The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 08 Mar 2011 09:06

By the fourth decade of Indian independence the country’s liberal, secular constitution was thwarted by the rise of an elite disproportionately composed of higher caste Hindus from certain regions, which ruled and ruined the country. Divisions based on caste, geography and religion locked some groups into cycles of poverty while others reaped the benefits of India’s tepid economic growth. By 1990, India’s state-led planning model for economic development had all but collapsed in corruption and a severe balance of payments crisis. A change in the ruling party opened up the political space for reform.

the above is by Peter Berger and Anne Bernstein. they write for the American Interest magazine. Walter Mead and Francis Fukuyama also write for it and are associated with it. even Jagdish Bhagwati has a blog there.

according to them, "higher caste hindus" in the 1990's "ruled and destroyed" the country. never mind that all the previous leaders were also higher caste and political elite. (also, note how the BJP reign is described as a "Rule.")

also, note the vague "change in ruling party." one is left his/her head scratching wondering which ruling party and which change they're talking about. if the issue is the 1990's then it's either PVNR change or he ABV change. the later is ruled out b/c he is evil higher caste. the former is not really change b/c it was the INC. so, it must be the 2004 change of MMS/Sonia. but this is not clearly specified. just simply stated as a "ruling change." the specifics of the change are left for the reader to figure out while the author conveniently can include whatever they wish at a later date, if the so wish, without needing to change the rest of the essay.

the so called "positive" presentation of India consists of the above. the BJP is the evil high caste Hindus. while the good people are not clearly mentioned but vaguely painted as lifting the oppressed up and without any specific as to who's doing the uplifting, so that any person/party/group can be conveniently fit in that category as and when wished for.

http://the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=922

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Mar 2011 09:08

VikramS wrote: This notion of the US instigating TSPA to get into a shooting war with India is interesting. I would appreciate if you could shed some more light on the motivation behind it.

There were some comments that the US would like to keep Asian powers off-balance. But when it comes to competition in Asia, the US is under a significant threat from China when compared to India. Why would the US want to weaken India and in turn strengthen China?

Also could you elaborate on why you feel that there will be a time-gap between the US leaving and China replacing Uncle?

Many of my insights into how the US works in Asia as a superpower have come from assorted reading and 3-4 seminal books. Among them are one that I reviewed for BR about the US in Asia and others include some of Henry Kissinger's writings.

The US will not take India's help against China unless the US can be sure that India can always bend to US will if things were to change at a later date. The US is not on the lookout for allies, but for vassal states or temporary allies. Aside from favoring a slave who can be relied on to implement US will, the US only looks to balance out one power against another. It's called "Holding the ring"

I could probably write a book on how brilliant and competent the US has been in so many ways related to this. For example the US does not see technological advancement as something that only the US alone should have. The US fully understands that any high tech of today will be in the hands of enemies tomorrow. What the US does is to try and ensure that the US sets the pace of tech advancement so that everyone else is doing the catching up. By the time they catch up, the US has moved on. This is a trick that a lot of people don't seem to figure out.

For example - if India gets stealth tech today we often have people saying "Pakistanis should not get this". The fact is Pakistanis will definitely get this in X or Y years. So after India gets it India cannot sit on its backside - but must move ahead and get something else in place by the time Pakistan gets that stealth tech.

But being leader of tech, the US can play this game in a more complex way. They can gift stealth tech based hardware to Pakistan and then sell the same to India. By doing that they balance out Pakistan and India an earn Pakistani gratitude while making money from India. They have done this with a variety of nations globally.

Can the US say "Abracadabra- let there now be an IndiaPakistan war" and cause that war to occur? No. But they can encourage Pakistan to attack India and they are in a position to supply or deny spares to Pakistan and equally in a position to supply or deny intelligence information to Pakistan. They are in a less strong position to supply or deny spares to India although they could do a naval blockade of India if they wished to do that. in 1971 they could have done that but did not.

But what this means is that in any India-Pakistan war the US - via the control it exerts on Pakistan is able to calibrate how long the war might go on by the appropriate and selective use of sanctions(on either side) and intelligence information. For an Indian war planner it means that no war can be fought with Pakistan without gaming out the ways in which the US can interfere.

As regards China - to cut a long story short:
1) China does not have the deep links with Pakistanis that the US has. The anglosphere counts.
2) China does not have the surveillance assets that the US has or the comprehensive IOR ELINT assets that can detect and forestall Indian military maneuvers
3) China does not have the Indian Ocean naval assets to make a huge difference to an India Pakistan conflict teh way the US can

All these can be built up over time, but I estimate that to be anywhere between 5 to 20 years after the US leaves. 5 years for the easy things like money and arms. 20 years for "deep links". That means that the US must leave first and then China will take a decade or more to get somewhere near the US's current capability.

That would give us time to plan things that we were incapable of planning when the US entered Pakistan in the late 1950s. If it panned out that way - but it might not...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Mar 2011 09:10

somnath wrote: Shiv-ji, the numbers in the second graph dont add up - how can "total" be less than "Kashmir only"?

The total excludes militant and security forces deaths. It also excludes individual shootings and killings in J&K. In the case of many bombings no terrorist was killed at all.

The trends are clear though.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 08 Mar 2011 09:24

shiv wrote:
The US will not take India's help against China unless the US can be sure that India can always bend to US will if things were to change at a later date. The US is not on the lookout for allies, but for vassal states or temporary allies. Aside from favoring a slave who can be relied on to implement US will, the US only looks to balance out one power against another. It's called "Holding the ring"

The clearest evidence for it can be seen in the statements of Teresita C. Schaffer. (First, she was the lady who lied to their Congress that F-16s cannot be used to drop nuclear weapons. Secondly, she was handling the South Asian region when US started questioning J&K's accession to India). Whenever she is asked to comment on India, she whines about India's preference for strategic autonomy. Why shouldn't independent countries be strategically autonomous? You wouldn't understand their position unless you have seen fairness in Kissinger in 1970s. If you liked American policies in early 1970s then you would say that the lack of strategic autonomy is a "happy accident".

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Mar 2011 09:44

The other thing that gets missed out when we talk about US Pakistan relations is that it is, to use an analogy, like a couple who are both married, but meet on a flight and have a one night stand. That means that both have enjoyed each other but both also have other compulsions. The US Pakistan relationship is like the same couple after 200 one night stands over 10 years. There is a history of periodic intimacy despite conflicting interests and the intimacy has been desired more by one or the other on some occasions, leading to some give and take.

All the US's aid to Pakistan has been conditional based on how much Pakistan does for the US in return. The US has aided Pakistan when Pakistan was desperate for aid, but the US has imposed sanctions at crucial times when Pakistan would have preferred continued US aid. Now Pakistan feels that they will not allow this to occur any more. They are telling the US, in effect, to swallow it or stuff it.

If we are talking about a future China Pakistan relationship exactly like the US relationship on a 1:1 scale, it means that China too will give conditional aid to Pakistan. If China does not give conditional aid to Pakistan and asks for nothing in return (unlike the US) then it means
1) The China Pakistan relationship will be nothing like the US-Pakistan relationship
2) Pakistan will gain everything, China will gain nothing.

IOW if China wants something out of Pakistan, the relationship has to be a conditional relationship. And the conditions that China demands have to be met by Pakistan. And vice versa. That is exactly the point ion which the US-Pakistan relationship floundered.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 08 Mar 2011 09:50

shiv wrote:The total excludes militant and security forces deaths. It also excludes individual shootings and killings in J&K. In the case of many bombings no terrorist was killed at all.

Well, if it is to (for some reason) only analyse "non J&K Pak-sponsored terror civilian" casualties, then you need to weed out fatalities on left wing terror, NE terror as well as handiworks of "hindu" terrorists...From 2006 onwards, SATP should allow you do that substantially (barring the bit on "hindu" terror)...

2006: 271
2007: 152
208: 336
2009: 5
2010: 20

2008 is the blip - thanks mostly to the 26/11 incident..

abhishek_sharma wrote:The clearest evidence for it can be seen in the statements of Teresita C. Schaffer. (First, she was the lady who lied to their Congress that F-16s cannot be used to drop nuclear weapons. Secondly, she was handling the South Asian region when US started questioning J&K's accession to India). Whenever she is asked to comment on India, she whines about India's preference for strategic autonomy

Funny, obviously different points of view runs in the household!

Maybe expected! Her husband recently wrote an insightful account of the "limits" of American influence in India, esp on J&K - and he wasnt whining about it at all!

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 08 Mar 2011 09:59

China wont ever replace the US as Paki benefactor on a 1:1 basis..But more worryingly, there is less daylight between the Chinese and Paki strategic objectives than between US and Paki strategic objectives..The biggest differentator IMO is the India factor..The US relationship with India, on a multi-faceted basis is a lot more positive in its directional attitude (for us) than the Chinese relationship with India. US has a vested interest in supporting India as a major Asian power, China has a vested interest in doing just the opposite...US has a vested interest in seeing off Taliban (and its ilk) from power in Af (similar to us), while China couldnt care less - it will buy off, or try to buy off whoever is in power...

while China lacks the technological and political (and even economic) depth of the US, vis a vis India, it has geographic "strength" as well..China is in a position to influence an Indo-Pak conflict far more than the US - they just need to place 100k more troops opposite Arunachal! The reason why China isnt much closer to Pak than it already is is the US influence in Pak...China does not want to commit whole heartedly to a polygamous affair, especially if the other wife is sexier! However it would keep playing the seducer all the time....

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Mar 2011 10:05

somnath wrote:
shiv wrote:The total excludes militant and security forces deaths. It also excludes individual shootings and killings in J&K. In the case of many bombings no terrorist was killed at all.
Well, if it is to (for some reason) only analyse "non J&K Pak-sponsored terror civilian" casualties, then you need to weed out fatalities on left wing terror, NE terror as well as handiworks of "hindu" terrorists...From 2006 onwards, SATP should allow you do that substantially (barring the bit on "hindu" terror)...

2006: 271
2007: 152
208: 336
2009: 5
2010: 20

The number of incidents that occurred is as important than the number of deaths. The second graph shows a clear rise in the number of incidents. If bomb blasts occur and nobody dies - it would not reflect as fatalities.

But I am not about to argue. Ther tren is clear for anyone who wants to see and they wil reach their own conclusions from the graphs.

I think that the US presence in Pakistan did not have any salutary stabilizing effect on terrorism in India. Nothing occurred in the 2001-2009 period that caused India to reduce its vigil in Kashmir or reduce vigilance over larger and larger areas of India.

However - it was the 2008 incident that had a profound impact on public opinion and that did cause the US to apply some pressure on Pakistan. The pressure of course was indirect and built on the following logic:
1) A further terrorist attack on India could lead to Indian retaliation
2) Fear of Indian retaliation would cause Pakistan to keep its troops on the Indian border and not man the Durand line doing the US's job
3) If Pakistan wanted US aid, it would have to cut down on terror attacks against India, so that the US could use its good offices to ask india to reduce pressure at the border so Pakistan could move troops to the Durand line.

Sure enough, after 2009 with a dramatic reduction in terrorist events in India compared to all years from 2004 onwards, the Indian army has been talking of China more than Pakistan and India is talking of renewal of AFSPA and reduction of troops in Kashmir. This does not translate to overall US benevolence and goodwill calling for India to welcome the US's role and fear China's possible future role.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 08 Mar 2011 10:06

somnath wrote: Funny, obviously different points of view runs in the household! Maybe expected! Her husband recently wrote an insightful account of the "limits" of American influence in India, esp on J&K - and he wasnt whining about it at all!

I have read that book. There is no doubt that their influence is limited. That is why they don't like our policy.

Moreover, that book is hardly "insightful". He had access to official records, but collecting information from official transcripts is different from writing a really insightful book.

Her problems can be read in this book.

http://www.amazon.com/Strategic-Asia-20 ... 971393893/

Also see here:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/06/142838.htm

AMBASSADOR SCHAFFER: I think that one of the challenges we face is that we’re carrying very different historical baggage. In the case of India, their foreign policy DNA is set up to honor the concept of strategic autonomy, which means, crudely translated, that no Indian politician can allow it to look as if another country is unduly influencing India’s foreign policy. So this creates a tremendous presumption in favor of not getting too close to U.S. policies in different parts of the world.

I don't understand why "strategic autonomy" is a "challenge" for them. Is India not cooperating with the US to stop genocides/injustice in the world. Given American record (in West Asia and other countries), I would say that India, on an average, has a better record.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 08 Mar 2011 10:09

shiv wrote: If we are talking about a future China Pakistan relationship exactly like the US relationship on a 1:1 scale, it means that China too will give conditional aid to Pakistan. If China does not give conditional aid to Pakistan and asks for nothing in return (unlike the US) then it means
1) The China Pakistan relationship will be nothing like the US-Pakistan relationship
2) Pakistan will gain everything, China will gain nothing.

IOW if China wants something out of Pakistan, the relationship has to be a conditional relationship. And the conditions that China demands have to be met by Pakistan. And vice versa. That is exactly the point ion which the US-Pakistan relationship floundered.

shivji:

I do not expect the TSP-China relationship to be anything close to the US-TSP relationship. There are many reasons. The biggest of course is geography. TSP and India are China's neighbors. After the cold border with an aging Russia, India is the biggest land-power in China's vicinity. The Chinese recognized that India will be the single biggest challenger to their land domination of Asia very early.

The US is half the world away and until 9/11 what happened in the Indian sub-continent, stayed in the Indian sub-continent. Most American interaction was restricted to the TSPA and the RAPE.

The Chinese interaction is very different. The homes being constructed for 11000 PLA soliders in POK is an example; as are the Ling Chus and Thong dentists, and the massage parlors. There will be boots on the ground; a hands on role in guiding the month to month affairs of the TSP. If China is going to get a return on its investment, it will make sure that it is running the show in the corridors it needs.

In a lot of ways 9/11 and the GOAT has changed the dynamics of the US-TSP relationship also. The US actually has boots (Raymond Davis types) on the ground. Their have built a massive embassy in slumabad; consulates in different cities, and safe-houses all over the country. This happened after whatever happened in the sub-continent no longer stayed in the sub-continent; i.e. 9/11 and the subsequent JDAM in NYC panics. The Chinese relationship will be a bigger version of the current US relationship. This is all IMHO, based on the current trends, and the needs and desires of the different players.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 08 Mar 2011 10:17

abhishek_sharma wrote:I don't understand why "strategic autonomy" is a "challenge" for them. Is India not cooperating with the US to stop genocides/injustice in the world. Given American record (in West Asia and other countries), I would say that India, on an average, has a better record

Come on, I have no special love lost for Teresita Schaffer, but she is just stating the most obvious thing...Getting countries to agree to one's own view point is the generic "challenge" in diplomacy...In India's case, the challenge for the US has historically been greater as we carried this "anti-American-ism" bit as a badge of honour for 4 decades..So anything out of America HAD to be evil, regardless of the merits - it peaked during IG's time (when Piloo Modi wore that famous "I am a CIA agent" placard in Parliament)...Ask any Indian diplomat, he would talk in a similar vein about the US "challenge" as well!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Mar 2011 10:19

somnath wrote:China wont ever replace the US as Paki benefactor on a 1:1 basis..But more worryingly, there is less daylight between the Chinese and Paki strategic objectives than between US and Paki strategic objectives..The biggest differentator IMO is the India factor.

Indeed. China cannot replace the US 1:1. So we need to move beyond imagining that China can "Take the US's place" if that has been the belief held by anyone.

Both China and the US have a use for Pakistan apart from opposing or neutralizing India. China needs Pakistan as transit to the Indian Ocean. The US too needs Pakistan for transit. The US transit needs are smaller. China's will be larger.

There are, therefore two separate issues that need to be mentioned separately, although they can be made to affect each other.

Issue 1: Use of Pakistan to oppose India
Issue 2: Use of Pakistan as transit

Issue 1: The use of Pakistan to oppose India is bound to sour relations between India and China or the US depending on which nation is using Pakistan to oppose India

Issue 2: The use of Pakistan as a transit route need not be opposed by India and need not be any skin off India's nose provided relations with the country using Pakistan as transit is good.

Technically India can interfere in Pakistan. India can disrupt free transit through Pakistan in various ways. even if the US puts 3 aircraft carriers in the India ocean, and even if China puts 250,000 troops in North Arunachal Pradesh (Tibet) - india can disrupt those lines through Pakistan.

In other words free transit through Pakistan can be held hostage to relations with India.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Mar 2011 10:21

VikramS wrote:
In a lot of ways 9/11 and the GOAT has changed the dynamics of the US-TSP relationship also. The US actually has boots (Raymond Davis types) on the ground. Their have built a massive embassy in slumabad; consulates in different cities, and safe-houses all over the country. This happened after whatever happened in the sub-continent no longer stayed in the sub-continent; i.e. 9/11 and the subsequent JDAM in NYC panics. The Chinese relationship will be a bigger version of the current US relationship. This is all IMHO, based on the current trends, and the needs and desires of the different players.

What do you believe this means for India?

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 08 Mar 2011 10:41

shiv wrote:Indeed. China cannot replace the US 1:1. So we need to move beyond imagining that China can "Take the US's place" if that has been the belief held by anyone

Just because China cant replace the US 1:1 doesnt mean that China cant be a more "virulent" support for Pak..In fact it will..

Chinese need for Pak is in someways congruent to US interests - domination/influence over the Central Asian region...Additionally, Pak is an alaternate transit route for China (which isnt the case for the US generally, in absence of a large mission in Af)...Plus, China has greater reasons to help Pak attain deterrent levels of power in order to box India in...For Pak, alongside the goodies, absence of the US (and the burden of complying ith US objectives) will immediately bring large measure of social and military peace within the country, and restore the strategic assets (Taliban types) back in the establishment fold...

china does not need to be "embedded" as deeply into Pak as the US...For a disruptive policy, a mere congruence of strategic interests will do nicely enough...

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 08 Mar 2011 10:59

somnath wrote: Come on, I have no special love lost for Teresita Schaffer, but she is just stating the most obvious thing...Getting countries to agree to one's own view point is the generic "challenge" in diplomacy...In India's case, the challenge for the US has historically been greater as we carried this "anti-American-ism" bit as a badge of honour for 4 decades..So anything out of America HAD to be evil, regardless of the merits - it peaked during IG's time (when Piloo Modi wore that famous "I am a CIA agent" placard in Parliament)...Ask any Indian diplomat, he would talk in a similar vein about the US "challenge" as well!

If she was really talking about some "generic" challenge, then I don't understand why she mentioned 'strategic autonomy'. India sends thousands of troops for UN peacekeeping operations. What else can we do? I don't think India is/was a thorn in the flesh of global peace and prosperity. What is our fault?

I understand it was our mistake that we could not see WMDs in Iraq. I think we should have dropped our "anti-Americanism" and cooperated with them. Please accept my apologies.

I don't think India was wearing any kind of badge for 4 decades. We did welcome cooperation in green revolution/IITs from the Americans. So everything from American was *NOT* evil. Given American policy in 1971, I think Mrs. IG was very rational in accessing American policies. Should we have cooperated with Kissinger/Nixon during that time? I am pretty sure some Bengalis appreciated our so-called "anti-Americanism". During 1980s, William Casey's CIA printed thousands of Korans and distributed them in Central Asia. I am glad IG was not cooperating with America in this grand philanthropic exercise.

Moreover, hasn't America interfered in the internal matters of many countries? Hasn't CIA overthrown democratically elected governments? Iran? Chile? So IG was not hallucinating, she was just cognizant of the true face of American government. Given that Rabinder Singh escaped to US even after Jaswant-Talbott lovefest, I think she was grounded in reality.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 08 Mar 2011 10:59

shiv wrote:Issue 2: The use of Pakistan as a transit route need not be opposed by India and need not be any skin off India's nose provided relations with the country using Pakistan as transit is good.

Technically India can interfere in Pakistan. India can disrupt free transit through Pakistan in various ways. even if the US puts 3 aircraft carriers in the India ocean, and even if China puts 250,000 troops in North Arunachal Pradesh (Tibet) - india can disrupt those lines through Pakistan.

In other words free transit through Pakistan can be held hostage to relations with India.

Unless the transit of goods is used to beef up the presence of Han Chinese in Tibet and East Turkestan. Hanification of Tibet and East Turkestan, I think is in fact more than just the skin off our nose!

We have seen, that USA has been giving arms to Pakistan, which can be used against India. Has India disrupted American supply lines to Afghanistan? In fact, we are not even on unfriendly terms with the USA.

Similarly China can use Pakistan as a transit corridor, and despite working against India's interests, we would still not be raising the DEFCON level. Cutting off supply lines and transit corridors is an act of war, and India would not go that far.

"Free transit through Pakistan can be held hostage to relations with India." is simply not an option. India would simply not use war to balance off strategic asymmetry like Hanification of the Western China.

China can use Pakistan for the next 30-40 years as a transit corridor to industrialize East Turkestan and Tibet using imported Han Chinese labor, who settle down there, without India ever making this an issue of war and peace.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 08 Mar 2011 11:03

the Paki-China nexus is truly possible only via Kashmir or if some other little CA country decide to become a poodle for China. even then, the shortest route between the two is Kashmir. retaking all of Kashmir is top priority. it effectively ends Paki-PRC pipedreams. as a first step, we need to create chaos for Pakistan in PoK. we should follow the same strategy they've followed w.r.t India.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 08 Mar 2011 11:05

shiv wrote:even if the US puts 3 aircraft carriers in the India ocean, and even if China puts 250,000 troops in North Arunachal Pradesh (Tibet) - india can disrupt those lines through Pakistan

Curious, how can India disrupt transit lines for Chinese troops in Tibet through Pakistan?

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 08 Mar 2011 11:19

I don't have the book now, but see the summary

http://www.nbr.org/publications/element.aspx?id=22

With a booming economy, an increasingly trade-driven foreign policy, an expanding footprint both in Asia and on the global scene, and strong relations with the great powers, India’s strategic horizon is generally positive. The U.S. is India’s most important outside friend, and the new relationship between the two countries is based on important common interests, especially in Asia and in Indian Ocean security. Yet at the same time India’s foreign policy outlook rests on a strong political commitment to “strategic autonomy”—avoiding even the appearance of undue outside, and especially U.S., influence on its policy. U.S. experience with partnerships, however, involves mainly working with junior partners. This disconnect complicates the task of developing the U.S.-India partnership.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 08 Mar 2011 11:30

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/20 ... r-in-asia/

China, Gilgit-Baltistan (Memorize it Now), and the Balance of Power in Asia

The Chinese military deployment is of concern for two principal reasons: its potential relevance to the coalition effort in Afghanistan and Pakistan (AfPak), and its importance to Beijing’s project of bisecting Asia with a Chinese-built, Chinese-controlled transport corridor. Such a corridor would benefit commerce and travel, but would also be of unique significance to the Asian balance of power.

The troops in Gilgit-Baltistan have been engaged in tunneling projects and road- and rail-building. These efforts will certainly affect the opportunities for commerce through Central Asia, but they will also help China achieve the strategic advantage of spanning Asia’s temperate zone and major waterways, which neither Russia nor India does.

the above is US perspective, but the points raised are very valid for India too.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 08 Mar 2011 12:26

shiv wrote:
VikramS wrote:
In a lot of ways 9/11 and the GOAT has changed the dynamics of the US-TSP relationship also. The US actually has boots (Raymond Davis types) on the ground. Their have built a massive embassy in slumabad; consulates in different cities, and safe-houses all over the country. This happened after whatever happened in the sub-continent no longer stayed in the sub-continent; i.e. 9/11 and the subsequent JDAM in NYC panics. The Chinese relationship will be a bigger version of the current US relationship. This is all IMHO, based on the current trends, and the needs and desires of the different players.
What do you believe this means for India?

Sirji, it is well above my pay-grade. But as an argumentative Indian, it is in my blood to indulge in speculation and that I will.
-------------------------------------------

You do not need boots on the ground unless you plan to or at least anticipate getting your hands dirty.

-------------------------------------------

Perhaps all these Blackwater types are just to maintain direct links with the Jehadis and keep a tab on the ISI is really up to (as if they do not know). Or they are there to gather intel to guide drone hits or perhaps hunt for OBL or other sundry Jehadis.

But then once in a while you are allowed to dream in technocolor, so here I go.
--------------------------------------------
The optimist in me of course hopes, that what the TSPians have been ranting for the past half a decade has an element of truth in it. i.e. TTP types are essentially US funded thugs, out to squeeze TSPA balls and that the US is preparing for the day it has to pull off the royal heist.

Look at it from the US point of view:

If they reduce their presence in Af-Pak they risk AQAM forming a base again, as the TSPA gets its strategic depth back. They can pull out and continue to pay protection money to the TSPA and hope that bad terrorism will be contained. However, the genie as they say is out of the bottle.

Even if they pay-off the TSPA what about the sundry jehadis in UQistan? Who will keep tab on their visits to the nursery of terror. What if the come back as bak-pakis? What if the PLA takes over in 5-10 years and literally converts the TSP into another NoKo? Completely dependent on the Chinese for military and strategic sustenance and dancing to her tunes with the Saudis sponsoring soup kitchens to keep the Abdul from starving?

Communism + Islamism is the worst nightmare for the Western way of life. The possibilities of causing havoc are, as they say, endless; just limited by ones imagination. What if the Chinese co-opt the bak-pakis armed with ultra-compact JDAMs? When times are good they may not matter, but when times are not good then what. And this time it is a capitalist commie, the one who is bank-rolling the US anyway.

The US as they say, is stuck between a rock and a hard-place. They can not dump Af-Pak but they can do nothing to fix the situation either unless they alter the status-quo. Perhaps the stalemate will continue.

However the US is not that stupid to continue feeding the snake with no returns. They will try something and that is where the ground infrastructure is handy.

One way out of course could be to as the Computer Scientists call it, Divide and Conquer. But division requires a heist.
-------------------------------------
That is where things get truly complicated. The TSP bomb is supposed to be a Sunni Bomb, there to provide protection against the Shia bomb also. So the KSA will in no way support a heist; the PRC does not have any reason to do so either.

But what if Iran is also bough to the table and collectively asked to defang along with the TSP as a quid-pro-quo for its acceptance in the alliance of the righteous? Perhaps with some kind of Israeli compromise thrown in to make the Iranians look good.

So the IPI pipeline now becomes and an I-BS-IC pipeline. For this hypothesis to work of course, your arguments that the India could choke off any land-route from the current TSP should be valid. And the PLA/CCP should feel it is better to co-opt India into a grand bargain, and focus on trade and mutual benefit instead of getting caught up in the struggle to game the TSPA.

Perhaps the reality will sink in that after the Chinese have committed billions, the TSPA will start demanding increasing hafta from the Chinese to ensure security. Or the KKH may also bring with it with the Jehadi germ into Xianxing.

Note all the above are based on PLA/CPC calculus being different from what I had earlier proposed; an alternative more in synch with your hypothesis of PLA/CPC goals.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW I have not commented about the terror graph. But I do not think I would be wrong in believing that cross-border terror is no longer a chronic issue. It becomes acute (26/11) but unlike the Kashmir Jehad days, your daily-dose of cross-border terror is no longer being served. One might argue that it has been replaced by intra-India terror in the guise of the Naxals etc. but that is a different issue.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Mar 2011 14:15

VikramS wrote: BTW I have not commented about the terror graph. But I do not think I would be wrong in believing that cross-border terror is no longer a chronic issue. It becomes acute (26/11) but unlike the Kashmir Jehad days, your daily-dose of cross-border terror is no longer being served. One might argue that it has been replaced by intra-India terror in the guise of the Naxals etc. but that is a different issue.

It would be nice to know that Pakis are running out of options. With regard to violence and subversion against India they have tried direct military attack and war, support of insurgencies, hijacking, infiltration of terrorists across the Kashmir border, creation of local terror cells, commando style infiltration of terrorists by sea, providing a safe haven for criminals, printing Indian currency in official Pakistani presses. The lot. Nuclear war is something they have not yet attempted so that is something we could look forward to as a new and original tactic.

India has been caught in a sort of diplomatic pincer here. If you go back to the years before 9-11 when the world (read USA) refused to acknowledge that there was anything wrong in armed men infiltrating into India across the border, you find that war with Pakistan was always blamed on "Both countries, arch rivals, being at each other's throats" while not fighting a war and using "diplomacy" paid no dividends.

Even 9-11 merely saw a change in tactic from infiltration across the Kashmir border to terrorism across India - in a graph that steadily rose until 26/11/2008. Is it over for good? Well we have had the Pune German bakery blast and another one after that. So it's not over yet. In todays paper there is info about LeT plotting attacks on cricket stadia.
The problem is that "lack of attack" does not absolve Pakistan or give cause for relief because heightened defences can thwart attacks and we never know about terrorist attacks that we prevented.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Mar 2011 14:55

Here is a 2006 article by our late guru K.Subrahmanyam
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... ewsid=6218

There is no other explanation that can adequately explain the US tolerance of Pakistani behaviour, which has been far more provocative than that of Iran or North Korea. The US also faces an unfamiliar problem. All its nuclear theology was based on the concept of deterrence, which assumed that the adversary valued certain things such as life, property and future of his nation. But the jehadis value nothing and therefore cannot be deterred. Further, the Pakistani leadership deliberately cultivates an image of irrationality. Recently, in an interview, General Aslam Beg elaborated on the advice he had given to the Iranians. Whoever hits Iran, hit Israel and destroy it. He boasted that his strategy for Pakistan was, no matter who hits his country, he would hit India.

In India there is inadequate understanding of the US predicament. The US is in a kind of hostage situation. We should have noticed that there has been very few detailed analyses about reasons underlying the extraordinary permissiveness of the US about Pakistani behaviour. The charges of A.Q. Khan’s CIA linkages have been ignored. Even the monstrous accusation that 9/11 commission members were dealt with by Pakistani lobbyists and persuaded to water down their conclusions evoked no response from the US media or law makers. Pakistan’s defiant non-cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency in respect of Iranian proliferation, in which Islamabad is the primary guilty party has been looked away from. In these circumstances, President Bush displayed rare courage in refusing to succumb to the latest blackmail from Pakistan seeking equal treatment with India on access to civil nuclear energy.

How long the US will put up with Pakistani blackmail? Will the US be able to keep blackmail under manageable levels or will it someday or other breach the limits of US tolerance? Will US succeed in democratising Pakistan under these circumstances or will it have to reconcile itself to successive army regimes flaunting its linkages to jehadis? These are the issues that need to be addressed in Indo-US Track II deliberations.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 08 Mar 2011 15:30

shiv wrote:Here is a 2006 article by our late guru K.Subrahmanyam
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... ewsid=6218
There is no other explanation that can adequately explain the US tolerance of Pakistani behaviour, which has been far more provocative than that of Iran or North Korea. The US also faces an unfamiliar problem. All its nuclear theology was based on the concept of deterrence, which assumed that the adversary valued certain things such as life, property and future of his nation. But the jehadis value nothing and therefore cannot be deterred. Further, the Pakistani leadership deliberately cultivates an image of irrationality. Recently, in an interview, General Aslam Beg elaborated on the advice he had given to the Iranians. Whoever hits Iran, hit Israel and destroy it. He boasted that his strategy for Pakistan was, no matter who hits his country, he would hit India.

In India there is inadequate understanding of the US predicament. The US is in a kind of hostage situation. We should have noticed that there has been very few detailed analyses about reasons underlying the extraordinary permissiveness of the US about Pakistani behaviour. The charges of A.Q. Khan’s CIA linkages have been ignored. Even the monstrous accusation that 9/11 commission members were dealt with by Pakistani lobbyists and persuaded to water down their conclusions evoked no response from the US media or law makers. Pakistan’s defiant non-cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency in respect of Iranian proliferation, in which Islamabad is the primary guilty party has been looked away from. In these circumstances, President Bush displayed rare courage in refusing to succumb to the latest blackmail from Pakistan seeking equal treatment with India on access to civil nuclear energy.

How long the US will put up with Pakistani blackmail? Will the US be able to keep blackmail under manageable levels or will it someday or other breach the limits of US tolerance? Will US succeed in democratising Pakistan under these circumstances or will it have to reconcile itself to successive army regimes flaunting its linkages to jehadis? These are the issues that need to be addressed in Indo-US Track II deliberations.

K.S. garu clearly says, that US involvement with Pakistan is that of between a blackmailee with a blackmailer! Here US is the blackmailed party, and the blackmailed party has either no choices or very few options, and all of them bad!

In 2006, Musharraf was El Presidente, and democracy was being considered as a solution! In hindsight that looks like a real joke!

So if Pakistan manages to keep its level of blackmail within a manageable level, US would be stuck with Pakistan. Till now, this seems to be the case. So why do we think, that we can get America to cease its support for Pakistan?

The only way, it seems to do it, to keep a steady message coming out, that their nukes are insecure, and that Jihadis are about to get their hands on those weapons!

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 08 Mar 2011 15:44

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/ ... istan-4799

Dissenting opinion in US that advocates lesser involvement in NWFP and more in Sindh/Baluchistan.

IMHO, unrest in Sindh/Balochistan suits Indian objectives more than unrest in NWFP.

The former ...
- Promises to land-lock west punjab - core of Pak army
- Makes Pak commercially less useful to Cheen

... but it isn't viable without Iranian support. Iranians being more inclined to collude with Kayani to suppress any Baluch rebellion.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 08 Mar 2011 20:13

The Blackwill plan of an integrated "pushtunistan" across the Durand line merits serious thought....MAybe not as a vivisection of Pak...But as a "soft border"...Suddenly, just to watch over the place, Pak has to deploy significantly more troops....And if the US facilitates such a deal, it will earn tons of points with the pushtuns - the virulence of the taliban-types will automatically go down towards the satan....Add to that a limited arrangement between Iran-India-US for supplying US forces in Af, and there is a ground breaking situation that works to India's benefit..

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 08 Mar 2011 20:22

New Routes for USA into Afghanistan

somnath wrote:The Blackwill plan of an integrated "pushtunistan" across the Durand line merits serious thought....MAybe not as a vivisection of Pak...But as a "soft border"...Suddenly, just to watch over the place, Pak has to deploy significantly more troops....And if the US facilitates such a deal, it will earn tons of points with the pushtuns - the virulence of the taliban-types will automatically go down towards the satan....Add to that a limited arrangement between Iran-India-US for supplying US forces in Af, and there is a ground breaking situation that works to India's benefit..

If there is a need for an air corridor, that is possible over India through PoK! As PoK touches Afghanistan, USA gets a route through India. They need not fly through Pakistan. With Russia acting as the land route for supplies, USA doesn't need either Pakistan or Iran!

PoK is disputed territory and not de-jure Pakistani territory. Neither Pakistan nor China would dare shoot down an American plane! In fact, this way, the West may even be enticed to accept PoK as Indian territory!

That would be a real slap on Pakistan's face!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Mar 2011 20:25

somnath wrote:The Blackwill plan of an integrated "pushtunistan" across the Durand line merits serious thought....MAybe not as a vivisection of Pak...But as a "soft border"...Suddenly, just to watch over the place, Pak has to deploy significantly more troops....And if the US facilitates such a deal, it will earn tons of points with the pushtuns - the virulence of the taliban-types will automatically go down towards the satan....Add to that a limited arrangement between Iran-India-US for supplying US forces in Af, and there is a ground breaking situation that works to India's benefit..

I would abs-ol-utely love to see this happen. Pashtunistan must become reality. Long lo-ong ago - as a schoolboy I recall a cartoon about the Pakis vs Mukti Bahini in the months leading up to the 1971 war. The cartoon depicted Yahya Khan singing the national anthem of the future Bangladesh with the words "Amar sonar Bangla, within the framework of Pak-la la.."

To me it appears that the Paki attitude to the Pashtuns is exactly the same - "Pashtunistan - yes OK - so long as we control it". So for the Pakis- it is fine for the Paki army to move across the Durand line into Afghanistan but no one should come the other way without Pakistani control.

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 08 Mar 2011 21:01

shiv wrote:China puts 250,000 troops in North Arunachal Pradesh (Tibet) - india can disrupt those lines

The bolded words are for keeps. It was plainly obvious that if every Han, Jing and Feng started referring to Arunachal Pradesh as Southern Tibet, then every Bhiku, Billa and Ranga could refer to Tibet as North Arunachal Pradesh. Classic tactic of throwing Chinese reverse 'engineering'/taxonomy back on their faces.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 08 Mar 2011 21:57

^^^ just occupied tibet would be a good start

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 08 Mar 2011 22:17

shiv wrote:
Anglosphere is a sophisticated brain washing technique to make half the world population understand the world from anglo point of view/narrative.

This statement sounds like a conspiracy, But it is not.
Information is still shared between these nations.
For many who have been brought up this way it is almost impossible to understand that there can be an "Indian viewpoint" that is not subversive and primitive as opposed to "Western viewpoint" that is modern and liberal.

India needs a Indosphere community and Indosphere eco system and Indic world view.

It is already there and it is Bharatiya view

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Mar 2011 22:38

US advisors were advising Sarabhai in late 60s to develop land mines based on nukes to cut off PLA by blowing up Himalayan passes. A peaceful use of nukes without killing!

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 08 Mar 2011 22:45

^^^the above would essentially cutoff India from civilization beyond the Himalayas. it would also cutoff possible routes of invasion by invading forces from the North.

it seems to me like something we should do only in a do or die situation when we are sure that we are going to be overrun by an army via that route. otherwise such drastic measures should not be taken. but having such a plan as 'plan z' is plausible and perhaps advisable considering PRC seems hell bent no carving out an Asian Imperialist Sphere for itself.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Mar 2011 22:50

The irony was they were also pushing the NPT!

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 08 Mar 2011 22:59

Uncle's national security bureaucratic/diplomatic establishment is full of such diabolical schemes, with apparently self contradicting moves to serve as smoke screen to block real intentions. it is masterful and we must take note of it.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 08 Mar 2011 23:51

devesh wrote:Uncle's national security bureaucratic/diplomatic establishment is full of such diabolical schemes, with apparently self contradicting moves to serve as smoke screen to block real intentions. it is masterful and we must take note of it.

Big picture for them is that these gigantic nations on earth with humongous population seem collosal
The plan is to make them fight each other. This has been from early 1950s with Tibet being the first bait which PRC took given to them by anglo power. They achieved the goal of making Nehru and his generation look at US as a friend of India and also help in containing PRC. This was a psy ops

Even recently any Indian PM visit or PRC President visit is shown as 2 getting together and controlling things

They want to sense fear inside each other and feed on it

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 09 Mar 2011 00:17

New Routes for USA into Afghanistan

If USA wishes to put pressure on Pakistan, then the best way is Kashmir. If USA threatens the Pakis, that they would consider "India's offers" to build an air bridge to Afghanistan/Pushtunistan through India and PoK, the Pakis would start doing GUBO again!

If the Americans go ahead and Central Command makes a few flights over India and PoK, then the Pakis would be truly browning their pants!

It is up to Americans to make the Pakis dance to their tune without doling huge amounts of money and weapons!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Mar 2011 00:29

RajsheA, India should not be part of any US solution for the Pak problems. They both can take care of each other. Besides I dont want rancour to sour the relationship further.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 09 Mar 2011 00:44

ramana wrote:RajsheA, India should not be part of any US solution for the Pak problems. They both can take care of each other. Besides I dont want rancour to sour the relationship further.

ramana garu,

Some advantages that I see

America gives in to Pakistan's demands on Afghanistan, on the amount to pay the Pakis, on arms supplies to be used against India, on not making too much of a deal w.r.t. terrorism directed at India, etc. etc. This appeasement policy needs to change. An alternative air route to Afghanistan for US Central Command alleviates this dependence on Pak.
PoK has practically become a Pak-Chinese outpost, and there seems to be no Indian plans to reclaim it. Some of it has to do with the fact, that Indians do not want to open the can of worms that is Kashmir in any international forum. By allowing US flights through India and PoK, one is bringing back PoK from out of the freeze back into the game for India. Western support to India on PoK would mean a lot for Indian Government, and encourage India to become active again in taking back territory that is legally ours.
Increasing American dependence on us, would encourage America to be forthcoming on a range of other issues. For India the issues are often economical. India could suggest more of the American company now manufacturing in China to move to India.
India should only be forthcoming on this, if USA implements the Blackwill plan of creating a virtual Pushtunistan on the Durand Line. This would mean, USA would not be looked as an enemy of the Pushtuns, which makes America more palatable to us. Indian offer could encourage the Americans to look at the Blackwill Plan more seriously.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 09 Mar 2011 01:03

devesh wrote:Uncle's national security bureaucratic/diplomatic establishment is full of such diabolical schemes, with apparently self contradicting moves to serve as smoke screen to block real intentions. it is masterful and we must take note of it.

I doubt if the US can be treated as a monolithic identity with every move ascribe to some Chankian grand plan.

----

It is interesting to note that KS Guru recognized the rock and a hard place situation as early as 2006. It also shows that perhaps his US colleagues were already aware of what was coming.

-------
shiv ji:

I think it is futile to expect that the TSPA will forget its raisin-dieter. If there is a silver lining, the ease at which they operate has been curtailed. Gives the good guys a chance.

Just imagine if the Coast Guard ship which intercepted the Pigs boat on 26/11 had actually boarded it and checked the IDs. It was a split second decision which could have completely changed the situation; imagine 10 pigs squealing in front of the world.

For that matter the TSPA is still killing Yanks and they can do nothing about it.

----------

No way TSP meets its 72 if the US cuts and runs. A non-negligible chance if the US decides to stay put. Key of course is Iran. It will require a grand compromise. Good thing is that if they think long term and with cool heads, almost all the powers would be happy to see the end of the Islamic bomb(s) Shia & Sunni.

Of course the soft Durand Line will be a good start.