Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 2011

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 01 Nov 2011 23:16

what is interesting is UK and Unkil operate in tandem to go above and beyond their call of duty, in manufacturing paki image and paki culture. paki culture

? (yes sir pleaj to pass the zam zam cola only, was afraid for a moment of it being other than creation of terrorism.)

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 01 Nov 2011 23:30

JwalaMukhi wrote:what is interesting is UK and Unkil operate in tandem to go above and beyond their call of duty, in manufacturing paki image and paki culture. paki culture ? (yes sir pleaj to pass the zam zam cola only, was afraid for a moment of it being other than creation of terrorism.)

A very Common expression in Desh is BDY, now we need a new one called Pakistan Da Yaar= PDY .
Pakistan de Yaaar
Sadde teen or Chaar.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 01 Nov 2011 23:36

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/ap ... 14172.html
New signs of Syria-Pakistan nuke tie

WASHINGTON — U.N. investigators have identified a previously unknown complex in Syria that bolsters suspicions that the Syrian government worked with A.Q. Khan, the father of Pakistan's atomic bomb, to acquire technology that could make nuclear arms. This Aug. 14, 2011, satellite image provided by GeoEye, shows a facility in Al-Hasakah, Syria. Invesigators at the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency have asked Syria about this complex, in the center of the image, in the country's northwestern city of Al-Hasakah because they believe it closely matches plans for a uranium enrichment plant sold by the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb A.Q. Khan. (AP Photo/GeoEye Satellite Image) The buildings in northwest Syria closely match the design of a uranium enrichment plant provided to Libya when Moammar Gadhafi was trying to build nuclear weapons under Khan's guidance, officials told The Associated Press.The U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency also has obtained correspondence between Khan and a Syrian government official, Muhidin Issa, who proposed scientific cooperation and a visit to Khan's laboratories following Pakistan's successful nuclear test in 1998.The complex, in the city of Al-Hasakah, now appears to be a cotton-spinning plant, and investigators have found no sign that it was ever used for nuclear production. But given that Israeli warplanes destroyed a suspected plutonium production reactor in Syria in 2007, the unlikely coincidence in design suggests Syria may have been pursuing two routes to an atomic bomb: uranium as well as plutonium.Details of the Syria-Khan connection were provided to the AP by a senior diplomat with knowledge of IAEA investigations and a former U.N. investigator. Both spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.The Syrian government did not respond to a request for comment. It has repeatedly denied pursuing nuclear weapons but also has stymied an investigation into the site bombed by Israel. It has not responded to an IAEA request to visit the Al-Hasakah complex, the officials said.IAEA officials contacted Tuesday also declined to comment.The IAEA's examination of Syria's programs has slowed as world powers focus on a popular uprising in the country and the government's violent crackdown.
Syria never has been seen as being close to development of a nuclear bomb. There also is no indication that Damascus continues to work on a secret nuclear program. If the facility in Al-Hasakah was indeed intended for uranium production, those plans appear to have been abandoned and the path to plutonium ended with the Israeli bombing.But Mark Hibbs, an analyst at the nuclear policy program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace who has spoken to IAEA officials about the Al-Hasakah complex, said it is important to learn more details about the buildings."What is at stake here is the nuclear history of that facility," Hibbs said. "People want to know what did they intend to do there, and Syria has provided no information."Syria has reasons to seek a nuclear weapon. It has been in a Cold War for decades with Israel, a country believed to have a sizable nuclear arsenal."A nuclear weapon would give Syria at least a kind of parity with Israel and some status within the region," said Anthony Cordesman, a national security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.For years, there has been speculation about ties between the Syrian government and Khan.A hero to many in Pakistan for developing the country's nuclear bomb, Khan is considered the world's most prolific nuclear merchant. He supplied Iran with the basics of what is now an established uranium enrichment program that has churned out enough material to make several nuclear weapons, although Iran denies it intends to produce weapons. Libya also bought equipment and a warhead design from Khan for a secret nuclear program that it renounced in 2003.

In 2004, Khan confessed on TV to selling nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya, but he has never spoken of Syria. Khan later said Pakistani authorities forced him to make the confession.The former investigator said Syria acknowledged to the IAEA that Khan made at least one trip to Syria to deliver scientific lectures, as The Los Angeles Times reported in 2004.The former official said he has seen letters from Issa, then a deputy minister of education, written on official letterhead shortly after Pakistan's 1998 nuclear test congratulating Pakistan for Khan's achievement. In subsequent correspondence, Issa suggested cooperation with Khan and requested a visit by Syrian officials to Khan's laboratory, the former official said.Issa, who later served as the dean of the faculty of sciences at Arab International University, could not be reached for comment

.

In a 2007 interview with an Austrian newspaper, Syrian President Bashar Assad acknowledged having received a letter that appeared to have been from Khan, but said his government had not responded and did not meet Khan.

praksam · Post by **praksam** » 02 Nov 2011 00:09

Dhinka Chika Song

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bH5UaUi- ... r_embedded

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 02 Nov 2011 00:43

ISI hacked German police e-mails in Afghanistan

The Pakistani intelligence service passed on information about German President Christian Wulff’s visit to Afghanistan two weeks ago to the Taliban

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Nov 2011 01:24

JwalaMukhi wrote:what is interesting is UK and Unkil operate in tandem to go above and beyond their call of duty, in manufacturing paki image and paki culture. paki culture ? (yes sir pleaj to pass the zam zam cola only, was afraid for a moment of it being other than creation of terrorism.)

THis is their response to the spread of Indian culture which is frightening to them.
Indian culture and soft power is spreading without being opposed.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 02 Nov 2011 02:04

Snake Oil Salesman/ SOS Zehardari
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... aPhmjbB-xo
My Loyalty is to Amerreka not Pakistan !!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Nov 2011 06:43

A_Gupta wrote:Anatol Lieven:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/02/opini ... .html?_r=2

The Pakistani masses have long harbored deep hostility to the United States, which is now being reciprocated by many Americans. Given the appalling consequences for both countries of an armed clash, there is every reason why both sides should seek to keep their mutual hostility from getting out of hand.

Lieven thinks that the consequences of a war between the US and Pakistan would be "appalling" for both countries. Now haven't I been told right on here by more than half a dozen people on several occasions that the US can smash Pakistan in a minute if it made up its mind to do that? What gives? Is Riedel talking crap, or were the rahrah Americas of BRF wrong? Any skepticism about American ability to defeat Pakistan without even blinking was mocked as ignorance of what it means to be a superpower.

Clearly there is a huge gap between Riedel's views and the other view. There is a joke about a man who bought a Rolls Royce for just 100 dollars in Saudi Arabia and drove off into the desert. The car coughed and spluttered to a halt after 50 miles. The man opened the bonnet and found no engine. Puzzled he looked in the boot and found no engine there either. He used a Sat phone to call the RR dealer and ask what was up. The dealer said - "Sir - Rolls Royce has such a great reputation that the car will go 50 miles on reputation alone. There is no need for an engine"

America has a bigger reputation that its real capability. So does Pakistan for that matter. American leaders have frittered away their nation's strengths on useless wars and financial mismanagement. There has been a lack of analysis and vision. The US has been as tactically brilliant but strategically stupid as Pakistan. Truly the two make better allies than enemies. they are so similar.

Someone commented on this page that Pakistan acts as a spoiler, a "kabab mein haddi" for the South Asia region. The US role in Pakistan too has not been positive but has merely been a spoiler for India. If I ever stated that on BRF I was told off by a bunch of rahrah USA's that "The USA acts in its own interest. India needs to learn to act it its interest". You see, the USA's "spoiler" action was praised as some great Chankian US mechanism of dominating. The US's reputation overwhelmed all sense and ability to think. One had to be mentally loyal to America and that loyalty would be damaged by even beginning to think that US leadership and US actions as a consequence were stupid short term ejaculations.

I complain because our thinking ability has been stymied by blind America worship and a blind belief that America is right. If America is right in acting as a "spolier" by arming the Pakis, then the Pakis are perfectly right in acting as a spoiler for anyone else. If the former was in "American interests" then the latter are in Pakistani interests.

The idiotic weakness of America vis a vis Pakistan is really showing out now. i have watched America since the Vietnam days. I have never ever heard anyone from the USA, neither white Americans nor my brothers and friends, the first and second generation rahrah Americans ever talk about "reaching accommodation" with "Vietnamese interests", or "Iranian interests", or "Libyan interests", or "Iraq interests" or "Cuban interests" or "Russian interests" or even "Indian interests". It was always about American interests, American interests, American interests. Astoundingly I am now reading American analysts and writers talking about Pakistani interests and reaching accommodation with them.

India may be a loser nation in the eyes of those who worship America, but that is all we have. The victories we have won against Pakistan in war are the only victories anyone has ever won against Pakistan. We will have to cling on to our interests and keep ploughing a lonely furrow. The USA at best is a spolier for India. At worst it is merely an impotent spectator. And these facts were drowned out by loud renditions of the Star Spangled Banner on BRF and lectures that India was weak and indecisive and should be like America. I never ever want to hear that crap again. It makes me want to puke. Come and wake me up if something changes.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Nov 2011 07:27

praksam wrote:Dhinka Chika Song

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bH5UaUi- ... r_embedded

This is brilliant. It's a work of art.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Nov 2011 07:32

India plans to build Afghan-Iran rail link
By: Thenation Monitoring | Published: November 02, 2011
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... -rail-link

NEW DELHI - In a bold move to assert itself in the Af-Pak region and reduce Pakistan’s room for manoeuvre, India is finalising a plan to construct a 900-km railway line that will connect Chabahar Port in Iran, being built with Indian help, to the mineral-rich Hajigak region of Afghanistan, reported Hindustan Times on Tuesday.
Chabahar is just 72 km west of Pakistan’s Gwadar Port, being built with Chinese help.
When completed, this line will throw up both tantalising geo-political and economic opportunities for India as well as potential for bad blood with both friends and foes.
Here’s why: It will increase Indian leverage in Afghanistan and its strategic presence in the region. In the past, however, New Delhi has refuted Pakistani fears that India is encircling it. It will give Afghanistan access to the sea, thus, reducing its dependence on Pakistan. It will open opportunities for Indian companies to explore Afghanistan’s mineral wealth, believed to be worth $1-3 trillion, for mutual benefit. Just consider: the entire Indian economy is valued at $1.2 trillion.
It will add to the economic rationale for Indian investment in Chabahar. Once the entire network comprising of road, rail and port is in place, it can become a launching pad for greater economic and strategic involvement of India in the oil and mineral-rich Central Asia.
However, the greater cooperation with Iran in Chabahar (and, presumably, in other areas) will almost certainly upset the Americans, whose support is essential if India is to play a greater role in the region.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Nov 2011 07:33

The US endgame exhibits confusion?
By Dr Farooq Hassan | Published: November 2, 2011

http://nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-news ... -confusion
The high-level US delegation that recently visited Pakistan returned, realistically speaking, empty-handed; this is established from the simple “language” used by the Secretary of State. When asked about the success of her tour to Islamabad, during the House Foreign Relations Committee hearing, on October 28, she replied that she had “frankly” told her hosts to go after the militants. Among the countries described as professedly “friendly”, diplomatic practice makes the use of such terms as “frank” tantamount to saying that the two sides do not have “consensus ad idem” on issues of crucial significance.
Moreover, Hillary was in Pakistan for barely more than a day, but her team included CIA Chief David Petraeus, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey and Special Representative of the US President on Pakistan and Afghanistan, Marc Grossman. The presence of such a delegation showed the ‘urgency’ with which Washington views the role expected of Islamabad in Afghanistan.
The strained relationship between the two countries, in the wake of the US attack on Abbottabad, is too well known to require reiteration. But, of late, there has been an increase in the American demand for expanding the scope of operations against the Haqqani network within Pakistan. On the other hand, Pakistan has maintained that it would conduct military operations in North Waziristan, if and when required by its own priorities.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Nov 2011 07:34

Under new policy, U.S. pretends Pakistan can be trusted
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... e-trusted/
Pakistan people not trust USA. And vice versa.

Kelly McParland Oct 31, 2011 – 9:32 AM ET

There’s an old axiom, often used in politics, to the effect that “my enemy’s enemy is my friend.”

The U.S. government appears to be shortening that to: “My enemy is my friend.”

How else to explain this?:

WASHINGTON — Just a month after accusing Pakistan’s spy agency of secretly supporting the Haqqani terrorist network, which has mounted attacks on Americans, the Obama administration is now relying on the same intelligence service to help organize and kick-start reconciliation talks aimed at ending the war in Afghanistan.

The revamped approach, which Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called “Fight, Talk, Build” during a high-level United States delegation’s visit to Kabul and Islamabad this month, combines continued American air and ground strikes against the Haqqani network and the Taliban with an insistence that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency get them to the negotiating table.
If the U.S. has made anything clear in the past several months, it’s that Pakistan is not a trusted ally. When President Obama sent helicopters in to kill Osama bin Laden he didn’t inform that Pakistani government because he knew it couldn’t be trusted. The U.S. has persisted in sending drones over Pakistani territory to kill terrorists because it knows Pakistan won’t do the job itself. the U.S. claims Pakistan covertly aids Afghanistan’s Taliban, a claim the Taliban confirms. And Adm. Mike Mullen, formerly the top U.S. military officer in Pakistan, told Congress a month ago that Pakistan’s intelligence force supports attacks on U.S. targets.

But now Washington is hoping the same unreliable, dishonest, double-dealing people who have added significantly to the difficulties and the body count of the Afghanistan mission will help them organize an honourable departure. Good luck buddy. As one “senior American official” acknowledged, the Pakistani position is “Cease-fire, Talk, Wait for the Americans to Leave.” And time would seem to be on their side.

National Post

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 02 Nov 2011 07:44

shiv wrote:
Anatol Lieven:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/02/opini ... .html?_r=2

The USA at best is a spolier for India. At worst it is merely an impotent spectator.

DocJi, your first part I agree 100%. The second part, no. US undertook Abattobaad right under the nose of nuke armed TSP and showed TSP the middle finger thereafter. Not the sign of an impotent spectator IMO.

Now, I don't know what Anatol is smoking., but on the following part, he sounds identical to terrorist Mush and is trying to be too clever by half

An essential part of such negotiations should be to force both Pakistan and the United States to place on the table their own terms for an Afghan settlement and their minimum conditions as far as their own interests are concerned. On that basis, and on that basis alone, it may be possible for these two de facto enemies to make peace with each other. If that is not possible, at least the U.S. will be clearer about the realities of the Afghan War.

Recall Mush's "famous" Kashmir so called "solution" he peddled: take out everything that India, TSP, and KMs disagree on, and sit down and discuss. To which Indian babus declared that if we take out all disagreements, then what is there to talk about?

.

Likewise, TSP's minimum condition is that it de-facto runs Afghanistan. And if this condition has to be accepted, what is there to talk about? Of course,TSP might also say, kick India's arse out of Afghanistan and Kashmir. I wonder if US will accept this as a legitimate "minimum" conditions.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Nov 2011 07:45

Do the US have choice vis a vis TSP!

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Nov 2011 07:48

NEW YORK, October 26, 2011 — Former Foreign Secretary of Pakistan Riaz Mohammad Khan discusses reconciliation in Afghanistan and says U.S. expectations that Pakistan deliver the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani Network are 'somewhat unrealistic.'

Source: http://asiasociety.org/video/policy/ria ... kistan-exp...

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Nov 2011 07:51

Resetting of Pakistan-US relations
http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDe ... 5653&Cat=6

Khalid Khokhar
Wednesday, November 02, 2011

With the killing of Osama bin Laden on May 2 in a unilateral raid by US Navy commandoes SEALs in Abbottabad Pakistan, even a routine dialogue process between US and Pakistan troops came to a grinding halt. The US-Pakistan relation further aggravated when the out-going Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, testified before US Senate sub-committee that the Haqqani network was a “veritable arm” of the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) and alleged ISI’s involvement in suspected Haqqani’s attack of September 22 on US embassy and headquarters of Nato in Kabul that killed 16 Afghans. The United States also accused the Haqqanis of orchestrating a September truck bombing on a Nato outpost that wounded 77 Americans and a June attack on Kabul’s Inter Continental hotel. These allegations caused damaging diplomatic rifts as the Americans seek to end the decade-old war in Afghanistan.

The basic cause of current standoff between the two countries is that Americans are pressuring Pakistan to act against the Haqqani group in North Waziristan for which Pakistan is ostensibly not prepared. The Obama administration insists that they have no doubts the militants are maintaining safe havens in North Waziristan with the complicity of Pakistan — the sites of the planning and operationalising of attacks on US and Afghan troops. The US military commanders warned Pakistan’s leaders that if they were not willing to take action against Afghan insurgents operating out of Pakistani territory, then they could end up “paying a very big price.”

On the other side, Pakistan rejected claims that any element of the Pakistani government supported the Haqqani network or allowed the group to maintain safe havens. Pakistan cannot launch a military assault on Haqqani militants because thousands of its troops are already deployed against the country’s homegrown insurgency, the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and other militant groups. The differences on Haqqani network that have brought the US-Pakistan relations to a make-or-break point, where unipolar superpower pursuing a global strategic agenda against Pakistan seeking generous funding for such priorities as electric power generation, economic meltdown, food security, water issues, etc.

From Pakistan’s perspective, the decade-old military operations by Nato as well as Pakistan Army have not delivered a permanent solution in bringing peace to the Afghan imbroglio. The US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to Pakistan on October 20, along with the new US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, and the new Director of CIA, General David Petraeus, was of great significance in terms of Pakistan-US relations. It seems that the visit was intended to ease tensions between the two countries, which are at loggerheads over the Haqqani network. The powerful trio had earlier sent a stern message from Kabul that made it clear that this historical relationship now depended on Pakistan acceptance of American demands related to the Haqqani network. One wonders if America is going to serve an ultimatum, then what was the point of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit?” But, at the same time, Secretary Clinton showed her inclination to listen to Pakistan’s argument that the military action alone would not put out terrorism. She further added that the two sides are “90% to 95% on the same page.”

This is a welcome move, as the two complaining allies emerged with the broad outlines of a plan that could see Pakistan play a crucial role in helping the US bring the decade-long war across the border to a fine close. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during her visit to Pakistan that she wanted Pakistan to work with the United States on a three-point strategy for defeating extremists, which includes fighting the militants, talking with them and building the region. The United States, Pakistan and Afghanistan had already an understanding on holding a “trilateral dialogue” with the Taliban militants. They also agree that this has to be Afghan-driven and Afghan-owned.

In an interview to the Washington Post, Gen. Scaparrotti, the number 2 commander in Afghanistan, revealed his predilection to initiate rebuilding relationships on a “military-to-military basis, at least.” In this process, Gen. Scaparrotti pressed for re-establishing “routine daily communication” and discussions of how to deal with insurgents.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Nov 2011 07:57

Posted at 12:49 PM ET, 11/01/2011
U.S. sanctions Haqqani network commander
By Jason Ukman

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/che ... _blog.html

The Obama administration has named a senior member of the Haqqani network a specially designated global terrorist, slapping sanctions on the commander as it continues to ramp up pressure on the Pakistan-based group.

The commander, Mali Khan, was recently captured in Afghanistan during a combined Afghan and coalition operation. U.S. officials have identified him as a key coordinator for the Haqqani network, and, in a statement, the State Department said his deputy had provided support to the suicide bombers who carried out the deadly attack on Kabul’s Intercontinental Hotel in June.

“Mali Khan has overseen hundreds of fighters, and has instructed his subordinates to conduct terrorist acts,” the State Department said.

The new designation, announced Tuesday, freezes any assets Khan has in U.S. jurisdictions and bars Americans from engaging in any transactions with him. More broadly, it sends a message that U.S. officials are continuing to exert pressure on the Haqqani network, even as they try to force the group into serious negotiations over a political resolution to the conflict in Afghanistan.

Khan is one of a handful of Haqqani network leaders who have been added to the U.S. list of specially designated terrorists. The State Department last added a member of the group to the list in August.

Since that time, the Obama administration has launched a far more aggressive drone campaign against the group, claiming that its fighters were behind a series of deadly attacks against U.S. and coalition forces, as well as civilians, in Afghanistan.

“I don’t think we could have any more of a robust military effort [in the region] at this point,” an Obama administration official told The Post, “given what’s been done on the Afghan side of the border over the last few weeks, given the ongoing kind of other efforts to target [Haqqani] leadership.”

“That will continue as aggressively and robustly as it has,” the official said, adding: “That does not mean . . . that it will necessarily foreclose opportunities on the talk side, recognizing that we have to keep an open mind.”

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 02 Nov 2011 08:36

This is hilarious:

‘Talk to Taliban? But address not known’
Afghan president Hamid Karzai again ruled out peace talks with the Taliban until he knew how to contact the insurgent group, and until then Afghanistan would talk only to Pakistan. “We cannot keep talking to suicide bombers, therefore we have stopped talking about talking to the Taliban until we have an address for the Taliban ... until that day we have said we will be talking to our brothers in Pakistan to find a solution to the problem that we have,” he said. REUTERS

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 02 Nov 2011 08:45

CRamS wrote: Likewise, TSP's minimum condition is that it de-facto runs Afghanistan. And if this condition has to be accepted, what is there to talk about? Of course,TSP might also say, kick India's arse out of Afghanistan and Kashmir. I wonder if US will accept this as a legitimate "minimum" conditions.

Of course USA will accept, Don't you know that already!

PS: Can you use "ass" instead of "arse". It sounds too british!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Nov 2011 08:52

CRamS wrote: US undertook Abattobaad right under the nose of nuke armed TSP and showed TSP the middle finger thereafter. Not the sign of an impotent spectator IMO.

I don't want to rub it in too hard, but I will quote from my previous post

America has a bigger reputation than its real capability.

The USA got nowhere in 10 years of the war and still does not know how to end it. But one single special forces action under a one-time-only Black president is being tomtommed as a great triumph. Naturally. There is not much more about US strength to write home about.

There is a precedent. The US has done this before. In the closing stages of the Vietnam war the US too "decisive naval action" against a Vietnamese threat/attack on a US naval asset. I have forgotten the details but promise to dig them out.

The US started fighting Al Qaeda in 2001. One would have thought that the war should have ended with that heroic raid. Al Qaeda leader gone and all. "Osama bin Laden wanted dead or alive' Let's roll boys. Go get him. Rah rah rah" So what is the US doing now? Fighting Taliban. Fighting Haqqani faction. Begging Pakistanis with great "firmness" to go after Haqqani. Talking of reaching accommodation with Pakistan. You might like to call this "strength". it looks pathetic to me.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 02 Nov 2011 09:32

http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDe ... 5687&Cat=9
A Deeper -Taller Pakistan-China nexus

But the latest response from China doesn’t do much to clarify Beijing’s strategic positioning in South Asia. Though, there has been total denial from Pakistan’s Foreign Office about such plans, certain developments do give rise to crucial questions that point to possible complications in South Asia’s security matrix.Some recent developments in China may make people wonder if the stage has been set for a Chinese military role in Pakistan. Reports from Beijing last week indicated that China is considering new legislation to define terrorism more precisely. China’s Xinhua news agency said an anti-terror draft bill could pave the way for a renewed campaign from Beijing against terrorist groups, both at home and abroad. As current Chinese law contains no specific definitions of what constitutes a terrorist, a terrorist act or a terrorist organisation, The admission by China’s vice minister of public security Yang Huanning that this incongruity adversely affects “the fight against terrorism, control over terrorist assets, and international anti-terrorism co-operation” is of particular importance. In view of these internal Chinese developments, reports about Beijing’s interest in developing a presence in Fata and Fana (the Federally Administered Northern Areas) pose concern. The first gap that lies exposed is Pakistan’s failure to police its own territory. Of the several high-profile visits to Beijing by Pakistani officials in the last several months, some have been clearly geared at assuaging Chinese concerns about Pakistan’s inaction in containing ETIM militants based on its soil. But despite Pakistan’s stretched capacity, both countries should take caution. If, the Chinese really want to set up military bases in Fata and Fana before they commit to enhanced naval presence in Gwadar, then Pakistan may be playing a game of brinksmanship with other regional contenders, specifically India and the US. By soliciting Chinese maritime presence in Gwadar via ground/air/reconnaissance/anti-terror assets in China-centric areas, Islamabad will have managed to raise the stakes for any unilateral military action from the US or India in Pakistan. However, if the Chinese are insisting on this enhanced military presence on Pakistan, it surely means that Pakistan ultimately stands friendless in the region, for Beijing’s alleged plans for the presence of its forces in this country replicate American insistence on having military “advisers” operating on Pakistani soil. Moreover, this would be a remarkable shift from Beijing’s proclaimed “no foreign deployment” policy, a move that would destabilise the already complicated strategic balance in the region.slamabad may have left its relationship with Beijing on autopilot for too long. It hasn’t adapted to a new Asia, where economic growth pays more than security enhancement. If its strategists want Chinese troops on Pakistani soil, then Islamabad also needs to take into account the risks posed to its own people and sovereignty that come with such a move.

pradeepe · Post by **pradeepe** » 02 Nov 2011 10:00

rajanb wrote:This is hilarious:

‘Talk to Taliban? But address not known’
Afghan president Hamid Karzai again ruled out peace talks with the Taliban until he knew how to contact the insurgent group, and until then Afghanistan would talk only to Pakistan. “We cannot keep talking to suicide bombers, therefore we have stopped talking about talking to the Taliban until we have an address for the Taliban ... until that day we have said we will be talking to our brothers in Pakistan to find a solution to the problem that we have,” he said. REUTERS

Brilliant. This guy is good.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 02 Nov 2011 10:03

^^^^ I would have loved to see Groper's face when he said this at the meeting!

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 02 Nov 2011 10:32

Prem wrote:http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/ap ... 14172.html
New signs of Syria-Pakistan nuke tie

Not surprising. In c. 2004, reports appeared of Khan and some associates having visited Syria in the late 1990s and later having held clandestine meetings with Syrian nuclear officials in Iran. Later it was also claimed that there was evidence that the Khan network sold and delivered components for an unspecified number of Pakistani-designed P1 centrifuges to Syria. In c. 2006, an annual report to the US Congress on arms proliferation, known as the 721 Report, stated that Pakistani investigators have confirmed reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency that the Khan network “offered nuclear technology and hardware to Syria.” .Then, there is a 2007 interview by Syrian President Bashar-al-Assad to the Austrian daily Die Presse where he said that in c. 2001, ". . . someone brought us a letter from a certain Khan. We did not know if the letter was genuine or a forgery by Israel to lure us into a trap. In any case, we rejected (the approach). We were not interested in having nuclear weapons or a nuclear reactor. We never met Khan" (which should be taken with a lot of salt).

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Nov 2011 10:36

Published on Nov 1, 2011 by Euronews
http://www.euronews.net/ Talks have been held between Afghanistan and Pakistan for the first time since the assassination of an Afghan peace negotiator.

The meeting was hosted by Turkey as part of efforts to resolve differences over how to end the Afghan war.

Kabul accuses Pakistan's intelligence service of supporting Taliban insurgents, claims that have been denied.

Afghanistan broke off talks with Pakistan after the kililng in September of Afghan peace negotiator Burhanuddin Rabbani.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Nov 2011 10:37

http://www.dawn.com/2011/11/02/pakistan ... nking.html

KARACHI: An index that measures prosperity as a function of both income and wellbeing for 110 countries around the world has placed Pakistan fourth from the bottom, below Sudan and Yemen.

At 107, Pakistan is ahead of only Ethiopia, Zimbabwe and the Central African Republic. In the Asia-Pacific region, it is ranked last out of 22 nations.

London-based research organisation Legatum Institute released on Tuesday the 2011 Legatum Prosperity Index, in which countries are ranked in eight areas before being given an overall prosperity rank.

Nordic countries dominate the overall rankings, with Norway and Denmark bagging the top two spots and Sweden and Finland also appearing in the top 10. Others in that group include Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, the Netherlands and, lastly, the United States

Pakistan is listed at 86 for Entrepreneurship & Opportunity, 96 for both Economy and Health, 98 for Governance, 100 for Social Capital, 104 for Personal Freedom, 105 for Education and 109 for Safety & Security. In this last category it is preceded by Colombia and followed only by Sudan.

The numbers for Social Capital and Personal Freedom may provide some cause for scepticism. As the report itself admits, Pakistan has relatively strong social networks, and at times these have functioned as private social welfare nets. And the Personal Freedom score seems low compared to some other countries listed above Pakistan, such as Saudi Arabia, China and Syria.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Nov 2011 10:40

India, China should play constructive role in Afghanistan: US
November 01, 2011 17:54 IST

http://www.rediff.com/news/report/india ... 111101.htm
Ahead of the crucial Istanbul conference on Afghanistan, the United States has said it wants India [ Images ] and China to play a "constructive role" in bringing long-term peace to the war-torn country.

"We've talked with both capitals about very constructive roles that they can play," a senior Obama [ Images ] administration official said on Monday evening.

Special US Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Marc Grossman, was recently in India and China, and held talks with authorities in both countries in the run-up to Wednesday's Istanbul conference and the role these two countries can play in bringing long-term peace to the country.

"We've continued to talk with both countries, through a series of diplomatic engagements. Ambassador Grossman was in both Beijing [ Images ] and New Delhi [ Images ] on his most recent trip to the region over the last few weeks, and this continues in a range of other settings," the administration official said.

"Certainly, when the Secretary (of State) was in India over the summer, she talked in particular about the vision of the New Silk Road, which would ideally extend not just through Central Asia to Afghanistan and Pakistan, but ultimately through India," the official said, referring to the initiative announced by Clinton in her Chennai speech.

The official also appreciated the recent efforts to improve trade and economic ties between India and Pakistan.

"I think we've seen some very positive steps from both the Indians and the Pakistanis over the past few months on facilitating more trade between the countries, which is in the national security and economic interests of both countries," the official said.

"Similarly, we've talked with China about kind of key roles that they can play. Obviously, both countries (India and China) recognise the enormous interests that they have in stability in the region, and the ways that they would benefit from that. So we will -- we will continue those conversations with them," said the senior administration official.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Nov 2011 11:00

India-Pakistan
Living Large Off The Mythical Threat
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/india/a ... 11031.aspx
October 31, 2011: Pakistani generals continue to refuse to clear terrorists out of their last sanctuary; North Waziristan. Meanwhile, the Pakistanis demand more American and Afghan efforts against Pakistani Taliban based in Afghanistan. Pakistani troops have chased the Taliban out of most of the tribal territories (except for North Waziristan), forcing some of these terrorists to move across the border. For the local tribes, the border does not exist. In fact, by law (from the 1890s), the tribes living astride the border can ignore it. The tribes tend to avoid both the Pakistani and Afghan governments. They don't ignore the Taliban because some of their tribesmen belong. For many of these tribesmen, the Taliban are a job, even if it is only a raiding and looting society. Captured Taliban are often ignorant of Taliban religious and political goals, but not what they pay (not much, but something) and what the privileges (a license to steal and kill) are.
The terrorist related violence in Pakistan continues to kill or wound several hundred people a week. Because of the cold weather and snow, operations are slowing down. But trucks still have to move goods, and terrorists prefer to carry out attacks year-round, just so the media does not forget them. Pakistani violence continues to cause about ten times as many casualties as India suffers (from Islamic terrorists, leftist rebels and tribal separatists).

The Pakistani Army insists they simply don't have sufficient troops to go after North Waziristan. This is because most of the Pakistani Army must remain on the Indian border. This is necessary to maintain the illusion of imminent Indian invasion. Of course, any Pakistani with access to the Internet can quickly confirm that India has no interest in invading (and then being responsible for) Pakistan. No one wants to be responsible for Pakistan, and that seems to include most Pakistani leaders (who are more interested in plundering, than protecting, Pakistan). The military cannot back away from the Indian invasion myth, because without it the military has no justification for the large chunk of the national wealth they get (or take, depending on who is running the country at the time). This is becoming more of an issue in Pakistani politics, much to the discomfort of military officers, who have lucrative careers because of the "Indian threat."

Pakistan continues to tolerate American UAV missile attacks on terrorist leaders in North Waziristan. While upset when pro-Pakistan terrorists are killed, most of the victims have Pakistani blood on their hands. Most Islamic terrorists in Pakistan have declared the Pakistani government an enemy, and continue to carry out terror attacks against officials. Thus the generals have a very personal interest in seeing these terror organizations weakened. What annoys the Americans is that Haqqani Network terrorists, based in North Waziristan, continue to carry out attacks against Americans in Afghanistan. Pakistani generals are not concerned about this. Staying alive and maintaining their own comfortable lifestyle is more important, and that means constantly making noises about how hard the army works to protect Pakistan from foreign enemies. Many Pakistani media outlets run with this, even to the point of praising Haqqani for sticking it to the Americans. Pakistanis have convinced themselves (this is something of a national myth) that the September 11, 2001 attacks were carried out by the CIA, and blamed on al Qaeda, so that the U.S. could invade Afghanistan and, eventually, Pakistan. Pakistani diplomats can't preach this stuff, with a straight face, to their American counterparts (or any other Western diplomats), but back home they have to accept that it is considered the only true explanation for what's going on along the border. Thus the Islamic terror attacks are blamed on America, and India, who have stirred up things as part of a plot to destroy Pakistan.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Nov 2011 11:03

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php? ... 2011-10-31

Pakistan is waging its proxy war with India in Afghan territories. But this is a war it cannot win. What’s more, while waging this war, it is fast becoming a failed state – if it is not one already – which could land it the category of rogue state.

Turkey and Pakistan are known to enjoy particularly warm, friendly relations, but cold winds have started to blow between the two due to the Afghan problem.

The Istanbul meeting tomorrow, which aims to lay the groundwork for positive relations among regional players leading to the transition in 2014 when security responsibilities will be transferred by NATO to Afghan authorities, seems to have rung alarm bells in Islamabad. While Pakistan is not in theory against regional cooperation, in practice it does not want regional players, India especially, to become involved.

Looking at the articles written by retired Pakistani ambassadors (one from Tariq Osman Hyder was published in the Hürriyet Daily News; and never mind the fact that they were written by former officials, it certainly reflects the official view), Islamabad is quite annoyed at Turkey for its role in the conference.

The diplomatic initiative is “ambitious in its sweep but confused in its emphasis and flawed in its approach and sequencing” wrote Dr. Maleeha Lodhi, Pakistan’s former envoy to the United States. “Led by Afghanistan and Turkey, the plan is being driven by the U.S. and its key NATO allies who want to unveil this at a regional conference in Istanbul,” she added.

Basically, Pakistan is angry at Turkey and the U.S. which want a result-oriented conference; for the conference to bear fruit, an institutionalization of the process is a must. In other words, in the absence of some kind of a mechanism to monitor the process that might include implementing confidence-building measures, everything said in Istanbul will stay on paper.

My understanding is that the Turkish diplomacy has tried to calm down the Pakistanis, telling them that the presence of Turkey in the regional framework should alleviate the concerns of Pakistanis vis-à-vis other players. After all, the Turks do not have a secret agenda of strengthening the hands of India at the expense of Pakistan.

But I am doubtful that they succeeded in reassuring Pakistan, which, so far, has not given any signals that it will get rid of its anachronistic reflexes.

But at the end of the day, treating Afghanistan as its backyard and waging a proxy war will be to the detriment of Pakistan’s own interests. Pakistan needs to change course and stop relying on its nuisance value.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Nov 2011 11:06

A Step Forward in Afghanistan, If We Are Willing to Take It
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/a-step-f ... o-take-it/

Posted by Malou Innocent

The Washington Post reports the Obama administration has revised its Afghan war strategy to include “more energetic efforts to persuade” Afghanistan’s neighbors—including India, China, and the Central Asian republics—to “support a political resolution.” Just yesterday, the New York Times reported that the administration was also relying on Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence spy agency “to help organize and kick-start reconciliation talks aimed at ending the war in Afghanistan.”

This is good news, but also déjà vu. The administration called for “pursuing greater regional diplomacy” back in 2009. It also said it would ask “all countries who have a stake in the future of this critical region to do their part.” Countries in the region do have a stake in Afghanistan’s future; America, however, has few effective instruments for submerging the differences among competing powers.

Take our relationship with Iran. It has made significant inroads with Afghanistan’s Hazara and Tajik communities and is well-positioned to be a key player in the region. But Tehran and Washington seem neither close to engaging in direct talks nor willing to make reciprocal concessions for the cause of furthering peace. The irony is that after 9/11, American and Iranian interests initially converged in Afghanistan: Tehran cooperated with Washington to overthrow the Taliban regime, and during the Bonn negotiations helped broker a compromise between President Karzai and the Northern Alliance.

America’s complicated relationship with Iran is one reason why what U.S. officials perceive to be in America’s best interests may not be synonymous with the pursuit of peace. Isolating Iran, or even Pakistan for that matter, will hurt the substance of negotiations, increase the incentive for these countries to sabotage peace, and hinder Washington’s ability to shape a coherent regional strategy. Even if Washington were to engage Tehran and Islamabad, they may very well decide to protract the bargaining process to convey that time is on their side (it is). One reason why the administration’s 2009 effort may have faltered was that Pakistan—a major player in Afghanistan’s internal affairs (to the consternation of many Afghans)—has come to feel that it can manage the terms of reconciliation. In fact, it is this belief that tempers Pakistan’s eagerness to be more accommodating toward the United States, which is why the case for American humility is key when it comes to the subject of negotiations.

Peace will not be perfect. Problems will rise when competing interests collide on certain core issues. Nevertheless, all parties must be sufficiently dedicated to reaching a consensus on what constitutes a manageable settlement. After all, some countries will seek to stymie their enemy’s provision of assistance to Kabul (i.e. Pakistan vis-à-vis India). Getting these countries to think otherwise will necessitate a shift in said country’s perceptions of others’ intentions.

As I wrote last week, U.S. officials understand the enormity of problems they confront in this vexing region. Proponents of peace are not blind to these difficulties. Unfortunately, much like the current nation-building effort, when it comes to regional engagement, U.S. officials could be making yet another ambitious commitment that is beyond their ability to carry out.

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 02 Nov 2011 12:07

Unkil has cut a deal with TSP. Haqqanis are not going anywhere. TSP gets to keep them and they have to only 'restrict their movement'. So much for the 'sooper power' threatening to bomp them back to stone age. Pakis have fooled unkil once again.

Now all depends on whether Haqqanis will remain low as per instructions from TSPA until the time comes for power take over in Afghanistan or will they defy TSP and go after their own goals.
Pakistan looks to restrict Haqqanis’ movement

ISLAMABAD:The United States, it seems, has been successful in winning Pakistan’s support to curtail the Haqqani network.

In what appears to be a significant development, the Pakistan Army is planning measures to restrict the network’s movement at the Afghan border as part of an understanding reached with the US.

At least two senior security officials confirmed that the military has decided not only to restrict the movement of all militant groups, including the deadliest Afghan Taliban insurgents, but also deny them space within Pakistan’s borders.

“We will play our part while coalition forces will stop infiltration from across the border,” said a Pakistani military official.

However, officials refused to divulge details of the plan and it could not be independently verified since media does not have access to border areas.

The move, if confirmed, will be seen as a departure from the security establishment’s years-old approach towards the Haqqanis. Washington has long demanded that Pakistani military go after the Haqqanis, believed to be operating from the Pak-Afghan borders areas in North Waziristan. But this change on Pakistan’s part does not mean the army will directly confront the group, which the country believes will have a vital role in any future political dispensation in Afghanistan.

These new border security measures are believed to be the result of a deal that was struck between Islamabad and Washington during US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent visit to Pakistan.

Under the agreement, the US is no longer asking for a full-scale military offensive against the Haqqani network in return for Pakistan’s commitment to ‘take care’ of the group by using means other than an operation. This includes tightening border security to keep a check on the movement of the Haqqanis and persuading them to come to the negotiating table with the US.

Media reports emanating from Washington also indicate a new approach by the Obama administration on the Haqqani network

Charlie · Post by **Charlie** » 02 Nov 2011 12:37

Shireen Mazhari is the Vice President, Foreign Affairs and National Security of Imran Khan's PTI

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Nov 2011 12:53

Afghanistan urges Pakistan to ‘move beyond words’

ISTANBUL: Afghanistan urged Pakistan on Tuesday to “move beyond words” and take concrete steps to curb militants which it said were a threat to both countries. Afghan Deputy Foreign Minister Jawed Ludin told reporters on the sidelines of the meeting in Istanbul that Afghanistan and Pakistan had been trying for several years to build trust “but I think we have failed to see results on the ground”. “So we are at a stage where we need to move beyond words, beyond expressions of commitments. We need to get to a stage where we actually do concrete things that will address our concerns with regards to our security,” he said. reuters

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Nov 2011 12:56

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.as ... 011_pg12_6

It said Corps Commander Lieutenant General Muhammad Zahirul Islam visited China’s People’s Liberation Army field medical hospital today. The corps commander was briefed in detail about the services rendered by the Chinese comrades in connection with the recent floods in Sindh.

He paid rich tribute to the dedicated medical staff. He thanked China’s people, government and People’s Liberation Army on behalf of Pakistan Army, government and flood affectees for providing exemplary humanitarian services.

Chinese medical contingent was at the disposal of the flood-affected people and treated thousands of patients. The contingent is likely to return back to China soon.

The Chinese contingent commander also thanked the corps commander and his troops for rendering tremendous hospitality in flood-affected areas. They also handed over more than 40 tones of medicines for affectees.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 02 Nov 2011 13:26

Acharya wrote:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.as ... 011_pg12_6

. . . the services rendered by the Chinese comrades in connection with the recent floods in Sindh.

So, the PLA has dramatically moved as far west as into the Sind now. First, it was claimed they were there in Attabad, Hunza to help the landslide victims two years back. Then, they were found extensively in the rest of Gilgit-Baltistan ostensibly building roads, the IA later claimed that the PLA has been found along LoC, then the PLA conducted large-scale military operations in the Punjab close to the IB and now in the Sind. Incremental and rapid expansion. Waiting for PLAN in Gwadar and PLA in Balochistan next.

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 02 Nov 2011 13:36

SSridhar wrote: So, the PLA has dramatically moved as far west as into the Sind now. First, it was claimed they were there in Attabad, Hunza to help the landslide victims two years back. Then, they were found extensively in the rest of Gilgit-Baltistan ostensibly building roads, the IA later claimed that the PLA has been found along LoC, then the PLA conducted large-scale military operations in the Punjab close to the IB and now in the Sind. Incremental and rapid expansion. Waiting for PLAN in Gwadar and PLA in Balochistan next.

Why cannot we conduct large scale military exercises in Bhutan very close to Chinese border?

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 02 Nov 2011 14:36

some good news coming out of Pisshour after long time...but could turn out to be a damp squib..

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 02 Nov 2011 17:12

shiv wrote:
The US started fighting Al Qaeda in 2001. One would have thought that the war should have ended with that heroic raid. Al Qaeda leader gone and all. "Osama bin Laden wanted dead or alive' Let's roll boys. Go get him. Rah rah rah" So what is the US doing now? Fighting Taliban. Fighting Haqqani faction. Begging Pakistanis with great "firmness" to go after Haqqani. Talking of reaching accommodation with Pakistan. You might like to call this "strength". it looks pathetic to me.

DocJi, I am with you 100%, actually 400%, in that all the grandiose ambitions US has set forth immediately post 9/11 have bitten the dust. But thats where the problem is as I have been saying for a long time. A few pipsqueak so called Al Queda who undertook 9/11 were hyped up as this gargantuan omnipotent enemy, and this so called GWOT became some kind of a mythical crusade of Biblical proportions in the minds of the average white joe six pack; so much so that demi God moron football players signed up for this orgy to go and get OBL & the "mighty" Al Queda. As you yourself pointed out, US loves this "get the bad guy" mentality, and if there is no "bad guy", they invent one.

But slowly, the real-politic but pragmatic slime balls like Zbigniew Brizinsky prevailed, and the realization now is that rather than annihilating the Taliban which means destroying TSP (which US can do in a heartbeat, just a few B-52 sorties over Rawalpindi will do the trick), and in the process opening up a geo-political can of worms; for e.g., India and Iran rising up far more than US can chew on, the US has settled for the more easily doable regional status quo that prevailed prior to 9/11 with the explicit understanding with TSPA/ISI that they will thwart any terrorist attack against whites launched from AfPak. Tell me why this doesn't suit US interests? And furthermore, the chameleon-like b@stards TSP RAPE, you cannot deny that TSP did indeed round up Al Queda big-wigs. (Of course, they kept the big fish like OBL in Kiyani's backyard to milk more moolah, but they got caught in the process

). Tell me, why restring this status quo is not in US interests?

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 02 Nov 2011 17:36

CRamS wrote: The US started fighting Al Qaeda in 2001. One would have thought that the war should have ended with that heroic raid. Al Qaeda leader gone and all. "Osama bin Laden wanted dead or alive' Let's roll boys. Go get him. Rah rah rah" So what is the US doing now? Fighting Taliban. Fighting Haqqani faction. Begging Pakistanis with great "firmness" to go after Haqqani. Talking of reaching accommodation with Pakistan. You might like to call this "strength". it looks pathetic to me.

DocJi, I am with you 100%, actually 400%, in that all the grandiose ambitions US has set forth immediately post 9/11 have bitten the dust. But thats where the problem is as I have been saying for a long time. A few pipsqueak so called Al Queda who undertook 9/11 were hyped up as this gargantuan omnipotent enemy, and this so called GWOT became some kind of a mythical crusade of Biblical proportions in the minds of the average white joe six pack; so much so that demi God moron football players signed up for this orgy to go and get OBL & the "mighty" Al Queda. As you yourself pointed out, US loves this "get the bad guy" mentality, and if there is no "bad guy", they invent one.

But slowly, the real-politic but pragmatic slime balls like Zbigniew Brizinsky prevailed, and the realization now is that rather than annihilating the Taliban which means destroying TSP (which US can do in a heartbeat, just a few B-52 sorties over Rawalpindi will do the trick), and in the process opening up a geo-political can of worms; for e.g., India and Iran rising up far more than US can chew on, the US has settled for the more easily doable regional status quo that prevailed prior to 9/11 with the explicit understanding with TSPA/ISI that they will thwart any terrorist attack against whites launched from AfPak. Tell me why this doesn't suit US interests? And furthermore, the chameleon-like b@stards TSP RAPE, you cannot deny that TSP did indeed round up Al Queda big-wigs. (Of course, they kept the big fish like OBL in Kiyani's backyard to milk more moolah, but they got caught in the process ). Tell me, why restring this status quo is not in US interests?

And it took US 10 years, nearly a $1 trillion, and about 2000 US soldiers lives to reach to this "US interest" stage???

You are painting the Americans like they are complete morons!

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 02 Nov 2011 17:38

CRamS wrote:... the realization now is that rather than annihilating the Taliban which means destroying TSP (which US can do in a heartbeat, just a few B-52 sorties over Rawalpindi will do the trick), ...
Tell me, why restring this status quo is not in US interests?

Why B-52's? Does India lack the military capacity to pull that off? We may not have B-52's but we can do just as much damage if not more. I am sure many BRFites agree with my assessment. IAF can pound Rawalpindi and Islamabad with our "existing" armed force levels itself. Forget future acquisitions.
My point is India is just as equally militarily capable of bringing Pakistan to the knees as US of A.. However,US is just as equally afraid of a JDAM as India if TSPA is pushed too hard. So,finally, India and US are both doing the same thing. Letting TSPA survive another day till it dies of natural causes. Whatever ill intention US had to keep them alive is extinguished now.