Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2011

[brihaspati]

Philip ji,

All over the Middle East,the Gulf,and in the Indian sub-continent in Pakistan in particular,the US has propped up the worst specimens of humanity,who have inflicted their worst evils upon their own people,egged on by the US,as diplomutt Frank Wisner did in Cairo, exhorting Mubarak to stand firm and slaughter his people instead of advising him to quit! When sh*tworms of the US establishment like Wisner behave in such vile manner,as they continue to do across the globe,preserving their selfish interests at the cost of the freedom of the natives,one can only wonder at how moronic so-called expert scribes of Time,Newsweek,etc.,can be to ever imagine that the US has any legitimate role to play in the Middle East or anywhere else on the planet and open-mouthedly stare in shock when the natives overthrow their despotic rulers partners in crime with Uncle Sam!

The slap in the face that the Egytptians gave Obama and his establishment in these recnt tumltuous days in Egypt is a mere "love-bite" in comparison to what Uncle Sam Obama or his successor whoever it may be,is going to get from the people of Pakistan in the future,as inevitably as the sun rises in the east.

Another way of looking at it is there is no "evil" in "foreign policy" - it was all in "national interest". USA did what it thought was its national interest. Don't bother to ask questions about which subgroup of Americans saw such things as in their interest, or who acknowledged thats uch things were in their interests. Surely you must have heard the line that national governments act without emotion or value-judgments, and at no time point is anything other than hard economic gains the only major criterion. "evil" etc are "ideological" and emotional stuff. So what America did must have had economic and financial profits! And that profit justifies it all - no one else have any right to be nagry about it. Or since they can do nothing about it, they should not be angry about it.

Its a pity that the ME commons [or not so commons according to some] have not chosen to wait and develop their economy and financial clout first [or maybe they have? I don't know, maybe Egyptian economy has shown fantastic growth rates for some time which means that the commons demonstrating are deceptive liars] before hitting back! Or maybe in some mysterious way, this hitting back by the commons is part of a deeper financial strategy - since nothing in international politics or even national politics is about ideology, but always only about finance!

I was trying to apply this line of analysis to Pakis. Now Pakis seem to have done quite well in international politics according to many assessments here - they have a blank cheque from two of the most powerful economies in the world. So whatever they do, they do in their national interests, and we should not judge them by non-financial criteria like "evil" etc. We should not even be angry about them, for that would be indulging in emotional stuff. But I could not reassure myself about the deep pure-economic-profit motive of what all this terror stuff that Pakis carry out!

If Pakis are not taking the never-ending route of prosperity and financial profits first [its never ending because who can set an upper limit to prosperity and then after that who can try to do anything else before that unlimited limit is reached!]- are they not endangering the golden rule that all international politics is about monetary profits?

If terror is profitable with much less inputs, why should not India be using that too - since all international politics is about maximizing monetary profits! If India cannot use it because it would make India "fall to the level of the Pakis" - will not that be an emotional, ideological and ethical/moral judgment - something that no nation should follow?

If Pakis can carry out terror and other stuff on India, and all such international mastaani can only be carried out after supreme prosperity and financial profits have been obtained, is Pakiland already such a super economomy?!!!

[shiv]

The simple fact - From the 1990 standoff, to Kargil, Parakram and 26/11 - >20 years now, it is not Pak's conventional weapons that has imposed "restraint", it is their nuclear arsenal...

I believe you have failed to see the point but you have plenty of company. You are still talking of "deterrence" and "fighting Pakistan" and "descending to Pakistan's level"

I think you need to have a better understanding of what Pakistan is and what holds it together as a country. If you already have that understanding your post above does not reveal it. I have never suggested that we initiate war with a "weaker Pakistan that is not getting conventional US arms aid". India has never and will never initiate war against Pakistan and I am not advocating that India fight a war with Pakistan once US conventional arms aid stops.

US aid to Pakistan never made the country richer, more literate or more developed. All that US aid did to Pakistan was to support and enrich a core clique of people - consisting of the army and an "establishment" of some civilian elite. That army and establishment had one major requirement - arms and diplomatic support against India and in exchange they fought the US's wars. The US did what was asked of it (more or less). The Pakistani establishment got US diplomatic and arms support against India while the Pakistanis arranged the war in Afghanistan.

I do not believe that the US ever anticipated that the Pakistani army would lose control of the Islamist groups in Afghanistan causing them to spread their terror network. A spread of terror into India in the 90s was not seen as anything odd by the US. That was a fight for freedom, about which Amrica knows everything. It all became "terrorism" only after 9-11. Now, after 9-11 the US is demanding that the Pakistani army wind up the terror networks and the Pakistani army is unable to do it. There was a brief period under Musharraf when he actually fought the Islamists and in turn got US aid. That US aid continues, but the Pakistani army is only half heartedly fighting the Islamists. The Pakistani army is now in a fix. They are, I believe in a situation where if they fight the Islamists, support for them will dry up over vast areas of Pakistan although the US will support them to the hilt. On the other hand, if they don't fight and retain their popularity among the people the US will put intense pressure on them, pay them, bribe them and alternately support and cajole them to fight the Islamists. But no progress will be made - leading to an eventual US exasperation, and possible exhaustion

Of these two scenarios, i.e 1. US aid continuing in exchange for a demonstrable Pakistani army campaign against the Islamists or 2. US aid drying up and a reluctance of the Pakistani army to fight the Islamists, i would like to see the latter, i.e option 2.


That is because option 1 means the continuation aid to Pakistan. the continuation of aid to Pakistan from the US has the following side effects:
1) Arms are fungible and can be used as much against India as against the Taliban, no matter what anyone tries to tell you
2) A Pakistan army with fewer resources will be less able to fight and win against the Taliban while they maintain their vigil against India
3) The Pakistan army will stop fighting the Taliban and try and reach accommodation. The chances of the insurgencies in Pakistan taking a greater toll on the Pakistani army are higher without US aid.

In my view the possibility of a further split of Pakistan into Pashtunistan and a rump state of Pakistan gets closer if all this happens.

One word about nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are being cited by you and others as "all that Pakistan needs" to fight/deter India. You are wrong. If nuclear weapons were all that Pakistan needs to thwart India, they would have no need for the huge mass of conventional forces they maintain against India. they could shift their conventional forces in a trice and squash the Taliban, albeit by pissing off their own people. You could argue that Pakistan is maintaining conventional forces on the Indian border only as a pretext to avoid fighting in the West. If that is the case - it is all the more reason for the US to recognise the futility of arming the Pakistan army and asking them to fight the Taliban/Islamists.

I want the Pakistan army to become weaker relative to all the battles it has to fight. It is weaker against India and has been that way for years. But US aid, given in the hope that the Pakistani army will fight the Taliban is making that army stronger vis a vis India and is also ensuring continued power of that army over vast areas of NWFP and Baluchistan. This is a mistake. US arms aid must end and let events go the way they must go. Let Pakistan be taken over by Islamists, or by the same Paki army that becomes overtly islamist. Let Pashtunistan form if necessary, by formal dissolution of the Durand line and no Paki-American nexus to uphold and protect it. In any case let chaos reign at first. Afghanistan too will be a rump state that will need support from the North. But the Pakistan army will no longer get support from the US.

There is no guarantee that things will pan out the way i have suggested. but they will no longer pan out the way the US has planned and the Pakistan army and establishment will, for the first time in over 6 decades be faced with an existential crisis minus US aid

What of China? The Pakistani army and establishment will obviously run to China to fill the gaps it has in terms of material and funds. But someone please tell me if Chinese interest in Pakistan is any different from US interests. China too needs Pakistan as a transit region and a restive Pakistan in a state of near civil war will be no better for China that it is for the US. The Taliban, who are fighting the Pakistani army are hardly likely to cheer and welcome the Chinese if that Pakistani army gets arms from China to fight the Taliban. So is China going to welcome and woo the Taliban? Fine. if China does that, the Pakistan army and establishment is toast. Pakistan will get a China sponsored Islamist government. And China will have to worry about Xinjiang.

What China might do is the topic of an entire thread. Because neither India, nor the US nor Russia are likely to watch quietly. But I think a cessation of US aid to Pakistan is a necessary first step.

[shiv]

But how do you stop Pakistan from conducting nuclear blackmail of the world?

By inviting Pakistan to hit you, or by encouraging Pakistan to hit some adversary with nukes. So far both the US and China have welcomed the idea of Pakistan nuking India. It is only when a country other than India stands the risk of getting nuked that anyone worries.

I for one welcome the idea of Pakistan blackmailing the world with nuclear weapons. Why would you sir, as an Indian, actually want to "stop Pakistan from conducting nuclear blackmail of the world?". Why care about a world that did not care about India. No Indian in India would worry about anyone else getting nuked by Pakistan. All these years it was only India being blackmailed while The US and China cheered covertly in the sidelines. Long live the Taliban. May the US face nuclear blackmail from their ally - using the F-16 block 52s they are to deliver soon.

[brihaspati]

Once moral/ethical/value judgments are declared to have no real value or efficacy - that real political/international decisions are taken on economic profits only, there can no longer be arguments about why Indians cannot stoop down to the level of Pakis. Because if it is in "national interest" to stoop down to that level, the above logic says, India should. By not doing the economically most efficient thing - which Pakis have proved by their apparent success in gaining so much by giving so little [the efficiency criterion - the same that was used to find by some that slavery in early days of America was economically efficient], India is then indulging in ideological masturbation which according the rule of worship of the golden calf - is an "evil" thing to do! [strange isn't it that even justifying the pure-profits prioritization needs a kind of value-judgmental rejection of all other motives!].

[Baikul]

.....................
I for one welcome the idea of Pakistan blackmailing the world with nuclear weapons. Why would you sir, as an Indian, actually want to "stop Pakistan from conducting nuclear blackmail of the world?". .............

Precisely. The older I get the more I discover that no one - be it your boss, organizations or nations - gives a tuppenny ha'penny damn for your problem, unless it becomes, or you make it, their problem.

Hell, I don't give a damn for my subordinates problems unless they make it my problem.

All the Kumbaya choruses and mordant violins in the world will not change that fact.

[A_Gupta]

If the Pakistani army was the size and strength of the Bangladeshi army, how much of a threat would it pose to India

With nukes, pretty almost much as much as it does today, in politico-strategic terms...

Let's put it another way - in which scenario is India better off?
Pakistan with nukes and
1. its current military, or
2. Bangladesh size military.

[CRamS]

Somnath:

Can't reply to everything, but one point you made earlier caught my attention. I respectfuly disagree that India making noises about sale of F-16s by US to TSP, brings India down to the level of TSP. Look, as far as India is concerned, TSP is to India, what Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Queda are to US. You tell me, will US tolerate even the sale of one Brahmos missile to any of these aforementioned enemies of US, depsite the fact that US can annhilate every single one of these entities? Can you imagine the round the clock whining, demonization of us SDREs take place in US media. I mean the pressure to punish India for aiding US's enemies would be immense among US policy makers and their western lackeys. Likewise, India should make a huge deal of USA's militray aid to TSP, not this passive acceptance we are seeing today. So what if we are reduced to the level of TSP. Lets put aside this we are super power onlee nonsense. Lets gets past TSP first.

[ramana]

Shiv, To add to your post the nature of the US weapons 'aid' to TSP is fundamentally weapons to fight India and not the terrorists.

[Prem]

If Pushtuns desire, a Nuclear Afghanistan or Nuclear Northern Alliance can do wonder to wake every one from deep slumber. They can spearhead fight against AQ terrorists and be secular strategic partners in spreading freedom to opressed Balochis, Uighers Muslims and Tibbetan Buddhists.

[jrjrao]

Shah Mehmood Qureshi has obviously seen too many Bollywood movies, so that he can so easily deliver such fancy filmi "I am a herrow" dialogs, with suitably affected silly facial expressions, all in a properly charming "I am a daaku" accent.

Here he is seen in his post-Kerry press conference in Isloo today.

[youtube]5hiK4BSzjIc&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Clearly, and with the support of the PA and ISI, this scumbag is positioning himself as the next prime minister/CEO a la what Bhutto did a few decades ago. In fact, as the Abdul comments here indicate, Qureshi's herrowdom is now being widely appreciated and recognized:
http://thenews.com.pk/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=11235

[RajeshA]

But how do you stop Pakistan from conducting nuclear blackmail of the world?

By inviting Pakistan to hit you, or by encouraging Pakistan to hit some adversary with nukes. So far both the US and China have welcomed the idea of Pakistan nuking India. It is only when a country other than India stands the risk of getting nuked that anyone worries.

I for one welcome the idea of Pakistan blackmailing the world with nuclear weapons. Why would you sir, as an Indian, actually want to "stop Pakistan from conducting nuclear blackmail of the world?". Why care about a world that did not care about India. No Indian in India would worry about anyone else getting nuked by Pakistan. All these years it was only India being blackmailed while The US and China cheered covertly in the sidelines. Long live the Taliban. May the US face nuclear blackmail from their ally - using the F-16 block 52s they are to deliver soon.

shiv saar,
as I mentioned in the Managing Pakistan's Failure Thread,

in a scenario where Pakistan remains united and nuclearized, there is nothing better than if all parties feel the threat of these weapons.

That gives them a motivation to do something about it. But it is not a solution to the threat of Pakistani nukes on Indian soil. Just by making it a global problem, does not mean that the problem is solved or that we don't need to do our part in solving the problem. Considering that Pakistan has a long history of enmity towards India, it would continue to remain for the most part an Indian problem too. The major responsibility to denuclearize Pakistan would remain with India.

[Maram]

Shiv ji,

You are ABSOLUTELY right! getting US to stop arming/funding fundoo army will make the run to the Chinese. It makes the dlagon play a more active role in global geopolitics. So far dlagon uses fundoos as a way keeping desh occupied. We have to change this scenario. Once Dlagon plays active role, it will make friends, but more importantly it will make them enemies. enemy of an enemy is a friend.

US not funding the fundoos will essentially reveal the dlagon's tell in the global poker geo strategic affairs. I whole heartedly agree that our numero uno foreign policy objective should be to get US to stop funding fndoo army/essentially make the fundoo army weak and then this will hasten fundooland disintegration!

*Kneels down and prays to GOD that this scenario happens immediately*

[VikramS]

I am actually amazed at the continuous focus on the fact that the arms which TSP gets are to fight India. Why do you expect anything else? Do we expect the RAPEs to ask for hunting knives?

I suggest we spend the time to understand the dynamics of weapon delivery to the TSP over the past 20 years. Why does the TSP get money and aid?
And what does the TSP do with that money?
When it comes to the spectrum of weapons, what is the level of sophistication of the arms which the TSP receives? What is the quantity of arms delivered, especially the high quality ones?
Could TSP get those arms from other sources if Uncle did not offer them?
Apart from Uncle which other countries are willing to sell arms to TSP and what do they bring?
For the arms gifted from Uncle, what is the official price-tag attached to them?


Regarding the discussion on the size of the TSPA: It is a strawman. Even if the TSPA disbanded tomorrow, any occupying force will have a hard time in a country of 160 million brain-washed Jehadis with between 10-20 milion fire-arms among them. Heck even the TSPA can not control its own country.

FWIW Indian leaders did not allow the IAF to bomb TSPA positions on the other side of the LOC during Kargil even though they were often seconds, if not minutes of flying time away (and with little or no opposition of significance being offered by the TSPAF).

Maram: Do you really think that the rest of the world does not know what the PLA is up to. Heck the CCP/ PLA combo has fought wars with almost all her neighbours!

[Abhijit]

one of the key influences wrt US is the force of overt public opinion. whether they actually give two hoots for it, is a different matter, but if it is on CNN, they are forced to address it. in this respect, why can't the Indian political parties arrange massive rallies and burn potus effigies/flags whenever there are arms giveaways to pakiland? americans like to believe that they are just, fair and democratic. let them know that their govt's actions are causing takleef to Indians. But in absence of such overt public opposition, other means will turn out to be ineffective.
But in India, the politicos are busy burning other things for other local issues - hence they don't care.

[Gus]

If the world will not let us solve the paki problem, then let us work to make paki a problem for the world.

[ramana]

Nightwatch comments on 2/15/2011

Pakistan: On 16 February, the police in Lahore Province, Pakistan, submitted a 25-page charge sheet against the American Consulate worker who has been held illegally in custody for murdering two Pakistanis who tried to rob him. The Lahore police argued to the sessions judge that their investigation proved the man did not act in self-defense.

Comment: Senator John Kerry, who fancies himself a statesman-diplomat, is in Pakistan to settle this dispute and free the American official. One news source said Kerry apologized for the deaths. The BBC reported Kerry was bargaining with Pakistan for it to follow its own international obligations.


Fortunately, President Obama, an attorney as is Kerry, made a statement that the US citizen must be released under international diplomatic conventions to which Pakistan is a signatory.

{Means there is split in Democrats themselves on how to handle TSP. The usual TSP supporters want to use the carrot and not stick. The President wants to use stick. The carrot is the $3.1B in the budget. Lets see how it develops later.}

The facts of the case are less important than the hostility of the vast majority of ordinary Pakistanis to Americans. Even police and judicial authorities will ignore Pakistan's laws to punish Americans. The government is content to permit this because for a time it diverts and vents public hostility over its incompetence.

{Yet it depends of US aid to survive!}

[A_Gupta]

Regarding the discussion on the size of the TSPA: It is a strawman. Even if the TSPA disbanded tomorrow, any occupying force will have a hard time in a country of 160 million brain-washed Jehadis with between 10-20 milion fire-arms among them. Heck even the TSPA can not control its own country.

I think you're missing the point entirely. No one here is talking about invading or occupying Pakistan. Cold Start isn't in consideration either.

There are many ways a weaker TSPA works well for India. I won't list them. But there is the point that TSPA is what keeps Pakistan from evolving politically; the Pharaoh of Pakistan. If the Pharaoh is greatly weakened or gone, the strategic situation changes considerably, and mostly, from Indian POV, for the better.

[VikramS]

A_Gupta:

My view is that a TSP which is military weaker does not matter since the conventional military force is not something they rely on as their shield.

Of course if the issue is about financial and other support, then let us stick to that. Why bring arms in to the picture all the time?

Further what if the Pharoah is replaced by a Ming or a bin-Qasim? One reason I am greatly bothered by all this is a vague hypothesis has been anointed as a thesis without any scrutiny.

[A_Gupta]

VikramS:

The conventional strength of the TSPA has internal and external effects. If you keep thinking in terms of India overwhelming Pakistan by force you're missing the point.

If the Pakistani public thought that the TSPA just with nukes was adequate, there would be the demand that the conventional military budget be reduced in order to build more madrassas.

Why does the TSPA test fire missiles of dubious military value when it does, e.g., whenever talks with India resume? Who do you think is the audience - internal or external?

Pakistan having a half-dozen more working F-16s doesn't change the military balance with India. Who do you think the "we have F-16s" is directed at?

-Arun

[jrjrao]

x-post:

WSJ:

Mr. Singh's Leap of Faith
It makes no sense for India now to return to the table with Pakistan, especially without preconditions.
By NITIN PAI

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has long wanted to leave his stamp on foreign policy by achieving a lasting peace between India and Pakistan. Since he came to power in 2004, he has resolutely carried forward the process of bilateral dialogue that was initiated by Atal Behari Vajpayee, his predecessor. He was compelled to suspend those talks in November 2008 after Pakistani terrorists carried out an attack on Mumbai. Now, more than two years later, the memory of those attacks has faded sufficiently for him to resume that process. The two countries agreed to a new timetable for the dialogue last week.

However, returning to the diplomatic table with Pakistan is a mistake. Increasingly compelling evidence has emerged that the Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Pakistan-based terrorist group, carried out the Mumbai attacks with the connivance of the Pakistani military establishment. Despite being confronted with evidence by both India and the United States, Islamabad is playing a delaying game to avoid having to take any action against militant groups.

Mr. Singh does not appear to see dialogue as an instrument to achieve desired outcomes. The earlier joint mechanism he and Mr. Musharraf initiated in 2006 to investigate and counter cross-border terrorism failed to prevent a string of attacks across Indian cities, not least the one on Mumbai.

The Indian prime minister pressed on nevertheless, yielding to demands made by Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani at successive summits. At a July 2009 summit at Sharm-el-Sheikh, Egypt, Mr. Singh allowed Mr. Gilani to phrase the joint statement in a manner that suggested Indian involvement in the insurgency in Pakistan's western Baluchistan province. The Pakistani media consequently portrayed this as an admission of guilt on India's part.

Mr. Singh also effectively dropped India's insistence that talks could only resume after Pakistan acted against the terrorists accused of the Mumbai attacks, even reaffirming this position at a summit in Bhutan last April. All this, in spite of considerable political costs to himself and his political party.

The Indian government's fecklessness is clear from whom it chooses to diplomatically engage with. Mr. Singh doesn't care that Pakistan's post-Musharraf civilian leaders are powerless to deliver on anything substantial. And that it is the military that matters.

Here, General Ashfaq Kayani, the army chief, is pursuing an anti-India agenda. Under his leadership, the Pakistani military has distanced itself from the overtures made by his predecessor, Mr. Musharraf. A former Afghan official has stated publicly that the 2008 bombing of India's embassy in Kabul was perpetrated by Lashkar-e-Taiba with cooperation from Pakistan's Interservices Intelligence (ISI) agency at a time when Gen. Kayani, as army leader, had ultimate responsibility for the ISI. During his tenure, there has been a resurgence of terrorists infiltrating into the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir; both Mr. Musharraf and Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari have admitted that the ISI has been broadly responsible for these infiltrations in the past.

A WikiLeaks cable, part of last year's dump, shows that even the U.S. has started to question Mr. Kayani's role. One diplomat wrote in 2009 that "the Pakistani establishment will dramatically increase support for Taliban groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan, which they see as . . . an important counterweight" to India. Mr. Kayani is seen to be against a pro-Indian government in Kabul.

As long as India officially remains the chief threat to Pakistan, the military establishment can reorder Islamabad's resources whichever way it wants; this power vanishes if India is no longer deemed that kind of threat. Perhaps that's why even Mr. Musharraf couldn't persuade his military colleagues on the merits of settling with India. If a military dictator couldn't deliver on a deal at the height of his power, agreements with Pakistan's civilians are unlikely to be worth the paper they are printed on. Yet Mr. Singh soldiers on.

Talks might even have worked if New Delhi had ratcheted up the engagement step by step, in response to small, tangible acts of good faith by Islamabad. Now, though, India's decision will be interpreted as a victory by the Pakistani military-jihadi complex. Much like the Kim Jong Il regime in North Korea, Pakistan's military leaders reckon they can use their possession of nuclear weapons to get away with acts of aggression against their neighbor. This lets them use provocative attacks as a low-cost option to achieve their geopolitical objectives. Rewarding aggression with unconditional talks only encourages an encore.

Mr. Singh and others in India's foreign policy establishment say they have no alternative. They point to the lack of credible military options—because these options carry the risk of nuclear escalation. But talks with Pakistan versus punitive military strikes is a false dichotomy. There are other solutions within the sphere of diplomacy.

These solutions involve understanding what truly enables the military-jihadi complex. The principal reason this complex can afford to export terrorism to India, Afghanistan and elsewhere is because, at a fundamental level, it is bankrolled and bailed out by the United States, China and Saudi Arabia.

These powers support a state that has been on the brink perhaps since the 1950s—so long that its elites have mastered the art of playing from that position. The Americans are desperate to extricate themselves from Afghanistan, the Chinese wish to tie down the U.S. and contain India, and the Saudis are interested in using Pakistan to hedge against a nuclear Iran.

India has not yet attempted to use its own burgeoning relationships with these states to shape the behavior of various state and non-state actors that operate from within Pakistan. The real talks New Delhi should be pursuing are with Washington, Beijing and Riyadh.

Mr. Pai is founder of the Takshashila Institution and editor of Pragati—The Indian National Interest Review.

link

[VikramS]

A-Gupta

1. The Pakistani people can not demand anything from the TSPA.


2. I do not see any significant correlation between the shiny weapons and TSPians respect for the TSPA. The same people also worship the LeT piglets armed with an AK and hand grenades.

3. The weapons might be making TSPA more confident of its ability to hold India long enough but that it is pretty much it. And the TSPA has many sources to buy those weapons.

Let's put it another way - in which scenario is India better off?
Pakistan with nukes and
1. its current military, or
2. Bangladesh size military.

You left out the third option a TSPA with 2x its current size. It will not only force the SDRE politicians to get their act together but also suck more life-blood from the shell called the TSP economy.

Sometimes I imagine a nightmarish scenario where the TSPA goes for a Samson choice first strike on India with everything they have (50-100-150). The SDRE are so shocked that the response is muted with the Chipanda scooping in to destroy anything which is left, lest the SDRE imagine getting even with the Chipanda. Then the millions of Jehadis who are now running out of land and water, swarm into India armed with the 20 million AKs they have....

[svinayak]

If the world will not let us solve the paki problem, then let us work to make paki a problem for the world.

I like this.
We need to have all the Indians understand this and work for this goal.

[svinayak]

Nightwatch comments on 2/15/2011


Fortunately, President Obama, an attorney as is Kerry, made a statement that the US citizen must be released under international diplomatic conventions to which Pakistan is a signatory.

{Means there is split in Democrats themselves on how to handle TSP. The usual TSP supporters want to use the carrot and not stick. The President wants to use stick. The carrot is the $3.1B in the budget. Lets see how it develops later.}

Pak is a Democratic baby and this means big trouble. Big trouble for India.

[Prem]

If the world will not let us solve the paki problem, then let us work to make paki a problem for the world.

I like this.
We need to have all the Indians understand this and work for this goal.

Well, it was ABV who set the ball rolling on this front.

[ramana]

Can you elaborate in which way?

[svinayak]

Shah Mehmood Qureshi has obviously seen too many Bollywood movies, so that he can so easily deliver such fancy filmi "I am a herrow" dialogs, with suitably affected silly facial expressions, all in a properly charming "I am a daaku" accent.

Hilarious and great Bollywood acting.
Gabbar Singh acting.

Watched his talk in Charlie Rose show and it is the same thing. Charlie makes him repeat his India problem and it is actually school boy who is complaining.

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10650

[A_Gupta]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-emba ... nts/207396
Wikileaks Cable, May 17 2009, excerpts:

Ambassador Richard Holbrooke met in Riyadh May 16 with HRH Prince Mohammed bin Nayef (MbN), Saudi Assistant Minister of the Interior.
...
Neither the U.S. nor Saudi Arabia could afford to let Pakistan fall apart.
...
If Pakistan fell apart, Holbrooke said, the consequences for Saudi Arabia would be "unimaginable," especially if Pakistan's nuclear weapons fell into unfriendly hands. ("God forbid!" interjected the Prince.)
...
The army was the Saudis' "winning horse," MbN said, but it needed to prepare to fight the current war against terror. Pakistani soldiers needed to be proud of their service, and not hide their identity as soldiers when they were off duty, MbN said. He had told Kayani that Pakistani troops needed to feel they were fighting for Pakistan and not the U.S.
...
MbN emphasized that the army was Pakistan's "best bet" for stability....

[svinayak]

^^^^
Riyadh is the best bet for talks by India to solve the only world problem

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 95438.html
Mr. Singh's Leap of Faith
It makes no sense for India now to return to the table with Pakistan, especially without preconditions

Mr. Singh and others in India's foreign policy establishment say they have no alternative. They point to the lack of credible military options—because these options carry the risk of nuclear escalation. But talks with Pakistan versus punitive military strikes is a false dichotomy. There are other solutions within the sphere of diplomacy.

These solutions involve understanding what truly enables the military-jihadi complex. The principal reason this complex can afford to export terrorism to India, Afghanistan and elsewhere is because, at a fundamental level, it is bankrolled and bailed out by the United States, China and Saudi Arabia.

These powers support a state that has been on the brink perhaps since the 1950s—so long that its elites have mastered the art of playing from that position. The Americans are desperate to extricate themselves from Afghanistan, the Chinese wish to tie down the U.S. and contain India, and the Saudis are interested in using Pakistan to hedge against a nuclear Iran.

India has not yet attempted to use its own burgeoning relationships with these states to shape the behavior of various state and non-state actors that operate from within Pakistan. The real talks New Delhi should be pursuing are with Washington, Beijing and Riyadh.

Mr. Pai is founder of the Takshashila Institution and editor of Pragati—The Indian National Interest Review.

[Sen_K]

Shyam Saran on India's return to the dialogue table with TSP and the pattern of chai biscoot-kill indians-chai biscoot

A different dialogue this time round?

What is clear, however, is that we have not fully understood why we have been led into a defensive posture even though the distance between India and Pakistan, in terms of overall power, has been increasing. The answer lies in the fact that we have allowed a situation to develop where the choice to our political leadership is either to risk a war escalating to the nuclear threshold or to continue with the “dialogue-disruption-dialogue” approach with virtually nothing in-between. This inhibits us from addressing the strategic reality we are confronted with. We must have a more varied tool-kit to manage India-Pakistan relations than be left with only a binary choice.

India must take this post-nuclear reality into account and devise an effective counter-strategy, otherwise we risk the “dialogue-disruption-dialogue” pattern becoming further established but at progressively higher levels of escalation in cross-border terrorism or in conventional-type military provocations, but below the threshold of all-out armed attack across the border. An entire array of positive and negative levers, which have been talked about often but never seriously pursued, need to be put in place to influence and shape Pakistan behaviour, if we wish to see a departure from the current, uncomfortable reality. If the current dialogue is used as a platform to initiate this more nuanced approach to our relations, then things may be different this time round.

[Mahendra]

President to visit Japan from Feb 21

The mere upar joota padega Japani clown is off to Japan on the 21st. I feel Redmond Devis will be released when the clown Gaddari is on foreign tour, just to rile up the unwashed masses.

[RajeshA]

What is clear, however, is that we have not fully understood why we have been led into a defensive posture even though the distance between India and Pakistan, in terms of overall power, has been increasing. The answer lies in the fact that we have allowed a situation to develop where the choice to our political leadership is either to risk a war escalating to the nuclear threshold or to continue with the “dialogue-disruption-dialogue” approach with virtually nothing in-between. This inhibits us from addressing the strategic reality we are confronted with. We must have a more varied tool-kit to manage India-Pakistan relations than be left with only a binary choice.

India must take this post-nuclear reality into account and devise an effective counter-strategy, otherwise we risk the “dialogue-disruption-dialogue” pattern becoming further established but at progressively higher levels of escalation in cross-border terrorism or in conventional-type military provocations, but below the threshold of all-out armed attack across the border. An entire array of positive and negative levers, which have been talked about often but never seriously pursued, need to be put in place to influence and shape Pakistan behaviour, if we wish to see a departure from the current, uncomfortable reality. If the current dialogue is used as a platform to initiate this more nuanced approach to our relations, then things may be different this time round.

India needs to increase our "development aid" to Afghanistan to around 2 billion dollars a year. The Afghan warlords should be allowed to do with the money what they want, e.g. like putting a price on the head of ISI and Army wallahs. In five years the problem would be solved!

[Mahendra]

That's like paying 100,000 dollahs/dead Pawki

[Mahendra]

Court to decide Davis’ immunity: Gilani

Gilani urged the religious scholars to find a solution to the sensitive issue in accordance with Islamic law, under which a victim’s family can pardon a killer in return for compensation.

“Ulema (Islamic scholars) should tell the solution. Either the heirs should give a pardon or ask about ‘Qisas’ (compensation) or the court should decide (either or or...... ).

Wonder how much compensation this lecher has paid Sherbano Rehman

[Karna_A]

Deliberately leaving out Chipanda from the above discussion and only focussing on a self selected peripheral issues is a self defeating argument.

Leaving out the perfidity of Chipanda in arms to TSP discussion is like leaving out devilish TSP machinations from Kashmir valley discussion.

Patience Sir. Patience. The way the "conversation" goes on this thread there is a convenient sidelining of what is inconvenient and a loud highlighting of that which is convenient.

I have stated time and again that a discussion of Chinese actions is a separate issue that I will get to - after getting past the initial hurdle of takleef caused to many by pointing out the US's perfidy. I think I am getting there. The US has continuously supplied lethal arms to Pakistan to India's detriment and continues to do so. You will hear it again from me loudly on here when the next tranche of F-16 blosk 52s arrive in Pakistan, Davis or no Davis. That is s problem for India. Among other problems. The China topic will come. I hope you are not one of the deluded people who thinks the US has been innocent? All sorts of interesting things emerge when the uncomfortable truth is told and not sidelined after a brief nod.

If the US's actions for 60 years can be sidelined with a brief nod I can only imagine the sort of analytical not-attention China is going to get.

In any risk analysis one has to prioritize what is most important and just focus on that.
In Software, its called Bugs classified as Blocker, Critical, Major, Medium and Minor. A software can be released with 100 major issues, but not one Blocker issue.
I am not a deluded person and do agree with those who believe that Unkil weapon supply to TSP is a "Major" issue for Indian security. However, I am also neither blinded by Nehru's imperialist slogan hot air, nor am I an allergic Krishna Menon clone who just hates everything Unkil does and sings Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai.

What VikramS and Somnath and me have been saying is that what Chipanda(Nooks, Missiles) has done is a Blocker issue for Indian security. Unless that is fixed, the major issues have no relevance as any release manager would know. Any release manager that harps on major issues when Blockers stare them in eye has to look for another job.

For any realistic person following are the priority of issues from Indian security standpoint.

(a) Blocker: Chipanda Nooks and missiles and plutonium reactors
(b) Critical: Unkil, KSA, Chipanda finanacial and other aid, berefit of which acronym TSP would become just a glorified Somalia with acronym LET/JEM Pirates.
(c) Major: Unkil, Chipanda, and French arms aid. UK Liberal party support. Unkil cold war strategists support, OIC support

As you can see I am much more against billions in Unkil aid then some advanced F16 toys. So lets get the priorities straightened out and lets discuss Unkil F16s with French Agosta when the time comes, when blocker issues are resolved.

[ramana]

Mosharraf Zaidi in his tribute to KS calls Davis an ugly Jason Bourne!

[A_Gupta]

Karna_A,

Treating Chinese nukes & missiles to Pakistan as a blocker issue, which preempts any work on the critical issues, is a big mistake. Unlike software projects, national diplomacy can both walk and chew gum at the same time.

-Arun

[KLNMurthy]

...

Sometimes I imagine a nightmarish scenario where the TSPA goes for a Samson choice first strike on India with everything they have (50-100-150). The SDRE are so shocked that the response is muted with the Chipanda scooping in to destroy anything which is left, lest the SDRE imagine getting even with the Chipanda. Then the millions of Jehadis who are now running out of land and water, swarm into India armed with the 20 million AKs they have....

It is telling that all these frightful scenarios have one thing in common--they implicitly assign a passive role to India and SDREs during the entire run-up between now and whenever the scenario is supposed to take place. I suppose that is the ultimate definition of a status quo power. We are very good at finding risks to justify not aggressively changing the status quo.

In a universe of increasing entropy, standing still (status quo) is defeat and death. If we shrink from taking action due to fear of death, then the consequence of that inaction is, in fact, death.

I don't know whether aggressively trying to manipulate the US into stopping the support of TSP will produce a good outcome or not, but I know that placid acceptance--no matter how many clever-sounding excuses we trot out and with what degree of haughty superciliousness we utter them--will destroy India.

It is disheartening that on a forum like BRF there are so many people who are such passionate advocates of docile acceptance of US support of TSP. And no, it is not chanakia or taquiya or anything like that. It is only chanikyan etc. if you first decide to take action, and then take measures to conceal it. It is not chanakyan if you remain inactive, and then later try to spin that inaction into looking chanakyan. Every action that has the potential to produce a good outcome always carries a measure of risk. We should be focusing on strategies to carry out the action and manage the risks.

[svinayak]

Sometimes I imagine a nightmarish scenario where the TSPA goes for a Samson choice first strike on India with everything they have (50-100-150). The SDRE are so shocked that the response is muted with the Chipanda scooping in to destroy anything which is left, lest the SDRE imagine getting even with the Chipanda. Then the millions of Jehadis who are now running out of land and water, swarm into India armed with the 20 million AKs they have....

This is exactly what they imprinted in the brains of growing new population of India from 1990s to create a "new reality". This scenario was used by the US military and establishment and they feed on it. They need the Indian reaction to feed on it and then only it becomes reality.
The amount of new media and world coverage of India/Pakistan feud increased heavily after 1993 and continued until 911. This is one of large scale global social engineering ever attempted on human populations.


They used it in NPT, FMCT and other global negotiations and subdue other countries.

[ramana]

VikramS, We need new thinking to negate such nightmares. In the 70s when I came the US was brought up on the fear of FSU raining fire from sky. Reagan came and saw a different way to get them (raise their costs and make them Bhasmasura option) and we see the rest.

In GDF we can compare and contrast FSU vs US and TSP vs India and see the Afghan equivalent for TSP.

[A_Gupta]

It is telling that all these frightful scenarios have one thing in common--they implicitly assign a passive role to India and SDREs during the entire run-up between now and whenever the scenario is supposed to take place. I suppose that is the ultimate definition of a status quo power. We are very good at finding risks to justify not aggressively changing the status quo.

Yes, the status quo-ists rule. When PM Sri Vajpayee said "do you think India will be sitting quietly?" under a similar scenario, the Paki press and some desi media went wild with "India renounces no-first-use policy".