Balochistan Terrorism Watch

[Blain2]

That's fine. I was merely answering a member's query.

I was making a policy statement about no appeasement and no surrender to takfiri mass murder and blackmail.

 

[Blain2]

Give thanks to bastard Musharraf and his fear and nearsighted policies of US and NATO appeasement back in 2001. If he wouldn’t have bowed down to evangelical christian/crusaders demand and few dollars

Pakistan had no other choice.

a) Not side with the US.
OK, the US had already been talking to Indians about basing. Pakistan did not want the narrative to completely swing in India's direction and then not have a say in Afghanistan. Staying engaged with the US allowed Pakistan some room to maneuver, giving in a little, but also gaining a little.

b) US had invaded Afghanistan.
Taliban were operating from our tribal areas. Those Taliban would attack the US troops and run back into Pakistan. US was going to push into Pakistan's tribal areas with ground forces. What was Pakistan to do? Take on the US/ISAF militarily with our troops and see Pakistani cities and infrastructure get destroyed?

c) There was nothing "nearsighted" about Pakistan's policies. It allowed Pakistan to have to balance everything and thus get called out for "running with the hare and hunting with the hounds". This was Musharraf trying to manage the situation so Pakistan would be able to keep its leverage and interests as intact as possible.

d) Most suggestions like yours just end at the wishful "he should not have done it". Game the entire series out and see what great choices Pakistan had. This talk track is similar to how some claim now in all their wisdom "Pakistan should not have gotten involved in the Afghan jihad in 1979".

I happened to be around both times, and none of the choices roughly 30 years apart were that easy.