AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
If the GoP had made a statement to that effect then it would have also had to carry out the threat and cut off the relationship with the Taliban, and there was too much invested in them by that point to give it up over 'statues', and no great alternatives to them either.
The stability of Afghanistan is what the GoP was looking for, and dumping the Taliban would have done the opposite.
The funds were largely from the Saudis and UAE, not Pakistan. Pakistan primarily provided the military advisers and networks for the Taliban to utilize the funds from the Arab states in combating the Norther Alliance. And while the Taliban did have to depend upon the resources provided by the three states in particular, it is also true that Pakistan was depending upon the Taliban to restore stability to Afghanistan, so there was leverage both ways.
Your comparison to the Embassies is nothing but a canard since the Taliban maintained their independence on various policy issues from Pakistan, and acted contrary to what Pakistan wanted them to do multiple times.
The benefactors did not stop their funding because the alternative was a return to the widespread chaos and civil war that preceded the rise of the Taliban - chaos that resulted in millions of refugees flooding into Pakistan, and Afghanistan serving as a haven for criminals, drugs and weapons impacting Pakistan. The alternative to supporting the Taliban was at the time far worse.
That is not the assessment of McChrystal, so spare me your BS of pinning all the blame for NATO failures in Afghanistan on Pakistan. While he expresses concern over the existence of havens in FATA, he also admits that the Afghan insurgency is largely local, not foreign driven.
Accept your failures and work to fix them instead of shifting blame, as you imply some Pakistanis do below.
Speculation again, all of it, and yet you cry foul about 'no evidence' when Pakistanis similarly point out motive for the Indians to be supporting terrorism in Pakistan. We want the Indians to minimize their presence, that does not mean we would like to do that in exchange for a return of the Taliban to complete power. Please read the comments of both Musharraf and the DG ISI (in his interview with Ignatius) in which both argue for a continued US presence in Afghanistan to stabilize the country, though they also argue for a different US approach.
You would not have the top Pakistani military leaders dispensing such advice were the goal to have the Taliban return to power.
The attack on the embassies will likely not be the last, just like attacks on NATO troops, or bombings in Pakistani marketplaces (like today) will not be the last.
Its not about 'boasting', its about pointing out that the Indians have done and are doing plenty in Afghanistan to ear the Taliban's wrath. You should have focused on refuting my points on why the Taliban would see the Indians with hostility instead of going of on a tangent of 'long memories'.
Free forum - should I ban every Indian here and 'restrain them' because I disagree with most of the positions they take? And whether I restrain someone or not is irrelevant to the discussion.
If you choose to accuse the Pakistanis of complicity in these bombings without any evidence, then why should the accusations of Indian involvement in terrorism in Pakistan not be taken seriously, whether there is evidence supporting that position or not?
You cannot have it both ways - say no evidence exists to show Indian complicity in terrorism in Pakistan, yet condemn Pakistan despite a similar lack of evidence.
Unlike the Americans, this war is against our own countrymen, and for that reason it is hard for non-Pakistanis to understand why the GoP under Musharraf did not just go in guns blazing and bomb them to smithereens. There was little political support for that option, there was little public support for that option (both in mainstream Pakistan and the Tribal belt), and with the Taliban not yet having gone on the rampage with suicide bombings and what not, there was a very high risk of turning the ideological movement into a Pashtun insurgency.
The threat was underestimated, no doubt about that, but there were strong reasons to try 'dialog and peace deals' at that time, to try and resolve the problem without getting stuck in a full scale military campaign.
Ask them - how is the World Food Program in Pakistan or the shoppers in a marketplace helping 'occupy and defeat' the Taliban? Using your logic the only entity that gains from the last few attacks against non-military and non-government targets in Pakistan is India.
The groups comprising the TTP rose to power after 2001, in response to the US invasion and the subsequent radicalization of the tribal belt. Remember that the major Taliban commander that preceded Baitullah Mehsud was Abdullah Mehsud, who was released from Guantanamo.
The Algerians had to eventually make peace with the GIA, the Iraqis had to take the Sunni insurgency and the Shia militias on board - Afghanistan will have to compromise as well, with those who are willing. And if no one is willing, well, then what is happening in Pakistan happens, but you need a viable Afghan state with a strong and functioning military to take the Pakistani approach ...
The end goal is peace and stability in Afghanistan, not whether the Indians like a potential power-sharing agreement that includes the various actors in Afghanistan. Tell the Indians that.
Last edited:
