USSR and India in the presence of close strategic relationship and cooperation as there were no direct stakes involved due to disintegration and cessation of one geographical part of Pakistan. Since then there is a vast gulf of mistrust between Pakistan and the USA which is always haunting confidence-building and closer relations between these two countries although both states are forced to keep disenchanted[2] and disillusioned bilateral relationship between them. Thus, it is the geo-strategic location of Pakistan which played and playing an important role as a determining factor in the foreign policy of the country because the interested international stakeholders themselves had become tilted towards Pakistan due to their own international and regional interests. Pakistan’s location in proximity of oil and mineral rich CARs with Russian influence, China, Middle East and South-East Asia is an important factor in its foreign
Pakistan-US Relations and Donald Trump’s Strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia–Implications for National Securities of Pakistan
CFRPSAIL Pakistan-US Relations and Donald Trump’s Strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia–Implications for National Securities of Pakistan Research Paper Dr. G. M. Chaudhry International Relations,National Security February 28, 2026 ABSTRACT Pakistan and United States of America is having long history of bilateral relationship since the establishment of Pakistan. Pakistan is the oldest US ally in South Asia and this relationship passed through strategic alliances like SEATO and CENTO to containing expansion of communism. US was successfully able to defeat the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in Afghanistan with active cooperation of Pakistan having common threat to national security of US and Pakistan national interests. After 9/11, Pakistan remained an important non-NATO ally of US in its War on Terrorism (WoT) which is still continuing against warlords and terrorist groups as well as organizations operating in Afghanistan and also spanning in different territories of Pakistan. Pakistan has launched different operations against the terrorists in its Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) which is still continuing in the form of Operation Zarb-e-Azab throughout Pakistan to cleanse Pakistan from terrorists and alleged terrorist organizations. This article aims at to study implications of recently announced President Donald John Trump’s Strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia which having serious repercussions on future of Pakistan-US bilateral relations. Trump’s Strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia is an attempt to redraw the parameters of Pakistan-US bilateral relations and role of Pakistan. Key words:   United States, Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, South Asia, terrorism, War on Terror (WoT), strategic relations, national security.  Introduction The main objective of Pakistan’s foreign policy is the national security of Pakistan emanating from threat perception of Pakistan due to permanent enmity with India being its neighbor. Since the establishment of Pakistan there are continuous conflicts between India and Pakistan due to different reasons amongst such reasons Kashmir and water issues are two major problems which could not be resolved according to wishes and aspiration of Pakistan. Pakistan’s integrity and national security remained the major problem and top priority in its policy-making process due to hostile attitude of India. The concept of Akhund Bharat (unified India) as opened promoted by Indian political leadership always kept the Pakistan’s political leadership and national security establishment to take steps for integration, sovereignty and national security of Pakistan. Pakistan always remained in search of allies and friends who can help Pakistan in its national security perception. In the fifties due to geographical and strategic location of Pakistan in vicinity of USSR, the then strategic policy-makers of US identified Pakistan as one of its ally who can used against communist expansion towards South Asia as well as oil-rich Middle East. Pakistan was in need of economic and military assistance since its establishment due to continuous threats to its national security from India. Pakistan was firstly made the member of Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) and thereafter to South East Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO), both of the treaties wherein the US had played major role. However, the Pakistan felt frustrated when firstly the US failed to fulfillment Pakistan’s expectations during 1965 war with India and finally in 1971 war. Pakistan left both the treaties. During the seventy’s decade the relations with Pakistan remained at their lowest ebb as different defence and economic sanctions were imposed against Pakistan by US governments. However, in 1979 the USSR intervened and invaded Afghanistan dawning a new era in Pakistan-US bilateral relations. US governments and national security establishments actively cooperated and collaborated with Pakistan during Afghanistan war. However, after the withdrawal of USSR from Afghanistan again there was no warmth in Pakistan-US relations even different US administrations imposed defence and economic sanctions against Pakistan. The height of such lack of cooperation reached to the highest level during year 1998 when Pakistan compelled to resort to nuclear detonation as a response to India nuclear testing and explosions. Pakistan was not only isolated but there were worst kind of sanctions against Pakistan slapped by the US administration. The incident of 9/11was a major incident in the recent US history which shocked the entire American nation and US governments were forced to take aggressive steps against terrorists hiding or operating from different parts of the world. Pakistan again became a country without which active assistance no successful operation can be planned against Taliban Government in Afghanistan. The incident of 9/11 made the Pakistan a frontline state in US War on Terrorism or Terror (WoT) as US national security interests could not be successfully protected without assistance and support of Pakistan. War on Terror provided Pakistan opportunity to cooperate with US administration while protecting sovereignty and geographical territory from US onslaught on the pretext of its national security as well as to end isolation internationally faced after nuclear explosions in the year 1998. Pakistan was one of the countries which had already recognized Taliban Government in Afghanistan. However, Pakistan re-evaluated its pro-Taliban policy and decided to cooperate with US administration as per their security requirements by all possible facilities. During War on Terror Pakistan remained the strategic partner of US and Pakistan was only country which allowed the status of non-NATO ally during US military operations in Afghanistan. However, strained and disenchanted relations continued during the government of President Barak Obama with different reservations by Pakistan as well as US administration. President Donald John Trump, during his elections campaign, announced for review of US policy towards Pakistan after coming into power. After taking oath of the office of the President of United States of America, President Donald John Trump ordered for thorough and comprehensive review of US Afghanistan and South Asia policy. On the 21st August, 2017, the President Donald John Trump announced his Strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia while addressing armed forces personnel in Fort Myer, Arlington, Virginia. Strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia has deep rooted repercussions for bilateral and strategic relations between Pakistan and United States. Recently announced United States’ Strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia (US-SASA) have different serious implications for national security of Pakistan and