Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
we should always do the opposite of what our enemies want us to do. This is clear evidence to me that isi chief is a patriot and should be given a medal. Long live our beloved isi that winds up our enemies,
So if an enemy wants its own agent promoted, all it has to do is voice public opposition to that agent? International geopolitics is not that simple, is it?
That is far too Machiavellian my friend, govt's are too bureaucratic and stupid.
...or is it your naivete that is far too childish? (No disrespect intended.)
You give the US and any other govt far too much credit, govt's are basically huge bureaucratic animals, it is asking too much for them to do a double bluff.
Errr ... more like a repetition of the same 'cycle' - the US did much the same right after its objectives were met in the Afghanistan theater - abandon Afghanistan, and sanction and abandon Pakistan.Hmm what was a really strong alliance 40 years ago, is now turning into 2 enemies.
Okay AM: I will conceded you this point: There should be no scapegoating of the ISI/PA for social issues that are NOT their fault. Please advise me how to ignore tactical and strategic failures, specially recently, or do those deserve unwavering and blind loyalty too?
No - It does not work like that.What Robert Fisk said is that NYT people don't go to wars or on the ground they just go to white house or Pentagon etc and get their information from their PR Staff so it always one sided view which is more of a propaganda then pure journalism.
The NYT is not calling for the head of the ISI based on whatever 'failures' you might be alluding to - for example the inability of the PAF to detect and engage illegal US infiltrators carrying out the Abbotabad raid, rather it is condemning the ISI for actually calling for a 'formalized and transparent intelligence and military cooperation agreement', and not bowing to every single US demand.
We can discuss whatever 'strategic and tactical failures' you think the NYT is alluding to in its editorial, and why you think the positions taken in the editorial are correct or incorrect.
There is just too much U.S. intereference in Pakistan today.
I thought that Pakistan won its independence in August 14, 1947.
I think a good way to stop US interference would be to break off diplomatic ties immediately, so that ALL US personnel leave, not just a few military advisers.
What do you think about this idea?
Why?I think a good way to stop US interference would be to break off diplomatic ties immediately, so that ALL US personnel leave, not just a few military advisers.
What do you think about this idea?