The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

[shiv]

I am sure you have read this - but yet again..

http://kaiser-aeronaut.blogspot.com/200 ... force.html

F-16 CAPs could not have been flown all day long as spares support was limited under the prevailing US sanctions. Random CAPs were resorted to, with a noticeable drop in border violations only as long as the F-16s were on station. There were a few cases of F-16s and Mirage-2000s locking their adversaries with the on-board radars but caution usually prevailed and no close encounters took place. After one week of CAPs, the F-16 maintenance personnel indicated that war reserve spares were being eaten into and that the activity had to be ‘rationalised’, a euphemism for discontinuing it altogether. That an impending war occupied the Air Staff’s minds was evident in the decision by the DCAS (Ops) for F-16 CAPs to be discontinued, unless IAF activity became unbearably provocative or threatening.

Those not aware of the gravity of the F-16 operability problem under sanctions have complained of the PAF’s lack of cooperation. Suffice it to say that if the PAF had been included in the initial planning, this anomaly (along with many others) would have emerged as a mitigating factor against the Kargil adventure.

Thank you. If you recall I drew your attention to that link. May I point out what you have missed?

The author is Kaiser Tufail and not Tufail Haider (I was hoping you might catch that but you did not ) But that is not all. You have also missed the detail in your long quote.

Combat air patrols in Kargil were eating into "war reserve spares". That means Pakistan had spares for a war but they did not consider Kargil to be a war for which war reserves could be used up.

There is nothing in that link to say that Pakistan would not be able to fight a war using those F-16s in the nuclear strike role. They even had war reserves of spares. But they were unable to mount combat air patrols for Kargil. You seem to have missed that apart from misreading the name of the author. And this a decade after your USA cruelly but benignly "neglected" Pakis. Some neglect.

From:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/49785676/8/Ro ... il-Confict

In sum, the PAF found it expedient not to worry too much about minor borderviolations and instead, conserve resources for the larger conflagration that was looming.

The PAF played very little role in Kargil because they were saving themselves up for a larger war. Not because they were unable to fight - and this after a decade of sanctions. A nuclear strike by those F-16 would have been well within the realms of possibility after the poor ickle Pakis were benignly neglected by the bad bad US of A

[shiv]

may I ask again, how the US will remain in the region if it is no longer in Pakistan and gets its supplies via Iran/Russia/CIS. Which region would the US remain involved in? And how would that be relevant to India?

The US interest is less in Pak, it is in Central Asia, with Afghanistan as the fulcrum...The relevance to India is at one level similar - to have a foothold in the new "great game"...We can do that under the umbrella of a US presence, not if the place is left "free" for Pak and China to run...at least for now..

I am unable to understand how India is going to play any great game in Afghanistan when the game is being played in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a bogey and you seem to have bought that bluff. That bogey is an American bluff sold to US citizens.

After all - you are yourself anxious to point out that China will be the bigger threat to India. Where? In Pakistan of course. Not Afghanistan. What kind of great game do you expect India to play alongside the US when both the US and China have gamed with India using Pakistan as the fulcrum?

In what way is this Indian "foothold" in the great game going to make any difference to India that according to the dire warnings you have made will face terrible odds against a China inside Pakistan?

[VikramS]

shivji:


With due regards, if an AF reaches a point where it has to eliminate CAPs in a war, then it is truly in a desperate position. Of course they did not want the entire fleet to be grounded if fighting escalated, but how long would they have lasted then?

[shiv]

shivji:


With due regards, if an AF reaches a point where it has to eliminate CAPs in a war, then it is truly in a desperate position. Of course they did not want the entire fleet to be grounded if fighting escalated, but how long would they have lasted then?

VikramS two points

1)They had war reserves and those F-16s could have been used in a strike role - perhaps even a nuclear suicide attack. The PAF did not consider Kargil to be the war that they were preparing for.
2) This was after a decade of sanctions

Fast forward to 2011. The US is still supplying F-16s and spares to Pakistan.

That means that those F-16 will still be available in 2021 (at the very least) in the nuclear strike role even if the USA quits supply today.

Pakistan has managed to keep F-16s flying and effective (to varying degrees) from 1985 to 2011 and is likely to keep them that way till 2021 at least. By 2021 Pakistan would have been in existence for 74 years. And for 36 of those years (nearly half of Pakistan existence) Pakistan would have had US supplied F-16s in a strike capable role. Protecting Pakistanis and threatening Indians.

Is one nuclear strike against India OK? One of the reasons why I started the 50 nuke thread was because so many people are so nonchalant and dismissive about the nuclear threat from Pakistan - not just the GoI whom everyone likes to blame. Might as well learn to get hit and survive.

[shiv]

http://www.historycommons.org/context.j ... 16pakistan
F-16, nukes the US and Pakistan 1983 to 1998

1983-87

1983-7: US Sells Forty F-16 Fighters to Pakistan, Possibly Reconfigured to Carry Nuclear Weapons
The US sells forty F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan. One of the contractual preconditions of the sale is that Pakistan does not configure them to drop a nuclear bomb. However, US analyst Richard Barlow will conclude that in fact all of them are configured to carry nuclear weapons.

June 1989

The next day, President George Bush tells her that in order to continue to receive US aid, she must assure the White House that her government will not take the final step of producing nuclear-bomb cores. Bush says he will still allow the sale of sixty more F-16 planes needed by to Pakistan, even though Pakistan has fitted such planes with nuclear weapons in the recent past, despite promising not to do so

1990

October 1990: US Imposes Sanctions on Pakistan
Since 1985, US Congress has required that sanctions be imposed on Pakistan if there is evidence that Pakistan is developing a nuclear weapons program (see August 1985-October 1990). With the Soviet-Afghan war over, President Bush finally acknowledges widespread evidence of Pakistan’s nuclear program and cuts off all US military and economic aid to Pakistan. However, it appears some military aid will still get through. For instance, in 1992, Senator John Glenn will write, “Shockingly, testimony by Secretary of State James Baker this year revealed that the administration has continued to allow Pakistan to purchase munitions through commercial transactions, despite the explicit, unambiguous intent of Congress that ‘no military equipment or technology shall be sold or transferred to Pakistan.’” [International Herald Tribune, 6/26/1992] These sanctions will be officially lifted a short time after 9/11.

1996

May 1996: State Department Incorrectly Finds Chinese Government Not Involved in Pakistani Nuclear Deal
The US State Department releases a report saying the Chinese government is not supplying equipment for Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program. The report was drafted in response to a leak to the press saying that the US administration knew the Chinese government had signed off on the sale of Chinese magnets for Pakistani centrifuges (see Early 1996). However, the report says there is “no evidence that the Chinese government had wilfully aided or abetted Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program through the magnet transfer.” Authors Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark will comment, “It flew in the face of the truth—in the same way that Bush officials had claimed F-16s could not be used to deploy a nuclear bomb” (see August-September 1989). Levy and Scott-Clark will add that Gordon Oehler, the US national intelligence officer for weapons of mass destruction, is “furious” with the report and the lack of sanctions imposed on the Chinese.

1998

(December 3, 1998): Clinton, Pakistani Prime Minister Reach Deal on Shutting Down A. Q. Khan, Deal Not Implemented

US President Bill Clinton and Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif reach an agreement on co-operation between their countries. According to a deal offered by Clinton, the US will refund Pakistan most of the $470 million it owes for a group of F-16 fighters ordered and paid for by Pakistan but never delivered (see August-September 1989). In return, Clinton asks Sharif to close down Pakistani nuclear proliferator A. Q. Khan and his operations, as well as training camps for radical Islamists in Afghanistan that are supported by Pakistan. However, Sharif does not fulfill his end of the bargain, and the Pakistani government continues to support both Khan and the training camps. According to authors Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark, Sharif thinks he can get away with the inaction because of Clinton’s preoccupation with the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal and the US’s generally permissive attitude to Pakistani nuclear weapons.

[Lalmohan]

i wonder if PAF receives F16 spares via Turkey and/or the UAE?

[somnath]

Thank you. If you recall I drew your attention to that link. May I point out what you have missed?

Shiv-ji, not really, you simply referred to Kaisar Tufail's (and yes, I got the name wrong) account in support of your hypothesis that American conventional weapons make a "deterrence" for India...

What was being pointed out int he post below was that with declining US interest in indulging Pak, the latter will be faced with a situation similar to Kargil, when its F16 fleet faced problems mounting even a limited theatre ops..You seem to have missed the point I had highlighted..

Suffice it to say that if the PAF had been included in the initial planning, this anomaly (along with many others) would have emerged as a mitigating factor against the Kargil adventure

This was the state of Pak's F16 fleet - and this was "conventional deterrence" for India?!

What you are saying now is different -

There is nothing in that link to say that Pakistan would not be able to fight a war using those F-16s in the nuclear strike role

Pak does not really need F16s to "deter" India in delivering nukes..their ballistic missiles (or cruise missiles) do the job well enough to "deter"...

Anyway, dont think a discussion on F16s is that germane to the topic - so will stop here.

[RajeshA]

may I ask again, how the US will remain in the region if it is no longer in Pakistan and gets its supplies via Iran/Russia/CIS. Which region would the US remain involved in? And how would that be relevant to India?

The US interest is less in Pak, it is in Central Asia, with Afghanistan as the fulcrum...The relevance to India is at one level similar - to have a foothold in the new "great game"...We can do that under the umbrella of a US presence, not if the place is left "free" for Pak and China to run...at least for now..

I am unable to understand how India is going to play any great game in Afghanistan when the game is being played in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a bogey and you seem to have bought that bluff. That bogey is an American bluff sold to US citizens.

After all - you are yourself anxious to point out that China will be the bigger threat to India. Where? In Pakistan of course. Not Afghanistan. What kind of great game do you expect India to play alongside the US when both the US and China have gamed with India using Pakistan as the fulcrum?

In what way is this Indian "foothold" in the great game going to make any difference to India that according to the dire warnings you have made will face terrible odds against a China inside Pakistan?

All this Great Game stuff can get confusing! Speaking of fulcrums without defining what is supposed to be the load, who is applying the force and to what end, can also get confusing. So people can start talking about totally different things.

As far as I see it,
India's main aim is the destruction of Pakistan.

When I speak of destruction of Pakistan, then I mean

1. Political fragmentation of Pakistan into smaller provinces.
2. Removal of the word Pakistan from the names of any provinces.
3. Decommissioning of Pakistani Army, or for that matter any armed groups in the region, which consider India to be an enemy.
4. Weakening of Pakistaniyat, a mentality which considers Islam as a tool to keep different ethnicities together in a political union.

All other interests, like energy procurement from Central Asia, or political influence in Central Asia, etc. come after that.

The question is:
Can we formulate a scenario, in which USA helps India in destroying Pakistan, and can we push America to implement such a scenario?

At the moment, USA is stuck in Afghanistan. It is biting Obama's Presidency. So regardless of whether USA wants an honorable exit from Afghanistan or whether USA proposes to stay put in Afghanistan, USA is definitely looking for a way to cut down on its casualties and to end an armed rebellion by the Pushtuns against the coalition forces in Afghanistan.

The Blackwill Plan was floated as a possible way out for USA. Blackwill Plan is designed to cool Pushtun passions by retreating from Pushtun areas. Creating a new "state" of Pushtunistan is an extension of that plan. What this shows is that there are constituencies in USA establishment open to new ideas, including ideas of breaking up Pakistan. These are the constituencies, India can encourage.

One major reason however why the Blackwill Plan and its various versions are not seeing the light of day is, Pakistan does not approve of it, and as Pakistan controls the gateway to Afghanistan, where US forces are stuck, as well as the armed struggle against USA there, the theory is that that makes America dependent on Pakistan as well as overly sensitive to Pakistani position.

What we would like to see is, that America decides in favor of creating a "Pushtunistan", which includes the Pushtun regions of Pakistan, thereby biting off a considerable chunk of Pakistan. If America needs a certain level of independence from Pakistan, then India could perhaps make that independence available to USA by setting up new supply routes into Afghanistan, where USA is stuck.

The assumption here is that America's hands are tied because of demands of sensitivity towards Pakistan's views, and that stops America from finding a solution to the armed insurgency directed against them in Afghanistan. Now we have to test that assumption. That is why the grand bargain needs to be proposed to USA.

If USA is not open to the suggestions on a "Pushtunistan", then India need not help USA.

[shiv]

Let me make a prediction. Of course it is easy to make predictions when no one can catch you out and say "Nyahaha haa you were wrong!". But despite that I will make a prediction. And if I am right - you heard it here first.

The US will pull out of AfPak. Before that they will get a "commitment" from Pakistan that Afghanistan will not be used for anti-US activities. Pakistan will readily acquiesce to such a demand but extract the price that India should be kept out. This will be an easy concession for the US to give. India will be out of Afghanistan.

Control of Af-Pak will then become a "joint US-Pakistan" effort. US troops will go home and the US will retain some bases and facilities within Pakistan.

If you rewind to 2001 - the US did not require troops on the ground to scatter the Taliban and decimate the little infrastructure they had. Destruction is after all easier than building. Since the US preserved Pakistani influence in Afghanistan and treated Pakistan as special - the relationship can continue. It is only right that the US should trust Pakistan as it has always done. Pakistan can declare victory and the US can get its troops home saying that the Al Qaeda has been defeated and bin Laden presumed dead.

What could happen after that is worth some speculation. Pakistan of course will move right back into Afghanistan. Karzai will be deposed and a Taliban friendly government will rule Afghanistan from Kabul. Any Talibanic extremism in Afghanistan will only "prove" that Pakistan was right all along that Afghanistan and not Pakistan is the source of extremism which Pakistan will then control.

Will terrorism against India restart in earnest? When did it stop? Terrorism against India was in full swing until November 2008. After that there have been further attacks in India albeit with lesser frequency. But infiltration across the border remains high. Even today two men have been killed. Terrorism against India has never stopped despite the myth that has occasionally been pushed on here to suggest that it has "stopped" due to US influence. Of course I am sure the US has played a variably positive role here. When Pakistani actions against India have led to a situation where US interests in Pakistan could be damaged, the US has stepped in to press on one or both parties to back off - and this has meant some pressure on Pakistan as well as some intel sharing with India.

To me the only question is how much of this will continue after the US "hands over AfPak to Pakistan. The US as I have repeatedly stated is in a balancing act. it may not want to see Pakistan go down, but it will also act to see that the influence Pakistan has does not give them unmitigated power. So there is some scope for hope that the US will sometimes play a game that is beneficial to India. Exactly how the US can be pressured to play that game is something I am unable to say now. I suspect it will mean destabilizing or putting Pakistan at risk if Pakistan's anti-India actions get exacerbated - forcing the US to step in diplomatically and financially.

What about China. Putting Pakistan in charge of AfPak should be fine for China as long as Uighuristan is not destabilised via the AfPak region. China will look to the Pakistan army to ensure that. The Pakistan army will require to really maintain control over jihadis in Afghanistan. With the US remaining involved with Pakistan - the dynamics of unrestricted Chinese entry into Pakistan will be stymied at best.

Pakistan will be left to stabilize itself and India will be requested to toe the line as Pakistan does that. India's only pound of flesh here will be destabilization of Pakistan if Pakistan does not behave. Given the situation in Pakistan we will continue to see an unstable Pakistan. We will continue to see attempts at infiltration and terror attacks. My main concern is how long the Pakistani army is supported with the latest weapons and money to give them more confidence to act against India.

I believe that a lot of people have misread the utility of nukes to Pakistan.

Nukes in Pakistan have emboldened the Pakistani army to undertake conventional attacks (terrorism) against India knowing that fear of nuclear retaliation will stop India from hitting Pakistan willy nilly. I see no change in that situation. However I do see a need for reducing Pakistan's access to the technology to fight a sophisticated modern war. We will never be able to stop Pakistan from fighting a guerilla, subconventional war. India will have to somehow impress on the west that instability in Pakistan makes it dangerous to supply them with sophisticated arms. China is a different issue and our relationship with China needs to be handled on its own merit. We cannot "philosophically" accept western arms aid to Pakistan on the excuse that they will get it anyway from China.

As long as Pakistan wields a nuclear deterrent (which is forever) Pakistan will remain a threat to India, but reducing its technological ability to fight a conventional war against India will erode the "gap" that Pakistan has between terrorism and nuclear war.

What I am saying may sound counter intuitive. What the US is doing with Pakistan is as follows:

1) Pakistan fears India
2) Pakistan retains terrorist on its side because India is far superior in conventional arms
3) Addressing Pakistan's fear of India can reduce Pakistani instability
4) Making the Pakistani army stronger against India in conventional arms will increase the gap between the use of terrorists as the "low end threat" and the use of nukes as the "high end threat". Pakistan will have a middle order strength of conventional weapons which will hopefully give Pakistan the confidence to stop relying on terrorists.

This line of thinking is completely wrong. Pakistani society is militarized and jihadized. By improving Pakistan's conventional arms strength the US is not making Pakistan rely less on jihadis. Pakistan will never be satisfied by its conventional arms. Pakistan will retain all that conventional strength and still freely use terrorism against India. In addition the conventional arms will pose an extra military threat that will be more difficult for India to handle in case of hot war. If Pakistan manages to chew off a part of Rajasthan, Punjab or Kashmir - it will be that much more difficult for India to reclaim that because of the threat of a nuclear sword of Damocles.

If Pakistan conventional strength is decreased the army will have only two options: terrorism or nukes. Under the circumstances this is the best India can hope for. Unfortunately Pakistan is more intelligent and Chanakyan than the West. Pakistan responds to a situation where it is denied conventional arms and aid by saying that the jihadis are going to take over the nukes. This is a veiled threat to the US and the West that says "Our nukes, currently aimed at India will end up in the hands of people who may nuke you". The west falls for this consistently. They will never allow the Pakistan army to fail or become weak as long as the Paki army shows that it is
a) In control of nukes
b) Those nukes are aimed at India alone.

As far as I can tell one way out for India (short of losing territory to Pakistan) is to accept the possibility of war with Pakistan with a nuclear exchange in which both India and Pakistan sustain nuclear damage but India manages to come out on top.Whatever the options - India's only option is to become a military superpower even if we continue being a superpower power with more weapons than toilets. We cannot allow the absence of toilets to stop us from threatening everyone. Including China and the US if they act against our interests. e cannot rely on them to act in our interests. The US can hardly do that even if it wanted to - so fcued up is its game.

All the great-game-shate-game business is fluff. IndiaPakistan IS the great game.

[RajeshA]

As far as I can tell one way out for India (short of losing territory to Pakistan) is to accept the possibility of war with Pakistan with a nuclear exchange in which both India and Pakistan sustain nuclear damage but India manages to come out on top.

When we start talking of nuclear war as the only option, other than capitulation, we concede that our intelligence and wisdom has failed us, and we have only bravery and hope to rely on from now on! Even WKKs have more options and proposals.

If we are already there, I see no purpose for all these threads on BRF!

Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India Thread should suffice!

[RajeshA]

Let me make a prediction. Of course it is easy to make predictions when no one can catch you out and say "Nyahaha haa you were wrong!". But despite that I will make a prediction. And if I am right - you heard it here first.

The US will pull out of AfPak. Before that they will get a "commitment" from Pakistan that Afghanistan will not be used for anti-US activities. Pakistan will readily acquiesce to such a demand but extract the price that India should be kept out. This will be an easy concession for the US to give. India will be out of Afghanistan.

Control of Af-Pak will then become a "joint US-Pakistan" effort. US troops will go home and the US will retain some bases and facilities within Pakistan.

This is the most-popular prediction for US mission in Afghanistan.

[Lalmohan]

hmmm... china is paying jaziya to pakistan to keep uighurs in check
thats another way to look at things...

[PrasadZ]

Let me make a prediction. Of course it is easy to make predictions when no one can catch you out and say "Nyahaha haa you were wrong!". But despite that I will make a prediction. And if I am right - you heard it here first.

The US will pull out of AfPak. Before that they will get a "commitment" from Pakistan that Afghanistan will not be used for anti-US activities. Pakistan will readily acquiesce to such a demand but extract the price that India should be kept out. This will be an easy concession for the US to give. India will be out of Afghanistan.

Control of Af-Pak will then become a "joint US-Pakistan" effort. US troops will go home and the US will retain some bases and facilities within Pakistan.

This is the most-popular prediction for US mission in Afghanistan.

But isnt this the current status quo?! Both China and US support and aid Pakistan right now and moving one of them away from Pakistan is a net benefit, is it not? If China alone supports Pakistan, its a welcome development as far as I can make out. Currently, Chinese support causes no takleef to US and both provide aid in parallel to Pakistan. But significant Chinese presence in Pakistan has the potential of alienating amreeka given their fears about PRC.

[RajeshA]

But isnt this the current status quo?! Both China and US support and aid Pakistan right now and moving one of them away from Pakistan is a net benefit, is it not? If China alone supports Pakistan, its a welcome development as far as I can make out. Currently, Chinese support causes no takleef to US and both provide aid in parallel to Pakistan. But significant Chinese presence in Pakistan has the potential of alienating amreeka given their fears about PRC.

I don't see subtraction, I see transformation!

[RajeshA]

Even as this thread deals with or should deal with an important aspect of the dynamic in India's neighborhood, it sees India as a passive party.

[shiv]

hmmm... china is paying jaziya to pakistan to keep uighurs in check
thats another way to look at things...

Definitely. Pakistan is extracting a price here. But the US is paying jaziya too. And, it is popularly claimed on here that India is paying the maximum jaziya.

This IMO is one way of painting a "Pakistan as dominant disruptor" picture of reality and it certainly aids clarity in some ways. But very often we get stuck arguing by some saying "India pays more jaziya. China not paying jaziya" etc to paint a slightly different picture that tries to paint India is submissive and passive to all"

Depending on the perspective and the issue all are probably true and if we stick to measurable indices rather than imponderables - we have a three huge and populous nations that are at the top of the world's economic clout and military clout and one Pakistan that is an economic failure but enough military clout to give headaches to all three.

India has faced and essentially seen off (so far) the military threat from Pakistan despite aid from both the US and China.

The US, now in Pakistan is doing its best to maintain Pakistan's military clout and not get into war with Pakistan.

China currently has the least possibility of having any sort of adversarial relationship with the Pakistan military. But still - China has its concerns because the "military" of Pakistan has been spread out to include various Islamist groups united on an anti-India platform. But some of the "unofficial military" of Pakistan are now anti US as well. A small percentage have shown some intolerance of all non Muslims including the Chinese. Naturally it would suit China not to face the reversal that the US is facing and that means paying jaziya.

In effect all three countries, India, the US and China are having to hedge their behavior on Pakistani actions. All are paying jaziya. But if you examine the statement seriously - it appears to me that India is paying the least jaziya and earns the maximum wrath. But having said that India is also the only country that really cannot afford to pay any jaziya the way the US and China pay. The consequences of paying are less for them But India can and must make it costly for the US and China for what they have been doing.

Religious freedoms for Muslims and Buddhists in India as well as democracy and freedom are tools that India needs to unsettle China's applecart. Apart from formidable military strength.

JMT

[RajeshA]

The US as I have repeatedly stated is in a balancing act. it may not want to see Pakistan go down, but it will also act to see that the influence Pakistan has does not give them unmitigated power. So there is some scope for hope that the US will sometimes play a game that is beneficial to India. Exactly how the US can be pressured to play that game is something I am unable to say now. I suspect it will mean destabilizing or putting Pakistan at risk if Pakistan's anti-India actions get exacerbated - forcing the US to step in diplomatically and financially.

<snip>

India's only pound of flesh here will be destabilization of Pakistan if Pakistan does not behave.

shiv saar,

just looking for clarification!

Are you suggesting that post-retreat from AfPak, USA would be punishing Pakistan, if Pakistan messes around with India??!!

I have not been able to see any reason for this silver-lining, either in your posts nor in any commentary otherwise. Pray explain, the reason for such confidence!

[shiv]

Rajesh India can be suicidal and plan for nuclear war with Pakistan. The US will appeal to both sides but apply pressure on the side to which it can apply more pressure. If the US keeps off - fine - we go kill ourselves and screw life for everyone else. Irrationality is a game that two can play. I want to see Pakistanis preparing to survive nuclear war. We don't even need a mad population. Only a bunch of mad "right wing hindootvavaadi" leaders.

The second point is that India's existence and rise is destabilizing to Pakistan. But that's not our problem. If that gets threatened it's better to take Pakistan down in suicidal nuclear war. Who says Hindus are afraid of death? We got new lives comin' up soon. With 4 arms an all next time. What with all the fallout you know.

Pakistan has no rational solution. Only irrationality can control Pakistan.

[Lalmohan]

so, al hakimi - the way to think of pakistan is as the ultimate parasitical state. it infests a host - US, China and extracts benefits from it, whilst simultaneously damaging it, eventually beyond recovery
we will leave aside the ravages of the infestation on india for now

[shiv]

so, al hakimi - the way to think of pakistan is as the ultimate parasitical state. it infests a host - US, China and extracts benefits from it, whilst simultaneously damaging it, eventually beyond recovery
we will leave aside the ravages of the infestation on india for now

I am convinced that you are right. But it is difficult to say that because circumstances make Indians on here feel the victim and everyone thinks that the US and China have everything under control. Once you take that attitude there is nothing to discuss.

[ramana]

LalMohan ,
TSP as PRC munna is easier to handle for India than as munna of US. PRC has little to no leverage in India . US on the other hand has multiple leverages in and out of India the main one being the intellectual delusion of India governing groups.

[shiv]

Ok to end the day let me take up one more angle - in fact it is something I wrote about in the deterrence thread in 2009.

What's in it for the US and China to pressure India and Pakistan to avoid nuclear war? To paraphrase Sunil - "What goes of their fathers if IndiaPakistan blast the crap out of each other in a nuclear war"

[ramana]

The pressure is on India not to retaliate for thats the end of their munna and leverage on India. As long as India fears that nuke threat form TSP its a caged elephant and they can manage the rise. I will go out on a limb. Despite all the CMD, if TSP uses a nuke, India will wipe out TSP conventioanlly and the world cannot do anything as the nukes are there to ensure that.

[RamaY]

Pakistan has no rational solution. Only irrationality can control Pakistan.

Pakistan == Bhasmasura; USA = Shiva that gave the boon of Jihadism; Time for India's Mohinyattam

[svinayak]

India has faced and essentially seen off (so far) the military threat from Pakistan despite aid from both the US and China.
The consequences of paying are less for them But India can and must make it costly for the US and China for what they have been doing.

I had advocated that before. Pak maintenance cost must be made prohibitive until social changes and mil decline is done inside Pakistan.

[svinayak]

The US interest is less in Pak, it is in Central Asia, with Afghanistan as the fulcrum...The relevance to India is at one level similar - to have a foothold in the new "great game"...We can do that under the umbrella of a US presence, not if the place is left "free" for Pak and China to run...at least for now..

Why are we promoting american view point here in BRF. Indian interest is the most important in this forum

[Muppalla]

India has faced and essentially seen off (so far) the military threat from Pakistan despite aid from both the US and China.
The consequences of paying are less for them But India can and must make it costly for the US and China for what they have been doing.

BRF should boldly discuss the strategies regarding how India could increase the cost for both US and China. This forum is too soft when it comes to discussing the US stuff. To be fair to India, whether it is by design or by accident, the costs for US in India's vicinity has increased post 1998 Nuke blasts. However, starting Nuke deal onwards lul period is continuing in this aspect.

[Lalmohan]

how many more davis arrests will the US be able to stomach?

[Muppalla]

how many more davis arrests will the US be able to stomach?

If US thinks, Central Asia should not have direct access to India as fundamentally important geostrategic need then these are not important. US will sustain any number of its deaths. US persued Iran inspite all sorts of kidnappings for more than 25 years. What is the reason it still goes after Iran?

In my view, US has no direct Interest in Central Asia. US interest is only make sure India does not have access. This distiction is important. Why would US need CA when it has open tanks in West Asia. Russia also has good oil sales via Europe and especially Germany. So this CA oil resources is not an important reason for US to persue Af-Pak at all costs. It is important that India does not have access. Period.

[Lalmohan]

no my friend - india is not the core issue, india is peripheral
it is all about the oil

[Sushupti]

US interest is only make sure India does not have access.

Why it is inimical to US interests for India to have access to CA?

[Muppalla]

^^^
That is the great game modelled several times. US does not need to sweat that much in AF-Pak for oil. It can get un-interupted from persian gulf as long as it wants before some new innovation that replaces Oil comes out.

Its persistence in AF-Pak region is to make sure other potential powers do not reach a level of challengers in terms of prosperity. Central Asia has tradition links to Russia, China and India. If these links solidify post WW-II, and a block of Russia+China+India as a challenge to US (+West) happens, it is losing situation for US.

The events and urgency that happened during Indo-pak partion to ensure JK is split with complexity is a pointer. Another pointer was the JFK times strategy paper regarding how to deal with India and China. The summary is to never allow permanent friendship between China and India and that would a disaster.

I am not convinced about the need for CA oil to US and the desperation to play dirt in AF-Pak region. CA oil resources is a soft lemon ( snake oil probably )sold by Indo-US friends everywhere. It is simply the demon India that is the reason.

[Lalmohan]

not so sure, beyond arabia, the next great untapped reservoir is central asia
its surrounded by strong powers (Russia, China)
the softer underbelly is via the south
iran is closed
arabia is not entirely secure
a route up through af-pak remains strategically attractive

[svinayak]

US interest is only make sure India does not have access.

Why it is inimical to US interests for India to have access to CA?

Unless these books are read this kind of questions keep repeating.

www.sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119973.pdf

http://www.hollings.org/Content/Zbignie ... .Board.pdf

http://www.takeoverworld.info/grandchessboard.html

Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America's status as a global power." (p.55)

"Uzbekistan, nationally the most vital and the most populous of the central Asian states, represents the major obstacle to any renewed Russian control over the region. Its independence is critical to the survival of the other Central Asian states, and it is the least vulnerable to Russian pressures." (p. 121)

[Referring to an area he calls the "Eurasian Balkans" and a 1997 map in which he has circled the exact location of the current conflict - describing it as the central region of pending conflict for world dominance -- map above]
"Moreover, they [the Central Asian Republics] are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold." (p.124)

"The world's energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the U.S. Department of energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea." (p.125)

"Uzbekistan is, in fact, the prime candidate for regional leadership in Central Asia." (p.130)

"Once pipelines to the area have been developed, Turkmenistan's truly vast natural gas reserves augur a prosperous future for the country's people.” (p.132)

"In fact, an Islamic revival - already abetted from the outside not only by Iran but also by Saudi Arabia - is likely to become the mobilizing impulse for the increasingly pervasive new nationalisms, determined to oppose any reintegration under Russian - and hence infidel - control." (p. 133).

"For Pakistan, the primary interest is to gain Geostrategic depth through political influence in Afghanistan - and to deny to Iran the exercise of such influence in Afghanistan and Tajikistan - and to benefit eventually from any pipeline construction linking Central Asia with the Arabian Sea." (p.139)

"Turkmenistan... has been actively exploring the construction of a new pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea..." (p.145)

"It follows that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it." (p148)

"China's growing economic presence in the region and its political stake in the area's independence are also congruent with America's interests." (p.149)

"America is now the only global superpower, and Eurasia is the globe's central arena. Hence, what happens to the distribution of power on the Eurasian continent will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy and to America's historical legacy." (p.194)

"Without sustained and directed American involvement, before long the forces of global disorder could come to dominate the world scene. And the possibility of such a fragmentation is inherent in the geopolitical tensions not only of today's Eurasia but of the world more generally." (p.194)

"With warning signs on the horizon across Europe and Asia, any successful American policy must focus on Eurasia as a whole and be guided by a Geostrategic design." (p.197)

"That puts a premium on maneuver and manipulation in order to prevent (preempt) the emergence of a hostile coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America's primacy..." (p. 198)

[Muppalla]

Acharya ji,

I will sure read them. Assuming you read them what do you think in terms of US interests in AF-Pak region? Is it just oil of CA for itself or is it not allowing others (especially India) to get the CA Oil. Or is it both. If it is both which one takes precedence. India or Oil. My bet is curbing India's growth is more important for US than the resources.

[svinayak]

Acharya ji,

I will sure read them. Assuming you read them what do you think in terms of US interests in AF-Pak region? Is it just oil of CA for itself or is it not allowing others (especially India) to get the CA Oil. Or is it both. If it is both which one takes precedence. India or Oil. My bet is curbing India's growth is more important for US than the resources.

The book was published in 1997. I have been reading it for more than 10 years now. One thing is that what they had in their scenarios to change the region has not happened but it has taken a different turn. Currently the signal I get is that their hold on the region is tenuous and less than their expectation.

The oil strategy is of two part. Get to the region with the OIL and get access. They are in Khazakh in Tbilisi and Almaty from 1993. My friend was visiting this place from the that period. The other one is to deny the oil to any other player in the region if they dont get the OIL access.

[Muppalla]

The oil strategy is of two part. Get to the region with the OIL and get access. They are in Khazakh in Tbilisi and Almaty from 1993. My friend was visiting this place from the that period. The other one is to deny the oil to any other player in the region if they dont get the OIL access.

Assuming that getting Oil for themselves is a real priority over stopping access of CA oil to other powers (specifically India) then they wouldn't operate the way they operated. Take the case of Middle east where they just went there and built those nations with massive infrastructure. Like paying massively to Mushys and abduls to clear up a vast areas of land with no-abdul zones to put pipe lines, Texaco, Chevron zones etc to Gwadar. They are capable and they could have done it by now and the alternative oil would be flowing today.

Instead they are doing such a harakiri so that the one tribe fights over the other and things like that. They are more interested in smoking out caves and drone attacks as opposed to anything else. In this approach they are ensuring that pipelines will alway remain pipe dreams. This gives credibility to my reasoning that the target is very straighforward for US and that is India.

[svinayak]

They may want to deny access to middle east and the region for all major countries

They are capable and they could have done it by now and the alternative oil would be flowing today.

Instead they are doing such a harakiri so that the one tribe fights over the other and things like that. They are more interested in smoking out caves and drone attacks as opposed to anything else. In this approach they are ensuring that pipelines will alway remain pipe dreams.

This is known as containment

[vishnua]

When you make cold calculations which are usually termed as objective in nature it is pretty staright forward. Rest after that is all for public consumption.

You only do 2 things to stay on top. This is the repeat of what Acharya is saying..

1. You be the first and hence have the monopoly on the resources on a particualr region.

2. When you are already the first and the prevent others at any cost to get access.

3. This has not be done that frequenctly since colonization ended i..e uproot existing players. This is where there is takleef about China in Africa. Europeans and US after pillaged everything from Africa.

1 and 2 are what is driving US policy towards India wrt to CA. Once you have CA access then it will be like US having access to KSA.

US does not any more oil. They are waiting for the Tar lands in Canada. The only reason why they cannot bank on is that the cost extraction is very high even though transportation cost would be insginificant. There are some environmental issues as well to extract oil . It seems the oil reserves there are around 170 to 180 bil barrels. That would be more than IRAQ and next to KSA in terms of capacity.

For folks in US, go to any local lib and there is VHS tape that has explanations and interviews from Brit Ambasadors from 1920's and 30's on how UK lost to Americans on the KSA oil.

[VikramS]

http://www.businessinsider.com/former-g ... 000-2011-3

Cycle guy predicts major war soon....