Pakistani internal security (catch all)

[omarali50]

But its also worth keeping in mind where the "level of analysis" is in any given debate. There are many mistakes being made at much narrower focus...the wide-angle debate may not be as relevant to some of these affairs, but may be used to score points and support a lower level policy that really doesnt make sense AT ITS OWN LEVEL..

[Dayuhan]

If we were to completely pull out of the middle east and south Asia, to include Diego Garcia I presume, I think the states with interests in the area could legitimately conclude that the world had fundamentally changed, the USN wasn't going to guarantee free seas as it had since the end of WWII. People would get very nervous about that and when people get nervous, dangerous things happen.

People get very nervous about sole superpowers as well... especially when people think they are capricious and prone to unilateral action.

The US Navy may not have the number of assets that it once did, but it's still orders of magnitude beyond any other Navy.

These so called 'fears' are actually geostrategic and geopolitical 'scenarios' that could occur.

And to be ready to face them rather than be surprised and rudderless, 'contingency plans' for all possible scenarios are prepared.

All countries, big and small, prepare such contingency plans.

These scenarios may or may not play out, but then forewarned is forearmed.

You can drive yourself batty envisioning scenarios, and you can drive yourself bankrupt preparing for scenarios, and you can drive yourself into a world of $#!t trying to preempt scenarios.

A total US pullout from the ME and South/Central Asia is unlikely, and envisioning scenarios based on that assumption is a largely academic exercise. Envisioning scenarios based on excessive sinophobia or russophobia is also not terribly productive. We can't assume that we must have military dominance over every strategic area of the world because if we don't, somebody else will... the cost of trying to maintain that dominance will choke us far more surely than the possibility of having to share influence.

Certainly it makes sense to envision and prepare for scenarios built on the assumption that the US will no longer be a sole superpower, as the US no longer has the economic wherewithal to maintain that status.

[carl]

People get very nervous about sole superpowers as well... especially when people think they are capricious and prone to unilateral action.

I don't think they do. They say they do and they make all kinds of noises about the unfairness of it all, but they don't really do much to change the situation. They basically accept that the USN keeps the seas in order. If the USN publicly said they weren't going to do it anymore, great disorder would ensue.

The US Navy may not have the number of assets that it once did, but it's still orders of magnitude beyond any other Navy.

That may be true but it will get to the point where it won't matter. All the other navies may have only 2 ships each and if we have 20 we are an order of magnitude stronger. But we would still only have 20 ships. There's not much you can do when you don't have many ships.

[Ken White]

I've often thought that fear of what the Russians or Chinese might do is a greater threat to the US than anything the Russians or Chinese might do. Fear is rarely a sound basis for policy.

Fortunately or not, viewpoint dependent, we tend to err on the side of hubris...

I see nothing to be unduly concerned about save excessive entitlements in the budget.

Been worse in my lifetime internationally in almost all aspects, several times and in one way or another. Though I admit many today seem to want some kind of reassurance. Never be enough of that and it isn't an entitlement anyway...

[Ray]

People get very nervous about sole superpowers as well... especially when people think they are capricious and prone to unilateral action.

The US Navy may not have the number of assets that it once did, but it's still orders of magnitude beyond any other Navy.



You can drive yourself batty envisioning scenarios, and you can drive yourself bankrupt preparing for scenarios, and you can drive yourself into a world of $#!t trying to preempt scenarios.

A total US pullout from the ME and South/Central Asia is unlikely, and envisioning scenarios based on that assumption is a largely academic exercise. Envisioning scenarios based on excessive sinophobia or russophobia is also not terribly productive. We can't assume that we must have military dominance over every strategic area of the world because if we don't, somebody else will... the cost of trying to maintain that dominance will choke us far more surely than the possibility of having to share influence.

Certainly it makes sense to envision and prepare for scenarios built on the assumption that the US will no longer be a sole superpower, as the US no longer has the economic wherewithal to maintain that status.

Sun Tsu had said -It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.

It is true that one should not have any phobias over possibly adversaries, but one help but note that if one cannot visualise the major scenarios (taking into account the CNP), and contingencies, then one is saddle with an Iraq. I believe, from open sources, that the campaign was not 'thought through', or in other words, the contingencies that could arise.

There is no doubt that one cannot have military dominance everywhere; that is axiomatic, given the state of economy. Yet, one cannot help but maintain a force level that can safeguard the nation's interests. Given the US position in the world and interests, it has to be vast, compared to others. Likewise, China and Russia are aggressively enhancing their strategic reach by adding to its arsenal. They too have concerns about the state of their Nation's economy and what their economy can sustain in this quest to increase their strategic reach.

In so far as the US is concerned, given that the Cold War was over, Di.ck Cheney's Defence Policy Guidelines and the National Policy for Energy, when he was the Secretary for Defence, is worth a look as to how the US would detach itself from a unidirectional approach to National Defence to a multi-directional approach in areas that were not within the conventional threat ambit and would be basically on small wars format.

It is also of interest to note that the US is 'outsourcing' the protection of it the defence of its national interest.

This is quite evident in Asia, more so, after the tour of Asia by President Obama and selective tour of Hilary Clinton.

[Ray]

Ultimately, the US Navy is trying to replace 30 FFG-7 Oliver Hazard Perry Class frigates, 14 MCM Avenger Class mine countermeasures vessels, and 12 MHC-51 Osprey Class coastal mine hunters (TL = 56), with about 55 Littoral Combat Ships.

The LCS requirement has been identified as part of a broader surface combatant force transformation strategy, which recognizes that many future threats are spawning in regions with shallow seas, where the ability to operate near-shore and even in rivers will be vital for mission success.

I don't have the link since it is from my 'archives'.

It indicates to some extent the type of threat the US envisages and how the US will apply itself to exert its will.

Mike,

I like Davy Crockette. It reminds me of my childhood and host of Dell comics and Classics. In fact, I still remember the words of the song and sing it too!

[jmm99]

another Davy Crockett fan - M.A. Lagrange is the other. You all still wear them coonskin caps ?

Cheers

Mike

[omarali50]

New strains?

http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/04/...war-on-terror/

[carl]

Omar:

This statement by the Pakistan interior minister in one of the articles you linked to in brownpundits is classic.

'"The Americans need to devise a strategy but better still, share the [drone] technology with us,"'

[omarali50]

Meanwhile, everyone's favorite Jihadi commander speaks: http://www.onlinenews.com.pk/details.php?id=177602

[davidbfpo]

The weird at first sight aspect is that the external Kashmiri struggle is kept under control by the Pakistani state, by ISI plus and activity along the LoC is strictly controlled (rarely reported too).

Sad to say the Kashmiri cause is largely forgotten outside the Kashmiri community and of course in India. In the UK there is reportedly a significant gulf between generations over the issue - what has it got to do with me - and an awareness that Azad Kashmir is not a shining example of good governance, for example with the highest officially recorded unemployment in Pakistan (Yes, that struck me as odd too).

Now the drones. On another thread IIRC 'The Drone Paradox' the Pakistani state has sought access to the targeting technology, not the missiles themselves and there are those who think ISI has provided the "boots on the ground" intelligence for targeting. Link to drone thread:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=7385

On reflection there is nothing weird at all, it is the 'Great Game'.

[Ray]

Now the drones. On another thread IIRC 'The Drone Paradox' the Pakistani state has sought access to the targeting technology, not the missiles themselves and there are those who think ISI has provided the "boots on the ground" intelligence for targeting. Link to drone thread:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=7385

On reflection there is nothing weird at all, it is the 'Great Game'.

This could be the answer as to why Pakistan wants the technology and not the drones.

A fast, stealthy fighter. An aircraft carrier. A heavily-armed attack helicopter. Satellites, satellite-killers and maybe even a rocket-powered space plane. After a decade of meteoric economic growth and expanding global ambitions, China now has weapons to match the U.S. in almost every category.

There’s at least one big missing piece — one that’s indicate of the ongoing technological limitations facing the People’s Liberation Army. Where, oh where, are China’s killer drones? That’s a question I attempt to answer in my latest feature for The Diplomat.....

What’s holding China back? Engines, for one. Chinese industry has not proved capable of developing reliable military-grade motors. That’s been the biggest thing holding back China’s new fighters and choppers — and now apparently drones, too.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011...killer-drones/

[omarali50]

http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts...a3e230ae38%2C0

So, what do the members think? bluff? Jedi negotiation? impending divorce? tempest in a teapot? clever psyops? (I mean the whole imbroglio, not Arif Jama's article, Arif is the author of "shadow wars", an excellent account of the 64 year old Kashmir Jihad)..

[carl]

If my modest little memory serves, before the Second World War the Japanese got themselves into a political cycle they couldn't break out of. It was driven by too much regard for themselves and their spiritual superiority, too little regard for foreigners and a reverence for the military. If any politician tried to break out of the cycle, they were liable to be murdered by a fanatical officer or officers who would get a slap on the wrist because their hearts were pure. Consequently not many politicians tried to break the cycle. This led to ruin for Japan. They were just lucky that we occupied them and not the Soviets.

Omar, do you think Pakistan could be in a similar sort of thing? If they are, they will eventually exceed even our capacity to be fooled and we will break with them and they will be recognized as the enemy. We will lose the Karachi supply line but that might be the best thing that could happen to us.

I have another question. The ISI has been very cross with us lately. Do you think that might be because after all these years, we have finally been able to develop some intel resources in Pakistan not dependent upon the ISI, and these resources are allowing the drones to do some actual damage to the "good" jihadis?

[Watcher In The Middle]

If Pakistan wants extended access to our UAV targeting technology and methodology, well, looks to be a pretty fair indication that we have developed a capability that's beyond their (ISI) control, or even influence.

We obviously made a recent 'hit' that must have scored and was not part of the carefully served up menu provided by the ISI.

I often wonder what the ramifications would be on immigration and business ties between the US and Pakistan if Pakistan did start limiting our supply line access into Afghanistan. INS and US Customs can make both business dealings and immigration into the US from Pakistan extremely convoluted. They might want to reconsider this whole drone dustup....

[omarali50]

http://www.pakistankakhudahafiz.com/...-americas-war/

The "official" ISI position seems mildly conciliatory....

[omarali50]

the following article

http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/04/...ean-and-saarc/

may be a way to get to the pathology underlying the current "strategic" direction of Pakistan. Pakistan's military rulers are obsessed with an outdated and self-destructive vision of "national interest". And they learned this focus from their mentors in Western militaries and strategic schools. The diffference is that in Western countries (and in China, for that matter) other parts of the state take care of other concerns (like trade policy) and even supervise the generals (to some extent)...and basic notions of modern social and economic development are taken for granted, even by most generals. What the visiting generals don't fully grasp is that this is NOT the case in Pakistan (and possibly in some other countries). OUR generals are NOT under adult supervision and don't even know what they dont know...
when they show up to have 3 cups of tea with Kiyani, they dont ask him why his institution spends so much time and effort making sure things dont get too cozy with India (or if they ask him, they are happy to accept the strategic bull#### he offers in return, that bull#### being familiar to them from their own staff college days). Unless they do so, there will be no change in the strategic disconnect between the US and Pakistan. That strategic disconnect is not about Taliban or LET, its about the fact that Pakistani generals still see India and Pakistan as a zero-sum game between one warrior-state and another, and American Generals have no idea how deeply that notion poisons all their actions...

[omarali50]

I must add that there IS another theory, which gives less credit to the generals "strategic vision" and much more to their need to maintain domestic political supremacy using the Indian threat as a handy excuse (that the threat is partly real makes it even better)...

[davidbfpo]

Hat tip to Circling the Lion's Den for the commentary:http://circlingthelionsden.blogspot....in-kurram.html, although the cited report was on SWJ Blog a week ago:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ad.php?t=13298

I knew there was a sectarian aspect to areas in the FATA and it appears that the Shia in Kurram Agency have been murdered by the roadside since 2007 and the Pakistani Army failed to provide keep the road to Peshawar secure.

Overall some local colour, if sad and indicates peace is a long way off.

[davidbfpo]

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.