AgNoStIc MuSliM : I do fully respect your views, but beg to disagree with the fundamental premises on which they are based.
Quaid e Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan guaranteed the autonomous status of FATA back in 1947. He was a visionary, had deep insight into the specific demographic and geographical compulsions of this area. Within 3 months of the creation of Pakistan, an estimated 30,000 remnants of former Indian Army, stationed in FATA since 19th century were withdrawn.
US / NATO played the game of “bombing into the stone age” with the Musharraf regime and won without firing a shot. The assumption that in the event Pakistan Army did not launch operations the US forces would have invaded FATA does not stand to reason. In fact, the US forces should have been encouraged to try their luck, probably that would have brought their Afghan adventure to an end much ealier! In the event of an outright US invasion Pakistan would have rid itself of the self imposed “obligation” to provide logistics, bases, air space and force protection. The US would have quickly learnt the hard lesson that it is very easy to capture FATA, but very expensive to hold on.
I have to disagree with the fundamental premise you base your argument on.
What you have argued for is any and all abdication of responsibility and sovereignty as a state over FATA and the actions emanating from it.
Even if Pakistan had not supported the WoT, the fact is that FATA is a part of Pakistan, and therefore Pakistan has a responsibility to ensure that its territory is not used for attacks domestically or on other nations. You suggest that we should have just pulled back and let the Americans do whatever they want - a shameless argument if I ever heard one. While Pakistan has not entirely prevented US intervention in FATA, that intervention is nowhere close to what would happen were we to allow the US carte blanche in FATA as you suggest, had we not supported the WoT.
Secondly, the war would not have remained limited to FATA, were the US allowed in. The militants would merely move deeper and deeper into Pakistan as their sanctuaries in FATA ceased to provide safety. And what next, when the violence and sanctuaries in FATA shift East, as they most likely will under relentless US assaults?
Would you then also surrender Dir, Swat, Chitral, the NWFP and Peshawar, the Northern Areas?
Should we just let the Yanks go in wherever they are attacked from and 'try their luck', as you suggest?
You may be perfectly fine living in a nation that is reduced to rubble like Afghanistan is, and then when one day the US tires and leaves, exhibiting a show of bravado by standing tall upon the ruins of hopes, dreams and lives and declaring, in the name of Allah of course, that 'we have achieved victory by chasing the infidels from our land'.
I am not.
Pakistan Government forfeited its writ for the simple fact that it had forfeited its own sovereignty and dignity as a Nation State by acting as a surrogate for the US (at least that is the way majority of Pakistani citizens see it. “Disarm and Comply” is not a viable option on two counts (i) Pashtun tradition and the right to bear arms (a la the US constitution) (ii) Getting butchered like lambs without putting up a fight is not a very bright idea.
Pakistan was carved out of British India on the basis of Islamic ideology; in fact the NWFP joined Pakistan per choice in the 1946 referendum. No matter how much we tout our enlightened moderation and secularist credentials; ideology remain our only differentiator as a Nation
Pakistan did not forfeit its writ until the Taliban militias forced that upon us.
Pakistan allowed logistical support and overflights for the NATO invasion of Afghanistan - that had nothing to do with Pakistani writ or actions taken by NATO on Pakistani territory. NATO could have, with more expense, gotten her supplies through the CAR's. For a nation spending billions a month in Iraq that is not an insurmountable hurdle.
The Taliban chose to seek refuge in Pakistan, which perhaps can be excused. The Taliban militias then chose to attack targets in Afghanistan from Pakistani territory, that is not fine - the Taliban militias had now conducted military operations from Pakistani soil on another nation, they had therefore put all of Pakistan at risk and violated the writ of the Pakistani State.
The GoP's actions occurred after her writ had been challenged by the Taliban militias.
On your points raised about disarmament:
1. The 'right to bear weapons' is a canard raised to deflect attention form the real issue here and what the 'disarmament' condition by the GoP implies.
The 'right to bear weapons' does not allow for rocket launchers, AA Guns, IED's, rockets and mortars. They want to keep a rifle and AK-XX's, be our guest - no one is questioning that. Disarming also means the disbanding of militias that have destroyed the traditional form of administration and imposed their own law. These are perfectly reasonable conditions.
2. The disarmament condition is a prerequisite to halting operations. If the Taliban militias are not fighting, they won't be getting butchered.
I prefer that Pakistan fulfill her responsibilities as a state, and maintain her honor and dignity in the comity of nations, by herself acting to prevent hostile acts from being initiated from her territory, as well as preventing hostile acts being committed on her territory, such as the demolition of schools, businesses and the forced imposition of a perverted form of Islam.
