No logical necessity for Pakistan to side with Occupation in Afghanistan [split]

This was an interesting read:

Taliban, Pakistan and the occupiers

Quantum note

        Friday, May 08, 2009
        Dr Muzaffar Iqbal

**The Taliban have the Pakistani secularists scream so loud that in a comic reversal of roles, the western media has picked up their phobia: major media networks in Canada and the United States have been reporting that the Taliban are about to descend on Islamabad. This bizarre reversal of roles must have given some relief to those who have raised a storm in a teacup and painted this nonsensical scenario of bearded men descending down from the Margalla hills and taking over Islamabad. :hehe: **In any case, it did loosen a few knots on the money belt held tight by those who want to buy their stay into the land of the Afghans by throwing a few million dollars into the bottomless coffers of a state that never does enough for the buck it receives, or at least that is the perception of those who are always thinking of more strings to be attached to their dollars. Whatever the short-term gains of this screaming may have been, the axiom of a Taliban commander remains true; the occupiers may have the watches, but we have time on our side.

The Taliban in Afghanistan are here to stay, no matter how many more soldiers and how many more dollars are brought into that unconquerable land. Americans are not able to comprehend this, as each successive regime works on a four-year timeframe, and thinks in presidential terms, rather than the grand historic time which is second nature to the Afghans. All surveys of the western agencies confirm that the general populace in Afghanistan has turned against the occupiers and since the Taliban are the only organized group fighting against the occupation, the tide has turned in their favour.

It is true that the Taliban are excessively harsh in their ways. It is also true that their understanding of Sharia is flawed. It is also true that their attitudes toward women are more tribal than Islamic, and it is also true that their way of enforcing Sharia is counterproductive, but with all of this against them, they have the distinction of being the only organized resistance against an alien force that has occupied their land. And this tilts the balance in their favour.

Caught in between the occupying forces and the Taliban, the government of Pakistan was left with no choice but either to side with one or the other party and it chose to be on the side of the occupiers. That it did this under a military dictator, and without the consent of its people is a historic fact. That military dictator is no more, but the government of Pakistan is unable or unwilling to re-examine its position on the Afghan occupation. That is the root of its dilemma and the cause of all its troubles now descending down on its major cities. This, in a nutshell, is the root of Pakistan’s self-imposed “existential” threat.

There is really no logical necessity for the state of Pakistan to side with the occupation forces in Afghanistan now, when there is a so-called elected government, which can easily re-examine its role by taking the case to parliament and do what Turkey did in a similar situation: have the elected representatives say “no” in a loud and clear voice and then forcefully appeal to the world to listen to its voice.

This option is available, however, only if the government of Pakistan is willing or able to stand on its own feet, on the strength of its own people. But that is where the whole dilemma lies: the government is beholden to the foreign masters for its existence, more or less the same way as the military dictator was, even though it should not be, since it has come into existence through an election. Understanding and utilizing this fundamental distinction between the illegitimate rule of a military dictator and the legitimate rule of an elected government is the key to a new possibility that can open up for Pakistan, if the government of Pakistan wants, but the government is obviously not interested in this possibility.

As it is, the equation remains more or less than same as it has been since the invasion of Afghanistan by the Bush administration. Since time is on the side of the Taliban, the loser in this increasingly tragic situation is obvious and those who have chosen to side with the losers will obviously lose as well. The newly launched effort by the Obama administration has to run its course and hence, it will not be until the fourth year of Obama’s term that one would hear phrases such as the “exit strategy” and the “failed war” coming out of Washington DC and New York. And when those words and phrases, reminiscent of the Vietnam and Iraq wars, emerge, it will be too late for Pakistan, for by then, its rulers would have brought upon themselves and their state untold calamities, death and destruction.

Today, the Taliban have the secularists scream, tomorrow, no screams will matter, only the writ of a fait accompli, the sad and tragic repetition of history.
Taliban, Pakistan and the occupiers

So many people seem to try and adopt the seductive head in the sand approach that "This is not Pakistan's fight".

If not Pakistan's fight, then who'se fight is it secure the border regions to prevent them being used as havens for attacks into Afghanistan?

Whose reposnsibility does the author of this article think it is, to control the border regions in a way that prevents their use as havens? Pakistan's? Or Afghanistan's? Or NATO's?

The author seems to believe we should abandon those areas to the taliban and hole up in punjab and possibly sindh.

Sir, I find a few things very strange like;

1) Nato/US has always resisted an idea to secure and seal boarders with barbed wire or fence.

2) Pakistan has established hundreds of check posts along the boarder while Nato has a few. ( I don't remember figures), they don't care how many people crossed into Pakistan, just don't want them back in Afghanistan.

3) There were and still are two groups of Taliban; one engage fighting with US/NAtO and one fighting against state of Pakistan, ironically all the drone attacks, despite many requests and information sharing , were targeted against groups against Afghanistan. This is a clear indication that NATO is not against all the Taliban groups.

4) US purposely pushed Taliban into Pakistan, they still don't take concrete measures to stop influx of Jihadis into Pakistan but never stop crying against infiltration of same people from Pakistan to Afghainistan, do you find it anamolous?.

5) Taliban is not merely a group represeting Pashtoon people, today Taliban represnet mercenaries from all over the world, how many countires have been asked to check this kind of immigration into Pakistan and Afghainstan, except twisting our arams.

6) How long would it take or for that matter has it taken to establish yet a non established myth that this is our war, how many suicide attackes will still be planned against innocent people of Pakistan to make us believe that we own this war, how many political figures would be bought into this war using money, socio-political or financial starvation.

Finally, though I can write a lot more, I ask you one question;

Can part of problem be part of solution, now try your wisdom and come up with a conclusion as to who is part of problem here.

1) Nato/US has always resisted an idea to secure and seal boarders with barbed wire or fence.

That was a NATO concession to Afghanistan, which is opposed to the symbolism of the defined border. And such a barbed wire or fence is nothing other thana symbol. Barbed wire is easy to cut with a pair of clippers - it can only put off a casual intruder. And the best of fences is easy to break. Even Israel's concrete wall in Gaza was blown open by Hamas, and that was despite Egyptian security forces being right there.

A wire or fence along the border is FANTASTIC for Pakistan, as it enables us to send a clear message to Afghans with design on our border.
It's bad for Afghanistan for that reason
And it can't stop anyone from crossing, unless troops are positioned all along it. If you see w barbed wire obstruction, you can cut through it, if you see a fence, you can blast a hole through it with an RPG.

2) Pakistan has established hundreds of check posts along the boarder while Nato has a few. ( I don't remember figures), they don't care how many people crossed into Pakistan, just don't want them back in Afghanistan.

Check posts only control legal crossings: access between Pakistan and Afghanistan is still easy by going off the normal roads and crossing in terrain where neither side has posts.

3) There were and still are two groups of Taliban; one engage fighting with US/NAtO and one fighting against state of Pakistan, ironically all the drone attacks, despite many requests and information sharing , were targeted against groups against Afghanistan. This is a clear indication that NATO is not against all the Taliban groups.

Whoel Pakistan confirms when its sources indicates Taliban were killed, you are right int hat tehy don't say which group. However, given recent drone attacks in Bajaur and in Swat, both areas where Pakistan is enforcing its authorities, it doens't seem accurate to argue that drone attacks are never against anti-Pakistan elements

5) Taliban is not merely a group represeting Pashtoon people, today Taliban represnet mercenaries from all over the world, how many countires have been asked to check this kind of immigration into Pakistan and Afghainstan, except twisting our arams.

That type of immigration is impossible to check. How do you tell if a person going to visit Pakistan is just going to visit Pakistan, or if he is going to sneak into the FATA?

Can part of problem be part of solution, now try your wisdom and come up with a conclusion as to who is part of problem here.

Can part of the problem be part of the solution? Yes. Britain's occupation of the sub-continent was an enormous problem, but working with the problem Jinnah was able to deliver an independent homeland for the majority of the Muslim population of India.

Trying to say that the solution can never have anythign to do with the problem is a n oversimplification.

Re: Does Pakhtunwali mean that the Taliban can never disarm?

Ok, in response to the article that spock posted:

(and sorry if this comes out debasing - this is not directed at you spock).

I don't really give a RAT'S fat hairy arse WHO is occupying Afghanistan, whether or not you can really call it an occupation, whether or not this occupation is justified, etc etc. I just don't care. Pakistan is a separate country, and whether its the Taliban or NATO or whomever, NO ONE violates the borders of another country, enters in by brute force, armed to the T with WAR weapons (not just some random kalashnikov, and even that's not a nice weapon), bullies our people around, and decides to strip the freedom of our people and put them in harm's way.

That is considered violating someone's sovereignty. And you don't do that to a nation that is independent and self-sustaining and hasn't committed international crimes to the level the Al Qaeda and Taliban did by launching 911, which justified US entry into Afghanistan, after may I remind you, negotiations post-911 with the Taliban to hand OBL and other 911 operatives over, which they did not do, because in their mind, these people are shaheeds and God's favorites and all that load of ^(^%&^%&^&(&^&^$R&^%&^%&^%^&^&^(^(&(O*&!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is a very different situation. A FOREIGN group of people, and I don't care if they say they are sunni as sunni gets, baraged into a country and effectively SET UP THEIR OWN COUNTRY, and erased the writ of law of the nation that governs that terrirtory against the will of the people living in that terriroty and at the expense of terrorizing those people. HUGE DIFFERENCE. Spock, if Americans had done exactly what the Taliban were doing to Pakistan, except replace these Talib fags with Christian missionaries, you'd be spewing out profanities and inciting the Pakistani gov't to get their act together and fight out an invading force. Just admit it. There are some people who are sympathetic to the Taliban because they call themselves muslim; I don't buy it; they're a bunch of jerks, and they need to be taken care of, before they take care of us.

Re: Does Pakhtunwali mean that the Taliban can never disarm?

^ I bet even you didnt get what you posted. And what makes you think I have a problem with christian missionaries. Do you know me personally?

p.s. when are you making protests against 'faarun' drone attacks? Did you see satellite pictures of drones parked in pakistani bases in 2006?

Re: No logical necessity for Pakistan to side with Occupation in Afghanistan [split]

thread split. Please read the first and second post combined for the discussion 'topic'

As it is mentioned, it is 'reversal of roles'. Now Pakistan needs to secure its border from incoming militants and their financial/weapons/manpower support from Afghanistan, in order to secure the border we need to secure the areas adjoining the borders first i.e. FATA otherwise their onslaught on Pakistani areas (beyond FATA) will continue.

"Prevent use of FATA as havens" is now a secondary worry for Pakistan.