Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

[Malayappan]

Meanwhile Hume tipped as next US ambassador to pakistan
From that piece

“She deserves a less demanding job after three excruciating years in Pakistan,” a diplomatic source told

[Malayappan]

10 Countries On The Verge Of A Crippling Demographic Crisis
pakistan is on top of the list

[svinayak]

There is a solution to Pakistan that no one talks about.

The way to normalise this solution, so that it becomes a standard talking point is . . . to talk about it! A lot.

But how, given pakee nukes? Simple: BR should begin discussing, on multiple threads in each of the three open forums, on how India should go about <b><i>launching a thunderbolt from the blue</i></b>.

There need to be multiple threads. On the Mil Tech forum on technical issues here on the geopolitical issues, on the TEF on the economic issues etc. For a period of 2-3 years or as long as it takes for the <b><i>Indian media </i></b> to start discussion it openly.

For this we need many BR like forums. More the better. There should be 50 such sites with atleast 100-200 millions debating on the internet - "internet Hindus". that should do the job

[kgoan]

shiv:

Yes. Well, someone else did and mentioned it. But this idea isn't mine. The geo-economic situation is starting to get funny again.

Timelines are being forced to be compressed by situations outside the usual boxes, what happens in Greece, will the German banks have cardiacs because of E. Europe, how will the Sino-US thing play out - which way will Obama jump once he feels his oats and *becomes* the POTUS rather than simply filling the *office* of the POTUS. (A curious American evolution observed in every POTUS, over the last few decades.)

Over the next couple of years as things come to a head, the solution of "yeah, well we can just kill all you Pakees you know, everyones talking about it" may have a significant utility.

Or so say some. And it is something *only* a place like BR can do. (Actually, its something that *noone* else can do openly. And it MUST be done openly.

[Suppiah]

Like Israel does with Jews, India should have a permanent, no questions asked policy of granted immediate residency rights as well as citizenship to all minorities caught amidst the fanatic barbarian terrorist animals of Pakistan.

This will send a strong signal to the global community that Pakistan is not a state but simply a territory controlled and inhabited by barbarians and terrorists who should be nuked for the sake of humanity.

ABV did not do it, dont expect MMS regime to do it. Already there is attempt to downplay the significance of the beheading incident. Stalinist rapist goon yellow daily quietly blacked out the forced conversion aspect and simply treated it as another kidnapping, which is a blatant lie.

[shiv]

shiv:

Yes. Well, someone else did and mentioned it. But this idea isn't mine. The geo-economic situation is starting to get funny again.

Timelines are being forced to be compressed by situations outside the usual boxes, what happens in Greece, will the German banks have cardiacs because of E. Europe, how will the Sino-US thing play out - which way will Obama jump once he feels his oats and *becomes* the POTUS rather than simply filling the *office* of the POTUS. (A curious American evolution observed in every POTUS, over the last few decades.)

Over the next couple of years as things come to a head, the solution of "yeah, well we can just kill all you Pakees you know, everyones talking about it" may have a significant utility.

Or so say some. And it is something *only* a place like BR can do. (Actually, its something that *noone* else can do openly. And it MUST be done openly.

Let's see kgoan. Let me see if I can cook up something and cross post my earlier article as a seed for more thoughts..

[kgoan]

ps: The thread *Titles* need to be out there.

egs: On MilTech: Indian nuclear attack on Pak: Is it doable?

On Strat Forum: An Indian nuclear attack on Pak: Geopolitical consequences

On TEF: Indian Nuclear attack on pak: Effects on the Global Economy

etc.

[shiv]

Like Israel does with Jews, India should have a permanent, no questions asked policy of granted immediate residency rights as well as citizenship to all minorities caught amidst the fanatic barbarian terrorist animals of Pakistan.

There is a dilemma in this. If you think of saving lives nothing could be more noble than this. But if you are thinking in terms of shrinking the influence of sanity and withdrawing people from what was old India - then this action gives the Pakiban a walkover.

[kgoan]

Shiv thanks:

Much appreciated.

[Jarita]

^^^ Exactly. Pakistan will finally win when all minorities are out.
Besides, it is a dangerous precedent for us to set being a secular nation with a large muslim population. Tomorrow if the Shias come to India from Pakistan for asylum, will we turn them away? So we cannot set this precedent. What happened in 1947 happened. Unfortunately Hindus/Sikhs/Buddhists etc will have to apply for asylum across the world.

[Suppiah]

Like Israel does with Jews, India should have a permanent, no questions asked policy of granted immediate residency rights as well as citizenship to all minorities caught amidst the fanatic barbarian terrorist animals of Pakistan.

There is a dilemma in this. If you think of saving lives nothing could be more noble than this. But if you are thinking in terms of shrinking the influence of sanity and withdrawing people from what was old India - then this action gives the Pakiban a walkover.

Yes, it does. But we don't want that territory unless it is completely cleared of barbaric animals, do we? We should forget 'old India' and happily write off that piece of land because it has gone away carrying scum that we dont need...Muslims that believed in humanity and living as friends with other religions stayed in India...a good bargain IMHO.. Notice I do not recommend this strategy for Bangladesh, because there is a critical mass there that can hold on and make a difference, there is no such chance with Pakbarian animalistan.

[Suppiah]

^^^ Exactly. Pakistan will finally win when all minorities are out.
Besides, it is a dangerous precedent for us to set being a secular nation with a large muslim population. Tomorrow if the Shias come to India from Pakistan for asylum, will we turn them away? So we cannot set this precedent. What happened in 1947 happened. Unfortunately Hindus/Sikhs/Buddhists etc will have to apply for asylum across the world.

Pakistan will not win, it will lose. Entire Islamic West Asia will lose because that will be 400% proof that these animals cannot live with kufr.

Shia example does not apply, they are not minority though they may be persecuted.

[arun]

Demonstration of the IED Mubarak variant of the IEDology of Pakistan with a military convoy targeted:

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

13 killed in Mingora suicide attack

41 injured as suicide bomber hits security forces’ convoy in Mingora * British woman who had recently embraced Islam also killed in blast, husband injured

MINGORA/PESHAWAR: Thirteen people, including three security personnel and four women, were killed and 41 others injured when a suicide bomber hit a security forces’ convoy in Mingora city on Monday, official sources said.

The attack in Swat’s capital city – shattering the calm in the restive district – occurred at the busy Nishat Chowk of Mingora town when a suicide bomber hit the security forces’ convoy, which was on its way to the Circuit House. ........................

Daily Times

[ramana]

Good tasker kg. It might force the fence sitters to know which side they really are. Here and outside. Though I don't know how a Hamletian lead would play out!

Already people are going thru contortions to disclaim earlier personas. And now you come with an even higher demand!

I want you to put your thought on the three topics you mentioned in the Geopolitical thread. Already Asia Times is psyopping about Greece and India.

[Muppalla]

Like Israel does with Jews, India should have a permanent, no questions asked policy of granted immediate residency rights as well as citizenship to all minorities caught amidst the fanatic barbarian terrorist animals of Pakistan.

There is a dilemma in this. If you think of saving lives nothing could be more noble than this. But if you are thinking in terms of shrinking the influence of sanity and withdrawing people from what was old India - then this action gives the Pakiban a walkover.

For this issue, I just think saving lives of Hindus and Sikhs in TSP and nothing more than that. No strategy or vategy here. Otherwise the remaining one will just not survive. in just this case, India should should offer based on religion and nothing is non-secular of hindutva in it.

[Muppalla]

Already people are going thru contortions to disclaim earlier personas.

[SSridhar]

Cricket World Cup may move out of India

Dedicated for those who believe that terrorism is not costing us much.

[shiv]

There is a dilemma in this. If you think of saving lives nothing could be more noble than this. But if you are thinking in terms of shrinking the influence of sanity and withdrawing people from what was old India - then this action gives the Pakiban a walkover.

Yes, it does. But we don't want that territory unless it is completely cleared of barbaric animals, do we? We should forget 'old India' and happily write off that piece of land because it has gone away carrying scum that we dont need...Muslims that believed in humanity and living as friends with other religions stayed in India...a good bargain IMHO.. Notice I do not recommend this strategy for Bangladesh, because there is a critical mass there that can hold on and make a difference, there is no such chance with Pakbarian animalistan.

Mani Shankar Aiyer on TV was indicative of what I believe is the latest line of thought in GoI. I am guessing that to be as follows.

1) There is a "constituency" in Pakistan that is anti-India (Army and jihadis)
2) There is another constituency in Pakistan that desires peace

Talking to Pakistan (as a matter of policy no matter what happens) gives us the opportunity to (this is theory) break away the peace-wanting people of Pakistan from the war mongers and starting to talk to them.

The objections raised (eg by Kanwal Sibal) was that even the so called sane people of Pakistan who were begging for a restart of talks started a triumphalist war dance saying India has been humbled the minute India agreed to talks.

But Mani Shankar Aiyer (assuming he is speaking for GoI) says that even a failure of talks is not a problem, we will just talk again. From the viewpoints exppressed on here and by others there is a fear that the GoI will "give away" something like "Sharm el Sheikh"

Let me post my personal views here. India has not given anything away in Sharm el Sheikh but the Congress party and MMS has allowed a new front to be opened against them. So there is an internal political battle that has started in India from Sharm el Sheikh which suits the opposition, hurts MMS and the Congress while in my view Sharm el Sheikh does not harm India one bit.

With Pakistan you can say any damn thing you like, as they do to us, but it is action on the ground that counts. I would like to point out that a lot of the fears about talks with Pakistan are hat MMS and his Govt will give away something like he did in "SeS". But I am not sure what was given away in SeS other than a handle for opposition parties to make noise. No territory has been given away.

That is the crux of the Mani Shankar Aiyer versus others argument. Mani Shankar Aiyer says that the government will talk and will lose nothing. If talks fail, they will talk again. The other viewpoint is why talk as they are bound to fail?

These things IMO have a lot to do with what kgoan has suggested and what you have said (Suppiah). If we do not talk to Pakistan what next? The question of "What next" was on my mind when I made a comment on the statement by Brajesh Mishra that we should increase internal security on an earlier page. I quote

Brajesh Mishra: The only way out is to strengthen internal defences (Only internal defences? No war?) so much so that both these countries understand that pressure on India will no longer be able to work..

The way I see it is as follows. There is an Indian constituency that says do not talk to Pakistan.

Fine, so let us not talk to Pakistan. So what next if there is more terror (as we saw in Pune). Brajesh Mishra says "increase internal security". In my view that is pointless. That is the same thing as K. Subrahmanyam's "Fasten your seat belts". Neither of these worthies is saying the Chankian magic words that kgoan said "talk war- nuclear war"

The real problem as I see it and as GoI seems to be seeing it is "OK we don't talk. But what next? Nuclear war?" I admit that we (BRF) can, must and will talk about it very soon . I am less sure that th GoI can say that. No use talking nuclear war and not carrying out your threat.

The MMS government, supported by Mani Shankar Aiyer seems to be saying we have no options if we don't talk. (IOW war is not an option). They are saying that we will keep talking about what we want to talk about. There is a fear that they will give away something. But realistically - and I ask this as a serious question - how can an Indian government go about giving away something - I mean if we are going to talk about something as realistic and cheerful as nuclear war to beat Pakistan, why not have a MMS-GoI Aman ki Asha thread where we talk about how anyone can give away parts of India. Expressing fears is one thing. Expressing fear about nuclear war is in the same genre. If we can talk fearlessly about nuke war maybe some Indic nationalist patriot can come up with a realistic scenario of how Italian Catholic ladies and squeaky voiced Sikhs can sell India down the line rather than the standard caterwaul. Aren't we a clever li'l think tank?

More to the point - if we don't talk what are we going to do about the terror in Pune and the beheading of Sikhs and squeezing of other minorities in Pakistan? Increase internal defence? Tighten seat belts? Eliminate Pakistani leadership and infrastructure in a nuclear first strike?

[Rudradev]

On this note one should consider Taiwan, the rival that has long been propped up by the West against the PRC. For decades, Taiwan's GDP and rate of growth towered over that of PRC, a differential that has never applied to Pakistan against India. The Taiwanese were also supplied by the West with the latest armaments, all directed against the PRC. Yet, the PRC never made compromises with respect to Taiwan, in order to catch up with Taiwan's GDP or develop economically in its own right. It stood up to the Western proxy, armed itself with enough capability to invade the island if necessary, and still continued with its own economic development in an unflagging manner.

I’m afraid this is an overtly simplistic assessment of China’s stand vis a vis Taiwan. China is very explicit on its claims on Taiwan and yet the Taiwanese armed forces have been armed by the US for decades and was definitely till recently far superior to the Chinese forces in terms of quality.

I suppose you mean "overly simplistic". Well, let's take a more detailed look at it then. The Taiwan Straits Crisis of 1995 http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~john ... /ross3.pdf was precipitated when the US gave a visa to Lee Teng-Hui, a Taiwanese President who was seeking to maximize Taiwan's wiggle room by proposing a "two-state solution" to the One China policy that most countries in the world recognized at that point. No formal diplomatic relations existed between the US and Taiwan at that point, and none exist today, in recognition of the One China policy by Washington. In this context, Lee's visit to the US was deemed unacceptable by China as they interpreted it as US approval of Lee's stance.

Unquestionably Taiwan had a qualitatively better military than China at the time; and unquestionably they had a far stronger economy per capita. China's GDP in 1995 was barely half a trillion dollars... less than half of what India's GDP is today, by the way.

Yet the Chinese did not waffle and make concessions in an attempt to win the US over, so that they could go on improving their economy at the cost of even a diplomatic point against Taiwan. They did not skirt the issue but raised it, and through a combination of coercive diplomacy and military intimidation, they got their way eventually. Lee did win re-election in Taiwan in 1996 but backed off on any drive to assert Taiwanese independence. He was persuaded to climb down by the US, which had come uncomfortably close to a confrontation with China on the subject. In a manner similar to Parakram, coercive diplomacy was used by the Chinese to pressure the US into reigning in their ally.

End result: China had its way on Taiwan, and Washington among other countries still endorses the One China policy with no changes. Lee Teng-Hui failed in his attempt to change the status quo. And China did not suffer one bit in terms of economic expansion, as a consequence of standing up for itself. Even though its GDP then was not even half of India's GDP now.

It’s only now that China has threatened overt economic sanctions against US entities which arm Taiwan. Before it’s typical reaction was a lot of bluster and military exercises and pointing more missiles against Taiwan etc. Nothing was directed against the US except for a lot of verbiage. Let’s not put Uncle Jiang on a pedestal for the sake of promoting one POV.

Ironically, it is the overt economic sanctions threatened by a 4-trillion-dollar China today that have not been effective. The arms sales by the US to Taiwan is still on the cards as far as I know. There are good reasons for this.

No matter how strong China's GDP may be today, it still doesn't have the clout to get its way merely by trying to arm-wrestle the US on purely economic terms. The business community in the US is unlikely to forego the very lucrative Taiwanese arms market. Yes American business has interests in China, but it has interests in Taiwan as well.

And most importantly, the US knows that China is bluffing. In any exchange of retaliatory sanctions and reciprocal denial of export markets, China will be the loser *by far*, even with its $4 trillion GDP.

Which puts paid to the canard that GDP alone is worth anything. Business leverage cuts both ways, because it creates an interdependency. If China can influence the American business lobby, the US can exert at least as much reciprocal influence on the Chinese business lobby. Only by a combination of leverages, including cooperation on Iran, military assertiveness in its near abroad, and selective nuclear proliferation in addition to economic strength, has China been able to influence US policy. There is no basis to say that they could have enjoyed as much influence on the strength of their economy alone.

By the way, nobody is "putting Jiang on a pedestal". That is a strawman you have erected to deflect attention from the canard you apparently want to perpetuate. The discussion of China is not to establish that its leaders are great people; but that it is perfectly possible to assert national interests, including security interests, without compromising on economic growth and development.

To insist that this is not possible, while Indians lose their lives to Pakistani terrorism, is the fraud being perpetrated by the MMS regime on the Indian people. Kindly do not attempt to divert attention from that by making the debate about Jiang's qualities as a leader.

Today we say: $1.3 trillion GDP isn't enough for us to stand up to Pakistan (let alone the US). It isn't enough for us to consolidate our strategic, diplomatic and security interests even in our own near abroad. Instead we must do exactly as the US says, and pursue peace with Pakistan at any cost, at least until 2015 or whenever we have a $4-$5 trillion GDP (as China has now).

Let's say we do this (at the incalculable price of sacrificing our national interest even within the confines of our own neighbourhood). Let's say we continue along the path MMS is taking now and wait to develop a $4-$5 trillion GDP.

When we have it, what then? Will we look at China's $10 trillion GDP and say "well, $4 or $5 trillion doesn't really cut it in terms of global influence. Let's just make more compromises and count on losing another six or seven thousand Indian lives to terrorism every year until we hit the $10 trillion mark"?

This makes no sense to me at all. India is not a corporation, not a cash cow with shareholders to answer to. India is a nation, a nation of people whose interests must be secured for generations to come. For all their ruthless corporatism the Chinese have never lost sight of the difference.

I’m sorry boss but either you did not understand my argument or you are twisting it.

I’m quite clear in my mind that we are at a level where we can swat the Pakistanis any time we want to provided the US and its friends don’t prop them up. However, the whole premise of my argument is how we can realistically build influence within the US so that it makes sense for pressure groups on Capitol Hill to drive a change in the US govt policy.

And ultimately the levers of US power is best manipulated via US business interests. In order to get them sufficiently interested we need a bigger economy so that the prize of economic cooperation with India is bigger and is worth letting the Pakis go.

I'm afraid this is where you are wrong. On two counts.

First, that the levers of power in the US are *not* best manipulated by business interests alone. As a matter of fact, levers of influence based solely on business interest have a distinct limitation: they cut both ways. The more the US has invested in a business relationship with India, then the more India has invested in a business relationship with the US.

This could not have been more obvious when the high and mighty of India's InfoTech revolution, began to pressure the GOI to stand down against Pakistani terrorism on Parakram.

This double-edged nature of a relationship predicated solely on business, is in fact, the cornerstone of US grand strategy to obtain leverage over the rise of China. The more US debt China owns, the less likely China is to want to disrupt US interests or the US economy. The more Chinese businesses depend on export to the US market, the more vulnerable China is to restrictions on its access to that market. The greater China's trade surplus with respect to the US, the more concerned they will be about circumstances that may hand the US a pretext to default on its deficit.

And eventually, in any wrestling match based on economics, the US is sure to win. No matter if we're a 4 or 5 trillion dollar economy like China is today, or even stronger than that, the US will always (into the foreseeable future) be in a class by itself in terms of economic strength. Ultimately no country can press its economic leverage with the US beyond a certain point where it ends up shooting itself in the foot.

So no, we are not going to achieve influence in the US based on economic strength alone. Economic strength has a certain role to play in achieving that influence, as a positive inducement. But it has to be balanced by other diplomatic, political and military imperatives as other positive and negative inducements. Under this MMS regime there is no chance of acquiring those any time soon.

The second point where you are wrong, is to imagine that a better economy alone will be enough to convince the US to "let the Pakis go". What do the Pakis offer the US economically? What they offer is something I hope that even MMS wouldn't be willing to give.

The truth is that while India continues to acquiesce tamely to US demands, and while India persists in subordinating its own priorities to US interests, there is no incentive for the US to do take any of India's interests into consideration. We are already rolling over and giving up everything, so why should they do anything to please us?

If you go before the US with a constantly wagging tail, as Manmohan Singh has, you will be treated like a lapdog. Not as a partner, but as a slave.

This has been borne out in spades. We thought that by going along with US strategy in AfPak, our interests in Afghanistan after the NATO withdrawal would be respected. The West has, in fact, spat in India's face on this account. What thanks did we get for signing the Sharm-el-Shaikh declaration, so effusively praised by Washington? S M Krishna was left totally in the dark with regard to American policy of negotiating with the Taliban. He made a fool of himself with public statements about "there are no good Taliban", even as the heads of all governments involved were about to assemble in London exactly for the purpose of negotiating with a "good Taliban".

Today things are even worse. K. Subrahmanyam is about as accurate a source on GOI "thinking" as we in the public domain can hope to hear from. In his article "What's Happening in Pakistan?" http://www.hindu.com/2010/02/22/stories ... 991100.htm Subrahmanyam expresses that the GOI has underlying fears about Pakistan's new initiative to start arresting Taliban leaders. He says:

There are underlying worries over whether in exchange for cooperation in fighting the Afghan Taliban and the other terrorist groups Pakistan would have obtained U.S. and NATO promises to get their mediatory intervention on the Kashmir issue. Further concerns are, relying on the U.S. gratitude for action against some of the jehadi groups whether Pakistan may carry out more terroristic attacks on India and hope for the U.S. and NATO putting pressure on India not to retaliate. The Indian fears have very valid bases and the Indian agencies have to assess the consequences arising from the latest developments for India carefully and initiate steps for optimum preparedness to meet such contingent threats.

This just shows how much of a "partner" the US actually considers India. We take orders, but let alone being consulted on US strategic and diplomatic decisions, the Americans don't even bother to inform us about them!

So if we haven't been able to guarantee that the US and NATO will keep off Kashmir, and we haven't been able to guarantee that the US and NATO won't pressure us not to retaliate against Pakistani terrorist attacks on Indian citizens: what, exactly, has MMS' diplomatic strategy of doing whatever the US tells him been worth?

Meanwhile, even Pakistan, with its basketcase of an economy, has done an excellent job of manipulating the US to secure its interests in Afghanistan with a diverse array of inducements and subterfuges.

And we think that if we sit on our thumbs developing a $4 trillion economy, we will gain "influence" against Pakistan in Washington!

Now will it pan out after we hit US$4-US$5 trillion? I think it’s obvious that that’s not an immediate given. It will ultimately depend on the political leadership and whether they have the political acumen and skill to use this new found economic clout to India’s advantage. If we don’t have the right leadership even the world’s third or fourth largest economy would not help.

Exactly right. And that is the problem today. We have a $1.3 trillion dollar economy, which is in fact the world's fourth largest in GDP-PPP terms. But we cannot stand up to a Pakistan which has a negligible economy. Thanks entirely to the pathetic excuse for "leadership" residing in New Delhi.

The other point is at present even assuming we had a “braveheart” Nationalist government in power today, we/they wouldn’t have the wherewithal to sufficiently sway US interest groups.

Sorry, this is simply inaccurate.

Firstly, US interest groups were swayed not to impose all-out sanctions against India after the 1998 Pokhran tests by a nationalist government (even though leaders as diverse as Henry Hyde and Madeleine Allbright were baying for our blood, demanding that an example be made of us).

How strong was our economy then? Just a fraction of what it is now, but even so, business interests in the US prevailed upon the Clinton administration not to deny them a huge emerging market by imposing sanctions. So I'm sorry, but this whole business of $1.3 trillion "doesn't cut it" is a crock of Paki dung... an excuse for the MMS regime's inability or unwillingness to stand up for India.

Secondly, US interest groups were swayed not to get involved in Kargil to Pakistan's benefit, despite the prevalence of cold-warriors and other Pakistan supporters in many areas of the US defense and diplomatic establishments.

And finally, US interest groups at the highest level did a 180 degree turn... from considering J&K an easy-access safety valve to divert Pakistani jihadi terrorism, to leaning on Pakistan for a cease-fire and a stop to infiltration in J&K. Thanks to coercive diplomacy by a nationalist government.

All this happened while we didn't even have a $1.3 trillion economy. So what gives?

Previous governments have exercised coercive diplomacy against Pakistan (and the US) without ending up in a confrontation, yet leading to very tangible national security benefits.

I’m sure you’re referring to Operation Parakram here as apart from that mobilization I don’t recall any other coercive actions from the NDA govt apart from heavy rhetoric. (Please note here that while the NDA govt pulled the nuclear trigger and deserve compliments for that, the ground work was done by the PVNR govt. This is the same as your point later about the ongoing nature of such projects. The NDA govt did not pull Pokharan out of its hat).

This is not the same as my point about the ongoing nature of such projects. The bomb project had been *finished* (was not "ongoing") by the time PVNR came to power. Yet PVNR did not test it. All said and done I don't blame him for this, given the dire economic straits we were in during the early part of his regime.

The NDA does not deserve credit for developing the bomb. The credit it deserves is for testing the bomb, and taking responsibility for the political and economic consequences of such an act (totally unprecedented outside the P-5 nations).

You have highlighted the benefits which Parakram brought. And I personally think it was a good move on the part of the NDA govt.

But I’m sure you’d agree that even that didn’t prove to be a permanent solution. We may have got Musharraff browning his pants but despite that there were the Delhi and Ayodhya blasts after that, not to speak of Mumbai.

Boss, please tell me which country in the world today has managed to effect a "permanent solution" against the external sources of its international political problems?

No matter how high their "GDP"... have the Chinese managed to "permanently solve" Taiwan?

Have the Japanese or South Koreans managed to "permanently" solve problems even in their immediate neighbourhood, or could North Korea take out their dazzling economic centers in a mushroom cloud?

For that matter, the Americans, with the highest GDP of all by far... have they managed to ensure permanent, favorable solutions in even such dwarf nations as Iraq and Afghanistan? Despite "winning" the Cold War, have they permanently ensured that Russia will never have the capacity or the will to threaten them existentially again?

Outside of situations like Rwanda (where mass genocide is arguably quite a lasting conclusion)... "permanent" solutions do not exist in today's geopolitical landscape. They haven't since the end of Nazism: and that's because the cost is too great for any nation, no matter how powerful its economy, to bear.

The success of Parakram must not be measured in terms of some blue-sky demand that we "permanently" solve the Pakistan problem. That simply isn't realistic. The best option most players have is to incrementally nudge the status quo so that it is more and more in one's favour. You disrupt the existing equilibrium in such a way that when things re-settle, they are placed a little better for you than they were before. Even the US has realized this... from shock and awe, they are now adopting the less ambitious, more sensible tactics of doggedly going after achievable goals one by one.

Parakram certainly looks like a success compared to the track record of countries with trillions of dollars in GDP... such as the US, which has barely managed to slap a few band-aids on the mess in Iraq to cover its quick and silent retreat.

Also, the three terrorist incidents you mentioned: Delhi, Ayodhya, and Mumbai... were only perpetrated by the Pakis after the government that implemented Parakram was no longer in power. Some terrorist incidents did take place after Parakram during the NDA's tenure as well: Akshardham and the Gateway-of-India blasts come to mind. But there is no question that the number of incidents spiked after the UPA came to power.

So long term I don’t see how coercive diplomacy would/will work with the Pakis as long as we can’t wean away the Amercians.

I don't think we should be pursuing coercive diplomacy against Pakistan alone (it is true, they have so little to lose that coercive diplomacy has its limits with them).

Parakram for that matter wasn't targeted only at Pakistan. Its coercive diplomacy was equally aimed at the US. Had not Unkil browned his pants first, at the thought of his Afghan game plan going for a six, he would not have leaned on Pakistan to reverse its policy of J&K terrorism. Musharraf browning his pants was a side effect with more entertainment value than anything else.

It is to squeeze the US so that they guarantee our interests, economic and political and military, in exchange for our avoiding a confrontation.

Undoubtedly it’s basic baniya logic. But it’s also baniya logic that you need to get to the capability to be able to do that. How do you propose that India does that? By playing a spoiler with Iran and in Afghanistan? Do you think the US would be so scared of that they will back off from Pakistan? If wishes were horses…

Cognitive dissonance perhaps prohibits you from seeing this; but in fact, that is exactly what happened during Parakram. We threatened to play the spoiler in Afghanistan; the US backed off from its traditional nodding and winking at Paki terrorism, and made the Pakis do a 180 on infiltration into Kashmir.

Playing the spoiler with Iran and North Korea is one of China's primary sources of leverage against the US, and has been for a long time. Long before they had any $4 trillion economy, for sure. Yet they have that economy now, and they haven't mortgaged their national interest in pursuit of that economy... as the MMS regime is doing.

If the MMS government can guarantee the safety of the Indian people by internal security means alone, and without yielding any concessions to the Pakistanis, well and good. If it cannot guarantee the security of the Indian people while maintaining its "holding operation" then the "holding operation" has failed and must be replaced by a strategy that imposes retaliatory costs on those endangering the Indian people... no two ways about it.

I agree with you on this but the point is we really don’t know yet whether the holding operation has failed or not. I don’t know how it was done or whether it is just good fortune but the fact remains that after 26/11 it was the first time since terror strikes started in India outside of J&K we’ve had more than a year without any incidents before the Pune blast.

I agree with you the IPL and Commonwealth Games are prime targets as would be the Hockey World Cup and the remaining two One-Dayers with South Africa. Now there’s two options before India. One is the easy way out. Take IPL overseas and cancel all the other events. Or tighten security as much as possible and hope for the best. Now tell me what is the better option?

Given that the MMS regime has decided to pursue its policy of pandering to Pakistan and the US despite the cost in Indian lives, I don't know what constitutes a "better option".

I would say that stopping talks with the Pakistanis, keeping our engines tuned for cold start during the IPL/CGW, and of course maintaining internal security to the best of our abilities is the best option MMS has left us with. But I honestly don't see him adopting it.

This is why it can take years for anything to happen. The nuclear submarine ATV program was begun by the NDA government in leasing INS Chakra from the Russians but has only borne fruit today. Missile research, LCA development, Arjun development all proceed at their own pace no matter who happens to be the government of the day. If any of these programs meet their milestones during a particular government's tenure, it does not necessarily mean that the government of the day should get any credit for it.

Of course, the government *can* if it wants, change things. The PM (along with his MOD and COAS) can take personal interest in accelerating defense acquisitons and if he does, it will have a dramatic effect. The MRCA could be decided on and purchased within weeks if MMS decided to move on it.

I’m sorry but your facts are bit mixed up here. The ATV programme started much before the NDA govt. However, procurement of big ticket defence items is not the issue. It’s the willingness to test missiles and develop new ones. You know if the govt really wanted to go slow on defence it could have deferred the anti ballistic missile tests, the Agni 3, Shourya and a host of other projects which all seem to be moving towards culmination.

The lease of the INS Chakra, an event to which I specifically referred, was during the NDA government. You are right that we had established the intent to develop an ATV even before that.

Procurement of big ticket defence items is very much an issue, if the non-availability of those items is then proferred as a reason for why we don't have any coercive diplomatic or military options left towards Pakistan.

As for the missile tests, those have been continuing under any number of governments. Yet, I remember BRF posts to the effect that our 10,000 km plus range ICBM, known as "Surya" (not "Shourya") was expected to be developed by the end of the last decade. I wonder why it wasn't... maybe because of the government in Delhi for more than half of the last decade? Surya, of course, would have been particularly displeasing to those whom MMS apparently wants to please at any cost to India.

And I’m sure you’ve seen press reports that state that there’s a move to speed up the MRCA acquisition. Also there’s a massive move to ramp up security in the North East. Now surely you’re point is not that the UPA govt which is a cat in the west becomes a tiger in the east?

Yes, I've seen press reports, and I'm quite aware of who controls the overwhelming majority of English language media in India.

But now and then a genuine news story also seeps through. For example, when I was visiting India last year, there were stories of ongoing Chinese incursions and landgrabs in the Ladakh sector around Leh.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 983271.cms

Then came all these reports about how Manmohan Singh had grown a pair and become a total "Tiger in the East". Like carefully cultivated plants they blossomed.

So imagine my surprise when, just last week, I saw this story which suggested it was STILL going on!

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/china-grabbi ... ml?from=tn

The Chinese can clearly gauge the toothlessness of our Tiger by gauging his response to the jackal Pakistan.

I'll believe all that about being a "Tiger in the East" when I see some evidence of it. To the extent that HH the Dalai Lama was allowed to visit Arunachal Pradesh, yes, I'll give credit for that to MMS. But the Chinese incursions and landgrabs are evidently still very much in progress. There has been no Sumdorong Chu to deter them.

Since the 1960s, the only GOI that has actively prioritized jumpstarting the military acquisitions process has been the Rajiv Gandhi government. Of course they were sloppy about kickbacks and such, and lost re-election largely on account of the Bofors scandal.

I agree with you on this. And it is the singular responsibility of the non-Congress parties that they have kept the ghost of Bofors alive all these years by not getting to the bottom of the so called Rs64 crores kickbacks and the net result has been a badly crippled the Army which hasn’t been able to induct much needed artillery for more than two decades. Was it too difficult to bring the perpetrators of this kickback to book in the years that VP Singh and others were in power or more later when the NDA govt was in power for six years? Neither was that done, nor did the non Congress govts have the nerve to go out and buy new guns. Isn't just picking up the UPA govt on this a case of selective blame fixing?

Sorry boss, this is just too funny.

It is the "singular responsibility of the non-Congress Parties?" And why is that, pray?

Why do the Congress governments of PVNR (1991-96) and Manmohan Singh (2004-10) share no responsibility for investigating the Bofors kickbacks and bringing the perpetrators to book?? Are they not obliged to punish those who broke the laws of India, simply because the lawbreakers happened to belong to their own political party?

The non-Congress governments in between have certainly been remiss. But your willingness to give the Congress governments a pass suggests you think it is perfectly ok for them to cover up corruption on the part of an earlier government by the same party!

Not surprising though, considering what else you're willing to give them a pass on.

[SSridhar]

Indo-Pak talks a big breakthrough: US

"As you know, a great deal of progress was made between 2004 and 2007."I think we and the Indians and the Pakistanis themselves hope that that progress can be reestablished," Blake {Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Robert Blake} said.

What the US is conveying is that Pakistan has done all it can do in the investigation on 26/11 and nothing more should be expected from them and that it was time for India to resume the composite dialogue.

India is speaking in double voice and is misleading its own citizens. While Foreign Secretary is saying that only terrorism will be discussed, the Foreign Minister is saying that everything will be discussed. From the above US report, it is clear that the composite dialogue is going to resume shortly and India is indulging in a face saving exercise now by calling the Foreign Secretary talks as terror-related. The agenda surely is how to resume the dialogue.

It used to be Pakistan that would say one thing for its internal consumption and quite another thing for the external interlocutors.

[abhishek_sharma]

Good news, bad news
By Kamran Shafi

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... -320-za-01

In addition to what the NYT reporters say about questions being raised about the start of an American withdrawal in July 2011, Centcom chief Gen Petraeus has clearly said in NBC TV’s Meet the Press programme, also on Sunday, that the Marja operation is only “the ‘initial salvo’ in a military campaign that could last 12 to 18 months”.

Eighteen months from now, gentlemen, takes us to August 2011. If the ‘military campaign’ ends in August, by when will the Americans withdraw please, after they have handed over to the non-existent Afghan army? And since when have deadlines such as these which have to do with operations, ever been met in military history? So no strategic depth very soon either, sirs, so stand easy use hanky.

...

And now for Mullah Brother! Where the blazes was this man just three weeks ago? We were told soon after his arrest that the ISI took action when the Americans gave it ‘accurate’ information. As a Pakistani who has seen the shenanigans of the ISI for well on 40 years, what I should like to ask is why the omnipotent Mother of All Agencies did not know where the ‘director-general military operations’ of the Afghan Taliban was, by its self? Why did (unwelcome, remember?) foreigners have to give this ‘premier’ agency information on the mullah which led to his arrest?

As an aside, a request to their lordships of the Supreme Court who have just recently humbled an elected government all ends up. The ISPR has announced that whilst promotions of generals are to be ratified by the government, it is the army chief’s very own prerogative to give extensions to whichever general he wills. Suo motu notice, my lords? For, after all, all the organs of state are to remain within their own constitutional limits.

Mushism of the week: “You should come to Pakistan — it’s the most happening place in the world, where there’s never a dull moment” – Gen Pervez Musharraf, London, Feb 15, 2010. The man ought to be ashamed of himself to refer to our unfortunate country in the way that he did, where tens of people die violently every single day at the hands of the demons let loose by himself and others of his ilk. Happening place indeed. Why doesn’t he himself come back?

[Hari Seldon]

RD saar,

If our leading news magazines and newspapers had an iota of sense in them, they'd zimbly lift your arguments verbatim and print them sans copyright under their Ed board's names.

High quality arguments (even if somewhat high pitch) but then these are high stakes.

Thanks again for sharing your time and thoughts with the rest of us.

Hari Om.

[Hari Seldon]

B Raman garu on twitter. TIFWIW
http://twitter.com/ramanthink

Obama stranded in Marjah.US troops caught in a Taliban trap. Obama in Afghanistan----nothing to learn, nothing to forget.

When USSR failed to prevail in Afghanistan in 1988, India faced the jihadis diverted from the Afghan front. We are still confronting them.

If US fails to prevail, a new breed of battle hardened jihadis of post 9/11 vintage will be on us. We must plan to stop them in Pakistan.

We can't afford to do nothing till they enter our territory. They must be neutralised in Pak territory..

Time to start thinking, strategising & acting now. We can't stop them without covert action

Tragedy that not only politicos, but even strategic thinkers like K.Subramanian don't understand the life-saving importance of covert action

Nation-saving, life-saving covert capability here & now is the need of the hour. We have become a nation of breast-beaters

Breast-beating, not action has become our derfining characteristic.

Again, TIFWIW.

[SSridhar]

B Raman garu on twitter. TIFWIW
http://twitter.com/ramanthink

Breast-beating, not action has become our derfining characteristic.

Oh. . Shri Raman is wrong. We are talking to Pakistan asking them to neutralize these dark & evil forces in Pakistani territory itself. The US will guarantee that to us. All we need to do is to keep quiet before, during and after we talk, watching the fun unfold.

[csharma]

What is the trap in Marjah that B Raman is referring to? I am not aware of any large US casualties though they may be bogged down.

If US can't prevail in Afghanistan, it's claim to superpowerdom would ring hollow.

[Rudradev]

When the GOI responded to this dismal state of affairs by launching "Aman ki Asha", and then making this offer of talks... I think that sent a lot of optimistic fence-sitters over the edge into complete loss of faith in the government. The continuation of this travesty after Pune has not helped.

TOI's Aman ki Asha tamasha is one of the most idiotic campaigns I've seen and the articles printed there seems straight out a kind of WKKs in Wonderland bringing the latest news to your living room kind of idioticy.

However, saying GOI launched Aman ki Asha without any proof is unfortunately akin to floating a Strawman. And very soon this will become a part of popular BRF folklore and people will keep on repeating it.

Ok, let's rephrase that. The Times of India, a publication believed to be willing to sell column space to the highest bidder, launched Aman ki Asha.

Aman ki Asha just happened to dovetail perfectly with official expressions of surrender by the MMS regime: a climbdown from the GOI position that Pakistan must deliver the perpetrators of 26/11, including Hafiz Sayeed, before any dialogue could be resumed.

Those expressions of surrender were uttered at Sharm-el-Shaikh, then backpedaled upon because of outrage within the ranks of MMS' own party as well as the public in general.

Then a few months later, Aman ki Asha (a campaign aimed at influencing public opinion) was trotted out.

On discovering that the public mood was now safe to crawl back out from under the proverbial rock, the MMS regime suddenly came forth and crystallized the intent of Sharm-el-Shaikh into a tangible, formal act by offering talks to Pakistan.

But of course, by the GOI's own logic: MMS should not be blamed for Aman Ki Asha. The Times of India, like Hafiz Sayeed, is a Non-State Actor.

And we all know that something repeated sufficiently enough becomes the truth. A good psy-ops tool I must say.

Yes, we must have learned it from the Congress government and other, ahem, Non State Actors.

The Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad, which answers to a Congress government, engendered the fantastic piece of propaganda that Colonel Shrikant Prasad Purohit of the Indian Army had used Indian Army explosives to commit a terrorist bombing of the Samjhauta Express.

This was later proved to be an outright lie, but it continues to persist, because it has been repeated endlessly by the Non State Actors. A Hindu organization, Abhinav Bharat, continues to be slandered without any evidence whatsoever. The reputation of a highly decorated Indian Army officer, likewise, continues to be tarnished.

The propaganda coup furnished by the persistent broadcast of this falsehood has been a goldmine for the Pakistan Army and its spokesmen, including Zaid Hamid, who repeated it ad nauseam following the Mumbai attacks.

After the Pune blast, just to make sure that the deaths of Indian citizens wasn't allowed to derail Aman ki Asha, other Non State Actors reiterated these lies in the Indian and Pakistani media. Along with suggestions that the Pune blast may have been the work of "Hindutva terrorists" as well.

So yes, Congress governments and co-operative Non State Actors have indeed been a very effective psy-ops contingent. They have used the incessant repetition of falsehood as a very good psy-ops tool. On Pakistan's behalf.

But as is to be expected, your outrage is entirely selective.

[shiv]

Long ago on this forum I had made a mocking post about how Indians are always worried about external validation. "Log kya kahenge?". A non BRF friend of mine hilariously summed up the fears of external validation by saying "It's the fault of those four people". He was of course referring to the Tamizh saying "Naal pere yenna solvanga?" ("What will four people say/"Log kya kahenge?")

But it strikes me that there is no course open to India other than worrying about "those four people" because they have India by the testimonials. In fact look at cold start. "Cold start" starts with the premise that damage has to be done to Pakistan soon - before those four people get involved.

For years I have heard the story that an India Pakistan conflict will last only X days before the "International community" step in. It's those four people again. I think the issue of any war with Pakistan has to be seen in this context.

It is ironic that the US can wage a war in Afghanistan and the only country that can apply brakes on the US war is Pakistan

If India wages war on Pakistan, the US can apply brakes on India selectively if that is in the US's interest

If Pakistan wages war on India the US can choose to apply brakes on India or Pakistan.

The US claims that it wants friendship with India and Pakistan

So what we see in reality is that the US can hold a gun to India's head or Pakistan's head. But only Pakistan can hold a gun to the US's head in return because of the US's needs in Afghanistan. As long as Pakistan meets the US's requirements, India's needs and actions are going to be hemmed in by the US.

What does India do under the circumstances?

Fight the US and Pakistan?

Talk to the US, fight Pakistan

Talk to the US and Pakistan

Kowtow to the US, talk to Pakistan

Kowtow to the US and Pakistan

Kowtow to Pakistan, fight the US?

Kowtow to Pakistan, talk to the US?

[abhishek_sharma]

Pakistani Reports Capture of Taliban Leader

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/world ... mabad.html

In another blow to the Taliban senior leadership, Pakistani authorities have captured Mullah Abdul Kabir, a member of the group’s inner circle and a leading military commander against American forces in eastern Afghanistan, according to a Pakistani intelligence official.

[Suppiah]

The question is not purely of talks per se. As to that question, I would personally go with GOI talking - whether headed by MMS & MSI type folks or LKA type 'Patelist' forces does not matter much. I agree with Shiv re SES and also talks. Because both cannot give away an inch of J&K without constitutional change, referendum etc.

It also helps us buy time (we need another doubling of economy, 15yrs at the min. to ramp up air/naval/land forces which have been too long neglected), preserve a facade of 'peace loving' dhimmies that mean no harm, give another decade to the so-called peace constituency in Pakistan to conquer power (1/400% chance of that happening) and also perhaps convince an Abdul or two against blowing himself up in our markets or railway stations.

Provided that time is used effectively. Not much hopes on that but economic growth has its own momentum that is unstoppable.

But when all this let us keep talking charade reaches point of absurdity - when serious folks, not MSI types, talk about border free South Asia and nonsense of that sort, that's when it is time to call a halt. Not until then..that's so far off..

[shiv]

B Raman garu on twitter. TIFWIW
http://twitter.com/ramanthink

Obama stranded in Marjah.US troops caught in a Taliban trap. Obama in Afghanistan----nothing to learn, nothing to forget.

When USSR failed to prevail in Afghanistan in 1988, India faced the jihadis diverted from the Afghan front. We are still confronting them.

If US fails to prevail, a new breed of battle hardened jihadis of post 9/11 vintage will be on us. We must plan to stop them in Pakistan.

We can't afford to do nothing till they enter our territory. They must be neutralised in Pak territory..

Time to start thinking, strategising & acting now. We can't stop them without covert action

Tragedy that not only politicos, but even strategic thinkers like K.Subramanian don't understand the life-saving importance of covert action

Nation-saving, life-saving covert capability here & now is the need of the hour. We have become a nation of breast-beaters

Breast-beating, not action has become our derfining characteristic.

.

Well I respect Brajesh Mishra. He says strengthen internal security, and Bhishma pitamah says tighten seat belts. That should be enough no?

[csharma]

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 111836.ece


‘India has been pushed into talks’

Observing that India is “shocked” by the idea of international community talking to the Taliban, a noted Pakistani scholar has said that New Delhi has been virtually pushed into talks with Islamabad.

“I think the Indians have been pushed into talks. They’ve been quite shocked by this idea that the international community is now ready for some kind of dialogue with the Taliban, and obviously they want to find out from Pakistan what they want to do,” Ahmed Rashid, author of Descent into Chaos said at the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations.

I think one reason is that, obviously, there’s been a lot of pressure from the Americans and from the international community, and even from within India. But I think the Indians were very shocked by the London conference on Afghanistan a few weeks ago in which the entire international community decided that it would be a good thing to start this reintegration with the Taliban,” Mr. Rashid said.

“The idea of talking to the Taliban is anathema to India, because it would simply mean for India that, you know, Pakistan would get a huge say in a future Afghanistan. And don’t forget, India spent 10 years in the ‘90s having no presence in Afghanistan, because Pakistan ran the Taliban and the Taliban regime did not allow the Indians in at all,” he said in response to a question.

[Suppiah]

What is the trap in Marjah that B Raman is referring to? I am not aware of any large US casualties though they may be bogged down.

If US can't prevail in Afghanistan, it's claim to superpowerdom would ring hollow.

Replace the t with c and you know what BR is talking about..

[sanjaykumar]

And don’t forget, India spent 10 years in the ‘90s having no presence in Afghanistan, because Pakistan ran the Taliban and the Taliban regime did not allow the Indians in at all,” he said in response to a question.


Perhaps explaining why it was brotherly Muslims packed into containers and asphyxiated in the sheat of autumn 2001 by brotherly Afghans; perchance even accounting for the fact that it was the Pakistanis being asked to speak Pashto-and being summarily dispatched with a bullet to th ebrain stem, in observance with tribal justice. Or were those Indians?

hope Pakistanis get instruction in Pashto before spreading the gospel in Afghaniia this time around. Strategic depth turned out to be an embarrassment last time.

But perhaps they can get volunteers from the Kunduz airlift-surely they must be itching to go back to their bothers-in-Islam.

[Rudradev]

But when all this let us keep talking charade reaches point of absurdity - when serious folks, not MSI types, talk about border free South Asia and nonsense of that sort, that's when it is time to call a halt. Not until then..that's so far off..

Have you heard the phrase, "Hanuz Delhi Door Ast"?

Famous last words. By the time serious folks start talking about it, the deed is already done and it's only the vultures scoping out their pieces of the corpse.

[Suppiah]

And don’t forget, India spent 10 years in the ‘90s having no presence in Afghanistan, because Pakistan ran the Taliban and the Taliban regime did not allow the Indians in at all,” he said in response to a question.

That is not true...India WAS there, only backing NA forces basing itself in Tajikistan and actively working with Iran and others to go against Taliban. 9/11 happened or we would have known if that strategy worked or not - we can always go back to that, this time with some extra anti-Taliban Pashtuns thrown into the soup...

[A_Gupta]

Like Israel does with Jews, India should have a permanent, no questions asked policy of granted immediate residency rights as well as citizenship to all minorities caught amidst the fanatic barbarian terrorist animals of Pakistan.

Questions will need to be asked, or else Pakistan will use it as a means of infiltration. Apart from such caveats, yes.

[disha]

Watching HT now and Maj. Gen Rashid Qureshi's (from bakisatan) chaddis are being pulled and being disrobed (intellectually, if they have any intellect left).

The issue is the lawhore parade by the piglet Hafiz Saeed who has publicly declared in Lawhore that one Mumbai is not enough.

It is apparent from the TV show that the pakistan "civil" government is not in control and it is basically the same Paki army pigs who are ruling the country and calling the shots. From that if I have to read the tea leaves, we should talk. Definitely talk as much as possible with the "civil" government and show them how much control they have (or not) in their own country. That will show that it is the pakistani army which needs to be under control. Something like for peace destroy pakistani army.

The question is what to do in case of another Mumbai. It is bound to happen. And since we do not have any covert option, only thing we do is breast beating. I did allude to the point many posts back (during Mumbai carnage) is that for a good negotiation hand, we require a covert option.

[Suppiah]

deleted as duplicated

[Suppiah]

Questions will need to be asked, or else Pakistan will use it as a means of infiltration. Apart from such caveats, yes.

Just to clarify..what I mean is each individual need not prove harassment, simply being a minority in Pakbarian animalistan is enough proof of being harassed, threatened with forced conversion or murder etc. Obviously they need to prove that they are indeed minority..

The mere announcement of this policy will send shivers down the spine of these animals. Because even if 10 families take up that offer, it is a HUGE PR disaster for TSP.

[vera_k]

Once again, the problem with talks is that they provoke attacks from people wishing to kill the talks. It is not an option that is cost free, unless terror attacks are assumed to have zero cost.