Pakistan Faces Threat From Terrorism, Not India:US

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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?

Has the Army refused an order from the GoP to deploy against the Taliban?

 

[muse]

AM

I don't know -- Has the army made it clear that they will respond positively should such an order be given? Recall Mr. Kiyani let it be known to Mr. Zardari that the Army will not respond positively to his request to provide law and order for the long march.

 

[S-2]

Please stop the foolish bleating about Kashmir to an American.

I could give a sh!t. Really. Not on my radar.

Your generals fear the vulnerability of your troops to the islamic message and that's why you ran from SWAT and will do everything you can to avoid this war.

Your commanders live in abject fear that confronted with killing armed Pakistani irhabists that your men will choose otherwise. Right now, it's a very real possibility given how abjectly poor Islamabad has fought the information war.

The CENTCOM commander and the Sec'y of State have rendered our thoughts and none of it reads like I'm off the mark...again.

Do what you want. It's your country...for awhile anyway.

 

[Twain]

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

The goal of any country should be to provide, at minimum, three basic things, food, shelter, and security, to the citizens of that country. Every country tries to manipulate the political and economic situation to their advantage to provide these and other things, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and the US included. That has been going on for as long as their have been countries. To point out that any country is looking out for the best interests of it's citizens seems to be stating the obvious to me. However, just because a country is looking out for it's self interests first, doesn't mean it is an enemy, it also doesn't mean they are a friend either. It is just how things work.

The question you have to ask is, if a another country asks something of your country, do you benefit more by agreeing with them or saying no to them?

Just my opinion, but I think what Clinton was suggesting was that the Pakistani people demand that their government provide at least those three things, something they are failing to do right now.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Please stop the foolish bleating about Kashmir to an American.

I could give a sh!t. Really. Not on my radar.

Go fck your self then and quit having discourse on this board.

If you are going to pontificate 'what is fundamental', then expect to hear the other sides views of 'what is fundamental' as well.

'Business interests' over the 'rights of a people', there really isn't much of a comparison, 'fundamentally'.

Your generals fear the vulnerability of your troops to the islamic message and that's why you ran from SWAT and will do everything you can to avoid this war.

Your commanders live in abject fear that confronted with killing armed Pakistani irhabists that your men will choose otherwise. Right now, it's a very real possibility given how abjectly poor Islamabad has fought the information war.

The CENTCOM commander and the Sec'y of State have rendered our thoughts and none of it reads like I'm off the mark...again.

Do what you want. It's your country...for awhile anyway.

And back to the dissembling pejoratives we go.

Had a couple of decent posts in there though - must be a record.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AM

I don't know -- Has the army made it clear that they will respond positively should such an order be given? Recall Mr. Kiyani let it be known to Mr. Zardari that the Army will not respond positively to his request to provide law and order for the long march.

Did he make clear his views on the Long March, or was that our hyperactive media speculating?

 

[S-2]

"Go fck your self then and quit having discourse on this board."

Show me where it's the central driving force of this board's dialogue, much less this thread's and I'll do so. Until then, same to you bud but all the same,

I'll stay...

and not discuss Kashmir with you anymore than my gov't would.

So quit trying to drag it into the discussion as the implicit quid pro quo to move your army. That's clear and it doesn't wash.

"If you are going to pontificate 'what is fundamental', then expect to hear the other sides views of 'what is fundamental' as well.

'Business interests' over the 'rights of a people', there really isn't much of a comparison, 'fundamentally'."

As you sit, your argument for "maximal effort" strikes as dissemblance and nothing more. "Abdication" is the word the SECSTATE used and entirely appropriate given the earlier comments from the CENTCOM commander about threats. Profound words and on the heels of Petraeus, a clear shot across the bow.

Read the thread title again to refresh your retention if necessary.

However, fine, I'll play. When the "business interests" involve the elevation of 1,000,000,000 plus people to some modicum of human decency as a whole, damned right it does.

It is CENTRAL to their security and Energon couldn't have been more clear to that.

Kashmir? Bluntly, it can wait and will benefit by your active disengagement from those proxy elements that were crossing the LOC even last month with a level of sophistication, equipment, and training, and in sizes not heretofore seen. That would be good and necessary given you'll need to the same throughout your country as you fight for your survival.

Should you do so successfully and are willing to discuss Kashmir at something other than the point of a gun, then perhaps we can become involve, IMHO. Until then, repair the psyche of your army and get in what promises to be a long, hard fight for your survival that shan't be finished before Waziristan and Baluchistan have been retaken.

There's no point talking if you won't be around to finish the discussion and there's no point talking until elements like the LeT and others are disengaged and attacked repeatedly and ruthlessly by every means at the disposal of your government.

See how far Kashmir gets you in a couple of weeks in Washington when you meet with Karzai. Make sure we know how central it is then.

I'd love to see our reaction.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

and not discuss Kashmir with you anymore than my gov't would.

Again, don't expect to pontificate on what is dear to you without expecting the other side to respond on what is important to them.

You can choose to ignore the argument, but if you choose to act with incivility, then incivility in return is what you get as well.

 

[muse]

Since neither you nor I were in the room with him, all we can go by are news reports and the news reports suggest that the way he difused the situation was to let zardari know that the Army will not accept the order to maintan law and order for the long March.

But either way, what explanation would you offer for what I think you will agree is a rather unique circumstance - where in Pakistan has lost close territory to nonstate actors suported by a international terror organziation and the Army is sitting on it's thumbs?

 

[S-2]

Hardly uncivil to you. Clearly a vehement expression of my disdain for the subject as a component of the larger picture. It's irrelevant and has been to American politics. It's your deep desire to change that.

We don't care.

If you wish to crash your country on the shoals of Kashmir's liberation, that's your business but we'll be divesting ourselves from you the further you press this as an issue that demands engagement as a pre-condition to your army saving itself and Pakistan.

Personally, I see it as a smoke-screen to cover your army's fear of this battle. It's barracks are likely seething and these guys will not be told to fight the men they've been told to hold high for all these years without SERIOUS confusion in the ranks.

Cognative dissonance at a strategic level with a very confusing message that doesn't engender faith in your leadership.

How many of your troops and others were beheaded in SWAT? What thoughts do they have when reading of the military and civil officials in attendance and applauding Mullah Faizullah's sermons two Friday's ago?

The STATE applauds a murderer of civil servants and soldiers who stands mere feet away speaking before the assembled and adoring Swati masses?

He's not ARRESTED and we died up there in that manner? What's the real message here, fellas?

You can bet this is right at the front of your commanders minds.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

As you sit, your argument for "maximal effort" strikes as dissemblance and nothing more. "Abdication" is the word the SECSTATE used and entirely appropriate given the earlier comments from the CENTCOM commander about threats.

Continue with the tripe, accusations of dissemblance with nary an exploration of what the concept entailed. The intent of my argument was clear.

However, fine, I'll play. When the "business interests" involve the elevation of 1,000,000,000 plus people to some modicum of human decency as a whole, damned right it does.

Raising them to decency can be done without an occupation, atrocities and rapes of millions of others.

Kashmir? Bluntly, it can wait and will benefit by your active disengagement from those proxy elements that were crossing the LOC even last month with a level of sophistication, equipment, and training, and in sizes not heretofore seen. That would be good and necessary given you'll need to the same throughout your country as you fight for your survival.

Should you do so successfully and are willing to discuss Kashmir at something other than the point of a gun, then perhaps we can become involve, IMHO. Until then, repair the psyche of your army and get in what promises to be a long, hard fight for your survival that shan't be finished before Waziristan and Baluchistan have been retaken.

There's no point talking if you won't be around to finish the discussion and there's no point talking until elements like the LeT and others are disengaged and attacked repeatedly and ruthlessly by every means at the disposal of your government.

See how far Kashmir gets you in a couple of weeks in Washington when you meet with Karzai. Make sure we know how central it is then.

Comprehension skills gone AWOL?

How many times have I stated that there is no expectation of Kashmir being resolved in the near term?

Put your thinking cap on and understand what the Pakistani political leadership mean when they talk about restarting dialog with India.

Nice Strawman - the issue on this thread has been over US engagement with India and Pakistan over alleviating Pakistani concerns with regards to aggression from India - that should have been perfectly clear with the comments of Clinton regarding engagement with India and Pakistan that I posted three posts ago.

One comment on Kashmir in reply to your hypothesis on 'what is fundamental' and we are off on a tangent.

I'd love to see our reaction.

You don't have to wait - catch the forlorn images of Mullen and Hollbrooke after the lashing they got in Islamabad.

 

[Hellfire]

Muse

IMO PA is under the impression that it shall be able to counter these "irregulars" easily should it come to a fight. So far, whether anyone likes it or not, they have controlled them and used them against another army in a mountainous terrain so have very hazy idea of urban warfare in which these groups enjoy, if not the majority, some sympathy. They have yet to see and learn what these groups can do in a civillian area to a trained professional army whose members are trained not to shoot at non-combatants and civillians.

Also at the same time I shall reiterate my oft posted contention that the rural nature of forces in both India and Pakistan governs the variables in the respective armies. The common soldier is from a rural background and if they share the general principles of TTP, they shall be loathe to fight them.

PA is a NCO led army unlike India (where an officer leads and holds sway and as such knows the nerves of his troops). This again poses a serious challenge as the NCO himself is from similar background. The officers have maintained a class system from colonial days and as such can not really analyse how their troops will respond in a firefight in case they are asked to engage the talibs at all.

So its really a question of if the PA top Brass has the brass where its needed!

 

[muse]

Hellfire


I don't know, I just don't know - I don't buy the argument that the army cannot fight -- I am more persuaded that it will not fight or that it is engaged in a test of nerves with the politicians.

Either way it will lose in public opinion.

Sympathizers in the army? A disaster beyond measure - and it just may be best that it sit in it's barracks, bangles optional.

Rescue ranger and Bezerk have reported interesting converation about instituting a draft or a civilian militia - the latter is a strong possibiity and I welcome it.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Hardly uncivil to you. Clearly a vehement expression of my disdain for the subject as a component of the larger picture. It's irrelevant and has been to American politics. It's your deep desire to change that.

We don't care.

You flatter yourself - ordinary Pakistanis long ago realized the depravity and immorality of American foreign policy. Raising the issue in discourse is to merely point it out time and again, since you lot love to wave the flag of self-righteousness so much.

If you wish to crash your country on the shoals of Kashmir's liberation, that's your business but we'll be divesting ourselves from you the further you press this as an issue that demands engagement as a pre-condition to your army saving itself and Pakistan.

Read the previous post on what the GoP's position on resolving Kashmir, the pursuit of back-channel diplomacy by both military and civilian governments and drop this strawman of yours.

Personally, I see it as a smoke-screen to cover your army's fear of this battle. It's barracks are likely seething and these guys will not be told to fight the men they've been told to hold high for all these years without SERIOUS confusion in the ranks.

Cognative dissonance at a strategic level with a very confusing message that doesn't engender faith in your leadership.

Yes yes, continue with the speculative pejoratives. I'll have your lines memorized at this rate.

How many of your troops and others were beheaded in SWAT? What thoughts do they have when reading of the military and civil officials in attendance and applauding Mullah Faizullah's sermons two Friday's ago?

The STATE applauds a murderer of civil servants and soldiers who stands mere feet away speaking before the assembled and adoring Swati masses?

He's not ARRESTED and we died up there in that manner? What's the real message here, fellas?

You can bet this is right at the front of your commanders minds.

No - the State applauds a man who might disarm and allow for a peaceful resolution to a conflict that could claim far more lives than have been lost till now.

Did it work out? No.

Can't blame them for trying to bring peace and save all those lives.

 

[Hellfire]

Agnostic

Make one thing very clear

As long as PA and GoP are actively and transparentally engaged in anti - terror ops, they are safe, irrespective of any terror strikes in India. (latest incursions in valley could have been an ideal excuse to beat you with a stick especially in an election year where a war will just about ensure UPA vivtory)

The day you stop and the things escalate to a point where the political threshold (read public for the stupid nuts we have as leaders here) is crossed, I assure you the response shall be vast and overwhelming and final.