illusion8
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2011
- Messages
- 12,232
- Reaction score
- -20
- Country
- Location
Full of riveting details of what went on behind the scenes, and based on extensive research and Riedel's experience, the book : Avoiding Armageddon" reviews the history of American diplomacy in South Asia, the crises that have flared in recent years, and the prospects for future crisis.
"Resolution of the Kashmir issue would also remove a major rationale for the army's disproportionate role in Pakistani national security affairs; that in turn would help to ensure survival of genuine civilian democratic rule in the country," he writes.
He believes that a resolution of the major outstanding issue between Islamabad and New Delhi would reduce the arms race between them and the risk of nuclear conflict.
"By eliminating Pakistan's desire to wage asymmetric warfare against India, it would also discourage Pakistan from making alliances with the Taliban, Lashkar-e-Taiba and al Qaeda."
According to Riedel, such an agreement would not resolve all the tensions between the two neighbours and the disputes on issues other than Kashmir are comparatively trivial. "More than anything else, a Kashmir deal would set the stage for a different era in the sub-continent and for more productive interaction between the international community and Pakistan. It could set the stage for a genuine rapprochement between India and Pakistan and nurture trade and economic interaction, which could transform the subcontinent for the better," he writes.
Riedel, who has had 29 years of experience in the CIA, feels the US has an important role to play.
"In his second term, President Obama should quietly but persistently work to create a coalition of friends of Pakistan that will come together to back a peace offensive to resolve South Asia's unfinished business in Kashmir. It will not be easy, but it is critical," he says.
A Kashmir solution, according to him, would have to be based on a formula for making the line of control both a permanent, conventional international border (perhaps with some minor modifications) and a permeable frontier between the two parts of Kashmir so that Kashmiri people could live more normal lives.He suggests that a special condominium might be created to allow the two constituencies to work together on issues specific to the region, such as transportation, the environment, sports and tourism.
"For example, both the Indian and Pakistani currencies could become legal tender on both sides of the border, an idea recently floated in India. That would be a win-win-win approach. The Kashmiri's would be the biggest winners since they would finally have peace and would be reunited.
"Pakistan would be a winner since it would no longer have to spend so much of its limited resources on trying to keep up with much larger India; it also could finally attack the jihadist monster it has created, which threatens its democracy and future.
India would be a winner as well, since it would no longer face an insurgency in Kashmir and terrorism in its cities," he writes. Riedel also provides an in-depth look at the Mumbai terrorist attack in 2008 and he concludes with authoritative analysis on what the future is likely to hold for America and the South Asia puzzle as well as recommendations on how Washington should proceed.
Resolution of Kashmir issue will make Pakistan a normal state - Indian Express
India is the world’s largest democracy, and soon will become the planet’s most populous nation. Pakistan, the globe’s sixth-most-populous country, has a long history of military coups, dictators, and harboring terrorists — including Osama bin Laden. In his new book, Avoiding Armageddon, Bruce Riedel, a long-time CIA official now at the Brookings Institution, handicaps the challenges for the U.S. is dealing with these two nations.
The book, based on Riedel’s role in advising four U.S. presidents on the region, reviews the history of American diplomacy in South Asia, the crises that have flared in recent years, and the prospects for future crisis. Battleland did this email chat with him last week from the Strait of Malacca, where he was traveling:
What is the most important takeaway for readers of your new book, Avoiding Armageddon: America, India, and Pakistan to the Brink and Back?
South Asia — especially Pakistan — is the most dangerous place in the world today. Armed with hundreds of nuclear weapons and home to thousands of terrorists, Pakistan and India have repeatedly gone to the brink of war. America has helped walk them back from Armageddon more than once but it may not always succeed.
Are tensions between India and Pakistan getting better or worse? Why?
The India-Pakistan relationship is up and down, but in the absence of stronger economic ties and a resolution of the basic political disputes (especially Kashmir), the two will remain one terrorist attack away from disaster.
How do you apportion responsibility between these two nations for the continuing strife between them?
Pakistan is clearly the more provocative, because too many Pakistanis are unsatisfied with the status quo. But India, too, is capable of dangerous action like testing nuclear weapons.
Has the fact that both are now nuclear states acted as a brake on possible war between them? Why or why not?
The nuclear balance of terror is very fragile.
Unlike the Cold War, where the Artic Ocean separated the two superpowers, India and Pakistan share a ‘hot’ border with frequent incidents.
It is really more like Russian roulette than mutual deterrence.
How secure do you believe each nation’s nuclear arsenal is?
As Pakistan and India expand their arsenals the risk of a bomb getting in the wrong hands grows. Pakistan is also developing tactical nuclear weapons, which are much more easy to grab. And remember the vetting of who commands Pakistan’s bombs is done by its intelligence service, the ISI [Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence], which is tightly linked to several terrorist groups.
Some of the groups like Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, which attacked Mumbai five years ago, are very sophisticated and capable of using a bomb. The Pakistani military command knows its bombs are their crown jewels, but in a crisis situation the next time India and Pakistan go to the brink expect a lot of anxiety on this issue.
How much of this trouble is due to India’s continued hold on Kashmir?
The conflict over Kashmir lies at the heart of Indo-Pakistani tensions but is not the only issue. It has become symbolic of a larger psychological problem — many Pakistanis, especially the army, resent India’s success, and many Indians believe Pakistan is a crazy state.
India and Pakistan have agreed in principle on how to resolve the problem by giving Kashmir special status — a bit like Ulster — but they lack the political will to go to the next level and make a real deal.
The U.S. should quietly try to encourage them forward, behind the scenes. In the end it is up to them, not us.
The 1947 partition was a disaster in many ways, but we are stuck with the results. How to move out of the shadow of partition’s unfinished business is the issue now for New Delhi and Islamabad.
What is the biggest mistake the U.S. has made in South Asia over the past generation? What is the most important thing for Washington to do about South Asia now?
America’s biggest mistake in south Asia was to undermine civilian rule in Pakistan for decades by backing every military dictator in the country’s history. It was a bipartisan mistake. Presidents from both parties fawned over the generals.
We lost the faith of many Pakistanis this way.
Now we need to get out of only doing conflict-and-crisis management to a bigger game — conflict resolution and regional integration.
It’s a big idea whose time has come. But India and Pakistan must be the leaders, not the U.S.
Read more: Avoiding Armageddon on the Sub-Continent | TIME.com
"Resolution of the Kashmir issue would also remove a major rationale for the army's disproportionate role in Pakistani national security affairs; that in turn would help to ensure survival of genuine civilian democratic rule in the country," he writes.
He believes that a resolution of the major outstanding issue between Islamabad and New Delhi would reduce the arms race between them and the risk of nuclear conflict.
"By eliminating Pakistan's desire to wage asymmetric warfare against India, it would also discourage Pakistan from making alliances with the Taliban, Lashkar-e-Taiba and al Qaeda."
According to Riedel, such an agreement would not resolve all the tensions between the two neighbours and the disputes on issues other than Kashmir are comparatively trivial. "More than anything else, a Kashmir deal would set the stage for a different era in the sub-continent and for more productive interaction between the international community and Pakistan. It could set the stage for a genuine rapprochement between India and Pakistan and nurture trade and economic interaction, which could transform the subcontinent for the better," he writes.
Riedel, who has had 29 years of experience in the CIA, feels the US has an important role to play.
"In his second term, President Obama should quietly but persistently work to create a coalition of friends of Pakistan that will come together to back a peace offensive to resolve South Asia's unfinished business in Kashmir. It will not be easy, but it is critical," he says.
A Kashmir solution, according to him, would have to be based on a formula for making the line of control both a permanent, conventional international border (perhaps with some minor modifications) and a permeable frontier between the two parts of Kashmir so that Kashmiri people could live more normal lives.He suggests that a special condominium might be created to allow the two constituencies to work together on issues specific to the region, such as transportation, the environment, sports and tourism.
"For example, both the Indian and Pakistani currencies could become legal tender on both sides of the border, an idea recently floated in India. That would be a win-win-win approach. The Kashmiri's would be the biggest winners since they would finally have peace and would be reunited.
"Pakistan would be a winner since it would no longer have to spend so much of its limited resources on trying to keep up with much larger India; it also could finally attack the jihadist monster it has created, which threatens its democracy and future.
India would be a winner as well, since it would no longer face an insurgency in Kashmir and terrorism in its cities," he writes. Riedel also provides an in-depth look at the Mumbai terrorist attack in 2008 and he concludes with authoritative analysis on what the future is likely to hold for America and the South Asia puzzle as well as recommendations on how Washington should proceed.
Resolution of Kashmir issue will make Pakistan a normal state - Indian Express
India is the world’s largest democracy, and soon will become the planet’s most populous nation. Pakistan, the globe’s sixth-most-populous country, has a long history of military coups, dictators, and harboring terrorists — including Osama bin Laden. In his new book, Avoiding Armageddon, Bruce Riedel, a long-time CIA official now at the Brookings Institution, handicaps the challenges for the U.S. is dealing with these two nations.
The book, based on Riedel’s role in advising four U.S. presidents on the region, reviews the history of American diplomacy in South Asia, the crises that have flared in recent years, and the prospects for future crisis. Battleland did this email chat with him last week from the Strait of Malacca, where he was traveling:
What is the most important takeaway for readers of your new book, Avoiding Armageddon: America, India, and Pakistan to the Brink and Back?
South Asia — especially Pakistan — is the most dangerous place in the world today. Armed with hundreds of nuclear weapons and home to thousands of terrorists, Pakistan and India have repeatedly gone to the brink of war. America has helped walk them back from Armageddon more than once but it may not always succeed.
Are tensions between India and Pakistan getting better or worse? Why?
The India-Pakistan relationship is up and down, but in the absence of stronger economic ties and a resolution of the basic political disputes (especially Kashmir), the two will remain one terrorist attack away from disaster.
How do you apportion responsibility between these two nations for the continuing strife between them?
Pakistan is clearly the more provocative, because too many Pakistanis are unsatisfied with the status quo. But India, too, is capable of dangerous action like testing nuclear weapons.
Has the fact that both are now nuclear states acted as a brake on possible war between them? Why or why not?
The nuclear balance of terror is very fragile.
Unlike the Cold War, where the Artic Ocean separated the two superpowers, India and Pakistan share a ‘hot’ border with frequent incidents.
It is really more like Russian roulette than mutual deterrence.
How secure do you believe each nation’s nuclear arsenal is?
As Pakistan and India expand their arsenals the risk of a bomb getting in the wrong hands grows. Pakistan is also developing tactical nuclear weapons, which are much more easy to grab. And remember the vetting of who commands Pakistan’s bombs is done by its intelligence service, the ISI [Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence], which is tightly linked to several terrorist groups.
Some of the groups like Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, which attacked Mumbai five years ago, are very sophisticated and capable of using a bomb. The Pakistani military command knows its bombs are their crown jewels, but in a crisis situation the next time India and Pakistan go to the brink expect a lot of anxiety on this issue.
How much of this trouble is due to India’s continued hold on Kashmir?
The conflict over Kashmir lies at the heart of Indo-Pakistani tensions but is not the only issue. It has become symbolic of a larger psychological problem — many Pakistanis, especially the army, resent India’s success, and many Indians believe Pakistan is a crazy state.
India and Pakistan have agreed in principle on how to resolve the problem by giving Kashmir special status — a bit like Ulster — but they lack the political will to go to the next level and make a real deal.
The U.S. should quietly try to encourage them forward, behind the scenes. In the end it is up to them, not us.
The 1947 partition was a disaster in many ways, but we are stuck with the results. How to move out of the shadow of partition’s unfinished business is the issue now for New Delhi and Islamabad.
What is the biggest mistake the U.S. has made in South Asia over the past generation? What is the most important thing for Washington to do about South Asia now?
America’s biggest mistake in south Asia was to undermine civilian rule in Pakistan for decades by backing every military dictator in the country’s history. It was a bipartisan mistake. Presidents from both parties fawned over the generals.
We lost the faith of many Pakistanis this way.
Now we need to get out of only doing conflict-and-crisis management to a bigger game — conflict resolution and regional integration.
It’s a big idea whose time has come. But India and Pakistan must be the leaders, not the U.S.
Read more: Avoiding Armageddon on the Sub-Continent | TIME.com
