The issue of apologies

Published: July 10, 2012

The writer is an assistant professor at Georgetown University

Last week, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton uttered something vaguely resembling the much demanded apology as a quid quo pro for Pakistan’s reopening the ground supply routes to Afghanistan. The civilian drama followed backstage haggling among Pakistan and US military brass where the real work was done. However, for many Pakistanis, Clinton’s vague utterance did not constitute an apology. Meanwhile in the US, many Americans are waiting for some apologies from Pakistan.

The diplomatic word-crafting fooled no one. Though a temporary workaround to open the ground routes was found, the fundamental differences in the countries’ strategic priorities haven’t been addressed.

For many Americans, Pakistan got what it deserved after some eleven years of support to those groups attacking US and allied troops occupying Afghanistan. This sense of accumulated outrage decreased any appetite for apologies. That this is an election year further compounded the Obama Administration’s considerations. There is no more appetite for continued engagement of Pakistan among an increasingly broke and war-weary public. Prior to Salala, Americans were incensed by the revelation that Osama bin Laden had been living in a town a short distance from the Pakistan Military Academy. While some analysts concede that there is no hard proof that the ISI or other senior leadership knew about Bin Laden’s presence (including this author), many Americans find this hard to believe. Pakistan has done little to assuage their incredulity. For example, it has shown no interest in discerning who helped Bin Laden remain in Pakistan undetected for years. Instead, Pakistan has focused singularly upon a hapless physician who helped bring down Bin Laden. Former Pakistan Ambassador Husain Haqqani was berated in Pakistan’s media, Supreme Court, khaki circles and parliament for allegedly selling Pakistan’s sovereignty by issuing visas to the various CIA agents who brought down Bin Laden. No one has bothered to discern who sold out Pakistan’s sovereignty by aiding and abetting Bin Laden’s tenure in the country. All of this has accumulated in a simmering sense among Americans that it is Pakistan who owes the Americans some apologies. Having taken more than $22 billion in US taxpayers’ money since 9/11, many believe that Pakistan is more intent on helping our enemies than helping us to defeat them.

Of course, many Pakistanis rubbish these contentions. Unfortunately, Pakistanis share the American proclivity to be ignorant of their own history. For example, many Pakistanis cling to the canard that it was America that foisted jihad upon Pakistan during the 1980s when the Soviets occupied Afghanistan. Pakistan’s Afghan policy took shape in the mid-1970s under Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. When Ziaul Haq seized power, he was unable to persuade then US president Jimmy Carter to support Pakistan’s preferred means of managing the Russians in Afghanistan: jihad. Not only did Carter refuse to budge, his administration imposed nuclear proliferation-related sanctions in April of 1979 which precluded security assistance to Pakistan. These were waived with the invasion by the Soviets on Christmas Day in 1979. This began a decade of American subordination of its nonproliferation goals to its Afghan policy, which required it to find ways of funnelling aid to Pakistan.

When the US withdrew in 1990, Pakistan continued supporting Islamist militants in Afghanistan in hopes of undermining the communist Najibullah government. Pakistan supported Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who battled Ahmad Shah Masood and his Northern Alliance. While the Russians never destroyed Kabul, these duelling warlords did. When Hekmatyar failed, the Pakistan shifted its support to the Taliban. The Taliban come from the same madrassas as several Deobandi militants tied to the Pakistan Taliban, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi/SSP, Jaish-e-Mohammad and so forth. Not only did Pakistan continue to be involved in Afghan policy throughout the 1990s — when the US was absent from the region — it also supported a slew of militant organisations that also operated in Kashmir.

With such starkly different accounts of history and responsibility, the deal that has been tentatively inked is bound to fail. The apology should have never been linked to an opening of the ground lines of control. President Obama should have apologised immediately and should have used that occasion to begin a frank conversation about the very real divergent goals that Pakistan and America have in and for the region. Unless these differences could be narrowed and unless — at a minimum — Pakistan immediately ceased support for the very groups killing US, Nato and Afghan troops and civilians, there should have been no deal.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 10th, 2012.

Reader Comments (54)

  • TT
    Jul 10, 2012 - 12:14AM

    Absolutely accurate….!!! GOOD article

    Recommend

  • faraz
    Jul 10, 2012 - 12:17AM

    ZAB/Zia did support some Afghan elements, but US injected 10 billion dollars, lethal weaponry, jihadi publications published in university of Nebraska, and foreign militants from all over the world and produced a whole generation of extremists

    Recommend

  • Naumann Malik
    Jul 10, 2012 - 12:52AM

    Even if America apologized, “sorry” is a meaningless word for them.

    Recommend

  • Ali tanoli
    Jul 10, 2012 - 12:58AM

    Miss Fair,
    Pakistan lost lot more than made with the friendship of Red Bull.

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jul 10, 2012 - 1:05AM

    So much truth in just one column. It may be too hot to handle. USA has nothing to show for 22 billion dollars and years of “engagement” , except the other party working directly against stated goals of USA.

    Recommend

  • Alam
    Jul 10, 2012 - 1:05AM

    Ms Fair tells as it is.

    Bravo !

    Recommend

  • Imran
    Jul 10, 2012 - 1:10AM

    Professor Fair:

    I find it incredulous that the US was not aware of Pakistan’s intentions following the invasion of Afghanistan. You fail to mention it in your article but you are well aware that Pakistan’s interests in Afghanistan run through New Delhi. Having fought three major wars with its neighbor, Pakistan was going to do everything in its power to deflect and diffuse impending Indian influence in Afghanistan. If there is one country that is knowledgeable about Pakistan’s security concerns and dilemma, it is the United States. Your own research, Dr Fair, shows that the Indian consulates set up over the last decade on the Durand line are in reality intelligence posts. The circumstances surrounding Pakistan’s decision or rather indecision regarding the Haqqani network must be analyzed in this context. The US has shown its unwillingness to ‘stay the course’ in Afghanistan hence allowing Pakistan to think that if it bides its time it will be the last one standing. The US looks at India as a counterweight to China while ignoring Pakistan’s protestations. Indeed, it is the failure of the US to address Pakistan’s long term concerns (however ridiculous they might seem) that has led to this impasse.

    Your article provided a short history lesson as well. However, it failed to mention a small project run by USAID at the University of Nebraska in the early 1980′s where pamphlets were published teaching children to learn local alphabets by connecting them to tools of war ie. K for Klashnikov and J for jihad. Dr Fair, what do you think are the chances that kids who went to AID sponsored “institutions” ended up leading the Taliban to victory in the 90′s and then harboring OBL and his gang.

    Pakistan’s faults are long and lengthy; you’ve delved into them comprehensively. However, unless we present a collective picture of US-Pakistan relationship we will continue to hit one road block after another. Yes, there is a divergence of goals now but at one time they were very much in line with each other. Once policy wonks in Washington and Rawalpindi/Islamabad understand this aspect of our shared history, the next bump in the relationship might not require such prolonged posturing.

    Recommend

  • Khurram
    Jul 10, 2012 - 1:17AM

    It is an insightful, provocative and stimulating analysis of a strange relationship which is based upon not on the mutual but diverse strategic interests of the parties. On the long run, does not matter how one puts it Pakistan is on the losing end, it needs to do more than the mere cosmetic pronouncements even if not for the US but for her on survival. In the broad strategic calculus getting rid of all the terrorists sanctuaries in FATA or other places will prove much more beneficial to Pakistan than to the US.

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jul 10, 2012 - 1:18AM

    How about translating this into Urdu and then using drones to drop these leaflets all over Pakistan, so that people may know the other side of the story ? Believe me, it will do more good than dropping bombs using drones.

    Recommend

  • Jul 10, 2012 - 1:48AM

    In fact,
    article writer is not familiar with the ground realities
    attributed to the ”sorry”

    It was a formal apology as demanded for,vide its meanings
    in the diplomatic language/dictionary,you would find many conditions
    attributed to it.

    Recommend

  • fraz
    Jul 10, 2012 - 2:02AM

    Cant understand what the lady is saying.Qouting episodes of history.Hasnt that country messed up in Afghanistan themselves?

    Recommend

  • You Said It
    Jul 10, 2012 - 2:22AM

    @faraz:
    ZAB/Zia did support some Afghan elements, but US injected 10 billion dollars, lethal weaponry, jihadi publications published in university of Nebraska, and foreign militants from all over the world and produced a whole generation of extremists

    Ironic that your criticism of Christine Fair’s argument relies on the very same narrative that she points out is absolute hogwash. US provided funds and weapons, but it was Pakistan that picked the actors to whom these funds/weapons were directed and Pakistan chose to rely on the most virulent religious extremists. We can deny this all we want, but Pakistan has to live with the consequences of the choices of our establishment every day. The proof that the responsibility lies in Pakistan is that it is Pakistan’s Hazara, Shia, Ahmedi, Hindu and Christian citizens who are dying because of these choices.

    Recommend

  • not-an-indian
    Jul 10, 2012 - 2:59AM

    @Babloo: You are neither an american nor a pakistani. Are you an unemployed and spiteful man from hindustan ?

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jul 10, 2012 - 3:27AM

    @Imran,
    Pakistan’s psychological issues with India is none of concern of any other country.

    Recommend

  • Plal
    Jul 10, 2012 - 4:21AM

    @Imran: You need to read carefully before commenting and You are unnecessarily dragging India in US-Pakistan tit for tat to divert attention.No Indian consulates has been set up over the last decade on the Durand line and there are only 4 Indian consulate in Afghanistan since Indian Independence which were closed during Taliban rule ,as India did not recognize Taliban- Prominent Pakistan analyst like Tariq Fatmi also accept this and Pakistan Government has also not taken this popular misconception in Pakistan with Indian Government.

    Recommend

  • Rao
    Jul 10, 2012 - 4:38AM

    @Imran: WELL SAID!

    Recommend

  • usali
    Jul 10, 2012 - 4:48AM

    For few days, I have stopped commenting at ET but this write up goaded me to reply. Yes our top military brass and our government functionaries worked as hirelings to serve the American and personal interest at the nation’s expense. Their accounts must have swelled. But that is one part of the story. Pakistan has faced the brunt of the war, borne 4 million refugees for 4 decades and yet we have ‘broke and ware weary ‘American’ people’, just as if we are living in paradise and the people are frolicking. We have lost 40,000 lives in a war which was never ours, of course not to mention the hundreds of thousands that suffered in Afghanistan because of this war. The economy has suffered more than 70 billion dollars as stated officially, the road infrastructure in shambles and yet, the author has to gloat over the 22 billion dollar they have paid us in return for the arms and ammunition used to bomb our villages. I can go on and on. The war is selling well for few people and they will keep beating the drums to carry it on or otherwise the world peace is at jeopardy. America needs a scapegoat to justify their failure to their own public. All this extremism (and the rest of nonsense) will not end, till an amicable settlement is reached between the warring sides. As some one pithily stated, ‘In modern wars there is no loss or win, it is all about damage’.Please, Give peace a chance. Come to the table and negotiate, giving respect to the other side. (I don’t expect much recommendations for my reply, looking at the proclivity of the people commenting here at ET, in general but I have to give vent to my feelings).

    Recommend

  • faraz
    Jul 10, 2012 - 5:35AM

    @ You Said It

    I often comment on this site, and I am a harsh critic of the army. But US was the chief financier of the jihad project; Pakistan never had the money to train and arm these armies. Do you really think Pakistan was afraid of Soviet reaching warm waters at Gawadar? It was a childish theory cooked up after US money started pouring in. Brzezinski admits that CIA started funding Afghan groups months before the invasion to lure the Soviets into the quagmire; he termed it the ‘Bear Trap’. CIA didn’t give this money to finance Sufi moderates. It was a brutal war and the most fanatic were favored. In 1983, when Ahmad Shah Mehsood made a temporary ceasefire with soviets, CIA supported ISI’s decision to stop payments. And after Soviet left, US simply walked away. Pakistan with 2 percent GDP growth rate was in no position to rehabilitate tens of millions of Afghans. Our participation in Afghan jihad was a deadly mistake; and US was the chief beneficiary and thus it’s equally, if not more, responsible. The real irony is that US is trying to distance itself from the Cold war; historians won’t buy Christine’s argument

    Recommend

  • Green and white
    Jul 10, 2012 - 5:40AM

    Bravo, Ms. Fair! Excellent article that calls out the facts about Pakistan’s responsibility in fomenting the jihaad mindset. We can deny all we want, but the facts wont change that the army instigated the use of Islamic extremism in an attempt to undermine Afghanistan, and as a result we have undermined our own country, our economy and our society forever.

    Recommend

  • Diogenes
    Jul 10, 2012 - 6:09AM

    @Imran: Pakistan and India each have 4 consulates in Afghanistan and in the same locations. Kandahar and Jalalabad near the Pak-Afghan border, Herat near the Iran-Turkmenistan border and Mazar-i-Sharif near the Uzbekistan border.

    Ms. Fair also went on to say on record that “Pakistanis have blown my comments [on Indian consultates and Indian intelligence agencies operating in Balochistan] out of proportion!”

    Recommend

  • Feroz
    Jul 10, 2012 - 6:27AM

    Pakistan has formed policies based on hate for its neighbor India. That its policy brought nothing but death and misery to itself as well as its neighbors, was of little consequence. Now it has nuclear weapons and lots of elements spread across the country who want to lay their hands on it. Besides the nuclear weapons do not seem to have brought any additional responsibility in quarters that tend to use terrorism for their own narrow interests. The World is alarmed.

    It must be clearly understood without a strong will and the support of the International community that includes its neighbors, the country will fall apart. The real question is whether the World will find it better to intervene to prevent a collapse OR will come in to clean up after the collapse. Blaming outside actors for the fruits of ones own actions will not prove productive.

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jul 10, 2012 - 6:40AM

    @not-an-India,
    Your psychological issues too are also none of my concern.

    Recommend

  • anjaan
    Jul 10, 2012 - 6:51AM

    1. The message from the US to Pakistan is, India is Pakistan’s enemy not America’s. Therefore Pakistan has to go back to the drawing board to rewrite its foreign policy if it wants US cooperation.

    2. The message from Pakistan to the US is, you are either with us or against us, with regard to India.

    It will eventually be decided in a few more years after 2014, who wins this game of poker …. !Recommend

  • Zeeshan
    Jul 10, 2012 - 7:32AM

    As an American partisan who supports US occupation in Afghanistan, can you be fair to ” very real divergent goals that Pakistan and America have in and for the region”? I thought you are already talking to the Talibans and finding ways to escape this costly war you fought with that rag-tag group? I don’t think Americans are “broke and war-weary public”; they already eyeing to wage another war with Iran.

    You want to end the war because you no longer know how to win this messy war. Declare stalemate and apologize for the hundreds of thousands of people you have killed post 9-11 and leave us alone or accept defeat and go home and rethink how to keep taming and killing us.

    “Pakistan immediately ceased support for the very groups killing US, Nato and Afghan troops and civilians, there should have been no deal.”

    How expensive are the souls of European and American invaders and their Afghan enablers than the souls of Pakistanis and Afghans occupied!! Maybe you should end the occupation and then listen carefully to the Pakistani side before blackmailing us.Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jul 10, 2012 - 7:33AM

    Is it too far fetched to think that the chief justice may take suo-moto action and appoint a judicial commission to investigate if the “sorry” amounts to an “apology” or not ?

    Recommend

  • Rao
    Jul 10, 2012 - 7:46AM

    Old wine is presented here

    Recommend

  • kdp
    Jul 10, 2012 - 8:31AM

    How about demanding Apology from Taliban for beheading several Pakistani Soldeirs?

    Recommend

  • Jul 10, 2012 - 9:10AM

    Thank you for the excellent article, professor.

    Recommend

  • Abbas
    Jul 10, 2012 - 9:35AM

    The author kept on talking about how the Pakistan agencies played double game and how much it is hurting American interests. But she forgot to mention that thousands of innocent Pakistani’s have died in this war of terror. It amazes me that the so called civilized world seems not to be interested in even recognizing what cost ordinary Pakistani has paid. I guess in the end that so called civilized world is also “Two Face”.

    Recommend

  • gp65
    Jul 10, 2012 - 10:02AM

    @anjaan: “The message from Pakistan to the US is, you are either with us or against us, with regard to India.
    It will eventually be decided in a few more years after 2014, who wins this game of poker …. !”

    The ‘with us or against us’ is an arrogant message that can only be given by the more powerful country to a weaker one. PAkistan is in no condition to demand ‘with us or against us’ policy with regards to India in its relationship with US. The limits of Pakistani leverage became very clear after this 7 months standoff where US did not blink.

    Recommend

  • WoW
    Jul 10, 2012 - 11:00AM

    Pakistanis playing the double game? I’d say the Americans got a taste of their own medicine of the lies and games they played in Iraq in 2003 and Afghanistan in the 80′s. What goes around always comes around!

    Recommend

  • Zeeshan
    Jul 10, 2012 - 11:13AM

    kdp,

    Have you heard the Americans ever demanded an apology from the Taliban for killing their soldiers? Why? Think.

    Recommend

  • PolicyAnalyst
    Jul 10, 2012 - 11:13AM

    Chris:

    The deal only demonstrates how devoid of ideals American foreign policy is. Its simple pragmatism. It was supporting the Afghan Mujahideen in the 1980s, its the NATO supply line now. You sell your long-term interests for temporary pain relief. Unfortunately, so do we. Pakistan should never have let itself become an ally in this War of Error.

    Recommend

  • Jul 10, 2012 - 1:08PM

    Sorry seems to be the hardest word for US Pakistan relationship. It is falling apart like the bottom of a staircase that spirals out of sight.

    Recommend

  • Faisal R
    Jul 10, 2012 - 1:46PM

    Ms Fair

    I respect your observations but don’t agree to the most. Lets be fair on one thing that Pakistan was put in a war situation against Soviets by US. Pakistan didn’t have much choice at that time. After 911, a war was imposed by Mr. Bush threatening to send Pakistan to stone-age knowing that fact that Pakistan was not involved in 911 by any means. Again, Pakistan didn’t have much choice but to nod and get enough supply of dollars in return.

    The world would have been a much better place to live in if Americans didn’t have aspirations of building up global empire through false crusades.

    Recommend

  • Naresh
    Jul 10, 2012 - 3:52PM

    .
    Prof. Dr. C Christine Fair : Welcome to the Real World!
    .
    Cheers

    Recommend

  • x
    Jul 10, 2012 - 5:14PM

    @ usali, @faraz,
    very well said. perhaps an op-ed, countering this one, is needed.Recommend

  • Sadia
    Jul 10, 2012 - 5:39PM

    The world revolves around American and American interests.

    Recommend

  • Zero
    Jul 10, 2012 - 6:16PM

    This is a really shocking attempt at whitewashing American crimes:

    When Ziaul Haq seized power, he was
    unable to persuade then US president
    Jimmy Carter to support Pakistan’s
    preferred means of managing the
    Russians in Afghanistan:

    “According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention….”

    –Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Adviser to President Carter, Le Nouvel Observateur, 15-21 November 1998Russians in Afghanistan: jihad.

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jul 10, 2012 - 6:37PM

    @Zero,
    What you write , re-inforces what Miss Fair is saying. If the US administration decided only in July 3,1979 to aid the opponents of pro-soviet regime in Kabul, that means prior to it, for 2-3 years, the Zial-Ul-Haq administration has been supporting the anti-Kabul Jihadi groups on its own. So US was a late convert to the policy that Pakistan had already adopted and persued.

    Recommend

  • Jul 10, 2012 - 6:55PM

    @Imran: All the efforts, energy and money spent from 1947 on ward by Pakistan to seek parity or superiority over India is based on a single line theory “that India is an arch enemy and India wants to capture Pakistan.” Now if you sincerely analyse and some how reach to a honest conclusion that India does not need or desire to capture Pakistan and hence is not an arch enemy then don’t’ you think that all these years have been wasted on a phantom. Sir, Please sit and think; Pakistan was not created by war but by a democratic process of voting and with the consent of all concerned leaders. The blood shed was during the transfer of population who were forced to leave their ancestral land within matter of weeks. So why would India try to capture Pakistan and why are we arch enemy. Some day when all will settle down in peace like Germany, France, Spain and England (enemies for centuries) we would realise what fools were we. Also note that though China has, India has never shown any interest in changing or influencing Nepal, Bhutan, Tibet, Myanmar etc around her.

    Recommend

  • Jul 10, 2012 - 7:22PM

    “According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet – ”

    @Zero:

    “…The Balochistan insurgency presented Pakistan’s military and intelligence services with an opportunity to cast Afghanistan as an additional significant threat to Pakistan’s security, which justified continued military expenditures and helped maintain Pakistan’s status as a garrison state. At a later stage, Bhutto was also persuaded to support the militias of two Afghan Islamist leaders, Burhanuddin Rabbani and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar…Pakistan had started seeking to expand its influence into Afghanistan with the help of Islamists years before the Soviets invaded that country. Ironically, this covert operation of Pakistan’s ISI had been initiated while an ostensibly secular politician, Bhutto, governed Pakistan. According to General Khalid Mahmud Arif – ”

    Haqqani, Husain (2010-11-12). Pakistan: Between Mosque And Military (p. 103-4). Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Kindle Edition.

    Pakistani support for Afghanistan’s Islamist militias predated American support by at least half a decade; Carter’s initiative was in response to the Soviet-supported PDPA takeover of the country and followed the March 1979 Herat Uprising against the PDPA.

    In short, American support was meant to be directed to the most effective anti-Soviet force in Afghanistan, not the jihadists in particular. Recommend

  • ayesha_khan
    Jul 10, 2012 - 7:31PM

    @Faisal R: “Lets be fair on one thing that Pakistan was put in a war situation against Soviets by US. Pakistan didn’t have much choice at that time.”

    Sorry. In 2001 perhaps Pakistan may not have had a choice. But it most definitely had a choice in in 1979. It basically happily agreed to participate in the war in return for 3 things:
    1) money
    2) free arms
    3) US looking the other way regarding Pakistan’s nuclear program.

    In fact the choice to serve American strategic interests in return for free arms and money was made by Jinnah and followed up by Ayub. You can pretend to be the victim and refuse to take accountability for your decisions all you want. But rest of the world is not so naive.

    Recommend

  • hamza khan
    Jul 10, 2012 - 7:48PM

    also just to be fair, pakistan has NOT taken $22 billion of US taxpayer money in the past decade. the figure is closer to $11 billion, half of which was reimbursement and half of which was social and military aid. how much money has the US government spent/corrupted/wasted away in iraq and afghanistan, ms fair?

    Recommend

  • Zeeshan
    Jul 10, 2012 - 8:16PM

    “The ‘with us or against us’ is an arrogant message that can only be given by the more powerful country to a weaker one. PAkistan is in no condition to demand ‘with us or against us’ policy with regards to India in its relationship with US. The limits of Pakistani leverage became very clear after this 7 months standoff where US did not blink.”

    The most arrogant person here is you and your fellow Americans. If a nation with 700 billion dollar in military budget failed to tame a rag-tag group , then one should show more humility and wonder whether the chest-thumping “powerful country” is just another chest-thumping without substance. Pakistan recognized its limits; one has to wonder whether you and America know your limit.

    Pakistan merely demanded an apology for the 24 soldiers massacred, No retaliation and not one American was punished. So, who did not know the limit here? If 24 American soldiers were killed, think about how the “most powerful” nation would react to a “weaker one”. Recommend

  • K B Kale
    Jul 10, 2012 - 8:49PM

    As per the report in Times of India, the wording goes like this:
    Secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton says she told Pakistan’s foreign minister in a telephone conversation that the US is “sorry for the losses suffered by the Pakistani military.” She says both sides acknowledged mistakes that resulted in deaths.
    Clinton said Khar informed her that the Pakistani-Afghan supply lines are opening. She said Pakistan won’t charge any transit fee, the subject of an earlier negotiation.
    So even though, there was no apology per se, in Hilton’s apology statement, it was considered good enough for the time being! Recommend

  • Alchemy
    Jul 10, 2012 - 10:25PM

    @faraz:

    Most of what you wrote is incorrect.

    Brezinski denied ever having said what you quoted.

    And again, it was Pakistan which was training and funding these Jihadis a LONG time before the US got involved.

    Listen to Gen Zia at 1:00 onwards.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVg57cjKID4

    Recommend

  • Zeeshan
    Jul 10, 2012 - 10:28PM

    It is indeed intriguing when the fault now being shifted to Pakistan for creating this anti-Soviet force prior to 1979 by Christine Fair and her co. That force was once viewed by Americans as a good force until these men turned around and did to America/Nato what they have done to the Soviet before: fight the imperialist. All of the sudden, the once “freedom fighters” become “terrorists” when the invaders’ flag changed.

    “This began a decade of American subordination of its nonproliferation goals to its Afghan policy, which required it to find ways of funnelling aid to Pakistan.”

    “subordination”? Look at the language and you’ll understand why they are in their current position in Afghanistan.

    Recommend

  • Alchemy
    Jul 10, 2012 - 10:30PM

    @Zero:

    Bzrezinski denied having said that.

    Recommend

  • Zeeshan
    Jul 10, 2012 - 10:37PM

    ayesha_khan,

    So, Soviet imperialism was not part of it? Parroting American perspective and ignoring the subaltern voice of men and women who stood up to resist an empire speak volume to how past is being presented in today’s monotonous world.

    Recommend

  • fraz
    Jul 11, 2012 - 12:57AM

    Once upon a time our country was peaceful and we had hpoe and beautiful dreams.We have lost many soldiers and thirty thousand civilians and our peace taken away from us.MS Fairs taxpayers peanuts can not compensate for what we have lost.Now is the US bending backwards for talks with the Taliban?Nonetheless talks sometime bring peace.US wars are on others home ground,whos forgettingVietnam?Wars are not good for any body but some force others.What does MS Fair think about these little drones,she is mum.Peace is every ones right

    Recommend

  • gp65
    Jul 11, 2012 - 4:38AM

    @Zeeshan: “So, Soviet imperialism was not part of it? Parroting American perspective and ignoring the subaltern voice of men and women who stood up to resist an empire speak volume to how past is being presented in today’s monotonous world.”

    Both US and USSR were imperialistic in their own ways. Pakistan could have remained non-aligned but chose from the start of its history to get aligned with US for the reasons I stated.

    I am not parroting American perspective. On the other hand, you definitely appear to be parroting the perspective that the deep state taught you.

    Recommend

  • K B Kale
    Jul 11, 2012 - 8:54AM

    @fraz
    Pl don’t act so innocent, OK? I am no advocate of USA, but it attacked Afghanistan because Taliban Govt & OBL launched 9/11 and Pakistan was the only country at that time which recognised Taliban Govt. Opportunist to his core, Mush didn’t stand with Taliban but shifted his loyalties just for a handful of dollars under a grandiose Excuse of “changed ground realities”.Recommend

  • Jul 11, 2012 - 10:05AM

    “.We have lost many soldiers and thirty thousand civilians and our peace taken away from us.”

    @fraz: any other country with pretensions of democracy would have blamed poor military leadership for such woes. In Pakistan, however, everyone keeps mute – what is your excuse?

    Recommend

More in Opinion