I had to respond to this. Normally I do not like to be drawn into a
divisive conversation at such a time, but I believe there are good
reasons that the US has been abandoning Pakistan, and I personally
believe that it should continue doing that until certain conditions
are met by that country.

As a disclaimer, let me say that I am Indian, and my city has had to
indirectly experience terrorism championed by some in Pakistan. So my
message is possibly clouded by that.

I am from Bombay, a city which expewrienced, in early 1993, a series
of 14 co-ordinated bombs in the vivinity of 2 hours, killing about 300
people and injuring and maiming about 1200. The legal system is only
now beginning to prosecute in the courts..after all India is the
worlds largest democracies, and even(or particularly) in such heinous
cases, standards must be met...but one of the implicated terrorists,
Takub Memon has implicated the Pakistani Intelligence agency ISI
(Inter Services Intelligence) and Dawood Ibrahim, a Bombay mobster now
holed up in the United Arab Emirates, in these terrorist attacks.
These bombings were ostensibly responses to the felling of the Babri
mosque and the subsequent Hindu-Muslim riots in which thousands died.
These attacks
were calculated to hurt the nation in a similar way to the Ney York
ones, the trading floor of the Stock Market was destroyed (and I
nearly lost my father here, he was the head of a mutual fund, but my
family got lucky, many of our friends didnt), another bomb went off
outside century bazaar in a bus and killed about 100 commuters and
people on the road, a third at the offices of Air India, and so on.
[1,2,3]

My Pakistani friends and I agree that there is a legitimate fight that
freedom fighters in Pakistan are carrying out against 'Indian
Occupation', given that there was never a plebiscite in Kashmir asking
what the Kashmiris wanted. There is no doubt in our minds that in a
democratic nation like India, people must have their right to
self-determination. But when freedom fighters cross the line from
attacking the Indian Armed forces to attacking civilians in terrorist
attacks and ethnically cleansing the Kashmir valley by forcing Hindus
out of it by murdering them, they cross the line to being terrorists.
The standard response then is that the Indian Army has also carried
out terrorist attacks by firing into crouds of women and children. Its
true, bbut whats left out is the more gruesome aspect of that story,
that the terrorists themselves use these crowds as human shields and
fire from within or behind them at the armed forces.

Anyway, my basic point is this. Lets not blame the United States for
its foreign policies here. Yes, Pakistan was not so useful after the
cold war ended. But Pakistan, or parts of it, has hardly behaved in a
trustworthy fashion in the last decade or even before. In 1971 they
engaged in the ethnic cleansing of what is today Bangladesh. The sixth
fleet of the
American navy did move in closer, and the Indian navy did have a
kamikaze attack planned against it incase it intervened, but the
Americans had a sense that Bangladesh needed to be formed the way
Bengalis in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) were being treated by their
western counterparts. In 1993 Pakistan presumably helped engineer the
attacks on Bombay. In the 1990's, cells run by Osama Bin Laden and
other mujahiddeen have been active in both west Pakistan as well as
the part of Kashmir under Pakistani control. These well trained
militants, in organizations like the Lashkar-E-Toiba[4] have again and
again infiltrated across the border and engaged in terrorist
activities. Once India destabilized things in 1998 by exploding a
Nuclear device and Pakistan followed, a full scale attack was launched
by the Mujahiddeen in the summer of 1999 in kashmir, temprarily
cutting off acceess in India to the eastern buddhist province of
Laddakh in Kashmir. The fighters were backed by the Pakistan army
artillery in getting the higher positions on the Srinagar-Leh road to
Laddakh. India fought back with some but not complete success and it
was the intervention of then American president Bill Clinton which
forced Pakistan to withdraw its troops and mujahiddeen. The hijackers
of the Indian Airlines plane which was forced to land in Kandahar in
December 1999 have been seen unfettered in Pakistan since.

Meanwhile terrorist attacks in India continue, the latest one being
the shooting of a 10 year old boy in Agra with the stern warning
that this would be the result of any operational or military support
given to the Americans.

On thw whole I am thus not surprised by the ambivalence the American
governments, both republican and democratic have felt towards Pakistan
in this last decade. Furthermore, the inability of Pakistan to
maintain a democratic tradition for more than a few years has got to
be worrisome. (especially when contrasted with the 54 years of
civilian democratic tradition in India despite a diversity which
outstrips that of the Balkans, IMHO this has been one of the true
achievements of the 20th century) . The worst aspect is, it was never
clear who is in control in Pakistan, is it the civilian government, is
it the ISI, or is it the military? For example, it seems that when the
bomb attacks on Bombay in 1993 were carried out with complicity of the
ISI, the Pak. govt may not have even known about it.[3]

Thus I say before Americans go about beating themselves up over how
they have treated Pakistan, lets lay the facts on the table and see
that while the initial abandonment might have been an unfair thing to
do after the Afghan war, subsequent events may have proved that policy
sensible.

Yes the Indian market is larger, and Clinton came and rode on
elephants and all, but lets not forget that the responsibility to
improve a nation lies with its own people, not with the United States.
India took the steps it deemed required to play on the global economy,
and in 1999 and 2000 enjoyed a GDP growth second only to that in
China. A lot of that came from its relative stability(despite the
number of secessionistic movements active in India) in a region
teeming with communist governments, civil war, and opportunistic
military dictatorships. Yes, the Saudi's have oil, so no one is going
to beat up on them, it would create a run on the global economy. Those
nations whose non-democratic setups only contribute destabilization
are nobodys best ally. Cold war calculus's have changed, no longer is
any enemy of Communism automatically US's friend. The world is
different today, and I for one dont find it surprising that the world
two largest democracies are closer.[5]

And I for one hope that Pakistan develops a stable democracy which can
sustain the growth it needs for a long period of time. I hope that
their bold pledge of full support to Colin Powell at this juncture
results ina lifting of sanctions and increased international aid. It
is in everybodys interests that this happens. At the same time I hope
that Pakistan takes steps to stomp out the Bin-Laden cells on its
soil, and while I do believe it is entirely justified in supporting
and funding Kashmiri freedom fighters, I hope it make sure that this
support does not go to the terrorists.

Rahul

References:
(1) Congessional records on Pakistan's support of Terrorism
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1994_cr/h940922-terror-pak.htm
(2) News Reports on 1993 Bombings in Bombay
http://www.emergency.com/bombay.htm
(3) An unsubstantiated account of how the bombings proceeded and ISI
involvement which made the Government of Pakistan furious.
http://www.sreevideos.com/indianews/library/weekly/aa123100c.htm
(4) About Lashkar-e-Toiba, a anti-Indian mujahideen group with
connections to BinLaden:
http://www.subcontinent.com/sapra/terrorism/terrorism20001227a.html
(5) MSNBC article on US motivations in relationships with India and
Pakistan, written at the time of Clinton's visit:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/382215.asp

--- In wtcattack@y..., vilicy@y... wrote:
> How will the US dump us this time!
>
> This is the question Pakistanis have been asking themselves since
the
> US government requested (read ordered) Pakistan to assist in their
> fight against terrorism. The history of abandoning Pakistan by
using
> in every conceivable way by the US is long. The last one happened
at
> the same place that everyone has been talking about since the
attack
> on WTC and Pentagon. Had the US government listened to the
pleadings
> of Pakistan government since 1989 when the Soviets withdrew from
> Afghanistan, nothing like this would have happened. The only thing
> Pakistan wanted from the US at that time was that the US help to
> rebuild Afghanistan that had been converted into a huge pile of
> rubble after the 10 year war. But the US packed her bags after the
> war without helping to clean up the mess she created in Pakistan's
> backyard. As if this was not enough, the Pressler Amendment was
> brought into place that specifically targeted Pakistan and stopped
> all the military aid to Pakistan, including the delivery of 40 F-16
> that Pakistan had already paid for. What a friend!
>
> The first betrayal happened in 1965 when the war with India
started.
> Pakistan, as a recipient of US military aid and an ally against
> communism expected US military assistance at that time. The
> Pakistanis got the shock of their lives when instead of extending a
> helping hand to Pakistan, the US imposed military sanctions against
> Pakistan. The second time it happened in 1971 when the US promised
> that their 6th fleet was on its way to the Bay of Bengal. It's been
> 30 years since then and the Pakistanis have lost half of their
> country in the 1971 war with India but the 6th fleet never showed
up
> to rescue them. Watch out for a line up of US warships in the
Arabian
> Sea this time urging Pakistan to help the US in 'their' fight. What
a
> friend!
>
> Although there are no words to condemn what happened on September
11,
> try to visualize what would happen if the US had to bleed through
> small cuts over a period of 10 years instead of one big blow.
That's
> what Pakistan went through during the 10 years of the Afghan war.
The
> KGB and the Afghan secret service bombed Pakistan's bazaars,
streets,
> and commercial areas. Not a day passed in Pakistan without a bomb
> blast in one of her cities. A number far greater than 5,000 died in
> those bomb blasts, poor people earning less than a dollar a day. We
> were told that it was the price we had to pay if we wanted to get
rid
> of Communism. Not a single American comforted us then. What a
friend!
>
> The Europeans, the Japanese, and the rest of the world might owe
> something to the US but definitely not Pakistan, definitely not
> Pakistan (sic). The only thing Pakistan owes to the US are the
> billions of dollars that the US poured on her corrupt dictators.
Not
> a day passes when the Americans don't praise the virtues of
> democracy. Not a day passes when they don't attribute their success
> to democracy. Yet, the US supported all the dictators in Pakistan's
> history when it suited her purpose. During the Afghan war, Pakistan
> remained under a thick blanket of Marshall Law for 11 years. When
the
> war ended, the dictator's family and his associates family and
> friends were one of the richest people in Pakistan. These people
> could not have remained in power without the US support. What a
> friend!
>
> In 1999, the Pakistani government removed an elected but corrupt to
> the core government. In the 1990s, the US started to flirt with
India
> who had never allied with the US before. To gain access to India's
> huge market, Bill Clinton visited India in 2000. He rode on
> elephants, enjoyed Indian cuisine, and watched them dance for him.
On
> his way back, he stopped in Pakistan for a few hours. Pakistanis
laid
> down a red carpet for him. Let his motorcade drive on the right
side
> of the road instead of the left side and welcomed him in every way
> possible. What did Clinton do? He went on television and gave
> Pakistan a lecture on democracy again. Excuse me Sir! Would you
mind
> giving these lectures to the Saudis, the Jordanians, and the
Kuwaitis
> too. What a friend!
>
> The US has not left any stone unturned to hurt Pakistan and her
> people. Yet, she expects full cooperation from Pakistan in her
> causes. Pakistan can not afford to help the US anymore. She is too
> tired. She is exhausted. Pakistan is a country of ambitious people
> who want to earn their share of good life in the world through hard
> work. They are Muslims but moderate Muslims, who want to live in
> peace with everyone according to the real teachings of Islam. They
> are facing too many problems at home to spend their time helping
the
> US to be dumped yet again. Only 30% of Pakistan's population can
> claim to read and write. Pakistan's education budget is probably
less
> than the LA County's budget. It wouldn't hurt the US a lot if it
> doesn't abandon Pakistan this time after using her. Pakistanis may
> not be like Europeans or the Japs, but they have always tried to be
> true friends with everyone. Bush says that he'd see who are
America's
> true friends. Sir, America's true friends are the ones you dump
every
> time you don't need them. Pakistan has always been true to her
> friends, ask China. If the US dumps Pakistan at the end of this
> latest war, she would lose a good friend forever. Helping Pakistan
> overcome her problems would be something that the US should do and
> that's what friends are for.