Pakistan Faces Threat From Terrorism, Not India:US

[Hellfire]

That is completely inaccurate.

Take the US for example, both Iraq and Afghanistan policies had heavy input from the Military and intelligence, and it would have been extremely unlikely for the US government to not have taken that advice into account.

but the armed forces remain subservient to the polity and not vice-versa.

 

[Hellfire]

so that the dream of a greater India could be accomplished and more over together with the US can put focus entirely on China. Pakistan for now is considered a hick up in achieving that goal both by India and the US and hence the plans to destabilize it to an extent that it disintegrates.

What an act by US and India to achieve the stated claim. Its counterproductive at best

 

[IceCold]

IceCold

That is why the US Congress and Administration has put a rider of accountability for the funds. It has dual purpose - to check diversion of funds meant for Anti-terror purposes for bolstering of Pakistani strike capabilities vis-a-vis India as also to ensure that the politicians dont exclusively get economic aid for their "poverty"

I don't give a damn too what the US administration has done or for that matter the congress. In fact i have zero faith in them, reason being they don't give a 2 cent crap about poverty or education or power shortage in Pakistan, all they want is to get their goals achieved and to hell with everything else and for that they need corrupt politicians who are a easy sell out and can be bought to make sure they take the US agenda with them. All this accountability is nothing but horse crap.

 

[Solomon2]

alumrock, I thought this "Ben-Gurion on Pakistan" stuff had been adequately debunked here.

 

[Twain]

Save the BS for BR. India's objective to destabilize Pakistan is not because it wants to conquer it,its not instead of a threat being neutralized so that the dream of a greater India could be accomplished and more over together with the US can put focus entirely on China. Pakistan for now is considered a hick up in achieving that goal both by India and the US and hence the plans to destabilize it to an extent that it disintegrates.

From the US perspective, one of the worst possible outcomes would be for Pakistan to destabilize. For several reasons.

1. The last thing anyone needs is another Somalia
2. Our supply route to Afghanistan runs through Pakistan
3. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, the last thing anyone wants is for these to fall into the wrong hands.
4. Pakistan destabilizing would make the situation in Afghanistan worse.

I think you could make a legitimate argument that the US is not happy with the government in Pakistan but is is pretty far fetched to say the US wants another failed state like Somalia. A failed state in Pakistan helps no one.

 

[Munir]

From the US perspective, one of the worst possible outcomes would be for Pakistan to destabilize. For several reasons.

1. The last thing anyone needs is another Somalia
2. Our supply route to Afghanistan runs through Pakistan
3. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, the last thing anyone wants is for these to fall into the wrong hands.
4. Pakistan destabilizing would make the situation in Afghanistan worse.

I think you could make a legitimate argument that the US is not happy with the government in Pakistan but is is pretty far fetched to say the US wants another failed state like Somalia. A failed state in Pakistan helps no one.

We make al legitimate that the war is based on a US problem (if they would not go into Irac/Afghanistan then why would we have the results?) and we are pretty sure they used Pakistan and dumped it when it was needed. We should hardly care about the US. We never say something about their internal problems. Let them respect our souvereignity and get lost with their UAV's... You watch probably a lot of US channels...

 

[Twain]

We make al legitimate that the war is based on a US problem (if they would not go into Irac/Afghanistan then why would we have the results?) and we are pretty sure they used Pakistan and dumped it when it was needed. We should hardly care about the US. We never say something about their internal problems. Let them respect our souvereignity and get lost with their UAV's... You watch probably a lot of US channels...

The Iraq war should have never been allowed to happen. It was based on fake intelligence. The reason the Iraq war happened was because Bush wanted Saddam gone and preferably dead. I won't defend the actions of the US in invading Iraq.

Afghanistan is a different matter however. The 9/11 attacks did originate from Afghanistan. Did the US handle the invasion of Afghanistan in the best possible way? No, I don't think there is much doubt about that. Bush was so determined to invade Iraq that he never devoted the resources needed to stabilize Afghanistan and get a democracy started there. But make no mistake, Pakistan had a hand in supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan. Some elements of the ISI and PA were in Afghanistan during the invasion and were fighting against US troops. No, I am not saying this was approved by the ISI and PA, but elements inside both of them had a hand in it.

But all of that is neither here nor there. What has to be dealt with is the current situation. Right now, Afghanistan is a mess and things are getting worse in Pakistan. Unless both improve, you are going to lose your democracy. The question Pakistanis have to ask is what is the best way to improve things? The Pakistani government made a deal in Swat to hopefully promote stability. The problem now is that the same people you made this deal with have moved on to Buner expand their control over more of Pakistan. Do you take action and stop them or let them take Islamabad next?

You can legitimately blame the US for several things, but that doesn't solve any of the problems in Pakistan.

 

[Energon]

S-2 & Energon:
In terms of 'territorial gains', the argument is not that India would actually try and occupy large swathes of Pakistan, which would be a rather foolish move given the subsequent resistance from occupied Pakistanis, but that India would seek to strengthen its positions along the LoC and elsewhere - a 'super sized' Israeli style buffer if you will, and attempt to justify it under the pretext of attacks like that in Mumbai.

The problem with the kinds of terrorist attacks we're talking about is that they do in fact hand justification for war and/or aggressive preventive measures on a platter. Any more such incidences and all bets are off regardless of where the PA is deployed. If Pakistani based terrorism continues to target the jugular of India's political and economic establishments (the very life force for most stable nations) then India will have no other option but to conduct retributive/punitive operations in an overwhelming capacity (I'm not so sure about all this "surgical strike" business).

Merely because the US has the military might to do so against almost any nation in the world does not make it the right policy to pursue.

I'm going to have to disagree here. You're correct in pointing out the connection between the US' outlook and its abilities, but that's not the issue. I'm talking about justifications for war, and the fact that terrorist attacks (the type we're talking about) that target and threaten the very foundation of a society are irrevocably reasons to go to war. I have as yet to find a society or nation that will willingly tolerate such transgressions. Whether they have the means to retaliate or not is a separate matter altogether. India's pursuit of building up this retaliatory capacity (which is more or less already in place) can be directly attributed to repeated attacks originating from Pakistan over the past decade.

Pakistan cannot be the source of a casus belli and simultaneously seek assurances from India that it won't react; that is simply not feasible. The only realistic solution is for Pakistan to funnel all its resources to ensure that justification for war isn't enforced upon other nations by its citizens.

As I pointed out earlier, there is no guarantee Pakistan, or for for that matter any country with weak institutions, can provide against terrorist attacks.

I agree with you about this ground reality; but at the same time I have to point out that until Pakistan can provide this guarantee (like every other normally functioning state in the world) it will not be treated as an equal or afforded the kinds of intereaction other stable nations enjoy. For its own sake, Pakistan has to first and foremost do everything in its power to stop all export of terrorism, even if it means enlisting every soldier, police officer and able bodied man for this specific job.

Even with Pakistan going full tilt against the groups in the North West, it will take decades and billions before things normalize and institutions can become strong enough to offer a reasonable chance of preventing terrorists and terrorism.

This is undoubtedly a long term project which Pakistan will have to go alone for the most part while still facing criticism and shoddy treatment from other states. This status quo will not change until Pakistan is able to stabilize itself and cease being a risk to other more influential and prosperous states. The necessary efforts have to start in earnest now so that the fruits can be enjoyed later. I don't think demands can be made for the rewards upfront (non-aggression pacts, equitable treatment etc.) prior to working toward meeting critical objectives; that has simply never happened in the history of the world, particularly for troubled developing nations.

If I were to hazard a guess based on the statements by MMS and US officials on the resumption of dialog between India and Pakistan, I would say that the yardstick being proposed is lower, and realistic - tangible action against the Mumbai perpetrators.

IMO admission of the Pakistan link was actually the most critical step; combined with appropriate action against the perpetrators it will certainly enable the resumption of dialogue. However, that does not mean that Pakistan will ever get total immunity from future acts of terrorism or that a peace arrangement will be made. The defining step to make the dialogue more substantiative as I understand will be the categorical destruction of the financial and logistical infrastructure of terrorism in Pakistan.

I think the concern is a deterioration in the outlook were a leadership not as pragmatic as that of MMS come to power. Again, you can argue that nothing will change till you are blue in the face, but from Pakistan's national security perspective, until it's from the horses mouth it really isn't worth much.

As a rule in democratic politics the world over, populist rhetoric defying reason is generally endorsed by non-incumbent candidates/parties as an election ploy (with the exception of the Bush administration, who actually tried to implement them through the duration of their tenure). Even conservative governments like Vajpayee's BJP led coalition have never acted brashly despite serious infractions emanating from Pakistan like Kargil, IA hijacking or the parliament attack. That being said, every such infraction has propelled India to increase their ability to conduct retaliatory military action to devastating effects.
There will be no deterioration in the status quo with Pakistan regardless of which government comes into power because they're all bound primarily by one central objective: to show growth numbers. Unwarranted aggression toward Pakistan will either divert a government from this chief objective or fail at it; in which case it will not survive. However any more infractions from Pakistan which undoubtedly have an effect on the social and economic health of the nation will bind any government to take action.
The existential threat to Pakistan's national security is coming as we speak from within; waiting and watching for what future Indian governments will say is time spent unwisely.

 

[Energon]

Your argument and conditions therefore are unrealistic - Pakistan cannot live under the shadow of constant aggression by India on the basis of preventing terrorist attacks that more than likely will happen again.

**This post is not intended to be sarcastic or malicious, so please do not interpret it that way**

I admit I've never truly understood this argument. Are you saying that in order to assuage Pakistan's worries you want India to not respond or even react to acts of war carried out upon its soil? You want the GoI to give assurances to the GoP that no punitive actions will be taken despite repeated acts of gruesome terrorism? If so, then should the Indian citizenry be expected to simply accept an unalterable reality where disgruntled Pakistanis keep orchestrating acts of terrorism directly or indirectly upon Indian soft targets at regular intervals? And should they be made to bear the astronomical costs of these events until the Pakistani establishment feels comfortable enough to actually address this issue? If that is indeed the argument (which may not be the case, or at least I hope it isn't), which sane society through a representative government would ever accept such conditions; moreover what elected government could survive by making such a fundamental concession in the face of imminent danger?

Pakistan can't simply put its hands up and say sorry, but we are currently unable to control terrorism emanating from our land, so deal with it; but also give us assurances that you will not react violently so that we feel comfortable enough to perhaps address this issue. In the mean time the only assurance we can give you in return is that there will be more terrorist attacks which will cost you not only in lives and property, but also jeopardize foreign investments fuelling your globalizing economy which in turn is one day expected to provide for a billion+ people. I don't think such a request or argument would be palatable, for anyone.

The argument/condition I've listed above is the status quo, which I do not think will change until the uncontrolled and asymmetric factors within Pakistan cease to pose an imminent critical or existential risk to someone else. It is a rudimentary cause-effect postulate.

The position Pakistan finds itself in today is a direct consequence of the terrible policies that were implemented a few decades ago. I am not sure there's a way to offset or defer the morbidity (at a national level) of the repercussions of poor decision making; and certainly not at the expense of other nations. This is just a simple fact of life.

Please let me know if I've misinterpreted your argument (certainly wouldn't be a first) I would hate for there to be a misunderstanding on such a poignant issue.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Energon,

My point regarding Indian restraint in the face of terror was conditional to Pakistan applying maximal effort to gain control of the territories it has lost its writ in.

Any such effort to regain control and establish institutions will likely take decades, and so long as complete control is not established, Pakistan cannot offer any guarantees against terrorism. In fact, it is quite likely that in the face of a massive Pakistani military effort, the chances of a terrorist attack against India will increase, precisely for the purpose of replicating the situation post Mumbai and drawing the attention of the GoP, Military and Pakistanis away from quelling the insurgency.

India will have to resort to working with and through the GoP to bring the perpetrators to justice - unilateral strikes would only destabilize the situation and Pakistan further, which in turn makes future terrorist strikes even more likely. That is the reality of the situation.

So with all due respect, your arguments would be appropriate in a vacuum, but I do not see how they can be feasible in the current Indo-Pak environment.

That said, were the GoP to remain ambivalent to the safe havens on its soil, I would not expect anything but an attempt at some sort of surgical strikes.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

but the armed forces remain subservient to the polity and not vice-versa.

That's besides the point - the issue being discussed is the impact of the Military and intelligence institutions on policy. The fact remains that the Government's of both functioning democracies (USA) and dysfunctional ones (like Pakistan) formulate foreign policy, especially as it relates to hostile entities, with significant input from their military and intelligence institutions.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Agnostic

While I agree with your assesment of need to maintain adequate force levels to counter Indian "agressions" (now 1948,1965 & 1971 was marked by Pakistani forces launching pre-emptive strikes rather unsuccessfully ,I am yet to see India launching the first strikes apart from Siachen conflict),

That is incorrect. 1948 was a fair bit more complicated given that the state was autonomous when the Tribal invasion took place. The situation was also compounded by the atrocities committed by the Maharajah, causing thousands of refugees to pour into Pakistan and the trains full of Muhajir massacred by the Sikh rebels.

And if you are going to place 1965 in Pakistan's category for operation Gibraltor, then 1971 falls in your lap for the covert support to East Pakistan rebels in destabilizing Pakistan starting from the late sixties. And we agree on 1984 of course.

So India has launched the first strike against Pakistan on at least 2 occasions.

Nuclear weapons as of now provide adequate protection to Pakistan from being conventionally overwhelmed. The threshold is understandably low in such a scenario and although India can take the strikes and survive while obliterating much of Pakistan, the idea is somehow unpalatable to even a hawk!

As I pointed out earlier, I do not believe India will try and occupy vast swathes of Pakistani land simply because it will test the nuclear threshold and result in a very nasty occupation. However, it is extremely unlikely that Pakistan's threshold will be breached with small but strategic gains all along the LoC or IB as a bargaining chip in resolving disputes.

 

[Hellfire]

I don't give a damn too what the US administration has done or for that matter the congress. In fact i have zero faith in them, reason being they don't give a 2 cent crap about poverty or education or power shortage in Pakistan, all they want is to get their goals achieved and to hell with everything else and for that they need corrupt politicians who are a easy sell out and can be bought to make sure they take the US agenda with them. All this accountability is nothing but horse crap.

while you have the right to hold your view and its respected at its place value, the truth remains that vast majority of the appointed "experts" do recognise that the key to defeating the terroist groups lies in grass root level development and economic opportunities to the common Pakistani citizen in addition to adequate force being employed against these groups. Until and unless the aid is provided to the man for whom it is meant, there shall be no progress on that front, a fact which is recognised by people in US administration.

 

[Hellfire]

That's besides the point - the issue being discussed is the impact of the Military and intelligence institutions on policy. The fact remains that the Government's of both functioning democracies (USA) and dysfunctional ones (like Pakistan) formulate foreign policy, especially as it relates to hostile entities, with significant input from their military and intelligence institutions.

actually it is not.

the main stress over here is on the dominance of the civil authority rather a military one. while the civil government takes all decisions based not purely on military considerations, its not so for army, which can not think beyond tactical/strategic goals in military terms purely on basis of their training. they are trained as warriors not administrators of a nation which at times needs kid gloves approach.

if the dominance of PA in the political structure of Pakistan was to be diminished, it has no resort but to either overthrow the government of the day or raise the Indian bogey. Paramouncy of military over GoP has always been maintained by PA. As such any military/tactical/strategic/intelligence input will be made keeping these tendencies into account and ensuring no change in the status quo. In addition at times these "inputs" will be far from what the facts will be, thus leading to formulation and implementation of policies which may be counter productive to the overall condition.

 

[S-2]

Energon's positions were beautifully explained. Fundamental to India and others is Pakistan accepting the central premise surrounding the Indian gov't's obligation to advance it's citizens well-being through continuing economic growth.

Their ambitions lie elsewhere and conventional/nuclear war on the sub-continent would decisively ruin such. If Pakistan accepts this premise then it can begin reshaping it's threat perceptions relative to India.

For India to effect a compatible threat perception of Pakistan, particularly recognizing likely continuing terror from eastern Pakistan, A.M.'s caveat-

"...conditional to Pakistan applying maximal effort to gain control of the territories it has lost its writ in."

...must be expanded beyond simply those territories where nat'l control has been lost into the entire country. This is a nat'l problem that extends into Punjab and Sindh and must be addressed as such.

Further, until such effort is translated into tangible effect, it shall be hard to guage what "maximal" entails. To date we seem far removed from that circumstance and getting further, not closer. I'm personally convinced that Kiyani and his corps commanders are CLOSELY guaging the effect of these past operations on the army's psyche and fears the irhabi exploitation of religion among your troops.

If correct and revealed, you WILL have a perception issue of huge proportions and one that is immediately de-stabilizing to all concerned.

Comments made by H. Clinton and Petraeus suggest where America is increasingly falling on this issue and it's looking like we're all from Missouri these days. The Washington meetings between Karzai, your gov't, and ours shall prove interesting. I imagine that we'll preside over quite a ruckus behind the scenes and wouldn't be surprised if we called in the Indian ambassador at some point just to add some spice.