Though lot of disagreements yet i must say that i enjoyed reading your post as it is backed with Logic...So good job there and now allow me to respond....
WOT has put a big strain on our economy agreed however it is not going to last another 10 years. With US itching for an exist strategy and Pakistan being the real power broker between the taliban and US/NATO, we will pretty much end this war within a year or two. As for TTP i know you will disagree but we know from where TTP gets its funding from but with the withdrawal of the US, Pakistan would make sure that their is a friendly regime in Kabul, one that does not allow India to continue its shady activities anymore, TTP will be history.
I wish you good luck but you are definitely undermining TTP here. As you said that it needs two hands to clap so saying that everything is just because of unfriendly regime in AF might not be entirely true...Secondly US aint going anywhere....There is no way they can leave this theater...Yes you may find some withdrawal but complete withdrawal is highly unlikely....On top of that India has invested some $1.3 Billion there and if the reports about Indian involvement is true then keep in mind you are going to be engaged there for much longer than what you are anticipating....
It does not matter who brought in the economic stability,point being we got one in just six years as opposed to malays 10 years. This was the reason i mentioned the above said period, to show that we can recover from a complete melt down to such as achieving a higher GDP then India in just six years. You make it sound as if ISI and army are two separate entities and not one under the state of Pakistan, a common misconception and lack of understanding among Indians.
You misunderstood me buddy...When you said that economic stability was brought in just 6 years then you are just pointing to good fiscal years of Pakistan. Economic stability just don't erode away in a whisker of a second. Economic stability is nothing but an economic model that can bear the brunt of nuisance and carry on...An economic stable country do not come on the verge of collapse within a year or two, no???..Anyhow IMF bailout is something that we also needed in 91 so nothing wrong in it...However to reach where we have(mind it hell lot of stuff yet needs to be done),it took us whopping 2 decades...
We all know that economic progress and political stability in the country go hands in hands. Pakistan is state which has been deprived of political stability because of lot of coups...But since the real power(foreign policy) lies with powerful institutions like Army and ISI, a coup ironically brings in stability - of course short term. So in essence a coup brings in short-term stability which gives a boost to your economy but in the longer run hurts you much more....This is what i was pointing to when i said Mush brought in stability because he was the most powerful man in Pakistan. He had civilian govt, the military and the ISI backing. Can you say the same about your current civilian govt???
We can all agree to disagree on this one.
Fair enough....
Being a small country and a hostile neighbor on the east, to some extent dependence on the west was not a choice but a necessity. You see Pakistan had no choice but to maintain a minimum credible deterrence against a much bigger rival. That leaves us with little options.
See dependence on west was understood...but why animosity towards India??? I would have been sympathetic had India attacked you in 65, but it was opposite. Allow me to go a little off topic here but goodies that Pakistan was getting due to joining camps with west made you guys believe that beating India is not a difficult task. In other words dependence on west to keep India at bay is completely justified but attacking India??? As a result pakistan was under sanctions....Thereafter we have a long history of 71, Siachen, Kargil and what not...Results are in front of us.....Also the problems you faced were also faced by India...We had a very powerful foe in the east who gave us a good beating in 62 yet we did our best to not join any camps. Yes we were dependent on USSR primarily for our defense needs but we kept our relations going(in whatever way possible) with west.
Animosity with India was not by choice. The constant threatening attitude of India, not accepting Pakistan as a reality, breaking up of Pakistan, nuclear explosion, illegal occupation of kashmir(you will disagree with me on this one),all these things add up to what?
No buddy, it was by choice as well...I have given my reasons above. Your establishment had a firm belief that they can snatch Kashmir from India by force. Otherwise there was no other reason for 65. Look Kargil was not planned to fail..... Mush must have a firm belief that he can cut the lifeline of Siachen and force India to give up the glacier.....In short what i am saying is that there was no reason for Pakistan to attack India(there was no provocation fro our side)...Attacking India had adverse effects on Pakistan...
never the less one thing is for certain maintaining a defense budget such as ours is never easy, i get that, infact we all do, every Pakistanis knows what we have to sacrifice to make sure we sleep at peace, yet not once have we regretted this choice.
Exactly...You have to sacrifice a lot...Yes you do not regret that but we all know you had/have to sacrifice...Animosity with India was not good for Pakistan....Let's for a second say that India is/was evil but have Pakistan done enough on her part to mend ties with India???
And by this i do not by any means support this animosity between India and Pakistan, infact i for one would love to see trade increase between India and Pakistan but until that day, i suppose we will stick with the current atmosphere, yet our economy still was on track, so i fail to see the connection between high military spending and not recovering up.
All i said is that animosity played a part. It is not a zero sum game but played its part... The whole zia rule and radicalization of Pakistan was done to bleed India with thousand cuts....anyhow i have explained my point above in detail...
I don't think India has gained anything either with the constant threatening attitude towards Pakistan. You see you cant just clap with one hand, both sides have to reciprocate in order to achieve a mutual goal, have we seen that attitude, i say no.
No way. How can we gain anything by animosity. Whatever loss it is, a loss is a loss. Yes we can afford to spend so much on maintaining status quo but in the end all could have been avoided had our ties good. However i would like to understand a bit more about threatening attitude part. As far as i know there have been two attacks by Pakistan when there was no provocation from Indian side. We can debate on 71 but i will give it to you. Yes india did take benefit of the turmoil that Pakistan was in. This would be wrong/naive on my part to say that our strategist did not want to take benefit. Mind it i have ignore 47(since then Kashmir was not part of India) and Siachen(since it was disputed and boundary was not demarcated), however if you wish to include them then please do.
Considering how much Pakistan centric India really is, i would say we are more then just a nuisance for India.
This is a misconception. Though i would like to know when you say pakistan centric than what you mean???