It seems incumbent on most US analysts to mention Pakistan whenever asked about the source of US humiliation in Afghanistan. Some fanatics among them have even launched a demand for sanctions against Pakistan (a trend which has also made the rounds of the Internet; thanks to the networks (open-secrets) which work tirelessly to denigrate the image of the country).

Christine Fair is undoubtedly the standard bearer of a group of these fanatics (which also includes former US National Security Advisor John Bolton), and she unfortunately holds college degrees due to her extensive work on terrorism. in Pakistan. I do not however free Pakistan from the accusation of not constructing its own counter-narrative, other of course than documentaries and songs for home use, but we are leaving that for another day.

Pakistan being censored by troll farmer spreading #sanctionPakistan was always tolerable, as those behind such trends are only hired to spread the lie, but former officials and academics echoing the same tone on different forums won’t l were not. But Fair, Bolton, and others in this league, the apparent wizards of Pakistan, are so focused on Pakistan that they can’t even find a moment to look at one of its western neighbors, Iran.

Years of sanctions have not yet been able to bypass the resolve of its citizens, quite the contrary, as sanctions are used by the regime to rally support against a common enemy and also to sanction the results of its own mismanagement. Such sectarian-blind analysts on Pakistan overlook the country’s acquisition of nuclear weapons when promoting their illusory sanctions against Pakistan. They are also unaware of the energy Pakistan has spent to bring the great rival of the United States, speaking with him, and that too, at the request of the United States. Why did one of the most hawkish presidents in US history so warmly welcome the Prime Minister of Pakistan, if not?

Without Pakistan, this rescue of the face of the United States in the form of a peace accord was implausible. Yet rather than appreciating the role played by Pakistan, Western fanatics are adamant. Pakistan supported the Taliban in its fight against American forces and then exerted considerable influence over them.

Pakistan’s former foreign minister, Hina Rabban, i in an interview with a journalist famous for his decisive assaults, Mehdi Hasan, calmly foiled him by correcting the term “supporting the Taliban” used by previous administrations and then reused by journalists to question Pakistan’s intention. She argued that “taking no action against the Taliban” was not synonymous with “supporting them” since Pakistan was already concerned about the TTP and Al Qaeda terrorist groups. To strengthen its position, it is necessary to mention that the TTP and Al Qaeda have been backlashing Pakistan for its support of the United States, making the United States guilty rather than the other way around. Second, even if Pakistan had the luxury of taking decisive action against the Taliban, why would it?

Why do such scholarly analysts forget every time who funded the mujahedin (where the Taliban came from)? The question is so cliché now, but the likes of Christine Fair tend to religiously forget it, while there are some like Bolton, who in his recent editorial for The Washington Post called it a simple “mistake”. Erasing all US involvement in a nutshell while writing a thousand about Pakistan is evident from the academic fragility of these academics. However, the market is full of books to improve memory skills, so next time I hope Christine’s eyes on her next visit to the bookstore will be on them too, while for Bolton, Eat grass by Feroz Khan, is recommended, which explicitly explains Pakistan’s safest nuclear weapon structures, given his concerns about Pakistani nuclear weapons falling into the hands of extremists, a view long dead, but hopelessly revived in again as a result of the current situation.

If the world were to fear nuclear weapons, it was those under the control of US President Donald Trump, accompanied by Bolton himself, both of whom were right-wing extremists. Thus, lecturing Pakistan on securing its nuclear weapons against extremists is not the right thing to do for a right winger who should focus on his own country’s policies leading to the deterioration of his international influence.

Granted, Pakistan was in the game in 1989, but the benefits for the United States were far greater than for Pakistan, a fact acknowledged by Zbigniew Brzezinski himself, who in an interview proudly claimed that the disintegration of the The USSR and the freedom of Eastern Europe was the greatest success for the United States and was worth any price. By being in the US-funded game, Pakistan naturally developed a working relationship with the Taliban that was supposed to continue unless Pakistan was also treacherous as the now one-off superpower that abandoned its two allies, Pakistan and the Mujahedin.

Interestingly, it was not just Pakistan and the Mujahedin, the superpower quite frequently turns its eyes away, as evidenced by the case of those Kurds who were left at the mercy of the Turks after helping the United States. to eliminate ISIS. Since the attitude is considered normal in the US, the same was apparently expected of Pakistan to completely withdraw from the Taliban, but why?

Was it even doable with someone sitting right next to it? I wonder if Pakistan would have completely disengaged in all areas with the Taliban, how much worse the situation in Afghanistan would be today without the peace talks between the Taliban and the United States, coupled with the hostile presence of the United States. India in this region. At least there is now hope (facilitated by the enlarged Troika) about Afghanistan’s “economic integration”; something has been missing in Afghan discourse for ages now.

However, if a reader is bored or in the mood for reading fiction, I would recommend looking for the works of Christine Fair who is gradually losing credibility due to her enmity against Pakistan evident in her recent articles and interviews afterwards. the American withdrawal. I wonder if RAW is hiring research analysts, it must be a perfect fit! Why don’t Bolton, Fair and their ilk, including Stephen Tankel, realize that the United States could not have held a single day in a region with China on one side and Russia on the other , two of the staunch competitors of the United States, without Pakistan being its ally, and if they still have the illusion that they have brought Pakistan back to the Stone Age, then this bubble should burst after their defeat against an illiterate milia dressed in shalwar-kameez. So recent episodes should be enough for the United States to realize that Pakistan’s alignment with them was a privilege, not a right.

The United States should be pleased with Pakistan for its unconditional support against Al Qaeda (many of whose leaders have been arrested with Pakistan’s help), rather than being ungrateful in blaming Pakistan for its own defeat. What kind of air support was provided to the Taliban by Pakistan? What sort of sophisticated Pakistani-made weapons were captured from the Taliban? How many SSG commandos have been caught fighting disguised as Taliban? How many NATO internal operations plans were disclosed to the Taliban by Pakistan (which was also unaware)? Basically how, other than not attacking the Taliban, providing shelter for their families on humanitarian grounds and its intelligence agency having working relations with the Taliban (which all agencies do for a living), Pakistan Did he help the Taliban defeat the top 20+ armies in the world are questions I’ll wait for an answer (maybe a lifetime).