Solving Afghanistan?

[zraver]

How is an Army which draws almost 30% of the manpower from the Pashtuns go full bore against the tribals? The fact of the matter is that the fight in Afghanistan is no longer an anti-AQ campaign. It is a full-fledged Pashtun insurgency against what they perceive to be an occupation of their land and the fact that Karzai and team keep on harping to their American and ISAF friends that this is a "Pakistani" aided and abetted deal is serving no one's purpose.

its serving some ones purpose, but whose?

This whole deal requires a re-think.

I agree, but then I am the one advocating buying the opium crops to starve the Taliban of funds.

In order to stabilize Afghanistan by force, do you want to destabilize Pakistan completely? Because if this is the goal then keep on prodding and pushing Pakistan to go in guns blazing and continue increasing polarity within the country all the while Karzai sits smug in his chair not giving two hoots about the impact of this war and occupation of the country on the Pashtuns inside Afghanistan and in Pakistan.

it is Pakistan not sealing the border, and I know it can never be completely sealed, but the terrain it self limits the porousness of the region. Just shutting down most of the the traffic going one way either into or out of Afghanistan would have a huge result.

Little Pashtun kids in Pakistani refugee camps are gung-ho about joining the militants and carrying out suicide attacks against Pakistani troops (their co-religionists) so to think that Pakistan will be able to crush the Pashtun support for the fight against occupation in Afghanistan is as wrong as one can be on this topic.

What about the other 70% of troops?

Read above. Its not as simple as you make it out to be. FATA problem is interlinked with what is happening in Afghanistan. Until that is fixed, FATA cannot be fixed. The people who live in FATA do not care about the so-called Durrand line. To them that area all the way out to Kandahar is their land. You suppress one by occupation, the others will react. This has been the reality of the world's largest nomadic group. Already Afghan Pashtuns are being captured in Pakistan in acts of terrorism. So this is a Pashtun problem and not one only inside of FATA.

Here we agree, but the complexity of the problem does not mean you do not act.

 

[S-2]

Blain2, I enjoyed your empassioned plea on behalf of the pashtu and disagree thoroughly.

The first salient fact is that a goodly portion of the Afghan gov't are, indeed, pashtu. Now, having said that, they are NOT reflecting REMOTELY the pashtu plurality nor holding key positions within the government (except, I think, for that Karzai guy but he's an INDIAN pashtu. Very different.). This is a function of the Pashtu unwillingness to participate in the last elections.

It starts there.

There's also a very natural resentment at losing complete control of Afghanistan to their uzbek, hazara, tajik, and turkomen cousins. They hate them and during the taliban rule, so too Pakistan. Never once did your aid and actions reflect a notion of Afghanistan's pluralistic content nor likely shall it-ever.

You see Afghanistan as a PASHTU state. It is, because of the nebulous nature of the Durand line, in Pakistan's interest to point Pashtu political aspirations WESTWARD and away from your Punjabi heart.

Conversely, it has been the interests of non-Pashtus of Afghanistan to point the Pashtus EASTWARD into the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan and NWFP for the same reasons. Let pashtus find the full expression of their political aspirations elsewhere. Pakistan sees and feels the effects of that now.

Pashtus are welcomed into the Afghan political discourse. So too taliban should they lay down their arms, swear allegiance to the constitution, and engage lawfully within the prescribed processes. This is fair and, if followed, would lead to a pashtu plurality in a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic state.

Oddly, with that sort of assurance, Pakistan has not been supportive of a Pashtu plurality in a shared democratic system. I suspect the rationale here is that without Pashtu dominance, Pakistan's strategic depth wouldn't be amenable to any Afghan government. Thus, it's possible that Afghanistan is seen as a zero-sum feature.

Strategic depth? I don't believe in it unless you fight a war against India with Pakistani forces already inside Afghanistan. Once war begins, were you to suffer serious reverses, retreat into Afghanistan will be problematic in negotiating the passes.

So, while I may be wrong by intent, it seems Afghanistan's value to Pakistan stems from denying India the opportunity to strategically envelop Pakistan from the west.

Your presence isn't required. Having an Afghan government that will deny access and reject civil or military accords with India, however, IS critical. This explains the past and present value of the taliban and the true nature of "strategic depth".

 

[zraver]

No one in Pakistan nor in this world supports terrorism in any form, period!

If no one supported terrorism, there would not be terrorist.

Come up with a solid proof, ISI is all yours then.

You won't accept it, or any proof but here is the effort
Pakistani Intelligence Had Links to Al Qaeda, U.S. Officials Say

Agreed, but i wonder why you people worry about things like collateral damage, human rights, war crimes and torture the MOST!!

What a soldiery approach i must say.
Now i got the answer why the Americans are so popular all around the world and why people 'praise' you as such.

Going soft in war leads to more death because it makes wars last longer and seem less painful than they really are. War is not a popularity contest its death and destruction meted out to achieve a political purpose.

And if i am not mistaken it was you who called Hitler as a devil and Ghettos as a black stigma on the human race's face?
Good luck!

The Nazis killed for sport, not for purpose. But if you want to look at examples of the point I am trying to make look at the bombing of Rotterdam and Warsaw. These were tactical rather than the later war political killings and they worked. The Netherlands and Poland folded like they had been kicked in the gut. Or shall we use the US atomic bombings or the remarkable results of Line Backer II as examples. Highly compressed tactically employed strategic campaigns aimed at breaking the enemies will.

That is not a guud and advisable way to ask some to work for you, is it?

The US asked first, pakistan didn't act, so the US did.

Prove it!
That's how you'll catch it from the neck or else keep on publishing the reports and claims.
Chill

You won't accept proof.

 

[blain2]

its serving some ones purpose, but whose?

Karzai and team's...

I agree, but then I am the one advocating buying the opium crops to starve the Taliban of funds.

Zraver,

That addresses only the equipping of the Taliban. You will starve them off of that but do you think the problem of stability in Afghanistan will also go away? It cannot until and unless you have a setup which allows Pashtuns to full represented according to their size (they are a majority in Afghanistan) and the second biggest ethnic grouping in Pakistan.

it is Pakistan not sealing the border, and I know it can never be completely sealed, but the terrain it self limits the porousness of the region. Just shutting down most of the the traffic going one way either into or out of Afghanistan would have a huge result.

I suspect you have served in Afghanistan. I have lived in Quetta a while and have seen Pakistan's northern areas and I can tell you that sealing the border is pretty much a hopeless task. You can't even put fiberglass igloos on many of these border areas because the terrain is so difficult. Pakistan has a defence budget of $4 billion dollars. Try arranging for NV capability, rapid reaction/assault capability and good intelligence capability to cater to the ingresses and egresses and then we can say that we have at least tried. None of this is in place. Again this is another tactical suggestion. The long term problem with the Pashtun disaffection remains.

What about the other 70% of troops?

What about the other 70% of the troops? There are Ministers, senior Generals many millions of Pashtuns who make up the Pakistan of today. Do you think that any such a war by the non-Pashtun troops will do anything? Have you looked at the trends of the recent attacks? They are all against the largest ethnic group of Pakistan (Punjabis) who are feeling the heat of these operations against the Pashtuns in the FATA. Believe me that the last thing you want is a civil war in Pakistan which divvies up the Pakistan Army and the nation. Afghanistan is bad enough, Pakistan going that way would be a massive problem.

Here we agree, but the complexity of the problem does not mean you do not act.

No body is saying that we do not act. If you recall the title of this thread, its says "deadly attack on Pakistan Convoy". Last I checked into it, almost 30 Pakistani troops are dead and 68 injured. So lets not go on making assumptions as if we are sitting on our ***** and not doing anything.

I cannot give you an appropriate context for you to understand how difficult this situation is for Pakistan. Maybe I can suggest that it would be like the United States taking on the state of Texas or Texans as a group of people. Texans are everywhere, they are a part of your polity, your nation, then someone in Mexico says that all the arms to the drug traffickers are coming from Texas and you the USG take action against the Texans. Very simplistic and near impossibility (actually the weapons part is correct as a lot of good hardware is coming in the hands of the cartels from the US) for such a supposition, but I just wanted to run this by you so you realize what the people and troops are feeling. It may not make sense to you but hopefully it will give you a drift about the challenges on hand inside of Pakistan.

 

[zraver]

So what do you think happens when you drop a bomb on an entire house and kill someone else's kith and kin? Do you think he will allow you or your loved ones to live in safety? You are inciting them further.

If you make the price to painful, he will lay down his arms. he can hate America for the rest of his days- but those will be days he has to watch his kids grow, to practice his trade and find what ever life has in store for him. Germany and Japan were flattened to a level Pakistanis have never seen- they laid down their arms because the war had gotten to painful to continue.

The problem is one of occupation and political dispensation. Not every Pashtun picking up a gun and fighting with the US is on the wrong side you know. You went in to liberate Kuwait from an "occupation". The Pashtuns see your stay inside Afghanistan as no different than Iraqi troops inside of Kuwait. The funny thing (if there is anything funny) is that most of the labour in Kuwait that got displaced because of the war came from the Pashtun areas of Pakistan...so I am sure they have double the gripe about "occupations".

The US was out of Afghanistan and the Pashtun Taliban gave aid and comfort to some one waging war on America, refused to hand him over after 9-11 and vowed war. Well war they got, so they ran to Pakistan, and kept on fighting, and Pakistan would not stop it, so the US followed their enemies.

Please clear your sights and realize what you are saying before you say it. Pashtuns are not the same thing as AQ. Pakistani or Afghan Pashtuns have never attacked the US. The US has invaded Afghanistan to go after Al-Qaeda. The AQ are no longer there so now you have started a fight with the Pashtuns because they are not happy with the political dispensation that you have come up with in Afghanistan. This is the crux of the issue.

see my post above, the Taliban is our enemy. As long as the Taliban wants war with the US, and gets support from among the Pashtuns, then war will visit Pakistan.

They will continue to kill you and us Pakistanis because they believe that we all are on the wrong side because the former is occupying and the latter is abetting that occupation of their lands. Do realize that while no one at the UN has the courage to say this in the face of US opposition, under the UN charter, what the Pashtuns are doing is a clear cut example of their right to liberate themselves from occupation.

They are not fighting for freedom but for the right to dominate the other tribes. Lets not kid ourselves, Pashtuns are not the only group in Afghanistan.

You call them bad guys and by all sorts of names but they are entitled to that fight.

No they are not because they will not partake in the political and peace processes because doing so would deny them domination.

If Pakistan's pashtun's cared about these nationalistic lines and cared about the borders then we would not have a problem of people coming and going. The reality is that they don't. They never have and you suddenly coming into the region telling them to respect the borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan does not change that for them.

Take all of the above as an insight from a Pakistani and don't rush to judge me as a sympathizer. More than you, it is in my interest to see peace in Pakistan and an end to this bloodshed that is spilling over into the streets of my country. I just do not see a military solution to this no matter what anyone here says. The Pashtuns are too large a group of people to be fought under the pretext of war against the Taliban. They will outlive both the Pakistani and Afghan states and will certainly outlast the US occupation of their country. What is to our benefit is to work out an exit strategy for the US that ensures that the interests of all interested can be accommodated (this certainly includes the Afghans (Pashtuns and the Tajik camp (among others), Pakistan, and the US). This can be done because a Pashtun, regardless of how illiterate, is a pragmatic individual. Pakistan and Afghanistan have always made deals with them to get beyond issues. The US and ISAF need to do the same instead of trying to impose their own will upon these people by branding them this way or that way.

If they are pragmatic then leverage works. Make war more painful than peace. They think they can win, and that fuels them, remove that idea show it for nothing more concrete than a mirage.

 

[zraver]

Karzai and team's...

They ar enot the only ones, the Pashtuns who want domination play as big or bigger role.

Zraver,

That addresses only the equipping of the Taliban. You will starve them off of that but do you think the problem of stability in Afghanistan will also go away?

Go away no, become something more manageable yes. The drug money is the fuel keeping the fire going. It arms the Taliban and is the warlords foundation.

It cannot until and unless you have a setup which allows Pashtuns to full represented according to their size (they are a majority in Afghanistan) and the second biggest ethnic grouping in Pakistan.

If they won't take part in the political process, how can they be represented?

I suspect you have served in Afghanistan.

No, I got out in 95

I have lived in Quetta a while and have seen Pakistan's northern areas and I can tell you that sealing the border is pretty much a hopeless task. You can't even put fiberglass igloos on many of these border areas because the terrain is so difficult. Pakistan has a defence budget of $4 billion dollars.

Pakistan is buying subs and fighter jets, seems to be an issue of priorities.

Try arranging for NV capability, rapid reaction/assault capability and good intelligence capability to cater to the ingresses and egresses and then we can say that we have at least tried. None of this is in place. Again this is another tactical suggestion. The long term problem with the Pashtun disaffection remains.

The US is funding those efforts as we speak.

What about the other 70% of the troops? There are Ministers, senior Generals many millions of Pashtuns who make up the Pakistan of today. Do you think that any such a war by the non-Pashtun troops will do anything? Have you looked at the trends of the recent attacks? They are all against the largest ethnic group of Pakistan (Punjabis) who are feeling the heat of these operations against the Pashtuns in the FATA. Believe me that the last thing you want is a civil war in Pakistan which divvies up the Pakistan Army and the nation. Afghanistan is bad enough, Pakistan going that way would be a massive problem.

I agree it is a massive problem, and it is civil war. If the US pulled out today its not going to end. Pakistan needs to realize that. The Pashtun insurgents don't want peace because war is a better deal for them. You have to change that equation.

No body is saying that we do not act. If you recall the title of this thread, its says "deadly attack on Pakistan Convoy". Last I checked into it, almost 30 Pakistani troops are dead and 68 injured. So lets not go on making assumptions as if we are sitting on our ***** and not doing anything.

I was referring to the border.

I cannot give you an appropriate context for you to understand how difficult this situation is for Pakistan. Maybe I can suggest that it would be like the United States taking on the state of Texas or Texans as a group of people. Texans are everywhere, they are a part of your polity, your nation, then someone in Mexico says that all the arms to the drug traffickers are coming from Texas and you the USG take action against the Texans. Very simplistic and near impossibility (actually the weapons part is correct as a lot of good hardware is coming in the hands of the cartels from the US) for such a supposition, but I just wanted to run this by you so you realize what the people and troops are feeling. It may not make sense to you but hopefully it will give you a drift about the challenges on hand inside of Pakistan.

A better example would be the black street gangs. A disaffected minority with too many guns. But guess what- they don't mess with the rest of the country because that results in pressure on them that denies them the ability to do what they want inside of their own territory. The problem for Pakistan is there is no reason for the suicide bombers to stop. The bombers are dead but their families other than some grief do not suffer for, their leaders do not suffer for it there is no effective response.

 

[blain2]

Blain2, I enjoyed your empassioned plea on behalf of the pashtu and disagree thoroughly.

You are entitled to disagree. I feel the same way here with your observations and having lived with and amongst Pashtun (I am not a Pashtun), tend to feel that my appreciation of the situation is slightly closer to the mark than yours (but again I do not say so assuming knowing it all, just my observations).

The first salient fact is that a goodly portion of the Afghan gov't are, indeed, pashtu. Now, having said that, they are NOT reflecting REMOTELY the pashtu plurality nor holding key positions within the government (except, I think, for that Karzai guy but he's an INDIAN pashtu. Very different.). This is a function of the Pashtu unwillingness to participate in the last elections.

Karzai is a regular Pashtun. He went to school in India, however hails from Afghanistan and has lived in Pakistan (has family in my country). The unwillingness of the pashtun is due to the fact that they are the largest ethnic group inside of Afghanistan and will always have an objection if they are sidelined.

It starts there.

There's also a very natural resentment at losing complete control of Afghanistan to their uzbek, hazara, tajik, and turkomen cousins. They hate them and during the taliban rule, so too Pakistan. Never once did your aid and actions reflect a notion of Afghanistan's pluralistic content nor likely shall it-ever.

Again you have a rather short memory of this. The very last point you make is based on your recent readings about Ahmed Shah Masood being sidelined by the ISI. However this was around the timeframe of 1987-88. The time around which the Russians were on the way out and everyone from Iran to Russia to Pakistan were jockeying for influence. The likes of Dostum were nobodies in that earlier setup of groups fighting the Russians. Most of the groups (there were 7-8) were led by Pashtuns and manned by Pashtuns. The aid to the Afghans was given according to their areas of responsibility. There definitely was a fall out between the ISI and Ahmed Shah Masood, but then he hardly represented anyone besides the Tajiks (the second largest ethnic group inside of Afghanistan).

You see Afghanistan as a PASHTU state. It is, because of the nebulous nature of the Durand line, in Pakistan's interest to point Pashtu political aspirations WESTWARD and away from your Punjabi heart.

No I do not. We see Afghanistan for what it is, a multi-ethnic state with a Pashtu majority. I am not wrong in this assertion. You can look it up yourself. The issue here is that Pakistan wants to ensure its territorial integrity. Pashtuns live as part of Pakistan yet they are absolutely free to cross as they feel. Also Pakistan is more than just Punjab. You forget that Pakistan is just as multi-ethnic as Afghanistan. The considerations that you point out are no different for any other nation state besides Pakistan. The whole idea of nation states messed up the Pashtun contiguity and it continues to haunt Pakistan and Afghanistan alike.

Conversely, it has been the interests of non-Pashtus of Afghanistan to point the Pashtus EASTWARD into the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan and NWFP for the same reasons. Let pashtus find the full expression of their political aspirations elsewhere. Pakistan sees and feels the effects of that now.

Yet but their interests matter little. It is for the Pashtuns to expand Eastward or Westward as you say and at least inside of Pakistan they have been allowed to expand. Ceding control of the territory populated by Pashtuns over to Afghanistan will not be allowed, because Pakistan has no aspersions over Pashtun lands inside of Afghanistan. This needs to be very clear.

Pashtus are welcomed into the Afghan political discourse. So too taliban should they lay down their arms, swear allegiance to the constitution, and engage lawfully within the prescribed processes. This is fair and, if followed, would lead to a pashtu plurality in a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic state.

All the while an occupation goes on? This cannot happen. There has to be an exit strategy in place for the foreigners inside of the country. Otherwise it is someone else dictating to them.

Oddly, with that sort of assurance, Pakistan has not been supportive of a Pashtu plurality in a shared democratic system. I suspect the rationale here is that without Pashtu dominance, Pakistan's strategic depth wouldn't be amenable to any Afghan government. Thus, it's possible that Afghanistan is seen as a zero-sum feature.

Pakistan has no desire of a strategic depth once the nuclear capability came into the picture. Most of the points in your argument are either dated assumptions or the oft-found claims about the reasons for Pakistani interests in Afghanistan.

Strategic depth? I don't believe in it unless you fight a war against India with Pakistani forces already inside Afghanistan. Once war begins, were you to suffer serious reverses, retreat into Afghanistan will be problematic in negotiating the passes.

You need a real understanding of "strategic depth" from the Pakistani point of view. It has nothing to do with placement of forces or assets inside of Afghanistan or moving them inside of that country should a need arise.

So, while I may be wrong by intent, it seems Afghanistan's value to Pakistan stems from denying India the opportunity to strategically envelop Pakistan from the west.

The idea is not to have unfriendly governments around Pakistan. The past is something that we can rely upon safely to assume that if there was a pro-India government in Afghanistan then they would cause problem's for Pakistan's territorial integrity and this is something that is not made up, rather there have been issues in the past due to this tendency in certain Afghan governments to do things to put Pakistan in a difficult situation.

Your presence isn't required. Having an Afghan government that will deny access and reject civil or military accords with India, however, IS critical. This explains the past and present value of the taliban and the true nature of "strategic depth".

[/QUOTE]

Value of Taliban is questionable. However that of Pashtuns is not. See the issue is one of deficit of trust. It is pervasive in the region. It is in the minds of Pakistanis, the Afghans and the Indians. The need is for a holistic approach but the Obama government has shown no spine for it after initially raising hopes by talking about it.

Pakistan's interests are no different than the ones voiced by others. If you expect Pakistan to forgo all her interests for other regional powers then this will not happen. Pakistan will suffer in this process but then there will not be any peace in South/Central Asia either.

 

[S-2]

I don't expect anything of Pakistan except to control her lands. Period.

I hope that after all, you see that I do understand "strategic depth". We quibble but if you prefer "pashtu" to "taliban", fine. I know this, the taliban were a virtually exclusive pashtu organization deriving from Kandahar.

Please don't presume that I'm unaware of Karzai's afghan lineage. Their family, I believe, like Omar come from Orazgan province, IIRC.

"All the while an occupation goes on? This cannot happen. There has to be an exit strategy in place for the foreigners inside of the country. Otherwise it is someone else dictating to them."

It is happening now with any group who wishes. Saw pictures recently of a reconciliation ceremony in Herat which included these men surrendering their arms.

Omar certainly objects as he believes he's winning. Certainly any insurgent who isn't LOSING is winning if staying alive constitutes success...and it does. Further, he wants all and believes that this too can be had. As such, he'll not negotiate until NATO leaves Afghanistan. It is simple for him to choose so from Quetta. For field commanders under more immediate stresses from NATO forces, we'll see if the same applies.

Once we turn the tables, I doubt that we'll have much interest in discussions on anything other than our terms.

"If you expect Pakistan to forgo all her interests for other regional powers then this will not happen."

I expect that if an Afghani state arises despite your best efforts and it has only a marginal role for the pashtus because of their continued recalcitrance throughout along with Pakistan's same, it'll be very difficult for Pakistan to prevent other allies of Afghanistan from emerging. If so, your lives will be immeasurably more poor for the effort.

The Indians are building considerable good will in Afghanistan. They outspend your country about 5 to 1 in aid. They also don't permit a proxy war to be waged upon the afghans as Pakistan seemingly has. This duality places Indians FAR ahead of Pakistan in the eyes of the afghan government.

As deeply as India's consulates have been questioned here, the real questions surround the activities of the PAKISTANI consulates.

NATO's objective is to leave a stable afghan government capable of protecting itself and pursuing an independant foreign policy. INDEPENDANT. Who will best influence that should NATO be successful? How likely will NATO's success be?

"Pakistan will suffer in this process but then there will not be any peace in South/Central Asia either."

A fascinating threat that the rest of us already experience daily. I really don't think your country is capable of more short of tossing your nukes about.

JMHO.

 

[blain2]

They ar enot the only ones, the Pashtuns who want domination play as big or bigger role.



Go away no, become something more manageable yes. The drug money is the fuel keeping the fire going. It arms the Taliban and is the warlords foundation.

I would like nothing better than the poppy cultivation curtailed. Pakistan has been a major user of this export and it has destroyed many families. The key is the success. If this cultivation is stopped and the ones growing are given alternates then its good for everyone in the region.

If they won't take part in the political process, how can they be represented?

I think their contention is with the occupation. If you have foreign forces in place, there is resistance to the idea, however more talks can pave the way for this.

Pakistan is buying subs and fighter jets, seems to be an issue of priorities.

Zraver, Pakistan was just being threatened with unilateral air strikes by a third country. If Pakistan is given security guarantees against this third country then Pakistan would spend the money it has on COIN. Facing the world's second largest conventional Army means that you have spend a substantial amount on conventional upkeep.

The US is funding those efforts as we speak.

Yes and as more money becomes available it will be more difficult for the other side to find succor inside Pakistan. However it cannot stop altogether. The terrain is long and inhabited by tribes across the border on both sides that share affinity with each other and provide support.

I agree it is a massive problem, and it is civil war. If the US pulled out today its not going to end. Pakistan needs to realize that. The Pashtun insurgents don't want peace because war is a better deal for them. You have to change that equation.

See not everyone within the Pashtun entity wants a war. As I said the Pashtuns are a fairly pragmatic people. If the war in Afghanistan is making them feel alienated (I am not making this up, you can read it in reports and hear from people inside Afghanistan) and Pakistani government also takes strong action against them then to them, this is an Anti-Pashtun war. My point is, till when does Pakistan go on supporting this campaign? Until the whole of Pakistan is upside down because there is no way for Pakistan to keep this contained in the FATA. Do talk to a Pashtun (15% of Pakistan's 170 million population is made up of these folks and there is bitter talk of being left out in Afghanistan and being targeted inside Pakistan). Not a very happy demographic to deal with specially when it is 15% of the total population.

A better example would be the black street gangs. A disaffected minority with too many guns. But guess what- they don't mess with the rest of the country because that results in pressure on them that denies them the ability to do what they want inside of their own territory. The problem for Pakistan is there is no reason for the suicide bombers to stop. The bombers are dead but their families other than some grief do not suffer for, their leaders do not suffer for it there is no effective response.

Black gangs in the US is probably too narrow an example to equate to the current problem in my opinion. Pakistan has put pressure on TTP. When we have then the attacks against the soft targets have increased. There is no way to stop the suicide bombers. With Israel, being a fraction of the size of Pakistan, not able to effectively guard against this problem (they finally built a wall...a solution that cannot work in Pakistan for practical as well as many other reasons), how is Pakistan suppose to cope with this? While its easy for outsiders to suggest "keep on going the route"..the deaths and injuries on a daily basis are taking a massive toll on the Pakistani public.

 

[roadrunner]

I think one of the problems the Americans on this board have in understanding to situation (or they deliberately ignore), is that the Pashtun territories do not stop at the Durand Line.

Pashtuns in Pakistan, and those in Afghanistan do not hate each other as the westernized posters on here seem to have given them the impression. There is a continuity between the Pashtun people in Afghanistan (who are the largest segment of the population), and the Pashtun people in Pakistan.

You cannot segregate the two. I would say it works for the settled NWFP also.

 

[roadrunner]

I agree it is a massive problem, and it is civil war. If the US pulled out today its not going to end. Pakistan needs to realize that. The Pashtun insurgents don't want peace because war is a better deal for them. You have to change that equation.

If the US pulled out of Afghanistan tomorrow, it would end actually. There's no doubt the occupation of Afghanistan fuels resentment amongst the Pashtun communities.

I hope the pullout occurs before any lasting damage to Pashtun-Pak relations. Or perhaps this is the combined goal of Karzai and the US (perhaps India also). Ralph Peter's map rings bells.

 

[blain2]

I don't expect anything of Pakistan except to control her lands. Period.

S-2, Pakistan is doing what she can. If ingress into Afghanistan is an issue then who is blocking the egress of these elements back into Pakistan? The responsibility goes both ways. This is the perception of the people on the ground inside of Pakistan. You want Pakistan to take up all the mess and the killing business. Where are the mirror posts across the border? The most recent perpetrator of terrorist acts caught in Pakistan (attack on the police academy) came from inside of a settled Pashtun district in Afghanistan.

I hope that after all, you see that I do understand "strategic depth". We quibble but if you prefer "pashtu" to "taliban", fine. I know this, the taliban were a virtually exclusive pashtu organization deriving from Kandahar.

I did not mean it in a haughty way that you do not know what strategic depth is. Its just that in Pakistan's case vis-a-vis Afghanistan, this has been understood falsely in the past and I see the same perceptions stated again thus my point. I will post an article shortly about what Pakistan's own idea of strategic depth is.

The point I am making about the Pashtoon vs. Taliban is that not every one was on board with the Taliban initially within the Pashtoon belt. What is happening now is that there is an increasing support for the Taliban in the pashtoon belt inside of Pakistan (it was always there in Afghan areas including Kandahar etc.).

Please don't presume that I'm unaware of Karzai's afghan lineage. Their family, I believe, like Omar come from Orazgan province, IIRC.

Point taken. My point simply was that he is a local from Afghanistan and like many others in the time of the Soviet invasion had left the country for India.

"All the while an occupation goes on? This cannot happen. There has to be an exit strategy in place for the foreigners inside of the country. Otherwise it is someone else dictating to them."

It is happening now with any group who wishes. Saw pictures recently of a reconciliation ceremony in Herat which included these men surrendering their arms.

Omar certainly objects as he believes he's winning. Certainly any insurgent who isn't LOSING is winning if staying alive constitutes success...and it does. Further, he wants all and believes that this too can be had. As such, he'll not negotiate until NATO leaves Afghanistan. It is simple for him to choose so from Quetta. For field commanders under more immediate stresses from NATO forces, we'll see if the same applies.

Once we turn the tables, I doubt that we'll have much interest in discussions on anything other than our terms.

This is a very good thing if it is really happening. If the Pashtoons in Afghanistan feel they are represented well enough, the support from Pakistan will die out on its own. You are talking about a specific case in Herat, I wonder if that can be considered the normal trend...I do not know for sure.

Secondly, I think as with every thing Pashtun, to believe that Mullah Omar is calling all the shots is probably a mistake. The Pashtuns are fighting but its far from doing so under the same umbrella. The one thing common amongst all the Afghan groups fighting the Soviets was that they were fighting the Soviets, besides that, they really never agreed upon the leadership or the way to the war (each group had their own leader in any given region inside of that country).

I expect that if an Afghani state arises despite your best efforts and it has only a marginal role for the pashtus because of their continued recalcitrance throughout along with Pakistan's same, it'll be very difficult for Pakistan to prevent other allies of Afghanistan from emerging. If so, your lives will be immeasurably more poor for the effort.

I think this statement is fairly typical of the view voiced in anti-Pakistan circles. What this is suggesting is that Pakistan is prodding the likes of TTP, Mullah Omar and the likes to carry on with the attacks inside of Pakistan and Afghanistan just to prolong the situation until someone invites the Pashtuns to rule. I do not think this is the case. Pakistan suffered the most when there was instability and infighting inside of Afghanistan before the rise of the Taliban. There was nobody to talk to in Kabul and while ISI had their contacts, Pakistan's policy was not the policy of the Pashtuns inside of Kabul or else where in Afghanistan for that matter.

What Pakistan wants is that when there is a proper political dispensation in Afghanistan, the Pashtuns are well represented according to their demographics. Pakistan has no say in how this happens, but there is hope that this would happen. The reasons are obvious, Pakistan has vast pashtun minority which is affected if there is disaffection in Pashtuns inside of Afghanistan. This issue is no different than the Kurdish problem. For the Kurds to stay at peace and region to remain stable, they have to be considered in any dispensation that takes place in an equitable manner.

The Indians are building considerable good will in Afghanistan. They outspend your country about 5 to 1 in aid. They also don't permit a proxy war to be waged upon the afghans as Pakistan seemingly has. This duality places Indians FAR ahead of Pakistan in the eyes of the afghan government.

India is spending on aid whereas we provide vital trade to Afghanistan which dwarfs whatever India spends there. The goodwill that India has with the Afghan government is not a new thing. With the Tajik component in place, they have always had a working relation with India and Pakistan has problems with it because sometimes (at least historically, this has resulted in anti-Pakistani sentiments).
Also where does the writ of this Afghan Government go? Certainly not outside Kabul without massive US and ISAF support. So Lets not assume the views of the Afghan government to represent all of the Afghan people.

As deeply as India's consulates have been questioned here, the real questions surround the activities of the PAKISTANI consulates.

What are the questions? You have brought this up in the past and I have stated that they are the most monitored consulates inside of Afghanistan. There is next to nothing happening there. This is the ground reality. If Pakistan needed to maintain contacts, they would not need to do so out of their consulates in plain view of every foreign intelligence agency in Afghanistan.

NATO's objective is to leave a stable afghan government capable of protecting itself and pursuing an independant foreign policy. INDEPENDANT. Who will best influence that should NATO be successful? How likely will NATO's success be?

Afghanistan should have an independent foreign policy without a doubt because that serves Pakistan well too. Maybe the task on hand is to convince the Pakistani side that Karzai and team and their association with entities unfriendly to Pakistan are not meant to harm Pakistan. I would like nothing better than that to happen. However it is not happening. Currently only Pakistan is being asked to forgo her interests even as others are making hay in Afghanistan while the sun shines.

"Pakistan will suffer in this process but then there will not be any peace in South/Central Asia either."

A fascinating threat that the rest of us already experience daily. I really don't think your country is capable of more short of tossing your nukes about.

JMHO.

[/QUOTE]

That is not what I meant. You destabilize Pakistan, you destabilize South Asia and Central Asia. The nuclear weapons are in safer hands than those of our adversary across the border or even the Russians. I know this fairly well so the threat is not one of someone tossing the bombs. Rather what destabilizing Pakistan with civil strife would do to the region. You weaken the government further, groups all over Central and South Asia with interests around militancy would converge (as they have in other areas with excessive instability) and you have a much bigger headache than the nonsense and overblown issue of nuclear weapons falling in the wrong hands.

 

[zraver]

I would like nothing better than the poppy cultivation curtailed. Pakistan has been a major user of this export and it has destroyed many families. The key is the success. If this cultivation is stopped and the ones growing are given alternates then its good for everyone in the region.

agreed, or even simply buy the poppies. or tell them you'll pay more for wheat or corn or some such that actually benefits people.

I think their contention is with the occupation. If you have foreign forces in place, there is resistance to the idea, however more talks can pave the way for this.

Their problem is their tribesman almost had the entire cake but then got kicked out of the party. The Taliban was not ruling based on plurality and coexistence but by brute force.

Zraver, Pakistan was just being threatened with unilateral air strikes by a third country. If Pakistan is given security guarantees against this third country then Pakistan would spend the money it has on COIN. Facing the world's second largest conventional Army means that you have spend a substantial amount on conventional upkeep.

If Pakistan stops the terror attacks on India the threat goes away. Pakistan has nukes that serve as the ultimate insurance policy- India is not going to invade with out damn good cause.

Yes and as more money becomes available it will be more difficult for the other side to find succor inside Pakistan. However it cannot stop altogether. The terrain is long and inhabited by tribes across the border on both sides that share affinity with each other and provide support.

And when a family in Pakistan provides aid and comfort to a fellow tribesman from what ever side who seeks to kill my countrymen their life is forfeit. Its real simple- don't shelter insurgents and your kids won't be obliterated by Hellfires.

See not everyone within the Pashtun entity wants a war. As I said the Pashtuns are a fairly pragmatic people. If the war in Afghanistan is making them feel alienated (I am not making this up, you can read it in reports and hear from people inside Afghanistan) and Pakistani government also takes strong action against them then to them, this is an Anti-Pashtun war.

its not an anti-Pashtun war, its a war to stop a-holes like the Taliban and AQ from ever gettign thier hands on power again. If the Pashtuns want to be part of the political process they are welcome, but they need to figure out that power no longer comes from the barrel of an AK-47, but from the wing rails of a Predator and they don't have any.

My point is, till when does Pakistan go on supporting this campaign? Until the whole of Pakistan is upside down because there is no way for Pakistan to keep this contained in the FATA. Do talk to a Pashtun (15% of Pakistan's 170 million population is made up of these folks and there is bitter talk of being left out in Afghanistan and being targeted inside Pakistan). Not a very happy demographic to deal with specially when it is 15% of the total population.

If Pakistan won't then Pakistan fails. or do you expect the world to capitulate to Pakistani demands? As long as the insurgents get aid and comfort in Pakistan, then I support the air strikes. If pakistan won't control its citizens, then others have to do what they have to do to protect their own citizens. A point Pakistan might want to remember the next time a couple of Pakistani born, schooled and trained jihadist slip into India. After Mumbai I really thought India was going to unleash a can of whoopass on Pakistan.

Black gangs in the US is probably too narrow an example to equate to the current problem in my opinion. Pakistan has put pressure on TTP. When we have then the attacks against the soft targets have increased. There is no way to stop the suicide bombers. With Israel, being a fraction of the size of Pakistan, not able to effectively guard against this problem (they finally built a wall...a solution that cannot work in Pakistan for practical as well as many other reasons), how is Pakistan suppose to cope with this? While its easy for outsiders to suggest "keep on going the route"..the deaths and injuries on a daily basis are taking a massive toll on the Pakistani public.

You can control suicide bombers- make the cost to the families to high. If your not willing to go that far, then you don't want peace. The payoff for suicide attacks has to be removed.

If the US pulled out of Afghanistan tomorrow, it would end actually. There's no doubt the occupation of Afghanistan fuels resentment amongst the Pashtun communities.

Afghanistan was in the midst of a war before the US showed up after 9-11, had been at war for over 20 years. The war would not end simply because the US and NATO left. The Taliban needs to be hunted like rats, the cost of sheltering them needs to be so high no one will do it. To break an insurgency you isolate the insurgents from the population, cut off its funding, and hunt it down.

I think one of the problems the Americans on this board have in understanding to situation (or they deliberately ignore), is that the Pashtun territories do not stop at the Durand Line.

Pashtuns in Pakistan, and those in Afghanistan do not hate each other as the westernized posters on here seem to have given them the impression. There is a continuity between the Pashtun people in Afghanistan (who are the largest segment of the population), and the Pashtun people in Pakistan.

You cannot segregate the two. I would say it works for the settled NWFP also.

We understand, that since 1947 Pakistan has had its eyes on Afghanistan and so never fostered a national identity in those areas.

 

[S-2]

An extensive reply and I'll address a few points that merit more.

Your commnet about Pakistan's consulates is well-taken and, I believe accurate. They are very above-board and are closely monitored. I now view my comment as dissembling.

"This is a very good thing if it is really happening."

There is no grand reconciliation in progress. This is an age-old accomodation on a local level, and where some provincial governors or district leaders possess the acumen necessary, these things happen...or not.

There's clearly ebb and flow. At the same time, there may well be a disaffected opium farmer that doesn't like this scene and takes up arms. My point is that the mechanism is present for those who wish.

As to control of lands and the extension of the writ of state. I think the north and west are dominated by Dostum and Ismail Khan and both seemed to have denied that foothold to the taliban. South of Herat in Nimroz and Farah, however, may be untouched lands and we're going there now with our forces.

The Afghani central gov't, good times or bad, has never had a decisive influence in the countryside. In fact, it may never have been as close as now. The elections will prove important there and I'll address that more in a moment.

I understand your comment about Omar and know he represents one of many competing entities extending back to the Afghan civil war- both Haqqani and Hekmatyar retain their own ambitions. To that end, they may compete or cooperate where there's convergence. There may be other entities like Nazir or Bahadur or even ol' Sufi Mohammad a few years ago that are Pakistani in origin but contributing directly or indirectly to one afghan faction or another.

We work the edges. Omar won't negotiate. Maybe Hekmatyar will. Maybe because he's seen to do so, so too his local commanders begin cutting their best deals. You know how that goes better than I, I'm sure, from living there.

"What Pakistan wants is that when there is a proper political dispensation in Afghanistan, the Pashtuns are well represented according to their demographics."

This is EXACTLY what I want too. I don't resist a pashtu plurality if it will register and participate in the political process. Omar, as example, however is bent against this and has directed his forces to resist registration and voting efforts. This is foolish and provides us every reason to fight him.

Understand that to the extent any election can be fair in central or south Asia, Afghanistan will not lack for internat'l monitors, support, and security. We are going to do our level best to deliver a fair election. We'd LOVE to see heavy and informed pashtu participation.

All my nation asks (at least me) is that if Pashtu political power shows at the polls that this doesn't represent one man, one vote, one time. The beauty of democracy is it's self-adjusting qualities through time so long as the minority is respected as the logical voice for change and elections themselves can steer clear of party machinations.

Dissatisfaction arises new gov'ts. and eventually common cause between previously disparate elements takes hold- a pashtu and tajik farm family share more economic concerns and values than ethnic or tribal affiliation. We're talking decades of practicing the process to create the measured ebb and flow of a stabilized internal political framework.

"So Lets not assume the views of the Afghan government to represent all of the Afghan people."

We don't and America has it's own considerable issues with Afghanistan's central government. I personally think that Karzai is a good, smart, thoughtful, heart-felt man. Having said that, he's taken his nation as far as possible and needs to step aside or down to a differing role-maybe in the U.N. or something. His task has been horrific to any fair judge. He's not always been equal either. Now, he's simply weak and painfully partisan in his ambitions. His government, while possessing some men and women of stature and skill, is largely an affront to American sensibilities in nearly every respect- onerous, and painful to endure.

Endure we shall, however, for a greater cause and that's the NEXT afghan gov't and the one after that until the people's vision and the gov't finally align.

"This issue is no different than the Kurdish problem. For the Kurds to stay at peace and region to remain stable, they have to be considered in any dispensation that takes place in an equitable manner."

We concur again but it cuts both ways there. The kurds now have the best they'll ever get out of the region. The KRG, within the federated Iraqi framework, shall be the "Israel" to the Kurdish diaspora. The final redoubt of kurdish culture and to which any kurd anywhere in the world may emigrate should he find the laws of his current residence too odious to bear.

It exists by the goodwill of the sunni and shia Iraqis, Iran, Turkey, and Syria. To that end, the quid pro quo for this includes no ambitions for a "greater Kurdistan" nor the harboring of Kurdish nationist groups with agendas across their borders. Most notably the PKK.

To this end, the U.S. Army, the Peshmerga, and the Iraqi army have NOT controlled the PKK. That may be changing as a function of recent meetings between Talibani, Barzani, and Erdogan. In the interim, recognizing the intense pressure on a NATO ally by it's public to end this continuing menace, America worked with the Turkish army on three limited incursions of modest duration and depth and established joint intelligence cells with the Turkish army and the Iraqis.

We also made Talibani and Barzani issue lip-service condemnation without turning loose the peshmerga. Most kurds understand the stakes here and are willing to establish calm outside borders as they align for the internal struggle involving Mosul and Kirkuk.

My point here is that it is Iraq (and America) and the KRG's responsibility to control the PKK. In it's absence, the Turkish army has every right to retaliate. When they do so, they don't use PREDATOR.

They bring their army across.

"Afghanistan should have an independent foreign policy without a doubt because that serves Pakistan well too. Maybe the task on hand is to convince the Pakistani side that Karzai and team and their association with entities unfriendly to Pakistan are not meant to harm Pakistan."

Blain2, the key here is to allow America and others to stay as long as ferkin' possible. The afghan people are not opposed to our presence. Even now the afghan people are decisively opposed to the taliban. Below is the most extensive and current reflection of afghan sensibilities to date. The poll certainly represents the extent to which it can be safely taken, nonetheless it's revealing after seven years of war-

ABC/BBC/ARD Afghan Poll-Feb. 9, 2009

Please read it closely. Our support has eroded extensively over time but in absolute and relative comparison to the militants, the support for NGOs, America, and then ISAF is overwhelming.

I believe that the erosion in our support is correlated to the rise of the insurgency since early 2006 and the consequent demise of local security. Short of that I believe the afghan people recognize our intent and welcome such and will continue to do so until they feel that they've made the gains possible under the stewardship of the rest of mankind.

Leave us be to get this work done. It will likely take a long time even without an insurgency given the history of an armed populace, warlords, brigandry, and drug, timber, precious stone related crime. A slow leeching improvement of Afghanistan with the help of all (to include India but to include you too should Pakistan desire) will neuter much of the polarized sentiment. Afghanistan is land-locked and needs the cooperation of CAR, Iran, and Pakistan to survive from day to day.

Your role is assured should your contributions engender the faith of all in Afghanistan and not simply the Pashtu. I don't know how Pakistan views this but I'd use NATO's presence and cover as a means and opportunity to connect and work with the tajiks, uzbeks, turkomen, and hazara in an arena that's non-threatening to all.

You've spent about $28 million per year in Afghanistan.

Do something novel and spend it up north.

For too long Afghanistan has looked like a steak to be gnawed and everybody in the region has wanted a piece. Heaven help he who is left out of the feeding. Somehow it's not fractured and appears to have survived despite itself and others.

It seems destined to be it's own nation.

"You weaken the government further, groups all over Central and South Asia with interests around militancy would converge (as they have in other areas with excessive instability) and you have a much bigger headache than the nonsense and overblown issue of nuclear weapons falling in the wrong hands."

Are you holding a gun to your head?

Finally, I'll say this-if we are a source of your weakness, we aren't the only one nor the worst by far but that's just this jingoistic yank.

Thanks.

 

[blain2]

Their problem is their tribesman almost had the entire cake but then got kicked out of the party. The Taliban was not ruling based on plurality and coexistence but by brute force.

Surely they got kicked out of the party, however this was not the first time when they were in the party. They have never been out of the party and cannot remain out of the party for as long as Afghanistan is to remain a nation state. You cannot change ethnic sensibilities because you think they do not make sense.

If Pakistan stops the terror attacks on India the threat goes away. Pakistan has nukes that serve as the ultimate insurance policy- India is not going to invade with out damn good cause.

Pakistan is doing what it can. You can sit here and lecture me from your side of the fence suggesting that India won't do this or that, the fact of the matter is that Pakistan has concerns about Afghanistan because of the earlier discussed concern about finding itself surrounded by an India-centric grouping. Why Pakistan is insecure is something that needs to be looked into from the context of the lingering disputes between the two countries. For a time I thought that the Obama government was going to go about this the right way after including Pakistan, Afghanistan and India (essentially the Kashmir issue) in their new approach but this approach got the boot after meeting some initial resistance from the usual quarters. In any case, the point is that Pakistan is doing what it can with the groups that are launching attacks against India. They should ensure that such acts do not happen again, but the threat of a conventional conflagration exists thus Pakistan is forced to spend money on conventional hardware.

And when a family in Pakistan provides aid and comfort to a fellow tribesman from what ever side who seeks to kill my countrymen their life is forfeit. Its real simple- don't shelter insurgents and your kids won't be obliterated by Hellfires.

Well that approach is certainly not winning the war. It would be great if someone was able to ***** the impact of drone attacks on the operations of Taliban inside of Afghanistan. I do not think there has been any decline, on the contrary the tempo has gone up. Secondly and very straightforwardly, your countrymen will continue to provide targets to these people just by virtue of being the occupiers. The problem is that nobody knows how to go about setting Afghanistan right. The invasion was to displace the Taliban and get rid of AQ nuts, well the latter are certainly no longer calling the shots, however the Taliban problem is coalescing into a bigger Pashtun issue.

The other reality is that the Pashtuns will make the stay inconvenient for most oustiders and will outlast the current setup in Kabul. If there is one thing there is no shortage of is the ever increasing Pashtun cadres joining the ranks of those fighting the US and the ISAF. What we have seen in Pakistan is that for every militant neutralized, 2 or 3 more join from his tribe and clan. This is part of their Pashtun culture to avenge and this will go on for a while.

I doubt Hellfires will do anything to change the overall situation aside from destabilizing the Pakistani government (at this point I personally think its an eventuality so lets get on with it).

its not an anti-Pashtun war, its a war to stop a-holes like the Taliban and AQ from ever gettign thier hands on power again. If the Pashtuns want to be part of the political process they are welcome, but they need to figure out that power no longer comes from the barrel of an AK-47, but from the wing rails of a Predator and they don't have any.

Zraver,

When the Predators win the war for you then remind me again. Lets drop the jingoistic talk because US and the ISAf have been there since 2004. If this problem could have been resolved militarily then it would have given that the world's most well equipped and trained Armed Forces are operating there. You can tell me that this is because there aren't enough boots on the ground and I will tell you that you can double the number and this problem will not go away. That terrain eats up manpower. At best you will get a stalemate similar to what you have now and in that sort of an environment, you cannot push peace inside of Afghanistan and bring in stability.

If Pakistan won't then Pakistan fails. or do you expect the world to capitulate to Pakistani demands? As long as the insurgents get aid and comfort in Pakistan, then I support the air strikes. If pakistan won't control its citizens, then others have to do what they have to do to protect their own citizens. A point Pakistan might want to remember the next time a couple of Pakistani born, schooled and trained jihadist slip into India. After Mumbai I really thought India was going to unleash a can of whoopass on Pakistan.

Agreed Pakistan should control its citizens from going across. That is a matter of policy and where there this is possible, it is being done.

I'll let the last line slip. Otherwise we know how to give as good as we get it specially when it comes to the age old Indo-Pak context. It would also be good to realize that Pakistan's security concerns come up as a result of being split up by India in the past. So these concerns are not so misplaced.

In any case, lets leave Pakistan and India out of this discussion. You are mixing up things that if you want to link up will take you where you do not want to go. Let me give you a little hint and that is you resolve Pakistan's security concerns and you get peace on the Indo-Pak border then you fix half the puzzle. You cannot have that until and unless you resolve the Kashmir issue but that is a different discussion.

You can control suicide bombers- make the cost to the families to high. If your not willing to go that far, then you don't want peace. The payoff for suicide attacks has to be removed.

What families are you talking about with these suggestions? Pakistan is not going to act like Israel who have nothing to lose by demolishing the houses of Palestinians whose family members are suicide bombers. Nobody in Pakistan would stand for this. How about trying something like that in Iraq and Afghanistan first as there are plenty of local suicide bombers there? I would be very interested to know how the US fares in these attempts.
I am really amazed by these absolutely "removed from the reality" sort of suggestions.

Afghanistan was in the midst of a war before the US showed up after 9-11, had been at war for over 20 years. The war would not end simply because the US and NATO left. The Taliban needs to be hunted like rats, the cost of sheltering them needs to be so high no one will do it. To break an insurgency you isolate the insurgents from the population, cut off its funding, and hunt it down.

Yes that is the very basics of fighting an insurgency and that is what I would like to see the US do in Kandahar and other Pashtun dominated areas inside of Afghanistan first. Because if the US can succeed in something like this then maybe something very similar can be tried in the FATA. We are 5 years into this war and thus far I see nothing of the sort showing success.

We understand, that since 1947 Pakistan has had its eyes on Afghanistan and so never fostered a national identity in those areas.

LoL! My friend you really need to look up some references on the history of South Asia. Its exactly the other way around. Pakistan was carved out of what Afghans thought was theirs by the British. Pakistan is very happy with its part of the Pashtun territory and wants no more of the Afghan lands thus Pakistan has been pushing for making the status of Durrand line permanent (I hope you recall the proposal to mine and fence the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan by our side). The other side would have none of it.

Pakistani Pashtuns are fully integrated into the Pakistani society which makes it all the harder for Pakistan to take on the Pashtuns. The status of FATA is not something that Pakistan just came up with. The British left it that way, when Pakistan was founded, the Pakistani government asked the tribesmen if they would want to become part of the Pakistani federation, however they opted to stay as a Federally administered territory with their own local customs and ways.