When such moves failed than why so much hooplah about it? We need to focus on present and future. Past should be treated like Past.
As per international sources, a
PAF strike inside Afghan territory led to increase in hostilities between Pakistan and Afghanistan. How conveniently you forgot to cite this example? Double standards?
Because you asked the question 'When did Afghanistan invade us in the past?' Why ask a question about the past then? Or did you think I would be uninformed enough to let it slide without challenge?
And an air strike against rebels in a village across the border does not equate support for terrorists/insurgents in another country, nor does it justify the reaction from the Afghans of not recognizing Pakistan's sovereignty and abiding by the Durand Agreement signed by their leadership. In fact, if you are to criticize a single strike by the PAF against rebels in a village across the Durand, then you certainly have no business justifying multiple strikes by NATO forces on Pakistani territory.
And the past ties into the present. The Afghans have sheltered the Baluch insurgents going back to the first Baluch insurgency led by the Khan of Kalat's brother, and they continue to shelter insurgents and terrorists as is evident by their sheltering of Brahamdegh Bugit with full knowledge of the US.
And why not? If our enemies from the other side of border are not willing to respect Durand Agreement, we should adopt additional security measures.
Fencing it will help in monitoring of cross-border activities and combating drug trafficking.
1. Given the terrain and length of the border (and Pakistan's resource crunch) fencing is unfeasible.
2. The Afghan government has refused to accept fencing or mining of the border, and would likely attack and damage any fencing that Pakistan did put up unilaterally. The GoA even rejected the idea of Bio-metric ID's being issued to tribes on the Pakistani side at one point, indicating that it would not recognize them.
And you are simply arguing for the sake or arguing here - your earlier question about what the Pashtun thought about fencing was in fact set up to point out the fact that the Pashtun tribes on either side did not want fencing of the border, and when you realized that I did not consider fencing a major issue, you disingenuously shifted to an argument over 'fencing the border'. But as I said in my last post - Afghan acknowledgement of Pakistani sovereignty is the issue here, not unilateral fencing by Pakistan.
You did not answer my question regarding Afghan acceptance of Pakistani sovereignty above, you chose to digress into another argument over fencing.
And we are not helping Afghan people with our intervention. We supported Taliban against Northern Alliance. The present government contains elements of that Alliance. They are now venting out their anger by reciprocating?
See? It is easy to blame others for all the ill things.
Continue to meddle and see its results now.
The Afghans's were meddling in Pakistan's affairs by supporting Baluch and Tribal insurgents/terrorists and carrying out terrorist attacks in Pakistani cities long before Pakistan supported either the Mujahideen or the Taliban. And I am afraid that I fail to see what you suggest should have happened as an alternative to Pakistan's intervention in Afghanistan during their civil war, given the extraordinarily negative impact of that war on Pakistan. In fact, the current presence of the Northern Alliance in the government is precisely because the US is MEDDLING in Afghanistan. So why criticize Pakistani 'meddling' alone?
And on the subject of 'meddling', would you then also agree, applying the logic used against Pakistan above, that it is 'US meddling' in the Middle East and elsewhere that is the cause of the terrorism they face?
Or better strategic ambitions, which do not have long term after-effects on both sides?
I am not sure that is entirely accurate - the Indians continue to support terrorist proxies in Pakistan, and they have obviously done so in the past in Junagadh, East Pakistan, Baluchistan and Sri Lanka. The Chines could be argued to have supported their own violent proxies in Vietnam and elsewhere. Those two states are not as 'clean' as you would like to make them out to be either.
You don't dictate your terms to the sole superpower, when it is threatening to attack. Common sense.
That is a deflection of the question - the point being made is that the Taliban made a reasonable proposal to have AQ brought to trial, which negates your and the US argument in support of the US invasion. I abhor the idea of 'might is right', regardless of what reality dictates, such a position cannot be supported on principles.
Pakistan will not be threatened by Afghanistan if we would stop meddling in its affairs in the manner we did. Maybe! You have no clue about sheer level of resentment in Afghanistan against Pakistani people yet?
I do have an idea of the level of resentment, but Pakistan is not the country that chose to argue against the membership to the UN of a state created in 1947. Pakistan is not the one that sheltered Baluch insurgents repeatedly. Pakistan is not the one that launched invasions of Pakistani tribal territory and chose to try and spark separatist movements in that territory.
For the sheer amount of treachery Afghanistan has displayed against Pakistan, the Afghans have no business complaining about Pakistani intervention in Afghanistan after all of the above had taken place.
I understand that a stable and non-hostile Afghanistan is in our interests. We should adopt a strategy which ensures this goal. By supporting certain extremist outfits in Afghanistan, we are not doing that nation a justice.
We are looking at a comprehensive solution to the issue as pointed out earlier. The Taliban are just one piece of that.
Musharraf's policies against Bugti contributed to this menance. Balochi strongly resent this man.
Please do not justify terrorism. What Bugti was doing to his own people (thousands expelled for challenging him, private jails, poverty and illiteracy in his own areas despite getting billions in royalties) is well known. That he chose to resort to terrorism against the state by use of violence against State infrastructure and personnel in the aftermath of a particular incident is also known. For someone showing such 'outrage' at Pakistani support for 'extremists in Afghanistan' you certainly are quite hypocritical in trying to justify terrorists in Pakistan and the sheltering of those terrorists in Afghanistan. But this appears to be a peculiar trait amongst Pakistani liberal commentators - how can we distort things to always blame Pakistan.
As I have said before, we need to put our own house in order first. Injustices to people will lead to these kinds of upheavels.
Offer the same advice to the Afghans then. 'Injustices lead to the kind of upheavals such as that of the Taliban'. If the Afghans are not responsible for sheltering Baluch terrorists, then neither is Pakistan responsible for any Taliban that might be on its soil.
Why the double standards?
And the history before that? Why we always try to look at just one side of the coin?
Afghan history of intervention in Pakistan has already been detailed. But coming back to the present, why should Pakistan trust the US and Afghanistan when they are sheltering both Baluch and Taliban terrorists?
Pakistan is in dire need of a strong foreign representation. I stated this several times. Through a strong foreign representation, we can exert our influence in these kinds of affairs.
It is the job of Pakistani admininstration to convince Karzai to hand over those wanted elements to us.
Errr... it is the job of the Americans and Afghans to 'convince Pakistan' to hand over wanted elements to them' - should stick to negotiations rather than drones then eh?
Do keep in mind the 'not yet revealed' 'Plan B' and 'Plan C' of US in response.
Why? Are you not confident that ISAF will stick around till the job is done? What will plan B an plan C of the US be? Destabilize the region even more?The way I look at it, if the US realizes that it may have to step back in again if it leaves things unfinished and Afghanistan falls apart again, it might actually stay more engaged with the country to avoid precisely that.
By covertly supporting Afghan groups, which are anti-ISAF and anti-Karzai? Good strategy it is. And then we complain about Drone attacks on our soil.
The Afghans and Americans are supporting/sheltering groups that are anti-Pakistan. Is that a 'good strategy'?
We can't have it both ways, brother.
Exactly - some of that for the Yanks and Afghans too brother.
The mess we find ourselves in is due to our COLD WAR era policies. When you become a party to US games; you suffer.
We have yet to learn our lesson. The blatant attempts to defend or overshadow wrong doings of Pakistani military establish (like you are doing here) will lead to more resentment among Pakistani civilians, who are suffering because of such policies. At maximum, military establishment and its supporters should try to admit their mistakes and come clean on present ground realities.
China and India are smarter nations. They have learned valuable lessons from their PAST experiences and are now making good progress. In the coming years, the world will listen to them.
What wrong doings have I defended? If your reference is to the drone attacks, then I have posted Zardari's quotes clearly illustrating that he and the PPP completely supports the drone attacks and are willing to lie to the Pakistani public about it. Since 2008 at least, the responsibility of drone attacks lies on the PPP.
If your reference is to the NW Taliban groups - I in fact agree that they should be dismantled.
...ummm
i cannot stop laughing ...... apology
