The Swat Negotiations

[qsaark]

Chalo bhai, now you are crediting it to the army that has been killing these people and is responsible for erupting the war in the first place. Remember 2004?.

I maintain my earlier statement that the time is different now. I am not crediting it to the Army. I have said that there is as much pressure on Zardari from the Army as much it is from the US. Since he is a politician, not a military dictator, he has to think atleast a little bit of his own people else he will be out in the next elections. And then, timings are just bad. Ever increasing Drone attacks have finally united the three Taliban fractions. Army losses are so high in Sawat, that they are forced to review the whole situation (see what Athar Abbas has said yesterday).

and NO, USA has more influence if you are talking about regime change. Even when Musharraf took over, first he went to Washington to get "ashirwad" from Clinton and then he staged the coup. He was the most pro-American leader of Pakistan had seen, as they were the ones that gave him the power in the first place.

US has influence on the Army. But even the Army can support US's ambitions so far. Yes, Musharraf was the most pro-US Pakistani dictator. However, now it is Kiyani, who appears to be a little different from his previous boss.

 

[Zovc]

Chalo bhai, now you are crediting it to the army that has been killing these people and is responsible for erupting the war in the first place. Remember 2004?.

I maintain my earlier statement that the time is different now. I am not crediting it to the Army. I have said that there is as much pressure on Zardari from the Army as much it is from the US. Since he is a politician, not a military dictator, he has to think atleast a little bit of his own people else he will be out in the next elections. And then, timings are just bad. Ever increasing Drone attacks have finally united the three Taliban fractions. Army losses are so high in Sawat, that they are forced to review the whole situation (see what Athar Abbas has said yesterday).

and NO, USA has more influence if you are talking about regime change. Even when Musharraf took over, first he went to Washington to get "ashirwad" from Clinton and then he staged the coup. He was the most pro-American leader of Pakistan had seen, as they were the ones that gave him the power in the first place.

US has influence on the Army. But even the Army can support US's ambitions so far. Yes, Musharraf was the most pro-US Pakistani dictator. However, now it is Kiyani, who appears to be a little different from his previous boss.

Basically Pakistan army is Amreeca ke "Mohtaj", they cannot survive in the India-Pakistan arm race if USA pulls support and defense weaponry supply. That is why history has witnessed all army dictators to be extremely pro-USA. It's not just Musharraf, Zia etc were also the same.

Normally all this US pressure we talk about it channeled through the PA, so i doubt they could be pressurizing the government on opposite opinions.

I agree with the point that these politicians need to keep the awams interest at large as they need to face the next elections aswell. But how does that make a difference, even if they do something good because of that reason, they are still doing something good.

 

[ajpirzada]

Basically Pakistan army is Amreeca ke "Mohtaj", they cannot survive in the India-Pakistan arm race if USA pulls support and defense weaponry supply. That is why history has witnessed all army dictators to be extremely pro-USA. It's not just Musharraf, Zia etc were also the same.

Normally all this US pressure we talk about it channeled through the PA, so i doubt they could be pressurizing the government on opposite opinions.

I agree with the point that these politicians need to keep the awams interest at large as they need to face the next elections aswell. But how does that make a difference, even if they do something good because of that reason, they are still doing something good.

all the dictators were pro US not bec of Pak-India arm race but bec they needed someone to support them in international arena. and US, bec of her own strategic interests in the region, supported them and later used them for her own benefit

 

[moha199]

Chalo bhai, now you are crediting it to the army that has been killing these people and is responsible for erupting the war in the first place. Remember 2004?.

I maintain my earlier statement that the time is different now. I am not crediting it to the Army. I have said that there is as much pressure on Zardari from the Army as much it is from the US. Since he is a politician, not a military dictator, he has to think atleast a little bit of his own people else he will be out in the next elections. And then, timings are just bad. Ever increasing Drone attacks have finally united the three Taliban fractions. Army losses are so high in Sawat, that they are forced to review the whole situation (see what Athar Abbas has said yesterday).

and NO, USA has more influence if you are talking about regime change. Even when Musharraf took over, first he went to Washington to get "ashirwad" from Clinton and then he staged the coup. He was the most pro-American leader of Pakistan had seen, as they were the ones that gave him the power in the first place.

US has influence on the Army. But even the Army can support US's ambitions so far. Yes, Musharraf was the most pro-US Pakistani dictator. However, now it is Kiyani, who appears to be a little different from his previous boss.

Man let me ask you one question what is up with you and others being so hostile against USA. You ask for money from usa then you ask for weapons from usa???? You want everything from usa but in return you expect US to give you everything scot free!!!!!! what a bunch of Bull ****. Man i am Pakistani but atleast iam not a hypocrite. Man Pakistan will suffer badly soon if Pakistani people don't put their trust on their army... Watch and see Pakistan going down the drain because of people like you guys! Everyone who is so hatred towards their own army who gave blood on heart beat for Pakistan but you guys can just talk **** about them by either siting abroad or in a net cafe in Pakistan. SHAME ON ALL ARMY HATREDS

 

[ajpirzada]

Man let me ask you one question what is up with you and others being so hostile against USA. You ask for money from usa then you ask for weapons from usa???? You want everything from usa but in return you expect US to give you everything scot free!!!!!! what a bunch of Bull ****. Man i am Pakistani but atleast iam not a hypocrite. Man Pakistan will suffer badly soon if Pakistani people don't put their trust on their army... Watch and see Pakistan going down the drain because of people like you guys! Everyone who is so hatred towards their own army who gave blood on heart beat for Pakistan but you guys can just talk **** about them by either siting abroad or in a net cafe in Pakistan. SHAME ON ALL ARMY HATREDS

nop. its rational for ppl living in balochistan and NWFP to not like army. in NWFP alone there are more than .5 million ppl who are currently not living in their homes coz of army operation. remember everyone puts his own family before anyone else's. wateva the reason might be for the operation but in the end its these ppl who arer gettin effected.
during musharraf's time, army operation was also carried out in balochistan and Bugti was killed.
now if we want them to start likin army or pakistan or punjabis etc we will have to make sure this never happens again. and also they are given their rights. projects lik gwadar should be initiated making sure that locals benefit.

 

[S-2]

"in NWFP alone there are more than .5 million ppl who are currently not living in their homes coz of army operation."

At least that's what the sympathizers to the militants say, correct? Any chance that these people are displaced because it became intolerable for a nation to accept beheadings and hangings in public squares, schools destroyed, children denied education, commerce choked, etc?

Any chance at all because, otherwise, a comment such as yours tells the whole story?

 

[ajpirzada]

At least that's what the sympathizers to the militants say, correct? Any chance that these people are displaced because it became intolerable for a nation to accept beheadings and hangings in public squares, schools destroyed, children denied education, commerce choked, etc?

Any chance at all because, otherwise, a comment such as yours tells the whole story?

yes and also those who think force is not a solution to this problem. we have seen u fighting in afghanistan for last 8 yrs without achieving anything. dont u think it will be wise decision to not follow ur path?? and look for some political solution

 

[S-2]

"...dont u think it will be wise decision to not follow ur path?? and look for some political solution"

It is if you're not morally committed to your objectives. NATO/ISAF FIGHTS because there is an insurgency that is bent upon seeing the U.N.'s mandate for Afghanistan unfulfilled. That insurgency resides in Pakistan where today there's much celebration because Mullah Omar (the leader of the defeated taliban government of Afghanistan and whom resides safely in Pakistan while directing his insurgency) has called for the cessation of attacks within Pakistan and that all efforts should be directed against Afghanistan.

Are you morally committed to the U.N. objective of raising forth Afghanistan to the family of nations or would you prefer that it slip back into the abyss in which it found itself on 9/11?

NATO/ISAF/GoA have made clear that they'll speak with any group that disarms and is prepared to work within the political structure of the Afghan constitution. None of those entities, however ineptly they've performed, have surrendered that obligation to Afghanistan's citizens.

So negotiation isn't the question. No nation, though, negotiates under the threat of a gun unless their self-assuredness is so bankrupt as to compel abandonment of values and sovereignty.

 

[ajpirzada]

It is if you're not morally committed to your objectives. NATO/ISAF FIGHTS because there is an insurgency that is bent upon seeing the U.N.'s mandate for Afghanistan unfulfilled. That insurgency resides in Pakistan where today there's much celebration because Mullah Omar (the leader of the defeated taliban government of Afghanistan and whom resides safely in Pakistan while directing his insurgency) has called for the cessation of attacks within Pakistan and that all efforts should be directed against Afghanistan.

Yes UN has set a goal and we have to achieve it. now i dont agree with how US tried to achieve it and is still tryin. few days back ur official said that a truce lik pak swat will be acceptable in afghanistan. then y is world busy criticising us goin for a same deal.
also ur claim of insurgency resides in pakistan is wrong. im not sayin ppl from pakistan dont go to afghanistan but the question is wats their number?? their number is not big enough to effect the whole war. our army is fighting more foreigners than pakistanis who are comin in either from afghanistan or through afghanistan. y doesnt ur forces stop them from enterin pakistan instead of complainin when they go back to afghanistan and fight them. also why should i not feel happy when the opponent says we will not target pak army. is pak army not my army. i do feel when my soldier dies. we give away our lives and also listen to ur annoyin do more do more song. also have u ever questioned where are they gettin their weapons from?? and funding?? obviously they are gettin it from somewhere but atleast not from pakistan.

Are you morally committed to the U.N. objective of raising forth Afghanistan to the family of nations or would you prefer that it slip back into the abyss in which it found itself on 9/11?

UN, a body which legalises all the illegal. few countries with veto power can decide the fate of poor. when it comes to morals, UN is not the best example which comes to my mind.
i dont want afghanistan to go back pre 9/11 but also i dont agree with the way u r tryin to set things rit and espacially not when that puts the security of my ppl at stake.

NATO/ISAF/GoA have made clear that they'll speak with any group that disarms and is prepared to work within the political structure of the Afghan constitution. None of those entities, however ineptly they've performed, have surrendered that obligation to Afghanistan's citizens.
So negotiation isn't the question. No nation, though, negotiates under the threat of a gun unless their self-assuredness is so bankrupt as to compel abandonment of values and sovereignty

its not about ur soverignity, its about theirs. so wat u said is rit. no nation negotiates on her soverignity.

 

[S-2]

Nazir, Mehsud, Bahadur, Haqqani, Hekmatyar, and Rehman-to name a few- aren't uzbek, turkoman, or tajik. They're pashtu and at least four of them are Pakistani. It's from your land that they've made war since 2002. Thousands of innocents in Afghanistan are dead because of it.

The U.N. is no faceless body here. Forty one NATO and non-NATO allies have their young men and women in harm's way to do something there which has NOTHING to do with conquest, global domination, or spheres of influence. They're are trying to raise a nation from the stone age.

Pakistanis have zero right to criticize the U.N.'s efforts given your abysmal mentoring and stewardship of the taliban government and it's consequences. You should be fully onboard. That you're not says plenty about Pakistani continuing ambitions to manipulate afghani internal affairs.

Sad.

 

[moha199]

Nazir, Mehsud, Bahadur, Haqqani, Hekmatyar, and Rehman-to name a few- aren't uzbek, turkoman, or tajik. They're pashtu and at least four of them are Pakistani. It's from your land that they've made war since 2002. Thousands of innocents in Afghanistan are dead because of it.

The U.N. is no faceless body here. Forty one NATO and non-NATO allies have their young men and women in harm's way to do something there which has NOTHING to do with conquest, global domination, or spheres of influence. They're are trying to raise a nation from the stone age.

Pakistanis have zero right to criticize the U.N.'s efforts given your abysmal mentoring and stewardship of the taliban government and it's consequences. You should be fully onboard. That you're not says plenty about Pakistani continuing ambitions to manipulate afghani internal affairs.

Sad.

wait a minute S2 buddy what happened to all the drugs which has been grown in afganistan under US and NAto supervision ?????? three trillion dollars worth of drugs were sold through Afganistan!!! it was on news in US so please we know as american that how crook our governments and armed forces heads can be!!!! we all know this in US so stop playing stupid or dumb. if not then watch again "american gangster" There are reasons that we as americans are not succeeded in afganistan so far!!! Some times i read your posts and i see that western radical in you so you need to change your attitude here.... You could always do something good when you realized how to be in some ones shoes. Bombing is not the way wars are not the way but i agree that listening to US all the times is also not the way to run a country. We are americans and our ideas are our and they can only work in our lands not in that part of the world. Pakistani army can't wage full war against their our terrorist since terrorist are hiding among their own people and in full war there is a loss of innocent people and Pakistani army can't take a risk of killing their own civilians so this is where we have differences .........

 

[Neo]

Debate over Swat ‘peace deal’​

The evenly poised debate over the ANP government’s “peace deal” in Swat will heat up further with Sufi Muhammad’s announcement of conditions applicable to both the state troops and the Taliban. He has asked the Taliban to remove all their checkposts and not to display arms in the Swat valley; and he has asked the government to withdraw troops from schools and other buildings and stop all military operations immediately. He has also called on the Taliban and the government to release each other’s prisoners and has asked employees of the district administration to resume their duties, and the government to reinstate such Frontier Corps men, police and government officials who were sacked during the past few years.

Interpreting these demands will once again divide the political analysts. Developments in Swat will remain uncertain until all ambiguities are removed. There are things to be said in favour of the two opposed positions. Until the situation becomes clearer it is advisable to let the debate be academic and eschew bitterness. The people of Swat have definitely welcomed the change which Sufi Muhammad has brought about. They have placed their trust in his advocacy and opened their businesses. The boys’ schools are functioning but the girls are still not confident enough to venture out of their homes.

Those who favour the deal have reason to feel good — so far. As if in sympathy, the warlords of Bajaur have issued ceasefire instructions and told their warriors not to fire at Pakistani troops. The announcement from the TTP spokesman Maulvi Faqir Muhammad is so categorical that it sounds final; but then, he has made such statements before and they did not amount to much. However, the army in Bajaur seems to point to another reason: the Taliban have been pushed back and the state expects soon to have its writ restored in the entire Bajaur Agency.

The ANP-PPP alliance is in favour of the peace deal in Swat. Their united stance satisfies also the opposition which has been opposed to army action anywhere in the tribal areas. The army has backed the deal, after which only the individual intellectual sceptic remains fearful of what might finally happen to the deal. The world outside began by criticising the deal but is now divided just like opinion in Pakistan.

The sceptics have a point and ignoring them will compound the folly of negotiating with the Taliban from a position of weakness. The first point they make is that all such deals made in the past have broken down and served to strengthen the Taliban and weaken the state. The second point is that this “approach” does not gibe with the “objective”. Is it “legal reform” that is needed or is it “peace” which is the priority? The fact on the ground is that “peace” is the objective but the instrumentality is sharia. The assumption is that since the Taliban wanted sharia, its provision in Swat will pacify them and bring the region to normal. And “normal” means nothing if it doesn’t signify the restoration of the writ of the state.

Major-General Athar Abbas of the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), speaking at the Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI) on Monday, said that the “non-state actors” in Swat could not be stopped because “the militants continued getting funds from inimical forces”. As for the people of Swat, who clearly did not vote for sharia when they elected the ANP in the last elections, are they ready to buy peace at any price, even if that means living under the “foreign-funded” Taliban? This would mean that they favour an ouster of the state troops from the valley, caring little for the writ of the state. Despite the fact that the army is “keeping all its options open”, if the deal runs into difficulties, the situation will become more intractable than it is now.

 

[Neo]

Fazlullah declares indefinite ceasefire​

* Asks his men to stop displaying weapons, end attacks on military vehicles
* Warns against fresh troop deployment, orders NGOs out
* Security forces block Taliban chief’s radio channel during speech​

MINGORA: Swat Taliban declared an indefinite ceasefire in the valley on Tuesday, and freed four policemen and three Frontier Constabulary troops.

The decision was made in a meeting of the Taliban shura (council) on Tuesday, Taliban spokesman Muslim Khan said.

Taliban chief Mullah Fazlullah announced the decision in a speech that was cut short when the security forces blocked the transmission of his FM radio channel.

He asked his men to stop displaying weapons, end their armed patrols and not to attack security convoys or abduct government officials, according to copies of the speech sent to the media.

He urged the government to restore all officials removed during the unrest in Swat.

A private TV channel said the security forces had imported equipment to jam the radio transmission and used it for the first time on Tuesday.

Fazlullah ordered his commanders to disband their checkpoints, which he said created “unnecessary problems” for residents.

Taliban had set up checkpoints in several areas of Swat where they checked all travellers. One security official expressed hope that the illegal checkpoints would be removed following the speech.

The Taliban chief also stopped all non-government organisations from operating in the valley until sharia law’s implementation.

“All NGOs should leave Swat because they are creating problems for peace,” Fazlullah said in the speech. But he added that emergency medical crews were exempt from the order.

It is not clear how many charities operate in the valley.

Fazlullah called on soldiers deployed in Swat to remain at their bases, vowing to retaliate against any troop increases.

No date has been announced for sharia law to take effect in the valley. It is not clear, either, how the system, which supporters say will be faster than the penal courts, will be implemented or who will be responsible for justice.

Meanwhile, more than 500 police officials returned to their duties in the valley following last week’s agreement between the NWFP government and Sufi Muhammad that includes the implementation of sharia law in Malakand division.

More policemen are expected to return to their offices in two days, the state-run APP news agency reported.

The move follows Malakand police chief’s announcement of ‘amnesty’ for the officials who had quit their jobs as Taliban took control of parts of the valley. staff report/ app/daily times monitor

 

[ajpirzada]

Nazir, Mehsud, Bahadur, Haqqani, Hekmatyar, and Rehman-to name a few- aren't uzbek, turkoman, or tajik. They're pashtu and at least four of them are Pakistani. It's from your land that they've made war since 2002. Thousands of innocents in Afghanistan are dead because of it.

u need to read my previous post. i never said there are no pakistanis fighting u guys in afghanistan. but they are not the ones who are effecting ur so called war on terror there. also ppl who are following them are mostly foreigners.
and civilians dying in afghanistan are not bec of them but bec of u lot. u r killing civillians on both sides of the border. even ur puppet karzai says that u r killin civilians.

The U.N. is no faceless body here. Forty one NATO and non-NATO allies have their young men and women in harm's way to do something there which has NOTHING to do with conquest, global domination, or spheres of influence. They're are trying to raise a nation from the stone age.

y did UN allow US to attack afghanistan when investigation was not even complete. also afghanis were askin u for a proof and u never gave one so y would u expect them to hand over ppl to u only bec u are sayin so. not everyone comes under ur sphere of influence. even today wat proof do u have that 9/11 was carried out by so called al qaeda. u r not tryin to raise a nation from stone age rather u r sendin it to stone age. tell me how many roads have u built there?? wat about power plants which u have set up?? forget all that wat about normal telephone line or a distilation plant?? so how are u expecting to bring them out of stone age??

Pakistanis have zero right to criticize the U.N.'s efforts given your abysmal mentoring and stewardship of the taliban government and it's consequences. You should be fully onboard. That you're not says plenty about Pakistani continuing ambitions to manipulate afghani internal affairs.

we supported taliban gov and we didnt do anything wrong. they were our neighbours and having gud relations with them was in our national interests. also they didnt do anything to the world and neither to us then y would u expect us to not support them. their activities were restricted to their own land and that was their internal matter. we have always been onboard but dont expect us to do anything which goes against our national interest. we dont want u to bring ur war in pakistan and therefore we gonna go for political solution rather than military which so far has failed miserably