PDA

View Full Version : Welcome To Pakistan



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

S2
05 Oct 09,, 19:47
"It really breaks my heart to see British Soldiers being killed..its American soldier's who should be killed like rats...Well, anyway just few days ago 8 US Soldiers went straight to hell."

Posted earlier this morning elsewhere by a Pakistani citizen.

THIS is to what our tax-dollars are spent. Nothing particularly unusual about it either.

This gov't of mine had better WAKE UP to the reality of Pakistan. What you read is the product of a country that manages the information available to it's citizens.

What narrative do you think is being sold below the radar?

They are our enemy. Thinking anything less is irresponsible. Their leadership doesn't represent their public's views and their efforts to shape and manage such have provided these abysmal results.

I'd submit, off-hand, that we are HATED by 85-90% of their country. I REFUSE, btw, to call it a nation. Nations don't freely abdicate authority over their lands to ousted governments. Pakistan clearly has done EXACTLY that for which we've suffered daily.

Aid?

Try BOMBS.

Calling a spade a spade is a GREAT place to start any discussion. We've danced around the obvious and have since 9/12/01.

I pray it stops.

diplomaticview
05 Oct 09,, 20:51
"It really breaks my heart to see British Soldiers being killed..its American soldier's who should be killed like rats...Well, anyway just few days ago 8 US Soldiers went straight to hell."

Posted earlier this morning elsewhere by a Pakistani citizen.

THIS is to what our tax-dollars are spent. Nothing particularly unusual about it either.

This gov't of mine had better WAKE UP to the reality of Pakistan. What you read is the product of a country that manages the information available to it's citizens.

What narrative do you think is being sold below the radar?

They are our enemy. Thinking anything less is irresponsible. Their leadership doesn't represent their public's views and their efforts to shape and manage such have provided these abysmal results.

I'd submit, off-hand, that we are HATED by 85-90% of their country. I REFUSE, btw, to call it a nation. Nations don't freely abdicate authority over their lands to ousted governments. Pakistan clearly has done EXACTLY that for which we've suffered daily.

Aid?

Try BOMBS.

Calling a spade a spade is a GREAT place to start any discussion. We've danced around the obvious and have since 9/12/01.

I pray it stops.



You are right sir, this Nation needs only AID & AID but no positive return back.

xinhui
06 Oct 09,, 00:01
it reminds me of an old saying about "Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish and he will sit in the boat and drink beer all day"

hammer
06 Oct 09,, 02:19
it reminds me of an old saying about "Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish and he will sit in the boat and drink beer all day"

Its very hard to teach this man to fish, b'coz he doesnt want to.

macherjhol
06 Oct 09,, 03:09
i seriously doubt this article or thousands like it shall have any bearing on Washington's Pakistan policy whatsoever. the deep and indivisible links between Pakistan and militancy has been proven time and again, India has been shouting about the same since 1990.on the positive side if Washington does wakeup the war on terror could be over in a year.

Kernow
06 Oct 09,, 03:38
i seriously doubt this article or thousands like it shall have any bearing on Washington's Pakistan policy whatsoever. the deep and indivisible links between Pakistan and militancy has been proven time and again, India has been shouting about the same since 1990.on the positive side if Washington does wakeup the war on terror could be over in a year.

I think not 'New Member'. Do you understand COIN Operations at all; they take an awful long time to be successful, if at all; so its either the Long Haul or Out.

Tronic
06 Oct 09,, 04:16
Do you understand COIN Operations at all; they take an awful long time to be successful, if at all; so its either the Long Haul or Out.

Chaobam, its either going to be a really really long haul with MUCH more soldiers needed than are present currently in Afghanistan if the war is continued to be fought the way it is, or, cross the Durand line and hit the enemy in their safe havens.

Kernow
06 Oct 09,, 04:26
You forget the silly 'Rules of Engagement'!!!!!

Tronic
06 Oct 09,, 04:38
You forget the silly 'Rules of Engagement'!!!!!

Could you please expand mate?

Kernow
06 Oct 09,, 05:16
Rules of Engagement define when a soldier can legally open fire and kill, or when they can engage with Air Support, or Heavy Artillery, who can and who cannot enter occupied buildings etc. They will be given what part of the 'Rules of Engagement they can use prior to going out on Patrol.

You can no longer go out on patrol and frag up the place.

A Sniper for example will not be able to open up on someone unless it is positively identified as carrying a weapon that is an immediate threat to colition forces.

Political Correctness gone mad.

Did you not know of the 'Rules of Engagement'?

Kernow
06 Oct 09,, 05:21
Here is a new one for you to chew over.

Troops may attack insurgents hiding in Afghan houses if U.S. or NATO forces are in imminent danger.

“But if there is a compound they’re taking fire from and they can remove themselves from the area safely, without any undue danger to the forces, then that’s the option they should take,” “Because in these compounds we know there are often civilians kept captive by the Taliban.”

Makes us look like cowards.

Kernow
06 Oct 09,, 05:32
The NATO-led mission, will not be engaged in search and destroy missions for terrorist leaders as a principle mission.

macherjhol
06 Oct 09,, 05:57
I think not 'New Member'. Do you understand COIN Operations at all; they take an awful long time to be successful, if at all; so its either the Long Haul or Out.

i did not and do not mean COIN operations what i was talking about was the support Washington gives to the Pakistani elite.these very people have the power to continue or to stop the insurgents what they need is to be dealt the stick not more carrots as Washington has been giving them.

S2
06 Oct 09,, 06:20
"...if Washington does wakeup the war on terror could be over in a year."

I think that macherjhol is suggesting what I'm also suggesting- shift the target and fight the war as we best know how.

How long would it take to neuter Pakistan's air force? Can they be prevented from attacking India with nukes in so doing? What happens when their air force and mechanized strike corps have been laid to waste. Will they sober to a new reality?

Will the PRC come to their defense? Russia? Iran? Who?

What has eight years of alliance and aid to them provided to us? A powerful ally committed to this war, much less the defense of their own sovereignty? It hasn't to date. That's certain.

They've only most recently and reluctantly found the determination to defend themselves FROM themselves.

As currently configured, everything about AFPAK is a WASTED enterprise that is so utterly FCUKED to be beyond unraveling back into coherancy.

We lack incisive focus to our objectives. We lack ethical good-faith partners in both Pakistan and Afghanistan's governments. We lack allies prepared to collectively meet our material and personnel commitments and THEN free them to perform at the same levels of violence that govern our increasingly restrictive ROEs.

Perhaps you want your armies to be police forces but I've little interest in seeing our's worry about carefully calibrating violence so as to kill without offending local sensibilities.

There's been a pissing match between our commonwealth friends and ourselves on who's the better COIN experts. The verdict is in- none of us. None.

Nor can we afford the interminable time, resources, and effort interposed to develop the seamless implementation of civil-military affairs that will reflect such in measurable and productive terms.

What we can afford to do is admit abject failure, withdraw from the "graveyard of empires", allow our enemies momentary ascendancy, and- when arrogantly visible, smack the ever-living sh!t out of them in a meaningful manner that will retain an indelible and near-permanent impression where it matters most- in the hearths and homes of our enemies.

Long, then, may we finally revel in facing our enemies in manly combat and reliving these tales of final victory in the campfires of our people. Long, then, may they tell the tales of much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the tribal campfires of their people.

I'm tired of a kinder, gentler war and wish to make the experience so unbearable to my enemies that they never again have the means nor inclination to wage cowardly proxy wars on us from behind the skirts of their women and children.

Fcuk 'em.:mad:

Those words above by that Pakistani are as starkly clear as I need.

Luke Gu
06 Oct 09,, 08:05
Oh,guys I know you Has provided considerable assistance to the Pakistan goverment,but do you do someting for Pakistan people?When your UAVs illegal cross-border killed Pakistani persons,do you still hope get their support?I don't think your assistance have wasted because the goverment still support you。When it comes to Pakistan people,can you tell me why they should support you?

S2
06 Oct 09,, 08:18
"When your UAVs illegal cross-border killed Pakistani persons,do you still hope get their support"

So you believe that it's fine that the Pakistani government harbors the defeated Afghan taliban government on its lands and assists that entity in conducting war upon the U.N., the afghan people, and ISAF/NATO/AMERICA from that sanctuary?

Sovereign rights to govern a land only comes with meeting the sovereign responsibilities associated with that. You cannot have it both ways however much you seem to believe otherwise.

We will defend ourselves.

Be glad it isn't with ARCLIGHT strikes by B-52s along that border region. THAT TOO, is within our rights.

Pakistan, it's government and people, are our enemy.

Parihaka
06 Oct 09,, 08:18
Oh,guys I know you Has provided considerable assistance to the Pakistan goverment,but do you do someting for Pakistan people?When your UAVs illegal cross-border killed Pakistani persons,do you still hope get their support?I don't think your assistance have wasted because the goverment still support you。When it comes to Pakistan people,can you tell me why they should support you?

What about the Pakistan people supporting their neighbors the Afghans? Perhaps deploying 10 or 20 thousand of their troops as part of the ISAF?

Luke Gu
06 Oct 09,, 08:46
What about the Pakistan people supporting their neighbors the Afghans? Perhaps deploying 10 or 20 thousand of their troops as part of the ISAF?
At first I should state the dead persons who I say are Mistakenly bombed by US UAVs ,they're Innocent。And you kill them and hope they still support you。If US UAVs can't Distinguish between the terrorists and innocent people,please don't use it。It just increase Pakistan people‘s enmity to US if the UAVs kill the innocent people。And their lives aren't Worthless。

Parihaka
06 Oct 09,, 08:51
At first I should state the dead persons who I say are Mistakenly bombed by US UAVs ,they're Innocent。And you kill them and hope they still support you。If US UAVs can't Distinguish between the terrorists and innocent people,please don't use it。It just increase Pakistan people‘s enmity to US if the UAVs kill the innocent people。And their lives aren't Worthless。

The UAV's aren't 'illegal'. The Pakistan Govt. is widely acknowledged as providing the intelligence necessary to identify targets.
Nobody is claiming the civilians lives are worthless, and the UAV's reflect that. It would be far easier to simply carpet-bomb the areas concerned.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_PG3ew_iFi3A/SFcwXp75VSI/AAAAAAAABjY/GxxFephQM90/s400/photo1.jpg

Again, why aren't the Pakistanis helping their Afghan neighbors by deploying a small part of their not inconsiderable army in Afghanistan to help control the country?

S2
06 Oct 09,, 08:54
"At first I should state the dead persons who I say are Mistakenly bombed by US UAVs ,they're Innocent"

May I ask how many of these innocents? I've read of such from my Pakistani enemies yet none of them can tell me a number beyond "thousands".:biggrin:

What's most funny, of course, is that none of them know with verifiable certainty. Do you understand why, Luke?

It is because the Pakistani government asserts no authority in these lands. Therefore the only news about "innocents" comes via the ENEMY.

Now, having said that, do you understand how PRECISE HELLFIRE is in its destruction? It is an anti-tank missile designed to hit a POINT target. That means any "innocents" killed are those belonging to, and in the company of, TERRORISTS.

Maybe their children. Maybe the children and wives of the hosts to these terrorists.

When you sleep with dogs, you get fleas.

Luke Gu
06 Oct 09,, 08:55
Pakistan, it's government and people, are our enemy.
Why do you still provided assistance to Pakistan?I think your goverment have treat them separately。If you don't care about Pakistan people,it's their freedom if they support you?If you kill innocent Pakistan people,why do they don't hate you?

S2
06 Oct 09,, 09:02
"Why do you still provided assistance to Pakistan?"

Because my leaders do not yet agree with me that they are our enemy.

"If you don't care about Pakistan people,it's their freedom if they support you?"

I don't care about "Pakistan people" whom don't care about me and our soldiers.

I eagerly await the Pakistani with the moral courage to stand up and denounce their duplicity. I've yet to find one. I've any number of Pakistani "friends" who've quietly voiced their support for me.

When asked to do the same publically, they've turned away claiming they must live with these people and aren't prepared to accept the consequences of such a declaration.

Of course they could declare their support by LEAVING Pakistan in disgust. They don't. Heartrending but we lie in the beds we make.

"If you kill innocent Pakistan people,why do they don't hate you"

Then you agree that if they kill innocent American people why do we not, in turn, HATE them? From where do you think 9/11 was planned? Those pashtu borderlands along the Durand Line, that's where. Killing our men via their proxy efforts has LONG preceded the use of PREDATOR on their lands.

Luke Gu
06 Oct 09,, 09:14
The UAV's aren't 'illegal'. The Pakistan Govt. is widely acknowledged as providing the intelligence necessary to identify targets.
Nobody is claiming the civilians lives are worthless, and the UAV's reflect that. It would be far easier to simply carpet-bomb the areas concerned.

Sorry,your Hyperlink is banned in China。Can you send it to me?

Again, why aren't the Pakistanis helping their Afghan neighbors by deploying a small part of their not inconsiderable army in Afghanistan to help control the country?
Why does her do it?Why do her help you clean up this mess?

n21
06 Oct 09,, 09:17
Oh,guys I know you Has provided considerable assistance to the Pakistan goverment,but do you do someting for Pakistan people?When your UAVs illegal cross-border killed Pakistani persons,do you still hope get their support?I don't think your assistance have wasted because the goverment still support you。When it comes to Pakistan people,can you tell me why they should support you?

Luke,
The best help US can provide the people of Pakistan is threaten that it will carpet bomb PA divisions!

By the way you do know that the drones fly from Pakistani bases?

Parihaka
06 Oct 09,, 09:24
Sorry,your Hyperlink is banned in China。Can you send it to me?It's merely a photograph of mass bombing during Operation Enduring Freedom


Why does her do it?Why do her help you clean up this mess?
Because it is those civilians interests to destroy the Taliban. Do you agree?

Luke Gu
06 Oct 09,, 09:29
Because my leaders do not yet agree with me that they are our enemy.
Maybe when you become US president ,your policy will change。

Then you agree that if they kill innocent American people why do we not, in turn, HATE them? From where do you think 9/11 was planned? Those pashtu borderlands along the Durand Line, that's where. Killing our men via their proxy efforts has LONG preceded the use of PREDATOR on their lands.
Then if you’re talking about Tit for tat,how many Afghans and Pakistanis have dead because of 9/11?You are here to counter-terrorism,not revenge。If you really want to win counter-terrorism war,I think it's necessary to get local people's support。

sunnyarpit123
06 Oct 09,, 10:00
Actually i don't understand why the US Govt. keeps doubling and tripling aid to Pakistan every few months.....

Is the money really being used to fight the terrorists?
Or is it that Pakistan uses "War on terrorism" as an excuse to modernise and beef up it's military..or maybe to fund the ISI terrorist operations in India....

Recent news reports say that the Lashkar-e-Toiba is ready for another attack on India..maybe even in multiple locations simultaneously...
So Pakistan is hardly 'fighting terrorism' and using the aid if such organizations are still active...

I doubt if any of the aid is being used for the good of the people of pakistan..it's just being used to fill up the coffers of the present politicians and for buying weapons..meant for use against India ....

I doubt if anyone from Pakistan can correct me and show with examples that the aid is really being used to fight terrorism ONLY....or if at all for betterment of the common man....

<Yay! my first ACTUAL post :D>

:)

sunnyarpit123
06 Oct 09,, 10:06
About the poor civilians being killed in bombings..it's inevitable..as the terrorists are themselves hidden in the midst of the common crowd..

Many times civilians are used as a cover to hide behind by terrorists..and the civilians naturally comply out of fear..(which normal guy wouldn't? At gunpoint, we can practically be made to agree to anything..)

If efforts are made to evacuate civilians before bombings, the terrorists will be warned and they will remain disguised and go along with the crowd or scamper to another hide-out...

tankie
06 Oct 09,, 10:19
Makes us look like cowards.


Noooooooooo nooooooo nooooo C/A , it makes the arsholes (who arent there ) that make the rules look like cowards ;)

Luke Gu
06 Oct 09,, 10:37
Because it is those civilians interests to destroy the Taliban. Do you agree?
I don't know 。But it seems hate the American soldiers more than Taliban。

By the way you do know that the drones fly from Pakistani bases?
Sorry,the information I usually get is how many people are hurt or dead because of Terrorist attacks or attack terrorist。

Parihaka
06 Oct 09,, 11:03
I don't know 。But it seems hate the American soldiers more than Taliban。Which would be the whole point S-2 was making. Yes?


Sorry,the information I usually get is how many people are hurt or dead because of Terrorist attacks or attack terrorist。
Well now you know that the UAV attacks are legal and undertaken with the approval and assistance of the Pakistan govt.

Tronic
06 Oct 09,, 22:34
Rules of Engagement define when a soldier can legally open fire and kill, or when they can engage with Air Support, or Heavy Artillery, who can and who cannot enter occupied buildings etc. They will be given what part of the 'Rules of Engagement they can use prior to going out on Patrol.

You can no longer go out on patrol and frag up the place.

A Sniper for example will not be able to open up on someone unless it is positively identified as carrying a weapon that is an immediate threat to colition forces.

Political Correctness gone mad.

Did you not know of the 'Rules of Engagement'?

Agree with your point on the rules of engagement, but what I meant was that more soldiers are needed to maintain law and order in Afghanistan, build infrastructure to help centralize the country, and try to iron out the Afghan Police and actually try to make them a less corrupt and a more efficient force. Afghan national units should be spread out all across the country to actually spread influence, unlike now where the Taliban can easily walk into and occupy villages. Also, I wonder if a lot of Afghan villages even have Police stations or at least a police outpost?

Kernow
06 Oct 09,, 22:53
It is not a soldiers job to maintain Law and Order, thats the job of the Police.

diplomaticview
06 Oct 09,, 23:41
Some reasons

Drones attacks rose hate for Americans because drone planning didn't prove perfections and many time simple people come under attacks.

Further more why Pakistanis hated Americans because they understand and experienced that in every difficult & crucial situation America left Pakistan alone in past and in Indo-Pak relations America always showed her interest with India. 1965 Indo-Pak war changed Pakistani politics and force him to change his trustable friend i mean till 1965 Pakistani government showed interest in Pro American block but in this war when America help India more than Pakistan than Pakistan came towards China.

Further more America put military & economical sanctions on Pakistan because of its atomic program (1998) but India was free from all these sanctions in 1974 (no sanctions) unless she had also atomic program, India Pakistan both made atomic experiments but why sanctions must bear Pakistan more than India?
May 18, 1974: India Tests First Nuclear Device
(Kissinger: 'Fait Accompli' - Pakistan, India’s regional opponent, is extremely unhappy with the test, which apparently confirms India’s military superiority. Due to the obvious difficulties producing its own nuclear bomb, Pakistan first tries to find a diplomatic solution. It asks the US to provide it with a nuclear umbrella, without much hope of success. Relations between Pakistan and the US, once extremely close, have been worsening for some years. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger tells Pakistan’s ambassador to Washington that the test is “a fait accompli and that Pakistan would have to learn to live with it,” although he is aware this is a “little rough” on the Pakistanis.
No Punishment - No sanctions are imposed on India, or the countries that sold the technology to it, and they continue to help India’s nuclear program. Pakistani foreign minister Agha Shahi will later say that, if Kissinger had replied otherwise, Pakistan would have not started its own nuclear weapons program and that “you would never have heard of A. Q. Khan.” Shahi also points out to his colleagues that if Pakistan does build a bomb, then it will probably not suffer any sanctions either.)

Pakistan ever tried to stand parallel and wanted from world to behave equally with India & Pakistan but this didn't happened.

In Economics and trade America didn't give Pakistan access to her markets and particular quota in Textile sector unless America counted Pakistan as trustable friend but no opportunity to develop.

Recently Pakistani politicians and people hardly criticised Kerry-Lugar bill as America want to control Pakistan's civil & military independence so scene is quite not difficult to understand.

These all facts forced Pakistani people to sure themselves that America is not a friend but enemy.

History not so sweet but it is fact.

Pakistani government ever showed its interest to America but people didn't like friendship with America and they have some reasons for it. ;)

Tronic
07 Oct 09,, 04:03
It is not a soldiers job to maintain Law and Order, thats the job of the Police.

Agreed, but until the Police are efficient enough to do it, someone has to do it.

Kernow
07 Oct 09,, 04:09
Not soldiers though, they have a far different skill set than Police, like Police can't do what soldiers do. That is why the British have 'Mentoring Teams' out in the Stan.

Tronic
07 Oct 09,, 04:39
Some reasons

Drones attacks rose hate for Americans because drone planning didn't prove perfections and many time simple people come under attacks.

Further more why Pakistanis hated Americans because they understand and experienced that in every difficult & crucial situation America left Pakistan alone in past and in Indo-Pak relations America always showed her interest with India. 1965 Indo-Pak war changed Pakistani politics and force him to change his trustable friend i mean till 1965 Pakistani government showed interest in Pro American block but in this war when America help India more than Pakistan than Pakistan came towards China.

Pakistan was part of CENTO long after the 1965 war. The Americans funneled weapons to the Pakistanis through Turkey in the '71 war, turned a blind eye to Pakistani army atrocities in Bangladesh, and even sent the US Kitty Hawk to deter India from attacking Pakistan. Add to that decades of military aid provided by America to the Pakistanis, and for the past few years, even poured billions of dollars into that country. It is not they who turned out to be a bad ally.

And America helped India? :eek: You do realize they were your allies at the time, and were the one reason why India went from a neutral stance to a pro-Soviet stance, right?


Further more America put military & economical sanctions on Pakistan because of its atomic program (1998) but India was free from all these sanctions in 1974 (no sanctions) unless she had also atomic program, India Pakistan both made atomic experiments but why sanctions must bear Pakistan more than India?

Go re-educate yourself mate. :rolleyes: India has faced US sanctions since 1974. The 1998 sanctions were peanuts compared to the technology denial sanctions which US has had against India since the 70s. Even after the 1998 sanctions were waived for both India and Pakistan, India's sanctions from '74 were not. Though, those sanctions are probably one of the reasons why India has had so much focus in building a home grown defense industry.


Pakistan ever tried to stand parallel and wanted from world to behave equally with India & Pakistan but this didn't happened.

And that's because India and Pakistan are not equal from any angle.


In Economics and trade America didn't give Pakistan access to her markets and particular quota in Textile sector unless America counted Pakistan as trustable friend but no opportunity to develop.

Recently Pakistani politicians and people hardly criticised Kerry-Lugar bill as America want to control Pakistan's civil & military independence so scene is quite not difficult to understand.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. You should be happy that for so many years your country got the aid without taking on any accountability.


These all facts forced Pakistani people to sure themselves that America is not a friend but enemy.

History not so sweet but it is fact.

Pakistani government ever showed its interest to America but people didn't like friendship with America and they have some reasons for it. ;)

Too bad those "facts" are a delusion.

Tronic
07 Oct 09,, 04:42
Not soldiers though, they have a far different skill set than Police, like Police can't do what soldiers do. That is why the British have 'Mentoring Teams' out in the Stan.

Hmmm.. Maybe have those Police outposts set-up, if not for anything else than to monitor their area or designated village for Talibunnies, so when they do pop up, the troops can be called in to sanitize the area. Or..... Afghani SWAT anyone? :P

Kernow
07 Oct 09,, 04:46
That is what the Brits do, we make safe a village, meet with village elders. Call in the Royal Engineers, who build Out Posts, F.O.B.s' and Police Stations. We the build schools, Medical Centres, and dig wells.

Tronic
07 Oct 09,, 05:24
That is what the Brits do, we make safe a village, meet with village elders. Call in the Royal Engineers, who build Out Posts, F.O.B.s' and Police Stations. We the build schools, Medical Centres, and dig wells.

I reckon its the way to go. I'm sure with time, the results of the good work done by your boys will eventually start to be seen.

(Though I still believe a surge in troop levels is still needed, even if just to be at more places at once.)

n21
07 Oct 09,, 09:52
May 18, 1974: India Tests First Nuclear Device
No Punishment - No sanctions are imposed on India, or the countries that sold the technology to it, and they continue to help India’s nuclear program. Pakistani foreign minister Agha Shahi will later say that, if Kissinger had replied otherwise, Pakistan would have not started its own nuclear weapons program and that “you would never have heard of A. Q. Khan.” Shahi also points out to his colleagues that if Pakistan does build a bomb, then it will probably not suffer any sanctions either.)



This is pure BS. Pakistan's quest for nukes started in 64 itself, when China denoted it's first device. Their understanding was India will get it's nuke in no time and Pakistan needs to get going.

Most probably the 65 war was their "last chance to grab Kashmir before nukes" operation.

The justification of Pakistan's nukes were in response to 74 test is pure hogwash.

And as far as sanctions for India in 74 is concerned, was there such a law in 74 for sanctions? The regime of NPT came in existence after the Indian test.

So how can there be sanctions when the law came afterwards?

The justification of A.Q Khan's deeds is that India obtained nukes.There are 7 other nations who have nukes, how many have A.Q. Khan examples?

Tronic
07 Oct 09,, 15:11
And as far as sanctions for India in 74 is concerned, was there such a law in 74 for sanctions? The regime of NPT came in existence after the Indian test.

So how can there be sanctions when the law came afterwards?

NPT came into existance before India's '74 tests. Also, India has faced US sanctions since the 1974 tests till today! Why do you think the Indo-US nuke treaty was such a big deal? Because the Americans for the first time decided to side-step those technology denial sanctions against India in nuclear technology. India has also been repeatedly denied access to space or even computer technologies since the 70s.

Michael C
07 Oct 09,, 23:48
[B]
I'm tired of a kinder, gentler war and wish to make the experience so unbearable to my enemies that they never again have the means nor inclination to wage cowardly proxy wars on us from behind the skirts of their women and children.


Before I begin, I have been there and done that and my blog has my history if anyone wants to challenge my credentials (which should be irrelevant but many people demand it).

The "experience" you wish to inflict upon your enemies S-2 has been done all over Africa since the end of the Cold War. Countries like Sierra Leone, Liberia and Darfur, now they are your idols. They cut that hands off of people who oppose them, they rape women and they would laugh at you if you told them what ROE was. So, when you advocate your Clausewitzian/scorched earth policies why don't you advocate the methods at the same time? I assume you don't want ground troops in Pakistan, so are we talking about carpet bombing population centers until they quit? And who do you want to quit and what government do you want instead? Should we use tactical nuclear weapons to obliterate cities? You made this point S-2, and I assume you are a moral person being in the US Military, so tell me, what policies do you advocate?

As to Choabam Armor and you dismissal of the new ROE. I am a huge fan of the changes. I don't know when you were in Afghanistan, but I was there in 2008. The ROE at the time did not protect US soldiers and was making the situation worse. We know this because the ROE hadn't changed and the situation has deteriorated ever since.

It isn't cowardly to avoid a fight. Military tacticians who must win every fight haven't read Sun Tzu and therefore don't realize it isn't how you win the fight but what fights you choose to engage. Choosing to ignore petty, insignificant Taliban attacks is smart policy, because it avoids civilian casualties.

S2
08 Oct 09,, 00:53
"Countries like Sierra Leone, Liberia and Darfur, now they are your idols."

Careful, hotshot, that you don't try planting words in my mouth. If my idols, you'd better make the case damned fast where I've advocated the following-

"They cut that hands off of people who oppose them, they rape women and they would laugh at you if you told them what ROE was."

So regardless of your "experience" of having "been there, done that" I'm unimpressed with your cognitive and interpretive skills.

Our nation is having WAR made upon it from sanctuary within Pakistan and with the TERRIBLY likely probability that many elements within their security/intelligence establishments in full support.

Perhaps you've rationalized this in some convoluted calculus within. Fine but I don't care to do so when I recognize the patently obvious duplicity arising from such.

There are interviews with any number of other troops who've "been there and done that", to include Jeffrey Schloesser making patently clear their awareness of such and resentment.

I have two problems- 1.) Pakistan and, 2.) reconciling a population protection strategy against the harsh demographic realities of Afghanistan. The problems presented by the former seem clear. As to the latter, I'm unconvinced that the depth of requirement to protect this Afghan civilian population is fully understood.

Will you protect the afghan populace from their own government and police? CAN you provide the coverage to secure the nation? Already we see the tradeoffs explicitly with talk of abandoning Nuristan and Konar to save...

...what exactly?

Kabul- 2.6mil. The next three (Herat, Kandahar, and Mazur-I-Sharif) just over a million. It goes down from there for the other 25m people.

"So, when you advocate your Clausewitzian/scorched earth policies why don't you advocate the methods at the same time?"

Better find scorched earth somewhere in my commentary REAL FAST because you distort to highlight some moral ascendancy on your part to which I'd encourage you politely to FCUK OFF.

"I assume you don't want ground troops in Pakistan..."

Right now I'm having problems with your "assumptions". So far they're making an azz only of you. How do you know that I DON'T wish our ground forces to raid the border tracts of Bajaur, Islamic Emirate of Waziristan, or Baluchistan? Has not the Pakistani gov't ceded sovereign control over much of this space?

They clearly have lest there'd be no talk of a "Quetta Shura" much less the mental gymnastics so commonly practiced by the Pakistani people to separate the "good" taliban from the "bad" taliban.

Piss off until you can show some semblance of control to your distortion-laden diatribe. At that point- if you manage such- I'll be happy to amplify on what I think is feasible and appropriate for our government without violating my moral code nor those long-accepted within combat.

"Should we use tactical nuclear weapons to obliterate cities?"

Most strategic warfare experts would suggest you ramp-up to strategic-sized weapons to do such. Karachi, Lahore, and Islamabad are large. I'd think you'd know that.

Thanks...

Meanwhile I'd appreciate a link to your sage and wizened blog commentary so I can ascertain for myself a bit more about you. I don't find it in your personal data but you'd best prove to be one hell of a wise soul to merit the self-righteous bullsh!t that you've so far chosen to sling.

S2
08 Oct 09,, 02:08
I've found your blog, Mr. M.I. Soldier-pacifist.

Kernow
08 Oct 09,, 02:09
Before I begin, I have been there and done that and my blog has my history if anyone wants to challenge my credentials (which should be irrelevant but many people demand it).

The "experience" you wish to inflict upon your enemies S-2 has been done all over Africa since the end of the Cold War. Countries like Sierra Leone, Liberia and Darfur, now they are your idols. They cut that hands off of people who oppose them, they rape women and they would laugh at you if you told them what ROE was. So, when you advocate your Clausewitzian/scorched earth policies why don't you advocate the methods at the same time? I assume you don't want ground troops in Pakistan, so are we talking about carpet bombing population centers until they quit? And who do you want to quit and what government do you want instead? Should we use tactical nuclear weapons to obliterate cities? You made this point S-2, and I assume you are a moral person being in the US Military, so tell me, what policies do you advocate?

As to Choabam Armor and you dismissal of the new ROE. I am a huge fan of the changes. I don't know when you were in Afghanistan, but I was there in 2008. The ROE at the time did not protect US soldiers and was making the situation worse. We know this because the ROE hadn't changed and the situation has deteriorated ever since.

It isn't cowardly to avoid a fight. Military tacticians who must win every fight haven't read Sun Tzu and therefore don't realize it isn't how you win the fight but what fights you choose to engage. Choosing to ignore petty, insignificant Taliban attacks is smart policy, because it avoids civilian casualties.

I didn't dismiss the R.O.E., just commenting on them as to the fact they tie your hands behind your back. It should be up to the local commander on the ground i.e. Section/Platoon Commander who makes decision to Engage or not.

"The NATO-led mission, will not be engaged in search and destroy missions for terrorist leaders as a principle mission".:eek:

If you can't engage in search and destroy, why bother being there at all? The latest successful British Missions were Search and Destroy. We all have different 'Rules of Engagement.

If you like them and feel comfortable with them, then fine. BANG, BANG. "Runawaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay".:biggrin:

S2
08 Oct 09,, 03:27
Our friend, Michael C., evidently is a company-grade M.I. officer that was attached to an Airborne infantry battalion along the Nangahar/Konar reaches of the inter-border area.

He's seen some stuff and I'd imagine it's recent judging by his blog. There's value in his thoughts. He's welcome to toss mine under the bus. He's not welcome to mis-represent them for his own purposes.

I'll look forward to his comments so long as he appreciates that we learn from many who've "been there and done that", some of whom may not agree with him.

Should be fun and informative.

We'll see.

Kernow
08 Oct 09,, 03:42
Pacifist huh, no wond3er he is popping up all over the place with his 'Bleeding Heart'.

S2
08 Oct 09,, 03:59
"Pacifist huh..."

Yup.

His words (on his blog), not mine.

Michael C
08 Oct 09,, 04:05
S-2,

I am not a pacifist, merely a supporter of population-centric COIN. To clear up any misunderstanding, these were your words:

"I'm tired of a kinder, gentler war and wish to make the experience so unbearable to my enemies that they never again have the means nor inclination to wage cowardly proxy wars on us from behind the skirts of their women and children."

How do you make war so unbearable to your enemies? What tactics make war unbearable?

I apologize if I implied you advocated the tactics of dictators like those from Sierra Leone or Darfur. I also apologize for saying you advocate scorched earth policy. I made the leap that to make war unbearable it has to be a scorched earth policy. If there are other ways I am more then welcome to hear them. Basically, how do we discourage the pashtun tribes based in Pakistan from "wag[ing] cowardly proxy wars on us from behind the skirts of their women and children"?

Again, I apologize for my tone. I get very upset when people argue against McChrystal's approach in Afghanistan and I may have attributed some arguments you did not say. Nevertheless, I am incredibly interested to hear how you propose to "make war unbearable" on our "enemie" within Pakistan.

Michael C
08 Oct 09,, 04:07
My blog is written by two people. My co-blogger is a pacifist. I am not, I was an Infantry officer and am now MI. Our dialogue benefits from having two distinct viewpoints, the pacifist and the soldier.

Kernow
08 Oct 09,, 04:13
My blog is written by two people. My co-blogger is a pacifist. I am not, I was an Infantry officer and am now MI. Our dialogue benefits from having two distinct viewpoints, the pacifist and the soldier.

Very clever way of getting two sides of a story.

Michael C
08 Oct 09,, 04:21
Chaobam,

I just hate the characterization that avoiding a fight is "running away." Isn't Napoleon a famed general because he did just that on the continent for many years? He would outmaneuver his enemy then strike when he was ready. Didn't Robert E. Lee do the same thing in and around the Potomac and much of his downfall were the few battles he was forced into fighting? Going even further, didn't many of the famous generals of Rome purposely avoid fights they were going to lose? It is hard to say they "ran away" because they avoided a fight they would lose or would have no concrete gains.

In a counter-insurgency, killing civilians or failing to kill the enemy is akin to losing, in my opinion.

Also, to be clear, I will not argue against the fact that the British "get" small wars better than the Americans. I think we can learn plenty from British tactics and institutional knowledge on small wars. If they can enable small unit leaders to properly use the ROE, then good for them. America, frankly, cannot.

Kernow
08 Oct 09,, 04:33
Chaobam,

I just hate the characterization that avoiding a fight is "running away." Isn't Napoleon a famed general because he did just that on the continent for many years? He would outmaneuver his enemy then strike when he was ready. Didn't Robert E. Lee do the same thing in and around the Potomac and much of his downfall were the few battles he was forced into fighting? Going even further, didn't many of the famous generals of Rome purposely avoid fights they were going to lose? It is hard to say they "ran away" because they avoided a fight they would lose or would have no concrete gains.

In a counter-insurgency, killing civilians or failing to kill the enemy is akin to losing, in my opinion.

Also, to be clear, I will not argue against the fact that the British "get" small wars better than the Americans. I think we can learn plenty from British tactics and institutional knowledge on small wars. If they can enable small unit leaders to properly use the ROE, then good for them. America, frankly, cannot.

I agree with you totally. We as a coalition should all have the same R.O.E. be properly trained as to there interpretation; Practice, Practice, Practice, all different kinds of Scenarios until we get it right. In the British Army the lowest Ranks are able to make Command Decisions i.e. A Corporal commanding a Section can make decisions as to what his Section does if ambushed etc. If you are Lead Section in a Platoon Operation and you come into contact, you are basically leading the fight until you get the 'Contact Report Out' to the Platoon Commander be he Lt. or Sgt. All Junior NCOs' are taught how to bring in 'Fire Missions', 'Air Strikes' etc.

If the Corporal feels that the fight is to much he will withdraw, regroup, re-assess the situation along with other Commanders, who in turn will be in contact with Company HQ etc. I am surprised that the US can't use the R.O.E.

We first had them in Northern Ireland where they worked very well, bit clumsy at first, but they worked. They came about because the press were putting out that we had a 'Shoot-to-Kill' Policy. The 'Yellow Card' it was called. "Halt British Army, or I will Fire". We had to shout this 3 times, before opening up, that has been put basically mind. But you know doubt get my drift.

Kernow
08 Oct 09,, 04:35
Also the Subalterns normally rely on their SNCOs' to direct them. A 2Lt may have only been in a year and fresh out of Sandhurst. Sqn Leaders and COs' encourage them to seek advice from a Sgt of say 9 - 12 Years experience, worked well with my boys.

Michael C
08 Oct 09,, 04:42
Would you also agree that, if a soldier is not in harms way, then he should avoid the fight if possible? I think, even though many NCOs and SGTs understand how to call for fire and the ROE, they may not understand that tactically and operationally using firepower is not always the best response. Particularly in Afghanistan, you often can't properly ID or even see the enemy. Thus, that NCO calling for fire on a incorrect target may be doing more harm than good.

I guess, the ROE is so stringent because what works in a "regular" war doesn't work in a counter-insurgency, and many junior NCOs, even with 9-12 years in may not understand that.

So its not running away, its choosing not to fight the enemy when he engages you in a position to his advantage IF you have the option to avoid the fight. If you do not, by all means you must defend yourself.

Kernow
08 Oct 09,, 04:49
Normally when an Enemy Engages you they are suing it as a feint (I believe thats the correct word), to draw you into the 'Killing Zone', i.e. I.E.D.s and enfalade fire etc. NCOs' know all of this type of stuff. As I said you make a decision be it withdraw or outflank them. Either way you are not running away, just thinking on your feet.

Kernow
08 Oct 09,, 05:09
The R.O.E. deal with four issues:

1. When military force may be used.
2. Where military force may be used.
3. Against whom force should be used in the circumstances described above.
4. How military force should be used to achieve the desired ends.

The R.O.E. take two forms:
1. Actions a military commander may take without consulting a higher authority, unless
explicitly forbidden.
2. Actions that may only be taken if explicitly ordered by a higher authority (sometimes
called 'positive command'). Also, in the event that there is a clear and present
danger.

In addition to a typically large set of standing orders, military personnel will be given additional rules of engagement before performing any mission or military operation. These can cover circumstances such as how to retaliate after an attack, how to treat captured targets, which territories the soldier is bound to fight into, and how the force should be used during the operation.

The first rule of engagement for British Armed Forces is always the right to use force in self-defence.

1980s
08 Oct 09,, 22:09
What about the Pakistan people supporting their neighbors the Afghans? Perhaps deploying 10 or 20 thousand of their troops as part of the ISAF?

I think there are two reasons why that would never happen, only one of which is important to the Pakistanis. (1) Because the Taliban is a Pakistani proxy without a doubt, and this war is more-so Pakistan's war on Afghanistan, not so much Afghanistan's war for 'liberation' or any such concept. I think its beyond clear, that Pakistan's military will never willingly abandon the Taliban, much-less aid in their elimination. So it falls only to the Americans and their allies to do this. In virtually every report or documentary i have seen on Afghanistan over the past several years, ordinary Afghans actually want ISAF and US forces to remain in their country and provide security there for the foreseeable future. This includes people from the Pashtun south. They dont want the US to leave, contrary to what the government's/regimes in Pakistan, China, Iran and others might want. (2) I imagine the ordinary Afghan would take strong exception to a Pakistani military presence in their country, not that the Pakistanis would care about that. Afghans hate them tho, that i think isnt too difficult to ascertain. I am reminded of a documentary a couple of years ago where an injured Taliban was caught by British soldiers. On hearing that a Taliban had been captured, the Afghan contingent with them was eager to get access to him to "talk". On finding out that the captured Taliban was actually a Pakistani and a "Punjabi" they were then more eager for the British to simply let them, "shoot him". The British denied them of both.

I agree with S-2 in many of his comments in this topic. I have also been of the view that the Pakistani state only exists on its border with Afghanistan and Iran on paper. In reality, the Pakistani state does not exist there. In the absence of any recognisable or legitimate authority representing the Pakistani state in these places, it is not surprising that the power-vacuum has been filled by extremists and/or, criminals. Drone strikes in Waziristan can hardly be said to "violate the sovereignty" of Pakistan when the Pakistani state does not exercise any tangible sovereignty over Waziristan in the first-place. Waziristan is Pakistan only on maps and on paper. That is largely true also of Pakistan's border with southern Afghanistan and Iran.

The reaction of the Pakistani military today towards the conditions imposed on American financial aid to Pakistan is more than revealing about their commitment to their alliance with the US. For a basket-case of a country dependant on foreign bailouts and aid donors, i found the reaction quite amusing. No doubt in the end, tho, they will of course, take the money, and hope to run off with it like a thief in the night. For the American's sake, i just hope that Obama wont be another fool robbed blind by his non-committal "ally", Pakistan. Take the Americans' money, and ignore the stipulations that came with it. Bush should've been more popular in Pakistan than Bin Laden, at least, among the "elite". But then i guess that is one area of the 'duplicity' S-2 was talking about earlier.

I for one, hope Obama will side with the COIN strategy and decisively end Pakistan's proxies and interference in Afghanistan once and for all. On the grander scale of things, they repulse me even more than the illegitimate regime in Iran. And that says a alot.

Parihaka
08 Oct 09,, 22:48
I think there are two reasons why that would never happen, only one of which is important to the Pakistanis. (1) Because the Taliban is a Pakistani proxy without a doubt, and this war is more-so Pakistan's war on Afghanistan, not so much Afghanistan's war for 'liberation' or any such concept. I think its beyond clear, that Pakistan's military will never willingly abandon the Taliban, much-less aid in their elimination. So it falls only to the Americans and their allies to do this. In virtually every report or documentary i have seen on Afghanistan over the past several years, ordinary Afghans actually want ISAF and US forces to remain in their country and provide security there for the foreseeable future. This includes people from the Pashtun south. They dont want the US to leave, contrary to what the government's/regimes in Pakistan, China, Iran and others might want. (2) I imagine the ordinary Afghan would take strong exception to a Pakistani military presence in their country, not that the Pakistanis would care about that. Afghans hate them tho, that i think isnt too difficult to ascertain. I am reminded of a documentary a couple of years ago where an injured Taliban was caught by British soldiers. On hearing that a Taliban had been captured, the Afghan contingent with them was eager to get access to him to "talk". On finding out that the captured Taliban was actually a Pakistani and a "Punjabi" they were then more eager for the British to simply let them, "shoot him". The British denied them of both.

I agree with S-2 in many of his comments in this topic. I have also been of the view that the Pakistani state only exists on its border with Afghanistan and Iran on paper. In reality, the Pakistani state does not exist there. In the absence of any recognisable or legitimate authority representing the Pakistani state in these places, it is not surprising that the power-vacuum has been filled by extremists and/or, criminals. Drone strikes in Waziristan can hardly be said to "violate the sovereignty" of Pakistan when the Pakistani state does not exercise any tangible sovereignty over Waziristan in the first-place. Waziristan is Pakistan only on maps and on paper. That is largely true also of Pakistan's border with southern Afghanistan and Iran.

The reaction of the Pakistani military today towards the conditions imposed on American financial aid to Pakistan is more than revealing about their commitment to their alliance with the US. For a basket-case of a country dependant on foreign bailouts and aid donors, i found the reaction quite amusing. No doubt in the end, tho, they will of course, take the money, and hope to run off with it like a thief in the night. For the American's sake, i just hope that Obama wont be another fool robbed blind by his non-committal "ally", Pakistan. Take the Americans' money, and ignore the stipulations that came with it. Bush should've been more popular in Pakistan than Bin Laden, at least, among the "elite". But then i guess that is one area of the 'duplicity' S-2 was talking about earlier.

I for one, hope Obama will side with the COIN strategy and decisively end Pakistan's proxies and interference in Afghanistan once and for all. On the grander scale of things, they repulse me even more than the illegitimate regime in Iran. And that says a alot.

Well said.

S2
09 Oct 09,, 00:02
This is the latest ABC/BBC/ARD poll annually conducted in Afghanistan and dates from February, 2009-

ABC/BBC/ARD Afghan Poll 2009 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/05_02_09afghan_poll_2009.pdf)

The data supports your contention about afghan preferences. Particularly revealing is the data behind question #18-

"Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the presence of the following groups in Afghanistan today?"

The results? Despite the HUGE erosion of support for American forces, this poll reveals that 63% of afghans either strongly or somewhat support American troops. That's down from 78% in 2006.

NATO/ISAF? 59% strongly or somewhat support their efforts, also down from 78% in 2006.

Irhabi foreign fighters? 11% strongly or somewhat support their war on Afghanistan. That's the same as 2006 and down 3% from 2007.

The taliban? 8% strongly or somewhat support the taliban. That's DOUBLED since 2006. Doubling their support in this time and yet they still lag behind FOREIGN irhabi fcuks.

Combined, 19% strongly or somewhat support foreign irhabis and the taliban. Their support has moved upward FAR more modestly than our support has eroded. Despite all of our mistakes and the insidiously corrosive influence of being the visible patrons of the corrupt Karzai regime our support far exceeds, still, that garnered by the enemy in any form.

Eventually that will change for the worse if matters continue along this trajectory. But "eventually", equally, appears to be well down the road.

In short, I view this data as reflecting disgust in our abysmal efforts to protect and support the afghan populace whom find NO COMFORT in the alternative.

Clearly, they understand too well what the taliban are all about even if they're still unclear exactly what it is that WE'RE about.

We don't help them one bit by our alignment with the bankrobbers, dopelords, warlords, and sleeze merchants that make up the nat'l gov't. Heaven help the good men and women of the afghan gov't whom ARE honest. Anybody who's seen the Untouchables T.V. series with Robert Stack or the movie understands how it works. Same with SERPICO. One good surrounded by 20 bad means you're a dead man unless you get dirty real fast yourself.

I hate the thought that we may have to abandon these people- the citizens and the few good leaders/administrators they have but right now we're standing on a kitchen floor layered in cooking oil and everytime we step, we slip and fall.

Parihaka
09 Oct 09,, 00:34
And as if by magic


Barack Obama: Taleban can be involved in Afghanistan future (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6866894.ece)

President Obama is prepared to accept some Taleban involvement in Afghanistan’s political future and is unlikely to favour a large influx of new American troops being demanded by his ground commander, a senior official said last night.

Mr Obama appears to have been swayed in recent days by arguments from some advisers, led by Vice-President Joe Biden, that the Taleban do not pose a direct threat to the US and that there should be greater focus on tackling al-Qaeda inside Pakistan.

Mr Obama’s developing strategy on the Taleban will “not tolerate their return to power”, the senior official said. However, the US would only fight to keep the Taleban from retaking control of the central government — something the official said it is now far from capable of — and from giving renewed sanctuary to al-Qaeda.

Bowing to the reality that the fundamentalist movement is too ingrained in national culture, the Administration is prepared, as it has been for some time, to accept some Taleban role in parts of Afghanistan, the official said.

That could mean paving the way for insurgents willing to renounce violence to participate in a central government, and even ceding some regions of the country to the Taleban.

Mr Obama, the official said, is now inclined to send only as many more troops to Afghanistan as are needed to keep al-Qaeda at bay. Downing Street said that the US President had discussed Afghanistan with Gordon Brown yesterday during a 40-minute video conference call.

Sending far fewer troops than the 40,000 being demanded by General Stanley McChrystal would mean that Mr Obama is willing to ignore the wishes of his ground commander.

General McChrystal, along with the US military’s other top officials, insist that only a classic, well-resourced counter-insurgency strategy has a chance of staving off defeat in Afghanistan. Losing the war, they further argue, would provide al-Qaeda with new safe havens from which to mount attacks on the US and elsewhere.

After two days of meetings in the White House Situation Room with his war Cabinet, Mr Obama, according to the official, kept returning to one central question: who is our adversary?

The answer was, repeatedly, al-Qaeda, with advisers arguing that the terror network was distinct from the Taleban and that the US military was fighting the Taleban even though it posed no direct threat to America.

In a sign of how politically astute the insurgents have become in deciphering the debate raging inside the White House, the Taleban issued a statement on their website yesterday declaring that they had “no agenda to harm other countries”.

Mr Obama appears to be thinking that the primary aim of US forces in Afghanistan is to deny al-Qaeda any ability to regroup there — as it did before the 9/11 attacks. Such a mission would require only a small increase in the forces deployed in Afghanistan and a bigger focus on killing al-Qaeda operatives in Pakistan. Such an approach will be resisted fiercely by General McChrystal and most Republicans.

Two other factors have played a significant role in the debate. Mr Obama is concerned that the discredited Government of President Karzai could doom a counter-insurgency strategy to failure. The second is how encouraged the Administration has become over the Pakistani Government’s willingness to take the battle to extremists inside its own borders.

Of course the Taliban has “no agenda to harm other countries”. SWAT, Waziristan, the NWFP, Kashmir, suicide bombing in Islamibad and against Indian assets, attacks in Iran against the border police and their hosting of AQ are all figments of our febrile imaginations

S2
09 Oct 09,, 00:52
"Of course the Taliban has “no agenda to harm other countries”. SWAT, Waziristan, the NWFP, Kashmir, suicide bombing in Islamibad and against Indian assets, attacks in Iran against the border police and their hosting of AQ are all figments of our febrile imaginations..."

"See no, speak no, hear no..."

BTW, that describes an ostrich with head buried in sand.

Tronic
09 Oct 09,, 03:02
There was a time when merely suggesting a strategy here for Afghanistan after NATO/ISAF left was met with bitterness. We saw it coming the moment exit plans for Afghanistan started to be chalked up, and now with Obama around, I think it is idiotic if countries like India and Iran don't already start planning something to keep the Taliban out of Afghanistan once the Americans leave. Now, as previously stated before aswell, we truly wish ISAF and Nato to be victors in Afghanistan, but I think it is more than sensible to start chalking up back-up options.

Cactus
09 Oct 09,, 03:23
... now with Obama around, I think it is idiotic if countries like India and Iran don't already start planning something to keep the Taliban out of Afghanistan once the Americans leave.
You are planning for the wrong eventuality: Expect a small combined arms American force plus a few core allies in the region for a long time to come. Probably something along the lines of the Piffers - a few highly-trained, career-military officers and men running a bunch of battalions/squadrons/batteries brigaded with select ANA formations and supported by USAF.

Vinod2070
09 Oct 09,, 04:21
I think it is fair to say that almost all Pakistanis (including the ones settled in USA) of all shades of political opinion hate the USA and are happy when its soldiers die.

They don't mind the moolah coming in though, just the conditions that seems to them "humiliating".

A very strange and prickly sense of honor, one that does not get offended with the worst terrorists coming out from their midst, the worst corruption, the worst acts in the name of Islam but one that is so prickly that it gets easily offended when the reality is even talked of.

So many are far more offended by the appearances (or being equated to their fellow Muslim country Afghanistan in Af-Pak), so few even care about the negative image the Mumbai terrorists created for Pakistan and Islam. All they gloat about is that India can't attack them even if more such attacks happen because of their nuclear blackmail.

Yes, USA is being shortsighted, extremely shortsighted in not recognizing an enemy when it sees one. You would do the right thing I am sure, after trying everything else! ;)

Tronic
09 Oct 09,, 04:26
You are planning for the wrong eventuality: Expect a small combined arms American force plus a few core allies in the region for a long time to come. Probably something along the lines of the Piffers - a few highly-trained, career-military officers and men running a bunch of battalions/squadrons/batteries brigaded with select ANA formations and supported by USAF.

Cactus, the issue is will the ANA reach the professionalism or even the efficiency needed before the pull out? I'm not too aware of the ANA to be honest but how good really is their training, commanders and their chain of command? How well have they operated against the Taliban? The Taliban are a battle hardened army, the ANA is an infant, and I just don't think that they can take over the fight with the same efficiency so soon.

Tronic
09 Oct 09,, 04:45
I think it is fair to say that almost all Pakistanis (including the ones settled in USA) of all shades of political opinion hate the USA and are happy when its soldiers die.

Thats a big generalization mate. I do have many Pakistani friends in Canada who really couldn't care less. My girlfriend, whose family is from Pakistan, generally agrees and supports American troops in Afghanistan (But then again, she knows sh*t all about the region and I wouldn't exactly term her view as "Pakistani").

S2
09 Oct 09,, 07:54
"I get very upset when people argue against McChrystal's approach in Afghanistan..."

Let's start there. You directed your anger at me. I DO question the efficacy of his approach. Not from the philosophical perspective but, instead, my concerns center upon the functional implementation of such.

Much depends on the composition of those additional troops. I don't know such and our deployment officers won't be forewarning me neither.

But to your anger I ask this question-have you e-mailed the White House with your same disappointment? If not, why, as it is among the nat'l security staff of POTUS (for reasons that I ALSO object) that McChrystal's assessment is being questioned?

Wrong target. Their reasons differ from mine and they can DO something about their vision. I can't implement my perspective nor can I stop them from implementing theirs.

Let's now discuss Pakistan a bit. Explain to me what they've contributed to our efforts, if you don't mind? Have they conducted a rigorous COIN-based campaign in their lawless tracts? No. Not even now. One modest, continuing (and heading nowhere) campaign in Bajaur. Those citizens, btw, remain largely unsettled 12+ months after initiation. Not so those from SWAT or Buner. Says it all about what matters and what really doesn't in their demographics calculus. FATA is on the outside looking in by intent and has long been that way. Note the date of the operation. It coincides closely with Kiyani's carrier visit a year ago August. Remember?

All else has been within Pakistan proper and only after, in April, it appeared they were prepared to cede BUNER along with SWAT (from which their army had withdrawn from two abortive operations already).

We pay re-imbursement monies to the world's seventh largest army. For what, may I ask? They don't fight our enemies. They don't refuel our aircraft. They don't augment our supplies with there's. So, in effect, we pay them to defend themselves from themselves. Can we assume that in the absence of such re-imbursement they'd not lift a finger in their own defense?

An unusual concept, it seems. Most nations expect to budget and pay for their own defense. It sits rather high on the agendas of most nation-states and it's an odd notion which suggests that defending one's sovereignty is incumbent upon the level of aid and re-imbursement received from others.

While we aided Great Britain in W.W.II, there seems little doubt that they drained every penny from their coffers to do the same. Meanwhile, they actually fought the same enemies as ourselves with the same determination. Perhaps more. And while they certainly asked for our help, they gave as good as they got. So too others.

We PAY, over and beyond re-imbursement, private Pakistani contractors to ship our goods from their ports to Afghanistan. We enrich their economy in so doing. We are their country's largest purchaser of commercial goods and services, by far. Pakistani expatriates in America remit back to Pakistan more money than from any other nation on earth-again, by far. Who's carried the ball for them with the IMF? Who's driven the bus on the "Friends of Pakistan"?

Would any of this be replaced, if taken away, by anybody else on this planet?

Start there with these questions and evaluate what might be a point of departure for "unbearable". I confess it only gets worse from there on my scale of escalation but the patently incomprehensible nature of our present aid and it's dubious benefits immediately calls to question it's purposeful application.

Just now there's a lovely argument on one of their defense forums about where $6.6B of re-imbursement has gone. Expended upon what related to WOT, I don't know. Did it go to replace that which was expended, though? Nope. Much was instead redirected to energy subsidies and other non-WOT related items (including weaponry for conventional war, i.e. TOW missiles, F-16 parts, and other questionable redirected purchases). Finally, a good portion simply vanished into thin air. Gone.

I don't think it's my nation's responsibility to underwrite the defense of some country that might otherwise choose not to particularly participate in it's own defense. I sorta think it's up to them to make a good-faith effort there and show how such effort is driving their country into the ground. That's just lil' ol' me, though.

The levels of unbearability can (and should) easily start there.

Next week: ARCLIGHT or How I Learned To Kiss An Iron Bomb Once For Luck Before Dropping.

Looking forward to your reply. Thanks.

tankie
09 Oct 09,, 10:03
A bomb has gone off in Pak killing 41 people , it went off in a crowded market in north west Pak

Cactus
09 Oct 09,, 11:57
Cactus, the issue is will the ANA reach the professionalism or even the efficiency needed before the pull out? I'm not too aware of the ANA to be honest but how good really is their training, commanders and their chain of command? How well have they operated against the Taliban? The Taliban are a battle hardened army, the ANA is an infant, and I just don't think that they can take over the fight with the same efficiency so soon.
Again, I don't think there will ever be a "pull out" - there will more likely be a huge draw down of forces. At that point, will ANA be a first-class army? No it wont be. Will it be a counter-insurgency, nation-building army? I don't think so either. But it will have a few well trained divisions, lots of American advisers who can call down more firepower than the Talibs can afford to throw manpower at. The ANA may be infantile, but the manpower it can draw from is every bit as warlike as the Taliban's Pathans. Enough to keep the Talibs on the run and denying the foreign Islamists an operating base on at least one side of the Durand Line (and making life dangerous on the other). Maybe, just maybe, a few new leaders will emerge in A'stan who can use those divisions to make it a nation; but I am not holding my breath.

This, at least, seems to be one of the lines of thought that has come back in vogue since Rumsfeld (minus some of the ideological stuff). Seen it being pushed from both sides of American political aisle (the VP's office, conservatives like George Will etc).

sumob
09 Oct 09,, 12:25
"
Let's now discuss Pakistan a bit. Explain to me what they've contributed to our efforts, if you don't mind? Have they conducted a rigorous COIN-based campaign in their lawless tracts? No. Not even now. One modest, continuing (and heading nowhere) campaign in Bajaur. We pay re-imbursement monies to the world's seventh largest army. For what, may I ask? They don't fight our enemies. They don't refuel our aircraft. They don't augment our supplies with there's. So, in effect, we pay them to defend themselves from themselves. [B]Can we assume that in the absence of such re-imbursement they'd not lift a finger in their own defense?

An unusual concept, it seems. Most nations expect to budget and pay for their own defense. It sits rather high on the agendas of most nation-states and it's an odd notion which suggests that defending one's sovereignty is incumbent upon the level of aid and re-imbursement received from others.

I don't think it's my nation's responsibility to underwrite the defense of some country that might otherwise choose not to particularly participate in it's own defense. I sorta think it's up to them to make a good-faith effort there and show how such effort is driving their country into the ground. That's just lil' ol' me, though.

The levels of unbearability can (and should) easily start there.


S 2, I could not agree more with you on this. This is a fact that is there for everyone to see and yet people across the world have chosen to ignore it. In Pakistan there is a very clear cut demarcation between the Pakistan Taliban ( the Bad Guys ) and the Afganistan Taliban ( The Good Guys).

If the world's seventh largest army needs funds from USA to defend it's own sovereignity then it speaks volumes of the charachter of the nation. No self respecting country will go across the Globe with a begging bowl in hand and expect Reimbursement for clearing their own mess in their own backyard.

Vinod2070
09 Oct 09,, 12:34
Thats a big generalization mate. I do have many Pakistani friends in Canada who really couldn't care less. My girlfriend, whose family is from Pakistan, generally agrees and supports American troops in Afghanistan (But then again, she knows sh*t all about the region and I wouldn't exactly term her view as "Pakistani").

I think I did say "almost". My understanding is based on reading and watching their media, interacting with Pakistanis on he forums (including USA based ones some of whom seem to gloat the most in hating the "foreign policy").

My personal guess is that he people you talk of are the small minority with little interest in geo-politics.

1980s
09 Oct 09,, 17:49
I came across this posted in another forum - Kabul Blast near Indian Embassy: Plot against Pakistan (http://www.kashmirwatch.com/showexclusives.php?subaction=showfull&id=1255070329&archive=&start_from=&ucat=15&var1news=value1news) - Its a really bizarre and senseless article that i didnt quite fully understand, yet perhaps it couldnt more clearly underline the Pakistani psychology. I don't know whether the author actually believes any of what he wrote or not, but self-projection of the Pakistani psychology onto its neighbours and enemies might just become a self-fulfilling prophecy it seems (as far as that country becoming the main theatre of the war goes). In anycase, the guy who wrote that is probably sick in the head. I truly hope that Afghans get justice, and perhaps, revenge too, against the Pakistanis who are the only reason why the Taliban still exist, or even existed at all.

ambidex
09 Oct 09,, 18:35
I came across this posted in another forum - Kabul Blast near Indian Embassy: Plot against Pakistan (http://www.kashmirwatch.com/showexclusives.php?subaction=showfull&id=1255070329&archive=&start_from=&ucat=15&var1news=value1news)
This article was wrote before the attack, i think :rolleyes:

antimony
09 Oct 09,, 18:42
I came across this posted in another forum - Kabul Blast near Indian Embassy: Plot against Pakistan (http://www.kashmirwatch.com/showexclusives.php?subaction=showfull&id=1255070329&archive=&start_from=&ucat=15&var1news=value1news) - Its a really bizarre and senseless article that i didnt quite fully understand, yet perhaps it couldnt more clearly underline the Pakistani psychology. I don't know whether the author actually believes any of what he wrote or not, but self-projection of the Pakistani psychology onto its neighbours and enemies might just become a self-fulfilling prophecy it seems (as far as that country becoming the main theatre of the war goes). In anycase, the guy who wrote that is probably sick in the head. I truly hope that Afghans get justice, and perhaps, revenge too, against the Pakistanis who are the only reason why the Taliban still exist, or even existed at all.

Quote from the article

US which wants to make India a regional super power of Asia in order to counterbalance peace-loving China takes Pakistan an obstacle in its covert strategic designs.


The sentence is hard to understand the way it has been written, but the adjectives the author has showered on the actors makes it ridiculous.

I think the author wants to say that not only are attacks against Pakistani people and assets a part on an attempt to hurt Pakistan, but any attacks against India is also part of an attempt to destabilize and dismember Pakistan, by Indo-Israeli-Imperialist American interests.

Err, what? Reminds me of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists who claimed that Bush toppled the twin towers:mad:

Cactus
10 Oct 09,, 13:05
Expect a small combined arms American force plus a few core allies in the region for a long time to come.
Someone recently made a very persuasive argument to me recently about the Darwinian effect such a CT strategy - if not properly handled - can have on the terrorists. Even if the Americans in Afghanistan continue to remain ahead of their evolution, rest of the world may not be prepared to handle what does get out of that place. In that light, I begin to see some merit to the second part of "Do it properly, or get out" argued by many here.

S2
12 Oct 09,, 09:30
From Sunday's WAPO editorial, here's a guy with whom I'd like to have a beer-

In The Afghan War Aim For The Middle-Richard N. Haass WAPO (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/09/AR2009100902576.html)

"The United States is doing a great deal in Afghanistan -- and is considering doing more -- because it sees the effort as essential to protecting Pakistan. But this logic is somewhat bizarre. Certainly, allowing the Taliban and al-Qaeda to reestablish a sanctuary in Afghanistan would make it harder to defeat them in Pakistan. But the Taliban and al-Qaeda already have a sanctuary -- in Pakistan itself.

It is the government of Pakistan that is tolerating the very groups that the United States is fighting in Afghanistan in the name of Pakistan's stability. It is worth noting, too, that Pakistani officials are not asking the United States to commit additional troops to Afghanistan, in large part because many Pakistanis view Afghanistan as one of several fronts in their struggle against India and see the Taliban as foot soldiers in that contest. Pakistan's future will be determined far more by its willingness and ability to meet internal challenges than by anything that emanates from across its border."

He ought to send me his paycheck for plagarizing my content here...

...AND buy me a beer.

Pilsner Urquell, please.

S2
12 Oct 09,, 10:04
From the desk of WAPO's associate editor, Rajiv Chandrasekaran, this alternative POV is offered-

Go All-In, Or Fold-WAPO Editorial (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/25/AR2009092502009.html?sid=ST2009092503588)

Fold means CT, and I find that a return to the failed strategies of Rumsfeld or, earlier, Clinton as bankrupt.

If fold, we leave altogether. Withdraw our presence and bare our necks to what follows.

In pain shall come clarity. The pain will certainly come with more attacks in the west from A.Q. If so, it would be my hope that the nexus of this issue will become finally clear-as too the solution.

We'll see, I suppose, should the dawdling ever stop...

astralis
12 Oct 09,, 16:05
S-2,


Fold means CT, and I find that a return to the failed strategies of Rumsfeld or, earlier, Clinton as bankrupt.

If fold, we leave altogether. Withdraw our presence and bare our necks to what follows.

In pain shall come clarity. The pain will certainly come with more attacks in the west from A.Q. If so, it would be my hope that the nexus of this issue will become finally clear-as too the solution.

We'll see, I suppose, should the dawdling ever stop...

as bad as afghanistan is now, i'm not quite as despondent as all that-- do re-call that in 2005/2006, we had multiple "rat-lines" of insurgents flowing in from syria, saudi arabia, and iran...with syria and iran actively supporting the insurgents. hell, sections of the iraqi government were completely co-opted against us.

civilian casualties were 10x the amount that we see in afghanistan today.

S2
12 Oct 09,, 18:12
Astralis,

I don't see the issue as one of overwhelming and unavoidable bloodshed. I see it more as an institutional failure on the part of the west which is unresolvable in its present form.

No amount of resources will redress these more fundamental problems. Failure to address the flawed institutional underpinnings of both our effort and the flawed GoA character will leave us unable to comprehensively address any of the attendant social dilemmas.

I've little faith in a bottom-up approach that possesses no legitimate good-faith host nation partner. I've little faith that organizations like our government, NATO/ISAF, or the U.N. as currently configured can prove sufficiently imaginative or agile to create conditions for even modest success.

Michael C
16 Oct 09,, 00:21
S-2, how do you propose we address the issue with Pakistan? Specifically, do you recommend using diplomatic approaches to change their policies? Replace their government entirely with a more sympathetic one? Are there other military, diplomatic, economic or other approaches?

Also, do you view the problem as the people of Pakistan or the government of Pakistan?

Me personally, I agree that Pakistan harbors much of the logistics and C2 nodes that support the insurgents in Afghanistan. I know this from personal experience. However, I believe with stronger Afghan Border Police, more coalition troops, better Afghan Army soldiers, and more effective use of ISR assets, we could control the border much as Astralis made the connection to Iraq.

I am very curious for your solution to the Pakistan problem you and Mr. Haass have identified.

Cactus
16 Oct 09,, 00:31
civilian casualties were 10x the amount that we see in afghanistan today.
The Talibs don't have access to nearly as much high-explosives, electronics and the Internet as the Iraqis did. Heck, they even have trouble making cordite. Thank goodness for small mercies? Or a disturbing thought that they are still considered more skilled and determined fighters than Iraqis by those who have served in both places?

Cactus
16 Oct 09,, 00:51
However, I believe with stronger Afghan Border Police, more coalition troops, better Afghan Army soldiers, and more effective use of ISR assets, we could control the border much as Astralis made the connection to Iraq.
It will be very interesting to see if it can be pulled off. IMHO, given the terrain, the demographics, the psych-profile of the Talib fighters, and the political implications of trying to fence the border, stopping infiltration is quite nearly impossible. The terrain offers innumerable rat-runs; the people there are natural mountaineers and acclimatized to high altitude; the Refugee-Generation Pathans are independent fighters who require lot less C&C than Iraqis; the Kabul government will be un-supportive of attempts to fence what they consider the illegal the Durand Line. The final big political question will be whether the US government want to neatly split the conflict into the Afghan and the Pakistani part, and potentially curtail what little flexibility its forces currently have in hitting targets in NWFP/NA.

Michael C
16 Oct 09,, 01:07
To be clear, to make the support in Pakistan ineffective, we do not have to completely stop the flow of men, weapon and equipment. We have to merely make it much more costly. If we just intercept ten percent of what comes across--right now I doubt we intercept one percent--then we force them to focus on logistics, not fighting or influencing the population. If we get more than that, then their focus of operations shifts to the border and away from the populations. Basically, an extremely aggressive border plan is a way to take the initiative in this fight, but it does not have to be 100% to work.

Great point, Cactus, about the Durand line. The political and cultural problems in this area are immense and might not be able to be overcome.

S2
16 Oct 09,, 03:53
I don't know if you've seen OBAMA'S WAR on PBS FRONTLINE but the final one-third was either a direct or indirect condemnation by a myriad of U.S. COIN and diplomatic notables (and one intensely pissed-off Afghan Director of KHAD-evil looking little fcuk too) about the Pakistani government.

The Kerry-Lugar Bill was signed today. At the same time, on a pakistani defense forum where I post, I noted a rather bright leader there insisting on the need for them to continue to "milk" America while they transition away from us into the tender clutches of the PRC.

They love our money and hate us. The love the PRC and forgive them for failing to invest inside Pakistan. We are uniformly and desperately HATED. 10-15% might be generous to us. More to the point, the cart drives the horse there.

The civil leadership now lives in fear of both the military and the populace. Pakistan exists to serve the military and the public, right now, absolutely supports such.

As such, we've lost our moral compass and have come to reward bad behavior at our taxpayer's expense and our soldiers' blood. This is wrong.

We cannot get there from here in Afghanistan so long as sanctuary is available in Pakistan. I don't care how the objective is defined for Afghanistan, we'll be denied that for the simple reason of sanctuary. Too much stands behind that simple concept...at least in afghanistan.

Were that to magically vanish as an issue tomorrow, we'd still have to address the problem we've created by attaching ourselves to the current GoA in the name of "democracy". Whether the GoA or the GoP, both are functionally corrupt facades that hide the real local power behind the veiled screen.

What to do?

Kill the Kerry-Lugar Bill. Abort it. Frankly, my last hope there resides in the possibility that the Pakistanis may reject it. I can only hope but any country whose citizens readily grasp the value of "milking" us, I fear that they'll come to their senses and accept it.

What will happen with it? Nothing. I predict it will not affect matters in Pakistan by one iota of difference...

...and we'll continue to be played.

I suggest the following- 1.) Announce our precipitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Declare victory if you wish or declare defeat. I care not about global prestige related to either WRT to Afghanistan. Our allies will surely follow. Will we be baring our necks to a re-vitalized A.Q. in doing so? You betcha.

2.) Until then, embargo all trade with Pakistan's #1 global partner for it's commercial goods and services. It won't mean squat to us and the PRC's internal markets can't absorb their textiles and other nonsense. Who'll pick up that considerable slack?

3.) Refuse sponsoring any additional IMF loans thus reversing recent gains to Pakistan's credit rating.

4.) Kerry-Lugar-Berman? Kill it as mentioned or pretend it never happened. I don't care but, functionally, embargo all security and civil aid to Pakistan from America. Others can step up as they wish...or not.

5.) Conduct airstrikes along FATAville/Islamic Emirate of Waziristan as necessary. They won't be as we'll not see any targets of note. I doubt that A.Q. will be building training camps observable from nat'l recon assets as during the Clinton years.

6.) Await the next A.Q. attack of global significance. It WILL come as sure as the sun rises in the east. Prepare for such as best we can without our presence in central asia and prevent such if possible however...

...either way, make clear that there won't be an Armitage moment of "or else". We'll simply make war to the fullest extent of our abilities on Pakistan for A.Q. operations eminating from either Pakistan or Afghanistan.

Other variants? Our withdrawal leads to the destruction of the N.A. elements in Afghanistan and the complete capture of such by the taliban/A.Q. They will (again), as sure as the sun rises in the east, ATTACK Pakistan, lending their considerable heretofore unfelt weight to the TTP (bad taliban). This, by itself, will quite likely lead to either GoP/P.A. accomodation with the irhabists or the outright destruction of the present Pakistani state as we know it. Either requires the immediate destruction of Pakistani nuclear assets. We can be assured that if we don't, the Indians and Israelis will.

Turn what's left over to the Indians to rule by fiat and DARE the PRC to do anything about it. In point of fact, I believe that they'll be grateful although I confess to not believing the Indians would want a thing to do with whatever remains.

We've pissed around long enough with what is a cancer to our efforts and I recommend radical surgery that acknowledges we must step back and take one on the chin-AGAIN-to sufficiently sober our leaders to a proper state of clarity and urgency.

We're presently back to political business as usual and this is decidedly not any such subject upon which to play such dilettantism.

Onerous and harsh to be sure. Your pacifist brother shall likely not adhere once he realizes my overarching ambition of taking a step back to take two forward.

Thanks.

MIKEMUN
16 Oct 09,, 05:23
7.5 billion over 5 years? No strings attached? Why would the US throw money in the wind?

antimony
16 Oct 09,, 14:36
7.5 billion over 5 years? No strings attached? Why would the US throw money in the wind?

This was posted as an Op-Ed on a Pakistani newspaper

The News International - No. 1 English Newspaper from Pakistan - Friday, October 16, 2009 (http://www.thenews.com.pk/editorial_detail.asp?id=190209)

Apparently it was not aid, there was a component of "$6,062 million (56.3 percent) is the reimbursement of expenditures that Pakistan has incurred against the war on terror"

Excerpt

The total economic assistance provided by the United States since 2001-02 and until November 2008 (the last period I have), that is, during the last seven-and-a0half years, amounted to $10,768 million. Of which $6,062 million (56.3 percent) is the reimbursement of expenditures that Pakistan has incurred against the war on terror. Since the war on terror is being fought on daily basis the expenditures are also incurred on daily basis. At the end of the month the bill is prepared by the Joint Staff Headquarters and shared with the representatives of the US government in Islamabad. After detailed scrutiny of all the expenditures, the bill is then forwarded to the headquarters of the US Central Command and after its approval goes to the Department of Defence for payments. The payment is usually received by Pakistan after a lapse of, on average, six months. Since Pakistan borrows money from domestic sources to finance war on terror expenditure and the reimbursement is made after six months, the interest cost of the borrowing is borne by the government. The interest cost has never been part of reimbursement. Can we treat reimbursement as economic assistance? The answer is certainly no. The over 56 percent of the $10.768 billion is not economic assistance. It is the government of Pakistan's own money which has been reimbursed.

Once we take care of the reimbursement part, the remaining $4,706 billion US assistance needs to be explained. The United States has written off $1,495 million of its debt to Pakistan in 2002-03 ($1,000 million) and 2004-05 ($495 million), thus leaving $3,211 million to be explained. Pakistan has received grants from the US over the last seven-and-a-half years totalling $487 million for the purchase of wheat and soybean oil, governance, economic growth, education and health, and for earthquake relief, law enforcement and population planning. These grants ranged from $0.7 million (2002-03) to $198 million (2006-07). After grants are taken care of, the amount left to be explained is $2,724 million

Not sure what kind of actions by Pakistan merited over $6bn of reimbursements though...:rolleyes:

diplomaticview
16 Oct 09,, 23:43
7.5 billion over 5 years? No strings attached? Why would the US throw money in the wind?


This is cost of cooperation or cost of war means payback.
More war more demands :rolleyes:

xinhui
17 Oct 09,, 09:24
The love the PRC and forgive them for failing to invest inside Pakistan.

because the PRC refuses to give cash payment and choice to invest in projects such as energy and other civilian sectors instead. All of people, PRC knows how corruption works.









October 18, 2008 Saturday Shawwal 18, 1429



Chinese companies offer $5bn investment


BEIJING, Oct 17: Chinese entrepreneurs have offered to invest $5 billion in Pakistan’s defence, banking, oil exploration and mining sectors, develop Thar coal, build Bhasha and Kohala dams and launch PakSat-1R in 2011. The offers were made during meetings with President Asif Ali Zardari, who concluded his four-day official visit and left for Pakistan on Friday.

Heads of the business delegations said they were ready to intensify cooperation in defence production, oil and gas, energy, poly-technologies, electronics, hydropower generation and other sectors.

They took deep interest in business, trade and investment opportunities in Pakistan.

Among leading industrialists and business tycoons who called on President Zardari at the State Guest House included chairman of Northern Industries Ma Zhigeng, chairman of Poly Technologies Zhang Liansheng, chairman of the CETC Yan Lijin, president of Sinohydro Fan Jixiang and Liu Minkang of the Chinese Banking and Regulatory Authority.

A delegation of China International Water and Electricity Corporation (CWE) met President Zardari and offered to invest $1.7 billion in Bhasha and Kohala dams.

“We just met President Zardari and the talks focused on Bhasha and Kohala dams,” the deputy general manager of CWE, Jin Zheping, told the media after the meeting.

Mr Jin said CWE was involved in “conceptual development” of Bhasha dam with Chinese hydroelectric power generating groups and also with Wapda, adding that an MoU had already been signed.

Mr Jin said the president had told the delegation that the government wanted Chinese entrepreneurs to visit Pakistan to acquaint themselves with the investment climate.

Ma Zhigeng, the chairman of Norinco, offered cooperation of his company in oil exploration and defence production sectors.

He said that new ventures in oil and gas sectors were also discussed during the meeting with the president.

He said that the company had already invested $30 million in oil exploration which would be further increased.

The Chairman of Poly Technologies, Zhang Liansheng, offered technical assistance and investment in oil exploration and generation of electricity from coal-fired power plants.

He said his company could also play an important role in expanding bilateral cooperation in media and education.

The business leaders said Chinese banks would set up branches in Pakistan to take advantage of the country’s economic growth potential.

SATELLITE LAUNCH: Earlier a spokesman of the China Great Wall Industry Corporation (CGWIC), the space industry concern, said that a Long March 3B rocket would be used to put the satellite into orbit. It will be launched from the Xichang satellite launch centre in China’s southwestern Sichuan province.

The company said ground control facilities for the satellite would be delivered to Pakistan’s Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission (Suparco) after it entered into orbit.

The satellite will have a lifespan of 15 years and Pakistan will use it for domestic telecommunication and broadcast services.

The president was seen off at the airport by Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister Hu Zhengyue.

During his four-day stay, President Zardari held talks with President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao on issues of regional and international concern.

The talks focused on strengthening Pakistan-China strategic partnership and cooperation in trade, investment, defense, banking sector and science and technology.The president also met the Chairman of the National People’s Congress, Wu Bangguo, and the Chairman of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, Jia Qingling.

Business executives, heads of financial institutions and corporate leaders called on Mr Zardari.

Chinese companies offer $5bn investment -DAWN - Top Stories; October 18, 2008 (http://www.dawn.com/2008/10/18/top2.htm)

S2
17 Oct 09,, 09:43
Andy,

Help me out here.

I'm unaware of any project to which the PRC is engaged, Africa, Iraq, or Afghanistan/Pakistan, that isn't directly tied to their search for mineral/energy supplies.

Am I wrong?

This satelliate-is it the one with a ground station in Lahore...

...for the Pakistani military? Or is that ANOTHER project in addition?

Michael C
18 Oct 09,, 04:03
I think that macherjhol is suggesting what I'm also suggesting- shift the target and fight the war as we best know how.

What we can afford to do is admit abject failure, withdraw from the "graveyard of empires", allow our enemies momentary ascendancy, and- when arrogantly visible, smack the ever-living sh!t out of them in a meaningful manner that will retain an indelible and near-permanent impression where it matters most- in the hearths and homes of our enemies.

Long, then, may we finally revel in facing our enemies in manly combat and reliving these tales of final victory in the campfires of our people. Long, then, may they tell the tales of much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the tribal campfires of their people.

I'm tired of a kinder, gentler war and wish to make the experience so unbearable to my enemies that they never again have the means nor inclination to wage cowardly proxy wars on us from behind the skirts of their women and children.

Fcuk 'em.:mad:

Those words above by that Pakistani are as starkly clear as I need.

"Aid?

Try BOMBS."

S-2, above are the two quotes that first struck my interest about this post. If I can sum up your position in these two posts, you say to "shift the target" [to Pakistan]. Once we have shifted we should not use "aid" but "bombs." Specifically, you said you "wish to make the experience so unbearable" that your enemies will not want to wage war again.

I have say your response to my response is extremely reasonable and doesn't have the fire or bombast, in my opinion, of those earlier posts on this thread. So my main question is, where is the disconnect?

As to your reply to my reply, I have some thoughts.

First, I refuse to believe a population in its entirety hates our nation. That said, even if an entire population hates us, that can change with positive action on our behalf. My example is Japan and Germany. Following WWII who could dispute our countries despised each other? But, within a few years we were staunch allies. Opinions can change, I refuse to hate another nation.

Second, I dispute the sanctuary in Pakistan is the largest obstacle to peace. I don't deny it is one of the most important factors in successful insurgency, but it too can be overcome. Unfortunately, the solution is more soldiers (CF and Afghan) on the ground, but it can be overcome, I have been there. I argued this on another thread either here or on the SWJ.

As to your specific recommendations, I have to say I appreciate another thinker who actually puts what they are arguing for out there. Too many people argue against current policy, but don't provide the alternative.

But, "embargo all trade with Pakistan's #1 global trading partner" by whom you mean China? That will never happen. It is impossible and a horrible idea. It would turn a recession into one of the greatest depressions of all time and diplomatically it could never happen. I support free trade too much to let one diplomatic issue ruin all trade.

Finally, and I could say much more but don't want to go too long, I really avoid making predictions, and am very skeptical of making them or agreeing with them. You say the Taliban will take over in Afghanistan. I have heard this in the news media constantly as well, but I am skeptical. The Taliban could certainly take over, I don't dispute that, but is it 100% certainty? No way. GIRoA has been stockpiling weapons since we arrived. If we do a precipitous withdrawal, we take our ROE with us. Then essentially GIRoA or Northern Alliance death squads will roam the countryside looking for Taliban. Remember, Uzbeks, Tajiks and Hezaras all hate the Taliban and the Pashtuns. You have interesting predictions, but they are far from certain.

I enjoyed reading your proposal, even though I doubt it will succeed.

S2
18 Oct 09,, 04:41
"I appreciate another thinker who actually puts what they are arguing for out there. Too many people argue against current policy, but don't provide the alternative."

Putting my thoughts out there is easy. They come quick and cheap so those that don't stick can be discarded. I'm not writing position papers nor casting votes.

"where is the disconnect?"

Don't know that there is one. You addressed my more reasonable posts. I'm certain that those reasonable thoughts sit on the far end of an escalation continuum. That said, bombing sits on the other end.

THAT SAID, my continuum is a non-factor in our current pathway so I'm obviously an outlier in every respect as we currently reward bad behavior-not penalize nor punish it. Altogether different approach which neuters all my proposals.

"But, 'embargo all trade with Pakistan's #1 global trading partner' by whom you mean China?"

Last I checked that's America purchasing Pakistani commercial goods and services by a serious margin over the next nearest purchaser of such. From Pakistan's Federal Bureau of Statistics-

Cumulative Exports By Country-Pakistan Federal Bureau of Statistics 2009 (http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/fbs/statistics/external_trade/14.6.pdf)

"The Taliban could certainly take over, I don't dispute that, but is it 100% certainty? No way."

One never says never. Still, you're in the decided minority if you don't believe our withdrawal will collapse the GoA but then...

"I have been there..."

I haven't but don't believe that you gained special insight from a platoon COP or company/battalion FOB on this sort of macro issue. Not a slam but I don't believe it lends any strategic insight that defeats my premise. I personally think that the Soviets left a more stable and prepared government than we currently deal with. If so, I've every reason to think that the Karzai regime would fold like a house of cards in our absence.

"Then essentially GIRoA or Northern Alliance death squads will roam the countryside looking for Taliban."

Michael, the taliban won't be terribly hard to find and, based upon what I've viewed of the GoA, I like the taliban's odds better.

"Remember, Uzbeks, Tajiks and Hezaras all hate the Taliban and the Pashtuns."

And their love for one another among your aforementioned? Guarantee the pashtu possess some identifying elements that offset a slight gross majority among the others. Think of it as interior lines of a unified defense. They are a solid entity mobilized around pashtunwali. I'm not certain of the others.

"I enjoyed reading your proposal, even though I doubt it will succeed."

Call me when something else there does. You know what Churchill said, right?

"Americans will always do the right thing...after all else fails."

Might be that I'm more precient than most.:))

S2
18 Oct 09,, 05:30
"First, I refuse to believe a population in its entirety hates our nation. That said, even if an entire population hates us, that can change with positive action on our behalf. My example is Japan and Germany. Following WWII who could dispute our countries despised each other? But, within a few years we were staunch allies. Opinions can change, I refuse to hate another nation."

I don't know what Japanese and Germans thought of us following W.W.II. I DO know that both were utterly beaten, submissive, and scared sh!tless of a complete Soviet takeover. Both.

That may have helped to clarify their thinking while accelerating the pathway towards "staunch allies" In fact, I'm certain of such.

"Second, I dispute the sanctuary in Pakistan is the largest obstacle to peace. I don't deny it is one of the most important factors in successful insurgency, but it too can be overcome. Unfortunately, the solution is more soldiers (CF and Afghan) on the ground, but it can be overcome, I have been there. I argued this on another thread either here or on the SWJ."

Well if sanctuary for an externally-directed afghan insurgency isn't, please advise me what is? I'll consider inherent afghan corruption, brigandry/thievery right in there but personally believe those elements differ little from most third-world countries. What separates this, though, are lands to which they can retire as necessary to avoid us while replenishing themselves both with moral, human and material resources.

Watch the litany of comments that finish up OBAMA'S WAR on FRONTLINE from about the 48:00 minute mark. Damning. We aid the allies of our enemies. Steve Coll's words not mine.

"I have to hold my nose when dealing with the Pakistanis"

Mr. "Learning To Eat Soup With A Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons From Malaya to Vietnam COIN EXPERT" John Nagl. What's soured his kinder, gentler perspectives, if I may ask?

You can McChrystal this war with troops all day long but sanctuary allows the same for them. That border will never be closed and there are a good couple of million afghan refugees still living around Quetta from which to draw upon. Moreover, McChrystal has no intention of sealing that border in any case.

Sorry but I forgot to address these issues and would feel remiss had I not done so.

Michael C
18 Oct 09,, 05:35
"I have been there..."

I haven't but don't believe that you gained special insight from a platoon COP or company/battalion FOB on this sort of macro issue. Not a slam but I don't believe it lends any strategic insight that defeats my premise. I personally think that the Soviets left a more stable and prepared government than we currently deal with. If so, I've every reason to think that the Karzai regime would fold like a house of cards in our absence.


To be clear, the comment, "I have been there..." referred to the situation with the sanctuary and the border. It is a mistaken belief that to be successful we have to block 100% of the goods passing through from Pakistan to Afghanistan. In this situation, I do have some experience because my mission in Afghanistan to was to roughly patrol this border.

There was no way I could stop everything, in fact there was no way I could stop most things. But, we could make life just a few iotas harder for the people smuggling men, weapons and equipment, and we smuggling lumber (this was the eastern part). I did the job that an entire company plus now does. We didn't win the war by any means, but through our battalions efforts the price of bullets and AKs rose significantly.

My argument on this issue, and I posted it somewhere else but can't find the thread, is essentially that the border offers the perfect example to wage war on our terms. We could regain the initiative if we choose to start heavily blocking the border. Even if we can't stop everything, but only a lot, then we will force insurgents and Taliban forces to move operations from rural areas in the heart of the country back to the border.

Now, it would be great if Pakistan could take charge and run effective COIN in their own backyard, but as you said, that's not going to happen. However, we don't have to invade Pakistan or pull out of Afghanistan because they have sanctuary. It is one of the biggest issues to success in that area, but it is not a deal breaker.

As to GIRoA's chances if we pull out of their country? Obviously not great, especially as a democracy. But a Taliban victory is in no way ensured. And I know I am in a minority when I say this.

Also, if we did pull out of Afghanistan, I believe Al Qaeda would move right back in the way they were before. They would also expand operations throughout other failed states in the Islamic world.

Final question: When would the bombing of civilian targets in Pakistan be warranted by the US under your escalation continuum? My main question is, what would cause you decide that America should make war unbearable on Pakistan?

S2
18 Oct 09,, 05:41
Yes I recall your argument to attrite 10% versus 1%. Unfortunately, McChrystal has no such plans and intends to allocate those troops AWAY from the border reaches to "population protection".

My question for you- will we have the troops to protect anything BELOW 20,000 people in an afghan city? You DO realize how many small villages of 1,000 or less there are, don't you?

Do you acknowledge the distances commonly found between them? If so, how will you assure me that those G.I/Marines out there with their afghan "partners" won't be vulnerable to defeat in detail, one lonely lil' platoon COP at a time?

Why do you trust the ANA? WHEN will they be fully trustworthy to share such responsibility, much less take it on altogether by themselves?

Thanks.

S2
18 Oct 09,, 05:46
"Also, if we did pull out of Afghanistan, I believe Al Qaeda would move right back in the way they were before."

Absolutely. I failed to mention it only because it is patently obvious. We will ABSOLUTELY be attacked again, if so.

"They would also expand operations throughout other failed states in the Islamic world..."

I don't know. Maybe. I've read of Yemen/Somalia options there but they seem to have a sentimental predilection to the border reaches and have symbolically planted their stakes inside the accomodation offered by paktunwali.

Their new homes, wives, kiddies. It's all there. Attack the west? Yes. CONQUER PAKISTAN though will be their near objective.

S2
18 Oct 09,, 06:00
"Final question: When would the bombing of civilian targets in Pakistan be warranted by the US under your escalation continuum? My main question is, what would cause you decide that America should make war unbearable on Pakistan?"

This question of yours makes me angry and here's why- I wonder,

Did it come from your pacifist brother or yourself.

I ask this because, first, you disappoint me that I had to alert you to the fact that AMERICA is the primary recipient of Pakistani commercial goods and services by over 100% from their next nearest purchaser. No impact whatsoever upon you at THAT end of my continuum. Instead, you rhetorically wish to paint me into the box of "blood-thirsty, fang-drippin', drooling neanderthal".

NOW, to answer your question I can easily see the need to drop a 50kt nuke right on the top of a Pakistani hospital the day I believe that their gov't has A.) collapsed altogether to a taliban/A.Q. takeover or, B.) chosen as an alternative to co-opt such by tossing the towel in with the taliban/A.Q. AND decided to disperse their nuclear arsenal in those areas that would make the likes of you squemish-like the basement of a hospital.

If it comes to that (far end of the escalation continuum, remember), I'll endorse the open blood-letting of their entire society to save India's, Russia's, and (most of all) OUR society.

Fair enough? Until then, I can easily imagine that there would be all the MILITARY targets I crave to satiate my love of death, destruction, and really big boom-booms.

Thanks.

Michael C
18 Oct 09,, 06:48
No I asked the question. My brother doesn't post regularly on the WAB. I really did not mean offense. You put very early on this thread the idea of insteading of giving aid to the Pakistanis, which we do now, to try bombs. Those are your words. Your earlier threads did not say, "if their gov't has A.) collapsed altogether to a taliban/A.Q. takeover" then we should end aid and use bombs. You said we should try bombs. Your language was aggressive and I wanted to know what terms to use it for.

First, as to an American embargo of Pakistani goods. It won't happen and it would be economic suicide if we attempted it. It would further exacerbate the global economic crisis. Other countries would readily fill the void and unlike a small economy like Cuba this would be a bad precedent. It would weaken us in the long term. Not to mention, this is very unlikely to ever pass in congress. I have never claimed to be a Pakistan expert. I am not even an Afghan expert, just a guy who has been there.

Second, these are your criteria for using the far end of the spectrum: their gov't has A.) collapsed altogether to a taliban/A.Q. takeover or, B.) chosen as an alternative to co-opt such by tossing the towel in with the taliban/A.Q. AND decided to disperse their nuclear arsenal Unless people from Pakistan have used a nuclear weapon on American soil, I don't see us conducting nuclear strikes. But I wouldn't disagree, if AQ and TB have gained the use of nuclear weapons.

You put this scenario in your answer to my question:

Other variants? Our withdrawal leads to the destruction of the N.A. elements in Afghanistan and the complete capture of such by the taliban/A.Q. They will (again), as sure as the sun rises in the east, ATTACK Pakistan, lending their considerable heretofore unfelt weight to the TTP (bad taliban). This, by itself, will quite likely lead to either GoP/P.A. accomodation with the irhabists or the outright destruction of the present Pakistani state as we know it. Either requires the immediate destruction of Pakistani nuclear assets. We can be assured that if we don't, the Indians and Israelis will.

It seems that if we pulled out of Afghanistan then we would further AQ getting their hands on nuclear weapons, if your analysis is correct. That would require our action in invading Pakistan at least to some degree. In that regard, isn't it better to spend the money now making a healthy Afghanistan then waiting for Pakistan to crumble?

S2
18 Oct 09,, 07:21
"You put very early on this thread the idea of insteading of giving aid to the Pakistanis, which we do now, to try bombs."

Yeah. So? My continuum starts by stopping our commercial exchanges, IIRC, then denying aid (please note difference between purchases of goods and services and freely-offered aid) and goes from there.

"It won't happen and it would be economic suicide if we attempted it. It would further exacerbate the global economic crisis. Other countries would readily fill the void"

Excuse me but did you understand that data? We purchase their goods at better than two to one the next highest nation. What country will step up to replace that.

If demand for their goods and services was so high why hasn't that driven greater growth in their economy? Are you suggesting that demand exceeds capacity and supply and that we've cornered the market on their primary exports-bluejeans?

Economic suicide? WHOSE economic suicide? Ours?...

or theirs?:))

If their's, isn't that the idea behind an embargo of their goods and services? They are welcome, if so, to reconsider their perspectives.

"It would weaken us in the long term."

It would barely register on our economic radar.

"Not to mention, this is very unlikely to ever pass in congress."

You didn't ask what I thought my chances were but I've made clear a couple of times that my views aren't ascendant. Doesn't mean I'm wrong.

"Unless people from Pakistan have used a nuclear weapon on American soil, I don't see us conducting nuclear strikes. But I wouldn't disagree, if AQ and TB have gained the use of nuclear weapons."

No. Actually, IIRC, you asked what would justify attacking CIVILIAN targets. I gave the most extremely perverse example I could imagine-nukes in the basement of a hospital.

I'm justified in my view IAW the conditions I established that precede such.

"It seems that if we pulled out of Afghanistan then we would further AQ getting their hands on nuclear weapons, if your analysis is correct."

I think that our withdrawal would accelerate the process towards that. The S-2 plan entails the timely pre-emption of such. They get close to the cookie jar, expose themselves openly in so doing, and get squashed for the k0ckroaches they are.

End of two, maybe three problems if the P.A. chooses to abet this advance instead of resisting it.

Withdrawal doesn't mean WITHDRAWAL. It means bide our time, allow our enemies the sense/perception of ascendancy, permit and encourage arrogance and hubris to set in among them, remove the veils behind which they hide, expose them for their evil/duplicitous selves, and hit them...

...but certainly hit their nukes.

Hope that helps.

You need to address why McChrystal's population plan will work with an additional 40,000 yanks, bearing in mind the corrosive effects of the current GoA, the trickling home of most of our allies and the aforementioned onerous demographics.

Hope you're not counting on the long-term stay of the Italians, Germans, Canadians, Dutch, Spanish, etc.

Looks like the Brits are in. N.Z. and Australia, yup-though, what, two companies apiece. Their SAS are very, very good though. That helps. Beyond that, five years from now it'll be our show.

Finally, unity of command...

...the hard way. So much for coalition warfare.

Parihaka
18 Oct 09,, 10:47
.

Mihais
18 Oct 09,, 15:49
[B]"

Hope you're not counting on the long-term stay of the Italians, Germans, Canadians, Dutch, Spanish, etc.
.

I count on our politicians that we will be there enough for me lead a platoon in Zabul:)).Unless you guys drop the towel in the next 3 years.

Sirs,putting myself in AQ chief of operations shoes,I won't touch the West with a flower after the supposed retreat of NATO from A-stan.I'll build the Caliphate instead.Pakistan would be only one stage.
I disagree with S-2 when he proposes a tactical retreat.Once US goes it goes for good.It will be a second Vietnam,from many pov's.I'm not particularly worried about Pak nukes.They can be dealt with either by the West or the Chinese.I'm worried about Islamic revolutions in every ME country.

S2
18 Oct 09,, 17:48
Mihais,

Call me when you become the Romanian Army Chief of Staff about the moral arouser job. Sounds cool if I've a large enough audience to hold my attention and keep me busy.

"I'm worried about Islamic revolutions in every ME country."

Yes. That's a possibility, I suppose.

Then again, the test case outcome may have a decisive influence elsewhere and I disagree with you-once the threat clarifies, we'll be back.

We'll see...:)

Mihais
18 Oct 09,, 18:36
Yes Sir,I will.

What I liked about Pres. Bush(I'm of course among the 1-2 dozens in 20 millions that thinks like that) is that the man wanted a comprehensive approach for the ME.As much as we may hate it,the West is disliked at best (you are of course the Great Satan)from Atlantic to Chinese and Indian borders.
Fact is that no major power retreated(and was perceived as defeated) from a long guerilla war in the 20th century,only to return a couple of years later.NATO going back in A-stan,Pak area would be a new thing.Unless we start the whole Crusade thing(which I think can happen but at a later stage)
Fact 2:you have a bigger fish to fry in the coming decades-the Pacific area.How much time can you waste in the wilderness?

subba
18 Oct 09,, 23:19
the West is disliked at best (you are of course the Great Satan)from Atlantic to Chinese and Indian borders.

Hi, GWB was according to PEW polls the most popular in India. Some 70% or more approval rating. :biggrin:

Fact 2:you have a bigger fish to fry in the coming decades-the Pacific area.How much time can you waste in the wilderness?

This is not wilderness, nothing remotely can justify what you stated above.

S2 sir, has felt the pulse of the situation in many ways i can see. Even now in this battle for Waziristan, it's unclear who the PA will be fighting, Taliban, TTP, AQ, or will they fold up after making a show of it? No one knows for sure. But one thing is sure, the PA and ISI are massively compromised with linkages/ sympathies to the Taliban, AQ, Anti US/ India/ Israeli sentiment. That makes the task of what happens to their nukes in the long run a very shaky thing to predict.

If at all the Taliban/ militant consortium do manage to hold power in Pakistan, ask planners in India, US what they envison. It's a nightmare. By playing double games all these years, the Pakistani Govt/ Army has not exactly made us comfortable, specially about it's nukes.

subba
19 Oct 09,, 00:17
But as far as the US is concerned, withdrawing altogether - with a definite guarantee that they would be cobalt-plated in the event of another 9/11 type attack - is very much an option.

Indeed thats the context i used it's not "wilderness". And frankly India knows any US withdrawal from Afghanistan will affect it too if the Talibs take over. Taking over Pakistan after that this time around will not be much of an effort for Taliban and it's allies. So this is indeed the most important engagement as far as India or US is concerned. Specially with large parts of the PA/ ISI compromised. Thats exactly what i meant. Thats why India is trying it's best to foster democratic and developmental initiatives in Afghanistan.

InExile
19 Oct 09,, 00:45
dumb question but what does TTP stand for? :confused:

Parihaka
19 Oct 09,, 00:58
dumb question but what does TTP stand for? :confused:

Tehrik-i-Taliban (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehrik-i-Taliban_Pakistan)

Tronic
19 Oct 09,, 05:03
S2 sir, has felt the pulse of the situation in many ways i can see. Even now in this battle for Waziristan, it's unclear who the PA will be fighting, Taliban, TTP, AQ, or will they fold up after making a show of it? No one knows for sure.

They will be fighting the TTP. Hekmatyar and Haqqani are based in North Waziristan, Mullah Omar and co sit in Quetta. Meanwhile, Pakistani ops are only limited to South Waziristan, where TTP is based.

But even for their South Waziristan ops, this is how I believe they will go. The army/ISI will try their best to negotiate a settlement with the TTP. If it is reached, then the fighting will fizzle down soon enough, and the "ferocious resistance" will hold the PA off until the snow sets in and brings an end to the offensive. It is not about the PA folding, it is if the TTP will fold and follow the PA line.

S2
19 Oct 09,, 05:21
"They will be fighting the TTP. Hekmatyar and Haqqani are based in North Waziristan, Mullah Omar and co sit in Quetta."

This is accurate though incomplete.

They will be fighting A.Q. and affiliated uzbeks/chechyans in this area too.

There's stories floating in the Pakistani press that the afghan taliban operating adjacent to the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan have reached an agreement w/Hafizullah Mehsud to also support their efforts. I doubt this has the formal endorsement of Omar but if their sanctuaries are threatened they've little choice.

Tronic
19 Oct 09,, 06:01
"They will be fighting the TTP. Hekmatyar and Haqqani are based in North Waziristan, Mullah Omar and co sit in Quetta."

This is accurate though incomplete.

They will be fighting A.Q. and affiliated uzbeks/chechyans in this area too.

There's stories floating in the Pakistani press that the afghan taliban operating adjacent to the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan have reached an agreement w/Hafizmullah Mehsud to also support their efforts. I doubt this has the formal endorsement of Omar but if their sanctuaries are threatened they've little choice.

Thanks S-2.

I guess now only time will tell how much of a heart the PA will pour into this operation.

Mihais
19 Oct 09,, 06:36
But as far as the US is concerned, withdrawing altogether - with a definite guarantee that they would be cobalt-plated in the event of another 9/11 type attack - is very much an option.

Indeed thats the context i used it's not "wilderness". And frankly India knows any US withdrawal from Afghanistan will affect it too if the Talibs take over. Taking over Pakistan after that this time around will not be much of an effort for Taliban and it's allies. So this is indeed the most important engagement as far as India or US is concerned. Specially with large parts of the PA/ ISI compromised. Thats exactly what i meant. Thats why India is trying it's best to foster democratic and developmental initiatives in Afghanistan.

And that's why I'm a staunch supporter of the Afghan War.Still don't forget that it's the most important fight for the US -at this moment.The Afghan War(whatever the form it takes-COIN,full ocupation etc..) can last for another 10-15 years.Things change in the global politics in such a long period of time.So it is a vital struggle for India(and in my view for Western influence in the whole ME) as a nation in the first line.Somewhat different objectives,if being cynical is allowed.

One thing is quite certain in my mind.If NATO pulls back,it cannot return unless it goes in total war mood.You'll have to answer if that's possible in a foreseeable future,considering the whole balance of powers in the world.

S2
19 Oct 09,, 07:16
"...it cannot return unless it goes in total war mood.You'll have to answer if that's possible in a foreseeable future,considering the whole balance of powers in the world."

I think, young cadet, that you are slowly unraveling S-2's ulterior objective.:))

We need to clarify, still, the urgency and direness of the threat. A step back to take two steps forward might do so. Some in the west will suffer for this but I've seen no viable option which will compel us to re-assess our operational and institutional impediments except to accelerate the failure (and subsequent rejection by ourselves) of our present perspectives and supporting methodologies.

subba
19 Oct 09,, 11:52
And that's why I'm a staunch supporter of the Afghan War.Still don't forget that it's the most important fight for the US -at this moment.

But how is the US to win the war without wiping Taliban, AQ, TTP and associated ideologies so entrenched within Pakistan and it's ruling establishment? Nawaz Sharif and other leaders even failed to endorse this offensive against the TTP. Remember Pakistan will tolerate the TTP and associates if only they don't target the Pakistani Govt. They are happy at them targetting say US or NATO troops or carrying out terrorist activities in India. They are infact referred to as heroes when they do so.

So it's important to realize this is not a battle of ideology or even territorial control. But one where the TTP has crossed limits and is challenging the authority of the PA. Like the KL bill. Mandating a civil adminstration dominance over the ISI-PA combo is strict no go territory. But the battle is not ideological. There is no ultimate ideological discrepancy between the PA and the TTP or Taliban or AQ or any of their associated groups for that matter.

Ideological incongruence is why India fights these entities. But these are not the reasons why PA is doing so today. Frankly even when the US started out it was not ideological reasons too, but only rooting out the AQ. Slowly over the years a few Generals and people in the US establishment started realizing AQ is just a name, it's the ideological under pinings that one must be attacking. AQ, Taliban, TTP, LeT, Jaish are all very clear about this war with the West, India. It's ideological to them. But thats not clear to many in our establishments.

Preservation of that ideology is a very important part of the PA strategy against India. Pakistans raison d Etre is to fight India. Giving Kashmir away on a platter won't end hatred for India. The ideological confrontation will continue. These groups will continue to launch attacks out here. Look at 26-11 and the 2 Indian embassy bombings in Kabul. LeT is a terror group by all hallmarks. Yet it's leaders roam openly in Pakistan. So Pakistans war is not against terror. But against terror directed against it only. It's perfectly Ok for them if groups emanating from it's soil attack targets elsewhere.

US is realizing very slowly that unless Pakistan does something about the monsters it's breeding, Afghanistan cannot be stabilized. Pakistan will only do something effective only if it's own ideology is in conflict with that of the terrorists it breeds. Thats not happening anytime soon. China will also play it's part in keeping PA well armed to offset India, making sure that Xingjiang remains offbound in the PA scheme of spreading Jihad in the region and beyond.

Ultimately in the end, one will have to see if the ideology of Pakistan itself will ever in the future bring about stability in the region, beyond and to itself. The solution may only lie in bringing Baluchistan, NWFP, Sindh out of the clutches of the PA-ISI combine, than anything else. How that comes about is anyones guess. But the dynamics will end up just somewhere around that scenario. The cliche that 'a stable Pakistan is in the regions interests' may be just that..an absolutely false one.

Mihais
19 Oct 09,, 12:21
Who says that we are fighting to win a total victory NOW.My definition of victory is if we succeed to create an alternative to the fundamentalists in A-stan that keeps them busy for a while.Something that delays the inevitable until 2025-2030 timeframe.Time for US and more importantly Europe to realise what the danger is,to get the economy and more importantly the mindset to fight.To start a revolution if you like.Because we are at war but only a few uniformed chaps are aware of that.
As for you,Indians,rough neighborhood.We're on the same side,to an extent.

tankie
19 Oct 09,, 12:39
Some good news , i hope the tallies keep their word

Pakistani soldiers are fighting Taliban rebels in the tribal area of South Waziristan in what the military is calling its "most important battle".

Both sides claimed initial success with the Taliban saying it would "fight to the last man" and the military insisting more than 60 rebels were killed on the first day of fighting.

It is not possible to get independent verification of either claim, as the military has restricted entrance to the battlefield.

In the weeks leading up to the offensive, the military pounded the area from the air and mounted an economic blockade to try to reduce resistance ahead of sending in troops.

In response, the Taliban unleashed a string of deadly attacks in cities and towns.

Targets included Lahore, Peshawar, Rawalpindi and even the capital Islamabad. Nearly 200 people were killed and dozens more injured.

This is the third time the military has attempted to wrestle control of the South Waziristan area since 2004.

Previous offensives have resulted in heavy casualties for the army and been followed by peace pacts with the militants.

But the director general of Pakistan's Inter Service Public Relations, Major General Athar Abbas, underlined the importance of winning this time.

He told reporters: "This is the centre of gravity for terrorism in the country."

Some 30,000 troops are said to be pushing into the area from three different directions.

But they appear to be encountering tougher resistance than when they advanced into the Swat Valley earlier this year.

Officials have estimated the latest offensive will last at least two months.

Tens of thousand of residents of South Waziristan have fled the area with 16,000 leaving in the past few days.

The operation is being watched with great interest by the West.

South Waziristan is viewed as critical to the international community's attempt to crackdown on worldwide terrorism and to success in Afghanistan.

Many of the attacks against coalition troops in Afghanistan are thought to have originated or been supported by rebels in South Waziristan.

diplomaticview
19 Oct 09,, 20:39
US vacates checkposts ahead of SWA operation


ISLAMABAD: The US-led Nato forces vacated more than half a dozen key security checkposts on the Afghan side of the Pak-Afghan border just ahead of the major Pakistan Army ground offensive (code named: Rahe Nijaat) against Taliban-led militants in the volatile tribal area of South Waziristan, it is learnt.

It is feared that the American decision will facilitate Afghan Taliban in crossing over to Pakistan and support militants in striking back at the Pakistani security forces in the troubled tribal area.

Sources close to the NWFP government and military strategists involved in the planning of S Waziristan operation told The News over the weekend that the Americans vacated eight security checkposts on the Afghan side of the border just five days before the Army operation. Four of these close to South Waziristan including one each at Zambali and at Nurkha, and four in the north in the area of Nuristan where American forces recently came under violent attacks by the militants.

Latest reports indicate that the Americans have also removed some posts close to North Waziristan, which could encourage even more Afghan Taliban fighters to cross over to the Pakistan side. This has raised many eyebrows in government and military circles with points being made about “conflicting interests” and dubious American designs.

The NWFP government, civilian and military officials in the provincial capital have been astonished by this move and more so intrigued by its timing. Alarmed and concerned about its likely adverse affect on the military operation in S Waziristan where the Pakistani troops reportedly comprising 28,000 soldiers are expected to face fierce resistance from the heavily armed Taliban-led militants, the NWFP government recently alerted the relevant authorities in Islamabad about it.

Pakistan has now taken up this matter with the Americans and conveyed its serious concern about vacating the checkposts at this crucial juncture. Notably the security checkposts on the Afghan side of the border are already almost a third of what Pakistan has on its side.

Recent communication intercepts by Pakistani intelligence outfits have revealed that Taliban commander in Nuristan Qari Ziaur Rehman has invited TTP leader Maulvi Faqir Mohammad, former deputy of late Baitullah Mehsud, to come to Nuristan and operate from there if he finds space in Wazristan shrinking.

Experts believe the American move of vacating security checkposts on the Afghan side close to Pakistan’s border could undermine the military action by Pakistan Army. While on one hand it could offer an easy escape route to some militants, it is believed that this would facilitate movement of Afghan Taliban into Pakistan side to join hands with the al-Qaeda-backed local Taliban and other locals as well as foreign militant groups against the military action there.

Some observers see it as a tactical move by the US to ward off pressure from its own forces in Afghanistan that have been under severe attacks by the Afghan Taliban. Hence they want to provide them unhindered passage to Pakistan side, as it would help shift the main theatre of war from Afghanistan to inside Pakistan. Americans themselves have been saying that 70 per cent of area in Afghanistan is out of their control.

The Pakistani Tabiban in S Waziristan backed by al-Qaeda are joined by a large number of foreign militants including a battalion of Uzbeks, Tajiks, Chechens and Arab fighters. According to military sources the toughest resistance is expected from an estimated 1,500 battle-hardened Uzbek fighters, equipped with highly sophisticated weapons. “The Uzbek fighters face a do or die situation with the all-out army action in the hostile mountainous area,” a senior government representative maintained.

The uninterrupted flow of sophisticated arms and funding to the foreign militants in S Waziristan has also lured many criminals to join hands with them in challenging the writ of the state, defence experts say. The presence of various foreign and local militants in the rugged terrain of South Waziristan is estimated at between 15,000 and 20,000.

Officials in the military and civil bureaucracy are cautiously optimistic about the outcome of the operation. “Either these militants will run to Afghanistan, settled areas or stand and fight to the end,” is how one key NWFP government representative summed it up.

A seemingly more realistic view from a key office holder in Peshawar is: “We are half way in containing insurgency and hopefully by end of the year major military operations will be over and 2010 will be the year of consolidating the gains made in recovering the lost ground.”

Whatever the outcome, observers believe that operation in the Taliban stronghold of South Waziristan became inevitable. “It became imperative to go for a military operation in South Waziristan to regain the lost space that has been used as training ground for planning and executing attacks targeting key security installations of Pakistan including the GHQ,” the Army spokesman Major General Athar Abbas said earlier shortly after the launch of the operation.

Despite several attempts on Sunday The News was unable to get an official version from the Pakistan Army Spokesman Major-General Athar Abbas on this alarming development. However, when the US Embassy Spokesman Richard Snelsire was contacted by this correspondent and his attention was drawn to the question of vacated checkposts he remained non-committal. When a confirmation was sought and he was asked what had prompted this move, Snelsire said he had no clue about it. “I do not have information on that, and that is outside our purview,” he noted, adding that he had not seen any reporting on that.

At this crucial & critical time when Pak army launched operation against extremists, above move from America express doubted & strange behaviour with Pakistan or may America fear for war and possible death of American soldiers.

Who is more sincere to WOT, America OR Pakistan!? :cool:

S2
19 Oct 09,, 20:47
"Who is more sincere to WOT, America OR Pakistan!? :cool:"

Your diplomatic view hasn't somehow permitted you to recognize that the closing of these posts has been planned long before this operation inside Pakistan.

Your question, though, suggests that you carry some seriously pre-conceived biases.

More sincere? One question to answer your question. Why is it that this operation, if it fully unfolds, has taken eight years to be conducted?

There's your sincerity by a country that's freely ceded its nominal lands to our enemy.

May you live in interesting times at this board Mr. diplomaticview...

With questions as twisted as yours here, no doubt you shall.:mad:

Parihaka
19 Oct 09,, 20:52
[I] Remember Pakistan will tolerate the TTP and associates if only they don't target the Pakistani Govt. They are happy at them targetting say US or NATO troops or carrying out terrorist activities in India. They are infact referred to as heroes when they do so.
I was particularly interested to see the TTP's offer of fighting India in Kashmir if the GoP ceded Waziristan to them permanently:))

diplomaticview
19 Oct 09,, 21:28
"Who is more sincere to WOT, America OR Pakistan!? :cool:"

Your diplomatic view hasn't somehow permitted you to recognize that the closing of these posts has been planned long before this operation inside Pakistan.

Your question, though, suggests that you carry some seriously pre-conceived biases.

More sincere? One question to answer your question. Why is it that this operation, if it fully unfolds, has taken eight years to be conducted?

There's your sincerity by a country that's freely ceded its nominal lands to our enemy.

May you live in interesting times at this board Mr. diplomaticview...

With questions as twisted as yours here, no doubt you shall.:mad:



Mr S-2, i surprised with your comments:cool:

this operation didn't conduct before as it must be and in Musharaf period Pakistani government suggested US to close Pak-Afgh boarder but US pressured not to do so, US & NATO's aim to fight against extremists and if you can explain me than tell me why only time of operation inside Pakistan US came to know that they must have to remove these posts, as US repeating many times that Pakistan is reliable partner in WOT than how to help reliable partner if in case of operation Afghan extremists can find open way to cross boarder and can make more difficulties for partner?

Meanwhile explain me please what US want to show his partner removing these posts?

S2
19 Oct 09,, 21:42
Over 150 posts as I understand on the afghan side.

Eight are being presently closed. Four of which are well to the north in the Nuristan/Konar areas-adjacent to malakand/Bajaur. Even beyond the Islamic Emirate of NORTH Waziristan.

As to this operation that the Pakistanis have FINALLY chosen to undergo, it is centered on S. Waziristan and America has faced a very modest threat to the provinces directly adjacent to this area.

Pakistan, however, is under direct assault from this region.

This is, as usual, all about Pakistan.

Call me when they undergo any ops that directly benefit us. You'll know that's the case when N. Waziristan and the Quetta region of Baluchistan are finally attacked-if ever. Doing so would hurt their objectives, though, so don't hold your breath.

Until then, Pakistan continues to serve only Pakistan. Here they do so by their complaints that appear groundless given the prior schedule and McChrystal's announced intent to reallocate our forces to protect people...

...not sand, rocks, and scorpions.

Parihaka
19 Oct 09,, 22:14
Mr S-2, i surprised with your comments:cool:

this operation didn't conduct before as it must be and in Musharaf period Pakistani government suggested US to close Pak-Afgh boarder but US pressured not to do so, US & NATO's aim to fight against extremists and if you can explain me than tell me why only time of operation inside Pakistan US came to know that they must have to remove these posts, as US repeating many times that Pakistan is reliable partner in WOT than how to help reliable partner if in case of operation Afghan extremists can find open way to cross boarder and can make more difficulties for partner?

Meanwhile explain me please what US want to show his partner removing these posts?

Just to reinforce S-2's comments, the areas where the operations are being undertaken by the PA do not border Afghanistan.

Kernow
19 Oct 09,, 22:32
Just to reinforce S-2's comments, the areas where the operations are being undertaken by the PA do not border Afghanistan.

Here is the Map of the PA thrust into Taliban Territory.

diplomaticview
19 Oct 09,, 23:08
As to this operation that the Pakistanis have FINALLY chosen to undergo, it is centered on S. Waziristan and America has faced a very modest threat to the provinces directly adjacent to this area.

It means that US fought 9 years but couldn't hold situations in control in Afghanistan, same as USSR.



Until then, Pakistan continues to serve only Pakistan.

I think you have not to forget that Pakistan is your so called ally in WOT.


Here they do so by their complaints that appear groundless given the prior schedule and McChrystal's announced intent to reallocate our forces to protect people...

...not sand, rocks, and scorpions


When i am looking at the statistics where it stated how many simple people are dead within 9 years of war than it forcing not to trust your statement.
To protect people

S2
19 Oct 09,, 23:33
"When i am looking at the statistics where it stated how many simple people are dead within 9 years of war than it forcing not to trust your statement."

Really. Count the dead, then, after nine years of war in Afghanistan. Determine the relative culpability of each actor. If honest, you'll see that the taliban carry the far greater burden but that, sir, is only a part of the picture. If needing assistance doing so, please refer to data offered by UNAMA and HRW about the slaughter, such as it is...

Consider the manner that many there have died by THEIR hand- as human shields and as direct and intended targets of taliban mayhem and violence.

Further, as a modest comparison, consider the blood that Afghans and Pakistanis share from the Afghan civil war- about 200,000-250,000. Brother on brother. Muslim on muslim.

Finally, consider the blood on Russian hands for it remains, by far, the worst. No less than 900,000 and as many as 3,000,000 depending on who you care to believe. Evidently, everybody tired of counting the corpses there.

You can trust my statement about protecting people just fine, sir, if you hold a grain of moral accountability relative to the very recent and all too bloody past.

We're not there to conquer and our altruism is sadly out-of-place among the beastial preying of afghan upon afghan.

I've drawn my conclusions.

Thanks.

Tronic
19 Oct 09,, 23:44
It means that US fought 9 years but couldn't hold situations in control in Afghanistan, same as USSR.

Errr.. Thats not what that sentence meant. It meant that the people you are fighting for control of PAKISTANI land, are the people who concentrate less on launching attacks into Afghanistan than they concentrate on attacking Pakistan. So really you should be the last one to be laying down comparisons at a time when the US has far more control of the situation in Afghanistan than the Pakistanis have control of the situation in Pakistan.



When i am looking at the statistics where it stated how many simple people are dead within 9 years of war than it forcing not to trust your statement.

Thats because this reallocation of troops and change of priority to protect population centres is a new strategy still in the phase of being implemented. Its not a 9 year old strategy.

subba
20 Oct 09,, 01:14
Parihaka sir and OOE sir (specifically)..not exactly a new take here, but: :biggrin:

India Wants To Fight in Afghanistan Until the Last American | Haqeeqat.Org (http://www.haqeeqat.org/2009/06/19/india-wants-to-fight-in-afghanistan-until-the-last-american/)

Tronic
20 Oct 09,, 01:48
Parihaka sir and OOE sir (specifically)..not exactly a new take here, but: :biggrin:

India Wants To Fight in Afghanistan Until the Last American | Haqeeqat.Org (http://www.haqeeqat.org/2009/06/19/india-wants-to-fight-in-afghanistan-until-the-last-american/)

India has been involved in Afghanistan long before the Americans arrived.

Parihaka
20 Oct 09,, 02:17
Parihaka sir and OOE sir (specifically)..not exactly a new take here, but: :biggrin:

India Wants To Fight in Afghanistan Until the Last American | Haqeeqat.Org (http://www.haqeeqat.org/2009/06/19/india-wants-to-fight-in-afghanistan-until-the-last-american/)

:)) Nice to see you back Subba

subba
21 Oct 09,, 01:17
Parihaka sir, thanks for remembering. I remember Tankie and Dave lukins sirs and their great sense of humor. I don't know if they remember me though..:))

I still am at an age where my harmones get the better of me at times, but i'll look to you guiding me through the minefield of WAB just in case...:tongue:

Ok that (above para) was in jest Sir, but frankly i do have some fond memories.. and you all are a part of it.

Meanwhile, i like the heading of this thread.."welcome to Pak"...:rolleyes:

diplomaticview
21 Oct 09,, 22:34
Errr.. Thats not what that sentence meant. It meant that the people you are fighting for control of PAKISTANI land, are the people who concentrate less on launching attacks into Afghanistan than they concentrate on attacking Pakistan. So really you should be the last one to be laying down comparisons at a time when the US has far more control of the situation in Afghanistan than the Pakistanis have control of the situation in Pakistan.

Appreciating the US efforts against WOT but facts showing a different view and America's control over Afghanistan is not so good because if they have good control over situation than their army commander in Afghanistan didn't call for more troops, and even more & more, US has control over several meters beyond their camps or stations or bases in Afghanistan and we can't say, it is success or control.

Current situation in between Pakistan & India:


ISLAMABAD: Interior Minister Rehman Malik has said that there is clear evidence of Indian involvement in Balochistan and that New Delhi should not be pointing fingers at Islamabad.

The interior minister said that India must be prepared to come to the table and discuss their concerns. He added that Pakistan is well aware of the Indian involvement in Balochistan and if given the opportunity, they will present officials in New Delhi with concrete evidence.

He was responding to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s statements, when the federal minister warned that India should not hurl accusations at Pakistan as it is fighting a war on terror and is also holding trials of the Mumbai attack suspects. He said that India should respect Pakistan’s judicial system.

Commenting upon the Indian allegations, Malik warned against them, saying Indian Home Minister should see about their home first, as it is beset with flaws and failings, adding criticizing Pakistan would not set their issues right.

Condemning the twin bombings at the International Islamic University in Islamabad yesterday, the federal interior minister stressed that militants are now aiming to create panic in the country and that innocent civilians are being targeted.

Pakistan is not weak; it knows how to defend itself, said Malik. He assured that security zones will be set up in the federal capital.

So in my view India & Pakistan are both in same situation but both countries doesn't like to solve problems appropriately.

Mihais
21 Oct 09,, 23:04
Pakistan is not weak; it knows how to defend itself, said Malik. He assured that security zones will be set up in the federal capital.

I'm noticing a contradiction here:cool:.

Tronic
21 Oct 09,, 23:56
Appreciating the US efforts against WOT but facts showing a different view and America's control over Afghanistan is not so good because if they have good control over situation than their army commander in Afghanistan didn't call for more troops, and even more & more, US has control over several meters beyond their camps or stations or bases in Afghanistan and we can't say, it is success or control.

If you feel the need to start screaming out, "you're loosing!", try Islamabad first; because whatever control the US has in Afghanistan, it is still far greater than the control Pakistan has on its own territory.


Current situation in between Pakistan & India:



So in my view India & Pakistan are both in same situation but both countries doesn't like to solve problems appropriately.

That is only for Pakistani domestic consumption. The day Pakistan brings that evidence to the international community, that's the day people outside Pakistan will start to take those claims seriously. But so far, it is nothing but an old Pakistani trait, deception, even if it has to be against your own people; blame India for all of Pakistan's own f*ck ups and deflect all anger away from the Pakistani leadership and unto India. It is unfortunate for the Pakistani citizens that they actually buy all that bull; and has been a big reason why since 1947 Pakistan has been going downhill into the gutters. Had Pakistan accepted its flaws from the start, maybe it could've ironed them out by now. It didn't, so now you have a state on the brink of failure. And, yet again, it is all India's fault. :rolleyes:

S2
22 Oct 09,, 00:54
"And, yet again, it is all India's fault.:rolleyes:"

Ummm...no. It's OUR fault too, remember?

We ABANDONED them.

Of course, had we stayed in Afghanistan following the Soviet departure, EVERYBODY would have been screaming about our neo-colonial ambitions in a place to which we'd held no historical interests. Further had we expressed our intention to stay, I highly doubt the Soviets would have even agreeed to leave at all.

More likely they'd have doubled-down themselves in 1988 and so much for glasnost and peristroika.

CAR didn't exist then. Those were SOVIET republics and there's no way that Gorbachev could have survived THAT abdication of their near empire.

Tronic
22 Oct 09,, 21:47
"And, yet again, it is all India's fault.:rolleyes:"

Ummm...no. It's OUR fault too, remember?

We ABANDONED them.

Of course, had we stayed in Afghanistan following the Soviet departure, EVERYBODY would have been screaming about our neo-colonial ambitions in a place to which we'd held no historical interests. Further had we expressed our intention to stay, I highly doubt the Soviets would have even agreeed to leave at all.

More likely they'd have doubled-down themselves in 1988 and so much for glasnost and peristroika.

CAR didn't exist then. Those were SOVIET republics and there's no way that Gorbachev could have survived THAT abdication of their near empire.


Ai, it must be true. How can a Pakistani ever make a bad decision?

They are a very confused lot. I don't interact on political issues with most Pakistanis now. No discussion can be carried out without it being filled with some sort of conspiracy against Pak. There are some good chaps out there who can call a spade a spade, but for the vast majority of them; god help them!

MiketheTyke
25 Oct 09,, 05:09
[QUOTE=S-2;679442]"It really breaks my heart to see British Soldiers being killed..its American soldier's who should be killed like rats...Well, anyway just few days ago 8 US Soldiers went straight to hell."

Posted earlier this morning elsewhere by a Pakistani citizen.


WHERE Was this posted and how do you know it was a Pakistani citizen????
Did they provide you with a copy of their Passport? Or could it be somebody like an Indian posing as a Pakistani because they hate Pakistanis, like you!
I would assume that the majority of Pakistanis want a good life for themselves and their children like people everywhere.

S2
25 Oct 09,, 05:39
"Or could it be somebody like an Indian posing as a Pakistani because they hate Pakistanis, like you!"

uh oh...!:eek:

Tyke is correct.

Most here know better than question where I got that quote-much less in the manner you've displayed. You, OTOH, have just exposed the very narrow confines of your grey matter.

I don't see you in contributing here so you might consider hitting the road of your own volition before being dispatched for humanity's good ...little Mikey.

Bet you'll try anything once...:))

May you live in interesting times...:mad:

S2
25 Oct 09,, 05:56
It's customary here to check into the member intro board before wandering off into cyber-space. I recommend you do such though God only knows why as you're time here is likely damned short...

you rude lil' fcuk.:mad:

Michael C
27 Oct 09,, 14:50
This post certainly went off in a weird direction.

S2
28 Oct 09,, 08:04
"This post certainly went off in a weird direction."

MiketheTyke had the temerity to question the authenticity of my original quote that highlights this THREAD. He did so without the minimum requirement of checking into the member intro board and, moreover, with an uncommon arrogance and rudeness that wasn't underlined by any display of requisite credibility.

He was advised of proper board decorum by myself, dispatched altogether by another before making it to the member intro board and we are again on track and awaiting a relevant comment or observation.

Have you one?

freejam
28 Oct 09,, 22:45
I myself a Pakistani hate to see what my Country men think of USA or western world. They(even educated) hates west, they think every thing that happens in Pakistan is a conspiracy by the west and Jews. But as I have seen them very closely we the pakistanis have to stand against this poor attitute. We have to accept that we have a problem, and we must rectify it with the help of west specialy US & if we don't I think we will distroy ourself in near future and cease to exist. Unfortunately we are still moving very fast towards later position.
Taliban and Islamic terrorism is a problem we created and now the student have become the master, we must kill this new master.

Someone said about "majority of pakistanis wanted a good life for their children".... Sorry to burst your bubble but that's not true, believe me I lived with my countrymen I know that, religion is more important for us than our own childrens. Golda Meir once said "Peace will come to the Middle East when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us ..." we the Pakistanis have to do the same.

S2
28 Oct 09,, 23:02
Refreshingly different to what we've commonly been used to reading.

It takes all kinds, I guess...:)

Welcome but, please, introduce yourself at the top of the board.

subba
28 Oct 09,, 23:18
I don't hate US & ISRAEL

I hope you include India too in that group..:biggrin:

freejam
29 Oct 09,, 06:51
I hope you include India too in that group..:biggrin:

I changed it all together.

Just for the record I don't hate India, I do have Indian friends Hindus and Muslims even Sikhs. We both got a very bad past. Unfortunately we 1.5 billion people suffer because of poor leadership of our countries. I hope one day we all will stop hating each other just because of the nationality and religion.

@ S 2: oh sorry for not introducing myself I will do it ASAP.

Deltacamelately
29 Oct 09,, 13:25
I changed it all together.

Just for the record I don't hate India, I do have Indian friends Hindus and Muslims even Sikhs. We both got a very bad past. Unfortunately we 1.5 billion people suffer because of poor leadership of our countries. I hope one day we all will stop hating each other just because of the nationality and religion.

@ S 2: oh sorry for not introducing myself I will do it ASAP.
One slight difference.
Our politicos are no better than yours as far as individual integrity is concerned, though I won't generalise. However, religion always takes a back seat when it comes to our children and basic ammenities, food, electricity, water and employment. People are willing to confront the establishment on these counts more than they would do for religion.

Testimony: One/Two months after a communal riot, I've seen the same hullaboo shopkeeper trying vehemently to start his shop again, bad mouthing the politicians and singing like a nightangle on harmony and peace.

1980s
30 Oct 09,, 11:10
Pakistan's growing anti-US anger
By Aleem Maqbool
BBC News, Islamabad

Recently, while Pakistan's government may have been saying the things that the White House wants to hear, the country's media and public have often been openly hostile towards the United States.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's charm offensive this week suggests that she recognises that.

Town hall-style meetings with students in Lahore and round-table debates with senior news broadcasters in Islamabad may be seen as steps in the right direction.

'Go America Go'

But it is likely to take much more to turn around Pakistani mistrust of American intentions.

"Americans want this country to face anarchy," says Munawar Hassan, the head of Pakistan's largest religious party, Jamaat-e-Islami.

He has just finished giving another press conference in his "Go America Go" tour.

"They will then say that the atomic weapons of Pakistan are unsafe and that the United Nations should come in," he continues.

"They want to deprive Pakistan of its nuclear programme."

Mr Hassan goes on to talk of his anger at American air strikes in Pakistan's tribal areas and at the planned expansion of the US embassy in Islamabad.

But these days, in Pakistan, it is not just from the mouths of Islamist politicians like Mr Hassan that you hear feelings like that expressed.

Not far away, Hamid Mir is in his office in the Geo TV building, preparing to go on air.

His show, Capital Talk, is one of the most influential news talk shows in the country.

'Mirror of society'

Mr Mir has accused the US of surreptitiously increasing the number of marines in Pakistan and allowing private security agencies like Blackwater to operate here.

He says he has no problem with accusations that Capital Talk is anti-American.

"The whole of Pakistan is anti-American," he says.

"The talk shows are just a mirror of Pakistani society. It would be very easy for me to be the darling of Washington, but then I will become the villain for my viewers and the common people in Pakistan."

Animosity towards the US seems to have increased since a new bill - widely known as the Kerry-Lugar bill - was passed by Congress.

It promises a massive injection of aid to Pakistan, but with conditions attached which many Pakistanis feel give the US too much control over their country's affairs.

"They say they are our friends," says Mr Mir. "But through the Kerry-Lugar bill they are trying to convert all of Pakistan into their slave. This is the feeling in Pakistan."

On her current trip, Mrs Clinton has gone out of her way to assure Pakistanis that the White House has no interest in micro-managing their country.

She has said America simply wants to strengthen ties and help Pakistan deal with its considerable militant threat.

That threat has been horrifically apparent in recent weeks, with a massive series of deadly attacks right across the country. But even many of those affected have little faith in the US.

Take the Islamic University on the outskirts of Islamabad. Just a week ago, two suicide bombers walked into the campus and blew themselves up. One was at the entrance of the women's canteen.

Now female students line up there to light candles, lay flowers and place written messages on the wall for their friends and colleagues who died.

It was the Taliban who claimed they had carried out the attack, but it is not towards them that anger is being directed.

"There's a lot of involvement from America. We feel America is responsible for the blast," says the first student we speak to. Her friends join in.

"These are the people spreading terror in Pakistan," says one.

"The Taliban are not spreading terror, it is these people, Hillary Clinton and before her Bush. We don't need America, things were better before they came here."

Certainly a lot of the collective mistrust of the US stems from a historic feeling that America uses Pakistan when it wants, and then abandons it.

Najam Rafique, head of the Americas department at the Institute of Strategic Studies in Islamabad, says it is only natural for America to want to have greater influence in Pakistan.

"This is not just about the War on Terror," he says.

"Pakistan has borders with Iran, whose nuclear programme America wants to keep an eye on. It has direct links to China, with whom America is in open competition, and access to Central Asia, where vast resources are waiting to be tapped.

"Of course the Americans have their own national interests in mind. If they are moving in terms of securing those interests, why would you blame them?"

He says that while Pakistanis may have some reasons to doubt US sincerity, it is time for them to stop blaming America for all the country's ills.

"We have political instability, economic instability and even social instability. We have food scarcity and energy shortages.

"Pakistanis can't blame America for all of that, because a lot of those things are of our own making."

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Pakistan's growing anti-US anger (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8332569.stm)

S2
30 Oct 09,, 11:39
1980s, you're touching on a pet peeve of mine. I don't need the article AND the link. The link is fine WITH your comments. That's what I want. YOUR thoughts and a link is perfect.

The fcukin' article and the LINK to the article is for the Dept. of Redundancy. Get it?

What do you think? THAT'S what matters...

Don't go Merlin on me, man.

Deltacamelately
30 Oct 09,, 13:40
Pakistan's growing anti-US anger
By Aleem Maqbool
BBC News, Islamabad

Recently, while Pakistan's government may have been saying the things that the White House wants to hear, the country's media and public have often been openly hostile towards the United States.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's charm offensive this week suggests that she recognises that.

Town hall-style meetings with students in Lahore and round-table debates with senior news broadcasters in Islamabad may be seen as steps in the right direction.

'Go America Go'

But it is likely to take much more to turn around Pakistani mistrust of American intentions.

"Americans want this country to face anarchy," says Munawar Hassan, the head of Pakistan's largest religious party, Jamaat-e-Islami.

He has just finished giving another press conference in his "Go America Go" tour.

"They will then say that the atomic weapons of Pakistan are unsafe and that the United Nations should come in," he continues.

"They want to deprive Pakistan of its nuclear programme."

Mr Hassan goes on to talk of his anger at American air strikes in Pakistan's tribal areas and at the planned expansion of the US embassy in Islamabad.

But these days, in Pakistan, it is not just from the mouths of Islamist politicians like Mr Hassan that you hear feelings like that expressed.

Not far away, Hamid Mir is in his office in the Geo TV building, preparing to go on air.

His show, Capital Talk, is one of the most influential news talk shows in the country.

'Mirror of society'

Mr Mir has accused the US of surreptitiously increasing the number of marines in Pakistan and allowing private security agencies like Blackwater to operate here.

He says he has no problem with accusations that Capital Talk is anti-American.

"The whole of Pakistan is anti-American," he says.

"The talk shows are just a mirror of Pakistani society. It would be very easy for me to be the darling of Washington, but then I will become the villain for my viewers and the common people in Pakistan."

Animosity towards the US seems to have increased since a new bill - widely known as the Kerry-Lugar bill - was passed by Congress.

It promises a massive injection of aid to Pakistan, but with conditions attached which many Pakistanis feel give the US too much control over their country's affairs.

"They say they are our friends," says Mr Mir. "But through the Kerry-Lugar bill they are trying to convert all of Pakistan into their slave. This is the feeling in Pakistan."

On her current trip, Mrs Clinton has gone out of her way to assure Pakistanis that the White House has no interest in micro-managing their country.

She has said America simply wants to strengthen ties and help Pakistan deal with its considerable militant threat.

That threat has been horrifically apparent in recent weeks, with a massive series of deadly attacks right across the country. But even many of those affected have little faith in the US.

Take the Islamic University on the outskirts of Islamabad. Just a week ago, two suicide bombers walked into the campus and blew themselves up. One was at the entrance of the women's canteen.

Now female students line up there to light candles, lay flowers and place written messages on the wall for their friends and colleagues who died.

It was the Taliban who claimed they had carried out the attack, but it is not towards them that anger is being directed.

"There's a lot of involvement from America. We feel America is responsible for the blast," says the first student we speak to. Her friends join in.

"These are the people spreading terror in Pakistan," says one.

"The Taliban are not spreading terror, it is these people, Hillary Clinton and before her Bush. We don't need America, things were better before they came here."

Certainly a lot of the collective mistrust of the US stems from a historic feeling that America uses Pakistan when it wants, and then abandons it.

Najam Rafique, head of the Americas department at the Institute of Strategic Studies in Islamabad, says it is only natural for America to want to have greater influence in Pakistan.

"This is not just about the War on Terror," he says.

"Pakistan has borders with Iran, whose nuclear programme America wants to keep an eye on. It has direct links to China, with whom America is in open competition, and access to Central Asia, where vast resources are waiting to be tapped.

"Of course the Americans have their own national interests in mind. If they are moving in terms of securing those interests, why would you blame them?"

He says that while Pakistanis may have some reasons to doubt US sincerity, it is time for them to stop blaming America for all the country's ills.

"We have political instability, economic instability and even social instability. We have food scarcity and energy shortages.

"Pakistanis can't blame America for all of that, because a lot of those things are of our own making."

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Pakistan's growing anti-US anger (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8332569.stm)

Steve,

I don't know whether Mrs. Clinton and President Obama are reading the highlighted text. If not, they should read it REAL FAST before handing over anymore American taxpayer's money to these PESTS.

S2
30 Oct 09,, 15:23
Major,

"If not, they should read it REAL FAST before handing over anymore American taxpayer's money to these PESTS."

Those tax-payer dollars ought to be lining MY pocket.

I'm right and they need to listen instead of hauling SECSTATE and entourage 6,000 miles for an object lesson in abject rudeness.

I can provide the same and remain an American for a LOT less ducats.:))

tankie
30 Oct 09,, 16:25
"This post certainly went off in a weird direction."

MiketheTyke had the temerity to question the authenticity of my original quote that highlights this THREAD. He did so without the minimum requirement of checking into the member intro board and, moreover, with an uncommon arrogance and rudeness that wasn't underlined by any display of requisite credibility.

He was advised of proper board decorum by myself, dispatched altogether by another before making it to the member intro board and we are again on track and awaiting a relevant comment or observation.

Have you one?

Hmm Steve , i don't think he can answer you now as one of your observations has come to fruition , and so it came tp pass :rolleyes:

tankie
30 Oct 09,, 16:28
I changed it all together.

Just for the record I don't hate India, I do have Indian friends Hindus and Muslims even Sikhs. We both got a very bad past. Unfortunately we 1.5 billion people suffer because of poor leadership of our countries. I hope one day we all will stop hating each other just because of the nationality and religion.[/I]

Good for you mate , well said , pity there are not more like minded Pakistanis,s .;)

S2
30 Oct 09,, 16:35
Eric,

MiketheTyke is long-gone. I witnessed his demise in real-time.

Michael C. is still in the game and it was to him that I asked if he'd something to offer besides an irrelevant and late observation about the thread's direction.

tankie
30 Oct 09,, 16:40
Eric,

MiketheTyke is long-gone. I witnessed his demise in real-time.

Michael C. is still in the game and it was to him that I asked if he'd something to offer besides an irrelevant and late observation about the thread's direction.

Ok Steve , gotcha ;)

Michael C
30 Oct 09,, 16:43
No comment but a question. The issue we seem to be discussing is, does Pakistan hate America? The open source documents clearly say yes from the link earlier. My question: after 9/11 during the France backlash, did America hate France more or less than Pakistanis hate America now?

S2
30 Oct 09,, 17:04
"My question: after 9/11 during the France backlash, did America hate France more or less than Pakistanis hate America now?"

Hard to test but my guess is if you'd walked the left bank in your dress greens you'd gathered some spit. Neither you nor I would have likely retaliated in kind nor was a frenchman likely to receive the same or worse in America.

If you walked the bazaars of Peshawar yesterday, they'd have torn you from limb to limb. Of that I'm sure.

Michael C
31 Oct 09,, 05:16
Would they tear all Westerners limb from limb in Peshawar? How do journalists travel around the country?

I take you say that relations were worse, I generally agree. I am trying to figure out how bad our relationships really are.

S2
31 Oct 09,, 07:13
"Would they tear all Westerners limb from limb in Peshawar?"

This is an odd question, it seems. Would you care to test this question personally?

"How do journalists travel around the country?"

WESTERN journalists? With great care, I presume. Why don't you e-mail Jane Perlez or Mark Mazzetti of the NYT and ask them? They're there now.

Deltacamelately
31 Oct 09,, 08:05
No comment but a question. The issue we seem to be discussing is, does Pakistan hate America? The open source documents clearly say yes from the link earlier. My question: after 9/11 during the France backlash, did America hate France more or less than Pakistanis hate America now?

Michael C,

I would recommend you to visit some of their forums. It helps.;)

Michael C
31 Oct 09,, 18:20
To be honest, I only have time to visit so many forums. Also, there are better ways to get information about the Pakistan problem.

Oscar
31 Oct 09,, 19:13
Hard to test but my guess is if you'd walked the left bank in your dress greens you'd gathered some spit. Neither you nor I would have likely retaliated in kind nor was a frenchman likely to receive the same or worse in America.

Haha I'm afraid it didn't exactly happen that way, I was in Paris in 2003 and I've never heard of any American tourists (and they were there!) getting insulted or anything because of your president.

But I remember perfectly when watching TV the anti French demonstrations of some hysterical right wingers equating France with nazis, "Iraq first France next", etc...Condi who wanted to punish us, Congress passing "Freedom Fries legislation", Rumsfeld trying to destablilse Europe ("old and new Europe"). Plus the anti France forums on the internet. And the commercial boycott. You were playing the role of the Pakistanis in this comedy. ;)

1980s
31 Oct 09,, 19:34
"Americans want this country to face anarchy," says Munawar Hassan, the head of Pakistan's largest religious party, Jamaat-e-Islami.

He has just finished giving another press conference in his "Go America Go" tour.

"They will then say that the atomic weapons of Pakistan are unsafe and that the United Nations should come in," he continues.

"They want to deprive Pakistan of its nuclear programme."

I believe this to be a self-fulfilling prophecy on the part of Pakistanis. The more they have parroted these conspiracy theories over the years, the more i believe the US does seriously consider the issue of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and ponder's on different scenarios on how they could either control or eliminate them.


'Mirror of society'

Mr Mir has accused the US of surreptitiously increasing the number of marines in Pakistan and allowing private security agencies like Blackwater to operate here.

He says he has no problem with accusations that Capital Talk is anti-American.

"The whole of Pakistan is anti-American," he says.

"The talk shows are just a mirror of Pakistani society. It would be very easy for me to be the darling of Washington, but then I will become the villain for my viewers and the common people in Pakistan."

Here i believe, and have believed for a long time, that the level of anti-American sentiment that exists in the Middle East and North Africa is considerably less potent and less widespread than that which exists in poor and backwards countries in other parts of the World, like Pakistan. Comments like this from prominent Pakistani journalists just confirms my suspicion. And strange thing is, there is so reason why such sentiments should exist in Pakistan that i can think of. How many billions of US$s have gone into their country over the decades afterall? Really weird. And its also really distasteful when Pakistanis try to cite being anti-American as being something 'Islamic' or a requisite of being a 'good Moslem'.


"They say they are our friends," says Mr Mir. "But through the Kerry-Lugar bill they are trying to convert all of Pakistan into their slave. This is the feeling in Pakistan."

On her current trip, Mrs Clinton has gone out of her way to assure Pakistanis that the White House has no interest in micro-managing their country.

Im not convinced that Pakistan's politicians or educated people truly feel this way. I think they are in fact more than happy to be the recipients of billions of US$s in aid. But to express their 'nationalism', however fraudulent, they publicly declare their opposition and an exaggerated sense of despair at being reduced to "slaves". Because beggars and slaves they already are and they know this. If not to US aid then to Saudi or Chinese aid.


Now female students line up there to light candles, lay flowers and place written messages on the wall for their friends and colleagues who died.

It was the Taliban who claimed they had carried out the attack, but it is not towards them that anger is being directed.

"There's a lot of involvement from America. We feel America is responsible for the blast," says the first student we speak to. Her friends join in.

"These are the people spreading terror in Pakistan," says one.

"The Taliban are not spreading terror, it is these people, Hillary Clinton and before her Bush. We don't need America, things were better before they came here."

Again i wonder if Pakistanis truly believe this, or whether this is just an example of the type of ignorance and fanaticism that is prevalent among the average Pakistani. Either way Pakistanis generally seem to be a highly confused people that live in a World of denial and take very easily to conspiracy theories even in the absence of there being a shred of evidence or plausibility to give credit to their beliefs.

The US government should not provide any financial aid to Pakistan is what it boils down to. At least that money could go towards alleviating poverty in American itself or towards nations that would actually appreciate the support.

Michael C
31 Oct 09,, 20:59
But why?

I don't know if this is just Western bias for some reason, but the LA Times article (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-clinton-pakistan1-2009nov01,0,1313175.story) does a perfect job of getting at it. The first thing mentioned in every article I have read are drone strikes that kill civilians. If we stopped drone strikes we take away a huge source of complaint. Second, they feel that the Kerry-Lugar bill is intrusion into their government.

Maybe every single Pakistani citizen hates every single American passionately without reason. I don't believe that, they just really dislike drone strikes and intrusion on their government, and you know what, Americans feel the exact same way.

Parihaka
01 Nov 09,, 02:47
But why?

I don't know if this is just Western bias for some reason, but the LA Times article (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-clinton-pakistan1-2009nov01,0,1313175.story) does a perfect job of getting at it. The first thing mentioned in every article I have read are drone strikes that kill civilians. If we stopped drone strikes we take away a huge source of complaint. Second, they feel that the Kerry-Lugar bill is intrusion into their government.

Maybe every single Pakistani citizen hates every single American passionately without reason. I don't believe that, they just really dislike drone strikes and intrusion on their government, and you know what, Americans feel the exact same way.

Actually they've moved on from that particular excuse du jour. Not that it held any currency of course, other than as an excuse. The utter outrage exhibited when some donkey walloper in outer Wherethewhuckistan may or may not have been killed in a strike was sadly lacking when the glorious PA shelled the very rocks of the Swat Valley back to the stone age.
The drone strikes are an excuse, not a cause.

Anyway, nowadays it's the CIA financing the TTP, Blackwater detonating the latest bomb in the market as psyops, and of course kerry-lugar forces them to acknowledge that the welfare payments they've been recieving are in fact welfare, not payments for services rendered.
Couple that with the perfidious withdrawal of US forces from the Pak/Afghan border allowing bad Taliban into Pak while oddly allowing bad Taliban into Afg and we have a veritable melange of pleasant odours wafting outward from the fragrant mountains.

Simply put, anything the US either does or doesn't do is fodder for the Talib. propaganda arm, who regularly post updates of the evil infidel on the web and which Pakistan journalists (some of whom I've had the great displeasure of talking to) pick up and repeat virtually verbatim. You'll be pleased to know as far as the majority of Pakistani media is concerned, Hilary Clinton had her arse handed to her on a plate and said virtually nothing of interest apart from a few half-muttered apologies for being responsible for the whole mess in the first place.

So, if you want to place the blame for Pakistan's hostility to the US at the US people or governments feet, it's because you paid Blackwater to bomb the Peshwar market, ok?

Kodiakmarmoset
01 Nov 09,, 16:59
S-2 makes some very good points in this thread about Pakistan and Astan. The governments must have taken lessons from the Columbians and the "war on drugs" in south america on how to bleed America dry.

The Columbian government gets large amounts of money from the US to fight the drug lords ect. What they have really done is gotten together and devised a means whereas they work together. The government makes a show of beating down the drug lords while actually doing little and rake off the cash while the drug lords tolerate it (losses are minimal) for their own benefit.

Pakistan is doing the same thing as is Afghanistan.

S2
01 Nov 09,, 19:15
"The first thing mentioned in every article I have read are drone strikes that kill civilians."

I'm unsure whether you REALLY understand what drone strikes mean. They are, on the operational and strategic military level, critical as a means of interdicting key point targets of A.Q. and the taliban's leadership.

They are very effective in that regard. One of my complaints about Kilcullen was his almost-mantra pre-occupation with the cessation of drone strikes during last April's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations committee. He emphasized repeatedly that we'd only eliminated 12 high profile Al Qaeda targets.

Oddly, he forgot this-

Porous Pakistani Border Could Hurt U.S.-May 4, 2009 NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/world/asia/05fighter.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&ref=global-home)

From Jane Perlez and Pir Zubaih Shah-

"The one thing that impressed him were the missile strikes by drones — virtually the only American military presence felt inside Pakistan. 'The drones are very effective,' he said, acknowledging that they had thinned the top leadership of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the area. He said 29 of his friends had been killed in the strikes."

Yes, the article came out AFTER Kilcullen's testimony but did our premier cultural-anthropoligist warrior-scholar with unlimited access to a wide and capable intelligence system not know nor (if he did know) appreciate the degrading effect over a far wider net than simply A.Q.?

I'd find that hard to believe.

So it's very fair to say that these drones, particularly since GWB ordered their stepped-up use in September 2008, have shown to be extremely effective in destroying key nodes of both A.Q. and the taliban's leadership. This, of course, has continued with the killing of Baitullah Mehsud in August.

More importantly, though, the use of drones is recognition by the U.S. government in the most unobtrusvie manner possible that we DON'T tolerate GoP acquiesced sanctuary for the enemies of the GoA and the U.N. mandated mission as performed by ISAF and its non-NATO partners. We won't be unwitting targets of Pakistani-sanctioned duplicity.

That we only apply PREDATOR/REAPER to date keeps open our option for more onerous responses should that prove necessary while limiting collateral effects to a reasonable minimum.

Civilian deaths from these attacks? First they're likely far less than reported simply because the taliban invariably cordon the attacked site thus limiting access. Second, its always unidentified tribesmen calling the Pakistani newspapers to report the results of the strikes. Carrying a cell-phone in the tribal areas, though, without belonging to one of the militias is a fast path to beheading. So who's really making these calls?

Finally, if you are near one of these targets when they are struck, then you either engage in a lethal overdose of idolatry or are the sad wife and children of a taliban/A.Q. host.

Bummer.

I pray that we never cease the use of PREDATOR and that those with the means to alter the use of drones don't heed your fears. It's all anybody has until the modern world comes to grips with the threat posed by the PA.

Michael C
02 Nov 09,, 00:50
Compared to other boards, the WAB has given me insight on a topic I was not previously aware. Unlike the SWJ board, the WAB has the international community presence and the entire topic of Pakistan is one that I had never considered in depth. I have never considered myself an expert, so I hope I don't come across like that. I guess I am just giving props to the board as a whole for allowing different viewpoints.

I guess, the example of Pakistan should give the US tremendous insight into what a "counter-terrorism" example will yield in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, ISAF has all the different branches of the warfighting functions: maneuver, firepower (artillery, aviation and air power), intelligence (humint, sigint and geoint) and it has the soft component, USAID, reconstruction, psyops, information operations, government and diplomatic reps.

In Pakistan, we have no maneuver troops. We have only what aerial sigint and geoint can collect. And for firepower we have drones. This approach has yielded a Pakistan that hates the US for drone strikes, they continually bring that up. While others have dismissed Pakistani accusations about drone strikes, I cannot because journalists are the best source for information.

Our strikes have been effective at killing top Al Qaeda leaders. I do not dispute that. But, is Al Qaeda smaller because of drone strikes? Is extremism less because of drone strikes? Can we kill our way out of the terrorist problem in the Pakistan FATA?

I doubt it. Using a limited approach will only yield limited gains.

S2
02 Nov 09,, 06:57
"While others have dismissed Pakistani accusations about drone strikes, I cannot because journalists are the best source for information."

What information? The article I've offered from the NYT? Its purpose was to suggest that targeting success has exceeded simply A.Q. It secondly makes clear that target sets go much further than simply A.Q. and are unaccounted by Kilcullen and others that seek the end of drone strikes.

"I guess, the example of Pakistan should give the US tremendous insight into what a "counter-terrorism" example will yield in Afghanistan."

Perhaps but wouldn't we have the ability to bring to bear other assets in Afghanistan that aren't presently considered suitable for Pakistan. That is, of course, were we to employ a strict counter-terrror response within Afghanistan. Would we be as reliant upon Pakistani HUMINT sources and the host of motives they may apply to targeting which may or may not be in congruence with our purposes. So I'm unsure of the insights you might derive as we operate under parameters in Pakistan that I'm not certain would apply in Afghanistan.

"Is extremism less because of drone strikes? Can we kill our way out of the terrorist problem in the Pakistan FATA?"

So all of our previous aid to Pakistan and the present K-L bill boils down to supporting the use of drones to "kill our way out of the terrorist problem..."

Straw-man argument. You premise drones as our single overarching policy and proceed to diminish the effect while ignoring eight years of other efforts to shape Pakistan's approach.

Yet not a word to refute the arguments pointedly made by myself and others. STEERED right around them to press home your dubious premise and equally fallacious conclusion.

I cry foul, sir!:rolleyes:

"I guess I am just giving props to the board as a whole for allowing different viewpoints."

Oddly-worded...even disingenuous by my assessment.

sumob
02 Nov 09,, 08:22
This approach has yielded a Pakistan that hates the US for drone strikes, they continually bring that up. While others have dismissed Pakistani accusations about drone strikes, I cannot because journalists are the best source for information.



One important point during the years of Russian occupation, Americans were the favourites of the Pakistanis as with the US help Pakistan was getting back at the Russians and also they were getting the latest weapons including F16s to counter their traditional enemy-- India. As long the interests of Pakistan and US were aligned then they were the favoured country, friend.

Now the US is hitting the assets that the Pakistani establishment has created and also the same assets are hitting back at them, it is the easiest thing for the Pakistanis to do-- hate the US. This helps to deflect attention from their own shortcomings and policies that they have basically screwed up.

tinymarae
19 Nov 09,, 01:07
Compared to other boards, the WAB has given me insight on a topic I was not previously aware. Unlike the SWJ board, the WAB has the international community presence and the entire topic of Pakistan is one that I had never considered in depth. I have never considered myself an expert, so I hope I don't come across like that. I guess I am just giving props to the board as a whole for allowing different viewpoints.

I guess, the example of Pakistan should give the US tremendous insight into what a "counter-terrorism" example will yield in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, ISAF has all the different branches of the warfighting functions: maneuver, firepower (artillery, aviation and air power), intelligence (humint, sigint and geoint) and it has the soft component, USAID, reconstruction, psyops, information operations, government and diplomatic reps.

In Pakistan, we have no maneuver troops. We have only what aerial sigint and geoint can collect. And for firepower we have drones. This approach has yielded a Pakistan that hates the US for drone strikes, they continually bring that up. While others have dismissed Pakistani accusations about drone strikes, I cannot because journalists are the best source for information.

Our strikes have been effective at killing top Al Qaeda leaders. I do not dispute that. But, is Al Qaeda smaller because of drone strikes? Is extremism less because of drone strikes? Can we kill our way out of the terrorist problem in the Pakistan FATA?

I doubt it. Using a limited approach will only yield limited gains.

More proof about conspiracy theories that many Pakistanis believe. I blame everyone but themselves.

Pakistan's blame game (http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2009/11/17/watson.pakistan.denial.cnn)

Confirms what Pari and S-2 have pointed out repeatedly.

diplomaticview
19 Nov 09,, 23:50
One important point during the years of Russian occupation, Americans were the favourites of the Pakistanis as with the US help Pakistan was getting back at the Russians and also they were getting the latest weapons including F16s to counter their traditional enemy-- India. As long the interests of Pakistan and US were aligned then they were the favoured country, friend.


You can also call India & US 'Friend'



Now the US is hitting the assets that the Pakistani establishment has created and also the same assets are hitting back at them, it is the easiest thing for the Pakistanis to do-- hate the US. This helps to deflect attention from their own shortcomings and policies that they have basically screwed up


Are you sure that this policy screwed up by only Pakistan?

or is it right that all these assets are created by only Pakistan?

S2
20 Nov 09,, 09:31
"...is it right that all these assets are created by only Pakistan?"

Those assets HAD a considerable mixed parentage-KSA, America, PRC, Pakistan, UAE, Great Britain, and France, most notably. Those assets also were of an interesting blood mix-including Pashtuns, uzbeks, tajiks, and turkomen of afghan descendancy.

But they're long gone. The mujahideen whom fought the Soviet Union dissolved into a competing mass that waged civil war with one another once the Soviet Union had departed.

They roughly congealed around four groups- the N.A., the Haqqani network, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, and the afghan taliban. The eventual near-term winner, the afghan taliban, arose spontaneously from Oruzgan province in 1994. Once they proved worthy heirs to the control of Afghanistan in the eyes of the ISI, the Pakistani intelligence apparatus shifted its sponsorship from Hekmatyar to this grouping and assisted their seizure of power in 1996 and their continued consolidation of Afghanistan throughout the late nineties and 2000-2001 until 9/11.

Some of the afghan taliban no doubt were war veterans in the Afghan-Soviet war. However, at what point does the PRC, America, Great Britain, and France lose responsibility and at what point, diplomatic view, does the KSA, UAE, and (most notably) Pakistan assume the continuing responsibility?

Afterall, who recognized the afghan taliban's governance in this world but those three nations?

Do you see any problem with my description of the afghan taliban's rise to power? If so, what? Do you see any problem with my conclusions about the continuing responsibility for their existence today? If so, what?

Thanks.

1980s
24 Nov 09,, 16:20
"Recently, one senior retired army officer claimed that Hakimullah Mehsud - the leader of the Pakistani Taliban which is fighting the army in South Waziristan and has killed hundreds in daily suicide bombings in the past five weeks - had been whisked to safety in a US helicopter to the American-run Bagram airbase in Afghanistan.

In other words the Pakistani Taliban are American stooges, even as the same pundits admit that US-fired drone missiles are targeting the Pakistani Taliban in Waziristan.

These are just the kind of blatantly contradictory and nut-case conspiracy theories that get enormous traction on TV channels and in the media - especially when voiced by such senior former officials."

Good article: BBC News - Ahmed Rashid: Pakistan conspiracy theories stifle debate (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8369914.stm)

HillTribe
25 Nov 09,, 08:45
Thinking I'd gather some of the opposite POV I visited Pakistanidefence.com

My, my what hatred and vitriol they have for all. :eek:

They were of the opinion that everyone was out to get them. Basically here is a summary of their thinking (if that's what you wish to call it)

US--Lucifer incarnate, completely untrustworthy, using Afghanistan as a pretext to break up Pakistan and seize their precious nukes. Overall a greater agenda of keeping the Muslims subservient

Af'Stan-- Karzai govt: Communist sympathizers, out to get their share east of the Durand line, ungrateful despite being rescued from the Soviets by their gallant Mujahideen

India-- Mortal Enemy no. 1. In the end its either the India or Pakistan standing.

Israel-- A Jewish state that defeated the Arabs through and through and hence deserving of hate. And did I forget to mention, Israelis are Jewish!

Iran-- Shia, and hence, not at all untrustworthy... moreover, the Iranians are so arrogant and don't consider us equals!

China-- The only friend they can trust...

Would this be the kind of thinking that permeates their political and security establishment too? :eek:

God help us all if yes...

ghatotkacha
26 Nov 09,, 05:21
Well ... do any of you remember "Pakistan Going on High Alert (http://www.dawn.com/2008/12/06/top2.htm)" last year in December due to a threatening call from India ....

Guess who was the caller ....

Jailed militant’s hoax calls drove India, Pakistan to brink of war (http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/16-jailed+militants+hoax+calls+drove+india+pakistan+t o+brink+of+war-hs-02)



Omar Saeed Sheikh, a detained Pakistani militant, had made hoax calls to President Asif Ali Zardari and the Chief of Army Staff, Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, in a bid to heighten Pakistan-India tensions after last year’s terrorist attacks on Mumbai, investigators have told Dawn.




Omar, currently confined in a high security cell of Karachi Jail, has a long record of militancy, from kidnapping foreigners in Mumbai in 1994 to kidnapping Daniel Pearl in Jan 2002.

Omar Saeed Sheikh was freed by India in Dec 1999 as part of a deal that saw New Delhi agreeing to release a number of militant leaders in exchange for the freedom of hostages on board an India plane hijacked to Kabul.

Soon after his release from Indian captivity, Omar Saeed developed close relations with the LET leadership, including Zakiur Rehman Lakhwi.

He was invited to a training camp in Muzaffarabad, the capital of Azad Kashmir, where he spent a couple of days delivering lectures to recruits.

Sources said Lakhwi wanted Omar to join LET and give the organisation an international face.

In Feb 2002, Omar was arrested for the murder of US journalist Daniel Pearl.


:rolleyes: ... the country is a freakin' nut house ...

HillTribe
26 Nov 09,, 05:50
It is only a matter of time before they turn against "Big Red" too. Elements within the establishment will inevitably lash out against the atheist communists in support of their persecuted Turkestani brothers, albeit this time without official government sanction. Considering the rising tide of 'grass roots' militancy in the country, it is unlikely that this time when they hit Big Red in Turkestan it will be the carefully managed state sponsored terrorism of the past. The GOP will not allow anti-China activity in their land. They are too cynical for that.

HillTribe
04 Dec 09,, 14:13
"At least 32 people have been killed and dozens injured in a coordinated attack at a mosque in the Pakistani city of Rawalpindi, military officials say......"

More:

Pakistan Rawalpindi mosque attack kills many (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8394694.stm)

Looks like things have begun getting back to 'normal' after a brief lull.

Luke Gu
04 Dec 09,, 15:26
China-- The only friend they can trust...
To many Chinese,Pakistan also is the only friend we can trust...。Frankly speaking,though I believe Interest is the basis of the contacts between countries,it's hard for me to use that basis to evaluate Sino-Pakistani relations。

diplomaticview
04 Dec 09,, 15:43
December 04, 2009

US Serveillance of navel HQ,
ISLAMABAD – Much before the terror attack on the Naval Headquarters in E-9 sector of Islamabad, the complex was being monitored by the US embassy.
TheNation has learnt that on November 18, a gentleman working for the US embassy in Islamabad, (see photocopy of ID card) Mr Abdul Ghafoor, was stopped by Naval police and intelligence personnel in the morning as he was suspiciously monitoring the entry/exit of Zafar gate (at Zafar Chowk) and doing reconnaissance work of naval installations.
Suspicions were further heightened when it was discovered that he was using a motorbike with a number plate that was found to be fake when checked. The chassis of the bike also seemed to have been tampered with. He offered a flimsy explanation to the effect that he was checking the route on which the ambassador had to travel.
The Naval police and intelligence personnel insisted the police to register an FIR against him for surveillance of a restricted area. It was also found that his number plate IDM 5250 showed that it belonged to a Toyota Corolla. The chassis number of the bike was D55609. A camera was also found on his person. The Naval and other agencies sought to have a case of spying registered against the man - as shown in the FIR - as they were sure that is what he was up to.
Unfortunately, the police high-ups did a double cross on the Navy by registering the case under PPC 420 468/471 dealing fake documentation etc., instead of registering the case under the 1923 Official Secrets Act for Spying, which carries a much stronger penalty.
This has led to some debate and conflict amongst the concerned Agencies and one has to wonder where the pressure on the police came from for them to have diluted a very serious issue despite the clear accusations in the FIR.




November 21, 2009
US Secret Agency chief meets Zardari, Gilani, Gen Pasha
CIA abetting terror proof presented
President denies Qaeda/Omar presence in Pak; PM reiterates US to share new Afghan strategy


Islamabad—Pakistan on Friday presented evidence of CIA involvement in the country to Director US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Leon Panetta.

Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Chief Lieutenant General Ahmed Shuja Pasha presented the evidences to Leon Panetta, who called on him during his two-day visit to Islamabad. The ISI chief has made it clear to Leon Panetta that CIA personnel were assisting terrorism in Pakistan.

Strongly reacting to some of the reports of presence of Al-Qaeda and Taliban leadership in Pakistan by the US newspapers and some intelligence agencies President Asif Ali Zardari on Friday urged that Pakistan was seriously cooperating on war against terror and the sacrifices given by it are unassailable.

President expressed these views during his meeting with CIA Director Leon Panetta at the Presidency who is in Pakistan on unannounced visit.Sources say that President again made it clear to the US that Al-Qaeda and Taliban leadership are not present in Pakistan adding the US leadership must share all kinds of information with Pakistan as it is not our war only.

President urged CIA Chief to stop US drone attacks. According to the sources, during his meeting with DG ISI Lt General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, Pasha said that exchange of Intelligence sharing and information must be the order of the day while the sharing must be made more efficient and effective. He recorded his strong protest with him regarding linking ISI with Taliban terming it fabricated and baseless. He again made it clear that Mullah Omer nor any other Taliban leader is present in Quetta or Karachi. Sources say that CIA chief lauded the gigantic efforts of Pakistan on war against terrorism stressing in a clear cut way that high level leadership of US nor CIA on official level has given any statement against ISI at any forum.

He said that we want to make our relations more stronger and better as we both want elimination of terrorism tooth and nail at all costs. Issues related to terrorism, security on Pak-Afghan border and activities of American CIA in Pakistan were discussed during the meeting.

Mr. Leon E. Panetta, Director of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) also called on Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani at the PM’s House Friday afternoon.

During the meeting US review of its new policy on Afghanistan came under discussion. The Prime Minister emphasized that the US must fully share the contours of its road map towards Afghanistan and ensure incorporation of Pakistan’s input in it.

He underscored the point that the US policy towards Afghanistan must take into account Pakistan’s concerns relating to the possible surge of the US and ISAF forces in Afghanistan which may entail negative implications for the situation in Balochistan.

He stressed that the new Afghan policy of US government should not disturb the regional balance in South Asia.

The Prime Minister said that it was imperative to remove misgivings, build trust and seek to align the respective strategic concepts of both Pakistan and the US to steadfastly move forward in the strategic partnership between the two countries.

The Prime Minister underlined the need for close coordination between the intelligence agencies of both sides to effectively counter the prevalent misperceptions in the relationship.

Director of US Central Intelligence Agency assured the Prime Minister that the US was fully conscious of Pakistan’s pivotal role in the war against terrorism and in the restoration of stability in Afghanistan.

He agreed with the Prime Minister that operational cooperation between the two militaries and intelligence agencies was the need of the hour for eliminating the threat of terrorism.




New AF-PAK Policy
Actually it is not AF-PAK policy but ' pro india anti-pak' policy.

Pak-AF policy is diplomatically rejected and it will worth nothing but a new series of bloodshed.

First there was issue of Sawat than SW and than Balochistan and than will be PAKISTAN.

US-PAK Friends :cool:

Actually main problem is that US can't say Pakistan that we don't like Nukes in Pakistan because we like India so he tries tries best how to take Pakistan into his trap, and he will follow the line of India to destabilize Balochistan, drone will provoke violence in Balochistan.

Only to make happy his new friend INDIA.

So this is the main aim of AF-PAK Policy. :tongue:

Mihais
04 Dec 09,, 21:12
Actually main problem is that US can't say Pakistan that we don't like Nukes in Pakistan because we like India so he tries tries best how to take Pakistan into his trap, and he will follow the line of India to destabilize Balochistan, drone will provoke violence in Balochistan.

Only to make happy his new friend INDIA.

So this is the main aim of AF-PAK Policy. :tongue:

Really?US won't destabilize Baluchistan more than it already is.And guess what.US drone attacks and covert ops. aren't needed if Pakistan would do its job of controlling its own territory and borders.

tankie
05 Dec 09,, 03:40
Really?US won't destabilize Baluchistan more than it already is.And guess what.US drone attacks and covert ops. aren't needed if Pakistan would do its job of controlling its own territory and borders.

Oh turn it in , they dont even take no notice of traffic lights , thats when they are working :rolleyes:

subba
05 Dec 09,, 12:18
Frankly speaking,though I believe Interest is the basis of the contacts between countries,it's hard for me to use that basis to evaluate Sino-Pakistani relations。

It's become a cliche that countries come closer because of interests, but my take is different. Countries come closer due to shared value systems more than mere interests alone. Common interests might find short term relationships but will seldom develop into strategic ones unless a really higher interest of strategic or similar core value was at stake. Example, Saudi-US relationship. Keeping that area stable and oil routes secure would be US's biggest concern, than isolating Saudi because of it's contrasting value systems to the US.

China, Pakistan, Myanmar share a distaste for pluralist, democratic institutions and thus come closer in their relationships with each other, including against India.

Venezuala, Iran, Cuba form another triangle of smaller nations with leadership possessing/ imposing similar value systems and outlooks including intense hatred for the US. They are pretty close. China too is quite close to these nations.

India, US, UK, Japan, SA, Brazil are beginning to realize we share much more in common and are naturally drawing closer and closer, afraid/ concerned of countries with totalitarian regimes, growing distaste for pluralist value systems..and share similar concerns.

My take is when people use 'interests' as a cliche it can have a very narrow connotation solely with a solely material connotation thats used pretty much in a goebbelistic manner by a lot of people who defend or have sympathies with totalitarian ideologies.

JMT/

pChan
05 Dec 09,, 14:44
China, Pakistan, Myanmar share a distaste for pluralist, democratic institutions and thus come closer in their relationships with each other, including against India.


China/Myanmar have a distaste for countries that poke their nose into their internal affairs not on nations with pluralist, democratic institutions. India did have a "democratic" bent when it came to myanmar policies but now no longer so ... driven mostly be interests. Other than some nice editorials in NYtimes that policy provided no dividend to India. India also has good relationship with Iran - not the best example of a nation with shared pluralistic institutions.



India, US, UK, Japan, SA, Brazil are beginning to realize we share much more in common and are naturally drawing closer and closer, afraid/ concerned of countries with totalitarian regimes, growing distaste for pluralist value systems..and share similar concerns.


Ultimately its not totalitarianism that they are afraid of but irredentism, non-free trade/market policies. If a nation is compatible with these principles then they would do just fine (democracy or otherwise). That by itself represents "common interests".



My take is when people use 'interests' as a cliche it can have a very narrow connotation solely with a solely material connotation thats used pretty much in a goebbelistic manner by a lot of people who defend or have sympathies with totalitarian ideologies.


Its a broad connotation. It operates on "live & let live". Lets take Iran - the regime in Iran has its interest in engaging in a permanent state of rivalry with Israel. The west is staring down at Iran not china. Because china is compatible with western interests. After all china hasn't imposed an economic blockade on Taiwan. As for invasion they don't have the ability now anyway but it would be interesting to see their actions when they get that ability at some point of time in the future.

HillTribe
05 Dec 09,, 20:33
To many Chinese,Pakistan also is the only friend we can trust...。Frankly speaking,though I believe Interest is the basis of the contacts between countries,it's hard for me to use that basis to evaluate Sino-Pakistani relations。

I do understand that Pakistan views China as its closet and only reliable ally. But does China too view Pakistan as the ONLY ally it has?

subba
05 Dec 09,, 23:32
China/Myanmar have a distaste for countries that poke their nose into their internal affairs not on nations with pluralist, democratic institutions. India did have a "democratic" bent when it came to myanmar policies but now no longer so ... driven mostly be interests. Other than some nice editorials in NYtimes that policy provided no dividend to India. India also has good relationship with Iran - not the best example of a nation with shared pluralistic institutions.

Chan sir, i don't think you understood what i posted. These are broad sweeps " China does not interfere in 'internal' affairs of 'Independent' countries' etc. I could tear that statement to shreds with the risk of this getting OT. But let that be. China-Myanmar-Pakistan have one common distaste and one common taste. A penchant to support authoritarian regimes and institutions in the region, most preferably those that throttle democratic voices. This has been apparent and clear for a very long time. Thats the reason why Beijing supports the Junta in Myanmar and how the Junta in Myanmar survives.

As i mentioned India's recent overtures to Myanmar are for 2 short term reasons primarily.One to restrict Beijings influence in Rangoon and second to get a grip on rebels who use bases in Myanmars to carry out subversion in border states. Similarly India's relationship with Iran, need for LPG/ LNG, historical links keeps us just close enough to Iran, but not that close to vote for them at IAEA etc.

So what i stated that strategic and core interests are based in ideology when countries with shared value systems come closer as mentioned before.


Ultimately its not totalitarianism that they are afraid of but irredentism, non-free trade/market policies. If a nation is compatible with these principles then they would do just fine (democracy or otherwise). That by itself represents "common interests".

Thats what i wanted to point out. The 'realpolitik' folks would like us to believe. But it's always short term 'interests' that realpolitik serves in the long term. Left alone value systems and ideologies are the basis of a clash of interests. Clashes are always doctrinal at the core in nature. However insignificant or gross the actual reason for going into combat.

Kashmir for example is a clash not about land but doctrine. Pakistans 2 Nation theory that Muslims cannot live with non-muslims and should have separate countries and India which rejects the 2 nation theory and states that all religions and races can live and work together in harmony. The core of the dispute is completely doctrinal.

It's the same doctrinal dilemna in Pakistan today. The PA and AQ motto are one and same. Both don't mind using terror as a policy instrument, making it very hard for Pakistan to placate short term interests like the US wanting to engage the 'good taliban' vs Pakistan wanting to engage only the 'bad taliban'. However all their interests become common and all unite when they clash with a doctrinally different 'Kufr' India.

This has always been the fundamental nature of conflict in history. Fundamentally it's always doctrine, always ideology that either provoke conflict or bring associated parties closer.

1980s
06 Dec 09,, 18:02
“The real terrorists are not the men in turbans we see on Al Jazeera,” said the psychiatrist, Dr. Malik H. Mubbashar, vice chancellor of the University of Health Sciences in Lahore. “They are wearing Gucci suits and Brit hats. It’s your great country, Madam.”

I asked him to spell it out. “It’s coming from Americans, Jews and Indians,” he said. “It’s an axis of evil that’s being supervised by you people.”

...

Conspiracy theories are pervasive in Pakistan, and Ms. Alvi offered an explanation. They are a projection, she said — a defense mechanism that protects one’s psyche from something too difficult to accept. “It’s not me, it’s you,” she said. “It’s a denial of personal responsibility, which goes a long way to cripple our growth.”

...

“Our healing is recent,” Ms. Alvi said. “Before, we were very confused about who and what we were.”

But she said there is still a long way to go.

“A giant step forward would be to take responsibility,” she said.

Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/weekinreview/06tavernise.html?ref=world

HillTribe
07 Dec 09,, 07:54
A BBC article on Obama's Pak strategy and the schizophrenic nature of the Pakistani nation.

Obama's perilous Pakistan strategy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8393093.stm)

Excerpts:

"US President Barack Obama has not only ordered a troops surge in Afghanistan, but has also spelt out an exit strategy.

This has created a situation in Pakistan which is both perilous and promising, depending on which side of the national divide you stand on."
__________________________________________________ ______

"Many in the political establishment also express fears publicly that an intensified campaign of drone strikes in Pakistani areas may stoke the fires of anti-Americanism and strengthen the extremists.

But in private conversations they also express hope that increased US pressure on Pakistan to squeeze the space for militant groups will weaken the army's resolve to continue to support and protect them."
__________________________________________________ __________

"Some analysts believed to be close to the security establishment admit that the Pakistani intelligence services nurtured these groups as a foreign policy tool, but say they are no longer under the army's control and have taken on a life of their own."

__________________________________________________ ____________

"A credible source in Islamabad told the BBC News website that if the Pakistanis were found to be dragging their feet on the issue of militant groups, the Americans might consider drone strikes on some important strategic targets deep inside Pakistan to hasten the process."
__________________________________________________ ___________

Things look set to heat up come summer 2010

HillTribe
07 Dec 09,, 08:19
Another NY tIMES article about the expansion of US efforts into Pakistan:

Between the Lines, an Expansion in Pakistan (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/world/asia/02strategy.html?ref=weekinreview)
__________________________________________________ _______

Sound bites:

"Any overt American presence would only fuel anti-Americanism in a country that reacts sharply to every missile strike against extremists that kills civilians as well, and that fears the United States is plotting to run its government and seize its nuclear weapons.

Yet quietly, Mr. Obama has authorized an expansion of the war in Pakistan as well — if only he can get a weak, divided, suspicious Pakistani government to agree to the terms."

__________________________________________________ __________
"In recent months, in addition to providing White House officials with classified assessments about Afghanistan, the C.I.A. delivered a plan for widening the campaign of strikes against militants by drone aircraft in Pakistan, sending additional spies there and securing a White House commitment to bulk up the C.I.A.’s budget for operations inside the country.

The expanded operations could include drone strikes in the southern province of Baluchistan, where senior Afghan Taliban leaders are believed to be hiding, officials said. It is from there that they direct many of the attacks on American troops, attacks that are likely to increase as more Americans pour into Afghanistan."
__________________________________________________ ____________

"General Jones was one of a series of American officials who arrived in Pakistan in recent weeks with the same message: no matter how many troops the president commits to Afghanistan, the strategy will founder unless the safe haven inside Pakistan is dealt with."
__________________________________________________ ____________

"The stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that Al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them,” he said.

Mr. Obama’s decision to raise the nuclear specter was notable because a succession of American officials have publicly stated recently that the Pakistani arsenal is secure. In private, however, they have commissioned new intelligence studies on how vulnerable Pakistani warheads and laboratories would be if insurgents made greater inroads, with one official saying recently, “It is the scenario we spend the most time thinking about.”

Even if Mr. Obama is successful in lessening the terrorist threat in the region, many analysts say that Al Qaeda has changed into a transnational movement beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan."

__________________________________________________ ______

"Even Janet Napolitano, the secretary of homeland security, acknowledged in an interview this evening that the steps announced by the president would not address Al Qaeda cells in Africa or the Middle East, or even homegrown extremists. But she argued that he had to begin somewhere."


__________________________________________________ ___________

Parihaka
15 Dec 09,, 04:01
Pakistan Rebuffs U.S. on Taliban Crackdown (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/world/asia/15haqqani.html)


By JANE PERLEZ
Published: December 14, 2009

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Demands by the United States for Pakistan to crack down on the strongest Taliban warrior in Afghanistan, Siraj Haqqani, whose fighters pose the biggest threat to American forces, have been rebuffed by the Pakistani military, according to Pakistani military officials and diplomats.

The Obama administration wants Pakistan to turn on Mr. Haqqani, a longtime asset of Pakistan’s spy agency who uses the tribal area of North Waziristan as his sanctuary. But, the officials said, Pakistan views the entreaties as contrary to its interests in Afghanistan beyond the timetable of President Obama’s surge, which envisions reducing American forces beginning in mid-2011.

The demands, first made by senior American officials before President Obama’s Afghanistan speech and repeated many times since, were renewed in a written message delivered in recent days by the United States Embassy to the head of the Pakistani military, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, according to American officials. Gen. David H. Petraeus followed up on Monday during a visit to Islamabad.

The demands have been accompanied by strong suggestions that if the Pakistanis cannot take care of the problem, including dismantling the Taliban leadership based in Quetta, Pakistan, then the Americans will by resorting to broader and more frequent drone strikes in Pakistan.

But the Pakistani leadership has greeted the refrain with public silence and private anger, according to Pakistani officials and diplomats familiar with the conversations, illustrating the widening gulf between the allies over the Afghan war.

Former Pakistani military officers voice irritation with the Americans daily on television, part of a mounting grievance in Pakistan that the alliance with the United States is too costly to bear.

“It is really beginning to irk and anger us,” said a security official familiar with the deliberations at the senior levels of the Pakistani leadership.

The core reason for Pakistan’s imperviousness is its scant faith in the Obama troop surge, and what Pakistan sees as the need to position itself for a regional realignment in Afghanistan once American forces begin to leave.

It considers Mr. Haqqani and his control of large areas of Afghan territory vital to Pakistan in the jostling for influence that will pit Pakistan, India, Russia, China and Iran in the post-American Afghan arena, the Pakistani officials said.

Pakistan is particularly eager to counter the growing influence of its archenemy, India, which is pouring $1.2 billion in aid into Afghanistan. “If America walks away, Pakistan is very worried that it will have India on its eastern border and India on its western border in Afghanistan,” said Tariq Fatemi, a former Pakistani ambassador to the United States who is pro-American in his views.

For that reason, Mr. Fatemi said, the Pakistani Army is “very reluctant” to jettison Mr. Haqqani, Pakistan’s strong card in Afghanistan. Moreover, the Pakistanis do not want to alienate Mr. Haqqani because they consider him an important player in reconciliation efforts that they would like to see get under way in Afghanistan immediately, the officials said.

Because Mr. Haqqani shelters Qaeda leaders and operatives in North Waziristan, Washington is opposed to including Mr. Haqqani among the possible reconcilable Taliban, at least for the moment, a Western diplomat said.

In his reply to the Americans, General Kayani stressed a short-term argument, according to two Pakistani officials familiar with the response.

Pakistan currently has its hands full fighting the Pakistani Taliban in South Waziristan and other places, and it is beyond its capacity to open another front against the Afghan Taliban, the officials said of General Kayani’s response. The offensive has had the secondary effect of constraining the Haqqani network in North Waziristan and driving some of its commanders and fighters across the border to Afghanistan, senior American military officials in Afghanistan said.

But implicit in General Kayani’s reply was the fact that the homegrown Pakistani Taliban represent the real threat to Pakistan. General Kayani argued that they are the ones carrying out attacks against security installations and civilian markets in Pakistan’s cities and must be the army’s top priority, the officials said.

For his part, Mr. Haqqani fights in Afghanistan, and is considered more of an asset than a threat by the Pakistanis. But he is the most potent force fighting the United States, American and Pakistani officials agree.

He has subcommanders threaded throughout eastern and southern Afghanistan. His fighters control Paktika, Paktia and Khost Provinces in Afghanistan, which lie close to North Waziristan. His men are also strong in Ghazni, Logar and Wardak Provinces, the officials said.

Because Mr. Haqqani now spends so much time in Afghanistan — about three weeks of every month, according to a Pakistani security official — if the Americans want to eliminate him, their troops should have ample opportunity to capture him, Pakistani security officials argue.

As a son of Jalaluddin Haqqani, a leading mujahedeen fighter against the Soviets who is now aged and apparently confined to bed, Siraj Haqqani is keeper of a formidable lineage and history.

In the early 1970s, the father attended a well-known madrasa, Dar-ul-Uloom Haqqaniya in the Pakistani town of Akora Khattack in North-West Frontier Province.

In the 1980s, Jalaluddin Haqqani received money and arms from the C.I.A. routed through Pakistan’s spy agency, Inter-Services Intelligence, to fight the Soviets, according to Ahmed Rashid, an expert on the Afghan Taliban and the author of “Descent Into Chaos.”

In the 1990s, when the Taliban ran Afghanistan, Jalaluddin Haqqani served as governor of Paktia Province.

The relationship between the Haqqanis and Osama bin Laden dates back to the war against the Soviets in the 1980s, according to Kamran Bokhari, the South Asia director for Stratfor, a geopolitical risk analysis company.

When the Taliban government collapsed at the end of 2001 and Qaeda operatives fled from Tora Bora to Pakistan, the Haqqanis relocated their command structure to North Waziristan and welcomed Al Qaeda, Mr. Bokhari said.

The biggest gift of the Pakistanis to the Haqqanis was the use of the North Waziristan as their fiefdom, he said.

The Pakistani Army did not appear to be assisting the Haqqanis with training or equipment, he said. More than 20 members of the Haqqani family were killed in a drone attack in North Waziristan last year, showing the limits of how far the Pakistanis could protect them, Mr. Bokhari said.

Today, Siraj Haqqani has anywhere from 4,000 to 12,000 Taliban under his command. He is technically a member of the Afghan Taliban leadership based in Quetta, the capital of Pakistan’s Baluchistan Province.

That leadership is headed by Mullah Omar, the former leader of the Taliban regime. But Mr. Haqqani operates fairly independently of them inside Afghanistan.

He funds his operations in part through kidnappings and other illicit activities. The Haqqani network held David Rohde, a correspondent for The New York Times, for seven months, seeking ransom until he escaped in June.

Siraj Haqqani maintains an uneasy relationship with the Pakistani Taliban, said Maulana Yousaf Shah, the administrator of the madrasa at Akora Khattack.

Mr. Haqqani believed the chief jihadi objective should be forcing the foreigners out of Afghanistan, and he had tried but failed to redirect the Pakistani Taliban to fight in Afghanistan as well, he said.

Ismail Khan contributed reporting from Peshawar, Pakistan; Pir Zubair Shah from Islamabad, and Eric Schmitt from Kabul, Afghanistan.

pChan
17 Dec 09,, 05:47
The NYTimes has an article on the problems faced by American diplomats in Pak. In an article which espouses pak's duplicity the following quoted text will make sure that the average reader will still remain confused about pak's intention.



The skittishness between the sides was put aside Wednesday when the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, was taken on a helicopter tour of the tribal area of South Waziristan by the chief of the Pakistani Army, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, to show off what the Pakistanis had achieved against the Taliban.

No Pakistani or American reporter was taken along, a sign that the Pakistanis preferred to keep the American help in South Waziristan quiet.


Pakistan Reported to Be Harassing U.S. Diplomats (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/world/asia/17visa.html?hp)

Luke Gu
17 Dec 09,, 14:12
I do understand that Pakistan views China as its closet and only reliable ally. But does China too view Pakistan as the ONLY ally it has?
If you come in the famous Military Forum in China you can feel it.You‘ll get many Criticism if you criticize Pakistan.And if you know about China's diplomatic history,you will find it Pakistan always support China even when just she support China.That‘s really can get Chinese people’s trust.And,China don't have enough good friends,so Sino-Pakistani friendship is really Cherished to many Chinese.

Officer of Engineers
17 Dec 09,, 15:06
I do understand that Pakistan views China as its closet and only reliable ally. But does China too view Pakistan as the ONLY ally it has?No, not by a long shot.

The only popularity happened because of the internet wars between the internet warriors of both countries but China has no plans to come to Pakistan's rescue. The Kargil incident showed China's restraint even when Pakistan raised the nuclear card.

Chinese military modernization does not have India in mind and thus far been seeing the tactical rather than the strategic issues. The Chinese played with the Russians far more than they ever did with the Pakistanis and it is those two armies who are best at going to do a job together than the Chinese and Pakistan ... whom frankly would only get in each other's way.

HillTribe
17 Dec 09,, 16:42
No, not by a long shot.

The only popularity happened because of the internet wars between the internet warriors of both countries but China has no plans to come to Pakistan's rescue. The Kargil incident showed China's restraint even when Pakistan raised the nuclear card.

Chinese military modernization does not have India in mind and thus far been seeing the tactical rather than the strategic issues. The Chinese played with the Russians far more than they ever did with the Pakistanis and it is those two armies who are best at going to do a job together than the Chinese and Pakistan ... whom frankly would only get in each other's way.


Very true...

With time the trade volume between India and China will only get bigger and economics will trump all other considerations. India will never risk jeopardizing
trade with China and vice versa for the sake of Pakistan, much like US wouldn't want to bring down the entire global economy by going to war with China.

astralis
17 Dec 09,, 18:15
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/world/asia/17visa.html?hpw

Pakistan Reported to Be Harassing U.S. Diplomats
By JANE PERLEZ and ERIC SCHMITT
Published: December 16, 2009

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Parts of the Pakistani military and intelligence services are mounting what American officials here describe as a campaign to harass American diplomats, fraying relations at a critical moment when the Obama administration is demanding more help to fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

The campaign includes the refusal to extend or approve visas for more than 100 American officials and the frequent searches of American diplomatic vehicles in major cities, said an American official briefed on the cases.

The problems affected military attachés, C.I.A. officers, development experts, junior level diplomats and others, a senior American diplomat said. As a result, some American aid programs to Pakistan, which President Obama has called a critical ally, are “grinding to a halt,” the diplomat said.

American helicopters used by Pakistan to fight militants can no longer be serviced because visas for 14 American mechanics have not been approved, the diplomat said. Reimbursements to Pakistan of nearly $1 billion a year for counterterrorism have been suspended because the last of the American Embassy’s five accountants left the country this week after his visa expired.

“There’s an incredible disconnect between what they want of us and the fact we can’t get the visas,” the diplomat said.

Pakistani officials acknowledged the situation but said the menacing atmosphere resulted from American arrogance and provocations, like taking photographs in sensitive areas, and a lack of understanding of how divided Pakistanis were about the alliance with the United States.

American and Pakistani officials declined to be identified while speaking about the issues because of their senior positions and the desire not to further inflame tensions.

The campaign comes after months of rising anti-American sentiment here and complaints by the military that the government of President Asif Ali Zardari has grown too dependent on a new $7.5 billion, five-year aid plan from Washington.

It also appears to be an attempt to blunt the planned expansion of the United States Embassy to 800 Americans from 500 in the next 18 months, growth that American officials say is necessary to channel the expanded American assistance.

“They don’t want more Americans here,” another American diplomat said. “They’re not sure what the Americans are doing. It’s pretty pervasive.”

The harassment has grown so frequent that American officials said they viewed it as a concerted effort by parts of the military and intelligence services that had grown resentful of American demands to step up the war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Though the United States has been sending large amounts of military assistance to the Pakistani Army, and helping its premier spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate, the campaign shows the ambivalence, even “hatred” toward the United States in those quarters, the American official said.

A Pakistani security official, who has kept a tally of many of the incidents, was not sympathetic, saying the Americans had brought on the problems.

“Unfortunately, the Americans are arrogant,” the Pakistani security official said. “They think of themselves as omnipotent. That’s how they come across.”

For instance, he said, the Pakistani police were not harassing American diplomats as they drove up to checkpoints, but rather were responding to provocations by American officials.

He cited a recent report in some Pakistani newspapers that an American diplomat had been taking photographs in a military area of the city of Lahore.

The reports were false, an American Embassy spokesman said. He said the suspected diplomat, a technical support officer, was not carrying a camera.

In another instance, the Pakistani security official said, Americans in an S.U.V. last week fled after the police tried to search their car at a checkpoint on the outskirts of Islamabad, the capital.

The embassy spokesman denied that Americans had fled the checkpoint. “Nonsense, diplomats don’t run away,” he said.

The searching of American diplomatic vehicles at the many checkpoints in the cities has become one of the biggest irritants.

Because diplomatic license plates registered to the embassy would provide an easy target for militants, the Americans reached an accord some time ago with Pakistan’s government that their official plates would be carried inside the car, the spokesman said.

But the absence of plates left the American cars vulnerable to searches at checkpoints, he said. Under international conventions diplomatic cars are not subject to searches, and American diplomats were instructed not to permit searches beyond opening the trunk, the spokesman said.

The Pakistani security official said, “We are in a state of war that calls for extraordinary measures.” His vehicle is searched every morning he goes to the office in Islamabad, and Americans should expect the same, he said.

He also said the Americans should not be surprised about the visa problem. But the issue is now affecting Pakistan’s own interests, American officials said.

At least 135 American diplomats have been refused extensions on their visas, the senior American diplomat said, leaving some sections of the embassy operating at 60 percent of capacity.

One of the most harmful consequences, the diplomat said, is the scaling back of helicopter missions by the Frontier Corps paramilitary troops fighting the Taliban because of a lack of trained American mechanics.

Much of the heightened suspicions about American diplomats appears to revolve around persistent stories in the Pakistani press about the presence of the American security company Blackwater, now called Xe Services, in Pakistan.

The embassy has denied that Xe operates in Pakistan. But those statements have collided with reports that Xe operatives worked for the C.I.A. to load missiles onto drones used to kill Qaeda militants in the tribal areas.

The public distrust toward American officials has led many American diplomats to keep a low profile, and adopt a bunker mentality, American diplomats acknowledge. Americans are warned by security advisers to steer clear of restaurants and shopping areas.

The skittishness between the sides was put aside Wednesday when the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, was taken on a helicopter tour of the South Waziristan tribal area by the Pakistani Army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, to show what the Pakistanis had achieved against the Taliban.

No Pakistani or American reporter was taken along, a sign the Pakistanis preferred to keep the American help there quiet.

troung
17 Dec 09,, 20:47
If you come in the famous Military Forum in China you can feel it.You‘ll get many Criticism if you criticize Pakistan.And if you know about China's diplomatic history,you will find it Pakistan always support China even when just she support China.That‘s really can get Chinese people’s trust.And,China don't have enough good friends,so Sino-Pakistani friendship is really Cherished to many Chinese.

It is only internet deep.

the article,


“Unfortunately, the Americans are arrogant,” the Pakistani security official said. “They think of themselves as omnipotent. That’s how they come across.”

Coming from Pakistanis.


At least 135 American diplomats have been refused extensions on their visas, the senior American diplomat said, leaving some sections of the embassy operating at 60 percent of capacity.

If we cut off visas and money how would they act?


One of the most harmful consequences, the diplomat said, is the scaling back of helicopter missions by the Frontier Corps paramilitary troops fighting the Taliban because of a lack of trained American mechanics. American helicopters used by Pakistan to fight militants can no longer be serviced because visas for 14 American mechanics have not been approved, the diplomat said. Reimbursements to Pakistan of nearly $1 billion a year for counterterrorism have been suspended because the last of the American Embassy’s five accountants left the country this week after his visa expired.

Cutting off their nose just to act like douches.

Mihais
18 Dec 09,, 21:05
50 years from now that article could make a script for fine comedy.Reading it today I think that while talking softly you need to look at the stick.And they must see where you're looking.
With all the respect for Pakistani problems,unless you Yanks really want to get out tail between your legs,such behaviour must not be tolerated.

S2
24 Dec 09,, 03:04
"...such behaviour must not be tolerated."

We'll tolerate sanctuary provided by the GoP to our enemies, why wouldn't we tolerate a few words of mock indignance?

1980s
04 Jan 10,, 17:58
"...such behaviour must not be tolerated."

We'll tolerate sanctuary provided by the GoP to our enemies, why wouldn't we tolerate a few words of mock indignance?

Dunno how credible this report is. I've been following the reports by the journalist in question for a couple of years now and he seems to be very well 'connected' to 'militant sources'. Altho in some previous reports of his i have noticed some very basic errors and just plain incorrect narratives. Altho this article makes an interesting read, for what its worth:


US spies walked into al-Qaeda's trap (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LA05Df01.html)
By Syed Saleem Shahzad

ISLAMABAD - The suicide attack on the United States Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA's) forward operating base of Chapman in the Afghan province of Khost last week was planned in the Pakistani tribal area of North Waziristan.

The attacker - a handpicked plant in the Afghan National Army (ANA) - detonated his explosive vest in a gym at the base, killing seven agents, including the station chief, and wounding six. The base was officially for civilians involved in reconstruction.

The plan was executed following several weeks of preparation by al-Qaeda's Lashkar al-Zil (Shadow Army), Asia Times Online has learned. This was after Lashkar al-Zil's intelligence outfit informed its chief commander, Ilyas Kashmiri, that the CIA planned to broaden the monitoring of the possible movement of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Well-connected sources in militant camps say that Lashkar al-Zil had become aware of the CIA's escalation of intelligence activities to gather information on high-value targets for US drone attacks. It emerged that tribesmen from Shawal and Datta Khel, in Pakistan's North Waziristan tribal area, had been invited by US operatives, through middlemen, to Khost, where the operatives tried to acquire information on al-Qaeda leaders. Such activities have been undertaken in the past, but this time they were somewhat different.

"This time there was clearly an obsession to hunt down something big in North Waziristan. But in this obsession, they [operatives] blundered and exposed the undercover CIA facility," a senior leader in al-Qaeda's 313 Brigade said. The brigade, led by Ilyas Kashmiri, comprises jihadis with extensive experience in Pakistan's Kashmir struggle with India.

Once it became clear that efforts to track down al-Qaeda were being stepped up and that the base in Khost was being extensively used by the CIA, the Lashkar al-Zil (Brigade 055) moved into top gear. It is the soul of al-Qaeda, having being involved in several events since the September 11, 2001, attacks on the US. Under the command of Ilyas Kashmiri, its intelligence network's coordination with its special guerrilla action force has changed the dynamics of the Afghan war theater. Instead of traditional guerrilla warfare in which the Taliban have taken most of the casualties, the brigade has resorted to special operations, the one on the CIA base being the latest and one of the most successful.

Lashkar al-Zil comprises the Pakistani Taliban, 313 Brigade, the Afghan Taliban, Hezb-e-Islami Afghanistan and former Iraqi Republican Guards. It has taken on special significance since the US announcement of a 30,000 troop surge in Afghanistan, due to kick into action this week.

Leaders of the Lashkar al-Zil now knew that CIA operatives were trying to recruit reliable tribal people from Afghanistan so that the latter could develop an effective intelligence network along the border with North Waziristan's Shawal and Datta Khel regions, where high-profile al-Qaeda leaders often move around.

Laskhar al-Zil then laid its trap.

Over the past months, using connections in tribal structures and ties with former commanders of the Taliban and the Hezb-e-Islami Afghanistan, the militants have planted a large number of men in the ANA.

One of these plants, an officer, was now called into action. He contacted US personnel in Khost and told them he was linked to a network in the tribal areas and that he had information on where al-Qaeda would hold its shura (council) in North Waziristan and on the movement of al-Qaeda leaders.

The ANA officer was immediately invited to the CIA base in Khost to finalize a joint operation of Predator drones and ground personnel against these targets.

Once inside, he set off his bomb, with deadly results.

"It's a devastating blow," Times Online quoted Michael Scheuer as saying. "[Among others] we lost an agent with 14 years' experience in Afghanistan." Scheuer is a former head of Alec Station, the unit created to monitor bin Laden five years before the attacks of September 11.

Unlike the Taliban's mostly rag-tag army, Laskhar al-Zil is a sophisticated unit, with modern equipment such as night-vision technology, the latest light weapons and finely honed guerrilla tactics. It has a well-funded intelligence department, much like the Hezb-e-Islami Afghanistan had during the resistance against the Soviets in the 1980s when it had access to advance information on the movement of the Red Army.

However, Laskhar al-Zil is one step ahead of the Hezb's former intelligence outfit in that it has been able to plant men in the ANA, and these "soldiers" are now at the forefront of al-Qaeda-led sabotage activities in Afghanistan.

In addition, a large number of senior government officials both in the capital, Kabul, and in the provinces are sympathetic to the Hezb-e-Islami Afghanistan, and, by extension, to the Taliban. Similarly, several former top Taliban commanders have been given responsibilities by the central government in district areas, and as the insurgency has grown, these former militants have been increasingly useful to the Taliban-led insurgency.

In sum, the US troop surge, coupled with increased US efforts to track down al-Qaeda, has resulted in a shift in southeastern Afghanistan. There has been hardly any uprising against foreign troops in which the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) could hit the Taliban hard. The insurgents now select specific targets for the most effective outcome, such as the spy base in Khost - it took just one insurgent's life for the "devastating" result.

Consequently, for the first time in the many years that Afghanistan has been at war, the winter season is hot. Last October, the US withdrew its troops from its four key bases in Nuristan, on the border with Pakistan, leaving the northeastern province as a safe haven for the Taliban, under the command of Qari Ziaur Rahman. Kurangal Valley in Kunar province is heavily under siege and Taliban attacks on US bases there could see US forces pulling back from Kunar as well.

And in the meantime, Lashkar al-Zil can be expected to be planning more strikes of its own.

In terms of acquiring things like night-vision goggles and more sophisticated arms, is it possible (or probable) that these are American equipment supplied to the Pakistani army that has in turn been supplied to this "Laskhar al-Zil" ?

Officer of Engineers
04 Jan 10,, 21:55
In terms of acquiring things like night-vision goggles and more sophisticated arms, is it possible (or probable) that these are American equipment supplied to the Pakistani army that has in turn been supplied to this "Laskhar al-Zil" ?

Or goto ebay

night vision goggles, great deals on Sporting Goods, Electronics on eBay! (http://shop.ebay.com/i.html?_nkw=night+vision+goggles&_sacat=0&_trksid=p3286.m270.l1311&_odkw=night+vision&_osacat=0)

martinmystry
05 Jan 10,, 11:13
Why don't US spend some billions on SEZ in Afganistan. That way people will earn and also the Gov. will earn som taxes. Even 4 SEZ of 15 km radius with better facility for living and study will make sure law & order remains and the economy grows thus help even more people to realize the benifits of ISAF.

1980s
10 Jan 10,, 15:04
Looks like the "good Taliban" "bad Taliban" farce was just that all along, a farce. Not that many people needed to be told that but i think attack on the CIA in Afghanistan will finally put an end to the debate over whether Al-Qaeda and the Taliban should be viewed separately.


BBC News - 'CIA bomber' video indicates Taliban's reach (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8450102.stm)
By M Ilyas Khan
BBC News, Islamabad

The Jordanian "double agent" who killed himself and seven American Central Intelligence Agency officials in Afghanistan's Khost province last month must have been very sure of the success of his mission.

"This… attack will be the first of revenge operations against the Americans and their drone teams outside the Pakistani border, after they killed the Amir [chief] of Tehrik Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Baitullah Mehsud, may God's beneficence be upon him," he apparently said in a video broadcast released on Saturday.

The video shows the purported Jordanian suicide bomber sitting next to Baitullah Mehsud's successor and the new Pakistani Taliban, or TTP, chief, Hakimullah Mehsud, and reading from written text.

"We [the Jordanian himself and the Taliban, whom he describes as Mujahideen or the holy warriors] arranged together this attack to let the Americans understand that our belief in Allah… cannot be exchanged for all the wealth in the world," he says.

It would appear that he had already set the trap for the CIA agents at the time he made the video.

But is this really the man who carried out the 30 December bombing of Forward Operating Base Chapman in Khost, which is believed to be the nerve-centre of suspected US drone strikes into Pakistani territory?

The authenticity of the video is not yet established, neither is the identity of the man in the video - although the father of the accused Jordanian has said that the man who appears on the video is definitely his son.

The Americans say the Jordanian who killed the CIA officials in Khost was named Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi.

But the man in the video introduces himself as Dr Abu Dujana al-Khorasani.

He also does not specify as to where "outside the Pakistani borders" he is going to carry out his revenge attack.

Some observers even suspect the video may have been doctored by the Pakistani Taliban - who are believed to have released it - to show their leader at the side of the bomber who greatly embarrassed both the American and Jordanian intelligence services.

Training camps

The Pakistani Taliban has claimed responsibility for the Khost attack, alongside similar claims by the Afghan Taliban and al-Qaeda.

All of them said that the attack was planned to avenge the 6 August 2009 killing of Baitullah Mehsud in a drone strike.

A Pakistani Taliban leader, Qari Hussain, who is known to run training camps for suicide bombers in Pakistan's Waziristan tribal region, near the border with Afghanistan, had in an audio message last week promised that they would soon release a video of the Khost bomber.

If the video is found to be authentic, then it apparently shows the level and the extent of collaboration between the al-Qaeda core, the Afghan Taliban and their Pakistani counterparts.

This is not to say that there has ever been any real divergence of views over ideology, tactics or strategy among these three entities.

Analysts say that the Taliban movement in Pakistan is essentially an offshoot of the so-called Haqqani network, which is an Afghanistan-focused organisation with close links to the al-Qaeda core and sanctuaries in Pakistan.

The network has deep reach inside Afghanistan and is believed to be behind several high-profile attacks in eastern and south-central Afghanistan, including Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan.

'Holy warriors'

An Afghan war veteran from the days of Soviet invasion, Jalaluddin Haqqani, is said to have carved out the Taliban sanctuaries in Waziristan through his close links with the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI.

Haqqani is now believed to be an ailing man, and the leadership of the network has passed into the hands of his son, Sirajuddin Haqqani.

The Haqqanis hail from Khost region, and have been based in the nearby Pakistani tribal region of North Waziristan since the Soviet invasion in 1979.

In the post-9/11 period, the Haqqanis have organised Afghan resistance from three distinct bases in Pakistan's North and South Waziristan region.

The fighters in North Waziristan are led by Hafiz Gul Bahadur, those in the western region of South Waziristan are led by Maulvi Nazir, while those in eastern parts of South Waziristan are led by Hakimullah Mehsud.

Over the years, the groups in North Waziristan and in the west of South Waziristan have struck peace deals with the Pakistani forces and have focused on Afghanistan.

The group led by Hakimullah Mehsud has, meanwhile, trained its guns on Pakistan.

The strategy is in keeping with al-Qaeda's view that both Pakistani and Afghan governments are siding with the "infidels" and deserve the wrath of the holy warriors.

If found authentic, the video released on Saturday would show that any distinction between the militants of Afghanistan and Pakistan has no value beyond academic interest.

The last paragraph says it all.

S2
10 Jan 10,, 15:46
"The last paragraph says it all."

Only the most obtuse and dense soul would assert such a difference. There certainly was no functional difference on display in SWAT. It was that manifest fact which finally aroused the ire of the Pakistani people. The reality of human-interpreted sharia paled against the rhetoric preceeding it.

Funny that Pakistanis have such a callous regard for their afghan muslim brothers and sisters that they'd wish upon the afghans that which they can't tolerate for themselves.

Zaitsev
10 Jan 10,, 17:03
"The last paragraph says it all."

Only the most obtuse and dense soul would assert such a difference. There certainly was no functional difference on display in SWAT. It was that manifest fact which finally aroused the ire of the Pakistani people. The reality of human-interpreted sharia paled against the rhetoric preceeding it.

Funny that Pakistanis have such a callous regard for their afghan muslim brothers and sisters that they'd wish upon the afghans that which they can't tolerate for themselves.

From the beginning pakistani interest in afghanistan was never to have diplomatic ties but to hold it in its clout..to make it its puppet state and to recruit there jihad base from there to use it against its 'hostile' countries(read India).
As for the callous behaviour i think its more beacuse of some difference in their cultures..and its not just limited to afghan but also recently to their own balochistan.

S2
06 Feb 10,, 04:33
Bombs & Beatings: Life Among The Taliban-BBC Feb. 5, 2010 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8499578.stm)

This is a heartbreaking story as told by a thirteen year old girl belonging to a committed family of taliban, replete with a brother who recruited suicide-bombers, beat students and teachers, and told her that a woman's place was in a home or grave.

He threatened to cut off his sister's head and put it on her chest if she left the house. It gets much worse and includes video.

Slowly, I think that the Pakistanis are getting it. Sadly, there are too many indications that their strategic thinkers STILL see the taliban as a viable option that must be held close. It makes talk of "stretched and overcommitted forces" ring hollow and only confirms whenever I read such as in this report-

Pakistan's Military Examines Its Options In N. Waziristan-Lt. Gen. Talaat Masood Jamestown Foundation February 4, 2010 (http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=36004&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=13&cHash=3548b897a4)

Be forewarned that this apologia/rationale offered is despicably heinous and points to the continuing climate of double-talk and dissemblance we've been spoon-fed since day one.

Ol' S-2's anger-management blew apart and my diplomatic skills utterly failed with my Pakistani friends upon reading it.:mad:

Deltacamelately
06 Feb 10,, 08:10
Ol' S-2's anger-management blew apart and my diplomatic skills utterly failed with my Pakistani friends upon reading it.:mad:
Anger Management System Malfuntioning since day one.:mad:

IHM
06 Feb 10,, 11:32
Another excellent piece by Farhat Taj
............

ANALYSIS: Drone attacks and US reputation —Farhat Taj

In terms of the drone attacks, the US must not make any distinction between al Qaeda and the Taliban. They both have internalised a global ideology that is anti-civilisation and anti-human

There is news coming up in the media that al Qaeda in Waziristan may run away to Yemen in the face of growing drone attacks. The people of Waziristan have expressed deep concern at this news. They do not want al Qaeda to run away from Waziristan. They want al Qaeda along with the Taliban burnt to ashes on the soil of Waziristan through relentless drone attacks. The drone attacks, they believe, are the one and only ‘cure’ for these anti-civilisation creatures and the US must robustly administer them the ‘cure’ until their existence is annihilated from the world. The people of Waziristan, including tribal leaders, women and religious people, asked me to convey in categorical terms to the US the following in my column.

One, your new drone attack strategy is brilliant, i.e. one attack closely followed by another. After the first attack the terrorists cordon off the area and none but the terrorists are allowed on the spot. Another attack at that point kills so many of them. Excellent! Keep it up!

Your drone technology has the full capacity to encircle and eliminate al Qaeda and the Taliban in Waziristan. If you fail to do so and al Qaeda manages to run away to Yemen or any other place, it could only happen in two cases: either you are highly incompetent people or you have ulterior motives.

The people who have established one of the world’s most vibrant democracies and have taken science and technology to a new zenith cannot be highly incompetent. Now the only possibility is that you have ulterior motives, which could facilitate al Qaeda’s escape from Waziristan.

In a sense the ISI of Pakistan and the CIA of the US share a sinister reputation: both use fanatic Islamists to promote strategic goals. The Taliban are the strategic assets of the ISI and al Qaeda of the CIA. Terrorised people in FATA believe that the ISI would never eliminate the Taliban for the sake of strategic depth in Afghanistan and countless people across the Muslim world believe that al Qaeda is a CIA invention to trigger chaos in Muslim lands and hence create excuses for the US to control natural resources such as oil and gas in those lands. There is also a perception in FATA and the rest of Pakistan that the US is especially going soft on Islamists from the restive Muslim areas of China. Those Islamists would be used to destabilise China, the emerging rival to the US in world politics.

Here in Waziristan the US has a good opportunity to prove to the Muslim world that it is indeed serious in eliminating al Qaeda. The escape of al Qaeda from Waziristan to Yemen or any other Muslim country would communicate the message that the US is an imperial power that just ‘relocates’ its strategic assets from one Muslim society to another only to destabilise them and hence paves the way for US military intervention in those areas.

In terms of the drone attacks, the US must not make any distinction between al Qaeda and the Taliban. They both have internalised a global ideology that is anti-civilisation and anti-human. They will keep coming back to strike at civilisations — Islamic, Western, Confucian or Indian. The sooner the world gets rid of them the better.

This was the view of the people of Waziristan. I would now draw the attention of the US to the Peshawar Declaration, a joint statement of political parties, civil society organisations, businessmen, doctors, lawyers, teachers, students, labourers and intellectuals, following a conference on December 12-13, 2009, in Peshawar. The declaration notes that if the people of the war-affected areas are satisfied with any counter-militancy strategy; it is drone attacks that they support the most. Some people in Waziristan compare drones with the Quran’s Ababeels — the holy sparrows sent by God to avenge Abraham, the intended conqueror of the Khana Kaaba. Which other Muslim society has likened anything from the US military with a Quranic symbol? Only the Pakhtuns did that so publicly in this time of rising anti-Americanism across the Muslim world! What more does the US want from a Muslim society? Now please go ahead and do the needful as indicated by the people of Waziristan.

The overpowered people of Waziristan are angry. They believe no one in their entire history has inflicted so much insult on them as al Qaeda. In our native land, they say, al Qaeda has killed so many of us. Anyone in the world who has gone mad in the name of religion has come to occupy our land. They are Arabs, Central Asians, Caucasians and Africans. They are people with black, brown, blue and green eyes. They are brown, black and white. They all have chosen our land for their sinister designs against all civilisations. No self-respecting people, they argue, can accept this situation.

The ball is now in the US’s court. Their action or inaction against the terrorists in Waziristan would either confirm their image in the Muslim world as an imperial power destabilising Muslim societies in the name of the war on terror or would challenge that image, at least in FATA and the NWFP, the Muslim society on the frontline of the war on terror. The people of Waziristan hope the US challenges that image through the elimination of all terrorists — al Qaeda or the Taliban — in Waziristan.

The writer is a research fellow at the Centre for Interdisciplinary Gender Research, University of Oslo, and a member of Aryana Institute for Regional Research and Advocacy. She can be reached at bergen34@yahoo.com



Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\02\06\story_6-2-2010_pg3_4)

S2
06 Feb 10,, 12:22
"Another excellent piece by Farhat Taj"

Absolutely writing some of the most important pieces to the Pakistani narrative out there and bravely so. Thanks. She's had my attention for about one year now and her commentary ring solid with each reading.

Anybody that's not reading these two columns offered since January and her original research on behalf of AIRRA is really missing out.

EDIT: There are issues WRT the latest column. It would appear Ms. Taj is putting her credibility on the line when stating that there hasn't been ANY civilian collateral casualties. I'd dispute that. At a minimum, we must accept that there are incidents where the unfortunate wives and children of those harboring these beasts are killed. Like it or not, they'd be innocent of the crimes of their husbands/fathers. Without knowing for certain, I think that this is a fair assumption on my part.

Secondly, the notion that we've perfect omnipotence such that ALL A.Q. can be eliminated and thus kept from possibly emigrating elsewhere is an interesting exercise in dissemblance that suggests Ms. Taj is not immune from the conspiracy theories which abound in Pakistan. To suggest our perfect competency to target our enemies is ridiculous otherwise they'd have long since been killed. To suggest that their escape elsewhere could only be by our desire to use such as an entree into other muslim countries such as Yemen plays her cards way too far.

Still, she's marching to a different drummer. That much is for certain. So too the others alluded inside this article who've generated an interesting document known as the Peshawar Declaration at a conference last December 12-13. It is a decidedly anti-army, anti-taliban, anti-government declaration that will be certain to make the friends of nobody of consequence in Pakistan while likely adding a few names to those dissidents targeted for killing by either right-wing neo-fascists or islamo-fascists.

S2
07 Feb 10,, 23:04
I noticed that you've failed to provide us with a brief bio in the member intro thread. Would you please do so?

Thanks and may you live in interesting times.:)

EDIT: Gee whiz, Colonel, I was planning on being extra-nice. Really. See? Even a happy smile...

Officer of Engineers
08 Feb 10,, 01:57
EDIT: Gee whiz, Colonel, I was planning on being extra-nice. Really. See? Even a happy smile...It wasn't a very nice chew toy.

S2
08 Feb 10,, 06:14
"It wasn't a very nice chew toy."

Colonel,

No, he wasn't. However, I'd intended to chew that gristle slowly and digest it over an EXTREMELY long period of savory delight. I suspect Bluesman would have especially loved the flavor of that morsel.:))

troung
08 Feb 10,, 06:37
What did we miss?

Officer of Engineers
08 Feb 10,, 06:38
A very poor chew toy. Not worth our time.

S2
08 Feb 10,, 09:10
I'm linking to another thread because I believe it's important to see other Pashtun/Pakistani perspectives regarding drone attacks (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/war-terrorism/54614-s-2s-e-mails-ms-farhat-taj.html#post715563). The message peddled by the GoP/PA is sheer dissemblance and is not effectively countered by our government.

We lack the courage to confront the propaganda that not only assists the taliban but conveys a harmful image of America globally. Ms. Taj makes that clear in her e-mail to me. As such our enemies work and message is amplified by our so-called ally. The leading rationale that I can determine is an unpreparedness by the Pakistani government to forthrightly declare their whole-hearted support for the eradication of the Afghan taliban.

This is not only confirmed in the article written for the Jamestown Foundation by Lt. Gen Talaat Masood which I offered about five posts back but also in a presentation before the World Security Network Foundation by the former COAS and Director ISI Gen. (rtd.) Ehsan-ul-Haq.

Ms. Taj very disingenuously suggests that our inability to fully eliminate Al Qaeda in FATA will signal to the global Islamic community our complicity with their existance and our intent to use Al Qaeda as a rationale for meddling in muslim countries wherever they may appear. Smart. She's doubly smart in that she has to date carefully separated herself from that view while nonetheless promoting the rationale rather vociferously.

Finally, again there is a liberal Pakistani political movement afoot which finds no comfort in either the prevailing Pakistani political paradigm nor the islamo-fascist view. It is nascent and threatened from all quarters and not entirely our ally either-unless, of course, we'd throw our whole-hearted support behind them at the risk of alienating or entirely sh!tty relationship with the corrupt generals and politicians.

Naturally, they've a competing agenda in which America's role plays a useful fool purpose. We play (are duped?) along.

I feel myself being slowly dragged into this fight in ways I once could never imagine. It's striking closer to my home in an odd but compelling fashion.

troung
09 Feb 10,, 17:00
US being sucked into Pakistan’s world of illusions
Monday, February 8, 2010
Sri Lanka Guardian: US being sucked into Pakistan’s world of illusions (http://www.srilankaguardian.org/2010/02/us-being-sucked-into-pakistans-world-of.html)
By B.Raman

(February 09, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) The leaders and large sections of the people of Pakistan tend to live in a self-created world of illusions. They have always lived in such a world ever since the birth of the country in 1947.

2. They teach their children in school that civilization was brought to the sub-continent by Islam. They grow up not knowing the history of the sub-continent before the advent of Islam.

3.They have always believed that one Muslim is equal to two Hindus. They teach their soldiers that Hindus cannot fight. They believed that their alliance with the US and the US military equipment supplied to them had made them invincible and that India would never be able to defeat them. They invaded Kashmir in 1965 thinking that Kashmir was theirs for the taking.

4. After a few days of fighting they realized that it was not. They realised too that Hindus can fight-----like hell. They found that all the Patton tanks and other modern equipment given to them by the US could not save them from the counter-attacks by the Indian Army. They fled from battle at Khem Karan after abandoning their Pattons.

5. But, they teach their children and soldiers that they won the 1965 war and that they forced India to sue for peace.

6. They looked down with contempt upon the Muslims of the then East Pakistan because most of them were descendents of converts from Hinduism. They convinced themselves that like the Hindus, the Bengali Muslims cannot fight.

7.They treated them like second class citizens of the country and suppressed them thinking that the Bengalis will not rise against their suppression.

8. They did and threw them out in 1971. The Bengali freedom-fighters and the Indian Army fought hand in hand in putting an end to the colonization of East Pakistan. Bangladesh was born. Over 90000 of the officers and soldiers of the Pakistan Army surrendered without a fight when the Indian Army and the Bengali freedom-fighters entered Dhaka. Zulfiquar Ali Bhutto came crawling to Shimla to get them released.
9. They teach their children and soldiers that through his clever diplomacy Bhutto forced Indira Gandhi to release the prisoners of war.

10. When Gen.Zia-ul-Haq overthrew Bhutto in 1977 and assumed power, many of their political leaders appealed frantically to the leaders of India and Afghanistan to help them escape from the country. If the authorities of India and Afghanistan had not helped them to escape to Europe, they would have landed in the gallows as Bhutto did.

11. When they returned to Pakistan from political exile after the death of Zia in 1988, they projected themselves as national heroes, who had hoodwinked the Army, gone into political exile and kept up the fight against the Army and for the return of democracy. They never spoke a word about the help rendered by India and Afghanistan. If India and Afghanistan had not helped, many of the political leaders of Pakistan may not be alive today.

12. In 1989, the very same political leaders who owed their survival to India colluded with their Army in sending a large number of terrorists trained by the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) into J&K. They thought that Kashmir was ripe for picking. Twenty-one years later, they are nowhere near the realization of their illusory dreams.

13.In 1994, they created the Taliban and helped it to capture Kabul in September 1996. It occupied large parts of Afghanistan with the help of the ISI and the Pakistan Army. The Pakistanis thought that was the end of the Indian influence in Afghanistan. They realized with a shock that it was not. Secular elements in Afghanistan, helped by India, Iran and Russia, hit back at the Taliban and its ISI patrons and facilitated the liberation of Afghanistan from the Taliban rule post-9/11. There was an anti-Pakistan uprising in Kabul and many Pakistanis, who were working for the Taliban in Kabul, were hunted down, caught, killed and their dead bodies thrown into the gutters of Kabul by the local population.

14.In 1999, the Pakistan Army under Gen.Pervez Musharraf occupied Indian territory in the Kargil Heights by taking advantage of the withdrawal of the Indian Army posts during winter. They had wild dreams of “liberating” the Siachen Glacier and the Kargil area of J&K. The Indian Army hit back and inflicted heavy casualties on the Pakistan Army. The US insisted that the Pakistan Army should withdraw from the territory occupied by it. Musharraf and after him, Mr.Nawaz Sharif, the then Prime Minister, flew to Beijing and sought China’s support for their occupation. To their shock, China refused to support them. M.Nawaz Sharif flew to Washington DC to plead with the US for a face-saving formula so that they can withdraw without humiliation. The US declined to provide any. They were forced to withdraw unconditionally. They projected their Kargil humiliation to their people and soldiers as a great military victory by awarding a large number of gallantry medals to each other.

15. After the attack on the Indian Parliament in December,2001, India mobilized its troops and moved them to the border. Unnerved by the threat of war, Musharraf banned the terrorist organizations operating against India, closed their offices and arrested their leaders. When India withdrew the troops from the border, Musharraf claimed it as a great victory for Pakistan. “We forced India to blink,” he said. He removed all the ban orders and allowed the terrorists to operate again against India.

16. After the raid by the Pakistan Army Commandoes in the Lal Masjid of Islamabad in July, 2007, the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) went on the offensive against the Pakistani Armed Forces, the ISI and the Police. Suicide acts of terrorism, commando style attacks and other kinds of attacks were reported not only from the tribal areas, but also from non-tribal areas, including Islamabad, the capital, Rawalpindi, where the General Headquarters of the Army are located, Lahore, Sargodha, Peshawar, Kohat and even Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir. The TTP even raided the GHQ and occupied it for some hours----- the only instance in the history of terrorism anywhere in the world where a terrorist group had occupied the headquarters of the Army----even it be for a few hours. The TTP also attacked the offices of the ISI and the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) in the capital, Rawalpindi, Lahore and Peshawar.

17. Unable to cope with the TTP offensive, they quietly allowed the USA’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to hunt for the TTP leaders through its Drone (unmanned) planes. They allowed US ground forces personnel to operate in different areas under the cover of employees of Blackwater, a US security company, which works in close co-ordination with the CIA.

18. The Pakistani leaders, who are adept in charades, enacted one more and continue to enact it. They pretended to be opposed to the Drone strikes and the operation of Blackwater in Pakistani territory. They called in public for their stoppage, but allowed the US in private to continue with them.

19. The TTP allegedly assassinated Mrs.Benazir Bhutto in Rawalpindi on December 27,2007. They did not have the courage to investigate it lest the TTP target President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani. They were also worried that a thorough investigation might expose the involvement of some army officers in the assassination. They ordered the Police not to investigate and asked the UN to take over the responsibility for the investigation. More than two years after her assassination, the Pakistani people do not know who killed her. There has been no prosecution.

20. They found themselves unable to counter the Baloch freedom struggle, which continues to pick up momentum. They were embarrassed by the repeated successes of the Baloch freedom-fighters. Instead of addressing the grievances of the Baloch people, they accused India of helping the freedom-fighters. Before the elections of 2008, they had promised the Baloch people that they would investigate and prosecute the officers of the security forces who were responsible for the murder of Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti, the legendary Baloch leader. They have not carried out their promise after coming to power. The security forces continue to kill more and more Baloch freedom activists. Balochistan today resembles East Pakistan in 1970 before the birth of Bangladesh.

21.They were unable to protect the Shias, who constitute about 20 per cent of the population. Sunni extremists continue to kill Shias in their hundreds all over Pakistan. They imposed an iron curtain in the Kurram Agency of the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), which has been the scene of anti-Shia violence for over two years now. The Shias allege that a genocide of the Shias has been going on in Kurram without the world knowing about it. The Army has no time or inclination to protect the Shias.

22. When the George Bush Administration asked its famous question “are you with us or against us” after 9/11, Musharraf lost his nerve and did whatever the US wanted him to do. He placed the bases of the Pakistan Air Force in Balochistan at the disposal of the US for use against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. He rounded up a number of Pakistani citizens, including two retired nuclear scientists, and handed them over to the US agencies for interrogation in return for cash payment. Musharraf had mentioned in the first edition of his book as to how the CIA was paying for every person handed over by the ISI to the US agencies. When his admission caused embarrassment to the CIA he deleted this admission from the subsequent editions.

His troubles with Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhury, which ultimately led to his humiliating exit from power, started when the Chief Justice began looking into the cases of a large number of missing persons, who had been allegedly rounded up by the ISI and “sold” to the CIA for money. A large number of innocent Pakistanis and Arabs were branded by the ISI as Al Qaeda suspects and thus “sold” to the CIA. Musharraf allowed the US intelligence agencies to operate all over Pakistan in search of Al Qaeda leaders.

23. At the same time, he quietly allowed the Afghan Taliban leadership to set up its rear base in the Quetta area of Balochistan and Osama bin Laden, Ayman Al-Zawahiri and other operatives of Al Qaeda to operate from the North Waziristan area of FATA. When the Bush Administration got preoccupied with Iraq from 2003 and diverted its attention from Afghanistan, the Pakistan army took advantage of it for relaxing its supposed hunt for Al Qaeda and for retraining the Afghan Taliban and helping it to re-launch its offensive in Afghanistan.

24. Till 9/11, all major terrorist acts in different parts of the world by Al Qaeda and its associates were planned and orchestrated from Afghan territory under the control of the Afghan Taliban. Since 9/11, all such acts are being planned and orchestrated from Pakistani territory in the FATA. Every terrorist act unearthed in the UK has had a Pakistani hand in it. The planned terrorist strike in Copenhagen by the LET’s Chicago cell and the 313 Brigade of Ilyas Kashmiri was being orchestrated from Pakistan before the FBI got scent of it and quashed it. The brutal murder of seven CIA officers and an officer of the Jordanian intelligence in Afghan territory was carried out by the TTP from Pakistani territory. The planned terrorist strikes in Germany by associates of the Islamic Jihad Union were being orchestrated from the FATA. The terrorist attacks in China’s Xinjiang province before the Beijing Olympics of August 2008, including an abortive attempt to blow up a plane, were orchestrated from the FATA. Acts of terrorism in Uzbekistan and in the Chechnya and Dagestan areas of Russia are planned and guided from the FATA. Even Teheran alleges that the acts of terrorism in its territory by the so-called Jundullah are being carried out from Pakistani territory in Balochistan.

25. Before 9/11, only India was the victim of acts of terrorism mounted from Pakistani territory. After 9/11, the whole world has become the target of Pakistan-based terrorists. The world’s attention is on Pakistan because it has become the GHQ of global jihadi terrorism. But the Pakistani political and military leaders live in such an unbelievable world of illusions that they have convinced themselves and they are trying to convince their people that the world’s attention is on Pakistan because of its geopolitical importance and its successful diplomacy.

26.Peshawar is bleeding. Karachi is bleeding. Balochistan is bleeding. The FATA is out of control. There is a new Great Game on in Pakistani territory with the US intelligence agencies on the one side and Al Qaeda and its associates on the other hunting each other, with the Pakistan Army and the ISI helping both sides in their attempts to kill each other and making money in the process.

27. While playing this treacherous game, the Pakistani leaders have the cheek to project themselves to their own people and to the rest of the world as playing an important role in bringing about peace in Afghanistan. They are unable to bring about peace in their own country. They are patting themselves thinking that they are going to help the NATO forces in bringing about peace in Afghanistan.

28. Pakistan’s penchant to live in a self-created world of illusions is known to us. We are not surprised. But we are surprised by the inability of the US and the rest of the world to see through the games which Pakistani political and military leaders have always played. They are letting themselves be sucked into Pakistan’s world of illusions.

( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )

subba
09 Feb 10,, 17:45
Rare sane voice within Pakistan: Ex Air Chief Asghar Khan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K57q_914QAU&feature=player_embedded

pChan
10 Feb 10,, 08:22
NYT article on Pakistan's offer to America.



ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Pakistan has told the United States it wants a central role in resolving the Afghan war and has offered to mediate with Taliban factions who use its territory and have long served as its allies, American and Pakistani officials said.

The offer, aimed at preserving Pakistan’s influence in Afghanistan once the Americans leave, could both help and hurt American interests as Washington debates reconciling with the Taliban.

.............................

In briefings last week with reporters at his army headquarters, the usually reticent General Kayani repeated his offer at NATO to play a constructive role, while making it clear Pakistan was seeking broad influence in southern Afghanistan. The Haqqani network would be one of Pakistan’s strongest levers to do that.


What constitutes "influence" here? Would it involve southern Afghanistan becoming Haqqani domain albeit with no AQ? How will that arrangement sit with the govt in Kabul? Or if that is not acceptable something more cosmetic like the relocation of Indian embassies?

Article can be found here (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/world/asia/10pstan.html)

S2
10 Feb 10,, 09:16
My understanding is that the U.S. government has made clear repeatedly that WE aren't interested in reconciliation. That is a term we associate with their senior leadership being brought into the afghan polity. I've heard that said by Holbrooke, Clinton, and Gates. What we've repeatedly suggested is that we welcome the re-integration of lower-tier fighters and believe that those somewhere below the ideological water-line can be peeled away through enticement and kinetic inducement.

It is for the Afghan government, not us, to determine the extent of reconciliation with the taliban. To that end, IMV, it is a matter between the GoA and the GoP. My guess is that the GoA will view Pakistan's involvement as they should-cynically.

The simple question that must be asked repeatedly is whether the GoP and the P.A. could ever be viewed by Afghans as "good-faith partners". My guess is no. There's too much bad history that's flowed under that bridge and little cause yet to believe that anything substantive has changed.

If this is Pakistan's desire they can begin by mediating with their own taliban threat. Of course they now understand how impossible that is after SWAT, Buner, Bajaur, and S. Waziristan.

What cynicism to foist upon the afghans that which they won't accept for themselves!

The second issue is alluded to within the article-what influence do the Pakistanis ACTUALLY have over these elements. Shall we count the ways that the taliban government embarassed their sponsors between 1996-2001?

As much as the Pakistanis are interested in projecting pashtu power into Afghanistan, they are equally concerned about that pashtu power being projected east towards THEM.

Jane Perlez needs to assure that her reporting doesn't cross the line into editorializing by providing a greater voice here than deserved.

S2
10 Feb 10,, 09:22
How important is it for us to be withdrawn from Afghanistan by the presidential campaign? I surmise that our buildup, only now beginning, is intended to afford us considerable political space by drawing down for a considerable while-subject to conditions on the ground-without passing below present levels.

Doing so would permit the president to look his left-wing support clearly in the eye and say he is drawing down contingent upon the threat while assuring that we've considerable real power still very much on the ground, i.e. having it both ways.

pChan
10 Feb 10,, 09:44
Sir, Thanks for your insight. I have just one more question. Do you think this offer have anything to do with the "surge"?

S2
10 Feb 10,, 10:14
"Do you think this offer have anything to do with the "surge"?"

Possibly. It could also be a product of the P.A. projecting its desires while misreading the tea-leaves correctly WRT to our internal political dynamics. We'll see if Kiyani has it correct or myself I suppose. Certainly, he spends one hell of a lot more time in private conversation with Petraeus, Mullen, McChrystal, Holbrooke, and Gates than I.

In doing that my leaders have grossly misused their time.:))

badil
10 Feb 10,, 19:33
in79 you have prepared this force with pakistan, u left it in lurk after ussr left afghanistan. instead of rebuilding those who fought ur proxy war, u left them alone. for their survival they joined hand with what so ever they could lay hands and that was al qaida. now again if same mistake is repeated u can imagine the consequences.

troung
11 Feb 10,, 01:21
in79 you have prepared this force with pakistan, u left it in lurk after ussr left afghanistan. instead of rebuilding those who fought ur proxy war, u left them alone. for their survival they joined hand with what so ever they could lay hands and that was al qaida. now again if same mistake is repeated u can imagine the consequences.


BS debunked here dozens of times. Pakistan ruined Afghanistan. They leveled Kabul, failed to put Hekmayter in power, then tried to force the Taliban onto the country and have since given the Taliban protection, money and arms. We are only there because of what Pakistan did.

And post in the intro section and tell us who you are...

S2
11 Feb 10,, 02:39
"BS debunked here dozens of times."

Correct-

1.) We had NO historical interest in Afghanistan prior to the Soviet-Afghan war.

2.) Had we stayed we'd been listening for the last twenty years about American neo-imperialism at play.

3.) Most importantly, nobody clinging to this urban legend has yet suggested why the Soviet Union would have left at all if they suspected we'd be moving adjacent to their southern socialist republics. More likely, if they'd believed filling the vacuum was America's intent of the negotiations towards Soviet removal, they'd doubled-down and Gorbachev would have either rode that tide or found himself and suitcase on his AZZ outside the Kremlin.

The future had not yet unfolded. How soon those forget the realities of the past.

"And post in the intro section and tell us who you are... "

He's also already got a P.M. from myself directing him to do so.

badil
11 Feb 10,, 19:28
when russia left afghanistan - afghanis fought for USA, then USA was responsible to keep rebuilding force, roads building , construction forces. no body would have objected. If rebuild force were there, taliban would not have been there in sole power. whole nation including all tribes would have been in sharing power system. Pakistan was spending with colaboration of CIA. nothing was withot shaing information. Forget about old things. The only purpose was to learn lesson and not repeat falts again. now new plan for reconciliation is again being thought of, estructring of country should be the first priority. Accordiingly the forces should be match the job , imean to ensure reconstruction and not policies. i am not a strategist, but a regular reader and my simle suggesion is ensure pure democracy in true sense as in USA. No selected leader for elections. let people decide. USA should ensure reconstruction. The time will show if the efforts are sincere for the people and not the leaders the reply is always sincere and leaders are forced by the people. we may pray good for afghans and USA troops in afghanistan. i am sorry if this thread is for specific people. i thought i could share my thought, if so i am sorry. if i cannot share my thought please say it i will not post my ideas. thanks any way.

S2
11 Feb 10,, 19:49
Did you miss my P.M.? You need to make an intro here and I'd strongly encourage you to do so before you go on life support.

badil
11 Feb 10,, 20:24
I have introduced myself. Thanks

S2
11 Feb 10,, 20:49
" i am sorry if this thread is for specific people. i thought i could share my thought, if so i am sorry. if i cannot share my thought please say it i will not post my ideas. thanks any way..."

No. Your thoughts about Afghanistan and Pakistan are fine although I'd encourage you to read the threads closely. You may find your thoughts already expressed by others. You may also find thoughts to which you disagree. If in disagreement, it helps to identify the poster and his/her comment to which you disagree when making your comments.

Use the quote marks to capture relevant comments by others or simply cut and paste the comment to your post. You'll note that I list a name at the top of my posts. I do so to avoid confusion. You're welcome to borrow ideas which promote good order.

We like to see the best grammar possible and encourage you to break major points into paragraphs. It makes for easier reading.

Thanks and welcome.

1980s
15 Feb 10,, 15:39
6. They looked down with contempt upon the Muslims of the then East Pakistan because most of them were descendents of converts from Hinduism. They convinced themselves that like the Hindus, the Bengali Muslims cannot fight.

This is quite ironic because arent they also descendents of the same? There is no word for them in Persian prior to the creation of that country other than Hendi / Hendu. Its the same for them in Arabic.

1980s
15 Feb 10,, 15:40
I knew it would only be a matter of time before this:

Pakistan Is Said to Pursue Role in U.S.-Afghan Talks - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/world/asia/10pstan.html)

S2
15 Feb 10,, 22:26
Might be worthwhile to read the thread. pChan posted this article about twelve posts back.

troung
15 Feb 10,, 22:31
This is quite ironic because arent they also descendents of the same? There is no word for them in Persian prior to the creation of that country other than Hendi / Hendu. Its the same for them in Arabic.

Shhhhh...

troung
24 Feb 10,, 22:47
Tuesday, February 23, 2010 E-Mail this article to a friend Printer Friendly Version

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\02\23\story_23-2-2010_pg3_2)

view: Conspiracy theories and theorists —Ishtiaq Ahmed

Conspiracy theories and their authors become a cause for concern when they begin to hallucinate and can no longer distinguish between their own flights of imagination and the world around them. When they hijack a whole nation or community into another world, then they ought to be held accountable

These are very troubled times. Such times are a bonanza for conspiracy theorists because they know how best to simplify extremely complex situations while simultaneously grossly exaggerating the evil ingenuity of the plotters, and thus create thorough confusion. If such confusion can generate panic, then the conspiracy theorist has earned his living through real hard work. The art then is to top it off with an ending that results in the defeat of the evildoers. Such stuff is the bread and butter of writers of mystery stories and thrillers. Their works help shed everyday boredom, even if only for the moment.

Conspiracy theories and their authors become a cause for concern when they begin to hallucinate and can no longer distinguish between their own flights of imagination and the world around them. If such delirious moments only carry them into a world of make-believe, then the harm is limited. However, when they hijack a whole nation or community into another world, then they ought to be held accountable. When such characters appear in popular talk shows or, much worse, begin exploiting TV channels to present programmes full of war games and prophecies against a demonised group of plotters threatening the existence of a nation — nay, a universal community such as that of the Muslims — then I believe such persons should be held accountable for taking people on a ride with their yarns.

By now the readers must have guessed that I have no other person in mind other than Mr Zaid Hamid. Initially I was reluctant to comment on the farce he pedals in his talks and his TV programmes. The reason is that one can end up giving more importance to individuals than is due. On the other hand, the danger is that the angst and fears that run deep in Pakistani society will push our society even deeper into a pathological state of mind or national outlook. The daily bomb blasts by remote control or by suicide bombers, the galloping rate of unemployment and politicians who specialise in making a mockery of democracy and responsible governments have taken a huge toll on the spirits of the Pakistani people. Last year when I visited Lahore I took a long walk beginning from Anarkali up to Lohari Gate and then eastwards till I came to Mochi Gate. Then I walked down to Gawalmandi, from there I went down Nisbet Road till I came to Lakshmi Chowk. I can tell you that for the first time in my life I felt that Lahore was in mourning. People could not take any longer all the betrayal of hopes for a Pakistan without want and hunger.

Mr Zaid Hamid’s grand conspiracy has a happy ending, however. The Muslim world and the Islamic Ummah in general and Pakistan in particular are the victims of a Zionist-Brahminical-CIA-Mossad-RAW-MI5-MI6, and all the rest, plot, according to this celebrated defence and security analyst. Our only true friend is China. The latter of course is still wedded to Marxism-Leninism and thus to atheism, but that does not matter. Just as there are good and bad Taliban, there can be good and bad atheists. Is that not logical? Once upon a time, I remember, the Chinese with their special eye shape and high cheekbones, we were told, were the people that Islam would fight, also accordingly to some prophecies. That was of course when Pakistan and China had not become friends, whose friendship was later described as higher than the Himalayas. So, there is a season for prophecies — some come in while others go out.

Mr Zaid Hamid tells us not to worry. Pakistan is a nuclear power and the defeat of Hind (India) has been prophesied 1,400 years ago. It will not only be the end of India but Israel and the US and all other evil powers, including Russia. Pakistan and China and some true Muslims will triumph in the final father of all battles — the mother of all battles is dead since a long time, I believe. Hopefully then we will convert all the Chinese, otherwise what is the point?

What will happen to all the nuclear weapons that the enemies of Islam possess? Their total is in the thousands! Well, they will become un-useable or explode in their own countries so the Islamic forces will not be responsible for the genocide of billions of members of the human race. In any case, such details, which disturb the elegance of a simple but sensational conspiracy theory, have to be ignored. The green flag will fly atop the Delhi Fort as it should have had we not created Pakistan and denied ourselves that opportunity 63 years earlier.

Is there any chance that such prophecy may not hold or rather that no such prophecy has existed in the past and it has been manufactured by Mr Zaid Hamid to support his grand theory, which has already declared a Muslim victory? I think such questions should suffice to explain to interested readers to distinguish between conspiracies and conspiracy theories.

Attributing so much power to the Zionists or Mossad also makes no sense. The way Mossad has messed up its crime in Dubai when a hit squad was sent to assassinate a Hamas leader only shows that such an agency cannot sometimes manage even simple operations. RAW is even less likely to pull off an attack on Pakistan with impunity. Recently the Taliban killed a number of CIA operatives in Afghanistan. If Mossad-Raw-CIA were to join ranks, would they perform better or is it likely that in the absence of a common chain of command they can mess up things even more? I do not know. But I do know that neither Mr Zaid Hamid nor his theory allow for an error, and in any case whatever initial advantage these evil agencies and powers may have, our victory is a foregone conclusion. That is exactly a conspiracy theory.

Another thing to keep in mind is the following: conspiracies by their very nature are secretive and oftentimes catch their targets off-guard. ‘Et tu, Bruté?’ (Even you, Brutus?), exclaimed Julius Caesar, as his best friend joined other plotters and stabbed him to death. Of course his (Julius Caesar’s) wife, Calpurnia, had been seeing such a nightmare many times, Shakespeare informed his readers. So, maybe one can see visions about such happenings. In any case, conspiracy theories that have already exposed the culprits and punished them and defeated them are just flights of the imagination, or, could be deep dives into a bottomless void inside the belly of the earth.

Ishtiaq Ahmed is a Visiting Research Professor at the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS) and the South Asian Studies Programme at the National University of Singapore. He is also a Professor of Political Science at Stockholm University. He has published extensively on South Asian politics. At ISAS, he is currently working on a book, Is Pakistan a Garrison State? He can be reached at isasia@nus.edu.sg

Home | Editorial

=====================
Saturday, February 13, 2010 E-Mail this article to a friend Printer Friendly Version

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\02\13\story_13-2-2010_pg3_4)

analysis: Zaid Hamid and strategic depth —Farhat Taj

What are we first of all: Muslim or Pakistani? Is our ultimate commitment with Pakistani citizenship or a global Muslim brotherhood? What kind of Pakistan should we aim at: a progressive multi-ethnic social democracy or some kind of medieval caliphate?

FATA continues to be
used and abused as a strategic space by the security establishment of Pakistan in violent pursuit of strategic depth in Afghanistan. In short, strategic depth means Pakistan must have a pro-Pakistan government in Afghanistan by any and all means. People of FATA have suffered more than people in any other part of Pakistan due to this policy. They dread and hate ‘strategic depth’.

Some people of FATA drew my attention towards Zaid Hamid, who, they said, is a new charm offensive of the military establishment to popularise the notion of strategic depth among the youth from affluent families in the big cities of Pakistan. He is frequently given air time by the electronic media, also an evidence that the media, especially the Urdu media, is not free and has to toe the establishment’s line in security matters. Show biz celebrities have joined him. Those who oppose the strategic depth, especially the Pakhtun, who are the biggest casualty of it, are never given so much media attention.

The main concern of the people of FATA vis-a-vis Zaid Hamid is his use of a particularly narrow interpretation of Islam that proposes a belligerent agenda for the Pakistan Army and drawing on controversial Islamic literature. Thus the authenticity of the hadiths — sayings of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) — on Ghazwa-e-Hind that he often refers to in terms of the ultimate defeat of the Indians at the hands of the Pakistan Army is highly questionable.

Zaid Hamid claims in his speeches to young people that God determines the destiny of Pakistan. Pakistan will become a grand Caliphate. Pakistan army will cut India down to the size of Sri Lanka. Pakistan will lead the entire Muslim world and its army will be deployed in Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya and Afghanistan. The corrupt judicial system, consisting of the lawyers and the Supreme Court of Pakistan, will be replaced by an Islamic judicial system that would ensure — Taliban style — speedy and cheap justice. He claims that the current elected set up in Pakistan is implanted by the CIA and prophesies that the current rulers in Pakistan will have their dead bodies hanging on poles in Islamabad, an indirect appreciation of what the Taliban did in Afghanistan with the dead body of Dr Najibullah, the then Afghan president. He openly threatens the nationalists, especially the Pakhtun and Baloch nationalists, for their aspirations. The Taliban government in Afghanistan, he declares, was Pakistan-friendly and condemns its removal by the US in the post-9/11 attack on the country. He glorifies the biggest mass murderer of the Pakhtun — General Zia, the former dictator of Pakistan.

Judging by the obscurantist message that he communicates, Zaid Hamid does not seem to be a new invention of the establishment. He is an addition to the long list of people who have been handpicked to promote an anti-people agenda in the name of religion and hate of India, like the people from the Jamaat-e-Islami. What seems to be new is his apparent ‘tolerance’ of the ‘un-Islamic’ lifestyle of the urban youth and in this context there are some interesting discussions about Zaid Hamid on some blogs and mailing lists. One blogger writes that Zaid Hamid is using a new strategy to communicate the same old conspiracy theories to young people. The strategy is that unlike classical Islamic scholars, joining Zaid Hamid’s group does not necessarily require the youth to shed their sophisticated lifestyle and adjust to hijab, a ban on music and gender segregation. The only thing they have to do is to glorify the Pakistan Army, including its pursuit of strategic depth, and hate Jews, Americans and Indians.

A writer on one of the mailing lists argues that Zaid Hamid is a Pied Piper for our youth from the prosperous sections of Punjab who have no dreams to be proud of. Zaid Hamid sells the dreams of conquering the world, though they are nonsense, yet still work for the youth who are now caught up in an identity crisis, continues the writer. The writer understands that the fault lies with the leftist intellectuals who have lost direction by joining NGOs and leaving the anti-imperialist struggle open for people like Zaid Hamid or Imran Khan.

Zaid Hamid, in his show, sets a dangerous agenda for the youth of Pakistan; the very same youth who are living a comfortable life in poverty-stricken Pakistan. They lack any ambitions in life to give it some purpose. This lack of goals is rooted in the identity crisis being faced by the Pakistani youth. The crisis is expressed in questions like these: what are we first of all: Muslim or Pakistani? Is our ultimate commitment with Pakistani citizenship or a global Muslim brotherhood? What kind of Pakistan should we aim at: a progressive multi-ethnic social democracy or some kind of medieval caliphate?

Secondly, one has to strive very hard for ideals. If the ideal is the former (multi-ethnic social democratic Pakistan), the youth from affluent families will have to share their riches with the poor, downtrodden fellow citizens. This is very hard for this class of people, otherwise I would at least have seen them working for bringing normalcy in the shattered lives of the people of FATA, who have been living in deplorable conditions in refugee camps for over two years now. In the latter case (caliphate) they can placate their conscience by attaching themselves with the higher ideal without having to give up something from their comfortable lives. The only thing they have to do is to support the belligerent agenda of the military establishment and their poor fellow Pakistanis can go to hell. Zaid Hamid’s campaign is like opium for the young that makes them run away from reality, i.e. Pakistan is a class-based multi-ethnic society that cannot be held together with mere Islamic rhetoric and military ambitions.

What is even more dangerous is the fact that Zaid Hamid is glorifying the same Taliban that the people of FATA hold responsible for their massacre at the behest of the military establishment of Pakistan. Case in point, Jalaluddin Haqqani who occupies North Waziristan. I would invite the young fans of Zaid Hamid to take a tour of FATA, or at least FATA IDP camps in various parts of the NWFP, to observe firsthand what the Taliban and the military did to these people. I would remind the youth that people all over FATA hold the generals of the Pakistan Army more than the Taliban responsible for the death and destruction in their area. They view the Taliban — all Taliban, good, bad, Afghan or Pakistani — as a creation of the intelligence agencies of our country. How much more do the people of FATA need to sacrifice for strategic depth in Afghanistan? The never-ending human sufferings in the area could transform into widespread anti-state sentiments. The youth around Zaid Hamid must know that the current pursuit of strategic depth may turn into — as rightly described in this paper’s editorial ‘Strategic death’? (Daily Times, February 3, 2010) –’strategic death’ for Pakistan rather than securing a friendly Afghanistan.

The writer is a research fellow at the Centre for Interdisciplinary Gender Research, University of Oslo, and a member of Aryana Institute for Regional Research and Advocacy. She can be reached at bergen34@yahoo.co

Tronic
25 Feb 10,, 01:09
Finally some sane voices calling a spade for a spade. Zaid Hamid is a comedian, and only in Pakistan would anybody take a schizophrenic guy like that seriously.

S2
25 Feb 10,, 02:08
Thanks for the op-eds. As usual, Ms. Taj is her useful provocative self. I shudder to imagine how she stays alive on her trips back to Pakistan but so far, so good.

HillTribe
25 Feb 10,, 05:36
Amazing pieces that give a glimpse into the mind of a nation, which I must say, going by the editorials, is not very pretty.

sumob
25 Feb 10,, 06:03
For a nation that flirts with democracy and yearns for Military rule, conspiracy thoeries are a staple diet for the local populace, and Zahid Hamid is the ultimate spice in this dish.

Vinod2070
05 Mar 10,, 08:05
Down the AfPak Rabbit Hole (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/03/01/down_the_afpak_rabbit_hole?page=0,0)

The village of Marjah is a meaningless strategic backwater. So why are the Pentagon and the press telling us the battle there was a huge victory?

The release of Tim Burton's new blockbuster movie, Alice in Wonderland, is days away. The timing could not be more appropriate. Lewis Carroll's ironically opium-inspired tale of a rational person caught up inside a mad world with its own bizarre but consistent internal (il)logic has now surpassed Vietnam as the best paradigm to understand the war in Afghanistan.

The war in Afghanistan, as we have written here and in Military Review (pdf), is indeed a near replication of the Vietnam War, including the assault on the strategically meaningless village of Marjah, which is itself a perfect re-enactment of Operation Meade River in 1968. But the callous cynicism of this war, which we described here in early December, and the mainstream media's brainless reporting on it, have descended past these sane parallels. We have now gone down the rabbit hole.

Two months ago, the collection of mud-brick hovels known as Marjah might have been mistaken for a flyspeck on maps of Afghanistan. Today the media has nearly doubled its population from less than 50,000 to 80,000 -- the entire population of Nad Ali district, of which Nad Ali is the largest town, is approximately 99,000 -- and portrays the offensive there as the equivalent of the Normandy invasion, and the beginning of the end for the Taliban. In fact, however, the entire district of Nad Ali, which contains Marjah, represents about 2 percent of Regional Command (RC) South, the U.S. military's operational area that encompasses Helmand, Kandahar, Uruzgan, Zabul, Nimruz, and Daikundi provinces. RC South by itself is larger than all of South Vietnam, and the Taliban controls virtually all of it. This appears to have occurred to no one in the media.

Nor have any noted that taking this nearly worthless postage stamp of real estate has tied down about half of all the real combat power and aviation assets of the international coalition in Afghanistan for a quarter of a year. The possibility that wasting massive amounts of U.S. and British blood, treasure, and time just to establish an Afghan Potemkin village with a "government in a box" might be exactly what the Taliban wants the coalition to do has apparently not occurred to either the press or to the generals who designed this operation.

In reality, this battle -- the largest in Afghanistan since 2001 -- is essentially a giant public affairs exercise, designed to shore up dwindling domestic support for the war by creating an illusion of progress. In reporting it, the media has gulped down the whole bottle of "drink me" and shrunk to journalistic insignificance. In South Vietnam, an operational area smaller than RC South, the United States and its allies had over 2 million men under arms, including more than half a million Americans, the million-man Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN), 75,000 coalition troops, the Vietnamese Regional Forces and Popular Forces (known as "Ruff-Puffs"), the South Vietnamese police, the Civilian Irregular Defense Groups (CIDG) and other militias -- and lost.

Yet the media is breathlessly regurgitating Pentagon pronouncements that we have "turned the corner" and "reversed the momentum" in Afghanistan with fewer than 45,000 men under arms in all of RC South (including the Afghan army and police) by fighting for a month to secure a single hamlet. Last year this would have been déjà vu of the "five o'clock follies" of the Vietnam War. Now it feels more like the Mad Hatter's Tea Party. "How can we have more success," Alice might ask, "when we haven't had any yet?"

So here we are in the AfPak Wonderland, complete with a Mad Hatter (the clueless and complacent media), Tweedledee and Tweedledum (the military, endlessly repeating itself and history), the White Rabbit (the State Department, scurrying to meetings and utterly irrelevant), the stoned Caterpillar (the CIA, obtuse, arrogant, and asking the wrong questions), the Dormouse (U.S. Embassy Kabul, who wakes up once in a while only to have his head stuffed in a teapot), the Cheshire Cat (President Obama, fading in and out of the picture, eloquent but puzzling), the Pack of Cards army (the Afghan National Army, self-explanatory), and their commander, the inane Queen of Hearts (Afghan President Hamid Karzai). (In Alice in Wonderland, however, the Dormouse is "suppressed" by the Queen of Hearts, not the White Rabbit or the Cheshire Cat, so the analogy is not quite perfect.)

For his part, as the Economist noted this week, Karzai has made fools of all the Western officials who sternly admonished him to begin a new era of transparent democracy, seizing control of the Electoral Complaints Commission to dismiss its independent members. Like the Queen of Hearts, Karzai has literally lost his marbles, according to our sources in the presidential palace. Or, as U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry more diplomatically phrased it in his leaked cable, his behavior has become "erratic." He hasn't started shouting "off with their heads" yet, but the legitimacy thing is toast. Only the massive public relations exercise in Marjah kept Karzai's kleptocracy out of the media spotlight in February.

The military and political madness of the AfPak Wonderland has entered a new chapter of folly with the detention of a few Taliban mullahs in Pakistan, most notably Mullah Baradar, once the military strategist of the Quetta Shura, the primary Taliban leadership council headed by Mullah Omar. Like the Mock Turtle and the Gryphon in Alice in Wonderland, this has the Washington establishment dancing the whacked-out Lobster-Quadrille: Instant Afghanistan experts at the White House and pundits at august Beltway institutions like the Brookings Institution are absurdly calling the detentions a "sea change" in Pakistani behavior.

In fact, it is no such thing. Pakistan has not abandoned overnight its 50-year worship of the totem of "strategic depth," its cornerstone belief that it must control Afghanistan, or its marriage to the Taliban, and anyone who believes that is indulging in magical thinking. What has happened is, in fact, a purge by Taliban hard-liners of men perceived to be insufficiently reliable, either ethnically or politically, or both. It is well-known that there had been a schism in the Quetta Shura for months, with hard-liner and former Gitmo prisoner Mullah Zakir (aka Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul) coming out on top over Mullah Baradar. Baradar sheltered fellow Popalzai Hamid Karzai in 2001 and possibly saved his life after an errant U.S. bomb in Uruzgan province killed several men on the Special Forces team that was escorting him. Baradar later became a confidant of the president's brother, paid CIA informer Ahmed Wali Karzai, and met occasionally with the president himself in the tangled web of Afghan politics.

The core Ghilzai leadership of the Taliban had long suspected Baradar of being too willing to negotiate and too partial to his kinsmen in making field appointments. Indeed, this suspicion led to the creation of the Quetta Shura's Accountability Council in late 2009, whose job apparently included removing many of Baradar's excessively Durrani and Karlani appointments.

This explains why when Mullah Zakir, the hard-line military chief of the Quetta Shura along with Baradar, was detained near Peshawar two weeks after Baradar was detained, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) - Pakistan's powerful military spy service -- released him immediately. Meanwhile, all of the other lesser figures currently in detention (including Abdul Kabir, aka Mullah Abdul Kahir Osmani, the RC East regional commander; Mullah Abdul Rauf Aliza, an Alizai Durrani, former Gitmo prisoner, and Taliban military chief for northern Afghanistan; and Mullah Ahmed Jan Akhundzada, former shadow governor of Uruzgan province and Ishaqzai Durrani) are known moderates and allies of Baradar.

In other words, the Quetta Shura has used the ISI, its loyal and steadfast patron, to take out its trash. Those few mullahs suspected of being amenable to discussions with the infidel enemy and thus ideologically impure have now been removed from the jihad. This is not cooperation against the Taliban by an allied state; it is collusion with the Taliban by an enemy state. Pakistan is in fact following its own perceived strategic interests, which do not coincide with those of the United States. Pakistan has masterfully plied the Western establishment with an LSD-laced "drink me" cocktail of its own, convincing everyone that it is a frail and fragile Humpty-Dumpty that must not be pushed too hard, lest the nuclear egg fall off the wall. This is nonsense. In fact, what is needed against Pakistan's military leaders is a lever more powerful than "strategic depth" to force them into compliance and make them stop sheltering al Qaeda, destabilizing Afghanistan, and killing hundreds of Americans by proxy.

Unfortunately, in this AfPak Wonderland, there does not appear to be any magic mushroom to get back to normal. Instead, Afghanistan and Pakistan policy is trapped in an endless loop in a mad policy world operating under its own consistent internal illogic. Unlike Alice, the handful of Afghan analysts in the United States who actually understand what is happening cannot wake up or break through the corporate media noise. Far worse, thousands of brave U.S. Marines and soldiers are caught up in this deadly political croquet game where IEDs, not hedgehogs, are the game balls. The Duchess's baby really has turned into a pig, and there seems to be no way out of this increasingly insane rabbit hole.

Vinod2070
05 Mar 10,, 08:12
So there was no change of heart after all! It was just getting rid of unreliable people.

There is no limit of gullibility of some it seems. These guys have mastered the art and there are people available to be taken for ride.

Repeatedly!

Vinod2070
05 Mar 10,, 08:17
The second deception (http://www.indianexpress.com/news/the-second-deception/586157/0)

K. Subrahmanyam
Posted: Wednesday, Mar 03, 2010 at 0434 hrs

The London Conference in which India felt it was marginalised, the sudden crackdown by the Pakistanis against the leadership of Quetta Shura whose existence they had denied all this time, the detention of 124 militants, the spate of anti-Taliban articles and pronouncements in the Pakistani print and electronic media and the glowing certificates from high-level US officials on Pakistani cooperation with US strategy — all this has persuaded the Indian strategic community that the Obama administration has decided to make use of the services of Pakistan to partly neutralise and partly buy up the Afghan Taliban and leave Afghanistan at the mercy of Pakistan in 2011, when the American forces plan to withdraw from Afghanistan. This is not an unreasonable conclusion. But professional intelligence assessors will need to look at alternative scenarios which may fit in the same set of facts.

On February 2, US Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair told the Senate Intelligence Committee in his annual threat assessment: “Islamabad’s conviction that militant groups are an important part of its strategic arsenal to counter India’s military and economic advantages will continue to limit Pakistan’s incentive to pursue an across-the-board effort against extremism... Islamabad has maintained relationships with other Taliban-associated groups that support and conduct operations against US and ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) forces in Afghanistan... It has continued to provide support to its militant proxies, such as Haqqani Taliban, Gul Bahadur group, and Commander Nazir group... The Al Qaeda, Afghan Taliban, and Pakistani militant safe haven in Quetta will continue to enable the Afghan insurgents and Al Qaeda to plan operations, direct propaganda, recruiting and training activities, and fundraising activities with relative impunity.”

There was no hint in the report that the Pakistani army was about to reconsider its policy towards the Afghan Taliban. The account of a joint operation by US agencies and ISI in the arrest of Mullah Baradar in February tends to indicate that the Americans were there first and therefore the Pakistanis had to go along with them. If the Pakistanis were acting on their own initiative, they would not have allowed the Americans to be present. It would also indicate that the Americans have enough personnel and equipment within Pakistan for the task of terrorist monitoring on their own, independent of Pakistan. This is very much a matter of bitter criticism by the Pakistani media.

Pakistan has ensured that Baradar and other leaders will not be handed over to the Americans by arranging for the invocation of a court order. There is a high probability that the Pakistan army is trying out on the Americans the very successful deception plan they carried out in 2001.They joined President Bush’s war on terror not to cooperate in the destruction of Al Qaeda and the Taliban but to save them. Thanks to that, Al Qaeda and the Taliban are today hale and hearty, fighting the American and ISAF forces. After the 9/11 plot was hatched and executed under the direction of a Pakistani, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Pakistan, with the use of the Lashkar-e-Toiba, has been able to pose terrorist threats to the US (so far unsuccessfully) and to the UK (one successful London transport attack and other major unsuccessful plots). That in turn has enabled the Pakistani army to milk US taxpayers for billions of dollars in both civil and military aid. It is likely that the present Pakistani anti-Taliban, anti-militant crackdown is intended to deceive the Americans and save the Taliban, Al Qaeda and LeT, as they did in 2001. In the process, they may hand over a few Taliban, Al Qaeda and LeT people to the Americans and provide intelligence to get a few killed in drone strikes but attempt to save the bulk of these assets to be used to reoccupy Afghanistan after the Americans leave, as they are convinced they will in 2011.

The US must understand that Pakistan needs to use terrorism not only against India but against the US as well to extort the billions they have been getting. Some argue they can oblige the US by getting the Taliban, Al Qaeda and LeT into a long hibernation — and relying only on the nuclear blackmail they can extort money from the US. But nuclear blackmail needs active terrorists to threaten that those weapons may end up in their hands. Therefore active terrorists are crucial to Pakistan’s strategy to extort money from the West. One cannot rule out the possibility that the US and the West may fall into the Pakistani trap.

Yet another possibility is that the US may be aware of this but goes along to lull their suspicions and to reduce the resistance to coalition forces in Afghanistan. Once the surge forces reach the Durand Line, US capabilities within Pakistan are stepped up and drone attacks are intensified on the jehadi groups, they are bound to retaliate on the Pakistani army and cities — and at that stage the Pakistan army will have no alternative but to fight the jehadis in earnest in cooperation with the US.

Four alternative scenarios are possible. First, the US outsourcing the Taliban neutralisation and buying to Pakistan willingly. This is the one popular with our strategic establishment. Second, the Pakistanis are sincerely cooperating with the US. This is perhaps the least likely scenario. Third, the Pakistanis trying out a second deception on the US successfully, with as adverse consequences as happened in seven years of Bush gullibility. The deception proceeds halfway and the US wakes up to it resulting in confrontation between the US and Pakistan. Last, the US is aware of the deception and has its counter-plans ready. Pakistan has a history of being overconfident and launching misadventures and coming to grief as the history of the 1965, 1971 and 1999 wars against India and their own terrorists turning against them prove.

It is not realistic to expect the US to disclose its assessment of Pakistani moves and its own strategy to counter them. The latest US Quadrennial Review says: “The first (objective) is to prevail in today’s wars.” This is the first time this objective has appeared in a QDR. It goes on: “We now recognise that America’s ability to deal with threats for years to come will depend importantly on our success in the current conflicts.” The US has not allowed itself the option of losing this war. The Indian intelligence community should consider all these inputs in assessing the situation in the next six to eight months in the Af-Pak area and on that basis derive its assessment of likely Pakistani and US moves. That will help to formulate Indian responses to them.

The writer is a senior defence analyst

express@expressindia.com

1980s
26 May 10,, 18:55
A video report accompanies the article - U.S. Is a Top Villain in Pakistan?s Conspiracy Talk - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/world/asia/26pstan.html)


U.S. Is a Top Villain in Pakistan’s Conspiracy Talk
By SABRINA TAVERNISE
Published: May 25, 2010

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Americans may think that the failed Times Square bomb was planted by a man named Faisal Shahzad. But the view in the Supreme Court Bar Association here in Pakistan’s capital is that the culprit was an American “think tank.”

No one seems to know its name, but everyone has an opinion about it. It is powerful and shadowy, and seems to control just about everything in the American government, including President Obama.

“They have planted this character Faisal Shahzad to implement their script,” said Hashmat Ali Habib, a lawyer and a member of the bar association.

Who are they?

“You must know, you are from America,” he said smiling. “My advice for the American nation is, get free of these think tanks.”

Conspiracy theory is a national sport in Pakistan, where the main players — the United States, India and Israel — change positions depending on the ebb and flow of history. Since 2001, the United States has taken center stage, looming so large in Pakistan’s collective imagination that it sometimes seems to be responsible for everything that goes wrong here.

“When the water stops running from the tap, people blame America,” said Shaista Sirajuddin, an English professor in Lahore.

The problem is more than a peculiar domestic phenomenon for Pakistan. It has grown into a narrative of national victimhood that is a nearly impenetrable barrier to any candid discussion of the problems here. In turn, it is one of the principal obstacles for the United States in its effort to build a stronger alliance with a country to which it gives more than a billion dollars a year in aid.

It does not help that no part of the Pakistani state — either the weak civilian government or the powerful military — is willing to risk publicly owning that relationship.

One result is that nearly all of American policy toward Pakistan is conducted in secret, a fact that serves only to further feed conspiracies. American military leaders slip quietly in and out of the capital; the Pentagon uses networks of private spies; and the main tool of American policy here, the drone program, is not even publicly acknowledged to exist.

“The linchpin of U.S. relations is security, and it’s not talked about in public,” said Adnan Rehmat, a media analyst in Islamabad.

The empty public space fills instead with hard-line pundits and loud Islamic political parties, all projected into Pakistani living rooms by the rambunctious new electronic media, dozens of satellite television networks that weave a black-and-white, prime-time narrative in which the United States is the central villain.

“People want simple explanations, like evil America, Zionist-Hindu alliance,” said a Pakistani diplomat, who asked not to be named because of the delicate nature of the topic. “It’s gone really deep into the national psyche now.”

One of those pundits is Zaid Hamid, a fast-talking, right-wing television personality who rose to fame on one of Pakistan’s 90 new private television channels.

He uses Google searches to support his theory that India, Israel and the United States — through their intelligence agencies and the company formerly known as Blackwater — are conspiring to destroy Pakistan.

For Mr. Hamid, the case of Mr. Shahzad is one piece of a larger puzzle being assembled to pressure Pakistan. Why, otherwise, the strange inconsistencies, like the bomb’s not exploding? “If you connect the dots, you have a pretty exciting story,” he said.

But the media are only part of the problem. Only a third of Pakistan’s population has access to satellite channels, Mr. Rehmat said, and equally powerful are Islamic groups active at the grass roots of Pakistani society.

Though Pakistan was created as a haven for Muslims, it was secular at first, and did not harden into an Islamic state on paper until 1949. Intellectuals point to the moment as a kind of original sin, when Islam became embedded in the country’s democratic blueprint, handing immense power to Islamic hard-liners, who could claim — despite their small numbers — to be the true guardians of the state.

Together with military and political leaders, these groups wield Islamic slogans for personal gain, further shutting down discussion.

“We’re in this mess because political forces evoke Islam to further their own interests,” said Aasim Sajjad, an assistant professor of political economy at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad.

Lawyers in Pakistan have a strong streak of political Islam. Mr. Habib, who has had militants as clients, argues that Al Qaeda is an American invention. Their pronouncements are infused with anti-Semitism, standard for Islamic groups in the region.

“The lobbies are the Jews, maybe some Indians, working in the inner core of the American administration,” said Muhammad Ikram Chaudhry, vice president of the bar association.

Liberals on Pakistan’s beleaguered left see the xenophobic patriotism and conspiracy theories as a defense mechanism that deflects all responsibility for society’s problems and protects against a reality that is too painful to face.

“It’s deny, deny, deny,” said Nadeem F. Paracha, a columnist for Dawn, an English-language daily. “It’s become second nature, like an instinct.”

Mr. Paracha argues that the denial is dangerous because it hobbles any form of public conversation — for example, about Mr. Shahzad’s upper-class background — leaving society unequipped to find remedies for its problems. “We’ve started to believe our own lies,” he said.

For those on the left, that view obscures an increasingly disappointing history. For 62 years, Pakistan has lurched from one self-serving government to the next, with little thought given to education or the economy, said Pervez Hoodbhoy, a physics professor at Quaid-i-Azam University. Now Pakistan is dependent on the West to pay its bills, a vulnerable position that breeds resentment.

“We acknowledge to ourselves privately that Pakistan is a client state of the U.S.,” Mr. Hoodbhoy said. “But on the other hand, the U.S. is acting against Muslim interests globally. A sort of self-loathing came about.”

There are very real reasons for Pakistanis to be skeptical of the United States. It encouraged — and financed — jihadis waging a religious war against the Soviets in the 1980s, while supporting the military autocrat Mohammed Zia ul-Haq, who seeded Pakistan’s education system with Islamists.

But Mr. Hamid is more interested in the larger plot, like the secret ownership of the Federal Reserve, which he found on the Internet. After three years of fame, his star seems to be falling. This month his show was canceled, and he has had to rely on Facebook and audio CDs to make his points. But it is not the end of the conspiracy.

“Someone else will be front row very soon,” said Manan Ahmed, a professor of Pakistani history. “It is the mood of the country at the moment.”


Salman Masood contributed reporting.

S2
26 May 10,, 23:27
Saw the Tavernise article early this morning on SWJ. Glad you've posted it. Good article. I still look on def.pk but quit posting there March 4 and this article sums a goodly portion of the rationale.

I've conclusively proved certain issues to some there and yet find them later reverting to old habits/opinions...on exactly what they've professed to having changed their views. Disheartening to deal with that mindset but it's a drumbeat that continuously permeates the consciousness.

1980s
29 May 10,, 18:25
Saw the Tavernise article early this morning on SWJ. Glad you've posted it. Good article. I still look on def.pk but quit posting there March 4 and this article sums a goodly portion of the rationale.

I've conclusively proved certain issues to some there and yet find them later reverting to old habits/opinions...on exactly what they've professed to having changed their views. Disheartening to deal with that mindset but it's a drumbeat that continuously permeates the consciousness.

I know what you mean. In my interactions with Pakistanis they are mostly very thin-skinned and unable to accept any kind of criticism, even mild ones, or opinions and narratives that differ from what they want themselves and everybody else to believe (even when they know the truth is something different). Any criticism or disagreement arouses this peculiar defense-mechanism of denying what has been proven and then insulting the person who's disagreed/disproved them. I can only assume that it is a cultural thing in Pakistan not to allow themselves to be proved wrong about something, so they keep on denying even when you present them with the facts and evidence of any given issue that proves their version of things to be wrong.

I havent ever experienced this type of collective thick-headedness among any other nationality of people. As such, i dont join Pakistani forums altho i occasionally browse through one or two. But not often as i never find anything new and worthwhile to read, just the same old conversations, rumours, conspiracy theories and fabricated accounts of history and current affairs being discussed.

Another thing is that Pakistanis tend to accuse people they disagree with of being something that they're not or having some kind of "agenda against Pakistan". For example, at various times ive been accused of really being a Jew, an Indian, a Zionist, an American, a Monarchist etc ad-nauseum “pretending to be an Iranian online to sabotage “friendly and brotherly” Iran-Pakistan relations”. Thats cute because Iranians dont have any particular feelings of friendship or anything else towards Pakistanis. Iranians dont actually care or know much about Pakistan and have no feeling towards them, good or bad. This doesnt suit what they want to believe, so to try and make sense of someone (like me for example) i can only really be a Jew or an Indian or American behind the screen. :))

Vinod2070
30 May 10,, 12:54
^^ Funny thing is that some among them can be pretty self critical though the defense mechanism kicks in when it is others who say the same things.

On the whole, there is a clear lack of objectivity and a wider perspective when looking at facts and events. Conspiracy theories and a strange belief in some glorious destiny for their country rule the roost.

The glorious destiny mainly consists of realizing the "Gazwa-Ul-Hind" and some other similar stuff.

S2
30 May 10,, 13:19
Please don't confuse this brilliant lady with a minion of Zaid Hamid-Farzana Shah.

She is a well-spoken, compelling woman and this is a valuable contribution-

uq-ZtI-b8xQ&feature=player_embedded

Vinod2070
30 May 10,, 15:16
Some more which are quite compelling. A bit dated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCigZKK8FW8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESotm0aaaQI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ou431yMlocY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlJluv-1a1U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arhNViSn8OE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvc1_N4DUNI

Vinod2070
30 May 10,, 15:16
Another one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFDcGnupj8E

1980s
24 Jun 10,, 14:31
This speaks for itself. No commentary needed.


Renewed strains between Islamabad and Washington (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/10375056.stm)

Guest columnist Ahmed Rashid on rising tensions between the US and Pakistan over funding of the war against Taliban insurgents.

Pakistani officials are threatening to pull troops out from the sensitive north-western tribal areas unless the US and Europe comes up with more money for military campaigns.

Yet at the same time for a country that has staggering debt, inflation and unemployment, defence spending in the new budget has risen by 30% as compared to last year, even though the US is largely funding the war on terror.

Legislators say much of the newly appropriated money for the army will go to boosting defences against India rather than fighting militants in the Federal Administered Tribal Areas (Fata).

Military budget

When the $38bn annual budget was announced in parliament on 5 June, legislators sat up when it was announced that defence spending would be $5.2bn for 2010-11 - a rise of 17% compared to last year or 13.7% of the total budget.

Even more shocking news came a few days later when Saqib Shirani, principal economic adviser to the government, corrected that figure to say that actual defence spending for 2010-11 would be $7.9bn, a 30% rise compared to last year and 21% of the total budget.

The government did not disclose how it accounted for some $1.3bn received over the past year in Coalition Support Funds (CSF) by the US administration for fighting "terrorism".

The funds essentially pay for the army's deployments and operations in Fata and if that is the case than the question arises as to why the country needs such a huge increase in military spending.

For decades the army refused to allow any government to disclose the military budget.

Fuelling militancy

Now the army only allows a single blanket figure to be released that does not show what defence money is spent on.

Meanwhile substantial parts of military spending like army pensions and research and development are hidden in other budget items outside the official defence budget.

With 28% of the budget being reserved this year for servicing Pakistan's huge external debt of $54bn, nearly 60% of the budget is taken up by just two items - defence spending and debt servicing.

Almost the entire development budget of $9.2bn will be provided by outside donors.

Meanwhile the country spends just 2% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on education, despite the fact that average literacy is only 57%. Even the army admits that the lack of education is fuelling militancy.

However with the economy in a downward spiral and the government facing an internal funding crisis in the months ahead, Islamabad has begun to threaten the US.

Retired Lt Gen Syed Akthar Ali told parliament that the US government had for two years willfully withheld billions of dollars of CSF that were owed to Pakistan.

''The time that we have to rethink our security priorities about external threats is approaching,'' Mr Ali warned recently.

"We will stop operations (in Fata) and go back to the eastern borders,'' he added threateningly.

However he admitted that in the past six months the US had released $1.3bn in CSF arrears, but was still holding back payments of $1bn.

'Grand disillusionment'

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani was equally blunt when he told visiting Richard Holbrooke, US special envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan, that ''time is running out fast, public support can only be kept intact if the international community start delivering on their pledges.''

At a conference in Tokyo a year ago, major donors who make up the "Friends of Pakistan" pledged $5bn in aid, but so far few pledges have been honoured except by the US.

''There is grand disillusionment amongst the Europeans for Pakistan's refusal to address our concerns - transparency about aid funds, improving governance, using aid money to build up defences against India rather than fighting terrorism and its lack of concern for minorities,'' a senior European diplomat said.

Mr Gilani's recent trip to the European Union (EU) in Brussels, following the brutal killing of 90 Ahmedis in Lahore by militants was a public relations disaster, with the EU bluntly refusing to fund Pakistan unless it improved its governance record.

Yet even as Pakistani leaders cajole the West for more money and warn of an impending economic collapse, the army insists that the world must recognise Pakistan as a full blown nuclear power.

Contradictions

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, Gen Tariq Majid told the National Defence University in Islamabad recently that ''the world must accept our nuclear reality and stop unwarranted insinuations to create alarms and deny us the related benefits."

The army and the government wants to have its cake and eat it too.

It wants the US and Europe to pay for the war on "terrorism", but at the same time it wants to spend vast funds on building up defences against an imagined Indian attack - without improving relations with India.

It wants to be an acknowledged nuclear power, but is unwilling to spend money on education and health.

The army supports democracy but refuses to allow the civilian government to determine priorities for defence spending.

Meanwhile it is willing to threaten the US, knowing that with the US campaign in Afghanistan going so badly, Washington desperately needs Islamabad.

None of these contradictions in Pakistan's policy - or in its relations with the US - look like being resolved any time soon but the danger is that there is a growing tiredness amongst Western donors that Pakistan has cried wolf once too often.

Vinod2070
24 Jun 10,, 16:24
An interesting take on the Pak-US relationship.

3bRZPnWtUJU

S2
24 Jun 10,, 17:39
That was likely David Sanger of the NYT. The YOUTUBE story was initially related here-

Obama's Worst Pakistan Nightmare-NYT Magazine Jan. 8, 2009 (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/magazine/11pakistan-t.html)

snapper
25 Jun 10,, 10:58
The point is S-2 that Pakistan is, as you "refuse to admit" that Pakistan is NOT a nation in the sense that, for example, France, Germany, or Canada are. It is enterely unlike our accepted norms and riven with as many different opinions as 'European syle' nations are - just in different ways and with a completely differerent 'tradition' and manner of approaching internal problems. This doesn't make their system 'wrong' anymore than it does ours...

When you consider the 'Bush wars', Iraq and Afghanistan what is the difference? Saddam though a dictator, was a 'modernist' and pulled his nation together (a la Stalin albeit) while Afghanistan was rife with splits - which we helped to foster - after the Soviet invasion. If we 'succeed' in Iraq we have alot to thank Saddam for but in Afghanistan this centralised cohesion existeth not...When you continue this lesson onto Pakistan they are more of an Iraq case than an Afghan one due to the military dictatorships they have experienced. Thus there is good reason to hope that they what you might call 'saveable'.

As for the ISI if anyone tells me they me don't have Talibunny links I shall stick up a pencil up nose and plead insanity! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk37TD_08eA)
We all know they have collaborators.

Does this mean the ISI is doing wrong? No! Like so much of the 'countries' there the Talibunnies too are factional and good intelligence is derived from this fractionalist nature of the 'enemy' or good talibubnnies.

Does Pakistan have a deeper agenda? Naturaly! They want A. To secure themselves in the North including some say in a stable Afghanistan and B. Assurances on Kashmir and their perceived enemy to the south and east. Pakistan means Punjab, Afghanistan and Kashmir I am told.

We have perhaps gone about things in the wrong way and should have concerned ourselves with an Kashmiri settlement long ago during after the Soviet withrawal from Afghanistan and subsequent internal break up. That would have let Pakistan take a firmer control in Afghanistan but is spilt milk now.

Our options now are limited. It was madness to go in there imo but having done so withdrawing is not an option either without some degree of stability (as in Iraq). If you believe we can achieve stability without Pakistan, Sir I beg to differ...

vish
25 Jun 10,, 11:33
We have perhaps gone about things in the wrong way and should have concerned ourselves with an Kashmiri settlement long ago during after the Soviet withrawal from Afghanistan and subsequent internal break up. That would have let Pakistan take a firmer control in Afghanistan but is spilt milk now.

And why should India negotiate on Kashmir? So that Pakistan is appeased and is willing to actually go after people most of the planet (including Pakistan itself) calls terrorists? And who exactly are the United States and the United Kingdom (I'm assuming by we, you are referring to the US and the UK; if I'm wrong, correct me) to concern themselves with a Kashmiri settlement?

And why should Pakistan be allowed to control Afghanistan? Especially, given that it was Pakistan that installed a Taliban government in Kabul?

In my rather uneducated opinion, you are loosing the war cause you are allying with the wrong entity, an entity that will go to any length to stop a peaceful Afghanistan from emerging.