The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 06 Mar 2011 05:37

VikramS:

sorry to say this, but i have never seen a more erroneous description/definition of the Anglosphere. the anglosphere is, at the most basic level, a geopolitical construct designed to maximize the influence of the Anglo culture/countries. it has nothing to do with values. let me repeat that: it has absolutely nothing to do with values. the whole artificial nonsense about common/shared values of freedom/liberty/etc is just a white washed version that was created for the common Johns and Joes to get them on board. the fundamental basis of the "Anglosphere" is an imperialistic belief in domination of the world via various alliances and control of the major power centers of the world.

it absolutely essential that we understand the foundation of the Anglo/British imperialism is to dominate and not some great quest for spreading values.....religion/social/cultural issues are used as an excuse or as weapons to justify their actions; but they are not the major motive. the motive is control-dominate-enslave/bend-to-their-will.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 06 Mar 2011 06:32

^^^Which is why in a burst of anglospheric solidarity, unkil actively worked to loosen Ukstani grip on Yindia pre'47, refused to support UKstan in the '56 suez crisis and etc etc.

Point being, there may really be nothing called the anglosphere, or as sri shiv once memorably called it, the 'unglisphere'. Nothing more than constructs of convenience only, like the 'concert of democracies' unkil's military wants to keep exercising with in Asia. Am sure one can likewise argue India's an integral part of any such concerted concert and all.

Another description of this anglosphere vs sinosphere, esp in the economic sphere is the so-called 'washington consensus' (western, IMF backed neoliberal policy mafia that in the guise of free-marketism makes a resource grab of target countries while sowing indebtedness and volatility) versus the 'Beijing consensus' (another way to make a grab at target country resources but without the preachy free-market moralism).

Anyway, what's the point and all that. India should engage or divest itself of int'l relations solely on the basis of enlightened self-interest only. Period.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Mar 2011 07:07

VikramS wrote:shivji:
(1) The =/= between the F-16 and a SAM is disingenuous.

Not just disingenuous. Stupid. But posted as a return compliment. Not aimed at anything you said. Usually best ignored and left where it is without drawing more attention to it. It is meant to draw people into an unwinnable argument that serves only to deviate from the subject. Many analogies do a similar job and get people pointlessly arguing over the analogy. You really should not fall for a dungpile that is inviting someone to throw a stone at it so it can splash itself all over him. But it illustrates the "dead end" nature of arguments that ask "How many people have been killed or affected by US supplied F-16s to Pakistan?". The question is unanswerable and is only drawing the unwary into a trap.

It amazes me how debates such as these are full of inadvertent or deliberate rhetorical innuendo and traps that lead on to a battle of egos. I enjoy spotting them and using them especially on people who themselves use such "tools of debate" deliberately or inadvertently on everyone else.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Mar 2011 08:10

For those who do not know or choose to forget, this video of a Pakistani army parade is from 1996, a time when, I am told, the Pakistanis had been forgotten by the US.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OolWmxYaBkY
This is one of twelve videos - am looking for others that are relevant wrt US/Chinese made arms.

The specific offensive US made weapons on display are:

M113 Armored personnel carriers with TOW missiles
Cobra heliocpter gunships armed with TOW missiles and 20 mm cannon
Self propelled 155 mm US made M-109 Howitzers (155 mm artillery)

Also on display 122 mm rockets and HATF missiles.

"Defensive weapons" Oerlikon 35 mm AA guns slaved to Skyguard radar, Giraffe radar, mobile bridges.

This was a "weak" Pakistan with loss of US support.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 06 Mar 2011 09:10

deveshji, Acharyaji:
My understanding of Anglosphere is clearly very different from yours. Perhaps this thread is not appropriate for me to learn more about that perspective.

shivji:
When were those weapons procured (the once shown in 1996)?

Anyway, I feel I have outlined the concerns I have with regards to a Sino take-over of the TSP. As RajeshA put it, at the end of the day it is India which needs to take care of her business.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 06 Mar 2011 12:53

shiv wrote:Not just disingenuous. Stupid. But posted as a return compliment. Not aimed at anything you said. Usually best ignored and left where it is without drawing more attention to it. It is meant to draw people into an unwinnable argument that serves only to deviate from the subject.

Its interesting how marginal utility (and cost) is a concept so forgotten in the dust and mist of rhetorical debate...

Taliban (or TTP) would be gratified to know that the marginal utility of a SAM system to them is the same as that of a dozen F16s to the Pak military - conversely, the marginla costs to US/Pak political objectives of a SAM to Talib/TTP is the same as that to India of a dozen new Paki F16s! So a coupled of TTP-downed aircraft haas the same impact on the TTP-Pak strategic equations as an extra squadron of F16s flying missions against the Western Air command...Maybe thats why our policy-makers behave the way they do?

that however, brings the really substantive question, why not indeed? Why isnt it that India is not tryign to cultivate the TTP...Through supply of SAMs if necessary...We have done with the Bangladeshis before, by all accounts we have tried with the Balochs and Sindhis...Why not cultivate the TTP? after all, they present a greater threat to Pak than either the Balochs or the Sindhis?

The answer is substantially that the Paki esgtablishment really doesnt have all that much daylight between them and TTP..Virulent as they might be today, the TTP will comfortably coopt themselves with the Pak army/intel, as long as one condition is satisfied...And that is, exit of the US from the region...None of the essential objetives of the TTP-types are all that incongruent with those of the Paki Army establishment - the only queering pitch is the US objectves that is forcing the Paki hand in some matters....

If the US goes, adn China replces it as the banker to Pak, conditions will turn for the "best" for the Paki establishemnt...China isnt going to have US-style poltiical objectives..Its interests, and its style will be largely mercantile - not least because the scope of their objetvies is more limited than the US....

chinese money, chinese weapons and a reconciled TTP - dream end state for Kayani....

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 06 Mar 2011 13:03

If the US goes, adn China replces it as the banker to Pak, conditions will turn for the "best" for the Paki establishemnt...China isnt going to have US-style poltiical objectives..Its interests, and its style will be largely mercantile - not least because the scope of their objetvies is more limited than the US....

Is China going to have same friends in arab, afghan countries, power over friends, power over India, fleets in Indian ocean etc...

What is the effect of Pakistan losing western support in UN and other fora and they supporting India? The US support to Pakistan runs through this whole structure. What happens when we can get to afghanistan through iran or CAR?? If US goes, consider Japan also goes, also consider Soudi which are dependent on US to be jittery. So that is 2 1/2 friends. Is China going to replace all of them?

in short, what do you mean by "replace"? The money support is 1 part though a very important part of the sugar daddy role which US plays.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 06 Mar 2011 19:27

^^^Ravi_ku-ji, just because the US loses interest and scoots from the region isnt going to mean that they suddenly become "pro India" or "anti Pak"...They are still going to deal with Pak (and India) in terms of whatever interests they have at that time..the point is different - if (and thats a BIG "if") the US goes, the Pak establishment suddenly solves a lot of its problems...It recovers its "strategic assets" in Af, the antagonism with TTP-types melt away, and it has an alternative bankroller in China, one that doesnt have the baggage and agenda of the US...

At the same time, the situation for China too becomes propitious...It gains access to the Arabian sea, an access that is protectd by a loyal Paki guard who is up for sale, and one that doesnt have the erstwhile issues with the TTP-types...Thanks to the Pak link, China gains leverage in Af as well, as the primary "funds provider" for all of Pak's adventures there...

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 06 Mar 2011 20:31

devesh wrote:
The US has to be made to see India's growth as strengthening the Anglosphere rather than challenging it.
that is a contradictory statement. the "Anglosphere" is modeled on British Imperialism. and British Imperialism was the greatest threat to Bharata Varsha in the past 500 years. the only way that India can strengthen the Anglosphere is by becoming a poodle to the Anglosphere. there are no half steps here. either become a poodle or keep a spine.

By Anglosphere, I do not mean a imperial construct. More like all the peoples who play cricket

It is also countries that do not have to ban facebook and twitter, do not meet protestors with tanks, do not jail dissidents, and so on, you get the drift.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 06 Mar 2011 21:01

^^^ if that is what you mean...then there is no need to show that as an example of "Anglo-values." the above are Indian values with a long history of openness to support them. the Anglo "values" are recent one and also an artificial construct. why would we want to categorize Indian under a recent/temporary/convenient ideology when we ourselves have the roots of said ideology over a span of thousands of years....long before Britannia was even conquered by the Germanic tribes!!!

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 06 Mar 2011 21:11

now that a discussion of Anglosphere has come up, i think it would be a good idea to learn how Britain was able to bring America into its sphere via the whole common culture, etc. in the 19th century if there was one country that American were paranoid about, it was Britain. if there was one foreign capital that they really loathed, it was London. it is amazing how a coordinated social engineering was undertaken by British imperialists and the Anglophiles in the American establishment to slowly wean off this distaste for Britain's imperial/aristocratic culture from the American people. men like William Jennings Bryan and later in the pre-WWII period many politicians were very active in their opposition of America adapting the same institutions as UK. Bryan especially thought it was his duty to act the heir to Andrew Jackson in opposing all things British.

i'm trying to learn more about this but there seems to be a serious lack of research in this viewpoint.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 06 Mar 2011 21:17

^^^ Well, another feature, which will continue for some time, is the use of English as the international language.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Mar 2011 10:05

The paper below suggests that India has been cooperating with the US as desired by some opinions expressed on here. And that cooperation is bringing us no joy.

If cooperating with the US brings no joy what is the exact rationale for worrying that China will be worse than the US and that the current bad scenario for India is the one we must accept as good just because the US isthought to be more benign?

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers ... r4360.html

With the US military intervention in Afghanistan vitally dependant on logistics lines through Pakistan, the Pakistan Army was provided a new weapon for use against India. The United States was now susceptible to Pakistan Army blackmail for use of US pressures on India to be accommodative to Pakistan Army stances on the Kashmir issue, demilitarization of Kashmir and prevent India's political and economic involvement in Afghanistan.

The Pakistan Army strategy of blackmailing USA to pressurize India has been successful with the present Government in New Delhi repeatedly succumbing to resume dialogues with Pakistan after every major terrorist attack against India, unmindful of India's national security interests.

Pakistan's five manifestations of its hostile stances against India spelt out above did not cease despite Indian Government's succumbing to US dictates favoring Pakistan. In fact Pakistan Army since 2007 has stood further emboldened under General Kayani to be more hostile to India secure in the belief of Pakistan's nuclear deterrence and United States keeping India pressurized against any retaliation against Pakistan.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 07 Mar 2011 10:18

VikramS wrote:deveshji, Acharyaji:
My understanding of Anglosphere is clearly very different from yours. Perhaps this thread is not appropriate for me to learn more about that perspective.

Once the Indian elite de colonize their mind then all the the anglo sphere influence and illusions inside India disappears.
English language is just a world link language which Indian have to start owning it for itself by choice.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 07 Mar 2011 10:30

somnath,

There is a reason why India and all those countries behave in a certain manner with US.
- Diego garcia & other fleets.

Military power backing is a very very big motivator.

US was lucky that it inherited many of those bases from UK. China will have to fight for each of those bases to gain such power. So China's bases in arabian sea except may be gwadar, mmmm is remote. Any back up ship from China will have to cross ....

You seem to be thinking that the replacement is 1-1 wrt US and China, when US leaves.

Nope, it is a completely different ball game altogether and many of the present "rules" will not apply.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 07 Mar 2011 11:21

ravi_ku wrote:You seem to be thinking that the replacement is 1-1 wrt US and China, when US leaves.

Not at all, quite to the contrary...I dont think anyone can/will do a 1:1 on international relationships..Thats not the point..

The point is that for the Paki establishment, what are its "core" motivations:

1. Influence in Af.
2. Money for free
3. Conventional weapons for free if possible
4. Kashmir

China is well positioned, with enough motivations of its own to "satisfy" all the above...

With US gone, the incongruence between the TTP/Taliban-types and the Pak Army will largely be academic...Which will immediately bring a certain measure of "peace" intrnally while rescucitating the strategic deph in Af...China will come in with money and weapons...As also material support on Kashmir, given that China itself has things to gain from its possession of territory in PoK..

China, in turn gains a route to the Arabian sea that breaks its dependence on the Straits of Malacca, where India can choke it off...Plus, a realtively stronger Pak at relative peace with itself is a greater asset in "counter balancing" India than a volatile, on-the-precipice Pak..

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 07 Mar 2011 14:30

Acharya wrote:
VikramS wrote:deveshji, Acharyaji:
My understanding of Anglosphere is clearly very different from yours. Perhaps this thread is not appropriate for me to learn more about that perspective.
Disclaimer: OT

Once the Indian elite de colonize their mind then all the the anglo sphere influence and illusions inside India disappears.
English language is just a world link language which Indian have to start owning it for itself by choice.

India is an Anglophone country, and everybody in India should feel comfortable with the English language, however the effort should be that one is just as good, if not better, with another Indian language, perhaps the Indian citizen's mother language.

As far as Anglosphere is concerned, speaking for myself, I don't mind, if others in the Anglosphere consider India to be a part of it and in fact often claim that to be the case. I also don't mind, those who market Brand India, if they choose to use India being part of the Anglosphere as a marketing pitch. But India and Indians should know that our destiny is independent of the Anglosphere, and we owe nothing to it, to its preservation or to its prosperity.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Mar 2011 19:24

somnath wrote:
ravi_ku wrote:You seem to be thinking that the replacement is 1-1 wrt US and China, when US leaves.
Not at all, quite to the contrary...I dont think anyone can/will do a 1:1 on international relationships..Thats not the point..

The point is that for the Paki establishment, what are its "core" motivations:

1. Influence in Af.
2. Money for free
3. Conventional weapons for free if possible
4. Kashmir

China is well positioned, with enough motivations of its own to "satisfy" all the above...

With US gone, the incongruence between the TTP/Taliban-types and the Pak Army will largely be academic...Which will immediately bring a certain measure of "peace" intrnally while rescucitating the strategic deph in Af...China will come in with money and weapons...As also material support on Kashmir, given that China itself has things to gain from its possession of territory in PoK..

China, in turn gains a route to the Arabian sea that breaks its dependence on the Straits of Malacca, where India can choke it off...Plus, a realtively stronger Pak at relative peace with itself is a greater asset in "counter balancing" India than a volatile, on-the-precipice Pak..

Tough for India. We're going to have to live with China in Pakistan. But I would be quite happy to see this come to pass. I think too many things will go wrong and that is why I love dire predictions. I sincerely hope the US moves out - allowing this to happen. It would certainly make a change from what we have had for a long time. After all if it is going to happen it is going to happen and India is not, in my view, going to lift a finger to help the US apart from the usual Indian bleats, appeals and dossiers.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 07 Mar 2011 19:34

Just adding to the list!

shiv wrote:What can America verifiably, irrevocably and reliably do for India, to get India to support America? Homilies that there are no permanent friends or enemies will be assumed by me to mean that "America can do nothing for India. America will do nothing for India. America needs to do nothing for India"

Is America doing anything for India? If so what?

What America is doing for India:

America is keeping Pakistan's main jihadi operations focussed on Afghanistan and against America, instead of against India. This Afghanistan focus is allowing India to keep a certain level of political and social stability in India and to grow economically and otherwise.
The inducement of aid and good relations with the West, has encouraged Pakistan to act a little more sensitive to world opinion and thus to keep its export of terrorism to India in check. And regardless of Mumbai 26/11 and all the other acts of terrorism, IMHO, the potential for terrorism in India is far larger. Many would disagree with this point, but IMHO, I think, Pakistan is being forced to keep up its mask, tying up one of its hands.
Through American involvement in the region, Pakistan is not being allowed to either depend on China fully, nor to take dictation from China completely, nor to make all its services available to China exclusively, as its resources are tied elsewhere for other purposes. This too facilitates a higher level of political security in India.
American actions in Afghanistan, is directly responsible for the Talibanization of Pakistan, TTP, Punjabi Taliban sprouted only after America entered Afghanistan. This means there is internal strife in Pakistan, thus keeping the anti-India establishment on tenter-hooks.
Anti-Americanism is slowly replacing anti-Indianism as the most potent hate in Pakistan.
Could it be that America has been bribing India in its own way, not to spoil its party in Afghanistan. USA wanted to have Pakistani troops on its Western border, and wished that India does not increase the tensions on the Eastern border, on her own initiative or as reaction to some provocation! Could the Indo-US Civil Nuclear Agreement be a child of such considerations?! I don't know! So could it be that the next Mumbai Terror Attack would get GoI an UNSC Permanent Seat for our restraint?! This is some food for thought for Pakistan!
Anti-Americanism has led to a rift between the people and the establishment. It has reinvigorated anti-American jihadis, made them resist government control, and in fact increase the level of instability in Pakistan. This has had the side-effect that investments have stayed away, and the government has been distracted from development. Pakistan GDP growth in 2009-2010 was around 2%. Despite American money flowing in, the ensuing instability is still keeping Pakistani growth low!

I know, that by offering to play the devil's advocate, I am inviting a lot of missiles!

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 07 Mar 2011 19:55

shiv wrote:Tough for India. We're going to have to live with China in Pakistan. But I would be quite happy to see this come to pass. I think too many things will go wrong and that is why I love dire predictions. I sincerely hope the US moves out - allowing this to happen.

Thats an interesting thought..So having a superpower in the Af-Pak region that is deeply in bed with us (and is at least half-even-handed as a result) is a lesser option than having a wannabe superpower whose main rival in Asia is India (and which has clear, obvious and reasonably transparent reasons to cut India down to size)!

Ashley Tellis once made an interesting observation - India acts as a sponge for the world (esp America) in absorbing the worst elements of jihadi terror coming out of Pak...In some ways, the reverse is true for the US too...The presence of the US, and US objectives in Af make them a greater enemy of the soldiers of Allah there...India has been relegated to a poor second position in status...So the US is acting a sponge to absorb the hatred/attention of the jihadis away from India!

I dont think anyone knows the "end state" really..Certainly not us, and doesnt seem like the pros do either...But from a our perspective, a Pak constantly on the precipice and hence pre-occupied is a few hundred times preferable to one that is realtviely stable...For all the talk from our policy makers about the benefits of a "stable" Pak, the fact is that an eternally unstable Pak works out quite well for us....Today, the big factor that causes the instability is the presence of the US in the region..

RajeshA-ji, substantially agree with that list...I would go as far as saying that anti-Americanism is ALREADY bigger than anti-Indianism in Pak..Which is great for us! But the Paki elite cannot be expected to "take" all this "punishment" for free..Hence some dollies of support have to be given - Kerry Lugar and F16s (I know it is a bee in the bonnet reference to some peopl

) are the bribes to sustain US presence...Enough to keep the arrangement going, but far below the threshold of upgrading Paki capacities in a big way...

Forget the nuke deal, is it just a coincidence (or a sudden sharpening of our CI efforts) that islamist violence directed at India have shown such a secular decline? (certainly since 2008, but also from an earlier period - 2008 was marred realy by that one 26/11 attack)...

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 07 Mar 2011 20:29

X-Posted from Managing Pakistan's failure Thread

Without wanting to make it an issue of preference between a U.S. in Pakistan or China in Pakistan, I would like to pose a thought.

America pays Pakistan just enough for Pakistan to stay above water, and keep breathing! An official economic growth of 2% in 2009 is almost a negative growth for a country whose official population growth was around 1.95%!

India is growing strongly these years, and some are expecting Indian GDP growth rate to surpass China's in 2012. We talk about the lost decade of the 80s, when we talk of trailing China because they started their reforms a decade or so earlier. Can something similar be happening between India and Pakistan. Whereas India hurtles up ahead, Pakistan remains stuck in the quicksand. We are steadily putting distance between India and Pakistan. The more distance we put the better.

Now this isn't just about economy! This is about time! A better economy would also allow India a better military preparedness too, to develop better weapon systems.

Now I am not saying I've made up my mind on the above theory, that we are getting time, if America keeps Pakistan "pinned down". I still am not sure whether considering our lack of any initiative against Pakistan, considering that we don't have a game in Pakistan at the moment, whether a Pakistan pinned down is not better, than a Pakistan failing. Pakistan's failure is just another word for Pakistan's transformation.

As we are not in driving seat of that transformation, I don't know whether it is more desirable than status quo, a Pakistan, that is "pinned down" by America.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Mar 2011 21:12

somnath wrote:But from a our perspective, a Pak constantly on the precipice and hence pre-occupied is a few hundred times preferable to one that is realtviely stable...For all the talk from our policy makers about the benefits of a "stable" Pak, the fact is that an eternally unstable Pak works out quite well for us....Today, the big factor that causes the instability is the presence of the US in the region..

The US wants stability in Pakistan, not instability. Nothing that the US has done in Pakistan has been aimed at deliberately destabilizing Pakistan. Funding them, arming them, mollycoddling them, making them allies", reducing the "India threat" for them, everything but everything that the US has done in Pakistan has been aimed at stabilizing Pakistan. But yet, after all the effort that has gone in to help Pakistan, it has become more unstable.

Does the US know that Pakistan is more unstable now than before. Yes. Does the US want to reduce that instabilty by whatever means that it can lay its hands on? Yes. Does the US realise that its very presence in Pakistan is aggravating instability in Pakistan? Yes.

Why doesn't the US simply pull out then? After all that will achieve what Pakistan desires as well as what the US knows is true. That is because the US got into this mess in order to stabilize Afghanistan. Not to destabilize Pakistan. As urban Afghanistan was artificially stabilised by the US and ISAF forces - the destabilizing forces in Afghanistan, many of whom were Pakistani in the first place went back to Pakistan and started destabilizing Pakistan. Well they did not start destabilize Pakistan initially, but they used their sanctuaries in Pakistan to make life miserable for the US while Pakistan milked the US for transit fees.

The US of course has been extraordinarily stupid and does not have a clue how to get out of this mess. Pakistan hopes that the US will simply tire and pull out. That will allow Afghanistan to be destabilised again. directly. No matter how much strategic depth Pakistan gains in Afghanistan, it will get them nothing more out of India. Afghanistan became a global problem at the tail end of the anti-India insurgency in Kashmir and as Kashmir was consolidated, Pakistan shifted its tactic to attacks all over India rather than the usual Kashmir infiltration which is all but closed now. Fatalities in Kashmir peaked in 2001 and have only declined since then. But following the September 2001 attacks there were deadly attacks in London, Madrid, Indonesia and other countries. The stabilization of Afghanistan did not prevent these attacks - many of which were traced back to Pakistan.

Terrorism all over India in fact increased from 2001 till 2008 when it peaked. It is only after 2008 that there has been a relative lull. It was always Pakistan that was the problem, not Afghanistan. But the US has painted itself into a corner. It has claimed that it wants a "stable Afghanistan" but has never admitted that Pakistan is the problem. Pakistan is still a US ally.

For the US, Pakistan is a political bomb. The US is finding it extraordinarily difficult to name Pakistan as the problem despite all the evidence. The US has basically failed in the aims set out after 9-11 an is now looking for a face-saving exit. If the US can save face - it will exit. The so called "peace in India due to US presence in Pak and the ensuing chaos" is a myth. That "peace" has been there only relatively true since 2008 - punctuated by two major terrorist attacks after 2008. It would be extraordinarily stupid if India had to rely on a bumbling aimless US to cause unintentional, unplanned and deeply regretted (by the US) chaos in Pakistan to have peace in India. The US is a bumbling giant that may turn tail and go any time. India will have to manage whatever happens after that China or no China.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 07 Mar 2011 22:28

shiv wrote:
The US wants stability in Pakistan, not instability. Nothing that the US has done in Pakistan has been aimed at deliberately destabilizing Pakistan. Funding them, arming them, mollycoddling them, making them allies", reducing the "India threat" for them, everything but everything that the US has done in Pakistan has been aimed at stabilizing Pakistan.

One agency guy in khanland told me that Pakistan should be given a chance in democracy.
Me and my desi friends were smiling.This implies that they were indifferent before.

Why doesn't the US simply pull out then? After all that will achieve what Pakistan desires as well as what the US knows is true. That is because the US got into this mess in order to stabilize Afghanistan. Not to destabilize Pakistan. As urban Afghanistan was artificially stabilised by the US and ISAF forces - the destabilizing forces in Afghanistan, many of whom were Pakistani in the first place went back to Pakistan and started destabilizing Pakistan. Well they did not start destabilize Pakistan initially, but they used their sanctuaries in Pakistan to make life miserable for the US while Pakistan milked the US for transit fees.

Af Pak toggles with Pak Af

The US of course has been extraordinarily stupid and does not have a clue how to get out of this mess.

This notion that US has not much choice should be dismissed. The current plan is the make sure that not much chaos happens. The main reason is the the generation which is going to retire in US wants a stable economic picture for the next 2 decades. Any major war in the region or global will stretch the budget. With other countries unwilling to share the mess this is no go

But in the event of extreme situation they will allow a India Pakistan war which could reduce the pressure on the ISAF forces and give some needed man power to tackle the jihad elements inside PA. This is the ultimate triumph card for the AF PAK situation. Foreign affairs magazine in the last few years describe similar narrative saying that Pakistan will always fight India and other players in the region. This is taken as an opportunity by the US policymakers to feed on it and exploit when they need it.

But the US has painted itself into a corner. It has claimed that it wants a "stable Afghanistan" but has never admitted that Pakistan is the problem. Pakistan is still a US ally.

I have found out some sentimental reason with the US mil types who have close connection with the Afghan wars in the 80s. Some of them are in the US congress and US senate. They feel that US has a responsibility to help Pakistan since they feel responsible for the situation in Af Pak after the war in the 80s. There is fairly a large support base for this sentimental feelings about Pakistan. One of the feeling is that they should help Pakistan in Kashmir and they keep their fingers inside this. There is also memory of the good times during the cold war which will not go away. India used to seen through the eyes of Pakistan and some of them still do.

For the US, Pakistan is a political bomb. The US is finding it extraordinarily difficult to name Pakistan as the problem despite all the evidence. The US has basically failed in the aims set out after 9-11 an is now looking for a face-saving exit. If the US can save face - it will exit. It would be extraordinarily stupid if India had to rely on a bumbling aimless US to cause unintentional, unplanned and deeply regretted (by the US) chaos in Pakistan to have peace in India. The US is a bumbling giant that may turn tail and go any time. India will have to manage whatever happens after that China or no China.

The aimlessness is due to still yet to decide if they want to destroy their entire pension plan or change their global perspective.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 07 Mar 2011 22:37

Somnath: US is not deeply in bed with us. enough said. they want money on Indian defense purchases and for India to become a poodle. they are not in bed with us. they want to act like overlords.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Mar 2011 06:07

Acharya - overall that is a very interesting post because it gives a human touch to seemingly inexplicable events in the US - but I will only comment on the statement below:

Acharya wrote:
The US of course has been extraordinarily stupid and does not have a clue how to get out of this mess.
This notion that US has not much choice should be dismissed. The current plan is the make sure that not much chaos happens. The main reason is the the generation which is going to retire in US wants a stable economic picture for the next 2 decades. Any major war in the region or global will stretch the budget. With other countries unwilling to share the mess this is no go

But in the event of extreme situation they will allow a India Pakistan war which could reduce the pressure on the ISAF forces and give some needed man power to tackle the jihad elements inside PA. This is the ultimate triumph card for the AF PAK situation. Foreign affairs magazine in the last few years describe similar narrative saying that Pakistan will always fight India and other players in the region. This is taken as an opportunity by the US policymakers to feed on it and exploit when they need it.

I have no fundamental disagreement with your statement.

It fits in perfectly well with RajeshA's statement crediting the US with impressing on Pakistan the need to stop attacking India and Somnath's statement that the US's actions in Pakistan are helping India to have relative peace. It also fits in perfectly well with what others have said in terms of India being constantly badgered to talk and "settle" Cashmeer. A whole lot of separate observations about the "US effect" on IndiaPak are all supported or not broken down by your observation. Your statement also explains why the "IndiaPakistanNuclearFlashpoint" has been stressed in every media release from the West for decades now. People are expected to expect war.

If you are wiling to excuse India for existing and its legal claims over Cashmere you will also be honest enough to see that Pakistan has started every war. Pakistan can be provoked to start war. The only problem (more recently) is that Pakistan could be defeated. There are several ways to prevent that. One of those ways is to arm Pakistan with critical weapons that would delay a quick capitulation in war. The second would be to provide electronic and other intelligence in case of impending conflict so that Pakistan is prepared. What this means for India is that in case of war. India has to make plans to hoodwink American surveillance as well as to be able to defeat the edge that American arms have given Pakistan.

About China.. please don't get me wrong here. To use an analogy - It's like a beggar with one wife who wants Angelina Jolie as his second wife. No matter what plans he may have about Angelina Jolie and the vision he has about the peace and prosperity he will achieve as Angelina Jolie fufils far more than his current wife can fulfil, the hard facts on the ground are that his wife is his wife and Angelina Jolie is currently only a dream. China may take over Pakistan and give Pakistan far more than the US. But that is a dream for the future. The US is far too deeply involved in personal relationships with Pakistanis going back to the 1960s for those cords to be broken easily. Such relationships do not yet exist with China.

As I see it - if the US were to be pushed away from Pakistan, there would be a significant time lag before China can fulfil that role and a strong possibility that the US cannot be replaced one to one. But, as you predict - the US could actually try and provoke war between India and Pakistan if things get bad. Does India want a war with Pakistan that is provoked by the US? It is all very well to curse Indians for talking peace with Pakistan. But it strikes me that war should be fought on our terms and in our time. Given the circumstances, as long as the US is sitting in Pakistan India can never fight a war on Indian terms in our time. The US will always have a role to play. For India peace with Pakistan without giving anything away may be the only serious option as long as the US sits in Pakistan. But that peace will not mean security. It only means peace as long as the US wants it that way. The US could provoke war by tilting the balance.

And this, I am being told, is desirable for India. "This is what Allah wills for you, you dhimmi. Shape up or ship out", or "This is what massa desires for you, you cotton pickin' niggg3r. It's good for you"

Perhaps others like this. I don't.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 08 Mar 2011 06:37

Regarding China in Pakistan I have not formed an opinion yet.

Your post is close to reality but India does not have to accept the situation built by US for US interest. India has to work for Indian interest.

But, as you predict - the US could actually try and provoke war between India and Pakistan if things get bad. Does India want a war with Pakistan that is provoked by the US? It is all very well to curse Indian for talking peace with Pakistan. But it strikes me that war should be fought on our terms and in our time.

India does not have to respond to any Pak sign.
India did just that after the Mumbai attack in 2008/

US may try several means including using IM for their purpose. India has to really watch out for all situations.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Mar 2011 06:54

Acharya wrote: Your post is close to reality but India does not have to accept the situation built by US for US interest. India has to work for Indian interest.

Acharyaji - for this one has to know the difference between Indian interests and American interests. You know they are not the same, but not everybody else does. Time and time again - even on this forum we have little statements made innocently where US interest is expressed, or a US viewpoint is expressed and the person making the statement is innocent and does not even realise that he has said something that is more in line with US thinking than Indian interests.

This is where the word "anglosphere" takes on a new meaning. The "anglosphere" is a route for information sharing between the people who speak, read and understand English. The people who have the greatest control over the media of the anglosphere have the greatest power to impose certain viewpoints on the anglosphere.

If 30 million boys watch Discovery channel worldwide and are told that F-22 is the best and J-20 is junk, they will put that information on a a million web pages that reach a further 500 million people. If the same number watch the media and are told that the bad boys of the ISI are taking over the good boys of the Pakistan army because India has not behaved well in Cashmere -the same dynamic of information dissemination goes into play.

If you get your information mainly from English media your viewpoint in the world will be different from a person who gets his information from mainly Chinese media or a mix of English, Hindi, Marathi and Bengali media.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 08 Mar 2011 06:59

shivji:

This notion of the US instigating TSPA to get into a shooting war with India is interesting. I would appreciate if you could shed some more light on the motivation behind it.

There were some comments that the US would like to keep Asian powers off-balance. But when it comes to competition in Asia, the US is under a significant threat from China when compared to India. Why would the US want to weaken India and in turn strengthen China?

Also could you elaborate on why you feel that there will be a time-gap between the US leaving and China replacing Uncle?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 08 Mar 2011 07:12

shiv wrote:
This is where the word "anglosphere" takes on a new meaning. The "anglosphere" is a route for information sharing between the people who speak, read and understand English. The people who have the greatest control over the media of the anglosphere have the greatest power to impose certain viewpoints on the anglosphere.

If 30 million boys watch Discovery channel worldwide and are told that F-22 is the best and J-20 is junk, they will put that information on a a million web pages that reach a further 500 million people. If the same number watch the media and are told that the bad boys of the ISI are taking over the good boys of the Pakistan army because India has not behaved well in Cashmere -the same dynamic of information dissemination goes into play.

If you get your information mainly from English media your viewpoint in the world will be different from a person who gets his information from mainly Chinese media or a mix of English, Hindi, Marathi and Bengali media.

Anglosphere is a sophisticated brain washing technique to make half the world population understand the world from anglo point of view/narrative.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 08 Mar 2011 07:21

devesh wrote:Somnath: US is not deeply in bed with us. enough said. they want money on Indian defense purchases and for India to become a poodle. they are not in bed with us. they want to act like overlords.

I agree.."in bed" is too colloquial a term..What I meant was that the US has far more in common and at stake with us than China...Its actions therefore would be defined accordingly..

shiv wrote:The US wants stability in Pakistan, not instability. Nothing that the US has done in Pakistan has been aimed at deliberately destabilizing Pakistan. Funding them, arming them, mollycoddling them, making them allies", reducing the "India threat" for them, everything but everything that the US has done in Pakistan has been aimed at stabilizing Pakistan. But yet, after all the effort that has gone in to help Pakistan, it has become more unstable

Maybe....But what matters is not what the US "wants", but what ends up "actually" happening...Presence of the US with ites current set of geopolitical objectives is the primary driver of the fatal wedge in Paki society...The Sandhurst trained Paki military co-existed pretty well with the maulana as long as their fundamental political objectives (Af, Kashmir, India) largely coincided..

shiv wrote:Terrorism all over India in fact increased from 2001 till 2008 when it peaked

Not really..Here is the SATP data on terror fatalities...http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries ... lities.htm

Net of "Left wing terror", the numbers show a secular decline sine 2001 - it peaked in 2000-2001 (even taking non-terrorist fatalities)...

There are lots of reasons for this, but US presence in the region is too coincidental to be only of coincidental signficance..

And while the US might be bumbling and occasionally stupid, it is not an idiot...Not by a stretch...Unless something really gives, US needs to maintain presence in Central Asia...Af-Pak is the geogrpahical pivot to the region...

I find it a little odd that the US would try and "provoke" a war between India and Pak...It would serve no interest at all...In fact it will only jeopardise its own project...

BTW, this grain against "anglospehere" is a bit amusing - India happens to have the largest circulation of elglish languag newspapers in the world today! If anyhing, India is increasingly driving the anglosphere...So why quibble?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Mar 2011 07:35

Acharya wrote: Anglosphere is a sophisticated brain washing technique to make half the world population understand the world from anglo point of view/narrative.

This statement sounds like a conspiracy, But it is not. Anyone who has picked up an Alistair Maclean book in the 1970s and preserved it after savoring it might want to pull out the old copy and look at the first few pages that mention details of date and publlisher. Typically English books in India would be from a publishing house in "Great Britain, Canada, Australia, South Africa and India". "US rights owned by xyz. "

Information is still shared between these nations. But the world view expressed needs to be examined carefully. Because of the rush for a technical education in India, Indian boys and girls (starting even before my generation) have suffered an erasure of their own local world view and have been made to learn and artificial constructed world view even as they got praise and jobs for doing well in Calculus, Physics, Anatomy and Biochemistry.

For many who have been brought up this way it is almost impossible to understand that there can be an "Indian viewpoint" that is not subversive and primitive as opposed to "Western viewpoint" that is modern and liberal.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 08 Mar 2011 08:14

Somnath:

once again I must pick on you. the US most definitely does not have more at stake with India than China. US-China partnership is perhaps the single most glaring feature of present Global geopolitics. the next is the emerging Russo-German alliance. the US had lot more interests to protect and stakes to defend w.r.t PRC than India. India is not even close.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 08 Mar 2011 08:17

somnath:

The old timers like Acharya/shivji have a very different interpretation of Anglosphere than some of the noobs have. It goes back to the Anglo role in destroying India's economic prosperity and Macaulization of Indians.

I agree with them that unlike what MMS might say at Oxford, the Anglo were out to screw India as much as they could. On the other hand, the Anglo rule also finally led to the emergence of modern India, where the dharmic institutions are in the majority; instead of the Abrahmic once. It took the partition, again another Anglo gift to India to make that happen.

Of late the Anglo-EJ alliance have been very active in undermining dharmic traditions by exploiting the pain and suffering of the under-privileged in India. IMHO, instead of

about the EJs', Indians need to look inwards to figure out why six decades after her independence, the dharmic institutions are so weak, that they can be undermined by the descendants of slave-owners at $20/month.

We also have the case of California text-books which only expose the worst of Hindu culture while talking nothing bad about Islam or anything else. So clearly there is massive support for anti-dharma efforts. It is an easy target; soft, disorganized and non-violent. These same do-gooders dare not say anything about Islam since they know that the chance of them being Daniel Pearled are a lot higher. dharmic traditions do not encourage this kind of violence though the Islamists/EJs are not averse to use violence when it serves the purpose.

I had once posed the question that why can not Sikhs/Jains/Buddhists help rescue the souls of those oppressed by the Hindu social system. After all, Sikhism as the most modern interpretation of dharma completely dumps the caste related segregation of society; Buddhism has a world wide following.

The sad truth is that it is much easier to blame EJs and Anglo for undermining dharma in different ways than doing something which will shut the door for the EJs. I am as guilty as anyone else so I am not speaking from any high moral ground. It is much easier to be an argumentative Indian.

shivji:

We isn't the Indian viewpoint widely discussed? These days everyone is free to publish their views on blogs. Information travels quickly thanks to Facebook and twitter...

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 08 Mar 2011 08:29

i don't laugh at EJ's. and i don't think many others on BRF either. and who says Dharmic institutions became dominant post-Independence. the British structure of political administration was left in tact by Nehru and his cronies. they should have systematically abolished the British institutions, especially the British style Bureaucracy, etc. but that wasn't done. on the contrary, the British institutions were legalized and adopted into the law of the new Sovereign.

the broader issue of EJ's is much deeper. i recently read on Jambudvipa's blog about British accounts of Brahmins going around the country administering vaccines to one an all. door to door. it is impossible to get a complete picture of life in India in the pre-British era. but it is evident that India did have a system of social welfare which placed emphasis on the health of its citizens. all those systems were almost completely eradicated first by Islamic rulers. then totally removed from the collective memory of the country by the British. modern India is a product of deep brain washing which believes that the lower rung have always been abused and living in poverty and therefore not much can be done about it. we are tuned to believe this is how things are and this is how they will be.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Mar 2011 08:29

Graph 1: Fatalities in Kashmir alone 1988-2009
Graph 2: Number and fatalities from terror attacks all over India 1998 to 2008

Note: The period 2001-2008 shows a steady decline in deaths in Kashmir but a steady increase in deaths all over India up to 2008. It is only after 2008 that we have had a relative lull for 2 years

The US presence is Af-Pak coincided with a decline in infiltration into Kashmir but an increase in attacks all over India

Graph 1 1988 to 2009

Graph 2 1998 to 2008 - terrorist attacks all over India

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Mar 2011 08:37

VikramS wrote:
We isn't the Indian viewpoint widely discussed? These days everyone is free to publish their views on blogs. Information travels quickly thanks to Facebook and twitter...

It's happening now. But only now. The post independence generation had to reach retirement age before it started happening - when their opinions would not affect their careers. It's a redux of that earlier discussion of people having to be refined or nuanced about what they say because of personal circumstances.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 08 Mar 2011 08:42

^^^another side-effect of the bureaucratic/political gomorrah

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 08 Mar 2011 08:43

devesh wrote:Somnath:
once again I must pick on you. the US most definitely does not have more at stake with India than China. US-China partnership is perhaps the single most glaring feature of present Global geopolitics.

you got me wrong - I said that US has far more in common with us (and stakes with us) than China - hence etc etc..

VikramS-ji, unfortunately these axioms and conspiracy theories about British influence etc dont mean anything at all...(As an aside, I would put Macaulay's education policy in the pantheon of "happy accidents" for India....It set the tone for India to get its competitive advantage - knowledge of English and a level of felicity with dealing with the "Anglosphere"...)

Nation states have been behaving dissimlarly with each other over differetn time periods for millennia..The overall coverage of India in the western narrative today is overwhelmingy positive - in the media, and a LOT more so in business - so why crib? We should be celebrating the fact that we are part of Anglosphere - i fact we drive the "sphere"...

Shiv-ji, the numbers in the second graph dont add up - how can "total" be less than "Kashmir only"?

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 08 Mar 2011 08:55

Macaulay's education policy also had the happy accident (for the British) of institutionalizing deracination. the positive coverage of India has many other undertones. the "positive" is only as long as the pseudo-secular deracination persists. there is this constant undertone that India is evolving from its dark past of the caste system to a modern "english-speaking", "westernized", "multicultural" society. this is the definition of the "cool" india. the other side, the deep dark side of "hindu radicalism," is presented as a great threat to the social fabric of the country.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 08 Mar 2011 09:03

Devesh-ji, you (and some others as well) need to be a bit relaxed about these things...Confident societies dont go around searching for real and imagined grievances..They get on with what is really important...there are enough nutcases and prejudices among all communities and nationalities - usually harmless, the more harmful ones can be ignored...

By the way, 40-45 years of being an articulate "victim" yielded FAR less (capitals emphasized) than the last 20 years of being more "anglicised"...