Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 2011

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Sep 2011 05:47

abhijitm wrote:
“In choosing to use violent extremism as an instrument of policy, the government of Pakistan, and most especially the Pakistani army and ISI, jeopardizes not only the prospect of our strategic partnership but Pakistan's opportunity to be a respected nation with legitimate regional influence,” he said.
I dont remember such blunt unambiguous official US statement directly accusing pakistan gov, army of using terrorism as an instrument of policy. It deserves a place on the first page of TSP dhaga.

Well, I am a skeptic here. In general, having become accustomed to the US sucking up to Pakistan we tend to view such words as a sign of hope that the US may change its 60 year old policy of assisting Pakistan. It is so easy to read Mullen's warning and shout with joy and triumph and yet miss the final words he said:

But he said he did not believe he had wasted his time by pouring so much effort into improving ties with Pakistan’s government.

“I've done this because I believe that a flawed and difficult relationship is better than no relationship at all,” he said. “Some may argue I've wasted my time, that Pakistan is no closer to us than before, and may now have drifted even further away. I disagree. Military cooperation again is warming.”

Other than a few strongish words spoken by a tired old man - whose efforts have failed. There is not much else here.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Sep 2011 05:49

stryker wrote:The US has finally realized that the Pakis are lifelong and committed terrorists who hate the civlized way of life of most of the rest of the world.

No. Nothing of the sort. The US is behaving exactly like India. A few people who are affected by Pakistani terrorism and perfidy take a strong view against Pakistan. For the rest it is friendship and love.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 23 Sep 2011 05:51

All Roads Lead to Islamabad: If the killing of peace negotiator Burhanuddin Rabbani and the attacks on Kabul tell us anything, it's that peace in Afghanistan will only come when Pakistan wants it.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Sep 2011 05:58

putnanja wrote:The pakis have perfected the art of state sponsorship of terrorist organizations. No doubt the multiple groups like LeT, JeM, HuJi etc against India provided valuable experience. India tolerated all these groups for multitude of reasons. And the US was always advocating restraint on India. Now that the pakis true to their nature, are attacking the NATO/US troops using the same proxy method, wonder what the US will do now.

I don't see any way out but the total destruction of paki army structures and rebuilding it.

Both India and the US seem to believe that what comes after the Pakistan army is worse than what we have had so far. Not a single India strategist or thinker has explained why India believes that what comes after the Pakistan army would be worse.

Even if the US chose to arm and fund the Taliban like it has armed and funded the Pakistan army, why would it be worse for India? Why are Indians buying this crap? Or at least someone put me in my place and explain why a Taliban take over in Pakistan is worse for India than the current hostile dispensation?

It may be worse for the USA. But the US chose the Pakistan army as its friend and is being loyal to that friend. The "hedging of bets" by Paki army is because they are being loyal to their other friend the Taliban. Is it the Pakistan army's fault that the Taliban don't like the US?

But none of them like India. The only difference between Paki army and Taliban is that Paki armygets US aid directly. Taliban gets it indirectly from Paki army. Would some Indian "strategist" please tell me why we buy this "Taliban takeover would be worse" business? I have some thoughts but will post later

Anindya · Post by **Anindya** » 23 Sep 2011 06:02

In general, having become accustomed to the US sucking up to Pakistan we tend to view such words as a sign of hope that the US may change its 60 year old policy of assisting Pakistan. It is so easy to read Mullen's warning and shout with joy and triumph

In general, I agree with you.

Pakistan lives on this kind of brinkmanship and has become reasonably good at this, for short term results. The US, which shares little in terms of strategic goals with India, will again reward Pakistan for bad behavior.

One observation from the local chaiwallah, was that we Indians were surprised after 26/11, to see how well the Pakistanis had war-gamed all of the possible consequences for steps that India could take. In spite of having Kasab and a fair amount of evidence, against Pakistan, in the end, India did back down from all its demands around 26/11 and did indeed bend over backwards for "peace" on Pakistani terms.

Note, the only discussion on Kashmir now seems to be focused on the status of the valley, while Pakistan overtly supports the JeM and LeT, gives up control of PoK to China, with India making little mention of PoK. India also goes out of its way to guarantee that bomb attacks in India are completely dissociated from Pakistan. The Samjhauta farce has also been explicitly brought into play, to reduce any implications of Pakistani perfidy.

Have you seen any Canadian, British or US elected leader visit and speak to key faction leaders in PoK in recent months, but they have all visited the valley and held independent talks.

It is in this context, the present brinkmanship has to be seen - Pakistan will raise the bar on this and escalate for a few more weeks, before actually compromising, with some thing on Kashmir or India-specific thrown in, to guarantee a face saving exit for the US from Afghanistan.

Expect the results of this approach to start showing up from some-time early next year onwards.

parsuram · Post by **parsuram** » 23 Sep 2011 06:09

Ramana Guru Ji

Re:

So don't those fathers know all that? And yet give homilies to India.

Ya. Now. Now they are oh, so wise. they know everything, they could teach India about the pain of terrorism. Zeal of the convert has stricken them. Besides, they never, never ever, thought that their primary proxy was going to - well, you know. It is hard to say. But now that munna has turned against them, they have to be pragmatic. They have seen the terrain and the jehaadi mindset first hand. It is important to deny those animals access to the sea. They will leave, for it is fruitless to waste their lives and their treasure on such animals endlessly, but not without securing their interests. That much is for sure. Question is, how best to secure their interests. I would think, an end to the paki habitat as we have known it. The paki as we have known it, cannot be changed, but its geographical range can be circumscribed. Such circumcission, they will do, imo.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 23 Sep 2011 06:14

The Taliban have no desire to be considered civilized by the West or by the Ummah. The Pakistani generals are somewhat constrained in that regard. Pakistan as it is has honored some treaties for some time. The Taliban are not known for honoring any agreement, even with fellow Islamists.

The Taliban are therefore unpredictable, and pose more of a threat.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Sep 2011 06:15

abhishek_sharma wrote:All Roads Lead to Islamabad: If the killing of peace negotiator Burhanuddin Rabbani and the attacks on Kabul tell us anything, it's that peace in Afghanistan will only come when Pakistan wants it.

Yes. That's more like an honest description of who controls whom.

Obama okays 1 billion to Pakistan as well as 161 million. Only 100 million held back
Mullen says military ties with Pakistan are "warming" even as he has a pre-retirement rant
Shuja Pasha is in and out of Washington for "talks"
Pakistan's role praised
Kiyani gets an award from a NATO country for his work in the war on terror
NATO Tankers being attacked as usual
Burhanuddin Rabbani killed
Karzai's brother killed
US embassy in Afghanistan attacked
US Chinook shot down, SEAL killed
US talking to Russia, China, Kazakhstan whoever to desperately get supplies to their troops

Guess who's winning?

Kanishka · Post by **Kanishka** » 23 Sep 2011 06:20

abhishek_sharma wrote:... peace in Afghanistan will only come when Pakistan wants it.

The only way to ensure peace is to inflict enormous amount of pain on Pakistan. Pakistan needs to burn and glow. No compromises. It is only then the followers of "religion of peace" may actually want to live in peace.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Sep 2011 06:32

Anindya wrote: In general, I agree with you.

Pakistan lives on this kind of brinkmanship and has become reasonably good at this, for short term results. The US, which shares little in terms of strategic goals with India, will again reward Pakistan for bad behavior.

One observation from the local chaiwallah, was that we Indians were surprised after 26/11, to see how well the Pakistanis had war-gamed all of the possible consequences for steps that India could take. In spite of having Kasab and a fair amount of evidence, against Pakistan, in the end, India did back down from all its demands around 26/11 and did indeed bend over backwards for "peace" on Pakistani terms.

Note, the only discussion on Kashmir now seems to be focused on the status of the valley, while Pakistan overtly supports the JeM and LeT, gives up control of PoK to China, with India making little mention of PoK. India also goes out of its way to guarantee that bomb attacks in India are completely dissociated from Pakistan. The Samjhauta farce has also been explicitly brought into play, to reduce any implications of Pakistani perfidy.

Have you seen any Canadian, British or US elected leader visit and speak to key faction leaders in PoK in recent months, but they have all visited the valley and held independent talks.

It is in this context, the present brinkmanship has to be seen - Pakistan will raise the bar on this and escalate for a few more weeks, before actually compromising, with some thing on Kashmir or India-specific thrown in, to guarantee a face saving exit for the US from Afghanistan.

Expect the results of this approach to start showing up from some-time early next year onwards.

Good post. The fact that India is a weak state which is unable to play the few cards it might have is clear. But what is interesting in your post is the fact that the US needs to molycoddle Pakistan for a "face saving exit from Afghanistan". This fact does not get well with the US's popular reputation as a country that would be able to dominate anyone.

So we have here an India that bends to Pakistani demands, and a US too that has to meet Pakistani demands to save its own face and exit. If there is any truth to what you have said it only means hat Pakistan holds some powerful cards that neither India nor the US can face up to and defeat. To me this is as clear as crystal although most people seem unwilling to recognise the US's position with regard to Pakistan as "weak", which is exactly what it is.

We need to accept reality before we can plan for the future.

If as you say:

The US, which shares little in terms of strategic goals with India

It means that the US has no allies in the region. India has no allies in the region. Pakistan has the US and China as allies.

In order to change this balance of power scenario to "fit in"with a picture of US strength, people tend to concoct a story where Pakistan, which opposes the US now, suddenly changes and becomes a true US ally. I will point that out the next time anyone says that. Pakistan dominates the US and does not need an "alliance". It is India that needs allies. The US is a superpower and (according to some) can "do anything" - so I guess their alliances don't matter.

Doesn't all this make perfect sense?

parsuram · Post by **parsuram** » 23 Sep 2011 06:58

A_Gupta wrote:The Taliban have no desire to be considered civilized by the West or by the Ummah. The Pakistani generals are somewhat constrained in that regard. Pakistan as it is has honored some treaties for some time. The Taliban are not known for honoring any agreement, even with fellow Islamists.

The Taliban are therefore unpredictable, and pose more of a threat.

Gupta Ji: More of a threat to those who consider them predictable wrt to agreements etc. Actually, they are less of a threat because, paradoxically, they are always a threat. They force you to look out for your own interests at all times, expecting a taliban attack from any quarter, by any means, uninhibited by any international convention, bilateral agreement, whatever. Once you are prepared to defend yourself on all quarters, and, by necessecity, on occasion, go on the offensive by any means, then just based on the disparity in resources, training and experience, you will win. So yes, a talibani paki stan is much more desirable from India's point of view. Nothing may have changed in the US - paki equation, but perhaps, there is a new reality in Afghanistan that India needs to accomodate (just as the US is accomodating it).

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Sep 2011 07:22

parsuram, Look back in history. Ranjit Singh stopped the Ghilzai/Durrani marauding and brought peace to Pakjab and beyond after centuries. The British got the area after the Anglo-Punjab wars.
The TSPA with its tactical brilliance has now opened the gates to Ghilzai marauders now called Taliban. They deserve what they want.
And the US was always supporting them to preserve them as their M(u)NNA. They also get what they deserve.

After some decades they will all get settled down and life goes on.

Am reading Zaeef's "My Life with Taliban"

Recommend geting hold of it to gain insight in the tribal kinship patterns.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 23 Sep 2011 07:26

The Pakistani generals can be kept in check by their desire for all the benefits of modern technological civilization. The Taliban would be happy in a cave.

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 23 Sep 2011 07:52

shiv wrote:
Doesn't all this make perfect sense?

I am sorry it does not. Give the Pakis a couple of weeks, they will climb down for the umpteenth time.

parsuram · Post by **parsuram** » 23 Sep 2011 08:02

Shiv Ji:

Re:

It means that the US has no allies in the region. India has no allies in the region. Pakistan has the US and China as allies.

There was a time. For a short period. And people berated the Indian govt and the woman who ran it for destroying "nonalignment". India needs allies. Russia and Afghanistan are our natural allies. Lets start with Russia. Start with signing some contracts for nuclear power and fuel. A bilateral security agreement with Russia would also be part of that good start. Then a cooperation on Space research. Russia has a lot to offer. It just wants to be paid a good price for it. give it to them. Offer them naval facilities. All that expansion in bilateral security & other strategic ties is bound to help. It is not entirely a given that the US has the best tech in everything in the world. Even if it is, getting second or even third best is not that shoddy. Take what come with a Russian alliance. As for Afghanistan, look ahead to US departure. Renew the ties with Northern Alliance along with Russia, (and again, possibly with Iran, as it was through the 90s). MMS govt is a joke. It will take a huge effort to undo the damage this man (?) has done to India. Does not matter - whether by fair means, or via vote rigging or other means necessary, we need a change of govt in Delhi.

PS, re:

parsuram, Look back in history. Ranjit Singh stopped the Ghilzai/Durrani marauding and brought peace to Pakjab and beyond after centuries. The British got the area after the Anglo-Punjab wars.

Ramana Ji: I am aware of Ranjeet Singh's destruction of Afghan power. I had a (great)^3 grand father who participated, and a great uncle who did under the British, but with less than satisfactory results. As for paki strategic brilliance, it also extends to the Iranians, who, for over two thousand years were secure on their east, until the paki came along...

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Sep 2011 08:11

I know thats why I quoted the example!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Sep 2011 08:17

Here are some "commonly accepted facts". They may or may not be 100% true, but I will state them as if they are true and see what conclusions that might lead towards.

1. The US has no common strategic interest with India. The US wants to keep India down
2. The US and Pakistan share common strategic interests
3. China seeks to dominate India
4. China and Pakistan have common strategic interests
5. Pakistan hates India and seeks to dominate/defeat India
6. The Taliban and Pakistan army are allies
7. The Taliban hate the US
8. The US is trying to engineer a split between the Taliban and Pakistan, seeking to keep the Pakistani army on the side of the US
9. The Taliban hate India
10. The Taliban are loosely allied with Islamists. Islamists are acting against Chinese, US and Indian interests
11. Everyone is against India.

Given the above facts here are India's options:

1. Fight no one and capitulate to everyone. This is the route that India is seen as taking. How far it will go and how much of India will be handed over to this formidable bunch of adversaries is yet to be seen, but it is not unreasonable to assume the worst.

2. Fight everyone: results - same as above. So this can be ignored as an option.

3. Fight the weakest of India's adversaries. Hindus are the weakest. But if we say that Hindus must not be fought and one of groups in the above list should be fought instead, whom should India fight?

a. Fight the US: The US is superpower and will defeat India even without fighting. They can defeat India via Pakistan. This is not a good fight to start.

b. Fight China: China is a budding superpower with a 1 Trillion dollar economy with 400 megaton nukes aimed at India. India does not stand a chance. This is not a good fight to start.

c. Fight Pakistan: Pakistan is nominally militarily weaker but is supported by the US and China and by Indian traitors who want to put Hindus down and see the victory of anyone but Hindus in India. This is a historic legacy that India has. India will not fight Pakistan. it does not have the will. In any case the military superiority may be a myth.

d. Fight Islamists: This will help the US and China. India does not have the will for this. Not possible and bad idea

e. Fight Taliban: How? Where? What is the point? It will only help the US. If Taliban is pro Pakistan then we will lose. if Taliban is anti-Pakistan then it would be a mistake to oppose the Taliban.

India should support a Taliban take over of Pakistan. Either it will make no difference to us, or it will be better for us.

Nothing has changed in my view. And if the above list of 11 points are true then India stands to gain from supporting the Taliban. The whole picture changes if the US is not anti India.

parsuram · Post by **parsuram** » 23 Sep 2011 08:18

Ramana ji: Thanks for remembering. btw, did you get a copy of a ms of mine?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Sep 2011 08:26

No. Can you send me/ I think you still have my yahoo address.

shiv, Are there Freudian slips in your eleven points?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Sep 2011 08:30

parsuram wrote: There was a time. For a short period. And people berated the Indian govt and the woman who ran it for destroying "nonalignment". India needs allies. Russia and Afghanistan are our natural allies. Lets start with Russia. Start with signing some contracts for nuclear power and fuel. A bilateral security agreement with Russia would also be part of that good start. Then a cooperation on Space research. Russia has a lot to offer. It just wants to be paid a good price for it. give it to them. Offer them naval facilities. All that expansion in bilateral security & other strategic ties is bound to help. It is not entirely a given that the US has the best tech in everything in the world. Even if it is, getting second or even third best is not that shoddy. Take what come with a Russian alliance. As for Afghanistan, look ahead to US departure. Renew the ties with Northern Alliance along with Russia, (and again, possibly with Iran, as it was through the 90s). MMS govt is a joke. It will take a huge effort to undo the damage this man (?) has done to India. Does not matter - whether by fair means, or via vote rigging or other means necessary, we need a change of govt in Delhi.

Parsuram. India has close ties with Russia already. With Russia's new found oil wealth they don't need Indian money so much, but they do need to keep their strategic industries going. India is doing a fair amount there. Any closer alliances will depend on how much they need us. We are sticking to them despite some turbulence. After the cold war Russia is amenable to US pressure too and takes western treaties like MTCR seriously. Russia is also wary of China and India may serve as a counterweight to China. But that means a thrust towards Afghanistan would be wrong for both Russia and India.

India has very few options in Afghanistan. Soft power is all that we can exert. Nothing else. Military power in Afghanistan can only be exerted via areas that are now in Pakistan. That is what Ranjit Singh did. Pakistan is out of bounds for us. Either we ally with the US (if the US is interested) or stay off and let the US and Taliban fight it out. IMHO

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Sep 2011 08:33

ramana wrote: shiv, Are there Freudian slips in your eleven points?

There may be Freudian slips in any statement. The whole idea is to get people to think and point out why those statements are wrong or to say why they may be correct. if I reach conclusions of my own they will be my conclusions. But if I want to see what other conclusions can be reached (some which I may not even have thought about) I must first say what points make me reach my conclusions and why I might be wrong (or right).

If one or more of those 11 points is wrong then the conclusions may be wrong. Also the conclusions may be wrong even if the points are correct. The post is open for criticism.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Sep 2011 08:48

Dipanker wrote:
shiv wrote:
Doesn't all this make perfect sense?
I am sorry it does not. Give the Pakis a couple of weeks, they will climb down for the umpteenth time.

Nothing to be sorry about and I am happy to see frankness.

But you see, you are saying that the Pakistanis will change their behaviour in two weeks. In my post I did say the following. I quote from the same post:

shiv wrote:In order to change this balance of power scenario to "fit in"with a picture of US strength, people tend to concoct a story where Pakistan, which opposes the US now, suddenly changes and becomes a true US ally. I will point that out the next time anyone says that.

In fact you have said exactly what I predicted and I am pointing that out.

This has become the norm for US-Pakistan relations. US power is insufficient to get Pakistan to do what the US wants and the US has to continuously resort to a mixture of cajoling, pleading, bribing and warning. This does not gel well with a picture of unlimited US strength. Pakistan plays to its strengths and gets concessions from the US and the US too has to change its behavior from treating Pakistan as an ally one day to being critical the next day. Pakistani actions are controlling US behavior. This is a sign of US weakness and inability to dominate consistently.

It is important the understand that the US has some serious weaknesses with regard to Pakistan. An acknowledgement of that is useful in understanding how strong Pakistan is and where US behavior can be tweaked.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Sep 2011 08:53

I agree India should stay out and let the Taliban types take over TSP for that is the limiting value for an Islamist state. That's what the TSP elite constantly say is the end goal. If US doesn't like it, tough luck for they facilitated it. People not ready for prime time shouldn't play with fire lest they burn their hands and not mention others.

Btw thanks for pointer on chain store paradox. Now I understand Gujral non reciprocity doctrine and its impact.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 23 Sep 2011 08:53

Question is what does the US expect to gain from prosecuting this war? Why not sign a surrender agreement with Pakistan and promise to leave them alone?

parsuram · Post by **parsuram** » 23 Sep 2011 08:55

shiv ji: Regarding Afghanistan: India did fight a fight of sorts there through a proxy - the northern alliance, all through the ninties, but not alone. India, Russia and Iran were joined together in supporting the NA until all they held was the Panjshir valley (northern pan handle of Afghanistan). But the taliban could not dislodge the NA from that stretch of land despite trying for many years.

Y I Patel · Post by **Y I Patel** » 23 Sep 2011 08:57

When the Talibaan were driven out from Afghanistan, Musharraf tried to redirect them to India, very likely with US turning a Nelson's eye. Knowingly or unknowingly, Parakram put paid to that. At that time, it was India vs Pakistan+Talibaan+China with US neutral, and India still prevailed.

If Pakistan prevails over Talibaan but irretrievably antagonizes USA and causes China to reevaluate its options, then that's the best outcome for India.

However, if Talibaan take over Pakistan, it will be India vs Talibaan with China confused and US India positive. Easy for India to handle a diminished enemy. There will be ugliness, but nothing to loose sleep over. Pakistan will be retribalized, so this is not the ideal outcome but nothing to shed tears over. Eventually, India will defeat the Talibaan and can go on with the unfinished business of re-assimilating Pakistan.

If Pakistan breaks up, India will be even more powerful vis a vis the rump elements. However, in that situation, some of the rump elements may slip out of India's reach for a lot longer, with possibly some rumps slipping into the orbit of some foreign power. Even if that power is friendly, this still gives the foreign power the ability to recreate the Idea of Pakistan in that rump entity. So India is not worse off, but this is not a positive eventuality if India's ultimate ambition is to reassimilate its entire core with minimum losses.

So in other words, what should concern India with a deteriorating Pakistan is not the negative effects, but the lost opportunity for positive effects.

Once Pakistan's deterioration reaches a point where its foreign supporters get irretreivably antagonized, India has to step in to start building influence over the antagonized part of the core. That cannot happen if India does not start softening up its image right away.

All of this is moot if India does not recognise Pakistan as a part of its core. In that case, whatever causes Pakistan to deteriorate is positive.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Sep 2011 09:00

ramana wrote:I agree India should stay out and let the Taliban types take over TSP for that is the limiting value for an Islamist state. That's what the TSP elite constantly say is the end goal. If US doesn't like it, tough luck for they facilitated it. People not ready for prime time shouldn't play with fire lest they burn their hands and not mention others.

Ramana you know it is easy for us on BRF to see it this way. What i have been unable to understand is why Indian policy is not in agreement with our conclusions. I have a theory and let me say it out loud. One possibility is that Pakistan's worst fears would come true and both India and the US would benefit if there was cooperation between India and the US on the issues of Pakistan and the Taliban

I think such cooperation has started. Just a guess.

As long as we think that the US is invincible and controls Pakistan and seeks to keep India down we can never find any reason for India and the US to cooperate.

if we allow the idea that the US has some weaknesses wrt to Pakistan that need assistance and that India and the US could benefit from cooperating over Pakistan and the Taliban, Indian and US behavior seem easier to explain. Just a guess.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 23 Sep 2011 09:03

abhishek_sharma wrote:If the killing of peace negotiator Burhanuddin Rabbani and the attacks on Kabul tell us anything, it's that peace in Afghanistan will only come when Pakistan wants it.

That is not a well thought out statement. Paki's are not in control of anything. They can't even control their own country, there is no question of controlling Afghanistan. They have successfully sold the idea that they are orchestrating this while the truth is they simple set fire to everything including their own house to spite Amerika the brave.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Sep 2011 10:05

ramana wrote: Now I understand Gujral non reciprocity doctrine and its impact.

Can you expand on this. I am unfamiliar with any details.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 23 Sep 2011 10:10

Its not just Adm. Mullen's words that were interesting, but DCI Panetta and Senator Levin's as well.

The Abbottabad raid was not aimed first and foremost at punishing the Pakistani military - it did removed an American enemy, while humiliatingly challenged the Pakistani military to act. Well they've acted, but indirectly.

Similarly the Americans will not focus on directly punishing Pakistan, but rather hurting the Haqqanis in ways that challenge the PA. Of course it may be expensive given the lack of strategic surprise that was lost after Abbottabad and the recent blunt warnings.

All of this marks a pattern of escalating asymmetric conflict between the US and Pakistan. Its going to be a back and forth, not one giant spasm.

One important question will be what role China will play in all this. Iran will also have some interesting choices.

“I don’t think it would be helpful to describe what those options would look like and talk about what operational steps we may or may not take,” Secretary Panetta told the Senate Committee on Armed Services when asked what actions could the US take against Pakistan if it failed to curb the Haqqani network.“Are Pakistani leaders aware of what options are open to us so that they’re not caught by any surprise if in fact we take steps against that network?” asked the committee’s chairman Senator Carl Levin.

“I don’t think they would be surprised by the actions that we might or might not take,” said Mr Panetta while noting that US leaders had recently had a series of meetings with Pakistani leaders on the issue.

Admiral Mullen, who in previous congressional hearings had defended Pakistan, joined Mr Panetta, indicating that all US leaders were united in backing a possible punitive action against the country should it fail to act against the Haqqani network.

“The Haqqani network, for one, acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan’s internal services intelligence agency. With ISI support, the Haqqani operatives planned and conducted that truck bomb attack, as well as the assault on our embassy,” he told the committee.

“We also have credible intelligence that they were behind the June 28th attack on the Intercontinental Hotel in Kabul and a host of other smaller, but effective operations.”

The scene for the showdown was set by Senator Levin who, in his opening remarks, described cross-border attacks from Fata as “the foremost threat” to the US and coalition forces in Afghanistan.

The Haqqani group, he said, was operating from North Waziristan and the Afghan Taliban Shura from Quetta.

“I was glad to read a few days ago that Pakistan’s leaders have been personally informed that we are in fact going to… act more directly,” he said

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 23 Sep 2011 10:21

harbans wrote: Extremely strong language used by Mullen. These words won't go down well in Islamabad. But what exactly does Mullen imply by 'they've already lost that bet' wrt imbalance in regional power? Reduction in arms from the US? Don't see much manifestation in actual on the ground policy that reflects US has done much about reducing Pak's balance of power in the region..

India should urge restraint, ask US to not jump to conclusions and offer to play the part of a intermediary where we can talk to Pakistan and arrange some sort of a joint Pakistan-US investigation to establish who the culprits were. US should also hand over any evidence it has to Pakistan so that Pakistani courts can prosecute the culprits. Ultimately US should realize that it is making the Af-Pak border a nuclear flashpoint.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 23 Sep 2011 10:27

More from NYTimes. Direct action day anyone. Even Clinton would have launched a couple of dozen cruise missiles into TSP to take out a cantonment or two. Let us see what 'power to destroy anyone' Amerika does with this grenade.

All this must be disorienting for KY-Yoni and his CC's. They are not doing anything different from the past 10 years yet apparently all this gol-mal this is unacceptable. Stick to the rules, Amerika, Stick to the rules or at least the same GUBO stick.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/world ... bassy.html

In comments that were the first to directly link the spy agency, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, with an assault on the United States, Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, went further than any other American official in blaming the ISI for undermining the American effort in Afghanistan. His remarks were certain to further fray America’s shaky relationship with Pakistan, a nominal ally.

“With ISI support, Haqqani operatives planned and conducted that truck bomb attack, as well as the assault on our embassy,” Admiral Mullen said in a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “We also have credible evidence that they were behind the June 28th attack against the Intercontinental Hotel in Kabul and a host of other smaller but effective operations.” In short, he said, “the Haqqani network acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency.” His remarks were part of a deliberate effort by American officials to ratchet up pressure on Pakistan and perhaps pave the way for more American drone strikes or even cross-border raids into Pakistan to root out insurgents from their havens. American military officials refused to discuss what steps they were prepared to take, although Admiral Mullen’s statement made clear that taking on the Haqqanis had become an urgent priority.

On Thursday, Rehman Malik, Pakistan’s interior minister, rejected accusations by the United States of ISI involvement in the attacks in Afghanistan. “If you say that it is ISI involved in that attack, I categorically deny it,” he said in an interview with Reuters. “We have no such policy to attack or aid attack through Pakistani forces or through any Pakistani assistance.” He also said his government would “not allow” an American operation aimed at the Haqqani network in North Waziristan, a remote part of Pakistan’s lawless tribal region.

Mr. Malik seemed to indicate that American officials had threatened on Tuesday in meetings in Washington with the head of the ISI, Maj. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, that American troops were prepared to cross the border from Afghanistan to attack Haqqani militants. An American official would say only that David H. Petraeus, the new director of the Central Intelligence Agency, told General Pasha that the C.I.A. would continue its campaign of drone strikes against the Haqqanis in Pakistan and pursue them in Afghanistan.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 23 Sep 2011 10:35

Johann wrote:I

Similarly the Americans will not focus on directly punishing Pakistan, but rather hurting the Haqqanis in ways that challenge the PA. Of course it may be expensive given the lack of strategic surprise that was lost after Abbottabad and the recent blunt warnings.

All of this marks a pattern of escalating asymmetric conflict between the US and Pakistan. Its going to be a back and forth, not one giant spasm.

]

Bah, humbug.

The Pakistanis will hand over some smelly old Al-Libi or Al-Iraqi or Al-Yemeni to the Americans, naming him the 786th Number 3 Man of Al Qaeda. Washington will pipe in another couple of billion and everything will be back to normal until the next round of tanker burnings, truck bombs and IEDs hits Kabul.

Anindya · Post by **Anindya** » 23 Sep 2011 10:40

India should support a Taliban take over of Pakistan. Either it will make no difference to us, or it will be better for us.

Putting it in slightly different words...

Code: Select all

The Talibanization of Pakistan is far better for India and the rest of the world, than is the Pakistanization of the Taliban, which is what seems to be happening now.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 23 Sep 2011 10:59

Anujan wrote:India should urge restraint, ask US to not jump to conclusions and offer to play the part of a intermediary where we can talk to Pakistan and arrange some sort of a joint Pakistan-US investigation to establish who the culprits were. US should also hand over any evidence it has to Pakistan so that Pakistani courts can prosecute the culprits. Ultimately US should realize that it is making the Af-Pak border a nuclear flashpoint.

Brilliant, sir.

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 23 Sep 2011 11:04

Kanishka wrote:
abhishek_sharma wrote:... peace in Afghanistan will only come when Pakistan wants it.
The only way to ensure peace is to inflict enormous amount of pain on Pakistan. Pakistan needs to burn and glow. No compromises. It is only then the followers of "religion of peace" may actually want to live in peace.

After a decade of blood and sweat it has dawned on the US that for tackling terrorism in Af-Pak region, its source in TSP has to be dealt with first. Indian think tanks including BRF were shouting from the rooftops from the beginning itself. Now at this stage with most of their funds already spent a tired US has not many options left. They will have to meekly negotiate a settlement with TSP proxies and leave the region. Afghanistan will then once again become the home ground of islamic terrorism. At the end of the day this Af-Pak campaign which achieved nothing for the US and West will be remembered for the loss it caused to US economic and national interests.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 23 Sep 2011 11:19

'You will lose an ally' if accusations continue, Pakistan warns US

How soon before the Khans capitulate and praise the Munna

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 23 Sep 2011 11:39

Hina Dolce and Gabbani Khar wrote: "You will lose an ally," Hina Rabbani Khar told Geo TV in New York. "You cannot afford to alienate Pakistan, you cannot afford to alienate the Pakistani people. If you are choosing to do so and if they are choosing to do so it will be at their (the United States') own cost."

Articulate, isn't she?

I mean, how many times can you swap subject, object, person and predicate in one single sentence and still expect to maintain any greater degree of coherence than the above? Who is "you"? Who is "They"? If "You" cannot alienate Pakistan and if "You" are choosing to do so but also "They" are choosing to do so it will be at "Their" own cost? If "You" is India and "They" is America ....does this sentence mean that if India alienates Pakistan it will be at America's cost? Or, as with the classic paranoid schizophrenic episode... do "you" and "they" both refer to America?

What kind of a mess has she made, of what should have been a very simple statement? I can understand a teenage ditz mauling syntax and semantics like this, but this woman is... not even a diplomat, but the foreign minister of that country. Really, I think Madrassa education is better, or at least more sincerely conveyed, than the sort of third-rate communication skills these RAPEs learn at the expensive iskools of Clifton and Slumbad.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 23 Sep 2011 12:02

All of Pakistan is forever drunk on the idea handed down by the Quaid for all generations to come: The US needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs the US.

Pakistani leaders may say anything for public consumption back in the Land of the Purest. But, they must quickly do something or else that dictum of the Quaid is about to change.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Sep 2011 12:30

The legendary singer,Tony bennet,caused a sensation when he sked on the10th anniv. of 9/11 whether "we",the US were the terrorists? In fact,what has been lost in all the fire,smoke and debris of the 'war on terror',is that terror,is merely the symptom of a disease and not the disease itself.The woes of the Middle-East,invasions of Iraq,Afghanistan,especially the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian issue,etc.,spawned resentment,frustration and ultimately violence against the US.The same game is now happening with Pak.As the US starts to "beat the Paki dog",the dog will turn and bite his master.The difference this time round is that unlike Osama,the paki dog has radioactive teeth.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sh ... terrorists

Singer Tony Bennett on 9/11: ‘Are We the Terrorists?’
By Matthew Sheffield | September 20, 2011

Singer Tony Bennett has sold over 50 million album copies but that success doesn't seem to have required much common sense or decency. In a recent interview, the veteran crooner sounded appallingly similar to controversial left-wing minister Jeremiah Wright, stating, among other things that America "caused" 9/11 to happen.

In what was supposed to be an interview about his latest music collection, Bennett took a turn far afield when he began lashing out at U.S. foreign policy, creating a grotesque moral equivalence between Al Qaeda terrorists who deliberately inflict mass civilian casualties and America: “Who are the terrorists? Are we the terrorists or are they the terrorists? Two wrongs don’t make a right,” he said.

Bennett, who has a long history of being an outspoken supporter of liberal Democrats, made these remarks in an interview with Howard Stern, still isolated on his own channel on Sirius Radio. He stated that his service during World War II turned him into a pacifist, apparently beyond the reach of rationality:

Bennett, 65 years after leaving his military life behind, has sold over 50 million albums and developed definite opinions about other wars involving the United States.

“To start a war in Iraq was a tremendous, tremendous mistake internationally,” he said.

Stern then asked Bennett about how America should deal with terrorists, specifically those responsible for the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center.

“But who are the terrorists? Are we the terrorists or are they the terrorists? Two wrongs don’t make a right,” Bennett said.

In a soft-spoken voice, the singer disagreed with Stern’s premise that 9/11 terrorists’ actions led to U.S. military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“They flew the plane in, but we caused it,” Bennett responded. “Because we were bombing them and they told us to stop.”

In the interview, Bennett also recounted what he said was a conversation he'd had with George W. Bush during which the former president supposedly said that he'd "made a mistake" by invading Iraq.

If Tony Bennett reports it, it's got to be true! When is he going to get his own MSNBC show?!

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sh ... z1YlD6BDyD