Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 30, 2011

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 27 Jun 2011 11:03

http://tribune.com.pk/story/197215/paki ... ban-talks/

WASHINGTON:
Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States Hussain Haqqani said that Pakistan is not part of the negotiations between Washington and the Taliban and is upset about it.

Porkis always believed that Kashmir was theirs and now they believe that Afghanistan is theirs.

ravar · Post by **ravar** » 27 Jun 2011 11:14

Old news but still good news which hakim saab can use in his endeavours to foster tarrel than ocean fliendship through 'lessons on the sty' to the 'pure' paki abduls-

Pig survives for 36 days buried in earthquake rubble

A pig that survived for 36 days buried beneath rubble in quake-hit southwest China on a diet of charcoal has been hailed as a symbol of the will to stay alive, state press reported

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWHSmnhTf6g

At T 50 sec, PLA soldier says-

when we found that the pig was still alive, we were overjoyed

PS- Personally, I am happy for the animal to have survived.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 27 Jun 2011 11:47

so overjoyed were they that they soon turned him into capital ribs and char siew to celebrate his liberation!

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 27 Jun 2011 11:56

Paging all gurus...

Here is the map of the Soviet Union... and it borders Pakistan, the Khanate areas are touching it. I'm sure this has been discussed, but how significant was this in driving Partition and the creation of Pakistan? Was this planned from the start as a dagger aimed at the "soft Islamic underbelly" of SU and extention of Great Game politics? I know Brits had been using Islamic movements against the Rus since the Crimean War (recently read Orlando Figes fantastic book on this).

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Jun 2011 12:54

There is no question about it! Post WW2,the US wanted Diego Garcia to control the IOR and saw to it that Britain through blackmail of Ramgoolam ("no Diego Garcia,no independence)continue to squat in what is called BIOT territories.The creation of Pak was to establish a Muslim state of "martial races",who would assist the west in its strategy against both the SU and China.,whom one must remember were allies at that time.Pak a "springboard" into the soft underbelly of the Muslim states of the SU,which was again tried out during the regime of Gen.Zia and the establishment of a VOA station in Sri Lanka to broadcast propaganda to incite the Muslim republics to rebel against the SU.It has all come to pass in massive blowback fashion 9/11! The vetry same mujahids and islamic fighters whom the US supported bit the hand that fed them.As for biting the hand that feeds it,there is n equal to the venal,rent-boy state of Pak.Read on.

British military advisers 'expelled from Pakistan'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... istan.html

British military advisers sent to Pakistan to help in the fight against the Taliban and al-Qaeda have been expelled from the country, in the wake of the US Navy Seal raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

Xcpt:

By Our Foreign Staff
27 Jun 2011
The British team, who were training Pakistan's paramilitary border forces, the 60,000-strong Frontier Corps, have been in the country since last August and it was scheduled to run until at least summer 2013.

The withdrawal of the team of 18 is understood to be a response to Pakistan's deteriorating relations with the US, after the al-Qaeda leader was shot dead by special forces last month in Abbottabad.

Since bin Laden's death, Pakistan has sent home more than two thirds of the 135 US soldiers training its paramilitary border forces.

Pakistan first ordered US troops to leave during the anti-American backlash after Raymond Davis, a CIA security contractor, shot dead two men in Lahore in January. The bin Laden raid worsened relations.

Although Britain's relationship with Pakistan is not as bad as the US's, the expulsion was seen as an indirect consequence of Islamabad wanting to display more independence.

Related Articles
Husband and wife team carry out suicide bombing in Pakistan
26 Jun 2011

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence last night told The Daily Telegraph: "The UK has been asked to withdraw some of its training support teams on a temporary basis by the Pakistan Government in response to security concerns.

"We are providing training support at the invitation of the Pakistan Government and welcome their advice on these matters. The training teams will continue their own training and will be ready to re-deploy at the first possible opportunity."

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 27 Jun 2011 13:37

A Taliban commander in Pakistan's volatile tribal belt has broken away from the militant outfit to form his own group as he is opposed to suicide attacks on mosques and civilians.

Fazal Saeed Haqqani, a commander in the Kurram tribal region, separated from the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan and formed the Tehrik-e-Taliban Islami, Geo News channel reported.

Haqqani told the media that he had taken this step to protest suicide attacks on mosques and civilians.

The channel quoted its sources as saying that Haqqani earlier led TTP fighters in Kurram Agency and had step up training centres in several areas

rediff live

hulaku · Post by **hulaku** » 27 Jun 2011 13:45

UBanerjee wrote: Here is the map of the Soviet Union... and it borders Pakistan, the Khanate areas are touching it.

Nope the Soviet Union never had a border with Pakistan. The narrow strip of land called the Wakhan Corridor runs through that part and the Wakhan is a part of Afghanistan. At not point does Pakistan border the Soviet Union.

I suggest you look at a bigger map of the former Soviet Union and you would understand what I am saying.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 27 Jun 2011 13:54

Prem wrote:http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011 ... act_wright

The Double Game: The unintended consequences of American funding in Pakistan.
It’s the end of the Second World War, and the United States is deciding what to do about two immense, poor, densely populated countries in Asia. America chooses one of the countries, becoming its benefactor. Over the decades, it pours billions of dollars into that country’s economy, training and equipping its military and its intelligence services. The stated goal is to create a reliable ally with strong institutions and a modern, vigorous democracy. The other country, meanwhile, is spurned because it forges alliances with America’s enemies.
The country not chosen was India, which “tilted” toward the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Pakistan became America’s protégé, firmly supporting its fight to contain Communism. The benefits that Pakistan accrued from this relationship were quickly apparent: in the nineteen-sixties, its economy was an exemplar. India, by contrast, was a byword for basket case. Fifty years then went by. What was the result of this social experiment? India has become the state that we tried to create in Pakistan.

There are many inaccuracies and fallacies in the above simplified version of the US-India-Pakistan triangle.

First of all, India and Pakistan should not have been termed as 'immense' in the same breath. The reason is obvious for anyone but not apparently for the Americans.

Secondly, I doubt if the US went agonizingly through deliberations as to which country should be supported in the Indian subcontinent. That decision had been made already by the imperial power and the entire brief was handed over to the new power centre of the world, the USA.

Thirdly, the US should have known, very quickly that the Pakistani leadership was unprincipled, amoral and opportunistic. Perhaps that was what they wanted. The Americans were supremely confident that with their power and wealth, they could manage such a nation easily. They stuck to their choice and poured billions knowing fully well that their relationship was purely transactional. The US should therefore feel no pangs of guilt because their goal was never to make Pakistan a modern Muslim nation with democracy in a Westphalian architecture. That was simply a ruse to get their things done.

Fourthly, the Pakistani economy was never an 'exemplar' as is usually falsely proclaimed. It was a propaganda by the US to spite India, to make her change course in foreign affairs and to perk-up the Pakistanis. The reason is simple. Even during Ayub Khan's days, Pakistan never invested the foreign funds it received into education etc. The US funding was overwhelmingly for the armed forces only, as it has been ever since to this day. The basic building blocks of any nation-state were always neglected in Pakistan. Without that, any economic indicator would be mere window-dressing as 'Shortcut Aziz' demonstrated a few years back and as the IMF has repeatedly found to its horror from data supplied to it by GoP.

The so-called 'tilt' towards the Soviet Union did not happen until after 1967. By this time, the US-Pakistan alliance had signed three military treaties and gone through highs and lows. It is inaccurate therefore to talk of any choice between India and Pakistan that had to be made by the US immediately after 1947. India was not available for plucking by anybody and the natural choice had to be Pakistan. Immediately after Indian independence, neither the US nor the USSR showed any particular interest in India. Later, there was competition between the two blocks to woo various countries around the world with aid for projects of national importance like Bokaro steel plant in India or the Aswan High Dam in Egypt. In the case of Bokaro, under the Colombo Plan initiative, India sought the US help first but the conditions imposed by the US Congress were unacceptable and that was when the USSR jumped into the fray and the rest is history. India too attracted a lot of funds from both the blocks without compromising on its non-aligned status. The 1962 Chinese aggression briefly changed the equation. But, soon thereafter the India-US relationship began to deteriorate sharply due to various reasons. Later, the India-USSR Treaty of Friendship was signed in 1971. From the late 70s, India made a determined effort to improve relations with the US, but the Afghanistan situation did not let that happen. Before these Americans accuse India of 'tilting' towards the Soviet Union, they should look at the three Treaties they signed with Pakistan in the early 50s thus bringing Cold War to the doorsteps of the Indian subcontinent. They should ponder over the rather contemptuous and intemperate references to India by both Nixon and Kissinger in their dialogues with Maozedung and Chou Enlai in 1971 and understand who tilted where first.

Fifthly, Pakistan's support for 'fighting communism' is simply laughable. Even being part of SEATO and CENTO, the Pakistanis attempted to forge close relationship with the communist regimes of the Soviets and the Chinese. They succeeded with the Chinese eventually. Besides, with all the billions of dollars worth of arms and equipment supplied by the US under these treaties, Pakistan did not fire a single shot against the Communists (SEATO was disbanded in June 1977 and CENTO in early 1979 before the Soviet troop movement into Afghanistan). In June 1960, Pakistan signed a joint statement issued by the eight SEATO member countries which said, inter alia, “The Council recognised that the Communist challenge posed not only a potential military threat to the independence of countries in the treaty area but also an immediate and direct threat to their cultures and ways of life”. However, within 2½ years after that Pakistan concluded a border treaty with PRC and illegally ceded a portion of the annexed Kashmir to China in 1963. As early as 1957, the US ambassador to Pakistan James Langley recognized the Pakistani duplicity and said in his confidential report, “The present military program is a hoax, the hoax being that it is related to the Soviet threat”. In spite of repeated requests from the US, Pakistan did not send a single person from the Pakistani armed forces to the Korean or Vietnam campaigns, though the US funded raising 5½ Army divisions for the PA.

Sixthly, India might have gone through a tough period during the 50s through early 90s. But, it was not because of profligacy, or reckless spending. There could have been various faults with India during this period, but India did build a foundation that has since helped her grow in various fields. India might be faulted for placing too much reliance on self-sufficiency or taking decisions slowly and a myriad other things but none can deny the investments it made in higher education or scientific and research institutions. It is therefore asinine to characterize India as a 'basket case' during those years.

Lastly, one doesn't need to patronize India by saying 'India became the Pakistan the West wanted to create'. That is insulting to India and the one-sixth of humanity it encompasses within itself. We have miles, leagues to go, but we are on this trajectory by dint of our own enterprise.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 27 Jun 2011 14:18

Sridhar Ji, you're right on each and every one of those points. Well articulated and a Great post indeed!

anishns · Post by **anishns** » 27 Jun 2011 15:58

SSS ji.....Brilliant as usual

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 27 Jun 2011 16:48

SS-ji, one opinion on your excellent summary if i may
for the americans, TSP's lack of action on communists is of no importance. why?

1. they would have assured the americans that there were no communists in pakistan (we have taken care of them janaab...) and any brown communists lived in india as could be opined over baRa pegs on the lawn at the afsar's club

2. the usaf and others used TSP bases for their anti-soviet activities for years (gary powers took off from peshawar IIRC) and that was all good in DoD/SD

3. the liaison with the chinese was part of the nixon-kissinger process, and therefore was ok, and besides those damn injuns signed some goddamn treaty with the goddamn soviets... so what the hell...

therefore, as far as washington is concerned, the lack of record on anti-communism is totally incidental

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 27 Jun 2011 17:00

B. Raman
http://www.eurasiareview.com/samjauta-e ... -27062011/
The punchline:

Our investigation into the Samjauta Express incident is a stand-alone case unrelated to 26/11 in any manner. The Hindus who allegedly carried out the explosion were not sponsored by the Indian State. They had no ideological agenda. To see a moral and legal equivalence between what happened on board the Samjauta Express in February 2007 and what happened in Mumbai for almost three days in November, 2008 is a total distortion of the facts relating to Pakistan’s use of terrorism as a weapon against India.

Pakistan wants to project the terrorism sponsored by it against India since 1981 as part of an action-reaction syndrome. We are walking into that trap by relaxing the pressure on Pakistan to arrest and prosecute successfully all those involved in the 26/11 strikes and by succumbing to Pakistani pressure on the Samjauta Express incident.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 27 Jun 2011 17:30

SSridhar wrote:Fourthly, the Pakistani economy was never an 'exemplar' as is usually falsely proclaimed. It was a propaganda by the US to spite India, to make her change course in foreign affairs and to perk-up the Pakistanis. The reason is simple. Even during Ayub Khan's days, Pakistan never invested the foreign funds it received into education etc. The US funding was overwhelmingly for the armed forces only, as it has been ever since to this day. The basic building blocks of any nation-state were always neglected in Pakistan. Without that, any economic indicator would be mere window-dressing as 'Shortcut Aziz' demonstrated a few years back and as the IMF has repeatedly found to its horror from data supplied to it by GoP.

While the Pak economy was hardly an exemplar in economic policy making, its outperformance over India till the late '80s, especially between the mid '60s and mid '80s, is undeniable...

India's economic project had effectively run aground by the early '60s..the capacity building initiatives of the '50s that led to the Bhakra (and other) dams, the first steel plants, the first IIT/IIMs gave way to dogmatic sloganeering based policy,and then quickly (in Indira's time) cycnical populism and quickly thereafter cronyism to go with...

Pak on the other hand, thanks to a variety of factors, including American aid and some sensible policy-making by Ayub Khan's govt, performed significantly better...Somewhat perversely, the secession of Bangladesh, which was effectively a basket case then, actually provided a beneficial "bump" to the macro numbers of Pak...

Incidentally, there is an interetsing column by Sanjaya Baru today on a related topic, but covering the same context..
http://business-standard.com/india/news ... 91/440471/

The fact was not just evident in the macro numbers, chroniclers of the Indo-Pak domain often captured this in their narratives - how the average Pakistani looked more prosperous than the average Indian, how poverty was so much more in-your-face in India and so on...

In 1980, or even in 1970, if anyone had to take an "economic bet", India looked a far more challenging one to Pak...We started catching up only the in latter half of the '80s, while the true "break" came post the reforms...

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 27 Jun 2011 17:37

Great post SS. Thanx.

On a separate note, anybody knows what exactly is the title of Syed Saleem Shahzad's book, and is it orderable on Amazon...?

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 27 Jun 2011 17:38

^^^Pakistan 1960s-80s: Very true that Pakistan seemed a much better bet during this period. In fact, during the 1960s, the SoKos were using Pakistan as a developmental model!.

It was not until 1991, with GW 1 and the prospect of imminent economic demise, that wonderfully focused GoI minds into 'liberalization'. Then it was the dotcom bust (Global Crossing etc) during 1999=> that was the precipitating event: cheap high high speed bandwidth led to off shoring /outsourcing. BTW, the latter was also helped by the fact that no ministry of information technology existed to dole out licenses

and you really did not need land/buildings to get started.

Jaspreet · Post by **Jaspreet** » 27 Jun 2011 17:51

some sensible policy-making by Ayub Khan's govt

Somnath, what were those policies and what effect did they have? I always thought Pak's prosperity was a function of US money.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 27 Jun 2011 17:57

SSridhar wrote:Thirdly, the US should have known, very quickly that the Pakistani leadership was unprincipled, amoral and opportunistic. Perhaps that was what they wanted. The Americans were supremely confident that with their power and wealth, they could manage such a nation easily. They stuck to their choice and poured billions knowing fully well that their relationship was purely transactional. The US should therefore feel no pangs of guilt because their goal was never to make Pakistan a modern Muslim nation with democracy in a Westphalian architecture. That was simply a ruse to get their things done.

Of course, as Maggie Thatcher quipped about Augusto Pinochet, He might have been an SOB, but he was our SOB"...the US backed any number of nasty regimes over the years, Pak was one...There are no "pangs of guilt" at failing to make them into something substantive, only a realisation of a bet that has gone wrong today...when it worked, it worked perectly for them, Pak help was one of the big executive actions successfuly taken by the US to bring about the downfall of the USSR...The old cold warriors dont keep forgeting that...As Zbigniew B repeatedly says, "what was a mroe worthwhile outcome, having a few mad mullahs or eliminating communism?" or some such...

SSridhar wrote:The so-called 'tilt' towards the Soviet Union did not happen until after 1967. By this time, the US-Pakistan alliance had signed three military treaties and gone through highs and lows. It is inaccurate therefore to talk of any choice between India and Pakistan that had to be made by the US immediately after 1947. India was not available for plucking by anybody and the natural choice had to be Pakistan.

While genetically its true that India wasnt available as an "ally" ever, our tilt towards the SU was evident right from the '50s..the tenor of our denunciation of US "imperialist actions" was markedly sharper than that of our critique, if ever of stuff like the Prague Spring (Inder Malhotra has written beautifully about the events then)...Add to that our leadership of pronouncedly leftist fora like NAM, and the picture is clearer...

Its not as if Pak did not "fish" for soviet support, it did..But quickly realised who was the bigger moneybag (Unlike US, SU was nver big time into "cash transfers")...FOr the US, a willing ally in Pak was far more suitable for its purposes than a principled, quasi-Left India...there was a chance after the China war of course correction, but a combination of events put paid to that...

SSridhar wrote:Fifthly, Pakistan's support for 'fighting communism' is simply laughable. Even being part of SEATO and CENTO, the Pakistanis attempted to forge close relationship with the communist regimes of the Soviets and the Chinese. They succeeded with the Chinese eventually.

For whatever reason, its a fact! Pak allowed fundamental changes to its body polity for that fight in Afghanistan...With unintended consequences, and for very different motivations, but they were fighting the dirty war...Their closeness to the Chinese too was beneficial to them and the US, as China had decided by mid '60s to break with the SU...So whatever their motivations, they did "fight communism" from the perspective of what the US wanted...

They should ponder over the rather contemptuous and intemperate references to India by both Nixon and Kissinger in their dialogues with Maozedung and Chou Enlai in 1971 and understand who tilted where first.

Dont quite blame them...A country high on rhetoric and low on delivery is always subject to such narratives...Their references have changed now!

It would have suited the US in today's context if Pak became soemwhat like India - moderate, econmically buoyant and all that...It isnt..And some of the reasons are bedded in decisions that Pak took in the '50s and more crucially, the '80s...But then, thats just wistful "what might have been"!

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 27 Jun 2011 18:17

Jaspreet wrote:
some sensible policy-making by Ayub Khan's govt
Somnath, what were those policies and what effect did they have? I always thought Pak's prosperity was a function of US money.

It was, to a large extent...But Ayub Khan implemented a bunch of policies that were essentially "with the times"...Deregulating industry, affording protection to domestic private sector at the same time, generally encouraging prictae sector investments, some emphasis on exports..They didnt go the whole hog, or couldnt, whatever..But these were in sharp contrast, by dint of sheer results, to the sort of antediluvianism that had set into Indian policy-making by the early '60s...

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 27 Jun 2011 18:32

"But these were in sharp contrast, by dint of sheer results, to the sort of antediluvianism that had set into Indian policy-making by the early '60s..."

The question may sound naive, but if Pakistan was doing better than India in those years, where is the visible evidence _globally_, in terms of products, services and companies. Why is it, that despite their close ties to the US, Pakistan never developed any South Korean type companies like Samsung, Lucky Goldstar, Hyundai or Dawoo, or even anything comparable to what India has presently, the Tatas, Ambanis, Birlas etc.

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 27 Jun 2011 18:37

They have created a world class terrorism enterprise. Thatwas what they really aimed for and have spectacularly succeeded in it. give credit where it is due. (Btw when is the next fridin? I cant wait to see the 'explosive' growth achieved by TSP on this front)

Jaspreet · Post by **Jaspreet** » 27 Jun 2011 18:41

Why is it, that despite their close ties to the US, Pakistan never developed any South Korean type companies like Samsung, Lucky Goldstar, Hyundai or Dawoo, or even anything comparable to what India has presently, the Tatas, Ambanis, Birlas etc.

Dilbu is correct. Another reason could be, to use an old saying, the US never taught them to fish, it simply supplied them fish.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Jun 2011 18:49

Cosmo_R wrote:^^^Pakistan 1960s-80s: Very true that Pakistan seemed a much better bet during this period. In fact, during the 1960s, the SoKos were using Pakistan as a developmental model!.

Pakis like to say that and I think Ayub Khan says that in his 1959 interview on YouTube. But Pakistan's defence expenditure was completely underwritten by the US at this time while Pakistan was held up as a great model to follow despite not really doing the stuff they had to do. The middlemen, the corruption in arms deals and the filthy rich Pakis were all there in Pakistan at that time - now recorded in memoirs, but ignored by the western media (the only media that used to matter) in those days.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 27 Jun 2011 18:56

Varoon Shekhar wrote:The question may sound naive, but if Pakistan was doing better than India in those years, where is the visible evidence _globally_, in terms of products, services and companies. Why is it, that despite their close ties to the US, Pakistan never developed any South Korean type companies like Samsung, Lucky Goldstar, Hyundai or Dawoo, or even anything comparable to what India has presently, the Tatas, Ambanis, Birlas etc.

One, its not necessary for countries graduating up the economic ladder to have "globally known" brands....Malaysia doesnt, Brazil doesnt (barring Embraer)..Turkey (OECD country) doesnt...Even the Tatas and Ambanis - the global brand recall is the product of the post reforms age...

Two, Pakistan never completed the process...they had a bunch of favourable circumstances and policies - performed well for a time..And outperformed us by some distance..But to be honest, outperforming India in that period was hardly a benchmark ...

Anyways, they could never carry it through...

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 27 Jun 2011 19:02

shiv wrote:But Pakistan's defence expenditure was completely underwritten by the US at this time while Pakistan was held up as a great model to follow despite not really doing the stuff they had to do.

Another of those urban legends...Pakistan received very substantial amounts of US money - but nowhere near underwriting the entire defence budgets...More so after the '65 war....

An account here..
http://www.newsweek.com/2009/10/21/abou ... lions.html

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 27 Jun 2011 19:20

In the meantime, Unkil continues to pepper pureland with drone droppings...

http://www.dawn.com/2011/06/27/six-kill ... trike.html

This particular one creates demand for 744 houris.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 27 Jun 2011 19:28

somnath wrote:
shiv wrote:But Pakistan's defence expenditure was completely underwritten by the US at this time while Pakistan was held up as a great model to follow despite not really doing the stuff they had to do.
Another of those urban legends...Pakistan received very substantial amounts of US money - but nowhere near underwriting the entire defence budgets...More so after the '65 war....

An account here..
http://www.newsweek.com/2009/10/21/abou ... lions.html

Possibly it is better to read what has been written by Shiv and by the way dont the 60's include 60-65.

Hint: Note the year Shiv wrote.

A gap of 6 years in 65-71 is important enough to mention for you when the US has been effectively underwriting the Pakistan army from 50-90 and 2001-till date. i.e. 45 years out of its miserable 60 year existence.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 27 Jun 2011 19:32

Somnath is right, however large it is, it can never underwrite Pakbaric defense budget because that will be over and above whatever Unkil can give as long as enough is left for buying grass for aam abduls....

jrjrao · Post by **jrjrao** » 27 Jun 2011 19:37

JE Menon wrote:Great post SS. Thanx.

On a separate note, anybody knows what exactly is the title of Syed Saleem Shahzad's book, and is it orderable on Amazon...?

JEM, here is the Amazon.com link:

Inside Al-Qaeda and the Taliban: Beyond bin Laden and 9/11

and here is a review:

http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?pa ... 2011_pg3_4

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 27 Jun 2011 19:44

ravi_ku wrote:Possibly it is better to read what has been written by Shiv and by the way dont the 60's include 60-65.

Hint: Note the year Shiv wrote.

A gap of 6 years in 65-71 is important enough to mention for you when the US has been effectively underwriting the Pakistan army from 50-90 and 2001-till date. i.e. 45 years out of its miserable 60 year existence.

Refer to this...

1954 security agreement prompted the United States to provide nearly $2.5 billion in economic aid and $700 million in military aid to Pakistan

700 million over 12 years, thats about 60 million a year...Its a large amount (for those days), but surely not enough to underwrite the entire defence budget...

The big advantage to Pak actually was the other side of aid, economic..Which was the "no questions asked" cash (compared to defence aid, which has to be necessarily used in buying American equipment)...That cash enabled Pak manage its external account, and created some policy flex....

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 27 Jun 2011 20:05

Thx jrjr...

Damn, it's $92!!! WTF?

I hear Allah instructing me to wait for the pdf.

arun · Post by **arun** » 27 Jun 2011 20:09

Good to see India standing firm and foiling the EU’s attempt at palming off part the bill of the Jaziya / Protection Money sought to be paid by the EU to the Islamic Republic onto developing countries :

India’s opposition leads to rejection of EU tariff deal

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Jun 2011 20:10

Between 1956 and 1958 Pakistan received (from the US) over 100 F-86 Sabres and 20 B-57 bombers. In 1960 they got 12 F-104 Starfighters (all this information from John Fricker in his History of the Pakistan Air force a copy of which is on my lap now). Pakistan also received nearly 300 M 47 Patton tanks during this period. And the cost of pilots who went for training courses to the USA and Germany to operate all this is totally covered up in the fog of apologists minds. Of course even if Pakistan spent one Rupee over and above that we would have semantics nazis arguing that the "whole defence budget was not covered". But you can take it as a given that the US pretty much covered Pakistan's defence needs completely, giving them far above what they would have been able to manage and enough to kick Indian ass.

F-86 Sabres in 1956 were like F-22s today - the top dogfight aircraft in the world.

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 27 Jun 2011 20:16

Cosmo_R wrote:^^^Pakistan 1960s-80s: Very true that Pakistan seemed a much better bet during this period. In fact, during the 1960s, the SoKos were using Pakistan as a developmental model!.

IMO, it is just a case of people repeating this and now it is taken as truth and others have to argue against this.

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 27 Jun 2011 20:21

Cosmo_R wrote:^^^Pakistan 1960s-80s: Very true that Pakistan seemed a much better bet during this period. In fact, during the 1960s, the SoKos were using Pakistan as a developmental model!.

May be as a better model for Unkil's Munna making policy.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Jun 2011 20:22

I would suggest folks read Emma Duncan's book "Breaking the Curfew" about the Pak economy and how it is miraculously solvent from foriegn aid/grants/ baksheesh.

saip · Post by **saip** » 27 Jun 2011 20:26

JE Menon wrote:Thx jrjr...

Damn, it's $92!!! WTF?

I hear Allah instructing me to wait for the pdf.

It is for the hard cover. The paper back is 'cheap' at $24!

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 27 Jun 2011 20:28

A hilarious article
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... intcmp=239

Geopolitical thinkers, notably Robert Kaplan, posit that competition between Asian powers, namely China, and the US will grow fiercely in the near future. Through naval and air power, commerce and communication mainly along sea lines will expand vastly, with the Indian Ocean taking centre stage. A critical geostrategic partner in this region could be Pakistan. A re-evaluation of Pakistan's true strategic value requires re-examining current policy towards that country. Sentiment in the US may well be distrusting of the Pakistani security and political establishment, but civil society in Pakistan is showing signs of strengthening, bringing with it a potential for new and reliable partners in the country. And while the Chinese have successfully pinpointed that trade relations with Pakistan win favour with the populace best, China has little capacity to engage the people of Pakistan on the level of ideas.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 27 Jun 2011 20:29

Daniel Estulin, the respected investigator, reports on the 2011 Bilderberg conference.
http://www.domasjefferson.com/news/bild ... les-inside

"China is Pakistan’s new best friend. This is a major geopolitical shift. It comes on the heels of Obama administration approval of aggressive tactics against Pakistan"

"Everyone agreed on the grave danger of general war growing out of the US-Pakistan confrontation.
From geopolitical point of view, the USG is concerned with China´s increased protagonism in the region. China has built a port for Pakistan at Gwadar, which is close to the entrance of the Strait of Hormuz. US delegates expressed concern that the port might become a Chinese naval base on the Arabian Sea. This obviously affects India, US´s new best friend in the region. We have a perfect storm in the making. A nuclear US supporting a 1.2 billion strong nuclear Indian against India´s archenemy, nuclear Pakistan and their new best friend, a 1.4 billion strong nuclear China."

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 27 Jun 2011 20:29

Delhi test for Pak’s young lady minister
http://telegraphindia.com/1110627/jsp/f ... 165283.jsp

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 27 Jun 2011 20:30

JE Menon wrote:Thx jrjr...

Damn, it's $92!!! WTF?

I hear Allah instructing me to wait for the pdf.

paperback seems to be around 25$