On Air: Why is the world not backing the Pakistani Army?

pakistani army    They’re finally doing what the world wants and they say they’ re fighting a global war- so why isn’t the world backing the Pakistani army?

With all the efforts of the Pakistani army, the Taleban look far from defeated. A deputy to Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud told the BBC by telephone the attack in Lahore ,which killed at least 24 people yesterday, was in response to the army’s operation in the Swat valley.

The calls for help from Pakistan have been clear.

“Pakistan has made … sacrifices in the war on terror for safety and peace not only in Pakistan, but also in the rest of the world,”  Zardari told US senators yesterday.

As Taleban retaliation against the army attacks intensifies (Wednesday’s Lahore attacks are nothing new) ex Pakistani leader Nawaz Sharif has just been told he can run for office.  Mr. Sharif insists he will not come into power to help the US or the Army stating that national interests came before any other.

“The US exploited the Af-Pak people in its war against Soviets” says Dr. Soomro on his blog, “but after achieving its set objectives, complete abrupt withdrawl from the region proved to be detrimental with worst repercussions of the war.”  Condemning Pakistan, as Ahmed Quraishi writes will achieve nothing – it’s not a time for apologists. “The military operation is certainly not an exercise in semantics” responds one blogger.

But some ask if Pakistan is taking this threat seriously enough. According to this article, almost 75% of government revenue goes into the Army and it is an ongoing tension with India that works to sustain this budget. Maybe then, Pakistan’s military has got its priorities wrong.

Pakistani leaders are urging the world to do more for their country, so why aren’t we doing it?

97 Responses to “On Air: Why is the world not backing the Pakistani Army?”

  1. 1 Murthiram
    May 27, 2009 at 13:14

    Pakistan govt and army are the creators of numerous terror outfits. So they can not earn sympathy from the rest of the world. Their ISI is creating 100 terrorists daily and their army is killing 10 out of them and claim reward for their ‘fight against terror’. Terrorism targetted against India is OK for the Pak Govt. Thus their one arm is creating terrorism and the other is fighting against it. There appears no end to this vicious cycle. How could the world sympathise with Pakistan?

    • 2 Ayaz Khan
      June 2, 2009 at 09:55

      Its not war in Pakistan, for Pakistan or by Pakistan. Its a war for Central Asia which started back when Russians attacked Pakistan (FEED this statment into your minds!). Americans have yet to conqure it! And this will not be easy for the rest of the world to digest, especially INDIA.

  2. 3 Roberto
    May 27, 2009 at 14:13

    RE “”75% of government revenue goes into the Army and it is an ongoing tension with India that works to sustain this budget. “”

    ————– Therein lies the answer of why the world is not backing Pakistan in the war on terror.

    The people that run the country are generally untrustworthy and among the most corrupt in the world. India is not threatning to take over Pakistan, the threat is quite the opposite. Pakistan has been unwilling to tamp down terrorists and provide good government for citizens, instead funneling ridiculous money to artificially prop up the military who ultimately run the country by proxy.

    There is no reason for Pakistan to maintain nuclear weapons for example unless they mean to become another N Korea and hold the world hostage with threats. Come to think about it, thats similar to what they are doing, threatening by imploding into anarchy.

  3. 4 Tom K in Mpls
    May 27, 2009 at 14:54

    As bad as the US military *help* to the region has been, the focus and resolve of the Pakistani government has been worse. Sorry, one exception, they do a wonderful job of meaningless posturing against India. They want everyone in the world to take care of all other issues so they can continue to posture against India.

    I have been disappointed that we ( the US ) sent any aid to Pakistan, including humanitarian. Pakistan needs to learn what the word *cost* means. Until they do they have no credibility in any way. I am all for helping others on any scale if they are capable of properly applying the help. But giving anything to Pakistan is like giving a drunk alcoholic money for a ‘meal’.

    As for the targeted strikes the US has been doing in the area, I see them as an imperfect but effective method of limiting the Taliban. Even with current technology there will still be civilian casualties, but over the years the percentage of collateral damage continues to decrease. Face it, life ain’t fair.

  4. 5 viola
    May 27, 2009 at 17:51

    Probably most of the world considers that the Taliban problem in Pakistan was created in Pakistan by Pakistanis and must be solved by Pakistan and Pakistanis. They have received lots of monetary aid, at least from the U.S. The effort can best be supported by not giving so much credibility to the belief that fighting terrorists makes Pakistan a lackey of the satanic American imperialistic war mongers who hate and despise all Muslims and wish to control or destroy all of Islam. The reason it is so easy to believe in satanic American imperialistic war mongers who hate and despise all Muslims and wish to destroy all of Islam is that it is easy to project one’s own fears and desires onto another group, especially if that vision is being taught in certain kinds of schools to young vulnerable boys who are literally used as weapon delivery systems in suicide bomb attacks. The Japanese suicide tactic didn’t work in World War II and neither will this one.

    • May 30, 2009 at 08:12

      Agree, Pakistan has created its own problems. When stress is allowed to accumulated, then thought and behavior will be accordingly. Taliban is an expression of the tension in the mind of the nation. This tension cannot be neutralized with bombs and bullets. To change the behavior of nation, change the mind of the nation.

  5. 7 Omer
    May 27, 2009 at 18:31

    We pakistani learned the meaning of word *cost* reason we faught war in afghanistan back in 80s against russia the World won that war but in return we received a gift of 30 million afghan refuge who brought the AK47 culture to pakistan plus premium heroin. Now again when *US* faught war against terrorisem *INDIA* could have been the first chocie why pakistan.

    Some how by forced hopelessly we were involved in this war and in return aid came to pakistan in term of money which was digested by the big fishes *Politicians* we as a common person recieved unemployment, poverty, inflation, and countless problems so now it was us who helped the *US* and so called taliban who are also the invention of *US* back during russia war was the freedom fighters are the biggest enemy of pakistan now.

    Its ok we have problems in our country but it doesn’t mean that we are not capable enough to carry the nuclear weapons one should keep in mind that are nuclear weapons not a remote control car so anybody can steal and use it with remote control same like not anybody can make nuclear weapon……..!

    • 8 Tom K in Mpls
      May 27, 2009 at 19:42

      In fighting terrorism there was one simple clear reason the US isn’t focusing on India. It is because when the Taliban got their butts kicked about eight years ago they went to Pakistan. Now things have become as bad as they are for two reasons, US policy and an incompetent Pakistani government.

      As for the US, we first armed the Taliban to stop Russia from restarting the USSR. After that we ignored them. They used what we left them to take power. Then the Taliban pulled off the terrorist attack on the US. Bush Jr. attacked them, kicked their butts, and for some unknown reason decided to attack Iraq and once again we ignored the Taliban. The Taliban are now spread over Afghanistan and Pakistan. Hopefully this time it will be ended.

      As for Pakistan, the government let them in and even gave them special judicial powers in Swat. According to their nature, the Taliban took what they were given went on to expand their war.

      Politicians in both countries are to blame. In the US, we got rid of the Bush family. When will the Pakistani people get rid of their misguided power hungry leaders? I do hope it is done legally. Also nuclear weapons are meaningless, to bad Pakistan and India had to spend so much money to see this. I hope North Korea learns this soon.

    • 9 Simple Simon
      May 28, 2009 at 06:51

      well said omer

      i totally agree with you… these westerners think that we pakistanis are not capable or carry nuclear power, and we are the main source of terrorists and more over they think only Pakistan is the country where terrorists are farmed.


      y is it only Pakistan?? y not afghanista? y not india? y not any other country? most importantly y not america? i mean america is a free country and more over aparently america is the main target of terrorists. then y cant terrorsits settle and work in america? y do these westerners think that pakistan is the farm of terrorists?

      the reason is that these terrorists are not the real one. they are created by america it self, as usama bin ladin was a worrior created by america, just like that these terrorists are also created by america it self, and the reason for that is that pakistan is the only muslim country which has nuclear bomb. and that is the main threat to AMERICA and ISRAEL. thats y america and all the media which is also under the incfluence of america and these westerners think that any one who is a muslim is or some one who is helping terrorists

      do u westerners ever think that V R also human beings and y would v do some thing like that to destroy humanity?? specially human beings in our own country?

  6. 10 Syed Hasan Turab
    May 28, 2009 at 03:52

    Why not world try to disarm legal terrorist’s of UN security counsil’s perminant member’s.

  7. 11 maghi85
    May 28, 2009 at 15:42

    i suppose the commentators on this forum are really ignorant of many of the statements, officially, passed by Indian members of the parliament and even the prime minister of invading Pakistan and taking back cities like Karachi and Islamabad.

    secondly, the only reason why Pakistan has nuclear weapons is to neutralize the Indian nuclear weapons.
    Again this shows the ignorance of the posters here who do not understand the cold war strategy. USSR’s nukes neutralized USA nukes. Had USSR not have it’s nukes USA would’ve nuked USSR in to bits as it did with Hiroshima Nagasaki. It was only the threat of a nuclear missile flying back at USA that prevented USA from nuking USSR and similarly prevented USSR from nuking USA.

    • 12 Tom K in Mpls
      May 29, 2009 at 15:20

      The US nuked the poor, ready to surrender, Japanese to show the USSR that we had the weapons and the will to use them. The reasons we did not use them on the non nuclear USSR was we did not want to go straight into another shooting war and we used all the nukes we had in a bluff. We did not want their land. The last time the US took land , I believe was against the Apache.

      As for Pakistani and Indian nukes, they are meaningless. If either side uses nukes, the world will stand against them. The cold war is long over. If you watch the current North Korean posturing, you will see this.

        May 29, 2009 at 19:34

        Pakistan army has been reduced to the role of dogs of war since the end of Cold War though this time they believe the war is legitmate and the threat is real. Destruction is of limb and infrustructure is real. However, I do not see a winner in this war that has now boiled down to factionalism and fundamentalism, whichever way you look at it. Who believes that America and its allies will not be allied to Taleban in future when circumstances suit their agenda? On the other hand, are there no winners? I think there are. The Russians and the Chinese are plaing spectators and have ample time to attend to their own domestic issues. Talibans are just pawns in a game of masters though by now Pakistanis must have decided how many Talibans constitute a national threat. What we are reacting to is just symptomatic reaction of a strategic game and ironically there seems no shortage of weapons. I do not believe that these are accidental erruptions without a cause.

      • 14 Simple Simon
        June 1, 2009 at 18:51

        meaning less?? u called thew nukes of pakistan and india meaningless??

        well may be of indians… but what about pakistani??

        if pakistan uses it over india… the world will stand against it… but if india does… no one will stand against it…

        u know y?? cuz pakistan is a muslim state… and no one in this world is ready to take the side of muslims… instead every one is united to break the muslims into as many parties as u can… first shia sunni conflict…

        i live in a state wr sunnis ruled and shia was the majority population…

        there nevrr used to be any sort conflict between them…

        but now from previous few days… they are being propagated and pumped up to fight against the other type of muslims… and not only that… every type of muslim is pumped by the agents of US and UN and non muslim world to fight against the other type of muslims…

        so that muslims cant unite together… that is the reason y UN is against the only muslim state having nukes… Pakistan

      • 15 Ranvir
        January 28, 2010 at 18:24

        If nukes are useless why does the US have the largest arsenal in the world? Why does the US keep the largest arsenal in the world while your people, political leaders, media professionals and non proliferation hawks go around professing disarmament to everyone else but dare not take the first step and destroy your entire stockpile as an example? (And don’t even bring up the START II nonsense). And why are you spending billions of dollars to weaponize space? Your post is a brilliant example of why Americans have a reputation of being hypocrats around the world. You need to start putting your money where your mouth is.

        As an Indian I don’t have much love for Pakistani establishment but I find it funny how you Americans shower righteous outrage on Pakistan and castigate them for spreading terrorism but conveniently forget how your own steady US financial support to Pakistan for decades has indirectly helped the cause and obviously to India’s detriment. So why exactly is the world not backing US army in Iraq and Afghanistan?

  8. 16 Donnamarie in Switzerland
    May 28, 2009 at 16:56

    Whatever the USA’s culpabiities in Pakistan and Afghanistan might be, the Taleban is a homegrown threat, nurtured by the locals. Until the people of the region decide they’ve had enough floggings, beheadings and suicide bombings and weed out the perverted ideology of the Taleban, there will never be peace there.

    What puzzles me is that in both Pakistan and Afghanistan the Taleban uses civilians as human shields and there is always a huge outcry when the human shields so cynically used by the Taleban are killed along with the extremists; however, there is no such outcry when bombs go off in markets crowded with civilians, or when civilians and killed and wounded when a military target is hit, as happened in Lahore the other day. The USA targets the extremists and sometimes kills civilians in the process, but the Taleban routinely targets civilians. The double standard that condemns the USA but not the Taleban is shameful.

  9. 17 Peter in Jamaica
    May 28, 2009 at 19:44

    The world needs to get behind them because it ultimately affects us all down the road. But i think they deserve what they get in the mean time because when the Taliban crossed over the boarder into Pakistan the government should have shut them down from day one and not allowed them to impose their own laws in that part of the country and to create their own somewhat separate state in their sovereign country, this would never have happened.
    How can you make such a bargain with such a blatant, world known and an out right terrorist organization and expect them to keep their word. Look what they did to Afghanistan? they allowed a known world terrorist to reside and train other terrorist in there country under their knowing eyes and then you allow them to get such a foot hold in your country? a foot hold of this magnitude? its like trying to tame a great white shark living in your swimming pool not to eat you when you go swimming, it not possible.

  10. 18 viola
    May 28, 2009 at 21:58

    Yes, sometimes people show ignorance (lack of correct knowledge of facts). One example is that the Taleban did not directly contribute to the 9/11 attack on the U.S. They gave sanctuary to Bin Laden’s al Queda where the attack was planned and trained for and the attack launched. They did this in exchange for or out of gratitude for al Queda’s assasination of the leader of the Taleban’s main opposition in Afghanistan after which the Taleban was able to take control of Afghanistan.

    Another incorrect statement says, “Had USSR not had its nukes USA would’ve nuked USSR to bits as it did with Hiroshima Nagasaki.” That is a provocative statement which illustrates the writer’s bias rather than his knowledge.

    The nuclear bombing of Nagasaki Hiroshima ended a war that would otherwise have killed many more people than were killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as sad as those deaths and the suffering were, and may it never happen again. The USA developed the bomb before the Soviets did. Had they wanted to they could have launched a nuclear attack on them before they had a bomb, as the biased writer says they would have done had the USSR not had one. They could have. They did not.

    The military strategy of Mutually Assured Destruction prevented EITHER side from launching a direct attack on the other once the Soviets had developed a nuclear capability. Only bias would lead a person to believe that only the USA is capable of launching an unwarranted nuclear attack on another nation when, in fact, it never has.

  11. May 28, 2009 at 22:35

    Because it tends not to wash its dirty linen in public.

  12. 20 Arsalan
    May 29, 2009 at 01:22

    Why should the world back Pakistan Army since they are the creators of Taliban and many other militant organizations. They have used them in the past for a political agenda, against Indian or even in Afghanistan. Even today they still support JI, JUD, and couples others who are accountable for 26/11 in India. Pakistan’s army feels threatned by the civil government and will always use Jihads as being part of state insttruments. From the incidents in the past its evident that the army isn’t commited to flush out the militants and restore peace with India. Due to the government policies the only person who suffers is the ordinary citizen.

    I hope pakistan army is fighting with will and is serious this time around.

  13. 21 Susan Bruce
    May 29, 2009 at 05:18

    Well; Pakistan society has been governed for years by an elite ruling class who have more money than they know what to do with; in the meantime, the countryside is filled with very poor people with barely enough to exist on – hardly any education or health care. Everyone wants to talk about the military but it is these poor people (around 2 million at the last count) who have been made refugees by these military objectives. These people do not support the Taleban, but neither did they ask to be driven from their homes to a very uncertain future. How could they return? Their animals dead, no crops planted? Previous Pakistani regimes have been all too willing to lend tacit support to the Taleban, seeing their main enemy as India and of course, America’s complicity in the situation cannot be overlooked, after all, as has been pointed out, they armed Bin Laden in the first place. But if only governments would take a step back and think about the human cost of this conflict: plenty of money is being thrown at the military but, surely, if that money was instead used to improve the living conditions of the poor in Pakistan, support for extremists would soon evaporate. America wants Pakistan to view it as an ally yet the bulk of the aid they’re supplying is for military objectives. Imagine what a difference that money would make to the poor… Quite frankly, no matter how much you spend, a conventional army will never entirely defeat people who use guerilla tactics – it is hearts and minds that need to be won over.

  14. 22 Brian Foulkrod
    May 29, 2009 at 07:35

    They just (finally) tossed out a military regime, and are still in the immediate problems that come after any government overthrow (violent OR peaceful).

    The only help they’re willing to accept (so as not to outrage prideful citizens who would like to control their own destiny) is unmanned drone attacks (which by agreement with the U.S. they will condemn and we will deny until “caught” or claim “prior permission”).

    I believe, sadly, that the Pakistani government is in a spot with no good choices. Taliban that were formed and aided by their own security service (which is still there) with a long history of cozy dealings with the dormer government run by the military (which is also still there, and only seems willing to go on the offensive when their own are threatened).

    So who can the government convince their people to trust when it must seem the entire world is against them?

  15. 23 saeed
    May 29, 2009 at 09:14

    These are Mujahedin created by Reagan and Ziaolhak to spread Islam against infidals like Breznev and Babrak Karmal etc

    • 24 RightPaddock
      May 30, 2009 at 00:29

      Many of the Muhahedin leaders of the ’80’s are not and never have been associated with the Taleban.

      n fact some of them, e.g. Abdur Rashid Dostum, Fazlullah Mojadeddi and Ahmed Shah Masood, have fought against the Teleban when its suited them. I am not of course under any illusion that these people are of themselves angels.


  16. May 29, 2009 at 10:51

    Most of our people continue to believe that this is a proxy war for the states. The constant dictation on strategy and the drone attacks aren’t helping our stance either. The anti-American sentiments that rose post Iraq war cant be overlooked. These militants defend themselves by portraying the states as the enemy which in fact is not a very difficult thing to do looking at the strategy the Bush administration had on the War of terror.
    Most of us feel betrayed as we call ourselves the first hand allies for the United states and possibly one of the Countries which has kept the interest of its allies such as the Unites states before the interest of its own people. Harboring and using the Talibans fighting against Russia and then fighting in Afghanistan post 9/11.
    Despite the fact that almost every Pakistani Leader has kept a Pro American strategy we still cant be given our free will and civilians are still being targeted through drones.
    The bitter truth is the Pakistani Military is fighting against insurgents which were killing our own people. The fact is hard to explain to the locals here as the common belief is that the ‘United states is intervening in our personal matters , matters of national security and that if we continue to fight this war (proxy war) it will only create a breeding ground for terrorist with in Pakistan.
    The open funding by the United states is further strengthening the accusations of such people.Overall its a pitty that people have not gathered it uptill now that this isnt about a blame game. Right now we are surrounded by insurgents who aren’t targeting Americans or any other people but our own. Irrespective of the Past it is very essential today that these Talibans and their network is completely wiped off. Now with increasing number of bombings and deaths of our military men many have started backing the military action. Here’s hoping that the Pakistani nation will identify the crisis at hand and appreciate the step that should have been taken long back .

  17. 26 rash
    May 29, 2009 at 11:31

    in simple terms? the answer is that the world leaders america (and their commander israel) doesnot want other countries to succeed in bringing development to their countries in all the angles.
    why i say this?
    out of all the countries which has nuclear capabilities, israel is one who doesnot admit they have the capability (but we all know)
    and 2nd..why does america worry about north & south korea having nukes??not because they care about the citizens!!!
    the puppet of israel is doing a wonderful job bringing distrust & confusion to the countries…and has continued to do so for a long time.

    • 27 Tom K in Mpls
      May 29, 2009 at 15:34

      South Korea has no nukes and no interest in getting them. They know the economic price is too high and that they are useless. Also, the US is concerned about lives everywhere and acts when there is a reasonable chance of making a difference. Too much so in my opinion.

      • 28 Cornel
        May 31, 2009 at 02:28

        “South Korea has no nukes and no interest in getting them. ”
        Oh, yeah, really? Do North Koreans know and aprove of this?

    • 29 Cornel
      May 31, 2009 at 02:25

      “Bringing development to their contries” does not mean to keep people hungry while building nuclear weapons instead. Such an irresponsible regime spells trouble to the world because nothing is more frightening to the world than an instable, poor country armed with nukes.

  18. May 29, 2009 at 12:24

    India is the solution to Pakistan!
    Superior in military and economic terms, Delhi can and should help Islamabad. Pakistan can contribute to peace and security, but at what price? On whose terms?
    Give Pakistan a comprehensive economic, social package in return for keeping militants under tight control.

  19. 31 John in Germany
    May 29, 2009 at 13:06

    If the Pakistanis ask for help, then it is the responsibility of the rest of the World to help. No Buts-No Why-We all know the answer. The U turn should be recognised with all the help that can be given.
    John in Germany.

  20. May 29, 2009 at 13:36

    Salaam… To my dear brothers and sisters down there in Pakistan I’d say : Guys, don’t you ever dare to expect any help from the outside world and particulary from the US… It’s YOU guys who should have the will and the power to help out yourselves and save your country and your from a dark and jeopardising destiney… Those outsiders do not really care about your country and its people, all they care about is their own interests, and expecting a help from them while standing still and doing nothing about all of this mess and madness would be an xtremely foolish thing to do… Did you guys forget that it was those outsiders who helped in the past creating your current enemies inorder to fight with them the Russian influence in your neighbour Afghanistan ?! With my love… Yours forever, Lubna in Baghdad…

  21. 33 John in Salem
    May 29, 2009 at 13:37

    Not very long ago we were discussing on this program whether or not the Pakistan intelligence services were involved in the assination of Benazir Bhutto.
    It’s easy to point fingers and say the U.S. is misleading the world about the motivations for this war but the truth is that the rest of the world has it’s own correspondents and news services on the ground in Pakistan and gets it’s information the same way we do.
    The short answer is that, right or wrong, the world doesn’t trust the Pakistan army and Pakistan has no one else to blame for that perception.

  22. May 29, 2009 at 14:02

    The wording of today’s question is irrelevant to the current situation. Playing the blame game is, by now, a waste of time. The world, especially Pakistan, has a real problemon its hands – one that cares naught for human life. Catchy little phrases like “hunt them down” or “flush them out” likewise waste precious time. A military solution makes popular martyrs whose followers will continue the “cause.” This problem needs to be resolved at its roots. See my blog post: http://tinyurl.com/PinkNoFlush

  23. 35 patti in cape coral
    May 29, 2009 at 14:11

    I don’t understand this whole situation very well, but I do know that the Pakistani Army and government has a very bad reputation with the world. Assuming that what they say is true and they are finally doing the right thing (maybe) , it is going to take much more time and effort before they are trusted.

  24. 36 Linda in Italy
    May 29, 2009 at 14:39

    Reading some of the deeply unhinged posts on this blog, blaming the US and the West in general for everything under the sun, the answer to whether the “The World” should be helping must be obvious. Generally the world in question is the West and the prospect of further Western military action, involving forces actually going into Pakistan to back up the government would play right into the hands of the extremists. While the US and its allies, including the Brits have a lot to blame themselves for inflaming the Muslim world, arming anyone in sight to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan without asking any questions about their ultimate aim, not to mention the Iraq debacle, being seen embarking on yet another “crusade” would be the worst of a whole lot of disastrous options. This would do the shaky Pakistani govt no favours at all and all those misguided products of religious indoctrination would see it as the perfect confirmation of their conspiracy theories. There is already a vast amount of anti-US vitriol going the rounds in Pakistan, but there is a turning tide against the Taliban and while it’s tragic to hear about the number of civilian deaths, further Western intervention would risk lighting the fuse for a full-blown civil war and all hope of the Pakistani people getting behind their own government would be lost .

    • 37 Jaacob
      June 2, 2009 at 14:05

      Linda . Sorry to disabuse you of the notion that ‘there is a turning tide against the Taliban’ .

      You’ve only got to look at all that happened in Vietnam to realise its more than likely that History will repeat itself . The Taliban are here to stay : their roots run very deep .

      If the common folk are asked to chose between a US ( and a UK ) that they hate , and a Taliban they either love or are very wary of – the Taliban should win hands down.

  25. May 29, 2009 at 15:03

    What’s going on in Pakistan is largely an internal problem that needs to be resolved by the local politicians. The army alone isn’t enough to curb the violence taking place in different parts of Pakistan. Extremism is the result of of the social , economic and political problems facing Pakistan.

    The world can support the Pakistani army with equipment and intelligence. That’s how far it can go. It’s unlikely that the Pakistanis will accept international forces on their soil as it is the case in Afghanistan.

    There are many countries that don’t like to get embroiled in a conflict beyond their borders for fear of bringing it on their soil through the formation of terrorist cells and terrorist attacks. It’s all about political calculations and the possible gains from them.

  26. 39 deryck/trinidad
    May 29, 2009 at 15:13

    All the world is a stage. Countries in war with other countries will use anyone as proxies to fight wars for them. United States and the Pakistan have both used the mujahideen, the former incarnation of the Taliban to wage war against the USSR and to disrupt life in India respectively. What we are seeing now is the chickens coming home to roost or the dog biting the hand that feeds it.

    The North West Frontier Province is basiclly a tribal region where people believe and hold on to religious and cultural practices AND IT IS AN AFFRONT TO THEM that foreign western powers give aid to their government in return for a pogrom upon its people.

    This war is essentially one of ideology and culture and therefore it cannot be won through brutality and coercion which will only tend to reinforce in the minds of the people that the West is against them and wants to change their accepted way of life.

    The world backing Pakistan is a bad idea because of the perception of the people. They view the West as manipulators of the government and Pakistan as a whole because of the large Aid packages offered. (When the piper(US) plays the tune you(Pakistan) must dance. And boy are you dancing!

  27. 40 deryck/trinidad
    May 29, 2009 at 15:17

    The world isn’t backing the Pakistani Army because:
    1.There is no finacial gain to them because they don’t see it as an investment.
    2.There are issues of transparency, accoutability and corruption that must be dealt with. No one wants to give into an abyss.

  28. May 29, 2009 at 15:25

    Rest of the world has real problems. Nut cases in Korea, that no one can figure.

    Nut jobs in Iran wanting to wipe nations off the planet.

    Religious wackos all over the place that think throwing acid in the faces of little girls and beating them is a way to win more Virgins from some God after they kick off. These types also get some sort of meaning and purpose from a God by killing themselves in order to kill those of their own religion.

    In the West greed, and packaging debt to be sold to nations with too much money has threatened to collapse what ever society we think was a good deal??????

    Too much of a mass of disgusting people. They all deserve to be eaten by some preditors from another planet or something.

    Enjoy your family, the fine day and hope for the best.


  29. 42 Donnamarie in Switzerland
    May 29, 2009 at 15:57

    @ Rash

    The vast majority of Americans–black, Hispanic, Asian, non-Jewish white folk– have no particular interest in furthering the interests of Israel, except possibly out of fairness and compassion for one UN member state whose right to exist has been denied by several other UN member states. That Mister Rash believes that the USA is controlled by Israel is not only ridiculous, it is also stupid and insulting to the great majority of Americans of all races and religions who wish for peace among all the peoples of the world.

    • 43 Tom K in Mpls
      May 29, 2009 at 19:04

      Donnamarie, on that point he is closer to the truth than you think. The lobby here is so strong that we give Israel hundreds of millions of dollars every year, we have ignored several cases of their spies caught working against us and even let them get away with a rather successful attack on a US naval destroyer in their 1967 war.

      Anyone speaking against this is immediately labeled as ‘antisemitic’ and all seem to lack the backbone to stand against this lobby. It makes no sense to me.

  30. 44 Elias
    May 29, 2009 at 15:59

    It is time to realise and accept the war against terrorism should be an all out war against fanaticasm, not just a war of containment.
    Pakistan is afraid of compromising its independance if foreign troops were invited to Pakistan to fight the Teleban. It also has a problem with India as they have many troops along the borders with India.
    The west should supply Pakistan with advanced weapons to deal with the threat of the Teleban, but India may object against it. The time may come when foreign troops can join the Pakistani army for an all out war. There should be no doubt that a limited war is not the answer. In any war an all out military action is needed and should be effective to bring it to an end.

  31. 45 T
    May 29, 2009 at 16:25

    They won’t do it because they don’t want to end up like the “coalition” force that was in Iraq. Also, because of the U.S. policy of torture, they don’t want to be connected with this. If they do, they’re afraid that their country will become a terrorist target.

  32. 46 Steve in Boston
    May 29, 2009 at 16:33

    Actually, doing nothing in Pakistan is a win-win situation for the West. We can save our money, avoid military casualties, and keep the peace at home. The Taliban will take over Pakistan, ruin whatever economy there is, kill all the scientists and engineers so the nuclear weapons will break down from lack of upkeep and parts, and in about fifteen years the world will have a desperate new supply of cheap foreign labor.

    It’s called “Lessons Learned from Vietnam.”

  33. 47 Livia Varju
    May 29, 2009 at 17:37

    The reasons the West isn’t helping Pakistan as much as it could are as follows:
    1. The Taleban have been created in the Madrasas in Pakistan, which are still not controlled sufficiently in spite of the fact that they teach violence.
    2. The agreement with the Taleban to give them the Swat Valley was insane as it was obvious that the Taleban would use it to reinforce their power. Plus the sacrificing of the girls and women of the Swat was criminal.
    3. Dr. Khan, the Father of the Paki Atom Bomb, sold nuclear technology to countless countries. Why doesn’t he pay to fight the Taleban? He must be loaded
    4. Benazir Bhutto and her husband, the present President, were charged with corruption, but the charges were suspended. Switzerland brought charges against them, but they couldn’t pursue the charges when Pakistan dropped them.
    Livia Geneva

  34. May 29, 2009 at 17:37

    @donna first of all the Taliban are the creation of the U.S and not the pak locals. They were armed and trained by the U.S to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. So if its anyone responsibility to deal with them its the U.S. Secondly, there is no proof that the Taliban is using civilians as human shield,Afghans are made up of clans and i doubt if the Taliban will be dumb enough to them as human sheilds since they rely on their support to cause mayhem. there are only rumours and half-baked truths from the U.S military and the western propaganda machine(media). On the otherhand, there is proof that the U.S cowardly drone attacks are killing civilians in large nombers, such as the one which perished almost an entire clan of 60-100 people including women,children and elderly.

  35. 49 Jennifer
    May 29, 2009 at 17:40


    Pakistani leaders are urging the world to do more for their country, so why aren’t we doing it?

    They should clean up their own mess.

  36. May 29, 2009 at 17:49

    Tom K from Mpls,
    you need a history lesson my friend. We (the US) did not use the Nuclear bomd on Japan to show the rest of the world that we now had that abilty.
    We used that weapon on Japan because they were a fanatical people at that time, and an invasion would have cost millions of lives on both sides.
    It was the use of the nulcear bomb plus the devastion from the fire bombings that forced them to surrender.

    • 51 Tom K in Mpls
      May 29, 2009 at 19:40

      Check your history again. We were in talks for surrender two months before the bombing. It was in the news and played off as ‘we will not play their pagan games’. The only condition the Japanese wanted was that their living god, Hirohito was to be left as the leader of their people. Both sides wanted this stand off. Japan thought the USSR would switch against us but they didn’t know about the Yalta agreement. Then the USSR attacked, we nuked and gave Japan their one term.

  37. 52 Shunjing
    May 29, 2009 at 17:53

    India gives Pakistan ‘s terrorist the support by bullying South Asian countries. Confronted by such threats Pakistan ‘s became a cause for terrorist . Until now no Pakistan government dare to confront the Taliban . India is not a benign power. It lap been hailing itself as a Superpower and doing everything to maintain that status.

  38. May 29, 2009 at 18:06

    Re: clean up their own mess –
    This problemis a spill-over from the jihadists and extremists that were able to develop in Afghanistan – fighters whom the US armed andencouraged in the West’s “struggle” against “godless communism.” This is just as much our mess as it is Pakistan’s mess, as Ahmed Qureishi is saying at this moment in time on air.

  39. 54 Suresh in New Jersey
    May 29, 2009 at 18:14

    The ignominous surrender and defeat of the Pakistan army in 1976 has left deep scars on that establishment. To this day, Pakistani army graduates take an oath to “avenge” this defeat in their passing-out parade. Add to this the gradual and by-now complete Islamization of the Pakistani Army since the time of Zia.

    This is a recipe for an India-fixation. This has led Pakistani Army and the ISI, the military intelligence unit, to encourage terrorists like the Lashkars.

    Why trust this organization?

  40. 55 MIGUEL (California)
    May 29, 2009 at 18:22

    No more money should be given to Pakistan until they have clear transparency and accountability for the funding that has been given.

    Why Pakistan does not ask for help to the NATO, UN and OECD?

  41. 56 Suresh in New Jersey
    May 29, 2009 at 18:24

    Pakistan seems to have the money to expand its nuclear arsenal, buy 9 additional frigates, new JF-10/JF-17 Chinese fighters and even a SAAB AWACS!!

    So when they say they need more money, of course this will be taken with a large pinch of salt.

    • 57 Omer
      May 29, 2009 at 18:46

      Suresh let me correct you if pakistani politicians are asking for money it doesn’t mean that they won’t spend a single peny for the welfair of paksitan but increasing bank balance even indian politicians are same……..

  42. May 29, 2009 at 18:33

    I must say excellent discussion ! also more than the financial aid we deserve to have our Global Integrity reinstated. After fighting for decades with and for the United states hearing rising suspicions regarding the Pakistani Military strategy and and safety of Pakistani nukes is quite heart breaking .

  43. 59 Matt in Oregon
    May 29, 2009 at 18:38

    Dear Ahmed,

    The US did not create the ‘mess’ in Afghanistan you’re speaking of. You should look closer to home, it was the Pakistani ISI who supported and some say helped create the Taliban.

    Pakistan needs to clean its own house.

    • 60 Omer
      May 29, 2009 at 18:51

      Dear Matt,

      Please bother youself to go into past which will realize these talibans were invented by *US* to fight with USSR our ISI just helped *US* to win the war.

  44. 61 Tom D Ford
    May 29, 2009 at 18:40

    I have heard news reports saying that the Swat Valley is Feudalistic and if that is true the world ought to help the common people get rid of that horrific system and free themselves. People living under Feudalism would be tempted by folks like the Taliban as helping them out.

    Ros, Please ask about Feudalism in The Swat Valley.

    • 62 RightPaddock
      May 30, 2009 at 06:58

      @Tom D Ford

      I must remind you that the “Amiable Dunce’s” strategy re kicking the Soviets out of Afghanistan was a significant factor in the collapse of the USSR

      Yesterday Russia officially opened another major facility in the Urals which is destroying the vast quantities of chemical & biological weapons stockpiled by the Soviet regime, the US is in part funding that program.

      Whether the Soviets then or the Islamic extremists today pose the greater threat to Pakistan the USA or anyone else I’m not sure, but I would remind you that the Soviets slaughtered at least 20,000,000 of their own citizens.

      From what I’ve read of the Swat valley it was/is certainly conservative, but I am not sure it was ever feudal, as least in my understanding of the term. Its populace is conservative and and organised around clan loyalties, but that’s not a feudal society. Feudal societies have a noble class ruling the serf class – which was arguably what existed in nearby Tibet, the abbots being the nobles.

  45. 63 Venessa
    May 29, 2009 at 18:41

    Isn’t Pakistan a “frontline state” due to it’s own inaction? Does Pakistan not take any responsibility in allowing the Taleban to continue their operations and even pacifying their extreme behavior by giving them the SWAT Valley?

  46. 64 Suresh in New Jersey
    May 29, 2009 at 18:44

    How come they have money for nukes and frigates and AWACS, and run a 20 BILLION USD defence budget ?

    And yet claim they need MORE money?

  47. 65 Chitranjan Saraswat
    May 29, 2009 at 18:46

    the thing is that the money given to pak for the purpose of figiting terrorist is not spend the way it should be it is spend on buying f-16s which has no role in killing terrorist but the only motive is putting india in the corner

    • 66 Omer
      May 29, 2009 at 18:56

      Dear Chitranjan,

      keep in mind *US* still O us F16 for which we’ve paid in early 90s, and pakistan has no negative intention towards INDIA

      • 67 Chitranjan Saraswat
        May 30, 2009 at 10:04

        Dear Omar,

        I think we in the Indian Subcontinent will be the Happiest People on earth if Pakistan goes on the path which you have suggested Think how many millions of Rs are spend by both india and pakistan on the arms which could be utilised for our Poor People. it will be the Happiest day in all of our lifes when pak started Behaving and donot send terrorist to kill innocent People in india. if you are a pakistani Living in Pakistan you should ask your Govt and army to think the way you think.
        and for the fact that pak paid money to US for the f-16 was also from the aid money that US gave to Pakistan during the Afganistan Russia War.

  48. 68 Farhad
    May 29, 2009 at 18:49

    1. More than Swat
    All attention is on the Pakistani Army’s battles in Swat Valley, but what about the Taliban in Waziristan (both north and south) and the Afghan Taliban in Quetta in Baluchistan? What about going after Haqqani, Hekmatyar and Mullah Omar?

    2. Good Taliban vs Bad Taliban
    The ISI and Pakistani Army has been viewing the Taliban in two colors of good and bad.

    Where the bad Tailban are those fighting against the Pakistan government and the “good” Taliban are those that are fighting to destabilize Afghanistan by fighting Afghan, US and Nato forces and sending daily suicide bombers in Afghanistan.

    3. Drug Money
    Aside from that, the drug money from the opium in Afghanistan is financing the majority of these militants. The Afghan government officials are part of the drug business and little is being done to go after them and the big fish of the drug industry.

    Farhad form San Francisco, CA

  49. 69 A.J.
    May 29, 2009 at 18:50

    Money the U.S. has given to Pakistan has been used in a questionable manner. They will not allow foreign troops into their country to assist them. They’ve made ridiculous, unworkable pacts with Taliban and Al Qaeda. The Pakistani people don’t want to fight their own (like in the occupied territories: where until Hamas and Fatah stop doing humanitarian things for the citizens, they will NOT be the enemy), but at the same time are being pushed from their homes in Swat and elsewhere. Then there are the nukes: Thanks to upstanding government employees like A.Q. Khan, the technology may have been disseminated and secrecy compromised and both Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons. If the Taliban or Al Qaeda got hold of these weapons do you think they would attack India for the “Homeland”? Doubtful. The U.S. would probably be first on their list. Yet we cannot control where the money goes and we cannot depend on Pakistan to take the fight to the insurgents (until they breathe down the necks of the government). The WORLD has a GREAT concern here, but, besides invading Pakistan, seems able to do little.

  50. 70 Tom D Ford
    May 29, 2009 at 18:51

    The general has a good point, this mess can be traced right to back to President “Amiable Dunce” Reagan!

    He armed and trained Osama Bin Laden and his Islamic fanatics.

    It’s is what the CIA calls “Blowback”.

    • 71 Tom K in Mpls
      May 29, 2009 at 19:52

      A reasonably accurate movie to watch is ‘Charlie Wilson’s War’. Texas Representative Charles Wilson stated and much and also said he wished Tom Hanks had shown a bit more of the crude reality of his personality!

  51. 72 von-Moltke
    May 29, 2009 at 19:00

    Recall that Pakistan was a borderline state with Soviet-occupied nations before, and itself received funding from the US, in addition to the Mujjehadeen (whom Pakistani and Saudi Arabia selectively funded). Now Afghanistan is a creation of the US alone, it appears.

    I think it may not have been so bad for the US if we had let the Soviets eliminate these horrible fascist Islamic cultures in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and educate the people in a secular manner as they did elsewhere in Central Asia. At least we would have had educated people to work with, and not a bunch of lying fundamentalists, after the Soviets went bankrupt (as they were destined to do).

    INDIA has never invaded Pakistan, Mr. Qureshi, despite numerous Pakistani-supported terrorist operations against innocent Indian civilians. India is not an aggressive state, and this repeated assertion of “security concerns” of Pakistan is about as justifiable as the US pretending Canada were a threat to our security.

  52. 73 Matt in Oregon
    May 29, 2009 at 19:08

    Dear Omer,

    You need a better history book. The US did back the Mujahadeen who were composesd not just Afghanis but jihadis from all over central and south west asia.

    However, after the war the US cut off its support. At that point the Mujahadeen began to fight each other, the *US was gone*.

    This is when Omer, your ISI, began to cultivate the Taliban in order to make them stong enough to win the Afghani civil war after the USSR left.

    Omer, your ISI, created this Taliban so they could control/ have significant power within Afgahnistan.

    In short the ISI funded the Taliban to win the civil war after the USSR pulled out in order to control the direction of the Afghan government. The US was long gone by then.

    Sorry, Omer.

  53. 74 Matt in Oregon
    May 29, 2009 at 19:18

    @ Tom

    1. Your history is off Tom. It was actually Jimmy Carter who started funding the Mujahadeen. So instead of blasting Reagan again read this:


    2. No one, not Reagan or Carter, could predict what Bin Laden would do in 2001. When the decision was made to help the Mujahadeen it was during the Cold War, put your mind in that context. The USSR was the enemy and the both sides would fund whatever proxy they could find to fight the other. Its a waste of time to judge decisions made 30 years ago in toay’s context.

  54. May 29, 2009 at 19:24

    The only way the world can help pakistan is to STAY AWAY!!! The pakistani people already suspect that this is a proxy war of the US on the Taliban at their expense, and the unmanned drones are not helping anythng rather playin directly to the hands of the taliban who are quickly to comfirm the interference of the crusaders. Its almost laughable that some coments here are quick to absolve the US of any responsibility when its a known fact that the Taliban was funded, armed and trained by the US and PAKISTAN to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. The only way the world can help pakistan is to send aid to the millions of displace ordinary pakis who are the ones baring the brunt of this war who have lost everythng and are hungry. I have a feeling that this war will be won and lost not in the battle fronts of North west frontier but in the refugee camps and coffee shops around Pakistan.

    May 29, 2009 at 19:48

    Well, if it suits everyone to treat symptoms and wait for the big bang, what can a poor listener like me do?
    Good night.

  56. May 29, 2009 at 19:48

    This war against the Taliban must be seen as a Pakistani affair and the moment the US or the West interferes then this will only excercebate the situation into a ful blown civil war between the Pakistani army backed with by the western crusaders and the Mujaheedin/Taliban who might be seen as fighting for the interest of pakistan. And if that happens then entire world can say confidently that HUSTON WE’V GOT A PROBLEM

  57. 78 Matt Roberts
    May 29, 2009 at 21:32

    Your question contains two blatantly erroneous premises: 1) That the USA (or any country) is bound to help other countries, and 2) that the USA or any country has any business at all aiding the military or law enforcement extablishments of other countries. In my view, the USA should immediately put an end to all foreign aid, every bit of it., right now, today. If any country supposes its efforts really need funding from us, let its officials prepare and present new requests for grants-in-aid, and then let our government take at least a year to evaluate them. If granted, each comes with many strings attached, including a bi-partisan commission on the ground to insure it doesn’t end up in some dictator’s deep pockets. The funds must have a definite time limit, the shorter the better. And the program must yield self-sufficiency by the recipient so that no more needs to be given afterward. Yes, I know, lots of luck; our aid empire primarily benefits the corrupt bureaucrats who run the aid programs, and they won’t give up that cash cow easily. As far as the second point, our history is rife with stories of how our aid to foreign military and law-enforcement agencies only made them our implacable enemies. Our biggest problems now stem from aid given long ago to corrupt organizations we thought would repay us with being our allies. Not so. Stop it all now, I say.

  58. 79 Dennis Junior
    May 30, 2009 at 04:00

    ..Pakistani leaders are urging the world to do more for their country, so why aren’t we doing it?…

    Maybe, following the other empty promises that the Pakistani Army has not acknowledge…this time the world has decided that they can’t do anymore to assist the country…

    ~Dennis Junior~

  59. 80 Joseph A. Migliore
    May 30, 2009 at 06:58

    I will send WHYS my suggestions seperately, for assisting and how I think we should proceed in our engagement in Pakistan and with modifying our military presence and strategy in Afghanistan.

    Although my letter is addressed to the U.S. President on this very issue, I will forward a copy to Ros Atkins today at the BBC WHYS home office.

    Fascinating topic today, I think there should be a unified effort by the international community and the UN to provide what assistance, both military, economic and humanitarian that the Pakistani government deems appropriate. A coordinated multi-national effort, organized by the U.N. in collaboration with the Pakistani government, including the various NGO’s to provide humanitarian and basic necessity support for the displaced peoples and refugees — in the form of Peace Building Operations.

    Unfortunately, the U.S. strategic interests do not always coincide with those of Pakistan, Afghanistan and the regional players — that’s where dialogue set’s in.


  60. 81 Dinka,Uganda
    May 30, 2009 at 13:47

    Pakistan in first place created a fake accords with Taliban in Swat now calling for international helps to fights his amiables.What`s a bully!!!!

  61. 82 Divya
    May 30, 2009 at 15:04

    I think the question is wrong; USA is backing very much the Pakistan Army and ISI. It is given the most modern weapons to this state. Has not Pakistan used the help it has received different sources and different countries to build its Military. It is the USA who had supported and indirectly created the Taliban movement to fight against the Soviet Union. It is the failure of the American diplomacy. Now supporting the Pakistan Military establishment by giving arms and know how it si not only creating imbalance in the subcontinece, but it is creating an enemy to the democratic nations in the subcontient. It is delaying the progress of democracy. Terrorism has increased during the regime of Mr. Bush. Supporting Pakistan it is supporting terrorism.
    Divya Shelke

  62. May 30, 2009 at 18:44

    From what the general and other Pakistani observers said, it appears reasonable to assume that their army may well eventually defeat the Taliban.
    If so the mess created by the US and their anti communistic obsession would have suffered an hopefully definitive set back.
    It seems clear that supplying adequate equipment to the Pakistani Army is already, even if belatedly being taken care of.
    Both parties hopefully learning their lessons thereby.
    The seemingly substantial sums already allocated to Pakistan, when assessed against the magnitude of the population appear clearly insufficient .
    They are short term occurrences anyway.
    They cannot atone for the long term losses incurred in so many fields of economic activity due to western intervention.
    Obviously atonement can only be achieved long term: for instance INVESTMENT.
    In every aspect possible and in the long term miscellaneously profitable.

  63. 84 Marija Liudvika Rutkauskaite
    May 31, 2009 at 05:10

    Thank you very much for providing this slot. Although I am not a military, it seems to me that the world is reluctant to support Pakistan strongly until it is not certain that the support will not add fuel to an extended offensive with India. Few would wish to have a war between the countries so antagonistic, so embattled and so messed up with ethnic entabglements. As to Pakistan’s contribution to the benefit of the world, it is appreciated but were the November attacks not blamed putting them at Pakistan’s doorstep? If it is the West from whom the support is expected, the West may not be sure that its contribution will go on a straight route to ensure peace. If it is the Eastern Europe and the new democracies who are called for to support Pakistan, these countries have enough problems of their own and their poverty or inefficient administration rate is not much better than those in Pakistan and India, although the ethnic aspect of tension may not so sensitive there. The world seems to have been reluctant to be drawn into any military entanglement anywhere where it feeds on vague and often petty local interests and antagonism. Thank you. Marija Liudvika Rutkauskaite

  64. 85 Munti Dann
    May 31, 2009 at 05:22

    The answer are simple.

    1. There is no need for others to help a dangerous nation to fight another equally peace threatening group of militants.
    2. If the powerful US military and intelligence have already been involved in the conflict, the rest of the world can stay aside and just watch.
    3. When it comes to combatting terrorism, which country would want to throw itself into the murky water to get soaked unnecessarily?

    • 86 Ven-ze
      June 7, 2009 at 04:27

      Well said. Your simple answers are pertinent.

      Just wonder why any nation would want to intervene instead of leaving the troubled nation to take care of its own problems.
      (venze chern)

  65. May 31, 2009 at 08:41

    The Army of Pakistan and the seventeen billion of the population of the country is dominated by the intelligence agency of the country ISI and her own artificial establishment for more then six decades, ISI is involved in each and every evil action against her own country’s population specially against the democratic parties are take and they are not letting the federal units be selfsufficient and democratically having whole rights to live on their natural resources in their national democratic circles. Specially Punjab single province is fully supported by the ISI and whole the remaining people and resources are looted by the 1% Punjabi establishment, even the 99% of the population of Punjab is affected badly having nothing to live on. When there is the ISI there will be no peace in the World. So world is not supporting the military of Pakistan because they are black mailing the World.

  66. 88 John LaGrua/New York
    May 31, 2009 at 19:04

    Pakistan is so complex that the simpistic US policy is doomed to fail. The debacle in Iraq and the US support for Isreal has destroyed any hope the US having a positive influence in the region..In each country our ignorance of the culture and our arrogance to view their problems through our own prism has led the US to see solutions by military means.The corrupt Pakistan leadership is on a incredible gray train with billions of US dollars in aid and a private agenda to minimize risk while giving the appearance of fighting the Taliban.Each US air strike diminshes our chances of a favorable outcome . Our aim should be to prevent the nuclear weapons from falling into wrong hands but our very presence stregthens the Taliban and creates a greater threat to world security.Only Pakistan can solve it’s problems.

  67. 89 Ramesh, India
    June 1, 2009 at 00:28

    Ref: According to this article, almost 75% of government revenue goes into the Army and it is an ongoing tension with India that works to sustain this budget.
    I strongly doubt the 75% claim. Pakistan has huge debt and interest payments alone make over 20% of the budget. My estimation is that under any circumstances, the defense budget can not cross 25% of the national budget. When I googled, I found this info which may not be true either. But look at the difference.

    During the last five years, the defence budget ratio to government expenditures declined by 7 percent, as it worked out to only 15 percent declining from 22 percent of the total expenditures.

    I suggest WHYS team to look more for facts than on reports, especially those manipulative reports from the US.

    • 90 Jaacob
      June 2, 2009 at 13:25

      Ramesh . As per the IMF and World Bank statistics . Pakistan’s Debt to GDP ratio is in the region of only 39% . This is in stark contrast to countries like the US and India , where the same ratio is far higher i.e around 59 %.

      The reason Pakistan has such relatively low levels of Debt is because they simply don’t need it . They’ve been amply bankrolled by Uncle Sam to the tune of billions each year.

  68. 91 Sena Gasu
    June 1, 2009 at 16:52

    ref: According to this article, almost 75% of government revenue goes into the Army and it is an ongoing tension with India that works to sustain this budget. Maybe then, Pakistan’s military has got its priorities wrong. the world holders , ie USA and other Big countries to do some thing seriously wants to happen to the indians economy before putting hands on. i totally back back the world militry to help and sustain peace at the violent areas for both rich and poor to contribute to the economic development of their country.

  69. 92 Syed Hasan Turab
    June 1, 2009 at 17:00

    Keeping in view the histry of this nation & over 850 years ruling over india, will help us to find the cure of extreem minority, which use to be majority in the past years.
    Now question is this how come majority convert in minority, so the answer is ” EDUCATION” & Social Welfare reforms. No doubt East is still rich in moral sector. This nation is willing or eager to get the modern education.
    I request to all WHYS contributer’s please understand historical & Geogriphical facts, before reaching on conclusion.

  70. 93 Shaista Afzal
    June 2, 2009 at 08:14

    If world will not help Pakistan at this crucial time, then the coming generation all over the world will have to face this unsafe world, created by irresponsible policy of the west and by selfish and corrupt leader of Pakistan it self. It is in the best interest of the whole world to help Pakistan in more responsible way, looking thing in greater prospective. Helping people rather then corrupt political leaders is the real answer. Instead of using Pakistan by their corrupt leaders it is the time to clean the mess produced by west in cold war era.

  71. 94 william
    June 2, 2009 at 09:21

    Pakistan has had billions from the Western world. The Pakistan army has Western forces across the border helping to put the squeeze on a mutual enemy. The Pakistani people, state and army seem only recently to have woken up to the fact that there has been a terrorist industry in their country which has gone unchallenged for decades. There is a network of Madrassas which preach the most blinkered, hateful, anti-western ideology and the Pakistanis have done nothing about them up until recently.
    If Pakistan wants a peaceful existance then it must clean out those nests of vipers. It isn’t Westen powers who export hundreds of thousands of migrants to muslim countries filled with hatred for the people of those countries.

    Frankly, we ‘infidels’ are getting tired of being insulted by Pakistanis whilst other Pakistanis hold out their hand for our cash and yet others plot atrocities in our countries.
    I doubt this message will get past the censors because another reality of Western countries is that not only must we tolerate the aforementioned insults and threats but we must tolerate them in silence.

    • 95 Jaacob
      June 2, 2009 at 13:14

      So very true.

      However ,the reality is nothing will change. Pakistan will not only continue to harbour and foster the ‘nest of vipers’ in their midst . But will continue its very successful policy of ‘charming ‘ the West into forking over even more billions.

      Which it will promptly use to purchase advanced fighter aircraft from the US , missiles from China and nuclear material from both China and France.

      All for use , of course , in its ‘war against the Taliban’.

      At the end of the day ,everyone comes out ahead. The US, China, France, and the UK get to sell billions worth of fighters, armaments, missiles and nukes to Pakistan . While the Pakistani Army , the ISI and their Politicians get to skim off still more billions straight into their wallets.

      And what of the common people of Pakistan ? Well ,all they really need are their dreams of jihad. . That should keep them hyped up and raring to ‘ave a go.

  72. 96 Rehman
    June 2, 2009 at 14:37

    Well, I think we Pakistanis need to realise that in the past 50 years if we look at the Pakistan and India history its pakistan who is resposnible for initiating any kind of belligerency e.g, mumbai attacks, kargil incident, in 1971 it was pakistan Army that started a suicidal action in Bangladesh and it was our politicians who for their own insecurtites refused to give that state its due right and allowed the break up of our counrty it will be wrong and naive to blame India for our own mistakes. In 1965 it was again Pakistan who sent militants in Kashmir and sparked another conflict and lost the war because USA refused to send supplies and Pakistan army did not have adequate ammunition.
    us Pakistanis should realize that the world is not blind like our illiterate and ignorant population which is listening to state media only and d not listen to independant comments. No one will help an aggressor and we have made India more popular with the world because of our own deeds.

  73. 97 Tom D Ford
    June 3, 2009 at 18:16

    WHYS team, I find it disconcertingly odd that this Conservative answered my post before I posted it:


    @ 61 RightPaddock
    May 30, 2009 at 06:58

    “@Tom D Ford

    I must remind you that the “Amiable Dunce’s” strategy re kicking the Soviets out of Afghanistan was a significant factor in the collapse of the USSR.”


    @ 69 Tom D Ford
    May 29, 2009 at 18:51

    The general has a good point, this mess can be traced right to back to President “Amiable Dunce” Reagan!

    He armed and trained Osama Bin Laden and his Islamic fanatics.

    It’s is what the CIA calls “Blowback”.

    How did that happen?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: