Originally Posted by smalishah84
While I agree with some of the things that you say at least as far as the enforcement thing is concerned but I feel that one MAJOR problem with Pakistan is the corrupt leadership at the top. This lot has been in power for most of the last 25 years and whenever they come to power they just loot and plunder and do nothing much. The tax payers money is absolutely wasted and looted when these guys are in power. With Imran, I would at least know that my money is not being siphoned off the top in EVERY deal that the govt is making.
I agree with you here, but that is easier said than done. His personal integrity may be clean but to really clamp down on corruption he would have to act on his supporters as well as close associates from time to time too. And he may require them to stay in power too on the other hand. Especially if he heads a coalition government where the trade off may be between staying in power or acting on corrupt in many instances.
Also then there is the question of the civilian government not having power to act over the army and ISI and army giving immunity to many associates who do the same. I guess though in this regard it would be a step in the positive direction.
Secondly I agree with Imran that a military option should be the LAST option and not the first option.
Has there ever been a real concerted effort at talks with these guys? I am not too sure. Also it seems the US itself does not know what exactly does it want to do. After 10 years of war in Afghanistan what exactly have they achieved except for a costly US military base in Afghanistan where the military sits cozily while the rest of Afghanistan is as lawless as ever.
Imran isn't too far off from the US in terms of policy is he? . Read below
US says it's ready to talk to Taliban chief
But the US don't have to live next to the terrorists, do they? They have ended the Taliban rule and made it tougher to attack them and that's really what there first objective was, even though they failed at mostly everything else.
And then there is a difference between having talks and keeping military option open/doing operations at the same time, and removing the military option of the table and then having just talks with what are terrorists with extreme positions.
Taliban's stated aim is to spread and implement their version of Islamic rule all over the region and then the world. What do you negotiate with them with such a position? What can the Pakistani government really offer them?
It's also clear that many terrorists in the country have support from the military / ISI elements and it is only at this time, that the civilian government should push the military to break of these ties rather than hold talks with them and let them strengthen further and gain a bigger support base in the establishment, which was these guys do when you go soft on them and as a result of the War recruiting people right now ideologically won't be tough in uneducated and uninformed areas either. It may provide short term peace in Pakistan(though have adverse effects in Afghanistan and maybe India too), but in the long term being too sympathetic to what are terrorists will again only come back to haunt Pakistan.