What's new

Pakistan carries out airstrikes along AfPak border

Why tf do people want to nuke the border?

This action plus afghan reaction plus jingoism.

We can’t do a Turkey style buffer creation as the terrain is much different than Syria. Our best bet is to apply pressure through strikes like this.
 
This action plus afghan reaction plus jingoism.

We can’t do a Turkey style buffer creation as the terrain is much different than Syria. Our best bet is to apply pressure through strikes like this.
Without Jets
That looked barbaric drones, gunship, special forces etc are fine
 
This action plus afghan reaction plus jingoism.

We can’t do a Turkey style buffer creation as the terrain is much different than Syria. Our best bet is to apply pressure through strikes like this.
Yea without the use the of nukes....
 
This action plus afghan reaction plus jingoism.

We can’t do a Turkey style buffer creation as the terrain is much different than Syria. Our best bet is to apply pressure through strikes like this.
Wrong! The buffer zone we created is not just on the Syrian border. Our Iraqi border is very similar to your Afghan border. If we can do it, you can, at least theoretically.

But let's face it, you have much deeper problems than that. Corrupted state (actually deep state) mechanism, corrupt sects and their madrasas that raised radicals, corrupt politics partys, India, Balochistan, Iran...

Each of them is as big a problem as TTP/IEA. Oh yes, BTW, TTP and IEA are two different sides of the same coin. You made the fatal mistake of supporting the IEA.
 
Each of them is as big a problem as TTP/IEA. Oh yes, BTW, TTP and IEA are two different sides of the same coin. You made the fatal mistake of supporting the IEA.
True. A corrupt, ineffective, & democratic government in Kabul was certainly better than IEA. Pakistan drew a lot of condemnation & negativity for its covert support for Afghan Taliban. One of the reasons generals were unhappy with Nawaz Sharif was because he wanted to normalize relations with neighbors, particularly Afghanistan. Afghan end-game was the big thing & nobody wanted to hear out the old politician.

Now that generals got what they wanted. We find out that it is not quite what we thought we would get. Speaks volumes about a security-centered view of the world and how it can compound problems instead of solving them. In the end politicians turned out to be correct. When generals make policies & manage foreign affairs, this is what happens.

Does anybody bother to find the link between uncertainty, feeling of impending doom, & corruption by state functionaries? This is what happened in Kabul. Pakistan contributed to it because diplomacy, trade, common ground took a back-seat to perceived security threat from Afghanistan. Turns out that the security threat is still there & instead we got rid of people who could talk & find a way forward.

Crap-cake.

PS> When I see an laughing emoji as a reaction, I assume that Areesh has seen my post (seen, not read, much less understood). 80% of the time I am right :rofl:
 
One of the reasons generals were unhappy with Nawaz Sharif was because he wanted to normalize relations with neighbors, particularly Afghanistan

Another reason was Nawaz Sharif lied about his platelets and ran away from Pakistan

It is difficult to take someone seriously when he runs away every now and then
 
Me too. He does not hold back. He is what he is & not a hypocrite. MA.

Another reason was Nawaz Sharif lied about his platelets and ran away from Pakistan

It is difficult to take someone seriously when he runs away every now and then
A politician has to be a survivor in Pakistan. Remember Bhutto, Liaqat Ali Khan, Hayat Sherpao? Mushy was just about ready to kill Nawaz, but Saudis saved him. He is perhaps the luckiest man in Pakistan's politics - got people like IK, Mushy, Pervez Elahi as opponents.
 
True. A corrupt, ineffective, & democratic government in Kabul was certainly better than IEA. Pakistan drew a lot of condemnation & negativity for its covert support for Afghan Taliban. One of the reasons generals were unhappy with Nawaz Sharif was because he wanted to normalize relations with neighbors, particularly Afghanistan. Afghan end-game was the big thing & nobody wanted to hear out the old politician.

Now that generals got what they wanted. We find out that it is not quite what we thought we would get. Speaks volumes about a security-centered view of the world and how it can compound problems instead of solving them. In the end politicians turned out to be correct. When generals make policies & manage foreign affairs, this is what happens.

Does anybody bother to find the link between uncertainty, feeling of impending doom, & corruption by state functionaries? This is what happened in Kabul. Pakistan contributed to it because diplomacy, trade, common ground took a back-seat to perceived security threat from Afghanistan. Turns out that the security threat is still there & instead we got rid of people who could talk & find a way forward.

Crap-cake.

PS> When I see an laughing emoji as a reaction, I assume that Areesh has seen my post (seen, not read, much less understood). 80% of the time I am right :rofl:

An Afghanistan with a decent state and military still having their eye on Pakistani territory, allied with India is the ultimate nightmare for Pakistan, we would be encircled between a hammer and anvil.

IEA weak conventional military being diplomatically and economically isolated is better for us, we cannot be encircled and we can strike A stan knowing no one will care.
 
An Afghanistan with a decent state and military still having their eye on Pakistani territory, allied with India is the ultimate nightmare for Pakistan, we would be encircled between a hammer and anvil.

IEA weak conventional military being diplomatically and economically isolated is better for us, we cannot be encircled and we can strike A stan knowing no one will care.
Nothing that skillful diplomacy & preparedness can not handle.

The expansion in Army during early Bhutto years was based on credible intelligence (a copy of Afghan war plan, actually) and a strategy was evolved to enable Pakistan to fight a two-front war. Afghanistan had a chance in 1965, but did nothing. Again ditto in 1971. So, I think that a leap of faith is required to make progress. An unstable & weak Afghanistan would still be a big liability, though we'd be safe from a big military attack (& even this is a supposition). Afghans do have some valid grievances, & by helping keep them weak & trapped in civil war, we get blamed.

Notice that I talked about a confederation of Pakistan & Afghanistan as a pipe dream earlier? Yes, as long as Afghanistan is a weak & unstable country, we can not think of them as partners in peace. But as soon as they realize benefits of constitutional representative government with functioning institutions, we have a reason to engage them for mutual benefit.

In my view, an ordered, stable, & economically growing Afghanistan is far preferable to a weak & unstable Afghanistan. Recent history ought to be sufficient evidence of that.
 
An Afghanistan with a decent state and military still having their eye on Pakistani territory, allied with India is the ultimate nightmare for Pakistan, we would be encircled between a hammer and anvil.

IEA weak conventional military being diplomatically and economically isolated is better for us, we cannot be encircled and we can strike A stan knowing no one will care.

 
A politician has to be a survivor in Pakistan. Remember Bhutto, Liaqat Ali Khan, Hayat Sherpao? Mushy was just about ready to kill Nawaz, but Saudis saved him. He is perhaps the luckiest man in Pakistan's politics - got people like IK, Mushy, Pervez Elahi as opponents.

A politician should be brave enough to stay in the land where he is doing politics irrespective of the consequences

Nobody forced Nawaz Sharif to do politics. He could open metal scrap shop in Anarkali Lahore considering his abilities

But he chose politics. Then he should be brave enough to face whatever comes in way instead of running away like a coward

That shows that not only he is financially corrupt but also a coward who can't handle pressure
 
Nothing that skillful diplomacy & preparedness can not handle.

The expansion in Army during early Bhutto years was based on credible intelligence (a copy of Afghan war plan, actually) and a strategy was evolved to enable Pakistan to fight a two-front war. Afghanistan had a chance in 1965, but did nothing. Again ditto in 1971. So, I think that a leap of faith is required to make progress. An unstable & weak Afghanistan would still be a big liability, though we'd be safe from a big military attack (& even this is a supposition). Afghans do have some valid grievances, & by helping keep them weak & trapped in civil war, we get blamed.

Notice that I talked about a confederation of Pakistan & Afghanistan as a pipe dream earlier? Yes, as long as Afghanistan is a weak & unstable country, we can not think of them as partners in peace. But as soon as they realize benefits of constitutional representative government with functioning institutions, we have a reason to engage them for mutual benefit.

In my view, an ordered, stable, & economically growing Afghanistan is far preferable to a weak & unstable Afghanistan. Recent history ought to be sufficient evidence of that.

A confederation would be a nightmare over night the entire population would move in country.
 
Back
Top Bottom