Naswarville

[Aamna14]

suicide attack as opposed to massive loss of infrastructure by NATO, regime change and foreign troops on your soil. Resistance movement which would have blown up americans and your own people. Americans would have fled with a fragile regime in power.
Which one would you have preferred?

Thats the whole point you seem sure as if we would have had American boots on our soil in the form of a full scale invasion. The only reason Pakistan got threatened was because our leaders have been foolish and gutless enough to lick their masters boots ever since we can remember not because it was inevitable.

Then you had best not lay all the blame on Mush, it goes all the way back to the 60s and late 50s, he wasn't exercising any authority when U-2s were taking off from bases in Pakistan nor was he the bloke who ensured that tribal areas would become a zone for extra-national elements who would at best only recognize any Pakistani authority if said authority was willing to turn a blind eye towards their proclivities. The dynamics have changed and the nations with influence have decided that it is no longer in their interests to allow the existence of regions which are ungoverned and ergo fertile grounds for pan national terrorist organisations, as such Pakistan had the choice of cleaning house by itself or letting the Americans do it, do you think that exercising the former option would have led to any less bloodshed? There is always a price to pay, for every ounce of influence or power you borrow the lender extracts a price, and America is not the only nation which acts in that manner. There are hooks dug in deep into the Pakistani economy, from the Paris Chamber of Commerce to the IMF (neither are new to the game, you will need to study the economic history of Pakistan to realize that even before Mush Pakistan had been running about and around the IMF, much before he came on the scene- starting from ESAF in 91 and before that in 88), it is not possible for leaders to then pick a fight with a belligerent power which deems it fit to rain down hell on those who oppose it.

I am not solely blaming Musharaff when i named him i did not claim that he was the only person who led us into this current state of affairs. But he surely had a part to play. I am not even referring to bloodshed but the point is there is a huge different between Pakistan Army cleaning up the mess from a foreign force doing the same. They can't be even compared not because the casualties would drop off miraculously but because that "foreign power" had already invaded Afghanistan and our foolish leaders gave these bloody suicide bombers a pretext to further their agenda and wage a war against our state.

 

[Dillinger]

Thats the whole point you seem sure as if we would have had American boots on our soil in the form of a full scale invasion. The only reason Pakistan got threatened was because our leaders have been foolish and gutless enough to lick their masters boots ever since we can remember not because it was inevitable.



I am not solely blaming Musharaff when i named him i did not claim that he was the only person who led us into this current state of affairs. But he surely had a part to play. I am not even referring to bloodshed but the point is there is a huge different between Pakistan Army cleaning up the mess from a foreign force doing the same. They can't be even compared not because the casualties would drop off miraculously but because that "foreign power" had already invaded Afghanistan and our foolish leaders gave these bloody suicide bombers a pretext to further their agenda and wage a war against our state.

Has it occurred to you that your leaders don't want to clean up the house because of the potential back-lash (far greater in its severity than having to deal primarily only with the TTP) and are ergo happy to let the Americans do it while maintaining a posture of "Hey! Don't look at us, this is between the Af taliban and the Yanks". Surely the PA which has along with the govt. perpetuated this stand must have calculated the risk associated with defying America. Nawaz may not be shareef and I am sure Mr. dus percent was corrupt but the whole state machinery which seems to be content with the situation bar the sound bytes and the lackluster protestations must have made some calculations before jumping on board, no?

 

[livingdead]

Thats the whole point you seem sure as if we would have had American boots on our soil in the form of a full scale invasion. The only reason Pakistan got threatened was because our leaders have been foolish and gutless enough to lick their masters boots ever since we can remember not because it was inevitable.
.

with benefit of hindsight we can see how bush administration was behaving after 9/11. A not so cooperative pakistan would have spared iraq, the bombs would have rained on your country instead.
Americans have intimate knowledge of your hardware and war doctorines, you are not an unknown entity to them. Even a simple naval blockade combined with sanction would have done a lot of damage and I dont think american would have stopped there.
Or would have engineered a coup, and Musharaf replaced with an acceptable general.

 

[Aamna14]

Has it occurred to you that your leaders don't want to clean up the house because of the potential back-lash (far greater in its severity than having to deal primarily only with the TTP) and are ergo happy to let the Americans do it while maintaining a posture of "Hey! Don't look at us, this is between the Af taliban and the Yanks". Surely the PA which has along with the govt. perpetuated this stand must have calculated the risk associated with defying America. Nawaz may not be shareef and I am sure Mr. dus percent was corrupt but the whole state machinery which seems to be content with the situation bar the sound bytes and the lackluster protestations must have made some calculations before jumping on board, no?

One thing has surely occured to me and that is that since we are failing miserably into what was considered earlier an easy victory, then we must have to change our strategy and not continue in the same direction. Secondly its not the not so "Shariff" Nawaz dying and neither is Mr. 110 percent by now, therefore they would surely remain content with their policy since they aren't paying the price. Its the lackluster protestants who are paying with their lives not the leaders. And it might have done us some good if their so called "posture of naivete" would have been taken seriously by anyone but its not just the TTP that keeps shouting that Pakistani state is acting in collusion with the American regime, everybody knows that so no matter what they say doesn't make a bit of a difference.

 

[Aamna14]

with benefit of hindsight we can see how bush administration was behaving after 9/11. A not so cooperative pakistan would have spared iraq, the bombs would have rained on your country instead.
Americans have intimate knowledge of your hardware and war doctorines, you are not an unknown entity to them. Even a simple naval blockade combined with sanction would have done a lot of damage and I dont think american would have stopped there.
Or would have engineered a coup, and Musharaf replaced with an acceptable general.

I do think they would have engineered a coup and tried to replace Musharaff but we wouldn't have been caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. Our own people wouldn't be turning on us the way they are. And i am not even saying they wouldn't have placed sanctions i am acknowledging that it would have caused damage but i don't think they would have gone as far as a full scale invasion.

 

[Dillinger]

One thing has surely occured to me and that is that since we are failing miserably into what was considered earlier an easy victory, then we must have to change our strategy and not continue in the same direction. Secondly its not the not so "Shariff" Nawaz dying and neither is Mr. 110 percent by now, therefore they would surely remain content with their policy since they aren't paying the price. Its the lackluster protestants who are paying with their lives not the leaders. And it might have done us some good if their so called "posture of naivete" would have been taken seriously by anyone but its not just the TTP that keeps shouting that Pakistani state is acting in collusion with the American regime, everybody knows that so no matter what they say doesn't make a bit of a difference.

Its not so much abut colluding with the Americans as it is about playing both sides that has got Pakistan in the current mess, clearly picking sides will have costs but they will be relatively lower (well at least if you pick the right side). Letting the Americans operate their drones and propping up the Haqanis at the same time has ensured that both sides view Pakistan with distrust so you have the TTP and the Americans breathing down your neck. Disavow all such non-state actors and actively target them (expend blood and money) and the Americans will reciprocate by using their influence/resources to smooth things out for Pakistan (on the other hand nearly a decade long conflict will erupt as you fight a protracted military and political conflict to uproot the malaise of the Taliban- i.e. more suicide attacks) or completely side with the Taliban and thumb it to the Americans (suicide attacks will abate if Pakistan publicly disavows America and its actions and furthermore translates that into action- unconditional and total revoking of all privileges provided to America. But then Pakistan will have to be ready to face international backlash and perhaps even a military conflict). Picking a clear side would have made things simple but the dynamics perpetuated by the powers that be in Pakistan has always made that impossible.

I do think they would have engineered a coup and tried to replace Musharaff but we wouldn't have been caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. Our own people wouldn't be turning on us the way they are. And i am not even saying they wouldn't have placed sanctions i am acknowledging that it would have caused damage but i don't think they would have gone as far as a full scale invasion.

They need not invade you, they need only demolish the state machinery and infrastructure with a protracted combined arms campaign and then call it a day- unless they feel more ambitious and want to risk a protracted war of attrition in the hopes of a more direct form of control.

 

[livingdead]

I do think they would have engineered a coup and tried to replace Musharaff but we wouldn't have been caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. Our own people wouldn't be turning on us the way they are. And i am not even saying they wouldn't have placed sanctions i am acknowledging that it would have caused damage but i don't think they would have gone as far as a full scale invasion.

all these are ifs and buts, my take is bush admin was behaving like a mad axe man after 9/11 and looking for revenge. Iraq dampened their enthusiasm a bit but it took quite long time.
Most countries including traditional rivals of USA (even Iran) cooperated during that period.
When you bargain, you always have this feeling, would I have got a bit more? who knows how much hard bargain musharaf was trying. Did he blink too early? He was bargaining from position of weakness.
So pakistan became frontline state in WoT and remained US ally. Not too bad.

 

[Aamna14]

all these are ifs and buts, my take is bush admin was behaving like a mad axe man after 9/11 and looking for revenge. Iraq dampened their enthusiasm a bit but it took quite long time.
Most countries including traditional rivals of USA (even Iran) cooperated during that period.
When you bargain, you always have this feeling, would I have got a bit more? who knows how much hard bargain musharaf was trying. Did he blink too early? He was bargaining from position of weakness.
So pakistan became frontline state in WoT and remained US ally. Not too bad.

Okay Iran cooperated then but isn't on the payroll of US ever since. Like you said yourself these are all ifs and buts and we never know what would have happened for sure. We haven't got out of that mess ever since so we are the ones paying the price. I don't know maybe the threat of TTP is downplayed by many but its been twelve years and every single year we seem to be getting closer to the brink of destruction.

Its not so much abut colluding with the Americans as it is about playing both sides that has got Pakistan in the current mess, clearly picking sides will have costs but they will be relatively lower (well at least if you pick the right side). Letting the Americans operate their drones and propping up the Haqanis at the same time has ensured that both sides view Pakistan with distrust so you have the TTP and the Americans breathing down your neck. Disavow all such non-state actors and actively target them (expend blood and money) and the Americans will reciprocate by using their influence/resources to smooth things out for Pakistan (on the other hand nearly a decade long conflict will erupt as you fight a protracted military and political conflict to uproot the malaise of the Taliban- i.e. more suicide attacks) or completely side with the Taliban and thumb it to the Americans (suicide attacks will abate if Pakistan publicly disavows America and its actions and furthermore translates that into action- unconditional and total revoking of all privileges provided to America. But then Pakistan will have to be ready to face international backlash and perhaps even a military conflict). Picking a clear side would have made things simple but the dynamics perpetuated by the powers that be in Pakistan has always made that impossible.

The situation isn't exactly the same as it was earlier when US invaded Afghanistan. I do agree we should have picked a side and would have stuck with it but even if we agree that the threats were too insurmountable and lethal then we would at least have to accept that US inspite of still leading the world won't risk another war be it the aftereffects of the two wars they have already fought or the increasing domestic preasure that they are now facing which wasn't there when Afghanistan got invaded. I wasn't the one who suggested that there necessarily have to be a full scale invasion it was my answer to the suggestion that this might be the worst outcome in case Pakistan does pick a side.

 

[Alpha1]

How are you young squires?

 

[livingdead]

Okay Iran cooperated then but isn't on the payroll of US ever since. Like you said yourself these are all ifs and buts and we never know what would have happened for sure. We haven't got out of that mess ever since so we are the ones paying the price. I don't know maybe the threat of TTP is downplayed by many but its been twelve years and every single year we seem to be getting closer to the brink of destruction.

The problem with terrorism, especially involving suicide bombers is, they are spectacular and capture public imagination easily.
For example ask a random Indian which is bigger evil in India, terrorism or malaria?
Are you overestimating impact of terror on your country, and downplaying the possible (and very real) alternative that musharaf got?
Besides TTP and other such groups imply you got easy access to young men who are ready to die at very low cost. USA would definitely have exploted that anyway, in addition to direct support to secessation movements, say BLA? (like they did with FSA?)

 

[Dillinger]

Okay Iran cooperated then but isn't on the payroll of US ever since. Like you said yourself these are all ifs and buts and we never know what would have happened for sure. We haven't got out of that mess ever since so we are the ones paying the price. I don't know maybe the threat of TTP is downplayed by many but its been twelve years and every single year we seem to be getting closer to the brink of destruction.



The situation isn't exactly the same as it was earlier when US invaded Afghanistan. I do agree we should have picked a side and would have stuck with it but even if we agree that the threats were too insurmountable and lethal then we would at least have to accept that US inspite of still leading the world won't risk another war be it the aftereffects of the two wars they have already fought or the increasing domestic preasure that they are now facing which wasn't there when Afghanistan got invaded. I wasn't the one who suggested that there necessarily have to be a full scale invasion it was my answer to the suggestion that this might be the worst outcome in case Pakistan does pick a side.

You realize that if Mush hadn't at least set up a convincing facade of siding with the Americans then those two wars in question would have involved Pakistan in the mix instead of Iraq (at a time when the American economy was still up and running and when they were eagerly looking for someone to bomb, a good half decade before the meltdown, enough time for them to turn the clock a few decades back on Pakistan). At the end of the day the Americans would lose their fervor in the face of mounting costs and various insurgencies but the net loser would have been Pakistan with its infrastructure, economy and military clobbered into the ground. The Americans were looking for a target to hit and Mush's lack of cooperation at that time would have placed the bulls eye on Pakistan rather than Iraq. So yes, after a decade or so (assuming that everything else panned out as it did anyway) they would have pulled out but what of Pakistan, would it have been in a better condition than it is today?

The point is to do away with the obfuscations and to build a reciprocal relationship where they (Americans) treat the legitimate government and the people of Pakistan as the stakeholders rather than whichever general who puts himself on the chair or the army. Pakistan can find a way out, disavow the non-state actors which it has either supported or tolerated and hunt them down visibly or the US will simply buy out whoever assumes power in Pakistan (either that or coerce them, or replace them and/or some combination thereof) and continue to do what it does. What do you think would happen if tomorrow groups affiliated with our naxals decided to plant an airplane into an American building, no amount of protestations and syllogisms will stop them from becoming belligerent and even we would not relish such a turn of events.

 

[Aamna14]

The problem with terrorism, especially involving suicide bombers is, they are spectacular and capture public imagination easily.
For example ask a random Indian which is bigger evil in India, terrorism or malaria?
Are you overestimating impact of terror on your country, and downplaying the possible (and very real) alternative that musharaf got?
Besides TTP and other such groups imply you got easy access to young men who are ready to die at very low cost. USA would definitely have exploted that anyway, in addition to direct support to secssation movements, say BLA? (like they did with FSA?)

Like India is? Anyways i never said there wouldn't have been consequences and like i said in my previous reply to you even if i accept that Bush Junior was blind in his desire to seek revenge and even Iran cooperated with them forseeing the obvious then why can't we disengage after all that has happened? Iran didn't get dragged into this mess because they played safe unlike us. The situation is no longer as dire as it was twelve years back at least picking a side would help in us not being targetted by both the sides. You are right suicide bombers do capture public imagination easily but its no longer about public imagination or creating fear and sending a message across we are well past that stage already. I personally believe we are downplaying the threat of TTP because if that isn't the case we would have already seen a considerable change after years of trying and testing the same method we have been employing.

 

[S.U.R.B.]

Guys, life is too short for these long posts.

Cheers!

 

[Aamna14]

You realize that if Mush hadn't at least set up a convincing facade of siding with the Americans then those two wars in question would have involved Pakistan in the mix instead of Iraq (at a time when the American economy was still up and running and when they were eagerly looking for someone to bomb, a good half decade before the meltdown, enough time for them to turn the clock a few decades back on Pakistan). At the end of the day the Americans would lose their fervor in the face of mounting costs and various insurgencies but the net loser would have been Pakistan with its infrastructure, economy and military clobbered into the ground. The Americans were looking for a target to hit and Mush's lack of cooperation at that time would have placed the bulls eye on Pakistan rather than Iraq. So yes, after a decade or so (assuming that everything else panned out as it did anyway) they would have pulled out but what of Pakistan, would it have been in a better condition than it is today?

The point is to do away with the obfuscations and to build a reciprocal relationship where they (Americans) treat the legitimate government and the people of Pakistan as the stakeholders rather than whichever general who puts himself on the chair or the army. Pakistan can find a way out, disavow the non-state actors which it has either supported or tolerated and hunt them down visibly or the US will simply buy out whoever assumes power in Pakistan (either that or coerce them, or replace them and/or some combination thereof) and continue to do what it does. What do you think would happen if tomorrow groups affiliated with our naxals decided to plant an airplane into an American building, no amount of protestations and syllogisms will stop them from becoming belligerent and even we would not relish such a turn of events.

I gave the benefit of the doubt i am not completely denying the consequences though i still don't believe they would have Invaded Pakistan but still even if i agree for the sake of an argument then why are we stuck now? We aren't in the same scenario as we were back then. Picking a side would serve our interests and i don't think that if we stand by our droning ally we would ever get out of this mess. You talk about cleaning our backyard as if its a few thousand people who can be easily killed and we will get out of this mess that we find ourselves in. We have long downplayed the threat of TTP and how lethal and alluring their ideology is and based on that ideology we can kill hundreds of them but then they will be replaced by thousands. Not to ignore Afghanistan and how the puppet government of Karzai is holed up in their palaces and give refuge to taliban leaders who are hunted down by the security forces and then nobody drones them there as if there status automatically shifts from terrorists to Mujahideen.

 

[Dillinger]

I gave the benefit of the doubt i am not completely denying the consequences though i still don't believe they would have Invaded Pakistan but still even if i agree for the sake of an argument then why are we stuck now? We aren't in the same scenario as we were back then. Picking a side would serve our interests and i don't think that if we stand by our droning ally we would ever get out of this mess. You talk about cleaning our backyard as if its a few thousand people who can be easily killed and we will get out of this mess that we find ourselves in. We have long downplayed the threat of TTP and how lethal and alluring their ideology is and based on that ideology we can kill hundreds of them but then they will be replaced by thousands. Not to ignore Afghanistan and how the puppet government of Karzai is holed up in their palaces and give refuge to taliban leaders who are hunted down by the security forces and then nobody drones them there as if there status automatically shifts from terrorists to Mujahideen.

That's a game played by all, after all Pakistan was more than happy to continue cultivating these assets after the US was done with Af and the soviets. Pakistan too treats organisations and individuals recognized by the UN as terrorists as assets. The difference lies in the fact that different countries have different a quantum of resilience and strength when it comes to dealing with such threats, otherwise Pakistan faces a situation no different than what Af or India or even SL has faced and continue to face. No matter what we say at the end of the day the administration and the army of Pakistan is loathe to break its relations with the US or even significantly change the dynamics of said relation all statements and pronouncements to the contrary being set aside (and having proven hollow so far).