A Decision to Regret

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

So the Pakistanis want strategic depth, eh? Well, too fcuking bad that your country is as narrow geographically as your minds are.

Just like Pakistan is the millstone around India`s neck, so is Afghanistan the millstone around Pakistan`s neck. If you guys want Kashmir on the basis of religion, then hand over all Pashtun-dominated FATAs to Afghanistan; after all, no Afghan government has recognized the Durand Line and you might as well unite the Gjilzais and Orakzais and Durranis on both sides of the border.

What is that again? Oh, that would mean that Pakistan would have even less depth? Well, that is the way the cookie crumbles in real life. And you could all be sitting on the plains of the Indus and fight a (literally) uphill battle when the Taliban decides to come marching into Pakistan.

Let us get one thing very clear: Pakistan is not even the tail on the American dog; it is just a flea catching a free ride. Don`t expect to wag the dog by demanding you want a Pakistan-friendly (read, `moderate` Taliban -- as if that exists) government in Kabul when the Americans leave. The Americans will leave at a time of their own choosing. They may give billions in aid to Pakistan which of course will be eaten up by the corrupt military-beureaucratic complex, leaving the average Pakistani and Afghan refugee in as dire a straits as they currently face. So let us not even pretend that Pakistan is going to benefit from the current American military engagement in Afghanistan, no matter what Colin Powell says.

As hamidm said on another board, let the Afghans rot in their own country till they decide to come into the 21st century. The least Pakistan could do is not run those fcuking madrassahs where the Taleban trained; if you want to do them a favor, run modern schools.

But then, you don`t do it for your own population so why would you do it for the Afghans?

It is a perfect article, but it is too long.

Then again if it is shortened, the story would be

incomplete.

I am a relatively new to Chowk and enjoy

most of the articles and the interacts. Chowk

would be a great place to visit if only its

editors edit the articles and the interacts.

Some chowkies (if it is the right word) have

already expressed their displeasure at some of

the interacts containing insults and at making

chowk a personal battlefield. I wholeheartedly

agree with those comments and urge those sensitive

chowkies to be tolerant of the views of others

and not to shoot the messengers if they do not

like the messages.

Now a few words about the matter at hand. I

condemn the horrible attack of Sept. 11. Every

muslim knows or should know that suicide is a

crime in Islam and to kill innocent people is a

crime. Proof of the guilt of Osama has not been

produced in public and yet the only super power

is after him and his organization. The super

power should have gone to the United Nations or

to the world court with its complaint. Who gave

the super power the authority to kill innocent

people in Afghanistan? This criminal act is

equally deplorable.

President Musharraf is doing a great job in

Pakistan, although some pakistanis do not agree

with him. The alternative would have been a

nightmare for Pakistan. I pray for the safety of

President Musharraf and for Pakistan to become

the greatest country of the world in every way.

(Ameen)

Nice.

I did a quick skim of this article, but nevertheless spotted a few things I can point out to criticize (havent read it well enough to understand the basic point, so the criticism is of isolated pieces of the article only):

Criticism 1: ``and the women come to cut you up`` These lines by kipling have published in some us papers too lately. only problem is, afghan women do not have any such tradition of cutting up enemy wounded. this is a simple case of demonizing the enemy.

Criticism 2: the author mentions the oft-repeated claim that the afghans beat the brits out in the 19th century with only one man spared to go back and tell the tale. the fact is that it was an army of 17000, of which 2000 brits, 6000 locals and the remainder women and camp followers. they in fact occupied kabul, but were continuously attacked by afghans. their commander reached agreement with afghans for safe passage back to india. on the way back, the afghans reneged and killed them all. the afghans are not invincible, much as they would like to make it seem.

The Americans military is again messing up their campaign in Afghanistan.

To send American commandos into Afghanistan -- in high fluting Hollywood style -- without decapitating FIRST the Taliban troops on the front line -- in Mazare Sharif -- in Herat -- and 20 miles from Kabul -- will prove to be the MOTHER of all follies for the US military effort.

It`s inviting -- a disaster like Somalia -- waiting to happen any moment.

Bush has a one track agenda -- all this military might -- to capture Osama bin Laden.

But the Americans military strategists don`t realize -- that they CANNOT get OSAMA unless they first get MULLA OMAR and his Talibani field troops.

Musharraf was RIGHT when he suggested to the Americans -- that the way to kill or capture the SON-IN-LAW -- is to FIRST capture or kill the FATHE-IN-LAW.

It`s a sad commentary on the war effort of the Americans -- that 3 weeks in the bombings -- and not a single city has fallen to the Taliban opposition -- yet.

Talibans are able to bring reinforcements in Mazare-Sharif -- able to hang the leaders of rising resistance inside the city -- push the Northern Alliance troops back -- and recapture the airport -- despite our total air superiority over Afghanistan.

Even a god forsaken place like Taaluuqan has not fallen -- while we are killing the civilians in Kabul.

With all our feel-good military might in Afghanistan on 24 hour display on TV -- can’t we even take the ground troops of Talibans in support of Northern Alliance

Just think of it -- what a boost to morale of the anti Taliban population of the cities would have been -- if far flung cities like Herat and Mazare-Sharif would have to the Allied opposition.

Even that one track god dammed agenda of ONLY capturing Osams bin Laden -- would have realized sooner -- with no ``loss of American lives``.

Just about anything over 2500 words loses my reading focus unless it is fiction.
This article could have said the same thing while being 1/3rd of this length.

Try M. P. Bhandara in Dawn today at:

http://www.dawn.com/2001/10/21/op.htm

Ras

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Ferzok,

Another typical pakistani article. Zia is bad, he created the bad version of islam, how about the rest of the educated paksistani, do they have any responsibility for sustainig it.

Taliban is local, it is completely afghan. With out the pak support and ISI direct involvement, it would have been a different story. The `local` government could have been masood and company. There is nothing local or indigenous about taliban. Kill the lot and another one takes over, like taliban. What happened to shias when taliban took over.

Pakistan could not with draw support for taliban due to some ``mysterious ` reasons. Here is another pak apologist, refuses to accept that kargill invasion was excuted on behalf of the army pimps by the afghans and jihadists, cannot accept that taliban is the integral part of the pak army. As a typical apologist, cannot accept that afghanistan is surrounded by countries that donot recognise taliban, and every aspect of afghan and taliban survival is dependant on pakistan. Pakistan could have changed every thing in afghanistan if it wanted, but could not because of the widespread support for taliban in pakistan. When the american came and waved a few green pieces of paper, pakistanis have changed their view, taliban is disposable.

It is pathetic that education in pakistan only creates apologists for military dictators, and religious extremists. No one wants to assume responsibility for the state of their own country. May be the k for kafir education tends to focuss every thing on to kafirs, and absolves one of any responsibility.

regards

jay

The ultimate objective of the US govt.`s war is to, ``put an end to terrorism.`` Quite a large objective, if you ask me. In my opinion, this is an unachievable objective, without reducing the motivations for terrorism.

The objective in Afghanistan is to get OBL and topple the Taliban. The second part will eventually happen. And maybe the first part also. The Afghanis are great fighters if they have solid supply lines and are united. In the present condition, they have neither, so they will eventually collapse.

But what happens in Afghanistan after the Taliban are toppled? The Northern Alliance is perhaps less savage, but only slightly less. Please take a look at what happened between 92 to 96. And how in the world is a 20% minority going to rule over a 45-50% majority of Pushtun.

Despite making Pakistan (and the US) the favorite punching bag for the problems in Afghanistan, the real problem is actually the Afghan leadership(s) themselves. They cannot get along with each other, peacefully. The only time there has been any peace in Afghanistan is when one group (however savage it may have been) has dominated the country, and has beaten up on all the other groups.

Now exactly the opposite is going to be tried, i.e. a broad-base govt, with a King as its head. Perhaps the only option, but one that I don`t think will work, without direct control of the UN or US. If the King was so powerful and popular, then why the hell did he end up in Rome. He will perside over a group of, ``Afghans, Tajiks, Pamir Tajiks, Balochs, Berberi Hazaras, Deh-i-Zainat Hazaras, Jamshedis, Firuz Kuhis, Taimanis, Taimuris, Nuristanis, Uzbeks, Turkumans, Kyrghyzis, Karakalpaks, and lastly Arabs (Cowasjee).``

If these groups could sit in peacefully in broad-based govts., then there wouldn`t be a problem in Afghanistan to begin with. What magic is the king going to bring to the table, that will all of a sudden, make all these leaders of this newest loya jirga, become friendly? What will stop them from sending him back to Rome?

Unlike before, the US has at least, at the advice of the Pakistanis, made one correct move, i.e. it hasn`t give the Northern Alliance (and its English speaking reps on CNN) free reign in Afghanistan. A Northern Alliance ruled Afghanistan will be more unstable, and close to equally brutal, as a Taliban ruled Afghanistan. It was quite interesting to see the faces of the Northern Alliance leaders, when the representative of RAWA (Afghani Women Association; the only group of Afghanis in important position, talking sense, I have seen so far) listed the crimes of the N.Alliance during 90-96, on CNN.

But if the world dumps Afghanistan, after toppling the Taliban, then I am afraid Afghanistan will go back to the days of infighting that existed immediately after the Soviet withdrawl. And we will be back to square one. The Taliban are just going to withdraw into the mountains, and let anyone who wants take over the cities, who wants to do so. Then once the king is in, they are going to give him a reception of his lifetime, and soon he will be back to the comforts of Italy. Then they will fight the govt. in power. The Taliban cannot take on the US, but they can take on a king leading any local group in Afghanistan.

India, Iran and Russia will start pumping in armaments to the N.A, to ensure their favorite groups dominate. And Pakistan and Saudia Arabia are going to start pumping in weapons to the Pushtun leadership; be it Taliban or whomever (unlike most accusations, Pakistanis aren`t really too fond of Taliban, they will, as a rule, support the most powerful Pushtun group, whomever it maybe).

The prospects of the various Afghani leaderships becoming friendly in the short term are quite low. A weak, or even a strong king, cannot do much there. The UN and/or the US needs to take control of Afghanistan, after the US is finished with its hunting games. They need to stay there, much like the UN is doing in East Timor for a decade or so, and run the place. Perhaps a UN govt. with a US military protection. Hopefully, within a decade things will become peaceful.

So far, I have to say Pakistanis have given extremely good advice to the US, after Sep. 11, i.e. topple the Taliban (only way to get OBL), a quick and decisive campaign (so that the Islamic countries don`t get too pissed off), don`t let N.A. dominate (because it will not be able to hold power, once the US leaves), a broad-based govt (so everyone`s views are taken into account), and make sure some Taliban are in the broad based govt. (otherwise the Taliban will just go into the hills, and attack anyone in power).

I hope the US has gotten over its arrogance, and realized that it ends up making a mess of things in areas it doesn`t understand, and is willing to listen to others.

nasah #4 I think you are reaching conclusions to quickly. In fact, the US military seems to have done a good job of learning from the vietnam experience, and so far have proved effective with hitting the Afghans at times and places of their own choosing and without establishing a physical presence that the Afghans can hit back. I think the overall strategy (multidimensional fronts, broad-based global support), tactics (as described above) and technology (where there are entire tracking systems ranging from GPS satellites which handover more detailed reconnaisance to U2s which handover to more detailed reccy by drones is absolutely first rate.

And let us pray that they find Osama soon along with his gang of murdering thugs.

nasah #4 Further to my previous post, just realized that GPS does not do recconaisance, but other kinds of satellites do. Hope all this is over soon, and we can go happily back to reading about the IT revolution and the genetics revolution. Damn the terrorists for diverting attention from these revolutions where the US and other developed parts of the world are pushing the frontiers for the benefit of all mankind.

Re: Jay # 9

Jay, your rabid hatred of Pakistan and all things connected with Pakistan aside, when was the last time you apologised for Indians actions, when India was in the wrong?

According to your logic, India is infallible and can do nothing wrong. You exist in a world, where Indian actions are cloaked in the deeds of virtue and undertaken in the cause of humanity with an alturistic idealism, which has been the hallmark of Indian/Hindu political acumen since the days of creation of the universe. According to your world view, India is the alpha and omega of this present existence and without India nothing can exist.

You want Pakistanis to apologise for Kargil and other acts committed upon India; when was the last time you apologised for the acts of the Indian army in Kashmir? When Pakistanis say some of their past policies were wrong and try to learn from their mistakes, you belittle them and adopt a holier than thou attitude. In your eyes, there can be no redemption for Pakistan and Pakistan deserves to be erdicated from this world to make it safe for India.

You are quick to judge others; when was the last you had the courage to judge yourself? Why don`t you once write an article for Chowk and tell us why India cannot do any wrong.

Jay, for some one who has a pathological hatred for Pakistan and everything Pakistani, why are you spending so much time on Chowk, a Pakistani site?

I know that I can not reason with you, but I would suggest one thing for you to consider. You hate Pakistan and that is your privilege and I would encourage you hate Pakistan and resent Pakistanis.

I am saying this to you, because it is time that India and Pakistan settle all their outstanding differences. I would encourage you and others of your ilk to seriously consider a nuclear war with Pakistan. A nuclear war, between India and Pakistan, is the only way to settle this issue and who ever remains left standing can have the final word on the Indian-Pakistani problem.

I am a Muslim and such, I believe that this life is just a transition to the hereafter, where our real existence will begin and so, I am not afraid of dying. We may lose a few million in the process, but atleast some of your citizens will not be standing at the throphy stand either!

You have more people than we do and chances are you will survive a nuclear war, population wise, and my question is: what are you Indians afraid of? Do you not want to settle this debate in your favor once and for all?

Having said that, I have nothing to apologise to you and with hate mongers like you around, I thank people like you, who are a constant reminder, as to why Pakistan needed to be created!

Ciao

Musharraf on CNN`s Larry King Live today...

Ras

Incidentally, the actual lines from Kipling`s ``The Young British Soldier`` are:

``When you`re wounded and left on Afghanistan`s plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An` go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier of the Queen!``

And there are documented incidents of Afghan women torturing prisoners to death, so Kipling wasn`t making it all up, even if


Since we are quoting Kipling, big surprise, one of my favorite poets, heres another one of his that is perhaps more relevant in this context:

The White Man`s Burden

By Rudyard Kipling
McClure`s Magazine 12 (Feb. 1899).

Take up the White Man`s burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go, bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives` need;
To wait, in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.

Take up the White Man`s burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain,
To seek another`s profit
And work another`s gain.

Take up the White Man`s burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine,
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
(The end for others sought)
Watch sloth and heathen folly
Bring all your hope to nought.

Take up the White Man`s burden--
No iron rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go, make them with your living
And mark them with your dead.

Take up the White Man`s burden,
And reap his old reward--
The blame of those ye better
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
``Why brought ye us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?``

Take up the White Man`s burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloak your weariness.
By all ye will or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent sullen peoples
Shall weigh your God and you.

Take up the White Man`s burden!
Have done with childish days--
The lightly-proffered laurel,
The easy ungrudged praise:
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years,
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers.

Online at http://www.boondocksnet.com/kipling/kipling.html along with a number of scathing critiques of Kipling and the White Man`s burden from contemporary sources.

However much our hyper-enlightened society dislikes Kipling and the pretensions of Western moral supremacy/superiority, that is exactly what we are implicitly agreeing to when we say that the US abandoned Afghanistan, should assist in the rebuilding, has to give more aid, etc, etc. etc.
Why aren`t we upset at the much vaunted Ummah for not doing more for the Afghans or the other poor muslims? Because as Gandhi is alleged to have said of the British, ``They can be shamed into doing the right thing,`` and we know that no member of our much vaunted Ummah could ever be shamed into doing the right thing.


After just over a century, I would say that Kipling is still more correct than not. One of the reasons why we hate the Anglo-Saxons as much as we do is because we know that, at some level, they are better than us because they can still be shamed, eventually, into doing the right thing.

For me, having little interst in Afghanistan also means lower level of knowledge and information about it. However, in my opinion, the bravery, fighting abilities, rough terrain and the rest is as blown out of proportion as the image of Punjabi martial race. It is really based on two events. Ist one of a wiping out of British army unit and the second one being Russians withdrawal from Afghanistan. What is missing in this story is the mistakes made by British and Russians in dealing with Afghans.

Afghanistan was historically Khorasan, a Persian province of little importance. That is why, they speak persian. Pashtuns among all of the central Asian people were treated as kind of unruly and untouchables. Except for Ahmed Shah Abdali, Mahmud Ghaznavi as well as Shahab-Uddin Ghori were Turkic than Afghan. Yet they controlled fghanistan without much problem from martial and tough Afghans. Babar captured Kabul with only 42 soldiers and held on to Afghanistan and Afghans even after moving to India. The Mughals, in general, crushed Afghan rebellions with much ease than many of Indian rebellions. I actually believe that even Pakistan can control a big chunk of Afghanistan with ease-through buying loyalties of tribal leaders of Pashtuns. Similarly the Uzbekistan and Tajikistan are in excellent position to control Uzbek and Tajik areas of Afghanistan. The solution to Afghan problem is ending Afghan State. Afghanistan must be chewed up between Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkomenistan and Iran.

To end Islamic zeal and fundamntalism from Muslims not only in Afghanistan but from rest of the world, Saudi monarchy (who are actually of Hanafi Fiqah, contrary to popular belief of them being wahabis. They allied with Wahabi clergy to overthrow Shah Hussein of Mecca. They still rely on wahabi clergy for support because most of Saudis are wahabis) must be removed.