Pakistan Faces Threat From Terrorism, Not India:US

[Hellfire]

And if you are going to place 1965 in Pakistan's category for operation Gibraltor, then 1971 falls in your lap for the covert support to East Pakistan rebels in destabilizing Pakistan starting from the late sixties.

I meant purely in onset of open hostilities. Op. Chengiz Khan more precisely. So both '65 and '71 actually go into Pakistan's account.

However, it is extremely unlikely that Pakistan's threshold will be breached with small but strategic gains all along the LoC or IB as a bargaining chip in resolving disputes

Indian objectives will not be to occupy small swathes of areas to bargain. Battle of Islamgarh (or rather lack of the battle) in 1971 resulted in the largest territory gained by India ever in a single engagement when the garrison at Islamgarh surrendered to one batallion of Indian Army which had no idea it was at Islamgarh in the first place and was so spread (the actual attack was hilarious with a really wide frontage) that the defending PA officer thought a brigade strength of troops had attacked. This single gain was overshadowed by the Longewala incident and as such remains obscure. Yet the territory was handed back to Pakistan.
My point by this is that any such "bargaining chips" will not be from Indian side as its sitting in a nice comfortable position today. If Pakistan does not act, Talibs will eat it from within and if it does, its in for a long period of conflict which has full potential for blowing out into a civil war. Either ways, India is not in direct engagement and can keep up its economic growth and development, which is the long term Indian objective. However, localised conflicts may take place on lines of Kargil with PA being the initiator.

 

[muse]

It's seems to me to be a really incredible thing - the world is pushing Pakistan to be a State, to impose and maintain order - and Pakistanis are resisting it.

Behind this resistance are two elements, one is that Pakistanis are clutching at straws hoping that there will be any legitimacy left for action by non-state actors to secure freedom in Indian administered kashmir -- it's over! at least the way it was, is over!

Secondly, Pakistani interests in Afghanistan are under threat, in a permanent way and the whole talib as a voice of gthe Pashtun thing, well, that's over as well.

Pakistan have not been able to develop and put into action, a policy that while acknowledging the whole Mujahideen business is over, hopes to create space for Pakistani diplomacy by cultivating commercial and cultural venues.

This failure seems to have tied Pakistan's hands and it is a failure of the intellect, so Pakistanis seem to fall back on these levers of influence that the world is not willing to recognize. It simply will not work.

What an incredible scene, the world seeks to avoid Pakistan becoming a failed state, Pakistanis begrudgingly, pushed and shoved and cajoled, to come to their senses, still fume at the success of others where as the effort would be better spent at creating a Pakistan to be envied and one which it's citizens and neighbors can be proud of.

All of this means that the Talib must die, no, not just go away, they must be eradicated, which of course means the Pakistani state has to de-legitimize the ideology that created them in the first place - again, it is not able or willing to do this, it just does not see it's interests or the chance of creating influence without the coercion that the talib and Mujahideen movements provided it. A paradigm shift has occurred, Pakistan refuse to acknowledge it and today risk losing Pakistan itself but not it's clients, this will change, but only with bloodshed, all the more imperative that Pakistanis choose where they stand, fence sitting will not be possible.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

US interference in Pakistan

The American interference in the internal affairs of Pakistan in the name of war on terror is an open secret. But the latest US action has broken even its own previous black record of flagrant violation of international law and norms. In an unusual move US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called upon the Pakistani people to speak out forcefully against their government and this has displayed Washington's total disregard for the sovereignty of this nuclear Muslim country. US Secretary of State has accused Pakistan of abdicating to the Taleban by allowing them to control parts of the country. She told a congressional panel the situation in Pakistan posed a "mortal threat" to world security. She said extremists were being allowed to control territory such as the Swat Valley, in north-western Pakistan. She also called Pakistan's judicial system corrupt. Earlier this month, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari signed a law implementing Islamic law - or Sharia - in the Swat Valley region as part of a deal to end a two-year Taleban insurgency there. She called on the Pakistani people to speak out "forcefully" against their government's policy.

Clinton's provocative call upon the Pakistani people to virtually rise against their government has come at a time when US President Barack Obama is offering billions of dollars in aid but demanding greater co-operation from the government and US drone aircrafts are launching strikes inside Pakistan and killing civilians on the ploy of war on terror. It is now amply clear that the American role in Pakistan is not of a friend but of a self seeker.

editorial

 

[muse]

Excellent, thank you Mr. Munshi, below is another editorial with a slightly different take - but the disconnect with reality is clear


EDITORIAL: External red herrings and state abdication

The Interior Adviser, Mr Rehman Malik, repeated himself at the Senate Wednesday when he claimed that India was involved in fomenting trouble in Balochistan with the help of the Kabul government, but his addition of “some hostile agencies” along with India might mean others like Uzbekistan, Iran and the CIA. Far away in Washington, speaking at the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the US Secretary of State, Ms Hilary Clinton, bemoaned the abdication of Pakistan in the face of a dangerously expanding hold of the Taliban over Pakistani territory.

As expected, many TV channel hosts were greatly offended Thursday morning at Ms Clinton’s use of the word “abdication” and stressed that this was “blatant interference” in the internal affairs of Pakistan. But this sounded a little incongruous when some other channels reported the presence of “foreigners” in Buner, the district that the Taliban have taken over and have no intention of giving up. But in the National Assembly, the JUIF chief, Maulana Fazlur Rehman, said something even more incongruous: “You talk about Swat and Buner, but according to my information, the Taliban have reached Kala Dhaka and Tarbela. And if they continue advancing, there will be only the Margalla Hills between them and the federal capital”.

Right next to Islamabad, in Rawalpindi, our army chief General Ashfaq Kayani was (reportedly) telling the visiting US Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Admiral Mike Mullen, that the CIA drones must be stopped and that the two sides must develop trust to be on the same page about the Taliban. Unfortunately, the truth is that trust is lost not only with the US but with the entire world including the crucial regional neighbours who are now gearing up to secure themselves if Pakistan goes to pieces. In the middle of all this arrives the scandalous report that a retired major — who began activity when he was still in service — was kidnapping for ransom to finance a warlord in South Waziristan.

Everybody knows what is happening, but everyone has a different solution to the problem. Regrettably, however, the bigger consensus is for a solution that will probably harm Pakistan even more. Maulana Fazlur Rehman apparently made an anti-Taliban statement when he said they were about to enter Islamabad, but his solution was: “get out of the war on terror and the Taliban will automatically go away”. Imran Khan wrote a special article on Thursday asking Pakistan to leave the war on terror to solve the problem. The two say the same thing but cannot convince us of the halcyon days they think will descend on Pakistan after their solution is applied.

Ajmal Kasab has deposed — hopefully, falsely — before a Mumbai court that his gang of terrorists was trained by Lashkar-e Tayba at Sarai Alamgir in Punjab under the supervision of an army brigadier. India will not talk because it is certain that Pakistan will not punish its “non-state actors” now under trial. Again, rather unfortunately, the world goes with India because it doesn’t equate India’s unprovable “funded” interference in Balochistan with Pakistan’s proven practice of sending in non-state actors who get caught. Accusations of external interference therefore sound like a colossal red herring. In fact, this is not the time for isolating Pakistan in the world but for being “introverted” on our domestic terrorism with whatever help we can get from the international community.

 

[jeypore]

US interference in Pakistan

The American interference in the internal affairs of Pakistan in the name of war on terror is an open secret. But the latest US action has broken even its own previous black record of flagrant violation of international law and norms. In an unusual move US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called upon the Pakistani people to speak out forcefully against their government and this has displayed Washington's total disregard for the sovereignty of this nuclear Muslim country. US Secretary of State has accused Pakistan of abdicating to the Taleban by allowing them to control parts of the country. She told a congressional panel the situation in Pakistan posed a "mortal threat" to world security. She said extremists were being allowed to control territory such as the Swat Valley, in north-western Pakistan. She also called Pakistan's judicial system corrupt. Earlier this month, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari signed a law implementing Islamic law - or Sharia - in the Swat Valley region as part of a deal to end a two-year Taleban insurgency there. She called on the Pakistani people to speak out "forcefully" against their government's policy.

Clinton's provocative call upon the Pakistani people to virtually rise against their government has come at a time when US President Barack Obama is offering billions of dollars in aid but demanding greater co-operation from the government and US drone aircrafts are launching strikes inside Pakistan and killing civilians on the ploy of war on terror. It is now amply clear that the American role in Pakistan is not of a friend but of a self seeker.

editorial

Mr. Munshi, either you are posting this article to articulate that the talibans do successed in Pakistan, well if that is your wish, it will be granted with articles of this sort.

 

[S-2]

Why didn't Malik indicate these camps' locations? He had the opportunity. Why mention this at all but for local consumption. No probing questions needed and, evidently none asked by your senators.

Isn't this where he also said "stingers" were being smuggled into Pakistan? Sure...

 

[blain2]

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.

Yes the PA does both. Even if they are involved in internal policy making, it does not mean that they do so to extend their own interests. Pakistan Army's interest is Pakistan. When there is a perception that the civilian government is going wayward then the Army feels compelled to do something (similar to what the Turkish Army does).

None of this means that Army is in it for itself. Army as an entity has no interest in ruling the country. The officer corps has the same sentiments as the public about the involvement of the Army in politics.

 

[muse]

Blain

What do you make of the behavior of the Army? How is it ipossible that an Army larger than that of the U.S., armed with all manner of weapons seems unwilling - well you can see what they are doing, the questio is why?

 

[MilesTogo]

I disagree with you here Try again - not a good argument

Energon,

My point regarding Indian restraint in the face of terror was conditional to Pakistan applying maximal effort to gain control of the territories it has lost its writ in.

Any such effort to regain control and establish institutions will likely take decades, and so long as complete control is not established, Pakistan cannot offer any guarantees against terrorism. In fact, it is quite likely that in the face of a massive Pakistani military effort, the chances of a terrorist attack against India will increase, precisely for the purpose of replicating the situation post Mumbai and drawing the attention of the GoP, Military and Pakistanis away from quelling the insurgency.

India will have to resort to working with and through the GoP to bring the perpetrators to justice - unilateral strikes would only destabilize the situation and Pakistan further, which in turn makes future terrorist strikes even more likely. That is the reality of the situation.

So with all due respect, your arguments would be appropriate in a vacuum, but I do not see how they can be feasible in the current Indo-Pak environment.

That said, were the GoP to remain ambivalent to the safe havens on its soil, I would not expect anything but an attempt at some sort of surgical strikes.

 

[S-2]

"The officer corps has the same sentiments as the public about the involvement of the Army in politics."

Indeed they do- among the ranks and mid-level officers I fully believe that the conversations differ little from your public- hidden hands, anti-Pakistani conspiracies, anti-islamic hatred by others, PREDATOR, rude and arrogant Americans, etc.

...and no idea who to support. Your commanders and civil leaders were shocked by Bajaur. Your troops by SWAT. Your fellow muslim citizens now carry arms and look at your men and say,

"You cannot shoot me. I am muslim and Pakistani. All I want is what you should want if you're a good muslim too. If you kill me, you do so as a dog of the state and a lackey of the American serpents.

Join us instead or step aside."

That's what I'd say and that's exactly what your commanders fear. It will destroy the army and I believe your troops are in their barracks and being worked INTENSIVELY to re-think the coming war.

I hope so anyway. If not they are there to surrender and may already have. Your army cannot afford to reveal open fissures to the Indians. It will do all it can to hide this growing cancer in your ranks from other interested observers. The best way in the mind of Kiyani and your corps commanders may be to put the troops on the shelf if they can't be re-indoctrinated to understand the public must render unto Caesar what is his.

Finally, reinvigorated psychologically or not, this is a massive endeavor that's not finished until Waziristan and Baluchistan are recaptured. We're looking at years likely, even decades. That sort of war may shatter your army functionally in any case.

It damned near did ours in S. Vietnam. Here, however, you've the luxury of fighting for your lands.

That should matter to Pakistani patriots, I'd hope.

 

[TruthSeeker]

If not they are there to surrender and may already have. Your army cannot afford to reveal open fissures to the Indians. It will do all it can to hide this growing cancer in your ranks from other interested observers. The best way in the mind of Kiyani and your corps commanders may be to put the troops on the shelf if they can't be re-indoctrinated to understand the public must render unto Caesar what is his.

To me this is the most logical possibility that explains the PA's lack of movement. This, and, perhaps, a continuing hope that the non-state actors may still be preserved as a weapon (strategic depth) against India and to act in Afghanistan. Maybe both are in play in the minds of the PA leaders. Unfortunately, the problem that you have highlighted above, S-2, is much harder to overcome than letting go of the strategic depth weapon.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Fundamental to India and others is Pakistan accepting the central premise surrounding the Indian gov't's obligation to advance it's citizens well-being through continuing economic growth.

What is equally fundamental is respecting the rights of a people and resolving a territorial dispute in accordance with the desires of those people as mandated by the UNSC.

Threat perceptions can only be reshaped through bilateral/multilateral engagement and assurances between nations, and not by hypothesizing on what a particular nation will do or ought to do.

A.M.'s caveat-

"...conditional to Pakistan applying maximal effort to gain control of the territories it has lost its writ in."

...must be expanded beyond simply those territories where nat'l control has been lost into the entire country. This is a nat'l problem that extends into Punjab and Sindh and must be addressed as such.

'Extend beyond' has to be more than a catch phrase. The fundamental issue, that I have repeatedly pointed out, is that it is simply not possible to guarantee against terrorism, and it is simply not possible to act everywhere and against everyone instantaneously. In other words, there is no magic wand that change the security situation in Pakistan or alleviate India's threat concerns.

The reality of the situation is that even with 'maximal' effort from the Pakistani side the chances of terrorist attacks against India will remain high, and perhaps increase. Military retaliation from India then becomes counterproductive and a distraction, which then perpetuates the conditions that caused the terrorism in the first place (in an environment where Pakistan is acting to restore its writ in the North West).

Absolutist policies sound nice in the theoretical world (overwhelming military response in case of another attack) - practically there are severe limitations on the efficacy of such an approach, without taking into account the entire situation.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I disagree with you here Try again - not a good argument

How about you try a rebuttal first.

Try again, you really do have 'Miles To Go'.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

TS & S-2:

Way too many conspiracy theories.

You guys have been hanging around us too long.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Related to my earlier point:

"Threat perceptions can only be reshaped through bilateral/multilateral engagement and assurances between nations, and not by hypothesizing on what a particular nation will do or ought to do."

US working to improve Indo-Pak ties: Hillary​

WASHINGTON: The United States said on Thursday it is engaged at the highest levels on the ‘profound question’ of improving Pakistan-India relations as any escalation over Kashmir would jeopardise security and severely harm the ongoing war on terror. “There have to be efforts to enhance confidence between India and Pakistan – there have been a number of high-level discussions by members of our administrations including between the president (Barack Obama) and the (Indian) prime minister on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in London, raising the issue how India can do more to tamp down any reaction on any fronts like Mumbai could have provoked,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said. Clinton, who appeared before the House appropriations subcommittee on state and foreign operations, said building confidence between the two South Asian nations is “not likely to be undertaken until the Indian elections are over (next month)”. The chief US diplomat observed that extremists want to provoke tension between Pakistan and India and the administration has been focused on preventing that. “So you put your finger on the dilemma – if Kashmir blows up and insurgents come over that line of control everyday, or every week, then all bets are off.” app

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

If Petraeus and other US officials have engaged positively with the two nations on the issue of confrontations, that assures Pakistan beyond mere hypotheses of Indian intentions and policy, then we have something tangible to work with in terms of 'reshaping threat perceptions'.