Hudson institute recommends exploiting instability in Balochistan to thwart "Chinese hegemony"

[cocomo]

"The lesson for the United States is that Afghanistan is swimming in a sea of instability and not, as we seem to presume, the focal point of that instability. American policy should be focused on burden shifting, managing and, when appropriate, exploiting instability to thwart Chinese hegemony."
http://www.southasiaathudson.org/bl...-pakistan-border-is-a-geopolitical-powder-keg

The author also recommends burden shifting. That's what they did by pushing Afghan Taliban into Pakistan after 9/11, and now by maligning Pakistan internationally for not doing their bidding in Afghanistan. They will support terrorists in Balochistan to thwart "Chinese hegemony" if they have to.

 

[Dalit]

We know exactly how to deal with this devil. We are going to snatch this devil by its tail and stab in its heart. This beast is going to hurt, humiliated and ultimately defeated. It is only a matter of time. We will wait as long as necessary.

 

[Reichsmarschall]

@Solomon2 so now holier than thou Americans are yet again going to use State-sponsored terrorism to harm peace loving countries? No wonder why 9/11 happened

 

[Thorough Pro]

Pakistan should book a case against them for planning terrorism and unrest in Pakistan and issue red warrants for their arrest.

"The lesson for the United States is that Afghanistan is swimming in a sea of instability and not, as we seem to presume, the focal point of that instability. American policy should be focused on burden shifting, managing and, when appropriate, exploiting instability to thwart Chinese hegemony."
http://www.southasiaathudson.org/bl...-pakistan-border-is-a-geopolitical-powder-keg

The author also recommends burden shifting. That's what they did by pushing Afghan Taliban into Pakistan after 9/11, and now by maligning Pakistan internationally for not doing their bidding in Afghanistan. They will support terrorists in Balochistan to thwart "Chinese hegemony" if they have to.

 

[Solomon2]

They will support terrorists in Balochistan to thwart "Chinese hegemony" if they have to.

I read the report - thanks for the link - and I don't think that's quite what it says. The most one can twist out of it is that it indirectly advocates that the West support Iran's current project of arming and providing sanctuary to Balochi insurgents. Even that seems like a reach to me. Am I missing something?

 

[cocomo]

The most one can twist out of it is that it indirectly advocates that the West support Iran's current project of arming and providing sanctuary to Balochi insurgents.

It says exactly that. The intent is clear they want to "exploit" the instability (terrorism) in Balochistan, just read the last paragraph in that article which I have quoted above. You don't have to twist anything. If it had some other meaning you of all people would've pinned me down on it as you are US/Israeli propagandist on this forum it seems. I wouldn't be surprised if the chief reason for Pakistan-Iran rapprochement right now is to "thawrt" this American desire to ignite Balochistan.

 

[Menace2Society]

Too late for that.

 

[Solomon2]

It says exactly that. The intent is clear they want to "exploit" the instability (terrorism) in Balochistan, just read the last paragraph in that article -

"American policy should be focused on burden shifting, managing and, when appropriate, exploiting instability to thwart Chinese hegemony."

And some paragraphs before that the article discusses Iranian support for Baluchi insurgents. Yeesss, I see the connection now.

No, I don't think American endorsement of Iran's sponsorship of Baluchi insurgents will happen under this Administration. But the article does make me wonder if it would have happened under President Hilary...

 

[Jaanbaz]

What USA supports terrorists around the world? I'm shocked.

 

[newb3e]

american cancer should be erradicated.

 

[El Sidd]

Matches perfectly well with that sham of a UN session of Human Rights propaganda in Sindh and Balochistan.