…and therein lies the rub.
Pakistani neocons and UN sanctions :
And this takes me back to Pervez Musharraf’s first visit to the US after his coup. At a meeting with a group of journalists among whom I was present, my dear and much lamented friend Tahir Mirza, then the Dawn correspondent, asked Musharraf why he was not acting against Lashkar-e Tayba and Jaish-e Muhammad. Musharraf went red in the face and shot back, “They are not doing anything in Pakistan. They are doing jihad outside.”
Re: "They are not doing anything in Pakistan. They are doing jihad outside.”
^ And then they talk about a "joint mechanism" for investigation into the Mumbai incident...
Re: "They are not doing anything in Pakistan. They are doing jihad outside.”
So what? This is very old information, Musharraf "banned" the organization in 2002? Whats the point actually?
So what? This is very old information, Musharraf "banned" the organization in 2002? Whats the point actually?
Conflict of interest my dear. This is not too long ago.
Some of the ISI are in the pay role of LeT or viceversa.
So what? This is very old information, Musharraf "banned" the organization in 2002? Whats the point actually?
Well you should read this part ....... at least some sane voices are being raised in Pakistan ... this is from the same article
Since 2006, Pakistan, against better advice and reasons that have been blown sky-high by Mumbai, had kept the sanctions from being clamped with the help of China. However, after the Mumbai attacks, China informed Pakistan that it could no longer block the terrorist group and individuals from being sanctioned. The question the neocons and the super-patriots should ask, but don’t, is: Why was Pakistan blocking sanctions against a terrorist group?
......Pakistani neocons and UN sanctions ...”
I disagree with the term "neocons" for such idiots that are mentioned in the quoted essay.
Neo cons or Conservatives stand for "strong army". You all think Shrin Mazari is for strong army?
Neo cons believe in America's strong role in driving the world events. You think Shirin Mazari is for Pakistan's role in the world?
I wish Pakistan had true conservatives and not religio-fanatics who don't know from their mouth and foot.
Re: "They are not doing anything in Pakistan. They are doing jihad outside.”
The reason is fairly simple actually. Though the rationale is quite complicated.
Pakistan's military apparatus (or at least significant portions there) are still convinced that they can use these outfits (LeT, JM etc) to make life miserable for Indian forces in Kashmir. That is why, despite international pressure, elements of ISI and military keep protecting and supporting these outfits. There is no serious or meaningful attempt by Pakistan to really go after these outfits, clamp down on their funding, and arrest their leadership. Its all lip-service.
The bigger conflict of interest, however, is that Pakistan's military establishment really doesn't want full normalization of relations with India, and keeping the Kashmir issue burning is the proverbial goose that lays golden eggs for them. The whole reason Pakistan's military establishment can claim a staggering percentage of our meagre national GDP is to "protect" our boundaries from "Indian threat". It is therefore natural that our military establishment will never cede authority to civilian leadership (not that Zardari & Co. are shining examples of patriotic statesmen, anyway), and will use any excuse to keep the horror prospect of an Indian invasion alive in the minds of Pakistani people.
One would think that after successfully testing nuclear weapons, the need (and financial burden that comes with it) of conventional military forces will go down (not eliminate, of course); but no such luck. Problem is that now the world is much more aware of these contradictions of Pakistan's positions, and it will increasingly be tough for our government to play the two-faced position or protecting and rattling these jihadi groups, at the same time.
At the time, when Musharaf government abruptly stepped away from their support of Taliban in Afghanistan, it would have been nice if they had done a good re-think about their policy towards Kashmir and these random jihadi outfits too. They didn't. Maybe now Kiyani and Zardari should sit down and re-evaluate under the current international firestorm created by Mumbai terror attack.
Re: "They are not doing anything in Pakistan. They are doing jihad outside.”
Faisal
You are correct in everything and the most important point you make is:
[QUOTE]
One would think that after successfully testing nuclear weapons, the need (and financial burden that comes with it) of conventional military forces will go down (not eliminate, of course); but no such luck
[/QUOTE]
After India stupidly made South Asia overtly nuclear, most people in our region would have hoped for the excess military spending to be curtailed and a period of stability.
That did not work because some dominant low-IQ Generals in GHQ assumed that nuclear weapons gave Pakistan a free pass to launch conventional ops. That led to Kargil and the threat of nuclear escalation forced Americans to act and we gained the reputation of a rogue state. Since then, GHQ has played hot and cold with the jihadi "option" but the preservation of the option risks unintended conflicts from events like the Mumbai attack.
Conflict of interest my dear. This is not too long ago.
What do you mean by "not too long ago"?
Some of the ISI are in the pay role of LeT or viceversa.
I don't want to send tangents but so are in RAW/Indian army, the point is?
Re: "They are not doing anything in Pakistan. They are doing jihad outside.”
Great article! Again, the bitter truth. Ahmed Qureshi is an idiot, period. The man blames everyone, from Iftikhar Chaudhry to Zardari, from Hamid Mir to Ansar Abbasi of being CIA/Mossad agents. The only person he doesnt finds faultless is Musharraf, who by the way is the only person known to be the real ‘pithu’ in the game. Shireez Mazari, we all know whose youknowwhat she was. Great analogy, Ann Coulter LOL! P.s. if you guys didnt know, Ann Coulter was a big fan of Musharraf too 
.
The reasoning maybe simple and rationale might be complicated but the reality is somewhat different. While they did break links with the militant groups they didn’t turn on them..that changed with Lal Masjid when it wasn’t the establishment that perceived these groups as a threat but the militants who saw the establishment and state as a threat.
Pakistan torn over how to handle Taliban
- Analyst says Islamabad’s Taliban policy has suffered from indecisiveness, inconsistency and ambiguity
ISLAMABAD: After years of allowing Taliban to operate in the Tribal Areas, Pakistan is now torn over how to respond to the United States’ calls for a decisive action against the extremists.
Islamabad is under intense pressure from Washington, other western nations and Kabul to eliminate Taliban and Al Qaeda havens in the tribal belt, from where fighters are said to stage attacks on foreign forces in Afghanistan.
But experts say Pakistan’s desire to please the US, a vital political and military ally, has run up against its own strategic interests in the region and its loyalty to Pashtuns, the predominant ethnicity among the Taliban.
Policy: “Pakistan’s Taliban policy has suffered from indecisiveness, inconsistency and ambiguity,” political analyst Hasan Askari told AFP.
“Pakistan’s choices will become tougher in the future because its efforts to control the Taliban do not enjoy support throughout the society. A good number of ordinary people see India as more of a threat than the Taliban.”
“Pakistan did not want to sever all of its links with the Taliban movement, as doing so would have Pakistan totally out of the regional power game in Afghanistan,” defence analyst Riffat Hussain told AFP.
Fugitive Taliban leader Mullah Omar is still widely believed to be hiding in the Tribal Areas.
“Tens of thousands of Taliban poured into Pakistan’s northwest and southwest but security forces were under strict orders only to arrest Al Qaeda members,” a senior security official with knowledge of counterterrorism policy told AFP.
Hussain, head of strategic studies at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad, said former military ruler Musharraf, who resigned last year, had two reasons for tolerating the Taliban presence on Pakistani soil.
“Musharraf personally believed that there were many good Taliban who should be co-opted in the post-Taliban power dispensation in Afghanistan,” Hussain said.
Islamabad also wanted an ‘insurance policy’ against the US-backed government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, which it viewed as hostile, he added.
Another security official said that barring the Taliban from Pakistani soil would have angered the Pashtuns at home, saying: “Antagonising them completely is against our long-term national interest.”
But putting up with the Taliban was a risky policy. Groups — such as that of renegade warlord Baitullah Mehsud, believed to have masterminded the assassination of former premier Benazir Bhutto — are now allied with the Al Qaeda network.k.
“For years Pakistan targeted Al Qaeda and tolerated the Taliban, but this policy has failed and resulted in making the Taliban a strong force not just in Afghanistan, but in many parts of Pakistan,” a top security official told AFP.
“Pakistan will be asked to become the anvil for the hammer of American special forces operations in the Tribal Areas,” Hussain said, predicting that Islamabad could be asked to stage a joint anti-terrorist operations with the US.
Askari agreed, but said Islamabad would ask Washington to put a stop to attacks on Taliban targets in the border zone by unmanned CIA aircraft because ‘they create credibility problems’ for the Pakistani government.
Pakistan faces a double challenge — controlling the Taliban in the Tribal Areas and containing militant groups based in mainland Pakistan,” Askari said..
“Unless there is a simultaneous development of internal stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the problem may not be addressed.” afp
Re: "They are not doing anything in Pakistan. They are doing jihad outside.”
Whole world now shouting like mad ,need to know what they did while nurturing these monsters and Pakistan Establishment has no more control over them
http://express.com.pk/images/NP_LHE/20090114/Sub_Images/1100554834-1.jpg
http://express.com.pk/images/NP_LHE/20090114/Sub_Images/1100554834-2.gif
Re: "They are not doing anything in Pakistan. They are doing jihad outside.”
http://express.com.pk/images/NP_LHE/20090117/Sub_Images/1100556391-1.jpg
http://express.com.pk/images/NP_LHE/20090117/Sub_Images/1100556391-2.gif
Re: "They are not doing anything in Pakistan. They are doing jihad outside.”
desert bird,
A keeRa is in your shalwar, and you let it be for days. But when the keeRa starts biting, you want everyone to take it out? Remember that the Taliban were not created by CIA. They were the children of the mujahideen who were later on helped by the ISI once the ISI favourite Engineer Gulbadin Hikmetyar was proven useless.
Also, the Harkats, Jaishes, Lashkars etc. were all formed after the Afghan war. Who do you blame for it?
I know it is easy to blame everyone else instead of looking within. But we need to get real.
Re: "They are not doing anything in Pakistan. They are doing jihad outside.”
Pakistan is not solely responsible :)
Pakistan is not solely responsible :)
Let me ask you this. Farz keejiyay keh you and your friends burn dangerous firewood and throw into your neighbours house to punish the neighbour. A few days later your friends get bored and go somewhere else. The fire keeps burning and you ignore it for days. Suddenly you wake up one day and the fire reaches your own house and is now getting close to the room where your children are sleeping.
Do you let your children burn by saying "I'm not solely responsible" or do you put out the fire?
Do you ask for money to put out the fire by whining about "friends running away" or do you use anything you can get and try to save your children?
Do you blame the whole world or do you look at yourself to ask why you played those dangerous games?