US Cuts off millions in Aid to Pakistan

Do you have any proof that the ISI or Pakistan gov or elements of either are supporting the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan?

Benazir Bhutto certainly believed so before she was murdered.

Elements within Pakistan's government/intelligence service are nostalgic for the borderline theocratic and sectarian government of General Zia ul-Haq. They perceive Tehrik-i-Taliban (a theocratic and sectarian organisation) as a means to reclaim these "lost glories".

Either way, Tehrik-i-Taliban has close links to 'al-Qaeda' and Pakistan's government was harbouring 'al-Qaeda's leader for five years.

I know, however I would have expected the CIA or some defector to have come out with something more concrete.

I mean there are links, like Osama's courier was linked with a group that was in contact with the ISI. But the ISI is renown for playing these things very well, picking and choosing which group's they support and which they give to the Americans. So links like these can hardly be seen as proof due to the way the ISI plays its games.

Any sources for members of the pak government being sympathetic to the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan?

They may indeed have proof, but calling out a government of having terrorist links is quite a serious thing to do. It could destroy all co-operation between the two. Secondly the US may not want to act in the same way the public would expect them to if they declare an evidence publicly. Obama has budget problems and may not want this to come to light while he is cost cutting.

Benazir Bhutto certainly believed so before she was murdered.

Elements within Pakistan's government/intelligence service are nostalgic for the borderline theocratic and sectarian government of General Zia ul-Haq. They perceive Tehrik-i-Taliban (a theocratic and sectarian organisation) as a means to reclaim these "lost glories".

Either way, Tehrik-i-Taliban has close links to 'al-Qaeda' and Pakistan's government was harbouring 'al-Qaeda's leader for five years.

I know, however I would have expected the CIA or some defector to have come out with something more concrete.

I mean there are links, like Osama's courier was linked with a group that was in contact with the ISI. But the ISI is renown for playing these things very well, picking and choosing which group's they support and which they give to the Americans. So links like these can hardly be seen as proof due to the way the ISI plays its games.

Any sources for members of the pak government being sympathetic to the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan?

No one in the Pakistani establishment- not the army nor the ISI nor the weak government are sympathetic to the TTP. As I have explianed in detail before, all of these groups retain ties with certain factions of the Afghan Taliban for national security reasons and justifiably so. At the end of the day, we care more about our own civilians than Western soldiers who ****ed up our and the surrounding country in the first place.

The allies would have likely included at the very least

US
UK
India

Pretty fearsome combo, even if France/Germany/the rest don't join us for the ride.

I know thats what I have bee arguing through this thread lol. But if a poster claims the opposite I can't help but ask for evidence just in case something has changed.

It doesn't matter. The West has ****ed up its economy fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan- countries with no almost no military, a beleaguered population and far smaller than Pakistan when they invaded. With Pakistan not only do they have a very powerful military which by itself will take a long time to defeat (inevitably it will wall), we also have have the infrastructure and manpower to wage a guerilla war which will absolutely dwarf the scale of Afghanistan and Iraq combined. In the NWFP and Balochistan, the powerful separatist groups will immediately turn against the Westerners while in Sindh and Punjab, former military officers will form literally thousands of cells. Military defeat of Pakistan? Yes, although with a lot of bloodshed and I have no idea why they would want to destroy our most powerful institution and then go away. Invasion? Absolutely and irrevocably no- even if they leave the rural areas alone and go after the Urban ones, I guarantee a death toll of 100,000 soldiers at least within the first year and far more cash than was spent on Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

But the Western powers aren't stupid, they know they can't beat us and have to rely on us.

Vietnam Afghanistan and Libya have not been invasions. Vietnam was helping one government against another as was Afghanistan and Libya is nothing more than providing air support to a rebel army.

The invasion of Iraq went brilliantly and was a complete success. The occupation a complete disaster. Invading a country is easy. Staying there and trying to set up a government is not.

How can you say that Afghanistan was not an invasion ?! The Taliban were not a recognised government by the USA and although other Afghan groups were against the Taliban, they did not rebel against them. The USA invaded in response to 9/11.

I cant believe some brainless comments here that state that the UK's and USA's economy has been damaged by this war. All these wars are like business to the West. Saudi Arabia makes it fortunes from oil, and the West makes it from wars and the arms trade. Americans in Afghanistan do not spend the whole day chasing down Talibans, they probably spend the same amount of time on extracting minerals and uranium. There have even been some cases that Americans drop Talibans into areas which they are not present, but where they know that minerals are abundant, so that they have an excuse of going into those areas later on.

My goodness. You have literally taken TSR ignorance levels to astronomical levels. Pakistan is nowhere near amongst the world's poorest countries and neither the government nor the military trains ****ing suicide bombers- the same bombers who incidentally target military and government facilities. Cba to go into more detail but astonishingly lacking post.

Despite what you want to think conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have not ****ed up the US and UK economies. They have not helped but across 10 years the US has spent 4 trillion on wars and the war on terror, US GDP is 14 trillion. The US makes 4 trillion in revenue every two years. Before the banking crisis the UK had an ok deficit, this was only pushed over the edge by the cost of the bank bailout.

I don't think the US will ever bother with Pakistan. Its just not worth the time or effort. Although the option appears to have been considered quite a lot in the last few years judging by the nature of information floating around.

Suppose in a few years the west will leave and Pakistan will go back doing what it spend the years between now and the Soviet invasion doing. Invasions come and go but Pakistan will always be there lol

Give it to some other unsavoury regime.

No they don't, the mining companies that are there are struggling as they have to arm and train their own mini armies to defend their operations. Once the west leaves it will only get worse which is why there is little interest from big companies.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/05/afghanistan-mining-idUSL3E7I51UF20110705

The fact is that the West will never leave completely from Afghanistan, they will always have military bases there and always will continue to train and arm the Afghan National Army. A time will reach when the Afghan army can take control of matter and the USA will use this time to extract resources. The economic benefits of this war for the USA are not apparent now, but will be in the long term.

What "resources" are you talking about? The only significant economic resource Afghanistan could potentially provide is opium, and the most stupid U.S. policy in recent times - namely, the "War on Drugs" - completely rules out any significant level of involvement in the trade. If the U.S. really wanted to extract Afghanistan's most valuable resource, it's had more than an opportunity to do so over the past 10 years.