Engineering a NEW MAP for Middle East & Pakistan

[foxhound]

Salaam

An interesting article that has been discussed previously - apologies if it has

 

[foxhound]

Blood Borders: A Proposal To Redraw A “New Middle East”

June 11, 2015 13 Comments

1.4kShare
13Share
Tweet

Map created by Ralph Peters and originally published in the Armed Forces Journal, viawikimedia


The map above is a 2006 proposed plan to redrawn the borders of the Middle East by Ralph Peters, a retired United States Army lieutenant colonel, author, and Fox News commentator. It was original published in the Armed Forces journal in an article titledBlood borders: How a better Middle East would look.

The map would make sweeping changes throughout the region such as:

• Israel: Returns to its pre-1967 borders.
• Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq All lose territory to create a Free Kurdistan.
• Free Kurdistan: New state created for the Kurds.
• Greater Lebanon: a reborn Phoenecia that also gains territory at the expense of Syria.
• Greater Jordan: gains territory at Saudi expense.
• Sunni Iraq: One of three successor states to Iraq, this one would obviously be primarily Sunni.
• Arab Shia State: Another sucssor state to Iraq, would house Iraq’s current Shia population along with gaining territory from Iran.
• Islamic Sacred State: A new state that would act as an Islamic Vatican carved from Saudi Arabia.
• Saudi Arabia: Loses territory to Jordan, Arab Shia State, Yemen and the Islamic Sacred State.
• Yemen: Gains land from Saudi Arabia.
• UAE: Loses territory to Arab Shia State, although Dubai likely to remain an independent playground for the rich.
• Kuwait and Oman would retain their current borders.
• Azerbaijan: Gains territory from Iran.
• Iran: Loses land to Kurdistan, Arab Shia State, Azerbaijan and Free Baluchistan but gains territory from Afghanistan. The goal is to make Iran even more Persian.
• Free Baluchistan: New state for the Baluch people to be carved from Pakistan and Iran.
• Afghanistan: Loses land to Iran in the west but gains land from Pakistan in the east.
• Pakistan: Loses territory to both Free Baluchistan and Afghanistan. It now lies almost entirely east of the Indus.

For a complete explanation why these changes are proposed you should read the original article here.

Keep in mind this map is nearly 10 years old and does not reflect recent developments such as the Arab spring, Yemen civil war or rise of Islamic State.

If you’d like to read more of Ralph Peter’s work have a look at:

• Endless War: Middle-Eastern Islam vs. Western Civilization
• Lines of Fire: A Renegade Writes on Strategy, Intelligence, and Security
• Looking for Trouble: Adventures in a Broken World

What do you think of the this proposed plan? Good idea? Awful idea?

ref: http://brilliantmaps.com/new-middle-east/

 

[Genghis khan1]

Old crap, a wishful brain fart from a retard.

 

[foxhound]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/plans-...e-east-the-project-for-a-new-middle-east/3882
http://armedforcesjournal.com/peters-blood-borders-map/


The above are some examples of sites discussing this new map......possibly an attempt at engineering one in the future!!!


What are Pakistan's options?

Should this be ignored as some sort of conspiracy theory or do contingency plans need to be addressed by Pakistan???

1. Is the threat real or imagined?
2. The constant western media attention and platform given to political/militant Baluchi's for a separate state due to the harshness given by the Pakistani government (with the allegation of punjabi domination at the behest of other groups).
3. The recent evidence of foreign agencies...CIA/RAW/KHAD etc....interference and attempts at causing conflict and instability in the region/province
4. USA political leaders making a case for Baluchistan
5. The constant propaganda of labelling Pakistan as a failed state, a terrorist state etc.#
6. Most western media always highlighting any issue (even trivial ones) for regular negative propaganda...hence demonising Pakistan across the world.....if you make someone a demon...then it is usually easier to 'attack and kill that demon' from the world at large.
7. Regular and usually discrete threats made to Pakistan - ' i.e..send you back to the stone age - nuclear blackmail and threat of annihilation etc.

What appropriate measures could be taken?

 

[艹艹艹]

Bullshit

 

[foxhound]

Should the US support an independent Balochistan?
A handful of US congressmen support creating an independent Balochistan, carved out of mostly Pakistani land.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/02/201222112203196390.html

• 
  by
  Eddie Walsh
  
  
  
  @ASEANReporting
  
  Eddie Walsh is the President of the Emerging Science and Technology Policy Centre, a Senior Fellow at the School of Foreign Service - Georgetown University, and the Director-General of the Pacific Islands Society.
  
  STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  Over the last two months, a small faction of US congressmen has laid the foundation for an alternative Afghanistan-Pakistan policy. They do not favor strengthening relations with the Pakistan government, nor do they accept normalising relations with the Taliban if it means Pashtun dominance in Afghanistan.
  
  Instead, they propose backing remnants of the Northern Alliance seeking to establish semi-autonomous provinces in Afghanistan, and Baloch nationalists hoping to create an independent state of Balochistan. In one broad stroke, their proposed "Berlin Mandate" would redraw the political borders of the region contrary to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of two of the Obama administration's most important partners in the War on Terror - as well as Iran.
  
  While their initiative might not have broad domestic or international support, their
  
  Washington, DC - Over the last few months, a small faction of congressmen, minority Afghan groups, Baloch nationalists, and their supporters have laid out the framework for an alternative US policy approach for Southwest Asia.
  
  This alternative policy centres on backing remnants of the Northern Alliance and Baloch insurgents, who seek to carve out semi-autonomous territories or independent states from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran.
  
  While supporters of this new approach are motivated by a variety of interests, they appear unified in their rejection of what they see as three cornerstones of the Obama administration's current regional policy approach: 1) Normalising relations with Pakistan's government and military; 2) Incorporating the Taliban into the current Afghan political system; 3) Overly accommodating an emerging Iran.
  
  In one broad stroke, this new approach would attempt to advance US national interests by redrawing the political borders of Southwest Asia - contrary to the the sovereignty and territorial integrity of three existing states.
  
  While its advocates clearly do not yet have broad support for their initiative, the campaign for an alternative Southwest Asian policy approach is maturing and garnering increased attention in Congress and beyond, especially as a result of three recent high-profile events: a Balochistan National Front strategy session in Berlin, a US congressional hearing on Balochistan, and the introduction of a Baloch self-determination bill before the US Congress.
  
  Regardless of whether you agree or disagree, it's nevertheless critical to understand how this alternative policy approach framework has evolved over the past few months.
  
  The 'Berlin Mandate' as a loose framework
  
  In early January, a bipartisan congressional delegation, led by Representative Dana Rohrabacher (Republican-California), held a "strategy session" in Berlin with Afghan opposition leaders, including the country's former intelligence chief. The meeting addressed constitutional reforms that would make Afghanistan a federal system.
  
  Meeting participants argued that vesting political and economic power in the provinces, instead of centralising power in Kabul, would protect the US' Northern Alliance allies from retribution at the hands of Pashtuns once the Taliban is fully reincorporated into the Afghan political system.
  
  "Let's talk about creating a Balochistan in the southern part of Pakistan. They'll stop the IEDs and all of the weaponry coming into Afghanistan, and we got a shot to win over there."
  
  - Texas congressman Louie Gohmert
  
  By advancing these policies, the attendees portrayed the Taliban's incorporation into Afghanistan's political system as a greater risk than the threat posed to Afghanistan's territorial integrity by their alternative - which would risk the partition of "Afghanistan between the minority-dominated north and the Pashtun south". This clearly runs counter to the the interests of Hamid Karzai's government.
  
  A few weeks later, Representative Louie Gohmert (Republican-Texas), a Berlin meeting attendee, added fuel to the fire by arguing in a video interview that the US should not just push for a new political system in Afghanistan but go further by rearming the Northern Alliance.
  
  In the same breath, Gohmert provided one of the first definitive links between support for the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan and Baloch nationalists in Pakistan: "Let's talk about creating a Balochistan in the southern part of Pakistan. They'll stop the IEDs and all of the weaponry coming into Afghanistan, and we got a shot to win over there."
  
  With these remarks, the two pillars of an alternative Afghanistan-Pakistan (Af-Pak) policy approach were now set: To advance its interests, the US should support the carving out of an independent Baloch state and semi-autonomous Afghan territories - even if it undermined existing US partnerships with the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
  
  In early February, Rohrabacher convened a public congressional hearing on Balochistan. While human rights violations in Pakistan's Balochistan province were discussed (per the agenda), the hearing also provided a forum to start a larger (and arguably off-topic) national dialogue on the viability of Southwest Asia's state borders.
  
  As a result of the hearing, witnesses - including Ralph Peters and M Hossein Bor - were able to argue that the dismemberment of Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan would serve the United States' long-term strategic interests. But, even more importantly, the hearing allowed the witnesses to inject their views into the larger debate on US foreign policy in Southwest Asia. This included Bor's controversial assertion (which was later censored in Pakistan) that supporting an independent Balochistan stretching from "the Strait of Hormuz to Karachi" would be a better policy approach than ongoing US efforts to counter the Iranian and Pakistani regimes.
  
  Rohrabacher, Gohmert, and Representative Steve King (Republican-Iowa) followed up the hearing by introducing a new bill in Congress stating that the Baloch nation has a historic right to self-determination. With this action, the congressmen went from "familiarising themselves" with Balochistan to calling for Congress to recognise the Baloch nation's right to sovereign independence in roughly a week.
  
  In many ways, this brought the "Berlin Mandate" full circle. In less than two months, a small group of congressmen, minority Afghan groups, Baloch nationalists, and their supporters had gone from voicing displeasure with the current Obama Administration's Af-Pak policy approach to advancing a revolutionary alternativepolicy approach that called for supporting the minority interests of the Northern Alliance and Baloch against the sovereign interests of Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan.
  
  Reflecting upon this effort a few days after the bill was introduced, Rohrabacher confided to me in an on-the-record interview:
  
  "There is a natural extension from the Berlin meeting with the Northern Alliance to the Balochistan bill. I have always stood for self-determination, but there are certain things that activate me to start pushing more on that philosophy. Clearly, the whole issue of the Taliban being reintegrated in Afghanistan and Pakistan, providing safe haven to terrorists like Bin Laden, are major factors.There is also my support for immediately withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. To do so, we need to have a major policy dialogue on what our policy is in Southwest Asia, how we properly transition out of Afghanistan, and what will be our ongoing relationship with Pakistan. Balochistan is clearly part of that debate."
  
  Cross-linking with other congressional causes
  
  While the introduction of the Baloch self-determination bill marks an important milestone for their cause, it is important to point out that there has been an equally big change in how "Berlin Mandate" supporters have advocated their cause. Over the last month, these supporters - particularly Baloch nationalists in the US diaspora - have increasingly sought to extend their cause beyond US foreign policy in the Af-Pak region. They appear to recognise the need to latch onto larger foreign policy issues as part of their efforts to garner mainstream support for their cause. Four of the most important include:
  
  I. Punishing Pakistan for supporting terrorism and nuclear proliferation
  
  Rohrabacher, Gohmert, and other key supporters of the alternative policy approach for Southwest Asia have been unabashed in overtly linking the need for policy alternatives to Pakistan's "betrayal of America's trust". It is even alleged that the Balochistan hearing was called specifically to "stick it to the Pakistanis" for their arrest of a reported key informant in the bin Laden operation. Even after widespread criticism for his past remarks against Pakistan, Rohrabacher does not shy away from his criticism: "Quite frankly, the Pakistani military and leaders that give safe haven to the mass murderer of Americans should not expect to be treated with respect."
  
  Such rhetoric almost certainly will find a receptive audience in Congress - even among the many members who have never heard of Balochistan or know little about the Northern Alliance's struggles over the last year. For this reason, Peters pointed out to me recently as part of a yet unpublished post-hearing interview that the current high levels of anti-Pakistani sentiment in Congress probably provide the best opportunity that the Baloch may see to advance their cause.
  
  II. Containing a rising China and an emerging Iran, and preventing Pakistan from achieving strategic depth
  
  According to supporters, an independent Balochistan, "extending from Karachi to the Strait of Hormuz", would help to contain a rising China and an emerging Iran, provide a long-term security guarantee against China, Iran, and Pakistan emerging as maritime powers, and undermine the strengthening of strategic relationships between these three potential adversaries.
  
  In an interview after the congressional hearing, Bor made this case:
  
  "There are many interrelated issues at play. When one discusses Balochistan, you are discussing a way to contain China. You are also discussing economic relationships between Iran and Pakistan … If (the Chinese) build their port in Gwadar, they will have a land route from Western China to the Indian Ocean.
  
  This is of strategic interest to the United States because Chinese ships would have a direct route to China and no longer have to transit past the Indian and American navies. It therefore is logical that Balochistan should be concerned as part of the larger shift to the Pacific announced by the Obama Administration. … (Separately,) Iran is an empire and they are using Baloch lands to try to become the dominant regional player. The Iranians are using the Strait of Hormuz as a choke-point for a huge percentage of the world's oil. They also are building a pipeline to Pakistan which violates UN sanctions. Such growing Iran-Pakistan cooperation is a major concern."
  
  Other supporters have advanced similar arguments with respect to Afghan minority groups against the Pashtun-dominated central government. They assert that support for the autonomy or independence of the Northern Alliance serves as an insurance policy against Pakistan's military achieving strategic depth once the Taliban is fully integrated into Afghanistan's political system.
  
  III. Providing the West with an opportunity to profit off of Southwest Asia's natural resources
  
  Recognising "the tremendous deposits of oil, gas, and minerals" found within or made accessible through the Baloch and Northern Alliance territories, some supporters have argued that the West should advance the "Berlin Mandate" if for no other reason than self-serving economic interests.
  
  They have asserted that an independent Balochistan and autonomous Northern Alliance territories would provide Western companies with valuable new economic opportunities, which could help offset the costs of two failed wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and spur economic growth following the global economic downturn. They have also said that the West should do so to prevent potential strategic adversaries, including China, Iran, Pakistan, and Russia, from profiting off the natural resources of Central and Southwest Asia at their expense.
  
  While Rohrabacher has called this "a bunch of leftist garbage from liberal professors", it must be said that his committee purposely selected a witness whose expertise lies in forging such partnerships in the Middle East region and who remains a vocal advocate for their consideration in the context of an independent Balochistan. Baloch nationalists clearly have started to reach out more aggressively to Western commercial interests on these grounds in recent months as well.
  
  IV. Preventing gross human rights violations and providing post-colonial nations their right to self-determination
  
  While members of Congress have long condemned the Taliban and the Pakistani government for human rights violations, supporters - particularly Baloch nationalists - have used novel approaches in recent months to win over members of Congress. They have increasingly restrained themselves from leading with the genocide argument. Recognising that this argument has failed to win over Congress in the past, they have instead turned to a more complex argument: that the Baloch, like the South Sudanese and numerous minority groups in the former Yugoslavia, have won their right to self-determination because Pakistan and Iran have failed to provide basic human rights protections. Pakistan and Iran have, they argue, thereby forgone their sovereignty over Baloch territories - regardless of historical precedent.
  
  While few in Congress will support their cause on these grounds alone, Baloch nationalists acknowledge the moral power of the argument for members of Congress who may be seeking to justify their support for an oppressed group on other grounds. This argument could become a powerful advocacy tool for Baloch and Afghan minority interest supporters, especially when reaching out to congressmen serving on other minority group interest caucuses with their own claims to self-determination.
  
  Eddie Walsh is a senior foreign correspondent who covers Africa and Asia-Pacific. He also serves as a non-resident fellow at Pacific Forum CSIS.
  
  Follow him on Twitter: @ASEANReporting
  

Pakistani-Americans urge US to stop India from ''encouraging Baloch separatists' http://zeenews.india.com/news/world...m-encouraging-baloch-separatists_1878989.html

 

[艹艹艹]

The United States is the world's largest maker of trouble.

 

[foxhound]

The United States is the world's largest maker of trouble.

I agree....but do contingency measures need to be taken by Pakistan?

 

[Mugwop]

I saw this Map in 2012

 

[foxhound]

Foreign Designs against Balochistan
http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/86-86/22147-foreign-designs-against-balochistan

Written by Sajjad Shaukat
Tuesday, 18 February 2014 18:33

Located on the southwestern coast of Pakistan, Balochistan’s Gwadar deep-seaport is close to the Strait of Hormuz from where more than 17 million barrels of oil passes every day. Its ideal location among three key regions, South Asia, the oil-rich Middle East, and oil and gas-resourced Central Asia has further increased its strategic significance. Its development with Chinese assistance and latter’s bilateral agreements with Islamabad has shifted the great game of Central Asia to Pakistan.

Besides, Balochistan’s abundant mineral resources like gas, coal and gold, entailing Pakistan’s close ties with China pinches the eyes of the US, India, Israel and some western countries which intend to destabilize Pakistan for their collective aims. These hostile powers are trying to create fissures between Islamabad and Beijing so as to sabotage their strategic alliance.

In this regard, Balochistan’s business and trade opportunities have also made it important for US, EU, Russia, China, India, Iran, Afghanistan and Central Asian Republics to play the great game, while anti-Pakistan powers are secretly working to create conditions to control and influence the resource-rich zones, disregarding the compulsions of mainland integration.

While terror-acts and human rights violations are already keep on going in Balochistan, but without grasping reality, and using the existing political predicament in the province as a pretext to encourage separatism, external enemies raise voice on human rights violations over projection of mass graves which were found in Tootak area of Khuzdar on January 25, 2014. And Baloch Sub Nationalists (BSNs) have unleashed false allegations against Pakistan by purporting fabricated figures of bodies over 150 and declaring these bodies as missing Persons—articulated voices of external enemies to alleged enforced disappearances, holding Pakistan’s security forces and law-enforcing agencies responsible for every wrong which takes place in Balochistan. It seems ridiculous when some of them allegedly say that security agencies are behind terrorist activities in Balochistan. Nevertheless, on 30 January 30, 2014, US Congressman Louie Gohmert delivered a highly venomous speech at US House of Representatives on Balochistan Situation, citing his meeting with BSN leadership, which was broadcasted live on Cable Satellite Public Affairs Network in US. Senator Gohmert also read out the article of Tarek Fateh (Canada based BSNs’ sympathizer), published by Toronto “SUN” on January 28, criticizing US for ignoring the mass graves issue during US Senator John Kerry’s meeting with Pakistan’s National and Foreign Affairs Advisor Sartaj Aziz.

Notably, India, US and Israel have been internationalizing the Balochistan issue in accordance with their secret goals. In this respect, in connivance with the Baloch separatist leaders who have taken refuge in Switzerland, Sweden, US and London, these external elements use media, various NGOs and human rights organizations for false propaganda against Pakistan’s security agencies in relation to extrajudicial killings, mutilated bodies and the missing persons.

As regards the deteriorating situation of Balochistan and the missing persons, everyone knows that Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and their affiliated outfits including another group, Jundollah (God’s soldiers) which have been fighting for secession of the province gets logistic support from American CIA and Indian RAW—these militants kidnapped and killed many innocent people and the security personnel in the province. They also massacred many persons through suicide attacks, bomb blasts, targeted killings and sectarian violence.

Therefore, they are responsible for dumped bodies and extrajudicial killings in the province. On a number of occasions, these insurgent groups claimed responsibility for their subversive acts. A majority of the disappeared individuals are also in the detention centers (Farrari Camps) which are being run by Baloch feudal lords (Sardars) who want to continue old system of feudalism in the province.

Unfortunately, BLA and BSNs are also in collusion with some US Congressmen to get foreign support so as to animate the scheme of separatism in Balochistan. In this context, dissidents like Khan of Kalat Mir Suleman Khan, Hyrbyair Marri, Mehrab Sarjov and others are busy in Europe and US to project Balochistan issue on international level. For the purpose, these leaders and especially, Baloch feudal lord, Khan of Kalat planned to take the issue of Balochistan to International Court of Justice (ICJ) and expected that India would pay $2.4 million lawyers’ fee to contest their case in ICJ. As Indian support did not get materialized, these leaders contacted to US officials to forward their case.

In February 8, 2012, three Republican Congressmen including Dana Rohrabacher, Louie Gohmert and Steve King tabled a bill before US Congress stating, “Balochistan is currently divided between Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan with no sovereign rights of its own. In Pakistani Balochistan the people are subjected to violence and extrajudicial killings.” The bill favoured Baloch rights of self-determination, having a sovereign state—and must be afforded the opportunity to choose their own status.

Earlier, the US subcommittee on ‘Oversight and Investigations of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs’ convened a hearing on extrajudicial killings and violation of human rights in Baluchistan. Rohrabacher chaired the meeting, while Lt. Col. (R) Ralph Peters testified. Lt. Col. (R) Peters is the architect of infamous 2006—New Middle East map and is an advocator for the disintegration of Muslim states on sectarian and religious lines. His map shows a number of Islamic countries including Pakistan as truncated. While writing in the June 2006 issue of The Armed Forces Journal of the US, he had suggested Washington about the creation of a “Greater Balochistan” which would integrate the Baloch areas of Pakistan with those of Iran—and the Frontier Province (Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa) should be incorporated into Afghanistan.”

Although the US Administration quickly distanced itself from Congressional hearing by Rohrabacher and Peters’ testimony, yet US denial does not augur well with ground reality, as American think tanks, NGOs and websites go on instigating the separatist elements in Baluchistan. US State Department which funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and Voice of Baluchistan (VOB) have been instrumental in fomenting dissension and nationalistic feelings in the province. It has been pressurizing Pakistan to allow opening of a US consulate in Quetta. The aim is to execute US covert designs against Islamabad.

It is mentionable that the Tea Party members in US Congress, especially Dana Rohrabacher, Louie Gohmert and Steve King are reportedly working to create an independent Balochistan. Their leaders are angry with Pakistan on the self-created presumption of sheltering Osama-bin-Laden, and intend to teach a lesson to Islamabad by assisting the Baloch separatists. These Tea Party members who currently back the idea of a sovereign Balochistan were in the forefront of Afghan Jihad against the former Russia. They also held meetings with dissidents in London.

As a result of the general elections 2013, the government led by a nationalist leader Chief Minister Balochistan Dr Abdul Malik Baloch was established. And on December 7, 2013; local bodies elections were largely held in a peaceful manner in Balochistan. However, these elections proved that majority of the Baloch are loyal to the federation, as they have rejected the case of separatists, being projected by Dana Rohrabacher including other entities.

Now, the right hour has come that Pakistan’s internal entities, particularly media must expose the foreign sinister aims against Balochistan. They must indicate that Baloch dissidents are being supported by external forces which are actually having devouring eyes on Balochistan’s mineral deposits. US Congressmen must also not encourage separatist elements in the province to advance their own agenda to usurp resources of Balochistan. US government must not muddle in the internal affairs of Pakistan, otherwise it will lead to dangerous consequences.

Pakistani media, civil society, political parties and judiciary must realize that Balochistan is being plotted as part of the great game in which US and its allies plan to fulfil their strategic interests at the cost of Pakistan and China. Hence, all Pakistanis must get united to negate and defeat the greedy designs of US, EU and India.
Political instability in Balochistan must come to an end and present government in Balochistan must be supported by media, civil society and political parties.

Our media must denounce the intriguing designs of US members of the Tea Party, who are showing their hypocrisy and double face regarding Balochistan. Media should point out that these hostile members draw sanctified reference from British colonial era of the 18the century when a protest in Boston against absurd taxation on Tea (product) was held by a Tea Party as a measure of raising voice for human rights. The situation in Balochistan presents an internal issue of Pakistan which has mainly been addressed by the political leadership.

The issue of mass graves is under court investigations and official findings are being completed through DNA testing. Hostile propaganda by BSNs that actual number of bodies found was much higher than 13, as officially reported, must be countered. Foreign propaganda should not be allowed to encourage the separatists who are in minority.

Media must also indicate that besides protecting mega projects, and promoting other developments works, Pak Army set up a number of institutes in Balochistan, which have been providing especially technical training to thousands of Balochis. Pak Army has also been imparting military training to the Baloch youth. The purpose is to bring the Baloch people in the mainstream of the country.

Particularly, our missions abroad must counter foreign designs and denounce meetings between Baloch dissidents and US Congressmen by exposing the connivance of anti-Pakistan forces against Balochistan.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Affairs.

 

[Mugwop]

I agree....but do contingency measures need to be taken by Pakistan?

Baloch separatists exist on the internet that's it

 

[foxhound]

I saw this Map in 2012

Yes, agree its an old article........is the threat real to Pakistan???

 

[Genghis khan1]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/plans-...e-east-the-project-for-a-new-middle-east/3882
http://armedforcesjournal.com/peters-blood-borders-map/


The above are some examples of sites discussing this new map......possibly an attempt at engineering one in the future!!!


What are Pakistan's options?

What appropriate measures could be taken?

Only solution: Internal stability > Improve economy > Stronger defence. These map will disappear automatically.

and these these steps are being taken.
Internal stability: MQM/PPP being put to task. Plus TTP and other elements are being eliminated.
Improve economy: CPEC and other energy projects. Stock markets is showing results.
Stronger defence: News Subs deal, Talk about SU-35 and Stealth. Shows change in defence posture.

 

[foxhound]

Another interesting article.....

How can India separate Balochistan from Pakistan?


https://www.quora.com/How-can-India-separate-Balochistan-from-Pakistan

23 Answers
Farkhor in Tajikistan, 130 kilometers (81 mi) south east of the capital Dushanbe.

It is operated by the Indian Air Force in collaboration with the Tajikistan Air Force.

Farkhor is India's first and only military base outside its territory but serves it purpose very well as a staging point.

The Indian army is in the process of amassing a massive buildup of its forces in Southern Afghanistan as well as the Rajasthan desert. half a million Indian troops and 1300, tanks are in the process of being deployed on the Southern Afghanistan-Pakistan border and another 2000 tanks and another million troops are already poised to strike on the Rajasthan border.

Indian naval forces and marine commandos should also be primed and readied so that they can be deployed en-masse on the Makran coast and the port of Gwadar by sea or by air.

Victory in Balochistan will require that the VAYUSENA or Indian air-force achieves complete air-supremacy over Pakistan's air force within 12 hours after the commencement of Operations.

Indian mountain divisions should be poised to attack Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan and also encircle Islamabad.

The city of Karachi should come under simultaneous attack by Indian armored divisions as well as Indian aircraft carrier and submarine - Naval forces in the Arabian Sea which should also aim to cut off the Punjab-Sindh link in Pakistan represented by the N5 and N55 highways.

If everything goes according to a well laid out plan, then Pakistan's collapse can be brought about in a mere two weeks time and consequently Balochistan will gain independence from Pakistan.

Updated Aug 30, 2015 · View Upvotes
Related Questions
More Answers Below

• If Pakistan becomes a secular democracy, then what separates it from India? What would be the point of Pakistan being a separate country?
• Would India try to acquire Balochistan if it is separated from Pakistan?
• Does India have its hand in the insurgency in Pakistan such as in Karachi, Balochistan?
• What are the conflicts between Pakistan and Balochistan?
• Why did Nehru convince Balochistan's king to let Balochistan be a part of Pakistan?

Kaveesh Kanwal, Indian foreign policy
31.6k Views
Yes, it is very much possible. The below points will illustrate how it can be done.

1. A proxy war by Pakistan in two Indian provinces merely affects less than 10% of all Indian provinces, a proxy war by India in two Pakistani provinces can affect 40% of Pakistan.

2. Pakistan did not learn the lesson that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Pakistan never thought that two could play the game; or else, they thought they could disintegrate India before India woke up. Well, that was not the case. India plans to take proxy wars into Pakistani territory, and pay Pakistan back in its own coin. But let’s analyze how a proxy war may succeed, within Pakistan, in further points below.

3. As experience around the world has shown, a successful proxy war that is able to cut off a part of a territory or initiate regime change in a country must consider four major parameters:

• The numerical size of the rebel army.
• The volume of external aid and military assistance actually provided to the rebels.
• The resolve and ability of the home army to resist the armed rebellion
  
• The physical presence of external military action by a foreign country.

For the current scenario that we are discussing:
(Home Army --> Pakistani Army)
(Rebel Army --> Baloch Rebels)
(Foreign Country --> Rep Of India)

4. Bullet points 1 and 2 are entirely in India's favor. There are many Baloch who hate being with Pakistan and they want to create their own Baloch nation. Also, the external aid by India has to be well directed and in huge numbers to the Baloch rebels. It was the same case while dealing with Mukti Bahini during the Bangladesh liberation war.

5. As the strength of the Baloch rebels increases and the external supply/aid from India keep on coming, the will of the Pakistani Army to continue their ops in Balochistan will take a hit.

6. Now, the Pakistani Army will be fighting on three fronts. First, The Af-Pak region of Waziristan where the Pakistanis are conducting op Zarb-e-azb. Second, the line of control where India can put some pressure and make the Pakistani army move large number of troops to the Indian side. Third, the Baloch front wherein the war of independence is going on.

7. This three front stretch/war for the Pakistani army will eventually break their ability to do successful operations and they will naturally incur very heavy casualties. This therefore satisfies the 3rd bullet point(sub point of point 3) as mentioned above.

8. The 4th bullet point is naturally satisfied as the 1.15 million strong Indian Army will be standing by as a "physical presence" and an external military support to Balochistan. Also, the Indian intelligence agencies would have, by now, made deep inroads into Balochistan to satisfy bullet points 2 and 3 as mentioned above.

Baloch separatists exist on the internet that's it

Balochistan: Is US backing London’s plan to dismember Pakistan? http://www.vijayvaani.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?aid=2144

Those who think Pakistan’s only problem is the rising tide of jihadism in that country are grossly mistaken. There are indications that the London-led project to separate Balochistan from Pakistan has now been given an impetus. The objectives are many. To name a few: It would weaken a belligerent Pakistan; create a buffer between Pakistan and Afghanistan; secure a strong foothold along the southeastern borders of Iran; and undo China’s long-term plan to link up the Karakoram Highway in the north to the Arabian Sea, by a land bridge running through Balochistan.


The British plan to separate Balochistan is a longstanding one. Britain’s Foreign Policy Centre (FPC) arranged a seminar on the Balochistan province of Pakistan in collaboration with the so-called Balochistan Rights Movement on June 27, 2006 in the House of Commons. The seminar was a one-sided attack on Pakistan for “colonizing” Balochistan and suppressing the Baloch people. Its chairman Stephen Twiggs, is a member of parliament from Enfield Southgate, who chairs Labour Friends of Israel (LFI), a Westminster-based pro-Israel lobby group working within the Labour Party. Twiggs has been involved with the FPC from its inception in 1998, and as a member of the board from 1998 to 2006. FPC wields considerable influence in Westminster, and is also consulted routinely by the Foreign Office and Downing Street on matters relating to the Middle East. Tony Blair is known to consult its members about Middle East policy.

Only solution: Internal stability > Improve economy > Stronger defence. These map will disappear automatically.

and these these steps are being taken.
Internal stability: MQM/PPP being put to task. Plus TTP and other elements are being eliminated.
Improve economy: CPEC and other energy projects. Stock markets is showing results.
Stronger defence: News Subs deal, Talk about SU-35 and Stealth. Shows change in defence posture.

I agree...good sensible approach.....also it would help if the negative propaganda can be countered....media has a lot of power.

 

[Sinnerman108]

Well, Today is Wednesday and this is today's dose of comic relief from Hindu-stan.

Perpetual wankers.