Pakistan's Overbearing Army

[Brown]

Thats sort of silly - If your neighbor sponsors and supports an insurgency and destabilizes an undisputed and sovereign part of your territory, and helps break the country apart, of course the government and military will be concerned about the neighbors intentions.

This isn't 'hysteria', its pragmatism and attempting to avoid making the same mistake again.

The only 'loss' Pakistan has suffered was 1971.

In the 1947 war, Pakistan was arguably victorious, in that it had no Kashmiri territory, and ended up with a little less than half, and 1965 was a stalemate.

I have even already given you source where it is said.
I have seen tariq ali respected by all Pakistani this is what he said my friend.
Do you disagree with him?
EDITED

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I have even already given you source where it is said.
I have seen tariq ali respected by all Pakistani this is what he said my friend.
Do you disagree with him?

What does my previous response to you indicate?

Do you wish to have a discussion with me, or do you expect me to have a discussion with a video of Tariq Ali?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Let me repeat - the thread is not about UNSC resolutions on Kashmir, nor is it about the Taliban.

Insistence on continuing to post of topic comments will make me ban you, since I am not going to keep deleting your off topic posts all day.

 

[Vinod2070]

I stated facts:

1. A rebuttal to S-2's oft repeated canard suggesting Indian policy makers are yoga instructors chanting 'ohm's and make love not war' - the warmongering belligerence has been evident in the aftermath of Mumbai. Public opinion and the hawks, and even some moderates have been demanding 'action', and the fact is that the only thing preventing India from doing a 'Gaza' in Pakistan is Pakistan's conventional deterrent.

To summarize, every single one of S-2's contentions has been shown to be completely inaccurate and uninformed:

• The PA has created the 'myth' of Indian hostility
• The PA has been runnign a 'scam' when it comes to a perceived theat from India
• The GoI has been 'rational' in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks
• Pakistan and Pakistanis in some way do not 'value economic growth or development'

2. On the UNSC resolutions, the fact remains that your country and your leadership has outright refused to implement the resolutions, going so far as to claim that J&K is not even disputed.

When you can show me that the UNSC resolutions have any sort of 'expiration date', or that any conditions exist, other than India's blatant violation of her obligations and commitments to the international community and the Kashmiris, is when you can say the resolutions are outdated.

Till then it is what it is - a flagrant violation of the UNSC resolutions (the US went to war over a similar attitude of violations after all, as I pointed out), a violation of the legal requirements under the Instrument of Partition and the Instrument of Accession, which required a plebiscite in any State that had a disputed accession.

That the situation turned to a proxy war only has India to blame - India and her refusal to abide by her internationla commitments. And this is the example S-2 holds up in front of us.

About Kashmir, I can only say that none of our two nations is totally without blemish. The UNSC resolutions have been irrelevant for decades. We both know that. Tell me who in the UN still talks of them? It would be better to avoid a deep dive into Kashmir here as it won't come to anything.

The point is this military capability of yours is not going to help in the Kashmir issue. So no point in linking the status of military in Pakistan to the Kashmir issue.

Many of the points that you "listed" are also raised by several Pakistani commentators too. I don't agree they are without basis.

It is not a question of saying that you value something, it is a question of making the choices that show what you value more.

the fact is that the only thing preventing India from doing a 'Gaza' in Pakistan is Pakistan's conventional deterrent.

Not really true. Where else has India done a Gaza? No other country in the neighborhood has the same deterrent. We have had differences with some other neighbors at times.

This is highly opinionated without facts.

 

[Vinod2070]

Let me repeat - the thread is not about UNSC resolutions on Kashmir, nor is it about the Taliban.

Insistence on continuing to post of topic comments will make me ban you, since I am not going to keep deleting your off topic posts all day.

I actually had started to reply to all pending posts and then only noticed that you have started to delete them.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

About Kashmir, I can only say that none of our two nations is totally without blemish. The UNSC resolutions have been irrelevant for decades. We both know that. Tell me who in the UN still talks of them? It would be better to avoid a deep dive into Kashmir here as it won't come to anything.

They are only irrelevant to India because it suits her purpose - they have no expiration date, and they remain an almost universally endorsed means of resolving the Kashmir dispute. As a member of the UN, India cannot pick and choose implementation on what she desires. The fact remains that the Accession was to be subject to a plebiscite in Kashmir in case of dispute, and the UNSC resolutions affirmed that point, with the global community, India and Pakistan agreeing.

India blatantly violated her commitments under the UN charter, her commitments to the global community, and her commitments to Pakistan and the people of Kashmir by unilaterally undermining and rejecting the UNSC resolutions - everything else that followed was a consequence of that decision.

The point is this military capability of yours is not going to help in the Kashmir issue. So no point in linking the status of military in Pakistan to the Kashmir issue.

I did not make that argument, so I am not sure what your 'point' is here.

Many of the points that you "listed" are also raised by several Pakistani commentators too. I don't agree they are without basis.

It is not a question of saying that you value something, it is a question of making the choices that show what you value more.

That they are raised by Pakistani commentators does not make them valid points, and I have explained on each why they are not valid points. The fact of the matter is that India has illustrated militarily and through proxy that she is a hostile entity to Pakistan. That is without a doubt.

If Indian hostility, past and present, is without a doubt, then the argument of 'scam' or 'myth' has no basis, since the 'scam/myth' argument can only apply if India had never exhibited hostility towards Pakistan.

The question of 'values' is misleading given the above conclusion. There is no doubt behind Pakistan 'valuing' economic growth and development - if it did not/had not, then we would still be in the shape we were at Independence. Security and freedom cannot be sacrificed at the alter of 'development', however, and the existence of a hostile and belligerent eastern neighbor necessitates that those concerns be addressed.

Security, Freedom, Development - they all need to be addressed, and they all need to be 'valued'. It is not a 'zero sum game'

Not really true. Where else has India done a Gaza? No other country in the neighborhood has the same deterrent. We have had differences with some other neighbors at times.

This is highly opinionated without facts.

This is based entirely on facts - look up your leadership's statements on 'all options are on the table'. Look at their hate mongering and lies when accusing Pakistani institutions of involvement in Mumbai, the day after their own evidence dossier cleared Pakistani institutions.

Were it not for Pakistan's conventional deterrent, the Indian elections this year and public pressure on the GoI would have inevitably resulted in strikes within Pakistan, at the minimum, that much is clear.

India does not have the hostile relationship it does with Pakistan with any other neighbor, so that is an invalid excuse.

 

[Bane Blade]

yes there is fat, that needs to be cut. on the second there are cases but it is not rampant (just like many other countries including the US). the pakistan army's civilian enterprise under the aegis of the Fauji Foundation provides for hundreds and thousands of civilian related jobs. the issue here is two-fold. 1. it creates jobs for army officers who retire from army service but some who get these jobs are not good managers, so there should be a "criteria" for selection. so if a army officers does not qualify and a civilian is better, the civilian should get the job.
2. is the accountability. this enterprise must be audited. there should be checks and balances. it should pay its full complement of taxes.

on the pockets issue, one needs to quantify with facts. generalizations do not do justice to some very good work being done by these civilian enterprises.

I think you have a point there but tell me do you feel it a justice to other organizations that are also trying hard to attract customers the concept of free market may be there if all competition is given a fare chance although I know people who come on GEO tv have there own agenda but when this whole military industrial setup is discussed many people talk of free transport due to the government money tax evasion for vehicles, land taxes being exempt, lesser power bills and things like jumping over bereaucratic processess the idea is that all businesses are not given a fair chance. Although I am sure that PA is an excellent organization that filters the bad seeds out of its system but still many people report that profit margins are shown reduced so that sizeable sums dissappear though it may be baseless arguements from Geo tv people but they may have a point we don't exactly get told where the money goes.

 

[fatman17]

I think you have a point there but tell me do you feel it a justice to other organizations that are also trying hard to attract customers the concept of free market may be there if all competition is given a fare chance although I know people who come on GEO tv have there own agenda but when this whole military industrial setup is discussed many people talk of free transport due to the government money tax evasion for vehicles, land taxes being exempt, lesser power bills and things like jumping over bereaucratic processess the idea is that all businesses are not given a fair chance. Although I am sure that PA is an excellent organization that filters the bad seeds out of its system but still many people report that profit margins are shown reduced so that sizeable sums dissappear though it may be baseless arguements from Geo tv people but they may have a point we don't exactly get told where the money goes.

I have already answered below previously!

2. is the accountability. this enterprise must be audited. there should be checks and balances. it should pay its full complement of taxes.

transport--> they have their own NLC (national logistic cell) a very efficient transport company.

 

[Bane Blade]

i just wanted to know your opinion if it was fair to free market companies that also wanted to do business fatman 17?

 

[Vinod2070]

They are only irrelevant to India because it suits her purpose - they have no expiration date, and they remain an almost universally endorsed means of resolving the Kashmir dispute. As a member of the UN, India cannot pick and choose implementation on what she desires. The fact remains that the Accession was to be subject to a plebiscite in Kashmir in case of dispute, and the UNSC resolutions affirmed that point, with the global community, India and Pakistan agreeing.

India blatantly violated her commitments under the UN charter, her commitments to the global community, and her commitments to Pakistan and the people of Kashmir by unilaterally undermining and rejecting the UNSC resolutions - everything else that followed was a consequence of that decision.

Let me just say that we see the reasons for the UN resolutions not being implemented differently.

And yes, no one in India (and the whole wide world including the UN itself AFAIK) thinks they are relevant any more when the conditions have changed so much.

I did not make that argument, so I am not sure what your 'point' is here.

You linked the role of the Pakistani military to India's "immorality" in Kashmir. I said the Pak military is not going to be a factor in the resolution of the Kashmir issue.

That they are raised by Pakistani commentators does not make them valid points, and I have explained on each why they are not valid points. The fact of the matter is that India has illustrated militarily and through proxy that she is a hostile entity to Pakistan. That is without a doubt.

If Indian hostility, past and present, is without a doubt, then the argument of 'scam' or 'myth' has no basis, since the 'scam/myth' argument can only apply if India had never exhibited hostility towards Pakistan.

Well, here again it is getting a bit self-righteous or at least different perceptions. The hostility is definitely not an Indian only thing. All the wars (perhaps you may want to exclude the 1971 war here) have been initiated by Pakistan. Same goes for the use of proxies.

I would argue that because the army thinks of itself as the custodian of the "ideology of Pakistan" which they also interpret as unremitting hostility to India and the very idea of India, the continuing hostilities are only a manifestation of that.

You may not agree but it is a logical argument that such an entity would promote the hostilities to feed and perpetuate itself, to maintain it's primacy and it's unsustainable size. It entails people of Pakistan making sacrifices to sustain something they can ill afford and they are expected to be grateful for that to boot!

The question of 'values' is misleading given the above conclusion. There is no doubt behind Pakistan 'valuing' economic growth and development - if it did not/had not, then we would still be in the shape we were at Independence. Security and freedom cannot be sacrificed at the alter of 'development', however, and the existence of a hostile and belligerent eastern neighbor necessitates that those concerns be addressed.

Security, Freedom, Development - they all need to be addressed, and they all need to be 'valued'. It is not a 'zero sum game'

I agree it is not a zero sum game. The fact is that Pakistan was created by an aristocracy having strong feudal interests. That is the reason you could never have any kind of land and other reforms etc. It was not what the decision makers of the state wanted. Would you say that Pakistan wants to have feudalism? Perhaps no. Have you done anything about it? No.

The same way, the bogey of an hostile India out to get Pakistan is necessary as per some (and that includes Pakistani commentators) to maintain the "unity" and the current power structures without too many questions.

This is based entirely on facts - look up your leadership's statements on 'all options are on the table'. Look at their hate mongering and lies when accusing Pakistani institutions of involvement in Mumbai, the day after their own evidence dossier cleared Pakistani institutions.

Were it not for Pakistan's conventional deterrent, the Indian elections this year and public pressure on the GoI would have inevitably resulted in strikes within Pakistan, at the minimum, that much is clear.

India does not have the hostile relationship it does with Pakistan with any other neighbor, so that is an invalid excuse.

I would assure you that if you look at the kind of statements that so many Pakistani leaders keep on making, these would seem nothing in comparison.

I don't see what is so wrong in saying "all options are on the table". It is a fact. The nation has to keep all it's options open at all times to safeguard itself.

There was never any war cry from any responsible Indian quarters. There were never any fighter planes flying in our cities when the requirement was to get to the bottom of the terrorist operation in Pakistan.

Even now, can you tell me what has been Pakistan's contribution to the investigations and bringing out the truth except asking for more and more evidence? They have sufficient details to carry out their own investigations within Pakistan. Have they done so and come clean? They have the details of all 10 terrorists? What has been done except hesitatingly accepting Kasab as Pakistani after weeks and weeks and after botched attempts to deny this fact?

And mind you this stalling has been also seen in each instance when the joint terror mechanism was used by India. Pakistan did not pursue a single lead. Not a single one!

Would you still say India can trust Pakistan with joint investigations? After the rich experience of decades of being at the receiving end of state supported terror! You say you have come clean now. Is that really true? Do even Americans trust ISI with intelligence? No, because there are still bad apples after all these years.

 

[muse]

With apologies if this is posted before or elsewhere:


Leave us alone and worry about yourself!
Ejaz Haider


And now to David Sanger’s January 11 write-up in The New York Times, adapted from his book, and titled, “The Worst Pakistan Nightmare for Obama”.

Let it be said upfront that the tone and tenor of Sanger’s piece is neither new nor surprising for those of us who monitor such writings and also write on the subject. This scenario has been painted and repainted constantly, as Sanger himself mentions when he talks about “every few months someone in Washington...runs a simulation of how the United States should respond if a terrorist group infiltrates the Pakistani nuclear programme or manages to take over one or two of its weapons”.

Sanger is also right that “In these exercises, everyone plays to type” and that “Most of them don’t end well.” But where he is right is exactly where he goes wrong. He merely repeats the scenario(s) without contextualising issues especially when he attempts to create a linkage between Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and the problem of terrorism.

Frankly, I would not entirely fault Sanger or his sources in the US government for conjuring up worst-case scenarios regarding Pakistan’s strategic arsenal. For them, given as they are to looking at the world from the American ideological prism, this is unfortunately the only “mainstream” way to go about things — blessed by God, America cherishes its values and is surrounded by enemies who hate it for what it stands for.

Yet, there is much that is wrong with the US/Sanger approach. Let’s consider.

It is both amusing and distressing that Sanger does not differentiate between “safety” and “security” of nuclear arsenal, two different problems. The first deals with the safe working mechanism of various parts of a nuclear warhead (accidents etc) and authorised use only, the second with the physical security and storage of a warhead and its components.

The only reason I can think of is that he is trying to build a case that there is greater likelihood of an insider or insiders getting their hands on the weapon(s) than someone trying to breach security from outside to steal and possess weapon(s). Hence, more than security, safety is the issue that comes up.

There is only one place where Sanger talks about actual possession of weapons by some terrorist outfit — what happens when “they [Pakistanis] move the weapons”. As one of his sources put it, “some groups could try to provoke a confrontation between Pakistan and India in the hope that the Pakistani military would transport tactical nuclear weapons closer to the front lines, where they would be more vulnerable to seizure”.

First, the reference is to TNWs and manifests the Cold War mindset when artillery shells posed a command and control dilemma. Without going into too much detail, let it be said that Pakistan’s main forte is ballistic missiles, not artillery shells or low-yield TNWs. (Incidentally, centralisation and dispersal pose their own dilemma which is built into possession of nuclear weapons by any state. Sanger is, of course, not talking about that!)

Second, regardless of yield, an important factor for a weapon to be qualified as TNW is the role — tactical or strategic — in which it is being employed. The bomb dropped over Hiroshima could be used as a TNW if it were used away from a city — in the desert or on sea — over a strategic military target to maximise damage to that target with minimum collateral damage (Ejaz Haider, “Does Pakistan have tactical nuclear weapons?”; The Friday Times, June 21-27, 2002).

Third, Sanger’s piece, for obvious reasons, conveniently ignores Pakistan’s doctrinal position on nuclear deterrence and the fact that a conventional force build-up cannot and should not be assumed to lead to an automatic escalation to the nuclear dimension even if one or both sides are wedded to “first use” (Kargil and the 2001-2002 standoff are cases in point).

At another place, Sanger talks about “The highly restricted reports” which describe “how foreign-trained Pakistani scientists, including some suspected of harbouring sympathy for radical Islamic causes, were returning to Pakistan to seek jobs within the country’s nuclear infrastructure — presumably trying to burrow in among the 2,000 or so people who have what Kidwai calls ‘critical knowledge’ of the Pakistani nuclear infrastructure”.

At another place, however, he mentions that “In Pakistan, the problem is made worse by the fact that the universities — where the nuclear programme draws its young talent — are now more radicalised than at any time in memory, and the nuclear programme itself has greatly expanded”.

Damned we are by returning “foreign-trained” scientists trying to burrow in among the nuclear workforce and damned we are because the indigenously educated are radicalised.

Corollary: Pakistan should not possess nuclear weapons. Period.

The question is, if there are indeed reports about those returning from abroad, perhaps those findings can be shared with Pakistan where the SPD, since the AQ Khan episode, has a rigorous US-style PRP (personnel reliability programme) and all incoming and serving personnel throughout the nuclear establishment are constantly screened and monitored at all levels and for a broad range of activities.

As for local universities, while radical elements cannot be discounted, there is a tendency among Americans to equate a practicing Muslim with a radical or extremist. There can be any number of practicing Muslims in the nuclear establishment, but that per se makes them about as radical as church-going Christians or synagogue-attending Jews.

Much the same can be said about terrorists placing “sleepers” within the nuclear establishment. Of course, the very fact that Pakistan put in place a National Command Authority three years ahead of India and built the entire C2 system around C4I2SR (command, control, communication, computers, intelligence, information, surveillance and reconnaissance) is meant to guard against various security and safety hazards that any state with nuclear weapons is likely to face.

I do not need to explain why a writer would focus more on threats than the system meant to neutralise them.

The giveaway, of course, is Sanger’s (and the general American) suggestion that India is not a threat to Pakistan and that the country should focus on the internal threat. Since Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is meant to hold the inter-state military balance, just like the US’, the implication seems to be that Pakistan no longer has a justification to have nuclear weapons.

But the fact is that while nuclear weapons are irrelevant to fighting asymmetric and irregular conflicts — and this is true for possession of such weapons by all nuclear-weapons states — nuclear weapons do provide the inter-state balance of terror. If there has been no war between India and Pakistan following Mumbai, much of the credit for that must be given to where it belongs.

Let it also be said that so far, despite much talk about it, there is no solid evidence of any Al Qaeda capability on the nuclear side. Similarly, one wonders why Sanger would express scepticism regarding Pakistani-built PALs (permissive action links). There is much Pakistan can do and it is not necessary for the country to inform the world about how.

As for Pakistan “lying” about developing the capability through the eighties, closer to home Sanger would do well to read up on “lying” by the Bush administration on Iraq and also read Avner Cohen’s book on Israel and its bomb. Also, for the purposes of describing Pakistan, it seems the US suddenly loses its Realism and Realists!

Finally, as should be evident from Sanger’s own quote of Robert Gates — “there is no human vetting system that is entirely reliable” — the Pakistani nuclear arsenal is as safe or unsafe as the US arsenal. As they say about “foolproof”, for every proof there is always a fool.

The fact is that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is here to stay; Pakistan is and will remain a Muslim country; its problem of “terrorism” which worries the US is, for the most part, begotten of US policies in the region and beyond. While we will try and keep our arsenal secure and safe, how about the US doing a bit of rethink about why some people hate it. As Robert Fisk put it, “...let us not say we do not know the answer.”



Tailpiece: Away from the awesome nuclear weapons, Sanger in his opening paragraph described “a lone, bored-looking guard loosely holding a rusting rifle” manning the entrance to Chaklala Garrison. While I mentioned in my first piece that I have never seen an RP or MP sentry holding a rusted or rusting rifle, I must say that about Type 56 and its mother weapon, the AK, Sanger would do well to recall the words of Colonel David Hackworth of the United States Army. This is what “Hack” had to say about the AK:

“One of the bulldozers uncovered the decomposing body of an enemy soldier, complete with AK-47. I happened to be standing right there, looking down into the hole and pulled the AK out of the bog. ‘Watch this, guys,’ I said, ‘and I will show you how a real infantry weapon works.’ I pulled the bolt back and fired 30 rounds — the AK could have been cleaned that day rather than buried in glug for a year or so. That was the kind of weapon our soldiers needed, not the confidence-sapping M-16.”

Finding: sometimes non-Americans can also manufacture things that actually work, and work better!

Ejaz Haider is Consulting Editor of The Friday Times and Op-Ed Editor of Daily Times. He can be reached at sapper@dailytimes.com.pk


American friends offer worthy advice and criticism, however; the glass is not just half empty, it's also half full, some friends seem not to be able to get their heads around this fact!

 

[fatman17]

i just wanted to know your opinion if it was fair to free market companies that also wanted to do business fatman 17?

NO! but a lot of free-market companies also try to get the best "deals" from the govt.eg: 5-year moritoriums etc.