GwynO 16 Posted June 13, 2010 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/10302946.stm If this is true, and coming from such an institution as the LSE I have no reason to think it isn't, how the hell do governments justify the billions in aid given to Pakistan, we might as well just supply the Taliban direct and cut out the the middle man. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MigBuster 2,891 Posted June 13, 2010 If thats true - it makes no sense to me - like a lot of things in this conflict. Why would Pakistan fight them with the Army but help them via other ways? - this doesnt help them in any way! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GwynO 16 Posted June 13, 2010 (edited) I'm not going to say the Pakistan Army did a deliberately poor job of fighting the Taleban such as giving the leaders time to exit before commencing the shelling which hit real villagers, as I have no evidence to prove definitively that was the case, but I do have first hand experience of Pakistani politics (long story) and they have everything to gain from the Taleban in Afghanistan. After the victory of the various rebel groups over the Soviets in Afghanistan, the Pakistani ISI realised they had the perfect opportunity to gain major leverage in that country through the Pasthun refugees that had fled from the Pasthun tribal lands in Southern Afghanistan to Pasthun lands in Northern Pakistan. By training, funding, and arming these into what became known as the Taleban, Pakistan effectively had direct rule over Afghanistan via the ISI links to the Taleban. For a decade, the Taleban conducted an experiment in extreme Islamic rule in Afghanistan, keenly watched by Pakistan. If they ever needed a steady stream of warriors to help in proxy wars against India, then Pakistan had them in the shape of grateful Pasthun leaders more than eager to send foot soldiers to fight and train others in Kashmir, no Army uniforms so totally deniable and due to the fanatical regime in which they had been raised under the Taleban, far meaner than any soldiers in their army anyway. The experiment started to turn sour when the Taleban started targeting "decadence" in Pakistan such as lo and behold, women doctors, schools for girls, the existence of a Shia community, Suffi shrines. Some elements of the Taleban started to get too bolshy for the Pakistani authorities not when they started blowing themselves up around Shia communities, not when they implemented Sharia law accross vast swathes of the country, not when they started conscripting villages and raising taxes, but when they refused to get out of the way of Army patrols meant to reassure the international community that Pakistan wasn't hiding the Taleban. Once the Taleban attacked Pakistani soldiers, the Army started taking things up a notch, but ultimately there is still a lot of support for the Taleban across all of Pakistani society including the Army, many ordinary Pakistanis look up to the Taleban as examples of committed individuals willing to make the sacrifices that they can't or won't in order to live virtuous lives, and this is why the government of Pakistan can't really bring themselves to fight the Taleban. Edited June 13, 2010 by GwynO Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eraser_tr 29 Posted June 13, 2010 Doesn't surprise me one bit. But, yes, it makes no sense whatsoever, especially since the CIA has essentially owned the ISI. It's all this shady s**t that really makes me say f*** it and leave. Now if we weren't sustaining our enemies via our "friends" and actually treated those "friends" as the enemies they are, regional politics might be different and winnable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GwynO 16 Posted June 13, 2010 (edited) " Now if we weren't sustaining our enemies via our "friends" and actually treated those "friends" as the enemies they are, regional politics might be different and winnable." Amen Edited June 13, 2010 by GwynO Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
