Pakistani Soldiers fighting. Worth it?

[EagleEyes]

Thousands of troops are on the western border making sure that activity from the Pakistani side (Taliban in Pakistan area) don't launch an attack against the Americans on the other side. Pakistan is being pressured again and again for this, on not doing enough. Pakistani soldiers have been put on a risk, and made Taliban/AQ their enemies, which we dont have a business with. Do you believe it is worth it, or is it necessary for the army to put its soldiers on risk? What kind of solution can we take with this? Fighting with those guys is no win, unless you massacre the whole population related with them, which i dont know but seems like thats what the U.S wants to do and that is to press them hard and submit them to their rule.

 

[Adux]

Webby,

They are worth, It is in your country's interest that you take each and very gun, extremist and independence mullah on the street and lockem up. Forget the Americans, Think for yourself, Even then these idiots hamper national growth and are from the medival times

 

[Awesome]

There should not be any guns in the hands of common civilians. But Pakistan cannot be defeating one enemy and helping another (Karzai). There will be a time that the enemy of our enemy can be a friend.

Fighting is not a smart way to deal with an ideology. We need to change the people's mindsets. The Taliban idea, won't die by shooting a pathan with a gun. The next believing Pathan (in the ideology) would pick up another gun. America has no clue on how to deal with this problem. They can't understand the Pakhtoon mindset. Afghanistan's leadership is very sinister. They know fully well about the situation but our portraying it to the world through a western prism. Since the fighting benefits THEM.

 

[Spring Onion]

Webby im for presence of Army at every cornor of the country. As far as presnet situation on the Western Border. we need to think over it again with the shift in US policy towards us. They (US) are themselves unstable people, always trying to carved out a flaud "long-term" policy but only with power in mind which can never work.
All we need to have access and talks with our tribal people, stop flow of unprecedented dollors and other currecny to the few powerfull, self-motivated persons there in FATA.
The tribesmen can be convinced we had witnessed that.
Establish some key facilities there in the tribal belt. i had visited some parts where the Army worked for their welfare and people were all prais for them so its not difficult.
Rest the gun culture !! use that culture wisely for the protection of the border.
They have some talented youth out there. Establish more schools and also im for 2 to 4 cadet colleges there in FATA

 

[EagleEyes]

By submitting to the United States. Getting $3.5 billion aid every year, and access to the limited American weaponry we are crushing our economy. Taliban guys are slowly adopting the tactics of suicide bombing in our own country killing the innocent people but especially targetting government related institutions. Police, Army, etc etc.. is destroying our economy. Mr. Shaukat Aziz saheb are visiting other nations to attract foriegn investement, but who the hell is going to invest in a country where the blasts are occuring? Imran Khan words.

Back up from War on Terrorism (It is nothing but supporting the imperialist policies of the United States of America)
Create order in the country and true democracy.
Use other approaches to solve the Afghanistan issue. (In my opinion FENCEING would help!!)
Sending the soldiers armed. Making operations is a totally bullshit approach. I am pretty sure that General saheb were forced to conduct them, and then he used his mind to make peace treaties with Taliban, which i believe was one the most effective solutions & other will follow.

 

[Adux]

So if the taliban doing that in your country, doesnt that mean they should be taken down by PA itself, Before in the future for some other reason other than WoT they turn their backs on the government. Why keep a force which threaten you in the future alive.

There can be problems in the future, as along there are ethnic divisions in our national communities, gun culture is not the right way. It will only bite you back. The reason Pakistan's economy is staying afloat is because of the Americans and more so because of their aid money. If Blasts are happening, kill the m******F*****, and make sure that it never happens again, Short term solutions like the one's you are advocating will only bring peace for some time, then it will create more problems. similar to the german appeasement. PS WoT in Iraq, yes it is imperialism, but Afghanistan I dont think so

 

[Bull]

Pakistan messed it up in that last quarter of a century by allowing such extremist elements to flourish for attaining strategic goals. Aiding and arming an enemys' enemy isnt new in geo politics. But i havnt read many cases where such elements were allowed to tap into the local population and spread like cancer.

Whatever has happened has happened.

1 . Formulate your own stategy, give it your own name (unlike WoT)
2. Use the differences between various tribals to destroy their unity.
3. Create a media blackout for all US hot pursuits.( Is that possible? )

As for now, Pakistan is having to face the wrath almost every corner of the country is bcoz of its alliance towards WoT. Mushraff needs US to float and hence his support to WoT/. But this very WoT is the cause for all these troubles. Why cant pakistan talk to or deal with tribals/talibans under their own conditions and not on the whimps and wishes of US / NATO. Pakistan needs to talk and act like a state and for that to happen Mushraff needs to stop acting like a stage performer always trying to please the audience ( US/NATO).

 

[sigatoka]

1. So if the taliban doing that in your country, doesnt that mean they should be taken down by PA itself, Before in the future for some other reason other than WoT they turn their backs on the government. Why keep a force which threaten you in the future alive.

2. There can be problems in the future, as along there are ethnic divisions in our national communities, gun culture is not the right way. It will only bite you back.

3. The reason Pakistan's economy is staying afloat is because of the Americans and more so because of their aid money.

4.If Blasts are happening, kill the m******F*****, and make sure that it never happens again,

5.Short term solutions like the one's you are advocating will only bring peace for some time, then it will create more problems.
similar to the german appeasement.

1. The Taliban's primary opponent is the U.S. which is occupying Afghanistan and Taliban's primary objective is the ejection of this force. Pakistan must be careful in how it acts, firstly the American backed Karzai govt. is vehmently anti-Pakistan and pro-India. Moving against the Taliban is in fact strenghtening a section of Afghan society that is strongly anti-pak and would deploy an army alongside the Pakistan border in much the same way India does today. The Taliban for their part while backward did have friendly relations with Pakistan, eradicated poppy production which today is again destroying tens of thousands of Pakistani families and supported Pakistan in its pursuit of the liberation of Kashmir. Pakistan should if it decides to act against the Taliban within Pakistan exercise caution because of the consequences. In fact the situation is an equation, there is MC on one side and Marg. benefit on the other, Pakistan's receving aid is a MB while strengthening of Karzai and losses suffered in the region and resentment to the state in the region a MC. The optimal quantity of support must be such that both these variables equate.

2. Gun culture can not be judged on its own without referring to the environment. The Soviet occupation of Afghansitan provided very good strategic and deterrence value in arming the border region and one can not judge this policy without access to the counter-factual case, that is what would have happened if guns were not distributed (paid by U.S.) to the border areas? would Soviet Union have invaded? Guns reduced the chance of invasion and hastened the withdrawal of pro-India Soviets from Afghanistan, an improvment in Pakistan's security environment.

3. Pakistan's economy is surging because of rising consumption and investment, rationalisation of taxation and red tape, reduction is barriers to trade, privatisation of inefficeint industries and a general improvment in Business climate. U.S. aid has helped but certainly is not the primary factor behind Pakistan's surging economy.

4. Just like U.S. forces in relation to Fallujah eh? If violence was the answer, U.S. flags would be flying in every Iraqi city.

5. Throwing around wild claims again. Britian was devastated by the second world war primarily because it refused to appease (i would rather use the phrase "refuse to engage in costly mindless warfare"). It's standing in the world economy plummetted, it lost its empire because its strength was depleted in holding it together militarily and it cost an entire generation significant loss in living standards and it is doubtful to the point of being implausable that Germany would have invaded successfully Britian even if after a ceasefire it renenged it and attempted to invade Britian. Firstly becasue of the English Channel (major reason) and because after what happened to France it would have been prepared in its defences.

The case of the U.S. is not so clear cut because it was suffereing from a depression which ww2 allowed it to experiment with Keynesian fiscal spending to come out of. This brings the counter point that why it couldnt have engaged in non-military fiscal policy that would have boosted private consumption instead of producing shells to be lobbed at soldiers. Also the U.S. was sort of dragged into it by Japan and it only participated in Germany because Germany was already pretty much on the ropes due to Soviet Union and U.S. saw a cheap way to dispose of a potential competitor. Without U.S. involvment Germany would have been able to hold its own borders and a situation similar to post ww1 would have ensued.

 

[Adux]

Agree with your points sigotaka but you are talking about past reasons it prevalence, I am saying what is done is done, Think about the future and what consequences a gun wielding manic's would have,i rather forget the baggages and kill those MoFO's.
I was talking about the Munich Pact,
Surging is not a word I would use for the Pakistani Economy which depends on US