Re: Woman dies a day after seeing ‘missing’ sons
Can you please list some achievements of the army (kill and dump is hardly an achievement).
Please do not start on economy as in 1979 Zia jumped into American jehad and earned billions of dollars, and then Musharraf earned dollars through war on terror.
The main function of the army is to defend the nation:
What is the meaning (or purpose) of defending a country from outside forces when internal forces are destroying the country from within?
Obviously, army cannot and should not let thugs destroy the country with their loot and plunder, in the name of demon-crazy.
[quote]
What are their achievements in defence?
1) Bangladesh?
2) Siachin?
3) Kargil?
4) Nuclear proliferation?
5) Balochistan?
6) Ill thought out participation in WOT causing a lot of suffering for the people within the country?
[/quote]
It is due to their defensive ability that Pakistan holds Azad Kashmir, FATA, part of ‘Rann of kutch’, and rest of remaining Pakistan, else without any army to defend, Afghanistan claims FATA, India claims Azad Kashmir and ‘Runn of Kutch’, and India also believes that Pakistan should not exist.
Pakistan defence budget is ~ $5 billion, when opposing power (India) has defence budget of ~ $40 billion. So, one can say that if Pakistan is holding status-co with such incomparable budget, than that in itself is a commendable achievement.
Anyhow, coming to what you mentioned:
1 Bangladesh: It was not entirely military fault that BD was lost. Pakistani politicians were not willing to sit together, and probably army (however wrongly) thought that whatever they would do, no political party would turn internal problem into independence movement, and even if they would do that, then they though army is strong enough to suppress that independence movement. Unfortunately Pakistan army was not strong enough, especially when India came in. So, however sad, but one cannot just blame armed forces (though one cannot exonerate them completely too).
2 Siachin: Unfortunately, Pakistan defence budget was never enough that Pakistan could afford to keep continuous presence on all areas in Kashmir, especially areas that is all the time under ice. India took advantage of that weakness, and took over Siachin when Pakistan forces were not there. Anyhow, we cannot entirely blame Pakistan, as Pakistan lost to a power (India) that has defence budget ~ 8 times what Pakistan has.
3 Kargil: Kargil was under Pakistani rule, but was presented to India in Shimla agreement by Z A Bhutto. Pakistan army took it over in 1999 and could have kept it, but Pakistani politicians ran to USA when India made hue and cry all over the world and Americans (along with many other countries) started condemning Pakistan. In the end, Pakistani politicians gave it back to India, losing occupied kargil on table (what they should not have done). Anyhow, some part of Kargil that Pakistan captured is still with Pakistan.
4 Nuclear proliferation: Pakistan has not signed NPT, so it does not matter what Pakistan did. Anyhow, if it happened, most of it happened during 1990s, when politicians were in power.
5 Baluchistan: Pakistan is confederation, and thus many politicians, especially from smaller provinces believe that Pakistan should not be treated as one country. Same is true with Baluchsitan where Sardars believe that they are rulers and Pakistani laws are not applicable in their areas. Pakistan army always considered Baluchistan as undisputed part of Pakistan, something Baloch Sardars contest. Such conflicts create friction that is going on since 1948.
1948: It was Abdul karim Khan.
1958: It was Nowroz Khan who was jailed and many of his family members executed (hanged) by Ayub Khan.
1963: It was Marri Sardar (Bijrani): Ceasefire was declared when Yahya Khan broke one-unit and Baluchistan was made province.
1973: It was Marri Sardar and Mengal Sardar: This was the only war that started because Bhutto wanted to rule Baluchsitan over their elected representatives, sacking elected government and imposing Governor Rule. War ended when Zia came to power.
2004: Bugti Sardar (Akbar Khan) and Marri Sardar (Balach): Musharraf government wanted to develop Baluchistan and impose Pakistani Jurisdiction all over Baluchistan. Musharraf also wanted development of areas directly, bypassing Sardars. This was unacceptable for Sardars, as Pakistani jurisdiction means them losing power and immunity in their areas, development funds bypassing them mean no control over their areas, and direct development means no control over money allocated to their area.
So, why just blame military rule for disturbance in Baluchsitan?
6 Ill thought out participation in WOT causing a lot of suffering for the people within the country?
Lot of sufferings to whom?
Pakistan is not fighting someone who is innocent and unarmed, rather Pakistan is fighting a group of people whose agenda is to rule Pakistan and force Pakistanis into submission so that they can impose their misguided religious beliefs on Pakistan.
Before 9/11 they were slowly building their power in Pakistan, but after 9/11 they came out of their hole and started challenging writ of Pakistan openly.
Thus, WOT that Pakistan is fighting within Pakistan, is fighting for survival of Pakistan (or at least survival of Pakistan that exists today). Pakistan is not fighting someone else war, as crushing these terrorists militarily is for future and safety of Pakistan and not for any other country.
[Note: No country fights a war for another country when they (armed forces of that country) are fighting armed people within country and not outside the country. Actually when armed people are fighting government within country, than that itself is proof that war belongs to country and not to any outside country]
So, what is your take? If a group of people want to kill innocent Pakistanis in the name of their misguided sectarian beliefs, and want to impose their misguided beliefs all over Pakistan by force, than would you like government to fight them or surrender to them?
Obviously, if government would decide to fight these armed terrorists then they would fight, killing mostly civilians considering them soft target. In such situation, some unfortunate Pakistanis becoming target would suffer in their hands. On the other hand, if Pakistan government would surrender to them than whole Pakistan would suffer, as with time they would become strong enough to take over Pakistan. So, Pakistan have to make choice. You may have difference with my opinion (and choice), but for me, Pakistan should fight.