Quote:
Originally Posted by S-2
We've NEVER singled out Pashtus for bombing. I'm certain that sinhalese, punjabis, and bengalis have as much to fear should they come within range of our weapons. In point of fact, we'll bomb anybody regardless of race, creed, or color.
Even ourselves sometime.
|
I never suggested that you were singling the Pashtun's out for bombing, but it is also a fact that the majority of NATO caused casualties are in Pashtun areas (since the insurgency and taliban operations are concentrated in those areas), just as most of the casulaties caused by the PA currently are in Pashtun areas, for the same reason.
I am pointing this out to show that AE's argument of Pakistan wanting to "seperate the pashtuns" by fencing or policing the Tribal border is primarily a result of NATO pressure. Pakistan did not want to deploy its army in FATA, nor did it wish to fight the Tribesmen, so it is inaccurate to further an already flawed narrative of "Punjabi elite domination" by lumping in events that Pakistan was forced into.
Our military has followed an extremely defensive and reactive doctrine in FATA, at the expense of higher casualties, precisely because it wanted to keep collateral damage low - making a distinction between that doctrine and the reasons behind it, and how NATO operates (which does not automatically mean that NATO doctrine is flawed or that it does not care for civilian casualties) is important in the context of answering the accusations leveled by this gentleman at Pakistan.