Pakistan s Strategic Situation

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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.

You beat me to it. The Indian goal behind 'Akhand Bharat' is no longer one of territorial conquest (of Pakistan) in the traditional sense, but one of replicating the 'Bangladesh model' - economic and cultural dependency by a weak and unstable State (Pakistan) upon an economically and culturally thriving India.

A continuous undermining of Pakistan's ideological raison detre and exploiting functional (economic primarily) dependencies in order to move towards an economic union/trade bloc and, in the long run, an EU like structure which would obviously be dominated by an Indian State.

 

[Spectre]

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.

Ah! the infamous right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.

There are two aspects to it

1. C2 failure. Expected in decentralized terror orgs and militias.

2. Lack of oversight - Rectified in most professional countries with well defined chain of command in recent years. US used to have it before the Obama administration. In Bush era one often saw for eg FBI, CIA and DEA working at opposing ends. UK was another example. There are details in public domain if one bothers to dig.

India generally doesn't have this problem - arguably SL was one such incident but it is debatable as there is a school of thought that everyone acted as they were directed within a single objective. Topic for another thread.

Problem with Pakistan is mostly C2 failure made much more complicated by complete lack of oversight thus allowing rogue elements space to operate. Perhaps it is designed that way to give an impression of plausible deniability. I simply don't know enough to comment on the exact nature of problem other than to say that the problem definitely exist.

 

[SQ8]

Ah! the infamous right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.

There are two aspects to it

1. C2 failure. Expected in decentralized terror orgs and militias.

2. Lack of oversight - Rectified in most professional countries with well defined chain of command in recent years. US used to have it before the Obama administration. In Bush era one often saw for eg FBI, CIA and DEA working at opposing ends. UK was another example. There are details in public domain if one bothers to dig.

India generally doesn't have this problem - arguably SL was one such incident but it is debatable as there is a school of thought that everyone acted as they were directed within a single objective. Topic for another thread.

Problem with Pakistan is mostly C2 failure made much more complicated by complete lack of oversight thus allowing rogue elements space to operate. Perhaps it is designed that way to give an impression of plausible deniability. I simply don't know enough to comment on the exact nature of problem other than to say that the problem definitely exist.

Again, that is your perception of reality based on your national bias. I'll agree to disagree; vehemently.

 

[Spectre]

Again, that is your perception of reality based on your national bias. I'll agree to disagree; vehemently.

Of-course but then proof is in the pudding. Guilty until proven innocent seems is how nations perceive each other.

 

[VCheng]

proof is in the pudding

Exactly correct. And what is Pakistan actually doing - not just claiming to do - to prevent cultural and economic domination by its perceived enemy?

 

[Hellfire]

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.

Absolutely. Also, honestly, at the risk of being politically incorrect, India will be loath to increase the Muslim population by incorporating territory from elsewhere. The baggage is simply too heavy for either side.

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.

Yes sir. Absolutely. That is what I have posted on a number of posts earlier. The costs will be escalated for Pakistan but yet kept under threshold for Pakistan to remain busy and in a mess. The societal cost, however, is something which no one can control and that may be the long term downfall of Pakistan as a state. Already the fissures in the society are coming to fore.

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.

This is what I was driving at, the other day when you cautioned me to not link the positioning of Russian warplanes in Iran as anything more than what it was and I had intimated that I was planning a write up.

I believe, and here I am out on a limb, that the US, uneasy in a multi-centric world, may perhaps be more comfortable with a predictable adversary in form of Russia rather than having an unpredictable world order with potentially greater number of adversaries. That is why, there has been selective and calibrated action by either side on Ukraine and SCS, yet a loose convergence of interests in middle east. It is in that aspect that I view the possibility of Russia being comfortable with India entering into Afghanistan along with US support as it addresses its own security concerns for CAR of Chechnya as also it allows Russia a leverage in dealing with Iran which has interests at odds with India in Afghanistan over a longer term.

Baluchistan is something that even Russia will like to use to its advantage and India, in publicly supporting Baluch independence, may simply be hedging its own interests in Chabahar - a potential conflict zone in future. Chabahar and the North-South Corridor, allow Russia access to the warm waters, after centuries of trying to access them. Gwadar is inconsequential for Russia if it wants to squeeze the Chinese, which, seeing the low oil prices and sanctions on it, it would want in order to keep its market of oil and gas open and China heavily dependent on Russia for meeting its demands thereby allowing sales of crude and natural gas to China to address its own budgetary concerns amid a failing economy.

That is the maze where I feel the convergence yet divergence of interests will actually harm Pakistan in the long run. India is merely using the opportunity offered by the games Russia and US are playing in the region.

@Spectre tagging you as this is my premise. Been as such (regarding the escalatory costs to be imposed on Pakistan over Kashmir and terror) for ever since I became a member here in 2009.


@Sarge @ebrahym @Nilgiri

Tagging you for your views on the thread

 

[war&peace]

How self righteous our Indian colleagues are

Yes , they are "epitomes" of piety in subcontinent.

 

[SQ8]

You beat me to it. The Indian goal behind 'Akhand Bharat' is no longer one of territorial conquest (of Pakistan) in the traditional sense, but one of replicating the 'Bangladesh model' - economic and cultural dependency by a weak and unstable State (Pakistan) upon an economically and culturally thriving India.

A continuous undermining of Pakistan's ideological raison detre and exploiting functional (economic primarily) dependencies in order to move towards an economic union/trade bloc and, in the long run, an EU like structure which would obviously be dominated by an Indian State.

That is what most aspirational powers wish to be. We do have similar objectives for Afghanistan.
The US has similar ideals for Mexico and Canada, the Russians for the former Soviet republics .. etc etc.

Yes sir. Absolutely. That is what I have posted on a number of posts earlier. The costs will be escalated for Pakistan but yet kept under threshold for Pakistan to remain busy and in a mess. The societal cost, however, is something which no one can control and that may be the long term downfall of Pakistan as a state. Already the fissures in the society are coming to fore.

I would not count too much on the societal costs as so far the trend has been upwards since the low in 2011. There is a growing resentment of terrorism and extremism in society which is leading to isolation(of an albeit greater number of extremists than anticipated). Moreover, society has rebuffed attempts at exploiting ethnic fractures such as those in Balochistan and more recently in Karachi.

 

[SrNair]

Every nations has its own strategic situations.
But in this article author is unnecessarily exaggerating everything.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Already the fissures in the society are coming to fore.

I believe you're misinterpreting those 'fissures in society'. What you're seeing are more vocal and increased demands for greater resource allocation and shares in Federal projects by various sections of the Pakistani populace, which are a result of the ongoing process of devolution of powers to the province's and an uninterrupted stretch of democratically elected governments.

 

[VCheng]

Yes sir. Absolutely. That is what I have posted on a number of posts earlier. The costs will be escalated for Pakistan but yet kept under threshold for Pakistan to remain busy and in a mess. The societal cost, however, is something which no one can control and that may be the long term downfall of Pakistan as a state. Already the fissures in the society are coming to fore.

And then there is this:

"Pakistan’s water crisis is now at par with terrorism in terms of being an existential threat to the country’s security (according to ‘Pakistan’s Water Discourse: Attitudes on Water Management Practices’).”

Imagine: nine years from today Pakistan will be facing “severe water shortages or even a drought-like situation.” According to The New York Times, “Energy-starved Pakistanis, their economy battered by chronic fuel and electricity shortages, may soon have to contend with a new resource crisis: major water shortages…” In 1947, water availability for each Pakistani was 5,000 cubic meters per year. Currently, water availability for each Pakistani stands at around 1,000 cubic meters per year – about the “same level as drought-stricken Ethiopia.”

The Third World War will be fought over water, it is said. What are the factors behind Pakistan’s water crisis? The simplest of all answers is: climate change and gross mismanagement of water resources. Climate change is about melting glaciers and decreasing rainfall – and there’s not much we can do about it. Water management, on the other hand, is totally within our domain.

Imagine: “Pakistan’s water crisis is now at par with terrorism in terms of being an existential threat to the country’s security (according to ‘Pakistan’s Water Discourse: Attitudes on Water Management Practices’).” On terrorism, we have the National Action Plan (NAP). Imagine: Pakistan has no implementable National Water Policy.

 

[Hellfire]

I believe you're misinterpreting those 'fissures in society'. What you're seeing are more vocal and increased demands for greater resource allocation and shares in Federal projects by various sections of the Pakistani populace, which are a result of the ongoing process of devolution of powers to the province's and an uninterrupted stretch of democratically elected governments.

Not exactly. I was actually referring to the ideological fissures.

Not the socio-economic, something which is pathetic for the sub-continent as a whole and actually deplorable, seeing that after 69 years of independence, as nation states, we have not evolved much in the field of governance and socio-economic sectors.

And then there is this:

"Pakistan’s water crisis is now at par with terrorism in terms of being an existential threat to the country’s security (according to ‘Pakistan’s Water Discourse: Attitudes on Water Management Practices’).”

That, my friend, is the root of Kashmir conflict! Lets leave the pretentious posturing aside, the root cause is securing the water resources.

Tickles me, actually. Imagine, our water sources can be secured by marching across into Siberia and securing Baikal!!!

Yes , they are "epitomes" of piety in subcontinent.

Thanks @war&peace I knew I could rely on you to recognise my inherent 'goodness'

 

[VCheng]

That, my friend, is the root of Kashmir conflict! Lets leave the pretentious posturing aside, the root cause is securing the water resources.

The LoC is here to stay between nuclear neighbors. Something else will need to be done to provide the water. And even if the water issue is resolved, Pakistan abysmal social development will only increase its fractiousness.

 

[war&peace]

I would not count too much on the societal costs as so far the trend has been upwards since the low in 2011. There is a growing resentment of terrorism and extremism in society which is leading to isolation(of an albeit greater number of extremists than anticipated). Moreover, society has rebuffed attempts at exploiting ethnic fractures such as those in Balochistan and more recently in Karachi.

Agreed

 

[Hellfire]

The LoC is here to stay between nuclear neighbors. Something else will need to be done to provide the water. And even if the water issue is resolved, Pakistan abysmal social development will only increase its fractiousness.

And therein lies the answer too. The possible enhanced trade links will go someway in re-establishment of mutual confidence. That shall require an approach akin to India and China - sideline the border issue to a latter date and progress on trade front.

Any acceptance of an eventual settlement has to be based upon the saleability of the settlement to respective populations. Unfortunately, for Pakistan the choice is between a rock and a hard place.