Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 8, 2011

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 17 May 2011 16:11

harbans wrote: What is the comparison here really Pakibarian and an Animal? Apologies at the minimum are expected.

You mean to animals....offended by being compared with pukis? That's surely not a problem, no offence meant...

jimmyray · Post by **jimmyray** » 17 May 2011 16:17

no jawabi karwai by pakistan?

BBC: Puki army lodges a strong protest with NATO for firing on Puki soldiers

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 17 May 2011 16:28

Finally Unkil has started acting against the real terrorists, although by accident...

arunsrinivasan · Post by **arunsrinivasan** » 17 May 2011 17:06

Adios, Pakistan

“I don’t care if someone is giving us money; we are not a purchasable commodity. We cannot be bought. We can live in hunger, but we won’t compromise our national interests.” – Bashir Bilour, a Pakistani senior minister, in angry response following an al-Qaeda reprisal for the American killing of Osama bin Laden

That quotation sums up in a nutshell our current impasse with Pakistan and why it is time to redefine our relationship. If one were to follow the counterfactual logic of Mr. Bilour, it was not in the national interests of Pakistan to arrest the mass murderer of 3,000 Americans living in sanctuary in the suburbs of its capital city. It was not in Pakistan’s interests because a vast segment of the Pakistani population favors the agenda of radical Islam, either condones or is indifferent to its jihadism, and feels that only American cash prevents the government from overtly supporting a preferable Islamist agenda. So Bilour is quite right: Pakistan should not be a “purchasable commodity,” and instead should feel free both to reject American aid and not to compromise its “national interests” by opposing radical Islam.

For years, we have heard ad nauseam both Pakistan’s excuses for why it acts so duplicitously and our own diplomatic community’s reasons why we, in response, cannot cut off aid.

The two narratives often run something like this:

The Pakistani Plea

(a) We suffer more from radical Islamic terrorism than do you, and in fact have experienced an upswing in violence because of our decade-long, post–9/11 alliance with you.

(b) The United States does not respect our sovereignty and violates both our land borders and our air space at will.

(c) There is no hope for Afghanistan without us; cut us off and we will cut you off from all logistics coming in and out of Afghanistan.

(d) Your aid — $3 to $4 billion a year — is not all that much.

(e) We are the only Islamic nuclear nation, and we deserve a respect commensurate with our strategic importance, especially given your use and abuse of us during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.

(f) You already favor India, and you must show some modicum of diplomatic, political, and strategic balance.

American diplomatic, academic, and military experts tend to agree, and they usually offer us somewhat similar apologies.

The American Argument

(a) Yes, elements of the Pakistani government support terrorists — both al-Qaeda and the Taliban — who kill Americans and disrupt Afghanistan, but other, “good” elements of the military and government oppose these “rogue” actors and help us. So we are in a partnership with good Pakistanis against rogue Pakistanis.

(b) In truth, Pakistan is more duplicitous and untrustworthy in its alliances with Islamists than it is with the United States.

(c) A poor Pakistan has vast regions of wild borderlands and frontier that it simply cannot control; how can it be faulted for failing at what it cannot possibly do?

(d) Pakistan has the bomb; our aid, humiliating to us as it sometimes is portrayed, actually serves as valuable bribe money, ensuring that Pakistan does not “lend” a nuke or two to another illegitimate Islamic dictatorship or “lose” three or four bombs to assorted terrorists.

(e) The American public does not grasp, and cannot be fully told, of the myriad ways, informal and stealthy, that Pakistan helps us in the region.

All of these narratives have some merit but are ultimately unconvincing reasons to subsidize Pakistan.

First, we regret that Pakistan is a victim of domestic terrorism; but it antedated and will postdate our alliance, and is the wages of Pakistan’s own endemic corruption, religious intolerance, and government illegitimacy.

We can hardly respect a theoretical sovereignty that the Pakistani government itself admits it does not exercise. Are we to assume that Pakistan cannot enter its own borderlands, and so America cannot either, when those areas harbor killers of our citizens?

Americans do not like duplicitous allies, but they especially do not like subsidizing the duplicity. Almost every major Islamic terrorist with American blood on his hands whom our forces have captured or killed, from Khalid Sheik Mohammed to Osama bin Laden, was finally tracked down in Pakistan — often in upscale urban areas. As far as Afghanistan goes, Pakistan might do its worst, and we will try to do our best, and that is just the way it is, in this eternally bad/worse-case scenario.

There are all sorts of important nuclear powers that we do not subsidize. Russian Communism in Afghanistan was a greater threat to Pakistan than it was to the United States. Should we have given no aid then, or given aid and then stayed on? Either policy would have incurred Pakistani animosity. Again, as for nukes, it is not in Pakistan’s own interest to give nukes to anyone, unless it wishes current terrorism against it to include a nuclear component or prefers to lose its Islamic nuclear exclusivity. The United States would assume that any use of a nuclear device against America by an Islamic terrorist would ultimately be traced to Pakistan — and, of course, we would take the necessary countermeasures and retaliation. We would hope that deterrent message was by now well known.

India is democratic and pro-American; Pakistan is not. India is also huge, successful, and an ally in the war against jihadism. The question is not balance, but why we do not tilt farther toward India, a free-market economy that shares many of our own goals and aspirations. India is a natural and strategic ally; Pakistan is increasingly a natural and strategic belligerent.

As for our own rationales, consider the following rebuttals:

The good and bad elements of the Pakistani military and government are now so intertwined that even they cannot sort them out. What counts is not factions within Pakistan, but how they are expressed and play out. Among the worst setbacks in American foreign policy in the last twenty years were Pakistan’s acquisition of the bomb, and Pakistan’s hand in ensuring that bin Laden was largely safe for a decade. We care about those facts, not about Pakistan’s internal politics.

If Pakistan renounces American aid, it will nevertheless still incur terrorist attacks. Again, terrorism is endemic to Pakistan for reasons that transcend America.

Pakistan’s wild lands are useful to Pakistan, both providing deniability (e.g., “We can’t go there either”), and as an ongoing excuse for American aid. Terrorists get their own play yard, and their eternal presence justifies eternal billions in aid to Pakistani elites.

When we used to give aid to Pakistan it nevertheless still started work on the bomb; has resumption of that aid done much of anything to curtail its nuclear posturing?

The inability to explain the Pakistan alliance in any convincing fashion to the American public is not a reason to maintain the aid, but one to end it outright.

In conclusion, over the last two decades we have had all sorts of relationships with a nuclear and non-nuclear Pakistan: estrangement; an anti-Soviet, anti-Indian alliance; restored diplomatic relations; massive foreign aid; etc. We often change our approach; Pakistan stays the same.

What is the problem? The majority in Pakistan, so far as we can tell, is religiously intolerant, anti-American, and tribal. A plebiscite, fairly conducted, would result in a far more illiberal government than the Westernized megaphones that the often rigged and corrupt elections produce. Because elite Pakistani military and political leaders do not have real legitimacy, they must alternately disguise and lament, and then indulge and appease, the illiberal natures of their constituents.

What is the solution? Praise Pakistan. Avoid provocative statements. But by all means gradually and without fanfare prune back aid — say, at the rate of about $100 million a month. And then accept that in reaction Pakistan will more shamelessly hide terrorists, threaten nuclear proliferation, and destabilize the Karzai government, as it is freed to express its natural proclivities and “national interests” as a de facto enemy of the United States. Develop much closer relations with India. All of this will not make the situation in the region any better, but it will bring clarity, send a message that America is tired of treacherous allies — and save money. And in this ungodly mess, that at least counts for something.

— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, the editor of Makers of Ancient Strategy: From the Persian Wars to the Fall of Rome, and the author of The Father of Us All: War and History, Ancient and Modern.

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 17 May 2011 17:14

KrishG wrote: TSP and North Korea aren't the same. North Korea is a state where no one stands up to the dictator. In TSP, with the amount of weapons in the Mango Abduls hands and the number extremist groups fighting against kaafir invaders, China would think a million times before taking any decision wrt Pakistan. China wouldn't want to present itself as a target to any of the extremist outfits in Pakistan.
IMHO, China will be reasonably satisfied with the leverage they have on TSP at present. They would obviously be happier with less American involvement but the chances of them taking over the American role is very less

Agree. TSP and NK are not the same in many respects. But the utility factor for the Chinese to project its power in the region is all the same. NK was used to project Chinese power over SK and Japan.The Sun Tzu mantra is "Keep the enemy occupied".
Here the common enemy is both US and India.If a wedge is drawn between US and TSP the only place Pakis would run for is China. Pakistan is no Germany or Japan where they work hard and industrialize their society through hard work and ingenuity. Pakistanis would starve to death within a month if they do not agree to IMF debt schedules and US largesse. They cannot rebuild their country but they can stop or slow down the inevitable with some baksheesh. China understands Pakistan's situation and its utility as a country to reduce US influence in the region and to leverage India's growth.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 17 May 2011 19:25

Altair wrote: Agree. TSP and NK are not the same in many respects. But the utility factor for the Chinese to project its power in the region is all the same. NK was used to project Chinese power over SK and Japan.The Sun Tzu mantra is "Keep the enemy occupied".
Here the common enemy is both US and India.If a wedge is drawn between US and TSP the only place Pakis would run for is China. Pakistan is no Germany or Japan where they work hard and industrialize their society through hard work and ingenuity. Pakistanis would starve to death within a month if they do not agree to IMF debt schedules and US largesse. They cannot rebuild their country but they can stop or slow down the inevitable with some baksheesh. China understands Pakistan's situation and its utility as a country to reduce US influence in the region and to leverage India's growth.

The utility factor isn't the same. By financing TSP (replacing the present role of US), China would only be inviting more trouble for itself. TSPians are no peaceful Koreans. WRT NK the Chinese leahdership know that the NK regime is stable internally with negligible chances of revolt or revolutions. The same cannot be said about TSP. China will unnecessarily be dragged into the complex internal dynamics of TSP thereby making more enemies than friends.

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 17 May 2011 19:25

Bullet-proof cars for Indian diplomats in Pakistan

NEW DELHI: The government has reviewed the security of Indian diplomatic corps posted in Pakistan and has provided bullet-proof cars to all senior officials.

All officials posted in the Indian high commission in Islamabad have been asked to curtail unnecessary travel and venture out only with proper security guards.

"Senior diplomats posted in Pakistan have been given bullet-proof vehicles," an official said, referring to various instances of terror attacks in Pakistan.

Though there is no specific intelligence input about any threat to the Indian diplomats posted in Pakistan, additional steps have been taken for their protection.

Security of the Islamabad high commission complex has also been tightened, officials said.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 17 May 2011 19:32

Pakistani forces kill five suicide bombers, including women

QUETTA: Pakistani security forces shot dead five suspected al Qaeda-linked militants who had tried to carry out a suicide bombing in southwestern city of Quetta on Tuesday, police and paramilitary officials said.

The would-be bombers included three women and were believed to be foreigners, police said. They were killed in a gunfight near a paramilitary checkpost in Quetta, a city is believed to be a base for the Afghan Taliban leadership.

"From the appearance of the attackers, it looks they were either Uzbek or Chechens," a senior security official told reporters at the site of incident. "They had hand grenades and bombs strapped to their bodies."

Akshut · Post by **Akshut** » 17 May 2011 19:42

The only pics that are available of the US heli are of its tail, and now news also says that "tail will be returned". What happened to the rest of the body? That is where all the electronics and main stealth structure is.

ranjbe · Post by **ranjbe** » 17 May 2011 19:43

CRamS wrote:
Manny wrote:
US troops will be deployed in Pakistan if the nation’s nuclear installations come under threat from terrorists out to avenge the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the Sunday Express can reveal.

Read more: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/246 ... z1Ma02XHgD
Is this a bogus report or what? When I suggested this to Johann the other day, he said its impossible to pin point all the nukes, and more likely, TSP has dispersed them to several locations.

One would have agreed with this thesis 5 years ago when the AfPak theater was just a secondary operation. However,
1. The CIA has been operating in TSP for 10 years. Given their proclivity towards using money/refuge and green cards to purchase assets and knowing how corrupt TSP is, there is little doubt that a lot of well-placed moles are in place in Pakistan. Remember they bought at least one RAW asset (who is currently living merrily in US) this way in the last 10 years. There are indications that one (or more) of these assets helped in OBL's capture, hence the fog of claims/counterclaims which surround the operation.
2. The only thing which really scares unkil is a WMD attack by terrorists. This is, and always be the highest priority item. One prerequisite towards preventing such an attack is tight control of TSP nuclear assets. I would be surprised that after 10 years, if unkil has not infiltrated the PAK nuclear command and would have a very good idea where they are located. Any US President would roast CIA's behind if they candidly told him that (even after 10 years) they are less than 90% sure of where the bums and missiles are located.
3. And what is TSPA going to do? They have US radars to guard their airspace - US knows how to blind or evade these radars. Their premier fighter is US. The US knows how to disable the F16's (and the bandars, I am sure).
4. The present campaign against TSP is too well-orchestated, and I am sure that they are ready for the fallback if Pak does something silly, including cutting cooperation with USA.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 17 May 2011 19:43

Akshut wrote:The only pics that are available of the US helil are of its tail, and now news also says that "tail will be returned". What happened to the rest of the body? That is where all the electronics and main stealth structure is.

The SEALs blew it up before they left the compound. The tail survived the blast.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 17 May 2011 19:45

CRamS wrote:Is this a bogus report or what? When I suggested this to Johann the other day, he said its impossible to pin point all the nukes, and more likely, TSP has dispersed them to several locations.

Anni bogus-andi...

It's from one of those Urdu papers that ISI uses for spreading poorly thought out CTs.

Rahul Shukla · Post by **Rahul Shukla** » 17 May 2011 20:00

NATO helicopter attacks Pakistani army post (MSNBC)

A NATO helicopter crossed into Pakistani territory and opened fire on a border post on Tuesday, wounding two soldiers and drawing return fire...

A Western military official in Afghanistan gave a different version of events, but he and a NATO spokesman said there was firing at the border.

The official said a NATO base in Afghanistan took intermittent direct and indirect fire from the Pakistani side of the border. Two helicopters flew into the area, and one fired across the border after twice taking fire from the Pakistani side...

The border incident took place in the Datta Khel area of the North Waziristan tribal region...

NATO said it was still trying to determine whether the helicopter crossed in to Pakistani airspace.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 May 2011 20:11

The helicopter blades with graphite fiber lay-up, also were there among the debris carted away. The tail rotor appeared intact.

----
It strikes me India does play a very important role in the US-TSP duel. TSP gets distracted watching India and planning a thousand cuts, while uncle takes out their clowns (maybe jewels too)with impunity. Looks like Pasha is a buffoon from the Lonney Tunes cartoons.

vanand · Post by **vanand** » 17 May 2011 20:13

Lalmohan wrote:vanand - most likely scenario is to ratchet up the tension in srinagar area and have street protests again

India need to take some proactive measures like Syed Ali Gilani's house arrest. We should not allow pak to outmaneuver as it did last time. I don't how our political babu's handle this

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 May 2011 20:15

A_Gupta wrote:PUPPies.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... ens-death/#

Some writers—among them my friend the novelist Mohsin Hamid and the Guardian’s Declan Walsh and Jason Burke—are familiar with this sliver of Pakistan’s middle class. But most, including Salman Rushdie, who called for declaring Pakistan a terrorist state, sometimes seem to believe in a monolithic Pakistan sympathetic to terrorism, intolerantly Islamic and anti-West. They say the military, which represents the largest component of the middle class, is guilty of harboring bin Laden. If they have their way, the Pakistanis who are most like Westerners—English-speaking folk who carry Blackberries, watch Fashion Week on YouTube, twittered against the murder of anti-blasphemy law crusader Salman Taseer, and obsess about grades for college or medical school—will be thrown to the terrorist pack.

These fakeu are the vanguard and cover for the jihadi transformation going on.

Badmash is a better bet for transforming TSP as he is Pakjabi and wants to catharisise the India/Gangetic Valley hatred from the Pak society so the Kabila can settle down. Until the TSPA changes it motto it will still have that poison which will blind its perception of what is good for Pakistan.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 17 May 2011 20:17

badmash's statement about india is not the enemy sounds carefully timed and possibly scripted in washington... quite possibly he's looking to make a comeback...?

unless of course he is planning to have close encounters with a sun roof lever?

saip · Post by **saip** » 17 May 2011 20:37

Some al Makki (isnt Makki a fly?) got nabbed. Is he Al keeda no 3, 4, or 5?

http://thenews.com.pk/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=15654

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 17 May 2011 20:41

Makkhi = Fly

"Al Makki" probably means "from Mecca"

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 May 2011 20:47

Yeah. He was proabbaly a sweeepr with a fly swatter to keep the places clean of flies. TSPA puts a label "Al Makki" and hands him to gullible US authorities promptly after Kerry promises more "aid".

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 17 May 2011 20:54

Al makki - all the last names of operatives are just code names for where they are from usually. That Dhiren Bharot guy was called xxx Al Hindi. Then abu farraj al Libbi (libya) etc.

shaardula · Post by **shaardula** » 17 May 2011 20:57

folks can somebody point me to the discussions about the possibility of testimonials of rakit mards getting into the hands of nanhaas?

i somehow doubt that the testimonials of rakit mards (TRM) are scattered. while the scattering of testimonials decreases the probability of haran of ALL the testimonials by yyy, it also increases the cost and risk of securing ALL of them for rakit mards. Only ONE of them has to be lost for the entire rakit mard testimonial so-virginity to unravel.

arun · Post by **arun** » 17 May 2011 21:03

A_Gupta wrote:PUPPies.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... ens-death/#

Some writers—among them my friend the novelist Mohsin Hamid and the Guardian’s Declan Walsh and Jason Burke—are familiar with this sliver of Pakistan’s middle class. But most, including Salman Rushdie, who called for declaring Pakistan a terrorist state, sometimes seem to believe in a monolithic Pakistan sympathetic to terrorism, intolerantly Islamic and anti-West. They say the military, which represents the largest component of the middle class, is guilty of harboring bin Laden. If they have their way, the Pakistanis who are most like Westerners—English-speaking folk who carry Blackberries, watch Fashion Week on YouTube, twittered against the murder of anti-blasphemy law crusader Salman Taseer, and obsess about grades for college or medical school—will be thrown to the terrorist pack.

Some one needs to tell Ms. Lorraine Adams that the “sliver of Pakistan’s middle class” is no less infected than any other societal group in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan with the urge to spread Islamic Terrorism around the world.

As an American it is inexplicable that Ms. Adams does not seem to know that a whole bunch of the representatives of the “sliver of Pakistan’s middle class” have run afoul of the US justice system for indulging in Islamic Terrorism.

The names of these representatives of the “sliver of Pakistan’s middle class” that come to mind are Aafia Siddiqui, Faisal Shahzad, Uzair Paracha, Daood Gilani aka David Coleman Headley and Tahawwur Hussain Rana. All Puppies in this pile with no Non-Puppies like the pair of Pakistani Imam’s currently in hot water in Florida.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 May 2011 21:13

shaardula wrote:folks can somebody point me to the discussions about the possibility of testimonials of rakit mards getting into the hands of nanhaas?

i somehow doubt that the testimonials of rakit mards (TRM) are scattered. while the scattering of testimonials decreases the probability of haran of ALL the testimonials by yyy, it also increases the cost and risk of securing ALL of them for rakit mards. Only ONE of them has to be lost for the entire rakit mard testimonial so-virginity to unravel.

shaardula - could you please re word this in non-BENIS language. I am completely unable to understand the question.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 May 2011 21:26

He is asking about the probability of the TSP nooks falling into wrong hands. He discounts the dispersal of assets as that could lead to increase in the probability of such a event. A black swan of even one showing with wrong hands will lead to the unravelling of the TSP crown jewels sacntity.

I dont know why he wants to write that like this for he isn't prone to such obtuse language/babble!

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 17 May 2011 21:32

ramana wrote:He is asking about the probability of the TSP nooks falling into wrong hands. He discounts the dispersal of assets as that could lead to increase in the probability of such a event. A black swan of even one showing with wrong hands will lead to the unravelling of the TSP crown jewels sacntity.

I dont know why he wants to write that like this for he isn't prone to such obtuse language/babble!

One of the solution is PAL tech for the dispersed nukes. But they would have some nukes without PAL also. This has to be counted. So C&C and NCA can control most of the assets but there is no guarantee.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 17 May 2011 21:32

CRS, Rangudu

My understanding is that US contingency planning for unilateral contingency nuclear security operations in Pakistan did not move forward very seriously under the Bush Administration (preferring instead to provide assistance to the SPD), but that under Obama much more concrete preparations have taken place.

However it is important to understand that these truly are *contingency plans*, a 'hail mary' in American football terms.

Consider what the definition of 'success' would have to be in a such an operation would be, and what the cost of failure would be - infinitely greater than with the OBL op.

The Bin Laden operation *could* have been kept covert if it failed to find the target. If a firefight developed it would have been much harder, depending on the scale of the fighting and casualties, but there was no serious nuclear risk.

That is why Obama could chose to go ahead with it even though they couldn't be 100% certain which (or indeed any) high value target would be present in the house.

In fact the US could have even kept the where and when of it much more obscured as well even in the case of success.

That is why "Neptune Spear" could happen, but it was still a difficult decision for Obama, and would have been for any US president.

A contingency nuclear security operation would be the absolute last resort - on par with a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities or North Korean facilities and weapons.

In the end the US has chosen a route of non-military covert operations against Iran coupled with sanctions, with nuclear deterrence as the fallback option. Deterrence, coupled with negotiations is also the route taken with North Korea.

What makes people think it would be different with Pakistan?

There are only two factors that would change the equation;
(a) near-absolute certainty that the Pakistani state had lost or was about to lose control of the nukes and fissile material in one or more facilities, and they had fallen or were about to fall in to the hands of jihadi tanzeems or Pakistani military factions who could not be deterred
(b) a near certain belief that the Pakistani state as a whole could not be deterred.

The first option is a more likely scenario than the second, but how likely is it to happen, really?

Mutiny by the majors and colonels is more likely than a successful Pakiban assault, and both situations are much more likely to be seen in one or two locations at most, rather than across the board. However those kinds of scenarios are more likely to produce cooperative US-Pakistani action rather than unilateral US use of force

Ultimately the greatest incentive for the PA to keep their nukes out of the hands of the beards is a strong deterrent posture - the sure knowledge that use of their weapons by 'non-state actors' will be treated as a PA attack. The Americans have been putting out that message privately , and so have the Indians from what I understand.

My personal view is that the US ought to make that deterrent posture much more public while publicly forswearing any first strikes on the Pakistani arsenal in order to increase stability and stop this mushrooming of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal. Their fears of a non-nuclear US first strike are driving a great deal of the proliferation risk.

arun · Post by **arun** » 17 May 2011 21:58

Sadanand Dhume in the Wall Street Journal:

MAY 18, 2011

Pakistan, Victim of Terrorism?

To sustain the war on terror in this country, the rest of the world should bolster Islamabad's storyline.

Is Pakistan a victim of terrorism? On the face of it, the notion seems ludicrous. ……………..

But browse Pakistan's newspapers, or tune into the country's lively news channels, and another story line emerges. President Asif Zardari calls his country "perhaps the world's greatest victim of terrorism," and on this the majority of his countrymen appear to agree. Decoding this narrative of victimhood is then crucial to any long-term victory in this central front of the war on terror. …………………

To be fair, this version of events contains a grain of truth. The war against the Soviets, albeit logical in a Cold War context, did turn Pakistan into a magnet for would-be jihadists from across the globe. And many innocent Pakistanis have lost their lives in recent years.

Yet, most of the mess the country finds itself in is of its own making. ………………

In the face of such reckless behavior, some may seek to punish Pakistan rather than reform it. Nonetheless, the international community actually has an interest in bolstering Islamabad's bogus narrative of victimhood. While bigger sticks (stepping up drone strikes) and perhaps more carrots (support for democratization and military reform) will have to be part of the policy mix to extract greater cooperation from Pakistan's feckless politicians and obstreperous generals, over the long term they may not be enough. Given deep-rooted support for extremists in Pakistani society and widespread hatred of the U.S., Islamabad can't realistically be expected to sustain a fight against terrorism without a compelling way to sell it to its own people. The victimhood storyline is, quite simply, the best available.

But for it to work, this tale of suffering must be retooled to encompass all terrorism, not merely direct attacks on Pakistan. ……………………….

WSJ

shaardula · Post by **shaardula** » 17 May 2011 21:59

sorry shiv. thanks ramana.

rephrased:

folks can somebody point me to the discussions about the possibility of tsp crown jewels getting into the hands of tspian 'non-state' actors?

i somehow doubt that the crown jewels are scattered. while the scattering of crown jewels decreases the probability of YYY seizing ALL of them, it also increases the cost and risk of securing ALL of them for the tspian state actors. After all, there is no such thing as 'plausible deniability' when it comes to WMD. Only ONE of them has to be lost for the entire tspian crown jewel so-virginity to unravel.

although, given all that has happened despite AQK, one has to wonder how much the tsp can stretch that red-line.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 17 May 2011 22:04

Musharraf and the SPD claim that normally warheads and bombs are kept separate from delivery vehicles, and the weapons themselves are kept in a dis-assembled state.

As for the potential for Pakiban or other seizures, and how they can and will be dealt with, see my post above

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 May 2011 22:09

Johann, All this Pakiban seizing nukes is hogwash. It will be the TSPA jihadi faction if they think the mainstream is going to compromise on Nazariya-e-Pakistan with US.

Pakiban are Pakistani Pathans seeking self determination in Pakistan. How can they seize stuff from Pakjab military bases?

Pakiban are in ISI and US cross hairs.

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 17 May 2011 22:09

What was that phrase about Pakistan being a victim of terrorism is the same as a suicide bomber? ?? I need this to post in many places

KJo · Post by **KJo** » 17 May 2011 22:14

Lot's of begging and GUBOing.

From WSJ

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 17 May 2011 22:16

ramana wrote:Johann, All this Pakiban seizing nukes is hogwash. It will be the TSPA jihadi faction if they think the mainstream is going to compromise on Nazariya-e-Pakistan with US.

Pakiban are Pakistani Pathans seeking self determination in Pakistan. How can they seize stuff from Pakjab military bases?

Pakiban are in ISI and US cross hairs.

Ramana, you have read my post - as I have already there the threat of a revolt from within the PA is much more serious than from the outside, and neither threat is beyond the PA's ability to handle should it arise - although I could see the US providing specialised assistance.

However as far as the geography of things go, there are fissile elements of the nuclear programme in NWFP and Pashtun districts Baluchistan as well, so its not just Pakjab.

The Pakiban is unlikely to be able to make it through past the outer and inner perimeters and in to the vaults before there is effective reaction from either the Pakistani and/or US miilitary to push them back.

Rahul Shukla · Post by **Rahul Shukla** » 17 May 2011 22:18

Gus wrote:What was that phrase about Pakistan being a victim of terrorism is the same as a suicide bomber? ?? I need this to post in many places

"Pakistan is a victim of terrorism as much as a suicide bomber is a victim of explosives." - (not) Confucius.

arun · Post by **arun** » 17 May 2011 22:24

shaardula wrote:sorry shiv. thanks ramana.

rephrased:

folks can somebody point me to the discussions about the possibility of tsp crown jewels getting into the hands of tspian 'non-state' actors?

i somehow doubt that the crown jewels are scattered. while the scattering of crown jewels decreases the probability of YYY seizing ALL of them, it also increases the cost and risk of securing ALL of them for the tspian state actors. After all, there is no such thing as 'plausible deniability' when it comes to WMD. Only ONE of them has to be lost for the entire tspian crown jewel so-virginity to unravel.

although, given all that has happened despite AQK, one has to wonder how much the tsp can stretch that red-line.

IMO the Pakistani mindset would be more accepting of losing a nuclear weapon to Jihadis by scattering the arsenal rather than risk the loss of Honour and Diginity caused by a strike by kaafir Israel, India or the US to neutralise the weapons by concentrating.

Losing a nuclear weapon to Jihadi’s can always be couched as a brilliant tactical plan by the citadel of Islam to smite the infidels, never mind the resulting nuclear counterstrike if one of the “lost” nuclear weapons goes off in Israel, India or the US.

For insight into the warped Pakistani mind set on the use of nuclear weapons, many moons ago an article about a retired military type who was an aide to Benazir Bhutto was posted on BR. Perhaps someone can dredge it up

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 17 May 2011 22:26

x post

Trouble ahead in Pakistan's new US phase

By Syed Saleem Shahzad

ISLAMABAD - Relations between the United States and Pakistan are at a "make or break" stage, John Kerry, chairman of the US Senate foreign relations committee, said during his fence-mending trip to Pakistan on Monday.

For now, a break appears to have been averted with the opening of a "new phase" of American operations in the region under a fresh agreement between Washington and Islamabad for the routing of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. In a joint statement issued in Islamabad, the countries agreed on Monday to work together in any future actions against "high-value targets" in Pakistan.

Details of the accord, like all past accords, are unwritten. What will happen though is that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the US envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan, Mark Grossman, will soon visit Pakistan to make the political environment conducive for the next phase.

Relations between the two nations were severely strained at the beginning of the month when US Special Forces assassinated al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in the military town of Abbottabad, 60 kilometers north of Islamabad. Pakistan was embarrassed and angered when the US claimed sole responsibility for the operation in defiance of an agreement between the countries.

Contrary to all previous rhetoric by the Pakistani military establishment and briefings they delivered to a joint session of the Pakistani parliament last week, Monday's joint statement proved that Pakistan had always been onboard to work with the US and that statements issued by the military establishment were posturing.

Last Friday, General Ashfaq Pervez Kiani and the Inter-Services Intelligence head Ahmed Shuja Pasha appeared in a historic joint session of parliament, the first time in 63 years that an army chief and the top man of the ISI had presented themselves before the legislature.

The joint statement pointed out that "all tracks of US-Pakistani engagement need to be revisited to assure that the countries can continue to cooperate on counter-terrorism", yet deeper problems remain, most notably among middle cadre of the military.

This was emphasized by Kiani, who told Kerry that there were "intense feelings" in the military over the raid to get Bin Laden, according to a statement issued by the army.

Many in the army still want alliances with Sunni Islamist elements in the region as leverage against India and Iran. As a result, a backlash within the military establishment against the forthcoming new phase in the war against the Afghan Taliban is inevitable. Once again, Pakistan will be caught in the middle between the US and militants, with interests on both sides.

Kerry is one of the initiators of the Kerry-Lugar bill that envisages US$1.5 billion yearly in aid to Pakistan for five years. Pakistan has already received $14.6 billion in economic and military assistance from the US since 2005. Kerry arrived in the Afghan capital Kabul on Sunday with a clear message that a conclusive war against Islamic militancy is wanted, and all his statements reflected this decisive theme and uncompromising stance.

"Yes, there are insurgents coming across the border," he said at the US Embassy. "Yes, they are operating out of North Waziristan [tribal area in Pakistan] and other sanctuaries, and yes, there is some evidence of Pakistan government knowledge of some of these activities in ways that is very disturbing," Kerry said.

The senator also pointed a finger at the presence of the powerful Haqqani network in North Waziristan as one of the key drivers of the Taliban-led insurgency in Afghanistan. The US tried to tighten the noose around the network when it slapped sanctions on leader Jalaluddin Haqqani's younger son, Badruddin Haqqani, last week. His name was added to the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists that allows the US to freeze his assets, prevent him from using financial institutions and prosecute him for terrorist activities.

Kerry said there were "deep reservations" among some American lawmakers about whether Pakistan shared Washington's goals in the region, but said, "Pakistan has supported our efforts to diminish the capacity of al-Qaeda over the last several years. Pakistan has allowed us to have intelligence personnel operating in Pakistan in ways that helped us to capture Osama bin Laden."

Opening of the next phase
Now that Bin Laden is dead - the pinnacle of the American-led war against militancy - the next logical targets inside Pakistan include his deputy Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri, Taliban leader Mullah Omar and Jalaluddin and Sirajuddin Haqqani as well as other top militants.

However, after the Abbottabad incident, the role of the nuclear-armed nation's military establishment is a real question mark, both domestically and internationally. The fact that statements by the armed forces during the briefing to parliament last week were rigged with contradictions does not help their image.

On Saturday, parliament condemned the Bin Laden raid and termed it an attack on Pakistan's sovereignty and urged for an end to unilateral action within its borders, including attacks on suspected militants by US drones. It said logistical support for North Atlantic Treaty Organization troops in Afghanistan could be withdrawn if the strikes continued.

Even as the armed forces were briefing the joint session, US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) predator drones struck North Waziristan again and parliamentarians questioned the top brass over not doing enough to prevent drone attacks inside Pakistan.

It was reported that the closed-door session was told that drones flew from Pakistan's Shamsi air base in Balochistan province, but that this facility was owned by the United Arab Emirates. This armed forces statement contradicted an ISI official spokesperson's statement published last month that Pakistan had closed Shamsi to drone flights. Later, when the strikes continued, an ISI spokesperson said the drones were coming from Afghanistan.

Some parliamentarians then objected that even if Pakistan did not own Shamsi, the drones were still using Pakistan's air space and should therefore be shot down.

"Pakistan has the capacity to strike down CIA predator drones, but then the government and the parliament should order us [to do so] and also make a commitment to stand behind the armed forces when the fierce American reaction came," air chief Rao Qamar Suleman reportedly told the joint session that continued for 10 hours.

During the session, ISI head Pasha, the person blamed for most intelligence failures, insisted that it was a collective failure of all the civilian and military law-enforcing agencies and the ISI should not be singled out. However, he offered that if parliament and the government demanded, he would resign.

What has become clear in the past few weeks is that the US wants results in a short space of time, and Pakistan has no option but to collaborate in the hunt for Taliban bigwigs hidden in Pakistan.

This would be the beginning of real fireworks within the military establishment should mid-level cadre - rogue elements - aligned with Sunni militants instigate attacks along the lines of the militant assault on the Indian city of Mumbai in 2008 that resulted in the deaths of more than 150 people. (See Al-Qaeda 'hijack' led to Mumbai attack Asia Times Online, December 2, 2008.)

After the September 11, 2001, attacks on the US, Pakistan's top brass took a policy turn and joined in the US's "war on terror", but a large chunk of officers took retirement and with serving colleagues they helped the Taliban. This changed the dynamics of the Afghan war theater (see Military brains plot Pakistan's downfall Asia Times Online, September 26, 2007).

This collection of former and serving officers was responsible for a number of attacks on the military, including on military headquarters in 2009 and against ex-president General Pervez Musharraf.

Kerry's visit to Pakistan was made to open a new phase of the war in South Asia and the whole exercise of the Pakistani armed forces appearing in front of parliament was not intended to show accountability but to pave the way for this stage.

This is also the time when a nexus of serving and retired soldiers could become active again to revive regional operations, in addition to a possible mutiny against the top military brass.

Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief and author of upcoming book Inside al-Qaeda and the Taliban: Beyond Bin Laden and 9/11 published by Pluto Press, UK. He can be reached at [email protected]

As predicted, BRF ahead of the curve as always:

Posted on 9th May

- Is it fair to say that Mullah Omar still retains some operational control and is the uniting factor?
- Is it fair to say that the reason why TSPA is so miffed is because US is removing TSPs chances to control its backyard? No wonder Kayani is escalating, he knows that Talebs will turn on the TSPA if Omar is given up (he is probably a red line).

Oh well TSPA is screwed either way.

6th May:

Kayani must be having sleepless nights. Domestic pressure -> trying to divert this by attack on LoC.
Taleban pressure -> kayani will ask mullah omar to bail him out and tell his forces to stand down. I doubt omar will do anything.
International embarrasment -> Kayani is defeating this by blackmailing US. Relelase of those photo's was planned.

See ex ISI guy Durrani's comments. He said they knew at some level, the army chief was in his office and knew that US was in position. So to put an end to the conflicting events, pak is blackmailing the US by releasing these pictures of dead paki's with no weapons.
So it looks like US killed these guys in cold blood. Makes you question who these guys were and a host of other things.

There are 2 lines pakistan has. For domestic consumption: we didn't know about the operation, as selling out OBL would cause talebans to launch war.
For international consumption: Of course we knew about the operation, we were a part of it!

All this means is more international embarrasment and domesitically kayani is screwed.

Let see if US will back off. But anyway, kiling of OBL is a part of handing over power in the ME to the muslim brotherhood.

So what is kayani's game plan to regain some pride?
Start a war with India to divert domestic attention - hence why you had an RPG attack on the LoC. MMS pllayed his card right - reiterated peace.
Kayani will use more LoC strikes or terror. If I was in the home ministry I would be on alert.

Apparently western intel believes pak was onboard, but not clear on what level. I think this is part of US guaranteeing Pak interest in afghanistan and kiling OBL means Obama's afghan mission accomplished. Pak wil get taleban to the table to negotiate.

Basically, the talebs have joined up to take on TSPA. Its going to be worse if Haqqani or Mullah O is taken into custody. Ouch!

They want war with India to avert all this. Internal break of TSPA and Pakhtun Taleban joining hands against TSPA. TSPA is screwed and only way to save themselves is to fight India. Ideal situation should be for India to warn TSPA that any action on the border will be treated with utmost seriousness (we give our own veiled nuke threat discretely - Who knows maybe the MMS meet with the NCA was just that!

). This is called costless tactical maneuvering that should put TSPA in a very bad position.

They can't start war with India to unite the TSPians and its allies because Yindu's are threatening nuke response if its any attack on Indian territory takes place. US is going to say give me haqqani, Mulla O. Talebs saying you give the Mulla O and all bets are off, we are gunning for you even harder (which they already are). TSPA is target number 1 now already. All ceasefires are called off with TSPA.

Baikul · Post by **Baikul** » 17 May 2011 22:28

saip wrote:Some al Makki (isnt Makki a fly?) got nabbed. Is he Al keeda no 3, 4, or 5?

http://thenews.com.pk/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=15654

I wonder how these go? Do the Pakjabi 'thorities call ahead and regretfully inform the unfortunate lottery 'winner' that his number is up, pliss to cooperate?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 17 May 2011 22:50

Lies are told to americans to keep them confused
This author does not have a clue what is the real fact.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... s-death/2/

Just how much support Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence and the military gave to bin Laden or any extremists is the subject of government investigation, and has been debated ad nauseam among analysts. Most American commentators quote the highly respected Ahmed Rashid, who recently wrote in The New Republic that they give terrorists enough help to keep “the pot boiling but not overflowing.” Others such as Anatol Lieven, in his new book about Pakistan, argue that military support for extremists in Kashmir and Afghanistan exists but inside Pakistan is thin.

All of the Pakis have payed money to the jihadi fighters

Monday, less than 24 hours after the bin Laden operation, a couple of my Pakistan friends in their 20s—an orthodontist and a medical school student—were far more sober than their American counterparts. These women are devout Muslims (they adhere to virginity before marriage and never drink), but like their counterparts in Tahrir Square, are enlightened observers. One wrote: “We got Osama! But remember that this justice has come at the cost of a decade of war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. While America, by virtue of its 'wealth and power' may be relatively immune, for Pakistan, this day marks mixed feelings of triumph and fear—triumph over the death of a common enemy but fear that darker times marked by fundamentalist backlash and the withdrawal of American support may have begun.”

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 17 May 2011 22:53

kayani is more or less working for the US whether he likes it or not'

More we see puki strategy more obvious it becomes that it is a client state and will always remain so. It has two customers ,US and China.. If u see recent events after obl killing you see that they are behaving in a very random yet predictable way . Both these client states make its strategy and drive its synergy.

While mango abdul is satisfied with the tough India stance its govt takes, the elites are happy with their baksheesh, so here comes a win win game that pukis never lose. (wonder why they claim they always win)

But after recent events china has not shown any interest in their situation and is too busy in other things, so pukis are told by the chinis to play their usual games with americans and manage the situation on their own.

While their second client state US which always bails them out of difficult situation is the aggressor here. So puki dogs(elites) have got no corner to hide and are therefore attacking India as it sees this as a last resort to divert domestic pressure

Since most of the puki public knows this game, so the tsp is losing its grip quickly.

Expect some fresh terror attacks on India. Needless to say this time they win loose even more