Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Role of Pakistan in Afghan Wars

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Role of Pakistan in Afghan Wars

    In my opinion Pakistan is the major offender which has been imposing war over Afghans. Infact I do not consider indigenous Afghan Taliban as responsible for the war in Afghanistan as their Shura had decided to get rid of OBL who was the main excuse for US war against Taliban/Al-Qaida/Afghanistan but ISI intervened and convinced Taliban to retain OBL. ISI want to keep Afghans in the state of war hence keeping Afghanistan dependent upon Pakistan while keeping Pakistan away from US agony and war by presenting the Taliban and Al-Qaida factor as a threat to peace. There is no doubt that ISI-backed Taliban [if not Al-Qaida] was also ISI's brainchild nurtured to keep Afghanistan in the state of war for ever.


    I also consider that the Afghan war of 1978 was imposed by Pakistan over Afghans. General Ziaulhaq used religion for the war as Musharraf used his so called enlightened moderation in 2001 onwards. General Zia wanted to legitimize his autocratic regime by becoming a tool for the US against USSR using Afghans. He accumulated wealth for himself as well as the generals of his army and used both Afghans in Afghanistan and Pashtuns in Pakistan for his purpose. ISI recruited, facilitated and trained Jihadis in Peshawar and sent them to Afghanistan while CIA funded the war.

    Musharraf also used exactly the same technique in a symmetrical form. He also legitimized his dictatorial regime using US war on Terror. He also accumulated wealth. He also ruined Pakhtunland in Pakistan and Afghanistan to safeguard Pakistan's interests of installing a puppet theocratic regime. He used Mullah Omar exactly as Zia used Gulbadin and others Jihadis of his times.

    The Communist regime in Afghanistan made the mistake of introducing reforms suddenly for the transition of Afghan society to modern one ignoring the principles of evolution. Afghans need to understand just one point about Pakistan’s strategy. ISI and Army are not in favor of a stable and sovereign Afghanistan and they want to use it against India while the civilian govt of Pakistan don’t agree with military over their strategic depth policy but the civilian govt can’t do much as the real power in Pakistan rests in the hands of Army. The policy of Pakistan towards Afghanistan has badly affected Pakistan too and even her survival is in doldrums.


    War has harmed Afghans across the Durand line and even Pakistan. If religious guys have a better solution for the progress and prosperity of Afghanistan then they should come into power via popular mandate and prove it. In my opinion, however, Afghan religious leadership has nothing to offer to better governance and I am sure even their perception of religion is also primitive and tribalistic which does not conform to the modern pre requisites of running a state. That is why Pakistan does not want Taliban for their own country they only recommend them for Afghanistan.


    In my opinion the communist strategy which dealt with either Russians or the resistance forces of ISI-CIA backed mujahedeen was mistaken. It was cold war era and a bipolar world so the communist regime in Kabul was supposed to seek help just on non-military, diplomatic and technological fronts from Russia. Invitation to Russian troops was not wise. War causes casualties. Pakistani forces killed approximately 3 million Bengalis just because they wanted to get freedom from Punjabi establishment. Anyway I do not support killing or massacres in any case.

    Afghans should not accept any forced ideologies whether it was communism of PDPA or the Taliban version of Islam. However it seems that the Pakistan establishment like Taliban version of Islam to be imposed and want the Afghans to live in medieval ages and ignore the progress made since then by humanity at large.


    I don’t know why Afghans are against secularism. First of all democracy and secularism are the products of an Industrial society and hence third world countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan need to do a lot of homework to qualify for these systems. Pakistan is agrarian and Afghanistan is tribal society. A lot of spadework has to be done before these countries deploy secularism and democracy. In secularism, state and clergy are egregated from each other. You can be a shia or sunni or wahabi or hindu or Christian etc and practice your religion freely. We should not stigmatize concepts without knowing their practical utility in statecraft.


    Pakistan has a lot of HR potential which has been wrongly used by the exploiters of the military elite for their purposes. Whether Pakistan is strong or not it is stronger than Afghanistan in many aspects and this is the bitter pill you need to swallow in case you want to progress without falling prey to any inferiority complex. Pakistan foreign policy towards Afghanistan is controlled by military and is critcised by analysts both in Afghanistan as well as Pakistan.



    In case of nation states it is always the national interest which rules not any ideology. Even Stalin ultimately realized this fact and presented a national version of socialism to USSR. A state should always have an intrinsic strength to stand upon her feet and should not look onto others for her survival, functioning or working. Applying this concept on today’s Muslim world, it will be foolish for any Muslim country to think that other Muslim countries are there to run the state for them or to help them. The ineffective status of OIC and the delusional concept of Muslima Umma are useless in political sense. A simple example is that Saudi wants to use your land [Afghanistan] for their ideological indoctrination and also want to fight their wars against Shias or others calling you brother but when you go there for Hajj you need visa and all other pre requisites which any foreigner non Muslim would need. In that case they forget that you are Muslim brother and neither needs visa or any other restriction to get into an Islamic country. Infact some western countries like US and UK don’t need visa and they can just walk in while you have to go through a lot of humiliation of the typical rude Bedouin mentality in case you want to perform an Islamic obligation like pilgrimage.

    Voice of the Pashtun Land: Role of Pakistan in Afghan Wars
    Even Adobe Photoshop can't change me.

    A line[Durrand line] of hatred that raised a wall between the two brothers -Hamid Karzai

    For generations, the Hindus of India prayed for deliverance from "the venom of the cobra, the teeth of the tiger and the vengeance of the Afghan."


    The men of Kábul and Khilj also went home; and whenever they were questioned about the Musulmáns of the Kohistán (the mountains), and how matters stood there, they said, "Don't call it Kohistán, but Afghánistán; for there is nothing there but Afgháns and disturbances." Thus it is clear that for this reason the people of the country call their home in their own language Afghánistán, and themselves Afgháns. The people of India call them Patán; but the reason for this is not known. But it occurs to me, that when, under the rule of Muhammadan sovereigns, Musulmáns first came to the city of Patná, and dwelt there, the people of India (for that reason) called them Patáns—but God knows!

    -Ferishta, 1560–1620

  • #2
    was this written by PF member pir rohan because I have an ongoing debate with him and he basically have said what is above in the other thread and I have refuted all his points which are flawed.
    http://www.pashtunforums.com/develop...26/index2.html

    Comment


    • #3
      In short, this is what this article says.

      More war and occupation leads to stability. And no war and no occupation leads to instability

      Pakistan, Pakistan, Pakistan for all the incorrect reasons. His opposition to Pakistan is for not supporting the war enough?

      Then, the article is full of distortions and outright lies which have been refuted already.

      War is not peace. Slavery is not freedom


      Anti War people want Afghanistan to be left alone. Let a government emerge.
      Last edited by Ghundal; 01-27-2012, 01:29 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Ghundal View Post
        In short, this is what this article says.

        More war and occupation leads to stability. And no war and no occupation leads to instability

        Pakistan, Pakistan, Pakistan for all the incorrect reasons. His opposition to Pakistan is for not supporting the war enough?

        Then, the article is full of distortions and outright lies which have been refuted already.

        War is not peace. Slavery is not freedom


        Anti War people want Afghanistan to be left alone. Let a government emerge.

        What has been refuted already? Please be more specific.

        Afghans/Pashtuns have to choose between the slavery of the US and that of Punjab. That is the result of being under-developed and being left behind. Karzai is an American vassal and the Taliban leadership is dependent on Islamabad for supplies and recognition. If Pakistan wants, it can close the supply chain just as it did for NATO after the November incident in Mohmand.
        "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be".

        "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives".

        Comment


        • #5
          Please read the thread Khushal linked.

          Comment


          • #6
            its the same story for every struggling nation in the world

            ethnic division -> individual(ethnic) interest -> internal weakness -> others come in to take advantage of that weakness -> the state keeps dissolving
            It's enough that I know, Our time had a home, In your heart..Was a place..But the glass always breaks..

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Ghundal View Post
              Please read the thread Khushal linked.
              Let's keep it to this thread only.

              So has Pakistan's role in Afghanistan from 1974 to 2012 been negative or positive?
              "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be".

              "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives".

              Comment


              • #8
                ^ Id say it has been reciprocal..how about that
                It's enough that I know, Our time had a home, In your heart..Was a place..But the glass always breaks..

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Talal View Post
                  ^ Id say it has been reciprocal..how about that
                  Care to elaborate?
                  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be".

                  "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives".

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Levanaye Zalmaye View Post
                    Let's keep it to this thread only.

                    So has Pakistan's role in Afghanistan from 1974 to 2012 been negative or positive?
                    Lets read that thread because despite having all his points refuted, Pir Rokhan carries on.

                    Instead of opposing Pakistan for supporting the US war, he is opposing Pakistan for not supporting it enough

                    Pakistan, Pakistan, Pakistan, for all the wrong reasons . This war that he supports is not possible without Pakistan


                    So a writer who admites Stalin supporter ( a murderer of over 20 million people) is saying is that more war is good, and no war is bad.



                    You want a line for line? You can read that thread

                    Pakistan support for the "war on terror" has caused instability in the whole region, but this writer is saying the opposite

                    ?
                    Last edited by Ghundal; 01-27-2012, 02:31 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Talal View Post
                      its the same story for every struggling nation in the world

                      ethnic division -> individual(ethnic) interest -> internal weakness -> others come in to take advantage of that weakness -> the state keeps dissolving
                      Afghanistan was not destroyed by ethnic division, it was destroyed by an invasion of overwhelming force.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        here it is LZ;

                        In my opinion Pakistan is the major offender which has been imposing war over Afghans. Infact I do not consider indigenous Afghan Taliban as responsible for the war in Afghanistan as their Shura had decided to get rid of OBL who was the main excuse for US war against Taliban/Al-Qaida/Afghanistan but ISI intervened and convinced Taliban to retain OBL.
                        I need sources for this because of how i understand it the isi was trying to covince the taliban of handing obl over and the taliban refused the isi request.
                        ISI want to keep Afghans in the state of war hence keeping Afghanistan dependent upon Pakistan while keeping Pakistan away from US agony and war by presenting the Taliban and Al-Qaida factor as a threat to peace. There is no doubt that ISI-backed Taliban [if not Al-Qaida] was also ISI's brainchild nurtured to keep Afghanistan in the state of war for ever.
                        it is not in pakistans interest to keep afghanistan in a state of war but to keep it weak and dependent on pakistan, the reason that the isi was telling the taliban to avoid a us invasion by handing over obl.

                        I also consider that the Afghan war of 1978 was imposed by Pakistan over Afghans. General Ziaulhaq used religion for the war as Musharraf used his so called enlightened moderation in 2001 onwards. General Zia wanted to legitimize his autocratic regime by becoming a tool for the US against USSR using Afghans. He accumulated wealth for himself as well as the generals of his army and used both Afghans in Afghanistan and Pashtuns in Pakistan for his purpose. ISI recruited, facilitated and trained Jihadis in Peshawar and sent them to Afghanistan while CIA funded the war.
                        what happened before the soviet invasion were domestic issues which should have been handled by the afghans. the blessing to the pakistani establishment was the soviet invasion. it was the soviet invasion that destroyed afghanistan, it was the soviet invasion that made afghanistan depend on pakistan.

                        because of the pashtunistan policy, afghanistan was stuck in a no win situation. it forced the afghans completely depend on the soviets and when afghanistan wanted to break free(when daud was ready to accept the durand line) the soviets blocked every attempt and at last resort invaded the country.

                        The Communist regime in Afghanistan made the mistake of introducing reforms suddenly for the transition of Afghan society to modern one ignoring the principles of evolution.
                        hahahaha, the author is dillusional, communism itself is a mistake, this has been proven throughout the world. news flash, communism has failed.
                        War has harmed Afghans across the Durand line and even Pakistan. If religious guys have a better solution for the progress and prosperity of Afghanistan then they should come into power via popular mandate and prove it. In my opinion, however, Afghan religious leadership has nothing to offer to better governance and I am sure even their perception of religion is also primitive and tribalistic which does not conform to the modern pre requisites of running a state. That is why Pakistan does not want Taliban for their own country they only recommend them for Afghanistan.
                        the taliban was a reaction to the chaos that had befallen on afghanistan. since dauds death, no one has been able to run a fuctioning state, not even the two superpowers.
                        where was this author when the warlords were destroying the afghan society, didnt the commies that created the situation run off to the west and left the afghans for the wolves

                        Afghans should not accept any forced ideologies whether it was communism of PDPA or the Taliban version of Islam. However it seems that the Pakistan establishment like Taliban version of Islam to be imposed and want the Afghans to live in medieval ages and ignore the progress made since then by humanity at large.
                        pakistan can not impose anything on ayone, they cant even run their own state. how can you beleive that pakistan has the ability to wrestle afghanistan from 2 superpowers when they cant wrestle kashmir from india or FATA from the ttp
                        I don’t know why Afghans are against secularism. First of all democracy and secularism are the products of an Industrial society and hence third world countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan need to do a lot of homework to qualify for these systems. Pakistan is agrarian and Afghanistan is tribal society. A lot of spadework has to be done before these countries deploy secularism and democracy. In secularism, state and clergy are egregated from each other. You can be a shia or sunni or wahabi or hindu or Christian etc and practice your religion freely. We should not stigmatize concepts without knowing their practical utility in statecraft.
                        secularism can not work in the middle east. if you install secular governmnents, they have to depend on outside aid to rule and they have to rule with an iron fist otherwise they will be overthrown by the people. secular governments in the middle east are a disservice to the middle east society. they are dictorial and they limit peoples freedoms and achievements.
                        In case of nation states it is always the national interest which rules not any ideology. Even Stalin ultimately realized this fact and presented a national version of socialism to USSR.
                        Voice of the Pashtun Land: Role of Pakistan in Afghan Wars
                        stalin was not a national socialist, the author is confusing hitlers Nat-Zi party which was a nationalist socialist party. stalin was a follower of marx who advocated socialism on an international landscape. A good example of a modern day national socialist party would be the baath party and we all know how that ended up, another failure. the middle eastern people are sick of failures, they need real solutions that work in their society. secular solutions dont work in a unsecular society
                        Last edited by khushal; 01-27-2012, 04:21 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Admin khan... Your point is that Gen Ziaulhaq started all this 1978 ? is wrong. It all was started by Bhutto in 1974 but very few people know that.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by khushal View Post
                            secularism can not work in the middle east. if you install secular governmnents, they have to depend on outside aid to rule and they have to rule with an iron fist otherwise they will be overthrown by the people. secular governments in the middle east are a disservice to the middle east society. they are dictorial and they limit peoples freedoms and achievements.
                            Compared to what Afghan Islamisms? What happens in the Middle East is really NONE of your concern and I suggest that you mind your own business and put your own house in order.
                            [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLflrGStfaY]Afghan Loghari dance- Homayoun Sakhi, Salar Nader & Mariam - YouTube[/url]

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              retro, we happen to live in a global world, where we are all interconnected. why should khushal not take an interest and have an opinion on the middle east? why shouldn't i, even?
                              where are you from, anyway?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X