Musharraf's Interview On CNN From Last Night
- Thread starter SecularHumanist
- Start date
S-2
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2007
- Messages
- 4,210
- Reaction score
- 0
There remains a real desire among many Pakistanis here to see the taliban as less than an existential threat to Pakistan. Again, this stems from a desire to attain accomodation WRT the near objective of political domination of Afghanistan.
How one imagines "influence", I'm unsure but taliban "influence has ALREADY visibly manifested itself in your tribal areas, spilled into SWAT/Buner and has made its presence now crystalline clear in the Punjab. Your business, I suppose, if you think that this remains a manageable phenomena although I can't imagine why you might imagine such.
They will take Afghanistan if America withdraws. That is as plain as day also. Their ideologues will overwhelm simple pashtu nationalists. Having done so they'll, in turn, overwhelm the remaining ethnic elements of afghan society.
I have to wonder at the lectures about ignoring the pashtu plurality when they come from those who've made clear no interest in hearing the pleas of the tajik/uzbek/hazara/turkomen MAJORITY.
Yes. That's correct. More than half that nation will be utterly unrepresented by your formula for success-as it was previously as well.
That taliban movement, in any case, WILL turn its eyes east. It simply must and that means you. If so, you'll fight and win, fight and lose, or accomodate and lose. It matters not except to indicate that already there are those here whom believe that, again, this can be managed when it is otherwise farcical to believe based upon what can be plainly seen as evidence to the contrary.
America has always been interested in pashtu inclusiveness to the afghan political process. This has been neutered by a confluence of tajik/uzbek/hazara opposition, taliban opposition, and opposition by Pakistan and pakistani pashtus. None of these elements are eager to see "the great accomodator" emerge in afghan pashtu circles for different reasons.
In winning, all will ultimately lose but until Pakistanis understand that the costs in Afghanistan from such will be ultimately borne by them, the fantasy continues.
How one imagines "influence", I'm unsure but taliban "influence has ALREADY visibly manifested itself in your tribal areas, spilled into SWAT/Buner and has made its presence now crystalline clear in the Punjab. Your business, I suppose, if you think that this remains a manageable phenomena although I can't imagine why you might imagine such.
They will take Afghanistan if America withdraws. That is as plain as day also. Their ideologues will overwhelm simple pashtu nationalists. Having done so they'll, in turn, overwhelm the remaining ethnic elements of afghan society.
I have to wonder at the lectures about ignoring the pashtu plurality when they come from those who've made clear no interest in hearing the pleas of the tajik/uzbek/hazara/turkomen MAJORITY.
Yes. That's correct. More than half that nation will be utterly unrepresented by your formula for success-as it was previously as well.
That taliban movement, in any case, WILL turn its eyes east. It simply must and that means you. If so, you'll fight and win, fight and lose, or accomodate and lose. It matters not except to indicate that already there are those here whom believe that, again, this can be managed when it is otherwise farcical to believe based upon what can be plainly seen as evidence to the contrary.
America has always been interested in pashtu inclusiveness to the afghan political process. This has been neutered by a confluence of tajik/uzbek/hazara opposition, taliban opposition, and opposition by Pakistan and pakistani pashtus. None of these elements are eager to see "the great accomodator" emerge in afghan pashtu circles for different reasons.
In winning, all will ultimately lose but until Pakistanis understand that the costs in Afghanistan from such will be ultimately borne by them, the fantasy continues.
And don't get me wrong S-2. No matter how much we bicker at you we all love you.But I think its our Buddha who loves him more
I will even promote you to S-1, if it makes you happy.
S-2
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2007
- Messages
- 4,210
- Reaction score
- 0
My name derives from the staff tactical intelligence officer position in an army/marine battalion or brigade staff. At division or higher it is pre-fixed with a "G", not an "S".
S-1 would be horrible. It is the position of the personnel staff officer who handles everything from graves registration to duty rosters, replacement personnel, liaison to the chaplain (special staff to the commander), EEO, etc. A MASSIVE headache. Just as bad is S-4 (Logistics).
The coolest is S-2. Utterly tactical without the headaches that come with being S-3 (Operations). He is typically the SENIOR staff officer and is answerable to the battalion/brigade commander. Typically the battalion/brigade X.O will manage the work of the S-1 and S-4 while the battalion/brigade commander manages the work of the S-2/S-3.
Further, as an artillery S-2 in a separate infantry brigade whose task organization included a direct support artillery battalion, our TOC (tactical operations center) became the de facto alternate TOC for the brigade. We were the only element aside from the brigade that maintained operational maps for the brigade battle area. If the brigade TOC took a hit, it gets transferred to our TOC and the battle continues.
That meant that our purview extended over the same area of operations as the brigade and we received all the traffic that the brigade did.
Thus, S-2- the coolest staff position in the army/marines, IMHO. I LOVED the job.
S-1 would be horrible. It is the position of the personnel staff officer who handles everything from graves registration to duty rosters, replacement personnel, liaison to the chaplain (special staff to the commander), EEO, etc. A MASSIVE headache. Just as bad is S-4 (Logistics).
The coolest is S-2. Utterly tactical without the headaches that come with being S-3 (Operations). He is typically the SENIOR staff officer and is answerable to the battalion/brigade commander. Typically the battalion/brigade X.O will manage the work of the S-1 and S-4 while the battalion/brigade commander manages the work of the S-2/S-3.
Further, as an artillery S-2 in a separate infantry brigade whose task organization included a direct support artillery battalion, our TOC (tactical operations center) became the de facto alternate TOC for the brigade. We were the only element aside from the brigade that maintained operational maps for the brigade battle area. If the brigade TOC took a hit, it gets transferred to our TOC and the battle continues.
That meant that our purview extended over the same area of operations as the brigade and we received all the traffic that the brigade did.
Thus, S-2- the coolest staff position in the army/marines, IMHO. I LOVED the job.
Evil Flare
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2008
- Messages
- 3,508
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
One of the Best interview Mushraff is Given ....
I can understand and appreciate the true 'Warrior Grit' in you.My name derives from the staff tactical intelligence officer position in an army/marine battalion or brigade staff. At division or higher it is pre-fixed with a "G", not an "S".
S-1 would be horrible. It is the position of the personnel staff officer who handles everything from graves registration to duty rosters, replacement personnel, liaison to the chaplain (special staff to the commander), EEO, etc. A MASSIVE headache. Just as bad is S-4 (Logistics).
The coolest is S-2. Utterly tactical without the headaches that come with being S-3 (Operations). He is typically the SENIOR staff officer and is answerable to the battalion/brigade commander. Typically the battalion/brigade X.O will manage the work of the S-1 and S-4 while the battalion/brigade commander manages the work of the S-2/S-3.
Further, as an artillery S-2 in a separate infantry brigade whose task organization included a direct support artillery battalion, our TOC (tactical operations center) became the de facto alternate TOC for the brigade. We were the only element aside from the brigade that maintained operational maps for the brigade battle area. If the brigade TOC took a hit, it gets transferred to our TOC and the battle continues.
That meant that our purview extended over the same area of operations as the brigade and we received all the traffic that the brigade did.
Thus, S-2- the coolest staff position in the army/marines, IMHO. I LOVED the job.
I do not think America should withdraw from Afghanistan. These people deserve a better future. America can force that pace that has been absent so far.
McCrystal's has his priorities right - and I do think he should get the opportunity to carry out the outlined objectives - a very different war now - the war for the Afghan hearts.
Even so, watching 'Obama's War' I felt there was something missing in there, 'a big hole', if you will, that may again prove to be your 'Achilles Heel' and I should like to discuss those with you in the coming days.
Good wishes to you
extinct
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2007
- Messages
- 114
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
I think you would be more to the point if you say "There remains a real reason for the Pakistanis to see Taliban.... " and so on...
You see it should be left to the one whose existence is in question to decide what he/she deems as threat to their existence.
Thereby whatever Pakistanis consider as existential threat infact IS an existential threat to them, perspective is ones reality and vice versa.
Having said that, the hard fact on the ground supports the idea as well, seeing 3/4 of infantry units of an enemy country on its border with you indeed does pose an existential threat, whats more interesting is that US never even tried asking the Indians to move their troops back to peace time positions (read pre-Bombay attack positions) while Pakistan is asked to move its units to western border every day...
I believe Musharraf is 100% right is saying that if we can not plug the holes in the western border (for myriad of reasons) the ISAF+NATO is not securing it either (for myriad of their reasons) and amazingly enough they are never asked to "do more".
First ask the Indians to "lay off" in Musharraf's words then one can make a demand of moving forces to the western border.
These things do not happen in a vaccum and when think-tanks, military generals, politicos and all the other so called "experts" ask Pakistan to "do more" in terms of troop diversion (read forget your history with India) then they are either too naive or are dishonest to the cause of both WoT and most definately Pakistan.
Pakistan is being slow-bled in WoT and there is no replenishment, even monetarily... Just to put things in perspective 65Billion US dollars have been spent in New Orleans since Hurricane Katrina (since 2005, so 65B in 4 years) and still that place is not up and running... Pakistan is handed out non-miltary aid of 7.5Billion/5yr that is ~11.5% of what is spent in New Orleans and ridiculed on every occasion by impinging on its sovereignty... no my friend the "experts" are not naive they have their own agenda and Pakistan as a soverign nation must follow its own, the only common ground b/w these "allies" is to eradicate the menace of Taliban and for their own vested interests... This does not mean that Taliban can EVER be a potent force to challenge Pakistani Military or Civil population in any overwhelming manner, they may be a serious irritant for the nation but they are just an irritant afterall...
The history tells us time and again that the "existential threat" remains India, now and forever... Think of it as Isreal and Syria albiet that does not exactly (pun intended) spell out the david vs. golliath that India is proportionaly to Pakistan in military might alone...
A joe like me can figure it out, so it must not be rocket science...
Last edited:
fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
Their narrow interests make impossible unity within the pashtu tribes much less reaching to their uzbek, tajik, and hazara brothers for the same.
now thats a dream if there ever was one!
your bias is showing!
now thats a dream if there ever was one!
your bias is showing!
fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
The Great Gamble by Gregory Feifer
The Soviet war in Afghanistan was a grueling debacle that has striking lessons for the twenty-first century. In the Great Gamble, Gregory Feifer examines the conflict from the perspective of the soldiers on the ground. During the last years of the Cold War, the Soviet Union sent some of its most elite troops to unfamiliar lands in Central Asia to fight a vaguely defined enemy, which eventually defeated their superior numbers with unconventional tactics. Although the Soviet Leadership initially saw the invasion as a victory, many Russian soldiers came to view the war as a demoralizing and a devestating defeat, the consequences of which had a substantial impact on the Soviet Union and its collapse.
Feifer's extensive research includes eye-opening interviews with participants from both sides of the conflict. In gripping detail, he vividly depicts the invasion of a volatile country that no power has ever successfully conquered. Parallels between the soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the U.S. Invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are impossible to ignore---both conflicts were waged amid vague ideological rhetoric about freedom. Both were roundly condemned by the outside world for trying to impose their favoured forms of government on countries with very different ways of life. And both seem destined to end on uncertain terms.
A groundbreaking account seen through the eyes of the men who fought it, The Great Gamble tells an unforgettable story full of drama, action and political intrigue whose relevance in our own time is greater than ever.
S-2
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2007
- Messages
- 4,210
- Reaction score
- 0
Nicely phrased but, in the end, more of the same.
"Do More" has yet to mean anything but to do what might be expected WITHIN your own country. Not one acre beyond. Not a Pakistani soldier has died, nor a citizen, doing more on our behalf. Sorry.
"Do More", further was an emphasis by our leadership as of last March when it appeared likely that not only would SWAT stand but Buner and more as an example of not doing enough-for yourselves. I apologize on behalf of my government if the results of your efforts to that point were more than sufficient. Those efforts of "doing enough" appeared otherwise to the rest of us.
"whats more interesting is that US never even tried asking the Indians to move their troops back to peace time positions (read pre-Bombay attack positions)..."
Given the origin and nature of such an attack, it is sufficient to suggest that you may not be aware of what India might have had in mind otherwise. So can you be sure of what was really asked of them? Forebearance comes to mind.
"the ISAF+NATO is not securing it either (for myriad of their reasons) and amazingly enough they are never asked to 'do more'."
Indeed. Inside our country we've done more, i.e. the formation of a Dept. of Homeland Security and a myriad of other related examples of doing more to secure our borders and safety. Still, last I checked, 6,000 miles from our lands and at least 2-3,000 from the lands of Europe stand 100,000 soldiers of these countries with the consideration of the POTUS to send upwards of 40,000 more.
We do our fair share and then some. Of course, we could leave. My suspicion is that in doing less in Afghanistan you'd be happier more. Perhaps, then, doing nothing would make you happiest yet, no doubt.
The alternative on Sept. 12, 2001 might have simply been to make it glow and left the cleanup for their mentors-you. It certainly would have been cheaper and far quicker. We chose the longer road. I personally believe that all citizens of all countries receive exactly the government deserved as no government rules without consent.
Were it otherwise and too onerous to bear, citizens everywhere would rise up against their government. Thus, afghans consented to governance by the taliban. As such, they were complicit in the crimes of that government but for those regions in open rebellion against the taliban government.
So too your citizens. Pakistani citizens receive the governance deserved. Were it otherwise, you-not your army-would overthrow such.
"These things do not happen in a vaccum and when think-tanks, military generals, politicos and all the other so called "experts" ask Pakistan to "do more" in terms of troop diversion (read forget your history with India) then they are either too naive or are dishonest to the cause of both WoT and most definately Pakistan."
Your self-pity is mis-placed WRT myself. You will do as you see fit. However it is not, IMHO, the responsibility of the U.S. government to underwrite your defense nor the self-defense of any other country. You spend a considerable sum for the world's seventh largest army, little of which we've seen used in your west. Until last week, you'd done nothing short of freely abdicate the sovereignty of your western lands to others. For that we should "do more"?
Until last April, it appeared as though you were prepared to surrender even more. For that what should we pay? I hold to the simple salient proposition that your standing army exists to defend ALL of your country against all of its threats and that the selective choice of that isn't our responsibility to underwrite.
My government sees otherwise which I rue so count your blessings as every dollar received is one more that defies the logic of a standing army in your east that, well...stands.
Nothing more.
Personally I do not EVER see the day that the Indian army chooses to march on your lands. They've no irridentist ambitions of conquest for the sake of such. You possess nothing of value to them.
In short, I'm certain that most of my government doesn't see the threat that you do. Then again, the bogey-man of this threat has rewarded your military leadership well. Some suggest that your state serves the army and not the other way around. I don't know but this may be an example of such, if true.
How you consider "sovereignty" remains an interesting issue. Your irritant is also such and then some for your neighbors. In fact, your irritant is making war on your neighbors. As such, irritants like PREDATOR trouble me not at all nor shall so long as Omar, Haqqani, Hekmatyar, Nazir, and Bahadur, et al use your lands as their lands...eight years and running.
For that I suffer much gnashing of teeth with each dollar sent to our Katrina of S. Asia.
Thanks.
"Do More" has yet to mean anything but to do what might be expected WITHIN your own country. Not one acre beyond. Not a Pakistani soldier has died, nor a citizen, doing more on our behalf. Sorry.
"Do More", further was an emphasis by our leadership as of last March when it appeared likely that not only would SWAT stand but Buner and more as an example of not doing enough-for yourselves. I apologize on behalf of my government if the results of your efforts to that point were more than sufficient. Those efforts of "doing enough" appeared otherwise to the rest of us.
"whats more interesting is that US never even tried asking the Indians to move their troops back to peace time positions (read pre-Bombay attack positions)..."
Given the origin and nature of such an attack, it is sufficient to suggest that you may not be aware of what India might have had in mind otherwise. So can you be sure of what was really asked of them? Forebearance comes to mind.
"the ISAF+NATO is not securing it either (for myriad of their reasons) and amazingly enough they are never asked to 'do more'."
Indeed. Inside our country we've done more, i.e. the formation of a Dept. of Homeland Security and a myriad of other related examples of doing more to secure our borders and safety. Still, last I checked, 6,000 miles from our lands and at least 2-3,000 from the lands of Europe stand 100,000 soldiers of these countries with the consideration of the POTUS to send upwards of 40,000 more.
We do our fair share and then some. Of course, we could leave. My suspicion is that in doing less in Afghanistan you'd be happier more. Perhaps, then, doing nothing would make you happiest yet, no doubt.
The alternative on Sept. 12, 2001 might have simply been to make it glow and left the cleanup for their mentors-you. It certainly would have been cheaper and far quicker. We chose the longer road. I personally believe that all citizens of all countries receive exactly the government deserved as no government rules without consent.
Were it otherwise and too onerous to bear, citizens everywhere would rise up against their government. Thus, afghans consented to governance by the taliban. As such, they were complicit in the crimes of that government but for those regions in open rebellion against the taliban government.
So too your citizens. Pakistani citizens receive the governance deserved. Were it otherwise, you-not your army-would overthrow such.
"These things do not happen in a vaccum and when think-tanks, military generals, politicos and all the other so called "experts" ask Pakistan to "do more" in terms of troop diversion (read forget your history with India) then they are either too naive or are dishonest to the cause of both WoT and most definately Pakistan."
Your self-pity is mis-placed WRT myself. You will do as you see fit. However it is not, IMHO, the responsibility of the U.S. government to underwrite your defense nor the self-defense of any other country. You spend a considerable sum for the world's seventh largest army, little of which we've seen used in your west. Until last week, you'd done nothing short of freely abdicate the sovereignty of your western lands to others. For that we should "do more"?
Until last April, it appeared as though you were prepared to surrender even more. For that what should we pay? I hold to the simple salient proposition that your standing army exists to defend ALL of your country against all of its threats and that the selective choice of that isn't our responsibility to underwrite.
My government sees otherwise which I rue so count your blessings as every dollar received is one more that defies the logic of a standing army in your east that, well...stands.
Nothing more.
Personally I do not EVER see the day that the Indian army chooses to march on your lands. They've no irridentist ambitions of conquest for the sake of such. You possess nothing of value to them.
In short, I'm certain that most of my government doesn't see the threat that you do. Then again, the bogey-man of this threat has rewarded your military leadership well. Some suggest that your state serves the army and not the other way around. I don't know but this may be an example of such, if true.
How you consider "sovereignty" remains an interesting issue. Your irritant is also such and then some for your neighbors. In fact, your irritant is making war on your neighbors. As such, irritants like PREDATOR trouble me not at all nor shall so long as Omar, Haqqani, Hekmatyar, Nazir, and Bahadur, et al use your lands as their lands...eight years and running.
For that I suffer much gnashing of teeth with each dollar sent to our Katrina of S. Asia.
Thanks.
extinct
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2007
- Messages
- 114
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Nicely phrased but, in the end, more of the same.
"Do More" has yet to mean anything but to do what might be expected WITHIN your own country. Not one acre beyond. Not a Pakistani soldier has died, nor a citizen, doing more on our behalf. Sorry.
...
Thanks.
Too long, just like mine, but appreciate you at least spending some time giving it a thought, though it didn't cause a dent in your thinking neither did your words to mine... this is the mistrust, this is the difference in agenda that I harped on about...
I hope you acknowledge, and thus we would agree, that Taliban is a common enemy of both of us but for truly truly TRULY different reasons. Pakistan sees them as an extension of forces that want Pakistan pulvarized into powder while the US sees them as part of a global movement against her interests.
We all have our deamons that we fear and for a small country like Pakistan its more "existential" of a threat when India is in the mix... and in the mix it really is!
Pakistan, US relation is transactional in nature and activates when US interest so deems... and that is completely logical and understandable to me, long term relations require "trust" and in geo-politics, trust is not a "warm and fuzzy" gut feeling but comes when you have a majority lobbiests under your belt to advocate your point of view in the US congress no matter if it is right or wrong or even detremental to even US' own interest...
On the aid subject, "beggers can not declare soverignity" is the bottom line and so whatever change is thrown at her, Pakistan should just pick it up with a sheepish thank you and no protestations on derogatory language that accompanies it... or... she should take charge of her own affairs and balance her budget, that would be soverignity and not borrowed pride...
I acknowledge that Pakistan is not US's responsibility and neither should any other country for that matter. But "do more" requires some resources to back up the demand!
You sound very confident on your point of view where "they" are not solving "their" problem and "they" are not doing "their" job; and the funny thing is that so do I. As long as it is "them, their" and not "us, we" the mistrust will continue and split in allies will make the common enemy win or atleast persist... maybe that is the fuel for a perpetual war strategically, but Pakistan can not afford a perpetual war, there is no "Fed" there to print money from denim day-in-day-out to replinish the exchequer but that is a topic for another day...
Thanks
extinct
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2007
- Messages
- 114
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
S-2:
"There remains a real desire among many Pakistanis here to see the taliban as less than an existential threat to Pakistan."
Well, when you have the Indians with 28 out of 32 infantry divisions on our border, and deploying even more squadrons of their most advanced fighter jets closer to the Indo-Pak border/LoC, then there is cause to worry.
There is a huge gulf in perceptions - you view the hesitance as duplicity and some 'grand Pakistani conspiracy and/or strategic objective' in Afghanistan. Most Pakistanis who observe it see it as coming from a sense of insecurity with respect to Indian intentions towards Pakistan, especially given precedent, and especially given the potential of being encircled through the connivance of a hostile Afghan regime.
US intentions remain suspect, both in terms of weakening Pakistan and propping up India, and a seeming lack of commitment in Afghanistan. If the abandonment of Afghanistan after the Soviet Jihad was not enough, we saw it again with the Iraq war.
See the quotes of the oft eulogized and praised former Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on the following thread, and see how many responded to my call for renouncing the philosophy represented in her comments:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/strategic-geopolitical-issues/37311-denouncing-indira-gandhi.html
"There remains a real desire among many Pakistanis here to see the taliban as less than an existential threat to Pakistan."
Well, when you have the Indians with 28 out of 32 infantry divisions on our border, and deploying even more squadrons of their most advanced fighter jets closer to the Indo-Pak border/LoC, then there is cause to worry.
There is a huge gulf in perceptions - you view the hesitance as duplicity and some 'grand Pakistani conspiracy and/or strategic objective' in Afghanistan. Most Pakistanis who observe it see it as coming from a sense of insecurity with respect to Indian intentions towards Pakistan, especially given precedent, and especially given the potential of being encircled through the connivance of a hostile Afghan regime.
US intentions remain suspect, both in terms of weakening Pakistan and propping up India, and a seeming lack of commitment in Afghanistan. If the abandonment of Afghanistan after the Soviet Jihad was not enough, we saw it again with the Iraq war.
See the quotes of the oft eulogized and praised former Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on the following thread, and see how many responded to my call for renouncing the philosophy represented in her comments:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/strategic-geopolitical-issues/37311-denouncing-indira-gandhi.html
pakdefender
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2009
- Messages
- 5,671
- Reaction score
- -8
- Country
- Location
On the taliban threat let me just add that 'taliban' are a threat only as an insurgency but as a conventional force they arent so if there is a settlement in afghanistan where elements of the taliban are brought in the government , the threat is gone.
This 'exisitenal threat' to Pakistan is another one of those fantasies imperialists have.
This 'exisitenal threat' to Pakistan is another one of those fantasies imperialists have.
S-2
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2007
- Messages
- 4,210
- Reaction score
- 0
Let me suggest a couple of things WRT Afghanistan post Afghan-Soviet War-
1.) We had no historical interest in that country. To suddenly develop one might quite likely have left you today talking instead about our neo-colonial ambitions.
2.) More importantly, how likely do you think a Soviet withdrawal would have been were they to believe in 1988 that we'd be propping ourselves adjacent to their southern soviet socialist republics, i.e. their near empire?
I submit that had they thought such, it's as likely that THEY'D have doubled down. Further, any deal under those conditions might likely have sealed Gorbachev's death warrant-peristroika/glasnost or not.
I understand this gulf of perceptions about India. I will suggest what I suggested to extinct- they have no irridentist ambitions in your country. I've not heard a hint-not even from Pakistanis that they've some long-standing desire to conquer this or that.
You've nothing they desire across the border.
It is your choice what you do but when I read complaints of "do more" I suggest that we do plenty from 6,000 miles as do our allies from Europe while you've been asked only to secure yourselves and your neighbors-all of your immediate neighbors also from YOURSELVES.
We know this from the NYT article if David Rohde is to be believed that taliban commanders travel from west of Kabul to Pakistan rather routinely and when they get there, they might just be chillin' with the Haqqani boys and dad, as example.
To be told, then, that we don't pay you enough to do so is...frustrating, I think?
I've explained my thoughts to Elmo in private and I concur fully with the limited scope of this operation for a variety of reasons-most of which center upon your capacity to feed, shelter, and care for refugees.
I worry, though, about what-if anything shall follow and whether what follows includes both "hold, build, and develop" as well as additional operations into other portions of FATAville also controlled by those other than your government.
I fully appreciate that what we're really discussing if all goes well here is likely an operational pause of some many months until next spring. It may take that long for you to build adequate capacity for more refugees from other areas.
I don't, btw, necessarily believe that combat operations need be dramatically slowed by weather. It cuts both ways and guerrillas pushed into the mountains will suffer ENORMOUSLY.
There's a reason the PKK come down out of the hills every fall. They can't move well and they can't be supplied at all.
Back to your troops in the east-you may choose to see it as you wish but I'd encourage you to quietly question some of your rationales and ask if they serve as justification instead.
How does this work? You send some forces west. Do you send ALL of them? If not, and recognizing that every force sent west is a valuable addition to those already there, how many?
At what point is this Indian threat materialized under such a scenario? Is there a triggering depletion that says to them,
"It's now or never."
If now or never, then now or never to what objective? As the gain of this objective, whatever it is, must be weighed against the loss to India in so many other ways.
Finally, of course, there are the nukes. At what point do you pull the trigger? At what point do you THREATEN to pull the trigger?
I see huge impediments to an Indian attack were there not a SINGLE Pakistani soldier on that border. Help me to understand beyond simply,
"Well, it beez dat way, bro..."
1.) We had no historical interest in that country. To suddenly develop one might quite likely have left you today talking instead about our neo-colonial ambitions.
2.) More importantly, how likely do you think a Soviet withdrawal would have been were they to believe in 1988 that we'd be propping ourselves adjacent to their southern soviet socialist republics, i.e. their near empire?
I submit that had they thought such, it's as likely that THEY'D have doubled down. Further, any deal under those conditions might likely have sealed Gorbachev's death warrant-peristroika/glasnost or not.
I understand this gulf of perceptions about India. I will suggest what I suggested to extinct- they have no irridentist ambitions in your country. I've not heard a hint-not even from Pakistanis that they've some long-standing desire to conquer this or that.
You've nothing they desire across the border.
It is your choice what you do but when I read complaints of "do more" I suggest that we do plenty from 6,000 miles as do our allies from Europe while you've been asked only to secure yourselves and your neighbors-all of your immediate neighbors also from YOURSELVES.
We know this from the NYT article if David Rohde is to be believed that taliban commanders travel from west of Kabul to Pakistan rather routinely and when they get there, they might just be chillin' with the Haqqani boys and dad, as example.
To be told, then, that we don't pay you enough to do so is...frustrating, I think?
I've explained my thoughts to Elmo in private and I concur fully with the limited scope of this operation for a variety of reasons-most of which center upon your capacity to feed, shelter, and care for refugees.
I worry, though, about what-if anything shall follow and whether what follows includes both "hold, build, and develop" as well as additional operations into other portions of FATAville also controlled by those other than your government.
I fully appreciate that what we're really discussing if all goes well here is likely an operational pause of some many months until next spring. It may take that long for you to build adequate capacity for more refugees from other areas.
I don't, btw, necessarily believe that combat operations need be dramatically slowed by weather. It cuts both ways and guerrillas pushed into the mountains will suffer ENORMOUSLY.
There's a reason the PKK come down out of the hills every fall. They can't move well and they can't be supplied at all.
Back to your troops in the east-you may choose to see it as you wish but I'd encourage you to quietly question some of your rationales and ask if they serve as justification instead.
How does this work? You send some forces west. Do you send ALL of them? If not, and recognizing that every force sent west is a valuable addition to those already there, how many?
At what point is this Indian threat materialized under such a scenario? Is there a triggering depletion that says to them,
"It's now or never."
If now or never, then now or never to what objective? As the gain of this objective, whatever it is, must be weighed against the loss to India in so many other ways.
Finally, of course, there are the nukes. At what point do you pull the trigger? At what point do you THREATEN to pull the trigger?
I see huge impediments to an Indian attack were there not a SINGLE Pakistani soldier on that border. Help me to understand beyond simply,
"Well, it beez dat way, bro..."
Last edited:
Similar threads
