What's new

Featured America Has Lost a Proxy War against Pakistan

FOOLS_NIGHTMARE

SENIOR MEMBER
Sep 26, 2018
7,662
17
17,807
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
How America turned the "good war" into a "dumb war."

When President Joe Biden declared the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan after twenty years of fighting, he declared that the original objectives for the invasion had been achieved. “We were attacked, we went to war with clear goals,” he gravely intoned. “We achieved those objectives. Bin Laden is dead and Al Qaeda is degraded in Afghanistan, and it’s time to end this forever war.” Curiously, he omitted where exactly the founder of Al Qaeda had met his end.

The reaction was as swift as it was predictable. The New York Times, framing the debate along familiar terms, asked, “Will Afghanistan become a Terrorism Safe Haven Once Again?” The ranking member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services, Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, warned Afghanistan would “become a safe haven for terrorists once again.” That there already exists “safe haven” for terrorists in and near the country was not mentioned.

Shortly after Biden’s announcement, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin reportedly expressed “appreciation for Pakistan’s support” during peace negotiations in Afghanistan with the Taliban. It is not clear whether Secretary Austin had in mind the full breadth of Pakistan’s activities in Afghanistan when referring to its “support” for these ongoing and inconclusive diplomatic talks.

Carl von Clausewitz declared that “the first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish…the kind of war on which they are embarking; neither mistaking it for, not trying to turn it into, something that is alien to its nature.” This most fundamental task of accurate conceptualization has also been the most overlooked and underrated in the formulation and implementation of U.S. military strategy.

As complex and confusing as the situation in Afghanistan is for foreign observers and visitors, the most fundamental lacuna in the analysis and strategy behind U.S. objectives in the country is a manifest failure to clearly acknowledge and accept the situation on the ground in Afghanistan for what it is: the United States has been waging and losing a proxy war against an alleged ally.

The mission to transform a barren, mountainous, landlocked, and impoverished country in one of the most remote parts of the Eurasian landmass—after decades of armed conflict and revolutionary upheaval—into a stable democracy with no safe havens for terrorism is tragic and difficult enough. It becomes indefensibly absurd when also claiming to do so in partnership with a country that bears the most responsibility for the continuing chaos and carnage in Afghanistan.

Axis or Ally?

Among all the moral compromises made by Washington in its diplomatic relationships during the War on Terror, the U.S. relationship with Islamabad might be the most destructive and counterproductive. Less than five months after the shock of the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush announced the existence of an “Axis of Evil” that represented the greatest threat to world peace. Notably, none of the countries identified had any role in the attacks, nor had any of their citizens. What was stranger yet about the composition of this “axis” was that these countries, as hostile as their regimes were to U.S. interests, did not include the world’s worst offender. When examining what went wrong in the U.S. war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, it bears reviewing the central role Pakistan has played in sabotaging any prospects of victory.

It has long been an open secret that Pakistan has actively and consistently thwarted U.S. operations against the Taliban and Al Qaeda since the attacks of September 11, 2001. For as long as the U.S. has been in Afghanistan, however, the polite fiction of Pakistan as a reliable ally has persisted despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. As a state sponsor of terrorism, Pakistan has matched or exceeded the actions and patterns of sanctioned regimes in Iran and North Korea. The flagrant involvement of its so-called “deep state” in the finances and operations of known terrorist groups as a matter of course has also been far more direct and intimate than any of the suspected links attributed to the Gulf Arab states or their citizens. Yet in stark contrast to intense U.S. pressure on its Arab allies to crack down on terrorism, or U.S. sanctions on Iran and North Korea, Pakistan’s rulers have enjoyed relative impunity since 2001.

After the United States invaded Afghanistan, Pakistan gave shelter to elements of both Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Osama Bin Laden himself would take up residence in an elite suburb in close proximity to Pakistan’s military academy in Abbottabad. After Bin Laden was finally found and killed, Pakistani authorities retaliated against local informants cooperating with U.S. intelligence. In spite of the evidence, there would be no major changes to the U.S. relationship with Pakistan.

The designation of Pakistan as a “major non-NATO ally” under President Bush was followed by the next administration proclaiming that an “effective partnership with Pakistan” would be a core element of the U.S. war against the Taliban. Pakistan’s ostensible efforts to confront its own proxies would be supported by generous aid from the United States. As the Pentagon pressured the White House to escalate the war, increasing numbers of U.S. troops and civilian officials were being sent into harm’s way and tasked with implementing near impossible projects of social transformation. At the same time, the United States sent aid to the country that directed efforts to arm and train the Taliban insurgency. The absurd implications of U.S. policy and strategy are such that it would be as if America had waged the Vietnam War while also sending aid to Hanoi.

 

El Sidd

ELITE MEMBER
Apr 5, 2017
60,439
5
48,890
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
This is not what winning looks like.

Pakistan has lost 2 decades to a senseless war which America refuses to lose.

If there's a victim beyond Afghanistan, it's Pakistan and probably Donald Trump.
 

Dalit

ELITE MEMBER
Mar 16, 2012
13,675
-17
25,228
Country
Pakistan
Location
Netherlands
Typical one-sided American BS. The amount of terrorism and losses that Pakistan had to suffer speaks volume. US/NATO losses combined cannot make up for Pakistan's losses.

The title of the rant is very interesting. The author recognizes that his country was involved in a proxy war against Pakistan. How could Pakistan support a US proxy war against itself?
 

khansaheeb

ELITE MEMBER
Dec 14, 2008
10,895
-2
12,774
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
These are just wild Indian sponsored conspiracy theories. US never did any proper research as to why the Soviets failed in Afghanistan and went in gun ho and made the same mistakes and suffered the same consequences. The CIA well trained and funded Mujahedeen used the the same training and tactics taught to them against Soviet forces to grind down the Western forces. These Mujahedeen were seasoned fighters and one of the most experienced guerilla forces in the world who knew the terrain inside out and were mountain experts. The US never were serious about hearts and minds and the US and their allies suffered the full brunt of hatred against an occupying army. When the tide of war went against the occupying armies In desperation the US and NATO threw in dollars to subdue resistance but the Afghans not only swallowed the dollars but intensified the attrition. Out of options the US threw in more dollars and the US personnel lost patience and went on a dollar feeding frenzy on an appetite that almost bankrupt the US. An entrepreneural cycle of fear and dollars fattened through US tax payer money the likes of Blackwater, Contrellis, Raytheon and others.
 

CrazyZ

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 3, 2019
3,685
2
4,810
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
USA approach in ME and Afghanistan was confused, irrational and lacked any coherent strategy. USA policy makers didn't have the foggiest notion of what they were getting into so outsourced the war plan to neo-con Zionist that moved to secure Israeli interests in the ME....at the expense of the USA.

Putting Iranian plants in power in Baghdad and Kabul and then making Iran an enemy made sense for Israel.....but not the USA. USA policy makers can only blame themselves.

It has long been an open secret that Pakistan has actively and consistently thwarted U.S. operations against the Taliban and Al Qaeda since the attacks of September 11, 2001.
This is a lie.

Pakistan helped the USA more then any country to round up and dismantle AQ. Pakistan urged the USA to make a political settlement with the Taliban after the fall of Kabul when could negotiate from position of strength and Pakistan had more influence over the Taliban. It was the USA that refused.

It was the USA that miscalculated....went for the military victory and put their weight behind a Kabul-India-Iran axis against Pakistan. Those black op proxies failed (the author is correct on this point), were kicked back to Afghanistan and joined ISIS-K. Taliban magically rose from the ashes to regain large parts of Afghanistan.

The USA should have hedged its bets......instead it backed the wrong horses. Don't hate the player, hate the game. :lol:
 

FOOLS_NIGHTMARE

SENIOR MEMBER
Sep 26, 2018
7,662
17
17,807
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
Pakistan is glad to dump Uncle Sam, as this relationship has given us more grief than benefits. Our tried and tested partners are China and Turkey, and the rest are just puppet states.
 

waz

SENIOR MODERATOR
Sep 15, 2006
17,756
69
46,523
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
How America turned the "good war" into a "dumb war."

When President Joe Biden declared the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan after twenty years of fighting, he declared that the original objectives for the invasion had been achieved. “We were attacked, we went to war with clear goals,” he gravely intoned. “We achieved those objectives. Bin Laden is dead and Al Qaeda is degraded in Afghanistan, and it’s time to end this forever war.” Curiously, he omitted where exactly the founder of Al Qaeda had met his end.

The reaction was as swift as it was predictable. The New York Times, framing the debate along familiar terms, asked, “Will Afghanistan become a Terrorism Safe Haven Once Again?” The ranking member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services, Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, warned Afghanistan would “become a safe haven for terrorists once again.” That there already exists “safe haven” for terrorists in and near the country was not mentioned.

Shortly after Biden’s announcement, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin reportedly expressed “appreciation for Pakistan’s support” during peace negotiations in Afghanistan with the Taliban. It is not clear whether Secretary Austin had in mind the full breadth of Pakistan’s activities in Afghanistan when referring to its “support” for these ongoing and inconclusive diplomatic talks.

Carl von Clausewitz declared that “the first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish…the kind of war on which they are embarking; neither mistaking it for, not trying to turn it into, something that is alien to its nature.” This most fundamental task of accurate conceptualization has also been the most overlooked and underrated in the formulation and implementation of U.S. military strategy.

As complex and confusing as the situation in Afghanistan is for foreign observers and visitors, the most fundamental lacuna in the analysis and strategy behind U.S. objectives in the country is a manifest failure to clearly acknowledge and accept the situation on the ground in Afghanistan for what it is: the United States has been waging and losing a proxy war against an alleged ally.

The mission to transform a barren, mountainous, landlocked, and impoverished country in one of the most remote parts of the Eurasian landmass—after decades of armed conflict and revolutionary upheaval—into a stable democracy with no safe havens for terrorism is tragic and difficult enough. It becomes indefensibly absurd when also claiming to do so in partnership with a country that bears the most responsibility for the continuing chaos and carnage in Afghanistan.

Axis or Ally?

Among all the moral compromises made by Washington in its diplomatic relationships during the War on Terror, the U.S. relationship with Islamabad might be the most destructive and counterproductive. Less than five months after the shock of the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush announced the existence of an “Axis of Evil” that represented the greatest threat to world peace. Notably, none of the countries identified had any role in the attacks, nor had any of their citizens. What was stranger yet about the composition of this “axis” was that these countries, as hostile as their regimes were to U.S. interests, did not include the world’s worst offender. When examining what went wrong in the U.S. war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, it bears reviewing the central role Pakistan has played in sabotaging any prospects of victory.

It has long been an open secret that Pakistan has actively and consistently thwarted U.S. operations against the Taliban and Al Qaeda since the attacks of September 11, 2001. For as long as the U.S. has been in Afghanistan, however, the polite fiction of Pakistan as a reliable ally has persisted despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. As a state sponsor of terrorism, Pakistan has matched or exceeded the actions and patterns of sanctioned regimes in Iran and North Korea. The flagrant involvement of its so-called “deep state” in the finances and operations of known terrorist groups as a matter of course has also been far more direct and intimate than any of the suspected links attributed to the Gulf Arab states or their citizens. Yet in stark contrast to intense U.S. pressure on its Arab allies to crack down on terrorism, or U.S. sanctions on Iran and North Korea, Pakistan’s rulers have enjoyed relative impunity since 2001.

After the United States invaded Afghanistan, Pakistan gave shelter to elements of both Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Osama Bin Laden himself would take up residence in an elite suburb in close proximity to Pakistan’s military academy in Abbottabad. After Bin Laden was finally found and killed, Pakistani authorities retaliated against local informants cooperating with U.S. intelligence. In spite of the evidence, there would be no major changes to the U.S. relationship with Pakistan.

The designation of Pakistan as a “major non-NATO ally” under President Bush was followed by the next administration proclaiming that an “effective partnership with Pakistan” would be a core element of the U.S. war against the Taliban. Pakistan’s ostensible efforts to confront its own proxies would be supported by generous aid from the United States. As the Pentagon pressured the White House to escalate the war, increasing numbers of U.S. troops and civilian officials were being sent into harm’s way and tasked with implementing near impossible projects of social transformation. At the same time, the United States sent aid to the country that directed efforts to arm and train the Taliban insurgency. The absurd implications of U.S. policy and strategy are such that it would be as if America had waged the Vietnam War while also sending aid to Hanoi.

Now it’s time for plan B ignoring Pakistan, whilst at the same time asking for bases and meetings with Imran.
I’ve said it many times this is the worst US foreign policy on record.
 

waz

SENIOR MODERATOR
Sep 15, 2006
17,756
69
46,523
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Let's go back in time before the US's conflict with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

Pakistan jumped on board the US bandwagon with an official 23 day visit by one of the founding fathers Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan. This cemented the ties between the two states and the brewing cold war between the Soviets and the US was at the forefront of everyone's mind.

After Khan's assassination successive Pakistan governments were staunchly pro American with highlights being the mutual defense treaty signed in May 1954 and the establishment of Military Assistance Advisory Group in 1954.
Prime Minister Hueyn Suhravadie granted the very sensitive request of leasing Peshawar Air Station, where US intelligence gathered data on Soviet ICBM's, so Pakistan had firmly put itself in front of the Soviets first.
Ayub Khan took power and prevented left wingers gaining influence which could jeopardise US ties, so again Pakistan put US interests as a priority.
Ayub Khan took the relationship to another level and gave firm assurance that Pakistan was a staunch US ally, and even the population had massively positive views of the US. During his time spy flights began from Peshawar Air Station angering the Soviets greatly. So again Pakistan put itself at risk.
Military aid came during this time.

The 1965 war happened and president Johnson slapped an embargo on all US military equipment a follow on from Kennedy's vision to see India as counterweight to China, which effectively crippled Pakistani offensive operations due to the sheer usage of US arms across the three services. This shook Pakistan to the core, that even after risking its neck, the US wouldn't supply a key ally against an ally of the Soviets. CENTO was just words.

Lyndon Johnson went further and wanted to cultivate good ties with India and abandoned the policy of favouring Pakistan, another snub.

1971 came on probably the most pro-Pakistan president came into power in the form of Nixon, who through Pakistani allies such as Iran and Turkey armed Pakistan during the war, and to prevent further loss of land sent a US task force to dissuade India, who had Soviet backing.


Jimmy Carter came who hated Bhutto and his left-wing policies, sanctions were back, even though bhutto made overtures. Although Bhutto made no advances to the Soviets, good old ally Pakistan was to be trashed.
1974 India tested the bomb, Pakistan approached the US for sanctions implementation but to no avail and was told by Kissinger famously Kissinger told Pakistan's ambassador to Washington that the test is "a fait accompli and that Pakistan would have to learn to live with it",

The Soviets rolled into Afghanistan and the US came back to good old ally Pakistan in order for the nation to facilitate the guerrilla campaign against the Soviets. Pakistan under Zia agreed to Carter's plan to arm the fighters against the Soviets, and a $3.2 billion aid program was opened up, which on the face of it now was nothing compared to the fallout suffered by the nation in terms of one of the biggest refugee migrations in history, mass terrorism and the threat of Soviets on the border. Pakistan received weapons, which hit a snag when the F-16 deal was stopped with the US keeping the money.


Reagan came and everything was back on and US aid increased greatly, with the likes of the late great Charlie Wilson moving things along. The US finally had a bloc to Soviet expansion which also bled them in Afghanistan.

With the end of the Soviet occupation the US lost interest and it was back to evil Pakistan making the nuclear bomb, the same one that India had. Larry Lee Pressler led the way freezing all assistance to Pakistan, again leaving the country in a precarious position. The thanks for years for fighting the Soviets mattered little.


Benazir Bhutto tried in 1995 onwards to change US opinion, the business community listened but arms remained off bounds.

After Indian nuclear tests in 1998 Pakistan followed, as did US anger with even greater crippling sanctions and rebukes for starting Kargil.

2001 came the War on Terror and the US approached Pakistan with a stick and carrot, Pakistan complied. Aid flowed, but so did the damage to Pakistan, thousands died, Pakistan was given the "failed state" slogan. Drone bases were given, free flowing routes into Afghanistan, crack downs on all militant groups. However the Taliban remained a sticking point.


2011 came with a CIA operative shooting dead Pakistanis and let go, the death of Osama Bin Ladin on Pakistani soil who couldn't be traced by the largest CIA footprint outside the US, and and the attack at Salala which saw US and NATO forces directly attack Pakistani forces, they said mistake, Pakistan said on purpose.

After this Pakistan brought the Taliban to the table, something the US has mentioned and praised many times, but now Pakistan is to be ignored.

Now who did more?

No need to listen to their BS experts.
 
Last edited:

Dalit

ELITE MEMBER
Mar 16, 2012
13,675
-17
25,228
Country
Pakistan
Location
Netherlands
Let's go back in time before the US's conflict with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

Pakistan jumped on board the US bandwagon with an official 23 day visit by one of the founding fathers Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan. This cemented the ties between the two states and the brewing cold war between the Soviets and the US was at the forefront of everyone's mind.

After Khan's assassination successive Pakistan governments were staunchly pro American with highlights being the mutual defense treaty signed in May 1954 and the establishment of Military Assistance Advisory Group in 1954.
Prime Minister Hueyn Suhravadie granted the very sensitive request of leasing Peshawar Air Station, where US intelligence gathered data on Soviet ICBM's, so Pakistan had firmly put itself in front of the Soviets first.
Ayub Khan took power and prevented left wingers gaining influence which could jeopardise US ties, so again Pakistan put US interests as a priority.
Ayub Khan took the relationship to another level and gave firm assurance that Pakistan was a staunch US ally, and even the population has massively positive views of the US. During his time spy flights began from Peshawar Air Station angering the Soviets greatly. So again Pakistan put itself at risk.
Military aid came during this time.

The 1965 war happened and president Johnson slapped an embargo on all US military equipment, which effectively crippled Pakistani offensive operations due to the sheer usage of US arms across the three services. This shook Pakistan to the core, that even after risking its neck, the US wouldn't supply a key ally against an ally of the Soviets. CENTO was just words.

Lyndon Johnson went further and wanted to cultivate good ties with India and abandoned the policy of favouring Pakistan, another snub.

1971 came on probably the most pro-Pakistan president came into power in the form of Nixon, who through Pakistani allies such as Iran and Turkey armed Pakistan during the war, and to prevent further loss of land sent a US task force to dissuade India, who had Soviet backing.


Jimmy Carter came who hated Bhutto and his left-wing policies, sanctions were back, even though bhutto made overtures. Although Bhutto made no advances to the Soviets, good old ally Pakistan was to be trashed.
1974 India tested the bomb, Pakistan approached the US for sanctions implementation but to no avail and was told by Kissinger famously Kissinger told Pakistan's ambassador to Washington that the test is "a fait accompli and that Pakistan would have to learn to live with it",

The Soviets rolled into Afghanistan and the US came back to good old ally Pakistan in order for the nation to facilitate the guerrilla campaign against the Soviets. Pakistan under Zia agreed to Carter's plan to arm the fighters against the Soviets, and a $3.2 billion aid program was opened up, which on the face of it now was nothing compared to the fallout suffered by the nation in terms of one of the biggest refugee migrations in history, mass terrorism and the threat of Soviets on the border. Pakistan received weapons, which hit a snag when the F-16 deal was stopped with the US keeping the money.


Reagan came and everything was back on and US aid increased greatly, with the likes of the late great Charlie Wilson moving things along. The US finally had a bloc to Soviet expansion which also bled them in Afghanistan.

With the end of the Soviet occupation the US lost interest and it was back to evil Pakistan making the nuclear bomb, the same one that India had. Larry Lee Pressler led the way freezing all assistance to Pakistan, again leaving the country in a precarious position. The thanks for years for fighting the Soviets mattered little.


Benazir Bhutto tried in 1995 onwards to change US opinion, the business community listened by arms remained off bounds.

After Indian nuclear tests in 1998 Pakistan followed, as did US anger with even greater crippling sanctions and rebukes for starting Kargil.

2001 came the War on Terror and the US approached Pakistan with a stick and carrot, Pakistan complied. Aid flowed, but so did the damage to Pakistan, thousands died, Pakistan was given the "failed state" slogan. Drone bases were given, free flowing routes into Afghanistan, crack downs on all militant groups. However the Taliban remained a sticking point.


2011 came with a CIA operative shooting dead Pakistanis and let go, the death of Osama Bin Ladin on Pakistani soil who couldn't be traced by the largest CIA footprint outside the US, and and the attack at Salala which saw US and NATO forces directly attack Pakistani forces, they said mistake, Pakistan said on purpose.

After this Pakistan brought the Taliban to the table, something the US has mentioned and praised many times, but now Pakistan is to be ignored.

Now who did more?

No need to listen to their BS experts.
The Americans like their Indian and Northern Alliance counterparts are butthurt. Twenty years of proxy war against Pakistan has failed. The author acknowledges this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

LeGenD

MODERATOR
Aug 28, 2006
11,863
64
13,704
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Let's go back in time before the US's conflict with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

Pakistan jumped on board the US bandwagon with an official 23 day visit by one of the founding fathers Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan. This cemented the ties between the two states and the brewing cold war between the Soviets and the US was at the forefront of everyone's mind.

After Khan's assassination successive Pakistan governments were staunchly pro American with highlights being the mutual defense treaty signed in May 1954 and the establishment of Military Assistance Advisory Group in 1954.
Prime Minister Hueyn Suhravadie granted the very sensitive request of leasing Peshawar Air Station, where US intelligence gathered data on Soviet ICBM's, so Pakistan had firmly put itself in front of the Soviets first.
Ayub Khan took power and prevented left wingers gaining influence which could jeopardise US ties, so again Pakistan put US interests as a priority.
Ayub Khan took the relationship to another level and gave firm assurance that Pakistan was a staunch US ally, and even the population has massively positive views of the US. During his time spy flights began from Peshawar Air Station angering the Soviets greatly. So again Pakistan put itself at risk.
Military aid came during this time.

The 1965 war happened and president Johnson slapped an embargo on all US military equipment, which effectively crippled Pakistani offensive operations due to the sheer usage of US arms across the three services. This shook Pakistan to the core, that even after risking its neck, the US wouldn't supply a key ally against an ally of the Soviets. CENTO was just words.

Lyndon Johnson went further and wanted to cultivate good ties with India and abandoned the policy of favouring Pakistan, another snub.

1971 came on probably the most pro-Pakistan president came into power in the form of Nixon, who through Pakistani allies such as Iran and Turkey armed Pakistan during the war, and to prevent further loss of land sent a US task force to dissuade India, who had Soviet backing.


Jimmy Carter came who hated Bhutto and his left-wing policies, sanctions were back, even though bhutto made overtures. Although Bhutto made no advances to the Soviets, good old ally Pakistan was to be trashed.
1974 India tested the bomb, Pakistan approached the US for sanctions implementation but to no avail and was told by Kissinger famously Kissinger told Pakistan's ambassador to Washington that the test is "a fait accompli and that Pakistan would have to learn to live with it",

The Soviets rolled into Afghanistan and the US came back to good old ally Pakistan in order for the nation to facilitate the guerrilla campaign against the Soviets. Pakistan under Zia agreed to Carter's plan to arm the fighters against the Soviets, and a $3.2 billion aid program was opened up, which on the face of it now was nothing compared to the fallout suffered by the nation in terms of one of the biggest refugee migrations in history, mass terrorism and the threat of Soviets on the border. Pakistan received weapons, which hit a snag when the F-16 deal was stopped with the US keeping the money.


Reagan came and everything was back on and US aid increased greatly, with the likes of the late great Charlie Wilson moving things along. The US finally had a bloc to Soviet expansion which also bled them in Afghanistan.

With the end of the Soviet occupation the US lost interest and it was back to evil Pakistan making the nuclear bomb, the same one that India had. Larry Lee Pressler led the way freezing all assistance to Pakistan, again leaving the country in a precarious position. The thanks for years for fighting the Soviets mattered little.


Benazir Bhutto tried in 1995 onwards to change US opinion, the business community listened by arms remained off bounds.

After Indian nuclear tests in 1998 Pakistan followed, as did US anger with even greater crippling sanctions and rebukes for starting Kargil.

2001 came the War on Terror and the US approached Pakistan with a stick and carrot, Pakistan complied. Aid flowed, but so did the damage to Pakistan, thousands died, Pakistan was given the "failed state" slogan. Drone bases were given, free flowing routes into Afghanistan, crack downs on all militant groups. However the Taliban remained a sticking point.


2011 came with a CIA operative shooting dead Pakistanis and let go, the death of Osama Bin Ladin on Pakistani soil who couldn't be traced by the largest CIA footprint outside the US, and and the attack at Salala which saw US and NATO forces directly attack Pakistani forces, they said mistake, Pakistan said on purpose.

After this Pakistan brought the Taliban to the table, something the US has mentioned and praised many times, but now Pakistan is to be ignored.

Now who did more?

No need to listen to their BS experts.
This is Article Level Content, good man. One of the best posts in a while. Try to get it published.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Darth Vader

SENIOR MEMBER
Jun 19, 2011
3,783
2
4,379
Country
Norway
Location
United Kingdom
What Pakistan achieved blindly following uncle sam
70K + dead
Billions in damages
Over decade of internal fighting
Trusted a so called ally who blames and destroys its friends and enemies alike.
For uncle sam Pakistan or Pakistani people dont exist nothing more then pawns in global game.
Just like past Uncle Sam is leaving whole area destroyed and more divided then every, neighbours hating each other.

Simple story is this Pakistan is the perfect scape goat thanks to strength of media and pakistani state politicians and military alike are to busy filling its own pockets.

Its funny how no one mentions uncle Sam supporting these so called groups for its own benefit for years indirectly sponsoring and have the audacity to blame others
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom