Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 04 Jul 2012 09:13

ShauryaTji

1. While Akbar's rule was relatively better, it strengthened Islamic hold over Bharat, whereas Aurangjeb's rule weakened it. So the long term affects of ones rule must also be taken into consideration.

2. Could you please present your view on the risk factors on various Indian interests, so we know what you are saying? I presented my thoughts on my blog - http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/2010/ ... ndian.html

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Jul 2012 09:37

ShauryaT wrote: However, what you seem to be saying is the impact is no biggie, since in percentage terms we have seen worse than this before. Are you serious that a genocide like situation resulting in mass of refugees, on this matter is no escalated security risk amongst others to you for India. If you go with this type of logic then why stop at partition and not go back to muslim rule in central India and ask that no biggie, since we Hindus survived anyways, we can survive anything. The question is not how we may respond or not, but does it have an impact and how, compared to the current setup?

If your point is we can manage as we have seen it all before then no arguments, for the post was not about, how we may absorb, cope, react or not?
<snip>
My only question is what will it take to prove to you there are many, if not most, who believe this or maybe you are arguing for an entirely different point that it is no worse than what we have seen before. Moghul Akbar's reign was better or Aurangzeb's for the Hindus? From a Hindu perspective, both were not good is one answer, however it is a comparative question, demanding an either or answer. Given that it is an either or choice, I would choose Akbar - even if my real preference is for a muslim to never rule us but that choice does not exist. It is a similar scenario here.

I think you are hyping up Taliban fear more than necessary. This hype is entirely a post-2006 US creation and offers no window on Indian experience of the last 65 years.

Taliban rule in Pakistan will be _no_worse _for_India_ than what we have seen for the last 65 years. India does not have to set in place any new measures or new defences against the Taliban that India has not had to put in place all these years.

The only difference will be for Pakistan's biggest allies the USA and China who will be unable to deal with Pakistan the way they have dealt with Pakistan all these decades. They will have to consider reversing their policy of funding and arming the Taliban and asking if Pakistan is such a reliable ally.

Ultimately if there has to be a difference, the US and China will have to do what Pakistan has demanded of them for 60 plus years - that is to intervene and help Pakistan in a war against India. Pakistan is the Taliban and if you can't see that you haven't understood what is happening. Like the USA.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Jul 2012 10:19

Shiv, The RAPE are the new age Sufis in suits to lull the unsuspecting kafirs.

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 04 Jul 2012 13:04

I am not discussing for any kicks. I will put down my thoughts in a much more structured fashion

1. There is a general agreement that Pakistan as the current structure is dangerous to India, but the question remains will it be more dangerous than present in future. I am not justifying what Pakistan does currently but sees more danger in future for India based on what Pakistan will evolve too

2. The premise of India having trouble now and later when Taliban comes in pakistan, it spreads to whole world and become their headache is good but there are inherent dangers here

3. The moment, Taliban starts attacking India, it will create communal tensions in India and also the it will again weaken India's integrity and resolve and India will be back to 1990's

4. It creates an oppurtunity for other countries and agencies to meddle in Indian affairs easily. Currently we dont have these or it is less, but going forward it will not be the same

I am not worried about the India's defence which is pretty much strong with respect to pakistan's case, its about India's internal security

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Jul 2012 15:11

What are the Taliban? They are pious Muslims.

Are they followers of radical islam? There is no such thing as radical Islam and non-radical islam. Islam is Islam. islam is radical against anything unIslamic.

For an avowedly Muslim country it is perfectly normal and accepted under International law to

Demand that women are covered up
Treat non Muslims differently from Muslims
Treat women in a way that others may call discrimination but is termed "respect" in islam
Islam allows dealing with enemies of islam as proscribed in the Quran. Killing them may be necessary

Saudi Arabia does these things and is a proud member of the comity of nations. Pakistan does all these things and should be a proud member of the comity of nations. Pakistanis themselves are clearly not worried about the Taliban. If the Taliban does exactly the same things as KSA and the old Pakistani regime what is the great new worry?

I will explain that. The great new worry is that KSA and the old Pakistan were pro America. The Taliban is anti-America. Apart from that its all the same. A so called "Taliban" government in Pakistan will treat India exactly like it has always done. But it won't get US arms and monetary aid. Taliban Paindabutt.

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 04 Jul 2012 15:43

No weapons to Pakistan from US (and other donors too) is a great welcome development and actually a victory for India's foregin policy. But I am not convinced about your arguments for the internal security implications of the change in Pakistan

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 04 Jul 2012 16:33

As far as hostility or brutality with India goes, the Pakistani behaviour towards us would be the same, Taliban or no Taliban, RAPE or no RAPE, PA or no PA. The coming to power of Taliban (or its closest mukhauta in the form of Imran Khan) in the future would be of immense danger to other neighbouring countries such as Iran. Afghanistan (of course), CARs, West Asia and even China. To that extent, there would be additional pressure on India in terms of protecting Indian influence or interests in these countries. That may have an additional blowback within the country, economically, societally etc.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Jul 2012 17:43

SSridhar wrote:As far as hostility or brutality with India goes, the Pakistani behaviour towards us would be the same, Taliban or no Taliban, RAPE or no RAPE, PA or no PA. The coming to power of Taliban (or its closest mukhauta in the form of Imran Khan) in the future would be of immense danger to other neighbouring countries such as Iran. Afghanistan (of course), CARs, West Asia and even China. To that extent, there would be additional pressure on India in terms of protecting Indian influence or interests in these countries. That may have an additional blowback within the country, economically, societally etc.

Absolutely.

As regards internal security, I do not foresee anything that is worse than what we face today. The fact that we have not had too many blatant attacks for a few months (if I ignore the two policemen killed by "militants" in Pulwama yesterday) belies the intense internal security effort that exists in India. That will have to continue and get refined (in my estimate) to ten times greater than what it is today.

But there is another point I want to make - the Taliban are already in power in Pakistan. What remains is only to get the US out. The US will pack up and run after its materiel is withdrawn from Afghanistan. That is when Pakistan will try and take control of Afghanistan by force. There is no force in Pakistan that can stop that from happening.

Everyone knows this. That is the time when India's reactions will be met with the threat of retaliation using the previous decade worth of US arms aid. What the US does at this stage depends a great deal on what sort of deal the US strikes with the "Taliban" government. If the US manages a deal where US bases remain untouched but Indian interests are dismantled, it will be heading towards the 1990s. Without US support India will not find it worth the trouble of having a presence in Afghanistan and we will be edged out. Our internal security challenge will remain high.

Even if the picture is different - that is even if the US and India somehow conspire to "work together" for the safety of Afghanistan, it will likely mean that the US will have to reach a separate deal with Pakistan that pays them off for cooperation. Pakistan's pound of flesh will mean money and equipment that will allow Pakistan to keep its military machine spic and span for the foreseeable future. this will be a great advantage for the US but is of no use for India. We will be investing in Afghanistan at US pleasure and our internal security threat will be bad as ever even as we help the US keep Afghanistan's internal security manageable.

In terms of internal security I see no let-up, no relief whatsoever in any scenario, and any dream that these internal security issues will go away if the "Taliban" are kept out are delusional. But if push comes to shove and we have to take military action against Pakistan for destabilizing our internal security (eg repeat Mumbai, Parliament attack, Kaluchak, Kargil), I would rather not see the latest arms from the USA in their hands. That is the situation we face today. If we sit quiet, our internal security is compromised anyway. if we attack, the US is subsidizing Pakistani defence while our internal security threat level is unchanged or worse.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 04 Jul 2012 18:54

^^
A Q for you Shiv and apologies if you have posted it earlier:

If the Taliban is in power, won't the chances of a nuke conflagration with us escalate? After all their tendencies to use suicide vests with the promise of 72 houris make them want to vapourise themselves and we evil hindus for the promised promiscuty? TIA

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Jul 2012 19:05

rajanb wrote:^^
A Q for you Shiv and apologies if you have posted it earlier:

If the Taliban is in power, won't the chances of a nuke conflagration with us escalate? After all their tendencies to use suicide vests with the promise of 72 houris make them want to vapourise themselves and we evil hindus for the promised promiscuty? TIA

rajan when the threat of nuclear war is high enough for India to prepare missile defence even without the so called Taliban in power. What level of extra threat do you perceive. The threat is very high already. Too many Indians do not take our own country seriously and do not see the writing on the wall, which is loud and clear. You saw the T 72 photo on the mil forum being washed down as practice after possible nuclear contamination. India is preparing to be targeted by nuclear weapons. And hit back. It cannot get any more serious than that. Only question is why everyone is so scared of the Taliban. Pakistan is Taliban. Taliban is Pakistan. They have already threatened us with nuclear war several times. If the Taliban start that war it will give us the best excuse on earth to wipe the ba$tards off the face of this earth.

Samudragupta · Post by **Samudragupta** » 04 Jul 2012 20:44

Taliban(howsoever the term is defined) is not less rational than TSPA now at this stage...on the contrary it may just be more strategic in nature than the TSPA..they have proved this by not handling over OBL to the Americans in 01 and its only now that we are able to see the effects of this decision when the Americans are are running away from the region and are staring at another defeat in Asia....So if we are thinking that Taliban after taking over GHQ( pretty sure it will not happen) will pull the nuclear fuse towards India we are in real danger....

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Jul 2012 20:47

What could be more dangerous to world peace than nuking India?

Nuking the US/US interests of course!

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 05 Jul 2012 07:14

Samudragupta wrote:Taliban(howsoever the term is defined) is not less rational than TSPA now at this stage...on the contrary it may just be more strategic in nature than the TSPA..they have proved this by not handling over OBL to the Americans in 01 and its only now that we are able to see the effects of this decision when the Americans are are running away from the region and are staring at another defeat in Asia....

Samudragupta, you are right about the TSPA and the Taliban not being less rational (notwithstanding how rational they are) than each other. The reason is simple because the Afghan Taliban are being strategically guided by the ex-ISI & ex-PA officers such as Aslam Beg, Hamid Gul, Assad Durrani, Mahmoud Ahmed, Javid Nasser et al while the ISI & PA provide tactical support. There are two sets of players therefore within the Afghan Taliban group (there were three, the third being Islamist political leaders like Fazl-ur-Rehman, but their influence has waned dramatically), one being the hardcore Afghan Pashtun Taliban like Mullah Mohammed Omar and his shura (plus warlords like Haqqani who align with them) and the other being their Pakistani advisors.

As for some of the decisions that they took, like not handing over OBL, not everything can be ascribed to their strategic thinking. There is a huge component of Islamist jihadi symbolism in their actions. From being a purely Afghan phenomenon (which the ISI/PA intended to use to get strategic depth as well as subdue Pashtun nationalism in NWFP), they graduated into a regional player and have now completely identified with AQ's worldview and aspirations.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 05 Jul 2012 10:23

shiv wrote:
rajanb wrote:^^
A Q for you Shiv and apologies if you have posted it earlier:

If the Taliban is in power, won't the chances of a nuke conflagration with us escalate? After all their tendencies to use suicide vests with the promise of 72 houris make them want to vapourise themselves and we evil hindus for the promised promiscuty? TIA

rajan when the threat of nuclear war is high enough for India to prepare missile defence even without the so called Taliban in power. What level of extra threat do you perceive. The threat is very high already. Too many Indians do not take our own country seriously and do not see the writing on the wall, which is loud and clear. You saw the T 72 photo on the mil forum being washed down as practice after possible nuclear contamination. India is preparing to be targeted by nuclear weapons. And hit back. It cannot get any more serious than that. Only question is why everyone is so scared of the Taliban. Pakistan is Taliban. Taliban is Pakistan. They have already threatened us with nuclear war several times. If the Taliban start that war it will give us the best excuse on earth to wipe the ba$tards off the face of this earth.

Thanks Shiv.

The only distinction I make between a Pakistan "ruled" by the army and a Pakistan ruled by the Taliban is because the former has elements of the RAPE class (including the PA top brass in this) who have an alternate life secured outside Pakistani shores and , therfore, much more to lose in a nuclear war. These elements have always indulged in proxy wars, except 1971 where we had the b@lls to thumb our noses at western interests, with the backing of the USSR, and yet were gracious in victory. Even with the Kandahar hijack, Parliament, 26/11, Kargil and other attacks, we seem to be very gracious!

This, in my opinion, would be different when it came to the Taliban. Here we would have to be totally ruthless. No first use be dammed and adopt the mindset of "a good pakistani is a dead pakistani". I do agree that we are materially preparing for this eventuality and also the scenario where the Taliban have the nukes in their hands.

But are we mentally prepared? Are our politicians cabable of giving the hit the nuke button order? Because, in this scenario, decisions have to be taken in minutes, if not seconds. No time to think about the fallout of such an action or to debate about who is a good paki or a bad one. Just think of minimising the danger & damage to our country.

It is not that I am scared. Just trying to analyse the worst case scenario. Kick Paki @ss is a lovely sight to see.

I do agree with you about the Pakistan=Taliban and vice versa. But there would be more weightage on Taliban = Pakistan equation because of our own shortcomings. And not that of our armed forces, but our bureaucratic and political will.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 05 Jul 2012 10:45

rajanb wrote:The only distinction I make between a Pakistan "ruled" by the army and a Pakistan ruled by the Taliban is because the former has elements of the RAPE class (including the PA top brass in this) who have an alternate life secured outside Pakistani shores and , therfore, much more to lose in a nuclear war. . . . This, in my opinion, would be different when it came to the Taliban.

rajanb, sorry for butting in. All the nuclear threats issued to us formally & informally so far have come from the RAPE class. Remember the 'eight second response' ? IMO, the RAPE behaviour against India vis-a-vis the-frothing-at-the-mouth-corner jihadists is no different at the basic level. Except wearing only ankle-high shalwars and speaking only in Pashto or Urdu, the RAPEs wear fine cut suits and speak fluently in English. The RAPE behaviour against the West could be tactically different though.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 05 Jul 2012 11:21

SSridhar wrote:
rajanb wrote:The only distinction I make between a Pakistan "ruled" by the army and a Pakistan ruled by the Taliban is because the former has elements of the RAPE class (including the PA top brass in this) who have an alternate life secured outside Pakistani shores and , therfore, much more to lose in a nuclear war. . . . This, in my opinion, would be different when it came to the Taliban.
rajanb, sorry for butting in. All the nuclear threats issued to us formally & informally so far have come from the RAPE class. Remember the 'eight second response' ? IMO, the RAPE behaviour against India vis-a-vis the-frothing-at-the-mouth-corner jihadists is no different at the basic level. Except wearing only ankle-high shalwars and speaking only in Pashto or Urdu, the RAPEs wear fine cut suits and speak fluently in English. The RAPE behaviour against the West could be tactically different though.

SS
The RAPE class is all scotch and bluster. Hiding behind non state actors. 1TFTA=10SDRE, outward islamic beliefs, behind closed doors quaffing the best collection of booze (and I have seen it) which made this SDRE's eyes pop at their duplicity. And history has proved they need the camo of their distinctive brown colour of their uniforms. There is a method in their madness.

The Taliban is made of disparate elements, majorly from the mango class. A child, so to speak, of the RAPE class, disparate, because you never know when they are united in thought and action and when they are busy shafting each other. And nowadays the RAPE's have a uncontrolable child, whose volatility could be the tipping balance. And whose actions are ruled by fanacticism.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 05 Jul 2012 12:46

I agree with shiv on the lack of any difference to India arising from a "taliban takeover" defined tautologically as the state of TSP when there is general (mostly western) perception that a "taliban takeover" has taken place.

Let us clear our minds of the drama created in the media about the specter of taliban takeover, omg loose nukes blah blah (India had "tight nukes" aimed at her heart since 1989 if not earlier so tell me another one.) Ask yourself whether TSP rulership is dealing with India with the maximum malevolence that it can get away with at any point in time or not? In other words, are they now holding back, or have they ever held back, from harming India if they didn't feel some compulsion to hold back?

If your answer is yes they are holding back, present your case convincingly and cogently. If your answer is no they are not holding back, (as mine is) then ask yourself whether a taliban takeover can make them even less inhibited than the minimum inhibition allowed by their situation--clearly a logical impossibility.

If your answer is yes above, also make a convincing case that we are actually in a position to slow down or stop the advent of full talibanization using means less delusional than giving visas, siachen, and all else to the current crop of RAPE vermin, based on smoke-and-mirrors magical thinking.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Jul 2012 15:12

rajanb wrote:
The only distinction I make between a Pakistan "ruled" by the army and a Pakistan ruled by the Taliban is because the former has elements of the RAPE class (including the PA top brass in this) who have an alternate life secured outside Pakistani shores and , therfore, much more to lose in a nuclear war. These elements have always indulged in proxy wars, except 1971 where we had the b@lls to thumb our noses at western interests, with the backing of the USSR, and yet were gracious in victory. Even with the Kandahar hijack, Parliament, 26/11, Kargil and other attacks, we seem to be very gracious!

This, in my opinion, would be different when it came to the Taliban. Here we would have to be totally ruthless. No first use be dammed and adopt the mindset of "a good pakistani is a dead pakistani". I do agree that we are materially preparing for this eventuality and also the scenario where the Taliban have the nukes in their hands.

But are we mentally prepared? Are our politicians cabable of giving the hit the nuke button order? Because, in this scenario, decisions have to be taken in minutes, if not seconds. No time to think about the fallout of such an action or to debate about who is a good paki or a bad one. Just think of minimising the danger & damage to our country.

It is not that I am scared. Just trying to analyse the worst case scenario. Kick Paki @ss is a lovely sight to see.

I do agree with you about the Pakistan=Taliban and vice versa. But there would be more weightage on Taliban = Pakistan equation because of our own shortcomings. And not that of our armed forces, but our bureaucratic and political will.

rajan I will just try and say how I like to analyse such questions in my mind. There are two issues here and both must be considered separately, The first issue is whether the Taliban are more ruthless and will use a nuke. The second is, if they are ruthless and use a nuke, how will India respond.

About the likelihood of the Taliban using their final weapons, I first ask myself, why are the Taliban desperate? Why do they give the impression of being desperate. The question is an important one because the Talibanic mullah-leaders are not the only creatures who deal with people. Thousands of other specialists, including politicians, the police, the military, teachers and doctors, especially psychologists and psychiatrists have plenty of experience dealing with people and generally have a good idea of human behavior.

The point I want to make is that if you take a group of humans - say young men and simply watch their behavior, you will find that they are "normal" in that they are afraid of pain, afraid of being beaten up, afraid of being killed. They like food, they like people who are kind, and they generally like members of the opposite sex who themselves usually respond positively to them. It is the task of teachers, olice and military instructors to take such young people and convert them into engineers, doctors who can soak in blood, brave soldiers who can face danger. This requires a great deal of effort. It does not come automatically, and in that effort many will fail and not be up to the task. The more abnormal the task for which training is required, the greater the chances that people will give up. Not all doctors become surgeons because not all medical students fancy blood. Not all young people can join the military or police because not all people fancy the physical part and danger.

Islam has no special grip over humans. Mullahs require extra effort to indoctrinate young people, and when it comes to suicide bombs the chances of getting people gets even lower to the extent that you have to sometimes hoodwink naive kids into going and blowing themselves up. It is dirty, difficult business, but with effort it can be made to work. For it to work you need leaders and teachers who are dedicated to the cause. That is the weak spot. Those leaders want to live. They are rational. They do not want pain or death. But they understand that a society in turmoil generates enough angry people to get recruits. This is where Islam is very good. Islam thrives on creating fear and chaos in society and then blames pain and unhappiness on non Muslims or unislamic behavior. So a socially failing Pakistan is useful for the Taliban for recruits who will die, but the leaders have no wish to die. That is why Osam bin Laden, Masood azhar, Hafiz Saeed etc do not move out of safe areas. Hafiz saeed sent a son to die n Kashmir, but he won't appear in front of Indians. He sends Kasab.

The second important point is that leaders who teach or indoctrinate others realise that humans are afraid of pain and suffering. This fact can be used to create fear. If you create the impression of ruthlessness, you are crating fear in an adversary. The Taliban make no bones about this. They openly boast and say "We are not afraid of death. You are" and they promptly send a suicide bomber. but the hard truth is that it was only the suicide bomber, carefully selected who was unafraid of death or did not know he would die. His indoctrinators have no intention of dying.

These two facts are eminently usable against the Taliban. The first thing is to ruthlessly kill anyone they send unless he is caught alive n which case he can be squeezed for information. The second is to make sure that you have called the Taliban's bluff about not fearing death. The leaders and indoctrinators fear death all right and death is exactly what is coming to them whether or not they use nuclear weapons. The civilized world (less civilized than claimed) has plenty of experience of dealing with "ruthless" people. Velupillai Prabhakaran, Veerappan, Hitler, Nizam of Hyderbad, Saddam etc are examples of how inconvenient people are taken out at leisure. The Taliban too and their LeT friends will be taken out at leisure. Right now they live protected lives because thy are not in power in Islamabad and the US loves the generals here. But if these guys grab power they will be taken out.

The biggest danger for India is not the Taliban gaining power. The biggest danger is the Taliban striking a deal with the US. Radical islam (Pakistan) struck a deal with the US in 1958 when they promised help against the Soviets. Radical Islam under Zia again struck a bargain with the US in 1979. They struck a third bargain with a naive US with Musharraf making the deal in 2002. They could still pull that off because the US does not care about Indian security.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 05 Jul 2012 17:44

Shiv,

"taken out in leisure" >> this could be potentially dangerous in the short and long term. as long as they still exist and we continue to act in "leisure", they will be a thorn in our side. the Nizam of Hyderabad, whose example you sight, was one of the biggest reasons for the rapid fall of Marathas. He was also the biggest reason why Marathas could never focus on the Gangetic Valley. the Marathas too acted in "leisure" and never gave the Nizam a decisive death blow, and that was one of the primary causes for their undoing.

"in leisure" should only be used as a propaganda tool...something like lulling the enemy into sleep. but the real time scale should be considerably smaller than what we lead the enemy to believe.

some enemies are too dangerous to be dealt with in leisure. and Veerappan doesn't figure in the league of Nizam. and neither does Saddam. Saddam's weak points had already been exploited and constraints were placed on him long before his actual "taking out". Nizam did not face such treatment. the "Hindus" were too complacent when it came to that cancerous wretch.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 05 Jul 2012 18:37

Shiv, a post which elicits serious thought.

I never imagined that the US would side again with radical Islam. Possibly my naiveté!

I thought that the average six pack Joe has evolved since the last time the US made a deal with the radicals. Those days were all about the “red menace” and “better red than dead”. SEATO & CENTO. But today the average Joe can point to Pakistan on the atlas. So would they allow their government to strike such a deal? I would think that the US would drop more bricks and turn to us to help eliminate this menace.

I also think that the PA has been radicalised to a certain extent, and such radicalisation is an ongoing process. I do not foresee any dilution of this radicalisation. Definitely more radical than the times of General Zia. And am sure that some of them are soldiers trained to be brave. Add to that their blind faith in some religious teachers or charismatic leaders feeding them the drivel about conquering for religion and examples of the feats of yore, adds to the danger.

And history has some examples of soldiers being willing to sacrifice their lives for dubious objectives. The Jap kamikazes of WWII. During 1962, the Chinese human waves which attacked our posts.

My speculation (not fear

) of such a Taliban= Pakistan scenario maybe on the fringes of reality, but definitely not in the realm of impossibility.

As opposed to Pakistan=Taliban scenario currently. The equation is almost equal in reverse, but not quite equal. I have thought about the Taliban Pakistan equation a bit more, and though majorly true I find it not factoring the fringe element. Such fringe element being kept in check by the RAPE class, sufficiently so as not to create total havoc.

So I speculate whether we are upto handling such a scenario with pizzazz, as we did 1971. Not so much on the military front, but on the ability of the polity to handle such a scenario.

But that is a topic of discussion for another thread, since it deals with us.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Jul 2012 21:57

devesh wrote:Shiv,

"taken out in leisure" >> this could be potentially dangerous in the short and long term. as long as they still exist and we continue to act in "leisure", they will be a thorn in our side.

I can't dispute that. But the sense I had in my mind when I posted the thoughts is that those guys (who need to be eliminated) have their strengths. They are protected, or have built up defences that allow them to operate with a degree of impunity within a restricted area. To that extent the "leisure" is forced upon us in the way a man stuck in a traffic jam has leisure.

But the people who need to be eliminated need to be marked and taken out when possible. That still allows them time and opportunity to do damage - but I don't see any way that can be totally stopped.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Jul 2012 22:00

rajanb wrote:
But that is a topic of discussion for another thread, since it deals with us.

I forgot to mention. The "dealing with a nuke attack" part has been discussed and can continue to be discussed in the "Deterrence" thread. I have, from time to time posted some thoughts about deterrence, as others have done. The subject of taliban/terrorist nukes has come up from time to time. But nothing new to say now.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 06 Jul 2012 12:47

^^^ Thanks Shiv

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Jul 2012 20:11

What if the PNS Mehran attack was a warning from some powers to not cross redlines?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 06 Jul 2012 20:17

ramana wrote:What if the PNS Mehran attack was a warning from some powers to not cross redlines?

Warning to whom.
Is it to Pakistan or the US

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Jul 2012 20:22

To Pakistan from someone. The question is who is that someone?

PNS is now a jihadi force.
All assets attacked were US provided
These were promptly replaced by US.

So what was the message and from whom.

The easy answer is jihadis retaliated against TSP for the Abortabad raid.
Evidence the Onions were fried.
But then why the PNS base and not a FizzlleYa or RATs base?

What else is the PNS doing?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 06 Jul 2012 20:29

They have the nuke launch and they are not under watch by the west so much.

Jihadis are looking for weakness in Command and control so that they have a access.

PNS may be the weakest link in Pakistan

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 Jul 2012 20:50

When you say CnC, I am assuming it is all the ranks and chain in the inter-related gang structure. OR did the chips provide them the CnC enabling tech? else, why would they cause the weakest link be exposed? I doubt, any technology is in place in there.. however to just prove the point, they might get one on demand from the chips for a favorable condom packet.

So, the someone or many in their structure perhaps was an aberration that was exposed.. now, what caused that should be investigated, and every possible approach to make that happen again could be very helpful in finding more details. From a fishbone perspective, without chippanda they would not be able to do it.. so, the weak point may be way towards far east.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 06 Jul 2012 20:53

I am talking about the org gang structure.
They have all the taliban hidden deep inside their force and they are interconnected and not exposed.

Groups which work secretly in unison is very dangerous and can break the command of the authority.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Jul 2012 04:00

We usually buy the received wisdom about various orgs being jihadified in TSP. What if "PNS is jihadi force" is like "have you stopped beating your wife" type of charge?

IOW PNS Mehran attack could be by fundoo operators but the target could be something else?

What is going on PNS Mehran?

Is the Barber integrated there?

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 07 Jul 2012 05:21

ramana wrote:What if the PNS Mehran attack was a warning from some powers to not cross redlines?

One CT that has been around is that Onions were empty inside as radars avionics etc. had been delivered to PRC. Attack was to hide this, probably US is in it too.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 07 Jul 2012 12:43

Manish_Sharma wrote:One CT that has been around is that Onions were empty inside as radars avionics etc. had been delivered to PRC. Attack was to hide this, probably US is in it too.

I consider this a fantastic CT. Why should the Americans give away these technologies in such a convoluted fashion ? In fact, why should they give these to PRC at all when it knows it will be used to track American naval assets ?

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 07 Jul 2012 16:11

SSridhar wrote:
Manish_Sharma wrote:One CT that has been around is that Onions were empty inside as radars avionics etc. had been delivered to PRC. Attack was to hide this, ~~probably US is in it too~~.
I consider this a fantastic CT. Why should the Americans give away these technologies in such a convoluted fashion ? In fact, why should they give these to PRC at all when it knows it will be used to track American naval assets ?

Ok, what if US is taken out of this CT?

Then any chance of it being true?

Though US did turn a blind eye when its companies were helping china build attack helicopter. Even when found out they were just fined token 75 million as penalty.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Jul 2012 20:27

Crack the whip

http://www.newsinsi ght.net/archived ebates/nat2. asp?recno= 2318

Puffed up by the US apology, Pakistan needs an Indian put-down, writes N.V.Subramanian.

6 July 2012: The failure of Indo-Pak talks should not come as a surprise especially after the US apology for killing Pakistani soldiers on the Afghan-Pakistan border. The United States needs Pakistan more than it likes and this indispensability will continue to fuel Pakistani belligerence against India. The best way out for India, therefore, is to seclude the US from Indian engagement of Pakistan, keep the South Asia element minimal in Indo-US relations' building, and generally approach strategic issues from wholly Indian perspectives and needs.In a break from the Vietnam era, the United States has no stomach for long wars. That era was characterized by overall continuity between administrations in respect of displaying will to fight foreign wars. This continuity certainly magnified violence and tragedies and scarred affected portions of the world epically. But continuity also gave US allies confidence to make tactical and strategic investments in Pax Americana despite underlying fear of sudden end so brilliantly captured in the picturization of the song of The Doors.All that changed with the termination of the Cold War. 9/11 and the September 2008 bankruptcies drove final nails in the coffin of Pax Americana. Rightly or wrongly, two terms of George W.Bush drove the United States to fight two wars in two Muslim countries. George Bush's successor, Barack Obama, was for early closure of the wars, and this has happened in Iraq, where the situation is worse than when the US intervened, and that is likely to be replicated soon in Afghanistan, where American troops are in pullout mode. America needs Pakistan for a tidy Afghan withdrawal and India must keep strictly away from their messy and insane bargaining.India was correct to reject US pressure to establish a military footprint in Afghanistan. It's not so much about doing the US's dirty job as that the United States is an unreliable ally.

Objectively speaking, India cannot have a military role in Afghanistan which has been the graveyard of big powers. But making plans on US assurances and guarantees is still more suicidal. For all the tough US talk against Pakistan, there was niggling fear that America would succumb to Pakistani pressure. And since American support to Pakistan (military and otherwise) has determined its behavior towards India, Pakistan was expected to play hardball during recent talks after the US apology. And so it has happened. Not all the evidence in the world will move Pakistan to shut down its anti-India terror assets.

So what lessons are to be learnt from recent events? Indo-US relations must follow a separate course from Indo-Pak ties. No hyphenation must be permitted. Where the United States needs India's tactical and strategic cooperation to punish Pakistani terrorism and nuclear proliferation, it must be given, with no reciprocation expected. But India should rebuff demands for Kashmir concessions or leniency on Siachen to make Pakistan more amiable for peace in South Asia and particularly towards India.In other words, India must be reconciled to never finding peace with Pakistan. With the pre-eminence of the army in that country, peace can never come. The army leads the deep state. But such cruel understanding of Pakistan should also advise India what to do for a long time. It must do everything to prop up/ legitimize Pakistan's civil-democratic forces and fight the military's putschist propensity and anti-India terror policies. For that reason, back channels must remain open with Pakistan's top civilian leaders, including president Asif Ali Zardari and opposition leader Nawaz Sharief.But no concessions should be made to Pakistan. It must be clarified to Pakistanis that India is not United States. It will not submit to nuclear or terror blackmail. Pakistan's best chance is for its civilian leaders to strengthen democratic
institutions, contain the military's extra-constitutiona l ambitions, put the lid on disputes with India, and work for peace and prosperity in the sub-continent. These principles should guide India's engagement with Pakistan from where the US must be thoroughly excluded. It is only when Pakistan realizes that the US does not -- and won't -- matter in its relations with India that sense will dawn.It is up to India to crack the whip.
N.V.Subramanian is Editor, www.newsinsi ght.net and writes on politics and strategic affairs.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Jul 2012 21:19

^^I think NV Subramanian has it right.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 08 Jul 2012 03:25

The author is is right

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 08 Jul 2012 04:48

The prognosis to not concede and strengthen TSP civilian rule is an easy one to reach. The difficulty in relations with India is, EVERYTHING goes through the PA. Unless and until the PA is not on board, speaking with the civilians is useless. The only way to marginalize the PA without CBM's is to hurt them severely through war.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Jul 2012 06:21

ShauryaT, You are not using your Shikarpuri knowledge.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Jul 2012 06:36

ShauryaT wrote: The only way to marginalize the PA without CBM's is to hurt them severely through war.

Shaurya you have not been reading the history of the Pakistan army. If nothing else i recommend that you read Air Cmdre Haider's (A paki) autobiographical book - "The Flight of the Falcon" to understand more about the Pakistani army

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 08 Jul 2012 07:51

shiv wrote:
ShauryaT wrote: The only way to marginalize the PA without CBM's is to hurt them severely through war.
Shaurya you have not been reading the history of the Pakistan army. If nothing else i recommend that you read Air Cmdre Haider's (A paki) autobiographical book - "The Flight of the Falcon" to understand more about the Pakistani army

Shiv ji: Do not want to argue on this topic with you or ramana ji, who have formed your views after many years of careful observations. Ordered the book you have recommended out of respect for your knowledge. No harm in reading one more work on TSP.

My only plead is to provide space for alternative approaches to exist, just like there are a multitude of views and approaches on TSP by many Indian observers and ex-officials. These are people we all respect for their services and observations and some of them have done so, for their entire working lives.

ramana ji: Shikarpuri knowledge is a double edge sword. It shows me how to survive but does now show me how to defeat the enemy. This lack of offensive knowledge coupled with I am sure some benign neglect, led to our eventual loss. Security and political control is too important a matter to be left alone is the key lesson from Shikarpur. You either control your frontiers or your enemies/opponents control them. Thinking of India's frontiers as the one on the Radcliffe line is the biggest self goal of all.