You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
India-Pakistan
Pakistan's Taliban pact criticised
2006-12-11
Pakistan's appeasement of Taliban sympathisers has resulted in a base in its tribal areas that fighters are using to destabilise Pakistan and Afghanistan, a think-tank says.
Really? People get paid to state the obvious?
It's a think tank ...
So you gotta have a tank and be able to think?
They tried a hot tub, but the fat guys wouldn't fit.
"The Musharraf government has tried first brute force, then appeasement. Both have failed", Samina Ahmed, International Crisis Group's South Asia project director, says. The ICG has suggested in a report published on Monday that instead of appeasing fighters, Pakistan must impose the rule of law in its semi-autonomous tribal lands on the border, where Taliban and al-Qaeda sympathisers have sheltered since 2001, disarm the fighters and shut their training camps. "Islamabad's tactics have only emboldened the pro-Taliban militants," Ahmed said.

The government, which made deals with pro-Taliban groups in 2004 and 2006 in South and North Waziristan respectively, has released militants, returned their weapons and agreed to let foreign terrorists stay on a promise to give up violence, the report says.
"Pretty please?"
The ICG states that this has simply given pro-Taliban elements licence to recruit and arm, resulting in a serious increase in cross-border attacks against US, Nato and Afghan forces.
We noticed...
Pakistan's seven tribal agencies have never been brought under the writ of any government, including British colonialists who saw the mountainous region as a buffer on the northwestern border of their Indian empire. The region, which was a base for US- and Pakistan-backed Afghan mujahidin fighters in the 1980s, became a refuge for Taliban and al-Qaeda after US-led forces ousted Afghanistan's Taliban rulers in 2001.

According to ICG, Pakistan, a major US ally in the war on terror, launched "badly planned and poorly conducted" military operations in 2004 to deny al-Qaeda fighters sanctuary and stem attacks into Afghanistan. After clashes in which hundreds of Pakistani troops were killed, Pakistani authorities forged pacts aimed at ending attacks on Pakistani forces and raids into Afghanistan. The pacts, however, served only to strengthen tribal fighters, and "pro-Taliban elements now have a free hand to recruit, train and arm,” said the report.

"The militants now hold sway in South and North Waziristan Agencies and have begun to expand their influence not just in other tribal agencies such as Khyber and Bajaur but also in NWFP's settled districts," it said, referring to North West Frontier Province.
Cancer is like that..
The seven tribal districts, known as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), are ruled by repressive colonial-era administrative and judicial systems inherited from Britain, the think-tank said. The ICG says the US and EU must tie their support for Musharraf to political reform. "The state's failure to extend its control over and provide good governance to its citizens in FATA is equally responsible for empowering the radicals." The area has to be integrated into Pakistan's system of provincial governments and its inhabitants given political rights. Broad-based development also has to be generated, the ICG report says.

The Pakistan government has defended the pacts saying they were struck with tribal elders and are aimed at reinvigorating tribal power structures and isolating the tribal fighters. Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani president, has spoken about the need for reform in the tribal areas and the need to promote development.

ICG further stated that the US and EU need to tie economic and diplomatic support to Musharraf to reform and free, democratic elections in 2007.
They have a free, democratic election in Pakiland, they'll vote in the hardline jihadis, and that'll be the last free, democratic election.
"The US and Europe need to realise that democratic, civilian government, not military rule, is their best and natural ally against extremism and terrorism", Robert Templer, ICG's Asia director, said.

Ahmed said: "These border areas are still run under colonial-era laws that make their people second-class citizens in Pakistan. Unless the government institutes real democratic change, extremism and terrorism will quickly overtake the entire region".
Posted by:Steve

#7  Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I shall fear no evil.
For I am the Meanest Motherfucker in this valley.

Problem here is that they just don't believe that, they need to be taught.

Posted by: Redneck Jim   2006-12-11 19:54  

#6  what OP, john, UB, plainslow, and Shipman said..

"A man with a salad fork who wants to see the color of your insides is going to win nine out of ten over the guy with the .45, the M-16, the Abrams tank, the F-22 fighter, the Aegis cruiser and the W-80 nuclear warhead, but who can't stand the sight of blood."

/ht nichveo
Posted by: RD   2006-12-11 19:37  

#5  "After clashes in which hundreds of Pakistani troops were killed, Pakistani authorities forged pacts aimed at ending attacks on Pakistani forces.."
But it's the Americans who can't stomach a fight.
Give the area, independence. Then we can bomb it everyday of it's existence. Give it back to the Paks when we are done. Never mind, the dems are in control.
Posted by: plainslow   2006-12-11 16:12  

#4  The policy makers at the state department value Pakistan's geo-strategic utility (ally with a voice in the muslim world, keeping it from embracing China too closely, as a counterweight to India) more than they do the war on terror itself.

As long as they do that calculus, Pak is safe.

Recall that they knew all about the AQ Khan network and preferred to let pak go nuclear rather than rein it in.
Posted by: john   2006-12-11 15:47  

#3  we still haven't proven to these gasbags that we're really the baddest of the bad

And there you have it.
Posted by: Shipman   2006-12-11 15:23  

#2  The biggest problem is that we still haven't proven to these gasbags that we're really the baddest of the bad. We need to run ARCLIGHT strikes down through the Tribal Agencies every day for a month, then ask whoever survives if they want to continue to support the Taliban. Bomb from southwest of Quetta to northeast of Peshawar. PROVE to the Taliban that we can be the most heartless bas$$$$s on the globe if we have to be. Give them three days to surrender after the bombing stops. If there's no surrender, expand the strike zone to include all of Pakistan, and don't put a final time limit on the bombing.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2006-12-11 14:46  

#1  I will never understand why we don't level that whole area. We have taken our lumps wrt world opinion on Iraq, but don't we still have moral authority pursuing Al Qaeda? Are we afraid to destabilize the oh so stable Pakistan?
Posted by: Unique Battle   2006-12-11 13:11  

00:00