Pak/Afghan war
Discussion
Very interesting article in Spiegel
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/former-a...
Beggars the question, is Pakistan an enemy or friend?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/former-a...
Beggars the question, is Pakistan an enemy or friend?
A very one-sided article unsurprisingly that ignores a lot of facts. Firstly Pakistan has offered refuge to millions of Afghans over 30 years of conflict there. Secondly Pakistan itself has been the target of Taliban violence since 2008 and has suffered perhaps more chaos than Afghanistan. Does he honestly believe the ISI would sponsor attacks within their own country? Thirdly Pakistan has committed and lost more troops in fighting Taliban and Al Qaeda than all the allies put together. The conflict is still ongoing with US drone attacks occuring within sovereign territory.
Of course I don't think the ISI is blameless but I also think the Afghans are playing a dirty game under the influence and direction of India.
Of course I don't think the ISI is blameless but I also think the Afghans are playing a dirty game under the influence and direction of India.
968 said:
Does he honestly believe the ISI would sponsor attacks within their own country?
This is not the first article I have seen to suggest this.I'm interested as to why you feel this is so unthinkable? History is rife with factions using domestic terrorist campaigns to overthrow political and ideological opponents.
Digga said:
his is not the first article I have seen to suggest this.
I'm interested as to why you feel this is so unthinkable? History is rife with factions using domestic terrorist campaigns to overthrow political and ideological opponents.
Of course there's a possibility of collusion but not on the scale that country suffers almost daily. It's not on anyone's interest. Apart from anything else the armed forces have suffered a large amount of the terrorist campaign. I do believe that the ISI have previously had a hand in the Taliban and indeed maybe there are elements that still do but the asymmetrical nature of that interview hides a lot. I'm interested as to why you feel this is so unthinkable? History is rife with factions using domestic terrorist campaigns to overthrow political and ideological opponents.
I won't even bother responding to Mermaid as he will only invent cowardly lies to support his position as demonstrated elsewhere.
The problem with Pakistan is that it is both a sponsor and a victim of terror. When it suits them they will support anti Afghanistan groups like the Haqqani network and anti India groups like the one which carried out the Mumbai attack yet it's undeniable that Pakistan has also suffered massively at the hands of various Jihadi groups. Many of these groups have turned on their former masters.
Hillary Clinton summed it up quite well a few years ago when she was still sec' of state.
There are too many figures in the Pakistani establishment like the one below (the recently deceased former intelligence chief Hamid Gul).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mohammad-taqi/hamid-...
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2015/08...
Meanwhile things are pretty volatile on the other border too:
Hillary Clinton summed it up quite well a few years ago when she was still sec' of state.
Clinton said:
It's like that old story -- you can't keep snakes in your backyard and expect them only to bite your neighbours. Eventually those snakes are going to turn on whoever has them in the backyard
It is often said that whilst most nations have an Army, the Pakistani army has it's own nation. For example just look at their relationship with the Americans - when talks are held between the two it isn't the foreign minister who visits DC but it's the army chief, time and time again. Until we see a stronger civilian government the army will continue to do what it's been doing.There are too many figures in the Pakistani establishment like the one below (the recently deceased former intelligence chief Hamid Gul).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mohammad-taqi/hamid-...
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2015/08...
Meanwhile things are pretty volatile on the other border too:
wsj.com said:
At least nine people were killed and dozens wounded in cross-border firing by Indian and Pakistani forces on Friday, officials said, increasing tensions less than a week after high-level talks between the estranged neighbors were called off.
The exchange of fire on Friday is the latest in a series of cross-border incidents between the nuclear-armed South Asian rivals, in which dozens of soldiers and civilians on both sides have died over the last year. The prime ministers from both countries had agreed on a number of measures last month to reduce tensions, including a meeting between senior border security officials from both sides.
Both sides accused each other of starting the deadly exchange on Friday. Both Pakistani and Indian security officials said they were responding to unprovoked firing from the other side.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/nine-killed-as-india-and-Pakistan-exchange-cross-border-fire-1440768056The exchange of fire on Friday is the latest in a series of cross-border incidents between the nuclear-armed South Asian rivals, in which dozens of soldiers and civilians on both sides have died over the last year. The prime ministers from both countries had agreed on a number of measures last month to reduce tensions, including a meeting between senior border security officials from both sides.
Both sides accused each other of starting the deadly exchange on Friday. Both Pakistani and Indian security officials said they were responding to unprovoked firing from the other side.
Digga said:
The gulf between the progressive and regressive attitudes in Pakistan is clearly huge. That, and the fact the way the USA harvested Bin Laden's scalp (a tacit endorsement of the view there has been collaboration at some level) tell you all you need to know.
For 15/20 years the USA used Pakistan to channel supplies and aid to the Taliban (when they were fighting the USSR). It was only after 9/11 that the Taliban became personae non grata. The US expected the Pakistanis to dump the Taliban. Given the very close links between the Pakistani Army and the Mujahideen this was never going to happen completely or at short notice. Pakistan also knows that the USA will dump it whenever it sees fit (Pressler amendment anyone?) so understandably it's looking after its own interests.Countdown said:
Digga said:
The gulf between the progressive and regressive attitudes in Pakistan is clearly huge. That, and the fact the way the USA harvested Bin Laden's scalp (a tacit endorsement of the view there has been collaboration at some level) tell you all you need to know.
For 15/20 years the USA used Pakistan to channel supplies and aid to the Taliban (when they were fighting the USSR). It was only after 9/11 that the Taliban became personae non grata. The US expected the Pakistanis to dump the Taliban. Given the very close links between the Pakistani Army and the Mujahideen this was never going to happen completely or at short notice. Pakistan also knows that the USA will dump it whenever it sees fit (Pressler amendment anyone?) so understandably it's looking after its own interests.That in no way changes the gist of the OP, but does go further to explaining the complicated and convoluted circumstances. The troubles in Northern Ireland seem positively black and white by comparison.
Digga said:
ou're absolutely correct; it was a case of "my enemy's enemy" when the Mujahideen were fighting the USSR. I remember the news reports very well.
That in no way changes the gist of the OP, but does go further to explaining the complicated and convoluted circumstances. The troubles in Northern Ireland seem positively black and white by comparison.
Certainly the recent history of the two countries is complex and as I've said before it is often forgotten that millions of Afghans still live within Pakistan having fled Afghanistan numerous times and they are not treated any differently to anyone else. Also the Afghanis themselves have their own motives for the problems that exist. The previous and current leader have also colluded with foreign powers within and outside their own borders. That in no way changes the gist of the OP, but does go further to explaining the complicated and convoluted circumstances. The troubles in Northern Ireland seem positively black and white by comparison.
It's not surprising that an Afghan military official would state what he has stated, but it's a shame that there's no balance with an ISI official discussing the same issues. I would treat all of the opinions, on both sides, with utmost caution though.
968 said:
I would treat all of the opinions, on both sides, with utmost caution though.
Agreed.It seems to me that in both countries, there are very significant power struggles - mainly between progressive and regressive ideals - which are creating the opportunity for terror and corruption to flourish.
Digga said:
968 said:
I would treat all of the opinions, on both sides, with utmost caution though.
Agreed.It seems to me that in both countries, there are very significant power struggles - mainly between progressive and regressive ideals - which are creating the opportunity for terror and corruption to flourish.
BlackLabel said:
The problem with Pakistan is that it is both a sponsor and a victim of terror.
Indeed, but this suits the current military regime - if everything was awesome and hunky dory, there'd be no need for such a powerful military and internal security services.Life is cheap there - I was in a position recently where I was getting intel that doesn't really reach the news agencies and would be in contact with people in security related positions in-country. It's mayhem.
Asterix said:
Indeed, but this suits the current military regime - if everything was awesome and hunky dory, there'd be no need for such a powerful military and internal security services.
Life is cheap there - I was in a position recently where I was getting intel that doesn't really reach the news agencies and would be in contact with people in security related positions in-country. It's mayhem.
Of course you were.Life is cheap there - I was in a position recently where I was getting intel that doesn't really reach the news agencies and would be in contact with people in security related positions in-country. It's mayhem.
It's not a military regime there, it's a 'democratically' elected civilian government.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff