You mean appeasement? which was latter criticized badly. Without appeasement, there may be no ww2 in the first place. Such a fool.
That's called greedy and foolish in the first place.
UK and France neither equipped Poland for self-protection nor get prepared to provide protection.
UK and France just sit there like a doll, hoping their alliance with Poland can deter Hitler, in the meantime encouraging Germany to attack USSR. Deterrence failed, Hitler caught France completely unprepared for war.
The empire on which the sun sets, thereafter.
Correction: religious extremism among other factors including blood feuds and political issues.Why is he blaming religion?
Religion didn't really have much to do with how the status quo dynasties (Sharif and Bhutto dynasties) from chewing up the country to their hearts content
In truth if we take JI as the premier religiously motivated political force in Pakistan, they have proven to be (to a degree at least) more honest than the other political forces. In truth JI has a history of being the most democratic party in Pakistan (no dynasty politics, internal party elections, egalitarian philosophy)
You misread the article actually.Someone should first get this guy a map.
"constant conflict to the west with Afghanistan and Iraq"
Peshawar is a desert?!!!
"and the challenges of building even basic infrastructure across some of the bleakest, hottest desert regions in the world."
His article is horrible. He doesn't expand on any of the points. Just mentions them like bullet points. Just starts comparing numbers with other countries. Almost 2/3 of the article is just about his life story, which has very little relation to Pakistan. For someone who claims to be a researcher, he seems to have done very little research.
Just the responses in this thread is indicative of shortcomings in the education system of the country.
Some of the members cannot read and understand an 'opinionated piece' clearly?
Correction: religious extremism among other factors including blood feuds and political issues.
Is he wrong? He is not.
You misread the article actually.
1. Afghanistan and Iraq are both to the WEST of Pakistan. I am not sure about the Iraq part but the author probably remembers something.
2. The author did not say that Peshawar is a desert. This is the statement: "and witnessing jirgas in the Balochistan desert aimed at settling decades-old blood feuds – I never got back to University Public School or those pupils."
3. Indeed! Building infrastructure in desert environment is very difficult and challenging.
4. The article is about author's recollection of his students whom he had the opportunity to teach in Peshawar at some point in the past.
The author is also talking about Pakistan's lack of progress in comparison to other countries since its independence. This is true on so many levels.
The underlying message is that Pakistan could do so much more but the country is mired in internal conflicts (political and otherwise). All of this is true.
It is now that the situation in Pakistan has improved due to measures adopted in War On Terror and education-based reforms. CPEC is also a recent development. Let us see.
This article is an 'opinionated constructive criticism' for Pakistan - nothing wrong with it.
Are people expecting PTV facts from independent observers?
Dear,Iraq is no where near Pakistan. We got a whole other country between us. Why stop at Iraq let just keep adding other countries as well.
His whole article talks about Peshawar, not balochistan. And Peshawar is anything but a desert. His backstory also only focused on Peshawar, adding one sentence, without explaining in detail will confuse anyone into believing Peshawar is a desert.
Again, don't claim to be a researcher if you won't explaining points in depth. Just saying it's because of this and that, without going into detail is lazy. You took the time to "research", then at least show that.
Lastly this article is not aimed at you or me. It's aimed at someone, an outsider, who only heard of Pakistan on TV or movies limited times at best. If you just tell him it's because of war Pakistan is in chaos, it will be human nature to wonder how and why. Something author failed to do.
I will not expand on your post much.
Let us revisit the following statement:
"While I managed to get back to Peshawar half a decade later – glimpsing into Soviet-occupied Afghanistan as yet another aspiring colonist strove to tame a profoundly untameable region, and witnessing jirgas in the Balochistan desert aimed at settling decades-old blood feuds – I never got back to University Public School or those pupils."
The author expanded on two different aspects of his visit in Pakistan. Notice the coloring pattern I gave to the statement. It is a writing style.
Do you even think before you type a statement?You don't seem to grasp it. You are looking at things from your own eyes. Try reading it from someone who never lived or heard of Pakistan. Again you are looking at the article from the view point of someone who has lived here. That is why you are able to fill in the information.
Notice the bold and colored point. This is my point from the start.
Afghanistan was always a Soviet client state. Pakistan had a choice to cut a deal with the Soviets and avoid the Afghan war. Neutrality was an option - maybe not for the Pakistani elite
Do you even think before you type a statement?
The author used to be a teacher in Pakistan and have visited the country again in a different time. He have been to places where many Pakistani have not been. He have pinpointed things in Pakistan which should be common knowledge by now; I have clarified 'his perspective' to potential readers here. Many of his points are up to the mark.
You are needlessly stretching this now. Do not waste my time.
Bizarre point of view, cut a deal with the Soviets? You do realize that India and the Soviet Union signed a treaty of alliance in 1971. Pakistan was surrounded when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979.
Plus a little known fact, in April 79 Gen Zia Ul Haq wrote to the Kremlin and committed to Pakistan pursuing a policy of"non-interference" in the domestic affairs of Afghanistan and forbid the use of its territory for anti-Afghan activities. Remember at this time Afghans being persecuted by the communist regime of Nur Muhammad Taraki backed by Soviet Russia fled to Pakistan and Iran. These refugees fleeing communist oppression backed by infidels became the Mujaheddin movement with its base of operations along the Pakistani border with Afghanistan.
So Zia offered to kill the Mujaheddin in its early days to appease the Soviets - it didn't work, Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan later that year and the rest is history.