Simple, you need an armed platform that can operate with 20 hrs endurance for relatively cheap with day/night capability to do what the US is doing. Pakistan lacks this capability at the moment.
There are many in Pakistan who on principal (and other reasons) disagree with the drone strikes...
You seem to take pride in comparing the world's seventh largest army that's sixty years old to a nascent, still forming army that coming from a society Pakistan did its best to maintain in a malformed state.
CIA funding bought Afghanistan to the state its in today. Let's not forget that crucial...
Don't like how PA is conducting war on our side of the border, here's how the US trained, equipped, maintained, groomed, supplied, bred ANA is doing:
Military Analysis - Marines Do Heavy Lifting as Afghan Army Lags in Battle - NYTimes.com
Why not? If you don't like the level of cooperation, stop considering us a regional ally and use your other regional allies, the crack ANA troops and invade us.
These methods weren't so condemnable in the 1980's, were they? This has very little to do with strategic goals (now) then it has to do...
All the article is doing is posing various theories based on conjecture, which may or may not be correct (I don't know).
All Pakistanis are saying is that we are not following the American script handed down to us because we are not your 51st state. The US has an option to not rely on Pakistan...
You miss the main point - Americans with all their superior military power could not "win" in Iraq without co-opting certain elements like baathists, sunni and shia militias that were considered "evil" not too long ago.
No to deal with some less then wholesome elements is like saying we...
We need all the help we can get. If American's can co-opt former Baathists and Sunni insurgents in Iraq, why can't we do the same with certain factions within Pakistan.
Obviously, there must be safeguards not to let any group become too powerful.