Managing Pakistan's failure

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by arnab »

I thought there was enough historical precedence regarding US changing its 'preferential treatment' once a country (or elites) which was earlier allied became overtly anti-american. Iran for instance, Iraq is another example. Why is a similar experiment with respect to TSP abhorrent?
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by ShauryaT »

A_Gupta wrote:If you want to deprogram Pakistanis from their ideology, then you need to keep them uneducated until you deprogram them. Here is the analogous result from the USA that I'm relying on to say so:
http://www.alternet.org/story/154252/th ... age=entire
Two groups I have become skeptical of as the standard bearer of truth and reason. People in Government and Science.

Both take themselves too seriously and frequently stretch themselves too far, in areas way out of their leagues. The above article is a perfect example of politics garbed as science and reason.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by brihaspati »

Education is the second phase - under rashtryia sovereignty when you can ensure that the other propaganda can no longer flourish under state protection. Education is targeted at children and women. Education is a must. But all that after the initial cleaning up.

The well known episode from the theology itself about a young boy who was spared (because of yet lacking male secondary gender characteristics) the culling of all adult male Jews of the Banu Quarayzah - should be illustrative. The boy survived and became a convert.

Indians should gain the confidence that their words can sway minds. Even rewrite well rehearsed programs.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by ShauryaT »

arnab wrote:I thought there was enough historical precedence regarding US changing its 'preferential treatment' once a country (or elites) which was earlier allied became overtly anti-american. Iran for instance, Iraq is another example. Why is a similar experiment with respect to TSP abhorrent?
In general, the same principles will apply but for geography. With Iran, out of consideration, the only way in to Afghanistan and beyond is through the land mass of TSP, unless someone alters the Geo-politics.

A question still not answered is even if you achieve this state of a more Islamized Pakistani ruling elite, thereby driving the US out and hopefully weakening TSP's conventional strengths, how will all this help India is not clear.

TSP is and cannot be a real conventional threat to India - by any measure. The sub conventional threat from TSP will still remain and be more pronounced in a more Islamized elite in TSP.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by ShauryaT »

brihaspati wrote:
Indians should gain the confidence that their words can sway minds. Even rewrite well rehearsed programs.
Yes, but the process has to first begin and fructify in our sovereign lands before being exported?
arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by arnab »

ShauryaT wrote:
A question still not answered is even if you achieve this state of a more Islamized Pakistani ruling elite, thereby driving the US out and hopefully weakening TSP's conventional strengths, how will all this help India is not clear.

The sub conventional threat from TSP will still remain and be more pronounced in a more Islamized elite in TSP.
More allies to India's cause? whether the threats will become more pronounced for India - is difficult to ascertain. IMO, wrt India the elite are already 'islamised'. It is their liberal facade towards the west that we wish to tear up.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by ShauryaT »

arnab wrote: More allies to India's cause? whether the threats will become more pronounced for India - is difficult to ascertain. IMO, wrt India the elite are already 'islamised'. It is their liberal facade towards the west that we wish to tear up.
The faster we get rid of this notion, the better we will be. When the balloon goes up, we shall be standing alone. Let alone expecting men from far away lands to come to our rescue.

There are layers, upon layers with Islam being only one of these layers of TSP. Deft political management can pierce through these layers and use the right layers, which benefits India - within the realm of possibilities and given time and space constraints. It will be beneficial to not look at just one layer and call the object Black or White. There are multiple shades of gray. The challenge is to pierce these shades of gray and morph them to suit our interests.
arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by arnab »

ShauryaT wrote:The faster we get rid of this notion, the better we will be. When the balloon goes up, we shall be standing alone. Let alone expecting men from far away lands to come to our rescue.
I'm under no illusion that we will have to defang the beast on our own, unless someone else also makes this cause their own. By 'allies to our cause', I mean elements who will not disrupt the endgame; not ones who will overtly help us do it.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

RajeshA wrote:India doesn't really need to do anything to promote Islam vs White Christianity tussle in Pakistan.
Rajesh. The US, for example, did not need to do anything to promote Hindu India versus Muslim Pakistan tussle.

But it chose to take a side in national self interest without formally breaking relations with India. The US chose to arm and fund Pakistan.

I am choosing to take the side of my Pakistani brothers against the White Christist Imperialists without demanding a break in ties with the latter. In India's case we would not have to arm and fund anyone. But we can offer them support and assure them that we eternally have their bests interests at heart. Don't we? I know very few people who actually demand that Pakistan should be punished or broken up. The guilty must always be punished. But otherwise we are a peaceful nation.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by ShauryaT »

arnab wrote:
I'm under no illusion that we will have to defang the beast on our own, unless someone else makes this cause their own. By 'allies to our cause', I mean elements who will not disrupt the endgame; not ones who will overtly help us do it.
The underlined is the proverbial hope of many Indians. The end game? What is that? as defined by Who?
devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5129
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by devesh »

shiv,
whatever. your posts have already entered the "too clever to make sense" territory. the moving goal posts, and supposedly sarcastic but apparently not so much, and careful addition/deletion of tweaking of certain aspects of what you are saying based on the opposition to your theory, etc, it all makes your "proposal" about as believable as America declaring to the world that it will voluntarily commit itself to doing "good" and no evil from now on until end of time.
arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by arnab »

ShauryaT wrote:
arnab wrote:
I'm under no illusion that we will have to defang the beast on our own, unless someone else makes this cause their own. By 'allies to our cause', I mean elements who will not disrupt the endgame; not ones who will overtly help us do it.
The underlined is the proverbial hope of many Indians. The end game? What is that? as defined by Who?
True, we have tried the 'saam', 'daan' and 'danda'. Time to try a bit of 'bhed'? Let us see where it takes us.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by brihaspati »

ShauryaT wrote:
brihaspati wrote:
Indians should gain the confidence that their words can sway minds. Even rewrite well rehearsed programs.
Yes, but the process has to first begin and fructify in our sovereign lands before being exported?
The problem is that the two gets inseparably intertwined. Youc annot starte th process in one sector without doing it in the other. If you do it west of the current borders without doing it inside - then the cesspool of imperialist ideas remain locked in north India for safe keeping. If you do it on the east of the borders, without matching it simultaneously on the west - their leadership on the other side will have the time to raise the boogie.

I think it is more about starting with mundane issues - "kaapra-makan", which in Pakiloka is about land ownership and access to irrigation, as well as capital for SME - all of which are hoarded by the top elite. Use the conflict to reduce the number of blood-boiling males - and take up the women and children for a new life.

This whole focus of agitation on foreign devil and xenohobia and munafiq/kaffir religionism is a tool in the hands of the Dawaists to transition the state over further overtly towards Caliphatism. It papers over the gaps in Paki society and its internal contradictions. The more time we give the Islamists to do so - the more they will be able to coerce the society into the 7th century. Then of course the mundane will no longer matter.

They can no longer make this transition on their own. It needs external intervention and manipulation. And no one is going to want the transition out of Islamism for that society except us. For everyone else - their current drift is beneficial.

As for US turning against its past allies: There exists only two states on the world - all whose claims of nationhood and legitimacy is based on ideology, without any element of geography and continuity of culture and ethnicity. One is the Vatican and the other is Pakistan. With Pakistan - it is also about being anti-India. None of the states that USA once allied with and then turned against [well onlee against individuals who became dispensable - and not the state or the deeper plants] had this unique distinction of pure-religion based identity. These are the most appropriate vehicles for imperialist dreams. There will be no change. Until the very last moment when our men finally move in and take control of the foothills towards AFG - USA will back up whatever remains of the tattered Pakjabi regime.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

brihaspati wrote:Here is another view of the exclusive militancy supported exclusively by the USA in Pakistan so much so that no other country can be included in the subcontinental-militancy-fostering-nation list :
Brihaspati, you have stated that "unifying" Pakistanis behind a single cause is undesirable

You have also said that looking at Pakistanis as a "whole" and giving them sympathy as a whole without discriminating between the undesirable and less undesirable is also bad.

You have taken the trouble to dig up the names of some militant groups and political Islamist organizations in your post above

Now I post a list of armed Pakistani Islamic militant groups below. Would you be able to tell me which of these in your view would be the most difficult to defeat militarily. Please add to the list if you feel my list is incomplete
  • The Pakistan army
  • Lashkar-e-Toiba
  • Hizb-ul-Mujahideeen
  • Jaish-e- Mohammad
  • Lashkar-e-Janghvi
  • Tehrik e Taliban
  • any other groups you would like to name
Last edited by shiv on 28 Feb 2012 08:04, edited 1 time in total.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by brihaspati »

^^^Are you sure you want to include whiskey swillers in the list of Paki Islamic militant groups? And "defeat" in what sense? What would you characterize as "defeat"?
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

devesh wrote: it all makes your "proposal" about as believable as America declaring to the world that it will voluntarily commit itself to doing "good" and no evil from now on until end of time.
But why should that worry you? What difference does it make to anyone whether my posts are credible or not? I still think that Pakistanis are suffering under the yoke of white Christian imperialism from the USA and that Pakistanis should be urged to contemplate, meditate and then kick the imperialists out for the overall god of the Indian subcontinent.

I mean did you think that I could actually make this proposal sound serious to a large number of people who have a fundamental desire to protect the USA from all harm including a mere sullying of its fair name? The number of people who object to smearing the name of the US used to surprise me, but it is increasingly beginning to amuse me. The USA is clearly a more important country than India to many, deserving of a protection of reputation leave alone any other type of antagonism.But they are White Christian Imperialists occupying Pakistan. I think Pakstanis need to understand that by looking at the history that was left out of their history books.
arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by arnab »

brihaspati wrote:
As for US turning against its past allies: There exists only two states on the world - all whose claims of nationhood and legitimacy is based on ideology, without any element of geography and continuity of culture and ethnicity. One is the Vatican and the other is Pakistan. With Pakistan - it is also about being anti-India. None of the states that USA once allied with and then turned against [well onlee against individuals who became dispensable - and not the state or the deeper plants] had this unique distinction of pure-religion based identity. These are the most appropriate vehicles for imperialist dreams. There will be no change. Until the very last moment when our men finally move in and take control of the foothills towards AFG - USA will back up whatever remains of the tattered Pakjabi regime.
Well this confuses correlation with causation and cherry picks a 'vehicle of imperialism' very specifically ("..nationhood and legitimacy is based on ideology, without any element of geography and continuity of culture and ethnicity"). One can argue that a greater vehicle of imperialism was the creation of israel as well as support for KSA.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12065
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by A_Gupta »

ShauryaT wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:If you want to deprogram Pakistanis from their ideology, then you need to keep them uneducated until you deprogram them. Here is the analogous result from the USA that I'm relying on to say so:
http://www.alternet.org/story/154252/th ... age=entire
Two groups I have become skeptical of as the standard bearer of truth and reason. People in Government and Science.

Both take themselves too seriously and frequently stretch themselves too far, in areas way out of their leagues. The above article is a perfect example of politics garbed as science and reason.
ShauryaT, this is going off-topic, but there is no other way to understand e.g, why contraception has become an issue in this US election spearheaded by the Catholic bishops, when contraception has been legal since the 1950s and some 90% of their flock use it. Unreason is increasingly rearing its head.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

brihaspati wrote:^^^Are you sure you want to include whiskey swillers in the list of Paki Islamic militant groups? And "defeat" in what sense? What would you characterize as "defeat"?
I think you have no idea. You talk too much about Islam and you seriously think the Pakistani army is out of this list? I don't think you have all your facts right. I think you have all the basics of Islamism down to a T. But how that can morph into an organization like the Paki army seem to have escaped you - so busy have you been dissecting the detailed innards of the islamic mind. Are you echoing Stephen Cohen's opinion that the Pakistan army is "secular" Or are you suggesting that the Pakistan army is "less islamist" and so the USA has got it right in supporting these moderates.

You are way off sir. Way way off.
Last edited by shiv on 28 Feb 2012 06:55, edited 1 time in total.
devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5129
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by devesh »

shiv wrote:
devesh wrote: it all makes your "proposal" about as believable as America declaring to the world that it will voluntarily commit itself to doing "good" and no evil from now on until end of time.
But why should that worry you? What difference does it make to anyone whether my posts are credible or not? I still think that Pakistanis are suffering under the yoke of white Christian imperialism from the USA and that Pakistanis should be urged to contemplate, meditate and then kick the imperialists out for the overall god of the Indian subcontinent.

I mean did you think that I could actually make this proposal sound serious to a large number of people who have a fundamental desire to protect the USA from all harm including a mere sullying of its fair name? The number of people who object to smearing the name of the US used to surprise me, but it is increasingly beginning to amuse me. The USA is clearly a more important country than India to many, deserving of a protection of reputation leave alone any other type of antagonism.But they are White Christian Imperialists occupying Pakistan. I think Pakstanis need to understand that by looking at the history that was left out of their history books.

yup, this is what happens when you become so enamored of the Islamists that you start thinking about them as "my Paki brothers". once again you repeat the blatant falsity that I am "advocating for US" or "hoping for US success". I am doing no such thing. unless you post something which shows that I am reporting your post. you keep repeating accusations, which you have no proof of and which are clearly false. My position has always been that the more US and Pakis go at each others' throats the better. there is no need for India to get into delusional schemes like uniting Pakis under Islamism to take on "foreign devil". I am reporting your post b/c of your continued false assumptions and skewering, without actually providing any proof.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

devesh wrote:
yup, this is what happens when you become so enamored of the Islamists that you start thinking about them as "my Paki brothers". once again you repeat the blatant falsity that I am "advocating for US" or "hoping for US success". I am doing no such thing. unless you post something which shows that I am reporting your post. you keep repeating accusations, which you have no proof of and which are clearly false. My position has always been that the more US and Pakis go at each others' throats the better. there is no need for India to get into delusional schemes like uniting Pakis under Islamism to take on "foreign devil". I am reporting your post b/c of your continued false assumptions and skewering, without actually providing any proof.
By all means report my post. I have made no accusation about you although you seem to take my observations personally.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by ShauryaT »

A_Gupta wrote: ShauryaT, this is going off-topic, but there is no other way to understand e.g, why contraception has become an issue in this US election spearheaded by the Catholic bishops, when contraception has been legal since the 1950s and some 90% of their flock use it. Unreason is increasingly rearing its head.
Watch all the debates carefully, you will find out "why" it has become an issue. Whatever position one comes from, it is not unreasonable for US society and the issues they face. OT.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by brihaspati »

shiv wrote:
brihaspati wrote:^^^Are you sure you want to include whiskey swillers in the list of Paki Islamic militant groups? And "defeat" in what sense? What would you characterize as "defeat"?
I think you have no idea. You talk too much about Islam and you seriously think the Pakistani army is out of this list? I don't think you have all your facts right. I think you have all the basics of Islamism down to a T. But how that can morph into an organization like the Paki army seem to have escaped you - so busy have you been dissecting the detailed innards of the islamic mind. Are you echoing Stephen Cohen's opinion that the Pakistan army is "secular" Or are you suggesting that the Pakistan army is "less islamist" and so the USA has got it right in supporting these moderates.

You are way off sir. Way way off.
Yes. This was exactly the reaction I expected of you, and hence the question. Did you think it would be so easy to extract what I think? :D You are used to laying traps for people so you do not often realize when you are stepping into one.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

brihaspati wrote:
Yes. This was exactly the reaction I expected of you, and hence the question. Did you think it would be so easy to extract what I think? :D You are used to laying traps for people so you do not often realize when you are stepping into one.
In fact trap or no trap the fact is that the Pakistan army is as Islamist as they come. I wanted your opinion and you don't want to give your opinion. That is fine with me.

To me it explains to a small extent why you are more worried by the Jammat e islami than the Pakistan army. I do not doubt your credentials on knowledge of the intricate dark workings of of the islamic mind, but I see deep holes in your knowledge of what military power does to ideologies.

I know you are well intended, but somehow it seems to me that you have been somewhat "provoked" by my views on this thread. Provoked enough to say that I am laying traps and that you did not fall into my trap and I fell into yours. Saying that about me on this particular thread after a gap of so many years is an interesting, if greatly delayed, and by no means original observation. But it is beside the point.

The Pakistani army is the most powerful and dangerous armed Islamist group in Pakistan. And it has been funded, supported and armed by the USA for decades. That is my opinion. If you don't state your opinion it will not be read by anyone. That suits me.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by brihaspati »

I was utterly serious with the second part of my question - what you mean by "defeat"? Or what constitutes "defeat" for you?

As you did accuse me of being stuck in analyzing-islamism groove [not in exact words, but I am summarizing it], I think you too have got stuck with analyzing-TSPA groove. My overt answer would not be pleasant for you. I would have said - the weakest of all the "militants" would be TSPA itself. Scoring a war win would be easiest against the TSPA, but "defeating" the irregulars - the "other" militants would be way more difficult within the parameters of current official protocols of war as limited by the Geneva convention.

There could be psychological advantages in building up or acknowledging the image of the TSPA as invincible. But what lies beyond this in my mind is for my mind onlee for the present. You, of all persons, should have known that personal digs at me are totally fruitless. :D

A lot depends on what you consider to be "defeat".
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by ramana »

Shiv, Too many times your posts are getting reported. Please don't make personal remarks which can be misperceived.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by brihaspati »

arnab wrote:
brihaspati wrote:
As for US turning against its past allies: There exists only two states on the world - all whose claims of nationhood and legitimacy is based on ideology, without any element of geography and continuity of culture and ethnicity. One is the Vatican and the other is Pakistan. With Pakistan - it is also about being anti-India. None of the states that USA once allied with and then turned against [well onlee against individuals who became dispensable - and not the state or the deeper plants] had this unique distinction of pure-religion based identity. These are the most appropriate vehicles for imperialist dreams. There will be no change. Until the very last moment when our men finally move in and take control of the foothills towards AFG - USA will back up whatever remains of the tattered Pakjabi regime.
Well this confuses correlation with causation and cherry picks a 'vehicle of imperialism' very specifically ("..nationhood and legitimacy is based on ideology, without any element of geography and continuity of culture and ethnicity"). One can argue that a greater vehicle of imperialism was the creation of israel as well as support for KSA.
Well this too was expected. Somehow "Israel" has to be dragged into any discussion on "imperialist" dreams. Good cover to mix in KSA though. Much appreciated. Correlation confused with causation! Since no correlation was being claimed and no causation either - I guess confusion should first be cleared in when you can use those two terms. Perhaps clear up the usage first before applying the next time around? Factors that make something amenable for a particular use - is neither "correlation" nor "causation".

But the issue was really about the characteristics of "nations" which were allies in the past and which USA suddenly abandons and turns against. So your examples are bad ones actually - neither KSA nor Israel has been abandoned. What was common in those nations that did suffer this sudden US nakhra? Is there anything that distinguishes Pak from these others?
arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by arnab »

brihaspati wrote:
But the issue was really about the characteristics of "nations" which were allies in the past and which USA suddenly abandons and turns against. What was common in those nations? Is there anything that distinguishes Pak from these others?
Nope - the only thing that distinguishes them is that the rulers became completely and overtly anti US. I mean Vatican !! for use as an imperialstic vehicle by the WASPs :)

The only way you could exclude 'israel and KSA' is by bringing up that convulated reasoning about "a nation state formed without a continuous ethnicity and culture" being a great imperial control tool. See here is the thing - if you want to advance an argument that muslims / islamists are the problem and not the US (they only do what all imperialists do), then you have to travel down the convulated road which says: 'it will be the easiest to defeat the pak army' -obviously since you won't be doing the fighting :)

But the facts are this - a standing army can become 'irregular' (remember iraq) but not vice versa. Now the US has been complicit in arming and maintaining this jihadi standing army. You may have your own reasons for the need to overtly show your loyalty to the US administration - but that shouldn't change the facts on the ground.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

brihaspati wrote:I was utterly serious with the second part of my question - what you mean by "defeat"? Or what constitutes "defeat" for you?

As you did accuse me of being stuck in analyzing-islamism groove [not in exact words, but I am summarizing it], I think you too have got stuck with analyzing-TSPA groove. My overt answer would not be pleasant for you. I would have said - the weakest of all the "militants" would be TSPA itself. Scoring a war win would be easiest against the TSPA, but "defeating" the irregulars - the "other" militants would be way more difficult within the parameters of current official protocols of war as limited by the Geneva convention.

There could be psychological advantages in building up or acknowledging the image of the TSPA as invincible. But what lies beyond this in my mind is for my mind onlee for the present. You, of all persons, should have known that personal digs at me are totally fruitless. :D

A lot depends on what you consider to be "defeat".

Briahspati the personal dig business about me is totally useless. But clearly my views on this thread are pissing a lot of people off. This is not about digs and traps, both topics that you bring up in posts addressed to me but about differences of opinion. If you are one groove and I am in another groove, we are on different grooves. Your opinion is not going to have much effect on mine and vice versa. Please leave out this pleasant unpleasant for me business. I am too old an hand on such matters to be affected by anything that anyone might say about me. None of these things, "traps" "digs" and things that will not be "pleasant for me" are germane to the issue so please leave them out.

While I make no specific argument about your views on islamism, I do believe that you are not adequately informed about the history of the US and Pakistan army. The alacrity with which you proceeded to provide me with "proof" of involvement of many nations in addition to the USA suggests to me that you were using Google/internet search on the spot to pick up information and post as "proof" against my arguments. That is what added to my impression that you are under informed about the military side of things and were scrambling to inform yourself urgently, picking up the slightest hints that went against my view as proof. But I believe you are fundamentally underinformed, or you would not have to search the internet for such information at this late stage.

I deliberately left the "defeat' answer aside and will answer it now. India can inflict military defeat every single one of the entities I have named. But the pain that those entities can inflict on India as a whole are not comparable. The Pakistan army stands way ahead in their ability to inflict pain on us.

The last time I posted well known information on here I was accused of posting well known information, so please pardon me if you know this well. But the Pakistan army, having tangled with India at great cost to itself and at considerable cost to india reverted to "covert, deniable" warfare using proxies with the assurance that if India attacked Pakistan directly, the Pakistan army would be able to inflict considerable pain on India, even if they lost. I hope you are familiar with specific papers written by Pakistan army generals expressing their doctrines. if not i will point you to them. The Pakistan army found a 'space" between conventional war and no war where they could provoke and bleed India by terrorist groups whom they supported.

Through the 1980s those terrorist groups had the overt support of both the USA and Pakistan because those terrorist groups were useful to the USA against the Soviets. In the 1990s - the terrorist were used mainly against india in Kashmir. The USA, while not aiding Pakistan was not concerned but the general thrust of US opinion was that the Kashmir issue is one of local freedom fighters and had nothing to do with Afghanistan.

The connection of Afghanistan terror with anti India terror that the US has accepted belatedly is again out of US self interest than out of any sympathy for India. The self interest of the US demands that the US continue to arm and fund the Pakistani army even while it "urges" them to fight islamist groups. The USA is on a losing wicket here. II am not concerned about any damage being done to the Afghan cause or to the US itself. I am solely concerned with the damage that will be done to India by re arming and re energizing the most slimy and deceitful Islamist group in Pakistan, the army.

I would support any form of deceit, lies and spin to create disharmony between the USA and the Pakistan army. The judgement that such disharmony already exists cuts no ice with me. If it exists it needs to be made worse, to the extent that arming and funding the Pakistan army must stop. You may not like my method, but you have already said that. As far as I am concerned I see no information that will make me budge on the issue of undesirability and harm to India by the supply of modern arms and financial aid to the Pakistan army by the USA.

You may think it is fine and you will not be the first to tell me that that arms and financial aid is not important. But I don't think so. The US must stop that arms supply, or be kicked out from its position as imperial troublemaker in Pakistan.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by RajeshA »

shiv wrote:
RajeshA wrote:India doesn't really need to do anything to promote Islam vs White Christianity tussle in Pakistan.
Rajesh. The US, for example, did not need to do anything to promote Hindu India versus Muslim Pakistan tussle.

But it chose to take a side in national self interest without formally breaking relations with India. The US chose to arm and fund Pakistan.

I am choosing to take the side of my Pakistani brothers against the White Christist Imperialists without demanding a break in ties with the latter. In India's case we would not have to arm and fund anyone. But we can offer them support and assure them that we eternally have their bests interests at heart. Don't we? I know very few people who actually demand that Pakistan should be punished or broken up. The guilty must always be punished. But otherwise we are a peaceful nation.
shiv saar,

I don't object to the use of any propaganda which helps, regardless of whether it is based on lies or some skewed truth.

I just wanted to bring your attention to the following dynamic.

Let's say there are two constituencies of relevance here: The Establishment (Army, GoP) and the Pakistani People. Any propaganda against 'White Christianists' that one uses to broaden the gulf between Pakistan and USA/UK would only broaden the gulf between the people and USA.

The Pakistani Establishment themselves do this, for the simply reason that it increases their own worth as interlocutors for the USA, it allows the Establishment to get a better price for a lesser service! As long as USA feels that they need Pakistan, they will deal with the Pakistani Establishment. At the moment, USA feels they need Pakistan for a smooth withdrawal from Afghanistan. Of course some Americans will stay behind. But until the withdrawal, USA thinks they need Pakistan to make their withdrawal easier without the loss of too much face!

So until the withdrawal, a more stringent Anti-Americanism in Pakistan simply helps the Establishment to get a better price for lesser service, as well as to plead inability to cooperate.

After the withdrawal, Americans may decide to keep a few bases in the North of Afghanistan supplied from the Northern Distribution Network through Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan till Afghanistan. The Americans may decide to retain their Drone Program. The Americans may still need some Pakistani support but not that much. This however is still speculative because we still don't know how Afghanistan would look like say in 5 years. But one can speculate that even then USA may continue their drone program and the Pakis would remain quite pissed at USA.

Then USA's need for Pakistan would be less, and the Anti-Americanism in Pakistan would not really allow the Paki Establishment to extract too many goodies from USA.

So one can think of your suggestion of encouraging Anti-Americanism in Pakistan then - after the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Right now the suggestion, I believe, is counterproductive as it increases the bargaining power of the Paki Establishment.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by RajeshA »

Fueling American Anger

I think a far more important question is whether India should partake in throwing ignominy on the face of America after it withdraws from Afghanistan!

There will be an upsurge in the mood of the Taliban (and the ISI) that they have been able to dislodge and defeat yet another superpower from Afghanistan! Should we partake in the celebrations of American defeat or should we not?

What we want is American anger at Pakistan to be especially high in the aftermath of American retreat from Afghanistan! We WANT that American smooth retreat from Afghanistan does not work out! We WANT that even as Americans are retreating, the Taliban should continue to take pot-shots at them!

More than that we want that the retreat from Afghanistan comes down like an Avalanche on the heads of the American politicians. There should be just as much bitterness among the Americans as there was after Vietnam. But after Vietnam, the anger was more directed inwards. This time we want the anger not just to be directed towards all those American generals and Administration officials who cooperated with Pakistanis, but at Pakistanis themselves.

This needs to blow up in the face of Americans big-time! And I want Indians to be doing both - rubbing salt in the wounds and also applying balsam of soothing words!

Indian-origin journalists in USA/West, as well as any other media people we can influence, should be scathing in their attacks on all Pro-Pakistani American politicians, and their hides should be torn from their bodies in public limelight. We should be giving prominent exposure to all American soldiers who write critically on what went wrong in Afghanistan.

I think Indians should get on the Internet in the wake of American retreat and on every article on the subject, try to mock the Americans for their "faith" in the Pakistanis and the resulting death of so many American soldiers.

Indian-Americans should in fact lobby their Congressmen in USA to initiate inquiries into what went wrong, and to influence the reports so that they speak out the truth - they have to be damning towards the Pakistanis. India-Americans should also support the political careers of any American soldiers who come out publicly in attacking Pakistani role in American defeat and loss of treasure and blood in Afghanistan. Congressmen who are close to Indian-Americans should also embrace such American veterans and give them a bigger platform.

Every politician or general having any contact with the Pakis should get so tainted, that they are totally sidelined and demoralized. America should burn in anger! That is the task we need to achieve. That is where Indians should invest.
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by Lalmohan »

rajesh - americans tend to think of afghanistan as a "just war" whereas vietnam was largely felt to be "unjust" - in the sense of - apart from stopping communism, there was no real panga. in the case of afghanistan, there is the very real (manufactured) panga of the twin towers crashing down
ergo, there will be no soul searching, there will be no regrets. the pakistan angle is very strange - it would appear that only the largesse of the US establishment towards the paquis and their continual belief in their utility prevents the joe sixpack's wrath from erupting
washington has mind control sussed
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by RajeshA »

Lalmohan ji,

I think, the anger at losing a "Just War" can be even greater than losing an "Unjust War", and the need to find culprits for the defeat can be even greater!

That is why, it is important to start banging the drums, that America has been defeated in Afghanistan, and to start pointing fingers at some people! The more fingers one points, the more fingers the others too would point! Finger-Pointing and Blame Game should become the order of the day!

In the end, every 2-bit politician would be forced to point his finger at Pakistan, to save his sorry skin!
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by brihaspati »

shiv ji,
I greatly respect and admire your cumulative work over the years to explore the details of TSPA and its relationships with USA. I do not underestimate your grasp over military affairs. But you should perhaps keep in mind, that I had insisted on the eventual "defeat" and withdrawal of US+NATO from AFG - at a time when eminent military experts on the forum had mocked me about it. I also gave specific reasons - tactical and strategic - from the military aspects, as to why the US and NATO would fail. I had also estimated the basics of withdrawal to be started from the end of 2010-early 2011 and gain speed by 2012. All these were laughed about by military "expertise". I simply waited for events to take their course.

I had predicted the eventual empowerment again of the Taliban in the larger portion of AFG, and that USA itself will be forced to negotiate with them for reinstatement. This was based on a military undertsanding of the situation and not merely social or political. So I hope you would not underestimate my view of the "military" side of things.

I am well aware of the capabilities of the TSPA on paper and in reality, but not everything that I am aware of needs be shouted from treetop - does it? My reference to web-based pieces was out of two reasons - I do not have to compromise sources of information I may have beyond the web [ in fact it is the other sources which helps me decide what to look for on the web], and I do not have to reveal any exposure to military affairs that I may already have had. The objective of pointing out the participation of other nations in keeping TSPA or terrorists supplied - was to complicate the simple black and white picture you were painting, and showing that mere differences or tiffs with the USA will not stop the supplies. There is a wide network that will keep the supplies alive.

It is much safer for me to write about the piskology of islamism because that creates a certain image as to what my interests or expertise are about. In fact for certain areas - the more you underestimate my exposure the better for me. :P

When I am saying that TSPA is the weakest "militant" unit out of all the others in Pak - I mean it in a sense that is perhaps not that difficult for you to understand - given your military expertise. It is primarily a conventional force- and has desperately tried to be so. I initiated a discussion on the relations/origins of irregulars within/alongside the regular on another military expert's prompting but stopped elaborating on it once I realized that the prompting was not really aimed at discussion. TSPA can be tackled through a combination of deception, and actions with a specific target of liquidation rather than neutralization. It needs a clear cut political will and decision as to military objectives and the post war plans for the region.

Much harder will be to stamp out the other apparently "weaker" militants.
harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by harbans »

PA is the weakest Ideological Jihadi and the strongest at the same time. PA wants things to happen at their pace and timings. Goals are the same. The PA Jihadi motto and the Al Qaeda one are the same. Differences are in the pace and volatility of approach. The doctrinal reality that faces the Kafir is the same. One believes in the Chinese torture Lingchi/ or Lyngchi..death by a thousand cuts..the other in a quick beheading with a blunt knife for pleasure. Take your pic of what you prefer. None is good for the Kafir. We have no sides in this to choose. But absolute elimination of the thought processes which guide that sickness. Elimination to the level that our leadership must be equipped with faculties and a mental make up to commit genocide if need be. Complete ideological genocide.

All nations with Nuclear weapons have the ability and mental make up to commit genocide. The Americans have done it, the Brits have done it, the White Christians have done it, the Commies have done it, the Paki's have done it, Islam has done it. All except one..Dharmic nation so far with Nuclear weapons.

The BIG psychological change i have been recommending without much success is Dharma, and that means humility, absence of pride (No i am not proud to be an Indian, i am humbled to be one...there is a BIG difference..try and understand that Jingo's) etc. These qualities gain humans into their fold much in inverse of a tsunami gathering Debris. But in the absence of people assimilating into Dharma...the result can be havoc. Krishna proved it in the BG. Fascist Adharma was vanquished in the Wars, and it will happen too in the future for people advocating and sitting on the fence wrt to Adharma. There is no way out of it.

To give Racist White Xtiandom the honor of domination is ideologically a stupid premise. Racist White Xtiandom is bound to fail, like Racist Islam or Imperial Han..they don't have the ideological strength to resist Dharma. A united Dharmic front with all the battle strength will never hesitate to ravage Adharma in a way they will feel sorry. It does not happen consistently is human weakness resulting from it's distance to Dharma. When it happens once a while..the Adharmic can forget what mercy means.

The biggest weakness in the ahead of the curve forum, i find is consistent underestimation of the power of Dharma. To understand that get over the cliches 'India is best East or West'..'I am Proud to be Indian'. Pride is a sentiment that will destroy. Try for a change.."I am humbled to be an Indian". When you internalize that..you may start realizing why Dharma may be the solution that you seek here. This is not debatable. It is about evolution. Dharma is all powerful. It will win.
Last edited by harbans on 29 Feb 2012 02:54, edited 1 time in total.
Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by Agnimitra »

harbans, behind the GDF burqa, this idea has been taking shape. That the next civilizational iteration for India/World will have to occur in an inclusive spiritual efflorescence.

Image
harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by harbans »

Carl Ji i think you amongst the very few persons here, possibly Bji and yes a few others who do understand this and it's import. I'll check the GDF thread sure. But i am getting to understand that many here have become incapable of understanding this, one has to evolve to possibly do so. They are too enamored of the 'Chanakyan' approach. A short term gain, 'short time'..thing. Too enamored of the HK/ ZB approach to real politik. They would rather emulate the follies of those that followed the Adharmic approach for some short term gains. They too must realize a Dharmic India will have no place for them. Maybe one reason for mollycoodling Islamism for the commies and the left is a death wish. For nothing is gained in such an approach but that. Bharat Rakshaks are those that stand firmly for Dharma. If not..they are Adharmics. Dharma will give time for them to change. Else Dharma will subsume their ideologies too in time, they will be ash. This is nature. It is in the BG. Arjun/ Krishna were not Hindu's (Casteists, Polytheists, Idol worshippers, Rat worshippers, Snakeworshippers, Cow pee drinkers etc)..they were Dharmics..and so was Buddha, Mahavir, the Sikh Guru's, Rama..
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

brihaspati wrote:
When I am saying that TSPA is the weakest "militant" unit out of all the others in Pak - I mean it in a sense that is perhaps not that difficult for you to understand - given your military expertise. It is primarily a conventional force- and has desperately tried to be so. I initiated a discussion on the relations/origins of irregulars within/alongside the regular on another military expert's prompting but stopped elaborating on it once I realized that the prompting was not really aimed at discussion. TSPA can be tackled through a combination of deception, and actions with a specific target of liquidation rather than neutralization. It needs a clear cut political will and decision as to military objectives and the post war plans for the region.

Much harder will be to stamp out the other apparently "weaker" militants.
Brihaspati _ believe we are talking parallel to each other. I have no argument with what you are saying, but I think you have left out one factor that may not change the ultimate outcome, but can cause more pain death and misery to Indians before the ultimate outcome.

In theory, if you have a group of weak monkey Mussalman Jihadi groups squabbling with each other and you are the mighty Sultan the USA who has magic weapons to make someone strong or weak against his opponent in military terms, you can buy off one group and "protect and preserve" him as equal or superior to his other jihadi peers even if he is ideologically weaker. In fact you select him because he is pliable. The others are not pliable because of their ideological conviction/brainwashedness. But you make your selected vassal militarily strong. He may be weak by every other definition.

Now please allow me to digress briefly into the history of warfare. Maybe 1000 years ago cavalry with swords, spears and arrows dominated the military sphere. Everyone who needed a good military got them and they eventually spread across the world. The balance was upset by the "firearm" - the rifle. By the early 20th century - any self respecting army had rifles (and cannons) and dominated everyone else.

Since 1945 a silent revolution has taken place. The surplus arms industries of the WW2 era and the spread of "world trade" has ensured that machine guns ("The Kalsashnikov") and surplus ammunition is available in every corner of the globe. Every fighting force anywhere in the world has them. The British used to punish rebelllious Tribals of the NWFP with their superior, discipline artillery and musketry, but that era is gone. The "NWFP tribals" too have Kalashnikovs and hand held artillery (RPGs). Since a good rifle can last over 100 years, this fact cannot be reversed in the foreseeable future

To defeat these people one theoretically needs an overwhelming force of tanks and aircraft and a US like ability to pound from the air. Ragtag militias like the Taliban and the military wing of the LeT are cheap to maintain but the cost is high in lives. But if you arm these jihadis with tanks and heavy artillery they become much more dangerous and can do a lot more damage. You will require even more heavy firepower to suppress them and you will have to take a lot of casualties while doing that.

What the US did was to arm an ideologically weak group (Pakistan army) with heavy firepower to face India while both Pakistan and the US used ideologically motivated armies with just Kalashnikovs and RPGs to attack Afghanistan and India. The US was unable to see that the Pakistan army was either only pretending to be pliable. or was pliable only because of ideological weakness. The worry now is that if the jihadis overwhelm the Pakistani army, they will have access to firepower that would make them a formidable military power.

The US is now desperately depending on the last "loyal to USA" dregs of the Pakistan army and arming them with things that will remain useful to islamist armies for many decades. If and when the US cuts and runs all that equipment will fall into the hands of the Islamist armies. If a US defeat is inevitable, the less they leave behind in the subcontinent by way of heavy and dangerous equipment the better it will be for India.

For the US, running from the subcontinent is an option, but not for India. The US has a further option of selling arms to India to counter what they left behind in Pakistan. The US also has the option of taking pain and staying in Pakistan, but for that they have to sink money into the Pakistan army (as they are doing now). The arms that come into Pakistan can all be used against india in any case, whether the US stays or goes, or whether we face the Pakistan army or the jihadis. The US has one final option that few are talking about. That is to ally with a wholly Islamist Pakistan that is taken over by jihadis. An early "honorable exit" by the US after a quick handshake and a sorry could set the stage for such an alliance. It could well be in the interests of both parties, the Islamic/Taliban government of Pakistan and the USA to enter into an alliance. Such an alliance, however unlikely, would be against Indian interests. I do not trust Islamist ideology to be powerful enough to oppose the USA. They will ally with the USA given a chance. The USA too needs them and finds them useful idiots. Such an alliance must be prevented.

In my view there is an unholy nexus between the former European colonial powers (White Christian imperialists represented by the USA/NATO alliance) and the remnants of the former Caliphate where traditional Islamic fissures (shia-sunni, Muslim-Jewish, and now Hindu-Muslim) rivalry are utilised by the inheritors of the former imperial nations to continue military-economic domination. I believe that any move we make to break the domination must involve breaking current alliances, using ideology or deceit or anything. It also involves recognizing that as long as we see the issue as a plain vanilla Hindu Muslim affair we are missing the broader picture of the history of the way Islam has fought with or cooperated with "Christendom" represented by the European nations, now USA+W.Europe. That history is relevant in the India-Pakistan context.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by RajeshA »

harbans wrote:But i am getting to understand that many here have become incapable of understanding this, one has to evolve to possibly do so. They are too enamored of the 'Chanakyan' approach. A short term gain, 'short time'..thing.
There is nothing to say that "Chanakyan" approach is against Dharma! Instead "Chanakyan" approach can be understood as the sword arm of Dharma.
abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by abhischekcc »

IOW, you need Lord Krishna to protect Yudhishthira!
Post Reply