Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds
Re: Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds
IIRC, Hamid Gul was in the US a couple of years ago on the lecture circuit--long after he came to be 'considered dangerous'. So, I don't think it's a question of 'picking him up in Pakistan' that will trigger a redline. He probably still has a lot of friends in the CIA who remember his selfless contributions (and resultant reaping of profits) through his Taliban Trucking Co. all before 9/11 of course.
Re: Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds
>>It doesn't make sense
N, that's why we need to have threads like this, no?
>>Thread of mass delusion
Folks, you miss little things, which is why you get snookered and lost. Note this point from one of Sunil's earlier posts:
. . .Like I said before, I have taken my thinking cap off. I have suspended my disbelief and. . .
We don't really know what's going on. Therefore we set up a system making some conditional assumptions. Call the above Conditional Assumption X.
Then given X, what can you think of to explain certain behavioural patterns in Pak and US behaviour?
That's the point of this thread. The question, therefore, of whether we're delusional is irrelevant. Within the parameters of X, we're fine. If it turns out that theres enough here to explain certain things, then we can let go of X. At what stage that's done is an individual choice.
The point is, we can't go on forever stuck within certain grooves. We need out-of-the-box thinking if we're to fully explore certain themes.
Sunil has done this brilliantly with a hypothesis that can be quite staggering if it's even vaguely correct. N's rigourous critique is the type of thing necessary to see if Sunils idea holds water.
It might be helpful if you held these things in mind, before deciding we're all delusional.
N, that's why we need to have threads like this, no?
>>Thread of mass delusion
Folks, you miss little things, which is why you get snookered and lost. Note this point from one of Sunil's earlier posts:
. . .Like I said before, I have taken my thinking cap off. I have suspended my disbelief and. . .
We don't really know what's going on. Therefore we set up a system making some conditional assumptions. Call the above Conditional Assumption X.
Then given X, what can you think of to explain certain behavioural patterns in Pak and US behaviour?
That's the point of this thread. The question, therefore, of whether we're delusional is irrelevant. Within the parameters of X, we're fine. If it turns out that theres enough here to explain certain things, then we can let go of X. At what stage that's done is an individual choice.
The point is, we can't go on forever stuck within certain grooves. We need out-of-the-box thinking if we're to fully explore certain themes.
Sunil has done this brilliantly with a hypothesis that can be quite staggering if it's even vaguely correct. N's rigourous critique is the type of thing necessary to see if Sunils idea holds water.
It might be helpful if you held these things in mind, before deciding we're all delusional.
Re: Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds
True, true, very interesting, but...
Supreme HQ has imposed censorship.
Supreme HQ has imposed censorship.
Re: Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds
N:
I think your nuke-nude theory for Pakistan has some answers to the question as to why US props Mushy up. The answer lies in another question -- Why would US want to aquiesce in the toppling of a dictator who does its bidding, especially in the nuclear auction?
Yes, Mushy's support in tracking the AQ terrorists sojourning in Pakistan and thereabouts is half-hearted; either because he is reluctant to give all the goodies up in a single go and would rather release them piecemeal or because things are genuinely out of his control. Americans would rather live with this partial support than live the nightmare of the nukes falling into AQ type hands. They probably feel Mushy is a bulwark against that as he allows the US to safeguard the goodies.
Second, the US policymakers do not want contemplate what's after Mushy. They are too busy with their twin headaches in Iraq and NK. Adding one more would be wholly undesirable. Why rock the boat when you don't have a lifeboat waiting?
Third, is the characterisitc myopia of US. What comes to mind is the wilful closing of eyes to the Paki nuclear programme during the 80s. At the time, they were too happy to get Paki cooperation for a more shortsighted goal -- that of driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan. Aren't there parallels here in the blindness to Mushy's treachery?
This will come to haunt the US in another decade and it just might be more painful than 9-11.
I think your nuke-nude theory for Pakistan has some answers to the question as to why US props Mushy up. The answer lies in another question -- Why would US want to aquiesce in the toppling of a dictator who does its bidding, especially in the nuclear auction?
Yes, Mushy's support in tracking the AQ terrorists sojourning in Pakistan and thereabouts is half-hearted; either because he is reluctant to give all the goodies up in a single go and would rather release them piecemeal or because things are genuinely out of his control. Americans would rather live with this partial support than live the nightmare of the nukes falling into AQ type hands. They probably feel Mushy is a bulwark against that as he allows the US to safeguard the goodies.
Second, the US policymakers do not want contemplate what's after Mushy. They are too busy with their twin headaches in Iraq and NK. Adding one more would be wholly undesirable. Why rock the boat when you don't have a lifeboat waiting?
Third, is the characterisitc myopia of US. What comes to mind is the wilful closing of eyes to the Paki nuclear programme during the 80s. At the time, they were too happy to get Paki cooperation for a more shortsighted goal -- that of driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan. Aren't there parallels here in the blindness to Mushy's treachery?
This will come to haunt the US in another decade and it just might be more painful than 9-11.
-
Prof Raghu
- BRFite -Trainee
- Posts: 61
- Joined: 24 Mar 1999 12:31
Re: Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds
N and others,
Here is something - take it for what it is worth, given its source.
From the Friday Times of August 29 - Sept 4, 2003:
"Nuggets"
Danger in Kabul
Columnist Hamid Mir wrote in Jang that his stay in Kabul was risky because of the hatred the Tajik majority of the city bore towards Pakistanis and the Pushtuns whose sons still studied in Peshawar kept a low profile in the city. India was popular in Kabul as all the cinemas showed Indian movies and the shops were full of Indian cassettes. Taxis on the road carried Ahmad Shah Massoud’s portrait on the front window and the pin-up of an Indian filmstar on the back window. This was because Pakistan had unfairly discriminated against Ahmad Shah Massoud and favoured Hekmatyar. The southern Pushtuns too hated Hekmatyar therefore the policy was wrong. When we gave up Hekmatyar and took up the Taliban we made the mistake of ignoring Massoud in Kabul. India was coming in strong and had donated buses to Kabul which were now a visible sign in the city. Western journalists were going round investigating Pakistan’s complicity in the killing of Iranian diplomats in Mazar Sharif in 1998 and the stealing by Pakistan of Afghan uranium.
BTW, saw another interesting nugget about Kashmir = Switzerland (rather coincidental, given the ToI Editorial this week on Zurich on the Jhelum). Will post in the Pak news thread.
Here is something - take it for what it is worth, given its source.
From the Friday Times of August 29 - Sept 4, 2003:
"Nuggets"
Danger in Kabul
Columnist Hamid Mir wrote in Jang that his stay in Kabul was risky because of the hatred the Tajik majority of the city bore towards Pakistanis and the Pushtuns whose sons still studied in Peshawar kept a low profile in the city. India was popular in Kabul as all the cinemas showed Indian movies and the shops were full of Indian cassettes. Taxis on the road carried Ahmad Shah Massoud’s portrait on the front window and the pin-up of an Indian filmstar on the back window. This was because Pakistan had unfairly discriminated against Ahmad Shah Massoud and favoured Hekmatyar. The southern Pushtuns too hated Hekmatyar therefore the policy was wrong. When we gave up Hekmatyar and took up the Taliban we made the mistake of ignoring Massoud in Kabul. India was coming in strong and had donated buses to Kabul which were now a visible sign in the city. Western journalists were going round investigating Pakistan’s complicity in the killing of Iranian diplomats in Mazar Sharif in 1998 and the stealing by Pakistan of Afghan uranium.
BTW, saw another interesting nugget about Kashmir = Switzerland (rather coincidental, given the ToI Editorial this week on Zurich on the Jhelum). Will post in the Pak news thread.
Re: Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds
You are setting up straw men here N.Originally posted by narayanan:
It just doesn't make sense to me, Johann.
1. Musharraf is protected because if he's "toppled" the "fundoos" will take over.
2. Musharraf is allowed to protect Osama because if Osama is captured, Musharraf may be toppled.
3. Gul is protected because if he's arrested, Osama's whereabouts may be revealed and then Osama may be arrested and Musharraf may be toppled.
4. The murder of Daniel Pearl is, well, fine and dandy because if it were properly investigated, top ISI types would have to be arrested, and then Gul might be arrested and.....
5. A big bang every 2 weeks somewhere around the world is fine, because if Osama were arrested to stop this, Musharraf might be toppled and...
The record of fundoo rule is clear. Formally fundoo regimes have never tried WMD against the US or anyone else. Iran made lots of noise, but mainly destroyed itself, not others. The Taliban, same - given my strong belief that it was Pakistan, not the Taliban, that organized 9/11. I bet the Taliban mullahs had no clue that the Pakis were up to so horrible an attack.
I said there's merit to Sunil's 'dark matter' approach to the 'Greys' and the 'gun' that they represent. I didnt say that I accepted all of the red lines that have been suggested.
No one has suggested that the Taleban 'organised' Sept 11 or necessarily had pre-knowledge. Only that that removing the secure bases afforded by the Taleban was an essential step. The Taleban refused to co-operate in any way and faced the consequences for that decision.
In any war there must be priorities to guide the allocation of finite resources and time.
The number one priority in the current approach has been to prevent al-Qaeda acquisition of WMDs which would undoubtedly be used in the US and Western Europe. Some of that involves making sure that the US can monitor and influence the transfer of power in Islamabad.
The second priority has been to disrupt the operational level, the level that actually carries out attacks. The fact is that compared to the first 6 months of 2002 there have been far fewer major attacks, and significantly fewer casualties.
Prevent succesul violent Islamist revolutions anywhere is a priority.
'Decapitating' al-Qaeda is something that follows behind all of these. It is a priority, but it has a place.
I disagree with many of the assumptions and consequently many of the decisions made regarding Pakistan, but the fact is that the post-9/11 priorities take a longer and more realistic view to the al-Qaeda phenomenon than you are willing to give credit for.
Re: Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds
The nook-nood "theory" (Ha! You mean "Certainty")
certainly explains all known events.
Let Uncle Narayanan explain. Ao Johann, sunil, kgoan and sarma bacche, suno ek kahani sirf aapke liye
Under this arrangement, of course the US has to prop up Mush. What else? If an anti-Mush general or any other entity comes to power, isn't he going to scream: WE AIN'T GOT NO NUTS! on his first day to avoid being lynched later?
It also explains all Indian "restraint" to-date, starting with the stand-down of the Strike Corps in late June 2002. What you guys should REALLY be focusing on, is the latest campaign led by Yashwant Sinha. Shri Sinha is doing the rounds of European and Asian capitals - with a clear and simple message: PAKISTAN: TERROR CENTRAL.
And he's getting new takers - those whose Intelligence Agencies have read BRF with open minds and got themselves educated. Australia, burned by the Bali attack, is the first big breakthrough.
This signifies Indian disgust with the arrangement. Will be interesting to watch GOTUS reaction.
*************************************
Back to the TSP-GOTUS arrangement. With the nukes gone, and Mush entirely dependent on the US for survival, the US was going to take their time cleaning up Pakistan, like peeling an onion - Mush and Osama last to go.
This also explains why GWB was so confident in 2003 that he decided to clean up Iraq and occupy it. Essential to get reliable bases in the ME - because KSA is on the road to a blow-up. Cannot clean up KSA like TSP without a general blowup - military not powerful enough there, unlike in TSP.
As someone pointed out, in January 2003, TSP-US relations were at rock-bottom and the Gul types were getting shriller, just like Dr. Shrilleen.
The invasion of Iraq happened.
So what has changed more recently? Answer is simple - the GOTUS, and specifically POTUS, are in trouble.
And voila! Mush has revived like a watered weed. Suddenly realizes that Bush cannot afford to let Mush go any more than Mush can afford to step down. The Paki arrogance is back in style, and with a vengeance.
Bush cannot afford to go ahead with Phase 3: fix bases in Iraq and knock out KSA. Note: this is why I have been asking why mechanized divisions and Airborne divisions are being kept in Iraq, ostensibly to do police work, months after the war was over - and why India is being asked to provide Strike Corps units.
And until KSA is knocked out, and Iran is co-opted or neutralized, Bush can't afford to really clean out TSP.
Mush happy. Gul happy. Guano Bay sabbatical postponed.
This is the blackmail game. The arrogance of mass murderers on Death Row.
Now the US may need TSP forces in Iraq - more blackmail.
And this is why India is calling the bluff. If the rest of the world starts repeating that TSP is Terror Central, pressure on the US goes way up. US sends Armitage again to remind Mush of his place.
IOW, GOI has also figured out the parameters of the game. More to gain by pulling on the Mush tail than by sending soldiers to die.
certainly explains all known events.
Let Uncle Narayanan explain. Ao Johann, sunil, kgoan and sarma bacche, suno ek kahani sirf aapke liye
Under this arrangement, of course the US has to prop up Mush. What else? If an anti-Mush general or any other entity comes to power, isn't he going to scream: WE AIN'T GOT NO NUTS! on his first day to avoid being lynched later?
It also explains all Indian "restraint" to-date, starting with the stand-down of the Strike Corps in late June 2002. What you guys should REALLY be focusing on, is the latest campaign led by Yashwant Sinha. Shri Sinha is doing the rounds of European and Asian capitals - with a clear and simple message: PAKISTAN: TERROR CENTRAL.
And he's getting new takers - those whose Intelligence Agencies have read BRF with open minds and got themselves educated. Australia, burned by the Bali attack, is the first big breakthrough.
This signifies Indian disgust with the arrangement. Will be interesting to watch GOTUS reaction.
*************************************
Back to the TSP-GOTUS arrangement. With the nukes gone, and Mush entirely dependent on the US for survival, the US was going to take their time cleaning up Pakistan, like peeling an onion - Mush and Osama last to go.
This also explains why GWB was so confident in 2003 that he decided to clean up Iraq and occupy it. Essential to get reliable bases in the ME - because KSA is on the road to a blow-up. Cannot clean up KSA like TSP without a general blowup - military not powerful enough there, unlike in TSP.
As someone pointed out, in January 2003, TSP-US relations were at rock-bottom and the Gul types were getting shriller, just like Dr. Shrilleen.
The invasion of Iraq happened.
So what has changed more recently? Answer is simple - the GOTUS, and specifically POTUS, are in trouble.
And voila! Mush has revived like a watered weed. Suddenly realizes that Bush cannot afford to let Mush go any more than Mush can afford to step down. The Paki arrogance is back in style, and with a vengeance.
Bush cannot afford to go ahead with Phase 3: fix bases in Iraq and knock out KSA. Note: this is why I have been asking why mechanized divisions and Airborne divisions are being kept in Iraq, ostensibly to do police work, months after the war was over - and why India is being asked to provide Strike Corps units.
And until KSA is knocked out, and Iran is co-opted or neutralized, Bush can't afford to really clean out TSP.
Mush happy. Gul happy. Guano Bay sabbatical postponed.
This is the blackmail game. The arrogance of mass murderers on Death Row.
Now the US may need TSP forces in Iraq - more blackmail.
And this is why India is calling the bluff. If the rest of the world starts repeating that TSP is Terror Central, pressure on the US goes way up. US sends Armitage again to remind Mush of his place.
IOW, GOI has also figured out the parameters of the game. More to gain by pulling on the Mush tail than by sending soldiers to die.
Re: Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds
<H3> John Umrao - PLEASE SOURCE ANY NEWS ITEMS IN YOUR POST. THE FORUM MANAGEMENT CAN'T BE BOTHERED TO SORT THROUGH COPYRIGHT LITIGATION ON ACCOUNT OF YOUR INABILITY TO FOLLOW SIMPLE FORUM GUIDELINES. IF YOU PREFER THE ADMINISTRATION CAN ARRANGE FOR THIS MESSAGE TO BE TAGGED ON TO EVERY ONE OF YOUR POSTS SO THAT YOU HAVE A HANDY REMINDER OF THE SAME- ADMIN</H3>
Re: Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds
Johann: The divergence of interests between India and the US in the war against terrorism is simply as follows:
We desis don't think a "fundamentalist" regime in TSP is worse than the present incumbents. Musharraf is directly responsible for the deaths of a large number of Indians.
OTOH, when Iran and the US reconcile, this divergence will disappear. Mush's as* is grass after that.
We desis don't think a "fundamentalist" regime in TSP is worse than the present incumbents. Musharraf is directly responsible for the deaths of a large number of Indians.
OTOH, when Iran and the US reconcile, this divergence will disappear. Mush's as* is grass after that.
Re: Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds
The Taleban's creation had nothing to do with Hamid Gul and very little to do with the ISI.Originally posted by arvind_r:
IIRC, Hamid Gul was in the US a couple of years ago on the lecture circuit--long after he came to be 'considered dangerous'. So, I don't think it's a question of 'picking him up in Pakistan' that will trigger a redline. He probably still has a lot of friends in the CIA who remember his selfless contributions (and resultant reaping of profits) through his Taliban Trucking Co. all before 9/11 of course.
It was set up by Benazirs Interior Minister Naseerullah Khan Babar. The aim was to reimpose central authority in Afghanistan to facilitate Pakistani trade with Central Asia, and create some of that much sought strategic depth.
In fact the Taleban was initially such a mystery because it was such a tightly held secret. None of the influential Zia-era people knew anything about it. Gul was quite suspicious of the Taleban which wasnt ISI, and was displacing a number of old ISI allies in Eastern Afghanistan like Hekmatyar, Younus Khalis etc.
OBL spent his first few months in Afghanistan retreating from the Taleban because Bhutto had organised the highly damaging expulsion and extradition of Afghan Arabs in Pakistan 1993-1995. It wasnt until Bhutto was removed and Afghan portfolio handed back over to an ISI freed from Bhutto appointees in late 1996 that he felt comfortable enough to build a relationship with the new force.
*
Gul ran the ISI for only two years, from 1987 to 1989 as the Americans wound up their participation in conjunction with the Soviet retreat.
His relationship with the Americans was not good, quite unlike his predecessor Gen. Akhtar Rehman who was kicked upstairs as CJCSC and died on Zia's C-130 in 1988.
Gul was certainly a fundamentalist of greater conviction than Akhtar, which caused problems. He also had a much more ambitious and ego-centric individual, which meant he did things without really consulting the Americans, or possibly even Zia. Unauthorised attacks in to Soviet Central Asia were one such area of serious concern. In fact international Arab participation on the actual Afghan battlefield only gained any real momentum under Gul.
The bigger issue was the divergence of American and Pakistani interests once the Soviets moved towards disengagement - as far as the Americans were concerned when the Soviets pulled out the war ended.
Gul's influence means that he is worth watching if you are interested in Pakistan, but I doubt one could say he had any 'friends' in the American intelligence establishment.
Re: Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds
Given what you say about Gul, Johann, I continue to wonder how serious the investigators into terrorism are. Gul also declared allegiance to the Ummah Tameer Nau, the organization where those top-ranking Pakistani "nuclear scientists" and Xerox machine operators passed information about nukes to the "Al Qaeda".
Yet this guy walks free while the small fry like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed are put away.
At least they should stick him in a metal container and send it by slow mail to General Dostum.
Yet this guy walks free while the small fry like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed are put away.
At least they should stick him in a metal container and send it by slow mail to General Dostum.
Re: Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds
N^3, if one were to adopt your logic, do you think the elimination of Mushy solves a lot of problems? For a while let's think Mushy doesn't exist, with all the other people and events surrounding them with their relationships intact. And then work onwards to figure out what happens. I am having a hard time trying to figure it out ...
On a related note, a couple of weeks ago, I had posted a news article on the TSP news thread information about Predator developmental and experimental tests being carried out in TSP itself, with flights over Afghanistan. This was waaaay before 9/11; however it was post-Kargil and during Mushy's tenure. Any comments?
On a related note, a couple of weeks ago, I had posted a news article on the TSP news thread information about Predator developmental and experimental tests being carried out in TSP itself, with flights over Afghanistan. This was waaaay before 9/11; however it was post-Kargil and during Mushy's tenure. Any comments?
Re: Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds
Mush out - Another Dictator Cycle comes to an end. Street riots. A few murders, as befits the Mughal Imperial Transition Protocol. This time, a unique opportunity for Sindh, Baluchistan, Bugtistan, Osamastan, Baltistan and Pakhtoonistan to declare independence and breathe the fresh hashish-laden air of freedom.
I HOPE, suitably assisted by India.
End of Pakistan. Beginning of peace in Asia. Collapse of the Global Terrorist Enterprise. Saudi Arabian Sheikhs forced to find other outlets for philanthropy - like Angana Chatterji and Akhila Raman, who become gazillionaires and hire Bill Gates to clean their 2000-room houses.
I HOPE, suitably assisted by India.
End of Pakistan. Beginning of peace in Asia. Collapse of the Global Terrorist Enterprise. Saudi Arabian Sheikhs forced to find other outlets for philanthropy - like Angana Chatterji and Akhila Raman, who become gazillionaires and hire Bill Gates to clean their 2000-room houses.
Re: Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds
Johann:
I wasn't suggesting Gul had anything to with the Taliban creation. You may recall that all through the Clinton years (until the Kenya/Tanzania blasts), US intelligence maintained links to the Taliban through the ISI. Gul it seems came in useful through the Trucking Co owned/managed by his daughter Asma (with a profit sharing plan for friends). Now, as then US intelligence was highly pragmatic, dealing even with the Guls and Begs who were publicly anti-American. In fact, Beg was recently in the US (about six weeks ago) to deliver a lecture.
My point is simply that Gul and Beg still have 'friends' (in the investment banking sense ) in certain intelligence circles otherwise they could not get a visa. Also, I'd bet they have sons/daughters/in-law etc that constitute a degree of leverage in times of 'need'. IOW, if the US wanted to 'pick up' either of these two, they can do so in the comfort and privacy of downtown DC, and don't have to do it in Pakistan.
I wasn't suggesting Gul had anything to with the Taliban creation. You may recall that all through the Clinton years (until the Kenya/Tanzania blasts), US intelligence maintained links to the Taliban through the ISI. Gul it seems came in useful through the Trucking Co owned/managed by his daughter Asma (with a profit sharing plan for friends). Now, as then US intelligence was highly pragmatic, dealing even with the Guls and Begs who were publicly anti-American. In fact, Beg was recently in the US (about six weeks ago) to deliver a lecture.
My point is simply that Gul and Beg still have 'friends' (in the investment banking sense
) in certain intelligence circles otherwise they could not get a visa. Also, I'd bet they have sons/daughters/in-law etc that constitute a degree of leverage in times of 'need'. IOW, if the US wanted to 'pick up' either of these two, they can do so in the comfort and privacy of downtown DC, and don't have to do it in Pakistan.Re: Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds
Check out what GUL is upto these days as per the Washington Times
Re: Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds
Let it be sung, lest it be forgot...
The daughter of CIA Chief Helms was the chief representative and lobbyist of the Taliban in the US - immediately before 9/11 - when the Taliban was under total US and UN sanctions. Probably helped swing the deal where President Bush sent $40 million to the Taliban to support prices of the opium crop - just before 9/11!!
Can't remember if she continues to be. Lets see now - the Taliban, well-known for their insistence that wimmens work, came out to the US and scouted for the best qualified person to represent them, heh? And found this person totally by fortuitous coincidence??? Because the Tooth Fairy was too busy representing General Musharraf?
Former CIA Chief James Woolsey is a partner/Board Member in Crescent Inc., a "Firm" set up ostensibly by Mansoor Ijaz.
Former(?) Congressperson Charles Wilson sounds like the US alter ego of General Hamid Gul.
The daughter of CIA Chief Helms was the chief representative and lobbyist of the Taliban in the US - immediately before 9/11 - when the Taliban was under total US and UN sanctions. Probably helped swing the deal where President Bush sent $40 million to the Taliban to support prices of the opium crop - just before 9/11!!
Can't remember if she continues to be. Lets see now - the Taliban, well-known for their insistence that wimmens work, came out to the US and scouted for the best qualified person to represent them, heh? And found this person totally by fortuitous coincidence??? Because the Tooth Fairy was too busy representing General Musharraf?
Former CIA Chief James Woolsey is a partner/Board Member in Crescent Inc., a "Firm" set up ostensibly by Mansoor Ijaz.
Former(?) Congressperson Charles Wilson sounds like the US alter ego of General Hamid Gul.
Re: Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds
From Arnaud de Borchgrave in the Washington Times:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20030828-075841-3031r.htm
So if Osama comes out officially as "strategic advisor" to Crescent Inc., I expect him to be giving speeches at "Kashmir Forum" Conclaves run by Angana Chatterji and Akhila Raman, with Ghulam Fai and the rest of the local ISI.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20030828-075841-3031r.htm
In what way are the public pronouncements of Gul any less objectionable to the US than those of Osama bin Laden?"Let's destroy America wherever its troops are trapped" is the new extremist slogan at public rallies and Friday prayers in Pakistan.
In his latest public pronouncement, retired Gen. Hamid Gul, a former chief of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, and "strategic adviser" to MMA, said, "The Muslim world must stand united to confront the U.S. in its so-called war against terror which is in reality a war against Muslims. God will destroy the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan and wherever it will try to go from there."
Jihadi (holy warrior) organizations are once again actively recruiting in the name of U.S. aggression in the two countries where U.S. forces are battling Iraqi and Afghan terrorists. And Mr. Musharraf is conceding ground to the extremists now crowding the Pakistani government. Anyone who tries to crack down on extremist activities is told to cool it.
The latest example came in Baluchistan where the governor, Gen. Qadir Baluch, a former corps commander in Baluchistan, attempted to curtail anti-U.S. demonstrations called by MMA. The president asked Gen. Baluch to back off while ISI negotiated with MMA. Gen. Baluch flew to Islamabad to confer with Mr. Musharraf. The president urged him to follow the new rules — imposed by ISI — or resign. Which he did.
So if Osama comes out officially as "strategic advisor" to Crescent Inc., I expect him to be giving speeches at "Kashmir Forum" Conclaves run by Angana Chatterji and Akhila Raman, with Ghulam Fai and the rest of the local ISI.
Re: Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds
Narayanan,
> Isn't this "threat" like saying: "If you take my candy away, I'll eat it and become sick"?
Actually I thought it was more like, "If you try to take away my candy, I will eat it and throw up all over the house - and you will have to clean up the mess.."
Its kind of hard to come up with these simplified ways of looking at things but that chain you set up namely
Like I said earlier - we dont have to call it a `gun' we can call it something else.. but `it' is there.
Johann,
Yemen isn't a de-facto nuclear weapons state, indeed it is difficult to imagine how it might become one in a short interval of time. Whatever their efforts at procuring a weapon are - they pale into insignificance when compared with Pakistani efforts.
The way I see it, there are two ways of looking of US-Pak ties.
1) The historical background comprising the various intelligence and strategic agreements of the past and the cross flow of ideas therein. This view takes us into the dynamics of the personalities that shaped these relations.
2) We can look at the relationship in the context of today's threat environment. It is possible to establish certain `constants' in today's world - relatively unchanging patterns of activity, such as the threat of Islamist Terrorism, or the threat of WMD proliferation etc... and then try to determine how these influence US-Pak ties.
I am not very certain which view prevails among US decision makers today, so I am putting these questions out there for all to see. Perhaps our discussion - confused as it may be - will highlight something I may have overlooked.
My ability to discuss this sort thing in public owes much to the Bush Administration's efforts to put the Iraq invasion case before the American people. In the context of Iraq and the expanding locus of the War on Terror to Pakistan (esp. the Jose-Padilla dirty bomb case), open discussions on WMD falling into the hands of terrorists have become possible.
> Isn't this "threat" like saying: "If you take my candy away, I'll eat it and become sick"?
Actually I thought it was more like, "If you try to take away my candy, I will eat it and throw up all over the house - and you will have to clean up the mess.."
Its kind of hard to come up with these simplified ways of looking at things but that chain you set up namely
This looks like a typical ladder of escalation found in WMD based deterrence scenarios.It just doesn't make sense to me, Johann.
1. Musharraf is protected because if he's "toppled" the "fundoos" will take over.
2. Musharraf is allowed to protect Osama because if Osama is captured, Musharraf may be toppled.
3. Gul is protected because if he's arrested, Osama's whereabouts may be revealed and then Osama may be arrested and Musharraf may be toppled.
4. The murder of Daniel Pearl is, well, fine and dandy because if it were properly investigated, top ISI types would have to be arrested, and then Gul might be arrested and.....
5. A big bang every 2 weeks somewhere around the world is fine, because if Osama were arrested to stop this, Musharraf might be toppled and...
Like I said earlier - we dont have to call it a `gun' we can call it something else.. but `it' is there.
Johann,
Yemen isn't a de-facto nuclear weapons state, indeed it is difficult to imagine how it might become one in a short interval of time. Whatever their efforts at procuring a weapon are - they pale into insignificance when compared with Pakistani efforts.
The way I see it, there are two ways of looking of US-Pak ties.
1) The historical background comprising the various intelligence and strategic agreements of the past and the cross flow of ideas therein. This view takes us into the dynamics of the personalities that shaped these relations.
2) We can look at the relationship in the context of today's threat environment. It is possible to establish certain `constants' in today's world - relatively unchanging patterns of activity, such as the threat of Islamist Terrorism, or the threat of WMD proliferation etc... and then try to determine how these influence US-Pak ties.
I am not very certain which view prevails among US decision makers today, so I am putting these questions out there for all to see. Perhaps our discussion - confused as it may be - will highlight something I may have overlooked.
My ability to discuss this sort thing in public owes much to the Bush Administration's efforts to put the Iraq invasion case before the American people. In the context of Iraq and the expanding locus of the War on Terror to Pakistan (esp. the Jose-Padilla dirty bomb case), open discussions on WMD falling into the hands of terrorists have become possible.
-
putnanja
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 4668
- Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
- Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3
Re: Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds
Wasn't it Hamid Gul who had said sometime back that if any coutry attacks pakistan( US implied), pakistan would use nuclear weapons against India?
Re: Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds
Sunil, my disagreement with the nuclear threat scenario is that IMO, an American/Chinese/Israeli/Indian effort to grab the Paki nukes (which I believe has occurred long-since) should be 100% successful. The nuke infrastructure and all stores of weapons and weapons-grade material would be seized. The reports about Kahuta stopping weapons-grade enrichment are clear confirmation that this has already occurred.
The remaining uncertainty is no more than the fear that Somalia (or some other similary disorganized and infrastructure-challenged entity) will smuggle dirty nukes into the US (or other "hostage" of nuclear blackmail).
Now the other unstated threat may be of using dirty nukes etc. against Indian cities - a redline to beat all redlines. I have previously argued that such an attack would be catastrophic IF amplified by the usual "reactions" of the usual Energizer Bunnies with whom we are so amply "blessed". End of India as we know it.
And hence, the counter to such an attack would be that the Damocles Sword of that threat is aimed precisely back at Mush's butt. The Indian position on that should be:
"Regardless of which precise nutcase is behind such an attack, Pakistan becomes ParkingLotStan immediately and without waiting for investigations etc. So it is entirely in Pakistan's interests to ensure that no such attack or even the possibility thereof ever occurs".
And when you think through that, it would appear that the US position vis-a-vis Pakistan, stripped of all the convoluted wheels-within-wheels arguments, would be simply that too: Nuke first, ask questions later, if there is a WMD attack. Because the world accepts quite clearly that:
The US, incidentally, has already demonstrated that very clearly.
THAT, IMO, is the REAL example set by the Afghanistan War: the destruction of the Taliban proceeded, limited only by military preparation time, preceding the "9/11 Investigation Report" by a year and a half. That message is surely not lost on Mush - so the blackmail does not work.
The remaining uncertainty is no more than the fear that Somalia (or some other similary disorganized and infrastructure-challenged entity) will smuggle dirty nukes into the US (or other "hostage" of nuclear blackmail).
Now the other unstated threat may be of using dirty nukes etc. against Indian cities - a redline to beat all redlines. I have previously argued that such an attack would be catastrophic IF amplified by the usual "reactions" of the usual Energizer Bunnies with whom we are so amply "blessed". End of India as we know it.
And hence, the counter to such an attack would be that the Damocles Sword of that threat is aimed precisely back at Mush's butt. The Indian position on that should be:
"Regardless of which precise nutcase is behind such an attack, Pakistan becomes ParkingLotStan immediately and without waiting for investigations etc. So it is entirely in Pakistan's interests to ensure that no such attack or even the possibility thereof ever occurs".
And when you think through that, it would appear that the US position vis-a-vis Pakistan, stripped of all the convoluted wheels-within-wheels arguments, would be simply that too: Nuke first, ask questions later, if there is a WMD attack. Because the world accepts quite clearly that:
PAKISTAN: TERROR CENTRAL
The US, incidentally, has already demonstrated that very clearly.
THAT, IMO, is the REAL example set by the Afghanistan War: the destruction of the Taliban proceeded, limited only by military preparation time, preceding the "9/11 Investigation Report" by a year and a half. That message is surely not lost on Mush - so the blackmail does not work.
Re: Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds
N3:
"And until KSA is knocked out, and Iran is co-opted or neutralized, Bush can't afford to really clean out TSP."
Would it therefore not make sense for GoI to send troops ASAP to Iraq to help Bush so he can get on withe job of KO'ing KSA and draining the Terrorist Swamp of Pakistan?
"And until KSA is knocked out, and Iran is co-opted or neutralized, Bush can't afford to really clean out TSP."
Would it therefore not make sense for GoI to send troops ASAP to Iraq to help Bush so he can get on withe job of KO'ing KSA and draining the Terrorist Swamp of Pakistan?
Re: Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds
narayanan,
> The nuke infrastructure and all stores of weapons and weapons-grade material would be seized. The reports about Kahuta stopping weapons-grade enrichment are clear confirmation that this has already occurred.
I think my point is that though we can all talk about this - and convince ourselves that we have nothing to fear - no one can guarentee this - and as long as that remains the case - a door lies open.
The question of what will happen to Pakistan after they `shoot' is relevant to the thrust of my post. It is the exact same logic that is used everytime an Indian says "if Pakistan will nuke India - we will do this and this.." all that is rhetorical escalation - good to shore up deterrence but utterly meaningless in the context of *real* response.
No one is going to take the chance that the Pakistanis will shoot.
Your contention is that the Americans have faced such situation before and will not bow to blackmail. After all there was 1962 etc... well the scheme then was a little different. The russians very visibly had a gun to the US's head. So everything was out in the open - not so today. Also, the America of today is not the America of 1962, it is a completely different generation of leaders and citizens.
> The nuke infrastructure and all stores of weapons and weapons-grade material would be seized. The reports about Kahuta stopping weapons-grade enrichment are clear confirmation that this has already occurred.
I think my point is that though we can all talk about this - and convince ourselves that we have nothing to fear - no one can guarentee this - and as long as that remains the case - a door lies open.
The question of what will happen to Pakistan after they `shoot' is relevant to the thrust of my post. It is the exact same logic that is used everytime an Indian says "if Pakistan will nuke India - we will do this and this.." all that is rhetorical escalation - good to shore up deterrence but utterly meaningless in the context of *real* response.
No one is going to take the chance that the Pakistanis will shoot.
Your contention is that the Americans have faced such situation before and will not bow to blackmail. After all there was 1962 etc... well the scheme then was a little different. The russians very visibly had a gun to the US's head. So everything was out in the open - not so today. Also, the America of today is not the America of 1962, it is a completely different generation of leaders and citizens.
Re: Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds
Cross-posted.
Attention Sunil, KG, Ramana and others. Talk about US-Pak red lines!
Musharraf's army breaking ranks
Attention Sunil, KG, Ramana and others. Talk about US-Pak red lines!
Musharraf's army breaking ranks
Further:Well-placed sources within the army have revealed to Asia Times Online that recently several top officers have been arrested. These arrests have been kept secret as no charges have been laid. The officers, according to the sources, were seized after being fingered by agents of the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as probably having links with international Islamic militants.
The FBI has been given a free hand to interrogate the officers at its cell in the capital, Islamabad, or at any other location of its choosing in order to establish ties between the officers and militant networks.
Asia Times Online investigations have established the names of two of those arrested: Assistant Adjutant-General and Quartermaster-General, Lieutenant-Colonel Khalid Abbassi (posted in Kohat, North-West Frontier Province) and one Major Atta.
The investigations show that neither the family of the officers nor their subordinates know where they are being detained. Senior officers in the army, when contacted by this correspondent, remained tight lipped and their advice was, "stay away from this matter".
Further investigations reveal that Abbassi is a widely-respected officer in signals, and that he is also a very religious person. Apparently, he delivered lessons from the Koran every day to his junior officers, a trend that was encouraged by former dictator General Zia ul-Haq in the army, and which is still common nowadays.
The Pakistani army, largely through the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), as part of its strategic vision for the region actively supported and promoted the Taliban in its formation and ultimate seizure of power in Afghanistan in 1996. As a result, many of Pakistan's top brass are familiar with senior Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders. Notably, the former director general of the ISI, Lieutenant-General (retired) Mehmood Ahmed, was close to Taliban leader Mullah Omar. Mehmood Ahmed is now managing director of Fauji Fertilizers Company, where a number of former army officers also work. <img src="http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/ubb/icons/icon11.gif" alt="" />
It is an open secret in Washington now that a delegation of senior Pakistani army officers, sent to Afghanistan prior to the US invasion ostensibly to convince the Taliban to step down, actually spent their time instructing the Taliban on how to protect their weapons from the impending US aerial bombing. <img src="http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/ubb/icons/icon11.gif" alt="" />
Re: Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds
Sunil: Your thesis of Pakistan holding a nuclear gun to the US temple has been propounded by Kutta (Cohen) for some time now, albeit in a different form. He articulated it in the form of Mushy pointing the Jehadi gun at US.
I believe the latter (Jehadi gun) comes before the nuclear gun. Because once the Jehadi gun is fired, there is every possibility that the nuclear gun will be automatically pointed at the Western world.
Therefore, I think you may have to temper your idea with N's. All said and done, there is no one absolute idea that is the final truth. It will always be a mixture.
I believe the latter (Jehadi gun) comes before the nuclear gun. Because once the Jehadi gun is fired, there is every possibility that the nuclear gun will be automatically pointed at the Western world.
Therefore, I think you may have to temper your idea with N's. All said and done, there is no one absolute idea that is the final truth. It will always be a mixture.
Re: Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds
Sarma,
I agree with you that the truth lies somewhere in between these two approaches. I am merely pedantically following this `gun to the head' approach to see where it will lead.
If we follow through with the line of thought expressed in Saleem Shehzad's article, we find that the following information:
a) Establishment of an intrusive FBI presence in Pakistan is not a redline. This will also explain all those demonstrations we have being seeing photos of from Yahoo. All those rallies where the banners say "FBI Go Home". It all makes sense now. Near total surveillance over the telecommunication networks in Pakistan is also not a redline.
b) The detention without charges of officers of the ISI and the PA on `suspected' links to the Islamist terrorists. We have seen this atleast three times now, first during the KSM case when a major was arrested for questioning at Kohat and later released and now in the case of the Lt. Col. Abbassi and Major Atta. I do not see these lowly ranked officers as being masterminds of anything - these are mere pawns in game. So taking such pawns seems to be `allowed'. This also puts into perspective the articles we have seen in the Balochistan post which spoke of a gap between the PA ranks upto colonel and beyond and that everyone below colonel is staunchly Islamist ergo intensely dislikes the policies of anyone above that post. Perhaps the redline could be somethig like this - whatever the USG does it cannot `arrest' any PA officer (serving or retired), and cannot `detain' a flag officer (serving or retired).
I agree with you that the truth lies somewhere in between these two approaches. I am merely pedantically following this `gun to the head' approach to see where it will lead.
If we follow through with the line of thought expressed in Saleem Shehzad's article, we find that the following information:
a) Establishment of an intrusive FBI presence in Pakistan is not a redline. This will also explain all those demonstrations we have being seeing photos of from Yahoo. All those rallies where the banners say "FBI Go Home". It all makes sense now. Near total surveillance over the telecommunication networks in Pakistan is also not a redline.
b) The detention without charges of officers of the ISI and the PA on `suspected' links to the Islamist terrorists. We have seen this atleast three times now, first during the KSM case when a major was arrested for questioning at Kohat and later released and now in the case of the Lt. Col. Abbassi and Major Atta. I do not see these lowly ranked officers as being masterminds of anything - these are mere pawns in game. So taking such pawns seems to be `allowed'. This also puts into perspective the articles we have seen in the Balochistan post which spoke of a gap between the PA ranks upto colonel and beyond and that everyone below colonel is staunchly Islamist ergo intensely dislikes the policies of anyone above that post. Perhaps the redline could be somethig like this - whatever the USG does it cannot `arrest' any PA officer (serving or retired), and cannot `detain' a flag officer (serving or retired).
Re: Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds
Hi Sunil:
Add to the list of non-redlines, the firing of top Jehadi generals a la Mehmood Ahmed of the ISI.
Have you thought about the situation that all the PA generals (jehadi or otherwise) are in bed with the street Jehadis represented by JeI, JUI and so on. What else would explain the free rein these buggers had in the last year's elections. Are the street demonstrations PA's and Mushy's way of talking back to the US, since they don't have the crackers to do it directly. Is the Paki street an arm of the Pakistan army itself.
Remember the references to the front line army (in India) of Jehadis to fight IA and a second line army (in Pakistan) of jehadis again to fight IA. Also, there was an orgn headed by a retired Army general who threatened to march on Islamabad and appeal to all the generals to throw out Mushy and establish Shariat (forget the guy's name). All his protestations whimpered out at the behest of JEI.
All these suggest to me we should explore the Jehadi gun, which for sure Mushy has pointed at the US. THe real question is: Is this gun or any other for REAL? or, is it a way of making the US do Paki bidding?
Add to the list of non-redlines, the firing of top Jehadi generals a la Mehmood Ahmed of the ISI.
Have you thought about the situation that all the PA generals (jehadi or otherwise) are in bed with the street Jehadis represented by JeI, JUI and so on. What else would explain the free rein these buggers had in the last year's elections. Are the street demonstrations PA's and Mushy's way of talking back to the US, since they don't have the crackers to do it directly. Is the Paki street an arm of the Pakistan army itself.
Remember the references to the front line army (in India) of Jehadis to fight IA and a second line army (in Pakistan) of jehadis again to fight IA. Also, there was an orgn headed by a retired Army general who threatened to march on Islamabad and appeal to all the generals to throw out Mushy and establish Shariat (forget the guy's name). All his protestations whimpered out at the behest of JEI.
All these suggest to me we should explore the Jehadi gun, which for sure Mushy has pointed at the US. THe real question is: Is this gun or any other for REAL? or, is it a way of making the US do Paki bidding?
Re: Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds
Is Fauji Fertilizers Company TSPspeak for TaliPaki Chemical Weapons Company?Notably, the former director general of the ISI, Lieutenant-General (retired) Mehmood Ahmed, was close to Taliban leader Mullah Omar. Mehmood Ahmed is now managing director of Fauji Fertilizers Company, where a number of former army officers also work.
Who's working on this dossier?
Re: Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds
Sunil,
Superb flow of logic here. Just need to consider that the "flag-officer" bit may also flexible. Remember Major General Zahir-Ul-Islam Abbasi?
Your point does seem to have held very well at the Crore Commander level. If that "tradition" also gets broken, especially in Quetta or Peshawar, things will get very very interesting.
AD
Superb flow of logic here. Just need to consider that the "flag-officer" bit may also flexible. Remember Major General Zahir-Ul-Islam Abbasi?
Your point does seem to have held very well at the Crore Commander level. If that "tradition" also gets broken, especially in Quetta or Peshawar, things will get very very interesting.
AD
Re: Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds
AD,
Zaheer was arrested by the Pakistanis not the Americans. The Americans merely fingered him throught Manzoor Ijaz of Cresent Inc and Musharraf released him as soon as he took power.
I guess if the buerau came across anyone who was planning a coup in Pakistan, I am syre they would let Musharraf know. I think there was some news about a possible coup being planned by Aziz, which was relayed to Mushy via some western embassy.
I doubt the FBI can touch Zaheer today. Even in Kunduz, there were atleast three PA flag officers who were pulled out, two brigadiers and one Maj. Gen.
Zaheer was arrested by the Pakistanis not the Americans. The Americans merely fingered him throught Manzoor Ijaz of Cresent Inc and Musharraf released him as soon as he took power.
I guess if the buerau came across anyone who was planning a coup in Pakistan, I am syre they would let Musharraf know. I think there was some news about a possible coup being planned by Aziz, which was relayed to Mushy via some western embassy.
I doubt the FBI can touch Zaheer today. Even in Kunduz, there were atleast three PA flag officers who were pulled out, two brigadiers and one Maj. Gen.
Re: Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds
Sunil, there seems to be a flaw with the communication thing. If the Pak com net is truly open to the US, then to all intents and purposes, there no longer exists an independent Pak State.
i.e. Under those circumstances, Pakistan is no different to Afghanistan or Iraq. Except that Pak surrendered to US occupation without a fight. (No surprise there).
In that case, the current process in Pak is no different to the struggle/guerilla war in Iraq/Afghanistan, except the form of the struggle is different, since the Pak/Army RAPE is not about to shoot themselves over "honour" or Pak interests. Shoot others, yes, themselves, no.
(BTW, if this is correct, i.e. the "hot phase" of the Pak conquest is over because they simply rolled over, it would certainly explain the pullback of the IA from the border. LOL!)
So I don't think the com-net thing can be correct. If it is, it reinforces N's point.
i.e. Under those circumstances, Pakistan is no different to Afghanistan or Iraq. Except that Pak surrendered to US occupation without a fight. (No surprise there).
In that case, the current process in Pak is no different to the struggle/guerilla war in Iraq/Afghanistan, except the form of the struggle is different, since the Pak/Army RAPE is not about to shoot themselves over "honour" or Pak interests. Shoot others, yes, themselves, no.
(BTW, if this is correct, i.e. the "hot phase" of the Pak conquest is over because they simply rolled over, it would certainly explain the pullback of the IA from the border. LOL!)
So I don't think the com-net thing can be correct. If it is, it reinforces N's point.
Re: Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds
Kgoan,
The comm net surveillance may be nuanced. From what I gathered from newsreports in the Pakistani press, the surveillance was on cellphones and landline exchanges. It may not extend to the entire EM spectrum also there is the possibility of encryption and steganographic stuff.
That gives me another possible redline - interference or apparent surveillance in a certain EM band.
The comm net surveillance may be nuanced. From what I gathered from newsreports in the Pakistani press, the surveillance was on cellphones and landline exchanges. It may not extend to the entire EM spectrum also there is the possibility of encryption and steganographic stuff.
That gives me another possible redline - interference or apparent surveillance in a certain EM band.
Re: Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds
Sunil,
Even today "officially" these arrest warrants are served by GoTSP personnel. Shabby fig-leaf that, but a fig-leaf nonetheless.
The key point is that the Americans are in essence serving as a glorified Praetorian Guard with its own dedicated (IMINT+COMINT+HUMINT. We know which part of the troika Crescent and Citigroup are.) preventive-security capability.
The public support for Trator/ Herrow No.1 is merely the tip of the iceberg that keeps him propped up.
This preventive security apparatus is mighty powerful, but can still be subverted by PA elements with their world-famous coup-making expertise. Logistically however, this will be a very scaled-up endeavor, requiring coordination, planning and resources well-beyond 111 Bde. alone.
All this is relevant only to make an "estimation" of the biggest TSPA formation that can be "countered" effectively by the Praetorian Guard.
Currently, such a process of estimation would start taking anything over a Division pretty seriously. Hence the allusion to Corps Commands(and the "ability" of some of those in charge to "point pistols").
However, the flag-officer bit resonates 100% with TSPA's H&D driven culture and the American willingness to do reverse-GUBO to protect the same. Of course, Kunduz was the worst manifestation of this dynamic.
From an Indian point of view, we need to be ready to move in and re-arrange the furniture if and when a particularly intense lovers' quarrel disrupts our peace and quiet.
Because of that reason alone, this discussion is most important and timely.
AD
Even today "officially" these arrest warrants are served by GoTSP personnel. Shabby fig-leaf that, but a fig-leaf nonetheless.
The key point is that the Americans are in essence serving as a glorified Praetorian Guard with its own dedicated (IMINT+COMINT+HUMINT. We know which part of the troika Crescent and Citigroup are.) preventive-security capability.
The public support for Trator/ Herrow No.1 is merely the tip of the iceberg that keeps him propped up.
This preventive security apparatus is mighty powerful, but can still be subverted by PA elements with their world-famous coup-making expertise. Logistically however, this will be a very scaled-up endeavor, requiring coordination, planning and resources well-beyond 111 Bde. alone.
All this is relevant only to make an "estimation" of the biggest TSPA formation that can be "countered" effectively by the Praetorian Guard.
Currently, such a process of estimation would start taking anything over a Division pretty seriously. Hence the allusion to Corps Commands(and the "ability" of some of those in charge to "point pistols").
However, the flag-officer bit resonates 100% with TSPA's H&D driven culture and the American willingness to do reverse-GUBO to protect the same. Of course, Kunduz was the worst manifestation of this dynamic.
From an Indian point of view, we need to be ready to move in and re-arrange the furniture if and when a particularly intense lovers' quarrel disrupts our peace and quiet.
Because of that reason alone, this discussion is most important and timely.
AD
Re: Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds
Of course, we are still constrained to discuss all these from the TSP end. The problem here (again in terms understandable to us 4-year-olds) is that it is like watching the antics of a snake and trying to figure out what "gun" it is pointing at the head of the Cat to keep Cat in the state of merely kicking and tossing it, not eating it.
The reason why we don't acknowledge the very real bleeding and other grievous injuries of the snake is that we DOOs, former PIGs-turned PIEs/PIPs (like me) etc. are used to not gloating over what has been achieved, and focusing back on what has not yet been achieved.
It may well be, if one considers the news reports dispassionately, that what appears at first sight to be dancing and hood-raising, is in fact the death-throes of the snake.
Then again, the question of this thread is, at what point does the snake decide that death is imminent and go sting us Mongooses or some squirrel somewhere, or the pet poodle - just to spite the Cat and all the other animals around. My point is - the snake has no poison-fang left - and the Cat will at any moment of its choosing finish off the snake.
Maybe the Cat walked away lazily and chased after a mole - though moles don't come inside houses - and is engrossed in combat there - against our best advice. This left us Mongooses in shock and sorrow. The mole has disappeared down a hole and every time the cat sticks its paw down the hole, it gets stung by ants. We squirrels have declined to go help the Cat - though we have no love for the snake, we have our own concerns about the Cat's intentions and attention-span / attitudes towards snakes vs. mongooses. No history of Cat coming to help when snake killed baby mongooses in the past.
But all that may not change the fact that the snake is in its death-throes, and is fang-less.
The reason why we don't acknowledge the very real bleeding and other grievous injuries of the snake is that we DOOs, former PIGs-turned PIEs/PIPs (like me) etc. are used to not gloating over what has been achieved, and focusing back on what has not yet been achieved.
It may well be, if one considers the news reports dispassionately, that what appears at first sight to be dancing and hood-raising, is in fact the death-throes of the snake.
Then again, the question of this thread is, at what point does the snake decide that death is imminent and go sting us Mongooses or some squirrel somewhere, or the pet poodle - just to spite the Cat and all the other animals around. My point is - the snake has no poison-fang left - and the Cat will at any moment of its choosing finish off the snake.
Maybe the Cat walked away lazily and chased after a mole - though moles don't come inside houses - and is engrossed in combat there - against our best advice. This left us Mongooses in shock and sorrow. The mole has disappeared down a hole and every time the cat sticks its paw down the hole, it gets stung by ants. We squirrels have declined to go help the Cat - though we have no love for the snake, we have our own concerns about the Cat's intentions and attention-span / attitudes towards snakes vs. mongooses. No history of Cat coming to help when snake killed baby mongooses in the past.
But all that may not change the fact that the snake is in its death-throes, and is fang-less.
Re: Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds
Sunil,
I suspect interference as the redline. The Paks have nothing in their tech grab-bag to counter or prevent US passive surveillance.
They wouldn't even know the extent of it.
AD, if not all higher officers are immune, then we need to workout what the "birdari" group is that is protected and immune. Or maybe, what mistake must a higher officer make to place him beyond the protection of the flag-officer birdari.
I suspect interference as the redline. The Paks have nothing in their tech grab-bag to counter or prevent US passive surveillance.
They wouldn't even know the extent of it.
AD, if not all higher officers are immune, then we need to workout what the "birdari" group is that is protected and immune. Or maybe, what mistake must a higher officer make to place him beyond the protection of the flag-officer birdari.
Re: Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds
Let me help Spinster here ... What he had posted was already posted in the Paki news thread ....Originally posted by John Umrao:
John Umrao - PLEASE SOURCE ANY NEWS ITEMS IN YOUR POST.
muddur
Member
Member # 2965
posted 28 August 2003 01:13 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pakistan is source of terrorism: Australia
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/aug/28aus1.htm
Neena Bhandari in Adelaide | August 28, 2003 23:30 IST
"Pakistan has been one of the sources of terrorism and the Taliban really developed out of Pakistan during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan," Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer told PTI when asked about visiting External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha's remarks in an Australian newspaper that 'Pakistan is the epicentre of world terrorism'.
"There has been support in Pakistan for terrorist organisations over many years. The evidence there is irrefutable," he said.
Re: Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds
Just a couple of minor notes:
Sunilji,
I cannot see how the Pakistanis or for that matter anyone can detect passive electronic surveillance in any EM bands. Interference and jamming would be apparent but plain surveillance would be impossible to detect as it would not involve any EM emmissions.
Anaathji,
IIRC, on a PA Orbat thread a long time ago, Sunilji had concluded that the 111 Brigade had grown into a "mini" divison sized formation by swallowing units from neighbouring formations like the 112 Brigade.
Sunilji,
I cannot see how the Pakistanis or for that matter anyone can detect passive electronic surveillance in any EM bands. Interference and jamming would be apparent but plain surveillance would be impossible to detect as it would not involve any EM emmissions.
Anaathji,
IIRC, on a PA Orbat thread a long time ago, Sunilji had concluded that the 111 Brigade had grown into a "mini" divison sized formation by swallowing units from neighbouring formations like the 112 Brigade.
Re: Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds
Almost all 'passive electronic surveillance' is not passive. If I can bring my antena close enough I can find out wich frequency you are monitoring by the EM transmissons of your receiver...I cannot see how the Pakistanis or for that matter anyone can detect passive electronic surveillance in any EM bands. Interference and jamming would be apparent but plain surveillance would be impossible to detect as it would not involve any EM emmissions.
Re: Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds
From an Indian point of view, we need to be ready to move in and re-arrange the furniture if and when a particularly intense lovers' quarrel disrupts our peace and quiet.
Because of that reason alone, this discussion is most important and timely.
AD, THis beats Clancy novel anytime.
Because of that reason alone, this discussion is most important and timely.
AD, THis beats Clancy novel anytime.
Re: Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds
Hi,
I don't know a whole lot about SIGINT. It is a very complicated field and there are a lot details but I do agree passive surveillance is difficult to detect.
I however can't see what stops the Pakistanis from simply insisting that the US declare whatever SIGINT devices they bring into the country. The Pakistanis could also put in some clause that if anything in excess what was declared is brought in - there will be the devil to pay for it. What is to stop them from doing that? You could say that the US is going to simply put their foot down and say no.. but then Musharraf could fall and all that jazz.
I guess even that doesn't stop say some sort of EM surveillance satellite from picking up transmissions but picking up stuff smaller than a certain power will be difficult for such a bird. Ultimately they will need ground stations, and the Pakistanis (after years of cooperating with the USAFSS and other agencies) know where such spots are. Even totally randomly if they conduct inspections at these places and find something, there would be a problem.
I am a bit skeptical about the EM surveillance stuff, it looks very good in Tom Clancy novels but outside of that, I really don't know what `real world' performance of this stuff is like.
I don't know a whole lot about SIGINT. It is a very complicated field and there are a lot details but I do agree passive surveillance is difficult to detect.
I however can't see what stops the Pakistanis from simply insisting that the US declare whatever SIGINT devices they bring into the country. The Pakistanis could also put in some clause that if anything in excess what was declared is brought in - there will be the devil to pay for it. What is to stop them from doing that? You could say that the US is going to simply put their foot down and say no.. but then Musharraf could fall and all that jazz.
I guess even that doesn't stop say some sort of EM surveillance satellite from picking up transmissions but picking up stuff smaller than a certain power will be difficult for such a bird. Ultimately they will need ground stations, and the Pakistanis (after years of cooperating with the USAFSS and other agencies) know where such spots are. Even totally randomly if they conduct inspections at these places and find something, there would be a problem.
I am a bit skeptical about the EM surveillance stuff, it looks very good in Tom Clancy novels but outside of that, I really don't know what `real world' performance of this stuff is like.