The enemy and Pakistan Army

[Joe Shearer]

Don't let Joe fool you with his prose. He is as much as a war monger, If not more than vsdoc.

His approach is subtle like that of a snake.

Joe you war monger you.

See how peaceful I am.

gai hun, gai.

Blast!

Foiled again.

 

[prabhakar]

Arrey Amriknon se to hamein bahot hi pyaar hai na, isi liye.

Magar tum log aisi ghalti na karna kabhi - tumhaari dhuee thok dein ge. Period.



I knew some one would point it out - therefore I told you that we'd kick your butt to stone age.

baatein badi badi.... rassi jal gayi lekin bal nahi gaya...

I think pakistan should declare predator as their national bird... this will save some of your honor.

 

[RazPaK]

After Mumbai they threatened us with surgical strikes.

One statement by the Taliban left them silent and not a peep was heard from them again.


India cannot afford to engage a populace which is battle hardened and accustomed to tactics of guerrilla warfare. Vsdoc's fantasy about getting into one city is laughable to say the least.

 

[Ticker]

I am officially disappointed. I was under the assumption that we might have a real discussion about this scenario, but after reading your previous rant its obvious that you are talking out of a**. It was one big rant, nothing realistic in it. Proxy wars are only designed to harass the enemy, not defeat it. What you fail to realize is whatever proxy war you might setup, Pakistan can do exactly the same. You have officially disappointed me man, instead of a fan fiction post you could have presented me something on which we could actually have had an argument.



KRAIT

Whats your opinion on what the Doc is advocating?

Rhetoricim is not the reality and the facts placed exposed the stark reality in front of all. Yet the belief system disavows the realism that is indeed so apparent and so visible.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Hope this helps sir. Not the anti war part, the notion of disbanding PA by IA.

I just want to get an Indian POV, this thread might after all be exciting putting aside the troll fest .

I'm afraid this won't be much of an 'Indian' POV; India doesn't have POVs as a nation, and at the individual level, as both Amartya Sen and Salman Rushdie pointed out, we tend to have a lot of opinions.

But for what it's worth, I'd like to think aloud about this, in a slightly indisciplined kind of way. Give me a minute or two, please.

 

[notorious_eagle]

I'm afraid this won't be much of an 'Indian' POV; India doesn't have POVs as a nation, and at the individual level, as both Amartya Sen and Salman Rushdie pointed out, we tend to have a lot of opinions.

But for what it's worth, I'd like to think aloud about this, in a slightly indisciplined kind of way. Give me a minute or two, please.

No worries at all Sir

Take your time, i am excited to explore more about this topic.

 

[KRAIT]

KRAIT

Whats your opinion on what the Doc is advocating?

To be honest and blunt, India is way better off with things it is running. "If" we are playing dirty games, and I am using If for the sake of Indians' denial, we are doing it in right direction may be a little push. I agree this is bad and I, for one, don't support any use of terrorism or using internal factions to cause trouble in "enemy" nation, when it comes to ground reality, India will continue to try to open Western hostile front for Pakistan. Its failing and its winning at same time. We don't know who is behind who. But fact of the matter remains that Pakistan's Western border will be busy for few years and India would try to maintain it and avoid its eastern front silent. One can coorelate WoT and relative silence at J&K border and reduced terror attacks, again relatively, even if we keep Indian surveillance upgradation. So proxies is all we have left for causing instability. Nothing official can be done after this big elephant of N came in the room.

As for wars, whether it is limited or full scale is concerned, when one talk of nations of size of India and Pakistan, I find it amusing cause its not going to happen unless something very drastic happens. For any such war, there has to be a humongous Shocking event that could create a war between both the countries.

The enemy is not fighting with firing a bullet directly, it is either using proxies or it is going to use diplomatic, foreign policy, economic measures to isolate Pakistan.

Problem that I find with this approach is, it attracts attention at our other issues and create bad image of ours. But, hey, this is real world we live in. To save your own, you might have to terrorize the others.

And all these surgical strikes and all, only nations like US can do, who have larger grip on world's politics. India doesn't have that. Any such strike is idiotic as far as I think. There are other ways to get rid of the problem.

 

[surya kiran]

Scenario will not change (under current circumstances) till 2014.

Though, Krait, I do not agree with the rationale of something drastic. That is from an Indian perspective. Do not expect the same from Pakistani generals. The arms build-up we are currently witnessing and rapid modernisation is specifically aimed at retaliation in such a scenario.

If one thing that 1999 proved, it was that limited war is not out of question. The complete re-orientation of the military doctrine from defense to push has to be seen from this perspective. If you notice a lot of Indian procurement has been towards logistics. The alignment of anti-armour air with the army has to also been seen in this perspective.

Expect an increasingly assertive India post 2015.

 

[RazPaK]

Nada yaar, we are just indulgent towards little children. That humourous pat on the head kinda thing.
BTW, please don't burden our dear Razzie with intellectual thinking and all that. He's just a very nice guy.

The duplicity in your self appointed intellect is apparent to everyone here.

If patting each other on the back and calling each other intellectuals pleases you, then continue on.

However, when you are done stroking your egos and personifying your internet personas there is a serious discussion taking place.

You are our enemy. You are using proxy warfare and propaganda against our nation.
At the same time your countrymen have the cheek to call us warmongers. A peace on India's terms is no peace at all.
The only way for the Indians to accept our sovereignty is by defeating them by any means necessary.

Our army is there to ensure our existence. Any attempt to undermine their efforts by our enemy will be looked upon as offense of the worst kind.

 

[jackyy]

The duplicity in your self appointed intellect is apparent to everyone here.

If patting each other on the back and calling each other intellectuals pleases you, then continue on.

However, when you are done stroking your egos and personifying your internet personas there is a serious discussion taking place.

You are our enemy. You are using proxy warfare and propaganda against our nation.
At the same time your countrymen have the cheek to call us warmongers. A peace on India's terms is no peace at all.
The only way for the Indians to accept our sovereignty is by defeating them by any means necessary.

Our army is there to ensure our existence. Any attempt to undermine their efforts by our enemy will be looked upon as offense of the worst kind.

Your army was responsible for 71 and same is in baluchistan.I too want army rule in pakistan.

 

[Ticker]

Recently there was a discussion in Britain and some other NATO countries regarding continuation of Afghanistan as a viable state after the withdrawal of NATO and American draw-down. Some British MPs were stating that as because Afghanistan can not remain a viable state, it may be divided. And one such proposed division found some support was that whereas Northern Afghanistan can be made independent as it can over time become a viable national entity, Southern Afghanistan may be joined with Pakistan. This suggestion was also apparently forwarded to the Americans for consideration.

I sincerely hope that the GOP is actively involved in post NATO dispensation of Afghanistan and settles for an environment which is suitable for Pakistan as we have suffered tremendously and must not lose the advantage that we placed ourselves in. It should not be a repeat of what happened after the withdrawal of Soviets where Pakistan was left high and dry.

I had stated earlier as well that India has been able to generate a limited diversionary effort using Afghan territory against Pakistan by supporting the terrorists. However, their effort beyond a certain level may intrusively confront the American interests.

Though Americans have also utilized such Indian sponsoring to achieve some of their objectives, such Indians actions and efforts would tend to lose support whence the Americans may initiate stability enhancing measures in Afghanistan.

Therefore, Indian efforts by default are restricted due to time and space limitations. Beyond these time and space limitations, Indian sponsoring would hurt the American efforts and would then become counter productive.

The Americans will retain 4-6 bases in Afghanistan as their next objective is full spectrum domination of Eurasian Hinterland and is therefore beyond Afghanistan. For such objective attainment, it is important for Afghanistan to attain a measure of stability. Indian use of Afghanistan as a proxy base for sponsoring terrorism in Pakistan will have to stop at a particular stage.

When the center of gravity shifts to Iran and Central Asia, Pakistan would certainly become less prone to attacks from Indian sponsored terrorism from Afghanistan. We as Pakistan must therefore remain steadfast in our efforts to maintain and sustain our strategic interests.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Hope this helps sir. Not the anti war part, the notion of disbanding PA by IA.

I just want to get an Indian POV, this thread might after all be exciting putting aside the troll fest .

That disbanding of PA idea is as practicable and desirable a possibilty as confiscating Pakistan's nukes are. In other words, zero or zilch.

Actually, that idea is dangerous for everybody; be it Pakistan, the neighborhood or the world at large. There are enough loose cannons in Pakistan now. Eliminating the PA from the scene will remove the single force that can control or subdue those loose cannons. Of course it is PA's call on whether it will take next step-that of eliminating the loose cannons. Because that is also casting a shadow on Pakistan itself.

Presently that seems to be the conundrum or quandary facing the PA. And one hell of a 'tight-rope walk' actually.
That apart, disbanding PA is not an option to be considered.

 

[Ticker]

While US led efforts aimed at containment of Russia are stabilizing almost along the original Russian borders in Europe, endeavours to curtail her expansion towards the south and limit Russian and Chinese influence in Eurasian hinterland are underway.

In February 2002, Colin Powell told the House International Relations Committee that, “America will have a continuing interest and presence in Central Asia of a kind that we could not have dreamed of before.” Chairman of NATO Military Committee while on a visit to Australia stated that, securing the safety of Washington and Brussels requires the expansion of a US dominated military alliance into “the Euro-Asian and Asian-Pacific regions.” Major US and NATO presence in Afghanistan and their efforts to enhance military presence in various Central Asian countries under the garb of providing support for Afghan war are clear indications in this direction.

During the Soviet era, Eastern Europe and the border states along Turkey were considered as buffer states. It provided Soviet Russia enough time to mobilize and prepare her troops before any invader could enter mainland Russia.

After the demise of Soviet Union, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were taken away by NATO very early. As the Russian Federation rose from the ashes of Soviet Union, the importance of Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia and Armenia forced Russia to act intrusively in order to regain some format of a buffer between Russian mainland and foreign forces.

We saw problems with and within Belarus and Ukraine. Georgia attempted to jiggle her spurs, the result was loss of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Europe’s dependence on Russian gas and oil, particularly Germany, played its part as Russian influence played to pend any further extension of NATO towards Russia in Eastern Europe.

However, the fight for influence in Central Asia is the last straw in American efforts aimed Russian containment and America’s full spectrum domination. Turkey and Pakistan are the key in this emerging great game. The success of Pakistani grand strategy depends upon its ability to manipulate co-relation of contending powers to its own advantage.

 

[clmeta]

It was actually the thread of strikes that compelled Pakistani government to admit that all the attackers were Pakistanis and led to the arrest of Lakhvi. Pakistanis never acted on terror without pressure.

After Mumbai they threatened us with surgical strikes.

One statement by the Taliban left them silent and not a peep was heard from them again.


India cannot afford to engage a populace which is battle hardened and accustomed to tactics of guerrilla warfare. Vsdoc's fantasy about getting into one city is laughable to say the least.

 

[Joe Shearer]

No worries at all Sir

Take your time, i am excited to explore more about this topic.

I have the difficulty of starting off from an anti-war point of view; there must be easier ways to solve a problem than by going to war. But assuming that war will be a last resort, at all times, gives us one result; assuming that such a war need not be fought gives quite another.

Assuming that at some stage, there will be war, Pakistan will need a small but robust army, and an effective air force, and a much better navy than she possesses today. What will she do with these resources? Well, that depends on the nature of a war that might break out, remembering that the Bismarckian planned wars intended to crush an adversary after a systematic diplomatic campaign might not be on the cards. Mrs. Gandhi is long dead. On the other side, it is unlikely that Pakistan enjoys enough goodwill in the world, especially vis-a-vis India, to be able to take up the preliminary diplomatic campaign.

Where might war break out? There might be a massive explosion in J&K, of such a nature as to stress the defending forces and push them onto their back foot. There might be a misadventure; the generals are still planning how to get their peers out of their way to the top, and at such times, ordinary plain common sense takes a back seat. The location? Kashmir, or the way things are going, some unsuspecting spot down the river Indus (more or less). Outcome? Probably a drawn war.

And so on.