Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Mar. 29, 2011

[KLNMurthy]

Even if TSP wants to break off for US, uncle is not going to break off. Uncle is fatally attracted towards the TFTAs and the relationship will be there for ever. All other theories are just spin IMVHO.

"fatally attracted" etc. is a bit too anthropomorphic for me but I'll agree that US-TSP/TFTA is a deeply-ingrained relationship since 1947 or even before, and it is unlikely to break simply because of the weight of history. However, critical situations require statesmanship and the ability to make big sea changes, and there is nothing wrong in thinking about the alternate pathways by which such changes can proceed.

Biggest problem now is how to manage TSP nukes. It is brand new in the history of the planet and there is no manual for it. Solution will require a departure from standard paradigms. One way I am suggesting is for US to accept de facto suzerainity of PRC over TSP, thus TSP nukes will be seen as what they really are, PRC nukes, stationed in the "people's autonomous region of TSP", a la NoKo nukes.

[Johann]

You are assuming that it is an obvious and feasible choice for TSP to break off with the US if obama kills Haqanis or Omar. And therefore concluding that Obama won't do it, on account of what would follow from the breakup.

(1) There is a powerful constituency in the Pakistani establishment in the form of the Hamid Guls and Aslam Baigs others that would love to see the security relationship with America ended. There are many Pakjabis who agree with that view, and those numbers grow with every drone strike, Raymond Davis and Abbottabad type incident. This is not counting the Pashtuns in or sympathetic to the Pakiban

(2) America wants a *lot* of things from Pakistan simultaneously. A classic Pakistani move when under pressure is to offer to do the least damaging of those things and play for time on the rest.

The Americans have been demanding a cleanup in N.Waziristan for some time now, and the Pakistanis have resisted. Now they would find that worth doing if it meant extracting a promise from the US to hold off on further acknowledged or visible raids in Pakistan proper, and ending drone strikes in N.Waziristan. I am not convinced that Obama would not take such a deal - it will make it easier to end the surge when scheduled, while defusing the crisis with Pakistan.

Of course this only delays the inevitable, but everyone has short term needs as well as long term ones.

But if TSP breaks off with the US, where are they going to get their money from? Is China really going to give so much money, with so few conditions and controls, if at all it would give the money?

Pakistan survived previous eras when American aid was reduced to a dribble. Its wont just be China, but the GCC as well.

If I were Obama, I would consider turning TSP over completely to the tutelage of PRC, and make PRC responsible for TSP good behavior, more or less, in the manner of North Korea.

Has that worked yet?

[Kamboja]

Johann, I don't mean to downplay the importance of nukes from China in understanding why the Pakis worship them.

However, handing over nuke tech and delivery systems is essentially a one-time benefit that the Pakis now have in hand regardless of future Chinese behavior -- if tomorrow the Chinese did a volte-face and decide to shut off the Pakis altogether, it would not change the fact that Pakis have nukes and the means to deliver them.

This one-time benefit is very different from the types of benefits that the other 'allies' of our friends across the border -- US cash, for example, is not a one-time transfer of wealth but an ongoing stream of payments; oil supplies from the Saudis are a similar ongoing stream, as is the freedom to visit and party in the US/UQ.

If I can borrow an idea from the world of finance; the value of any asset lies in its future value streams. I buy into a company because I believe that company will pay me dividends on a regular basis out of the profits it makes. If I have to cooperate with the president of the company to ensure that I get those dividends, I will do so.

However, if the President simply signs over his share of the company to me as a one-time deal, then I no longer have any incentive to behave nicely with the President -- I can even fire him with no consequence since the benefit was a one-time deal that cannot be taken back.

My point is: I fully believed -- until this thought process was kicked off in my head -- that the Paki elites are a calculating, self-serving bunch whose only loyalties are to money, land, parties in the west, and jeehard against the kaffir (whether of the SDRE or the Taller, Fairer variety of the greater satan). If their relationships with their allies were based purely on cold future-benefits calculations, they should be madly in love with America, the Saudis, and the Chinese, in that order because the future benefit streams from the Americans far outweighs that from anyone else -- whether it is cash, f-solahs or other types of maal, and because the Chinese are after all godless kaffirs.

The fact that the Pakis do not view these relationships in this way can be explained in two ways:
(a) they believe that future benefits from China outweigh those from the other allies
(b) their relationships and levels of adulation/respect/love are not based purely on future benefit streams

I do not believe (a) is the answer, because the Chinese know the value of a penny and are not about to disburse vast sums to the Pakis, so it must be (b). The reasons you listed are plausible within the (b) scenario -- it could just be that the Pakis are grateful for the clown jewels and the non-intrusive nature of their relationship with the Chinese (so far...). But to repeat myself, I think it's more the prospect of China hurting India -- in whatever way imaginable -- that has the Pakis salivating and falling over themselves to ingratiate themselves with those who could possibly do what they can never do.

My suspicions are only corroborated by the moaning and groaning by Pakis in online fora (including the deaf and dumb variety), where the only solace that many Pakis can find is in the fact that 'even if we can't take India down, China will!'. Hurt India and you win the everlasting love of the Pakis -- now and forever.

[Vashishtha]

Anyone watched 'the big fight' on ndtv right now?? It was to do with whether india should pursue the covert action strategy....interesting panelists........and SURPRISINGLY!!! it ended on a positive note(i.e, not the 'we are pissfull onlee and must not provoke' note)

[KLNMurthy]

You are assuming that it is an obvious and feasible choice for TSP to break off with the US if obama kills Haqanis or Omar. And therefore concluding that Obama won't do it, on account of what would follow from the breakup.

(1) There is a powerful constituency in the Pakistani establishment in the form of the Hamid Guls and Aslam Baigs others that would love to see the security relationship with America ended. There are many Pakjabis who agree with that view, and those numbers grow with every drone strike, Raymond Davis and Abbottabad type incident. This is not counting the Pashtuns in or sympathetic to the Pakiban

(2) America wants a *lot* of things from Pakistan simultaneously. A classic Pakistani move when under pressure is to offer to do the least damaging of those things and play for time on the rest.

The Americans have been demanding a cleanup in N.Waziristan for some time now, and the Pakistanis have resisted. Now they would find that worth doing if it meant extracting a promise from the US to hold off on further acknowledged or visible raids in Pakistan proper, and ending drone strikes in N.Waziristan. I am not convinced that Obama would not take such a deal - it will make it easier to end the surge when scheduled, while defusing the crisis with Pakistan.

Of course this only delays the inevitable, but everyone has short term needs as well as long term ones.

But if TSP breaks off with the US, where are they going to get their money from? Is China really going to give so much money, with so few conditions and controls, if at all it would give the money?

Pakistan survived previous eras when American aid was reduced to a dribble. Its wont just be China, but the GCC as well.

If I were Obama, I would consider turning TSP over completely to the tutelage of PRC, and make PRC responsible for TSP good behavior, more or less, in the manner of North Korea.

Has that worked yet?

Well, yes, I think North Korea, while not totally pacified is nowhere in the league of Pakistan in terms of being a lethal headache for the world. Of course, the countries and geographies are not the same, but still, I think the tradeoffs of handing off Pakistan to China and working out a modus vivendi with China are worth considering. If we bring Pakistan to the level of North Korea, I think that could be significant progress for the safety of the region and stability of the planet.

About Saudi / GCC, that would have to be managed by America as part of the handover. Assuming China can be persuaded to take over Pak, Saudi / GCC can be made to see there is no benefit to them in trying to use Pakistan as a tool for Islamic expansion, nuclear shield etc. The real issue is whether the US would be willing to work with China directly being in the Arabian Sea, Afghanistan, etc.

[Johann]

Kamboja,

Again, we don't disagree that the Chinese and Pakistani convergence is mostly about India, and to a lesser extent about America.

While the threat perception itself may not be rational, the fact that these common perceptions of threats and interests have produced a strong relationship is hardly irrational or emotional.

That is no different from any other successful alliance structure - its something that has been observed and studied in International Relations by practitioners and scholars in many places and times.

- The 'future benefit stream' with China is secure, while that with America although financially larger is prone to periodic disruptions because of fundamental divergences in interests.

- Chinese assistance to Pakistan's strategic deterrence is not one time - it is continuous and ongoing. Pakistan is aggressively expanding its fissile material production capacity, and inducting new missile types. Pakistan wants a deterrent that can provide a second strike against India, and perhaps one day the US as well. Its also providing something of a back up deterrent to the Saudis against Iran.

On a separate track substantial Chinese economic investments in Pakistan continue to grow, and relationship in conventional weapon systems remain, and will get more attractive over time as China catches up with the West.

[Kamboja]

Johann, good points -- esp. regarding the security of future benefits from China as against the US. Makes sense.

[Shaashtanga]

Six killed in Quetta sectarian attack - http://www.dawn.com/2011/05/07/six-kill ... ack-2.html

[shravan]

ISI chief leaves for unknown destination

Pasha left Pakistan on Friday. The Dawn newspaper reported he had gone to Washington on a “critical mission to put an end to misgivings about Pakistan in the US”. But sources told PTI he left for an undisclosed location, as a fallout of the US raid in Abbottabad.

Some reports said Pasha may have travelled to a friendly country like China or Saudi Arabia but this could not immediately be confirmed. There were also uncorroborated reports that Pasha met the CIA’s station chief in Islamabad before going abroad and reminded him of the ISI’s contributions to the war on terror.

[Gus]

pakis have outed another CIA guy. pakis are very much the miffed lover now.

[Anujan]

The joker (AKA Fizzle ya's chief) is being made the fall guy and scapegoat for the fiasco.

Explanations are being demanded from him as to how their RADARs could not detect US helos, why they didnt shoot it down and why they are not shooting down the drones.

Good to see Army protecting itself and sacrificing PAF.

[Nandu]

72 pages. AoA. IB4TL.

[Vinu]

Just IB4TL

[Venkarl]

yayyy!!!!!!! first time IB4TLing on BR

Added Later:

Xposting from Dawood thread

Scared Dawood Ibrahim may shifts son's wedding venue

[anchal]

Just IB4TL!!!

[Rajdeep]

Now this really is the IB4TL (at least I hope it is)

Bin Laden directed al-Qaida from Pakistan compound

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 194332.cms

"This compound in Abbottabad was an active command and control center for al-Qaida's top leader and it's clear ... that he was not just a strategic thinker for the group," the official said. "He was active in operational planning and in driving tactical decisions."

Pakistan, heavily dependent on billions of dollars in US aid, is under intense pressure to explain how bin Laden could have spent so many years undetected just a few hours drive from its intelligence headquarters in the capital.

Suspicions have deepened that Pakistan's pervasive Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) spy agency, which has a long history of contacts with militant groups, may have had ties with bin Laden -- or that at least some of its agents did. The agency has been described as a state within a state.

[Pratyush]

for the TIRP 72 is the next 100.

[saadhak]

The democratically elected president Zulfiqar Ali
Bhutto introduced a full two-year course on the
“Fundamentals of War” and the “Defence of Pakistan”
for secondary school in the 1970s.181 Here glorifi cation
of the military and violence was seen as a strategy
to defend Pakistan against an aggressive India.
Military science is an important part of the curricula
and textbooks at the secondary level, covering topics
such as the causes of war, the conduct of war, modern
weapons systems, military operations, the ethics of
war, Pakistan’s defense problems, Pakistan’s dConefense
forces and foreign policy, and the role of armed forces
during peacetime. A review of Pakistani heroes covered
in textbooks shows the majority to be from the
military, with biographies describing in great detail
the battles they have fought. Pictures and lesson examples
are also heavily militarized in textbooks.182

Contrast that with our history text books which are silent on post-independence conflicts. A majority of my peers in college were unaware that the J&K they see on Indian channels is not the J&K with India. (The internet as a source of information was not as widely available till the late 90's - so that is one of the factors). Or which wars India has fought since independence and in which years. With fact-based reporting and debates almost non-existing, even today I am sure not many Indians would be aware that almost half of J&K is not with India; or that that noisy source of Kashmir militancy - Kashmir valley is less than 10% of J&K - but that is a separate rant.
To me, TSP's use of 'terrorism as state policy' is old enough to begin finding a mention in our history books - as also the major wars at least upto 1971.
The post-independence perspective should go a long way to help Indians decide for themselves the direction they need to take.

I have failed to understand why 'history is not kept current' in our syllabus. Is this deliberate or is this part of the overall outdated education brief that we maintain?

Oh and IB4TL!

[brat]

IB4TL