Pakistan betrayed by USA?

[fatman17]

It is your govt that created the taliban. Now they are biting back at you. No doubt you lost a lot of soldiers. I am not talking about that and that is not the point I am trying to convey.

You are blatanly ignoring US contributions to PAK for its participation in the war on terror. Unofficially US would have already asked for permission from pak to launch ground operations into waziristan from their side of the border which was denied.

The fact is after a brief war and loss of lives pak is still trying to assert control of waziristan and failing. Thats why the ceasefire. These are conditions that are not what the US asked for and u also know that they are asking for more. Truthfully, it is PAK that has betrayed the US on her commitment to the war on terror..

there is no cease-fire!
as far as u r concerned - b***** off!

 

[batmannow]

This isnt the first time we are betrayed. Its has been done in the past on numerous occasions and this time its no exception. The only thing that needs to kept into our minds is that how long are we going to let them betray us while we hang over with the big guys in the name of the so called ally.

Dear IceCold; sir
i guss, its time to betray those , who betrayed us!

 

[p2prada]

just googled and found out. The ceasefire agreements died prematurely. My bad.

 

[p2prada]

there is no cease-fire!
as far as u r concerned - b***** off!

Hmm. If u are so touchy with the subject then why did the pakistani govt accept to fight in the war on terror. U had the choice of not entering, albeit at supposedly heavy consequences.

 

[pkpatriotic]

Reported US attack pushes Afghanistan war into Pakistan
Simon Tisdall and Saeed Shah in Islamabad
The war in Afghanistan spilled over into Pakistani territory for the first time today when heavily armed commandoes, believed to be US special forces, landed by helicopter and attacked three houses in a village close to a known Taliban and al-Qaida stronghold.

The early morning attack on Jala Khel killed between seven and 20 people, according to a range of reports from the remote Angoor Adda region of South Waziristan. The village is situated less than a mile from the Afghanistan border.

Local residents were quoted as saying most of the dead were civilians and included women and children. It was not known whether any Taliban or al-Qaida militants or western forces were among the dead.

Major-General Athar Abbas, a spokesman for the Pakistan army, said Nato's International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) had carried out the raid. "Two helicopters of Isaf landed very early in the morning and conducted a raid on a compound there. As per our report, seven civilians were killed in this raid."

But a Nato spokesman denied involvement. "There has been no Nato or Isaf involvement crossing the border into Pakistan," the Nato spokesman James Appathurai said.

There were unconfirmed reports that the incursion was carried out by US special forces, which are not under Isaf command and can operate independently. A US military spokesman at the Bagram base near Kabul did not deny an attack had occurred but declined to comment.

Official Pakistani condemnation swiftly followed the attack amid growing concern that the Nato-led war against the Taliban in Afghanistan could spread to Pakistan, sparking a region-wide conflagration.

Owais Ahmed Ghani, the governor of North-West Frontier province, which adjoins South Waziristan, said 20 people had died and called for retaliation by the Pakistani army. "This is a direct assault on the sovereignty of Pakistan, and the people of Pakistan expect that the armed forces ... would rise to defend the sovereignty of the country and give a befitting reply," he said.

The foreign ministry in Islamabad said the incursion was "a gross violation of Pakistan's territory" and a "grave provocation" that had resulted in "immense" loss of civilian life.

"Such actions are counter-productive and certainly do not help our joint efforts to fight terrorism. On the contrary, they undermine the very basis of cooperation and may fuel the fire of hatred and violence we are trying to extinguish."

"This is a very alarming and very dangerous development," said a former senior Pakistani official. "We have absolutely been telling them (the US) not to do this but they ignored us."

US and Nato commanders say Taliban and al-Qaida fighters use the unruly, semi-autonomous tribal areas of Pakistan to stage strikes on coalition forces inside Afghanistan and to create "safe havens" where they are immune from attack. Nato and civilian casualties in Afghanistan have reached record levels in the past 12 months as the result of a spreading Taliban offensive.

US forces have used missile-carrying drones – unmanned aerial vehicles – to target militant targets inside Pakistan in the past. But that assault, involving up to three helicopters and infantry commandoes, marked the first time a direct attack had taken place on Pakistani soil.

Tensions between Pakistan's new civilian government and the US have been running high after American accusations that rogue elements in Pakistan's top spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence Agency, were feeding classified information on coalition troops to Taliban fighters. Washington has also repeatedly accused Islamabad of failing to do enough to curb militant activity along the Afghan border.

The strains have been exacerbated by a political crisis in Pakistan after last month's forced resignation of President Pervez Musharraf and the collapse of a power-sharing agreement between the ruling Pakistan People's party (PPP) and Nawz Sharif, a former prime minister. An election to find a replacement for Musharraf is scheduled for Saturday, with the PPP chairman and Benazir Bhutto's widower, Asif Ali Zardari, expected to win.

In a further sign of instability, militants opened fire today on prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani's car, in an apparent assassination attempt, near Islamabad. The assailants, firing from a roadside embankment, hit the driver's side window twice. Gilani was not in the car at the time. Television pictures showed two clear impact marks on the car's bullet-proof window, which cracked along its length but did not shatter. Gilani's son and a government minister were reportedly in the motorcade.

A top security official in Islamabad said: "This was a warning. They're saying, 'We can get you'. If they could fire bullets, they could also fire a rocket-launcher." The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack, saying it was a protest against military operations against them in the north-west valley of Swat.

Gilani met with David Cameron, the Conservative leader who is visiting Pakistan. In a speech, Cameron said the attack was "another reminder of the permanent threat that terrorism poses".

 

[muse]

Cut the umbilical cord



Saturday, October 18, 2008
by Admiral (r) Fasih Bokhari

The centre of gravity of the world's economy is shifting to Asia, because of its larger manpower and resource base. After the collapse of the USSR and the "opening up" of China, the countries of Asia were free to link their economies. This was not acceptable to a population and resource deprived US-led alliance that sought imperial world dominance.

The focal point for Asia's large economies to link up are the area in which Afghanistan and Pakistan lie. Denial of this area would slow the rise of Asia and prolong US and European control over the world financial and trade systems, till the complete spread of Empire. The US-led occupation of the "Asian link routes/heartland" would also provide a necessary bridgehead to destabilise the larger Asian powers.

The strategy to establish Empire is clear and supported by both Democrats and Republicans. The differences lie in the Bush neo-conservative "shock and awe" approach using the Department of Defence as the spearhead; or the "Intelligent Imperialism: approach of Brzezinski (Obama's mentor) employing the CIA and Department of State as the spearhead for execution.

The current convergences of interests of India with USA/Europe lie in the short-term aim of weakening Pakistan. The process of weakening Pakistan military forces is being undertaken in Balochistan and the NWFP. The sweet nuclear deal with India to pull it into the fold will sour quickly! USA/Europe will extract their pound of flesh when they set up India as their proxy to destabilise China, and Russia.

The crunch decision time for India and Pakistan will come when the SCO (China, Russia, ex-Soviet Central Asian States) ask us, "Are you with us or against us?" We will have to stand with Asia because our long-term economic and security interests can only be served by linking our economies with Asian economies. That will be the time when USA/Europe will have to decide if their aggressive war-mongering against a vastly superior Asian coalition (on home soil) will be worth the expected losses. Hopefully they will choose to engage Asia rather than confront it.

Currently Russia and China are waiting for the US-led coalition to bleed itself further, even to a point of no return. Wars do cost money and national will/ cohesion.

The UK and France already see the war in Afghanistan as "not winnable." The Saudi government is brokering a dialogue with the Afghan Taliban. The American public is speaking up against the war. The economic impact of rampant and overstretched Imperial capitalism is affecting markets. All countries engaged in the so-called "war on terror" have stopped calling it a war on terror and are reappraising their policies. The shape of international relations is undergoing a major shift. The government of Pakistan must also now reassess its policy, and not wait to react when it is too late.

Pakistan's security situation is confused because there are a number of players acting for divergent goals. US-led forces are aggressively violating Pakistani sovereignty, and infiltrating groups on the ground. The Afghans and Afghan Taliban are fighting an illegal occupation. There are many in Pakistan sympathetic to their cause, noting that the Afghan Taliban have never been anti-Pakistan in their military operations. The Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan is essentially fighting for Sharia, promised them by Gen Zia-ul-Haq and Mohtrama Benazir Bhutto. There is external support available to them. The demand for timely justice expected from a Sharia-based judicial system, finds resonance throughout Pakistan where people have resoundingly supported the lawyers' movement for independence of the judiciary. Inter-tribal and sectarian local wars are also being waged under cover of this confused environment. The time has come to unravel these various layers of violence.

The essential first step is that US-led forces must vacate the occupation of Afghanistan.

Step two is a dialogue with the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (not the infiltrated external power agents) to lay down arms with concurrent establishment of a Sharia-based judicial system. Amendments to the Constitution for such a system in given geographical jurisdictions of Federal and Provincial Governments should be expeditiously passed by Parliament to demonstrate sincerity.

The third step is to pull the Army away from local tribal and sectarian rivalry, leaving this to the traditional system of law enforcement practiced in the tribal areas

The fourth step is to start a sincere dialogue to bring the Baloch exiled leadership back into mainstream politics. The "elimination" and forced exile of Baloch leaders has created a vacuum resulting in violence and infiltration of external powers trying to destabilise both Iranian and Pakistani Balochistan.

Unravelling of these four layers of violence will obviate further presence of external power agents on the ground, or at least make it easier to neutralise them.

The "war on terror" is not Pakistan's war. The government should refrain from advertising it as such through the local press. A government does not go to war against its own people. Groups within a country only resort to violence when their genuine demands are suppressed by violence, or they are excluded from mainstream politics. The Frontier tribal population of Pakistan has been in the forefront of defence of the homeland since the first Kashmir war. Weakening of this citizen based defence through Army action can irretrievably weaken the security of Pakistan by alienating and pitching tribes against the state that will endure even after the departure of NATO.

The relationship between a government and the people finds strength from the people. US-sponsored regime changes are possible where governments have not retained policy roots in the aspirations of the people. Regime changes, when US policy shifts, have not been possible where the people have stood behind their leadership. Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, etc., are examples.

Pakistan has come of age and is here to stay geostrategic compulsions facing us have undergone substantial change. The time to cut the politico-military umbilical cord to Washington, and firmly integrate our security and economy with our regional neighbours is long overdue. Peace in the region and security at home are foundational requirements without which an expansion of the economy cannot be sustained A dialogue with SCO, ECO, and our SAARC partners (especially India) must be initiated to back the demand for withdrawal of US-led forces from Asia. Pakistanis are not anti-American. We share the same views as more and more Americans, who oppose the war of Imperial dominance. We must continue to engage the USA and Europe, but only as economic partners for a future that is based on peace and prosperity for all.

The writer is a former chief of the naval staff. Email: fasbok@gmail.com

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It is your govt that created the taliban. Now they are biting back at you. No doubt you lost a lot of soldiers. I am not talking about that and that is not the point I am trying to convey.

You are blatanly ignoring US contributions to PAK for its participation in the war on terror. Unofficially US would have already asked for permission from pak to launch ground operations into waziristan from their side of the border which was denied.

The fact is after a brief war and loss of lives pak is still trying to assert control of waziristan and failing. Thats why the ceasefire. These are conditions that are not what the US asked for and u also know that they are asking for more. Truthfully, it is PAK that has betrayed the US on her commitment to the war on terror..

Pakistan did not create the Taliban, the chaos in Afghanistan did. And Pakistan was not alone in welcoming the Taliban - Karzai, and other powerful Pashtun Tribal and business leaders, embraced the Taliban as they gained power initially. It was once the potential of the Taliban and their appeal with locals on the ground became visible that Pakistan started supporting them to a much larger degree and accelerated their rise.

But the crucial point here is that they had grassroots support and support from some influential Tribal figures, therefore they had legitimacy in a country where the ruling warlords and drug lords had lost all credibility and support except in their own smaller ethnic/tribal constituencies.

It is in fact you who are not seeing the point - the five billion in CSF that has been given to Pakistan has been for operations in the Tribal areas and logistical support. When it comes to operations in the Tribal areas, the point that Fatman made about 1500 Pakistani soldiers dying in FATA has everything to do with Pakistan's efforts in the WoT that you are belittling. Those 1500 soldiers did not die from cardiac arrest eating samosas in their living rooms - they died fighting in operations while deployed in FATA, fighting militants. This does not even include the indirect cost that Pakistan is suffering from now, the loss of investor confidence and destabilization from the terrorist threat precisely because Pakistan chose to deploy forces in FATA. That cost is a direct result of the US WoT in Afghanistan and Pakistan's deployment in FATA - what dollar amount should that loss be given?

If you were able to shift out of the haze of Pakistan hate that exists in your mind for a minute you would realize the extremely obvious correlation between the funds provided for deploying in FATA to conduct ops. and the casualties suffered by Pakistan in FATA. Please do tell me what agreement exists that states that for 5 billion the US expects that Pakistan will have complete control over FATA? Which fool actually wrote up a contract that stated that X dollars should guarantee that the conflict would be under control in Y amount of time?

How much has the US spent in Afghanistan and does it have complete control there, even in areas not bordering FATA?

 

[p2prada]

Tribal areas, the point that Fatman made about 1500 Pakistani soldiers dying in FATA has everything to do with Pakistan's efforts in the WoT that you are belittling.


I never talked about PA or PAF.
I am only talking about how politicians and journalists twist words to generate negative public opinion on the US.

Isn't the US airstrikes more justified if u look at it with a different perspective.
More number of terrorists and taliban operatives killed in airstrikes, lesser number of PA deaths in FATA and waziristan.

And it will be important to note that US may not carry out airstrikes into pak unless the targets were high value targets since it only deteriorates US relations with pak.

 

[p2prada]

check the ceasefire from india with kashmiri fighters

We have no ceasefire agreement with terrorists and never will have.

We have a ceasefire with pakistan.

 

[Imran Khan]

We have no ceasefire agreement with terrorists and never will have.

We have a ceasefire with pakistan.

why you forget past so many times GOI seacefire with fighters in kashmir

India ceasefire extension

Indias Cease-fire in Kashmir: A flawed policy of appeasement? - A viewpoint

by Dr. Subhash Kapila

India is being treated to a strange spectacle on Kashmir policy i.e. the announcement of a cease-fire and its extension commencing from November 2000 and with the possibility of another extension to be announced on the forthcoming Republic Day.

Cease-fire normally occurs between two parties to an armed conflict, when both have run out of steam psychologically or materially. Cease-fire also occurs when there is an imposition by external powers if the armed conflict has the potential to overspill and destabilise regions or regional security. Lastly, Cease-fire also occurs unilaterally when the weaker party to an armed conflict submits and sues for peace.

If that be so, and which is true, in which category of the above, does one place Indias much vaunted and highly publicised current Cease-fire offers on Kashmir?

The first category does not apply as the Cease-fire has not been jointly arrived at. The view that the Kashmir problem is a nuclear flashpoint endangering regional and global security is a myth.(1) Hence imposition by any external power/powers if any are unjustified. India needs to resist any such impositions, since they impinge on Indias national security interests. India does not fall in the third category for a very good reason that the Indian Army is not a tired army. It could hold the Kashmir Valley and yet bring the war in Kargil in 1999 to a successful conclusion. The Indian Army has been inflicting heavy casualties and attrition on both the Pakistani and foreign Jehadis as well as the local Kashmiri Valley Muslim militants.

 

[p2prada]

Pakistan did not create the Taliban, the chaos in Afghanistan did. And Pakistan was not alone in welcoming the Taliban - Karzai, and other powerful Pashtun Tribal and business leaders, embraced the Taliban as they gained power initially. It was once the potential of the Taliban and their appeal with locals on the ground became visible that Pakistan started supporting them to a much larger degree and accelerated their rise.

But the crucial point here is that they had grassroots support and support from some influential Tribal figures, therefore they had legitimacy in a country where the ruling warlords and drug lords had lost all credibility and support except in their own smaller ethnic/tribal constituencies.

I see your point. You are right.

It is in fact you who are not seeing the point - the five billion in CSF that has been given to Pakistan has been for operations in the Tribal areas and logistical support. When it comes to operations in the Tribal areas, the point that Fatman made about 1500 Pakistani soldiers dying in FATA has everything to do with Pakistan's efforts in the WoT that you are belittling. Those 1500 soldiers did not die from cardiac arrest eating samosas in their living rooms - they died fighting in operations while deployed in FATA, fighting militants. This does not even include the indirect cost that Pakistan is suffering from now, the loss of investor confidence and destabilization from the terrorist threat precisely because Pakistan chose to deploy forces in FATA. That cost is a direct result of the US WoT in Afghanistan and Pakistan's deployment in FATA - what dollar amount should that loss be given?

Loss of investor confidence is due to BB's assassination and terrorist attacks in cities like karachi. Even india has a much larger deployment of forces in kashmir and NE India. This doesnot mean investments have stopped. The biggest cause of concern for investments is political instability and terrorism.

The chinese claims of war on taiwan or even North koreas threat of war against south korea has not detered investor confidence in those countries. The only reason being political stability.

If you were able to shift out of the haze of Pakistan hate that exists in your mind for a minute you would realize the extremely obvious correlation between the funds provided for deploying in FATA to conduct ops. and the casualties suffered by Pakistan in FATA. Please do tell me what agreement exists that states that for 5 billion the US expects that Pakistan will have complete control over FATA? Which fool actually wrote up a contract that stated that X dollars should guarantee that the conflict would be under control in Y amount of time?

[/B]haze of Pakistan hate that exists in your mind[/B]
I am sorry to say you think that way. Who says I have hate against pak. I dont hate pak or its people. In this forum I have only indulged in positive attacks on people who post negativity. I have supported Indian rights in relation to kashmir and also to clear paksitani members of their views regarding her economic conditions.

I have argued against pak policies on kashmir and at the same time I have been trying to clear doubts on paks economic condition. Guess what! I have not read a single report on paks economic condition in Times of India this entire week. I only got info on paks economic conditions through this forum. If I really hated pak, then shouldnt I have been really happy at the horrible prospect of pak going bankrupt. It will also directly hurt indian relations with pak and hit our national security.

In this thread I am only trying to clear negative doubts on america that pak has built up. America has been the only nation on the planet that has tried working actively for world peace and stability. They were the only ones who have tried to bring india and pak to the table while the soviets have only encouraged indo pak wars. The US have always defended the rights of smaller countries like kuwait, vietnam, south korea and afghanistan. It is because of US intervention that there is peace in the european balkan states. Even the irish british problems were largely solved by US intervention.
US has also played a positive role in the independence of many colonies in the past.

Anyways 5 billion dollars in aid is to protect pakistan's sovereign right to protect its borders against foreign aggression. There is a mighty power sitting on your doorsteps saying they are willing to risk american lives to protect pakistan's sovereignity from talibans influence. The taliban is a foreign entity which has already taken control of vast territories inside pakistan. Doesnt it sound right that pak has to act quickly before the taliban start influencing paks society in a negative way. The americans are trying to help you in the best possible manner and unfortunately many positive thinkers in pak believe the US is only betraying pak.

You think india is gonna keep quiet if it sees some foreign entity from pakistan, myanmar, bangladesh or china cross into india. Will India keep quiet if the dying LTTE try taking shelter in india as taliban did? We will fight them regardless of aid from outside.

How much has the US spent in Afghanistan and does it have complete control there, even in areas not bordering FATA?

You are only commenting on policies of america in afghanistan which are far from perfect. Look at Iraq. They are almost out of their civil war and the economy is also showing positive growth. Oil exports have also started for the first time in years.
The americans have focussed more on Iraq than on afghan. They are only recently shifting focus on afghan. Even the presidential hopefuls obama and cain are talking more on afghanistan than on iraq. Things may take a turn for better a year later than it is now.

 

[p2prada]

why you forget past so many times GOI seacefire with fighters in kashmir

India ceasefire extension

Indias Cease-fire in Kashmir: A flawed policy of appeasement? - A viewpoint

by Dr. Subhash Kapila

India is being treated to a strange spectacle on Kashmir policy i.e. the announcement of a cease-fire and its extension commencing from November 2000 and with the possibility of another extension to be announced on the forthcoming Republic Day.

Cease-fire normally occurs between two parties to an armed conflict, when both have run out of steam psychologically or materially. Cease-fire also occurs when there is an imposition by external powers if the armed conflict has the potential to overspill and destabilise regions or regional security. Lastly, Cease-fire also occurs unilaterally when the weaker party to an armed conflict submits and sues for peace.

If that be so, and which is true, in which category of the above, does one place Indias much vaunted and highly publicised current Cease-fire offers on Kashmir?

The first category does not apply as the Cease-fire has not been jointly arrived at. The view that the Kashmir problem is a nuclear flashpoint endangering regional and global security is a myth.(1) Hence imposition by any external power/powers if any are unjustified. India needs to resist any such impositions, since they impinge on Indias national security interests. India does not fall in the third category for a very good reason that the Indian Army is not a tired army. It could hold the Kashmir Valley and yet bring the war in Kargil in 1999 to a successful conclusion. The Indian Army has been inflicting heavy casualties and attrition on both the Pakistani and foreign Jehadis as well as the local Kashmiri Valley Muslim militants.

The ceasefire clearly mentions that india and pakistan will not make a move against eachother. The ceasefire agreement is only between the IA and PA. It is only applicable along the LoC. India has a lot to gain from such ceasefires. The ceasefire agreement also states that india will not allow infiltrators cross the LoC. Any infiltrator will be shot at.

US follows the same principle with Mexico. Any illegal immigrant will be taken into custody and deported.


Anyways I cant believe that you posted a pro india article.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Loss of investor confidence is due to BB's assassination and terrorist attacks in cities like karachi. Even india has a much larger deployment of forces in kashmir and NE India. This doesnot mean investments have stopped. The biggest cause of concern for investments is political instability and terrorism.

The chinese claims of war on taiwan or even North koreas threat of war against south korea has not detered investor confidence in those countries. The only reason being political stability.

Loss of investor confidence has everythign to do with teh WoT and the resulting terrorism in Pakistan - BB's assassination was a result of the WoT, and it solidified in the minds of people that the Taliban were becoming stronger and would pose a serious threat to the state. That directly ties in the exacerbation of the economic situation to the WoT.

India's deployments in Kashmir and the violence in teh NE do not have teh same impact because India is much larger, and therefore able to isolate events in one section of the nation from the rest, and secondly because the violence is nowhere close to what we are seeing in FATA. India's instability can be best compared to Baluchistan in hwo it has impacted the country. Baluchistan has continuously suffered from a low level insurgency ala Kashmir and the NE, but it never had any major impact on investment or economic growth.

FATA on the other hand, with its importance and influence on Afghanistan and the NATO forces deployed there, gained a role and influence in shaping public and investor opinion that other conflicts could not.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Anyways 5 billion dollars in aid is to protect pakistan's sovereign right to protect its borders against foreign aggression. There is a mighty power sitting on your doorsteps saying they are willing to risk american lives to protect pakistan's sovereignity from talibans influence. The taliban is a foreign entity which has already taken control of vast territories inside pakistan. Doesnt it sound right that pak has to act quickly before the taliban start influencing paks society in a negative way. The americans are trying to help you in the best possible manner and unfortunately many positive thinkers in pak believe the US is only betraying pak.

You think india is gonna keep quiet if it sees some foreign entity from pakistan, myanmar, bangladesh or china cross into india. Will India keep quiet if the dying LTTE try taking shelter in india as taliban did? We will fight them regardless of aid from outside.

You are only commenting on policies of america in afghanistan which are far from perfect. Look at Iraq. They are almost out of their civil war and the economy is also showing positive growth. Oil exports have also started for the first time in years.

The americans have focussed more on Iraq than on afghan. They are only recently shifting focus on afghan. Even the presidential hopefuls obama and cain are talking more on afghanistan than on iraq. Things may take a turn for better a year later than it is now.

The point here is that you were arguing that the US gave Pakistan 5 billion in aid, and nothing happened. I think it has been extensively and without any doubt shown, through the blood of Pakistanis, that Pakistan did indeed make efforts, within the constraints of domestic sensitivities, to realize the goals of stabilizing FATA.

Perhaps the policies followed initially were wrong, but so were the policies followed by the US in Iraq - there wasn't really a textbook solution to these problems, and both nation's have learned about what works and what doesn't, along with changes in the domestic political and public opinion environment that have allowed for different policies to be implemented.

The US is not in this just for Pakistan's benefit, she is fighting the militants so that Afghanistan does not once more become a refuge for elements wishing to damage US interests, and she has provided aid to Pakistan to advance that interest, which I believe is also Pakistan's interest.

It is incorrect to argue that the Taliban control 'vast amounts of territory', they have influence over a very small geographic area, where they are losing control as the locals rise up against them. I simply fail to see here how you can argue that Pakistan has 'betrayed the US commitment on the WoT' - the WoT has strong implications for Pakistan, and Pakistan has attempted to deal with the issue in a manner different from the US, a manner that it considered more appropriate based on Pakistan's internal dynamics. As we can see now, Pakistan has adjusted its approach as internal dynamics have changed. There is nothing wrong with different approaches to fighting terror.

 

[batmannow]

The point here is that you were arguing that the US gave Pakistan 5 billion in aid, and nothing happened. I think it has been extensively and without any doubt shown, through the blood of Pakistanis, that Pakistan did indeed make efforts, within the constraints of domestic sensitivities, to realize the goals of stabilizing FATA.

Perhaps the policies followed initially were wrong, but so were the policies followed by the US in Iraq - there wasn't really a textbook solution to these problems, and both nation's have learned about what works and what doesn't, along with changes in the domestic political and public opinion environment that have allowed for different policies to be implemented.

The US is not in this just for Pakistan's benefit, she is fighting the militants so that Afghanistan does not once more become a refuge for elements wishing to damage US interests, and she has provided aid to Pakistan to advance that interest, which I believe is also Pakistan's interest.

It is incorrect to argue that the Taliban control 'vast amounts of territory', they have influence over a very small geographic area, where they are losing control as the locals rise up against them. I simply fail to see here how you can argue that Pakistan has 'betrayed the US commitment on the WoT' - the WoT has strong implications for Pakistan, and Pakistan has attempted to deal with the issue in a manner different from the US, a manner that it considered more appropriate based on Pakistan's internal dynamics. As we can see now, Pakistan has adjusted its approach as internal dynamics have changed. There is nothing wrong with different approaches to fighting terror.

Nothing , comes granted for pakistan, no body gave pakistan free tickets, if people are blind to see, our efforts against the most deadlest enemy of all times then , he must be living in fools pradise, and world would be in great danger?