Bharat Rakshak

Rupesh wrote: Dennis Kucinich

One of those "mavericks" who has no real influence with the administration.

Pakistan budges on Bonn meet - Anita Joshua in The Hindu

Pakistan on Wednesday hinted at the possibility of participating in the coming Bonn Conference on Afghanistan but ruled out any high-level representation on the ground that Afghan soil had been used by North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) to attack the country in what the Army calls a “deliberate” act of aggression.

Agreeing to consider German Chancellor Angela Merkel's repeated requests for Islamabad's participation, Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani said he would refer the suggestion of having Pakistan's Ambassador in Germany attend the deliberations to the Parliamentary Committee on National Security.

Ms. Merkel called Mr. Gilani to impress upon him the importance of Pakistan's participation at the meeting to make it meaningful. As Mr. Gilani was unwilling to budge on high-level participation, she suggested the Ambassador be permitted to represent Pakistan so that its seat at the table was not left vacant.

In view of bilateral relations and the fact that the German Foreign Minister was among the first to personally call his Pakistani counterpart to express solidarity with Pakistan and condole the death of 24 Pakistan Army soldiers in the NATO firing at Pakistani outposts on Saturday morning, Mr. Gilani agreed to refer the request to the Parliamentary Committee.{You see, Pakistanis 'invent' reasons smartly}

What nautanki! What dramabazi! Bring out the Oscars! This years Oscars go to TSP!!!

H&D saved.

Rudradev wrote:
A Chanakyan thing for India to do right now, would be to offer Indian facilities (and also Indian-sourced supplies like foodstuffs, low-tech spare parts etc.) for the NATO air LOC into Afghanistan. Is it cheaper for NATO to ship supplies into Diego Garcia or fly them directly to Bagram from Qatar? Or to work with India... say by USN shipping supplies into Mumbai, said supplies being escorted safely to Ambala by road/rail and then flown to Bagram? (Flying from India to Bagram could perhaps even be carried out by IAF ?)

Rudradev - if I were a Paki, I would respond to this in the following way.

I would say: "Aircraft flying in from India will be considered as attacks/spies and will be shot down".

However, the possibility exists of an air corridor over the mountains over PoK where Pakistan would have to be threatened with having their aircraft shot down if they approached - but tata would mean creating a state of "pre-war" like they did to Iraq with a no fly zone". The "No fly" was for Iraqi aircraft of course.

Rudradev wrote:A Chanakyan thing for India to do right now, would be to offer Indian facilities (and also Indian-sourced supplies like foodstuffs, low-tech spare parts etc.) for the NATO air LOC into Afghanistan. Is it cheaper for NATO to ship supplies into Diego Garcia or fly them directly to Bagram from Qatar? Or to work with India... say by USN shipping supplies into Mumbai, said supplies being escorted safely to Ambala by road/rail and then flown to Bagram? (Flying from India to Bagram could perhaps even be carried out by IAF

There is no political will to even think along those lines because we abjure realpolitik and are confident that the prodigal younger brother would return to the fold.

here are some thoughts:
Recall that earlier when pressure on huqqani network was increasing (Hilary visit to Pak), one of the main concern raised was that Miranshah (the base of haqqanis) is heavily populated and that civilian casualties will be high. This will in turn put the civilian administration under precarious position vis a vis the pakarmy. This was played to the hilt so much that the initiative was abandoned.

Now, this check post attack could mean the following (among others) :
1a. There are no civilian attacks but only military; Instead of pakarmy putting pressure on civvies, it is asking civvies to help out regain lost echendee.
1b. By making high decibel noises, pakarmy may be raising stakes on any upcoming / future attack on haqqanis. They may be thinking, the more the noise they make, the difficult the US will feel attacking haqqanis.

2. It is also possible that US is testing waters and making pakarmy realize the predicament they are in and the inevitability of civvies to help them out if NATO is going to hit haqqanis next; if so, haqqanies must be shivering in their shalwars.

From Down.com and posted in full:
Reuters

Nato attack on Pakistani troops not deliberate: US

ABOARD A US MILITARY AIRCRAFT: The top US military officer on Wednesday strongly rejected accusations from Pakistan that Nato deliberately killed 24 Pakistani soldiers last weekend.

General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Reuters that he was trying to discuss the incident with Pakistan behind closed doors.

“Candidly we don’t want to try to resolve this issue through the media. No offense,” he said in an interview as he flew back to Washington after a trip to London.

“The one thing I will say publicly and categorically is that this was not a deliberate attack.”

In comments widely published in Pakistani media on Wednesday, Pakistan’s director general of military operations, Major General Ishfaq Nadeem, described the Nato cross-border attack as a deliberate, blatant act of aggression.

Dempsey declined to discuss details of the US military’s review into the incident, but questioned Nadeem’s logic.

“What in the world would we gain by attacking a Pakistan border post?,” Dempsey asked.

Nadeem said the Nato helicopters appeared near the post around 15 to 20 minutes past midnight, opened fire, then left about 45 minutes later. They reappeared at 0115 local time and attacked again for another hour.

Dempsey said the military was pouring over its own data from the incident.

“We’re in the process of reviewing radio traffic, gun tapes, all of the things that an investigation has to consider before I can really make any statement about the duration,” Dempsey said.

“But I can say, categorically, it was not a deliberate attack.”

Without acknowledging the use of drones at the Shamsi Air Base, Dempsey confirmed a report by Reuters on Tuesday that preparations were already underway to leave the facility.

“We’ve been told to leave so we have to prepare to leave. And you know, we’re doing the calculations on what the airlift (will need to be) to take the equipment out of there,” he said.

Dempsey played down the operational impact of the moves during his trip to London this week, saying the US military had tactical alternatives.

“What I’m really concerned about is the deterioration of the relationship with Pakistan long-term, not its immediate effect on any tactical actions,” Dempsey said.

On Capitol Hill, Senators Carl Levin and John McCain expressed their condolences on the Senate floor on Wednesday to families of Pakistanis who died in the border incident.

But the Senate also approved an amendment instructing the Pentagon to assess how much money has been paid to Pakistan over the last decade as reimbursement for fighting extremists – and to look at ways of reducing or terminating the payments as the United States withdraws from Afghanistan.

The amendment by Senator Bob Corker must still be approved by the House of Representatives before it can become law.

So Unkil not bothered about fall out over tactical reasons: Business as usual.

And Porki funds to be squeezed. Where will the Paki begging bowl go now?

Bet they will go to Bonn. And bet they will restart the supplies!

Another leak by Obama administration to the NYT.

Obama Refrains From a Formal ‘I’m Sorry’ to Pakistan

The White House has decided that President Obama will not offer formal condolences — at least for now — to Pakistan for the deaths of two dozen soldiers in NATO airstrikes last week, overruling State Department officials who argued for such a show of remorse to help salvage America’s relationship with Pakistan, administration officials said.

Pakistani officials need to understand that in the next year, the Obama administration will be less willing to make nice.

As one former senior United States official who has been briefed on the administration’s recent deliberations put it, “Right now there are no Pakistan friendlies” at the White House.

I feel for the people of Pakistan and urge the mards to attack US military posts in retaliation to this inhumane act done by NATO. That should be good enough reason for the Yamrikis to layeth the smacketh-down on GHQ's candyass.

Arun Roperia wrote:Another leak by Obama administration to the NYT.

Obama Refrains From a Formal ‘I’m Sorry’ to Pakistan

The White House has decided that President Obama will not offer formal condolences — at least for now — to Pakistan for the deaths of two dozen soldiers in NATO airstrikes last week, overruling State Department officials who argued for such a show of remorse to help salvage America’s relationship with Pakistan, administration officials said.

Pakistani officials need to understand that in the next year, the Obama administration will be less willing to make nice.

As one former senior United States official who has been briefed on the administration’s recent deliberations put it, “Right now there are no Pakistan friendlies” at the White House.

Except for DoS? Ma-in -law? Aren't they still friendlies?

rajanb wrote:
Except for DoS? Ma-in -law? Aren't they still friendlies?

I read a tweet sometime back by Mr. B. Raman where he said it is State Dept's job to be friendly. They are the one's who believe in diplomacy and try to do the job by give and take.

The final authority lies in the White House which is taking Pentagon's line.

It seems President Obama has outsourced the entire Af-Pak strategy to military commanders and the CIA. Gen Petraeus is in my opinion a hard-liner as well.

All the peace loving Democrats have very little leeway as the Republican Presidential candidates appear to be saying that they would take a tougher line when it comes to Pak.

General kiya-nahin, is in a tough spot. The lower ranks must be clamoring for a showdown of some kind while the corps commanders and their like realize that messing with the Yamrikis can prove to be very costly.

U.S. denies NATO attack on Pakistani troops deliberate - swissinfo.ch

"Candidly we don't want to try to resolve this issue through the media. No offense," he said.

Dempsey declined to discuss details of the U.S. military's review into the incident, but asked, "What in the world would we gain by attacking a Pakistan border post?"

Nadeem said the NATO helicopters appeared near the post around 15 to 20 minutes past midnight, opened fire, then left about 45 minutes later. They reappeared at 1:15 a.m. local time and attacked again for another hour, he said.

Dempsey said the military was pouring over its own data from the incident.

"We're in the process of reviewing radio traffic, gun tapes, all of the things that an investigation has to consider before I can really make any statement about the duration," Dempsey said.

"But I can say, categorically, it was not a deliberate attack."

The message: Have some lube after gubo, but expect futures gubo without lube. If you do not have gubo and/or lubo, then forget about your a$$ that comes with hard hitting.

A very interesting discussion on TSP.

Chris Fair is quite funny. She let's loose 4-letter words, calls TSP a condom, blasts US military men for homo-erotic fantasies about TFTA Jernails etc.

ramana wrote:RD, The minute India is involved TSP and US will make up and it will be back to square one.
Right now they are at odds.
Indian offer will make them patch up which is not useful for India.

Ramana, I don't agree with this assessment, for several reasons. Essentially, there is no scope of US-TSP patching up and going back to square one (i.e., square 2001) no matter what India does.

1) There have been huge changes in the situation in both AfPak and DC. Ground realities as well as perceptions have transformed since 2001, when India made an offer to help the US, prompting Musharraf to GUBO for fear that India will gain an advantage.

That was the time of Osama going scot free from Tora Bora, and US agreeing to the Kunduz airlift. Today we have Osama iced in Abbotabad and gunships pounding TSPA positions for hours. Equations have transformed quite substantially, and even if there is a latent tendency among some in DC to embrace Pakistan, credibility of the TSPA is now broadly devalued at a very public level.

2) The offer of Indian help in the days after 9/11 was made with the characteristic (and IMHO ill-advised) flamboyance of Jaswant Singh. JS liked to do things in the limelight, with full court press... he perhaps felt compelled to do things that way in order to establish his pro-US "bona-fides" to Strobe and friends; recall his strident defence of the US ABM shield at international fora even before 9-11. As it turned out, JS didn't have the cabinet and PMO support to deliver on the strongly pro-US foreign policy he exhorted; remember in October 2001, Dennis Blair visited Delhi and asked for Indian troop deployment in Afghanistan, and Vajpayee turned him down despite JS' enthusiasm.

We don't necessarily have to go about it as loudly and publicly as JS did. The manner of his announcement was perfectly chosen and timed to evince a reaction out of the Pakis... and US got the reaction they wanted. This time, the offer can be quietly placed on the table in bilateral discussions to see how khan reacts; that's all.

3) Finally, even assuming that somehow an offer of Indian-facilitated supply lines makes the TSPA decide to GUBO to Unkil again... is that necessarily a bad thing? How much damage has been inflicted on Pakistan by the decision Musharraf made on Sep 19 2001? Would we have seen Lal Masjid, Mullah Radio, TTP and IED Mubaraks in Pakistan, had Musharraf not made the decision to GUBO? The stresses placed on the Paki kabila by India's offer to help the US following 9-11 are still paying dividends. Those stresses are much more intense today, relative to 2001. They would only be reinforced by further TSPA GUBOing.

On the contrary, if India had not offered help in 2001, Musharraf might have been able to get a much better deal. TSP would have ended up GUBOing to the Americans anyway (what choice did they have but to face war against NATO?) However, they could have attempted to extract far more from Washington, had they not felt compelled to prevent India from gaining any advantage. "India nay kaam barbaad kar diya" means this and nothing else!

Also: if TSPA caves in and patches up with DC in response to the Indian offer of facilitating NATO supplies... what exactly are they going to offer the US? Are they going to hand over Haqqanis and Quetta Shura to the CIA? Will they stop supporting Taliban? Back in 2001-2003 they could get away with supporting the Taliban while making a nautanki of arresting "Al Qaeda #3s." For many years now that is no longer flying with the Americans. What could TSPA actially do today that would placate the Americans, without materially compromising their own ambitions in Afghanistan?

The way I see it, if India offers to facilitate NATO supplies via a Mumbai-Ambala-Kabul route:

Worst case outcome: Pakis will GUBO to the extent of re-opening the land route from Karachi via Khyber pass, and India will not be able to extract an air-corridor over POK/NA using this pretext. Fine. What do we lose? The underlying strains in the US-Pak relationship which were there on the day before the Salala jhaapad will still be there, and they will build up inexorably once again as they did before. We will be back to Square One... but Square One of Nov 24 2011, not Sep 19 2001. In the medium term, things will continue to trend as they are now.

Best case outcome: IAF operates regular military flights over POK/NA into Afghanistan; Indian suppliers from whom goods are sourced, make a profit; and very importantly, NATO acquires a stake in IAF establishing a permanent air corridor across POK/NA. NATO directly benefits if we succeed, because they get their supplies at lower cost and without the potential for Paki blackmail. On the other hand, NATO directly suffers if Pakistan or China make any attempt to interfere with our air corridor across POK/NA.

This undercuts Paki claims of sovereignty in POK/NA and undermines Chinese ambitions of influence over the region. In effect, we would be making NATO's interests subservient to OUR interests in POK/NA. As opposed to tying OUR interests to the success of NATO's mission (e.g. if we sent Indian troops to Afghanistan.) One is geopolitically sound; the other is not.

Rangudu wrote:A very interesting discussion on TSP.

Chris Fair is quite funny. She let's loose 4-letter words, calls TSP a condom, blasts US military men for homo-erotic fantasies about TFTA Jernails etc.

Enjoyed listening to Chris! I feel bad for Kamran though.

She calls for 'whopping' of Pakistan by India in case of another Mumbai type attack! Tom Donnelly also seems to be taking the same line. They suggest that US shouldn't refrain India from "sorting" the matter bilaterally.

Although they both seem to suggesting that today India would need a conflict stretching beyond three weeks to achieve any decisive victory.

In the same context, Chris makes the point that India should continue modernizing its armed forces.

I concur with her we need to operationalize the Shock and awe doctrine vis-a-vis Pakistan. IAF and IN must be given more resources.

Pak warned of dangerous consequences if India attacked again: US


Gen (retd) James Jones, who was the National Security Adviser to President Barack Obama from January 2009 to October 2010.

The US has warned Pakistani leaders of dangerous consequences if there is another terror attack on India that originates from Pakistan, a former top adviser to President Barack Obama has said, asking Islamabad to give up the policy of supporting extremist elements. - Gen (retd) James Jones.

"I've said this in exactly those words, and I think my former colleagues at the NSC (National Security Council) and at the State Department have done the same thing – is that you really don't understand, or we don't understand why you don't understand that you're playing Russian roulette here with your future because if there is another attack originating from Pakistan in India, you know, Prime Minister Singh isn't going to be able to (hold back)...," he said.

Jones praised Singh for maintaining calm and patience in the aftermath of the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks.

Here is the link to the Charlie Rose show -

http://www.charlierose.com/schedule/

It was aired on Nov 30th. Its not yet available but the shows till Nov29 have been uploaded to be viewed online. It should be up within 24 hours.

^^ There seems to be a definite good cop, bad cop game ( with MMS being good cop) going on here....

Why this sudden warning? Have some signals been picked up by US/Indian intel about a possible mega attack?

sum wrote:^^ There seems to be a definite good cop, bad cop game ( with MMS being good cop) going on here....

Why this sudden warning? Have some signals been picked up by US/Indian intel about a possible mega attack?

Good point! I'm not sure in what context Gen Jones said this. Let's wait for the interview to become available.

The whole Yamriki policy towards the Paki nation has been wrong! Chris made an excellent point saying that the US indeed bails Pak out by sitting on India after ever terror attack. This eventually emboldens kiya-nahin to carry on with Jihad under nuclear umbrella.

^^heh what exactly is India going to do? A couple air strikes here and there and maybe some covert action? I dont think GoI would do much to dent the security establishment in Pakistan especially with the US so heavily invested in the region. Right now getting away with 2G, economy, and elections are all that seem to matter to the ruling establishment.

This might be a red herring, but apparently Isloo had several Helos flying around today.

RoyG wrote:^^heh what exactly is India going to do? A couple air strikes here and there and maybe some covert action? I dont think GoI would do much to dent the security establishment in Pakistan especially with the US so heavily invested in the region. Right now getting away with 2G, economy, and elections are all that seem to matter to the ruling establishment.

The situation that is being discussed is if another, god forbid, grandiose attack happens.

Yes, many would "again" suggest that India shouldn't escalate it to a military confrontation. It all comes down to politics.

Just like Gen Jones said - Prime Minister had taken huge political risk in not responding to Mumbai.

If the incumbent govt. feels that costs of not responding will be a loss of power/credibility than they will.

Rudradev wrote:
The way I see it, if India offers to facilitate NATO supplies via a Mumbai-Ambala-Kabul route:

rudradev, can you do a back of the envelope calculation about how cost effective is one route over the other.

I'll pose the question thus:

1 tonne of cargo is shipped from houston to bagram air base via 4 routes. the problem is to approximate the cost of shipping of each route, leaving aside the unkowns like bribes paid, cost of terrorist attacks etc.

a. Houston-Dubai shipped and then flight to bagram using a c130 hercules.

b. Houston-Karachi shipped and then truck to bagram.

c. Houston-Karachi shipped + c130 J flight to Bagram.

d. Houston-Mumbai shipped+truck to Ambala +flight c130 hercules to Bagram.

thanks.

Arun Roperia wrote:

RoyG wrote:^^heh what exactly is India going to do? A couple air strikes here and there and maybe some covert action? I dont think GoI would do much to dent the security establishment in Pakistan especially with the US so heavily invested in the region. Right now getting away with 2G, economy, and elections are all that seem to matter to the ruling establishment.

The situation that is being discussed is if another, god forbid, grandiose attack happens.

Yes, many would "again" suggest that India shouldn't escalate it to a military confrontation. It all comes down to politics.

Just like Gen Jones said - Prime Minister had taken huge political risk in not responding to Mumbai.

If the incumbent govt. feels that costs of not responding will be a loss of power/credibility than they will.

If Obama starts getting tough, I think he will ratchet it up leading to the US elections. But more importantly, I think with all the negative publicity about our limp response to 26/11 we will also start being (for want of a better word) stern.

God forbid if there is another 26/11 type attack. The country will demand action and our elections are also approaching, so this time we may see some retributory action.

We should not underestimate the Porkis ability to wriggle out of such situations. The watersheds will be the Bonn conference, the Dec 11 return of Shamsi and the reopening of the land route. I am surprised that by now the Porki army in jihadi attire has not burnt the hell out of the trucks lined up to cross over into Afghanistan.

Which leads me to think that the Porkis are reining in all their evil extensions of stae policies.

Arun Roperia wrote:Pak warned of dangerous consequences if India attacked again: US

. . . if there is another attack originating from Pakistan in India, you know, Prime Minister Singh isn't going to be able to (hold back)...," he said.

I am still not inclined to believe that the US (and the UK) would not pressurize India from countering another Pakistani terror attack. The US is trying to scare Pakistan at this moment, that's all. What Jones is saying is that 'Mr. Singh will not be able to hold back' but, what he has not said is that 'the US can influence Mr. Singh from attacking you provided you are on our side'. The US has not yet come to the conclusion that Pakistan is once and for all a 'lost cause'. They still see benefits to the US from keeping Pakistan's head above swirling & rising waters, barely though.

Rangudu wrote:A very interesting discussion on TSP.

Chris Fair is quite funny. She let's loose 4-letter words, calls TSP a condom, blasts US military men for homo-erotic fantasies about TFTA Jernails etc.

Very good.

SSridhar wrote: I am still not inclined to believe that the US (and the UK) would not pressurize India from countering another Pakistani terror attack. The US is trying to scare Pakistan at this moment, that's all. What Jones is saying is that 'Mr. Singh will not be able to hold back' but, what he has not said is that 'the US can influence Mr. Singh from attacking you provided you are on our side'. The US has not yet come to the conclusion that Pakistan is once and for all a 'lost cause'. They still see benefits to the US from keeping Pakistan's head above swirling & rising waters, barely though.

SS sir +1

One question for you Gurus.

Why do the Porkis need strategic depth in Afghanistan considering that China can be their strategic depth?

Rangudu wrote:A very interesting discussion on TSP.

Chris Fair is quite funny. She let's loose 4-letter words, calls TSP a condom,. . .

Hmm. . . spoken and written words do travel far and wide.

SSridhar wrote: I am still not inclined to believe that the US (and the UK) would not pressurize India from countering another Pakistani terror attack. The US is trying to scare Pakistan at this moment, that's all. What Jones is saying is that 'Mr. Singh will not be able to hold back' but, what he has not said is that 'the US can influence Mr. Singh from attacking you provided you are on our side'. The US has not yet come to the conclusion that Pakistan is once and for all a 'lost cause'. They still see benefits to the US from keeping Pakistan's head above swirling & rising waters, barely though.

+1 sir! Yamrikis want to force Pakis to toe their line. They want to work with the Pakis and for now have concluded that they can't succeed without them in A'stan.

SSridhar wrote:

. . . if there is another attack originating from Pakistan in India, you know, Prime Minister Singh isn't going to be able to (hold back)...," he said.

I am still not inclined to believe that the US (and the UK) would not pressurize India from countering another Pakistani terror attack. The US is trying to scare Pakistan at this moment, that's all. What Jones is saying is that 'Mr. Singh will not be able to hold back' but, what he has not said is that 'the US can influence Mr. Singh from attacking you provided you are on our side'. The US has not yet come to the conclusion that Pakistan is once and for all a 'lost cause'. They still see benefits to the US from keeping Pakistan's head above swirling & rising waters, barely though.

'Singh isnt going to be able to(hold back)'

The choice words seems to be a freudian shilpa, which is: even if there is another attack(of the scale of 26/11), Singh wants to hold back(any retribution or retaliation). He will try to hold back. Only, he may not succeed this time. So, it was Singh who held back last time.

Also, why this warning now? Are pakis planning an attack?

Sridhar,
there is every chance that they are trying to scare the munna.

But if there is truly another attack, then they may indeed support India's actions(even military ones) against the munna to let munna know his aukat(stature).

Of course, they will force India not to inflict any permanent or mortal damage. This will ensure that lathi bhi nahin tooti, aur saamp bhi mar gaya ie the snake was killed without breaking the stick. From massa perspective the advantages:
- munna's attitude rectified,
- India allowed to show righteous anger,
- munna is alive to serve the massa.

Gentlemen,we are forgetting base principles here.AS Ramana said sime tme ago in another thread ,"who benefits?"...from anything? Iraq and Libya were "all about oil".THus ,what is there in Afghanistan that is of value? OK<we've been told that there are trillions of $s in mineral wealth,the trans-Central Asia oil pipeline must pass through Af-Pak to avoid a Russian route.The West has invested billions in Kazakh's Caspian Sea oilfields.But these days we are told that N.Am shale oil roduction is making the US less dependant upom Gulf oil and traditional sources.So what gives?

There is yet another great asset that Afghanistan has,a tradiitonal product,poppy and heroin.The billions made from the drug trade is ahuge magnet for unscrutable elements like the ISI,Taliban et all.Why,even the CIA hs allegedly historically dealt in drugs! The convergence of these entities and their insidious goal in this region is thus well established.A media report today,says that several Tamil fishermen were caught smuggling a huge qty. of ganga to Lanka that originated in Pak! Theyw ere caught on Delft island,which is just off the Jaffna coast,famed for its ponies.The routes from Afghanistan worldwide has one traditional route,through Kerala/TN,Lanka and beyond.This is where the ISI,LTTE and their rent-boys work together.The report also said that the TN fishermen were protesting about a hundred+ Lankan fishermen caught in various places in Indian waters,wantign their release! Incredible,for TN fishermen to protest,go on strike,etc. for lankans.Why" It is because they want in return the "fishermen"/drug smugglers caught to be released!
So if you track the trail of the money that is being made out of Afghanistanmyou wills ee why the diabolic Pakis want to control that nation so desperately.Apart from its strategic location on the map,it has many other great assets!

rajanb wrote:Why do the Porkis need strategic depth in Afghanistan considering that China can be their strategic depth?

The gurus can have other answers. Here is mine.

The idea of 'strategic depth' is mostly in the minds of PA Generals. PA Generals have this tendency to 'assume' things. They assumed that India would not airlift troops in October 1947. They assumed that the Kashmiris would rise in revolt and that the IA would not escalate matters to the IB in 1965. They assumed that the US and PRC would intervene on its behalf in 1971 and the SDRE Bengalis would fold up quickly in front of the TFTA mards. They assumed that in the backdrop of nuclear weapons, they can aggress and India would find itself unable to launch a conventional counterattack in 1999. Such assumptions have become legendary in PA folklore. Each one of these assumptions led to massive defeats and yet PA steadfastly refuses to learn anything at all.

Similarly, the PA Generals assume that a pliant government in Kabul would help them hide their strategic assets dispersed in Afghanistan and launch strikes against India. I would not be surprised if even a Taliban government in Kabul refused to be part of this crazy idea. Indian Nuclear Doctrine recognizes any country that helps another to launch nuclear attacks against it as fair game for nuclear attack even if that country is not a nuclear weapon state. The PA Generals may assume that unless they inform the illiterate Taliban about the Indian doctrine, they may not realize the folly of allowing the 'strategic depth' and can therefore be easily fooled. Again, that is an assumption whose validity would be only as much as the earlier disastrous assumptions.

Be that as it may, the Taliban refused to listen to Pakistani advice to bury the claim for Greater Pashtunistan and accept the Durand Line. On other occassions too, the Taliban did not listen to Pakistani or Saudi advice. So, strategic depth was an idea whose ground-level implementation was extremely doubtful. In fact, many would say that the Taliban have effectively implemented on the ground, a reverse strategic depth. Won't you agree ? With Imran Khan in the saddle very soon, the contours of this RSD would become clearer. What the powerful PA could not do frontally, the ragtag Taliban would do effortlessly in the rear.

As for China, aren't they much cleverer and somewhat more powerful than the Afghans and the Pakis put together ?

Philip,
+108. Apart from the location as a launching pad into neighbouring territories, drugs seem to be the game.

i'd like to caution jingos about what can be sourced from india. americans are quite fussy about some things, even on military bases in 'advanced countries' like germany, they like to ship in all their home comforts from the USofA. So unfortunately, there will be a reluctance to source too many consumables locally...

Rangudu wrote:A very interesting discussion on TSP.

Chris Fair is quite funny. She let's loose 4-letter words, calls TSP a condom, blasts US military men for homo-erotic fantasies about TFTA Jernails etc.

It is a lot of intellectual masturbation. They totally missed the core mughalai redux nature of paki society and culture. The deep state, RAPE class and all other configurations follow from the core, and are not separate from the virtuous and normal majority as shafi would have it. Donnelly is also frighteningly obtuse about the vassal relationship of TSP to China, instead yapping about keeping TSP away from the chinese. Fair makes a show of being forthright and blunt but it is not a big accomplishment to say the emperor is naked. ultimately has no concept of the psychohistory that created TSP in all its intractable glory. Lake is just moronically fascinated with tactical divide & conquer, pretty much on the lines of the old british empire but without the intellectual curiosity of the british. All the talk about Indian role may be flattering to jingo ears but is essentially meaningless without understanding that India is still civilizationally in a dormant phase and so is not ready to strike outwards.

What a lot of powerful and influential fools these people are!

My take on strategic depth, do correct me where I am wrong:
A strong and formidable Astan is a huge threat to pakistan. The stability and integrity of pakistan is challenged by Astan. Astan could easily lay claims to representing the pashtuns and thereby laying claims to the lands that they are in settled within pak.

This could open a can of worms for the idea of pakistan.

Also, the generals of pak may want to keep the exit door open, so that they can save their skin when things get too hot.

Strategic depth in Astan is not an offensive strategy.

the shoe is on the other foot, strategic depth is now more about paquis not receiving a kabuli visa

Thanks @ SS and Johnee.

The reason why I asked the question, is whatever happens in the region we have to watch out for the Chinis. It would be a coup of sorts, (correct me if I am wrong) that like the Chins+NoKo combo in North Asia there be a Chin+Pork combo in South Asia. After all, the nuclear stuff that Porks have could not have happened w/o the assistance of the Chins?

Whatever moves against containing Porkis have to be deft, but unfortunately the western and Indian politicos don't have the skills necessary.

No dhoti shivering on my part, only trying to see if we can stay one step ahead of the situ.

RoyG wrote:^^heh what exactly is India going to do?

Humph! Ignorance is bliss. Have you check the total weight of dossiers waiting to be shot at Pakistan?

Lalmohan wrote:the show is on the other foot, strategic depth is now more about paquis not receiving a kabuli visa

Kabul has, for two centuries or more claimed its lands as "from the Oxus to the Indus". Afghan kids of every ethnicity are brought up on this. Other than the firm hand of Ranjit Singh which changed their slogan for a while, they have kept to this claim all along. Anything that ingrained is just not going to go away. There is very little all the Afghan tribes agree on. This is one of them.

As for providing the US with transit to Afghanjstan, that was even something the NA, Russia, India and Iran were willingly exploring pre 911 and the mueder of Mehsood on 9/10/01. Mehsood was one daring,smart strategist. He would have come across from the Badakhshan panhadle into Gilgit and meet up with IA at the base of the siachen glaciars. His view was that he was retaliating against the paki invading his home. He felt comfortable and confident in being able to do this. I met a friend of his in Delhi who talked of this. I don't know how far this was on the NAs plans, but because they were bottled up in the Panjsher valley, their natural break out would have been into Gilgit (surprise, surprise, the paki would have assumed that the NA would NEVER do that). So, once the US scales down its Afghan presence, the paki pours in the talibs back into Afghanistan, and Karzai has his back to the wall, while the US starts to "negotiate" with the Talibs, THAT is when the NA will probably break across Gilgit to join up with the IA. In this, they will take the East Turkistan Liberation folks with small offensives in Xingiang- to the point the PRCees are going to conclude that the paki is just not worth the trouble.

PS US/NATO are pretty close to concluding the very same thing- that the paki isn't worth all the trouble. This is the 21st century- and geography just isn't as important as it is cracked up to be. Certainly not as important as the self important paki has it pegged. Oh, and spot on regarding the drug trade- that is one big chunk of the paki's income. Big loss for the paki if Afghanistan breaks free.