This proves my point. When the army commits itself, it can defeat the militants or at least drive them out. How, then, did we reach a point where 80% of Swat is under Taliban control?
Look we both agree that boots on the ground are what it takes, but you seem unwilling to actually do it. You can't deflect things by saying someone else knows best because you could say that about anything.
Think about what you're saying. You want to negotiate and make concessions to the Taliban -- a force literally around 1000 times smaller than the army -- yet stand up and be all macho to the Indians -- a force twice as large and better equipped. Either you're tough and macho and should stand up to the Taliban as well, or the whole thing is an act anyway. You don't make concessions to vastly inferior forces if you're strong.
I thought Asim summed up my answer to your post in one post, but the 'swift' part seems to have generated a fair bit of controversy so I'll respond without that.
The gist of Asim's comment is accurate - we can gain territory back from the Taliban by applying the correct resources and tactics, and we will have the support of the world behind us. An insurgency cannot literally hold onto territory and that has been shown time and time again in Pakistan. They can show their influence in other ways of course, and that is where the political solution comes in.
It is extremely unlikely that territory ceded to the Indians in conflict will ever be recovered, nor is the world community anythign to count on on this matter. The shamelessness of the world community I have already pointed out, in how it self-servingly chooses to ignore or overlook the international commitments and violations of larger more powerful nations, while sanctioning and 'invading' lesser ones. In an environment like that, Pakistan just cannot take th erisk fo losing rterritory to Indian aggression, and then waiting for the non-existent ire and pressure of the world community to be applied on India - history around the UNSC violations by India show any such hopes to be a farcical.
When the Taliban publicly announces that they will be going around burning down girls' schools... why were they not guarded?
Why did the army disarm local militias who wanted to fight the Taliban, and then abandon them? Why did the army claim that destroying a mobile FM transmitter is too difficult for it to accomplish?
As for not guarding every single school - the issue is one of numbers. Placing a dozen guards at every school is not going to cut it, when the Taliban can congregate from smaller groups into a large force of a few dozen to hundreds at short notice. This spread out troop/FC presence in FATA in the beginning a year or so ago led to a rash of such assaults on small posts throughout Waziristan, many resulting in the posts being overrun. Even here, a pretty heavily manned FC/Police post, during an operation, was overrun by a group of allegedly a few hundred.
More than just 'guards', we need properly trained and equipped troops and the proper support (logistics and rapid reinforcements) to back them up.
In any case, the sorts of number required here leads us back to the Indo-Pak debate, and I have articulated my views on that count.
Pakistan never armed the local militias in Swat AFAIK, though the idea was floated. There was strong opposition to this idea from the get go, in that it woudl lead to the creation of more armed militias down the road, and then possibly result in inter militia conflicts etc. Even the US plans to pursue such a policy are in controversy over similar concerns.
If the FM transmitter was so easy to locate, why hasn't the US sent a hellfire over courtesy Predator to take him out? I assume Mullah FM is not on 'people friendly to the US list'. Don't know why he hasn't been jammed more effectively. He was for a while, but then he mysteriously obtained more powerful transmitters and got around that, and per reports (whose veracity I cannot confirm) the PA is concerned about jamming its own communications and broadcasts by resorting to more high powered jammers. That is I am afraid the extent of my information on that issue, and I haven't gotten a clearer answer from other sources either.
As for blaming the ANP peace deals (which I agree with you were a horrible idea) you conveniently forget all the peace deals the army itself has made with the Taliban. The Waziristan Accord? How about the peace deals it made with Baitullah Mehsud at the same time as the ANP was making theirs?
I am not 'conveniently' forgetting them, you are unaware of the direction of the discourse since you choose to just jump right in and make assumptions about my positions on the issues without knowing what has been discussed in the past.
The peace deals were necessary the first time around, any nation in Pakistan's position woudl have tried them given the historical status of FATA. They didn't work out unfortunately. The second round of 'peace deals' were less wise, and lasted for an even shorter duration, but again, domestic public opinion and the rising resentment towards Musharraf necessitated the 'deals' be tried once again.
The third time around it was the PPP led government, and they had campaigned, as had most of the other party's, on an anti-Musharraf platform and painted his efforts to obtain a solution in FATA through dialog as insincere. So guess what they had to try as soon as they cam into power? More 'sincere' peace deals. The Army was on offensives in both Waziristan and Swat at that time with reasonable success in both. Surprisingly the 'peace deal' in Waziristan has held to some extent, through whatever understanding was reached. The results of the 'peace deal' in Swat are horrible, as can be seen here.
The perception of Swat being worse or the deals having failed, relative to Waziristan, is also in large part due to the fact that unlike Waziristan, there is a lot to lose here, being a settled district.
By the way, why do you think India even wants to invade Pakistan? If they wanted to punish Pakistan for some reason, they could do that without ground troops. You think they enjoy Kashmir so much they want a problem 100 times bigger?
I didn't say they plan on occupying all of Pakistan, I did argue that they would capture chunks of territory, especially along the LoC and that would be the end of it.
On why they wished to start a war, despite Pakistan's assurances of cooperation, you woudl have to ask their leadership that was throwing these tantrums.
Trying to appease them with sharia -- admitting that the government is completely powerless and chooses to submit rather than fight -- and then withdrawing troops so they can focus on India or Mullah FM or whatever wild goose chase you choose will lead to the same disasters as all of the other peace deals brokered with the Taliban. Absolutely nothing is being accomplished except Pakistan is giving in to their demands and giving them more power. All of the ground they will win in order to gain a position of strength in negotiation (as you assume the purpose is) will be lost.
What is Pakistan getting in return? Oh, I'm so sure thousands of militants will lay down their arms, just like what happened with the ANP deal you criticize! Yeah right! They will be marching around enforcing sharia however they see fit, weakening local structures even more.
The Shariah Bill was first discussed during Bhutto's time, and is part of the solution. "Appeasing them" would be to allow them to permanently put restrictions on girls education etc. So far that does not seem the case with this bill.
It is also Pakistan's prerogative as to what political solution it chooses to adopt. I believe this is an extremely viable solution, that should be extended to FATA as well. It takes away the excuses and 'cause' the insurgents have. The effort here is to bring back peace and stability, disarm as many insurgents as possible, and offer the residents education and development, and wean away those who resorted to insurgency through lack of opportunity and a 'religious cause'. Those who were in this for power or crime will not care what the GoP does, but they will be greatly weakened if the GoP implements this solution properly, and gets influential religious figures committed to non-violence on board.
So no., I do not see it as appeasement, I see it as a necessary part of the political solution that must be adopted.
