'It's an open secret that Pakistan instigated the terror campaign, and has supported it for years. But Pakistan will not openly admit this. However, quiet diplomacy between Indians and Pakistanis over the past three years has resulted in a reduction, but not an elimination, of Islamic terrorism in Kashmir. The Pakistanis are less blatant in their support. The Pakistani army, for example, no longer lays down mortar and machine-gun on Indian border troops, to make it easier for Islamic terrorist reinforcements, and supplies, to get across the border. But Pakistan still tolerates the Islamic terrorist camps in northern Pakistan, and does not interfere when the Islamic radicals recruit all over the country. In the past few years, the Pakistanis have arrested some of the Kashmir oriented Islamic militants, and harassed some of the militant organizations. But because the goal of making Indian Kashmir part of Pakistan is so popular, the government is unwilling to just shut down the terrorists.'
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htterr/articles/20080511.aspx
Hmmm. I just watched "Charlie Wilsons War" the other day, and it was very poor really. Strong on Washington political shenanigans, very very weak on both Afghanistan and Pakistan. The scene where Charlie first meets the Pakistani prime minister and a couple of Pakistani generals, who mock and barrack him for a) not being important enough, and b) having the temerity to proffer a small amount of money to the Afghan mujihadeen; a different light is cast on that when you know a bit about the neighborhood. The Pakistanis weren't really in the fight against the Soviets for the mujihadeen- they were in it for the Taliban. None of that comes across in the movie. And the scene where Charlie desperately tries to get funding at the end for Afghan schools; the suggestion is clear that the US is to blame for the subsequent nightmare that was the Taliban sorta-rule of Afghanistan because they left early. Not the Pakistanis, for sending in a bunch of madrassa-fodder armed and trained by the ISI. No no- how could the Pakistanis, who can't even make a CD, let alone a B-1 Bomber, be responsible for an invasion of its neighbor.
Well, it could and it was. And it has a lot of previous. Namely, Kashmir. Time and again, Hollywood and the American left posit the US and Britain as these giants bestriding the world, smashing all comers and not giving the little guys a moments peace. Whereas, in the real world, the Pakistans, the Irans, the Iraqs and the Argentinas invade other countries, or set up terrorist infrastructures in them, but don't get the opprobrium. Why is that? If I was them I'd be a bit annoyed. How many countries does Iran have to set up alternative governments in before it gets the credit?
No comments:
Post a Comment