Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pakistan blew its chance for security By David Ignatius

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

  • Pakistan blew its chance for security By David Ignatius

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...fUU_story.html
    Pakistan blew its chance for security





    By David Ignatius,


    As America begins to pull back its troops from Afghanistan, one consequence gets little notice but is likely to have lasting impact: Pakistan is losing the best chance in its history to gain political control over all of its territory — including the warlike tribal areas along the frontier.
    Pakistan has squandered the opportunity presented by having a large U.S.-led army just over the border in Afghanistan. Rather than work with the United States to stabilize a lawless sanctuary full of warlords and terrorists, the Pakistanis decided to play games with these outlaw groups. As a result, Pakistan and its neighbors will be less secure, probably for decades.


    This is a catastrophic mistake for Pakistan. Instead of drawing the tribal areas into a nation that finally, for the first time since independence in 1947, could be integrated and unified, the Pakistani military decided to keep the ethnic pot boiling. It was a triumph of short-term thinking over long-term; of scheming over strategy.



    .
    America has made many blunders in Afghanistan, which will have their own consequences. But U.S. problems are modest compared with those of Pakistan, which nearly 65 years after independence still doesn’t have existential security as a nation. Like most big mistakes people make in life, this is one that Pakistan’s military leaders made with their eyes wide open.
    The Group of Eight and NATO will hold summits in the coming days and announce the exit strategy from Afghanistan. Fortunately, President Obama is planning a gradual transition, with at least 20,000 U.S. troops remaining until 2024, if necessary, to train the Afghan army, hunt al-Qaeda and steady Afghans against the danger of civil war.
    But what can Western leaders say when it comes to Pakistan? Basically, the Pakistanis blew it. By playing a hedging game, they missed a moment that’s not likely to return, when a big Western army of well over 100,000 soldiers was prepared to help them. Instead, Islamabad used the inevitability that America would be leaving eventually as an argument for creating a buffer zone that was inhabited by a murderous melange of the Taliban, the Haqqani network and other Pashtun warlords.
    Yes, it would have been hard to bring under Pakistani law the rebellious badlands known as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. I have a shelf full of books describing how the process of pacification eluded the British raj and was gingerly handed over to the new government of Pakistan like a bag of snakes. But hard is not impossible — especially when you have modern communications and transportation and the most potent army in history ready to help.
    What comes through reading these old books is how long the problem has persisted. A 1901 British “Report on Waziristan and Its Tribes” lists the tribes, clans and sub-clans the British were paying off more than a century ago through their political agents, rather than risk a fight with these stubborn warriors. After their disastrous Afghan wars, the British decided that payoffs made more sense than shootouts — a decision the Pakistanis have repeated ever since, at the price of permanent insecurity.
    The notion of the tribal areas as a warrior kingdom, impenetrable to outsiders, has a romantic “Orientalist” tone. I was disabused of it in 2009 when I met a group of younger tribal leaders who had gathered in Islamabad to tell U.S. special envoy Richard Holbrooke that the region needed economic development, good governance and less hanky-panky from the central government. In a move that embodied everything that’s wrong with the Pakistani approach, these brave young men were intercepted on the way home by the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and quizzed about why they had dared talk to the farangi.
    Surely the most foolish move the Pakistanis made was to compromise with the terrorist Haqqani network, which operates from its base in Miran Shah, a few hundred yards from a Pakistani military garrison. This was like playing with a cobra — something the Pakistanis seem to imagine is an essential part of regional realpolitik. No, you kill a cobra. If the ISI had been up to the task, it would have had some formidable snake-killing allies.
    The Pakistanis lost a chance over the past decade to build and secure their country. It won’t come back again in this form. That’s a small problem for the United States and its allies, but a big problem for Pakistan. What a shame to see a wonderful nation miss its moment so completely.
    Last edited by Shah-i-Kot; 05-16-2012, 11:42 PM.

  • #2
    David Iganatius is a well connected person with many diplomats, and it is expected that his articles are usually in response to some news he has got.

    Im guessing the PTI and other political parties opposition to NATO supplies has become a problem for pro-war people.

    This is why this article was written.

    Comment


    • #3
      Pakistans interests dont lie with a stable strong afghanistan. It lies with a weak Afghanistan that depends on it. A strong unified Afghanistan would encourage KP pashtuns to seperate from Paksitan.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by khushal View Post
        Pakistans interests dont lie with a stable strong afghanistan. It lies with a weak Afghanistan that depends on it. A strong unified Afghanistan would encourage KP pashtuns to seperate from Paksitan.
        Pashtuns are in a very complex situation right now. What Pakistan wants or needs is of no consequence.

        Pakistan is interfering in Afghanistan by supporting the NATO war/Karzai regime.

        For a peaceful and prosperous region, Pakistan's interference in supporting the occupation and propping up a puppet regime in Kabul ought to cease. It is against peace in Afghanistan and the region for this war/occupation to go on, and by Pakistan's cessation of support, this war is closer to ending.

        Pashtuns are not stupid, they will know many years from now that Pakistan sold their bloodshed for dollars.

        Thats history. Its also now history that these Pakistani supply routes to NATO/Karzai helped install Tajik nationalists/fascists in Kabul who are not interested in uniting the country along the lines of Islam, but in dividing the country along the lines of ethnicity. This Pakistan is responsible for due to propping this regime up.

        Take for example the ANA which is almost 90% Tajik.
        Last edited by Shah-i-Kot; 05-17-2012, 12:23 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Pakistan blew its chance for security

          Pakistan blew its chance for security

          As America begins to pull back its troops from Afghanistan, one consequence gets little notice but is likely to have lasting impact: Pakistan is losing the best chance in its history to gain political control over all of its territory — including the warlike tribal areas along the frontier.

          Pakistan has squandered the opportunity presented by having a large U.S.-led army just over the border in Afghanistan. Rather than work with the United States to stabilize a lawless sanctuary full of warlords and terrorists, the Pakistanis decided to play games with these outlaw groups. As a result, Pakistan and its neighbors will be less secure, probably for decades.

          This is a catastrophic mistake for Pakistan. Instead of drawing the tribal areas into a nation that finally, for the first time since independence in 1947, could be integrated and unified, the Pakistani military decided to keep the ethnic pot boiling. It was a triumph of short-term thinking over long-term; of scheming over strategy.

          America has made many blunders in Afghanistan, which will have their own consequences. But U.S. problems are modest compared with those of Pakistan, which nearly 65 years after independence still doesn’t have existential security as a nation. Like most big mistakes people make in life, this is one that Pakistan’s military leaders made with their eyes wide open.

          The Group of Eight and NATO will hold summits in the coming days and announce the exit strategy from Afghanistan. Fortunately, President Obama is planning a gradual transition, with at least 20,000 U.S. troops remaining until 2024, if necessary, to train the Afghan army, hunt al-Qaeda and steady Afghans against the danger of civil war.

          But what can Western leaders say when it comes to Pakistan? Basically, the Pakistanis blew it. By playing a hedging game, they missed a moment that’s not likely to return, when a big Western army of well over 100,000 soldiers was prepared to help them. Instead, Islamabad used the inevitability that America would be leaving eventually as an argument for creating a buffer zone that was inhabited by a murderous melange of the Taliban, the Haqqani network and other Pashtun warlords.

          Yes, it would have been hard to bring under Pakistani law the rebellious badlands known as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. I have a shelf full of books describing how the process of pacification eluded the British raj and was gingerly handed over to the new government of Pakistan like a bag of snakes. But hard is not impossible — especially when you have modern communications and transportation and the most potent army in history ready to help.

          What comes through reading these old books is how long the problem has persisted. A 1901 British “Report on Waziristan and Its Tribes” lists the tribes, clans and sub-clans the British were paying off more than a century ago through their political agents, rather than risk a fight with these stubborn warriors. After their disastrous Afghan wars, the British decided that payoffs made more sense than shootouts — a decision the Pakistanis have repeated ever since, at the price of permanent insecurity.

          The notion of the tribal areas as a warrior kingdom, impenetrable to outsiders, has a romantic “Orientalist” tone. I was disabused of it in 2009 when I met a group of younger tribal leaders who had gathered in Islamabad to tell U.S. special envoy Richard Holbrooke that the region needed economic development, good governance and less hanky-panky from the central government. In a move that embodied everything that’s wrong with the Pakistani approach, these brave young men were intercepted on the way home by the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and quizzed about why they had dared talk to the farangi.

          Surely the most foolish move the Pakistanis made was to compromise with the terrorist Haqqani network, which operates from its base in Miran Shah, a few hundred yards from a Pakistani military garrison. This was like playing with a cobra — something the Pakistanis seem to imagine is an essential part of regional realpolitik. No, you kill a cobra. If the ISI had been up to the task, it would have had some formidable snake-killing allies.

          The Pakistanis lost a chance over the past decade to build and secure their country. It won’t come back again in this form. That’s a small problem for the United States and its allies, but a big problem for Pakistan. What a shame to see a wonderful nation miss its moment so completely.

          davidignatius@washpost.com

          Comment


          • #6
            erase this thread, it has already been posted by lynx

            Comment


            • #7
              ^Merged Khushal - I kept Toromana's posting because the formatting makes it easier to read.

              Comment


              • #8
                Read between the lines what he is saying. My comments are in red. Like a loser he is blaming his servant, the NaPakistan Army for failure in Afghanistan.

                "Yes, it would have been hard to bring under Pakistani law the rebellious badlands known as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. I have a shelf full of books describing how the process of pacification eluded the British raj and was gingerly handed over to the new government of Pakistan like a bag of snakes. But hard is not impossible — especially when you have modern communications and transportation and the most potent army in history ready to help. (The most potent army (NATO) in history that has failed in Afghanistan. Zionist piece of trash!! Where is this guy getting his news from?)
                What comes through reading these old books is how long the problem has persisted. A 1901 British “Report on Waziristan and Its Tribes” lists the tribes, clans and sub-clans the British were paying off more than a century ago through their political agents, rather than risk a fight with these stubborn warriors. (Dumb Zionist- these "stubborn warriors" have humiliated NATO and brought their economies (EU) to a collapse.) After their disastrous Afghan wars, the British decided that payoffs made more sense than shootouts — a decision the Pakistanis have repeated ever since, at the price of permanent insecurity. " People like this loser should understand that Pashtuns are history makers- no one can beat the Pashtuns. The world can not beat the Pashtuns- this is not a fable or a myth. This is a FACT of life.



                His articles are usually designed to add pressure. Depsite the Pakistan Army supporting the NATO/Karzai regime with supply routes, the only nation to provide lethal supplies (bullets at the Panjwai murders came from Pakistan air routes, ANA military humvees come via Pakistan) he still appears to think that Pakistan is capable of ruling over Pashtuns. If NATO has failed and lets be frank about ti wimpering out, then how do they expect napakistan Army to rule over FATA? and help them win in Afghanistan?

                This is essentially called being a loser. Soon when the situation is not acceptable to them, NATO will start blaming Iran too despite the fact that Iran has propped up a Tajik nationalist/fascist regime in Kabul with Pakistan supply routes.

                Comment

                Working...
                X