What's new

‘Never fight someone else’s war’: US aid brought Pakistan more losses than benefits, says Imran Khan

HomeWorld News
RT EXCLUSIVE
‘Never fight someone else’s war’: US aid brought Pakistan more losses than benefits, says Imran Khan
Published time: 16 Apr, 2018 13:07Edited time: 16 Apr, 2018 15:01
Get short URL
5ad49670dda4c801588b45e9.jpg

FILE PHOTO © Lucas Jackson / Reuters
  • 442
US security funding for Pakistan cost the country dearly, as the damage caused by fighting “someone else’s war” was much higher than the benefits of aid, prominent Pakistani opposition figure Imran Khan told RT.
In an interview with RT’s Sophie Shevardnadze, Khan, a member of Pakistan’s National Assembly and the leader of the Pakistan Movement for Justice, criticized Washington’s approach on Afghanistan, saying that using force would only further antagonize the region. Pakistan has been strongly affected by what has been happening in neighboring Afghanistan, thanks to bellicose US rhetoric and failures, the opposition figure believes.

Read more
Taliban seize ‘safe’ Afghan district weeks after Pentagon hailed progress under new Trump strategy
“There is a problem, unfortunately, that the American policy of using a one-dimensional military solution to problems in Afghanistan has led not only to the longest war, but it has caused immense problems to Pakistan,” Khan told RT.

Washington and Islamabad were formerly close allies. After the 9/11 attacks, the two countries forged a strategic alliance to help the US fight against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants. However, the longstanding friendship suffered a major rift after US President Donald Trump lambasted the county, calling it a “safe haven” for terrorist groups which are directly engaging US troops stationed in neighboring Afghanistan.

Shortly after that, in early January, the State Department officially cut security funding for Pakistan, accusing it of allegedly protecting terrorists.

“My point of view is that this American aid has been very costly for Pakistan,” Khan said, adding that there is “no comparison” of its benefits to the damage done by participating in the US war. Pakistan “took a heavy punishment,” as the lives of 70,000 people were lost, and up to 4 million people were internally displaced, according to the official. The economic fallout is no less striking – the economy lost about $100 billion and much of the country’s tribal and border areas are devastated.

“So this small aid has been very costly. And the lesson learned, from Pakistan’s point of view, is to never fight someone else’s war.”

Read more
US suspends aid to Pakistan demanding ‘decisive actions against terrorism’
However, Washington wants Islamabad to compensate for its own failures and win the “badly lost war” in Afghanistan. The allegations of assisting terrorists are also linked to attempts to shift the blame to Pakistan, Khan believes. Despite “almost half a million armed forces [being present] in Afghanistan,” including NATO troops and the Afghan Army, Washington lashes out at Pakistan for “two or three thousand insurgents.”

“That surely cannot be the reason why they’ve lost and have not been able to win for 16 years,” Khan argues.

The mistake lies in the core of the current American policy on Afghanistan, Khan says. He believes that the only plausible way to achieve peace is by bringing the Afghan Taliban and the Afghan government to the negotiating table. Instead, the US still sticks to military means which had failed long ago.

“If he [Trump] had even drawn any lessons from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, before that the British in the 19th century invasion of Afghanistan, he would know that this military solution which Donald Trump also has tried, is going to fail. The only solution, the only way to bring peace in Afghanistan is all the neighbors sit together and then come up with a political solution. There is no other solution apart from that,” Khan said.


Hi,

So innocent of Imran Khan----. There is no such thing in this current world and the past where such a thing would be applicable.

Not fighting a " a someone else's war " in a proper manner creates problems for the country---.

And that is the problem with pakistan---they had no clue how to fight this war.

They created their problems by staying in denial about what they needed to do---.
 
.
As if on 9/11 Pakistan had a choice. Get a grip guys! Actually, whatever weapons, aids, concessions Pakistan managed to get out of Uncle Sam during those extremely dangerous days was some kind of a bonus. Having said that, I think Pakistan could have done a better job limiting US intelligence agents' spreading inside Pakistan so deeply.

Where Pakistan failed was allowing the Al Qaida terrorists to basically live freely and launch attacks against American targets. Pakistan SHOULD have taken out the AQ leadership, knowing that Americans were getting more and more impatient with AQ and with Pakistan itself. But then... hindsight is 20/20, right?
 
. .
US regime is not to bring about peace but the opposite.

They are in conflict directly or via proxy internal or external everywhere since america was formed.
 
Last edited:
. .
Yeah we created Boko Haram in nigeria too didn't we?

Nigerian government is thankful for Pakistans contribution in their continued WOT.

We have trained them in counter insurgency capabilities like Sri Lanka
 
.
After losing 70000 people its still others war for kaptan !
 
.
After losing 70000 people its still others war for kaptan !

I am pretty sure it is not 70,000 people, and we would have not had this mess if we did not assist the US in the first place.

We should have refused to let them transfer supplies through our land, and refused to go start CT ops in FATA or let the US launch UAV strikes.

But no, the Pakistani government/military had to become their stooge. The best part is, they didn't even do it right.
 
. .
It’s so easy to pontificate with the benefit of hindsight.

What options did Mush have & what were the repercussions of a No thank you.
 
.
I am pretty sure it is not 70,000 people, and we would have not had this mess if we did not assist the US in the first place.

We should have refused to let them transfer supplies through our land, and refused to go start CT ops in FATA or let the US launch UAV strikes.

But no, the Pakistani government/military had to become their stooge. The best part is, they didn't even do it right.
I got this fig from PDF only. Any way You should have said no in 89 only. In 99 president/gen Musharraf was not in position to say no.
 
.
Bush said 'you are either with us or against us'. It was impossible for Pakistan to say no. The price paid by Pakistan far outwieghs the Aid given by the US.
 
.
I got this fig from PDF only. Any way You should have said no in 89 only. In 99 president/gen Musharraf was not in position to say no.

Post 9/11 he was in a position to say no. An American invasion would have been too costly for the Americans, they wouldn't have done it. They wouldn't have created a civil war either, too risky since we have nuclear warheads and nobody wants them falling into the wrong hands. The only option was sanctions and limited air strikes, the former of which we are already going through. As for the latter, we could have bought air defences from China to minimise the damage and deter them from doing that (I'm sure the Chinese would have loved to see their weapons field tested).

We could have and should have told the Yanks to get lost.
 
.
I don't entirely agree with his stance on this but he is completely consistent on it. So much for the u-turns that certain cell-based trolls moan about....
You can not oppose war on terrorism yet support military operation at the same time. He think that our soldiers are scarficing their lives in war which is not their war. It may not be our war in the begining but when terrorists started attacking on army and Nawal headquares and started killing innocent Pakistani civilians then it became our war and we should be at one page against enemy of Pakistan
 
. .

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom