"I dislike blame games"
So do I. Shall we allow bygones of the past to dissipate?
"...and want to look towards a solution in which ... the ultimate aim is to improve the conditions of Afghanistan and Pakistan"
That's being done. KL reflects that there's considerably more going on than rehashing the past.
"i have to say that i too am quite disappointed by such unilateral views which utterly regard Pakistan as the root of the problem..."
Who would profess this historical responsibility/blame to be solely Pakistan's?
"without looking into your own backyards...without giving an iota of attention to what you all have contributed to in this unfolding chaos...you simply pin blame on Pakistan..."
Why do I sense
victimization coming?
"I am of the generation which was raised in the era of the Afghan war...do not think that i have forgotten what was the Afghan war and who did what..."
I was a serving officer in that time. One of my best friends took three six-week trips into Afghanistan with the mujahideen. I don't think I've forgotten too much. Lester Grau's studies sit very near my bed.
"In an ideal world...Soviet Union should have held its horses, USA should have stayed the hell out of Afghanistan...Pakistan should have left it alone as internal matter...Hundreds of Afghan leaders should not have sought the help of Pakistan and other countries for all sorts of aids and help in this civil war...did they refuse help, aid, weapons?"
Irrelevant.
"You think all of help was paid by U.N. USA and no impact was there on our country, our resources, our people?"
Are you pleading for sympathy or insulting the intelligence of those perfectly aware that even today a refugee legacy from that past still exists on your lands?
"The refugees were generously helped by most Pakistanis, our families contributed their money and lots of goods were donated to the affected families...we suffered due to the smuggling mafia which became very strong in Pakistan and shifted many of its operations here from Afghanistan...we suffered from the weapons which were brought into this region...the organized crime including gang robbery and especially abductions soared during this period...
We had a huge cost to pay for which i do not seek monetary compensation"
Sacrifices are made in war. Those refugees were representatives of your first line of defense. You were OUR second line of defense. Our objectives were to secure Pakistan from the Soviets, prevent their geo-strategic access to the Persian gulf, and bleed them in the interim.
"for...however i do feel anger when such insulting oversimplifications are made of the many reasons than my brethren helped the Afghans..."
Who would insult your nation, All-Green?
"we did it out of spirit and faith"
And you were the only who possessed a vision of altruism and nobility to your efforts? Others there, including America, were honoring THEIR spirit, faith, and political credos.
"...we did not foresee the terrible outcome of all of this war..."
Who did? Not America. We left at its conclusion, All-Green, because we'd held no historical interests to the area. Had we made clear our intention to stay, I STRONGLY doubt the Soviet Union would have acceded to America's presence along the borders of its southern socialist republics while simultaneously agreeing to leave Afghanistan.
I also strongly suspect that all who rail at our leaving today would have instead railed at our neo-imperialist ambitions.
"...it was our failing but not ours alone...do not blame only my country for all of this."
Well, if you seriously wish to discuss this matter then let me ask why nobody from your side of the fence ever sees the responsibility of the PRC or Great Britain to any of this? The drumbeat is AMERICA abandoned you.
I've already stated my views as to why we didn't stay and, I agree, we did ABANDON you but these are separate issues from one another. Our abandonment of Pakistan was mandated by our laws in light of your pursuit of nuclear weapons.
You say duplicity and that you were used. I say you were protected by all and that Pakistan was well aware that your seperate agenda of a nuclear capability would lead to the Pressler amendment eventually rearing its head.
Pakistan had ample warning of the consequences and made a strategic calculation/choice. From that came the predictable, calculated, and expected fall-out.
"So majority of Afghans hate Pakistan?"
Please stay away from polemics of "
hate" and I shall try to do the same. In the meantime, avail yourself of the latest polling data and the questions specifically relating to Pakistan's role in the war, and the supporting methodology.
Also, if in vehement disagreement with the findings, identify the reasons/objections and your alternative data and methodology-
ABC/BBC/ARD Afghanistan Poll 2010
ABC/BBC/ARD Afghanistan Poll-Note On Methodology 2010
I've a friend who is an Army major at the Pentagon and just coming off a three year tour teaching ECON at the U.S.M.A. in West Point. He's a statistical geek whom A.M. knows reasonably well. I'll forward the same to him for his assessment as I'm interested in his views of the validity of such.
"The ordinary Pakistanis and even the governments have always tried to help the Afghans"
Others, including America, feel the same about their assistance to Afghanistan but I'd be wrong to suggest that our "
help", well-intentioned and even appropriate, hasn't created great pain amidst the friction of war.
We've innocent afghan blood on our hands despite or because of our efforts. Not remotely close to that of the Soviets but the tragedies caused by our mistakes and miscalculations are nonetheless a part of the Afghan melieu and ongoing narrative. The attendant hyperbole from the mouth of Karzai and others is as unfair as hearing similar complaints from YOUR officials but the impact is real nonetheless.
"...i have seen them become a very large part of Pakistani society...i cannot believe this but if it is the truth then it shall be more of Afghanistan's loss if they identify Pakistan as the cause of all their misery..."
Why a loss more so to one side than the other?
"It was the Afghans who fought against their pro soviet government in a civil war in which USA was very heavily involved not just Pakistan ...no way could the soviets have been defeated had this been just an external movement...most of the world knows this for a fact..."
No way that the mujahideen could be defeated either so long as they were afforded Pakistani sanctuary. An insurgency that isn't measurably and tangibly LOSING is,
ipso facto, WINNING.
"If we always go back to the perception that Pakistan is the daddy of Taliban then USA is the grand daddy of all extremism in this region..."
America? Maybe but you haven't justified such. Instead, you've simply made an unsubstantiated leap of logic. I might easily contend under your premise that the Soviet Union is the so-called "
grand daddy", no?
We can't predict what might have been had the Soviets stayed on their side of the border but, clearly, we can evaluate the consequences reasonably well of them choosing not to do so. I say "
choosing" but they, too, had security and political imperatives driving their actions.
"...if this is the crude oversimplification that is always attached to Pakistan then what else can i conclude about USA?"
You can argue to me that the ISI didn't have a relationship with Hekmatyar during the Afghan Civil War (not to be confused with the Afghan-Soviet War). Then you can argue with me that your government's interest in opening trade routes from Quetta to Turkmenistan was non-existent and that your trucking cartels didn't pressure Benazir Bhutto to find a more viable alternative in an area where Hekmatyar had negligible influence (Afghanistan's south).
Finally, you could dispute that Bhutto's government found a better solution to achieving their objectives in the emerging taliban movement of Oruzgan/Kandahar in 1994 than at the hand of Hekmatyar.
That is the Ahmed Rashid narrative of matters and one to which I largely subscribe. It rings plausibly, acccounts for the relationship of Hekmatyar to your government and explains his diminishment and the subsequent taliban rise.
"What moral high ground then i attach to USA when i am preached to about how immoral and evil my own country and its people were towards Afghans?"
Trace your premise in light of my contentions, argue successfully against them, and I'll discuss moral culpability with you. I won't accept your conclusion until I accept your supporting evidence.
"How simple it is to blame Pakistan which has suffered second only to Afghanistan..."
It is simple and, I believe, accurate to apportion blame to Pakistan
"...how easy to start your history from only when Mullah Omar had already gained control of most of Afghanistan and Pakistan government recognized them..."
I carry a history degree and grew up in that period of time. Further, nothing I've offered to you in the past nor now indicates a lack of awareness about the backdrop to this war. Your recognition of the taliban government of Afghanistan in 1996 is just one of the marks on this particular time-line.
"...instead we should have recognized the hundreds of warlords as a single government...hundreds of times....yes?"
It wasn't likely a zero-sum choice of one at the expense of the other. Further, you fail to acknowledge the weight of scale already visible during the Afghan-Soviet war among the Peshawar Seven. Not all mujahideen were liaisoned with equal favor by the ISI operatives.
The conditions leading to Pakistan's estrangement with the other ethnic elements of Afghan society had already fallen well into place.
"We could not have ignored the Taliban when they had unified government in most of Afghanistan..."
As I suggest, it's hardly as though this process was played out to such a conclusion without your awareness nor involvement. Pakistan didn't simply awaken from a deep slumber in 1996 to find a taliban government in power in Afghanistan. There were decisions made by Pakistan and, possibly, the KSA which facilitated this reality.
"...when the US and its allies landed in Afghanistan and actively supported the Northern Alliance they cared little for the moral standing of the ranks of Northen Alliance..."
Moral standing in whose eyes? We valued the general moral character of Ahmed Shah Massoud. Not remotely without sin but, relative to his peers (including Hekmatyar), he was damned near saintly. Sadly, the rug got pulled out from underneath us one day before we even realized there was a slight 9/11 problem looming on our horizon.
"...but Pakistan was supposed to see whether the Taliban were good enough to merit our attention or not, despite their solid control of Afghanistan which was unprecedented since the Afghan war started..."
Your assessment of their value, as I indicated above, came well before they found themselves in power. Your transfer of allegiance from Hekmatyar to the taliban is the primary impetus behind the taliban's ascension to power.
"...we have had example of Saudi Arabia which had a similar government style as that of Taliban so it was not like we were condemning Afghans to hell..."
Example? What example? A royal example would have made a case for Zahir Shah. OTOH, a wahabbist/salafist example WAS a condemnation of the afghans to hell or did I miss something? Do you now diminish their heinous "
governance" as adequate for afghans then and, again, now? I hope not because your own citizens have decisively rejected such in SWAT/Buner.
Probably o.k. for your citizens in FATAville though? Doesn't seem to be the case so let me ask where the demarcation exists that makes the taliban acceptable for afghans but not your mother and sisters?
"...no one can impose a foreign government in Afghanistan... a lesson learnt by Soviets..."
You've just finished telling me how the Soviets were only defeated from their ambitions in Afghanistan because of the accumulated weight of nations against them, no?
What government is trying to be imposed on Afghans now from your tribal lands? Care to speculate on its chances for success had sanctuary for its leadership not existed? I think very poor and that Afghanistan, despite endemic issues of corruption and crime, would be much further along the path of progress were it not for an externally-directed insurgency.
and one which should be realized by all.
"...I guess we are the omnipotent presence in the world because in a country like Afghanistan we managed to impose our toadies on such a nation within just 4 years..."
You, by physical proximity, internal political and military coherance, and unity of vision, carried more weight than any others of whom I can imagine. Iran certainly had their preoccupation with Iraq between 1980-1988 so I don't see how the shia mullahs were prepared to contest you.
Who else? The Soviets? They tried while they could be the sand was slipping beneath their feet in the late 80s and very early 90s and then they were done.
"...against the collective will of all its people who were all in love with their ideal ruling council of warlords?"
The results of your success were laid before your eyes between 1996-2001. Are you satisfied with your efforts? Evidently
YES despite your dissatisfaction having the same imposed on you in SWAT/Buner this year and now SWA with their TTP kin.
Do you wish for the same again?
"...On the other hand the entire world is struggling to oust the same lackies and foreign invaders who have no support from the locals and just resort to hit and run from Pakistan..."
Nice of you to admit this fundamental abridgement of your sovereign obligations.
"...how is it possible that still we hear complaints of Taliban and talks of failed strategy and more boots on the ground..."
The rest of the world failed to make allowance for an ally whom was less-than-allied by providing our enemy with sanctuary from which the ousted taliban government now makes war.
You and I both know that even in the absence of such, Afghanistan's endemic issues were profound and would take HUGE effort to overcome. This is a country ON ITS AZZ like few others before or since.
"...I am quite positive that there is a lot more to Taliban than Pakistan...but then i guess i have been indocrtinated not to sift out the truth...being Pakistani and all."
You do have something of (pardon me) your own cross to bear WRT to acknowledgements. Somewhat selective, IMV. So far, you've offered none of your own admissions besides the taliban's high moral turpitude (disproved by their heavy opium involvement both then and now).
I read much about Karzai's brother and his involvement with both drugs and their government. Are you so much better?
Parcel Bomb Injures MNA, Three Relatives-DAWN June 6, 2009
Might wish to look into this gent for a taste of the same.
"If Taliban never had and still do not have any support in Afghanistan then i cannot ever imagine them stirring so much trouble with a huge war being waged against them..."
External sanctuary is the lifeblood of any insurgency. Americans know this lesson well from Vietnam and the Afghan-Soviet War.
"I guess they are no more a trouble since everyone hates them and there is no support for them..."
Aside from Pakistan or do you not read the comments made here by too many of your own peers?
"...if so then no more need to push Pakistan..."
See above. "
Push"? We'll be pushing you into our arms or war against us eventually. One or the other seem the foreordained path of this conumdrum.
"...i guess you guys have it all figured out and sorted out and it is just a matter of time..."
I'd guess us guys have been forthright in reassessing failure at least twice this year alone-last spring and this fall.
You? Or do you have nothing to offer in introspective reassessment but snide asides that show little remorse for your own responsibilties?
"no guerilla movement can succeed without local support when faced with a focused machine of war and with so much disparity in firepower..."
This is an externally-directed insurgency that's relying upon sanctuary, wahabbist/salafist gulf money, and opium revenues that come from coercing farmers in those reaches of their traditional lands. You've had ample opportunity to review the UNODC data and are well aware that the British and Canadians have, until this year, provided inadequate forces to control the vast reaches of Kandahar and Helmand provinces.
As to firepower, I'm unsure about its application by us but UNAMA contends that over 2400 afghans died by violent means last year and that the taliban had a direct responsibility for over 1600 of them while NATO/ISAF killed less than 600.
"When i talk about talking to them i propose this as a viable, logical strategy. I am saying this that eventually this will make things better as it did for us in Swat..."
Great. Do so on your own lands...yet again. The evidence is in on these fcuks and I'm ASTOUNDED by your contention. I'm equally ASTOUNDED by your complete lack of understanding about the taliban's view of such.
Don't you READ? Omar has made clear his complete willingness to "
talk" after ISAF has departed. Not before. Given his personal legacy and abhorrance of any democratic process, you can be assured that there'll be very little talking and one damnably large civil war...again.
Stunning what you'll foist on the afghans but not accept for your own sisters and mothers. For shame given all you've seen. Seriously.
"...i guess all are welcome to form their opinion..."
Mine is formed about the taliban, A.Q., Hekmatyar, Haqqani, Maulvi Nazir, and Hafez Gul Bahadur. You seem to need further lessons of pain administered like that young lady we all saw last spring in SWAT.
Thanks but, no thanks.
Hope you read those polls and reconsider your thoughts in light of that data. Hope you provide better if in disagreement. Other than that, I'm sorry if your feelings are hurt that Afghans aren't overwhelmed with Pakistan's role in all of this but you may require some reassessment of your role vis-a-vis your neighbors.
Thanks.