The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 13 Mar 2011 10:30

One could make some conditional statements - e.g., **IF** the US is going to continue to support the Pakistani Army, then the US being in Afghanistan makes it directly face the costs of such a policy via Pakistani Army's support for the Taliban than if the support from afar. It doesn't change the fact that things would be better for India if the US abandoned Pakistan.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Mar 2011 11:19

ravi_ku wrote:
RajeshA wrote:

Air Corridor: India offers to host the Americans in an Indian Indian-run airbase, say in Pathankot, Punjab. There are regular flights of American aircraft between Bagram Airbase and Pathankot Airbase, the route servicing military supplies, urgent supplies, medical care for the wounded, personnel transport in and out of Afghanistan, and may be even combat aircraft sorties.
RajeshA,

have you heard of the phrase,

"cutting of one's nose to spite his face"/ in telugu "konda nalikki mandeste unna naalika udindata", i.e. the medicine for throat relief removed off his tongue.

Your 2nd option is exactly that.

Ravi_ku ji,
I don't see that many plans floating around which bring PoK back into the game in our favor, so I proposed one.

I concede though, I am weak on wonderful phrases.

pran · Post by **pran** » 13 Mar 2011 12:02

The simple fact that India exists and it can influence the outcome is what is causing a lot of pepto bismol sales in Islamabad,DC and noodle capital.US cannot leave the Pakis alone to script the outcome.India sitting pretty with a strong offensive capability will never permit the monkeys in Islamabad to lower their guard and they know it very well that they cannot take care of a huge chunk of 160 million monkeys unless their coercive power can be used against their arch enemy.If this energy is bottled within it will burst open like a soda bottle and they are coordinating the direction of blowout sometimes east sometimes west. The situation is similar to a tenali rama joke when he described to Raja Krishnadevaraya that taking a dump is the utmost pleasure, here the panda and the Gorilla is feeding the monkey and it does not want to take a dump while the elephant is preaching that he too can get this pleasure if he changes its mind.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 13 Mar 2011 16:51

ramana wrote:A weird thing is when an Indian Left Liberal drops the mask he turns up with Yankee Doodle!

And what emerges when a "right righteous" Indian drops his mask, Sancho Panza?

shiv wrote:Pakistan won that game and has been winning ever since

If what has happened since 9/11 can be described as a "win" for Pak, well the English lexicon needs a different definition of victory..

Its almost amusing how much hand wringing there is over "India's" lack of "success", hanging by "America's coat-tails" etc...The rhetoric is almost straight out of the '70s and early '80s - the period that marked a culmination of a period of near complete non-achievements as a nation state....

It would be interesting to do a thought experiment usign some of the "wish list" of the "right righteous" as ceteris paribus conditions:

1. US is forced to leave Af..
2. Ergo, it loses interest in substantially supporting Pak..

What is it that we expect in the region then? A happy, independent Af that maintains neutrality of relations with Pak? A China that does nothing but nomal, regular commercial business in Af? A Pak that suddenly realises that its strategic depth theory is all wrong and stops trying to meddle?

the story currently seems to be - "US is satan for India, lets get them out of Af and lets get their funding to Pak stopped" - not much details as to how the latter can be achieved by us, but for the moment let it pass...But what next in the game? What is India's game? Besides of course shouting from the rooftops about our new-found masculinity!

Acharya wrote:Not a surprise. For fifty years they were the product of the social engineering of the west and they have affiliation to the Yemerica

finally Acharya-ji, wow....So our millennia old civilisation (that you are constantly harping on) is so fragile that "50 years of social engineering" creates such mass "conversions"!!! Even the islamists through the centuries failed in such an endeavour...

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 13 Mar 2011 17:58

somnath wrote: It would be interesting to do a thought experiment usign some of the "wish list" of the "right righteous" as ceteris paribus conditions:

1. US is forced to leave Af..
2. Ergo, it loses interest in substantially supporting Pak..

What is it that we expect in the region then? A happy, independent Af that maintains neutrality of relations with Pak? A China that does nothing but nomal, regular commercial business in Af? A Pak that suddenly realises that its strategic depth theory is all wrong and stops trying to meddle?

Let's go even further. Suppose the US leaves Af and stops supporting Pak; and suppose China is unable to prevent Pak. from imploding (severe economic crisis, civil war, etc.). What do we expect in the region after that?

Does anyone imagine that 180 million dysfunctional people will ever be easy to deal with?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Mar 2011 18:05

somnath wrote: It would be interesting to do a thought experiment usign some of the "wish list" of the "right righteous" as ceteris paribus conditions:

1. US is forced to leave Af..
2. Ergo, it loses interest in substantially supporting Pak..
<snip>
the story currently seems to be - "US is satan for India, lets get them out of Af and lets get their funding to Pak stopped" - .

Interestingly convenient interpretation possibly made by cherry picking the views of many different people.

As far as my personal opinion is concerned - I can only restate my views which are nothing like the creative interpretation made above

Pakistan, and US support to the Pakistan army are the problems. Not Afghanistan
The US must stop supporting the Pakistani army. Period. Let political events in Pakistan take their own course minus US support to the Pakistan army.
I don't give a damn what happens in Afghanistan.

All this business about 60s thinking, 70s thinking, almost there, invited to all sorts of high tables, lack of plan, don't focus on Pakistan etc are amusing but a complete cipher in terms of revealing any insight into India's Pakistan problem.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Mar 2011 18:32

A_Gupta wrote: Let's go even further. Suppose the US leaves Af and stops supporting Pak; and suppose China is unable to prevent Pak. from imploding (severe economic crisis, civil war, etc.). What do we expect in the region after that?

Does anyone imagine that 180 million dysfunctional people will ever be easy to deal with?

Arun the sequence of events is reversed:

If the US stops supporting the Pakistan army, it will be forced to leave Afghanistan. The Pakistan army, it was expected would

1) Provide logistical support for the US in Afghanistan
2) weed out any Islamic militia who ran into Pakistan from Afghanistan

Pakistan has done neither completely although point 1 was done better than 2.

I want the US to stop supporting the Pakistan army. The US leaving Afghanistan would be a consequence of that and not the other way round. But I don't really care if the US leaves Afghanitsan or not. If they can stay in there fine as long as they stop support for the Pakistan army.

The issue is being muddied by constant references to the US's interest in Afghanistan. What happens to Afghanistan is not India's problem. What happens in Pakistan is India's problem.

I am suggesting that the US supported power center the Pakistan army would be taken over by Islamists allowing Pakistan to reach its true destiny if the US stopped its support. I am certain that india can deal with a Pakistan that is run by Islamists simply because Islamism is the only face of Pakistan that has been exposed to India. The "moderate, non Islamist" face of Pakistan was maintained as a facade for the US and the US is now playing a desperate rearguard action to try and bring back that "moderate face" of Pakistan. They are horrified by the islamist face of Pakistan. The US is pumping more money and arms into an increasingly Islamized Pakistani army in the hope that the army will magically return to the good times where the Pakistan army would heel when the US said "heel" and the US will rule Afghanistan and India will play second fiddle to the US in Afghanistan because the Paki army is in the US's pocket.

Sooner or later the Islamized Paki army will boot the US out. I would like to see that sooner rather than later and in the meantime I would like India to demand cessation of all arms supplies to the Pakistan army. it is another matter that the demand may be rejected - but it must be made.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Mar 2011 19:25

Pakistan's past has hinged on robust support from the US and its future too will be modified by US support for the Pakistan army.

The primary beneficiaries of US aid, the Pakistani army are now desperately trying to cement and "further solidify" their ties with China precisely because they know that they cannot continue pretending to do the US's job and not do it. Either they do it is lose US support and they are hedging their bets and thinking of a future without US support. Hence the obsequious references to China.

The US of course has clearly indicated that they have no intention of leaving Pakistan. But for the US to stay in Pakistan they have to pay someone. The US so far has not directly paid the Taliban (at least in public). The US will not pay the castrated "napunsak" civilians politicians. The US pays the Pakistani army and tolerates a degree of diversion of its funds to the Taliban from the Pakistani army in order to allow the US to stay in Pakistan. This is pure survival for the US's long term plan in the region and its not just about Afghanistan. its about staying engaged in the region IN PAKISATAN.

In my view the US will tolerate a great deal of crap from the Pakis because this is about US primacy - not just Afghanistan.

But when we sit and overanalyse the US's intentions it is easy to forget Indian interests. US aid to the Pakistan army, no matter what its motivation has the dual effect of:

1) Helping to fulfil the anti-India motivation of the Pakistan army
2) Suppress the diverse political forces in a 180 million strong Pakistan to remain secondary to the role played by the primary and most powerful armed force - the Pakistan army.

What would happen if:

The US left Pakistan and the Pakistan army is left without US support
The Pakistan army begged China to "take over"
The political forces in Pakistan currently suppressed by the Pakistan army are able to express their will

These questions would come into play if the US did leave.

But first things first

STOP FUNDING AND ARMING THE PAKISTAN ARMY!!

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 13 Mar 2011 19:34

shiv wrote:Pakistan, and US support to the Pakistan army are the problems. Not Afghanistan
The US must stop supporting the Pakistani army. Period. Let political events in Pakistan take their own course minus US support to the Pakistan army.
I don't give a damn what happens in Afghanistan.

Bravo, the "US must"...And why exactly should they "stop"? Depending on circumstances, the level of support will vary, and we should be influencing those circumstances...But under what circumstance engineered by India should the US "stop" supporting the only large and capable "muslim army" that is ready to do its bidding at all times?

Of course, we shouldnt give a damn on what happens in Af...We should let our near abroad in Central Asia to be an open playfield for China...the Pakis consider Af as their strategic depth - we should conveniently leave it to them to manage as they deem fit, we should keep off the place, isnt it?

shiv wrote:Sooner or later the Islamized Paki army will boot the US out. I would like to see that sooner rather than later and in the meantime I would like India to demand cessation of all arms supplies to the Pakistan army. it is another matter that the demand may be rejected - but it must be made

rather curious...The "islamic" Paki Army "will" boot the US out - really? And find themselves unable to use about 70% of their equipment almost overnight...Or pay any of their debts from the next day....And of course, we should shout regardless of whether it makes any difference to any outcome or not - shouting is key - international mamta bannerjee

is an interesting persona...Its an interesting variant of an axiom that starts with Pak having "won" the game since 9/11....

But seriously Shiv-ji, what is therefore the end game...India will be under lesser threat from an even more islamised Pak military with nukes (and without US money/conventional weapons), Chinese support and clear territory in Af than we are today? And a Pak with nukes, Chinese military in the region (Af and Pak), and the strategic depth of Af is a "manageable" threat compared to what is presented today?

And finally, just saw the new post..

STOP FUNDING AND ARMING THE PAKISTAN ARMY!!

So repeating that ad nauseam to the US makes for a viable strategy!?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Mar 2011 19:47

somnath wrote: So repeating that ad nauseam to the US makes for a viable strategy!?

Yes, But my view has to be repeated. Or the US government might come to BRF read only what you believe and think that all Indians will want to suck US backside in Afghanistan. In the hope of a mythical "high seat" in an imaginary role in a useless great game.

I have only just started - and will repeat as many times as necessary.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 13 Mar 2011 19:48

Ajatshatru wrote:So what then, according to you, is the actual ground reality in 2011?

Ajatshatru-ji, anyone who cannot discern the difference between India's national stature in 2011 versus 1970 has to be living somewhere else, and/or smoking something really good

...

Ajatshatru wrote:Says who? Please could you expand on this particular line of thought of yours along with the necessary references. Thanks

This isnt MY line of thought - I am just encapsulating that of certain others..

Ajatshatru wrote:so you have even doubts on our 'millinnia old civilisation' then

Sir, I have no doubts about either our civilisation or its strengths...Doubts in fact are in the minds of our "right righteous" group, that are constantly looking for subversions to our "purity" engendered by Western or MArxist or Imperialist (funny they dont see the evident contradictions) conspiracies....Nothing bothers me more than people who lack confidence in India and apprecitaion of the tremendous leaps we have made (in the context of post independence India) in the last 20 odd years...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Mar 2011 20:05

somnath wrote: what is therefore the end game...India will be under lesser threat from an even more islamised Pak military with nukes (and without US money/conventional weapons), Chinese support and clear territory in Af than we are today? And a Pak with nukes, Chinese military in the region (Af and Pak), and the strategic depth of Af is a "manageable" threat compared to what is presented today?

Saar the future's not ours to see but the past and the present are clear as crystal. Do you disagree or agree with this? If you agree I will speculate on the future. But you must first give a straight reply to the question.

The question again:

Saar the future's not ours to see but the past and the present are clear as crystal. Do you disagree or agree with this?

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 13 Mar 2011 20:13

shiv wrote:Saar the future's not ours to see but the past and the present are clear as crystal.

You are fortunate shiv-ji to have a clear as crystal view of the present and past..I, on the other hand, see ambiguities quite often...But ambiguities aout the present doesnt preclude scenario building for the future, does it?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Mar 2011 20:35

somnath wrote:
shiv wrote:Saar the future's not ours to see but the past and the present are clear as crystal.
You are fortunate shiv-ji to have a clear as crystal view of the present and past..I, on the other hand, see ambiguities quite often...But ambiguities aout the present doesnt preclude scenario building for the future, does it?

Thank you. I will accept that as a valid answer and move on from there.

Ambiguities about the present do not preclude building scenarios for the future - but you are going too far ahead, too fast.

If you accept a given scenario as "the past" would you agree that the future could be
1) similar to the past
or
2) different from the past

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 13 Mar 2011 20:38

^^^Or somewhere between the two!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Mar 2011 20:56

somnath wrote:^^^Or somewhere between the two!

Absolutely

So "the future" could be

1) Similar to the past
2) different from the past
3) Somewhere in between

Would you agree that:

1) For the present, the past is the past
2) For the future, the present will be part of the past?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Mar 2011 21:03

Ajatshatru wrote:
Would you agree that:

1) For the present, the past is the past
2) For the future, the present will be part of the past?
Also, is it really possible to totally delineate the future from the past?

Ajatshatruji - you may want to do exactly that to push a particular viewpoint, but I am really interested in knowing if there is any dispute with the following statements

1) For the present, the past is the past
2) For the future, the present will be part of the past?

I cannot think of any dispute but am willing to learn.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 13 Mar 2011 22:07

shiv wrote:
A_Gupta wrote: Let's go even further. Suppose the US leaves Af and stops supporting Pak; and suppose China is unable to prevent Pak. from imploding (severe economic crisis, civil war, etc.). What do we expect in the region after that?

Does anyone imagine that 180 million dysfunctional people will ever be easy to deal with?
Arun the sequence of events is reversed:

If the US stops supporting the Pakistan army, it will be forced to leave Afghanistan. The Pakistan army, it was expected would
1) Provide logistical support for the US in Afghanistan
2) weed out any Islamic militia who ran into Pakistan from Afghanistan

The point was not the sequence of events, but to point out that no matter what (realistically) happens, the people of the Indus region and beyond will pose a huge problem, no matter what the (realistic) political dispensation they are governed under and no matter how favorable the geopolitical situation is to India.

Therefore arguments that "X happening is pointless because it doesn't solve the problem of Pakistan" or "do you expect life to be a bed of roses after US withdraws support from Pakistan?" have no logical content, they are purely rhetorical devices. The benefit to India of changes in the Pakistan situation will only be incremental; there is no "Berlin Wall" moment with 180 million people with a self-adopted ideology; it will take generations to undo.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 13 Mar 2011 22:52

somnath wrote:

Acharya wrote:Not a surprise. For fifty years they were the product of the social engineering of the west and they have affiliation to the Yemerica
finally Acharya-ji, wow....So our millennia old civilisation (that you are constantly harping on) is so fragile that "50 years of social engineering" creates such mass "conversions"!!! Even the islamists through the centuries failed in such an endeavour...

Dont know what to reply. Are you posting with something to post and some objective or is it some marathon pointless discussion

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 14 Mar 2011 06:03

shiv wrote: Absolutely

So "the future" could be

1) Similar to the past
2) different from the past
3) Somewhere in between

Would you agree that:

1) For the present, the past is the past
2) For the future, the present will be part of the past?

The point being?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Mar 2011 06:50

A_Gupta wrote:The benefit to India of changes in the Pakistan situation will only be incremental; there is no "Berlin Wall" moment with 180 million people with a self-adopted ideology; it will take generations to undo.

Well you have raised the biggest que sera sera question of the century.

Having tomtommed the fact that Pakistan is going to get to 180 million and 250 million and perhaps even 350 million right from the time when it was 140 million - which was about when I started a thinking about it - I have some ideas - but I can't say I can predict what will happen to the current 180 million who will be 200 million by 2015.

I suspect that Pakistan will be most likely to stabilize when spilt up into many political sub-entities. Whether those entities would be separate nations or whether they can form a "United Sates of Pakistan" - I don't know. Currently the scope for any political devolution of power in Pakistan has been disrupted to such a great extent by an over-powerful Pakistan army that the only forces that can oppose the army are the forces that actually created Pakistan - i.e Islam and Islamic ideology.

I personally do not see any way in which these Islamic forces can unite to form a unified governing body that ensures rights for all, jobs for all etc. The only entity that I can see forming right now is some variant of Taliban. The US - still supporting is traditional ally and vassal - the Pakistan army is currently fighting to delay this. By depending on the Pakistan army the US gets the double advantage of continuing with an old familiar ally who brings the added benefit of being the toughest guy in the neighborhood with the power to control most, if not all regions of Pakistan.

But both these "advantages" that the US alliance with the Pakistan army brought are now being eroded. The US of course retains the power to defeat a Pakistan that is even more powerful with US arms - so the US may still pump in more money and arms into Pakistan to try and maintain the old magic. But if the US is forced out by a split in the Pakistan army - the US will aid in splitting Pakistan - most probably by doing deals with Pashtuns for a Pastunistan. Just a guess. I am no astrologer.

What can China do?

The Chinese can hardly expect anything better. The Chinese too are using exactly the same client in Pakistan as the US - the Pakistan army and any erosion in the Pakistan army's ability to control areas of Pakistan translates to the same loss of control for the Chinese. The idea that Islamists will unite and support the Pakistan army and China when the US goes but will fight the US army now that the US here is unlikely simply because this is not a mother daughter argument. There is actual killing going on and that leaves scars and calls for revenge. China in any case is extremely wary of Islamists and support what they believe is a secular Pakistan army. Just like the US.

JMT

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 14 Mar 2011 07:10

But Shiv ji.. Won't there be need to disarm the TSPA, before the split happens.. The TSPA might just "distribute" the nookelar goodies and other mithaai as Khairaat amongst bious kafir hating ghazis..

Then, there is a hydra with multiple heads, instead of one which we have now.. The multiple-heads is the future of this creature.. But, should it have the same teeth as the TSPA? Won't it necessitate the stripping of all the institutional infrastructure in place (that goes from bunkers on border to GHQ in pindi and everything in between)..

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Mar 2011 07:12

somnath wrote:
shiv wrote: Would you agree that:

1) For the present, the past is the past
2) For the future, the present will be part of the past?
The point being?

Do you agree or disagree with what I have written sir? If you disagree I would be in a better position to understand the ideas you have been proposing and answer your question about the future. The simple fact is that the present is going to become "past" in future. You say that you are unclear about the past (at least you are not as clear about the past as I am) but you are clear about the present.

The US supplied arms to Pakistan in the past. then it stopped supplying arms. Then it restarted arms supply.

If the future is going to be like the past then the US could continue supplying arms. Or it could stop. We cannot say what the US might do. If the present is an indicator, the US is going to continue to supply arms to Pakistan.

In the past, US arms have been used against India. But then again, they have sometimes not been used. So in future US arms in Pakistani hands may or may not be used against India. If they are some Indians are going to die because of US arms in Pakistani hands.

In the past the US has stated that US arms in Pakistani hands would not be used against India. But they were used against India. But maybe the past is not any indicator of the future so any promises the US makes about US arms may come true in future.

In the past india has protested the supply of US arms to Pakistan, but the US has not paid heed to India's protests. But hey, maybe the past is no indicator of the future, so they may pay heed to India in future. If we ask.

If I were asked to choose whether I want the US to supply arms to Pakistan or not I would say no because it is impossible to predict that they will not be used against India. If I were asked what I am going to do about it, I would demand that the US stops supplying arms to Pakistan. And as you know very well, the past may be no indication of the future and a US that has never listened to Indian complaints about arms to Pakistan may suddenly turn around and stop supplying arms. It's an application of your beliefs expressed on this thread about the connection between past, present and future.

A person such as yourself, who admits to not being clear about the past, and feels that the past need not have any bearing on the future, and claims that the present could be an indicator for the future should easily be able to understand that in the present there are deadly US arms in Pakistani hands. They could be used against India. Stopping supply of those arms is, in my view a good idea. Do you have any view on this - or are you going to change the subject and ask "The point being?"

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Mar 2011 07:16

Atri wrote:But Shiv ji.. Won't there be need to disarm the TSPA, before the split happens.. The TSPA might just "distribute" the nookelar goodies and other mithaai as Khairaat amongst bious kafir hating ghazis..

Then, there is a hydra with multiple heads, instead of one which we have now.. The multiple-heads is the future of this creature.. But, should it have the same teeth as the TSPA? Won't it necessitate the stripping of all the institutional infrastructure in place (that goes from bunkers on border to GHQ in pindi and everything in between)..

Atriji - we are paralysed by fear of those nukes and seem to convince ourselves that
1) the nukes are firmly under control of someone we can trust
2) We have little to fear in the current sscenario.

If that is what you think, who put such thoughts in your mind? Are points 1 and 2 above really true for us (india) ? They may be true for the USA but not for Indians.

So what if the nukes are distributed? Why would they be any more of a problem for an India that is continuously under threat of nuclear attack from a Pakistan army that hates India and gets arms to deliver those nukes from the USA and China?

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 14 Mar 2011 07:40

shiv wrote:In the past india has protested the supply of US arms to Pakistan, but the US has not paid heed to India's protests. But hey, maybe the past is no indicator of the future, so they may pay heed to India in future. If we ask.

Ahh, ok, I get a bit confused by obvious tautologies, thats why I asked...So we are around the same mulberry bush again..

If I may, what is it in our tone, tenor etc of "asking" this time that will be so different that the US will "stop" giving arms to Pak? What is it that the Us doesnt know that it will be enlightened by when India "asks"?

shiv wrote:The Chinese can hardly expect anything better. The Chinese too are using exactly the same client in Pakistan as the US - the Pakistan army and any erosion in the Pakistan army's ability to control areas of Pakistan translates to the same loss of control for the Chinese. The idea that Islamists will unite and support the Pakistan army and China when the US goes but will fight the US army now that the US here is unlikely simply because this is not a mother daughter argument. There is actual killing going on and that leaves scars and calls for revenge. China in any case is extremely wary of Islamists and support what they believe is a secular Pakistan army. Just like the US

This is not correct IMO...the Islamist elements have far too little axe to grind with strategically vis a vis China...China isnt looking for a pliant regime in Af..Only one that gives it commercial access to resources and logistics...China isnt underwriting any presence in Iraq..It isnt Israel's benefactor...And it is certainly not telling the Pak Army to fight its own strategic assets...

If the US goes, expect the Pak Army to seamlessly broker a grand rapproachment with its erstwhile assets in the Islamist camp...The "spirit of Pakistan" et al will come in handy...The Army will become even more islamist? Likely, but its only a question of scale - length of beards started defning military careers from Zia's time, as Ayesha Jalal puts it pretty well...But the main strategic objectives - Kashmir, an Islamic emirate in Af, a more Islamised Pak - all these can be failry deamlessly taken on board by China...It is already doing so - entering into spearate deals with the Jamait for example...

I would hypothesize that exit o the US will take Pak to a position of relative social peace, which can even engender a level of economic stability...All in all, extremely BAD for India...

There is something that both sides (in this debate

) agree on - that a destabilised Pak is good for India...Whether that results in a balkanisation of Pak is a matter of the future...the question is really what causes more destabilisation of Pakistan - which is where the opinions differ...

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 14 Mar 2011 08:47

...the Islamist elements have far too little axe to grind with strategically vis a vis China

China is a country that cannot tolerate even the Falun Gong among its own people. Yeah, it is going to want a Islamist power on its doorstep, eying the Central Asian states and inciting the Uighur; and having the belief that it bested not one, but two superpowers. And unlike the US which is halfway around the globe from this pit of vipers, China is permanently in the neighborhood. An 8.9 earthquake which moves China by 8 feet will not help.

It is easy enough to ascribe magical qualities to the Chinese, and make them into foes that no one can handle

The fact is that any rational Chinese thinker will not want Islamists in control; which is probably one reason why the US and China have the same goal of keeping the current Pakistan propped up.

PS: one has to ask some questions about this organization:
http://www.sectsco.org/

http://centralasianewswire.com/Internat ... px?id=1555

Third, Russia and China have both faced violent Islamist extremist movements from Chechens in the middle Caucasus for Moscow, and from Uighurs in Xinjiang province for Beijing. Both countries have excellent relations with Iran, but they also want to prevent Islamist groups becoming any kind of serious threat to stability anywhere in Central Asia.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Mar 2011 09:08

In a series of 3 articles where Paki authors respond to each other:

http://tribune.com.pk/story/124700/what ... al-agenda/

Ejaz Haider wrote:One thing is clear: The TTP, for all its rhetoric about the Afghan jihad, is focused on Pakistan. And in that focus it has attacked, and continues to attack, Pakistan on the pretext of Islamabad being a US ally in the war on terror. Interesting it would be to find out what the real agenda is.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/130107/the- ... i-taliban/

Brig. Asad Munir wrote:The agenda of the Taliban is to acquire power and to create their own state in Fata, which they will then extend to other areas of the country. Those who think that the Taliban will lay down their arms once Nato forces withdraw from Afghanistan, and will become law-abiding citizens, are not aware of the ground realities. This will not happen, unless they are forced to surrender.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 10th, 2011.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/132054/some ... i-taliban/

Ejaz Haider wrote:It is, therefore, important to analyse what the TTP agenda is. While it may want to control Fata, as a military officer Brig Munir knows that it does not have the capacity to capture territory elsewhere; or even retain it in Fata before a superior force. However, it has the capability to bleed the army and become a diabetic case for the state. Also, by forcing the army into a forward deployment mode in Fata, it extracts a price that can be costly both in tangible and intangible terms.

The US is supportive of the Pakistan arm's fight against these groups. They could be defeated and then the US will have the stability it wants in Pakistan.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 14 Mar 2011 10:23

shiv wrote:The US is supportive of the Pakistan arm's fight against these groups. They could be defeated and then the US will have the stability it wants in Pakistan.

PRecisely, and we should keep encouraging this "fight", as long as it can...Brig Munir is being deliverately obfuscating about the militants..The TTP-types had a very cozy social compact in Pk till 9/11 happened...They would do their own thing within FATA, minimal intereference from "markaz", while the generals could wine peacefully in Lahore Gymkhana...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Mar 2011 11:02

somnath wrote:
shiv wrote:The US is supportive of the Pakistan arm's fight against these groups. They could be defeated and then the US will have the stability it wants in Pakistan.
PRecisely, and we should keep encouraging this "fight", as long as it can...Brig Munir is being deliverately obfuscating about the militants..The TTP-types had a very cozy social compact in Pk till 9/11 happened...They would do their own thing within FATA, minimal intereference from "markaz", while the generals could wine peacefully in Lahore Gymkhana...

How do we encourage this fight? It means supporting the Islamists against the Pakistan army with the US backing it. And opposing and sabotaging the US's plans in every way including the demand to stop supplying arms to the Pakistan army. None of this "Support the US for a seat at the high table" business

If the US and Pakistan army are defeated by Islamists there will never be stability. The possibility of stability exists if the US backed Pak army wins.

If the Islamists get defeated the US will have the stability it wants. A stable Pakistan is not in India's interest. The US can once again allow the Pakistan army the "leeway" it wants to solve the Kashmir issue. And all those arms to Pakistan which need no longer be applied against the defeated Taliban will be free to be used against India.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 14 Mar 2011 11:20

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 14 Mar 2011 11:21

shiv wrote:And opposing and sabotaging the US's plans in every way including the demand to stop supplying arms to the Pakistan army

Not sure how "asking" for something constitutes "sabotage"...But it is crucial to remember that the Pak Army, independently, is never going to "lose" to the Islamists...It is the US that might, and if the US scoots then the Pak Army will lose no time in arriving at a new compact with the TTP..

about the Islamists getting defeated, well the US is not being able to defeat them even in Af, where they are under full control..Fat chance that a reluctant proxy like Pak, even if they were to be more serious, will have a better chance..

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Mar 2011 16:15

somnath wrote:But it is crucial to remember that the Pak Army, independently, is never going to "lose" to the Islamists...It is the US that might, and if the US scoots then the Pak Army will lose no time in arriving at a new compact with the TTP..

Absolutely sir. Absolutely. And you still insist that it is a huge advantage to support the US while it supplies arms to the Pakistan army while you cite weak excuses like being in Afghanistan and getting seats at high tables? And display great discomfort even at the idea of asking?

Thank you for skiing downhill this far. I know we are on the same side but you were just making inane arguments.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 14 Mar 2011 16:19

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 14 Mar 2011 17:28

shiv wrote:Thank you for skiing downhill this far. I know we are on the same side but you were just making inane arguments

Sure Shiv-ji, you are entitled to your view...Presumably "asking", "protesting" etc are wise arguments in contrast which ski right to the top of K2 of geopolitics! As you are at it, you might want to answer the question (asked many times) on how exactly India can get the US to stop supplying arms to Pak - that would take your argumetns right to Mt Everest

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Mar 2011 17:47

somnath wrote: As you are at it, you might want to answer the question (asked many times) on how exactly India can get the US to stop supplying arms to Pak

Thank you for accepting in principle that it is necessary to get the US to stop giving arms to the Pakistan army. In my view making people accept that this is necessary is a step forward. I was surprised by your vehemence in claiming that it was of little consequence. In my opinion your views were not only wrong but your ability to obfuscate, bait and switch were (to me) an impediment in merely stating that US arms supply to Pakistan is a problem for India. And merely stating it earned bait from you by asking "What's the use of merely saying it? " Such are your disruptive skills. You could put your debating skills to better use than merely disrupting - which is about all I see you doing. I think you need to ask yourself whether you merely enjoy online disputes or whether you actually want to contribute to educating and informing people - which I have not seen you doing.

In my view not enough attention has been paid to getting the US to stop arms supply to the Pakistan army at any level, although a Google search (posted by me several pages back) suggested that the Indian government had taken that up with the US on many occasions from the 1970s right up to 2010.

Clearly the Indian government's efforts are not enough and under the circumstances I am personally nearly powerless to do better. Other than playing a small role in alerting a small group of interested people who visit this forum that something needs to be done about stopping US arms supply to Pakistan.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 14 Mar 2011 18:06

shiv wrote:I was surprised by your vehemence in claiming that it was of little consequence. In my opinion your views were not only wrong but your ability to obfuscate, bait and switch were (to me) an impediment in merely stating that US arms supply to Pakistan is a problem for India. And merely stating it earned bait from you by asking "What's the use of merely saying it? " Such are your disruptive skills. You could put your debating skills to better use than merely disrupting - which is about all I see you doing.

Shiv-ji, leaving aside the personal remarks, debates on tautologies seldom yield anything...BTW, I still maintain that the driblets of US arms assistance to Pak contributes very little to altering the Indo-Pak strategic equation...And I think I have presented enough cases of why I think so...

But really, whats the point in having ANY discussion is all that you want to do is this

shiv wrote:In my view not enough attention has been paid to getting the US to stop arms supply to the Pakistan army at any level, although a Google search (posted by me several pages back) suggested that the Indian government had taken that up with the US on many occasions from the 1970s right up to 2010.

Clearly the Indian government's efforts are not enough and under the circumstances I am personally nearly powerless to do better. Other than playing a small role in alerting a small group of interested people who visit this forum that something needs to be done about stopping US arms supply to Pakistan.

1. So you agree that Indian govt has been "protesting" about it (actually since the '50s CENTO/SEATO days, not '70s)...
2. You also agree that nothing's come of it..
3. You dont have any view/plan/idea on how India can enforce the "stop arms to Pak" will...

that being the case, end of discussion, isnt it? You can write the same thing "US arms supply to Pak is bad" and be over with it for the thread...

In the meanwhile, there might be other options that might be worth trying out - and could lead to better exchanges of thought than just regurgitation of tautologies...Even if those options mean a continued sleeping with the "Satan"!

Anyways, an interesting attempt at a normative evaluation of US-Pak strategies and motives post 9/11..

http://www.coedat.nato.int/publications ... 0Yusuf.pdf

Some of the stuff is well known, but its well articulated here...Key take-away remains (to me) the same - the US presence in Pak (and Af) causes a disequilibrium in Pak that is fatal..But the Pak army can at best "manage" it, it has no way of eliminating it as long as the US is present...And it works to our advantage by keeping Pak unstable...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Mar 2011 19:24

somnath wrote: But really, whats the point in having ANY discussion is all that you want to do is this

I stated that long ago but it was you who seemed to worry and post counter arguments every time. You show a needless interest in worrying yourself about the views of an anonymous person on a random internet forum whom you have already categorized as someone who overestimates his own importance. You know that. Why on earth do you want to "discuss" anything with me? It's your call. If you choose to discuss with me you have to put up with what I say.

I put it to you that you are just a random troll who likes to argue and does not take kindly to being shown that he is wrong even when you are short on facts but skilled at using Google - a facility available to billions.

All you need to do is to put me on your ignore list. I will soon do likewise - having "sussed you out" as a troll.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 14 Mar 2011 20:26

Reposting again!

shiv wrote:What can America verifiably, irrevocably and reliably do for India, to get India to support America? Homilies that there are no permanent friends or enemies will be assumed by me to mean that "America can do nothing for India. America will do nothing for India. America needs to do nothing for India"

Is America doing anything for India? If so what?

What America is doing for India:

America is keeping Pakistan's main jihadi operations focussed on Afghanistan and against America, instead of against India. This Afghanistan focus is allowing India to keep a certain level of political and social stability in India and to grow economically and otherwise.
The inducement of aid and good relations with the West, has encouraged Pakistan to act a little more sensitive to world opinion and thus to keep its export of terrorism to India in check. And regardless of Mumbai 26/11 and all the other acts of terrorism, IMHO, the potential for terrorism in India is far larger. Many would disagree with this point, but IMHO, I think, Pakistan is being forced to keep up its mask, tying up one of its hands.
Through American involvement in the region, Pakistan is not being allowed to either depend on China fully, nor to take dictation from China completely, nor to make all its services available to China exclusively, as its resources are tied elsewhere for other purposes. This too facilitates a higher level of political security in India.
American actions in Afghanistan, is directly responsible for the Talibanization of Pakistan, TTP, Punjabi Taliban sprouted only after America entered Afghanistan. This means there is internal strife in Pakistan, thus keeping the anti-India establishment on tenter-hooks.
Anti-Americanism is slowly replacing anti-Indianism as the most potent hate in Pakistan.
Could it be that America has been bribing India in its own way, not to spoil its party in Afghanistan. USA wanted to have Pakistani troops on its Western border, and wished that India does not increase the tensions on the Eastern border, on her own initiative or as reaction to some provocation! Could the Indo-US Civil Nuclear Agreement be a child of such considerations?! I don't know! So could it be that the next Mumbai Terror Attack would get GoI an UNSC Permanent Seat for our restraint?! This is some food for thought for Pakistan!
Anti-Americanism has led to a rift between the people and the establishment. It has reinvigorated anti-American jihadis, made them resist government control, and in fact increase the level of instability in Pakistan. This has had the side-effect that investments have stayed away, and the government has been distracted from development. Pakistan GDP growth in 2009-2010 was around 2%. Despite American money flowing in, the ensuing instability is still keeping Pakistani growth low!

***************

So what this shows us is that it is in India's interest that USA stays involved in Afghanistan and Pakistan for the foreseeable future.

Having said that, it is also in India's interest, that USA brings down the level of support, especially military support, that they give to the Pakistanis. Now USA may be giving military support for their various strategic designs and needs. One of these needs, is American dependence on Pakistan for supply lines into Afghanistan. Another dynamic of the present situation is that USA does not heed to Indian requests or considers India's national interests with respect to the region.

Both, decrease in America's dependence on Pakistan as well as a larger American open-mindedness towards India, can be effected if India offers USA alternative supply routes into Afghanistan.

Under such an arrangement, USA could be persuaded to consider carving out a new dispensation of Pushtunistan in the region, with an independent foreign policy and an Indian tilt in the medium term. This could be understood as an extension of the Blackwill Plan.

Now having USA in Afghanistan for the short and short-medium term can further Indian interests. This however should not be misconstrued as Indian dependence on USA to look after India's interests in the region. India should pursue an independent game in the region, and for this game, we should be as independent of American support as possible.

Perhaps America's long term interests in the region are not in India's best interests, so in the medium term, India can work to get America to retreat from the region, whereby India makes a claim on domination of the region.

For the time being, bringing down American dependence on Pakistan and increasing American openness to consider India's interests, should be pursued. One important corollary of that would be America not giving Pakistan weaponry which can be used against India.

An Indian lever to push that line would be offering America an alternate supply line into Afghanistan.

We have to differentiate between short-term, medium-term and long-term scenarios for India and the region.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 14 Mar 2011 20:31

without a land corridor, we are in no position to offer the US a logistical route to afghanistan

Samudragupta · Post by **Samudragupta** » 14 Mar 2011 22:08

US is not leaving its munna any time soon, perhaps good sense has prevailed in the MEA......but can Indo-Iranian entete move into the Hindukush?What can be the basis for such partnership?
1. Call the Persians to fu** off Punjab from Hindukush?
2.Call the Persians to fu** off both the Eastern and Western Khans from the Hindukush?