Swat Peace Deal - The Aftermath

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

S-2 and Solomon:

The army has stated openly that it is in favor of the 'peace deal', though I disagree that the deal itself was championed by the Army and swallowed hook, line and sinker by the ANP. The relationship of the ANP with the Army, the ANP's openly espoused views about the Army, and especially its strong criticism of the Army's relationship with the Taliban do not lend credence to that theory.

This plan was conceived and pushed by the ANP (as was the initial ceasefire when the ANP formed the NWFP Govt.), with support from the military. I do not disagree that the Army's calculus on the situation was as you described, in fact I strongly agree with most of what you stated and it is part of my understanding of what the GoP wishes to accomplish in Swat. But that calculus by the PA too plays a part in the long term strategy towards the region, and I do not see it as ceding borders, nor do I see it as ceding the war.

Let the political process play itself out, for good or bad. Even if it only buys an oppressive peace and time for the PA and FC to finish up elsewhere and strengthen for Swat at a later date, it is worth it. Unless the US/NATO is willing to provide ironclad guarantees that they will act immediately with political and economic sanctions against India, and use all military means at their disposal to ward of Indian aggression against Pakistan, there is no point in asking Pakistan to divert more resources over to the West and leaving ourselves open to Indian aggression.

If the US/NATo cannot provide those ironclad guarantees, then we have to deal with what we have, and it will be a slow process.

By the way, on the whole 'Punjab' thing, you are paying too much attention to the rantings of Greg and some Indians on the WAB . You should know by now that the whole 'protect Punjab', 'Punjab the last bastion' is a creation used to justify the Indian argument that Pakistan is only Punjab, and to push the theory that the Punjabis and the Army care for naught but Punjab. Subtle alienation of other Pakistanis and a continued justification in their mind that destabilizing and breaking apart Pakistan is acceptable and moral. After all, if the guardian of the nation, the military itself, sees Pakistan as Punjab primarily, then who will shed tears for a divided Pakistan?

That particular line of thought will tear to shreds your own credibility in Pakistani circles as well.

 

[Solomon2]

S-2 and Solomon:Unless the US/NATO is willing to provide ironclad guarantees that they will act immediately with political and economic sanctions against India, and use all military means at their disposal to ward of Indian aggression against Pakistan, there is no point in asking Pakistan to divert more resources over to the West and leaving ourselves open to Indian aggression.

If the US/NATo cannot provide those ironclad guarantees, then we have to deal with what we have, and it will be a slow process.

The U.S. or NATO would be very foolish to do so, as that would be akin to giving willing and able Pakistanis blanket permission to carry out military and terrorist attacks against India without fear of reprisal. That is very close to how WWI got started. The Mumbai Massacre would then compare to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, the incident that lit that entire conflict.

So to people like Gul, you have nothing to say: No apologies, no regrets, not even a promise. Why he should trust in the Pakistani state I don't know. My advice is: don't ever go back into Swat unless you're willing, able, and determined to stay, rather than retreat. Indeed, I see no reason why the U.S. and NATO shouldn't simply declare that Pakistan isn't enforcing its own sovereignty, and thus deal with the situation in Swat directly, if necessary.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The U.S. or NATO would be very foolish to do so, as that would be akin to giving willing and able Pakistanis blanket permission to carry out military and terrorist attacks against India without fear of reprisal. That is very close to how WWI got started. The Mumbai Massacre would then compare to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, the incident that lit that entire conflict.

So to people like Gul, you have nothing to say: No apologies, no regrets, not even a promise. Why he should trust in the Pakistani state I don't know. My advice is: don't ever go back into Swat unless you're willing, able, and determined to stay, rather than retreat. Indeed, I see no reason why the U.S. and NATO shouldn't simply declare that Pakistan isn't enforcing its own sovereignty, and thus deal with the situation in Swat directly, if necessary.

Do you as an American have anything to say to the thousands massacred in Iraq and Afghanistan while the process of stabilizing those countries took place? Sorry, tough luck, but its for the greater good right?

Gul sahib is but switching to selling poultry. Maybe he'll be forced to grow a beard and keep female members of his household covered and largely at home. In terms of a long term strategy, I see that as an acceptable compromise, far better than making Gul and his family suffer in a refugee camp for god knows how many years, and not have any business at all.

On guarantees by the US/NATO - we have the Indians at a military stalemate as it is, so if we really wanted to go whole hog with terrorist attacks against India, it would have been done already. The reality is that Pakistan has acted responsibly since 2002 WRT India and Kashmir. The Indians admit it and so do most neutral analysts.

Had Pakistan not acted responsibly and in good faith, India and Pakistan would never have come so close to resolving Kashmir as they did in the 'non-paper' referred to by Steve Coll.

The real reason for not supporting US/NATO guarantees is that you know that Indians will initiate aggression. As I said, put your money where your mouth is - if you think the Indians are benign, those guarantees should not be an issue. Without them, you have no grounds to be arguing for a relocation of resources to the West.

 

[Solomon2]

Do you as an American have anything to say to the thousands massacred in Iraq and Afghanistan while the process of stabilizing those countries took place?

Yes, that was the first post on my blog, back in 2004.

Maybe he'll be forced to grow a beard and keep female members of his household covered and largely at home. In terms of a long term strategy, I see that as an acceptable compromise, far better than making Gul and his family suffer in a refugee camp for god knows how many years, and not have any business at all.

Yes, Pakistan has great experience hosting refugee camps. So you see Gul as a financial burden rather than a citizen? That is disgusting. As an American, I don't want to see my money sent to Pakistan to support an "acceptable compromise" that supports enemies of freedom so politicians can get rich off of misdirected aid and equip their army for the conquest of its disputed territory with India.

On guarantees by the US/NATO - we have the Indians at a military stalemate as it is, so if we really wanted to go whole hog with terrorist attacks against India, it would have been done already.

Pakistan has a credibility problem, and I doubt that it will be able to exercise restraint if such guarantees are issued.

The real reason for not supporting US/NATO guarantees is that you know that Indians will initiate aggression. As I said, put your money where your mouth is -

We've done a lot more than that, over the last half-century plus. I know the Indians have a more positive image than they deserve. However, India is concentrating more on its economy and internal affairs; they will not look to undertake military action unless they feel the need to respond to attacks from abroad. So Pakistan's best security is to be found by making sure its citizens keep the powder dry. Your generals know this, I think, but they also know that lack of conflict will make their positions (if not their fortunes) insecure.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Yes, that was the first post on my blog, back in 2004.


Yes, Pakistan has great experience hosting refugee camps. So you see Gul as a financial burden rather than a citizen? That is disgusting. As an American, I don't want to see my money sent to Pakistan to support an "acceptable compromise" that supports enemies of freedom so politicians can get rich off of misdirected aid and equip their army for the conquest of its disputed territory with India.

No - I see putting Gul and his family in a refugee camp instead of running their poultry business in their own largely peaceful home and region as placing a huge cost upon them. What you suggest punishes Gul and his family far more than the compromise I am arguing in favor of (if it works).

I find it despicable that people like you in the US would support the homelessness and suffering imposed by putting so many into refugee camps instead of the situation I have outlined.

Pakistan has a credibility problem, and I doubt that it will be able to exercise restraint if such guarantees are issued.

We've done a lot more than that, over the last half-century plus. I know the Indians have a more positive image than they deserve. However, India is concentrating more on its economy and internal affairs; they will not look to undertake military action unless they feel the need to respond to attacks from abroad. So Pakistan's best security is to be found by making sure its citizens keep the powder dry.

As I pointed out, Pakistan has done just that, exercised restraint, from 2002 onwards. The biggest testament to this is the fact that the back channel diplomacy with India almost resulted in a resolution of many of the disputes that had bedeviled us. So your argument here does not hold water.

Whatever apologetics you want to offer in favor of a 'benign India' are useless and pointless without a guarantee from the US/NATO of sanctions against India and a military response to ensure Pakistan's territorial integrity from Indian aggression.

Pakistan will continue to fight against terrorism in the absence of such guarantees, the fight will just be slower.

Your generals know this, I think, but they also know that lack of conflict will make their positions (if not their fortunes) insecure.

That conspiracy theory applies far better to the military industrial complex in the US.

 

[Solomon2]

I find it despicable that people like you in the US would support the homelessness and suffering imposed by putting so many into refugee camps instead of the situation I have outlined.

No, my idea is that the PA would engage itself to protect its citizenry from the likes of the Taliban. Clearly, you don't see this as a current (or even desirable) option.

Whatever apologetics you want to offer in favor of a 'benign India' are useless and pointless without a guarantee from the US/NATO of sanctions against India and a military response to ensure Pakistan's territorial integrity from Indian aggression.

Since its return to democracy and more capitalistic policies, India and its citizenry have established a record of self-restraint without any US/NATO guarantees. I can see no merit to your argument: to the suffering souls of Swat, the India issue can hardly be a priority, and ALL Pakistani claims of Afghan-Indian collusion against Pakistan appear to be entirely specious.

That conspiracy theory applies far better to the military industrial complex in the US.

This is something foreigners just don't "get" about the U.S. Our desire for military expansion and conquest pretty much ceased after we conquered northern Mexico in the nineteenth century - Europe was astonished that Sherman's Army didn't just go and conquer Canada after winning the Civil War. We ended up as the world's occasional policeman almost by default - almost by accident. Our commanding officers appear to be totally incorrupt and, if they are interested, can make far more money in the private sector than they could if they wished to remain in the military. Furthermore, two hundred plus years of tradition make it clear that The President is the Commander-in-Chief. The U.S. has never had a military coup, nor even the fear of one.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

No, my idea is that the PA would engage itself to protect its citizenry from the likes of the Taliban. Clearly, you don't see this as a current (or even desirable) option.

I don't see a military solution alone as a means of resolving the issue, and I see compromises as necessary, short, medium or long term, given the resource constraints and other factors complicating the situation in Pakistan. As such, the current approach is the pragmatic one, and even if the approach ends up failing, it should be tried.

Since its return to democracy and more capitalistic policies, India and its citizenry have established a record of self-restraint without any US/NATO guarantees. I can see no merit to your argument: to the suffering souls of Swat, the India issue can hardly be a priority, and ALL Pakistani claims of Afghan-Indian collusion against Pakistan appear to be entirely specious.

Blah blah blah - If you cannot guarantee against Indian aggression, don't expect us to relocate a significant number of assets, and learn to have patience with a slightly slower approach.

That you cannot offer those guarantees is a clear indication that you don;t believe any of that BS you spouted.

This is something foreigners just don't "get" about the U.S. Our desire for military expansion and conquest pretty much ceased after we conquered northern Mexico in the nineteenth century - Europe was astonished that Sherman's Army didn't just go and conquer Canada after winning the Civil War. We ended up as the world's occasional policeman almost by default - almost by accident. Our commanding officers appear to be totally incorrupt and, if they are interested, can make far more money in the private sector than they could if they wished to remain in the military. Furthermore, two hundred plus years of tradition make it clear that The President is the Commander-in-Chief. The U.S. has never had a military coup, nor even the fear of one.

My comment was not directed at individuals - I used the term 'Military Industrial Complex' for a reason, as did I the term 'conspiracy theory'.

 

[Solomon2]

I don't see a military solution alone as a means of resolving the issue, and I see compromises as necessary

You didn't bother informing people like Gul about that ahead of time, did you? I'll bet many would prefer to flee rather than stay and be compelled to butcher poultry rather than promote CDs.

Blah blah blah - If you cannot guarantee against Indian aggression, don't expect us to relocate a significant number of assets, and learn to have patience with a slightly slower approach.

I don't see any "slow approach" but a reverse approach: betrayal. Betrayal of Pakistani citizens who wanted protection rather than abandonment, and betrayal of donor countries who provided military and economic aid towards that end.

That you cannot offer those guarantees is a clear indication that you don;t believe any of that BS you spouted.

Whether or not such guarantees are beyond the ability of the U.S. or NATO can be no indication of what I believe. But you are so insistent, it raises the question of why Pakistan so desperately wants such guarantees that don't appear (in the Western view) to be necessary for security reasons. A glance at the current deployment of Pakistani forces suggests the obvious reason: the PA may be deployed to commit aggression, rather than defense, and "guarantees" are desired to give Pakistan's generals confidence in an upcoming military campaign against India.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You didn't bother informing people like Gul about that ahead of time, did you? I'll bet many would prefer to flee rather than stay and be compelled to butcher poultry rather than promote CDs.

They were informed, and reports form the region also indicate many rejoiced at the cessation of hostilities. Gul also seems content switching to poultry. Perhaps you should ask him if he would prefer living in a refugee camp for an undetermined time, I'll bet the answer would be no.

I don't see any "slow approach" but a reverse approach: betrayal. Betrayal of Pakistani citizens who wanted protection rather than abandonment, and betrayal of donor countries who provided military and economic aid towards that end.

That is because you do not agree with the approach, and in the long term, if the taliban do not disarm, I will say it has failed as well. But I think the GoP and PA need to be given a chance to try it for a reasonable amount of time.

Whether or not such guarantees are beyond the ability of the U.S. or NATO can be no indication of what I believe. But you are so insistent, it raises the question of why Pakistan so desperately wants such guarantees that don't appear (in the Western view) to be necessary for security reasons. A glance at the current deployment of Pakistani forces suggests the obvious reason: the PA may be deployed to commit aggression, rather than defense, and

These guarantees may not seem necessary in your eyes as a Westerner, but then you haven't seen your nation split in half by the Indians, nor have you seen them backtrack on commitments made on resolving disputes, nor have you seen them sponsor other separatist movements and terrorism on your soil.

So spare me the 'we don't see a reason' spiel - you have not had to deal with the mayhem caused by the Indians that Pakistan has.

P.S:

"guarantees" are desired to give Pakistan's generals confidence in an upcoming military campaign against India.

Guarantees would be part of a process in which a significant part of the PA would be deployed in the West, which leaves aggression on the part of the PA a moot point, since it won't have the resources in the East to mount anything.

Secondly, any such guarantees would only be applicable in the event of Indian initiated aggression, and not if Pakistan initiated them, which would in any event be unlikely given the conditions for such a guarantee.

 

[Solomon2]

Perhaps you should ask him if he would prefer living in a refugee camp for an undetermined time, I'll bet the answer would be no.

I'll bet he didn't expect to be abandoned by his own army and government. You've come a long way from claiming that the Pakistani justice system would prevail, Aggy.

I think the GoP and PA need to be given a chance to try it for a reasonable amount of time.

That's one of the things that got Swat into this mess, Pakistani "giving it a chance" in other provinces. I discern no true intention that the GoP and PA expect to take steps to rectify the Swat situation now or in the future.

These guarantees may not seem necessary in your eyes as a Westerner, but then you haven't seen your nation split in half by the Indians -

Spewing out the Pakistan-as-victim version of history doesn't work on me, someone who witnessed a Pakistani diplomat break down and confess all on his living room floor. Pakistan hasn't been faced with the threat of invasion since Indira departed, not even when Congress was booted out a decade back.

Have you never asked yourself if you are the greatest threat to Pakistan - your lack of civic duty? Why should people like Gul be loyal to you? You offer him no protection, no services, and no ideals, while he knows you take money from foreigners on the basis of your promise that you are doing just that. Why do you think it was so easy for Clive to conquer much of India? Because the locals, from peasant to commander, could see no merit in "their own" leadership.

 

[S-2]

Interesting discussion. Do you guys know each other from elsewhere? As I've said elsewhere, the issue of Indian aggression has been discounted by two administrations now. Whatever was shown didn't impress.

That's clear by the complete absence of commentary to that effect by any senior U.S. official.

Nonetheless, this is interesting-

"Guarantees would be part of a process in which a significant part of the PA would be deployed in the West, which leaves aggression on the part of the PA a moot point, since it won't have the resources in the East to mount anything."

I actually think that denuding your eastern defenses isn't necessary but I'd be no expert on the matter. Your general staff has already identified units for contingency deployments under various plans for the region. Those plans likely entail differing force mixes depending upon mission intent.

Again, though, I'd be surprised if redeploying west would require fully baring your eastern defenses.

"Secondly, any such guarantees would only be applicable in the event of Indian initiated aggression, and not if Pakistan initiated them, which would in any event be unlikely given the conditions for such a guarantee."

This makes conceivable what I'd have rejected out-of-hand previously. Under such circumstance, I'd personally be inclined to accept such-or some appropriate variation. I'd like to think that A.M. has found some source that suggests this is being discussed now.

A.M., you've identified the "how" instead of the "what". What you're really asking for is the minimal amount of guarantees, in whatever form would be acceptable to your general staff, to redeploy significant forces from east to west.

Great! Let's talk.

Solomon2-

"That's one of the things that got Swat into this mess, Pakistani "giving it a chance" in other provinces."

This is correct. The history is impossibly poor on these negotiations. The pattern has been replicated again-this time outside the Islamic Republic of Pashtunistan (or FATAville). The sign-posts to more are clear for the TTP.

" I discern no true intention that the GoP and PA expect to take steps to rectify the Swat situation now or in the future."

This is less certain. Somewhere, there'll be a stand. Whether the first stand equates with the last stand is more problematic. To date, we can be assured that the P.A. is scared sh!tless of entering Waziristan without bearing a full load. Bajaur was an absolute eyeopener that defined the shapes of things to come.

SWAT was a decidedly half-assed effort that's been a long-term dissembling mess. The betrayal began with those who've been silenced since late 2001/early 2002. It's spread.

Both operations have determined this singular point to the P.A. and the GoP- any operation in even the smallest and most remote areas of the nation will cause disruption and chaos to the affected population beyond the capacity for Pakistan to sustain. We now have, as a result of Bajaur and SWAT, about 500,000 (or more) refugees.

The camps we see in Peshawar are surprisingly dry and orderly. They don't appear squalid but they certainly can't be comfortable and the insecurity associated with such an existance must be overwhelming. I know that you're concerned about their well-being. I saw your comments about Mr. Gul and they are heart-felt.

Worse, though, is the question of how much more could be sustained? Could Waziristan be accomodated? I've long predicted that the militants will fight in Waziristan at a level of violence and intensity to make Bajaur or any battle to date in Afghanistan pale by comparison. They've had years to fortify and arm themselves and the lashkars gathered there by the Pakistani militants will be HEAVILY reinforced by every foreigner and all the key Afghani elements nearby. It will be a HUGE fight should it happen. With each passing day, the looming battle becomes harder still.

As such and if I'm correct then the P.A. is forecasting an epic battle with epic spillover and collateral effects-and not all of them kinetic. I'd predict easily one million refugees moving to the interior or spilling into Afghanistan.

Once the Pakistanis pull that trigger, there'll be no going back. The nation will be in a war mode that will drag all of it in before finished.

Therein lies the hesitancy, I believe. These are now the very hardest choices of nat'l policy for Pakistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I'll bet he didn't expect to be abandoned by his own army and government. You've come a long way from claiming that the Pakistani justice system would prevail, Aggy.

If you are referring to my arguments on the Pakistani justice system being sufficient to try any alleged perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks found in Pakistan, then I would say that the vents since have vindicated me on every single point, as have the positions taken by world governments on the jurisdiction of Pakistani courts.

Gul has not been abandoned by his Army or Government - they are trying to ensure that he is able to stay on his land and not be displaced, if possible. That may change as we go forward, and dislocation may be unavoidable, but it should be tried. I disagree with S-2's argument that this has been tried already in FATA. While there is one commonality in that the GoP negotiated from a weaker position, the dynamics in FATA and Swat are different, as is the nitty gritty of the approach and the details of the agreement.

That's one of the things that got Swat into this mess, Pakistani "giving it a chance" in other provinces. I discern no true intention that the GoP and PA expect to take steps to rectify the Swat situation now or in the future.

Your 'discernment of intent' is quite clearly limited to the PA bombing and blasting its way through Swat, never mind the thousands dead and hundreds of thousands displaced. Your inanely simplistic view (and suggested solutions) of Swat precludes you from understanding the constraints the PA/FC are operating under, the sentiment on the street in Pakistan that the political parties have to be cognizant of, and the fact that continuing conflict in Swat cannot be detached from the conflict in Afghanistan and FATA.

As I said before, you are forcing your interpretation of victory and your timetable on me to validate your views. I agree with none of them. The GoP and PA are acting in good faith and attempting a political solution (with very low expectations I may add) for a variety of reasons and constraints - this is pragmatic and for the now the best approach.

Spewing out the Pakistan-as-victim version of history doesn't work on me, someone who witnessed a Pakistani diplomat break down and confess all on his living room floor. Pakistan hasn't been faced with the threat of invasion since Indira departed, not even when Congress was booted out a decade back.

On the contrary - every single incident of Indian aggression I mentioned is FACT. There are entire threads in the history section on this, where all of this has been validated beyond a shred of doubt. Only someone as biased as you could still have the intellectual dishonesty to excuse away Indian aggression against Pakistan.

History shapes perceptions of the future - the Indians showed us their true colors once again with their invasion of Siachen, and the event you so blithely brush aside, Indira's involvement in breaking apart Pakistan, is not so blithely forgotten nor forgiven in Pakistan. So forgive me for not merely accepting your word on 'India's good intentions' - history clearly indicates otherwise.

Have you never asked yourself if you are the greatest threat to Pakistan - your lack of civic duty? Why should people like Gul be loyal to you? You offer him no protection, no services, and no ideals, while he knows you take money from foreigners on the basis of your promise that you are doing just that. Why do you think it was so easy for Clive to conquer much of India? Because the locals, from peasant to commander, could see no merit in "their own" leadership.

I am the pragmatic future of Pakistan - what Pakistan needs to be saved from is nutjobs like you whose conflict resolution skills start and end with 'Kill, kill, kill, bomb, bomb, bomb'. Your opposition to this policy is not just that the Taliban are being negotiated with, it is that Shariah is being implemented. At your core it is your prejudice against Islam that makes you hate this approach. It is the implementation of Shariah that you primarily detest.

Gul is getting a process that will hopefully yield him both protection and services. The policy may fail, I admit there is a strong chance of that, but it is a policy designed to initially give Gul some breathing space, and then the protection and services every Pakistani deserves.

 

[Solomon2]

Do you guys know each other from elsewhere?

No. Since Aggy seems to be the personalization of the Pakistani government, I felt it was useful to employ the "you" label.

As I've said elsewhere, the issue of Indian aggression has been discounted by two administrations now.

In Judeo-Christian culture it is a sin to persecute the righteous - those who have already been cleared of an accusation through due process. Not so in the Arab world and Pakistan, where the same worthless accusations can be hashed out over and over again. The purpose is to use such noise to protect the guilty.

I actually think that denuding your eastern defenses isn't necessary -

I don't suppose much artillery will be needed in a counter-Taliban campaign. Frontier mountain troops would be usefully redeployed. That might leave a glacier or two open for occupation - very temporarily - by Indian forces, but international pressure would suffice to force a withdrawal after a successful anti-Taliban campaign. That's the closest to a "guarantee" that I can imagine.

Somewhere, there'll be a stand.

After reading Aggy, I doubt that. We will see utter capitulation. It'll be a cross between the last days of Saigon and the end of the Shah: the generals will cut deals to have their families and fortunes spared if they go to war against India, and the crooks will fly out on planes and helicopters with their loot and serve as double-agents at Western intelligence agencies because they will leave behind plenty of stuff to be blackmailed with. As for the ISI, they've already chosen sides and padded their nests. Refugees? The West will be stuck with the bill, while people like Aggy relax in university towns and teach that it's all America's fault.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I actually think that denuding your eastern defenses isn't necessary but I'd be no expert on the matter. Your general staff has already identified units for contingency deployments under various plans for the region. Those plans likely entail differing force mixes depending upon mission intent.

Again, though, I'd be surprised if redeploying west would require fully baring your eastern defenses.

This makes conceivable what I'd have rejected out-of-hand previously. Under such circumstance, I'd personally be inclined to accept such-or some appropriate variation. I'd like to think that A.M. has found some source that suggests this is being discussed now.

A.M., you've identified the "how" instead of the "what". What you're really asking for is the minimal amount of guarantees, in whatever form would be acceptable to your general staff, to redeploy significant forces from east to west.

Great! Let's talk.

No source on my part, I am merely pointing out a possible scenario that could allow for more relocation of resources to the Western front. In the past I have suggested a simultaneous movement away from the IB by the Indians.

In any case, the Indians would have to be on board, and some means will have to be found to alleviate Pakistani concerns over thinning out their assets in the East. This is why news of the failed 'non-paper' on Kashmir was doubly disappointing. Had the collapse been due to the Mumbai attacks, I would have seen reason to it - but that it occurred in the absence of any such vitiating factor, and strong support from the Pak. Military and civilian leadership, indicates that the Indians are still reluctant to compromise and resolve disputes with Pakistan, which puts their long term intentions towards Pakistan under doubt for me.

It also reduces the possibility of any bilateral arrangementrs, such as a simultaneous withdrawal of Indian forces away from the LoC and IB and Pakistani redeployment West (obviously denuding all defences is not what is being advocated - defensive postures would be maintained).

Barring that guarantees from the US/NATO would likely have to be passed through their respective legislatures. Obama might have the political capital to barely sell such a proposal, I'm not sure about the Europeans. You would have diplomatic wrangling over what constitutes acceptable guarantees, what triggers intervention, what kind of intervention, arbiters to determine which side was at fault ....

The more I think about it, the more convoluted a process this business of 'guarantees' seems. With adequate investment the FC may develop into a potent force in the time spent on all this wrangling. Any 'guarantees' and 'pressure' will come unofficially and below the radar - they may in fact already be in place to some extent. But so long as they remain unofficial, they will also remain limited in terms of their impact on India and Pakistan.

On your Waziristan comments, I largely agree, though I would like to point out that Gen. Tariq Khan did give Mehsud's men a sound drubbing and forced them out of a large amount of territory right before the PPP led government took over - so scared 'shitless', would not be quite appropriate. I think the PA realizes the repercussions and magnitude of the challenge, and would like to be better placed militarily and have the GoP better placed economically to deal with the fall out. Having NATO exert more control politically and militarily in Afghanistan would likely also be a concern.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

In Judeo-Christian culture it is a sin to persecute the righteous - those who have already been cleared of an accusation through due process. Not so in the Arab world and Pakistan, where the same worthless accusations can be hashed out over and over again. The purpose is to use such noise to protect the guilty.

Fascinating - reading your drivel in support of Israeli atrocities and occupation, and your inane suggestions for 'solutions to Swat', 'persecuting the righteous' is a sin you are soaked from head to toe in, in addition to the sins of excusing the vile and guilty - you must be a lawyer, which would explain the morally bankrupt and despicable positions you so blithely espouse.