Towards a new & Improved Fauj

[rockstarIN]

. A reduction in the military will only be possible in case of 'peace/normalization' with India. That itself is a very long term process, and we are in some ways just beginning that process. A reduction in the military is therefore not on the cards until some sort 'trust' in bilateral relations is built up and/or India undertakes a reduction and/or redeployment of its military. Not to mention the additional point made about the need for significant numbers of troops on the ground to combat an insurgency, which goes against the 'reduction in military size' argument.
Now, Pakistan cannot wait till 'peace' is arrived at with India to invest in its development, and I have argued that it does not have to wait - the reforms and restructuring on the civilian side that I pointed out can be implemented in the near term and can start to pay dividends almost immediately. The resources generated from these reforms will be many magnitudes larger than the entire defence budget, and therefore eliminates the need to reduce the military and weaken our defence against external and internal aggressors.

The point is understood that Pakistan cannot lower its guard against India till there is a credible peace arrival.

But India is adding military might in a bigger pace (without affecting its other priorities) and in order to 'keep' the guard at par against India, Pakistan has to spend more on the military front. From where? have to take the resources which meant to use for education, industry, power, farming etc. who are losing in this situation?

So, it is better to make the forces more lean and more effective for COIN operations, which is the main priority now than India. Indian growing economy cant afford a war, but there should be no more Mumbai episodes. If you are able to block such thing not to happen in future, it is a win - win situation..

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The point is understood that Pakistan cannot lower its guard against India till there is a credible peace arrival.

But India is adding military might in a bigger pace (without affecting its other priorities) and in order to 'keep' the guard at par against India, Pakistan has to spend more on the military front. From where? have to take the resources which meant to use for education, industry, power, farming etc. who are losing in this situation?

So, it is better to make the forces more lean and more effective for COIN operations, which is the main priority now than India. Indian growing economy cant afford a war, but there should be no more Mumbai episodes. If you are able to block such thing not to happen in future, it is a win - win situation..

The first point is that Pakistan is not looking to match India 'man for man' when it comes to modernizing the military. Pakistan is looking to acquire systems and modernize where necessary to blunt the ability of India to do anything more than a 'stalemate' in a conflict with Pakistan.

Secondly, even if Pakistan was looking to match India 'man for man', the reforms I outlined would generate enough resources to both increase the development budget by many magnitudes, as well as pour in billions more annually into the military (not that it would be necessary to do that). In addition, please also see the point made about the need for MORE ground troops in COIN, not less, and the point about how the military has already invested in and implemented COIN training and equipment for its regular soldiers, and continues to do so. Hence my position that a reduction and/or re-tooling of the military is unnecessary and unfeasible, and that it makes far more sense to focus on the reforms on the civilian side that I outlined.

 

[Alternative]

It's getting better and better;

There is an elephant in the room, and unless it is acknowledged and dealt with, everybody will be talking around and around the subject.......................... there would be no more big budgets.

Don't know about the elephant, but I see a man with very large telescope and concentrating on minute details and largely oblivious of surroundings;
Now the Writer (Joe Shearer) draws a comparison between Pakistan and India; But for what purpose? Why?

Two countries were born in the same hour, and have developed radically differently. Until a few years earlier, it was fashionable and opportune for Pakistani commentators to point to the rapid development and to the low numbers of the absolute poor and to claim that there was no handicap faced by the state of Pakistan due to the attenuation of its democratic processes and its constant interruption by coup after coup, by one after another of a series of power-hungry military dictators, who disguised their personal ambitions as an act of self-sacrificing leadership of the country in distress.

Who said what and when, and why... but writer ascribes comments to Pakistani posters and offer his own responses; A very convenient way to make a point.
So, what comes next;

At least that silly line of argument has stopped. At least to some extent, less rather than more in its extent, there is some acknowledgement that the failure of the civilian government and civilian institutions is a reality. But now the grounds have been shifted, and we are told that this is all due to a coterie of thoroughly corrupt individuals, or perhaps a combination of a few very rich families which have got together to plunder the country for their own selfish ends

Silly line--- very convenient indeed;
failure of the civilian government and civilian institutions is a reality---- Very hard and very strange comment; inefficiency and corruption, yes; but failure of Government??? so What about Indian Goverments (Let me ask, it is not a "mahna", but a comparison you initiated), corrupt, yes may be more than Pakistan, in-efficient, yes offcourse... so similar failure there? Ah...yes, law and order, insurgency...more on Pakistani side, may be... but failure?

Two thoughts immediately cross the mind of an observer not too far detached from the state of Pakistan.

Observer: i.e., Joe Shearer, in Silchar, India (?). Poetical way of using a pronoun.

How is it that similar, if not worse, corruption in a neighbouring country has failed to slow down its progress, and how is it that the neighbour has enough money to equip itself to fight against two stubborn opponents simultaneously?

How is it that during the exact half of its history that the country of Pakistan was under military rule, nothing was done about corruption, or rather, whatever was done did not stand the test of time? One need not think very hard for the corollary question to ask itself as it were: was the country then totally inviolate in the half that it was in stewardship? Or is there some reason why there is a large segment of very rich generals on one side of the border but not the other?

so we arrive at this; rich generals on one side with failure, corruption, in-efficiencies, insurgencies etc against 'not so rich or poor generals' with failure, corruption, in-efficiencies, insurgencies on other side but with much cash to buy arms/weapons; (I wonder who is enjoying kickbacks on import of military hardware in India....).
Writer has conveniently ignored the facts that in last 30 years, Pakistan has been a part of two great wars, (not initiated by it but participated by choosing side) and has taken a heavy toll both in terms of life and property etc.

Agnostic Muslim has made considerable play with the fact that it is the failure of governance, of civilian institutions, of the executive, the legislature and judiciary all failing the country without exception, that has led to the preposterous situation where the country's modest but necessary military funding cannot be found readily. He has indicated that there is no gain, no loss of precious funding due to the excessive and misdirected organisation of the military, and that there is nothing to be gained by down-rating the threat from India and configuring the Pakistan Army around more tangible dangers.

and there is more forthcoming: 'considerable play' from one side and 'facts' from other side of border.

This might be true if it were not for a series of facts which need to be addressed, not by irresponsible and non-accountable outside commentators like myself, suspicious and untrustworthy as we are seen to be and treated as being, but by those who swear by their loyalty to Pakistan. It is only their confrontation of the bitter truth that will bring about change, not some mechanical wishes that by some miracle, all the elite will reform themselves, and that thereafter, there will be prosperity and all the money that is thought necessary for warlike preparation.

...eat, baita, eat...(to myself)

India does not matter; it will always be hostile; it will always jump on the country at a weak or unguarded moment and no expenditure is too much to guard against this ever-present danger. It is a question of strong fences making good neighbours.

If I would replace word India with China and ask you to swallow above para:
"China does not matter; it will always be hostile; it will always jump on the country at a weak or unguarded moment and no expenditure is too much to guard against this ever-present danger. It is a question of strong fences making good neighbours.
This is not merely self-seeking and delusionary, but positively toxic. The process of guarding against CHINA has led to huge armed forces being built up, well beyond the requirements of safety or legitimate defence, to an extent where there is parity between the forces. This is not defensive; it is a clear signal of offensive intent, and given the past history of CHINA-Indian relations, just as INDIAN commentators swear that they will never take a chance, there is nothing, no incentive for CHINESE planners to reduce their watchful vigil on the INDIAN Army either. So in this arms race, millions will be diverted. And what is the tangible result for INDIA?"

and your previous response to my previous attempt was, end part post #103;

No, you need not.

The entire discussion, the entire logic behind seeking new ways to address old problems whose dimensions have suffered changes over time is centred on the increasing differentiation between the two nations, a differentiation which is only going to increase, not decrease. In these circumstances, it is no longer valid to play tit-for-tat, no longer useful to be guided by testosterone.

Now the message is all clear;
You (Pakistan) a government failure, corrupt beyond repair, no hope of economic revival.. hand to mouth sort of existence, Jehadi/terroist infected (almost all).....doomed(my word to describe Writer's sentiments.)
Friendly Advice with a lot of heart and effort: Reduce army and convert to SWAT style force, save cash (and feed the bastard politicians,..again my piece )......some how, on this advice I remember MAMA KANSA and MAMA SHAKUNI of Mahabharata fame.

First of all, basing the future on reforms that are to be inevitable and that are to take place very soon is a fairy tale. This is not going to happen. Both the civilian and, let's face it, the military establishment of Pakistan is corrupt beyond repair. Bankruptcy is not imminent; neither is growth. The day when expenses rise beyond income is inevitable, and cannot be averted by subventions.

There is going to be no short-term reform and there is no hope in banking on these to balance the budget and to enable further military spending.

Second, from the very outset, the process of Islamisation has been steady and consistent. One by one, the Objectives Resolution, the hunting down of the Ahmediyyas, the declaration of the Islamic Republic and the introduction of Sharia law have been mentioned. What has not been mentioned is the deeply-rooted use of jehadist elements as a fifth column for the Pakistan Army in places where they believed that jehadists would find favour. This has led to direct consequences to the Army and to the country. On the one hand, it has created an eco-system for terror. That is not trivial.

Now, as this is a comparative analysis initiated by you, you have not included the Hindutva ideology, BJP ideology and its appeal to masses, RSS etc. in comparison.....Strange.....May be you have lots lots of money and so this don't matter....I see.

Extremists in Pakistan now have years of experience and training in organisation, fund-raising, training and administration of irregular forces. This has now come to a stage where with or without the explicit help of the deep state, they can work autonomously, independently. They now have started developing their individual agenda. While it is known, although to Pakistan, it is not proven that Pakistan was behind the murderous attacks on India, the rest of the world, India included, thinks so. Without quibbling, it seems to be a permanent feature of life in Pakistan.

TTP, which is fighting against the Pakistan and Pak Army is not a Jihade group of any sort of what so ever. If you seem to think that a group of 10000 or so combatants with arms and equipment can be maintained in active operations for years, with 'chanda' or 'khairat' (handouts) then you need to take a crash course in 'Cost and Management Accounting'.
I will not burden you with my 'conspiracy theories' of financing of TTP.

 

[S-2]

The issues highlighted by Muse and Niaz remain paramount. It's a reasonable assumption that any nation consuming 50% of it's available resources to sustain a peacetime military has stunted and will continue stunting its progress. Pakistan faces non-state warfare as its greatest enduring threat. The liklihood of a high-intensity conventional war with India is more remote than ever. The cost to either nation far outweighs any perceived gains, particularly when it's evident where the nuclear red-lines stand paramount.

Regional development of, particularly, Balochistan and FATAville are critical. Yet the N. Territories, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, Singh and the Punjab have their own nearly as critical needs. In nearly every case these needs stem back to the basics of health, education, rule of law and infrastructure in slightly varied proportions.

The military needs downsizing. This, however, may be an opportunity to revitalize your forces in recognition to the emerging regional realities presented by Shahzad Chaudhry. Doing so in accordance with his vision only creates the opening. Without the following teams of nat'l experts descending on FATAville and Balochistan (as example) to establish, stabilize and maintain the health, education, infrastructure and legal administration of these and other areas, all is for naught. That takes money and the assistance of others.

"Damn straight! Finally it is beginning to dawn on Pakistanis that while the US wants to help Pakistan, Pakistan may not want to avail herself of this US help, because with the US as a friend Pakistan needs no enemies..."

We do indeed want to help Pakistan. We don't, indeed, wish to help a Pakistan bent on interference with its Afghan neighbor. A.M. will, no doubt, dive in here with counter-claims about the insidious ages-old afghan desire to radicalize the pashtun heartlands of Pakistan towards conquest. Perhaps but I'd counter that the best defense against such (should it be a tangible threat) is the fortification of those regions by development.

I mention this because it's in America's interest from many perspectives to see a healthy and economically re-vitalized Pakistan. The money and desire to assist are there still. Whether that remains will be a function of Pakistani choices. Rejecting such, as suggested by Muse's comment, may or may not be a mistake. It will be a strategic decision regardless.

Muse is delusional, however, to anticipate our imminent and complete departure from central asia and the persian gulf. He'll be long-dead before such a realization occurs. So...America will remain a player in both areas for the foreseeable future. My personal view is that Pakistan may be America's enemy already. Muse suggests as much although the always-gullible American congress might not fully understand our aid as a one-way street leading to a dead-end alley.

As always, though, there is the question whether your military sees the need AND the value of such a transformation. Callously, a self-serving perspective might suggest that your military has been well-served by the maintenence of a perpetual enemy to your east. Could this be rejected in recognition of a greater non-state threat coupled with greater nat'l opportunities spurred from an organizational and strategic transformation within your military?

I've enjoyed the discussion. My apology for the belated entry.

 

[Rafi]

We have an enemy to the east, who is the enemy of my race, my blood, my religion and my land, we cannot lower our guard against them.

 

[S-2]

"...we cannot lower our guard against them."

Perhaps it serves you not to do so but the key word is, instead of "cannot", substitute "willnot".

India poses no realistic threat of offensive conventional high-intensity war against Pakistan. Please key in upon "realistic". It simply won't happen unless provoked. Too much to lose and too little to gain for them.

Islamic militancy will pose the greater (and more enduring) threat. Transforming your forces (and other elements of your government) to meet those challenges is paramount.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The issues highlighted by Muse and Niaz remain paramount. It's a reasonable assumption that any nation consuming 50% of it's available resources to sustain a peacetime military has stunted and will continue stunting its progress. Pakistan faces non-state warfare as its greatest enduring threat. The liklihood of a high-intensity conventional war with India is more remote than ever. The cost to either nation far outweighs any perceived gains, particularly when it's evident where the nuclear red-lines stand paramount.

Where did the '50% of resources for the military' figure come from?

Pakistan Budget in Brief 2010 11

And the points raised by both Niaz and Muse have been countered and far better alternatives offered, which you have not addressed either. So no, the issues highlighted by Muse and Niaz are not 'paramount'. Just because you wish to jump on the bash the Army/ISI bandwagon does not automatically make those issues 'paramount'.

Regional development of, particularly, Balochistan and FATAville are critical. Yet the N. Territories, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, Singh and the Punjab have their own nearly as critical needs. In nearly every case these needs stem back to the basics of health, education, rule of law and infrastructure in slightly varied proportions.

Regional development can be far better addressed through raising resources through the reforms I outlined.

The military needs downsizing.

No it does not, for reasons already mentioned in detail.

This, however, may be an opportunity to revitalize your forces in recognition to the emerging regional realities presented by Shahzad Chaudhry.

They have already been sufficiently 'revitalized' as pointed out earlier.

Doing so in accordance with his vision only creates the opening. Without the following teams of nat'l experts descending on FATAville and Balochistan (as example) to establish, stabilize and maintain the health, education, infrastructure and legal administration of these and other areas, all is for naught. That takes money and the assistance of others.

'That takes' the resources generated through the reforms I mentioned and the reforms of civilian institutions, that have been mentioned.

"Damn straight! Finally it is beginning to dawn on Pakistanis that while the US wants to help Pakistan, Pakistan may not want to avail herself of this US help, because with the US as a friend Pakistan needs no enemies..."

We do indeed want to help Pakistan.

No you don't - your double standards on the NSG exemption to India, refusal to extend trade concessions, unilateral intelligence operations by CIA thugs run amuck, sheltering of Baluch terrorists and facilitating their 'exile and asylum' to Switzerland, sheltering of Taliban terrorists in Kunar, all clearly point to a duplicitous policy of weakening Pakistan and attacking it.

We don't, indeed, wish to help a Pakistan bent on interference with its Afghan neighbor. A.M. will, no doubt, dive in here with counter-claims about the insidious ages-old afghan desire to radicalize the pashtun heartlands of Pakistan towards conquest. Perhaps but I'd counter that the best defense against such (should it be a tangible threat) is the fortification of those regions by development.

The best defence is both fortification of those regions by development as well as influencing the Afghan government to keep its hands off. BTW, perhaps you should take this 'self improvement' advice yourself first, and focus on 'fortifying immigration and domestic security against terrorist threats' rather than 'interfering, invading and setting up proxy regimes in other nations'.

I mention this because it's in America's interest from many perspectives to see a healthy and economically re-vitalized Pakistan. The money and desire to assist are there still.

Nonsense - see above.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

The issues highlighted by Muse and Niaz remain paramount. It's a reasonable assumption that any nation consuming 50% of it's available resources to sustain a peacetime military has stunted and will continue stunting its progress. Pakistan faces non-state warfare as its greatest enduring threat. The liklihood of a high-intensity conventional war with India is more remote than ever. The cost to either nation far outweighs any perceived gains, particularly when it's evident where the nuclear red-lines stand paramount.

By now on this, on this forum; sadly there are very few people who want to believe this.

Muse is delusional, however, to anticipate our imminent and complete departure from central asia and the persian gulf. He'll be long-dead before such a realization occurs. So...America will remain a player in both areas for the foreseeable future. My personal view is that Pakistan may be America's enemy already. Muse suggests as much although the always-gullible American congress might not fully understand our aid as a one-way street leading to a dead-end alley.

There will be no American or Western departure from the region. Just that the presence will take different forms and complexions at different times.
And there is going to be a rejig in relationships and activities among the nations bordering Afghanistan (on all sides) or with perceived stakes in the area. Incredible as it may seem, even Russia and other CARS will create different kinds of 'working arrangements' with Western powers to ensure stabilisation of Afghanistan. The days of one (or two players) calling the shots in Afghanistan are over.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

India poses no realistic threat of offensive conventional high-intensity war against Pakistan. Please key in upon "realistic". It simply won't happen unless provoked. Too much to lose and too little to gain for them.

And who is to be the guarantor of that?

Without any guarantees, your argument is pointless rhetoric.

Islamic militancy will pose the greater (and more enduring) threat. Transforming your forces (and other elements of your government) to meet those challenges is paramount.

Our forces have been and are being transformed to address both threats. But the main issue, as pointed out already, is not with the 'retooling and reform of the military', but with reforms on the civilian side.

 

[rockstarIN]

And who is to be the guarantor of that?

Without any guarantees, your argument is pointless rhetoric.

S-2 said, 'unless provoked'. As he pointed out we have too much to loose and very less too gain. If you look at the history, it is so.

 

[Vinod2070]

I think it has to be obvious to all that the real figure of what Pakistan spends on military is not the figures being bandied about here.

Just producing and storing the nukes in the numbers being talked about would cost several billions. Pakistani military numbers are mostly in the ratio of 1.5:1 or even less in most cases.

There is no way such a huge establishment is maintained with those budgets. It should be plain for all to see.

The decision to maintain whatever number remains for Pakistanis to decide. They should be clear about the costs involved.

 

[Rafi]

I think it has to be obvious to all that the real figure of what Pakistan spends on military is not the figures being bandied about here.

Just producing and storing the nukes in the numbers being talked about would cost several billions. Pakistani military numbers are mostly in the ratio of 1.5:1 or even less in most cases.

There is no way such a huge establishment is maintained with those budgets. It should be plain for all to see.

The decision to maintain whatever number remains for Pakistanis to decide. They should be clear about the costs involved.

Official Pakistani figures - unless proven false, or all we have to go on.

 

[Vinod2070]

^^ A reality check can do no harm.

 

[S-2]

"Where did the '50% of resources for the military' figure come from"

From Niaz-

"...Our Armed forces will continue to eat up 50% of the resources..."

Thanks for the budget link however. It's extensive. Perhaps you can highlight the salient elements WRT defense and security expenditures? Would that include development of your strategic assets?

"And the points raised by both Niaz and Muse have been countered and far better alternatives offered, which you have not addressed either... So no, the issues highlighted by Regional development can be far better addressed through raising resources through the reforms I outlined."

Perhaps. Most of your offerings must be carefully scrutinized for culling. The message is typically distortional.

"No it [the military] does not, for reasons already mentioned in detail..."

It does so we disagree. Complaints of an inability to prosecute an existing war in your west for lack of resources is too-common a theme. Your armed forces, particularly the army, could stand a dramatic restructuring acknowledging your existential threats. Doing so would free resources expensively-maintained and of little use.

"They have already been sufficiently 'revitalized' as pointed out earlier..."

Not so IMV. On-going operations in Swat, Bajaur and Mohmand suggest otherwise. A complete absence of combat operations after ten years of afghan taliban warriors within N. Waziristan also suggest as much. These are just the broadest sketches illustrating your dilemmas but are adequate points-of-departure for more.

Virtually any of your military experts (particularly army officers) here would be able to discuss details of necessary operational improvement absent an open forum.

The cost of change is high. Armies throughout the world are experiencing such. Some are attempting to do so with poor results-

Russian Army Disappointment-WSJ April 19, 2011

Transformation is not an easy nor inexpensive process. Your rejection of such is curious given a background seemingly unsuited for such an appraisal. You've not the expertise to make this judgement IMV. My own experience wouldn't fully prepare me to make this appraisal. Perhaps Shek, who worked in the Strategic Plans division of D.A. might be able to sketch the complexities but it's a full-time topic for any pro. That wouldn't describe you whatsoever. However, I'm open to the possibility that such is desirable. You're not...without merit.

That is an ad hominem attack. I strongly question your credibility on this issue.

"No you don't - your double standards on the NSG exemption to India, refusal to extend trade concessions, unilateral intelligence operations by CIA thugs run amuck, sheltering of Baluch terrorists and facilitating their 'exile and asylum' to Switzerland, sheltering of Taliban terrorists in Kunar, all clearly point to a duplicitous policy of weakening Pakistan and attacking it."

Nonsense. Your demeanor is that of a petulant child. India's NSG exemption took the approval of the 45 nation NSG group. Your singular focus on America illustrates again a distortional proclivity that's counter-productive. India's track record on proliferation made them an excellent candidate.

We owe you nothing WRT trade concessions when you are a the recipient of a specific congressional act (Kerry-Lugar) aimed at your economic and social development. We're the most generious enemy you'll ever likely know. A case to be far otherwise can be easily made.

"CIA thugs run amuck" might be unnecessary were LeT thugs long-running amuck not a harsh reality and threat to our nation. It cuts both ways and you've at least as much responsibility. Save it for another argument though.

We've not sheltered one Balouch terrorist. This was established by you and I in the Wikileak transcripts. Nor have we abetted their flight elsewhere. Your argument remains with the GoA.

Further, your implication that we've sheltered terrorists in Kunar is an open slander. Six U.S. troops died recently in combat operations in Kunar. Alluding otherwise fits your dissembling narrative regardless of how often I've posted current orders of battle here.

Here's the latest. Educate yourself-

Afghanistan Order Of Battle-Institute For The Study Of War April 2011

It'll only take you a moment to realize that the best part of Task Force Bastogne 1st Brigade Combat Team has three battalions (1-32 Cav, 1-327 and 2-327 Infantry) operating in Kunar.

Qari Ziaur Rahman was captured by your forces with the help of C.I.A. "thugs" and released. He was subsequently promoted as the taliban emir of Kunar operations. No doubt his forces enjoy the benefits of very rugged terrain and porous borders.

An interview with Rahman-

At War With The Taliban-A Fighter and Financier-Syed Saleem Shahzad-Asia Times May 23, 2008

Were you more informed you'd acknowledge (among many other items) the cooperation by your forces and ours in the border reaches to the extent permissable by GHQ Rawalpindi.

"The admiral would not discuss specifics of his conversations with Kayani. He meets at least quarterly with the Pakistani military leader, he said, and those conversations remain private.

Generally, the admiral said, the Pakistani military is in a difficult fight with extremists in Mohmond province, its third campaign against extremists there.

“What’s different this time is the cross-border coordination with our forces, which has made a significant difference,” Mullen said. “It represents a level of coordination that’s better than it’s ever been.”

Despite the hullaballoo about Haqqani this is the enduring quality faced by combat forces on both sides of the border. The complexity of such apparently eludes you...again.

"...The best defence is both fortification of those regions by development..."

I said EXACTLY that in my comments-

"...I'd counter that the best defense against such (should it be a tangible threat) is the fortification of those regions by development..."

You plagarize if attempting to make this your own. Stop it.

"...as well as influencing the Afghan government to keep its hands off..."

Doing so by differing means than currently might be helpful. Chicken or the egg in this latest iteration of afghan-Pakistani squabbles. Maintaining a proxy force aimed at Afghanistan holds precedent over the formation of their latest government. Those in Kabul might suggest that Pakistan, too, should "keep its hands off".

Please-no tiresome history lesson again. I've read it too many times from you and it's become a regular feature of your anti-afghan diatribe. That so-called government poses no salient threat to a nuclear-armed Pakistan. If otherwise, your troubles far exceed any capacity for resolution and you'd best surrender immediately.

 

[was]

ok so now americans will decide hwo is ur enemy and hwo is not.just think about how to get out of afghanistan with some dignity and not like soviets and don,t poke ur nose elsewhere.