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

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 06 Oct 2011 11:49

shiv wrote:
Harish wrote:The recent assassination of Rabbani apparently means that the Taliban does not want to be part of a power-sharing formula in a future Afghan coalition government. But it is difficult to understand why the Taliban would not like that arrangement.
1. The Taliban want Pakhtuistan
2. The Taliban's goal is Pakistan

Classic revolutionary power-grab methodology: let the moderates run things for a short while, undermine from outside, and then do a putsch to take over. Pattern occurs consistently, e.g.,

Kerensky-->lenin
Bazargan-->khomeini
Koirala etc.,-->prachanda
Chamorro-->ortega (round 1)

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 06 Oct 2011 11:56

KLNMurthy wrote: Classic revolutionary power-grab methodology: let the moderates run things for a short while, undermine from outside, and then do a putsch to take over. Pattern occurs consistently, e.g.,

Kerensky-->lenin
Bazargan-->khomeini
Koirala etc.,-->prachanda
Chamorro-->ortega (round 1)

OT but MMS is also a moderate na?

Who would be coming next?
ducking for cover and run like hell

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 06 Oct 2011 12:05

Rudradev ji,

thanks for the feedback. As you may have noticed, it is usually my intention to make a thread sustainable. I am happy that Islamism, Islamic sectarianism, Cultural Protectionism, and in GDF even Indicization thread have survived.

I'll try to keep your advice in mind regarding the A-A thread.

Next time however, I'll hope that somebody else picks up the effort, perhaps Philips ji, or someone else who is more conversant with the issues down South, and as such knows how to navigate the straits down South!

My gut feeling is that the A-A have some sinister interests in Pa(l)k Straits!

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 06 Oct 2011 12:19

Worldview: Pakistan must choose: Halt terror, or else

One man with good ideas on the subject is Peter Tomsen, a career diplomat who served as special U.S. envoy to the Afghan resistance from 1989 to 1992. Tomsen has just written a fascinating tome, The Wars of Afghanistan, that describes how the ISI funneled U.S. and Saudi money to the most radical Afghan Islamist groups during the 1980s struggle against the Soviets, and how it backed the ascension of the Taliban to power in 1996. Tomsen also details how the ISI consistently undermined the rise of more moderate Afghan leaders.

All too often, the CIA endorsed ISI misdeeds. But, given current ISI support for terrorist groups that threaten the United States, that relationship has also soured.

"The Taliban is very dependent on Pakistan for money, training, and weapons, without which they would vanish," Tomsen said. He said the ISI was trying to use the Taliban "to create a friendly government in Kabul that is dependent on Pakistan" and will be hostile to its archenemy, India, once the Americans have gone home.

This strategy is delusional and could backfire on Pakistan. Key Afghan Taliban groups such as the Haqqani network have links to Pakistani extremists who are fighting the Pakistani army and threaten the state.

Moreover, continued ISI support for the Taliban could trigger a new civil war in Afghanistan that boomerangs on Pakistan. Tomsen says the ISI, which he lumps in with other foreign invaders of Afghanistan, will be unable to control Kabul via proxies. Yet he thinks the ISI will take the risk, preferring an Afghanistan "in perpetual war, so long as India can't get control."

So what's to be done? Here are Tomsen's suggestions:

Put the Haqqani network on the terrorist list for its bloody attacks on Afghan civilians.

Threaten to put Pakistan on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terror, which would mean U.S. and possibly European sanctions.

Make military aid contingent on real Pakistani cooperation against terrorists. (Tomsen is more reluctant for now to cut civilian aid, since Pakistan's weak civilian government is not party to ISI machinations.)

Give up illusions about talks with the Taliban. Pakistan has made clear that it will undermine such talks, unless they put its proxies in power; the ISI may have been behind the recent murder of Afghanistan's chief negotiator with the Taliban.

Rally Afghanistan's neighbors and other global powers concerned about Afghan chaos to pressure Islamabad. That includes India, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and China - which may sell Pakistan weapons but will not be the sugar daddy Pakistan hopes for.

Don't send ground forces into Pakistan. It's too risky and could be counterproductive.

"Our goal is to get Pakistan to change voluntarily," Tomsen said.

But the administration's message should be clear. Pakistan must choose: Halt terrorism by groups under its sway or face diplomatic isolation, with stark economic consequences. If Pakistan's military and the ISI continue to back extremists who kill Americans, they become America's enemy - with all the consequences that entails.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 06 Oct 2011 13:00

Ken Ballen's book is on Amazon. It has the "Look Inside" facility. Search for "Zeddy" and it takes you to the chapter which begins his interview. You can read quite a bit of it in there. Fascinating stuff, but those of us who follow the moves of the Pakisatan closely, already know it all.

Like I have said repeatedly, the problem of the West is that they just cannot internalise that the Westernised leaders of Pakisatan can have such a global agenda. They find it hard to truly recognise and validate the scope and scale of the ambitions of these generals. Of course Al Qaida is just a tool of the Pakistani military establishment, of course they are using them to further their agenda for Islam. But this needs to be recognised, and articulated, before it can ge dealt with head on. They are only just getting there. And Mullen's statement, which you can bet your ass was chewed over a million times, is a milestone in this regard. This does not mean that the US will do anything noticeable or specific, but it represents a mindset evolution. And that is very important in itself. It means the US establishment is slowly abandoning its long-standing assessment of Pakistan and its strategic policy related to that country. That ship is manoeuvring in a different direction, and it will be a hell of a problem to reverse that turn. Wait and see. The fun is still only beginning.

Don't think for a moment that this turn is only going to mean positives for India. There are tremendous inherent dangers, but with caution and a bit of boldness we can both deal with it and benefit from it.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 06 Oct 2011 13:08

Rudradev wrote:Also, the interview mentions that "Zeddy" began as a volunteer for "Pakistan's Islamic Political Party" (probably meaning J-e-I) and later gave up active participation in the movement because he was disillusioned with "corruption" in its ranks and leadership. Does this fit Lal Topi's profile?

Almost all Islamists in Pakistan would have been part of Jama'at-e-Islami or its student wing Islami-Jamiat-e-Tulaba (IJT) at some time or the other. I believe that ZH is no exception too. No jihadi escapes Mawdudi saheb's influence.

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 06 Oct 2011 13:15

Afghans skeptical US will change Pakistan

"Afghans will no longer be deceived by the cat-and-mouse games played by America and Pakistan. Both of them are enemies of the Afghans," Kabul shopkeeper Abdul Shokur said. "Israel and Pakistan are America's pampered children. No matter what those pampered children want, America will accept it.

"The Americans are prepared to lose Afghanistan but they will never lose Pakistan. If America exerted real pressure on Pakistan, I am sure the war in Afghanistan would end within two days."

sum · Post by **sum** » 06 Oct 2011 13:20

"Israel and Pakistan are America's pampered children. No matter what those pampered children want, America will accept it.

Evil zionist and torchbearer of Islam being given a == by a Afghan heretic?

Jihaaaad on the Afghans...

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 06 Oct 2011 13:22

SSridhar wrote:
Rudradev wrote:Also, the interview mentions that "Zeddy" began as a volunteer for "Pakistan's Islamic Political Party" (probably meaning J-e-I) and later gave up active participation in the movement because he was disillusioned with "corruption" in its ranks and leadership. Does this fit Lal Topi's profile?
Almost all Islamists in Pakistan would have been part of Jama'at-e-Islami or its student wing Islami-Jamiat-e-Tulaba (IJT) at some time or the other. I believe that ZH is no exception too. No jihadi escapes Mawdudi saheb's influence.

Somehow I think Hamid Gul fits "zeddy".

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 06 Oct 2011 13:39

JE Menon wrote:This does not mean that the US will do anything noticeable or specific, but it represents a mindset evolution. And that is very important in itself. It means the US establishment is slowly abandoning its long-standing assessment of Pakistan and its strategic policy related to that country. That ship is manoeuvring in a different direction, and it will be a hell of a problem to reverse that turn. Wait and see. The fun is still only beginning.

Don't think for a moment that this turn is only going to mean positives for India. There are tremendous inherent dangers, but with caution and a bit of boldness we can both deal with it and benefit from it.

JEM, entirely agree with you. I too believe that the US-Pakistan relationship is changing. India need not derive any more schadenfreude than what is absolutely and minimally necessary from this turn of events. For, even as we cooperate with the US, we need to guard against that nation as well. The US is certainly ratcheting up the ante in a finely calibrated manner. The events are beginning to take place at a faster pace after May and we have to be watchful. Pakistan's internal situation is becoming extremely fraught as the last tranche of IMF loan has not been disbursed, and the world economic situation is again turning worse. The FoDP have been therefore unenthusiastic and unresponsive and the US has the levers to quickly make Pakistan feel the pain through the IMF or even on its own. There has been practically no aid flows after the latest floods. Qadri, floods, power-situation, political developments, negative economic growth, Afghanistan, feud with the US, a lack of economic interest in Pakistan etc are impacting Pakistan hugely. The 'Establishment' is blithe to almost all of them and hopes to bluff its way through because China is there. At this rate, Pakistan may even impose a war on us when the situation becomes too critical, making a tactically brilliant miscalculation as it often does of our determination.

Pakistan has asked the Haqqanis to move back into Paktia etc so that it can conveniently claim that the Haqqanis no longer remain within its borders. Whether this will mollify the Americans remains to be seen. The Americans must be really foolish to accept that simple explanation, but they have been known to take Pakistani statements on their face value before.

jrjrao · Post by **jrjrao** » 06 Oct 2011 14:09

Dilbu wrote:Worldview: Pakistan must choose: Halt terror, or else

From which this:

.. the most potent threat to Afghanistan - and to U.S. plans to withdraw troops - doesn't come from the Taliban. It comes from our supposed ally the Pakistani military - which gives the Taliban the means to fight on.

Mullen had tried for years, with occasional success, to privately persuade his Pakistani counterparts to shift gears. But his patience wore thin after Osama bin Laden was found in a Pakistani garrison town and the Pakistani military denied all knowledge of his presence. Mullen lost all patience after the Taliban's Haqqani network targeted U.S. diplomats and soldiers in several attacks. U.S. officials believe Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) signed off on those attacks.

Mullen was not speaking on his own when he suggested that, as some reports claim; his testimony was shared with the National Security Council and the State Department before he gave it. And his charges were echoed by Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta, who testified at his side.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 06 Oct 2011 14:13

Guys, "Zeddy" is a shortened form of the pseudonym Zahid Ahmed. It is not Hamid Gul. "Zeddy" was Hamid Gul's guard for a while (after he lost his ISI Directorship). He was also the personal chauffeur and general fixer for JI chief Qazi Hussain. A lot of it can be read on Amazon. Just search for the book and look inside with the search string "zeddy". You will get quite a few pages worth of reading material...

Reading it, I have a strong feeling this book is a part of the US psyops campaign against Islamism/Pakistan. That is not to say it is untrue, but that significant elements inside might be pure fiction. We will never know which is fiction and which is fact. Certainly, parts of what Ballen says were directly spoken by "Zeddy" in English - i.e. direct quotation - is definitely not the case. There is no way in the world that a guy who speaks English with that familiarity and with such exposure to Americanisms, etc,. will also use phrases such as "please to excuse me"... No way.

If someone is reading this who has access to Ballen

, please fix that rubbish in the next edition and in any online edition (if any). Do it properly for fux sake, or contact some of us here on BRF. We can vet it for you properly.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 06 Oct 2011 14:57

^^^ love it JEM-ji, love it!!

Joseph · Post by **Joseph** » 06 Oct 2011 16:22

arun wrote:
Will the member countries of the Organisation of Islamic Co-Operation, the erstwhile Organisation of Islamic Conference, condemn fellow member Pakistan for permitting the painting of Mohammaddenism as a Religion of Violence? :

Deobandis, Wahhabis to join Qadri protests

Very doubtful that will happen since the OIC hasn't been supportive of the ICC against Al-Bashir of Sudan.

The OIC Charter speaks of both non-interference in the internal affairs of member countries and protecting the image of Islam. Most of the time, the non-interference part is superior to the protecting the image of Islam part.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 06 Oct 2011 16:25

Dilbu wrote:Afghans skeptical US will change Pakistan
"Afghans will no longer be deceived by the cat-and-mouse games played by America and Pakistan. Both of them are enemies of the Afghans," Kabul shopkeeper Abdul Shokur said. "Israel and Pakistan are America's pampered children. No matter what those pampered children want, America will accept it.

"The Americans are prepared to lose Afghanistan but they will never lose Pakistan. If America exerted real pressure on Pakistan, I am sure the war in Afghanistan would end within two days."

Reading the article in the link it seems that many Afgans view Taliban as a Pakistani Entity. While some Afgans might be foot soldiers, the spine and brain of the Taliban are the Paki miltary.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Oct 2011 16:25

JE Menon wrote:Guys, "Zeddy" is a shortened form of the pseudonym Zahid Ahmed. It is not Hamid Gul. "Zeddy" was Hamid Gul's guard for a while (after he lost his ISI Directorship). He was also the personal chauffeur and general fixer for JI chief Qazi Hussain. A lot of it can be read on Amazon. Just search for the book and look inside with the search string "zeddy". You will get quite a few pages worth of reading material...

I have not looked at Amazon (yet - what's the name of the Ballen book BTW?), but I had a thought after reading the interview transcript. This Zedy guy appears to be telling Ballen - "These "queen's English" speaking generals have nukes and Zeddy appears "sort of" concerned.

Is there a possibility that Zeddy actually represents Islamists (as he admits) and he only sees the Pakistani army as a hindrance that prevents the Islamists that he represents from actually gaining control of the nukes. His "confessions" and regret would seem an ideal way of making the US go against the Paki army, allowing the nuclear baton to be handed to the Islamists.

If there anything remotely credible in this theory, the US will be in a heads we lose, tails they win situation. If the support the Paki army, they are supporting their own opponents. But if that army fails, the Islamists get the weapons.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 06 Oct 2011 16:27

Dilbu wrote:Afghans skeptical US will change Pakistan
"Afghans will no longer be deceived by the cat-and-mouse games played by America and Pakistan. Both of them are enemies of the Afghans," Kabul shopkeeper Abdul Shokur said. "Israel and Pakistan are America's pampered children. No matter what those pampered children want, America will accept it.

"The Americans are prepared to lose Afghanistan but they will never lose Pakistan. If America exerted real pressure on Pakistan, I am sure the war in Afghanistan would end within two days."

Reading the article in the link it seems that many Afgans view Taliban as a Pakistani Entity. While some Afgans might be foot soldiers, the spine and brain of the Taliban are the Paki miltary.

parsuram · Post by **parsuram** » 06 Oct 2011 16:45

Re: The clinonista madam's "deep" insight about the paki:

Shockingly, Clinton made it a point to take note that Pakistan lives in a “very difficult security enviornment”, characterised amongst other things by its “deep concerns about India”,

The clinton may not have noticed, but Mehico, for instance, or Cuba, or maybe the entire latin american group live in a "very difficult security environment", characterised amongst other things by a “deep concerns about the USA”, particularly ever since a guy called Monroe.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 06 Oct 2011 17:53

Doc,

It's here. The book is rather inappropriately called "Terrorists in Love"

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/145160 ... 001SPZVQZY

He might as well have called it "Terrorists with Porcelain Cheex" - and leave it to the reader to guess which pair he's talking about

>>Is there a possibility that Zeddy actually represents Islamists (as he admits) and he only sees the Pakistani army as a hindrance that prevents the Islamists that he represents from actually gaining control of the nukes.

He's going a step further and saying that the Pakistani Army is actually "Al Qaida" and that the Islamists already have the nukes, basically, and that the stupid Americans (he quite literally says that) will only realise when they wake up with New York, Washington or weirdly enough "Des Moines, Iowa" (yes, he names the state) nuked out of existence. He keeps saying only on the "day after" will the Americans know the real meaning of Islam, of Jihad. Lovely stuff.

But nothing that we here don't know. Only that we called it JDAM. Zeddy uncle does not use that precise terminology, but that's what he's talking about. Basically, JDAM delivered from Aabpara with lust.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 06 Oct 2011 18:43

A RAPEtte warns the US on what they ought to do if they are in their right minds:
Why is USA targeting Pakistan?

The only way out of the quagmire of accusations, counter-accusations, lies and deceit between the United States and Pakistan is an early withdrawal of American and North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces and an end to this war. Cooler, smarter heads in Washington must rule and drive home the point, as the problem is the occupying forces, not Pakistan.

Yasmeen Ali is a lawyer and university professor based in Lahore.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Oct 2011 19:49

Shiv& JEM, Agree with you that slowly the veil is being lifted on the jihadi nature of TSPA. They are the Islamists. All others are peripheral.

Currently they sport a light green veneer for US baksheesh. The periphery and core is dark green and might turn on the veneer if there is perception of US abandonment.

kasthuri · Post by **kasthuri** » 06 Oct 2011 20:15

I think we missed this story...

WSJ exposes US secret meeting with Haqqanis

WASHINGTON (Agencies) - The US officials this summer secretly met leaders of the Haqqani network in an effort to draw them into talks on winding down the war, a UK newspaper reported Wednesday.
The Wall Street Journal says Washington has publicly scorned the group, which is blamed with bringing a new level of violence to the Afghan insurgency and is at the centre of the deteriorating US relationship with Pakistan.
Pakistan and the US officials said the push to draw the Haqqanis into talks has yielded little. The US says Haqqani fighters were responsible for a 20-hour assault last month on the US Embassy and the nearby Nato headquarters in Kabul. The Haqqani network is regarded by American officials as an irredeemably violent militant and criminal network tied to Qaeda. The Haqqani fighters are regularly targeted by US drone strikes in Pakistan. The US officials have long said they were beyond reconciliation.
But the behind-the-scenes American effort reflects the growing realisation that a military campaign alone won’t bring the Haqqanis to heel - and that compromises are needed to wind down the US involvement in Afghanistan.
The US officials had already reached that conclusion about the Taliban, saying that losses on the battlefield would drive Taliban leaders to the negotiating table.
“We’ve got no illusions about what the Haqqanis ultimately are,” said a senior US official said. But the “war is going to end with a deal. That’s what we’re trying to make inevitable.
The more parties involved in talking, that’s probably going to make for a better deal.”
The official declined to discuss the talks with the Haqqanis, describing them as “early and not very well defined.”
That also describes the wider peace effort, which has moved in fits and starts over the past two years, making little overall progress. Afghan President Hamid Karzai has given up on negotiations with the Taliban, Afghan officials said Sunday, after the assassination of his top peace envoy Burhanuddin Rabbani.
Senior US official said there had been at least one meeting over the summer between US officials and Haqqani representatives.
The meeting took place as the Haqqanis were stepping up attacks in and around Kabul, but before their most high-profile strike to date, the assault on the US Embassy, which began on September 13. The assault made the effort to talk to the Haqqanis more difficult, but the effort to get a peace process going hasn’t been abandoned, officials said.
The State Department wouldn’t comment directly on outreach to the Haqqanis. Spokesman Mark Toner, citing previous comments by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, said: “We have a broad range of contacts across Afghanistan and the region…these contacts are preliminary in nature.” Without out naming, the WSJ quoted a Pakistani official as saying that Islamabad began facilitating contacts with the Haqqanis late last year and set up the meeting this summer in a Persian Gulf country. The Afghan government didn’t take part.
The US wouldn’t identify the participants; the Pakistani official said the insurgents were represented by one of the brothers of the main leader of the network, Sirajuddin Haqqani. Haqqani told the BBC in an interview published on Monday that “not only Pakistan, but other Islamic countries, and other non-Islamic countries, including America, contacted us and they are still doing so.”
Haqqani said the US asked him to break with Taliban leader Mullah Omar and join Karzai’s government, but the overtures were rebuffed, according to the report.
The Haqqanis are one of the most potent forces in the Afghan war. One US defence official called them “world-class fighters, whether we like it or not.”
The US diplomacy diverges from the drone strikes and special-forces raids the Americans have used against the Haqqanis for much of the past three years.
The American outreach is the latest chapter in a relationship between Washington and the Haqqanis that stretches back to the Afghan Mujahedeen’s fight against the 1979 Soviet invasion of their country.
The network’s founder, Jalaluddin Haqqani, was one of the main mujahedeen commanders backed by the US. He went on to join the Taliban government that ruled Afghanistan from the mid-1990s until the 2001 US-led invasion. He then took refuge in Pakistan’s tribal areas and, after an aborted American attempt to lure him to their side, took up arms against his old backers.
Officials are now trying to discern just what shape stalled peace efforts will take, the senior US official said.
Options include talks between Afghans and the Taliban, with the US observing; Pakistan playing a direct role; or the Haqqanis having a seat separate from the Taliban. “Anyone who tells you they know what shape the process is taking doesn’t know what they’re talking about,” another US official said.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 06 Oct 2011 20:51

It's not surprising that such contacts occur and are maintained. It would be suprising if it weren't. Basically, so long as the Pakistan military is facilitating this, it is simply the US talking to the different faces of Pakistan - because it cannot tell the Pakistani military directly to end terrorism, as it is an ally. So these kind of facilitated talks serve no fundamental purpose apart from being a theatre of farce. Uncle knows this. Not for nothing is he known as Uncle Sham. This is why the US has been trying to make outreach not facilitated by the Pakmil. This is the crux because, you see, if such outreach succeeds, Pakmil is truly phucked as this would mean that its instruments of terror have been disabled, or to put it more politically correctly, differently abled

sum · Post by **sum** » 06 Oct 2011 20:53

Pakmil is truly phucked because this would mean that its instruments of terror have been disabled, or to put it more politically correctly, differently abled

Just loooove BRF...

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 06 Oct 2011 21:26

JE Menon wrote:Ken Ballen's book is on Amazon. It has the "Look Inside" facility. Search for "Zeddy" and it takes you to the chapter which begins his interview. You can read quite a bit of it in there. Fascinating stuff, but those of us who follow the moves of the Pakisatan closely, already know it all.

Like I have said repeatedly, the problem of the West is that they just cannot internalise that the Westernised leaders of Pakisatan can have such a global agenda. They find it hard to truly recognise and validate the scope and scale of the ambitions of these generals. Of course Al Qaida is just a tool of the Pakistani military establishment, of course they are using them to further their agenda for Islam. But this needs to be recognised, and articulated, before it can ge dealt with head on. They are only just getting there. And Mullen's statement, which you can bet your ass was chewed over a million times, is a milestone in this regard. This does not mean that the US will do anything noticeable or specific, but it represents a mindset evolution. And that is very important in itself. It means the US establishment is slowly abandoning its long-standing assessment of Pakistan and its strategic policy related to that country. That ship is manoeuvring in a different direction, and it will be a hell of a problem to reverse that turn. Wait and see. The fun is still only beginning.

Don't think for a moment that this turn is only going to mean positives for India. There are tremendous inherent dangers, but with caution and a bit of boldness we can both deal with it and benefit from it.

Jem, You have got it the opposite way.
UK created the global Islamic vision for Pakistan right from the early stages and this was encouraged after 1980 into a global movement. For a tiny country this is a big project and the writing of JeI, JI and other groups will give all the details how they built this vision. Maudidi was only one of the first in this project.
This does not mean that Pak generals and Pak mullas thought that they could hijak and take it on their own. There may be reason that they were allowed to create a 'chaotic' version so that India could be destabilized. Books written in 2000s by Harvard scholars and western authors show that they were anticipating certain outcome of the Pak Islamic chaos.
Some fo the Pak leaders are quoted to say that they will march inside India and convert entire India into Islam. These version are available in the web.

The US/UK combine created a global vision for Pakistan from 1947 for two reasons.
One is to control the Islam, Islam geo politics and future of the Islam (BLUNT PROJECT). This is ongoing from 1880 and after WWI
Second reason is to create an anti India movement and against the Indian juggernaut to reduce the Indian influence worldwide after 1947.

A Chaotic Pakistan maybe a strategy by itself.

I heard the NPR live when Ken Ballen was interviewed. There are some questions and how it was answered showed some fakeness. This needs to be analysed carefully to understand what is the real thing here.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 06 Oct 2011 21:33

RajeshA wrote:I just wanted to thank everybody who contributed to "Anglo-American Strategy in South India & the Indian Ocean", thanks for getting it locked!

The theory was that the Anglo-Americans are at it again in the South and they are pushing an agenda.

Instead of analyzing their moves using some objectivity, some stalwarts just ended up indulging in throwing brick-bats at each other!

Now the thread is locked and there will be no more 'monitoring'!

Try keeping the discussion to Indian ocean geo politics and strategy.
Politics can be discussed in GDF

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 06 Oct 2011 21:51

Dilbu wrote:Afghans skeptical US will change Pakistan
"Afghans will no longer be deceived by the cat-and-mouse games played by America and Pakistan. Both of them are enemies of the Afghans," Kabul shopkeeper Abdul Shokur said. "Israel and Pakistan are America's pampered children. No matter what those pampered children want, America will accept it.

"The Americans are prepared to lose Afghanistan but they will never lose Pakistan. If America exerted real pressure on Pakistan, I am sure the war in Afghanistan would end within two days."

Not music to the ears of Jew-lovers like me but the sowcar has a point and shows a sophisticated if partisan grasp of global politics.

Kati · Post by **Kati** » 06 Oct 2011 22:10

How come Drone-acharya is quiet lately? Is it because
talibans shot down one with paki help? or, pakis are
resisting to let their AFB being used? Or, is it just a
tacit understanding to make Kiyani happy for a while?....

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 06 Oct 2011 22:13

He only said Israel is America's pampered child which is not very offensive if you think about it. The comparison with TSP in the same sentence is what really makes it offensive.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 06 Oct 2011 22:22

Man the mush is confused:

"WASHINGTON: Pakistan’s former president Pervez Musharraf charged Thursday that arch-rival India seeks to “create an anti-Pakistan Afghanistan” as part of a bid to dominate South Asia politically and economically.

Musharraf said Afghanistan sends its intelligence staff, diplomats and soldiers to Pakistan where they are “indoctrinated against Pakistan,” something he said India must stop and the United States should be concerned about."

http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/06/india-wa ... arraf.html

Added later:

"While he was in power, he said he personally offered Afghanistan free training but “not one man has come to Pakistan for training.”

Wonder why?

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 06 Oct 2011 22:30

^^^
That is not true. Pakistan has trained many Afghans for free.

Nandu · Post by **Nandu** » 06 Oct 2011 22:34

I will check for transcripts later, but questions about Pakistan came up in today's Obama press conference. I was driving and didn't hear it fully but briefly from what I heard, Obama said:

* Elements of Paki military/ISI establishment are in contact with Haqqani and other people hostile to US.
* Pakistan is doing this is a hedge against future of Afghanistan when US withdraws, but they are wrong to do so.
* Pakistan should consider a stable Afghanistan to be in its interest (implying currently they do not).
* Pakistan should follow a more peaceful approach to India (again he was implying that Pakistan's bias/paranoia is the issue, not any actions by India).
* US should not punish the people of Pakistan (i.e. flood aid etc will continue) for mistakes by its military establishment.

Again, this is from what I heard while driving and my full concentration might not have been on it. Transcripts will make it clearer exactly what he said.

Rajdeep · Post by **Rajdeep** » 06 Oct 2011 22:49

^ Elaborating on that Press Conference
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 259773.cms
Obama lashes out at Pak military for ties to terrorists

But he did not mince words in speaking about the country's two-faced military who are now regarded in some circles as terrorists in uniform.

''There is no doubt that there's some connections the Pakistani military and intelligence services have with certain individuals that we find troubling," Obama said, endorsing the view of just-retired joint chiefs of staff Mike Mullen. "I think they (Pakistan) have hedged their bets in terms of what Afghanistan would look like and part of hedging their bets is having interactions with some of the unsavory characters who they think might end up regaining power in Afghanistan after coalition forces have left," he added.

But Obama appeared to rubbish the idea, suggesting Pakistan was ill-served by this policy. Pakistan, he said, saw its "security interest threatened by an independent Afghanistan, in part because they think it will ally itself to India and Pakistan still considers India their mortal enemy,'' and "Part of what we want to do is actually get Pakistan to realize that a peaceful approach towards India would be in everybody's interests."

Pakistan itself faced pressing problems such as poverty, illiteracy, a lack of development and weak civil institutions, "and in that environment, you've seen extremism grow, you've seen militancy that threatens the Pakistani government and Pakistani people as well.''

"Trying to get that reorientation is something we continue to work on,'' Obama said, admitting, ''It is not easy.''

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 06 Oct 2011 22:53

But he did not mince words in speaking about the country's two-faced military who are now regarded in some circles as terrorists in uniform.

The truth is finally out for everyone to see. Satyamev jayate!

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 06 Oct 2011 22:55

La Dungt
Flanking moves

consulates up and running in Afghanistan. In the decade since India has consolidated its position in Afghanistan using a mixture of diplomacy and development, culminating in the signing on Tuesday of a strategic partnership between the two states. Whilst Afghanistan and India as sovereign states can forge partnerships with whoever they like, this latest move is bound to cause concern here in Pakistan. There is now no doubt that India is an established player in the Afghan imbroglio. There is equally little doubt that President Karzai and his sponsors view Pakistan as part of the problem rather than part of the solution; and as the western nations begin a ragged retreat from another lost war new alliances develop. India is a significant donor to Afghanistan, and has invested two billion dollars to build roads, schools and hospitals as well as the highly symbolic national parliament. By international aid standards this is almost small change, but it buys India a place at the table that Pakistan needs to be sitting at as well.
The Karzai view of Pakistan was clear from the press conference subsequent to the signing of the agreement. Without naming Pakistan he said...“terrorism was being used as an instrument of policy against our citizens” – which does not need a cryptographer to decode. The agreement now signed is the first by Afghanistan with any other nation, and is a waymarker for future development. A significant element of it refers to the training and equipping of the Afghan security forces, hardly a move designed to allay any of Pakistan’s latent fears. Whatever the message both governments seek to give to Pakistan, the ground reality is that Afghanistan needs Pakistan if it is to achieve anything like internal stability, and it does not and never will need India in the same way. For its part India is uneasy that a weak Afghanistan will become a safe haven for terrorists that would, they assume, have easy passage through Pakistan en-route to whatever mischief they can make in Held Kashmir or elsewhere. India has also positioned itself to take best advantage of the post-Isaf and US environment and post-Karzai as well. He will not be running as president next time around and has no obvious successor. The US will undoubtedly be engaged on the sidelines of the new strategic partnership as it adjusts to an India emerging as a regional superpower, and China will be keeping a close eye on the ball. Ultimately, Karzai or his successor is going to have to move back to a centrist position that includes Pakistan, but Pakistan needs to be much clearer about what it is that it wants from and with Afghanistan. Protestations of ‘twin brotherhood’ such as that made by President Karzai on Wednesday mean little unless backed up by something a little more tangible. Both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan brotherhood are going to have to ‘do more’ – and soon.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 06 Oct 2011 23:11

Prem wrote:La Dungt
Flanking moves
India is a significant donor to Afghanistan, and has invested two billion dollars to build roads, schools and hospitals as well as the highly symbolic national parliament. By international aid standards this is almost small change, but it buys India a place at the table that Pakistan needs to be sitting at as well.

Right. Small change. This is from the Pakis who begged and threatened to GUBO to IMF for a 1.2 Billion $ tranche and held a crore commander conference when US refused to pay 800 million $. Small change indeed.

parsuram · Post by **parsuram** » 06 Oct 2011 23:25

Hi Acharya:
For what its worth, I had opportunity to look over a culinary institute paper, 86-87; it considered options post Soviet Afghanistan. It showed Indian Punjab as part of the paki, and all of J&K, except Ladakh, also part of the paki. The institute was backing the Khalistanis, that was clear from the document, so expected or intended to have Indian Punjab delivered to the paki as baksheesh for kicking on the Soviet. Without Punjab, no direct link to J&K, the paki would have taken the state easily, then handed over Ladhakh to their pals,the prcees. Had it not been for the paki double crossing the Khalistanis,things might have gone bad for desh. I must say Bharat certainly enjoys a charmed life. The institute did not hold back on khalistani support - makes one wonder about the AI bombing.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 06 Oct 2011 23:27

Thanks for the Info. Good data point

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 06 Oct 2011 23:31

Self deleted........

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 06 Oct 2011 23:33

parsuram wrote:Hi Acharya:
.......The institute was backing the Khalistanis, that was clear from the document, so expected or intended to have Indian Punjab delivered to the paki as baksheesh for kicking on the Soviet. ....

CIA going that far just for securing Pakis their baksheesh is rare .. does the paper list any direct references for west and its grand strategy ?