Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 11 Mar 2011 02:53

Russia warns the West against interference - Vladimir Radyuhin

Islamist militants in the North Caucasus have indeed declared that their insurgency and the Arab revolt shared the same goal of spreading Islamic rule across the globe. “We pray that your struggle will help put the laws of Allah in place in the entire world,” Doku Umarov, self-proclaimed “Emir of Caucasian Mujahidin,” who claimed responsibility for the bloody suicide bombings on the Moscow metro in 2010 and the Domodedovo airport last month, said in a video address to Arab Muslims, posted on a militant website last week.

He points out that the authoritarian leaders of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, Islam Karimov and Nursultan Nazarbayev, both in their 70s, have been in power for two decades but “are neither able nor willing to arrange an orderly transfer of power” and their departure could “open the floodgates for serious trouble.”

Russian experts have warned that the U.S. could now push ahead with its plan of creating a Greater Central Asia, which is part of the larger project, the Greater Middle East.

“The concept of Greater Central Asia calls for the dilution of borders between the five post-Soviet states [Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan], and their merger with Afghanistan and Pakistan,” Dr. Knyazev explained in a recent interview. “Four years ago, I called the project ‘geopolitical marasmus'. However today it is shaping as a hands-on plan for sowing chaos across entire Central Eurasia.”

Some Russian analysts are convinced that the U.S. is attempting to exploit the wave of popular rebellions in the Arab east to recast the world order and achieve global domination. “We are witnessing attempts to reformat the Greater Middle East according to a plan devised by the U.S. neoconservatives who are now creeping back to power,” says the former diplomat and scholar Vyacheslav Matuzov, who heads the Russia-Arab friendship society.

Greater Central Asian grasslands for American Cowboys to rage about

.
Sadly India's medium term interest of keeping US presence in Afghanistan (to divide the attention of Poaks) is militating against its long term interests of not allowing US a firm foot hold in Central Asia.

edit: Found a map.It ominously includes India in the Dar-Ul-Harb of US.

http://www.uni-graz.at/yvonne.schmidt/T ... l_5502.jpg

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 11 Mar 2011 09:11

Lilo wrote:Russia warns the West against interference - Vladimir Radyuhin

edit: Found a map.It ominously includes India in the Dar-Ul-Harb of US.

http://www.uni-graz.at/yvonne.schmidt/T ... l_5502.jpg

US is trying put the image of an islamic country to India and wants to get it inside the greater middle east. This is the secret project.

Robert Kaplan talk in the Naval school talks about how these countries will start clashing assuming that they are in conflict perpetually.

There is no regard for the long term historical relations between Iran/India, and other arab states. They want a clash between these states and they have been working on this for the last 40 years

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Mar 2011 09:15

Most likely the Iranians will give jahaphad to TSPA thats where this is leading.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 11 Mar 2011 12:22

^^ Yindu yintel thinking the same.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Mar 2011 22:14

Nightwatch:

3/10/2011

Afghanistan: Afghan security forces will soon replace NATO troops at six sites across the country, according to Western officials. The first phase of the transition will be in the provincial capitals of Lashkargah in Helmand Province in the Pashtun south; Herat in Herat Province in the west and Mazar-i-Sharif in Balkh Province in the north.

Next will be Bamiyan and Panjshir Provinces, followed by all of Kabul Province other than Surobi district. NATO forces will either take on support roles in these areas or be sent home. Afghan Defense Minister Rahim Wardak said he expects NATO to endorse the list of areas for handover.

Comment: Except for Lashkargah, the capital of Helmand Province, the others are fairly safe. Herat City is busy doing business with Iran. Mazar-i-sharif is a Tajik town and business hub for central Asia. Bamiyan is the home of the Hazaras who are Shiite and viscerally despise the Taliban for trying to exterminate them. They also despise the Karzai government. Panjshir Province is home of the Panjshiris, who also despise the Taliban and outsiders.

The Hazaras and the Panjshiris police themselves without much central government help. The New Zealanders get credit for assisting the Hazaras, more than any one.

The point is that transferring security to Afghans in these political entities is no measure of Coalition success. It could have been done a year ago, except than any intrusion by the Karzai government is more likely to destabilize the areas than protect them.

Some of the Western military contingents in these areas intend to pull out this year, whether their areas are stable or not. Thus, political considerations also are driving the handovers. Thus, this is a formality for the benefit of the press and the various Western electorates.

As for Lashkargah in Helmand Province, a major battle for control is taking shape after winter ends.

Samudragupta · Post by **Samudragupta** » 11 Mar 2011 23:31

shyamd wrote:^^ Yindu yintel thinking the same.

Isn't it true that the strategic obective of the Iranians is to reach the Mediternean? Are they willing to venture simultaneously in the East?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Mar 2011 23:34

That maybe but right now to ensure peaceful rise in West Asia/Gulf, Iran needs to smack the US munna so hard that they folks there see the light. So thats why I think TSP will get smacked. Reality says that will happen.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 11 Mar 2011 23:39

ramana wrote:That maybe but right now to ensure peaceful rise in West Asia/Gulf, Iran needs to smack the US munna so hard that they folks there see the light. So thats why I think TSP will get smacked. Reality says that will happen.

Just recently a Yindu told a chin amirkhan that if a anu war happens in the region then Iran and India will take over the region. He got alarmed and said it is wrong and will be similar to Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact agreement between Nazi Germany and Russia. He said Iran will backstab India.

The Yindu got surprised at the reaction and that analogy. It shows that they have similar visual picture as the WWII period in their minds. They are looking for a gigantic war to settle everything.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 12 Mar 2011 00:39

Samudragupta wrote:
shyamd wrote:^^ Yindu yintel thinking the same.
Isn't it true that the strategic obective of the Iranians is to reach the Mediternean? Are they willing to venture simultaneously in the East?

Actually their objectives are for their influence to grow regionally.

You'll hear more about talks between UAE and Iran possibly over the next few weeks.
Iran has a new ambassador in the UAE who has met several senior UAE officials over the 3 islands issue.

To answer your question, please google for jundollah, balochistan and past terror attacks in iran and their pak involvement.

Yindu yintel doesn't know who really is behind these attacks targetting ISI. But they suspect iran.
And, it does appear yindu's are kept in the loop with goras on balocjisdan.

No more on it.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Mar 2011 08:43

Looks like in the North African-West Asian crisis and the Japan quake we have been neglecting Af-Pak.

Shiv, Acharya, Muppalla, CRS!

Stratfor George Friedman in "Next Decade'

The Indo-Pakistani balance is being destabilized in Afghanistan, a complex war zone where American troops are pursuing two competing goals, at least as stated officially. The first is to prevent al Qaeda from using Afghanistan as a base of operations; the second is to create a stable democratic government. But denying terrorists a haven in Afghanistan achieves little, because groups following al Qaeda’s principles (al Qaeda prime, the group built around Osama bin Laden, is no longer fully functioning) can grow anywhere, from Yemen to Cleveland. This is an especially significant factor when the attempt to disrupt al Qaeda requires destabilizing the country, training the incipient Afghanistan army, managing the police force of Afghan recruits, and intruding into Afghan politics. There is no way to effectively stabilize a country in which you have to play such an intrusive role.

Unscrambling this complexity begins with recognizing that the United States has no vital interest in the kind of government Afghanistan develops, and that once again the president cannot allow counterterrorism to be a primary force in shaping national strategy.

But the more fundamental recognition necessary for ensuring balance over the next ten years is that Afghanistan and Pakistan are in fact one entity, both sharing various ethnic groups and tribes, with the political border between them meaning very little. The combined population of these two countries is over 200 million people, and the United States, with only about 100,000 troops in the region, is never going to be able to impose its will directly and establish order to its liking.

Moreover, the primary strategic issue is not actually Afghanistan but Pakistan, and the truly significant balance of power in the region is actually that between Pakistan and India. Ever since independence, these two countries partitioned from the same portion of the British Empire have maintained uneasy and sometimes violent relations. Both are nuclear powers, and they are obsessed with each other. While India is the stronger, Pakistan has the more defensible terrain, although its heartland is more exposed to India. Still, the two have been kept in static opposition—which is just where the United States wants them.

Obviously, the challenges inherent in maintaining this complex balance over the next ten years are enormous. To the extent that Pakistan disintegrates under U.S. pressure to help fight al Qaeda and to cooperate with U.S. forces in Afghanistan, the standoff with India will fail, leaving India the preeminent power in the region. The war in Afghanistan must inevitably spread to Pakistan, triggering internal struggles that can potentially weaken the Pakistani state. This is not certain, but it is too possible to dismiss. With no significant enemies other than the Chinese, who are sequestered on the other side of the Himalayas, India would be free to use its resources to try to dominate the Indian Ocean basin, and it would very likely increase its navy to do so. A triumphant India would obliterate the balance the United States so greatly desires, and thus the issue of India is actually far more salient than the issues of terrorism or nation-building in Afghanistan.

That is why over the next ten years the primary American strategy in this region must be to help create a strong and viable Pakistan. The most significant step in that direction would be to relieve pressure on Pakistan by ending the war in Afghanistan. The specific ideology of the Pakistani government doesn’t really matter, and the United States can’t impose its views on Pakistan anyway.

Strengthening Pakistan will not only help restore the balance with India, it will restore Pakistan as a foil for Afghanistan as well. In both these Muslim countries there are many diverging groups and interests, and the United States cannot manage their internal arrangements. It can, however, follow the same strategy that was selected after the fall of the Soviet Union: it can allow the natural balance that existed prior to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan to return, to the extent possible. The United States can then spend its resources helping to build a strong Pakistani army to hold the situation together.

Jihadist forces in Pakistan and Afghanistan will probably reemerge, but they are just as likely to do so with the United States bogged down in Afghanistan as with the U.S. gone. The war simply has no impact on this dynamic. There is a slight chance that a Pakistani military, with the incentive of U.S. support, might be somewhat more successful in suppressing the terrorists, but this is uncertain and ultimately unimportant. Once again, the key objective going forward is maintaining the Indo-Pakistani balance of power.

As in the case of stepping back from Israel, the president will not be able to express his strategy for dealing with Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India openly. Certainly there will be no way for the United States to appear triumphant, and the Afghan war will be resolved much as Vietnam was, through a negotiated peace agreement that allows the insurgent forces—in this case the Taliban—to take control. A stronger Pakistani army will have no interest in crushing the Taliban but will settle for controlling it. The Pakistani state will survive, which will balance India, thus allowing the United States to focus on other balance points within the region.

This guy who ignored India completely in his book on Next Century is back with blast in this book.

Is this guy a British guy? Looks like someone made him sit on the harishchandra's throne!

Here plain and simple that US wants to keep TSP to balance India and will go any length including nuke delivery systems. Now we understand the whole politics and policies of US admins since Nixon.

Now understand why India abstained in the UN NFZ vote.

And the support for Iran.
We need our own guys.

sum · Post by **sum** » 18 Mar 2011 08:59

wow, the guy is not hiding the froth coming out of his mouth when he is mentioning India!!!

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 18 Mar 2011 09:22

Where is the link for this article

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Mar 2011 09:23

Its from that book.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 18 Mar 2011 09:25

Not at all. Is it in Next decade book. I did not see in that.
They have hidden the final big picture for the region for the last 40 years. We are trying to piece it together from small fragments.

The problem with this one is that they could have strengthened the Pak long before instead of leading them to a cruel path of self destruction. They saw a value in this chaotic Pak with terrorists attacking India. One of this goal is to change India internally as a reaction with social engineering. To some extent they have blunted Indian past ethos of 100 years ago of stability, social order and influence in the gulf, south east asia and other parts of asia.

From this point they are planning to go to the next state building project of Op Topaz of Zia who planned a large Islamic state bigger than India to oppose and balance India.
In around 1983, General Zia ul-Haq was thinking about "a thousand cuts", "Blood" and "India". In around 1989, Operation Topaz to destabilize India was set in motion even as Zia had everyone trust the merits of cricket diplomacy.

What we see is that US policy is in sync with Op Topaz for the last 30 years. It is well synchronized and well coordinated. US policy to not have much relationship with India is based on this strategy for the last 30 years.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Mar 2011 09:28

Will post the other chapter in the book soon. Its even more damning.
Didnt want to you to fret!

INDIA

It is in the context of the western Pacific that we should consider India. Despite its size, its growing economy, and the constant discussion of India as the next China, I simply do not see India as a significant player with deep power in the coming decade. In many ways, India can be understood as a very large Australia. Both countries are economically powerful—obviously in different ways—and in that sense they have to be taken quite seriously.

Like Australia, India is a subcontinent isolated geographically, although Australia’s isolation, based on thousands of miles of water, is much more visible. But India is in its own way an island, surrounded by land barriers perhaps less easily passable than oceans. The Himalayas block access from the north, and hilly jungles from the east. To the south, it is surrounded by the Indian Ocean, which is dominated by the United States Navy.

The biggest problem for India lies to the west, where there is desert, and Pakistan. That Islamic nation has fought multiple wars with the predominantly Hindu India, and relations range from extremely cool to hostile. As we saw in my discussion of Afghanistan, the balance of power between Pakistan and India is the major feature of the subcontinent. Maintaining this balance of power is a significant objective for the United States in the decade to come.

India is called the democratic China, which, to the extent that it is true, exacts a toll in regional power. One of the great limitations on Indian economic growth, impressive as it has been, is that while India has a national government, each of its constituent states has its own regulations, and some of these prevent economic development. These states jealously guard their rights, and the leadership guards its prerogatives. There are many ways in which these regions are bound together, but the ultimate guarantor is the army.

India maintains a substantial military that has three functions. First, it balances Pakistan. Second, it protects the northern frontier against a Chinese incursion (which the terrain makes difficult to imagine). Most important, the Indian military, like the Chinese military, guarantees the internal security of the nation—no minor consideration in a diverse country with deeply divided regions. There is currently a significant rebellion by Maoists in the east, for instance, just the sort of thing that it is the army’s job to prevent or suppress.

On the seas, the Indians have been interested in developing a navy that could become a major player in the Indian Ocean, protecting India’s sea-lanes and projecting Indian power. But the United States has no interest in seeing India proceed along these lines. The Indian Ocean is the passageway to the Pacific for Persian Gulf oil, and the United States will deploy powerful forces there no matter how it reduces its presence on land.

To keep Indian naval development below a threshold that could threaten U.S. interests, the United States will strive to divert India’s defense expenditure toward the army and the tactical air force rather than the navy. The cheapest way to accomplish this and preempt a potential long-range problem is for the United States to support a stronger Pakistan, thus keeping India’s security planners focused on the land and not the sea.

By the same token, India is interested in undermining the U.S.-Pakistani relationship or, at the very least, keeping the United States in Afghanistan in order to destabilize Pakistan. Failing that, India may reach out to other countries, as it did to the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Pakistan does not represent an existential threat to India, even in the unlikely event of a nuclear exchange. But Pakistan is not going to simply collapse, and therefore will remain the persistent problem that India’s strategic policy will continue to pivot on.

India lags behind China in its economic development, which is why it is not yet facing China’s difficulties. The next decade will see India surging ahead economically, but economic power by itself does not translate into national security. Nor does it translate into the kind of power that can dominate the Indian Ocean. American interests are not served by making India feel overly secure. Therefore, U.S.-Indian relations will deteriorate over the next ten years, even as the United States leaves Afghanistan and even as U.S.-Indian trade continues.

Wonder what herps he is on!

Samudragupta · Post by **Samudragupta** » 18 Mar 2011 09:38

Well irrespective of India-TSPA-Iranian-Sinic activities; the South East Hindukush is going to slip out of the hands of the Western Khan....the early the Khans understand the reality the better for them to make their move

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 18 Mar 2011 10:07

ramana wrote:Will post the other chapter in the book soon. Its even more damning.
Didnt want to you to fret!

INDIA

It is in the context of the western Pacific that we should consider India.

Wonder what herps he is on!

India has been on containment for the last several decades. Just by keep India out of global system and commerce and making sure that Indian leadership does not develop global influence they have kept India within the region.

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 18 Mar 2011 14:37

Pakistan demands apology from U.S. on drone strikes

Could be a mere publicity stunt to save face after the Ray Davis GUBO?

An interesting infographic on drone strikes in Pak

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 18 Mar 2011 17:30

ramana wrote:
Stratfor George Friedman in "Next Decade'

The big fly in Friedman's ointment is China.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 18 Mar 2011 20:31

Pranav wrote:
ramana wrote:
Stratfor George Friedman in "Next Decade'
The big fly in Friedman's ointment is China.

That is a psy ops

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 18 Mar 2011 20:40

To keep Indian naval development below a threshold that could threaten U.S. interests, the United States will strive to divert India’s defense expenditure toward the army and the tactical air force rather than the navy. The cheapest way to accomplish this and preempt a potential long-range problem is for the United States to support a stronger Pakistan, thus keeping India’s security planners focused on the land and not the sea.

No wonder IN trying to get things done in house.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 18 Mar 2011 20:46

Its interesting because the future of warfare is to have a coastal defence force with strong air force, smaller army where possible. But for yindu's potential and region of influence/operations. We need to have a stronger navy. If we are serious about gaining influence on the sea lanes/regions where we had our stomping grounds, we are seriously going to have to strenghten our navy. Which we are doing I suppose. However, our submarine fleet is an area of weakness. But our overt ships etc are top notch and are getting better. WE will be ready in maybe 3 to 5 years to project serious power.

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 18 Mar 2011 21:10

Acharya wrote: He said Iran will backstab India.

The Yindu got surprised at the reaction and that analogy. It shows that they have similar visual picture as the WWII period in their minds. They are looking for a gigantic war to settle everything.

Do we know the impact of flawed history and concepts such as AIT in Iran? Do the people there buy into these concepts and feel that they have received the short end of the stick over the course of history? Finding answers to these questions will probably give us a guide to Iran's strategy vis-a-vis India and Central Asia.

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 18 Mar 2011 21:14

pgbhat wrote: No wonder IN trying to get things done in house.

Which is why a situation similar to Dileep guru's Spy Story 2 is highly likely with wink-wink nod-nod from Unkil.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 18 Mar 2011 21:19

Klaus wrote:
Do we know the impact of flawed history and concepts such as AIT in Iran? Do the people there buy into these concepts and feel that they have received the short end of the stick over the course of history? Finding answers to these questions will probably give us a guide to Iran's strategy vis-a-vis India and Central Asia.

We are working on a small project on Iran and future of Iran. When we meet several Iran people in the west they want to remove the throcracy. They are the first to talk against islamic fundamentalist. The buxom lady I have met adopted yoga and Indian practices.
Iran is trying to break away from the western economic system and containment. Global system is changing and they will work with any country which will help it to break the current system

Spltting Pakistan will result in the break of the current system

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 18 Mar 2011 21:49

>>Iran is trying to break away from the western economic system and containment.

That's an inherent contradiction right there... Iran is already as broken away from the Western economic system as it can be without starving itself. On the other hand, if it wants to break out of containment what does it plan to break out into. The only game in town is the one currently being played, and which, incidentally, is the one we are now playing successfully (allowing us to crow on BRF about how we are well on our way to super-powerdom). So is Iran waiting for another order to emerge without America at its centre or close to centre, or to create a new order. In the first instance, good luck with that, and even more luck if China is at the centre. In the second, I'm not sure why we should want to play second fiddle to Iran.

IMO, the association of a break-up of Pakistan, Allah Forbid, with the emergence of a new system in which Iran has a central role will happen at our expense. I see no reason, economic or otherwise, for us to have any interest in backing Iran's strategic pissing contest with the US. Iran is a medium power, at best, and it should learn its place or, sooner or later, it will be shown is place. That's simply the reality.

A positively inclined relationship with Iran is good and necessary, but there's no need to give it more important than it deserves. Iran must learn to manage its relationships with its neighbours and world powers better, and not expect its well-wishers to continuously choose sides. Iran's enemies cannot be turned into India's enemies and Iran's friends are not necessarily India's friends. There will be no compromises on that front.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 18 Mar 2011 22:03

JE Menon wrote:>>Iran is trying to break away from the western economic system and containment.

That's an inherent contradiction right there... Iran is already as broken away from the Western economic system as it can be without starving itself. On the other hand, if it wants to break out of containment what does it plan to break out into.

How. They still use dollar for some oil transaction and use western tech and industrial products for their use.
Containment is military and geo graphic containment.

IMO, the association of a break-up of Pakistan, Allah Forbid, with the emergence of a new system in which Iran has a central role will happen at our expense.

Who said Iran will have a central role. Whole of Pakistan is inside the indian system and they cannot deviate from that since they have derived it from Indian system. They will fall back to their old system which is India.

A positively inclined relationship with Iran is good and necessary, but there's no need to give it more important than it deserves. Iran must learn to manage its relationships with its neighbours and world powers better, and not expect its well-wishers to continuously choose sides. Iran's enemies cannot be turned into India's enemies and Iran's friends are not necessarily India's friends. There will be no compromises on that front.

Iran is needed since it will halt the western presence in the middle east. It may even in future remove the west from the middle east and get back to before 1750 in the middle east.

Samudragupta · Post by **Samudragupta** » 18 Mar 2011 22:14

Acharya wrote:
JE Menon wrote:>>Iran is trying to break away from the western economic system and containment.

That's an inherent contradiction right there... Iran is already as broken away from the Western economic system as it can be without starving itself. On the other hand, if it wants to break out of containment what does it plan to break out into.
How. They still use dollar for some oil transaction and use western tech and industrial products for their use.
Containment is military and geo graphic containment.
IMO, the association of a break-up of Pakistan, Allah Forbid, with the emergence of a new system in which Iran has a central role will happen at our expense.
Who said Iran will have a central role. Whole of Pakistan is inside the indian system and they cannot deviate from that since they have derived it from Indian system. They will fall back to their old system which is India.

A positively inclined relationship with Iran is good and necessary, but there's no need to give it more important than it deserves. Iran must learn to manage its relationships with its neighbours and world powers better, and not expect its well-wishers to continuously choose sides. Iran's enemies cannot be turned into India's enemies and Iran's friends are not necessarily India's friends. There will be no compromises on that front.
Iran is needed since it will halt the western presence in the middle east. It may even in future remove the west from the middle east and get back to before 1750 in the middle east.

The Persians are waiting for thousand of years to get back to us when Bharatiyas kicked them out from Aryavartha in the dāśarājñá

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Ten_Kings

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 18 Mar 2011 22:26

>>How. They still use dollar for some oil transaction and use western tech and industrial products for their use. Containment is military and geo graphic containment.

That's exactly my point: how? They are already distanced from the Western economic system to the extent they can be... and it is interesting how Iran is able to separate containment into military/geographic but not economic. Everything is interlinked. If they break out economically, they will be able to accomplish the other two as well, but if they predicate everything on the collapse of the "current system", they'll have to wait a bit.

>>Who said Iran will have a central role.

That's what I took the following "they will work with any country which will help it to break the current system" to mean. If not, what role will they play?

>>Whole of Pakistan is inside the indian system and they cannot deviate from that since they have derived it from Indian system. They will fall back to their old system which is India.

From our perspective, that would be fine, but what about the Iranians? Who can assure (forget guarantee) that a theocratic or even post-theocratic Iran will not claim Baluchistan (since it already holds part of it - Sistan-Baluchistan)... On the contrary, every chance is that a re-energised and neo-imperialistic Iran - flush with the role it played in the break-up of the current system - will consider India easily dismissable, since, after all, it brought down the order of the Great Satan...

For my part, I have never met an Iranian settled outside Iran who supports the theocracy. They either vehemently oppose, or tend to keep a zipped lip. That's par for the course. That however is no suggestion that their strategic aspirations will converge with those of India. I would go so far as to say that it would be a dangerous delusion for any Indian strategist to harbour.

Iran has many positives. We can deal with it based on those, incrementally, carefully and case-by-case - with an absolutely hard-nosed focus on concrete cumulative tangible gain. Otherwise, we have chai and biskoot by the tons.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Mar 2011 23:39

I always go to Panchatantra when in doubt. Here is an appropriate tale:

The Lion and the Jackal

Even if India minds its business and is not threat to any one there are others who will go after her and try to tear her up to satiate their own insecurities and fears.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 19 Mar 2011 00:41

The India US+Pak and China+Pak tango is now pretty clear form stratfor report. This is similar to the line that I wrote in the related thread. So what that means is that US involvement South Asia has only one target and that is India. All other things like CA-Oil and some unknown geostrategic (geo-gastric) stuff is all pure and simple side tracks to make people dhimmis.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 19 Mar 2011 04:26

Guys, extrapolating from what Friedman writes and recommends to actual fact is a bit of a stretch... While it can be assumed fairly safely that the US has zero interest in increasing the capability of India to influence developments globally or regionally, going from there to the assumption that the US will shoot itself in the nuts to do so is something else. Friedman's analysis is fundamentally flawed both in his "Next 100 years" book (which no one should waste money buying like I did), and in the passages that Ramana has quoted above.

Among other issues, he assumes that Pakistan has no agenda of its own, and he also assumes that China will play ball, and that the US will not attempt to use India to balance China - i.e. with his blinkered focus only on the Indo-Pak balance - which in any case does not exist. What he is actually calling for is the maintenance of the "nuisance value" of Pakistan... and that is not something India is necessarily opposed to, if that is the way they want to go.

Sometimes having a mangy diseased dog as the main threat to a wolf in sheep's clothing is better than showing the wolf's teeth such that the bigger animals are alarmed.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Mar 2011 09:13

I think its time for India to have a faltu skirmish to relieve the pressure on TSP.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 19 Mar 2011 09:18

That may be the best option -

- Feed the dog

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Mar 2011 09:29

Its an option to ensure that the dog is not turned rabid by others.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 19 Mar 2011 12:36

Acharya wrote:That may be the best option - - Feed the dog

Exactly my point. Just that we must not be feeding the dog only with Indian blood, others must feed too with their own... so that every time they consider whether to provide medicine to this diseased dog, they must be forced to consider for themselves: will it turn and bite us in the balls?

What India has succeeded in doing, in a way having vaccinated ourselves against this rabid mongrel over decades and a "thousand bites"

, is to force this animal to turn towards others. It has realised that barking and lunging against us has little impact.... So it turns to more juicy flesh, which is not properly vaccinated (and like rabies vaccine that's a sustained pain by itself), to the vets keeping it alive...

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Mar 2011 20:10

No I am saying a short skirmish that allows them to not act in wana/fata under US pressure. This will keep US longer in Afghania and that is its own QE.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 19 Mar 2011 23:02

ramana wrote:No I am saying a short skirmish that allows them to not act in wana/fata under US pressure. This will keep US longer in Afghania and that is its own QE.

This should be the only objective of India in all the future engagement.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Mar 2011 23:35

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 3#p1050003

In mid 80s Zia's time there were cordial relations between the forces.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 20 Mar 2011 12:11

Meanwhile:
The CIA Drone Program in Pakistan

Bandari airfield at Shamsi, Balochistan.

Even as Kiyani huffs and puffs and wags a finger at the US over the drone strikes being carried out in pakistan, a cursory look at this one airfield tells a different tale. The facilities on this base have been continuously expanding over a period of time. All this angst expressed by the Pakistani politicians and now Kiyani himself is all for the abduls on the streets of Pakistan.

June 20, 2003

July 2, 2004

March 30, 2007

July 12, 2010