Pakistan Faces Threat From Terrorism, Not India:US

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Thanks for sharing your usual speculative pejoratives about the PA.

I'll let you know if I care or start believing them.

Till then I'll count on Pakistan's assessments of the threats facing her, not those of a foreign general sitting in safety in his nation thousands of miles away.

 

[jeypore]

You'll be fine and this is much ado about nothing. We need to understand this and focus our aid efforts where they most matter-Afghanistan.

I second that!

It funny, the paranoia of Indian attack is more damaging to pakistan now, where even Petraeus has to explain to Pakistan who is there enemy are for there states survival. India just cannot win, if pakistan collapses with these talibans then the GoP will say "it was because of India."

 

[godsavetheworld]

Till then I'll count on Pakistan's assessments of the threats facing her, not those of a foreign general sitting in safety in his nation thousands of miles away.

Pakistan's assesment of threat still revolves around the pretext of a fictitious Indian agression. The fact that Pakistan hasnt still gotten its priorities right, remains divided over whether to support or oppose terror, makes me wanna believe the American general sitting thousand miles away.

If only we could see some action on the ground, other than peace deals, I would be the first one to say that Pakistan is more than just words.

I fully agree with S-2, that Pakistan doesnt not need aid, the word which almost seems like an evil laugh now.
For one, I would be glad if any Pakistani could himself come up with a decent explanation about why PA that loves India-bashing, has not even bothered to warn the militants of misadventure, leave alone fight against them?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Pakistan's assesment of threat still revolves around the pretext of a fictitious Indian agression.

If its fictitious, then I repeat my earlier point:

"I am waiting for US/UN guarantees against any Indian aggression against Pakistan.

Put their money where their mouth is."

 

[S-2]

Petraeus is not just any American general either. You believe what you want but when he speaks these days the whole world listens.

You figure out the rest if you can but this man is no enemy of yours nor is espousing a party line with words stuffed in his mouth. He is extremely attuned and as well-travelled and educated to these issues as any man on this planet.

You've displayed a rapier adroitness in your handling of this important man's thoughts. One might think you were talking about S-2, nevermind that ol' S-2 has repeatedly beaten our CENTCOM commander to such an assessment.

How dare Petraeus steal my thoughts! Smart man, though, to read this board.

 

[godsavetheworld]

If its fictitious, then I repeat my earlier point:

"I am waiting for US/UN guarantees against any Indian aggression against Pakistan.

Put their money where their mouth is."

Well the onus of having getting such a gaurantee, lies with you yourself. Dont send in sponsored terrorists, and India will never attack you.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You believe what you want but when he speaks these days the whole world listens.

That is a function of US global dominance, and not an automatic validation of his claims.

You've displayed a rapier adroitness in your handling of this important man's thoughts.

I prefer the analysis of the equally qualified Generals who actually have a stake in the national security of Pakistan.

Notice that I haven't completely dismissed Petraeus's comments - since I do recognize the urgency of the Taliban threat and accept that it ranks over the one from India at the moment - and neither have Kiyani or Pasha.

Both of them have argued several times in the past year or so that the overriding threat is from the insurgency, and training in the PA has been adjusted to reflect that.

Prior to the Mumbai attacks, the movement of forces was from East to West - what does that indicate? That the recognition of the threat was not mere rhetoric.

What changed?

The Mumbai attacks and the hostile reaction from India. So no - there is no 'waving at windmills' here. The threat to Pakistan from a neighbor that has acted several times in the past to attack and break Pakistan cannot be so flippantly dismissed as you Yanks would prefer, especially you Neo Cons who still huff and puff and bluster about talking to that 'vile anti-American', Castro.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Well the onus of having getting such a gaurantee, lies with you yourself. Dont send in sponsored terrorists, and India will never attack you.

You lost all credibility on that count with your actions in 1971 and 1984.

 

[Kasrkin]

There is nothing particularly innovative or original in what the general said. At the end of the day, Pakistan’s threat perception is not his prerogative. Given the fact that the US obviously has an agenda in the region that requires, vitally, the assistance of the Pakistani armed forces…no one would expect his contentions in regards to where the Pakistani military would be ‘best employed’ to be the most objective or impartial ones around.

He can talk all he wants, but to a Pakistani it would be as relevant as what Kayani might have to suggest about the appropriateness, or otherwise, of the US military disposition in the world i.e. Iraq, South Korea, etc would be to an average American. This, mind you, does not mean that whatever the general said is without relevance or some factual merit; however the context and proportion of his comments has to potential to be misleading in many important ways. Many Indians, for example, will take it as a hearted endorsing of their country’s past and future behavior patterns in regards to Pakistan.

To me there is no doubt that terrorists operating in the domestic theatre, not India, are the immediate threat. However to suggest or imply that India should suddenly be rendered a non-factor in terms of Pakistan’s long security implications, the India that has undergone an unprecedented increase in military budget as well as arms imports, which are widely regarded to be Pakistan specific coupled with a new and undeniably Pakistan-oriented preemptive doctrine… would be absurd and foolish beyond addressing.

 

[S-2]

"That is a function of US global dominance, and not an automatic validation of his claims."

No. Perhaps the CJCS but not a force commander. Petraeus is listened to by virtue of his demonstrated skill, knowledge, and dedication to a complex war which exceeds his portfolio's requirements.

"I prefer the analysis of the equally qualified Generals who actually have a stake in the national security of Pakistan."

You'll take sound analysis from wherever it may be found if alert. That so, quit being so dismissive of the thoughts of serious soldiers elsewhere. Men such as Petraeus and Kilcullen will have a decisive impact on your nat'l security. In Petraeus' case, I daresay more so than any generals in your armed forces save Kiyani and Pasha.

"What changed?"

Here's what's changed since Mumbai and why I consider it coincidentally convenient and not central-

1.) Bajaur- This was a major battle, particularly in Loe Sam. It revealed the abilities and determination of an enemy as you approached his critical ground. The lessons were costly and huge, to include leaving the bulk of Bajaur's population in refugee camps around Peshawar throughout the winter and continuing even now.

This operation was difficult and not concluded in any remotely predictable time-frame. An operation begun in early September and was only to last a few weeks ran into February and continues even now in your foothills against the border.

2.) SWAT- No agreement had yet been reached in SWAT and throughout the intervening December and January the tragedy unfolded sans your army's active resistance. Police wouldn't serve; cadets wouldn't report from elite training, and crimes were committed within view of army checkpoints.

All this in addition to the thousands of refugees from SWAT adding to the Bajaur misery.

I think both served as twin shocks to the military's psyche and compelled a strategic re-think- a timeout if you will-for which Mumbai may well have been a god-sent moment. I don't yet believe this was an event planned and directed by your government but there are questions of involvement w/ LeT by some.

Still, I don't know what your army is training to do but I'd not be surprised if it hasn't gone back to basic training in a big and quiet way. I hope so and to that end I know that the Punjab is home row for so many Pakistani emotions.

Maybe so too here as a place for your army to heal.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

S-2:

I largely agree with your analysis of the repercussions on the Military's plans from the Bajaur experience and the failing situation in Swat that would have possible exceeded Bajaur in terms of the humanitarian catastrophe (and at the same time) were the necessary military steps taken.

However, I continue to disagree with your contention over the threat posed by India in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks. The Indo-Pak hostility rivals the cold war, and I doubt whether even today the US would turn its back to Russia were it located where Canada is, especially with the kind of rhetoric that was coming out of India in the aftermath of Mumbai.

Pakistan can recover ground lost to the Taliban - it will likely not recover territory lost to India in a conventional war, nor can it expect the world to step in on its side to do so.

However, if Patraeus has information that is not in the public sphere that allows him to make the comments he has with certitude, I hope it will be shared with Pakistan and the necessary steps taken.

 

[Omar1984]

I say Pakistan government should get out of this "War On Terror" and run. The ultimate goal of western countries (and India) is to divide Pakistan into pieces and to take away nukes from Pakistan.

This "War on Terror" is nothing but a War OF Terror for Pakistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I say Pakistan government should get out of this "War On Terror" and run. The ultimate goal of western countries (and India) is to divide Pakistan into pieces and to take away nukes from Pakistan.

This "War on Terror" is nothing but a War OF Terror for Pakistan.

Okay, but how does that solve the problem with Mullah Fazlullah and the TTP led by Baitullah who have clearly targeted Pakistan, not Afghanistan, with their operations?

 

[maverick2009]

USA is wasting Time & Money in Pakistan. They will never defeat the Taliban and never win the WOT.

Pakistan and its Army has been established to defend their country from what they perceive to be their mortal enemy India. This is an india that has in the last decade succeeded to grow both militarily and economically to a point that it is making Pakistanis uncomfortable. This has been further compounded by USA & Israels new found love for india which between them provide even more strength to this VERY LARGE neighbour of pakistan.

The very existance of the Armys dominance in Pakistan is dependent on maintaining hostility with india. If normal international relations where to ever arise between india and pakistan then the civillians would take over power in this country. Yet the military and secret service wish to retain control no matter the cost to Pakistans development long term.


L

 

[Omar1984]

Okay, but how does that solve the problem with Mullah Fazlullah and the TTP led by Baitullah who have clearly targeted Pakistan, not Afghanistan, with their operations?

They are a creation by some countries who had made their way into Afghanistan. TTP didn't exist before "War on Terror". Seal the western border and get hold of TTP Baitullah Mehsud and Mullah Fazlullah.