US could take unilateral action in Pakistan: Robert Gates

[nitesh]

Once again Nitesh - The objective behind having any deterrent is to threaten enough damage on an opponent's interests that they will not push you beyond a certain threshold.

If the US attacks Pakistan, we cannot threaten its interests by attacking Afghanistan or Iran, nor do we currently possess the capability to threaten its territory directly.

The only option we then have is to threaten the US and the World's interests indirectly, by implying that India would be targeted and perhaps the oil infrastructure in the Gulf. Your nation is hostile to Pakistan, that makes targeting it easier, and the global business interests in India, and the treat of an oil supply disruption make the world vested in ensuring that no nuclear war occurs. That is all there is to it, not this Hindu nonsense you are bringing in now.

Its all about threatening enough global interests to prevent an existential threat to Pakistan, and therefore prevent nuclear war in the first place. If the threat is not large enough, deterrence will not happen.

AM, that is where my point comes, no need to attack Afganistan. Attack in Deo Gar cia or Japan where uS forces are based so you can harm US interests more. No need to come to India for this war. Remember India is not attacking you it's US that is going to attack and if India joins in that attack with US forces basing in India then the attack is justifiable.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AM, that is where my point comes, no need to attack Afganistan. Attack in Deo Gar cia or Japan where uS forces are based so you can harm US interests more. No need to come to India for this war. Remember India is not attacking you it's US that is going to attack and if India joins in that attack with US forces basing in India then the attack is justifiable.

Japan would be an option, but it is not within reach, and the same issue of targeting a few thousand US troops not impacting her comes into play. India is easier to target, it is close enough to the Gulf to threaten oil supplies in case of a conflict, and it is also a significant player in the global economy and a nation hostile to Pakistan (which the Japanese are not).

Additionally, a threat involving India may ensure that it does not join any assault against Pakistan, and even works to prevent it, since it is threatened directly by any existential threat to Pakistan.

This is all hypothetical, none of this comes into play provided India and the world leaves Pakistan alone.

 

[nitesh]

Japan would be an option, but it is not within reach, and the same issue of targeting a few thousand US troops not impacting her comes into play. India is easier to target, it is close enough to the Gulf to threaten oil supplies in case of a conflict, and it is also a significant player in the global economy and a nation hostile to Pakistan (which the Japanese are not).

Additionally, a threat involving India may ensure that it does not join any assault against Pakistan, and even works to prevent it, since it is threatened directly by any existential threat to Pakistan.

Honestly, none of this comes into play provided India and the world leaves Pakistan alone.

Isn't this might go on the other side. india may think that this is a useless warning and may take help for early warning systems from other countries. Like PAC 3, S 400 and all. And in worst case join the action. So all in all pulling more players in this fiasco will only lead to getting the situation worsen. Why not you go to china your all weather friend and ask for a treaty that if any third country attacks any of you it will be considered an aggression towards both and both countries will respond with full fury. Won't that will be a deterrent.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Isn't this might go on the other side. india may think that this is a useless warning and may take help for early warning systems from other countries. Like PAC 3, S 400 and all. And in worst case join the action. So all in all pulling more players in this fiasco will only lead to getting the situation worsen. Why not you go to china your all weather friend and ask for a treaty that if any third country attacks any of you it will be considered an aggression towards both and both countries will respond with full fury. Won't that will be a deterrent.

An alliance of the sort you suggest with China may be a deterrent, but China may not be interested in it, since the Indo-Pak situation remains volatile, and China probably does not want to get drawn into a war between India and Pakistan. So that seems a no-go.

Missile defense is by no means perfect, especially if saturation attacks are resorted to. In that case, shorter range missiles (targeting India) would be less expensive, easier to produce and therefore be more plentiful allowing for saturation attacks.

Again, the argument is that a threshold has been crossed before WMD's come into play. Why would India want to join the attack, and not prevent it from escalating, if it was threatened with nuclear retaliation? Joining an assault on Pakistan only ensures that crossing the threshold becomes more certain. Its all about making as many players as possible feel the consequences of crossing the threshold, and therefore not take that chance.

Prevention prevention prevention!

 

[nitesh]

An alliance of the sort you suggest with China may be a deterrent, but China may not be interested in it, since the Indo-Pak situation remains volatile, and China probably does not want to get drawn into a war between India and Pakistan. So that seems a no-go.

Missile defense is by no means perfect, especially if saturation attacks are resorted to. In that case, shorter range missiles (targeting India) would be less expensive, easier to produce and therefore be more plentiful allowing for saturation attacks.

Again, the argument is that a threshold has been crossed before WMD's come into play. Why would India want to join the attack, and not prevent it from escalating, if it was threatened with nuclear retaliation? Joining an assault on Pakistan only ensures that crossing the threshold becomes more certain. Its all about making as many players as possible feel the consequences of crossing the threshold, and therefore not take that chance.

Prevention prevention prevention!

The war is going to be between aggressor country (read USA) and pakistan. Not with India. So why the chinese will not be interested? What do you think if you unnecessarily drag India in to a conflict between pakistan and USA.
The practical options remain with India?

 

[batmannow]

US cites laws, UN Charter to justify Fata raids
By Anwar Iqbal
DAWN NEWS.COM
September 30, 2008 Tuesday Ramazan 29, 2008

WASHINGTON, Sept 29: US Defence Secretary Robert Gates says that international laws allow the United States to take unilateral actions inside Pakistan.
In two separate statements and during a hearing at a Senate panel, the top US defence official made it clear that the United States considered insurgency in Fata the greatest danger confronting the West and was willing to send its troops to root out extremism if it felt the need to do so.
Mr Gates, however, also emphasised the importance of working with Pakistan, saying that the US was cooperating with the new Pakistani government to defeat militancy and would continue to do so.

At the Senate panel hearing, Mr Gates agreed with Democratic Senator Jim Webb who had told him that the United Nations Charter — under which the US operates in Afghanistan — gave the US the right of self-defence where a foreign government was either unable or unwilling to take care of international terrorist activity inside its borders.
Mr Gates said: “The authorities we have been granted were carefully coordinated over a protracted period of time in the interagency.”

He told the Senate Armed Services Committee: “I would simply assume that . . . appropriate international law was consulted by the State Department.”

In a written statement before the committee, Mr Gates said that “insecurity and violence” in the Afghan-Pakistan region “will persist … until the insurgency is deprived of safe-havens” in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

And, the US defence chief told the National Defence University in Washington that the United States had to act against terrorists hiding in Afghanistan and Pakistan because it could not afford to fail.

“To be blunt, to fail – or to be seen to fail – in either Iraq or Afghanistan would be a disastrous blow to our credibility, both among our friends and allies and among potential adversaries,” he said.

In his written statement to the Senate panel, Mr Gates explained that despite Pakistan’s perceived failure in controlling insurgency in the tribal areas, he believed that the Pakistani government was aware of the threat it faced and was doing its best to overcome it.

Earlier, Mr Gates explained that Pakistan could not defeat terrorism on its own.

“Pakistani government doesn’t have the capacity to launch unilateral operation against militants inside its borders,” he said.
He noted that the US depended on Pakistani road links to send 80 per cent of its supplies and 40 per cent of fuel into Afghanistan. He said that while the US was looking for alternative channels, it could not afford to ignore Pakistan.

FRIST STEP?

Pakistan Names New Intelligence Chief

By JANE PERLEZ
Published: September 30, 2008
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The chief of the Pakistani Army appointed a new head of the nation’s top spy organization on Tuesday in a move that consolidated his control over an agency that the United States contends has been helping the Taliban mount operations against American forces in Afghanistan.
He was appointed by General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, who led the spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence, or I.S.I., until he became army chief last November. That was when Pervez Musharraf relinquished the role, nine months before resigning as president.

Under Pakistan’s new civilian government, General Kayani has been deliberately making his mark on the army, and Tuesday’s announcement of the new spy chief, along with a roster of appointments of new senior generals, put his personal stamp on the top echelon of the military, traditionally Pakistan’s elite institution.
As head of the intelligence agency, General Pasha will be dealing directly with the Central Intelligence Agency about Washington’s determination to stanch attacks by Taliban and Al Qaeda forces into Afghanistan, and to inhibit the ability of the extremists to plot a major terror attack against the United States from the secrecy of the ungoverned tribal region.

He assumes the role at a time of mounting tension between the United States and Pakistan.
American Special Forces crossed earlier this month from Afghanistan into Waziristan in Pakistan’s tribal area on a raid against Al Qaeda operatives who provide much of the technical and strategic back up for the Taliban fighters. The American raid sparked a tough public repudiation of Washington from General Kayani as a breach of Pakistani sovereignty. General Kayani said Pakistan would defend its borders at “all costs,” an extraordinary statement from one ally to another, and since then there have been no known incursions by American ground forces.

In August, General Pasha accompanied General Kayani to a secret, highly unusual meeting between top Pakistani military leaders and American commanders, including the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, on the Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier.
Pakistani officials said the appointments were part of a regularly scheduled reshuffle, and had little to do with the new civilian government. They said the choices were entirely those of General Kayani. The promotion notices were signed by the prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, as a routine matter, Shuja Nawaz, an expert on the Pakistani military said.

General Pasha, as director general of military operations, was ultimately responsible for the current assaults by the military in Bajaur in the tribal area, and in Swat, in the North West Frontier Province, Mr. Nawaz said.

General Pasha’s appointment comes two months after President Asif Ali Zardari and the senior adviser at the Interior Ministry, Rehman Malik, made a failed effort to wrest control of the spy agency from the army, which has always run it.

General Kayani’s announcement of General Pasha reaffirmed the military’s institutional control of the intelligence agency, the English-language newspaper Dawn said in Tuesday’s edition.
The political party that Mr. Zardari heads, the Pakistan Peoples’ Party, has often publicly criticized the intelligence agency for meddling in domestic affairs and arresting suspects without reason. The spokesman for the party, Farhatullah Babar, said the leadership change did not necessarily address the core issues of concern.

“The real issue is whether the I.S.I. is subject to civilian control or not, whether it is bound by a certain framework for the parliament; whether their operations, action and finances are subject to review by the parliament,” Mr. Babar said.
Retired Pakistani officers considered friendly toward the United States said General Pasha’s appointment was positive.

“It will give a good signal to the Americans,” said retired general, Talat Masood. “He is rated a really good officer by international standards.”

General Pasha may also provide an opening for more candid discussions with the Americans, particularly over the Taliban, Mr. Masood said.
American officials have long complained that Pakistan conducts a “dual policy” on the Taliban — hostile to them as an ally of the United States, while at the same time keeping up ties and allowing them to operate into Afghanistan.
“There will be greater clarity regarding the dual policy,” Mr. Masood said. “What is needed is a better understanding by the United States and India why it is that Pakistan supports the Haqqani network.”

Mr. Masood was referring to the militants of Jalaluddin Haqqani, a mujahuddin fighter from the 1980s war in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, who has since turned his assets against the United States.

Past and present Pakistani officers said they were intrigued by General Kayani’s selection process to settle on General Pasha, who served as a commander in United Nations peacekeeping in Sierra Leone.

General Kayani passed over 14 major generals for promotion, a distinctive break with General Musharraf who used to indulge in wholesale promotions, regardless of merit, in order to create his own lobby, said a senior military officer, who asked not to be named because personnel matters were involved.

Among the other changes announced on Tuesday were shifts of two Musharraf appointees who were due for rotation. The head of the agency’s domestic activities, Gen. Nusrat Naeem, and the chief of special operations, Gen. Asif Akhtar, were replaced and not promoted.

THE NEW CHAIN OF COMMAND(US farvoritism)?
Kayani shakes up army command
By Iftikhar A. Khan
September 30, 2008 Tuesday Ramazan 29, 2008
DAWN NEWS.COM

ISLAMABAD, Sept 29: In a major reshuffle in the army’s top command, Chief of the Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani on Monday brought in a new head of the all-powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), changed four of the nine corps commanders and appointed a new chief of general staff, besides giving key postings to a few others.

The shake-up is the most wide-ranging since Gen Kayani took over as the COAS and perhaps even more significant since the former military ruler General Pervez Musharraf stepped down as the country’s controversial president.

The move came within hours of the promotion of seven major generals to the rank of three-star lieutenant generals, with a number of them becoming the direct beneficiary of the reshuffle.

Perhaps the most surprising of all such changes is the appointment of Lt-Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha as the new Director-General of ISI. He has replaced Lt-Gen Nadeem Taj, who has been appointed Commander of 30 Corps in Gujranwala. A highly professional soldier in his own right, Lt-Gen Pasha has, for the past over two years, been overseeing the ongoing security operation in the tribal areas and parts of the NWFP.
In his capacity as the director-general military operations (DGMO) he was directly responsible for the launching and execution of all major security strikes in Fata and Swat, the latest being the major onslaught against religious extremists in the Bajaur tribal agency.
But he is not the only beneficiary of Monday’s promotions and reshuffle carried out by General Kayani who, many believe, has put in place a new team to implement his vision for reviving the prestige of the armed forces and for enhancing the security of the state.

Some of the other significant appointees are former SSG Commander Lt-Gen Tahir Mahmood, who has been given the most crucial 10 Corps in Rawalpindi; Lt-Gen Shahid Iqbal, who has been made commander of the 5 Corps in Karachi; and Lt. Gen Muhammad Yusuf, who has been given 31 Corps in Bahawalpur.

Lt-Gen Mustafa has been appointed the Chief of General Staff. He will replace Lt-Gen Salahuddin Satti.

According to an announcement by the ISPR, the Corps Commanders of Rawalpindi, Karachi, Bahawalpur and Gujranwala have been changed.

Lt General Tahir Mehmood has been appointed the Corps Commander of Rawalpindi. He replaces Lt-Gen Mohsin Kamal who has been appointed MS (military secretary) at General Headquarters (GHQ). Lt-Gen Ahsan Azhar Hyat, Corps Commander Karachi, has been appointed Inspector General Training and Evaluation (IGT&E) at GHQ. Lt-Gen Raza Mohammad, Corps Commander Bahawalpur, has been appointed Director-General Joint Staff at JSHQ. Lt-Gen Muhammad Yousaf has been appointed Corps Commander Bahawalpur. Lt-Gen Mohammad Zaki, Director-General Infantry, has been appointed IG Arms at GHQ. Lt-Gen Javed Zia, Deputy Chief of General Staff, has been appointed QMG at GHQ.

Lt-Gen Zahid Hussain has been appointed Adjutant General at GHQ. Lt-Gen Muhammad Mustafa has been appointed CGS at GHQ. Lt-Gen Tanvir Tahir has been appointed at IG Communication and IT at GHQ. Lt-Gen Ayyaz Salim Rana has been appointed Chairman Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT).

The reshuffle is being seen by observers as highly significant as it comes against the backdrop of stepped-up US incursions inside Pakistan’s territory and the unusual statement by the Army Chief declaring that violation of the country’s sovereignty would not be allowed at any cost.

Some observers have pointed out that the ISI chief had been changed after the abortive attempt through a controversial notification to place the intelligence agency under the administrative, financial and operational control of the Interior Ministry.

Earlier in the day, seven Major Generals were promoted to the rank of Lieutenant General.

Those promoted are three Major Generals of Infantry, two of Armoured Corps and one each of Artillery and Electrical and Mechanical Engineering (EME). They are: Major General Ahmad Shuja Pasha, Major General Mohammad Mustafa Khan, Major General Ayyaz Saleem Rana, Major General Tahir Mahmood, Major General Shahid Iqbal, Major General Tanvir Tahir and Major General Zahid Hussain.

Official sources told Dawn that Maj-Gen Ahmad Shuja Pasha would be replaced by General Officer Commanding Jhelum Major General Javed Iqbal as Director General Military Operations.

WHAT NEXT?
Dear comrads, plz open up your thoughts, here
thanks.

 

[Contrarian]

Say if you threaten India, and the US goes through, Pakistan cannot actually carry out its threat. Fighting India at the same time as the US would not be feasible at all if the US is not staging attacks on India. And using a N-bomb would again be not feasible, as it would ensure that Pakistan ceases to survive in the biological sense-which is self defeating.
So how is the threat effective?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Say if you threaten India, and the US goes through, Pakistan cannot actually carry out its threat. Fighting India at the same time as the US would not be feasible at all if the US is not staging attacks on India. And using a N-bomb would again be not feasible, as it would ensure that Pakistan ceases to survive in the biological sense-which is self defeating.
So how is the threat effective?

The US may have the nuclear fire power to blanket all of Pakistan, though I see no reason why they would go to that extent, but that is teh reason why I argued that targetting US troops in Afghanistan directly was not a good idea, since the amount of direct damage Pakistan can inflict on the US is nothign compared to what the US can inflict on Pakistan.

India on the other hand has no means of destroying Pakistan, given the commonly accepted yields of your tested devices. You would be lucky if you managed to obliterate a single city - the same goes for Pakistan. Nonetheless, the damage in both human and material terms will be massive, and neither side is willing to deal with the destruction, unless pushed to it.

The shockwaves from a potential nuclear exchange in the subcontinenet, especially if it ends up stopping oil supplies, will be huge. It is that global shockwave, from the potential of a nucelar exchange in the subcontinent, that I am seeking to channel into for ensuring that global sentiment remains against intervention in Pakistan that crosses Pakistan's nuclear threshold.

 

[was]

No you are not making any sense. How this water issue comes in between?
No India is not supporting any elements. Plain and simple. If you can't fight to a country who is attacking you then pulling others in between is nothing else but a blackmail.

and what about the hindu captured in f.a.t.a a couple of days ago by tribesmen
now tell me that he was building a road like your 10 consulates are doing in afhanistan

 

[Contrarian]

India on the other hand has no means of destroying Pakistan, given the commonly accepted yields of your tested devices. You would be lucky if you managed to obliterate a single city - the same goes for Pakistan. Nonetheless, the damage in both human and material terms will be massive, and neither side is willing to deal with the destruction, unless pushed to it.

Thats not the point. Pakistan's war would not be with India-it would be with the US. If Pakistan threatens India, then India would ALSO goto war against Pakistan-which im sure, no planner in Pakistan would like.

The shockwaves from a potential nuclear exchange in the subcontinenet, especially if it ends up stopping oil supplies, will be huge. It is that global shockwave, from the potential of a nucelar exchange in the subcontinent, that I am seeking to channel into for ensuring that global sentiment remains against intervention in Pakistan that crosses Pakistan's nuclear threshold.

How does a nuclear exchange on the subcontinent disrupt oil supplies? Bear in mind, PN would long be gone before Pakistan thinks of threatening to launch nukes on India.

In my view, threatening India would be counter productive, as that would make India goto war as well. And converting the threat into action-ie actually launching nukes on India would invite massive retaliation from India-regardless of the small yield from the bomb-the number of bombs in posession of India is too large to neglect-consider ALSO that Pakistan in terms of size is small. Each bomb affects Pakistan a lot and directly affects its national integration. This is not the case with India-size is pretty big-there would be economic loss-but nothing that strikes at the core or shakes the country. Threatening India is a loss making proposition idea for Pakistan, as if it carries out its threat, it loses the reason for which it made the threat in the first place.

Rather targetting of Israel would be a more credible threat, as they would not be able to take any counter action-they would depend on the US to ensure that no BM is launched at Israel.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Thats not the point. Pakistan's war would not be with India-it would be with the US. If Pakistan threatens India, then India would ALSO goto war against Pakistan-which im sure, no planner in Pakistan would like.


How does a nuclear exchange on the subcontinent disrupt oil supplies? Bear in mind, PN would long be gone before Pakistan thinks of threatening to launch nukes on India.

In my view, threatening India would be counter productive, as that would make India goto war as well. And converting the threat into action-ie actually launching nukes on India would invite massive retaliation from India-regardless of the small yield from the bomb-the number of bombs in posession of India is too large to neglect-consider ALSO that Pakistan in terms of size is small. Each bomb affects Pakistan a lot and directly affects its national integration. This is not the case with India-size is pretty big-there would be economic loss-but nothing that strikes at the core or shakes the country. Threatening India is a loss making proposition idea for Pakistan, as if it carries out its threat, it loses the reason for which it made the threat in the first place.

Rather targetting of Israel would be a more credible threat, as they would not be able to take any counter action-they would depend on the US to ensure that no BM is launched at Israel.

The US does not need Indian assistance to militarily decimate Pakistan, and you are ignoring the events that have to occur before resorting to the use of Nukes - crossing Pakistan's nuclear threshold. If that happens, the US will have taken the state of affairs to the point where it wouldn't really matter if the Indians joined the fray, and Pakistan's ability to defend itself from future encroachments from India will have been effectively neutralized.

It is to try and prevent the situation from deteriorating to that point that nuclear deterrence should be used.

Whether the PN survives or not isn't the issue - the PN is not going to be able to disrupt oil supplies in the face of the Western armada in the Arabian sea. The threat of war nonetheless carries that possibility with it, and a Pakistani threat of targeting oil production facilities and ports in the Gulf (as well as the possibility of a nuclear exchange with India) through missiles will be a serious issue to consider before any massive attack on Pakistan, and will perhaps shift opinion against any such use of force. That India realize she will likely be a target regardless of who overtly carries out the assault against Pakistan, is also useful in terms of perhaps deterring her from joining and supporting such a move, and perhaps even actively working against it, given her interests will be at stake as well.

Attacking Israel will likely invite nuclear retaliation from the US, if not from Israel herself (assuming she has the long range missiles to do so), given the close relationship between the two. So not a good option, since not inviting nuclear retaliation from the US, while still threatening global interests, is what should be aimed at.

 

[Contrarian]

The US does not need Indian assistance to militarily decimate Pakistan, and you are ignoring the events that have to occur before resorting to the use of Nukes - crossing Pakistan's nuclear threshold. If that happens, the US will have taken the state of affairs to the point where it wouldn't really matter if the Indians joined the fray, and Pakistan's ability to defend itself from future encroachments from India will have been effectively neutralized.

It is to try and prevent the situation from deteriorating to that point that nuclear deterrence should be used.

Its a threat, if the US still decides to continue with its military action, if Pakistan does indeed launch its nukes, dont you think India would retaliate as well?

And US military action is not directed at civilians, she would be targetting the military machine of Pakistan. If Pakistan decides to carry out its threat, India would respond with nukes as well, and that would wipe out large percentage of the population of Pakistan, what then would Pakistani leaders have achieved in terms of protecting its national integrity?
Its a bluff, one that is most likely to be called. If US decides to ignore it, then Pakistan can do nothing, as using nukes on India would then result in the same fate they would be trying to avoid.

Whether the PN survives or not isn't the issue - the PN is not going to be able to disrupt oil supplies in the face of the Western armada in the Arabian sea. The threat of war nonetheless carries that possibility with it, and a Pakistani threat of targeting oil production facilities and ports in the Gulf (as well as the possibility of a nuclear exchange with India) through missiles will be a serious issue to consider before any massive attack on Pakistan, and will perhaps shift opinion against any such use of force.

You realize that if Pakistan threatens the Gulf Countries's oil facilities, even if Pakistan is able to ward off the threat, she would remain sanctioned by literally every country on the planet-including the gulf countries-friends of Pakistan, it would be a slow death either ways. Pakistan's economy as it is, is in no condition to speak of.

That India realize she will likely be a target regardless of who overtly carries out the assault against Pakistan, is also useful in terms of perhaps deterring her from joining and supporting such a move, and perhaps even actively working against it, given her interests will be at stake as well.

Attacking Israel will likely invite nuclear retaliation from the US, if not from Israel herself (assuming she has the long range missiles to do so), given the close relationship between the two. So not a good option, since not inviting nuclear retaliation from the US, while still threatening global interests, is what should be aimed at.

Yeah, true, but if US wants to wage war on Pakistan, India cant stop her. And if Pakistan threatens India, and carries out the threat, India would retaliate with nukes, so what options are there? Im not understanding here.

 

[Spring Onion]

The war is going to be between aggressor country (read USA) and pakistan. Not with India. So why the chinese will not be interested? What do you think if you unnecessarily drag India in to a conflict between pakistan and USA.
The practical options remain with India?

Well no one but India itself is draging herself in this conflict unecessarily by using different options ranging from funding terrorists, seting up terror training camps against Pakistan in Afghanistan in the garb of Counsulates, stiring up things at eastern front by opening unprovoked firing at LoC, mobilizing Indian media to activly carry on propaganda against ISI and Pakistan Army.

Facilitating Baituallah Mehsud's and BLA terrorists.

 

[Neo]

US Pressure Deepens Divide Between Pakistan's Military and Civilian Leadership
By Gary Thomas
Washington
01 October 2008

Analysts and U.S. officials say American pressure on Pakistan over counterterrorism policy has strained the relationship between that country's government and its military. As VOA Correspondent Gary Thomas reports, the two camps differ over how much approval and assistance Pakistan should give to stepped-up U.S. anti-terrorist operations.

​

President Bush meets with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, in New York, 23 Sep 2008

The honeymoon between Pakistan's powerful military establishment and the newly elected civilian government appears to be short-lived. Analysts say an increase in U.S. unmanned drone attacks and covert operations against suspected terrorist sanctuaries have inflamed public opinion in Pakistan and driven a wedge between the generals and the politicians.

Larry Goodson, a professor at the U.S. Army War College, says that crack could widen as Pakistan faces more lethal pressure internally from militant attacks and political pressure externally from the United States.

"It really does reflect a split, and maybe a split that could widen and deepen and become a real fissure within Pakistani policymaking and strategy," he said.

Many people in Pakistan criticized the former military ruler, General Pervez Musharraf, for being too close to the United States. Analysts say there is deep suspicion in the army that the new president, Asif Ali Zardari - Pakistan's first civilian leader in nearly nine years - is embarked on the same path.

Larry Goodson says the deepening suspicion, along with a growing internal terrorist threat, could hasten a return to military rule in Pakistan, which has vacillated between military and civilian governance since independence from Britain in 1947.

"The pendulum is swinging more quickly now between military and civilian rule," he said. "I think the military has so much at stake that I don't think that they can afford these sort of long bouts of being off center stage while the civilian politicians sort of screw everything up and go through their rather inept wrangling with each other. So I think, based on that, that the honeymoon, such as it was, was very limited and is already over."

President Zardari, the husband of assassinated former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, has pledged to cooperate with the United States in eradicating terrorist sanctuaries in the tribal areas. But such cooperation is politically unpopular in Pakistan. Mr. Zardari has also tried to initiate peace talks with militant groups in the tribal areas - a move that has been sharply criticized in the United States.

But the recent bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad that killed more than 50 people also sparked revulsion in Pakistan. Islamic militants sympathetic to the Taliban and al-Qaida have been blamed for the attack.

Official sources say Mr. Zardari met secretly with CIA chief Michael Hayden to discuss terrorism and U.S.-Pakistani cooperation during the Pakistani leader's recent visit to the United States.

A controversial component of the issue is the true role of the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, which is often labeled the "secret government" of Pakistan. The ISI was responsible in large part for creating the Taliban in the 1990s in order to influence events in neighboring Afghanistan. There is wide perception in U.S. policy and intelligence circles that there is still deep ISI support, if not at the top level in at least some elements, for the Islamic militants in the tribal areas.

Shuja Nawaz, an analyst of Pakistani army affairs, says ISI officers who created the Taliban are retired and gone from headquarters, but that Taliban sympathizers are probably still on the payroll as contractors in the field.

"They may still have relationships with the Afghan mujahedin and with the Taliban, and that's really where the problem may arise, where you may have people who have either strong ambivalence or certainly divided loyalties," Nawaz said.

Army chief General Ashfaq Kayani has promised to keep the army out of politics. But Shuja Nawaz points out that that pledge has been made and broken before in Pakistan.

"That's what he said, and that's what a number of army chiefs have said before him," said Nawaz. "Sometimes things happen and then they change their minds. So I wouldn't take that to the bank."

On Tuesday, General Kayani named General Ahmed Shujaa Pasha as the new ISI chief. In his former post as Director of Military Operations, General Pasha oversaw army operations in the tribal areas. Privately, U.S. officials say they are skeptical about whether the appointment will translate into tougher action against the militants.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Its a threat, if the US still decides to continue with its military action, if Pakistan does indeed launch its nukes, dont you think India would retaliate as well?

And US military action is not directed at civilians, she would be targetting the military machine of Pakistan. If Pakistan decides to carry out its threat, India would respond with nukes as well, and that would wipe out large percentage of the population of Pakistan, what then would Pakistani leaders have achieved in terms of protecting its national integrity?
Its a bluff, one that is most likely to be called. If US decides to ignore it, then Pakistan can do nothing, as using nukes on India would then result in the same fate they would be trying to avoid.


You realize that if Pakistan threatens the Gulf Countries's oil facilities, even if Pakistan is able to ward off the threat, she would remain sanctioned by literally every country on the planet-including the gulf countries-friends of Pakistan, it would be a slow death either ways. Pakistan's economy as it is, is in no condition to speak of.



Yeah, true, but if US wants to wage war on Pakistan, India cant stop her. And if Pakistan threatens India, and carries out the threat, India would retaliate with nukes, so what options are there? Im not understanding here.

You are not looking at this through Pakistan's nuclear threshold. Pakistan is not at risk from a few raids here and there or a few airstrikes on AQ militants. What I am referring to is total war decalred against Pakistan by the US (hypothetically speaking, I see no reason at this point why). If such a thing were to happen, it would eventually result in the destruction of Pakistan's military apparatus, which would leave it entirely defenseless against India, who the US will not stop if she decides to capture more Pakistani land for whatever reson, especially Kashmir.

Secondly, there would be no strong military force to hold together regions plagued by militancy such as Baluchistan, and a possible secession of Baluchistan would possibly lead to others. Such a situation would result in Pakistan ending (territorially) as we know it. So there is little more that India joining the fray will do.

The same with possible sanctions after hitting the oil fields - who cares given the above scenario I outlined in the event of a full blown war with the US. Pakistan will be irreparably damaged anyway.

Unlesss we make the costs for such a war by the US astronomical for the world, and for neighboring countries, the world and neighboring countries will not act to restrain the US from such a course.

To your point about a Pak-Indian nuclear exchange - a majority of the population will not be wiped out, not based on the number of weapons and yields you guys have. Losses will be high, but nowhere close to the catostrophic numbers you mention. You just don't have the numbers or the yields to do so, and neither does Pakistan.

Both countries will survive a nuclear exchange with each other, though Pakistan will be significantly damaged since the US will have continued with its military campaign anyway.