I am confused AQ was more dangerous before 911 or today after 14 years of War against Terrorism..... strange don't you think ....???
It does not matter that US interest will change after 15-20 years & US will realize that India won't care about US in the future, for us 15-20 years of Indo-US relations & its repercussions on us are more important.
I think I have no need to say US thinks India & US share common interest in Afghanistan, Far-East and Pacific region. China also has interest in those regions which does not coincide with Indian & US interests especially in S. Asia.
Sorry here you are mixing thing up..... currently Pak-Russian relationship based on common threat "Taliban/ Islamic Militancy" there is nothing strategic about it ‘right now’ but it 'may have future'
Pakistan is laying nowhere it is at the same place where geography has placed it, it’s our curse & asset at the same time. As I said earlier Pakistan have no ‘strategic value’ from US point of view for longer term, but it has its strategic value for China and India both in the longer term, so in short no one can balance any strategic equation regarding S. Asia & Afghanistan eliminating Pakistan.
It’s may look like an insane query but can anyone guarantee the safety of US nuclear weapons after the attack of 911 specially after the attack on Pentagon …. ?? or can you guarantee the safety of nuclear weapons of any other nuclear state …… ‘perception & reality’ are two different things.
As far as terrorism is concern may I ask why US negotiated with Taliban?
Why even after 14 years of war Afghanistan is not a safe place …. ???
If American are unable to deal with Taliban issue successfully and failed to reduce the influence of Taliban even after 14 years and expending hundreds of billions $ how can they accept us to do the job for them, I hope you would put all the blame to Pakistan to use it as escape goat ….
Afghan Mujahedeen and Taliban were as much the children of United State as it were the children of Pakistan, this issue of terrorism was not created by Pakistan only …..
It’s the failure of US that she failed to defeat Taliban in all those years & Taliban see it as their victory that a world power with all their financial, technological and militarily might had to negotiate with them for the future of the Afghanistan.
‘Taliban favor no one, they are not in the interest of anyone, even than they exist’
Sir jee, Iraq and Afghanistan are born again in ‘US ward’ but what they are now …. ??? Whole region is suffering from terrorism Pakistan alone cannot resolve it, a sincere regional effort is needed, but the problem is most of the countries and governments are part of the problem not the solution (US included)
You have some points I'd like to respond to. I don't have the time to quote each of them but let's try:
1) The US SAW AQ being a huge global threat and thus the involvement. No one can or will eliminate ideology bases organization. The US or anyone doesn't have the ability to find EVERY single terrorist on the planet and punish him. However, has the AQ strength weakened so much that it's not in a strong capacity to stage any critical attacks and its financial network from the west took a plunge due to the focus on terrorism? Yes. Absolutely. Due to American involvement and focus on terrorists entire process from financial support network to the training camps, AQ today is nowhere where it could've been had there been no 911. 911 resulted in destruction of AQ's strike capability on a global scale. At this point, you have decentralized command and fractions all trying to do terrorism on the local level and won't gain strength again as the US and its partners are keeping an eye on things.
2) You should be worried about any interest change towards Pakistan from anyone. You should ALSO keep a healthy relationship with the US and others, outside of India, China, etc, etc. You have a country and you should watch for your mutual interests with others that help your country's growth in a positive manner.
3) Asia-Pacific, shouldn't be Pakistan's concern beyond verbal support for the Chinese as you've done it for decades. You guys have a huge house to fix and you have 200 million people who need a better future. Asia-Pacific involved India, China, Japan, the US and others. Much bigger scope than Pakistan so you take care of your home and get that strengthened first, both financially and security's standpoint.
4) Pakistan shouldn't be "laying" anywhere. You, the People should be able to keep it on the move. SO make new friends, ventures, relationships or strengthen the weakened ones. My expensive car parked in my garage doesn't help me with anything in the long run. In fact, if I don't drive it or take care of it, it'll have problems and it'll get old, resulting in financial loss. Similarly, using Pakistan's location as a gift or a liability and not trying to do anything to change things in a way that help 200 million people to have a better life...doesn't do anything for anyone. However, using your location and relationships as an advantage and reaching out to others, will result in business, investments, etc, etc as others will see the location and would want to invest in it for a better return.
5) Accidents can happen anywhere. But relatively speaking, yes, there should be a lot of people who'd guarantee the US nukes. We've had them before the birth of your country man.........and an attack on any place doesn't mean anything with regards to the nukes anyone else has. No other country had around AQ 200-300 K terrorists hanging out at will in the neighborhood but Pakistan. Grasp reality please? Or read up on Karachi airport attack literally two days ago....?? May answer your question and the real threat you face.
6) Weakening and elimination are two different things. The US's goal wasn't to kill every single AQ member, nor can we guess who'll become a AQ terrorist one day. The goal was to eliminate the capability to spread terrorism to other places. Look at how many got killed and how many leaders were captured and killed. The intensity is reduced by 70% in my opinion. Similarly, winning and losing it subjective. The US won the war in Afghanistan because is disseminated the AQ leadership and destroyed AQ's ability to attack globally. We consider it win because we achieved our goals. We weren't there to stop every terrorist from firing a bullet. So people who say the US "lost" probably don't know anything about warfare. In 1971, did India win because it took over the entire Pakistan and every single Pakistani was captured? Or, it achieved its objectives and cut Pakistan into two....?? The win is ALWAYS related to achieving military objectives.
7) Yes, you are right. Talibans do not favor anyone. Something we've been trying to tell your military since 2001 !!!! A terrorists is a terrorists based on any ideology or religion. Their goal is to seek power and disrupt normal human life by spreading fear and death. You guys miscalculated the threat and you are now paying the price. These talibastards are attention whor*s and will do anything to grab attention and spread fear by making common citizens suffer, whether that be on 911, or two days ago in Karachi. So take decisive action, clean up this mess once and for all, and keep presence in the FATA area. It'll be a hard battle but the benefits of it will result in a stronger, more peaceful, violent free and economically growing Pakistan. When you are stable and have money sitting around, you automatically build a stronger military to project power and take more responsibility on the world stage. That's what I'd like to see happen in Pakistan's case
