The Associated Press reports that ‘Taliban militants began pulling out of a recently seized district of northwestern Pakistan on Friday and returning to a stronghold where they have signed a peace deal with the government.’
The report adds: ‘The apparent withdrawal from Buner is unlikely to do much to ally Western fears that Islamabad is failing to deal forcefully with militants seen as slowly expanding into the heart of the country from strongholds close to the Afghan order.’
It is rather obvious that Islamabad is unable to deal forcefully with the Taliban, is it not? Some would even argue that it is not just incompetent but perhaps even unwilling to act.
Whatever the case may be, the time has come to “start freaking out over Pakistan.” The Taliban have become too strong and uncontrollable. Some hoped they would be satisfied with the Swat Valley and having Sharia law implemented. Recent developments show, however, that they will only be happy when the government in Islamabad falls and they can impose their extremist version of Islam on the entire Pakistani people.
We should also start worrying about what other countries will and should do. Should the U.S. act? It cannot possibly let the Taliban take over the country’s nuclear facilities. Lest we forget, Pakistan is a nuclear power. Things were bad enough when this extremist organization ruled over the big useless desert called Afghanistan, but having it conquer (a significant part of) Pakistan is truly a nightmare scenario.
And India, will New Delhi act? It is utterly logical if it would. But does ‘logical’ automatically mean ‘wise’? Wouldn’t Pakistanis unite in their shared hatred of India thereby allowing the Taliban to take over by presenting itself as the only part able and willing to take on the equally powerful and influential neighbor?
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
