The US & others working with Pakistan [Archive] - Page 2

Ray

05-18-2011, 06:06 AM

There is a very interesting development going on in Pakistan beyond the latest shenanigans over OBL and the embarrassment and anger amongst the public.

Pakistan has made overtures to Russia that would have great import on the geopolitical and geostrategic equations in play in the region.

Russia could become another intense and active player in Pakistan in addition to the US and China.

Zardari has announced that Russians would have access to their ports, apart from other concessions.

Thursday, May 12, 2011
Pakistan offers Russia access to “southern seas
http://voiceofkarachi.blogspot.com/2011/05/pakistan-offers-russia-access-to.html

A better analysis is at:
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article621447.ece?homepage=true

What is interesting is the intent of Russia working towards the return to its old glory and influence the region, if not the world.

In Sochi, the new forum, which Mr. Medvedev described as “a working regional format,” was institutionalised as a permanent arrangement, independent of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, a defence bloc of former Soviet states focussed on Central Asia. …..

“Russia may become a donor of economic, social and military-political security for Afghanistan, Pakistan and Tajikistan,” Chairman of the Russian Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee Konstantin Kosachev said commenting on the Sochi summit.

One has to observe how the US will react to this move and what will it be its effect on the US presence in Afghanistan. Will the US abdicate the strategic space to Russia or not?

Pakistan would play a key role in the Russian plan in bringing the Russian influence deep South and into the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean. It will also spur the Russian presence in the Indian Ocean and that would not be in the US’ or Chinese interests.

It is a very smart move on the part of the much maligned Zardari to bring all key players in the world into Pakistan to balance any move to unbalance Pakistan by any power.

Yet, one has to see if the bringing in of all powers to play in Pakistan is beneficial or will it only make the situation more complex and explosive.

In so far as to the adding of a nuclear plant to Pakistan’s array, it is indeed disquieting. One wonders if it is for her chronic power shortage or for its nuclear stockpile. It is said that Pakistan has the fourth largest stockpile in the world. The development will be watched with keen interest, not only by India, but also others.

One can do little about Pakistan’s nuclear quest since any action would be an act of war. India naturally would not like to be labelled an aggressor.

However, there is great apprehension in Pakistan that the US could carry out an Abbotabad type of action against its nuclear assets.

The real real concern in India is another Mumbai like terror act, engineered by Pakistan.

This time, the Govt of India would not be able to pussyfoot since the wrath of the people would be inflamed beyond doubt.

JMA

05-18-2011, 06:49 AM

The real real concern in India is another Mumbai like terror act, engineered by Pakistan.

This time, the Govt of India would not be able to pussyfoot since the wrath of the people would be inflamed beyond doubt.

What action would/should India take if it happened again?

Ray

05-18-2011, 07:18 AM

JMA

05-18-2011, 08:09 AM

The real problem is the Govt of India.

It is timid and prefers to 'ride it out'.

The US also encourages the Govt not to upset Pakistan since it would upset whatever little assistance it is getting from the Pak Army in KP.

The US in return provides information as they have done in the Headley case.

The Cold Start Doctrine, even though there are some gaps, can be activated since it is capable of being effective even in its present form since the Doctrine does not envisage a full scale war to the finish.

It is adequate since it was never the intention of India (Govt of India) to have a war to the finish, notwithstanding the Sunderjee Doctrine. Sunderjee was a great admirer of the US military thinking and theoretically wanted to replicate it in the Indian context.

Wars to the finish is not feasible since the international powers will intervene as they have always done. Then there is question of the capability to sustain financially prolonged wars. India is better off in this regard than Pakistan.

It is also a truism that no power would allow Pakistan to roll over since it would not be in their interest to have India the sole regional power, given the manner it is on the rise. None would like another China around.

Ray, your initial comment was

"This time, the Govt of India would not be able to pussyfoot since the wrath of the people would be inflamed beyond doubt."

...but perhaps it is this very timidity of the GOI that will result in their attempting to "ride it out" again rather than in terms of Cold Start to effectively send troops into Pakistan and thereby risk tactical nuke retaliation from Pakistan and the escalation that would follow?

If India were to become the sole regional power would it likely become aggressive and predatory like the US, Russia and China? Somehow I don't think so. How would a "timid" power impose itself on those in its region of influence?

PS: Ray as India is one of the few affected countries seemingly taking an aggressive approach to the rapidly spilling over Somali piracy your input (if you can find the time) would IMHO be welcome in the More Piracy Near Somalia (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=5621&page=31&highlight=Piracy+Somali) thread.

davidbfpo

05-18-2011, 08:10 AM

Thanks to ray for his Indian perspective, so this link may help SWC to understand what we can expect from India:http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/simulation-of-abbottabad-operation-is-naive

Admittedly a comment on an Indian SF mission.

I did note this, which I've not seen elsewhere and concerned me:
...was it necessary to place their troops along the Line of Control with India on "high alert"?....Fortunately, our official reaction as articulated by our foreign secretary on 6 May in Paris, of continued engagement with Pakistan, was mature and timely.

The author writes a weekly column, sometimes on national security issues and is a former senior police officer and intelligence officer (with RAW).

Ray

05-18-2011, 04:43 PM

......but perhaps it is this very timidity of the GOI that will result in their attempting to "ride it out" again rather than in terms of Cold Start to effectively send troops into Pakistan and thereby risk tactical nuke retaliation from Pakistan and the escalation that would follow?

There is always a desire and tendency with the Indian Govt 'to ride out crises'

I think it is because of a cultural problem.

I was just reading this today about the reflection of a Rajput King on the wars fought during the Mughal times between the Rajput and the Mughuls:

The truth is, I know nothing in our scriptures, which could compare with the motivation and power of Islam. We, too, could and do fight holy wars, but there is no mechanism for conversion in our religion. The urge to convert, definitely is one of the driving forces of Islam.

Our greatest call to war is the Bhagwat Gita, and what does the Gita say? Fight the war or perform the duties of your vocation, whatever they may be, but without thinking of the fruits and the consequence of your action. Compare this with what Islam codifies and spells out in most precise and factual manner. If you die fighting for your God, you go direct to Heaven where houris and other vividly described indescribable pleasures await you.

What is the afterlife the Gita offers? For the great mass of unenlightened souls, there is nothing but an endless cycle reincarnations. Unless we deliver certainties of afterlife and be specific of preternatural joys await those who fulfil their duties,I doubt if we will be able to match the Muslim's zeal or commitment. It is a wonder then that Hindus win was as many as they do!!

It makes me uncomfortable since it is not very PC, but then if one thinks about it, it does indicate a sort of fatalism and unwillingness to be aggressive since there is nothing in afterlife except reincarnation the level of increase in the form of existence in the next life, dependent on the karma of the present!! And to be non violent and being Goody Two Shoes elevates you to a better level of existence in your next life.

Of course, with modernity, very few would believe all this, but then who knows if maybe playing on the subconscious!

Thus, possibly the timidity of the Govt!

If the Govt 'rides it out' once more, then there will be a groundswell against the Govt. Politics in our country is basically for power and pelf and 5 years out of office is an unimaginable torture to them and their extended family. Therefore, they will have to act. There were the nuclear weapons when Kargil happened. Yet, they had to act and they did.

There is always the possibility of Pakistan using a tactical nuclear weapon.The world will be inflamed at the audacity and it will add to their ire of Pakistan being the womb of terrorism and a safe haven for terrorists. Pakistan will be in the international doghouse.

They cannot use the nuclear tactical weapons everywhere and the Indians would not be having a single thrust. It will be on a very broad front. The nuclear fallout will also affect the Pakistanis themselves and their civilians too. It will also affect civilian life in Pakistan after the war because of the residual effect.

It is a gamble that India has to take if they mean business and send a message that enough is enough.

The war will finally be called to a halt by the international powers. And if a tac nuke is used, it will be sooner than later.

If Pakistan is in the international doghouse and the war will be halted, India would have her way in the negotiations that would take place after the war since the world would not be favourable to those who use nuclear weapons, be they tactical or strategic.

If India were to become the sole regional power would it likely become aggressive and predatory like the US, Russia and China? Somehow I don't think so. How would a "timid" power impose itself on those in its region of influence?

I don't think the India, even if she ever becomes a regional power, will be in the same mode as the real powers.

The problem with India is her cultural psyche. Pacifism and riding the high moral high horse. Right from her Independence, this malaise has overpowered her thinking - this Gandhism of extending the other cheek and all that.

In the first Kashmir war, when the Indian Army was knocking at the door of Muazzfarabad and had linked Uri with Punch, good old 'holy' Nehru, called a stop and like a good boy left it to the UN leaving this unholy mess in Kashmir.

Recalled the troops back to Uri. My uncle was commanding this Brigade.

Instead of understanding realpolitik, Nehru ensured the Indian Army to be a ceremonial army with the Ordnance Factories producing coffee machines, till shaken by China in 1962. In fact, China by doing so, actually did India a favour and woke her from the Rip Van Winkle like eternal sleep!

1965, Pakistan attacked in the Rann of Kutch and like good boys, we allowed Wilson to mediate and part with some of the land. Pakistan, gleeful at this 'victory' clandestinely started Op Gibraltar and when the Kashmiri Muslim gujjars reported the infiltration, escalated it into a full fledged war! That Pakistan failed in its design is another story.

Then at Tashkent, the meek Indian PM Lal Bahadur Shastri (otherwise a good and honest man) was browbeaten to give up strategic gains like the Haji pir Pass.

1971 was a different matter when a woman (and they are dangerous and vicious! :) ), who was called the 'dumb doll, by her political opponents, was the PM. She taught a lesson to Pakistan, the wounds of which they are still licking.

Thereafter, Kargil where the Nation forced action. The Indian culture lulled all with the 'bus diplomacy' and the Mohajir Musharaff (they are the clever lot in Pakistan. In fact, I have published on the rational of the internal struggle between the 'sons of the soil' and the Mohajir (refugees from India) ) pulled the rug from under the feet of India. The fact that India did not cross the LC and enlarge the war was 'mature and statesmanlike' - sops given to satisfy personal egos by the international community petrified that a nuclear war was in the offing!!

Rampant terrorism spawned from across including Mumbai and India plays the role of 'matured statesmanlike' behaviour as many die! Human lives are cheap, so long it is not a politician's or their family's in India!

Like there is deep resentment against the US in Pakistan, there is deep resentment and its is growing at the supine behaviour of the Indian Govt in India.

But then there is saving grace for the pacifist. As more and more Indians become affluent, the less will be their desire to wreck their Nest Egg!

PS: Ray as India is one of the few affected countries seemingly taking an aggressive approach to the rapidly spilling over Somali piracy your input (if you can find the time) would IMHO be welcome in the More Piracy Near Somalia (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=5621&page=31&highlight=Piracy+Somali) thread.

Thanks to ray for his Indian perspective, so this link may help SWC to understand what we can expect from India:http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/simulation-of-abbottabad-operation-is-naive

Admittedly a comment on an Indian SF mission.

I did note this, which I've not seen elsewhere and concerned me...:

The author writes a weekly column, sometimes on national security issues and is a former senior police officer and intelligence officer (with RAW).

Interesting comments.

PS Sorry if I rambled.

omarali50

05-18-2011, 05:35 PM

I think enlightened Indians should really grow up out of this "Islam envy". This is not the place for such (always lethal) arguments, but really, we live in a postmodern world where medieval ideologies are still useful for some purposes, but to look at them as if they in themselves will change the fate of nations is to miss what we have learned about human beings in the centuries since 1250 AD.
What works in this century can work in a Hindu country or a Muslim country or a Christian country or a Buddhist country or whatever, because what works involves sidelining and modifying a lot of pre-modern ideas. And those who think that the premodern ideas are complete and workable as they were..well, they didnt even try that in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, so that is not even worth discussing.

Ray

05-19-2011, 03:23 AM

You are absolutely right. I totally agree with you.

I was merely indicating the philosophy that drives India. The timidity and its rationale.

I was not on a discussion of religion per se. Too volatile for comfort. And anyway, I am handicapped on my knowledge of religion.

Interestingly, it may be news to many, but this timidity transcends religions in India. For instance the poems in Kashmiri of the famed Kashmiri Sufi saint Shah Gafoor :

Dah chhi avatar sah lagina tharun
Meh zan prazlan naran chum
Ram Ram karun gau nam sandarun
Dharnai dharun…Soham su
(There are ten incarnations of God, One should never be nervous. Narayana dazzle like the Moon. Repetition of the name Rama leads to one’s salvation. Meditate upon the Eternal).

So, this indicates the Indian docile mindset that transcends religion.

I was quoting from a book based on history of the time of Rana Sangha and the Mughuls.

I don’t think there is any envy involved. It is more of a reflection that there is overwhelming docility of the Indian mind and it is hardly a practical way to approach life. It is fine for those who are totally steeped in Soham but not for realpolitik.

In modern times, once the spiritual is left beyond the temporal, peace and sanity can prevail and of that there is no doubt.

Then, there would not be the turmoil in the name of religion.

Then, there will be no terrorists either, be it 9/11, 7/11 or Mumbai.

The Indian mindset is so evident in our approach. 9/11 brought instant retribution, while repeated terrorism including the Mumbai carnage, only encourages India to extend her hand of friendship and peace while people die, knowing fully well that terrorist are being harboured across the border.

While what you state 'we live in a postmodern world where medieval ideologies are still useful for some purposes, but to look at them as if they in themselves will change the fate of nations is to miss what we have learned about human beings in the centuries since 1250 AD' is indeed a way forward, but observing India's neighbourhood, one is not too sure that your prescription is what is being observed.

I was asked the Indian to explain the Indian docility and that is what I did.

I had no intention to discuss religion because I understand very little of it since it is not a structured religion where one has to attend religious instructions as a matter of lifestyle.

In case it has upset you, I would reiterate that it was not my intention.

JMA

05-19-2011, 06:52 AM

I think enlightened Indians should really grow up out of this "Islam envy".

You must surely be joking? Who could possibly have "Islam envy"? What is "Islam envy"?

JMA

05-19-2011, 06:53 AM

... PS Sorry if I rambled.

No rambling IMO. I thank you for your reply.

Ray

05-19-2011, 08:23 AM

JMA,

Just for the record.

Indian Muslims reaction to Osama's killing.

What does the death of Osama bin Laden mean to Indian Muslims? How do Islamic scholars see the world's biggest terrorist? A range of views emerged in conversations with a cross-section of Muslim intelligentsia. Yet one emotion seemed to override all others: Islam can never condone the perversities of Osama, and certainly not Indian Muslims who have carried the terrorist tag because of this one man. One budding Muslim writer retorted: why do you even ask us about him?

Jamia Millia Islamia Vice-Chancellor Najeeb Jung said there was no reaction to Osama's death on his campus or in the nearby Muslim neighbourhood of Jamia Nagar. “This is a reflection of the Indian Muslim's disinterest in Osama.” Mr. Jung also rejected the notion that Muslims elsewhere could feel sympathy for Osama, except perhaps in pockets of Pakistan.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/article1989005.ece

It is also a misconception that Muslims in India are the illiterate masses who have not found their place in the sun.

Education beyond the madrassas have given them a chance to be in the mainstream and they are no longer insular. They are well aware of the world and find it very sad that because of a few 'hotheads', the world is painting them with the same brush! Of course, there will be those who will find religion über alles, but then they are fringe lunatics.

Education makes all the difference in outlook. Has there ever been a problem of serious proportion with other religious groups? No.

Wherever there is a lack of literacy, there has been problems.

In UP (the largest state of India) there has been communal issues and caste issues, but in Kerala which has the highest literacy and Gulf money has also a high proportion of Muslims (Moplas), there has been no problems!

In fact, in Kerala, irrespective of religion (Hindu, Christian or Muslim), they celebrate a festival called Onam!! Onam marks the homecoming of the legendary King Maveli.

Education and affluence speaks!!

omarali50

05-19-2011, 01:04 PM

JMA, "Islam envy" is the phenomenon in which some Hindu nationalist groups (and a penumbra of other Indians) overstate the great solidarity and "self-esteem" of Muslims (Ray's position is more nuanced, but more on that later) and contrast it with the supposed timidity and disunity of Indians (and seems to imply that if only Hindus were more like Muslims in these matters, they would do so much better). There is an element of truth in the unity and solidarity argument (but only an element) and very little in the "timidity" argument. Anyway, that comment would have been instantly understandable to my Indian friends on our own blog (free advert: brownpundits.com), even if they disagreed with details of my argument. But the bottom line is that this is all "leakage" from my other life and has little or no place on this blog.
My apologies for being unclear and for bringing in extraneous (and mostly irrelevant) discussions.
Ray, my point (made as a genuine indophile) was that there is no need to keep repeating some stereotype of timid Indians. India is a work in progress (slowly, but fairly steadily) and its reactions to Pakistan are not necessarily timid or aggressive, most of the time they are realistic. One can definitely dispute particular actions and reactions, but a lot of the narrative one hears in India around that criticism tends to irritate me because I think it is historically inaccurate and its not even useful as propaganda. But that's just me.

omarali50

05-20-2011, 04:07 PM

Cyril has some interesting points: http://www.dawn.com/2011/05/20/more-of-the-same-for-now.html

AdamG

05-23-2011, 12:56 AM

From Bill Roggio's LONG WAR JOURNAL (better detail than the previous Reuters/et al MSM releases)

Pakistani Navy base under siege
May 22, 2011

Terrorists have attacked a Pakistani naval airbase in the city of Karachi today, sparking an hours-long battle that has resulted in at least two naval aircraft destroyed and several people killed. Fighting is still ongoing and hostages have been taken, according to reports.

A large terrorist assault team, thought to be between 15 to 20 men strong and heavily armed, stormed Pakistani Naval Station Mehran Sunday night in a coordinated, complex attack.

The heavily armed gunmen penetrated the security at the base from three gates and fanned out and attacked aircraft hangers, and military personnel. Two Pakistani naval aircraft are reported to have been destroyed. The military confirmed that one P-3 Orion maritime surveillance plane was destroyed. At least three other aircraft are said to have been damaged in the attack.

Four naval personnel and four terrorists have been reported killed during the fighting. The terrorists are said to have taken hostages and have taken control of one or more building on the base. At least ten terrorists are said to be holding the hostages.

Pakistani naval commandos, Marines, and Rangers have been deployed and have been fighting the gunmen.

Two P-3C Orion, a maritime surveillance aircraft, were targeted and destroyed in the attack, Haq said. The U.S. handed over the aircraft to the Pakistan navy in April 2010 and said it will receive a total of eight by 2012, according to the U.S. Central Command website.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-22/explosions-firefights-erupt-at-pakistani-naval-aviation-base-under-attack.html

Ray

05-23-2011, 04:45 AM

Pakistani Taliban Behind Naval Base Attack
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pakistan-several-dead-air-attack-185218333.html

carl

05-23-2011, 04:47 AM

Is the Pakistan Navy fully in agreement with the Army about the jihadi strategy or is there some friction between the services? Does anybody know?

Ray

05-23-2011, 08:04 AM

The Faisal Base of the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) located about 10 KMs from the Karachi internationl airport is what the PAF calls a Joint User airfield. It is used by the PAF and the air arms of the Pakistan Army and Navy as well as by the VVIP squadron. All air surveillance movements over the sea --- whether by the PAF or by the Army or by the PN--- are controlled from this base.......

3.The squadrons of the Naval Air Arm are stationed in PNS Mehran.These are the P3C Orion Squadron (28 Sqn), the Atlantic Squadron (29 Sqn), the Fokker Squadron (27 Sqn), the Seaking Squadron (111 Sqn) and the Alouette Squadron (333 Sqn).

4. While the Naval Air Arm was raised primarily to provide maritime surveillance capability against India, it has been playing, in addition, a counter-terrorism role since the US started its Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan in October,2001. This counter-terrorism role consists of air surveillance to prevent any sea-borne intrusions of Al Qaeda and to detect any terrorist plans for attacks on ships bringing supplies for the NATO forces in Afghanistan. The supplies are landed in the Karachi port and then moved by trucks to Afghanistan.....

6. The daring attack and the inability of the Navy to prevent it are likely to add to the feelings of humiliation in the Pakistani Armed Forces which have been prevalent since the Abbottabad raid.

http://ramanstrategicanalysis.blogspot.com/

omarali50

05-23-2011, 01:18 PM

You can see my comments at http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2011/05/pakistan-the-narratives-come-home-to-roost-by-omar-ali-.html

Ray

05-23-2011, 04:37 PM

Your comments are interesting.

However, in 1971, while you apparently blame the US for token resistance against India, you could be more fair towards the US by analysing the geostrategic situation that prompted the US to do what they did.

It would be worthwhile to also indicate as to why, the all weather friend of Pakistan, China steered clear!!

That notwithstanding, on Afghanistan why do you feel that the GHQ was on an out of the world trip and the right wing requires to 're-write' their narratives and what are those narratives they have written.

Pakistan maybe led by more ambitious and intelligent people at this time, but unless they change their curriculum in schools that emphasise on Islam uber alles and their Hate India and Hindus agenda, nothing can change, internationally or regionally.

In an extensive study conducted by Nayyar and Ahmad Salim, in 2002, the following four themes emerged most strongly in history textbooks in Pakistan: that Pakistan is for Muslims alone; the Ideology of Pakistan is deeply interlinked with faith; one should never trust Hindus and India; and students should take the path of Jihad and martyrdom.
Education in Pakistan = half-truths, even falsehoods.
Written by:
Nadeem F. Paracha
Dawn Newspaper
http://www.forumpakistan.com/education-in-pakistan-half-truths-even-falsehoods-t30712.html

and

The Subtle Subversion
Editors: A. H. Nayyar and Ahmad Salim
http://sdpi.org/sdpi-old/whats_new/reporton/State%20of%20Curr&TextBooks.pdf

omarali50

05-23-2011, 05:02 PM

I am not blaming the US for "token support' to Pakistan in 1971. I think even the token support was a moral failure (not unexpected....I am not claiming that I expect the US to act very morally in all situations). I was just pointing out what the official deep state narrative is built on.
If you see all the Pakistani talk shows, you will see that most commentators are unwilling to believe that our beloved Jihadists carried out this attack. The blame is being laid on the USA and India.
They are really really stuck. In my optimistic moments, I do hope that reality will bite at some point. But they really truly HAVE wandered off the reservation and do not seem to be able to change their storyline. It is sad and tragic and it may be fatal.

AdamG

05-23-2011, 07:55 PM

Is the Pakistan Navy fully in agreement with the Army about the jihadi strategy or is there some friction between the services? Does anybody know?

Reportedly, PAF and Pakistani Navy have more Jihadists.

via DoctrineMan

Pakistani airmen sabotaged their fighter jets to prevent them from participating in operations against militants along the border with Afghanistan, according to a leaked U.S. Embassy cable.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/22/leaked-cable-pakistani-fliers-sabotaged-fighter-je/?sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4dda35f4148641e0%2C0

omarali50

05-23-2011, 08:15 PM

I think proportions of jihadist sympathizers are similar across the board. Though no one ever asks the Navy about anything,so there is a bit of resentment at the senior officer level..but the moronic narrative is the same.
btw, according to our official history, the naval chief found out we are at war by listening to radio Pakistan announce the fact (I am trying to remember if it was 1971 or 1965...or both...I wouldnt be surprised if its both).
The senior generals know the score (more or less). The airforce is told on a need-to-know basis. Nobody ever remembers to tell the admirals. Its not exactly the senior service in Pakistan.
You should see what Dr Shireen Mazari, director of the institute of strategic studies for a long time, and now senior advisor to opposition politician Imran Khan, and editor of "The Nation" and all-round TV pundit, is saying about this attack: http://www.ahmedquraishi.com/2011/05/23/pns-mehran-it%e2%80%99s-a-war-on-pakistan-why-military-leadership-is-quiet/
This storyline is being peddled on all the "pro-military" (hint-hint, wink-wink) blogs. It would make ME sabotage a few planes if I happened to be literate and in the armed forces and read this stuff everyday.

davidbfpo

05-23-2011, 08:43 PM

Carl asked:
Is the Pakistan Navy fully in agreement with the Army about the jihadi strategy or is there some friction between the services? Does anybody know?

After the OBL raid there was a photo of General Kayani at a high-level military meeting and not one naval officer was in the photo. That is one small sign and the Naval HQ is in Islamabad.

The navy is tiny, IISS Military Balance states 22k (inc. 1400 Marines & 2k Maritime Security Agency); eight submarines and nine principal surface ships. The army is 550k and approx. twenty-four divisions.

On a mundane level the navy has had significant day to day co-operation with Western and other navies since 2001 in the Somali piracy and other joint operations.

davidbfpo

05-23-2011, 08:49 PM

Omarali50,

Thanks for the link to Dr Shireen Mazari's article, what a contorted story and so many questions asked. I wonder how did she respond to the LeT attack on Mumbai, that too was a provocation I guess.

I did note that the IISS Military Balance refers to UK 'forward mounting base air elements located at Karachi'. Is that at the naval airbase or another air force base? Speculating now, perhaps the USA also uses Karachi air base facilities?

Added: ITN News here has reported six US trainers were resident on the base.

Dr Shireen Mazari refers to the responding state forces:
What is equally disturbing is to discover that four to six terrorists held the whole base hostage for over sixteen hours and at the end of the operation it was given out that two terrorists may have escaped while four were killed. In comparison eleven of our soldiers were martyred, including our commandos.

Fed on a diet of these writings would a Pakistani sailor / marine / Ranger be that eager or committed to robust combat when the situation is so distorted? A whole base taken over by so few!

omarali50

05-23-2011, 10:52 PM

The larger air base in Karachi is Masroor, which is 15 miles outside the city (and is said by some to have a few nukes...I would not know).
Shireen Mazari has a pathological hatred of India that goes well beyond normal punditry and mercenary motivations. I dont remember what she said about Mumbai, but I can guess that it was something along the lines "India and the US have conspired to arrange a drama and blame Pakistan"...then she may have changed stories. She is not exactly a stickler for accuracy.
About the poor response time, I think that is the subcontinental norm. Lower level soldiers and officers are usually brave and will not shirk from action, but they dont really train too much, especially for night actions. I can guess (without any inside information beyond growing up in the army) that no one at the base had EVER rehearsed fighting off such an action. It was dark, no one knew how many people were in there, half the time the commandos were probably shooting at each other, especially since naval commandos and SSG both responded.
Soldiers from the Punjab and Pakhtoonkhwah are very good "soldier material" when properly trained and led. The same cannot be said of the officers and the situation gets worse the higher up you go. I am not exaggerating.

Ray

05-24-2011, 08:34 AM

At least 11 Pakistani servicemen are believed to have been killed, and there are reports that terrorists have taken hostages. The BBC reports that Chinese military personnel are among those held hostage. Washington Post reports: “Some reports said foreigners, possibly Americans, were killed or taken hostage in the attack; a Pakistani navy spokesman said that five Pakistani security personnel were killed and that no foreigners had been on the base.”

One wonders if terrorists alone can take over a base and create this type of a mayhem.

There are some commentators in Pakistan who feel that it is an 'inside job'.
http://thetimesofpakistan.com/2011/05/24/insiders-helped-militants-plot-naval-base-attack-experts/

Now who are the 'insiders'?

Notwithstanding, it would be safe to assume that there are fundamentalists who are in uniform.

Even those who wanted to kill Musharraf was found to be from the Air Force!

The David Headley case unfolding in an US Court indicates that ISI organised the Mumbai blast.

Therefore, if the Govt and its military encourages jihad, then who can one complain to?

As the Bible says - "As ye sow, so shall ye reap."

One can't say about Pakistan, but in the subcontinent, night training is an important input.

Wars in the subcontinent is normally fought at night!

The Pakistan Army was equipped with Night Vision Devices even before the Indian Army and so that is no excuse. And more so with the generous US military aid.

The tardy reaction, if indeed it was tardy, was that it was possibly never believed that such an importance base could ever be attacked and that too in such a devastating manner!

Another interesting issue is that if US built surveillance aircraft with classified instrumentation were located there, what were the Chinese doing there?

Fuchs

05-24-2011, 09:22 AM

It sounds a lot like a message "See, they are also our enemies (thus we aren't their ally by definition)!"

davidbfpo

05-24-2011, 01:10 PM

An informative answer:http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/23/before-attack-pakistans-navy-boasted-of-role-in-fight-against-taliban/

This will suffice for some:
Adm. Noman Bashir, the Pakistan navy chief, boasted during an interview on Pakistani television in March that his service had “provided our surveillance aircraft and a contingent of [Pakistan Navy commandos] to operate hand in glove with the Pakistan Army during” a recent offensive against the militants in the tribal areas.

There also a reported arrest in Karachi, two days after the OBL raid:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13429316

omarali50

05-24-2011, 01:56 PM

It sounds a lot like a message "See, they are also our enemies (thus we aren't their ally by definition)!"

Fuchs, if you are implying that the army did it to convince the US about its anti-jihadi bonafides, then I think you are wrong.
Stick to Uncle Occam's razor. The obvious story is probably true:
1. Jihadis have had free reign in Pakistan for decades. Dozens of training camps, half a million trained terrorists, links with intelligence agencies, a network of madressahs to supply recruits and sanctuaries, a network of supporters and funders. Sympathizers in the armed forces and political parties organized to support them "above ground" (primarily, the Jamat e Islami in educated areas, the JUI in the western region).
2. The top brass calculated that fighting against the US was not a good idea and decided to become allies. But they had neither the ability nor the inclination to take on the jihadist network in a full-frontal assault. More to the point, they have not been able to build up such an ability over time because most of them did not get the full implications of what was being attempted. Getting through the current crisis with minimum damage has been the priority but the goofiness extends in every direction. Even that job has not been done well.The top brass are incompetent (for the most part..i believe General Kiyani is a relative exception, but only relatively speaking) and do not have access to an intellectual foundation for anti-jihadism. They are not the sort of peple who could see that this turn away from Jihadism would have to extend to a turn away from the ideological narrative that supported jihad.
3. Terrorists wanting to make a spectacular strike picked this target because it was easy. Its a large base in the middle of a crowded city. I have seen the aircraft parked there from the road passing by the base. Whether it was naval aviation or air force or army aviation probably made little difference. As in ANY large base, they probably had a few sympathizers in the base. That made the details easier.
4. Only four terrorists seem to have gone in. Maybe 6. The response was as much as the base could manage. No conspiracy is needed to mess up a response in Pakistan or India. A conspiracy well above our abilities would be needed to deliberately prolong anything.
The terrorist networks can do this sort of thing anytime. THAT may have been the main intended message.

Ray

05-25-2011, 04:14 AM

Gen. Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, the present Chief of the Army Staff (COAS), Gen. Nadeem Taj, who retired recently, and Lt. Gen. AhmedShuja Pasha, who is on an year’s extension after having reached the age of superannuation on March 18,2011, have, in that order, headed the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) during the period between 2005 (month not known) and May 2,2011, when Osama bin Laden was reportedly living near the Pakistan Military Academy (PMA) at Abbottabad, about 100 kms from Islamabad.
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers45%5Cpaper4476.html

Gen Kiyani is taken to be a good Army Chief because, notwithstanding good reasons to take over the governance of Pakistan, he has stayed away from this course.

However, he is deeply involved in the use of Pakistan's 'strategic assets' i.e. the terrorists.

Pakistan’s Strategic Asset: Osama bin Laden

So, it was a little awkward when our Pakistani “partner” in the war on terror issued a warning to America. “Let no one draw any wrong conclusions,” said Gilani of the Navy Seals’ 40-minute in-and-out bin Laden bug hunt. “Any attack against Pakistan’s strategic assets whether overt or covert will find a matching response. Pakistan reserves the right to retaliate with full force. No one should underestimate the resolve and capability of our nation and armed forces to defend our sacred homeland.”
http://www.teapartytribune.com/2011/05/09/pakistan%E2%80%99s-strategic-asset-osama-bin-laden/

So long as there is this contradiction of joining in the WoT on one hand, and protecting and nurturing the 'strategic assets' on the other, nothing constructive will emerge with regards to the WoT or for the safety of Pakistan itself!

omarali50

05-25-2011, 02:29 PM

I think that General Kiyani is not considered smart because he did not take over. He would take over in 5 minutes if he thought it could work, but its not a good time to take over. He is considered smart because he keeps his mouth shut (unlike that buffoon Musharraf) and seems to have some vague idea that Pakistan's army has to change its relationship with the jihadis or give up its relationship with the rest of the world. But that's about it.
OK, here is my prediction. Eventually, responsibility for reworking Pakistan will be given mostly to China. IF India can avoid the temptation of falling for its own propaganda and getting over-excited and can just sit tight for ten years, all this nonsense will work its way through the system in Pakistan (with great violence, but mostly within the country) and will die off (literally, in most cases). Its not a viable way of thinking. But it may be best to let China deal with it. Its a very difficult job and neither India nor the USA are in a good position to perform this therapy...they can help a little, but most of the dirty work will be done by China. Of course, the key is to somehow convince the Chinese to also pay for it. The arrangement whereby the US borrows money from China and throws it in the general direction of afpak is not a sensible arrangement. But I guess the Chinese invented money and they are not going to fall too easily into this quicksand. Oh well, back to the drawing board. ....I am sorry, its hard to keep up the "optimism" for too long. But one tries.

Ray

05-25-2011, 03:42 PM

What actions are visualised that the Chinese would have to do to 'rework' Pakistan?

Pakistan has 'donated' the Shaksgam Valley of Kashmir to China and now China has its troops in other parts of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. Who knows if more land will be 'donated' for favours given by China. That surely could not be an acceptable input whereby China will 'rework' Pakistan?

What is the guarantee that Pakistan would not sponsor terrorist actions against India (during the 10 years suggested) for India to 'avoid the temptation of falling for its own propaganda' ?

What is this 'own propaganda' India is undertaking?

Is it too much to want the perpetrators of the Mumbai carnage be brought to justice? Pakistan was in a denial mode.

However, the US Court proceedings underway are clearly indicating that Headley and Rana were used by the LeT and ISI to carry out the carnage and the Mullah leader of the LeT was personally involved, as also was Major Iqbal of the ISI.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/world/asia/24headley.html

In your opinion, India should forget what has been done so far to India, so that China can 'rework' Pakistan?

I may add that India has shown remarkable patience with the terrorist attacks to include the Mumbai carnage.

Lastly, it is fine for China to publicly profess undying love for Pakistan.

But in real terms, what has China actually done apart from building infrastructure that will basically benefit them and their strategic interests.

I fail to understand why Pakistanis require to look for 'outside' help to solve their own internal problems.

It is for the Pakistanis themselves to cleanse their country since they best know what is good for them.

No outside help, even their all weather friend, China, will be able to clean Pakistan.

US has tried to help, with advice, money, military hardware, CIA to nab the terrorists as also assist the ISI, but has not been successful as desired.

China, will hardly part with their money since they are desperately trying to catch up with the USA.

Therefore, Pakistanis must boldly work their future. They alone know how the mess they are in, be it terrorists, financial woes, poor governance, the military and ISI being the power behind the façade of a democratic government etc etc, has been created. They alone thereby are the best judge to clean the Augean stables.

The world has suffered enough, be it WTC, London Underground, Madrid bombings or Mumbai carnage, at the hands of the Pakistani religious terrorists, state sponsored or otherwise. The world is hardly in a position to allow a 10 year free run for Pakistan to be reworked. The trust deficit is too deep to take the risk!

The world population is more precious than the antics of frenzied religious fanatics!

omarali50

05-25-2011, 04:45 PM

AdamG

05-25-2011, 11:09 PM

ISLAMABAD - Pakistan's military was ridiculed and accused of complicity in the media on Tuesday after a small group of militants laid siege to a naval air base, holding out for 16 hours against about 100 commandos and rangers.

*

"Political rhetoric and a Cabinet Defence Committee meeting are not going to solve this one," read an editorial in the English-language daily, The News. "This is an epic failure exposing an existential threat that will need epic leadership to countervail."

An editorial in the Urdu-language Jang, one of nuclear-armed Pakistan's biggest and most pro-military newspapers, said the attacks illustrated "a weakness of security measures".

"In very polite words, it can be called worrisome negligence."

Others went beyond incompetence and suggested that the attackers had help from within the military.

"Did the Taliban raiders have information inside the naval base?" wrote Dawn, another English-language daily. "Such a possibility cannot be ruled out, because the involvement of serving personnel in several previous attacks has been well-established

http://in.news.yahoo.com/pakistan-media-ridicules-military-attack-naval-air-090535735.html

WASHINGTON – Pakistan has returned the wreckage of a US helicopter used in the American raid that killed Osama bin Laden early this month, a Pentagon spokesman said Tuesday.

"The wreckage of the helicopter destroyed in the bin Laden operation was returned over the weekend and is now back in the United States," Colonel Dave Lapan told AFP.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110524/pl_afp/usattacksbinladenhelicopterpakistan_20110524181011

Ray

05-26-2011, 05:53 AM

My suggestion is not that India should stop pressing Pakistan to stop training and sheltering terrorists. It should continue to do that. some of that pressure does work incidentally.
My suggestion is that India should not get carried away with propaganda about how its only its restraint (or "timidity") that stops it from whacking Pakistan and making sure Pakistan doesnt do anything bad ever again. What stops it is the fact that the military gap between Pakistan and India is not as large as sometimes imagined or portrayed. There is no easy way for India to whack pakistan without getting badly whacked itself in the process (if you are interested, I would guess that India will "win" any such war, but it will be the mother of all pyrrhic victories). So, lacking easy options, India has to bite its lip and work on getting its house in order and use whatever leverage it has with Pakistan's main sponsors (the US, China, Saudi Arabia) to pressurise Pakistan...which is actually something that those sponsors are already doing btw, and which pressure is not without results (though results are obviously not ideal at this time...we do not live in an ideal world).
Propaganda may require that threats be made and bombastic statements be issued. I am not a good judge of what is good propaganda and what is a waste of time and money.
"getting carried away" is starting to believe your own propaganda and missing real opportunities because of that or doing something adventurous that you may regret.
As you may have gathered, I have no interest in promoting some paknationalist fantasy on this or any other forum. But I think its good to be realistic, at least in private. There is actually a very real constituency for peace in pakistan. And increasing trade, travel and cultural exchange with India are helping to cement that constituency. A lot of the panic in "paknationalist" circles comes from their insecurity about their domestic position in pakistan.
About what China will do. I have no idea. That was a partly sarcastic comment. But seriously, I do think that China does not believe it is in its interest to promote Pakistani jihadism too much. My confidence is not really about China. I think modern society is bigger than China or India. Modern capitalism includes and uses nationalism and its associated grand strategies and strings of pearls or whatnot, but it does put some practical considerations into play. China and India are not just competitors in the nineteenth century world, they are also partners in making money. One element does not completely overwhelm the other, but those considerations do have their effects. Besides, China is a country of infidels with 60 million or more Muslims living in its borders. It has its own reasons for being very suspicious of jihadism. Just like there are "strategic thinkers" in India who dream about getting strangled with strings of pearls every night, there are strategic thinkers in china who dream about such things. But they are not the only people doing the dreaming.
Of course, things could go wrong. Capitalism did not stop capitalists from fighting ruinous world wars (and most capitalists did not make money from those wars, though some did). I think modern life is very cruel and sad in many ways. But it is very powerful and its tentacles manage to work their way through in many strange ways. It may eventually lead to socialism, who knows, but in the meantime, it will continue to eat its way through many older notions and will #### them out in places like Pakistan. Via China or via India or via America, I dont know.

Restraint and timidity is not Indian Govt propaganda. Given the obsession of our Prime Minister to have peace at all costs with Pakistan, no matter how many Indians die in the bargain and no matter how many stout denials come from Pakistan of its complicity, it is the perception of the Indian media and the Indian public at large.

It is the Pakistani perception that India aims to ‘whack Pakistan’ for being ‘naughty’. There are no suggestions to that effect in India. That is why the Sundarjee Doctrine is outdated and instead it is the “Cold Start” which is the current flavour.

The gap between the militaries of India and Pakistan is indeed narrow, thanks to the munificence of the US; at least, the technological gap! In fact, Pakistan is possibly better off. India cannot match up since it pays hard cash so that there are no strings attached! One has to lose some, if one does not want to be under vassalage. No offence meant, but the Pakistani Parliamentary proceedings indicates the outcry that Pakistan will not tolerate violations of its sovereignty. Obviously, none would issue such statements unless they were violated in letter and spirit. And would it not be a truism that the said sovereignty was already willingly bartered, and so why the hue and cry?!

As far as ‘wins’, I presume no war is without losses. One has to accept it. However, how long is India expected to remain supine and be bled?

It must be appreciated that there is also a threshold of getting ‘whacked’ by Pakistan through terrorist attacks and pan Islamic movements in Kashmir in the name of ‘independence of Kashmir’. If Pakistan was really serious about ‘Independence of Kashmir’ could she not have given the same to the part of Kashmir held by Pakistan? That would have surely put pressure on India. In reality, all this piety and heart bleed for Kashmiris is nothing but a cover for pure and simple land grab!!

Are the Kashmiris really keen on Independence? Yes, some. Like the Hurriyat, which is but a Pakistani supported and a pan Islamic funded organisation that claims to represent the Kashmiris? If Kashmiris were really keen for Independence, then why are they regularly participating in well subscribed elections at all levels of government and governance (observed by foreign media and diplomats) and why the huge enthusiasm to join the Indian army and the police (as witnessed in the recruiting rallies)? Surely that puts paid to the theory that the Kashmiris are raring to go for independence. The demonstrations in Srinagar have been established to be a well paid hire a mob show. Happens even within hinterland India and the cadre based organisations like the Communists and Hurriyat require no time to organise such shows.

In so far as Indians ‘getting their house in order’, the conditions are not that chaotic or unmanageable as in Pakistan. That is so evident. No dissatisfaction in a country can be organised without funds. Guess who is funding them or giving sanctuaries? And that includes vested interest funding the Maoists too!

US, China and Saudi Arabia are indeed helping Pakistan. They are only keeping Pakistan propped up; the US with financial and military aid, China with pious platitudes and Saudi Arabia through funding of fundamentalists, madrassas and shoring up the Pakistan National Budget because Pakistan does not have the money to even pay the interest for their foreign debt!! If they stopped doing so, Pakistan would collapse like a house of cards. And obviously, they will demand and get the leverage they want to fulfil their national interest.

One does not get carried away by propaganda. One gets ‘carried away’ by acts that they see happening and the brazen denial of those who promote such horrendous happenings. If there is a real constituency for peace in Pakistan, don’t you think it is high time they stand up and be counted, rather than cowering down and fearing their own Zia created terrorists?

One of the best ways to start thinking of Peace is to desist from the temptation that religion is the be all and end all of even temporal issues. Nayyar and Salim (Pakistani intellectuals) in their report on Pakistan’s education system – The Subtle Subversion – (Link given earlier – have indicated that unless textbooks for children that emphasise Islam being uber alles, the glorification violence through issues like jihad, the Hate India and Hindus or falsification of history such as Pakistan was there from the 7th Century etc etc, the mindset cannot change. There lies the rot. All pontificating of 10 year moratorium to ‘rework’ Pakistan by China will otherwise fall flat on its face.

Were you being sarcastic over the China comment of yours? I seem to have missed that since the syntax did not indicate so. China, being Godless, maybe sold to moneymaking. However, in India, God still exists. There is a slight trace of conscience still left.

The ‘string of pearls’ is a US postulation and I daresay they are wrong. When one churns up the economic, political and strategic inputs, one has to stop playing the ‘Pin the Tail on the Donkey’. One does not dream of such things, one merely prepares for the reality and not dream Peace as Abu Ben Adhem did.

This statement –
but in the meantime, it will continue to eat its way through many older notions and will #### them out in places like Pakistan. Via China or via India or via America – is intriguing!

Do I see a lament and a blame game where the ills of Pakistan is being parcelled off on the shoulders of the US, Indian and China? I wonder if these nations filled Pakistan with a grandiose delusion that it was one of the budding powers that be. Did these nations encourage the jihadis to run a riot in Pakistan and internationally? I fail to see the logic.

AdamG

05-26-2011, 01:59 PM

ISLAMABAD—The Taliban has no plans to attack Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, its spokesman declared, as the militants kept up their campaign to avenge Osama bin Laden's death, ramming a pickup truck laden with explosives into a police station and killing six people.
*
"Pakistan is the only Muslim nuclear-power state," Mr. Ehsan said in a telephone interview, adding that the Taliban had no intention of changing that fact. The Taliban, after all, aim to take over Pakistan and its weapons.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303654804576345331283515312.html

omarali50

05-26-2011, 03:12 PM

Ray, you are arguing with an imaginary person. I have no interest in blaming India or the USA or anyone else for Pakistan's policies. My last line was meant to convey that things will change in Pakistan because giving free reign to armed jihadists is really not a viable way of existing in the world (unless one is willing to dissolve the state and become Somalia). Whether that change happens via Indian actions, American actions or Chinese actions (or, as is mostly likely, a combination of actions by many actors including members of teh Pakistani elite who want to join Barnett's "core" rather than staying in the "gap") is of interest to those who are in the fray, but to a distant observer, those are details. The outcome is either Somalia, or a state willing to enforce its writ against armed terrorists. The route to each destination can be very convoluted.

Ray

05-26-2011, 04:15 PM

Omar,

I am not arguing with an 'imaginary' person.

As I see it, you are the best placed person to tell us the actualities in Pakistan.

I place great credence to your words and sentences (though I will concede much of it at times is difficult to understand as desired by you since it is complex in thought, left halfway hanging and then moves on to another thought and so on).

The examples being China assisting and the last sentence of your post previous to the one I am replying.

My contention is simple. No one can help Pakistan, except Pakistan itself.

Pakistan's situation as it is unfolding is becoming really confusing. It is for people like you to help us on our way to understand contemporary Pakistan.

For instance, what do you make of this?

Imran Khan backs army rule, too

Imran Khan backs army rule, too

'ISLAMABAD: After MQM chief Altaf Hussain’s statement regarding support for martial law-like steps, the chief of Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf (PTI) Imran Khan said his faction would back military rule for ‘stability’ of the country, ARY NEWS reports.....

Khan, however, said the army should not come into power and grab authorities of a civil and democratic government.
http://www.arynews.tv/english/newsdetail.asp?nid=36706

How can Imran back army rule and expect the army not to come into power.

Does it mean a civilian govt, without elections to form such a govt, but having the Army backing?

Or does it mean an elected civil govt backed by the Army?

If he means the latter, isn't the current govt a civil govt backed by the Army?

So, what is the difference?

Is he subtly implying a civil govt headed by himself (Imran Khan), backed by the Army?

If so, it reeks of personal ambition and that does not indicate a desire for governance and 'reworking' Pakistan.

I don't think Imran is much of a practical chap and is more on emotions.

I read that he has said that Pakistan should spurn US aid. Good and patriotic thought. But if US does not give financial aid or if the IMF and WB insist that Pakistan pays up, can good friend China or Saudi Arabia bail out Pakistan and continue to do so forever as the US is doing?

omarali50

05-26-2011, 09:38 PM

Ray, it is nice to say that only Pakistanis can save Pakistan. But actually Pakistanis are not going to be able to save Pakistan. The Pakistani elite (the common people have very little input in this matter) is divided and all factions have foreign patrons (states as well as "non-state actors") as well as local supporters. It is important to try and see the factions in a reasonably accurate framework. A framework of "independent nation state and its domestic versus foreign policies" is a useful fiction and must be adhered to in some settings, but is not sufficient or accurate enough for the job at hand. Take a look at this news item (or whatever you wish to call it; Saleem Shahzad is a "reporter" with unusual and mysterious sources): http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/ME27Df06.html

Let us assume that the details are true (I am going to argue that even if the details are NOT true, they are near enough to some truth for my purposes, as will become clear); It tells you a few things:
1. The state is deeply penetrated by jihadists.
2. The Jihadists are not in control and neither are the anti-jihadists or those sitting on the fence.
3. The public face of events hides many shocking and unexpected details. This in itself is an important feature of life in Pakistan and it is very important to be cognizant of how far the "inner reality" has moved from life in a democratic modern state or even a semi-functional developing country like India. Without keeping this in mind one ends up applying very misleading categories to events. Every country has hidden conspiracies and hidden layers of decision making. But this is qualitatively different.

The elite is in very very serious trouble. The normal civilian apparatus of the state (the police, the civil administration, the politicians) have long since lost control of the nether world where the terrorists and the army and its intelligence agencies are operating. Nobody is in charge in that world and everybody fears for their life and negotiates with bullets.

I have to run, but more later. I know this is very incomplete and baffling, but I do have a job and need to run. Mull over this till I get some more time...things are worse than they look. But not exactly in the way some critics think: the bad guys are not in control and running a massive con on the world. Nobody is in control and everybody is trying to con someone.
Or thats how it looks to me.

omarali50

05-27-2011, 04:19 AM

http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/05/27/pakistan-and-china-two-friends-hit-a-bump-nytimes-com/

davidbfpo

05-29-2011, 11:30 AM

I posted in Post No.198 a link to this book by the journalist / academic Anatol Lieven and have just found another:http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/6937153/imperfect-working-order-.thtml

davidbfpo

05-29-2011, 11:33 AM

Catching up on my reading pile and this article appeared May 7th, by an experienced UK journalist, Christina Lamb:http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/6916553/out-of-the-shadows.thtml

omarali50

05-29-2011, 03:59 PM

Another reference to Lieven's book: http://tribune.com.pk/story/177749/pakistans-tragic-flaw/?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4de1cd04ac877d2f%2C0

and a comment on the PNS Mehran attack from a leftwing perspective: http://www.viewpointonline.net/kitnay-aadmi-thay-char.html

My own comment on the above column. The first part is about a recent (videographed) killing of 5 unarmed Chechens, including a pregnant woman, at a paramilitary checkpoint in Quetta in Pakistan: I dont think the killing of 5 Chechens at a checkpoint and then making up stories about a great suicide attack foiled by brave soldiers is what sets Pakistan apart. That sort of thing would float by in India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka with similar responses (some human rights activists and the above-ground version of whatever underground group suffered will make some noise, everyone else will forget in a few days or weeks). In fact, many such unjustified killings of unarmed people have happened in India (and the dead are then retroactively recruited into the lashkar e tayaba or the local Maoist group), in Bangladesh (specifically in the Chittagong Hill Tracts), in Sri Lanka (Tamils) and so on. What sets Pakistan apart is the unusual relationship between the state and the main terrorist network.
The people in India and Pakistan are similar, the culture is similar (though slowly diverging), the social problems are similar (though again, diverging), but the terrorism problem is not similar at all. The Indian state, with all its faults and its rickety structures and its incompetence and corruption, is on one side and the terrorists are on the other (the tiny number of Hindu rightwing terrorists may have a somewhat more ambiguous relationship with some elements of the state). In Pakistan, the state itself is divided into terrorist sympathizers, anti-terrorists, agents of various outside powers and time-servers with no loyalty to any idea beyond their own personal interest.
In India, the propaganda of the state as well as most media outlets is directed against the terrorists (the details obviously vary and there are pockets of sympathy for leftwing terrorists and islamist terrorists and hindutva terrorists among some sections, but I am talking about the mainstream view). In Pakistan the mainstream opinion is as divided as the state; most people are not even aware of the extent of support the terrorists were provided by the army. People in Mansehra and Azad Kashmir and other places where the training camps were located are obviously more aware than the rest of the country, but the educated elite in particular has little direct experience of the vast jihadi enterprise…and so on.
Its a unique situation.

Ray

05-30-2011, 02:18 AM

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/majority-in-pak-dont-support-terrorists-khan/155213-3.html

An interview with the former Pakistan Foreign Secretary.

His comments on Pakistan tiring of its fundamentalism is of interest.

omarali50

05-30-2011, 03:29 PM

Some sections of the establishment are starting to see that the jihadi course may not be viable. But others remain determined:
http://www.dawn.com/2011/05/30/journalist-saleem-shahzad-goes-missing.html

The journalist who broke the story behind the PNS Mehran attack has disappeared in Islamabad.

omarali50

05-31-2011, 02:12 PM

Journalist Saleem Shahzad found dead near Islamabad | Pakistan | DAWN.COM.
http://www.dawn.com/2011/05/31/car-belonging-to-missing-journalist-found-in-sarai-alamgir.html
I dont know if this has been confirmed by other news organizations, but Dawn is generally reliable.
btw, Kiyani sahib went to school in Sarai Alamgir. This might be a message to him (i doubt if it is a message FROM him…I personally think he is not a bad person, but he lacks the means to clean the Augean stables).
So, whodunnit? A lot of people will immediately say “the ISI” and of course, they may be right. But it could also be jihadis (or the jihadi wing of the ISI) killing two birds with one stone.
Bad business either way. Very bad business.

omarali50

05-31-2011, 03:10 PM

Now they are saying he was found near mandi bahauddin, so please scratch my conspiracy theory about sending a message to Kiyani.
Also scratch the part about Kiyani sahib being a "good man". How would I know that? I am clutching at straws here...

omarali50

05-31-2011, 03:22 PM

What I mean by I am clutching at straws: if Kiyani and his team are fully involved in this business (rather than being incompetent goofs who cannot control more ideologically determined juniors) then imagine what disasters are coming our way in the future...

AdamG

05-31-2011, 06:03 PM

LAHORE, Pakistan, May 30 (Reuters) - Pakistani security officials have detained a former navy commando and his brother in connection with last week's militant attack on a naval air base, intelligence officials and relatives said on Monday.
*
Kamran Ahmed, who was sacked from the navy about 10 years ago, and his younger brother, Zaman, were picked up from the eastern city of Lahore on Friday, five days after the attack that killed at least 10 military personnel.

"They have been detained in connection with the naval base attack and are under interrogation," one intelligence official said, without giving details.

http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/ex-navy-commando-brother-detained-after-pakistan-base-attack

?

Missing journalist in ISI custody, says HRW

By Afnan Khan

LAHORE: The Human Rights Watch (HRW) has, through credible sources, learnt that journalist Saleem Shahzad is in custody of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), HRW’s Pakistan representative Ali Dayan Hasan told Daily Times on Monday.

Dayan remarked that the ISI remained a major human rights abuser in Pakistan and it frequently kept abusing and torturing those journalists it disagreed with. He further said the HRW had previously documented similar cases of abduction and torture on journalists by security agencies.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011\05\31\story_31-5-2011_pg1_2

omarali50

05-31-2011, 08:31 PM

incompetent or involved. There really is no third option here.
Which is worse? I think incompetent is worse because then its the end of the line. Involved at least implies an evil kind of competence.
Actually its very bad news no matter how you look at it. Very bad news indeed.

carl

06-01-2011, 12:42 AM

A few years ago there was serious concern in some quarters that Pakistan was with six moths of collapse and it didn't happen. Bin Laden's killing seems to have upset what might have passed for the status quo in the country. Mr. Shahzad's murder within days of his publishing a story closely linking AQ and Pakistan's armed forces seems particularly brazen and almost direct testimony about how deeply the jihadis have penetrated.

How close is Pakistan to falling apart?

omarali50

06-01-2011, 02:43 PM

Saleem Shahzad's last interview: http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=6802

I was talking to an old friend yesterday and he made this point: WITHIN Pakistna, the Pakistani army has the remarkable ability to create a public relations victory out of every disaster. They did so in 1965. It took them a few years, but they recovered from 1971 enough to launch a semi-popular coup in 1977. They lost in Kargil, but within a few months the person kicked out was Nawaz Sharif and the architect of Kargil became an initially popular coup leader. They were shocked by the American response to 9-11 but they have never given up hope that they can make an omelette out of broken eggs on this occasion as well and at a personal level, they certainly made a lot of money out of this setback to their regional jihadi dreams.
It might be a mistake to assume that they are going to fall apart after Abbotabad and Mehran. Already, they have managed to blame the civilian govt and its issuance of "visas to Americans" for the loss of Bin Laden. The Mehran base humiliation is to be blamed on 6 Americans who were "mysteriously" in the base that night and who even more "mysteriously" disappeared the next day. i am not kidding. That is the scenario being presented on pro-military websites, complete with vague hints that "Blackwater" was involved.
Saleem Shahzad had blown the lid off that attempt at blaming the CIA and RAW and probably got whacked for his pains (maybe the plan was not to kill him, but to torture him to teach him a lesson..the poor sod died under torture...weak heart? who knows). My point is, it aint over till the fat lady sings. And when it comes to Pak army psyops, it aint over even then. Like the Black Knight in Monty Python, we are never defeated....
More seriously, I think they ARE in trouble right now and dont know how to get out of it. The traditional way to get out of trouble in Pakistan has been to blame India and raise the flag of Islam. Since that connects well with the two-nation theory and the (shallow, but wide) national narrative built around that blessed theory, the army has always managed to grab the propaganda initiative. But there are problems now. e.g., even the clueless infidels are beginning to figure out that these two old reliable methods also lead to other less desirable consequences. And of course, the jihadists have the high ground on Islam, so the army is in a serious bind. They need a new script and they dont have script writers who can write it. This time, they are losing control of the narrative. And I get the impression that nobody knows what comes next.
What may save them is that the infidels will panic and throw money at them. That always seems to take away the pain for a while.

Ray

06-02-2011, 02:50 PM

67% of Pakistanis for 'Islamisation' of society: Poll

ISLAMABAD: A majority of Pakistanis favour the government taking steps for the "Islamisation" of society and almost a third of them believe the process should be completed in one go, according to new survey. A total of 67 per cent replied in the affirmative when they were asked during the survey carried out by Gallup Pakistan whether the government should take steps to "Islamise" the society.

Only 13 per cent said they believed there is no need for "Islamisation" while 20 per cent gave no response.

Forty eight per cent of respondents said steps to Islamise the society "should be taken one by one" while 31 per cent said the "steps should be taken at once". Twenty one per cent gave no response to a question on the process of Islamisation.

The study was carried out by Gallup Pakistan, the affiliate of Gallup International.

The survey was carried out among a sample of 2,738 men and women in rural and urban areas of all four provinces of Pakistan during January.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/pakistan/Majority-of-Pakistanis-for-Islamisation-of-society-Poll/articleshow/8680030.cms

While surfing a Pakistani website, it was interesting that while they were keen on Islamisation, yet none were able to enunciate what do they want as 'Islamisation', when in actuality they were already an Islamic Republic and Sharia is also applicable.

There were a minority that also asked the question as to what is Islamisation and is 5000 Mosques in one city not enough etc?

omarali50

06-02-2011, 03:03 PM

davidbfpo

06-03-2011, 09:22 PM

He opens with:
The struggle for control of Pakistan - soon to be the fifth most populous country in the world with the fifth largest nuclear arsenal - intensifies every day. The outcome is far from certain. The key player, Pakistan's army, seems dangerously ambivalent about which side should prevail: the jihadist Frankenstein it created or the democratically elected civilian government it despises.

Given his position as an adviser to the US government this is quite stark IMHO:

The jihadist penetrations of the army raise persistent questions about the security of Pakistan's nukes. According to a WikiLeaked State Department cable, from September 2009, France's national security adviser Jean-David Levitte told the American Embassy in Paris that France believes it is not secure. Levitte is one of the most astute diplomats in the world today, and he is almost certainly right.

Link:http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2011/06/03/the_battle_for_pakistan_99542.html?utm_source=news letter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=rcp-today-newsletter

Why this French diplomat would offer such a judgement eludes me. Yes, the French have an interest in Pakistan, IMHO behind two others. The French have some links to the Pakistani military, albeit mainly to the navy (submarines) and the air force (various Mirage types).

carl

06-03-2011, 11:44 PM

David: I've read that the various North African jihadi groups have seen France as their favorite enemy since before 9-11. The French have helped us a lot since 9-11 and have done a seemingly good job of keeping the the jihadis suppressed inside France. I would imagine they are concerned because if one of those nukes got loose, France would be as likely a target as anybody else.

One other thing crosses my mind and I invite comment. If Taliban & Co. take Afghanistan, or even a substantial portion of it, wouldn't this be as bad for Pakistan as for anybody, if not worse? The Afghan Taliban and the anti-Pakistan Taliban are good buddies. I've never seen much evidence that they are inclined to go after each other, rather they are inclined to cooperate. So, if Afghan Taliban gets control of substantial lands west of the Durand line, not just a district or two, won't TTP & Co. have a whopping great sanctuary from which to strike Pakistan?

davidbfpo

06-04-2011, 02:01 PM

Carl,

Yes, I am sure the French are concerned at the loss of a Pakistani nuclear weapon or just the vital component parts. My surprise was the weight given to the French diplomat's views.

As for your theme:
..If Taliban & Co. take Afghanistan, or even a substantial portion of it, wouldn't this be as bad for Pakistan as for anybody, if not worse?..

I would expect that the Pakistani Army / ISI have looked at that possibility and considered their options. There would be some irony if the Taliban re-asserted control over Southern Afghanistan, then offered sanctuary to the PTT and the Pakistani Army had to guard the Durand Line on a different scale.

From my "armchair" I do not see the PTT needs that much of a sanctuary, there are still large swathes of NWFP / FATA beyond effective state control, more importantly the PTT and allies have facilities in urban areas. Not to overlook parts of South Punjab, which are reported to host fundamentalist extremists.

Do the PTT want to challenge the Pakistani state in the lowlands or just evict them from the FATA? I don't know.

The other extremists pose the biggest danger to the Pakistani state, for example if the LeT leadership cannot maintain discipline. Only rarely are these factions dealt with bluntly by the Pakistani state. Quite a contrast to the PTT who have been, notably in the Swat Valley - not part of the FATA.

davidbfpo

06-04-2011, 02:02 PM

Pakistan's dreaded spy agency, the ISI, is back in the spotlight, accused of murdering journalist Saleem Shahzad. The agency's engagement with the media has become progressively more virulent as the "war on terror" has progressed. BBC Urdu editor Aamer Ahmed Khan asks whether anyone can bring the ISI under control.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13638478

davidbfpo

06-04-2011, 09:50 PM

The BBC are reporting his confirmed death:
..a major psychological blow to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and will also make it more difficult for wanted militant leaders to find safe places to go......He is widely believed to have masterminded an audacious attack on the Mehran naval airbase in Karachi last month...many would be led to believe the Pakistani intelligence operatives had a role in leading the Americans to Kashmiri..

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13653324

In tonight's BBC News the reporter stated Pakistan is claiming it's information led to the US drone strike.

His BBC obituary:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13655883

This indicates a link to the Mumbai attack following the Chicago trial testimony.

Seems that several national interests were served by this attack.

Ray

06-05-2011, 08:33 AM

The irony is that there is absolutely no such thing as a Sunni Islamic system waiting to be implemented. "Islam" is a useful slogan (once very fondly embraced by the CIA for its own purposes) and will no doubt continue to be used as a recruiting and motivational tool by many organizations and individuals, but contrary to popular belief, there IS no such things as an "Islamic system". The existing works of orthodox Sunni political and legal thought were composed in medieval times and assume the existence of some absolutist ruler (usually monarchical, some are anti-monarchical) and social and economic circumstances that approximate the 12th century CE. NOTHING exists beyond that.
There is no there there.

I think you are right that there is Sunni Islamic system.

Yet, there appears to be an eternal jockeying of power amongst the Sunni and the Shia 'systems' of governance.

Where the Sunnis are a majority, they enforce their 'system' and where there are Shias, they enforce their 'system'.

There is no official or recognised 'system' and instead it is more of a ' I am better than you Muslim' sort of a feeling and hence imposition, call it for the sake of ease, a 'system'.

Take the chaos in Bahrain.

It appears to be more of the historical fight for supremacy between the Sunnis and Shias, than any genuine grievances.

Take Pakistan itself. They are flooding the Northern Areas (Shia majority) with Pashtuns so that the demography changes and there are more Sunnis than Shias and Pakistan is a Sunni majority country.

I will concede I am not well versed and my comments are merely as an observer.

Why is this jockeying, when the religion is same?

davidbfpo

06-07-2011, 05:55 PM

A FP piece that puts the Sino-Pakistani relationship in a different context, notably over the port of Gwadar:
State visits between friendly countries seldom produce surprises or unscripted moments, but the recent trip to China by top Pakistani officials managed to do just that.

Upon returning to Islamabad, the defense minister, Ahmed Mukhtar, made two eyebrow-raising announcements: first, that Beijing had agreed to take over operation of Gwadar port in Baluchistan, and, second, that he had invited the Chinese to build a naval base there. China's leaders, seemingly caught unaware by these statements, promptly denied them.

Which ends with:
Pakistan remains a very important ally, but China has too much at stake to be dragged unwittingly into Islamabad's soap opera with Washington.

Link:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/03/pakistan_s_black_pearl?page=0,0

carl

06-11-2011, 01:55 PM

That is how the Denver Post headlined this story picked up from the Washington Post this morning.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/karzai-arrives-in-pakistan-for-reconciliation-talks/2011/06/10/AGzsWPOH_story.html?hpid=z1

The Washington Post headlined the same story "New Challenge for U.S.-Pakistan Ties."

The exact same story, about how the US gave Pakistan exact info and location of 2 bomb making factories in North and South Waziristan that turned out to have been recently evacuated when the Pak Army showed up, and yet radically different headlines. I guess the headline editor at the Washington Post is in with the political/military elite. The reporters not so much. The Denver Post editors, not at all.

The Denver Post headline accurately reflects the content of the story, catches your eye and invites you to read it. The Washington Post headline has nothing to do with the content of the story and is of such a nature as to cause people to skip it as just another in the long line of U.S.-Pakistan relationship stories. Fascinating.

The other thing is most of the story had to come from US officials who want to highlight the perfidy of the Pak Army-ISI. But the WaPo editors want to hide it. There must be a big fight going on inside the beltway right now about this.

omarali50

06-11-2011, 10:05 PM

http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/06/11/pakistan-after-osama/

davidbfpo

06-11-2011, 10:44 PM

In a rare public comment ex-ISI Director, General Ehsan ul-Haq, in London stated:

It would be totally uncharacteristic of al Qaeda to keep its No. 1 in one place for five years....He might've been there for only a few months....He must've thought it was safe..because the town has experienced no serious acts of terror.....How was it that we weren't the ones who picked him up? That was an embarrassment.

Link:http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/06/08/2257333/ex-top-pakistan-spy-doubts-bin.html#ixzz1P0fmCcys

Bill Moore

06-15-2011, 06:21 AM

Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 -- 10:32 PM EDT
-----

Pakistan Arrests C.I.A. Informants Who Aided Bin Laden Raid

Pakistan’s top military spy agency has arrested some of the Pakistani informants who fed information to the Central Intelligence Agency in the months leading up to the raid that led to the death of Osama bin Laden, according to American officials.

Pakistan’s detention of five C.I.A. informants, including a Pakistani Army major who officials said copied the license plates of cars visiting Bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in the weeks before the raid, is the latest evidence of the fractured relationship between the United States and Pakistan. It comes at a time when the Obama administration is seeking Pakistan’s support in brokering an endgame in the war in neighboring Afghanistan.

The fate of the C.I.A. informants arrested in Pakistan is unclear, but American officials said that the C.I.A. director, Leon E. Panetta, raised the issue when he travelled to Islamabad last week to meet with Pakistani military and intelligence officers.

Read More:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/world/asia/15policy.html?emc=na

davidbfpo

06-15-2011, 09:41 AM

Bill,

Thanks for posting that. It just shows that patience will be rewarded.

On the 4th May 2011 I noted a small detail in The Guardian's report on the OBL raid:
Note the nearest neighbour's house was occupied by a Pakistani Army major.

The fuller quote from the article:
But there was no sign of life from a nearby property, about 50 metres from Bin Laden's back wall, with a high perimeter wall and two watchtowers. Neighbours said it had been built three years ago by a man whose family has long owned property in the area. The nameplate read: Major Amir Aziz. Locals said he was a serving Pakistan army officer. Despite repeated rings on the doorbell, he refused to answer.

The latest article has:
..including a Pakistani Army major who officials said copied the license plates of cars visiting Bin Laden’s compound..

If all true then it makes the point human sources have a vital role even when hi-tech techniques are available.

davidbfpo

06-15-2011, 02:00 PM

Not unexpectedly an official denial a Pakistani Army major was detained:
The Pakistani army denied Wednesday that one of its majors was among a group of Pakistanis who Western officials say were arrested for feeding the CIA information before the American raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

Link:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cia_pakistan_arrests;_ylt=AvIIirntPwWO3dCsmBzzo82s 0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNmaGwwYmliBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTEwNjE1 L2NpYV9wYWtpc3Rhbl9hcnJlc3RzBGNjb2RlA3JhbmRvbQRjcG 9zAzEEcG9zAzIEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3Rv cnkEc2xrA3Bha2lzdGFuZGVuaQ--

omarali50

06-15-2011, 10:31 PM

This news is being presented in many cases in a slightly misleading manner, since it is more like they have just picked up everyone connected with Waziristan manzil, not just the CIA informants. But maybe some of them are CIA informants and that has pissed off the Americans. Meanwhile, the jihadis are pissed because GHQ is considered too pro-american. This is called GHQs brilliant sau gundey tey say cHittar strategy.

i.e. Opting for one hundred lashes and one hundred onions; for those who have not heard the story, a man was to be punished and was given the choice of eating a hundred onions or getting a hundred lashes. He opted for the onions but after 3-4 thought this is too hard and switched to lashes, but after 5 of those, he switched again to onions..he ended up with a hundred of both.

Whatever they do will not satisfy either the jihadis or the Americans…they would be better off picking one side and sticking to it…But but but..picking the jihadis would mean no more green cards and sons studying in Wharton. Picking the US would mean betraying Islam, Pakistan and the two-nation theory.
What would Jesus do?
Our discussion is at http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/06/15/pakistan-arrests-cia-informants/#comments

omarali50

06-18-2011, 03:42 PM

Truth or dare?

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/06/18/153787.html

davidbfpo

06-18-2011, 08:44 PM

Thanks for that insight and having read the article three times the best way to summarise it, indeed answer your question is provided by the author himself:
I will have to resort to some conjecture to arrive at a conclusion.

Conjecture being used as an verb:
to conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to ensure reliability.

Link:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conjecture

omarali50

06-20-2011, 04:20 PM

My article about this topic is at http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2011/06/pakistan-end-of-the-affair-by-omar-ali.html#comments

davidbfpo

06-22-2011, 10:44 AM

Anatol Lieven summarises the Pakistan issue IMHO well:
Pakistan is too often portrayed in flawed and reductive ways that flatten its complexity and offer misleading guidance to policy-makers. This makes it all the more important to acknowledge some difficult truths about the country..

Then:
A fundamental political fact about Pakistan is that the state, whoever claims to lead it, is weak, and society in its various forms is immensely strong. Anyone or any group with the slightest power in society uses it (amongst other things) to plunder the state for patronage and favours, and to turn to their advantage the workings of the law and the bureaucracy. As a result, Pakistan has by far the lowest rates of revenue-collection (under 10% of GDP) in south Asia. This, far more than the military, is responsible for the state’s inability to invest in education, infrastructure and essential services; and what money is directed to these ends is far too often stolen by the elites.

Referring to the army's role and discipline:
The only thing that can destroy this discipline and unity is if enough Pakistani soldiers are faced with moral and emotional pressures powerful enough to crack their discipline. The pressures would indeed have to be extreme: in fact, soldiers would have to be put in a position where their duty to defend Pakistan and their conscience and honour as Muslims clashed directly with their obedience to their commanders.

As far as I can see, the only thing that could bring that about as far as the army as a whole is concerned (rather than just some of its Pathan elements) is if the United States were to invade part of Pakistan, and the army command failed to give orders to resist this. Already, the perceived subservience of the Pakistani state to Washington’s demands has caused severe problems of morale in the armed forces.

Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/anatol-lieven/pakistan-hard-reality

omarali50

06-22-2011, 03:45 PM

I think Anatol Lieven has some good points but he underestimates the reality of jihadist ambitions in Pakistan. There is no easy choice. America may be making things worse, but leaving it alone wont make them better either.

See: http://www.thefridaytimes.com/beta/tft/article.php?issue=20110617&page=2

"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist. "

omarali50

06-23-2011, 12:05 AM

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/senior-pakistani-general-detained-over-militant-ties/

I know all the "sober" analysts are going to say kudos to the army, but I think the army has, in its inimitable fashion, opted again for BOTH lashes and onions. Within Pakistan all the old strategic geniuses are asking why this brigadier was arrested for links with a benign organization like Hizbutahrir and this is dictation from America. Meanwhile SOME Americans may be fooled but especially after bad news accelerates, others are liable to ask why all the generals with links to real militants are never arrested.....
They should have picked one side. Its a bitter pill, but especially if they had got all their media geniuses on board early on, they could have done it. Now, it increasingly looks like their only hope is that America not only withdraws from Afghanistan, but does so quickly, does so by GHQs script AND pays Pakistan to support the taliban in power. Even then, I have no doubt that the Taliban will prove a much bigger headache in power than they ever were in Waziristan. Pakistan will be in bigger trouble if GHQ gets their wish. And in any case, they are not going to get their wish...It looks bad no matter which way I look at it.

omarali50

06-23-2011, 02:59 AM

Our amateur discussion may be of some interest: http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/06/22/the-afghan-sunk-cost/#comment-10505

omarali50

06-23-2011, 03:32 AM

another review of Saleem Shahzad's book: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/print.asp?page=2011\06\23\story_23-6-2011_pg3_4

omarali50

06-23-2011, 04:57 AM

and the "official" strategic depth faction view: http://www.ahmedquraishi.com/2011/06/22/british-intelligence-infiltrating-pakistan-army/

I have mentioned earlier that some left wing friends are convinced that these websites are run by the pakistani army to provide cover for their actual pro-american policies. I find that hard to believe (and laughably stupid if true) but there being no transparency in Pakistan in these matters, I will admit that its not out of the question.

Ray

06-24-2011, 08:14 AM

Indeed, it is surprising that the Brigadier arrested for having ties with Hizb-ut-Tahrir has been able escape the dragnet so long.

It is a misrepresentation to claim that Hizb ut Tahrir is a benign organisation.

The organisation is hardly benign given that Hizb-ut-Tahrir is an Islamist organization that wants to reestablish the caliphate, the administrative structure that once governed a large swath of the Muslim world.

It is worth noting how the Brigadier was not ferreted out earlier, when it is a banned organisation even in Pakistan. This is a clear indication that there is a serious inroad within the Pakistan military including ISI and FIS by the terrorist organisations.

The latest report is that 4 more officers have been arrested.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2011/06/23/pakistan_army_questions_4_officers_about_extremist _ties/

omarali50

06-24-2011, 09:18 PM

Hizb ul Tahrir is at most a "gateway organization", at best its flypaper for would be jihadi morons of the middle classes. Its not really an organized terrorist group. We have PLENTY of those and plenty of army officers who trained them, guided them and still meet with them, so picking this guy up for hizbut tahrir (an organization that operates fully legally in the UK) is not the same thing as arresting current or retired officers for working with, say, fazlur rahman khalil...and if that last phrase sound utopian to readers then you have your answer for why I dont see this as earth shattering news.
The positive spin can be that this is a way of sending a message to the rank and file that Islamist sympathies are not welcome. But that is a long term issue (gradual elimination of sympathizers from the ranks), the short term issue is why armed, violent, totally committed and already trained groups are not feeling too much heat....
Having said that, it may well be that they are on the hit list, but only after the army has shored up its own defences...but then the fact that the army has not done so in ten years is telling you something. I know its not an easy job, but I am not convinced (and none of my leftwing friends who know more than I do seems to be convinced) that the army has fully accepted that the days of jihadi proxies are over....if they had reached that conclusion, they would not be undermining their own struggle by continuing to support jihadist propaganda and by appearing to keep "good jihadis" in reserve for future use (they may imagine its against India, and I can understand if Americans are not too bothered about dead Indians or dead shias or whatever, but their "imagination" has been known to be wrong)...

omarali50

06-25-2011, 12:42 AM

And more, from Farhat Taj: http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/06/25/a-reflection-on-saleem-shahzad-%E2%80%94farhat-taj/

Ray

06-25-2011, 05:57 AM

Caliphate, reunification of Muslim world stressed
http://nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Regional/Islamabad/24-Jun-2011/Caliphate-reunification-of-Muslim-world-stressed

Pakistani Hizb-ut-Tahrir…not a big threat, but still feared
http://www.islamonline.net/en/IOLArticle_C/1278408725378/1278406708816/IOLArticle_C

Hizb ut-Tahrir (the Party of Liberation) is banned in virtually all Arab nations in the Middle East, such as Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt. It is banned in Tunisia and Libya, and also Turkey. It is regarded as such a threat that it is even banned in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, which are already cauldrons of extremism. It is banned in all the former Soviet states in Central Asia, and since February 2003 it has been banned in Russia. It has been banned in Germany...

In Britain in August 2005, then-prime minister Tony Blair announced his intentions to ban the group.....Blair's extremist advisers from the Muslim Council of Britain opposed the ban and said they would only accept it if the right-wing BNP party (British National Party) were also banned. Blair quietly allowed the notion of banning the group disappear from his agenda.

Hizb ut-Tahrir: Banned Elsewhere But Not in the US. Why?
http://www.islam-watch.org/AdrianMorgan/Why-Hizb-ut-Tahrir-not-Banned-in-US.htm

If Hizb ut Tharir was indeed a benign organisation and was only encouraging the Muslim dream of a Caliphate, why should it be banned in Islamic countries including Pakistan?

If it is a banned organisation, then how is feasible for one to be affiliated to it and still serve the Army?

A banned organisation is a mere 'flypaper'?

Pakistan is caught in a bind. It does not know what to do with the terror groups they have organised, funded and armed. Some of these 'strategic assets' have flown the coop and are biting the hand that feeds!

omarali50

06-25-2011, 02:33 PM

Ray, its a common problem on the intertubes that we argue with what we THINK are the other person's views, based on some quick and dirty heuristic algorithm. I assure you I am not trying to defend the morons at hizb ut tahrir and I dont think army officers should have links with it. My point was that hizb ut tahrir is NOT in the same category as REAL terrorist organizations like LET, JEM, HUJI, LEJ, etc etc, of which we have dozens in Pakistan. By Pakistani standards, its middle class Islamist fluff. And it IS flypaper...that is what flypaper is supposed to be...its arguments attract a certain kind of educated Islamist mindset and since it is officially an above ground organization, it should be easy to monitor. It should also be very easy to infiltrate with FBI informants and agents provocateur. So if a brigadier is being arrested for links to Hizb, it has served its flypaper function.
Now, if a brigadier was to be arrested for links to LET, THAT would be big news...

davidbfpo

06-27-2011, 09:29 AM

Ray,

The 'Free Radicals' blogsite for ICSR has a short overview of HuT, which has this gem:
lack of involvement by HT’s global emir, who has been in hiding somewhere in the Middle East for years.and followed by:
HT members are driven by hope, and after decades of building the party apparatus, spreading the concept of revolution to overthrow corrupt regimes, and painting the picture of a perfect system of governance guided by the tenets of Islamic law, dedicated HT members must wonder why their emir is not leading the charge down, what could be, the home stretch.

Link:http://icsr.info/blog/Hizb-ut-Tahrir-Takes-a-Rest-During-Game-Time

davidbfpo

06-27-2011, 09:36 AM

Pakistani has asked, or expelled, the UK advisory team to the Frontier Corps; from the BBC:
British military trainers working with security forces in Pakistan have been withdrawn at the request of the Pakistan government.Or in The Daily Telegraph:
...British military advisers sent to Pakistan to help in the fight against the Taliban and al-Qaeda have been expelled from the country..

Spin from the UK MoD:
The UK has been asked to withdraw some of its training support teams on a temporary basis by the Pakistan Government in response to security concerns. We are providing training support at the invitation of the Pakistan Government and welcome their advice on these matters. The training teams will continue their own training and will be ready to re-deploy at the first possible opportunity.

Links:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13923483and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8600104/British-military-advisers-expelled-from-Pakistan.html

Incidentally the photo on the Telegraph story is a classic pose.

carl

06-27-2011, 06:45 PM

The following was posted on the Information Dissemination blog today. (http://www.informationdissemination.net/)

People have long asked where Somali pirates are getting all of their good intelligence from. They seem to know where the easy to hit ships will be, by name and all. There is ample evidence that Somali pirates are not working with Iran and they also do not appear to work in coordination with any Al Qaeda affiliated groups. One of the biggest questions that has popped up as a result of several different events over the last several months is how much influence and apparent connectivity ISI Chief Ahmed Shuja Pasha has with Somali pirate leaders. My sense is the relationship between Somali pirates and the ISI is the next big pirate story on the verge of busting into the media.

Lord in heaven, what's next?

davidbfpo

06-27-2011, 08:00 PM

Carl,

I know the world is full of surprises, but this suspected linkage is one and simply lacks credibility.

In an earlier post I referred to the open source and commercial sources for shipping information. I suspect that certain "middle men" are supplying the information for interception and Somalis are well known for their trading skills in the region - not piracy.

I recall the Somalis had no love for the Pakistanis during the early intervention; the killing of Pakistani soldiers pre-dated the 'Blackhawk Down' incident.

Where is the pay-off for ISI in such a trade?

carl

06-27-2011, 10:10 PM

David:

This is the first I've heard of it, can't really comment on its validity and posted it mainly as a discussion point. If it is true there isn't anything those guys won't stoop to, and if it isn't true their past actions make it easy for people to believe there isn't anything they won't stoop too. I will say that Galrahn runs a pretty good blog and seems to know exactly what he is talking about as near as I can judge, which may not be very near.

The pay off for the ISI would be what it always is for the ISI, bug India and money. There was a twitter feed from Galrahn stating that 22 Somali pirates were caught recently just off the NW coast of India. That should bug them. The money, well the money.

Who the Somalis killed 20 years ago probably doesn't mean much to them if there is money to be made leading the pirate's life.

omarali50

06-28-2011, 12:19 AM

The Somali story smells strange, but who knows.
The interesting question to me is whether there is any real rift between NATO and Pakistan? And whether GHQ is about to "win" in Afghanistan? Because if they are (with or without NATO's cooperation), its really really bad news for Pakistan. Primarily because such a victory would be terrible news for ordinary Afghans and then for ordinary Pakistanis (and eventually, for GHQ, but they may not see that yet). Then there is the secondary (and the in the greater scheme of things, relatively minor) issue of liberals hanging from lamp-posts...Pro-army websites make no secret of their expectations that after the US is driven out of the region, there will be a lot of lamp-posts with a lot of infidel agents hanging from them.
You can go to rupeenews to see what I mean.

Backwards Observer

06-29-2011, 10:40 AM

Don't usually read Dawn, but this opinion piece caught my eye:

Breeding Terror

There is a saying, if you look into an abyss, the abyss looks into you. In our case, there is much truth to it. Since the public flogging of journalists and social workers in the time of the all so much talked about General Zia, our nation as a whole, if it is even justifiable to use the term for Pakistanis, has taken a plunge to greater depths, perhaps never thought before possible.

We have since then managed to kill a leader cum politician in 2007; blown to smithereens countless men, women and children of Pakistan; eaten our own offspring – quite literally; and, killed journalists as well as publicly flogged women in the name of honor; brutally murdered our youth only to hang them upside down on a pole; and left to die kids on road bleeding to their last breath.

Breeding Terror (http://www.dawn.com/2011/06/28/breeding-terror.html) - BlogDawn.com - June 28, 2011.

carl

07-05-2011, 05:18 PM

Here is a New York Times story saying that American officials have intel tying the ISI directly to Mr. Shahzad's murder.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/world/asia/05pakistan.html?ref=world

It appears we are starting to turn up the heat on the Pak Army/ISI, if only just a little bit. We shall see if we continue.

davidbfpo

07-05-2011, 06:57 PM

Carl,

I read another, no doubt similar report. Will the USA use this information and intelligence through the "usual channels" or go public? Alas after the last major international act of publicity, Sec. of State Powell at the UNSC, I fear it will the "usual channels".

The "usual channels" appear to be military to military, as well evidenced by Admiral Mullen's visits and meetings. So a second option would be to avoid the military links and deal with the elected government instead.

carl

07-06-2011, 12:06 AM

David:

I wonder if the "usual channels" might not be a little discredited hence the story and direct accusation in the New York Times. Adm. Mullen has drunk an ocean of tea with Kayani Sahib over years and years to no avail. Perhaps at long last we are trying something different.

davidbfpo

07-06-2011, 03:21 PM

A twist to the latest round in open diplomacy, according to this opinion:http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/07/05/leaks

carl

07-06-2011, 11:18 PM

This story was no unauthorized leak. It was quite intentional and approved at what I would bet was the highest level.

omarali50

07-07-2011, 01:33 PM

my comments on this at http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/07/05/pakistani-islamist-groups-call-pro-lgbt-event-%E2%80%9Ccultural-terrorism%E2%80%9D-care2-causes/

omarali50

07-07-2011, 10:06 PM

I think this (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5imbFLWAvTir5mJe2jKMxcst4lzsg?docId=CNG.74ad1 28ef9e7dabc50a2978f3f55cd9c.a61)pretty much seals the deal. We are NOT in Kansas any more...

Asked about media reports that the Pakistani government approved the killing of the reporter, Admiral Mike Mullen on Thursday said: "I haven't seen anything that would disabuse that report."
He said he was "concerned" about the incident and suggested other reporters had suffered a similar fate in the past. "His (death) isn't the first. For whatever reason, it has been used as a method historically,"

carl

07-08-2011, 01:46 PM

I don't know Omar. ADM Mullen in the same story also said

'Washington was "committed to sustaining that relationship," he continued.

"But we recognize it's under great stress right now and we need to see our way through it."'

On the one hand the esteemed Admiral says "We don't like what you're doing." On the other hand he says "But we really don't care."

I wish it wasn't so but at the end, it sounds like the same old thing to me...so far.

Bill Moore

07-08-2011, 10:53 PM

The ADM is on the way out, the former SECDEF is out, and some of our folks in uniform that consistently pleaded with our nation's leadership to have more patience are out. I hope we can start a new relationship based on reality, verus the way we would hope the Pakistanis are. The American people need to start making their voices heard on this issue, and convince our leaders to stop funding one of the major State sponsors of terror. We need to refuse to be held hostage by a few nuclear weapons. Easier said than done, but the money we're pouring into Pakistan now, at least part of it is being used to support terrorists, insurgents and expand their nuclear program.

Why we do find it acceptable that Pakistan supports terrorists and insurgents that are killing our folks? Why do we find it acceptable they murder reporters who expose the truth? Are we so cowardly as a nation just because they have nukes we can't make the hard right decisions?

Pakistan isn't a failed state, it is a terrorist State, and the sooner we start dealing with it as such the sooner (although not soon) we'll set the wheels in motion for this crisis to be solved.

Dayuhan

07-10-2011, 06:24 AM

Are we so cowardly as a nation just because they have nukes we can't make the hard right decisions?

Pakistan isn't a failed state, it is a terrorist State, and the sooner we start dealing with it as such the sooner (although not soon) we'll set the wheels in motion for this crisis to be solved.

I'm not sure we can solve Pakistan's crisis.

In any event the constraint on our action is less their nukes than our dependence on their territory to supply our forces in Afghanistan. As long as we maintain forces in Afghanistan of a size that requires sea/land transport, our options with regard to Pakistan are limited.

If we want a free range of action WRT Pakistan, we have to either phase down our presence in Afghanistan to a point allowing support entirely by air (and thus making us entirely dependent on less than reliable staging points to the north) or work out a deal with the Iranians (fat chance). Geography is fairly emphatic on that point.

carl

07-10-2011, 10:54 PM

This quote is from the Washington Post story linked after the quote.

Today, almost 40 percent of surface cargo arrives in Afghanistan from the north, along a patchwork of Central Asian rail and road routes that the Pentagon calls the Northern Distribution Network. Military planners said they are pushing to raise the northern network’s share to as much as 75 percent by the end of this year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-turns-to-other-routes-to-supply-afghan-war-as-relations-with-pakistan-fray/2011/06/30/AGfflYvH_story_1.html

Things seem to be changing.

(I found this at Pundita's blog.)

davidbfpo

07-11-2011, 07:46 AM

There's a long-running thread 'Supply Routes to Afghanistan' on:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=6386

Dayuhan

07-12-2011, 07:50 AM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8630475/US-military-aid-cuts-to-Pakistan-will-harm-efforts-to-take-on-al-Qaeda.html

US military aid cuts to Pakistan 'will harm efforts to take on al-Qaeda'

The US has halted $800m in assistance in protest at Pakistan's decision to expel military trainers and in frustration at the perceived slow pace of hitting militant hide-outs in North Waziristan.

However, security and diplomatic sources in Pakistan believe the move will prove counter-productive.

Hamid Gul, a former director of the country's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, said withholding aid would simply turn public opinion more "caustic" and delay any large-scale campaign against militants.

"Why should they go into North Waziristan now? They were making commitments to do it, but these threat, master and slave treatment, this arm twisting, will not work," he said.

The Hamid Gul quote is almost amusing in a dark way. "If you don't pay, we won't fight and we'll say nasty things about you. if you pay, we still won't fight, and we'll say slightly less nasty things about you"... or something like that.

davidbfpo

07-12-2011, 12:30 PM

A curious mixture of how personalities and national interests interact, which ends with:
These issues of potentially vital cooperation between India and Pakistan would be difficult under any circumstances, but without a reasonably functioning U.S.-Pakistan relationship based on common interests, they may well be unachievable.

It is often said that Pakistan never misses a chance to miss a chance. If it misses this one, the world will pass it by, and its isolation will only deepen. The same may hold true for the United States. Its influence in the Indian Ocean is slipping as China and India flex their growing economic muscle. It will have to make a course correction as it approaches the end of its military enterprise in Afghanistan. Pakistan is as good a place to start as any, and the two generals, Pasha and Petraeus, might be the right players for the first step.

Link:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/07/11/dont_be_spooked_by_pakistan?page=0,0

davidbfpo

07-12-2011, 05:30 PM

For Britons and Americans watching the hard-fought progress of our Coalition troops in Helmand, the harsh reality is that Nato could do everything right in Afghanistan and still lose the broader regional campaign against terrorism if Pakistan fails to contain its internal militants. This makes the fight in Pakistan, and finding means to help Pakistanis help themselves, the most important battle in the world.

I relocated this article written in July 2009 by David Kilcullen and cite only the last paragraph as it is fitting; so my emphasis and repetition:
..the fight in Pakistan...the most important battle in the world.

Link:http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/5186128/for-answers-to-the-afghanpakistan-conflict-ask-what-would-curzon-do.thtml

Dayuhan

07-15-2011, 04:57 AM

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67976/graeme-blair-c-christine-fair-neil-malhotra-jacob-n-shapiro/pakistans-middle-class-extremists

Summary:

Policymakers have converged on economic development as a key to ending terrorism, in the belief that poorer people are more susceptible to the appeals of violent groups. In fact, in Pakistan, the poor are less supportive of militant groups than the middle class.

Bill Moore

07-15-2011, 08:27 AM

Here's the scary part, or senior leaders embrace this dogma, yet the facts don't support it, so we have a policy of nation building that has resulted in hundreds of our troops being killed and thousands maimed to pursue armed economic development and economic development isn't the underlying issue for terrorism.

Yet there is no evidence that economic development changes attitudes toward violent militant groups, or even that it is the poor whose attitudes are problematic. A number of scholars, including Claude Berrebi, Alberto Abadie, and Alan Kreuger and Jitka Malečková, have found that people who join terrorist groups are predominantly from middle-class or wealthy families. Public opinion scholarship, such as that of Najeeb M. Shafiq and Abdulkader Sinno, and Mark Tessler and Michael Robbins, suggests that differences in income and education do not explain variation in support for suicide bombing and other forms of violence.

I remain a strong advocate for providing intelligent economic assistance for a number of reasons, not the least which is humanitarian, but let's not pretend that economic development will address the underlying issues of terrorism. Let's be honest about what economic development can and can't do, and separate it from the terrorism issue except in "specific" situations where it may be relevant. Sadly we have wasted billions of development dollars in war fighting efforts that could have been spent more effectively in nations not at war and produced real results, possibly preventing future wars. Instead we largely underfunded our global interests to surge efforts into Iraq and Afghanistan.

davidbfpo

07-25-2011, 01:54 PM

Lt. General and former ISI Chief Assad Durrani has supplied to The Atlantic journal a text entitled 'The ISI: AN EXCEPTIONAL SECRET SERVICE'. Link:http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/07/pakistans-isi-from-the-inside/242471/

The intermediary writes:
Durrani is not a booster for the Taliban; he is a hard core realist -- and his view is that Pakistan's generals prize the Taliban for its ability to give them "strategic depth". Whether you agree or not, his assessments are very much worth reading in full.

There are some moments to pause when reading, especially when you reach the Epilogue, cited in full:
I do not know what all the ISI knew about Bin Laden's whereabouts before he was reportedly killed, or when the Pakistani leadership was informed about the US operation on that fateful night. But the fact that we denied all knowledge or cooperation -- even though the military and the police cordons were in place at the time of the raid, our helicopters were hovering over the area, and the Army Chief was in his command post at midnight -- explains the Country's dilemma.

The Atlantic intermediary ends with:
The most important takeaway from this fascinating snapshot of the ISI, the Taliban, and Pakistan's view of America and its strategic choices is that Pakistan will never be a predictable puppet of US interests.

omarali50

07-25-2011, 02:38 PM

The most important takeaway from this article is that the generals are not under adult supervision and there is no sign that they can be brought under adult supervision. The mess will continue....

davidbfpo

07-27-2011, 09:23 PM

I missed the FM's appointment, she is a young lady, hence the storyline:
Hina Rabbani Khar, Pakistan's new foreign minister, secured a diplomatic breakthrough in New Delhi after sweeping India off its feet and into a "new era" of trade and co-operation in the war on terrorism.

Ends citing an Indian lady commentator:
She's incredibly young pretty, glamorous and has no fear of appearing flash. She wore pearls when she arrived and diamonds for the talks. We're so obsessed with her designer bag and clothes that we forget she first held talks with the Hurriyat [Kashmiri separatists]. She could be Pakistan's new weapon of mass destruction.

Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8665949/Pakistans-new-foreign-minister-charms-India.html

Surely the FM is a 'new weapon of distraction'?

omarali50

07-27-2011, 09:27 PM

Umass grad.
I think she is an improvement over the last foreign minister, who had pretensions above his humble station and has been shown the door. She is good looking and has no ideas of her own. What more could one want?

omarali50

08-14-2011, 04:55 PM

Pro-military websites are already hinting he was a spy: http://rupeenews.com/?p=37555

The truth, of course, may be another matter.

omarali50

08-15-2011, 06:13 PM

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20092429-503543.html

very professional. Is it good to know that they were not amateurs? or would the US be happier thinking its just some local kidnappers?

German Gurkha

08-16-2011, 04:18 PM

I missed the FM's appointment, she is a young lady, hence the storyline:

Ends citing an Indian lady commentator:

Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8665949/Pakistans-new-foreign-minister-charms-India.html

Surely the FM is a 'new weapon of distraction'?

I am quite new to this forum, but I know the Pakistan-Indian conflict from buttom-up, being , perhaps, slightly biassed because of Indian origin...

My theses to this conflict are as follows:

1. Having behaved as irresponsible as they have in the past, there are no legitimate interests of Pakistan whatsoever.

2. Accepting this, they - the Pakistani - have to disarm immediately to a level consistent with internal security.

3. Failing to do this voluntarily, a combined Indian/US/NATO-operation should be able to identify and disable the 10-odd storage sites for their nukes.

4. Using the internal fault lines of this punjabi-dominated country, Pakistan can then be dismembered at will. Beluchistan and Sind are ripe for secession and could be used for a very comfortable supply line, in fact facilitating the cut of Taliban supply lines...

Just my two cents

davidbfpo

09-03-2011, 08:41 PM

Hat tip to Circling the Lion's Den for the pointer to:
Pakistan's policy elite believe their state has two overriding objectives in the endgame in Afghanistan..

The first is to ensure that any settlement does not lead to instability in Pakistan, particularly amongst Pashtuns; second, to ensure that the Afghan government is not antagonistic towards Pakistan and does not allow its territory to be used against Pakistani state interests - presumably a reference to alleged Indian interference in Baluchistan. These two objectives translate into three outcomes for the government, say the authors; first the need for stability; second, a government in Kabul that adequately represents Pashtuns and - as far as some of those questioned were concerned - includes participation by Mullah Omar's Quetta Shura and the Haqqani Network; and third, a limit on India's activities in Afghanistan to ensure it is restricted to development work.

(Ends with)Many participants recognised a dilemma for Pakistan over US policy in the region. While they argued that the US military presence exacerbated tensions and led to instability, they also felt an early US withdrawal would lead to added instability in Afghanistan. Most thought it was in Pakistan's interests for reconciliation talks to take place as quickly as possible, although they recognised that there could be no return to Taliban rule in the whole of Afghanistan. Good material in this report which casts light on a subject that is seldom aired.

Link to commentary:http://circlingthelionsden.blogspot.com/2011/09/thoughts-on-afghanistans-endgame-by-pak.html

Link to the report by USIP and Pakistan's Jinnah Institute:http://www.jinnah-institute.org/images/ji_afghanendgame.pdf

carl

09-04-2011, 07:43 AM

My theses to this conflict are as follows:

1. Having behaved as irresponsible as they have in the past, there are no legitimate interests of Pakistan whatsoever.

2. Accepting this, they - the Pakistani - have to disarm immediately to a level consistent with internal security.

3. Failing to do this voluntarily, a combined Indian/US/NATO-operation should be able to identify and disable the 10-odd storage sites for their nukes.

4. Using the internal fault lines of this punjabi-dominated country, Pakistan can then be dismembered at will. Beluchistan and Sind are ripe for secession and could be used for a very comfortable supply line, in fact facilitating the cut of Taliban supply lines...

Just my two cents

I've read something along these lines before. How widespread do you think these ideas are in India, especially amongst the politicians and the military?

omarali50

09-07-2011, 08:07 PM

Regarding that "Jinnah institute" report: http://criticalppp.com/archives/56832

I assume most of the American establishment has not yet fallen out of love with the Pakistani establishment, so they are likely to be sympathetic to Sherry Rahman's piece...but Senator Mark Kirk does seem to have wandered off the reservation..

carl

09-08-2011, 09:38 AM

The Jinnah report's stated purpose is to present the viewpoint of Pakistan's "foreign policy elite", a completely corrupt group. It also states it would be good if the same exercise were undertaken with the US foreign policy elite, a completely feckless and willfully blind group. So if the malevolent and the spineless really understand each other, all will be well. I find that unpersuasive.

Bill Moore asked why we put up with this. I think we do it because this is all about maintaining the positions of the elites in both countries. The Pakistani feudal/military elite want to keep their power. The American elites want to keep theirs and and also they have an natural affinity for foreign elites over their own countrymen. The General sahibs may have their faults but at least they aren't NASCAR fans. So the American elites will not ever admit, short of overwhelming political pressure, that the Pak Army/ISI is the enemy because they think it will reduce their power and influence. Better some of those NASCAR fans have their legs blown off and die than their betters be humiliated.

Sen. Kirk (I looked it up) said this:

Pakistan has become the main threat to Afghanistan. Pakistan's intelligence service is the biggest danger to the Afghan government. It is also a tremendous threat to the lives of American troops. Let me be clear: many Americans died in Afghanistan because of Pakistan's ISI...

As much as the Pakistani officials claim otherwise, the Haqqanis are backed and protected by Pakistan's own intelligence service. Statements by Pakistani government officials to the contrary are direct lies.

Most importantly this:
Should Pakistan not change its ways, we can also do one other thing: an American tilt towards India to encourage the world's largest democracy to bankroll an Afghan government that fights terror and the ISI

If he can get enough of his colleagues to come around to that point of view things will change. I hope he can. There is a chance too because all those colleagues can't afford to contemn the Americans as the American foreign policy elites do.

Ironically enough crossing and weakening the Pakistani military/feudal elite may be the only chance Pakistan has.

Here is a link to the text of Sen. Kirk's speech.

http://kirk.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=283

(don't get on me for being political shill. when a sitting Senator calls the Pakistan gov liars, viewing the text is helpful.)

Dayuhan

09-08-2011, 11:16 AM

"Should Pakistan not change its ways, we can also do one other thing: an American tilt towards India to encourage the world's largest democracy to bankroll an Afghan government that fights terror and the ISI.".

If he can get enough of his colleagues to come around to that point of view things will change. I hope he can.

I am not convinced that India could conjure up "an Afghan government that fights terror and the ISI", or that America could make them try. Sounds like an emotionally appealing idea, but not a very practical one.

carl

09-08-2011, 12:27 PM

Dayuhan:

I am not sure they could either. But at least the Indians wouldn't fool themselves about what was what. And it would get the serious attention, the immediate serious attention of the Pakistani military/feudal lords.

omarali50

09-08-2011, 03:41 PM

It would be better for India, Pakistan and Afghanistan to cooperate, open trade routes, permit cultural exchange and avoid spending all their time dreaming up ways to kill each other.
While there are lobbies in every one of these countries that have visceral (and frequently irrational) hatreds of each other, they are not equally placed at the heart of the state. The Afghan elite includes many that hate Pakistan or wish to move the border to the Indus, but most of them are pragmatic enough to compromise, should compromise become a possibility. Similarly, India's ruling elite does include Hindu Nationalist elements whose problem with Muslims crosses the line into irrational hatred, but India is a functioning democracy and has other fish to fry now that economic growth appears to be a real possibility. They can see the benefits of scenario A (above) even better than the Afghan elite. Unfortunately, Pakistan's ruling elite has the biggest mountain to climb in this matter. While the truly insane paknationalist fringe is not proportionally larger than the insane fringe in Afghanistan or India, the peculiar history of Pakistan and its ideological choices permit this lunatic fringe to have greater legitimacy and power at the heart of the state. "Rational" calculations of economic interest and suchlike are more easily suppressed in the service of this ideology. I used to think that practical considerations will force the elite to give up its "paknationalist" dreams (this term is shorthand for an ideology you can study in detail on sites like paknationalist.com or rupeenews.com) and I think there are signs that such a change in thinking has occurred in some sections of the elite, but the problem is not going to be easily solved. The rise of China could eventually be a source of economic growth in the entire region, but right now its making it easier for the paknationalist fringe to believe that they have picked "the winning side" and (even though China may not want what they want) has given a boost to their confidence that may be just enough to push Pakistan over the edge.
"Over the edge" meaning that in crucial debates in the next few months or years, this could tip the balance in favor of those who are unwilling to compromise with Afghanistan and India. That will be bad news for Afghanistan, maybe for India (primarily because they may get involved in some quagmire or even in a direct shooting war when their best option is to focus on growth and internal reform) but it will be terrible news for Pakistanis. We could be left fighting a civil war in Afghanistan AND Pakistan that could eventually end in a hard coup and an attempt at Islamization and fascism that will momentarily make the trains run on time and then collapse into chaos.
Enough doom and gloom for one morning.
btw, I think India's ability to assist ISAF in Afghanistan is less than Senator Kirk seems to believe.

carl

09-08-2011, 04:29 PM

Omar:

I read somewhere that Pakistan is already in the initial stages of a civil war with factions of the Army and ISI at odds with each other. Do you think there is some truth to that or is it overstated?

omarali50

09-08-2011, 09:31 PM

I think its overstated. I think there are definitely Islamist sympathizers who help out their old friends even when the high command has classified them as "bad jihadi", but the army remains united. The majority of the officers are pragmatists and careerists. They believe some subset of the paknationalist viewpoint, which is not necessarily the full-frontal Jihadi viewpoint. A much smaller minority is truly Jihadist.
The problem is that the paknationalist viewpoint itself is problematic. Its leading lights are not classical jihadis (shireen mazari, ahmed qureshi, aslam beg, etc) and have in the past been very eager recipients of American largesse (with Aslam Beg even thought by true-blue Jihadis to be a CIA agent involved in bumping off Zia), but they are baby fascists who (like many a Nazi in the 1930s) like to think that they are not being immoral, they are just being more honest about things that the two-faced bastards in the West do while blabbering about human rights and democracy and whatnot. Since there is just enough truth in such an attitude to make a lawyerly argument possible, they can convince themselves and their followers that they are just doing what everyone else does but doesnt admit (thus, India and America and England all employ terrorists, shelter assassins, order the killing of civilians and so on and yet they all gang up and wont let poor Pakistan do the same). From here, its not too far to thinking that we need our terrorists and our proxies and our "useful lies" too. Add to that the very brittle and defensive sense of "un-indian identity" and smaller size vis a vis India and the jihadis seem like a very good idea. That, and a smattering of Islamism is all the true jihadis need to make monkeys of this lot.....so you dont have a civil war because they are not really planning to fight against all jihadist groups...but you will still have a civil war in the end because the jihaidis are not following the script offered to them....they have ambitions beyond being tools of some stupid "strategic thinker" in Islamabad.
Its a very tight noose. They just dont have the intellectual tools (the "vocabulary") needed to change course. Right now they think America will leave, china will get richer, we will be out of trouble in a few years. They are, of course, very wrong. Because they dont understand the problems that need to be solved and are tying to solve the wrong problems (or imaginary problems) things blow up in their face every few years.
I am sure in pakistan I will be accused of extreme naivete because I am ignoring the role of the CIA in all this. But i think that while the CIA may indeed have supported paknationalism in the good old days (and its been claimed that some British establishment types played a role in creating pakistan, so this role as Western hired gun in the area may predate SEATO and CENTO) things change...

davidbfpo

09-09-2011, 02:14 PM

Once again Hat Tip to Circling the Lion's Den for a pointer to action taken in Quetta, Pakistan to arrest three AQ cadres:http://circlingthelionsden.blogspot.com/2011/09/lets-make-up-and-be-friends.html

Unless of course ISI knew where they were and a policy decision was taken to arrest them. Given the "revolving door" practice in the past "making up" maybe generous.

Ray

09-11-2011, 12:57 PM

I've read something along these lines before. How widespread do you think these ideas are in India, especially amongst the politicians and the military?

Officially, such a policy does not exist in the Govt or the military.

But that there are sub-nationalism in Pakistan on the rise, of that there is no doubt.

Pakistan is not quite on the self destruct mode, but if the terrorism within is not controlled or the Punjabi domination, things could turn ugly.

Ray

09-11-2011, 01:20 PM

It is not possible for India, Pakistan and Afghanistan having a common viewpoint, especially India and Pakistan.

The relative peace and all the façade of peace negotiation are because of the US nudging them, at times vigorously!

Even this week there was a terrorist attack on the Delhi High Court and when the next one will come, who knows? In such an environment, the common Indian naturally does not find any useful outcome will be there from the talks, more so, when Pakistan has made no move to even start serious investigation regarding the Pakistan end of the Mumbai carnage, given enough evidence from a third party - the US.

India can surely shore up an Afghan govt if there is an international consensus. Given the Indian antipathy towards unilateral action that may appear unnecessarily 'aggressive'.

India has shored up its defensive capability in the NE against China and is comfortably poised.

To have troops for Afghanistan, it will have to withdraw its UN contingents.

Its experience in CI over six decades will give it a head-start.

It is also worth noting that China is not too pleased with Pakistan acting as a base to destabilise China in Xinjiang. Hence, one wonders if they will be displeased if Pakistan is boxed in and the Pakistan based terrorists are directed to Indian assisted Afghanistan and in Kashmir, if India does help Afghanistan.

Possible, but would it be desirable?

davidbfpo

09-15-2011, 10:26 AM

Hat tip to the Australian think-tank the Lowry Institute and this article by an Australian in Islamabad, which rightly notes the impact for the Pakistani public:
When looking at the most obvious change on the ground in Pakistan since 9/11, most would say security.

The threat of suicide bombings is very real. Headlines leading up to this year's anniversary of 9/11 reported stories like 'Peshawar, where every day is 9/11'. Cities like Peshawar and Quetta endure regular suicide attacks. Sadly, the frequency of attacks is not reported much in the Western media unless there are mass casualties or someone 'important' is killed (twenty deaths or fewer does not seem to create much of a stir).

The South Asia Terrorism Portal keeps track of the attacks, using local media reports. Last month (the holy month of Ramadan), there were 46 bombs detonated in Pakistan; the month before there were 62 blasts. That is enough to make everyone think twice about staying too long in a market place, wonder if the person next to them in a mosque is wearing a suicide vest, or if the woman in a burqa could be the next suicide bomber.

Link:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2011/09/15/Pakistan-reminds-America-of-its-sacrifices.aspx

The Pakistani state may not have many admirers here, yes we often are told the Pakistani public distrust the USA, but for the Pakistani public battered by all manner of disasters, such as the current floods, adding the post-9/11 fear factor there is little to look forward to.

omarali50

09-15-2011, 01:04 PM

I keep posting this link in different discussions, but it really does have relevance here..so, with apologies for excessive cross-posting: http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2011/09/9-11random-thoughts.html

davidbfpo

09-18-2011, 10:33 AM

The BBC's headline 'US envoy links Haqqani militants to Pakistan government':
There is evidence linking the Haqqani militant network to Pakistan's government, the US ambassador to Pakistan has said in a radio interview.

"This is something that must stop," Cameron Munter told Radio Pakistan, when discussing Tuesday's militant assault on the Afghan capital, Kabul.

Riposte by Sirajuddin Haqqani, the son of the leader of the network, has told the Reuters news agency...
Gone are the days when we were hiding in the mountains along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Now we consider ourselves more secure in Afghanistan besides the Afghan people, he said. He also said that the group would take part in peace talks with Kabul and the US if the Taliban endorsed such talks as well.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-14960725

Public diplomacy like this strikes me as odd, given the stance taken by the Pakistani state and the often reported low esteem or hatred for the USA amongst the Pakistani public.

omarali50

09-19-2011, 03:08 AM

Saying so in public is not the issue...there is a real disconnect between the aims of the paknationalists and the US...and the US seems relatively clueless about the mindset it is dealing with (meaning I think "paknationalists" understand their American interlocutors better than the average American diplomat understands Pakistan's establishment...in both cases, I am not talking about understanding the people or the society at large).
See, for example: http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/09/16/a-decade-of-millenial-change/

omarali50

09-26-2011, 02:09 PM

Raymond Davis 2.0?
It seems that the corpse commanders may be ready to fold (in their own fashion, keeping "all options open" and focused on short term survival): http://www.dawn.com/2011/09/26/commanders-in-favour-of-defusing-tensions-2.html

See also: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011\09\26\story_26-9-2011_pg3_4

and: http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/09/24/what-pakistan-should-do-%E2%80%93/

davidbfpo

09-26-2011, 03:27 PM

I liked this comment by the Pakistani Army spokesman, Maj-Gen Athar Abbas:
Gen Abbas acknowledged that army’s Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence maintained contacts with the Haqqani network, but said that didn’t mean it supported it. (My emphasis) No intelligence agency can afford to shut the last door of contact. Maintaining contact doesn’t mean that you are endorsing or supporting that terrorist organisation.

Link:http://www.dawn.com/2011/09/26/commanders-in-favour-of-defusing-tensions-2.html

Not exactly what I'd say in the midst of a repeated crisis; I am mindful the UK during 'The Troubles' via SIS (MI6) maintained links with the Provisional IRA and the UK government repeatedly denied the government was talking to them.

omarali50

09-26-2011, 04:26 PM

"maintaining links" is hardly the issue here. And I assume you agree that it is not the issue here.
What the Pakistani "deep state" wants and what the US (or NATO) want are two different things. Its not about links or occasional contacts in Dubai.
In any case, NATO's problems may be over if and when they leave the region (which they probably should, since they clearly dont even understand their "allies", much less their enemies). Pakistan's problems (and, by extension, India's and Afghanistan's and maybe even China's) will only accelerate.

omarali50

09-29-2011, 08:16 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/us-maneuvering-on-pakistan-good-copbad-cop-routine-or-sign-of-policy-confusion/2011/09/29/gIQASCnc7K_story.html

Going from bad to worse? It seems that tragedy is turning into farce. Pakistan should do something quickly to help the US before the US loses the war (see below). Pakistan's rational and far-sighted response may now be America's best hope!
Many of my Pakistani friends are happy because they think this is a zero-sum game: what is bad for the US is good for Pakistan. I disagree. First of all, I dont think the US is done yet. Confused, yes. Done? probably not.
But even if we imagine that everything goes downhill for the US from now onwards and they eventually pull out defeated, it is not likely to be a fatal blow (Some Paknationalists imagine a Soviet Union scenario, but their knowledge and analysis are both terribly off in this case). The US, while chastened and shocked (as after Vietnam?) will not be seriously wounded by defeat in Afghanistan; What happens to the economy at home will be far more crucial than what happens in Afghanistan and Pakistan, neither of which have a big role in the economy, and the role they do have is entirely negative.
Pakistan is another matter. I dont think stoppage of US aid is going to be a necessarily fatal problem (severe sanctions are another matter, but maybe China can prevent those?). And the inevitable military coup (perhaps a "hidden one" in which a civilian caretaker regime is installed by the army) may even lead to a temporary improvement in administration in the core region for a while; but this "victory" will not solve deep seated problems in the structure and direction of the state. In fact, it will likely make them worse as the jihadi faction starts looking for a victory dividend. Even in the best case scenario, it will be very tough. In the worst case scenario, we may collapse before the last American takes off from the embassy roof. The risks in case of "victory" are enormous.
Does this mean that someone in Pakistan will in fact sort out the confusion and help the US out just to save itself? While that may appear logical, it does not appear likely. This is a genuine mess. The kind where nobody is sure what will happen next.
A joke from the nineties suddenly appears to be prescient: Nawaz Sharif was portrayed as something of a simpleton, getting by on the advice of his shrewd father (abba ji). Here is the joke:
Nawaz Sharif: Abba ji, the economy is in terrible shape and nothing is working. What can we do now?
Abba ji: Son, there is only one solution. Start a war with America. They will bomb the country and utterly destroy it. Then they will occupy us and launch a Marshall plan and we will be rebuilt with their money. Look how rich Japan and Germany have become after losing a war to America.
Nawaz Sharif: But abba ji, what if we win?

omarali50

09-29-2011, 08:39 PM

the above comment mutated into this blog post: http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/09/29/what-if-we-win/

Dayuhan

09-30-2011, 04:41 AM

Interesting article on the Haqqanis and Waziristan:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/68292/michael-semple/how-the-haqqani-network-is-expanding-from-waziristan?page=2

And comment on the wider Pak/USA issues:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/68296/aqil-shah/mullen-takes-on-the-isi

Both above the paywall :D

davidbfpo

09-30-2011, 09:39 PM

As if by magic our occasional correspondent Hamid Husain has supplied a commentary on the current situation, particularly on what stance the Pakistani Army leadership will take. See the attachment (which has been slightly edited).

omarali50

09-30-2011, 11:10 PM

Nice job by Hamid Hussain. The bottom line is that "victory" for the ISI will hurt them even worse than "defeat", but they are too dumb to realize this. Kamran Shafi has been telling us for years: "the Rommels and Guderians will take us for the mother of all high jumps". They are incorrigible and incapable of learning. Kiyani sahib is better than average, but even he gets his forecasts from the same "think tanks" that have war-gamed the whole thing, anticipate massive American economic collapse in 2012 (its in the Mayan calendar; I am NOT kidding) and takeover of patron duties by China.
Its sad and tragic.
See this wonderfully apt cartoon and enjoy: http://www.brownpundits.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/316743_10150340654784292_529734291_7856373_1074019 852_n1.jpg

davidbfpo

10-01-2011, 11:02 AM

A passage in an article on logistical and political relationship nearly escaped my eye:
At the same time, Pakistan has been looking to China as a foil for its dependence on the US with a series of high-level meetings during the past week. However, yesterday it emerged that China Kingho Group had pulled out of a $19bn deal in southern Pakistan because of security concerns, according to The Wall Street Journal – suggesting Islamabad may not be able to rely on its giant neighbour as an alternative to the US.

Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8799596/US-finds-new-friend-in-Uzbekistan-after-Pakistan-fallout.html

IIRC there have been posts on the not so enthusiastic Chinese relationship with Pakistan; which IMO weakens Pakistan's policy towards the USA, as China is not even a poor alternative partner.

Ray

10-03-2011, 08:42 AM

The Double Mirror
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2071153,00.html

Why We're Stuck with Pakistan
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2071131,00.html

There is a trust deficit.

How much is the 'trust' and how much is the 'deficit'?

There seems to be no 'escape' route or is there?

omarali50

10-10-2011, 12:21 PM

Now with more pictures: http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2011/10/what-if-we-win.html#more

davidbfpo

10-19-2011, 12:58 PM

A BBC story, based on a Pakistani MP talking about a briefing to the parliamentary defence committee:
Pakistan's army chief Ashfaq Kayani has warned the US that it will have to think "10 times" before taking any unilateral action in North Waziristan...

(Slightly edited) General Kayani is quoted saying "If someone convinced me that all problems will be solved by taking action in North Waziristan, I'd do it tomorrow...If we need to take action, we will do it on our schedule and according to our capacity."

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-15364956

I fully accept this is Pakistani "spin" and may reflect more on Pakistani politics than any prospect of a US military incursion across the Durand Line.

carl

10-19-2011, 04:51 PM

It just occurred to me reading Kayani's latest pronouncement, that Pakistan is Oceania from the novel 1984. They actually use Newspeak as the official language.

Ray

10-19-2011, 06:48 PM

I was watching an Indian TV channel (Times Now), which had a Pakistani Air Marshal and the head of the Geo TV.

They were very aggressive and in fact the Geo TV head stated that all the terrorist heads when handed over by Pakistan, works for the US Afghanistan 'clique'. He quoted some of the so called terrorist organisations handed over to the US who were carrying out raids inside Pakistan! And these were not being reported in the international or Indian media.

I wonder how far that is true.

Ray

10-19-2011, 06:56 PM

This is an earlier debate with a Pakistani diplomatic and a US authority giving their views.

http://www.timesnow.tv/Debate-US-ultimatum-to-Pak-1/videoshow/4384711.cms

davidbfpo

10-19-2011, 07:39 PM

I really must study the geography of the lands on either side of the Durand Line, this report in The Guardian puzzles me; it is headlined: 'US troop withdrawal leaves Pakistan vulnerable to attack by insurgents' and sub-titled: 'Taliban exploiting a security vacuum in the wake of American forces departing from eastern Afghanistan'.

Link:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/17/us-troop-withdrawal-pakistan-vulnerable

So in one place Pakistan fears a US incursion in North Waziristan and in Kunar & Nuristan the USA has withdrawn, so the Pakistanis are shelling across the border.

omarali50

10-20-2011, 02:58 PM

The details are always complicated, but there IS a zoomed out view: Pakistan is trying to ride in both boats and is in serious danger of falling between them. I know I repeat this endlessly, but I think Pakistan needed to choose a long time ago and needs to choose now and if it still does not do so, will have to choose in the future (probably after the Chinese get hit by some random Uighur strike that uses some of the same infrastructure initially constructed for very different purposes). The Islamist militant network is not compatible with other plans (like pipelines, exports, fashion shows and whatnot) that the elite also desires. Whether it was a CIA idea in the first place or whether India pays some of them or whether the CIA itself is playing a double game are details...the bottom line remains the same. Those men in black balaclavas who walk around Miranshah and blow up informants by putting dynamite at their feet are bad news...they are not "strategic assets".
This has not yet sunk in.

omarali50

10-20-2011, 03:09 PM

Or rather, it has sunk in, but only as an isolated fact. And there is still some hope that we can "retain some asymmetric capbilities".
Or, its sunk in, but the people in charge have no idea how to sell the story to their audience.
Many layers of confusion.

omarali50

10-24-2011, 04:53 PM

Anatol Lieven's book has been discussed before in this thread (and others)...here is a good review by someone who is a little more resistant to the bull#### emanating from well dressed army officers than Lieven Bahadur seems to be: http://www.theindiasite.com/10105/

omarali50

10-25-2011, 03:36 PM

We will redefine "Pyrrhic victory"...http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/10/25/pakistan-edges-closer-to-victory/

davidbfpo

10-26-2011, 07:08 PM

Hat tip to Circling The Lion's Den for:
Pakistan and the United States have patched up some of their differences. US Defence contractor ITT is to supply 18 hi-tech electronic warfare pods for Pakistan's fleet of F-16 fighter aircraft at a cost of $49 million. The ALQ-211(v)9 Advanced Integrated Defensive Electronic Warfare (AIDEWS) pods provide digital radar warning, high-power jamming, threat geolocation and situational awareness to the aircraft via a pod that is attached beneath the aircraft.

Link:http://circlingthelionsden.blogspot.com/2011/10/pak-airforce-gets-f-16-upgrade.html

hat tip tp Watandost under the headline 'Secretary Clinton's Message to Pakistan: Help us Negotiate with Taliban and Haqqani Group', citing a Bloomberg report on her high-powered delegation visit to Islamabad:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-24/clinton-pressing-pakistan-for-joint-covert-action-on-islamic-insurgents.html

Curiously the BBC will screen a documentary tonight, with Bruce Reidel interviewed, on Pakistan's alleged complicity with the Taliban and the link is to the supporting article:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-15445047

carl

10-26-2011, 09:30 PM

No David. Nothing fundamental has changed. They still give us a story, and we still buy it.

omarali50

10-27-2011, 02:16 AM

Obviously I have very limited insight into the people at the american end of this "transactional relationship" (somehow that term seems to conjure an image of Elliot Spitzer and his emperor's club account) but I think at the Pakistani end its now a strange combination of stubborn determination to carry the game through to "victory" and absolute terror at the thought that we might be about to win...all overlaid (or undergirded..pick your metaphor) by an overwhelming need to get through this week and this month and God will take care of the future.
In other words, they are no less confused and crazy than the Americans seem to be. Sure, they are not going to drop their "strategic assets" this late in the game ("sunk costs fallacy" also applies), but they ARE at war with many of the assets.
No one is winning.
My comment in the link above was: I think pakistani patriots (especially the Imran Khan variety of burger-jihadis, Guccis and paknationalists) are all caught up in the excitement of whether the glorious ISI is going to outwit the big bad Americans or not. My view is that whether America stays or goes or does any other stupid thing, it is Pakistan that has an unresolved problem and that problem is not going away. That problem is the existence in Pakistan of the Jihadi network and its supporters in the establishment. This network is not at the disposal of “secular” morons like Musharraf, to play games with and then bottle up whenever its not needed. And it is not compatible with peaceful coexistence with ANY of our neighbors (India is an obvious case, but so is Afghanistan, and so is Iran and even China). Whether America pulls out this way or that way, that network will have to be brought under control and there is no way to do that without exchanging bombs and bullets with those people. As Bhadrakumar points out, the Pak army may have bitten off more than it can chew here.
I think they would have done better to actually work WITH the Americans and the Northern alliance and even India. Instead, they have spent ten years sabotaging the American invasion of Afghanistan and now they are in danger of winning (http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/09/29/what-if-we-win/_)

Tukhachevskii

10-27-2011, 06:12 PM

Ray

10-28-2011, 03:07 PM

Jemima Khan donates cameras to Pak tribal leaders to record damage done by US drones

http://truthdive.com/2011/10/27/Jemima-Khan-donates-cameras-to-Pak-tribal-leaders-to-record-damage-done-by-US-drones.html

Firn

10-28-2011, 03:58 PM

The BBC aired Part 1 of their documentary on Secret Pakistan (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b016n0js). Most of this stuff was open source for ages and common knowledge to most but it was nice to see it addressed on public media.

Indeed. From my very limited view it seems as if many in the Paktisani elite are trying to play a refined and complicated piece of Realpolitik for perceived Paktistani interests and against an ever present foe, but turn a blind eye to current threads and opportunities and their implications for their countries future.

So they may have played the USA like a fiddle and felt great during all the time, but they might have erred on their way a bit too close to the path of a certain Nero, ignoring the flames burning close by.

omarali50

10-29-2011, 12:32 AM

Indeed. From my very limited view it seems as if many in the Paktisani elite are trying to play a refined and complicated piece of Realpolitik for perceived Paktistani interests and against an ever present foe, but turn a blind eye to current threads and opportunities and their implications for their countries future.

So they may have played the USA like a fiddle and felt great during all the time, but they might have erred on their way a bit too close to the path of a certain Nero, ignoring the flames burning close by.

Indeed!
and I am happy to see that some foreigners are starting to get it. The Pakistani deep state is trying its best to kill Pakistan in their quest to save Pakistan. Its really sad.
I think partition was a horrendous mistake (or an evil act..mistake is less judgmental, so maybe too mild a term) but with the second partition, Pakistan is now a viable geographic entity in itself. Due to the fact that subnationalities, neighbors and interested faraway powers will never be able to agree on how to carve it up and everyone is afraid of the chaos that may follow, I also expect others to work hard to keep it in one piece..for now.
I also think its survival will become more pleasant if the border with India becomes a softer border, with mutual peaceful trade and travel, but most paknationalists and many Indian nationalists disagree.
I also think that the version of identity and national interest currently promoted in Pakistan by the deep state (I am not referring to various versions any of us may hold on our own or in our small liberal/Gucci/westoxicated groups) is dangerous, is incompatible with peace in the region, and is an invitation to various parties (including relatively powerful ones like the USA and NATO) to try and pressurize or even undermine Pakistan because it is so genuinely dangerous and threatening. So I think that this paknationalism (you can see it in full flower at websites linked to the Pak army, like paknationalists.com or rupeenews.com) is going to have to be given up…one way or the other. With “one way” being less painful than “the other”. Thats a sort of summary of my views.
But I think whatever our opinion about its desirability, its survival is still more likely than its demise…I think there are real links that hold it together...and the real (and well justified) fear of even its "enemies" that a collapse may be worse than the current headache. Of course, I could be wrong.

jcustis

10-29-2011, 02:22 PM

This recently popped up on Strategy Page, and while I understand it is meant to be a brief analysis, I'm scratching my head a bit at some of it.

Taliban created in Pakistan? I've thought all along that the Taliban was essentially a manifestation of fundamentalist action taken by Mullah Omar and followers in response to the rampant warlordism that enslaved Afghanistan.

One blurb does interest me in a positive way though, since I have tried to get it straight in my head for a very long time why ISI has interest in instability within Afghanistan. Does the following quote really boil down its involvement this simply?

But Haqqani kept his organization separate, and his head down. He carries out terror attacks mainly in eastern Afghanistan. Haqqani has long supported itself via criminal operations (extortion, robbery, kidnapping) and handouts from the Pakistani government. The ISI supports Haqqani because they see this group as a potential tool in gaining more control over Afghan tribes, and the Afghan government. The Pakistanis also rely on Haqqani for terrorist training (of terrorists willing to serve ISI.)

-------------------------------
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htterr/articles/20111026.aspx

October 26, 2011: If there were no foreign troops in Afghanistan, the Islamic terrorists would still be there. We have Pakistan to thank for this, which started down the road of Islamic radicalism in the 1950s, when the government changed the nation's name from Pakistan to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Then, in the 1970s, the Pakistani government, or at least the group of generals that were running the place at the time, decided to adopt Islamic terrorism as an official state policy, and aim it at India. In the 1980s, Pakistan launched this new weapon at the Russian troops who had invaded Afghanistan. After that was over in 1988, warlords, the nominal (communist) government in Kabul and Islamic radical groups went to war with each other, to decide who would rule the country. That was a stalemate, so in the 1994, to create an Islamic radical coalition and unite the Afghanistan with a government friendly to Pakistan, the Taliban was invented (by Pakistan, in Pakistan) and sent in to take control. That never quite worked out, as when the Americans invaded in late 2001, the Taliban were still trying to defeat non-Pushtun (the Taliban were basically Pushtun) tribes in the north.

The U.S. was mainly interested in destroying al Qaeda (which had organized the September 11, 2001 attacks in the U.S.). By 2011, the U.S. believed that al Qaeda was fading fast in Pakistan and Afghanistan, especially since the death of leader Osama bin Laden last May. An ally of al Qaeda in Pakistan, the Haqqani Network, was now seen as a larger threat, especially in Afghanistan. Based in North Waziristan (and adjacent areas). Haqqani has been at it for over two decades, and has long worked with Pakistani intelligence (ISI). Haqqani has been discreet, where the Taliban have not, and this has earned the group a measure of respect from Pakistani politicians and military commanders. Haqqani does not carry out terror attacks in Pakistan.

The Haqqani Network takes advantage of the fact that the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan (sometimes called the Durand Line) is only semi-official. That's because it was established in 1893, between the British colonial government in India, and the Amir (Islamic king) of Afghanistan. It was not meant to be a border, just a way of determining where the British and the Afghans would not carry out military operations. The Pushtun tribes divided by the Durand line were free to cross, and there was no real border patrol or guard. When formal border guards were established, by the new government of Pakistan in the late 1940s, it was applied lightly, as the local tribes did not, and many still do not, recognize the border. The Haqqani Network took advantage of this to establish bases in Pakistan, and friendly relations with local tribes. This enabled Haqqani to move terrorists and weapons into Afghanistan and carry out attacks. When pursued, all the Haqqani men had to do was get across the old Durand Line, and they were safe. With the CIA UAVs overhead now, that safety is no longer assured.

The Haqqani Network is led by Jalaluddin Haqqani, an Afghan from the eastern part of the country. He is now in his 60s, and runs a tight ship. He was a major warlord during the 1980s war with the Soviets, and a major player in the civil war that broke out after the Soviets left in 1989. But he quickly saw the power of the Taliban (being an Islamic conservative himself), and joined the Taliban shortly after he encountered them. But Haqqani kept his organization separate, and his head down. He carries out terror attacks mainly in eastern Afghanistan. Haqqani has long supported itself via criminal operations (extortion, robbery, kidnapping) and handouts from the Pakistani government. The ISI supports Haqqani because they see this group as a potential tool in gaining more control over Afghan tribes, and the Afghan government. The Pakistanis also rely on Haqqani for terrorist training (of terrorists willing to serve ISI.)

Haqqani has over 5,000 men under arms (but many are part-time fighters) and several hundred suicide bombers in training or ready to go. Haqqani can call on over 20,000 armed tribesmen in North Waziristan and adjacent areas. Again, these are largely part-timers, and have to be convinced to gather and fight. A threatened Pakistani Army invasion of North Waziristan would be convincing, and that has kept the Pakistani soldiers out so far. The only government forces in the area are the Frontier Constabulary, a border guard recruited from the local tribes. These guys guard the Afghan border in North Waziristan, but have an understanding with Haqqani men sneaking into or out of Afghanistan; they leave them alone. The Haqqani gunmen return the favor.

Despite protests from the Pakistanis, the U.S. has increased its use of missile armed UAVs to hunt down and kill terrorist leaders. These missile (mainly Hellfire) attacks have already killed or wounded several members of the Haqqani clan, and that will apparently increase. The Pakistanis want only al Qaeda and Taliban leaders attacked, because these two groups have been launching a growing number of terror attacks in Pakistan. But Haqqani has behaved itself, and Pakistan (at least the army and ISI) wants to keep it that way. But Haqqani also allows al Qaeda to use Haqqani facilities (camps, safe houses and so on). This doesn't bother the Pakistanis much, but the U.S. and Afghanistan are not happy with all the terrorism Haqqani sponsors and carries out Afghanistan. So Haqqani leaders are going to be seeing more Hellfire missiles up close and personal. Pakistan denies any knowledge or complicity with Haqqani terrorism.

The terrorist losses from these attacks have been severe, and include heads of operations, finance and intelligence. Many of the mid-level commanders were bomb making, and terror attack experts. These losses caused additional casualties as less skilled bomb makers died when their imperfect devices blew up while under construction. New bomb makers have been less successful because of poor instruction. The loss of operations commanders meant operatives were less effectively deployed, and more easily caught or killed. The damage to their intelligence operations meant there was less success in general, especially against the growing American informant network on the ground. The financial leadership losses have meant less income, and more reliance on stealing from locals, which makes the terror groups even more unpopular.

Pakistan cannot openly complain about all this, because it's no secret that Haqqani have long been operating a terrorism training operation, and carrying out attacks against real or imagined enemies. But Pakistan does continue to protect Haqqani any way it can. That includes keeping troops out of North Waziristan, and tipping off Haqqani about any American operations the ISI is able to get wind of. Normally, the U.S. tells ISI nothing about anti-terrorist operations. But ISI is, after all, an intelligence organizations, and has spies in Afghanistan, keeping an eye on the Americans and always seeking closely held information on operations against Haqqani.

carl

10-29-2011, 05:19 PM

Taliban created in Pakistan? I've thought all along that the Taliban was essentially a manifestation of fundamentalist action taken by Mullah Omar and followers in response to the rampant warlordism that enslaved Afghanistan.

Do you think it would be fair to say, that is what got them started, but a lot of what has kept them going is the Pak Army/ISI?

jcustis

10-29-2011, 06:36 PM

I scratch my head at that as well, because it would seem to be a smarter choice to just work with the official Afghanistan government, instead of opting to continue to foment chaos, terror, and instability.

carl

10-29-2011, 06:44 PM

That would seem to make sense but as Omar keeps pointing out, little that the Pak Army/ISI does makes sense in the long run. There is an ideological component there too perhaps.

omarali50

10-29-2011, 07:14 PM

The discussion at this link may help to clarify my point of view and what I think is the background to Pakistan's unusual ideological position: http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/07/02/two-south-asian-charter-polities/

omarali50

10-30-2011, 09:50 PM

Lot of coverage today about the so-called "anti-American" rally by Imran Khan. My comments at: http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/10/30/pakistani-middle-class-gets-really-excited-about-imran-khan/

davidbfpo

10-30-2011, 10:50 PM

Jon,

I understand your puzzlement at the origins of the Taliban. Wikipedia has this, which I found useful:
In 1991, the Taliban (a movement originating from Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-run religious schools for Afghan refugees in Pakistan) also developed in Afghanistan as a politico-religious force, reportedly in opposition to the tyranny of the local governor.[26] Mullah Omar started his movement with fewer than 50 armed madrassah students in his hometown of Kandahar.[26] The most credible and often-repeated story of how Mullah Omar first mobilized his followers is that in the spring of 1994, neighbors in Singesar told him that the local governor had abducted two teenage girls, shaved their heads, and taken them to a camp where they were raped repeatedly. 30 Taliban (with only 16 rifles) freed the girls, and hanged the governor from the barrel of a tank. Later that year, two militia commanders killed civilians while fighting for the right to sodomize a young boy. The Taliban freed him.[26][27]

The Taliban's first major military activity was in 1994, when they marched northward from Maiwand and captured Kandahar City and the surrounding provinces, losing only a few dozen men.[28] When they took control of Kandahar in 1994, they forced the surrender of dozens of local Pashtun leaders who had presided over a situation of complete lawlessness and atrocities.[28][29] The Taliban also took-over a border crossing at Spin Baldak and an ammunition dump from Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. In the course of 1994, the Taliban took control of 12 of 34 provinces not under central government control, disarming the "heavily armed population". Militias controlling the different areas often surrendered without a fight.[10]

Link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

Now I shall rely on reading a few years ago. Once the new Taliban movement gained traction Pakistan did allow the large-scale movement of willing students from madrassah's and numbers of soldiers / advisers etc.

What is important to recall is the Afghan tradition of flexible loyalties, limited fighting and negotiation.

As the Taliban spread across Afghanistan; not just in the north, active opposition dwindled - with the exception notably of Massoud in the Panjhsir Valley - whilst others joined the Taliban and the student numbers dwindled, partly by death. Wikipedia says approx. a third of the regular fighters were Afghans.

carl

10-31-2011, 01:49 AM

The Wikipedia article segment downplays the importance of the Pak Army/ISI in the rise and survival of the Taliban. Ahmed Rashid's "The Taliban" is a highly regarded history of the outfit and according to that book, the Pak Army/ISI's role was critical, without it, they wouldn't be.

Now of course, they are absolutely dependent upon Pak Army/ISI support.

davidbfpo

10-31-2011, 10:03 AM

Carl,

If only!

Money talks, so the widely assumed income from the increasing heroin production alongside "taxes" should provide internal and external Taliban factions with a degree of independence. The place has plenty of small arms, remember how many disappeared from the ANSF? Most intelligence is locally acquired and given freely or coerced. Training, with a few exceptions is internal; after all they have the tactical skill.

Where does Pakistani / ISI help fit in? Cadre and technical training. IED improvements (shaped charges allegedly via Iran) and big bombs. Providing sanctuary, subject to discretionary variance.

Would, no could the Taliban continue to campaign without help from across the Durand Line?

Yes.

Now adjust safety helmet, wear fluorescent safety jacket and sit comfortably in your armchair.:wry:

carl

10-31-2011, 01:49 PM

David:

I used the phrase "absolutely dependent" intentionally, for they are.

They have no true independence because all of the bosses for most of the major factions live in Pakistan. If they don't toe the line, the ISI picks them up. And the Haqqanis have been judged by competent people to be a veritable subset of the ISI.

As far as small arms go, I don't know. The ISAF probably has figures on the origins of weapons captured but I don't know what they are. The small arms are useless without ammunition and I suspect, don't know of course, that after 10 years, most of that comes across the border.

From what I've read, the Taliban doesn't exhibit tactical skill too frequently.

People are too quick to dismiss the importance of sanctuary afforded by the Pak Army/ISI to the health, literally of the Taliban. If old man Haqqani, Mullah Omar, and Hekmatyar actually had to live full time in Afghanistan, I don't think they would live so long. A less grand example of the importance of sanctuary is the story last week or the week before in the NYT about Taliban rocketeers firing at American posts from within Pakistan or from inside Afghanistan within yards of the border. They do that because the border inhibits American retaliatory action.

As you said, the Taliban would continue to campaign if they couldn't count of the Pak Army/ISI for support and sanctuary. However they would constitute only a small fraction of the threat they now pose to the Afghan gov and international forces. So, yes, in order to continue as they are now, they are absolutely dependent upon the Pak Army/ISI.

carl

10-31-2011, 01:56 PM

The Haqqanis, or the Pak Army/ISI, same difference, just blew a number of Americans to bits in Kabul. Apparently, they weren't nearly as impressed with the Sec. of State, the Chairman of the JCS and the director of the CIA as the blind rats inside the beltway thought they would be.

Ken White

10-31-2011, 02:10 PM

You've identified the -- or at least 'a' -- problem. What's your politically acceptable, viable and potentially successful solution?

omarali50

10-31-2011, 02:25 PM

I would make the following assertions (supporting arguments can be culled from many many past posts):
1. A safe haven is the most important element for the survival of any such movement. There would probably be many scattered Taliban if there was no Pakistan next door, but they would not be a well organized alternative in the face of overwhelmingly superior military force without such a sanctuary AND (perhaps even more important) without the assurance that "one day the infidels will leave and the ISI will still be here, so fence sitters should think about the future and remember certain lamp posts in Kabul".
2. There would be no NATO occupation if there was no Pakistan next door, since the international jihadi network was founded and grew in Pakistan (with very generous CIA support), not in Afghanistan....Afghanistan became a base later and remained dependent on help from Pakistan..how many Jihadis landed at Kabul airport to join duty and how many landed (and at a reduced rate, still land) at Pakistani airports? The mismanaged and misguided occupation of Afghanistan is ONLY justifiable as a very indirect and badly thought out way of making Pakistan change direction. Invading Pakistan not being a real option in any case, the question is if THIS indirect approach was handled correctly or not.
3. This is also not to argue that NATO could not have effed it up without any help from ISI...just that it would have taken more incompetence than they usually exhibit. With average/usual incompetence factored in, this occupation could still have forced a compromise on almost all Afghan power-brokers, leaving small bands of true believers to gradually outlive their welcome in faraway valleys.
4. This is all "could have been". By now, it may be too late. If we are lucky, China will handle the "forced modernization" of Afghanistan in the next iteration of history's nasty cycle. By "lucky", i mean if we dont have any nuclear bombs go off. I am optimistic on that count, but who can guarantee such an outcome?

carl

10-31-2011, 02:28 PM

Ken:

Solution to what, Afghanistan, or Pak Army/ISI support of the Taliban?

What is politically acceptable differs depending upon who is making the decision and when they are making it. Politically acceptable to Ronald Reagan in his time or George Bush in Oct 2001 most probably will differ from what is politically acceptable to Mr. Obama and the never changing crew of blind rats inside the beltway now. Viable would be a matter of determination and political will. Those things are dependent upon the leadership. Have they the stomach for it? Potential for success is a matter of judgment, basically an opinion.

I can give you my opinion as to what would get the Pak Army/ISI to cease its' proxy war against America if you would like that.

Ken White

10-31-2011, 02:57 PM

Solution to what, Afghanistan, or Pak Army/ISI support of the Taliban?The latter. The solution to Afghanistan was not to stay. We blew that. Next best thing is to depart reasonably decently. That's in the works. However, you continue to write that the Pakistani Army and / or ISI are responsible for the Taliban and something needs to be done about that -- IMO that brings up really two questions:

What should be done about that relationship today in view of US presence and supposed goals in Afghanistan? That issue is the focus of my question.

A secondary question is -- if we were not in Afghanistan or after we leave do we or should we care about that relationship and if so, what should we do about it.

Both questions couched in view of actual and not desired political constraints.
What is politically acceptable differs depending upon who is making the decision and when they are making it...Those things are dependent upon the leadership. Have they the stomach for it? Potential for success is a matter of judgment, basically an opinion.That's the rub, isn't it?

Today, now, current climate -- what Reagan or Bush might have done (and we probably disagree significantly on those possibilities...) are immaterial.
I can give you my opinion as to what would get the Pak Army/ISI to cease its' proxy war against America if you would like that.I would -- provided that opinion considers political reality and isn't just wishful thinking. I can think of several solutions. Unfortunately, not one would be accepted by the policy makers in DC. You and I may not like their approach but they are there. That's reality.

carl

10-31-2011, 03:44 PM

I would -- provided that opinion considers political reality and isn't just wishful thinking. I can think of several solutions. Unfortunately, not one would be accepted by the policy makers in DC. You and I may not like their approach but they are there. That's reality.

Do you want my opinion as to what would stop the Pak Army/ISI from continuing its' proxy war upon American soldiers or would like an opinion as to what is acceptable to the blind rats? Those are two different questions. I will give you my opinion as to what would stop the Pak Army/ISI if you want it; without the qualifier, if that is the question you are asking. To add the qualifier is to cut off the response before it is given. I won't try to enter and explore the gyri and sulci of rodent brains and try to figure what they would like today and might be scared of tomorrow.

Omar:

This is great! "The mismanaged and misguided occupation of Afghanistan is ONLY justifiable as a very indirect and badly thought out way of making Pakistan change direction"

I never thought of it like that but it is true. The heart of the matter almost. Good job. The rest of your post was cogent and well written. I admire your ability with the written word.

Ken White

10-31-2011, 04:21 PM

Do you want my opinion as to what would stop the Pak Army/ISI from continuing its' proxy war upon American soldiers or would like an opinion as to what is acceptable to the blind rats?You can call them all the names you wish -- that doesn't change the reality that they make policy and you do not. I want your opinion on a realistic solution with a chance of implementation, not on what you (or I) would do if we could get away with it. We can't. That's reality.

Wishing is not reality
Those are two different questions. I will give you my opinion as to what would stop the Pak Army/ISI if you want it; without the qualifier, if that is the question you are asking.IOW, you cannot offer a realistic solution but you, with no responsibility for what is done or not done, propose to continue to fulminate about the issue. Kewel... ;)
To add the qualifier is to cut off the response before it is given.Actually, that's not necessarily correct though it is certainly a way to avoid answering. It is not an effort to cut off the response. It is an effort to ask you -- nicely -- to consider realities instead of what one might wish could be done. You can denigrate those policy types and call them names but you cannot by so doing remove the fact that they have to consider things that you do not or seem unwilling to address...

Have fun. :cool:

carl

10-31-2011, 05:03 PM

Ken:

It appears to me that you are not interested in my opinion and only posed the original question in order to set the stage for you to express yours. It would be easier if you just expressed your opinion of my position in the first place instead of engaging in convolutions.

I am guessing you don't think much of my opinion. Fair enough. But I would point that things can change and one of the occasional advantages of our type of political system is that citizens, by expressing their opinions, amongst other things, can change the political realities.

The argument that "they" have to consider things that I don't is just a reformulation of the "defer to your betters" argument which I reject. I especially reject it when considering a decade of things going from bad to worse.

Ken White

10-31-2011, 07:45 PM

It appears to me that you are not interested in my opinion and only posed the original question in order to set the stage for you to express yours.Not at all -- I have no opinion on what to do because I know I do not know enough to have a valid opinion on a complex topic with a long and convoluted history.
It would be easier if you just expressed your opinion of my position in the first place instead of engaging in convolutions.I have stated my opinion on your opinions on the topic on several occasions earlier. I stated it once again just above: "I want your opinion on a realistic solution with a chance of implementation, not on what you (or I) would do if we could get away with it. We can't. That's reality...Wishing is not reality...You can denigrate those policy types and call them names but you cannot by so doing remove the fact that they have to consider things that you do not or seem unwilling to address..."

I don't think I can state it much more clearly.
I am guessing you don't think much of my opinion. Fair enough.No need to guess, I've been quite clear in stating that I do not. For the record, it is not just your opinion on this, it's a general attitude that I have toward anyone who tends to espouse what appear to infeasible solutions; I tend to ask them to consider what they wish for and give it a simple feasibility check. IMO, if that is done, better solution / suggestions / opinions can appear. It's not a case of saying 'You're wrong...' It is simply asking if the solution or idea can work in the real world.
But I would point that things can change and one of the occasional advantages of our type of political system is that citizens, by expressing their opinions, amongst other things, can change the political realities.Very true, I agree and encourage that from everyone. I do, however, suggest that they be realistic and deal in the realm of the possible and not on what they wish things could be...

That's all I'm doing here and now.
The argument that "they" have to consider things that I don't is just a reformulation of the "defer to your betters" argument which I reject. I especially reject it when considering a decade of things going from bad to worse.You may have enough information to say that things have gone from bad to worse over the decade. I do not. What I have seen are some typical ups and downs.

No, it is not such an argument. Not at all. I certainly do not consider them your or my betters -- but I do acknowledge that they have responsibilities to voters or statutes and intermeshing polices and therefor operating constraints that you and I as private citizens simply expressing opinions do not have. I have in the past and am once again simply suggesting that you consider that...

I do not disagree with what you suggest -- I just do not believe it is at all realistic.

carl

11-01-2011, 01:43 AM

Not at all -- I have no opinion on what to do because I know I do not know enough to have a valid opinion on a complex topic with a long and convoluted history.

This quote was based upon the first sentence of a paragraph that I wrote. The thought needed a two sentence paragraph to express. If you had commented upon the paragraph, the above quote would not have been needed. The following quote would have sufficed. I would prefer that you comment upon the whole thought, but I can't always have what I want.

I have stated my opinion on your opinions on the topic on several occasions earlier. I stated it once again just above: "I want your opinion on a realistic solution with a chance of implementation, not on what you (or I) would do if we could get away with it. We can't. That's reality...Wishing is not reality...You can denigrate those policy types and call them names but you cannot by so doing remove the fact that they have to consider things that you do not or seem unwilling to address..." I don't think I can state it much more clearly.

No need to guess, I've been quite clear in stating that I do not. For the record, it is not just your opinion on this, it's a general attitude that I have toward anyone who tends to espouse what appear to infeasible solutions; I tend to ask them to consider what they wish for and give it a simple feasibility check. IMO, if that is done, better solution / suggestions / opinions can appear. It's not a case of saying 'You're wrong...' It is simply asking if the solution or idea can work in the real world.

I would say that infeasible and what can work in the real world are matters of opinion. Your opinion and mine differ. I think yours is wrong. You think mine is wrong. Your general attitude towards those who tend to espouse what appear to be infeasible solutions seems to me to be more about disagreement with your opinion

Very true, I agree and encourage that from everyone. I do, however, suggest that they be realistic and deal in the realm of the possible and not on what they wish things could be...

Again, a matter of opinion. Political actions, tendencies and realities are not described by the laws of physics. They change and can be changed. What you think realistic and withing the realm of the possible may not be what I think.

That's all I'm doing here and now.You may have enough information to say that things have gone from bad to worse over the decade. I do not. What I have seen are some typical ups and downs.

I am eagerly awaiting the ups.

No, it is not such an argument. Not at all. I certainly do not consider them your or my betters -- but I do acknowledge that they have responsibilities to voters or statutes and intermeshing polices and therefor operating constraints that you and I as private citizens simply expressing opinions do not have. I have in the past and am once again simply suggesting that you consider that...

I have considered that, and have rejected it. I believe they are simply wrong, easily fooled and unable to consider anything anything that hasn't been done before because it hasn't been done before.

I do not disagree with what you suggest -- I just do not believe it is at all realistic.

That is the crux of the disagreement, what is realistic and what is not. Because action not taken hasn't been taken doesn't mean it can't be taken or won't work. It can very well mean that the people who haven't taken it are just dunderheads, a realistic possibility. I think that we place unneeded limits upon what we can do if we reject action because we don't think there is a realistic possibility that it will be accepted and acted upon.

I haven't suggested anything in response to your latest question yet, because the question is so circumscribed by carefully contrived qualifications that it can't be answered without limiting the possibilities.

I still think it would have been much easier if you had just stated your idea of what you thought my ideas were and countered them in a nice paragraph or two. Your ideas of what my ideas are may have even been right.

Ken White

11-01-2011, 02:17 AM

I have considered that, and have rejected it. I believe they are simply wrong, easily fooled and unable to consider anything anything that hasn't been done before because it hasn't been done before.Yep. I totally Agree. And that's the unchanging reality...:rolleyes:
That is the crux of the disagreement, what is realistic and what is not...I think that we place unneeded limits upon what we can do if we reject action because we don't think there is a realistic possibility that it will be accepted and acted upon.Yep, we do differ on that. I think the ten years you mentioned -- and the next few -- show which of us correct on that issue. ;)
I haven't suggested anything in response to your latest question yet, because the question is so circumscribed by carefully contrived qualifications that it can't be answered without limiting the possibilities.I'm not sure which question(s) you're referring to unless it's this bit:

"What should be done about that relationship today in view of US presence and supposed goals in Afghanistan? That issue is the focus of my question.

A secondary question is -- if we were not in Afghanistan or after we leave do we or should we care about that relationship and if so, what should we do about it.

Both questions couched in view of actual and not desired political constraints."

If you believe that "actual and not desired political constraints" is an effort to approach "so circumscribed by carefully contrived qualifications that it can't be answered without limiting the possibilities." then we can disagree on that as well. Those aren't my qualifications and they aren't contrived -- they just are.
I still think it would have been much easier if you had just stated your idea of what you thought my ideas were and countered them in a nice paragraph or two. Your ideas of what my ideas are may have even been right.It's not up to me to state what I think your ideas are, if you want those ideas understood, you should state them clearly.

What I do know is that you continually state that firmer action should be taken -- a perfectly valid opinion -- but every time you're asked how to avoid the political constraints you get defensive and say they shouldn't exist. Fine, we can agree on that -- BUT, they do exist. You can wave 'em away with your magic wand, the folks in DC don't have that luxury.

omarali50

11-01-2011, 02:00 PM

Its probably not my place to say this, but I will say it anyway: I think the exchange has become more about our natural determination not to be bested by our opponent and less about the topic....

Ken White

11-01-2011, 03:12 PM

Its probably not my place to say this, but I will say it anyway: I think the exchange has become more about our natural determination not to be bested by our opponent and less about the topic....and I think you may well be right. We've been bested because we were stoooopid -- and we need to just get over it and move on... ;)

carl

11-01-2011, 03:24 PM

Its probably not my place to say this, but I will say it anyway: I think the exchange has become more about our natural determination not to be bested by our opponent and less about the topic....

Omar, you are insightful as always and made me laugh.

omarali50

11-01-2011, 03:35 PM

Interesting: http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/11/01/oh-no-pakistan-may-be-losing-anatol-lieven/

Ken White

11-01-2011, 03:42 PM

you may have missed the point.And that point is?

omarali50

11-04-2011, 04:07 PM

davidbfpo

11-04-2011, 06:59 PM

Omarali50,

The indirectly linked in The Atlantic is good, but is essentially repeating many of the aspects SWC will know, albeit with an emphasis on the custody of Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

Link:http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/12/the-ally-from-hell/8730/?single_page=true

If the situation evolves to the point where external action is taken to reduce the Pakistani nuclear arsenal, has this option been subjected to the degree an attack on Iran has? That policy option has been subject to at least two SWC threads, I cannot recall one on Pakistan.

moses78lc

11-05-2011, 12:27 AM

moses78lc

11-05-2011, 12:41 AM

More, more, more: http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/11/04/more-zionist-propaganda-against-pakistan/#comment-15021

Do you believe that senior American officials were being fooled? or that they were stupid enough to think this is a clever strategy that yields vast benefits that the uninitiated cannot grasp? complicit? or incompetent? or both?
From the Pakistani side, the scary thing is, we may be about to win...that was not the plan..or should not have been. If that was the plan, then it was a terrible plan; to win on the side of the taliban and the jihadists? what kind of genius came up with that plan? ...too competent for their own good?

Answer to your question lies in differentiating between Pashtun and Taliban. All Taliban are Pashtun but All Pashtun are not Taliban. 50% of Afghanis are Pashtun. Afghanistan cannot get stable without pashtun. Give Pashtun their rights and Taliban will diminish otherwise they will increase.

Please also read regional power interests. Supporting minorities will enable other powers to support majorities and trouble will increase. We must learn from China.

Read history of Afghanistan; they always had strong tribal and loose central control system. In their complete history they never accepted foreign rule and they never will. Pashtuns are fighting for traditional freedom. The moment hey are free and have economic activities the myth of Taliban will disappear. If they are not free, it will be a hundred year war. Can world, at this critical and economically difficult period afford to continue fighting? In my opinion true democracy and not the forged own liking based "so called" democratic government be established and support Afghanis economic activity.

Ray

11-05-2011, 05:03 AM

I find it repeated the none could subjugate the Afghans.

Historically true.

However, one should also delve into what was the Aim of those who 'invaded' Afghanistan? Even during the period of the Great Game, was the aim to capture Afghanistan or ensure a buffer?

If Pashtuns were 'unconquerable', then what is NWFP (a part of British India) and who are the people there?

omarali50

11-15-2011, 01:03 PM

Some recent developments in Pakistani politics and our speculations on the same: http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/11/15/did-the-dog-fail-to-bark/

(PS: i post these partly for colonel Roberts, since he is interested in local democratic aspirations)

carl

11-17-2011, 03:42 AM

There is an interesting story in Foreign Policy today about the Ijaz memo.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/11/16/exclusive_mullen_confirms_existence_of_secret_memo _pakistani_ambassador_offers_to_r

The story states that after initially stating he had not received such a memo, Mr. Mullen has now recalled that he did get the memo. He didn't judge that it was of any importance though so he says he didn't pass it on.

The chairman of the JCS gets a memo from a businessman who was apparently well connected, purporting to speak for the civilian part of the Pakistan gov, offering to jettison part of the ISI and he didn't pass it on.

I am a mere flyover person and a forever civilian to boot, but I do not believe Mr. Mullen is being forthright.

omarali50

11-18-2011, 06:36 PM

It is not yet clear who was behind the memo and what they hoped to accomplish; did the Zardari regime really fear a coup at a time when the army was on the backfoot and faced real public humiliation in Pakistan in May 2011? And if they were, why pick this circuitous route to look for American help? And how would a regime that is unable to control the army and fears a coup, be able to turn around and completely defang the same army with US help a few days later? Are they that stupid? Or is there more to the story?

jmm99

11-18-2011, 06:37 PM

From Ben Wittes (Lawfare), Check Out Where CIA Gear Is Manufactured! (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/11/check-out-where-cia-gear-is-manufactured/)

http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/photo-1024x764.jpg

Regards

Mike

omarali50

11-18-2011, 09:24 PM

That shouldnt be too surrprising. Pakistan is a major textile exporter and lots of such apparel comes from Pakistan...and we are also a "major non-NATO ally" ;)

jmm99

11-18-2011, 10:54 PM

it's not surprising. But, it is ironic.

Regards

Mike

carl

11-18-2011, 11:59 PM

Omar:

I read that the Ijaz memo is a very big thing in Pakistan. How big is it? Is it something that will have a big effect on things or is it just something that will pass and be little remembered in a year?

omarali50

11-19-2011, 12:25 AM

It is a very very big deal right now. The pro-army media machine is in overdrive, asking for Haqqani's head and hinting that even Zardari may have to go. Pro-Zardari journos have sent emails saying they think this may all be some sort of convoluted plot by the ISI to get rid of Zardari. This being Pakistan, you can never tell.

If the memo did come from Pakistan, then Zardari is not too smart, but if Haqqani passed it on, then neither is Haqqani. Since Haqqani sahib is a certified high IQ survivor, I really have a hard time believing he would give such a poorly written and poorly organized concoction to a fixer like Mansoor Ijaz.
The truth will probably never be known with certainty.

omarali50

11-19-2011, 12:34 AM

btw, this is interesting reading: http://nadeemmalik.wordpress.com/2011/11/12/zardaris-secret-memo-mansoor-ijaz-releases-transcript-of-emails-bbm-messages/
http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=78185&Cat=9
http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/8956/all-that-is-good-and-bad-in-memogate/

between the devil and the deep blue sea.
One is tempted to think "serves all parties right".

omarali50

11-21-2011, 05:32 PM

Tangentially related, my op-ed in "The Hindu": http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article2644338.ece

blueblood

11-26-2011, 10:03 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-15901363

Nato helicopters 'kill Pakistan checkpoint soldiers'

Pakistani officials have accused Nato helicopters of firing on a military checkpoint near Pakistan's Afghan border, killing 26 soldiers.

davidbfpo

11-26-2011, 12:33 PM

Blueblood,

Thanks for the alert, as the BBC reports it raises the logistic issue again:
Within hours of the alleged attack it was reported Pakistan had closed the border crossing for supplies bound for Nato forces in Afghanistan - a move which has been used in the past as a protest.

The supply routes to Afghanistan thread is here:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=6386

blueblood

11-26-2011, 12:58 PM

You're welcome David, but what happened to the Northern Distribution Network? It was supposed to carry out 80% of traffic from mid 2011.

Any conformation by NATO on this assault?

davidbfpo

11-26-2011, 01:22 PM

Blueblood,

You asked:
what happened to the Northern Distribution Network?

There are some comments on the NDN on the other thread; the use of Pakistani facilities remains essential.

As for the border post attack no updates spotted yet. ISAF has issued a holding statement:http://www.isaf.nato.int/article/isaf-releases/isaf-investigating-incident-along-afghan-pakistan-border.html

davidbfpo

11-26-2011, 10:01 PM

Slowly comments are being made, although the ISAF investigation has yet to report (yes, I know it takes time) and this is the logistic issue:
About 49 per cent of Nato supplies reach Afghanistan through Pakistan.

Pakistani reaction includes:
asked the US to vacate the Shamsi air base, where the CIA is believed to base predator drones, within 15 days.

The Government will revisit and undertake a complete review of all programmes, activities and cooperative arrangements with US/Nato/Isaf, including diplomatic, political, military and intelligence

Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8917839/Highly-likely-Nato-was-responsible-for-killing-24-Pakistani-soldiers.html

davidbfpo

11-27-2011, 11:12 AM

In the past I have remarked that Pakistani policy has been a series of 'stop, start' moves and this incident has added a 'review'. One begins to wonder what is going on when you read this (my emphasis):
The committee also said the United States would be asked to vacate, within 15 days, the Shamsi air base, which the US has used to launch drones.

However, our correspondent notes that Pakistan has made a similar demand before and the base may already be empty.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-15905777

Note a few days ago the British Home Secretary was in Pakistan saying:
..the UK and Pakistan share a "powerful interest" in fighting extremism and terrorism....the ties between the countries "feel stronger than ever" after meeting Pakistan's Interior Minister Rehman Malik during a visit to the country.

"Pakistan is on the front line and you have made tremendous sacrifices," Mrs May said.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15868852

I would contend that this episode is a good illustration that Pakistani politics, notably popular antipathy to the US, quickly overwhelms such polite, diplomatic sound bites and international co-operation is oh so fragile. This last UK ministerial visit is I readily admit peripheral to Pakistani national security policy; I doubt if ISI and the Army met her.

We are still waiting for the ISAF investigation to report before a judgement can be made.

Dayuhan

12-02-2011, 07:15 AM

... calls for a much less cooperative policy toward Pakistan. Nothing really revolutionary, but interesting because it appears in what is effectively the publication of record for the US foreign policy establishment. It will be interesting to see what response, if any, emerges.

The article is worth a read; it requires registration but not payment.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136696/stephen-d-krasner/talking-tough-to-pakistan

Key excerpts:

The only way the United States can actually get what it wants out of Pakistan is to make credible threats to retaliate if Pakistan does not comply with U.S. demands and offer rewards only in return for cooperative actions taken. U.S. officials should tell their Pakistani counterparts in no uncertain terms that they must start playing ball or face malign neglect at best and, if necessary, active isolation. Malign neglect would mean ending all U.S. assistance, military and civilian; severing intelligence cooperation; continuing and possibly escalating U.S. drone strikes; initiating cross-border special operations raids; and strengthening U.S. ties with India. Active isolation would include, in addition, declaring Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism, imposing sanctions, and pressuring China and Saudi Arabia to cut off their support, as well.

Second, the United States must show that it can neutralize one of Pakistan's trump cards: its role in the war in Afghanistan. Washington must therefore develop a strategy for Afghanistan that works without Pakistan's help. That means a plan that does not require transporting personnel or materiel through Pakistan. Nearly 60 percent of the NATO supplies sent into Afghanistan are already routed through the north, through Russia and Central Asia. The U.S. military is hoping to increase that number to 75 percent. Without Pakistan, therefore, the coalition could still support a substantial force in Afghanistan, but not one as big as the current one of 131,000 troops. The basic objective of that force would necessarily be counterterrorism, not counterinsurgency. Counterterrorism is less personnel- and resource-intensive because it aims only to prevent the country from becoming a haven for Islamist extremists, not to transform it into a well-functioning democracy. Given the Obama administration's current plans to withdraw 24,000 U.S. troops by the summer of 2012, with many more to follow, such a strategy is already inescapable.

I have some doubts on some of this... for one thing, I'm not sure that "pressuring China and Saudi Arabia to cut off their support" would accomplish much, as these countries are not notoriously amenable to US direction. I also suspect that relying completely on transit of supplies through Russia and Central Asia may pose complications down the line: there will be a quid pro quo somewhere. Still, worthy of a look if only for what it might indicate in terms of shifting mainstream opinion.

omarali50

12-02-2011, 09:46 PM

Newly appointed defence secretary Naeem Lodhi wrote two articles that may shed light on what the deep state is thinking: http://pakpotpourri2.wordpress.com/?s=naeem+khalid+lodhi

I know many people will find these articles unexceptional, but keep in mind the rather deep connections between all the various categories of taliban and militants and you can see where the problem may lie...

btw, to speak of LET as a product of "poor governance" is rather interesting. I had not seen that coming.

omarali50

12-14-2011, 11:00 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/magazine/bill-keller-pakistan.html?pagewanted=all

It never enters Keller's head to ask if GHQ's vision of "Pakistani interests" is atually IN Pakistan's interest. And even if it is, if American interests (for whatever reason) run counter to it, then how will more pleasant playdates with pakistani generals change that equation?
He IS right about American being clueless and confused a lot of the time (which may be par for the course for distant superpowers and a good reason not to get involved in any faraway bull#### if you can help it). But what IS America's interest per Keller bahadur? and how would HE achieve that interest? Instead of spending 10 pages describing how everybody he happened to meet in Pakistan didnt like American policy, he might want to first tell us what he thinks the policy IS and why it is the wrong policy?
The whole "obsession with India" shtick is swallowed whole in this article as if it makes perfect sense. It does not make sense. It is what causes otherwise "moderate" (meaning whisky drinking) generals to keep protecting jihadi militias in pakistan and keep trying to bring down liberal politicians. It is the narrative that has kept an otherwise promising nation hostage for 65 years.. Keller never questions the narrative at all. And he never gives a moment's thought to the possibility that all those nice "westernized" dudes having eggs benedict with him may occasionally be telling him lies or at least spinning things like crazy...
it is possible that Kiyani sahib and some other generals also know that the old jihadi policy is suicidal, but they cannot seem to change it or change the propaganda narrative coming out of their own media managers (or their own defence secretary, see above)....
And in the interest of fairness, I would add that it is also possible that I have no idea what is going on in secret. I don't. But neither does Keller. On the surface, his case looks full of holes to me.

omarali50

12-14-2011, 11:05 PM

btw, here is leftist Eqbal Ahmed 13 years ago (Keller might have benefited from reading him): http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1998/392/foc12.htm

Ken White

12-14-2011, 11:48 PM

"He IS right about American being clueless and confused a lot of the time (which may be par for the course for distant superpowers and a good reason not to get involved in any faraway bull#### if you can help it)."

Superb! :cool:

ganulv

12-15-2011, 12:45 AM

The whole "obsession with India" shtick is swallowed whole in this article as if it makes perfect sense. It does not make sense. It is what causes otherwise "moderate" (meaning whisky drinking) generals to keep protecting jihadi militias in pakistan and keep trying to bring down liberal politicians. It is the narrative that has kept an otherwise promising nation hostage for 65 years.
Is the obsession with India often no more than an excuse for doing things that decent human beings know down deep they shouldn’t do? Yes. Is India a real threat to Pakistan? Yes. It is not as if India is to Pakistan as the United States is to Canada. We’re talking about a BRIC country and a Third World country. The Indian government can afford to be the bigger man and they haven’t been.

I’m not trying to be an apologist for the Pakistani elite. They can be disingenuous in the extreme. That does not mean that the potential for harm to Pakistan emanating from Indian is any less genuine.

Ken White

12-15-2011, 03:06 AM

I'll make the Popcorn while we're waiting for Ray or Blueblood among others... :D

carl

12-15-2011, 03:20 AM

The Indian government can afford to be the bigger man and they haven’t been.

Considering Kargil, Mumbai and several other things I've forgotten, just how much do the Indians have to take before they make the grade as a bigger man?

Madhu

12-15-2011, 03:35 AM

That does not mean that the potential for harm to Pakistan emanating from Indian is any less genuine.

Evidence to support this assertion? What historical evidence of events in history rather than, say, anything written by an analyst in an American or British (be careful with Whitehall) think tank or military journal?

What is this current dire existential Indian threat that requires a multitude of jihadi training camps in Punjab and Kashmir, more nukes than the UK, and the targeting of Shias or other minorities by "rogue" elements of the intelligence services and the treatment of Afghanistan as a client state forever under the control of Rawalpindi?

Seriously, I'd love to have this discussion because the "threat of India" thing is a canard that has embedded itself within the Western policy community even though the evidence is mostly, "that one general I met that one time in Karachi told me they felt threatened by India." And, also, if the American people knew the truth, well, no more foreign military sales!

Afpak pop-COIN, strategic depth, encirclement: all bs theories perfectly suited for a public that knows little about India and Pakistan outside any standard Western sources.

When you take up a client state, and you are busy with other things, the most interesting ideas take hold in PRISM, The Armed Forces Journal, and The Army War College. "Hey, you gotta understand, there are multiple centers of power in Pakistan. Our "t wing" works against the "s wing" of the ISI. We got pro-US guys on our side, man!" The chapter on this stuff in Dereliction of Duty II is gonna be brutal....

I can't wait to hear some of the theories. I really can't. I think this is a wonderful tangent and I look forward to further entries.

(The Whitehall thing is kinda tongue in cheek, kinda not. Say, where do most British Pakistani Muslims come from, demographically? Well, a big chunk from Punjab and, wait for it, Kashmir! Ding, ding, ding....Gee whiz, wonder where the "solve Kashmir, solve Pakistan" stuff comes from?)

PS: Who has been holding out on a bilateral trade deal with India for years and years and years? It ain't the dreaded attacking Indians!

PPS: Ever notice the Indians and Pakistanis talk about that world in a completely different way than Brookings or State or the DOD? I mean, even the paknationalists? Weird, huh?

Madhu

12-15-2011, 03:45 AM

I'll make the Popcorn while we're waiting for Ray or Blueblood among others... :D

:) This is worthy of popping popcorn.

Hope my comment above didn't come across as too mean. I really do enjoy discussing this topic because I love to know why people think what they think :)

Ray

12-15-2011, 04:10 AM

I'll make the Popcorn while we're waiting for Ray or Blueblood among others... :D

Madhu has replied most succinctly.

Though Omar may not agree, but one has to understand what 'engineers' the Pakistani psyche.

That apart, sub-nationalities also came into play. The land (Pakistan) belonged to the West Pakistanis who were the "sons of the soil" and yet, unlike the West Pakistanis who were the feudal lords, jagirdars (large land holders who had been given this as rewards for loyal service to the Raj, mostly military men), military men (this was the recruiting zone for Muslims of the British Indian Army) and a large mass of illiterate and bonded peasants, the Mohajirs (refugees from India) were the educated elite, well versed in government administration, judiciary, commerce and so on. It was but natural that the instruments of governance to include judiciary and commerce were taken over by the Mohajir and they became the natural "heirs" to Pakistan. Obviously, it did not endear the Mohajir to the "sons of the soil"! However, in the euphoria of having got their "Land of the Pure", it did not have public manifestation, even though it simmered below the surface.

The Mohajir were equally uncomfortable, they had no roots to the land, being basically usurpers! They had to create an identity for themselves that would make them acceptable. They used Islam (which no Muslim could dare contest) as the foundation and imposed their language, Urdu, as the national language. Thus, they became the de facto ruling class of the newly created Pakistan, the sons of the soil coming a poor second!

Kashmir came as manna to the sons of the soil who were the backbone of the Pakistan Army. It helped the Army to showcase themselves as the sword arm and champion of Islam, and muscled back into reckoning. Ever since, they have ensured that the Army is made the paramount shareholder in Pakistani politics and governance.

The extent the Army has taken over the reins of governance has been illustrated in Musharraf’s book In the Line of Fire. ISI, in addition, has become a major player ever since Zia’s foray into Afghanistan and which is so evident till date.

Democracy has lost its sheen in Pakistan due to the rampant corruption signaturing every single Pakistani government, and this has given ipso facto the military the right to remove governments and install themselves without any protest from the citizenry. This is the rationale for the see-saw in government formation that is seen in Pakistani governance between the elected government and the military.

To add to the murky milieu of the Pakistani governance, thanks to Zia, who promoted Islam as the panacea of all ills, as also to give legitimacy to his illegitimate government, the fundamentalist terrorists have found a chord and acceptability with the Pakistani populace in the misconceived belief that Islam shall reign supreme. One cannot fault them, especially the unlettered ones, since it is instilled in their psychology that Islam is uber alles being the true religion, and a Muslim is the purest form of human existence in all aspects.
http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/interview-with-ray

In other words, they, as a country, require the bogey of India to be relevant. It unites them and irons out their difference.

In order to rally people, governments need enemies. They want us to be afraid, to hate, so we will rally behind them. And if they do not have a real enemy, they will invent one in order to mobilize us.

- Thich Nhat Hanh

This is indicate the how the mindset is created right from childhood and in schools

The Subtle Subversion
The State of Curricula and Textbooks in Pakistan

The objective of the study was to identify problematic ontents of textbooks and to ascertain if the curriculum formulation was the source of such contents. The subjects chosen were those which can offer a greater space for political and ideological manipulation......

The first known work on the deliberate distortion of history for ideological reasons was from Pervez Hoodbhoy and A. H. Nayyar, pointing out the policy directive that had brought about the change and the subsequent distortions entering the Pakistan Studies textbooks, the foremost target of the process of Islamization of education.......

In another famous book on the subject, Murder of History in Pakistan, Professor Aziz analysed in detail 66 school textbooks and identified historical errors and inaccuracies......

In 1993 Rubina Saigol....She also identified such additional categories of problems in curriculum and textbooks as
'glorification of the military'.....

Our analysis found that some of the most significant problems in the current curricula
and textbooks are:

�� Inaccuracies of fact and omissions that serve to substantially distort the nature and significance of actual events in our history.

�� Insensitivity to the existing religious diversity of the nation

�� Incitement to militancy and violence, including encouragement of Jehad and Shahadat.

�� Perspectives that encourage prejudice, bigotry and discrimination towards fellow citizens, especially women and religious minorities, and other towards nations.

�� A glorification of war and the use of force

�� Omission of concepts, events and material that could encourage critical selfawareness among students

Outdated and incoherent pedagogical practices that hinder the development of interest and insight among students......

To give a few examples:

The books on Social Studies systematically misrepresent events that have happened throughout the Pakistan’s history, including those which are within living memory of many
people.

This history is narrated with distortions and omissions. The causes, effects, and responsibility for key events are presented so as to leave a false understanding of our
national experience. A large part of the history of South Asia is also omitted, making it difficult to properly interpret events, and narrowing the perspective that should be open to students. Worse, the material is presented in ways that encourage the student to marginalize and be hostile towards other social groups and people in the region.

The curricula and textbooks are insensitive to the religious diversity of the Pakistani society. While learning of Islamiat is compulsory for Muslim students, on average over a quarter of the material in books to teach Urdu as a language is on one religion. The books on English have lessons with religious content.

Islamiat is also taught in Social Studies classes. Thus, the entire is heavily laden with religious teachings, reflecting a
very narrow view held by a minority among Muslims that all the education should be essentially that of Islamiat.

There is a strong current of exclusivist and divisive tendencies at work in the subject matter recommended for studies in the curriculum documents as well as in textbooks.

Pakistani nationalism is repeatedly defined in a manner that excludes non-Muslim Pakistanis from either being Pakistani nationals or from even being good human beings.

Much of this material runs counter to any efforts at national integration.

The Constitution of Pakistan is cited but misinterpreted, in making the reading of the Qur'an compulsory in schools. The Constitution requires the compulsory reading of the
Qur’an for Muslim students alone, but in complete disregard of this restriction, it is included in the textbooks of a compulsory subject like Urdu which is to be read by
students of all religions. The Class III Urdu textbook has 7 lessons on Nazra Qur'an and its translations. The Urdu and Social Studies curricula even ask for all the students to be
taught Islamic religious practices like Namaz and Wuzu.

http://www.teachereducation.net.pk/reports/rp22.pdf

What more is required to be said as to 'grooming' of the mindset?

Enjoy your popcorn! :)

ganulv

12-15-2011, 04:35 AM

Ray

12-15-2011, 04:45 AM

At the same time I will say this that as individuals, the Pakistanis are a good sort.

Ray

12-15-2011, 04:48 AM

ganulv

12-15-2011, 04:54 AM

At the same time I will say this that as individuals, the Pakistanis are a good sort.

One may indeed feel that the Indian Govt is inept, but within those inept people, some do have vision!
and cannot argue with the latter. :D

Ken White

12-15-2011, 06:00 AM

Madhu:
Hope my comment above didn't come across as too mean. I really do enjoy discussing this topic because I love to know why people think what they think.Not mean at all, good response and yes, why one might think India is to blame for Pakistani intranisigence on the subject is indeed interesting... :wry:

Ray:
Madhu has replied most succinctly.Yes, she did and quite well, too...
Enjoy your popcorn!Thanks you. I thought I would -- and I did... ;)

ganulv:

One might question whether the nukes -- items of minor consequence in the history of relations in South Asia since 1947 -- were of less concern to India with respect to being seen as a provocation by a paranoid and militarily inferior neighbor as of being seen as potentially useful with respect to larger paranoid military peer neighbor to an extent that seemed to merit that apparent lack of concern for the fears of the smaller neighbor and the protestations of the then acknowledged nuclear holding powers including that larger neighbor... Whew (Fog index of ~9.5). :o

Or something like that... :wry:

ganulv

12-15-2011, 06:22 AM

One might question whether the nukes -- items of minor consequence in the history of relations in South Asia since 1947 -- were of less concern to India with respect to being seen as a provocation by a paranoid and militarily inferior neighbor as of being seen as potentially useful with respect to larger paranoid military peer neighbor to an extent that seemed to merit that apparent lack of concern for the fears of the smaller neighbor and the protestations of the then acknowledged nuclear holding powers including that larger neighbor... Whew (Fog index of ~9.5). :o

Or something like that... :wry:
but I have always placed my bet with the believers as far as staying power goes. Because my Cold War years were spent surrounded by Southern Baptists, a people who refuse to acknowledge the existence of fog. ;) I will however concede that the view from Delhi in the ‘70s was far cloudier than it was from Western North Carolina.

Ray

12-15-2011, 06:28 AM

Fernandes: Popular but controversial minister

Indian Defence Minister George Fernandes, who resigned on Thursday over a bribery scandal, is a popular figure among the military rank and file.

But his outspoken character often caused ripples within the government.....

Following the nuclear tests, Mr Fernandes caused a diplomatic rift with China, which he described as India's "enemy number one."

He later denied the statement, saying it was wrongly interpreted.

Mr Fernandes openly supported the LTTE's struggle for a separate state in northern Sri Lanka.

He is also a high-profile supporter of the Burma pro-democracy movement, displaying a wall-size picture of Aung San Suu Kyi in his official bungalow, where Burmese underground leaders are frequent visitors.

As a minister, however, Mr Fernandes was particularly popular among soldiers on the front.

He made 18 visits to the icy heights of the Siachen glacier, "the world's highest battlefield" where Indian and Pakistani troops guard their respective stretches of the glacier through the year.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1223625.stm

davidbfpo

12-15-2011, 11:48 AM

Madhu wrote a few posts back, briefly on the Whitehall (UK) stance:
(The Whitehall thing is kinda tongue in cheek, kinda not. Say, where do most British Pakistani Muslims come from, demographically? Well, a big chunk from Punjab and, wait for it, Kashmir! Ding, ding, ding....Gee whiz, wonder where the "solve Kashmir, solve Pakistan" stuff comes from?)

Yes the kith & kin links of the Pakistani / Kashmiri communities in the UK, who are overwhelmingly in the English urban areas outside London, have had an impact on Whitehall and primarily via the Labour Party. The Labour Party IMHO has relied upon their electoral support and given very little in response domestically, let alone over Kashmir.

There has been very little UK aid to Azad Kashmir (AK) despite the kith & kin links. Even the recently built, DFID funded bridge shortening the journey time between AK and Islamabad was built by a Chinese contractor and not widely advertised. In fact our diplomats appear to have looked at other places from the safety of Islamabad, notably the Punjab for commercial reasons and NWFP for security reasons.

Locally it is evident that amongst the younger generation of British-born, Kashmiri origin there is less interest in AK, a place widely regarded as corrupt and far from a green paradise, with high youth unemployment. Not helped by the regular visits by AK politicians at election time to raise funds; Kashmiris here cannot vote in AK elections unless they return.

There is little appetite for "solve Kashmir, solve Pakistan" in Whitehall-Westminster, virtually no political pressure and less community interest, let alone passion.

In summary no solution here.

omarali50

12-15-2011, 05:42 PM

About the narrative of Pakistani victimhood vis a vis India, I think it has outlived its usefulness. The Pakistani bourgeoisie (to use a useful Marxist term) is going to have to change gears and its not going to be a pretty process, but what choice do they have? the US may leave (may?) but its not just about the US...nobody can live with a Jihadi state, not even the jihadi state itself. Change will come. http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2011/12/the-historic-task-of-the-pakistani-bourgeoisie.html

My version of the Pakistan story is at http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/05/23/pakistan-the-narrative-comes-home-to-roost/

Ray

12-16-2011, 02:45 AM

You would be responsible if we fail in war on terror: Pakistan to US

SLAMABAD: Foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar on Thursday warned that the US would be responsible if Pakistan failed in the war on terrorism, a remark that comes in the backdrop of a move by American lawmakers to freeze aid worth $700 million to Islamabad.

The US would be responsible if Pakistan failed in the war on terrorism or if there were problems, Khar was quoted as saying by TV news channels here.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/pakistan/You-would-be-responsible-if-we-fail-in-war-on-terror-Pakistan-to-US/articleshow/11120406.cms?intenttarget=no

carl

12-16-2011, 04:41 AM

Somebody probably made this observation before but the Pak Army's country sometimes reminds me of the sheriff in Blazing Saddles, "Give me money or I'll shoot myself!"

Ray

12-16-2011, 06:02 AM

Son Bilawal unhappy with President Zardari's mild response to religious radicalization in Pak

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/pakistan/Son-Bilawal-unhappy-with-President-Zardaris-mild-response-to-religious-radicalization-in-Pak/articleshow/11070151.cms

davidbfpo

01-01-2012, 01:02 AM

An end of year review on American-Pakistan relations by the BBBC, no surprises till the end and citing Professor Hoodbhoy, a Pakistani academic, with my emphasis:
The US has made huge misjudgements during 2011 and while the Pakistani military leadership doesn't want a rupture with United States because of our huge economic dependence on them, there is the pressure within the ranks. They have seen Pakistan humiliated in the Nato attack, humiliated at the time of OBL and at the time of Raymond Davis. The generals see the rising Islamic radicalism creeping within the ranks and they know if they don't stand up to the Americans, they have no future," says Professor Hoodbhoy.

I think relations between Pakistan and US have deteriorated to a point where I think the break is not too far away.

Link to BBC article:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-16369301

Wikipedia one the professor:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pervez_Hoodbhoy

In all the posts on the relationship, primarily the USA, I don't think we have discussed what happens if the 'break' does come.

Clearly the use of Karachi and overland transport to Afghanistan, currently suspended AFAIK, is one issue (separate thread refers to logistics:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=6386 ). The use of a cross-border sanctuary (another separate thread:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=12162 ) is probably the most problematic, regional issue.

So SWC, what does happen?

carl

01-02-2012, 03:00 AM

David:

Good question. I wish Omar and Ray would go first so I could ride their coattails but I'll take a chance. My comments are predicated on the Pak Army/ISI initiating the break and the US not prostrating itself before Pindi and the break remaining open.

First thing is when the next Mumbai occurs, India will strike back hard. The US would not try to stop them and nobody else would have any influence.

Indian influence and direct participation in Afghanistan would immediately increase and keep on increasing.

Conventional Pak Army military power would go into an immediate decline, though I don't know how steep, because all the spare parts and technical support for American weapons would stop.

They have been using Taliban & Co. against us but two can play that game. We have done it before. Things in Baluchistan might suddenly get very interesting.

The Pakistani nuclear and arms industries may suddenly experience a rash of unexplained computer problems.

A very large number of important people in Pakistan would suddenly be much poorer with little prospect of the money returning unless the break were mended. That might result in considerable friction between various factions in Pakistan. The internal conflict they have now might get even worse.

If a break were initiated by the Pak Army/ISI it would stand to reason that they would want to increase their support of the various Jihadi groups. If they more directly supported them, it is conceivable that there would be a successful terrorist attack upon the US originating from Pakistan. If that happened, things would go very bad, very fast for Pakistan. God only knows how, but it would.

I can't think of anything the Pak Army/ISI would gain except some short lived emotional satisfaction. The price for that would be almost certain long term disaster.

Madhu

01-02-2012, 03:12 PM

@ carl -

UNITED NATIONS: Pakistan today joined the UN Security Council for a two-year term as a non-permanent member of the powerful world body, which also has India among its 15-member states.

Pakistan was elected to the Security Council last October when 129 out of 193 members of the UN General Assembly voted for it during an election.

Pakistan has previously served the Council in 1952-53, 1968-69, 1976-77, 1983-84, 1993-94 and 2003-04.

"It will be Pakistan's seventh time on the Council, and the fourth time its term will overlap with India, as it did in 1968, 1977 and 1984," the state-run APP news agency said.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/pakistan/Pakistan-joins-UNSC-as-non-permanent-member/articleshow/11329074.cms

Sorry to be so gloomy given the New Year, but nothing has changed and nothing will change. Monies siphoned off from civilian aid or gifted by those who wish to be regional "players" will continue to build up a conventional and nuclear arsenal pointed eastwards and all the while our best minds will write journal articles detailing how "assuaging fears" will "demilitarize" the subcontinent. Too many people are professionally and personally invested in one narrative - and one narrative only.

Madhu

01-02-2012, 03:44 PM

that would go to such lengths as to create a peaceful nuclear explosion? Lesser men and women might be restrained by the reasonable prediction that their paranoid and militarily inferior neighbor would see the detonation of a nuclear device as a provocation, an imminent threat, a slap to its national pride, an impetus to redouble its own efforts to split the atom, and as a completely reasonable justification for the development of weapons of mass destruction as a deterrent. The Union Government, however, was bigger than this and forged ahead.

I had meant to post a response earlier but time got away from me....

Lesser men and women of the non-proliferation community might be restrained by the quite reasonable prediction that a newly (only a few decades) free post-colonial state with unsettled borders and fears of dissolution might feel the need to "lock in" a nuclear regime when the pressure from the former colonizer and its allies (old Cold War blocs of Saudi/NATO/UK/France, etc) grandfathers nuclear status to China and builds up the conventional and muclear weapons of said paranoid military - all the while stating a commitment to disarmament and peace. And yet, such people continued in their badgering (sorry, diplomacy) and blamed the militarily insecure post-colonial state. Ironic, when the post-colonial behavior wasn't really all that different from the pre-colonial, which caused a lot of the mess, if you see what I mean....

One would think educated and intelligent people might intuit what such pressures might lead toward....unless said educated and intelligent people had no ability to be empathetic WITH ALL PARTIES.

:)

Madhu

01-02-2012, 04:07 PM

Madhu wrote a few posts back, briefly on the Whitehall (UK) stance:

Yes the kith & kin links of the Pakistani / Kashmiri communities in the UK, who are overwhelmingly in the English urban areas outside London, have had an impact on Whitehall and primarily via the Labour Party. The Labour Party IMHO has relied upon their electoral support and given very little in response domestically, let alone over Kashmir.

There has been very little UK aid to Azad Kashmir (AK) despite the kith & kin links. Even the recently built, DFID funded bridge shortening the journey time between AK and Islamabad was built by a Chinese contractor and not widely advertised. In fact our diplomats appear to have looked at other places from the safety of Islamabad, notably the Punjab for commercial reasons and NWFP for security reasons.

Locally it is evident that amongst the younger generation of British-born, Kashmiri origin there is less interest in AK, a place widely regarded as corrupt and far from a green paradise, with high youth unemployment. Not helped by the regular visits by AK politicians at election time to raise funds; Kashmiris here cannot vote in AK elections unless they return.

There is little appetite for "solve Kashmir, solve Pakistan" in Whitehall-Westminster, virtually no political pressure and less community interest, let alone passion.

In summary no solution here.

Using Kashmir as a bargaining chip (or pretending to talk about issues of importance to the Pakistani military) is sometimes held up as something the US can do when the US wants some short-term cooperation. The history, I believe, shows that to be the case. Not consistently, but often enough. I agree in that I doubt there is any serious interest.

At any rate, I tend to get carried away in discussion. Not a good habit. I want to say here that I meant nothing in particular about Whitehall and nothing in particular about any one British analyst given the nature of the discussion here and elsewhere on the subject of COIN and scholarship. I was merely stating a common complaint heard among my own type of "kith and kin" (I say "type" because no one in my family is political or cares much about foreign policy one way or the other: "yeah, given 'em Kashmir, more trouble than its worth" seems to be the general feeling. Really, it's the economy and China that seems to animate.

Here are examples of a "different narrative":

Subsequent Changes in American Stand: In brief, a historical analysis of subsequent events would indicate that America’s stand on Kashmir kept changing in direct response to India’s stances and attitudes on international issues. The more important factors that came into play, singly or in combination were:

* United States State Department policies towards the Indian Sub-continent becoming overly dependent on the guidance of Sir Olaf Caroe, the British expert and friend of Pakistan.

* United States stand on Kashmir was being determined by Britain. Britain has never till today got over the loss as to why Kashmir did not accede to Pakistan despite, Britain’s determined efforts.

* The Cold War enlistment of Pakistan as a strategic ally for containment of the former Soviet Union.

* India’s policy of non-alignment which became an anathema for the United States and the West.

Broad pattern of American Involvement with Kashmir Issue: The American involvement with the Kashmir issue has been a constant. What has varied is the intensity and this corresponded to the prevailing security environment and USA-India-Pakistan equations. (1) The 1950s witnessed active involvement; (2) The 1960s and 1970s was an era of detached involvement; (3) The 1980s marked US promotion of dialogue.

The 1990s witnessed an intense anti-Indian manifestation on the Kashmir question under the Clinton Administration. This was chiefly due to the pro-Pakistan proclivities of the Asstt Secretary of State, Robin Raphael who on October 23, 1993 declared that: "We (USA) do not recognise the legal validity of Kashmir’s accession as meaning that Kashmir is for ever an integral part of India... The people of Kashmir have got to be consulted in any kind of final settlement of the Kashmir dispute." It was a strange reversal from what Warren Austin had declared in 1948.

Clinton was later to make amends in the last year of his second administration on this count when Pakistan was berated by him on the Kashmir issue, specifically in terms of respect for the LOC. It must be noted that the proxy war in J&K by Pakistan intensified during the 1990s i.e. the era of United States permissiveness of Pakistan’s delinquency in Kashmir.

What has crept in US policies in the 1990s and being sustained by the present Bush Administration and particularly the Secretary of State, Colin Powell is "the aspirations of Kashmiri people".

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers5%5Cpaper403.html

Not endorsing all of that unconditionally. I just wanted to point out that traditionally Western diplomacy and scholarship has been so Pakistan- and NATO-centric in that part of the world that it is very hard for institutions to think differently. One need only sample traditional Western scholarship on the subject to see that the narrative tends to run in one direction. My opinion, obviously, and one that can be argued. I'd just like to see more nuance in the scholarship and discussion, a nuance that takes into account something like the above history. :)

RUSI has an interesting article about "root causes" that pooh poohs all the fuss in India when Miliband made his comments some time back. I think it is that sort of thing that irritates, actually (that the root cause of all of the problems in Pakistan is Kashmir is an area of debate and contention. Yet this debate until recently never made its way into much of American/UK think-tankistan or scholarship). I think the tone of the paper and its attempts to explain away a "gaffe" are something that tends to irritate if I read things correctly. Ray or other Indians may want to say something about that. (This may be a cultural misread on my part, but man, is the tone of the linked paper condescending.)

http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C49906F67ADFEE/

Anyway, the point is not to say the above is correct or not, but once again, to point out that there is a different way of looking at things.

Ray

01-04-2012, 05:43 PM

One has to give credit to the British that a mere handful could control such vast colonies. It was only the other day that I was discussing various methods how the British ensured that they integrated with the locals, without losing their supremacy and hauteur.

It is also a fact that wherever Britain had a colony, in most places, they have left a raging dispute. It may appear Machiavellian, but if viewed from the British standpoint, it was an ideal policy.

Kashmir is one of them.

Nehru spurned John Foster Dulles 'you are with us or against us' theory. Any nation, worth its salt, immediately after a hard won freedom from colonialism, would prefer to chart its own course, rather than subject themselves to 'neo colonialism' (for the want of a better descriptive word).

This naturally did not please either the US or their ally and one time master of undivided India. They backed Pakistan. And this antagonised India and it soon came to pass that the US or UK would not accept anything but 'you are with us or against us'.

The USSR (and as China is doing now) had no such reservation and instead indicated that they have no interest in 'interfering with the internal affairs of another country' and so India fell into their lap, without ofcourse, joining in any Alliance or Pact in its true sense.

Pakistan, on the other hand, realised that to wrest Kashmir (a Muslim majority province of India) the only way was to align with the US since it would give them leverage in the UN as also get free military assistance with the most modern and sophisticated arms as also, money to fill its coffers.

Pakistan unfortunately has not been able to fructify its dreams into reality and instead has got bifurcated by their own cussedness of not allowing a democratically elected leader to be a PM because of racial considerations. (In all fairness I will state I am a Bengali).

Cut to contemporary times.

USSR has collapsed. India has abandoned socialism. It has a large market and so western nations eye it favourably. Pakistan is nowhere in the reckoning to be attractive to the Western economy vis a vis India.

That apart, notwithstanding the bon homie with China, the US realises that China is a dragon on the rise and the US will be overshadowed. India comes into the strategic reckoning with its growing economy and its animus toward China, which China reciprocates in equal measure.

To add to Pakistan being a has been on the Western radar, is the fact that it has become a womb of anti US sentiments and terrorism. Most terrorist attacks have connection with Pakistan. Adding to the Western woes is the Pakistan's double game in Afghanistan where they hunt with the hounds and runs with the hare! Musahrraf was the master of this game and he is said to be coming back piggybacking on Imran Khan and the Pakistan Army and the ISI!

In so far as Miliband is concerned, he is taken to be a clot (in India). It is extraordinary that the UK which is riddled with Pakistani second generation people turning the country on it head can be so masochist as to play second fiddle to such downright scoundrels!

Many in my country accuse me to be an Anglophile, but I am strongly of the opinion that if you wish to live in a foreign country, you should jolly well follow their ways and not impose your ways on them with such claptrap as human rights and all that!

If you are that keen to follow your ways, do so within the confine of your homes.

The English dictum that a man's home is his refuge.

So, if you are in England and hold a British passport remember to be British and remember every Englishman's home is his castle!!

Practise what you want within the confines of your home!

If that does not suit you, then return to the land of your origin! You will not be missed!

omarali50

01-04-2012, 09:04 PM

The mess in Afghanistan is probably beyond the ability of NATO to fix completely. But it is still possible for NATO to try and ensure that they leave a survivable Afghanistan behind, and that they damp down the chances of a wider war in the region (meaning they make Pakistan some fair and reasonable offers and also take some less-advertised but serious steps to ensure we dont refuse said fair and reasonable offers). If NATO pulls out without making such arrangements, the whole region will suffer for decades.
About the kind of toxins that have already taken root and that will be so hard to control even when GHQ wakes up to the need to control these people: http://www.brownpundits.com/2012/01/04/opium-brides/

And please excuse the somewhat snarky tone of the brownpundits post. That site has a different atmosphere; its not SWJ

Btw, Ray, can you comment on this situation: http://www.brownpundits.com/2012/01/03/indian-army-chief-being-humiliated-or-humiliating-himself/

I am a bigger anglophile than you and find the Indian army chief's willingness to get into a public spat like this rather distasteful ("its not the done thing") , but again, I hope you excuse the tone on that website.

omarali50

01-05-2012, 05:04 PM

http://nationalinterest.org/article/rethinking-the-pakistan-plan-6285?page=show

My comment on this article, to an Indian friend: America should get out before it does more damage. Pakistan under Chinese supervision will actually be a much saner country. Indians find this unbelievable, but its true. The Chinese are not chumps. If I was an Indian planner, I would sit tight and ask Amrika bahadur to please stop "helping" the regional players make peace. Let them help India in other ways if they want an alliance, but not in this matter. Things will then get better. Pakistan's posture regarding India is partly a rational response to market forces...that posture gets money and attention from Uncle Sam (its also partly a response to domestic political needs, keeps the army on top). Let Uncle Sam butt out and many distorting forces will disappear with Uncle ji. ....
forget "good intentions" and what is or is not in the hearts of men. Simple economics will drive Pakistan towards a less confrontational policy and strong forces within China wants that too. They want trade routes, they want minerals, they dont want bull####...there must be some PLA generals who think like generals are supposed to think and who want mischief, but there is no perfect solution to anything. India will have to take care of its own problems and will have to do what reasonably functional countries do to stay safe. I am not talking about rivers of goodwill flowing or anything like that. Just a slightly warm peace with multiple irritants hanging around. The trick is to be able to say "no thank you, uncle, no need to help make peace", we are already making peace ;)
Of course, this comment is as unrealistic as the Etzioni article. America, being America, will probably drag this out for years.
I need not add that I would be delighted if somehow America was to become a truly successful force for good in the region. But the world we have is the world we have. At some point its good to admit that this dog won't hunt..

Ray

01-06-2012, 05:41 PM

I am a bigger anglophile than you and find the Indian army chief's willingness to get into a public spat like this rather distasteful ("its not the done thing") , but again, I hope you excuse the tone on that website.

The Chief has not gone public.

It is the bureaucrats who are selectively leaking.

It is all politics.

But, unlike Pakistan, there is no danger of any take over by the military.

We are too steeped in democracy.

davidbfpo

01-10-2012, 06:28 PM

An IISS Strategic Comment on 'US and Pakistan: a troubled relationship' and I have cited three of the four last paragraphs.

With my emphasis:
Although views differ on the extent to which the Taliban leadership is serious about entering into negotiations, some experts believe it is ready to do so but its hands are tied by a Pakistani military reluctant to see talks progress – though it is unlikely that the talks referred to above could have happened if Pakistan had not at least tacitly acquiesced.

From Pakistan's perspective, the military does not believe that there will be an end to hostilities by 2014 – nor in any case would it favour the emergence of a stable Afghanistan if this were seen as privileging the interests of India and rendering Pakistan vulnerable to strategic encirclement. On the assumption of continued hostilities, Pakistan's military will want to ensure that extremist groups – which it regards as strategic assets in confronting an uncertain security situation in Afghanistan after 2014 – are protected from the process of attrition that the US has inflicted on al-Qaeda.

With the clock ticking, recent tensions between the US and Pakistan can be seen as the drawing of lines in the sand – a process of defining the limits to which Pakistani and US interests do and do not intersect in relation to Afghanistan. Both sides have many reasons to avoid a complete rupture in relations. For the US, Pakistan is a key factor in the struggle against extremist terrorism and nuclear proliferation. For Pakistan, the US remains both an important source of international legitimation and funding, as well as being the only major power able to exercise strategic leverage on India in the event that Indo-Pakistani relations undergo another major deterioration.

There are signs that, having looked into the abyss, the two countries are working to ensure that essential collaboration continues. But a further serious incident could prove terminal for a relationship that neither party has ever found satisfactory.

Link:http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-comments/past-issues/volume-18-2012/january/us-and-pakistan-a-troubled-relationship/

One wonders if a Pakistani 'strategic asset', like the Haqqani network or LeT, was to successfully mount another bloody attack we'd fall into the abyss. It is easy to imagine some in the USA would not wish to exercise 'strategic leverage' after a Mumbai Two.

omarali50

01-10-2012, 09:14 PM

I think the Pakistani military is extremely short-sighted while believing that they are very far-sighted. This is usually a fatal combination.
If they were truly far-sighted they would see that cooperation with America and China to make a reasonable peace in Afghanistan (not a "friendly taliban govt", but a stabilization of the current regime with a fair deal for all major ethnic groups) and peace with India without new changes in frontiers (a deal that India would make in a jiffy) along with establishment of functioning civilian institutions and focus on trade and development, will make Pakistan a normal third world country with tremendous potential. But to them, this scenario is an anti-Pakistan imperialist plot and I am probably a CIA agent for saying so (http://www.thefridaytimes.com/beta2/tft/article.php?issue=20120106&page=1#.TwljXLPaUCk.facebook). They want their capitalist cake (http://www.brownpundits.com/2012/01/10/big-fat-dubai-wedding/) but they also want to eat their Islamist-Paknationalist-fascist fantasies and the two are not compatible in the long run (http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/08/26/pakistan-tnt-and-so-on/).
The irony is that the American imperialists really had them over a barrel for a while and could have made them do some useful things if the american imperialists had a better idea of what was needed and what they were up against. Unfortunately the imperialists were taken for a ride and by now it may be too late to establish trust and start over.
But for the sake of the 1.5 billion affectees in the region, I wish someone would somehow pull a gigantic rabbit out of this very small hat. The alternatives are all terrible.

omarali50

01-10-2012, 09:19 PM

see also: http://www.viewpointonline.net/punjab-driver-of-terrorism-in-pakistan.html

omarali50

01-10-2012, 09:24 PM

and this may be of interest, three years later how do the predictions look?: http://accidentalblogger.typepad.com/accidental_blogger/2011/01/pakistan-predictions-2009.html

davidbfpo

01-10-2012, 09:39 PM

Grim selection of thoughts.

Somewhere I have a longer review by a US analyst, based in the UK and will check what he thought.

carl

01-10-2012, 11:34 PM

We won't be able to restrain India when the next Mumbai happens even if we wanted to. The Indians won't listen to us. That is the irony of the Pak Army/ISI's game. By so successfully making monkeys out of us for so long, they have effectively cut out the only country that could have saved them.

omarali50

01-27-2012, 04:20 PM

http://www.brownpundits.com/2012/01/27/what-does-pakistan-want-in-afghanistan/

carl

01-27-2012, 11:20 PM

Omar:

Your advice that Pakistan give up foreign adventures and confine itself to its' business within its' borders is sound but won't happen; especially since once our bug-out is complete the confidence and ambition of the Pak Army/ISI will head straight toward the roof.

Unfortunately, the roof is India and I don't think it can be penetrated.

You mentioned something in your Brown Pundits post that I want to ask you about, Pakthun nationalism. What if the Indians decided that they would overtly or covertly support a Pakthunistan part of which would be carved out of Pakistan's hide? The object of this exercise would be to give the Pak Army/ISI all it could handle on the side of the country away from India without costing the Indians much more than some money.

Do you think if the Indians were to do that, the Pak Army/ISI could handle it?

Dayuhan

01-27-2012, 11:43 PM

Do you think if the Indians were to do that, the Pak Army/ISI could handle it?

And would the Pakhtun play along? That's not something India or anyone else can simply make happen by throwing money at it.

Is there significant agitation or desire for an independent Pakhtunistan?

carl

01-28-2012, 12:41 AM

Dayuhan:

I don't know exactly which is why I asked Omar. But there is some kind of an identity there seeing as how Taliban & Co is primarily a Pakthun organization. Also I've read that if there is one thing the Pakthuns mostly agree on, which may not be much, it is that they really really dislike the Pakistanis. So I figure that if there is even a hint of national aspiration, that is something that can be worked with.

If, if, there is some dreamy eyed desire for that, a lot of actual money backed by some Indians with military and organizational skills to impart can turn that dreamy eyed desire into real live trouble.

Taliban & Co. know they are being used for Pak Army/ISI ends. I am just wondering what would happen if the Indians showed up and offered to subsidize an end that the Pakthuns may want more and that would just happen to benefit the Indians.

I don't think India is going to sit back and do nothing once we bug out and am trying to puzzle out some of the things they may do.

Ray: What do you think?

omarali50

01-28-2012, 12:59 AM

I dont think old fashioned (relatively secular) Pakhtun nationalism is an armed insurgency kind of threat, with or without Indian "help". At best, pakhtun nationalists can use the available civilian political space in Pakistan and try to maintain a relatively liberal, progressive and "nationalist" provincial government ..one that stresses Pakhtun identity and maintains links with like-minded Pakhtoons across the border but functions within the framework of Pakistan. By now, the Pakistani Pakhtoons are relatively integrated in Pakistan and are hopelessly outgunned by Islamists as well as the army. I dont think there is any chance of turning on some kind of serious insurgency by just flipping a switch somewhere.
One can imagine a scenario where the US leaves in disarray and the Taliban take over and the Taliban turn around and become "pakhtun nationalist" if the Pakistani army has not itself become openly Talibanish at that stage....GHQ could then become the next infidel enemy and the Taliban may eye expansion into Pakistan rather than the other way round.
If the US (which may be exerting some effort to protect the ANP government in Pakhtunkhwah right now) were to leave in disarray and GHQ were to opt for a full-frontal jihadi-taliban option (not necessarily the case, but could happen) then the Taliban would be more integrated into the resulting Jihadi superstate, so there would be no pressure to split anything apart (I am not saying this is a likely scenario, unlike Carl, I dont think the US can leave in disarray even if it wants to, not soon anyway). Of course, such a Pakistan would rapidly become an international pariah and may then self-destruct as Jihadi spirit runs into economic and social reality and civil war in Afghanistan drags on forever. Pakhtun nationalists of the ANP would probably have to run for their lives in the first flush of Jihadi fervour in such a scenario, but once the place crashes and burns, they may find themselves inheriting an actual Pakhtunistan (this scenario building can branch endlessly once you get far enough in the future ;)).
THe point is, the Pakhtun nationalists (generally somewhat educated and liberal in that part of the world) are totally outgunned. Far from launching an Indian sponsored insurgency, they would be lucky to escape alive if both GHQ and Taliban turn on them.
But all this is third hand. I will try to get some Pakhtun friends to comment..