The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Nov 2011 10:07

One of the big failures of American scholarhip is that for all its universities and chairs of study, there is hardly one decent American scholar who can quote from Indian history from before what the Mughals and the Brits.

At least Samuel Huntington was brainy enough to admit it. Most American scholars don't even know what they don't know. But what sparked this post is this interesting if long speculations by Stephen Cohen about the possible futures of Pakistan.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/ ... hapter.pdf

Cohen looks at Pakistan like an eternal entity and what it needs to do to remain that way. If he had an iota of knowledge of India he would know that the people of the area called Pakistan were always linked with India. Either for trade or for refuge when invaders came from the West.

Pakistanis considered themselves the "Invaders from the West" who had temporarily vacated India, only to return victoriously at a later date. But that narrative fails when Pakistan itself faces "invasion from the west". In the old days the people on the area in present day Pakistan could look east for refuge. Pakistanis have ruled that out and they are caught between devil and deep blue sea.

Pakistan is a border state, but an area cannot be a line. A state cannot be a border. A border will have to come somewhere inside the state.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Nov 2011 11:29

US Archives of 1971:
http://history.state.gov/historicaldocu ... 6v11/comp1

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Nov 2011 02:58

X-post....

Anujan wrote:By Ayesha Siddiqa
http://tribune.com.pk/story/290828/empire-by-stealth/

Any ordinary resident of Islamabad can’t miss noticing the rising Chinese presence in the capital city. In fact, Chinese have begun to appear in most Pakistani towns, which was never the case. The fact is, China is expanding and is now at our doorstep.

So while Pakis think they are Araps the Chinese are taking over! and the idiots dont even know it. Scared of India they are letting the Chinese take over.

Once Communism dies out in PRC and Falun gong types take over,

tab tera khya hoga Kaalian!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Nov 2011 22:12

Nightwatch on the Ijaz-Haqqani Memogate:

http://www.kforcegov.com/Services/IS/Ni ... 00231.aspx

Pakistan-US: Special comment. This week, the Pakistani ambassador to the US submitted his resignation for his involvement as a conduit for conveying a politically explosive memorandum from Pakistani President Zardari to Admiral Mullen, when he was US Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Washington Post published the text of the memo whose authenticity, on a prima facie basis, is established by the ambassador's request to resign.

The memo describes a "significant deterioration in Pakistan's political atmosphere, after the US raid that killed Usama bin Laden in Abbottabad last May. The elected civilian government feared a military overthrow, led by Chief of Army Staff, General Kayani and the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate.

The memo text says that Zardari asked for Mullen's intervention with Kayani to prevent a military takeover of government. In return, Zardari promised to "revamp" his government with a new national security team of pro-American officials in return for Mullen's intervention and made six additional representations.

The six additional promises include an independent investigation of bin Laden's presence in Pakistan; identification by name of those officers who harbored bin Laden followed by their dismissal and arrest; a commitment to hand over to US authorities bin Laden's deputy Zawahiri, plus Mullah Omar and Pakistani Taliban leader Sirajuddin Haqqani or permission for independent US operations to kill them; an offer to enlarge US oversight of the security of Pakistani nuclear weapons; the elimination of Section S of Inter-Services Intelligence which is the section that maintains contact with the Taliban and the Haqqani network; and to cooperate fully with India to bring to justice the perpetrators, inside or outside the government, responsible for the 2008 Mumbai massacre.

Several points are worth noting. Most important is that Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani's government are afraid of the Pakistan armed forces to such an extent that they would ask for American assistance to prevent a coup, however misdirected.
{Not really. The politicians know that the TSPA biggest protector is the Pentagon. And hence they appealed to the Pentagon who ignored it as part of getting more cooperation from the TSPA}

The Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, is legally a military advisor and chairman of the board of senior service staff officers. He also has a dual responsibility to report as a Congressional watchdog of the state of the armed services and has no authority independently to commit the US to anything. Zardari evidently did not appreciate the subtleties of the Chairman's task. Mullen could not and would not do such a thing without presidential authority.

Secondly, Zardari and Gilan appear to know or have a good idea about the identity of military personnel who harbored bin Laden.

{This is minor point and not worth commenting on.}

Thirdly, Zardari and Gilani were prepared to hand over to the US or permit the US to kill other hostile leaders, including Zawahiri and Mullah Omar. This suggests they know or at least knew where these men were hiding at the time the memo was written.

{see abopve comment.}

Finally, the civilians distrusted the Pakistan Army and security forces to such an extent that they were willing to grant to the US exceptional oversight of Pakistani nuclear weapons. This condition of distrust has not changed and is likely to worsen.

{No/ They are giving the oversight as bargain for US to allow them to dismiss teh kabila guards. If US was so worried about the security of nukes they should have taken up the offer. Most likely the worry is bogus as the TSPA is very much a Non State Actor of the Pentagon. The US gave up a very good oppurtunity to reform the TSP and showed they prefer the status quo of defacto coup mentality.}

What is missing from this unusual story is any account of the US reaction to and handling of the Memo. Mullen has flown to Pakistan frequently and no coup occurred, but the five other items are open. Civilian government in Pakistan remains both incompetent and fragile, plus under constant threat of military overthrow.

{Wrong summary. The Civilians wanted to get rid of the coup potential by forewarning the US. The fact that it did not happened shows they might have been partly successful. Recall after Kargil, Mushy managed to blame the civilian govt for their failure by claiming that they rushed ot Dc while the TSPA was winning in Kargil. This was successful and led to the troops rallying round him when he was dismissed in 1999.}

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Jan 2012 22:10

pankajs wrote:US-Pakistan: Alliance interrupted!
The US-Pakistan alliance has been epitomised by America’s ruthless exploitation of Pakistan’s peculiar political, economic and strategic vulnerabilities; and its remorseless betrayals of Pakistan at critical times!
The first betrayal: The 1965 war
America’s peculiar role in the 1965 war with India crushed all Pakistani fantasies about this (non) alliance, opening its eyes (and mercifully the road to China).
The second betrayal: The 1971 war
The “impotent” US tilt in the 1971 war with India, which led to the dismemberment of Pakistan further revealed its actual regional strategic priorities.
The third betrayal: The nuclear dimension
India introduced the nuclear dimension to the strategic environment of South Asia through its so-called “peaceful nuclear explosion” in May 1974. Ironically, Pakistan was made to pay the price for India’s international nuclear theft, treachery and debauchery. The US-led free world penalised Pakistan in anticipation of a crime it had yet to commit - i.e. going nuclear to restore the lost regional strategic balance! Pakistan’s determined defiance eventually paid off!
The situation worsened later, when President George Bush gifted India, “the original nuclear sinner of the world”, with the Indo-US civil nuclear deal - a strategic faux pas that robbed various international nuclear regimes, like the NSG, NPT, CTBT, FMCT, MTCR, CD et.al, of their moral and ethical strengths to justly and fairly regulate international nuclear issues. This strategic blunder gave a tremendous urgency and impetus to Pakistan’s and Iran’s nuclear programmes, accelerated the nuclear arms race in the region and hardened Islamabad’s stance at the aforementioned fora.
The fourth betrayal: Afghanistan one
Pakistan played the cardinal role in defeating and evicting the Soviets from Afghanistan. No sooner had they rolled back across the Amu River, the US-led free world withdrew unilaterally, abandoning Pakistan to deal with the aftermath of the Soviet withdrawal alone. Ungraciously, then the country was slapped with the crippling Pressler, Symington and Glenn Amendments, which effectively took away from it the capacity to manage the critical wake of the Soviet withdrawal. The resultant extremist militancy threatens the whole world even now!
The fifth betrayal: Afghanistan two
Consequent to 9/11, President Bush announced the global war on terror (GWOT) and literally bullied President General Pervez Musharraf into joining it. Blatant, unwritten, unilateral deals were struck and the US went wild chasing the militants all over Pakistan, hunting and killing them (and “collateral damage” Pakistanis) at will. This ruthless exploitation of Pakistani President’s political vulnerability led to thousands of Pakistani deaths, the destruction of its infrastructure, the ruination of its economy and the extreme polarisation of its society! Unfortunately, it still goes on!
The sixth betrayal: The diplomatic dimension
The US shamelessly attacked Pakistan’s centre of gravity - its armed forces. First, it unsuccessfully tried to neuter the ISI and then attempted to shackle them through some highly intrusive conditions in the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Bill. These diabolical sleights of hand were efficiently countered by the Pakistan Army.
Later, exploiting the Gilani-Zardari government’s spineless servility, the US poured in thousands of its intelligence agents, contractors, military and security personnel et.al, some in the garb of diplomats without visa and immigration formalities, into Pakistan. Most of these agents went about subverting Pakistan’s national security, reportedly, encouraging terrorist activities and even targeting its nuclear and other strategic programmes! (Raymond Davis!)
And by giving India a major role in post-2014 Afghanistan, Washington gives it an unfair strategic advantage vis–à–vis Pakistan!
The seventh betrayal: The military dimension
The US killed OBL in Abbottabad, cunningly keeping the Pakistanis out of the loop, hogging all the credit for itself and embarrassing them into a weak bargaining or negotiating position in the future.
Betrayal was personified by Admiral Mike Mullen - an avowed friend of Pakistan - who slanderously told a Congressional hearing that the Haqqani network was “a veritable arm of the ISI.” Brutus was, perhaps, kinder to Caesar!
The senseless massacre at Salalah will prove to be the turning point in this non-alliance.
And then, predictably, the US “suspended, laid conditions on or delayed” all economic and military aid to Pakistan - even holding back the CSF reimbursements.
And the list goes on…….
The onus is now on the US to determine the future of this non-functioning alliance. Will it be terminated once and for all? Will the US seek to attain its vital interests with other regional allies, like India and Afghanistan? Will this alliance remain interrupted as of now? Will it grow albeit in a stunted manner only becoming operational when required - as a transactional deal? Will it eventually gain new roots and blossom into a full-fledged alliance once again, but with clearly defined paradigms, parameters and terms of engagement? The US and Pakistan both need absolute clarity on these issues.

However, the US needs to:
a Reassess its policy towards India and Pakistan - the hyphen in the Indo-Pak subcontinent must return. Apparently, the CFR and Richard N. Haass inspired policy tilt towards India has failed to secure USA’s vital interests till date.
a Realign strategic direction in the APR-SCAR and win over Pakistan, as a genuine and willing ally. The two need to maximise convergent national interests, minimise clashing interests and reconcile divergent interests.
a Revise its biased nuclear policy towards the subcontinent, meeting Pakistan’s genuine energy needs at the same level as the Indians. Period.
a Redetermine its regional policy ends and objectives, seeking mutual harmony with Pakistan (India must stay out of Afghanistan).
a Rewrite fair and unambiguous terms of engagement with Pakistan.
a Realise that the road to the achievement of its vital national objectives in the APR-SCAR Complex runs through Islamabad and not through New Delhi or Kabul.
a Recognise that it will have to become a genuinely reliable and trustworthy ally, and not an arrogant, betraying and exploitative master!
a Revive its alliance with Pakistan. Otherwise, the US will find it impossible to secure any of its interests in the APR-SCAR- GMER (Greater Middle East Region).

The writer is a retired brigadier and a former defence advisor in Australia and New Zealand. He is secretary general of the Pakistan Forum for Security and Development.
Our brother, the TFTA brigadier, is certainly very upset. The one thing he forgets is that the "vital national objectives in the APR-SCAR Complex runs through Islamabad" is not true. In his righteous rage, he forgets that it can also be re-routed through an independent Balochistan.

Will make my comments in a different post that ties the 1965 war and ithe subsequent US stance.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 17 Jan 2012 22:42

Which thread?

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 18 Jan 2012 06:21

This thread is reaching its first birthday, and times have changed.

While Indian view TSP wrt China/US, the US perspective of the TSP is perhaps different. There is a reason why TSP is in Centcom, while India is in PacCom.

IMHO, the central issue is Iran. TSP provides the nuke cover to KSA. The TSP bum, is not an Islamic bum, but a Sunni bum. Iran fears the Sunni bum more than the Israeli bum. They know that the Israelis will not use it against Iran unless they face an existentialist threat, and MAD kicks in. However, can the Iranians be so sure about the Sunni bum, especially one controlled by a wh*re with so many masters?

So TSP is useful to the US not only as a mechanism to limit China's access to the Gulf/Central Asia, but also as a mechanism to pressurize Iran. Hoodboy wrote about the Irani bum and the KSA/TSP angle.

If Iran can be bought to the table and denuked, there is likely going to be a complete reorientation. Perhaps Iran will be rewarded for denuking with more land like envisioned by Ralph Peters, some compensating for the loss of Baloch lands, and other as a reward for being a good boy.

The PRC is playing both sides. They have supported the Iranians in the current stand-off while continuing to secure TSP's pledges to preserve PRC's territorial integrity.. They are also talking with KSA for peaceful use of nuclear energy.

I do wonder why India cedes this tactical space to the Chinese? Why is it that it is the PRC which is signing nuke cooperation agreements with the KSA, Iran and the TSPA, while India is a silent spectator.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Jan 2012 08:20

Acharya in this thread only and will x-post as needed.

VikramS , Good points. However Gaddafi and Saddam's fate shows that giving up nukes is not an option for anyone with them.

I think the KSA has PRC nukes via TSP cover. Don't know about Iran.

member_20617 · Post by **member_20617** » 18 Jan 2012 15:32

VikramS wrote:This thread is reaching its first birthday, and times have changed.

While Indian view TSP wrt China/US, the US perspective of the TSP is perhaps different. There is a reason why TSP is in Centcom, while India is in PacCom.

IMHO, the central issue is Iran. TSP provides the nuke cover to KSA. The TSP bum, is not an Islamic bum, but a Sunni bum. Iran fears the Sunni bum more than the Israeli bum. They know that the Israelis will not use it against Iran unless they face an existentialist threat, and MAD kicks in. However, can the Iranians be so sure about the Sunni bum, especially one controlled by a wh*re with so many masters?

So TSP is useful to the US not only as a mechanism to limit China's access to the Gulf/Central Asia, but also as a mechanism to pressurize Iran. Hoodboy wrote about the Irani bum and the KSA/TSP angle.

If Iran can be bought to the table and denuked, there is likely going to be a complete reorientation. Perhaps Iran will be rewarded for denuking with more land like envisioned by Ralph Peters, some compensating for the loss of Baloch lands, and other as a reward for being a good boy.

The PRC is playing both sides. They have supported the Iranians in the current stand-off while continuing to secure TSP's pledges to preserve PRC's territorial integrity.. They are also talking with KSA for peaceful use of nuclear energy.

I do wonder why India cedes this tactical space to the Chinese? Why is it that it is the PRC which is signing nuke cooperation agreements with the KSA, Iran and the TSPA, while India is a silent spectator.

Why should Iran get Baloch land? Who is Ralph Peters to decide for India?

Pakistan belongs to us – both people and the land. Even Afghanistan belongs to us.

Just because Islam is prevalent in these areas now does not mean we should forget our history. Hindus have been living in these areas for thousands of years.

As far as Indians are concerned, we should be thinking about expanding our existing border, not contracting! Otherwise ‘we’ become Bharat Bhaksak and not Bharat Rakshak!

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 18 Jan 2012 22:47

Islam with Chinese Characteristics
China's bold but chimerical quest for soft power in the Islamic world

A good read. Commercially driven penetration of Islamism.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 18 Jan 2012 23:11

Shankaraa wrote: <snip>

As far as Indians are concerned, we should be thinking about expanding our existing border, not contracting!

Did you just wake up after a 1300 year sleep or what? Please talk after you have to come to your senses.

First let India/Dharma protect what is inside the current borders, and then dream about expanding the borders.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 18 Jan 2012 23:15

We need both. These are extraordinary times for India and Indians

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 18 Jan 2012 23:22

Acharya wrote:We need both. These are extraordinary times for India and Indians

Agree sir. One side there is so much opportunity, as one set of empires decline and others rise. On the other side there is the internal stasis and its exploitation by the former empires.

Sankara however, did not even read the post properly. He is talking about "Iran getting Baloch" when I referred to the plan of a free Balochistan including the Baloch land currently under Iranian occupation.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 18 Jan 2012 23:32

No mean to cry over spilt mik but had we started economic liberalization deade before, we would have trillion to spare to achieve these abjectives. No we have to wait few more years to perform the dialisis to replace the Ganda Khoon in the dead part of south Assia .

member_20617 · Post by **member_20617** » 19 Jan 2012 14:43

VikramS wrote:
Shankaraa wrote: <snip>

As far as Indians are concerned, we should be thinking about expanding our existing border, not contracting!
Did you just wake up after a 1300 year sleep or what? Please talk after you have to come to your senses.

First let India/Dharma protect what is inside the current borders, and then dream about expanding the borders.

You need to come to your senses!

This is what was quoted by you:
''If Iran can be bought to the table and denuked, there is likely going to be a complete reorientation. Perhaps Iran will be rewarded for denuking with more land like envisioned by Ralph Peters, some compensating for the loss of Baloch lands, and other as a reward for being a good boy''.

Where on earth do you think extra land comes from? It has to be from Balochistan state in Pakistan!Iran cannot be given more land from its Irani part of Balochistan for denuclearisation!!!!!! Lol!

Yes, I do have a dream of Mahan Bharat which includes Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and Myanmar! I do not need your approval regarding my dream!

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 19 Jan 2012 23:49

Sankara:

In the age of Google, it would be helpful to do some reading before hyperventilating.

You can start here:

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899

member_20617 · Post by **member_20617** » 20 Jan 2012 15:50

VikramS

Let us get the facts right!

Let us look at the idiocy of your statement:

''If Iran can be bought to the table and denuked, there is likely going to be a complete reorientation. Perhaps Iran will be rewarded for denuking with more land like envisioned by Ralph Peters, some compensating for the loss of Baloch lands, and other as a reward for being a good boy''.
You were talking about Iran denuclearisation and linked it with Baloch land.

Baloch land in Iran and Pakistan has got NOTHING to do with the denuclearisation of Iran.

USA and other countries have already started imposing sanctions on Iran and they have also stated that they are willing to go to war with Iran if Iran continues its nuclear programme. Nobody is talking about Baloch land. Neither do I know who Ralph Peters is nor do I care but surely he is talking from his musharaff!!!

I repeat again:
‘Why should Iran get Baloch land? Who is Ralph Peters to decide for India?

Pakistan belongs to us – both people and the land. Even Afghanistan belongs to us.

Just because Islam is prevalent in these areas now does not mean we should forget our history. Hindus have been living in these areas for thousands of years.

As far as Indians are concerned, we should be thinking about expanding our existing border, not contracting! Otherwise ‘we’ become Bharat Bhaksak and not Bharat Rakshak’

You should not be bringing this up as our aim should be to merge Pakistan with India eventually. A ‘free’ Balochistan is also not in our interest as it would be manipulated by other powers leaving India high and dry!

Did you read what I wrote earlier:
‘Where on earth do you think the extra land comes from?!’

If Iran is to be rewarded some Baloch land in order to denuclearise it then it has to be from Pakistan’s Balochistan as you cannot offer Iran its own Baloch land as compensation!LoL!!!!!

This then leads to another stupid situation. It then implies that Pakistan is willing to give up Baloch land for Iran so that Iran can give up its nuclear programme. Why should Pakistan do that? No country will do this. Even if we take an extreme scenario as you were suggesting, albeit a comical one, that Pakistan is ‘willing’ to give up Baloch land for Iran, Iran would still NOT stop its nuclear programme for a piece of land.

Also no country (including USA) is willing and able to snatch any Baloch land from Pakistan to give it to Iran.

The third stupid scenario you projected was to create a free Balochistan!

For that to happen, someone should be powerful enough to snatch Baloch land from Iran, snatch Balochistan from Pakistan and merge the two to create a free Balochistan.

Are you living in a cuckoo’s land? I have never read such a stupid statement in my life!

I also disagree with you regarding this part:
‘So TSP is useful to the US not only as a mechanism to limit China's access to the Gulf/Central Asia’

China has far more access to Gulf/Central Asia than you can imagine. China is cultivating strong relationship with Gulf/Central Asian countries. I also suspect that Iran’s nuclear programme is heavily assisted by Russia or China or both. USA/Israel/Saudi Arabia do not like this for their own reasons.

Finally, I am not hyperventilating – I am only exposing the idiocy of your statement.

Now be brave and admit that you were totally wrong.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 20 Jan 2012 16:08

Shankaraa ji,

VikramS ji said "some compensating for the loss of Baloch land"! That means he is implying that the Iran would be losing Baloch territories and not winning them. The compensation implied is through lands in Afghanistan like Herat (not Baloch land), etc.

So if you are of the opinion that those Baloch territories should belong to India, then there is nothing that VikramS said, that would deny you that ideological option.

Regards

member_20617 · Post by **member_20617** » 20 Jan 2012 16:28

RajeshAji,

Which country is powerful enough to snatch some land from Iran? Who acquires this land?

Why should Afghanistan lose some land to compensate Iran?

Why would someone snatch some land from Iran and then willing to compensate Iran with other land?

Why snatch it in the first place if one is willing to compensate?

With due respect to you, this does not make any sense to me!

Regards.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 20 Jan 2012 17:02

Shankaraa ji,

one can discuss the issue in declarative (what?) or imperative (how?) or causative (why?) or normative (with what justification?) terms.

VikramS, I assume, was discussing it in declarative terms, taking Ralph Peters Map as a reference. For your reference it is this map:

'How', 'Why' and 'With What Justification' are a different set of questions.

That was my reading of it!

member_20617 · Post by **member_20617** » 20 Jan 2012 17:24

Thank you RajeshAji for taking the trouble to upload this map.

First thing that I noticed is PoK given to Afghanistan. This is our land. It has nothing to do with Afghanistan. The whole of Kashmir belongs to us. Our parliament also passed a resolution to that effect many years ago.

Ralph Peters can say what he likes but this ain’t gonna happen!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 20 Jan 2012 17:50

Shankaraa ji,

Ralph Peters of course would look at the world from USA's PoV and USA's strategic interests. In fact it is surprising that he did not deem it necessary to see further partitions of India.

The make up of the Ralph Peters map is in many ways advantageous for India, in some ways it does not go far enough for our interests, and in other ways it is against Indian interests.

We have to see that those changes that are beneficial to us, do get translated into reality, assuming the USA does propose on seeing this thing through, and those that are against Indian interests, either we talk USA out of it or we resist it. Be as it may, India has word to say on what happens in our neighborhood.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 21 Jan 2012 05:19

Thanks RajeshJi.

Sankara, RajeshJi has written a lot of material on how the lost lands can be bought back to the dharmic fold. Reading his posts will provide another perspective.

Ralph Peters articles/books come to mind since it was a reflection of some form of rethinking about the Middle East post 9/11. It is a break from what the British left behind. It got attention and was publicity simply because it tried to address fundamental issues. I do not think everything he wrote is bunkum. The Arab Spring did not happen in a vacuum.

With regards to the maps he drew, take them as the first step. Apart from the loss of POK the bigger issue was the lands which Turkey lost. Now Turkey is a part of NATO, and one of the most powerful Islamic country in the world. Her economy is ascendant as it benefits from not only access to the West but also the Muslim world. Of course historically they have been a very powerful nation.

But as Rajeshji put it, that map is just a trial balloon. If, when and how the re-orientation happens is not something anyone can predict.

I had bought the whole idea back to the front, simply because while Indians tend to be TSP-centric, the other powers have bigger fish to fry. The TSP after all is a wh*re, available for sale to anyone at the right price; everyone has a use for it (can not call it her). The key is Iran, and which way it goes.

Both the TSP and Iran are betting that this being an election year, the US will not step up the ante. I have a feeling they are in for a nasty surprise. Given the way the Republican field is shaping up, I will not be surprised at four more years.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Jan 2012 06:34

Shankaraa, Please don't get polemic. All members here have stood the test of time and most of us know each other over the years. Thanks, ramana

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 21 Jan 2012 09:16

Most important is Ralph Peters's map make energey resources of ME flow to India via Pipelines without Poaqer getting their cut.Second we can also buy POK or easily come up with some kind of understanding with Afghanistan . If Syrian Panga is settled , then the Oil siphon from Kurdistan to Syria/ Isarel can do wonder for Indian energy security providing good alternative to Gelf.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Jan 2012 20:48

Deceit used to protect Clinton form Pakis. Even back then the US knew that there may be Paki "insiders" who were working with terrorists. I think US actions wrt Pakistan after that have less to do with "controlling India" but ful knowledge that they could do nothing in Afgnaistan without Pakistan's help

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

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 23 Jan 2012 00:31

Hoodboy's second article about the Iranian Nukes and the TSP-KSA nuke arrangement.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/325571/the- ... -pakistan/

member_20617 · Post by **member_20617** » 23 Jan 2012 17:34

ramana wrote:Shankaraa, Please don't get polemic. All members here have stood the test of time and most of us know each other over the years. Thanks, ramana

Ramana

1. I joined BRF not to offend anybody or to get offended.

Please check the record. It was VikramS who first used the term ‘come to your senses’ so who is polemic here. Why aren’t you saying anything publicly to VikramS?

As a moderator, you must show impartiality but just because you know VikramS for years you are siding with him. You should side with the truth and not friends. What have I done wrong? Who is subscribing to Anti India viewpoint here – me or VikramS?

2. Ralph Peters is fantasising about decapitating India by giving PoK to Afghanistan. PoK is our land and it has nothing to do with Afghanistan. This has NOT become a reality. A fantasy is a fantasy so why is VikramS meekly surrendering to such neo-colonialist, racist fantasy. As Indians, the least we can do is to not give credibility to this fantasy.

3. When I wrote that I have a dream of Greater Bharat, VikramS wrote: ‘come to your senses’. This means that he is willing to buy any American ‘c**p’ with loss of Indian land but any Indian fantasy such as mine which restores back our lost lands is irritating to him! Wah! Wah! What patriotism!

4. I thought BRF is made up of like- minded people who care about the integrity of India but I am disappointed.

My last post on this matter.

PS: May be I should propose a vivisection of USA in the following manner in the armed forces journal:

(1)Black Christians USA (2) Black Muslims USA (3) Hispanic USA (4) California (Seriously, there is a movement of making this an independent state!) (5) Original Inhabitants USA (Red Indians – I don’t like this term) and (6) give New Mexico to Mexico. Have I forgotten anything else? LoL!

(2)Seriously I would be delighted if an Indian Strategic writer presents the above scenario in reputed magazines as a strong response to Ralph Peters proposals. Perhaps this is the way to teach these Americans!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Feb 2012 02:26

Newsinsight.net

Kiss of death
The United States has done no good to Pakistan, argues N.V.Subramanian.

8 February 2012: It is one of those strange ironies of partnerships between democracies that ties with the United States have proved unfavourable/ disastrous for Pakistan, but not in the way Pakistanis generally see it. That pattern appears to have been further cemented with the transfer of the latest F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan, although its relations with the United States are at an all-time low.

Pakistan's founder, M.A.Jinnah, was fond of saying that his country's geo-strategic location in the region of the previous British Empire's Great Game with Russia would make it indispensible to the Western alliance in its confrontations with the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Jinnah hoped to settle the Kashmir and other disputes with India militarily and otherwise employing the weight of his alliance with the Western powers led by the United States, and the military dictators who ruled Pakistan after him entertained the same grand illusion.

Whereas India under Jawaharlal Nehru plodded on with non-alignment, Pakistan speedily and thoughtlessly joined SEATO, CENTO and other alliances, and thereby became a client state of the West. Contrary to expectation, this alliance did not assist it in its rivalries with India over Kashmir, and in the 1965 war for the first time, Pakistan got a rude shock about the severe limitations of its ties with the United States, which choked off defence replenishments to that country. Relations with China built on an anti-India plank had grown meanwhile, and this strengthened with the perceived US perfidy in not backing Pakistan in its hostilities against India.

But those lessons were not wholly learnt. By the time of the early 1970s, the US had begun earnest courtship of Pakistan for a friendly breakthrough with China. This emboldened the Pakistani dictatorship to provoke the 1971 war, but this ended in bigger disaster for Pakistan, with its eastern half breaking away. From the Pakistani viewpoint, it was galling that the Indians stared the US in the face after its despatch of a nuclear carrier task force into the Bay of Bengal.

In the mujahideen action against the Soviets in Afghanistan, the United States again used the territory, the military and the intelligence service of Pakistan. The Pakistanis complain that once the Soviets left Afghanistan and the USSR broke up, the United States lost interest in the region and Pakistan in particular. What they do not, however, focus on is how the United States, by engaging the Pakistan army and intelligence in the service and advance of its strategic goals, privileged the military over the civilian leadership, and effectively destroyed the democratic environment and institutions of Pakistan.

The opposite example is India. Foundational prime ministers like Nehru and Indira Gandhi refused the easy option of aligning with one or the other world power or bloc -- marching India, instead, along a fraught, lonely and uncharted third way. It did not pay off until after the end of the Cold War, but it gave India first mover advantage when its time came. India did not become an emerging great power all at once. Its strategic autonomy and independence set it on that path.

And still, Pakistan learns nothing from India. After killing its soldiers on the Pak-Afghan border, the United States might apologize to Pakistan. In return, Pakistan may open the logistical supply route to US troops in Afghanistan. To placate the Pakistan military, the latest F-16s are being given, whose only offensive role can be against India. But through none of this does Pakistan's own strategic vision shine forth. Its quest for strategic depth in Afghanistan will ultimately jihadize and destroy Pakistan. Even as the United States is appearing giving on one hand, it is radicalizing the population in FATA by its drone campaign which kills civilians as often as terrorists.

The tragedy is no one is in control of Pakistan. Daily fighting for survival, the coalition government of Yousaf Raza Gilani needs US support to stay in power. But the US's strategic compulsions in Afghanistan can only be met by draining the terrorist and fundamentalist swamps of Pakistan, which it brought to flood in an earlier decade. And this deswamping won't come easy. Looked from far, Pakistan is a laboratory where terrible US experiments of military and religious alliances have failed again and again, dooming the host country. Pakistanis would exult in the new F-16s they have got. They might as well load it and bomb themselves.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Feb 2012 15:01

From 2010

U.S. Delivers 48 Field Artillery Cannons To Pakistan Army *Source: DTN News / Int'l Media (NSI News Source Info) ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - February 15, 2010: The United States delivered 48 self-propelled field artillery cannons to the Pakistan Army on Saturday at the Malir Cantonment in the southern port city of Karachi, the U.S embassy said. The delivery marks the completion of a total purchase of 115 field artillery cannons by Pakistan through the U.S. foreign military sales/foreign military finance program, the embassy spokesman said. The FMS/FMF case was initiated by Pakistan in 2006 and enabled the government of Pakistan to obtain the cannons from the United States at a greatly discounted rate.

The United States government officially delivered 48 self-propelled field artillery cannons to the Pakistan Army at the Malir Cantonment in Karachi. (U.S. Embassy) “These field artillery cannons are an important part of enhancing the capabilities of Pakistan’s Army as it continues to wage its courageous fight against terrorists who seek to destroy Pakistan’s people and way of life,” said U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Michael Nagata, U.S. Office of the Defense Representative-Pakistan. “It is our hope that these weapons are ultimately able to play an important role in ending extremist violence and bringing peace once again to this great nation,” he said. During the last three years, U.S. civilian and security assistance to Pakistan has totaled more than 4 billion dollars. Assistance provided and delivered has included support for medical aid, school refurbishment, bridge and well reconstruction, food distribution, agricultural and education projects, 14 F-16 fighter aircraft, 10 Mi-17 helicopters, more than 450 vehicles for Pakistan’s Frontier Corps, hundreds of night vision goggles, day/ night scopes, radios, and thousands of protective vests and first- aid items for Pakistan’s security forces. In addition, the U.S. funded and provided training for more than 370 Pakistani military officers in a wide range of leadership and development programs covering topics such as counterterrorism, intelligence, logistics, medical, flight safety, and military law. U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Michael Nagata, U.S. Office of the Defense Representative-Pakistan deputy commander, officially handed over the M1095A5 Howitzer self-propelled cannons to Pakistan Army Brigadier Farrukh Saeed, 25th Mechanized Division Artillery Commander, during a ceremony in Karachi. The event was attended by Steve Fakan, U.S. Consul General to Karachi, and more than a dozen U.S. and Pakistani military representatives.

Charlie · Post by **Charlie** » 19 Feb 2012 16:03

Mihir S Sharma: US and them

The tortuous, incestuous and backstabby ethnic politics of the world’s second-largest and second-noisiest democracy has recently been convulsed by debate about the term “Israel-firsters”. It was being used for people accused of continually discovering reasons why US foreign policy should bend to Israel’s interests – and who were being held responsible for the thunderous, warlike drumbeat accompanying increasing tensions with Iran. Everyone then recalled the extremely problematic history of the term, first used in the 1970s by some pretty nasty anti-Semites, and it was quite rightly dropped like a hot potato.

I bring up these distant squabbles over identity and foreign policy partly because that insistent drumbeat began to be heard on our shores last week, with the attack on an Israeli diplomatic vehicle. Israel’s PM blamed Iran — though our own security establishment was quite unusually reticent this time. Immediately, a dozen angry voices began to complain in harsh chorus about India’s apparently unconscionable “pandering” to Iran. After all, it’s Israel that sells our army all that nice tech the Americans can’t sell directly.

And I brought up the now-discredited term partly because, as you listen to people red-facedly demanding to know why Delhi isn’t lining up behind Washington and tightening the screws on Teheran, you’re forced to conclude that India has now been saddled with a large bunch of America-firsters.
Now, on the one hand, we need someone to balance our Blame America Firsters, currently muttering darkly that it was probably Mossad anyway, trying to push India’s slavish neoliberal elite further into line behind the lone superpower. The head of Mossad was here week before last, wasn’t he? That practically proves it.

But the America-firsters’ anger that India is openly conspiring to break the sanctions that the US-led West has so painstakingly imposed needs a bit more examination than does the random conspiracy-mongering of the other lot. For these gentlemen, the attack in Delhi was just another sign that the US, Israel and India are “on the same side”. And the reason India was not immediately offering to provide back-office support to bombing raids against Iran was our hopeless political pandering to Muslims, all of whom presumably vote in Uttar Pradesh as Ayatollah Khamenei tells them to.

Here are the reasons America-firsters are wrong, as well as shockingly hypocritical.

First, they continually underplay what India has to gain from ties to Iran in purely realist terms — economically and strategically. Economically, Iran is India’s second-biggest, and cheapest, source of crude oil. As the world cuts down on Iranian exports, we have the chance to get an even better deal from them. Not just cheaper fuel, but also a rupee-only trade, which means that our faltering export market gets a bit of a boost, too. Strategically, Iran is crucial as an alternative route to India’s allies in Afghanistan once the West callously abandons that country to the tender loving care of the Taliban and their controllers in Rawalpindi.

Second, the claim that foreign policy shouldn’t be “held hostage” to domestic considerations – specifically, the justifiable belief among some sections of our citizenry that we have civilisational links to Iran – is very odd. Of course, the two-facedness of this claim is astonishing: it insists that India must not attend to domestic preferences when shaping its foreign policy in America’s image — even though the US’ foreign policy is, in this respect, pretty transparently a product of its own domestic election-year politics.

But the claim also makes a grave theoretical error. What determines foreign policy in a democracy? The realist pursuit of interests, sure. But those interests are defined by the leanings, emotional and economic, of our citizens. Many of us love America, have lives there and connections there. Oddly, when those are taken into account, it isn’t pandering. But when those with similar ties of emotion to Iran are taken into account, everyone stands around, pointing in horror and bellowing “pandering” at the top of their voices. This magical transmutation of politics-as-usual into pandering happens whenever Indian Muslims are involved, and so it is presumably their fault somehow.

Meanwhile, someone should point out to the America-firsters that suggesting this minor attack means India should help isolate Iran ever so slightly contradicts their other strongly-held view, which corresponds neatly to Washington’s preferences, that India keeps on engaging and placating Pakistan’s security establishment. Wait, Rawalpindi has fewer proven ties to terrorists than Teheran?

Third, India doesn’t need to choose between Israel and Iran. India’s ties with Israel are strong and sustainable. India is now Israel’s second-largest export market, and, frankly, they’re not going to start grumbling at us. Israel’s government has as few allies in the General Assembly and regular trading partners as its people have congenial and safe destinations for tropical vacations.

The essence of realist foreign policy is recognising when someone needs you, and driving a hard bargain. Both Iran and Israel do, currently. Of course, Israel’s occupying this bit of land that isn’t theirs and Iran happens to be ruled by an obscurantist, homosexual-hanging, election-stealing bunch of millenialist theocrats, so we needn’t get misty-eyed about either regime. But India shouldn’t ever be expected to choose between them — especially not when pushed into it by America’s dysfunctional domestic politics.

Basically, the claim that India must choose as America does rests on the unstated belief that this is what our long-term, strategic partnership with America requires. I’m a fan of having a strategic partnership with the US. But someone should remind its backers here what the word “partner” actually means. Hint: it doesn’t mean “poodle”.

Excellent article but I still donot see an appropriate responseby India to US pressure over Iran i.e., US' complete support to Pakistan in every possible way. This should be the only argument that should be made and see how US justifies it.. Iranian Oil, Israeli business come later. Americans Sheltering Dawwood Headley is same as Pakis sheltering UBL.

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 19 Feb 2012 17:18

Just wondering, Pakis are known to play equal-equal. How soon will it be before they play the Hawaaian independence card or Puerto Rico in response to the Baluchistan debate in the US congress? What could the possible implications of such a move?

Charlie · Post by **Charlie** » 19 Feb 2012 19:44

Yogi_G wrote:Just wondering, Pakis are known to play equal-equal. How soon will it be before they play the Hawaaian independence card or Puerto Rico in response to the Baluchistan debate in the US congress? What could the possible implications of such a move?

Mee too waiting for an equal-equal lohori logic from someone in Paki establishment. Internet Pacquies have already seized the initiative and are doing equal-equal with California.

Paki Tribune

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Feb 2012 06:06

Cross post from Paki thread

Shonu wrote:
Altair wrote:How many Nuclear Weapons did USSR have when it collapsed?
Much as I agree with where you are going with your argument, USSR wasn't filled with loonies who blew themselves up at the sight of of a 'kafir' (a definition that is so liquid you choose your target first then fit the label).

That is what is, in my view, ironic.

There was terrible paranoia about the USSR in the USA of the 50s and 60s. Nuclear war was expected. It was that paranoia that made the US take on all allies including Pakistan. Pakistan's status in helping to bring about a US-China detente was the specific driver that made the US look away as Pakistan got nukes. India's suspected role as Soviet ally (as per Pakistani folklore) was swallowed hook line and sinker by the US.

The USA was not afraid of needling the USSR via Afghanistan. But the USA is afraid of Pakistani nukes - perhaps for the very reason that you state.

Have you considered what signal this sends to anyone who actually wants nukes - seeing a USA that is shitting brix at the thought of Paki nukes? The same USA that was preparing for nuclear war with the USSR?

Whichever way you slice the cake the US comes out looking bad

For example, some people have expressed the view that the USA is so so powerful that it can handle Pakistan in a trice. If that is true, the only reason for tolerating Pakistan's nukes is that the US finds them useful directed against India. If on the other hand the US really is nervous of Pakistani nukes, it means that US power is not all that it is advertised to be and the US is a vulnerable power playing games beyond its capability. Like Pakistan the US is punching above its weight.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Feb 2012 07:58

Cross posting in this therad:
Rhetorical questions:

If the Pakistani army is

1. Attacking Bauchis
2. Attacking some Pashtuns/Afghans
3. Arranging attacks on India
4. Providing transit and basing facilities for the US
5. Mainly composed of Pakjabis
6. Getting more than 50% of US aid

Then my questions are:

Is the US an ally of the whole of Pakistan or just the Pakistan army?
Does the US benefit all of Pakistan or just Pakjab?

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 20 Feb 2012 09:14

People fearing Nukes are mostly referring to a rogue nuke smuggled than a barrage of ICBM's targeting cities.
Please compare the statistical chances of One rogue nuke out of 20,000 nuclear warheads and One nuke out of 100 warheads.
Pakistani Nuke weapons can be handled in a coordinated way by India, US and China.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Feb 2012 09:34

Altair wrote: Pakistani Nuke weapons can be handled in a coordinated way by India, US and China.

Altair, if I was American or Chinese, I would find it easier to perpetuate Pakistani fear of india and tell them that they need their nukes against india and that they would support Pakistan in that respect. India is the outsider here. Why should the US or Chian risk antagonizing a Pakistan that hates mainly India.

On the other hand if Pakistan threatens to use its nukes against the USA then India's worries become a little less.

The US, China and India cannot all be on the same side at the same time.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 20 Feb 2012 09:38

Too many meta-Pak threads with seems to fragment the discussion.

The "managing failure" thread, the "new way of looking" thread, and this thread should be merged, while the core Pak thread provides daily entertainment.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Feb 2012 09:46

Pranav wrote:Too many meta-Pak threads with seems to fragment the discussion.

The "managing failure" thread, the "new way of looking" thread, and this thread should be merged, while the core Pak thread provides daily entertainment.

I think everything should go on the Paki thread. Entertainment is for the BENIS thread. As it is the "entertainment" on the Pak thread is only bomb blasts and drone hits. Everything else is being weeded out. Anything that requires more than one millisecond of thought gets filtered to some other thread.

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 20 Feb 2012 10:09

shiv
A rogue Pakistani nuke exploding in any part of USA would cause more damage to US than a rogue nuke hitting Indian metro. US stands to loose more than India in a nuclear environment. I understand when you say US can perpetuate the issue to keep India down but practically let me take an example.

I am a Pakistani Jihadi General access to a nuke.

Case-1: I am only Greedy
I know for a fact that I can milk more money from US than India.
(A) If I say someone in my command stole the nuke and sold it to a Syrian army captain about to hit New York but I can track him down. I may get more money to protect my remaining nukes while tracking him down. I get rich.
(B) I say a Jihadi Major in my command is abut to hit Mumbai and I can track him down. New Delhi will send a C-130 plane load of dossiers and go to the UN and will never give any money. I remain the same.

Case-2: I am crazy and I want to hit the kaffirs
(A) Hit Mumbai.
Result: Invite automatic massive nuclear strike. Pakistan becomes largest source of radioactive glass in the solar system.
(B) Hit New York or even an Aircraft Carrier Battle Group in PG
Result: Invite automatic massive nuclear strike. Pakistan becomes largest source of radioactive glass in the solar system.

I can see that I have a better chance of making money if I sell my nuke and milk money from USA. Why cant US understand this simple mentality?