Pakistan says last payment from US for fighting Taliban delayed

[DarkStar]

Yes, you are right about Strategic Aids, but also look at other US's strategic aids countries (South Korea, Japan, Israel, etc...), none of this countries have shown what Pakistan has. Infact, from the benefits of US, these countries have grown not only militarily, but economically. Likewise Pakistan could have taken advantage of being a strategic aid of US, but inturn it has created more mess for itself. Blaming the US for terrorist is by far the most ludacris idea. First of all Terrorism is a global threat not regional, as the perception in Pakistan is. It is plagueing most of the worlds countries, yet Pakistan is the one crying the most. The example of death toll is the sad part of terrorism, but the will to fight terrorism solely based on money received is the wrong perception.

The USA has an interest in giving aid to Pakistan. Enough aid for it to have leverage in its interests, but not enough for us to become an economically and militarily powerful country.

They give us, but not too much. In the end, the loans are squandered (this is usually known by the donor, even before they donate) and the Pakistani people are left with the debt.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Yes, you are right about Strategic Aids, but also look at other US's strategic aids countries (South Korea, Japan, Israel, etc...), none of this countries have shown what Pakistan has. Infact, from the benefits of US, these countries have grown not only militarily, but economically. Likewise Pakistan could have taken advantage of being a strategic aid of US, but inturn it has created more mess for itself. Blaming the US for terrorist is by far the most ludacris idea. First of all Terrorism is a global threat not regional, as the perception in Pakistan is. It is plagueing most of the worlds countries, yet Pakistan is the one crying the most. The example of death toll is the sad part of terrorism, but the will to fight terrorism solely based on money received is the wrong perception.

You are going of on an unrelated tangent here, there is no comparison between the cases of Japan, SK Israel and that of Pakistan. Israel for example has been getting 3 billion a year in direct aid continuously for years. It has received even more in indirect aid, subsidized military and civilian equipment etc. Work out how much that is per capita and compare it to the sort of aid Pakistan has received and explain why you expect the same results.

Secondly, Pakistan is not 'crying the most about terrorism' (that honor goes to India) - we are the subject of continuous and unfair criticism of 'not doing enough' which is why our leadership has to continuously point out that Pakistan is doing plenty, and is suffering as a result.

 

[Energon]

How about the bodies of the thousands dead through terrorist attacks and collateral damage? The loss in investor confidence due to the fact that we live next to an invaded country with a raging insurgency that has now spilled over into Pakistan. The loss in investor and business confidence due to the suicide bombings in the major cities, including the capital city.

Pakistan isn't an accidental victim here by any means. It has always been an integral part of this situation from its very inception.

Afghanistan was invaded because it had become a base for radical Islamic groups who were responsible for committing multiple acts of war on us including one of the most heinous acts of terrorism ever seen.
There is no doubt that there was a deficit in judgment when we (the USA) backed the mujahideens during the Afghan soviet war; but let us not forget that the weaponization of radical Islam was conducted in a highly methodical manner by Pakistani leaders with the premeditated intention of using it for their own purposes after the conflict in Afghanistan was over.

Also, the details of Pakistan using proxies including the Taliban to keep a friendly hold over Afghanistan have been established and elaborated upon by many a vetted analyst and author. The point is that the violence in west Pakistan isn't as much a 'spill over' from Afghanistan as it a pipette effect.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Pakistan isn't an accidental victim here by any means. It has always been an integral part of this situation from its very inception.

Afghanistan was invaded because it had become a base for radical Islamic groups who were responsible for committing multiple acts of war on us including one of the most heinous acts of terrorism ever seen.
There is no doubt that there was a deficit in judgment when we (the USA) backed the mujahideens during the Afghan soviet war; but let us not forget that the weaponization of radical Islam was conducted in a highly methodical manner by Pakistani leaders with the premeditated intention of using it for their own purposes after the conflict in Afghanistan was over.

Also, the details of Pakistan using proxies including the Taliban to keep a friendly hold over Afghanistan have been established and elaborated upon by many a vetted analyst and author. The point is that the violence in west Pakistan isn't as much a 'spill over' from Afghanistan as it a pipette effect.

For that matter the US isn't an accidental victim either, with the attack on 911 then, as the entire edifice of the insurgency could not have been constructed had the US not been intimately involved.

The situation that exists now is the result of the Soviet invasion - everything after that has been an effect, including the situation in Pakistan now. Afghanistan became a base for Al Qaeda because of US policies towards the region after the Soviet withdrawal.

The term 'radical Islam' carries a different meaning today than it would have a decade ago. Therefore your assertion of Pakistan 'weaponizing radical Islam with the premeditated intention for using it for our own purposes' is nothing but a distortion. Pakistan did indeed support the Pashtun leaders, especially Hekmetyar, more that the Northern Alliance chaps, but given the duplicity shown by Ahmed Massoud in his 'deals' with the Soviets, and the ethnic ties to the Pashtun, there was good reason for doing so.

In the modern context of 'radical Islam' Pakistan did not create the Taliban, nor did it create Al Qaeda or support Al Qaeda. The Taliban were borne out of the Afghan civil war and only after they had gained a local following amongst the people, and a following amongst Pashtun notables including the current President Karzai and his family, that Pakistan chose to support him.

Both Rashid and Coll reference Bhutto's desire to support a faction (which eventually turned out to be the Taliban) to obtain peace and stability in Afghanistan so that Pakistan could tap into the Central Asian energy markets and allow Pakistan to become a trade and energy corridor. That was the primary motive, and not, as you disingenuously distorted, to support 'radical Islam'.

The Taliban insurgency in Pakistan is a spillover - the traditional political structure of the Tribal areas has been wiped out becasue of how suddenly the US invasion sent Taliban into Pakistan and bred hostility and opposition to that invasion within the Tribesmen in Pakistan, providing a catalyst for the Pakistani Taliban movement.

 

[Energon]

For that matter the US isn't an accidental victim either, with the attack on 911 then, as the entire edifice of the insurgency could not have been constructed had the US not been intimately involved.

I never said it was. If anything it explains why we didn't just nuke Afghanistan but chose instead to go back in and pour in billions of dollars to attempt re construction. We were trying to do the right thing this time around.

The term 'radical Islam' carries a different meaning today than it would have a decade ago. Therefore your assertion of Pakistan 'weaponizing radical Islam with the premeditated intention for using it for our own purposes' is nothing but a distortion.

I am sorry if I used the wrong terminology, I certainly didn't mean to cast a blanket on the entire entity of Islam or all of its followers in Pakistan. But what I am referring to is the consensus among Zia and some of his top military aids (particularly Hamid Gul and Mirza Aslam beg) to assemble and retain a vast irregular force motivated purely by a radicalized version of Islam, and then use it as a tool to attain foreign policy objectives. This was far more pronounced against India (a topic that would require a separate thread) than Afghanistan considering the adversaries in the latter (Masoud, NA) were Muslims themselves. The point however is these people were in fact successful in assembling an irregular army of fighters motivated purely by radicalized Islam who were considered as "assets" and then used against neighboring countries at the state's behest. It is also well known that this idea was conceived at the early stages of the Afghan conflict; hence by default it is a pre-meditated intention of weaponizing radicalized Islam to be used for national gains.

The Taliban insurgency in Pakistan is a spillover - the traditional political structure of the Tribal areas has been wiped out becasue of how suddenly the US invasion sent Taliban into Pakistan and bred hostility and opposition to that invasion within the Tribesmen in Pakistan, providing a catalyst for the Pakistani Taliban movement.

If you're trying to say that a bunch of "foreigners" just forced their way in and held West Pakistan hostage then I'm not buying it, nor does that opinion conform to what most experts on the region do believe (including Rashid, Ruben and Coll). Fighters from Afghanistan came into Pakistan in seek of refuge knowing very well that they have a lot of local ideological support there. Many of them were even born in Western Pakistan, trained there or have families there. Western Pakistan was the breeding and launching ground for the radicalization and militant movement that eventually gave rise to the groups like Taliban. The chickens came home to roost. Again this is a fact that has been elaborated upon by countless experts time and time again.

Btw, I'm not trying to vilify Pakistan or single it out for the sake of demonization; what I am trying to say is that a disease cannot be cured until there's a definitive diagnosis; and in this case the correct diagnosis happens to be an autoimmune disease and not an infection. By attempting to consider and treat it as the latter to stave embarrassment will only perpetuate the problem; and this is exactly what many in Pakistan are trying to do (your arguments resemble theirs).

Secondly, Pakistan is not 'crying the most about terrorism' (that honor goes to India) - we are the subject of continuous and unfair criticism

I really hope that this statement was a byproduct of frustration; if not its extremely tasteless considering India is the victim of Pakistan based terrorism that manifests in horrific events far worse than public/international criticisms (for the right reasons).

 

[S-2]

"Pakistan did indeed support the Pashtun leaders, especially Hekmetyar, more that the Northern Alliance chaps, but given the duplicity shown by Ahmed Massoud in his 'deals' with the Soviets, and the ethnic ties to the Pashtun, there was good reason for doing so."

Try as I might, I found myself largely in concurrence with your general synopsis of events. This is a bone of contention but why, I'm unsure. Massoud's military reputation among the Soviets was very high. He was an immensely effective warrior by mujahideen standards.

Oddly, Hekmatyar was rather fractious and contentious. I understand that he didn't fight nearly as often as his reputation implies and that much of his battles were often with other mujahideen.

In short, his reputation as a battle commander is not particularly high.

As to "deals", are they not commonplace among afghans, to include numerous taliban "dealing" with the N.A. during and in the aftermath of OEF? Further, isn't it time to look past Massoud? He's seven years cold so that need not be a part of your current perspective.

If my thoughts are true, then it might seem that Pakistan's interests WRT Afghan stability have always been less than inclusive. Tajik, uzbek, turkomen, and Hazaris are not part of your prescribed narrative and would be suppressed by your Pashtu "stabilizers". Thus, first and foremost, is Pashtun affiliation. That can neve be a peaceful solution in such an ethnically diverse society as Afghanistan, can it?

Moreover, in attempting to open corridors into central asia, can the suppression of those communities that come from CAR move your economic objectives forward? I'd imagine that Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan would all view the Pakistani-supported Pashtu domination of their ethnc cousins with some trepidation.

It would seem that your objectives in Afghanistan are best achieved by reaching out to the N.A. as well as the Pashtu. This can only increase your stature both within Afghanistan as well as those marketplaces in CAR.

Thanks.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I really hope that this statement was a byproduct of frustration; if not its extremely tasteless considering India is the victim of Pakistan based terrorism that manifests in horrific events far worse than public/international criticisms (for the right reasons).

Let me answer this first, lest the wrong impression be conveyed.

This, the 'stealing' and the 'arrogant Yank's, 'distortions' (you have since clarified the context of your comment) were rhetorical responses to what I perceived as similarly excessive rhetoric from other members.

I do not see either India, Pakistan or the US as 'crying about terrorism'. From an objective POV, all three entities have extremely good cause, albeit different in each case, to highlight their suffering.

 

[S-2]

Not to read as an accomodationist, but you're both correct.

With a VAST afghan expatriate community as a long-term leftover from the Soviet-Afghan war, everybody and anybody knew that is to where the afghan taliban army would run. All the old mujahideen networks were there. Many of the refugee camps were still there. The legacy was clear and the infrastructure still largely in place.

The afghan taliban were falling back on their lines of supply. If you will, FATA was clearly the afghan taliban's strategic space.

A.M. is correct that we dislocated the taliban. They retreated faster than we could attack once their determination broke. I believe that the P.A. did not attempt to genuinely close their borders in the west. It's too bad because the men allowed into your country were determined to return to Afghanistan and it was/is these men (both taliban and al Qaeda) that have transformed the ideological environment of FATA.

That radicalization of the FATA pashtu tribes has expanded the war to a second (Pakistan) and far larger front IMV.

 

[qsaark]

Massoud's military reputation among the Soviets was very high. He was an immensely effective warrior by mujahideen standards.

Oddly, Hekmatyar was rather fractious and contentious. I understand that he didn't fight nearly as often as his reputation implies and that much of his battles were often with other mujahideen.

In short, his reputation as a battle commander is not particularly high.

Ahmed Shah largely kept himself to Panjsher valley. He did not fight outside the valley. I learnt about this from several Mujahideen I met in person. Among the Mujahideen, he earned little respect. He was however more cunning and finally joined the Northern alliance, the same gang of thugs, against whom, he fought earlier. That itself is enough to show his true character.

 

[S-2]

Most mujahideen fought in areas they knew best. Panjshir. Busy place for your local battlefield as neighborhoods go, wouldn't you agree?

"He was however more cunning and finally joined the Northern alliance, the same gang of thugs, against whom, he fought earlier."

They lionize a former enemy. Fascinating.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Try as I might, I found myself largely in concurrence with your general synopsis of events. This is a bone of contention but why, I'm unsure. Massoud's military reputation among the Soviets was very high. He was an immensely effective warrior by mujahideen standards.

Oddly, Hekmatyar was rather fractious and contentious. I understand that he didn't fight nearly as often as his reputation implies and that much of his battles were often with other mujahideen.

In short, his reputation as a battle commander is not particularly high.

As to "deals", are they not commonplace among afghans, to include numerous taliban "dealing" with the N.A. during and in the aftermath of OEF? Further, isn't it time to look past Massoud? He's seven years cold so that need not be a part of your current perspective.

If my thoughts are true, then it might seem that Pakistan's interests WRT Afghan stability have always been less than inclusive. Tajik, uzbek, turkomen, and Hazaris are not part of your prescribed narrative and would be suppressed by your Pashtu "stabilizers". Thus, first and foremost, is Pashtun affiliation. That can neve be a peaceful solution in such an ethnically diverse society as Afghanistan, can it?

Moreover, in attempting to open corridors into central asia, can the suppression of those communities that come from CAR move your economic objectives forward? I'd imagine that Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan would all view the Pakistani-supported Pashtu domination of their ethnc cousins with some trepidation.

It would seem that your objectives in Afghanistan are best achieved by reaching out to the N.A. as well as the Pashtu. This can only increase your stature both within Afghanistan as well as those marketplaces in CAR.

Thanks.

S-2:

Massoud was indeed an exceptionally good commander, when he was fighting. I could not but admire his military prowess while reading about him in both Rashid and Coll's works. However, Rashid mentions the numerous times he ended up making deals with the Soviets, perhaps because of his proximity to Soviet controlled territory and relative isolation, resource wise and from Pakistan.

I think you will find many Pakistanis who would be critical of Gen. Akhtar Rahman and Gen. Hamid Gul in their alienation of the NA, and continued support for a man with more bluster than actual accomplishments (Hekmetyar). When the ISI did try and bridge the gap and attempt some sort of rapprochement between the two (with even OBL being drafted), the ethnic distrust proved to be too much, and later the Taliban were just too hardheaded and ideologically driven to compromise.

With the two sides refusing compromise, there was obviously only one ethnic faction Pakistan could support.

I strongly support building bridges with the NA folk now, and to that extent it seems the new DG ISI has initiated contacts. Obviously it will take a while before trust is rebuilt, on both sides. I think getting the GoA to accept the Durand line and increasing contacts between the Intelligence and security agencies of the two sides will go a long way in that direction.

Pakistan cannot maintain relations with a Pashtun only Afghanistan.

 

[qsaark]

I believe that the P.A. did not attempt to genuinely close their borders in the west.

It was not possible to close the border and it will never be a possibility. US couldn't close its border with Maxico which is largely a plain. Whereas border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is largely mountainous, there exist all kind of passages that dont even exist on the map. The problem is further compounded by the fact that the Pashtoon tribes have blood relations on both the sides of the border, hence they move freely without a visa or passport. Practically, it is impossible to 'seal' the border between the two countries.

 

[qsaark]

They lionize a former enemy. Fascinating.

The enemy (Massoud) of my enemy (Taliban) is my friend. Plus Massoud had US on his back.

 

[S-2]

"It was not possible to close the border and it will never be a possibility."

qsaark, the taliban retreat was a long-winded affair. It lasted the better part of three months. Early on, large numbers were POURING down the Jalalabad-Peshawar route through Torkum on their pickups and not much else. Normal "traffic" wasn't so normal in those days. These men would have been easy to pick up and easy to identify. Many carried war-wounds that were fresh.

Other groups took longer. The traditional infiltration trails were employed in reverse and many groups moved slowly-only as they needed or were (temporarily) supplanted by local enemies.

I don't expect any army to fully close such a region. God knows that I believe our guys are legitimately very good and motivated to do so and they'll be the first to admit the immense difficulties against those whom are determined to circumvent or defeat your surveillance. Still, there was a clear window of vulnerability where large forces were on the move, some visibly, in a region where these trails and roads are well-known.

Your army could have made a better effort, IMHO. It would have dramatically reduced the influx of radicalized and trained soldiers to this area. What happens to these men once captured, I'm unsure. That would have been an interesting "what if?"

That's how I saw events unfold then.

 

[qsaark]

Your army could have made a better effort, IMHO. It would have dramatically reduced the influx of radicalized and trained soldiers to this area. What happens to these men once captured, I'm unsure. That would have been an interesting "what if?"

That's how I saw events unfold then.

For the first time ever, I read a post from you which is not tainted with 'muslim hateret' and logical. Yes, PA could have done a better job BUT only under the orders of the GoP. Taliban were never a threat for Pakistan, and they still are not. The Taliban who are fighting with the occupation forces in Afghanistan are not anti-Pakistan. Bait-ullah-Mahsood and the ones fighting in Sawat are different story. They are getting support from India and US. Their agenda is to destabilize Pakistan, and defame the true Taliban, so GoP agree to accept the full US/Indian dictation.