All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Suppiah wrote:This sentence alone is enough to highlight the sort of delusions our Pakbaric animal neighbours suffer from...and convince anyone with brains that talking to such a bunch of fools is like talking to a drug addict after he has had a few drinks at the bar..
Pakistan will not exploit the Bangalore silicon valley option or grant the Most Favoured Nation Status to India as long as the Kashmir issue is not resolved.
Chai biskoot lao! We are meeting across the table.
What utter gibberish this article propounds. They don't have the money to run their country and neither the self respect.
and hope for a long drawn out civil war in Pakistan, a pressure cooker like situation.
if they continue in the direction that they are heading, I think they will implode sooner than later. All because of their own policies.
I agree that we have to be ready for a multitude of threat scenarios. Implosion will mean the necessity for them to bind together as one. What better way to bind than the "kashmir" problem or any other Indian "threat".
I am all for multiple chai biskoot sessions while we push them down the slope and also prepare ourselves for any threat scenarios.
Interview with a Paki terrorist in todays NYT, where he admits TSP army support for terrorist groups. This article is interesting not because it reveals anything that BRF did not know decades ago, but by its timing. You would not have seen such an article prior to the OBL killing. Looks like Unkil now has the knives out, and TSP H&D is no longer an issue.
The Pakistani military continues to nurture a broad range of militant groups as part of a three-decade strategy of using proxies against its neighbors and American forces in Afghanistan, but now some of the fighters it trained are questioning that strategy, a prominent former militant commander says
Militant groups, like Lashkar-e-Taiba, Harakat-ul-Mujahedeen and Hizbul Mujahedeen, are run by religious leaders, with the Pakistani military providing training, strategic planning and protection. That system was still functioning, he said.
The former commander’s account belies years of assurances by Pakistan to American officials since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that it has ceased supporting militant groups in its territory. The United States has given Pakistan more than $20 billion in aid over the past decade for its help with counterterrorism operations. Still, the former commander said, Pakistan’s military and intelligence establishment has not abandoned its policy of supporting the militant groups as tools in Pakistan’s dispute with India over the border territory of Kashmir and in Afghanistan to drive out American and NATO forces.
“There are two bodies running these affairs: mullahs and retired generals,” he said. He named a number of former military officials involved in the program, including former chiefs of the intelligence service and other former generals. “These people have a very big role still,” he said.
Maj. Gen. Zaheer ul-Islam Abbasi, a former intelligence officer who was convicted of attempting a coup against the government of Benazir Bhutto in 1995 and who is now dead, was one of the most active supporters of the militant groups in the years after Sept. 11, the former commander said.
Pakistan has 12,000 to 14,000 fully trained Kashmiri fighters, scattered throughout various camps in Pakistan, and is holding them in reserve to use if needed in a war against India, he said.
Yet Pakistan has been losing the fight for Kashmir, and most Kashmiris now want independence and not to be part of Pakistan or India, he said. Since Sept. 11, Pakistan has redirected much of its attention away from Kashmir to Afghanistan, and many Kashmiri fighters are not interested in that fight and have taken up India’s offer of an amnesty to go home.
Personally I dislike words like "implosion", "collapse" etc because they evoke images of a cataclysmic event. Such a catacysmic event is unlikely to occur.
So what else can happen? It is my contention that the "what else?" is already happening. "What else?" is gradual "failure". Failure of governance, failure of the economy, failure to maintain security, and failure of existing social structures - which will be replaced by new social structures.
1. Failure of governance is the failure to implement family planning to reduce the birth rate leading to a continuously increasing population - of whom a greater and greater proportion live "on the edge" where there is poverty and hunger at certain times of the eyar or during droughts and floods. There is a concomitant failure to establish schools and educate children so an increasing large number of children grow into adults who have to live doing the least skilled jobs that require no education oe very little education. At best they may be traders or drivers. Otherwise they become criminals or terrorists.
2. Failure of the economy leads to a runaway number of people who cannot be helped by the state. It aggravates failure of governance and leads to an increasing proportion of people who are ruled by non state elements or who do not comply with state (government) laws. It could also lead to a state backlash where the state "government" could try and enforce its rules on people leading to riots or civil disturbances.
3. Failure to maintain security: This is a result of the above two and arises from an increasingly destitute population, some of whom will take to crime along with a simultaneous breakdown in the ability to maintain police forces or implement the state laws. In Pakistan the state laws are themselves in doubt.
4. Failure of existing social structures - which will be replaced by new social structures: The French Revolution and the Russian revolution were the emergence of new social structures. The emergence of powerful Islamist groups is the same even in Pakistan. A future Pakistani government will be a Lashkar e Toiba government.
Some gems from the C.Fair PDF which has been much discussed...
Pakistan first employed non-state actors in 1947 when numerous lashkars (tribal militias) sought to invade and seize Kashmir with support from mid-level officers in the Pakistani Army
How true..Pakbarians did not become jehadi terrorists after Soviet pullout. They have been barbaric animals to start with, their entire nation founded on principles of fanatic barbarism and hatred..and reliance on terrorism as weapon of choice against Kufrs.
However, it is only after Pakistan and India‘s reciprocal nuclear tests in 1998 that Pakistan became the most brazen both in its use of military and paramilitary troops to prosecute conventional low intensity conflict (e.g. the Kargil conflict of 1999) as well as high profile and coordinated militant attacks within India (including the 2000 LeT attack on New Delhi‘s Red Fort, the 2001 Jaish-e-Mohammad attack on the Indian Parliament, the 2006 LeT attack on Mumbai‘s commuter rail system, and the 2008 Mumbai assault, among dozens of others in recent years)
can anyone be any more clear and forthright about TSP's track record...in mainstream American media/thinktank? Hats off to CF. Note how she says 'Pakistan became' not even TSPA became or ISI became...WKK apologists should hang their heads in shame..
This is an important exculpatory story for Pakistan: how can it be credibly accused of supporting terrorism when it is a victim of the same? However, the vacuity of this assertion is made evident by the simple fact that LeT is not a part of the Pakistani Taliban that are savaging Pakistan and its citizenry.
In other words, the 'we are victims onleee is a lie..
China‘s frustration with this policy was evident in 2009 when it voted with the United Nations Security Council to declare JuD a terrorist organization. China, which is Pakistan‘s staunch ally and provider of nuclear and missile technologies, refused to do so only a year earlier in 2008
Is that true?
LeT is the only organization that is actively challenging the Deobandi orthodoxy that has imperiled the domestic security of the state. LeT is the only militant organization that enunciates the legitimate targets of jihad and the utility of external jihad to the state in a way that the common Pakistani can understand. Thus, LeT‘s doctrine works to secure the integrity of the Pakistani state domestically even while it complicates Pakistan‘s external relations. Pakistan‘s support for this organization seems less puzzling
In other words, LET is the only group that does what ISI tells them to do - eat here and s.it elsewhere...the others dont do that, s.itting where they eat..
Thus the persons that are never deployed outside of Pakistan are not wasted investments: they are employed in the service of LeT‘s domestic mission to counter the Deobandi message of sectarian violence, promote LeT‘s pro-state agenda of external jihad, and cultivate ever more recruits to undergo this cycle of training under LeT‘s auspices
thus create more recruits for all jehadi outfits, not just LET.
This is entirely possible, as many journalists are explicitly on the ISI‘s payroll and routinely plant stories on behalf of the ISI or characterize a story to suit the ISI‘s interests
wonder if CF is including some WKK journos in India in this list..
While India should find some way of addressing the grievances of its own Kashmiri populace as well as that of the Muslims in India elsewhere for its own domestic security (among other domestic reasons),80 arguments for changing the territorial status quo to appease Pakistan are likely misguided as a means to assist Pakistan in putting down LeT....because it would reinforce Pakistan‘s belief that militancy is an effective tool of foreign policy.
Words to be printed in gold and given to each WKK, fake liberal, Stalinst rapist goon turned peacenik....The essense of WKK argument - give them cashmere, they will become nice human beings...is total fallacy..CF asserts in so many words
United States—should abandon its Panglossian optimism that additional foreign assistance or security assistance will shift Pakistan‘s strategic calculus away from using LeT or other militants to service its internal and external goals
No point bribing them to turn humans...they are barbaric animals that would remain that way...
Because the Pakistani diaspora communities and converts to Islam remain important sources of financial support to LeT/JuD and recruits for operations, governments will have to forge sensitive policies that consider the diaspora as an important source of insecurity
even though she is PC enough to add a disclaimer (which I removed), she is very clear - every Pakbaric animal resident in USA/west is a terrorist or a potential terrorist...now that is something even GOI does not openly demand..CF should be made a BRF mod..public lobbying against companies employing Pakis is a must..
The Fair woman articulates from an American perspective. That is as it should be, and as it will continue to be. There is no point in expecting her to do anything from the Indian perspective. On the other hand, her writing has shown how the American perspective is evolving, and that includes saying things they did not deign to say before (in that sense she is at the bleeding edge, saying what govt officials can be expected to say tomorrow if the current downward spiral continues - personally I don't expect it to last long, so these may be the only statements that we have for later exploitation). On the other hand, she has some clear weaknesses, which we can note for later use, if and when the explicit need arises. Meanwhile, we will benefit from her bluntness in stating the American interest and articulating (on some levels) the thinking in some parts of the US establishment...
Keep in mind though that she is not yet by any means a heavyweight where "South Asia" policy is concerned, but she is trying hard to get there. She will if she is proven right consistently. With her current line, she will be for the foreseeable future.
We are always being told that for Pakistan, Kashmir is the core issue. That is humbug. J&K lies in India, is administered by India, so why the khujali in Pakistan's musharaff.
Pakistan's core issue is Pushtun question. Pakistan's insecurities come from Pushtunistan. Pakjabis have had a history, where the Pushtuns have often lorded over them. Pakjab has often been invaded from the Northwest. This makes Pakjabis' worries understandable viz-a-viz Pushtuns.
All that the Pakjabis are doing is waging war on the Afghans because of such past considerations, and because it is always like this, it is difficult to explain war on other Muslim people, Pakjabis have come up with the explanation that their enemy is India, and that they are involved in Afghanistan to fight India in some proxy wars there, all a load of crap.
Pakistan's whole enmity against India is based on a lie. They shout at us but kill in the Northwest. All of it is used to as a cover to kill Pushtuns. They say, they need Afghanistan as strategic depth against India. It is the other way round, they need India as strategic depth against the Pushtun.
Now don't get me wrong. They are our ideological enemies and that enmity runs deep, but the enmity does not have strategic imperatives as Christiane Fair seems to imply. On the other hand, they have a strategic enmity with Afghans, but are ideologically completely in bed with them. Ideology too helps them hide this strategic enmity.
Without an enmity with India, the Pakjabis would be hard put to explain their militarized society, which they use to suppress the Pushtuns. With whichever power in Afghanistan, the Pakjabis have fought, they have always used the Pushtun as cannon fodder, and sacrificed Pushtun lives to line their own pockets. With America's Global War on Terror, Pakjabis were very happy. Pakjabis could still keep a mask, and bring instability and mayhem to the doorstep of the Pushtuns.
Osama bin Laden was ensconsed so long in Pakistan after 2001 under the watchful eyes of ISI, a full-time Pakjabi outfit. Before that OBL was an honored guest of Mullah Omar, another ISI puppet. Post-9/11, when USA demanded that Taliban deliver OBL to USA, the Taliban refused citing some code of hospitality. It is the ISI that didn't allow Taliban to extradite OBL. It was not Taliban that were hosting OBL directly, it was the ISI all along. ISI wanted USA to come into Afghanistan, even if it meant losing their puppets in Kabul for the time being. It is the ISI that has all the time been waging war against USA, including 9/11. For what? Well to keep Pushtuns again under siege, under bombardment, and to keep on getting money from the USA.
The one thing, Pakjabis cannot allow is to let Pushtuns come to peace. For Pakistanis it is important that the Pushtuns be in a constant state of war. Have we not heard reports as to how the Pakistani Army Generals were quite in favor of having USA use the Shamsi Airbase for drone-attacks against the Pushtun. Pakjabis treat Pushtun life as totally worthless. Pushtuns are to be used as pawns. Pushtuns are to be used as cannon-fodder.
So Pushtun are asking, if the Pakjabis have been giving shelter to OBL, as became apparent, why are they being droned and bombed by both Americans and Pakjabis. That is why the cover that the Pakjabis have always been using to hide their war against the Pushtuns is now slowly coming apart. The Pushtun are finding out, that Pakjabis were allowing the Americans to drone them for a crime they did not commit, and in fact for which the Pakjabis are responsible. That is why Pakistan is so pissed off with American. Because by smoking out OBL from his cave in Abbotabad, the Americans have pulled away the mask which the Pakjabis were wearing - that they are not responsible for American war on Afghans.
The Pakjabis could have stopped the war anytime by handing over OBL to the Americans, and the Americans would probably have left Afghanistan. But the Pakjabis did not do that. The Pakjabis could have stopped the drone attacks any time, at least from Pakistani soil, but the Pakjabis did not do that. The Pakjabis could have stopped American supply routes from supplying American troops in Afghanistan, but Pakjabis did not do that.
In fact the Pakjabis invited the Americans into Afghanistan, and brought about the whole war on the Pushtuns.
And it is not just the Americans. It was the ISI, who got the Wahhabi Arabs to come to Afghanistan and find sanctuary there, besides helping out with the Jihad against Soviet Union. The Pakjabis have incessantly followed the policy of Islamizing the Pushtun, making them more radical, and Arabs were a big help there. The Islamization, the Talibanization helped Pakjabis to make the Pushtun forget what they were fighting for, to forget their ethnicity. The Talibanization and OBL drama made Pushtuns who thought locally to start thinking in terms of Global Jihad, something that was of no interest to the Pushtun.
The Pakjabis now believe that they have inculcated so much Islam and anti-Americanism into the Pushtun, that the Pushtun would now start seeing the Pakjabis as their protectors. So Kiyani now does not mind the souring of relations with America, for any souring now, with Kiyani showing balls, would make him a hero, including for the misled Pushtuns. Through the Haqqani network and the Quetta Shura, the Pakjabis again want to subvert Afghanistan and rule over the destinies of Pushtuns.
Getting the Pushtun to rise and demand their own Pushtunistan is the only way, they are going to get rid of Pakjabi yoke.
The enmity with India is a big decoy to punch the Pushtuns, and to radicalize them, without taking any of the blame. That is why the Pakistanis would never give up their enmity with India. Enmity with India gives the Pakjabis a foil to keep the Pushtun areas unstable. When India, USA and the whole world keeps on telling Pakistan, that their main threat is not India but the Taliban, we never get through the message, and we wonder why?
For one thing the message is only half correct. It is true that the various Pushtun tribes under the name TTP have attacked Pakistani establishment, but the world understands that as Islamists trying to take over the place. And the Pakjabis probably just giggle, that our collective hate of Islamism, has made us blind to reality, that it is just a local tussle of power between the Pakjabis and the Pushtuns for control. The Pushtuns use Islam, because their society has been so radicalized, that just demanding Pushtun rights would be considered an affront to the brotherhood of Muslims, and Pushtun fighters would not be sufficiently motivated. Using Islam motivates the Pushtuns to take a punch at the Pakjabis.
Secondly the Pakjabis would never accept that, for that would mean that their Islam can cause divisions, and should they accept that, their Pushtun "countrymen" would accuse the Pakjabis of not believing in the brotherhood of Muslims and thus of being munafiqeen, inviting even more attacks from the Pushtuns who use Islam as a motivator.
Thirdly and more importantly, it would bring Pakjabis dangerously close to losing the carefully woven mask behind which they hide their face and true thoughts - that the Pushtun are the enemy of the Pakjabis and need to be crushed.
So the Pakjabis would keep on repeating that their main enemy remains India. They have nothing to fear from India, but can use the foil.
We Indians too buy that the Pakistanis are so ideologically indoctrinated that they are blinded by hate, and cannot see that we mean them no harm. That is all true, but not the real cause for Pakistan's behavior. Their reasons for alleged enmity with India is a strategic imperative. So Pakistan will use both Enmity with India and Islamism to keep the Pushtun locked up.
To make this strategy credible and possible, Pakistani Establishment had to brainwash itself too, especially as it fitted perfectly with their ambitions in the world.
Why is Pakistan so scared of Indian developmental aid to Afghanistan? They themselves know that India has marginal military and intelligence presence there. India's developmental aid is turning minds in Afghanistan. It is making Afghans, making Pushtun like Indians again. It is proving to the Pushtuns, that India is no enemy of the Pushtun, neither ethnically speaking nor because of Islam.
This makes the job of Pakistanis a lot more difficult to convince their own Pushtun that India is their common enemy. Without the glue of a common enemy, the Pushtuns may simply go their own way and demand a separate Pushtunistan.
So enmity with India helps Pakistan in multiple ways - to keep Pushtuns on their side by projecting India as a common enemy; as well as to impress upon the USA, that Pakistan's nuclear ambitions and erratic ways are all because of India.
If we want the Pakjabis to get off India's back, we need to get Pushtunistan independent.
JEMullah, are you referring to this particular post or CF in general (I am not a scholar of her writings)? Because while I dont expect her not to argue from Unkil perspective, I dont see anything particularly that is NOT from our perspective too particularly the prescription about not surrendering territory in vague hopes of peace...
Suppiah Ji that article should go Page 1 starters. Not only that, she goes right into the doctrinal motivations of the Jihadi mindset of the Pakistani state:
In contrast, the author argues that kafirs outside of Pakistan (Hindus, Jews, Christians, atheists, etc.) are at war with Muslims and worthy of attack. The author writes, ―As long as kafirs have power anywhere in the world, then one can be tormented [by them] for no other reason than being a Muslim. Should anyone want to convert [to Islam], he/she will hesitate out of fear of doing so…You are required to fight until the time when there are no obstacles to becoming a Muslim…God has commanded this.‖67 The author continues to explain that ―As long as Islam is not supreme throughout the world and as long as the laws of Allah are not enforced, fighting kafirs is a duty….I have been commanded to keep fighting them until the kafirs have given proof that there is no other worthy of worship but Allah and that Mohammad is the prophet [e.g. read the Kalma and become ―brothers‖], that they do namaz [pray as a Muslim], and they give zakat [Islamic tithing].‖ 68 The ballast of the volume is in fact a series of arguments that are derived from the Quran, Sunnah and Hadith, 69 that jihad against the external kafir is a compulsory obligation (farz-e-ein).
The author disparages those who agree with the Deobandi assertion that Pakistan is an equally suitable venue for jihad as India. He laments, ―When I hear some Muslim brother who considers India and Pakistan equal for jihad, I feel pity [for him]. I clearly see the Hindus‘ preferred thinking in his mind and the Hindus‘ favorite language in his mouth.‖ 71 This passage is extremely important because it suggests that those who want to conduct violence in Pakistan are doing the Hindus‘ bidding, and by extension servicing India‘s goals ostensibly to see the demise of an independent Pakistan. The author poses another rhetorical question to extend this argument. He asks ―If we protect the building of Islam from the outside through jihad [e.g., protect the ummah outside of Pakistan] and it remains weak from inside [e.g., in Pakistan], the what is the point? Please explain.‖ The author retorts ―My brother, the internal strength of this building will also come through jihad against enemies.‖72 The author explicitly believes that external jihad also serves the supreme interest of the state: its integrity as viable state and nation. The author exhorts that there is only one way to end the domestic violence that has riven Pakistan: fight the external kufar. He concludes that when Pakistanis stop fighting the external kafir, Pakistan will devolve into violence and chaos.
Recommended reading in full.
PS: I think most US strategic experts on SA normally learn on the job and carried their biases. OVer the last 10 years US is having a direct exposure of Pakistani perfidy. Strategic experts unlike before possibly are being asked much deeper questions by Americans in policy circles than they have in the past delved into.
This article is clearly demonstrating CF's evolution up there in understanding of Porki affairs and the motivations behind. From here she will realize the folly of her earlier statements where she was possibly equating the Paki and Indian psyche in fomenting trouble in the neighborhood, e'g the Indian consulates in Afghanistan. I'm prepared to give the the benefit of doubt on the learning curve, if she has written all of that. As they say once you grasp the vision of the truth, you don't go back to falsehood. Lets analyze the next CF articles on how they go. I doubt they'll be off the mark.
shiv wrote:Personally I dislike words like "implosion", "collapse" etc because they evoke images of a cataclysmic event. Such a catacysmic event is unlikely to occur.
So what else can happen? It is my contention that the "what else?" is already happening. "What else?" is gradual "failure". Failure of governance, failure of the economy, failure to maintain security, and failure of existing social structures - which will be replaced by new social structures.
1. Failure of governance is the failure to implement family planning to reduce the birth rate leading to a continuously increasing population - of whom a greater and greater proportion live "on the edge" where there is poverty and hunger at certain times of the eyar or during droughts and floods. There is a concomitant failure to establish schools and educate children so an increasing large number of children grow into adults who have to live doing the least skilled jobs that require no education oe very little education. At best they may be traders or drivers. Otherwise they become criminals or terrorists.
2. Failure of the economy leads to a runaway number of people who cannot be helped by the state. It aggravates failure of governance and leads to an increasing proportion of people who are ruled by non state elements or who do not comply with state (government) laws. It could also lead to a state backlash where the state "government" could try and enforce its rules on people leading to riots or civil disturbances.
3. Failure to maintain security: This is a result of the above two and arises from an increasingly destitute population, some of whom will take to crime along with a simultaneous breakdown in the ability to maintain police forces or implement the state laws. In Pakistan the state laws are themselves in doubt.
4. Failure of existing social structures - which will be replaced by new social structures: The French Revolution and the Russian revolution were the emergence of new social structures. The emergence of powerful Islamist groups is the same even in Pakistan. A future Pakistani government will be a Lashkar e Toiba government.
I agree I have used the word "implosion" in a rather loose sense, but justifiable because the collapse under discussion, is in my opinion, due to none of the four factors above but a 5th factor
Proxy wars and "uprisings" have been an instrument of Pakistan's state policy. Right from 1947 to 1999, in some form or other.
Added to that (5):
a) there has been an acceleration in the freedom that these proxies have been entitled to during and post the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.
b) Post the Russian withdrawal, proxy has been used to control Afghanistan to give them "strategic depth". The import of outside influences of all nationalities and the growth to the "pure of the purest". In parallel the growing use of proxy to project a local "uprising" in Kashmir.
c)Then came 9/11. The gun at their forehead co-existing with $$$ which the common man did not see much of personally or in terms of better governance. Such governance and infrstructure building being inversely proportional to the passage of time. The US pressure led to contradictions. Good and bad proxies. Duplicity. A sordid mess.
This woven together with a common thread of their fixation with Kashmir over the decades, their propaganda and refusal to come to terms with reality, the duplicity being ingrained in their psyche, the myths they have surrounded themselves with like their superiority as a religion and race. Add to that, with their own complicity, having well trained and armed proxies in their midst, the reported sympathisers of such proxies in their military, is in my opinion, a recipe for a blood filled disaster. Unfortunate, but plausible.
Having dealt with Pakistanis on a friendly basis since during the early 80's, I find a sea change in their attitude. A description of that would be O/T for this thread.
Power crisis: 2 dead, 30 wounded as police fire on protesters
LAHORE: More than 30 people were wounded Monday when police opened fire to disperse thousands furiously protesting against crippling power outages in Pakistan, officials said.Additionally, Express 24/7 reported two deaths as a result of the protest.
A crowd of about 8,000 people took to the streets in Mianwali city and some later attacked government buildings, shops and pelted police with stones, Mohammad Waqas Nazir, city police chief, told AFP.
Police charged the crowd with batons and lobbed tear gas shells to quell a mob who had smashed billboards and attacked vehicles, he said.
shiv wrote:. . . although she does say that "solving the Cashmere issue won't change things between Pakistan and LeT" This could be interpreted as "Solve Cashmere and try to break India up into a thousand pieces - or at least arm and fund Pakisan to do that and maybe our whore will cooperate. Merely solving Cashmere won't help"
I interpret Ms. Fair's statement that you have mentioned to mean: Solving Cashmere is a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition for changing the Pakistani course.
ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - The Pakistan army said on Monday it had launched an air and ground offensive in Kurram region on the Afghan border, its first major military operation since the May 2 killing of Osama bin Laden.
Army spokesman Major General Athar Abbas gave few details of the operation in Kurram -- a tribal region which had become increasingly used as a refuge for al Qaeda-linked militants.
But he said the offensive aimed to reopen the road to Parachinar, a Shi'ite town on the Afghan border which has been cut off from the rest of Pakistan and facing increasing attacks from Islamist militants.
"The operation has been launched with the aim of clearing the region of militants who have indulged in kidnapping and suicide attacks on security installations and forces there," military spokesman Abbas said.
The offensive came days after a senior militant commander in Kurram deserted from the Pakistani Taliban.
Commander Fazal Saeed Haqqani, who was close to the Haqqani network but not from the same group, said he disagreed with attacks on Pakistani security forces and civilians.
rajanb wrote:
Having dealt with Pakistanis on a friendly basis since during the early 80's, I find a sea change in their attitude. A description of that would be O/T for this thread.
No offence intended - but the last time you said that you would write up something for BR (about the Kalaikunda dogfight) you never did it - so I suppose i had better not ask you why you aroused my curiosity because you have already decided against writing about your experience with Pacquis
RajeshA wrote:
Why is Pakistan so scared of Indian developmental aid to Afghanistan? They themselves know that India has marginal military and intelligence presence there. India's developmental aid is turning minds in Afghanistan. It is making Afghans, making Pushtun like Indians again. It is proving to the Pushtuns, that India is no enemy of the Pushtun, neither ethnically speaking nor because of Islam.
Indian development will bring Indians closer to the Afghan population. This is the main thing they want to avoid and make sure that Afghan people completely lose touch with Indians. This has happened from 1970 till 2001. Indians have lost its connection to regions in Afghanistan, east of Indus and most of Pakistan area. Indians need to bring the connection back into these region.
TSP is one of the few countries of the world which has two important borders, both of whom are disputed and both are unnatural. Unnatural = there is really no physical, historical, cultural reason for those lines to exist. These lines exist becuase of colonial shenanigans. The Radcliffe line due to British mendacity, and the Durand Line becuase of British/Ranjit-Singh strategums.
The Durand line runs across villages and mountains in a manner which is basically unsustainable. Such lines cannot last for too long. The desire to control A'stan comes from this line (as most people have noted). Plus the Pakjabis have figured out that killing Muslims (or getting them killed, and abetting their killing) can co-exist quite well with the rhetoric of protecting Islam. India should have called them up on their lies, but hasn't.
Their attitudes towards Pashtuns are interesting: They despise them and look down upon them. They are thought as backward, fanatic, unruly, and lovers of anal love. But they are also feared and extolled by Pakjabis for their sheer courage and bravery. This combination of derision+admiration drives the Pakjabi to use them as cannon fodder. Afghans have realized it quite well. The Pashtuns of NWFP probably haven't still woken up. That is where the Pashtun massacre post-911 by Pakjabis needs to be highlighted. Detailed list of actions of Pakjabi army needs to be complied and presented to show that this is a Pakjabi sponsored pogrom.
Y I Patel wrote:Rajan, some time ago Ramana had asked why Pakistan is so furious at the US raid that killed OBL. When I tried to come up with an explanation for that, the conclusion was that US and Pakistan are at cross purposes for the first time since creation of Pakistan.
If we think about it, US did not have to reveal so quickly that it had taken OBL out. And there was no call, per se, for Obama to say so openly that the raid was carried out without Pakistan's cooperation. So why did he chose to do so?
I am no Obama fan, and my first inclination was to view it as grandstanding. But later it sank in that he said it really with the Talibaan in mind, and the message was that no one would be safe from US, AND that US did not need Pakistan's help to carry out it's agenda. Given the ongoing US negotiations with the Talibaan, the message was that the Talibaan should not rely on their creators for their continued well being or for considering cooperation with US.
For just these reasons, the successful raid is a huge strategic loss to Pakistan. As US forces withdraw from Afghanistan, Pak and US interests in AfPak will increasingly be on the collision course. A gaping void is opening up, and while there will undoubtedly be efforts to paper it up, things will no longer be the same. Which is why Let might eventually be given a new strategic orientation.
The other message is that Pak army is also under the cross hair now and they can anlso be on the target. Pak army and the myth of total support from US mil against its enemy India is totally gone. In the eyes of the ordinary Paki the Pak mil has lost its main support base and invincibility. Now Pak army is the hunted.
rajanb wrote:
Having dealt with Pakistanis on a friendly basis since during the early 80's, I find a sea change in their attitude. A description of that would be O/T for this thread.
No offence intended - but the last time you said that you would write up something for BR (about the Kalaikunda dogfight) you never did it - so I suppose i had better not ask you why you aroused my curiosity because you have already decided against writing about your experience with Pacquis
Shiv. I admire your knowledge and what a memoryyou have.
About the Pakis, it is personally a sad story. of how, a once liberal family, one of the rich and famous 22 families of those days, became such bigots!
I must grab some time to write the kalaikunda one. I am in touch with an ex-naval officer who was my hostel mate in those days who can jog my memory to make it as accurate as possible. Will write it for sure.
SSridhar wrote:I interpret Ms. Fair's statement that you have mentioned to mean: Solving Cashmere is a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition for changing the Pakistani course.
BossGaru or BossNauRae or Tallaivare (depending on whether you speak Telugu, Kannada, or Tamil ), you were not serious were you whjen you say solving Cashmere witout quotes. I would say "solving Cashmere" because you know TSP's version of "solution" is a hand over of the valley on a silver platter, not some reasonable solution, as if there needs to be one but for their perfidy in stoking trouble and terror.
Pakistan's place in all this (AfPak mess) was as a country that had a choice to make - in the immortal words of George W. Bush, "you're either with us, or you're against us." The U.S. made clear to Pakistan's former dictator, general/president Pervez Musharraf, that it expected Pakistan to unstintingly support Western efforts to subdue the threat coming from Afghanistan.
It hasn't quite worked out that way...as has become increasingly clear, elements of the Pakistani government and the much more influential military establishment have, to put it politely, played a double game when it has come to confronting Islamic extremism. The sheltering of Osama bin Laden is the most well-known instance of this, but there have been others.
To some, this is evidence of duplicity and deceit on the part of Islamabad. To others, it is merely evidence that the situation in Pakistan is extremely complex, with multiple levels of actors and conflicting imperatives, not least the fact that the Pakistani government has never entirely controlled its own territory. How you assess the situation has much to do with your level of sympathy for Pakistan's strategic problems - or with how much you think that Pakistan's own policies and internal instabilities have brought those problems about and made them worse.
Whatever your sympathies, the clear change in U.S. policy toward the region in the past few years is a growing recognition that the threat to the West emanates not so much from Afghanistan as it does from Pakistan. This has profound implications for strategy.
...thus the circle is complete; a mission that began with the U.S. expectation of unreserved Pakistani support to help subdue dangerous elements in Afghanistan, now transitions into one where Afghan cooperation will be critical in helping the U.S. to maintain the long-term military presence that it believes it requires to deal with growing uncertainty and danger in Pakistan.
Thanks to jjrao who first posted this, but my first reaction reading this report was a resignated grin. I mean this "revelation" that NYT is trotting out now was hammered home by India decades ago. But at that time, it was India alleges, TSP denies, the standard by-line in every NYT report and other western rags. Thus, I take that quote about Kashmiris wanting out of both India & TSP and wanting indepence with another pinch of salt written from a US perspective.
We all know Amercians and Brits would love to ride their white horses in downtown Srinagar, with the so called "azzadi" and "independece" loving Kashmiri Muslims licking their boots and asses for the $s and other goodies thrown at them. So NYT pushing this independence line must be seen in this regard. None of the westren b#$%tards have the conscientiousness or the honesty or the simple decency to admit that SDRE Indians were right along, that SDREs are the aggrieved party and suffered at the henious crimes and perfidy inflicted on them by their TSP all-lies.
We are always being told that for Pakistan, Kashmir is the core issue. That is humbug. J&K lies in India, is administered by India, so why the khujali in Pakistan's musharaff.
Pakistan's core issue is Pushtun question. Pakistan's insecurities come from Pushtunistan. Pakjabis have had a history, where the Pushtuns have often lorded over them. Pakjab has often been invaded from the Northwest. This makes Pakjabis' worries understandable viz-a-viz Pushtuns.
All that the Pakjabis are doing is waging war on the Afghans because of such past considerations, and because it is always like this, it is difficult to explain war on other Muslim people, Pakjabis have come up with the explanation that their enemy is India, and that they are involved in Afghanistan to fight India in some proxy wars there, all a load of crap.
Pakistan's whole enmity against India is based on a lie. They shout at us but kill in the Northwest. All of it is used to as a cover to kill Pushtuns. They say, they need Afghanistan as strategic depth against India. It is the other way round, they need India as strategic depth against the Pushtun.
Without an enmity with India, the Pakjabis would be hard put to explain their militarized society, which they use to suppress the Pushtuns. With whichever power in Afghanistan, the Pakjabis have fought, they have always used the Pushtun as cannon fodder, and sacrificed Pushtun lives to line their own pockets. With America's Global War on Terror, Pakjabis were very happy. Pakjabis could still keep a mask, and bring instability and mayhem to the doorstep of the Pushtuns.
Pakistan is so pissed off with American. Because by smoking out OBL from his cave in Abbotabad, the Americans have pulled away the mask which the Pakjabis were wearing - that they are not responsible for American war on Afghans.
For one thing the message is only half correct. It is true that the various Pushtun tribes under the name TTP have attacked Pakistani establishment, but the world understands that as Islamists trying to take over the place. And the Pakjabis probably just giggle, that our collective hate of Islamism, has made us blind to reality, that it is just a local tussle of power between the Pakjabis and the Pushtuns for control. The Pushtuns use Islam, because their society has been so radicalized, that just demanding Pushtun rights would be considered an affront to the brotherhood of Muslims, and Pushtun fighters would not be sufficiently motivated. Using Islam motivates the Pushtuns to take a punch at the Pakjabis.
We Indians too buy that the Pakistanis are so ideologically indoctrinated that they are blinded by hate, and cannot see that we mean them no harm. That is all true, but not the real cause for Pakistan's behavior. Their reasons for alleged enmity with India is a strategic imperative. So Pakistan will use both Enmity with India and Islamism to keep the Pushtun locked up.
This makes the job of Pakistanis a lot more difficult to convince their own Pushtun that India is their common enemy. Without the glue of a common enemy, the Pushtuns may simply go their own way and demand a separate Pushtunistan.........If we want the Pakjabis to get off India's back, we need to get Pushtunistan independent.
Just some thoughts
Hi Rajeshji,
This post hits the nail on it's head. The Kashmir problem is a disguise for the Pashtoon problem. It's all about the Durand line and keeping the Pashtoons occupied and are used as cannon fodder. The Bogey of Islam is raised to unite them to do the bidding for Pakjabis. I wrote something similar around a year back in BRF.
Durand Line is the paranoia that drives pakistan to create the 'Indian/Hindu hatred'. They can never lt the Pashtoons unite. TTP alo faces the same problem. There are so many internal fissures or warring tribes that they can't be united for anything except islamic cause so the 'Munafiq' call for the Pakjabi Army.
Pakhtoonkhwa will create the basis of erasing the Durand line and solve Pakistan problem for India.
Fast-forward to June 2011 and Dr Shireen Mazari is giving a talk from the STR platform on “The security route to cooperation.” Of the four initiatives, or CBMs as she calls them, the first is intrinsically similar in spirit to the one proposed by Mr Aminuddin back in 2004. After “some movement on Kashmir,” of which she discerns signs within the Indian civil society and human rights organisations, and after display of political will by the governments of India and Pakistan for settlements to the Siachin and Sir Creek issues, Dr Mazari unveils the centrepiece of “the security route to cooperation” between India and Pakistan: joint nuclear-power generation. She says by way of explanation: “After all, both Pakistan and India are conventional energy-deficient states and both are overt nuclear powers. So, there is no reason not to cooperate in the field of civil nuclear energy, with both countries sharing joint control of the relevant technology.” She also says that “the civil reactors built jointly for this purpose could be along the Indo-Pakistani border which would, in turn, add to their security also. Civil nuclear cooperation is not just a CBM, but an actual economic multiplier.”
IMO, facing Balochi separatism of their own, Iran would not promote that in Pakistan, and therefore would not tolerate alleged Indian mischief that was so obvious to CChristineFair. My question to her went unanswered- what are Iran's strategic goals w.r.t. Pak. Baluchistan?
The longer Pakis keep their collective heads in the sand regarding Kashmir, the better for us. They only make our job easier, just like East Pakistan where they did all the damage and we came in to finish it off. When the shit hits the fan, we'll be there to laugh !!!
Nihat wrote:The longer Pakis keep their collective heads in the sand regarding Kashmir, the better for us. They only make our job easier, just like East Pakistan where they did all the damage and we came in to finish it off. When the shit hits the fan, we'll be there to laugh !!!
The Pak strategy is a psy ops strategy. It is to keep the people of US to support them and in their grievence. Check how uneven and other keep telling Indians that India can become great with "solving" kashmir.
It is a tag team of Uncle and Pak with global media to talk about "kashmir" all the time. It has no bearing on the state of affiars of Pakistan and its economy.
Good news for Poakhattustani people. One SDRE temple in south India has more reserve money than Poaku desh. 190 Muslims of Pakistan=one small Hindu temple in india.
Last edited by Prem on 05 Jul 2011 00:56, edited 1 time in total.
Prem wrote:Good news for Poakhattustani people. One small temple in south India has more reserve money than Poaku desh. 190 Muslims of Pakistan=one small Hindu temple in india.
I think Fair is just making the too-big-to-fail mixed with some there-is-no-alternative argument in favor or LeT. That argument is very popular in the US in the last few years. Its a different strategy, no doubt, but the endgoal seems to be - look these guys are like this only and we just have to suck it up and deal with them. The real elephant in the room is the idea of TSP - TSP ka matlab kyaa, la ilaah illilaah. The rest is just maya only.
), you were not serious were you whjen you say solving Cashmere witout quotes. I would say "solving Cashmere" because you know TSP's version of "solution" is a hand over of the valley on a silver platter, not some reasonable solution, as if there needs to be one but for their perfidy in stoking trouble and terror.