Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who Should '‘Do More’'

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Who Should '‘Do More’'

    Who should ‘Do More’



    IT is amazing that it is the US that should tell Pakistan to ‘do more’ in the war on terror. If Washington had not been guilty of what can be called a virtual abandonment of Afghanistan and opened a new front in Iraq, things to the west of Pakistan and in the tribal belt itself would have been vastly different. There is now a “surge” in American troops in Iraq, and having already ploughed 300 billion dollars into that country, the Bush administration has asked for a similar amount for a war that most observers consider unwinnable. If the US had spent a fraction of that amount on Afghanistan and made serious efforts to win the Afghan people over, the allies would not be bracing themselves today for a spring offensive by the Taliban. These are the obvious thoughts that come to one’s mind when one finds Mr Dick Cheney making a sudden appearance in Islamabad on the heels of press reports that Washington was going to “talk tough” to President Pervez Musharraf and warn Islamabad of an aid cut if it did not “do more”. The White House later denied the press reports, though the denial itself was nebulous, lacked substance and equivocated in a manner that only tended to confirm the reports.

    A pattern now seems to have emerged: the administration leaks reports to sections of the American media about the “tough talk” and America’s unhappiness with Pakistan’s purported unwillingness to do all it could to crush the Taliban and check the cross-border movement which is supposed to be only in one direction. This is followed the next day by a White House or State Department cliché-ridden denial, which also contains a bit of plaudits for Islamabad’s role in the war on terror. President Musharraf’s meeting with the US vice-president on Monday was not followed by a joint press conference, and it was only an official handout that let the world know what had happened during the meeting. However, the American press said that Pakistan had “lashed out” and made

    it clear that it “does not accept dictation from any side or any source”. President Musharraf also said, according to the handout, that the international community was collectively responsible for the war on terror. The truth of this assertion must be seen in the context of the president’s earlier remark that guarding the Durand Line was not Pakistan’s sole responsibility.

    What the Americans fail to realise is that the war on terror is in Pakistan’s own interest. It is not that Pakistan is a front-line state because it borders Afghanistan; it is a front-line state because, if unchecked, the wave of religious obscurantism could overwhelm Pakistan and tear apart the very fabric of civil society. Zille Huma was not an American; she was a Pakistani killed by a fanatic who believed that women could not be “rulers” and must wear the hijab. It is insane obscurantism of this kind that is Pakistan’s problem, in addition to the militants who continue to move across the Durand Line. Irrespective of what the allies on the other side of the border do, Pakistan must

    not waver. It has to fight the war on two fronts: the Afghanistan-based Taliban and the obscurantist elements within the country. Those who want Pakistan to ‘do more’ should have an appraising look at their own performance.

  • #2
    fasih- I take it by your post that you would accept International Forces in Pakistan to help root out the Taliban and al Qaeda elements that are currently finding support in the tribal areas?

    It's okay if we go in and knock out the bases and supply depots in Waziristan and Baluchistan, take down the leadership in Quetta, Peshawar, etc?

    Otherwise, your words are hollow. Yes, Pakistan is a front-line State in the War on Terror, since so much terrorism stems from Pakistan.

    How can anyone take Musharraf seriously after he has ceded the FATA, and North and South Waziristan to the Taliban?
    "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

    Comment


    • #3
      It will be better for Paksitan to become a normal state looking after the welfare of it's people and integrating with it's neighbors and the world positively rather than the "ideological" state that it is now. It will be good for Pakistanis and good for the world. Many of the problems in the world stem from this dangerous "ideology". This is what causes Pak to seek strategic depth in Afghanistan, to cause trouble in Kashmir and the rest of India, to support Taliban and AQ, to generally over-reach itself and make a nuisance all over the world. Pakistanis are talented and hardworking people. There is no reason they can not succeed in making it a great country if the country has the right set of priorities.
      There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don’t..

      Comment


      • #4
        Check out the following link about where the "ideology" of Pakistan is taking it.

        The Failed Idea Of Pakistan : outlookindia.com

        Unless strong and sustained external interventions, coherently directed at re-engineering the power relations in Pakistan, and at demolishing the ideological state, are evolved, Pakistan will continue to grow into a bigger problem, both for itself and for the world.
        There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don’t..

        Comment

        Working...
        X