Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 8, 2011

[shiv]

Just as many in BRF had predicted, Osama mission agreed 10 years ago by US, Pak
Paki reaction is just a facade! The nautankis.

[/quote]

I would rate this as balderdash. Sounds like an echandee saving report.

[shiv]

I believe Ms. Fair has the typical "Chuck Yeager Syndrome". She is definitely fond of the "Puki Mehmaan Nawaazi".

I also think that she is fond of needling India & Indians. The chuckle on her face in that famous Arnab Goswami interview a couple of weeks back said it all.

She may be fond of needling Indians but I believe Indians are not meeting her needs of fondling to keep her happy. As far as I can tell she has been charmed by Pakis.

[SSridhar]

Why should any foreign government bother about whether there is a military or civilian government in Pakistan or how weak the civilian government was ? The US government's past behaviour has been to support the military rulers to the hilt, condone their atrocious behaviour and stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them. Everybody knows that there are many no-go areas for any Pakistani civilian government such as relations with India, Afghanistan and the US, or nuclear weapons or terrorism or narcotics trade in which areas only the PA decided everything. How would 'excessive open pressure' or even 'no pressure' for that matter change the situation ? And, the US anyway bypasses the civilian Pakistani government and deals with the PA/ISI. At least the US therefore plays a double game. But, the funniest thing is that many Indians also believe that a civilian government in Pakistan should not be weakened by our actions. What a ridiculous notion !

Two things happened in Pakistan in 2007 under intense US pressure - Musharraf resigned from the Army, and he allowed Benazir Bhutto to return and campaign.

Bhutto died rather conveniently for Musharraf (thank goodness for sun roof levers eh?), but US support switched to Zardari.

Both of these events politically weakened Musharraf, and the US certainly did not stand by him when the lawyers and then the Pakjabi upper classes launched their civil campaign in 2008 to push him out of the presidency.

Johann, it is not as simple as that. I will come to 2007 a little later. Anyway, credit for the above (bolded points) cannot be given to the USA. The US would have happily continued with Gen. Musharraf had not two very unpopular decisions been taken by Musharraf himself that led to a mass upsurge against him. One was the 'coup within a coup' of Nov. 3, 2007 and the other was the summary dismissal of the CJP and the most brazen manner in which it was done. The popular discontent had already risen to a crescendo against Gen. Musharraf and was even affecting the PA itself by extension. It was not only 'Go, Musharraf, Go' but also 'Go, fauj, Go'. Shaukat Aziz's half baked measures had put the Pakistani economy in a tailspin and the excruciating power cuts and the unreliable gas supply was taking a heavy toll, though it would have been the same under any dispensation. The US simply saw the writing on the wall, decided to make a virtue out of necessity and tried to install the more US-friendly civilian government (the US dislikes Nawaz Sharif who was and is the only other alternative) in Pakistan.

After the coup in c. 1999, the Supreme Court of Pakistan endorsed it under the usual 'doctrine of necessity' and gave Musharraf three years to restore democracy. Musharraf created a political party, conducted a sham election and ensured his favourite party formed the cabinet. While in Washington just before the October, 2002 election, he openly claimed that he would "put a label of democracy on the existing system" and went ahead boldly to implement that fraudulent system. There was not a murmur from the US (or from those Indians who want to 'strengthen democracy in Pakistan'). Nobody told him that with Ms. Bhutto and Mr. Nawaz Sharif in exile and unable to return, this exercise was a fraud. Then in c. 2003, he imposed the 17th Amendment that validated his rule and generally engaged in a series of frauds to amass all power to himself. Again, not a word from the same quarters who now take credit. OYOH, there was a strong endorsement of his fraud.

On Dec. 31, 2004, the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, strongly endorsed Gen. Musharraf’s position thus: "The parliament provided for means for him to do this. He has exercised that option and it is now a matter for the Pakistan people and the Pakistan parliament, which has already judged this, to make any other judgements they wish to make”. On the eve of her first visit after assuming power as the new Secretary of State in Bush’s second term, Ms. Condoleeza Rice said on March 13,2005,” Washington balances its push to spread democracy with its need to support anti-terrorism allies.” Again, when Gen. Musharraf proclaimed Martial Law on Nov. 3, 2007 on the eve of an expected adverse judgement against him by the Supreme Court on his assumption of Presidency, Ms. Condoleeza Rice made the following statement on Nov. 12, 2007 in ABC’s ‘This Week’ programme:"the general should be given time to make good on his promises to return his country to democratic rule. He still provides the best option for getting Pakistan back on a democratic path". So much for the 'intense US pressure in 2007' on Gen. Musharraf.

When the exiled ex-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif decided to cut short his exile and return to Pakistan to contest the elections, Musharraf took extraordinary measures re-exile him back to Saudi Arabia. This was contrary to the Supreme Court verdict which declared that Mr. Nawaz Sharif, as a citizen of Pakistan, should be allowed into the country without ‘let or hindrance’. Gen. Musharraf also employed extreme deception to fly Nawaz Sharif to Jeddah. What did the purveyors of democratic rule say ? The US Deputy Secretary of State, John D Negroponte, offered broad support to Gen Musharraf and said that deportation was a ‘legal matter’, which it obviously was not as the Supreme Court had already clarified its position and there is no legality for a private extradition treaty apparently signed between Nawaz Sharif and the then Saudi King, King Fahd. The WikiLeaks exposure of November, 2010 revealed that the Saudi Ambassador to the US Adel Jubair had said that the Saudis had allowed Nawaz to travel to London and despite promising not to take part in political activities, he had flown from London to Pakistan. He said the Saudi government had worked with Musharraf for the arrest and immediate deportation of Nawaz when he returned.

I am not saying that the US is obligated to support and enhance democracy in Pakistan. It need not since it gets maximum profit by dealing with the PA and the ISI directly by-passing or undermining the civilian governments. Every country needs to be cunning and every country needs to put up a pretense every now and then on various issues and convert necessities to virtues as well. So, one doesn't blame the US.

However, let us understand all that.

[SSridhar]

She may be fond of needling Indians but I believe Indians are not meeting her needs of fondling to keep her happy.

A fine twist of words !

[Brad Goodman]

Pakistanis disclose name of CIA Operative

The public outing of the CIA station chief here threatened on Monday to deepen the rift between the United States and Pakistan, with American officials saying they believed the disclosure had been made deliberately by Pakistan’s main spy agency.

[Brad Goodman]

U.S. Braced for Fights With Pakistanis in Bin Laden Raid

President Obama insisted that the assault force hunting down Osama bin Laden last week be large enough to fight its way out of Pakistan if confronted by hostile local police officers and troops, senior administration and military officials said Monday.

In revealing additional details about planning for the mission, senior officials also said that two teams of specialists were on standby: One to bury Bin Laden if he was killed, and a second composed of lawyers, interrogators and translators in case he was captured alive. That team was set to meet aboard a Navy ship, mostly likely the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson in the North Arabian Sea.

Mr. Obama’s decision to increase the size of the force sent into Pakistan shows that he was willing to risk a military confrontation with a close ally in order to capture or kill the leader of Al Qaeda.

Such a fight would have set off an even larger breach with the Pakistanis than has taken place since officials in Islamabad learned that helicopters filled with members of a Navy Seals team had flown undetected into one of their cities, and burst into a compound where Bin Laden was hiding.

One senior Obama administration official, pressed on the rules of engagement for one of the riskiest clandestine operations attempted by the C.I.A. and the military’s Joint Special Operations Command in many years, said: “Their instructions were to avoid any confrontation if at all possible. But if they had to return fire to get out, they were authorized to do it.”

The planning also illustrates how little the administration trusted the Pakistanis as they set up their operation. They also rejected a proposal to bring the Pakistanis in on the mission.

Under the original plan, two assault helicopters were going to stay on the Afghanistan side of the border waiting for a call if they were needed. But the aircraft would have been about 90 minutes away from the Bin Laden compound.

About 10 days before the raid, Mr. Obama reviewed the plans and pressed his commanders as to whether they were bringing along enough forces to fight their way out if the Pakistanis arrived on the scene and attempted to interfere with the operation.

That resulted in the decision to send two more helicopters carrying additional troops. These followed the two lead Black Hawk helicopters that carried the actual assault team. While there was no confrontation with the Pakistanis, one of those backup helicopters was ultimately brought in to the scene of the raid when a Black Hawk was damaged while making a hard landing

“Some people may have assumed we could talk our way out a jam, but given our difficult relationship with Pakistan right now, the president did not want to leave anything to chance,” said one senior administration official, who like others would not be quoted by name describing details of the secret mission. “He wanted extra forces if they were necessary.”

With tensions between the United States and Pakistan escalating since the raid, American officials on Monday sought to tamp down the divisions and pointed to some encouraging developments.

A United States official said that American investigators will soon be allowed to interview Bin Laden’s three widows now being held by Pakistani authorities, a demand that Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, Tom Donilon, made on television talk shows on Sunday.

American officials say the widows, as well as a review of the trove of documents and other data the Seals team collected from the raid, could reveal important details, not only about Bin Laden’s life and activities since fleeing into Pakistan from Afghanistan in 2001, but also information about Qaeda plots, personnel and planning.

“We believe that it is very important to maintain the cooperative relationship with Pakistan precisely because it’s in our national security interest to do so,” said the White House spokesman, Jay Carney.

In an effort to help mend the latest rupture in relations, the C.I.A. director, Leon E. Panetta, will meet soon with his counterpart, Lt. Gen. Ahmad Shuja Pasha, head of the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate, or I.S.I., “to discuss the way forward in the common fight against Al Qaeda,” an American official said.

On Sunday, Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called the Pakistani Army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. “Mullen just wanted to check in with him,” said a senior military official. “The conversation was civil, but sober, given the pressure that the general is under right now.”

In describing the mission, the officials said that American surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft were watching and listening to how Pakistan’s police forces and military responded to the raid. That determined how long the commandos could safely remain on the ground going through the compound collecting computer hard drives, thumb drives and documents.

American forces were under strict orders to avoid engaging with any Pakistani forces that responded to the commotion at the Bin Laden compound, senior administration officials said.

If a confrontation appeared imminent, there were contingency plans for senior American officials, including Admiral Mullen, to call their Pakistani counterparts to avert an armed clash.

But when he reviewed the plans, Mr. Obama voiced concern that this was not enough to protect the troops on the mission, administration officials said.

In planning for the possible capture of Bin Laden, officials decided they would bring him aboard a Navy ship to preclude battles over jurisdiction.

The plan, officials said, was to do an initial interrogation for any information that might prevent a pending attack or identify the location of other Qaeda leaders.

“There was a heck of a lot of planning that went into this for almost any and all contingencies, including capture,” one senior administration official said.

In the end, the team organized to handle his death was called into duty. They did a quick forensics study of the body, washed it, and buried it at sea.

But the officials acknowledged that the mission always was weighted toward killing, given the possibility that Bin Laden would be armed or wearing an explosive vest.

[Brad Goodman]

supanallah

Feinstein rethinks Pakistan aid

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein said Monday that the relationship between the United States and Pakistan “makes less and less sense” and questioned continuing to send billions of dollars in aid to the country now that it’s been revealed Osama bin Laden had been living there for years before being killed there last week.

Anger in Pakistan: The View from Abbottabad

On every street in this mountainous, military town, in every chai shop, even in the barbershops – Pakistanis are furious.

Some of their fury is directed at the United States, which sent three dozen Navy SEALs and four helicopters hundreds of miles into their country to kill Osama bin Laden.

But most of their fury is saved for their own leaders, in the government and the military, who they feel have let them down.

The government here is widely considered corrupt and ineffective, so perhaps it's no surprise to hear Pakistanis calling for heads to roll within the Pakistan People's Party, one week after President Obama decided not to inform them before the raid.

"They're all liars. They knew everything. If they didn't, they're answerable to 180 million people," Sardar Saeed told me as he got his beard trimmed in the bazaar. "They're pocketing the hard-earned income of the people while they live in palaces."

But what's more worrying for this country is widespread criticism of the military, which has been the most popular institution in the country. Its admission that it didn't know the U.S. helicopters even entered its airspace reveals it is not as invincible as it wants Pakistanis to believe.

Since President Pervez Musharraf took off his uniform in 2007, the Pakistani Army has painstakingly tried to rebuild a shaky reputation damaged by Musharraf's sinking poll numbers. Army leadership portrayed two major battles – in the Swat Valley and South Waziristan –as sweeping victories. It withdrew all military staff serving in positions earmarked for civilians. It delivered massive amounts of relief to victims of the 2010 flood. And publicly -- privately, less so -- Army General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani kept his mouth shut about politics.

The steps worked. The confidence in the military grew to 82 percent last October, according to a White House review that cited State Department polling. Confidence in the government, meanwhile, dropped to 31 percent. And when Pakistanis are asked about the spies who work for Inter-Services Intelligence, they will alternatively express fear and respect for the agency's reputed reach.

But then the helicopters arrived, the special forces breached the compound, bin Laden was found a few thousand feet from Pakistan's West Point – and all the Americans got away before the Pakistanis could get their American-made fighter jets in position to shoot them down.

Three years of positive coverage and meticulous PR work was, perhaps, gone in an instant.

People are now openly making fun of the military and the intelligence services. Consider the text messages floating around Pakistan right now:

"Don't honk: the army is asleep."
"Public service message from the army: stay alert. Don't rely on us."
"Pakistani radar system for sale: buy one, get one free."

Or, as Saeed put it, "If they can't defend the borders of the country, what are they there for?"

And therein lies a problem: if Pakistanis don't trust their government, and they don't trust their military, then who can they turn to for leadership and inspiration? Who will they rally behind to help make the changes that are so necessary to fix Pakistan once and for all: to make the economy grow, to improve their children's education, to confront the militants who live here?

If the U.S. raid further alienates Pakistan's leaders from their own people, it will have inadvertently made the country less stable.

[Rajdeep]

Someone from BRF should put this guy out of his misery.

Where is the evidence on Pak support to Osama?

Jason Burke, the Guardian newspaper's South Asia correspondent

http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/s ... 110509.htm

"India has a lot more to talk than one guy, one house in one city."

What about unkil ? doesn't he have other things to raid than the poaks ?

"What will they (Pakistan) get out of (trading) Osama? They are already getting what they want. The Americans are on their way out of Afghanistan. There are peace talks with the Taliban. Indian influence is disappearing in Afghanistan. Pakistan is doing quite well in Afghanistan."

puke alert at the above link.

[Brad Goodman]

New route for kanadian vijja

Canada may become home to bin Laden informants 1

Canada can and may accept “a number” of valuable informants from Pakistan who helped the U.S. locate Osama bin Laden, police and immigration officials say.

The relocation of high-level Pakistani informants to other countries is part of an international witness protection program between NATO-member countries, according to the Canadian justice department

[Johann]

Anup,

I wrote a couple of days back that this was the kind agreement that governs drone strikes, and that something similar covered the OBL direct action mission.

Its as if you had been robbed, and then made a bet with the chief suspect, the local tough (who swore up and down of his innocence) - if I know where you hid my money in your house, I'm going to come in and take it back. The robber says sure with a smirk on his face, you find anything because it wasn't me. He thinks he's been clever about it, and as the years pass, he's sure he's pulled one over. When you break in the middle of the night and walk out with your stuff, and announce it to the world, how does that leave the tough guy looking?

The PA isnt just pretending to hate the drone attacks - it *really* hates them, especially since their whacking their assets the Haqqanis, and making the PA and PAF look week to the Pakjabi majority - but they still like the money theyre being paid.

Pakistan has only three ways out of this mess;
a) give up the assets America is going after
b) get cleverer at hiding them from the Americans while taking their money
c) give up American money, and keep the jihadi assets

As JSOC and the CIA have become more aggressive over the last 2-3 years option (b) has kept getting harder, so they maintain a pretence of (a). However unless the changes to Pakistani strategic culture, and its definition of national security undergoes radical change, they will be forced to take option (c).

[abhishek_sharma]

Strobe Talbott really wants US to negotiate arms control agreement between India and Pakistan (2.5 min video)

[shiv]

Someone from BRF should put this guy out of his misery.

Where is the evidence on Pak support to Osama?

Jason Burke, the Guardian newspaper's South Asia correspondent

http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/s ... 110509.htm

puke alert at the above link.[/quote]

Not sure why rediff suffers from the dhimmitude to actually give mileage to this zero. There are enough and more Indian experts on why India should go after Pakistan and this fellow puts out some of the most stupid arguments I have sen in decades and manages to get heard via an Indian portal. Shame on rediff for being so ass-lickingly obsequious to publish crap that emerged from a foreign bottom.

[Brad Goodman]

Fareed Zakaria on GPS Watch the video

Pakistani journalist: "Please remember, I am Pakistan also"

[Hari Seldon]

Perhaps we on BR are giving this cristine fare lady too much importnce only. How much leverage does she have on policy, one must wonder. The moment she or anyone for that matter is seen as non-neutral, their professional opinions no longer count as much as when one is seen as capable of unbiased opinion.

Besides, just wondering, how come such a smartarse lady ather age remains untenured. Last I checked she's still an Asst.Prof at GWU. So either she's not all that smartarse to begin with (in academic and professional scholarship, that is) or that she's not all that weighty on policy matters, perhaps. Strange are the ways of the world only.

[shiv]

Strobe Talbott really wants US to negotiate arms control agreement between India and Pakistan (2.5 min video)

OK it is now becoming clearer to me that as Pakistan gets weaker and weaker they are promising everyone on earth that they will shut up and behave if the world can bring India down to their level.

I believe India holds better cards here. India will shut up once Pakistan collapses and India gets busy handling the fragments. That's a promise India can make.

[shiv]

Fareed Zakaria on GPS Watch the video

Pakistani journalist: "Please remember, I am Pakistan also"

Quotable quote

Just as you have the sultanates of the Middle East where certain families have hijacked whole countries like the Gadhafis have hijacked Libya and the Mubaraks had hijacked Egypt, here (in Pakistan) you have an unelected national security establishment that is almost in the same position.

The elected leadership is a cosmetic arrangement that is there for their convenience. They don't have much money to spend on the people, because out of our total tax collection, half of it goes into defense spending, and a lot of the rest goes into debt servicing.

There's not very much left to spend on the people of this country. So the elected leadership, really, has minimal efficacy as far as the people of this country are concerned.

He leaves the solution unsaid but it looks like the strategic thinkers of the west are either too stupid or too crooked to get the point.The problem is the Paki army. Not India.

[ramana]

Doesnt it match my Modern Sultanate state model of TSP! The Army is the back bone of the state with figure head rulers.

In Mahbaharata Virata kingdom was like this with Kichaka as the C-i-C till Bhima killed him.

[Brad Goodman]

Pakistan terror suspect detained in Prague

A Pakistani suspected of terrorism and other crimes was detained by Czech police under an international arrest warrant at the end of April, the Czech justice ministry told AFP on Monday.

"Pakistani citizen Muhammad Zafar was detained by the police on April 27... and taken into custody," said Tereza Paleckova, spokesperson for the ministry.

[abhishek_sharma]

America's Strange Dance with Pakistan

In 2010, I had the chance to ask Secretary of Defense Robert Gates about the US relationship with Pakistan. He’d just been to the country to urge its generals to go after the jihadists, the Taliban, and the Haqqani network. I asked Gates how he could possibly consider Afshaq Kayani, the chief of the Pakistani army, an ally. “It’s frustrating,” Gates told me. I waited for more, but nothing came. Your silence says a lot, I said. “Well, I was very specific in a couple of my meetings in looking at them point-blank and saying, ‘Haqqani and his people are killing my troops. I’ve got a problem with that,’” Gates responded. And what did they say, I asked. Gates is all control, but he cracked a small smile as he said: “They listened.”

Admiral Mike Mullen has spent the better part of the first two years of the Obama administration—hours and hours of flight time, face time, and phone time—cultivating a strong relationship with Kayani. Up until recently, Kayani’s Wikipedia entry said that he counted Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, as a close friend and ally. That line has now been removed. US officials maintain they don’t think that Kayani or ISI chief Ahmed Shuja Pasha had direct knowledge themselves about bin Laden. But even before Sunday’s assassination of bin Laden, a friend of mine told me that when he recently saw Mullen the admiral seemed puzzled by the breakdown of the relationship. “What relationship?” my friend asked. “[Kayani] was never on your side.”

Or as an advisor to Ambassador Holbrooke told me not long before Holbrooke died: “We see Pakistan as a flawed ally and the Afghan Taliban as our enemy. The truth is the reverse.” It is the Taliban, the advisor suggested, who can be worked with; they who distrust—and in many cases despise—the ISI overlords they depend on for safe havens and support. All along they’ve let it be known through different channels that they want to talk directly to the Americans. The question is how?

Will the revelation that bin Laden and family were dwelling in a newly built Pakistani Army mansion not far from the capital finally change the nature of the strange dance between the US and Pakistan? One wonders how good and smart men and women are taken in by diplomatic friendships, how they allow themselves to believe lies they know to be lies, or worse, settle for the lie because it seems there’s no way out, no creative solution to change the trusted old forms of diplomacy or the definitions of enemy and ally.

Of course at the heart of the problem lies Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. ...

[abhishek_sharma]

Will Pakistan give the downed Navy SEALs helicopter to China?

Tom's suggested Pakistan policy: Short-term embrace, long-term divorce

With our military posture in Afghanistan shifted, we then could move to a purely transactional aid plan with Pakistan: "For doing X, you get Y amount of money." No more money for promises, and certainly not $4 billion a year for being a frenemy. In the long run, our interests are much more with India, anyway. If Pakistan wants to retaliate by allying with China -- knock yourselves out, fellas.

Dear China: Help Us Fix PakistanThe world's two superpowers must work together to fix the world's most broken country.

[Johann]

Johann, it is not as simple as that. I will come to 2007 a little later. Anyway, credit for the above (bolded points) cannot be given to the USA. The US would have happily continued with Gen. Musharraf had not two very unpopular decisions been taken by Musharraf that led to a mass upsurge against him. One was the 'coup within a coup' of Nov. 3, 2007 and the other was the summary dismissal of the CJP and the most brazen manner in which it was done. The popular discontent had already risen to a crescendo against Gen. Musharraf and was even affecting the PA itself by extension. It was not only 'Go, Musharraf, Go' but also 'Go, fauj, Go'. Shaukat Aziz's half baked measures had put the Pakistani economy in a tailspin and the excruciating power cuts and the unreliable gas supply was taking a heavy toll, though it would have been the same under any dispensation. The US simply saw the writing on the wall, decided to make a virtue out of necessity and tried to install the more US-friendly civilian government (the US dislikes Nawaz Sharif who was and is the only other alternative) in Pakistan. After the coup in c. 1999, the Supreme Court of Pakistan endorsed it under the usual 'doctrine of necessity' and gave Musharraf three years to restore democracy. Musharraf created a political party, conducted a sham election and ensured his favourite party formed the cabinet. While in Washington just before the October, 2002 election, he openly claimed that he would "put a label of democracy on the existing system" and went ahead boldly to implement that fraudulent system. There was not a murmur from the US (or from those Indians who want to 'strengthen democracy in Pakistan'). Nobody told him that with Ms. Bhutto and Mr. Nawaz Sharif in exile and unable to return, this exercise was a fraud. Then in c. 2003, he imposed the 17th Amendment that validated his rule and generally engaged in a series of frauds to amass all power to himself. Again, not a word from the same quarters who now take credit.

On Dec. 31, 2004, the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, strongly endorsed Gen. Musharraf’s position thus: "The parliament provided for means for him to do this. He has exercised that option and it is now a matter for the Pakistan people and the Pakistan parliament, which has already judged this, to make any other judgements they wish to make”. On the eve of her first visit after assuming power as the new Secretary of State in Bush’s second term, Ms. Condoleeza Rice said on March 13,2005,” Washington balances its push to spread democracy with its need to support anti-terrorism allies.” Again, when Gen. Musharraf proclaimed Martial Law on Nov. 3, 2007 on the eve of an expected adverse judgement against him by the Supreme Court on his assumption of Presidency, Ms. Condoleeza Rice made the following statement on Nov. 12, 2007 in ABC’s ‘This Week’ programme:"the general should be given time to make good on his promises to return his country to democratic rule. He still provides the best option for getting Pakistan back on a democratic path". So much for the 'intense US pressure in 2007' on Gen. Musharraf.

When the exiled ex-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif decided to cut short his exile and return to Pakistan to contest the elections, Musharraf took extraordinary measures re-exile him back to Saudi Arabia. This was contrary to the Supreme Court verdict which declared that Mr. Nawaz Sharif, as a citizen of Pakistan, should be allowed into the country without ‘let or hindrance’. Gen. Musharraf also employed extreme deception to fly Nawaz Sharif to Jeddah. What did the purveyors of democratic rule say ? The US Deputy Secretary of State, John D Negroponte, offered broad support to Gen Musharraf and said that deportation was a ‘legal matter’, which it obviously was not as the Supreme Court had already clarified its position and there is no legality for a private extradition treaty apparently signed between Nawaz Sharif and the then Saudi King, King Fahd. The WikiLeaks exposure of November, 2010 revealed that the Saudi Ambassador to the US Adel Jubair had said that the Saudis had allowed Nawaz to travel to London and despite promising not to take part in political activities, he had flown from London to Pakistan. He said the Saudi government had worked with Musharraf for the arrest and immediate deportation of Nawaz when he returned.

I am not saying that the US is obligated to support and enhance democracy in Pakistan. It need not since it gets maximum profit by dealing with the PA and the ISI directly by-passing or undermining the civilian governments. Every country needs to be cunning and every country needs to put up a pretense every now and then on various issues and convert necessities to virtues as well. So, one doesn't blame the US.

However, let us understand all that.

S Sridhar,

Of course the US tolerates allied dictators - but only if they deliver!

Musharraf had stopped delivering. In the Spring of 2006 the Taliban were streaming across the Bolan Pass, and violence was up. In the Spring of 2007 the situation was worse, with more and more districts in the south turning red.

Its clear that they wanted elections in 2008, and they very much hoped for a Bhutto/PPP victory.

As you know the US had a long and deep relationship with her going back to the 1980s, and generally regarded her a dependable ally who actually had a massive public following.

Instead of calling the Pakistani leader himself, Bush delegated Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice with the task Monday of conveying a list of demands. "We expect there to be elections as soon as possible," Bush asked Rice to tell Musharraf. Furthermore, Musharraf "should remove his military uniform," said Bush. "I asked him to restore democracy as quickly as possible," he said. Well actually, he asked Rice to ask him. Nicely.

This delicate dance is a result of Musharraf's uniquely powerful hold over the White House. The Bush Administration continues to insist it wants Musharraf to stay on the path to democracy, relinquish his position as head of the military as he promised and hold elections before January 15.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... z1LuY2ee73

Its clear the US had been pushing Musharraf in the direction of power sharing, and the pressure stepped up;
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21844901/ns ... tral_asia/

He wouldn’t say what Negroponte had told Musharraf, and U.S. officials weren’t talking. But going into the meeting, senior Bush administration officials were clear on what they wanted: an end to the emergency, a date set for legislative elections in January, the release of opposition leaders and that Musharraf step down as army chief.
“We want to work with the government and people of Pakistan and the political actors in Pakistan to put the political process back on track as soon as possible,” Negroponte said Friday during a stop in Africa.

Talks with Bhutto
He arrived in Pakistan a few hours later and phoned former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, the highest-level U.S. contact with the Pakistani opposition leader since the emergency began. In their discussion, Negroponte underscored Washington’s opposition to the emergency and its desire to see her and other opposition figures free to peacefully take part in Pakistani politics, said U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack.
The conversation came just hours after Bhutto was released from house arrest, one of a number of face-saving measures the government took ahead of the senior American diplomat’s arrival. A prominent human rights activist was also released, and several opposition television news stations were allowed back on the air.

[shiv]

Doesnt it match my Modern Sultanate state model of TSP! The Army is the back bone of the state with figure head rulers.

It matches perfectly only because it is the correct model. All the crap that is sold about "modern state facing some difficulties" needs to be flushed down the nearest toilet.

The problem IS the Pakistan army. The interesting (and irritating to me) thing about that media report is the fact that it highlights the begging by the reported We are also Pakistani) without pointing out the sum and substance of his statement - that the "security establishment" is the cause of Pakistan's problems.

Now someone please answer the following question based on that interview

Choose one: Which of the following represents the "security establishment" of Pakistan?
1. President Zardari
2. Army/ISI
3. Flood affected Pakistanis
4. Tax paying people of Pakistan

[arun]

Allah takes on Army over America?:

Army disgraced by Abbottabad operation: JI

[arun]

Just as many in BRF had predicted, Osama mission agreed 10 years ago by US, Pak

Paki reaction is just a facade! The nautankis.

I would rate this as balderdash. Sounds like an echandee saving report.

FWIW the UK Guardian article that broke this story:

Osama bin Laden mission agreed in secret 10 years ago by US and Pakistan

[g.sarkar]

Johann, it is not as simple as that. I will come to 2007 a little later.

Sridharji excellent post.
May I add that Pukestan is always special in the US eyes. For example both Musharraf and Karzai are clients (for the lack of a better term). But Karzai was blamed for vote rigging by the US govt, thereby weakening him. Then they tried to implicate him in drug dealing. No one said anything of 98% vote that Musharraf claimed to have received, not to speak of the millions of aid money that he took. Saat khoon maaf for him!
Gautam

[arun]

Should we be changing the nomenclature to “Deeandech” from “Echanddee“?:

We are a proud nation. Our people value their honour and dignity. Our nation is resilient. Our real strength is our people and our State institutions.

We all are united and fully committed to sparing no sacrifice to uphold our national dignity and honour; to safeguard our supreme national interests by all means and all resources at our command.

From here:

Full Text: Pak PM Gilani's address in Parliament on Osama raid

[Anindya]

OK it is now becoming clearer to me that as Pakistan gets weaker and weaker they are promising everyone on earth that they will shut up and behave if the world can bring India down to their level.

I believe India holds better cards here. India will shut up once Pakistan collapses and India gets busy handling the fragments. That's a promise India can make.

The problem that I see is that our strategic thinkers and media analysts rarely speak their mind about the lack of synergy between US and Indian interests. Unless, we're very clear that Pakistan is a terrorists state and US help to PA is the same as help to the Haqqani gang - we'll keep facing the puerile, patronizing attitudes of scaheffer, Fair, talbot and others.

This does not need the explicit support of the MEA, but at least getting our visible analysts and media-mavens to start positioning Indian intetrests more aggressively in non-INdian media.

[partha]

US names an ISI officer in 26/11 chargesheet

Does anyone know whether India has named any ISI officer in 26/11 charge sheet?

[abhishek_sharma]

Who was responsible for the birth of al-Qaeda, asks Gilani

[abhishek_sharma]

We are in it alone: B Raman

There ought to have been a Pakistani role — even if that role was only one of pre-determined inaction till the Americans had killed bin Laden and left — which ensured the success of the operation with a remarkable absence of engagement in the air or on the ground and a total lack of any collateral damage. That is what many not only in Pakistan but also outside believe and this belief will remain strong whatever be the US claims and explanations.

There have been outbursts of public anger, but surprisingly not of rage. The first Friday prayers after the raid on May 6 surprisingly passed off without any serious incident of violence. The anger has been over the US violation of Pakistani sovereignty and over the suspected Pakistani collaboration with the US for killing a pious Muslim who is seen by many in the Islamic world not as a dreaded terrorist but as a saviour and defender of Islam.

It would be difficult to assess for how long this scepticism and anger would last, but so long as it does, Pakistan would remain a vulnerable State — even more than in the past. Its internal security situation could further deteriorate due to a possible rise in acts of suicide terrorism directed against soft as well as hard targets.

...

Pakistan’s strategic importance for the US will not diminish despite the elimination of bin Laden.

...

It would be a miscalculation to think that US suspicion and anger over possible local support — official or unofficial or both — to bin Laden in Pakistan could result in major changes in the US policy in the subcontinent to the detriment of Pakistan and benefit of India. While stepping up pressure on Pakistan for more sincerity and effectiveness in dealing with jihadi terrorism, the US will eschew any policies or actions which could prove detrimental to its interests in Pakistan.

Instead of hoping to be able to drive a wedge between the US and Pakistan by exploiting the cloud over the sanctuary enjoyed by bin Laden, India should examine how the bin Laden incident could be used as one more argument to convince Pakistan of the need to give up the path of terrorism. These are traumatising moments for Pakistan and its people. We should avoid any signs of glee. That would be unwise.

The problems faced by us in our relations with Pakistan due to its use of terrorism will continue. We should seek a solution to this problem through our own genius and in our own way through an appropriate mix of policy incentives and disincentives. We need a stand-alone policy which will not depend on the US policy towards Pakistan for its success.

[ramana]

TSP's Saat Khoon maaf is apt reference!

[Altair]

As Imran Khan said, US is using Pakistan as a hired gun. Some here say a used condom. I believe Pakistan is more like the girl who stands next to a Don. She services the Don in whatever way it pleases him. Don picked this sociopath yet buxom virgin from his Aunt's backyard. She does all the dirty work when required,even manages some deals with some shady characters in international mafia on behalf of Don. But she had an illegal love child with him. Don didnt like that and asked her to abort the child. She refused to get aborted and the child grew up to be a bigger sociopath beating his mom and dad . He was causing major takleef for his dad's business. Dad Don was angry and urged the mom to either control him or his guys will put him down. Mom hid him well for a few days,but was very upset with the Don. She was unhappy with the relationship but she loved his money and feared his power. She made some new friends in the business.There was this particularly yellow skin shortish dude who gave her a sense of security with sweet talk and fancy gifts. She was going around with him under Don's eyes. One day Don caught the two in the act. The son was guarding the two.Don looses his cool and in the melee he shoots his son, the illegal son. Mom is angry and embarrassed but cant say anything. The yellow skin short dude runs out of the window.

[abhishek_sharma]

Cut off aid to Pakistan?: NYT Debate

Debaters

Going From Bad to Worse: Karl F. Inderfurth, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Consider the Broader War: Shuja Nawaz, Atlantic Council
Cut Military Aid Now: Parag Khanna, New America Foundation
How to Reduce Pakistan's Leverage: George Perkovich, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
A Necessary Ally: Reza Nasim Jan, American Enterprise Institute
Suspend Aid, but Don't Halt It: Lisa Curtis, The Heritage Foundation

[SSridhar]

May I add that Pukestan is always special in the US eyes. For example both Musharraf and Karzai are clients (for the lack of a better term). But Karzai was blamed for vote rigging by the US govt, thereby weakening him. Then they tried to implicate him in drug dealing. No one said anything of 98% vote that Musharraf claimed to have received, not to speak of the millions of aid money that he took. Saat khoon maaf for him!

Gautham, any number of khoon maaf when the dictators are to the advantage of the US. That is what Johann perhaps means by 'delivering'. One must have absolutely no gripe with that so long as Realpolitik is understood. One may even put up a defence for such a behaviour hoping some gullible somewhere will swallow this line of argument. We may also put up such a weak defence when we expect 'delivery' as we become powerful and intrusive (in others' business) in the not too distant future. However, we are not today and therefore we can afford to preach from a moral high pedestal. That's how the real world works and we must learn to do that too.

However, I raised the rhetorical question for 'Chanakyan interpretation' in my original post for two reasons. One was that we have to understand the intentions of the others for certain behaviour at certain times. Most often, we get disappointed when the US suddenly seems to be doing things orthogonal to our security and interests. At other times, it seems to be doing the right things for us. The answer lies in what Pakistan 'delivers' or does not deliver. It may also be to do complementarily with what India 'does not deliver' or 'delivers'. However, it is Pakistan which is held to much higher accountability because that country is the one which is engaged with the US in a 'transactional relationship' and hence vulnerable very frequently. To hedge against such vulnerability, Pakistan has to engage herself in 'tactical brilliance' which makes it even more vulnerable in the future. The US will exploit or gloss over or even help Pakistan overcome such vulnerabilities according to exigencies that develop. That is when sometimes US has to defend or support dictators or appear to be a champion of democracy at other times. The second was to bring home the point that we cannot mimic the US as far as Pakistan went. The only common factor is the hatred of the Pakistani masses and the sectarian outfits for both the Hunud and the Nasara. The ruling Pakistani elite's behaviour with the US and India are diametrically opposite. They are subservient to the US (while sometimes trying to undercut too) while they are uniformly and aggressively antagonistic to us. The US can easily exploit this while we cannot because everyone in Pakistan hates us and wishes to destroy us.

[A_Gupta]

The US can easily exploit this while we cannot because everyone in Pakistan hates us and wishes to destroy us.

Well, just keep the bees' hive stirred up enough that they are buzzing around looking for someone to sting, and do not do their main job which is to fill their hive with honey. Let them thus destroy themselves.

[CRamS]

Cut off aid to Pakistan?: NYT Debate

The TSP RAPE idiots on that panel were predictable, but I found Perkovich's views somewhat refreshing. He starts off with some crap about India US relations making TSP "understandably" paranoid, but he does come up with following VVS Laxman on drive

But aid combined with these other U.S. policies clearly has not changed the Pakistani military’s obsession with contesting India. There is nothing India or the United States can realistically do that will change this self-destructive obsession because the problem is India’s existence itself.

[KLNMurthy]

...............Islam................ empire-smashing marauder meme that is a part of Islamic lore. There is more to Islam than that........

Actually, yes there is more to it. Rape of the infidel, looting their wealth etc. But not much more than that except for pillage and rapine. Such has been the historical nature of islam during and after mohammad, and I would argue that nothing has changed. Where islam is in dominance, its approach to kaffirs is no different today than mohammad's was in the 700's.

This is not the place to discuss this further, but I felt that i could not let go this sentence unchallenged.

I really wish you had let it go and not troubled to challenge it. BRF is an Indian space and there are norms regarding how we talk about religion.

[SSridhar]

Cut off aid to Pakistan?: NYT Debate

. . . but he does come up with following VVS Laxman on drive

But aid combined with these other U.S. policies clearly has not changed the Pakistani military’s obsession with contesting India. There is nothing India or the United States can realistically do that will change this self-destructive obsession because the problem is India’s existence itself.

CRS, your fine analogy is apt. And, I am hearing the truth being accepted for the first time in the US and openly spoken about. Do some Indians understand that ?

[KLNMurthy]

Fareed Zakaria on GPS Watch the video

Pakistani journalist: "Please remember, I am Pakistan also"

Quotable quote

Just as you have the sultanates of the Middle East where certain families have hijacked whole countries like the Gadhafis have hijacked Libya and the Mubaraks had hijacked Egypt, here (in Pakistan) you have an unelected national security establishment that is almost in the same position.

The elected leadership is a cosmetic arrangement that is there for their convenience. They don't have much money to spend on the people, because out of our total tax collection, half of it goes into defense spending, and a lot of the rest goes into debt servicing.

There's not very much left to spend on the people of this country. So the elected leadership, really, has minimal efficacy as far as the people of this country are concerned.

He leaves the solution unsaid but it looks like the strategic thinkers of the west are either too stupid or too crooked to get the point.The problem is the Paki army. Not India.

Jugnu Mohsin is a she I believe. Used to be a popular visitor to Indian universities etc. She forgot to shed her tears for the oppressed people of Kashmir only.

[Manish Jain]

If MMS is such a roll-over, why did India block the European Union proposal to let Pakistani textiles in duty-free for three years, which would have cost India, Bangladesh, Vietnam and Peru?

Even this fig leaf of action may not be present.

http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... ve/434903/

It all happened in Mohali, on the margins of the India-Pakistan cricket semi-final on March 30, when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met his Pakistani counterpart, Yousaf Raza Gilani. And, acceded to the latter’s request that India drop its objections at the World Trade Organization (WTO) to a proposal by the European Union (EU) to give duty-free access to textile exports from Pakistan. India’s objections had stopped the proposal from going ahead.

According to highly placed sources, Gilani asked the PM, also a renowned economist, if India could consider dropping its objections to the EU proposal, even if it was a “trade-distorting measure” as India had claimed.

The sources explained that the PM’s acceptance of Gilani’s request was in accordance with his own vision of promoting economics to resolve political problems across South Asia. Especially with Pakistan, where the relationship was wound up in real and perceived hurt and humiliation, the business of making money on both sides would significantly help ease matters, the PM felt.