The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 May 2011 21:03

X-posting.....

CRamS wrote:
Johann wrote:CRS,

The US can use its significant diplomatic leverage if Pakistan is sabre-rattling against India.

In any actual attack on Pakistan's nukes, all bets are off as far as physically preventing every launch.

As for a single commando raid on a single target in Pakistan - I would have had said yes, because of what the US has been doing in Pakistan since the summer of 2008, and because of what it has done elsewhere in the past.

If you remember I've been saying that the US is steadily escalating its secret war in Pakistan, to which your response has generally been 'its not serious, call me when they really go after the LeT'. Even before the Raymond Davis crisis broke, it was in the air (I dont just mean word of mouth, but the well-connected but offbeat media of both left and right) that JSOC was operating in Pakistan, not to mention the CIA's paramilitary forces (both US and Afghan nationals).

During the Son Tay raid in 1970, SOG (the precursor to JSOC) flew in to some of the most heavily defended airspace in the world - and landed choppers in a PoW camp the heart of North Vietnam and flew out without a single casualty. The Americans have done other things like that have never made any headlines.

Nukes (and not pre-production nuclear infrastructure) however, are a different story. Think about North Korea for a second - do you think the Americans, especially in the Bolton-Rumsfeld years didn't seriously consider every single military option?
Boss, first things first. I cannot argue with you on operational details, you are much more well informed than I am on this front. But I will give you the big picture, and I challenge you to refute it.

Do you accept (yes/no) that while professing helplessness in not being able to take out TSP nukes, whether or not its true, there is a huge geo-political reason why US and its lackeys, and China, are quite happy to see nukes in TSP's hands? And the reason, I as many others here do believe with good reasons, is because once TSP nukes are taken out of the picture, this "South Asia" is a nuclear flashpoint crap goes out of the window, and us SDREs can get a little uppity with the P-5. Of course, US knows that us decent SDREs will never think of using nukes, but the very fact that possession of nukes gives us SDREs some level of self confidence in our dealing with the west is what is a no no for them. Do you not accept this?

Now lets come to some hard facts. TSP is the evil pit of terrorism in the world. Every f^*%ing terrorist responsible for 9/11 was found in TSP. And this does not even include the savage beasts TSP has arrayed against India. US acknowledges this. TSP has proliferated nukes. Once again US acknowledges although its brilliant protect TSP disinformation campaign is in place, calling it the A.Q.Khan network as a way to disassociate TSP from this racket. Bottom line, TSP is the epitome of a mad, jihadi extremist rat hole with nukes, and yet US does not even talk about rolling back its nukes. I find this incomprehensible. And on the contrary, it is galling to note that US draws an equivalence between India & TSP on nukes. That’s the give away.

Contrast that with Iran and North Korea (your example). In those cases, US is actively campaigning for rolling back their nukes. Why not even a fraction of the same obsession when it comes to TSP which is far more dangerous and volatile than either Iran or NK. And are you telling me there are no geo-political reasons for this? Are you telling me that the India factor does not figure in their calculations? Give me a break!!!

I don’t believe a word of what US says when it pleads helplessness.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 09 May 2011 21:06

x posted from the same thread

CRS,

To every potential successful operation there are two key elements that *must both* be present - political will and military capability.

You are arguing that US willingness to act against Pakistani nuclear weapons in any sense is weak or non-existent, but that the military capability certainly exists.

What I am taking issue is the idea that a reliable, non-nuclear military capability exists - if it did it would have been used elsewhere in places where the intention and desire certainly existed.

Name *one* case where a country has attacked another nuclear power's nuclear weapons.

Ramana has shifted part of this nuclear discussion to the US-PRC-Pak thread, and I will continue there.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 May 2011 21:20

One fallout India has to worry about as the US ratchets the pressure on TSP and leads to jihadi blowback in TSP, is the potential for a jihadi dirty bomb on India as a TSPA demonstration to US.

The raid on OBL unless TSPA was involved at the highest levels could have led to some mis-apprehension in TSP about the source of the attack.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 May 2011 21:23

Sort of leads to my post...

shyamd wrote:^^ The TSPians want war with us. Think about it - the entire nation is butchering each other. If we fight them now, this will unite them. Pak is on the slippery slope. Let them butcher each other and let the US do the dirty work. Lets grow our economy and spend our resources on expanding our infra, social(health, education) programs etc.

There will be more terror attacks, they are probably working on it now. Another thing is, TSPA have signaled via their proxies that they don't want trade to open (obviously, we are competing with the TSPA businesses, so they are viewing this as a threat). They need something to close the piss process.

GoI rightly moved troops to forward locations. We are now on high alert on the border, they will try and create some limited border clash. Best thing we can do is to not engage them - they need something to unite them - what better than India

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 09 May 2011 21:32

CRamS wrote: TSP has proliferated nukes. Once again US acknowledges although its brilliant protect TSP disinformation campaign is in place, calling it the A.Q.Khan network as a way to disassociate TSP from this racket. Bottom line, TSP is the epitome of a mad, jihadi extremist rat hole with nukes, and yet US does not even talk about rolling back its nukes. I find this incomprehensible. And on the contrary, it is galling to note that US draws an equivalence between India & TSP on nukes. That’s the give away.

THis is the balance of power and strategic play.
Just by ignoring India and arming Pakistan they have passed 50 years and now for another 100 years they can do the same thing.

India and Pakistan new reports are mostly for the western world and public viewers in America. Some of the public thinks that Pakistan is bigger and stronger than India and this perception is kept in the public news.Few I met even talk about missiles from Pakistan firing on India and they talk with a twinkle in their eyes. That is the kind of the public image they have kept on Pakistan and a different image on India.

US does not even talk about rolling back its nukes and jihad much since this is accepted.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 09 May 2011 21:40

One of the most important elements of a nuclear programme and nuclear arsenal's security is counter-intelligence. US failures in counter-intelligence for example ensured that the first Soviet nuclear weapon, the RDS-1 tested in 1949 was an almost exact copy of the Fat Man dropped on Nagasaki four years earlier. Later US nuclear counter-intelligence failures are also well known.

While India's nuclear programme took this threat very seriously, Pakistan's did not. Both India and the US penetrated it, and the US also developed human sources within it back in the 1970s and 80s.

This was in part because the Pakistani effort was fragmented in to competing secret fiefdoms that jealously guarded their privileges, and were caught up in larger power struggles within the Pakistani security establishment.

One of the things Musharraf did after Pokhran and Chagai in 1998 was centralise, consolidate and formalise direct military supervision over every aspect of every strategic programme now that it was no longer necessary to pretend Pakistan had no nuclear weapons ambitions or capabilities. The main tool for that was the Strategic Plans Directorate (SPD) under Khalid Kidwai, who is still in charge.

What the SPD's establishment meant is that the Pakistani nuclear establishment could not use the influence of powerful retired military personnel like Aslam Baig, or people like GI Khan when they didnt like what the COAS was saying. This of course led to some serious ego clashes, which appears to be the main reason A. Q. Khan lost supervision of KRL in 2001. This is not that this is to suggest for a moment that Musharraf and the COASs before him did not sign off on Pakistani out-proliferation. What I am saying is that it changed the angle from which direction and initiative on nuclear issues came.

The SPD likes to go around the world saying that this much greater level of security and counter-intelligence (e.g. vetting personnel, conducting security audits, etc) is a good thing because it weeds out those whose loyalty and obedience to the cause of jihad is independent of or eclipsed by their loyalty and obedience to the COAS.

While that is probably true, what it doesn't really advertise is that this counter-intelligence effort is and was at least as much aimed at the US, and is meant to ensure that existing US moles were identified and removed. and new ones prevented. The security effort (which includes dispersal and deception) is aimed at denying access to *all* non-authorised access, and that includes the Americans.

My own sense based on what I have read and heard is that the SPD is probably more professional, and less compromised than the ISI (either by the Americans, jihadi tanzeems, or non-serving Pakistani security factions), which is why it was kept distinct from it from the start.

It is also clear that one of the reasons the Pakistani nuclear weapon production programme is expanding as fast as it has been for the last decade is a determination to create something so big that Pakistan is guaranteed to retain a second strike capability against any US or other attempt to hit its arsenal. This is the same kind of fear of counter-force attacks that drove US and Soviet nuclear arms race until strategic arms talks stabilised the situation.

The US and Pakistan need a stable deterrence against each other - this current situation where mutual hostility and competition is not openly spoken of in order to facilitate other kinds of cooperation is dangerous and destabilising. Things need to come out in to the open, become acknowledged and frankly discussed. I think we're getting much, much closer to that now.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 09 May 2011 21:49

Johann wrote:
The US and Pakistan need a stable deterrence against each other - this current situation where mutual hostility and competition is not openly spoken of in order to facilitate other kinds of cooperation is dangerous and destabilising. Things need to come out in to the open, become acknowledged and frankly discussed. I think we're getting much, much closer to that now.

How will the dynamics change if US grants more military aid to Pakistan. US can give AWACS and even some latest version of F16/F18 to Pakistan. It can also give some dual use hi tech to Pakistan which will make it more secure.This can contribute to the stable deterrence between US and Pakistan.

US also can give lot of guarantee to Pakistan and its govt regarding money and other trade/business/commercial status.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 09 May 2011 21:58

Acharya wrote: How will the dynamics change if US grants more military aid to Pakistan. US can give AWACS and even some latest version of F16/F18 to Pakistan. It can also give some dual use hi tech to Pakistan which will make it more secure.This can contribute to the stable deterrence between US and Pakistan.

US also can give lot of guarantee to Pakistan and its govt regarding money and other trade/business/commercial status.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 May 2011 22:03

And throw in the EU $900M textile imports incentive that India got shot down.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 09 May 2011 22:11

Muppalla wrote:
How will the dynamics change if US grants more military aid to Pakistan.

I am serious about this. If US keeps around 10000 military personals inside Pakistan to keep the military hardware under service it will contribute to more stability. Also some NATO troops can come inside Pakistan and station for advisory and relationship. This will go a long way to ensure stability in the region.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 May 2011 22:13

^^^ You know that re-colonization.

Even the Brits didn't have that many troops in what is now called Pakisatan!

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 09 May 2011 22:14

ramana wrote:^^^ You know that re-colonization.

Even the Brits didn't have that many troops in what is now called Pakisatan!

But times have changed. This is the nuclear age and for stability of the global nuclear regime this is acceptable.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 10 May 2011 01:22

Johann,

There is a hole in your analysis. Pakistan does not have any weapon that can reach U.S. so Pakistan doesn't exactly have a deterrent against US.

A thought has occurred to me. Has PRC installed any means of control or sabotage in the missiles and nukes that they have gifted to Pakistan in case Pakistan decides to use those weapons against China?

Another thought came to me - How can we really take Pakistan's word that its nukes are safe from the jihadists when they continue to deny or obtuse or shift the blame for the OBL fiasco?

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 10 May 2011 01:23

ramana wrote:^^^ You know that re-colonization.

Even the Brits didn't have that many troops in what is now called Pakisatan!

And that area managed to stay under control of the British for many years?! Unbelievable.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 May 2011 01:24

Yeah they used to control the guys who control the tribes.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 10 May 2011 01:26

Large number of cantonments were created from 1880 to 1920 to control the entire area west of Indus. They created the large land holding zamindars who became the ruling RAPE group of Pakistan now.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 10 May 2011 02:47

Hi Acharya,

The Pakistanis would much rather have Chinese troops overtly present on their soil than Americans or Europeans - its a process unfolding in slow motion.

However in the meanwhile there is the nuclear issue.

In December of 1988 Humayun Khan and KPS Menon the younger signed an agreement on behalf of the Indian and Pakistani governments to refrain from attacing each others nuclear facilities, which entered in to force in 1991.

This was a recognition that in the light of immanent weaponisation counter-proliferation style attacks on each others facilities (seriously considered in the Indira Gandhi years) would nothing more than destabilise the situation and undermine deterrence.

The United States needs to sign some sort of similar agreement with Pakistan.

Hitesh,

It wasn't until the 1986 that the PRC was able to field a weapon system capable of reaching the United States. Its very first missiles could only reach US bases in Japan, its next generation US bases in the Philippines, and the third, Guam. Despite this inability to reach US civilian populations, the threat was taken seriously.

Its not that different with Pakistan. The US has large troop concentrations in Afghanistan, and there is also the jihadi nuke threat. Coming missile generations may be able to threaten Diego Garcia as well.

The jihadi nuclear threat is much better dealt with by making if the US makes it publicly clear that any Pakistani nukes that get lose and is employed will be treated as if they were delivered by the PA itself. Pakistan must be held responsible for anything and everything that is in its stockpile. Its not enough if these messages are private - deterrence has a public component which must be used if stability is to be maintained.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 May 2011 23:32

Nightwatch, 5/18/2011

Night Watch 18 May 2011

China-Pakistan: Citing unidentified "media reports," Pakistan's Dunya news reported on 18 May that China will give 50 JF-17 aircraft to Pakistan on an emergency basis.

Pakistani Prime Minister Gilani, on the second day of his visit to China, and Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao discussed bilateral relations and other strategic matters, including the US Abbottabad operation and its effects on the region.

Comment: The last time China made a special effort to help Pakistan on an emergency basis by providing combat aircraft was after the near-war with India in 2002. India began preparing for war almost immediately after the bombing of the Indian parliament by a Pakistan-based and supported terrorist group, the LeT, in December 2001. Pakistan followed.

India brought to full combat readiness and deployed 750,000 soldiers, hundreds of combat aircraft and both naval fleets to attack Pakistan in early January 2002. Pakistan's armed forces, under Musharraf as Chief of the Army Staff and leader of Pakistan, failed to complete their war preparations. Last minute US and British diplomatic intervention prevented war.

China has a history of responding quickly to Pakistani requests for emergency military aid. In 2002, China provided emergency combat aircraft to Pakistan after the threat of war with India eased. During the 1971 India-Pakistan general war, it provided emergency ammunition and other supplies by road to prevent the total defeat of Pakistan. It is once again honoring its longstanding alliance commitment.

The dominant issue in Pakistan's parliamentary and internal military debate about the Abbottabad raid was the lack of any response to an armed air intrusion. The air force chief admitted that radars on the Afghan border do not operate continuously, as they do along the Indian border, because of the expense and the assessed lack of an air threat from Afghanistan. Pakistan also maintains no fighter-interceptors on alert along the Afghan border because of the expense and shortage of resources.

The timing of the Chinese announcement indicates it is tailored to help correct the deficiencies in Pakistani air defenses along the Durand Line. The fighters signify that Pakistan has made a strategic reappraisal of the air threat from Afghanistan. The Pakistan Air Force now recognizes the need to defend that airspace. The Chinese also will have shared insights about and experience with radar surveillance and other air defenses in mountainous terrain. Other air defense equipment support is likely to be provided as well.

As NightWatch has reported on several occasions, the US relationship with Pakistan has been irreparably broken. A new, more arms-length relationship is evolving in which the US is a friend for some purposes and a potential threat for others.

One implication is that the operating environment for drones and other aircraft appears to be about to change. The drones and their crews have ably demonstrated their war fighting capabilities under conditions in which the US owns the airspace. That is an important benchmark. However, their performance in a non-permissive environment is a different, important benchmark, which has yet to be established. It is about to be, along the Durand Line.

The second implication is that, by acting quickly, China has drawn Pakistan more tightly into its sphere of influence, countering a decade of US aid and energy. Prime Minister Gilani said on 17 May on arriving, China is Pakistan's best friend.

As I said elsewhere this will force India to take countermeasures and that will have its own dynamic like 1998.

The Sino-TSP joint alliance was one of the redlines that breaches the Indian strategic thought.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 19 May 2011 23:40

^^ Our civilization is at stake - Glad its a redline. AKA says A-V is getting ready as well as accelerating the PAD production

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 19 May 2011 23:52

Johann wrote:Hi Acharya,

The Pakistanis would much rather have Chinese troops overtly present on their soil than Americans or Europeans - its a process unfolding in slow motion.

The United States needs to sign some sort of similar agreement with Pakistan.

Chinese troops cannot survive in the NWFP and the tribal lands. They will be butchered.
The radical groups and ALQ are defying all govt troops including the Pakistani troops. So this is not going to end.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 May 2011 07:03

cross post

anmol wrote:
US Pakistani Relations Beyond Bin Laden
George Friedman

Hmm - Friedman is selling some snake oil here.

He leaves out any mention of that component of Pakistani support to jihad that was used against India, and highlights the great importance of the US to Pakistan to "fend off enemy, India". Friedman is choosing to ignore the important fact that Pakistan, for all its supposed dependence on the US, did not trust the US enough to ditch its support for jihad.

To me it seems that Friedman is trying to push the following idea to Pakistan. "We the US will support you against India, but you should give up support to jihad" .This i one solution that Americans are proposing for their Pakistan problem.

In other words the quid pro quo for giving up Islamst jihad is replacement of one anti-India entity (jihadis) with another (USA).

Can anyone see why I support the take over of Pakistan by jihadis?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 May 2011 07:36

^^Just realised another nuance in Friedman's article

The American option might be to support a major crisis between Pakistan and India to compel Pakistan to cooperate with the United States. However, it is not clear that India is prepared to play another round in the US game with Pakistan. Moreover, creating a genuine crisis between India and Pakistan could have two outcomes. The first involves the collapse of Pakistan, which would create an India more powerful than the United States might want. The second and more likely outcome would see the creation of a unity government in Pakistan in which distinctions between secularists, moderate Islamists and radical Islamists would be buried under anti-Indian feeling.

and

The United States must either develop the force and intelligence to wage war without any assistance, which is difficult to imagine given the size of the Muslim world and the size of the US military, or it will have to accept half-hearted support and duplicity. Alternatively, it could accept that it will not win in Afghanistan and will not be able simply to eliminate terrorism. These are difficult choices, but the reality of Pakistan drives home that these, in fact, are the choices.

"Preserve Pakistan" is the flavor of all seasons

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 20 May 2011 08:26

George Friedman is a classic Balance of Power theorist. Mackinder would be very proud of GF's credentials when it comes to supporting British-born ideas of world domination (assuming of course that Mackinder would get over the fact that GF is a son of Abraham).

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 20 May 2011 08:30

devesh wrote:George Friedman is a classic Balance of Power theorist. Mackinder would be very proud of GF's credentials when it comes to supporting British-born ideas of world domination (assuming of course that Mackinder would get over the fact that GF is a son of Abraham).

These are the cold warriors whose time is up

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 20 May 2011 08:41

^^^
i'm not so sure about that. these guys have a surprisingly strong grip on US foreign policy establishment. they keep surviving in some way, shape, or form, no matter which administration is in power. for a brief time, it seemed as if they were gone during Bush II regime. but they are back with vengeance under Obama.....

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 May 2011 09:21

Devesh, All this goes away once PRC hits the skids. This three-some is dog eating its tail system.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 20 May 2011 12:02

the bandars are less then useless on pakistan's western border. any air threat from afghanistan will be NATO or Unkil, who will easily sweep aside all 50 bandars in a repeat of the "mariana's turkey shoot" even with the low level of resources they have there.

ofcourse bandars are pretty useless on the eastern front too

this is all H&D and posturing

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 20 May 2011 12:32

^^^
agreed PRC is the linchpin of this. that is what gives me hope and also makes me sad. Chinese civilization has been cursed with the disease of Communism. what they've done is blindly follow the West and make the Chinese people forget that they were once a great civilization. instead, now they believe cool skyscrapers are the center of their national identity. PRC is a terrifying example of the power of Social Engineering. how an entire civilization can be made to forget its culture??? How their own fellow citizens can implement inhuman policies of forceful abortions and mandatory one-child policies???? PRC is the greatest fantasy come true for hard core Western Malthusians and Eugenicists.....

China has to be once again humbled. it has to take a long view and stop with the short term policies based on US thinking. it has serious issues to take care of. namely, how they're going to manage the transition of their economy. instead, their heads are filled with Western style fantasies of imperialism, and the result is that the country, all the while seeming to be on the path to hegemony, is actually committing blunders which are slowly adding up.

on one hand, they've borrowed US/Western thinking of hegemony and power. on the other hand, they seem to believe that they can do what Japan did after 1868. my theory is that current policies of PRC are a direct result of borrowed thinking from Japan and US/West. this is the basic ailment that is inflicting China. this is a result of social engineering. all the propaganda over the decades about Chinese race being defeated by Japanese and humiliated by West are catching up to China. their entire thinking has now become revolved around his victim mentality. victim mentality is good, but there has to be a solid identity of yourself, which can then transform the 'victim mentality' into concrete action which isn't a set back to your country. China lacks this b/c of all the Nationalistic narrative. their history books are probably filled with page after page of the same victim mentality, especially after Mao's "cultural revolution." a more long term stress on their education would develop a better understanding for Chinese leadership.

so, basically, China suffers from the same deracinated "school academics" as India!!!!

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 20 May 2011 12:58

devesh wrote:George Friedman is a classic Balance of Power theorist. Mackinder would be very proud of GF's credentials when it comes to supporting British-born ideas of world domination (assuming of course that Mackinder would get over the fact that GF is a son of Abraham).

Mackinder was anti-Bolshevik, and as British High Commissioner in Southern Russia in late 1919 and early 1920, he stressed the need for Britain to continue her support to the White Russian forces, which he attempted to unite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halford_Mackinder

It is interesting that Mackinder was opposing the Bolsheviks which were being supported by the elites dominating Britain.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 20 May 2011 13:58

anmol wrote:US Pakistani Relations Beyond Bin Laden
George Friedman
. . . In moving to Afghanistan and allying with the Taliban, al Qaeda inevitably was able to greatly expand its links with Pakistan’s ISI

This is true. The ISI, along with OBL greatly expanded the Tora Bora complex.It wanted the Pakistani tanzeems to share his Al Badr terror training centre in Khost. It should not come as a surprise if indeed PA officers and specialists were working as trainers in these camps for both Pakistani tanzeems and Al Qaeda. That was why Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was unwilling to work with the CIA in nabbing OBL when the Americans broached this subject because he knew that would work against the interests of the ISI. In any case, that he had no authority to take such decisions was another matter.

More interestingly,

The first involves the collapse of Pakistan, which would create an India more powerful than the United States might want.

I consider this quite an astonishing admission so openly. Nothing surprising to us here in BR though.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 20 May 2011 22:16

^^^
SSridhar ji/garu, GF has admitted it several times now that keeping India in check is the ultimate goal of US "South Asia" policy. keeping this balance is crucial for US power, he declared this in his latest book. if India gets a free reign in IOR, American power receives a significant blow.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 May 2011 22:22

Regardless of his ravings in Strat For, India needs to breakfree of the chains of PRC-TSP-US triple compact which constrain it. It need not be violent but the chains/fetters have to be taken apart.

An aside, if you read the accounts of "Hundred Years War" you realise the English did not have the demographics to occupy France but yet used to attack it periodically and looted it constantly. In the end France unified and defeated them.

Similarly constraining India is a big project bound to fail. Indians need to identify all the forces trying to keep her down and isolate, defeat or transform them one by one.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 May 2011 22:30

Night watch 19 May 2011

Night watch 19 May 2011

China-Pakistan: Update. On the third day of Pakistani Prime Minister Gilani's visit to China - and the 60th anniversary of diplomatic relations, China warned that any attack on Pakistan would be tantamount to an attack on China, The News reported.

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao reportedly told Pakistani Prime Minister Gilani that Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi warned Washington during the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue to respect Pakistan's sovereignty. Moreover, Beijing will send a special envoy to Islamabad to express solidarity with Pakistan, a senior Chinese official said.

Comment: The precise wording and the intentions of the Chinese are not clear and there seems to be less substance than grandstanding. The words suggest China has agreed to act as Pakistan's protector, in some circumstances.

China's implied promise of a response would seem to apply to another US raid against terrorists and to drone attacks. What is not clear is how China might honor that commitment.

The language also seems to indicate that China would assist Pakistan in the event of an attack from India. China has done so for 40 years. On the other hand, the new alliance language also might imply that in the event of a war between India and China, Pakistan would be obliged to attack India on the flank.

A violation of sovereignty is an act of war, but it cuts in many directions. For example, Pakistan's harboring of Taliban leader Mullah Omar is certainly a hostile act against Afghanistan and arguably an act of war.

Nevertheless, the language reported by The News indicates a significant strengthening of the defense relationship, possibly converting it into an alliance as close as that which China has with North Korea. After the US, China is emerging as the largest beneficiary from the death of bin Laden!

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 20 May 2011 22:34

time for a peace and friendship treaty with afghanistan

saadhak · Post by **saadhak** » 21 May 2011 17:33

shiv wrote:Can anyone see why I support the take over of Pakistan by jihadis?

This is a true statement for people who agree that Pakistan:
1. is the migraine of the world. Pakistan suffers from metastatic cancer. (terms borrowed heavily from Amirkhan officials)
2. is exactly what a country should not be
3. has chosen the path of self-destruction (vinaash kaaleye vipreet buddhi - when someone's end is near, the intellect is robbed of him - apologies for the loose attempt at translation

)

Any attempt to prolong the life of a country that is the epicentre of ideologies like using terrorism is against the interests of a civilized world aspiring towards peace and prosperity. And any turn of events or strategies and solutions that accelerate the demise of a disease must be encouraged and supported.

George Friedman's advice is ruling out the option of ridding the world of the Pakistan aka terrorism problem as a solution. Why - for fear of a more stable and powerful India. His advice is clearly to choose, in his own words, between duplicity of Pakistan and acceptance of terrorism; over a more stable and powerful India.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 May 2011 18:47

one implication of he over $18B 'aid' from US since 9/11 and the growth of TSP nuke bomb factories is that the US funded the bombs and the military.

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 21 May 2011 19:36

I have an idea.

Next time the US decides to give more hi tech weapons and technology to Pakistan to make it feel secure and hence bring about stability in South East Asia, India too should contribute to Pakistan to feel secure about itself. But how, you ask?

India is ICBM capable (although India does not have ICBM weapons). India should share this with Pakistan. So Pakistan becomes ICBM with nuke capable hence forth making Pakistan feel very secure.

Since Pakistan possessing ICBMs is not going to add Pakistan threat to India, it should be ok. India may even be able to negotiate with Pakistan that is advantage to India in the process. India can tell the US, India is on the US side in helping Pakistan. After all, the US would only be too happy bringing India and Pakistan a little bit closer. It's a win win.

Mind you, I am not advocating Pakistan use the ICBM on anyone anymore than Pakistan is going to use the high tech weapons from the US against India. Oh No.. the horror! Its just to make Pakistan feel secure which is what the whole western world wants anyway. Right?

PS: Next time time we read an article by the likes of Christine Fair on the importance of making Pakistan feel secure. We should present this Idea.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 21 May 2011 23:53

ramana wrote:one implication of he over $18B 'aid' from US since 9/11 and the growth of TSP nuke bomb factories is that the US funded the bombs and the military.

US has funded 100 nuke bombs and another 100 are in the way for Pakistan

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 22 May 2011 10:14

Manny,

Great Idea!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 May 2011 19:59

X-posted....
Meanwhile Nightwatch comments:

Nightwatch 22 May 2011

Pakistan: The Pakistan Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack on 21 and 22 May on Pakistan Naval Station Mehran in Karachi, as vengeance for the killing of bin Laden. More than ten attackers penetrated the base and detonated seven explosions. Four naval personnel were killed and nine injured, plus two US-provided P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft were destroyed.

Chinese engineers reportedly were working at the air base when the attack occurred at approximately 10:40 p.m. local time, sources said. US personnel at the naval air station were reported unharmed.

Comment: On 13 May a Pakistani Taliban attack on a paramilitary police academy killed 80 people, also to avenge the death of bin Laden. This is the second attack against the navy in Karachi in a month. In late April two naval buses were bombed killing four naval personnel and injuring 50.

Pakistan naval security appears incompetent. Like the Rawalpindi garrison attack in 2009, this attack almost certainly had inside help.

The Pakistani Taliban is targeting the Pakistani government for cooperating with the US and for not preventing the death of bin Laden, which it sees as the same thing. These appear to be the opening attacks in a campaign to discredit the elected government, assuming the Pakistani Taliban are following Ayman Zawahiri's guidance. A few more attacks will clarify the attack plan.

During this Watch, news services reported continuing gunfire at the base on the morning of 23 May.

Not lack of surprise at Chinese personnel on a PN base with US supplied aircraft!!!!

Lentils are defintely black.Another joint project is unveiled.

I still stick to my guess it integrating nooks on the Onions.

Could be for Arihant hunting.