Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 2011

[ArunK]

My two cents:

In random order:

* War is not the answer to anything for any country against any country -- as evidenced by the impotence of the US in Vietnam, Iraq & Afghanistan.
* All those drone strikes have not stopped terrorist attacks against the US. It has just increased it more and more.
* All the testicular fortitude shown by Israel against Palestinian/Arab terrorists has not made Israel any safer.
* India is not strong enough to enforce its will on anyone.
* India has too much poverty that is exploitable by external Islamo-fascists/Commies to find willing collaborators.
* It is the economy, soft power and knowledge that will win us our rightful place in this planet -- not our military might.
* Only Pakis can destroy Pakis -- so we should focus on enabling them to do so.
* We do need a strong and potent military -- but we should choose our battles very carefully.
* The tools to fight terrorism/insurgencies/guerrilla warfare are still evolving on both sides. No definitive blueprint exists that guarantees victory for either side

[g.sarkar]

It is possible that we may see a different side of Pakistan - maybe all taqiyya. Only taqiyya and pretend friendship with India and swallowed Paki pride can allow Pakistanis survival if the US goes. Let's see.
..

Dr. Shiv,
Shri Ramakrishna once talked of a doll made of salt, trying to measure the depth of the ocean. As it entered the water, it dissolved away. Ramakrishna was of course teaching Advaita. But this is also the case with Pakistan. Even a pretend friendship will cause it to melt away, as it will take away the core reason of its existence, there will be nothing to hold it together and no Pakistani leader can compromise on this core issue. The only way Pakistan will be friends is if India were to break up into small pieces, along linguistic or religious lines, and Pakistan were kept in one piece, lording over the Sub-continent. This will happen only in their wet dreams. So, they will not be able to have pretend friendship with India in any situation, even if other external powers encouraged it, which they do not. The other way of friendship is what we have been discussing at BRF all the time, if Pakistan breaks up into small pieces, where each piece can not be a threat to India and they have no choice but to see the benefit of working with India. The example of this is Bangladesh in the East. We need to see similar outcomes in the West.
Just my two paisa.
Gautam

[Brad Goodman]

First, please note that there is difference between why Pakistan exists and why Pakistan survives.

..

Great post Shiv ji, worth archiving as well as adding to your book.

[KLNMurthy]

@shiv I think I understand your rhetorical reasons for talking about cowardly Indian nation etc. But MMS and the ruling clique have the primary responsibility for setting the tone for national cowardice. Yatha raja tatha praja. You were alive in '65 and I believe you can attest to the fact that under SDRE Lal Bahadur Shastri Indians as a whole felt strong, confident, and morally sure-footed in confronting TSP, when we were in far direr material straits than today.

No KLNM it was not that way. There was a lot more anxiety and a lot more dhoti shivering in 1965. Nowadays it is taken as a given that the Indian armed forces in general would defeat Pakistan to the extent that the "frustration" I see today is "We are not attacking Pakistan, so we are cowards". The 1965 attitude you have quoted is wrong. In 1965 and the years after there was a real fear that we would lose to Pakistan. Indians hardy felt "strong, confident a and morally sure footed". India was just 3 years down from the 1962 war and the armed forces and nation were hardly prepared for another war. India barely "won" the 1965 war. India managed to hold back the Pakistani assault and thwart Pakistani plans. The "holding back" was done by the simple military trick of opening a second front and Pakistan did not have the forces or generalship to cope with that. They called it an "Indian invasion", sued for a cease fire and called it victory.

...

Perceptions on the zeitgeist of 1965 relating to TSP can vary; I don't think I am wrong in my perception. In LBS we had a leader who plainly said that we will retaliate against TSP at a time and place of our choosing, and then shocked everyone by actually doing just that. He told the nation that times are hard, challenges are great, but we can meet them together, with sacrifice (miss-a-meal) and celebrating our armed forces and our peasants. In hindsight, it was a bit communistic and propagandistic, but it did the job, given the positive SDRE feeling people had about LBS. He had a reputation for taking responsibility, not just "personally not taking money." (@A_Gupta, in this context it is irrelevant that people at the time exalted the US or grumbled about India; people are capable of doing more than one thing at any one time.)

My point in bringing it up is just that leaders do set the tone for their nations (@A_Gupta, I don't think this has anything to do with existence or otherwise of technology like printing or internet) ; character, caliber and convictions of the leader do matter; in this regard, MMS is very different from say, LBS. I hope none of this is controversial?

[ramana]

ArunK, Another thing to consider is the age we live in. Dissolving TSP requires and imperial mindeset. And we live in a democratic age. Both are contradcitory in this age. However we will find a way.
If you read RK Mukherjee's old book "Fundamental Unity of India" and others of same pre 1947 genre and put it in modern US terms, the manifest destiny of India is from Suleiman mountains to the Arakan in breadth. TSP's current state of existence is a barrier to that. If we beleive in force of history then it has to change or be swept away.

[Sanku]

MMS is very different from say, LBS.

Wow. Wonderfully expressed.

[rajanb]

I have never used adjectives like "coward", or "pusillanimous" for any Indian.

India's political leadership have their own political considerations, different experiences and different priorities. Our attitude towards Pakistan of "non-belligerence" has a much broader consensus among India's power elite, than just MMS.

If I may offer an opinion, the Indian political elite views Bharat as a cow rather than a horse. Sounds almost like an Islamic quote, I know, but lets try to look at it independent of that. When one has a horse, one wants to ride it to places, explore the world, feel the speed, rejoice the freedom, test one's limits! When one has a cow, one wants to take care of it, feed it, and drink its milk and eat butter from it. One does not however want to ride a cow into battle, and one certainly does not want to put one's cow in danger! With a horse one feels strength. With a cow one feels fulfillment. It is not a question of cowardice, but rather a question of their sense for Bharat, the country's moods and nature and their place in it.

Beautifully put RajeshA.

And as someone else has posted, soft power will work, especially (my POV) that Porkis are in self destruct in hallal mode.

[A_Gupta]

The "intellectually active" members of society set a framework, a tone, from within which the leader arises. Certainly a leader plays a role in promoting some and downgrading ideas, and there is a feedback loop. i.e., neither leader nor the surrounding society should be considered in isolation, there is a system at work. So, e.g., an LBS could likely not loosen the socialist controls on the Indian economy even if he wanted to - the intellectual framework within India wasn't sufficiently strong to do that.

[A_Gupta]

If I may offer an opinion, the Indian political elite views Bharat as a cow rather than a horse. Sounds almost like an Islamic quote, I know, but lets try to look at it independent of that. When one has a horse, one wants to ride it to places, explore the world, feel the speed, rejoice the freedom, test one's limits! When one has a cow, one wants to take care of it, feed it, and drink its milk and eat butter from it. One does not however want to ride a cow into battle, and one certainly does not want to put one's cow in danger! With a horse one feels strength. With a cow one feels fulfillment. It is not a question of cowardice, but rather a question of their sense for Bharat, the country's moods and nature and their place in it.

To KLNMurthy's point - This sense doesn't come top-down from the political elite, it comes from an interaction of bottom-up and top-down actors. If you want to change the sense of the country, it requires work from our level as well.

[Sanku]

Top down bottom up yada yada...

What great changes happened in Indian society between 62 and 65?

Apart from the PM that is.

Come on folks, just who are we trying so hard to convince that the sun rises in the west?

Ourselves??

[KLNMurthy]

deleted. duplicate.

[KLNMurthy]

WRT TSP and retaliation, concrete goals are needed for concrete actions, true. But the sleight-of-hand here (as well as in India at large) is that we take the ready unavailability of beyond-debate concrete goals (a physical impossibility in any case) and magically turn that into an outright repudiation of taking on a hostile attitude towards our asuric enemy and instead adopting an appeasing attitude which is, in fact, a product of cowardice. The giveaway here is that our energy goes to debating away concrete goals and not at all for positively developing such goals, starting with a sense of moral responsibility to assert our national soul by destroying our enemy--who is not just our "rival" as westerners write and many of us believe, but is in fact our moral antithesis.

No, what we have had too much of on BRF is crybaby strategy, punching the "coward" rhetorical device, which escapes the necessity of showing how being "uncowardly" produces anything useful for India. Along with that comes paranoia, where India is the victim of forces and conspiracies hidden in plain sight (in other words, BRF is too much like a typical Pakistani TV news show).

I for one am not asking for beyond-debate concrete goals. Any goal will come with risks, and part of the analysis will be understanding the risks. But we don't have any goals described here, except a few honorable mentions. With no goals, only vague purposes like "punish Pakistan" there is no way to evaluate whether the desired outcome is in India's interests; what actions are needed to achieve the outcome; what means/resources will be needed; what is the cost; what are the risks; what is the worst-case scenario one should think about; what alignment of external forces will be needed - zilch.

If Pakistan is our moral antithesis and needs to be destroyed, then the average kind of writing on BRF is a major moral failure. It cannot be excused away as time-pass and "chill, this is just people venting". At least let people contribute to the other mission, which is to serve as a aggregator/summarizer of information about Pakistan.

If it wasn't serious, then the hobbyist approach to Pakistan, and the BENIS thread is all we need.

India cannot rely on a messiah-like PM to arise and do the right thing. There has to be a strategic culture and its habits of thinking among some of the public. And "Yatha Raja tatha Praja" dates from before the printing press and all the means of mass communications. Now it is that we get the leadership that we are willing to pay - in campaign contributions, in effort, in education, in public awareness.

At a minimum it will put an end to Shiv's annoying-but-necessary-since-no-one-seems-to-get-it posts, that correctly object to the "India cowardly, US brave" meme that infects this place. It doesn't matter if the average American is Superman and Hanuman rolled into one. The only relevant question on BRF is whether the US is working towards outcomes that suit Indian interests or against them.

Well. What we have here is a failure to communicate, as the saying goes.

Sometimes it is useful to remind ourselves that we are in a "blind men and the elephant" kind of situation. It is extremely hard for the blind men to listen to each other and consider it in a positive light, taking time out from proving one's own correctness (which is also important and valuable), and find a consensus. Even then, the consensus will be some weird beast, not an actual elephant.

It could be a challenge to even agree on terms and their meanings. Words like "goal" (implicitly good), "cowardly" (implicitly bad) might connote different things and hold different values to different people. Shiv has ably pointed out that "cowardly" isn't necessarily a bad thing at all times. Let me point out that "goal" is nothing sacred either. In fact, I contend that at the present juncture, focussing on "achievable, valuable, goals" wrt TSP is doing us actual harm. I used the term "sleight-of-hand" previously. Let me spell this out a bit:

The way I see the AVG (achievable, valuable, goals) logic going is this:

* We should think of some action--military, diplomatic, trade etc.--that we can carry out against TSP that will either
(a) force TSP to do something useful for us; e.g., hand over Dawood Ibrahim, torture-and-kill Kiyani, disband ISI, give up POK etc., OR
(b) does nothing to influence TSP behavior but mainly sends a message to the world in general and to our self-image that we cannot be messed with, without attracting consequences. e.g., targeted assassination of Dawood, bombing terrorist camps, cold start, doing something with indus waters, etc.

* Whether it is action of type (a) or type (b), we should clearly define a concrete goal, calculate its potential risk or costs, and consider our capabilities etc. in a rational way, and then come to a decision as to what to do, if anything.

* Very quickly, the calculation leads up the escalation ladder to either
(i) TSP attacking us with nukes, or in an alternative chain,
(ii) US putting a crimp in our development goals--denying tech, issuing "travel advisory" during Parakram, increasing our cost and risk by aiding TSP etc.

(i) and even (ii) are, very sensibly, determined to be unacceptable risks and costs at the present juncture.

* We therefore conclude that we can't really do anything meaningful right now that we are comfortable with. We withdrew from Parakram, we didn't hit TSP after 26/11. Jingos shout that it is cowardly etc., but (the reasoning goes) that is childish thinking (it is even more childish if we whine that US would have been more macho about it); we are actually merely being prudent and sensible.

* So far, so good; most reasonable people can probably accept the broad outlines of this line of logic.

* Now comes the sleight-of-hand, leap of logic, whatever: Since we can't do anything meaningful wrt TSP right now, might as well be friends with them. This is a major qualitative leap in the thinking, which constructs, out of whole cloth, the delusion that there is no fundamental incompatibility between the survival and prosperity of TSP--as presently conceived and constituted--and that of India. In specific terms, this fiction, which is ultimately untenable, precludes a whole range of options.
- keeping diplomatic and trade relations to the barest minimum.
- stolidly, repeatedly, and loudly demanding that TSP do the following:
1. hand over Dawood et al's head on a platter.
2. Hand over heads of the torturers of Kalia & his men on a platter.
3. Behead Kayani in the middle of Hira Mandi
4. Stop teaching hatred of India and Hindus in their schools
5. Remove separate electorates from their constitution, as well as the requirement that the head of govt be a muslim.
6. Declare officially that Jinnah was a genocidal criminal against humanity and use his mazar as a toilet.
7. Declare March 25 every year as a day of Atonement, when each female citizen of TSP will personally slap a soldier of TSPA, like Rakhi Purnima but different.
8. And oh yes, please vacate POK ASAP.

Of course, our goal-oriented sages will cleverly jump on this list and point out that TSP will do none of these things, but that only matters if you care about achievable goals in this context. I don't. Rather, my goal at this time is to simply confine my communication with TSP to these and similar words. I just want to keep saying these words, and for the time being, not that much more to TSP and the world. (I will also inflict opportunistic pinpricks on TSP, while repeating these demands). TSP and the world will make fun of us, call us SDRE, smelly Hindu banias, purveyors of "literature", even try to cajole us by saying, "but why don't you want to talk, we are brothers only." Or maybe just mock us, remind us of their nukes. Or maybe continue or increase terrorism. I wouldn't be moved by any of this; just stolidly keep repeating these demands and telling them I will discuss nothing but these demands.

What is the actual harm to us, then? It is in the wholesale adoption and internalization of the delusion that our nature and destiny are not incompatible with that of TSP. We must accept the incompatibility, and do what we can at this time about it. What I have listed above is just words--which are as powerful or as powerless as words can be. When we put away our natural enmity with TSP (the existence of which enmity I have reluctantly accepted after decades of resisting the concept), we lose our essence as a people, and we won't prosper in any meaningful or sustainable sense of the term. That is the harm I see.

P.S. There is a school of thought that holds that we are just biding our time with TSP--Bhima eating while Bakasura is hitting. I like that, but I worry that Bhima is forgetting that Bakasura is to be killed--or to shift the scene a bit, in the ultimate battle with Duryodhana, Bhima needs Krishna tapping his thigh to remind him that he is not there to enjoy a fair fight, fought in respectful rivalry, but to fulfill his destiny by destroying the moral antithesis of the Pandavas.

[Sanku]

KLNM ji -- excellent indeed.

[RamaY]

* Whether it is action of type (a) or type (b), we should clearly define a concrete goal, calculate its potential risk or costs, and consider our capabilities etc. in a rational way, and then come to a decision as to what to do, if anything.

* Very quickly, the calculation leads up the escalation ladder to either
(i) TSP attacking us with nukes, or in an alternative chain,
(ii) US putting a crimp in our development goals--denying tech, issuing "travel advisory" during Parakram, increasing our cost and risk by aiding TSP etc.

KLNM ji,

The whole "strategy" is to force the other (side of the argument) one to do the work and provide the plans so they can always "escalate" the issue to nuke-scenario and claim war is bad and go home.

We have seen this thread after thread (Deterrence, Managing Paki failure, etc.,). The whole strategy is force sleep the demanding voices.

[Sanku]

Shiv-ji says that Pak-US nexus must be broken to really take Pakis down.

I agree and have made my tentative humble proposals on how to.

What are any other plans that might work (note: I do not consider grovelling before US begging pleading and offering multi-billion contract as bribes to persuade them to change their mind as plans, if the thrust is, lets become SoKo so that Unkil can save us from Paki NoKo, the answer is thanks but no thanks)

[RamaY]

My two cents:

In random order:

* War is not the answer to anything for any country against any country -- as evidenced by the impotence of the US in Vietnam, Iraq & Afghanistan.
* All those drone strikes have not stopped terrorist attacks against the US. It has just increased it more and more.
* All the testicular fortitude shown by Israel against Palestinian/Arab terrorists has not made Israel any safer.
* India is not strong enough to enforce its will on anyone.
* India has too much poverty that is exploitable by external Islamo-fascists/Commies to find willing collaborators.
* It is the economy, soft power and knowledge that will win us our rightful place in this planet -- not our military might.
* Only Pakis can destroy Pakis -- so we should focus on enabling them to do so.
* We do need a strong and potent military -- but we should choose our battles very carefully.
* The tools to fight terrorism/insurgencies/guerrilla warfare are still evolving on both sides. No definitive blueprint exists that guarantees victory for either side

So die in the hands of Paki terrorists. That is our strategy!

* War is an instrument of influence like trade, international relations. If War is not an option why have Indian Armed forces? (0.01% army is taking up 2.5% GDP; not Budget which will make it 17% of annual budget ).
* Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan will never try to hurt US interests - at least for 20-30 years.
* The drone strikes ensured that US did not have a single terror attack since 9/11.
* India was not strong in 1947, 1965, 1971, 1999. It is strong enough.
* You are calling fellow Indians traitors. If you do not edit your post, I am going to report it.
* Indian economy could not help its BPL population in the past 60 years even though it created ~50 $billionaires. Its soft power did not earn it UNSC seat. Indian Knowledge is becoming unknown to its own population.
* Pakis are trying to destroy pakis. But they are asking for help in that process and us being the good boys we must help them destroy themselves.
* Why do you need strong military when you proclaimed it is economy, soft power and knowledge that is the future and not wars?
* The tools, techniques and strategies keep evolving. You can sit in a corner and wait for the pakis come home to roast your economy, soft power and knowledge. Their Islamic brothers are doing exactly that in Egipt.

[KLNMurthy]

The "intellectually active" members of society set a framework, a tone, from within which the leader arises. Certainly a leader plays a role in promoting some and downgrading ideas, and there is a feedback loop. i.e., neither leader nor the surrounding society should be considered in isolation, there is a system at work. So, e.g., an LBS could likely not loosen the socialist controls on the Indian economy even if he wanted to - the intellectual framework within India wasn't sufficiently strong to do that.

Not denying that leadership is not a one-way street and the "soil" plays a part in the producing the leader.

[KLNMurthy]

* Whether it is action of type (a) or type (b), we should clearly define a concrete goal, calculate its potential risk or costs, and consider our capabilities etc. in a rational way, and then come to a decision as to what to do, if anything.

* Very quickly, the calculation leads up the escalation ladder to either
(i) TSP attacking us with nukes, or in an alternative chain,
(ii) US putting a crimp in our development goals--denying tech, issuing "travel advisory" during Parakram, increasing our cost and risk by aiding TSP etc.

KLNM ji,

The whole "strategy" is to force the other (side of the argument) one to do the work and provide the plans so they can always "escalate" the issue to nuke-scenario and claim war is bad and go home.

We have seen this thread after thread (Deterrence, Managing Paki failure, etc.,). The whole strategy is force sleep the demanding voices.

War is bad. "They" are not wrong about that.

Our challenge, which I hope we all agree on, is to find a "solution" to TSP that doesn't involve war. It is a formidable challenge because never in human history has anyone confronted anything like it, so there are no guidelines of any precision. The solution may not be there, but we can't say that without even looking around and trying for one. Finding that the solution is hard or the the possibility that the problem is intractable, leads to a denial that there is a problem in the first place.

[nachiket]

Is he fooling all Indians? Or are Indians just dumb? it's got to be one or other.

Neither, its called information asymmetry, comes from the stupid education system that you have been exploring elsewhere.

Sanku saar and shiv garu, my reply in offtopic thread: viewtopic.php?p=1218091#p1218091

[KLNMurthy]

If pakis do taqiya and feign detente with India, there is a risk, so to speak, that they will end up internalizing their own lies and actually having a viable Indophilic meme. But I think this won't happen as they are inoculated against falling for their own lies by having enough Islamist / neo-mughalai voices and the mechanism of the friday khutba which reminds them about hudabiya.

[brihaspati]

My two cents:

In random order:

* War is not the answer to anything for any country against any country -- as evidenced by the impotence of the US in Vietnam, Iraq & Afghanistan.

British war mongering has worked: Argentina tried to snap off a disputed territory, Brits punched it off. All of the inner "commonwealth" is white-land because of successful war-mongering. Even India shows the benefits of crushing by war - there are so many "majority culture" bashers in continuous state power now for almost 60 years, with a replica dynasty as in Westminster in virtual royal mode. Vietnam invaded Cambodia in spite of Chinese anger and got what it wanted.

The most recent examples are of course changes in Libya, and Russian intervention in Georgia/Abkhazia. Or carving out new nation out of Sudan. Look at who funded, sent in military contingents and components into the Horn of Africa. Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sudan, Somalia - war benefits the ones who wage them there.

The so-called US-impotence in Iraq and Afghanistan could be related to its inability to go against Saudi-Islamist ruling regimes, or financial tie-ups with Islamist oil-powers. This makes it difficult for them to destroy the power basis of the mullahcracy in occupied territories.

* All those drone strikes have not stopped terrorist attacks against the US. It has just increased it more and more.

There does not seem to be any on US soil. in the first phase, when USA was not hurting Pak and therefore British-ISI interests, US did not have to face "increasing" Taleb violence. Its only when ISI began to see that the long term Paki-Brit dream of regaining an Indian empire [each hoping to get it for their respective ideologies/imperiums] would be delayed in US swing towards an Indian alliance - that the Paki-Brit team have started their naqhras.

* All the testicular fortitude shown by Israel against Palestinian/Arab terrorists has not made Israel any safer.

Let us use the classical police logic - if the police were not there there would be more rapes. If we really cared to study the background of formation of Israel, we can see that Islamics had always wanted to wipe off the "Jew" there - and they seriously tried out in the lead up to 1948, and have never given that ghazwa hope up. Israel has to show fortitude to merely exist.

* India is not strong enough to enforce its will on anyone.

Sure, but this depends on the convenience of the dynasty. When its convenient for the dynastic scion then in power, India can throw its weight around in IOR, or an East Pakistan, or Sri Lanka. Onlee when it comes to finishing off Islamist entities - we find we are not strong enough. Perhaps a deep family commitment to the protection of only the right kind of [not all minorities] minorities - however rabid they might happen to be.

* India has too much poverty that is exploitable by external Islamo-fascists/Commies to find willing collaborators.

It is not the poverty stricken whose collaboration is damaging. Its the educated/well-off who feel ashamed of their non-Islamic non-Christian non-Marxian origins who are the most damaging. Loudness or shrillness of agitprop on media meant for the literate, and the numerical apparent strength on the self-orgiastic elite media-circus - can help us believe in the propaganda that its the "poverty stricken". That is not what happens on ground - its the beginning to be upwardly-mobile but hitherto cornered in the middle-elite level factional internal fights - who use Islamo-fascist-commie techniques for their own power seeking.

In the south [as well as in the north] there have always been collaborators from the existing ruling/dominant powers who somehow feel deprived and lend themselves to the "invader" [Kaalnemi, Sugreeva or Bibhishana for example - whatever be the ethical jsutification that they were doing for a "higher purpose" and "good" against "evil" - exactly the logic used by modern parallels].

* It is the economy, soft power and knowledge that will win us our rightful place in this planet -- not our military might.

The classic myth - not supported by history but only by Islamo-Christian propaganda so that Indians do not use the Isalmo-Christian imperialist teechniques back on them one day.

* Only Pakis can destroy Pakis -- so we should focus on enabling them to do so.

A good excuse to preserve a bastion of mullahcracy on the subcontinent. Helps the brits and ghazwa hungry hindu-girl salivating abduls. If Muslims had destroyed themselves merely because they wer engaged in internal fights - they would finished off a thousand times over by this time. Its a complete failure to understand the mechanism of mullahcracy as a self-perpetuating institution that regenerates jihad.

* We do need a strong and potent military -- but we should choose our battles very carefully.

Agreed. But hopefully that does not feed into the mercantilist group-think that hedges on both Hindus as well as the Islamist, and completely risk-avoiding in the pursuit of guaranteed personal monetary profits. The choice should not be postponed indefinitely.

* The tools to fight terrorism/insurgencies/guerrilla warfare are still evolving on both sides. No definitive blueprint exists that guarantees victory for either side

No tools can evolve when you are not clear about what to do with the other side. Pakis have an advantage in this : they have been told by their prophet that the goal is limited and clear - kill as many of the adult males as possible, convert the rest, destroy the intellectual leaders of the non-Muslim and erase all traces of non-Muslim cultures, capture all the women and enslave them, get all accumulated wealth of the non-Muslim and their fertile lands. Clear, simple, concrete and objective. No guilt needed since it is ordered directly by the supra-human authority.

Compared to that Indians are hesitant. Congrez types panick and shout about their loyalty for the muslim, while hating them so much so that any talk of absorption of the Paki populace inside an expanded India - is a horrible anathema for them! Muslims are so peaceful, so much influenced and shaped "Indian" civilization - but we cannot live with more of such peaceful contributors to our civilization - among ourselves.

First there has to be decision as to what to do with Islam, muslim and the current occupation state-like structure called Pakistan. Only based on clarity on such stuff, can one form a clear cut policy.

[KLNMurthy]

Modeling homo pakistanicus DNA

Can we develop a "living" evolving, useful, stereotypical, essentialist characteristic and behavioral model of The Pakistani that captures the core of the collective, dynamic paki personality? I am a total amateur at this but the analogy I have in mind is an entomologist's model of a pest like a mosquito: understand it and draw conclusions about its vulnerability to various elimination and mitigation measures. Such a model would be continually refined and self-corrective in response to observed behavioral phenomena. BRF is meant for this but perhaps we can be more systematic.

I'll make a rough attempt to kick off by listing a few characteristics off the top of my head:
* can be an affectionate and friendly creature under some(what?) conditions.
* self-righteous
* emotional: vulnerable to hurt feelings
* low logical capacity
* capable of appalling violence
* bullying and domineering
* determined and focussed over a long period of time in pursuit of dominance

[ArunK]

Brihaspati,

#1
I agree with most of what you say. But perhaps I need to re-phrase -- War is not an option between countries the size of India and Pakiland. Especially when both are armed with nukes. You may say what you want, but setting off of a nuke is *not* an option in either India or Pakiland by either party.

If it means that we will be susceptible to blackmail, then that is true. The threshold to put that fact aside and go forward with an all out war is *very* high. We know it and the Pakis know it. Pakis are good at brinkmanship. Don't forget their "allies". They will try and push the envelope as much as they can without crossing a red line.

That brings up an interesting point. What *are* our red lines? Do we know? Also, we cannot come up with an arbitrary red line and "publish" it. It is guaranteed to be challenged almost immediately. Especially with all the "doubt" created with the effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent. There is also the "non-state" actor sponsored by the state who could try and cross the red line. What do you do in that case?

War cannot be an option.

#2
Americans continue to die. How does it matter where they are being killed? The point is I do not see an end to this war even after 10 years. We are still in Square 1. The US is spending an *insane* amount of money to continue with this war. India will be bankrupt if it gets stuck in a swamp like Afghanistan.

#3
I agree that Israel has no choice but to fight the way they have been fighting so far in order to survive a true existential threat to their survival as a nation. They have so far managed to killed off Palestinian/Arab terrorism ver 1 through ver 5 either directly, through peace making or through allies. But they still face ver 6 & ver 7 [Hamas & Hezbollah] who are getting stronger and their killing power getting more lethal. If this stand off continues for another 20 years, Arab nukes will be in the picture. I really think this conflict has to be settled politically soon.

#4
This is true. I stand by that statement 100%. Please do not forget the influence of "allies" on either side. We are very vulnerable from an military equipment perspective. We can be seriously squeezed. Also, SL did not turn out so well for us if you recall. Nothing has changed today. We are getting a little better but still have a looooong way to go.

#5

Agreed.

#6

Let us take Afghanistan as an example. Bollywood, Indian hospitals, schools, roads and buses has done a thousand times more for India there than military power. We have seen how much damage the iron fist has caused in Kashmir and the North East. Look how that has been exploited all these years. Look at how the Soviet Union collapsed once the economy collapsed. All those years of ruling with an iron fist vanished into thin air overnight.

#7

I am not sure you understood what I meant. Pakistan should be destroyed by breaking it into pieces along ethnic lines. Pakjabi arrogance almost guarantees it. It requires us to play our cards correctly.

#8

Our military is currently very vulnerable to external pressures. That will be the case till our defense industry develops or our alliances develop. Until that happens it should be primarily defensive in nature. Witch means we cannot initiate an offensive operation against the Pakis. We can only react defensively. God knows that they have given us many reasons.

#9

Agreed. Our strategic vision is not yet articulated. That is the first step.

[shyamd]

Pak-India talks: Vital accords on nukes, missile tests extended
By Kamran Yousaf
Published: December 28, 2011

Pak-India talks on "nuclear CBMs led by Addit.Sec Munawar Saeed Bhatti and Joint Sec, D.B. Ven Katesh Varma held at Foreign Office in Islamabad. PHOTO: PPI

ISLAMABAD: The end of the two-day talks held between Pakistan and India showed some results, but it was apparent no drastic changes were on the agenda. Both sides have agreed to extend two vital accords on the pre-notification of ballistic missile tests and reducing the risk of accidents related to nuclear weapons for another five years.

The agreements were reached at the end of the expert-level talks in Islamabad, taking place to discuss nuclear and conventional confidence building measures (CBMs). The parleys, part of the peace process resumed earlier this year between the two neighbours, were held in a ‘cordial and constructive atmosphere,’ said a statement issued by the foreign office.

The two sides agreed to recommend to their foreign secretaries to extend the validity of the “Agreement on Reducing the Risk from Accidents Relating to Nuclear Weapons” for another five years, it said. They also decided to renew agreement on the pre-notification of ballistic missile tests. The term of the existing arrangement is believed to expire in February next year.

Despite earlier indications, the two countries appear fail to expand the scope of current agreement by also including cruise missile tests.

However, while few concrete steps were taken at this point in time, the two sides did appear to lay the foundation for more substantive action. During the talks, both sides reviewed the implementation and strengthening of existing CBMs in the framework of the previous Lahore Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), and agreed to explore possibilities for mutually acceptable additional steps. The two sides also exchanged notes on their security concepts and nuclear doctrines during discussions on nuclear CBMs.

Discussing the nukes

On the topic of nuclear weapons, some differences were apparent. While Islamabad renewed its offer of a ‘strategic restraint regime’ accord, New Delhi pushed for a pledge from Pakistan about ‘no first use of nuclear weapons.’

Indian media claimed that the talks focused on the need for Pakistan to “demonstrate restraint and responsibility” in the nuclear field. The need for greater engagement by Pakistan on multi-lateral negotiations, especially on the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT), also figured in the talks, it said.

Pakistan has long boycotted negotiations on the FMCT, arguing that it has to continue producing fissile material used in nuclear weapons to address the conventional military imbalance with India.

New CBMs

During the talks, the two sides also proposed fresh CBMs in a bid to lower the level of trust-deficit. The new CBMs include a proposal by Islamabad to redeploy heavy weapons at the Line of Control (LoC) in the disputed region of Kashmir and an agreement on the prevention of incidents at sea.

The proposals exchanged by the two sides at the talks will now be forwarded to the foreign secretaries. This was the first meeting of Joint Working Group on nuclear and conventional CBMs in the last four years.

[Virupaksha]

#6

Let us take Afghanistan as an example. Bollywood, Indian hospitals, schools, roads and buses has done a thousand times more for India there than military power. We have seen how much damage the iron fist has caused in Kashmir and the North East. Look how that has been exploited all these years. Look at how the Soviet Union collapsed once the economy collapsed. All those years of ruling with an iron fist vanished into thin air overnight.

Arunk,

Guess the first ones to be destroyed as and when the islamist structures come to power? hint:what was the first building to be destroyed by egyptian islamists when they have smelt a whiff of power.

bollywood, hospitals, schools, roads, buses are whiff of a lipstick on a pig. A mullah will simply wipe it off at the first oppurtunity.

What damage from the "ironfist" in Kashmir and northeast are you hinting at?

[Keshav]

The Ally From Hell (The Atlantic)
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... hell/8730/

A great article about how the Americans are finally waking up to their governments connivance with the Pakis and how long they have been doing it. It very clearly lays out how the American government itself is funding the very same troops that are killing its own people in places like Afghanistan. There also seems to be a belief by the author that the balkanization or complete failure of the state is well underway. Warms the heart to hear American journalists talk the way they do in the article after hearing a lot of equal equal talk from a hundred other sources.

A few interesting bits:

Public pronouncements to the contrary, very few figures in the highest ranks of the American and Pakistani governments suffer from the illusion that their countries are anything but adversaries, whose national-security interests clash radically and, it seems, permanently. Pakistani leaders obsess about what they view as the existential threat posed by nuclear-armed India, a country that is now a strategic ally of the United States. Pakistani policy makers The Atlantic interviewed in Islamabad and Rawalpindi this summer uniformly believe that India is bent on drawing Afghanistan into an alliance against Pakistan. (Pervez Musharraf said the same thing during an interview in Washington.) Many of Pakistan’s leaders have long believed that the Taliban, and Taliban-like groups, are the most potent defenders of their interests in Afghanistan.

(...)

Pakistani leaders also tell untruths when they assert that their military and security organizations are immune to radical influence. The ISI senior official The Atlantic interviewed in Islamabad in July made such an assertion: “I have seen no significant radicalization of any of our men in uniform. This is simply a lie,” he said. But a body of evidence suggests otherwise. Sympathy for jihadist-oriented groups among at least some Pakistani military men has been acknowledged for years, even inside Pakistan; recently a brigadier, Ali Khan, was arrested for allegedly maintaining contact with a banned extremist organization. While we were reporting this story, militants invaded a major Pakistani naval base near Karachi, blowing up two P-3C Orion surveillance planes and killing at least 10 people on the base. Pakistani security forces required 15 hours to regain control of the base. Experts believe that nuclear-weapon components were stored nearby. In a series of interviews, several Pakistani officials told The Atlantic that investigators believe the militants had help inside the base. A retired Pakistani general with intelligence experience says, “Different aspects of the military and security services have different levels of sympathy for the extremists. The navy is high in sympathy.”

(...)

THE AMERICAN LIES about this tormented relationship are of a different sort. The U.S. government has lied to itself, and to its citizens, about the nature and actions of successive Pakistani governments. Pakistani behavior over the past 20 years has rendered the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism effectively meaningless. The U.S. currently names four countries as state sponsors of terror: Sudan, Iran, Syria, and Cuba. American civilian and military officials have for years made the case, publicly and privately, that Pakistan is a state sponsor of terrorism—yet it has never been listed as such. In the last 12 months of the presidency of George H. W. Bush, for example, Secretary of State James Baker wrote a letter to the Pakistani prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, accusing Pakistan of supporting Muslim terrorists in Indian-administered Kashmir, as well as Sikh terrorists operating inside India. “We have information indicating that [the ISI] and others intend to continue to provide material support to groups that have engaged in terrorism,” the letter read. At this same time, a talking-points memo read to Pakistani leaders by Nicholas Platt, who was then the American ambassador to Pakistan, asserted, “Our information is certain.” The memo went on: “Please consider the serious consequences [to] our relationship if this support continues. If this situation persists, the Secretary of State may find himself required by law to place Pakistan on the state sponsors of terrorism list.”

(...)

This sort of paranoia has spread through the Pakistani security elite—and it went viral after the Abbottabad raid. Fear of pernicious American designs on Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal has combined with people’s anger over their military’s apparent impotence, creating a feeling of almost toxic insecurity across the country. The raid shook the confidence of the army, and its admirers, like no other event since Pakistan’s most recent defeat by the Indian army, in 1999. (There have been multiple wars between India and Pakistan, all of them won by India.) When U.S. Navy SEALs penetrated Pakistani air defenses, landed in helicopters streets away from a prestigious military academy, killed the most-wanted fugitive in modern history, and then departed, the Pakistani military was oblivious for the duration. Pervasive derision followed. A popular text message in the days after the raid read, “If you honk your horn, do so lightly, because the Pakistani army is asleep.”

[Y. Kanan]

Violence never solves anything, eh?

I wonder what the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would say about that.

[shiv]

Is he fooling all Indians? Or are Indians just dumb? it's got to be one or other.

Neither, its called information asymmetry, comes from the stupid education system that you have been exploring elsewhere.

-----------------------

The problem with trying these pisko games is that people who have spent too much time around you also begin to catch on.

Sanku - nothing to "catch on". People have parts of their mind touched that they didn't know existed and think "I am playing games". People don't like seeing what they see in their own heads - but I don't deliberately play too many games. Fact is I often don't know myself. I learn from what people say - but the big risk is anger. I have learned from what people on BRF sad 10 years ago and years from now I will look back and think "Hey that's not what it is"

Information asymmetry is a nice term, but I have great trouble in believing certain concepts that are thrown up by the elegant expression. If MMS is a traitor then all his party men have to be traitors to protect him. But if his party men are traitors the opposition must be traitors to not even speak about it. If the entire government - ruling parties and opposition are traitors why are we cursing only one man or one party? If the "ruling class" is a separate class like "Baniyas" or "Vokkaligas" what were they when they were college students 25 years ago and what are their classmates in college saying about them? I have no answers and can't find out unless I ask.

Let me stop here. Pakistan is easier to discuss without asking uncomfortable questions that make people angrily imagine that I am playing games with their minds.

[Jaspreet]

If MMS is a traitor then all his party men have to be traitors to protect him.

The other possibility is that don't want to disagree since doing that may incur the wrath of the queen. And because she wins them elections she's all important. Since when was CONgress the bastion of democracy anyway? In other words they're letting their petty interests stand in the way of nation's.

Another possibility is that there's far more information available to the PM and possibly to the leader of the opposition for them to know that the kind of violent solutions that BR yearns for aren't practical. Perhaps
(a) There are too many shortcomings in India's preparedness
(b) there are too many constraints, like economic & geopolitical
(c) information available publicly on which BR relies is not complete, is not reliable and is biased
(d) there's more rapport between Indian and Pakistani institutions than BR believes. IOW, when Indian and Pak officials meet, it isn't always "you ar$ehole, Paki Muslim and bad...India Hindu and idol worshipper and bad" with frothing at the mouth by officials of both countries but something far more civilized.

[shiv]

My point in bringing it up is just that leaders do set the tone for their nations ; character, caliber and convictions of the leader do matter; in this regard, MMS is very different from say, LBS. I hope none of this is controversial?

If I may point out something without having any disagreement with what you are saying:

There are three entities that you speak of here
1. The leader
2. The people of the nation and their expectations
3. The expectations of the observer/commentator (you)

You are not the leader - you are not MMS - so clearly your expectation is different from MMS's actions

The only question is whether your expectation of MMS exactly matches that of the people of the nation. If we assume that "we don't know" the answer to this question you come up against the possibility that you are merely expressing your opinion about MMS which might not coincide with what others feel.

Sorry. I will stop here. We are really going to go off topic. One of the things that bothers me about "MMS" discussions is that as a thinking person, through my childhood and adult years I have seen Nehru (I was too young I guess but I recall his death anyway) Shastri, Indira, Rajiv Gandhi. Morarji Desai, PVNR, Charan Singh, VP Singh, Deve Gowda, Vajpayee and now MMS. The Pakistan problem has evolved but has not been solved. Rants about MMS are assuming that "some other person" would be better. This is a bit like "If my aunt had a dik" We don't know if some other person would be better. We just don't like what we see now and want out. If and when we get a new person, we will not know for 5 to 10 years whether he is any better. By that time a lot of "young hopefuls" will be middle aged and the middle aged will be old. And if he too does not meet expectations we will say "Political class. kaangress. Socialist" etc These words make us feel better but may have no bearing on Pakistan.

[Y. Kanan]

My two cents:

* India has too much poverty that is exploitable by external Islamo-fascists/Commies to find willing collaborators.

* You are calling fellow Indians traitors. If you do not edit your post, I am going to report it.

Then you'd better report me as well. Our muslims and our commies do represent a big chunk of our population and yes, they do make it easier for Pakistan and China to stir up trouble inside India. The ongoing insurgencies in Kashmir and the NE are ample proof of this.

But I do believe the internal threat is overstated. I don't think muslim or commie guerillas would play any significant role in a military conflict with China\Pakistan. And I don't think communal riots would be a big concern either. The vast majority of Indian muslims will stay quiet and keep a low profile in the event of war, becuase they know that riots would be met with overwhelming counter-riots and massacres by Hindu mobs. I don't think Indian muslims are eager for a repeat of what happened in Gujarat back in 2002.

[shiv]

Another possibility is that there's far more information available to the PM and possibly to the leader of the opposition for them to know that the kind of violent solutions that BR yearns for aren't practical. Perhaps
(a) There are too many shortcomings in India's preparedness
(b) there are too many constraints, like economic & geopolitical
(c) information available publicly on which BR relies is not complete, is not reliable and is biased
(d) there's more rapport between Indian and Pakistani institutions than BR believes. IOW, when Indian and Pak officials meet, it isn't always "you ar$ehole, Paki Muslim and bad...India Hindu and idol worshipper and bad" with frothing at the mouth by officials of both countries but something far more civilized.

Jaspreet that is an insightful post. Even if one or more points are wrong at least your post allows for more possibilities than we allow for by taking one single explanation as teh whole truth.

[shiv]

Then you'd better report me as well. Our muslims and our commies do represent a big chunk of our population and yes, they do make it easier for Pakistan and China to stir up trouble inside India. The ongoing insurgencies in Kashmir and the NE are ample proof of this.

But I do believe the internal threat is overstated. I don't think muslim or commie guerillas would play any significant role in a military conflict with China\Pakistan. And I don't think communal riots would be a big concern either. The vast majority of Indian muslims will stay quiet and keep a low profile in the event of war, becuase they know that riots would be met with overwhelming counter-riots and massacres by Hindu mobs. I don't think Indian muslims are eager for a repeat of what happened in Gujarat back in 2002.

There is yet another layer of complexity here. It is my view (my personal observation) that the "we" that we refer to on here represents a class of educated English speaking Indians who assume that our interests==country's interests and if our interests are not met the country is being sold out.

In fact that is exactly the argument made by Gurcharan Das about Indira and Nehrus' socialist policies, which called untold misery to thousands of would be entrepreneurs and would be wealth generators. Das is perfectly correct from their viewpoint, and to a large extent "ours" too.

But the politicians of our country may know better about exactly who counts for what. India's socialist policy of rationing, cheap cooking fuel, cheap (in more ways that one) public transport, cheap shipping by rail, cheap posts etc got them the gratitude of 200 million Indians versus the curses of 1 million.

The same things holds true today wrt to Pakistan. We may call it "vote bank" politics, but the politicians will only do what the majority of their constituents want. If the majority want no war with Pakistan and just subsidized cakes, that is what we will see. We nearly went bankrupt with that policy and it can stil happen, but then again who is to say that war with Pakistan won't bankrupt us. It is up to us to mobilize different opinions if we wish, but we have a huge country with massive "other interests".

[Suppiah]

Shiv saare, your point about TSPA having to kick out because of the general abdul becoming more anti-US has two important sub-points..

1. The anti-americanism was sired, mid-wifed, fed, trained and grown by TSPA - you mean they sowed the seeds of their own eventual destruction (at least their own hold on power?)
2. The abduls are even more anti-India than anti-US, we dont even give them money. So how is that gonna help the TSPA to do taqqiya? After all, the abdul's wont see it as taqiyya, they will see it as real surrender to the kufr enemy..

If MMS/any future PM throws any crumb, TSPA can grab it and claim 'victory' as they have done all these years without winning anything - that is one possibility.

But re-education of abdul's is a remote possibility even impossible even if the task is begun with all sincerity today.

[KLNMurthy]

My point in bringing it up is just that leaders do set the tone for their nations ; character, caliber and convictions of the leader do matter; in this regard, MMS is very different from say, LBS. I hope none of this is controversial?

If I may point out something without having any disagreement with what you are saying:

There are three entities that you speak of here
1. The elader
2. The people of the nation and their expectations
3. The expectations of the observer/commentator (you)

You are not the leader - you are not MMS - so clearly your expectation is different from MMS's actions

The only question is whether your expectation of MMS exactly matches that of the people of the nation. If we assume that "we don't know" the answer to this question you come up against the possibility that you are merely expressing your opinion about MMS which might not coincide with what others feel.

Sorry. I will stop here. We are really going to go off topic. One of the things that bothers me about "MMS" discussions is that as a thinking person, through my childhood and adult years I have seen Nehru (I was too young I guess but I recall his death anyway) Shastri, Indira, Rajiv Gandhi. Morarji Desai, PVNR, Charan Singh, VP Singh, Deve Gowda, Vajpayee and now MMS. The Pakistan problem has evolved but has not been solved. Rants about MMS are assuming that "some other person" would be better. This is a bit like "If my aunt had a dik" We don't know if some other person would be better. We just don't like what we see now and want out. If ans when we get a new person, we will not know for 5 to 10 years whether he is any better. By that time a lot of "young hopefuls" will be middle aged and the middle aged will be old. And if he too does not meet expectations we will say "Political class. kaangress. Socialist" etc These words make us feel better but may have no bearing on Pakistan.

I am having some trouble understanding your response, but to the extent I am able to follow, you are saying to me that my opinion of MMS as a leader, is just that, an opinion, and the people and the system have raised him up and kept him there, so what does my opinion matter? In any case, I am not MMS himself, so what can I know about being a leader, specifically MMS-the-leader?

First of all, anything anyone says here, beyond citing of facts, can only be their opinion, there is nothing special one way or the other about my statements. So, it seems rather vacuous to point that out, unless there is something else here that I am missing.

(In pont of fact, I didn't actually say MMS was a bad leader, but I did say that he was different from LBS who I classed as a good leader by my lights. The answer to whether MMS is a bad leader can be quite complicated, but being in a public position in an open system, he will be evaluated and opined about by all and sundry including me.)

Secondly, there are badly-run organizations and institutions with bad leaders all over the place; the observable fact that the leaders, are, by definition, retained in place by those organizations doesn't mean that an observer--who is neither the organization's board nor the leader himself--having some metrics of leadership can't evaluate that leader as a bad leader, or that the evaluation (which at the end of the day is someone's opinion) should be dismissed.

The other bit, about "if auntie had a dick she would be uncle" etc., is rather needlessly metaphysical--yes, we have who we have as a leader, and any evaluation by definition involves some judgment against a standard. By this logic, if I give a student a 'D', he can come back to me and say, if I were smarter, or you (the prof) were less of a ********, I would have had an 'A', so isn't it absurd for you to be grading me at all? I suppose it would be a clever thing for him to say, but in the real world, his transcript would still say 'D'.

Again, I am not sure why these statements of mine are apparently being seen as controversial. If you have a different opinion of MMS as a leader, that's one thing, but why (seemingly) object to my having an opinion on his leadership at all?

It may just be that I am particularly dense, and totally misreading you; in that case please do correct me if you would.

[shiv]

Shiv saare, your point about TSPA having to kick out because of the general abdul becoming more anti-US has two important sub-points..

1. The anti-americanism was sired, mid-wifed, fed, trained and grown by TSPA - you mean they sowed the seeds of their own eventual destruction (at least their own hold on power?)
2. The abduls are even more anti-India than anti-US, we dont even give them money. So how is that gonna help the TSPA to do taqqiya? After all, the abdul's wont see it as taqiyya, they will see it as real surrender to the kufr enemy..

Suppiah I don't think anti-Americanism was sired by the TSPA. The TSPA merely cheated both the US and its own people. In each case it was juat raking in the advantages and avoiding the problems.

The US was the TSPA's biggest sponsor so they gave the US as much as they could. Air bases, access to airports, space for agents, hospitality, you name it the TSPA gave to the US. All they asked for in return was personal enrichment and arms to tell the people that Pakistan is getting stronger and stronger and stronger to take on India. The US loved this and Pakis believed it. The terror tap (in India) really got into its stride after 2001.

What the TSPA did not tell Pakis was that the US was fighting some people who had been called "allies and brothers" by Pakistanis in the anti-Soviet years. The TSPA avoided getting into that mess by selling out "foreign" Al Qaeda (Tajik, Arab etc) and protecting Pakis. The US was fooled by this in the early years following 2001. But the Paki jihadis did not always listen to Paki army. they were advised by ex Paki army types anyway and started hitting the US

It was the US that discovered that they had been jackasses. Once the "Jackass" blurb appeared over Uncle Sam's head they started accusing the Pakis of double dealing and finally the US entered into a game with Pakistan which I had earlier described as a couple in a bus pretending to be asleep under a blanket but furiously fondling each other underneath. The US kept calling Pakistan an ally, and Pakistan kept saying that they were fighting war on terror. What was actually happening was that Pakis were protecting Taliban and US was taking those Taliban out using national bird. Mango Pakis suspected that something was amiss but were not sure, until teh bin Laden raid.

The bin Laden raid brought out the Paki army's duplicity to the Paki public. Everyone hated the US for what it haddone but everyone knew that the US had some help from teh army. So the army reputation has been mauled. The army can now do nothing but agree with mango Pakis and ask the US to leave, or the army will get lynched.

The key to the future of Pakistan will be the behavior of the army. But the army has a morale problem, perhaps to the extent of mutiny. If the army can avoid mutiny they still have to get past the problem of what the US is doing in Pakistan. If the US stays the TSPA will have to do what the US wants and the people don't want that. If the US goes they become much weaker with regard to India. Their only hope will be to change attitudes towards India. Depending on how the US and India gel that could be a win win for both India and the US. But it will not be "lose" for Pakistan. China wil be kept out.

[Suppiah]

Excellent analysis...perhaps I should have said TSPA encouraged forces that were anti-american by definition but with the intention of seeing pay-offs in other aspects..

If China can be kept out, I would agree and see no harm in sending Unkil packing, not that India seems to be able to do much about it anyway..the TSP/tallel partnership has been one of unrequited love for the most part and an unnatural human-animal partnership in many respects...who knows TSPA may even grow tired of kufr Cheenis who see them as ugly barbarians.

[shiv]

Again, I am not sure why these statements of mine are apparently being seen as controversial. If you have a different opinion of MMS as a leader, that's one thing, but why (seemingly) object to my having an opinion on his leadership at all?

If I am reading you wrong, please do correct me.

Fair enough. It's not about you. MMS's incompetence and pusillanimity is a big theme on BRF. My only problem is with anyone imagining that removing or replacing MMS will have a big effect on Pakistan. I don't believe that's going to happen merely by change of Indian leader. In fact that view only means that MMS is a powerful leader who manipulated things so well for the US and Pakistan, that the Pakistan problem would never be solved and he held 1 billion Indians at bay while doing that. I think this MMS MMS MMS MMS as the biggest hurdle in solving Pakistan is like barking up one single tree imagining that the thing up there is the cause and solution to India's Pakistan problem. MMS is just another incompetent incumbent who will come and go in the long term pursuit of a solution to Pakistan.

[Pranav]

Our challenge, which I hope we all agree on, is to find a "solution" to TSP that doesn't involve war. It is a formidable challenge because never in human history has anyone confronted anything like it, so there are no guidelines of any precision. The solution may not be there, but we can't say that without even looking around and trying for one. Finding that the solution is hard or the the possibility that the problem is intractable, leads to a denial that there is a problem in the first place.

Murthy ji, there are solutions and there are excellent guidelines, compiled by genuises that rival if not exceed Sun Tzu and Chanakya.

But it takes at least one generation to start getting some traction.

[KLNMurthy]

...
The bin Laden raid brought out the Paki army's duplicity to the Paki public. Everyone hated the US for what it haddone but everyone knew that the US had some help from teh army. So the army reputation has been mauled. The army can now do nothing but agree with mango Pakis and ask the US to leave, or the army will get lynched.

...

Looking at the comments sections in the paki papers, abbotabad and mehran are not being held against the army at all. It is all the US's fault, and the abduls look to TSPA to put the US in its place. US is cooperating in this charade.