Taliban, Pashtoons and Pakistan

Re: # 136 Major Sahib,
How does the partition into Pashtun and non-Pashtun help US?
They seem to be interested in a secure transport corridor from Central Asia all the way to the Arabian Sea. It seems to me that partition will create new enmities that might be detrimental to achieving that objective.

Mr Bulleya

Pakistan has gained far more than the tribals . The tribals are the bastion of pakistan's western defence.If the tribal area goes pakistan's western borders would become indefensible.Durand Line was designed in such a way.

You badly need to brush up your knowledge.

Volume 7 Number 1

January 28, 2008

Major A.H. Amin (Pakistan Army, Retired)

Waziristan

Waziristan is the testing ground, the acid test of Pakistan Army's worth in the so- called war against terrorism.
What is the Pakistani intelligence ? An intelligence operative stated that they don't have the guts to go out of a fort of FC in Waziristan. They meekly step out of a Qila (fort) and stop some truck drivers and ask what's going on. From what they scramble all the guys from Military Intelligence, the ISI , the Corps Intelligence and the FC Intelligence sit down and make a generally similar report. The guy who compares all reports in GHQ jumps with joy when he sees all these reports and states that all reports can be cross checked and are correct. There is the Sab Accha mentality since Mughal times. Sab Accha means All Correct. So in the final summing it is gleefully concluded that the writ of the Pakistani Government is established in all parts of tribal areas! Glory be to Allah.
I recently met some mid-ranking and major-general level army officers and discussed Waziristan with them. We concluded:
Waziristan is a case of clash of interests among ambitious officers trying to get a good chit (report) and serious regimental officers who see soldiering as a way of life. The fast-track guys want to bash up some villages with artillery fire and do some dog catching for Americans and improve their career index called OEI.
The first major disaster was Lt.-Gen. Safdar, a Punjabi and a careerist. He wanted a fast-track approach for the problem, .His policy was bomb everyone, kill everyone and get the feathers in the cap for being a conqueror. This was counter-productive. The armed forces lost all credibility in this area. Safdar was finally packed off to the post of director logistics in the army Headquarters a post seen as waiting area for dumped generals.
Lieutenant General Hamid Khan, a Pashtun armored corps officer from 11 Cavalry was not effective. During his tenure the army was neither here nor there. He was serving for most of the time when the Waziristan accord had been signed.
The present corps commander Masud Aslam was a Kargil Warrior! (Major Amin is not being complimentary.) He again tried to introduce the Safdar policy with disastrous results.
One Major General level divisional commander stood out. Strangely it was a Shia officer, Major General Mir Haider. Although a Punjabi he understood the Pasthun psyche and did well. His modus operandi was psy war. Healing the tribal eg . Gifting copies of Holy Quran.
Another Major General Sahi was a failure. Again he was using the Safdar approach. Kill , batter , destroy and bomb. Sahi had close links with the Quisling PML (President Musharraf's political party: the writer believes Pakistan has sold out to the Americans) as his brother was a politician from that party. In words of a direct participant officer, he was also a total failure. He was finally packed off as commandant of infantry school. Another resting place of dumped generals. In his dining out he said that he had established writ of Pakistani Government in Waziristan and was corrected there and then by a serving army officer that this was a white lie. He was challenged that he could not drive with his GOC's flag from Miran Shah to Bannu even with an escort! He was infamous in the Frontier Corps Officers for trying to prod them to attack this village or that because he wanted to get a good chit from his bosses.
A serving army officer in that area compared Pakistan Army and the FC in Waziristan to a mouse running from point A to point B while he said that the tribals were the lazy cat watching this despicable mouse.
We further concluded:
The great danger is not Pakistan but the fall-out after its demise.
The great danger to the West is not the hopeless Pakistani state but non-state actors
The more Pakistani Don Quixotes are proved to be spineless clowns in Waziristan, the more dangerous the situation becomes.
Warfare has become cheap. It is easy to rock the boat and non-state actors are good at this.
The front is unclear. The distinction between friend and foe unclear.
My assessment is that if the Americans decide to knock out Pakistan , in strategic terms , there will be no resistance in Punjab and Sindh ,only the Pashtuns will be their adversaries and the settled area Pashtuns will be as hopeless as the Punjabis and Sindhis.
Pakistan's military and political establishment is simply hopeless. This theme is discussed in my article "5 minutes over Islamabad" (the article details how the US forced Pakistan to join it's side in the GWOT.) The Pakistani military junta has already lost all credibility with the Pakistani population and cannot control the situation.
Even the Americans will not achieve much if they enter Waziristan. The terrain is bad and Americans will be a good cause for Jihad. The solution is withdrawal from Waziristan and regime change in Pakistan. The Americans should let the hopeless Paki politicians do the dirty job of all this.
As an officer who served in Pakistan Army I would sum up the situation as following:
The Pakistani High Command a Punjabi-Mohajir (Mohajirs are Pakistans who migrated from India to the new country of Pakistan in/after 1947) team lacks the grey matter or resolve to deal with the tribals.
The troops they are commanding have lost faith in the cause they are fighting for. This is the worst thing for an army.
All said and done the tribals can be dealt politically. Any Pakistani officer who is posted as commander 11 Corps is a job seeker. He is trying to be a Napoleon and a Punjabi cannot be a Napoleon with a tribal!
The present Governor of NWFP Owais Ghani has already miserably failed in Baluchistan. He is regarded as a non-Pashtun as he is the hated Hindko Punjabi (we dont know what Hindko means; Hind generally refers to India) speaking from Peshawar city just like General Kakar, whose first cousin he is.
The whole situation requires a change in command in Pakistan from top to bottom.

ANALYSIS







The strategic challenges that the USA confronts are complex and challenging and the present US leadership lacks the strategic talent to find a solution.Just sitting in Afghanistan and Iraq is not the solution.If not a reverse it is certainly not a success for USA and its allies.And every day spent in Iraq and Afghanistan without striking at the real centre of gravity is a strategic failure of USA.







Using the Northern Alliance as main Allies



The USA was seen as friends of Non Pashtuns in 2001.This created an alienation and feeling of betrayal in Pashtuns both in Afghanistan and Pakistan .This fact was admitted even by US scholars.Professor Rasul Amin who is this scribe's personal friend offered a very interesting explanation of this US failure.According to Prof Rasul Amin who was also Afghanistan's first Education Minister the main US advisor who according to US decision makers possessed Solomon's wisdom about Afghanistan,Zalmay Khalilzad was a non Pashtun.Rasul Amin stated in various discussions that Zalmay was a Changharay ( of Hindu/Indian origin) and not a Pashtun.He thus carried a conscious as well as unconscious bias against Pashtuns.This led to his advocating a course in US policy as a result of which US position became very partisan and negative in the eyes of the Pashtun population.



The USA achieved little by this favour ironically.The Northern Alliance's real allies and saviours were the Russians,Indians and Iranians and this remains the present position.To rub salt in the wound today the Northern Alliance propagates that they singlehandedly removed the Taliban understating and under emphasizing the impact of US aerial bombardment on Taliban.Thus although without USA intervention the Taliban would still have been ruling Afghanistan,the USA failed to gained the goodwill that they deserved from the Northern Alliance.The Northern Alliance knows that their permanent allies are Russia,India and Iran while USA is a dangerous ally which can change its policy at any times.Thus US policy laid the foundation of a possible division of Afghanistan into Pashtun and non Pashtun parts.This may take a decade or more but a foundation has been laid.



US strategy is not aimed at pacifying Afghanistan



The force ratio of USA and its major NATO allies is so low that it is not designed to pacify or control whole of Afghanistan.The major US targets its appears were the airbases and those they occupied.These airbases will go a long way in enabling the USA to strike at a multiple number of targets in the region.This has already led to China and Russia becoming better allies and has not served US policy.



Material motivation of various major participants exposed



One good result of the war is the fact that materialistic motivation of many majopr participants has been exposed.When the USSR intervened in Afghanistan in 1979 the then Pakistani military regime adopted a policy of aiding Afghan rebel groups on the slogan of Jihad.Today with more than 20 Christian countries occupying Afghanistan and with Pakistan facing a more grave threat on its Western borders there is no talk of Jihad now.The motivation in 1979 was to get foreign aid and this has remained the motivation in 2001.The same is true for the so called Mujahids of 1979-1989.They fought a Jihad against a non Christian USSR and are now major vassals of more than 20 Christian countries occupying Afghanistan.



Taliban a force to stay on the scene



In pure military as well as political terms the Taliban are a force that will stay on the scene unless there is a major change in US strategy.This would not lead to US withdrawal but it would certainly make Afghanistan's Pashtun and non Pashtun divide deeper.The USA would be the loser as the Northern Alliance regards Russia as a more solid and reliable friend and ally.The Taliban will dominate the south and the drug trade and there dominance would ensure that the Pashtuns remain relatively uneducated.Thus fundamentalism would be strengthened in the Afghan South and the regional threat will remain functional.



Taliban's Ability to acquire SAM capability will be a serious challenge to USA/NATO



Presently the Taliban have no SAM capability but if they acquire this the whole balance in Afghanistan would seriously tilt against the Americans/NATO.Presently the NATO is the master of the land battlefield because of dominance of the skies.This has enabled it to occupy Afghanistan with minimum forces and to economise on the war expenditure.A few SAMs can however change the whole situation.



IED and Suicide Attacks Main Strength of Taliban



The Taliban have mastered the use of IEDs and have a large reservoir of suicide bombers.These are two formidable weapons that they possess against which the USA/NATO has no countermeasure or remedy.







Conclusion



The Afghan battlefield will see few decisive battles and would continue to be a slow war of attrition in which the NATO/ISAF will rarely see the faces of their enemies.Time is on the side of Taliban.The NATO/USA has to decide on a definite strategy unless their aim is just to control the strategic Afghan airfields as jump off points for attacks on other regional countries in the next decade.Pakistan lost the good will it should have had in Afghanistan because its foreign policy was controlled by non Professionals.This failure started from removal of Agha Shahi from the Foreign Office.Shahi was not in favour of doing everything that the Americans told the Pakistanis.He was a seasoned diplomat.After his exit the Foreign Office passed into hands of soldiers turned diplomats with an over ride gear from General Zia and the so called Silent Soldier.

Seen in retrospect Pakistan's Afghan policy was a failure and the threat in 2007 to Pakistan's integrity is far more grave than in 1979.In this scenario the Taliban are a major contender.They have acquired a fearsome reputation not only as warriors in the Pashtun areas but also in the eyes of their NATO opponents.However the talk of engaging them is impractical.The battle that they are fighting is to the bitter end and this fact has to be digested by all decision makers on all sides.The Taliban have succeeded in destabilisng the region and herein lies their nuisance value.

Re: # 133 Zakkk
In what specific way should the Afghan policy be corrected?
Minimally, what Afghanistan wants is part of NWFP east up till Peshawar, plus the entire Baluchistan.

What do you and AK suggest in this regard?

#126 Posted by bulleya on February 4, 2008 1:45:46 am


one cannot have it both ways


That's right..you can't..

Pakistan was created for allah's people to do allah's work..

the fata guys are doing allah's work...

The other side of the argument is the Pakhtun nationalist one which argues that the fighting in FATA are because of the policies of the pak establishment.

Taken from the news on sunday

The present state system does not represent the interests of the people.

By R Khan

Afrasiab Khattak is a noted intellectual and politician. Provincial president of the Awami National Party (ANP), Khattak has been a political activist since his student days. Hailing from the Kohat district in the NWFP, he completed his education from the University of Peshawar. He did his master's in English Literature and also got a degree in Law. For some time he remained a practising lawyer and also made a name for himself as a constitutional expert.

Khattak has been associated with some leading national and international media organisations as a professional political analyst. He has a vast knowledge of the Pakistan-Afghanistan region. Khattak remained in jail as a political prisoner in Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's tenure, while he went into exile for years during the Ziaul Haq era.

After his return to Pakistan, instead of working as a politician, Khattak joined human rights organisations and also served as chairperson of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP). A couple of years ago, Khattak again entered the political arena by joining the ANP. Recently, he became the party's provincial president. The News on Sunday recently got hold of him to discuss various issues confronting the country, especially extremism and terrorism. Excerpts follow:

The News on Sunday: Where do you think would the current crisis lead the country and what different scenarios may emerge?

Afrasiab Khattak: Frankly speaking, the situation is bleak and I do not see much light at the end of the tunnel. The crisis is basically of the state system. The fundamental relationship between the state and the society is through a constitutional structure expressed in a democratic process; that is how the society determines the direction of the state. On its own part, the state administers the society.

Unfortunately, in Pakistan's case, the state has gone totally out of the society's control; it is a rogue state in the sense that it is not accountable. It has not happened overnight; it is the culminating point of the processes that have been there for decades. Zia's era started them and they reached their climax under Musharraf.

This change is qualitative and has turned our people into subjects; they are no more citizens. So the present state system does not represent the interests of the people and it is very difficult to predict where the state would go from here. The most dangerous aspect is that this crisis may get internationalised for obvious reasons.

TNS: Why then has your party termed the forthcoming elections so important?

AK: As political activists our only hope is to mobilise and organise people and prepare them to launch a struggle for their rights. We simply cannot give up, as elections are a very important means of mobilising people and creating awareness in them to get back their rights from the usurpers.

TNS: You think that the crisis is at the level of the state. Is it then appropriate to term the current unrest as a consequence of extremism and Talibanisation?

AK: I think some people simplify this by using such terms. Talibanisation is just one aspect and a manifestation of the deep malaise. 10 or 15 years ago people used to say that the military is a state within state. It is not true anymore; today the military is the state while the other state institutions are mere appendages. The military is performing every function that a state performs in the rest of the world.

The upper echelons of the military constitute the super elite, even socially apart from monopolising political power. For instance, in any society resource allocation is done by the super elite. In Pakistan, the military heads call the shots; they formulate foreign policy and internal policy; and they even manage civilian affairs. Military operations are taking place in many parts of the country. Considering this, an question arises that who decides about these matters?

This means that the state and the society have been militarised. In such a society, the growth of militancy is something natural. So far no one has resorted to self-criticism. Look at the Western countries, which during the war against the Soviet Union helped promote extremist elements by investing billions of dollars. They established thousands of schools for Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Nebraska University prepared the syllabus. Similarly, the whole education system was changed here. But neither the international players nor the local elite admitted their mistakes. Everybody is talking about Talibanisation, but no one about the root causes.

TNS: Of late we have heard about the formation of Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), and the military operations in South Waziristan and Darra Adamkhel. Where are we heading for as a nation?

AK: First of all, the problem is that there are elements within the establishment who patronised militancy. Second, the misguided policies of Musharraf have brought international war into our country. Our ruling elite is very fond of becoming the frontline state and it is like an addiction.

Unfortunately our province -- the NWFP -- happens to be the frontline province. But let us not forget that the extremist elements cannot reconcile themselves to the modern state system. They are basically anti-modern, anti-democracy. Their success starts from where the state fails. In Afghanistan they could introduce their system only when that country becomes a failing state. This is something which they would like to repeat in Pakistan too. So unless Pakistan establishes a democratic dispensation, regulated by the constitution, we really cannot address this issue by fire fighting alone. The situation would, as a result, go on worsening.

TNS: Should we infer then that apprehensions that extremists could take over the system of the country are not all that far-fetched?

AK: The way the things have developed over the last three or four years suggest the country is moving towards chaos. We have seen the failure of the state system everywhere in the country. The unit of the state has disappeared and the vacuum is being filled by the radical elements.

TNS: How should the society respond to this challenge?

AK: The problem is that violence is spreading, armed groups are trying to enforce their ideas by force, but the government is without any long- or short-term strategy to counter this. Political and civil society forces depend upon popular support. But when there is brute violence, it paralyses the civil society activists. Expansion of violence leads to contraction of civil society activities.

TNS: Do you think that the ANP's policy of non-violence, fathered by the late Ghaffar Khan, is still relevant?

AK: It is very much relevant. We have seen increase in violence by both state and non-state actors, but it has not solved any problem. Ultimately, we have to resort to non-violence and the state has to achieve legitimacy by constitutional means -- by the reinvention of relationship between the state and the society. No amount of force and violence can provide legitimacy to the state. Pakistan today is at a very dangerous stage. Any intensification of delegitimisation can have dangerous consequences.

TNS: So are you suggesting a new social contract?

AK: Yes, of course. We are living in a century in which globalisation has become a ground reality. So the state system has to adjust itself to the new realities. Of course, it has to be based on the will of the people. Today's problems -- of war and peace, of human rights -- cannot remain internal problems. They have a tendency to get regionalised and internationalised.

In our case, there are other factors too that would attract international interest and concern. So we have to be extremely careful.

TNS: If the ANP comes to power in the NWFP, would it be able to counter extremism in the province?

AK: We have to work with other democratic forces because these are challenges that cannot be met by one party or only by the government. It has to be a collective effort. Our party would try to introduce the federal democratic structure in the country. This could only be done through empowering the people, turning them into real citizens with rights and duties, and by devising a system in which individuals as well as communities are empowered.

The ANP has done a lot of homework for democratic transformation through social change and economic development in the NWFP and FATA. The latter's main problem is economic and political isolation. We believe the tribal areas have to be reintegrated with the rest of the country. We could make the task of the government easier. Unfortunately, elements in our establishment who are fond of becoming front line state would like to use FATA as a battleground in the so-called new Great Game. The ANP is strongly opposed to such misadventures.

TNS: You have mentioned internationalisation of our problems. Therefore, is it logical to assume that India has a hand in the crisis in FATA?

AK: Our government has been claiming so, though it has not come up with any evidence. The policies pursued by our various governments have led to the souring of relations with neighbouring countries. We share border with four countries and it is interesting that all of them have some complaints from us. As the proverb goes, there is no smoke without fire. So we have to take a critical view of our policies. Yes, other countries would pursue their own agendas and at times their interests would be against ours. But if we adopt rational policies, we will be able to neutralise many hostile policies of other countries.

TNS: If the civil unrest in Pakistan transforms into a civil war, will its magnitude be bigger than Iraq?

AK: We are living in a very difficult time, when a large quantity of sophisticated weapons is in private possession. God forbid, if civil war, regional war or regional conflict breaks out, problems in the former Yugoslavia will appear smaller in comparison.

TNS: Is there a possibility that the violence and extremism, which have gripped the NWFP, could spread across the Indus?

AK: It is again an oversimplification to talk about extremism in the NWFP, as even now the roots are across the Indus. The physical manifestation is on this side. I have said time and again that the problem does not lie in Waziristan; it lies in Islamabad. Unless a change of heart takes place there, the issue could not be addressed. The Pakhtoons are unfortunately wrongly projected as extremists. They are victims of violence, not its perpetrators. They have always been at the receiving end of the violent policies imposed upon them from Islamabad.

TNS: What is ANP's position on US conducting operations in FATA?

AK: We are opposed to military operations by any power in FATA; we are even against operations by the Pakistan Army. The basic problem is political. Administrative and security action can be justified, but only in very limited and surgical fashion. According to our perception, situation in FATA is the outcome of our flawed Afghan Policy. As long as this policy is not corrected, there cannot be peace in the entire region.

Please read as follows:

...I never fought and grabbed Muzaffarabad for Pakistan in 1948. The ONLY war Pakistan has ever won!

#126 Posted by bulleya,

.thus, you can only makes such a statement about yourself.......i,e. fata residents are better pakistanis than you.....

I stand corrected. They're better Pakistanis than me. I never fought and grabbed Muzaffarabad for Pakistan in 1948.

..what exactly are they protecting the eastern border from?......is afghanistan going to invade pakistan?

When exactly was Afghanistan, Pakistan's friend? It was always hostile towards Pakistan except for the brief reign of Taliban. If you're saying a country should not place forces on a border with a hostile neighbor, no matter how weak militarily, that would be quite negligent.

.......however, how can one part of a country have its own foreign policy..what if tomorrow lahore decides to attack amritsar, and then gets bombed by india........should pakistan, then, declare war on india?

What foreign policy are we talking about? Participation in WOT?

The foreign policy should be the same, but doesn't have to be in case of FATA. Pakistan was wrong, they were right all along, which is why they're now fighting the Pakistani state - but not to separate, merely to change the foreign policy. Of-course you would be aware there's hardly any support at all for Pakistan's general involvement in WOT anywhere in the country (though not specifically for Taliban) while in FATA there's 100% support for Taliban. Seeing this, shouldn't Pakistan change it's misguided and unpopular foreign policy in line with people's wishes rather than plug on in a useless fight?

And BTW, they neither need nor expect Pakistan to declare war on anyone if they're bombed. Right now, both Nato and Pakistan are bombing them simultaneously and they have declared war on both on their own.

There're 600,000 refugees from Waziristan in settled areas of NWFP with not even a peep from the Pakistani Government to even give them dried milk for their children.

There are over one million men in arms in FATA, and you'll see they will not forget this. They never forget. That's something about tribals.

....can you point me to any agreement that indicates that fata could declare its own foreign policy and declare war on another country and pakistan would still be liable to defend it.......

Sure. Read the clauses relating to FATA in the Constitution of Pakistan and the Frontier Crimes Regulations Act, and see where Pakistan's writ begins and ends in FATA.

Regards

600 suicide bombers waiting to strike in Karachi: Report
4 Feb 2008, 1157 hrs IST,PTI


KARACHI: As many as 600 suicide bombers are present in the Pakistani port city of Karachi where they are planning to carry out a major attack, arrested militants of an al-Qaeda linked banned outfit have told the police.

"Around 600 Jundullah militants are present in Karachi. They are mentally prepared and trained to commit suicide attacks," Qasim Toori and Danish alias Talha, arrested on January 29, were quoted as saying by a source privy to the interrogation.

Most of the suicide bombers were former students of Islamabad's Lal Masjid which was stormed by the military last July to flush out extremists, the source told the Daily Times.

The militants confessed that they had robbed foreign banks and dispatched the money to their headquarters in Wana, from where their needs for weapons, explosives and other necessities were being met.

The source added that law-enforcement personnel had also taken into custody two disabled brothers, Abu Abdullah and Gohar Muhammad, who, authorities suspect, were going to carry out suicide attacks.

The militants "confessed" that they were planning to target several key leaders of Altaf Hussein-led MQM and some high-profile government officials before the Feb 18 general elections, the Nation daily reported.

Sources told paper that the militants wanted to target top leadership of MQM and its workers as the party had supported the military crackdown on Lal Masjid.

Toori was wanted in connection with a June 2004 gun attack on Karachi Corps Commander General Ahsan Saleem Hayat, which killed 11 people dead. Hayat survived the attack, for which 11 Jundullah activists were later sentenced to death.

Re: # 99

". As long as we put religion in the preamble of our constitution the parameters of debate within this country would be determined by the mullah."

De-Islamize Pakistani constitution before it is late. Turn it into a Secular state like India.
Mullahs would be reduced to political non-entity then!!

Author,

I write with pain that we are going to lose much more area to Talibans.

Fair assessment. Soon as someone (i.e. a proxy master) provides them with surface to air capability, things will change dramatically. Pavo could provide an insight into which actor in this imbroglio could do that.

Just a small correction. It is 'Taliban' and not 'Talibans'. You may use 'Talibs' for plural but Taliban is already a plural. Talibans makes it double plural!

Regards

correction #: "...what exactly are they protecting the eastern border from?..."

eastern should read western...

zeemax #: "Bulleya, you're right that they won't separate, because they are better Pakistanis than you or me...."

it is not possible to quantify whether residents from one part are better or worse pakistanis than anyone else.......thus, you can only makes such a statement about yourself.......i,e. fata residents are better pakistanis than you.....

"as well as their Federal Grants have always been in return for their protecting the Western borders freeing the Pakistan military for the Eastern borders with India...."

...what exactly are they protecting the eastern border from?......is afghanistan going to invade pakistan?

if someone wants to excercise their own foreign policy, outside that of pakistan, then that group should either be controlled, and if that is not possible then it should be let go......

what fata is expecting is support from pakistan, financially, and militarily, while still keeping the independence of excercising its own domestic policy and foreign policy......uptil now, it was only domestic policy, which was acceptable.......however, how can one part of a country have its own foreign policy......

what if tomorrow lahore decides to attack amritsar, and then gets bombed by india........should pakistan, then, declare war on india?

one cannot have it both ways......one has to either be a part of a country or not be a part of a country....

....can you point me to any agreement that indicates that fata could declare its own foreign policy and declare war on another country and pakistan would still be liable to defend it.......

Dear Friends,
I have been constantly seeing a lot of anti-Paki/Anti-Indian/Anti-Hindu rantings since I joined this forum. I think given the present situation, we need to move away from this "siege mentality" or these tirades based on "Two nation theory".....

Regards

t Khan
Sydney

Bulleya (fauji lover) writes:

"as for fata fighting for kashmir......that happened 60 years ago.....its about time, pakistanis started living in the present-day world......and started understanding present-day dynamics.......bengalis fought more for pakistan than anyone else......now they are a separate country......times change and dynamics change......."

Pakistan has always lost territory under Fauji rule. Never under civilian rule. Ayub lost the hills around Kargil, Yahya lost East Pakistan, Zia lost Siachen and now we hear former defenders of the borders declare they should just as well lose FATA.

Once you were a fervent supporter of Musharaf saying he was the best choice compared to BB or NS. But instead of apologizing for supporting a regime that was hurriedly bringing Pakistan to the current day predicament, you do the one thing that Pak Fauj (particularly under Musharaf) has done well at - cut and run.

Your 'best of the lot' Musharaf has wrecked this country and continues to do so. Yeah, times change and dynamics change. But failure-prone Fauji mentality don't budge an inch!