Managing Pakistan's failure

[ramana]

Bruce Reidel scaring up demons!

[url=http://www.sify.com/news/jihadist-nucle ... jghbj.html] Jihadist nuclear armed Pak worst nightmare for India, US and World[/ur]

Begs the question who enabled it? And the order is worng. Its US, World and India. Currently its India, World and US under the TSPA.

"Jihadist nuclear-armed Pak worst nightmare for India, US, world": Riedel

2011-02-17 15:30:00


A jihadist takeover in Pakistan- which is a "real possibility today"- would have devastating consequences not only for the country but the entire world, and particularly for India, says Bruce Riedel in his new book.

"A jihadist Pakistan would emerge through some combination of violence and intimidation. The simplest way would be another military coup led by a general who shares the worldview of Zia ul-Haq, the Pakistan dictator who ruled the country in the 1980s and defeated the Soviets with our help in Afghanistan, thus initiating the global jihad we face today," The Daily Beast quoted an excerpt from "Deadly Embrace: Pakistan, America and the Future of the Global Jihad," as saying.

The new regime would also take control of the nuclear arsenal, and make NATO's current mission in Afghanistan "virtually untenable. A jihadist Pakistan would be even more of a safe haven for the Afghan Taliban than now," Reidel said in his book.

He noted that in such a scenario, Pakistan's relations with Iran would probably deteriorate, with Shia jihadist Iran and Sunni jihadist Pakistan becoming enemies and competing for their influence on Afghanistan's battlefields.

{What does he care if Iran is unsafe? Is it Iran will be forced to also nuclearize? However Isareal already has the stuff so why worry?}

"China, historically Pakistan's main arms supplier, would be threatened as well by jihadists meddling in its far west," he added.

{Poetic justice. For its the PRC that enabled the nukes to Jihadi TSPA with US looking other way if not downright connivance}[/i


Riedel, who chaired Obama's review of Afghanistan and Pakistan policy at the start of the administration two years ago, said that an Islamic takeover in Pakistan would be "particularly bad news for India, which would have little choice but to build up both its nuclear and conventional forces."

{This ignores the fact that TSPA is already a jihadi army being funded by US under guise of War on Terror. Read its motto Bruce. Don't peddle lies. Atleast once stick to truth and you will be set free.}

"Any chance for a peace agreement in Kashmir would be dead, and the new militant regime in Pakistan would increase support for the insurgency. A major mass-casualty attack like the one on Mumbai in November 2008 could spark a war," he added.


{Whay do you care? Wont it recuce gloabl competetion?}

The former CIA officer also pointed out that a militant Islamic state in Pakistan would have a massive ripple effect across the Muslim world.


{No ignores social and historical factors. Arbas dont look up to TSP. They dont even hire them as cooks in Arb countries.}

"Extremists would be strengthened. A jihadist Pakistan would be the most serious threat the United States has faced since the end of the Cold War. Aligned with al Qaeda and armed with nuclear weapons, such a state would be a nightmare, and all U.S. options for dealing with it would be bad," he said.

Riedel, who is a senior fellow in the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution, underlined that a jihadist, nuclear-armed Pakistan is a scenario that must be avoided at all costs.

"That means working with the Pakistan of today to try to improve its very spotty record on terrorism and proliferation. While many (on both sides of the U.S.-Pakistan dialogue) are pessimistic that cooperation/engagement between America and Pakistan will succeed, there is every reason to try, given the alternatives," he said.

{Now comes the pitch. Give more money to current TSPA!}

The all-too-possible nightmare scenarios, which he mentioned in his book, should "impel the United States to focus on the current state of Pakistan. It needs to do better in Pakistan. For Obama, 2011 may be the year of Pakistan," Reidel concluded. (ANI)

Every year is year of Pakisatn for US!

All I can say is more Quantitiative Easing for US.

[Johann]

Ending US supply of F-16s and the like to Pakistan, and more importantly, ending the policy of building US-Pakistani relations around and through the PA is something that should be pursued.

At the very least it would remove a major irritant in Indo-American relations, but the Pakistan problem has its own dynamics.

The bottom line is that military forces are the dominant forces in the political systems of most Muslim countries, even Iran. In most cases they enjoy popular support, although there are exceptions like Algeria and Iran.

The revolutionary government in Iran for a while was popular *because* it opposed America. Today it is not unpopular because of its stance on America, but because it does not represent or serve its people well. The Revolutionary Guard is now widely hated, but it does contol much of the economy, and has sufficient power to put down protests. Today it looks like even the clerics like Khamenei who were supposed to be the final say in the revolution now defer to the Guard and their man Ahmadinejad.

Algeria is an Arab country with a secular army and resolutely Arab nationalist foreign policy, but the bottom line isn't very different. The military though disliked by many and hated by some is still in control.

In Syria they've managed to keep economic growth up, and they neither shove religion down people's throats nor prevent them from practicing, so defying the US continues to engender widespread respect. The Syrian Army remains respected despite resentments many Sunnis have about being a disenfranchised majority under Alawi rule.

In Egypt the Army has retained popular support despite being the main recipient of US aid for all these years, even as Mubarak is reviled for having squandered.

What if anything can make Pakjabis turn on the PA? That's the real challenge to unravelling Pakistan.

The PA contrary to what many people may think is sensitive to Pakjabi popular opinion - that is why most PA dictators have fallen after protest on the streets, and why the PA has preferred to rule from behind a screen of much more spectacularly corrupt and incompetent elected civilians like Nawaz and Zardari.

Given the increasingly anti-American sentiment in Pakistan, and the mounting crisis of governance the PA will one day find it much safer to switch to an openly anti-American policy, and blame hardship on American sanctions.

This is a strategy that has worked politically for decades for regimes like Syria, Cuba, Sudan, North Korea, etc. Support from the Gulf, PRC, and extortion from the rest of the world will be enough to keep them afloat.

[ramana]

Support from Gulf and extortion from rest of world can be stopped. And PRC might see the danger to itself once it stops fearing India as US lackey!

[RajeshA]

Land for Terror

X-Posted from TSP Thread

US fears terrorists might provoke Indo-Pak conflict

The article/quote avoids saying how "terrorist groups might try to provoke a conflict between India and Pakistan" to destabilise the country (Pakistan). Maybe, it is assumed/pre-postulated that a terror attack will take place which will "provoke a conflict". So, is it time for another attack before the next round of talks ?

Another terror attack, sooner than later, is a foregone conclusion. I think what Robert gates is implying is that India should exercise restraint even if there were to be a terror attack because that would lead to a catastrophe otherwise. His references to six divisions being moved to Afghanistan and Mike Mullen's suggestion about the US playing a greater role in removing the 'mistrust' between India & Pakistan point towards that. The implication here is that if India were to take any action against Pakistan after another terror attack, when the Pakistani deployment on its eastern border is thin, Pakistan would be forced to use its 'strategic assets'. Pakistan is effectively using its assistance to the US to mount another terror attack with impunity on us.

SSridhar garu,

As time approaches for the next wave of terrorist attacks on India, India needs to have a ready-made response to it, so that when the time comes, nobody wavers. If the GoI does not want to pursue that logical course of action or some similar action, then Indians need to call out loudly for such action.

My suggestion has always been, that for any terrorist act in India, India needs to appropriate for herself an appropriate amount of land from Pakistan, and push the Pakistani population back, and not to give up that land, no matter what. We need to have our own "Land for Terror" policy.

By making this the cornerstone of our policy, we are in fact telling the world, that it is not in our interest to escalate conflict with Pakistan and make it all-out war, but we would take our blood-money in land occupation. This puts the onus on Pakistan for any escalation, as any escalation is not required. They cannot credibly claim, that India wanted to destroy Pakistan, for all we wanted was our blood-money.

If Pakistani Army is seen to be losing land to India, it means a severe loss of face in front of the Pakistanis, and can mean disillusionment with the Pakistani Army and ultimately its disintegration.

Such an eventuality would in itself give both USA a good reason to see to it that Pakistan does not start another terrorist attack on India, for they may lose the Pakistani Army divisions on the Western border, as well as to the Pakistani Army for the loss of land and face would make their position weaker in Pakistan.

Consequences for a terrorist attack should be made very clear in forefront itself. Only clear and assured consequences for Pakistan can deter terrorist attacks on India.

[RajeshA]

Land for Terror

X-Posted from TSP Thread

And how is that Land going to got when you miltary are relatively underprepared and Elite SHivering when Paki says Nukes. Paki border is full of Paki Solders and Mines. Trying to occupy and gain land through Miltary advances is not practical.

If you have the stomach for it be prepared for full fleged war killing vast amounts of Paki vermin Miltary personal( which could include the very real threat of Nuclear War and having Nukes on our biggest Cities, Pakis will threaten Nukes if we try and occupy any land)- otherwise this pipedream that we can walk in and take land is facrical. In any Miltary confrontation we will lose a of civilian and Miltary men. World pressure will be immense and we will anyways give up land acquired Miltarily. SO this Land case to me sounds very farcical.

Rajesh please also think about how inHuman Rights organizations, NGO's, WKK Media will have a feild day and end up completly getting vast sections of Indian public against our Army if we just try and occupy any part of Pakistan.

Nobody is saying it would be a walkover. And yes, one should be prepared for a full-fledged war with Pakistan. For that one may consider first some ways how to deal with the nuclear threat. Some suggestions were given by me.

But India needs options below the nuclear threshold, and a declared policy of "Land for Terror" is one such suggestion. Loss of Land and hence TSPA's echandee is the one of the few things that will really hurt TSPA, and mostly TSPA, and that too where it hurts them most, in their hold over the population. The conventional military advantage is tilting towards India.

If we go and attack some jihadi camps, there is going to be shifting of target from Pakistani Government to India for the Jihadis. If we go and sink some navy ships, TSPA would not have lost anything permanently but would gain people's support. But a declared "Land for Terror" policy with subsequent land loss by Pakistanis would make Pakistanis think, whether there is any net gain in terror.

It is also important that we do this. India needs to get out of nuclear fear. Nuclear fear has paralyzed us. Once we manage one such campaign of "Land for Terror", and reestablish an end of hostilities, perhaps through the involvement of USA, then it would have established our own policy.

It would give the Pakistanis the feeling that there was a lot of humiliation but other than that, they did not lose much in terms of country and lives. Just like the Pakistanis have made us accept terrorism without any associated fear of retaliation, similarly we have to force Pakistanis to accept retaliation for terrorism without any associated fear of total ruin.

A couple more of such responses, and both terrorism and Pakistan's nuclear weapons would become useless - terrorism would become useless because it would ensue costs that hurt, and nuclear weapons because we would have lost our fear. And most importantly it would weaken the Pakistani Army and its Jihadi policies.

[RajeshA]

Land for Terror

X-Posted from TSP Thread

Would prefer an unannounced Bramhos attack which kills a few core commanders and then claim innocence, it must be some Jihadi group attack, we know nothing.

Other core commanders would take over and continue the same policy of terrorism towards India. It could also trigger off a series of attacks and counter-attacks. As the damage is localized and contained, both sides would feel emboldened to do it.

Loss of Land is something, that would sit like a thorn in the arse of the Core Commanders, and even though they would love to retaliate, they would think again about it because of the reaction of the Pakistani people, in whose eyes the core commanders would have lost substantial respect due to loss of land. Being conventionally weak, they may not have the stomach for it. Instead they would keep on crying with America and the "world community", about the loss of their land, but in response would only be told, they should have thought about that before they signed off on the terrorist attack against India.

[RajeshA]

Land for Terror

X-Posted from TSP Thread

RajeshA et al, land or LACM comes next. At what point will we feel that we need to retaliate, is the question. Will the next attack raise the bar once again, as the Pakistanis are wont to do ? Or, will they keep it at sub-26/11 level hoping that such an attack will not invite retribution ? Has India decided that one more attack, irrespective of the class or intensity of it, will provoke her to launch a counter attack ? Is the current ruling dispensation capable of withstanding the pressure from the US, especially the simple travel advisories ?

IMHO, Pakistan is prone to read a retaliation for a "massive" terror attack of the type Mumbai 26/11, as a potentially serious retaliation. India too would be forced to retaliate suitably, and thereby would need to appropriate sufficient resources to such an endeavor.

Should the response of India to a repeat of Mumbai 26/11 be taking over a handful of check-posts on the border, then we would really become a laughing stock. Nay, it would have to be proportional.

So I would suggest, we keep a very low bar on when to attack Pakistan. For a smaller attack, Pakistan would not be expecting an all-out war with India, and we should also not give one to them. A lower bar, a "smaller" terrorist attack by Pakistan followed by a swift Indian action on the border, with a consequent cooling off initiated by the Americans, would lead to our establishing the principle of "Land for Terror" in practice. That would be a shot across Pakistan's bow. If they are intelligent, they would heed to it, and it may become another issue like say Sir Creek - an issue, but not one of life and death.

This land appropriation by India would cause some takleef to the H&D of TSPA. They may or may not make it a big issue. If they keep it under wraps, or declare it as a minor skirmish, the H&D loss would be internal. If they make it into a big issue, they will only hurt their own popularity amongst the Pakistanis. It would give the TSPA pause for thought before they sign on another bigger attack. So we get to avoid a bigger terrorist attack on Indian soil.

The whole point is to establish a known dynamic - just like we have when we go and buy potatoes. You buy potatoes, you pay money. One does not think in terms of, when you take a potato from the vendor, he will get up and rob you of all your possessions. The transaction has to be made business-like. You make terror, we take land!

By establishing a low bar, GoI would only be saving us much in terms of nuclear holocaust, as well as terrorism. Besides it would be much easier for GoI to come out of inertia, if the land to be taken from the Pakistanis is not that much, but sufficient to set a precedent.

[surinder]

RajeshA, you had posted this earlier long time back, and I whole heartedly supported that. This is the best and the most effective way. land is important for a nation, loosing it is an existential threat. We should lower the bar for us to do that. The amount of land is somewhat less important, but the principle is. Which is that for every atankvaad in India, there is a loss of land. The pakjabi elite really do nto care for J&K land, so 5 10 years later the foccus of India-TSP love fest talks will shift to land dispute to (say) the "Land dispute in the Lahore sector", and the "Districts of Kasur" or "Villages of Sialkot".

This also acheives something else: We as a nation have faithfully (faitfooly) accepted the Radcliffe line. It was one of those INC-British contracts on which INC never reneged on. By taking even the smallest bit of land, you create a dispute in area where there is none---you set a precedent that the old lineis violateable and new line needs to be negotiated. That is is the first and the most vital step for India to take----declare the Radcliffe line null and void. Not by mere words, but by action and actual physical de-facto changes on the ground. This opens the way for eventual take over of Lahore, Sialkot, Kasur, and Multan. These cities are critical for us to get back.

Of coure this is going to be expensive, both money wise and human cost wise. But who said living with dignity, freedom, and peace is a cheap deal.

Plus, the brunt of the attacks will be born by border states, mainly Punjab. So rest of India will have to step up and make sure that pain is equally distributed too. A half-asleep core will not work. A normalization of the relationship with the minorities is essential too.

[ramana]

Article 370 and Union Territory status for a limited period of 20 years with extension are already present in Indian Constitition to handle TSP failure.
Art 370 till they feel the need to remove it can be a vehicle for de-Partition.

[RajeshA]

Land for Terror

RajeshA, you had posted this earlier long time back, and I whole heartedly supported that.

surinder ji,
thanks for your support for the idea.

The pakjabi elite really do nto care for J&K land, so 5 10 years later the foccus of India-TSP love fest talks will shift to land dispute to (say) the "Land dispute in the Lahore sector", and the "Districts of Kasur" or "Villages of Sialkot".

When the first time, I heard the trick question, I was very much amused.
Q: "How do you make a line smaller?"
A: "By drawing a longer line next to it!"

Another variant is:
Q: "How do you get rid of a problem?"
A: "By creating a bigger problem!"

So, I very much agree with you, that one way to put Kashmir on the backburner of Indo-Pak relations is to create other land disputes with Pakistan, which are of more importance to Pakistan. Land in Pakjab would be exactly the kind of issue, that would do the trick. It need not be a big tract of land, only big enough, that Kashmir does not remain the core issue.

This is the best and the most effective way. land is important for a nation, loosing it is an existential threat. We should lower the bar for us to do that. The amount of land is somewhat less important, but the principle is. Which is that for every atankvaad in India, there is a loss of land.

What we are missing in the current equation is a currency. A currency in which to pay for terrorism. We need to create a new currency, and that is Land. So and so much terrorism costs you so much land!

This also acheives something else: We as a nation have faithfully (faitfooly) accepted the Radcliffe line. It was one of those INC-British contracts on which INC never reneged on. By taking even the smallest bit of land, you create a dispute in area where there is none---you set a precedent that the old lineis violateable and new line needs to be negotiated. That is is the first and the most vital step for India to take----declare the Radcliffe line null and void. Not by mere words, but by action and actual physical de-facto changes on the ground. This opens the way for eventual take over of Lahore, Sialkot, Kasur, and Multan. These cities are critical for us to get back.

Radcliffe Line has proven to be the ropes tied to the minds of the Indian Leadership. It is when they do not think of it as sacrosanct and inviolable, would they start thinking strategically.

Of coure this is going to be expensive, both money wise and human cost wise. But who said living with dignity, freedom, and peace is a cheap deal.

Plus, the brunt of the attacks will be born by border states, mainly Punjab. So rest of India will have to step up and make sure that pain is equally distributed too. A half-asleep core will not work. A normalization of the relationship with the minorities is essential too.

Freedom from nuclear threat and terrorism in India is a worthy cause to pay for!

[Nihat]

Rajesh - First off I'd love to have a copy of your ebook on [email protected] (sorry for the very late request).

On the topic - I do completly agree that TSP needs adequately punished for terror strikes on Indian civilians but not sure I agree with the method to do it i.e. Land for Terror.

Assuming a 26/11 type terror strike on a major indian city say 5 years down the line. How do you expect GoI to react. Once it is established that TSP had a direct role in the attack and a decision is made to go to war with TSP, then what.

The border with Pakistan is not open and is rather large, not to mention shorter lines of lateral communication as their distances for quick mobalization are much shorter along with logistics lines. Sure, we can mobalize quickly but they can do it too and it might takes weeks to sustained preassure to make significant land grabs inside TSP given the uneven geography and the possibility of heavily mined border. A land grab in a period of less than one week from a terror strike is very hard to accomplish, not to mention things like international preassure, China threat etc.

Militarily speaking, the area of our conventional superiority lies in our Navy , Air force and cruise missile tech. and we should use this for a shock and awe approach and quiten down before TSP has a chance to wake up from its slumber. Also, as far as damage to H&D goes, in todays world of extensive media coverage and sensationalist reporting , visuals of Army HQ on fire, oil depots and airbases reduced to rubble and ports and associated urban infrastructure in ruins will cause much more psycological damage than a Land capture which the PA can easily manupilate into a story and feed the illetrate Awam of TSP as a grand victory for the ghazi army.

Not to mentiod that an armed incursion will become increasingly hard to repeat inside TSP, however a heavy duty pounding is something which will stick in Paki awam memory for the longest time.

[sanjaykumar]

This approach will result in perhaps several million internal refugees. If Lahore is emptied it will cause the near collapse of Pakistani Panjab, a potentially stably unstable situation. Will that be in India's interest?

[RajeshA]

Land for Terror

Nihat ji,

We have to remember we are acting in a nuclear environment, and we have to take the nuclear threat seriously.

In a nuclear threat environment, IMHO, it is important that there is predictability, and an established routine as far as our conflict "transactions" are concerned.

For the Pakistanis, not just TSPA, but for all Pakistanis, it is important that they know what to expect from Indians. They should be comfortable in the knowledge, that India does not intend to escalate, and their losses would not be total. They should know that despite the emotionality of a terrorist attack, their punishment would be measured and compatible with the extent of the attack - a determination we Indians make, but still something comparable with past precedence (something not set as yet).

Attacks using missiles etc. in their cities and on GHQ etc. give an impression of an all out attack. It increases unpredictability in their punishment. Missiles falling all over the place would make them panicky. Their alarm could cause them to opt for a nuclear escalation, without thinking it all out! They know they are in no position to take on India militarily in a conventional war. So they may go all out for the nuclear option, if they can't read our intentions. But if they know that their losses would be geographically limited, and India does not intend to turn Pakistan into glass, then they may take it more calmly.

I think, we should have a declared "Land for Terror Doctrine", and they, everybody in fact, should be aware of it.

Once a precedence is set, next time when they know that it is time for their punishment, they may not even protest or resist, and may try to cut their men and hardware losses by pulling back.

Predictability is key to avoiding escalation.

[RajeshA]

Land for Terror

This approach will result in perhaps several million internal refugees. If Lahore is emptied it will cause the near collapse of Pakistani Panjab, a potentially stably unstable situation. Will that be in India's interest?

I personally am not in favor of attacking their large cities, or for that matter taking over their large cities.

It depends on the extent of the terrorist attack, but generally we should see to it, that we do not cause more than a million internal refugees. More importantly, land that India appropriates for herself, should have its whole population pushed further into Pakistan.

This would cause immense administrative challenges to Pakistan Govt, to take care of these IDPs. Some IDPs may develop an enmity for India, but when they see that Pakistani Establishment is the true cause for their displacement, and they will never be able to go back to their houses, because TSPA arranged an attack on India, then their ire may be directed towards TSPA. India should also develop influence in the media outlets in Pakistan, so that the message is brought across.

When the government does not give them sufficient care and housing and other facilities, their anger at government would increase.

So having an IDP constituency in the aftermath of a small war is a positive development from India's PoV.

Land for Terror Doctrine is a means to stop both nuclear blackmail of India and also Pakistani terrorism in India. If India uses this doctrine measuredly but consistently, both things can be a thing of the past. We should not try to press more "golden eggs" out of the hen as it can give, but also no less.

[RajeshA]

Land for Terror

Pakistan's policy for India is to bleed India with a thousand cuts.

If we respond, GoI is of the opinion it could escalate into a nuclear exchange. So Pakistan is conducting terrorism under the cover of nuclear threat. How to respond?

For each cut, we should promise them to take one of their fingers. We should also promise them that they need not fear that we will pierce them in their heart or cut off their head or kill them. No, every time one finger. And come what may, come hell or high water, we will take one finger.

Even if it sounds cold, our cuts would heal with time. But their fingers will not grow back.

The scars from our cuts would make us interesting. But the cut off fingers would make them deformed and ugly. They would live with their deformation for ever.

That is the only way to teach them not to slash at us! Laaton ke bhoot baaton se nahin maante!

The thing to note is that we should never, never waive our claim on the finger, because that would break the predictability and reintroduce the threat of nuclear attacks, blackmail, mischief and terror by Pakistan.

[surinder]

Nihat Ji, if our army is not strong enough to take land, then in the the name merciful @11ah, why wait for the atankvad to happen before contemplating action---act now to get that strength. Be strong now.

Raining missiles, b0mbing etc. are all nice, but any building, ISI HQ, GHQ, factory etc. destroyed cab be rebuild. Anything can be rebuilt. With the 3.5 Boyfriends, it is a small task. So nothing much will ever come out it.

But Land is different ball game. All the money of the 3.5 Boyfriends cannot get that village in Sialkot from Indian control.

One of the reasons, in my opinion, of TSP not wanting a full blown war is that it is afraid land will not be returned. In 1965, it used the pressure of US etc. on India to return land near Lahore & nanga Parbat in PoK. In 1971, they lost BD. But what is not appreciated often is that Indira Gandhi took over some land in PoK in the Kargil sector. Small it was, but loss is loss. Land once lost, never goes back. I think more than anything else that has kept this dog on the leash is fear of land loss.

[sanjaykumar]

This needs to return to India. It is located, conveniently enough, in 'disputed' territory, in a highly strategic crossroads.

[surinder]

^^^
Since there are no Muslims living there, there simply cannot go to Pakistan, right?

[shiv]

The Pakistan thread is now veering off into discussions that should really be on here.

Everyone and his uncle has a view on America and China in Pakistan and how both can make Pakistan worse for India very cheaply and China will get safe trade routes to boot. India of course is characterized as "weak". India stated to be weak because of several reasons, but no argument about any possible Indian strength can get past the trump card argument. The trump card argument is that Pakistan has nukes and India is afraid of nuclear war.

I will not waste too much time arguing against rhetorical brick walls like "Pakistan has nukes and India is afraid of nukes. So there. India is weak and has lost". There is no argument that can dislodge or modify this viewpoint.

Pakistan has been characterized as unstable. Is this really true? Is Pakistan unstable? What is unstable about Pakistan?

My view is that Pakistan is unstable. Pakistan is unstable on several counts. Among the more serious problems in my view is the inability of the government of Pakistan to run an economy to keep up with the burgeoning population. Human indicators of development including population growth rate and literacy are not catching up at the rate they should be to reach a figure that is common for stable countries with sound stable economies or even the figures and rates being achieved in India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.

Pakistan as a country is accepting support from various nations and international bodies, but is forced to be beholden to them. In exchange for aid the US is demanding military action against a set of Pakistanis in Pakistan - which is something the Pakistan army finds itself unable to do. International bodies like the World Bank, to which Pakistan is indebted, demand reforms that Pakistan is unable or unwilling to fulfil. This makes the flow of money unreliable and conditional. Pakistan is willing to accept aid from China, but is unable to provide security guarantees to the projects that China proposes.

Apart from this Pakistan has a border dispute with India that is the prime reason why relations between India and Pakistan cannot be normalised. This fact is useful for any country that chooses to oppose India. Any country that wants to oppose India can very cheaply gain Pakistan's support. In addition, Pakistan has also shown a propensity for helping any cause or effort that is required by a third party nation as long as that nation helps or does not question Pakistan's opposition to India. This puts Pakistan in a position where it can be blackmailed by some countries who make anti_India aid conditional to Pakistan fulfilling certain requirements. So being "anti India" itself put Pakistan under pressure to do some things even if India does not lift a finger to oppose Pakistan.

From a Pakistani viewpoint India has had it easy. Dead easy. All that India has to do is to refuse to accept Pakistan's demands. And on occasion put up a military defence to thwart Pakistan's "just and righteous war" to free some Indian or other from the yoke of Indian hegemony and caste riddled Hindu extremism. India needs to be punished - but Pakistan is paying an unjustified price for fighting a just war against India while the entire world who aid Pakistan hold Pakistan to ransom and demand an unerasonable price - preventing Pakistan from fighting the just war against the Indian monster.

It is moot whether Pakistan's inability to meet human development parameters and improve its economy has anything to do with its antagonism to India. In actual fact both are interlinked, but it hardly matters now. Pakistan has gone so far down the road that a sudden improvement of relations with India will still not stop its civil wars, or improve literacy or reduce the birth rate. Whichever way you cut it - Pakistan is set to become a nation of 300 million poor and uneducated people in the next 10 years or so.

Now consider this. With a population of 180 million the US, China and the world, with all their aid have failed to help Pakistan become a thriving economy that can use its population to drive a modern workforce. All nations who are aiding Pakistan are themselves failing to improve Pakistanis despite having their anti-india needs fulfilled. In a decade, a population of 250 to 300 million is hardly going to be any better off.

Let me leave India out of this for now. What's in it for the "world" in Pakistan? Why should the world desire stability in Pakistan? The only reason why the "world" might desire stability in Pakistan is because it can be an important trade route - a role that Pakistan and all the nations who aid Pakistan have failed in creating. Pakistan as an anti-India power has worked well for decades. Pakistan as an important trade route is not working because the Pakistani economy is leaving too many people wanting and that number is increasing. No amount of money poured into Pakistan today is suddenly going to create a prosperous Pakistan where 180 million (and increasing) people are happy. The money that being a trade route brings in has to benefit many - a population half as large as the US and simply being a trade route will not pat that much. Unhappy people are ripe for civil unrest and that is exactly what is happening in Pakistan now.

So the options that the world has are as follows:

1) Accept Pakistan as a nation that is good only to oppose India. Dismiss Pakistan as being good for anything else. This option has too many problems. Pakistan as a failing economy has people and people have a way fo migrating across borders and creating trouble. India has a set system in place which many BRFites are unhappy with - but there is a system to deal with Pakistanis. But Pakistanis "leak: into Afghanistan, the gulf and thence to Africa and the west and to China as well. Many of these Pakistanis are ending up being a problem - the most notable problem being 9-11.

2) Accept Pakistan as a nation that is good to oppose India (as always) but improve its economy. This is exactly what Pakistani governments attempted since the 1940s. Pakistan would be a booming economy minus any Indian connection. My ebook shows why this did not work.

3) Try something else.

I can write a chapter on what that something else could be, but I am merely proposing on here that without Indian involvement in trading with Pakistan, Pakistan will go nowhere. US and China notwithstanding.

What does Pakistan "going nowhere" mean? The news we see from Pakistan every day is what I mean by "Pakistan going nowhere".

[RajeshA]

Nihat ji,
I hope you received my email!

[RajeshA]

X-Posted from Managing Chinese Threat Thread

Some aspects of how U.S support to Pakistan differs from a future enhanced support from China:

1) Financial Aid
USA: Gives lots of financial support to the state directly thereby enabling it to prevent "state collapse". The state then channels money to the TSPA making it stronger. Stronger Pakistan means stronger TSPA. Even so USA pays TSPA directly through the Coalition Support Fund. USA makes no commercial use of Pakistan, which makes such support less than self-sustainable and a burden for the American taxpayer.

China: Through investing in transit and logistics infrastructure in Pakistan, could increase a new source of income for the TSPA, lessening its need for state funds or direct financial aid from a foreign patron, like USA. If China uses Pakistan for Xinjiang-Gwadar transit of commercial goods as well as military supply lines to a Chinese presence in Gwadar, then the funds could be substantial also. The commercial use of Pakistan, enables China to make its support self-sustainable.

2) Arms Supplies
USA supplies a lot of arms to the Pakistanis, which can be used against India. However USA keeps control over Pakistan, through understandings requiring regular monitoring of these weapons, and a tight leash on supplies of spare parts. This control can be useful. In a war of which the Americans disapprove, they can cut off or delay vital supplies of spare parts, virtually condemning the Pakistanis to a limited war.

China too is moving ahead with arms supplies to Pakistan. With improved manufacturing base and a lot of reverse-engineering, it is to be expected that China would be able to supply even better arms to Pakistan in the future, than what it can supply now, at much lower costs.

3) Aims of Patron
USA's interests are at variance with Pakistan today. USA wants Pakistan to hunt down the Islamists, the Taliban, AQAM, etc. TSPA takes the money and gives questionable support to American aims. At the moment, India is not such a big power or a power at variance with America's interests in the world, that America would consider it needful to bring down India, at least not yet. In fact, America seems willing to see India and Pakistan make up, for whatever reason. By giving arms to Pakistan, USA is hurting Indian interests, however one would not consider USA India's enemy. Some look upon USA as even benign wrt India, at least in designs. The question to pose is, is America encouraging Pakistan to destroy India? Not, as far as I know.

China on the other hand is India's neighbor with a big border dispute between us. India is also the only country in Asia standing between China and its hegemony over Asia. In short, we are strategic enemies. Again the question to pose is, is China going to encourage Pakistan to destroy India! In that, at least, I have no doubt!

So one way or another, Pakistan would always be able to get access to conventional arms, either through USA or in the future through PRC; the question is would Pakistan's patron try to hold back Pakistan's hand or try to push it against India!

The question is not who gives the gun, but who controls the finger on the trigger!

[surinder]

Shiv

What's in it for the "world" in Pakistan? Why should the world desire stability in Pakistan?

Amongst the most important reason why the world and the 3.5 Boyfriends want stability in TSP because TSP fulfills a lot of important roles for them. It is the go between errand boy for a lot of dirty work that so called moral super powers need to be done. Furthermore, any nation that wants to see India either destroyed, or curtailed, or held down, or restrained, or simply need a pressure point need a functioning, stable TSP.

[Gagan]

This needs to return to India. It is located, conveniently enough, in 'disputed' territory, in a highly strategic crossroads.

That is K-2, the second highest peak in the world.
It is just a few kilometers from Indira Col, the northernmost point of the Siachen glacier (and currently the northernmost point where the tricolour flies on Indian territory).

There is a beautiful joining of two diameterically opposite huge glaciers to form one glacier at between K2 and Indira Col - a place called 'Concordia'.

[ramana]

NSV's latest at newsinsight.net

LINK

C O M M E N T A R Y

Leopard spots
Learn from the Raymond Davis affair that it is perilous to engage Pakistan, says N.V.Subramanian.

23 February 2011: The prime minister and others who believe in the possibility of peace with Pakistan should come to terms with the Raymond Davis affair for what it represents and abandon their naivete.

That Raymond Davis was an undercover operative/ security expert became known to this writer soon after his arrest. But in the interest of his safety, the information was never published.

It is normal for foreign missions to be staffed with spies. These spies operate in friendly and unfriendly countries on the premise that there are no permanent friends in international relations but only enduring interests.

They are less spies than what's called in the trade as agent-runners or handlers. The nature of spying has profoundly changed since the end of the Cold War.

After China, Pakistan perhaps is one of the world's most unfriendly nations. It is a terrorist state and a nuclear blackmailer. Pakistan's military-intelligence-nuclear establishment specializes both in terrorism and atomic adventurism.

Except perhaps a section of the people, the academia and the judiciary, whose numbers can never be determined, nearly everyone is complicit in Pakistan's state policy of terrorism and nuclear blackmail.

Against India, Pakistan preserves, promotes, provisions and employs the Lashkar-e-Toiba, the Jaish-e-Mohammed and assorted Kashmiri separatist groups. Against Hamid Karzai's nascent and promisingly democratic Afghanistan, there range the various Talibans. And the Al-Qaeda survives and regroups in North Waziristan/ Quetta to fight the United States today and hereafter.

Because Pakistan has nuclear weapons, the world and especially leading powers like the US reflexively are horrified at the prospect of breaking it up. Pakistan's natural progression is towards this break-up. But this scares the world.

Pakistan knows this and its military-intelligence establishment particularly is knowledgeable about this. Pakistan's deterrent is India-specific. But its ceaseless weapons' build-up to over a hundred/ hundred-and-ten bombs has a mad objective.

It is to increase the possibility of a nuclear leak to terrorists should the world (read the US) have the temerity to countenance breaking up Pakistan.

Pakistan's advantage thus far is that there is no unanimity among the five NPT powers and India on how to contain its nuclear threats and the terrorism it foments and exports.

India itself is divided on ways to contain Pakistan. The conventional view is that a united Pakistan is better than a Balkanised one and this thinking informs -- or misinforms -- the Manmohan Singh government's peace moves.

This writer's position is different. If Pakistan's nuclear menace can be managed with its timely denuclearization, then it is immaterial if Pakistan remains one or becomes several states.

Although India should have no hand in the breakup of Pakistan, nor should it attempt to stop the process in misguided neighbourliness.

The problem is that without focussing on the inevitability of Pakistan's break up, all the world powers, including the US, are fighting its evil on a daily, short-term basis. Here is where Raymond Davis figures.

Davis had a covert role. From media reports, it appears it had either to do with the CIA's FATA drone operations or with the US's increasing apprehensions about the LeT's terroristic capabilities.

It is unimaginable that the Pakistan government had no inkling of Davis's missions. There are certainly several others who are doing his kind of job even now.

No government likes foreign spies. But in the spy world, a known spy is better than an unknown spy. Although, of course, to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, there are known unknowns as there are unknown unknowns.

In other words, the Pakistan government knew who Raymond Davis was and had a reasonable good idea of his activities. It is inconceivable that the Pakistan military and intelligence establishment was not aware of Davis's assignment. It is suspected that the two men he killed in self-defence were ISI gorillas.

But even government accreditation and a virtual carte blanche for his undercover role do not help Davis now. It would appear that the US was operating out of a very small window in Pakistan.

That window may not be shut because of Davis's arrest and detention. But it cannot be expanded. A possibility is growing that the US may be close to exhausting its abilities diplomatically to extricate Davis.

The consequences of this for the US and the West are enormous, especially after the Middle East meltdown. It is no less so for India.

India is reaching out through the tiniest window of peace to Pakistan. Apart from a small section of people, academics and public intellectuals, there is nearly no constituency in Pakistan for peace with India.

And those exact same anti-Davis elements want no peace settlement with India unless on their terms.

Every interest group in Pakistan is hostage to every other.

No one is in control.

So why is the Manmohan Singh government persisting with its naivete with Pakistan? India cannot change its neighbours. But there is no compulsion to engage them.

India cannot moderate Pakistan. Where the US has failed, India cannot succeed.

It is best, therefore, for India to concentrate on containing the nuclear fall-outs from Pakistan's looming breakup. Perhaps, India quietly is moving in that direction.

But the peace engagement with Pakistan sends mixed signals and confuses friends and foes alike.

The Raymond Davis affair simultaneously reveals radically different Pakistani and American narratives. The US has reached a dead-end with its war-against-terror in Pakistan. And Pakistan has revealed leopard spots all over in the reaction to the Davis affair.

If India won't learn from this, it never will.

Interesting. All I can think is there is lots of gorking in Delhi about what all this means.

[shiv]

^^
Thanks for posting that excellent article. Is there a url or an archive?

[Prem]

I am wondering if RD was trying to trace WMD with LET etc. and Poaks came to know about this objective .

[Nihat]

which would make it all the more dangerous for Pakis to let RD go back to the US and basically open a can of worms back home.

[RajeshA]

X-Posting some posts from TSP Thread.

Anujan's post from 22.02.2011

RD affair should be carefully analyzed, it is several layers like an onion.

1. There is the army-civvies angle to it. With the army hinting that they can still create situations which can destabilize the civvies. There have been several shots across the bow before -- like protests over the Kerry-Lugar bill, Aafiya Protests, Judges protests all with an aim to the civvies to no assume that they are in charge.
2. There is the army demanding more baksheesh angle to it
3. Then I feel that there is a message, including to countries like India that Unkil can do diddly squat about things like pressurizing Pakis to rein in terror or bring Mumbai perpetrators to justice when Unkil is powerless to rescue his own man.

I hope that this is a nice wake up Jhappad to all those who think that buying a few planes from Unkil or dancing to Unkil's tune will buy us security from the Pakis. But this post is not about that.

Pakis, I feel will eventually overplay their hand. For all their implicit threat of letting China move in, two facts should not be forgotten

1. Pakis have been a MASSIVE drain on Unkil's money while not exactly dancing to Unkil's tune. I wish they are as big a drain on Chinese money as they were on Unkil's money
2. Pakis had some hope of being economically independent on Unkil's aid -- bulk of the money was for development. Chinese on the other had will only arm the Pakis and buy up Paki-land, making them permanently dependent on aid.

So, given that taller than mountain friends will not be moving in a hurry, given that all the Ummah birathers are busy holding on to their seats right now (the ones who are surviving I mean) and given that IMF, ADB, WB, Japan are all Unkil's munnas and given the tactical brilliance of the Pakis, it is *inevitable* that they overplay their hand. They will do something or the other (like Faisal Shahzad) and get a resounding Jhappad.

India should help them with this. Covertly and overtly. For a start, let us produce a lot more opinion columns about how Paki H&D is being threatened by Unkil. Let us write how unfair Unkil is, making Pakis kill their own brethren.

RD affair should be carefully analyzed, it is several layers like an onion.
<snip>
3. Then I feel that there is a message, including to countries like India that Unkil can do diddly squat about things like pressurizing Pakis to rein in terror or bring Mumbai perpetrators to justice when Unkil is powerless to rescue his own man.

This has a lot to do with Pakistan feeling over-confident that as long as USA is in Afghanistan, there is not much America can push Pakistan on.

America has allowed Pakistan to dictate:

• American boots on the ground, as incursions from the Afghan side, are not acceptable.
• Incursion of American attack planes and helicopters into Pakistani air space, are not acceptable.
• America does not get to expand the drone strikes into Northern Baluchistan, Quetta, even if senior Taliban leadership live there.
• Targeting of Pakistani security personnel manning the border is not acceptable, even if they are complicit in letting in Afghan Taliban to the safe sanctuaries on the Pakistan side.

Often the annoyance with the Americans has been expressed by burning trucks carrying supplies to the Americans in Afghanistan by road. Raymond Davis is a new means of controlling the Americans.

Considering the Pakistani's success in restraining America, it is but natural that they get over-confident.

The Americans make a big mistake in giving in to the Pakistani demands.

The Americans need to go back to their original formulation of policy in the AfPak battleground. Either Pakistan cooperates, or they will be bombed to the stone age!

When the Americans first started taking Pakistani complaints and requests into account, it was there and then that the downward slide began in America's effectiveness in controlling the war theater. It was when the drama thought out for public consumption about Pakistan being an ally in the GWOT started playing, it was then that Pakistan knew they were off the hook. Now USA needed to keep the pretension.

Al Qaeda committed 9/11. Taliban gave sanctuary to Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Pakistani Army created Taliban and controlled them (which they still do).

So basically Pakistani Army is responsible for 9/11!

This is the basic fact that the Americans need to always keep in view, when dealing with Pakistanis.

The Americans need to reformulate their stance towards Pakistan so that it better represents the reality of their relationship - that America gave Pakistanis a chance to redeem their substantial guilt in 9/11 and they blew it!

America needs to designate Pakistan as a terrorist country on parole. A terrorist country on parole has no rights to make nuclear weapons. As of now the international community should take custody of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. Furthermore Pakistan has to visibly, transparently and credibly decommission its jihadi networks.

Pakistan will never do the needful by appeasement, only through credible threat, the taste of whose punishment is meted out to Pakistan on a regular basis.

That America could not do well in Afghanistan considering the restrictions, the world and the American citizenry would forgive and forget! Afghanistan is a side-show and no victory there needs to be found or declared. There is no loss of face, if America leaves Afghanistan. But if America messes up Pakistan big time, then the world will not forget that!

America needs to put Pakistan in the cross hairs again!

hnair's post from 24.02.2011

Comparing China vs US help to pakis is like asking to decide between two bowls of steaming sh!t. Not much differs except the smell. So I go with the decision based on "floater characteristics" - the one that is not going down after multiple flushes over 60 years is of course US.

I don't think American presidents give a sh1t about what might happen after their watch as long as the appearance is like they managed things well. If they manage things well "who would argue" is a perfect expression to explain how they can go around doing absurd things like supplying nuclear delivery vehicles to Pakistan.

amen. All they care about is a second term and that "Presidential library" grant at the end of their term. So they pay off the wildest lot or sacrifice the harmless bunch to the most harmful, as an offering of peace. A "keep off my yard. Please?" hafta.

So pakis are safe from any POTUS. But POTUS finally approves all arms sales to pakis and that hurts India directly. All the arms sales they do to pakis are not just stuff that makes numbers go up, but enabler tech. Eg: no one really cares beyond a point about an airframe called F16. But add AMRAAMS, new radar sets, EW, Sniper ATP pod, JDAMs, spare engines and you got to be kidding me if anyone still asks Shiv-saar about what has US done for Pakis!!! Same for the 3 TPS-77s, Hawkeye 2000s, tons of APCs, tons of SPH, a frigate or two with land-attack VLS retrofit options, sneaky harpoon LACM upgrade blessings. Am not going into NVG, drone tech etc. All at bargain rates or free.

Take the above list and the US literally checkmated ColdStart on behalf of the pakis. What is the consequence for India? We, the citizens, get killed with impunity as the military threat is blunted

Compared to that, China let pakis test physics packages acquired with european tech and frigates/fighters of questionable technical merits or value. Third string stuff as per PAF's own preferences (khan and oiropeans being 1 and 2nd grade in their own ratings). But then compared to US, China atleast made pakis kill their own and Pashtun children in Lal Masjid. Just for targeting a piddly massage parlour. Sorry to say this, but to an Indian, the China's leadership comes across as more no-nonsense to the string of namby pamby POTUS. Basing a drone after paying off a local corpse commander and flying only at night to not awaken Kiyani is not equal to getting pakis themselves to assault Lal Masjid. US has yet to show that kind of resolve, despite loading them with dangerous heavy armaments that are targeted only at India's armed forces.

The "Chinese hurts us the most with nuke tech to pakis" is a dubious argument, as it completely masks US' role in the whole sordid saga. I heard no noise like what US makes of North Korea-China games, back in the 80s or even nowadays. No noises by US against the proliferating europeans too, other than some Global warming type complaints about "too much photocopy paper being used". Nor are they making noises now, when pakis are building questionable reactors and enrichment buildings like crazy. The US aided and abetted international nuke-proliferation's best documented First Degree murder. All for pakis. The chinese joined later, when they helped fine tune the crude weapons of the Pakis to fit the missiles they sold via NoKo and directly. That is the only time the pakis did not get what they wanted from US directly - because US has basic racist reasons for not handing over nukes to non-Anglos. Else I am 400% sure pakis would be threatening us with a W87 ("old compared to W88, wont upset India's supremacy") that got handed over as FMS from PANTEX's little barn in Amarillo.

There is another aspect to recent bunch of POTUS. Thanks to the "pre-existing senile" Reagan*'s (his Alzheimer's was hidden during his terms, as was stated by his own family) long brown skidmarks on the Presidential bedsheets at the white-house, everyone wants to stand like a prick on top of a broken berlin wall in their term and act out hammy speeches. Trouble is there are not enough Berlin walls and Israel ain't budging So they improvise. They look around for tinpots that got rusty with too many previous POTUS peeing on it. They dont touch anyone that can willingly cause causalities above 100 US people at a time, in their own terms, but like Dick Cheney or Al Gore, will thump their chests after their term. Obama and Biden will do the same.

But they are very selective in picking up targets. Eg: to the current POTUS, that freakish gandoo Gaddafi must be like what, those multi-colored halwa they sell at Calicut railway station does to my sanity. a bit washed up compared to the olden days, but still squishy and tantalizing. Yet the train stops only for a few mins!!

Pakis, of course know POTUS fears, because every POTUS has called in pakis for "turning tricks" of roleplay kind for more then sixty years. As long as khan keeps doing this crappy bargain (they are doing it as we speak with Senor Raimundo), pakis are safe and Indians remain at danger. I blame this mainly to US voters being denied information that makes them ask common sense questions.

The only way forward for the world is for Pakis to be pakis and let the talibanization increase pace, that it finally results in mass non-Indian casualties. A sad and bitter conclusion, thanks to US.

____________
* OT, but Reagan is like a magical Dev Gowda, in whose term Pakistan imploded and China had a genuine democratic revolution that freed Tibet after a national rapprochement phase!!! If that happened, Shree Gowda would have been stuff of legends in India too, am sure. I would have been lighting agarbathis in front of technicolor portraits of a snoozing Shree Gowda, right next to Mammootty, Mohanlal and some item girl that came with the wallet

shiv's post from 25.02.2011

Insigthful post hnair.

I was going to ask "So what is the US going to do next" and I suddenly had an "aha!" moment. What the US does is unimportant. The way Americans are taught to think - it's a question of what the current American President does. What the Prez does is what the US does because of the respect and power the US President is endowed with in America. Nothing could be more different from India where the PM does not enjoy the automatic respect or power that the US President has and can do little without pulling the baggage he has to carry in the direction he wants to go. If the baggage does not move he does not move and the nation does not appear to go anywhere.

That explains the resident American citizen's obsession with presidential plans, presidential popularity and presidential elections and belief that an individual human's vision (as "President") sets the tone for the nation. That is certainly true for the US - so all we need to do is to see what Ombaba will do about Pakistan and what kind of mess he will leave for himself or his successor.

For the US, Pakistan is unimportant. AfPak, Iraq and Iran are important as are the economy and jobs in America. For Ombaba it is important that Pakistan does not gain any importance. As long as Pakistan can be kept as low priority issue for the next presidential race or beyond the Pakistan problem can be considered "solved" and history will not blame Ombaba. Loss of jobs in the US can cause loss of job for the President. India can be blamed (partly) for loss of jobs. China is doing all the manufacturing - so US citizens are not earning much from low end manufacture. However the US still rulez in aviation and military industry and exports create jobs - so India is important. In an ideal world India would not be able to take jobs out of America but yet have the dollars to pay America for arms. Like the brainless Saudis.

If India is in an arms build-up with regard to China one simple mechanism of making India want more arms urgently would be to utilise a nearby crisis other than China for India to buy arms. A few arms to Pakistan can be calibrated for India to contribute to the US economy.

Pakistan being a problem for India is:
1) India's problem
2) Not America's problem

As long as Pakistan remains low on the consciousness of the mango American the President can save his job, his reputation and mark his place in history. He has won the Nobel Peace prize remember. War won't look good so he will avoid confrontation. He will avoid making hard decisions today that might avoid a confrontation tomorrow. He will take the safe route and bribe the Pakistanis and save his own echandee. A country that had to avoid a war with Iran under madcap President Dubya is hardly likely to take on Pakistan. Pakistan will be given more under the guise of "Gratitude for cooperation against Al Qaeda" and for keeping Pakistani troops in Pakistani soil, not fighting anyone but sittting in camps far away from an enemy they claim they want to fight. Ombaba will sympathise with the Pakistani army and supply them with the arms they need to fight the big bad enemy next door. Davis will be allowed to fall off the front pages to a footnote and he will be released in due course.

Pakistan will fall when the US falls. The US will not allow Pakistan to go down. It is necessary, if possible, to create a confrontation between Pakistan and the US so they help each other go down. But most Indians will not accept this a a necessity. Karma really is a bitch. The chains of dhimmitude and Stockholm syndrome are too heavy. China has a good thing going in the sense that they single mindedly want to dominate. India on the other hand wants to co exist - not only with Pakistan, but with the US as well. But as long as the US survives as a power. Pakistan will survive.

[VikramS]

On the TSP thread hnair wrote:

"Same for the 3 TPS-77s, Hawkeye 2000s, tons of APCs, tons of SPH, a frigate or two with land-attack VLS retrofit options, sneaky harpoon LACM upgrade blessings"

1. From whatever I can find, there was some offers to the TSP about the Hawkeye 2000 in the middle of the decade, but there has been absolutely no news about any actual transfer. hnair jee, could you point to any resource which points to the transfer.

2. Of the 22 newer gen F-16s ordered in 2006, a grand total of THREE have been delivered in more than four years. The other 14 were the 28 originally manufactured for the TSP in the 80s but not delivered after the Afghan war ended.

3. The TPS-77s with a range of upto 250Miles are sitting ducks for the air-launched Brahmos; a homing beacon.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

hnairji repeated the same story with some digs at Reagan. Reagan may be senile but he was smart enough to throw the bogey of Star Wars to expose the FSU's economic weakness, while bleeding it in Afghanistan. They correctly identified the FSU's weak spot and exploited it.

However, I digress.

The question, I repeat is, how will the PRC act if the US cedes whatever control it has over the TSP.

All I have seen is linear extrapolations of the past with little consideration of the new context, capabilities and opportunities.

e.g:
** Because in the past the PRC did not give weapons for free, they will not in the future.

But there is no thought on why the PRC needs to give weapons for free when the TSP was willing to pay for them. And why in the future the PRC will not provide weapons when their economy has essentially doubled in the past 7-8 years, and they have the opportunity to occupy the strategic space vacated by the US.

** Musharraf did Lal Masjid because of the Chinese massage parlor, the US is being take for a ride.

Of course the US is being taken for a ride. So Whats new...

However there is no discussion on WHY the Chinese wield so much influence and what they could DO with that influence if the US cedes the space.

"The "Chinese hurts us the most with nuke tech to pakis" is a dubious argument, as it completely masks US' role in the whole sordid saga"

What is dubious about it? That the US did not prevent the Chinese from screwing India? Why were there expectations that the US would prevent the Chinese from screwing India?

The dubiousness is in the specious argument that the US was in some way beholden to India to stop the TSP from getting the bomb. Indians may hate the equal-equal; however they did little to influence it even though the equal-equal was a clearly articulated policy. Post Pokhran-I, the TSP was willing to eat grass to get the nukes and they exploited the circumstances to the hilt. TSP could use equal-equal to justify its needs long enough to get things done; it also knew that its window of opportunity effectively ended the day the Afghan Jihad ended.

What did India do to PREVENT the TSP from getting the nukes? What was India willing to offer in return to stop the TSP? I was too young to know what the Indian leaders were doing, but I suspect they did nothing.

However the expectation that the US should NOT have allowed the Chinese to screw India shows a degree of naiveness I did not expect from the gurus.


----------------------------------------------

shiv: You said you need to write two page posts on each of the issues I raised. Please do. You make digs all over the place but offer no structured cogent argument to respond to the questions I have raised. Your ebook on the TSP while a wonderful insight on TSP (and the challenges the Chinese will face), does not shed much light on how the Chinese will handle a TSP when the US is not there. The answers to that question is the key to this discussion. However I repeatedly hit a dead end while trying to elicit a response. As they say, please put up or shut up.

[shiv]

shiv: You said you need to write two page posts on each of the issues I raised. Please do.

Please ask your questions again and I might give it a shot. But don't depend on it. Some of your questions are assumptions that go along a line of thought that I consider wrong and that requires one long post to deconstruct that assumption to reset the starting point to zero and then along a line of thought that I think is more credible. Under the circumstances you are asking a lot and I might not be able to deliver.

However if you collect your questions up and post them again someone other than me might want to take a shot. I can't even recall most of the questions you claim to have asked. The last suggestion I recall from you on the other thread was IMO so far off that I did not want to bother answering and this was the idea that US actions in Pakistan were designed to hold the Chinese in check. If you did not say that - then please state on here that you did not say that and I am mistaken.

But before I sign off - May I ask you a rhetorical question of the kind that you have asked hnair above: "You say that I make digs all over the place. What did you do to stop me from making those digs?". Please don't be offended - but the question is one that is not asking for information but is begging for a barb or an argument. My unprovoked dig comes first, without your knowing that it will come, so there is nothing you can do to stop them and the answer to the question "What did you do to stop those barbs and digs is "Nothing". The digs and barbs have to come before you notice them and asking what you did to stop them is an unfair question.

So what did India do to stop Pakistan from getting nukes when they had already acquired them and the suppliers and co conspirators (Including US presidents) denied it for years? Nothing would be a fair answer and your age is irrelevant if I may say so. I hope you understand that your own style of writing sometimes invites a particular style of reply that you see as a barb or a dig.

[A_Gupta]

http://www.thefridaytimes.com/25022011/page16.shtml

Another item on this page is alleged RAW support for a coup against Zia ul Haq.

TFT: You talked of your struggle against every successive government. Do you see a bright future for Pakistan?

RK: I arrived in Pakistan from Lucknow in September 1947 and what I practically saw in the months to come was that the train had already derailed, contrary to the visions and dreams I had when I moved here. I expected that we’d start from a clean slate, collectively and consciously build a society qualitatively superior to the colonial society to which I was born into. Pakistan, in my vision, was supposed to be the turning of a page. I soon realized that it is completely the other way around. The freedom we had gained was only from British constraints on the pursuit of personal interest leading to a society led by dedication to personal interest in complete disregard of social interest. Earlier we had handed over our society to the British by leaving societal interest to the British government. You were not allowed to be corrupt or incompetent under the British. Partition meant you could now be a corrupt and incompetent clerk.

I have not to this day accepted that disillusionment and am still at war with it, though I have found willingness to live at peace with it. The reason is not just that I’m angry about it but because I do not possibly see a future on this basis. This is just a transitional phase in which a few of our generations will go down the drain. I have seen four generations, including my father’s, go down the drain and I have no expectations at all from the generation of today either and I have every reason to believe that the next generation will be the same as well. We’ve tried many things, most recently the ‘civil society’ but nothing really has worked.

This cannot continue forever since this is not a civilization and there is nothing stable about this [state of affairs]. It’s a kind of plague, of the mind, of the spirit, it’s an intellectual plague. It’s a kind of insanity but it has become so common that it is now a paradigm.

[A_Gupta]

The question, I repeat is, how will the PRC act if the US cedes whatever control it has over the TSP.

The assumption behind this question is that PRC and the US are in competition in Pakistan; e.g., that the US presence keeps Pakistan from being less anti-India than Pakistan would be if PRC alone was there.

From the Indian POV, Pakistan is inherently anti-India, and both the US and PRC serve to make this anti-Indianism effective instead of impotent.

It is additive; i.e., China doesn't bother to do more because the US is doing enough. There are no strings visible from the US side on Pakistan that they must hold China at arm's length in order to receive American aid. If China saw it fit, it could up its contribution to Pakistan any time, without Pakistan alienating the Americans.

If the US steps away, China may step in to fill in the void, but the net sum of {Pakistan, US, China} resources arrayed against India would have reduced.

PS: a good recent example is the flood aid given to Pakistan. China did not see itself in a competition with the US for influence in Pakistan.

http://www.zeenews.com/news650413.html

Beijing: Pakistan Tuesday defended China's contribution to its flood relief and said it is unfair for any country to ask Islamabad's "all weather friend" to do more, in an appararent reference to US envoy Richard Holbrooke's prodding that Beijing should step up the aid.

[shiv]

This may sound OT but it is not. In 2006 I was asked to review on BR a book that was published in the US about the US role in Asia. When the research was done for the book the US was still a confident nation and the book describes what the US does in Asia. I quote from my own review because the review is plain and open about the fact that the US consider(s/ed) itself a the pre-eminent power and stays in Asia only to balance one power against the other and not allow any perceived hegemon to rise above itself. The US in other words will play both sides. The US's role vis a vis Pakistan must be seen in this light. I would call the US a ba$tard for this, but that is my view.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/SRR/2006/01/62.html

US policy is analyzed first in the country analyses section, firmly placing the US as an Asian
power by virtue of its presence and clout all around Asia. The continuing prospect of the US
in being the pre-eminent economic and military power is described and defined. The role of
the US in Asia is described as one of holding the ring akin to a stabilizing force that
prevents the ring from being pulled in one direction or other.

[habal]

It is a long standing 'anglo-saxon' (it starts with the British) policy to support the 'strong minority' against the majority to balance any potential powers from emerging. They have done it in Europe as well, propping up a bosnia against a Serbia and restricting Slavic dominance of eastern europe. A while back, I was reading an expert's views on the Bosnia/Kosovo embroglio and more I read through, the more it felt like Indo-pak redux.

[Ravi Karumanchiri]

^^^^ It's called "divide and conquor" or "divide and rule". It has become standard operating procedure for many powers on many scales, because it works.

[shiv]

It is a long standing 'anglo-saxon' (it starts with the British) policy to support the 'strong minority' against the majority to balance any potential powers from emerging. They have done it in Europe as well, propping up a bosnia against a Serbia and restricting Slavic dominance of eastern europe. A while back, I was reading an expert's views on the Bosnia/Kosovo embroglio and more I read through, the more it felt like Indo-pak redux.

That should give us an idea of exactly who needs to be subverted in the long run.

[ramana]

A_Gupta looks like Aunty tipped off Zia mia who was paranoid anyway.

[Prem]

From above link by A. Gupta


Wasteland By MA Jidiot

This cannot continue forever since this is not a civilization and there is nothing stable about this [state of affairs]. It’s a kind of plague, of the mind, of the spirit, it’s an intellectual plague. It’s a kind of insanity but it has become so common that it is now a paradigm.

[/quote]

[VikramS]

A_Gupta:

I see no reason why TSP will not play the friends against each other. In spite of the symbiotic relationship between the US and China, it would be naive to think that they are not competing.

That the US has used the Islamists for its geo-political goals is fairly well understood. The office of the Ujigir movement is walking distance from the White House. If nothing else, it is in China's interest to have a firm grip over what goes in the Islamist Emirate of TSP.

Regarding US strings on China: How come the Gwadar project fell apart once the GOAT started?? Note that the falling apart happens not only because of the local Baluch dynamics, but also because the Chinese do not want to push while Uncle has boots on the ground. It sees no point as Uncle will not allow it. As the Lal Masjid incident illustrates, when the Chinese wants to Squeeze the TSP, the TSPA will forget about Mecca and prostrate in wherever direction the CCP orders it to.

All this talk of instabilities and unsafe routes is a red-herring. How many non-NATO trucks get burnt in the TSP? shiv is perhaps too much into studying the fissures in the TSP, to acknowledge that life still goes on. There might be all kinds of economic hardships, but trade, commerce and transport has not to come to a halt.

The flood relief issue actually illustrates that Beijing commands a LOT of influence with the TSP in spite of not being a headline grabber. We all know that the pain of the floods was exaggerated by the professional beggars; the CCP knows that too. It also knows that the mango Abdul does not matter, and there is no point winning their hearts. So CCP invests where it matters and that is with the King Makers. It was not a coincidence that TSPA honchos were camping in Beijing during Kargil and it was CCP which was shipping F7s and other weapons to the TSP during Kargil.

The CCP will demand a lot more for any thing they give. However, they too will give ENOUGH to keep the parasite alive. Right now the US is doing it; if they leave KSA and CCP will take over. It is perhaps wishful thinking to expect that the other two friends will let the system which has served the so well fall apart.

I see very little discussion on what the CCP can do if they become the primary controller. All the focus seems to be on how the Anglos have used divide and rule, support the underdog etc. to worsen the TSP problem for India. Very little effort goes into what the TSP could do if it is the CCP which is actually calling the shots.

Every thing is swept under the carpet under the assumption that if no Uncle then TSPA will fall in line and stop punching about its weight class. What folks forget is that between 1990 and 2001 there was very little Uncle but TSPA was running Afghanistan and planing Kargil.

---------------------------

shiv:

I have posed the questions multiple times in multiple posts, but you refuse to answer them because they violate your understand of TSP dynamics. Perhaps you are unable to because my questions, may force to question your perspective on certain aspects of your (hypo)thesis.

One problem I have seen is the gross exaggeration of US arms sale to the TSP. When I have questioned the hypothesis I have been told not to expect people to respond to "my time and place of choosing". However when I present snippets to support my hypothesis, my posts are completely ignored. OTOH, hnairji's rant about phantom Hawkeyes, and US Nukes in TSP hands is acknowledged as a masterpiece.

There is about Western arms (the best maal) but no acknowledgement that the CCP's military complex is making rapid progress and the gap will only narrow as CCP puts in more resources.


I perhaps am expecting too much from folks, who do not even check basic facts but then claim that the US would have gifted nukes to the TSP. I sense too much of Krishna Menon style rhetorical pontification with an unwillingness to think beyond what is accepted as the gospel truth. And that is the last thing any discussion on strategic issues needs; aren't we not supposed to have permanent friends in International Relations, only permanent interests?

BTW why do public procrastinations of leaders matter? All politicians and leaders lie to serve their interests. And that includes Indian politicians also. So that statement about what could India do when the US was lying about the nukes which the TSP already has, is meaningless.

The problem was that India put herself in a situation, where it had very little leverage to stop the TSP from doing what it was doing. That situation did not arise overnight; it was a result of choices made over time. Either the Indian leaders ignored the outcomes or were just no interested in the consequences. Blaming India's strategic isolation on some fake certification in the US Congress simply deflects the attention from the fundamental issue.

[ramana]

Shiv, There is cognitive dissonance in that book. According to Paul Kennedy the expert on "Grand strategy", a pre-eminent power does not need ot play balance of power game. That is strategy of a lesser power.
So there is an inherent flaw in that strategy. And events of 2007(Iraq), 2008 (Wall Street meltdown) and now are showing the flaws.

One can't be a big bull when one is goat.

Or in immortal words of Raj Kumar in Waqt, "Yeh Churi se nahin khelna. Hath khat jayega!"

"Dont play with knives. Hand can get cut!"