Tweet
Many here have this confusion about Hamid Karzai. With all his supposed anti-Pakistan rhetoric, it appears one forgets that he was ferreted into Afghanistan abroad American aircraft from Islamabad, not Delhi or DC.
Under Musharraf, Pakistan allied themselves completely with the US and joined in the war. General Mahmood resigned from his position due to his opposition to the US war in Afghanistan a day after it began. Mullah Zaeef touches up on the conversation he has with General Mahmood and how hypocritical Mahmood's position had been.
What is perplexing is that some seem to think that Karzai is some nationalistic enemy of Pakistan, and that Karzai truly cares about issues such as say the Durrand line. This is false.
When Musharraf took Pakistan and allied with the US, breaking ties with Afghanistan, he backed Karzai entrance to Afghanistan. The rift between Musharraf and Karzai developed as Karzai alluded that Pakistan was behind the "insurgency" that began to gain ground in 2003. In reality the continued references to Pakistan are just a simple way to deny the basis of opposition to Karzai and the US occupation. It would be similar to someone saying that when Mirwais neeka fought and defeated the Persians, that some foreign hand was behind it, maybe Hamid Gul's great X 1000 Grandfather? No one can make anyone fight. No one could make the Polish fight the Germans.
Afghanistan today gets backing from a few Gulf nations. This has not been news and is no suprise as the ties with Saudi Arabia existed during the war against the Soviets too, but Karzai and the US are only bent on alluding to Pakistan. Pakistan has their interests in seeing Afghanistan free from the US occupation just like Iran, China, and Russia, but this in no way means anything. Common interests do not mean that one is a proxy for another. All it is is a convergence of interests.
In regards to another misconception that the Taliban are Pakistani proxies, the facts rebuke this. The Taliban never recognized the Durrand line. Unlike Karzai, who only states his refutation as a fashion piece, they in fact meant it. Secondly, when Pakistan allied itself with the US and the war back in 2001, they did break ties with the Taliban.
I don't know how a Taliban governed Afghanistan will ever forget that part of history. It is a historical fact, not a myth. Pakistan broke ties with the Taliban, and joined the US war. So, does it make sense that Pakistan would want the Taliban back in power? The answer is what Pakistan, the US, Iran, or Karzai wants is irrelevant to what will happen.
Regional nations are coming to terms with it, thats all. One can not predict the future.
The only valid opposition to Pakistan is based on their support for the US war. Unless, you support war, I don't see anything else.
It would be best to then have a proper discussion about government preferences rather than make larger than life myths about something in a pointless attempt to deny its basis and the historical facts.
Under Musharraf, Pakistan allied themselves completely with the US and joined in the war. General Mahmood resigned from his position due to his opposition to the US war in Afghanistan a day after it began. Mullah Zaeef touches up on the conversation he has with General Mahmood and how hypocritical Mahmood's position had been.
What is perplexing is that some seem to think that Karzai is some nationalistic enemy of Pakistan, and that Karzai truly cares about issues such as say the Durrand line. This is false.
When Musharraf took Pakistan and allied with the US, breaking ties with Afghanistan, he backed Karzai entrance to Afghanistan. The rift between Musharraf and Karzai developed as Karzai alluded that Pakistan was behind the "insurgency" that began to gain ground in 2003. In reality the continued references to Pakistan are just a simple way to deny the basis of opposition to Karzai and the US occupation. It would be similar to someone saying that when Mirwais neeka fought and defeated the Persians, that some foreign hand was behind it, maybe Hamid Gul's great X 1000 Grandfather? No one can make anyone fight. No one could make the Polish fight the Germans.
Afghanistan today gets backing from a few Gulf nations. This has not been news and is no suprise as the ties with Saudi Arabia existed during the war against the Soviets too, but Karzai and the US are only bent on alluding to Pakistan. Pakistan has their interests in seeing Afghanistan free from the US occupation just like Iran, China, and Russia, but this in no way means anything. Common interests do not mean that one is a proxy for another. All it is is a convergence of interests.
In regards to another misconception that the Taliban are Pakistani proxies, the facts rebuke this. The Taliban never recognized the Durrand line. Unlike Karzai, who only states his refutation as a fashion piece, they in fact meant it. Secondly, when Pakistan allied itself with the US and the war back in 2001, they did break ties with the Taliban.
I don't know how a Taliban governed Afghanistan will ever forget that part of history. It is a historical fact, not a myth. Pakistan broke ties with the Taliban, and joined the US war. So, does it make sense that Pakistan would want the Taliban back in power? The answer is what Pakistan, the US, Iran, or Karzai wants is irrelevant to what will happen.
Regional nations are coming to terms with it, thats all. One can not predict the future.
The only valid opposition to Pakistan is based on their support for the US war. Unless, you support war, I don't see anything else.
It would be best to then have a proper discussion about government preferences rather than make larger than life myths about something in a pointless attempt to deny its basis and the historical facts.