Thread by @syedalizia1992

This piece by @MadihaAfzal needs to be read carefully in order to understand the deleterious effects of being openly biased and deluded.
brookings.edu/blog/order-fro…

"Perhaps a deal would have been signed anyway. The Taliban got everything it wanted, securing — in its eyes — a U.S. surrender for an absolute minimum in promises."

Really? Undermining Pakistan's role despite knowing full well that the US had practically implored us to do more.

"The Pakistani army, meanwhile, recognized that an ascendant Tb meant that any power-sharing arrangement accompanying a peace deal would likely align with Pakistan’s vision of “strategic depth”..."
When did the Pakistan Army say this? How can this be written so nonchalantly?

" Will Pakistan’s approach to militant groups, the Haqqanis in particular — substantively change? The suspicions post-9/11 on Pak's notorious double-game —"

Should have called out the US for hugging the Haqqanis and TB. Too difficult a task for you, for obvious reasons.

How about shedding light on wholesale redefinition of US' policy. The "Beard Trap" should be republished with a new preface....

"As long as the military, the prime architect of Pakistan’s jihadist foreign policy to date, remains the most powerful institution in Pakistan, it is hard to argue that anything will change."

Once again, shooting from the hip, and pandering to the Blob sans a shred of evidence.

This passage takes the cake . The Haqqanis were practically part of the talks in Doha. This is risible. The FATF stick is all but ugly.