Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 2011

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 26 Sep 2011 07:54

Cut all aid so that Pakistan can stand on its feet: Imran Khan

Will he give the same advice to China?

AnantD · Post by **AnantD** » 26 Sep 2011 08:00

^^^^ All I would say is that I. Khan should stay away from Car Sunroofs.

AnantD · Post by **AnantD** » 26 Sep 2011 08:22

If Panetta and Petraeus don't not do anything after all this, Obama is a 1 term POTUS.

The blockade of TSP and sanctions would be a start. The pain would be immediate. Panda will send more troops to TSP and they can all get Polio for all I care.

The mutiny aspect in TSPA, the slow replenishments of parts and spares are actually known. Kiyanahi put Brig Ali into a brig because the Jarnails are all very shaky. Pasha's expression in some pictures looks so constipated that he wishes someone would take his job and put him out of his misery.

The US can sustain the ISAF forces without TSP, esp if it diverts that aid to the extra costs from the northern routes.

My gut tells me that some 200 or so national birds of TSP take a $hit on Miram Shah area first for the next two months.

Its the nuke threat that must be dealt with, and before the blockade/ no fly zone etc.. The US dosen't have any 100% safe options, I hope India has practised flying their C-130J's well, just in case. But then, Panetta has taken risks before and he might again. Regarding JDAMs in the US or UQ, not much of a threat, its something like nau gyarah that that can hurt but the chances of that are ever so slim. The preparedness for a repeat of nau gyarah on its 10th Anniv was superb compared to just pre 911, and it will remain so if Khan puts an Air-Sea blockade.

A lot of dummies here think that the US should back the good Pakistani's overcome the bad ones, and that Muskrat leaving caused this mess and so on, just as the WKK's. Thats the only thing that Panetta and Petraeus will have to deal with.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Sep 2011 08:48

The way Pakistan is playing out this game is that they are treating any "punishment" from the US as something that will make them lose control and lose out to the Taliban/jihadis etc.

I think the meaning of the expression "Negotiating with a gun held to their own head" is being lost on BRF. Pakistan is saying to the US, unless you do what I want I will shoot myself. If you care for the person who threatens to shoot himself, then you would rather not see him shoot himself. If you don't care for him, you would not mind if he shot himself. The US has put in a great deal of investment into Pakistan. They "care" about Pakistan. Any "punishment" of Pakistan reduces US credibility as an ally because they unilaterally described Pakistan as an ally. The US is not going to live that down easily. Pakis realise both these facts.

For Pakistan itself - allowing Islamic insurgents to rule some areas will make no difference. It will only increase support for the Pakistani army and decrease the pressure on the Paki army to fight Islamic insurgents. Pakistan is a fairly wealthy country and foreign aid is mainly for some arms and for civilian projects. The military has enough funds and arms reserves to last them for a long long time and China will chip in with arms. Paki civilians are already screwed and the army has successfully blamed that on India and the US. Any further screwing of the Paki population by US sanctions will only make it easier for the Paki army to stop supporting the US troops completely.

The idea that "70% of US supplies are going via Northern routes" is like belief in God. 70 percent is not the same as 100% and there is no guarantee that 70% can be ramped up quickly to 150% or 200% if hot war must be fought. The US's options are limited and if Pakistan is pushed to the wall, they will not care. And many are saying here that the US has not been pushed to the wall yet. That clearly means that the US will do nothing drastic but Pakistan may be ready to do something drastic. Pakis are clever enough to know how far they can push the US. They will stop short of pushing the US into doing something drastic and paralyse the US.

Like i said wake me up if the US goes beyond "negotiation and mending ties". In the short term the US will have to take kicks and stay kicked. Of course when India does that it is weakness. When it happens to the US everyone thinks the US will "do something". The US simply cannot do much. Archive this post and kick me by quoting it when the US actually does something drastic.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 26 Sep 2011 08:55

What a difference a dot makes
Land of Pure Fuddus and Koosas

In Abbottabad (remember Abbottabad?) a Christian girl has been accused of blasphemy and expelled from her school because of a spelling mistake (via):

Faryal Bhatti, a student at the Sir Syed Girls High School in Pakistan Ordnance Factories (POF) colony Havelian, erroneously misspelt a word in an Urdu exam while answering a question on a poem written in praise of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). The word in question was ‘laanat’ instead of ‘naat’ – an easy error for a child to make, as the written versions of the words are similar.
According to the school administration and religious leaders who took great exception to the hapless student’s mistake, the error is ‘serious’ enough to fall within the realm of blasphemy...
On Thursday, Faryal’s Urdu teacher was collecting the answer sheets from her students when she noticed the apparently offensive word on her pupil’s sheet. The teacher, Fareeda Bibi, reportedly summoned the Christian girl, scolded her and beat her. Her punishment, however, did not end here. When Faryal’s class fellows learnt of the alleged blasphemy, the teacher brought the principal’s notice to the matter, who further informed the school management.
In the meanwhile, the news spread throughout the colony. The next day, male students of the POF colony school as well as certain religious elements took out a rally, demanding the registration of a criminal case against the eighth-grader and her expulsion from the area.Prayer leaders within the community also condemned the incident in their Friday sermons, asking the colony’s administration to not only take action against Faryal but her entire family. In the wake of the increasing tensions, Managing Director POF Colony Havelian Asif Siddiki called a meeting of colony-based ulemas and school teachers to discuss the situation. The girl and her mother were asked to appear before the meeting, where they explained that it was a mere error, caused by a resemblance between the two words. The two immediately apologised, adding that Faryal had no malicious intentions.In a move that was apparently meant to pacify the religious elements clamouring for action against the teenage ‘blasphemer’, the POF administration expelled her from the school on Saturday. Faryal was not the only one who got in trouble for her spelling error, however, as her mother, Sarafeen Bhatti, who was a staff nurse at the POF Hospital Havelian for several years, was immediately transferred to POF Wah Cantonment Hospital.It's not clear from the article, but the difference between "lanaat" and "naat" in Urdu script is, apparently, just the one dot.

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 26 Sep 2011 09:00

IMHO what the US fears the most is not nukes (I seriously doubt , paki nukes are any good)...What they fear the most is China doing to them in Pakistan , what US did to USSR in afghan and what USSR did to US in vietnam...If US attacks paks the biggest beneficiary will be the Chinese..

In case of an Indo-Pak war the biggest casualties to India would have come from small arms and artillery and not from the junk puke air force nor from nearly non existent navy.. And surely not from their puke clear detergent tipped pissiles powered by solidified zam zam cola...

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 26 Sep 2011 09:09

As someone who studied Urdu in the Nastaliq script, the spelling slip may be more Freudian.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Sep 2011 09:12

menon s wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgwvwuJu6Ms
"America needs Pakistan, u r right, but not a Pakistan that will help kill American troops" Sen Lindsay Graham , South Carolina.

Humph. That video shows the man making an extremely weak threat. He is at pains to qualify that the ISI helps the US. he wants to give "both sides of the ISI story". Lovely. His "threat" sound as weak as any I have heard from anyone. Time pass onlee. He says nothing that remotely suggests that the US will or can do much. He only says "We have to put all options on the table because I can't go to my voters and tell them your son got killed by my aid". Its about his voters. If he can convince his voters that al iz vel he might do that. Let me now sit back and wait for a lecture on how the US system is not like the Indian one

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 26 Sep 2011 09:15

To me it's all about the money.

Total cost of the Afghan war, 2001-2011: approximately $444 Billion to the US exchequer.

This has been with "fighting on the cheap". Getting the Northern Alliance to do the fighting on the ground, initially, with only air support from ISAF. Counting on the Pakis for intelligence and for security along the Paki side of the Af-Pak border.

Results: No control over Afghan territory except for Kabul, a few other urban areas and the perimeters of various NATO bases. Northern/Western Afghanistan in the hands of warlords who must be allowed to cultivate and sell opium in exchange for their temporary cooperation. Southern/Eastern Afghanistan in the hands of Haqqanis, Hekmatyar and various Taliban leaders. Even Kabul is not secure: US embassy and political leaders can be targeted at will by Haqqanis.

In addition some $20 Billion has been spent by the US in aid to the Pakis.

On BRF, there are two main arguments as to why this expenditure of $444 B + $20 B has been such a total loss:

1) US should never have trusted the Pakis. They should have attacked and destroyed the Pakis because they were the root of the problem, instead of invading Afghanistan with Pakis as "allies."

Maybe so. But stop and think for a minute. It cost the US $444B over ten years to get almost nowhere in Afghanistan.

For $444B spent on the Afghan war effort, the US has been able to get rid of one ragtag Taliban government from Kabul in 2001, and secure some logistical bases for aircraft, marines, bredators etc. That's all.

For the $20B given to Pakistan, at least there has been some better ROI. Many Al-Qaeda leaders, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, have been rendered by Pakistan. Drone attacks, allowed by the Pakistan government, have killed many leaders and cadres of anti-US Islamist groups in Pakistan.

Also, OBL was killed in Pakistan. Though this did not happen with the cooperation of the Paki govt, it could be argued that US intelligence networks in Pakistan (which could only be cultivated in an atmosphere created by $20B in aid) were critical to getting OBL. Net net, there have been no successful attacks on US soil from Pakistan (and many attacks foiled while being planned in Pakistan) since 2001. Net net, the US has some idea (however limited or incomplete) of where Pakistan's crown jewels are and who is responsible for them.

Has there been a downside? Of course. The Taliban, Haqqanis and Hekmatyar continue to fight and kill US forces in Afghanistan, only because of the safe havens and facilities provided by the ISI in Pakistan. Even $444 B to Afghanistan war effort, plus $20B to Pakistan, have brought the US to a losing stalemate where it apparently cannot do much about this situation. It has to absorb things like Raymond Davis, Embassy Attack, Rabbani etc. and retaliate only with harsh words of protest.

We on BRF think that the US has a better option: attack Pakistan, with B2s or daisy cutters or boots on the ground or all these things at once. Fight a war to destroy the TSPA/ISI and gain control of Pakistan. We think that somehow the expense that the US incurs in this process... not only of defeating TSPA/ISI in open conflict, not only of fighting all the 16 million armed jihadis scattered around Pakistan, but of managing an aftermath that includes securing the crown jewels with zero error and establishing a functioning government to take charge of 180 million Islamized c***tiyas... will be justified by the fruits that the US will reap IF it succeeds.

First, this is because we haven't given any thought to what the expense actually will be. If it was $444B over ten years to defeat a ragtag Taliban army and secure a few bases in Afghanistan (there is still no stable national government in Afghanistan, even with a much smaller population than Pakistan.) What will it cost, in Pakistan, for the US to defeat a much better conventional armed force, to defeat a much larger non-conventional fighting force of Tanzeems, to establish a functioning central government over the vast defeated population as an endgame, and to do all this without any chance of a nuke going missing and turning up in a Western city? Will it be 4X the cost of the Afghan war so far? 5X? 10X? Are we looking at a war effort of $2-4 Trillion?

But that's not all. Even if the US had $2-4 Trillion to spend on this, what guarantee that it will succeed? The US has spent $444B on the war in Afghanistan... not a SUCCESSFUL war in Afghanistan, just a war. Is it worth spending 5X, 10X that much on a similar war in Pakistan with a similar degree of "success" for the outcome? How much will the US have to spend for a "guaranteed to succeed" war in Pakistan? 10 Trillion? 20 Trillion? And what do they get at the end of the day?

Seriously... Unkil's pockets are not infinitely deep. In fact they are stretched very thin already. Even with another attack in the mainland US (let alone Haqqani prickles in Kabul) there is NO chance of the US going to war against Pakistan... they didn't do it in 2001, when their economy was better off than it is now. Today they know the Pakis to be snakes; yet, as we can see, most of the "War on Terror" successes owe more to the $20B they spent on aid to these Paki snakes than to the $444 B they spent on occupying Afghanistan!!

In fact, looked at objectively it makes sense for Unkil to give Pakistan $3B a year in annual aid for another 100 years, as long as they can do a face-saving pullout from Afghanistan and get a guarantee of no more terrorist attacks on US soil. It is still less expensive than even the most optimistic scenario of attacking Pakistan militarily.

That's all there is. Unkil won't attack Pakistan because Unkil can't afford to fight a war with Pakistan and sustain it towards a reasonable chance of a favourable endgame. They don't have money. They are kadkaa.

2) This brings us to the second argument. "But what about Iraq?? Unkil could have afforded to fight the AfPak war properly (by making kheema of Pakistan) if they had not been distracted by Iraq no??"

Actually, I'm not so sure about this. The total cost of the Iraq war was more than Afghanistan... $806 B. But I will argue that in terms of serving America's economic and geostrategic interests, Iraq was a MUCH more successful war than Afghanistan is, or than a Pakistan war would ever be.

The Iraq operation is over. At once stage it looked like a disaster, but the endgame is now played and done with... and it hasn't turned out so badly for the US. An extremely anti-US regime running one of the largest oil-producing countries in the world, a major country of strategic importance in the Middle East, has been knocked out. Power has now devolved to three clearly demarcated ethnic groups which can be played against each other by Washington in the colonial style. Northern Iraq/Kurdistan affords the US a welcome military and strategic presence that they never had before. Neither the Sunnis of Central-Western Iraq nor the Shias of Southern and Eastern Iraq have any love for the US, but both groups hate each other and are prone to accepting US influence in their fight to curb the power of the other. Washington has a lot of leverage in this important country which it never had under Saddam. Furthermore, Iraq's oil is set to make an unimpeded comeback to the world market, without the destabilizing effects of Saddam-era sanctions to aggravate any potential energy crisis.

To some extent there is a downside of increasing Iranian influence in Baghdad, because of the empowerment of Iraq's Shias. Still, it does not overbalance the gains America has made.

In fact, this is the most convincing argument I have heard, to counter the notion that "US does not attack Pakistan in the War on Terror because it wants to keep India down." The US did attack Iraq, and left there with a dispensation that was relatively favourable to Iran (which is more of an enemy to Washington than India.) The US was prepared to countenance some gains for Iran as a side-effect of getting rid of Saddam, because the gains were higher for the US.

If the US saw a war on Pakistan as affordable, AND saw that destroying the current order in Pakistan would produce results at least as beneficial to the US as they are to India... then the US, I think, would do it. The US is not holding back from destroying Pakistan for the sole reason that destroying Pakistan would help India... after all the Americans destroyed Saddam's Iraq in a way that benefited Iran, even though they definitely would like to keep Iran down.

The US is holding back from destroying Pakistan because they cannot afford it, and when all is said and done, even if they could afford it the benefits would not justify the costs. NONE of the present naatak will bring matters to a position where the benefits do justify the costs... and even then, it is an open question how the US would manage to afford it. Would the Chinese finance the destruction of their deepel than deepest fliend by lending the US money to finance an invasion of Pakistan?

AnantD · Post by **AnantD** » 26 Sep 2011 09:20

Like i said wake me up if the US goes beyond "negotiation and mending ties". In the short term the US will have to take kicks and stay kicked. Of course when India does that it is weakness. When it happens to the US everyone thinks the US will "do something". The US simply cannot do much. Archive this post and kick me by quoting it when the US actually does something drastic.

Shiv, you may be right since this isn't 2001, but then Obama will become another Jimmy Carter, which is quite possible. This is going to help China a lot more than if the US does what I think it might, unless the barking stops.

Gakakkad, What the USSR did to the US in Nam and what USA did to USSR in Afgan was because they both made mistakes in occupying territory. With Pakistan, it could be more like Iraq prior to the second Gulf war, in which case India should extract everything it wants from TSP before letting them fall off the cliff. China won't be able to do squat from the Karakoram hwy which is under water for 3 km. From the air and sea, no chance, especially if India supports.

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 26 Sep 2011 09:25

gakakkad wrote:In case of an Indo-Pak war the biggest casualties to India would have come from small arms and artillery and not from the junk puke air force nor from nearly non existent navy.. And surely not from their puke clear detergent tipped pissiles powered by solidified zam zam cola...

You forget their soosai recruits. There's probably quite a few sleepers already in India + they can land more people and supplies in unguarded locations along the coastline -- all they have to do is simply ask the D-company for the locations where they smuggle goods in.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 26 Sep 2011 09:26

^ could it be done in Pak, if us brakes TSPA and split Pakistan in to pieces? Wouldn't that make world a safer place with that cost?

If Palestine can be an independent state why cant sindh or Balochistan ?

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 26 Sep 2011 09:31

Re my post above: There is a third option for the US (besides attacking Pakistan militarily in an unaffordable war, and besides cut & run + annual jizya to Pakistan to prevent further terrorist attacks on US soil.) That is to cooperate with India to manage the dismantling of Pakistan as it exists today; in a way that will involve India bearing most of the short/medium term costs (especially the endgame, absorbing Pakistan) but ultimately cannot help giving India most of the long-term benefits (if India bears the economic costs and bears the political/social costs, it will emerge as Akhand Bharat.) Will the US think about this option? Will India go with it?

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 26 Sep 2011 09:34

Prem wrote: Good old Uncle Sam can and will take care of domestic Poakrats within a week.

The 'can' has always been there. The 'will' is missing (and canned) and I don't see that change despite all the hot air blown by Moolen & co. If they do, I will happy to buy you 2 cases of your favourite choice of madira.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 26 Sep 2011 09:39

RamaY wrote:^ could it be done in Pak, if us brakes TSPA and split Pakistan in to pieces? Wouldn't that make world a safer place with that cost?

If Palestine can be an independent state why cant sindh or Balochistan ?

No, RamaY garu, it would not. It is not enough to break TSPA and split Pakistan into pieces. If you want the world to be a safer place from your POV you have to stay there for however many years it takes... hold the hands of your chosen people in each particular piece of Former Pakistan... protect them against everyone from pan-Islamists to TSPA chauvinists... help them establish a government that their people will have confidence in (social services, infrastructure, economic stability etc.)... empower them to keep their hold on power despite repeated attacks decade after decade, by various groups who want to seize power away from them. What is the "cost" of all that? It is a lot more than the "cost" of cluster munitions to break the TSPA and kill 16 million cadres of Pakistani Tanzeems, and even THAT cost is great compared to the cost of simply paying off Pakistan for whatever benefits it gives you.

And in the end, what is the benefit? Unlike Shia southern Iraq or Kurdish Northern Iraq, Sindh/Baluchistan won't even produce oil to pay some small portion of the cost of taking care of them.

No chance the US will go this route, IMHO.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 26 Sep 2011 09:42

RamaY wrote:^ could it be done in Pak, if us brakes TSPA and split Pakistan in to pieces? Wouldn't that make world a safer place with that cost?

If Palestine can be an independent state why cant sindh or Balochistan ?

Palestine is not yet an independent state, even after 60+ years after the creation of Israel.

Dasari · Post by **Dasari** » 26 Sep 2011 09:42

Rudradev wrote:Re my post above: There is a third option for the US (besides attacking Pakistan militarily in an unaffordable war, and besides cut & run + annual jizya to Pakistan to prevent further terrorist attacks on US soil.) That is to cooperate with India to manage the dismantling of Pakistan as it exists today; in a way that will involve India bearing most of the short/medium term costs (especially the endgame, absorbing Pakistan) but ultimately cannot help giving India most of the long-term benefits (if India bears the economic costs and bears the political/social costs, it will emerge as Akhand Bharat.) Will the US think about this option? Will India go with it?

I don't recall but there was a show on Fox News last Friday where one of the guest proposed exactly the same. But I don't think India will dare to take the help from US and go after the TSP terror network. Besides, if US expects India to be a proxy for their war on terror, India has to be careful of such help.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 26 Sep 2011 09:45

Looking at the US options and the lack of them. What will happen to TSP if the US prevails upon the KSA to impose an oil blockade on the TSP.

How much oil can Iran provide to the TSP at the rates the KSA could provide.

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 26 Sep 2011 09:48

sanjaykumar wrote:As someone who studied Urdu in the Nastaliq script, the spelling slip may be more Freudian.

Yes the mistake was more subliminal in nature, she wrote what she heard in her environment.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 26 Sep 2011 09:49

Iran has hot/cold relationship with Pukes because of what they do to Shia. Most anti-sunni organizations in Pakistan is funded by Iran

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 26 Sep 2011 09:54

US has to show who wields the big stick. Haqqanis have American blood on their hand, Haqqanis are target now. It's upto Pakistan if it wants to escalate after and beyond that, ball is in their court now. Remember Amirkhan got the $$ too the Pakis are addicted to.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 26 Sep 2011 10:02

Pratyush wrote:Looking at the US options and the lack of them. What will happen to TSP if the US prevails upon the KSA to impose an oil blockade on the TSP.

How much oil can Iran provide to the TSP at the rates the KSA could provide.

Even if KSA agrees to this, it isn't only Iran that TSP can rely on. I think China will prevail upon Iran to supply oil to TSP at subsidized rates, even if Iran is angry about treatment of Shias in Pakistan; Iran fears/needs China more than it is angry with TSP. But even apart from Iran, there are options. E.g. Re-export via Chinese intermediaries from many gulf nations, maybe even KSA! It won't be painless for the Pakis but tallel than deepel will go to great lengths to ensure that the effects of such a punitive action by Unkil are minimized as far as possible.

Kati · Post by **Kati** » 26 Sep 2011 10:08

okay, here is the verdict...
"Pakistan will NOT attack haqqani Network...."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/ ... GI20110926

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 26 Sep 2011 10:17

Paki being just their Pakiself:

British police charge six with terrorism offences

LONDON (Reuters) - Six men have been charged with terrorism offences a week after they were arrested in a police operation in Birmingham, Britain's second largest city, police said on Sunday.

Four of the men were charged with preparing for acts of terrorism in the UK, while the other two were charged with failing to disclose information, West Midlands Police said in a statement.

Irfan Nasser, 30, of Sparkhill, and Irfan Khalid, 26, of Balsall Heath, are accused of preparing for an act of terrorism, and traveling to Pakistan for training in terrorism, said police.

Ashik Ali, 26, of Balsall Heath, and Rahi Ahmed, 25, of Moseley, face charges related to planning a bombing campaign in the UK, the force added.

Two other suspects, Bahader Ali, 28, and Mohammed Rizwan, 32, both from Sparkbrook, are both charged with failing to disclose information about acts of terrorism.

The six men will appear at West London Magistrates Court on Monday. They were arrested in a counter-terrorism operation in Birmingham on Monday last week. The men, all from Birmingham, allegedly committed the offences between Christmas Day last year and September 19, the police said.

A seventh man, aged 20 and also from Birmingham, who was arrested on Thursday, was still bring questioned, said police. Officers have until September 29 to charge, release or apply for a further warrant of detention for the detained suspect.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 26 Sep 2011 10:19

Rudradev wrote:Re my post above: There is a third option for the US (besides attacking Pakistan militarily in an unaffordable war, and besides cut & run + annual jizya to Pakistan to prevent further terrorist attacks on US soil.) That is to cooperate with India to manage the dismantling of Pakistan as it exists today; in a way that will involve India bearing most of the short/medium term costs (especially the endgame, absorbing Pakistan) but ultimately cannot help giving India most of the long-term benefits (if India bears the economic costs and bears the political/social costs, it will emerge as Akhand Bharat.) Will the US think about this option? Will India go with it?

Pakistan. Herring. Red.

I doubt India can afford the costs. The opportunity cost is also great. E.g, after Barro-Lee several pages back, I did some digging. Even with rapidly growing secondary school enrollments since 2000, in 2007, in the appropriate age group only about 37-39% of Indian children pass class X. (In absolute numbers each %age point is about 500K children). Indian secondary education has to expand rapidly to keep up as primary enrollment and completion rates increase - the last few years has focused on primary education. It is this school-completed workforce that will keep Indian economic growth rates humming. You don't educate them now, you've lost them, you are not going to accomplish much with adult education. You're not going up in the world if a significant percentage of your population hasn't had at least SSLC/Matric (we're not talking about the +2 in 10+2, those numbers have a even longer way to go. Then there is college.).

To abandon this to engage in a breakup/absorption of Pakistan means

a. losing this generation of children
b. losing the one-time demographic advantage that India theoretically has for the next few decades - because you've left the mass of them uneducated,
c. having to handle another 100 million illiterates from Pakistan.

I think if the nation has to choose educating all its children and reaping the good karma of that at the cost of suffering a Mumbai 26/11 every five years, the nation (much as it will annoy some BRFers) will choose to educate its children.

Can't India do both? I don't think there is any evidence that a country can engage in both the size and duration of conflict that would result in breakup/absorption of Pakistan as well as increase its human development indicators at the rate India needs to. There is a once-in-many-generations opportunity to break out of chronic poverty. Weigh that against an attempt to settle the pest called Pakistan - with no clarity or certainty of the final outcome - (e.g., will absorbed Pakistanis turn non-fundamentalist?).

Moments when destiny can be changed do not come often. Imagine India missed the software train back in 1998-2000. What would be the next opportunity to begin a virtuous cycle of grow,invest,grow? Now multiply that by 100. That is what India loses if it loses focus on what is important. You don't need much more than to attribute Manmohan Singh with enough brains to grasp that much in order to understand his dovish policy. No Indian politician with an iota of brains is going to waste any effort on Pakistan more than is needed for things not to get catastrophically bad.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 26 Sep 2011 10:50

Arun Gupta ji, I agree that going along with such a plan would be sheer suicide for India, even if we had three times higher HDI and three times the GDP we do today.

I don't agree that Manmohan Singh's policies, such as they are, represent a corollary to that statement.

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 26 Sep 2011 10:56

soon expect ISI orchestrated spectacular attack on pakistan to show paki helplessness and we are also victim onleee

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 26 Sep 2011 11:07

India should look forward to dismember Pakistan and try to control whatever remains to further Indian national interests. The trouble in Baluchistan is only going to increase by the day. The Balochis are very passionate about their freedom. India should do whatever it takes to liberate that region from the clutches of Pakistan. We paradrop weapons and provide intel to their fighters, we must raise Balochi voice in the UN and media. We make a complete mess of Pakistani image in the world. The atrocities committed must be highlighted and spread across twitter,facebook and media.

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 26 Sep 2011 11:09

abhijitm wrote:soon expect ISI orchestrated spectacular attack on pakistan to show paki helplessness and we are also victim onleee

There will be an attack but it would be to highlight the unpopularity of the US policies in some quarters of PA(actually most of PA). Hence US should back off, yada yada..

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 26 Sep 2011 12:07

1 US citizen killed, 1 wounded on Sun. evening attack on embassy annex in Afghan capital - official via Reuters

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 26 Sep 2011 12:15

CIA created Haqqani network during Soviet occupation: Pak

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan's interior minister Rehman Malik has contended that the US should share the blame for the rise of the Haqqani network as the CIA created the Taliban faction during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and trained its members.

"The Haqqani network was trained and produced by the CIA," he said. The group did not originate in Pakistan and the US should not now speak about "things which happened 20 years ago", he told reporters during an interaction here on Sunday.

However, he acknowledged that Pakistan had helped the CIA during the war against Soviet forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

The Haqqani network is now present in Afghanistan and "those claiming otherwise should give evidence of its presence in Pakistan," Malik claimed. "We will fight the terrorists as our forces are capable of handling them and countering any challenge," he said.

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 26 Sep 2011 12:17

Ex-Afghan Minister: Pressure On ISI To End Ties With Terror Groups

"The U.S. has issued its strongest statement yet to Pakistan's ISI on its ties with the Taliban and Haqqani groups," said Jalali, who served as Afghan defense and interior minister from 2003-2005. "It is a clear message to Pakistan that it can no longer continue its current strategy in Afghanistan."

Mullen on September 22 accused the ISI of aiding the Haqqani network in planning and executing last week's attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Kabul. He said the Pakistani government had used the Haqqani network and other terrorist groups as its proxies in Afghanistan.

Mullen said Pakistan had chosen to "use violent extremism as an instrument of policy," adding that "by exporting violence, they have eroded their internal security and their position in the region. They have undermined their international credibility and threatened their economic well-being."

Jalali said "Pakistan has to come to terms [with the fact] that it cannot get what it wants in Afghanistan through violence and hard power. It must open up to diplomatic channels and use avenues such as the current peace council to state its concerns and ideas."

RajeshG · Post by **RajeshG** » 26 Sep 2011 12:20

Pakis seem to be having another identity crisis.

The 3 mai-baaps of TSP (Allah, Army, Amrika) are becoming possesive of TSP and seem to be duking it out amongst themselves.

In the long run , imo , Allah stands the best chance of having TSP all for himself. TSP Is for/by/of Allah and without Allah TSP cant exist. I am betting on Allah.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 26 Sep 2011 12:51

I am cross-posting below from another thread on "Managing Pak."

Right now,the window of opportunity exists for the US to "tame Pak".Its perfidy has reached breaking point.It is not that the US has not known for aeons about Pak's duplicity,but the hurt that the ISI/Pak is causing the US right now reeling from unfinished wars in the Islamic world,an economic crisis and the next pres.election campaign underway,requires that Pak either "comes to heel" like an obedient dog,or needs to be put into the kennel.I would go even further and say that if the dog is indeed "rabid",as it is displaying such tendencies to bite the hand that feeds it,then it must be put down!

In fact,Pak has been rabid for a very long time.Various cures of expensive imported dogfood,juicy bones,plus neighbour's ankles to chew upon were sanctioned by Uncle Sam,who turned a blind eye to whom the rabid dog was biting as long as it was not any of his subjects! This rabid monster,whose teeth have been honed upon the arms provided by Uncle Sam and the food that has fattened the Paki state,especially the crore commanders,has now turned upon his principal master.The master is now faced with an acute dilemma,whether the cur can be saved and tamed or whether even more drastic action is needed.The cur can either be sterilised through castration of its radioactive b*lls,so that its violent tendencies may be curbed considerably-a great relief to the neighbourhood and afar,as further fornciating with pariah b*tches might spread the disease even to the uttermost corners of civilisation,or be put down once and for all,a "final solution".Strangely,the manner in which the dog behaves (will it bite or just bark?),will determine its future.

To avoid such a final solution and even castration,the cur might try and create havoc in the neighbourhood.It can cause through its companion rabid animals in Af-Pak,even more assassinations and attacks in Afghanistan,as well as conducting more assaults upon the Indian people,to divert attention and open up new fronts to complicate Uncle Sam's command to it.In the ultimate analysis,perhaps both castration and a putting-down is needed,as the rabid germs of the Paki N-state cannot be allowed to infect the planet,and afterwards,the "final solution".

What did Pres.Nixon once supposedly say? "When you have their **** in your hand and squeeze,they'll come around". The US can emulate Nixon's tactics and bring Pak to heel.That both nations are heading for a showdown has been inevitable for a very long time.One cannot hunt with the hounds and hide with the hares as Pak has successfully done for decades.Despite hiccups now and again,Indo-US relations have improved enormously especially economically.The US no longer views India through the prism of the Cold War.

Having now openly declared Pak to be the equivalent of an "offender",if I was the US president,I would immediately take out not the Haqqani's et al,but the entire Paki N-arsenal,which the ISI will happily hand over to its partners in terrorist crime,the jihadi movements,who have an international dimension.The spectre of the next attack on US soil from an Islamist terror organisation using a Paki nuke is simply unaccepable to any nation,leave alone the US.It is therefore "time to draw the curtain" on Pakistan.That is the only way in which Pak can be "handled".Come on Obama,first squeeze hard and then if nothing happens,take Pak out!

PS:The cur has begun to bite!:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... Kabul.html

Building used by CIA attacked in Kabul
A building used by the CIA in Kabul came under attack on Sunday, US and Afghan officials said, the latest in a series of attacks in the Afghan capital.
25 Sep 2011
Afghan authorities said gunfire was heard in the evening near the Ariana Hotel, a building that former US intelligence officials said was the CIA station in Kabul. The CIA occupied the heavily secured building just blocks from the Afghan presidential palace in late 2001 after the US-led invasion that toppled the Taliban.

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 26 Sep 2011 12:59

The Balochistan once was a free and sovereign country, on August 11,1947, the British acceded control of Balochistan to the ruler of Balochistan, Mir Ahmad Yar Khan - the Khan of Kalat. The Khan immediately declared the independence of Balochistan, and Mohammad Ali Jinnah signed the proclamation of Balochistan’s sovereignty under the Khan. The New York Times reported on August 12, 1947: “Under the agreement, Pakistan recognizes Kalat as an independent sovereign state with a status different from that of the Indian States. An announcement from New Delhi said that Kalat, Moslem State in Baluchistan, has reached an agreement with Pakistan for free flow of communications and commerce, and would negotiate for decisions on defense, external affairs and communications.” The next day, the NY Times even printed a map of the world showing Balochistan as a fully independent country.

On August 15, 1947 the Khan of Kalat addressed a large gathering in Kalat and formally declared the full independence of Balochistan, and proclaimed the 15th day of August a day of celebration. The Khan formed the lower and upper house of Kalat Assembly, and during the first meeting of the Lower House in early September 1947, the Assembly confirmed the independence of Balochistan. Jinnah tried to persuade the Khan to join Pakistan, but the Khan and both Houses of the Kalat Assembly refused. The Pakistani army then invaded Balochistan on March 27th, 1948, and imprisoned all members of the Kalat Assembly. India stood by silently. Lord Mountbatten, Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru or Maulana Azad, then the president of India’s Congress Party said nothing about the illegal occupation of Balochistan. Since the illegal occupation of Baloch land,Pakistan’s military is continuously trying to silent the voices of Balochistan’s freedom by the force of guns,tanks,fighter jets in all the other possible brutal ways.

Nawab Babu Nauroz Khan waged an arm struggle along with thousands of Baloch tribesman for the liberation of Balochistan.But on May 15,1959 the Pakistani wicked rulers betrayed the Babu Nauroz through an oath on the holy Quran that Pakistan will settle all the Baloch grievances.However,when Nawab Nowroz Khan came down from the hills, he and about 150 of his followers, including his sons and nephews, were arrested for armed rebellion against the state. On July 15, 1960 five of the leaders were executed by hanging in Hyderabad Jail.Nawab Nauroz Khan was spared execution on account of his age, but died in Jail in 1964.

The co-operation of Shah-e-Iran Raza Shah Pahlavi with Z.A Bhutto to crush the Baloch Uprising in 1973-77, when the Shah of Iran provided Pakistan with cobra helicopters, Iranian pilots and $700 million dollar in cash.In this deadly operation an estimately 15,000-25,000 Baloch tribesmen were killed,livestocks,fields,houses were destroyed by the joint aggression of Pakistan and Iran,and thousands took refuge to Afghanistan. The Pakistani state has been using regular troops and paramilitary forces against Baloch civilians.The region has been highly militarized, as Pakistani occupiers established one paramilitary post for every 500 people.There are four mega military cantonments, 52 paramilitary cantonments, five naval bases including Jinnah naval base in Ormara district Gwadar and six missile-testing ranges in Balochistan.

On 17th March 2005, Pakistan's Paramilitary Forces,Started Shelling the town of Dera Bugti,more than 60 Civilians were killed in this indiscriminate Bombardment, among them 33 Hindus killed and 19 were children. On 17 December 2005, paramilitary forces began aerial bombardment at Kohlu.By mid-June 2006, about 400 to 500 innocent Baloch people were killed in the army operations including in air raids in Balochistan, especially in Marri and Bugti areas.About 80 to 85% of those either killed or injured were women and children.The fighting caused widespread damage to buildings, and 85 percent people of Dera Bugti were forced to flee the town.

The Pakistani Air Force chief Tanwir Mahmood Ahmed stated that the air force would continue to be used whenever and wherever the government desired. According to the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) that Pakistani soldiers arrested four people on April 5 2008, in the Dera Bugti district of Balochistan, and subjected them to torture.They were asked to identify local supporters of the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA). After failing to get any names from them, the victims were immersed in scorching hot coal tar. Three of the men were literally boiled and burned to death. A fourth died later from his injuries.Villagers in the area also claim the Pakistan army used a form of chemical gas against them and that some of the gassed survivors were later shot. So far,according to one estimate about 8000 people, including men, women and children, have been abducted by Pakistani security forces from various parts of Balochistan.

Pakistan has used all brutal ways to stop the Baloch freedom movement but Baloch nation is courageously facing all the brutalities of occupying state but not withdrawing from the national cause of independence.Pakistan now using her last method to suppress the struggle like did in Bangladesh by the ‘’Al-Shams’’ &’’Al-Badar’’ now these death squads are re-introduced in Balochistan by new names in order to hide her crimes.Pakistani military intelligence agencies ISI,MI,IB and Frontier Core are abducting the Baloch students,political workers,human right activists,journalists from every corner of Balochistan,like from colleges,houses,hospitals,highways.Pakistan military has kept all abducted persons in secret torture cells,and every week killing 8-10 of the Baloch youths and throwing their brutally tortured bullet riddled bodies in deserts and mountains,most of the dead bodies are not recognizable as flesh been eaten by wild animals.

The “custodial killings toll” has crossed the figure of “130” in a time span of only 10 months and exactly same numbers of Baloch youths has been abducted again. Pakistan military fighter jets and gunship helicopters still bombing,shelling the Dera Bugti, Kohlu, Mashkay, Mand town of Balochistan but unfortunately still a ‘’flyzone’’ for Pakistan Airforce, as lives of Baloch are not worthy. It’s the morale duty of all those champions of human rights who are crying for the human lives in Somalia,Egypt,Libya must play their role to save Baloch nation from the Pakistan military butchers.Infact Pakistan is an ally of US in ‘’War Against Terrorism’’ but we Baloch need world support in ‘’War Against Pakistani State Terrorism in Balochistan’’.

As an occupied & oppressed Nation, we have every right to be free, independent & sovereign, freedom is our basic right as nation according to international law of UNO. It is high time for the UN now to recognize Balochistan as an occupied country and Baloch Nation as an occupied Nation. UN should pass resolutions against Pakistan & Iran if she doesn't stop the massacre of Baloch Nation. Balochistan issue must be resolved according UN charter of Rights. Baloch need their sovereign country back and International Community must come to the aid of Baloch Nation to help Baloch achieve their goal (Independent Balochistan). We also appeal to Human rights organizations and international communities to pressure UN against the human rights violation in Occupied Balochistan by Pakistani and Iran, UN must act high time now against Pakistan's crimes against humanity in occupied Balochistan and should support the Independence of Balochistan.
A Baloch.

sum · Post by **sum** » 26 Sep 2011 13:02

Reads almost like a BRF article by Rajeev Sreenivasan in rediff:
Afghan endgame: As Americans retreat, India needs plan B

Two singular events took place recently that lead me to believe that the unthinkable has finally happened: the Americans have lost the Afghan war.

First was the assassination of Burhanuddin Rabbani, former president of Afghanistan, and chairman of the High Peace Council attempting to reach a negotiated settlement with the Taliban.

Second was the explicit accusation by Admiral Mike Mullen, the outgoing American Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that Pakistan's Inter Services Inteligence was behind the recent, audacious attack on the US embassy in Kabul (the assault was rather too professional and well-planned for non-State actors to have done it).

Things are so bad that the New York Times, which is essentially the voice of the US establishment and therefore generally supportive of Pakistan, has seen fit to thunder in an editorial titled The Latest Ugly Truth About Pakistan that something must be done. They stopped short of specifying what that something might be.

There is an irony somewhere in the fact that the ISI has comprehensively hoodwinked the Americans into (unwittingly?) funding the ISI's attacks on American interests, not to mention their troops. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the ISI had a hand in planning the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Centre: they are good at tactical support for large-scale operations, such as the 11/26 siege of Mumbai and the assault in the heart of Kabul where operatives held security forces off for 20 hours.

It is remarkable how the ISI has mesmerised the Americans. The metaphor that comes to mind is that apocryphal tale of how a cobra can hypnotise its prey into paralysis before it strikes. It is a thing of wonder, this willing suspension of disbelief by the Americans in the face of Pakistan's diplomatic theatre.

It is widely known that the ISI's allies, ranging from Gulbuddin Hekmatyar to the Haqqani Network, had benefited greatly from CIA largesse during the Soviet Afghan campaign. Hekmatyar, now a sworn enemy of the Americans, alone is said to have receive 40 per cent of all the millions the CIA invested in overthrowing the Soviet-installed Najibullah regime.

The Haqqani Network was once lionised by Americans, one of whose politicians went so far as to claim that Jalaluddin Haqqani was the "very picture of goodness", according to Praveen Swami ('Pakistan, US and the immoderate Taliban', The Hindu, September 22). Now the Haqqanis, fairly or unfairly, are being blamed for every attack on NATO targets in Afghanistan. It is likely that 'Haqqani Network' simply means 'ISI'.

As early as November 2001, during the first part of the Afghan campaign, it was obvious that what was being marketed as the 'Taliban' was basically officers of the ISI and the Pakistani Army, who had merely exchanged their khakis for baggy pants and black turbans, and grown beards.

During the siege of Kunduz, when the Northern Alliance were on the verge of overrunning a fort where the 'Taliban' were cornered, the CIA allowed the Pakistanis to airlift a thousand of them, who it turned out were brigadiers and colonels in the ISI and the Pakistani Army.

Thus, the ISI has mastered the fine art of running with the hares and hunting with the hounds; the Americans have been turned into patsies. The net result is that after a trillion dollars and thousands of dead troops, America has been defeated by a so-called ally. (Although American analysts are now belatedly pointing out that the 'alliance' was a figment of somebody's febrile imagination.)

The Pakistanis have achieved their coveted 'strategic depth' in Afghanistan which is, in effect, their colony. True, there has been some cost to them in civilian casualties and the Frankenstein monster of internal terrorism, but that is collateral damage the Army is willing to accept in the pursuit of their strategic goals.

And true, this may turn out to a Pyrrhic victory because they may not be able to contain Pashtun nationalism and disdain for the Durand Line forever: there will almost certainly be a Pashtun nation at some point, and possibly Baluch and Sindh nations. Nevertheless, it is a signal victory: this is the second superpower in a row that they have defeated.

The jihadist terrorists of the ISI, once they have gotten rid of the Americans, will have a field day with India: they would have taken a big step, with the annexation of Afghanistan, towards their age-old fantasy of a fundamentalist emirate in the region with Islamabad as its capital. They will be even more triumphalist and will plan regular terrorist attacks on India.

India's options are limited. India's only ally in the region has been the Northern Alliance; with Massoud and now Rabbani gone, the best bet still are the Panjshiri Tajiks, who held out in their mountain fastness against the Soviets and later the Taliban, and whom the Pakistanis loathe. India should not be led down the garden path again by ideas of amity and friendship with the Taliban.

The Taliban has shown bad faith again and again. First, they assassinated the generally wary Massoud on the eve of 9/11 using suicide bombers masquerading as cameramen interviewing him. The bomb was in the camera. Then, despite the olive branches held out, they betrayed a hapless India in the Kandahar hijacking incident. Now, in the pretext of peace talks, they assassinated Rabbani. None of this should be surprising, as the Taliban have learned at the ISI school of international relations.

Further, India should learn to impose some pain on the ISI. The problem is that they know they can do pretty much anything to India, and that there are no consequences: the worst India will do is to dossier-bomb them. There are many ways in which India could possibly impose salutary pain in response; one might well be to arm separatists with weapons with Chinese markings. (That would only be fair: the Chinese have been sending fake drugs to Africa marked 'Made in India').

Another would be to foment uprisings among the various restive minority populations. But then, in a fit of misguided goodwill, a previous prime minister emasculated RAW's presence in Pakistan. I wonder if informants' names were even leaked out.

India should try to make sure that it has a Plan B to increase its relevance in a post-American scenario. As things stand, despite the millions India has invested, Pakistan is running away with the prize.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 26 Sep 2011 13:11

Rudradev ji,

The costs to USA in attacking Pakistan are in fact the lowest - lower than Afghanistan, lower than Iraq.

The case is made that USA has to do nation-building in Pakistan, that US will be forced to do nation-building in Pakistan in order to support its stooges there. This would be the case if one wants to subdue to region completely. But should that be a mission goal?

There is no need for either USA or India to want to subdue the whole of Pakistan. There is a monster living in Pakistan. Let the monster live on there! All we need to do is to ensure that the monster doesn't get much to eat, that the monster cannot get out of his cave, that the monster is otherwise distracted by having the monster fight with his brother, monster II! That is all! We don't need to adopt the monster, we don't need to reform the monster, or let the monster live in our homes! We only need to constrain the monster's ability to hurt us - US and India.

USA and India have 4 Goals in Pakistan:

Denuke Pakistan
Tear Pakistan's Strategic Arms Away - Baluchistan, Southern Sindh, PoK
Create a Schism Between Pushtuns and Pakjabis
Degrade TSPA's military capacity

There is no need for USA or India to try to set up a puppet regime in Pakjab or even Pushtunistan. All we need to ensure is that whichever hostile regime comes up there, it is always under attack from other claimants to power, and as such does not have the time to indulge in hostilities.

Now which one of the above goals would be financially unbearable? It is almost all breaking, no building!

The monetary benefits are immense for both India and USA. What does India get?

Full freedom to dictate India's Agenda towards the Muslim World
Reduced Threat of Nuclear Attack
India gets access to the natural resources of Iran and Central Asia at a reduced cost
Much Reduced Enemy, India does not need a huge conventional force in the West, and we can concentrate on the North
Baluchistan, Southern-Sindh and Gilgit-Baltistan are integrated into India, thus increasing our area, two areas (Baluchistan and Gilgit-Baltistan contributing small populations with respect to area, and South-Sindh contributing an important port - Karachi)

India's cost come in providing border security to Baluchistan, Southern Sindh and Gilgit-Baltistan, which may not be much more than what we pay today!

What does USA get?

Reduced Threat of Nuclear Attack
Free Transit to and from Central Asia through Baluchistan (Can be agreed in a treaty)
Jihadis in the region losing out on their Freedom of Movement (air, sea, land), thus Reduced Terror Threat

The cost may not go beyond a 100 billion USD borne by both India and USA! That is of course if we manage to get all the nukes!

Kapil · Post by **Kapil** » 26 Sep 2011 13:53

Can we really look into the feasibility of this?I mean if this was so simple,we could have done this already in the week after 26/11 when the world had become or pretended to become a Mumbaikar. Assuming the Pakis roll over and give up--will China let this happen?heck,will the other saarc countries who hate our big brother attitude let this happen?

And integrating Baluchis,Sindhis,Punjabis is not going to be easy-I mean we can't even handle central India and north east India and we are planning to add the North West to our headaches? And all this when our best managerial,technical talent does not want to join the armed forces and wants to go abroad and settle in apparently economically doldrummed western countries.

We need to build up ourselves to a level that the talented,honest,sincere hardworkers want to become Indians willingly rather than being forced to do so.

rajpa · Post by **rajpa** » 26 Sep 2011 13:56

Manny wrote:OK..if not Baluchistan, the US can offer to bring the Pashtoons into one country. Divide up Afghanistan. Afghanistan (Northern part including Kabul) and Pastooinstan. The Pashtoons may like it. The Talibans (Mullah Omar) could buy it.

This may bring the Pakistan Army/ISI to be "reasonable"?

US can do this. All they have to do is to "recognize" that the Taliban are in revolt due to the issue of the Durand Line not being sorted out - and can offer to unite Pashtun lands for Afghans.

The "reasonable" border agreement between TSP and A'stan can be brokered post-haste so as to bring all of the North/South Waziristan under the Afghan landmass - which will be very useful to root out the Haqqanis, without violating TSP sovirginity. Wow what a great deal!

panda · Post by **panda** » 26 Sep 2011 14:27

Despite all the noises from the US, I am inclined to believe the members here who think that nothing will change between US and Pakis. It appears that neither party is interested in the long-term picture. That is why I believe that nothing earth-shattering is going to take place.

Probably, Pakis will convince US that the time is not ripe for attacking the Haqqanis and that they are overstretched. (They may even convince the US to press India to settle Cashmere so that they have spare troops to attack the terrorists.) So, the Pakis will plead that Khan should give them more time to deal with Haqqanis and they can promise to discourage the terrorists from attacking the Khan army in the mean time. This will make both parties happy and they will kiss each other passionately in public, untill the next major terrorist attack.

This cycle of terrorist attack --> shrill rhetoric --> kiss and make up is time tested and proven. Pakis have done that to India and they will do it to Khanlanders as well.