USA's New Afghan Strategy

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

anil - I agree that there is a real challenge with the india-obsession of otherwise "liberal" pakistanis. So many things are seen as coming from the "outside" - as you know in every suicide blast/attack in pakistan the first discussion is whether the indians are involved. Its quite bizarre, given that there is no history of this kind of indian extremism in pakistan and must reflect some very deep indoctrination or anxiety. One interesting question is where this comes from, as apparently a large section of society suffers from this disorder.

RiazHaq: Pakistan's involvement in Afghanistan has given them the Taliban. I dont know how you can call any Afghani an ingrate.

And the provincial and federal government has betrayed the people of Swat by replacing their elected leaders with those who used the bullet.

Agha,

2 questions:

In my opinion, China should start playing a more active role in all of this. I understand your point of China waiting to let US bleed itself dead. But whether one agrees or not, China is at the least the greatest power in the region. Stability and peace brought about by the Chinese would enhance their stature.

Question 1: Why aren't the Chinese showing more interest?

I believe that the US would be relieved, albeit grudgingly, if the Chinese were to come in. (Same with India, I think). Your stand is that the US will not allow that to happen. So

Question 2: Why do you think that the US will not be happy with Chinese involvement?

(Please do not imply directly or indirectly that the US is stupid.)

On the whole liked your write-up and interacts. The write-up was perhaps a bit shoddy.

Regards,

GT.

Re: # 141
TrichMir: "Whatever Pakistan did for Afghans it did for those billions of dollars that were being given to Pak by the UN or other countries..."

You sound like another ingrate Afghan who has turned on its benefactor. Pakistan continues to provide the landlocked and mostly hardscrabble Afghanistan with the lifeline its people need to survive...in form of food (a lot Pak wheat/rice smuggled into Afghanistan from Pak), clothing (Afghanistan produces very little of it, Pak makes a lot), almost every item of necessity from screws to tools, machine components etc. Whatever Kabul doesn't have, people make a run to Islamabad to get it. Whenever Pakistan starts to get tough on smuggling (like it did due to wheat shortage), the effects are almost immediately felt in Afghanistan in terms of increased hunger and deprivation.

Pakistan has also been the popular escape route for Afghans now in the West most of whom now speak Urdu they learned in Pakistan.

But even if what you say is true about the billions of dollars Pak received and benefited from, it's clearly been a terrible bargain for Pakistan.
Riaz Haq, PakAlumni Worldwide

Re: # 140

PMishra:

PMishra:

There is nothing, other than a perceived threat, that attracts a Pakistani policy maker’s mindset toward east of its border.

The kind of solidarity Pakistanis showed here at Chowk, on TV and the Economist described, in the aftermath of Mumbai attack and perceived attack from India confirms it. Predictably the same Pakistnai gurus claim that Pakistan's Nuclear bombs stopped India as well. Even if Indians may have been driven not to destroy their economy which is in a downturn as is the worldwide.

This shows that for better or worse, Pakistani mindset is extremely reluctant to accept new ground realities. I long to read articles and essays from Pakistani analysts to find if there is no mention of India or Indian ugliness it in.

Even Pakistani liberals seem to fall in this trap. Even though the negative image of India is a crutch that Pakistan does not need any longer. It refuses to give it up. With this crutch “not-India� identity remains stuck. Adversaries and rivals cooperate too.

Therefore, a common ground that is needed never occurs. Instead, again very predictable for such mindset, belittling of Vajpayee visit and magnification of Kargil conflict show up.

This is not to say that there is no provocation from Indian side. It is there. To me more important question is should Pakistan continue to react to such provocations, and continue to play in the hands of provocateurs? This is so ingrained that the action or reaction, to what happens in India or perceived to be happening there, is better explained with matter, anti-matter analogy.

I read the article that you mentioned from The Daily Times. The U.S. would factor this kind of mindset that exists inside Pakistan to its advantage. Even if similar phobia exists in India, it is too vast to be consumed in “Not-Pakistan� elements, therefore, these elements remain vocal.

American policy maker will not hope for it to die out. They will use it their advantage as the Pakistani response is almost always predictable. For instance they can keep speaking vague and soft words on Kashmir and pointed toward billions of dollars aid for guaranteed Pakistani response. The same applied for Nuclear Agreement, a very predictable response for America to act. I would not be surprised if a third party creates a situation between Pakistan and India, not as the final move in its game of chess, but to corner Pakistan and get it to fall in line.

However, what surprises me the most is that young Pakistani generation who had not to go through the trauma of partition seems to be even deeper in it. This is based on reading many posters here. It seems that domestically there is even reluctance to accept MQM as they are seen India connected.

Re: # 138
Pakistan would have been much better off if it hadn't come to the rescue of Afghans and refused entry to the Afghan refugees who have changed the character of Pakistan from a civil, peaceful and tolerant society to the lawlessness and religious zealotry evident today. I have fond personal memories of peaceful, clean and orderly Karachi in the 1970s before the influx of Afghan refugees in the 1980s.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+


Whatever Pakistan did for Afghans it did for those billions of dollars that were being given to Pak by the UN or other countries to provide food and shelter to Afghan refugees and the bulk of that money never reached them. Ask any Afghan refugee from refugee camps like Jalozai or Shamshatoo about the life in those camps and they will tell you how miserable it was.

The reason of religious intolerance and Jihadi culture in Pakistan are the policies of Zia. Almost all of the Jihadi outfits are run by Punjabis, whether LeT or LeJ. Even the Talebans are the result of those thousands of madrasas that were run and financed by the Pakistani army in Pashtunkhwa in order to create gun fodder for the fight against Soveits and they could have never gained so much strength if the Pakistani army had not supported and nurtured them.

When the Talebans unleashed their barbarism on poor Afghans with the help of Pakistan and S.Arabia then instead of saving innocent Afghans civilians from their barbarism the Pakistani establishment justified the Taleban rule and their way of ruling by saying that Afghans have always lived like that. Forget Afghans, they have even left millions of Pakistani Pashtuns in Pashtukhwa at their mercy.

And now Afghans are also responsible for the ugliness of Karachi.

Nice article by US commentator in the excellent pakistani daily times. One paragragh stands out for me, it speaks to the mental confusion of people like Riaz Haq:

[quote]
There is one piece missing, and that involves the Pakistani mindset toward India. There are a number of analysts (include me on that list) who believe that until the India-centricity of Pakistani foreign and security policy is substantially modified, the country will find it very difficult to adjust its sights to the real danger the state of Pakistan faces from the West. This adjustment not only involves the army, though it is a critical actor in this drama, but the whole of civil society itself.

The India-centric focus of much of society and the military is, arguably, responsible for much of Pakistan’s deficiencies as a state, a nation, and a society. That is a subject that I may take up in some future column. This one is about President Obama’s strategy to help Pakistan overcome the existential challenge it faces.
[\quote]

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=200941\story _1-4-2009_pg3_2

Major Amin,

I agree with everything you have to say about Zia and his reasons for siding with the US against the USSR--naked self interest and greed (and the less said about Akhtar Abdur Rehman the better).

Again I agree with you that if the choice was the USSR/Communists or the Mujahideen fundamentalists, virtually ALL educated Afghans (Pakhtoon and non-Pakhtoons) would have chosed the former.

However, there is a certain validity to the PakArmy's concern about maintaining a friendly (if not client) government in Afghanistan.

Daoud Shah was removed as Prime Minister by Zahir Shah in 1963. He was the main force behind the Pashtunistan claims and initiated active hostilities against Pakistan in Dir-Bajaur in 1961-62. In retaliation, Pakistan blockaded Afghanistan (after besting Afghan troops in border skirmishes). The peace brokered by the Shah of Iran removed Daoud Shah from power.

That is why Afghanistan was neutral during the 1965 and 1971 Wars. Daoud Shah staged a coup and took over in 1973. Not conincidentally, Afghanistan also started aiding the Baluch Insurgency. What would Pakistan's strategic situation have been like if Daoud Shah had been PM during the 1965 War? In 1971?

Re: # 131

Pavo: "the pashtuns led by my personal friend Aslam Watanjar were in the fore front of the Saur Revolution of 1978."

Thanks for clarifying your background and perspective. It makes sense that you would take the position you are taking as a supporter of Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It puts you in the same category as Ahmad Rashid of Pakistan, a modern day imperialist Kipling who (like VS Naipaul) believes in the white man's burden to civilize the non-whites.

Zia may have done what he did for personal reasons to perpetuate his own power, but , in hindsight, Pakistan would have been much better off if it hadn't come to the rescue of Afghans and refused entry to the Afghan refugees who have changed the character of Pakistan from a civil, peaceful and tolerant society to the lawlessness and religious zealotry evident today. I have fond personal memories of peaceful, clean and orderly Karachi in the 1970s before the influx of Afghan refugees in the 1980s.
Riaz Haq, PakAlumni Worldwide

Riaz sahib:

Pakistan has more fundamental problems. You are pointing fingers at the their effects and symptoms, convincing yourself and others that the causes are outside Pakistani borders. Allow me to list a few of these fundamental problems:

1. Not India as the identity, as if national identities are built on negation of another nation’s identity,

2. Attempts to create national identity based on religion only produced confused generation that has Masadi at the one end and Urstruly on the other end, in between is confusion galore of the kind highlighted by HPs and others,

3. Opportunistic play of its leaders at cost of building institutions,

4. Demand driven economy, and wasteful spending on military,

5. Incoherent education policy, not allowing the middle class to develop meritocracy,

6. Driving middle class to “foreign� education right from “O� levels,

What kind of respect this generation of “O� levels will have in Pakistani education and institutions?

You can close your eyes and keep pointing fingers, or look inside and do something. When a generation can bring a trash of the kind I mentioned, another can bring excellence out too. After all there was a period of excellence in that part of the world, no matter how you look at it, Islamic period, or pre-Islamic period. Even knoweldge flowed from that part into rest of India, something the most ardent hindutva wadi will acknowledge too.

Please quit finger pointing outside Pakistani borders, and get on the tasks to tackle fundamental problems. America will leave again once their interests are safe; India will threaten again when it feels threat from west of its borders.

Should Pakistanis waste their talents on these realities or address Pakistan's fundamental problems?

I do not think you have answered any of my questions and I do not expect you to answer these either.

there is no other piece of most refined b____l s____t other than strategic depth.

in both 1965 and 1971 wars afghanistan was neutral and friendly to pakistan so where is strategic depth.

talibans were invented to keep the pakistani military in business.....cheap pashtun fighters for kashmir .....ha ha ha and now the pashtuns realise .....they were used and made a fool of.

when kabul was attacked a million times and more between 1978 and 1992,civilian apartments attacked,students cafeteria attacked by hirelings it was jihad....when lahore is attacked baitullah mahsud is a foreign agent ....what a big joke.
Agha Amin

Re: # 131 agha

well said... Kabul may have been soviet-supported and but Kabul was a cosmopolitan city... Pakis destroyed Afganland - first by Anti-soviet jihad and then by hosting taliban...

Re: # 130 from Riaz
[...Pakistan has been the best friend of the Afghans through think and thin...]

Ha ha... what did I tell you guys.... this Riaz dude surpasses Romair in cluelessness...

Pakiland destroyed whatever was left of Afganland after soviets left - by sponsoring taliban on them... all in name of strategic depth... afgans freaking hate your guts, pashtuns included...

Re: # 130 riaz miah, aap bahut akalmand dikhayee deh rahen hain.

Bus, socho.

(a)Terray koh history aati naheen.
(b) terray koh musalmano ki history aati naheen
(c) terray koh pakistan ki history aati naheen.

Jarra jaa library mein ek aadh kitaabh pad. Yaadi terray ko maaloom naheen library kya hota hain mein bata hoon.

Library woh bada ghar hain, jahan har kamra kitaabon se bhara hua hain.

kya theek

munna jaa. jaa ke buttess sahib se bheekh maang ki woh tumare mimaagh wapas lelen

if the pakistanis and i mean the punjabi muslims and settled area pashtuns and muslims of delhi had any guts they would not have been rescued from marhattas and sikhs in 1803 and 1849 respectively ?

so which guts do you talk about.

no muslim unit from punjab and pashtun settled areas had the guts to refuse british orders to fire on muslim civilians.

only one unit an all hindu battalion of garhwal rifles refused to do this in peshawar i think in 1930.

in the army in first war only the afridis alizais the ranghar of 125th light infantry and the mashsuds now at war with the paki government had the guts to refuse british orders and join the turks and germans
Agha Amin