The US & others working with Pakistan

[omarali50]

But David, they are probably doing all that even now. But suppose there is an actual Mumbai-2, with mass casualties. At that point, does Manmohan Singh go on the intertubes and hint that Indian covert operations are being ramped up? I dont think modern politics (or even ancient politics) allows such a response to be the only response (it may be the most sensible response, or not, but that is not the point)...I think Carl was asking about what show they will put up in response, not what covert operations will be speeded up...

[carl]

I suppose the first question that needs to be asked is, when Mumbai II occurs, will Indian politics require an overt response of some kind? I have no idea which is why I'm asking. My own opinion as an almost completely ignorant outsider is the Indians have shown great restraint so far. Will they continue to do so?

[omarali50]

Indian politics will require a response. They will try to see what they can do WITH NATO, in which case they may escape acute embarrassment. Or they may try on their own...in which case its fifty-fifty if they will end up embarrassing themselves more than they embarrass Pakistan. Needless to say, the best option is to avoid this scenario. Unfortunately, with American "analysts" still hunting for "rogue ISI operatives" and GHQ still playing hard to get, things could go wrong at any time....

[omarali50]

My note at http://www.facebook.com/notes/omar-a...t/475966498766

[davidbfpo]

Carl asked a few posts back:

what do you all think India will do? How will they do it?

In last few days I have an opportunity to listen to a discussion on Mumbai and the South Asian context, with Indian and Pakistani experts in the lead. I am trying to get them to contribute.

Meantime I posed Carl's question to them and both sides answers were remarkably similar. No, Indian may indulge in rhetoric about bombing the training camps, but is unlikely to anyway, indeed Indian politicians are wary of making any decisions. India currently has no legislation of terrorism, the relatively recent law was repealed - which was cited as evidence of political involvement.

Secondly the remarkable attitude of Indian civil society (remarkable to me) after Mumbai, to refuse to politicise the attacks, even militant groups minimised their impact and two such groups have taken a more secular approach.

Third, India-Pakistani relations are highly civilised. Yes, regional counter-terrorism agreements remain un-ratified (SAARC agreements x2) and the two intelligence agencies (RAW and ISI) have their own approach - once described IIRC as 'dangerous games' by a UK observer.

Hopefully some of the clouds of war lifted.

[davidbfpo]

A superb article from The Independent by Patrick Cockburn, sub-titled

It has suffered disaster after disaster. Its people have lived through crisis upon crisis. Its leaders are unwilling or unable to act. But is it really the failed state that many believe?

And ends with:

The Pakistani state may not function very well but it is not failing, and – a pity – current crises may not even change it very much.

Link:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...t-2100865.html

Nothing like some context and analysis.

[omarali50]

My alternative vision of the future is now at:

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?267452

[davidbfpo]

Hat tip to Londonistani on AbuM, for commending a Reuters article based on a Pakistani journalist's article 'Ruses that distract from a CT strategy'.

The original article:http://www.mosharrafzaidi.com/2010/1...a-ct-strategy/

Which opens with:

One of the important but widely neglected debates that needs unpacking in Pakistan is the one between counterinsurgency, counterterrorism and counter-extremism. This is a uniquely Pakistani challenge, and looking elsewhere for inspiration may be of limited utility.

(Ends with)Nine years and 30,000 deaths later how can the government be taken seriously in the absence of a CT strategy?

Reuters:http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/20...list-too-long/

Ends with:

Being scared of al Qaeda is silly in most countries where statistically you have more reason to worry about being killed in a road accident. Being scared of al Qaeda in Pakistan is also an insult to a country which is far more resilient than it is given credit for. But being stupid about the risks to Pakistan by thinking that all we need is one over-arching solution is well … just stupid.

AbuM commentary:http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawam....html#comments

A central question I've not seen before:

The epicentre of religious extremism is the institution of the political articulation of faith in Pakistan.

[Steve the Planner]

Omar:

Aside from the outside risk of things going very badly anywhere, I was pleasantly surprised and comforted by your outline of a reasonable future for Pakistan, a border country with many of the perennial instability factors also affecting the "deep state" of Iraq.

Somewhere in our "deep press" is the bias toward portraying every national/regional issue as one of nation to nation conflict only resolvable by nation to nation challenges and "official" and decisive solutions---a "past" reality that is increasingly out of touch with so many parts of the world.

I read between the lines of your piece that the "non-deep state," the actual businesses, communities, bureaucracies, etc..., find their way to "muddle through" DESPITE all the deep state whackos and power players pushing the "after me the deluge" mentality. Is that right?

A world of potentially greate conflicts "muddling" its way to solutions brokered at the end of a Chinese massuese's fingertips, licensing and trade agreements grafted together with TATA, and boring trade and connections at the smallest scales.

[omarali50]

Steve,

Thanks. I did want to convey that if the states do less and get out of the way a little, everyday economic necessity and 5000 years of cultural continuity will do the rest....but the states can and do get in the way. As you know, I am especially concerned about the Pakistani deep state because I am from Pakistan and tend to be more aware of them, but there may well be a deep state in India that is equally malignant. Marx was right to dream of the day it withers away....
Some people think there is something about "development" per se which creates these middle class obsessions with nationalism and breast-beating fascism. Maybe. But it seems to me its possible to manage that malignancy provided the security organs of the state don't get hooked on encouraging it and building it up.
btw, has anyone read http://books.google.com/books?id=Blj...page&q&f=false
and do you have any comments? I am hoping to write a review in a few days.

[Steve the Planner]

Omar:

"Nothing left to save....."

Now your really screwing things up---assuming a solution based on less and less recognition of national governments and nationalistic phobias.

Pretty soon, you will be arguing that the will of the people shall not be subservient to government.

Was that Marxism, or a paraphrase from the Maryland Bill of Rights?

Whatever.

[davidbfpo]

Hat tip to Watandost for locating the following IHT article; the annual 'strategic dialogue' between Pakistan and USA is happening - on what may not happen:

If there were to really be what diplomats call a full and frank exchange, the dialogue might go like this..

Very short and accurate:http://watandost.blogspot.com/2010/1...-dialogue.html

[omarali50]

My comment is at http://accidentalblogger.typepad.com...er-attack.html

[carl]

Hat tip to Watandost for locating the following IHT article; the annual 'strategic dialogue' between Pakistan and USA is happening - on what may not happen:

Very short and accurate:http://watandost.blogspot.com/2010/1...-dialogue.html

David:

This is a great "dialogue" except that the "Americans" who made the laconic straight to the point statements don't exist anymore. The current Ivy League educated "Americans" who would have participated in the "dialogue" would have made all those convoluted double back through center and out the side arguments for the Pakistanis and then congratulated themselves on their sensitivity.

[davidbfpo]

An article on FP blog by Philip Mudd and excellent IMHO; subtitled:

The United States invaded Afghanistan to defeat al Qaeda. It should stay that way.

Link:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...istan?page=0,0

Ends with:

For the future, nation-building will remain a mirage in Afghanistan, with nine years of futility as proof. But destroying al Qaeda is a reachable goal, and a far more salient one for the United States. We've now turned these priorities around.

[omarali50]

My comment grew into an article:

http://outlookindia.com/article.aspx?268028

[davidbfpo]

A different point of view and I suspect few here will agree with this opening phrase:

The politicians and diplomats lead the summits and rule the airwaves. But a close look at the Afghanistan-Pakistan conflict reveals that the United States military take the decisions.

We have noted before:

The same evidence is being read in very different ways.

.

This however I've not seen in reporting:

The second example is the significant (if barely reported) US tactical innovation of destroying buildings likely to be used by insurgents. This is especially apparent during the American troop advance into large parts of Kandahar province, where retreating Taliban paramilitaries frequently abandon buildings primed with explosives - which US forces then destroy, along with others they think might be used in the future.

The official US figures list 174 buildings destroyed since September 2010, though local sources cite many hundreds - or even thousands. A single report states that “every one of the 40 homes in the village of Khisrow was flattened by a salvo of 25 missiles, according to the district governor, Shah Muhammed Ahmadi, who estimated that 120 to 130 houses had been demolished in his district” (see Taimoor Shah & Rod Nordland, “NATO Is Razing Booby-Trapped Afghan Homes”, New York Times, 16 November 2010). The fact that this is a single district in one of Afghanistan’s largest provinces makes the estimate of thousands of buildings destroyed appear all the more credible.

He ends with this, which i am sure some here will agree with:

Some thoughtful counterinsurgency analysts argue that operations against entrenched opposition require an 80:20 basis for success: 80% political leadership, 20% military action. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, the ratios seem reversed. The wider implication is that whatever Barack Obama - or other western leaders - may claim, the military is in charge. This will be a long war.

Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-ro...to-endless-war

[carl]

To me, the most interesting part of the story David cited was that the US is trying to work around the Pakistani military and is being assisted by the Pakistani civil government. If true, and if it lasts, that would be a very very big thing.

[davidbfpo]

A Pakistani Navy officer has taken command of CTF-151, the multi-national flotilla engaged in anti-piracy patrols on the Gulf of Aden and the Somali Basin:http://www.cusnc.navy.mil/articles/2010/CMF073.html

Pakistan has commanded CTF-150 further east before. the contributors are:

Ships from Australia, Republic of Korea, Pakistan, Singapore, Thailand, Turkey, the U.K. and U.S. The command staff included personnel from Bahrain, Canada, Turkey, the U.K. and U.S.

[davidbfpo]

I have asked about the Saudi-Pakistani relationship before, IIRC with a few comments, but there is little depth to any information and so Wikileaks may have helped shine some light on the linkage.

Hat tip to Watandost and their short story:http://watandost.blogspot.com/2010/1...bia-close.html

The most substantial link being to Time magazine's article 'WikiLeaks: The Saudis' Close but Strained Ties with Pakistan', which ends with this:

Whatever their differences, however, the WikiLeaks cables reveal a belief in Washington that Pakistan's road to salvation still winds through Riyadh.

Link:http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...035347,00.html