This is why "No" to talks with Taliban

[Faseeh Gulzar]

This is why you should not talk to Taliban:

Nawaz Shareef addressed newly elected members of parliament and announced that he will hold talks with Taliban. Newspapers captioned his announcement as "Why should I not talk to Taliban: Nawaz Shareef".

This notion that Taliban should be brought to tables, following American footsteps is too mainstream so much as the supporter of this idea don't give a second read to other opinion. Is this idea that effective? I don't think so.

This is not the first time that Paksitan will sit on tables with Taliban. In recent years Paksitan signed an agreement with Swat Taliban (signed by Maulana fazzlullah)in 2009. Both parties agreed on ceasefire on condition that Taliban will stop beheading people in return to restoration of Shariah (and Qazi court in first step).

This agreement settled situation for some time, but in long run this proved to be a blanket over Taliban's mission to regain strength for next fight. Soon after this agreement Girls schools were banned, Market's were banned for women and beard was deemed obligatory. Beheading and harassment started again, non-Muslims were forced to either give Jizya or migrate.

Whole agreement fell down soon and Army had to intervene. Operation was carried out and Taliban were swept from Swat. That area is still free from Taliban, and locals are happy.

Moreover another, seemingly overused, argument in favor of dialogue rests on American intention to hold dialogue and transfer of power inn Afghanistan. "If they, American- the most stern enemy of Taliban, have agreed to sit with them, whats wrong if we do same", as they put it. This argument is alarmingly stupid as is fail to realize differences between relations of Taliban with America and Pakistan.

USA is an invader, far off from it's homeland, who came here to take revenge of 9/11 saga and once back they would probably have never to be in touch with Taliban. Their boundaries are intact. Whereas Talibans in Pakistan are an internal issue of Pakistan, and once in agreement we would still be potentially under threat. Pakistan have to cope with them as an internal menace which is too stubborn to show flexibility. They are people who think democracy is Haram and this system is against Sharia and anyone who don’t agree with them is Kaafir. I don’t see how we can come to agreement with such hardcore ideology.

History is to be learned from. Else it would come back at us harder and deeper.

 

[Muslimonly]

The matter is not so simple as depicted by you in few paras.

Lets be realistic:

Afghan Talibans (The real ones) : are those who are fighting with USA, USA is inavder and its their due right to stand against invader (was also supported by Imran Khan and Syed Munawar Hasan)

Pakistani Taliban aka TTP:

this is not 1 group but consists of many sub-groups:

Major group:
1-they fight against Pakistan as they think pakistan is supporting USA ,
Solution:
get out of USA war, they can be setlled down

2-Relatives of those killed in drone attacks, army operations, Laal Masjid

Solution:
Stop operations there, sit with them and talk

3-Agenst of Raw and Balck water: using name Taliban and following Anti Pakistan agenda..... once you have settled with above 2 groups , this can be tackled easily as other 2 will be supporting Paksitan

4-Why few people took arms for islamic state (whatever their perspective may be)???

Because you closed all doors of peacefull change.. Recent rigging is one of them..People have lost hope in ballet and they have chosen bullet for "CHANGE

For a bit info, watch this one too

 

[tariisb]

گزشتہ دھائی میں ، ہم نا تو طالبان سے مذاکرات کر سکے ، نا ہی انہیں کچل سکے ، بس دنیا کے سامنے مظلوم بننے کی اداکاری بہت کی
پڑوس میں ، امریکہ طالبان کے ساتھ جنگ میں بھی مصروف رہا ، اور اب مذاکرات بھی کامیابی سے پورے ، ہر دو سورتوں میں مفادات مکمل



اب ہمیں بھی ، بیچ سے نکل کر ، دائیں یا بائیں کا رخ کرنا ہے ، بہت ہو چکا ، اب تو عوام بھی ریاستی سیکورٹی اسٹبلیشمنٹ پر یقین کرنے کو تیار نہیں ​

 

[Mullah Omar]

If TTP were not flexible they wouldn't have offered negotiations. Also whichever dumbass wrote this clearly doesn't understand the situation.

 

[miafridi]

Analysis good but suggestion is wrong.

I think every party has made it clear that talks will be made with those who accepts constitution of Pakistan, which in itself says that they have learned from the Swat experience and will not allow Taliban to make a demand of making state under state. So this time the talks won't be on something like you mentioned.

The government will talk to them about not doing an operation in their area which is killing innocent people. They will talk to them about getting out of US war on terror, and will try to win their confidence that the government is not against the tribal belt. Talks this time will be entirely different than the ones before. They will either accept pakistan Constitution(demands doesn't matter if they do) or Pakistan will be doing the same thing which they are doing right now. So giving it a try while there hasn't been any progress in fighting against them isn't a bad idea.

 

[insaf_tiger]

@mislimonly bro add one more kind in to ttp there were criminals who used to smuggle norcatics and was steeling cars bike from pakistan and was taking them to tribal agencies they also join ttp to keep their work going . Once u hold peace talk and manage to bring idological ttp on ur agenda then.rest will be isolated and then u can.crush those if needed which is I think they will qiute by themselves but this current nro 2 nora can never do that. As they r brought for diff purpose .only pti and only imran can.do that not even after imran any one els can.do in pti .

 

[zhohaq]

From your post its clear you have a very limited understanding of the issue at hand.
Hence your conclusions are of limited value.

 

[Nice2MU]

Ok "NO" to talks with Taliban; then what is the solution?

Basically all these liberal fascists even don't know the ABC of the Talibanisation and Terrorist activities in FATA and KP. They very simply bracket FATA issue with Swat which shows their lake of understanding the issue.

Swat issue is not 2006 phenomenon. This issue is there since early seventies and we have also seen a rebellion in mid nineties.

They have only one solutions to fight with them which our Army is doing since 2004? What are the results? Taliban became more stronger than before.

Taliban can only be handled with Diplomacy and with wise thinking otherwise this war will continue till 2050.

 

[Exiled-Pakistani]

Muslimonly

Excellent post. But the matter is even more complicated. There is no denying the fact that after US retreat from Afghanistan, there is going to start an explosive civil war there between Taliban and the US backed puppet regime. Afghan Talibans have sacrificed so much for 13 years and in return would they let puppet regime to hold "elections" and do peaceful power transition? This is a joke. So when the civil war starts in Afghanistan the Pakistani Talibans and other supporters will definitely support their Afghan counterparts. Pakistani generals will of course try to sell weapons to both warring factions in Afghanistan and waiting to see who would win. But now the situation is different from 1990s. The Pakistani Talibans (who did not exist in 90s) will not be so forgiving to Pakistani fouj. As a matter of fact Pakistani fouj will be cut down like a field of carrots in the very beginning of the civil war.

Paksitani fouj and politicians have wasted precious time. They are no more in the position of strength in negotiations vis a vis any Talibans. They should have negotiated a truce with both Talibans prior to US accepting defeat and retreat. Now Taliban would definitely want their pound of flesh and not only that they would want to rub the nose of arrogance of Pakistani fouj as well. Pakistani fouj has violated every treaty with Tribals in the past, so it has no credibility. Arabs have lost their credibility as well as mediators. I think we are pretty much fugged up.

I can only think of these things that could be done at this time:

• Stop the American terrorists attacks on Pakistan and Waziristan via drones and Blackwater terrorists on the first day NS takes oath.
  
• Expel all American terrorists acting in the guise of military trainers and CIA operatives from Pakistan
  
• Offer Qisas to each and every family individually who is a victim of American terrorist attacks or have family members killed by Pakistani fouj
• Offer Diyat to all those who have lost their limbs and offer them free prosthetics
• Offer special economic package to Waziristan and ensure that haramkhors do not touch it (like they gugged up the Aghaaz-e-Haqooq Balochistan package).

I think Pakistani fouj is fugged up more than anyone else and they will be paying the price dearly. They have to if they want to exist in Pakistan. After American sugar daddy leaves they will be in the cross-hair from every Pakistani.

The matter is not so simple as depicted by you in few paras.

Lets be realistic:

Afghan Talibans (The real ones) : are those who are fighting with USA, USA is inavder and its their due right to stand against invader (was also supported by Imran Khan and Syed Munawar Hasan)

Pakistani Taliban aka TTP:

this is not 1 group but consists of many sub-groups:

Major group:
1-they fight against Pakistan as they think pakistan is supporting USA ,
Solution:
get out of USA war, they can be setlled down

2-Relatives of those killed in drone attacks, army operations, Laal Masjid

Solution:
Stop operations there, sit with them and talk

3-Agenst of Raw and Balck water: using name Taliban and following Anti Pakistan agenda..... once you have settled with above 2 groups , this can be tackled easily as other 2 will be supporting Paksitan

4-Why few people took arms for islamic state (whatever their perspective may be)???

Because you closed all doors of peacefull change.. Recent rigging is one of them..People have lost hope in ballet and they have chosen bullet for "CHANGE

For a bit info, watch this one too

 

[Pakola Khi]

امریکہ اور اس کے حواری تمام تر وسائل کے باوجود افغانستان میں ناکام ہو گے اور اب راہ فرار اختیار کر رہے ہیں.

جاتے جاتے یہ مردود اپنی ناکام جنگ پاکستان کے سر تھوپنا چاہتے ہیں اور اسی لیے امریکی تنخوا دار صحافی اور دانشور پاکستان کو امریکی جنگ لڑنے کا مشورہ دے رہے ہیں.

عجیب منطق ہے امریکی تو بات چیت کر کے بھاگلیں اور پاکستان امریکی آگ میں جلتا رہے

​

 

[the.paki]

ok . Maan lia .no talks with taliban ...
Then what ??
Such tou yeh hai keh ap ki fauj is qabil nahi keh 3000 hazar taliban ko deal kar sakain

 

[mrk123]

گزشتہ دھائی میں ، ہم نا تو طالبان سے مذاکرات کر سکے ، نا ہی انہیں کچل سکے ، بس دنیا کے سامنے مظلوم بننے کی اداکاری بہت کی
پڑوس میں ، امریکہ طالبان کے ساتھ جنگ میں بھی مصروف رہا ، اور اب مذاکرات بھی کامیابی سے پورے ، ہر دو سورتوں میں مفادات مکمل



اب ہمیں بھی ، بیچ سے نکل کر ، دائیں یا بائیں کا رخ کرنا ہے ، بہت ہو چکا ، اب تو عوام بھی ریاستی سیکورٹی اسٹبلیشمنٹ پر یقین کرنے کو تیار نہیں ​

ok . Maan lia .no talks with taliban ...
Then what ??
Such tou yeh hai keh ap ki fauj is qabil nahi keh 3000 hazar taliban ko deal kar sakain

These two posts capture the gist of the argument.

We don't trust the Taliban and abhor their actions and want our military to crush them and our politicians to come up with policies that will prevent from more groups like TTP from springing up but there is a little problem and that is that our military is not really capable of dealing with these outfits in an effective way (in fact no military in the world has been very successful in dealing with insurgencies/militants) and all know that our politicians will not be able to pull off anything significant in regards.

The dilemma is what to do next - the catch 22!

 

[Shanzeh]

​

شانزے خان ڈيجيٹل آؤٹ ريچ ٹيم يو ايس اسٹيٹ ڈيپارٹمينٹ



سب سے پہلے تو ميں واضح کر دوں کہ افغانستان ميں ہماری فوجی کاروائ اور خطے ميں ہماری موجودگی کا محرک انتقام کا جذبہ يا کسی کو سبق سکھانا ہرگز نہيں تھا۔ اگر ايسا ہوتا تو ہمیں تمام عالمی برادری اور خطے ميں پاکستان سميت اپنے تمام اتحاديوں سے مسلسل حمايت حاصل نہ ہوتی۔


ہزاروں کی تعداد ميں اپنے فوجی ايک دور دراز ملک ميں بھيجنے اور اس کی معاشی قیمت ادا کرنے ليے ہمارا بنيادی مقصد اور اصل محرک شروع دن سے يہی رہا ہے کہ انسانی جانوں کی حفاظت کو يقينی بنايا جا سکے۔ صرف امريکی زندگياں ہی نہيں بلکہ افغانی اور پاکستانی جانيں بھی جو ہمارے مشترکہ دشمنوں کے ہاتھوں روزانہ کی بنياد پر نقصان اٹھا رہے ہیں۔ یقينی طور پر پشاور میں ہونے والے حاليہ خودکش حملوں کے بعد پاکستان کے قانون نافذ کرنے والے اداروں کی جانب سے ان عناصر کی بيخ کنی کی کاوشوں پر آپ ان پر محض اس بنياد پر تنقيد نہيں کر سکتے کہ ايسی کوئ بھی کاروائ مزيد تشدد کا سبب بن سکتی ہے۔ ايسی سوچ ان دہشت گردوں کی مزيد حوصلہ افزائ کا سبب بنے گی تا کہ وہ قتل و غارت گری کی اپنی مہم کو جاری رکھيں۔


جنگ کے منفی اثرات سے کوئ بھی پہلو تہی نہيں کر سکتا۔ ايسی صورت حال کی روک تھام کے لیے ہر ممکن کوشش کی جانی چاہيے۔ ليکن دہشت گردی تو دور جس کے نتيجے ميں بے شمار بے گناہوں کی موت واقع ہوتی ہے، کسی بھی جرم کو بغیر سزا کے درگزر نہيں کيا جا سکتا۔ ايسا کرنا کسی بھی ايسے انسانی معاشرے يا ملک کے بنيادی انسانی اسلوب کی نفی ہے جو اپنے شہريوں کی زندگيوں کو محفوظ کرنے کا خواہاں ہے۔


ہم درپيش چيلنجز اور متوقع قربانيوں سے پوری طرح واقف ہيں۔ ليکن دہشت گردی کی قوتوں کے سامنے ہتھيار ڈالنے کا آپشن ہمارے پاس نہيں ہے۔ اس کے علاوہ ايسا کرنا دنيا بھر ميں ان لواحقين کے لیے انصاف کی دھجياں کرنے کے مترادف ہو گا جن کے چاہنے والے دہشت گردی کے اس عالمی عفريت کا شکار ہوۓ ہيں۔


ستمبر 11 2001 کو امريکی سرزمين پر ہونے والے حملے ہماری افغانستان ميں موجودگی کا سبب بنے۔ عالمی سطح پر يہ طے پا چکا تھا کہ اسامہ بن لادن ہی 911 کے حملوں کے ذمہ دار تھے اور انھيں افغانستان ميں طالبان کی پشت پناہی حاصل تھی۔ اسامہ بن لادن کو امريکہ کے حوالے کرنے کے لیے کئ ناکام مذاکرات کے بعد امريکہ نے بالآخر افغانستان ميں باقاعدہ حملے کا فيصلہ کيا۔


اس میں کوئ شک نہيں ہے کہ افغانستان ميں ہماری موجودگی کے سبب بے گناہ انسانوں کی جانيں بھی ضائع ہوئ ہیں لیکن ہمارے اسی عمل کے سبب بے اس سے کہيں زيادہ جانيں محفوظ بھی ہوئ ہیں۔ يہ سوچنا کہ امريکہ پر حملے کے بعد ہم اگر ردعمل نہ دکھاتے تو القائدہ اور ان سے منسلک گروہ اپنے آپ ہی منظر سے ہٹ جاتے، زمينی حقائق سے انکار کے مترادف ہے۔


صدر اوبامہ نے افغانستان ميں اپنے اہداف اور مقاصد ان الفاظ ميں واضح کيے ہیں


"ہم افغانستان کو تمام مسائل سے پاک کامل معاشرہ بنانے کی کوشش نہيں کريں گے۔ ہم جس ہدف کو حاصل کرنا چاہتے ہيں وہ قابل عمل ہے اور اسے آسان الفاظ میں يوں بيان کيا جا سکتا ہے : القائدہ اور ان سے منسلک ساتھيوں کے ليے کوئ ايسا محفوظ ٹھکانہ نہيں ہونا چاہیے جہاں سے وہ ہماری سرزمين اور اتحاديوں کے خلاف حملے کر سکیں۔



"شانزے خان ڈيجيٹل آؤٹ ريچ ٹيم يو ايس اسٹيٹ ڈيپارٹمينٹ


[email protected]

www.state.gov

http://www.facebook.com/USDOTUrdu

http://vidpk.com/83767/US-aid-in-Dairy-Projects/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY-dkxxwRCc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1_pge4TZQE
https://vimeo.com/65222477

​

 

[Exiled-Pakistani]

Shanzeh Sahib

spare us from this tripe. There are many communiques from American presidents and government which explicitly say that they were invading Afghanistan to avenge the death of 3000 Americans on 9/11 (also you put this fact at the end in contradiction to your own opening statement). We understand the reasons so spare us from this sugar-coating below. What about breaking the back of Al-Qaida and genocide of Iraqis for no rhyme or reason. We know that you are trying to minimize the effects of this war upon Americans but it is little too late for that. Every Pakistani also has the right to figure out our own way of dealing with all kinds of terrorists be they Americans, Talibans, or Martians. We do not need your dictation.

​

شانزے خان – ڈيجيٹل آؤٹ ريچ ٹيم – يو ايس اسٹيٹ ڈيپارٹمينٹ



سب سے پہلے تو ميں واضح کر دوں کہ افغانستان ميں ہماری فوجی کاروائ اور خطے ميں ہماری موجودگی کا محرک انتقام کا جذبہ يا کسی کو سبق سکھانا ہرگز نہيں تھا۔ اگر ايسا ہوتا تو ہمیں تمام عالمی برادری اور خطے ميں پاکستان سميت اپنے تمام اتحاديوں سے مسلسل حمايت حاصل نہ ہوتی۔


ہزاروں کی تعداد ميں اپنے فوجی ايک دور دراز ملک ميں بھيجنے اور اس کی معاشی قیمت ادا کرنے ليے ہمارا بنيادی مقصد اور اصل محرک شروع دن سے يہی رہا ہے کہ انسانی جانوں کی حفاظت کو يقينی بنايا جا سکے۔ صرف امريکی زندگياں ہی نہيں بلکہ افغانی اور پاکستانی جانيں بھی جو ہمارے مشترکہ دشمنوں کے ہاتھوں روزانہ کی بنياد پر نقصان اٹھا رہے ہیں۔ یقينی طور پر پشاور میں ہونے والے حاليہ خودکش حملوں کے بعد پاکستان کے قانون نافذ کرنے والے اداروں کی جانب سے ان عناصر کی بيخ کنی کی کاوشوں پر آپ ان پر محض اس بنياد پر تنقيد نہيں کر سکتے کہ ايسی کوئ بھی کاروائ مزيد تشدد کا سبب بن سکتی ہے۔ ايسی سوچ ان دہشت گردوں کی مزيد حوصلہ افزائ کا سبب بنے گی تا کہ وہ قتل و غارت گری کی اپنی مہم کو جاری رکھيں۔


جنگ کے منفی اثرات سے کوئ بھی پہلو تہی نہيں کر سکتا۔ ايسی صورت حال کی روک تھام کے لیے ہر ممکن کوشش کی جانی چاہيے۔ ليکن دہشت گردی تو دور جس کے نتيجے ميں بے شمار بے گناہوں کی موت واقع ہوتی ہے، کسی بھی جرم کو بغیر سزا کے درگزر نہيں کيا جا سکتا۔ ايسا کرنا کسی بھی ايسے انسانی معاشرے يا ملک کے بنيادی انسانی اسلوب کی نفی ہے جو اپنے شہريوں کی زندگيوں کو محفوظ کرنے کا خواہاں ہے۔


ہم درپيش چيلنجز اور متوقع قربانيوں سے پوری طرح واقف ہيں۔ ليکن دہشت گردی کی قوتوں کے سامنے ہتھيار ڈالنے کا آپشن ہمارے پاس نہيں ہے۔ اس کے علاوہ ايسا کرنا دنيا بھر ميں ان لواحقين کے لیے انصاف کی دھجياں کرنے کے مترادف ہو گا جن کے چاہنے والے دہشت گردی کے اس عالمی عفريت کا شکار ہوۓ ہيں۔


ستمبر 11 2001 کو امريکی سرزمين پر ہونے والے حملے ہماری افغانستان ميں موجودگی کا سبب بنے۔ عالمی سطح پر يہ طے پا چکا تھا کہ اسامہ بن لادن ہی 911 کے حملوں کے ذمہ دار تھے اور انھيں افغانستان ميں طالبان کی پشت پناہی حاصل تھی۔ اسامہ بن لادن کو امريکہ کے حوالے کرنے کے لیے کئ ناکام مذاکرات کے بعد امريکہ نے بالآخر افغانستان ميں باقاعدہ حملے کا فيصلہ کيا۔


اس میں کوئ شک نہيں ہے کہ افغانستان ميں ہماری موجودگی کے سبب بے گناہ انسانوں کی جانيں بھی ضائع ہوئ ہیں لیکن ہمارے اسی عمل کے سبب بے اس سے کہيں زيادہ جانيں محفوظ بھی ہوئ ہیں۔ يہ سوچنا کہ امريکہ پر حملے کے بعد ہم اگر ردعمل نہ دکھاتے تو القائدہ اور ان سے منسلک گروہ اپنے آپ ہی منظر سے ہٹ جاتے، زمينی حقائق سے انکار کے مترادف ہے۔


صدر اوبامہ نے افغانستان ميں اپنے اہداف اور مقاصد ان الفاظ ميں واضح کيے ہیں


"ہم افغانستان کو تمام مسائل سے پاک کامل معاشرہ بنانے کی کوشش نہيں کريں گے۔ ہم جس ہدف کو حاصل کرنا چاہتے ہيں وہ قابل عمل ہے اور اسے آسان الفاظ میں يوں بيان کيا جا سکتا ہے : القائدہ اور ان سے منسلک ساتھيوں کے ليے کوئ ايسا محفوظ ٹھکانہ نہيں ہونا چاہیے جہاں سے وہ ہماری سرزمين اور اتحاديوں کے خلاف حملے کر سکیں۔



"شانزے خان – ڈيجيٹل آؤٹ ريچ ٹيم – يو ايس اسٹيٹ ڈيپارٹمينٹ


[email protected]

www.state.gov

http://www.facebook.com/USDOTUrdu

http://vidpk.com/83767/US-aid-in-Dairy-Projects/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY-dkxxwRCc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1_pge4TZQE
https://vimeo.com/65222477

​

 

[Antiam]

I bet the thread starter even not write this piece of sshit himself

 

[Faseeh Gulzar]

I'm not surprised to see people claiming that USA and NATO forces have lost war in Afghanistan. Win and lose in a traditional war depended on whose leader got killed, whose flag first fell first or whose post was captured first. Traditionally wars were fought to defeat enemies by either killing them all, captivating them or forming new colonies in the other land.

Time has changed, last century saw last of colonial empires and since then dynamics have changed. Industrial revolution revolutionised the dynamics of win too. If it was some old era, USA would have inhabited Afghanistan by now. This new era, where money and technology are deciding factor monopolies and proxy leadership aided by propaganda is real facet of win.

What our media tells us, which itself is rudimentary, is far back from what new realms propose and offer. (Will write on it in detail later).




George Friedman in his book Next Hundred Years wrote:

Then came S eptember 11, 2001, and the world turned on its head again. At a cer tain level, when it comes to the future, the only thing one can be sure of is that common sense will be wrong. Ther e is no magic twenty- year cy cle; there is no simplistic force go verning this pattern. It is simply that the things that appear to be so permanent and dominant at any giv en moment in histor y can change with stunning rapidity . Eras come and go. I n interna*tional r elations, the way the world looks right now is not at all how it will look in twenty years ...o r e ven less. The fall of the Soviet Union was har d to imagine, and that is exactly the point. Conventional political analysis suf*fers from a profound failure of imagination. It imagines passing clouds to be permanent and is blind to po werful, long- term shifts taking place in full view of the world.


If we view the beginning of the twenty- first century as the dawn of theAmerican Age (superseding the E uropean Age), we see that it began with a group of Muslims seeking to re- cr eate the Caliphate—the great I slamic em*pire that once ran from the Atlantic to the P acific. I nevitably, they had to strike at the U nited States in an attempt to draw the world ’s primar y po wer into war, trying to demonstrate its weakness in order to trigger an Islamic uprising. The United States r esponded by invading the I slamic world. But its goal wasn ’t victor y. I t wasn’t even clear what victor y would mean. Its goal was simply to disr upt the Islamic world and set it against itself , so that an Is*lamic empir e could not emerge.

The United States doesn’t need to win wars. I t needs to simply disrupt things so the other side can ’t build up sufficient str ength to challenge it. On one level, the twenty- first century will see a series of confrontations involv*ing lesser po wers tr ying to build coalitions to control American behavior and the U nited States ’ mounting militar y operations to disr upt them. The twenty- first century will see even more war than the twentieth century, but the wars will be much less catastrophic, because of both technological changes and the natur e of the geopolitical challenge.

 

[Exiled-Pakistani]

Americans have benefited immensely in financial terms from every war in its 200 years of aggression. But this is the first war that has brought America almost to the brink of default. Even S&P has lowered its credit rating of America. The trillions of dollars of surplus at the end of Clinton regime has turned into hundreds of trillions of dollars of debt. The American bank fraud in 2008,on top of that, not only has hurt every American in the past 5 years but it has effected every nation around the globe.Their partners in crimes, most of the European countries are just at the brink of bankruptcy. Americans have lost political and financial credibility all around the globe. The cost of internal security has skyrocketed. Both Al-Qaida and Taliban are undefeated after 13 years of war that has cost millions of lives in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Yes, the paradigm of war, victory and defeat has shifted but Americans are still stuck in the colonial era mentality. And the most interesting part is that they are royally screwed by none other but British who pushed them to tread on the path that had caused the collapse of every European colonial empire in the world in the last century and also that of USSR. If this is not defeat then what is. And one does not have to be an Einstein to figure this out that pulling out of Afghanistan is absolutely not the end of it. What Americans with the aid of armies of 37 other countries could not accomplish in 13 years, they are expecting pakistani fouj to do it alone?

This is something that all Pakistanis have to think about as well before they commit to another nonsense of "this is our war" again.

I'm not surprised to see people claiming that USA and NATO forces have lost war in Afghanistan. Win and lose in a traditional war depended on whose leader got killed, whose flag first fell first or whose post was captured first. Traditionally wars were fought to defeat enemies by either killing them all, captivating them or forming new colonies in the other land.

Time has changed, last century saw last of colonial empires and since then dynamics have changed. Industrial revolution revolutionised the dynamics of win too. If it was some old era, USA would have inhabited Afghanistan by now. This new era, where money and technology are deciding factor monopolies and proxy leadership aided by propaganda is real facet of win.

What our media tells us, which itself is rudimentary, is far back from what new realms propose and offer. (Will write on it in detail later).




George Friedman in his book Next Hundred Years wrote:

Then came S eptember 11, 2001, and the world turned on its head again. At a cer tain level, when it comes to the future, the only thing one can be sure of is that common sense will be wrong. Ther e is no magic twenty- year cy cle; there is no simplistic force go verning this pattern. It is simply that the things that appear to be so permanent and dominant at any giv en moment in histor y can change with stunning rapidity . Eras come and go. I n interna*tional r elations, the way the world looks right now is not at all how it will look in twenty years ...o r e ven less. The fall of the Soviet Union was har d to imagine, and that is exactly the point. Conventional political analysis suf*fers from a profound failure of imagination. It imagines passing clouds to be permanent and is blind to po werful, long- term shifts taking place in full view of the world.


If we view the beginning of the twenty- first century as the dawn of theAmerican Age (superseding the E uropean Age), we see that it began with a group of Muslims seeking to re- cr eate the Caliphate—the great I slamic em*pire that once ran from the Atlantic to the P acific. I nevitably, they had to strike at the U nited States in an attempt to draw the world ’s primar y po wer into war, trying to demonstrate its weakness in order to trigger an Islamic uprising. The United States r esponded by invading the I slamic world. But its goal wasn ’t victor y. I t wasn’t even clear what victor y would mean. Its goal was simply to disr upt the Islamic world and set it against itself , so that an Is*lamic empir e could not emerge.

The United States doesn’t need to win wars. I t needs to simply disrupt things so the other side can ’t build up sufficient str ength to challenge it. On one level, the twenty- first century will see a series of confrontations involv*ing lesser po wers tr ying to build coalitions to control American behavior and the U nited States ’ mounting militar y operations to disr upt them. The twenty- first century will see even more war than the twentieth century, but the wars will be much less catastrophic, because of both technological changes and the natur e of the geopolitical challenge.

 

[Faseeh Gulzar]

Americans have benefited immensely in financial terms from every war in its 200 years of aggression. But this is the first war that has brought America almost to the brink of default. Even S&P has lowered its credit rating of America. The trillions of dollars of surplus at the end of Clinton regime has turned into hundreds of trillions of dollars of debt. The American bank fraud in 2008,on top of that, not only has hurt every American in the past 5 years but it has effected every nation around the globe.Their partners in crimes, most of the European countries are just at the brink of bankruptcy. Americans have lost political and financial credibility all around the globe. The cost of internal security has skyrocketed. Both Al-Qaida and Taliban are undefeated after 13 years of war that has cost millions of lives in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Yes, the paradigm of war, victory and defeat has shifted but Americans are still stuck in the colonial era mentality. And the most interesting part is that they are royally screwed by none other but British who pushed them to tread on the path that had caused the collapse of every European colonial empire in the world in the last century and also that of USSR. If this is not defeat then what is. And one does not have to be an Einstein to figure this out that pulling out of Afghanistan is absolutely not the end of it. What Americans with the aid of armies of 37 other countries could not accomplish in 13 years, they are expecting pakistani fouj to do it alone?

This is something that all Pakistanis have to think about as well before they commit to another nonsense of "this is our war" again.

America was never on International scene before 1900. 19th century and and first half of 20th century was markedly dominated by British Queen, where she ruled on segments spread from Australia to America. Netherlands and France were the closest challengers who were later joined by German Empire. All the wars were fought between these powers, on land and sea. They were the one who use to invade far off lands to extend their empires, via colonial raj.

Since fall of British empire and end of German supremacy along with challenges from Netherlands and France (yeah I know Uthmani Caliphate but it was impotent at that time), USA rose. Russia followed the trend by taking wheels of a new ideology; socialism was a strong base. 2nd half of 20th century is era of cold war between them, where they occasionally fought with proxies. Afghanistan and Vietnam were the most famous of all.

USA saw their opportunity when USSR invaded Afghanistan. They use Jihad sentiment in their favor; rather effectively. They weakened USSR but still it was powerful enough to challenge USA. So they fought another proxy war, the one in Vietnam. USA never sought to make colonies, they troubled USSR enough to shatter it into pieces.

Later when trouble rose from Afghansitan in shape of Taliban (don't miss Iraq-Iran clash), backed by Wahhabi and Deobandi fronts from all over the world, USA decide to disrupt the setup. That's why they attacked Afghanistan, now as it's opponent is weak, they will leave it, as they left Iraq. Soon they will invade and disrupt some other power so as to prolong American supremacy.

America has never made nor shown any hint of making new colonies. It is fighting to weaken others and ensure survival. After-all a busy Army is less of a pain in arse than a free Army inside borders.

 

[Shanzeh]

شانزے خان ڈيجيٹل آؤٹ ريچ ٹيم يو ايس اسٹيٹ ڈيپارٹمينٹ​

​

امريکہ کی افغانستان ميں فوجی کاروائ کو ناکام قرار دينا اس تناظر ميں درست نہيں کہ امريکی حکومت کا مقصد کسی بھی موقع پرافغانستان کو فتح کرنا ہرگز نہيں رہا۔ اس ناقابل ترديد حقيقت کی بنياد صدر اوبامہ سميت امريکہ کی تمام سول اور فوجی قيادت کی جانب سے واضح اور آن ريکارڈ پاليسی ہے۔ ميں اس نقطے کو بھی واضح کرنا چاہوں گا کہ افغانستان ميں ہماری موجودگی اقوام متحدہ کی جانب سے منظور شدہ وسيع پيمانے پر عالمی کوششوں کا حصہ ہے۔

اس وقت افغانستان ميں مقامی حکومت کے تعاون اور اشتراک عمل سے جاری صحت، تعليم اور روزگار سے متعلق بے شمار امريکی ترقياتی منصوبے واضح ثبوت ہيں کہ امريکہ افغانستان کو فتح کرنے کی کوشش نہيں کر رہا۔ بلکہ حقيقت اس کے برعکس ہے۔

افغانستان ميں ہمارا اصل فوکس افغان اداروں کی صلاحيت اور افاديت ميں بہتری لانا ہے تا کہ وہ دہشت گردی سے درپيش خطرات کا سامنا کر سکيں اور عوام تک معاشی امداد کی ترسيل فعال طریقے سے کر سکيں۔ اس ضمن میں ہماری خصوصی توجہ اور اعانت زرعی شعبے ميں ذريعہ معاش کے مواقع پيدا کرنے سے متعلق ہے جس کا مقصد طالبان کے زير اثر پوست کی کاشت کی روک تھام کو يقينی بنانا ہے۔

مارچ 2009 ميں اپنی پاليسی کے اعلان کے بعد سے امريکہ نے افغانستان ميں سول امداد کے نظام ميں بنيادی تبديلياں وضح کی ہيں جس کے نتيجے ميں اب امداد کی فعال تقسيم تمام سول ايجينسيوں اور مقامی افغان قائدين کے ذريعے کی جا رہی ہے جس کے نتيجے ميں نہ صرف يہ کہ امداد کی ترسيل افغان عوام تک ممکن ہوئ ہے بلکہ اس کے مثبت اثرات کے نتيجے ميں القائدہ کو شکست دينے کے بنيادی مقصد ميں بھی پيش رفت ہوئ ہے۔



شانزے خان ڈيجيٹل آؤٹ ريچ ٹيم يو ايس اسٹيٹ ڈيپارٹمينٹ


[email protected]

www.state.gov

http://www.facebook.com/USDOTUrdu

http://vidpk.com/83767/US-aid-in-Dairy-Projects/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY-dkxxwRCc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1_pge4TZQE

https://vimeo.com/65222477


​

 

[Shanzeh]

Later when trouble rose from Afghansitan in shape of Taliban (don't miss Iraq-Iran clash), backed by Wahhabi and Deobandi fronts from all over the world, USA decide to disrupt the setup. That's why they attacked Afghanistan.

شانزے خان ڈيجيٹل آؤٹ ريچ ٹيم يو ايس اسٹيٹ ڈيپارٹمينٹ​

ستمبر11 2001 کو ورلڈ ٹريڈ سينٹر پر حملہ القائدہ اور اسامہ بن لادن کی جانب سے امريکہ پر پہلا حملہ نہيں تھا بلکہ اس سے پہلے دس سالہ تاريخ ہے جس ميں اسامہ بن لادن اور ان کی تنظيم کی جانب سے دنيا بھر ميں امريکی سفارت کاروں اور عمارات پر حملے کيے جا رہے تھے۔ اسامہ بن لادن کی جانب سے امريکہ کے خلاف باقاعدہ اعلان جنگ کيا چا چکا تھا۔ افغانستان ميں بے شمار ٹرينيگ کيمپ قائم کيے جا چکے تھے جہاں دنيا بھر سے نوجوانوں کو اکٹھا کر کے انہيں دہشت گردی کی تربيت دی جا رہی تھی۔ دنيا کے بے شمار ممالک ميں القائدہ کے خفيہ سيل دہشت گردی کی مزيد کاروائيوں کے ليے تيار کيے جا رہے تھے۔


ميرا آپ سے سوال ہے کہ 11 ستمبر 2001 کے واقعے کے بعد امريکہ کو کيا کرنا چاہيے تھا؟ کيا اسامہ بن لادن کو مذاکرات کی ميز پر بلوا کر ان کے مطالبات سنے جاتے اور ان پر بحث کے ليے کميٹياں تشکيل دی جاتيں۔ اگر تھوڑی دير کے ليے يہ غير منطقی بات مان بھی لی جاۓ تو اس کا نتيجہ کيا نکلتا؟


کيا اسامہ بن لادن کو افغانستان ميں کھلی چھٹی دے کر القائدہ کو مزيد فعال کرنے کے مواقع دينا "عالمی امن" کے ليے درست فيصلہ ہوتا؟


شانزے خان ڈيجيٹل آؤٹ ريچ ٹيم يو ايس اسٹيٹ ڈيپارٹمينٹ

[email protected]

www.state.gov

http://www.facebook.com/USDOTUrdu

http://vidpk.com/83767/US-aid-in-Dairy-Projects/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY-dkxxwRCc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1_pge4TZQE

https://vimeo.com/65222477
​