Pakistan's Afghan Policy

#158 by stuka
“Why is it kosher to take pride in ethnicity and not okay to take pride in religion?”

This will take me away from the discussion but I got to say you responded like a true macaca. I guess you did not read that correctly. I never said I take pride in my ethnicity. I only said it is important and there is a sea of difference between the two words. Imo, taking pride in ethnicity is borderline racism.

Talking abt the religions, in the known history, Sindh has seen at least four major religions and maybe more smaller religions that died with moenjodero. By the time Sindh is under the water or the UPian destroy it completely or in the next 5k years, we may see more religions. So religion is a passing phenomenon but the overall culture and heritage are both constant and dynamic. For me both Sindhi Hindu and Muslim share the same cultural heritage and they may again switch religions in the next one thousand years (a possibility). (For crying out loud Ahmedi religion is a new fad in Sindh.)

#185

That is what Musharraf and the foreign ministry spokesmen were saying in their interviews to western media.

How are you so sure that the same was being advised by the ISI in Afghanistan?

note your statement:

However, the Taliban by this time were not completely under the ISI control and refused to follow its well-mening advice

Re: # 162 Bulleya
Agree with most of your analysis if not your conclusions. Historically, the area between the Indus and the Hindu Kush mountains has never been easy to control for any empire (Persian, Mughal, British, Pathan, Sikh, Russian, Taliban, NATO, Pakistan) having changed hands several times. In `47, Pakistan assumed the British responsibility of keeping peace in the borderlands of NW British India. It is a heavy responsbility and a task that Pakistan may not be equipped for (even if there was peace on its eastern border with India). Afghanistan`s neighbors will not leave it alone because its territory, poor human capital and denuded natural assets preclude a strong nation from emerging that can stand up to neighbors without outside help. Because of Afghanistan`s rapacious neighbors, Pakistan will have to follow suit and be sucked in a conflict that it may not want or ill afford. In such a conflict, Pakistan will pick a side from the Afghani ethnic mix and incur the wrath of the other ethnicities. Your `hands-off` approach although praise-worthy is going to be difficult for the ISI to swallow. It is a no-win situation especially if you factor in the blow back. The only way out is if Afghanistan`s security could be internationally guaranteed and right now, NATO looks like its best chance at one. Pakistan could benefit by FULLY supporting this international force and rooting out all elements opposed to it, but doing so requires a domestic national consensus that only a democratic leader in Pakistan can forge. The military and ISI can`t do it. Therefore, option 2 is also a non-starter under a dictatorship.
In other words, watch out for decades of instability in the future and a collision of Western and Pakistani interests in Afghanistan. The Islamic Emirate of Waziristan as it is now called by the Taliban (the de facto state within a state) with its resident Al Qaeda now euphemistically called `foreigners` is going to be breeding ground for anti-Western forces for the forseeable future. Can Pakistan rein them in or will NATO be compelled to act against them?

stuka, dullabhatti:

I feel somewhat differently. I believe that pride in one`s identity is natural and does contribute to one`s self-esteem and a positive self-image. What does cause problem however is when this pride turns into bigotry and considering oneself superior to those of other ethnicity, religion, etc.

zeemax#176:

I don`t think that Musharraf had much of a choice, except maybe dithering a bit before agreeing to Powel`s demand. Pakistan, after all, was doing everything that the US falsely accused Iraq of, having weapons of mass destruction and the danger of their falling into the hands of America`s enemies, supporting Al Qaeda and having strong links to the attackers of WTC; an attack on Pakistan would indeed have received greater support both in the US and Europe.

``This is really funny. Was it Reagan who invited Taliban to White House lawns and compared them to the very ``founding fathers of America``?``

I think that the people Reagan invited were the Mujahideen fighting the Soviets and not the Taliban who did not even exist during Reagan`s time.


bongdong#178:

Ranjit gave partial answer. Pakistani establishment was quite concerned about the negative Western publicity caused by the beating of women for not wearing veils or of executing them in the stadium; it wanted Taliban to adopt a Islamist-lite version rather than a harsh implementation of the sharia. Pakistanis were also concerned about the negative image of Islam being portrayed in the West by the destruction of Bamian Buddha (note, they were not too concerned about the loss of human heritage, only the negative image it gave Islam) or of forcing minorities to display their religious identity with their clothes.

arjun2#178:

``Forget about it...DM is high on the paki kool-aid...How can he possibly comment on this without making it seem like his buddies are innocent victims who tried but failed to reign in the talipakis...``

Where did I say that Pakistanis were innocent victims? If you notice, I called ISI taleban handlers, a term which clearly implies control.

#172
<<< Just a comment, as you would have noted yourself, interacting with bhands, both macacus and caninus is futile, so my interacts are at a minimum these days. >>>


Respected Masadi,

I think the best interacts you can have are with your ``students`` in your ``institute`` where you are a ``professor`` doing frontline ``research`` and heading for the real ``Nobel Prize``.

Chowk interactors are beneath you. No one can match your ``intellect``. All are ``dimwits``.
You and your friend Ali Sina of the faithfreedom website are contributing so much to the cause of Islam. The country and the community shall forever be in your debt.

Regtards.

#162 by bulleya on October 25, 2006 7:43pm PT


i think a lot of civilians were being killed in collateral damage


funny how thousands of dead civilians are collateral damage when they`re killed by allah`s army and victims of genocide when killed by a non-muslim country fighting RoP terrorists...

#176 by zeemax on October 26, 2006 3:29am PT


the Pak trade routes to CARs were secured and the motorway masterplan through Pak was initiated



Initiating a masterplan says squat about it`s probability of success...if wishes were horses and all that...


and squandered away by Musharraf.


So not getting bombed to the stone age wasn`t in Pakistan`s interests?



Taliban after its resurgence is an enemy of both Pak and the US/EU, and the wounds are very deep. The `new` Taliban is a lot more dangerous than it ever was both for Pak as well as the west.


Thanks..precisely what I`ve been saying...the big difference is that America can pick up and leave..the taliban aren`t going to follow them to America like the neocons like to say..Pakistan is stuck where it is...next to a taliban2.0 that is going to use the drug money to create strategic depth deep inside Pakistan...

#178 by bongdongs on October 26, 2006 5:11am PT

Forget about it...DM is high on the paki kool-aid...How can he possibly comment on this without making it seem like his buddies are innocent victims who tried but failed to reign in the talipakis...

Re: # 174 by masadi:

``similar to how GT is making a Taliban/Kashmir connection.``

If fact I was not making a ``Kashmir`` connection. I was asserting a connection between Taliban and a ``class of terrorists operating in India``. Kashmiris are not terrorists. Some Kasmmiris like some Biharis and Assamese are terrorists. Semantics aside, yes I am now asserting that there is a link between the Taliban and some of the terrorist groups operating in Kashmir. So are you claiming that there is none? Or even if there is, it is not serious enough for India to get involved in the Taliban issue? It is a different issue altogether as to whether or not Idia is ``capable`` of doing so without messing up further.

Re:bongdongs#178

[..could you expand more on the ``well-meaning`` advice that the ISI was providing that the Taliban chose to ignore....]

Yaar bongy, the ISI which is a bastion of Pak paindooism, wanted to control the Taliban by guiding them towards moderation e.g. not blow up millenia old buddhist statues, stop the public amputations etc. In other words become a tame, client state to Pakistan and follow Pak agenda. There is only word to describe this - DELUSION. Pakis have this amazing delusion that they can control the Taliban, as if anyone can control wild animals. After all what is the difference between a wild animal and a illiterate, violent fanatic?

The Paindoos on chowk show the exact same delusion even to this day. They think that using Islam they can somehow control these freaks into furthering Pak interests. As they say - fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

DM #155

However, the Taliban by this time were not completely under the ISI control and refused to follow its well-mening advice.

could you expand more on the ``well-meaning`` advice that the ISI was providing that the Taliban chose to ignore.

Zeemax: it is indeed true that taliban were received once in washington (by Congress as I recall, not the white house). But that does not mean the US created them. The US merely played along with Pakistan. The taliban were raised in the ``praying fields`` of pakistani madrassahs and backed by the Pakistan government in taking over afghanistan. in one key battle (for Kabul), i believe there were pakistani advisers present. MI5 of the english supported the rival massoud faction, btw.

Some comments:

#155 by dost-mittar

This post is mostly correct, but let me add a few relevant thoughts:

...Looked at this way, Pakistani policies have made eminent sense and paid rich dividends for Pakistan ...

Pak`s Afghan policies paid rich dividends only till 9/11 (I do not consider US aid or US backed economic relief as `rich dividends`) in the form of a friendly border, thriving trade and market for Pak goods, and reconstruction contracts. Most of all, the Pak trade routes to CARs were secured and the motorway masterplan through Pak was initiated and was feasible for this precise reason. All of this fell apart after Pak U-turn on 9/11.

Why I say the above is because Afghanistan as a state has always been a loosely confederated entity of ferociously autonomous warlords, with the state in Kabul just performing the function of liaising with a `big brother` next-door for vital transport of shipments to a land locked country, and for essential commodities. This big brother was the Soviet Union (i.e. ...even the butter was shipped from SU though there was a local brewery as I recall...pls note hamidm). After departure of SU from the scene, the vacuum was filled by Pak, and squandered away by Musharraf. As it stands now, Taliban after its resurgence is an enemy of both Pak and the US/EU, and the wounds are very deep. The `new` Taliban is a lot more dangerous than it ever was both for Pak as well as the west.

Pak must not make the same mistake again of being caught by surprise of a 9/11 without a policy and forsaking its long-term strategic interests in Afghanistan for US favour in a hurry. The defeat of US in both Iran and Iraq is now imminent and Pak must divert foreign policy direction to most importantly Iran, Turkey and China who will gain influence in the region, while Pak will remain holding the bag with enemies on all sides without a policy direction. Afghanis, above all, are traders and will side with the best trading partners.

...``one might recall Clinton sending a missile aimed at OBL`s camp in August `98``...

The camp which was hit by that missile was known as `Da Punjabiyan` camp. Of-course UBL was not there, but the reason for that name was that the `Taliban` there were in fact from Multan. You can make whatever you want from this tidbit.

#171 by ballukhan

Those who spread the propaganda that US CREATED Taliban are obviously trying to buttress tehir conspiracy theory. This is NONSENSE!!!

This is really funny. Was it Reagan who invited Taliban to White House lawns and compared them to the very ``founding fathers of America``?

More propaganda.

Once the fascade of ``conspiracy`` is unsheathed, their own nakedness is seen in all its perversity .......

Can they hide behind those ``conspiracy theories`` anymore?

No way!!

In #173 when I say <<< the terrorism connection to the Taliban is a mere facade, and a wide stretch, to obfuscate the real issues, in this the Indians are following the US lead though as third rate peons. >>>

by US lead, I mean the US stretch to make an Al_Qaeda/ Iraq connection, similar to how GT is making a Taliban/Kashmir connection.

HP writes <<< What Indian has to do with Afghanistan? >>>

Indian obsessions, directly or indirectly lead to Pakistan, as you know that is why they are interested in Afghanistan, the terrorism connection to the Taliban is a mere facade, and a wide stretch, to obfuscate the real issues, in this the Indians are following the US lead though as third rate peons.