Towards a new & Improved Fauj

[S-2]

"Privatizing the largest loss making PSE's would give Pakistan around 300 billion rupees additionally (no more subsidies to cover their annual losses)."

This would be contingent upon their sale into the private sector. That's problematic unless the profit potential is there without undue investment narrowing the margins. Are these PSEs currently attractive or, if not, can they be made so?

"Expansion of the tax base would yield hundreds of billions more."

That's long been a desire. Expansion would be attendant with tax reform, would it not?

"These reforms generate far more revenue than cuts in the defence budget ever could..."

Perhaps. Nonetheless, until they're implemented there'll be no way to determine absolutely if that's the case. Bureaucratic mechanisms move slowly whether in the form of U.S. aid, Pakistani public sector enterprise sales and tax reform or even military transformation.

"...and they allow for enhancing our development without compromising our national security."

We'll disagree here that you nat'l security would be compromised by the proposed transformation changes. I'm not, however, opposed in principle to your proposals. They generally make sense in any case. Anything that can be a net contributor to Pakistan's nat'l health is a valid consideration IMV.

 

[Xeric]

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.

You being ex military, having access to direct info of happenings in Afg and i being part of the entity that fights the same battle EXACTLY knows what AM, you and i are talking about. All three of us know what happens across the K. River and why, so please acknowledge your inability to prove you stance by quoting the ORBAT in Kunar to the casual readers of this forum, to convince us you need to put forth something that has a security clearance similar to the documents released by Wikileaks, which ofcourse you wont, so let's cut the chase.

So in short, let's leave these arguments for those 'civilian's who dont know that truth. Be assured that i can shut you and this argument of yours with a single stroke of my keyboard but then my country's Official Secret Act forbids me from doing so.

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.

When was the last time we hid behind the inability-to-fight-COIN-because-we-were-trained-to-fight-conventional-war excuse? (this was in relation to your post that i relied in my previous post). So you can keep your beaks shut rather then telling us to transform.

As for your current argument regarding nonavailability of resources, well i must enlighten you that the nonavailability is in terms of non and late CSF reimbursements and that we cannot sustained such a prolonged war, we are not the mighty US who can spend billions year after years on whatever type of military campaign nor we are Sri Lanka that had only one enemy (the LTTEs) to cater for.

Furthermore, as AM pointed out your unwillingness to to "help Pakistan" (by trade concessions or whatever) and following a system of relations which revolve around "handing out meager amounts of aid only indicates a desire to keep Pakistan beholden to US handouts, not a desire to 'help Pakistan'." IS the major reason behind Pakistan's complain whereby it demands more resources to sustain and thereafter expand this war to other areas of US' interest. Freeing resources by waiving off the indian threat would not do as the argument is invalid in the present scenario.

How about the US uses its influence to solve the Kashmir issue, resolve the water (and other) disputes between india and Pakistan, bar india from placing SUs facing Pakistan, and help Pakistan in making up its energy shortfall by may be a civilian nuclear deal, thus eliminating the raison d'etre for the excuse relating to Pakistan lowering its guard on its East, instead?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Our operations are conducted to the best of our humble abilities on behalf of a host nation. Doing so has entailed a significant cultural learning curve. Nobody in our forces would suggest otherwise and I've noted nothing but a humble recognition of the daunting barriers to such that Afghanistan imposes. OTOH, Pakistani military operations are conducted with the financial help of others on your own lands and amidst your own peoples. What's your excuse? The first operation of significance occurred in September 2008 in Bajaur. It's on-going. You nearly LOST Swat/Buner in April 2009 before awakening from your somnolence.

The 'cultural learning curve' has little to do with winning at COIN - otherwise this would be a war waged by anthropologists, not soldiers. 'Holding' territory still requires development of local governance and security institutions, and delivering on development, jobs, infrastructure etc.

Knowing how long to stay as a guest and how many cups of tea to have is not going to win you any wars.

Pakistan had her setbacks, but that she recovered and the Taliban are nowhere close to the strength they used to be is clear proof of operational improvements.

There's no dishonesty on my part regarding America's sponsorship of India's NSG exempt status. It's a common fact. Does that need explaining? What you fail to explain, however, is why 44 other members concurred with our assessment of India's fitness. Conversely, Pakistan's record of non-proliferation is weak. Very much so.

Does not really matter what the other States did or did not do - in the context of your claims that the 'US wants to help Pakistan', what I pointed out is that the US championed the NSG waiver for India, while outright refusing it for Pakistan, which (among the other things mentioned) makes your and your governments claims about 'helping Pakistan' disingenuous and dishonest.

Of course, you could appeal to the PRC for such a sponsorship. They're your all-weather friends...or are they-

"Chinese officials said last month that export of the reactors to Pakistan would be justified in consideration of political developments in South Asia, including the entry into force of the U.S.–India deal and the NSG exemption for India. Western diplomats said China would not strongly favor an NSG exemption for Pakistan matching India’s because that would not additionally benefit Chinese industry and because Pakistan, compared to India, is a limited nuclear power market with far less infrastructure and far fewer financial resources."

Pakistan Deal Signals China's Growing Nuclear Assertiveness-Carnegie Endowment April 2010

It would appear that we're not the only nation failing to support Pakistan before the NSG. Is China your enemy too?

The US has officially, several times, outright refused to consider offering Pakistan an NSG waiver - has China done so?

"...That clearly goes against your claim of 'wanting to help Pakistan', since in this instance you clearly did the opposite while bolstering her enemy..."

That's your cross to bear. Pakistan is unsupportable given your sordid proliferation track-record. We've done and continue to provide for Pakistan in more ways than your limited memory apparently allows. Earthquakes, floods, and sixty years of continuous aid measured in billions of dollars fly out of your memory wherever convenient. It's not what we do but what we don't do upon which you maintain such a careful ledger.

Pakistan's proliferation is nothing compared to that by Western nations, and China some would argue, that has allowed states like Pakistan and Israel to develop nuclear weapons. The proliferation by AQ Khan only resulted in outdated centrifuge designs to Iran and a dud nuclear weapon design to Libya, which could do nothing with it in any case.

Those other nations are part of the NSG, therefore the proliferation argument is hypocritical, and US refusal to support an NSG waiver a clear refutation of its claims to 'want to help Pakistan'.

"Pakistani troops have died at the hands of Haqqani and Gul Bahadur in NW - so what is your point?"

I can recall not one instance of operations against either. Please provide links to combat waged against Haqqani AND Bahadur. I'll be eager to read about it and happy to stand corrected.

I did not say 'operations' I said our troops have died at their hands, our leadership has declared them the enemy. It is our resource constraints that prevent military operations against them. What is your excuse for allowing terrorists to find sanctuary in Afghanistan and launch cross border attacks against Pakistani forces?

"Terrorists in their hundred and thousands continue to repeatedly cross over into Pakistan from Afghanistan"

Now this borders on ludicrous. "hundreds and thousands"? Please, the hyperbole is an insult to the taliban if not your own forces too.

50 feared dead as Afghans storm across border

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

"What about it [the Rahman Interview]?"

So haven't you read it?

I am asking you what you specifically want me to take from it. What part is relevant to the discussion on the US being unable to prevent him and others like him from finding sanctuary in Afghanistan and attacking Pakistan from there?

"...they are not stopping terrorists from finding sanctuary in Afghan territory and crossing into Pakistan to attack Pakistani forces."

Sanctuary is a term which you seemingly pretend no familiarity. If you read the Rahman interview then you'll note that his forces were constantly threatened by attack from both the air and ground. That remains the case today in Kunar. There is no commensurate threat of attack for Haqqani's men in Pakistan. THAT, in a nutshell, is the salient definition of "sanctuary".

They appear to have 'sanctuary' enough to train hundreds of fighters and organize and launch repeated attacks into Pakistan over the years. I fail to see how Haqqani poses a larger threat to US forces in Afghanistan when Afghan based militants routinely carry out mass attacks against Pakistani forces, such as the one on Friday that killed 16.

"...If you can accuse the PA of supporting terrorists by allowing the same, then the same accusation applies to the US..."

Absolutely not. Sanctuary doesn't exist where the threat of attack is always imminent. For Rahman, he makes clear that he's threatened with attack by our forces. Not so with those you've harbored since 2001. Omar, Hekmatyar and Haqqani's men never faced any such threat and many right here believe that they are retained as proxy armies to be aimed at Afghanistan. Perhaps even you.

Your 'threatened with attack' Rehman and others of his ilk have launched more cross border mass attacks against Pakistani forces in the last few years than anything I have heard Haqqani do.

"...Yes, they keep running back across the border into Afghanistan where your military is apparently doing nothing..."

I refuse to insult your troops dying in the field in defense of Pakistan. Over 1,000 American troops have died defending the citizens of another land not their own. Their sacrifice is noteworthy. This comment by you is small-minded, petty and insulting. Nothing less.

Your troops are there of their own choice, out of the choice of your government and many of your citizens, don't make your presence look like a favor. You had the chance to have OBL tried in a neutral country when the Taliban made that proposal, and avoid all this bloodshed. The choice and its consequences are an American burden to bear.

You bask in the comfort of America yet fail to display the manhood necessary to take up arms in defense of your own nation while it's engaged in war. Who are you to cast aspersions when you don't know the first thing about combat or serving in the armed forces?

Yet more asinine and irrelevant comments.

"...Your denial of the US supporting terrorists is a bald faced lie..."

I've done no such thing but won't accept being called a liar. We both read the transcript. At no point did it indicate American knowledge or complicity in such-

US embassy cables: Karzai admits to sheltering Baloch nationalists-Guardian Dec. 1, 2010

Item #11-

"Assistant Secretary Boucher asked Karzai if he knew where Bugti was. Karzai responded that a lot of Bugtis come to Afghanistan. In fact, over 200, with their sons and money, have come. Karzai said he advised them to go the United Nations for asylum, but many were frightened and are in hiding. The United Nations declined to deal with the issue, considering it too sensitive. Karzai said he was "not interested in having them in Afghanistan as it was too much trouble."

"...your government officials discussed the presence of Brahamdegh Bugti and his terrorist organization, and their being sheltered by the Afghans with the Afghan President."

Yes. See above. Discussing such indicated no collusion or even prior knowledge. That's fully evident to most and should be to you also. The facts are there to read.

Discussing the issue meant, even assuming no prior knowledge, knowledge from that point onwards of the presence of a wanted terrorist leader and members of his organization in Afghanistan. What did the US do after that? Nothing.

Control of Afghanistan by the U.S.? Don't be intentionally obtuse or are you simply that naive? Were it so we wouldn't need to endure Karzai any more than you. I rather doubt, however, Bugti's a significant concern of ours and KNOW its no obligation of our C.I.A. to track Bugti's presence in Afghanistan, Switzerland or elsewhere.

I don't care what you 'endure' with Karzai - send some drones or Raymond Davis's to take out Bugit. You didn't. The US is complicit in sheltering a terrorist leader who has now been facilitated in traveling to Switzerland for asylum.

OTOH, I imagine Amrullah Saleh had an interest. Take your complaint to Kabul...or him. They won't care though. They're too busy ducking bombs sent by those you harbor on the Pakistani side of the border. Pakistan makes enemies, A.M. When it washes back onto Pakistan don't be surprised. Karzai is no friend of Pakistan nor can I imagine why he should be.

Actually, Michael Semple's analysis of the wikileaks detailing so called 'intelligence against the ISI' indicated the Saleh was more busy concocting fairy tales of Pakistan sending bombs at him.

"...And I never claimed the US 'owed Pakistan trade concessions'..."

Of course you have lest you'd not carp about it. Reconstruction Opportunity Zones, nonetheless, remain a desire for the current administration and significant elements of our congress. The bill will likely see approval when it comes before a vote.

More disingenuity - YOU claimed that the 'US wanted to help Pakistan', I merely pointed out to you why your claim was a lie. In an attempt to wriggle out of that, you have gone on a tangent of 'Us does not owe Pakistan anything' - that was never the issue here.

"...but your refusal to grant them clearly indicates that the US does not have any intention of 'wanting to help Pakistan'."

Any more or less than the significant concessions received from other notable nations. I note with interest this from PAKISTAN TODAY-

'Unilateral concessions' - we do have 'bilateral trade access'. The US has not even offered that.

"Refusing trade concessions and handing out meager amounts of aid only indicates a desire to keep Pakistan beholden to US handouts, not a desire to 'help Pakistan'".

I don't consider over $350m of aid in the last year to be meager but that illustrates your perspective. Nevermind that you're $350m richer than otherwise. The glass is always half-empty with you it seems. We're slated to disburse much more as the mechanisms to do so are put in place. Here is a GAO report indicating the amounts so far disbursed-

Keep the aid - I, and many other Pakistanis, have said as much anyway. US insistence to only attempt to 'assist' Pakistan with tiny handouts indicates a desire to keep Pakistan beholden and dependent on US aid, rather than allowing it to strengthen its economy through trade. As I said, the US has no intention of 'helping Pakistan'.

The GAO, of course, notes the need for strong oversight of these funds as also with CRP funding. Will visas be expedited to permit such?

I hope not, because the US has apparently been sending over CIA terrorist thugs under the guise of 'officials'.

"...Involving Pakistan in the training of the Afghan security forces soon after the invasion, obtaining Pakistani opinion about the leadership being put in place in the Afghan government and hearing out their concerns would have been an excellent way to engage Pakistan in the development of Afghanistan. But of course, the above would have only occurred had the US actually wanted to 'help Pakistan'. You laid the groundwork of an anti-Pakistan regime and intelligence service and military..."

I'm sorry but Pakistan would have been a poor fit for such. You were tainted with a legacy of supporting the Afghan taliban. That made you untrustworthy. You did little subsequently to allay those concerns and, instead, lived down that stigma. Civil war shall come when NATO departs and the Russians, Indians and Iranians will then play their role. If things are bad now, brace yourselves as Pakistan's unhelpfulness shall blow back upon you.

The US is responsible for all that followed then - the US chose to cut out Pakistan and support individuals and a regime completely hostile to Pakistan while also bolstering strategic ties with Pakistan's existential enemy in the East. Why on earth then would you expect Pakistan to trust the US in return and not hedge its bets? What has happened is entirely the fault of the US.

"Then a rag tag group of AL Qaeda and the Taliban 'poses no salient threat to the 'nuclear-Armed military and economic might of the US' ..."

Non-state actors, remember? That's where this thread started. To that end, I'd strongly recommend your government heed the original post and restructure your armed forces. You'll need them in ways and means heretofore unimagined.

What about non-state actors? Afghanistan has sent plenty of those into Pakistan over history, Baluch and Pashtun.

Again, heed your advice yourself first.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

My starting point is the fact that there has to be a vast qualitative or quantitative difference between the militaries of India and Pakistan, given the ostensible resources available to them.

Isn't there? Outline the total acquisitions by the Indian Army vs the Pakistani Army over the last decade or so, and do the same with the IAF vs PAF, IN vs PN.

Is Pakistan spending similar amounts of resources on military acquisitions?

Your starting point so far is an opinion, speculation still. You need to provide numbers and match them to the budget and illustrate how the defence budget and allocations are not enough to support the military at declared levels.

None of the reasons you mentioned are plausible enough to explain this. I understand you know (or are willing to disclose if you are an insider ) as much of the facts as I do.

Explain what? Explain a speculative argument on your part? Read above and offer some factual basis to work from please.

At least one Pakistan seems to think this may be happening. Not beyond the realm of the possible.

'Seems to think' being the operative phrase here, in other words, speculates, opines. No doubt you will find many more who 'seem to think' the same - does not change the fact that it is still a conspiracy theory until some evidence supporting the allegations is provided.

My best guess is that you are basing your whole premise on faulty data.

Exactly - you have a 'guess', I have data. You will have to do some legwork and number crunching to make any sort of a serious case here.

It just means that PA can't really say "no" when the requests come from the like of SA. It is up to you to see if that is what Pakistan wants.

Correct - there will be 'quid pro quo', but different debate.

If their scale is what she mentioned, it would point to a much greater share of the resources available to Pakistan going to the military.

No it wouldn't - these business employ significant numbers of civilians as well, and they pay huge amounts of taxes, and they provide goods and services. That is productive, and a benefit to the economy and State, not a drain.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

"Privatizing the largest loss making PSE's would give Pakistan around 300 billion rupees additionally (no more subsidies to cover their annual losses)."

This would be contingent upon their sale into the private sector. That's problematic unless the profit potential is there without undue investment narrowing the margins. Are these PSEs currently attractive or, if not, can they be made so?

The larger entities are attractive. The GoP would save billions in subsidies even if it gave them away for free.

"Expansion of the tax base would yield hundreds of billions more."

That's long been a desire. Expansion would be attendant with tax reform, would it not?

"These reforms generate far more revenue than cuts in the defence budget ever could..."

Perhaps. Nonetheless, until they're implemented there'll be no way to determine absolutely if that's the case. Bureaucratic mechanisms move slowly whether in the form of U.S. aid, Pakistani public sector enterprise sales and tax reform or even military transformation.

Estimates on additional revenue generated through tax reform/expansion have been floating around for a while. The money generated will be significant. And bureaucratic mechanisms will come in the way of any reform - whether military or civilian.

 

[Xeric]

Try this-type TRANSFORMATION OF THE U.S. ARMY into google. You might actually enlighten that self-satisfied lame azz of yours.

^^ i dont need to. i know you guys. Still, why dont you help us all by enlightening us as regards to exactly what transformation did the US military undergo? Did the US military went from a conventional fighting force to a COIN specialist in its ENTIRETY? Or did it just add a new subject to its military curriculum so that it should be able to tackle the new form of warfare effectively? i think it did the latter! Heck you didnt even change when the Cold War was over (you no more had a traditional enemy after that) and you have the cheeks to tell us to transform!

OTOH, we're not engaged in a COIN battle on our own lands. You are. Our transformation entails different resource pools, objectives and priorities suited to our requirements. Thus the ways, means, and ends differ dramatically from your situation.

That's exactly the point.

So how you see yourself qualified to tell us what to do when you differ from us in application. Oh yes, the writer was a Pakistani, if so then why dont you leave the discussion, your presence here is just a nuisance for other Pakistani members discussing the issue.

Anywaz, you yourself points out that the transformation entails different resource pools etc and that things differ dramatically from our situation, why dont you let us decide upon the change? You probably mean that those formulating the policies are incapable and that someone who dont have an iota of how we are fighting this war is more suited to tell them how to go about it?! Who the heck told the generals to transform the Pakistan Army from a conventional force to COIN specialist? Was it the yanks or was it the writers of editorials? No, it was the policy-makers themselves. So this time too, it would be the policy makers themselves who would decide upon the fate of this military.

Would it help your patent anti-American bent to acknowledge the original thread was written by a Pakistani asking you to consider such?

^^ And this fact would have no bearing whatsoever on the outside influence on our politiks. Seriously, S2!

Is India spending ten rupees on defense for every rupee allocated to education, health, housing and the environment? You are. Are they financially destitute? You are. Are their socio-cultural trendlines in decided decline? Your's are.

Do they possess the same strategic objectives and face the same threats?

Your pre-occupation with India is a comfortable professional past-time that serves your nation poorly IMV. Remove the blinders and smell the coffee.

So what?

Our indian centric stance has not barred our response to insurgency. If that had been the case we would not have cleared Swat and the remainder of FATA. This difference of spending never occurred to you when you forced this GWoT shyt upon us back in 2001, but now just because we are not ready to go into N/Waziristan, this all calculation comes to surface and becomes the basis of your entire argument. You know what, you can STFU as you dont understand the relation of our military spending to our development resources. Heck , one who quotes the figure of 50% borrowing it from another Pakistani and then reproducing it shamlessly without confirming it would now tell me that we should cut down on our military, forget about india and divert every fcuking thing to our military so that we can fight in N. Waziristan. i mean, WTF happened to this suggestion when we were all committed in Swat and surrounding and india eyed us with 5000 target fantasy.

BTW, why dont you tell the UN to stop accepting Pakistan Army as a Peace Keeping Force in UN Missions so that may be we are able to spare more boots for the N/W campaign?

Here, i'll suggest you and the other yanks to stop nibbling on those cheese burgers and stop think from your behinds and instead of telling us to divert everything from the East so that we can 'transform' the remainder of our military why dont you move your lame arse and do something about the (numerous) issues between the two rivals? i am surprised that you people dont feel an iota of shame when your leaders refuse to intervene in issues like Kashmir by saying it is a matter that has to be solved india and Pakistan alone, but at the same time you suggest us to lower our guard from there, stop worrying about india and concentrate on maulvis? S2, are you stupid or what? Use your influence to solve the impending issues between the two countries and only then you would have the legitimacy to tell us how to behave, until then you can let us waste our time by pre-occupying ourselves with indian hegemony!

Then leave the discussion. Your value appears marginal.

That's the best you could come up with? It's my country and i ought to worry about it. You, on the other hand mind you business in Afg and we do ours in FATA. We dont ask you to operate in Kunar and you dont ask us to stop the cross overs. Fair?

Why would that have made a difference? Did you not recognize the nature of taliban combat operations long before that or were you so unobservant to ignore Bosnia, Somalia, the afghan civil war and NATO/ISAF between 2001 and 2009? What eye-openers did your army receive at Loe Sam in the early fall of 2008-

Pakistanis Mired In Brutal Battle To Oust Taliban-NYT Jane Perlez Nov. 10, 2008

Maybe you recall these captured soldiers-

Pakistan Seeks Talks With Rebels On Missing Soldiers-Reuters Aug. 31, 2007

Why did it take until Swat and Buner were nearly captured in April 2009 for you to recognize the existential threat to your society? For eight years between 2001-2009 your army sat in self-satisfied splendor on the eastern punjab plains facing a non-existent threat while your west rotted away by devices of your own choice and construction.

i see that you have a short term memory. i have explained this to you in detail in another thread. i have narrated the reasons to why did we react in a way we have to. Please try rummaging through the old posts and may be your brain starts thinking in today's time. But now as i know your mind lack the capability of retaining small data, i would only list two reasons again:
1) We were fighting against our own people, and we had to convince our Nation. And believe me, in our case it works in a different way, we didnt leak UBL tapes just before the elections and fool the yanks 75% of whom cant spot their own country on a world map!
2) we are not a blood thirsty superpower that can shyt anywhere anytime by virtue of its economic and military muscle.

Those afghan taliban warriors invited into your lands in late 2001 INFECTED your pashtun populace and created the enemy you fight today.

"As i have mentioned in my post # 106 that we have already transformed our forces (to include FC and Police) to fight out this 'new' dimension of warfare and this transformation doesnt only affect a small portion of our forces but the entire length and breath of Pakistan Defence Forces to include military (the tri-services), the para military and the civil armed forces viz Pakistan Rangers, Frontier Corps and Pakistan Coast Guards."

Nice. How's that working for your nation? That "transformation" is hardly complete. Meanwhile you continue spending 10/1 on your military in lieu of education, housing, health and environment...and the results lie before you.

i dont know why but i feel a strong urge to skip this rant.

I'm late to this party. There's ten pages of your own citizens telling you the same. Best you read and consider.

See, so you ducked again. No more views on Kunar? No more posting of ORBATS and casualty numbers in Kunar? i know you have somethings to hide, but i aint asking either. But in the end this would then entail that you failed!

 

[S-2]

Let's start here because I've bigger fish to fry with you-

"50 feared dead as Afghans storm across border..."

September, 2008. Wasn't that in the midst of your FIRST combat operation? Yup. So? Rahman attacks you? We'll LA-DI-DAH. Join the party. He attacks us too. That's why he's a bounty on his head from us and under constant threat of air and ground attack.

We'd very much like him dead. Feel free to kill him and collect the bounty upon identification of his worthless carcass.

"What part is relevant to the discussion on the US being unable to prevent him and others like him from finding sanctuary in Afghanistan and attacking Pakistan from there?"

What part of the definition for "sanctuary" eludes you?

sanc·tu·ar·y/ˈsaNG(k)CHo͞oˌerē/Noun
1. A place of refuge or safety.
2. Immunity from arrest.

He, if you actually have read the article, attests that we're engaged in efforts to KILL him. Hardly "sanctuary". You persist otherwise and have even suggested we shelter the fcuk. That's utterly dishonest but all-too-common with you.

An AFGHAN Haqqani enjoys SANCTUARY by your government. So too an AFGHAN Omar. No attacks. No threats. No bounty. Not ONE operation after ten years of an ousted AFGHAN government and its warriors on your soil. Nada.

Your skewed notions of sovereignty are laughable.

Get it? Of course you do.

I'd humbly guess that you and I are irreconcilable enemies.

Happy Easter.

Thanks.

 

[muse]

All these ridiculous arguments put up by Xeric and AM, do little to further our understanding of coming events inside Pakistan -- to start off neither Xeric nor AM are persuaded that the principal enemy is thre Islamist insurgency. And really if you don't buy that basic premise, there is little to talk about - not suggesting that your position is devoid of substance, it's just not what the thread was about. India and adversary? Sure but that universe is not limited, tomorrow the list may include the US and NATO (as I am sure it will) but who are on the top of that list? No Indian is doing suicide ops in Pakistan -- anyway, if you are happiest using the Indian bogey, make hay while you can, because that game WILL evolve (that's that civilian politicos part of the AVM's paper) -- I suggest we love Pakistan more and hate India less - but you don't have to be persuaded by that (it's just that soon you will find that any other position will become very difficult indeed, only a change in civilian politics will effect that.

Xeric argues as if the position is that the Fauj become solely a counter insurgency force - this is most certainly not the position the AVM is advocating -- And the Americans have zip, zero, to do with the position presented by the AVM - And AM's arguments that money can be raised by efficient management and selling off state assets, well, we all agree but lets be reasonable, the politics behind selling of state assets which are sources of patronage and through which bureaucrats become millionaires, well, if that was politically feasible it would have already happened.

But lets grant that the govt really does succeed in dumping it's loss making properties, will that mean that military spending as a percentage of GDP will now be able to increase without incurring political punishment??? Of course not -- as soon as things start to improve, the demand for "more" of the good life will increase (to my thinking the only improvement for the armed forces may be the defense production sector, especially if they can sell this as a jobs scheme).

See that bit about India not so much of an adversary - what's that about?? -- Well, for Pakistan to transition from a state in crisis, to one on a trajectory of economic growth, the threats environment will have to change - no two ways about - The Pakistan Fauj have already lost Pakistan both the initiative and the capability to sustain itself -- it's own dogs have now turned on the Fauj and the state and it's economy cannot rescue her state and the leadership of her armed forces, sustain their position through deals made with foreigners.

Lets be real with each other - Bravdo aside, chest thumping and the once great professional Fauj - We are everyday crying about not getting this or that funds from the US to fight our/their war (we are on sides, so it's theirs and our war) how much longer can this go on?? Not much longer at all and again, it's got little to do with the US and every thing to do with the future of Pakistan and the kind of Pakistan we may luck out be able to create.

 

[VCheng]

..........


'Seems to think' being the operative phrase here, in other words, speculates, opines. No doubt you will find many more who 'seem to think' the same - does not change the fact that it is still a conspiracy theory until some evidence supporting the allegations is provided.


.......

There are detailed reports beginning from the time ZAB financed the first Pakistani atomic weapons program, to all of AQ Khan's international dealings and everything in between. All dealings of numerous false front companies are closely monitored. The drug trade and all the connections of how its proceeds are channeled are studied in detail. The military is intimately involved in all of this. Many of those involved are comfortably "retired" in the West. After all, they want to live to enjoy their proceeds somewhere on planet Earth. Most of those currently involved will continue to follow the same channels.

Edit: This includes all routine financing operations of all branches of the military too.

All of that detail is robust and exists. However, the kind of public reporting that would be accepted as proof would not serve any national interest and thus is unnecessary. I do not need to declare any of that just to thump my chest in this forum.

Please continue to regard my posts as mere speculation.

 

[S-2]

"...for Pakistan to transition from a state in crisis, to one on a trajectory of economic growth, the threats environment will have to change - no two ways about..."

Transformation of the army's organizational design is dependant upon a change in the threat perception. This strikes to the core of transformation and poses the greatest threat to the military hierarchy's reserved status and vested benefits.

It's clear reading the comments of a couple here that this is an absolute red-line. It's also, unfortunately, a subordinate issue. Without the requisite civilian oversight possessing both the authority and expertise to mandate such a change transformation is a dead issue.

Afterall, if only the army knows what's best for the nation and itself, who can reasonably challenge the supremacy of their views?

 

[Xeric]

Like i always say, dont overload your common sense.

All i said was in context of the yanks (to include S2s) demanding Pakistan to go in hot and in return Pakistan excusing itself on the basis that it runs short of resources and that it cant spare men and material from the eastern border. So it was easy for me to shut them your likes by suggesting that if Pakistan was serious regarding taking on N/W while it dont want to pull out forces from the eastern border, why shouldnt it stop sending troops on UN Peace Keeping Missions or alternatively (as i framed it) the US can always 'tell' us to spare the troops from the UN employment (which roughly total ups to 10K plus) and redirect them to new war zones in a similar way it (the US and S2s) is 'telling' us to downsize, transform our forces and lower our guard on the eastern side. Found the relation? May be not, not your day.

But you dont see this happening, why? Coz we dont give a shyt about going in N/W right now and would make any excuse necessary to avoid the pressure.

But then it was too subtle for some...tsk ..tsk...


P.S. BTW, did you also miss that i was ignoring you for almost entire length of the thread? Toooo subtle for your tiny brain, indeed!!

 

[muse]

Friends:


Lets put this thing about the US inability to transition to rest -- It's true, absolutely 100% true that the US has found it very difficult to make the required transitions, in terms of military, in terms of economy and in particular in terms of the "narrative" of it's place in the world, it's "burdens" and how to deal with them -- It's not that there are not people who do not recognize this, but just as in Pakistan, attempting to even talk about the required changes will upset many peoples apple carts -- but just as for Pakistan, for the US as well, it's do or die if the U does not do this, it will not continue to be the US we recall.

With that out of the way, lets get back and focus on the issues for Pakistan with regard to the multiple transitions the thread encourages discussion about.

 

[VCheng]

For my benefit, what exactly does "new" and "improved" mean in the context of this discussion?

The way I see it, the basic issue will be lack of effective civil control of the Pakistan military, no matter how "new" the hardware or "improved" the war tactics.

 

[muse]

Please read the lead article by AVM SC -- All the ideas suggested do have a context and you will find that context expressed in the last couple of paragraphs -- something or the other about what civilian politicians have in mind - but you decide for yourself.

 

[VCheng]

Please read the lead article by AVM SC -- All the ideas suggested do have a context and you will find that context expressed in the last couple of paragraphs -- something or the other about what civilian politicians have in mind - but you decide for yourself.

Actually, I did, but I think what I have in mind is still not covered as this excerpt indicates:

It will need many other accompaniments — political, social, educational, legal, policing, intelligence and judicial — but that is the matter for another set of articles.