Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Feb. 26, 2010

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 20 Mar 2010 03:17

Gagan wrote:Prem bhai
convert the "\" to "/" in the daily times url to make it appear correctly.

Seems This time they had it right, my change of slash made it incorrect.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 20 Mar 2010 03:43

Gagan wrote:Massa is not a fool to the extent we project him to be.

Massa. like most everyone, is interested in the bottom-line. That too, not the long-term bottom line but the short-term bottom-line. If embracing Pakis is the only way to improve the short-term results then that is what they will do. To change behavior you have to demonstrate a better way to improve the short-term results.

Anyone who thinks Massa is able to think long-term just needs to examine how Massa shot itself in the foot, costing itself more trillions than all its wars put together, by letting its financial institutions play purely short-term games; and how Massa, even a year after the disaster, is no closer to plugging the regulatory gaps that allowed the financial diaster to happen.

-Arun

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 20 Mar 2010 05:08

Castles in the air, Indian defence preparedness!

Indian is one of the biggest buyers of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) from Israel, which are extensively used by all three services. Since Tel Aviv is selling the UAVs at very high rate, India has approached Russia to provide transfer of technology of UAVs. In the regard, in mid 2009, India secretly shipped Israeli UAV to Russia for transfer of technology. The reverse-engineering of Israeli UAVs would allow India to make UAVs at home and get rid of foreign vendors. In a swift move, the Indian Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO), for the same reason has announced that it has been working on the Nishant UAV, which has an endurance of four and a half hours. DRDO also claimed that its longer endurance version Rustam is in the pipeline. However, there are many ifs and buts between the productions of UAVs in India. In the past too defence scientific made announcement about producing a Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) followed by a Medium Combat Aircraft (MCA) but both the projects are running several years behind schedule due to insistence of high up in Ministry of Defence to go for foreign technology. Everyone knows that by this way there would be no kickbacks in military and other deals.

Guddu · Post by **Guddu** » 20 Mar 2010 06:38

rkirankr wrote:Dus percenti to donate body parts

Only if keeya nahi and co allow him to die in one piece that is

Very chanakyan...would be very difficult to swing him from the lamp posts now..

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 20 Mar 2010 06:39

Just when you thought you had heard it all, here's another one.RAW-TTP nexus in Sikhs’ killing exposed
And the evidence?

The recent abduction and killing of two Sikhs, Jaspal Singh and Mahnan Singh, by miscreants on February 21, 2010 is speculated as a co-planned activity of the RAW and the TTP, the report said.

Speculated? It's just speculation!!

Indian weapons and equipment was recovered during operations in Swat and Waziristan, which implied RAW’s involvement.

“This is augmented with the perception that India in most of the cases plans to implicate the ISI in Punjab fiasco since RAW miserably failed in halting the Maoists’ movement”,

Pakis!!

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 20 Mar 2010 06:43

So why did the paki hockey team end up at the bottom of the rankings in the recently concluded world cup hockey?
World Cup debacle
Because:

all players who represented Pakistan in the Hockey World Cup were not hundred percent fit to take the brunt of the challenging event

You see, according to paki logic, if their players had been hundred percent fit, they would have definitely won the cup hands down. So there!

Guddu · Post by **Guddu** » 20 Mar 2010 06:56

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100317 ... ts_paradox
"This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR"
Mods pl. delete full posting if necessary.
Jihadism: The Grassroots Paradox
By Scott Stewart

Last week, rumors that Adam Gadahn had been arrested in Karachi, Pakistan, quickly swept through the global media. When the dust settled, it turned out that the rumors were incorrect; the person arrested was not the American-born al Qaeda spokesman. The excitement generated by the rumors overshadowed a message from Gadahn that the al Qaeda media arm as Sahab had released on March 7, the same day as the reported arrest. While many of the messages from al Qaeda figures that as Sahab has released over the past several years have been repetitive and quite unremarkable, after watching Gadahn’s March 7 message, we believe that it is a message too interesting to ignore.

The Message

In the message, which was titled “A Call to Arms,” Gadahn starts by telling jihadists to strike targets that are close to them. He repeats the al Qaeda doctrinal position that jihad is a personal, religiously mandated duty for every able-bodied Muslim. He then tells his audience that “it is for you, like your heroic Mujahid brother Nidal Hasan, to decide how, when and where you discharge this duty. But whatever you do, don’t wait for tomorrow to do what can be done today, and don’t wait for others to do what you can do yourself.”

As the message progresses, Gadahn’s praise of Fort Hood shooter Hasan continues. Gadahn lifts up Hasan as an example for other Muslims to emulate: “the Mujahid brother Nidal Hasan is a pioneer, a trailblazer and a role-model who has opened a door, lit a path and shown the way forward for every Muslim who finds himself among the unbelievers and yearns to discharge his duty to Allah.” He adds that Hasan was the “ideal role model” for Muslims serving in the armed forces of Western countries and of their Muslim allies. Gadahn’s message is clearly intended to encourage more jihadists to emulate Hasan and conduct lone wolf terrorist attacks.

Regarding the planning of such attacks, Gadahn praises Hasan for being a careful planner and for not engaging in a hasty, reckless or poorly planned operation. He states that Hasan clearly learned from the mistakes of others and did not repeat them. Although Gadahn does not specify particular plots in which he believes mistakes were made by grassroots jihadists, he is undoubtedly referring to cases such as the May 2009 arrest of a group of grassroots jihadists in White Plains, N.Y., who came to the attention of authorities when they sought help from a man who turned out to be an FBI informant. Gadahn praises Hasan for practicing careful operational security by keeping his plans to himself and for not discussing them over the phone or Internet. He also notes that Hasan did not make the mistake of confiding in a person who might have been an FBI informant, as several other plotters have done. Gadahn also says Hasan “didn’t unnecessarily raise his security profile or waste money better spent on the operation itself by traveling abroad to acquire skills and instructions which could easily be acquired at home, or indeed, deduced by using one’s own powers of logic and reasoning.”

When discussing methods lone wolf jihadists can use to conduct their attacks, Gadahn notes that while Hasan used firearms in his assault at Fort Hood, jihadists are “no longer limited to bullets and bombs” when it comes to weapons. “As the blessed operations of September 11th showed, a little imagination and planning and a minimal budget can turn almost anything into a deadly, effective and convenient weapon which can take the enemy by surprise and deprive him of sleep for years on end.”

Gadahn then turns his attention to targeting. He counsels lone wolf jihadists to follow a three-pronged target selection process. They should choose a target with which they are well acquainted, a target that is feasible to hit and a target that, when struck, will have a major impact. He notes that Hasan’s choice of Fort Hood fit all three criteria, but that jihadists should not think that military bases are the only high-value targets in the United States or other Western countries. “On the contrary,” Gadahn insists, “there are countless other strategic places, institutions and installations which, by striking, the Muslim can do major damage.”

He then relates that jihadists must attempt to “further undermine the West’s already-struggling economies” by carefully timed and targeted attacks against symbols of capitalism in an effort to “shake consumer confidence and stifle spending.” (In this way, Gadahn’s message tracks with past messages of Osama bin Laden pertaining to economic jihad.) Gadahn notes that even apparently unsuccessful attacks on Western mass-transportation systems can bring major cities to a halt, cost billions of dollars and send corporations into bankruptcy. He also calls upon jihadists to kill or capture “leading Crusaders and Zionists in government, industry and media.”

To summarize his lessons on targeting, Gadahn urges jihadists to “look for targets which epitomize Western decadence, depravity, immorality and atheism — targets which the enemy and his mouthpieces will have trouble trying to pass off to the conservative Muslim majority as illegitimate targets full of innocent people.”

Implications

First, it is significant that Gadahn, a representative of the core al Qaeda group, is openly advocating a tactical approach to terrorist attacks that was first publicly laid out by the leader of one of the al Qaeda franchise groups. Nasir al-Wahayshi, head of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), authored an article that appeared in AQAP’s Sada al-Malahim online magazine in October 2009 that encouraged jihadists to conduct simple attacks with readily available weapons. Since that time, al-Wahayshi’s group has been linked to Hasan and the Fort Hood shooting, the attempt to destroy Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on Christmas Day 2009 and the June 1, 2009, attack against an armed forces recruitment center in Little Rock, Ark. Normally it is the al Qaeda core group that sets the agenda in the jihadist realm, but the success of AQAP has apparently caused the core group to jump on the AQAP bandwagon and endorse al-Wahayshi’s approach.

It is also telling that the core al Qaeda group chose to produce this particular video message using Gadahn as the spokesman and not one of their other talking heads like Ayman al-Zawahiri or Abu Yahya al-Libi. Gadahn, an American, is often used by the group to address the West, and English speaking-people in particular, so it is clear that the intended audience for his message was aspiring grassroots jihadists in the West. Indeed, Gadahn says in the video that his message is meant particularly for jihadists in the United States, United Kingdom and Israel. Presented in English, Gadahn’s video is more easily accessible to English-speakers than al-Wahayshi’s article, which was written in Arabic. Even though the al Qaeda core has been marginalized on the physical battlefield, when it comes to areas like militant philosophy, the pronouncements of the core group carry more influence with the wider jihadist world than statements from a regional franchise such as AQAP. When these two factors are combined, it is reasonable to assume that more people in the English-speaking world may pay attention to this call to simple attacks than they did to al-Wahayshi’s call in October 2009. Video is also a more viral type of media than the printed word, and video messages are known to be very appealing to aspiring jihadists.

Another thing this video reveals is the continued weakening of the core al Qaeda group. It has come a long way from the early days of as Sahab, when bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders issued defiant threats of launching a follow-on attack against the United States that was going to be even more destructive than 9/11. The group is now asking individual Muslims to conduct lone-wolf terrorist attacks and to follow the examples of Hasan and Mir Amal Kansi, the Pakistani citizen who conducted a shooting at a stoplight outside CIA headquarters in January 1993 that killed two CIA employees. STRATFOR has long been tracking the devolution of the jihadist threat from one primarily based upon al Qaeda the group to one based upon a wider jihadist movement, and this video is a clear indication that the trend toward decentralization is continuing.

This decentralization means grassroots operatives will continue to be a concern. The problems posed by such operatives are illustrated by recent cases involving American citizens like Colleen LaRose (aka Jihad Jane), Jamie Paulin-Ramirez and Sharif Mobley, who are all alleged to have been involved in recent jihadist plots. As blonde Caucasian women, LaRose and Paulin-Ramirez, in particular, do not fit the jihadist operative stereotype in most people’s minds and serve to illustrate the difficulty of creating a terrorist profile based on race, ethnicity or gender.

But decentralization can also mean diminished capability. Counseling jihadists against traveling to training camps in places like Pakistan or Yemen and advising them not to coordinate their attacks with others will increase a group’s operational security, but it can also have a serious impact on its operational effectiveness. Traditionally, one of the biggest problems for lone-wolf operators is acquiring the skills necessary to conduct a successful terrorist attack. Even though many Web sites and military manuals can provide instruction on such things as hand-to-hand combat and marksmanship, there is no substitute for hands-on experience in the real world. This is especially true when it comes to the more subtle skills required to conduct a complex terrorist attack, such as planning, surveillance and bomb making. This difficulty in translating intent into effective action explains why so few lone-wolf militants have been able to pull off spectacular, mass-casualty attacks.

Not putting their recruits through a more formal training regimen also makes it more difficult for groups to thoroughly indoctrinate recruits with jihadist ideology. In addition to physical training, individuals attending jihadist training camps typically receive hours of theological instruction every day that is intended to ground them in jihadist doctrine and motivate them to follow through with their plans to engage in attacks.

All that said, while the threat posed by grassroots jihadists is less severe than that posed by trained militant operatives from the core al Qaeda group or the regional franchises, grassroots operatives can still kill people — and they most certainly will continue to do so. Because of this, it is important to pay careful attention to the targeting criteria that Gadahn lays out. His focus on mass transportation targets means that historical jihadist targets such as airliners and subways continue to be at risk. For corporate security directors and the protective security details assigned to safeguard high-profile government officials and private individuals, the video should also serve as a reminder of the need to be vigilant. This is doubly true for those assigned to protect individuals of the Jewish faith, who could be thought to fit both the “Crusader” and “Zionist” labels in the mind of a prospective attacker.

For security personnel, the silver lining in all this is that grassroots operatives are often lacking in street skills and tend to be very sloppy when conducting preoperational surveillance. This means that, while these individuals are in many ways more difficult to identify before an attack than operatives who communicate with, or are somehow connected to, jihadist groups (indeed, lone wolves can seemingly appear out of nowhere), their amateurish methods tend to make them more vulnerable to detection than their better-trained counterparts. This is the paradox presented by this class of militant operative — and it is a paradox that will confront security, intelligence and law enforcement officers for many years to come.

kittoo · Post by **kittoo** » 20 Mar 2010 07:27

I think this has not been posted. From Orbat.com-

US doing India a favor by ignoring it A lot of anxious discussion is taking place in India that Obama is not as interested in India as was Bush, and that the Pakistanis have managed to leverage this into excluding India from the Afghan settlement.
But far from signaling doomsday, as Editor's compatriots seem to think, America is doing India a favor by reducing the importance of the relationship.
Editor's argument is simplicity itself. The US is like a 100-ton dinosaur that is as quick on its feet as it is attention-deficit. When the US is on the move, it crushes everything to the center, left, and right. Very frequently it forgets what it is doing and takes a giant poopies without warning. This results in the burial of its friend and allies. After which, the US goes "Oopsies!" and smacks itself on the hand, saying "Bad Sam. Sam Bad." Then it goes looking for new situations and new allies to bury....
....India does not need America to help it offset China or to deal with Pakistan, or whatever the reason d'jour for sucking up to America may be. If you want America's respect, be self-sufficient in your national security, and keep America at arms length. The Americans will respect you because you respect yourself.
As for Afghanistan, the quickest way for India to defeat Pakistan on Afghanistan is to ignore Pakistan. We don't need a seat at any table for any settlement. When you sit at the table, you become responsible for the outcomes. No one in their right mind should have anything to do with an Afghan settlement, because it is going to be a 100% mess once the US leaves. India should simply continue its support of the anti-Taliban people, and it should tell the Pushtoons "If you need us, call us."
This is called minimalist diplomacy, and its the best thing for India. It's the best thing for the US too, but there is no chance whatsoever the US will see this.
Here's a good example of the US messing up India Iran is much surplus in natural gas, India and Pakistan are energy importers. Proposal: an Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline. After Iran assuages Indian fears re Pakistan, India agrees to join, though some issues regarding transit charges remained to be worked out.
Next thing you know, US is sitting on India's head, saying "you cant trade with Iran because they're our enemy."
Iran-Pakistan are proceeding with the deal; India is sitting twiddling its thumbs. But is US saying anything to Pakistan? Nope.
So India cant trade with a traditional friend, Iran, but it's OK for Pakistan?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Mar 2010 07:30

Random thoughts

The American gameplan was to squash Al Qaeda and their Talibaniac allies between an American hammer in Afghanistan and a Pakistani anvil in Pakistan. Pakistan turned out to be far from being an anvil - it was a down lined nest for the Talibunnies.

So what does the US do? It gives up and tries to say "Lets be friends with the Taliban and let Pakistan handle the issue". Fine, whatever the game plan, when the US pulls out Pakistan is going to have to impose some iron will on its frontier areas. The US of course will provide the funds. It may be that the Pakistan army will bring down the regime in Afghanistan and reimpose its will via a Pakistan friendly government. This is the "nightmare" that we are talking about.

But has anything changed from 1989? In 1989 - the Soviets were on the run, and the Pakistani army funded by the US was training the victorious Taliban. There had been no real conflict in Pakistan's frontier regions. Pakistan was part of the winning team and its control over Afghanistan was total. The Durand line was ineffective in a different way.

But that Afghanistan with "total Pakistani control" was used by the Al Qaeda for 9-11. Does this mean complicity by the Pakis. It probably does, But the Pakis have fudged that well and blamed the Americans for getting out without continuing to pay them - leading to loss of control.

So what will be different this time? For one thing the US will pay Pakistan to control anti Western sentiment in Afghanistan. This sounds good in theory, but in practice the Pakistani army has come under attack for supporting the US. So the only difference between 1989 and 2010 is that the Pakistan army has been seen as agents of the US - within Pakistani territory. The Pakistani who see the Paki army as agents of the US are going to be suppressed brutally by the Pakistani army while the US looks the other way.

But if the Pakistan army has to brutally suppress its own opponents within Pakistan it offers a window of opportunity for India to hit Pakistan hard on its border with India in response to any fingering that Pakistan does. The US of course will have to choose between India and Pakistan in such an event. No prizes for guessing which side the US will take. The US in fact has already started re arming Pakistan to "take care" of India. But at current levels Pakistan can still be comprehensively punished.

So maybe there will be a silver lining to the US turning tail and running from AfPak. It's physical absence and non dependence on Pakistan for logistics should make it easier for India to hit Pakistan providing India suddenly grows cojones.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Mar 2010 07:47

The Iran-India pipeline is a pipe-dream even without US involvement. Without a market in India that pipeline will be worthless. but with Pakistan in the way that pipeline is worthless anyway. Pakistan is there just to collect the rent and cut off gas at will.

One way for this pipeline to become reality is for Iran and Pakistan to spend the money needed to build the pipeline to within half an inch of the Wagah border and then beg India to extend it in. Obviously - keeping the gas flowing will be necessary for both Iran and Pakistan to make up the money spent on building the pipeline. And if they want profits - it must keep flowing. And no terrorism. No cut off.

Somehow these pipeline dreams reminds me of an old joke - better told verbally than read - but anyhow..

An an Italian father with 3 daughters in New York decided to ask his girls what they wanted to be in life. The eldest said "I want-a to be like-a Gina Lollobrigida!". Pleased with the reply he asks his second daughter the same question

"I want-a to be like-a Sophia Loren!". Thrilled, he asks his youngest, prettiest and favoritest daughter what she wants to do

"I want-a to be like-a Virginia Pip-e-lina" says dark stunner.

"Virginia Pip-e-lina?", asks the father. "Who is this Virginia Pip-e-lina?" So the youngest opens a drawer and pulls out an old newspaper cutting and shows her father the headline "Virginia Pipeline laid by 1000 men"

Let the Pakis and Iranians lay the pipeline so we can screw them rather than the other way round.

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 20 Mar 2010 07:52

by Dr. Shiv.
We need to defeat US plans and designs before we can impose any will on our own region - no matter how benign and righteous our will might be.

The US plans will be changed for our matrabhoomi when US baby boomers are retired and long gone!! when substantial number of desi people are in US administration!! executive office, Congress and State department, FBI, CIA and US armed forces and business world.

It is coming!! soon!! as all the actions point to the one and the only thing!! after republicans had realized this under Bush, hollywood conspired with tv to dupe american people into thinking that "Bush was dumb" but these days we get the opinion that "obama is smart" !! The last baby boomers are with Barak Hussain and into supporting dumb pakis and saudis!! next 10 years are crucial when democratic party will change and so will state and CIA. We just got to keep up the momentum!!

I still pity all those desis who supported and voted for Barak Hussain in the last US election!!! not only fewer h1 visas but overt support to Pakistan and terrorists like Headley (from Barak's own hometown of Chicaog)

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 20 Mar 2010 07:55

kittoo wrote:
Here's a good example of the US messing up India Iran is much surplus in natural gas, India and Pakistan are energy importers. Proposal: an Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline. After Iran assuages Indian fears re Pakistan, India agrees to join, though some issues regarding transit charges remained to be worked out.
Next thing you know, US is sitting on India's head, saying "you cant trade with Iran because they're our enemy."
Iran-Pakistan are proceeding with the deal; India is sitting twiddling its thumbs. But is US saying anything to Pakistan? Nope.
So India cant trade with a traditional friend, Iran, but it's OK for Pakistan?

Good observations.

India Iran linkup with boost image of Iran in the Middle east and bring imbalances in the balance of power in the ME. Pakistan is another muslim country which does not have the same weight in ME. This is a subtle balance which is calibrated. India linking up with any major ME country will change the balance of power. As long as the Angl-American power has the influence it will keep it that way.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 20 Mar 2010 08:01

Let us for a moment drop modelling the PA as a monolithic entity. While one part of it has been forced to take cosmetic action against the Talebs, another part could have maintained their full contact and support of the Talebs. There will be no problem for this part to become part of a force whose regulars are the divisions of the PA and irregulars are the Talebs.

The PA nurtured and developed the Talebs and unleashed them on the Soviets. Sending out irregulars for campaigns when the main army cannot follow into the field leads to peculiar problems of control. The only control here was ideology. If the irregulars are successful, without direct participation by the regulars, this can generate independent streaks in the irregulars. If the bond is "ideology" this means possible counter-influence on the "idealistic" in the regulars. So the Talebs began to influence the "original "influencer". This leads to an extended formation whose regular -state linked part is a core of the PA motivated ideologically, and whose irregular part is formed by the Talebs.

This force can quickly neutralize their rag-tag opposition - the odd "seculars", "democrats", with the corrupt but vulnerable feudal elite shifting their "capital" and family out to secure places in KSA or ME or even the "west". America always funds the "strongman" who is prepared to toe US interests regardless of ideology. There will be no hiccups from this source in a fundamental regime change in POWI. Although the nature of this change may not be immediately apparent. The first signs will perhaps be an extension of the term of Kayani or a new role for Musharraf. USA is likely to go back to the military in POWI for future understandings.

India does not have any opportunity here, unless it can ally itself with "northerners" in AFG and Balochis to distract and split both the Talebs as well as the PA. The crucial covert tie-ups with Iran can no longer take place because of US intervention. Only Putin can serve as the "communicator" and passer of info.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 20 Mar 2010 08:21

The pipeline will probably be an offshore one.
Oman also has huge oil and gas reserves, and the proposal for an oman - gujarat pipeline is there.
Iran can just join in.

Pakistan had planned, that India and Iran will pour in the money for building the pipeline, pakistan will get some free oil and gas, collect the rent and threaten to turn the oil off in return for baksheesh or water or something for the pakistani netas and generals.

India is not biting that bait.

I tend to agree with that assessment that this current Iran-Pakistan pipeline sounds more like another embezzlement effort on the part of the pakistani politicians and generals.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 20 Mar 2010 08:28

Pakistan doesn't have the financing for the pipeline with Iran.
China may.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LC18Df01.html

India proposes further talks. {India wants to pay only for gas delivered to its border, Iran wants India to pay for gas leaving Iran destined for India}

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 20 Mar 2010 08:30

Giving peace a chance

M Saeed Khalid

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=230094

Hardly a day passes without a member of India's political class or its officialdom taking a pot-shot at Pakistan for bad behaviour. After "India shining" and "Incredible India," we should not be too surprised at New Delhi assuming the role of the paragon-of-all-virtue-India or what was candidly described by Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir as sermonising India.

This overbearing attitude of our big neighbour is hindering a conducive atmosphere for the resumption of a meaningful dialogue between the two countries. Unfortunately, the latest remarks attributed to Home Minister P Chidambaram advising Pakistan to reinvent itself as a genuine democracy can only add to the frustration on this side of the border about India's holier-than-thou approach. His call to Pakistan to become a truly democratic country where real power lies in the hands of democratically elected leaders is rather curious.

...

The time has come for India's political class, which seems to be sure of its decision-making power, to show its control over the security-dominated approach by closing one or two of its consulates in Afghanistan.

...

The endless sermonising by India runs the risk of further alienating their public opinion from Pakistan. It helps to create the image of a monolithic Pakistan which should be taken to task if another Mumbai-like attack takes place.

...

The writer is a former ambassador.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 20 Mar 2010 08:48

Pakistan seeks civilian nuclear aid, but U.S. unlikely to deliver

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/18/9 ... clear.html

Pakistan will seek U.S. aid for its civilian nuclear power program next week when its top military and senior civilian leaders visit Washington to re-start a "strategic dialogue" between the two countries.

...

"I think the time has come. My message to Washington is: We've been talking a lot. The time has come to walk the talk," Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi told a news conference Thursday in which he confirmed that civilian nuclear talks are on the agenda. "We've done our bit. The ordinary citizen in Pakistan has paid a price. We've delivered. (Now you) start delivering."

The U.S., however, is unlikely to deliver by offering a nuclear deal that parallels the package that former President George W. Bush granted to Pakistan's archenemy India.

The Senate would have to approve such a deal, and despite claims that Pakistan's recent arrests of the deputy leader of the Afghan Taliban and other members of its governing council signal a "strategic shift" against its longtime Afghan allies, its performance combating Islamic extremists is uneven. Moreover, the former head of its nuclear program, A.Q. Khan, sold nuclear weapons-related technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya, and Pakistan has never allowed U.S. intelligence officers to interview him.

Nevertheless, many U.S. officials think that Pakistan holds the key to stabilizing Afghanistan so that U.S. troops can begin withdrawing in mid-2011, as President Barack Obama said they would in December.

However, U.S. and Pakistani views on how to do that differ.

Pakistan wants Washington to accept a political settlement between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the insurgents that would aim to end the fighting now, with Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar and other top militant leaders included in the settlement, according to Pakistani officials, who didn't want to be named because of the sensitivity of the issue.

"Pakistan is no longer interested in getting the Afghan Taliban back on their own," said Moeed Yusuf, an expert on Pakistan at the U.S. Institute of Peace, a congressionally funded policy institute in Washington. "They realize that if the Taliban were to come back in power in Afghanistan, Pakistan would be next."

...

Although other incentives, including tens of billions of dollars in military and civilian aid, haven't worked, a nuclear deal could be the carrot required for Pakistan to cut its ties to Afghan jihadist groups, said Christine Fair, an assistant professor at Georgetown University.

"We need a big idea for Pakistan, to transform it from a source of insecurity for the region to a country committed to eliminating terrorism and ensuring that nuclear proliferation doesn't happen again," Fair said. "At the moment, we're trying to get Pakistan to do things that are in our strategic interests, but not in theirs."

...

Other experts think that given Pakistan's record on combating terrorism and proliferation, its request for nuclear aid will be dead on arrival in Washington.

The restrictions and conditions the U.S. would require in such an accord would "be so offensive to the Pakistanis that instead of improving relations, it (the treaty) would end up irritating them," said George Perkovic of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

What's more, Pakistan couldn't pay for the nuclear technology it wants, Perkovic said. "No company in its right mind would build in Pakistan," he said. "Are they going to get paid? Are their workers going to be safe? The answer in most cases is going to be no."

...

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 20 Mar 2010 09:00

Pakistan to America: What have you done for us lately?

http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/20 ... _us_lately

But progress could perhaps be made if Washington delicately reduces New Delhi's expectations for influence in Kabul, facilitates Pakistan's partial movement in favor of "good" actors in Afghanistan and push against the Afghan Taliban, and prods both India and Pakistan further along the negotiation table.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 20 Mar 2010 10:00

jrjrao wrote:All this reminds me of that perceptive thing that Uneven Cohen wrote in his book on TSP, where he explained that in every negotiation over the decades with Unkil, Pakis have framed the talks such that the obligations on US (to deliver to the Pakis) were always real, tangible and substantial, and the reciprocal obligations on the Pakis were always wisps of thin air.

That's true. Even when it offered the intangible, like cooperation in fight against spread of communism in the 50s, it extricated itself out of situations when it was demanded to give tangible support. For example, it never was willing to contribute troops for the Vietnam War. But, the US had always accepted the Pakistani position knowingly and in full knowledge.

The US has adopted a similar but a reverse strategy vis-a-vis India. While it expects tangible Indian cooperation with it, its offers are mostly intangible benefits.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 20 Mar 2010 10:10

abhishek_sharma wrote:
But progress could perhaps be made if Washington delicately reduces New Delhi's expectations for influence in Kabul, facilitates Pakistan's partial movement in favor of "good" actors in Afghanistan and push against the Afghan Taliban, and prods both India and Pakistan further along the negotiation table.

Unbelievable arrogance from a terrorist state. But what is interesting,assuming this RAPE has inputs from TSP, is that TSP might demand nuke deal but will settle for India's castrated role in Afganisthan. This couple with US's indulgence of LeT means, war of 1000 cuts can go on umimpeded.

Forget my analysis, but R-man, Ramana, I have a question for you guys. Is US really exaggrating TSP's importance in reaching a suitable Afghan denounement? You know the famous CRamS's dictum: never go by USA's stated intentions. If so, TSP is in for a rude shock

.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 20 Mar 2010 10:20

Quite clearly, the thread consensus seems to be that TSP has 'outplayed' India in all departments of the game, and with good reason. Unkil Bucknor doing the umpiring after all.

Which brings me to the question, was unkil genuinely worried after 26/11 that a 26/11 redux might invite overt Yindian retaliation, unkil's troop presence and other games int he region not withstanding? Why for did neta after neta and babu after babu from the khanate - from Gates to Kerry and from Aholebroke to Hillary - carry that message throughout 2009? Was it mere hawabazi, hot air sideshow to assuage Yindian anxieties with sweet words or was it the real McCoy - unkilian satellites and humint picking up the ominous obvious??

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 20 Mar 2010 10:24

^ All talk talk talk, try and say the right things to assuage yindoos but in the end do all great things to Bakis. Simple onlee.
It is SDREs who are gullible, always falling for flattery.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 20 Mar 2010 10:25

Hari garu,
That really begs the question of were/are we in any state at all to fight a surgical-strike/local conflict/low intensity war in case of another such attack? The general perception seems to be that the spirit might have been willing but the flesh was definitely weak! In such a scenario, no matter how much huff and puff is seen from the home ministry, not a peep from the defense ministry or the pmo. If you ask the army though, you get the usual answer of well, if we're asked to, we'll fight with what he have! Will and the strength to act are two very important and different things. Even if we muster the will, can we find the strength?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 20 Mar 2010 10:40

I think that the intervention of the US in the IPI pipeline forcing India to quit is a blessing in disguise for us. The pipeline will never function satisfactorily given the experience with the Sui gas distribution pipelines within Pakistan. The Balochis had made it categorically clear that they would not allow this pipeline without a huge transit fee going directly to them. If we commit our fertilizer and power plants to uncertain gas supply, no investor will come forward leaving only existing PSU units. The Iranians are unwilling to underwrite the Pakistani risk. The Pakistanis have convincingly argued already that they are unable to prevent attacks on themselves and how they could be expected to guarantee safety for India.

We need to maintain the pretense of talking to Iran lest China chips in. The best course of action would have been an under-sea pipeline which of course has some very difficult, if not impossible' stretches to cross.

India is also talking to energy-rich CAR countries to supply gas through to Northern Iran. Turkmenistan is already doing that using two pipelines to avoid both the Russian and the European (Caspian Sea) domination. Iran will then supply gas through Turkey to Eastern & Western Europe. India seems to be exploring a similar deal with Iran. If that fructifies, India will have to evacuate the gas either through LNG tankers or through an under-sea pipeline if Pakistan is to be totally avoided.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Mar 2010 10:45

Hari Seldon wrote:Quite clearly, the thread consensus seems to be that TSP has 'outplayed' India in all departments of the game, and with good reason. Unkil Bucknor doing the umpiring after all.

This realization is late in coming on this forum, where we spent time huffing and puffing and imagining that it was GoI's weakness that was preventing resurgent India from great victories across greater India. As you have pointed out - with India itself being impotent and checkmated there is nothing that a pant wearing powerful pm can do more than a weak squeaky voiced PM

Pakis bandwagoned with world leader unkil decades ago when we were bleating non alignment. So what are we going to do about it. Unkil was not joking when he said "Either you are with us or against us"

What is India's choice given that "thread consensus" is also that unkils embrace always means trouble for any country except Pakistan where unkils embrace is good for Pakistan. After all' the reason we must not become aUS ally is because unkil screws his allies. But he has helped Pakistan no? Pakistan has successfully screwed unkil by keeping Mullah Omar alive from 2001 to 2010 and is now trying to insert him back into Afghanistan.

I wonder what new realization will come to thread consensus in another decade. Going by past experience the realization will be a decade late.

munna · Post by **munna** » 20 Mar 2010 10:51

Hari Seldon wrote:Quite clearly, the thread consensus seems to be that TSP has 'outplayed' India in all departments of the game, and with good reason. Unkil Bucknor doing the umpiring after all

The thread consensus is more of a short term

rather than a cold blooded analysis of real going ons. The current events indicate towards a failure but not of India or its establishment. We have not been outplayed-merely found out that a Indo-Soviet type entente is not possible with unkil.

Which brings me to the question, was unkil genuinely worried after 26/11 that a 26/11 redux might invite overt Yindian retaliation, unkil's troop presence and other games int he region not withstanding? Why for did neta after neta and babu after babu from the khanate - from Gates to Kerry and from Aholebroke to Hillary - carry that message throughout 2009? Was it mere hawabazi, hot air sideshow to assuage Yindian anxieties with sweet words or was it the real McCoy - unkilian satellites and humint picking up the ominous obvious??

From all open source information they were not only worried but mighty worried. Contrary to forumites' beliefs the Dilli Billi bulwarks-within and outside the government are no less jingos than any of us. India was up to no good post 26/11 and Unkil and its munna knew the obvious. Unkil gave India assurances regarding justice and Paki-bashing if we did not rock the Unkil boat in the region. All the promises have been reneged upon and instead we have been stabbed in the back when it comes to Afghanistan. However the cheerful thing about this is that a certain gentleman and his office is now shorn of any political capital to favour unkil. Is it any wonder that with nearly double the seats vis a vis previous LS singh saab is facing trouble in getting bills passed?

So what is the summary?

1) India's policy and the idea itself of a strategic alliance with US is damaged in the medium term if not in the long term.
2) Unkil supporters within GOI will find it tough to get anything done!
3) Afghanistan policy will enter an active phase, a long way from the passive doctrine of 2001-10 whereby DC ordered and Delhi followed
4) Emboldened Pakistan will think that a super-power in decline will somehow make it the top dog in Afghanistan. We'll see..
5) Business as usual! For India, on the ground nothing much will change-Taliban stand opposed and the fractious Northern Alliance favors us (Ivan will have to work hard to unite some of the egos draped in skin)
6) Once Unkil leaves then back to "managed chaos" in Afghanistan

PS: All this

is by all those who blindly trusted Unkil and now stand bamboozled by the back stabbing ops, this happens when people lose realism. Everything is fine but we need to be cautious. The danger lies in apologists for unkil within and not the unkil per se.

munna · Post by **munna** » 20 Mar 2010 11:16

shiv wrote:This realization is late in coming on this forum, where we spent time huffing and puffing and imagining that it was GoI's weakness that was preventing resurgent India from great victories across greater India. As you have pointed out - with India itself being impotent and checkmated there is nothing that a pant wearing powerful pm can do more than a weak squeaky voiced PM

Shivji MMS has proven to be a doctrinaire when it comes to dealing with unkil! As with other things doctrine oriented his policies and decisions reek of dogmatism at a certain level. He may or not be weak but his real problem comes from the blind kowtowing to DC directives. When some of his cabinet colleagues can dare to challenge Massa and not give in then what stops him? To answer the rhetorical question, as PM of GOI he has tried to run the country by a vision that seeks to hitch India to US caravan. His idea was fine but as with other things in Economics and Geo-politics "Time Inconsistency" has set in. The current Unkil is not the unkil of 1970s or even 1990s for that matter and thus has less to offer in terms of alliance dividends. The Indian elite is also becoming brash and confident in its own right and hence is troublesome for unkil to control. Therefore issues of time inconsistency and systemic inclination within both the nations have put a spanner in the works of Dr Singh! Period

What is India's choice given that "thread consensus" is also that unkils embrace always means trouble for any country except Pakistan where unkils embrace is good for Pakistan. After all' the reason we must not become aUS ally is because unkil screws his allies. But he has helped Pakistan no? Pakistan has successfully screwed unkil by keeping Mullah Omar alive from 2001 to 2010 and is now trying to insert him back into Afghanistan.
I wonder what new realization will come to thread consensus in another decade. Going by past experience the realization will be a decade late

India's choice is pretty clear after the failure of "Afghanistan Policy Outsourcing Contract" to unkil. Shyam Saran has articulated something similar in his recent article titled "Premature Power", India will have to move its musharraff and for a change do something. The chaiwalla reports from the region suggest that Indian policy especially at the babu level was complacency personified. It was enough to do "sajda" to massa once in a while and get things done. But the London conference has put the collective musharaffs of the establishment on fire. Hope they get more active.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 20 Mar 2010 11:37

shiv wrote:
Hari Seldon wrote:Quite clearly, the thread consensus seems to be that TSP has 'outplayed' India in all departments of the game, and with good reason. Unkil Bucknor doing the umpiring after all.
This realization is late in coming on this forum, where we spent time huffing and puffing and imagining that it was GoI's weakness that was preventing resurgent India from great victories across greater India. As you have pointed out - with India itself being impotent and checkmated there is nothing that a pant wearing powerful pm can do more than a weak squeaky voiced PM

Pakis bandwagoned with world leader unkil decades ago when we were bleating non alignment. So what are we going to do about it. Unkil was not joking when he said "Either you are with us or against us"

What is India's choice given that "thread consensus" is also that unkils embrace always means trouble for any country except Pakistan where unkils embrace is good for Pakistan. After all' the reason we must not become aUS ally is because unkil screws his allies. But he has helped Pakistan no? Pakistan has successfully screwed unkil by keeping Mullah Omar alive from 2001 to 2010 and is now trying to insert him back into Afghanistan.

I wonder what new realization will come to thread consensus in another decade. Going by past experience the realization will be a decade late.

It is a challenging situation. But there are plenty of things India could do, which are not being done.

In international politics, force has always been the ultimate argument. "Ultima Ratio Regum", as it is said. This is something India has neglected.

Thus, Russia has just 15% of our population but the US is forced to treat Russia with far more respect than India.

Can we guarantee that, in the event of our being attacked by Paki nukes, the homelands of those who support the Pakis will be turned into glazed parking lots? If not, why should we be taken seriously?

While ability to apply force is necessary, it is not sufficient. A bigger issue is integrity of leadership. If many of our politicians have foreign bank accounts, stashed with wealth looted from their poverty-stricken countrymen, the details of which are fully known to foreign intelligence agencies ... then could such politicians be expected to serve national interests? Can we place our faith in appointed babu PMs who have spent a lifetime in a system that protects such behavior?

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 20 Mar 2010 12:34

This realization is late in coming on this forum.....I wonder what new realization will come to thread consensus in another decade. Going by past experience the realization will be a decade late.

O no saar, I am more optimistic than that. With noble personages who have written weighty e-tomes dissecting the obnoxious piskology of Pakistan contributing prolifically on here, I for one certainly hope that the new consensual realizations will take far less than a decade in happening only.

Besides, if its settled that Yindia's too weak currently to retaliate meaningfully only, why for does magnanimous TSP not rain 26/11s monthly and chota-mota attacks 24x7 only? Or is it the contention that TSP did not poop its pants in 2002 during parakram and all through 2009 begging for composite dialogue at every opportunity?

I know, its all maya only. Who cares anyhow? And how would it matter even if we cared when GoI's too weak to do anything only?

Besides, We all know that Pakistan is 'easy' for us SDREs to get consensussed about, as opposed to, say, knowing our Yindia. Chalo. Aur chalne do. Chai biskoot online never hurt anyone. Jai ho.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 20 Mar 2010 12:34

shiv wrote:
This realization is late in coming on this forum, where we spent time huffing and puffing and imagining that it was GoI's weakness that was preventing resurgent India from great victories across greater India. As you have pointed out - with India itself being impotent and checkmated there is nothing that a pant wearing powerful pm can do more than a weak squeaky voiced PM

Pakis bandwagoned with world leader unkil decades ago when we were bleating non alignment. So what are we going to do about it. Unkil was not joking when he said "Either you are with us or against us"

What is India's choice given that "thread consensus" is also that unkils embrace always means trouble for any country except Pakistan where unkils embrace is good for Pakistan. After all' the reason we must not become aUS ally is because unkil screws his allies. But he has helped Pakistan no? Pakistan has successfully screwed unkil by keeping Mullah Omar alive from 2001 to 2010 and is now trying to insert him back into Afghanistan.

I wonder what new realization will come to thread consensus in another decade. Going by past experience the realization will be a decade late.

Dear Shiv,

India may be weak but it is definitely not so weak that it cannot take the steps necessary for the preservation of its enlightened self interest. However, the caveat is that it must not fight every fight that comes its way just to show its machismo. The fights must be chosen carefully and with consideration to defend Interests which are absolutely non negotiable.

Now what dose the above paragraph have to do with this thread. Simple, It is in Indian interest to prevent the insertion of TSP into the decision making calculus of Afghanistan. If that means that we must re-engage (Not that we were dis-engaged to begin with) with Iran, Russia, and CARs then it must be done.

It also means that India should also be prepared to act in a manner which will accelerate the destabilization of the TSP without overtly getting involved in pacifying the former TSP.

Now to answer your question of the choices that are available to India. We must keep our distance form any military or strategic alignment from the un-kill

. But should rather seek to capitalize on the economic relation ship without giving a controlling stake to the un-kill. Which means that it should keep un-kill at an arms length and build economic relationship with the EU, BRC and the Japan.

A lot of it is already being done.

JMT

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 20 Mar 2010 13:43

3 killed, 3 injured in Quetta firing
Upadated on: 20 Mar 10 02:26 PM
Staff Report

QUETTA: Three people have been killed and three others wounded in firing incident by unidentified men, SAMAA reported Saturday.

--

14 people have been killed in different incidents of target killing in the past 4 days in Balochistan.

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 20 Mar 2010 14:08

"Thread consensus" or not this rambler will continue with his occasional rambles! As long as there is a place for dissents and rambles in this forum. That place and space for dissent may be limited, but as long as it is there, I hope to keep squawking.

So gentle readers, I hereby record my dissenting note to the "Thread consensus". Whatever it is.

India is not impotent or weak so as to not pursue what is in its national interest. There could be convergence and divergenc of views with the US on Pakistan and several other issues.

If the hypothetical consensus is that a permanently unstable but united Pakistan is in our national interest because:

1. India cannot break up Pakistan as it would mean taking on America
2. A broken up Pakistan will mean a more powerful Pakistani Army that will be more capable on bringing down India

then I am not party to any such "consensus". For the simple reason, that even if both statements rather assumptions are taken to be true, the fact remains that this artificial entity exists with only one sole purpose and that is the dismemberment of the Indian Republic. An entity such as this, existing, be it stable or unstable, is an existential threat to India and the single largest impediment to achieving our national goals, the primary one being accelerated GDP growth.

The removal of this entity will be the single largest guarantee and provide the greatest filip to India achieving its goals.

The GOI is elected to pursue solely the national interests of India and her citizens. All considerations of geo-political accommodations can be done only if they do not undermine national interests. Every elected GOI till now, of all dispensations and predilections have kept the national interests in mind when making strategic choices. It has come at a price, and often the price has been heavy. India has never compromised on it.

Having said that, the well argued case made here that India has adopted its current position after taking a realistic view of India's position viz a viz the US and its geo political interest in Pakistan has definitely helped in understanding the dynamics better.

The fact that India's options have to calibrate US geo political thinking when it comes to Pakistan and that it is not just a question of India's relative position of strength compared to Pakistan alone has to be conceded. This is something that I agree with.

However, no matter how voluminously and eloquently argued, using vivid imagery, the argument that a united Pakistan, stable or unstable, is a better option or the most realistic option for India still does not past muster when viewed against what is needed in our National Interests.

Now, whether India can do more to ensure that this existential threat, posed by the artificial entity called Pakistan, can be terminated can be subjected to a lot of debate. I am not even getting into that debate as yet. All I would like to point out to gentle rakshaks are simply:

1. The continued existence of this artificial entity called Pakistan, is the single largest threat to us reaching our national goals and its only reason for existence is to break up India.

2. Consequently, even if we do not have the will or the means to aid the process of this entity disintegration, it is not in India's interest to do anything that supports the survivability of this entity - even if there are geo political gains (if at all there is any) to be had by supporting the powerful guarantors of Pakistan.

There is no case for GOI to resume talks, or walk extra miles, or do anything with Pakistan. That is the least GOI can do to protect our national interests and achieve our national goal of GDP growth. In short, at the least, DO NOTHING with Pakistan! is the best and most realistic option for GOI.

By indulging other powers and talking to Pakistan or relieving Pakistan of some pressure, we are marching to the tunes of others. It is not in India's interest.

Pointing this out is not wrong in my opinion and I hope that there will be room and space for people with this view here on the forum. In fact, I am pretty sure there will be and hence the continuing rambles.

Take it for what is worth. A dissenting ramble on "thread consensus". May there be more such dissent!

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 20 Mar 2010 14:42

India is going to interrogate Headley in the US. As B Raman said interrogation is always done in one's own custody. What is India going to do if Headley does not answer questions or gives absurd answers.

India is not even complaining about this because some dude from US visited PC. India may not have the power to get Headley extradited but they should speak up when their interests are at stake.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 20 Mar 2010 15:03

B. Raman: HEADLEY: FROM OBAMA WITH LOVE

http://ramanstrategicanalysis.blogspot. ... -love.html

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 20 Mar 2010 15:03

Sri Shekhar dupatta writes a half-readable/reasonable op-ed for a change...

There is a phenomenon peculiar to the Pakistani Establishment, that unique combination of its army, intelligence agencies and bureaucracy that constitutes its permanent government, and therefore spelt with a capital “E”. Every 10 or 12 years, it starts believing that it is winning. Winning what, how and to what effect, are not facts it wants to be confused with. It just believes, at that particular moment, that it is “winning” against India. This is when the foundation of an impending disaster is laid. Unfortunately, if you’ve been exasperated at the sudden turn in the Pakistani Establishment’s conduct, you have to understand that they are currently caught in the throes of another such irrational euphoria. They again think they are “winning”.

Err, you mean they're not winning, dupatta garu??

The first phase of madness was 1947-48, that led to the invasion of Kashmir and ruined our relationship at the very start. The next came along with our war with China which, they thought, was a wonderful time again to seize Kashmir, through negotiated, US/UK-backed blackmail (India was desperately seeking American military aid then) and, when that failed, through war against a recently “defeated” army. That led to the misadventure of 1965. That moment of madness came yet again in 1971, when they misread the significance of their emergence as the link between Nixon’s America and China to mean that they had a superpower shield and could crush the revolt in their eastern half as brutally as they wished. They lost half of Pakistan.

Then, almost exactly 12 years later they saw another “wonderful” opportunity in India’s Punjab, with rising Sikh militancy. This was just the moment to wage a war of a thousand cuts they were perfecting along with the Americans in Afghanistan. That phase of belligerence was put down only after the reality check of the Operation Brasstacks standoff in 1987. But check the IMF/ World Bank figures of annual economic growth. It is around this time that Pakistan permanently lost the sizeable edge it had maintained against India in terms of economic growth. In 1993, again, came the next moment of the same “we are winning” illusion, because of troubles in our Kashmir and the victory of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan.

Re the bolded part, somebody's been reading brf and filling dupatta's head with hajaar ideas only...

A full-fledged “jehad” was launched in Kashmir, the consequences of which we are all facing till today.
{Who is 'we' here? Yindia? Then wouldn't our facing (bad) consequences till today count as a TSP victory, noble sir?}
I would treat Kargil and the Kandahar hijack as part of the same continuing madness and it was all cut short by 9/11. Almost a decade after Kargil now, you see the same Establishment believe that they are “winning”. Our challenge, therefore, is to assess what is causing this “winning” feeling in Islamabad/ Pindi and what disaster, for Pakistan, and collaterally for us, this could lead to.

If you want to put a date to the beginning of this new mood, it would perhaps be Obama’s West Point address when he nearly set a deadline for the US withdrawal. The Pakistani GHQ read it as American acceptance of the unwinnability of the Afghan war. This was the window of critical relevance they were looking for. This lifted for them the shadow of 26/11. If Obama wanted to leave any time next year, it could only be after striking some kind of a deal with a faction of the Taliban. Only Pakistan could bring about that deal, and also guarantee the future conduct of the new regime. In one stroke then, this will give Pakistan a diplomatic indispensability to the Americans while they are here, and strategic depth once they are gone. That new position could then be leveraged by demanding a settlement of basic, “root-causes” issues with India, sidelining the problem of the India-specific Lashkars. The new turn in the Pakistani Establishment, the Kayani speech, the water non-paper and the sudden and brazen re-surfacing of Hafiz Saeed are to be fully understood in this context.

Entertaining, if nothing. Read it all. The man talks of 'moderate' classes of RAPEs amongst civil society and civil politicians with whom dialogue and bridge-building must go on etc. aak-thoo.

And this comment I thought was good:

Whenever Pakistan thinks that it has won, it actually has won something substantial. Take 1947-48. Even when they were about to be disabused of their feelings of having won, Nehru handed over victory to them on a platter by rushing to the UN and they became overlords of one third of Kashmir. In 1971 too when they were trying to hide their bloody noses, Indira Gandhi let them off the hook and the problem of Kashmir remained as intractable as ever. In Manmohan Singh, the Pakistanis and Americans are seeing Nehru's weaknesses and Morarji Desai's pacifism. They have fully got the measure of India's weak policies and feeling of helplessness. Even if we now move 10 divisions of our army to the western border, they know for sure that Manmohan Singh will still speak the language of conciliation and friendship.

Which brfite wrote this??

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Mar 2010 15:16

The duplicity of the US standa completly exposed by just one event,as mentioned in an above post.Pak can sign on with Iran for energy supplies but India must keep clear off Iran! India should immediately send a team to Iran and tie up our energy supplies which can be transported by tanker.

arun · Post by **arun** » 20 Mar 2010 16:09

^^^ Speaking of duplicity, let Iran’s duplicity with regard to gas not be forgotten.

In 2005 India and Iran signed an LNG supply deal where Iran was to sell India 7.5 mmtpa for 25 years.

Iran however permitted greed to set in and reneged on the LNG deal presumably because they felt that with rising energy prices in the period following the signing of the deal could enable them to extract more from India or other buyers.

arun · Post by **arun** » 20 Mar 2010 16:23

Excerpt dealing with the Pakistan-Iran gas deal from Richard Holbrooke’s briefingon the upcoming U.S.-Pakistan Strategic Dialogue :

Briefing On Upcoming U.S.-Pakistan Strategic Dialogue

Richard Holbrooke
Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan
Washington, DC
March 19, 2010

QUESTION: It’s also an energy question, actually. Are you going to be discussing Pakistan’s agreement with Iran on the energy pipeline? You know this week there was an agreement. Is this something that you think is useful? Under the Iran Sanctions Act, I believe that you can’t put more than $20 million or so into a project. Would they be breaking the Iran Sanctions Act, and what’s your view on this?

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: This – quite honestly, Sue, I have – I’ve been so busy preparing for this, that while I’m aware of the issue, I haven’t spent any time on it yet. And I think other people have expressed their views on it, and I’ll – I think you’ve asked about it to other people at this podium, and I’ll let them to speak to it for now. It is not on the formal agenda. But as I said a minute ago, either side can bring up anything they want.

Now, if you’ll forgive, I just cannot afford to miss this plane. I have a higher authority in New York, which is my wife.

US Dept. of State

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 20 Mar 2010 17:50

Ms. Nirupama Subramanian, The Hindu's correspondent in Islamabad, packs her bags and returns to India. From her reminiscences, one can draw a number of conclusions and perhaps validate our understanding of Pakistani behaviour.

For instance, even well-educated Pakistanis continue to believe that the Mumbai attacks were staged by RAW to defame Pakistan with the ultimate aim of snatching its nuclear weapons or dismembering the country. Young and old alike will assert that India is behind the wave of terrorist attacks in Pakistan because “no Muslim will kill fellow Muslims” {Conspiracy theories are very, very prevalent and easily believed in by those who suffer from paranoia. Especially so the Pakistanis.}

I would have heated debates with Pakistanis who consider themselves modern, enlightened, liberal and secular but would suddenly go all Islamic and religious when it came to an issue such as Kashmir, seeming no different from their ultra-conservative compatriots who protest against the clamping down on Islamic militancy in Pakistan as harassment of “brother Muslims.” They could tout jihad in Kashmir as legitimate even while condemning the Taliban who threaten their own modern, liberal lifestyle, despite the knowledge that the distinction between the two kinds of jihad, or the two categories of militants, is at best an illusion.

Ms. Subramanian's conclusions are difficult to accept though. For example, she feels that the political governments in both the countries cannot find a solution, thereby implicitly equating a military-dominated, thriving-on-terror theocratic and unstable revisionist country with a plural, democratic, status-quo victim country.

It is evident that the political leadership of both countries, which includes the military in Pakistan, cannot be entrusted with finding this middle-ground. The political class on both sides has specialised in hyping the emotional in India-Pakistan relations over the rational

we cannot be friends as long as we continue looking at each other through the narrow prism of our respective states. Pakistanis must locate the Indian within themselves, and Indians must discover their inner Pakistani. It would help understand each other better, and free us from state-manipulated attitudes.

Ms. Subramanian does not realize that the 'narrow vision' of the Indian state has never preached hatred for Pakistan on the basis of their religion. Not even on the basis of untold atrocities that they have committed against India. It is totally unfair to talk about Pakistan and India in the same breath on state-manufactured hatred and history.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 20 Mar 2010 18:29

...Indians must discover their inner Pakistani...

And if any inner Pakistani is found, severe penance is called for, a long pilgrimmage, dip in the Ganga, something. Export your inner Pakistani to Pakistan.