What's new

The World Frets And Hopes For The Best

Status
Not open for further replies.

Solomon2

BANNED
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
19,475
Reaction score
-37
Country
United States
Location
United States
logo_reasonably_small.jpg


The World Frets And Hopes For The Best

May 5, 2013: In Pakistan the military leadership is not happy with the situation inside their country. The most immediate annoyance is the arrest of former dictator and head of the military Pervez Musharraf on April 19 th . Musharraf had returned from exile recently to run for president (“to save the country”) but misjudged the degree of popular hatred for his years of military rule and the military in general. This is the first time such a senior military officer has been arrested. While the current leadership of the military has an idea of why this is so, many retired generals and admirals are clueless and threatening some kind of retaliation. The generals currently in charge know better and understand the officers and troops are increasingly split over what to do. Half a century of just seizing control of the government for 5-10 years at a time no longer works for the generals and the treatment of Musharraf (who took over in 1999 and was eased out by popular disgust with military rule in 2008) is the evidence none of the generals want to see.

Aside from the ever-present corruption, the big problem is Islamic terrorism, which the military has actively supported since the 1970s. This eventually backfired badly. When the Taliban (a creation of the Pakistani military) took over Afghanistan in the mid-1990s, gave al Qaeda sanctuary and got nailed by the U.S. for supporting the September 11, 2001 attacks, Pakistan found itself at war with Islamic terrorism (the alternative being war with the United States). This led to the death of 47,000 Pakistanis, most of them civilians killed by Islamic terrorists.

The military blames all this on the Americans and most Pakistanis agree. Blaming someone else for your mess is a fairly common human reaction and one that is particularly popular in Pakistan. Blame shifting will not solve anything and the military is unable to escape responsibility for causing the current mess. A growing number of Pakistanis are admitting as much. Pakistanis also can’t help but notice that Bangladesh (formerly “East Pakistan”) did not adopt Islamic terrorism in the 1970s (after seceding from Pakistan in 1973) and has had far fewer problems (and casualties) from Islamic terrorism since then. Bangladesh still has the corruption (which thrives throughout South Asia) but is generally seen as a safer and saner place to live.

The military leadership would like to be done with the United States and sees the 2014 withdrawal of most NATO forces from Afghanistan as an opportunity to interfere more energetically in Afghan politics. But while the troops will be gone, NATO and the U.S. will not. Pakistan is still a sanctuary for Islamic terrorists and this makes all of the neighbors (including China) unhappy and the military is still dominated by officers who will not abandon the monster (Islamic terrorism) they created.

Islamic radicalism was supposed to deal with the corruption and provide a powerful weapon against India. This failed on both counts and is now killing more and more Pakistanis. Worst of all it has emboldened the politicians into believing that they can actually exercise control of the military. While the constitution calls for this, the generals have never accepted this concept. But the generals have lost a lot of popular support and fear another coup attempt may be one to many and could trigger a civil war that would destroy the good life the senior officers (especially the retired ones) have enjoyed for over half a century. To the West this is a very scary situation, because the Pakistani generals control over a hundred nuclear weapons and civil war would put those weapons at risk (of being used or seized by Islamic terrorists). The Pakistani concept of progress seems to mean going from bad to worse.

Pakistan’s neighbors China, Afghanistan and India are concerned about this mess. China sells Pakistan weapons and consumer goods and considers Pakistan one of its few allies. That said, a Pakistani meltdown can’t really hurt China much. Afghanistan and India are another story. Both countries have suffered from decades of Pakistani meddling and fear even more pain if Pakistan should implode. The rest of the world also fears this because Pakistan would likely remain a terrorist sanctuary, but one with loose nukes added to the mix. No one, not even India, wants to go in and try to set things right. So the world frets and hopes for the best. The other neighbor, Iran, sees an opportunity. Shia Muslims are a minority (about a fifth of the population) in Pakistan and under growing attack from Sunni Islamic terrorists. Iran has tried to persuade Pakistan to do more to protect its Shia, but chaos and collapse in Pakistan is seen by Iran as an opportunity to help their fellow Shia and maybe grab a stray nuclear weapon.

Meanwhile the generals have more pressing matters to deal with. The Pakistani military has agreed to provide 70,000 troops to protect voters during the May 11th elections. The Taliban and some other Islamic terror groups have declared the elections un-Islamic and are attacking candidates where they can (mainly in the tribal territories). The government is mustering some 600,000 security personnel to guard 73,000 polling places. However, only about 30 percent of these voting sites are considered to be at risk, and these are where the security personnel will concentrate. In the last few weeks political violence related to the elections has killed or wounded several hundred people.

In the Pakistani tribal territories (near the Khyber Pass) troops have spent four weeks fighting Taliban gunmen in the Tirah Valley. The army has been using regular troops as well as SSG commandos and pro-government tribesmen. So far over a hundred terrorists have been killed along with 30 soldiers and tribal allies. The army has been trying to clear the Taliban from this border area since 2009, but have been unable to keep the Taliban from returning. When pressed hard enough, the Taliban retreat across the border into camps and villages in Afghanistan. They are sometimes attacked there, but because the Pakistani Taliban are not attacking anyone in Afghanistan, the local security forces concentrate on those who do (mainly the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani Network, which is based in North Waziristan, an official terrorist sanctuary the Pakistani government refuses to shut down.)

Indian and Chinese officers are still discussing why twenty or so Chinese troops have been camped out ten kilometers inside Indian Kashmir since April 15th. China says their troops are not inside India, something India disputes. Neither country seems eager to escalate this, or resolve it. China says it will withdraw if India will abandon an observation post in the mountains that overlooks Chinese positions. The Indian outpost is in Indian territory but the Chinese don’t like being watched. The Indians refuse and point out there have been three other Chinese incursions recently, but these troops did not linger. India sees all this as the Chinese way of applying pressure on India to withdraw from territory claimed by India. So far it is not working, except that it is annoying and causing more commotion inside India than in China.

May 3, 2013: In Pakistan gunmen killed the lead prosecutor into the 2007 murder of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto. No one took credit for the killing and the usual suspects include the military, Islamic terror groups and even some political parties. The prosecutor may have been closing in on someone who did not want to be identified and had assassins on the payroll.

May 2, 2013: On the Pakistani border ( opposite Afghanistan’s Nangarhar province) border police fought their Afghani counterparts who captured and burned down a Pakistani border post. One Afghan policeman was killed and then was hailed as a hero in nearby towns and cities. This violence was all about an ongoing dispute about exactly where the international border is. Recently Pakistan built some new border posts forward of previous ones but still, according to Pakistan, on Pakistani territory. This has led to shooting between Afghan and Pakistani border guards. There’s also a tribal rivalry element to all this. Most of the Afghan-Pakistani border is occupied by Pushtun tribes. This frontier, still called the “Durand Line” (an impromptu invention of British colonial authorities) was always considered artificial by locals, because the line often went right through Pushtun tribal territories. However, the Afghans are more inclined to accept the Durand Line, and fight to maintain it. The Pakistanis believe absolute control of the border is impossible, and attempts to stop illegal crossings cause additional trouble (as tribesmen do not like excessive attention at border crossing posts). This recent violence is also linked to years of anger over Afghan Taliban and other terrorists hiding out in Pakistan and Islamic terrorists (fighting the Pakistani government) hiding out in Afghanistan. This has led to regular Pakistani shelling of suspected terrorist camps in Afghanistan, which often kills innocent (or semi-innocent) Afghan civilians. The Afghans protest and the Pakistanis refuse to halt the shelling and rocket fire.

April 27, 2013: In eastern India (Chhattisgarh) two policemen were killed when Maoists ambushed a police patrol.

April 26, 2013: In northeast India police arrested two senior Maoists and found documents confirming suspicions that Maoists were seeking to shift many of their efforts to the northeast. This would give the Maoists someplace where they could grow and replace losses they are suffering in eastern India. There several years of vigorous government efforts to destroy the Maoists have caused the communist rebels significant losses.

April 25, 2013: The government has banned a musical video satirizing the Pakistani military as corrupt and inept. The three young Pakistanis who created the video were not arrested or killed (yet) by military death squads. This was considered remarkable and another sign of weakening military power.
 
.
my jewish zionist pal

we all play blame games, lets rely on the fact

1) who started supported forming the fighter groups based on religious bigotry to achieve american victory in afghanistan? it was US:usflag:

2) who brought wahabis from saudi arabia and their oil money to be used in an american war which was given islamic flavour in the name of jihad? just because US wanted to defeat soviet union?:usflag:

3) who sent his delegations and supported military rulers like zia and then musharraf to achieve his aim? it was indeed america:usflag:

4) when the war was over who ran away from the mess and never looked back? it was america :usflag:, who was made to deal with this mess? Pakistan :pakistan:

the fact of the matter is america used pakistan for its dirty games, and now nearly its dirty game is over and it needs pakistan more than ever to flush out

we are sick of playing your games and your mess which you create and we have to clean, and we are not even given a simple thank you

so please try to be gentle to us, or we can show you the middle finger and all your guys will rot eternally in the soil of afghanistan

OK?
 
.
who started supported forming the fighter groups based on religious bigotry to achieve american victory in afghanistan?
If you dig a bit you'll find that it was Z.A.B. who seeded armed rebel groups in Afghanistan in the 1970s. The U.S. seems to have accepted this. When the Soviets invaded it was Zia's ISI that directed the majority of funds - most to the religious groups, a small portion to seculars to keep America happy. When Kabul was captured by the guerillas it was a Pakistani victory, not an American one - the Americans wanted to keep the Soviet-installed government in power. But Zia changed the endgame the way he wanted it.


who brought wahabis from saudi arabia and their oil money to be used -
Zia again. It might be U.S. money but it was almost always Pakistanis who mad the decisions - including the fatal one of deciding to delegate educational control to Arabs who viewed Pakistanis as cheap - either as laborers or as mercenaries.

who sent his delegations and supported military rulers like zia and then musharraf to achieve his aim? it was indeed america
Pakistani leaders are not American functionaries.

when the war was over who ran away from the mess and never looked back? it was america, who was made to deal with this mess? Pakistan :pakistan:
Zia changed the rules so it was quite proper for America to leave him and his country to deal with the mess the way they wanted. Pakistani leaders knew from 1965 that they couldn't both agree to a set of principles with America and then once they violated them complain that it was America who was somehow being a bad ally.

the fact of the matter is america used pakistan for its dirty games
You've probably seen dirty games play out at home. Why would you think Pakistani leaders would deal with any less scruples at toying with foreigners and lying to you about it afterwards?

we are sick of playing your games and your mess which you create and we have to clean, and we are not even given a simple thank you
Ultimately your leaders are your responsibility and if you are too cowardly to deal with that reality what kind of "thank you" do you think you and your countrymen have earned? You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

so please try to be gentle to us
We do that and get the middle finger anyway. That's the lesson of the drones. For years American took the heat so Pakistan's leaders wouldn't have to - despite the fact that doing so probably led to terror attacks on American soil from misguided Pakistanis.

So if there's a thank-you or apology involved, why wouldn't you think it should be from Pakistan to America rather than the reverse?

Oh, and please DON'T believed in anything I write on faith; it's much better that you do the research to confirm it all yourself.
 
.
If you dig a bit you'll find that it was Z.A.B. who seeded armed rebel groups in Afghanistan in the 1970s. The U.S. seems to have accepted this. When the Soviets invaded it was Zia's ISI that directed the majority of funds - most to the religious groups, a small portion to seculars to keep America happy. When Kabul was captured by the guerillas it was a Pakistani victory, not an American one - the Americans wanted to keep the Soviet-installed government in power. But Zia changed the endgame the way he wanted it.


Zia again. It might be U.S. money but it was almost always Pakistanis who mad the decisions - including the fatal one of deciding to delegate educational control to Arabs who viewed Pakistanis as cheap - either as laborers or as mercenaries.

Pakistani leaders are not American functionaries.

Zia changed the rules so it was quite proper for America to leave him and his country to deal with the mess the way they wanted. Pakistani leaders knew from 1965 that they couldn't both agree to a set of principles with America and then once they violated them complain that it was America who was somehow being a bad ally.

You've probably seen dirty games play out at home. Why would you think Pakistani leaders would deal with any less scruples at toying with foreigners and lying to you about it afterwards?

Ultimately your leaders are your responsibility and if you are too cowardly to deal with that reality what kind of "thank you" do you think you and your countrymen have earned? You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

We do that and get the middle finger anyway. That's the lesson of the drones. For years American took the heat so Pakistan's leaders wouldn't have to - despite the fact that doing so probably led to terror attacks on American soil from misguided Pakistanis.

So if there's a thank-you or apology involved, why wouldn't you think it should be from Pakistan to America rather than the reverse?

Oh, and please DON'T believed in anything I write on faith; it's much better that you do the research to confirm it all yourself.

bullshitt rants,

who was the ultimate benefactor of afghan soviet war?, hilary herself admitted USA was at fault, they created alquaeda, they created talibans and you should at least have the balls to except your fault, blame game will lead you no where dear

pakistan doesnt make rules you guys make it, stop humiliating yourself like you are no power, you mke a mess, i my dog shitts on american streats its my responsibility to clean it, if i dont i would get the american police on my *** and least i would be looked down among the people making up my own mess and not cleaning it up

pakistan and saudi relations have been directly linked to america, if there was no america there was no saudi pak relations to such an extent, even now the saudis and emaraties are the mediators between US and pakistan in many matters
 
.
We do that and get the middle finger anyway. That's the lesson of the drones. For years American took the heat so Pakistan's leaders wouldn't have to - despite the fact that doing so probably led to terror attacks on American soil from misguided Pakistanis.

again the very old fashioned blame game, where is fazlullah hiding, you guys made the talibans in the first place, pakistan itself got attacked by talibans on its borders

the fact again and not whiny stuff is that america was not capable to win this war, with pakistan's help and ISI intelligence you got into afghanistan in the first place

if there was no ISI pakistani help you guys would have left afghanistan 5 years ago
 
.
bullshitt rants,
No evidence of research in that quickie answer there.

who was the ultimate benefactor of afghan soviet war?
Qui bono is about the most superficial argument out there. Who was the "ultimate benefactor" of the war? Why, the WORMS of course, as they fed on the dead bodies. Do you think they plotted it all?

hilary herself admitted USA was at fault, they created alquaeda, they created talibans and you should at least have the balls to except your fault, blame game will lead you no where dear
One, you'd need to link to that. Two, confession isn't proof: you need to have supporting evidence, and the evidence doesn't support that.

pakistan doesnt make rules you guys make it, stop humiliating yourself like you are no power, you mke a mess, i my dog shitts on american streats its my responsibility to clean it, if i dont i would get the american police on my *** and least i would be looked down among the people making up my own mess and not cleaning it up
America is not Britain; we have never been your colonial masters, no matter what your fellow Pakistanis might say. Americans like Pakistanis and are easily swayed by them, things Pakistanis quickly pick up to their advantage. Pakistan received many billions of dollars of American economic and military aid since independence. If it went to waste it was not by America's choosing - indeed, one of the first Pakistanis I met was an economist who helped decide where all those millions went.

pakistan and saudi relations have been directly linked to america, if there was no america there was no saudi pak relations to such an extent, even now the saudis and emaraties are the mediators between US and pakistan in many matters
You've reduced your arguments from claiming that it's what America does that matters to the claim that merely by America living and breathing it creates problems.

And to the drone issue you have nothing to say. Because you can't, as it's the illustrative example that proves the arguments I've brought forwards as correct, and shows your ranting off as the cultivated ignorance Pakistan's leaders always intended it to be.

Do you still think Zionists run the world? Or is it that a clear-thinking guy like me is the fellow who shows that you're not your own man but someone led around with strings? What will it take for you to break out the scissors, darkinsky?
 
.
This region sure is in a mess with no solution or a plan of action in sight.
 
. .
Thanks for the link. Note that the emphasis is that to do stuff America had to go through the ISI. Yet I agree with you that what's interesting is Hilary's implication that it was the U.S. that brought KSA into the matter - though it's most unlikely that Zia needed much if any persuasion to do so. He was already a radical when he decided to turn Pakistan Islamist.

I find her speech partly right, partly wrong, partly partisan, and woefully incomplete - doubtless to please the Pakistanis. Doubtless she feels it would make her job more difficult if she went around bad-mouthing Pakistani politicians in public.

The U.S. does have a share of the blame - for feeding Pakistani ambitions with ineffective constraints. American policymakers should have remembered that Pakistanis aren't honorable interlocutors but instead seek to twist every string to their advantage. That lesson, which the U.S. learned in the 1965 war, should have been written permanently into the Pakistan textbook and should not crossed out until Pakistani political culture changes appropriately.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
OP fails to mention that the US simply loved the Mujahideen and the idea of an Islamic Resistance which then spawned the Taliban. They were happy to fund these brave soldiers as long as they fought the Soviets.

Then there's the whole Islamic thing that keeps cropping up. Bringing religion in this would show a Christian invasion of Afghanistan ending (now followed by retreat) after years of Islamic resistance.

And the rest of the post is just the usual paranoia from Jimmy.

Btw, is this Jim Dunnigan afraid of Islam? I hope he can sleep at night knowing his precious American troops are returning after years of inconclusive waste of lives. And where are the Iraqi WMDs btw ??? :cheers:
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom