America’s Pakistan war

Not quite. Even by inaction led to actions. Read up on the massive murder of tribals 2001-2003. Pakistan was in fully cahoots with the US to a certain degree. They treated their own country as a waste land no better than what the enemy does. Why do you duffers continue to defend these savages even when you seen how they’ve treated their own in Lahore and Islamabad with heavy handedness. Do you think the tribals are receiving similar treatment, better, or a lot worse?
Oh bhai.......picking up the gun against your own country is treason!

These tribals and afghani are enemies of our country. They are ruthless killers and Al-Qaeda people. I'm sure you don't want our country turning into another Taliban central.

If KPK is not dealt with properly, it will undo us as a nation.
 
The relationship between the United States and Pakistan has long been marked by an asymmetric power dynamic, where Pakistan's sovereignty has frequently been compromised in favour of U.S. interests. This quasi-colonial relationship can be traced back to the 1950s and has evolved through various phases of manipulation, military alliances, and economic dependence.

The Cito Centre Agreement in 1954 was one of the first major events that signalled the beginning of U.S. control over Pakistan's foreign policy. Officially a military pact to counter the Soviet threat, it allowed the U.S. to establish military bases on Pakistani soil in exchange for financial and military aid. This marked the beginning of a pattern where Pakistan was forced into a position of dependence, its sovereignty undermined as U.S. personnel enjoyed privileges that made them exempt from local laws—similar to how colonial powers once treated their subjects.

The U-2 incident in 1960 was another glaring example of Pakistan’s compromised sovereignty. The U.S. was using Pakistani airbases to launch spy missions over the Soviet Union without Pakistan's consent, and when a U-2 spy plane was shot down, it was Pakistan that bore the diplomatic fallout. Pakistan’s role as a pawn in Cold War geopolitics was exposed, with the U.S. treating its territory as a mere staging ground for its own global strategies regardless of the potential dangers to Pakistan.

During the 1971 Indo-Pak war, the U.S. betrayed its supposed ally. Pakistan, under Yahya Khan, believed it had American support, but the Nixon administration was playing a double game, secretly favouring India. The U.S. manipulated Pakistan, using the war to further its own geopolitical goals, only to abandon Pakistan when it was defeated, leading to the loss of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). This betrayal underscored the colonial nature of the relationship, where Pakistan's interests were disposable in the face of American objectives.

In the 1980s, Pakistan became a critical tool for the U.S. during the Afghan Jihad against the Soviet Union. The Reagan administration funnelled billions of dollars through Pakistan to arm the Afghan Mujahideen, but Pakistan paid a steep price for this so-called alliance. The country became a hub for weapons and drugs, and its internal stability deteriorated as a result. While the U.S. achieved its strategic goals by weakening the Soviet Union, Pakistan was left to deal with the fallout: an influx of radicalised fighters, refugees, and a growing culture of extremism. Once again, Pakistan had been used to serve U.S. interests with little regard for the consequences it would face.

After the Cold War ended, the U.S. discarded Pakistan once more, imposing sanctions through the Pressler Amendment in 1990 over Pakistan’s nuclear ambitions. This was a clear signal that Pakistan’s value to the U.S. was purely transactional. During the Afghan war, Pakistan had been a key ally, but once the Soviets were gone, it became expendable. India, meanwhile, pursued its own nuclear ambitions with far less interference from Washington, exposing the double standards in U.S. foreign policy.

The post-9/11 era saw Pakistan thrust into the frontlines of America’s War on Terror. Under immense pressure, President Pervez Musharraf had little choice but to comply with US demands. Pakistan became a battleground for drone strikes, which killed thousands of civilians and caused widespread destruction. America’s War on Terror was, in many ways, a propaganda line that cost Pakistan more than $150 billion in economic losses, infrastructure damage, and human lives. NATO supply convoys heavily damaged Pakistan's roads, and the Taliban, seeing Pakistan as an American ally, took revenge by launching attacks across the country. It was a bizarre situation where, on one hand, the U.S. called Pakistan an ally, yet on the other, it conducted deadly drone strikes on Pakistani soil. The toll on Pakistan was immense: over 100,000 people were killed, and its internal security and economy were pushed to the brink.

View attachment 66853
Pakistan's role in America's global strategy is as crucial as that of Ukraine or Palestine. The U.S. sees Pakistan as key to its survival in the current world order, controlling not only the South Asian region but also Central Asia and the broader Muslim world. Pakistan, with its population of 250 million, the second-largest Muslim population in the world, and its nuclear arsenal, is far too important for the U.S. to lose control over. American influence in Pakistan has long been maintained with the complicity of Pakistani generals and politicians like Nawaz Sharif and Asif Ali Zardari, who have been key facilitators of U.S. interests. The U.S. is deeply aware that losing Pakistan would mean losing a major geopolitical asset, which is why American diplomats, such as Donald Lu, were allegedly involved in the political machinations that led to the ousting of Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan.

View attachment 66854
The stakes for the U.S. in Pakistan are as high as they are in Ukraine or Palestine. America will do everything in its power to maintain control over Pakistan, because controlling Pakistan means influencing the entire Central Asian region and maintaining leverage over the Muslim world. Pakistan’s nuclear capability makes it even more critical to U.S. strategy. A weak Pakistan, with a crippled economy, is easier for the U.S. to control. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, both heavily influenced by the U.S., have been key tools in keeping Pakistan dependent on foreign loans, forcing it to adopt policies that weaken its economic sovereignty. A weakened economy forces Pakistan to bend to U.S. demands, ensuring it remains on its knees and unable to challenge American interests.

The U.S. also exerts control through Pakistan’s military. Hillary Clinton once commented that the U.S. uses Pakistan’s army to control the country. Washington deals with both Pakistan’s political leaders and its military, often playing one against the other to maintain its grip. Pakistani generals, eager for U.S. military aid and support, have historically facilitated American operations in the region, further entrenching Pakistan in its role as a client state.

This ongoing manipulation, where America plays a decisive role in Pakistan’s political and military affairs, reflects the deeper colonial mindset that has defined U.S.-Pakistan relations. Despite being an independent nation, Pakistan remains tethered to U.S. influence, with its leaders often forced to prioritise American interests over their own. Whether through military pacts, economic dependency, or covert operations, the U.S. continues to treat Pakistan as a modern colony, ensuring that it remains under Washington’s control in the broader game of global power politics.
Since when was the USA a reliable friend of Pakistan. Never!

Time to give China and Japan all the lucrative business contracts!
 
Oh bhai.......picking up the gun against your own country is treason!

These tribals and afghani are enemies of our country. They are ruthless killers and Al-Qaeda people. I'm sure you don't want our country turning into another Taliban central.

If KPK is not dealt with properly, it will undo us as a nation.
Wrong! I’m not a fan of the afghans or the tribals but you’re just spinning the military’s narrative now. They’re stealing wood, minerals, and other resources by the Military Inc.
Please cut out the middle school propaganda on how bunch of backwards hill tribes will undo Pakistan. It’s pathetic and laughable.

I’ll drop you a hint, why do you think Balochistan is the way it is? Military inc wants it that way so not to have any civilian competition in stealing the massive amount of resources there. Does anyone even know what’s going on there? It’s a no go area for everyone.

I can’t even with these conversations anymore.
 
Wrong! I’m not a fan of the afghans or the tribals but you’re just spinning the military’s narrative now. They’re stealing wood, minerals, and other resources by the Military Inc.
Please cut out the middle school propaganda on how bunch of backwards hill tribes will undo Pakistan. It’s pathetic and laughable.

I’ll drop you a hint, why do you think Balochistan is the way it is? Military inc wants it that way so not to have any civilian competition in stealing the massive amount of resources there. Does anyone even know what’s going on there? It’s a no go area for everyone.

I can’t even with these conversations anymore.
Are you supporting the narrative that anyone non Pashto/ Baluchi is wrong to keep this country going?

We are not Pakistani enough? Pashto/ Baluchi nationalists have sway over us? and deserve their own state-lets and group-lets? Like the KRG or Idlib? or South Sudan or Puntland? or Rohingya have pull in Bangladesh? or the KRG must expand to include Syrian or Irani or Turkish Kurdistan's?

Do yous understand what yous sayin here?

P.S. Some of us here wonderin if yous even one of us?
 
The relationship between the United States and Pakistan has long been marked by an asymmetric power dynamic, where Pakistan's sovereignty has frequently been compromised in favour of U.S. interests. This quasi-colonial relationship can be traced back to the 1950s and has evolved through various phases of manipulation, military alliances, and economic dependence.

The Cito Centre Agreement in 1954 was one of the first major events that signalled the beginning of U.S. control over Pakistan's foreign policy. Officially a military pact to counter the Soviet threat, it allowed the U.S. to establish military bases on Pakistani soil in exchange for financial and military aid. This marked the beginning of a pattern where Pakistan was forced into a position of dependence, its sovereignty undermined as U.S. personnel enjoyed privileges that made them exempt from local laws—similar to how colonial powers once treated their subjects.

The U-2 incident in 1960 was another glaring example of Pakistan’s compromised sovereignty. The U.S. was using Pakistani airbases to launch spy missions over the Soviet Union without Pakistan's consent, and when a U-2 spy plane was shot down, it was Pakistan that bore the diplomatic fallout. Pakistan’s role as a pawn in Cold War geopolitics was exposed, with the U.S. treating its territory as a mere staging ground for its own global strategies regardless of the potential dangers to Pakistan.

During the 1971 Indo-Pak war, the U.S. betrayed its supposed ally. Pakistan, under Yahya Khan, believed it had American support, but the Nixon administration was playing a double game, secretly favouring India. The U.S. manipulated Pakistan, using the war to further its own geopolitical goals, only to abandon Pakistan when it was defeated, leading to the loss of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). This betrayal underscored the colonial nature of the relationship, where Pakistan's interests were disposable in the face of American objectives.

In the 1980s, Pakistan became a critical tool for the U.S. during the Afghan Jihad against the Soviet Union. The Reagan administration funnelled billions of dollars through Pakistan to arm the Afghan Mujahideen, but Pakistan paid a steep price for this so-called alliance. The country became a hub for weapons and drugs, and its internal stability deteriorated as a result. While the U.S. achieved its strategic goals by weakening the Soviet Union, Pakistan was left to deal with the fallout: an influx of radicalised fighters, refugees, and a growing culture of extremism. Once again, Pakistan had been used to serve U.S. interests with little regard for the consequences it would face.

After the Cold War ended, the U.S. discarded Pakistan once more, imposing sanctions through the Pressler Amendment in 1990 over Pakistan’s nuclear ambitions. This was a clear signal that Pakistan’s value to the U.S. was purely transactional. During the Afghan war, Pakistan had been a key ally, but once the Soviets were gone, it became expendable. India, meanwhile, pursued its own nuclear ambitions with far less interference from Washington, exposing the double standards in U.S. foreign policy.

The post-9/11 era saw Pakistan thrust into the frontlines of America’s War on Terror. Under immense pressure, President Pervez Musharraf had little choice but to comply with US demands. Pakistan became a battleground for drone strikes, which killed thousands of civilians and caused widespread destruction. America’s War on Terror was, in many ways, a propaganda line that cost Pakistan more than $150 billion in economic losses, infrastructure damage, and human lives. NATO supply convoys heavily damaged Pakistan's roads, and the Taliban, seeing Pakistan as an American ally, took revenge by launching attacks across the country. It was a bizarre situation where, on one hand, the U.S. called Pakistan an ally, yet on the other, it conducted deadly drone strikes on Pakistani soil. The toll on Pakistan was immense: over 100,000 people were killed, and its internal security and economy were pushed to the brink.

View attachment 66853
Pakistan's role in America's global strategy is as crucial as that of Ukraine or Palestine. The U.S. sees Pakistan as key to its survival in the current world order, controlling not only the South Asian region but also Central Asia and the broader Muslim world. Pakistan, with its population of 250 million, the second-largest Muslim population in the world, and its nuclear arsenal, is far too important for the U.S. to lose control over. American influence in Pakistan has long been maintained with the complicity of Pakistani generals and politicians like Nawaz Sharif and Asif Ali Zardari, who have been key facilitators of U.S. interests. The U.S. is deeply aware that losing Pakistan would mean losing a major geopolitical asset, which is why American diplomats, such as Donald Lu, were allegedly involved in the political machinations that led to the ousting of Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan.

View attachment 66854
The stakes for the U.S. in Pakistan are as high as they are in Ukraine or Palestine. America will do everything in its power to maintain control over Pakistan, because controlling Pakistan means influencing the entire Central Asian region and maintaining leverage over the Muslim world. Pakistan’s nuclear capability makes it even more critical to U.S. strategy. A weak Pakistan, with a crippled economy, is easier for the U.S. to control. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, both heavily influenced by the U.S., have been key tools in keeping Pakistan dependent on foreign loans, forcing it to adopt policies that weaken its economic sovereignty. A weakened economy forces Pakistan to bend to U.S. demands, ensuring it remains on its knees and unable to challenge American interests.

The U.S. also exerts control through Pakistan’s military. Hillary Clinton once commented that the U.S. uses Pakistan’s army to control the country. Washington deals with both Pakistan’s political leaders and its military, often playing one against the other to maintain its grip. Pakistani generals, eager for U.S. military aid and support, have historically facilitated American operations in the region, further entrenching Pakistan in its role as a client state.

This ongoing manipulation, where America plays a decisive role in Pakistan’s political and military affairs, reflects the deeper colonial mindset that has defined U.S.-Pakistan relations. Despite being an independent nation, Pakistan remains tethered to U.S. influence, with its leaders often forced to prioritise American interests over their own. Whether through military pacts, economic dependency, or covert operations, the U.S. continues to treat Pakistan as a modern colony, ensuring that it remains under Washington’s control in the broader game of global power politics.

Too much garbage in this written article.

Pakistan was important For USA, till the cold war, once completed.... They abonadaded Pakistan.

Again they needed after the 9/11 incident, because of Osama bin Laden and Taliban, but there was interest of Pakistan and USA, was colliding since Pakistan was backing the Taliban behind the door even getting dollars from USA from front door.

Does Pakistan today strategic important as previously, not really.... They already have Saudi, UAE such muslims countries with them to influence muslims nations...

They still need Pakistan their side for mostly two reasons -

1. Checkmate of Afghanistan and somehow they want want bigger role of china or Russia in Afghanistan. They also want to engage Pakistan so Pakistan not completely seat and sided with china.

2. They don't want Chinese influence in the south Asia.

Rest what written in article, mostly useless
 
The relationship between the United States and Pakistan has long been marked by an asymmetric power dynamic, where Pakistan's sovereignty has frequently been compromised in favour of U.S. interests. This quasi-colonial relationship can be traced back to the 1950s and has evolved through various phases of manipulation, military alliances, and economic dependence.

The Cito Centre Agreement in 1954 was one of the first major events that signalled the beginning of U.S. control over Pakistan's foreign policy. Officially a military pact to counter the Soviet threat, it allowed the U.S. to establish military bases on Pakistani soil in exchange for financial and military aid. This marked the beginning of a pattern where Pakistan was forced into a position of dependence, its sovereignty undermined as U.S. personnel enjoyed privileges that made them exempt from local laws—similar to how colonial powers once treated their subjects.

The U-2 incident in 1960 was another glaring example of Pakistan’s compromised sovereignty. The U.S. was using Pakistani airbases to launch spy missions over the Soviet Union without Pakistan's consent, and when a U-2 spy plane was shot down, it was Pakistan that bore the diplomatic fallout. Pakistan’s role as a pawn in Cold War geopolitics was exposed, with the U.S. treating its territory as a mere staging ground for its own global strategies regardless of the potential dangers to Pakistan.

During the 1971 Indo-Pak war, the U.S. betrayed its supposed ally. Pakistan, under Yahya Khan, believed it had American support, but the Nixon administration was playing a double game, secretly favouring India. The U.S. manipulated Pakistan, using the war to further its own geopolitical goals, only to abandon Pakistan when it was defeated, leading to the loss of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). This betrayal underscored the colonial nature of the relationship, where Pakistan's interests were disposable in the face of American objectives.

In the 1980s, Pakistan became a critical tool for the U.S. during the Afghan Jihad against the Soviet Union. The Reagan administration funnelled billions of dollars through Pakistan to arm the Afghan Mujahideen, but Pakistan paid a steep price for this so-called alliance. The country became a hub for weapons and drugs, and its internal stability deteriorated as a result. While the U.S. achieved its strategic goals by weakening the Soviet Union, Pakistan was left to deal with the fallout: an influx of radicalised fighters, refugees, and a growing culture of extremism. Once again, Pakistan had been used to serve U.S. interests with little regard for the consequences it would face.

After the Cold War ended, the U.S. discarded Pakistan once more, imposing sanctions through the Pressler Amendment in 1990 over Pakistan’s nuclear ambitions. This was a clear signal that Pakistan’s value to the U.S. was purely transactional. During the Afghan war, Pakistan had been a key ally, but once the Soviets were gone, it became expendable. India, meanwhile, pursued its own nuclear ambitions with far less interference from Washington, exposing the double standards in U.S. foreign policy.

The post-9/11 era saw Pakistan thrust into the frontlines of America’s War on Terror. Under immense pressure, President Pervez Musharraf had little choice but to comply with US demands. Pakistan became a battleground for drone strikes, which killed thousands of civilians and caused widespread destruction. America’s War on Terror was, in many ways, a propaganda line that cost Pakistan more than $150 billion in economic losses, infrastructure damage, and human lives. NATO supply convoys heavily damaged Pakistan's roads, and the Taliban, seeing Pakistan as an American ally, took revenge by launching attacks across the country. It was a bizarre situation where, on one hand, the U.S. called Pakistan an ally, yet on the other, it conducted deadly drone strikes on Pakistani soil. The toll on Pakistan was immense: over 100,000 people were killed, and its internal security and economy were pushed to the brink.

View attachment 66853
Pakistan's role in America's global strategy is as crucial as that of Ukraine or Palestine. The U.S. sees Pakistan as key to its survival in the current world order, controlling not only the South Asian region but also Central Asia and the broader Muslim world. Pakistan, with its population of 250 million, the second-largest Muslim population in the world, and its nuclear arsenal, is far too important for the U.S. to lose control over. American influence in Pakistan has long been maintained with the complicity of Pakistani generals and politicians like Nawaz Sharif and Asif Ali Zardari, who have been key facilitators of U.S. interests. The U.S. is deeply aware that losing Pakistan would mean losing a major geopolitical asset, which is why American diplomats, such as Donald Lu, were allegedly involved in the political machinations that led to the ousting of Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan.

View attachment 66854
The stakes for the U.S. in Pakistan are as high as they are in Ukraine or Palestine. America will do everything in its power to maintain control over Pakistan, because controlling Pakistan means influencing the entire Central Asian region and maintaining leverage over the Muslim world. Pakistan’s nuclear capability makes it even more critical to U.S. strategy. A weak Pakistan, with a crippled economy, is easier for the U.S. to control. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, both heavily influenced by the U.S., have been key tools in keeping Pakistan dependent on foreign loans, forcing it to adopt policies that weaken its economic sovereignty. A weakened economy forces Pakistan to bend to U.S. demands, ensuring it remains on its knees and unable to challenge American interests.

The U.S. also exerts control through Pakistan’s military. Hillary Clinton once commented that the U.S. uses Pakistan’s army to control the country. Washington deals with both Pakistan’s political leaders and its military, often playing one against the other to maintain its grip. Pakistani generals, eager for U.S. military aid and support, have historically facilitated American operations in the region, further entrenching Pakistan in its role as a client state.

This ongoing manipulation, where America plays a decisive role in Pakistan’s political and military affairs, reflects the deeper colonial mindset that has defined U.S.-Pakistan relations. Despite being an independent nation, Pakistan remains tethered to U.S. influence, with its leaders often forced to prioritise American interests over their own. Whether through military pacts, economic dependency, or covert operations, the U.S. continues to treat Pakistan as a modern colony, ensuring that it remains under Washington’s control in the broader game of global power politics.
Good read. Simply put USA - Pakistan relationship has been and is "transactional " in nature . There is no Strategic interest. Even now the only interest is Counterterrorism.
 
Are you supporting the narrative that anyone non Pashto/ Baluchi is wrong to keep this country going?

We are not Pakistani enough? Pashto/ Baluchi nationalists have sway over us? and deserve their own state-lets and group-lets? Like the KRG or Idlib? or South Sudan or Puntland? or Rohingya have pull in Bangladesh? or the KRG must expand to include Syrian or Irani or Turkish Kurdistan's?

Do yous understand what yous sayin here?

P.S. Some of us here wonderin if yous even one of us?
One of you? I’m Pakistani. It’s clear now how passionate I get because they really made me hate Pakistan and Pakistanis for being the cowards that they are after overthrowing IK and making OSPs the enemy.
I want the country to kick as*. Unfortunately it’s a failure
 
Seems to be a chatGPT written piece stating quasi obvious factoids playing into the angry youth PTI narrative.

The US did nothing substantial vis a vis PTI - yet it was blown up both because Gen B was/is completely compromised as an individual and because IK and Co created the false icon parade.

Everything else is plain and simple -

The United States looks out for its interests as a state just as we assume Pakistan does - however, based on various leaks and testimonies it seems Pakistan is not always able to look out for it’s interests simply because an institution’s leadership over the years thinks it’s god gift to earth and in combination with being compromised personally interferes with semi qualified but somewhat experienced individuals in the foreign office and tells them it knows their job better.

It also tries to over exert its influence at the national decision level which is why the state “memory” and learning never developed to deal with the US in a state to state consistent fashion. Instead the Army runs as the state within the state leading its own foreign, security, financial, interior, education etc etc policies which it either deems to only involve the civilian side of the state into if either it requires cursory assistance or it screws up inevitably that it needs help.

That is something the US happily exploits to push its more unified approach to tackling Pakistan.

So the US isn’t at fault - whatever and whoever decides to represent Pakistan state that particular point in time is; because forget about different government policies - even in those cases the Army brass has its own policy, foreign office is running something else, political leaders say something else and in that end the US deals with who has the most agency, and matches with their goals or they enable that group that matches their goals.

Case in point - the reported Bajwa push to compromise everything to get peace with India, whose interest was that pushing?
You cannot deny the fact when you say it is ChatGP. You cannot deny the fact knowledge in it.
Now come the point Over the last 75 years, we have faced significant setbacks because the majority of our policymakers—perhaps 90%—think in ways that ignore the realities of modern geopolitical strategies. They often reflect the mentality of keeping one's head in the sand, much like a certain class within Pakistan. In today's world, powerful nations no longer need to directly invade or occupy countries to exploit their resources. Instead, they dominate by controlling a nation's economic structures, banking systems, and its leadership. They ensure that truly independent leaders never come to power, allowing modern forms of slavery to persist.

It is particularly difficult to invade a country like ours, with a population of 250 million and nuclear capabilities. Therefore, the more strategic method is to exert influence over a small group of people—perhaps 100 individuals—who hold control over the nation's decisions. This is how external powers manage to control countries indirectly, investing in key influencers rather than using military force.
 
Good read. Simply put USA - Pakistan relationship has been and is "transactional " in nature . There is no Strategic interest. Even now the only interest is Counterterrorism.
The U.S., influenced by zionism which , often prioritises its geopolitical goals in regions with Muslim populations. It's not just about terrorims or counterterrorism, but seems aimed at exploiting opportunities to harm Muslims wherever possible. As for Pakistan, the objective seems to be keeping the country weakened and dependent. Keep Pakistan’s infightings alive. People like Asim Anjum zaradi nawaz are just like condoms
See what he did with his own people last night
 
Last edited:
The U.S., influenced by zionism which , often prioritises its geopolitical goals in regions with Muslim populations. It's not just about terrorims or counterterrorism, but seems aimed at exploiting opportunities to harm Muslims wherever possible. As for Pakistan, the objective seems to be keeping the country weakened and dependent. Keep Pakistan’s infightings alive. People like Asim Anjum zaradi nawaz are just like condoms
See what he did with his own people last night
Very sad indeed 😢
 
Case in point - the reported Bajwa push to compromise everything to get peace with India, whose interest was that pushing?

When a institution whose sole purpose was to take on the mortal enemy , its cheif wants peace with the enemy at all cost, then the vary purpose and viability of that institution should come into question. Everything is build for a purpose, when its purpose its gone, it lose its right to exist. From Musharraf onwards, Army leadership is trying to redefine and move the goal post from India to western front and "enemies within", the "Islamic terrorism" (we all know whose line they are toeing), and now engulfed into a completely unnecessary feud with the biggest civilian political stakeholder of Pakistan . If there are no significant enemies within, they have to be created. Justification for right to exist has to be found, regardless how crude and pathetic it might be. Why that quid pro quo plus was not maintained with India at sub conventional level of warfare knowing fully well what was going on when India was using afghan territory to cause all the havoc, shouldnt leave anyone in doubt.
 
When a institution whose sole purpose was to take on the mortal enemy , its cheif wants peace with the enemy at all cost, then the vary purpose and viability of that institution should come into question. Everything is build for a purpose, when its purpose its gone, it lose its right to exist. From Musharraf onwards, Army leadership is trying to redefine and move the goal post from India to western front and "enemies within", the "Islamic terrorism" (we all know whose line they are toeing), and now engulfed into a completely unnecessary feud with the biggest civilian political stakeholder of Pakistan . If there are no significant enemies within, they have to be created. Justification for right to exist has to be found, regardless how crude and pathetic it might be. Why that quid pro quo plus was not maintained with India at sub conventional level of warfare knowing fully well what was going on when India was using afghan territory to cause all the havoc, shouldnt leave anyone in doubt.

question is who is your enemy?

Before drawing conclusions, it is important to recognize that anyone familiar with Pakistan's policies over the last 50 years may simply conclude that Pakistan has often been its own worst enemy.

Security Challenges Facing Pakistan:Many of Pakistan's current security challenges stem from its own actions and policies over the past several decades. To blame a third country for these issues would be a misinterpretation of the situation and would only serve to fool oneself.
 
question is who is your enemy?

Before drawing conclusions, it is important to recognize that anyone familiar with Pakistan's policies over the last 50 years may simply conclude that Pakistan has often been its own worst enemy.

Security Challenges Facing Pakistan:Many of Pakistan's current security challenges stem from its own actions and policies over the past several decades. To blame a third country for these issues would be a misinterpretation of the situation and would only serve to fool oneself.

So from purely armed forces point of view, which I was refering to, the mortal enemy has to be some entity outside the borders of the nation. That is the primary objective of every national army that ever existed, either in defensive or offensive posture. The vary purpose of armed forces is not just to act in the times of war, but always be on the toe to lookout of that foreign entity and its weakness within and expliot them in the times of peace, aka hybrid war. That has been abandoned by Pakistan army since Muharrad and onwards.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top