Solving Afghanistan?

[zraver]

What is the size of the Pakistani defence budget?

2005 4.3 billion estimated (3.3% of GDP) but for a country as impoverished as Pakistan this is a huge drain in hard currency. Instead of F-16's and JF-17's Pakistan should be asking for development aid and building a real economy.

How can it be a legal government when it is disputed territory, acknowledged by India in the UN?

India isn't disputing it, they say the part they control is part of India. Agree to that and the problem with India is solved. Hell, Pakistan gave away part of Kashmir to China so its not some sort of holy ground its a manufactured crisis to keep the army on top.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

2005 4.3 billion estimated (3.3% of GDP) but for a country as impoverished as Pakistan this is a huge drain in hard currency. Instead of F-16's and JF-17's Pakistan should be asking for development aid and building a real economy.

To argue that spending 3.3% of GDP on defense is equivalent to the rest of the country living on 'military leftovers' is inaccurate.

Questions around the opportunity cost of defence spending vs development spending will always exist, but given the neighborhood threat levels, especially the experience of 1971, 3.3% is quite reasonable.

Poor socio-economic indicators in Pakistan are more a function of political instability, poor governance and corruption, rather than military expenditures.

India isn't disputing it, they say the part they control is part of India. Agree to that and the problem with India is solved. Hell, Pakistan gave away part of Kashmir to China so its not some sort of holy ground its a manufactured crisis to keep the army on top.

India changed its mind (or reneged on its agreements), after its agreement in the UNSC on the UNSC resolutions. My argument isn't that Pakistan did everything by the book and India didn't, but rather a question over how a Kashmiri government in disputed territory (per the UNSC) can be considered a legal government?

The crises has existed since partition, so is hardly a 'manufactured crises'.

However, if by 'manufactured' you are referring to the Kashmir Dispute being 'perpetuated', then please see my previous post on the latest episode of India getting 'cold feet' when time for 'normalization' came around. Pakistan has been extremely flexible on several occasions, the Indian Govt. has unfortunately been incapable of reciprocating and taking that final step.

 

[blain2]

Set the border at the LOC and call it even.

Yes we proposed it to your side and it was not acceptable.

What is Pakistan willing to give and in trade for what? Like it or not the part of kashmir in Pakistani hands is Pakistani and vice versa.

Look up the Chenab formula. There was plenty on offer only to be sidelined by India's fundos.

The right of self determination begisn and ends with the formation of the nation state. This is a settled point of law. Kashmir's legal government chose India- the worlds second biggest moslem population. Pakistan rejected this and sent in fighters.

The Maharaja was not the appropriate representative because all of the princely states were to decide based on the aspirations of their population. Something that was done in Hyderabad Deccan should have been done here as well. In any case there were reasons why the fighters went in there and what caused the Indian occupation to linger until this day. This is a separate thread and one that has been discussed excessively.

Look at the budget and who gets what, in the US the military gets big chunk but effectively live son the left overs, in Pakistan the nation lives on whats left over from the military.

That is as big a fib as people can find and stack against the Pakistani military. Back in 2006, the Pakistani armed forces received what was equal to 4.5% of the GDP for their upkeep (lets also keep in mind that starting in 2004, there was a lot more military activity than in the past owing to the activities in FATA etc.). In 2007 and 08 this number was 4.3%. So lets not perpetuate this fallacy beyond reason (which is that 4.3% is sort of high compared to a more normal 2.5-3.5% of the GDP, however its nowhere excessive). This number is still much lower than what is being spent by others in situations similar to Pakistan's (an example is Israel, they are spending double digits on their military expenditure).

US was spending 12-18 % of the GDP on national defence throughout the 70s and the 80s to counter the expansion of Warsaw Pact (The Soviets were spending 20-25%). So its all relative. What is a put off is that people regurgitate these points without context just to make Pakistan and the Pakistani armed forces look bad. If you keep on telling a lie many times over, unfortunately its taken to be the truth and a fact. Lets desist from it and view things factually.

 

[blain2]

What is the size of the Pakistani defence budget?

2005 4.3 billion estimated (3.3% of GDP) but for a country as impoverished as Pakistan this is a huge drain in hard currency. Instead of F-16's and JF-17's Pakistan should be asking for development aid and building a real economy.

I must agree with AM. 3.3% of the budget is nowhere considered to be the major funding and then the rest of the 96.7% as the leftover for the nation.

Pakistan is not asking anyone to fund here F-16s and JF-17. We are doing it ourselves. Every new F-16 is paid for with Pakistani money. You are totally off point here and pushing the Indian point of view to the hilt given the fact that even the Americans realize that Pakistan must have a conventional deterrence that can discourage India from escalating. Nobody has a right to criticize what Pakistan spends on her conventional needs. What you argue for Pakistan can be said of India too. Why don't they hand over Aksai chin over to China and call it a day? After that no more problems in Indo-China relations...this seems to be your simplistic approach to all of the problem then I suggest you run it by the Indians and see what they have to say about it.

India isn't disputing it, they say the part they control is part of India. Agree to that and the problem with India is solved. Hell, Pakistan gave away part of Kashmir to China so its not some sort of holy ground its a manufactured crisis to keep the army on top.

Lets get off this conspiracy theory about manufactured crises by the Pakistani Army. It certainly won't find many takers on the Pakistani side just because whenever the Army has been in power, they are the ones who have shown the most flexibility in dealing with these issues with India. Pakistan will always have a strong military just because your Indian friends have the world's 3rd largest Army around them. Maybe the solution is that India sets the tone by making peace with China after resolving the Aksai Chin around the solution proposed by you, cuts back on the military spending and scales back on the troop levels and then Pakistan follows suit. Lets test out your theory by allowing India to experiment with it. If you are not willing to do that then lets not propose unworkable solutions for Pakistan only.

 

[blain2]

My nation is at war, and as such has the right to go after its enemies where ever they are.

Yes you sure do, but then grant that the other side will suffer casualties that have had absolutely nothing to do with this war and then there will be responses to these losses. The approach is nothing but counter productive and ensures a continuing cycle of violence.

9/11 attacks happened and should never have happened, however right after that Iraq also happened which should never have happened. Your country invaded Iraq which resulted in over a 100,000 people dying. What was their fault in all of this? Saddam Hussain could have been deposed just like countless others have been so why the deaths of so many innocents?

The righteousness of your war only goes as far as meting out justice to the perpetrators of the 9/11 act and I am all for it. Beyond that this righteousness vapourizes into thin air.

I am a supporter of good Pakistan-US ties. I would like nothing better than good ties between Muslims and the Western world because it is to the benefit of both peoples and personally I have never had a reason to grudge a Non-Muslim/Westerner. However to assume that only you have the right to go after those who kill you and in the process make others orphans, widows etc. etc. under the cover of collateral damage cannot be justified any which way. This will have to stop!

At a very basic level, this issue of killing of the innocents all the while sitting on top of them is driving this insurgency. I am not suggesting that people pack up and leave, however announce a schedule as has been done in Iraq, prod the Afghan government to get out of Kabul and take charge, push the peace process with the Pashtuns and there are bound to be positive results.

 

[zraver]

Blain2, why should India give up territory? Why don't all the sides just draw the borders to match reality? Why would you argue that India should give up territory? Each side has territory to keep and call it even. You seem to argue from the perspective that India is wrong and must yeild. This only creates road blocks. If each side gives up its claim on what the others control and share jointly the Siachen Glacier and its water reserves- end of problem.

India backed out after Pakistani terrorists attacked their Parliment. By the way, the failings of the Chenab Formula are obvious- it requires India to give, but not Pakistan. In fact Pakistan who now has less than halof the area ends up with almost all of it- that is greed.

 

[muse]

I am not suggesting that people pack up and leave, however announce a schedule as has been done in Iraq, prod the Afghan government to get out of Kabul and take charge, push the peace process with the Pashtuns and there are bound to be positive results

Goodness me, What a xxxxing mess - honestly, if the U.S does thagt it will intensify the killing -- some people may not want to admit it, but without the U.S there or some force keeping a lid on all of them, it will be a huge mess - they are ready to get at each other right now, imagine what it will be like when they can do just that.

On the other hand, the U.S. cannot stay indefintely, in fact, it is already making plans to leave -- and then.dil tarasha, of course they are being used and they non-combatants will pay the heaviest price, I can't imagine Pakistan with new refugees.

But what if Afghanistan is left with a weak central government, all democractic this and that, and strong, efficient, ethnic power centers, where the central government will pretend to be soveregn and the peripheral govts pretend to be loyal, without making it a point to get in each others way? An Ismail khan model, if you will. recall Mr. Obama wants Al-Qaida and the irreconcileable Talib, not all Afghanistan.

All of which may leave Pakistan with a bigger problem and no U.S. $$$.

 

[zraver]

Yes you sure do, but then grant that the other side will suffer casualties that have had absolutely nothing to do with this war and then there will be responses to these losses. The approach is nothing but counter productive and ensures a continuing cycle of violence.

Those causalties do have something to do with the war. If they were not sheltering the Taliban they would not be attacked. The US isn't going around saying- lets target that house with kids etc. We are acting on actionable intelligence.

9/11 attacks happened and should never have happened, however right after that Iraq also happened which should never have happened. Your country invaded Iraq which resulted in over a 100,000 people dying. What was their fault in all of this? Saddam Hussain could have been deposed just like countless others have been so why the deaths of so many innocents?

Saddam was removed with a minimum loss of life. The civil war between the Sunni and Shia was bund to happen when ever Saddam fell but outside groups (Iran and Al Queda) used that inevitable post-Saddam power struggle for their own ends. Something like 90% of the civilian casualties in Iraq were killed by Muslims, not Americans or American allies including the GoI.

The righteousness of your war only goes as far as meting out justice to the perpetrators of the 9/11 act and I am all for it. Beyond that this righteousness vapourizes into thin air.

perpetrators and those who give them aid and comfort.

I am a supporter of good Pakistan-US ties. I would like nothing better than good ties between Muslims and the Western world because it is to the benefit of both peoples and personally I have never had a reason to grudge a Non-Muslim/Westerner. However to assume that only you have the right to go after those who kill you and in the process make others orphans, widows etc. etc. under the cover of collateral damage cannot be justified any which way. This will have to stop!

At a very basic level, this issue of killing of the innocents all the while sitting on top of them is driving this insurgency. I am not suggesting that people pack up and leave, however announce a schedule as has been done in Iraq, prod the Afghan government to get out of Kabul and take charge, push the peace process with the Pashtuns and there are bound to be positive results.

Lets get the facts strait, the US did not attack Pakistanis and drive them into the arms of the Taliban. The Pakistanis aided the Taliban who aided Al Queda and so the US attacked. The blame rests on the shoulders of those who host, care for, aid, comfort, support and defend the Taliban and AQ. If while doing all of the above they wanted to keep their families safe- don't bring them into the home. Those people (Taliban/AQ) are targets where ever they are at what ever time and despite who ever else is around.

 

[blain2]

Blain2, why should India give up territory? Why don't all the sides just draw the borders to match reality? Why would you argue that India should give up territory? Each side has territory to keep and call it even. You seem to argue from the perspective that India is wrong and must yeild. This only creates road blocks. If each side gives up its claim on what the others control and share jointly the Siachen Glacier and its water reserves- end of problem.

India backed out after Pakistani terrorists attacked their Parliment. By the way, the failings of the Chenab Formula are obvious- it requires India to give, but not Pakistan. In fact Pakistan who now has less than halof the area ends up with almost all of it- that is greed.

Zraver,

Because the dispute is not one simply between Pakistan and India. The Kashmiris have a say in this and they want certain areas to remain with them and not get gobbled up by India. Since they are a party to the dispute (the main ones), what they want also matters. Secondly, Chenab solution is one, there are others that allow for autonomy to the Kashmir region which includes the Pakistani side of it as well. If Pakistan only wanted all of what was with India then things would have been a non-starter and Musharraf would have never gone to India. Lets keep these minor things in mind before suggesting that only Pakistan wanted to have the cake and eat it too.

Siachen issue is another one. Pakistan did offer to make it a DMZ. India wanted to mark the positions of where the troops currently are which essentially means that India is authenticating her right to be there. Why? So the logic is not so twisted on only our side of the debate. You have hard-headed idiots on your side of the fence as well.

 

[blain2]

Those causalties do have something to do with the war. If they were not sheltering the Taliban they would not be attacked. The US isn't going around saying- lets target that house with kids etc. We are acting on actionable intelligence.

I am not suggesting that US is going around doing that. I am telling you what is happening on the ground. So for you to assume that only you have the right to go after the killers of Americans, then the same right is also with those who are going after their loved ones who have been killed by the Americans.

Saddam was removed with a minimum loss of life. The civil war between the Sunni and Shia was bund to happen when ever Saddam fell but outside groups (Iran and Al Queda) used that inevitable post-Saddam power struggle for their own ends. Something like 90% of the civilian casualties in Iraq were killed by Muslims, not Americans or American allies including the GoI.

How was it bound to happen if Saddam had been replaced by another leader and the country was allowed to have it military and law enforcement intact? What was the purpose behind the shock and awe and disbanding of the only unifying thing in Iraq, the Iraqi Army. Please lets not carry on with this childish stuff about US not being responsible. When you go into a war then you should think through the ramifications of such a war. The whole Bush camp like a bunch of bloody monkeys was ranting that they would be received with open arms after conducting a shock and awe campaign against the Iraqis. You made stupid decisions and those resulted in such excessive civilian casualties. Anybody who knows anything about the history of artificially created nation states knows that once you remove an entity that keeps the country together you end up with fractional carnage. This happened in Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal and the same happened after the disbandment of the Iraqi Army which could easily have been re-oriented with a new political leadership. I mean the issues and mistakes are aplenty here. Simply passing on the buck to the civil war won't do it.

Lets get the facts strait, the US did not attack Pakistanis and drive them into the arms of the Taliban. The Pakistanis aided the Taliban who aided Al Queda and so the US attacked. The blame rests on the shoulders of those who host, care for, aid, comfort, support and defend the Taliban and AQ. If while doing all of the above they wanted to keep their families safe- don't bring them into the home. Those people (Taliban/AQ) are targets where ever they are at what ever time and despite who ever else is around.

The same Taliban that you aided by allowing them to regroup inside Afghanistan post the Soviet withdrawal and by dealing with them on energy issues. The problem for the Pakistani side was that they never knew when the US blessing for the Taliban vanished. It was only after the 9/11 attacks this dawned on the Pakistani side that the US and the Taliban were on the opposite side now. That Taliban leadership got decimated and now you are picking a fight with every Pashtun who carries a gun (he has done so for hundreds of years) just because you no longer are able to figure out where the assholes who did 9/11 went.

The one thing this situation is not is simple. Lets not try to oversimplify it by using the 9/11 connection to it. The people who attacked the US are long gone. You have more intelligence assets inside Pakistan than the whole of Afghanistan combined and thus far have failed to pick a single chatter of the supposed planners (well KSM is already in custody so who are we going after now?).

This is a never ending mess.

 

[zraver]

Zraver,

Because the dispute is not one simply between Pakistan and India.

Yes it is. lets be honest neither side is going to let Kashmir go on its own, not in truth even if they said they would. So it is between India and Pakistan.

The Kashmiris have a say in this and they want certain areas to remain with them and not get gobbled up by India.

Those areas under Indian control are already gobbled- accept that and move on.

Since they are a party to the dispute (the main ones), what they want also matters.

No it doesn't just ask the Balouch separatists. The only modern division/change of states borders of a post WWII nation state has been by choice of the government (USSR, Czechoslovakia, East Germany etc) or by force (Kosovo, Vietnam) not by popular will which legally has no bearing on an already existing nation state.

Secondly, Chenab solution is one, there are others that allow for autonomy to the Kashmir region which includes the Pakistani side of it as well. If Pakistan only wanted all of what was with India then things would have been a non-starter and Musharraf would have never gone to India. Lets keep these minor things in mind before suggesting that only Pakistan wanted to have the cake and eat it too.

I notice you said autonomy not independence, so Pakistan would not in fact cede its claims.

Siachen issue is another one. Pakistan did offer to make it a DMZ. India wanted to mark the positions of where the troops currently are which essentially means that India is authenticating her right to be there. Why? So the logic is not so twisted on only our side of the debate. You have hard-headed idiots on your side of the fence as well.

Her right to be there is already established, a lot of Pakistanis died to try and disprove that. Pakistan keeps trying war and she keeps failing. Its time to simply annex what you have, tell India you recognize what she has and expect the same and move on.

 

[zraver]

I am not suggesting that US is going around doing that. I am telling you what is happening on the ground. So for you to assume that only you have the right to go after the killers of Americans, then the same right is also with those who are going after their loved ones who have been killed by the Americans.

The US did not without provocation topple buildings in FATA or Afghanistan, the same cannot be said of AQ/Taliban.

How was it bound to happen if Saddam had been replaced by another leader and the country was allowed to have it military and law enforcement intact? What was the purpose behind the shock and awe and disbanding of the only unifying thing in Iraq, the Iraqi Army.

The violence was manageable and very low level for the first couple of years- you'll remember the record legal end of occupation and UN certified elections. It was foreign elements who sought to take the low level violence to the next step and they did. The real carnage in Iraq stems from the destruction of the Shia shrine by a Sunni suicide bomber.

Please lets not carry on with this childish stuff about US not being responsible. When you go into a war then you should think through the ramifications of such a war. The whole Bush camp like a bunch of bloody monkeys was ranting that they would be received with open arms after conducting a shock and awe campaign against the Iraqis. You made stupid decisions and those resulted in such excessive civilian casualties.

That is the media spin, but look at the facts please.

Anybody who knows anything about the history of artificially created nation states knows that once you remove an entity that keeps the country together you end up with fractional (factional?) carnage.

It did not happen in the USSR, East Germany, Czechoslovakia so its not an automatic.

This happened in Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal

did you mean before the Soviet invasion? Afghanis were already at war with one another by 79.

and the same happened after the disbandment of the Iraqi Army which could easily have been re-oriented with a new political leadership. I mean the issues and mistakes are aplenty here. Simply passing on the buck to the civil war won't do it.

The Army was Sunni dominated in a Shia majority country, it could not have been reoriented. it was the army backed by the secret police, RG and SRG that had waged war on the Shia. Look into the destruction of the Marsh Arabs by Saddam. It was the army that drafted Shia boys and impaled them on Iranian Shia guns to serve Sunni interests.

The same Taliban that you aided by allowing them to regroup inside Afghanistan post the Soviet withdrawal and by dealing with them on energy issues.

The US government did not aid the Taliban. We supported the Northern Alliance. The closest we ever came to support was food aid for the afghani people and attempts to buy back stinger missiles. Some US companies dealt with them on energy issues, but those went no where.

The problem for the Pakistani side was that they never knew when the US blessing for the Taliban vanished.

The US blessing never existed.

It was only after the 9/11 attacks this dawned on the Pakistani side that the US and the Taliban were on the opposite side now.

The Tomahawk strikes should have been the signal.

That Taliban leadership got decimated and now you are picking a fight with every Pashtun who carries a gun (he has done so for hundreds of years) just because you no longer are able to figure out where the assholes who did 9/11 went.

B/S, can we have some honesty here, we are targeting those who partake in the war in Afghanistan or support those who do. We are not targeting Mr Joe Pashtun because he has an AK. If Joe doesn't take aprt in the war the war wont come to hm and his family, if he does, the war does.

The one thing this situation is not is simple. Lets not try to oversimplify it by using the 9/11 connection to it. The people who attacked the US are long gone. You have more intelligence assets inside Pakistan than the whole of Afghanistan combined and thus far have failed to pick a single chatter of the supposed planners (well KSM is already in custody so who are we going after now?).

This is a never ending mess.

The people who attacked the US then might be long gone, they might not. But what about the people who attacked the US and its allies last week and then retreated into Pakistan, or the Pakistanis who make those attacks possible. The US is not looking for a fight, the fight comes to the US/IASF.

 

[blain2]

Goodness me, What a xxxxing mess - honestly, if the U.S does thagt it will intensify the killing -- some people may not want to admit it, but without the U.S there or some force keeping a lid on all of them, it will be a huge mess - they are ready to get at each other right now, imagine what it will be like when they can do just that.

On the other hand, the U.S. cannot stay indefintely, in fact, it is already making plans to leave -- and then.dil tarasha, of course they are being used and they non-combatants will pay the heaviest price, I can't imagine Pakistan with new refugees.

But what if Afghanistan is left with a weak central government, all democractic this and that, and strong, efficient, ethnic power centers, where the central government will pretend to be soveregn and the peripheral govts pretend to be loyal, without making it a point to get in each others way? An Ismail khan model, if you will. recall Mr. Obama wants Al-Qaida and the irreconcileable Talib, not all Afghanistan.

All of which may leave Pakistan with a bigger problem and no U.S. $$$.

Muse,

I do not disagree. Afghanistan should not be left as it was in 1989 and beyond. US and ISAF have to stick around but start pushing more dialogue with the Pashtuns and get the Afghan police and Army outside to remote areas. However the perception about continued occupation has to be checked and some sort of a timetable needs to be set so the argument of the nay-sayers can be put to rest. Nothing provides more fuel to the AQ types than occupation of Muslim lands. This has to be taken away from them.

 

[roadrunner]

Muse,

I do not disagree. Afghanistan should not be left as it was in 1989 and beyond. US and ISAF have to stick around but start pushing more dialogue with the Pashtuns and get the Afghan police and Army outside to remote areas. However the perception about continued occupation has to be checked and some sort of a timetable needs to be set so the argument of the nay-sayers can be put to rest. Nothing provide more fuel to the AQ types than occupation of Muslim lands. This has to be taken away from them.

Why not just leave it alone, though?

Yes, there'll be bloodshed for a decade perhaps, terrible as it is, but no society in ths history of mankind evolved without bloodshed in the initial phases.

There was a semblance of medieval laws and discipline when a unifying force had stabilized Afghanistan (even if they were ideologically from the Stone Age). The point is that stabilization was achieved, the next stage is to allow the society to evolve. Foreign forces redistributing the power and control to favoured minorities is going to result in more bloodshed once those forces leave.

Personally I think if Afghanistan is left well alone, it will evolve. Ideologies do not remain stagnant, they rapidly fluctuate. If the Taliban ideology could be propogated in a decade during Soviet occupation, another ideology could also be.

Within a century, even less, Afghanistan can be a properous country if it is allowed to evolve.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Within a century, even less, Afghanistan can be a properous country if it is allowed to evolve.

But at what cost to Pakistan?

Pakistan will not be able to stay out of the fray in a total 'free for all', even if it wanted to, and it will suffer on multiple fronts.

A controlled transition works to the advantage of all parties concerned - the quibbling is over how much control.

The West is arguing for full fledged and continued military action until some sort of 'submission' of the Taliban, before broad based negotiations and compromises with the insurgents can take place, while Pakistan wants broad based negotiations and accommodation to start now.