Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 2010

[VikramS]

Meanwhile Afghanistan just got a whole lot more valuable.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world ... erals.html

WASHINGTON — The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.

For this mineral wealth to be harvested, they need a sea-port. If the US ever needed an economic rationale for a Balochistan and Pakhthoonistan, free from PakJabi control, they now have it.

It would be a disaster for the world if the Pakiban can start harvesting those trillions.

[shiv]

^So ....that means we are "chankian", no?

If travelling 10,000 miles to get kicked in the butt by a person you are bribing is chankian, sure we have the US as being as chankian a nation as India that sits next door and gets kicked.

It's not chankianness. It's weakness. By absorbing blows 10,000 miles away the US politicos are telling their people "You are safe". But if the US is safe, why doesn't the US just withdraw and stop getting kicked? The problem is the attitude we have where what the US does is chankian but what India does is weakness even when they both get butt-kicked by Pakistan.

[pgbhat]

The west is more Chankian - they are providing the life support, and they are protected by distance.

As shiv-ji said, they are traveling the distance to get their butt kicked.

[Paul]

The pre 1947 plan of keeping garrisons in Balochistan will be dusted off the shelves and re looked as an option.

[Prem]

PAF to get F-16s with tough stipulations (?)
http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news- ... ipulations#

ISLAMABAD (Online) - Despite being a key ally in the war against terrorism in which Pakistan have rendered innumerable sacrifices, the United States is extending military assistance to Islamabad under strict conditions and stipulations, reflecting the nature of relations between the two countries.
According to sources, Washington will deliver 18 F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan Air Force (PAF) by the end of this month under a series of conditions including an assurance from Pakistan that aircraft would not be used in any conflict with India. During last week’s strategic dialogue between India and the US, the Indian leaders had conveyed to their counterparts in Washington their concerns over the US military assistance to Pakistan. Besides assuring Indian side, Washington for the first time came out open to state that it was taking steps to ensure that its military aid to Pakistan would not be used against India.Sources said the US Air Force engineers would accompany the delivery of the F-16s and supervise not only the airbase but also the operations to be carried out by the PAF against Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Though the PAF pilots will fly the jets, the logistics, management and control is stated to remain with the US engineers.

[Prem]

For me what is important is that I was born in a country called Pakistan and then had opportunities available to me that I would never even have dreamed of if I was an Indian Muslim. I know that it is not proper to generalise based upon a few interactions with Indian Muslims, but I must admit most of them that I met in the US are quite envious of us Pakistani Muslims.
As I attended the convocation of King Edward Medical University in its 150th year as a medical institution, I sat in the famous ‘Library Hall’ and looked around the walls that have the pictures of all the former principals, there is not one Muslim who was principal until after the partition of India. And if I looked on the walls in the hallway where all the medal winners over the years are listed, I would have a hard time finding a single Muslim name before 1947.Essentially, at least for those Muslims of British India that ended up in Pakistan and now in Pakistan as well as Bangladesh, things could have been a lot worse. If they were still living in a ‘united’ India where Muslims would at best have been a frequently discriminated against minority, it is unlikely that they would have made any serious progress as members of a Muslim minority.Now we all know that in many countries in Europe and in Israel, Muslim populations are increasing at a rapid rate compared to the non-Muslims and as such in time will become large minorities and in Israel possibly even a majority if the Palestinian territories are not separated from the rest of Israel. But in India it is highly unlikely that Muslims could have or even now become a larger or more influential minority.

Thank you Mr Jinnah
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.as ... 2010_pg3_2

[Rudradev]

The other possibility is that a weak US, unable to withstand Pakistani pressure in Afghanistan might try and channel Pakistani aggression at any convenient outlet -with India being the easiest target. Assuming this is true, we would still have to give up the idea that the US is in control and is able to control events in Pakistan to "titrate" India's rise. It is Pakistan that is strong enough to hold back the US, so that the US is almost begging Pakistan to hit India rather than the US.

But folks, if that is true - it means that India's weakness wrt to Pakistan has nothing to do with weak leaders or treachery.[ It means that both India and the US are weak and that Pakistan is in a strong position. Perhaps it would give a better idea of reality if we looked at the world in this way rather than confuse the picture by attributing imaginary strength to the US and weakness only to India.

I

If I read you correctly, you are saying that

A:"It is Pakistan that is strong enough to hold back the US, so that the US is almost begging Pakistan to hit India rather than the US. "

And using this to conclude

B: "But folks, if that is true - it means that India's weakness wrt to Pakistan has nothing to do with weak leaders or treachery."

It is not at all clear why A must imply B?

Indeed, by this argument, if the US is weak and unable to impose its will, then we cannot explain away India's weakness as something that a super-strong US is creating .

Which certainly leaves open the possibility that India's weakness derives entirely from internal causes, i.e. the weakness and treachery of India's leaders.

If the US is weak, then who is responsible for India making itself unnecessarily and pointlessly weaker than the US by subordinating its interests to the helpless confusion of a weak US?

[Prem]

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.as ... 2010_pg3_5
The idea of Pakistan —Ammar Ali Qureshi ( High caste Ashraf of Arabian Gene)
Pakistan as an idea in the 1940s appealed to all sections of Muslim society in ndia. It would be wrong to assume that sects such as the Ahmedis or Shias took a collective decision. Individual decisions were taken even at family levels and across all classes and sects as to who would opt for Pakistan and who would stay in India. Otherwise it is very difficult to explain how families were divided by partition — some brothers and sisters ended up in Pakistan while others remained in India.
Sahabzada Yaqub opted for Pakistan and found himself fighting in Kashmir few months after Pakistan’s creation while his elder brother, who stayed in India, fought in Kashmir from the Indian side. Zakir Hussain remained in India, headed Aligarh University after partition and later became India’s third president, while his brother Dr Mahmud Hussain migrated to Pakistan and later became a federal minister. Mian Arshad Hussain and Mian Azim Hussain, sons of Punjabi politician Sir Fazle Hussain, opted for two different countries in 1947 and served as Ambassadors of Pakistan and India respectively in the same capital in the 1960s. When the Shah of Iran met General Atiqur Rehman, the then Governor of West Pakistan, he remarked that although “we have not met before but I know about your family as your brother is India’s ambassador in Tehran”. All these examples are of prominent people but even among ordinary and non-prominent families countless such examples of brothers and sisters divided by partition can be found, which underscore the point that it is wrong to assume collective decision making on the part of sects or even families as individual choices played an extremely important role.

[Airavat]

The problem is the attitude we have where what the US does is chankian but what India does is weakness even when they both get butt-kicked by Pakistan.

But the US is also hitting back, with their regular drone attacks, and their agents openly romping through Pakistan, free to catch and extradite any terrorist.

What is the GOI doing?

[shiv]

Another way of viewing the US-India-Pak-Af tangle is "Who has the most to lose"

Pakistan has the least to lose. It is so fakdap that there is no way it is going to emerge as anything other than a dangerously unstable country of 170 million people.

What does India have to lose if Pakistan goes that way? Pakistan has been as hostile as possible to India. It has always been dangerously unstable. India has little influence in directing Pakistani actions, unles India decides to commit suicide. So India has nothing to gain. Nothing to lose.

The US was sitting pretty, well away from the region until 2001. It had little to lose. Now the US sits in Afghanistan and is not sure whether it has gained anything or not. Why doen't the US just pull out? What does the US have to lose other than echandee?

The country that stands to lose the most is Afghanistan. If Afghanistan becomes a hotbed of anti-American radicalism so what? It is 10,000 miles away no? Afghans are welcome to hate the US.

What the US is doing is playing exactly the same double game that Pakistan is accused of playing with the US. The US sits in Afghanistan and Pakistan, keeps a check on Pakistani nationals, bombs Pakistani territory with drones an "absorbs blows" from Pakistan. In my view, US actions will wreck Pakistan, which may actually split once again. I am not sure that either the US or India will be unhappy with that outcome.

Pakistan can only be split into two parts. One part would be a wild part that gets bombed out. The other part will be a US hating part that lives on US bailouts. In fact this is exactly whet is hapening already now. only nobody is calling it "two countries". No?

[shiv]

If the US is weak, then who is responsible for India making itself unnecessarily and pointlessly weaker than the US by subordinating its interests to the helpless confusion of a weak US?

Rudradevji - you and I can enter into a long series of posts built up on pure rhetoric - but all I have been trying to point out is what you have said above. The US is weak. In our anxiety to point out India's weaknesses we assume that the US is strong. That blind US worshipping assumption needs to be set aside to see if it can offer an alternative explanation to the way the US behaves.

It is easy to build up a thousand houses of cards on false assumptions. Change the assumptions and the houses change. I am asking that we change assumptions and take note that the US too is weak, not that India is strong. Can you do that without having to use exactly my arguments to "defeat my view" and see if you can arrive at any new conclusions

[Rudradev]

The argument that the US is using Pakistan to "titrate" India's rise - i.e encouraging Pakistan to kick India if India gets too uppity, fails in the face of the information that the US itself is getting kicked continuously by Pakistan. Why would the US sit around getting kicked by Pakistan day in and day out just to allow Pakistan to kick India sometime and keep of India at other times? Like the man who sometimes counted and sometimes did not count how many times his neighbour slept with his wife after losing a bet.

Perhaps the US is prepared to absorb such kicks as the price for preserving Pak's geopolitical role.

This is another question that bothers me.

Is the US effectively preserving the geopolitical role it has in mind for Pakistan, by letting the TSPA and RAPE hoodwink and double-game it?

Given the LSE report, does it make any sense at all for the US to arm and finance the same institutions which are perpetrating this gigantic fraud (and worse) on America... just so that, maybe one day TSP will be useful as a check against India or China or Russia?

There's no doubt about the strategic value of TSP's geopolitical location for Washington. But given what Pakistan's society and institutions have become, Washington is unable to avail of that strategic value at all. It cannot build a TAP pipeline or access the trillion dollars of Afghanistan's new-found mineral wealth. It cannot guarantee that TSP will be a safe base for action against Iran (as Pakistan during the 1950s was once a safe base for action against the USSR.)

Hell, America cannot even leverage the "geopolitical asset" of TSP to find itself an H&D-saving exit from the Afghan quagmire.

So TSPA and RAPE have made what was once a great geopolitical asset for the US, into something with less than zero value... they have made it into a liability. They have outgamed Washington many times over, tied it up in knots, and Washington (per the LSE report) knows this very well.

You can own the greatest house in the greatest neighborhood, but what use is it to you, if it is infested with rats and snakes and bedbugs and termites? You cannot live in it or rent it or even sell it. You have to clear them out first, and only then the house will have value to you no?

If I, as an American strategist, wanted to retain control (and derive benefits) from the geopolitical "asset" represented in Pakistan's real estate, then I must first clear it out no? Otherwise I cannot use it reliably to "check India" or Russia or China or anyone else. I cannot use it to access Central Asia, the very heart of Mackinder's geopolitical "heartland".

Makes more sense for me to do a Japan on it. Completely, utterly reduce Pakistan the way Japan was reduced in 1945. Then I can make it a 400% protectorate and reap all those delicious benefits.

But first, I have to realize that it will not come cheap. I can't buy a great house in a great neighborhood cheap, unless it is infested with vermin, in which case it is no use to me at all, except as a drain on my bank account in property taxes.

I have to put up the cash, men and political will for a very expensive and very thorough fumigation, if the geopolitical asset known as Pakistan is going to be useful to me.

Instead, what I am doing now is feeding the vermin.

[CRamS]

shiv:

Good analysis, but I think you are missing one point, and that is USA's H&D. Believe me, from my vantage point here in US, and listening to US elites obsess about American exceptionalism, American values, Amercian valor, Amercian bla bla; I think a perception that Talibunnies "defeated" US like the way they "defeated" Russians will be a huge H&D blow to USA. If USA does not previal over Talibs, I think Russians will be laughing their ass of their dealings with US. US would want to prevent that at any cost. I would watch for US media, govt, think tank collusion this summer to hype some bombing of Talibunnies as one heck of a huge victory that Russians could not achieve. Once that is established in the court of "international opinion", the rest is what we have been discussing: handing over Afganisthan to TSPA/ISI, declaring huge victory, and running away.

[shiv]

But the US is also hitting back, with their regular drone attacks, and their agents openly romping through Pakistan, free to catch and extradite any terrorist.

What is the GOI doing?

Saar. Please don't mistake me. I am not trying to disprove Indian weakness. I am trying to show that the US is also weak and incapable of doing much other than be scared and pay protection money to Pakistan. At least India is not yet paying protection money to Pakistan.

Perhaps we need to see the US as a player with a weak hand too. Or is that too alien to our sensitivities?

[Rudradev]

If the US is weak, then who is responsible for India making itself unnecessarily and pointlessly weaker than the US by subordinating its interests to the helpless confusion of a weak US?

Rudradevji - you and I can enter into a long series of posts built up on pure rhetoric - but all I have been trying to point out is what you have said above. The US is weak. In our anxiety to point out India's weaknesses we assume that the US is strong. That blind US worshipping assumption needs to be set aside to see if it can offer an alternative explanation to the way the US behaves.

It is easy to build up a thousand houses of cards on false assumptions. Change the assumptions and the houses change. I am asking that we change assumptions and take note that the US too is weak, not that India is strong. Can you do that without having to use exactly my arguments to "defeat my view" and see if you can arrive at any new conclusions

Shivji, I agree that your perspective is very refreshing. We have always suspected in the back of our minds that the US does not know what it is doing, or cannot do what it must do, in AfPak. The LSE report is effectively the first confirmation of this from a lily-white Western source.

I don't think the US is omnipotent at all and I do agree that seems to be a common misconception here. I am glad you have pointed that out, and I'm interested to read where you are going with this.

[Pranav]

Is the US effectively preserving the geopolitical role it has in mind for Pakistan, by letting the TSPA and RAPE hoodwink and double-game it?

The goal may have been to cause maximum chaos by supporting the worst brutes - namely TSP RAPEs and their pet Jihadis. The thinking may be that the west would not have to deal with the fallout, because India and TSP would finish each other off. Now that calculation may be going awry, because the west is having to bear significant costs.

[shiv]

USA's H&D. Believe me, from my vantage point here in US, and listening to US elites obsess about American exceptionalism, American values, Amercian valor, Amercian bla bla; I think a perception that Talibunnies "defeated" US like the way they "defeated" Russians will be a huge H&D blow to USA. If USA does not previal over Talibs, I think Russians will be laughing their ass of their dealings with US. US would want to prevent that at any cost. I would watch for US media, govt, think tank collusion this summer to hype some bombing of Talibunnies as one heck of a huge victory that Russians could not achieve.

If fact I did point out the US's echandee in an earlier post

The US is taking hits in Afghanistan and only echandee is keeping the US there.

Pakistan is betting on the US leaving Afghanistan. India is in Afghanistan only because the US allows India in there. Once Pakistan gets back in, India will be out. The Afghans of course are toast, but once the US is out it will be to India's advantage to see an all out Taliban victory spilling into neighbouring countries and the rest of the world. More 9-11s will be to India's advantage.

The US may try and bribe Pakistan to keep the Taliban fighting against India only and not anyone else. But the Taliban can do little to India from Afghanistan. They wil have to come to PoK and Pakjab. Any attack from Pakjab and PoK is a Pakistani attack and will be treated as such. So the outcome of the US pulling out of Afghanistan will be

1) India-Pakistan tension and war with US support to Pakistan (same as before)
2) Taliban/Pakistan in control of Afghanistan

Nothing would be a better indicator of the US as a fading power than that outcome. Somewhere down the line other powers will fill the vacuum. China, Pakistan, Iran and maybe even India?

[CRamS]

Rudradev:

Can India assert itself on the world stage without TSP brinigng in Kashmir, supporting "terrorism against Pakistan", India's poverty, India's caste, Gujarat riots, Dalits you name it; can India's elite ward off such TSP vile cacophony with the contempt it desrves? If the answer to that is NO, TSP indeed has been of strategic value to US. For US, TSP is valuable aset in that it doesn't have to deal with India in the manner in which India wants to be treated, and if India is allowed too much leeway beyond TSP, can you imagine the "argumentative Indian" give lectures to USA on its foreign policy excesses and such? Makes it very difficult for USA to maintain the pre-ponderence of its view point as "international opinion".

Just witness the recent embarassement that Brazil and Turkey caused to USA by striking that deal with Iran. I was astonished with the alacrity with which US pundits went on overdrive on their media denouncing and underming the deal that Brazil/Turkey brokered. The most hilarious interview I heard was on NPR where the host asked some Harvard honcho if the deal will be accepted by the "international community" which he unconsciously defined as that of US and its western allies .

[Rudradev]

Rudradev:

Can India assert itself on the world stage without TSP brinigng in Kashmir, supporting "terrorism against Pakistan", India's poverty, India's caste, Gujarat riots, Dalits you name it; can India's elite ward off such TSP vile cacophony with the contempt it desrves? If the answer to that is NO, TSP indeed has been of strategic value to US. For US, TSP is valuable aset in that it doesn't have to deal with India in the manner in which India wants to be treated, and if India is allowed too much leeway beyond TSP, can you imagine the "argumentative Indian" give lectures to USA on its foreign policy excesses and such? Makes it very difficult for USA to maintain the pre-ponderence of its view point as "international opinion".

Just witness the recent embarassement that Brazil and Turkey caused to USA by striking that deal with Iran. I was astonished with the alacrity with which US pundits went on overdrive on their media denouncing and underming the deal that Brazil/Turkey brokered. The most hilarious interview I heard was on NPR where the host asked some Harvard honcho if the deal will be accepted by the "international community" which he unconsciously defined as that of US and its western allies .

CRamS garu... why do you think the US needs Pakistan to raise that "vile cacophony?"

The US has its own media, heard throughout the world, and allied media like the BBC. It has its universities (which is where most of that "Dalit"/"Gujarat Riot"/"Caste" stuff is disseminated anyway.) It has a hundred allies who will take its side over India's rather than demand that the USA should treat India as India wants to be treated. UQ, Canada, Australia, you name it... all of them could do the job of defaming India better than Pakistan, and with more credibility than Pakistan.

And they are already doing it. It's not as if that $hit would stop if Pakistan ceased to exist tomorrow.

[abhischekcc]

Meanwhile Afghanistan just got a whole lot more valuable.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world ... erals.html

WASHINGTON — The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.

For this mineral wealth to be harvested, they need a sea-port. If the US ever needed an economic rationale for a Balochistan and Pakhthoonistan, free from PakJabi control, they now have it.

It would be a disaster for the world if the Pakiban can start harvesting those trillions.

Take these pronouncements with $1T worth of salt

Remember who in US wants to leave (Obama & Co) and who wants to 'stay the course' (Pentagon, spooks, neo-cons, and Bush & Co). Then look at the subtext of who is saying what, in that article.

The vast scale of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth was discovered by a small team of Pentagon officials and American geologists.

There you have it. The agency which 'found' all these deposits (and a new reason to stay in Afghanistan), is the same agency that wants to do exactly that and direct the spending of 100s of billions of dollars worth of taxpayer money. Some generals are keen on building a cushy post retirement life by doling out favours now.
In this US behaviour, I see shades of how USSR was behaving during the last years of its Afghan war. Back then, everybody new the war was going to end, but everybody wanted a short tour to get medals, promotions, and become part of the 'Afghan' brotherhood (The alumni of officers who had served in Afghanistan), but I digress.


And here is the kicker

“There is stunning potential here,” Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the United States Central Command, said in an interview on Saturday.

So, the chief escalator is trumpetng another reason to stay in Afghanistan. But in the very next statement, he tries to cover his posterior:

“There are a lot of ifs, of course, but I think potentially it is hugely significant.”

So, if, like the legendary Iraqi WMDs, Afghani lithium *also* turns out to be horns on a donkey's head, this general can also turn back and say - but I told you it was ONLY a possibility.

The Pentagon task force has already started trying to help the Afghans set up a system to deal with mineral development.

So, the Generals are already moving to build an alliance for the supprot of the war.

The Pentagon is helping Afghan officials arrange to start seeking bids on mineral rights by next fall, officials said.

The idea is to build this alliance in enough time to oppose the withdrawal from Afghanistan.


This one is an interesting quote:

“This will become the backbone of the Afghan economy,” said Jalil Jumriany, an adviser to the Afghan minister of mines.

Jalil Jumriany is also the Head of Afghan Customs. Given what we know of the lawlessness and smuggling in that country, it can only mean he is deeply connected to the heroin rackets.
That he would support an American line itself is interesting.

------------

This report means a lot less than what is appears to be.

All depends on how Team Obama views this latest gamble from his juniors.

[Rangudu]

The LSE report is part of an effort by the non-ISI controlled elements of the Taliban to raise the costs for Pakistan in its double game. There has always been a wing of the Taliban, mostly older generation types who joined hands with the ISI sponsored group for expediency. They were the ones, led by Baradar, who were trying to cut side deals with Karzai. With Baradar out of play, I wonder who is the leader of this group now. Clearly someone issued orders for nine Taliban commanders to talk openly with a Brit.

[Suppiah]

Rangudu : we will know when nine guys get arrested over next few weeks and western media is full of how it is so clear TSP is cooperating with the West in nabbing these terrorists...

[Suppiah]

As we South Asians (== ) are fond of conspiracy theories, we have wonder why Unkil chose to release this trillion dollar gas balloon at this point. It is certainly not with the idea of waking everyone up and putting them on notice about what they discovered for themselves...

Is it to drive a wedge between TSP and Taliban? Or is it to get taller than mountain to rein in his bitch? Or is to encourage the split of Afghan so that each piece is manageable, like they did with East Timor and its oil deposits close to OZ?

[shiv]

"Conventional wisdom" on here is that Pakistan is a cog in the great game. Pakistan has been assigned various roles in that great game - one of them being the need to "keep India down" (in the possibly absurd assumption that India might not keep itself down )

With the Pakistan army being a willing partner one of the multiple tasks that were required by the US was total cooperation in keeping India in check. Nowhere in this calculation is there any sub-text that says that th Pakistan army can or should keep the US in check. But clearly that is what the Pakistan army is achieving.

If the Pakistan army is not cooperating with the US how on earth can the US use the Pakistan army to keep India in check? The answer to that is that the Pakistan army is merely raising its price for cooperation. They are telling the US "we need more money and more arms against India and we need India to be neutralised in various ways, and Kashmir handed to us"

Now here we have the picture of a US that is paying Pakistan to do a job (keep India in check) and Pakistan is asking the US to do more. The question that arises from here is whether a US that is not strong enough to compel the Pakistan army to do its bidding can compel India to shoot itself in the foot with no advantage to India and a big advantage to Pakistan and the US. In order to get "yes" as the answer to this question it is necessary to presuppose that Indian leaders are ready to sell India out. They are supposed to cave in to American demands, hand Kashmir to Pakistan on a platter, let India go to hell and let the US and its uncooperative partner have their way. Evidence in support of this version of the story is that the US consistently demands that India should talk to Pakistan and that settlement of the issues between India and Pakistan is a prerequisite to solving the Afghanistan-Taliban problem

But wait a minute! I thought India had no say in the Afghanistan issue and that Indian involvement or influence is not required. But here we are saying that India needs to hand Kashmir to Pakistan on a platter to solve the Af-Pak issue. Clearly, India is being handed a role in the Afghan issue, no matter how indirectly that role has appeared. By this viewpoint, it is now in India's hands. India gives away Kashmir and sells itself, and the Afghan problem is solved as the Pakistan army will then cooperate with a US that is too weak to make the Pakistan army cooperate.

There is a minor issue of credibility here. How come the US finds it so difficult to articulate the words "Give Kashmir to Pakistan" when it speaks to India. The same US that exchanged two buildings for two countries is now tippytoeing gingerly around the simplest solution to the Af_pak conflict and refuses even to say it. I mean the US with its power could surely wrest Kashmir from India and give it to Pakistan. So what's the difficulty in saying it out loud? Is it being hoped that a weak and willing Indian government will voluntarily understand the "winkwink nudgenudge" approach and hand Kashmir over to Pakistan. US citizens are dying every day. The war is 9 years old. Surely Delhi ought to be more cooperative? There must be something wrong in this assessment. The only thing I can say is that the US neither has the power to compel the Paki army to cooperate, nor does it have the power to compel Delhi to hand over Kashmir. If Kashmir is handed over, it will be an entirely voluntary act. It will not be US pressure - but we can talk about that when Kashmir is handed over.

The limits of US power in the region should surely set us thinking with more open minds. The US is not a weak nation. If its power is limited, it means that it is facing a powerful adversary. India too faces the same powerful adversary and India's powers, weaker than the US as they are, are also limited. But neither the US nor India have zero powers. Given this as background facts, where does it take us? Where does it take up in terms of US global dominance and where does it take us wrt to Af Pak.

More thoughts later. No time now.

[Gagan]

One can't but help drawing one obvious conclusion from these newspaper 'leaks' about ISI=Taliban, and the general tone and tenor and content of these reports. These news reports sound suspiciously like leaks by the respective intel agencies of the countries from where the reports originated. I note here that these have all appeared in a very short interval from each other, meaning that there is now a concerted effort that is afoot.

1. These reports point out that ISI=Taliban, meaning that it is a matter of time before public opinion in the west forces their governments to intervene more directly in pakistan to force the ISI to sever its links with the taliban.
I think we might be looking at a major purge of the ISI top leadership in the coming months, and their replacement with more western compliant individuals. These would be individuals who would have skeletons in their cupboards that the western intel agencies will ruthlessly exploit to ensure that the taliban are given up and eliminated.

2. More importantly, these news reports also include India and references to kashmir. I would appear that pakistan will have to be given a sop for all the blood letting that it will have to carry out within its borders as a result of the severing the taliban. It would appear that the local abduls and mullas will have to be mollified by the pakistani civil-military regime. The one sure and time tested way in which they have done this in the past and are sure to reapply themselves to in the future is to conduct a huge terrorist attack against India, rachet up terrorism in J&K with the aim to try and delay the internal operations against the taliban, citing increasing of tensions with India, and redirecting the jihad foot soldiers into J&K with a new mission.

3. The sudden bonhomie that the pakistani civil-military guys have been showing towards india, I had assumed as a temperory taquiya along the lines of Z A Bhutto to Indira Gandhi at shimla. They believe that their balls are in India's grasp with DCH-26/11 saga, and being nice and good to India will allow them to perhaps save the junior ISI officers, but for sure the involvement of the senior officers - perhaps Gen Kiyani and Shuja Pasha will be ignored by India as per some understanding.

But in light of the news reports, and also the fact that the Jihadi groups have announced water wars with India despite knowing well enough that their own country is responsible for the mess they are in.

I get the feeling, that the west just does not care if dark skinned Indians lose their lives; there is a certain level of recklessness in their actions wrt risking the lives of Indians to achieve their goals and to protect their interests. I'm afraid that we are looking at possible major terror attack in a metro city / increased infiltration of terrorists this summer, and terror attacks in J&K this summer.

[sanjaykumar]

America is not going to walk away. The weapons being used in Afghanistan literally have Biblical verses engraved on them.This is very much what Osama says it is. Britain, as a post Christian society can and will disengage. America is in it for generations, if American strength does not flag. The US will need India more than India needs the US.

America has a covenant with Christ, Islam has an imperative.
They are locked in a death embrace.

[Suppiah]

Another student martyred in Kyrgyztan - only she being she, not eligible for 72...

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... l-80-ss-05

And 500 are stranded there! Almost 1,500 in all of Kyrgyz!

Wonder how bad education in TSP must be to send kids to this country for schooling bit like going to Iraq for some peace and quiet...

[kittoo]

America is not going to walk away. The weapons being used in Afghanistan literally have Biblical verses engraved on them.This is very much what Osama says it is. Britain, as a post Christian society can and will disengage. America is in it for generations, if American strength does not flag. The US will need India more than India needs the US.

America has a covenant with Christ, Islam has an imperative.
They are locked in a death embrace.

But arent the blue states of US more like UK?

[SSridhar]

There is never a single silver bullet, if we are searching for one, in the US approach to Pakistan. This is normal behaviour of any nation-state. Since Pakistan is not a nation-state, it is obsessed only with India and its interactions with the US are conditioned by that mindset. Because it has a single track mindset, it looks at every situation through that prism and tries to derive advantage that in turn affects us.

Also, we cannot underestimate the power of Pakistan itself as an entity. This is the mistake, IMHO, we have made since 1947. Pakistan is formidable too. It is a large country, with a powerful army, powerful friends which are interested in keeping it afloat etc.

Besides, the Great Game concerns have not gone away in over 150 years and have continued to remain, even getting amplified. The strategy devised at that time by the British still remains the best bet, at least as per Western strategists. The place of Pakistan in that scheme of things is therefore secure. Pakistan stretches that lattitude to the limit and ever careful of not breaching it completely.

The political class in Pakistan and India are crooked. Both make huge illegal money. But, there is a big difference. The Indian political class has multiple ways of making money while in Pakistan, where everything is tied to India and the resultant 'security paradigm', the single largest avenue for making money is through 'security-related-foreign policy'. If a senior Congress minister in Mrs. Indira Gandhi's cabinet was willing to compromise India for USD 20000, one can imagine what the Pakistani leaders would be doing. The US-Pakistan nexus goes therefore very deep and better India-US relationship will not affect it, as we normally mistakenly expect. All the Pakistani political class, while being handmaiden of the US, cannot forsake their masses who are rabidly anti Indian and so they extract maximum advantage from the US for that purpose. More of the same goes for the Pakistani military leaders too.

The US realizes that while it dismantled the USSR, it is also getting weakened considerably. Its writ does not run as powerfully as it used to do before. So, it needs partners all over the world, even more so than before during Cold War. India is an emerging partner, but it is a 'reasonable partner', one with which it can reason out by engaging in logical dialogues. India also has a global and regional perspective, has stakes in many situations all over the world and its outlook is therefore not myopic. So, the US approach to India is different. The Pakistani approach is very different and so the US employs a different tactic there. India thinks that a benign and friendly US has to, at times, act in a manner that is tactically damaging to her but in a strategic sense it would be far more beneficial and hence it does not need to mind these issues. India is also thrown crumbs such as a N-deal, AESA radars, F-35s to prove the strategic friendship. I am convinced that the American administration has sold this approach of theirs to the Indians and bought their approval too. Hence the implicit faith by the present Indian administration in US manoeuvers.

[Philip]

Pakis start bullsh*tting about Taliban/ISI realtionship.The entire LSE pdf file is available at the Guardian website.Link.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world

Excerpts:

Pakistani president never met Taliban, officials sayReport that President Asif Ali Zardari met insurgents in a secret prison are 'nonsensical', president's office says
(3)Tweet this
Declan Walsh guardian.co.uk,

Pakistani officials have denounced claims by a British researcher that President Asif Ali Zardari secretly met with Taliban insurgents two months ago to assure them of his support and "friendship".

"This is a nonsensical report; it's absolutely wrong," said presidential spokesman Farhatullah Babar. "There has been no secret contact, no secret meeting. That would go against everything we stand for."

The claim is part of a report by Matt Waldman, a former Oxfam official, which claims that Pakistani intelligence is arming, training and funding Taliban insurgents to a far greater degree than previously alleged.

"Pakistan appears to be playing a double game of astonishing magnitude," said the report published by the London School of Economics today.

Based on interviews with unnamed Taliban commanders and western officials, Waldman says the Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) spy agency's influence over the insurgents is so pervasive that it enjoys representation on the Quetta shura, the leadership council directing the fighting. The ISI rejected the report as "a piece of rubbish". "It's speculative at best and downright degrading at worst," said an intelligence official with permission to speak to the press.

Equally striking is the report's claim of civilian collusion. Citing a Taliban source, Waldman says that in late March or early April, Zardari met 50 top-ranking Taliban members at a secret prison in Pakistan.

"You are our people, we are friends, and after your release we will of course support you to do your operations," he is quoted as saying. Three days later a dozen Taliban prisoners were released from the jail, the report says, adding that the incident demonstrates the policy of Taliban support "is approved at the highest level of Pakistan's civilian government".

However, analysts in Pakistan were more sceptical. "It doesn't make any sense to me. The last person the Taliban would want to see is Asif Zardari," said Ahmed Rashid, author of Taliban.

"There's deep suspicion, if not hatred, between the ISI and Zardari. They're not even remotely on the same page," said Cyril Almeida, an editorial writer with Dawn newspaper. "I'm sure there are back channel talks [with militants] but it would be extraordinary to expose Zardari to them."

Others said the report failed to understand a key principle of Pakistan's power dynamics: that the civilian government has ceded effective control of key foreign policy issues to the military in the last year.

"Everyone knows Zardari's no policy maker as far as the Taliban are concerned," said Talat Masood, a retired general and military analyst. "He's too shrewd to be caught in such a compromise."

Waldman said his source did not directly witness the Zardari visit, but was "extremely well connected and extremely reliable". He said: "It could have been to reinforce the efforts of the ISI, to demonstrate the commitment of the state to their activities."

The controversial report comes at a sensitive point in the Afghan war, as the summer fighting season gets into full swing amid speculation of possible peace talks with the Taliban.

Since 2001, thousands of Afghans and 1,800 foreign troops - 295 of them British - have died. The war is costing the US government $70bn a year, according to latest congressional figures.

Claims that Pakistan's military is operating a "good Taliban/bad Taliban" policy, secretly colluding with the Afghan insurgents, are nothing new, but none has gone as far as the LSE report, which is based on interviews in several provinces.

One Taliban commander alleges that his fighters receive $120 per month from Pakistan; another details how an ISI trainer taught him to make suicide vests and car bombs in Waziristan in 2005. Others say the ISI has up to seven representatives on the Quetta shura. The ISI influence was "as clear as the sun in the sky", says one commander.

Waldman said the militant spoke frankly because they see themselves as nationalists and were ashamed of their reliance on the ISI.

Pakistani officials point to the price their country has paid in fighting militancy. Several thousand soldiers and civilians have died in recent years at the hands of the "Pakistani Taliban" – local militants who target the state. In February, the ISI arrested the Taliban deputy commander Mullah Barader in Karachi, although Afghan officials said it was part of a ploy to scupper nascent peace talks.

The ISI official admitted its agents fostered contacts with militant groups. But, he said, "to say that we are sitting in their council, directing them and playing a double game, hurts me a lot, given the price we have paid".

If proven, ISI collusion with the Taliban would be a major embarrassment for Pakistan's western allies. The US has given Pakistan $12bn in military aid since 2001; Britain's intelligence services work closely with the ISI. Last December the US secretary of state Hilary Clinton spoke codedly of a "trust deficit" between the two countries.

Inter-Services Intelligence agency: Long links to insurgents

Sometimes described as a "state within a state", the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate is in fact a tightly-disciplined arm of the Pakistani military, involved in civilian politics, Islamist militancy and foreign affairs.

The ISI was created by a British army officer in 1948, but came to prominence in the 1980s when it was the conduit for at least $6bn in US and Saudi covert funds for mujahideen guerrillas fighting Soviet forces in Afghanistan.

In the 1990s, the ISI turned Islamist fighters into an effective weapon against Indian forces in Kashmir, and interfered heavily in electoral politics, mostly against Benazir Bhutto. It also helped to push the Taliban to power in Afghanistan.

Since 2001, the agency has officially renounced its ties with Islamist militants, but has quietly retained some favourites, including, controversially, Lashkar-e-Taiba, whose militants carried out the 2008 bombings in Mumbai.
The ISI's current chief, Lieutenant General Shuja Pasha, was due to retire last March, but received a one-year extension – a reflection of his close relationship with the army chief, General Ashfaq Kayani, who is himself a former head of the spy agency.

[durvasa]

Another student martyred in Kyrgyztan - only she being she, not eligible for 72...

Wonder how bad education in TSP must be to send kids to this country for schooling bit like going to Iraq for some peace and quiet...

She is probably killed by fellow TFTA Pakis. Riots just provide a good cover to a good honest Paki!

However, we can not blame Pakis for their lack of tenacity. They try to spread their poison everywhere - India, China, Afgan, US, UQ, Australia, Russia and now even Kyrgyz!! Pakistan is the Soylent Stateof the world!

[pran]

After the tora-bora thumping of talibunnies, one of BR's finest(n^3) made a analysis about Mullah Omar being a serving brigadier in the paki army. The latest news report about the 7 serving paki army personnel being on the boards is consistent with the analysis. The kunduz airlift is proving to be a costly mistake for the americans. The airlift episode still remain murky.

[Gagan]

The US is extremely wary of turning its allies into foes. The relationship with Iran and the enemity after the revolution there colours the US's perspective to this day.
Now today, if the US had really good relations with the Iranians, there would be less trouble in the middle east, there would be no taliban / al quaida in afghanistan, the entire region would be at a much higher level of peace than it is.

Even with the af-pak problem now, the US would have really really liked to have Iran as an ally, as this would have solved nearly all the logistic problems that the US faces. Pakistan would have fallen in line very quickly, realizing that the US can just dump it altogether, compared to now, when the pakistani realize that there is no alternative for the US other than to appease pakistan with the full knowledge that the ISI/Pak Army is the institution that is directly responsible for US soldiers losing lives in Af-Pak, possibly the institution indirectly responsible for 9/11.

In view of the above two, the US will NOT give up Pakistan, it will NOT allow the mullahs to take over. That means that the Pakistan army will continue to receive moral and diplomatic (and military support) from the US. {This is along the same lines as "moral and diplomatic support" that we come across frequently - consider the Jihadi Pakistani Army as a terrorist movement that the US and the west lends "moral and diplomatic support to"}. The US will retain that hyena, and continue to feed its own hard earned money and blood in order to nurse it to health, because the US doesn't want that hyena to be its enemy and that the US wants to retain the gratitude of that hyena so that the US can use it in the future. The most important thing to note is that the Hyena is useful to the US only if it remains a hyena. It loses its value if it becomes domesticated and upwardly mobile. Which is why I sometimes feel that the current situation in Pakistan is the end game for the forseeable future. There is going to be no exit for the US from Afghanistan, there is going to be no end to the IED mubaraks in Pakistan, there is going to be no end to the taliban attacks on the US forces in afghanistan or the Reaper drone attacks in Pakistan.

So pakistan and its jihadi infrastructure and internal strife and poverty that provides the foot soldiers will be preserved. Pakistan will itself be preserved and nurtured just about to the level so that it doesn't auto destruct. That country will continue to be a pain in india's neck.

The only redeeming thing here is, that pakistan is a pain to the US and china too.

[Gagan]

A bit of non-news news:
Turkey to support Pakistan for UN Security Council seat
Now before you start going and over the headline, read further on...

ISTANBUL: Turkey will support Pakistan’s candidacy for a non-permanent seat of the UN Security Council, Turkish President Abdullah Gul said during a meeting with Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi on Wednesday.

And what prompted this act of magnanimity on Turkey's part hain?

* Turkish leader thanks Pakistan for support over Gaza flotilla raid issue

[Pranav]

Taliban could become part of Afghan set-up: David Axelrod - http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... -460-hh-07

[ajit_tr]

Hafiz Saeed rubs shoulders with party chiefs in Lahore


Religious leaders sit on the Israel, US and Indian flags placed by supporters of banned religious party Jamat-ud-Dawa during an anti Israeli and its allies rally in Lahore on Sunday, June 13, 2010. - Photo by AP.

LAHORE: Hafiz Saeed stood alongside several top leaders of the mainstream religious parties on Sunday as his Jamaatud Dawa held a march from Nasser Bagh to Charing Cross, on The Mall, to express solidarity with Palestinians and condemn Israeli atrocities.

Syed Munawar Hasan, the Amir of Jamaat-i-Islami, Senator Sajid Mir of Jamiat Ahl-i-Hadith, Hafiz Husain Ahmed of Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam and Hameed Gul, a former chief of the Inter-Services Intelligence, were also present.

[anupmisra]

In case you thought you had consigned the glorious memories of Botox "Bebe" Pinky to history's dustbins, here's a reminder: Bhutto: The Film. Don't overlook the blonde paki at around 1:10.

[anupmisra]

PAKPATTAN CITY NEWS

Police on Sunday booked Sadar police SHO for stealing a buffalo worth Rs 35,000 at Chak Ameer Sohara. Accused SHO Tahir Waheed along with other policemen entered the house of Jannat Bibi and allegedly stole her buffalo.

Police on Sunday arrested nine drunkards in separate incidents here.

[Brad Goodman]

For me what is important is that I was born in a country called Pakistan and then had opportunities available to me that I would never even have dreamed of if I was an Indian Muslim. I know that it is not proper to generalise based upon a few interactions with Indian Muslims, but I must admit most of them that I met in the US are quite envious of us Pakistani Muslims.
As I attended the convocation of King Edward Medical University in its 150th year as a medical institution, I sat in the famous ‘Library Hall’ and looked around the walls that have the pictures of all the former principals, there is not one Muslim who was principal until after the partition of India. And if I looked on the walls in the hallway where all the medal winners over the years are listed, I would have a hard time finding a single Muslim name before 1947.Essentially, at least for those Muslims of British India that ended up in Pakistan and now in Pakistan as well as Bangladesh, things could have been a lot worse. If they were still living in a ‘united’ India where Muslims would at best have been a frequently discriminated against minority, it is unlikely that they would have made any serious progress as members of a Muslim minority.Now we all know that in many countries in Europe and in Israel, Muslim populations are increasing at a rapid rate compared to the non-Muslims and as such in time will become large minorities and in Israel possibly even a majority if the Palestinian territories are not separated from the rest of Israel. But in India it is highly unlikely that Muslims could have or even now become a larger or more influential minority.

Thank you Mr Jinnah
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.as ... 2010_pg3_2

Questions for this paki doctor working in kaffir land far away from his momeen brothers (sisters not applicable since women are never sisters for pakis and then they are never treated medically since they are expendible). Working to better health of kafir society when they fall sick so that they regain health and then use droneacharya to send mujahids to meet their 72. Is that why Jinnah give you KEM college and pakhanastan?

He also says in article Indian muslims envy pakis. He has seen many such envious IM's in massaland. Now he can live in his self generated fantasy no kaamments from me here. Just to add to his list of envious IM of pakis would be Azim Premji, SRK, Azaruddin, Pathan Brothers etc would give their hand and foot to migrate to paki lands. I dont know the stats but does any one know how many IM's cross borders to get to pakhanastan every year. Last I know we have 1 crore east pakistanis in India and over 200000 west pakistanis overstaying their visa?

Now paki is sheding tears about not seeing a single muslim principal or very few muslim students in hall of fame at KEM so he is happy that jinnah saved him from yevil yindoo baniya's who would have kept him poor. So this self professed history student thinks Indians (read yindoos) were controlling pakjab & india before 1947. May be true in madarsa history books this is true but all others think it was yevil kuffar Brits who were ruling all of us.

Last to sum it up. If this jihadi is so happy that muslims got opportunity to do something because jinnah freed them from yindoos then why is he depriving the same opportunity to those jelous IM's he met where ever (perhaps he must have met them in some jihadi training camp in pakhanastan) Looks to me like a wanna be faisal sehzaad in massa land.

[Singha]

the guy in the center sitting on the flag looks more like iranian shiite cleric ! muqtada al sadr comes to mind.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/ReligiousWar/alSadr.jpg