I played make-believe with the Pakistani military

[VCheng]

If an academic cannot be honest and cannot provide honest and accurate input for US policy makers, then I'm not sure she deserves the title of 'academic' and her 'input' is useless.

Again, you might think that. But many others will not. She is university faculty and her input to US policy makers remains important.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Again, you might think that. But many others will not. She is university faculty and her input to US policy makers remains important.

As I said above, she has been ranting and raving recently about how US policy makers are not implementing her distorted input so perhaps even they have some semblance of understanding about how she's gone off the deep end when it comes to Pakistan.

 

[VCheng]

As I said above, she has been ranting and raving recently about how US policy makers are not implementing her distorted input so perhaps even they have some semblance of understanding about how she's gone off the deep end when it comes to Pakistan.

Luckily for Pakistan, she is not the only one providing input. Welcome to the crazily multifactorial world of US policymaking!

 

[FaujHistorian]

If an academic cannot be honest and cannot provide honest and accurate input for US policy makers, then I'm not sure she deserves the title of 'academic'. and it is important to highlight the inaccuracies and distortions in her work, as has been done here, for precisely the reason that her input makes its way to US policy makers.

Of course she has been ranting and raving about how US policy makers are not implementing her distorted input so perhaps even they have some semblance of understanding about how she's gone of the deep end when it comes to Pakistan.

yaara, she is an academic very similar to the academics in Pakistan and USA.

Just follow the books written by Pakistani academicians on Pakistani army.

They all are very much alike.

Thank you

As I said before, you and many Pakistanis might think that she is not objective, but that is not her audience. She provides input to US policies, and hence it is important to study her work with a critical and open mind, because she is regarded as being an expert in matters related to South Asia, like it or not in her country. As an academician, she cannot carry any irrational hatred, of that I am quite sure.



She can't sing, but she certainly has balls.

Sadly you are correct.

People like her have misdirected US policies.

Her main assumption that is hugely flawed but widely accepted is that:

--- US policy is to address Pakistani needs because it is security state (and thus needs security assistance from Pakistan)


Answer: Heck no. US has never supported Pakistan based on its security needs. US supported because of US’s strategic and geographical needs.

This flawed assumption lead to very short term views of the USA in the region.
it resulted in Salala incident and hugely mistaken closure of US supplies through Pakistan.


Second flawed assumption is related to Pakistan and Afghanistan.

-- Afghanistan is not a country but a province of Pakistan. A 20 million country with zero food and oil resource cannot dictate terms to a 200 million country., especially if 3-5 million of Afghanistganis are refugees in Pakistan.

And yet Pakistani and US analysts keep on putting two countries out of this context.


As I said earlier, a good academic challenges the underlying assumptions before forming a theory

A bad academic builds a theory and then finds assumptions to justify it.

This is where Dr. Fair is deadly wrong, but terribly effective in pushing flawed US policies.

Peace

 

[VCheng]

This is where Dr. Fair is deadly wrong, but terribly effective in pushing flawed US policies.

Again, you might think that she is wrong and US policies are flawed, but US policies serve its national interests very well, and she is only one of a large number of people helping in formulating them. Besides, if she remains "terribly effective", she is doing her job rather well, don't you think?

 

[I S I]

In case anyone is interested, Chiristine Fair just went viral in India

LOL WTF

She sounds like a mental case meter laga ke

Meanwhile

https://twitter.com/x/status/616994852857708545

LOL burn baby burn

 

[Bossman]

The Green Books are readily available in any book stores. There is nothing ristricted about them. She should have just walked over to Ferozesons on the Mall in Lahore.

 

[I S I]

LOL WTF

She sounds like a mental case meter laga ke

Meanwhile

https://twitter.com/x/status/616994852857708545

LOL burn baby burn

Edit: B!tch gone mad. Calling army jawaans khaaki bandara. WTF

https://twitter.com/x/status/616996362836533248

 

[FaujHistorian]

Again, you might think that she is wrong and US policies are flawed, but US policies serve its national interests very well, and she is only one of a large number of people helping in formulating them. Besides, if she remains "terribly effective", she is doing her job rather well, don't you think?

Actually USA policies so many times do not serve its national interests "very well".

USA policies only serve its national only when they are based on correct underlying assumptions.

And in this particular case they did not.

In Pak Af, in Iraq, US interests have been utterly destroyed by the recent policy direction.

Off course you can close your eyes and say "everything is good, everything is cool".

The Green Books are readily available in any book stores. There is nothing ristricted about. She should have just walked over to Ferozesons on the Mall in Lahore.

hahahah

so true.

 

[VCheng]

Actually USA policies so many times do not serve its national interests "very well".

USA policies only serve its national only when they are based on correct underlying assumptions.

And in this particular case they did not.

In Pak Af, in Iraq, US interests have been utterly destroyed by the recent policy direction.

Off course you can close your eyes and say "everything is good, everything is cool".

Sir, please keep in mind that what USA is doing in AfPak may have considerations that extend far beyond that area and for much longer than might be readily apparent. Pakistan may have the luxury of focusing on a few things while USA may need to think much bigger and broader.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

She is a pathological lair. One thing is for sure, she is never setting foot in Pakistan again.

oh come on some bits are funny though although seem to be exaggerated but there is a chance of some truth too in terms of absurdity.
its not just Mangla that has some COIN training center. many other places have that and she seems to be an expert on Waziristan terrain. maybe she is beause I am not



but I know we dont clear rooms like that lol. we are not American marines clearing a room in Baghdad.

First in a series of demonstrations, they showed me how they clear a room in a house in which militants were hiding without killing any present civilians. Having explained the objective, the men demonstrated their learning: one man approached the door and tossed in several grenades whereupon the rest of his unit entered the house. I asked just how this would prevent civilian casualties. My guide explained that they had already discerned that no civilians were in the house. Anything is possible with imagination, I suppose.

funny bits not sure she was being serious or sarcastic .. but this is a good script and reminds me of American 101 training

 

[FaujHistorian]

Sir, please keep in mind that what USA is doing in AfPak may have considerations that extend far beyond that area and for much longer than might be readily apparent. Pakistan may have the luxury of focusing on a few things while USA may need to think much bigger and broader.

I started a different thread to capture more info and move away from Christine Fair specific talk.

200 years of Kashmir and Afghanistan

Please contribute.

 

[gangsta_rap]

It's a little frighting to see that Americans like her are approving the "Loya Afghanistan" thing.

 

[OrionHunter]

So before we lap up her theories hook line and sinker, we must figure out what the underlying assumptions are.

OK?

So what do you think are the underlying assumptions of her thesis?

Thank you.

In a nutshell, what she puts forth for the underlying reason of conflict with India is that even though India vivisected Pakistan in 1971, Pakistan continues to see itself as India's equal and demands the world do the same.

The tools that the army prefers to use, non-state actors under a nuclear umbrella, has brought international opprobrium upon the country and the army. In recent years, erstwhile proxies have turned their guns on the Pakistani state itself and its peoples in the form of the TTP and other sundry terror organizations, resulting in the deaths of over 50,000 Pakistanis including soldiers.

She asks: "Why does the army persist in pursuing these revisionist policies that have come to imperil the very viability of the state itself, from which the army feeds?" This volume argues that the answer lies, at least partially, in the strategic culture of the army. From the army's distorted view of history, the army is victorious as long as can resist India's purported hegemony and the territorial status quo. To acquiesce is defeat. Because the army is unlikely to abandon these preferences, the world must prepare for an ever more dangerous future Pakistan.

To stay relevant in Pakistan society, the army needs to keep the pot boiling and Kashmir fits the bill to the tee!

Afghanistan is another ballgame altogether and thus I will not bring it in here.

My two bits!

 

[Bossman]

In a nutshell, what she puts forth for the underlying reason of conflict with India is that even though India vivisected Pakistan in 1971, Pakistan continues to see itself as India's equal and demands the world do the same.

The tools that the army prefers to use, non-state actors under a nuclear umbrella, has brought international opprobrium upon the country and the army. In recent years, erstwhile proxies have turned their guns on the Pakistani state itself and its peoples in the form of the TTP and other sundry terror organizations, resulting in the deaths of over 50,000 Pakistanis including soldiers.

She asks: "Why does the army persist in pursuing these revisionist policies that have come to imperil the very viability of the state itself, from which the army feeds?" This volume argues that the answer lies, at least partially, in the strategic culture of the army. From the army's distorted view of history, the army is victorious as long as can resist India's purported hegemony and the territorial status quo. To acquiesce is defeat. Because the army is unlikely to abandon these preferences, the world must prepare for an ever more dangerous future Pakistan.

To stay relevant in Pakistan society, the army needs to keep the pot boiling and Kashmir fits the bill to the tee!

Afghanistan is another ballgame altogether and thus I will not bring it in here.

My two bits!

Who gives a rats a$$ about your two cents or Christine Fair. She has already used up more bandwidth on this forum then she deserves. Let alone India, we thought ouselves equal to the Soviet Union and we know what happened to it. We even think ourselves equal to the U.S. at least in our part of the world, the situation in Afghanistan confirms that. Third rate academics do not decide the viability and future of countries.