Pakistanis debate real enemy: girl-shooting Taliban or drone-firing US

[Mav3rick]

Drones started pounding FATA only after the tribals started sheltering jihadis who cross border to attack afghanistan and return..Correct me if i am mistaken.

That's what the US says, right? There are too many ifs and buts there. Depends on how much you want to agree with the US version of things. But the problem did not begin there, did it? It started a lot earlier with the invasion of Soviet Union and the state in which Pakistan and Afghanistan were left hanging as soon as 1 super power was done with the other super power.

If you really wanna go that far back then there there should have been billions of $$ worth of rehabilitation on Afghans in Afghanistan and even those who were in Pakistan should have been relocated with proper support from the whole world.

And most importantly, the US should not have invaded and destroyed multiple Islamic countries to find 1 man (OBL), their delta/special forces teams under CIA may have been much more effective!

 

[Mav3rick]

@somebzoo: I admire for your sane post...And one classic example how a monster wheather is good for me or not always eat up the master is LTTE...India created LTTE...what has happened? LTTE eliminated one of the brightest Indian young leader....So exmaples are plenty that needs to be seen...If you ignore then donot blame the histroy...

But LTTE was created by RAW right? On the contrary, Talibaan were not created by ISI but rather through a nexus of Pakistan+USA+Israel+Saudi Arabia+UAE+Afghanistan. Back then the same Talibaan were the right hand of God, fighting infidels invading their country.......what's changed today, except the alliances?

 

[Abhishek_]

Sorry, classified documents!

sorry, no one is buying that argument.

 

[Developereo]

Imran Khan

I have a completely different interpretation of Imran Khan's behavior.

He has stated on several occasions that there is no military solution to this problem and that any lasting solution will require a combination of tactics, including killing the incorrigibles, dismantling their recruitment/propaganda infrastructure, and to reeducate the rest back into society. I happen to agree with his approach and, just as importantly, NATO has come to the same conclusion after eleven years in Afghanistan. It is not the chest beating, macho approach, but it is the only pragmatic approach in the long term.

Anyone who deals with criminals will tell you that the first thing you want to do is to get them to put down their weapons and start talking instead. It doesn't mean you agree with or condone their philosophy; it just means you want to gain their trust as an interlocutor and it's hard to do that if you are running around calling for their extermination.

Imran Khan is far too cosmopolitan and smart to be a Taliban sympathizer.

 

[surya kiran]

I have a completely different interpretation of Imran Khan's behavior.

He has stated on several occasions that there is no military solution to this problem and that any lasting solution will require a combination of tactics, including killing the incorrigibles, dismantling their recruitment/propaganda infrastructure, and to reeducate the rest back into society. I happen to agree with his approach and, just as importantly, NATO has come to the same conclusion after eleven years in Afghanistan. It is not the chest beating, macho approach, but it is the only pragmatic approach in the long term.

Anyone who deals with criminals will tell you that the first thing you want to do is to get them to put down their weapons and start talking instead. It doesn't mean you agree with or condone their philosophy; it just means you want to gain their trust as an interlocutor and it's hard to do that if you are running around calling for their extermination.

Imran Khan is far too cosmopolitan and smart to be a Taliban sympathizer.

The difference, a major one at that, NATO is negotiating with people who are on 'their' soil. When you negotiate with people attacking your soil, you first de-grade them and force them to come to negotiate and then you lay down the rules. Not the other way round where you ask for peace and they use the time to re-group.

Don't you think that Imran Khan seems to forget this basic rule?

 

[Developereo]

The difference, a major one at that, NATO is negotiating with people who are on 'their' soil. When you negotiate with people attacking your soil, you first de-grade them and force them to come to negotiate and then you lay down the rules. Not the other way round where you ask for peace and they use the time to re-group.

Don't you think that Imran Khan seems to forget this basic rule?

There's an opposite consideration also: any military campaign has collateral damage. NATO doesn't give a damn because the civilians killed are not Westerners. However, Pak army must be mindful of the civilians who will inevitably get caught in the crossfire. No one's going to shed any tears for the terrorists; it is the wider repercussions of a military campaign which is the issue.

 

[Kasrkin]

He has stated on several occasions that there is no military solution to this problem and that any lasting solution will require a combination of tactics, including killing the incorrigibles, dismantling their recruitment/propaganda infrastructure, and to reeducate the rest back into society. I happen to agree with his approach and, just as importantly, NATO has come to the same conclusion after eleven years in Afghanistan. It is not the chest beating, macho approach, but it is the only pragmatic approach in the long term.

Friend, his rhetoric is only that: rhetoric. Obviously, victory will require a combination of tactics which is what everyone is saying. But Imran Khan is not even taking the first step. He is not giving anything practical either. He is just dissembling and confusing the issue, which is the point of the article. Saying enough to avoid criticism from both sides, but definitively not enough to win the war, or even start winning the war.