March
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2015
- Messages
- 104
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Personally, I'd say that Musharraf had no choice. The US War on Terror had to be supported or else Pakistan would've been invaded as well. This was admitted by Musharraf when he stated that Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage threatened to "bomb Pakistan back to the Stone Age". However, the Afghan Taliban also had to be supported against the Northern Alliance because the latter was aligned with India. If the Taliban had not been supported, then the Northern Alliance would've been much stronger today and would've acted as an Indian client state, playing a major in the Indian containment of Pakistan.Partially correct. But did Mushi not support "good taliban"? It was what led to post 2005 problems. They came back to hunt us. It is not the US fault for the terror we see today. Even if we did not support US war on terror and continued to fund "Good taliban," our children will still be dying.
I see civilian gov't as being not fully functional (current one), but I also see military regime not being the solution to it.
A military dictatorship is never the answer... A weak civilian government is frowned upon. However, if we were to gain a strong civilian government, then surely, we would be able to find success. I'd say that the only government in the history of Pakistan which perhaps played the role of a 'strong civilian government' would've been Pakistan under Zulfikar A. Bhutto.