Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds

Sarma · Post by **Sarma** » 28 Aug 2003 21:49

Tim, please give us a break from this "South Asia" stuff. Don't tell me you are a "South Asia Expert."

Sunil · Post by **Sunil** » 28 Aug 2003 22:32

narayanan,

> But... everything in your post points to something very different from any "blackmail" scenario having to do with the likelihood of weapons going boom in the CONUS.

I think the blackmail scheme is more on the lines of `something bad will happen if the nukes fall into Al Qaida hands' ergo one must do everything to ensure that does not happen. That `something bad' may be something terrible like a nuke going on of US soil or some less explicit.

As regards the diplomatic faux pas angle, I am unconvinced that this is general boorishness. The stridency of the tone is too far out of the ordinary. The Pakistanis you see staffing higher levels of the Pakistani administrative/foreign services pass through some of the big name schools in the west. Their entire nation relies on keeping the west and their arab allies in good humor. This means they train their tongues very well.. the incidents described there are unusual, and reflective of growing anxiety - but also reflective new found enthusiasm for acting like a hood.

Give me a day to look up the references to Gul's statements about Pakistani Nukes. I am not surprised that the MMA guy said that "Pakistan's nukes have been handed over", I expect him to say that - he is technically looking to project himself as a better leader of Pakistan than Musharraf.

> That, unfortunately, is more consistent with explanations in a region which lies beyond the "redline" for open discussion, which I am too chicken to cross. The propaganda from lower minions in the GOTUS is consistent with the propaganda we saw about the Eyeraki missiles.

There could be other patterns at work here, but I am convinced that a WMD related deterrence regime is at work here, although (as Johann, and Tim seem to be suggesting) it is unclear exactly who (in terms of people) is the potential aggressor in such a scheme.

Suppose I construct a model of Pakistani government which is something like this:

a) Musharraf and his clique (frontlyn allies of the USG) (Lets call them the `white')

b) A core of Islampasand PA officers - reluctant as it is to break a chain of command that places Musharraf on the top. (Lets call them `grey')

c) Syndicated Jihadi interest groups and their loyalists who want to participate in Jihads all over the place. (Lets call them `black')

I guess within this vague structure one could conclude that the grey guys are the ones who could be the ones holding the trigger.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 28 Aug 2003 22:53

Months after Pakistan's nuke noodity was suggested, Hamid Gul/Aslam Beg and all the MMA guys suddenly chose to breathe fire about nuking India and Israel if the US attempted to `take away their nukes'. This was months after the first signs of a US surveillance regime on Pakistani nukes had appeared. So something happened long after that spooked the Pakistanis into believing that the US was going to take away their nukes and all the shouting/rhetorical escalation drove home the point in the US that terrible things would happen if someone attempted to take away Pakistan's nuclear program from it. I think this is clearly a redline.

Sunil, This needs to be discussed since many have noticed this change.

IMO this is because of the geo-political play and the lobby power play increased during this time. Hence the lobby pressure had a hand in the amb. change.
When R Haas came in Delhi in Jan 2003, the impression was that Pak-US relationship was the lowest after 911. THis was the time when the threat 'nuking India and Israel if the US attempted to `take away their nukes'.' was used by the FREINDS circle.

Timeline

Jun 2002 - Standoff between India and Pakistan
Missiles fired by Pak to show defiance
UN Amb threatens first strike

Oct 2002 - Kashmir election and a popular elected govt
US and international community accepts the election as valid
Setback to Pakistan in Kashmir issue

Dec 2002 - Low point in Pak US relationship

Jan/Feb 2003 - Threat by Aslam Beg about strikes on India if Pak nukes are removed

Mar 2003 - Iraq War/ fall of regime
Apr 2003 - ABV announces peace dialogue with Pakistan citing the Iraq war and changed international circumstance.

Jun 2003 - Camp David and Mushy - $3B aid to Pak

Prateek · Post by **Prateek** » 28 Aug 2003 23:00

Originally posted by Viren:
About 12 to 18 months ago, there were reports of about 60K US troops on TSP soil. Has this number gone done since US needs them elsewhere?
Knowing this might help us understand the redlines as perceived by TSP or US.

I remember the number being around 15,000 US army men operating inside of Paki land ... Not 60,000.

Kuttan · Post by **Kuttan** » 28 Aug 2003 23:19

Tim: True enough: 60,000 combat troops would be very hard to hide. But it must take quite a large number of US personnel to do all that airport monitoring, air traffic monitoring, sat-phone monitoring, training Mush's Imperial Guards, manning the flight line of Guantanamo International Airlines, plus all the other "stuff" that needs trained, trusted people. PLUS the business types, though those may be quite few these days.

In addition, there seem to be at least some Special Forces types hunting in the FATA, NWFP and maybe in POK.

The Pakis say that sat-phone usage in any city brings a near-guarantee of a quick visit from the "FBI". To have that much "FBI" available on call, there must be quite a large number of people there, mustn't there? Either that, or several highly mobile teams. But then again, I wouldn't want Americans flying in helicopters too much across Pakistan these days. Too tempting a target for the many loose missiles around.

Kuttan · Post by **Kuttan** » 28 Aug 2003 23:30

Sunil: If the "Grey" hold the trigger but don't have the Mush Teflon Armor, then they are fertilizer, hey? What prevents a swift US move against them, with Mush's forced "cooperation"? You would think Mush has everything to gain - unless the weapons (or toy weapon-building Leggo Kits) are already out of his control.

Any way I look at it, its worse than Russian-Roulette for the US to continue to put up with a shaky nuclear-armed, utterly and incorrigible hate-filled regime. Every day in such a state increases the likelihood of a massive attack.

How does paying blackmail ensure safety against congenital hatred? Instead of using taxis, now they can use C-130s to deliver much large WMDs - that's all that has changed.

So that route still does not make sense as well-thought-out US policy.

Acharya says that the threats from Gul came in Jan. 2003. If Gul is part of the "Grey" power structure, and he's walking around free, then I REALLY have to question American sanity. Here's a blatant Taliban advocate, widely regarded as being behind the assasination of Ahmed Shah Massoud. Arresting him and simply TELLING him that he's being taken to the gentle rest facilty at Bagram AFB for a visit with General Dostum, should solve that problem.

OTOH, if Gul is free to walk around in 2003 making these sorts of threats, then I MUST ask what his hold on the GOTUS is.

My firm belief is that as a national policy, the United States of America does NOT bow to blackmail. Not when faced with 20 million deaths and complete destruction in 1941 - nor in 1962. And I don't see why that would change now.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 28 Aug 2003 23:36

My firm belief is that as a national policy, the United States of America does NOT bow to blackmail.
The threat is not to the USA but to a third country.

Kuttan · Post by **Kuttan** » 28 Aug 2003 23:48

Threat to a third country would not cause a moment's hesitation to the USA to go finish off the threat.

Well.. in any event the threat-maker is dead meat. So wht gives after two years of this dance?

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 28 Aug 2003 23:52

Originally posted by narayanan:
Sunil: If the "Grey" hold the trigger but don't have the Mush Teflon Armor, then they are fertilizer, hey?

That is not necessarily true. The "grey" is mush's teflon armor w.r.t. the US. They are the "out of control elements in the ISI" which is always a nameless entity. Without the "grey", it is a given than the "black" can never get to the nukes, which makes "white" extremely vulnerable to external pressure.

You would think Mush has everything to gain - unless the weapons (or toy weapon-building Leggo Kits) are already out of his control.

Selling out the "grey" would have serious consequences for Mushy, personally, I would think. Especially, if he sells them out to the americans, and "not all" of them are caught in the net, then Mushy's days are numbered.

How does paying blackmail ensure safety against congenital hatred?

It doesn't, which doesn't make sense, as you say.

OTOH, if Gul is free to walk around in 2003 making these sorts of threats, then I MUST ask what his hold on the GOTUS is.

When Sheikh (Daniel Pearl's murderer) is off limits for the US, it makes perfect sense that Gul is untouchable. Sheikh is probably way down the food chain compared to Gul.

Manu · Post by **Manu** » 28 Aug 2003 23:53

Some threads on BR are truly WMDs. Weapons of Mass Delusion.

I ain't no military, strategic or 'Chanakian' but to me some things are plain as day:

1) Pakistan has no Nuke Gun pointed towards the US and the former is not 'blackmailing' the latter

2) If there was blackmail, Pakistan would be flattened (conventionally or otherwise) in 1 day, using daisy cutters and miniature nukes.

3) The reason that Pakistan is not 'taken to task' is because of the impersonal hatred of any country or groups of countries that may pose a threat in the somewhat distant future.

4) If US intentions wrt India were Noble, then North East would not be Southern Baptist, the U.S 'free' Media would not be 'at war ' with us, there would be no support to Khalistani groups, Kashmiri Groups, Naga Groups, Dalit Groups, 'Indian Muslim Groups' and Kashmir confrences and no indoctrination of the millions of lefty Bengalis who would sell their mothers to harm India and please the US.

5) if anyone that does not realize that an elaborate 'containment scheme' is at work here, then we are not a nation of snake charmers afterall. Indeed, we are the ones being charmed into a false sense of security.

Even by 2010, our Economy will be 1/12 of the US Economy at the current r.o.g.

The only thing that could have worked in our favor was that there would be a HUGE pakistani/B'Deshi and other Islamic immigration into the US and West in general. But the US is taking steps NOW to ensure that even that is not possible in the future. The malignant tumor that is Pakistan will continue, till such time, that USA no longer needs it to 'control' India. Cold-blooded Bastar*ds they are, and that's why they are the only superpower.

Our Best Hope (barring an act of God) is to aspire of a larger, South-Korea type of role. Playing the Dirty Games that China plays will definitely have consequences for China. In less than a decade.

Wonder why intelligent and lucid people like Sunil S, K Goan and others delude themselves into thinking that USA has anything but the worst intentions for us.

Abhijit · Post by **Abhijit** » 29 Aug 2003 00:05

Originally posted by acharya:
My firm belief is that as a national policy, the United States of America does NOT bow to blackmail.
The threat is not to the USA but to a third country.

The GOTUS has never given in to clackmail as far as a threat to US as a nation is concerned. But how about the following scenarios (all imaginery)?
- Bush dynasty and GOP bigwigs dealings with KSA that can be traced to OBL and passed through Paki Army/ISI?
- CIA drug deals that passed through PA?
- Any kind of shenanigans indulged in by American politcos that directly or indirectly benefitted OBL/AQ and paki army has the smoking gun?
Does it sound too far fetched? PA does not have to hold a nuke gun to America's head - that would be suicidal indeed. But it can hold a gun to GOP's head easily - after all all the dirty money must have passed through PA, right?

Raj Singh · Post by **Raj Singh** » 29 Aug 2003 00:26

Originally posted by Narayanan

Any way I look at it, its worse than Russian-Roulette for the US to continue to put up with a shaky nuclear-armed, utterly and incorrigible hate-filled regime. Every day in such a state increases the likelihood of a massive attack.

How does paying blackmail ensure safety against congenital hatred? Instead of using taxis, now they can use C-130s to deliver much large WMDs - that's all that has changed.

So that route still does not make sense as well-thought-out US policy.

Perhaps the writer thinks too logically and rationally. However, as someone said, " He also made the mistake of believing that if your arguments are rational, you should be able to carry the majority with you. In real life, and particularly in politics, this is almost never the case. "

To think that US threatened by Pakistan (possessing nukes)in turn will flatten Pakistan may seem very logical/rational practically in every debate/discussion. However, real life/politics is different.

shashi · Post by **shashi** » 29 Aug 2003 00:33

Originally posted by kgoan:
[QB]Sunil,

But then why did Blackwill go home? He shlould still be there to manage the situation and trade onhis 'friendship" with Advani.

That gives greater credence to N's point, no?
[QB]

Theres a simple answer. In the fight between State Dept. and DoD, NSA Rice frequently sides with DoD. State Dept. is virtually kicked out of US foreign policy decision making process. Powell himself has become the "gofor" for Bush. That means greater role for C. Rice, and she needed advisors. Naturally, the picked the team recommended by DoD (Remember Blackwill never got along with State Dept.)

Raj Singh · Post by **Raj Singh** » 29 Aug 2003 00:44

Abhijit ST

The GOTUS has never given in to clackmail as far as a threat to US as a nation is concerned.

What was that Konduz (spl?)airlift of Pakistanis, if not giving into blackmail?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Aug 2003 00:46

Folks look at the Indo -Israel thread. It has some import to this thread. If uncle wont act some else will.

Sunil · Post by **Sunil** » 29 Aug 2003 00:59

Narayanan,

The `grey' signifies something between white (Musharraf) and black (Jihadis). As long as they remain `grey' there is no reason for either side to turn them into fertilizer as they may have some (as yet unknown) utility in the unforeseen future.

> How does paying blackmail ensure safety against congenital hatred?

It does not ensure safety, it merely ensures the slow formalization of a `relationship'. This is imo only the beginning of the `relationship'.

> Arrest Hamid Gul.

I would not be surprised if that was some kind of redline in itself. There definetely was some kind of redline around Kunduz itself, and this was openly in American accounts of that period, so I think there is a `personnel' redline which says that the US doesn't go around picking up people like Hamid Gul.

> My firm belief is that as a national policy, the United States of America does NOT bow to blackmail. And I don't see why that would change now.

I have nothing to say about this at the present time.

shashi · Post by **shashi** » 29 Aug 2003 01:02

Originally posted by Manu:
Some threads on BR are truly WMDs. Weapons of Mass Delusion.

Cant agree with you more.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Aug 2003 01:06

Manu and Shashi,
No one is forcing you to read/participate in these threads. Thanks for your agreement and past participation. No replies to this kapisch.

R Vaidya · Post by **R Vaidya** » 29 Aug 2003 01:18

N^3
--
One issue. If TSP is NOOK Noode and it is keeping a pistol on India [ assuming India has not recognised that it is no bullet six cylinder pistol]-- in the form of terror gangs since India is on no first strike posture, why should it bother USA?It is better for USA to keep TSP inside the tent and make them Pi** outside [ on India] rather than keep TSP outside the tent and make them Pi** inside the USA.In other words nook noode TSP can create maximum chaos in India and unkil will smile since it is the work of an alleeey. Of course no need to distinguish between TSP Army/ISI and Al-Quida.
Is that more logical?

VirenH · Post by **VirenH** » 29 Aug 2003 01:19

N^3: >>My firm belief is that as a national policy, the United States of America does NOT bow to blackmail.
Depends. Policy applies if the 'blackmail' is made public - TSP is not the only one who cares of it's H & D.
If the 'blackmail' is in private, the blackmailer is treated to club-sandwich and coke at Camp David and handed some $$ as Baksheesh.

N^3: >>But it must take quite a large number of US personnel to do all that airport monitoring, air traffic monitoring, sat-phone monitoring, training Mush's Imperial Guards, manning the flight line of Guantanamo International Airlines, plus all the other "stuff" that needs trained, trusted people.
Don't forget that we need a few US troops on TSP ground to protect the H & D of mules from the pervert jihadis. Imran Khan's patthans have come a long way from screwing wimmen in south to mules at home - I think it's a better use of my tax $ to have someone validate/authenticate this fact and doucment it - we owe it to the future students of history.

(b) On other end, what is a lower limit - if it is 15 as suggested elsewhere, then I conclude US does not perceive any threat/redlines at all.

And that worries me....

Raj Singh · Post by **Raj Singh** » 29 Aug 2003 01:29

Acharya

The threat is not to the USA but to a third country.

This/above is not that clear. SS's thesis is that it is US who is being blackmailed by Pakistan. If it is some other third country as you say then where and how does that fit in Sunil S's thesis?

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 29 Aug 2003 01:34

Hamid Gul has been decribed by people in the CIA as 'the most dangerous man in Pakistan', recently echoed in public by Milton Bearden.

The most dangerous thing about Hamid Gul from the Western point of view is not his role as strategic consultant to terrorists, but his ability to marshal discontent among the retired and serving PA community, serving and retired ISI, and the religious parties (including their paramilitary wings) and closely coordinate all of them.

Gul would the key focal point in any coup that violated the military chain of command (something attempted in 1951 and 1995 with complete failure).

Gul is especially spiteful because he believes that the Americans ruined his career, forcing him out of the ISI and the army, denying him the COAS job because they feared his fundamentalist sympathies. Moreover Gul believes that his personal story is symbolic of Pakistan's general treatment after the Soviet Union's withdrawal from Afghanistan.

While arresting Gul or forcing him underground would cause severe difficulties to Musharraf, there is another very important reason to leave him be;

Gul's public and private activities would be one of the best coup weather vanes available.

This matters a great deal when you consider how heavy the failures in predicting the timing and nature of the Iranian revolution and PLA's victory on the mainland weigh on the minds of the American intelligence community.

If something of the sort were to happen again (this time with the nuclear dimension) in the background of 9/11 it could very well mean the end of the agency.

Sunil · Post by **Sunil** » 29 Aug 2003 01:49

> A threat to a third country.

I think pre-Sept 11, when the Al Qaida threat was not as pronounced it is possible that the US government could have a taken somewhat laxer view of affairs.

However post 9-11 they simply cannot risk the possibility of a device falling into Al Qaida's hands. I feel it doesn't matter if the threat isn't directly made to the US, they have to assume the worst and prepare for it.

Note the fashion in which Hamid Gul and Aslam Beg made threats - while addressing the possibility of a Pakistani response to America taking away Pakistan's nuclear weapons - both Gul and Beg spoke of hitting India and Israel and NOT the US. This was an indirect threat.

Now clearly when Gul and Beg said this, they did not feel such a step was suicidal (for Pakistan), they firmly held that the US would in such an eventuality step in and save Pakistan from retaliation. This theme of the US stepping in to save Pakistan is common to all Pakistani strategists. I find this most interesting, the Pakistanis feel that they can make a mess and then lustily sing out `Oops I did it again... ' like Brittany Spears and then Good Old Uncle Sam will come-a-runnin' to set things right.

Does such confidence come without serious cause?

To quote a forumite .. "Pakistanis think that the US unke baap ka maal hain" (commonly translated as "The US is something that belongs to their father".)

All these threat smack of a deterrence cycle.

Viren,

Still thinking about what you have said.

shashi · Post by **shashi** » 29 Aug 2003 01:54

Originally posted by acharya:
My firm belief is that as a national policy, the United States of America does NOT bow to blackmail.
The threat is not to the USA but to a third country.

Agree with Narayanan. US will not take nuclear threats against anybody lightly.

Explanation lies in State Dept. Lets remember who the US-Pak coilation against terror was forged in the first place. A single phone call from Powell to Musharraf in the wee hours of 9/11 threatening him to choose sides "now" or face consequences. Mushy's radio address to the nation confirms this.

If we look at State depts history, they always forged coilations with thungs for the momentary benefits. US needed access to the land locked Afghanistan, contacting Iran was out of the question, so Pakistan is the logical choice.

State Dept. is a self-righteous organization. One needs to look no further than the piece on Stephen Cohen in recent BRM to get an insight. Yes, State dept. is worried about islamists comming to power in pakistan or break-up of pakistan, but those fears are based on state depts. own "realities".

Raj Singh · Post by **Raj Singh** » 29 Aug 2003 02:01

Sunil S

Does such confidence come without serious cause?

To quote a forumite .. "Pakistanis think that the US unke baap ka maal hain" (commonly translated as is something that belongs to their father.)

All these threat smack of a deterrence cycle.

On this I would say, there is history which shows and supports this confidence among Pakistanis. US has been coming to Pakistan's rescue even during those days when it did not have nukes. In other words, this 'confidence' part can stand on its own too without nuclear threats. However, this does not mean that it cannot be part of your theory too. At best, it could be but, not necessarily a big part ...

Sunil · Post by **Sunil** » 29 Aug 2003 02:06

Raj Singh,

There is a historical background to US-Pak ties, but the lionization of Musharraf far exceeds anything any of the former `Presidents' of Pakistan have got.

I feel this is a puzzle and we are putting the pieces together.

Raj Singh · Post by **Raj Singh** » 29 Aug 2003 02:14

Sunil S

There is a historical background to US-Pak ties, but the lionization of Musharraf far exceeds anything any of the former `Presidents' of Pakistan have got.

A light hearted question....

Is it possible that lionisation of Mushrraf is not so different from Zia's but now we have more access to more news channels (be it internet/tv etc) ? After all, initially, even Zia was not straightaway accepted by US as President of Pakistan but suddenly he became darling of US because of former USSR walking into Afhganistan. It is just a thought..

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 29 Aug 2003 02:19

There was a time lag of three years after Zia led the coup and the soviet invasion of Afghanistan when Zia became the darling. Between 1978 and 1992, the US government poured at least US$6 billion into the mujaheddin factions, mainly through the ISI. Saudi Arabia offered billions more. Other governments — including Britain, France and China — also pumped arms and funds into the ISI pipeline.

In a similar pattern-
There was a time lag of 2 years after Mushy led the coup and 911 happened. In 2002 Mushy became the darling and pakistan was rewarded.

shashi · Post by **shashi** » 29 Aug 2003 02:24

Originally posted by sunil s:
Raj Singh,

There is a historical background to US-Pak ties, but the lionization of Musharraf far exceeds anything any of the former `Presidents' of Pakistan have got.

I feel this is a puzzle and we are putting the pieces together.

True.

Past Pakistani generals were typical pakjabis, who were proud to show off their strength, grip, contro, aka manhood.

Musharraf is a different breed of animal. He is as much a politican as a military officer, and that too extremely intelligent politician with a gift of ability to lie with a straight face.

From the day he deposed Nawaz Sherif, Musharraf was playing the political games. His first avatar was that of a "saviour" of pakistan from the corrupt politicians. Then he shed the military uniform and wore business suits and became the "CEO", to capitalize on the supposedly efficient and non-corrupt corporate executives. Immediately after 9/11, he allowed massive demonstrations after friday Namaz to bolster his image as "helpless" general who is trying to keep lotastan safe and secure from the fundamentalists. And the ultimate stroke of genious is the LFO and the elections rigged to give just enough strenght of MMA fundamentalist parties in NFWP and Baluchistan provinces. Two birds in one shot....To the US these elections demonstrated how close Paksitan is to becomming a fundamentalist islamic state and how much Mushy is needed to keep it "under control", and to the elected legislature, a threat not to undermine him or his office or else, LFO would be nullified and therefore entire parliment would be nullified.

He is almost as good as Indira Gandhi in political manouvering.

[added later]
BTW, this is a good subject for an article for BRM. If anybody has past paki news and discussion threads, could you email'em to me?

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 29 Aug 2003 02:34

He is almost as good as Indira Gandhi in political manouvering.

Personally, I think that there is someone else behind Musharaff, a close personal adviser perhaps. Musharaff is a smooth talker and nothing more I feel!! He doesn't have the capacity to see beyond his nose. It would be better to identify if someone else is behind his thinking and get him out of the way. Perhaps left to himself, he will try another of his famous exploits like Siachen attack or Kargil, which will finally take him to his doom!!

Raj Singh · Post by **Raj Singh** » 29 Aug 2003 02:41

Shashi

Musharraf is a different breed of animal. He is as much a politican as a military officer, and that too extremely intelligent politician with a gift of ability to lie with a straight face.

He is almost as good as Indira Gandhi in political manouvering.

Have heard stories about Zia which were not that different from present ones about Mushrraf. Zia too was called master diplomat/politician and so on in Indian media. On the one hand war hysteria was being created in the minds of people on the other, Zia requested and came to watch cricket match being played in Jaipur (?)between India and Pakistani teams. Projecting to the world he is/was a peace loving man and all this sabre rattling is India's doing. Point is, now that we have instant access to news/analysis and we can share/exchange our thoughts quite quickly so we feel that Mushrraf is more chic/slick/intelligent/smart and so on. And we also feel US has been building him up more and rely/depend on him more than Zia. Perhaps, we do not realise that during that time one did not have access even to a fax machine leave alone internet/24 hour news channels. Since today there are more outlets, more exposure so one may feel in a certain way about these things (Zia/Mushrraf). As far as substance go when it comes to Presidents of Pakistan, dependence level of US has not been that different.

shashi · Post by **shashi** » 29 Aug 2003 02:51

Originally posted by raj singh:
Point is, now that we have instant access to news/analysis and we can share/exchange our thoughts quite quickly so we feel that Mushrraf is more chic/slick/intelligent/smart and so on. And we also feel US has been building him up more and rely/depend on him more than Zia. Perhaps, we do not realise that during that time one did not have access even to a fax machine leave alone internet/24 hour news channels. Since today there are more outlets, more exposure so one may feel in a certain way about these things (Zia/Mushrraf). As far as substance go when it comes to Presidents of Pakistan, dependence level of US has not been that different.

While there is lot of validity to what you are saying, I cant completley discount Sunil's observation on US-Musharraf relations.

IMO, US is propping up Musharraf from the day-one, and more so lately. While US saw past generals as "someone who can deliver", with mushy, they feel, "this general needs our help stay in power so he can deliver -- atleast some extent, alternatives are much more dangerous". Latest example being, sale of C-130s, sort of "we jacked him on the aid package and F-16, we need to give him something so he can show to his people he is getting the job done". That to me is the answer to Sunil's question. Lot of it has to do with how Mushy is protraying himself.

Prateek · Post by **Prateek** » 29 Aug 2003 02:53

After, 9/11 incident, I remember reading that even the US officials were amazed to see the speed with which the Pakistanis surrendered and agreed to work with the US military in the operations against the Talibans in Afghanistan, in whatever means required.

This means, that Pakistan very well knows the capabilities of the USA and they don't underestimate the threat of either directly or indirectly holding on the nuke gun to the USA. But then they might think of using the Jihadi threat (acting as though they have no control over them!) to threaten the other US interests in the region like using them against the Israel and India. Whether Pakis are nuke nood or not, keeping this vague threat keeps Pakistan going. Basically they can buy some time to regroup and rethink their strategies. So Pakis blackmailing US with nukes, IMO has to end with using it against the US interests in the region, ie, using it against the Israel and India. Can they go beyond this region ? This probably depends on how far the Jihadis can operate directly in the US main land. I believe that the threat still exists, and hence the delay by the US acting against the Pakistan either directly or indirectly, over the short period of time. But eventually, once they make sure that the threat of Jihadis attacking the US mainland with WMD's is non existant, I kind of feel that they might still leave the issue of Pakistan to be handled by their regional allies like Israel and India.

But then what's the threshhold of TSP actually firing one at the USA ? Threshhold is probably when their existence is threatened! Pakis can hide and duck until then by telling 100% to 400% lies. This probably is one more reason for the west and the USA to go slow with Pakistan so as not to make the Pakistanis feel that their existence is threatened ? Hence some occassional goodies with sweeteners attached. I'm sure Pakis will not fall for it in the long run and they will have their one last & FINAL suicidal run, anyways.

IMO, Pakistan is a time bomb, the situation there can explode anytime. The dark horse here again is the China. One must remember taht it was the Chinese who gave the nukes to Pakistan. Now, since US is operating inside of Pakistan, even if the Pakis are not able to give one bomb to the Jihadis, they probably may have an arrangement with the help Chinese(via NKorea or even the Iran?) ?. Hence it becomes very IMP for the US and the alies to sweep Iran and NKorea for the nukes and other WMDs. While Iran is a suspect, NKorea is a possibility. But the geography and the posession of missiles capable of reaching Israel, makes Iran more vulnerable for the US actions since it is being geographically closer to Israel.

Raj Singh · Post by **Raj Singh** » 29 Aug 2003 02:57

Shashi

I cant completley discount Sunil's point of Musharraf.

At no stage I have said/implied/intended to do that. I was merely trying to convey that keep other factors also in mind when thinking/talking about Mushrraf being built up by US. Let us not believe completely what is being projected/sold by US and Mushrraf jointly, the type of Mushrraf they want to sell/project.

VirenH · Post by **VirenH** » 29 Aug 2003 03:05

Originally posted by shashi:
BTW, this is a good subject for an article for BRM. If anybody has past paki news and discussion threads, could you email'em to me?

You mean profiling Mushy?
If so check this: Link. Make sure you read Joyti Arya's BRM article.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 29 Aug 2003 03:07

New angle on the US, Pakistan, India triangle

However, the US remains wary about the durability of Musharraf's commitment to fight terrorism. The increased clout of Islamists in Pakistan is capturing the attention of Washington decision makers. Besides, it is always befuddling to American intelligence whether Islamists and government are two separate entities competing for power, or are the flip sides of the same coin. That might be the American thinking for conducting an annual review of that commitment before continuing to assist.

Sunil · Post by **Sunil** » 29 Aug 2003 03:24

Raj Singh,

> Is it possible that lionisation of Mushrraf is not so different from Zia's but now we have more access to more news channels (be it internet/tv etc) ?

Yes, Zia was never associated with the Soviet Union (as a matter of fact - no Pakistan dictator was). The same cannot be said of Pervez Musharraf and Al Qaida or the Taliban.

In any case we are digressing from the topic of the thread.

Shashi,

The idea that the entire regime of `forgive and forget' followed by the USG vis-a-vis Pakistan's past sins has to do with elements of the State Department or CIA micromanaging policy is interesting.

It would be at least equally interesting corollary to ask why such a micromanagement is allowed to proceed even in the post Sept 11 era. I mean just logically thinking one would infer that after the mess of Sept 11, there was a need for minimizing micromanagement but if it still continues then that reduces my confidence in the state of affairs. Perhaps this can be discussed on a separate thread?

Kuttan · Post by **Kuttan** » 29 Aug 2003 03:29

I am too naive to grasp the finer nuances of what sunil or kgoan say most of the time, but to my 4-year-old brain the following makes no sense:

Note the fashion in which Hamid Gul and Aslam Beg made threats - while addressing the possibility of a Pakistani response to America taking away Pakistan's nuclear weapons - both Gul and Beg spoke of hitting India and Israel and NOT the US. This was an indirect threat.

Isn't this "threat" like saying: "If you take my candy away, I'll eat it and become sick"?

Obvious problem with the "Blackmail": if the weapons are taken away, there ain't no weapons left!!!!!

So that threat was simply posturing. Also, sunil ascribes the MMA chief's accusation of Mush selling the National Nuts to the Americans as political posturing, but does not see the same about Hamid Gul's drink-sodden diatribe to some assemblage of like-minded yahoos. Logic problem here.

Johann gives one externally-plausible point about Gul being valuable as a big visible red flag - and about CIA's concerns about CIA's existence.

But... hey, Gul's movements circa 9/2001 would by the same token have given warning about the assasination of Ahmed Shah Massoud and consequently 9/11. And he wasn't exactly unknown to the US at the time for the reasons Johann mentioned. So what good does it do to see these things, if the GOTUS is not willing to act on them? This is reminescent of the Mumbai-blast disniformation report in the press where the micro-details of explosives being brought in from BD via Arunachal Pradesh under a load of fruit etc. is described - if they saw all that, what was the point? Why wasn't the 9/11 attack prevented? Or am I crossing the redline here with that question?

But anyway this can't be the situation, because in that case, the CIA types in charge of that division would have been obvious scapegoats.

Arresting Gul would send the Paki military-terrorist establishment scurrying, and probably bring down the entire narco-bigot-terrorist enterprise. OTOH, the other explanation is that Gul is a CIA source - of course an unreliable source.

Which brings me as far as I am willing to venture.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 29 Aug 2003 04:07

N; Massoud was killed 10 Sep, 2001. Killing Massoud was al-Qaeda's insuarance that the Taleban wouldnt turn on it when faced with massive American and international pressure. The Taleban had shown some evidence of slipping a little bit in 2000 during talks with the Americans.

Until Sept 11 changed perceptions, Gul would have been just one of the many hundreds of figures worldwide out of office with a career in shadows who was known to harbour great bitterness regarding the US. Keeping close tabs on those kinds of people comes far below supporting whatever current information needs the White House has. In short intelligence collection has a fairly short term perspective.

The top level recognition of the serious nuclear implications of an Islamist coup in Pakistan was part of the aftershocks from Sept. 11. That transformed Gul from an annoyance to someone worth monitoring closely.

Sunil - I dont have any major problems with your modified construct.

I would like you to closely examine and consider the US relationship with Yemen over terrorism and related issues.

That might help you seperate Western concerns over nuclear issues from other priorities ie
- disrupting al-Qaeda's operational side and
- denying the Islamists a revolutionary victory and a new set of secure bases which would necessitate a large conventional campaign to destroy

Kuttan · Post by **Kuttan** » 29 Aug 2003 04:35

It just doesn't make sense to me, Johann.

The US might as well disband the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines and simply pay Protection Money to Musharraf and Osama if what you say is the way the US goes about ensuring the safety and security of the nation.

If Khalid Sheikh and all the other minions could be arrested and dragged off, while the big ones like Gul and Aziz are protected, well, the only conclusion is what Paul drew.

Lets see:

1. Musharraf is protected because if he's "toppled" the "fundoos" will take over.
2. Musharraf is allowed to protect Osama because if Osama is captured, Musharraf may be toppled.
3. Gul is protected because if he's arrested, Osama's whereabouts may be revealed and then Osama may be arrested and Musharraf may be toppled.
4. The murder of Daniel Pearl is, well, fine and dandy because if it were properly investigated, top ISI types would have to be arrested, and then Gul might be arrested and.....

5. A big bang every 2 weeks somewhere around the world is fine, because if Osama were arrested to stop this, Musharraf might be toppled and...

Net result is that the fundoos are effectively ruling America from Pakistan. A case of the dog walking the owner.

The record of fundoo rule is clear. Formally fundoo regimes have never tried WMD against the US or anyone else. Iran made lots of noise, but mainly destroyed itself, not others. The Taliban, same - given my strong belief that it was Pakistan, not the Taliban, that organized 9/11. I bet the Taliban mullahs had no clue that the Pakis were up to so horrible an attack.

The enemy has always been the megalomaniac dictator / warlord and the military regime. That's why people like me would much rather have an Islamic fundoo regime in Pakistan, than the Musharraf dictatorship.

If US policy is REALLY as stupid as you guys make out, the prognosis for the West is really as dim as the Intelligence experts who concoct such policies.