Swat deal shows Pakistan’s weakness: US think tank

[Moscow]

swat was a princely state till 60s or 70s (not sure). when it became a part of pakistan their law was abolished. since then they have been demanding their very same law which was simpler and cheaper. now there is no such demand in other parts of pakistan. and if there is, its only restricted to few ppl. talibans can only spread their influence where they ll find some public support which apparently they are failing to find.

they did try to establish their influence in bajur but bec they lacked local support they were finally crushed. same goes for other parts of fata where locals have formed lashkars to fight talibans.

now bec the main demand of locals have been met, so if talibans dont lay down their arms gov will be in a much better position to take action against them. locals will be on gov side. and i think taliban won just lay down their weapons and finally gov will have to take some action. but this was a necessary step to win against them.

and yes you are rit, if gov would have met local demand of shariah law a dacade back then today we would not be seein ourself negotiating with taliban.

thanks sir for that elaborate answer there much appreciated but there again comes up the question in your very post you said that the taliban did try to implement its sphere to influence in other pasts also unsuccessfully though
then dosent it prove the intentions of the taliban clearly that they are looking much beyond for now they dont have support but then in the future they would pose a direct threat to the GOP and then they would be much stronger as they already have a place now to increase their influence and power aka swat province isnt it more logical then to get rid of the taliban and implement the sharia law without them arnt pakistan sowing its seeds for a bigger conflict later.

 

[ajpirzada]

thanks sir for that elaborate answer there much appreciated but there again comes up the question in your very post you said that the taliban did try to implement its sphere to influence in other pasts also unsuccessfully though
then dosent it prove the intentions of the taliban clearly that they are looking much beyond for now they dont have support but then in the future they would pose a direct threat to the GOP and then they would be much stronger as they already have a place now to increase their influence and power aka swat province isnt it more logical then to get rid of the taliban and implement the sharia law without them arnt pakistan sowing its seeds for a bigger conflict later.

they will pose a direct threat to the GoP only when their influence increases. and their influence will only increase when ppl are against the gov. so i think fulfiling ppls demand to get them on ur side and then fighting taliban is a right way fwd. if we do the opposite, things will get a lot more messy. local wont be happy with the gov coz their demand would still not have been met. this will allow taliban to exploit them and make them fight against the gov therefore giving rise to a kind of mutiny.

 

[Ratus Ratus]

Ok since you lot are all fired up about fundamentally a very short paragraph in a news paper quote.

Try answering the following as they are highly significant to your hysterics.

1. What is the title of the so called think tank report?
This was NOT included in the news paper article, serious source error for valid reporting but good enough for sensational media work.

2. What is the date of this report?
Heck is this current or old hat. The media has in the past dragged out old reports, ignored the date and polished comments as if it was tomorrow.

Comments like this 'The United States may even move to expand its unilateral airstrikes and covert operations deeper into Pakistani territory,' seem to suggest an old report and not something the US president has moved on, in fact he has discounted.

The report is dangerous and should be treaded as something produced by a bunch of self interested people who are in the business of selling so called intelligence. NOTE intelligence not fact.

Also for the uninitiated a think tank is there for profit it is not a US government policy maker.

 

[Moscow]

they will pose a direct threat to the GoP only when their influence increases. and their influence will only increase when ppl are against the gov. so i think fulfiling ppls demand to get them on ur side and then fighting taliban is a right way fwd. if we do the opposite, things will get a lot more messy. local wont be happy with the gov coz their demand would still not have been met. this will allow taliban to exploit them and make them fight against the gov therefore giving rise to a kind of mutiny.

your answer is exactly correct sir it depends on how the pakistani goverment is willing to act so the entire quote by the americans is correct that the swat deal shows pakistans weakness if only the GOP had taken the confidence of the people of swat before then the taliban would not have gained ground its a failure on the part of the goverment and have been acknowledged.

now its true that GOP needs to do more now so that other provinces does not act the way of the swat and it should be done.members here were opposing that the US statement is wrong now they can see that facts on what basis it was said.
when they say pakistan he mean the pakistani establishment and they are right the deal clearly shows that the goverment over the years have been a failure and this recent law is another step in its failure list.

 

[ajpirzada]

your answer is exactly correct sir it depends on how the pakistani goverment is willing to act so the entire quote by the americans is correct that the swat deal shows pakistans weakness if only the GOP had taken the confidence of the people of swat before then the taliban would not have gained ground its a failure on the part of the goverment and have been acknowledged.

now its true that GOP needs to do more now so that other provinces does not act the way of the swat and it should be done.members here were opposing that the US statement is wrong now they can see that facts on what basis it was said.
when they say pakistan he mean the pakistani establishment and they are right the deal clearly shows that the goverment over the years have been a failure and this recent law is another step in its failure list.

if this report means that old policies which have been followed for last 6 7 yrs have made pakistan weaker, then yes they are rit. but if they want to say that this step will make pakistan weaker, then no it wont. increase in local support for the gov does not make any country weak but strengthens it

 

[rubyjackass]

can any pakistani friend here confirm me which other state or part of pakistan has the support of locals when it comes to sharia law.
members here have argued that it was the locals who supported this specific law so it was implemented fine does it imply then that the taliban would not spread its influence or go on capturing other towns outside the area and try to implement the same rule?

also what happens when if the taliban doesnt give up its arms then wont pakistan be in state of a civil war? what will be the line of action then? why did the goverment of pakistan need the help of the taliban to implement this rule this could have been done even without negotiating will taliban then the question of IF would not have arised isnt it ?

Nice question. If we know the list of places where people are pro-Shariat now(in the eyes of members here). We may check this list against the list where Shariat is going to be imposed in the future(God forbid).

Some people here, as soon as Sufi proposed the Shariat deal came out claiming that is what Swat wanted.

 

[IceCold]

Nice question. If we know the list of places where people are pro-Shariat now(in the eyes of members here). We may check this list against the list where Shariat is going to be imposed in the future(God forbid).

Some people here, as soon as Sufi proposed the Shariat deal came out claiming that is what Swat wanted.

So now we need to learn that from an Indian what people of SWAT may have wanted if not Sharia. Get it over with.

 

[thorosius]

There are gonna be deals every where in Afghanistan sooner or later. Obama is new and he's just gonna take some time to grasp the fact that he cannot simply crush Taliban with weapons. Why should we be fighting and killing our own when US is backing down in Afghanistan?

 

[rubyjackass]

So now we need to learn that from an Indian what people of SWAT may have wanted if not Sharia. Get it over with.

??
What I said was a fact. I did not judge those people's claims.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

can any pakistani friend here confirm me which other state or part of pakistan has the support of locals when it comes to sharia law.

I do not believe there is a regional breakdown of support for Shariah.

However, a poll conducted a year or so ago indicated that 65 percent (IIRC) of Pakistanis supported Shariah.

That support has to be looked at in light of the fact that every Pakistani would have a different interpretation of Shariah, and what it entails.

 

[ajpirzada]

??
What I said was a fact. I did not judge those people's claims.

wat u said is not a fact. its the impression which u get when u live outside pakistan. shariah deal, lik i said many times, was signed in 1994 and 1998 but it didnt get implemented. ppl of swat have been demanding shariah since they became part of pakistan. and all the political parties promised them that shariah will be implemented lik it was when swat a princely state

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Here is a pretty comprehensive poll by TFT from Jan 2008 on Pakistani attitudes

http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/TFT%20Pakistan Poll Report.pdf