Christine Fair goes hysterical

[r3alist]

bbc world service discussion on NATO attack, christine fair is first to speak, what does she say?


actually, what she DOESN'T say is talk about the actual attack, instead its a rant which is bordering on JUSTIFICATION for nato murders - i.e. pakistan is responsible for US deaths, therefore who cares about this attack

and she is meant to be a distinguished american expert when she can barely conceal her allegiance to standard US rhetoric


Pakistan-USA Relations post NATO attacks: My Say on BBC 29/11/2011 - YouTube

 

[opps]

My my my what a turn around by Ms.Fair i'm sure she will be denied pakistani visa next.

 

[blain2]

No we are not so touchy about people saying stuff to deny them Visa. She has visited Pakistan a few times as guest of the GoP and will probably come again.

Christina Fair's comments are representative of a part of the American PoV. The fact that she mentions that Pakistan is diametrically opposed to their goal of getting rid of Taliban is indeed the case. Pakistan feels that just like the US and India have their supporters in Afghanistan, Pakistan also has the need to have friends and not be left in the lurch. The US went into Afghanistan to get rid of AQ and Pakistan helped with that. However once the war turned into an anti-Pashtun CI campaign, then we have had a divergence of views.

Its unfortunate but Pakistan is not looking to pick a fight with the US or harm the US. However whatever arrangement is made in Afghanistan, Pakistan has to live with that for decades. And we rather not have a dispensation that puts us at a great disadvantage by facilitating the United States' regional (mind you, not global but regional) goals.

 

[r3alist]

she mentions pakistan and america have different goals, but she offers no explanation as to why thats the case, the issue for her is JUST they have a difference.

now ms.fair is not ignorant, she understands pakistan has very real and legitimate concerns, but she ensures her listeners are kept ignorant to this, no mention of them, therefore she is completely acting as a mouthpiece for US policy in that regard, as well as displaying a lack of intellectual honesty.

 

[true_indian]

And I always thought that "Fair' is partial to Pakistan.

 

[VCheng]

.............

Its unfortunate but Pakistan is not looking to pick a fight with the US or harm the US. However whatever arrangement is made in Afghanistan, Pakistan has to live with that for decades. And we rather not have a dispensation that puts us at a great disadvantage by facilitating the United States' regional (mind you, not global but regional) goals.

Great post, but at what point does the realization that the "strategic depth" concept has irreversibly unraveled hit home?

 

[somebozo]

Dude, i have never seen Christine fair being considered a distinguised american..she is good for Fox news type jobs! The screaming americans are crying all over the world about the a55rape happening to them in Afghanistan and yet nobody is listening!

 

[blain2]

Great post, but at what point does the realization that the "strategic depth" concept has irreversibly unraveled hit home?

VCheng,

People talk about this concept of "strategic depth" all the time. I have never heard what the real "strategic depth" is. Because this is not a tangible, concrete type of a strategy that some have made it out to be.

We certainly have no plans to move troops and material over to Afghanistan. What we have stays in Pakistan and its not even possible logistically to simply move our forces and equipment over to Afghanistan in case Pakistan is overrun.

This most clear and logical explanation of strategic depth is having friends in Afghanistan who would not allow the encirclement of Pakistan nor would they undermine the territorial integrity of Pakistan by raising the issue of Durrand line. In order to do so, we need to have friendly ties with the government of Afghanistan, a government in which we hope there would be significant Pashtun representation. This is the reason we back the Pashtuns and indirectly Taliban.

Pakistan has no appetite for empire building. We are too small and do these things in reaction to threats to our own security.

At the very best of our relations with the Taliban in Afghanistan, we use to worry about our trucks (used for trade) getting commandeered and the drivers being made hostages. So I think this concept of "strategic depth" is now used to make Pakistani intentions look sinister when they are not. So kidher ka control aur kidher ki depth?

Lastly, after the nuclear tests, Pakistan has no reason to find physical space and control inside of Afghanistan to gain depth if we are to go back to that initial, common interpretation of strategic depth that most people inaccurately understand to be the case. The nuclear weapons have already given us strategic depth in a shallow Pakistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Great post, but at what point does the realization that the "strategic depth" concept has irreversibly unraveled hit home?

And please read through the Strategic Depth sticky :http://www.defence.pk/forums/strategic-geopolitical-issues/44672-defining-strategic-depth.html

The concepts of 'Strategic Depth' as interpreted by the West, India, and many Pakistani liberals are not only outdated, but never had any traction beyond Aslam Beg to begin with.

 

[VCheng]

VCheng,

..............strategic depth is having friends in Afghanistan who would not allow the encirclement of Pakistan nor would they undermine the territorial integrity of Pakistan by raising the issue of Durrand line. In order to do so, we need to have friendly ties with the government of Afghanistan, a government in which we hope there would be significant Pashtun representation. This is the reason we back the Pashtuns and indirectly Taliban....................

Both these concepts of denying India to means to catch Pakistan in a two-sided vise, and on-going support for the "good" Taliban together are the "Strategic Depth" dream that is no longer possible, I am afraid.

Pakistan will find it more fruitful to plan for both, and soon: There will be no "good" Taleban to support, and India will be able to pressurize on both fronts, within the decade.

I am sorry to be so blunt.

---------- Post added at 03:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:08 PM ----------

.............

The concepts of 'Strategic Depth' .......................

............... are simply dead, and will be buried within the decade.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

............... are simply dead, and will be buried within the decade.

Which would indicate that you have not read the thread and continue to spout canards revolving around an outdated and flawed interpretation of Pakistan's 'strategic depth'.

 

[pakdefender]

Christine Fair's rant sounded more like 'Oh we Americans have some kind of right to win but we were are not winning and Pakistan has to do more to make us win!'

Americans are have been on the slide on all fronts ever since they started the illegal wars around the world and taking their anger out on Pakistan won’t bring back all that they have squandered which includes their wealth , their standing and also 6000 dead soldiers some of whose remains they have treated like trash

 

[VCheng]

VCheng,

....................

This most clear and logical explanation of strategic depth is having friends in Afghanistan who would not allow the encirclement of Pakistan nor would they undermine the territorial integrity of Pakistan by raising the issue of Durrand line. In order to do so, we need to have friendly ties with the government of Afghanistan, a government in which we hope there would be significant Pashtun representation. This is the reason we back the Pashtuns and indirectly Taliban...........................

Which would indicate that you have not read the thread and continue to spout canards revolving around an outdated and flawed interpretation of Pakistan's 'strategic depth'.

Please see the above excerpt from Blain2, and my response to it above.

 

[blain2]

Your bluntness is not a problem.

Pakistan is already planning for both and actually taking action. The ongoing anti-TTP operations are essentially an attempt to keep the TTP influence at bay. Maybe the Pakistani society will go full circle, embracing the Taliban and then getting turned off and pushing them out. In my view, that may be the way things pan out in the long run. There isn't much that can be done to reverse this trend in our people. This would be the Iran case.

On trying to negate the Indian pressure, in my mind there are very many factors at play here. Firstly, Pakistan has let off on the Kashmir issue and opened up trade with India and has provided an environment where the two sides can at least sit and realize that their strategies in Afghanistan are more suitable for the days bygone. However if the Indian side is not persuaded to accommodate Pakistan's concerns, then Pakistan will continue to push along the current path, if for nothing but to hedge against a full blown Indian plan to encircle Pakistan strategically.

So we will have to see how Pakistani and Indian relations work out over the next few years. If there is improvement there, the concept being discussed goes into cold storage again.

 

[VCheng]

Your bluntness is not a problem.

Pakistan is already planning for both and actually taking action. The ongoing anti-TTP operations are essentially an attempt to keep the TTP influence at bay. Maybe the Pakistani society will go full circle, embracing the Taliban and then getting turned off and pushing them out. In my view, that may be the way things pan out in the long run. There isn't much that can be done to reverse this trend in our people. This would be the Iran case.

On trying to negate the Indian pressure, in my mind there are very many factors at play here. Firstly, Pakistan has let off on the Kashmir issue and opened up trade with India and has provided an environment where the two sides can at least sit and realize that their strategies in Afghanistan are more suitable for the days bygone. However if the Indian side is not persuaded to accommodate Pakistan's concerns, then Pakistan will continue to push along the current path, if for nothing but to hedge against a full blown Indian plan to encircle Pakistan strategically.

So we will have to see how Pakistani and Indian relations work out over the next few years. If there is improvement there, the concept being discussed goes into cold storage again.

The Iran outcome would be the worst for many reasons, and I agree with you that improving relations with India over the next few years would be key.

Whatever planning and action are being done, I wish those efforts luck, but am afraid they will be day late and a dollar short.