I played make-believe with the Pakistani military

[OrionHunter]

Who gives a rats a$$ about your two cents or Christine Fair. She has already used up more bandwidth on this forum then she deserves. Let alone India, we thought ouselves equal to the Soviet Union and we know what happened to it. We even think ourselves equal to the U.S. at least in our part of the world, the situation in Afghanistan confirms that. Third rate academics do not decide the viability and future of countries.

So you are equating Pakistan to the might of Russia and the US? Good for you. Your delusions are spectacular in scope and content!

 

[Sine Nomine]

Not entirely.

OP is from 2010.

Back then, TTP goons were doing victory dance around Pak soldiers. Beheadings by hundreds, kidnappings, of our soldiers was common thing in NWA.

It wasn't due to PA's incompetency but rather due to the Mess Mush left in GHQ and our soldiers believe in being Muslims,after APK cleaned that mess and made clear at gross root level "You are Muslim but they are not kill them as you like to do that on Easter Border" but at that time TTP have gained strong foot hold in WZ.

 

[VCheng]

-- Afghanistan is not a country but a province of Pakistan. A 20 million country with zero food and oil resource cannot dictate terms to a 200 million country., especially if 3-5 million of Afghanistganis are refugees in Pakistan.

And yet Pakistani and US analysts keep on putting two countries out of this context.

If you think that US analysts are wrong to take Afghanistan out of the context as you have posed, then what would do say if US analysts apply the same context of a 200 million country with its 1,200 million neighbor? But there you want parity, but here the same concept is anathema?

 

[FaujHistorian]

If you think that US analysts are wrong to take Afghanistan out of the context as you have posed, then what would do say if US analysts apply the same context of a 200 million country with its 1,200 million neighbor? But there you want parity, but here the same concept is anathema?

That is a logically sound argument.

However "But there you want parity" is extremely sweeping statement. Please avoid it if you can.

Pakistan is not dependent on India for its day to day living.
Pakistan is not dependent on India for daily food staples like wheat and rice
Pakistani is not dependent on India for fuel imports.
Every thing from nail to grain of food for Afghanistan goes through Pakistan DUTY free.
--- Iran too could supply this, but Iranians will never do this.

So please keep geography and at least 200 years of history in your mind before comparing two regions/countries.

Thank you.

 

[VCheng]

That is a logically sound argument.

However "But there you want parity" is extremely sweeping statement. Please avoid it if you can.

Pakistan is not dependent on India for its day to day living.
Pakistan is not dependent on India for daily food staples like wheat and rice
Pakistani is not dependent on India for fuel imports.
Every thing from nail to grain of food for Afghanistan goes through Pakistan DUTY free.
--- Iran too could supply this, but Iranians will never do this.

So please keep geography and at least 200 years of history in your mind before comparing two regions/countries.

Thank you.

Of course, Pakistan wants to treat Afghanistan as its client state. Bu the Afghans and the rest of the world may disagree, and not let Pakistan hold another country as a geographical hostage. What does Pakistan do then to counter this inconvenient strategy? There has to be give and take. Seeking parity when looking East and not when looking West just will not work.

 

[FaujHistorian]

In a nutshell, what she puts forth for the underlying reason of conflict with India is that even though India vivisected Pakistan in 1971, Pakistan continues to see itself as India's equal and demands the world do the same.

The tools that the army prefers to use, non-state actors under a nuclear umbrella, has brought international opprobrium upon the country and the army. In recent years, erstwhile proxies have turned their guns on the Pakistani state itself and its peoples in the form of the TTP and other sundry terror organizations, resulting in the deaths of over 50,000 Pakistanis including soldiers.

She asks: "Why does the army persist in pursuing these revisionist policies that have come to imperil the very viability of the state itself, from which the army feeds?" This volume argues that the answer lies, at least partially, in the strategic culture of the army. From the army's distorted view of history, the army is victorious as long as can resist India's purported hegemony and the territorial status quo. To acquiesce is defeat. Because the army is unlikely to abandon these preferences, the world must prepare for an ever more dangerous future Pakistan.

To stay relevant in Pakistan society, the army needs to keep the pot boiling and Kashmir fits the bill to the tee!

Afghanistan is another ballgame altogether and thus I will not bring it in here.

My two bits!

Listen Oh bhai jaan,

if you have followed my posts in this forum, you would know I'll be last one to criticize someone based on my government's historic stance.

I hear the cries of Christine Fair (CF), for Pakistanis.
Yes, many here think she is the devil incarnated. But she means well (Me thinks).

I wish some Pakistanis had the same level of courage but more knowledge and balanced view compared to CF.

But that's what WE the Pakistanis should be saying.

Her assumptions the way I understand are:

1. Pakistani ISI is the only one conspiring in the region
--- Clearly this assumption is wrong

2. Pakistani army is the only one conspiring to split other countries
--- Clearly this assumption is wrong

3. Instability in this region based on ethnic and religious basis started in 1947 and in Pakistan.
--- Clearly this assumption is wrong

4. The biggest blunder in her thesis is when she fails to notice
---- From Burma/Myanmar (Thailand/Philippines) all the way to Libya, spontaneous mushrooming of religious warriors
--- Where Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, all have militant groups.


Hope you understand.

Of course, Pakistan wants to treat Afghanistan as its client state. Bu the Afghans and the rest of the world may disagree, and not let Pakistan hold another country as a geographical hostage. What does Pakistan do then to counter this inconvenient strategy? There has to be give and take. Seeking parity when looking East and not when looking West just will not work.

Read CF book where she clearly says why Afghanistanis are $tupid (my term) when they refuse to accept Pak-Af border, and anti-Pakistan policies.

--- She says,
---- Afghanistan was the only country to oppose Pakistani membership of UN
---- Afghanistan regularly allows Indians to open centers in Nangarhar and Kunar
---- Afghanistan regularly allows Indians to operate from South eastern Afghanistan
---- Afghanistan is happy to accept Wakhan belt under British-Russian arrangement
But
---- Afghanistan regularly refuses to accept Pak-Af border in the rest of the region.

Then she advises correctly that Afghanistanis should immediately stop "Poking into Pakistani eyes" if they want to have "stability and peace" in Afghanistan.


If her suggestions make Afghanistan a client state of Pakistan, then you must be defining "client" in a totally different way.

Hope you have a courage to accept her now, instead of jumping to yet another topic to keep this behas brai-behas going.


peace

p.s. See my response above to @OrinonHuter where I challenged CF's assumptions.

 

[VCheng]

Read CF book where she clearly says why Afghanistanis are $tupid (my term) when they refuse to accept Pak-Af border, and anti-Pakistan policies.

--- She says,
---- Afghanistan was the only country to oppose Pakistani membership of UN
---- Afghanistan regularly allows Indians to open centers in Nangarhar and Kunar
---- Afghanistan regularly allows Indians to operate from South eastern Afghanistan
---- Afghanistan is happy to accept Wakhan belt under British-Russian arrangement
But
---- Afghanistan regularly refuses to accept Pak-Af border in the rest of the region.

Then she advises correctly that Afghanistanis should immediately stop "Poking into Pakistani eyes" if they want to have "stability and peace" in Afghanistan.


If her suggestions make Afghanistan a client state of Pakistan, then you must be defining "client" in a totally different way.

Hope you have a courage to accept her now, instead of jumping to yet another topic to keep this behas brai-behas going.


peace

She also advises Pakistan to do many things. Her advice to Afghanistan cannot be taken separately from that. It is okay if you do not want to discuss this further.

 

[K M Cariappa]

She also advises Pakistan to do many things. Her advice to Afghanistan cannot be taken separately from that. It is okay if you do not want to discuss this further.

Well this is what Christine Fair is upto right now.... ::: Compelling Auto Drivers to follow rules by Singing loudly in Hindi....

US woman sings Hindi songs to subdue Indian auto driver

 

[VCheng]

Well this is what Christine Fair is upto right now.... ::: Compelling Auto Drivers to follow rules by Singing loudly in Hindi....

US woman sings Hindi songs to subdue Indian auto driver

Already posted above and commented upon.

 

[FaujHistorian]

She also advises Pakistan to do many things. Her advice to Afghanistan cannot be taken separately from that. It is okay if you do not want to discuss this further.

Off course. I have acknowledged it.

Must we talk past each other? Not cool!

Mostly Bharatis and perhaps you are ignoring the complete picture and thus I had to post what she says to Afghanistan.

And thus the false tears about how Pakistan treats Afghanistan.

This is my issue. While I accept what she says about Pakistan minus some historically incorrect assertions/assumptions.

you all are ignoring what she says in support of Pakistan.

Thank you.

 

[VCheng]

Off course. I have acknowledged it.

Must we talk past each other? Not cool!

Mostly Bharatis and perhaps you are ignoring the complete picture and thus I had to post what she says to Afghanistan.

And thus the false tears about how Pakistan treats Afghanistan.

This is my issue. While I accept what she says about Pakistan minus some historically incorrect assertions/assumptions.

you all are ignoring what she says in support of Pakistan.

Thank you.

Hey, I enjoy our interactions, you were the one who brought up the "behass barai behass" phrase, not me.

===============================

What people should never forget is that CF is analyzing things from her US viewpoint exclusively, and therefore her advice will be what is good for US interests. Any country she opines on needs to makes up its own mind as to what it wants to do that will serve its own national interests.

 

[FaujHistorian]

Hey, I enjoy our interactions, you were the one who brought up the "behass barai behass" phrase, not me.

===============================

What people should never forget is that CF is analyzing things from her US viewpoint exclusively, and therefore her advice will be what is good for US interests. Any country she opines on needs to makes up its own mind as to what it wants to do that will serve its own national interests.

Important correction!

CF is a viewing this from Leftist US viewpoint, that matches with many leftie Pakistanis here and in the US.

Her views are more in line with the likes of NYT and less so with WSJ.

Hope as a US resident you have done your homework to understand the difference between
outlets like NYT, WSJ,
or
think tanks like Heritage vsl. Carnegie.


Peace

p.s. I too enjoy our interaction bhai Jaan. Me too

 

[VCheng]

Important correction!

CF is a viewing this from Leftist US viewpoint, that matches with many leftie Pakistanis here and in the US.

Her views are more in line with the likes of NYT and less so with WSJ.

Hope as a US resident you have done your homework to understand the difference between
outlets like NYT, WSJ,
or
think tanks like Heritage vsl. Carnegie.


Peace

p.s. I too enjoy our interaction bhai Jaan. Me too

Which is why I said "her US viewpoint exclusively", so no correction needed.

Yes, I am aware of the tilts of the major sources of advice to the government and the press, but that is the diversity that makes US policy so maddening at times, and I regard that as a strength of the system.

 

[Bossman]

So you are equating Pakistan to the might of Russia and the US? Good for you. Your delusions are spectacular in scope and content!

Read my post carefully, it didn't say Russia but Soviet Union and where is the your ex master Soviet Union today? Pakistan is still around and they are gone and your current masters the Americans have been squarely defeated in both Iraq and Afghanistan. We always fight a bigger enemy, we learned that by taking on you guys for the last 67 years.

 

[FaujHistorian]

Which is why I said "her US viewpoint exclusively", so no correction needed.

Yes, I am aware of the tilts of the major sources of advice to the government and the press, but that is the diversity that makes US policy so maddening at times, and I regard that as a strength of the system.

Bhai jaan,

US viewpoint is not singular entity. Then why so many Pakistanis make it so?

US viewpoint is very diverse but mainly groups along left vs. right.

And CF is clearly on the left.

So many educated Pakistanis settled in US and here in Pakistan do a huge disservice by tagging their favorite US analyst as to give us "All encompassing US view point exclusively".

Hope this explains.