[Reader-list] 140,000 troops in FATA

Tue May 4 07:14:23 IST 2010

Yasir, I agree that People of Pakistan are the real victim. But other than that I would like to point a few things in your narrative.

Pakistan already had plans in Afghanistan and controlled some Taliban before the Russian invasion. America bought the army and financed the Taliban at that time. Army retained control and still continues it. The relation is one sided maybe from your perspective, not from America's. It paid your generals. If anyone has moral responsibilities to Pakistan's people , its your army.The army plays the double game of bombing NWFP and letting the Taliban operate. Anyway, you probably know all this.
Same in case of 1971. India did attack and caused the vivisection but primary responsibility is still of the Army when it was killing bengalis by the thousands and refugees were pouring in India. Its an irony that the army uses a vicious circle to control you -initiate trouble and then when the blow back comes strengthen the grip on the country- and you still blame India and America.Do you really believe India gobbled up Hyderabad and Kashmir?
Please read HV Hodsons book The Great Divide. Jinnah himself did not agree to Mount Battens idea that  Hindu majority states join India and Muslim majority Pakistan, because he wanted Hyderabad and thought that Kashmir would fall in his lap anyway and in the end ended up losing both. If you want I can provide quotations from the book.

----- Original Message ----
From: yasir ~يا سر <yasir.media at gmail.com>
To: Sarai Reader-list <reader-list at sarai.net>
Sent: Mon, May 3, 2010 4:06:56 P
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] 140,000 troops in FATA

tough choices
Elders’ absence hinders army goals in northwest /pk
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/04-elders-northwest-qs-06

On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 7:51 PM, yasir ~يا سر <yasir.media at gmail.com> wrote:

> no sorry you totally got that from an enemy perspective. please get this
> right.
>
> if you ask us, we will tell you the following:
> the people of pakistan are the real victim, when the govt of pakistan, the
> pakistan army, sold itself to the united states, becoming a mercenary state
> for them. the relation is completely one-sided. what development in real
> terms have we seen, take any indicator. why are we worse off with many
> systems existing and functioning back in the postpartition days woefully
> nonexistent or malfunctional, let alone any new systems. the answer is quite
> severe. we have a military budget which has to deal with india which is many
> itimes its size and (had been) eadger to destabilize it after breaking it up
> into 2 in 1971, and which had earlier eaten up hyderabad and kashmir. so we
> are now doomed to military spending which comes anyway from the US, leaving
> little in the way of major public projects which could have benefited people
> at large. Government spending was eaten by the military. if you imagine what
> kind of a present society we could have been if we had not stuck to this
> stupid military buildup (you can eveluate your own side). so the war on
> terror is just another day, another cloud. but it follows the covert US
> action in Afghanistan against the Soviets using Afghanis and Pakistanis then
> disappearing for a decade and showing up again this time because the
> militancy the americans had started, charlie wilson's war starring tom
> cruise, could not be put out and took the wtc with it. sorry there is no
> conspiracy here. we are getting the blame 'for not doing enough' and then we
> have to deal with your pearls of wisdom strewn from across the border.
>
> so dear KK, we are not asking for blood money. we are saying:  having
> destroyed the region, you better build it up now, to what it should be like.
> i think this is not only possible, but also a moral responsility of the US
> in no uncertain terms. and we dont trust them either because of this
> history.
>
> best
>
> y
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>> USA also pays "Blood Money" to Pakistan which Pakistan accepts very
>> gratefully.
>>
>> In fact there is a constant clamour by many in Pakistan : "You are not
>> paying us enough!!!! We want more!!!! We want more!!!!"
>>
>> --- On *Mon, 5/3/10, yasir ~يا سر <yasir.media at gmail.com>* wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: yasir ~يا سر <yasir.media at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] 140,000 troops in FATA
>> To: "Sarai Reader-list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
>> Date: Monday, May 3, 2010, 1:53 PM
>>
>> one needs to add much salt here:
>>
>>
>>    - reporters are not allowed, you only get the official army version
>>    - civilian casualties are 'normal', very high and not reported,
>> including
>>    extra judicial killings and right violations
>>    - the number of internally displaced people is huge, frequently not
>> taken
>>    care of by anyone let alone by govt
>>    - the motivation in no small measure comes from the US pressuring the
>> PK
>>    army to show that action is being taken, which frequently leads to
>> unstable
>>    conditions, rather than working with local actors with a long term
>> view,
>>    while dealing with a guerrilla like militancy.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:30 AM, S. Jabbar <sonia.jabbar at gmail.com<http://us.mc572.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=sonia.jabbar@gmail.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > FRONT-PAGE
>> > ŒPakistan has moved 100,000 troops from eastern border¹
>> >
>> > By Our Correspondent
>> >
>> > Friday, 30 Apr, 2010 | 01:38 AM PST |
>> >
>> >
>> > WASHINGTON: Pakistan has deployed 140,000 troops in Fata, moving at
>> least
>> > 100,000 soldiers from the Indian border to back up its Œunprecedented¹
>> > crackdown on militants along the Afghan border, says a Pentagon report.
>> >
>> > In its mandatory report to the US Congress on the situation in the
>> > Pakistan-Afghan region, the Pentagon notes that the deployment is the
>> > biggest in the country¹s history on the western border.
>> >
>> > ³This unprecedented deployment and thinning of the lines against India
>> > indicates that Islamabad has acknowledged its domestic insurgent
>> threat.²
>> >
>> > The Pentagon also acknowledges that Pakistani military operations in the
>> > tribal regions have had an impact across the border, placing a ³high
>> degree
>> > of pressure on enemy forces and reduced insurgent safe haven² in eastern
>> > Afghanistan.
>> >
>> > The Pentagon informs Congress that recent arrests by Pakistan of Afghan
>> > Taliban leaders, including the group¹s No. 2, Mullah Abdul Ghani
>> Baradar,
>> > have ³increased insurgent leaders¹ concern over the security of their
>> safe
>> > havens² and created ³financial and logistical² problems for them.
>> >
>> > This assessment contrasts sharply with the Afghan claim ‹ backed by
>> India ‹
>> > that the arrests have weakened Kabul¹s efforts to seek a negotiated
>> > settlement with the Taliban leadership.
>> >
>> > The report quotes a senior US defence official as saying that the
>> arrests
>> > in
>> > Pakistan produced ³a lot of concerned chatter² among Taliban
>> sympathisers
>> > in
>> > Afghanistan, but there¹s no indication of ³a leadership crisis in the
>> > Taliban².
>> >
>> > The Pentagon notes that so far the crackdown in Pakistan is focused
>> almost
>> > exclusively on internal threats and that¹s why it¹s not having any
>> > ³significant impact on the Afghan insurgency in the short term².
>> >
>> > But the crackdown ³offers opportunities in coming months to have a
>> greater
>> > impact on the conflict in Afghanistan depending on how PAKMIL (Pakistani
>> > military) operations evolve,² the report adds.
>> >
>> > ³Pakistan has suffered attacks from terrorists in response to its
>> > successful
>> > operations. These attacks include mass casualty events in Mingora, South
>> > Waziristan agency close to clearing operations as well as in Lahore, far
>> > away from the fighting. ³While these attacks do not appear to have
>> shaken
>> > Pakistan¹s commitment, they do demonstrate, for the time being,
>> insurgent
>> > ability to continue attacks despite successful Pakistani operations,²
>> the
>> > report warns.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/
>> >
>> >
>> front-page/pakistan-has-moved-100,000-troops-from-indian-border-pentagon-040<
>> http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/%0Afront-page/pakistan-has-moved-100,000-troops-from-indian-border-pentagon-040
>> >
>>
>> >
>> > Copyright © 2010 - Dawn Media Group
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _________________________________________
>> > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
>> > Critiques & Collaborations
>> > To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net<http://us.mc572.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=reader-list-request@sarai.net>with
>> > subscribe in the subject header.
>> > To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
>> > List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>> _________________________________________
>> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
>> Critiques & Collaborations
>> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net<http://us.mc572.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=reader-list-request@sarai.net>with subscribe in the subject header.
>> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
>> List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>>
>>
>>
>
_________________________________________
reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
Critiques & Collaborations
To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the subject header.
To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list 
List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>