What's most interesting about Perlez's article is the indication that the objective of this latest operation is essentially punative with no indication that the P.A. intends to "hold, build, and develop". Further and most important, the article suggests that clear may only apply to clearing away a militia leadership and finding new leaders more malleable to Pakistan's near-eternal objectives of proxy war in Afghanistan-
It is not the job of the Army to "build and develop. As for "hold", we will do so for as long as we see fit, as we are currently in northern FATA and NWFP. Secondly, Ms. Perlez may have done well to please audience such as yourself considering that her prime sources seem to be unnamed "military specialists", anonymous "diplomats", a former disgruntled Pakistani ambassador to the US who lost his job due to a
military coup in 1999 (hmm... I wonder why he doesn't support the Army?)and a retired Army officer who has made a career out of statements such as "the militants have humiliated the Army in Swat" etc. But, anything that badmouths Pakistanis has got to be credible, right sir? At least in the"to hell with Pakistan, bomb 'em back to the stone age" school of thought.
The army appeared to have no plans to occupy South Waziristan, but rather to cut the militants 'to size,' said Tariq Fatemi, who served briefly as Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States in 1999.
With the uncertainty of American plans in Afghanistan, and the strong sentiment in Pakistan that India was 'up to no good' in the restive province of Baluchistan and the tribal areas, Mr. Fatemi said, the army would not abandon the militant groups that it has relied on to fight as proxies in Afghanistan and in Kashmir against India.
The goal in South Waziristan, Mr. Fatemi said, was to eliminate the leadership that had become 'too big of their boots' with the attacks on Pakistan’s cities. The army would like to find more pliant replacements as leaders, he said."
And he knows this how, my I ask? What makes him an expert in military affairs? There is no shortage of disgruntled "diplomats" and army officers in Pakistan, if it gets them on international media, then it's surely worth it.
As for Kashmir, they are quite capable of fighting for their rights
without the Taleban, and we have the intent, will and capability of supporting them in this fight.
She'd do well to save the American tax-payer the expense of her entourage and herself, instead focusing their perceptions analysis right here at this board.
On the contrary, she would do well to make this visit count for something through the display of solid support for Pakistan and its Army. If all she wants to do is shake hands with Zardari, then yes, she may as well stay home because it's not going to win her anything here.
I do, modestly, a superb job of bringing Pakistani feelings right up to the visible surface without noticably deviating from generally-stated American objectives. As such and if correct, the feelings expressed HERE are an accurate reflection of what she'll travel 6,000 miles at great expense to hear.
Never before has this board, IMHO, had more value and it would do our S. Asian desk at the Dept. of State well to monitor this activity and even join their PRC representatives from the foreign ministry in conducting our own psych-ops campaign.
And by using the words of a few ill-informed Pakistanis to convince them of our "duplicity", you will achieve what? anti-Pakistani sentiment within the DoD and the US in large may help
your cause, but creating further distrust amongst our people, particularly our forces, will not help the "greater cause" one bit. I could just as well forward everything that you and others from your "school of thought" have said on this and other fora to the higher ups in the Pakistani military, but I will achieve little by creating further distrust between my army and the enemy of their enemy.
I must say, sir, the path you have chosen to follow is disappointing.
