More

Taha Gaya

Taha Gaya

Posted May 1, 2009 | 06:21 PM (EST)

Building Capacity Not Resentment in Pakistan


Over the past few months an extraordinarily worrisome pattern in U.S.-Pakistan relations has emerged: one in which the Taliban make advances, senior U.S. officials raise the alarm and demand action from Pakistan, subsequent action is taken and U.S. officials offer faint praise and maintain that Pakistan is still not doing enough.

By reinforcing the appearance of a causal relationship between U.S. demands and Pakistani action, this very public approach heavily undermines U.S. national security by cementing the perception among Pakistanis that this is not in fact their war but one in which Pakistan is being coerced into fighting through U.S. threats and economic manipulation.

Winning the support of the Pakistani public is the most critical element of the U.S. strategy in defeating the Taliban and their allies. Conditional language like that in the House PEACE Act of 2009 is counterproductive to winning the hearts and minds of the Pakistani people as it merely reinforces the type of transactional relationship that we are trying to replace with one this is a long lasting partnership. While Congress and the Administration must continue to press Pakistan for action (and provide Pakistan the commensurate resources to do so) they must do so privately, behind closed doors and recognize the need to give Pakistan the space to create an indigenous strategy for dealing with the Taliban and its affiliates and the time to enact that strategy and communicate it to their public.

The upcoming visit of President Zardari provides an opportune moment for the U.S to do exactly that: privately communicate our legitimate concerns and demand that Pakistan independently produce and communicate a comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy of their own making.

The U.S. won't always agree with that strategy such as the peace deal in Swat, but viewed from the Pakistani perspective, there is high value in demonstrating an attempt at dialogue and reconciliation before taking military action that often results in high levels of collateral damage. Not only does this provide the government of Pakistan with political cover but it clearly paints the Taliban as aggressors against the Pakistani state.

Already we have seen the formation of tribal lashkars and grassroots military opposition to the Taliban in the affected areas (though they have been largely unsupported by the Pakistani Army and therefore unsuccessful) and growing civil society protests against the Taliban in Pakistan's major cities such as the one most recently in Lahore. Pakistan's current leadership must step up and support these efforts or risk losing not only their seat in government but also large swaths of the country to the Taliban.

The issue of drones by the U.S. military has two components: one, U.S. drone attacks are seen as a violation of Pakistan sovereignty and two, they cause significant collateral damage. For these two reasons, drone attacks literally serve as recruitment drives for the Taliban. The U.S. must recognize that while drone attacks may be effective in eliminating high-value targets and are therefore effective as a tactic they undermine the larger U.S. strategy of winning Pakistani hearts and minds. Bruce Reidel who chaired the Administration's interagency review described the drone attacks as akin to "trying to kill ants one at a time."

Where the U.S. can make progress is in building a long-term relationship with the people of Pakistan by targeting our assistance to those areas most crucial to winning their support including enhancing and strengthening Pakistan's judicial system and law enforcement, creating broad-based and sustainable economic development with an emphasis on increasing local capacity, support for the public education system, refugees and internally displaced persons, and support for healthcare and public diplomacy. U.S. military assistance must target those areas most vital to the counterinsurgency campaign including helicopters, night vision equipment, and counter-IED equipment.

The Obama Administration has recognized that this is the way forward and has urged Congress to pass three bills aimed at achieving these objectives: a bill co-sponsored by Senators Kerry and Lugar that authorizes $1.5 billion in direct economic support to the Pakistani people every year over the next five years, a bill that creates economic opportunity zones in the border areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan, and the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund which will provide resources to transform Pakistan's army into a more effective counterinsurgency force.

Congress must pass these bills immediately, knowing that while it waits and debates, the Taliban does not.

Taha Gaya is the Executive Director of the Pakistani American Leadership Center (PAL-C).

Over the past few months an extraordinarily worrisome pattern in U.S.-Pakistan relations has emerged: one in which the Taliban make advances, senior U.S. officials raise the alarm and demand action fr...
Over the past few months an extraordinarily worrisome pattern in U.S.-Pakistan relations has emerged: one in which the Taliban make advances, senior U.S. officials raise the alarm and demand action fr...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 67
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
10:53 PM on 05/03/2009
(cont'd)

Likewise, Pakistanis should think about how they are losing the hearts and minds of those whom they could have otherwise made friends with by not harboring terrorists within their midst. It's not like there's a one-way obligation for the rest of the world to chase after Pakistani hearts and minds, but no reciprocal responsibility for Pakistanis to concern themselves with the hearts and minds of the rest of the world. Pakistanis are badly misjudging the rest of the world and their responsibilities to the rest of the world, and are losing the hearts and minds of the rest of us in the wider world.

Pakistan needs the rest of the world more than the rest of the world needs Pakistan.
Pakistan is letting down the rest of the world.

Here's the link to that NYT article again:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/world/asia/04nuke.html
10:52 PM on 05/03/2009
Here, read this:

NYT article

The NYT is hardly a right-wing rag. But even their writers and columnists are all increasingly alarmed that Pakistan is not behaving anywhere near how a credible sovereign country is supposed to.

This is why the US is having to send drones to hit targets on Pakistani soil -- because the Pakistanis themselves are shirking their responsibility. Sovereignty is a 2-way street. It's not just about having others respect your territory, it's about you fulfilling the obligations of a sovereign state and living upto your international obligations in preventing the use of your soil for terrorist attacks on other states.

There is no room for excuses in the fulfillment of such obligations. If you want to make excuses that you can't prevent terrorists from using your soil, then other countries have the right to protect themselves by going after those terrorists on your soil, and not simply leave themselves open to attack.
01:35 AM on 05/03/2009
Game over man. On the current course, Pakistan WILL be taken over by the Taliban. Without direct intervention by either India or the US, they will assume ownership of the title "nuclear power". Worse yet, the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction is completely lost on them. Don't lose yourself in nuance, evil exists.
07:45 PM on 05/13/2009
Not so fast Sally!
12:32 PM on 05/02/2009
Why not put the blame where it belongs, on Islamic fundamentalists and the reactionary, chauvinistic fascistic way of life it promotes. I'm sick of this nonsense it was all our fault cause we didn't build them enough schools, which they hate or install a progressive leader which they would've hate even more.
The problem is Islam. The largest Islamic population in the world is in India while the Taliban force conversions or kill Hindus when they have their way. Why do we have to show how tolerant of Muslims when it should be the reverse?
04:51 PM on 05/02/2009
I love how your language changes so quickly within your talking points. Its very telling
First the problem is "Islamic fundamentalists"
Then it broadens to "Islam"
And then finally you get to what you really mean, "Muslims"
Not the beliefs, but the people

BTW the largest muslim population is certainly not in India. I believe that would be Indonesia
05:41 PM on 05/02/2009
The problem is that Islam is stuck in the medieval ages. Islamic countries today do not allow decent or criticism. There is enough proof of that I won't even get into it.

Even look at Islam in Britian or other Western nations. It is still practiced quite conservatively with honour killings and mistreatment of women. They even call for sharia law to be implemented in Britian and have stopped freedom of speech when anyone criticizes the religion.

Islam by its very nature is expansionist and intolerant. It cannot co-exist peacefully with others when it reaches a certain percentage of the population. Unless there is a reformation from within the religion, there can only be more suspicion and violence.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
marko77
10:33 AM on 05/02/2009
The Pakistanis must decide if they want to support Muslims who have a twisted and perverted interpretation of Islam - The Taliban and Al Queda - or if they will support a more moderate view. It's up to them, really.
10:50 AM on 05/02/2009
Similarly, Sir, all the Westerners, especially Americans who voted Democrats to power have to decide once for all that whether they will have an independent foreign policy that accords respect to Muslims all over the world or will they continue to be led by cons and neo-cons firmly embedded in establishment, Pentagon, CIA and by those politicians who are spokespersons for hostile anti-Muslim and anti-Pakistani lobbies running their own nefarious agendas. Iraq and its WMDs is the best example that I can cite how an Average American is mislead into mis-adventurism.
02:17 PM on 05/02/2009
I want to afford muslims respect, but I find it difficult because of the way muslim men treat their daughters and other women. Respect is earned. However, it is best when first meeting to afford others the respect one expects to receive.

I applaud recent efforts to ban forced marriages of women under 18 and efforts in many muslim countries provide women opportunities previously reserved for men. However, much more needs to be done. All can benefit from acceptance and development of scientific infrastructure in muslim societies. Science and critical thinking by both sexes needs encouragement, if we are to overcome common ecological challenges. Greater use of network technologies could help to eliminate much need for ravel to communicate, do science and advance science education.

Hopefully, the US government will increase funding for Pakistan and other countries for early childhood science education for BOTH sexes. At one time muslims led the scientific revolution. Sadly, theocratic influences have squandered such progressive thinking and much that troubles peoples of Islamic countries result from the notions that science and the equality of opportunity for the sexes are incompatible with islam. I know this can not be not true as I once met a female Pakistani scientist in London, who clearly demonstrated she could do science as well as any man. Why not give other girls like her the opportunity to prove it to you so that you and others might benefit by their success?

That would be a path toward mutual respect.
10:58 PM on 05/03/2009
SaulZ seems to think that respect is a one-way street. He seems to think that Pakistan is automatically entitled to free military and financial aid from the West, without providing anything in return. He seems to forget that Pakistan's General Zia-ul-Haq began arming religious militants in Afghanistan before the US even got involved, and before the Soviets even invaded that country. Indeed, it was Zia who proposed the grand alliance to the West for supporting the Afghan guerrillas, and not the other way around.

SaulZ seems to have a very skewed understanding of history.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jackson Forrester
11:45 AM on 05/02/2009
Guess who feeds the rhetorical power of the Taliban and Al Qaeda? It is our continued presence in the Middle East and our interference in their nations' internal affairs. We prop up their leaders and drop bombs on their civilians. These people are not stupid. They are tired of the overreaching moral authority enacted by the United States, and with good reason. What we define as "collateral damage" they define as murder. Can you blame them? We cannot continue our present foreign policy if we wish to win the hearts of Middle East cultures. Spread democracy through example, not force.
12:41 PM on 05/02/2009
yeah they get so mad over collateral damage they go into Israel and blow up a bus or plant a bomb in a rival Muslim parade in Iraq or perpetrate mass murder in Sudan on kuffirs.
The US is far from perfect but to be lectured by the likes of Saudis, Egyptians, Iranians or Pakistanis is too much for me.
07:40 AM on 05/02/2009
I'm surprised at the ignorance of some of the comments here. The writer correctly points out the things that need to be done. The US strategy for the past 8 years was a repeat of the 80's, when a dictator was coddled by the Reagan administration. Look where that got us.

For the people blaming Pakistan's army alone for the rise of extremism, I would refer them to Hillary Clinton's comments on the role of the US in creating these problems. Sewing on patches will not cut it any more. Long term economic growth in Pakistan is the only answer, and the US must facilitate that instead of supporting short-term and short-sighted goals.
10:37 AM on 05/02/2009
Maybe you should read up on your history my friend. It goes beyond the 80's. I know it's hip and popular to blame everything on the US and it's support of mujahideen during the cold war. I'm looking at the very inception of pakistan!

I'm sure since you so well informed you must know that when pakistan was created it immediately went to Uncle Sam with hat in hand, begging for its support. It was willing to do whatever the US wanted because it wanted power. The US wasn't much interested until the cold war started. Since the rest of us are so ignorant you must know that since its inception the military has robbed the country and invested nothing in education and social services or the future of pakistan? While India was trying to become self-sufficient, Pakistan was becoming US's lap dog. So please don't embarrass yourself with your cliff-notes history. The people of pakistan chose this path and now they have to face to consequences.

Long term economic growth will not be possible. Pakistan is too far gone and is on the brink of failure. It's time to break it up and start over with new countries and de-nuke it so it can't blackmail the world.
10:57 AM on 05/02/2009
This is a typical anti-Pakistani line of attack, just to keep the world's attention diverted from Kashmir.

For example, isn't India a lap-dog of the USA these days? Are not Indians lap-dogs of cons and neo-cons firmly embedded in the US establishment?

To this effect, my question is that why when an artice on Islam, Muslims or Pakistan gets printed on HuffPo, its basically Indians who jump on the board posting all sorts of anti-Muslim and anti-Pakistan messages. This is the most dangerous thing that is happening in the world - most populous country of the world has a new generation totally sold to the philosophy of fundamentalist Hindu religious party of diatribing Muslims on flimsiest of pretexts and dreaming of a Hindu super-power that will rule the world..
06:59 AM on 05/02/2009
I think one of the last things the Pakistanis are worried about right now is what role the US is playing in this when the Taliban military is sixty miles from their capitol. Especially when it's a fragile government that's having a hard time providing basic infrastructure and human services to the masses. I think they're probably open to any help they can get. If we were in a war with Russia or China and they were sixty miles from DC I doubt we'd be worried about what influencing role Canada or Mexico were playing on our behalf.

And yes we have to be involved, it is certainly in our best interests to keep a country with a nuclear cache as stable as possible especially when those same extremist religious militants who have pledged themselves to our destruction are the ones looking to take over. What we can't do is keep going at this all by ourselves all the time. We need to convince the countries of the rest of the world that inevitably positive outcomes in these situations are in their best interests as well and maybe they need to start paying part of the bill too.
06:58 AM on 05/02/2009
Pakistan was created in order that there be a safe zone for sub-continental muslims.
They were deemed to be under threat from the Hindoo in undivided India.
How many muslims have died or suffered under a talibanised society in the last ten years?
And this while India has had as it's cricket captain, president, largest IT company etc etc etc people who happen to be muslim.

You have to question your reason for existence.
Do share when you find it.

Cheers
06:34 PM on 05/13/2009
@APPU96: Don't pretend to be so kosher... I have never heard of Muslims being maimed, burned alive, or attacked by racist Hindu Fundamentalists and terrorists in India (RSS, VHP, Shiv Sena, Arya Samaj, etc) - or have I? Chief Minister Narendra Modi of Gujrat rings a bell. Can you tell me why is he banned from coming to the US? Thats just one of the prominent ones - regardless what are u proposing? Merge back with India?
02:15 AM on 05/02/2009
Where is Europe? Or Japan? Why is Pakistan America's responsibility?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:01 PM on 05/02/2009
Because America is top on the Muslim extremists' shitlist, and we've been there for a long, long time. Since Pakistan has nuclear weapons, the idea of extremists acquiring control of those weapons scares us wayyyyyyyyy more than Europe (well, Demark excepted, perhaps) and Asia.

I don't pretend to understand the reasons, or explain them here. I really do try. I will say it seems to have started with the Iranian Revolution, chronic resentment of the Saudi royals, and supporting Israel. Any other insights that bloggers have -- please. I really do want them.
03:20 PM on 05/02/2009
I would suggest that there is little to be gained by focusing on the disagreements. There are already way too many advocates on both sides of nearly any issue.

It would be better for the US to be seen as looking for areas of agreement, such as a mutual understand of the benefits of science education and advancing the positive roll network technologies can play in educating young children, who still have open minds. Let play to our strengths and not let the Taliban or other theocrats define us.

It would be far better for the US if it is seen as a modern day Diogenes, with the lantern of truth, knowledge, and wisdom in its hand rather than seen as Uncle Sam, belligerently striding tall in a Red, White and Blue Suit, with killer drones in one hand and a dollar bill in the other. If we must adopt the latter posture, its best to make our fists look a lot more like lanterns. When we identify enemies I say we need to shine light into their eyes rather than think we can successfully use fear as a weapon.
09:03 PM on 05/13/2009
@AnimalLover6: Europe is going bankrupt, Japan has loaned too much to the US already. After the Cold War concluded in Aghanistan in 1989 with the help of Pakistan Army and ISI, the US shifted its focus towards eastern Europe and left the damaged proxy front states ie; Pakistan and Afghanistan on their own to pick up the pieces and figure out the resulting mess. To make matters worst the US conveniently slapped sanctions on Pakistan on Oct 1990, then came the PRESSLER AMENDMENT of 1992, fearing that it is developing nukes, as if it didn't know that already during the 80s. Timing of events should be noted here.

So, I would say as a courtesy the US (and I am being overly polite here) should be held responsible to some degree. If not Pakistan, they defintely should have helped Afghanistan. Pakistan is and was capable of taking care of itself and it did till this new war. Whenever there is war, problem, or some issue in Afghanistan - it directly effects Pakistan and takes us back in time and causes us misery. Just like its in India's interest to have a stable properous Pakistan, it is also in Pakistan's best interest to have a properous, stable and peaceful Afghanistan.

If Afghanistan was taken care of post-Russian pullout, there wouldn't have been Talibans, terrorism, and chaos in that region, especially Pakistan. But then again US always needs an active enemy for its military industrial complex, so here is the full circle
12:34 AM on 05/02/2009
Another misguided and ill-informed article on HuffPo. Pakistan has been given EIGHT YEARS to clean up their backyard. During that whole time Musharraf played a double game trying to appease the terrorists and the US. In the end nothing has been accomplished and we got the Mumbai massacre.

After Eight Years of Taliban strengthening their hold on Pakistan, it is clear the pakistani army is unable or unwilling to attack them. The drone attacks are necessary because the pakistani army will not do the job. The pakistani citizenry are still in the old mind-set of blaming everything on US and India.

If pakistan cannot control its terrorist problem, the international community will. It's time for pakistanis to start taking some responsibility for the hand they had in creating the taliban. It's time pakistanis acknowledge they have a problem and stop living in denial.
09:07 AM on 05/02/2009
Exactly!
03:38 PM on 05/02/2009
Nice thoughts, but you can't win a war with drones or bombs dropped from the sky. These only aggravate and inflame the other side -- and strengthen their resolve. Ask the British.
03:47 PM on 05/02/2009
You are confusing war with occupation. No one wants to occupy that land. The point is to destroy its capability to wage war and nuclear blackmail. Once the nukes are taken away, the pakistanis will have lost their last symbol of national identity at which point they will naturally break up along ethnic lines.
12:33 AM on 05/02/2009
I don't see why we should have to win any hearts and minds. It seems to me that the majority of the Pakistani people are faced with a deadly serious threat to their freedom and way of life by these hard line extremists. We should not have to convince them to respond to this. If they do not view the situation as sufficiently dangerous to go on the attack with everything they have, than I don't see how any policy we adopt will matter.

This ought to be their fight much more than it is ours. If the majority of the people there cannot see that, they are almost as good as taken over already, IMO.
09:08 AM on 05/02/2009
Exactly!
02:38 PM on 05/02/2009
The need to win hearts and minds is essential because failing to do so only aids the Taliban, who are busy recruiting children as young as 5 and 6 to become suicide bombers. They are also forcing young girls to become suicide bombers, whether they want to or not. They can do this faster and more cheaply than we can build drone aircraft or add soldiers to our armies or train Pakistani recruits. Failing to understand and respond appropriately to their tactics is a recipe for military failure, that any post-Vietnam armchair general should understand.

Getting the people on our side is key to winning against the Taliban and without it we are lost. It is also the way to make the Pakistanis realize that we won't blindly provide military support without the other essential elements of a successful counterinsurgency and the development of a stable and just society.

I strongly encourage you to support Secretary Clinton's efforts in this regard, before you or your children are forced from your easy chair by the threat of Taliban nukes.
08:50 PM on 05/02/2009
But as I say, they are faced with a deadly threat to their freedom. If that is not enough to motivate them, then it can't be done, and it does not matter how important motivating them is to our policy. If they are not willing or able to respond to this threat, nothing we do is going to make a difference, short of taking the place over outright.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mudshark12
Now who are you jiving with that cosmik debris?
12:22 AM on 05/02/2009
We have overstayed our welcome in that area of the world by 6 years and need to bring our troops home!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
snapshot1940
"We have met the enemy and he is us"
11:24 PM on 05/01/2009
All this debate and diplomacy will become moot if the Taliban even comes near the nuclear weapons. Do you think for one minute that India, another nuclear state, is going to stand by while a group, radical even by Muslim standards, get access to the little red button? They have enough homegrown problems with the Muslims without having the threat of nuclear attack from Pakastan radicals. They will nuke the hell out of them without batting an eye. And I doubt if Isreal is going to let the Taliban have access to their means of destruction.
11:51 PM on 05/01/2009
Again a flawed argument coming from someone who is equating nukes with a stealing of a car for robbery. Nukes cannot be accessed by a rag tag group of disjointed terrorists. Pakistani nukes can only become dangerous if a radical party comes to power. Last elections in Pakistan showed that even moderate Islamic parties got routed. In Israel and India, conservative parties are a norm in the Government, leading to radicalization in those countries (sanctioning killing of Muslims and Christians in India and of Arabs in Israel for example). In Pakistan liberal parties won the elections by big margins. Even in the supposedly pro-Taliban province, their supporting democratic Islamic party was defeated in its stronghold. In my own constituency, liberal candidate routed the candidate of liberal Islamic party. Pakistanis have never allowed any islamic party to come by majority. At the most, they got 5% of popular votes in Musharraf held elections post 9/11.
02:22 PM on 05/02/2009
Taliban is in control of parts of pakistan and not because they were elected there. Do you think rogue nations with nuclear experts couldnt find themselves making the trip to pakistan?
04:45 AM on 05/07/2009
So, SAULZ, tell me if I am getting this right.Countries with tested democracies like Israel and India are electing conservative crazies and pakistan is a liberal democracy.Right.I think you are a genius.If people don't believe you that is because you are way ahead of your time.Actually I think you might be from the future and a different dimension too. Anyway....this is to all the non-pakistanis out there.Instead of invading Pakistan we should send a team of psychotherapists cause these people have totally lost it.
10:36 PM on 05/01/2009
This write up strains credulity and perpetuates sloppy thinking on this subject even in the US. Endless billions do not solve anything, since non-military aid is readily converted to weapons as it has been in the past. Actual people will get very little unless strict accountability is demanded. This is a defunct and failed State and has been so for a while now, with US dole providing perpetual life support. Saudi supported madrassah education has nearly destroyed civil society. This blame game and conspiracy mongering that is rife in Pakistani society has been fed by the media and the army for self interest. US, Israel and India are always blamed, but internal lack of even basic governance, a half Shariah legal system, rabid intolerance of women, minorities and even dissent, is ignored. All this is Pakistan proper, not the outlying areas which has already sunk to the dark ages. Unless this is addressed from the bottom up by the few secular minded Pakistanis, the slide into total anarchy on a large scale may be unavoidable. (Add this to unsustainable growth rates of the population) I hope we dont get there for the sake of everybody.
11:43 PM on 05/01/2009
Denmark:

Yours is a typical hate Pakistani Indian line. Interestingly, most of the problems you have attributed to Pakistan are common to India as well. In India, Pakistan is blamed for everything, girl fetuses are destroyed, brides are killed by in laws for the reasons of not bringing dowry, Muslims, Christians and Sikhs have been killed and their killers let go freely, politicians like Varun Gandhi attack Islam and Muslims of India to gain popularity, the seculars in India are being increasingly marginalized, so on and so forth. Shabana Azmi, a well known actor of Bollywood and a member of a liberal family, was not permitted to buy home in Mumbai because she is Muslim. Said Ali Khan reported the same problem. India is disliked by neighboring Bangla Desh and Sri Lanka too. Furthermore, you got to read Pakistani media - news and analysis is balanced. Our media blames us and our politicians more than it does India. On the contrary, Indian media sings the same song as soon as an iota of trouble happens in that country i.e. blame Pakistan and your posts on huffpo are an example in this direction.
12:28 AM on 05/02/2009
You have just proven your irrational hate towards India by your comments. Typical pakistani defense is to divert and distract by bringing India into the mix. Stop worrying about India and worry about your failed state.
09:06 PM on 05/01/2009
Surprisingly, if you talk to tribal people, they believe that Pakistani Talibans are a new phenomena totally different from Afghan Talibans and that Pak Talibans are basically terrorists who are destroying Pushtoon traditions and are funded by the USA and India. A comparison between Afghan and Pakistani Talibans clearly show the differences. Afghan Talibans are respected by Afghan Pushtoons. Pakistani Talibans are hated not only by Pakistani Pushtoons, but generally by entire population. Increasingly, even the Pakistani religious scholars have begun challenging the Taliban philosophy. It is no coincidence that Pakistani Talibans arrived on the scene as the USA and India consolidated their position in Afghanistan.
02:46 PM on 05/02/2009
you have just made yourself irrelevant
04:54 AM on 05/07/2009
So what you are saying is that any Taliban that kills Pakistanis is not OK but the one that kills US and Afghans is respected. And this guy is a Pakistani is the US.Just imagine what the ones in Pakistan are thinking.
06:46 PM on 05/13/2009
@post man: How do you know SaulZ is in the US? Also please research the versions of Talibans, who they are, what their agenda is etc. Primarily there are three types and they all have different agendas and philosophies. Talibans are highly misunderstood and are always lumped into one. The Talibans who were about to make a pipeline deal with the US are probably good Talibans - no? Why did Bush send them $43 Million in 2000? They must be bad ass! I dunno...