The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

[shivajisisodia]

As to what form this strong action can take, well, I suggest we take the following steps immediately. These steps have zero possibility of any nuclear response from across the border.

1. Start off by resettling the Kashmiri Pandits by creating safe settlements for them in Kashmir valley. These settlements should be along the lines of Israeli settlements in the West Banks, heavily fortified and we can even contract out the work of establishing these settlements to the Isreaelis, even if they charge us a pretty penny.

2. Even without doing away with 370 formally, start settling non Kashmiris in Kashmir, starting with only the muslims first, even some Bangladeshis, again by establishing fortified settlements for them. Our leaders can tour Tibet and Xinxiang to get ideas on how this can be done.

This can be started tomorrow, sir.

[shivajisisodia]

Shiv Sab,

Sir, if you say you dont have any distaste for US, I accept it. It is not important.

You do realize that whether you like the US or not, is not important. It is not really about you or me or your distaste for US or love for it and it is not even really about the US. You seem to be completely engrossed in how people react to you when you post something about the US. Please try to get out of it. Because in your being totally pre-occupied with that, you seem to be missing so many real issues here, some of them Eklavya Sab made and some I made.

These are, why doesnt India strike back ? If US pressures it, why doesnt it strike back despite that and if US doesnt pressure it, why doesnt it strike back anyway ? And I have mentioned some ways which will not invite a nuclear response nor will it invite any major retaliation from the US, whether it likes it or not.

[Altair]

why not settle some mallus and telugu muslims. You have no idea how fast they spread!

[shivajisisodia]

why not settle some mallus and telugu muslims. You have no idea how fast they spread!

+100 Altair Sab.

And I hadnt even thought about it.

See, if there is a will, our people are not short of creative ideas. If and when we develop the collective will, we will change what KAshmir looks like in nine months, 18 max.

[shiv]

So, my question to you is, Sir, why in your opinion does India not strike back more forcefully against Pak, where the results are lethal and observable by all. I hope you will give me a serious answer and not upset my intelligence by saying that India does take effective action, only its not visible.

I have opinions. Not answers. I have stated my opinions on this for a decade and have heard others' views on the subject. All are off topic for this thread.

But my opinion in brief is that India does not have the strength to meaningfully solve the Pakistan problem by military means. It is an accurate Indian assessment of its own military capability that has stopped India from "striking back more forcefully" against Pakistan. It also indicates a perfectly good and accurate Pakistani assessment of India's weaknesses that allow them to strike without evoking a severe response.

[shivajisisodia]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 641632.cms

Please read this. I think for every item like this that comes out in the press, there are 20 that the Indian govt is successfully able to sweep under the rug.

Again, India in response should de-recognize Tibet as part of China and declare it disputed territory, and strike an alliance with meat with Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Thailand.

[shivajisisodia]

So, my question to you is, Sir, why in your opinion does India not strike back more forcefully against Pak, where the results are lethal and observable by all. I hope you will give me a serious answer and not upset my intelligence by saying that India does take effective action, only its not visible.

I have opinions. Not answers. I have stated my opinions on this for a decade and have heard others' views on the subject. All are off topic for this thread.

But my opinion in brief is that India does not have the strength to meaningfully solve the Pakistan problem by military means. It is an accurate Indian assessment of its own military capability that has stopped India from "striking back more forcefully" against Pakistan. It also indicates a perfectly good and accurate Pakistani assessment of India's weaknesses that allow them to strike without evoking a severe response.

Fair enough, Sir. And this may be relevent to this thread.

What and who, in your opinion is responsible for "India does not have the strength to meaningfully solve the Pak problem" ? US ? or China ? or both ? or neither ? and if neither, then who and what ?

[shiv]

You seem to be completely engrossed in how people react to you when you post something about the US. Please try to get out of it.

Why does control of my behavior concern you so much that you have to tell me what to do? It is your prerogative to say and do what you want. It is my prerogative to observe and react to your statements about me. I will continue to do what I think I need to do. No more on this subject from me. What you want to do about it is your decision and prerogative.

[shivajisisodia]

You seem to be completely engrossed in how people react to you when you post something about the US. Please try to get out of it.

Why does control of my behavior concern you so much that you have to tell me what to do? It is your prerogative to say and do what you want. It is my prerogative to observe and react to your statements about me. I will continue to do what I think I need to do. No more on this subject from me. What you want to do about it is your decision and prerogative.

Sir, you are too sensitive. I didnt mean it that way. I cant even presume to control your behaviour. All I meant was that you misunderstood my post as a "US lover's" reaction to your posts, which I am not. I merely suggested that perhaps some history of reactions here has caused you to look at every post from a view that everyone including me is a "US lover" and is coming down heavy on you.

I was very careful not to do that, and if you still saw a "US lover" in me, I requested you to come out of it, because I dont know how to word my posts any better, so that you dont come away with that impression, short of jingoistically lashing out at US.

[shiv]

What and who, in your opinion is responsible for "India does not have the strength to meaningfully solve the Pak problem" ?

My opinions will be posted.

Conventional military strategy states that for an outright military victory where an area of land needs to be taken the attacking force must have a 2:1 or better 3:1 numerical superiority over the defending force. India has never enjoyed that kind of superiority over Pakistan.

Here, let me merely take a quote out of my own e-book on Pakistan that has been online for the past 3-4 years to save me the trouble of answering the same question put to me by every person who comes on to this forum:

Pakistan-Failed State


From Chapter 1

No matter how
well intentioned and peaceable a nation state may be, the
presence of a belligerent neighbor is a signal that
military strength must be adequate to meet any aggressive
intent, and if necessary take the battle into the
aggressor's territory. But this build up must not come in
the way of urgently needed development and modernization.
A policy of ignoring Pakistan's military intent and might
would be a formula for a disaster of unimaginable
proportions, while a policy that puts too much emphasis
on hurriedly delivering a total military defeat on
Pakistan could divert too large a proportion of meager
resources towards a war machine. That is one of the
mistakes that Pakistani leaders committed, and India
would do well to learn from that.

a quick comparison of
the Pakistani armed forces and the Indian armed forces is
illustrative of what the two countries have been doing
since Independence. With India having a population that
is seven times as big as that of Pakistan, the Indian
army should have been at least three or four times the
size of the Pakistan army. But that is not the case; the
Indian army is less than one and a half times as big as
the Pakistani army. That is because, since independence
India has spent relatively more on development and less
on defence while Pakistan has spent almost everything on
arms and very little on development.
Pakistan of course was amply aided by other nations, but
these details will be discussed later. In this book we
will examine the state that Pakistan has got itself into
and deal with how it got into its current crisis.

The role of China and the USA in arming Pakistan? You should know that yourself.

[shivajisisodia]

Shiv Sab,

Thanks for a detailed and clear answer. Actually, you put your finger on something that I didnt even think about, but when you say it, it makes sense. You are saying that Indian army is not sufficiently large enough to do the job. You also seem to be acknowledging that since indpendence we should have gradually built it up to that level, but that we missed doing it and it cannot be done in a short time. You give an example of the Pakis doing it in a short time and suggest that they had made a mistake. I dont see them being any worse off for that mistake, but regardless, I am open to your assertion that India should not do it in a rush, but do it gradually.

Do you Sir, see any signs that India has started correcting the mistake of not building up its forces gradually ? Have we started the process yet ? If yes, when did we start ? And by when will we complete this process ? And if we have not started yet, dont you think we are morally and ethically on weak grounds blaming the US or China, when we ourselves are not serious and have not done all we can to enhance our security ? Again, I say, we are on weak grounds to criticize, I am not saying that the criticism is not well deserved.

[shiv]

I dont see them being any worse off for that mistake.

Please take the trouble of reading ONLY the first chapter of my 600 kb ebook downloadable at the url above. After that you are welcome to delete the file. The first chapter says why I think Pakistan is worse off for that.

[shiv]

Do you Sir, see any signs that India has started correcting the mistake of not building up its forces gradually ? Have we started the process yet ? If yes, when did we start ? And by when will we complete this process ? And if we have not started yet, dont you think we are morally and ethically on weak grounds blaming the US or China, when we ourselves are not serious and have not done all we can to enhance our security ? Again, I say, we are on weak grounds to criticize, I am not saying that the criticism is not well deserved.

It seems to me from this question that you want India to ready itself for a total military defeat of Pakistan, for which you are asking for a timeline and explanation. I disagree with the premise of your question. I think India should keep on arming itself till it is able to ensure that even China or the US cannot militarily threaten India without fearing serious consequences. In my view - if India expends itself fighting Pakistan, we cannot catch up with the bigger rats in the rat race. It would suit the bigger rats to see us expending ourselves uselessly against a Pakistan whom they support.

Has the process started? Yes.

When will it end? Try this

[shivajisisodia]

Do you Sir, see any signs that India has started correcting the mistake of not building up its forces gradually ? Have we started the process yet ? If yes, when did we start ? And by when will we complete this process ? And if we have not started yet, dont you think we are morally and ethically on weak grounds blaming the US or China, when we ourselves are not serious and have not done all we can to enhance our security ? Again, I say, we are on weak grounds to criticize, I am not saying that the criticism is not well deserved.

It seems to me from this question that you want India to ready itself for a total military defeat of Pakistan, for which you are asking for a timeline and explanation. I disagree with the premise of your question. I think India should keep on arming itself till it is able to ensure that even China or the US cannot militarily threaten India without fearing serious consequences. In my view - if India expends itself fighting Pakistan, we cannot catch up with the bigger rats in the rat race. It would suit the bigger rats to see us expending ourselves uselessly against a Pakistan whom they support.

Has the process started? Yes.

When will it end? Try this

Sir, respectfully, you know you are on weak ground here.

By the way, I will read the first chapter of your book. But, regardless, I must respond to your latest post in this way.

I congratulate you for using a very clever sleight of hand, by very deftly shifting the focus from Pakistan to China and the US. So, here is how your logic goes.

1. We need a 3 or 4 to one advantage in the number of our jawans to overwhelm Pakistan.

2. We cant do it in a rush, we have to do it gradually.

3. Whoever asks when India will start the process and when it will end, is just being myopic and Paki centric, because if we get entangled with establishing a 3 or 4 to one advantage (which is a solution to defeat Pak, as per you), then we will not be able to focus on China or US.

4. If we have to counter US or Chinese threat, we cannot get into establishing a 3 or 4 to one advantage in armed forces, that would be counter productive.

5. Therefore, we really have a choice. Either we can prepare to finish of Pak or we can prepare to face Chinese and US threat. We cant do both, at least in the medium term, as both require totally different strategies. They are mutually exclusive, in your opinion.

6. Therefore, India is preparing for the Chinese and US threat (which I personally dont see any evidence of) and that is the reason it cannot prepare to deal with Paki and that is the reason we dont see any results against Paki.

7. However, in the long run, even as we prepare to face the US and Chinese threats, we will be able to deal with the PAkis.

8. And in answer to the question of when we can expect to be in a position to deal with the PAkis, you refer me to the "Astrological" website.

Correct me if I am wrong in dissecting your words. I dont mean to put words in your mouth, but the reason I broke your post down like that is so even a simpleton like me can understand what you are saying. It is for my sake, to help me understand.

If I have interpreted your post correctly, though, then it is brilliant logic, sir.

At least, I dont feel, I am worthy enough to understand this high philosophy, leave aside agreeing with it.

[rajanb]

Do you Sir, see any signs that India has started correcting the mistake of not building up its forces gradually ? Have we started the process yet ? If yes, when did we start ? And by when will we complete this process ? And if we have not started yet, dont you think we are morally and ethically on weak grounds blaming the US or China, when we ourselves are not serious and have not done all we can to enhance our security ? Again, I say, we are on weak grounds to criticize, I am not saying that the criticism is not well deserved.

It seems to me from this question that you want India to ready itself for a total military defeat of Pakistan, for which you are asking for a timeline and explanation. I disagree with the premise of your question. I think India should keep on arming itself till it is able to ensure that even China or the US cannot militarily threaten India without fearing serious consequences. In my view - if India expends itself fighting Pakistan, we cannot catch up with the bigger rats in the rat race. It would suit the bigger rats to see us expending ourselves uselessly against a Pakistan whom they support.

Has the process started? Yes.

When will it end? Try this

Thanks Shiv. In these trying times (the latest being the US wanting to build a $12B dam in POK and the AH crisis), one needs a sense of humour.

[shiv]

6. Therefore, India is preparing for the Chinese and US threat (which I personally dont see any evidence of) and that is the reason it cannot prepare to deal with Paki and that is the reason we dont see any results against Paki.

7. However, in the long run, even as we prepare to face the US and Chinese threats, we will be able to deal with the PAkis.

8. And in answer to the question of when we can expect to be in a position to deal with the PAkis, you refer me to the "Astrological" website.

You have understood my opinion perfectly. I may have some quibbles with specific words you have used - but they are not far off. This is my opinion and you have absolutely no compulsion to accept it. If you reject it as nonsense that is quite OK with me. But that remains my viewpoint. More or less.

[shivajisisodia]

6. Therefore, India is preparing for the Chinese and US threat (which I personally dont see any evidence of) and that is the reason it cannot prepare to deal with Paki and that is the reason we dont see any results against Paki.

7. However, in the long run, even as we prepare to face the US and Chinese threats, we will be able to deal with the PAkis.

8. And in answer to the question of when we can expect to be in a position to deal with the PAkis, you refer me to the "Astrological" website.

You have understood my opinion perfectly. I may have some quibbles with specific words you have used - but they are not far off. This is my opinion and you have absolutely no compulsion to accept it. If you reject it as nonsense that is quite OK with me. But that remains my viewpoint. More or less.

Thank you, sir.

I think there is a less expensive way of dealing with Pak than what you suggest and I also dont think dealing with US and China and dealing with PAk, even in the short term, are mutually exclusive. I believe both can be done at the same time and should be done at the same time, in fact the efforts should be complimentary, so that there is no either or and the effort to counter one enhances the effort to counter the other. I have that strategy in mind, and I will only presume to articulate it, if you care to know and give me permission to explain it.

Having a 3 or 4 to one advantage may be required in some cases by some armies to overwhelm the opposition, so in theory it is logically possible to have such scenarios. But with all due respect, Sir, and in all humility Shiv Sab, in the case of Pakistan and India situation as it exists now, if I were running the show and my army chief came to me asking for a three or four to one advantage over Pakistan in order to defeat Pak, I will politely suggest to him that there is plenty of money in the private sector these days and that he triy his hand at working for Bharti Telecom or Ambanis. And if this army chief happens to have a daughter in law straight from Paki, I may even try him as a Paki spy.

On the other hand, and here I know you will agree with me whole heartedly, and I am looking forward to many happy posts of agreement, Sir, because I think the way I do, that is probably the reason, I dont even run a ranch, leave aside a country, and have no hopes of even remotely coming close to doing it, ever.

I sincerely thank you for your indulgence and not taking offence at what I have said, Sir.

[devesh]

seriously, you guys need to stop. you are going in circles, with the same points repeated over and over again. now, it's getting to the point where thread is, for all intents and purposes, spammed. seriously, stop the back and forth. no new info is being added.

[eklavya]

You see - my viewpoint is that the US is strong and has leverage on India. Your viewpoint is that the US is weak and has no leverage on India. I think the US has very little leverage over Pakistan, but has some leverage over India. You are saying that the US has no leverage over India. IOW the US is weaker that I think it is. Fine. I will accept your viewpoint. Maybe there is some merit in that. It fits in with the overall picture that the US's power over nations is overrated.

Shiv,

There are some things that India can do that the US will be in no position to object about and frankly will not object to, especially after the Abbottabad hit on OBL.

How difficult can it really be to locate Hafiz Muhammad Saeed and drop a tonne or two of guided ordnance on him? The scumbag lives just across the border near Lahore and is always appearing in public. Why doesn't the Government of India authorise the IAF do that?

Why doesn't the Government of India put a $100m price (dead or alive) on HMS' head. One of the former Union Cabinet Ministers residing in Tihar Plaza can be requested to fund the award to earn some public goodwill.

Writing silly dossiers and expecting the Pakistan Army to hand over one or more of its own employess (everybody knows that the LeT is a branch/regiment of the Pak Army) acting on the orders of the Pak Army leadership is just plain silly. This is not about American pressure, its about Indian leadership.

[shiv]

How difficult can it really be to locate Hafiz Muhammad Saeed and drop a tonne or two of guided ordnance on him? The scumbag lives just across the border near Lahore and is always appearing in public. Why doesn't the Government of India authorise the IAF do that?

Why doesn't the Government of India put a $100m price (dead or alive) on HMS' head. One of the former Union Cabinet Ministers residing in Tihar Plaza can be requested to fund the award to earn some public goodwill.

Writing silly dossiers and expecting the Pakistan Army to hand over one or more of its own employess (everybody knows that the LeT is a branch/regiment of the Pak Army) acting on the orders of the Pak Army leadership is just plain silly. This is not about American pressure, its about Indian leadership.

Wrong thread.

My reply here
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 3#p1149643

[menon s]

Chineese Ship Spies on India.
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/china ... dia-130174

[shiv]

US envoy to Pak justified funds as ‘defence’ against ‘threat from India’
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/us-en ... ia/841357/

For years, India has been protesting the steady build-up of the Pakistan military with the help of US funds, only to be told by Washington that the support is meant for shoring up counter-insurgency capabilities. Now, a leaked secret cable has revealed that not only was the US aware that funds earmarked for the Pakistan military were being used to increase its capabilities against India but Washington also encouraged Islamabad’s conventional build-up to “reduce regional tensions”.

A cable dated August 2009 released by whistleblower website WikiLeaks quotes the US Ambassador to Pakistan justifying an additional $1.5 billion to Pakistan to provide for its ‘national defense’ against the ‘threat from India’ and the insurgency on the western border.

While US statements in India have always emphasised that funds allocated to Pakistan are useful for the fight against terror, Ambassador Anne W Patterson elaborated in the cable that FMF money sent to Islamabad ‘is and should continue’ to be directed towards increasing Pakistan’s conventional and counter-insurgency capabilities.

[Jarita]

Even today, political observers point out, while the Chinese leadership is openly flouting the 2005 guidelines on resolving the border issue, the Indian Government is out to appease them. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh gushingly told China’s President Hu Jintao, barely weeks after Beijing reiterated its territorial claims to Arunachal Pradesh that the “people” of India regarded China as their “greatest” neighbour.


http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/general/2 ... r-cia.html

[shiv]

Ensure no 26/11 before Pak talks, PM tells US
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 854278.cms

NEW DELHI: PM Manmohan Singh needed assurances that there would be "no more Mumbais" before reengaging with Pakistan and wanted the US to use its leverage with Pakistan's military to ensure terrorists do not launch attacks against India from Pakistan.

While offering an effusive welcome to US national security adviser James Jones soon after the Obama administration took over, Singh made an impassioned plea for American intervention so that the professed intentions of Pakistan's civilian leaderships are shared by its military.

According to a Wikileaks disclosure, the meeting - one of the first high-level contacts after Democrats won the White House - saw Singh seeking to maintain the momentum in bilateral ties, saying that "sky was the limit" to Indo-US cooperation.

But the trauma of the Mumbai attacks seems to have been fresh in the PM's mind in the meeting that took place in 2009. The PM pointed to India's lack of direct contact with Pakistan's military, and indicated that the US could use its relationship to good effect in order to contain terrorism. The US embassy cable doesn't make it clear if the PM wanted the assurances from the US, but it seems that he expected Washington to work on preventing Pakistan's military-intelligence set up from authoring another attack or even being lax in monitoring anti-India jihadi groups.

Singh said he received reports almost on a daily basis about terrorist plans against India and refered to the interrogation of Pakistani-American Lashkar-e-Taiba operative David Coleman Headley's disclosures about Indian military targets on the group's hit list.

In a later meeting with US secretary of state Hilary Clinton, the PM made a similar point about lack of curbs on terrorists in Pakistan, saying Lashkar chief Hafiz Saeed was allowed to "roam freely" and said the Indian assessment tallied with reports generated by American agencies.

The PM asked Clinton to use Washington's "enormous influence" with Pakistan, which he said was yet to take "effective action" against groups planning attacks on India.

[eklavya]

US envoy to Pak justified funds as ‘defence’ against ‘threat from India’
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/us-en ... a/841357/0

“More substantially, enhancing Pakistan’s overall defense posture would help reduce regional tensions by lessening Pakistan’s perceived need to use asymmetric methods to counter regional threats and reduce Pakistan’s sense of inferiority vis-a-vis India. For these reasons our FMF money is and should continue to be directed towards all services and toward conventional as well as counterinsurgency capabilities,” Patterson has written in the cable dispatched to Washington.

“If the military and government of Pakistan are satisfied with their national defense posture, then it is less likely to engage in asymmetrical warfare to counter what it perceives to be hostile Indian policies and activities both along its eastern border as well as in Afghanistan,” she wrote.

Looks like the US is indeed still playing its traditional dirty games. There will be repercussions, and the US knows it too.

[vishvak]

US envoy to Pak justified funds as ‘defence’ against ‘threat from India’
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/us-en ... ia/841357/

For years, India has been protesting the steady build-up of the Pakistan military with the help of US funds, only to be told by Washington that the support is meant for shoring up counter-insurgency capabilities. Now, a leaked secret cable has revealed that not only was the US aware that funds earmarked for the Pakistan military were being used to increase its capabilities against India but Washington also encouraged Islamabad’s conventional build-up to “reduce regional tensions”.

A cable dated August 2009 released by whistleblower website WikiLeaks quotes the US Ambassador to Pakistan justifying an additional $1.5 billion to Pakistan to provide for its ‘national defense’ against the ‘threat from India’ and the insurgency on the western border.

While US statements in India have always emphasised that funds allocated to Pakistan are useful for the fight against terror, Ambassador Anne W Patterson elaborated in the cable that FMF money sent to Islamabad ‘is and should continue’ to be directed towards increasing Pakistan’s conventional and counter-insurgency capabilities.

This could be considered as a provocation against India, like another here - India sees red at China-Pak railway station

Pakistan has hired a Chinese company to build an illegal railway station on no man's land near the Indian border at Barmer.

[shiv]

Cross post courtesy jrjr

Perkovich's prescription for India
http://carnegieendowment.org/files/paki ... nction.pdf

But if the disaffected Kashmiris win no
redress and Washington’s silence on the issue is seen as disregarding the rights
and well-being of Kashmiri Muslims, Pakistanis will naturally be drawn to
militancy. It could be counterproductive for the United States to publicly upbraid
India, so private diplomacy should be tried. But if Indian actions or policies do
not show signs of change, then the United States should show solidarity with the
dignity and rights of Kashmiri Muslims by publicly acknowledging abuses.

Perkovich is laying to the Pakistani gallery. I think he may have forgotten how much less dangerous his own world is without pushing India out of its jelly-like acceptance of some terror and meekly accepting that the US needs Pakistan. Maybe Perkovich now feels that India is so supine and so weak that Indians will want to keel over and collapse when the US starts acting like more of an idiot than it has traditionally been.

But in any case the article is an indicator of how helpless the US seems to be against Pakistan. The US is not a weak country even today and the possibility of the US causing untold misery for Indians is very real. There are several "worst case" scenarios that the US could get involved with - including supporting Pakistan in military action against India. This is unlikely, but any Indian in his right senses would have to keep this in the back of his mind at the very least. The US has the capability to make things very nasty before doing a cop-out/downhill ski and declaring victory. For India to be at the receiving end - it would not be particularly pleasant.

But it seems to me that some US strategists and experts, having seen the US threatening Pakistan in the past and even acting against Pakistan in some mild ways have now reached the conclusion that they cannot get further with Pakistan without declaring war. There is no indicator that the US even contemplates war against Pakistan. However the US could contemplate Pakistan war with India and help Pakistan.

Today is Sepember 11th, 2011 the 10 anniversary of the attacks on the Twin Towers. The Times of India has the following headline "The US will never be at war with Islam". Interesting. Did you know that it is OK for Islam, or people claiming to represent Islam (such as Pakistanis) to be at war with the US. Does this mean that the US will not fight?

[devesh]

Shiv ji,

India needs leverage. that is the bottom-line. we need to have control of certain forces in Pakistan which can rip apart that country in a protracted conflict, if we choose to support them. that's what we need. the present problems are a manifestation of India's inability to look beyond traditional (conventional) means of forcing our choice on enemies.

[SSridhar]

US envoy to Pak justified funds as ‘defence’ against ‘threat from India’[/size]
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/us-en ... ia/841357/

While US statements in India have always emphasised that funds allocated to Pakistan are useful for the fight against terror . . .

Again, nothing surprising here.

The US ambassador to Pakistan, James Langley, himself said in 1957, “The present [US] military program [in Pakistan] is a hoax, the hoax being that it is related to the Soviet threat”.

When India deeply resented this arrangement, the US spurned India’s justified concerns through subterfuge and diplomatese.

Prime Minister Nehru told the Rajya Sabha on April 29 this: “The fact of the U.S. Government supplying jet bombers to Pakistan has led to considerable feeling, concern and resentment in India which have progressively grown as shown in the recent Canberra incident when one of our planes was shot down by these jet planes. {On April 10, 1959 by an F-86 Sabre} This fact has been brought to the notice of the U.S. Government on several occasions.” He said that the U.S. authorities in reply had repeated their earlier statements that this was no new agreement and that “ in fact they have avoided extending it.”

As early as May, 1950, a prescient Nehru sensed, “ a concerted attempt to build up Pakistan and build down India”

“We must continue to reassure Pakistan that as it combats the terrorist threat, it is not exposing itself to increased risk along its eastern border,” said Under Secretary of Defence for Policy Michele Flournoy, as recently as May 2010, while explaining why the United States needed to strengthen Islamabad’s conventional defence systems as well. “Although extremist attacks have led to the repositioning of substantial Pakistani forces, Pakistan’s strategic concerns about India remain pre-eminent.”

There has been absolutely no change in the US perfidy either. Pakistan and the US are made for each other. I definitely feel that the US deserves Pakistan.

[shiv]

Cross post

China pulls out of $19 billion coal mining deal in Sindh due to security concerns

[darshhan]

Cross post

China pulls out of $19 billion coal mining deal in Sindh due to security concerns

Shiv ji , Your observations are proving to be correct.I remember you said about Pakistani state(includes Pakistani Army) losing control over Pakistani which would result in a deteriorating law and order climate in which China would never risk its investments.Or something to that effect.

[paramu]

Cross post courtesy jrjr

Perkovich's prescription for India
http://carnegieendowment.org/files/paki ... nction.pdf

But if the disaffected Kashmiris win no
redress and Washington’s silence on the issue is seen as disregarding the rights
and well-being of Kashmiri Muslims, Pakistanis will naturally be drawn to
militancy. It could be counterproductive for the United States to publicly upbraid
India, so private diplomacy should be tried. But if Indian actions or policies do
not show signs of change, then the United States should show solidarity with the
dignity and rights of Kashmiri Muslims by publicly acknowledging abuses.

Perkovich is laying to the Pakistani gallery. I think he may have forgotten how much less dangerous his own world is without pushing India out of its jelly-like acceptance of some terror and meekly accepting that the US needs Pakistan. Maybe Perkovich now feels that India is so supine and so weak that Indians will want to keel over and collapse when the US starts acting like more of an idiot than it has traditionally been.

But in any case the article is an indicator of how helpless the US seems to be against Pakistan.

Perkovich forgot one solution which is that Kashmir Muslims can migrat anywhere else just like how they did during partition. What about democracy and human rights inside Pakistan. He thinks that the hoax of Pakistan as a democracy is seen by the world.

[sum]

Perkovich forgot one solution which is that Kashmir Muslims can migrat anywhere else just like how they did during partition.

An easier thing might be for Perkovich to make the SD take in a few of these "poor, tortured" Kashmiris into US for a few months and report back status after few years..

[RajeshA]

I think some Kashmiris should go and live with Perkovich in his house!

[ramana]

Pakistan and China: Strengthening Ties

by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi
The American Spectator
October 4, 2011

http://www.meforum.org/3057/pakistan-china-ties
Send RSS Share: Facebook Twitter Google +1
Be the first of your friends to like this.

As U.S. military operations in Afghanistan drag on, a strengthening relationship between Pakistan and China has emerged as tensions between the former and the United States continue to grow.

Of particular interest are the trilateral meeting just held between Chinese, Saudi and Pakistani intelligence officials in Islamabad and a two-day visit to Pakistan by the Chinese Deputy Prime Minister Meng Jianzhou. Both of these developments come in the midst of growing concern among U.S. officials about the problem of ISI (Pakistani intelligence) support for a militant group known as the Haqqani Network, which has bases in Pakistan and conducts operations against American and Indian targets in Afghanistan.

For example, the Haqqani Network is widely suspected of being behind the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul in 2008, and more recently cell phone trails have established that members of the organization were in contact with Pakistani intelligence before and during the assault on the U.S. embassy in the Afghan capital this month.

Pakistan's response, however, has been to deny any links between the ISI and Haqqani Network, while accusing the United States of creating the group in the first place. In fact, Jalaluddin Haqqani, the godfather of the organization, was already a devotee to jihadist ideology by the mid-1970s, aiming back then to overthrow the government of Mohammed Daoud Khan, who had seized power from King Zahir in 1973 and established an Afghan republic.

Thus, the militants behind the Haqqani Network (including some Chechen, Palestinian and Yemeni fellow fighters) were already active well before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the subsequent joint CIA-ISI enterprise of providing support to various mujahideen warriors in their jihad against the Soviet occupation forces in the 1980s.

Although the leadership of the Pakistan Army is now firmly refusing to take any action against the Haqqani Network in the form of a military offensive in North Waziristan, Pakistan's Interior Minister Rehman Malik has vowed to attack and pursue Muslim Uighur militants who operate in China's western province of Xinjiang but take refuge and undergo training in Pakistan's border areas with Afghanistan (often in cooperation with al-Qa'ida and other Islamist militant groups that have firm footholds in Pakistan). As Malik himself put it, "We will strike very hard against them [the Uighur militants]. Anybody who is the enemy of China is the enemy of Pakistan."

Strengthening ties extend to the realm of arms deals, and now even entail the deployment of Chinese troops in Pakistani territory. For example, in May, China agreed to provide 50 new JF-17 Thunder multi-role fighter planes to the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) "immediately" (a deal had been signed earlier, but during the Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Gilani's visit to China discussion was also raised over the possibility of further Chinese supplies to the PAF of J-20 Stealth and Xiaolong multi-purpose light fighter aircraft). It would appear that as Pakistan increases its military cooperation with China, the country is distancing itself from American military support and aid. Indeed, it is expected that the presence of U.S. military personnel in Pakistan will be halved.

As for the stationing of Chinese troops in Pakistan, it is estimated that there are currently around 11,000 soldiers of the People's Liberation Army in Pakistan's northern province of Gilgit-Baltistan and in Pakistani Kashmir, facilitating the opening of branches of Chinese banks and construction of concrete residential houses for these troops. This development should primarily be understood in light of the fact that engineers are working on a railroad that is intended to extend from the port of Gwadar in the southwestern province of Balochistan (a port that will be very important for future Chinese proximity to the Persian Gulf) all the way into western China.

Once Pakistan's strengthening alliance with China in opposition to what is perceived as a U.S.-India axis is taken into account, the policies of the Pakistani military and intelligence towards the various Islamist militants based or operating in Pakistan become very easy to explain. The inconsistency of refusing to launch an offensive against the Haqqani Network while vowing to hunt down Uighur militants has already been noted. Beijing certainly has no problem with ISI backing of the Haqqani Network: so long as the group harms Indian influence and interests in Afghanistan, so much the better for China. China, after all, feels the need as an ever growing economic power to compete with India for Afghanistan's vast mineral reserves, having already invested $3 billion in the vast Aynak copper mine.

Now we can also see why the ISI and Pakistan Army safeguard and protect the Taliban Shura and other Islamist militants based or operating in Balochistan (especially in and around the provincial capital of Quetta), for they serve as good proxies against the Baloch nationalist insurgency. The Baloch insurgency not only regards Pakistani rule and the presence of Punjabi settlers as an occupation but also is justifiably outraged at the fact that the indigenous population is largely deprived of income from Balochistan's massive copper reserves, which are being developed and exploited by China and the Pakistani central government.

Pakistan's desire to counter India applies to Punjab province as well, where a host of Islamist militant organizations (e.g. Lashkar-e-Taiba) enjoy the patronage of the ISI and the provincial government headed by Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif.

These groups have often provided safe havens for militants returning from Afghanistan (as well as those in the border regions who have been given escape routes and early warnings by the Pakistani security forces during operations as part of a double game to win American financial support), allowing many Islamist militants to set up their own seminaries in south Punjab. The predictable result of all this has of course been the increasing destabilization of Punjab itself, giving rise to a phenomenon known as the "Punjabi Taliban" that has bombed Sufi shrines, inter alia.

The emerging picture is clearly one of a Sino-Pakistani partnership aligned against what is seen as a U.S.-India axis designed to limit Pakistan's assertion of its interests in Afghanistan, Kashmir and parts of India on account of an expansionist policy known as "strategic depth," which has always been espoused by the Pakistani military and intelligence and is rooted in Pakistan's perception of its identity as an Islamic state. These developments could well lead to what some analysts have termed a "looming superpower clash" between the United States and China over Afghanistan and the wider region, triggered by Pakistan.

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi is a student at Brasenose College, Oxford University, and an intern at the Middle East Forum.

He is a new kid and yet can see the PRC_TSP relationship. US needs India for this upcoming clash!

[shiv]

Has anyone sen an announcement from China that they are going to supply 50 JF-17s to Pakiatn? The odd thing aboyt this oft repeated (and now accepted as truth) information is that China was never suposed to have supplied Pakistan with any JF-17s. The assembly line was entirely in Pakistan. The development was in China. I thoght Pakistan was going top get 140 od JF-17s. What is the exact need for China to set up an assembly line to produce just half taht number for Pakistan. In fact even Pakistan seems uninterested in the JF 17 any more and are saying J-20 which is nowhere near induction into the PLAAF.

To me there is a Pakistani concoction lurking here somewhere - where a person of the "stature" of Gilani or Zardari states that "China is going to take over Gwadar" or "China is going to supply us 50 JF 17" and that "news" is release for public consumption in Pakistan.

It does not suit China to deny such information even if untrue. But in the long term I predict the Chinese are going to be shamed and embarrassed by the Pakis if they fail to meet all the promises that Pakis claim they have made. From a diplomatic viewpoint if a Pakistani statement of a Chinese promise is false, it would have to be dined sooner of later. Sometimes such denials (like the "taking over" of Gwadar) comes politely. At other times the Chinese leave the statement as it is, unconfirmed and not denied. The ambiguity aids both Pakistan and China because it throws countries like the US and India off balance.

If the Chinese are duplicating the assembly line in China what is Pakistan doing in Kamra or wherever?

[ramana]

maybe setting up the paint shop?

[ramana]

X-Post...

Hi Acharya:
For what its worth, I had opportunity to look over a culinary institute paper, 86-87; it considered options post Soviet Afghanistan. It showed Indian Punjab as part of the paki, and all of J&K, except Ladakh, also part of the paki. The institute was backing the Khalistanis, that was clear from the document, so expected or intended to have Indian Punjab delivered to the paki as baksheesh for kicking on the Soviet. Without Punjab, no direct link to J&K, the paki would have taken the state easily, then handed over Ladhakh to their pals,the prcees. Had it not been for the paki double crossing the Khalistanis,things might have gone bad for desh. I must say Bharat certainly enjoys a charmed life. The institute did not hold back on khalistani support - makes one wonder about the AI bombing.

[jagbani]

India on Wednesday reiterated its concern over the presence of Chinese military personnel in Pakistan administered Kashmir, saying that it had already conveyed its objections to Beijing.

Defence minister AK Antony told reporters after opening the four-day navy commanders conference here that India was aware of the presence of China's Peoples Liberation Army troops in Pakistani Kashmir..

Even mulayam sing today said that China is preparing war agains the India..

More news are available in todays daily newspaper here :- http://www.punjabkesari.in/punjab/news/13102011/page/2$

[shiv]

Cross post

Pakistan obtains hi-tech warfare suite pod to upgrade F-16 fighter aircraft

Karachi, Oct 25(ANI): Pakistan has bought the American ALQ-211 Advanced Integrated Defensive Electronic Warfare Suite (AIDEWS) pod for their fighter aircraft, according to a media report.

Pakistan will receive the ALQ-211 (V) 9 (Version 9), which costs about 3.5 million dollars per pod, The News reports.

The ALQ-211 allows the aircraft to detect radar, jamming and laser signals hitting the aircraft, as well as the presence of chemical weapons.

It also provides some jamming of its own, and assistance on where the signal is coming from, so that the pilot can move the aircraft away from the threat, said a report published in a US magazine.

The ALQ-211 is also installed in helicopters, but not as a pod. Rather, the individual components are installed in the helicopter where space is available.

Components of the ALQ-211 are programmable, so that the system can quickly be updated for newly discovered enemy equipment. (ANI)