Pakistan s Strategic Situation

[T-123456]

we need self-cleansing to become a proud nation.

 

[Hellfire]

@Spectre

Thanks for the tag. I wrote one of my best rebuttals till date, 2 hours I had been typing. And a server error put paid to it.

 

[ranjeet]

"Civil-military relations must remain on one page to take Operation Zarb-e-Azb, Frontier Corps operation in Baluchistan and Rangers operation in Karachi to their logical conclusion."

Does this one page has few lines on Punjabi Taliban or Lal Masjid? or military action is reserved for other provinces only?


"Cultural invasion was let loose by India in 2004 after signing deceptive peace treaty to loosen morals of the youth and slacken their warrior spirit."

Didn't knew Pakistani youth was forced into watching nonsense bollywood flicks and Saas Bahu dramas under this deceptive peace treaty.

 

[SQ8]

If this conspiracy theory filled rant is all that fills up the space for strategic thinking in Pakistan then God Help us all..

Rather than looking inwards all this article does is level false allegations colored by anti Semitic and Hindu paranoia. It also puts weight to what India has been saying all along - that Military in Pakistan is not going to change it's policy of terror sponsorship anytime soon despite all the self inflicted wounds and tragedies. The victimization card is just another ploy to ease of the pressure and regroup so that it can start again on it's anti India crusade.

I hope this article is widely circulated

@hellfire @Oscar @MilSpec

The article is overly focused on external influences and that is given, since NO external influence can have an impact internally unless there is an actual issue there.
However, that does not mean that external influences do not exist to exploit the faultlines.

@Spectre

Thanks for the tag. I wrote one of my best rebuttals till date, 2 hours I had been typing. And a server error put paid to it.

It should still be saved. Which is why I usually write my longer posts on word.

 

[Spectre]

The article is overly focused on external influences and that is given, since NO external influence can have an impact internally unless there is an actual issue there.
However, that does not mean that external influences do not exist to exploit the faultlines.


It should still be saved. Which is why I usually write my longer posts on word.

The confines of the article are at author's discretion, I have no issues about the focus. However straight out lies and conspiracy fanning are what offends me the post. Display of love for one's own nation is admirable but that does not allow one to untether oneself from reality.

 

[Thəorətic Muslim]

This author is a brigadier?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Display of love for one's own nation is admirable but that does not allow one to untether oneself from reality.

That narrative exists in both India and Pakistan and, if anything, has been displayed at much higher levels in India (through Modi and various other Indian government mouthpieces) than in Pakistan.

 

[Spectre]

That narrative exists in both India and Pakistan and, if anything, has been displayed at much higher levels in India (through Modi and various other Indian government mouthpieces) than in Pakistan.

I don't disagree. However I and 99% if not all posters from India are not from services background. While armed forces come from the same stock as us, they often go through the crucible which leaves them with little patience for BS. The demagogy is usually the preserve of politicians and their aforementioned "mouth-pieces"

Since the OP had self-identified himself as a member of that august fraternity, I began reading the article with relish which turned into dread.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

This author is a brigadier?

Retired. I'm generalizing of course, many of the Army personnel (that I have known/know) who retired at Brigadier level ranks display a good grasp of military tactics, but not always as sound a grasp of the strategic environment.

 

[Hellfire]

It should still be saved. Which is why I usually write my longer posts on word.

Sir that is a lesson well learned today. @Joe Shearer was also saying the same. Only one paragraph was recovered when my window was refreshed.

I started from Cardinal Richelieu, Metternich till date - Trump - Clinton campaign to highlight the inherent contradictions and antithesis of the US policy with analysis of isolationist to interventionist vacillations as evident from their policy formulations till date.

Added to the concept of 'balance of power' as has been existent in west and east (empire based with empires tending to assume the role of being the 'world order' as they established their pre-eminence) and the dichotomy of US policies and role as it sees for itself and the facets of multi-centric emerging new world order with realignment of traditional allies and foes along respective 'national interests' ... a slightly detailed policy analysis of US especially in the heydays of FDR and Kissinger! Learned the lesson!

The author here, has missed the bus especially on the contradictory role of Russia in South-East Asia and it's policy of hedging it's position for all possible outcomes. The overt support to China to enhanced cooperation with Vietnam (eg of Brahmos sale being supposedly being transacted, something not possible without Russian concurrence) indicate a very prominent emphasis on limiting US influence while at the same time, ensuring it's own interest by maintaining meaningful relationships with the belligerent nations.

It beats sense for Russia to allow Chinese the absolute control of SCS as that is the only area through which Russia's merchant traffic passes and can pass, and I severely doubt Russia will allow it.

Thanks

 

[SQ8]

The confines of the article are at author's discretion, I have no issues about the focus. However straight out lies and conspiracy fanning are what offends me the post. Display of love for one's own nation is admirable but that does not allow one to untether oneself from reality.

I take offense at the term reality.
Because the reality for you might be that all dissent in Kashmir is being flamed by Pakistan or Islamists. However, the reality for a Kashmiri like Umar Khalid, who is a staunch communist and an avowed atheist is being labelled an Islamist/JeM sympathizer by the Indian media.

 

[nair]

Did you read the whole article? I read till "9/11 was an insider job".....
Actually I was eager to read the article, looking at the title and the poster

@Spectre

Thanks for the tag. I wrote one of my best rebuttals till date, 2 hours I had been typing. And a server error put paid to it.

 

[SQ8]

Sir that is a lesson well learned today. @Joe Shearer was also saying the same. Only one paragraph was recovered when my window was refreshed.

I started from Cardinal Richelieu, Metternich till date - Trump - Clinton campaign to highlight the inherent contradictions and antithesis of the US policy with analysis of isolationist to interventionist vacillations as evident from their policy formulations till date.

Added to the concept of 'balance of power' as has been existent in west and east (empire based with empires tending to assume the role of being the 'world order' as they established their pre-eminence) and the dichotomy of US policies and role as it sees for itself and the facets of multi-centric emerging new world order with realignment of traditional allies and foes along respective 'national interests' ... a slightly detailed policy analysis of US especially in the heydays of FDR and Kissinger! Learned the lesson!

The author here, has missed the bus especially on the contradictory role of Russia in South-East Asia and it's policy of hedging it's position for all possible outcomes. The overt support to China to enhanced cooperation with Vietnam (eg of Brahmos sale being supposedly being transacted, something not possible without Russian concurrence) indicate a very prominent emphasis on limiting US influence while at the same time, ensuring it's own interest by maintaining meaningful relationships with the belligerent nations.

It beats sense for Russia to allow Chinese the absolute control of SCS as that is the only area through which Russia's merchant traffic passes and can pass, and I severely doubt Russia will allow it.

Thanks

The US policies are just one aspect. The biggest issue with many analysts and quite a few in the military is that they see the enemy or friendly.
Without realizing that there is no exacting description for many parties.

The best example lies in Syria, Iraq & Yemen. There are places where AQ is fighting alongside generally secular movements, fighting against them. There are places were Shia militias are at war with them and places where they are targeting IS. There are places where IS is working with AQ against the Shia Militias.

The same goes for Pakistan. There are places where the US is working with, against or simply standing by. There are places in Afghanistan where there are active Indian intelligence cells paying for and coordinating attacks and there are officials within the same service on the other side trying to work with the intelligence services in keeping coordination of information and backchannels open; and we could go on and on .

The only important thing here is what is in Pakistan's interest and even that is not a single objective all the time due to differing opinions.

 

[Hellfire]

Did you read the whole article? I read till "9/11 was an insider job".....

i rebutted it .. with my musings which I have shared with you on the other thread ... everything ....

The US policies are just one aspect. The biggest issue with many analysts and quite a few in the military is that they see the enemy or friendly.
Without realizing that there is no exacting description for many parties.

The best example lies in Syria, Iraq & Yemen. There are places where AQ is fighting alongside generally secular movements, fighting against them. There are places were Shia militias are at war with them and places where they are targeting IS. There are places where IS is working with AQ against the Shia Militias.

The same goes for Pakistan. There are places where the US is working with, against or simply standing by. There are places in Afghanistan where there are active Indian intelligence cells paying for and coordinating attacks and there are officials within the same service on the other side trying to work with the intelligence services in keeping coordination of information and backchannels open; and we could go on and on .

The only important thing here is what is in Pakistan's interest and even that is not a single objective all the time due to differing opinions.

Absolutely. That was another contention. Whereby the author has tried to emphasise that India wants to 'break' Pakistan for 'Akhand Bharat', the truth can not be any further. It beats all pragmatic strategic thought and military logic to undermine an effective force fighting the same elements (albeit to a large extent; I use this as there is a difference of good and bad here) which you yourself may have to fight.

My contention remains, which I have oft repeated here, that PA is doing exactly what we would need to do. I would rather that PA do it than us. I believe this work up was more of a rhetoric-wishful thinking with admixture of doomsday prophecy and abundant dramatics. The author also failed to analyse the role of the GCC countries along with Iran in Libya-Iraq-Yemen-Syria, instead trying to pass it off as a Western effort at undermining the stability. He clearly missed the advent of takfiri and wahabi philosophy as trying to establish its own pre-eminence in the Islamic nations, while promoting sectarianism.

Quite lop-sided view.

 

[SQ8]

i rebutted it .. with my musings which I have shared with you on the other thread ... everything ....



Absolutely. That was another contention. Whereby the author has tried to emphasise that India wants to 'break' Pakistan for 'Akhand Bharat', the truth can not be any further. It beats all pragmatic strategic thought and military logic to undermine an effective force fighting the same elements (albeit to a large extent; I use this as there is a difference of good and bad here) which you yourself may have to fight.

My contention remains, which I have oft repeated here, that PA is doing exactly what we would need to do. I would rather that PA do it than us. I believe this work up was more of a rhetoric-wishful thinking with admixture of doomsday prophecy and abundant dramatics. The author also failed to analyse the role of the GCC countries along with Iran in Libya-Iraq-Yemen-Syria, instead trying to pass it off as a Western effort at undermining the stability. He clearly missed the advent of takfiri and wahabi philosophy as trying to establish its own pre-eminence in the Islamic nations, while promoting sectarianism.

Quite lop-sided view.

I do not believe in the Akhand Bharat nonsense since even the most openly vitriolic hawk in India would not be so stupid as to want to take on territory that brings greater strategic challenges with it than IMHO India can handle.
I do however believe that India's best case scenario for Pakistan is to have it as Bangladesh; essentially a vassal state ruled by a very pro-India leader with highly secular ideals. Since that scenario is not available, the Indian state is forced to focus on its second best idea of keeping Pakistan a Afghanistan like unstable mess which is too embroiled in internal conflict to pose any threat.

Coming to other nations, the US does wish an independent Balochistan as it serves in both downsizing Pakistan and Iran along with keeping Russian advances in ME in check. Simply because despite the "alliance" there is a greater wish to keep India as a stable counterweight to China.

The Russians have their own ME plans, to which Iran has their own regarding their expansion beyond traditional borders. Syria was their backyard and they were never going to let it go. As such, they have extracted the costs from the GCC via Yemen anyway.