The US-backed Regime Change in Pakistan

[Sarosh Ibrahim]

The United States has freely been using regime changes as tools for subjugation. If unable to 'convince' a leader to comply, the US simply has him/her removed from power.

Ironically, the US Senate had to formally pass an "assassination ban" on US citizens/officials since CIA/US assassinations and coups in states run by “unfavorable” governments were becoming too frequent.

The author, Mir Adnan Aziz, argues that for the US, Pakistan’s former prime minister, Imran Khan, represented one such unfavorable government. Though Pakistan is not a stranger to America’s interventionist policies, the recent regime change in Pakistan has revealed the true extent of covert American networking in the state.

Read the complete article: https://www.paradigmshift.com.pk/regime-change/

To submit your articles and research papers, please click here: https://www.paradigmshift.com.pk/submit-articles/

 

[Cash GK]

treason. Top bosses n their coming generations will live with label of treason. Bajwa what have you done.. I am very sad.. this mark will go down to history. My God..... it gives me warid feelings when I even think about the situation of bajawa Mr nadeem n core commander rawalpindi. Those guys n their coming generations will have life like hell. People will shout on them in streets...

 

[nahtanbob]

The United States has freely been using regime changes as tools for subjugation. If unable to 'convince' a leader to comply, the US simply has him/her removed from power.

Ironically, the US Senate had to formally pass an "assassination ban" on US citizens/officials since CIA/US assassinations and coups in states run by “unfavorable” governments were becoming too frequent.

The author, Mir Adnan Aziz, argues that for the US, Pakistan’s former prime minister, Imran Khan, represented one such unfavorable government. Though Pakistan is not a stranger to America’s interventionist policies, the recent regime change in Pakistan has revealed the true extent of covert American networking in the state.

Read the complete article: https://www.paradigmshift.com.pk/regime-change/

To submit your articles and research papers, please click here: https://www.paradigmshift.com.pk/submit-articles/

Tell us what Imran Khan has done that makes it "unfavorable" compared to his predecessors

 

[MIRauf]

Tell us what Imran Khan has done that makes it "unfavorable" compared to his predecessors

1: No to the base request
2: Refusing to meet visiting delegations with lower status then President / PM.
3: Aligning Pak policy / steering it towards China / Russia.
4: Putting Pak first before others interests.
5: Forging independent policy then to toe the narrative set by other powers ( least the expression put forward. )
6: Trying to pull circle of power back to Civil Gov't ( likely the biggest reason for downfall and not the US backed regime change. )

Just the few I can think off.

PS: Former ZAB supporter, not a die hard PPP or PML-N guy, I are.

 

[nahtanbob]

1: No to the base request
2: Refusing to meet visiting delegations with lower status then President / PM.
3: Aligning Pak policy / steering it towards China / Russia.
4: Putting Pak first before others interests.
5: Forging independent policy then to toe the narrative set by other powers ( least the expression put forward. )
6: Trying to pull circle of power back to Civil Gov't ( likely the biggest reason for downfall and not the US backed regime change. )

Just the few I can think off.

PS: Former ZAB supporter, not a die hard PPP or PML-N guy, I are.

On point 6: This is the elephant in the room. If Imran Khan was the angel his supporters portray him to be he would shoot straight on this matter.

 

[Kuru]

I think this regime change is a result of what Pakistan did in Afghanistan. Pakistan single handedly defeated US, India, Israel and their NATO allies; and installed Taliban there. The favor was returned by these countries. Pakistan should just stay away from these countries, they seem to have a lot of influence in Pakistan.

 

[Maula Jatt]

I think this regime change is a result of what Pakistan did in Afghanistan. Pakistan single handedly defeated US, India, Israel and their NATO allies; and installed Taliban there. The favor was returned by these countries. Pakistan should just stay away from these countries, they seem to have a lot of influence in Pakistan.

why didn't they do it "while" they were doing it - you know what I mean?, why didn't a true regime change happen when these things were going on
I think this is a domestic issue orchestrated by a powerful section of the state- the US just happened to also not like the man too

it may have been the final nail in the coffin but not even 1/10 of the actual reason

 

[MIRauf]

On point 6: This is the elephant in the room. If Imran Khan was the angel his supporters portray him to be he would shoot straight on this matter.

Yes, but the problem also lies with the rest of world giving the Pak Military too much attention ( considering it the center of power, the king makers ), if they could only by-pass Military and just deal with Civis then the establishment will start to lose control eventually. Not saying that it would be easy, specially when it has served well in the past to push the agenda when needed for the powers to be.

On the Pak side the problem lies with Civis as well as they run to Military every time they don't get their way and want the military to intervene.

No PM at the moment in Pak can take the Hawks head-on, it be suicide. One might just better get a rusty dull knife and cut thier own writs then go against the Hawks. The change will have to be gradual, give and take, show the Hawks that Civis can handle it so Hawks can take troops back to barracks with ease of mind that land is in capable hands.

Sorry, not meaning to write thesis on this, just an old man rambling and couldn't pen it all down in "Cliff Notes."

 

[nahtanbob]

Yes, but the problem also lies with the rest of world giving the Pak Military too much attention ( considering it the center of power, the king makers ), if they could only by-pass Military and just deal with Civis then the establishment will start to lose control eventually. Not saying that it would be easy, specially when it has served well in the past to push the agenda when needed for the powers to be.

On the Pak side the problem lies with Civis as well as they run to Military every time they don't get their way and want the military to intervene.

No PM at the moment in Pak can take the Hawks head-on, it be suicide. One might just better get a rusty dull knife and cut thier own writs then go against the Hawks. The change will have to be gradual, give and take, show the Hawks that Civis can handle it so Hawks can take troops back to barracks with ease of mind that land is in capable hands.

Sorry, not meaning to write thesis on this, just an old man rambling and couldn't pen it all down in "Cliff Notes."

You cannot expect foreign countries to abide by such rules. They are trying to get things done in the short run