Pakistan wants Afghanistan as a Slave?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

@ doctor barakzai

you like to research the roots of everything than i advise you to research the root of pakistan and the roal of ismaeli shuias who follow aga khan ,

their role in establishing the muslim leauge and their history how they were kicked out together with the brits out of afg .

their role in the british raj and their role in establishing of pakistan .

i assure you , you will see things different ...

i agree realities are odd , but that should not be an excuse , for forgetting the truth .

do you really think that the brits and the usa , would allowed pakistan to get nukes , if they were a threat to their interessts ? or if they would not follow the lead ???

and even today , which country on earth , let alone nuclear power , allows foreign countries to operate beneath its borders ,murdering people ,breaking every international law ,and then denieng it ???

independence looks alittle bit different , political as economical .


countries have got interessts and as long one country is weak , it will fall prey to others especially in a corner of the earth ,were most countries are dependent on others by their own .

pe america ou hind e sor na razigi walle be muge sor razigi .

our development dependets on a stable and sure access to the sea , no the afghan flag dont have to be errected over kufrabad ( as much as i wish ) and our flag dont have to wave over gawandar , but the flag of a free balochistan ,which has got good relations with kandahar or kabul , is essential for our´existence .

because the pakis will block the roads as soon they see developments which they dont like , it dont have to be indians it dont have to be any other political threat , just look back at 2007 when they stopped the transit of corn and wheat .

we can not allow our selfes to be choked , because our political weakness lies in our economical weakness , our economical weakness lies in our nonexistent access to the sea .

we are not compareable with europe or swiss , as i said before , central asia is not europe ...

Salamoona Abbass

Thanks for the response. Much I agree with, other points lets continue to discuss:

Regarding the nidus or seed or group of people that created Pakistan, such as Jinnah and some of his colleagues, I agree regarding their lack of Islamic character. Regarding the Agha Khani Ismailis, I also agree that they have a major stake on the country. In fact Aga Khan medical flourishes in that country for a reason.

Moreover, in the last decade the Aga Khan sect has increased its involvement in Afghanistan to a great degree:
http://www.akdn.org/afghanistan

Does that then also make it so that the governmental green light that the Karzai government gave them makes Karzai and his cronies as suspect as Jinnah? If not, why not.

Regarding nuclear power and who the US allows to have it and who the US does not allow to have it, I think that its a bit of a consipiracy theory to say that the US doles out nukes to who they wish. In the Clinton era when Pakistan detonated its first nuke, America had not yet received the stimulus to invade the region or act in such aggressive ways just yet. Recall that the country was still, two decades later smarting from the Vietnam conflict and that a democratic administration was probably not going to be as apparent in pursuing such a major scale conflict. Examine the disaster Clinton encountered in Somalia and the way the Republicans made a mess of his involvement in Bosnia for a reference. Instead, the cold war enviroment between India and Pakistan has made sure that, if nothing else, Pakistan pours much into its military. Recall that India detonated its nukes and Pakistan did therafter.

Also, there are multiple levels of complexity to Pakistan's relationship with the US that I think Khushal's earlier post highlights well. That is, I dont think everyone marches lock stock and barrell under the mantra that cooperation with the Americans is state sanctioned and people approved policy. If nothing else, the fact that the Pakistani state utilizes media control to shift views of its adversaries indicates a degree of manipulation of its people to hold back their anger.

Regarding the role of nuclear power in being a deterrance, I think Rick Santorum's debate commentary is proof positive that the nukes are probably one of the only things that held back America from, in the words of Armitage "bombing" Pakistan "back to the stone age." Santorum attempted to contest his colleagues view on Pakistan and attacking it directly and stated clearly: They are a nuclear power. The behavior toward North Korea potentially having a nuke is another real world practical example. Santorum's desire to hit Iran and how it differs from his view regarding Pakistan is an example as well.

Remember that Pakistan is not economically sovereign. The majority of what keeps its people afloat are donations from expats and a portion comes from US Aid. The upper crust elite benefit tremendously from the latter and military accepts aid and military technology from the Americans. Therefore, its easy to see that Pakistan is not one monolithic united country or government in the sense of other modern nations.

For that matter, Erdogans Turkey also has allowed base access for the Americans in the past and only briefly cut it off. Does that make Turkey completely American run? I wouldnt think so.

Regarding the commentary about Balochistan, I can see where you are coming from morally and I concur that the Baloch have the moral imperitive in this matter. But as I stated, beliefs and ideologies are just that. In this world, might makes right. So as I stated, in an ideal world a balance would exist in Syria where a Sunni majority protects its allawaite minority but still holds the reigns of power. Israel would vanish... and the Saudi Royal Family would be bankrupt. These views of what should be are not important. Just as in Alexander's time, might makes right. Nation states fight and exist because they do... not because people wish them away.

So the commentary about Balochistan and the idea that a Karzai governmental Afghanistan will arm and support Baloch freedom fighters will not, in any universe go unnoticed.

Just as Lincoln did not let the South secede... and despite the fact that States rights arguments are valid under the constitution... there was no way or chance that the federal government would cede that land to Jefferson Davis.

Gaddafi also realized this maxim and the people fighting him new that there was no way he was simply going to walk away and allow such threats to continue.

So in this way what you are asking me to do is to say
1) We should all do a rally in Afghanistan to show Baloch support
2) We should back an Afghan government that overtly and covertly supports Baloch insurgency

and then that we should get mad when Pakistan does what is expected which is: respond to threats to its integrity as a nation state.

That is just unrealistic.

In fact such fanciful thinking is what drives the thought processes of those that support a NATO presence. The notion is that:

1) We somehow cleverly outsmart NATO and trick them into training a super power style Afghan military (aint gonna happen)
2) That in the mean time as this is going on, we allow the pressure to be ratcheted up on Pakistan to further insult its integrity as a nation state
3) Then somehow NATO leaves with a handshake and the new Afghan super power destroys Pakistan.

This is really almost like a superstitious and religious belief amongst these people in the Afghan government.

And just as you asked about how autonomous powers with nuclear arms could ever be as Pakistan is, a similar question could be asked with much greater historical basis?:

What occupied nation with resources ever benefited from a nonidigenous occupation done by a people with a completely different religious ideology and governmental philosophy? The answer is none and the era of colonialism is testament to this.

In fact the one nation that has evolved from such a strategy is the failed state of Pakistan.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

True to your Pan-Islamist allegiances to the purist state and Akhwani connections to its ideological elite like Hamid Gul (kidding ), you have sought to give an interpretation to LZ statement that is the exact opposite of what he implies i.e., there is no way Pakistani and Afghan states can co-exist without one devouring the other. This is because the reasons of animosity between Afghan and Pakistani states are more in the cultural-ideological contradiction (at least from the point of view of Pakistani ideological elite) than in territorial or political dispute. Afg and India define themselves historical states; Pakistan on the contrary an ideological state.

The existential paranoia of Pakistani state stems from the lack of any natural basis of its statehood and thus its vulnerability vis-a`-vis India, Afghanistan, and indigenous communities e.g., Pashtuns, Baluchis, Sindhis, Urdu-speakers, even Punjabis, etc., which are historical entities defined by common culture, ethnicity, and geography unlike Pakistan, which is an artificial entity. The only thing that gives its nationhood legitimacy and secures it vis-a-vis India as well as provides it with a mean to suppress (and exterminate) indigenous identities and replace them with Punjabo-Mahajar Culture (Indic Muslim Culture) is religion. What is it seeking in Afghanistan is primarily cultural depth not just political and strategic depth. By integrating (all) Pashtuns through subversion of their culture and its replacement with Indic Muslim Culture, the elite of Pakistan in their thinking are eliminating the threat to its nationhood once for all. The problem with Paki elite is not Afghanistan not accepting the Durand Line. It is rather Pashtun ethnicity transcending the border. Even if Afg accepts the Durand Line, Pakistan is not going to spare Afg until it reduces it to the status of a satellite state or makes it its fifth province.

The rest what you say are blatant miss-statements and deliberate mis-identification of the root causes of the issues between Pakistan and Afghanistan e.g., you mention Afghanistan`s opposition to Pakistan in UN as a reason of Pakistan policy to Afg forgetting that Pakistan has so far fought 4 wars against India all provoked by Pakistan.

I wonder whether one can be so disloyal to one`s own people and land and loyal to an enemy state-------whether one can descend so much in ideological and political slavery. By the way, is your family in any way connected to that of Fida Younas-- (kidding no hard feelings).

Read my last post to Abbass. You are spouting absurdity.

Its like fantasy football. You want me to exist in a world without cold hard facts and simply accept things that make no sense. Toramana, on the one hand you rail against religion yet on the other hand you are asking me to believe in this odd socio religous construct of yours.

Whether Pakistan is a false cultural construct matters little. The problem is that it exists just as Israel exists just as Saudi exists just as America exists. As I said to Abbas, might makes right, fantasy does not make reality.

Moreover, its scuffles with Afghanistan are proof positive that it is not simply a matter of religious embellishment or a false construct religious statehood that keeps it intact. To the contrary it is a functioning, albeit poorly functioning, nation state with an army and a governmental structure with participants from these various groups you mention. If it were simply a mirage then Senior Achakzai needs to discuss why he sits in that parliamentary house. Senior Asfandyaar and Asif Lala need to discuss why they try to "get out the vote." Does that make sense to you that a nonexistent entity and with supposedly no moral basis has the supposedly largest anti central governmental parties (ANP/PMAP/MQM) all participating in its shamocracy? And what of its armed forces population statistics? Oh I forgot, that convenient fact... the only metric we have is simply set aside in the same fashion as you claim religionists set aside Darwins facts.

Blatant mistatements? Once again, Read LZ's own statement. Let us reaffirm with references and remove personal bias.

1) The vote in the UN was simply a fact. Subsequently the British and the UN have not agreed to take up the case on any Afghan government's behalf.
2) The shelting of Faqir of Ipi, someone who I have expressed admiration for, is simply a fact. Afghanistan promulgated the Pashtunistan concept.
3) The claim that Najib somehow attempted to pacify Pakistan with a potential noninterventionist approach is also complete garbage... recycled only here on PF. Where this to be the case then Fatima Bhutto, who is half Afghan would not exist. After all, Najib sheltered Zul Fiqaar knowing full well what that organization's views and actions were.
4) The notion that somehow, Pakistan can be legally held accountable for a treaty predating it makes no sense in the context of how African nations observed post colonialism relative to borders. For that matter, as we have seen with UN security counsel resolutions, the strong enforce them and the weak are subject to them. For instance, if say the Algonquin tribe in America had a treaty with the Shawnee tribe... is the US of A obliged to observe that treaty because it is a successor state to the natives? Is the US obligated to observe treaties under the Spanish and French along its southern border? Are the Chicanos able to legally sue the US for complete unfettered access to Texas? As I stated above, might makes right.. that is the only legal and time honored law. Try going to Israel and arguing legalities and see where you end up. Attempt to talk to the Saudis about agreements the Ottomans made regarding Mecca and I am sure you will receive the same treatment meted out to that poor Canadian Shia Mullah who received a savage beating recently for unrelated matters. For that matter can Iraq, a sovereign nation take Bush to the Hague or the International Court of Justice? Will Afghans be able to put the soldier that killed 16 Kandaharis on trial? Could King Philip hold the colonies to their boundaries under agreements with his father before the massacre of his tribe in the US? The answer is no, likely no, and no because might makes right. And what of the Vienna conventions that generally indicate bilateral agreements on the heads of successor states cannot be unilaterally altered??? So even the "faith based" approach to Pakistan is flawed.
5) Regarding Khushaals point about the tribal skirmishes. I disagree on the official nature of these incursions, many of which Daud personally ordered and reaffirmed when he had similar incursions ordered into Bajaur, resulting in killings that Bajauris still remember to this day. This destabilization resulted in a falling out of sorts between him and Zahir when some semblance of stability was being reached.

" In March 1963, with the backing of the royal family, King Zahir Shah sought Daoud's resignation on the basis that the country's economy was deteriorating as a result of his Pashtunistan policy."

" In 1960 Daoud sent troops across the border into Bajaur in a foolhardy, unsuccessful attempt to manipulate events in that area and to press the Pashtunistan issue, but Afghan military forces were routed by the Pakistan military. During this period the propaganda war, carried on by radio, was relentless."

http://countrystudies.us/afghanistan/26.htm

Also, Wazir incursions with both Nadir Shah and Amanullah Khan were at the behest of both of these Afghan leaders as well and predated the creation of the Pakistani nation state.

Here is a paper for our discussion's reading:
"Afghan Prime Minister, Sardar Muhammad Daud Khan forcefully campaigned for Pashtunistan during the period of his reign from 1953–1963. By 1961 he was funnelling support to militias in Pakistan and encouraging incursions by Afghan troops into Pakistan’s Bajaur tribal agency. Pakistan parried these intrusions by bolstering the role of religious Afghan leaders like Gulbaddin Hekmatar and Ahmed Shah Massoud.
Pakistan has since shown little flexibility on the topic and is unlikely to do so in the future. The GoP would be hard-pressed to cede the 20% of its territory making up the Pashtun belt – especially in light of the nascent and ongoing nationalist insurgencyin Balochistan."
So this provides the other half of the argument that Mostafa and I had discussed. The point being, the funding givent to Massoud and Hekmetyaar did not materialize out of thin air... it was a responsive measure in its own way. This then negates the moral imperitive.
http://www.diis.dk/graphics/publicat...policy_web.pdf

And Khushal, the notion that Afghanistan had seen the very creation of Pakistan as an overt British spearheaded act of war may have some validity morally. In fact it is a moral imperitive of sorts. Let me repeat that before people's emotions take over... it is a moral imperitive of sorts.

But as I noted above, moral imperitives are like faith... they are intangibles that cannot be seen or touched. The only form of worshipping a moral imperitive is to fight for their realization.

Now in regard to where the FATA tribes see themselves, a recent jirga discussed openly and apparently in a balanced way (as unusual as a solar eclipse) in the Pakistan press contradicts this notion that the Wazirs do not see themselves as a part of Pakistan. In the article they petition the government of Pakistan to cede to them their right to bare arms or else they would leave to Afghanistan

http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrin...ID=30038&Cat=2#

---------------------------------

Regarding your question about Fida Younis,as a certain Toramana has taken strong disfavor to him in the past: My strong preference is not to name drop... its usually a sign of an inferiority complex. However, I think your goal is to somehow prove, in your paranoia that I am an ISI agent or affiliated in a familial fashion with the ISI. My original mentioning of Younis's work was a reference point in a discussion.

Recall that your bosom buddy Azmal was strong in referencing Fida Yunis's work and referred to him as an illustrious historian. So I dont think you can get an endorsement better than that here at PF for the pro Karzai crowd or at least the pro Farsibaan dominance element. Go ahead and do a word search and you will directly identify Azmal's endorsement of Mr. Younis as a historian.

My relationship with Mr. Younis is strictly through his son in law, an infectious disease specialist. I attended his grand daughter's wedding in the central/midwest US years ago.

Interestingly enough, it is you that will have to contend with the fact that Mr. Younis's direct blood relatives are all in service on behalf of the US in Afghanistan, embedded with the troops. These family members strongly support the Karzai government against the Taliban. Seeing that I was the only person at this wedding dressed traditionally (foolish me, thinking that a Pashtun wedding would have Pashtuns in it), they approached me and engaged me in a debate regarding the same issues we discuss here. The said family members were so disgusted with my views (I still cannot fathom why) that I was reasonably sure I had worn out my welcome after a simple discussion referencing Kawun Kakar. I was unequivically told by Mr. Younis's family member that she celebrated each and every time during her embeds that an Afghan Taliban was "snuffed out" in front of her and that she had the ear of Petreus himself. So it appears Mr. Karzai's ties to the Fida Younis family are stronger than mine!

Now, if your accusation is that my presence at a wedding makes me suspect to ties with organizations with unsavory backgrounds, then perhaps you and your colleagues will have a problem on your hands with what I am about to say.

Folks in Kabul are welcomed to pursue an investigation of the matter. I was also invited and attending a wedding in Richmond Virginia in 2004 for Yama Karzai and his bride. It was a relatively small event. Take a look through google, you will find this is not open source information. I can directly describe my gift to Mr. Karzai, and continue to have his Georgetown business card indicating that he was learning Security Studies in Georgetown on the American Taxpayers dime likely. Subsequently, Yama has gone on to become one of the NDS heads in the southern provinces.

So then, Toramana, am I with NDS? am I with the ISI? Does my father's role place me with the State Department and the Army Corps for the US?

Answers:
No, no, and no. I am, as I said, a physician who spends 80+ hours at work with these discussions simply being an artifact of my personal hobbies.

Quiet simply, your level of paranoia is absurd. Take personal responsibility for the failures of your own ideologies and policies and quit trying to pass the buck to the ISI.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

End of the day conclusion:
You want to deal with Pakistan and go for a land grab? You have one pathway that is not rocket science.
1. Do your best to lobby against continued foreign aid to Pakistan
2. Ignore it and take a neutrality stance toward it.
3. Encourage India to do the same.

The Pakistani landed elite and the plutocracy will then lose the ability to focus the people on external enemies and either

1. Change the order within Pakistan (unlikely with the way their military apparatus works).
2. The narrative will lose hold and Pakistan will self destabilize.

[abassinafghan]

barakzai , i can gurantee you that as much as people to try to appease the pakis , they want just let us go in the name of islamic brotherhood .

besides your references towards kharzai are just to laugh , you think in categories ,and proof yourself wrong . just because i am on the side of bugti who truelly fight for his people , i am pro karzai ???

karzai is a nobody and the majority of the state lies in the hands of samte shamal , and those people are also not interessted in a break up or weak pakistan , as we all know they dont have any ghairat left , they will bent for who ever comes along ,as long they got a bone to suck on it .


if you think the pakis will just let us go , you are naive , if you think on the amer of amire mumineen they will do as he wish , than you are the one who is living in lala land

it would be interessting to hear your thoughts on a solution !!!!

i have a history as a witness on my claims , you have just good will and hope that they wont slap so hard .

and dont forget , if pakistan didnt recieved military aid in the 50s by the usa and a strategic partner ship , they would be a nobody .

turkey is not pakistan , turkey is not dependent , not political not economical , turkey was not created by colonial puppets !!!
unlike pakistan .


the sowjet union had also nuclear arms , as had britain . but still their empires imploded , and so will be the last curtain fall for pakistan .

that the balochs were heard by the kongress , is a sign ,and the open misstrust between the pakis and kufrabad , is also a dark sign .

but as the matal says .


zog bad kawi , orota be bad warasi .

i hope only that our pashtuns , just lean back and let those dahl kohrs fight their own wars . what goes arround comes around .

[abassinafghan]

independent ???

i guess we have different views of independence , for you independence is ,aslong they let me pray and wearing a beard making shariat everything is allright .


i guess this is the reason why no one in saudi arabia complains ???

[abassinafghan]

well shadow you answerd your own attacks on me , how could we any time good neighbours , if napakis tells publicly , that peace in afghanistan should never be their disadvantage .

that means that napakis , says they are not for peace as long their interessts maybe harmed .

and as we both know , who the parties in this war are , we should ask our selfes , what are pakistans interessts and how they would be affected if a peace agreement would come between taliban and americans .

[Talal]

well shadow you answerd your own attacks on me , how could we any time good neighbours , if napakis tells publicly , that peace in afghanistan should never be their disadvantage .

that means that napakis , says they are not for peace as long their interessts maybe harmed .

and as we both know , who the parties in this war are , we should ask our selfes , what are pakistans interessts and how they would be affected if a peace agreement would come between taliban and americans .

I think the main thing they dont want in US is permanent NATO bases.. The bit about India is just an excuse to drag their feet, relations between India and Pakistan are heading towards a lot more normalcy than we have ever achieved in the past

[BarakzaiAbdali]

barakzai , i can gurantee you that as much as people to try to appease the pakis , they want just let us go in the name of islamic brotherhood .

besides your references towards kharzai are just to laugh , you think in categories ,and proof yourself wrong . just because i am on the side of bugti who truelly fight for his people , i am pro karzai ???

karzai is a nobody and the majority of the state lies in the hands of samte shamal , and those people are also not interessted in a break up or weak pakistan , as we all know they dont have any ghairat left , they will bent for who ever comes along ,as long they got a bone to suck on it .


if you think the pakis will just let us go , you are naive , if you think on the amer of amire mumineen they will do as he wish , than you are the one who is living in lala land

it would be interessting to hear your thoughts on a solution !!!!

i have a history as a witness on my claims , you have just good will and hope that they wont slap so hard .

and dont forget , if pakistan didnt recieved military aid in the 50s by the usa and a strategic partner ship , they would be a nobody .

turkey is not pakistan , turkey is not dependent , not political not economical , turkey was not created by colonial puppets !!!
unlike pakistan .


the sowjet union had also nuclear arms , as had britain . but still their empires imploded , and so will be the last curtain fall for pakistan .

that the balochs were heard by the kongress , is a sign ,and the open misstrust between the pakis and kufrabad , is also a dark sign .

but as the matal says .


zog bad kawi , orota be bad warasi .

i hope only that our pashtuns , just lean back and let those dahl kohrs fight their own wars . what goes arround comes around .

Salamoona Wrorre

I think I can agree with you to the point that Afghanistan needs a very strong internal defense and a set of leaders that bow to no one. Just as families wish eachother well, the Afghan family should be well wishers to all, but also understand that the house must be in order. In our lives we may be fortunate to have familial and financial stability and we may hurt to see others in dire straits, but we also understand the limits of our individual capacities. I think its perfectly valid for a completely autonomous (No NATO) to repel any Pakistani military or agency driven insults to Afghanistan's border with force. If Turkey or other friendly nations were to provide some semblance of training and arms even that may make sense. But reliance on people that have their own objectives that are malignant to the Afghan national character (in fact as malignant as the charges against Pakistan) is trading one master for another... gauranteeing that Afghanistan will be a corrupt plutocracy... basically Pakistan next door to Pakistan. Afghanistan must be a strong meritocratic state.

Regarding the Baloch, my sentiments for the Baloch people are as yours are. I am a well wisher to them, but they should earn their own autonomy. Regarding Bugti, I think I agree, he died like a man. However, Bugti also had his own involvements in the Pak government and his disagreements evolved... i.e he was a part of the Pakistani establishment up till his own personal gains were threatened.

Here is an excellent, non Pakistani, well written paper on the subject:
http://www.idsa.in/system/files/stra..._alok_0906.pdf

Let me reiterate, his personal failings in no way diminish the aspirations of the Baloch and I respect that deeply.

"The octogenarian Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti, the tribal chief of the largest Baloch tribe, the Bugtis, had epitomised the Baloch resistance to the military regime during the ongoing insurgency, especially since the clashes in January 2005 in Sui. His killing seems to have re-galvanised the Baloch

nationalists. An alumnus of Aitchison College Lahore and Oxford, Nawab Bugti a relatively late entrant into the Baloch nationalist struggle. In fact,
until he fell out with the establishment, he was rather considered a collaborator by the mainstream Baloch nationalists for his willingness to
cooperate with Islamabad during the previous phases of the Baloch insurgency. He was also well-known for ruling his subjects with a firm
hand, operating private jails and running a medieval feudal justice system in his area. Nawab Bugti is said to have committed his first murder when he was just twelve years old.

10A suave, articulate but arrogant feudal lord, who claimed complete sovereignty over his subjects, he held his nerves together in the midst of personal tragedies — he lost a number of his sons and grandsons to the assassin’s bullets. In spite these bereavements he remained an uncompromising feudal lord, who showed no mercy to his opponents.

"In the 1970 elections, having been convicted for murder, he was barred from contesting the elections but contributed immensely in terms of his resources and finances towards the election campaign of the National Awami Party (NAP), led by Khan Wali Khan the son of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, also known as Frontier Gandhi. However, his relationship with NAP leaders changed dramatically after they formed a government in Balochistan. Disappointed at not being named the governor, he turned against the party. Ultimately, it was his public testimony admitting that he had been involved with NAP leaders in a plot to create an independent Balochistan with the help of foreign arms (a claim

strongly denied by Ghaus Bux Bizenjo, the Governor and Ataullah Mengal,
the Chief Minister), that gave Bhutto the pretext to dismiss the NAP

government in 1973.

Sources for above:

10

Sylvia A Matheson, The Tigers of Baluchistan, Oxford University Press, Karachi,
1997, p 1.

11

Paul Titus in Introduction to Sylvia Matheson’ book The Tigers of Baluchistan,

published by Oxford University Press, Karachi, 1997, p xvii.

[khushal]

Salamoona Wrorre

I think I can agree with you to the point that Afghanistan needs a very strong internal defense and a set of leaders that bow to no one. Just as families wish eachother well, the Afghan family should be well wishers to all, but also understand that the house must be in order. In our lives we may be fortunate to have familial and financial stability and we may hurt to see others in dire straits, but we also understand the limits of our individual capacities. I think its perfectly valid for a completely autonomous (No NATO) to repel any Pakistani military or agency driven insults to Afghanistan's border with force. If Turkey or other friendly nations were to provide some semblance of training and arms even that may make sense. But reliance on people that have their own objectives that are malignant to the Afghan national character (in fact as malignant as the charges against Pakistan) is trading one master for another... gauranteeing that Afghanistan will be a corrupt plutocracy... basically Pakistan next door to Pakistan. Afghanistan must be a strong meritocratic state.

This is the idea of Toramana/Soldat mentalities. They criticize Pakistan but all they are looking forward to is the exact same state but its command structure in Kabul. That is why they really have no solution and most of their arguments are jibberish nonsense.

But their Idea is not far fetched from what NATO also wants. That is to create another obsticle in Kabul and to replace the current one in Islamabad. The tricky part is that they have to create the former before they disentegrate the latter and the latter is crying foul while the former is crying "freaking Pakis wont leave us alone." Why would they leave you alone, your trying to replace them.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

This is the idea of Toramana/Soldat mentalities. They criticize Pakistan but all they are looking forward to is the exact same state but its command structure in Kabul. That is why they really have no solution and most of their arguments are jibberish nonsense.

But their Idea is not far fetched from what NATO also wants. That is to create another obsticle in Kabul and to replace the current one in Islamabad. The tricky part is that they have to create the former before they disentegrate the latter and the latter is crying foul while the former is crying "freaking Pakis wont leave us alone." Why would they leave you alone, your trying to replace them.

Thanks Khushal. Btw are you Kharoti? If so, who had the big yellow turbans first... you guys or the Wazirs?

[khushal]

I am DzaDzai. We also wear the big yellow turbans but not as much as the Wazirs and the Dzadrans, but I dont know who had them first. I was not aware kharotis wore them.

I was not defending the Kharoti's against the Wazirs. The Wazirs have always been there for Afghanistan, during the british conflict, the soviet conflict and also the current conflict. I was only referring to it as an internal matter in Afghanistans perspective. When the Afghan royals asked the Wazirs and Masud for assistance, it is because they are regarded as one of their own. We in DzaDzi east of Durand have land disputes with Turis west of Durand, and Mangal(east of durand) have land disputes with Turis as well and clashes are frequest between Mangal and Turis over land. If Turis and Mangal go to war(which has happened on many occasions), does that mean Afghanistan and Pakistan goes to war with one another. I cant regard this as an act of war since it is between the tribes and the disputes are centuries old predating the durand. The Durand is not like a normal border between two nation states. It is more like a border between, as Karzai puts it, "conjoined twins." It seems these "conjoined twins" share one set of organs and one has to eliminate the other. Pakistan has the upper hand currently because it is preaching muslim brotherhood and so the population sympathizes with it where as Afghanistan used to preach Muslim brotherhood in the past.

[khushal]

PAKISTAN’S FUTURE POLICY
TOWARDS AFGHANISTAN

A LOOK AT STRATEGIC DEPTH,
MILITANT MOVEMENTS AND THE ROLE

OF INDIA AND THE US


http://www.diis.dk/graphics/publicat...policy_web.pdf

[NokiaWnW]

I don´t think they want Pakistan destroyed or divided. I think they will destroy the military and secret service regime. Pakistan´s civil government stand to the contrary what the military ruled government demands for.