Lies after lies after lies - it's pretty obvious this woman has a diseased mind wracked with an irrational hatred of Pakistanis and Pakistan, or perhaps it's just that she gets payed a lot by the Indians to churn out distorted rant after rant after rant ... Even where the author somehow manages to make a statement that is factually accurate, it's made in a context that undermines the statement, recasts it in a negative light and often ties into some concocted 'ethnic persecution by the Punjabi elite' conspiracy theory.
"They are not doctrine, but they do represent internal conversations that the army has about key issues. "
Correct, they are not doctrine, they are precisely as described, though the context that Fair said the above (as indicated by her various other articles and book) is not as innocuous as it seems here. The green book is comprised of essays written by PA officers and represent their personal opinions. Now, unless the PA required a majority of officers, if not every officer, to write an essay to be published in the green book, the green book can't be considered representative of the PA's thinking. There are other ways to determine whether the content of the essays in the green book represent broader thought in the PA - Who (and why) determines which essays get published? What rank and positions did the authors of the published essays rise to? etc.
"At the time, US personnel on-site expressed exasperation that the Pakistanis were slow-balling the training. The facility could train several hundred personnel, yet it was at one-fifth capacity or less."
The refusal to allow greater number of US trainers had more to do with a lack of trust in the US's intentions, given the fact that the US had negotiated a discriminatory waiver for India at the NSG and publicly refused to recognize the validity of Pakistani concerns about Baloch and TTP terrorists being trained and harbored in Afghanistan (a fact that was made clear in leaked US diplomatic cables that detailed conversations between Karzai and high level US officials on these issues). A larger US military footprint was also troublesome from the the perspective of a public backlash against the Pakistani military.
"And the men in the Frontier Corps, many of them ethnic Pashtuns, were already poorly positioned to survive a standoff with insurgents. "
The Frontier Corps has always been funded outside of the Army, usually as part of the interior ministry's budget, and it's is completely true that they have historically been a poorly trained and equipped force, primarily because they have historically been need for little more than tribal policing and as border guards. The TTP onslaught exposed these weaknesses but training and equipping the FC, when the regular Army itself was struggling to adapt to this new threat, went on the back-burner.
That said, Christine Unfair's goal in this FC narrative is to somehow distort resource and governance limitations into some kind of a 'evil Punjabi Army plot against the Pashtun', and she contradicts herself all over the place, as shown in the following excerpts:
"Consequently, their foes were better trained and equipped than they were. Ironically, many of these “miscreants,” as the men shooting at them were called, had been trained by Pakistan’s own military and Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI)...
...For one, the Frontier Corps had been long used by Pakistan’s army and the ISI to train militants for operations in Afghanistan."
So which one is it, that the FC was in fact well trained by the ISI and in turn used to train the Taliban or that it was a poorly trained organization, deliberately left unequipped and untrained by the ISI because of the Pashtun demographic. Nothing exposes a liar and fraud more than when they trip all over themselves making contradictory assertions to somehow make everything fit into their xenophobic narrative, driven by an irrational (or paid) hatred of the subject.
"Second, Pashtuns in Pakistan have long nursed episodic dreams of being merged with co-ethnics in Afghanistan into some kind of a greater Pashtunistan. During the subcontinental independence movement, some Pashtuns did not even want to join Pakistan; rather, they wanted to join India. While most Pashtuns are loyal citizens, Pakistan’s elites in and out of uniform have eyed Pashtuns with suspicion—not people to throw equipment and effective military training at."
But wait, wasn't this the same 'Pashtun Frontier Corps' that Christine Unfair earlier accused the ISI of using to train the Taliban? Why was the ISI OK with training, and equipping with weapons, tens of thousands of Pashtun if they didn't want to train the Pashtun ... OK, this woman's circular nonsense is mind-numbing, and I think I've made my point on the whole 'Pashtun Frontier Corp' training issue.
On the subject of Pashtunistan, the author threw that in there to muddy the waters and provide a false context of 'ethnic persecution', and then herself admitted that 'most Pashtun are loyal citizens' (an excellent example of what I pointed out in the beginning - this template of mixing factual statements in a distorted context to convince the reader that the outlier/fringe views are the most important takeaway). Yes, the Pashtun are overwhelmingly loyal citizens, and 98% of the Pashtun who voted in the NWFP referendum chose Pakistan, and overwhelming number even accounting for the Bacha Khan boycott. The Pashtun have also historically been a higher proportion of the Army (officers and soldiers) than their size as a proportion of the total population. So obviously the military at least has not had any of the xenophobia that the author attributes to the 'Pakistani Elite' (code for Punjabi), though it's probably because the irrational prejudice and hatred for Pakistan and Pakistanis that has blinded the author makes her view everything as some kind of 'xenophobic conspiracy'.
TBC
nicely summed up 
