Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 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): 31 Oct 201

Postby shiv » 04 Nov 2011 20:36

arun wrote:Two articles on “expert” testimony coming out of the November 3, 2011 hearing titled “2014 and Beyond: U.S. Policy Towards Afghanistan and Pakistan, Part I” in the US by the Middle East and South Asia Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

PTI via Economic Times on expert testimony by C. Christine Fair:

Pakistan policy centers around resisting India's rise: Expert

Aziz Haniffa of Rediff on the testimony of both C. Christine Fair and Ashley Tellis:

'Pakistan is taking advantage of US stupidity'


Testimony transcripts are here:

Ashley Tellis

C. Christine Fair


Image

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 201

Postby Lalmohan » 04 Nov 2011 20:49

call me a dreamer... but it sure looks like unkil is preparing the nation for a jhapaD of sorts on paquis

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): 31 Oct 201

Postby Altair » 04 Nov 2011 21:05

Lalmohan wrote:call me a dreamer... but it sure looks like unkil is preparing the nation for a jhapaD of sorts on paquis

Obama has no choice but to attack haqqanis and claim victory. However he may gift them with incentives to win back an "ally" after the shock and awe campaign.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 201

Postby svinayak » 04 Nov 2011 21:26

arun wrote:
PTI via Economic Times on expert testimony by C. Christine Fair:

Pakistan policy centers around resisting India's rise: Expert

But this was exactly what the US policy was and to use Pakistan to stem the rise of India.
This way China would have no other power to compete with in the last 40 years.

This is the balance of power which the US achieved in the last 40 years using Pakistan.

abhijitm
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3679
Joined: 08 Jun 2006 15:02
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 201

Postby abhijitm » 04 Nov 2011 21:27

arun wrote:Two articles on “expert” testimony coming out of the November 3, 2011 hearing titled “2014 and Beyond: U.S. Policy Towards Afghanistan and Pakistan, Part I” in the US by the Middle East and South Asia Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
...

Arun, thanks for posting.

Shall we hope for the awakening finally? My worry is analyst like Bruce Riedel who is an advisor of Ombama still thinks Kashmir is the key to tame pakistan, on the other hand C.Fair thinks it is India's emergence, whereas the key is India's existence.

abhijitm
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3679
Joined: 08 Jun 2006 15:02
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 201

Postby abhijitm » 04 Nov 2011 21:32

Acharya wrote:But this was exactly what the US policy was and to use Pakistan to stem the rise of India.
This way China would have no other power to compete with in the last 40 years.

This is the balance of power which the US achieved in the last 40 years using Pakistan.

Time has changed. The US needs India now, economically and politically. Today China is rising and flexing its muscles, Iran is an outlaw (from their perspective), Russian phoenix is emerging, pakistan is clearly a lost ally, other countries don't count that much.

IMO they desperately need a strong friend in this region.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 201

Postby RajeshA » 04 Nov 2011 21:34

This looks like USA is getting its establishment and people warm to the idea of looking at Pakistan as a double-crossing snake which has been biting USA as well! USA is slowly painting Pakistan as an enemy!

Just like Pakistan likes to build up the frenzy on its streets with people coming out and spouting anti-American slogans, all to show the Americans that the Paki establishment is bound to a certain path due to the pressure of its people, so too America is building up the American public opinion as a pressure point for it adopt certain policies viz-a-viz Pakistan.

Can't say if USA would go to war with Pakistan, but if sufficient public pressure is built in USA, it can become a deluge and everybody would get in the act of painting Pakistan as the enemy. Then it becomes either difficult to not go with the public sentiment wave or it makes it easier for some others to ride that popular wave and punish Pakistan.

We will have to observe whether there is a build up of such a public wave of anti-Pakistani sentiments! There is so much material out there, that if somebody tries to make this into a wave, there will be no paucity. Americans have generally reserved their hate for the leaders of an enemy country and never really transferred that hate to the people. Against Japanese in the second World War was one instance. But otherwise it was always some organization or group - the Nazis, Communists, Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda and OBL, etc. Even for the Russians there was a grudging respect.

It will be interesting to know whether the Americans can pin down their hate to just one group in the case of Pakistan - or does it become overall hate. Is it going to be hate reserved only for ISI, or Taliban, or Pakistani Army (unlikely), or Section S of ISI, or Pakistani Islamists, or is it going to be for all Pakistanis, if they can't really pin it down to just one group.

The fragmentation of Pakistani Jihadists means that America may not be able to target their hate towards just one body, just one name, and it can become general hate. Would be good!

That is why it is important to expose all Pakistanis, including the RAPE especially for the snakes they are!

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 201

Postby svinayak » 04 Nov 2011 21:41

abhijitm wrote:Time has changed. The US needs India now, economically and politically. Today China is rising and flexing its muscles, Iran is an outlaw (from their perspective), Russian phoenix is emerging, pakistan is clearly a lost ally, other countries don't count that much.

IMO they desperately need a strong friend in this region.

This is exactly the balance of power they need to keep Asia down until they are ready to dominate again the global economy and the power projection.
Last edited by svinayak on 04 Nov 2011 21:49, edited 1 time in total.

abhijitm
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3679
Joined: 08 Jun 2006 15:02
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 201

Postby abhijitm » 04 Nov 2011 21:47

correct, hence I wish they will not undermine our interest in afghanistan. catch-22 for them!

abhijitm
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3679
Joined: 08 Jun 2006 15:02
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 201

Postby abhijitm » 04 Nov 2011 21:50

jrjrao wrote:Here is confirmation that every ill-educated cantonment-bred loud-mouth lout on sundry deaf and dumb fora is being tracked out this "anonymous industrial park in Virginia, in an unassuming brick building."

AP Exclusive

100 lashes to you for posting BENIS material here :)

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 201

Postby Lalmohan » 04 Nov 2011 21:51

maybe thats why handsome-kirket-mard is being promoted as the genuine voice of democracy just before kiyani is demonised as the hate figure?

abhijitm
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3679
Joined: 08 Jun 2006 15:02
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 201

Postby abhijitm » 04 Nov 2011 21:58

All these things must be reported in widely read American newspapers. Otherwise their public general knowledge is not quite acknowledgeable.

abhijitm
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3679
Joined: 08 Jun 2006 15:02
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 201

Postby abhijitm » 04 Nov 2011 22:10

RajeshA wrote:We will have to observe whether there is a build up of such a public wave of anti-Pakistani sentiments! There is so much material out there, that if somebody tries to make this into a wave, there will be no paucity. Americans have generally reserved their hate for the leaders of an enemy country and never really transferred that hate to the people. Against Japanese in the second World War was one instance. But otherwise it was always some organization or group - the Nazis, Communists, Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda and OBL, etc. Even for the Russians there was a grudging respect.

Great observation! So far all references being made to ISI and Pakistan. However at the end their american basic instinct prevailed and both talked about punishing individuals :)

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 201

Postby Lalmohan » 04 Nov 2011 22:12

the BBC programme - presumably endorsed by Ombaba himself - makes it very clear that it is all state (and no non-state) and that the ISI== army and that state ==army and that culpability lies at the "very top" - this is as simple as it gets

krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 201

Postby krishnan » 04 Nov 2011 22:17

http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/s ... 111104.htm

Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence was behind the 26/11 attacks as well as the July 2008 bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul, the BBC said in a damning report on the military-run spy agency that does not function "without the authority" of the Pakistan army chief.

In a new two-part series titled Secret Pakistan on BBC two, Bruce Riedel, the Central Intelligence Agency officer who served as advisor to United States President Barack Obama, said he had informed the then president-elect about 26/11, "Everything pointed back to Pakistan. It was a defining moment.

"I told the President that Pakistan was double-dealing the United States and its allies for years and years, and they were probably going to continue to do so."

Riedel pointed out, "This (the attacks) had the signature of Lashkar-e-Tayiba all over it, from the very moment the attacks began. And once you link it back to LeT, you link it back to the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI."

The second part of the programme, aired on Wednesday night also revealed the "The CIA later received intelligence that said the ISI were directly involved in training the Mumbai gunmen."


In the documentary, Taliban commanders have revealed to the BBC the extent of Pakistan's support for the Taliban's war against British and American troops in Afghanistan.

A number of middle-ranking Taliban commanders gave detailed accounts of how Pakistan, and in particular its security service helped train, arm and supply Taliban forces that have been killing British soldiers.
Last edited by krishnan on 04 Nov 2011 22:22, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54519
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 201

Postby ramana » 04 Nov 2011 22:21

How come BR doesnt talk to US Congressional panels with same level of candidness?

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 201

Postby Lalmohan » 04 Nov 2011 22:27

games are played within the beltway...

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 201

Postby arun » 04 Nov 2011 22:35

Lalmohan wrote:call me a dreamer... but it sure looks like unkil is preparing the nation for a jhapaD of sorts on paquis


Lalmohan wrote:the BBC programme - presumably endorsed by Ombaba himself - makes it very clear that it is all state (and no non-state) and that the ISI== army and that state ==army and that culpability lies at the "very top" - this is as simple as it gets


Boss, to use a Shivism, let us not have this “Rah Rah America” Superpower stuff :wink: .

The limits of US power has been well enough exposed on BRF to render suspect claims of the US’s ability to “jhapad” Pakistan or suggest that US endorsement played a material role in influencing the BBC in its programming.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 201

Postby A_Gupta » 04 Nov 2011 22:40

UnFair's prepared remarks can be read here (PDF)
http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/112/fai110311.pdf

Excerpts:

Most observers of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship admit that Pakistan’s allies—such as the Haqqani Network, the Afghan Taliban and Islamist militant groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba, among others—are America’s foes. It is equally clear that America’s ascendant ally in the region—India—is Pakistan’s nemesis. Thus what bedevils U.S.-Pakistan relations is not pervasive distrust but rather a surplus of certitude: certitude that, for the foreseeable future, U.S. and Pakistani strategic interests have only a small—and quickly vanishing—area of overlap.

U.S. policy makers have been reluctant to embrace this unpleasant reality because it raises serious questions about how the United States can secure its interests in Afghanistan, Pakistan and beyond. But the mounting evidence that the United States and Pakistan share fundamentally orthogonal goals on most issues of interest to the United States can no longer be ignored or deferred. After a brief recounting of the last decade and its discontents, this written statement lays out a number of possible engagement strategies towards Pakistan in the near and medium term.


Whether Islamabad and/or Rawalpindi believed that Pakistan’s abandonment of the Afghanistan Taliban in 2001 would be temporary or whether this overture signaled a genuine willingness to change course will likely never be known. However, a perusal of President Pervez Musharraf’s September 19, 2001 speech reminds us that Pakistan acquiesced to U.S. demands not because of an inherent strategic alignment but rather to counter any Indian advantages.


Pakistan is the firefighter, the arsonist and the vendor of a variety of propellants.


The United States has simply failed to grasp that Pakistan will not, in any policy-relevant future, accept Indian hegemony. To do so would be to concede defeat for Pakistan’s expanding revisionist goals, which first focused upon changing the territorial status quo over Kashmir and which increasingly involve undermining India’s expansion in the region.


While the United States remains dependent upon Pakistan, it has virtually no political will to compel Pakistan to cease support for the Taliban and the Haqqani network much less group like LeT.


United States assistance to Pakistan should focus on tangibles such as power and infrastructure rather than areas, such as education, curriculum reform, and social issues, that are deeply inflammatory. The United States should quickly move to a less ambitious aid program that is demand-driven rather than supply-driven. If the United State wants to invest in human development, it should consider doing so through multilateral development agencies, which are more capable of delivering results.


Equally disconcerting is the likely reality that, as India continues its rise, Pakistan’s reliance upon Islamist militancy, the only tool that it has to change India’s trajectory, will increase, not decrease . The fact that Pakistan is suffering grievously as a result of this policy does not diminish the confidence of the ISI and the army that they can continue to manage their fissiparous former and current proxies.


It is imperative that Pakistan not become North Korea: a rogue regime that is disengaged from most of the international community.


Fifth, the United States should engage Pakistan’s military as it does with any other military. The International Military Education Training (IMET) program is important. Where possible, it should be expanded. However engaging Pakistan’s military does not mean the provision of strategic weapon systems or other weapon systems that are more suitable for fighting its revisionist conflict with India than domestic terrorism and insurgency.


The United States should move aggressively to counter Pakistan’s militant networks outside of Pakistan. I recognize that operating against Lashkar-e-Taiba’s headquarters in the Punjab and elsewhere will be nearly impossible and subject to the limits of tradecraft. Similar concerns exist for operating against the Afghan Taliban in Quetta, Karachi and other cities. However, nearly every one of these groups has an extensive network in the Gulf, the rest of South Asia, South East Asia, Europe and North America. There is no reason why the United States should not be more aggressive targeting these nodes of activity, be it through monitoring financial transactions, identifying individuals facilitating the groups and working with host-nations to conduct police and other raids upon these organizations and their facilitators.


In short, the United States must engage where it can, with clear thinking about the nature of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship and an honest assessment of whether the terrorists Pakistan is helping the United States to eliminate are more important than the terrorists they continue to nurture.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 201

Postby A_Gupta » 04 Nov 2011 22:42


Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 201

Postby Lalmohan » 04 Nov 2011 22:45

arun - i think you may have misunderstood me, i am talking about what is being said, nothing to do with any rah rah...

KLNMurthy
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4158
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 13:06

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 201

Postby KLNMurthy » 04 Nov 2011 22:47

houstonrice wrote:I agree. The finishing of the Pakistani as enemy cannot be done via invasion.

It has to be done in the style of the Marshall Plan.

Marshall plan was done after invasion, destruction and conquest.

Please catch up with current state of BRF knowledge.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 201

Postby arun » 04 Nov 2011 22:51

Lalmohan wrote:arun - i think you may have misunderstood me, i am talking about what is being said, nothing to do with any rah rah...


Boss, My Bad.

Regards

V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 674
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 201

Postby V_Raman » 04 Nov 2011 22:51

Acharya wrote:This is exactly the balance of power they need to keep Asia down until they are ready to dominate again the global economy and the power projection.


how much i wish that india/china can spring up a peace treaty in the next 5 years to drive the west permanently out of our area.

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): 31 Oct 201

Postby Altair » 04 Nov 2011 23:04

ramana wrote:How come BR doesnt talk to US Congressional panels with same level of candidness?

Unknowingly we might have been victims of Stockholm syndrome?

V_Raman wrote:
Acharya wrote:This is exactly the balance of power they need to keep Asia down until they are ready to dominate again the global economy and the power projection.


how much i wish that india/china can spring up a peace treaty in the next 5 years to drive the west permanently out of our area.


What would happen to the future of India-China relationship depends on the outcome in Af-Pak and Iran
Last edited by Altair on 04 Nov 2011 23:06, edited 1 time in total.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 201

Postby arun » 04 Nov 2011 23:05

The more I see of the relationship between the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the United States of America the more it seems to me that this is a S&M relationship between a se* worker and his client where roles reverse from time to time granting off course that the US is more inclined to the “S” side of the equation and Pakistan more inclined on the “M” side of the equation and also granting that the US is the client and Pakistan the se* worker.

KLNMurthy
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4158
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 13:06

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 201

Postby KLNMurthy » 05 Nov 2011 00:55

In short, the United States must engage where it can, with clear thinking about the nature of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship and an honest assessment of whether the terrorists Pakistan is helping the United States to eliminate are more important than the terrorists they continue to nurture.


In other words, after all that fulmination, just continue as before, settling for a supply of AQ no. 3s, while condoning terrorism against India.

Nothing new from la Fair.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21161
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 201

Postby Prem » 05 Nov 2011 01:55

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 73836.html
U.S. Tightens Drone Rules
The Central Intelligence Agency has made a series of secret concessions in its drone campaign after military and diplomatic officials complained large strikes were damaging the fragile U.S. relationship with Pakistan.The covert drones are credited with killing hundreds of suspected militants, and few U.S. officials have publicly criticized the campaign, or its rapid expansion under President Barack Obama. Behind the scenes, however, many key U.S. military and State Department officials demanded more-selective strikes. That pitted them against CIA brass who want a free hand to pursue suspected militants.The review ultimately affirmed support for the underlying CIA program. But a senior official said: "The bar has been raised. Inside CIA, there is a recognition you need to be damn sure it's worth it." Among the changes: The State Department won greater sway in strike decisions; Pakistani leaders got advance notice about more operations; and the CIA agreed to suspend operations when Pakistani officials visit the U.SLast year, Mr. Obama expanded the CIA program to 14 drone "orbits." Each orbit usually includes three drones, sufficient to provide constant surveillance over tribal areas of Pakistan. The CIA's fleet of drones includes Predators and larger Reapers. The drones carry Hellfire missiles and sometimes bigger bombs, can soar to an altitude of 50,000 feet and reach cruise speeds of up to 230 miles per hour.To reduce the number of CIA strikes on Pakistani soil, the military moved more of its own drones into position on the Afghan side of the border with Pakistan, according to participants in the discussions. That makes it easier for the CIA to "hand off" suspected militants to the U.S. military once they cross into Afghanistan, rather than strike them on Pakistani soil, U.S. officials said.
U.S.-Pakistani relations remain troubled, but Islamabad recently expanded intelligence cooperation and has toned down its opposition to the drone strikes, both in public and private, officials said. Pakistani officials had sought advance notice, and greater say, over CIA strikes so they could try to mitigate the public backlash.
"It's not like they took the car keys away from the CIA," a senior official said. "There are just more people in the car."

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21161
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 201

Postby Prem » 05 Nov 2011 02:02

http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa ... us/247930/
Why Pakistan Can't Turn China Against the U.S.
Here's the background: Pakistan has been courting China recently in an apparent attempt to hedge against (and give a warning to) the U.S. Two of Pakistan's likely assumptions are that China and the U.S. have conflicting interests in Pakistan, and that privileging one will pit it against the other. These aren't strictly crazy assumptions: China has shown every willingness to work with pariah or terrorism-supporting states, such as Iran and Burma and Sudan; China has a policy of non-interference in other nations, even ones with very irresponsible and violent governments; and Chinese and American influence in Asia can sometimes appear mutually exclusive, or at least competitive. Here's the news: Pakistan's nuclear weapons program appears to be one very important area where the U.S. and China are on the same team. Despite Pakistan's attempt to resist American influence by replacing its current sugar daddy with a new, Chinese one
, it appears that China would actually not mind a little U.S. interference. Goldberg and Ambinder report:
Pakistan's military chiefs are aware that America's military has developed plans for an emergency nuclear-disablement operation in their country, and they have periodically threatened to ally themselves with China, as a way to undercut U.S. power in South Asia. In a recent statement quite obviously meant for American ears, Pakistan's prime minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani, described the Pakistani-Chinese relationship as "higher than the mountains, deeper than the oceans, stronger than steel, and sweeter than honey." But China, too, is worried about Pakistan's stability, and has recently alleged that Pakistan has harbored Uighur separatists operating in western China. According to American sources, China has, in secret talks with the U.S., reached an understanding that, should America decide to send forces into Pakistan to secure its nuclear weapons, China would raise no objections. :mrgreen: (An Obama-administration spokesperson had no comment.)
Both the U.S. and China, despite their vastly different approaches to foreign policy, share a common interest in maintaining a basically stable world. This is something the U.S. and Soviet Union never really shared; the two super-powers often fomented instability (in, for example, Afghanistan) to hurt the other. But as China rises, it is becoming more reliant on global stability -- its booming economy is driven by manufacturing, which is built upon a pan-Asian supply chain that stretches across the continent and into Africa. Violence or other instability anywhere along that supply chain poses a real threat to China. In May, for example, Chinese media estimated $18.8 billion in losses from the conflict in Libya. As China's interests become more global and more reliant on global security, we might expect more policies like the one Goldberg and Ambinder noted: a little less opposed to Western interference, a little more willing to curb global bad actors, and wary of the kinds of anti-American games that Pakistan seems to want it to play.


( Pukes want to stay right in the middle of the road , its natural they get run over by a Truck. Does not matter if Truck is Indian, Ameerkhani or Cheenidani)

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21161
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 201

Postby Prem » 05 Nov 2011 02:12

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... hell/8730/

Pakistan, The Ally From Hell
(BCs, Give Bad name to Hell, where will Djinnha Live then?)
:
After the Abbottabad raid that killed Osama Bin Laden, the Pakistani military, having gained a truer understanding of American special operations capabilities, decided to increase the tempo of their nuclear arsenal dispersal programs, moving around warheads and fissile material at a much greater rate -- often by road, often in lightly-guarded, or not-guarded-at-all, vans and trucks -- in order to keep the weapons away from the prying eyes of the Americans. The Pakistani military -- and here might be one of the oddest things about this very odd and vexed relationship -- is more worried that America will steal its nukes than the many jihadist groups that make Pakistan home.


Shortly after American Navy SEALs raided the Pakistani city of Abbottabad in May and killed Osama bin Laden, General Ashfaq Kayani, the Pakistani chief of army staff, spoke with Khalid Kidwai, the retired lieutenant general in charge of securing Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. Kidwai, who commands a security apparatus called the Strategic Plans Division (SPD), had been expecting Kayani’s call. Much of the world, of course, is anxious about the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, and for good reason: Pakistan is an unstable and violent country located at the epicenter of global jihadism, and it has been the foremost supplier of nuclear technology to such rogue states as Iran and North Korea. It is perfectly sensible to believe that Pakistan might not be the safest place on Earth to warehouse 100 or more nuclear weapons. These weapons are stored on bases and in facilities spread across the country (possibly including one within several miles of Abbottabad, a city that, in addition to having hosted Osama bin Laden, is home to many partisans of the jihadist group Harakat-ul-Mujahideen). Western leaders have stated that a paramount goal of their counterterrorism efforts is to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of jihadists.
There are three threats,” says Graham Allison, an expert on nuclear weapons who directs the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. The first is “a terrorist theft of a nuclear weapon, which they take to Mumbai or New York for a nuclear 9/11. The second is a transfer of a nuclear weapon to a state like Iran. The third is a takeover of nuclear weapons by a militant group during a period of instability or splintering of the state.” Pakistani General Kayani believes that the U.S. has designs on the Pakistani nuclear program, and that the Abbottabad raid suggested that the U.S. has developed the technical means to stage simultaneous raids on Pakistan’s nuclear facilities. In their conversations, General Kidwai assured General Kayani that the counterintelligence branch of the SPD remained focused on rooting out American and Indian spies from the Pakistani nuclear-weapons complex, and on foiling other American espionage methods. The Pakistani air force drills its pilots in ways of intercepting American spy planes; the Pakistani military assumes (correctly) that the U.S. devotes many resources to aerial and satellite surveillance of its nuclear sites.


( Long 4 pqge article worth the read)

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21161
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 201

Postby Prem » 05 Nov 2011 02:16

According to U.S. military planners, preparations for the emergency denuclearization of Pakistan are on par with only two other priority-one global-crisis plans: one involves the possible U.S. invasion of Iran and the other involves a possible conflict with China. All three of these potential crises are considered low-probability but high-risk, to be prepared for accordingly.

Another plausible nuclear scenario is that India and Pakistan will once again go to war, with potentially cataclysmic consequences. One scenario advanced frequently by analysts sees Pakistan and India descending into armed confrontation after another Mumbai-style attack launched by the allegedly ISI-affiliated Lashkar-e-Taiba, or by another of the jihadist groups given shelter and aid in Pakistan. India, in a feat of forbearance, did not respond militarily to the November 2008 attacks, but its defense minister warned in June: “If a provocation is to happen again, I think it would be hard to justify to our people such a self-restraint.
Influential lawmakers have argued that the U.S. should not hesitate to strike at targets inside Pakistan that threaten American interests. American drones, of course, operate in the skies over Pakistan’s northern tribal areas, but these missions are generally conducted against jihadists who have also turned against the Pakistani government. But some lawmakers, such as Lindsey Graham, the senior Republican senator from South Carolina, suggest that the U.S. take a more unilateral approach to its own defense. “The sovereign nation of Pakistan is engaging in hostile acts against the United States, and our ally Afghanistan, that must cease,” Graham recently told Fox News Sunday. “If the experts believe that we need to elevate our response, they will have a lot of bipartisan support on Capitol Hill.”

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 201

Postby A_Gupta » 05 Nov 2011 02:34

The words spoken (towards the end of the video) that is also linked from the URL I provided of the House Foreign Affairs Committee are interesting.

Anyway, Prof. UnFair said that Pakistan has a stronger will than the US w.r.t. Afghanistan.
Rep. Connolly pointed out that the Cold War stances of India and Pakistan allowed for the US policy makers to sweep a lot of Pakistani malfeasance under the rug. Prof. UnFair pointed out that the main militant groups in Afghanistan were put in place by the mid-70s under Z.A.B.
Dana Rohrabacher told Zalmay Khalilzad, you put this all in motion, now it is all screwed up.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54519
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 201

Postby ramana » 05 Nov 2011 02:57

BR = Bruce Reidel

Also all these rah rah reports in US media are to rally the citizens. As Nightwatch pointed out look for actions by TSP.

jrjrao
BRFite
Posts: 869
Joined: 01 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 201

Postby jrjrao » 05 Nov 2011 04:06

On NPR today. Pakis are getting good publicity.

Details Unearthed On America's 'Ally From Hell'

jrjrao
BRFite
Posts: 869
Joined: 01 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 201

Postby jrjrao » 05 Nov 2011 04:08

And by Spencer Ackerman:

Pakistan Carts Its Nukes Around In Delivery Vans
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/11 ... very-vans/
All of which points to the self-reinforcing downward spiral of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship. U.S. cash continues to go into the Pakistanis’ pockets, and from there into the hands of anti-American terrorists. There is, for many justified reasons, absolutely no trust between either side’s security services and militaries. There is also no alternative to the toxic relationship that anyone cited in the Atlantic piece is willing to contemplate. (When I recently suggested that the U.S. cut off aid and continue the drone war until Pakistan reins in terror groups, I got blasted on Twitter as a warmonger.) “There is no escaping this vexed relationship,” Ambinder and Goldberg conclude, reflecting the conventional wisdom in Washington and Islamabad.

Which sinks the U.S. into the nadir of absurdity. It funds a terrorist-sponsoring state while conducting a massive undeclared war on part of that state’s territory. It wants that state’s assistance to end the Afghanistan war while that state’s soldiers help insurgents wage it. And seeking a world without nuclear weapons while its “Major Non-NATO Ally” drastically increases the probability that terrorists will acquire a the most dangerous weapon of all.

jrjrao
BRFite
Posts: 869
Joined: 01 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 201

Postby jrjrao » 05 Nov 2011 04:12

And while this Atlantic size heap of crap hits the ceiling turbine today, on this very day, Friday, is this here Pentagon, breaking out in a "Our Munna, Our Puppy" bhangra dance:
The U.S. military is pushing back when it comes to media coverage of its relationship with Pakistan. Speaking at the Willard Hotel Friday morning a senior U.S. military official told an audience of reporters, think tank analysts and retired brass that the U.S.-Pakistan relationship today is far better than it has been portrayed in the media. This official was not referring to any article in particular but he might as well have been talking about a block-buster in the Atlantic.

Link

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 201

Postby svinayak » 05 Nov 2011 05:54

abhijitm wrote:correct, hence I wish they will not undermine our interest in afghanistan. catch-22 for them!

But they want India in a different form. They want a India which is westernized and also EJ ized so that they can acheive their goal for world domination.
They want the cake and eat it too.

India are not fools for fall for this

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 201

Postby svinayak » 05 Nov 2011 06:01

abhijitm wrote:
Time has changed. The US needs India now, economically and politically. Today China is rising and flexing its muscles, Iran is an outlaw (from their perspective), Russian phoenix is emerging, pakistan is clearly a lost ally, other countries don't count that much.

IMO they desperately need a strong friend in this region.

THey want a different India now one which is more westernized. They have been investing in the media for the last 20 years and also into education and other things. They want to expand their influence inside India taking advantage of this situation
Indians are not fools or stupid. India has to take care of its interest only.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 201

Postby svinayak » 05 Nov 2011 06:18

Image


Why Pakistan Can't Turn China Against the U.S.
Why Pakistan Can't Turn China Against the U.S.
NOV 4 2011, 1:08 PM ET 3
The U.S. and China appear to be on the same team when it comes to Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, suggesting cooperation between the two powers on global security threats

There's a piece of good news in Marc Ambinder and Jeffrey Goldberg's otherwise quite scary Atlantic-National Journal cover story on the deterioration of U.S.-Pakistan relations. No, it's not about Pakistan, which has taken to shuttling nuclear weapons materials around Pakistani highways in unmarked and unprotected vans. It's not about Afghanistan, where the U.S. and Pakistan have increasingly divergent interests and strategies. It's about China.

Here's the background: Pakistan has been courting China recently in an apparent attempt to hedge against (and give a warning to) the U.S. Two of Pakistan's likely assumptions are that China and the U.S. have conflicting interests in Pakistan, and that privileging one will pit it against the other. These aren't strictly crazy assumptions: China has shown every willingness to work with pariah or terrorism-supporting states, such as Iran and Burma and Sudan; China has a policy of non-interference in other nations, even ones with very irresponsible and violent governments; and Chinese and American influence in Asia can sometimes appear mutually exclusive, or at least competitive.

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6805
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 201

Postby CRamS » 05 Nov 2011 06:20

KLNMurthy wrote:
In other words, after all that fulmination, just continue as before, settling for a supply of AQ no. 3s, while condoning terrorism against India.

Nothing new from la Fair.


No boss, I would cut Fair didi some slack. I think she does have the right pulse, but as an All American Blonde, she has American interests front and center (nothing wrong with that). So, as I read between the lines in her testimony, her basic thesis is that TSP fears and wants to thwart India's rise with pigLeTs, and furthermore, US is facilitating this according to TSP, and hence US must alleviate TSP concerns. Now, based on her past analysis, I conclude that this means that US must gift TSP a nuke deal provided it cracks down on all kinds of terrorists.

This is a bogus prescription, but based on this testiomony, I would upgrade Fair didi from the equivalent of a well-paid Fox news Bimbo mouthpiece, to someone who is torn between journalistic quest for the truth and her country's interests. Make no mistake about it, the male maacho arse-holes in the Pentagon and CIA who enjoy a cozy relationship with TSPA/ISI are probably mocking Fair didi and hurling football player locker room expletives listening to her testimony.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: g.sarkar, sarulan and 66 guests