Let's hope that COAS Gen Raheel tells all that to the US government in his upcoming visit here.You can stick that aid up your nose. Pakistan has never requested aid from the US. If it was up to us we wouldn't allow these people to have a proper embassy in our land. United States gives bribes to Pakistani power circles to keep them loyal to its international interests. Almost all Pakistanis except the beneficiaries of USAid are against the US bribes. Why doesn't the US just cut aid to Pakistan?
Starker truths have never been spoken. While there have been faults with the US, it is a long time coming that Pakistan realizes its mistakes in the relationship.For example, the nature of anti-Americanism one often comes across TV news channels in Pakistan is primarily the animated vocation of two interlinked entities: the religious and conservative parties and certain former military men. Both felt alienated and angry after the American dollars that were dished out for the anti-Soviet Afghan insurgency in the 1980s dried up.
These so-called documentaries that Zaka is talking about are squarely based on rehashed conspiracy theories that mix age-old tirades and paranoid fantasies. All these are then further mixed with flighty myths about and events recorded only in polemical literature and flimsy ‘history books.’
Thus, the post-9/11 confusion and emotionalism in Pakistan was largely given vent and an ‘intellectual tilt’ by apologists of all shapes and sizes — among them being those had once been recipients of US funds and patronage during the Cold War.
Whereas there was a prominent streak of romantic rebellion associated with the anti-Americanism of Pakistani leftists during the Cold War, nothing of the sort can be said about the widespread anti-Americanism found in Pakistan today.
In fact, the present-day phenomenon in this context has become an obligatory part of populist rhetoric in which American involvement is blamed for everything — from terrorist attacks, to the energy crises, to perhaps even the outbreak of dengue fever!
In reality I believe it will be quite different. There may be a new dynamic in the relationship and a clear removal of the "ally" brand to a proper acknowledgement of it as a relationship of convenience. There may be greater US FMF release in lieu of ending the less dear fighting nutjobs in the FATA.. in return for helping us get cosier with the Afghan government under Ghani and hence the cooling of the other front.Let's hope that COAS Gen Raheel tells all that to the US government in his upcoming visit here.
You are mostly correct, with the addition that dependence on US aid, both military and non-military, will continue.In reality I believe it will be quite different. There may be a new dynamic in the relationship and a clear removal of the "ally" brand to a proper acknowledgement of it as a relationship of convenience. There may be greater US FMF release in lieu of ending the less dear fighting nutjobs in the FATA.. in return for helping us get cosier with the Afghan government under Ghani and hence the cooling of the other front.
While the U.S. preaches and prefers democracy it acts out of a mix of self-interest, concern for human rights, and national "honor". In the Cold War the HR bit took a back seat, perhaps too often. In 1971 especially the State Dept. broke with the President and argued that the U.S. should cut off all support from Pakistan, seeing that it's military leadership openly embarked on a campaign of murder and rape in East Pakistan. Nixon over-ruled the State Dept. on the grounds that the U.S. had to pay Yahya back for helping open up China-U.S. relations and that the Cold War was more important than what was sure to be a transient conflict. Details of all this can be found in the declassified Foreign Relations of the United States, South Asia, 1969-1973.Why did the "democratic" USA support these people? I have never heard a convincing reasoning to justify their support.