Semi-autonomy hasn't helped...
...since 1947 until end of the 1960s Pakistan's various governments have consistently allowed a great deal of autonomy in the NWFP area, FATA, Swat, etc.
Radical Islam was always present even in the mid-1960s when I was stationed there, but has as everyone knows today much worse no thanks to al Qaida and the Taliban.
Extremist Islamics are in all parts of the country, fueled, peopled by fomrerly harmless madrassas which are radicalized today due to Wahabbi Islamics (terrorists mongers) out of Saudi, who finance, arm, and give radical theological guidance.
A major US university about 2 or so years ago decided they would run a program from the US into Pakistan madrassas and uplift moderate modrassas and moderate theologians teaching there. End result: The damn idiots at the US University (name withheld on purpose) bragged on line, in articles, etc. of their "progress" so stupid much that both al Qaida and the Taliban were able to 100% target the so-called moderate teachers, all of whom were then systematically murdered. How stupid can we be to be talking at the President's level, in the open, all over again, in a manner as the major US university did?
Just some overly obvious thoughts in reaction to your good, well research above inputs.
Monday, March 9 NEW YORK TIMES re Pakistan events
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/wo..._r=1&th&emc=th
Regrettably a careful reading of this NYT story shows:
1. Any successes, no matter how small, by and of the Taliban and al Qaida are trumpeted by the world media as "wins"
2. Whereas any successes, no matter how small, by and of the Pakistan military and/or our allied/NATO forces in Afghanistan/on the Pakistani side of the border are trumpted by rthe world media as "disasterous losses."
How bad is the situation in Pakistan ?
The lead stories for 14-15 Mar at Thai-Indian News are not very upbeat.
Bob, you seem to be contradicting yourself...
Quote:
The other new factor is the rise of non-state actors like AQ, that can now wage unconventional warfare to join and enflame disparate local causes like only state actors could previously. They also are able to do this relatively immune from the time tested DIME tools of statecraft to control such actions among fellow states. A dynamic leader with a powerful ideology like Hitler needed to first attain control of a state in order to have significant impact. Today attaining a state creates an Achilles heel and is to be avoided by such. Bin Laden knows this full well and has no desire to soon abandon the "legal sanctuary" of his current status.
My two years in Paksitan in the mid-1960s fits this topic pretty well, as I picked up the additional duty of managing RON of walking wounded from South Vietnam immediately after the Gulf of Tonkin...and I had been "in the area or arena if you like" prior to the Gulf of Tonkin to have a young man's impression of things to come over there.
Bob, when the whole free world's intel system is jointly wrong, not by collusion to decieve but due to wrong info leading to wrong suppositions, referring to Iraq, this does not undo the continuium fact that ever since the first Gulf of Tonkin [which I volunteered back on duty for and ran the entire airlift for the East Coast, based out of Charleston AFB, but covering the coast, up and down, for that war]..the "ideology or theory" of containment, isolation, and sanctions failed miserably and was not working...in fact by Saddam and his grizzly gang, together with various Western business people in Europe...found ways and means to get richer off of the UN and associated organizations well intentioned by embezzeled morally and literally...programs to provide medicine and food for the ordinary Iraqi citizens.
My today, 2009, friends in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and here in the US, I refer here to my Muslim friends, both Shia and Sunnis, who are both over there and have family here..some of whom are in my home town here in sunny Alabama...tell me, not I them...that the radical Islamic terrorists are succeeding in "kidnapping Islam."
They tell me, but I do agree, that the updated concept of the Umah is stateless and being construed by the Taliban and al Qaida to be the "ideological" state of mind desired to seek to take over the minds and religious freedoms of the world, starting with other Muslims, but extending to all others of differeing faiths, or for that matter, even those of no faith.
You emphasis is to seek a mold, updated, that stamps in common outcomes from the past down to today. I disagree, just as I disagree with the two generals featured in another part of SWJ who complain about folks using high faluting words, confusing terminology which they think confuses young officers and NCOs, but as much, my view, seems to confuse them!
Chaos and mayhem have always been what that says, and is a piece of the puzzle in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Whether it is Musharraf, Zardari, or whoever comes next in Pakistan...and a deposed ex-Chief Justice of the Pakistan Supreme Court has no business under their, Pakistani, Constitution which I know a little about...trying to be the top dog and dictator over the non-sectarian PPP elected President of Pakistan.
The Shariff brothers, one of whom was the PM of Paksitan whom Musharraf deposed, are as crooked as it gets and ex-PM Shariff has trucked with the Taliban, and al Qaida, heavily and supported/enabled them both when he was PM, which is part of why Musharraf overthrew him (Shariff).
The Uman as a terrorist adopted and distorted concept is stateless, seeks to draw in or force in, more correctly said, into radical Sunni/Wahabbi driven Islam, the masses of the world, if they but could.
The boogey man? Not yet, but if pacifist ideas took hold here in the West, if we don't keep insisting that Pakistan permanently install peacekeeping forces inside the NWFP and related areas of Pakistan to back up and directly in most cases enforce civil law and order...instead of, my studied opinion, Zardari and/or the flag ranks and ISI sending troops from where they are and were most needed to senseless postings on the Indian border...allegedly over Mumbai terrorism which Pakistan has made clear was instigated, planned, funded, and driven from within Pakistan to inside India... then there is no rational hope.
No, the US cannot police the world, literally, even with our NATO allies. But we can back and support when they can be trusted [and as often as not the ISI and Pak flag rangs are not trustworthy but support radical Islamic terrorists such as the Taliban and even al Qaida) the duly elected non-sectarian government of President Zardari over that of the ex-Chief Justice of the Pakistani Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Chowdry...who would use the court system to run yet another dictatorship of Pakistan...all over again!
It is a mess, but we cannot turn our backs on all this, but we cannot fix it ourselves, either.
So Bob, you have your quasi pacifist influence views and I have my hawkish views, but we both are looking at as you so correctly wrote of...stateless religious terrorism which is bent on worldwide trouble making if we don't keep them pinned in where they are until some sort of resolution in maybe....generations to come...can be realized.
I would never trust these religious terrorist thugs with nukes, and I can tell you it makes my native Pakistani friends, both Shia and Sunnis, loose sleep at night as that prospect grows daily with the chaos inside Pakistan.
So Bob, as during WWII, when actual pacifists refused combat duty but were useful in support non-combat roles, your ideology and ideas have a place in the puzzle, as do mine focused on what I know to be the cold reality of terrorism in the name of Islam. No Bob, all Muslims are not terrorists, but even one such Islamic terrorist is one too many today with nuclear weaponry control and use at stake inside Pakistan...and the possibility of tactical nukes being used elsewhere...fill in the blanks...that makes me loose sleep!
Debate and views in two threads: a note
I have moved two posts on another thread, Special Warafre 1962, by Bob's World and George S., to this a more appropriate thread on Afghanistan / Pakistan. The other thread started IMHO to disperse somewhat. (PM to both sent). So if the views seem slightly disjointed blame me and look at the other thread please.
davidbfpo
David, what is your opinion ...
re: the question I asked in post #10 ?
Some Shariffs financial holding u may not know of...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
davidbfpo
JMM,
Distracted at the moment and have not watched Pakistan as closely as usual. I did watch the newsreel yesterday of Sharif's "long march" and the BBC repporter's comment that the police were active in opposition and then disappeared.
Others who watch Pakistan have remarked that the abyss is not close-by and that large parts of civil society remain strong. Not sure if the decision to restore the Chief Justice supports or detracts from this.
davidbfpo
David et al:
The Shariff brothers are among the wealthiest land owners in and from the Pakistani Province of Punjab.
Punjab used to inclue all of what is today's NWFP, until 1901, as I wrote on SWJ yesterday.
The Shariff family reaches back to Raj era India and had and still has vast land, timber, and mining holdings both in today's Pakistani Punjab, as well as inside today's NWFP and inside today's Swat. I think the Shariffs own copper mine(s) in Swat, among other things.
To my eye these economic business interests the Shariffs own in now troubled terrorist zones explains to me that ex-PM Shariff when he was PM (overthrown in 1999 by Musharraf who knows all about these holdngs) and his brother have in the past (through 1999) and are again at the present among the power centers favoring "deals" with the Taliban...in order to preserve and protect their land, timber, and mining and any other related business interests in ex-Punjab zone now defined as today's NWFP, Swat, etc.
Hope this background helps you all better understand what the Pukhtuns don't like about Punjabis, particularly about the Shariffs who they voted against, not for, by voting for either the PPP or the ANP in the Presidential and Parliamentary national and provincial elections in 2008 in Pakistan.
Cheers,
George
Documentary on Pakistan's Taliban generation
Broadcast on Monday, on the UK Channel Four, a 49 minute long documentary made by a Pakistani lady reporter: http://www.channel4.com/video/brandl...ban-generation
The main website for short clips and commentary is: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches
Recommended by local contacts and to be watched later today; Spring is here and into the garden.
davidbfpo
Global Hujra Online citation: 3/29 Pakhtun's opinions
http://www.khyberwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6416
I think posting #6 may be of interest and perhaps best fits under this established thread by David.
Here is a pinpoint quote from this Internet Pakhtun website that is encouraging to me:
Quote:
As I have already mentioned that we have always been enmeshed in proxy wars. We dont have much of the options. We have to wait. The govt should try something on the line of Swat, where reconciliation should be fostered to bring a temporary peace and stop further bloodshed. None of the member of this forum will agree, but I am of the opinion that if the local support army in reporting against taliban activities, I am sure this menace will be ended soon. Army is inactive due to non-cooperation from the civil population. Understandably, Taliban have killed many civilians having links with the army and therefore, I understand that civilians are hesitant to report anything to the army. But we have take risk otherwise this fire may take longer than our expectation.
It is not the job of civil population to fight with Taliban, it is the duty of Law enforcing agencies. So we better assist them in performance of their duties.