"No Afghan Taliban army marched into Pakistan to obtain sanctuary."
I disagree. An afghan taliban government and it's military leadership crossed into Pakistan. Why wouldn't you have interest in them?
Again, no Afghan Taliban army marched into Pakistan, though isolated bands of Afghan and Pakistani Taliban no doubt made it across the porous border due to a lack of proper coordination and planning from the US side with Pakistan, and the terrain in general. Pakistan deployed almost a 100,000 regular and paramilitary troops on that border initially, how many did the US deploy?
As for interest in whatever leadership may have made it across the border - why should we have interest in them? They did not attack Pakistan, they did not attack the US, they did not have any knowledge of AQ's plan to carry out 911, nor did they knowingly assist them in that. They were the ones under attack from the US, and these leaders had been loyal allies in Afghanistan till that point.
I realize that the US has a rather perverted view about loyalties to allies, choosing to rip allies off both money paid for military equipment and the equipment itself, cutting off military supplies in time of war and sanctioning them, but I would hope Pakistan would show a bit more respect to past loyalties so long as those allies did not seek to harm Pakistan.
Afghan wounded and combatants did too. Many returned home. For some, home was the refugee camps surrounding Quetta.
For some home was the Afghan refugee camps in Pakistan, for Pakistani citizens assisting the Taliban home was Pakistan proper, but it woudl be extremely far fetched to suggest that the Taliban regime was comprised primarily of 'immigrants'.
The majority of the Taliban called Afghanistan home, and injured and combatants both likely melted into the Afghan countryside - it would by far be the easiest thing to do - and from there have become part of the resurgent insurgency.
A.M. you have an immense desire to diminish the importance of sanctuary. The taliban knew where they could be supported and reconstituted. Only three countries recognized them. Only one shared a border. You.
Actually, they had no choice. Reconstitution and resupply wasn't going to happen in Afghanistan so it was FATA or bust.
By that yardstick the only place the resurgent Baluch insurgency could 'reconstitute and resupply' would be Afghanistan. Only three countries have shown sympathy and support for the Baluch insurgents - the Afghans historically have supported the Baluch insurgents every single time, and the Indians the more recent BLA, while the Americans are allegedly involved with Jundullah in Iran. For the Baluch insurgents, reconstitution and resupply could only happen in Afghanistan.
Yeah, many footsoldiers returned home within Afghanistan. Not all and certainly not the most important. Nothing has changed since late 2001 either.
We are in agreement on your first point here then. The most important may not have, but they are not the ones conducting the actual insurgency - that is still in the hands of the local commanders. You have claimed that the leadership is responsible for organizing funding - but I have read no reports of them taking flights out to the Gulf and hosting fund raisers, or even doing so publicly in Pakistan.
For the Taliban, it is the movement and cause (fighting off American occupation and establishing a 'Utopian Shariah state') itself that allows for funds to be raised, not the existence of Mullah Omar.
The support remains and the Quetta shura is very much on the minds of Gates, Holbrooke, and Mullen.
When they quit caring so shall I.
You don't really know. They do.
I trust them. I don't trust you.
And I trust my military leadership, not you, and certainly not your military or political leadership, given the perfidious history that the US has.
"a better one IMO is 'Where would we be had the US not been gung ho about waging war against a sovereign nation and continued negotiations with the Taliban regime along with the international community'..."
Rhetorical. It can't be changed. Sanctuaries that exist today can and should be eliminated.
Your question is not better. It begs the obvious.
Oh but the question is much more than rhetorical, it is crucial IMO to finding a lasting solution to Afghanistan - engagement with the Taliban and their incorporation into the political process. At the end of the day, the reality is that NATO is the occupier, and the Taliban are the local insurgents fighting occupation.
'Sanctuaries', in terms of the GoP establishing its writ across all of FATA, will occur as the GoP and military obtain the resources and support domestically, and especially in FATA, to utilize both political and military means to achieve that end goal of integration of FATA into mainstream Pakistan in all aspects.
That end goal however will take time since, among a host of other factors, the politicians have to play their own games (democracy you know), and Pakistan cannot afford to exacerbate ethnic tensions in the Pakhtun belt and turn an Islamist insurgency into a Pashtun+Islamist insurgency.
But we are way off topic here.
