Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Idea Of The Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (49946)	9/27/2006 10:23:48 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50167

but we poor Pakistanis were fighting a proxy war in a region we didn't have too, we were importing on US expense lot of radicals like OBL Iqbal.. did you write this, or is this a quote from another article? Either way, the statement is disingenuous. Pakistan would have conducted this insurgency in Afghanistan with, or without, US support. It literally had no choice considering that Soviet troops were on its borders. And they would have set the tone in how the war was fought, by whom, and what forces were involved. Certainly they feared being surrounded by the Soviets and, at the time, their Indian allies. And their fears were justified, which further supports the belief that the Pakistani government welcomed US involvement and support. Both of our nations had a common strategic interest in humiliating the Soviets. But Pakistan cannot avoid it's responsibility, or try and assert that the US was pressuring the "poor Pakistanis" into waging this battle. They were perfectly willing to engage in the Afghan insurgency and we provided the financial and logistical means. I do not believe any US government had an interest in Talibanizing Afghanistan, or in turning the quantities of Madrassas located in Pakistan into a massive Deobandist brain-washing operation. This happened on Pakistani territory and I can't believe that the government didn't have the ability to prevent Deobandist theology from pervading the educational systems.. After all, supposedly NOW Musharraf has required Madrassas to teach science, math, and other academic subjects. How could it be in Pakistan's interest to permit the brainwashing of millions of its children (as well as Afghani refugees) into Islamic "Luddites", who could offer no economic advantage to the Pakistani economy?? In sum, there was no reason the insurgency against the Soviets had to be carried out by Deobandists. And we have to face the reality that, other than cutting off support, the US had very little ability to tell the Pakistanis to de-emphasize the Islamist aspect.. Jihad against the Soviets is one thing, but creation of a Deobandist global agenda.. it is far better that Pakistan comes out of the clutches of draconian role of radicals and move on to enlightened version of Mush , we see in Mush some hope that he can lead us to that nirvana, they see 'Kargil' in Mush that is the problem, like Blair `new labor' can we have a niche for a 'new Mush.' I definitely concur.. And I acknowledge that Mush had definitely been walking a tight rope. But I'm not yet sure that this peace treaty is going to work out for the region.. But it certainly takes considerable pressure off of Musharraf for the moment. But as the news is reporting, the Taliban are still flowing into Afghanistan from Pakistani bases and this is a violation of the peace treaty. Supposedly the tribal leaders are claiming that they will be able to finale implementation by Winter. But is there REALLY anything that will prevent continuing to use Pakistani territory to conduct a Taliban insurgency against Afghanistan?? From my perspective, Mush has just put himself in a box. The Taliban will likely be free to continue using Pakistani territory, and neither the tribes or Musharraf are likely willing to breach their peace treaty on behalf of Afghani stability. What I'm afraid that we're witnessing with Musharraf's visit is the beginning of the end of the relationship.. It's the equivalent of "I still like you, but we need some time apart" excuse that couples make when they know longer feel driven toward one another. And for Mush, his interest is in deflecting MMA and fundamentalist opposition from his government. I agree with the comment about Ataturk.. He forced his country to enter the modern age and placed the role of religion in its proper place, as a spiritual conscience to aspirations of humanity, not as its overlord.. But I'm not sure that Mush is an Ataturk. I don't believe that Ataturk would have signed a peace treaty with anyone holding a Deobandist, and certainly the MMA would not be permitted to exist under an Ataturk style regime. If the ultimate goal for Pakistan is modernization and religious tolerance, then I wish your country well.. But if this peace treaty is merely a form of truce that grants the Deobandists and other Jihadists to entrench themselves and their ideology, while permitting Mush to raise the bulwarks for some future last stand that temporarily prevents a coup, or even worse, a civil war, then I cannot avoid believing that your country is about to be torn apart. But to return to the original point, I cannot accept this contention of "poor Pakistan" being gratuitously used by the CIA. It was a symbiotic relationship. Hawk