What's new

US policies responsible for regional instability, says Sartaj Aziz

Wrong , instability in SA is just because of Pakistani foreign policy, not because of any other country. How can any other country intervene in your internal and foreign affairs when we have strong and independent foreign policy!! It was you who invited US in the region. Now you are blaming US for no reason. US has done what an independents country does for its own interest. You can't blame them.
We invited US in this region? When? Soviet-Afghan war? US invasion of Afghanistan? Btw there is a news circulating that India is going to provide US their bases. They also offered their bases during Afghanistan invasion.
 
Let me know; when US does same to India. I see Modi with begging bowl; urging US for further explorations in India
You are mixing up business policy with foreign policy. These are two different policies.

We invited US in this region? When? Soviet-Afghan war? US invasion of Afghanistan? Btw there is a news circulating that India is going to provide US their bases. They also offered their bases during Afghanistan invasion.
US urging to India to provide port refueling and business purpose, not for the attack on any country. In first place , this is not gonna happen .
Second it was Pakistan weak foreign policy which lead US to step their foot on Pakistan soil, be it Afgaan invasion.
 
US urging to India to provide port refueling and business purpose, not for the attack on any country. In first place , this is not gonna happen .
Second it was Pakistan weak foreign policy which lead US to step their foot on Pakistan soil, be it Afgaan invasion.
I think you missed my point entirely and stayed in your comfort zone. India offered their bases to US when US was about to invade Afghanistan. It was president Musharraf who then had to give access to our bases.
US came here for strategic purposes and you will provide those bases exactly for that. US has an unfinished agenda here i.e. China.
 
What Pakistan did during Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan was the best we could. We usually lash out on our policies during that phase, rather impulsively and habitually, I might add, but it's important to remember the threat matrix for Pakistani establishment, at that time, dictated the need to thwart possible Soviet advance inside our borders and halt her expanding influence by any and all means necessary.

Where failure lies, however, is in the modalities, not the conception of threat. We proceeded to act upon our national security policy at that time rather incautiously. Providing a more selective, and controlled assistance to resistance, one that didn't radicalize our society so disastrously must have been pursued. A farsighted analysis as to how the conflict in Afghanistan could have had spilled over to our side of the fence and perpetuate decades long bloodshed ought to have been anticipated and a strategy precluding or minimizing said ripples must have been formulated and implemented.

As far as the question of 'whether it was in our best to respond to evolving situation in Afghanistan?' is concerned, the answer is a definite yes. The questions, rather the debate, essentially boils down to 'how and to what extent, if at all, should we have extended military assistance to factions resisting the Soviets' and whether military involvement was needed at all?' This is indeed something to looked into by qualified persons lest we repeat those errors.
 
What Pakistan did during Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan was the best we could. We usually lash out on our policies during that phase, rather impulsively and habitually, I might add, but it's important to remember the threat matrix for Pakistani establishment, at that time, dictated the need to thwart possible Soviet advance inside our borders and halt her expanding influence by any and all means necessary.

Where failure lies, however, is in the modalities, not the conception of threat. We proceeded to act upon our national security policy at that time rather incautiously. Providing a more selective, and controlled assistance to resistance, one that didn't radicalize our society so disastrously must have been pursued. A farsighted analysis as to how the conflict in Afghanistan could have had spilled over to our side of the fence and perpetuate decades long bloodshed ought to have been anticipated and a strategy precluding or minimizing said ripples must have been formulated and implemented.

As far as the question of 'whether it was in our best to respond to evolving situation in Afghanistan?' is concerned, the answer is a definite yes. The questions, rather the debate, essentially boils down to 'how and to what extent, if at all, should we have extended military assistance to factions resisting the Soviets' and whether military involvement was needed at all?' This is indeed something to looked into by qualified persons lest we repeat those errors.
yes it was in our best interest but the fact that US wanted to use Afghanistan to disturb pro russian central asia got in the way and everything got spoiled but yes current evolving situation is in favour of us but not in complete favour
 
Wrong , instability in SA is just because of Pakistani foreign policy, not because of any other country. How can any other country intervene in your internal and foreign affairs when we have strong and independent foreign policy!! It was you who invited US in the region. Now you are blaming US for no reason. US has done what an independents country does for its own interest. You can't blame them.


Pakistan has not invited nor responsible for U.S intervention in Afghanistan. In fact the people who carried out the 9/11 attacks were Arabs hence the action should have been against them. OBL spent his time in Saudi Arabia and Sudan before fleeing to Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda is purely Arab. Either U.S intelligence failed to know about this or they allowed them to cross a continent deliberately.

Pakistan has rendered great sacrifices in this war against terror and no country likes to loose more than 50,000 people and take 3 million Afghan refugees. The TTP which is responsible for most terrorist attacks inside Pakistan is an example of a group consisting of foreigners like Tajiks, Afghans, Uigurs and Uzbeks and their armament and funding coming from Indians. Since the arrival of U.S, Cental Asia and South Asia have been at proxy wars and this first began with the obsession of defeating the Soviet Union and communism and Afghan Tallban were the allies who even visited the White house.
 
Last edited:
Wrong , instability in SA is just because of Pakistani foreign policy, not because of any other country. How can any other country intervene in your internal and foreign affairs when we have strong and independent foreign policy!! It was you who invited US in the region. Now you are blaming US for no reason. US has done what an independents country does for its own interest. You can't blame them.

Have you seen them in SYRIA and LIBYA? It didnt take them an invitation by them to interfere. Pakistan was one of the post peacefull and prohressive nations before US started fiddling in Afghanistan. No one invited US as after 9/11 i doubt if even indians had the balls to NATO from entering southasia. Even if we had blocked them then they would have coilated pakistani air space to wage theor war in Aafghanistan. We are not stupid enough to put our hand in a hornets nest to provoke them
 
In fact the people who carried out the 9/11 attacks were Arabs hence the action should have been against them. OBL spent his time in Saudi Arabia and Sudan before fleeing to Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda is purely Arab.

These Arabs were honored guests in the tribal belt in Pakistan and Afghanistan, from where 9/11 was instigated and financed. KSM, the mastermind of the attacks, was a Pakistani. The leadership hid in Pakistan after the attacks. KSM was captured from the house of a religious leader in Rawalpindi. We all know where OBL was killed.

Purely Arab? Hardly.
 
Last edited:
Blaming others for one's own failings will never work.
Tell that to Obama . . . . . . oh wait . . . . . . Sartaj Aziz already did.

These Arabs were honored guests in the tribal belt in Pakistan and Afghanistan, from where 9/11 was instigated and financed. KSM, the mastermind of the attacks, was a Pakistani. The leadership hid in Pakistan after the attacks. KSM was captured from the house of a religious leader in Rawalpindi. We all know where OBL was killed.

Purely Arab? Hardly.

Hillary thinks otherwise. These Arabs and tribal beings were Uncle Sams love birds too . . . until 9/11 hit and U.S payed for it's own mistakes and so have we. And you very conveniently ignore the mess created in Syria,Libya and Iraq, or are you to pin that on us too. Are we responsible for invading and arming militants in these regions? So please before blaming and lecturing others on what to do and how to do, U.S should better look at its on actions.
 
And you very conveniently ignore the mess created in Syria,Libya and Iraq

Why would Pakistanis be more worried about the rest of the Middle East compared to Pakistan itself?
 
Pakistan also contributed the instability besides the U.S. Not to mention the Russians as well since they invaded Afghanistan in 1979.
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom