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

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Post by shiv »

parsuram wrote:They can go after the paki army the same way - from the air, against known paki army installations. and in the air, the US is king. Against anyone. Paki cantonements will be sitting ducks. Known paki army installations will be wiped out. They will have trouble meeting any place. The US will go after the paki army/airforce/navy with a ferocity they have not experienced before - not even from the Indians. And they will go after them in 1s and 2s. They will destroy their infra structure before they touch anything else. Thing is, a balkans type war against the paki army will decimate it. Their tech level is primitive compared to the americans; and most of it is from the US anyway - so they know their way around it. The paki should check with the serbs on how that war went.
Parsuram, that is what the US did to Afghanistan. Then what? "Asymmetric warfare" is a fancy expression for a failed state with Somalia type rebels fighting. The Pakis have already checked with the Somalis about how they sent the US packing. This is what Pakistan will sink into. The Pakistan military is openly thumbing its nose at the US and saying if you destroy us you will have uncontrollable jihadis to mop up in a totally failed Pakistan after we the military are destroyed by you.

That is why the US is paralysed between helping the Paki army and not helping. The US is not winning in Afghanistan because it needs boots on the ground. With no boots on the ground they will never win in Pakistan. The Pakis won't win. But the US won't win either. The capability of the US military is unusable against the Pakistan army because the US is afraid of what will come if they destroy the Pak army. So the US negotiates. That US military capability is like a gleam in a lover's eye of children he could have if only he had the woman he admires. It ain't gonna get used against Pakistan. And the Pakis know it.
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Post by Lalmohan »

if one accepts that the consequence of a failed pakistan is bad, regardless of how pakistan is made to fail. then the only option left is to keep hoping for soft change with civllian governments. since the pak_civils are as rabid as the pak_mils there doesn't seem to be much hope
unkil is caught in a faustian dilemma, and the paks will milk it for handouts - and we will be caught up in the wheels
i dont think that the jarnails have the cojones to actually take on leadership of the khilafat jihad, no matter how much they salivate over the thought of defeating two-two supah-pawah's - but that is exactly what a visionary leader of the ummah would do now
perhaps the analogy here is of unkil trying to insert graphite rods into a rapidly heating reactor core in order to prevent a meltdown...?
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12122
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Post by A_Gupta »

^^^ perfect!
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12122
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Post by A_Gupta »

Shiv, who wants to invade Pakistan?
parsuram
BRFite
Posts: 366
Joined: 31 May 2002 11:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Post by parsuram »

Pratyush wrote:The Interesting question is WHY some Iranian tried to kill the Saudi Ambassador to the US?

As some one on the this thread said, "just like clock work"
Yes, a half witted iranian is in custody, but one wonders a) how did this dimwit get into the position of being able to assasinate the Saudi Ambassador and b) what was the infrastructure that allowed him to get in that position in the first place. The question has to be asked as to whether this guy was a patsy, and that the real assasin(s) may not have been iranians at all. That our favorate conspiracy buffs, from the paki were responsible for a real live conspiracy to assasinate the saudi, and have the blame go to the iranians, using this half witted iranian to do it. They have much to gain in this.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Post by RajeshA »

shiv wrote:That is why the US is paralysed between helping the Paki army and not helping. The US is not winning in Afghanistan because it needs boots on the ground. With no boots on the ground they will never win in Pakistan. The Pakis won't win. But the US won't win either. The capability of the US military is unusable against the Pakistan army because the US is afraid of what will come if they destroy the Pak army. So the US negotiates. That US military capability is like a gleam in a lover's eye of children he could have if only he had the woman he admires. It ain't gonna get used against Pakistan. And the Pakis know it.
Gift the ground to the Indians. No ground, no jihadis on the ground! No jihadis on the ground, no need for boots on the ground!
CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6865
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Post by CRamS »

Pratyush wrote:The Interesting question is WHY some Iranian tried to kill the Saudi Ambassador to the US?

As some one on the this thread said, "just like clock work"
Slow news season boss. Will also give a chance to all & sundry, including Fox news bimbos to flaunt their foreign policy "expertise". But if you watch US "news" for some 10-minute entertrainment over dinner like I do, you'll find that ObamaJi & Co need to find an easy foreign policy target to show thier toughness in a slow economy which his rvails have latched on to. Also keeps the potent Jewish lobby on his side. Classic case of how every US govt, republican or deomcrat, uses its mouthpiece media. Notice how instantly TSP evaporated from the headines. Media handlers in the govt stopped feeding tit-bits about TSP and media goes siklent. Until the next cycle.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Post by shiv »

A_Gupta wrote:Shiv, who wants to invade Pakistan?
Depends on whom you ask I guess.

If you ask Pakis esp the military they will say "India". But any attempt at a complete subjugation of Pakistan (a completely hypothetical and paranoid delusion expressed only by Pakis) will require invading troops on Pakistani soil. Anyone who might even have a bad dream about invading Pakistan will realise this as soon as he wakes up and will not invade.

But more seriously, Parsuram painted a military picture of a US defeating Pakistan like they did the Serbs. There are huge problems in that analogy simply because the US will have no onshore bases to do that to Pakistan and Pakistan is a much much bigger country. Even the theory of doing a Serbia to Pakistan will require US invading and holding Pakistani territory apart from resuorces bigger than was required for Saddam. And that gets us back to delusion/bad dream.

No one is going to be invading Pakistan any time soon. That makes the question of who will "govern" Pakistan moot. Right now the Pakistan army is the most powerful goon even if he does not control much of Pakistan. He (the military) simply corners all possible resources that he can get hold of, by business or aid or crime. But he (the military) is unable to "govern" using the usual means because there is no taxation and no flow of funds to the government in the usual way.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Post by shiv »

Lalmohan wrote:if one accepts that the consequence of a failed pakistan is bad, regardless of how pakistan is made to fail. then the only option left is to keep hoping for soft change with civllian governments. since the pak_civils are as rabid as the pak_mils there doesn't seem to be much hope
The Pakistani civilian "leaders" have always been subverted by the army. Leaders who became genuinely politically powerful have always been subverted leaving puppets and a few goons who have some independent support, but never enough to take on the army.

I may be mistaken, but here is one area where the US may actually be exerting control on Pakistan. It is possible that aid to the Pakistani military is informally linked to keeping a civilian government in power, no matter how bad it is. The problem with this theory is that it ascribes to the US altruistic motives. Why would it be in US interest to pressure the Pakistan army to keep corrupt civvies in power?
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Post by Lalmohan »

^^^ they have been fooled again into believing that the RAPEs are not rabid beardies and will do what america wants
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Post by RamaY »

We have the following axioms so far -

Axiom 1 - Muslims are not a monolithic force and Islam is not an unifying factor.
Axiom 2 - Majority of Pakistanis are dirt poor so are busy earning their next meal. The religious zealots are minority.
Axiom 3 - Poverty breeds resentment and terrorists (goes against Axiom 2 but what the hell)
Axiom 4 - Pakistani Military is the only surviving institution and have the highest capability/acceptability to govern
Axiom 5 - Pakistan cannot be invaded by any country because it is a large country and have large population
Axiom 6 - Pakistan military is islamists/jihadis (high-ranking/low-ranking) in uniform so it doesn't make much difference if Pakistan is overtly Talibanized (my axiom).
Axiom 7 - Pakistan has nukes.


Pls add if I missed any.

Given this, the best solution is to destroy Pakistani Army capabilities. Snatch its nukes, destroy its air force, navy and heavy weaponry. It should be cut to Taliban size - Lots of guns and small artillery but few tanks and no missiles. DO NOT INVADE AND HOLD THE GROUND.

The next step will be warlord-ism.

This will ensure that Pakistan is not a world problem but a local problem. There is too much karma to be paid so leave it in that state for few decades.
symontk
BRFite
Posts: 920
Joined: 01 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Bangalore

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Post by symontk »

Even for US to attack Pakistan, it needs the Indian bases. Since India has policy of not staging any foreigen military on its soil, it is a kind of help to Pakistan. I believe even in the latest "showdown" between US and Pakistan, US realized the importance of Indian stance and backed out

So no one is going to attack Pakistan from south. Only country capable of attacking Pakistan is India. If you stretch that further maybe Russia, but no other country. I am not counting China as they are friendly with Pakistan

Otherwise things in Iran should change in US favour. Not sure how that is going to happen in near future
Virupaksha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3110
Joined: 28 Jun 2007 06:36

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Post by Virupaksha »

symontk wrote:Even for US to attack Pakistan, it needs the Indian bases. Since India has policy of not staging any foreigen military on its soil, it is a kind of help to Pakistan. I believe even in the latest "showdown" between US and Pakistan, US realized the importance of Indian stance and backed out

So no one is going to attack Pakistan from south. Only country capable of attacking Pakistan is India. If you stretch that further maybe Russia, but no other country. I am not counting China as they are friendly with Pakistan

Otherwise things in Iran should change in US favour. Not sure how that is going to happen in near future
if they really want it (and are not afraid), how much time will it take to effect a beach head?? Pakistan is required for afghanistan because it doesnt have shore. Why does India have to have foreign military on its soil for US attacking Pakistan
symontk
BRFite
Posts: 920
Joined: 01 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Bangalore

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Post by symontk »

Yes beach head is an option, if US can market the killing of all Pakistanis in that beachhead in a better way

and not that they cant do it, given the experience of OIL (Operation Iraqi Liberation)
Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Post by Cosmo_R »

shiv wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:Shiv, who wants to invade Pakistan?
But more seriously, Parsuram painted a military picture of a US defeating Pakistan like they did the Serbs. There are huge problems in that analogy simply because the US will have no onshore bases to do that to Pakistan and Pakistan is a much much bigger country. Even the theory of doing a Serbia to Pakistan will require US invading and holding Pakistani territory apart from resuorces bigger than was required for Saddam. A........................
Just curious about this scenario:

1. 4 CVNs (200 strike a/c)
2. SSGNs (300 Tomahawks)
3. Beachhead http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwadar_Int ... al_Airport
4. Qatar USAFB http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Udeid_Air_Base'
5. Bahrain Naval Base http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Fifth_Fleet

-Occupy Gwadar
-Offshore logistics support

It's not capability that's lacking. It's the will. The US does not need India to take down the PA/F/N
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Post by Lalmohan »

i think that a scenario where TSPA/F/N are obliterated by air - atleast all formal command and control centres and heavy weapons with only rag tag infantry left behind is a good outcome. close borders, impose sanctions, and let the survivors duke it out. the only thing that prevents this is sufficient ambiguity about the whereabouts of pakistan's warheads and my genuine fear as to what will happen to the minorities. i do not believe that the paks are nooknood, and i do believe that unkil has control over some of them - probably explains why dragon is keen to build them more. the secret shadow war between eagle and dragon is being fought in pakistan. i expect PLA Spec. Forces are probably actively snooping on unkil in afghanistan from their new bases in POK
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Post by shiv »

Cosmo_R wrote:
Just curious about this scenario:

1. 4 CVNs (200 strike a/c)
2. SSGNs (300 Tomahawks)
3. Beachhead http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwadar_Int ... al_Airport
4. Qatar USAFB http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Udeid_Air_Base'
5. Bahrain Naval Base http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Fifth_Fleet

-Occupy Gwadar
-Offshore logistics support

It's not capability that's lacking. It's the will. The US does not need India to take down the PA/F/N
It certainly is the will that is lacking although I think the US does not have the capability to take on Pakistan except with nukes.. The list above is insufficient to defeat Pakistan. Beat up. Yes. defeat. No, For a country the size of Cuba that might be enough. Not Pakistan. The list of forces above is peanuts to take Pakistan.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9289
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Post by Amber G. »

RCase wrote:
Other measures approved by the meeting included closure of marriage halls at 10 p.m. across the country and encouraging the use of energy savers instead of bulbs.
Is that supposed to be Djinn technology or vacuum technology or candles? I have heard of energy efficient bulbs/ CFL/ LED etc., but energy savers instead of bulbs? :D
This may be of help:
...The title frame has already gone past your eyes, so let’s begin with a room temperature of 20 degrees, white energy savers, blue walls, dead paper lamps, and a woman singing “I’m searching a way, .....
Image
From:Pakistan Daily Times Current & Breaking News TV Online: The woman who wasn’t there
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Post by RajeshA »

Saddam too had a big army. Against overwhelming air superiority and the shock and awe firepower, all that doesn't stand a chance. Americans can in fact bomb Pakistan into the stone age, where TSPA would be left with only automatic weapons, grenades, rocket launchers and IEDology!

If Americans and Indians want, we can take over 40% of their somewhat thinner settled territory, or areas with minorities who hate Pakjabis! Another 25% of the territory can be separated into another state. leaving Pakistan with just 35% of its former territory. We can cut off Jihadis from the rest of the world - no sea routes, no air routes, and all land routes patrolled by allied countries - Northern Alliance, CARs, Russia!

Then one can attack the various dens of jihadis with special forces, every now and then and fly out! Pakistan would be dead! Americans and Indians only need to build some trust and agree on the operation! It would save Americans hundreds of billions of dollars, that they have been throwing out of the window in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The motto is:
1) Denuke Pakistan
2) Destroy all Pakistani Military assets
3) Divest Pakistan of Periphery.
4) Hold no Enemy territory!
Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Post by Rangudu »

The N.Waziristan drone strike has indeed supposed to have killed the No.3 man of the Haqqanis - Jan Baz Zadran. FYI, Siraj is the #1 man and Mullah Sangeen Zadran is #2. Jan Baz is the boss of Haji Mali Khan, the guy who was arrested last week. He is also a key mastermind of extortion from timber companies and kidnapping of TSP people for ransom revenues.

I'd not be surprised in Mali Khan was persuaded :D to reveal Jan Baz's location.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59808
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Post by ramana »

How does one know if this isn't Hackany #3.141.... No chain of command or org chart was published by usual suspects like Asia Times!

For all we know it could be a bakra for Wrath of Khan.
Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Post by Rangudu »

Ramana

There's actually a lot of credible work done on the Haqqanis. See this report for example:

http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/ ... ristan.pdf

Search for "Jan Baz". The few people that do know something about the Haqqanis say that between Mali Khan and Jan Baz, 2 of the innermost leadership team members are out. The Haqqanis are an all family operation, unlike Al Qaeda. If you kill enough senior figures, they will negotiate for preservation of the family maal. All Unkil needed was a foot in the door - one reliable informant.

My take is that Unkil will have to kill Sirajuddin, his step-brother Badruddin and Mullah Sangeen before the rest of the regular criminal type elder family members sue for peace.
Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Post by Rangudu »

BTW, the US' "most wanted" list - created long ago - has Jan Baz as the Number 3 most wanted in the Haqqani Network. See http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/ ... e_most.php
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Post by Prem »

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ac6894dc ... z1acwM8POb
Pakistan economy starts to unravel

. Pakistan enjoyed something of a boom after Pervez Musharraf, the former president, aligned with the US in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, winning debt relief and aid that helped push GDP growth to 7 per cent.The picture has since darkened, with a combination of inflation, insurgency, power cuts and floods cutting growth to 2.4 per cent in the last financial year.Top financial officials have rotated frequently since Mr Zardari’s government took power in 2008. Relations with the International Monetary Fund have been rocky – the fund suspended disbursement of an $11bn facility in May last year after the government failed to broaden Pakistan’s tiny tax base.The concern among economists is that the government will resort to printing more money to finance its growing deficit – which has hit 6.6 per cent of GDP – raising the risk of sharply higher inflation next year.Pakistani officials argue that the economy has shown a degree of resilience, supported by healthy flows of remittances and $18.2bn of foreign reserves. The central bank took the bold step of cutting interest rates by 1.5 per cent on Saturday in an attempt to spur growth.But critics say the government’s failure to tackle the energy crisis is symptomatic of a broader reluctance to enact tough reforms.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Post by svinayak »

similar to above ^^

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/10/11/with ... who-needs/
Like a vampire which preys on others because it lacks the means to produce its own blood, Pakistan is instinctively driven to survive through terrorism, and to seek the company of those who practice it, because Pakistan was born with fundamental flaws. These flaws actually date back to events which occurred over a century before Pakistan's birth.


In 1839, the British Empire sought to expand the borders of its colony of British India, by launching a war of conquest against the neighboring Pashtuns. The Pashtuns, as a fiercely independent tribal warrior people, resisted ferociously, so that the British conquest of them was not successful. The British were only able to conquer part of the Pashtun territory, and even that remained in constant rebellion against them. Meanwhile, the remaining unconquered portion of Pashtun territory became the nucleus for the formation of Afghanistan. In 1893, the British imposed a ceasefire line on the Afghans called the Durand Line, which separated British-controlled territory from Afghan territory. The local people on the ground however never recognized this line, which merely existed on a map, and not on the ground.


In 1947, when the colony of British India achieved independence and was simultaneously partitioned into Pakistan and India, the Pakistanis wanted the conquered Pashtun territory to go to them, since the Pashtuns were Muslims. Given that the Pashtuns never recognized British authority over them to begin with, the Pakistanis had tenuous relations with the Pashtuns and were consumed by fears of Pashtun secession.


When Pakistan applied to join the UN in 1947, there was only one country which voted against it. No, it wasn't India - it was Pashtun-ruled Afghanistan which voted against Pakistan's admission, on the grounds that Pakistan was in illegal occupation of Pashtun lands stolen by the British. Their vote was cast on September 30, 1947 and is an historical fact.


In 1948, in the nearby state of Kashmir, its Hindu princely ruler and Muslim political leader joined hands in deciding to make Kashmir an independent country rather than joining either Pakistan or India. Pakistan's leadership were immediately terrified of this precedent, fearing that the Pashtuns would soon follow suit and also declare their own ethnically independent state. In order to pre-empt that and prevent it from happening, Pakistan's founder and leader Mohammad Ali Jinnah quickly decided to raise the cry of "Hindu treachery against the Muslims" and despatched hordes of armed Pashtun tribesmen to attack Kashmir. This was his way of distracting the Pashtuns from their own ethnic nationalism by diverting them into war against Kashmir "to save Islam". These are the same Pashtun tribesman whose descendants are today's Taliban. Fleeing the unprovoked invasion of their homeland, Kashmir's Hindu prince and Muslim political leader went to India, pledging to merge with it if India would help repel the invasion. India agreed, and sent its army to repulse the Pashtun invasion. Pakistan then sent its army to clash with Indian forces, and the result was Indo-Pakistani conflict, which has lasted for decades.


Pakistan's fear of Pashtun nationalism and separatism, which it worries can break up Pakistan, is thus the root of the Indo-Pakistani conflict over Kashmir and also the root of Pak conflict with Afghanistan, not any alleged Indian takeover of Kabul. This is all due to the legacy of 1839, which happened long before Pakistan was even created.


When a communist revolution happened in Kabul in the late 70s, Pakistan's fear of potential spillover effects on Pashtun nationalism caused Pakistan to embark on fomenting a guerrilla war against Kabul that led to Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Aligned with with the USA, Pakistan then proceeded to arm the Pashtuns while indoctrinating them with Islamic fanaticism. The USA was not allowed any ground role, and was told it could only supply arms and funds to Pakistan, which would take care of the rest. Pakistan then simultaneously embarked on destabilization of India by fomenting insurgency there.


After the Soviets withdrew, Pakistan again feared that the well-armed Pashtuns would turn on it and pursue secession. So Pakistan then created the Taliban as a new umbrella movement for the fractious factional guerrilla groups under an ultra-fundamentalist ideology. Bin Laden's AlQaeda then became cosy with Taliban, and the result was 9-11.


When the 9-11 attacks occurred, the cornered Pakistanis then did a 180 and promised to help the US defeat the Taliban and bring the terrorists to justice. Meanwhile they were racking their brains hoping to come up with a way to undermine the War on Terror from within. Now that they have succeeded in doing that, and in bleeding US/NATO forces, they hope to jump horses by kicking the US out and aligning with China.


Because of Pakistan's attempts to illegitimately hang onto Pashtun land, it has brought itself into conflicts with so many countries - first against its neighbors and then against more distant larger powers. This is the reason why Pakistan is an irredentist state and can never be an ally against Islamic extremism, because Pakistan depends on this very Islamism as a national glue to hold itself together, and keep nationalistic ethnic groups like the Pashtuns from breaking Pakistan apart.


At the same time, Pakistanis don't dare own upto the Pashtun national question at any level, nor its effect on their national policies, because any attempt to do so would open up the legitimacy of their claim to Pashtun land.


Sovereignty is a 2-way street, entailing not just rights but obligations. Pakistan only wishes to assert rights it feels are owed to it from sovereignty, but wishes to completely duck the issue of any sovereign obligations to apprehend terrorists on what it claims as its own territory. This is because the fundamental reality is that the Pashtun territory is not really theirs, is not really under their control, and the Pashtuns don't really recognize Pakistani central authority over them.


Pakistan uses Islamic fundamentalism to submerge traditional Pashtun ethnic identity in a desperate attempt to suppress Pashtun ethnic nationalism, and to stave off the disintegration of Pakistan. The Pashtuns are a numerically large enough ethnic group possessing the strength of arms to be able to secede from Pakistan at any moment, should they decide upon it.


The answer is to let the separatists have their way and achieve their independent ethnic states, breaking up Pakistan. It's better to allow Pakistan to naturally break up into 3 or 4 benign ethnic states, than for it to keep promoting Islamic fundamentalist extremism in a doomed attempt to hold itself together. Pakistan is a failing state, and it's better to let it fail and fall apart. This will help to end all conflict in the region and the trans-national terrorist problem. An independent ethnic Pashtun state will be dominated by Pashtun ethnic identity instead of fundamentalist Islam, and thus AlQaeda will no longer be able to find sanctuary there. Conventional ethnic identity is far more natural and benign than trans-nationalist Islamism with its inherent collectivist political bent. Supporting the re-emergence of 4 natural ethnic states - Pashtunistan, Balochistan, Sindh and Punjab - would be far better than continuing to support a dangerous and dysfunctional failed state like Pakistan which continues to spew toxic Islamist extremist ideology in a doomed attempt to hold itself together.


Following the failure of the Vietnam War, many Americans later recognized that war was really a war of ethnic reunification by the Vietnamese people. It wasn't a case of one foreign country attempting to conquer another foreign country - indeed, the north and south Vietnamese were not strangers or aliens to one another - they were 2 halves of a common whole. The question was whether they would reunify under communist socialism or under free democracy, but because a blinkered American leadership refused to recognize the Vietnamese grassroots affinity for one another and their desire to reunify, it pretty much ensured that Vietnamese reunification would take place under communist socialism.


Likewise, the Pashtun people live on both sides of an artificial Durand Line (Afghan-Pak "border") which they themselves have never accepted or recognized. It's a question of whether they will politically reunify under close-minded theocratic Islamism or under a more secular and tolerant society. Because today's blinkered American leadership is again blindly defending another artificial line on a map, and refusing to recognize the oneness of the people living on both sides of that artificial line, America is again shutting itself out of the reunification process, guaranteeing that Pashtun reunification will occur under fanatical fundamentalist Islamism as prescribed by Pakistan (much as Hanoi's Soviet backers prescribed reunification under communist socialism.) It's only later on, much after America's defeat, that some Americans will realize too late that they should have seen that the Pashtuns on both sides of the artificial line were actually one people. Pakistan knows it all too well, because they've been living with the guilt and fear of it ever since Pakistan's creation - but that's why they're hell-bent on herding the Pashtuns down the path of Islamist fanaticism, using Islamist glue to keep the Pashtuns as a whole hugged to Pakistan's bosom.


If only Washington policymakers could shed their blinkers and really understand what's going on, then they might have a chance to shape events more effectively, and to their favor. Pakistan is rapidly building up its nuclear arsenal, as it moves to surpass Britain to become the world's 5th-largest nuclear state.The Pakistanis are racing to build up as much hard-power as possible to back up the soft-power they feel Islamist hate-ideology gives them.


The world needs to compel the Pakistanis to let the Pashtuns go, and allow them to have their own independent national existence, along with the Baluchis and Sindhis. Humoring Pakistan and allowing it to continue using Islamist hatred to rally the people towards unity to counter slow disintegration is not the way to achieve stability in the region, or security for the world.
Last edited by svinayak on 14 Oct 2011 04:18, edited 1 time in total.
Abhijit
BRFite
Posts: 530
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: Bay Area - US

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Post by Abhijit »

Rangudu wrote:Ramana

There's actually a lot of credible work done on the Haqqanis. See this report for example:

http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/ ... ristan.pdf

Search for "Jan Baz". The few people that do know something about the Haqqanis say that between Mali Khan and Jan Baz, 2 of the innermost leadership team members are out. The Haqqanis are an all family operation, unlike Al Qaeda. If you kill enough senior figures, they will negotiate for preservation of the family maal. All Unkil needed was a foot in the door - one reliable informant.

My take is that Unkil will have to kill Sirajuddin, his step-brother Badruddin and Mullah Sangeen before the rest of the regular criminal type elder family members sue for peace.
R'man, this makes me wonder the following:

- Why would a two-bit family network that can be brought to its knees with 3 pinpoint strikes be considered
a. Of deadly power by the Unkil
b. of unimaginable importance in the stategic depth calculations by the tactically brilliant, to the extent that they are willing to take the fight to their only benefactors (ie. unkil)

--- edited later ---

Come to think of it, the description 'two-bit family network that can be brought to its knees with 3 pinpoint strikes' fits equally well to the whole of tspa. It may need a few more surgical strikes to kill a few current and ex generals for the rest of the gazis to tuck their Islamic tails between their TFTA legs and sue for peace. This doesn't gel with Shiv saar's very cogent explanations of why Unkil and certainly India, cannot bring peace to pakis. But has naybody tried this route? How do you know that it wouldn't work? And what is there to lose? At least for Unkil? Unkil has enough TFTA mards (the seal types) and enough 'paap' (and experience) of past black ops to take out randomly selected 10 jernails. What can the paki army do in retaliation that it hasn't done before? If they do another faisal shehzad, then unkil gets a god-sent opportunity to carpet bomb Isloo and Pindi. JMHO.
a_kumar
BRFite
Posts: 481
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 23:53
Location: what about it?

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Post by a_kumar »

Acharya wrote:similar to above ^^
Pakistan is instinctively driven to survive through terrorism, and to seek the company of those who practice it, because Pakistan was born with fundamental flaws. These flaws actually date back to events which occurred over a century before Pakistan's birth.
Can you please provide a link?

This is a valuable compilation and deserves all the attention.
Airavat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2326
Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31
Location: dishum-bishum
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Post by Airavat »

Stop verbal assaults...but continue drone assaults
Irritated and fed up with the mixed signals coming from the United States, Pakistan says the time for these “verbal assaults” is over and “clearly defined, well documented and mutually agreed terms of engagement” should now define ties between the two countries. Grossman’s visit coincided with two drone attacks in Waziristan but neither he nor the Pakistani leadership thought it fit to comment on the hits.

Without going into details of the “negative propaganda” against Pakistan, Grossman was also told that the Pakistan government was committed to regional peace and had decided to attend the forthcoming trilateral summit of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkey in Istanbul next month. The US was reminded that Pakistan, due to its geo-strategic location, was a major stakeholder and regional player in promoting regional stability and peace. Afghanistan was the focus of the Kayani-Grossman meeting also but there was complete silence from Grossman’s office as well as the ISPR on details of the exchange.

Code: Select all

Mariana Baabar in http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=9531&Cat=13
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Post by shiv »

Abhijit wrote:
Come to think of it, the description 'two-bit family network that can be brought to its knees with 3 pinpoint strikes' fits equally well to the whole of tspa. It may need a few more surgical strikes to kill a few current and ex generals for the rest of the gazis to tuck their Islamic tails between their TFTA legs and sue for peace. This doesn't gel with Shiv saar's very cogent explanations of why Unkil and certainly India, cannot bring peace to pakis. But has naybody tried this route? How do you know that it wouldn't work? And what is there to lose? At least for Unkil? Unkil has enough TFTA mards (the seal types) and enough 'paap' (and experience) of past black ops to take out randomly selected 10 jernails. What can the paki army do in retaliation that it hasn't done before? If they do another faisal shehzad, then unkil gets a god-sent opportunity to carpet bomb Isloo and Pindi. JMHO.
There are enough people trying to kill or topple the average Paki jernail - so they keep themselves well protected. There is something mildly racist in the way the US in particular thinks that knocking out one man here or supporting one man there can bring about revolution. Most often it has failed. I think the CIA succeeded in one political assassination in Guatemala. The Vietnam coup failed. Support to the Shah of Iran failed. And they failed to take out Castro who lives in a tropical holiday resort near America. And the failed to take Gadhafi. And Saddam was taken only with US boots on the ground in a coalition of two dozen countries.

Bin Laden remained hidden for 10 years. Mullah Omar is at large. The Hackany network is work in progress. The minute you take out one person everyone else becomes alert. Take out one Paki jernail and the others will become alert.

So no. It won't happen.

In fact these "pinpoint" attacks (actually they are "pinprick" attacks :D ) on the Hackany network using drones should be a simple illustration of facts that people love to deny because no one wants to hear that the US does not have the power to achieve anything. The US cannot make the Pakistani army comply with its wishes. The US will not make war with the Pakistani army because it is too costly an option. The US cannot give up because that is politically costly for the US. So the US is trying to remove inconvenient people using unmanned drones - keeping their nukes, their B-52s, their B-2s, and their F-22s and their CBGs far far away from the action.

Of course this is not to say that the US is behaving weak. The US is doing as much as possible to provoke Pakistan without actually declaring war. Drone attacks and the bin Laden raid are examples of that. But if we apply "standard arguments" all across the board and we ask "What is the use of Indian 1.2 million man army and 750 aircraft air force if we cant take out Pakistan", then one could equally ask what is the use if a country claims global reach, has 14 aircraft carriers, 4000 aircraft, 200 refuellers, and can't make the Pakistan army comply? Or deliver India to the Pakis. The answer needs to go beyond this silly "whose dick is longer?" comparison to the fact that the Pakistan army is powerful enough to make military solutions difficult for anyone, be it the US or India. As long as one labors under the mistaken impression that there is a "two-bit family network" running Pakistan one is agreeing with the mildly racist view that we find in Phantom comics where the white man Phantom brings order to the sultanate of Ptjar whose ruler is a two-bit tyrant. Pakistan is run by an organized army. Organized armies are intrinsically designed to protect themselves and their leadership structure.

Add to this the fact that the "organ-rised" army of Pakistan has been armed and funded by the US to fight India in the vain hope that the Paki army will deliver the US's enemies to America if the US helps in delivering India to the Paki army. No matter how hard we try, this fact is not going to be forgotten by anyone anytime soon. Every time Pakistan has acquired new capability courtesy the USA, the Indian armed forces have had to develop a credible response to that. And this has gone on right from the late 1950s till last year (2010 at least). And every time the Pakis have felt weak wrt to India they have begged the US and the US has "given more". But the US's job was never done by Pakistan, and Pakistan's job was never fulfilled by the US. I am not sure who is more stupid. If we call Pakistan stupid, I think that label should be applied to the US as well. But we have an innate resistance to calling the US stupid. Maybe both are too clever for each other.
JwalaMukhi
BRFite
Posts: 1635
Joined: 28 Mar 2007 18:27

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Post by JwalaMukhi »

Pak is not an enemy of US. The larger picture is control of "South Asia" as the elite would like to call it. In that process, the idea is set india pak or even china in the mix into confrontation, so every one of them comes out weaker. There is absolutely no love lost for South Asian, nay asian region in western quarters. As long as it serves to the benefit, it matters. Beyond that there is no intent to make pakis as enemy, because that would not serve any purpose.
JwalaMukhi
BRFite
Posts: 1635
Joined: 28 Mar 2007 18:27

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Post by JwalaMukhi »

Or deliver India to the Pakis.
Interesting thoughts. Why would US give India to pak? In return what is expected of pak is: to return a weaker "S.Asia"! So anything that makes the region lot weaker will be pursued, be it gifting kashmir or india itself to pakis.
And this has gone on right from the late 1950s till last year (2010 at least). And every time the Pakis have felt weak wrt to India they have begged the US and the US has "given more". But the US's job was never done by Pakistan, and Pakistan's job was never fulfilled by the US. I am not sure who is more stupid. If we call Pakistan stupid, I think that label should be applied to the US as well. But we have an innate resistance to calling the US stupid. Maybe both are too clever for each other.
Has "S.Asia" become weaker in the course of time? May be there is still lot of hope riding on pakis that pakis will deliver the prize of weaker "s.asia", that is more amenable to control. The butcher of Kargil, mushy, failed to deliver that. So, what does it take for pakis to deliver a weaker "s.Asia". Even new clear weapuns doesn't seem to cut it.
abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Post by abhishek_sharma »

Nontraditional Security Threats in Pakistan

PDF
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This essay examines Pakistan’s most significant nontraditional security challenges, including climate change, increasing population and urbanization, food security, and water security.

Main Findings

Climate change will negatively affect human activities and livelihoods in Pakistan through increasingly frequent extreme weather events and changes in temperature and precipitation. A rise in extreme weather has already led to an alarming increase in the number of people killed, injured, or made homeless.

Pakistan’s large population and high growth rate adversely affect all aspects of society, the economy, and the environment. Population growth creates and exacerbates vulnerabilities by endangering basic civic amenities, leading to a lack of clean water and space for housing and ultimately burdening society.

Growth in agricultural productivity has broadly kept pace with accelerating demand. However, medium‑term food security challenges will become far more daunting if immediate attention is not paid to managing water resources, both underground and in the Indus Basin river system.

Water security is the most serious challenge for Pakistan due to several factors, particularly the increasing pressure of population and urbanization, massive expansion of tube‑well irrigation, reduced levels of precipitation caused by climate change, and the accelerated retreat of Himalayan glaciers.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25099
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Post by SSridhar »

JwalaMukhi wrote:Pak is not an enemy of US. . . . Beyond that there is no intent to make Pakis as enemy, because that would not serve any purpose.
That is from a GotUS PoV. Whether this is true or not is another matter. But, the Pakistanis certainly think that America is the greatest Satan at this point in time. This was not how the Pakistani masses viewed the US up until the latter part of Ayub's regime. Things changed after 1965 when Ayub & ZAB fabricated the story that the US deserted them during the crucial war time with India. They used the state machinery to propagate this American unfriendliness (already exacerbated by the moderate US assistance to India in c. 1962 but that remained limited only to diplomatic channels) and ever since then, the US-Pakistan relationship has been bedevilled. There was a brief respite during the Bear Trap years, but that was it. The feeling has simply blown out of all proportions after India and the US normalized their relationship and the US openly spoke of dehyphenation and 'different histories' etc. The US attitude to Israel or Palestine comes a distant second in the calculation of the Pakistani psyche; it is the US actions vis-a-vis India that alone matters.

Whether the American decision-makers consider Pakistan as an enemy or not, the Pakistanis certainly consider the Americans as their enemy. The civilian and military governments exploit (and also inflame) the situation so that they can wriggle out of tight spots and committments with the US citing popular unrest. Again, tactical brilliance and strategic stupidity. Thus, the Govt-to-Govt as well as military-to-military relationships are affected by the anger (partly fabricated by the Establishment but mostly innate) of the masses.

The US actions are therefore circumscribed by this situation.
Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Post by Satya_anveshi »

Drone Attack Kills a Senior Militant Leader in Pakistan
the officials said they had confirmed the death of Janbaz Zadran, who has often been described as the third-ranking leader of the Haqqani network, near Miram Shah in North Waziristan, part of Pakistan’s tribal area.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Post by Prem »

abhishek_sharma wrote:Nontraditional Security Threats in Pakistan

[Pakistan’s large population and high growth rate adversely affect all aspects of society, the economy, and the environment. Population growth creates and exacerbates vulnerabilities by endangering basic civic amenities, leading to a lack of clean water and space for housing and ultimately burdening society.Water security is the most serious challenge for Pakistan due to several factors, particularly the increasing pressure of population and urbanization, massive expansion of tube‑well irrigation, reduced levels of precipitation caused by climate change, and the accelerated retreat of Himalayan glaciers.
And the water resources as well the management is under Indian control.
Paki tera future Pyaaaasa, Paki tera Future Pyaaassa
Arabi resemblance ki,Allah poori karroo Aaashaaaa.
Millega Paanni tujhe,Jubb beccheggaa tuuu Ayshas
Nahi Cheena,Nahi Amreeka, hoga India tera Massa.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Post by svinayak »

Prem wrote:
Nahi Cheena,Nahi Amreeka, hoga India tera Massa.
:lol: Cool
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Post by shiv »

JwalaMukhi wrote:Pak is not an enemy of US. The larger picture is control of "South Asia" as the elite would like to call it. In that process, the idea is set india pak or even china in the mix into confrontation, so every one of them comes out weaker. There is absolutely no love lost for South Asian, nay asian region in western quarters. As long as it serves to the benefit, it matters. Beyond that there is no intent to make pakis as enemy, because that would not serve any purpose.
If the US has "plans for "South Asia". it appears that every country in South Asia had plans for the US as well. The US of the 1950s was allying with the Pakistani elite thinking that this was a nation that could be coopted into its war with the Soviets and played along with the Pakistani stories of India being a Soviet ally. The Pakistani were not going to be "junior allies" where they did the US's job. They expected the US to support them against India. US support extended to arms aid, advisers like Chuck Yeager who allegedly flew some sorties against India, instigating China to support Pakistan, and sending the 7th fleet. That was a lot, but not enough for Pakistan, who, it seems never felt that the US was doing as much for "Pakistani interests ("Cashmere") as Pakis were doing for the US.

Every time the US has taken Pakistani support Pakistan has expected a quid pro quo from the US and there has been a difference in the "interpretation" of what Pakistanis expect from the US and what the US was willing and able to give. The US clearly was either unwilling or unable to hand Cashmere or India on a platter to Pakistan. After 50 years of allying with the US Pakistan is no further in its war against India and its resentment towards the US is beginning to show.

Of course the faults of the Pakistan army and elite are clearly visible, but the US's role is the gorilla's hand in the jar, exactly as described by JEM.
Altair
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 30 Dec 2009 12:51
Location: Hovering over Pak Airspace in AWACS

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Post by Altair »

shiv wrote: They expected the US to support them against India. US support extended to arms aid, advisers like Chuck Yeager who allegedly flew some sorties against India, instigating China to support Pakistan, and sending the 7th fleet. That was a lot, but not enough for Pakistan, who, it seems never felt that the US was doing as much for "Pakistani interests ("Cashmere") as Pakis were doing for the US.
Americans were so damn dumb that "Chuck" was led to believe that Pakistan would hoist their flag on Red Fort within a week. He even made a press statement to that effect. Ofcourse he was terribly disappointed when IAF destroyed his beechcraft plane in an air raid on chaklala. He was one hell of a pakophile. He ultimately got what he deserved. Unkil was in a "nasha" of virgin girls malishing his mizzile while sipping zam zam cola and its common knowledge what type of pain one endures in post-operative after the effect of a GA comes down.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20

Post by svinayak »

There is tension and this could be war with India to deflect US pressure on Pak

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com ... g-for-war/


Is Pakistan preparing for war?
Editor's Note: Omar R. Quraishi is the Editor of the Editorial Pages of The Express Tribune in Karachi. Follow him @omar_quraishi.
By Omar R. Quraishi, Foreign Affairs
If Pakistani news channels can be taken at face value these days, the country is preparing for war. Retired generals, ambassadors, and professors weigh in on the likelihood of U.S. attack with an unrelenting intensity. The anchor of "Capital Talk," one of the most widely watched news programs on the popular channel Geo, recently asked guests what Pakistan should do when the impending attack occurs. A couple of his guests said that Pakistan should mobilize its forces and respond with full force. Officials have been more circumspect, but have issued the constant refrain that Pakistan's sovereignty must not be compromised.

On Facebook, meanwhile, new groups rally Pakistanis to the defense of the homeland. Just a few hours before sitting down to write this article, I received a text message with a similar call to action from a professional acquaintance. The rambling screed read, "Let them taunt us as an economically failed state, for they know not how thousands of Pakistani workers are currently working in the Middle East, Western Europe, and North America... Let them call us a technologically backward state, for they know not how we are the sole Muslim state with nuclear capability."
Read: Time to get realistic about aid.

In the wake of the killing of Osama bin Laden, such propaganda is everywhere. I have never seen it so virulent. But, in fact, Pakistan can ill afford any war, much less one against the sole remaining superpower. Sure, thousands of Pakistanis work abroad and send home billions of dollars in remittances every year. But many of those workers left precisely because Pakistan did not have jobs for them or because the economy was failing to properly reward their academic and professional achievements. And, of those employed within the country, the vast majority pay no taxes at all; Pakistan has among the lowest tax-to-GDP ratios in the world. The country's collection agency, the state-run Federal Board of Revenue, is infamously corrupt.
Defense budgets being virtually untouchable because of the military's outsized domestic power, the civilian government has dealt with the lack of revenues by cutting back the Public Sector Development Program (its social spending budget) by around 150 billion rupees ($1.7 billion) between 2010 and 2011 alone. Islamabad is left with little option but to seek development and emergency assistance from other countries. Following severe flooding in southern Pakistan last year, for example, the central government immediately called for foreign assistance. Eventually, such aid made up almost all of the relief effort. A similar appeal by the U.N. after this year's floods, for over $300 million, has raised less than a tenth of that amount, indicating that there will be nothing Pakistan can do to prevent another natural disaster from becoming one more humanitarian catastrophe.

Read: Double down on Pakistanis.
It would be fair to say that, purely from an economics point of view, Islamabad cannot afford worsening relations with the United States because it still needs aid. If the United States were to cut off the government today, its non-military budget for next year would be jeopardized, since the country's tax revenues are nowhere near enough to cover budgeted expenditures (the deficit for 2010-11 was close to six per cent of GDP).

Meanwhile, the country's defense budget takes up most of what little resources there are. And, this year, the military requested and received a budget increase of 45 billion rupees (about $458 million) over and above what it had been allotted during last year's budgeting process - without specifying why it needed the extra money. Despite its outsized military spending, Pakistan often responds to U.S. requests that it do more to fight terrorism by arguing that opening another front against the militants would be prohibitively expensive while declining any additional U.S. involvement.

Indeed, with U.S. assistance or without, going to war is costly in both men and resources and imposes a heavy financial burden on Pakistan's already weak economy. (The country has to import a host of basic goods and services because it is unable to produce them itself.) So, even as Pakistan's generals are hesitant to step up their campaigns against militants, or allow the United States to handle the problem alone, they are uninterested in further provocations with the Americans.
For those who live outside of Pakistan, then, it is a fair question why the public tenor is so aggressive. When relations between the United States and Pakistan were more stable a year ago, a little posturing on the part of the government about sovereignty had very little cost abroad and high potential rewards at home. It appeased both the military and certain segments of society. Thus, Pakistani officials routinely spoke out against the U.S. drone program and the like, but never did anything to stop it. (In fact, the government and military even approved the strikes and leaders of at least three major mainstream parties privately confide that drones are effective.)
Read: Iran and Saudi Arabia square off.


After a while, the media took the establishment's cue and expanded its message. News programs have become increasingly reactionary and nationalistic, especially in regard to the United States. The United States' abandonment of Afghanistan, and subsequently Pakistan, in the 1990s is a constant refrain. Shows regularly postulate that the United States is doing the same. Naturally, the mixture of alarmism and nationalism is appealing, and wins viewers. And, of course, it is even true to some extent; Americans are leaving the region at a time when the Taliban are resurgent. Pakistanis, especially those who are liberal and progressive, feel that the country and region is being left to its own devices.

But with the U.S.-Pakistani alliance on the rocks, the tennor is more troubling. An anti-American public is now putting pressure on the government to stand up to the United States in ways that it might not be capable of doing. If there is some kind of permanent break in ties between the two countries, of course, the only ones who will benefit will be the Taliban, their allied militant groups, and the conservative element in society.

To prevent such a break, Pakistan will need to address its political dysfunction at its root: the imbalance between the government and the military. Fixing that would be exceedingly difficult, since it would require finding some solution to the Kashmir problem and reigning in domestic terrorism, but it needs to happen. It is the only way to stop jingoistic posturing, and it is the only way that defense spending could conceivably be reduced to free up resources for the social sector and for human resource development.

If Pakistan's centers of power could be rebalanced, the United States might even warm to the country again. This should be in the interest of all Pakistanis - those who do not want their country to become another Taliban-ruled Afghanistan; those who understand that the United States is Pakistan's largest trading partner, second-biggest investor, and the decisive voice at the World Bank and the IMF; and even those in the military who realize that the United States is their largest beneficiary.

There is no indication, however, that Pakistan will undertake needed soul-searching anytime soon. For now, the government seems firmly under the sway of the military. At the September 29 All Parties Conference, over 50 political and religious parties passed a resolution declaring that the government would sue for peace by talking to the Taliban and other militant groups. Even though the resolution was drafted by civilians, the initiative came from the military. The generals recently launched several operations in parts of the tribal areas, so their thinking, quite possibly, is that going into North Waziristan now could have significant blowback.
Post Reply