Re: Pakistan surrenders to Taliban
Funny I don’t rememebr Pakistan fighting in Vietnam, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq or Somalia. Wonder which country got walloped there. 
Re: Pakistan surrenders to Taliban
Lost every war?
Lets see we won 1947 war
we won 65 war
we won 99 war
we lost 71 war because odds were stacked against us
India:
lost 47 war
lost 62 war
lost 65 war
unfairly won 71 war
lost 99 war
and continues to lose wars on its provinces
Re: Pakistan surrenders to Taliban
Not according to the rest of the world, not even according to your own Dawn newspaper. Here is Irfan Husain’s comments in Dawn:
While we can hold politicians accountable for personal corruption and gross incompetence from time to time, they are not guilty of formulating our disastrous Afghan and Kashmir policies, leave alone the wars of 1965 and 1971, or the disastrous Kargil misadventure. And nor were they in power at the time of the civil war in East Pakistan. And as we know all too well, the incidence of corruption does not fall under military regimes: it just doesn’t get the same coverage in the media
Source: http://dawn.com/weekly/mazdak/20060209.htm
This is what Ayaz Amir says about 1965 conflict.
This is where the spirit of ‘65 when Pakistan was at war with India and the entire nation rallied to the cause of national defence becomes relevant. The parallel between now and then is striking not only for what it says but for what it leaves unsaid. How long did that spirit last? The war itself was a 17-day affair. And as soon as it was over the people of Pakistan woke up to the reality that the nation hadn’t won the signal victory which Field Marshal Ayub Khan’s propaganda machine — led ably by his information secretary, Altaf Gauhar — had led it to believe
Re: Pakistan surrenders to Taliban
Expect more predators and hellfires to penetrate into Pakistan to meet those who activiely support terrorists and after Bush is out of office expect the real squeeze to come, a stable pakistan is beneficial for all parties, giving up to fundamentalists will only bring a short term benefits but long term problems.
Re: Pakistan surrenders to Taliban
Oh my goodness, Pakistan now rivals the US as a military superpower! 
They even has the power to change history books! The US should go ahead and surrender now against such a military powerhouse! 
Re: Pakistan surrenders to Taliban
the us are free to stop cross border infiltration from the afghan side of the border! the original title of this thread is incorrect, the deal was done with tribesmen not taliban. its an agreement not surrender. the article taken from dnaindia emphasizes its own agenda, so do some of the jewish posters on GS
Re: Pakistan surrenders to Taliban
Who’s to blame for the US’s inability to defeat the insurgency in Iraq? Who will you blame in that case? If anything, Afghanistan has been far more peaceful then Iraq due to Pakistan’s efforts.
Re: Pakistan surrenders to Taliban
The American terrrorists can barely root out a rag tag militia in Iraq and Afghanistan. You talk about military might? You military might only shows against innocent civilians.
Re: Pakistan surrenders to Taliban
DaisyCutters, Nukes are the names of the ‘super’ power but as said by others what happened when facing milita?
Re: Pakistan surrenders to Taliban
Hey this isn’t a joke. And if it is, it’s not very funny, pal. 
Re: Pakistan surrenders to Taliban
As said by others, the same thing any power would face if concerned and hindered by civilian casualties and public opinion.
This is all a strange discussion for this thread isn't it? Pakistan is found to be cutting deals with tribal lords to protect those who attacked and continue to plan the attack the US and its allies, and it's all about puffing our collective chests. There are so many issues this raises other than the delusions of grandeur expressed so far.
Like this is one: how could a government that a) has proliferated nuke technology to rogue states; b) funds radical state run schools to preach and export extremism; c) allows extremists to roam and rule un-policed badlands; and d)shamelessly sold out their previous allies and proxies for profit - be trusted to help in a war against terror?
Re: Pakistan surrenders to Taliban
sadly the exact same points apply to US too,
a)whether it is the 'oh so secret" israeli Nuclear status, or
b)CIA in cahoots with the ‘mujahideen’ in afghanistan
c) allowing extremists of all sorts rule, ranging from taleban, who were being chatted up by US powers that be, to saddam, to the cool dude in uzbekistan, to the undemcratic middle eastern regimes
d) sold out saddam hussein, oh and taleban too which were pals once were they not?
yep, I dont trust this government to help on war on terror. Time for a change, hopefully Jeb Bush doesn’t run next time..
Re: Pakistan surrenders to Taliban
Similar, but not exact points. It's like comparing the challenges the Yankee's pitching staff faces with the upcoming post season and which 11 year old is going to pitch the 3rd inning of my nephew's last place little league game tomorrow.
Bottom line is that the current (relatively) secular dictatorship of Pakistan has to do something to protect itself from being overun by the extremists who represent a large, motivated portion of their population. This is part of it.
But I agree that neither can the US' current government be trusted to help in the war on terror. They are bumbling, dishonest, manipulating, inept, insincere, neocon neophytes. God help us all if another Bush ever becomes president.
Re: Pakistan reaches deal with tribals
seminole
its easy for people to say who have little idea of the ground reality of how these things are in pakistan. Even the waziristan ops were unprecedented .. nothing similar had taken place in recent history.
Now, Musharraf would not have been targeted for assassination by the extremists if what he was doing was not of concern to them.
if we look at the track record, I think Musharraf has done more than Bush, or at least he has been more strategic about it. We all recall our president landing on an aircraft carrier with "mission accomplished" banners all around. the only mission that seemed to be accomplished was to prop up his ratings.
We still have issues with unprotected borders, unprotected cargo shipments, wars in afhanistan and iraq that seem to just be dragging on.
So while it is easy for someone to point the finger at Musharraf and say he is not doing enough, the same finger ca be pointed at any leader in the world includng blair and bush.
and who is ultimately at risk, ppl like you and I, innocent civilians in Pakistan, in US and elsewhere.
Re: Pakistan reaches deal with tribals
Fraudz, I agree with everthing you said. I believe that given Musharraf's circumstances, he has done more than expected to fight terrorism. And Bush, given all his pomp and circumstance has done much less than expected to fight terrorism.
Re: Pakistan surrenders to Taliban
How many times has US been successful in containing 'terrorism', 'terrorists' by bombing/fighting them? Just curious.
Re: Pakistan reaches deal with tribals
As said by myself and others, when concerned by civilian casualties and public opinion, it is difficult to fight a militia that that blends in with the population. But how could US fight a militia w/in Pakistan? Pakistan would not allow it.
Re: Pakistan reaches deal with tribals
How would the US be more successfull even if allowed to operate in Pakistan? Iraq is already near civil war, Afghanistan is neither here or there, do you want the same in Pakistan?
Re: Pakistan reaches deal with tribals
when militia blends in with population, the population is the militia. injustice by a stronger, larger force must be done for this to happen
this deal inshallah will avoid this situation in pak tribal areas
Re: Pakistan reaches deal with tribals
It's been stated by the president as well as the ambassador in Washington that any breach of the peace deal will result in renewed military action. I think we should be focused on our objectives, and the course of action that takes us to our objectives in the shortest period of time with minimum collateral damage should be the best course of action. I don't know if this agreement between tribes and government is going to pay any dividends, but being pragmatic could prove better than being 'macho'. Continued military presence can further radicalize and alienate the local conservative population, essentially defeating the purpose of the whole exercise.
I'm not suggesting that all forces be withdrawn from Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistani tribal areas. But I do believe that any attempts to 'engineer a modern society militarily' are going to fail. You can't just go in there and restructure the whole society so as to make it more sensitive to your concerns. What NATO/Afghan and Pakistan security personnel can do is to limit any movement of militants across the border. (There can be deployment on the other side of the border too). To do this, you must have some sort of military presence along the border. If you're trying to catch someone living in the region, you can depend on the intelligence gathered from your agents in the area, and take limited military action in the light of this intelligence. It's very difficult to use your regular army to comb every mountain in the face of hostile local population, especially when these troops are considered agents of foreign forces. This strategy could result in the overspilling of the conflict into the areas that are hitherto peaceful, and can speed up the so called 'Talibanization'. While the US is more interested in trying to apprehend the terrorists that could be hiding along the border, Pakistan has to be mindful of the political and long-term repercussions of any military operation.
If I'm not mistaken, most of the across the border movement is going on along southern part of Pak/Afghan border now. Also British forces are facing trouble in the south. (However the militants are likely to find mountainous terrain in the north safer). Rest assured Pakistan is not going to be happy with across the border infiltration in either direction these days. Musharraf has more than once talked about building some sort of fence across the border. Maybe its time for newly trained Afghan army to control its border with Pakistan rather than trying to find scapegoats for their impotence. We don't particularly appreciate land mines and rockets coming to our side of the border.
Anyways, Americans should probably be more concerned about the militants in Europe and North America than somewhere in the mountains of Pakistan. The immediate threat to the 'civilzed' world doesn't come from outside the borders of the 'civilized world'. Poor and uncivilized Iraqis, Afghanis and Palestinians trying to survive in their war-torn countries can do no harm until they get support from some groups or individuals living within the civilzed world. That means you can go on spreading freedom around the world if you could reach a deal to guard your own borders.