Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - May 16 2009

[ramana]

Sorry. I was a bit unclear.Not easy for Indians to infiltrate.That is one issue.

What do we have to offer the Arabs.

The Anglo Saxons can offer the entire heathen land to the purelanders.

We should remind them of the direction in which the four rightly guided Caliphs looked before the Abbasids turned Eastwards! BTW Eurabia is more definitely achievable before Al-Hindia.

We need the Indian Muslims to become more Indian while retaining their faith. And they will do that when they realize this is their land and thier own people and not any transplanted ideologues. Many of them do but the vocal holdouts get appeased by INC and the HFL and distort the picture.

As that Hamid guy was saying and I had said many times before the political center of gravity of Isalm is on an eastward role and its time for them to assert themselves and de-Arabise Islam. For that new schools have to come after due introspection and old schools transformed.

[johneeG]

In 1960s America turned to Pakistan, and appeased its hate for India, losing India in the process to its most dreaded enemy, the Soviet Union.

In 2009 America turned to Pakistan, and appeased its hate for India, losing India in the process to its most dreaded enemy, ....

Obviously India's terrorist enemies are not America's terrorist enemies. The question is, is there any need for America's terrorist enemies to be India's terrorist enemies?

We should now start thinking out of the box. Nobody should be an untouchable any more.

Exactly. Well articulated. Infact, we need to take lessons out of chinis' book. They have been fighting with amirkhan the same way, they have cultivated unlikely allies(such as NoKo, Iran, Pakis....etc) to face the amirkhan. We must do the same....
No more thinking of morals or ethics, we can think about them once we consolidate our power, but until we get there we need anyone who supports us(and whether they are dictators or democracies or whatever shouldnt matter to us).

Can we arm the taliban indirectly to an extent that they prove much more stronger adversaries to PA than now? Then we can arm balochis and pashtuns to protect themselves from both talibs and PA. I think the way forward for India is to create multiple power centres in pakiland with some power centres dependent on us for their power.

[RajeshA]

Taliban are simply the brawn, the Arabs are the brains.

[Samay]

^actually IG was like that ,but JLN was bit more free external affairs policy oriented ,but thngs started changing from the american side itself.possibly because of their colonial moves.
This is one thing we can blame on west, that whatever anguish is there wrto INDO-american relations it had to happen because america wanted so.

[Chinmayanand]

Taliban are simply the brawn, the Arabs are the brains.

[p_saggu]

Currently the RAPE Pakjabs of Pakistan fauj are the Brains onlee - hence the strategic brilliance displayed by the talibs

[RajeshA]

Much of Taliban is changing hands, slowly but surely, from ISI control to Al Qaida control.

[ramana]

Much of Taliban is changing hands, slowly but surely, from ISI control to Al Qaida control.

I see that in the madarassas too! The Deobandi run madarassas are gtting Wahabised. This started in the early 90s.

What all this leads to is the clash between the indigenous and the foreign strains of Islam. Both are revivalists but one is more reactionary and was fed by US and UK.

[johneeG]

Taliban are simply the brawn, the Arabs are the brains.

So, the big question: Can we become the brains and use talibs as brawn?

[Lalmohan]

Taliban are simply the brawn, the Arabs are the brains.

he's right, the pashtuns are being taken for a major ride

[RajeshA]

Taliban are simply the brawn, the Arabs are the brains.

So, the big question: Can we become the brains and use talibs as brawn?

That would be difficult, but we could reach a temporary detente with the new brains in exchange for some tactical cooperation, something similar to what Iran has been doing since 2001. In exchange we could get some useful intelligence on ISI's Indian operations if not ISI's whole head on a platter and all that with plausible deniability.

But for all this we would need to jump through several conscience hurdles.

[ramana]

On May 29th M.K. BhadraKumar gave a talk in B'luru at Asia Seminar Center. The talk is summarised as a slide show and is on Rediff. Please read the slides and think over. He manages to summarize what we regularly conclude here.

Pak Army still calls the shots

Actually he says a lot more and should be in Af-Pak thread too.

[ramana]

X-posted. from Af-Pak thread

M.K. Bhadrakumar on Af-Pak

Pak Army still calls the shots

A Paki answering the article

Who calls the shots in India? or the US?
by Yaqoot Mir on Jun 04, 2009 06:38 PM | Hide replies

Interesting fiction some of it true but whats out of norm in Pakistan...does the Pentagon now call shots in foriegn policy in the US? surely you cant lie through your teeth and say NO, recently, Mullen was on record as saying before Obama that Pakistans role in Afghanistan will have to change, albiet 3 months later the US reversed its old thinking of seperating FATA from pakistan and creating a buffer, we can see Mullens recommendation being implemented?, in India not a while back, Sings government when coming into power and after clearly said a viable solution to kashmir has to be found, instantly the Army chief and Air force chief issued seperate statement with same vibes indicating Pakistan was a credible threat and India should be on gaurd, a few weeks later Singhs tone changed and the foriegn office was on record as saying pakistan remains 'a credible threat'. Who decided directions there. Same with Pakistan our civilians are an INCOMPETENT LOT to say teh least....we have to keep them in check with the nations long term objectives....you cannot IN ANY COUNTRY rely on a LOOSE CANNON in civilian clothing to call the shots NO COUNTRY does that there has to be a check and balance!

[johneeG]

That would be difficult, but we could reach a temporary detente with the new brains in exchange for some tactical cooperation, something similar to what Iran has been doing since 2001. In exchange we could get some useful intelligence on ISI's Indian operations if not ISI's whole head on a platter and all that with plausible deniability.

But for all this we would need to jump through several conscience hurdles.

Surprising is the fact that same politicians have no conscience issues when dealing in domestic politics, everything is justified if it is in self-interest. How come they have conscience hurdles? Is it becoz these conscience hurdles are of babus and not netas?

[KLNMurthy]

Surprising is the fact that same politicians have no conscience issues when dealing in domestic politics, everything is justified if it is in self-interest. How come they have conscience hurdles? Is it becoz these conscience hurdles are of babus and not netas?

They are afraid of the type of foreign Muslim invaders that the Taliban represent. That's why they cant do normal political manipulation with them--no confidence.

Historical memory of being defeated, abused and demoralized. Paki strategists know this psychological weakness very well and play on it to balance out India's bulk.

[sudeepj]

Cross posting an old article from the India-Israel thread. The article is a must read in its entirety in how it sheds light on the process of extraordinary engagement between the US and Israel and the lessons it offers to the US engagement in the Indian subcontinent.

http://www.slate.com/id/2215820/pagenum/all/

Why Israel Will Bomb Iran
The rational argument for an attack.
By David Samuels

...

Ananth

the article you quoted is a gem in that it plainly states facts of realpolitik as they exist. The article is a must read, thanks for posting. I am quoting a passage that I found brilliant..

The key fact of the American-Israeli alliance that most commentators seem eager to elide is that Israel is America's leading ally in the Middle East because it is the most powerful country in the Middle East. Critics of the American-Israeli relationship love to conflate American support for Israel before 1967 with America's support since then by citing statistics for tens of billions of dollars in U.S. military credits and aid given to Israel "since 1948," when the Jewish State was founded. In fact, Israel's rise to becoming a regional superpower was accomplished without any significant help from United States. Israel's surreptitious program to build nuclear weapons was accomplished with the aid of the British and the French, who joined with Israel to seize the Suez Canal from Egypt's rabble-rousing President Gamal Abdel Nasser, and who were then forced to give it back by Dwight D. Eisenhower. The Israeli air force pilots who destroyed the Egyptian, Syrian, and Jordanian air forces on the ground flew French-made Mystère jets—not American-made F-4 Phantoms. The U.S. Congress did not appropriate a single penny to help Israel accommodate an overwhelming influx of Holocaust survivors and poor Jewish refugees from Yemen, Iraq, Egypt, and other Arab countries until 1973—25 years after the founding of the state.

By shattering the old balance of power in the Middle East with its spectacular military victory in the Six Day War, Israel announced itself to America as the reigning military power in the region and as a profoundly destabilizing influence that needed to be contained....

Israel earned its role as an American client with a series of daring military victories won by a tiny embattled country with a shoestring budget and its back against the sea: the capture of the Suez Canal from Nasser in 1956, the audacious victory in 1967, and the development of a nuclear bomb. Yet the terms of the bargain that Israel struck would necessarily relegate such accomplishments to the history books. Israel traded its freedom to engage in high-risk, high-payoff exploits like the Suez Canal adventure or the Six Day War for the comfort of a military and diplomatic guarantee from the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world.

These three passages that describe how American-Israeli engagement came about, bear striking resemblance to the fillip given to India US ties during the NDA, with tests of the hydrogen bomb, big missiles, Parakram and Kargil.

Sadly, the dividend from those risky exploits is now running out and with the current (and the last) pacifist govt. in power, it immediately becomes apparent that the thaw in relations seen in the Bush years will freeze again. The signs are apparent with appointment of anti India people in key positions..

Once again applying the same argument to US Pakistan relations, it becomes apparent that they are on a trend up with risky exploits - like the Mumbai attacks, subsequent release of Hafiz Saeed and the simultaneous declaration by the Pakistani PM about 'Moral Diplomatic and Political' support to Kashmiri Jihadis - being carried out successfully.

The answer then, to the conundrum of creating greater India-US cooperation is
1) for India to create new facts on the ground and to display new capabilities.
2) India to administer periodic Jhapads to the Pakis, not in revenge, but to display who is the regional 'dada'. If the US wants to us to hold back, let them put in an offer to buy that..

[ramana]

In retrospect looks the US helped prevent the Israelis from being even more assertive and saved Arab H&D. Maybe that was the bargain for the oil embargo being tempered?

[AnimeshP]

In retrospect looks the US helped prevent the Israelis from being even more assertive and saved Arab H&D. Maybe that was the bargain for the oil embargo being tempered?

Well ... that is something my fav Republican (Ron Paul) kept saying through the primary debates in the last US presidential election ...
Saying that providing aid to Israel is actually harming them more as then they are not allowed to have an independant Foriegn policy ...

[svinayak]

These three passages that describe how American-Israeli engagement came about, bear striking resemblance to the fillip given to India US ties during the NDA, with tests of the hydrogen bomb, big missiles, Parakram and Kargil.


The answer then, to the conundrum of creating greater India-US cooperation

India has to understand the US interest in the region. Israel by being the biggest decider of the ME region became the partner of the US since US interest in the ME is vital.

[brihaspati]

Israel could not have even been formed if USA did not support its formation. We have to look back into the preparatory stages of the formation of Israel, its financing and planning, primarily from circles based in the USA. Long term, skillful planning was undertaken, with even arms manufacturing setups, smuggled in through numbered parts hidden in among other things. Bribes to Turkish officials for land was carefully planned. All this required elaborate planning and huge finance, as well as military hardware resourcing that could not have been possible without USA state machinery pitching in. Even the abandoning of military positions in the hands of Israeli forces, on the eve of "leaving", by the British forces, to the complete consternation and surprise of the Arabs, is something that should not be forgotten.

Israel's success in the war against Egyptian forces, came from prior intelligence and preparation. It was more due to a pre-emptive action rather that outright fighting. What makes us think that Israel did it all alone without British MI and US CIA not being involved?

Look at Israel's position in the eastern Mediterranean. This is a perfect beachhead for western naval and airforces to reach into the classical fertile-crescent route into Mesopotamia. It is the most feasible land route for forces to connect up with forces present in Persian Gulf, encircle Saudis and their oil resources. This would be the primary reason to maintain control over Israeli foreign policy, and defence collaboration/aid would be part of that control mechanism just as ensuring that Israel succeeds in humiliating Egypt would be part of that control. Egypt had bitten UK hard previously. This is one power which rarely forgets a humiliation. Moreover, curbing Egypt's military power through Israeli action was also an important part of Cold War countering of growing Soviet presence in Egypt.

Israel was never completely independent in its foreign policy - its foundation, continuance, and successes were key parts of the planning by UK+USA in their startegy for eastern Mediterrranean and the ME.

[sudeepj]

Israel could not have even been formed if USA did not support its formation. We have to look back into the preparatory stages of the formation of Israel, its financing and planning, primarily from circles based in the USA. Long term, skillful planning was undertaken, with even arms manufacturing setups, smuggled in through numbered parts hidden in among other things. ... All this required elaborate planning and huge finance, as well as military hardware resourcing that could not have been possible without USA state machinery pitching in. Even the abandoning of military positions in the hands of Israeli forces, on the eve of "leaving", by the British forces, to the complete consternation and surprise of the Arabs, is something that should not be forgotten.

Support for formation is hardly the same as support in subjugating the Arabs in different wars or support in getting sophisticated nuclear weapons. That Israel did on its own.. It can even be argued that support for formation was derived from the Jewish diaspora and there wasnt a traditional constituency for Israel in the US in those days. American support followed Israeli assertion, at least that seems to be the articles contention.

Israel's success in the war against Egyptian forces, came from prior intelligence and preparation. It was more due to a pre-emptive action rather that outright fighting. What makes us think that Israel did it all alone without British MI and US CIA not being involved?

What makes you think that the CIA was involved? Everyone knows the British and the French were involved..

Look at Israel's position in the eastern Mediterranean. This is a perfect beachhead for western naval and airforces to reach into the classical fertile-crescent route into Mesopotamia. It is the most feasible land route for forces to connect up with forces present in Persian Gulf, encircle Saudis and their oil resources. This would be the primary reason to maintain control over Israeli foreign policy, and defence collaboration/aid would be part of that control mechanism just as ensuring that Israel succeeds in humiliating Egypt would be part of that control. Egypt had bitten UK hard previously. This is one power which rarely forgets a humiliation. Moreover, curbing Egypt's military power through Israeli action was also an important part of Cold War countering of growing Soviet presence in Egypt.

I dont believe in these Grand/Great theories. These theories assume that some powers, US-UK etc. have grand over arching plans that they execute over decades and centuries with unerring cunning and others are merely tools in this grand strategy. If that were so, unkil would not be black mailed by the PA the way they are and would not have its tushy thrashed in Afghanistan.

Israel was never completely independent in its foreign policy - its foundation, continuance, and successes were key parts of the planning by UK+USA in their startegy for eastern Mediterrranean and the ME.

We are going on a tangent here, my point was that the articles key contention could be useful paradigm for determining Indo-US-Pak relations. That is:~

US allys itself with the non antagonistic, prominent regional power that is not queasy in asserting its might. Create facts on the ground, acquire disruptive capabilities, perform and carry off risky maneuvers and watch as US becomes the most allied of allies.

Be accommodating, and watch the US ask for accommodation.

E.g. in the Indian Subcontinent
India: Parakram, Kargil, Nuke tests.
Alignment/Rewards: Nuke deal, some proscription of Pak terror, political reconciliation.

Pakistan: Repeated terror attacks showing up India as weak, nuke blackmail.
Alignment/Rewards: Acquiescence in proliferation, demand India be accomodative (millibund remarks etc.), military-economic aid.

[Prem Kumar]

I tend to agree with Sudeepj - we shouldnt think of the US and UK as some kind of super-brains, who can manipulate the world's chess pieces. They dont have Hari Seldon like powers (Asimov's Foundation) to predict and control the broad course of history. They do have a couple of techniques, which have tended to work and they stick with it.

A couple of facets are revealed during this discussion:

a) In the world of realpolitik, you are never going to be taken seriously if you dont project hard power, fight your own battles and bitch-slap anyone who falls out of line. Remember how the US cozied up to China only when they stood up to the Soviets

b) The US will try its best to ensure military parity in all regions except its own neighborhood. This does not necessarily mean alignment with the major regional power. They will not let Israel become too powerful, nor India, nor Pakistan, nor China (relative to their neighbors). They will sell just enough AMRAAMS to the Pakis to keep India on the edge; sell enough LRMRs to India to keep China on the edge; sell enough F-15s to Israel to keep the entire ME on the edge. This way, they are ensured of a permanent state of conflict which represents a huge geopolitical and economic market. Of course, all this will be couched in the language of "we wont sell any weapons which will tilt the strategic balance of a region and end up in an arms race" - though an arms race in every region is the ultimate wet dream of LM, NG, Boeing and the likes

Divide & Conquer is now Segment, Sell & Control

[Naidu]

SSridhar, there is no iron first in the GOI's velvet glove. All I can perceive is a very limp wrist!

All the pages of drivel here explaining their Chankian thinking is just useless rationalization based on hope. Waiting 5, 10, 20 years to react to outright attacks on your citizens with the hope we will be stronger later doesn't make sense at all. This is not a static set-piece game, everything and everybody is moving -- you have to take your shots when they're available. The threat from our neighbours, Paki and Chini, has only steadily increased in the 60 years of existence.

And this talk about, "we'll concentrate on economic growth now, and later tackle the external threats" is not going work. Next time there is a large attack in one of the boom cities, the economic growth will ebb away too. No market can survive where there is no security.

Even for diplomacy to succeed there has to be a threat to the other side. Otherwise it is appeasement and capitulation.

Meanwhile Nero continues to fiddle while Rome burns:

Possible Lashkar attack: alert sounded in Hyderabad

HYDERABAD: Police sounded a high alert in the State capital following a tip-off from the Intelligence Bureau that three Lashkar terrorists had infiltrated into the country to carry out a major terror attack in any South Indian city.

The specific advisory from the IB mentioned that the trio, hailing from Pakistan, had crossed the border in Kashmir on June 1 and “had started from Srinagar in a Tata Sumo”. The weapons to be used by them would be delivered to them in Hyderabad, the city police were told. The three terrorists were identified as Sharif Ahmed Bhatti alias Abu Masab (23), Nazeer Ahmed alias Abu Jahangir (31) and Mohammed Ahmed alias Abu Jharkavi (21).

And,
India upset over US advisory

New Delhi: Hafiz Saeed, the terror mastermind behind 26/11 in Mumbai and the Jamaat-ud-Dawa chief was released two days ago by a Lahore court for want of evidence. In view of this, the United States has issued a travel advisory for India and Pakistan.

[svinayak]

And this talk about, "we'll concentrate on economic growth now, and later tackle the external threats" is not going work.

Tell this to ITivty folks who mocked at Op Parakram

[Pranav]

Much of Taliban is changing hands, slowly but surely, from ISI control to Al Qaida control.

This could be true for Mehsud and Fazlullah factions, but probably not for Mullah Omar or Haqqani, who are still with the ISI.

And Al-Qaeda itself is subject to Western infiltration/control. One example is the Al-Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn - he is an American from Southern California. He is from a Jewish background, and his grandfather was a Director of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League!

As regards the LeT, it probably feels the pull from both sides (ISI and Al-Qaeda), and has a dual allegiance.

[Naidu]

And this talk about, "we'll concentrate on economic growth now, and later tackle the external threats" is not going work.

Tell this to ITivty folks who mocked at Op Parakram

Definitely, they were very short sighted.

[Duangkomon]

OK, even though it's hard to accept given the perception of no clear vision, no hard actions and general lethargy in GOI higher up babudom, lets assume they are well aware of India's best interest.
Unlike say US, China or Israel why is it hard in India for its citizens to come to any sort of idea or consensus of what that might be? What is the grand strategy of these NSAs, MEAs, foreign and strategic experts etc. It is not like they do this as a hobby when they get time. This is all they have to do.

So what are these people doing in regards to their responsibility to a billion plus people.

Another thing that pisses me of are these politicos who show great principled deference to even pakis while they shaft Indian citizens through rampant corruption etc.

[NRao]

Well EAM Krishna reads BR evidently:

June 4, 2009 :: No talks till Pakistan acts against terror: Krishna

[NRao]

Outgoing CAS states China is the larger threat.

Current Army chief states that Pakistani nukes need to be capped.

Krishna stating no talks until .......................

And, now:

India can launch a short war in case of Pak misadventure

I suspect these are really meant for Clinton and the Obama admin.

Ahmedabad, June 04: India will not hesitate to launch a short intense war in case of a 'misadventure' by Pakistan, Air Marshal K D Singh, Commander-in-Chief of South-Western Air Command (SWAC), has said.

"In case of a misadventure of Pakistan triggered by major terrorist attack or the attack like the one we had on Parliament, attack on our leader, a major city, public or hijacking an aircraft, any such action by them can obviously lead to a reaction from India which could be a short intense war," the Air Marshal said.

"India is a stable democracy surrounded by Pakistan, China, Nepal, Myanmar, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka which are troubled states," Singh said while delivering a lecture on 'Military view of Indian National Security" at a function here.

He said there has been a conflict with these bordering countries since 1947, and the conflict with Pakistan and China have been causes of major concerns.

"Policy of Pakistan being to bleed India with thousand cuts was initiated by General Zia-ul-Haq in 1987-88 to start terrorism against India," Singh said.

He said that economic installations, especially oil refineries in Jamnagar, were highly potential terrorist targets.

Bureau Report

[NRao]

US firm on implicating LeT founder in 26/11 carnage

[Muppalla]

Pak to get two F-22P frigates from China

Pakistan will receive the first of four F-22P frigates, equipped with modern weapons and anti- submarine helicopters, from China in August this year while the second warship is slated for delivery in December. "Construction of the first two ships has already been completed and they will be delivered to Pakistan Navy in August and December this year after successful completion of ongoing trials," a statement issued by the Pakistan navy said on Thursday.

[vsudhir]

Pak to get two F-22P frigates from China

Hmmm.

So bottomline is that Pak is getting the F-22(P).

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

[Malayappan]

Sudeepj, Brihaspatiji,
Interesting discussion there. Worth pursuing - possibly on another thread?

One possible explanation -

US is a status quoist power. In their bid to kill off revisionist ambitions they will tie up with anyone who can check such a revisionist power. In a regional context this will mean tying up with a) the strongest force and / or b) a force that could be 'bought', rather than with a force which -a) has similarities in soft power areas (culture, democracy, lingusitic affinity) and / or b) seeks to think independently. In this line of thought, it is extremely important to note that there is no moral compass involved!

Thus it will support China, Pakistan, Saddam Hussain, even Pol Pot, Karimov, Shakashvilli....

The US can never be our ally -

Unless we become very strong strategically (covering all the power areas) despite US efforts to block us,
or
We repeatedly and demonstrably challenge the status quo (eg Pokran II)

In that sense the MMS vision of working with US and seeking alignment with them, while targeting rapid economic growth will fail - it is simply not in US interest to facilitate that!

[SSridhar]

Much of Taliban is changing hands, slowly but surely, from ISI control to Al Qaida control.

This could be true for Mehsud and Fazlullah factions, but probably not for Mullah Omar or Haqqani, who are still with the ISI. . . . As regards the LeT, it probably feels the pull from both sides (ISI and Al-Qaeda), and has a dual allegiance.

My take is that the Al Qaeda/ISI/Taliban/Punjabi Jihadis/Sunni Sectarian Outfits, all these five different groups, have coalesced or are coalescing into one in Fak Ap area. While they are the military wing, their political voice is the Islamist parties like JUI, JI, PTI and PML-N. They all perceive the Americans as the single greatest threat. They will fall apart later but for now, they are all in it together.

As for TSPA (which includes ISID), we should not think of it as a monolith entity. Different parts of it will appear to do things differently and against what we commonly associate TSPA with in this forum. But, there is no contradiction there. It is a grand strategy.

[Anujan]

Remember the "Special evidence" presented to the Judge ?

Editorial: Reactions to Hafiz Saeed’s release

It was first reported that the prosecution had shown some special evidence to the honourable court; now it comes to light that it had not.

[IndraD]

Pak to get two F-22P frigates from China

On the other hand I read yesterday India already has spent huge money on similar frigate which has yet to arrive from Russia. Is non operational since 1988.

[Srivastav]

Pak to get two F-22P frigates from China

On the other hand I read yesterday India already has spent huge money on similar frigate which has yet to arrive from Russia. Is non operational since 1988.

Sorry sir but iam having a hard time here understanding what you are trying to say. What is non operational since 1988 and i just cant think of any similar ships india has ordered.
Anyways the only russian frigs i can think of are the krivak's and these f-22 are nothing in comparison to the Talwar(krivak)

[arun]

From the huffington post, an interview of Leon Panetta, the CIA chief.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-ga ... 05200.html

On the Drone Attacks in Pakistan

Others, such as David Kilcullen, the counterinsurgency expert who advised General Petraeus in Iraq, don't see it that way. I asked Panetta what he thought of Kilcullen's case that the drone strikes have killed only 14 operatives while killing 700 civilians, thus causing an anti-American backlash in Pakistan more than disrupting Al Qaida.

His response:

These are covert, secret operations. So I can't go into particulars. Suffice it to say that the operations have been very effective because they have been very precise in terms of hitting targets with a minimum of collateral damage. Sometimes critics sweep [casualties] from other less- precise operations, for example F-16 jet strikes, that go into these areas and can cause collateral damage. In discussing this, I sometimes find that the numbers are mixed together. But I assure you that in terms of our strategy it is very precise and very limited in terms of collateral damage. And, very frankly, it is the only game in town in terms of trying to disrupt the Al Qaida leadership.

If I'm reading this right, drone attacks in TSP get a bad rep because the collateral damage caused by F-16s gets conflated with the casualty numbers by the drone strikes.

Doesn't that mean, in addition to drones, F-16s are being used to hit targets in TSP? American F-16s, not TSPAF F-16s

That’s the same question I had posed back on Page 6 of this very same thread.

Interestingly that question was brought on once again by what Leon Panetta had to say though it was not to Huffington Post but rather to Die Welt.

Two distinct interviews, each suggesting that the US in parallel with drone strikes is carrying out manned strikes into Pakistan, forces one inescapable conclusion. The US is indeed in parallel with drone strikes carrying out strikes using F-16’s into Pakistan.

There is going to be a mountain of rage in Pakistan when the ordinary Abdul’s and Ayesha’s eventually get to know of this particular sell out of Pakistan’s sovereignty by its own political and military elites.

My earlier post referred above along with the Die Welt interview is reproduced below:

Die Welt interview of Leon Panetta, Director of the CIA.

Large swathes of the interview touches on Pakistan. Security of Pakistani nuclear weapons, Pakistan as a haven for the senior Al-Qaeda leadership, Swat Valley etc.

What however struck me was the mention of “F-16 jet strikes” as a cause of collateral damage in a discussion on drones.

I wonder …………………..

Has Pakistan, besides permitting US drone strikes permitted the US to carry out strikes by manned aircraft as well :

WELT ONLINE: You say the CIA strategy against al-Qaida and its allies is working in the Pakistan-Afghan border region. Yet, critics, such as David Kilcullen, the counterinsurgency expert who advised Gen. David Petraeus in Iraq, say the strikes by remote drones in the tribal zones have only killed 14 terrorist leaders, while more than 700 civilians have been killed. Isn't this stimulating more anti-Americanism across Pakistan than disrupting al-Qaida?

Panetta: These are covert, secret operations. So I can't go into particulars. Suffice it to say that the operations have been very effective because they have been very precise in terms of hitting targets with a minimum of collateral damage.

Sometimes critics sweep casualties from other less-precise operations, for example F-16 jet strikes, that go into these areas and can cause significant collateral damage. In discussing this, I sometimes find that the numbers are mixed together. But I assure you that in terms of our strategy, it is very precise and very limited in terms of collateral damage. And, very frankly, it is the only game in town in terms of trying to disrupt the al-Qaida leadership.

Welt Online

[SSridhar]

Pakistani media incensed with Holbrooke

But clearly, Mr. Holbrooke has still some way to go before he makes friends with a hostile and suspicious Pakistani media. At the weekly Foreign Ministry briefing on Thursday, incensed Pakistani journalists threw questions at spokesman Abdul Basit on why Pakistan was going out of its way for a mere special envoy.

“What is your understanding about the status of Richard Holbrooke? Who is the counterpart of the person in question and why is he behaving like a supra head of state?” one journalist asked. Another wanted to know what the “rule of business or protocol procedures” said about a visiting special envoy from the U.S. “Who should hold a [press] stakeout with him?” the journalist questioned.

A third wanted to know the reason for giving Mr. Holbrooke “such high protocol; this is his third visit here and the President addressed a press conference with him, at a time when they don’t seem to be addressing any of the key concerns of Pakistan.”

[Pranay]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/world ... ml?_r=1&hp

The Taliban's fortunes changing??