Pakistan Faces Threat From Terrorism, Not India:US

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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.

Well even if 'outsiders' created them and sponsor them, withdrawing from the WoT does not help us get rid of them.

I am all for getting hold of Baitullah and Fazlullah, but I don't see how the WoT is tied into that. The US is not stopping us from going after them.

I think we need to focus on what we need to do internally, and not on whether we should be a part of the WoT or not, that can be dealt with later.

 

[Omar1984]

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

Most Pakistanis dont even care about this "aid" from US because it wont benefit the regular Pakistani, it will only benefit Zardari's pocket.

You need to learn the history of the subcontinent, learn why India is in Afghanistan, and why India has numerous consulates near the Pak-Afghan border. Why does it need so many consulates near the Pak-Afghan border when hardly any Afghani lives and works in India. And you must visit some Indian forums, Indians are very hostile to Pakistanis...most Indians are nothing like their Gandhi.

ISI and Pakistan army are the only ones in Pakistan who are looking after the best interst of Pakistan. Zardari is a criminal.

 

[godsavetheworld]

Most Pakistanis dont even care about this "aid" from US because it wont benefit the regular Pakistani, it will only benefit Zardari's pocket.

Try being more rational the next time you post. Had it not been the aid from US, Pakistan would have collapsed under the sanctions.

You need to learn the history of the subcontinent, learn why India is in Afghanistan, and why India has numerous consulates near the Pak-Afghan border. Why does it need so many consulates near the Pak-Afghan border when hardly any Afghani lives and works in India. And you must visit some Indian forums, Indians are very hostile to Pakistanis...most Indians are nothing like their Gandhi.

And Pakistani's are not? Save the BS, thats precisely what the title of the thread means. Its high time you sorted out your present and potent threats. You can keep pointing at India while Taliban keeps moving deeper.

Counsulates are not commercial ventures constructed where it suits them the most.
They are estabilished only after the approval from the country where they are supposed to be , in this case Pakistan. So you should ask your government as to why they allowed so many Indian counsulates(which I would love to know how many) in Pak-Afghan border.

 

[Omar1984]

Try being more rational the next time you post. Had it not been the aid from US, Pakistan would have collapsed under the sanctions.

Who are you to make that prediction? Pakistan didn't collapse in the 90s when US placed sanctions on Pakistan for testing our nukes after India conducted its tests.

And Pakistani's are not? Save the BS, thats precisely what the title of the thread means. Its high time you sorted out your present and potent threats. You can keep pointing at India while Taliban keeps moving deeper.

Indians are the ones who claim "the most peaceful man on earth" came from India (Gandhi Ji), while I admit he was a peace-loving man, most Indians are absolutely nothing like him.
Taliban was never a threat before India made its precence in Afghanistan.

Counsulates are not commercial ventures constructed where it suits them the most.
They are estabilished only after the approval from the country where they are supposed to be , in this case Pakistan. So you should ask your government as to why they allowed so many Indian counsulates(which I would love to know how many) in Pak-Afghan border.

I dont think India asked for Pakistan's permission, I didnt say they were ON the Pak-Afghan border I said they are near the Pak-Afghan border. To clarify, they are in Afghanistan near the Pak-Afghan border.

Here's some reading material for you. http://www.defence.pk/forums/war-terror/25400-indias-destabilization-pakistan.html

 

[Energon]

There is no way to offer a hundred percent guarantee against a terrorist threat. India has plenty of homegrown terrorism that could be used as a pretext for aggression
The threat of aggression from India, under whatever pretext, therefore remains..

Highly unlikely. The constant point of contention in this particular conflict has always remained the terrorism emanating and/or linked directly to Pakistan, not anywhere else. There are very few indications to the contrary.

This phenomenon of one country being the defacto base of terrorism aimed at another country isn't very common; in fact (as I've said before) it is difficult to come up with a sizable list of similar models. Pakistan is for the most part isolated when it comes to exporting terrorism, even if it is at the hands of "non state actors" who have now been abandoned by the state's apparatus. And until it can cease to be the launching ground for export based terrorism, its relationship with the outside world will always remain inequitable and shaky (particularly with the victims).

Most importantly, as long as "non state actors" can continue to conduct operations against other nations from Pakistan, the nation's sovereignty and the credibility of it's government will be nothing more than nominal, which actually puts Pakistan at a greater risk. The GoP, if it wishes to be taken seriously has to first divert all the available resources to ensuring that no international terrorism is conducted from Pakistan.

Pakistan will, in this situation, have to essentially address both threats simultaneously.

That is certainly its prerogative; unfortunately the probability of success by dividing the necessary assets is extremely bleak, otherwise we wouldn't even be having this debate.
It is clear that the GoP has neither the resources nor the writ to meet both of these objectives simultaneously. And it just so happens that the probability (or rather certainty) of self destruction at the hands of frankenstein- radicalized militants is exponentially greater the possibility of an attack from India in the absence of a Pakistan based act of terrorism. How the Pakistani leadership (civilian and military) decides to interpret the risk analysis is entirely up to them of course. I don't think anyone can force them to act against their own wishes.

I suspect Pakistan will wait till after the Indian elections (allow the election time histrionics and jingoism to tide over) to gauge the policies of the new Indian government and move from there.

Pakistani terrorist attacks upon India, especially the type we saw being unleashed upon Mumbai recently, aren't simply a matter of superficial jingoism and histrionics. And while it may serve as a talking point for politicians during elections, this issue inherently remains a critical concern in the national consciousness and palpable threat to the state.
The impacts of such events are indelible and their consequences long standing and severe. Realistically, the outlook toward Pakistan will probably remain constant regardless of which government comes into power.

 

[sergente rehan]

Always the same story....people which didn't know much about the history of this region are trying to be smart (or they simply ignore some important facts), blaming Pakistan, it's people and it's Army for everything.

U.S.A. have done more Damage rather to give some benefits to Pakistan, after all they used us against their most powerfull rival Soviet Union. All this mess is caused by the same chain which started back from the invasion of Afghanistan by Soviet Union.

This (fake) war on terror started by the U.S. wasn't really our war at the start, but it has become our war after U.S. invaded Afghanistan when a dictator decided to support U.S. and the enemies of U.S. turned against us too. Super powers always imposed wars upon us and dictators (backed by U.S.A) with their wrong policies and actions caused all these problems which we are facing now days. It was better for us to remain neutral in all these wars.

These brain washed terrorists are used by anti-Pakistan forces, there are aslo external hands involved in all this. To solve this mess we have to cut the problem from the root. Stop the internal aggressions (by these traitors of the nation which for some Dollars are harming us) and block the external hands which are providing funding and supporting to these terrorists.

These Talibans are using the religion for their own purpose, they are ruining also the name of Islam, no where i ever read in any Islamic book the way they are doing things.

And the last thing; India is our enemy, it was our enemy and it will remain our enemy! maybe, (i hope) one day atleast we had some sort of real peace deal but we will never become friends, it's impossible! because everytime if there is a chance for india to harm Pakistan image or to damage Pakistan it will never think twice to take advantage from that moment.

 

[Energon]

...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.

I don't think anyone would object to Pakistan splitting their resources and pursuing both missions simultaneously, its just that they can't and have no other option to but to make a choice between one or the other. Patreus is providing this input on the basis of the axiom that the destabilizing forces within Pakistan are far greater than the threat posed by India.

The rhetoric was on account of a blatant act of war by the members of one state upon another. Had those assailants come up the Hudson river and recreated that scenario in downtown Manhattan, we'd have flattened the nation that spawned them. India in that regard has shown an impressive level of restraint and Petraeus's reference to this situation is spot on. Had India spontaneously taken this aggressive posture without any provocation I'd be the first one supporting your argument. But that is not the case.

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.

As I have mentioned in other threads, its important to realize that the nature of this conflict has changed dramatically from India's point of view. This is no longer a territorial war, primarily because there is no advantage or future to perceiving it in that way.

India has instead reoriented itself to enter the global community on the basis of its economy; and while that has presented with many advantages it has also brought with it a certain set of obligations. India cannot attack Pakistan, or any other sovereign state in the absence of a casus belli. Border incursions like Kargil or terrorist attacks even if by 'non state actors' provide the necessary justification. Heck on account of the murders of American, British and Israeli citizens the Mumbai attack technically provided a casus foederis! If factors emanating from Pakistan were to cease being the source of credible justification for war, there would no longer be a threat of military conflict.

The world which India depends on for its economic interests can very much step in on Pakistan's behalf were India to invade without sufficient cause. Lastly, wars of choice are no longer an option for India in light of the economic reorientation.

 

[S-2]

"India has instead reoriented itself to enter the global community on the basis of its economy."

Absolutely.

Both India and Pakistan benefited from a certain cachet of corporate sponsorship, if you will, during the cold war. No longer and India intends on making a global living.

To that end, there is sooo much to lose and so little to gain by any war. Even a defensive war that found India in possession of Pakistani land would likely find it quickly returned by outside economically-driven market and governmental pressure.

It's not removed as an option, obviously. Possessing Pakistan simply entails no attraction to India. Not at the cost of access to global markets that can launch it into the stratosphere.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

S-2 & Energon:

As I have mentioned in other threads, its important to realize that the nature of this conflict has changed dramatically from India's point of view. This is no longer a territorial war, primarily because there is no advantage or future to perceiving it in that way.

India has instead reoriented itself to enter the global community on the basis of its economy

That may be, but Pakistan cannot make decisions related to national security based on somebody's say so. I don't mean to suggest that you are dissembling when you argue in favor of this view, but that in the absence of either bilateral or international engagement/assurances, the only tangible means of assessing the threat level from India remain her past policies towards Pakistan, and on that count very little credence can be given to the idea espoused above.

In terms of 'territorial gains', the argument is not that India would actually try and occupy large swathes of Pakistan, which would be a rather foolish move given the subsequent resistance from occupied Pakistanis, but that India would seek to strengthen its positions along the LoC and elsewhere - a 'super sized' Israeli style buffer if you will, and attempt to justify it under the pretext of attacks like that in Mumbai.

Had those assailants come up the Hudson river and recreated that scenario in downtown Manhattan, we'd have flattened the nation that spawned them.

Merely because the US has the military might to do so against almost any nation in the world does not make it the right policy to pursue. As I pointed out earlier, there is no guarantee Pakistan, or for for that matter any country with weak institutions, can provide against terrorist attacks.

Even with Pakistan going full tilt against the groups in the North West, it will take decades and billions before things normalize and institutions can become strong enough to offer a reasonable chance of preventing terrorists and terrorism. Your argument and conditions therefore are unrealistic - Pakistan cannot live under the shadow of constant aggression by India on the basis of preventing terrorist attacks that more than likely will happen again.

If I were to hazard a guess based on the statements by MMS and US officials on the resumption of dialog between India and Pakistan, I would say that the yardstick being proposed is lower, and realistic - tangible action against the Mumbai perpetrators.

Realistically, the outlook toward Pakistan will probably remain constant regardless of which government comes into power.

I think the concern is a deterioration in the outlook were a leadership not as pragmatic as that of MMS come to power. Again, you can argue that nothing will change till you are blue in the face, but from Pakistan's national security perspective, until it's from the horses mouth it really isn't worth much.

 

[blain2]

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

I do not buy this reasoning that Army's existence is dependent on maintaining hostility with India. That statement is so general that it applies to all countries who happen to have a threat perception and an armed force to deal with that threat. Pakistan is not alone in this.

Pakistan's Army loses nothing more or less than India's Army if these problems were to go away. If you do not think so then prove it otherwise.

Pakistan's Armed forces are not like those of NK or even Israel where they eat up more than 5% of the GDP. True that even this amount can be used for social upliftment however again, the same goes for every other country that has an Armed Force. Essentially the logic being used here to put down the Pakistani Army is that only their existence is a waste and they stir up trouble just to ensure continued existence. Pretty lame argument by any standards.

 

[jeypore]

I do not buy this reasoning that Army's existence is dependent on maintaining hostility with India. That statement is so general that it applies to all countries who happen to have a threat perception and an armed force to deal with that threat. Pakistan is not alone in this.

Pakistan's Army loses nothing more or less than India's Army if these problems were to go away. If you do not think so then prove it otherwise.

Pakistan's Armed forces are not like those of NK or even Israel where they eat up more than 5% of the GDP. True that even this amount can be used for social upliftment however again, the same goes for every other country that has an Armed Force. Essentially the logic being used here to put down the Pakistani Army is that only their existence is a waste and they stir up trouble just to ensure continued existence. Pretty lame argument by any standards.

I disagree, he does have a point. The army's job is to defend the country, that applies to every country, but every democractic country does not have army's involvement in internal and external policy making, and that does hold true for Pakistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

every democractic country does not have army's involvement in internal and external policy making, and that does hold true for Pakistan.

That is completely inaccurate.

Take the US for example, both Iraq and Afghanistan policies had heavy input from the Military and intelligence, and it would have been extremely unlikely for the US government to not have taken that advice into account.

 

[jeypore]

That is completely inaccurate.

Take the US for example, both Iraq and Afghanistan policies had heavy input from the Military and intelligence, and it would have been extremely unlikely for the US government to not have taken that advice into account.

That is incorrect AM, It was a decision made by the executive branch, approved financing by legislative branch and then finally executed with the army. It was not fromulated from the army. The army in America acts based on what the executive branch tell it, hence the term Commander in Chief (The President of United States, voted in by the Masses).

 

[DarkStar]

If you believe that these brances of govt. act in a solitary manner, with no influence, input, lobbying, pressure, upon each other...then what can I say...It shows naiveity.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

That is incorrect AM, It was a decision made by the executive branch, approved financing by legislative branch and then finally executed with the army. It was not fromulated from the army. The army in America acts based on what the executive branch tell it, hence the term Commander in Chief (The President of United States, voted in by the Masses).

However the executive branch acted on information provided by the Military and intelligence.

One could argue that governments in Pakistan also formulate policy based on information and analysis provided by the Military and intelligence agencies, and therefore are no different (except when the government is the military).