Well I was so sure that Gen. Raheel would not get command of any Saudi alliance that I placed a wager that I would leave PDF if I was wrong. This was not based on having any secret contacts, knowing Gen. Sharif, or indeed having some insider in the Saudi defence ministry.
It was just based on my analysis of KSA, Pakstan, GCC and the history of that relationship. That history points to Arabs getting Pakistani help when needed but secretly or informally. The final product always has 'Arab' printed on it and any Pakistani contribution is masked. In the public space GCC people regard Pakistan with concieted arrogance and look down as 'Miskeen' - even when their fighter jets are being flown by Pak pilots, or their banks were set up by Pak CEOs.
As I said before GCC treats Pakistan like a brothel. It just surreptitiously buy's out services instead of building up
institutional compact with the Pakistani state. For example GCC could set up a Organization of Trans Arabian Sea Nations - OTAN. This could be structured along NATO lines where members around and across the Arabian Sea join in a military alliance.
OTAN
Pakistan
KSA
GCC
Oman
Kuwait
Could all join and bring forth what they have to offer. Pakistan has plenty of military age youth and could easily another new
300,000 army command with say 100 4th gen fighters and air support
based in
Arabian peninsula. Since GCC members have the money they could contribute to the financing of OTAN. Command could be circular, every new commander takes over every year from each member country.
OTAN would employ the principle of mutual defence. Attack on one member would be considerd attack against all. In this situation who would dare attack OTAN members. Certainly not Iran or any local powers. OTAN forces could be deployed in Yeman as defensive-offensive operation to secure OTAN member KSA's flank. In this scenario I would have no issues with Pak elemts of a OTAN force fighting Iranian sponsored groups or even Iranian soldiers. This would be a strategic force with strategic interests and that would mean fighting for other members even if you don't have beef with that country on the premise that if we get attacked then others would come to your aid and not look on.
And this is how it pans out in Afghanistan
However this is not what KSA/GCC wants. Instead it wants to create a master/dog relationship. Dog does this. Then throw a bone. Next day dog do this then throw a bone. This keeps the dog beholden to the master. I give example of England in Middle Ages. The King would rule in his full regalia and might. Poor people would walk and stand outside the palace in the vain hope of getting audience. If they were lucky they got a chance to meet the King. They would say 'I beg your majesty but I am poor and my children are hungry please help me' and the king might turn to his court staff and hand him some money. The poor guy would walk out praising the king like a god and thanking him profusively and saying if ever his majesty wants anything he will be their to serve him. This was arbitrary. It made the poor guy a begger and made the king like a god. Every time he helped somebody all the praise his ego got massaged. It was a power trip for the rulers but made beggers out of the common folk.
Today everything has been institionalized. You get sick you go to the NHS hospital and everybody is treated equally. You want justice you go to police or the courts and everrybody legally has free acces to the law. Your poor you go to the welfare agency and they will give you money as matter of law and not a favour. The queen instead today is just a figurehad.
KSA/GCC similarly want to keep one to relationship where they buy out services from Pakistan without developing institutional structures. Now compare the West. NATO acts as a joint defence organization. EU acts like common market that helps out any country in trouble or those that are poor. We all know how many $100s of billions were given to Greece as bailout by EU.
@Khafee @Saif al-Arab
