The US & others working with Pakistan

[davidbfpo]

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/worl...rms-India.html

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

[omarali50]

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]

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

The truth, of course, may be another matter.

[omarali50]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_1...29-503543.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]

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/worl...rms-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]

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....me-by-pak.html

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

[carl]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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....e-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]

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]

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]

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/...acrifices.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]

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/3quarksd...-thoughts.html

[davidbfpo]

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.