Musharraf answers to the threat of Surgical strikes by India

[PAFAce]

There will be no such thing as a "surgical strike" from India because every Pakistani knows the Armed Forces will be forced to respond. Gen. (R) Musharraf has stated what we all already know and the Indian Armed Forces are well aware of. Hence, if and when India strikes, it will target military installations to weaken Pakistan's border defenses so that they may launch a "Cold Start" type of offensive. How we are going to deal with that is another issue, but rest assured, we will deal with that also. Therefore, kudos Gen. (R) Musharraf for letting then know what it is straight-up, and not trying to give a "diplomatic" answer.

However, I would love to ask Gen. (R) Musharraf why he allowed drone strikes inside Pakistani territory in the West. Does he not consider FATA/NWFP sovereign territory? Why, then, is it drawn on our map and why do people there identify themselves as Pakistani? Why do they hold National Identity Cards and not NICOP? Why didn't he display the same bravery when facing American/European diplomats and let them know what is what? Many un-answered questions. If you're a fan of Musharraf, these are annoying, if you're a hater, these are just more examples of his double-standards. However, if you're like me and most other Pakistanis, i.e., neither a fan nor a hater, you just simply want answers to these questions.

Lastly, Gen. (R) Musharraf could play a role in Pakistani politics, but I don't think it would be a successful one. His major support base is outside the country, i.e., the "enlightened moderates" residing outside Pakistan. He's unpopular in every single province and territory inside Pakistan, from Balochistan to Sarhad to Punjab to Sindh to Gilgit-Baltistan to Azad Kashmir. Hence, I don't see a significant role for him. Other than that, he is still a Pakistani citizen regardless of anybody's opinion, and could run for public office whenever and wherever he likes.

 

[blain2]

PAFAce,

One point.

The concept of (R) in the names of General officers is an anomaly in our military traditions.

The General ranking officers always stay Generals and should not have the abbreviated R mentioned in their names. This is a practice that has crept in as of late (70s and 80s), otherwise as per rules and regulations, a General office, even after retiring goes by the name Gen so and so. This was to be the case to honour the decades of service (around 4 for ours) that such officers give to the Army and the nation. Now it is a norm to have the R placed as soon as you shed the uniform. This was not so in the good old days of the Pakistan Army.

 

[Solomon2]

There will be no such thing as a "surgical strike" from India because every Pakistani knows the Armed Forces will be forced to respond...
However, I would love to ask Gen. (R) Musharraf why he allowed drone strikes inside Pakistani territory in the West.

PAFAce, go back to #10 and #11 of this thread; that's where the answers are. To you Musharraf may have sounded like the patriot jealously defending every square inch of Pakistani territory; in diplo-speak he was saying something else, leaving the possibility open of unilateral Indian action against Pakistani territory and at the same time providing the explanation as to why U.S. drone strikes are permitted, and within what limits.

 

[star123]

There will be no such thing as a "surgical strike" from India because every Pakistani knows the Armed Forces will be forced to respond. Gen. (R) Musharraf has stated what we all already know and the Indian Armed Forces are well aware of. Hence, if and when India strikes, it will target military installations to weaken Pakistan's border defenses so that they may launch a "Cold Start" type of offensive. How we are going to deal with that is another issue, but rest assured, we will deal with that also. Therefore, kudos Gen. (R) Musharraf for letting then know what it is straight-up, and not trying to give a "diplomatic" answer.

However, I would love to ask Gen. (R) Musharraf why he allowed drone strikes inside Pakistani territory in the West. Does he not consider FATA/NWFP sovereign territory? Why, then, is it drawn on our map and why do people there identify themselves as Pakistani? Why do they hold National Identity Cards and not NICOP? Why didn't he display the same bravery when facing American/European diplomats and let them know what is what? Many un-answered questions. If you're a fan of Musharraf, these are annoying, if you're a hater, these are just more examples of his double-standards. However, if you're like me and most other Pakistanis, i.e., neither a fan nor a hater, you just simply want answers to these questions.

Lastly, Gen. (R) Musharraf could play a role in Pakistani politics, but I don't think it would be a successful one. His major support base is outside the country, i.e., the "enlightened moderates" residing outside Pakistan. He's unpopular in every single province and territory inside Pakistan, from Balochistan to Sarhad to Punjab to Sindh to Gilgit-Baltistan to Azad Kashmir. Hence, I don't see a significant role for him. Other than that, he is still a Pakistani citizen regardless of anybody's opinion, and could run for public office whenever and wherever he likes.

Simple answer. Pakistan needs $$$ and US can print it.

 

[PAFAce]

The General ranking officers always stay Generals and should not have the abbreviated R mentioned in their names. This is a practice that has crept in as of late (70s and 80s), otherwise as per rules and regulations, a General office, even after retiring goes by the name Gen so and so. This was to be the case to honour the decades of service (around 4 for ours) that such officers give to the Army and the nation. Now it is a norm to have the R placed as soon as you shed the uniform. This was not so in the good old days of the Pakistan Army.

Thanks for pointing that out, sir. It's like "President" or "Prime Minister" designations for World Leaders. They're always referred to as "Mr. President" or "Mr. Prime Minister" even after retirement.

Every day you learn something at Pakistan Defence Forum.

in diplo-speak he was saying something else, leaving the possibility open of unilateral Indian action against Pakistani territory and at the same time providing the explanation as to why U.S. drone strikes are permitted, and within what limits.

Maybe you're right, but I think he was denouncing Indian strikes outright anywhere in Pakistan, including FATA (not that it could happen). Also, South Waziristan, Bajaur Agency, Khyber Agency, Malakand Division etc. are under government control as we speak (and are currently home to the Frontier Corp or Army personnel), but drone strikes continue there. This means we are knowingly allowing these drones to undermine our sovereign integrity, which should be as unacceptable to Gen. Musharraf as any Indian strike.

To me, there should be no double standards. If we are going to deny India any right to strike (which we absolutely should), we should do the same for everyone else. Unfortunately, I don't make policy and I am not Chief of Army Staff, or this sh*t wouldn't happen. I would absolutely love to see Gen. Musharraf directly answer the question of American strikes inside Pakistan (no matter how successful).

Simple answer. Pakistan needs $$$ and US can print it.

It's because the United States has reliable Unmanned Combat Aerial System technology and Pakistan doesn't. If our leaders are worth the salary we pay them, we should have had a few of them by now. If Gen. Musharraf is "worth his salt", he should have laid down the business on the Americans; any gun inside my house will be in my hands.

 

[sreekimpact]

NOt again !!!! how many threads we have wasted talking this ...

SURGICAL STRIKES HAVE ALREADY STARTED.......( its been more than one year now)

 

[Solomon2]

Maybe you're right, but I think he was denouncing Indian strikes outright anywhere in Pakistan

I think he gave this speech several times in the 12/08 - 1/09 period, and unless I'm mistaken he always linked the issues of sovereignty and the P.A. closely to any response to an Indian surgical strike. It he hadn't meant what he said he had plenty of time for his advisors to catch it so he could fix it later, right?

South Waziristan, Bajaur Agency, Khyber Agency, Malakand Division etc. are under government control as we speak -

You know that GoP policy changed once the decision was made to root out the Taliban in the spring of 2009. Obviously the U.S. is getting its targeting info from Pakistan in these agencies. I am tired of taking the rap for every misguided missile and think that it should be made public that Pakistan is leasing America's services here.

If we are going to deny India any right to strike (which we absolutely should), we should do the same for everyone else.

General Musharraf's hidden message was that it would be OK for India to strike areas clearly outside of P.A. control. (I guess the F.P. doesn't count.) The advantages of such strikes to Pakistan in general and Musharraf personally would have been great.

Sadly for Musharraf, the Indians didn't fall for it: they knew or suspected the 26/11 terrorists originated and were trained in areas under direct Pakistani government control so they saw no need to do M's dirty work by bombing the tribal areas. Such an act would, in effect, cement Musharraf's power as military leader no only in the P.A. but also among the Taliban. Musharraf could then re-direct military and irregular (terrorist) resources to the Indian border and maybe even seize Kashmir's capital in a military assault, as described in Bhutto's memoirs. He'd have the chance to portray himself as a hero of the age before all would come crumbling down around him, as Bhutto described.

But like I said, India didn't fall for it. Time for plan B...

 

[SSGPA1]

Lastly, Gen. (R) Musharraf could play a role in Pakistani politics, but I don't think it would be a successful one. His major support base is outside the country, i.e., the "enlightened moderates" residing outside Pakistan. He's unpopular in every single province and territory inside Pakistan, from Balochistan to Sarhad to Punjab to Sindh to Gilgit-Baltistan to Azad Kashmir. Hence, I don't see a significant role for him. Other than that, he is still a Pakistani citizen regardless of anybody's opinion, and could run for public office whenever and wherever he likes.

No one leader is popular all over Pakistan. Nawaz Sharif recently lost Mansahra and is about to lose NA-55 as well.

You are entitled to hold your opinion. BTW, Pasder-e-Pakistan held a seminar in Peshawer which was succesful and will hold other meetings as well across the country.

I don't like Nawaz Sharif but I will never say that he has absolutely no popularity outside Punjab. In Gilgit-Baltistan elections, Gen Musharraf was very popular:

“We were with you yesterday! We are still with you today!”, they shouted. But Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s former president, the man they were calling to, was there only in spirit, his beaming portrait adorning dozens of posters and banners, beckoning to the attentive, well-behaved crowd with his military salute.

‘We would not abandon our benefactor’ - The National Newspaper

Let me know if you need more links about his popularity within Pakistan. Before I forget, majority of the face book fans are from Punjab (residing in Punajb)

 

[MastanKhan]

PAFAce, go back to #10 and #11 of this thread; that's where the answers are. To you Musharraf may have sounded like the patriot jealously defending every square inch of Pakistani territory; in diplo-speak he was saying something else, leaving the possibility open of unilateral Indian action against Pakistani territory and at the same time providing the explanation as to why U.S. drone strikes are permitted, and within what limits.

Sir,

It is purely an assumption on your part---indians won't chance it just on interpretation. They had their oppurtune moments in 2002---they couldn't chance it then---they won't now.

Economically india has more to loose than pakistan.

 

[RiazHaq]

I think many Indians suffer from "Israel envy", but the fear of swift and massive retaliation by Pakistan keeps their "Israel envy" in check.

Former UN diplomat and current Indian MP Minister Sashi Tharoor described India's "Israel envy" and warned Indians against it in the following words in 2009 before he became Indian deputy foreign minister:

"Hamas is in no position to repay Israel's air and ground attacks in kind, whereas an Indian attack on Pakistani territory, even one targeting terrorist bases and training camps, would invite swift retaliation from the Pakistani army. And, at the end of the day, one chilling fact would prevent India from thinking that it could use Israel's playbook: The country that condones, if not foments, the terror attacks on India is a nuclear power.

Yet, when Indians watch Israel take the fight to the enemy, killing those who launched rockets against it and dismantling many of the sites from which the rockets flew, some cannot resist wishing that they could do something similar in Pakistan. India understands, though, that the collateral damage would be too high, the price in civilian lives unacceptable, and the risks of the conflict spiraling out of control too acute to contemplate such an option. So Indians place their trust in international diplomacy and watch, with ill-disguised wistfulness, as Israel does what they could never permit themselves to do."

Unfortunately, it is not just the average middle class urban Indian that suffers from "Israel envy". Indian strategists and military brass are also afflicted by it. Respected American South Asia expert Stephen Cohen of Washington's Brookings Institution recently told his audience: "Not a few Indian generals and strategists have told me that if only America would strip Pakistan of its nuclear weapons then the Indian army could destroy the Pakistan army and the whole thing would be over."

Haq's Musings: India's Israel Envy

Haq's Musings: India's Missile Shield and Israel Envy Threaten Pakistan

 

[mughaljee]

I like Musharraf , Some - Some.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

An Indian surgical strike would be responded by a Butcher strike from Pakistan.

Pretty much!

 

[Always Neutral]

Pretty much!

Why would India ever need to mount a surgical strike when economically it has so much to loose? Its a matter of time the frustrated youth in LET or JUD will turn on the PA just as the TTP did. Till a few years back one never atleast heard of IED attacks on the PA in the AJK area however one does now.

Its a matter of time an innocent US or EU citizen is killed in a LET attack and PA will be forced to arrest such non state actors (love this word) who as the TTP did will turn on the PA and maybe US may just fire a few drone missiles to take them out.

India does not have the capabilities to mount a surgical attack with its present military a fact not lost on the Defence Planners.

Only country who can mount it is the US and India needs just to wait and watch. People like Imran Khan will one day achieve by misleading their people what India cannot do i.e a confrontation between the US/EU vs LET and JUD. Indian surgical strikes will only strengthen TTP, LET and JUD which should be avoided at all costs.

Regards

 

[Always Neutral]

So the crux so far is following

1. US can launch drone attacks since it is US.. big super power... keeps Pakistani economy propped up.. gives military aid..donates attack boats etc
2. India can not launch surgical strikes because.. Pakistan will hit back with a butcher strike.. India has no control over Pakistani life lines as US does.. Its not as powerful as US... has much more to lose economically...

So what will it take for India to convince US to do these surgical strikes for it on the identified Terrorist camps. Pakistan wont be able to object much.. will it?? After all they dont support these terrorists and have banned organizations like LeT, JuD etc...

So folks devoid of flaming, do you think this option is workable?? Because unlike a surgical strike from India, Pakistani population today is used to hearing about US drone attacks and it will not invoke a similar popular reaction as a strike from India..

U just need to wait till some illguided LET of JUD trained idiot targets an American. Till than silently build up your net work centric capabilities to that of the US.

The sign of impatience is already showing in the terror cadre and more than 5 attacks have taken place on the PA in AJK recently.

Regards

 

[karan.1970]

^ very true.. These so called freedom fighters have hit the so called Azad Kashmir more than J&K this year. How much more freedom do they want in Azad Kashmir than what they are supposed to already have ...