Has Pakistan led herself in danger?

Scroll to see replies

Neo Con

Well it depends what their interests are. From their recent history they have caused alot of instability in south asia and have allowed their soil to be a breeding ground for terrorist activity directed at the west. This is against world interests obviously, not just US.

If such is the case, should the administration be negotiating with countries that harbour terrorists and allow "their soil to be a breeding ground for terrorist activity"?

After all, the primary reason of invading and occupying Afghanistan was to defeat al-Qaeda and dismantle the regime which offered them a safe haven in addition to allowing them to breed "terrorists".

Moreover, the Taliban and other armed Islamic groups are resisting the Pakistani Government based on their alligeance to America which has resulted in the Government in Islamabad fighting on behalf of Washington. Thus, we see Pakistan in a very unstable situation. Hence, shouldn't negotiating with such groups, primarily the Taliban, be the ideal method in calming the situation on the ground and return an element of stability to Pakistani soil?

Peace agreements will lead to the Taleban gaining more time to rearm, regroup and become more powerful. That's not right.

This argument is wearing thin. The Taliban show very little signs of tiring out so I am skeptical as to how much they will strengthen themselves.

The fact is, citizens on the ground want peace and an end to daily fighting. Coming to an agreement with the Taliban seems like the fastest way in achieving these desires. Should they not be afforded this right?

Reply 21

Neo Con

Hanbali

The US is in a tough position. It can't invade Pakistan as having an army in 2 countries already, despite it being a leading terror state, much more than Iraq ever was. So the best that can be done is taking a tough stance against them. Pressurize them into action, and keep up US missile strikes even if in Pak territory. The Bush government had the right strategy, you may argue it wasn't doing much and the taleban were winning, but in reality it severely weakened the movement and will continue to do so if this approach is maintained. The key members had no where to hide.

Moreover, the Taliban and other armed Islamic groups are resisting the Pakistani Government based on their alligeance to America which has resulted in the Government in Islamabad fighting on behalf of Washington. Thus, we see Pakistan in a very unstable situation. Hence, shouldn't negotiating with such groups, primarily the Taliban, be the ideal method in calming the situation on the ground and return an element of stability to Pakistani soil?

Don't forget it was the ISI which brought the Taleban to power in Afghanistan. Don't forget it was the ISI which stopped Afghanistan Communist leader from fleeing to Pakistan, instead he was castrated by the Taleban. Yes I know the US messed up here in supported Mujahiden e.t.c.The ISI also helped supply the bombs to blow up Budda statues. Recently the Pakistani Taleban said it will annouce a ceasefire with the Pakistani army if they go to war with India or whatever, they have a 1,000 suicide bombers ready. What's my point? Stop looking superficially. Pakistan must be pressured to deliver and no negotiation-the extremists in Pak were busy fighting in Kashmir when they "got on" with the Pak government.

Not if it has negative consequences, the local population are angry that the taleban will stop young girls going to school. They have already blown up several schools and they want all men to have a beard-this form of control is not acceptable to the local peopl. Not to mention, increased anti west activity. Again, you need to consider the meaning of "peace" a little deeper.
The US will defeat them by weapons.

Reply 22

Viraj_c

You are essentially in opting for negotiation admitting that Pakistan is unable to defeat the Taliban, and taking a short term view of Pakistan's future. It is in Pakistan's best interests to rid itself of fundamentalist elements who just want to wage war against India and the west, and instead develop itself.

The only reason that the Taliban has still not been defeated is the fact that there are elements in the Pakistani establishment that have links with the miltants; both in the army and the ISI. The whole world knows this, and Pakistan's problem is that it is effectively these 2 institutions which rule the country, and they don't want their links exposed, and they still probably not only sympathise with the militants cause, but see them as strategic assests.

Pakistan's intelligensia have to make their choice, as to where they want Pakistan to go. If they want Pakistan to become a fubdamentalist Wahhabi state then by all means negotiate with the Taliban and allow them to take their hold on Pakistan, but if they want a modern, secular state, the one which was the vision of Quaid-e-Azam (Jinnah), then they have to at all costs make sure that they don't think about saving face, but the long term interests of the country.

Has Pakistan led herself in danger?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you