Hey vsdoc, 'maja' aya joke parh kar. But enough with the cheap jokes.
Now getting back to the topic where the 'all-knowing' members have constructively elaborated about the presence/no presence of sanctuaries, effectiveness/de-effectiveness of drones, caring/not-caring about innocent lives and the regular macho attitude accompanied with such.
You see what 'I think' is, yes we provide protection for our assets. Note 'assets', not the ones CIA is protecting inside Pakistan, but ones which 'could-be' key players in the region for Pakistan, once the ISAF leaves. So what's wrong with that? We have our interests to protect, just like the CIA has its.
Then comes the argument that because of your protection, someone is suffering. I agree, but someone is also suffering because of your decisions. It's a vicious circle, I know. But, that's just the way things are right now.
Then why did things come to this? You see it all started by a dumb inside job, carried out to start a hoax 'War-on-Terror'. Which by now, is a catastrophic failure. What's happening now is a similar scenario as in a video game level in which the objective is to do the most 'face-saving' and 'blaming' than the other side.
Another thing is the history of the context. You see Pakistan was left high and dry after the Soviet war. It was all alone to design a safe neighbor for it's interests. And alot of work had to be done to achieve that. Which the world now, so conveniently, degrades Pakistan for. Pakistan did what it had to, to safeguard it's interests. But history is history, what happened then is a by-gone era now. What Pakistan must do now, is plan for the future.
This 'War-on-Terror' is already lost. 8 years and not even Kabul is fully secure. Don't know why Obama is sending more 30,000 troops for, but either way this'll not change anything. So what'll happen when the US/NATO forces leave. Well Pakistan will be left with a 'very angry' Afghanistan and with a 'so-called' elected government whose reach ends within it's office. So if US is not looking to negotiate with the 'actual' players of the region, and rightly so because Afghanistan is not their neighbor, then who will. Hence Pakistan, whether someone likes it or not, has to make ends meet with the reality of the situation. Pakistan has to ensure that it's western borders don't spring up any threats, because it already has enough of that on its east. Pakistan has to make commendable efforts, if it is to secure a safe western border, with certain powerful figures. Note certain, not every single one of them in order to assure peace once the 'most powerful military force in the history of man' leaves.
Then the argument comes that Pakistan is receiving the money from US for this war. Yes we are, and we're still give our interests priority over others. That's not fair, I know. And the best thing is you, me or anybody else here can't do jack about it.
So let's get realistic here, and find a solution around it. Now we're talking. You see without upholding Pakistan's interests, nothing, as if there was anything, can be garnered from Afghanistan. The solution lies with the amalgamating of ideas from both sides and rendering the situation from a realistic point of view. Without 'talking' to the Taliban there is no end to this. They are the 'cow gazers' who are the most influential group in the region. Note the I'm referring to the Afghan Taliban, not the TTP which are presumably an Indian sponsored and wrongly cited branch of Taliban. The sooner everyone realizes this the better. The Taliban can't be defeated in their home, similar to the Pakistan Army on theirs. It's been 8 years now and who knows how many more, before everyone starts to realize this.
The only 'way-out' now left, atleast for Pakistan, is to make efforts to ensure that Afghanistan's real leadership is mediated in a way which guarantees against any hostility coming in from Afghanistan, once the leadership comes back into power eventually.
Finally, your most welcome to disagree with me, these are just my views. Just like most of us here, I'm not an analyst or a 'false-proof' source on this forum.