What's new

From Vietnam to Waziristan

nightcrawler

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
1,400
Reaction score
0
Smokers’ Corner: From Vietnam to Waziristan
Nadeem F. Paracha
January 2, 2011 (2 days ago)

A friend of mine recently told me a revealing little tale. To film a documentary, he had travelled up north into a tense battle zone where the Pakistan Army is fighting a bloody war against extremists.

There he met a soldier who startled him by saying: “Sir, since you seem to be an educated man I can trust, let me tell you that all these extremists were made by us!” He then added: “We are told so many lies about whom we are fighting. But we know who these people are. These are the people we have been feeding, and now they have turned against us. They kill women and children!”

The soldier was not saying anything new. Because barring, of course, the usual set of so-called ‘patriots’ (the ghairat brigade) who are ever-willing to lie through their teeth just because they believe flying fibs serve the country’s interests, by now most Pakistanis know that the vicious enemy the people of Pakistan and its army are up against are very much a product of our own strategic follies and misplaced arrogance.

Nevertheless, when one hears this coming from a soldier up in the front lines, one is not sure how to react. Whether one should rejoice over the fact that due to what the soldiers have been facing from an animalistic enemy, perhaps many have awaken to a reality that till now has been fed to them wrapped in the usual sheen of anti-India and pro-faith rhetoric; or should we see this as a warning?

The debacles faced by the US army in Vietnam and by the Soviet forces in Afghanistan should be taken as examples to be learnt from. It is much easier raising an army on certain myths about one’s foreign enemies and on an exaggerated sense of patriotism. These can work to charge up the soldiers during a sharp, short war (such as the one Britain fought in the Falklands in the early 1980s). But the post-World War II scenario in this regard is studded with examples where, in a long drawn-out armed conflict, there does come a time when armies involved in guerrilla warfare begin to lose touch with all the ideological hoopla that they were fed during training.

There are numerous accounts of how whole battalions of American marines and Soviet fighters ended up rebelling against their own superiors because after facing the kind of bloodshed and madness on the battlefield they completely lost any worthwhile contact with what they were told by their politicians and generals. All that began to melt away and they found themselves awkwardly exposed to a set of truths that they were conditioned to repress.

These are the kind of truths that a soldier, especially if he is being readied to take on a ruthless bunch of insurgents, should be briefed about up front. As one saw in Vietnam and Afghanistan, all that mythical talk about how the soldiers were fighting for a higher cause simply began to melt away and the soldiers were not only left stranded with a rude reality, but they had no clue what to do about it.

It is a bit unsettling to know that the army is preparing its men for the conflict against armed extremists by using rhetoric it originally devised for a possible war against India. But it is not Indian forces that the soldiers find on the battlefield up north. Instead, it is their own countrymen — legions of fanatics brainwashed to believe that they are the ones serving God and the country, even if that means blowing up women and children and chopping off heads with swords.

The enemy in this context is not the saffron-clad Hindu battalions on mechanical elephants fitted with nuclear warheads. The enemy is very much from amongst us. Most of them are Pakistanis who were given a free passage to breed the kind of vicious, short-fused hatred some of our generals, intelligence agencies and politicians thought would help them gain Kashmir and ‘strategic depth’ in Afghanistan — and if certain nut-jobs in the electronic media are to be believed, maybe raise the Pakistani flag in New Delhi.

Telling the soldiers the whole truth is better. This means re-orientation with a view to ready them to fight the extremists responsible for killing hundreds of innocent citizens and many soldiers too. They have been slaughtered by a terrible breed of Pakistanis who are not dropping from the sky or rolling in from across the border, but emerging from our very own mountains and cities.
 
This;

There he met a soldier who startled him by saying: “Sir, since you seem to be an educated man I can trust, let me tell you that all these extremists were made by us!” He then added: “We are told so many lies about whom we are fighting. But we know who these people are. These are the people we have been feeding, and now they have turned against us. They kill women and children!”

The soldier was not saying anything new. Because barring, of course, the usual set of so-called ‘patriots’ (the ghairat brigade) who are ever-willing to lie through their teeth just because they believe flying fibs serve the country’s interests, by now most Pakistanis know that the vicious enemy the people of Pakistan and its army are up against are very much a product of our own strategic follies and misplaced arrogance.


I have been trying to highlight this point for a while now. See my post in this thread for reference. As expected, no one paid attention.

Unfortunately, our people find it easy to blame most of the wrong doings occurring in our homeland on foreign intervention.

I want to ask that how come foreign interventions of such serious nature can take place within our country? Don't we have a professional security apparatus and ISI in place to deal with these issues?

Point is that foreign interventions can only occur when weaknesses within a society remain unchecked and are neglected. They become so apparent with passage of time that they invite unwanted attention. Foreign hands can easily exploit such weaknesses. This is what happened in Pakistan, which people find it so difficult to grasp.

Thanks to Zia, he did indeed succeeded in creating a (CIA inspired and funded, mind you) frankenstein monster, which was no longer under control of the government after the Soviet-Afghan war.
 
Last edited:
I don't buy into this whole "Zia did everything, we are blameless" line peddled by successive governments, up to and including our massively incompetent PPP govt.

The Soviets had a history in the region, they'd been overruning every "-stan" to their south, starting from Dagestan right up to Afghanistan. Now, Afghanistan is a small and arid country with very limited resources, the Soviets had nothing to gain in there, except that it provided the Soviets access to Pakistan and warm waters, which is something they desperately needed.

The Soviet navy didn't have true blue water reach like the US navy did, because most of their ports would freeze over much of the year and they had to maintain fleets of ice breaker ships. And they had to resort to strange things like having their navy run their own land-launched ballistic missiles, in order to present a proper threat.

These people would have preferred that Pakistan *not* help Afghanistan fight the Soviets, let the Russians properly consolidate their hold of that country and then roll down into Pakistan?

Yes, we did get a million refugees, but these things can be handled properly. Germany was re-unified, they had bigger problems than this. South Africa ending their apartheid and integrating their population was a bigger problem than this. Our country's politicians did nothing except feed the population weird stories to justify their incompetence. And we help perpetuate that. Sometimes life deals you a bad hand, one has to learn to deal with that. Pakistan's being dealt a very bad hand these days, we all whine about it, but what do we *do* about it.

There are people starving on the streets, it's freezing cold and people can't even afford to buy warm clothes, if you can help buy even one family wheat for a week or a sweater or a jacket, you've done something that makes a difference. Blaming people who died over twenty years ago helps no-one.
 
I till now still don't buy the theory of Soviet>Pak invasion!!

Ofcourse, you are entitled to your opinion. But you might feel differently after you do some more research on this issue.

There were a number of incidences and events that give alot of credibility to the claim that the USSR would have rolled into Pakistan. Even Khrushchev made such threats, way back in the 60's before they even invaded Afghanistan. And there was a time when Soviet armor divisions had even gathered across Parachinar and other points on the Pak-Afghan border. Our Indian friends always come to our "aid" whenever we are in a bad position - just like they offered to provide the US air bases to invade Pakistan if Pakistan didn't cooperate, after 9/11, they were also helping the soviets, creating tension on the eastern border right when we would have been severely vulnerable.

And there was this whole "cricket diplomacy" incident, where Pakistan "disappeared" it's armoured 2-core and Indian intelligence had *no* idea where this had been moved(a cause for worry for them), and Gen Zia took a surprise visit to India, officially just to see the cricket match between Pakistan and India, but whatever happened there, India backed off afterwards.

The USSR also provided India with their latest MiG-29s that had only recently been inducted by the Russian AF. And the VVS itself sent combat aircraft into Pakistan, and many were even shot down by the PAF, including one who's pilot later became a famous politician in Russia.

This is just stuff I thought of, off the top of my head, there really is *alot* that strongly suggests that the USSR didn't just roll into Afghanistan for the wonderful scenery.
 
all the PA soldier know who are they fighting and secondly the PA was at least professional enough to not raise a long term mullah brigade. The long term jehadis were trained gurellias with a strategy who would used the "amateur" junior guerrillas as their man-power.

The jehadis were primarily raised for the US goals in Afghanistan and once the funding sources dried up along with the lost economic decade of Pakistan due to harsh economic sanctions, they effectively turned their guns. It wouldn't be wrong to say that America turned its back on Afghanistan and Pakistan on purpose to let these jehadis nurture in the abandoned land to be used in future against Pakistan. Pakistan could not maintain its say in post-soviet Afghan politics without having considerable political backing and financial reserves which opened the investment opportunities for the Arabis to launch their wahabi university campus!

This is what the Hamid gul warned immediately after the withdrawl of soviet troops and America turning its back overnight on Afghanistan.
 
@Qasibr
Thnx for the info...
Sir I do remember that even before Soviet invasion of Afghanistan we were to be blamed for instigating Soviets back in 1960s.
Sir, if you remember we allowed US to fly U-2 spy planes from our bases way before Soviets ever threatened us!!
So isn't it our fault??
Besides if we did make out some lucrative business deals with the Soviets such as is the case with Pakistan-US relations such animosity from Soviets will never come. Regarding the beliefs that Soviets wanted out HOT WATERS; I believe they could have easily leased two/three ports from India at the margin of cost exhausted for Pakistan invasion
 

Latest posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom