Pashtuns and neoconservatism-interventionism

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Pakistan strategic depth is not a revenge policy off Pashtunistan policy...rather a necessity for survival of paki state.
Pakistan is founded on an impossible idea of a country for South Asian Muslims and at the same time has kept the feudal structure of the society. As a result the leaders have cultivated Islamist extremists any time they needed to direct the masses on something else than the gross inequalities in the country and the inefficiency of the economy. As a result the Islamist extremists have grown to a formidable force. And the economy is in a rut. Strategic depth purpose is to redirect masses on “Islamic jahad” against Hindu+Afghan+Zeionist alliance that want to destroyed “fortress of islam.”

What I don’t understand you can preach against US intervention and US presence in Afghanistan.
If you liked your people and knew your interest then you will peach for defeat of puki creatures Talibs first then you could milk US for all they are worth. Call their bluff and hold them on their ideals and beliefs... see who blinks first. On other hand you can only beat America when you kill the enemy within- a united Pashtun can only defeat a resource-full America. Defeating Taliban is far cheaper and achievable than defeating US right now. Not to mention that if you defeat US first then you fall victim to a far poor Talib that would further reduce you to nothingness and impoverish your society.
I believe a better and a far more wise plan would be to first fight against Taliban and liberate yourselves from them. Hold Uncle Sam down to pay for all of your institutions so that the repeat of the Russian 'victory' wont happen. You could milk them till you think that you are standing on your feet and use the very same exact institutions to liberate yourselves from your second and last enemy- US. US could only be defeated with peace and through a civil society. Iran liberated itself from US through the very same institutions that were supposedly American friendly 32 years ago. Egypt is doing it today. India did it 60 years ago. Turkey did it 90 years ago. China did it 70 years ago. etc etc do that or perish. For America is not the main cause of your misery- you ghoolness and division from within is.
As you might know I was actually banned for few weeks for speaking my mind, I will try to find your reply to Milak post and read it.

I have no issues with your opinions on the Pakistani state and find them to be buttressed in the following by Abdul Salam Zaeef:

"Since the start of Jihad the ISI extended its roots deep into Afghanistan like a cancer puts down roots in the human body...Pakistan is so famous for treachery that it is said they can get milk from a bull. They have two tongues in one mouth, and two faces on one head...they use everybody and deceive everybody...In the twenty-first century there aren't many places left where you can still buy and sell people, but Pakistan remains a hub for this trade."

However, you are not aware of the complexity in our area because you are not from there. Not every single person fighting the Karzai government ascribes to the Taliban. It is utter foolishness to label every Afghan that has joined the insurgency as simply, a Talib.

Also, you contradict yourself because what is the current Kabul government except feudal? Karzai is the son of a Fofalzai elder who stole the mantle of leadership from the sadozyaan. Ghani is a nonKochaay that claims to be a the tribal leader of them. The rest of them are as feudal as the pakistani heirarchy. There is no meritocracy in accepting them.

Also, as I stated before, I do not, as an american view this country as some cheap prostitute that ought to be used to further your ends. I am glad you openly state that is your intention because that is what I was writing about inthe first place.

[faye]

quote b.a.[One day, when you are a married man, if you are not already, you will see that you have to be ethical and selective about which problems you take on. I recently found out (2 days ago or so) that I am to be a father. Is it proper for me to first take care of my children, feed, clothe, and shelter them... or shall I force the state to care for them in my absence? Shall I take care of other people's wives before my own wife? Should I drag my neighbors into a conflict between tribes and people that has been ongoing since before my birth, that is going on thousands of miles away from here? Will I lie to them and construct a national security paradigm that is nonexistent and faulty telling them that they must hoist secular democracy on a group of goat herders otherwise we are doomed to see the jandaa of la illihaa il ul llah flying above the White House? Or should I tell them the truth of the matter regarding how our interventionism abroad has earned us the resentment and anger of millions that are willing to violently undo our actions?]

this example is perfect b.a. and congratulations!!

[BarakzaiAbdali]

quote b.a.[One day, when you are a married man, if you are not already, you will see that you have to be ethical and selective about which problems you take on. I recently found out (2 days ago or so) that I am to be a father. Is it proper for me to first take care of my children, feed, clothe, and shelter them... or shall I force the state to care for them in my absence? Shall I take care of other people's wives before my own wife? Should I drag my neighbors into a conflict between tribes and people that has been ongoing since before my birth, that is going on thousands of miles away from here? Will I lie to them and construct a national security paradigm that is nonexistent and faulty telling them that they must hoist secular democracy on a group of goat herders otherwise we are doomed to see the jandaa of la illihaa il ul llah flying above the White House? Or should I tell them the truth of the matter regarding how our interventionism abroad has earned us the resentment and anger of millions that are willing to violently undo our actions?]

this example is perfect b.a. and congratulations!!

Thanks Faye. Hows life?

[faye]

hot and sweaty, on my tropical island.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

OK let me clarify. I basically think that Pakistan is its own worst enemy. What allows it to sustain itself is its military. What sustains its military are a few focal points: India (perhaps a credible threat per their backing the Mukhtee Bahini in Bengladesh), and implicity America (though they dare not say it openly). What also sustains its military in our direction and has beguiled our brethren there is this idiotic notion that there are good taliban and bad taliban. Somehow, to the NWFP masses, H Mehsud is a bad taliban that is funded by India... Omar Hotak is a brave warrior fighting an aggressor. Yet the conundrum is that the two have aligning goals. In fact, the Khost operation orchestrated by H Mehsud shows conclusively that H Mehsud aligns his goals with that of Omar Hotak (i.e. he offed 7 CIA agents.. why would he bite the hand that feeds him). Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef also appears to castigate Pakistan for playing each and every side. Mr. Bin Ladin himself eventually criticized the current Pakistani government's methodology and earned the rebuke of Khalid Khwajaa.

So my point in all of this is that A) Zahir Shah and the Muhammadzai house were in general inept, stupid, corrupt, and worthless. B) What was the point of inviting our brethren to become a part of the stupidity of A) and C) Pakistan can edge itself towards civil war with a few hasty actions all on its own. We need not make ourselves the focal point of all this.

I will state for the record, I am an American First. My life has begun here and will likely end here, unless God sees fit to deliver me elsewhere. So I am but a well wisher from abroad. As a private citizen, I can advocate unity, but I cannot fund a US war in Pakistan or Afghanistan to accomplish the Zionist equivalent of a Pashtun state. I am simply commenting, as an outsider, with links to both places, what appears to be the inhibiter to a confederacy of united Pashtuns.

There are Awdalyaan in Peshawar and other places, but their links, like that of SU Durrani and others are distant. They have no land in Qandahar proper or Kabul. Some of them, like SU Durrani and the other Pashtun Durranis (actual descendents of Ahmad Shah himself I might add) support the Pakistani state.

Take for example, our resident Pashtun from Pakistan Shahbaz Khan. I would greatly pain me to see a situation where he or his family were harmed in a civil war between Pashtuns. He is a patriotic Pakistani, but that is because he is a product of where he was raised. How could I live with myself if I advocated forcibly making him join Afghanistan and likely causing the deaths of his family members in the the frontier corps etc? I wouldn't be able to. So therefore, I tend to side with Ghaznavi the Agnostic on this one and prefer to fund and work with private citizen endeavors that have no political basis or fortune in the Afghan conflict. I would have no probleml building a hospital system there it will serve bangra Pashtuns, Hardline Pashtuns, Communist Pashtuns etc.

However, I will not do what Peter King (the congressman that is not attempting to hold a panel on radical Muslims etc) did. He funded and really involved Americans in the IRA struggle for independence from the british by cozying up to Gerry Adams and others. I cannot procur American tax dollars to fund an independent Pashtunistan. This is despite my view as being a well wisher to the Irish and Scottish that wanted to throw off the British yolk.

Pashtunkhwa masses don't say that. In fact you should get in touch with people in FATA and PATA areas. Many are aware of the interference of ISI in creating the negative situation. Unfortunately some Pashtuns try to justify it.

I agree that Pakistan is pushing itself over the cliff (I hope the sick man of Asia finally goes in peace and gives us our breathing space though I am doubtful), but we will be part of the focal point from the mere fact that we are within the region.

The fact that they don't have links to Kandahaar doesn't change their tribes. Marwats are from Ghazni but I doubt many have their links there anymore. Same is the case with us Yousafzais. We don't have links to Kandahar anymore (bar a few), but we are all over Afghanistan and primarily in Malakand division (swabaii, mardan and thor ghar as well). Shifting from x region to y happens a lot amongst Pashtuns. I doubt one can use that to suit your point.

I don't like the fact that your country is in Afghanistan. I didn't like it when they shamelessly interfered in our lands 30 years ago and then left it a broken state for its crony states like Saudi and Pakistan to infringe on. Now they are here, a reality. They are very guilty in destroying Afghanistan, so in a way the international community owes at least this much to Afghanistan. If anything the international community should have sought a political solution in the 90s and spared Afghanistan the numerous "surges" today. However this is a reality. Your state is no longer the isolationist country of George washington or jefferson...it is a world super power and its tentacles are too far out to reverse it that simply. For those changes to even be reversed it will come at a huge price to the world.

If a civil war breaks, chances are people will be forced to make stark decisions. Shehbaz Khan is one example. One example doesn't make it enough for 40 million people. Why stop there? Use toranama, me or baygham or any other person as an example as well.
Either way Pashtuns don't have any downside in uniting..if anything in the long term it fits their interests. Better to get ourselves away from this fire and stop being used as a backyard for xyz's strategic games.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Pashtunkhwa masses don't say that. In fact you should get in touch with people in FATA and PATA areas. Many are aware of the interference of ISI in creating the negative situation. Unfortunately some Pashtuns try to justify it.

I agree that Pakistan is pushing itself over the cliff (I hope the sick man of Asia finally goes in peace and gives us our breathing space though I am doubtful), but we will be part of the focal point from the mere fact that we are within the region.

The fact that they don't have links to Kandahaar doesn't change their tribes. Marwats are from Ghazni but I doubt many have their links there anymore. Same is the case with us Yousafzais. We don't have links to Kandahar anymore (bar a few), but we are all over Afghanistan and primarily in Malakand division (swabaii, mardan and thor ghar as well). Shifting from x region to y happens a lot amongst Pashtuns. I doubt one can use that to suit your point.

I don't like the fact that your country is in Afghanistan. I didn't like it when they shamelessly interfered in our lands 30 years ago and then left it a broken state for its crony states like Saudi and Pakistan to infringe on. Now they are here, a reality. They are very guilty in destroying Afghanistan, so in a way the international community owes at least this much to Afghanistan. If anything the international community should have sought a political solution in the 90s and spared Afghanistan the numerous "surges" today. However this is a reality. Your state is no longer the isolationist country of George washington or jefferson...it is a world super power and its tentacles are too far out to reverse it that simply. For those changes to even be reversed it will come at a huge price to the world.

If a civil war breaks, chances are people will be forced to make stark decisions. Shehbaz Khan is one example. One example doesn't make it enough for 40 million people. Why stop there? Use toranama, me or baygham or any other person as an example as well.
Either way Pashtuns don't have any downside in uniting..if anything in the long term it fits their interests. Better to get ourselves away from this fire and stop being used as a backyard for xyz's strategic games.

I disagree about the international community owing Afghanistan anything; thats double speak for saying that you want the US to stay there and further your goals. We had an inept King who played right into the Soviet's/Brzenzskis hands and his cousin just sealed the deal. However, lets get down to what happened in Afghanistan. It was not simply a ragtag group of Afghans that would not have fought had they not had Aid. The Afghans started the fight with diminished weaponry like their forefather's Lee Enfield rifles. These men like Yunis Khalis, Hekmetyar, Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, et al. including Mullah Omar Hotak were able to rally significant portions of the Afghan populace to fight under their banner. Its a fallacy that you propagate when you attempt to insinuate that the Afghan villagers would have simply sat there and allowed a Soviet, Communist presence and not started or continued the fight. Are you seriously telling me that they were content and happy with Taraki? Furthermore, are you seriously contending that Najib was palatable to any Pashtun worth his salt?

The issue I have with your ANP style vision, or the notion that Abdul Samad and Ghaffar were acceptable or palatable to the masses lay in the roots of these men and their sustained vision. Abdul Samad admired the Soviet revolution and Lenin specifically. Moreover, his son, a murderer, speaks of improved conditions and meritocracy yet the party apparatus is in the hands of the same old gaurd (i.e. Achezkai and his cronies and Asfandyiar in his cronies, Afsriab and his cronies). If Farhat Taj Andersen is indicative of the ANP support platform, I think you ought to seriously reconsider the ground level realities of what the Pashtuns are willing to accept. Even Baygham and Osho have now gone on record indicating that the vision is in the minority and lament the religiousity of their brethren. The other issue with the ANP party (the Afghan Mellat appears somewhat less guilty than this) is that they are opportunists. They were red when the reds came in and loved najib more than he loved himself. And now somehow I am to believe that they are secular capitalists?

Its also a fallacy that the US simply left it up to the Saudis and the Pakistanis. Their involvement remained and there are clear records I can provide you showing Zalmay Khalilzad and his ilk, attempted to deprive the Afghans who had fought, (the bare foot, the destitute, the simple folks without a tribal leadership role) of the leadership that they had earned. Instead, they attempted to implant a secular, pedigreed, effeminate group of men that left their country in a hurry when the going got tough and left Omar and his men to do the fighting. Ask Mr. Karzai how much green tea and how many biscuits he was eating when his Foflazai tribesmen like Mullah Baradar were actually out there fighting.

Also shifting from X to Y is called Nomadism and being a Kochi. I suggest that you and Baygham resolve the dispute that arises between yourselves to this issue because he swore up and down to Edge that this lifestyle of nomadism etc no longer exists even in the single digit percentages in the NWFP.

I am one of the few that I know currently that is the result of a cross border marriage and I am also one of the few that has done another one myself. However, I know from first hand experience that the Afghan refugees are certainly no longer welcomed in the NWFP and that is a local driven decision.

[شمله ور خراساني]

BS is an undercover ANP fellow. He just doesn't like to admit it.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

BS is an undercover ANP fellow. He just doesn't like to admit it.

He seems like a respectful and cordial individual out of the group though. I have not had a hard time with him at all.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

I disagree about the international community owing Afghanistan anything; thats double speak for saying that you want the US to stay there and further your goals. We had an inept King who played right into the Soviet's/Brzenzskis hands and his cousin just sealed the deal. However, lets get down to what happened in Afghanistan. It was not simply a ragtag group of Afghans that would not have fought had they not had Aid. The Afghans started the fight with diminished weaponry like their forefather's Lee Enfield rifles. These men like Yunis Khalis, Hekmetyar, Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, et al. including Mullah Omar Hotak were able to rally significant portions of the Afghan populace to fight under their banner. Its a fallacy that you propagate when you attempt to insinuate that the Afghan villagers would have simply sat there and allowed a Soviet, Communist presence and not started or continued the fight. Are you seriously telling me that they were content and happy with Taraki? Furthermore, are you seriously contending that Najib was palatable to any Pashtun worth his salt?

The issue I have with your ANP style vision, or the notion that Abdul Samad and Ghaffar were acceptable or palatable to the masses lay in the roots of these men and their sustained vision. Abdul Samad admired the Soviet revolution and Lenin specifically. Moreover, his son, a murderer, speaks of improved conditions and meritocracy yet the party apparatus is in the hands of the same old gaurd (i.e. Achezkai and his cronies and Asfandyiar in his cronies, Afsriab and his cronies). If Farhat Taj Andersen is indicative of the ANP support platform, I think you ought to seriously reconsider the ground level realities of what the Pashtuns are willing to accept. Even Baygham and Osho have now gone on record indicating that the vision is in the minority and lament the religiousity of their brethren. The other issue with the ANP party (the Afghan Mellat appears somewhat less guilty than this) is that they are opportunists. They were red when the reds came in and loved najib more than he loved himself. And now somehow I am to believe that they are secular capitalists?

Its also a fallacy that the US simply left it up to the Saudis and the Pakistanis. Their involvement remained and there are clear records I can provide you showing Zalmay Khalilzad and his ilk, attempted to deprive the Afghans who had fought, (the bare foot, the destitute, the simple folks without a tribal leadership role) of the leadership that they had earned. Instead, they attempted to implant a secular, pedigreed, effeminate group of men that left their country in a hurry when the going got tough and left Omar and his men to do the fighting. Ask Mr. Karzai how much green tea and how many biscuits he was eating when his Foflazai tribesmen like Mullah Baradar were actually out there fighting.

Also shifting from X to Y is called Nomadism and being a Kochi. I suggest that you and Baygham resolve the dispute that arises between yourselves to this issue because he swore up and down to Edge that this lifestyle of nomadism etc no longer exists even in the single digit percentages in the NWFP.

I am one of the few that I know currently that is the result of a cross border marriage and I am also one of the few that has done another one myself. However, I know from first hand experience that the Afghan refugees are certainly no longer welcomed in the NWFP and that is a local driven decision.

Shamlawar: I am not a follower of ANP, I like Bacha Khan and respect him. Unlike you I don't need a nick to hide my political opinions. I say what I have to say.

Barakzai:
Your argument is riddled with one too many assumptions about me and my argument. I did not indirectly say that. You are putting words where there are none. What I mentioned is a reality. Whether you or me like it. It is what it is. If it were upto me I would not have one foreigner on our land. However the situation and predicament we are in is something we have to accept before moving ahead. The fact of the matter is that you argue for your country not having entangling alliances when the reality for the past 80 or so years is to the contrary. The fact of the matter is that US and the west did negatively impact that state. Spare me the einfeld or whatever rifles wrora, the US and west support made a huge difference in the outcome of the war. Had it not been for their support (BTW US supported the mujahideen prior to Soviet invasion), the outcome of the war would have been quite different. I did not insinuate that Afghan villagers would have stood there. Where did you get that? Za tsa waemaa ao tha kam zae na daangae wrora. We are not talking about Najibullah either. However like I said before. Whether few villagers fought or not, the fact remains that Western support for the mujahideen helped change the game (or rather set it up as we know it, considering they were interfering prior to Soviet invasion).

Samad Khan admired the leftist movement that is true, but so what? He admired them prior to Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and it was commonplace at the time for smaller nations or colonial nations/peoples to take support from Leftists. From the ETA to the continent of Africa. You act as if this is somehow a revelation.

What is ANP style? How is it mine? I have barely had any debates with you and you assume ANP style? Is this like the counter-argument when people say "wahabi style" or "sufi style".

Again if you want to debate ANP or Achakzai I will gladly do it. ANP has a lot of problems, more than what you have mentioned. Their biggest problem is not opportunism (though all political parties take advantage of this...can you name me one that doesn't?) They are static, cater to Khan/malak of the region and this has led to a downward spiral of that party (not to mention a lack of backbone on their part). Your argument against Achakzai about power is a fair one. I can't disagree with you there. Furthermore Baygham and Osho are not my standard of reality or lack of (neither am I theirs). I have my opinion which I have based on living there and assessing the situation. And they have their own. I never denied the religiosity of Pashtuns, I am a practicing muslim myself.

There is a reason we call them cronies. The word alone should settle your paragraph regarding Saudi and Pakistan (though it does not rid them of their crimes against us).

Once again you talk about something I didn't mention. I used some counter examples about tribes and their one-time links to x yz areas. I wasn't talking about nomadism.

Lastly, you may be the few but you are not the only one. I wish you understand that others have family on both sides of the durand. BTW the Afghan refugees are now settling down and many have returned. Those that have stayed no doubt felt the brunt of prejudice, but then again so did the other IDPs of the region. Many are now locals in peshawar and other settled areas. Slowly they will become a full fledge part of the settled areas.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Shamlawar: I am not a follower of ANP, I like Bacha Khan and respect him. Unlike you I don't need a nick to hide my political opinions. I say what I have to say.

Barakzai:
Your argument is riddled with one too many assumptions about me and my argument. I did not indirectly say that. You are putting words where there are none. What I mentioned is a reality. Whether you or me like it. It is what it is. If it were upto me I would not have one foreigner on our land. However the situation and predicament we are in is something we have to accept before moving ahead. The fact of the matter is that you argue for your country not having entangling alliances when the reality for the past 80 or so years is to the contrary. The fact of the matter is that US and the west did negatively impact that state. Spare me the einfeld or whatever rifles wrora, the US and west support made a huge difference in the outcome of the war. Had it not been for their support (BTW US supported the mujahideen prior to Soviet invasion), the outcome of the war would have been quite different. I did not insinuate that Afghan villagers would have stood there. Where did you get that? Za tsa waemaa ao tha kam zae na daangae wrora. We are not talking about Najibullah either. However like I said before. Whether few villagers fought or not, the fact remains that Western support for the mujahideen helped change the game (or rather set it up as we know it, considering they were interfering prior to Soviet invasion).

Samad Khan admired the leftist movement that is true, but so what? He admired them prior to Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and it was commonplace at the time for smaller nations or colonial nations/peoples to take support from Leftists. From the ETA to the continent of Africa. You act as if this is somehow a revelation.

What is ANP style? How is it mine? I have barely had any debates with you and you assume ANP style? Is this like the counter-argument when people say "wahabi style" or "sufi style".

Again if you want to debate ANP or Achakzai I will gladly do it. ANP has a lot of problems, more than what you have mentioned. Their biggest problem is not opportunism (though all political parties take advantage of this...can you name me one that doesn't?) They are static, cater to Khan/malak of the region and this has led to a downward spiral of that party (not to mention a lack of backbone on their part). Your argument against Achakzai about power is a fair one. I can't disagree with you there. Furthermore Baygham and Osho are not my standard of reality or lack of (neither am I theirs). I have my opinion which I have based on living there and assessing the situation. And they have their own. I never denied the religiosity of Pashtuns, I am a practicing muslim myself.

There is a reason we call them cronies. The word alone should settle your paragraph regarding Saudi and Pakistan (though it does not rid them of their crimes against us).

Once again you talk about something I didn't mention. I used some counter examples about tribes and their one-time links to x yz areas. I wasn't talking about nomadism.

Lastly, you may be the few but you are not the only one. I wish you understand that others have family on both sides of the durand. BTW the Afghan refugees are now settling down and many have returned. Those that have stayed no doubt felt the brunt of prejudice, but then again so did the other IDPs of the region. Many are now locals in peshawar and other settled areas. Slowly they will become a full fledge part of the settled areas.

Fair enough. You appear to be stating a series of facts. I should not have prejudged. After dealing with a series of folks that all made the same series of arguments a thousand times, I foolishly assumed you were next in line. I beg your pardon. However, for my sake and yours, I hope that the US begins to understand that it is locked into a war of attrition and leaves.

[ScimitarXEdge]

I believe that using wikipedia definitions of interventionism is deceptive and not consistent with realpolitik

like some have said interventionism can have positive sounding connotations therefore it's an inaccurate and somewhat deceptive term that doesn't cohere to how things are administered in reality.

Really interventionism is just a euphemism for hegemony and exploitation. Many are arguing in favor of it under this false delusion that it's some megalithic force i.e. a super power with massive claws and tentacles, and we are merely pawns at it disposal. Some argue that perhaps somehow we can do their bidding and then "milk" them of their resources. The argument is as flawed as it is delusional. Any intrusion of this sort will make sure any possible "milking" is as minimal as possible, and it will always be done at the assurance that their program of how things should operate takes precedence over any regional program for progress.

Some will argue that they only want the progress and opportunities that the "developed" world has for Pakhtuns/Pashtuns. Another flawed argument which falsely tries to yank the heart strings/sentiments of people to feign a meritable reason. It's flawed for two reasons; firstly it's the "development" that they're referring to which is largely why global disparities exist today, the problems of Paxtuns deal with how such structures and institutions have adversely affected the normal schematic of socioeconomic interactions, environmental relationships and equilibrium of peoples in their respective geographic and ecological niches, this applies to Pakhtuns/Pashtuns as well. Secondly the premise of "development" is flawed, it is circular claim which presupposes technocratic institutions as being emblematic of development, who says that this is a more developed track? Only the industrial/capitalist institutions have defined this notion of development and others out of feelings of inferiority/imposed dependency it have internalized it. In principle we could be just as content and sustained without it, but simply because it is imposed and interferes with everything we think we cant survive except under it's precepts. The whole impetus for why many of us even are displaced from our homelands is due to these imposed institutions interfering.

Many argue about Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, or Islam as being some sort of wing of Arabic agendas. This is nothing but a fabricated diversion manufactured by the colonial powers to serve their agenda and people who peddle this farce are working on behalf of mperialist tactics.. It's true that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are crony states, but all nation states of modern era are products of these imperialists carving out various regions, now some may argue this was done by the British and not America, but America is a product of Britain and British settlers, they identify with Anglo identity and as Samuel Huntington wrote in Clash of Civilizations, are hegemonically the same block. The fact is these states like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, are not exclusive aspects but rather extensions of the same Hegemonic Order, therefore this whole facade and drama about Paki or Saudi agendas is a smokescreen and really used to justify and validate capitalist imperialism. The example of the 80's era Soviet conflict as a scapegoat is not of any consequence. The Soviets were as illegitimate in their agenda regardless of what America did/does We can see the strategy is always to pit one side against another to maintain this status quo of divisive feuding, that's why anyone who promotes this Arab vs. Afghan idea really isnt concerned with Arabs or Afghans but how to keep them disabled for Ferangis. In truth, this whole scheme of trying to better Afghanistan or save Pakhtuns from this mythified 600 lbs Gorilla is a hoax, what's really being done is to help the Gorilla's agenda stay alive when those of us in the West have a rare opportunity. If we really want to improve conditions in Pakhtun lands, or even the entire planet itself; we must dismantle the factors which cause the status quo, this isnt by conforming to it, but by undermining it's institutions

We study Math, we study science, we study all sorts of highly advanced subjects, but why? To "emulate" their model of progress? No, that's not why we should learn these. We have access to sensitive computers systems, methods of mathematical code encryption, which can cripple banks , defense systems, logistics and operational centers. An 600 lbs Gorilla can't move with a broken spine. break it's spine and you'll see how free our people will be. God Willing.

[شمله ور خراساني]

Unlike you I don't need a nick to hide my political opinions. I say what I have to say.

Pardon?

[ScimitarXEdge]

it's not wise practice to accuse people of stuff just because they have a certain viewpoint.

[faye]

being 'software savvy' is forward thing but that still doesn't clean up the mess on the ground in afghanistan. the scatterbombs, white phosphorous, depleted uranium etc,etc. so who is going to do or pay for that???

[Badlun]

Troops of The USA should leave and must leave once the Taliban and Alqaida are defeated completely in Afghanistan.This will be a great success for Afghanistan, the USA and the world. Meanwhile USA should enable the Afghanistan to be a secure and developed country.

But USA is not present only in Afghanistan. USA is the biggest donor of the the UN and all development organizations. USAID is every where and should continue to be in Afghanistan once the troops leave. We all should be thankful to the USA for all the efforts against the terrorism and its role in the development of our country.

With the help of the USA we defeated Communism and soon we shall defeat Terrorism. That Taliban who were ruling Afghanistan now dont have a single inch in Afghanistan where they can have a legitimate and internationally recognized rule or control.

Once the troops leave, engagement of the USA will continue in Afghanistan. That will be a blessing for us as our economy will develop, our infrastructure will be built and our health and education will improve.