Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 03, 2010

Nandu · Post by **Nandu** » 12 Oct 2010 02:01

amit wrote: I'm not too sure but this is perhaps the first time that a body like JuD (as opposed to the usual liberals) said something like this?

Don't you mean JuH? I think you should edit your post to make the correction. JuD in this context refers to the TSPA's terrorism wing, Jamaat-ud-Dawa, that did the Mumbai 9/11 attack.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 12 Oct 2010 03:51

Johann wrote:
Was it BRF consensus that the Obama administration was deeply divided on Af-Pak policy?

Yes, 100%. We knew always that there were TSP lovers, as they were who knew the games TSP was playing. But the former held sway for the most part; India containment being the main reason.

Could BRF collectively name who took which particular position on different position points?

These are the kind of juicy details Woodward has. But doesn't say anytning more on the overall strategic big picture.

Did BRF collectively conclude that the Obama administration was conducting paramilitary operations inside Pakistan against Pakistani clients and allies such as the Quetta Shura and the Haqqani Network?

You think we are fools over here or what that we have to rely on CNN/Fox/Woodward? Give me a break. How do you think all those Drone attacks are taking place? Somebody on the ground has to be giving GPS coordinates. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist, nor does one have to rely on Woodward's bogus "investigative skills" to figure out TSPA is gladly giving GPS coordinates of the TSP Taliban, while protecting the their "good guys", Haqqanis, LET etc; and US is in a war of attrition with TSP to get those coordinates as well.

One doesn't have to *like* the point of view of Woodward or Coll, or any other American journalist to recognise that they have unique access to the dynamics of the increasingly violent US-Pakistani relationship, and to US policy on Afghanistan.

Yes, they are quintessential establishment mouthpieces with a veneer of independence. Just read Coll's TSP-appeasement balderdash where he regurgitates many a US officials' view that India must hand over Kashmir to TSP so US can declare victory in AfPak.

Brad Goodman · Post by **Brad Goodman** » 12 Oct 2010 05:29

Pakistan Is Not America's Enemy

A sustained U.S.-Pakistani partnership after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan could have produced a very different history than the one we wrestle with today.

The U.S. can better work with Pakistan if we improve our understanding of history: Given its rivalry with India and its organic disunity, which dates back to its founding, Pakistan fears for its basic survival. The country has always had a difficult relationship with Afghanistan, not least because in the 19th century the British deliberately drew the Pakistani-Afghan border, the so-called Durand Line, in order to divide the Pashtun people. Today Pashtuns make up Afghanistan's largest community, but there are more Pashtuns in Pakistan.

Mr. Crocker, the dean of Texas A&M's George Bush School of Government and Public Service, was U.S. ambassador to Pakistan from 2004 to 2007 and U.S. ambassador to Iraq from 2007 to 2009.

what kind of BS is being printed in WSJ.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Oct 2010 05:45

What a crock!

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 12 Oct 2010 06:09

CRamS wrote:
Johann wrote:
Was it BRF consensus that the Obama administration was deeply divided on Af-Pak policy?

Yes, 100%. We knew always that there were TSP lovers, as they were who knew the games TSP was playing. But the former held sway for the most part; India containment being the main reason.

I am going to have to respectfully disagree here.

There's been virtually no discussion on BRF on the divisions within the administration over the surge. Most comments have assumed that the Obama administration is either united in wanting to withdraw, or united in pretending to want to withdraw. Either way people seemed certain the Americans knew where they wanted to go.

The grim fact that Woodward confirms is that the administration is divided, and no one really knows where its going on Af-Pak, because no one really knows where Obama's mind is. This is something I've suggested since Obama took office.

The fundamental disagreement in the administration has been over whether more 'boots on the ground' can quickly bring about a reversal of Taliban gains. You have two army generals, one in charge of the military campaign in the form of Petraeus and another in the form of Eikenberry in charge of the political campaign with diametrically opposite views.

One of the minimum requirements for succesful counter-insurgency is a unified command structure with clear goals. Does America have that right now in the Afghan war? It doesn't look like that unfortunately.

You think we are fools over here or what that we have to rely on CNN/Fox/Woodward? Give me a break. How do you think all those Drone attacks are taking place? Somebody on the ground has to be giving GPS coordinates. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist, nor does one have to rely on Woodward's bogus "investigative skills" to figure out TSPA is gladly giving GPS coordinates of the TSP Taliban, while protecting the their "good guys", Haqqanis, LET etc; and US is in a war of attrition with TSP to get those coordinates as well.

There is a lot more going on than just the drone war, something which both Wikileaks and Wodward have shined perhaps too bright a spotlight on. This is more like the SF raids seen at the end of the Bush administration which led to confrontations on the ground and air between US and Pakistani forces.

The drone war itself has seen massive escalation this year.

Where does all of this fit within US strategy? How is it supposed to mesh with the surge? These are things that can only come from DC leaks, some authorised, many not.

One doesn't have to *like* the point of view of Woodward or Coll, or any other American journalist to recognise that they have unique access to the dynamics of the increasingly violent US-Pakistani relationship, and to US policy on Afghanistan.
Yes, they are quintessential establishment mouthpieces with a veneer of independence. Just read Coll's TSP-appeasement balderdash where he regurgitates many a US officials' view that India must hand over Kashmir to TSP so US can declare victory in AfPak.

Again, you don't have to like what they're saying to appreciate the insight it provides.

Woodwards books for example were supposed to make Obama and Bush administrations look good.

When someone high up makes a leak for a specific purpose it becomes harder to prevent more junior people from giving away information that was not supposed to be released. The result of putting it all together is hardly glowing. Woodward's second book on Bush and Iraq, like this one on Obama reveal what an absolute hash decision making has been.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 12 Oct 2010 06:28

Johann wrote: There's been virtually no discussion on BRF on the divisions within the administration over the surge. Most comments have assumed that the Obama administration is either united in wanting to withdraw, or united in pretending to want to withdraw. Either way people seemed certain the Americans knew where they wanted to go.

The difference of opinion in the Obama administration was widely reported in the media. So it is fair to say that many people were aware of it.

Some specific issues (like Mullen vs. Cartwright) were new. Also the information that CIA knew about ISI's involvement in 26/11 within a month was not known to me.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Oct 2010 06:33

CRamS wrote:
Johann wrote: However much professional Paki-soothers may want problems like the LeT to go away they will remain because of Pakistan's reliance on the ideology of the global jihad to mobilise resources and men for its regional ambitions. The LeT is going to bring about the Haqqani/Pakiban/Al Qaeda treatment on itself as well no matter how much the Pakistanis whinge about it.
If that indeed is on the cards, it would really bring about victory in AfPak. But I am not so optimistic simply because TSP will be left without any teeth, and how will US deal with an India that can stand up to TSP post AfPak? USA wants a balance of power between TSP & India, and without LET to pin India down in a war of attrition, India, as the status quo power, with a friendly Afganisthan, can simply ignore TSP as it stews in its own juice (let alone standing up to TSP). After all India wins by just being India, the status quo power. But does that suit TSP, and by extension US?

Long ago I had generated the following image to try and explain how and why the US plan of supporting the Paki army while allowing the LeT or other anti-India groups to survive was unlikely to work. .Both the US and the Pakian army are, ultimately in the business of killing other Pakis - most of whom come from a Sunni Islamic stock that believe that they represent the homeland for Muslims and that anyone who is against Pakistanis is against Islam. This feeling goes right up to the elite.

The US seems to operate on the premise thet the US, the Paki army and teh Pakistani people are all together as one against some jihadis whom nobody likes. That is wrong.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 12 Oct 2010 06:37

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... b_woodward

Foreign Policy: Is that the most surprising thing that you encountered in reporting the book? What did you expect to find in the national security process that you didn't find?

Bob Woodward: You know I try not to expect. ... I think that the point that Steve Coll made in commentary on this is right: that it's Pakistan. That we keep talking about Afghanistan, but we better think more and more about Pakistan. It is the powder keg of South Asia and the whole world. I remember studying World War I history in high school and college, you know, the Balkans, the powder keg of Europe and it blew up. Look at what World War I was, a prolonged international calamity. And you talk to the intelligence people and they're really worried about where this is going. Where Pakistan is going.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 12 Oct 2010 06:53

MAKE A SOUTH ASIA COMMAND

Bruce Riedel

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... a?page=0,4

South Asia is the epicenter of terrorism and the most dangerous place in the world today: Pakistan is a fragile state with what may be the world's fastest-growing nuclear arsenal; India is an emerging great power, but one with precarious internal rifts; and Afghanistan is just struggling to survive. Yet the U.S. government is alarmingly unprepared to engage with the region -- even at the most basic organizational level. Instead of treating South Asia as a whole, the U.S. national security establishment has carved it up into an array of parts: In the military, Central and Pacific Commands each have a piece of the region, and, more confusing still, the desks at the State Department and the National Security Council that handle "AfPak" are separate from those that deal with India. This may make the Indians happy -- they don't want to be linked with failing states -- but it makes no sense for the United States.

If Barack Obama is to really get serious about the region, he needs to create an executive bureau for Pakistan, India, and Afghanistan -- one that spans across the U.S. government. Good organization does not guarantee good policy, but a poorly constructed bureaucracy is almost always a recipe for bad policy. A new military command that puts Pakistan and India in the same theater would help enormously in improving U.S. strategic thinking about South Asia. No longer would one commander talk to the Pakistanis and another to the Indians; the Pentagon would have just one voice. And likewise for Foggy Bottom: An empowered assistant secretary of state for South Asia could travel regularly on diplomatic missions between Kabul, Islamabad, and New Delhi.

Obama was right to recognize that the Afghan war could not be effectively prosecuted without dealing with Pakistan. But it's foolish to think that Pakistan can be effectively assisted without dealing with the issue that dominates its own strategic calculus: India.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 12 Oct 2010 06:56

CHANGE THE RULES OF THE GAME IN PAKISTAN

Ashley J. Tellis

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... ?page=0,10

Ever since Islamabad reluctantly joined the U.S. campaign against terrorism in 2001, it has consistently pursued a strategy of running with the hares and hunting with the hounds. To this day, Pakistan's security services continue to support various terrorist and insurgent groups -- such as the Afghan Taliban, the Haqqani network, and Hezb-i-Islami -- that attack Afghan and U.S. forces in Afghanistan, even as Islamabad continues to extract large amounts of aid from Washington.

...

Yet both the Bush and Obama administrations have tolerated Pakistan's duplicity with regard to counterterrorism, primarily because the country remains the principal artery for transporting U.S. cargo -- food, water, vehicles -- and fuel delivered to Afghanistan. And, as the recent border closings by Pakistani forces have shown, the Obama administration must implement a Plan B that denies Pakistan the ability to hold the coalition at ransom: It must begin by planning to move larger quantities of supplies through the northern distribution network that runs from Georgia through Azerbaijan, to Kazakhstan, and then Uzbekistan to Afghanistan. Although U.S. forces now receive more supplies through this route than they did before, the dependence on Pakistan is still substantial -- and so consequently is Islamabad's capacity for blackmail.

As a complement to increasing reliance on the northern route, U.S. assistance to Pakistan (totaling roughly $18 billion in civilian and military aid since 9/11) should be tacitly conditioned on Islamabad's meeting certain counterterrorism benchmarks. For starters, all transfers of major military equipment to Islamabad should be contingent on Pakistan ceasing support for militant groups that threaten coalition and national forces in Afghanistan. More extreme (and hopefully unnecessary) options would include expanded drone and air-power operations inside Pakistani airspace. Or -- and this is certain to catch Islamabad's attention -- more open support for Indian contributions to Afghan stability.

The most important problem is that suddenly challenging Pakistan after a decade of acquiescence to its mendacity is tantamount to abruptly changing the rules of a game that Washington and Islamabad have gotten used to: It could result in even greater Pakistani obduracy and further support for its jihadi proxies. Although that is certainly an unpalatable possibility, the bitter truth is that the current state of affairs -- in which Washington indefinitely subsidizes Islamabad's sustenance of U.S. enemies -- poses far greater dangers to the United States. The Obama administration must make the difficult choice now and show Islamabad that the rules of the game have changed.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 12 Oct 2010 06:58

^^^

No longer would one commander talk to the Pakistanis and another to the Indians..

The whole purpose of having two commands is that - to have two voices. One to keep India happy and one to keep Pakistan happy. This Riedel idiot doesn't realize that the result of a single command would be to lose all US influence in South Asia, because both India and Pakistan will be extremely offended.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 12 Oct 2010 07:28

Sorry if already posted:
Sharif removed Musharraf after a phone call: Gen Butt

Eleven years after the fateful night that put an end to his military career, General (retd) Ziauddin Butt disclosed that General (retd) Pervez Musharraf had plans to topple the elected government since his inception as Chief of the Army Staff (COAS) in 1998.

“I do know personally that he had some such plans since October 1998 when he assumed the office of the COAS,” said General (retired) Ziauddin in an exclusive but informal chat with Dawn at his residence in Lahore.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 12 Oct 2010 08:54

abhishek_sharma wrote:MAKE A SOUTH ASIA COMMAND

Bruce Riedel

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... a?page=0,4

South Asia is the epicenter of terrorism and the most dangerous place in the world today: Pakistan is a fragile state with what may be the world's fastest-growing nuclear arsenal; India is an emerging great power, but one with precarious internal rifts; and Afghanistan is just struggling to survive. Yet the U.S. government is alarmingly unprepared to engage with the region -- even at the most basic organizational level. Instead of treating South Asia as a whole, the U.S. national security establishment has carved it up into an array of parts: In the military, Central and Pacific Commands each have a piece of the region, and, more confusing still, the desks at the State Department and the National Security Council that handle "AfPak" are separate from those that deal with India. This may make the Indians happy -- they don't want to be linked with failing states -- but it makes no sense for the United States.

If Barack Obama is to really get serious about the region, he needs to create an executive bureau for Pakistan, India, and Afghanistan -- one that spans across the U.S. government. Good organization does not guarantee good policy, but a poorly constructed bureaucracy is almost always a recipe for bad policy. A new military command that puts Pakistan and India in the same theater would help enormously in improving U.S. strategic thinking about South Asia. No longer would one commander talk to the Pakistanis and another to the Indians; the Pentagon would have just one voice. And likewise for Foggy Bottom: An empowered assistant secretary of state for South Asia could travel regularly on diplomatic missions between Kabul, Islamabad, and New Delhi.

Obama was right to recognize that the Afghan war could not be effectively prosecuted without dealing with Pakistan. But it's foolish to think that Pakistan can be effectively assisted without dealing with the issue that dominates its own strategic calculus: India.

Bruce Reidel does have one thing right. Good organization does not guarantee good policy, but a poorly constructed bureaucracy is almost always a recipe for bad policy. The Obama administration has its political calculating hacks over analyzing, and often incorrectly, foreign policy initiatives in terms of political gain. It is as dysfunctional as the Bush administration where Cheney could whisper to Bush's ear and that would be policy without ever examining the feasibility or practicality of the proposal.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 12 Oct 2010 09:21

Brad Goodman wrote:Pakistan Is Not America's Enemy

A sustained U.S.-Pakistani partnership after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan could have produced a very different history than the one we wrestle with today.

The U.S. can better work with Pakistan if we improve our understanding of history: Given its rivalry with India and its organic disunity, which dates back to its founding, Pakistan fears for its basic survival. The country has always had a difficult relationship with Afghanistan, not least because in the 19th century the British deliberately drew the Pakistani-Afghan border, the so-called Durand Line, in order to divide the Pashtun people. Today Pashtuns make up Afghanistan's largest community, but there are more Pashtuns in Pakistan.

Mr. Crocker, the dean of Texas A&M's George Bush School of Government and Public Service, was U.S. ambassador to Pakistan from 2004 to 2007 and U.S. ambassador to Iraq from 2007 to 2009.
what kind of BS is being printed in WSJ.

I believe the expression you are looking for is lifafa punditry.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Oct 2010 11:02

Have the Yanquis learnt nothing after decades of Indo-Pak hostility to dream of a "unified command" which will include India and Pak.In fact I put this proposition sometime ago to an eminent Pak gent,eminently in the know of sub-continental matters, and all who really matter in that country-that a joint Indo-Pak military alliance could be conceived as a means of cementing relations,each entity looking after the other's back,a means of reducing tension and inculcating trust in each other.He looked at me in shock,as if I had arrived from another planet,then sadly smiled and said "not from my understanding of the army's mindset.It will take a v.long time-if it ever happens".

None other than the Bandicoot,Gen.Mush-a-rat has in his recent interviews displayed that same mentality,that "anything is fair in love and war",especially against India.In fact the Pakis are deluding themselves that if enough pressure is brought to bear upon India through US/western pressure,unrest in the Valley and cross-border terrorism,the "soft" India state will succumb and with timid leaders like Dr.Singh,to whom economics is a more important isue than seurity,will throw in the towel inevitably.This grand delusion spurs on the Paki military and its entire foreign policy is based upon hatred of India and doing everything to wound India from counterfeiting its currency,and more physically harmful methods.The Pakis only respect the "stick" and it has to be give the "stick" in regular doses as a constant reminder that it is a perennial "loser".Now Mush-a-rat in his interviews has been trying to perpetrate the fable that it was a "golden" era during his presidency! Such a golden era where his army was defeated yet again in the heights of Kargil and he had to leave in disgrace with national uproar over his treatment of the CJ.His statement that Dr.Singh has had better relations with Pak than ABV also indicates whom the Pakis would like to do busines with !

The grand delusions of Pak are matched equally by the US,which for the first time,first ahnd,has experienced the Janus faced monster,which has hunted with the (US) hounds and hid with the (Taliban) hares in the Af-Pak war.The ISI, is an entity outside any US influence,except when they both want to conduct covert ops against an outsider,usually India.It continues to plot diabolically in order that it might yet again seize Afghanistan through the taliban-which Mushy told us was a paki creation.The US repeatedly, ad nauseum,provides Pak with arms and aid so that India may be "contained"-the considered opinion of most Indian analysts.By refusing to give up its lust for the rent-boy of the region ,one can only assume that the US is diametrically opposed to Indian interests and genuine democracy in Pak, and continues to want India to succumb to Pak's price for the deviant tricks it performs for its patron.

If Dr.Singh goes against the grain when the Messiah arrives in India,and betrays India's legitimate position on J&K,or waters down Indian interests,by playing second fiddle to the US,then he and his govt. wil be on a very sticky wicket for the remainder of its term.

vic · Post by **vic** » 12 Oct 2010 11:13

Re Johnan

I think that war situation requires "leadership" but Obama is trying to solve everything by lawyer like 'compromises' which means that he is just surviving day to day without any policy (Note- I dont believe he even has short term policy let alone long term policy)

Our (Indian) fear is that he is going to ask us to make compromises on J&K for increased co-operation from Pakistan. I think Obama visit will lead to lot of out of box thinking (by US on India's behalf :-() which will listened to, in India with cold smiles and gritted teeth, then MMS will let things blow away in few months and get down to governing India.

MMS just cannot make any compromise on J&K per the constitution, per the political mandate and due to future of Indian Union. Asking him/MMS to make any compromise is Indian equivalent of US giving California to Osama

amit · Post by **amit** » 12 Oct 2010 11:43

Nandu wrote:
amit wrote: I'm not too sure but this is perhaps the first time that a body like JuD (as opposed to the usual liberals) said something like this?
Don't you mean JuH? I think you should edit your post to make the correction. JuD in this context refers to the TSPA's terrorism wing, Jamaat-ud-Dawa, that did the Mumbai 9/11 attack.

Yes Nandu indeed I meant JuH not JuD, sorry for the typo. However, I can't seem to edit my post to make the correction. I would request the moderators to do the needful. Thanks!

vic · Post by **vic** » 12 Oct 2010 12:13

I don't understand how Pakistan can argue that conquest of Afghanistan is in conformity with its strategic "history". Pakistan has always faced a hostile Afghanistan and it was specially true till 1992 or so. Pakistan had control over Afghanistan only for couple of years and even then it was a very tenous control.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 12 Oct 2010 12:20

i am not sure everyone here has understood the issue of "single command" - it does not mean india and pakistan in a military alliance, it means that the US manages india and pakistan out of the same military command, i.e. centcom versus pakistan in centcom and india in paccom (pacific)

what goes of our father of unkil's bureaucratic structure? if the head jarnail of centcom cannot talk to the head jarnail of paccom that is not our problem

besides, our real security concerns where they overlap with the US are in the pacific, i.e. china. in a fairly short matter of time, pakistan will cease to exist as a significant threat

Joseph · Post by **Joseph** » 12 Oct 2010 12:50

Lalmohan wrote:i am not sure everyone here has understood the issue of "single command" - it does not mean india and pakistan in a military alliance, it means that the US manages india and pakistan out of the same military command, i.e. centcom versus pakistan in centcom and india in paccom (pacific)

what goes of our father of unkil's bureaucratic structure? if the head jarnail of centcom cannot talk to the head jarnail of paccom that is not our problem

If the US is going to launch a massive attack against Pakistan, then CENTCOM will need additional military power - support from PACCOM. Other than that, what would a unified South Asia command do for the US military? The US isn't going to put troops on the ground to act as a buffer between Pakistan and India.

A unified State Department South Asia (Afghanistan, Pakistan and India) task force was already suggested and India wasn't interested in participating.

As long as Pakistan thinks that the US can move Indian thinking on Kashmir and other Pakistani complaints, then this joint command - task force idea will keep resurfacing.

Sadly, Pakistanis will likely never accept that this is the way things are and decide to go on with their lives.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Oct 2010 14:34

Look,the idea is to bring the countries of the subcontinent together within a single command,so that we exercise militarily together as a confidence building measure and then "woven" into the US's strategic design.Thus far,because of Indo-Pak animosity and to please the Pakis who do not want us in CENTCOM, we have deliberately been kept apart by the US,with Pak part of CENTCOM and we part of the Pacific Command,as if the Pacific Ocean began somewhere inside the Indian Ocean! It is why the US wants both India and Pak to buy and operate US military eqpt.,where the tap can be tuned on and off at will at any time of the US's choosing.This way,the US will ensure that both India and Pak "behave" according to its Pax Americana.
With increasing amounts of US military eqpt. being bought by India,which will have positive implications for US logistic support later on,the US is now sensing an Indian capitualtion in part under the MMS regime,and is thus preparing the ground for further integration of India's defence machine into US wraplans for the future.

As long as Indian diplomutts and politicos "tilt" towards the US,it matters little for it if we also buy weapons from Europe and Russia,as long as the weapons,when aimed in anger are against US enemies.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 12 Oct 2010 14:37

maybe unkil is setting up an INDCOM?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 12 Oct 2010 15:38

I dont realy like the Idea of India having to work through commands of the US military. It smacks of Imperialism on behalf of the US and the subservience on part of Indian govt.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 12 Oct 2010 15:40

welcome to the Pax Americana...

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 12 Oct 2010 15:45

I wan't to replace it with Pax Indica. The only way that will happen is if the TSP is taken down.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 12 Oct 2010 16:52

^^^ Bah, nothing's stopping TSPA from making 'Commands' for each of the 5 continents and Antartica. Fat lot of good it'll do them or anybody else. Besides, how better to spread pelf and privilege among fraternal afsars than create sinecures for them, eh?

I don;t see why we should care what commands and jernails the amrikis move around in their soaked dreams. Dilli doesn;t have to entertain them. Heck, holebroke broke more than his holes trying to get taken seriously in Dilli, and he was appointed by POTUS, not some US def secy!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Oct 2010 16:59

Biting the hand that fees it! Is there nothing left anymore to expect from the ingrates in TSP?

Pakistan aid workers in row with US over Stars and Stripes 'logo'
Aid workers in flood-devastated Pakistan face the threat of terrorist attacks if the US does not back down on a policy that requires them to use a Stars and Stripes logo on American-funded assistance, according to a letter signed by 11 charities.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -logo.html

Oxfam, Save The Children, World Vision and Care International are among the groups which have written to officials in Washington warning that the US policy of "branding" aid jeopardises their neutrality in a country riddled with anti-American militants.

Charities receiving US funding received a reminder of their obligation last month after the visit of Richard Holbrooke, US special representative to Pakistan. He expressed his frustration that the US was not getting the credit it deserved as he toured aid camps.

Related Articles
Terror suspect Ahmad Faraz Khan returns to Pakistan despite claiming 'torture' threat
G8 agenda: The big issues at the 2009 G8 summit
Pakistan blast at luxury hotel kills guests
Banned Pakistan charity linked to Mumbai terrorist group helps refugees
Pakistan now needs to act on its promises
Radical Islam has outmanoeuvred West, says BlairSome say privately would rather give up millions of dollars in funding than risk the safety of their staff and the people who receive the aid.

A draft of the letter, seen by The Daily Telegraph, insists that aid must not be seen to "promote a political agenda".

"Instead, there are strong indicators that branding will attract violent attacks for both economic and ideologically motivated reasons," it says.

"Branding in flood-affected areas must not be used as a test-case because the outcomes are likely to be fatal and impact on the longer-term ability of humanitarian agencies to deliver assistance in Pakistan."

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 12 Oct 2010 17:27

Philip wrote:Biting the hand that fees it! Is there nothing left anymore to expect from the ingrates in TSP?

Pakistan aid workers in row with US over Stars and Stripes 'logo'
Aid workers in flood-devastated Pakistan face the threat of terrorist attacks if the US does not back down on a policy that requires them to use a Stars and Stripes logo on American-funded assistance, according to a letter signed by 11 charities.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -logo.html

A draft of the letter, seen by The Daily Telegraph, insists that aid must not be seen to "promote a political agenda".

"Instead, there are strong indicators that branding will attract violent attacks for both economic and ideologically motivated reasons," it says.

"Branding in flood-affected areas must not be used as a test-case because the outcomes are likely to be fatal and impact on the longer-term ability of humanitarian agencies to deliver assistance in Pakistan."

An America agenda of promoting 'Gratitude' amongst the Pakistanis is the root-cause of terrorism. The conflict in a Pakistani mind between 'Gratitude' and 'Hate' invariably short-circuits it, making the Pakistani to completely lose his mind. Without a mind, the Pakistani is easy to manipulate by Al Qaeda, who sends them on soosai missions against the munafiqeen and the kafirs. So America should desist from spreading terrorism in Pakistan through Aid agencies. "Brandy & Branding are both haraam in Islam!"

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 12 Oct 2010 20:16

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/internat ... -daily-046

Prevent India from getting Security Council seat: Pak daily
October 12th, 2010

Islamabad: Pakistan should make all efforts to prevent India from getting a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council so that it does not get the power to block the world body's resolutions on Kashmir, a Pakistani paper said Tuesday.

"By ignoring the UN resolutions on Kashmir, India has lost the confidence of the global community. If it gets into the Security Council and acquires the veto power, it will be able to block any movement on the Kashmir issue as well as any other matter inimical to its interests," an editorial in the Nawa-i-Waqt said.

It claimed that UN Secretary General Ban ki-moon has also ruled out any expansion of the Security Council and India getting a place in it during his term, which is due to end next year.

"Even after Ban Ki-moon's term ends, India must not be allowed to become a member of the Security Council. Even if the UN wants to expand the Security Council, why must the claims of Pakistan be overlooked?"

The editorial said even as India has making all efforts to get into the Security Council, it was "unfortunate" that the Pakistani envoys to the UN and the US were "unequal to the task and playing into the hands of the Indian lobby".

"It was their responsibility to focus the world's attention on India's real and perfidious face and how it is trampling on human rights in Kashmir. Our envoy to the UN, Hussain Haroon is under the spell of his Indian counterpart," it alleged.

The editorial said that now the UN chief had ruled out any expansion in the near future, Pakistan must make a concerted effort to block India's chances for once and all, as well as make the UN intervene in the Kashmir issue to solve it in tune with its resolutions and the Kashmiri peoples' aspirations.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 12 Oct 2010 20:17

http://pakteahouse.wordpress.com/2010/1 ... ment-47521

The end result is, the debate in Pakistan is censored and limited to the interpretations of Islam. As long as Islam exists in Pakistan, the ambitious and the Machiavellian will exploit it for their own ends and force upon a gullible public more injustices and misery. Islam is not a religion in Pakistan; it is a “free get out of jail card” for any one who wishes to misuse their authority and escape accountability for their actions.

The only way in which Islam can avoid being exploited is to remove it from the affairs of the state. There is palpable fear, noticed, in the replies to this article, which imagines the fires of hell being visited upon the faithful for thinking of an existence outside of Islam.

Removal of Islam as a political religion and its separation from the state does not mean one ceases to be a Muslim.

This is true, unless, one imagines that a religion can only exist within a structure of a state and to remove a religion from a state, will cause the end of that state.

If this is what the majority of the Pakistanis think and believe, then there is no point of reforms, because your state will be a failure and it will continue to be a failure. It will continue to be a mess of contradictions and a realm of injustices.
You may wish to be judged by God’s law while you live on this earth, but the world will judge you by its laws.

The soul of a person is immortal and their salvation is in the next world. The soul of a nation is mortal; its salvation is now in the present. There will be no re-birth for Pakistan in the next world and it will not exist in the Hereafter. Pakistan will live and die in the present world according to its acts, which will be judged by a secular world and not a Divine Authority.

The choice is yours. If you wish to lose Pakistan and maybe live under a different flag, then do nothing because the state is doing a very good job of destroying itself in the name of religion. If you wish to save Pakistan, you will have to deal with the issue of religion and its influence in Pakistani politics and remove its role from the politics of the state.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 12 Oct 2010 20:37

cRAMs:

We must distinguish between the opinions versus the facts that these journalists give to us. Now the facts they present are surely tainted by their opinions, but then these tidbit facts are all we got. We ain't got no Indian or UK journalists with the kind of access hersh or woodward will have. So the facts, assuming they are true, are interesting in their own right. For instance, i found it utterly confusing that Obama's A'stan decision was getting delayed again and again and again in 2009. He was flying to Denmark to get Olympic games, with McCrystal hitching a ride just to talk to him. Now we understand that there are deep divisions, hence the lack of clear decisions. These facts are important, even if the views and interpratation from the Indian POV are different.

Johann,

You said "... Did BRF collectively conclude that the Obama administration was conducting paramilitary operations inside Pakistan against Pakistani clients and allies such as the Quetta Shura and the Haqqani Network?"

What are these paramilitary operations inside TSP? I am afraid I haven't followed BRF lately (or other news) to fully know. If you can give some details that would be nice.

Thanks.

Guddu · Post by **Guddu** » 12 Oct 2010 20:53

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Bollywood ... 11946.aspx
Bollywood causes global water shortage'
Indo-Asian News Service
Islamabad, October 12, 2010First Published: 18:02 IST(12/10/2010)
Last Updated: 18:46 IST(12/10/2010)

What is the prime reason for the world's water shortage? Bollywood films, according to a prominent Pakistani paper.

"The shortage of water is a key global issue these days. And what is the reason for this shortage? Believe it or not, Bollywood films," a report in the Urdu daily Jang

said on Tuesday.

"Bollywood not only spends money like water on its films but prodigious waste of water is also a habit of Bollywood producers and directors," it said, noting in that current Salman Khan superhit Dabangg, one scene which showed the heroine (Sonakshi Sinha) getting wet in the rain "used 180,000 litres of water".

Giving other examples, it said another picture dealing with the 2007 floods in Mumbai used a whopping 3,600,000 litres of water for filming just once scene of the deluge, while the Shah Rukh Khan film My Name is Khan used 2,400,000 litres of water.

"All this was not ordinary water but specially ordered and purified water," it said, noting potable water is not available for half of India's population.

"Akshay Kumar starrer De Dana Dan, like its name, wasted water de dana dan - as much as 8, 400,000 litres," it said, adding it was noteworthy that acclaimed director James Cameron in filming his Oscar-winning Titanic had only need of 450,000 litres of water.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 12 Oct 2010 21:05

Johann/Surinder,

Guys, I agree that certainly guys like Woodward/Cole/Herch etc have tremendous aceess, they are much more substantive than the Fox/CNN bimbos, and they are worth listening to. My main point is that from an Indian strategic POV, they reveal nothing new, in fact, so much so that either they are consumed by nationalism, which is fine, or they are dumb and lazy to go beyond what their Pentagon/CIA handlers feed them, that they repeat the same crap, namely, TSP is not involved in any state sponsored terror against India, its only rouge elements. And US needs to "fix" India & TSP, and wallah, AfPak is won. However, if you look at their books from a US perspective, particularly one who is interested in how the govt works, how decisions are made, the pushs & pulls, the movers & shakers, I am sure they have a lot to offer. Most DC insider books are like this. In just less than 2 years of Obama's presidency, there are tones of books already written. If one is looking for within the beltway juicy tit-bits, perhaphs they are useful, but for me, and I wager to bet for most people, they are not worth the piece of paper they are writen on.

Coming back to the need to "fix" India & TSP colonial theme, here is NYT pontificating more of the same

When President Obama visits India next month, he must quietly urge its government to revive peace talks with Pakistan. That may be the best hope of getting Pakistan’s military to focus on fighting the insurgency.

Johann,

I am still wairting for your response on LET. You speculated that sooner or later, LET will be attacked by US like other "bad terrorists". But as I asked you, can US live with an India that is free of TSP's terrorist porovocations? Can US & TSP live with an India that can either stand up to TSP or even ignore TSP? If US were to go after LET, the lynch-pin of TSP's India strategy, what concessions will US offer? Are there any concessions TSP can live with short of India dismembring herself and offer a part of it (Kashmir) to TSP on a silver platter?

From an Indian POV, I am waiting for an Indian version of Woodward/Coll who can dwell on these kinds of details in scholarly terms. I could do a little less with what Adm Mullen said to Obama over a glass of wine about increasing AfPak troop strength from 15,000 to 15,5000 and who disagreed bla bla

, or the "profound differences" between two of Obama's inner circle wonks on whether to give TSP $10 billion or $10.5 billion. They are still in the billions, thank you very much

.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 12 Oct 2010 21:28

shiv wrote:
Long ago I had generated the following image to try and explain how and why the US plan of supporting the Paki army while allowing the LeT or other anti-India groups to survive was unlikely to work. .Both the US and the Pakian army are, ultimately in the business of killing other Pakis - most of whom come from a Sunni Islamic stock that believe that they represent the homeland for Muslims and that anyone who is against Pakistanis is against Islam. This feeling goes right up to the elite.

.

1) Paki jihadis/army killing Indians never results in dead Pakis, unless of course you are counting those suicide attackers .

2). There are simply way too many Pakis

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Oct 2010 21:41

jamwal wrote:

1) Paki jihadis/army killing Indians never results in dead Pakis, unless of course you are counting those suicide attackers .

Think again sir. 45 have been killed by Indian soldiers in the last two months alone. The total on the last 15 years exceeds 15000 IIRC.

What we tend to forget is that a lot more Indians would be dead if it were not for our security forces quietly doing their jobs. We have such a high degree of Americanitis on here that we gleefully post the work of droneacharya and not a chirp about what's happening at our border.

But we are Indians onlee. Phoren is always better. Always superior.

I guess we need to accept ourselves as we are. Ghulam mentality and all.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 12 Oct 2010 22:04

A_Gupta wrote:http://pakteahouse.wordpress.com/2010/1 ... ment-47521
Removal of Islam as a political religion and its separation from the state does not mean one ceases to be a Muslim.This is true, unless, one imagines that a religion can only exist within a structure of a state and to remove a religion from a state, will cause the end of that state.
If this is what the majority of the Pakistanis think and believe, then there is no point of reforms, because your state will be a failure and it will continue to be a failure. It will continue to be a mess of contradictions and a realm of injustices.

Myket amusing ,Poaks got hold of the Islamist crocodile long ago and now want to get off. Naat possible. They must live together till some one from ouside shoot both of them. Till the challenge the dogma they cant evolve to become part of humanity with nature given thinking capabilty.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 12 Oct 2010 22:10

Shiv saar,
India has lost 1000s of security personnel as well as civilians too, not to mention the economic damage. Ask anyone from J&K. Much more than 15000 Pakis are born in a single day. Indian rate of killing Pakis is not fast enough. Also Indian actions are reactive in nature. We are killing Paki invaders inside our own territory while Americans are doing it on Paki territory even when they don't face any direct threat. There is lot of difference between our half-hearted reactions and American action. How many dead Pakis we can count for 26/11 ?

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 12 Oct 2010 22:28

CRamS wrote: Johann,

I am still wairting for your response on LET. You speculated that sooner or later, LET will be attacked by US like other "bad terrorists". But as I asked you, can US live with an India that is free of TSP's terrorist porovocations? Can US & TSP live with an India that can either stand up to TSP or even ignore TSP? If US were to go after LET, the lynch-pin of TSP's India strategy, what concessions will US offer? Are there any concessions TSP can live with short of India dismembring herself and offer a part of it (Kashmir) to TSP on a silver platter?

Hi,

My reply regarding the LeT is on page 64 of this thread, it is the second to last post on the page.

As for Kashmir, I don't think its going anywhere. The Indian Republic has never voluntarily ceded sovereign territory. I doubt its going to start now, and I don't think the Americans are going to throw their weight behind the idea either - they have an inkling of how futile and even dangerous really going for it would be.

As with the US-sponsored Arab-Israeli dialogue, talks will be a matter of process above substance. We can see the limits of American influence in Pakistan - why would anyone think India would be more susceptible? American pressure on both sides will be to make symbolic gestures because thats the best they can hope for.

From an Indian POV, I am waiting for an Indian version of Woodward/Coll who can dwell on these kinds of details in scholarly terms. I could do a little less with what Adm Mullen said to Obama over a glass of wine about increasing AfPak troop strength from 15,000 to 15,5000 and who disagreed bla bla , or the "profound differences" between two of Obama's inner circle wonks on whether to give TSP $10 billion or $10.5 billion. They are still in the billions, thank you very much .

Most of the Indians (who actually live in India) I've spoken to who take a serious interest in this sort of thing have a profound interest in whether America will remain in Afghanistan or not, what they're doing to Pakistan, what if any accommodation they might make with the various Islamist Pashtun groups, etc. That is part of the value of high-level beltway reporting.

Indians have lived unhappily with the reality of on and off US military aid to the Pakistan Army from 1954 to the present; on the other hand a direct American presence on the ground is something not seen since WWII. A direct combatant role against subcontinental players has never been seen before. There is more than the just the question of Pakistani-sponsored urban terrorism, another unhappy reality experienced by Indians more or less continuously since 1980. It is also a matter of global and regional geopolitics which matters as India's regional and global role grows and changes.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 12 Oct 2010 22:41

CRamS,

Your point is well taken, but Woodward's book does point out how dysfunctional various agencies are in conducting AfPak operations, he exposes the dirty laundry for what it is even though it deliberately leaves out any India discussion. It serves as lessons in future bilateral relations.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 12 Oct 2010 22:55

Johann wrote:CRS,

In any case we should not fixate on the LeT and its SIMIan friends as Pakistan's only subversive tool against India. What is going on in the Vale of Kashmir is a good example of why bombs are not the only problem.

Wrong. The arrogance and unreasonable posture of the Sunni Muslims in the vale of Kashmir is directly related to the support they receive from TSP, and the threat India faces from TSPA/LET. Thats why I said that if you take out TSP's ability to create mischief, India and Muslims in the vale will accomodate each other. And you know that very well.