PDA

View Full Version : Terror camps targeting India spared from drone strikes in ISI-CIA deal



Pages : [1] 2

doppelganger
08 Apr 13,, 07:19
Terror camps targeting India spared from drone strikes in ISI-CIA deal

While US Navy seals in 2011 killed most-wanted terrorist Osama Bin Laden in Pakista*n in an oper*ation led by its exter*nal intelligence agency CIA, it has spared Islamabad-sponsored terrorist camps that wage war against India.

US media on Sunday repo*rted that Pakistan’s ISI and CIA made a secret pact to facilitate drone strikes against selective terrorist targets. Citing excerpts of a soon-to-be released book, American media said Pakistan gave access to US drone strikes on condition they would not target nuclear facilities and terrorist camps where Kashmiri militants underwent training for attacks against India.

A New York Times report said back room bargains for covert drone wars began und*er George W Bush and was expanded by President Barack Obama. “Pakistani intelligence off*icials insisted they be allowed to approve each drone strike, giving them tight control over the list of targets. And they insis*ted that drones fly only in narrow parts of tribal areas — ensuring they would not venture where Islamabad did not want Americans goi*ng: Pakistan’s nuclear facilities and mountain camps where Kashmiri militants were being trained for attac*ks in India,” NYT reported, quoting excerpts from The Way of the Knife: The CIA, a Secret Army, and a War at the Ends of the Earth.

The report said “the ISI and CIA agreed that all drone flights in Pakistan would operate under the CIA’s covert action authority — meaning the US would never acknowledge the missile strikes and Pakistan wo*uld either take credit for individual killings or remain silent”. The revelation came a day after a US Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center report that Lashkar-e-Toiba runs camps in Muzaffarabad for war against India.

Terror camps targeting India spared from drone strikes in ISI-CIA deal - The New Indian Express (http://newindianexpress.com/nation/article1535464.ece)

Drone strikes if Kashmir militants aren’t touched


Pak., U.S. entered into a secret deal: NYT

In a secret deal, Pakistan allowed American drone strikes on its soil on the condition that the unmanned aircraft would stay away from its nuclear facilities and the mountain camps where Kashmiri militants were trained for attacks in India, according to a media report.

Under negotiations between the ISI and the CIA during 2004, the terms of the bargain were set, The New York Times reported on Sunday.

“Pakistani intelligence officials insisted that drones fly only in narrow parts of the tribal areas — ensuring that they would not venture where Islamabad did not want the Americans going: Pakistan’s nuclear facilities, and the mountain camps where Kashmiri militants were trained for attacks in India,” the paper said.

Pakistani officials also insisted that they be allowed to approve each drone strike, giving them tight control over the list of targets, it added.

The “secret deal” over drone strikes was reached after CIA agreed to kill tribal warlord Nek Muhammad, a Pakistani ally of the Afghan Taliban who led a rebellion and was marked by Islamabad as an “enemy of the state”, the NYT reported, citing an excerpt from the book The Way of the Knife: The CIA, a Secret Army, and a War at the Ends of the Earth.

A CIA official had met the then ISI Chief Ehsan ul-Haq with the offer that if the American intelligence agency killed Muhammad, “would the ISI allow regular armed drone flights over the tribal areas”, the report said.

ISI-CIA bargain

The ISI and CIA also agreed that all drone flights in Pakistan would operate under the American agency’s “covert action authority”, which meant that the U.S. would never acknowledge the missile strikes and that Pakistan would either take credit for the individual killings or remain silent.

While Pakistani officials had in the past considered drone flights a violation of sovereignty, it was Muhammad’s rise to power that forced them to reconsider their line of thought and eventually allow Predator drones.

The ISI-CIA’s “back-room bargain” sheds light on the beginning of the covert drone war which “began under the Bush administration, was embraced and expanded by President Obama”.

From capture to kill

The deal resulted in the CIA changing its focus from capturing terrorists to killing them, and helped “transform an agency that began as a cold war espionage service into a paramilitary organisation”.

After Muhammad’s killing in a drone strike, a Pakistani military spokesman had told reporters that “al-Qaeda facilitator” Nek Muhammad and four other “militants” had been killed in a rocket attack by Pakistani troops, the paper said.

During the time when the negotiations were being held, CIA’s then Inspector-General John Helgerson came out with a critical report about the abuse of detainees in the agency’s secret prisons.

Mr. Helgerson’s report has been described as the single most important reason for the CIA’s shift from capturing to killing terrorism suspects.

CIA’s Counterterrorism Centre (CTC) had earlier focused on capturing al-Qaeda operatives, interrogating them in its jails or outsourcing interrogations to intelligence services of Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt and using the information to hunt more suspects. Mr. Helgerson’s report raised questions about interrogation methods like waterboarding and sleep deprivation, raising concerns that it violated the UN Convention Against Torture.

The report “was the beginning of the end” for CTC’s detention programme.

“The ground had shifted, and counterterrorism officials began to rethink the strategy for the secret war. Armed drones, and targeted killings in general, offered a new direction. Killing by remote control was the antithesis of the dirty, intimate work of interrogation.

“Targeted killings were cheered by Republicans and Democrats alike, and using drones flown by pilots who were stationed thousands of miles away made the whole strategy seem risk-free. Before long the CIA would go from being the long-term jailer of America’s enemies to a military organisation that erased them,” the NYT report said.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/world/drone-strikes-if-kashmir-militants-arent-touched/article4591766.ece

Rise of the Predators - A Secret Deal on Drones, Sealed in Blood

Nek Muhammad knew he was being followed.


On a hot day in June 2004, the Pashtun tribesman was lounging inside a mud compound in South Waziristan, speaking by satellite phone to one of the many reporters who regularly interviewed him on how he had fought and humbled Pakistan’s army in the country’s western mountains. He asked one of his followers about the strange, metallic bird hovering above him.

Less than 24 hours later, a missile tore through the compound, severing Mr. Muhammad’s left leg and killing him and several others, including two boys, ages 10 and 16. A Pakistani military spokesman was quick to claim responsibility for the attack, saying that Pakistani forces had fired at the compound.

That was a lie.

Mr. Muhammad and his followers had been killed by the C.I.A., the first time it had deployed a Predator drone in Pakistan to carry out a “targeted killing.” The target was not a top operative of Al Qaeda, but a Pakistani ally of the Taliban who led a tribal rebellion and was marked by Pakistan as an enemy of the state. In a secret deal, the C.I.A. had agreed to kill him in exchange for access to airspace it had long sought so it could use drones to hunt down its own enemies.

That back-room bargain, described in detail for the first time in interviews with more than a dozen officials in Pakistan and the United States, is critical to understanding the origins of a covert drone war that began under the Bush administration, was embraced and expanded by President Obama, and is now the subject of fierce debate. The deal, a month after a blistering internal report about abuses in the C.I.A.’s network of secret prisons, paved the way for the C.I.A. to change its focus from capturing terrorists to killing them, and helped transform an agency that began as a cold war espionage service into a paramilitary organization.

The C.I.A. has since conducted hundreds of drone strikes in Pakistan that have killed thousands of people, Pakistanis and Arabs, militants and civilians alike. While it was not the first country where the United States used drones, it became the laboratory for the targeted killing operations that have come to define a new American way of fighting, blurring the line between soldiers and spies and short-circuiting the normal mechanisms by which the United States as a nation goes to war.

Neither American nor Pakistani officials have ever publicly acknowledged what really happened to Mr. Muhammad — details of the strike that killed him, along with those of other secret strikes, are still hidden in classified government databases. But in recent months, calls for transparency from members of Congress and critics on both the right and left have put pressure on Mr. Obama and his new C.I.A. director, John O. Brennan, to offer a fuller explanation of the goals and operation of the drone program, and of the agency’s role.

Mr. Brennan, who began his career at the C.I.A. and over the past four years oversaw an escalation of drone strikes from his office at the White House, has signaled that he hopes to return the agency to its traditional role of intelligence collection and analysis. But with a generation of C.I.A. officers now fully engaged in a new mission, it is an effort that could take years.

Today, even some of the people who were present at the creation of the drone program think the agency should have long given up targeted killings.

Ross Newland, who was a senior official at the C.I.A.’s headquarters in Langley, Va., when the agency was given the authority to kill Qaeda operatives, says he thinks that the agency had grown too comfortable with remote-control killing, and that drones have turned the C.I.A. into the villain in countries like Pakistan, where it should be nurturing relationships in order to gather intelligence.

As he puts it, “This is just not an intelligence mission.”

From Car Thief to Militant

By 2004, Mr. Muhammad had become the undisputed star of the tribal areas, the fierce mountain lands populated by the Wazirs, Mehsuds and other Pashtun tribes who for decades had lived independent of the writ of the central government in Islamabad. A brash member of the Wazir tribe, Mr. Muhammad had raised an army to fight government troops and had forced the government into negotiations. He saw no cause for loyalty to the Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence, the Pakistani military spy service that had given an earlier generation of Pashtuns support during the war against the Soviets.

Many Pakistanis in the tribal areas viewed with disdain the alliance that President Pervez Musharraf had forged with the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. They regarded the Pakistani military that had entered the tribal areas as no different from the Americans — who they believed had begun a war of aggression in Afghanistan, just as the Soviets had years earlier.

Born near Wana, the bustling market hub of South Waziristan, Mr. Muhammad spent his adolescent years as a petty car thief and shopkeeper in the city’s bazaar. He found his calling in 1993, around the age of 18, when he was recruited to fight with the Taliban in Afghanistan, and rose quickly through the group’s military hierarchy. He cut a striking figure on the battlefield with his long face and flowing jet black hair.

When the Americans invaded Afghanistan in 2001, he seized an opportunity to host the Arab and Chechen fighters from Al Qaeda who crossed into Pakistan to escape the American bombing.

For Mr. Muhammad, it was partly a way to make money, but he also saw another use for the arriving fighters. With their help, over the next two years he launched a string of attacks on Pakistani military installations and on American firebases in Afghanistan.

C.I.A. officers in Islamabad urged Pakistani spies to lean on the Waziri tribesman to hand over the foreign fighters, but under Pashtun tribal customs that would be treachery. Reluctantly, Mr. Musharraf ordered his troops into the forbidding mountains to deliver rough justice to Mr. Muhammad and his fighters, hoping the operation might put a stop to the attacks on Pakistani soil, including two attempts on his life in December 2003.

But it was only the beginning. In March 2004, Pakistani helicopter gunships and artillery pounded Wana and its surrounding villages. Government troops shelled pickup trucks that were carrying civilians away from the fighting and destroyed the compounds of tribesmen suspected of harboring foreign fighters. The Pakistani commander declared the operation an unqualified success, but for Islamabad, it had not been worth the cost in casualties.

A cease-fire was negotiated in April during a hastily arranged meeting in South Waziristan, during which a senior Pakistani commander hung a garland of bright flowers around Mr. Muhammad’s neck. The two men sat together and sipped tea as photographers and television cameras recorded the event.

Both sides spoke of peace, but there was little doubt who was negotiating from strength. Mr. Muhammad would later brag that the government had agreed to meet inside a religious madrasa rather than in a public location where tribal meetings are traditionally held. “I did not go to them; they came to my place,” he said. “That should make it clear who surrendered to whom.”

The peace arrangement propelled Mr. Muhammad to new fame, and the truce was soon exposed as a sham. He resumed attacks against Pakistani troops, and Mr. Musharraf ordered his army back on the offensive in South Waziristan.

Pakistani officials had, for several years, balked at the idea of allowing armed C.I.A. Predators to roam their skies. They considered drone flights a violation of sovereignty, and worried that they would invite further criticism of Mr. Musharraf as being Washington’s lackey. But Mr. Muhammad’s rise to power forced them to reconsider.

The C.I.A. had been monitoring the rise of Mr. Muhammad, but officials considered him to be more Pakistan’s problem than America’s. In Washington, officials were watching with growing alarm the gathering of Qaeda operatives in the tribal areas, and George J. Tenet, the C.I.A. director, authorized officers in the agency’s Islamabad station to push Pakistani officials to allow armed drones. Negotiations were handled primarily by the Islamabad station.

As the battles raged in South Waziristan, the station chief in Islamabad paid a visit to Gen. Ehsan ul Haq, the ISI chief, and made an offer: If the C.I.A. killed Mr. Muhammad, would the ISI allow regular armed drone flights over the tribal areas?

In secret negotiations, the terms of the bargain were set. Pakistani intelligence officials insisted that they be allowed to approve each drone strike, giving them tight control over the list of targets. And they insisted that drones fly only in narrow parts of the tribal areas — ensuring that they would not venture where Islamabad did not want the Americans going: Pakistan’s nuclear facilities, and the mountain camps where Kashmiri militants were trained for attacks in India.

The ISI and the C.I.A. agreed that all drone flights in Pakistan would operate under the C.I.A.’s covert action authority — meaning that the United States would never acknowledge the missile strikes and that Pakistan would either take credit for the individual killings or remain silent.

Mr. Musharraf did not think that it would be difficult to keep up the ruse. As he told one C.I.A. officer: “In Pakistan, things fall out of the sky all the time.”

A New Direction

As the negotiations were taking place, the C.I.A.’s inspector general, John L. Helgerson, had just finished a searing report about the abuse of detainees in the C.I.A.’s secret prisons. The report kicked out the foundation upon which the C.I.A. detention and interrogation program had rested. It was perhaps the single most important reason for the C.I.A.’s shift from capturing to killing terrorism suspects.

The greatest impact of Mr. Helgerson’s report was felt at the C.I.A.’s Counterterrorism Center, or CTC, which was at the vanguard of the agency’s global antiterrorism operation. The center had focused on capturing Qaeda operatives; questioning them in C.I.A. jails or outsourcing interrogations to the spy services of Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt and other nations; and then using the information to hunt more terrorism suspects.

Mr. Helgerson raised questions about whether C.I.A. officers might face criminal prosecution for the interrogations carried out in the secret prisons, and he suggested that interrogation methods like waterboarding, sleep deprivation and the exploiting of the phobias of prisoners — like confining them in a small box with live bugs — violated the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

“The agency faces potentially serious long-term political and legal challenges as a result of the CTC detention and interrogation program,” the report concluded, given the brutality of the interrogation techniques and the “inability of the U.S. government to decide what it will ultimately do with the terrorists detained by the agency.”

The report was the beginning of the end for the program. The prisons would stay open for several more years, and new detainees were occasionally picked up and taken to secret sites, but at Langley, senior C.I.A. officers began looking for an endgame to the prison program. One C.I.A. operative told Mr. Helgerson’s team that officers from the agency might one day wind up on a “wanted list” and be tried for war crimes in an international court.

The ground had shifted, and counterterrorism officials began to rethink the strategy for the secret war. Armed drones, and targeted killings in general, offered a new direction. Killing by remote control was the antithesis of the dirty, intimate work of interrogation. Targeted killings were cheered by Republicans and Democrats alike, and using drones flown by pilots who were stationed thousands of miles away made the whole strategy seem risk-free.

Before long the C.I.A. would go from being the long-term jailer of America’s enemies to a military organization that erased them.

Not long before, the agency had been deeply ambivalent about drone warfare.

The Predator had been considered a blunt and unsophisticated killing tool, and many at the C.I.A. were glad that the agency had gotten out of the assassination business long ago. Three years before Mr. Muhammad’s death, and one year before the C.I.A. carried out its first targeted killing outside a war zone — in Yemen in 2002 — a debate raged over the legality and morality of using drones to kill suspected terrorists.

A new generation of C.I.A. officers had ascended to leadership positions, having joined the agency after the 1975 Congressional committee led by Senator Frank Church, Democrat of Idaho, which revealed extensive C.I.A. plots to kill foreign leaders, and President Gerald Ford’s subsequent ban on assassinations. The rise to power of this post-Church generation had a direct impact on the type of clandestine operations the C.I.A. chose to conduct.

The debate pitted a group of senior officers at the Counterterrorism Center against James L. Pavitt, the head of the C.I.A.’s clandestine service, and others who worried about the repercussions of the agency’s getting back into assassinations. Mr. Tenet told the 9/11 commission that he was not sure that a spy agency should be flying armed drones.

John E. McLaughlin, then the C.I.A.’s deputy director, who the 9/11 commission reported had raised concerns about the C.I.A.’s being in charge of the Predator, said: “You can’t underestimate the cultural change that comes with gaining lethal authority.

“When people say to me, ‘It’s not a big deal,’ ” he said, “I say to them, ‘Have you ever killed anyone?’

“It is a big deal. You start thinking about things differently,” he added. But after the Sept. 11 attacks, these concerns about the use of the C.I.A. to kill were quickly swept side.

The Account at the Time

After Mr. Muhammad was killed, his dirt grave in South Waziristan became a site of pilgrimage. A Pakistani journalist, Zahid Hussain, visited it days after the drone strike and saw a makeshift sign displayed on the grave: “He lived and died like a true Pashtun.”

Maj. Gen. Shaukat Sultan, Pakistan’s top military spokesman, told reporters at the time that “Al Qaeda facilitator” Nek Muhammad and four other “militants” had been killed in a rocket attack by Pakistani troops.

Any suggestion that Mr. Muhammad was killed by the Americans, or with American assistance, he said, was “absolutely absurd.”

This article is adapted from “The Way of the Knife: The C.I.A., a Secret Army, and a War at the Ends of the Earth,” to be published by Penguin Press on Tuesday.

A version of this article appeared in print on April 7, 2013, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: A Secret Deal on Drones, Sealed in Blood.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/world/asia/origins-of-cias-not-so-secret-drone-war-in-pakistan.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I must say this puts into focus all the suspicions we have had but have ben putting under the carpet in the hope of better relations in the future.

I am really disappointed and quite disillusioned. Would like to hear from the Americans on this. Do you think this is true? Did you actually look the other way while we bled?

Tronic
08 Apr 13,, 07:43
I must say this puts into focus all the suspicions we have had but have ben putting under the carpet in the hope of better relations in the future.

I am really disappointed and quite disillusioned. Would like to hear from the Americans on this. Do you think this is true? Did you actually look the other way while we bled?

Why expect the Americans to fight India's war? If anything, the anger should be directed at the GoI; where are the Indian drones targeting anti-India militant camps across the LoC?

doppelganger
08 Apr 13,, 07:47
Why expect the Americans to fight India's war? If anything, the anger should be directed at the GoI; where are the Indian drones targeting anti-India militant camps across the LoC?

You are not even a little shocked by this expose?

Tronic
08 Apr 13,, 07:49
You are not even a little shocked by this expose?

It's not really an expose. We had known this ages ago (at least the ones following the war).

doppelganger
08 Apr 13,, 07:52
It's not really an expose. We had known this ages ago (at least the ones following the war).

Who is we? WAB or Indians?

This happened in 2004 apparently.

Tronic
08 Apr 13,, 07:53
Who is we? WAB or Indians?

This happened in 2004 apparently.

Anyone following the war. Yes, it's old news.

antimony
08 Apr 13,, 08:06
You are not even a little shocked by this expose?

Why would you expect any shock here? The Kashmiri terrorists mean jack shit for the US war in Afghanistan and the US needs those transport lines open. After they pull out of Afghanistan things may be a bit different but I would not hold my breath.

Time for India to man up and fight her own war. Our soldier and officers have been restrained by the cowards in Delhi.

Firestorm
08 Apr 13,, 08:17
You are not even a little shocked by this expose?

I know this question wasn't directed at me but I'm actually shocked that you are shocked by this. Indians need to understand something. The US and India aren't allies. They are friendly countries who find mutual benefit in supporting each other in some cases. But India isn't a US ally in the same way that South Korea, Japan or Israel are. You shouldn't expect the US to look after Indian interests. They will look after their own. And as far as Pakistan is concerned, US and Indian interests are at odds with each other, and will remain so for the time being. India needs to grow a pair and deal with its own problems caused by Pakistan.

Recent friendly relations between the US and India seem to have put the wrong ideas about the relationship in the minds of some young Indians. The quicker we get rid of these misconceptions the better.

doppelganger
08 Apr 13,, 08:29
I am seeing a lot of cynical relaism amongst veteran Indian members here.

I am shocked and sorry but cannot be as blaise as your guys about it.

I did think America was a friend. Now at least, if never before.

antimony
08 Apr 13,, 09:11
I am seeing a lot of cynical relaism amongst veteran Indian members here.

I am shocked and sorry but cannot be as blaise as your guys about it.

I did think America was a friend. Now at least, if never before.

As Firestorm rightly pointed out, America is a friendly nation, not an ally. HUGE difference.

Cynicism?
Point me to a treaty that says that US and India are obligated to take military action to protect the interests of each other.

Sure, they do collaborate from time to time as self interest allows, but are not obligated to.

Lets not expect the rest of the world to solve our problems.

doppelganger
08 Apr 13,, 09:16
As Firestorm rightly pointed out, America is a friendly nation, not an ally. HUGE difference.

Cynicism?
Point me to a treaty that says that US and India are obligated to take military action to protect the interests of each other.

Sure, they do collaborate from time to time as self interest allows, but are not obligated to.

Lets not expect the rest of the world to solve our problems.

Sir you know Indian culture and ethos is different.

I am sure it is ok to be outraged.

Everything in life does not have to be logic driven.

Tronic
08 Apr 13,, 09:27
Sir you know Indian culture and ethos is different.

I am sure it is ok to be outraged.

Everything in life does not have to be logic driven.

doppel, Geopolitics are not driven by sentiments. It's driven on the basis of national interests. There are no 'friends' in geopolitics.

doppelganger
08 Apr 13,, 09:32
doppel, Geopolitics are not driven by sentiments. It's driven on the basis of national interests. There are no 'friends' in geopolitics.

Yes I guess that is true.

Defcon5
08 Apr 13,, 09:48
India should be making it hard for the United States to deal with Pakistan, until they change their policies which benefits us. India requires United States to put pressure on Pakistan, India is not capable of doing it, without taking unwanted serious risks.
India should be anti-United States Af-Pak strategy until United States can push some of India's agenda.

Bigfella
08 Apr 13,, 10:09
I am seeing a lot of cynical relaism amongst veteran Indian members here.

I am shocked and sorry but cannot be as blaise as your guys about it.

I did think America was a friend. Now at least, if never before.

Antimony beat me to it. America is your friend, to the extent that such things exist in geopolitics. America is Pakistan's ally & has been for generations. A deeply troubled alliance no doubt. One that some might argue is more trouble than it is worth, but an ally nonetheless. There are some who would argue that a ditching Pakistan in favour of India might be a good idea, but will India want to be that close an ally? In the meantime America will do its own bidding, not yours. That can certainly change, but India needs to offer the US something too. That may come in time, but my understanding is that right now India still prefers to keep the US at arms length. That is fine. It might even be wise, but it means that America isn't going to feel the need to piss off an ally to do you a favour.

In the words of that modern philosopher Janet Jackson "what have you done for me lately?"

Parihaka
08 Apr 13,, 10:16
"Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."

Henry John Temple, Viscount Lord Palmerston.

(I prefer him in the original to Janet Jackson;) )

Defcon5
08 Apr 13,, 10:32
Antimony beat me to it. America is your friend, to the extent that such things exist in geopolitics. America is Pakistan's ally & has been for generations. A deeply troubled alliance no doubt. One that some might argue is more trouble than it is worth, but an ally nonetheless. There are some who would argue that a ditching Pakistan in favour of India might be a good idea, but will India want to be that close an ally? In the meantime America will do its own bidding, not yours. That can certainly change, but India needs to offer the US something too. That may come in time, but my understanding is that right now India still prefers to keep the US at arms length. That is fine. It might even be wise, but it means that America isn't going to feel the need to piss off an ally to do you a favour.

In the words of that modern philosopher Janet Jackson "what have you done for me lately?"

India is already helping the US by not heating up Pakistan's eastern border as well as giving concessions to Pakistan on the insistance of the United States, its a failed Indian Policy, especially in the Af-Pak region for India but maybe beneficial on a world level. That said, India should light up Pakistan's eastern border, making United States put pressure on Pakistan for a India friendly enviornment. Whether United States can achieve that, only time will tell.

Being unhelpful to the United States is good for India, in its Pakistan strategy.

Bigfella
08 Apr 13,, 10:44
"Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."

Henry John Temple, Viscount Lord Palmerston.

(I prefer him in the original to Janet Jackson;) )

Man couldn't dance for sh!t. Janet had moves baby! :wors:

Bigfella
08 Apr 13,, 10:46
India is already helping the US by not heating up Pakistan's eastern border as well as giving concessions to Pakistan on the insistance of the United States, its a failed Indian Policy, especially in the Af-Pak region for India but maybe beneficial on a world level. That said, India should light up Pakistan's eastern border, making United States put pressure on Pakistan for a India friendly enviornment. Whether United States can achieve that, only time will tell.

Being unhelpful to the United States is good for India, in its Pakistan strategy.

Everybody does what they think suits them best. Nothing new under the sun.

doppelganger
08 Apr 13,, 10:50
India is already helping the US by not heating up Pakistan's eastern border as well as giving concessions to Pakistan on the insistance of the United States, its a failed Indian Policy, especially in the Af-Pak region for India but maybe beneficial on a world level. That said, India should light up Pakistan's eastern border, making United States put pressure on Pakistan for a India friendly enviornment. Whether United States can achieve that, only time will tell.

Being unhelpful to the United States is good for India, in its Pakistan strategy.

What is the use of doing that now when the US is ready to leave, its job done, its need for Pakistan over?

We kept quite and were pliable for the longest time.

And the US was willingly complicit in Pakistani terrorism against India.

Parihaka
08 Apr 13,, 11:10
What is the use of doing that now when the US is ready to leave, its job done, its need for Pakistan over?

We kept quite and were pliable for the longest time.

And the US was willingly complicit in Pakistani terrorism against India.

The US has uses for Pakistan beyond Afghanistan. You might say Pakistan is to the US as Afghanistan was to the British Empire. It's a shithole, but the US needs it to be their shithole rather than someone else's.

doppelganger
08 Apr 13,, 11:15
The US has uses for Pakistan beyond Afghanistan. You might say Pakistan is to the US as Afghanistan was to the British Empire. It's a shithole, but the US needs it to be their shithole rather than someone else's.

Meanwhile we are on the brim of that shithole, getting shit spatters from time to time. Not to mention the ever present stink.

As another famous modern philosopher would say, "Shit happens!"

lemontree
08 Apr 13,, 12:43
doppel, Geopolitics are not driven by sentiments. It's driven on the basis of national interests. There are no 'friends' in geopolitics.

To exlain this point further, take the example of two ISI generals who were summoned by US courts in the 26/11 case. Pakistan took umbrage and threatned to level murder charges on a US diplomat posted in Islamabad for drone strikes in Pakistan. To cut a long story short the US had to give in and provide immunity to the two ISI officers in the case.

Now it is up to Indian Govt to ensure that such Pakistani officers are punished. We cannot blame the US for this.

Agnostic Muslim
08 Apr 13,, 12:48
Any official documentation to support these allegations of a 'secret back room deal between the US and Pakistan'? Since the claims allege that specific 'corridors of operation' and 'rules' were defined between the US and Pakistan, I doubt this was merely a 'chat in a backroom' - and since journalists have been reporting on these 'secret deals' for years now, I don't see the point in hiding the agreement unless of course it doesn't really exist.

Officer of Engineers
08 Apr 13,, 12:56
Above your pay grade to decide.

Agnostic Muslim
08 Apr 13,, 13:11
Above your pay grade to decide.


The Pakistan foreign ministry spokesman said Sunday that the story is baseless and a part of the propaganda to create confusion about Pakistan’s clear position on this matter, reported Xinhua.

“We have repeatedly affirmed that Pakistan regards the use of drone strikes as counterproductive,” the spokesman said while responding to a query on the NYT report.

“It (drone strikes) violates Pakistan’s sovereignty and it violates international law,” the spokesman said in a statement.

He said there is now a growing debate in the international community to consider the legality and legitimacy of drone strikes.
Pakistan rejects US report on deal with CIA on drone attacks | Firstpost (http://www.firstpost.com/world/pakistan-rejects-us-report-on-deal-with-cia-on-drone-attacks-689914.html)
Well, Pakistan has, once again, formally and officially rejected any 'deal with the US on conducting drone strikes in Pakistan', so if there is such a deal that US government, military and intelligence officials are blabbing details about to every friendly journalist they can find, then lets see the documentation - absent any credible documentation of said deal these reports are essentially what the Pakistani foreign ministry described them as.

Officer of Engineers
08 Apr 13,, 13:16
You are actually serious. You posted an article quoting your own government's position that there is now a debate instead of a clear cut violation.

Again, above your pay grade to decide. What is known is that the airspace above the strikes is always clear and that no intercepts were ever made nor any of your AD ready ... and this despite an order from COAS to do so.

Agnostic Muslim
08 Apr 13,, 13:30
You are actually serious. You posted an article quoting your own government's position that there is now a debate instead of a clear cut violation.
I didn't post an 'article', I posted an excerpt quoting the Pakistani Foreign Ministry's statement on the issue:

"“It (drone strikes) violates Pakistan’s sovereignty and it violates international law,” the spokesman said in a statement."

Once the official UN report of the investigation into Drone Strikes is released, and if it echoes Ben Emmerson's earlier comments, the international case will be much stronger.

Again, above your pay grade to decide. What is known is that the airspace above the strikes is always clear and that no intercepts were ever made nor any of your AD ready ... and this despite an order from COAS to do so.
Complete speculation on your part - you have no access to conclusively know what Pakistan's military resources and flight patterns over FATA are and what constraints Pakistan may have in conducting round the clock PAF operations.

What is not speculation is the OFFICIAL Pakistani government statements (repeatedly over the years) denying any 'deal with the US on conducting drone strikes', in contrast to some hack in the NYT publishing anonymous officials claiming super secret conspiracy theories.

Agnostic Muslim
08 Apr 13,, 13:43
An excerpt from the UN Investigator, Ben Emmerson, preliminary statements on the illegality of US Drone Strikes in Pakistan that quotes the Pakistani position on these kinds of periodic 'expose` on secret US Pakistani deals on drone strikes':


UN special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, Ben Emmerson, visited Pakistan last week as part of the UN investigation into the impact of drone strikes and targeted killing on civilians. Emmerson spoke with senior Government officials, drone strike victims and FATA tribal leaders. After the visit he issued a statement addressing several important issues including whether Pakistan tacitly consents to US strikes:


Officials stated that reports of continuing tacit consent by Pakistan to the use of drones on its territory by any other State are false, and confirmed that a thorough search of Government records had revealed no indication of such consent having been given. Officials also pointed to public statements by Pakistan at the United Nations emphasizing this position and calling for an immediate end to the use of drones by any other State on the territory of Pakistan.


On the issues of civilian casualty figures the statement said:


The Special Rapporteur was informed that according to statistics compiled by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, there have been at least 330 drone strikes on the territory of Pakistan since 2004. Records showed that the total number of deaths caused by drone strikes was at least 2,200 that in addition at least 600 people had suffered serious injuries…. [T]he Special Rapporteur was informed that the Government has been able to confirm that at least 400 civilians had been killed as a result of drone strikes, and that a further 200 individuals were regarded as probable non-combatants. Officials indicated that due to under-reporting and obstacles to effective investigation on the ground these figures were likely to be under-estimates of the number of civilian deaths….

The Globalization of Drone Warfare | Global Research (http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-globalization-of-drone-warfare/5327649)

antimony
08 Apr 13,, 15:06
India should be making it hard for the United States to deal with Pakistan, until they change their policies which benefits us. India requires United States to put pressure on Pakistan, India is not capable of doing it, without taking unwanted serious risks.
India should be anti-United States Af-Pak strategy until United States can push some of India's agenda.


India should be making it hard for the United States to deal with Pakistan, until they change their policies which benefits us.

How and why?


India requires United States to put pressure on Pakistan, India is not capable of doing it, without taking unwanted serious risks.


How and why?


India should be anti-United States Af-Pak strategy until United States can push some of India's agenda.

Are you freaking serious? We should be anti-US because they looked after their interests instead of our own? Why don't you tell the poltis in Delhi to man up instead?

Agnostic Muslim
08 Apr 13,, 15:26
Even the Indian government is not willing to swallow this expose` without 'substantiation':


'Reports of deal on drone attacks need to be substantiated'

New Delhi: India on Monday said it needs to see whether the media reports that Pakistan allowed American drone strikes on its soil under a secret deal are "authentic" or not.

These are only newspaper reports which needs to be "substantiated", Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai said.

He was asked about a New York Times report which said that in a secret deal, Pakistan allowed American drone strikes on its soil on the condition that the UAVs would stay away from its nuclear facilities and mountain camps where Kashmiri militants were trained for attacks in India.

"Pakistani intelligence officials insisted that drones fly only in narrow parts of the tribal areas ensuring that they would not venture where Islamabad did not want the Americans going: Pakistan's nuclear facilities, and the mountain camps where Kashmiri militants were trained for attacks in India," the paper said.

Pakistani officials also insisted that they be allowed to approve each drone strike, giving them tight control over the list of targets, the New York Times report said.
`Reports of deal on drone attacks need to be substantiated` (http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/reports-of-deal-on-drone-attacks-need-to-be-substantiated_840588.html)

antimony
08 Apr 13,, 15:49
The Special Rapporteur was informed that according to statistics compiled by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, there have been at least 330 drone strikes on the territory of Pakistan since 2004. Records showed that the total number of deaths caused by drone strikes was at least 2,200 that in addition at least 600 people had suffered serious injuries…. [T]he Special Rapporteur was informed that the Government has been able to confirm that at least 400 civilians had been killed as a result of drone strikes, and that a further 200 individuals were regarded as probable non-combatants. Officials indicated that due to under-reporting and obstacles to effective investigation on the ground these figures were likely to be under-estimates of the number of civilian deaths….

Soooo, the report is based on GoP statistics, and they also say that some of these figures are estimates and not easily verifiable.

No way these numbers may be biased or overstated :rolleyes:

Look, if we need to stick to the level of scrutiny that you have been laying down for anything concerning Pakistan, I think we need the exact details of each and every civilian casualty from drone attacks, along with verifiable, documented proof that these were caused by the drones. Else it might as well be a bunch of stories made up by the GoP.

antimony
08 Apr 13,, 15:51
Even the Indian government is not willing to swallow this expose` without 'substantiation':

Of course they are not - who wants the hassle of explaining stupidly obvious norms of international cooperation to millions of the likes of DefCon5 and Dopple?

Agnostic Muslim
08 Apr 13,, 17:09
Soooo, the report is based on GoP statistics, and they also say that some of these figures are estimates and not easily verifiable.

No way these numbers may be biased or overstated :rolleyes:

Look, if we need to stick to the level of scrutiny that you have been laying down for anything concerning Pakistan, I think we need the exact details of each and every civilian casualty from drone attacks, along with verifiable, documented proof that these were caused by the drones. Else it might as well be a bunch of stories made up by the GoP.

I agree that the numbers shouldn't be accepted without verification - various other independent organizations have in fact conducted more in-depth studies involving interviews with alleged victims and trying to cross-reference the information provided by alleged victims with publicly known details reported in the immediate aftermath of a drone strike. More reason for the US to:

1. Provide official documentation detailing this 'secret deal with Pakistan on drone strikes'
2. Clearly outline the process involved in identifying targets, establishing the guilt of those targets and verification of the casualties post-drone strike


That said, I posted that excerpt from Ben Emmerson's statement more for the following comments, which are applicable to yet another 'anonymous diarrhea mouth sources in the US Establishment':

"Officials stated that reports of continuing tacit consent by Pakistan to the use of drones on its territory by any other State are false, and confirmed that a thorough search of Government records had revealed no indication of such consent having been given. Officials also pointed to public statements by Pakistan at the United Nations emphasizing this position and calling for an immediate end to the use of drones by any other State on the territory of Pakistan."

anil
08 Apr 13,, 17:30
You are not even a little shocked by this expose?
This is not an expose.

Islamist groups have been used as proxy weapons by the regimes in the US and pakistan since a long LONG time. The funny thing for indians is that these groups have now become a frankenstein monster that can no longer be controlled by the US or pakistan. Global jihad has over-powered ethnic and sectarian violence.

The US(and china) hope to see the pakistan army put a leash on global jihad but that is easier said than done.

antimony
08 Apr 13,, 17:46
The funny thing for Indians is that these groups have now become a frankenstein monster that can no longer be controlled by the US or pakistan. Global jihad has over-powered ethnic and sectarian violence.


Yeah, 26/11 was such a hoot.

Why do you take solace in Pakistan's suffering? It is more important to me that my countrymen and soldiers are dying and our political leaders do jack shit about that.

Tronic
08 Apr 13,, 18:39
What is not speculation is the OFFICIAL Pakistani government statements (repeatedly over the years) denying any 'deal with the US on conducting drone strikes', in contrast to some hack in the NYT publishing anonymous officials claiming super secret conspiracy theories.

Hell, those "anonymous officials" have more credibility than the ever lying GoP.

Tronic
08 Apr 13,, 18:44
Yeah, 26/11 was such a hoot.

Why do you take solace in Pakistan's suffering? It is more important to me that my countrymen and soldiers are dying and our political leaders do jack shit about that.

Probably because there isn't really much else to do when your adversary is already down on the floor with fleas. I agree that it would be very satisfactory to get in a kick or two as payback, but pragmatism says, why waste the time and energy, when the fleas are already doing your job for you?

Doktor
08 Apr 13,, 18:46
Yeah, 26/11 was such a hoot.

Why do you take solace in Pakistan's suffering? It is more important to me that my countrymen and soldiers are dying and our political leaders do jack shit about that.

What would your suggestion be for GoI to do and what would be desired end result for India with such actions?

Pakistan seems rather busy on their West to do something which will unite them.

anil
08 Apr 13,, 19:47
Yeah, 26/11 was such a hoot.

Why do you take solace in Pakistan's suffering? It is more important to me that my countrymen and soldiers are dying and our political leaders do jack shit about that.
The only options for india is what it can and cannot do. For the next ten years at least, india will not be able to break the US-china-pak nexus. 40 years ago, hardly any indian general could have predicted the current unusual predicament of all the countries involved and they get more absorbed each passing year. The russians are gone and they must be glad they are not a part in any of this riff raff because the game has spread well past indo-pak and whether it was a coincidence or not, I don't know.

antimony
08 Apr 13,, 20:12
Probably because there isn't really much else to do when your adversary is already down on the floor with fleas. I agree that it would be very satisfactory to get in a kick or two as payback, but pragmatism says, why waste the time and energy, when the fleas are already doing your job for you?


What would your suggestion be for GoI to do and what would be desired end result for India with such actions?

Pakistan seems rather busy on their West to do something which will unite them.

Replying to both of you:

We have been missing our chances for the past 14 years :


We should have opened up a full scale war in Kargil. As we have learned, there were NO NUKES. We did not do anything beyond claening out the immediate wound and applying a bandaid
We should have finished what we started in Operations Parakram. We chickened out
We did nothing after the 2006 Mumbai train attacks
And 26/11 - do you even need me to go on?


Pakistan has reached out and hurt us again and again and again. We have sat on our haunches and did nothing. Why the fuck do we need to have others solve our problems? Why don't we have arty/ drone strikes deep into Pakistan where it really hurts them? Why have we not opened up a War on Terror on them?

Their suffering is not our fault. What we have seen is that has not stopped them from hurting us.

Firestorm
08 Apr 13,, 20:14
The US(and china) hope to see the pakistan army put a leash on global jihad but that is easier said than done.


For the next ten years at least, india will not be able to break the US-china-pak nexus.

Make up your mind. If there is a US-China-Pak nexus, why would they want to put the Pak army on a leash?

Firestorm
08 Apr 13,, 20:28
We have been missing our chances for the past 14 years :

We should have opened up a full scale war in Kargil. As we have learned, there were NO NUKES. We did not do anything beyond claening out the immediate wound and applying a bandaid

Hindsight is always 20/20. Were we sure Pakistan had no deliverable nukes back then?



We should have finished what we started in Operation Parakram. We chickened out
The mobilization took too much time. By the time it was finished, the PA was already sitting on the border. An attack would have devolved into a slugfest that wouldn't have had any effect on the terror camps anyway.



We did nothing after the 2006 Mumbai train attacks
And 26/11 - do you even need me to go on?

Those deserved a military response. But I'm not sure what exactly our military objectives should have been, keeping in mind current conventional capabilities of both sides. The Americans have always armed pakistan just enough to ensure that any war with India will not result in a comfortable Indian victory. Their military and financial aid increased substantially after 9/11 when Pakistan became a "frontline ally" in the WoT. Successive Indian governments have also been stupid enough to neglect important equipment purchases which have left the Indian armed forces critically short (or saddled with obsolete equipment) in essential areas like artillery, IFVs, helicopters, etc.

I understand where you are coming from and I feel the same way, but solutions aren't so straightforward as you are suggesting.

Doktor
08 Apr 13,, 20:48
Replying to both of you:

...



My question was fairly simple: what should GoI do NOW and for what result?
Would it be more beneficial for India to do something (my guess is you mean military here) or to leave Pakistan to their own vices?
If India takes any actions, what would the acceptable outcome be and is it achievable?

Officer of Engineers
08 Apr 13,, 20:57
Hindsight is always 20/20. Were we sure Pakistan had no deliverable nukes back then?I was.

antimony
08 Apr 13,, 23:16
My question was fairly simple: what should GoI do NOW and for what result?
Would it be more beneficial for India to do something (my guess is you mean military here) or to leave Pakistan to their own vices?
If India takes any actions, what would the acceptable outcome be and is it achievable?

We have lost the intiative, but if there is one more large scale terrorist attack, I am absolutely in favour of attaking them militarily. Captain Lemontree has mentioned decimating PA command centers that handled terrorist after a particularly severe attack on the IA barracks (details escape me). We need to have many, many more of those, in a grander scale.

Each time they attack us, they should know they will get a reply back. Now they know that we will wring our hands and gather "evidence"

antimony
08 Apr 13,, 23:56
Hindsight is always 20/20. Were we sure Pakistan had no deliverable nukes back then?


The Colonel has answered. It seems that at least in the professional circles this was well understood.



The mobilization took too much time. By the time it was finished, the PA was already sitting on the border. An attack would have devolved into a slugfest that wouldn't have had any effect on the terror camps anyway.


First of all, don't start something you can not finish. A slugfest would have been better than what followed/ Pakistan realized that we would climb down under international pressure. Exactly that happened in 2006 and after 26/11.

Second, this led to the much vaunted "Cold Start". What happened to that?



Those deserved a military response. But I'm not sure what exactly our military objectives should have been, keeping in mind current conventional capabilities of both sides.


A key side effect of Cold Start was meant to do exactly this, give the Pak front lines a shock while the strike forces came up. This is why after Cold Start was described the Pakistan "nuclear red lines" became even more vague. I do think they are a bluff though.



The Americans have always armed pakistan just enough to ensure that any war with India will not result in a comfortable Indian victory.

Actually it makes sense. Too easy a victory just might lead to a nuclear threshold being reached.

Officer of Engineers
09 Apr 13,, 00:43
Actually it makes sense. Too easy a victory just might lead to a nuclear threshold being reached.72 hours of combat? The Pakistanis would still be trying to decide whether they need to use a nuke or not. They're certainly not going to use a nuke if their side is winning ... and they won't know until the action is well over.

Officer of Engineers
09 Apr 13,, 00:49
Complete speculation on your part - you have no access to conclusively know what Pakistan's military resources and flight patterns over FATA are and what constraints Pakistan may have in conducting round the clock PAF operations.Are you telling me that a Pakistani F-16 cannot chase down a small engined single propeller driven drone on its way out of the target area? You are daft.

The Iranians did it.

Firestorm
09 Apr 13,, 01:32
The Colonel has answered. It seems that at least in the professional circles this was well understood.

I doubt the GoI was sure enough to risk the lives of millions, especially after the nuclear sabre-rattling that Musharraf and co. had indulged in at the time. Regardless, there were other mitigating factors. Principal amongst them was India's preparedness (or a lack of it) to fight a full scale war after the gross neglect of the armed forces during the financial crunch of the 90's.



First of all, don't start something you can not finish. A slugfest would have been better than what followed/ Pakistan realized that we would climb down under international pressure. Exactly that happened in 2006 and after 26/11.

Second, this led to the much vaunted "Cold Start". What happened to that?

There is no "Cold Start". The Indian COAS had categorically denied its existence. It was just a casual comment made by someone (former chief of staff IIRC), blown out of proportion by the media, as is their wont. Why the Pakistanis swallowed it, I don't know. Probably just reflects their own insecurities.

Most of the concepts mentioned as being a part of "Cold Start" are simply impossible to implement with the current equipment levels and configuration of the IA.



This is why after Cold Start was described the Pakistan "nuclear red lines" became even more vague. I do think they are a bluff though.

They are probably a bluff. The question is how many lives are we willing to bet, that they are definitely a bluff.



Actually it makes sense. Too easy a victory just might lead to a nuclear threshold being reached.
Avoiding nuclear war, is only a byproduct. And if the aforementioned "red lines" are a bluff, there is no nuclear war to avoid.
They key intention of course, is to avoid an overwhelming Pakistani defeat. The Americans know that "international pressure" alone will not necessarily stop India from launching a military attack the next time the Pakistanis carry out a big terrorist strike on Indian soil. They need more practical measures. What better than to help the pakistanis arm themselves to the teeth for little or no money?

antimony
09 Apr 13,, 03:17
There is no "Cold Start". The Indian COAS had categorically denied its existence. It was just a casual comment made by someone (former chief of staff IIRC), blown out of proportion by the media, as is their wont. Why the Pakistanis swallowed it, I don't know. Probably just reflects their own insecurities.

Most of the concepts mentioned as being a part of "Cold Start" are simply impossible to implement with the current equipment levels and configuration of the IA.


Cold Start was at least put together as a concept. There was a doctrinal paper published in 2004. Even the US recognized it as a valid concept, though it was definitely not put into implementation stage.

WikiLeaks: US on Indian Army's Cold Start Doctrine | NDTV.com (http://www.ndtv.com/article/wikileaks-india-cables/wikileaks-us-on-indian-army-s-cold-start-doctrine-69859)



They are probably a bluff. The question is how many lives are we willing to bet, that they are definitely a bluff.


Therefore it is critical to determine what sets them off. Would incessant artillery barrage into PoK villages trigger the threshold? Would sinking a PN vessel trigger the threshold?



Avoiding nuclear war, is only a byproduct. And if the aforementioned "red lines" are a bluff, there is no nuclear war to avoid.


Oh, I am sure there is a threshold, only saying that Pakistan does not have the ridiculously low threshold she cl;aims to have.



They key intention of course, is to avoid an overwhelming Pakistani defeat. The Americans know that "international pressure" alone will not necessarily stop India from launching a military attack the next time the Pakistanis carry out a big terrorist strike on Indian soil. They need more practical measures. What better than to help the pakistanis arm themselves to the teeth for little or no money?

Agree

Doktor
09 Apr 13,, 05:35
We have lost the intiative, but if there is one more large scale terrorist attack, I am absolutely in favour of attaking them militarily. Captain Lemontree has mentioned decimating PA command centers that handled terrorist after a particularly severe attack on the IA barracks (details escape me). We need to have many, many more of those, in a grander scale.
I wonder if InA can achieve it and at what cost? Military and political.


Each time they attack us, they should know they will get a reply back. Now they know that we will wring our hands and gather "evidence"
I believe it was Mahatma who said something about an eye for an eye doctrine.

notorious_eagle
09 Apr 13,, 05:37
Are you telling me that a Pakistani F-16 cannot chase down a small engined single propeller driven drone on its way out of the target area? You are daft.

The Iranians did it.

Sir

The capability is there, it are repercussions that Pakistan is afraid off. PAF intercepted and shot down an Indian Heron Drone during the stand off in 2002.


I wonder if InA can achieve it and at what cost? Military and political.

I believe it was Mahatma who said something about an eye for an eye doctrine.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

Mahatma Gandhi

lemontree
09 Apr 13,, 05:47
My question was fairly simple: what should GoI do NOW and for what result?
Would it be more beneficial for India to do something (my guess is you mean military here) or to leave Pakistan to their own vices?
If India takes any actions, what would the acceptable outcome be and is it achievable?

In the post-withdrawal period in Afghanistan, Pakistan is looking for strategic depth; where it can grow and nurture its terror machine, and throw all the jihadis into J&K (this should also remove the troublesome elements from Pakistan).

There is not enough international support for keeping the ‘new Afghanistan’ afloat. Therefore, the obvious alternative scenario is staring us in the face—incessant turmoil, political instability, chaos and disorder. Against this backdrop, policy options for India would be:

- India, by adopting a low-key role in the last few years, has set itself apart as a country which is genuinely interested in reconstruction and development.
- India’s small-budget interventions in Pashtun areas have been well-received/appreciated by the population in areas infested by the militants, which has even forced the Taliban to grudgingly acknowledge India’s constructive role. Thus, India does have the acceptability to play a key role in Afghanistan in the next few years.
- The partnership agreement between the two countries allows India to strengthen linkages in the security sector too. The common Afghan, irrespective of her/his ethnicity, is keen that India continues to play a bigger role in stabilising Afghanistan.
- In contrast, Pakistan has lost credibility among the Afghans, who consider it as a country which does not have anything positive to offer, and can only export terrorism and destabilise the situation further.

Thus, if India retains the political will to remain engaged in Afghanistan, it can do so even as the latter becomes turbulent. India no longer has as much leverage with the erstwhile northern alliance members like it had a decade earlier. These links will have to be reactivated. India must reach out to all shades of Afghans.

The India-Afghanistan relationship must go beyond aid and build a comprehensive economic relationship. Afghanistan is in urgent need of measures to boost its revenue generating capacity. India can contribute in the field of revitalising agriculture, building infrastructure (railroads, highways, processing plants, etc.).

But we cannot be wishful in our thinking. While Indian intervention in Afghanistan must be increased, this may not be easy.

Since China is looking towards increasing its profile in Afghanistan, India should increase it cooperation with China (and even with Iran and Russia) on the nature and scope of our future engagement with Afghanistan.

India must not get bogged down by Pakistan. India’s policy in Afghanistan must be Afghan-centric and not be concerned about Pakistani efforts to gain strategic depth. In fact, by getting involved in Afghanistan, Pakistan is likely to endanger its own security and stability.

(Inputs are from IDSA's publications)

lemontree
09 Apr 13,, 05:54
Each time they attack us, they should know they will get a reply back. Now they know that we will wring our hands and gather "evidence"

I believe it was Mahatma who said something about an eye for an eye doctrine.

It works with Pakistan, in J&K...the 1998 massacres of hindus in Udhampur district stopped after we paid in the same coin.
Fidayeen attacks on residential quarters of officers and troops stopped after the Kaluchak favour was returned.

It is not that PA is chicken, but once you show them the cost of their actions, good sense prevails.

We did not reply to 26/11, and we shall have to bear the price of that indecisiveness.

antimony
09 Apr 13,, 05:55
I wonder if InA can achieve it and at what cost? Military and political.


We already do it on a very limited scale. I am talking about taking it to the 10th



I believe it was Mahatma who said something about an eye for an eye doctrine.

Not a big fan

doppelganger
09 Apr 13,, 06:28
Of course they are not - who wants the hassle of explaining stupidly obvious norms of international cooperation to millions of the likes of DefCon5 and Dopple?

I am sorry to say, but the rain of Seattle seems to have truly soaked and dissolved the Indianness out of you brother.

You are an Indian living in America, and you are spouting gyan while your adopted country colludes with our enemy?

antimony
09 Apr 13,, 06:44
Sir

The capability is there, it are repercussions that Pakistan is afraid off. PAF intercepted and shot down an Indian Heron Drone during the stand off in 2002.


Hence all this whining about proof and policy and procedure and UN officials and blah blah blah



"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

Mahatma Gandhi

Better we both be blind in one eye rather than me being blind in both and you in none

antimony
09 Apr 13,, 06:48
I am sorry to say, but the rain of Seattle seems to have truly soaked and dissolved the Indianness out of you brother.

You are an Indian living in America, and you are spouting gyan while your adopted country colludes with our enemy?

Now you are being silly and insulting. Do you realize the implications of being a client state of the US? Do you want the restrictions that come with being an ally?
I do not give a damn what you think of my Indianness, an IA officer here is saying the same thing.

Doktor
09 Apr 13,, 06:58
We already do it on a very limited scale. I am talking about taking it to the 10th
Again, for what gain? Peace? Doubt there will be peace if you go tit for tat.


Not a big fan
Won against a world empire and is good for PR.

doppelganger
09 Apr 13,, 06:59
Now you are being silly and insulting. Do you realize the implications of being a client state of the US? Do you want the restrictions that come with being an ally?
I do not give a damn what you think of my Indianness, an IA officer here is saying the same thing.

I am not insulting you. I am just saying that I would moving forward speak to you as an American rather than an Indian. You can choose to be insulted by that or not. Like you, I give a damn.

Gyan it exactly is that you are spouting sitting in the US and exhorting India to show its "balls" by taking the fight to Pakistan. Thank you but we living with our families here in the eye of the storm to follow can do without such gyan.

antimony
09 Apr 13,, 07:32
I am not insulting you. I am just saying that I would moving forward speak to you as an American rather than an Indian. You can choose to be insulted by that or not. Like you, I give a damn.

Gyan it exactly is that you are spouting sitting in the US and exhorting India to show its "balls" by taking the fight to Pakistan. Thank you but we living with our families here in the eye of the storm to follow can do without such gyan.

I really couldn't care less

And you show your "patriotism" by expecting others to solve your problems. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Tronic
09 Apr 13,, 07:36
Won against a world empire and is good for PR.

Many good men paid for freedom with their blood, Gandhi took home all the credit.

Agree with the second. He's good for PR.

doppelganger
09 Apr 13,, 07:48
I really couldn't care less

And you show your "patriotism" by expecting others to solve your problems.

I am not showing my patriotism or anything. Just expressing my rightful disappointment and disillusionment.

I have news for you. We are not expecting others to solve our problems and have never done so.

But if a friend helps an enemy then can he be a friend? That is the question we need to ask.

We as in Indians living in India affected by this interplay between friends and enemies.

You and other NRIs can continue exhorting us with your gyan.

Firestorm
09 Apr 13,, 07:57
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

Mahatma Gandhi

Hmmm, what the Mahatma did not bother to say, was that if you don't take out the other's eye, after he takes out yours, you are the only one who'll be left blind while your adversary enjoys his perfect eyesight.

Firestorm
09 Apr 13,, 08:00
Won against a world empire and is good for PR.
The British could have easily handled Gandhi and the INC for another fifty years if other events hadn't forced their hand.

doppelganger
09 Apr 13,, 08:03
The British could have easily handled Gandhi and the INC for another fifty years if other events hadn't forced their hand.

I agree.

We rever Gandhi and Nehru, but we forget the likes of Bose and Bhagat Singh.

That shows in our national psyche to this day.

Dante
09 Apr 13,, 08:07
But if a friend helps an enemy then can he be a friend? That is the question we need to ask.

We as in Indians living in India affected by this interplay between friends and enemies.

.


But it's about interest, not friendship. States are not persons.
Ask this - what would be the benefit to India if you turn bad you're relation with USA? Terrorists would still be there, Pakistan would still get support (at least until the Americans get a better ally or they get to tired of Pak), China would still support Pak..so nothing would change in that area. Plus, I don't think for one second that USA is supporting the terrorists activity's against India- it's more that they consider this you're issue and something that does not concern them that much

In the end, India's national security is India's responsibility

doppelganger
09 Apr 13,, 08:15
But it's about interest, not friendship. States are not persons.
Ask this - what would be the benefit to India if you turn bad you're relation with USA? Terrorists would still be there, Pakistan would still get support (at least until the Americans get a better ally or they get to tired of Pak), China would still support Pak..so nothing would change in that area. Plus, I don't think for one second that USA is supporting the terrorists activity's against India- it's more that they consider this you're issue and something that does not concern them that much

In the end, India's national security is India's responsibility

I am not talking about India going back into putting our relationship with the US in cold freeze, mild antipathy.

But I am sure that this news is not going to win the US any friends in India, whether they care or not.

Where Pakistan is involved, Indians are very black or white about it. There are no shades of grey.

Let us therefore respectfully ask the world to rethink the term WOT.

For WOT is war on all terror.

Otherwise it is AWOT. And none of us should equally be concerned or involved.

You cannot deride a nation for being duplicitous in its definition of good taliban, bad taliban, and yet secretly make deals to the same effect.

antimony
09 Apr 13,, 08:22
I have news for you. We are not expecting others to solve our problems and have never done so.

But if a friend helps an enemy then can he be a friend? That is the question we need to ask.


You are expecting USA to route terrorist camps in Pakistan that are aiming India. What are you offering the USA in return? Pakistan is offering a chance to wipe our tangos aiming for Afghanistan as well a a land route.


Just expressing my rightful disappointment and disillusionment.


More like a sense of entitlement

doppelganger
09 Apr 13,, 08:30
You are expecting USA to route terrorist camps in Pakistan that are aiming India. What are you offering the USA in return? Pakistan is offering a chance to wipe our tangos aiming for Afghanistan as well a a land route.

I appreciate you speaking as an American and dropping the desi mask, frayed as it was beyond repair.

If you guys have still not understod that when it comes to Islamic terrorism, there can never be watertight compartmentalisation, then I must say you deserve your allies. As they you.


More like a sense of entitlement

Disappointment and disillusionement.

And add deja vu to it too.

3 D's.

Doktor
09 Apr 13,, 08:32
The British could have easily handled Gandhi and the INC for another fifty years if other events hadn't forced their hand.

Yet they didn't.

My point is merely that you can reach peace by investing same or less blood, sweat and treasure then by sabre-rattling.

There is no way in foreseeable future one of the sides to militarily defeat the other to the point of surrender. If you can't achieve that, why starting it? Moreover since your adversary is on the knees and has enough problems on its own. Sino-Indian way of dealing with tensions is more acceptable, imho.

lemontree
09 Apr 13,, 09:16
Yet they didn't.

My point is merely that you can reach peace by investing same or less blood, sweat and treasure then by sabre-rattling.
Very true when you are dealing with non-islamic elements. Afghanistan was Christian, Bhuddist and hindu - till the islamic armies invaded and converted by the sword. They were a peaceful people who got overrun by sabre-rattling race.

With Pakistan - they have a rabid hatred for us. It would be rather stupid of us to lay back and get screwed.


There is no way in foreseeable future one of the sides to militarily defeat the other to the point of surrender. If you can't achieve that, why starting it? Moreover since your adversary is on the knees and has enough problems on its own.
Pakistan is ruled by a military culture, with peace prevailing, the Pakistani military will loose its importance and stature.
The Punjabi military egoistic physic has to be seen to be understood.


Sino-Indian way of dealing with tensions is more acceptable, imho.
Because there is no militant islamic equation involved between the two.

Tronic
09 Apr 13,, 09:25
Very true when you are dealing with non-islamic elements. Afghanistan was Christian, Bhuddist and hindu - till the islamic armies invaded and converted by the sword. They were a peaceful people who got overrun by sabre-rattling race.

Afghanistan was never Christian, LT. Alexander was not a Christian, he was a pagan. Son of Zeus. ;)


(Oh, and I don't agree with playing the Muslim card. It's just Pakistan...)

Officer of Engineers
09 Apr 13,, 10:18
The capability is there, it are repercussions that Pakistan is afraid off. PAF intercepted and shot down an Indian Heron Drone during the stand off in 2002.Gen Kayani issued the order. The ability and the capability is there to deny the Americans the airspace to operate. Anyone saying different is a complete utter idiot.

lemontree
09 Apr 13,, 10:27
Afghanistan was never Christian, LT. Alexander was not a Christian, he was a pagan. Son of Zeus. ;)
Who said Alexander!!!....Read up on St.Thomas the apostle of Jesus, who is more famous in Kerela. But, before he travelled to South India, he had evangelised many tribes in Afghanistan, Baluchistan and Northwest India.


(Oh, and I don't agree with playing the Muslim card. It's just Pakistan...)
Your a Khalsa..the panth came into being due to islamic persecution of the hindus and the Guru's followers.
The muslim card partitioned this nation...the muslim card is used to demand Kashmir.

I did not use the card, the card was dealt to me and countrymen, and we shall play it.

doppelganger
09 Apr 13,, 10:32
Lemontree sirji, salute! I am there by your side with my own deck.

lemontree
09 Apr 13,, 10:36
Lemontree sirji, salute! I am there by your side with my own deck.

Even Tronic is on our side, its just that he had a cute Pakistani girlfriend, so a bit of a soft corner is expected from him...lol

doppelganger
09 Apr 13,, 10:50
Even Tronic is on our side, its just that he had a cute Pakistani girlfriend, so a bit of a soft corner is expected from him...lol

Sirji I cannot resist when you talk of cute Pakistani girlfiends.

Tronic ji, Doktor ji, Bigross ji, very serious thread, only one please.

She used to mine. I miss her much.

32623

32624

32625

Doktor
09 Apr 13,, 10:54
Sirji I cannot resist when you talk of cute Pakistani girlfiends.
I am shocked, shocked!


Tronic ji, Doktor ji, Bigross ji, very serious thread, only one please.
Now we are ji's. Nice.


She used to mine.
Then you woke up.


I miss her much.
Suffer!

lemontree
09 Apr 13,, 12:02
She does'nt look Pakistani...unless she is a mohajir.

doppelganger
09 Apr 13,, 12:11
She does'nt look Pakistani...unless she is a mohajir.

She is a Baloch from Karachi.

Agnostic Muslim
09 Apr 13,, 12:15
Hell, those "anonymous officials" have more credibility than the ever lying GoP.
With every blabbermouth in the US Establishment talking about the details of this 'secret agreement' to the press it isn't really 'secret' anymore, so lets see the 'credible US government' provide documentation proving this deal, in the absence of which the only parties 'lying' are the alleged 'sources'.

Agnostic Muslim
09 Apr 13,, 12:23
Are you telling me that a Pakistani F-16 cannot chase down a small engined single propeller driven drone on its way out of the target area? You are daft.

The Iranians did it.
We have had this argument before on the 'UN investigation declaring US drone strikes in Pakistan illegal' thread - shooting down US assets would lead to an escalation with no guarantee of an end to US drone strikes.

What I referred to as 'speculation' was your comment that implied that 'cleared airspace constituted some sort of approval of US drone strikes' - clear airspace could also be the result of a paucity of resources preventing round the clock PAF flights in the airspace used by US drones (which would be a passive means of preventing US drone strikes), and therefore 'clear airspace' does not on its own suggest any sort of 'Pakistani approval of US drone strikes'.

Agnostic Muslim
09 Apr 13,, 12:28
Captain Lemontree has mentioned decimating PA command centers that handled terrorist after a particularly severe attack on the IA barracks (details escape me). We need to have many, many more of those, in a grander scale.

Oh, the one where he claimed (with no corroboration yet) that perhaps 7-8 officers were killed in 'observed artillery fire' on a Pakistani Brigade HQ across the International Border?

Did it escape you that even if his account was true, Pakistan possesses similar artillery capabilities to target Indian positions as a response?

Respect for those who serve in your military is understandable, but lets also use a little common sense and rational thought when analyzing their claims shall we?

Agnostic Muslim
09 Apr 13,, 12:32
The Punjabi military egoistic physic has to be seen to be understood.

Certain parts of Punjab have 'martial traditions' in the sense that they have traditionally served as major recruiting grounds for the Military. Punjab also has a very strong trade and business sector - flawed generalizations such as yours are what lead to inane policy prescriptions.

Officer of Engineers
09 Apr 13,, 13:08
We have had this argument before on the 'UN investigation declaring US drone strikes in Pakistan illegal' thread - shooting down US assets would lead to an escalation with no guarantee of an end to US drone strikes.

What I referred to as 'speculation' was your comment that implied that 'cleared airspace constituted some sort of approval of US drone strikes' - clear airspace could also be the result of a paucity of resources preventing round the clock PAF flights in the airspace used by US drones (which would be a passive means of preventing US drone strikes), and therefore 'clear airspace' does not on its own suggest any sort of 'Pakistani approval of US drone strikes'.HORSE PUCKEY! Even if the US did not seek your approval, after 9 years of operations, you mean to tell me that you can't figure out their patterns yet?

The Iranians did it in months.

Either you cannot or you will not look after your own airspace. CHOOSE!

Agnostic Muslim
09 Apr 13,, 14:01
HORSE PUCKEY! Even if the US did not seek your approval, after 9 years of operations, you mean to tell me that you can't figure out their patterns yet?

The Iranians did it in months.

Either you cannot or you will not look after your own airspace. CHOOSE!
Patterns can be changed, and without the ability to keep the airspace closed round the clock this would essentially turn into a 'whack a mole' exercise.

As a responsible nation not wishing to damage its relationship with the US Pakistan would prefer to use diplomatic channels to highlight the illegality of US drone strikes and, given the US's self proclaimed 'commitment to the rule of law', expect the US to follow international law and guidelines.

Now if the US wishes to leave the UN and does so, things change. :biggrin:

Doktor
09 Apr 13,, 14:39
Patterns can be changed, and without the ability to keep the airspace closed round the clock this would essentially turn into a 'whack a mole' exercise.
It is still better then nothing.


As a responsible nation not wishing to damage its relationship with the US Pakistan would prefer to use diplomatic channels to highlight the illegality of US drone strikes and, given the US's self proclaimed 'commitment to the rule of law', expect the US to follow international law and guidelines.
As a nation you might be responsible, but your leadership is not.
What law?


Now if the US wishes to leave the UN and does so, things change. :biggrin:
Actually, if that ever happens it will be the US expelling UN, not the other way around :rolleyes:

Officer of Engineers
09 Apr 13,, 14:44
Patterns can be changed, and without the ability to keep the airspace closed round the clock this would essentially turn into a 'whack a mole' exercise.Radar can give 24/7 all sky coverage. Paint the skies. Let the Americans know that you're watching.


As a responsible nation not wishing to damage its relationship with the US Pakistan would prefer to use diplomatic channels to highlight the illegality of US drone strikes and, given the US's self proclaimed 'commitment to the rule of law', expect the US to follow international law and guidelines.Kayani issued a lawful order to defend your own skies. Is the PAF unable or unwilling to obey that order.


Now if the US wishes to leave the UN and does so, things change. :biggrin:Believe it or not, the UN is NOT responsible for your national defence.

antimony
09 Apr 13,, 15:02
Oh, the one where he claimed (with no corroboration yet) that perhaps 7-8 officers were killed in 'observed artillery fire' on a Pakistani Brigade HQ across the International Border?



I followed that discussions pretty closely and I believe LT laid out the information pretty clearly. I also showed you the reports from Pakistani press about the incessant shelling from the Indian side and the casualties. You did not get back on that

antimony
09 Apr 13,, 15:07
I appreciate you speaking as an American and dropping the desi mask, frayed as it was beyond repair.

If you guys have still not understod that when it comes to Islamic terrorism, there can never be watertight compartmentalisation, then I must say you deserve your allies. As they you.


LOL, you still fail to understand. If you ask the US for favors, be afraid that they might grant it, and extract the price from you. Look at the conditions the US imposes n her allies. Hell, look at the conditions the US imposes on her clients.



Disappointment and disillusionement.

And add deja vu to it too.

3 D's.

Big words. Yet you fail to hold the political leaders responsible

Parihaka
09 Apr 13,, 15:51
LOL, you still fail to understand. If you ask the US for favors, be afraid that they might grant it, and extract the price from you. Look at the conditions the US imposes n her allies. Hell, look at the conditions the US imposes on her clients.
precisely

IND76
09 Apr 13,, 17:26
Oh, the one where he claimed (with no corroboration yet) that perhaps 7-8 officers were killed in 'observed artillery fire' on a Pakistani Brigade HQ across the International Border?

Did it escape you that even if his account was true, Pakistan possesses similar artillery capabilities to target Indian positions as a response?

Respect for those who serve in your military is understandable, but lets also use a little common sense and rational thought when analyzing their claims shall we?

AM, your beloved army is not invincible that you want us to belive that its impossible for a profession army like IA to flaten just on brigade head quarter?

Firestorm
09 Apr 13,, 18:44
If you guys have still not understood that when it comes to Islamic terrorism, there can never be watertight compartmentalisation, then I must say you deserve your allies. As they you.
LOL, you still fail to understand. If you ask the US for favors, be afraid that they might grant it, and extract the price from you. Look at the conditions the US imposes n her allies. Hell, look at the conditions the US imposes on her clients.

In doppelganger's defense, his statement is absolutely right though. When Islamic fundamentalists lose one target, they seek out to attack another. The Pakistanis have done a good job of programming them to kill only Indians, but that may not last, like what happened with some of their brethren who are now attacking their own country. That is also what happened when the Soviets left and some of the jihadis decided that the US would be the next great satan. So there is no guarantee that if the US lets the purely anti-India terrorists go, they will not turn around and plan attacks against the US in the future.
Unfortunately, the US cannot afford to think that far into the future right now. They need an exit strategy in Afghanistan and they believe they can't afford to antagonize Pakistan too much if they are to have a good one. If it results in a few more avoidable Indian deaths, that's India's concern. India shouldn't be relying on US drone strikes to protect her citizens anyway. If the GoI was really concerned about our citizens, they would fix the abysmal internal security and intelligence apparatus first, and make sure the military is well equipped and supplied in case a military response is necessary.


P.S.: Can we have a separate thread for all of doppelganger's female (or other) fantasies? Some of us browse these threads at work, and it can lead to um.. awkward situations. :red:

Doktor
09 Apr 13,, 20:56
P.S.: Can we have a separate thread for all of doppelganger's female (or other) fantasies? Some of us browse these threads at work, and it can lead to um.. awkward situations. :red:

You wanna tell me you don't have porn shuied your office?

Agnostic Muslim
09 Apr 13,, 21:16
AM, your beloved army is not invincible that you want us to belive that its impossible for a profession army like IA to flaten just on brigade head quarter?
IND76 & Antimony:

I did not say anything about the PA being invincible - in fact my point in the post you quoted was essentially the one you are trying to make to me - "do you really believe that it is possible for the IA to flatten an entire Brigade HQ across the International Border during peacetime and not face similar retaliation from the Pakistani side'?

Lemontree stated that the 'Brigade HQ was flattened through observed artillery strikes' - now do you actually believe that the PA does not have the artillery resources to do the same to the IA in retaliation?

My point is that his account is exaggerated - artillery duels between the two Armies have been commonplace (not as much now as in years past) and it is entirely possible that one such artillery duel in the aftermath of the incident he refers to in IK involved targeting a Bde HQ and caused casualties, but if so, it would be nothing unusual on either side.

Blademaster
09 Apr 13,, 23:28
It works with Pakistan, in J&K...the 1998 massacres of hindus in Udhampur district stopped after we paid in the same coin.
Fidayeen attacks on residential quarters of officers and troops stopped after the Kaluchak favour was returned.

It is not that PA is chicken, but once you show them the cost of their actions, good sense prevails.

We did not reply to 26/11, and we shall have to bear the price of that indecisiveness.

Which is why I think PM Singh has endangered the security of Indian citizens.

Blademaster
09 Apr 13,, 23:33
The British could have easily handled Gandhi and the INC for another fifty years if other events hadn't forced their hand.

Which is why India owes an enormous debt to Germany even though it is not politically correct to say so. If there's one thing that Germans have to be proud of during WWII, they could take credit for unintentionally speeding up the death of colonialism/foreign occupation and independence of nations from European occupation. But then again, Israel and the Anti Defamation League and the Jewish lobby would have a field day if anybody were to voice that opinion.

Blademaster
09 Apr 13,, 23:38
Radar can give 24/7 all sky coverage. Paint the skies. Let the Americans know that you're watching.

Kayani issued a lawful order to defend your own skies. Is the PAF unable or unwilling to obey that order.

Believe it or not, the UN is NOT responsible for your national defence.

I think PAF ignored the orders from Kayani to shoot down the drones because they don't want to ever lose their F-16 fighting abilities again. They already went through the painful episode of suffering from a lack of spares to keep the F-16s operating and had to cannibalize some F-16s to keep others operating. For now the F-16s are PAF's top of the line fighters and needs US support to keep them flying in the face of upgraded Mig-29s and Su-30s and the upcoming Rafales.

I think you would have to refer to the actions of the PAF chief, not General Kayani and the army chief does not have that much control over the PAF.

Doktor
09 Apr 13,, 23:43
They can do that? Ignore orders from COAS I mean.

Some general.

Blademaster
09 Apr 13,, 23:58
They can do that? Ignore orders from COAS I mean.

Some general.

Ever since that Kargil episode and the 1971 war, PAF and PA don't generally get along with each other. They stay out of each other's way. PA can't do much against PAF because PA needs PAF to put up a credible nuke threat since they have not been able to mate a working nuke to their missiles and gravity launched nukes is the only proven delivery mechanism that Pakistan has. Furthermore, PA needs PAF to keep IAF off its back so that is why Gen. Kayani can't do much if the PAF chief simply ignores the order and tell his pilots to leave the drones alone.

And PAF, which I am sure of, is enjoying this hoopla with great relish because it puts PA in a bad light, but PAF in a good light.

Officer of Engineers
10 Apr 13,, 00:00
Then, all the Chiefs should be relieved for incompentence for failing to defend Pakistan at the very least. Outright shot for treason for consipiring with the Americans to allow their drones through. Either way, Pakistani law was broken by Pakistani military men for failing to defend their country ... unless the Americans were conducting allied operations within Pakistan.

For all the talk about the US breaking international law, no one here ever thought of Pakistanis breaking Pakistani law. Here's a thought, if no one is going after Pakistanis, then what basis do you have for going after the Americans? The Americans didn't blast their way through and blast their way out. They were allowed in. What's more. They were allowed out.

Those facts DO NOT correspond with AM's assertions that the Americans do not have permission. Otherwise, Pakistani airmen and soldiers are breaking Pakistani Law and should be court-martial for derelection of duty at the very least, outright treason at the worst.

Blademaster
10 Apr 13,, 00:14
OOE, what do you expect from PA? After all, they are the ones that control Pakistan from the shadows and launch coup de etat once in every decade. The whole hoopla started when the Americans became too good at killing Pakistan Talibans and there was some fallback from the Taliban who took over the Swat valley and PA needed a scapegoad when its counter offensive wasn't going too well and now people are asking the tough questions, and for the first time in a long time, the PA couldn't come up with a coherent answer.

Officer of Engineers
10 Apr 13,, 00:20
I expect AM to put up or shut up. He keep coming up with excuses why they could not shoot down American drones when if in fact they are enemy invaders, then the Pakistani military is breaking Pakistani laws for not defending Pakistan. If no one is going after the Pakistani military for Derelection of Duty or outright Treason, then what basis is there to contend the Americans did not have permission?

lemontree
10 Apr 13,, 05:13
Certain parts of Punjab have 'martial traditions' in the sense that they have traditionally served as major recruiting grounds for the Military. Punjab also has a very strong trade and business sector - flawed generalizations such as yours are what lead to inane policy prescriptions.

Lol...you would'nt understand, it is beyond you. If my understanding is flawed then Bangladesh would have still been East Pakistan.

lemontree
10 Apr 13,, 05:42
I followed that discussions pretty closely and I believe LT laid out the information pretty clearly. I also showed you the reports from Pakistani press about the incessant shelling from the Indian side and the casualties. You did not get back on that
Don't bother, AM has not even acknowledged the complete wiping out of an entire Pak forward post in the 1998 Bandala raid that he himself quoted. He just pointed out the killing of 21 civilians. That forward post had around 18 troops, the post was under command of a JCO.

The highlight of the operation was that no firearms were used - just kukris.

Selective descussions and denials are what his "debates" (if you can call them that) are made of.

Tronic
10 Apr 13,, 06:38
Missed a few posts...


Your a Khalsa..the panth came into being due to islamic persecution of the hindus and the Guru's followers.

LT, that is not wholly true. The Panth was formed to protect the Sikh religion itself from all who wished to eradicate it, and they weren't all Muslims. Take one look at the history directly before and after the establishment of the Panth. The first kingdoms to declare war against the Khalsa were the Sivalik kings, who were Hindus, not Muslims. They felt that a strong Sikh military and political force in Punjab would erode their own power, so they declared war. The Mughals too were brought into this war, on behalf of the Sivalik kingdoms, and soon eradicating the Khalsa Panth became a greater urgency for the Mughals as they saw the direct threat to their own hold on power. It was a good old power play. Game of thrones, of sorts. ;)

And I do oppose communalizing history; especially when it relates to Sikh history. There's a reason that the 15 Sikh saints were chosen from all the major religions of Punjab at the time, and 5 of those Sikh saints were Muslims! History should be read, as it is...

(ps: I'm not exactly a "Khalsa".. a "Khalsa" is an observant Sikh.. I don't really live up to that definition.)


The muslim card partitioned this nation...the muslim card is used to demand Kashmir.

The Islamist parties, the Jamaat-e-Islami, actually opposed the partition of British India, while the alcohol drinking, pork chugging Jinnah advocated it. Pakistan was, and is, a land created by the feudals to rule over their subjects with impunity.


Even Tronic is on our side, its just that he had a cute Pakistani girlfriend, so a bit of a soft corner is expected from him...lol

If anything, I think she actually made me resent the orthodox tight asses even more!

doppelganger
10 Apr 13,, 07:55
I expect AM to put up or shut up. He keep coming up with excuses why they could not shoot down American drones when if in fact they are enemy invaders, then the Pakistani military is breaking Pakistani laws for not defending Pakistan. If no one is going after the Pakistani military for Derelection of Duty or outright Treason, then what basis is there to contend the Americans did not have permission?

They try to hold them accountable.

But only after they retire, are thrown out of power, and sent into exile.

doppelganger
10 Apr 13,, 07:56
LOL, you still fail to understand. If you ask the US for favors, be afraid that they might grant it, and extract the price from you. Look at the conditions the US imposes n her allies. Hell, look at the conditions the US imposes on her clients.

Big words. Yet you fail to hold the political leaders responsible

Its ok bro. Sorry for venting my steam on you yesterday. You are an Indian brother. Brothers fight.

Officer of Engineers
10 Apr 13,, 09:37
They try to hold them accountable.

But only after they retire, are thrown out of power, and sent into exile.Fine. They can sue the US after we killed the motherfucks.

lemontree
10 Apr 13,, 11:48
This is off topic so will make it short...

The Panth was formed to protect the Sikh religion itself from all who wished to eradicate it, and they weren't all Muslims.
The panth was formed by the 10th guru, Guru Govind Singhji, after Guru Teg Bahadur was executed at Chandni Chowk, Delhi for refusing to convert to islam. It was religious persecution that formed the Khalsa panth. The guru's followers were never threatened by any non-muslim ruler on the basis of religion. Please point of any such instance, as I am not aware.


Take one look at the history directly before and after the establishment of the Panth. The first kingdoms to declare war against the Khalsa were the Sivalik kings, who were Hindus, not Muslims.
You are getting selective now, the Anandpur battle of 1701 was between a combined force of the Mughals abd the Shivalik kings (who were vassels of the Mughals). Before that in 1688 the battle of Bhangani, was not for religious reasons, but a pre-emptive strike against a rising military force in Anandpur, which is on the foot hills for the Shivaliks. The Khalsa panth came up in 1699 and the prime reason was religious persecution, the guru's had armies before that too.


And I do oppose communalizing history; especially when it relates to Sikh history. There's a reason that the 15 Sikh saints were chosen from all the major religions of Punjab at the time, and 5 of those Sikh saints were Muslims! History should be read, as it is...
Who are the 5 extra guru's that you mention? There are only 10.
Your preference aside, you cannot deny that the Khalsa panth was formed due to communal nature of mughal rule. With two guru's being executed on religious grounds the conflict assumes a communal nature.


(ps: I'm not exactly a "Khalsa".. a "Khalsa" is an observant Sikh.. I don't really live up to that definition.)
I know that, you did mention it. No issue with that.


The Islamist parties, the Jamaat-e-Islami, actually opposed the partition of British India,
Tronic, come on...


while the alcohol drinking, pork chugging Jinnah advocated it. Pakistan was, and is, a land created by the feudals to rule over their subjects with impunity.
Topic for a different thread.

Agnostic Muslim
10 Apr 13,, 12:32
Radar can give 24/7 all sky coverage. Paint the skies. Let the Americans know that you're watching.
'Painting the sky with radar' would accomplish what exactly - the US can still play 'whack a mole' based on its own superior radar and SIGINT capabilities every time the PAF scrambles aircraft in response to a drone detection.


Kayani issued a lawful order to defend your own skies. Is the PAF unable or unwilling to obey that order.

Cross-posting this question from the other thread -could you quote Kayani/ISPR official statement/press release stating that please?

Agnostic Muslim
10 Apr 13,, 12:34
Lol...you would'nt understand, it is beyond you. If my understanding is flawed then Bangladesh would have still been East Pakistan.
Generalizing East Pakistan to 'martial traditions in Punjab' would indicate an extremely shallow and flawed understanding - Yahyah Khan, the military dictator running the country at the time was a Pakhtun, ZA Bhutto, who strongly opposed and advised YK against allowing Mujib to form a government was a Sindhi ...

Agnostic Muslim
10 Apr 13,, 12:38
Don't bother, AM has not even acknowledged the complete wiping out of an entire Pak forward post in the 1998 Bandala raid that he himself quoted. He just pointed out the killing of 21 civilians. That forward post had around 18 troops, the post was under command of a JCO.

The highlight of the operation was that no firearms were used - just kukris.

The PA Officers I communicated with confirmed the massacre of the civilians by the IA in that particular incident (and I posted excerpts from their email responses in the thread I mentioned) - they did not have any information or knowledge about military casualties in that raid. So aside from a concocted war-story to rile up the troops, what exactly do you have to back up your account of massacring 18 soldiers?

antimony
10 Apr 13,, 15:11
'Painting the sky with radar' would accomplish what exactly - the US can still play 'whack a mole' based on its own superior radar and SIGINT capabilities every time the PAF scrambles aircraft in response to a drone detection.


So the reason for not going after the drones is not political but related to capability now? Please do make up your mind.



Cross-posting this question from the other thread -could you quote Kayani/ISPR official statement/press release stating that please?

Pakistan says U.S. drones in its air space will be shot down - World News (http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/10/9352886-pakistan-says-us-drones-in-its-air-space-will-be-shot-down?lite)
* Pakistan Says U.S. Drones in its Air Space Will be Shot Down :* Information Clearing House (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29946.htm)

Agnostic Muslim
10 Apr 13,, 15:45
So the reason for not going after the drones is not political but related to capability now? Please do make up your mind.
It is both political and capability related.


Pakistan says U.S. drones in its air space will be shot down - World News (http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/10/9352886-pakistan-says-us-drones-in-its-air-space-will-be-shot-down?lite)
* Pakistan Says U.S. Drones in its Air Space Will be Shot Down :* Information Clearing House (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29946.htm)
And as I asked OoE, where exactly is the actual official quote of Kayani and/or ISPR stating the above?

Doktor
10 Apr 13,, 16:01
And as I asked OoE, where exactly is the actual official quote of Kayani and/or ISPR stating the above?
Are you saying Pak Mil Officials are lying to the press?

Officer of Engineers
10 Apr 13,, 16:09
It is both political and capability related.So you cannot shoot the drone on its way out of the target area.


And as I asked OoE, where exactly is the actual official quote of Kayani and/or ISPR stating the above?Does it matter? You yourself personally posted your country's position that these strikes are a violation of your sovergnty. Your military is legally and morally obligated to defend your sovergnty. No one is fired for not doing his job. No one is shot for treason.

If your position is correct, then the very top echelons of your military are violating Pakistani Law and their Oaths. Why are you not going after them for not doing their jobs? Why are you not going after them to be shot?

Tronic
10 Apr 13,, 18:44
This is off topic so will make it short...

There are a lot of misconceptions in your views about my faith, so I would rather that you not make it short. I have opened a new thread here to correct them: http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/ancient-medieval-early-modern-ages/63868-sikh-history.html#post910358

antimony
10 Apr 13,, 18:50
So you cannot shoot the drone on its way out of the target area.


Awesome news. I hope IA is monitoring WAB, so that we can send our drones after the LET scum, since Pakistan apparently has no capability to intercept them.:biggrin:

Firestorm
10 Apr 13,, 20:26
Generalizing East Pakistan to 'martial traditions in Punjab' would indicate an extremely shallow and flawed understanding - Yahyah Khan, the military dictator running the country at the time was a Pakhtun, ZA Bhutto, who strongly opposed and advised YK against allowing Mujib to form a government was a Sindhi ...

Unsurprisingly, you failed to mention where the Butcher of Bengal, General Tikka Khan was from...

Tronic
10 Apr 13,, 21:16
Sirji I cannot resist when you talk of cute Pakistani girlfiends.

Tronic ji, Doktor ji, Bigross ji, very serious thread, only one please.

She used to mine. I miss her much.

32623

32624

32625

mmm... I actually know Mahleej... :tongue:

She's from Toronto and hosted some gigs a few years ago with a buddy of mines who runs 'Toronto Production House'. Next time I run into her, I'll let her know how much you miss her. :biggrin:


She is a Baloch from Karachi.

No, She's from a Parsi family actually...

Firestorm
10 Apr 13,, 21:34
'Painting the sky with radar' would accomplish what exactly - the US can still play 'whack a mole' based on its own superior radar and SIGINT capabilities every time the PAF scrambles aircraft in response to a drone detection.

What superior radar and SIGINT capabilities? The US doesn't have radar installations in Afghanistan, and it is not F-15's and F-22's backed by AWACS that you are facing. These are solitary Predator drones with no anti-air capability or even an air-search radar for that matter.

Stop making shit up to suit your argument. If the PAF wants to shoot down the drones, it is well within its capability. The question is, why don't they even try? You claim that innocents are being killed in these drone strikes. Isn't it the job of your armed forces to at least try and stop that from happening?

Forget about actually shooting down one of the drones, there hasn't even been any news about the pakistanis firing a SAM at one or scrambling fighters to intercept it.

Stitch
10 Apr 13,, 23:52
Forget about actually shooting down one of the drones, there hasn't even been any news about the Pakistanis firing a SAM at one or scrambling fighters to intercept it.

Shoot, even the Iraqi's have had more success at shooting a drone down, and a stealth drone at that!

Officer of Engineers
11 Apr 13,, 03:21
They try to hold them accountable.

But only after they retire, are thrown out of power, and sent into exile.I noticed this cultural trait amongst both Indians and Chinese - that they expect the US ... and each other to do their whims ... all because they're up and coming powers and it's better to be nice to them now, else they would be angry later.

Trying to explain Diplomacy 101 (that nobody does anything for nothing) to them, including doctors and other highly educated professionals seems a lost cause. What they don't get is that the top guys have been playing this game so long that they promise the moon to get you to do something while delivering nothing.

Case in point, Permenant Membership in the UNSC. The US supports India to get into the UNSC as a permanant member. I'll let you figure it out why it's a crock.

Tronic
11 Apr 13,, 03:55
What they don't get is that the top guys have been playing this game so long that they promise the moon to get you to do something while delivering nothing.

Case in point, Permenant Membership in the UNSC. The US supports India to get into the UNSC as a permanant member. I'll let you figure it out why it's a crock.

Col, while the ordinary person on the street may be naive about the way the game is played, I doubt the ones sitting in the Indian MEA are. Feigning diplomatic ignorance is itself a beneficial stance in this case. They may not be gaining anything anytime soon, but they are also not loosing anything. By staying ignorant, they keep the issue alive... so the pitch could be raised in better times.. ;)

doppelganger
11 Apr 13,, 06:34
mmm... I actually know Mahleej... :tongue:

She's from Toronto and hosted some gigs a few years ago with a buddy of mines who runs 'Toronto Production House'. Next time I run into her, I'll let her know how much you miss her. :biggrin:

No, She's from a Parsi family actually...

Yes you are right. Parsi Christian family. Wiki has her as a Baloch hence the confusion. She's really nice no doubt. But how come so dusky? Parsis are usually so fair.

doppelganger
11 Apr 13,, 06:38
I noticed this cultural trait amongst both Indians and Chinese - that they expect the US ... and each other to do their whims ... all because they're up and coming powers and it's better to be nice to them now, else they would be angry later.

Trying to explain Diplomacy 101 (that nobody does anything for nothing) to them, including doctors and other highly educated professionals seems a lost cause. What they don't get is that the top guys have been playing this game so long that they promise the moon to get you to do something while delivering nothing.

Case in point, Permenant Membership in the UNSC. The US supports India to get into the UNSC as a permanant member. I'll let you figure it out why it's a crock.

I dont know much about China or the Chinese. But about India I can tell you that what we verbalize here is as common citizens. We are under no illusions mostly. Our leadership surely is not. It would be nice to get help from friendly countries. But that does not mean without it (the promising lots delivering nothing part) we stagnate and lose our way waiting for someone to come along and hold our hand again. You must be mistaking us for Pakistanis.

notorious_eagle
11 Apr 13,, 07:40
Gen Kayani issued the order. The ability and the capability is there to deny the Americans the airspace to operate. Anyone saying different is a complete utter idiot.

Sir

I think you might be referring to this statement.

"It has been highlighted clearly that such aggression against people of Pakistan is unjustified and intolerable under any circumstances."

BBC News - Pakistan army chief Kayani in US drone outburst (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12779232)

As far as i know, no orders have been given out to intercept and shoot down drones by the GHQ. You are absolutely correct in stating that PAF has the ability to shoot down American Drones, they proved it in 2002 when they shot down an Indian Heron Drone which is much smaller compared to a Predator. PA Strategic Planners are more worried about the aftermath that will follow if the PAF shoots down an American Drone. What exactly is going to be PA's response if USAF decides to escort these drones with F15's and F18's backed up by E3's. Pakistan is in no position to face American economic or diplomatic sanctions as the nation is stretched out to its limits. Also, if you follow WikiLeaks closely, PA Officers at times have called on the Americans to take out militants in remote locations. There is tacit acquiescence for these drone strikes that exist in higher quarters of PA.

Doktor
11 Apr 13,, 08:01
US didn't attacked Iran for shooting down their drone. Nor for engaging another over the water.

Deltacamelately
11 Apr 13,, 08:03
Sir

I think you might be referring to this statement.

"It has been highlighted clearly that such aggression against people of Pakistan is unjustified and intolerable under any circumstances."

BBC News - Pakistan army chief Kayani in US drone outburst (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12779232)

As far as i know, no orders have been given out to intercept and shoot down drones by the GHQ. You are absolutely correct in stating that PAF has the ability to shoot down American Drones, they proved it in 2002 when they shot down an Indian Heron Drone which is much smaller compared to a Predator. PA Strategic Planners are more worried about the aftermath that will follow if the PAF shoots down an American Drone. What exactly is going to be PA's response if USAF decides to escort these drones with F15's and F18's backed up by E3's. Pakistan is in no position to face American economic or diplomatic sanctions as the nation is stretched out to its limits. Also, if you follow WikiLeaks closely, PA Officers at times have called on the Americans to take out militants in remote locations. There is tacit acquiescence for these drone strikes that exist in higher quarters of PA.
ne,

That's exactly the good Colonel's point. That PA is tacit agreement with Drone strikes. In any case, if PA is not holding its Officer Corps OR the PAF accountable for failing to protect Pakistan's sovereign airspace or rather stop its regular violation, for which they are accountable under oath, why the bickering to the Yanks at the first place. The USAF is merely serving its own military interests.

Officer of Engineers
11 Apr 13,, 09:05
I dont know much about China or the Chinese. But about India I can tell you that what we verbalize here is as common citizens. We are under no illusions mostly. Our leadership surely is not. It would be nice to get help from friendly countries. But that does not mean without it (the promising lots delivering nothing part) we stagnate and lose our way waiting for someone to come along and hold our hand again. You must be mistaking us for Pakistanis.No, I'm trying to teach you Diplomacy 101. How to get something for nothing and never do something for nothing.

Officer of Engineers
11 Apr 13,, 09:14
As far as i know, no orders have been given out to intercept and shoot down drones by the GHQ.Then the GHQ is guilty of violating your Consitution.


You are absolutely correct in stating that PAF has the ability to shoot down American Drones, they proved it in 2002 when they shot down an Indian Heron Drone which is much smaller compared to a Predator. PA Strategic Planners are more worried about the aftermath that will follow if the PAF shoots down an American Drone. What exactly is going to be PA's response if USAF decides to escort these drones with F15's and F18's backed up by E3's.That is an Open Act of War to which surrender is an acceptable legal outcome.


Pakistan is in no position to face American economic or diplomatic sanctions as the nation is stretched out to its limits. Also, if you follow WikiLeaks closely, PA Officers at times have called on the Americans to take out militants in remote locations. There is tacit acquiescence for these drone strikes that exist in higher quarters of PA.If you don't want to defend your skies or your land against the Taliban, that is fine but don't expect other country's national interests to sit idle when you failed in your own legal responsiblities. If you can't control the rats coming out of your yard, expect your neighbour to throw a few pounds of poison into it.

Tronic
11 Apr 13,, 09:43
...they proved it in 2002 when they shot down an Indian Heron Drone which is much smaller compared to a Predator.

Nitpicking, but India didn't loose a Heron, it was actually a Searcher-II which was shot down.

Agnostic Muslim
11 Apr 13,, 12:30
ne,

That's exactly the good Colonel's point. That PA is tacit agreement with Drone strikes. In any case, if PA is not holding its Officer Corps OR the PAF accountable for failing to protect Pakistan's sovereign airspace or rather stop its regular violation, for which they are accountable under oath, why the bickering to the Yanks at the first place. The USAF is merely serving its own military interests.


Then the GHQ is guilty of violating your Consitution.
Technically the PA would be in violation of the constitution if it took military action without authorization from the elected government, and that has been the PA and PAF's official position, that the Pakistani government needs to take the decision on 'shooting down the drones'


That is an Open Act of War to which surrender is an acceptable legal outcome.
And why should Pakistan initiate a chain of events in which a militarily superior aggressor would prevail?

If you don't want to defend your skies or your land against the Taliban, that is fine but don't expect other country's national interests to sit idle when you failed in your own legal responsiblities. If you can't control the rats coming out of your yard, expect your neighbour to throw a few pounds of poison into it.
The US has not credibly established any 'national interest' being served through its arbitrary and illegal drone strikes in Pakistan.

Agnostic Muslim
11 Apr 13,, 12:32
Nitpicking, but India didn't loose a Heron, it was actually a Searcher-II which was shot down.

Point being that India does not have the ability to economically or militarily punish Pakistan that the US has, which is why the Pakistani response to an Indian act of aggression would be significantly different from the response to an act of aggression from the US.

Agnostic Muslim
11 Apr 13,, 12:34
US didn't attacked Iran for shooting down their drone. Nor for engaging another over the water.

No, but that have continued to tighten diplomatic and economic sanctions on Iran.

Agnostic Muslim
11 Apr 13,, 12:36
What superior radar and SIGINT capabilities? The US doesn't have radar installations in Afghanistan, and it is not F-15's and F-22's backed by AWACS that you are facing. These are solitary Predator drones with no anti-air capability or even an air-search radar for that matter.

How do you think the US kept tabs on Pakistani air traffic, specifically PAF air traffic, when it was carrying out the OBL raid?

The rest of your argument/rant is been addressed several times already.

Agnostic Muslim
11 Apr 13,, 12:38
Unsurprisingly, you failed to mention where the Butcher of Bengal, General Tikka Khan was from...
Does it matter? The top two leadership positions were not Punjabi, which throws Lemontree's 'Punjabi generalizations' into the trash where they belong.

Deltacamelately
11 Apr 13,, 14:23
Technically the PA would be in violation of the constitution if it took military action without authorization from the elected government, and that has been the PA and PAF's official position, that the Pakistani government needs to take the decision on 'shooting down the drones'
And you believe the world to be confused as to who calls the shot in your said country.


And why should Pakistan initiate a chain of events in which a militarily superior aggressor would prevail?
Then it is time for the Pakistani state to just shut up and stop bickering against the militarily superior aggressor.

The US has not credibly established any 'national interest' being served through its arbitrary and illegal drone strikes in Pakistan.
And that's for the US to decide whether its 'national interests' are being served by its arbitrary and illegal drone strikes in Pakistan.

Agnostic Muslim
11 Apr 13,, 14:31
And you believe the world to be confused as to who calls the shot in your said country.
Doesn't matter - if you and OoE are going to raise 'constitutions and oaths' as an argument, then you have to accept the fact that the constitution and oaths require the military to follow the direction of the elected government.

Then it is time for the Pakistani state to just shut up and stop bickering against the militarily superior aggressor.
Why should it shut up? A military response is only one option, preferably the last one - the Pakistani State has so far chosen to follow the diplomatic option and it has achieved some degree of success in that with the UN investigation stating (in a preliminary statement) that US Drone Strikes in Pakistan are violations of international law.

And that's for the US to decide whether its 'national interests' are being served by its arbitrary and illegal drone strikes in Pakistan.
For the US to 'decide' unilaterally and without any international sanction or legal justification puts its actions in the same category as the actions of Saddam invading Kuwait and the Nazi's invading Europe.

Take a look at the latest revelations regarding illegal US Drone strikes in Pakistan:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/04/09/188062/obamas-drone-war-kills-others.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/04/new-evidence-that-team-obama-misled-us-about-the-drone-war/274839/

Doktor
11 Apr 13,, 14:31
Technically the PA would be in violation of the constitution if it took military action without authorization from the elected government, and that has been the PA and PAF's official position, that the Pakistani government needs to take the decision on 'shooting down the drones'
I didn't know your army is run by the government. All the countries I know need Parliamentary agreement for sending troops abroad. For defense, an order from the COAS or the President would suffice.
Besides chain of command is breached if COAS issued order and military never executed it.


And why should Pakistan initiate a chain of events in which a militarily superior aggressor would prevail?
Why wouldn't it? What kind of message you are sending to India, China, Russia and even Iran by sitting put on the matter?

Agnostic Muslim
11 Apr 13,, 14:37
I didn't know your army is run by the government. All the countries I know need Parliamentary agreement for sending troops abroad. For defense, an order from the COAS or the President would suffice.
Besides chain of command is breached if COAS issued order and military never executed it.
I don't believe the COAS can issue orders beyond the mandate granted to him - for example, the government has authorized military operations against the TTP in FATA, so the COAS can issue directions related to those operations.

Why wouldn't it? What kind of message you are sending to India, China, Russia and even Iran by sitting put on the matter?
The Indians are intelligent enough to realize that Pakistan's relationship with the US is under a completely different set of rules.

That said, I completely agree that the PPP led government should be punished in the election for failing to forcefully defend Pakistan's interests, but that is for Pakistanis to address.

Officer of Engineers
11 Apr 13,, 14:49
Yeah, sure, right. And I supposed the Pakistani Army calls Islamabad for permission to return fire against the Indians every single time.

Agnostic Muslim
11 Apr 13,, 14:55
Yeah, sure, right. And I supposed the Pakistani Army calls Islamabad for permission to return fire against the Indians every single time.
Precisely - India is the 'enemy' in that Pakistan has an ongoing territorial dispute with her and the Indians have a massive military deployment across the LoC and IB, ostensibly geared for offensive operations into Pakistan. That situation does not exist with respect to the US, thought it does exist with respect to the Afghan's/ANA.

Officer of Engineers
11 Apr 13,, 15:14
Precisely - India is the 'enemy' in that Pakistan has an ongoing territorial dispute with her and the Indians have a massive military deployment across the LoC and IB, ostensibly geared for offensive operations into Pakistan. That situation does not exist with respect to the US, thought it does exist with respect to the Afghan's/ANA.You are actually serious. You are hiding behind "selective" defence. In all my years, I have never heard of such policies AND self defence HAS never required national approval. Otherwise, your 24 dead Pakistani soldiers would never have engaged American ground forces.

Gun Grape
11 Apr 13,, 15:56
Why should it shut up? A military response is only one option, preferably the last one - the Pakistani State has so far chosen to follow the diplomatic option and it has achieved some degree of success in that with the UN investigation stating (in a preliminary statement) that US Drone Strikes in Pakistan are violations of international law.

For the US to 'decide' unilaterally and without any international sanction or legal justification puts its actions in the same category as the actions of Saddam invading Kuwait and the Nazi's invading Europe.

Take a look at the latest revelations regarding illegal US Drone strikes in Pakistan:



So move back Pakistan since you hate us so much and you think we are all a bunch of nazis beating up on your mother country.

I couldn't imagine wanting to live in a place like nazi Germany. i would move

Agnostic Muslim
11 Apr 13,, 16:09
So move back Pakistan since you hate us so much and you think we are all a bunch of nazis beating up on your mother country.

I couldn't imagine wanting to live in a place like nazi Germany. i would move
Ah yes, nothing else left so resort to the 'go someplace else' canard.

The problem I have, as articulated in this thread and others, is specifically related to US foreign policy and the manner in which the US Establishment has and is conducting illegal drone strikes in Pakistan - policies and tactics akin to tyrants and thugs like Saddam and the Nazi's.

Agnostic Muslim
11 Apr 13,, 16:12
You are actually serious. You are hiding behind "selective" defence. In all my years, I have never heard of such policies AND self defence HAS never required national approval. Otherwise, your 24 dead Pakistani soldiers would never have engaged American ground forces.
Correct - the soldiers responded after they came under unprovoked fire from US and Afghan forces, and they would respond if they came under fire from a US drone as well, but since US drone strikes don't target Pakistani soldiers, your analogy does not apply.

Officer of Engineers
11 Apr 13,, 16:39
You are friggin serious. Your civilians are under attack by a foriegn military power and you do not have the authority to defend yourselves.

Do you actually believe the bullshit you're typing?

Deltacamelately
11 Apr 13,, 17:06
Ah yes, nothing else left so resort to the 'go someplace else' canard.

The problem I have, as articulated in this thread and others, is specifically related to US foreign policy and the manner in which the US Establishment has and is conducting illegal drone strikes in Pakistan - policies and tactics akin to tyrants and thugs like Saddam and the Nazi's.
If I was Gunny, I would've infact DEMANDED that. You have NO-BUSINESS residing in MY motherland and bleeding MY boys, while hiding under MY country's 'plz save the aliens in my country policy'. Likes of Tankie and Dave are already experiencing your benevolence. Get a life.

Aside - We intelligent Indians have an indepth analysis of what's up in your commander's, you know what...

Firestorm
11 Apr 13,, 17:51
Correct - the soldiers responded after they came under unprovoked fire from US and Afghan forces, and they would respond if they came under fire from a US drone as well, but since US drone strikes don't target Pakistani soldiers, your analogy does not apply.

Is this a Freudian slip? Are you saying that the pakistani military will only defend if your soldiers are attacked and not your civilians? Don't they care about the civilians?

Firestorm
11 Apr 13,, 17:57
How do you think the US kept tabs on Pakistani air traffic, specifically PAF air traffic, when it was carrying out the OBL raid?

They didn't have to. They were coming in at very low altitude in those stealth hawks. None of it applies here. Taking out a Predator is well within the capabilities of the PAF. And like I said, they don't seem to have even tried. Your capability argument is bogus. The political argument is being dismantled by OoE and the others.

Mihais
11 Apr 13,, 18:15
Gentlemen,I am and always will be of the opinion that is better to behave like an a$$hole openly and proudly,than come around with pathetic tricks.I've no problem with good tricks,if I can get away with it.But to lower myself with feeble arguments,and to be aware they're feeble...Nope,no way.

This fellow of ours could just say a big F..K YOU,see ya next round,suckers.

Seems I'm a lost cause for the diplomatic service :biggrin:

Tronic
11 Apr 13,, 19:09
Is this a Freudian slip? Are you saying that the pakistani military will only defend if your soldiers are attacked and not your civilians? Don't they care about the civilians?

It implies ever so strongly the notion that, "The Pakistani army has a country, rather than the Pakistani nation having an army."

YellowFever
11 Apr 13,, 19:22
Usually, trolls know when they're trolls....

This is not the case this time.

Tronic
11 Apr 13,, 20:23
Point being that India does not have the ability to economically or militarily punish Pakistan that the US has, which is why the Pakistani response to an Indian act of aggression would be significantly different from the response to an act of aggression from the US.

If the IAF starts knocking down your dams and power stations, while the Indian Navy enforces a blockade of your country, what options does Pakistan have other than to run for international help while threatening with nuclear weapons? Pak navy cannot challenge the IN, your air force cannot fight a war of attrition with the IAF, and your army sits hunkered down in their bunkers. India has more than enough ability to punish Pakistan, it just does not have the will.

Doktor
11 Apr 13,, 21:06
If the IAF starts knocking down your dams and power stations, while the Indian Navy enforces a blockade of your country, what options does Pakistan have other than to run for international help while threatening with nuclear weapons? Pak navy cannot challenge the IN, your air force cannot fight a war of attrition with the IAF, and your army sits hunkered down in their bunkers. India has more than enough ability to punish Pakistan, it just does not have the will.
The will? Hmm... I thought India has no incentive.

Think about it. Besides the momentous feel good moment and few points for the ruling party, what would India gain with such actions besides producing more "militants"? .

Firestorm
11 Apr 13,, 21:22
The will? Hmm... I thought India has no incentive.

Think about it. Besides the momentous feel good moment and few points for the ruling party, what would India gain with such actions besides producing more "militants"? .

The Pakistanis need to understand that if they kill Indians it'll result in even more dead Pakistanis. And more importantly for their rulers, loss of money and property. It is as simple as that.

Right now, the Pakistanis can carry out terrorist attacks in India at random, smug in the knowledge that they won't have bombs falling on their heads in return. Pakistan has little control over the militant organizations which attack the US. Not so in the case of those who attack India. We know exactly who the prime movers are. The LeT and their sister organizations are just middle-management and foot soldiers.

Doktor
11 Apr 13,, 21:27
I am only speculating here, but casualties (in lives and property) must be more bearable then full contact in the head of decision makers and planners.

antimony
11 Apr 13,, 23:50
I am only speculating here, but casualties (in lives and property) must be more bearable then full contact in the head of decision makers and planners.

I do not believe there will be a full on contact. Unless we are stupider than before I do not think there will be another Kargil. India herself is not going to escalate; cold storaging Cold Start put an end to that one. What we (at least me) are hoping for is more targeted Arty strikes, which does already happen on a limited scale (see the exchange between LT and AM). I would also hope for hits on scum like Hafiz Saeed once in a while

Doktor
11 Apr 13,, 23:55
Is Cold start really there?

Indian officials say no. Col thinks not (IIRC), so it is no for me.

cataphract
12 Apr 13,, 00:00
The Pakistanis need to understand that if they kill Indians it'll result in even more dead Pakistanis. And more importantly for their rulers, loss of money and property. It is as simple as that.

Right now, the Pakistanis can carry out terrorist attacks in India at random, smug in the knowledge that they won't have bombs falling on their heads in return. Pakistan has little control over the militant organizations which attack the US. Not so in the case of those who attack India. We know exactly who the prime movers are. The LeT and their sister organizations are just middle-management and foot soldiers.

But that's just it - the Pakistani establishment doesn't give a hoot about common Pakistanis being killed. It is fully prepared to launch a suicidal nuclear war against India, one which it cannot hope to win but only to inflict severe damage upon us. So 30-40 million Pakistanis die in the process? Meh. It is a mess that the global community would have to mop up, while Zardari, Kiyani and co are cooling their heels in Dubai. Pakistan is the only country that negotiates with a gun to their own head. It's the perfect manifestation of a suicide bomber on a national scale.

antimony
12 Apr 13,, 00:03
But that's just it - the Pakistani establishment doesn't give a hoot about common Pakistanis being killed. It is fully prepared to launch a suicidal nuclear war against India, one which it cannot hope to win but only to inflict severe damage upon us. So 30-40 million Pakistanis die in the process? Meh. It is a mess that the global community would have to mop up, while Zardari, Kiyani and co are cooling their heels in Dubai. Pakistan is the only country that negotiates with a gun to their own head. It's the perfect manifestation of a suicide bomber on a national scale.

Which citizens? Destroy a bunch of POK villages they might not care. I am not so sure about the ones across the Punjab border. Also, they do give a hoot about officers being killed. As per LT's account, after the PA Brigade that controlled the scum that did the Kaluchak incident, things quitened down on that side

cataphract
12 Apr 13,, 00:07
Which citizens? Destroy a bunch of POK villages they might not care. I am not so sure about the ones across the Punjab border. Also, they do give a hoot about officers being killed. As per LT's account, after the PA Brigade that controlled the scum that did the Kaluchak incident, things quitened down on that side

How many or which officers do we have to kill to prevent another 26/11? As I see it, killing lts, majors may force a rethink in a border sector but how do you convince the ISI to stop sending Kasabs? "Dismantling the terror infrastructure", as our Ministry of External Affairs loves to say, is the only way, and that cannot be achieved without a full scale war.

Tronic
12 Apr 13,, 00:08
The will? Hmm... I thought India has no incentive.

Think about it. Besides the momentous feel good moment and few points for the ruling party, what would India gain with such actions besides producing more "militants"? .

You're right. There is no incentive.

Firestorm
12 Apr 13,, 00:56
But that's just it - the Pakistani establishment doesn't give a hoot about common Pakistanis being killed.
Of course not. That is why I mentioned "money and property". Bomb the industries owned by the PA, bomb the posh localities in Islamabad and Rawalpindi where the elites live and you'll get their attention. You might even convince them that not sending the LeT to kill as many Indians as possible is a better option.



It is fully prepared to launch a suicidal nuclear war against India, one which it cannot hope to win but only to inflict severe damage upon us.
They certainly want us to think they are. We have to make them believe that we can be just as cruel, ruthless and insane as them. One thing that we should have learned by now is that Pakistan considers any attempt at peace by India, as a sign of weakness. It is only when they realize that India is willing to fight to the bitter end is when we have peace. Like the period after the 71 war, which lasted till they discovered the weapon of terrorism and developed the strategy of a thousand cuts.

People like to say that a stable and prosperous pakistan is in everybody's interest. It is in the US's interest. As far as India is concerned, it makes no difference either way. Pakistan was stable and relatively prosperous in the 60's. What did we get out of it? Operation Gibraltar and the 65 war. The 80's and 90's gave us terrorism, first in Punjab and then in Kashmir. Stability and prosperity only seems to give a fillip to their attempts at hurting India. Trying to make peace at such times only seems to embolden them.

Firestorm
12 Apr 13,, 01:09
You're right. There is no incentive.

Would there still have been no "incentive" if, hypothetically, Rahul Gandhi had been one of the casualties of 26/11? In many ways, India's rulers are no different from Pakistan's.

cataphract
12 Apr 13,, 01:13
Would there still have been no "incentive" if, hypothetically, Rahul Gandhi had been one of the casualties of 26/11? In many ways, India's rulers are no different from Pakistan's.

How I wish he was one of the casualties :rolleyes:
Unfortunately, it wouldn't have changed a thing in the political landscape. Instead you would have Rahul Gandhi, shaheed.

cataphract
12 Apr 13,, 01:17
Of course not. That is why I mentioned "money and property". Bomb the industries owned by the PA, bomb the posh localities in Islamabad and Rawalpindi where the elites live and you'll get their attention. You might even convince them that not sending the LeT to kill as many Indians as possible is a better option.


They certainly want us to think they are. We have to make them believe that we can be just as cruel, ruthless and insane as them. One thing that we should have learned by now is that Pakistan considers any attempt at peace by India, as a sign of weakness. It is only when they realize that India is willing to fight to the bitter end is when we have peace. Like the period after the 71 war, which lasted till they discovered the weapon of terrorism and developed the strategy of a thousand cuts.

People like to say that a stable and prosperous pakistan is in everybody's interest. It is in the US's interest. As far as India is concerned, it makes no difference either way. Pakistan was stable and relatively prosperous in the 60's. What did we get out of it? Operation Gibraltar and the 65 war. The 80's and 90's gave us terrorism, first in Punjab and then in Kashmir. Stability and prosperity only seems to give a fillip to their attempts at hurting India. Trying to make peace at such times only seems to embolden them.

If you plan on bombing the fauji foundation's assets, it would take weeks! It is important that don't turn into Pakistan while trying to neutralize them. We cannot afford to appear cruel and ruthless to the rest of the world, it is bad for business.

We don't need a stable and/or prosperous Pakistan, but we do need a Pakistan that can barely keep its innards from falling out, tottering on its feet, but united nevertheless. Kind of how it is now. We need a united Pakistan to prevent instability from flooding into our country, and to keep the wild badlands of KPK from becoming our headache.

Firestorm
12 Apr 13,, 01:20
How I wish he was one of the casualties :rolleyes:
Unfortunately, it wouldn't have changed a thing in the political landscape. Instead you would have Rahul Gandhi, shaheed.

I'm not talking about the political landscape. I'm only wondering what the reaction of the ruling regime and their empress would have been if the crown prince had been killed or injured instead of common citizens and a few foreigners.

Firestorm
12 Apr 13,, 01:31
It is important that don't turn into Pakistan while trying to neutralize them. We cannot afford to appear cruel and ruthless to the rest of the world, it is bad for business.
The Chinese are laughing at that joke.



We don't need a stable and/or prosperous Pakistan, but we do need a Pakistan that can barely keep its innards from falling out, tottering on its feet, but united nevertheless. Kind of how it is now. We need a united Pakistan to prevent instability from flooding into our country, and to keep the wild badlands of KPK from becoming our headache.
What we need is a Pakistan that is not engaged in promoting terrorism in India or trying to destabilize it from within. Whether it is stable, prosperous, united or disintegrating is irrelevant.
You are worried about the wild badlands? Read the article I posted in the Counterterrorism in India thread about the LeT. Most of their recruits who fight against India come from the highly urbanized Punjab. Hafeez Saeed makes his anti-India speeches drawing huge crowds in major Pakistani cities not the tribal lands of FATA. The whole of pakistan is already our headache.

cataphract
12 Apr 13,, 01:45
The Chinese are laughing at that joke.

We don't act like the Chinese. Not because we're angels, but because we are in a completely different situation. To become another China, we would need to shed Indian blood on Chinese scale - 50 - 60 million killed in the name of revolution. Until then, we'll have to make do as Indians, both domestically and on the international stage.


What we need is a Pakistan that is not engaged in promoting terrorism in India or trying to destabilize it from within. Whether it is stable, prosperous, united or disintegrating is irrelevant.
You are worried about the wild badlands? Read the article I posted in the Counterterrorism in India thread about the LeT. Most of their recruits who fight against India come from the highly urbanized Punjab. Hafeez Saeed makes his anti-India speeches drawing huge crowds in major Pakistani cities not the tribal lands of FATA. The whole of pakistan is already our headache.

Yet, our headache is a hangover compared to the migraine Pakistan faces in KPK and FATA. I know fully well the LeT is not Pashtun, and we have our hands full dealing with them. Would you rather also have the TTP, Haqqanis and Taliban turning on us? Let Pakistan face them, let us even lengthen Pakistan's misery by fomenting trouble on their western border. As long as the eastern border stays quiet.

cataphract
12 Apr 13,, 01:46
I'm not talking about the political landscape. I'm only wondering what the reaction of the ruling regime and their empress would have been if the crown prince had been killed or injured instead of common citizens and a few foreigners.

Rajiv Gandhi was blown up by an LTTE bomber. I didn't see any massive retaliation.

antimony
12 Apr 13,, 01:48
If you plan on bombing the fauji foundation's assets, it would take weeks! It is important that don't turn into Pakistan while trying to neutralize them. We cannot afford to appear cruel and ruthless to the rest of the world, it is bad for business.

Appearing cruel and ruthless is not bad for business, appearing unstable and price incompetitive is.

Agnostic Muslim
12 Apr 13,, 02:52
You are friggin serious. Your civilians are under attack by a foriegn military power and you do not have the authority to defend yourselves.

The government has the authority to order the military to start shooting down US drones, that it has not done so, as I pointed out earlier, puts the responsibility on Pakistanis to vote out the PPP in the coming elections.

You appear to think that the military should act without any government approval and potentially start a war with the US - given the immense criticizm of the military over its overt interference in government policy and coups in the past, the military under Kayani chose to leave a decision with massive implications up to the government. Surely you haven't gone that batty with age to find a simple point like this incomprehensible ...

Agnostic Muslim
12 Apr 13,, 02:57
If I was Gunny, I would've infact DEMANDED that. You have NO-BUSINESS residing in MY motherland and bleeding MY boys, while hiding under MY country's 'plz save the aliens in my country policy'. Likes of Tankie and Dave are already experiencing your benevolence. Get a life.
People taking a position such as yours don't deserve freedom to begin with - if you can't stand criticizm of flawed and tyrannical policies by the State, then you might want to move to China, Russia or Saudi Arabia. I have every right and 'business' to point out that US foreign policy when it comes to drone strikes in Pakistan is an example of a tyranny and blatant violations of international law. On top of that, the US media is itself reporting that CIA memos indicate the US had no idea about the identities of the people it was killing in most of its drone strikes.


Aside - We intelligent Indians have an indepth analysis of what's up in your commander's, you know what...
Of course you have an in depth analysis, which is why India has not pulled an Abbottabad or drone strikes ala FATA ...

Agnostic Muslim
12 Apr 13,, 02:58
Is this a Freudian slip? Are you saying that the pakistani military will only defend if your soldiers are attacked and not your civilians? Don't they care about the civilians?
See my earlier response to OoE.

Agnostic Muslim
12 Apr 13,, 03:06
They didn't have to. They were coming in at very low altitude in those stealth hawks. None of it applies here. Taking out a Predator is well within the capabilities of the PAF. And like I said, they don't seem to have even tried. Your capability argument is bogus. The political argument is being dismantled by OoE and the others.
The problem is that you and various others are either deliberately employing 'selective comprehension' or are just incapable of understanding simple English - the 'lack of capability' I referred to was a reference to Pakistani military capability to take on the US military, and not 'Pakistani capability to shoot down US drones', so what is bogus here is your attempt to attribute to me an argument I did not make.

Second, OoE's trademark abuse punctuated posts do not qualify as a rebuttal to my 'political argument'. First he tried to argue that the 'Pakistani Military was violating the constitution and its oath', and he has yet to answer my point that the 'Pakistani Military would in fact be violating the constitution if it acted without the elected government authorizing the use of force against US drones'.

Agnostic Muslim
12 Apr 13,, 03:07
If the IAF starts knocking down your dams and power stations, while the Indian Navy enforces a blockade of your country, what options does Pakistan have other than to run for international help while threatening with nuclear weapons? Pak navy cannot challenge the IN, your air force cannot fight a war of attrition with the IAF, and your army sits hunkered down in their bunkers. India has more than enough ability to punish Pakistan, it just does not have the will.
I guess we'll see when it happens :D

Agnostic Muslim
12 Apr 13,, 03:09
Which citizens? Destroy a bunch of POK villages they might not care. I am not so sure about the ones across the Punjab border. Also, they do give a hoot about officers being killed. As per LT's account, after the PA Brigade that controlled the scum that did the Kaluchak incident, things quitened down on that side

LT's account remains uncorroborated, and neither of you have responded to my point that the Pakistani Army possesses artillery capabilities similar to the IA which would allow it to respond to any 'observed artillery barrage on a Brigade HQ' in kind.

LT's suggestion that 'the IA carried out an artillery barrage on a PA Bde HQ', and the PA just stood around doing nothing, is just plain stupid, and therefore more than likely fabricated.

Officer of Engineers
12 Apr 13,, 04:15
The government has the authority to order the military to start shooting down US drones, that it has not done so, as I pointed out earlier, puts the responsibility on Pakistanis to vote out the PPP in the coming elections.Self defence is not an election issue.


You appear to think that the military should act without any government approval and potentially start a war with the US - given the immense criticizm of the military over its overt interference in government policy and coups in the past, the military under Kayani chose to leave a decision with massive implications up to the government.Bad guy shoot at you. You shoot back or you lay down and die. It's that simple.


Surely you haven't gone that batty with age to find a simple point like this incomprehensible ...What I find incomprehensible is that you jumping through hoops to prove your military has not broken the law and their oaths. I would have them court martialed for dereliction of duty and shot for such gross betrayal of their oaths.

But that's your country. You can break your own laws as you wish. Don't expect the rest of us to respect your laws when you don't respect them yourself.

Officer of Engineers
12 Apr 13,, 04:17
And yes, you do believe in your own bullshit.

cataphract
12 Apr 13,, 04:23
AM, I don't know why you're trying to conjure up complications where there are none.

The PA and Pak Govt have the ability to stop drone attacks, simply by telling the Americans to stop, or shooting down the drones. That they choose not to do so is because they want the drone strikes to continue, collateral damage notwithstanding.

Remember how right after the Salala incident the border crossings were closed to NATO? That was your govt actually being bothered into doing something.

lemontree
12 Apr 13,, 05:53
There are a lot of misconceptions in your views about my faith, so I would rather that you not make it short. I have opened a new thread here to correct them: http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/ancient-medieval-early-modern-ages/63868-sikh-history.html#post910358

I kept it short as I did not want to derail the thread.
Agreed that I may not have the indepth perception that you have of your religion, and my understanding of the Khalsa panth is from the point of view of military studies, but it is not misconcieved.

The Maratha and Sikh insurgencies against the Mughals are a matter of serious study in the armed forces.

notorious_eagle
12 Apr 13,, 07:20
If the IAF starts knocking down your dams and power stations, while the Indian Navy enforces a blockade of your country, what options does Pakistan have other than to run for international help while threatening with nuclear weapons? Pak navy cannot challenge the IN, your air force cannot fight a war of attrition with the IAF, and your army sits hunkered down in their bunkers. India has more than enough ability to punish Pakistan, it just does not have the will.

I almost fell down laughing after reading this post :biggrin:. If that is the excuse you want to hide behind by, than by all means continue living in this little utopian land.

Deltacamelately
12 Apr 13,, 07:28
People taking a position such as yours don't deserve freedom to begin with - if you can't stand criticizm of flawed and tyrannical policies by the State, then you might want to move to China, Russia or Saudi Arabia. I have every right and 'business' to point out that US foreign policy when it comes to drone strikes in Pakistan is an example of a tyranny and blatant violations of international law. On top of that, the US media is itself reporting that CIA memos indicate the US had no idea about the identities of the people it was killing in most of its drone strikes.
Seriously? Just tell me one thing - If it is about the military capability issues, post hostilities, after a drone is shot down by PAF and if THAT'S what stops the PAF from firing at the drones, why doesn't the PAF or to that effect the PA, simply issue a strong statement to the US, "Stop the drones, else we will definitely shoot it down the next time around"? Is it that difficult to even threaten the enemy, when it is pulling down your pants publicly on a regular basis? And if still your Army and Air Force isn't doing even that, then I pretty sure it is a matter of willing connivance - Hence, don't b!tch around because nobody will believe you.


Of course you have an in depth analysis, which is why India has not pulled an Abbottabad or drone strikes ala FATA ...
AM, seems our political masters aren't still ready to squander precious men and money on your reeling country. Having said that, be fearful, very fearful, someday we might just become a tad too frisky. You have already paid with half your country for buying insane enmity with the Republic of India.

Mihais
12 Apr 13,, 07:34
Now the BS reaches new levels.Let's see.Pakistan is under attack,by the evil Americans.Pakistani Gov orders the army to stand down,meaning the PakGov accepts the situation.Otherwise the military would engage the intruders by default.
Thus,either Pakistani Gov breaks its own laws first,or it accepts the strikes,making them legal.

Pakistan, however,does one thing and says another.

The argument about the US superiority is another piece of BS.It's meaningless,since the US has no will to start a new war.Everybody is aware of this,but Pakistan.:rolleyes:

Deltacamelately
12 Apr 13,, 07:49
I almost fell down laughing after reading this post :biggrin:. If that is the excuse you want to hide behind by, than by all means continue living in this little utopian land.
ne,

Seriously, I sometimes wonder whether such well read people like you and AM are actually Pakistan's well-wishers or hell-wishers.
It is because the course and policies that you want your country to pursue and support will only lead to its ultimate destruction.

You actually believe that the PA is taking good care of Pakistan. The world believes otherwise, so do we Indians. In 60+ years, your country has not produced a single Statesman or a General with a vision to take Pakistan to its rightful place in the world order.

doppelganger
12 Apr 13,, 07:52
You actually believe that the PA is taking good care of Pakistan. The world believes otherwise, so do we Indians. In 60+ years, your country has not produced a single Statesman or a General with a vision to take Pakistan to its rightful place in the world order.

Sir I beg to differ.

Pakistan is punching above its weight currently in terms of its rightful place in the world order.

Deltacamelately
12 Apr 13,, 08:25
Sir I beg to differ.

Pakistan is punching above its weight currently in terms of its rightful place in the world order.
That being said, the PA is leading that country to the Road to Hell. A visionary Statesman or a General would have lead it to prosperity.
Hell, even Hugo Chavez has fared better and today the world polity views Venezuela in a better shade than Pakistan.

doppelganger
12 Apr 13,, 08:31
That being said, the PA is leading that country to the Road to Hell. A visionary Statesman or a General would have lead it to prosperity.
Hell, even Hugo Chavez has fared better and today the world polity views Venezuela in a better shade than Pakistan.

Sir Pakistan has proved what Indians knew all along. That separating for them was a very bad idea. Shorn of the temeprance of the Hindu majority, which guided our Muslims to the path of assimilation and peace for the most part, Pakistan was drawn into the vortex of Wahabi influenced fundamentalism from its Arabian fountainhead. It is this Hindu influence that has brought back Bangladesh from the brink. I do not know if any Indian today would wish to do the same for Pakistan though.

Deltacamelately
12 Apr 13,, 08:32
LT's account remains uncorroborated, and neither of you have responded to my point that the Pakistani Army possesses artillery capabilities similar to the IA which would allow it to respond to any 'observed artillery barrage on a Brigade HQ' in kind.

LT's suggestion that 'the IA carried out an artillery barrage on a PA Bde HQ', and the PA just stood around doing nothing, is just plain stupid, and therefore more than likely fabricated.
All I can tell you is - In most of the duels, your batteries were looking at the wrong places. The PA hasn't yet matched us pound to pound.
The good Captain has given you a first hand account and unfortunately your qualifications don't allow you to either substantiate it or provide rebuttal.

notorious_eagle
12 Apr 13,, 09:09
Major Sb


ne,

Seriously, I sometimes wonder whether such well read people like you and AM are actually Pakistan's well-wishers or hell-wishers.
It is because the course and policies that you want your country to pursue and support will only lead to its ultimate destruction.

At the end of the day, me and AM are patriots and we want the best for our country. Before pointing a finger at me, you should look at Tronic's post before forming a conclusion about me. I only support policies that i believe are best for my country, after all i am the one who is going to be living with these consequences.


You actually believe that the PA is taking good care of Pakistan.

I most certainly do. It is the only institution that has prevented a total collapse of Pakistan, it is the only institution that cares for the well being of all Pakistanis. The only people that are not sincere with Pakistan are our politicians and to some extent our bureaucrats.


The world believes otherwise, so do we Indians.

And the World and our Indian brothers have our best interests in their hearts right?


In 60+ years, your country has not produced a single Statesman or a General with a vision to take Pakistan to its rightful place in the world order.

No disagreements here, Musharraf was a good visionary but he too was corrupted by greed in the end. Hopefully, this assertion will be proved wrong in this upcoming elections and a true Statesman will be voted into power.

notorious_eagle
12 Apr 13,, 09:13
AM, seems our political masters aren't still ready to squander precious men and money on your reeling country. Having said that, be fearful, very fearful, someday we might just become a tad too frisky. You have already paid with half your country for buying insane enmity with the Republic of India.

Major Sb

You should know by now these threats don't make a dent. I can assure you, neither PA Generals nor me or AM are afraid of these threats.

Good Day Sir

Deltacamelately
12 Apr 13,, 11:23
At the end of the day, me and AM are patriots and we want the best for our country. Before pointing a finger at me, you should look at Tronic's post before forming a conclusion about me. I only support policies that i believe are best for my country, after all i am the one who is going to be living with these consequences.
ne,

Which post of Tronic are you referring to?
Yes, its you who will have to live with the consequence, but, unfortunately so will many million of your countrymen who don't subscribe to the current PA policies & strategies.


I most certainly do. It is the only institution that has prevented a total collapse of Pakistan, it is the only institution that cares for the well being of all Pakistanis. The only people that are not sincere with Pakistan are our politicians and to some extent our bureaucrats.

Two things -
1. You are right that under the current scenario its the PA that is holding Pakistan together.
2. PA is the institution that has resulted in Pakistan standing in the cross roads that it finds itself today. They are the ones to be blamed.
I am sure your Qaid-e-Azam was confident that Pakistan could be smoothly ruled with the set of politicians he had. He most certainly never wanted the PA to rule the Pakistanis.


And the World and our Indian brothers have our best interests in their hearts right?
Don't know about the world or the whole of India. However, there are quite some of us who want a strong civilian government ruling Pakistan, which has the PA tightly tucked under its belt, with zero role in state governance and which successfully roots out the militant thugs, ALL of them, be it TTP or LeT. Tasked with only national defence.


No disagreements here, Musharraf was a good visionary but he too was corrupted by greed in the end. Hopefully, this assertion will be proved wrong in this upcoming elections and a true Statesman will be voted into power.
I'm glad and hopeful too.

Deltacamelately
12 Apr 13,, 11:30
Major Sb

You should know by now these threats don't make a dent. I can assure you, neither PA Generals nor me or AM are afraid of these threats.

Good Day Sir
I am sure that in the current context my threats don't make a dent.
I am no war monger myself. Let's pray for the best. I'll pray double for your country's best.

doppelganger
12 Apr 13,, 11:36
I'll pray double for your country's best.

Why?

Deltacamelately
12 Apr 13,, 12:07
Why?
Because they need it.... Because they believe my threats don't make a dent.

doppelganger
12 Apr 13,, 12:10
Because they need it.... Because they believe my threats don't make a dent.

I just think its a waste of personal and God time.

Bravado from guys who have been whipped every time is plaintive.

Agnostic Muslim
12 Apr 13,, 12:38
Self defence is not an election issue.
Unfortunately the PPP government has made it into one, though whether Pakistan's feudal/biradri political system allows for it to become a 'game changer' remains to be seen


Bad guy shoot at you. You shoot back or you lay down and die. It's that simple.
And when the PA is shot at it responds, authority it has been granted by the Pakistani government. What it has not been authorized to do is to start a conflict with the US by shooting down US drones. How hard is that to understand?


What I find incomprehensible is that you jumping through hoops to prove your military has not broken the law and their oaths. I would have them court martialed for dereliction of duty and shot for such gross betrayal of their oaths.
There are no 'hoops' to jump through - the PAF ACM is on record as stating that the PAF has the ability to shoot down US drones but it needs the Pakistani government to make that decision and authorize it to do so. If anything, it is the position that you are advocating, of the Pakistani military acting unilaterally and without authorization from the Pakistani government, that would be 'grounds for court martial and betrayal of oaths'.

But that's your country. You can break your own laws as you wish. Don't expect the rest of us to respect your laws when you don't respect them yourself.
Strawman - no one is asking you to respect Pakistani laws (unless of course you are in Pakistan). I am pointing to US violations of international law and perhaps even its domestic mandate under the AUMF, given the recent revelations based on CIA leaks that the US has no idea who it is killing in most US Drone strikes in Pakistan.

Agnostic Muslim
12 Apr 13,, 12:40
Remember how right after the Salala incident the border crossings were closed to NATO? That was your govt actually being bothered into doing something.
Exactly why I had repeatedly said that Pakistanis should vote out the PPP government for failing on multiple counts, including an inability to stop unauthorized US drone strikes in Pakistan.

Agnostic Muslim
12 Apr 13,, 12:44
All I can tell you is - In most of the duels, your batteries were looking at the wrong places. The PA hasn't yet matched us pound to pound.
The good Captain has given you a first hand account and unfortunately your qualifications don't allow you to either substantiate it or provide rebuttal.

Lemontree has provided nothing other than what amounts to an account of an artillery barrage across the IB during peacetime, an artillery barrage that would have been responded to by the PA.

Now, given the frequency of artillery duels between India and Pakistan, during the wars, conflicts and across the LoC, for you to argue that 'Pakistan's artillery was looking somewhere else while responding to an Indian artillery strike' requires significantly more detail to be considered a credible account.

lemontree
12 Apr 13,, 12:46
I am sure your Qaid-e-Azam was confident that Pakistan could be smoothly ruled with the set of politicians he had. He most certainly never wanted the PA to rule the Pakistanis.
Jinnah actually regretted creating Pakistan:

From the book of Kuldip Nayar:
One day when Jinnah was in Lahore, Iftikhar-ud-din, Pakistan’s rehabilitation minister and Mazhar Ali Khan, editor of Pakistan Times, flew him in a Dakota over divided Punjab. When he saw streams of people pouring into Pakistan or fleeing it, he struck his hand on the forehead and said despairingly: ‘What have I done?’
..............
K.H. Khurshid, Jinnah’s private secretary, a Kashmiri who spoke fluent Punjabi, narrated to Kuldip Nayar an incident that occurred a few days after Partition. Jinnah was at the helm of affairs as Pakistan’s first governor general. Sitting for lunch in the palatial residence in Karachi were Jinnah, his sister Fatima, Khurshid, and a young naval officer attached to the governor general. The officer was very perturbed because he had heard that his parents had been killed in India as they were trying to get to Pakistan. He asked Jinnah bluntly: ‘Sir, was creating Pakistan the right thing to do?’ There was an eerie silence in the room. Jinnah paused a while before replying:‘I do not know young man. Only posterity will judge.’

It is also ironic that Jinnah's daughter too does not live in Pakistan, but spent a major part of her early years in Bombay, and now shuttles between London and US.

doppelganger
12 Apr 13,, 12:53
Do the rest of WAB get bored by the India Pakistan dastaan (never ending story) here?

Agnostic Muslim
12 Apr 13,, 13:10
Do the rest of WAB get bored by the India Pakistan dastaan (never ending story) here?
I am sure they would ban all 'India vs Pakistan' threads and comments if that were the case :D

doppelganger
12 Apr 13,, 13:13
I am sure they would ban all 'India vs Pakistan' threads and comments if that were the case :D

So there are vicarious thrills involved?

Officer of Engineers
12 Apr 13,, 13:53
Unfortunately the PPP government has made it into one, though whether Pakistan's feudal/biradri political system allows for it to become a 'game changer' remains to be seenThen the PPP should be shot and your military along with them for failing in their duty.


And when the PA is shot at it responds, authority it has been granted by the Pakistani government. What it has not been authorized to do is to start a conflict with the US by shooting down US drones. How hard is that to understand?What is so hard FOR YOU to understand. Your people are being killed. Your government and your military BY LAW are obligated to respond. Someone is breaking the law here and it ain't the US.


There are no 'hoops' to jump through - the PAF ACM is on record as stating that the PAF has the ability to shoot down US drones but it needs the Pakistani government to make that decision and authorize it to do so. If anything, it is the position that you are advocating, of the Pakistani military acting unilaterally and without authorization from the Pakistani government, that would be 'grounds for court martial and betrayal of oaths'.The military is guilty of obeying an illegal order. The government is guilty of issuing an illegal order.


Strawman - no one is asking you to respect Pakistani laws (unless of course you are in Pakistan). I am pointing to US violations of international law and perhaps even its domestic mandate under the AUMF, given the recent revelations based on CIA leaks that the US has no idea who it is killing in most US Drone strikes in Pakistan.Fine. If you can't prove that we are breaking your laws by violating your airspace since no one is being charged for not defending it, then your position is complete utter bunk.

Gun Grape
12 Apr 13,, 14:19
Ah yes, nothing else left so resort to the 'go someplace else' canard.

Yea.

I was reading your post, where you called My government the equivalent of Nazis, while waiting for a MRI at the VA hospital. As I looked around and saw my fellow Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines that paid the price that allows you to come to my country and decide that they are good little Nazi soldiers for killing people from your homeland (which YOU Left) that associate with terrorist it friggin disgusted me.

To the point I had to wait an extra 30 min because by blood pressure was a little high.

Now that I've had a bit of time to think about it. Get the F*&k out. Go home where you don't have to put up with us evil people

astralis
12 Apr 13,, 14:41
notorious eagle,


Hopefully, this assertion will be proved wrong in this upcoming elections and a true Statesman will be voted into power.

lol, a statesman coming out of pakistan...now that'd be a miracle. the closest thing pakistan has come to a statesman was her founder.

frankly what pakistan needs is more than a statesman-- pakistan needs an Ataturk. only this won't happen, and even if it did, the odds are that such a figure would be assassinated inside of a month.

----

what i've never understood about pakistan is how crazy her foreign policy is. given the constraints pakistan works under, a reasonably intelligent strategic outlook would be to establish very good relations with a foreign great power to balance india, while keeping a strictly defensive, deterrent policy.

instead, pakistan antagonizes her would-be great power sponsor, AND antagonizes her foe india for little to no gain. has the phrase "never do your enemy a small injury" not penetrated the PA? one would think losing several wars badly would have taught this lesson well.

cataphract
12 Apr 13,, 14:47
notorious eagle,



lol, a statesman coming out of pakistan...now that'd be a miracle. the closest thing pakistan has come to a statesman was her founder.

frankly what pakistan needs is more than a statesman-- pakistan needs an Ataturk. only this won't happen, and even if it did, the odds are that such a figure would be assassinated inside of a month.

----

what i've never understood about pakistan is how crazy her foreign policy is. given the constraints pakistan works under, a reasonably intelligent strategic outlook would be to establish very good relations with a foreign great power to balance india, while keeping a strictly defensive, deterrent policy.

instead, pakistan antagonizes her would-be great power sponsor, AND antagonizes her foe india for little to no gain. has the phrase "never do your enemy a small injury" not penetrated the PA? one would think losing several wars badly would have taught this lesson well.

They've been aligned to a "foreign great power" for every single year of their existence. If not Britain, then the US, and now they run to China with a bowl in hand. But not challenge India is something they'll never do - it's against their raison d'etre. If India suddenly got separated from Pakistan due to plate tectonics, Pakistan would cease to exist.

cataphract
12 Apr 13,, 14:50
Exactly why I had repeatedly said that Pakistanis should vote out the PPP government for failing on multiple counts, including an inability to stop unauthorized US drone strikes in Pakistan.

It was the PPP who shut the border. Only after army men were killed though. A thousand more "bloody civilians" lay dead and the govt does not flinch, despite their plummeting popularity. What gives AM? Could it be possible that the army is the one that ultimately calls the shots on self-defence? Nah, that's ridiculous :wors:

astralis
12 Apr 13,, 16:14
cataphract,


If not Britain, then the US, and now they run to China with a bowl in hand. But not challenge India is something they'll never do - it's against their raison d'etre. If India suddenly got separated from Pakistan due to plate tectonics, Pakistan would cease to exist.

given the power differential they NEED a great power patron.

i'm not surprised they want to challenge india. i'm surprised by the way they seek to challenge india. pinprick attacks do nothing to weaken the indian position and just serves to enrage.

cataphract
12 Apr 13,, 16:26
cataphract,



given the power differential they NEED a great power patron.

i'm not surprised they want to challenge india. i'm surprised by the way they seek to challenge india. pinprick attacks do nothing to weaken the indian position and just serves to enrage.

Or you know... they could be the next Switzerland, Uruguay or Oman and stay out of everybody's way. They wouldn't NEED a great power patron, nor would they need a rivalry with India. Unfortunately the expansionist dreams in the PA jurnails' minds never go away.

astralis
12 Apr 13,, 16:52
cataphract,


Or you know... they could be the next Switzerland, Uruguay or Oman and stay out of everybody's way.

given the history of Partition and the geopolitics of the region, that's patently unrealistic (then again, i suppose that's also true for my scenario of a rational foreign/defense policy). pakistan has legitimate security concerns vis-a-vis india, and vice-versa of course.

antimony
12 Apr 13,, 16:58
The government has the authority to order the military to start shooting down US drones, that it has not done so, as I pointed out earlier, puts the responsibility on Pakistanis to vote out the PPP in the coming elections.

You appear to think that the military should act without any government approval and potentially start a war with the US - given the immense criticizm of the military over its overt interference in government policy and coups in the past, the military under Kayani chose to leave a decision with massive implications up to the government. Surely you haven't gone that batty with age to find a simple point like this incomprehensible ...

Your stance is convoluted as heck.

This is what you are basically saying:


The PA only has authority to shoot back if its soldiers are directly under fire
The PA does not have any authority to shoot down drones unless they are detected to be from India
The authority to shoot down drones lies with the PPP GoP, which in turn is not allowing the PA to respond


Is this the gist of your reasoning on why PA is being passive under attack? Please do correct me if I am wrong.

Even assuming this is true, how does you military even take the decision of not pursuing a flying object that enters your airspace? What would you do if Iran or Russia decided to send a drone? What would you do if India uses the Central Asian air bases to sneak something in?

I also don't understand your reasoning for not supporting civilians.

I know that the BSF/ IA would respond if they have the Chinese, Nepalese, BDR folks shooting at us, not wait for an authorization from the GoI

notorious_eagle
12 Apr 13,, 17:26
Major Sb


Which post of Tronic are you referring to?

I was referring to Post #158, my post was composed in response to that.


Yes, its you who will have to live with the consequence, but, unfortunately so will many million of your countrymen who don't subscribe to the current PA policies & strategies.

Indeed they do not, but majority do because they see the work the Army is doing for the people. Although it is not the job of the Army but it has went out of its way to provide relief and civil services to the people, something that should have been provided by the political and civilian institutions.


2. PA is the institution that has resulted in Pakistan standing in the cross roads that it finds itself today. They are the ones to be blamed.
I am sure your Qaid-e-Azam was confident that Pakistan could be smoothly ruled with the set of politicians he had. He most certainly never wanted the PA to rule the Pakistanis.

The only reason why the Army stepped in is because the politicians failed to do there job 60 years ago, and still fail to do it even today. Just look at these last 5 years, they have been a clusterfu** for Pakistan. Compare these last 5 years to the Musharraf era when the economy was booming, there was stability and law/order in the country. I would be more than happy to see the Army staying out of politics, but when you have politicians like the ones we have, i am more than comfortable to let the Army run things.


Don't know about the world or the whole of India. However, there are quite some of us who want a strong civilian government ruling Pakistan, which has the PA tightly tucked under its belt, with zero role in state governance and which successfully roots out the militant thugs, ALL of them, be it TTP or LeT. Tasked with only national defence.

I would be more than happy with that too. For this to happen, the civilian government would have to step up and provide governance to the populace. The only thing the PPP Government has done in the last 5 years is corruption, and nothing else. If the civilian government provides good governance and relief to the people, i am sure the Army would be more than happy to step back and only perform its constitutional duty. Take a look at Turkey for example, Erdogen was able to make reduce the role of the Army by providing economic growth and good governance to the people. Pakistan needs something like this, hopefully the next Government(fingers crossed led by Imran Khan) will be able to provide Pakistan with this.


I am sure that in the current context my threats don't make a dent.
I am no war monger myself. Let's pray for the best. I'll pray double for your country's best.

Sir

Thank You very much for your wishes. War at the end of the day will serve no purpose. It will only bring death, despair and destruction. I for one want excellent relations between both Pakistan and India, something similar to that of France and Germany. I still remember last year i was being a bit belligerent and a warmonger while conversing with my uncle, a 2 star retired Armoured Corps Officer. He said something that shut me up real nice. He said:

"Son, War is no child's play. All it brings is misery and destruction. Parents loosing there beloved sons and widows grieving for there husbands. Don't talk about war so loosely, go and pray to Allah that war never takes place between India and Pakistan. The sort of weapons both sides possess now, they will make the last 2 wars look like child's play".

Deltacamelately
12 Apr 13,, 17:32
Lemontree has provided nothing other than what amounts to an account of an artillery barrage across the IB during peacetime, an artillery barrage that would have been responded to by the PA.

Now, given the frequency of artillery duels between India and Pakistan, during the wars, conflicts and across the LoC, for you to argue that 'Pakistan's artillery was looking somewhere else while responding to an Indian artillery strike' requires significantly more detail to be considered a credible account.
Ask the good Colonel, not sure he will comply - He had the digital data, which he pushed inside my retina and which I shy'd away from. AM, there are issues, but I don't think you understand. Please engage your bandwidth.

antimony
12 Apr 13,, 17:57
Ask the good Colonel, not sure he will comply - He had the digital data, which he pushed inside my retina and which I shy'd away from. AM, there are issues, but I don't think you understand. Please engage your bandwidth.

Now this is getting interesting :cool:

Agnostic Muslim
12 Apr 13,, 18:45
Then the PPP should be shot and your military along with them for failing in their duty.
They should be voted out and, if applicable, prosecuted for any crimes that can be proven against them.

What is so hard FOR YOU to understand. Your people are being killed. Your government and your military BY LAW are obligated to respond. Someone is breaking the law here and it ain't the US.
Any consent (tacit or otherwise) by the GoP and/or military (which is currently officially denied and of which there is no credible evidence) needs to be punished in the courts and/or at the ballot box by Pakistanis - the US decision to carry out unilateral and unauthorized drone strikes is a violation of international law and possibly domestic law (as pointed out earlier).

The military is guilty of obeying an illegal order. The government is guilty of issuing an illegal order.
Giving the military the ability to interpret orders by an elected government is what led to Musharraf justifying his coup against the Nawaz Sharif government. The military has no business interpreting anything related to a civilian government's orders.

Fine. If you can't prove that we are breaking your laws by violating your airspace since no one is being charged for not defending it, then your position is complete utter bunk.
As I pointed out to you in previous post, the question is not one of the US 'violating Pakistani law', it is a matter of the US violating international law. In the absence of any formal agreement or evidence indicating consent on the part of the Pakistani government for All/Most US Drone strikes in FATA, those strikes are violations of international law, and, given that the recently leaked CIA documents indicate that the US did not know the identities of many of the people killed in drone strikes, possibly a violation of domestic law.

Doktor
12 Apr 13,, 18:46
Now this is getting interesting :cool:

Indeed!

Agnostic Muslim
12 Apr 13,, 18:53
Yea.

I was reading your post, where you called My government the equivalent of Nazis, while waiting for a MRI at the VA hospital. As I looked around and saw my fellow Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines that paid the price that allows you to come to my country and decide that they are good little Nazi soldiers for killing people from your homeland (which YOU Left) that associate with terrorist it friggin disgusted me.

To the point I had to wait an extra 30 min because by blood pressure was a little high.
I'm sorry that your health suffered, but I don't see anything wrong with criticizing US violations of international law just as I do not see anything wrong with criticizing Pakistan's blasphemy laws - what is wrong is wrong, and quite frankly my use of rather strong language to describe US foreign policy pales in comparison to the language used to describe Pakistan, its people and its military by many on this forum.

Now that I've had a bit of time to think about it. Get the F*&k out. Go home where you don't have to put up with us evil people
That time spent thinking does not appear to be 'time well spent' - the kind of intolerance being displayed towards those who disagree with US policies (domestic or foreign) is better suited to China, Saudi Arabia or the former USSR.

You can either choose to stick your head in the sand and ignore/support the illegal actions of the US government abroad and the destabilizing impact they have on nations and the lives they cost, or you can speak out against what you believe is wrong.

Doktor
12 Apr 13,, 18:53
AM,

By your account US, GB, Canada and few more countries are guilty for killing Germans in France. France never let them go there.

The point you refuse to take is that US will hunt what they consider terrorists/enemies wherever, whenever. You are just lucky enough they don't have the will to send you the same ultimatum they did to the Talibans, instead they are doing your job for you.

Firestorm
12 Apr 13,, 18:56
what i've never understood about pakistan is how crazy her foreign policy is. given the constraints pakistan works under, a reasonably intelligent strategic outlook would be to establish very good relations with a foreign great power to balance india, while keeping a strictly defensive, deterrent policy.

They have done the first part exceedingly well if I may say. They have had the US in their pocket since the 60's. Back then, they got an entire air force of F-86 Sabres virtually for free and used them to attack India. They kept getting money and weapons after that and made good use of those. Even after the end of the cold war and after 9/11 and despite helping to cause mayhem in Afghanistan while the US troops are still there, they still manage to extract money and weapons from the US. Apart from the drone strikes, which really don't affect Pakistan in any way besides killing a few of their "strategic assets" sometimes. Oh yes, they have done quite well.

As for the second part, having a defensive, deterrent policy is just not in their DNA. They might remain quiet for a while, when they are sure they would lose, but the moment they see a weakness (or what they perceive as a weakness) they will attack, even if it's just a pinprick (although events like 26/11 are not pinpricks by any measure). That is just who they are. Ayub Khan had managed to convince them that one Pakistani was equal to ten Indians, and after Zia's islamization, many now dream of being ghazis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghazi) who'll plant their flag on the Red Fort in Delhi.



instead, pakistan antagonizes her would-be great power sponsor, AND antagonizes her foe india for little to no gain. has the phrase "never do your enemy a small injury" not penetrated the PA? one would think losing several wars badly would have taught this lesson well.
Their power sponsor doesn't seem to be antagonized all that much, the drone strikes notwithstanding. And their foe has so far shown no intentions of reacting to their provocations, unless they do something really outrageous like Kargil.

Agnostic Muslim
12 Apr 13,, 18:59
AM,

By your account US, GB, Canada and few more countries are guilty for killing Germans in France. France never let them go there.

The point you refuse to take is that US will hunt what they consider terrorists/enemies wherever, whenever. You are just lucky enough they don't have the will to send you the same ultimatum they did to the Talibans, instead they are doing your job for you.
Pakistan is not under occupation and her people and government strongly oppose US military operations in Pakistan - the WWII analogy does not apply here for that and various other reasons.

The point you refuse to understand is that ANY nation taking unilateral military action without any justification or sanction from the relevant international institutions is a violation of the Charter and various international laws that govern inter-State relations.

Accepting your argument is tantamount to justifying the actions of Saddam and Hitler - those two engaged in unilateral military action that was justifiable only in their domestic constituencies. And since Pakistan has clearly offered joint US-Pakistan drone strikes or Pakistan operated drone strikes, the argument that the US is acting because Pakistan is refusing to do so is patently false.

Agnostic Muslim
12 Apr 13,, 19:04
Ask the good Colonel, not sure he will comply - He had the digital data, which he pushed inside my retina and which I shy'd away from. AM, there are issues, but I don't think you understand. Please engage your bandwidth.
This is your claim and therefore your argument that needs to be verified - I conveyed Lemontree's posts word for word to the three Pakistan Army officers whose responses (or excerpts from their responses) I posted in the other thread, so I don't really think your 'engage your bandwidth' comment is relevant. If OoE has additional information to offer to support these arguments, I can pass it on to the individuals I know to obtain their response.

Doktor
12 Apr 13,, 19:07
Speaking of breaching resolutions, your country is not a saint either (UNSCRs 1333 (2000), 1390 (2002), 1455 (2003), 1526 (2004), 1617 (2005), 1735 (2006), 1822 (2008), 1904 (2009), 1989 (2011) which include:

freeze without delay the funds and other financial assets or economic resources of designated individuals and entities [assets freeze],
prevent the entry into or transit through their territories by designated individuals
[travel ban], and
prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale and transfer from their territories or by their nationals outside their territories, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, of arms and related materiel of all types, spare parts, and technical advice, assistance, or training related to military activities, to designated individuals and entities [arms embargo].*

Take a look at the list (http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/AQList.htm). Lots of people associated with Pakistan there. US hunts them since your guys wont.

Now who is ignoring the holy grail - UNSC Resolutions?

*Pasted from UN Site

Doktor
12 Apr 13,, 19:23
Yea.

I was reading your post, where you called My government the equivalent of Nazis, while waiting for a MRI at the VA hospital. As I looked around and saw my fellow Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines that paid the price that allows you to come to my country and decide that they are good little Nazi soldiers for killing people from your homeland (which YOU Left) that associate with terrorist it friggin disgusted me.

To the point I had to wait an extra 30 min because by blood pressure was a little high.
A little?


Now that I've had a bit of time to think about it. Get the F*&k out. Go home where you don't have to put up with us evil people
This reminded me of alleged Robbin Williams NY speech (http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/williams.asp).

antimony
12 Apr 13,, 19:33
Pakistan is not under occupation and her people and government strongly oppose US military operations in Pakistan - the WWII analogy does not apply here for that and various other reasons.

The point you refuse to understand is that ANY nation taking unilateral military action without any justification or sanction from the relevant international institutions is a violation of the Charter and various international laws that govern inter-State relations.

Accepting your argument is tantamount to justifying the actions of Saddam and Hitler - those two engaged in unilateral military action that was justifiable only in their domestic constituencies. And since Pakistan has clearly offered joint US-Pakistan drone strikes or Pakistan operated drone strikes, the argument that the US is acting because Pakistan is refusing to do so is patently false.

Can you reply to my post #217

I would really like to understand what the entirety of your policy is

Agnostic Muslim
12 Apr 13,, 19:35
Speaking of breaching resolutions, your country is not a saint either (UNSCRs 1333 (2000), 1390 (2002), 1455 (2003), 1526 (2004), 1617 (2005), 1735 (2006), 1822 (2008), 1904 (2009), 1989 (2011) which include:

freeze without delay the funds and other financial assets or economic resources of designated individuals and entities [assets freeze],
prevent the entry into or transit through their territories by designated individuals
[travel ban], and
prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale and transfer from their territories or by their nationals outside their territories, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, of arms and related materiel of all types, spare parts, and technical advice, assistance, or training related to military activities, to designated individuals and entities [arms embargo].*

Take a look at the list (http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/AQList.htm). Lots of people associated with Pakistan there. US hunts them since your guys wont.

Now who is ignoring the holy grail - UNSC Resolutions?

*Pasted from UN Site

We went over some of that in the Hafiz Saeed thread - specifically, take a look at this post: http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/central-south-asia/63835-why-pakistan-wont-give-up-hafiz-saeed-11.html#post909417

The issue that the Hafiz Saeed case in Pakistan brought up was the disconnect between actions recommended by the UN and how local courts interpret those recommendations when they are legally challenged by the affected entities.

Parihaka
12 Apr 13,, 19:43
AM, I don't know why you're trying to conjure up complications where there are none.

The PA and Pak Govt have the ability to stop drone attacks, simply by telling the Americans to stop, or shooting down the drones. That they choose not to do so is because they want the drone strikes to continue, collateral damage notwithstanding.

Remember how right after the Salala incident the border crossings were closed to NATO? That was your govt actually being bothered into doing something.
Good point

Parihaka
12 Apr 13,, 20:00
Do the rest of WAB get bored by the India Pakistan dastaan (never ending story) here?

It's not nearly as boring as US politics threads because the subject material is more interesting

Officer of Engineers
12 Apr 13,, 20:24
They should be voted out and, if applicable, prosecuted for any crimes that can be proven against them.They should be arrested on the spot and charged on the spot. Not even the US President can get away from not answering his crimes.


Any consent (tacit or otherwise) by the GoP and/or military (which is currently officially denied and of which there is no credible evidence) needs to be punished in the courts and/or at the ballot box by Pakistanis - the US decision to carry out unilateral and unauthorized drone strikes is a violation of international law and possibly domestic law (as pointed out earlier).The consent is the lack of military action to defend your people.


Giving the military the ability to interpret orders by an elected government is what led to Musharraf justifying his coup against the Nawaz Sharif government.Musharraf was well within his right to relieve a danger to his country. What he did wrong was to keep power and not yielded to the proper authorities ... in this case, the courts.


The military has no business interpreting anything related to a civilian government's orders.An Officer has a duty and an obligation to disobey illegal orders.


As I pointed out to you in previous post, the question is not one of the US 'violating Pakistani law', it is a matter of the US violating international law. In the absence of any formal agreement or evidence indicating consent on the part of the Pakistani government for All/Most US Drone strikes in FATA, those strikes are violations of international law, and, given that the recently leaked CIA documents indicate that the US did not know the identities of many of the people killed in drone strikes, possibly a violation of domestic law.Military actions under the rules of war are not subject to courts. They are subject to killing the enemy and all that is required is a suspicion.

Firestorm
12 Apr 13,, 20:39
I think AM or someone else posted this link earlier: U.S. secret: CIA collaborated with Pakistan spy agency in drone war | McClatchy (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/04/09/188063/us-secret-cia-collaborated-with.html)



The documents show that while the ISI helped the CIA target al Qaida, the United States used drone strikes to aid the Pakistani military in its battle against the Taliban Movement of Pakistan, or TTP – assistance that the Obama and Bush administrations never explicitly acknowledged or legally justified.

The partnership was so extensive during the Bush administration that the Pakistani intelligence agency selected its own targets for drone strikes. Until mid-2008, the CIA had to obtain advanced approval before each attack, and under both administrations, the Pakistanis received briefings and videos of the strikes.

So drone strikes deal was far more than what Mushy acknowledged in that interview, which is not surprising since Mushy is a pathological liar.



The U.S. intelligence reports illustrate how the Pakistani army retained its grip on national security policy after 2008 elections ended the nation’s fourth bout of military rule and brought to power a civilian government, which condemned drone strikes as violations of Pakistan’s sovereignty and international law.

Former Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani in 2011 called the army a “state within a state.” :biggrin:

The United States has regularly praised the ISI for helping to capture and kill key al Qaida operatives, including those behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. But senior U.S. officials also have charged that elements in the ISI support the Afghan Taliban and allied insurgents fighting U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan. Neither the ISI nor the army high commander were told in advance of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, for fear he’d be tipped off and escape. At the same time, the U.S. has provided billions to Pakistan in military aid and assistance to stabilize democracy and help secure its nuclear weapons.

According to two former U.S. officials, however, it was accepted in Washington and Islamabad that the Pakistani government publicly would denounce the strikes to hide the ISI’s role in order to shield civilian and military leaders from angry popular backlashes over the strikes and civilian casualties.


There was an understanding on both sides of the kabuki dance that . . . the Pakistani military had to be perceived as not being a participant,” said one of the former U.S. officials. Both requested anonymity to discuss the issue because of its sensitivity.
Finally, it was an open secret that the drones were launched from within Pakistan itself.



So everybody, the Pakistanis and Americans have lied and equivocated before; said one thing in public and the opposite in private. In all probability, they are doing the same now. This whole issue is contrived.



Several former U.S. officials, however, noted that in the early years, the Pakistani army took credit for attacks that actually were CIA strikes.

One ISI-requested strike occurred on May 22, 2007, and was against an insurgent training camp in the North Waziristan agency after a Pakistani army assault on the compound was repulsed, the documents said. The Pakistani army sought the strike even though it had been told that drones wouldn’t be used to support Pakistani troops in combat, said an individual familiar with the episode.


Now the reason why the US started doing strikes without approval

The main reason for ending the ISI’s ability to veto targets, said two former U.S. defense officials and a senior U.S. official, was that after several years of arguing, U.S. military and intelligence officials finally persuaded the White House that ISI officers were protecting the Haqqani network to ensure that it could participate in peace talks and bring a pro-Pakistan government to power in Kabul. The three requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Basically, they (the CIA and ISI) started out together but then they diverged because the two sides had different objectives. It was as simple as that,” explained the individual with knowledge of the North Waziristan strike


AM used parts of this article, like the CIA's definition of "signature strikes" to compare the US to Saddam and Hitler. No surprises why he chose to leave out this bit about the ISI playing a double game.

And now the best part:

Even so, the ISI continued working with the CIA on drone strikes, the documents show, listing a series of strikes against al Qaida, the Haqqani network and the Pakistani Taliban that began in January 2010, continued for at least six months and claimed the lives of at least 129 suspected extremists


So you had drone strikes against people whom both the US and Pakistan wanted dead. then there were strikes against those whom only Pakistan wanted dead. And there were unilateral strikes against people whom the US wanted dead, but the Pakistanis didn't (and were protecting).

This protest by the pakistanis against drone strikes is for domestic consumption. Just like in the early days, they don't want to "look" involved, even if they are neck deep in it. It is a farce.

lemontree
15 Apr 13,, 05:59
Well, the cat is out of the bag:


Musharraf admits secret deal with US on drone strikes - thenews.com.pk (http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-13-22230-Musharraf-admits-secret-deal-with-US-on-drone-strikes)


ISLAMABAD: Former president Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf acknowledged his government secretly signed off on US drone strikes, the first time a top past or present Pakistani official has admitted publicly to such a deal.

Pakistani leaders long have openly challenged the drone programme and insisted they had no part in it. Musharraf’s admission, though, suggests he and others did play some role, even if they didn’t oversee the programme or approve every attack.....

astralis
15 Apr 13,, 13:44
lemontree,

32714

hammer
15 Apr 13,, 15:14
Well, the cat is out of the bag:

lol..Does he even realize that he is not supposed to say these things in public?

Agnostic Muslim
16 Apr 13,, 14:42
Well, the cat is out of the bag:

Not really - his comments regarding authorization refer to a handful of strikes, and do not in any way suggest a broad approval of US drone strikes in Pakistan, and certainly do not indicate that Pakistan allowed the US to conduct drone strikes in Pakistan without prior approval for each drone strike.

Doktor
16 Apr 13,, 14:48
AM,

The argument was Pakistan didn't approved drone strikes.

Now it is they didn't approved them all?

Agnostic Muslim
16 Apr 13,, 14:51
AM,

The argument was Pakistan didn't approved drone strikes.

Now it is they didn't approved them all?
That argument is that unilateral, unauthorized US drone strikes are illegal - Musharraf/Pakistan approving a handful or select drone strikes does not change the argument. Any drone strikes Pakistan authorized/approved I have no problems with, because it indicates that the US shared information and intelligence with Pakistan to obtain approval prior to carrying out the strikes.

Agnostic Muslim
16 Apr 13,, 15:00
They should be arrested on the spot and charged on the spot. Not even the US President can get away from not answering his crimes. They should be arrested and prosecuted according to the constitution.


The consent is the lack of military action to defend your people.
Lack of military action is not consent - it is a decision to not risk escalating the situation into a conflict that Pakistan cannot win and a conflict that will not necessarily result in an end to drone strikes.

Musharraf was well within his right to relieve a danger to his country. What he did wrong was to keep power and not yielded to the proper authorities ... in this case, the courts.
I cannot agree with the argument that one individual's interpretation of 'danger to the country' should be used as justification for overthrowing an elected government and declaring military rule.

An Officer has a duty and an obligation to disobey illegal orders.
Refuse to carry out the orders and resign - not overthrow a government.

Military actions under the rules of war are not subject to courts. They are subject to killing the enemy and all that is required is a suspicion.
Military action and a declaration of war are subject to domestic and international authorization as established by the AUMF and Congressional approval for the Iraq war (domestic) and the UNSC authorization for military action in Afghanistan. In the absence of any domestic or international authorization for US military strikes inside Pakistan, your entire premise is invalid.

lemontree
17 Apr 13,, 05:48
Not really - his comments regarding authorization refer to a handful of strikes,...
This at least proves that drone strikes were approved, at least some of them. Something which you denied, and now have been presented with proof from your own former COAS and dictator.


...... and do not in any way suggest a broad approval of US drone strikes in Pakistan, and certainly do not indicate that Pakistan allowed the US to conduct drone strikes in Pakistan without prior approval for each drone strike.
How do you know that there were no other similar deals?...wait till Musharaff blabbers his mouth off again.

Firestorm
17 Apr 13,, 07:19
How do you know that there were no other similar deals?...wait till Musharaff blabbers his mouth off again.

The McClatchy article I quoted from on the previous page clearly shows there were more deals. Far more wide-ranging than old General Bandicoot is letting on in his interview.

doppelganger
17 Apr 13,, 10:21
Lad ke lenge Pakistan, lad ke lenge Pakistan (we'll fight and take Pakistan) - on an on like an autobot.

Mushy has totally lost his mojo man.

lemontree
17 Apr 13,, 11:55
Lad ke lenge Pakistan, lad ke lenge Pakistan (we'll fight and take Pakistan) - on an on like an autobot.

You want India to capture Pakistan??...why :confused:

Doktor
17 Apr 13,, 12:00
Because somehow in his head it is India. I guess.

Officer of Engineers
17 Apr 13,, 12:04
Unbelievable. Freaking Unbelievable. Paksitanis are dying under American bombs and Pakistanis support hiding behind paperwork. Your friend is stabbing you and you want the judge to tell you it's ok to punch back.

Officer of Engineers
17 Apr 13,, 12:10
You want India to capture Pakistan??...why :confused:He's 19 years old, Captain. Full of piss and vinnegar but not much brains.

lemontree
17 Apr 13,, 12:46
Once he does a 40 km route march with 25 kgs,...all thoughts of war will vanish.