What's brewing in Washington?

[Developereo]

a deliberate attempt is being made by the US Administration to undermine Pakistan’s military establishment because of its stance on relations with India and future dispensation in Afghanistan so that they could directly deal with the Pakistan government

Yes, that is also my understanding. On the face of it, this sounds commendable -- dealing with civilian government rather than the military -- but we all know the US tends to be 'creative' when it doesn't like democratic governments who do not toe its line.

 

[huzihaidao12]

no they will be sipping mytai's in the west indies

In any case, may not be a good analogy, Pakistan is a chicken that lays golden eggs, if they lose, in any sense it was a serious loss to them.

 

[Developereo]

Who is saying our relations with Russia were/are not special??? First of all we need to understand NAM and then comment....NAM doesn't mean that throw diplomacy out...We did not want to be part of any block....We enjoyed great relations with many countries who were part of NATO and yet enjoyed absolutely great relations with USSR... ...Of-course we enjoyed great relations with certain countries and not so great with others.....Russian military patronage is still very high...However allignment with any military block is still a no-go area for India...

Come now. Like I wrote above, do you really think the SU was in the habit of challenging the US military for any old country like they did in 1971? The India-Russia relationship was "special" indeed.

 

[Developereo]

I think that in any case, Pakistan's elite may have some problems, but most are still patriotic, not to mention, just in Pakistan continue to exist, they can get more benefits, so they may be corrupt, but they will not look at Pakistan to the wreck, so everyone will sink, including them.

Really hard to say. On the face of it, since most of them are feudal, and land is about as 'fixed' an asset as you can get, you would think they would be committed to the long term viability of the country, and their own assets.

But many of them don't act that way and seem happy to make a quick buck -- safely stashed away in Swiss banks.

 

[newdelhinsa]

a deliberate attempt is being made by the US Administration to undermine Pakistan’s military establishment because of its stance on relations with India and future dispensation in Afghanistan so that they could directly deal with the Pakistan government
Original Post By fatman17
Yes, that is also my understanding. On the face of it, this sounds commendable -- dealing with civilian government rather than the military -- but we all know the US tends to be 'creative' when it doesn't like democratic governments who do not toe its line.Original Post By Developereo

And Pakistan would conveniently miss all others who have problems with her; let alone India but USA who cry about Pakistan's complicities.

 

[Developereo]

Ideologically we were always rivals, even during the 70's-80's when we were allied together against the Soviet Union.

Today, China's only true ideology is pragmatism. However the USA kept the same ideology they had during the Cold War, albeit a much more watered-down version.

That's what we are all saying, that there was a temporary marriage of convenience, but the US view on China never really changed. Before the Cold War there was actual war with China, now the rhetoric is more measured but the underlying agenda and distrust is still there. Eventually, the US will learn to live within a multi-polar world, but the growing pains may be quite painful -- for others.

 

[Developereo]

And Pakistan would conveniently miss all others who have problems with her; let alone India but USA who cry about Pakistan's complicities.

Assuming you are referring to Afghanistan, Pakistan's complicity is the result of a divergence of interests with the US. Which again brings us back to the matter of finding common interests or, at least, a compromise. Is the US utterly committed to its agenda in stone, or is there room to maneuver?

 

[newdelhinsa]

Assuming you are referring to Afghanistan, Pakistan's complicity is the result of a divergence of interests with the US. Which again brings us back to the matter of finding common interests or, at least, a compromise. Is the US utterly committed to its agenda in stone, or is there room to maneuver?

Again you are demanding them to be flexible for Pakistan which a fallacy itself.

Given ruthless power they are and suffering from body bag syndrome; there should be common sense by part of Pakistan when being accused by them, to converge fast or expect something sinister is brewing in USA, not a rocket science to understand.

PS: nor defending USA neither speaking for them.

Also if you admit there is some complicity or justifiable diversion of Interests by part of Pakistan (who is in verbal/written contract with USA) then why only India's such (all 65 year) precedences are holier than thou/hypocritical in your assertions.

I think you have missed the train of writing balanced academic piece but has followed the tradition of catering own gullible mates (target readers) only.

 

[Developereo]

Again you are demanding them to be flexible for Pakistan which a fallacy itself.

There is no 'demand' here, only a question of how and if there is a possibility to convince the US to change their agenda.

Given ruthless power they are and suffering from body bag syndrome; there should be common sense by part of Pakistan when being accused by them, to converge fast or expect that some thing sinister is brewing in USA, not a rocket science to understand.

Of course, like any entity, the US is likely to blame others for their own miscalculations.

Also if you admit there is some complicity or justifiable diversion of Interests by part of Pakistan (who is in verbal/written contract with USA) then why only India's such (all 65 year) precedences are holier than thou/hypocritical in your assertions.

The thesis is that the US's deliberate neglect of Pakistani interests in Afghanistan is due to their catering to Indian interests, for the reasons already mentioned.

I think you have missed the train of writing balanced academic piece but has followed the tradition of catering own gullible mates (target readers) only.

It's an opinion piece which is, by definition, subjective. There are certain arguments advanced which are open to debate and discussion.

 

[LaBong]

Changing the issue again?

Nobody talked about 'bending'. The claim was that India-Russia were aligned against Pakistan-US. You claimed India was non-aligned, while any number of Indian analysts admit --as you just did now -- that there was a "special" relationship between India and Russia.

How does above two things contradict? India was a friend of Russia but wasn't in communist block. You can be a friend of communist without being communist, just as you can be a friend of kuffer without being one. I failed to understand what's the issue here. There was no Indo-Russia vs Pak-US thingy as you want us to believe, in all war against Pakistan or any other country, India walked alone, so did Russia in her wars.

The point was that India voted with the communist block and did not abstain like other 'non-aligned' countries.

non-aligned countries abstained which means they were undecided, India voted against because it was against her direct interest, not to pander Russia, how hard it is to understand? We voted against USSR in Afghanistan resolution, which was hell lotta more important than some pre historic resolution regarding Hungary.

Again, you are changing the definition of NAM. Nobody's talking about hosting bases. We are talking about the "special" relationship you admitted above. Indians claim the Soviets helped out in a big way in 1971. The Soviet Union was not in the habit of challenging the US military for random, non-aligned countries.

Hogwash. Once again history lesson for you, Seventh fleet was moved to Indian Ocean to help China(in case the wage war against India/Russia), not Pakistan, Russia intervened just to make noise, one doesn't take on seventh fleet with couple of submarines.

Read: Why The Seventh Fleet was sent to the Indian Ocean in 1971… | Pak Tea House

Typical Indian intellectual dishonesty again. I wrote that it viewed China as the 'nemesis-in-waiting' during the Soviet era. My claim was that the US administration has always been opposed to the CCP, despite brief interludes of cooperation. These interludes were necessitated by geopolitics. As I have noted several times, US strategy varied between containment and engagement, but the goals never wavered. What you call 'friendly relations' were merely periods of 'engagement' to achieve US objectives.

Yeah right, now go back to your original statement and see the epic shifting of goalpost yourself, like I said, now you're making a joke out of yourself.

Again, plenty of quotes from Obama and Hillary on google and even here. It's been hashed and rehashed.

Actions speak louder than words and certainly louder than American politicians speaking about India's role in US interests.

US wooing India with F-35 5th-Generation fighter offer - Times Of India

There's lots more, as Indians on def.pk love telling us...

Lol, they are trying to sell us the plane, they won't offer TOT, just as they didn't for F18 or F16. Even if they do, we'd paying our hard earned money for it, they'd not be donating us.

Anyway this is my last post here as I think I have made my point pretty clear and discussion is going circular now.

 

[newdelhinsa]

The thesis is that the US's deliberate neglect of Pakistani interests in Afghanistan is due to their catering to Indian interests, for the reasons already mentioned.

USA owes no responsibilities for Pakistan's fights with India, never has.

You guys were doing pretty well in Afghanistan before WOT and USA was not interfering either.

Pakistan made a contract with USA and no term such as keeping India out of Afghanistan was drafted as far as I know.

Furthermore the whole effort of WOT gets defeated for USA (who lobbied/vowed/requested his friends and partners/NATO by endorsing a high moral package of WOT and bringing Afghanistan back to normalcy) if USA compromises normal and independent Afghanistan to Pakistan. They (Partners) all are still doing counter insurgency and counter terrorism operation in Afghanistan on USA's call as we talk.

Organizing/ leading such a mammoth war and asking other nations to be ready for dead bodies who may be facing internal pressures like not to go for America's war is not an endeavour to be ruined by catering Pakistan's strategic depth and fictional concerns about India.

They are short of people, resources and ideas, they have rightly recognized India's role in Afghanistan as constructive. Let them help Afghanistan, Pakistan can level its score with India some another day.

Why you guys want to mess with super power who has more stakes and credibility at disposal than Pakistan could ever imagine in this war. Certainly USA will be happy to cater your head on Platter to India if you kept your nuisance value high by creating problems to them especially when they want to leave the region ASAP. Pakistan has no one to blame but their double games and inherited insecurities vis a vis India.

 

[Developereo]

How does above two things contradict? India was a friend of Russia but wasn't in communist block. You can be a friend of communist without being communist, just as you can be a friend of kuffer without being one. I failed to understand what's the issue here. There was no Indo-Russia vs Pak-US thingy as you want us to believe, in all war against Pakistan or any other country, India walked alone, so did Russia in her wars.



non-aligned countries abstained which means they were undecided, India voted against because it was against her direct interest, not to pander Russia, how hard it is to understand? We voted against USSR in Afghanistan resolution, which was hell lotta more important than some pre historic resolution regarding Hungary.





Hogwash. Once again history lesson for you, Seventh fleet was moved to Indian Ocean to help China(in case the wage war against India/Russia), not Pakistan, Russia intervened just to make noise, one doesn't take on seventh fleet with couple of submarines.

Read: Why The Seventh Fleet was sent to the Indian Ocean in 1971… | Pak Tea House

1971 India Pakistan War: Role of Russia, China, America and Britain | The World Reporter: News Opinion and Analysis

Confidential - The Commander of the Military Intelligence Service Gen. Pyotr Ivashutin.

"The Soviet Intelligence has reported that the English operative connection has come nearer to territorial India, water led by an aircraft carrier “Eagle” [On December 10]. For helping friendly India, Soviet government has directed a group of ships under the command of contr-admiral V. Kruglyakov."

Vladimir Kruglyakov, the former (1970-1975) Commander of the 10th Operative Battle Group (Pacific Fleet) remembers:

"I was ordered by the Chief Commander to track the British Navy's advancement, I positioned our battleships in the Bay of Bengal and watched for the British carrier "Eagle".

But Soviet Union didn't have enough force to resist if they encountered the British Carrier. Therefore, to support the existing Soviet fleet in the Bay of Bengal, Soviet cruisers, destroyers and nuclear submarines, equipped with anti ship missiles, were sent from Vladivostok.

In reaction English Navy retreated and went South to Madagascar.

Soon the news of American carrier Enterprise and USS Tripoli's advancement towards Indian water came.

V. Kruglyakov “ I had obtained the order from the commander-in-chief to not to allow the advancement of the American fleet to the military bases of India”

"We encircled them and aimed the missiles at the 'Enterprise'. We had blocked their way and didn't allow them to head anywhere, neither to Karachi, nor to Chittagong or Dhaka".

The Soviet ships had small range rockets (only upto 300 KM). Therefore, to hold the opponent under the range, commanders ran risks of going as near to the enemy as possible.

"The Chief Commander had ordered me to lift the submarines and bring them to the surface so that it can be pictured by the American spy satellites or can be seen by the American Navy!' It was done to demonstrate, that we had all the needed things in Indian Ocean, including the nuclear submarines. I had lifted them, and they recognized it. Then, we intercepted the American communication. The commander of the Carrier Battle Group was then the counter-admiral Dimon Gordon. He sent the report to the 7th American Fleet Commander: 'Sir, we are too late. There are Russian nuclear submarines here, and a big collection of battleships'.

Americans returned and couldn't do anything. Soviet Union had also threatened China that, if they ever opened a front against India on its border, they will receive a tough response from North.

Yeah right, now go back to your original statement and see the epic shifting of goalpost yourself, like I said, now you're making a joke out of yourself.

The Chinese threat was on hold as long as the greater Soviet menace was extant. However, the threat got elevated in due time. The US went to war with China before the Cold War; it is engaged in heavy rhetoric now. If you believe that the intervening years were fundamentally different, I can't help you. Here's what I wrote in the opening article:

It is important to note that, even during the Cold War, the US anticipated China's rise and viewed it as a nemesis-in-waiting. That status got elevated to primacy after the Soviet collapse

Actions speak louder than words and certainly louder than American politicians speaking about India's role in US interests.

Again, we are not talking about Indian actions, but American statements. Those statements from America's top politicians have been crystal clear. Read my original post again, if you are still in doubt.

Lol, they are trying to sell us the plane, they won't offer TOT, just as they didn't for F18 or F16. Even if they do, we'd paying our hard earned money for it, they'd not be donating us.

Again changing the goalposts. You wanted evidence that that the US is offering state-of-the-art weapons, and I showed you one (of many) instances.

 

[LaBong]

Americans returned and couldn't do anything. Soviet Union had also threatened China that, if they ever opened a front against India on its border, they will receive a tough response from North.

Thanks for proving that it was all about China, the new 'Best' friend of US.

Let's hear from the horse's mouth.

HK : Henry Kissinger
PM : Chou en Lai Prime Minister of the People’s Republic of China

PM: (laughs) so would you like to begin.

HK: Which subject would you like to discuss first? The Soviets?

PM: Yes

HK: …As you know, we reacted extremely strongly to the situation in South Asia. And one morning when we received a message that you had a message to deliver to us, which was, we thought that you had sent your troops in, we had decided that if you were attacked by the Soviet Union as a result of it we would support you and the military measures if necessary to prevent that attack. We received that message in early December—I thought it was December 11 our time in the morning. We received word. And when we picked up that message in the afternoon, it had a different context. We also, as you remember threatened to…

HK: I think it was the December 11. Bhutto arrived in New York on Friday the 10th our time, 11th your time. I met Huang Ha (Chinese Ambassador) on the 10th, I first met Huang Ha on the evening of Friday the 10th and then I met Huang Ha on the morning of the 11th…and then you sent a message, which we received. You called us in the morning of the 12th and we were going to the meeting with Pompidou so we sent General Haig. But between the time, we got the phone call and picked up the message we didn’t know what it was. And since Huang Ha had taken a very tough line, not knowing the situation I thought your message to us was that you were taking military measures. And since we were going to the Azores before we met with you we had to give instructions. If your message was, you were taking military measures, our instructions were that if the Soviet Union moved against you we would move against the Soviet Union.

HK: They didn’t understand our overall strategy. If they had understood we were getting ready to take on the Soviet Union then what happened was mild compared to what would have happened. The reason we moved our Fleet into the Indian Ocean was not because of India primarily –it was as pressure on the Soviet Union if the Soviets did what I mentioned before.
​

http://pakteahouse.net/2011/12/09/why-the-seventh-fleet-was-sent-to-the-indian-ocean-in-1971/

Again changing the goalposts. You wanted evidence that that the US is offering state-of-the-art weapons, and I showed you one (of many) instances.

The US was offering top of the line military technology to China in the 80s?

There is difference between weapon and technology, just trying to show the dichotomy.

 

[true_indian]

All I got from the original article by 'Developereo' is that entire Indian diplomacy is centered towards destroying Pakistan. But I got a news for you, Pakistan is not worth the benefit. Pakistan has a nuisance value for India, and Indians are not stupid to throw themselves into war for such meager benefaction.

 

[Developereo]

USA owes no responsibilities for Pakistan's fights with India, never has.

Oh, but it does. That is the central point of the thesis.

You guys were doing pretty well in Afghanistan before WOT and USA was not interfering either.

That is one of the US goals in Afghanistan -- to rectify the situation and install a pro-India puppet in Afghanistan.

Pakistan made a contract with USA and no term such as keeping India out of Afghanistan was drafted as far as I know.

Of course. Why on earth would the US ever agree to something which is 100% counter to their plans in the first place?

Furthermore the whole effort of WOT gets defeated for USA (who lobbied/vowed/requested his friends and partners/NATO by endorsing a high moral package of WOT and bringing Afghanistan back to normalcy) if USA compromises normal and independent Afghanistan to Pakistan. They (Partners) all are still doing counter insurgency and counter terrorism operation in Afghanistan on USA's call as we talk.

The moral angle was strictly for public consumption. The governments were under no illusions about the real goals of the Afghan mission. Once the AQ was neutralized and the Taliban deposed, the 'official' mission was over. There was never any mandate about human rights, democracy or anything of the sort. The WOT is only a cover for continued military presence.

Organizing/ leading such a mammoth war and asking other nations to be ready for dead bodies who may be facing internal pressures like not to go for America's war is not an endeavour to be ruined by catering Pakistan's strategic depth and fictional concerns about India.

The politically incorrect reality is that soldiers are dispensable. Countries sacrifice their citizens all the time for strategic gains.

They are short of people, resources and ideas, they have rightly recognized India's role in Afghanistan as constructive. Let them help Afghanistan, Pakistan can level its score with India some another day.

Why you guys want to mess with super power who has more stakes and credibility at disposal than Pakistan could ever imagine in this war. Certainly USA will be happy to cater your head on Platter to India if you kept your nuisance value high by creating problems to them especially when they want to leave the region ASAP. Pakistan has no one to blame but their double games and inherited insecurities vis a vis India.

The US has repeatedly claimed that Pakistan wields extreme influence with the Taliban. It is now an open admission that the Taliban hold sway in large parts of the country, and NATO is talking to them after all these years. If the US really wanted stability in Afghanistan, Pakistan was the natural choice of intermediary to get all the parties to the negotiating table. But of course, stability is the last thing on NATO's agenda. Stability would mean its time to go.