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.
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Pakistan’s former ambassador to the United States was barred Thursday from traveling abroad while a panel authorized by the Supreme Court investigates a controversial memo that led to his resignation.The court’s order came on its first day examining a petition filed by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, now an opposition leader, who has alleged that the memo, which sought U.S. help with reining in the powerful Pakistani military, was probably crafted with the knowledge of President Asif Ali Zardari and amounted to treason. Husain Haqqani, the former envoy to Washington, last week stepped down amid accusations that he engineered the memo, a charge he denies. The scandal exposed the depth of civil-military mistrust in Pakistan, where the military retains firm control of foreign and security policy three years after officially ceding power to Zardari’s civilian government. The memo, which was given to Adm. Mike Mullen, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, after the U.S. raid that killed Osama bin Laden in May, sought assistance fending off an army coup in exchange for U.S.-friendly policies. It was not signed, and Mullen has said he did not take it seriously and ignored it.
Looking at the pic of the post obliterated by the ISAF/NATO combine, some thoughts come to mind -
1. It is situated on a ridge line which means it was pretty close to the Duran Line. The reason I say this is because as a practice, when British drew boundaries, they drew them along ridges seperating watershed or which offered good observation point and dominating positions.
2. The infra on the post simply does not look like as made to sustain 24 people. It seems more like made to accomodate a section or 10 people. Also, major administrative bases are in the mountain shadow area - not on top of moutain tops.
3. Now, if it was a post for section worth of troops, would in al probability be commanded by an NCO. What were the major and captain sahan doing up there? Too much off an co-incidence.
4. Also, the infra seems more make shift and crude. I mean, whats with shelters/hutmets made with stones? Yes, the Pakees might not be expecting attack from across the Durand Line but the infra is no where comparable to those seen on Indian border or LOC.
5. Most important - it seems the ISAF/NATO used only the heavy caliber guns/cannons. In case they used rockets and/or hellfire and AC-130 gunships, where is the corresponding damage? The damn place would have been flattened with 105mm shells from AC-130 and rockets/hellfires from Apache. And where are the craters from these weapons?
6. Given the size of the real estate - two apaches can level this in 10 minutes of sustained burts from their canons? Whats with 2 hour confrontation?
Which brings me to the question - Is this actually the post which got obliterated? Or, is this famous puki photo-shop job? Do the pukes wanna show how 'defenseless' and little speck in the universe the post was which was ruthlessly attacked by NATO/ISAF?
Amd if this is the post - then something big was up at the post for a capitan and herr major to be there along with 24 soldiers.
Seems ISAf called off the initial attack and waited for help to arrive from the Paki base. Apaches came back to do Jhatka after the posts was brimming with PA. This explain Paki anger knowing well they were deliberatley lured in to Dial the Stargate for Planet Hoor.
Its revenge and the Pakisatan's know for what. They just didn't expect it this way, that's all. And there is more to come.
They have been directly responsible for the deaths of more Americans than anybody else since the Vietcong.
Is there a loop hole in the blockage of ISAF trucks? I mean Afghanistan can under the international law, being a landlocked country, import goods. So can Pakis block these too?
Altair wrote:CFair is a chameleon. Let us not get carried away. All it means is that right now the mood in Pentagon is to bomb the crap out of Pakistan and exact some revenge.
India must Make hay while the sun shines.
It would be interesting to go back and look at what exactly CFair said "before" and "after" that makes us first label her "unfair" and now "changed". It seems to me that our focus is on whether her words induce pleasant or unpleasant feelings in us. I think a more objective and less emotional evaluation will be more useful for our purposes.
We seem to expect US and its thinktankers come to the stage with full knowledge and maximum power. So, if they do or say stuff that we see as clearly wrong or harmful, we conclude that they are manipulating and dissimulating in their own supreme interest (about which they are presumed to have maximum clarity and understanding).
Reality is that these are human beings not gods. Their understanding is limited; it could evolve or they can remain ossified and trapped by their own prejudices. US may have a lot of power but each quantum of power is met with a problem intractable with that quantum.
Earlier she spoke untruths (Indian consulates in Iran as hotbeds of Baloch insurgency support). Now in this instance she speaks the truth (TSP support for Taliban).
Consistency is both times she toes the US line towrads TSP.
ramana wrote:Earlier she spoke untruths (Indian consulates in Iran as hotbeds of Baloch insurgency support). Now in this instance she speaks the truth (TSP support for Taliban).
Consistency is both times she toes the US line towrads TSP.
We can parse her forever but her career is about being the "designated maverick" of the US establishment. True, she told an obvious paki untruth about 10000 consulates and we can only speculate that it was for careerist reasons of an upwardly mobile assistant professor fighting for tenure. That species is the most desperate cornered beast known to man.
I think we can't discount the possibility that US having a collective tubelight moment is actually the reality and CFair's evolution reflects this. In other words, there is no Big Lie being peddled by the US, just Big Delusion.
rohitvats wrote:Looking at the pic of the post obliterated by the ISAF/NATO combine, some thoughts come to mind -
<snip>
Rohitvatsji,
Did you notice the damage on one side that was still smoldering of the ridge at the beginning of the video http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 8#p1204568. I think the real action happened there, not at that make shift observation point. My guess is that the 24 paki army causalities are only part of the story. The unmentioned 72 are the non-state actors.
ManuT wrote:
WRT 'Strategic depth' of TSP.
Its aim it is to gain an advantage in terms of space in a war with India.
The Durrand line issue is secondary in this.
The framework for this has existed in the Taliban regime 1.0 which was recognised by Pakistan and KSA and UAE (on the persuasion of Pakistan).
Examples of it in action:
1. In proxy war in Kashmir in 90s as foreign fighters.
2. The hijacking of the IA flight 814 which landed in Kandahar in Dec 1999. The behaviour the Taliban regime 1.0, in the negotiations between GOI and the hijackers, acting on the instructions from Pakistan.
Today I would say it, has three components:
1. Afghanistan to be a sanctuary to which the TSP forces would retreat to after it losses in the conventional war India.
2. The Afghans thrown as cannon fodder against India.
3. A certain part of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal moved to Afghanistan as second strike capability.
Afghans do not get a say in all this. In return, they are to be eternally dependent on TSP with a in a bear hug of 'Islamic brotherhood'.
TSP current objective in Afghanistan to ensure this: A Taliban Regime 2.0.
4. Afghanistan acts as the base for jihadi non-state actors. When added with nuke-jihadism will make Pakis new Khalipha. This allows Pakis to divert any/all blame to non-pak territory and people. Even 9/11 is nothing but the result of USA allowing Paki strategic depth in Afghanistan. And this worked as Pakis expected. Unkil's 9/11 response is born by Afghanis leaving Pakis live another day.
Anujan wrote:Apparently the Supreme Court of Pakistan has ordered ex-amby Hussain Haqqani (good Haqqani) to not leave Pakistan and has ordered his house arrest. Discussions going on whether he can be tried for treason.
The NATO attacks have raised the anti US sentiments in Pakistan which will complicate matters for Haqqani.
Its just a thought, but at the height of a really wet monsoon season, hitting all dams on the Sindhu river basin will likely wash more than half the paki scum out into the Arabian sea. Not a perfect house cleaning, but a very good start at it.
parsuram wrote:Its just a thought, but at the height of a really wet monsoon season, hitting all dams on the Sindhu river basin will likely wash more than half the paki scum out into the Arabian sea. Not a perfect house cleaning, but a very good start at it.
Well, Not every one is perfect, indians are human only. They might succeed in cleaning Indusland by making couple of attempts but Sir, You have indeed looked and judge them fair by their own lovely law of living like looney Lakkarbagghe lunatics longing to leave for Lasvegas upon Lahoor. But they win again, only the level of ME Biblical flood will sweep them away.
Chris Fair is quite funny. She let's loose 4-letter words, calls TSP a condom, blasts US military men for homo-erotic fantasies about TFTA Jernails etc.
What has gotten into her of late? It's as if watching a doppelganger, or was it the previous one.
WOW! I hope a day will come when US president will talk like that
Chris Fair is quite funny. She let's loose 4-letter words, calls TSP a condom, blasts US military men for homo-erotic fantasies about TFTA Jernails etc.
Another funny thing about this is that an SDRE like Sadanand Dhume (who had even gotten the 'liberals' panties in a twist on one chai-ghar a dozen or more Paki crises ago) is moderating the discussion between khan and packee. Always it was khan expected to mediate between packee and sdre...
Fair is funny esepcially when she calls for a can of whoop-ass to be opened up on the packee by the injun. And then accuses Shafi of "taking panga". Not sure how much urdu she knows, but enough to be quite annoying
Pakistan is once again accusing India of water hegemony. This time, however, the accusation refers not to Indian damming of the Western Rivers in J&K, but to Indian support for Afghan development projects along the Kabul River. This accusation indulges in conspiratorial thinking, and distracts from a factual understanding of the water issues between the two countries.According to Arshad Abbasi, a water and energy expert from the Sustainable Development Policy Institute in Islamabad, Afghanistan, with assistance from India and the World Bank, has plans to build 12 dams on the Kabul River, with a combined storage capacity of 4.7MAF. Pakistan is concerned that these dams will stop crucial water supply from flowing to the Indus River. It is also concerned that Indian support for these dams will increase India’s sphere of hydro-influence in the region.
In order to understand India’s possible participation in Afghan dam-building – along with that of the US government, the World Bank, IMF, ADB, and others – one has to understand the context: namely, Afghanistan’s lack of hydro-development.Firstly, due to successive wars in Afghanistan, water infrastructure in the country is shockingly underdeveloped. All 12 of the existing water reservoirs in the country were built between 1920 and 1940. Afghanistan has sufficient water to meet its needs – around 2,775 cubic meters of water are currently available per capita, which is well above the water threshold of 1,800m3 per capita. However, the country has not been able to harness this water adequately.
Secondly, even though the Kabul River Basin (KRB) is the most important river basin in Afghanistan – containing half the country’s urban population, including the city of Kabul – it is one of the most underutilised basins in Afghanistan in terms of overall surface water availability. The proportion of water use in the KRB is 25 percent. Thirdly, disaster-management information systems have revealed that the mountainous north-eastern region of the country, where the Kabul River is situated, is one of the most flood- and drought-prone areas in Afghanistan. Annual flow is extremely erratic, dropping as low as 11.2MAF and rising as high as 34.8MAF. This makes storage all the more essential in order to provide water in lean periods, and to avoid disasters like flash floods during sudden flow outbursts. Since the Kabul River, a tributary of the Indus, is a shared river between Pakistan and Afghanistan, this challenge of the 12 dams is essentially an Af-Pak issue rather than an Indo-Pak one. The issue of the 12 Kabul River dams, rather than simply being a reference point for India’s development assistance programme in Afghanistan, should be the spark for a water agreement between Afghanistan and Pakistan. So far, India/Pakistan is the only Indus Basin riparian pairing that enjoys a treaty or agreement on water sharing; Afghanistan and Pakistan do not enjoy the same advantage. The two countries came close to drafting a water treaty in 2003 and 2006, but these attempts failed. From a strategic standpoint, the timing could not be better for a water treaty between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Recent months have seen an increase in tensions between the two countries, heightened by the assassination of former Afghan president Burhanuddin Rabbani. A comprehensive water accord – one that addresses both the Afghan need for water development and Pakistan’s apprehensions about a reduction in water flows – could do wonders not only for water security but also for political ties.Though India-Pakistan water relations are not directly involved in the Kabul River issue, they still hold relevance. The Indus Water Treaty (IWT) between India and Pakistan can be used to inform an Afghanistan-Pakistan agreement on the Kabul River, and this can subsequently create a more comprehensive view of water security throughout the Indus River Basin.Although not without limitations, the IWT is considered one of the more successful water treaties in the world. The treaty is one of the few on trans-boundary water that addresses specific water allocations; it provides unique design requirements for run-of-the-river dams that ensure the steady flow of water while at the same time guaranteeing power generation through hydroelectricity. The India-Pakistan water treaty also provides a mechanism for consultation and arbitration in case questions, disagreements, or disputes arise over water sharing. All of these features could be applicable to an Afghanistan-Pakistan water treaty. India’s desire to assist Afghanistan with dam construction would be less politically fraught, given that Pakistan would presumably accept the existence of these dam projects regardless of who is helping construct them. And the United States, with its goal of proceeding with reconciliation in Afghanistan, would welcome the political implications of the treaty. Perhaps most importantly, an Afghanistan-Pakistan water accord could eventually be applied to an understanding of water-sharing for the region at large, founded on cooperation rather than competition.
MurthyB wrote:Fair is funny esepcially when she calls for a can of whoop-ass to be opened up on the packee by the injun. And then accuses Shafi of "taking panga". Not sure how much urdu she knows, but enough to be quite annoying
Actually, her tweets back to Pakjabi trolls with choice Punjabi gaalis (khusra, etc.) would make some of us blush.
She is just a maverick and sometimes has similarities in style with the typical argumentative desi i.e cannot agree 100% with anyone. E.g. if someone says India is doing nothing in Balochistan, she'll find a nit to refute that. But the big picture is that she knows all about TSP and will not hesitate to call it out.
^^^ Hmmm, so Cfair isn't making tenure then.... can't say I'm devastated or shocked or even surprised to hear that. LOL.
Came across not as professional, balanced or fair (pun unintended) but as a petty, potty-mouthed too-full-of-herself panjandrum. Antithesis of a policy wonk. Good riddance, I say.
Anyway the US-Pak biraderhood will likely overtake the likes of Cfair's understanding or (guffaw!) influence. jai hor and all that.
We need a BRF acronym/term for the Paki white flag flying over the Paki Army post pest-e-shaheedized by NATO AC-130s. It is after all the Ultimate Towel.
Pakistani officials at a border coordination center gave the go-ahead to American airstrikes that inadvertently killed 24 Pakistan troops, unaware that their own forces were in the area, according to U.S. officials briefed on the preliminary investigation. The border-control center is manned by U.S., Afghan and Pakistani representatives who are supposed to share information and head off conflicts. But the U.S. and Afghan forces conducting the Nov. 26 commando operation hadn't notified the center in advance that they planned to strike Taliban insurgents near that part of the border, the official said.
When called, the Pakistani representatives at the center said there were no Pakistani military forces in the area identified by the commandos, clearing the way for the Americans to conduct the airstrikes, the U.S. officials said. A senior Pakistani military officer said it was impossible for the U.S. not to know it was firing at Pakistani military bases.
U.S. officials countered that the Pakistani positions were more like makeshift campsites than established military bases. A U.S. official said that because the Taliban and Pakistani military use some of the same weaponry, it was difficult to tell who was firing at the assault force.
A very interesting interview with Gen. Jim Jones and Charlie Rose. The former US NSA and supreme NATO commander says:
* TSPA is hell bent on self-destruction. We have said this time and again to Kayani but he does not get it. Is there are any sane elements in other parts of TSP, they should do whatever they can to get the army on track before it's too late
* MMS has gone as far as he could to placate TSP and even offer them economic sops but TSPA rejected everything
* Kayani has called the shots from the time he was DG ISI. He's the guy that has steered TSPA away from Musharraf's path
* Kayani knew about Osama
If Nato forces refuse to give firm guarantees to stop incursions, the security forces may be deployed on the eastern border (Indian border) where they will have necessary airpower to thwart any misadventure, the official added.
What? Only in Pakistan I guess this happens. If Pakistan is ready to redeploy on the eastern border doesn't that mean they are not serious about fighting "incursions by militants" along the Afghan border? What a self goal!
Next part is interesting:
However, the latest move is being seen by many as an attempt by the military brass to pacify the growing anger among the lower-cadre of the army over the Nato strikes and also use it as pressure tactic.
If Nato forces refuse to give firm guarantees to stop incursions, the security forces may be deployed on the eastern border (Indian border) where they will have necessary airpower to thwart any misadventure, the official added.
What? Only in Pakistan I guess this happens. If Pakistan is ready to redeploy on the eastern border doesn't that mean they are not serious about fighting "incursions by militants" along the Afghan border? What a self goal!
partha, I would interpret it as a warning that TSP would launch another massive terror attack on India. Remember that everyone (not MMS, of course) is now saying that another terror attack might lead to Indian retaliation. Pakistan itself believes that India might not absorb another body blow and yet keep quiet. So, it wants to be prepared for the blow back. This statement, IMHO, cannot be interpreted in any other way than as a warning to India. Pakistan's assumption, once again, may be wrong. The Chankian India may not react at all !
Did you notice the damage on one side that was still smoldering of the ridge at the beginning of the video http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 8#p1204568. I think the real action happened there, not at that make shift observation point. My guess is that the 24 paki army causalities are only part of the story. The unmentioned 72 are the non-state actors.
Some of the 24 could be non-state. As usual, Paks are maintaining opacity about who was shaheed-ized.
SSridhar wrote:
partha, I would interpret it as a warning that TSP would launch another massive terror attack on India. Remember that everyone (not MMS, of course) is now saying that another terror attack might lead to Indian retaliation. Pakistan itself believes that India might not absorb another body blow and yet keep quiet. So, it wants to be prepared for the blow back. This statement, IMHO, cannot be interpreted in any other way than as a warning to India. Pakistan's assumption, once again, may be wrong. The Chankian India may not react at all !
American still dont understand the structure and mentality of Kabila when they wonder why Paki dont worry about their future. Paoqtoons being mentally Moghuls but essentillay Pakjabis are waiting for India to collapse so they can cliam their Ghaznavi route to loot. The removal of Equal equal and now loss of strategic deapth must be causing much pain but instead of soul searching they are busy digging their grave. With removal of Massa cover and Afghan support , they have only China left to shield them . But how long? PRC will be stupid to loose Asian century dream at the alter of Paki ego. Pakistan collapse have to slow and must come from within and that too after 2022.
if you search for rahnuma ahmed in above link, will see photo taken post liberation 1971 in BD agri univ mymensingh where this raped woman and some others were rescued after the PA fled the scene ahead of advancing IA. the poor woman is unconscious and dazed from the abuse.
it sure takes a special army to be focussed on kidnap and rape while IA was beating them to a pulp on the frontline.
basically CF's USP is the reach she has with people that matter. It's not the depth of knowledge in her theater of operation. We prolly have atleast a few folks who have deeper knowledge about the afairs in TSP right here in BRF. but they dont have acknowledgeable audience of the 'think tanks' that she has.
At a given level of knowledge, CF's stated opinion is a function of her circumstance - the audience she's speaking to for example. TSP's dealings are gray and fuzzy, but the basic analysis about their character is black and white. if anybody is trying to paint a rosy picutre on that it is obvious they are not talking to facts but to their own constraints. As Gupta-ji points out, perhaps loosing tenure sets CF free?
A U.S. official said that because the Taliban and Pakistani military use some of the same weaponry, it was difficult to tell who was firing at the assault force.
Thank me for my prescient analysis in the BENIS dhaaga
Gen (retd) James Jones, who was the National Security Adviser to President Barack Obama from January 2009 to October 2010.
The US has warned Pakistani leaders of dangerous consequences if there is another terror attack on India that originates from Pakistan, a former top adviser to President Barack Obama has said, asking Islamabad to give up the policy of supporting extremist elements. - Gen (retd) James Jones.
"I've said this in exactly those words, and I think my former colleagues at the NSC (National Security Council) and at the State Department have done the same thing – is that you really don't understand, or we don't understand why you don't understand that you're playing Russian roulette here with your future because if there is another attack originating from Pakistan in India, you know, Prime Minister Singh isn't going to be able to (hold back)...," he said.
Jones praised Singh for maintaining calm and patience in the aftermath of the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks.
Raja Bose wrote:We need a BRF acronym/term for the Paki white flag flying over the Paki Army post pest-e-shaheedized by NATO AC-130s. It is after all the Ultimate Towel.
That was a white towel wasn't it? Not a flag as such. Someone archive that picture.
