Re "Some ally," editorial, Nov. 6
The contents of the editorial are totally devoid of the ground realities. Pakistan has done far more against terrorism than any other country in the world. It has deployed 80,000 troops along the Pakistan-Afghan border and is occupying 900 posts to control the infiltration inside and across the border of the terrorists. No such security mechanism exists in Afghanistan.
Pakistan has killed or apprehended more than 700 Al Qaeda terrorists, including top leaders such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Abu Ubaida, Ramzi bin al-Shibh and Amjad Hussain Farooqi, a mastermind of two assassination attempts on Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.
Despite this, to cast aspersions on Pakistan's commitment is indeed frustrating and grossly unfair. The peace agreement is with the local tribal chiefs and not with the Taliban. It is fundamentally directed against the Taliban and Talibanization. Not a single soldier has been withdrawn from the tribal areas.
Peace in Afghanistan is in Pakistan's vital economic, strategic and political interests. Pakistan has high stakes in peace and stability in Afghanistan.
So why should Pakistan support the Taliban?
Embassy of Pakistan
The editorial ignores key facts in its eagerness to pile on ever-increasing demands on Pakistan. Pakistan has lost more troops in the war on terror than every other nation. It is easy for Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai, president in a palace guarded by foreign security forces, to lay his problems at someone else's door.
Pakistan has expended tremendous blood, sweat and treasure since 9/11, culminating in the recent bloodbath in Bajaur. More than a third of the Afghan population lives in Pakistan. In return, all that Pakistan has gotten is endless demands, like The Times editorial, for it to do more. Blaming Pakistan and coddling its historical enemies, as The Times trumpets, would guarantee nothing but an estranged Pakistan -- a prospect that would make Iraq and Afghanistan look enviable by comparison.