Taliban Uprising - Is the state of Pakistan in peril?

[webmaster]

Guys, if you are interested in reading more, there is a transcript of a speech followed by a Q&A session given by US DOD Undersecretary of Defence, Ms Flournoy, on 21 April 2009, on the US Strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

While this speech offers an American perspective, the American perspective cannot be ignored. Have a look, the Q&A session is very interesting.

Thanks. The answers do shed light on some of the issues that Pakistan would have with US/NATO policies in Afghanistan:

1. Lack of trust
2. Indian involvement in Afghanistan and meddling on Pakistan's western border.
   What exactly are Indian embassies in almost every Afghani city doing? How many Afghans are actually seeking visas to India/or the other way around, what is their purpose there, etc., etc.?
3. Past abandonment of Pakistan after the soviets left and sanctions that followed, which pretty much led to the Pakistan support of popular movement in Afghanistan in the 90s - the Taliban.

We should be looking for Pakistan's help, building trust and making sure Pakistan as a state is stable and able to help in areas where Pakistani military has never gone before. It is time (rather late in the day now after 8 years into the war) that past mistakes are used as a lesson and not repeated.

 

[Firn]

From the articles I read and videos I posted it seems that every direct US engagement would be highly counter-productive. For most Pakistani the USA is part of the problem, perhaps even the problem and not the solution to it.

Anyway today's NYTimes editorial argues that the Pakistani politcal and military leadership seems to underestimate the danger posed by the extremist forces.

Webmaster seems to have shown some aspects from a Pakistani point of view. We should try to expend them.

 

[momokaabba]

I’ve been tempted again to join in
I would like to share a Pakistani perspective from Cricketer Turned Politician, Imran Khan who is quite respected in Pakistan for being a relatively cleaner politician.

How to Clear the Mess​

Thursday, April 23, 2009
By Imran Khan

The reason why there is so much despondency in Pakistan is because there is no road map to get out of the so-called War on Terror - a nomenclature that even the Obama Administration has discarded as being a negative misnomer. To cure the patient the diagnosis has to be accurate, otherwise the wrong medicine can sometimes kill the patient. In order to find the cure, first six myths that have been spun around the US-led “Global War on Terror” (GWOT) have to be debunked.

Myth No. 1: This is Pakistan’s war

Since no Pakistani was involved in 9/11 and the CIA-trained Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan, how does it concern us? It is only when General Musharraf buckled under US pressure and sent our troops into Waziristan in late 2003-early 2004 that Pakistan became a war zone. It took another three years of the Pakistan army following the same senseless tactics as used by the US and NATO forces in Afghanistan (aerial bombardment) plus the slaughter at Lal Masjid, for the creation of the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). If our security forces are being targeted today by the Taliban and their suicide bombers, it is because they are perceived to be proxies of the US army. Iran is ideologically opposed to both Al Qaeda and the Taliban yet why are its security forces not attacked by terrorists? The answer is because their President does not pretend to be a bulwark against Islamic extremism in return for US dollars and support.

Michael Scheuer (ex-CIA officer and author of the book Imperial Hubris), writing in The Washington Post in April 2007, cited Musharraf’s loyalty to the US even when it went against Pakistan’s national interests by giving two examples: the first was Musharraf helping the US in removing a pro-Pakistan Afghan government and replacing it with a pro-Indian one; and, the second, for sending Pakistani troops into the tribal areas and turning the tribesmen against the Pakistan army. To fully understand Musharraf’s treachery against Pakistan, it is important to know that almost a 100,000 troops were sent into the tribal areas to target around 1000 suspected Al-Qaeda members - thus earning the enmity of at least 1.5 million armed local tribals in the 7 tribal agencies of Pakistan.

The most shameful aspect of the lie that this is our war is that the government keeps begging the US for more dollars stating that the war is costing the country more than the money it is receiving from the US. If it is our war, then fighting it should not be dependent on funds and material flowing from the US. If it is our war, why do we have no control over it? If it is our war, then why is the US government asking us to do more?

Myth No. 2: This is a war against Islamic extremists ó an ideological war against radical Islam

Was the meteoric rise of Taliban due to their religious ideology? Clearly not, because the Mujahideen were equally religious - Gulbadin Hekmatyar (supported by the ISI) was considered an Islamic fundamentalist. In fact, the reason the Taliban succeeded where the Mujahideen warlords failed, was because they established the rule of law - the Afghans had had enough of the power struggle between the warlord factions that had destroyed what remained of the country’s infrastructure and killed over 100,000 people.

If the Pushtuns of the tribal area wanted to adopt the Taliban religious ideology then surely they would have when the latter was in power in Afghanistan, between 1996 and 2001. Yet there was no Talibanisation in the tribal areas. Interestingly, the only part of Pakistan where the Taliban had an impact was in Swat where Sufi Mohammad started the Shariat Movement. The reason was that while there was rule of law (based on the traditional jirga system) in the tribal areas, the people of Swat had been deprived of easy access to justice ever since the traditional legal system premised on Qazi courts was replaced by Pakistani laws and judicial system, first introduced in 1974. The murder rate shot up from 10 per year in 1974 to almost 700 per year by 1977, when there was an uprising against the Pakistani justice system. The Taliban cashed in on this void of justice to rally the poorer sections of Swat society just as they had attracted the Afghans in a situation of political anarchy and lawlessness in Afghanistan. It is important to make this distinction because the strategy to bring peace must depend on knowing your enemy. Michael Bearden, CIA station chief in Pakistan from 1986 to 1989, wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine that the US is facing the same Pushtun insurgency that was faced by the Soviets in Afghanistan. According to him, as long as NATO is in Afghanistan, the Taliban will get a constant supply of men from the 15

million Pushtun population of Afghanistan and the 25 million Pushtuns of Pakistan. In other words, this Talibanisation is not so much religion-driven as politically-motivated. So the solution to the problem in the tribal belt today does not lie in religion and “moderate” Islam but in a political settlement.

Myth No. 3: If we keep fighting the US war, the super power will bail us out financially through aid packages.

Recently, the Government’s Adviser on Finance stated that the war on terror has cost Pakistan $35 billion while the country has received only $11 billion assistance from the US. I would go a step further and say that this aid is the biggest curse for the country. Not only is it “blood money” for our army killing our own people (there is no precedent for this) but also nothing has destroyed the self-esteem of this country as this one factor. Moreover, there is no end in sight as our cowardly and compromised leadership is ordered to “do more” for the payments made for their services. Above all, this aid and loans are like treating cancer with disprin. It enables the government to delay the much needed surgery of reforms (cutting expenditures and raising revenues); and meanwhile the cancer is spreading and might become terminal.

Myth No. 4: That the next terrorist attack on the US will come from the tribal areas.

First, there is an assumption, based purely on conjecture, that the Al Qaeda leadership is in the tribal areas. In fact, this leadership could well be in the 70 % of Afghan territory that the Taliban control. More importantly, given the growing radicalisation of the educated Muslim youth - in major part because of the continuing US partiality towards Israeli occupation of Palestinian land - why can it not follow that the next terrorist attack on the US could come either from the Middle East or from the marginalised and radicalised Muslims of Europe, motivated by perceived injustices to Islam and the Muslim World.

Myth No. 5: That the ISI is playing a double game and if Pakistan did more the war could be won.

If Talibanisation is growing in Pakistan because of the covert support of ISI in the tribal areas, then surely the growing Taliban control over Afghanistan (70 % of the territory) must be with NATO’s complicity? Surely a more rational understanding would be to see that the strategy being employed is creating hatred against the US and its collaborators. Aerial bombardment and its devastating collateral damage is the biggest gift the US has given to the Taliban. According to official reports, out of the 60 drone attacks conducted between 14 January 2006-April 8 2009, only 10 were on target, killing 14 alleged Al Qaeda. In the process almost 800 Pakistani civilians have been killed, while many lost their homes and limbs.

Despite its military surge effort, the US will eventually pack up and leave like the Soviets, but the “do more” mantra could end up destroying the Pakistan army - especially the ISI which is being targeted specifically for the mess created by the Bush Administration in Afghanistan.

Myth No. 6: That Pakistan could be Talibanised with their version of Islam.

Both Musharraf and Zardari have contributed to this myth in order to get US backing and dollars. Firstly there is no such precedent in the 15-hundred years of Islamic history of a theocracy like that of the Taliban, outside of the recent Taliban period of rule in Afghanistan. However, as mentioned earlier, the Taliban’s ascendancy in Afghanistan was not a result of their religious ideology but their ability to establish order and security in a war-devastated and anarchic Afghanistan.

In Swat, the present mess has arisen because of poor governance issues. Also, it was the manner in which the government handled the situation - simply sending in the army rather than providing better governance - that created space for the Taliban. Just as in Balochistan (under Musharraf) when the army was sent in rather than the Baloch being given their economic and provincial rights, similarly the army in Swat aggravated the situation and the present mess was created.

What Pakistan has to worry about is the chaos and anarchy that are going to stem from the radicalisation of our people because of the failure of successive governments to govern effectively and justly. Karen Armstrong, in her book The Battle for God, gives details of fundamentalist movements that turned militant when they were repressed. Ideas should be fought with counter ideas and dialogue, not guns. Allama Iqbal was able to deal with fundamentalism through his knowledge and intellect. The slaughter of the fundamentalists of Lal Masjid did more to fan extremism and fanaticism than any other single event.

Pakistan is staring down an abyss today and needs to come up with a sovereign nationalist policy to deal with the situation. If we keep on following dictation from Washington, we are doomed. There are many groups operating in the country under the label of “Taliban”. Apart from the small core of religious extremists, the bulk of the fighting men are Pushtun nationalists. Then there are the fighters from the old Jihadi groups. Moreover, the Taliban are also successfully exploiting the class tensions by appealing to the have-nots. But the most damaging for Pakistan are those groups who are being funded primarily from two external sources: first, by those who want to see Pakistan become a “failed state”; and, second, by those who wish to see the US bogged down in the Afghan quagmire.

What needs to be done: A two-pronged strategy is required - focusing on a revised relationship with the US and a cohesive national policy based on domestic compulsions and ground realities.

President Obama, unlike President Bush, is intelligent and has integrity. A select delegation of local experts on the tribal area and Afghanistan should make him understand that the current strategy is a disaster for both Pakistan and the US; that Pakistan can no longer commit suicide by carrying on this endless war against its own people; that we will hold dialogue and win over the Pushtuns of the tribal area and make them deal with the real terrorists while the Pakistan army is gradually pulled out.

At the same time, Pakistan has to move itself to ending drone attacks if the US is not prepared to do so. Closure of the drone base within Pakistan is a necessary beginning as is the need to create space between ourselves and the US, which will alter the ground environment in favour of the Pakistani state. It will immediately get rid of the fanaticism that creates suicide bombers as no longer will they be seen to be on the path to martyrdom by bombing US collaborators. Within this environment a consensual national policy to combat extremism and militancy needs to be evolved centring on dialogue, negotiation and assertion of the writ of the state. Where force is required the state must rely on the paramilitary forces, not the army. Concomitantly, Pakistan needs serious reforms. First and foremost we have to give our people access to justice at the grassroots level - that is, revive the village jury/Panchayat system. Only then will we rid ourselves of the oppressive “thana-kutchery” culture which compels the poor to seek adjudication by the feudals, tribal leaders, tumandars and now by the Taliban also - thereby perpetuating oppression of the dispossessed, especially women.

Second, unless we end the system of parallel education in the country where the rich access private schools and a different examination system while the poor at best only have access to a deprived public school system with its outmoded syllabus and no access to employment. That is why the marginalised future generations are condemned to go to madrassahs which provide them with food for survival and exploit their pent up social anger. We need to bring all our educational institutions into the mainstream with one form of education syllabus and examination system for all - with madrassahs also coming under the same system even while they retain their religious education specialisation.

Third, the level of governance needs to be raised through making appointments on merit in contrast to the worst type of cronyism that is currently on show. Alongside this, a cutting of expenditures is required with the leadership and the elite leading by example through adoption of an austere lifestyle. Also, instead of seeking aid and loans to finance the luxurious lifestyle of the elite, the leadership should pay taxes, declare its assets and bring into the country all money kept in foreign banks abroad. All “benami” transactions, assets and bank accounts should be declared illegal. I believe we will suddenly discover that we are actually quite a self-sufficient country.

Fourth, the state has to widen its direct taxation net and cut down on indirect taxation where the poor subsidise the rich. If corruption and ineptitude are removed, it will be possible for the state to collect income tax more effectively.

A crucial requirement for moving towards stability would be the disarming of all militant groups - which will a real challenge for the leadership but here again, the political elite can lead by example and dismantle their show of guards and private forces.

Finally, fundamentalism should be fought intellectually with sensitivity shown to the religious and heterogeneous roots of culture amongst the Pakistani masses. Solutions have to be evolved from within the nation through tolerance and understanding. Here, we must learn from the Shah of Iran’s attempts to enforce a pseudo-Western identity onto his people and its extreme backlash from Iranian society.

The threat of extremism is directly related to the performance of the state and its ability to deliver justice and welfare to its people.

Although I do feel that Imran lives in a dream-world of his own however has certain valid points as far as his underscored Myths are concerned (maybe upto 80%) however the solutions he suggests may not be practicable entirely, especially in view of urgency the situation requires.

I do feel that Imran misses few points here.
1. Nature of Pakistan and US relationship. Although he comments on how Pakistan has conducted itself in relation to US especially in War-On-Terror (WOT). However he does not comment of the nature of this relationship especially psyche from Pakistani and US perspective, which actually govern the issues of expectations from each other and trust.
The psyche is changing and with the change comes a lot of turmoil. Sooner US is able to understand that it is not the same anymore better it would be. Because it is in everybody’s interests that this relationship does not completely fall apart.
2. Again reasons for Talibanisation in Pakistan cannot be equated to the ones in Afghanistan, especially in SWAT area because:
SWAT has been one of the most effluent of areas of Northwest of Pakistan actually with most prosperity, education and administration. And I don’t see that as fulfilling reasons enough for breeding Talibanisation there. That is why they can be called Neo-Talibs/Thugs. That does not mean they are not linked with the rest of the system of Thugs in other areas, it only highlights the point that they are not a homogenous group in terms of their origins as well.

 

[OPSSG]

Please read the testimony of Christine Fair on 'The future of the U.S.–Pakistan relationship' before the US Congress on May 2009. In particular, she talks about these five needs in detail:

(i) the need for demand-driven change;

(ii) the need for the United States to expand its capacity to execute programs in line with Pakistanis’ preferences;

(iii) the need for Pakistan to pay for itself;

(iv) the need for Pakistan’s police force to become more effective in dealing with security threats; and

(v) the need for a transparent and evidence-based approach to ensure Pakistani accountability for U.S. security assistance.​

Just as it is easy to criticize the US (and not that the US is blameless), I do think that the people of Pakistan need to take a hard look at themselves and see the flaws of their current political system and their current police/military capability.

IMHO, all proposed solutions/aid need Pakistani input and involvement to succeed. However, as this May 2009 Pakistani article shows, the general published opinion (and by implication the educated opinion) in Pakistan seems to be still in the denial mode. If you are interested in more details, there is another article by Ahmed Rashid called 'Pakistan's Critical Hour'. In fact, even David Kilcullen, an Australian and a former advisor to Gen. Petraeus on counter insurgency says that "I am strongly opposed to the drones," which indicates that even US supporters think that current US policy may not be working.

I shall refrain from further commentary and defer to people more knowledgeable than me on this topic, as I believe there members of this forum with a better appreciation of the actual picture on the ground in Pakistan.

 

[Firn]

Thanks for the replies so far. I would also like to invite especially Pakistani members to point out how they feel about the situation of Pakistan.

 

[justone]

Introduction

This thread is devoted to current conflict in Pakistan in which an ever-growing part of the Pakistani territory seems to be infiltrated, disrupted or even controlled by a coalition of forces which seem to be united by a extremist view of Islam.

I think this might turn out to be one of the most decisive struggles in the first quarter of the 21th century. We should collect here articles, papers, documentaries in short all material which might be useful to analyse this conflict. We will then try to come up with an hopefully evolving synthesis concerning the strategy and the tactics of both the insurgents and the political and military leadership of Pakistan.

Only persons should contribute which have something useful to add. While this discussions has to touch sensitive matters I expect the posters to do so in an educated and composed fashion. I hope that the moderators here will delete posts which disturb the discussion and add nothing to the debate.


Thanks

As this was told before the Pakistan military was not designed to fight a war against a guerilla force. When you add religion into it things get harder than you can imagine. American aid is coming, but it take time to train forces for this kind of war. You have to take into account the religion of the Pakistan military there are going to be culture different with the U.S. military trainers who train Pakistan forces. The Pakistan forces are designed for a war with India. They had two wars with India. It's really hard to fight on your own land against your own peoples. Look at the drug war in America this been going for years. You have some policemen in America who become drug dealers. You have some the military who are friend with the tribes they are fighting.That was just example how difficult this war is going to be. This area has lot of tribes who made a pact try to keep a certain way of life going. Pakistan has lots of Islamic school who teaches different ways. This war is going to go on for a long time and not going a piece of pie. The Government was going have to deal with this one way or other. You will see a change once the Pakistan military get the correct training and equipment. When the will of people are behind getting rid of this you will see a change currently this is what going alot of civilians are leaving. The guerillas will be reduced in what they can do.

 

[OPSSG]

justone, on the issue of your writing style. Have you heard of paragraphs to organise your thoughts? It is hard to read blocks of text...

...You have to take into account the religion of the Pakistan military there are going to be culture different with the U.S. military trainers who train Pakistan forces...

This area has lot of tribes who made a pact try to keep a certain way of life going. Pakistan has lots of Islamic school who teaches different ways. This war is going to go on for a long time and not going a piece of pie...

Are you from Pakistan? You seem to have a strong opinion on the prevailing public opinion in Pakistan. In my case, I can only rely on 3rd party reports to get an idea of what is happening.

The Government was going have to deal with this one way or other. You will see a change once the Pakistan military get the correct training and equipment. When the will of people are behind getting rid of this you will see a change currently this is what going alot of civilians are leaving. The guerrillas will be reduced in what they can do.

Really? The will of the Pakistani people?

I enclose a link to Dr David J Kilcullen's recent testimony before US Congress with regards to the Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement (PEACE) Act 2009.

Please read what Dr David J Kilcullen says in his testimony (link provided above) and also watch his recent interview with the BBC TV program, Hardtalk. Let me know what you think of the situation there (after you have read the testimony and watched the interview). The BBC program is one of the more informative interviews I have seen thus far.

 

[webmaster]

As this was told before the Pakistan military was not designed to fight a war against a guerilla force.When you add religion into it things get harder than you can imagine. American aid is coming, but it take time to train forces for this kind of war. You have to take into account the religion of the Pakistan military there are going to be culture different with the U.S. military trainers who train Pakistan forces. The Pakistan forces are designed for a war with India. They had two wars with India. It's really hard to fight on your own land against your own peoples. Look at the drug war in America this been going for years. You have some policemen in America who become drug dealers. You have some the military who are friend with the tribes they are fighting.That was just example how difficult this war is going to be. This area has lot of tribes who made a pact try to keep a certain way of life going. Pakistan has lots of Islamic school who teaches different ways. This war is going to go on for a long time and not going a piece of pie. The Government was going have to deal with this one way or other. You will see a change once the Pakistan military get the correct training and equipment. When the will of people are behind getting rid of this you will see a change currently this is what going alot of civilians are leaving. The guerillas will be reduced in what they can do.

What training? Who is going to train? NATO? American Forces? Sure, but ISAF is also facing hardship and problems with Talibans in Afghanistan so I am not sure if training would help.

It will be hard for Pakistan but the military can do it and win this particular operation. However, this equipment can speed up the process by weeks if not months:

-- Night vision equipment
-- Helicopter gunships (apaches, cobras, etc.)
-- transport aircraft/helicopters
-- Special forces equipment
-- Electronic jammers to jam the FM frequencies that Taliban use to communicate and any other radios these animals are using.
-- protected vehicles, watching Pakistani soldiers and rangers in jeeps is rather cheap.
-- UAVs and other surveillance equipment

As far as other comments regarding guerrilla warfare. If Pakistani military mind can design a conflict based on guerrilla warfare and defeat the soviets, it can also adapt and fight one (with the right equipment), even though its main role is conventional warfare/operations.

 

[justone]

As far as other comments regarding guerrilla warfare. If Pakistani military mind can design a conflict based on guerrilla warfare and defeat the soviets, it can also adapt and fight one (with the right equipment), even though its main role is conventional warfare/operations.

As I said before you have some in the Pakistan military who are friend to the groups in the northern tribes. Remember they all are muslims don't forget that! That was a different threat in the 80's the Soviets were seen as enemy of Islam. That was different fight then. Now you just going to change and attack your friends not easy as you think. Do you get the picture now. If the American are seen as enemy of Islam within the general population you have a problem I didn't want get into this but you have to see the big picture. That's the problem in the whole region. That why I said the culture different is big part of what going on. I'm just trying to get you see from the there point of view. Remember the official name of Pakistan is "Islamic Republic of Pakistan" You must understand the culture first! The general population going to be part of this whether you like it or not. You have to change the view of the general population toward the Taliban. That why the state of Pakistan in peril. Pakistan is going have to resolving this on all fronts religion, military, police and intelligence services.

 

[webmaster]

As I said before you have some in the Pakistan military who are friend to the groups in the northern tribes. Remember they all are muslims don't forget that!

That was a different threat in the 80's the Soviets were seen as enemy of Islam. That was different fight then. Now you just going to change and attack your friends not easy as you think. Do you get the picture now. If the American are seen as enemy of Islam within the general population you have a problem I didn't want get into this but you have to see the big picture. That's the problem in the whole region.

That why I said the culture different is big part of what going on. I'm just trying to get you see from the there point of view. Remember the official name of Pakistan is "Islamic Republic of Pakistan" You must understand the culture first!

The general population going to be part of this whether you like it or not. You have to change the view of the general population toward the Taliban. That why the state of Pakistan in peril. Pakistan is going have to resolving this on all fronts religion, military, police and intelligence services.

First of all, you need to break your posts into paragraphs like I did above,so its easier for others to read and understand what you are saying.

So, since those who are Taliban and those who are fighting them are Muslims, they must have some mutual interest? Why would Pakistan evacuate over 2 million people if they are friends? There is NOTHING common between the military and these thugs and terrorists that its fighting, not even religion.

The population, for the most part, is behind the military and against these animals. The biggest problem Pakistan has right now is of leadership and a strategy from the political parties. These goons, if you read the news, are blaming each other for supporting and not supporting the operations against the barbarians. It gets worse when you have the most corrupt person as your president and party leader, more like a mafia don. It doesn't end there, his party doesn't even recognize that Mr. 10% is wrong or has done wrong in the past and on top of that the incompetent jokers he surrounds himself with just adds to the mixture of corruption, greed, no sense of urgency, no sense of responsibility and accountability which pretty much trickles down the whole party (PPP) and the rest of the nation. And it gets even worse when all major "democracy" champions support the most corrupt politician.

They launched the operation but the incompetent politicians failed to come up with a good strategy as to what would happen to the people who would come out of that region. How is Pakistan going to manage them? Now army has to come out and do its job, as a relief and disaster management organization.

In addition to type of equipment required by the army, they also need to work on other fronts:

-- Find and disrupt funding to these groups
-- Source of weapons? I doubt its the afghan Taliban, as TTP and afghan Taliban do not get along well and besides, don't they need the weapons in afghanistan?
-- After capture of foreign and non-Muslim terrorists, what role are the neighbors playing as far as anti-Pakistan activities in Pakistan are concerned?

Anyway, the situation is very fluid and is changing by the hour. There are many factors involved and only good strategy and time will tell how successful the military has been against the terrorists.

 

[Marc 1]

The population, for the most part, is behind the military and against these animals. .

Webmaster, at the risk of offending an administrator, I point out the following:

1. Momokaabba's post 3 weeks ago of Imran Khan's letter seems to disagree with you. Imran is a fairly moderate Pakistani nationalist (and a great cricketer in case you were wondering where you had heard his name) and yet he seems to be fairly anti US in his editorial.

2. I have a friend whom I stay in very casual contact with who lives in Pakistan and studied in Australia. We had many discussions about the Taleban and fundamentalists - he definately labelled them as 'nutters'. BUT he still did not like America. These discussions took place before 911, before GW Bush virtually declared war on anybody who wasn't "with us" which I suspect wasn't the smartest thing to say. Since then we've had Gulf War 2, the prison Abhu Ghraib (Sp?) abuse scandle etc, I would say that America would have slipped still further in the rankings in most Muslim's minds.

3. No matter how many of the bad guys the UAV strikes are killing, it does not play well in the Pakistani media that America is killing Pakistani's on Pakistani soil, confimed recently by Dave Kilcullen's testimony before congress.

Yes, the Pakistani people may view the taleban to be animals, but I'd hazard a guess that America isn't on the christmas card list either. Pakistan may seem to be on the American/NATO side in this conflict, but remember the old saying, "Keep you friends close, but keep your enemies closer"? Lets hope that's not what's happening there...

 

[webmaster]

Marc, thanks for the comments and you are free to disagree.

Your 1st point is exactly the type of issues I was refering to regarding politicians. Imran khan is a fairly moderate and intelligent person but all these parties should have a consensus as to where they stand as far as national security of Pakistan is concerned. No?

Also, there are good reasons why people do not like American government/policies. This [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dM1BG_NnHaA"]video[/ame] and article should sum it up as to why that is so. There is a huge mistrust when it comes to what American government says and does and that mistrust grows stronger when Pakistanis see military and defense collaboration with India and her meddling in Afghani affairs.

I agree with your 3rd point as well, UAV attacks need to stop.... not every hut is a terrorist house and not every school a madraasa and only Pakistanis who operate in that area can tell you the difference not someone sitting in Jalalabaad airbase or aircraft carrier off the cost of Balochistan. UAV attacks are used by these terrorists to win sympathies as there is no body else who would listen to concerns that people have.

There are a lot of wrongs happening here in this scenario as it unfolds, I am not sure if anything right can come out of it. Lets hope that it does.

 

[OPSSG]

...When you add religion into it things get harder than you can imagine. American aid is coming, but it take time to train forces for this kind of war. You have to take into account the religion of the Pakistan military there are going to be culture different with the U.S. military trainers who train Pakistan forces. The Pakistan forces are designed for a war with India. They had two wars with India. It's really hard to fight on your own land against your own peoples...

So, since those who are Taliban and those who are fighting them are Muslims, they must have some mutual interest? Why would Pakistan evacuate over 2 million people if they are friends? There is NOTHING common between the military and these thugs and terrorists that its fighting, not even religion.

The population, for the most part, is behind the military and against these animals...

Anyway, the situation is very fluid and is changing by the hour. There are many factors involved and only good strategy and time will tell how successful the military has been against the terrorists.

I'm really not comfortable with justone's approach in seemingly tarnishing the moderate Muslims in Pakistan under the same broad brush with the terrorists / extremists (who kill other Muslims and attack a visiting cricket team). In fact, these terrorists / extremists are un-Muslim like. That is why I put in bold the Webmaster's words for emphasis.

I think I better explain why the 'Taliban and their ilk' can be said not to share the same religion as most other Muslims. Correctly understood, the 'Taliban and their ilk' in Pakistan and Afghanistan are not jihadists. In fact, most Muslims can relate to these acts of war and terror as hirabah. Hirabah can be translated to mean sinful warfare, or warfare contrary to Islamic law.

The 'Taliban and their ilk' should be labeled as mufsidun (and not jihadists as main stream media likes to label them). Mufsidun is plural for the word mufsid and mufsid refers to an evil or corrupt person. And as my Muslim friends have explained to me in private, the 'Taliban and their ilk' are certainly evil.

I hope I have understood these terms correctly and I'm sure there are Muslims in this forum who can correct me on the use of the above terms (if I have misunderstood them).

 

[ekg]

I am a new member

I am a Chinese, (you may read some English not familiar to you), I will observe first before I post my views here.

Thanks,

EKG

 

[Firn]

Some good points were already raised.

A tentative observation of mine is that the terror campaign waged at least by some elements of the extremist movements in Paktistan has had two effects:

(i) It helped to suppress popular resistence in the areas where they could roam free and to paralyze the public entities.

(ii) It created revulsion in many who suffered through it or saw it. For them it revealed the ugly face of some of this movements.
​

It is by the way not off to say that one could be very critical of and opposed to the policy of the USA, convinced of some Indian conspiracy behind it and yet furiously condemn the crimes of this extremists.

The importance of perception is also greatly supported by the recent controversy about the UACV strikes inside Pakistan. This policy inflames the patriotic sentiment and reinforce the arguments against the USA. It doesn't matter much what exactly they hit, just the simple fact that they are doing it is enough. The Pakistani army has far more leeway in this matters, therefor the support of the West must be indirect.

The USA now can lament this perceived injustice done to them and point to their high moral standards and strict ROE, but it won't change a thing.

All in all a very difficult topic. Everybody just needs to look how complex the situation at his home is and how complicated things get in politics and society. This helps to avoid viewing Pakistan as a monolithic bloc.

 

[mysterious]

My observation after following the plethora of Pakistan-exclusive reports on the New York Times have led me to firmly believe that it is not a credible source anymore when it comes to global flashpoints. It has been churning out blatantly one-sided, anti-Pakistan rhetoric more than anything substantive that it has reported.

I've read each report and followed the 'comments' section on many of them and all you see is NyTimes moderators giving a free-hand to Pakistan-obsessed Indians and ofcourse, your typical media-misled American. Many of comments that have sought to balance the discussion either get rejected right-away or you start seeing these 'rebuttals' added by the author and/or moderator. Point is, it is abundantly clear as to how they try to 'shape' a discussion. Problem is media outlets such as NyTimes and Washington Post are more busy trying to influence Capitol Hill instead of following 'real' journalism of any sort. Lets not forget the war-hype created by these two media outlets just before the Iraq war.

Moving on, Pakistan today is a different place than it was a month ago. Most of the political and public support now heavily backs up the army's operations in Swat and adjoining areas. Here's a BBC report BBC NEWS | South Asia | Tide turns against the Taliban that highlights the changed majority sentiment.

Also, the Pakistan Army is preparing a massive operation in the Waziristan region.

 

[webmaster]

My observation after following the plethora of Pakistan-exclusive reports on the New York Times have led me to firmly believe that it is not a credible source anymore when it comes to global flashpoints. It has been churning out blatantly one-sided, anti-Pakistan rhetoric more than anything substantive that it has reported.

I've read each report and followed the 'comments' section on many of them and all you see is NyTimes moderators giving a free-hand to Pakistan-obsessed Indians and ofcourse, your typical media-misled American. Many of comments that have sought to balance the discussion either get rejected right-away or you start seeing these 'rebuttals' added by the author and/or moderator. Point is, it is abundantly clear as to how they try to 'shape' a discussion. Problem is media outlets such as NyTimes and Washington Post are more busy trying to influence Capitol Hill instead of following 'real' journalism of any sort. Lets not forget the war-hype created by these two media outlets just before the Iraq war.

Moving on, Pakistan today is a different place than it was a month ago. Most of the political and public support now heavily backs up the army's operations in Swat and adjoining areas. Here's a BBC report BBC NEWS | South Asia | Tide turns against the Taliban that highlights the changed majority sentiment.

Also, the Pakistan Army is preparing a massive operation in the Waziristan region.

Thanks for the BBC article. It reinforces my point about needing advanced equipment, it should be part of the aid package from US:

"Any kind of military operation that seeks to take out individuals is an intelligence-driven operation that requires a lot of technology, a lot of surveillance capacity, which we don't have.

"I have boots on the ground and troops that I can organise to go against organised resistance and cohesive militancy, but I can't really go after individuals," he says.

This part really saddens me:

"With my own hands I have buried 18 people who were beheaded, even children," he tells me grimly.
"They are not friends, they are not our allies, they're our enemies, they are criminals, they are gangsters."

A friend sent me video of 4 soldiers being beheaded. It was very disturbing, I hope no body has to go through that. I told him, there should be no mercy for thugs who have no compassion, no reasoning at all and if they are captured alive, they should be skinned alive. How can one human do these horrible, horrible things to another and Taliban are doing this to their countrymen and tribesmen!!!???!!!

 

[ghanz]

Clips from front line against taliban,
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxZYwLsvdoA]YouTube - LIVE Battle Clipakistan Army vs Taliban SWAT War (Exclusive Footage)[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQB-IgktVEM]YouTube - Pakistan's War: On the Front Line - 5 Jan 09 - Part 1[/ame]

 

[Firn]

Taliban Stir Rising Anger...

As I wrote before, terror has two diametrical opposed effects...

 

[waraich]

The Afghan taliban originated from Kandahaar. How can band of few thousand madrassa students from Pakistan take over whole country, defeat ALL parties who were shelling kabul at that time, and push Northern Alliance into a corner? Besides, Pakistani taliban are Pakhtoons, not tajiks, uzbiks or hazaaraas as is the case in Afghanistan. So, it had to be a home grown movement which won support of the LOCAL people. It was purely a Afghani movement and it brought peace to afghanistan after decades of war and chaos. Only role Pakistan played was, it supported them, as they brough stability to Pakistan's western border. Wouldn't any country support a regime which brings peace and security and stability to over 1000 miles of border? Frankly, I as an American, prefer peaceful neighbors and not drug traffickers and bandits.

As far as their internal policies are concerned, there are various opinions on that and majority of them are not in favor of Taliban for right reasons.

Actually it is not very easy to undestand what is going on inside Pakistan.Pakistani talaban have now ten or more groups fighting with PA.
Most of these groups armed and trained by PA during Afghan Rissia war.
These groups have also links with Mullah Omar and Afghan talaban and they are freely moving across Pak Afghan boarder.It is impossible to control their movement.
US drone attacks actualy motivated local pushtoon tribes in talaban support against PA and GOP .
Now satuation is very bad more then 20 million local peoples already left their homes and PA alone could not get control of whole NWFP and practically now FATA and SWAT is now no man land.This war may continue for many decades.
This satuation will further creat problems for NATO and ISAF in Afghanistan.