US Accuses Pakistan of Altering Missiles - NYT

[Ingis]

Keeping up with the Indians
Mon, 08/31/2009 - 4:55pm

- Foreign Policy magazine

Saturday's New York Times reports that Pakistan has expanded its maritime land-attack missile program, possibly based on modifications to U.S.-provided anti-ship Harpoons. News like this fuels concerns that the Pakistani establishment is not taking the internal security threat seriously enough, instead favoring its standard obsession with India. In this view, the expansion of both conventional and nuclear weapons programs shows that Pakistan is not serious about its wars within, instead myopically focusing on a status quo India that poses no real threat to Pakistan.

There is certainly merit to the argument that Pakistan simply "doesn't get it" when it comes to fighting the Taliban. The Pakistan Army has a deeply-ingrained organizational distrust of India and strong incentives to continue building and buying expensive new systems, rather than getting into the dirty, cruel, complex business of counterinsurgency on its northwestern frontier.

The Army has made various destabilizing and counterproductive mistakes, whether supporting radical militant groups, undermining electoral democracy, or contributing to nuclear proliferation. The U.S. has good reasons to make sure that its agreements with Pakistan are not being violated. U.S. military aid can be terminated if the US deems that the use of these weapons, like the possible Harpoon modification, are against American interests or being adapted for purposes other than their intended use.

But it is important to keep in mind that continued Pakistani military modernization is not irrational given Pakistan's dangerous security environment. India is hugely powerful relative to its neighbors, with a massive population, a large and capable military, nuclear weapons, and a growing economy that is slowly but surely fueling its own military modernization and doctrinal evolution.

Pakistani forces are outgunned and outmanned by India, and the country would ultimately lose in a large-scale land war across the plains of Punjab and Sindh/Rajasthan. This is a crucial reason that Pakistan has tried to improve its conventional capabilities, adopted a first-use nuclear posture, sponsored bloody terrorism and insurgency in India, and looked to the U.S. and China for military, financial, and diplomatic support. As India further grows, its power will be even more threatening to Pakistan, whether or not India intends it to be.

This fear is not simply the result of Pakistani domestic politics, ideology, or military worldview, though those also crucially matter. Because of its power, India is viewed with a measure of suspicion throughout the South Asian periphery -- Sri Lanka has made sure to hedge its bets by cozying up to China and Pakistan (and in the late 1980s even provided weapons to the Tamil Tigers against an Indian peacekeeping force), while Bangladesh and Burma in the past have both at least tacitly provided sanctuary to insurgents trying to secede from India.

Neither Americans nor Indians always understand how threatening their military strength can look to weaker countries. This dynamic is clearly at play in the case of Pakistan -- Indians feel that they are self-evidently not a threat, while Americans are often baffled that Pakistani security elites care so much about India, which to the U.S. looks like a positive force for stability and democracy. At the end of the day, however, the world does not look the same from Rawalpindi and Islamabad as it does from Washington, and the U.S. needs to remember these differing goals, incentives, and fears as it pursues its vital interests in the region.

The Pakistan Army absolutely cannot be given a free hand to direct American money against India or to violate agreements about the use of U.S. weapons and aid. But the U.S. should not assume that Pakistani military modernization is an unambiguous sign of its lack of commitment to internal security. Indeed, India itself has expanded its conventional and nuclear forces with an eye on China even as it battles various separatist and Maoist insurgencies at home. It should come as no surprise that Pakistan is similarly trying to keep up with its own larger and increasingly powerful neighbor.

 

[TaimiKhan]

Ingis, stop trolling & post something useful if you have. Don't try to flame up another topic. There is nothing new in these posts of yours.

 

[TaimiKhan]

Ingis, stop trolling, post something useful if you have, no need to post what we already know.

 

[EvoluXon]

eVeryThinG is faiR in L0vE n WaR. so stop crying like a baby.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

From Ingis's posts:

"But the U.S. should not assume that Pakistani military modernization is an unambiguous sign of its lack of commitment to internal security. Indeed, India itself has expanded its conventional and nuclear forces with an eye on China even as it battles various separatist and Maoist insurgencies at home. It should come as no surprise that Pakistan is similarly trying to keep up with its own larger and increasingly powerful neighbor."

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Ingis:

Do try and read the discussions on the threads you are contributing to - this forum is after all a place for discourse, not merely cut and paste.

The Time article was posted like two pages ago.

 

[PakShaheen79]

Will I ever able to see any proof of this alleged alternation of missile. Why can't this be a Pakistani missile?

Secondly why all of the sudden Indian start jumping on this rumor by US media?

 

[glomex]

Will I ever able to see any proof of this alleged alternation of missile. Why can't this be a Pakistani missile?

Secondly why all of the sudden Indian start jumping on this rumor by US media?

This can not be a Pakistani Missile because:

This is what happens in countries that are dependent on foreign technology," says Ayesha Siddiqa, a military expert and author of Pakistan's Arms Procurement and Military Buildup, 1979-99. Much of Pakistan's military modernization has come about from U.S. arms sales in the 1950s and '80s. "In Pakistan, we have not really gone beyond license production and reverse engineering." Siddiqa adds that this is not the first time that Pakistan has been accused of reverse engineering or modification. A U.S. Tomahawk cruise missile that had strayed into Pakistani territory during strikes on al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan in August 1998 and was recovered intact by Pakistan is widely believed to have provided the basis for its Babur cruise missile.

Pakistan spends "a very small amount of defense production on research and development," says Siddiqa. The Ghauri missile — Pakistan's much-vaunted medium-range ballistic missile, capable of traveling up to 1,500 km and carrying a payload of 700 kg — is simply a renamed Nodong-1 missile imported from North Korea. Drawing on the technology of the North Korean imports, Pakistan is continuing to develop its own longer-range variants.

And its not any Indian who is saying this...Its a Pakistani Writer: Ayesha Siddiqa, a military expert and author of Pakistan's Arms Procurement and Military Buildup, 1979-99

Behind the U.S.-Pakistan Missile Spat: The Indian Threat - TIME

 

[araz]

Will I ever able to see any proof of this alleged alternation of missile. Why can't this be a Pakistani missile?

Secondly why all of the sudden Indian start jumping on this rumor by US media?

Simple indians will get the maximum mileage out of something that has not been started by them. The ventures they initiated all fizzled out so badly they have lost credibility. Plus all the modifications/developments will eventually affect them.
Araz

 

[TaimiKhan]

This can not be a Pakistani Missile because:

This is what happens in countries that are dependent on foreign technology," says Ayesha Siddiqa, a military expert and author of Pakistan's Arms Procurement and Military Buildup, 1979-99. Much of Pakistan's military modernization has come about from U.S. arms sales in the 1950s and '80s. "In Pakistan, we have not really gone beyond license production and reverse engineering." Siddiqa adds that this is not the first time that Pakistan has been accused of reverse engineering or modification. A U.S. Tomahawk cruise missile that had strayed into Pakistani territory during strikes on al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan in August 1998 and was recovered intact by Pakistan is widely believed to have provided the basis for its Babur cruise missile.

Pakistan spends "a very small amount of defense production on research and development," says Siddiqa. The Ghauri missile — Pakistan's much-vaunted medium-range ballistic missile, capable of traveling up to 1,500 km and carrying a payload of 700 kg — is simply a renamed Nodong-1 missile imported from North Korea. Drawing on the technology of the North Korean imports, Pakistan is continuing to develop its own longer-range variants.

And its not any Indian who is saying this...Its a Pakistani Writer: Ayesha Siddiqa, a military expert and author of Pakistan's Arms Procurement and Military Buildup, 1979-99

Behind the U.S.-Pakistan Missile Spat: The Indian Threat - TIME

try reading post 121 & see why it can't be & if it has been done, then whats the big deal in making a missile by Pakistan itself.

Ayesha Siddiqa is one morroon, who has no idea about defence related issues nor she knows how missiles work.

Go on the technicality nor some BS from the Americans or some other ani-pakistan source.

Understand the missile, how it works & then speculate.

 

[glomex]

^^^^^^

Yes...yes...everybody who challenges the bigotry is a Moron....For people like you Newton was a moron.........

 

[Developereo]

And its not any Indian who is saying this...Its a Pakistani Writer: Ayesha Siddiqa, a military expert and author of Pakistan's Arms Procurement and Military Buildup, 1979-99

AS is well known within Pakistan as a fifth column India-appeaser. The only people who pay attention to her are Indians and anti-Pakistan Western media.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

This can not be a Pakistani Missile because:

This is what happens in countries that are dependent on foreign technology," says Ayesha Siddiqa, a military expert and author of Pakistan's Arms Procurement and Military Buildup, 1979-99. Much of Pakistan's military modernization has come about from U.S. arms sales in the 1950s and '80s. "In Pakistan, we have not really gone beyond license production and reverse engineering." Siddiqa adds that this is not the first time that Pakistan has been accused of reverse engineering or modification. A U.S. Tomahawk cruise missile that had strayed into Pakistani territory during strikes on al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan in August 1998 and was recovered intact by Pakistan is widely believed to have provided the basis for its Babur cruise missile.

Pakistan spends "a very small amount of defense production on research and development," says Siddiqa. The Ghauri missile — Pakistan's much-vaunted medium-range ballistic missile, capable of traveling up to 1,500 km and carrying a payload of 700 kg — is simply a renamed Nodong-1 missile imported from North Korea. Drawing on the technology of the North Korean imports, Pakistan is continuing to develop its own longer-range variants.

And its not any Indian who is saying this...Its a Pakistani Writer: Ayesha Siddiqa, a military expert and author of Pakistan's Arms Procurement and Military Buildup, 1979-99

Behind the U.S.-Pakistan Missile Spat: The Indian Threat - TIME

Almost all the other experts being interviewed, including Janes, seem to think otherwise.

The Block I Harpoons are much older technology than the Chinese missiles that Pakistan possesses for example, and would require essentially a creation of an entirely new missile to do what Pakistan is trying to achieve. Pakistan would find it easier working with the Chinese missiles (with possibly some technical assistance if required or offered) and improving those.

In addition, the Block II Harpoons already have a land attack capability in them, so why upgrade older US missiles?

Siddiqi's entire argument is based on her speculation that Pakistan only spends a 'small amount' on defence R&D, that's pretty much it. She does not offer any sources or any numbers as to how 'small' this amount is etc.

Its a rather poor argument.

 

[TaimiKhan]

^^^^^^

Yes...yes...everybody who challenges the bigotry is a Moron....For people like you Newton was a moron.........

Before your BS, Have you read the post I referred to?? Any Idea how missiles work, how AshM & Land Attack missiles work ??

People like you have the tendency to speak BS & copy & paste things of the people who have no authority on the subject. That was the way the IN Naval chief spoke without thinking what really is happening, a man of his stature must have first thought. But hey what you know, both of you are Indians, so why should he be different then you or vice versa. You copy pasted, IN Chief copy pasted. Without even knowing how missiles work. That's the height of stupidity.

 

[DaRk WaVe]

‘Unnamed’ Sources of New York Times

On August 30, 2009, the New York Times ran a story about an allegation coming from the US Congressional sources that Pakistan has reverse-engineered and optimized an American legacy Harpoon missile bought by Pakistan in the 1980s. The timing of this article is rather curious; the story was leaked by anonymous sources on the same day that Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani left for a three-day visit to Libya on an invitation from the Libyan government.

Pakistan’s US Ambassador in Washington, DC, Hussain Haqqani, quickly dismissed this story, saying: “The accusations are incorrect and based on wrong intelligence. We will make sure that the US understands the correct picture and we will fight back periodic efforts to falsely blame Pakistan, which remains a critical US ally in fighting terrorism. Instead of false accusations, US media should help Pakistan secure the help it needs to fight our common enemy, viz terrorism.”

The most questionable aspect of this story is the source itself; without naming names, the New York Times makes assertions that can neither be proved nor disproved. Over the years this daily has accumulated a bulging clippings file full of splashy, yet often maddeningly unverifiable exposés alleging various shenanigans. How can we forget New York Times’ “exclusive” on the presence of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq?

The story’s unidentified congressional source also requires some attention. When the Congress and Senate resume fall session shortly, they are scheduled to debate a $7.5 billion aid package for Pakistan. Before the House went on summer vacation, there were clear signs that this much-discussed civilian aid will be approved and Pakistan will start seeing money as early as October 2009, which is when the 2010 fiscal year begins for the US government.

This story is possibly a leak from the members of the India Caucus, the largest foreign country caucus in the US Congress. Democrat Congressman Jim McDermott from Washington and Republican Congressman Edward Royce from California are its co-chairs, and its mission states: “The objective of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans is to push the Indian American community’s agenda on the Hill.”

When the NYT story about Pakistan’s alleged reverse engineering is read with all this background information in mind, perception shifts a bit. Especially, when you consider that India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna are back-pedaling from their Sharm el-Shaik joint statement, it seems plausible that this story is a plant and the brainchild of Indian lobbyists.

As a nation, India’s insecure “Everyone is looking at me! Everyone is talking about me!” attitude is leading its government to involve itself with every aspect of Pakistan’s affairs. If a Pakistani sneezes, India will assume it is because there was a high pollen count in India that day.

There is another, more ominous possibility, though. Perhaps the Obama administration is persisting in the tradition of a popular Bush camp negotiating tactic, and the NYT story is the “stick” that follows promises of aid and engagement with Pakistan’s civil society. This is a high stake “tactic” that was used by the Bush administration; dates of events and the names of people and places, would continuously transform along a trajectory of a lethal narrative. The particular narrative I speak of now is, of course, the war on terrorism. Somehow, the identities of the main players manage to elude the mesmerized spectators, who watch an endless cast of characters all playing the same role of “evildoer” in “multiples theaters of wars.” In an instant, a cave-dwelling religious fanatic becomes a nationalist dictator. In an instant, an ally becomes an enemy.

Citing unnamed sources, the New York Times writes, “There’s a concerted effort to get [Pakistan] to slow down. Their energies are misdirected.”

This is a good-news, bad-news paradox. As a Pakistani-American, I am encouraged that Pakistanis seem to be rapidly moving north in pursuit of technology. The bad news, however, is more intricate. Pakistan bought Harpoon missiles from the United States in the 1980s—when Pakistan was ruled by dictator General Zia-ul-Haq—as a gesture of America’s gratitude for assistance in fighting America’s covert war in Afghanistan. Harpoons use active radar homing and a low-level, sea-skimming cruise trajectory to increase lethality. Although Pakistan owns these antiship missiles, any modification would be a violation of the United States Arms Control Export Act.

Has Pakistan really become so technologically sophisticated that it is able to reverse-engineer American Harpoon missiles and P-3C aircrafts? I recently interviewed Peter Singer, author of Wired for War, who is an internationally recognized authority on the use of robotics in warfare. He suggested that Pakistan is also working on drone and robotic technologies. I must ask, though, if Pakistan has so much technical prowess, why doesn’t the government commission experts to reverse-engineer wind turbines and solar technologies to produce much needed electricity?

This is a critical issue and if Pakistan fails to defend itself straightaway, repercussions could be serious. The speed with which the Pakistani embassy in Washington, DC jumped on this issue was a good start. I’m hoping in next couple of days, Pakistan’s government will be able to put everyone at ease.

In the past, Indians who found true love with Bush have been able to put Pakistan on the defensive. And, the Bush administration also talked from both sides of their mouths, maligning Pakistan through leaks in the media while simultaneously supporting Pakistani army generals.

One hopes that the Obama administration recognizes the role Pakistan is playing in the fight against extremism. With any bit of luck, the US government is also cognizant of a long history of friendship with Pakistan: from opening a back-door diplomacy channel with China to assisting in defeating the Soviet Union, Pakistan has delivered everything America has ever asked for. We can only hope that unlike the Clintons and Bushes, the current administration will not be enamored by the Indians. I am confident because at the end of the day, Americans are fair people. They recognize Pakistan’s contribution and understand that aberrations from established norms do exist, and government policy is completely separate from individual acts.

http://ibrahimsajidmalick.com/?p=210