1. The position taken by @HinaRKhar is the same that military est has been peddling for 10 years. Just bec she says it makes it no less problematic.
Here is why:
1) Pak claims that it has no favourites in AFG but at same time maintains that it can’t act against Taliban in Pak.
Here is why:
1) Pak claims that it has no favourites in AFG but at same time maintains that it can’t act against Taliban in Pak.
https://twitter.com/mehdihasanshow/status/1427430352386207745
2. This position has inherent paradox. If #Taliban are using your territory to launch war against AFG govt, you are reluctant to use whatever it takes to prevent them from using ur territory, then u are FAVOURING Taliban agnst AFG Govt. So the “neutrality” claim is untenable.
3. Taliban recruit foot soldiers, raise funds & get medical treatment in Pak. Their families are based here.
Yes, Pak’s influence over Taliban is limited but it did have leverage—tht no other country in the region had.
None of this is exaggeration.HRK’s denial is simply a lie.
Yes, Pak’s influence over Taliban is limited but it did have leverage—tht no other country in the region had.
None of this is exaggeration.HRK’s denial is simply a lie.
4. By now it is established that revival of Taliban in AFG will embolden Pak militant groups (Pak elites denied this 10 years ago). This provided an added incentive for action against TTA as they are a source of terror both for us our neighbours but we kept making excuses.
5. So despite strong justification, we refused to act against TTA, which meant we were willing to forego domestic & regional stability in pursuit of goal of “not offending TTA”.
Previously, we openly pursued estab of friendly govt in Kabul. Post-2010, we just changed language.
Previously, we openly pursued estab of friendly govt in Kabul. Post-2010, we just changed language.
6. So Pak’s policy of “inclusive govt in Kabul” and “no action against TTA” effectively translates into support for TTA.
This is nothing but a sanitised facade of strategic depth.
Worse part, Pak civilian elites propagate this flawed policy despite having no real say in it.
This is nothing but a sanitised facade of strategic depth.
Worse part, Pak civilian elites propagate this flawed policy despite having no real say in it.
7. In any normal country, the kind of blowback that Pak witnessed would have led to fundamental shift in Afghan policy.
In Pak, rather holding mil estab accountable for the backlash, the State has used it to deflect & divert domestic & Intl criticism reg sanctuaries to TTA. 👏.
In Pak, rather holding mil estab accountable for the backlash, the State has used it to deflect & divert domestic & Intl criticism reg sanctuaries to TTA. 👏.
8. The civilian elites, media & intelligentsia, rather than asking tough questions, happily peddle the lies that the estab feeds them.
Amidst all this, the perspective of the most imp stakeholder isn’t even considered I.e Pak Pashtuns who have had to face brunt of the backlash.
Amidst all this, the perspective of the most imp stakeholder isn’t even considered I.e Pak Pashtuns who have had to face brunt of the backlash.
9. The same civilian elites & intelligentsia show more resistance when it comes to Pak’s India Policy but r happy to trust word of the estab on AFG.
They do so bec: a)they don’t have a stake in AFG b)the brunt of blowback wil b borne by peripheral Pak about which they don’t care
They do so bec: a)they don’t have a stake in AFG b)the brunt of blowback wil b borne by peripheral Pak about which they don’t care
10. So, there is realistic chance that TTA victory will reinvigorate militancy in Pak but this is acceptable bec the estab thinks that can restrict the collateral damage to peripheral Pak.
Neither Pak’s military nor civilian & intellectual elites care much about peripheral Pak.
Neither Pak’s military nor civilian & intellectual elites care much about peripheral Pak.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
