I am trying to write something right now. will post when ready.
I think the US is going to drawdown, but that does not mean Pakistan is about to get the all-clear to go back to the glorious nineties. Times have changed.
I also think India will be unable to do much creative thinking and will remain sluggish in taking advantage of new realities, but thats OK. Its better to be a plodding tortoise than an over-adventurous hare. The longer term outlook for India remains positive in spite of (and not because of) the usual fog of nonsense that surrounds a lot of Indian public posturing. India will be OK.
I was unnecessarily snarky there. I think if you read B Raman you may see that even indian officials are not really slow on the uptake. Some retooling of the narrative will be needed, especially in the right wing Indian blogosphere, but they have never wandered as far away from this world as GHQ did, so they will probably be OK.
Today is my day to be optimistic.
B Raman writes many commentaries.
Which one are you referring to?
Links, please.
Originally Posted by omarali50
Well, let's work with the assumption that Pakistan is an army with a state for its sustainment.
Red teaming from that perspective, I'd say they
(1) declare the Islamist issue to be no problem any more since UBL is dead and AQinPak now unimportant. Silent coexistence with Islamists who are allowed to dominate culturally in the border regions and to run their Madrasses as long as they stay within certain limits (= don't question the status quo order).
(2) provoke some border incident in Kashmir to redirect attention to the Indian 'threat', accompany it with propaganda and exploit it diplomatically (playing victim)
(3) keep sustaining and modernising the military with Chinese arms, especially the army and air force. Maybe add some Russian area air defences, for the Pakistani air force is inferior in quantity and quality in air combat.
(4) try to limit population growth below 2% p.a. so all those civilian issues and demands don't grow so terribly fast (and thus don't compete so much for resources)
(5) maintain a republic, but strive for the chief of staff as defence minister or have the latter as a puppet
(6) strive for an end of the Western intervention in Afghanistan by painting the Taliban as no enemies any more; they're (supposedly) not harbouring AQ any more, after all (thus casus = belli expired). Let Westerners declare victory and go home (save for token CT effort).
(7) stick to Pashtun connections for influence in Afghanistan
(8) Talk with the PRC; an alliance of Pakistan, PRC and Myanmar (the latter a military dictatorship and if possible armed to teeth by the PRC) would keep India at bay, even encircled. The possible consequence of an Indian-Russian alliance would primarily concern the PRC, not Pakistan.
(9) Talk with Iran; improve relations, especially once they're not such a hate projector of the U.S. any more (that gotta have some expiration date, after all)
(10) Keep India from gaining additional power in the UNSC, especially by enlisting the help of the PRC.
But what do I know? I'm tired, no Pakistani and maybe they're smarter anyway.
I see several problems but one should suffice: the jihadists are not under control. They will not be happily confined to the tribal areas and madressahs.
There is really no choice. Either the army fights the jihadis till they are defeated (not finished, but defeated) or they join them and invite international action. A middle course is being attempted, but no stable equilibrium can be found on that middle course.
What exactly would suggest that Indian officials are not slow on the uptake.
It is your own opinion? If so, it would be kind of you to let us into your insight as to why you feel so and in what context.
If it is that opinion of B Raman, it would be nice of you to point me to the article so that I could learn as to why he feels so and in what context.
It is very interesting to know that the rightwing has to retool their narratives. I am sure you would be good enough to indicate what their narratives are and what has caught your attention for retooling. What are your suggestions for this so called retooling that you envisage?
Likewise, one would surely be keen to know where did the GHQ 'wander off from the world' as observed by you?
Last edited by Ray; 05-23-2011 at 08:19 AM.
The article has references for the comments made.Russia’s Growing Engagement with Pakistan
Since Russia had announced its interest in participating in the construction of the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline, the Joint Statement issued at the Summit mentioned the interest of both sides in TAPI and the Tajikistan- Afghanistan-Pakistan CASA-1000 (Central Asia-South Asia) electricity transmission project. Russian energy companies such as Gazprom are backing the initiative. Interestingly, Gazprom is also seeking a role in Bangladesh.
The two main themes at the Summit were therefore energy, business and economic cooperation on the one hand and combating drug trafficking and terrorism to stabilise the security situation in the region on the other. Russia and Pakistan had earlier discussed transit issues and opening a route to the “warm waters”. So it was not surprising that on the eve of the Summit President Zardari reiterated the invitation to Russia to take advantage of Pakistan’s access to the southern seas.....
Post American Withdrawal Scenario
Clearly, therefore, the Summit was not timed to exploit Pakistan’s emerging rift with the United States. Instead, it was part of Russia’s ongoing initiatives to play a greater role in stabilising the region before the expected withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan presented the region with “a whole range of potential worst-case scenarios,” with the only hope being “they will not all come true at once”......
China is moreover readying itself to take advantage of the American withdrawal. Pakistan immediately rushed to China to find succor, and reportedly weighed in on Afghan President Karzai to throw in his lot with Pakistan and China.5 In fact, the tone of the American Administration seemed to change once the China card was played by Pakistan. The China factor may even be a reason for the Americans to reconsider their withdrawal plans after 2014.
Russia’s Concerns
Like all affected countries, Russia is deeply concerned at the accentuation of instability in the region and its spillover effects into its southern periphery, increase in drug trafficking and terrorism, etc. Russia may also be uneasy at the erosion of its influence in Eurasia, while China increases its stranglehold over the region’s resources, transportation and energy networks. Thus the massive copper deposits at Aynak – discovered by Soviet experts – are now being exploited by China......
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/ME21Df03.html
After bin Laden: Do Not Retreat from Afghanistan
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Rep...om-Afghanistan
The Heritage Foundation is, as ever, predictable.
Trying to "stabilize Afghanistan" is like trying to mix oil and water. You can create the illusion of success as long as you keep pouring energy into the effort. Stop shaking the jar and the oil and water will separate. Stop suppressing the visible signs of Afghan instability, and they will return.
There are places that are inherently unstable. Those places may be able to work out their own equilibrium, but it can't be imposed from outside. The process by which equilibrium is achieved is likely to be messy, as similar processes have been all over the world.
And the solution is.....?
Don't go there unless you really, really, have to.
If you really, really have to, get out as fast as you can.
One of the Indian Army Regiment's motto is Veer Bhogya Vasundhara, which means 'The Brave inherits the Earth'!!
Notwithstanding, the interaction here has given me great education and an insight into another perspective on Afghanistan and the insurgency.
The most important was that Revenge also can be a reason for some happenings around the world.
I had read that BushII went into Iraq to avenge some slight to BushI. I thought at that time that it was the usual US bashing.
Notwithstanding, while Revenge could be a reason, I still would like to believe that there was more to everything that the US did beyond the abstract of Revenge.
Lastly, I endorse JMM's signature - When I quit learning, I'll be dead.
I thank all for the education.
The stupid inherit nothing. Doing difficult, dangerous things that you need to do is brave. Doing dangerous and difficult things that you don't need to do is leaning more to the other side.
I do not think that was a major part of it.
In Iraq, certainly there was more to it.
In Afghanistan... not a great deal more. Revenge, and the subsequent desire to prevent conditions that might produce further attacks. Are there other reasons that stand up to serious scrutiny?
Apparently you do not understand the Indian psyche.
We value bravery.
Therefore, I am constrained to reply on your statement that Veer Bhogya Vasundhara = The stupid Inherit Nothing.
I do not anyone inherits anything by sitting in one's armchair. One inherits by doing things that are out of the ordinary, difficult and even dangerous. For instance, General Patton is remembered for his victories and each one was doing things audacious, difficult, dangerous and what is more, things that others thought were impossible.
Let me put it in English. It means the same thing as 'Fortune Favours the Brave'. I am sure many would not subscribe to thinking that Fortune favours the Timid and Scared?
Well, the history of the Regiment, whose motto I quoted, does not indicate they inherited what they inherited by meek and timid.
And in WWI and II bears out the bravery of the Indian troops.
World War I
140,000 soldiers saw active service on the Western Front in France and Belgium - 90,000 in the front-line Indian Corps, and some 50,000 in auxiliary battalions.
Nearly 700,000 then served in the Middle East, fighting against the Turks in the Mesopotamian campaign.
Participants from the Indian subcontinent won 13,000 medals, including 12 Victoria Crosses. By the end of the war a total of 47,746 Indians had been reported dead or missing; 65,126 were wounded.
World War II
During the Second World War the Indian Army became the largest all-volunteer force in history, rising to over 2.5 million men in size.
About 87,000 Indian soldiers lost their lives during this conflict. Indian soldiers won 30 Victoria Crosses during the Second World War.
Maybe, you are right, they were stupid because they fought for a foreign nation to die or be wounded and they inherited nothing!!
Or could it be that doing dangerous and difficult things is in the the blood of some Indians. That is why history bear out their right to their surnames as Singh (Lion).
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4615314.eceThe study, by Laurent Lehmann and Marcus Feldman, of Stanford University in California, suggests that great bravery can have evolutionary benefits under certain circumstances, despite its obvious dangers.
If courage makes it significantly more likely that small bands of tribes-men will win military confrontations with their neighbours, its overall advantages can easily outweigh its risks, a mathematical model has shown.
Some men who carry genetic variants that promote bravery might perish because of them, but the ones who survive may win more battles through their greater daring.
If Doing difficult, dangerous things that you need to do is brave (and) Doing dangerous and difficult things that you don't need to do is leaning more to the other side, then US would remain only 13 States and not grow to the strength and size it is currently or be the most powerful Nation in the world.
Maybe the US believed in Veer Bhogya Vasundhara and that is why they are, where they have reached.
Last edited by Ray; 05-24-2011 at 03:13 PM.
Honor and Satisfaction
Hi Ray,
While I would list the reasons as retribution, reprobation and speciric deterrence, I don't really object to someone calling it "Revenge". Better than "revenge" (and the three legal terms I just used) would be the concept of Honor and Satisfaction that runs strong in a substantial segment of US culture.
You might find this interesting, Review of James Webb’s Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America, Editorial, The National Review, December 2004, by Mackubin T. Owens.
Of course, while Honor may demand going to war, once Satisfaction is achieved the demand for war ceases. The rules of duelling (sometimes silly) are very much evident.The Scots-Irish (sometimes called the Scotch-Irish) are all around you, even though you probably don’t know it. They are a force that shapes our culture, more in the abstract power of emotion than through the argumentative force of law. In their insistent individualism, they are not likely to put an ethnic label on themselves when they debate societal issues. Some of them don’t even know their ethnic label, and some who do don’t particularly care. They don’t go for group-identity politics any more than they like to join a union. Two hundred years ago the mountains built a fierce and uncomplaining self-reliance into an already hardened people. To them, joining a group and putting themselves at the mercy of someone else’s collective judgment makes as much sense as letting the government take their guns. And nobody is going to get their guns.
So, we had the exchange between Sen. Jim Webb and Pres. Bush:
A lot of folks miss this emotional side to US foreign and military policy - for various views, see this thread, "Origins of American Bellicosity".On November 28, 2006, at a White House reception for those newly elected to Congress, Webb declined to stand in the line to have his picture taken with the president, whom Webb often criticized during the campaign. The president approached Webb later and asked him, "How's your boy?", referring to Webb's son, a Marine serving in Iraq. Webb replied "I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President." Bush responded, "That's not what I asked you. How's your boy?" Webb responded, "That's between me and my boy, Mr. President." The Hill cited an anonymous source who claimed that Webb was so angered by the exchange that he confessed he was tempted to "slug" the president. Webb later remarked in an interview, "I'm not particularly interested in having a picture of me and George W. Bush on my wall."
Regards
Mike
Last edited by jmm99; 05-24-2011 at 04:38 PM.
Troops reclaim Afghan district, 28 rebels dead
The Taliban had earlier captured western parts of Do Ab district in troubled Nuristan province, which borders Pakistan, and threatened to overrun the entire area, Nuristan governor Jamaludin Badr said.
But the defence ministry later said that Afghan troops were dropped from helicopters to fight around the district and "without any delay cleared the district from the enemies of Afghanistan's people".......
Badr confirmed this, while a spokesman for the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said the operation was a combined one, featuring a foreign air support team and ground forces.
Nuristan is a highly volatile area of eastern Afghanistan, which along with the south is the region worst hit by the nearly ten-year-long Taliban insurgency.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...bels-dead.htmlIt does indicate that all is still working out because of the single-minded devotion to duty and the cause, notwithstanding the defence cut in the US and UK!Special forces commando took on Taliban single-handedly
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-handedly.html
Last edited by davidbfpo; 05-26-2011 at 07:55 AM.
I don't see that budget has much to do with the case of Afghanistan... I don't think the problem is lack of resources, more lack of a clear, specific, and practical aim.
You might be interested in this:
http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/...umIrvine_1.pdf
Good example of mainstream US analyst opinion. Note the summary of critical US interests in South Asia:
Interesting, in light of previous discussion, that US interests are posed entirely in terms of what the US seeks to prevent, rather than anything the US seeks to gain. That's not because the US is altruistic or fearful, but because the reason is seen primarily as a source of potential threat, rather than a place where significant advantage can be obtained.Prevent the region’s use as a base for terror groups to attack the United States and its allies...
Ensure nuclear weapons or other WMD from the region do not fall into the hands of terrorists...
Prevent a nuclear conflict on the subcontinent.
Energy and mineral resources are mentioned, but if you read the context they are seen primarily as revenue sources for poor and resource-starved countries, ways to achieve economic stability and thus stability, serving the primary goal of threat aversion. Trade and transport links are seen as ways to "promote economic interdependence, a key ingredient for long-term prosperity and regional stability." Again, the emphasis is on risk avoidance rather than the acquisition of advantage.
It's not a bad summary of how mainstream opinion in the US policy world sees US interests in the region.
As I said earlier in this thread, I don't think the question should be cast as "is it time to get out", rather as "could US interests be served as well, perhaps better, with a substantially smaller presence".
I note with interest the use of helicopters to carry the troops into battle in both cases. From the second:
I wonder how "near" to the target Chinooks can safely/prudently drop troops and still achieve maximum surprise?In the early hours of July 1 last year Chinooks carrying the teams landed near Haji Wakil village in the Bahram Chah area at 2am and quickly came under determined enemy resistance.
Dayuhan,
Thank you.
A good read and a treasury of information and insight.
Some observations (as a Devil’s Advocate):
If there was no strategic value in that region, then what would be this "Great Game" all about?Looking ahead, many nations have interests in this region, suggesting a renewal of the “Great Game” that once played out there and that in some ways continues unabated.
Contradictory.The United States should recognize the importance of maintaining Pakistan as an unpalatable friend rather than an implacable adversary.
It also goes against two professed aim mentioned;
• Broker confidence-building measures between India and Pakistan quietly and as opportunities arise.
• Sustain and deepen the U.S.-India partnership.
Arming Pakistan gratis and arming India, strictly on cash and carry!
Bluntly put, arming Pakistan so as to give them solace and ego boost (that is highly required) that in a growing anti Pakistan unfriendly world (France has stated no heavy weapons/ platform for Pakistan and Cameron's outbursts), US was still by the side of Pakistan!
Arming India and forging 'strategic partnership' (whatever that means since it shows merely some loose esoteric activities), basically to contain China as also as a proxy to wean away those countries from the Chinese influence which are still apprehensive of the US, like Vietnam (an important cog in the South China seas and a natural anti Chinese country)
If US regional influence diminishes, then it will not be able to ‘influence’ India or Pakistan.The projected decline of the large U.S. military presence brings risks of diminished U.S. regional influence as well. New tensions between the United States and Pakistan only add to the uncertainty in the region.
Pakistan’s obeisance is prompted by US presence in Afghanistan and the danger of aggravating the US resulting in serious consequences, to include no financial and military aid including IMF and WB taking a difficult stand.
The US’ influence with India because the same US presence inhibits Pakistan from adventurism, be it exporting terrorism in India or indulging in any military forays.
With the US presence diminishing to mere presence in ‘enduring bases’ in Afghanistan, the subcontinental scenario may become different.
While this is correct, yet one must not forget Russia in the equation.Further, China has deep ties to Pakistan that allow Pakistan to hedge against both India and the United States. India will continue to balance its political and security ties to the United States, for instance by exploiting European sales as an alternative to reliance on U.S. defense products.
Russia continues to play a part in Indian political equations since Pakistan cannot be allowed by India to ingratiate itself with Russia. Zardari’s Russia visit had him promise Russia access to Pakistan ports. It is believed that Pakistan is looking at Russia for arms too.
India cannot afford a Chinese – Pakistan – Russia nexus along her borders. Or dictate the fate of the region!
One must be pragmatic. Why aim for things that have historically failed? By assigning oneself with aims that are never achievable, one merely gets distracted and diverted from achieving what can be achieved.Hamid Karzai’s troubled nine-year rule has also dimmed prospects that the government of Afghanistan will eventually emerge as an exemplar of democracy, respect for human rights and resistance to resurgent extremism.
Let us look at a real world example, even if not quite in context but prompted with equal zeal and concern.
In Africa, even the otherwise very conservative Catholic Church gave way to African Traditional Religion (ATR).
Worth note from the CNAS article:It was not surprising that evangelisation was chosen as the main theme of the 1994 Special Synod of Bishops for Africa. The Synod provided a special occasion to assess the work of Christian evangelisation in Africa. What is of interest and relevance for this write-up is the directive given by the Synod for the promotion of dialogue with ATR and culture. This directive issued at the end of the Working Session of the Synod is contained in the Message (Nuntius) which was the first major Synodal document approved by the participants. To this Message we turn our attention.
In the Message, the Synod Fathers called for attention to be paid to African "customs and traditions in so far as they constitute our cultural heritage…. (They) belong to oral cultures and their survival depends essentially on the dialogue of generation to assure their transmission."
http://www.afrikaworld.net/afrel/changing-attitude.htm
The Interests of Regional Actors in South and Central Asia by By J. Dana Stuster Joseph S. Nye, Jr. Intern within the article is another aspect that may be of interest.Unpredictable security conditions in South Asia – notably in Afghanistan and Pakistan – undermine support for the continued development and construction of long-distance oil and natural gas pipelines across the region to the Indian Ocean and subcontinent to international markets. Instead, current resources flow toward Europe, Russia and Turkey along alternate routes that largely avoid South Asia.
In Afghanistan, enormous mineral reserves, including scattered deposits of iron, copper, lithium and other minerals, have the potential to make the country a major exporter of extracted resources….
Afghanistan may have the largest reserves of lithium in the world.
On stability of Indo Pak region.
There is no doubt that Kashmir has tired the people. However, political survivability world over, requires an ‘enemy’ to galvanise the people and distract them from the real world of domestic woes due to bad governance. India and Pakistan are hardly examples of good governance, more so, Pakistan!A stable region ultimately requires normalizing relations between India and Pakistan, however faroff that goal seems today. The roots of the conflict date back to independence from Britain in 1947, but are growing increasingly irrelevant. The United States must take an active, if behind the scenes, role in advancing this normalization. Success in this difficult task is essential – both to enable India to reach its full potential as well as to unshackle Pakistan from the debilitating loss of productive resources diverted into military spending unrelated to its current internal threats.
On 'The US Support to the U.S.-Indian partnership and encourage the peaceful rise of China' that the CNAS article speaks about, are these two issues compatible?
One wonders if there was a ‘peaceful rise of China’ why does it exert itself so vigorously to impose her hegemonic ambitions?
In her hegemonic pursuits, China,
• playing on Pakistan’s insecurity, she has annexed the Shaksgam Valley in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir,
• and now has flooded Gilgit and Baltistan with Chinese troops (euphemistically called ‘engineers’)
• China claims Indian state of Arunachal to be a part of China and calls it ‘South Tibet’.
• Repeatedly does border violation on the Line of Actual Control.
• Claims has armed conflicts in the South China Seas.
If it was peaceful rise, then why the covert, overt, dishonest manner (stealing) to acquire defence technology from the US and Russia and have a highly sophisticated armed force?
Why was it essential to test their Stealth aircraft (they obtained it from the downed US stealth aircraft in Bosnia) when Gates visited? A message, perhaps?
Why want Pakistan to hand over the downed Stealth helicopter in the OBL raid? And who knows if it has not already been done?
Why the confrontations in the South China seas?
And, also, if all was well and the US unconcerned, why the heavy rhetoric of Ms Clinton on her visit to Asia and why Obama’s visit is changing the ‘strategic relationships’ in Asia and Asia Pacific Rim?
I find it intriguing!
China is happy that the US remains in Afghanistan. It keeps the Islamic fundamentalists focussed against the ‘Great White Satan’ and not make serious forays into East Turkmenistan (Xinjaing)(May check Global Times comment the link I had appended). But China is also wary, since it cramps her space in Afghanistan and convert it into an ally to play a role in South Asia (to contain India) and in CAR (to contain Russia) as also exploit the abundant and untapped mineral resources.China will also be wary of a long-term U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan because those troops would be based on China’s western approaches. The Chinese may be willing to pay this price in the near term, but only as long as the bases remain modest and are not permanent.
It is not only in the Northern provinces, and this indicates what I have been saying all along about ‘strategic interest’ of the US in Afghanistan, but more importantly, the South also, the epicentre of Terrorist activities and growth!President Karzai has reacted to the death of bin Laden by further distancing himself and his government from Pakistan. Yet he also fears the calls for rapid U.S. disengagement and withdrawal ……
In addition, local power brokers are beginning to plan for a precipitous U.S. withdrawal, most noticeably in Afghanistan’s northern provinces, by forging their own alliances and bases of support.
I maybe wrong, but given the uncompromising religious ‘zeal’ that the terrorists display, which appears to be beyond logic or their comprehension of the mechanics of the real world, it is very difficult to imagine that these religion driven malcontent will ever allow sane resolution to the problems their misplaced zeal has erupted.The United States should leverage these developments to cement a cost-effective but comprehensive agreement that assures basing for U.S. counterterrorism forces while planning to gradually decrease economic support for Afghan security forces after the Taliban insurgency has been resolved.
One has to visit some of the websites of Pakistan (it is said that Pakistan is a more moderate Islamic State) to realise that even educated people are mesmerised by religion and cloud their view of the real world and the happenings! At the same time it must be said that there are also those who understand the realities and are concerned at the manner how religion is overpowering sanity, but they are few and far between and totally drowned in the religious cacophony!
The ‘enduring bases’ I presume.A long-term presence of limited U.S. military forces demonstrates the depth of the U.S. commitment to the region – a stabilizing presence anxiously sought by neutral countries and friends of the United States alike. Military presence and power show a depth of engagement that cannot be matched by diplomatic or development efforts. In order to adequately defend U.S. vital interests in this part of the world, a sustained, if smaller, military presence is essential to buttress allies and sustain U.S. influence. Develop a long-term but differentiated approach to Pakistan.
If a full scale combat organisation is unable to manage, will these bases be able to manage?
One wonders.
When the actors within the State are encouraging the terrorist and are living in total denial, can the situation be changed?Though both countries must recognize the need to work together in order to achieve their essential objectives, the United States should outline a more nuanced approach to Pakistan that
recognizes that state’s diverse actors and their conflicting interests and activities. A more carefully targeted U.S. approach would empower and bolster actors within the state who support U.S. objectives, while marginalizing and penalizing those who pursue opposing objectives and are unwilling to change their behavior.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks