Pakistan has advantage over India

[was]

Pakistan has advantage over India
M. J. Akbar | Arab News


Foreign policy is not made in a day, much less on inauguration day. The smiles that broke out in Delhi when President Barack Obama cautioned Pakistan that nonmilitary aid would be cut if it did not curb domestic terrorism were premature. In any case, it is military aid rather than civilian aid to Islamabad which should be of more concern to Delhi, but the government in Delhi has become so dependent on the United States that it gets pleased with very little. An inaugural speech can only be peppered with markers that will slowly be fleshed into policy. But amateurs in Delhi have rushed to judgment where professionals fear to tread.

There was an air of simulation in the bluster with which Pakistan reacted. The boys of Islamabad know a charade when they see it; they are experts in the game themselves, after all. They don’t need spectacles to read between the lines of Obama’s South Asia policy.

Obama, still brimming with the audacity of hope, has promised peace all over the world and war in one corner: Afghanistan. Pakistan is not very competent in the disbursement of peace. Its expertise lies in the dissemination of war, by declaration or proxy, on enemy territory or the land of friends. And now of course it is fighting more than one war on its own soil. Pakistan knows that America cannot fight in Afghanistan without force, intelligence and logistical support provided by Pakistan. As long as this material situation does not change, America needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs America. Pakistan has decided to not merely extract a financial price for this support, but also a political price.

London and Washington already know what the price is, and are getting ready to pay it in some abbreviated form. Pakistan has begun with a tremendous advantage over India in the Washington diplomatic game. It engaged with the Obama campaign and the transition team, while Indian diplomats, taking their cue from Dr. Manmohan Singh’s near-obsessive love for George W. Bush, concentrated totally on Bush and the Republicans. This has been a great failure of foreign policy for which we have already begun to suffer. Pakistan has persuaded key advisers of Obama that it cannot fight the Taleban with its full resources as long as it has to simultaneously defend its border with India. The Indian threat can only be lowered with a resolution of the Kashmir issue. Therefore, it is time America and Britain persuaded India to discuss and settle Kashmir.

In an extraordinary maneuver, Pakistan turned around the Mumbai terror attack, organized on its soil. From predator, it refashioned itself into a victim. It used the war rhetoric from the Indian government to warn the West that it would pull out of the war against the Taleban. Delhi’s hot air proved doubly insipid. It did not frighten Pakistan one bit, but it scared the wits out of Washington and London, who rushed to Delhi and leaned on it. Delhi succumbed. India has lost twice over through Mumbai. It has become a laughing stock at security conferences. And it has allowed what could have been a diplomatic coup against Pakistan to become a diplomatic coup against India. This is incompetent governance, not just abysmal security.

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband was audacious enough to contradict India’s prime minister on Indian soil, by saying that the terrorist attack was not sponsored by the Pakistan government, and that India had better do something about the core cause, Kashmir. Instead of snubbing him, Rahul Gandhi, Congress’ proxy prime minister, took Miliband for some private tourism of poverty. British correspondents in Delhi have applauded Miliband for telling it like it is, throwing in a sentence that this is going to be Obama’s line as well.

Hillary Clinton, the incoming secretary of state, has already enunciated the Obama doctrine at her confirmation hearings in the Senate. The “hard power” of Bush will be replaced by “smart power.” This has been defined as the application of a “full range of tools ... diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal and cultural” in the pursuit of American interests. Pentagon awe will be accompanied by nudge and arm-twist. By the time the twisting is over, Delhi might need a heavy bandage on the elbow.

Obama’s policy toward South Asia will be controlled by the compulsions of a war he wants to win in a hurry, before fatigue and a rising death toll turn it into another Iraq, or, worse, Vietnam. The battlefield will not be Afghanistan alone. American forces might soon have to fight in the western half of Pakistan, from Karachi to Swat, which is already being christened Talibanestan (the eastern half still remains Pakistan). Americans have reached that curious state of mind in which they want to win wars without losing soldiers. Their military research is concentrating on the robotization of the armed forces where even the infantry could become mechanical instead of human. But that is a long way ahead. The war for Afghanistan will be won or lost long before that.

Muslims across the world are taking comfort in the semantics of Obama’s initial remarks. After being misbespoken to for eight years, it must be a relief to hear correct grammar. Some of them have taken partial ownership of his presidency because he used his middle name, Hussein, while taking the oath. But the issue is not what Obama says. It is what he does.

Will he be able to get a resolution to Palestine except on harsh Israeli terms? Even if we ignore his campaign rhetoric — he could hardly afford to alienate the most powerful lobby in the United States — there are powerful interests protecting the expansionist reach of Israel. At all events, it will not be easy. Neither will be a victory in Afghanistan. As pressure mounts on him, he will be tempted to mount pressure on India through Kashmir.

It is going to be a complicated game, which might drift endlessly to a point where every side looks like a loser. Hope needs to be handled very carefully if it wants to remain audacious.

Pakistan has advantage over India

 

[PureLogic]

I disagree with the writer on most of the points.

USA needs Pakistan. There is no doubt about it. This is a the only reason of Pakistan's survival when it was in tight corners at many times. But the question is, 'why USA needs Pakistan?'. As the writer says, it is for the 'war against Taliban' thing. So, USA needs Pakistan for its victory against Taliban.

Now, the writer seems to have completely forgotten that USA also needs India. Accept it or not, India is the most tempting market in the world. When markets are crashing all over the world, India still has considerable purchase power. There is China, but I doubt how much USA goods are exported there. So, it is Indian market which will keep fueling USA economy for its wars all over the world. Naturally, survival is more important than victory for USA.

Above two are the reasons for which USA wants to keep India and Pakistan away from war. Naturally, it is trying it's best to cool the air down in south Asia.

But when India 'showed' that it wants to be aggressive, they had to satisfy Indian think tanks and common people that there is nothing wrong with GoP and Indian's should not go for any action. (What are the actual reasons for the current condition of Indo-Pak relations is a different subject. These comments are only related to actions of USA and UK, and not to India and Pakistan.)

But when they were trying to take the pleasure of revenge away from Indian people, they had to show some soothing actions. This is the reason for Obama's statements.

USA will need Pakistan only until Taliban does not fall. But USA will need India for years to come. So, it is impossible for USA to take any stance against India in the near future, no matter what the condition is.

 

[Flintlock]

wow, I don't know how someone could interpret Pakistan's current diplomatic postition as advantageous, but in terms of India's expectations after the Mumbai attacks, yes. Nothing of what Delhi expected happened.

Washington/London is not willing to implicate the Pakistani state, fearing that it will withdraw its already reluctant support in the WOT. The terror camps are thriving, except for a few cosmetic measures to keep off the diplomatic pressure, and India's security apparatus stands badly exposed.

The peace process is derailed.

All in all, a great victory for the fundamentalists, and therfore for sections of the Pakistani state.

However, for those sections of the Pakistani state who genuinely seek peace for the region, its the worst kind of defeat.

 

[Rafael]

wow, I don't know how someone could interpret Pakistan's current diplomatic postition as advantageous, but in terms of India's expectations after the Mumbai attacks, yes. Nothing of what Delhi expected happened.

Washington/London is not willing to implicate the Pakistani state, fearing that it will withdraw its already reluctant support in the WOT. The terror camps are thriving, except for a few cosmetic measures to keep off the diplomatic pressure, and India's security apparatus stands badly exposed.

The peace process is derailed.

All in all, a great victory for the fundamentalists, and therfore for sections of the Pakistani state.

However, for those sections of the Pakistani state who genuinely seek peace for the region, its the worst kind of defeat.

Should i remind you there are more indians than pakistannies who dont want peace....recent example....your army men

so better clean your house first rather pointing others.

 

[Energon]

Should i remind you there are more indians than pakistannies who dont want peace....recent example....your army men

so better clean your house first rather pointing others.

Its ridiculous to credit someone with 'seeking peace' when the other party has been viciously attacked by "non state actors" operating freely from the territory of the former thereby ensuring that there is no one credible enough to take the blame.

Washington/London is not willing to implicate the Pakistani state, fearing that it will withdraw its already reluctant support in the WOT. The terror camps are thriving, except for a few cosmetic measures to keep off the diplomatic pressure, and India's security apparatus stands badly exposed.

That is only a part of it. Pakistan being publicly implicated in terrorism activities would make it impossible for the Western states to openly deal with them without seeming all the more hypocritical in the eyes of their already disillusioned populations (who are constantly reminded that "we do not deal with terrorists"). This then sets off a domino effect starting with opposition to economic grants/loans (Pakistan's only source of sustenance at the moment) without which there would most probably be a complete financial meltdown in Pakistan that would end up worsening the situation exponentially.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Washington/London is not willing to implicate the Pakistani state, f

Of course the simpler 'non-conspiracy nut' explanation is that there is nothing to implicate Pakistan in any of these terrorist attacks, and Pakistan is innocent.

Convoluted reasoning to try and somehow lay the guilt at Pakistan's doors is all I see here.

 

[Flintlock]

Of course the simpler 'non-conspiracy nut' explanation is that there is nothing to implicate Pakistan in any of these terrorist attacks, and Pakistan is innocent.

Convoluted reasoning to try and somehow lay the guilt at Pakistan's doors is all I see here.

Hardly. I never make up my own opinions on such ssues.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Hardly. I never make up my own opinions on such ssues.

Indeed - but you should then perhaps follow the conclusions in the Indian evidence dossier. You know, the one that indicated, oh so painfully, that India could find no evidence of Pakistani institutions being involved.

Or how about the leaders from the UK and US who clearly stated that Pakistani institutions were not involved? And lets not forget their investigative and intelligence agencies.

Well look at that, after that list of people and institutions who do not subscribe to that convoluted reasoning of yours, it does appear that Indians are 'making up' these conspiracy theories on their own.

 

[Contrarian]

The dossier is credible. As has been stated by US Ambassador as well.

 

[Asian.Century]

Pakistan is the real center of World, Geo-politics and strategic location wise. It is the pivot of world.

USA needs Pakistan more.

It is no surprise, India begs and expects favors from America and Europe all the time.

 

[FaujHistorian]

Pakistan has advantage over India
M. J. Akbar | Arab News


Foreign policy is not made in a day, much less on inauguration day. The smiles that broke out in Delhi when President Barack Obama cautioned Pakistan that nonmilitary aid would be cut if it did not curb domestic terrorism were premature. In any case, it is military aid rather than civilian aid to Islamabad which should be of more concern to Delhi, but the government in Delhi has become so dependent on the United States that it gets pleased with very little. An inaugural speech can only be peppered with markers that will slowly be fleshed into policy. But amateurs in Delhi have rushed to judgment where professionals fear to tread.

There was an air of simulation in the bluster with which Pakistan reacted. The boys of Islamabad know a charade when they see it; they are experts in the game themselves, after all. They don’t need spectacles to read between the lines of Obama’s South Asia policy.

Obama, still brimming with the audacity of hope, has promised peace all over the world and war in one corner: Afghanistan. Pakistan is not very competent in the disbursement of peace. Its expertise lies in the dissemination of war, by declaration or proxy, on enemy territory or the land of friends. And now of course it is fighting more than one war on its own soil. Pakistan knows that America cannot fight in Afghanistan without force, intelligence and logistical support provided by Pakistan. As long as this material situation does not change, America needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs America. Pakistan has decided to not merely extract a financial price for this support, but also a political price.

London and Washington already know what the price is, and are getting ready to pay it in some abbreviated form. Pakistan has begun with a tremendous advantage over India in the Washington diplomatic game. It engaged with the Obama campaign and the transition team, while Indian diplomats, taking their cue from Dr. Manmohan Singh’s near-obsessive love for George W. Bush, concentrated totally on Bush and the Republicans. This has been a great failure of foreign policy for which we have already begun to suffer. Pakistan has persuaded key advisers of Obama that it cannot fight the Taleban with its full resources as long as it has to simultaneously defend its border with India. The Indian threat can only be lowered with a resolution of the Kashmir issue. Therefore, it is time America and Britain persuaded India to discuss and settle Kashmir.

In an extraordinary maneuver, Pakistan turned around the Mumbai terror attack, organized on its soil. From predator, it refashioned itself into a victim. It used the war rhetoric from the Indian government to warn the West that it would pull out of the war against the Taleban. Delhi’s hot air proved doubly insipid. It did not frighten Pakistan one bit, but it scared the wits out of Washington and London, who rushed to Delhi and leaned on it. Delhi succumbed. India has lost twice over through Mumbai. It has become a laughing stock at security conferences. And it has allowed what could have been a diplomatic coup against Pakistan to become a diplomatic coup against India. This is incompetent governance, not just abysmal security.

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband was audacious enough to contradict India’s prime minister on Indian soil, by saying that the terrorist attack was not sponsored by the Pakistan government, and that India had better do something about the core cause, Kashmir. Instead of snubbing him, Rahul Gandhi, Congress’ proxy prime minister, took Miliband for some private tourism of poverty. British correspondents in Delhi have applauded Miliband for telling it like it is, throwing in a sentence that this is going to be Obama’s line as well.

Hillary Clinton, the incoming secretary of state, has already enunciated the Obama doctrine at her confirmation hearings in the Senate. The “hard power” of Bush will be replaced by “smart power.” This has been defined as the application of a “full range of tools ... diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal and cultural” in the pursuit of American interests. Pentagon awe will be accompanied by nudge and arm-twist. By the time the twisting is over, Delhi might need a heavy bandage on the elbow.

Obama’s policy toward South Asia will be controlled by the compulsions of a war he wants to win in a hurry, before fatigue and a rising death toll turn it into another Iraq, or, worse, Vietnam. The battlefield will not be Afghanistan alone. American forces might soon have to fight in the western half of Pakistan, from Karachi to Swat, which is already being christened Talibanestan (the eastern half still remains Pakistan). Americans have reached that curious state of mind in which they want to win wars without losing soldiers. Their military research is concentrating on the robotization of the armed forces where even the infantry could become mechanical instead of human. But that is a long way ahead. The war for Afghanistan will be won or lost long before that.

Muslims across the world are taking comfort in the semantics of Obama’s initial remarks. After being misbespoken to for eight years, it must be a relief to hear correct grammar. Some of them have taken partial ownership of his presidency because he used his middle name, Hussein, while taking the oath. But the issue is not what Obama says. It is what he does.

Will he be able to get a resolution to Palestine except on harsh Israeli terms? Even if we ignore his campaign rhetoric — he could hardly afford to alienate the most powerful lobby in the United States — there are powerful interests protecting the expansionist reach of Israel. At all events, it will not be easy. Neither will be a victory in Afghanistan. As pressure mounts on him, he will be tempted to mount pressure on India through Kashmir.

It is going to be a complicated game, which might drift endlessly to a point where every side looks like a loser. Hope needs to be handled very carefully if it wants to remain audacious.

Pakistan has advantage over India

Typical Desi analysis with slavish mentality.


The article really talks about Brits and Americans to be winners

and both Pakistanis and Indians to be losers.
All thanks to centuries old Raja vs. Raja mentality.

Pakistan is the real center of World, Geo-politics and strategic location wise. It is the pivot of world.

USA needs Pakistan more.

It is no surprise, India begs and expects favors from America and Europe all the time.

Bhai.

Pakistan needs Pakistan more, as of now.
and
India needss India more.


For how long we will define each other from American or British pov.

for how many more centuries?

 

[T90TankGuy]

Pakistan is the real center of World, Geo-politics and strategic location wise. It is the pivot of world.

USA needs Pakistan more.

It is no surprise, India begs and expects favors from America and Europe all the time.

Typical Desi analysis with slavish mentality.


The article really talks about Brits and Americans to be winners

and both Pakistanis and Indians to be losers.
All thanks to centuries old Raja vs. Raja mentality.



Bhai.

Pakistan needs Pakistan more, as of now.
and
India needss India more.


For how long we will define each other from American or British pov.

for how many more centuries?

Guys this is a 6 yr old thread , give it a rest..

 

[Storm Force]

What rubbish opening thread.

The days when Indians look to UK and USA to help them politically ended twenty years ago.

Indian interests come first not USA or UK.

Nobody can pressures s brics nation . With a two trillion GDP growing three times the pace of the west.

As for USA,needing Pakistan this is lala land

They are,feeding your entire country

You would collapse by now if USA did not give you three billion a year.

And you lot will keep the war going on for fifty years to take s Petty change of three billion dollars a year coming .in grant aid