The enemy and Pakistan Army

[Joe Shearer]

No worries at all Sir

Take your time, i am excited to explore more about this topic.

Apart from the gradual degradation of technology that is inevitable unless there is an immediate and well-planned initiative to turn around the economy, there is also the impact on the operating expenses side of military operations. As was listed for India, so, too, for Pakistan, there will be the same expenses. They will be incurred on a smaller base, with a greater multiplier effect on the economy. Just to remind ourselves,

• military casualties,
• civilian casualties,
• loss of trained manpower,
• expenditure of ammunition and
• destruction of military resources,
• consumption of fuel and related consumables at an operational rate rather than a peacetime rate,
• dislocation of civilian activities,
• loss of production,
• loss of export earnings due to transport dislocation,
• financial outlay.

If I ask right out, if Pakistan is ready to pay this butcher's bill, it is certain that the happy brigade that fights wars on Playstations will reply with a resounding chorus of "yes". But is that really so? Can Pakistan afford these costs? Even granting that patriotism demands that my question may be answered only one way, surely it is something that occurs internally, and causes concern?

The most important factor, one that was inadvertently omitted in my first submission of this note due to my very preoccupation with the subject, is that these costs are payable even in peacetime. How long can you put a defence against a mythical attack, or offence against an enemy intent on minding his own business, ahead of the survival of your other citizens??


But the gloomy reality is that this is not all the cost; there is also a social cost.

TO BE CONTINUED: THE SOCIAL COSTS OF NOT CONDUCTING WAR

 

[Developereo]

The nuclear strike analogy could work two ways if India were to suggest that a major terrorist attack in India traced to Pakistan is equivalent to a declaration of war (warranting the abrogation of the IWT as an initial response). Pakistan then will be left with the choice of threatening to go nuclear or simply address Indian concerns on terrorism.

I will refer once again to the US example. 9/11 was viewed as a declaration of war. In response, the US did not carpet bomb Kabul, but targeted the militants. If India shuts off Pakistan's water, that will automatically trigger the next escalation in the war, and it will have been India who escalated it.

That would be similar to sanctions though, wouldn't it?

Sanctions are a lengthy, indirect mechanism and their advocates go to extreme lengths to make it clear they are trying to spare the common people.

In the case of Iran, the people are targeted since the nuclear program enjoys widespread public support and the pressure is applied to force them to abandon that support.

No such parallel exists for terrorism since the Pakistani public is not supporting terrorism. Even if India can trace it to some individuals, they would be rogue elements acting without the approval of the Pakistani public at large, so punishing the public is not justifiable.

 

[Bang Galore]

The most important factor, one that was inadvertently omitted in my first submission of this note due to my very preoccupation with the subject, is that these costs are payable even in peacetime. How long can you put a defence against a mythical attack, or offence against an enemy intent on minding his own business, ahead of the survival of your other citizens??

That is the billion dollar question, one that gets almost no attention by posters here. Granted costs exists on both sides but as pointed by you, with a moribund economy, Pakistan suffers disproportionately. As I pointed out in my post, Pakistan's inability to build dams in its part of Kashmir because of the tension with India already severely effects her people & further diminishes the economy and is a water war already in progress but one waged against the Pakistani people by the Pakistani state itself.

 

[RazPaK]

Apart from the gradual degradation of technology that is inevitable unless there is an immediate and well-planned initiative to turn around the economy, there is also the impact on the operating expenses side of military operations. As was listed for India, so, too, for Pakistan, there will be the same expenses. They will be incurred on a smaller base, with a greater multiplier effect on the economy. Just to remind ourselves,

• military casualties,
• civilian casualties,
• loss of trained manpower,
• expenditure of ammunition and
• destruction of military resources,
• consumption of fuel and related consumables at an operational rate rather than a peacetime rate,
• dislocation of civilian activities,
• loss of production,
• loss of export earnings due to transport dislocation,
• financial outlay.

If I ask right out, if Pakistan is ready to pay this butcher's bill, it is certain that the happy brigade that fights wars on Playstations will reply with a resounding chorus of "yes". But is that really so? Can Pakistan afford these costs? Even granting that patriotism demands that my question may be answered only one way, surely it is something that occurs internally, and causes concern?

The most important factor, one that was inadvertently omitted in my first submission of this note due to my very preoccupation with the subject, is that these costs are payable even in peacetime. How long can you put a defence against a mythical attack, or offence against an enemy intent on minding his own business, ahead of the survival of your other citizens??


But the gloomy reality is that this is not all the cost; there is also a social cost.

TO BE CONTINUED

The PA is not the IA. They generate their own funds. Something that your newspapers will not tell you.

 

[Joe Shearer]

The PA is not the IA. They generate their own funds. Something that your newspapers will not tell you.

If you had not been born, it would have been necessary to invent you.

How do you think diverting a part of the national savings from general deployment affect the economy? And what do you think are the hidden costs of unaccountable money? Does the name Ayesha Siddiqa ring a bell?

Not all of us on this forum get our knowledge from the newspapers. That makes the difference between a callow young fool and a person who does his homework.

Nothing personal, of course.

 

[KS]

I will refer once again to the US example. 9/11 was viewed as a declaration of war. In response, the US did not carpet bomb Kabul, but targeted the militants. If India shuts off Pakistan's water, that will automatically trigger the next escalation in the war, and it will have been India who escalated it.

It was India who escalated Siachen. Nothing happened. And that was when you were the blue eyed boy of the Yanks with the Soviet war and we were the basket cases with our famed hindu rate of growth. Now its not like that. The potential audience for a pakistani sob story is much limited now.

And if you think the Indians are foolish to do something in a way Pakistan can catch then with the hand in the cookie jar, think again.

The policy of shooting first and thinking later has been a patented Pakistani policy till now.

 

[vsdoc]

Joe are you arguing for the VSDOC Doctrine or against?

It sounds like you are building a case for a resounding FOR (with mundane deviations/modifications, as long as the essence remains intact), but with you I can always expect a last minute rassagulla ....

Outspend.

Outlobby.

Outwait.

Outgrow.

Outsize.

Outfriend.

Outwait.

Watch.

Watch.

Watch.

Wait.

Move.

 

[RazPaK]

If you had not been born, it would have been necessary to invent you.

How do you think diverting a part of the national savings from general deployment affect the economy? And what do you think are the hidden costs of unaccountable money? Does the name Ayesha Siddiqa ring a bell?

Not all of us on this forum get our knowledge from the newspapers. That makes the difference between a callow young fool and a person who does his homework.

Nothing personal, of course.

I enjoy your smugness.

Ok, I am wrong.

Our military completely depends on money allocated to them from our government and their accounted treasury.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@notorious_eagle, the last three sections of my comment will be delayed as I have to be at lunch elsewhere. Do bear with me.

 

[Bang Galore]

I will refer once again to the US example. 9/11 was viewed as a declaration of war. In response, the US did not carpet bomb Kabul, but targeted the militants. If India shuts off Pakistan's water, that will automatically trigger the next escalation in the war, and it will have been India who escalated it.

Not necessarily accepted. An attack on Indian civilian centers is an escalation by itself & no country can allow the "enemy" to decide on the level of escalation allowed.

Sanctions are a lengthy, indirect mechanism and their advocates go to extreme lengths to make it clear they are trying to spare the common people.

In the case of Iran, the people are targeted since the nuclear program enjoys widespread public support and the pressure is applied to force them to abandon that support.

No such parallel exists for terrorism since the Pakistani public is not supporting terrorism. Even if India can trace it to some individuals, they would be rogue elements acting without the approval of the Pakistani public at large, so punishing the public is not justifiable.

A decent argument but still one that does not cut much ice. The Pakistani state is responsible for controlling its territory & any attacks directed from within its boundaries will be its responsibility to deal with & stop. the areas being spoken of are not the bad lands of tribal areas but Punjab & Pakistan administered Kashmir. The IWT exists between the Pakistani & Indian states, an abrogation is justifiable because of actions or inaction of the Pakistani state. If the people of Pakistan wish to see their state do more, they should act accordingly. After all Pakistan is a democracy, is it not? Let the people put pressure on the state to do more against the perpetrators of attacks against India. A precedence for such action already exists with villages close to the LoC in Pakistani administered Kashmir coming out on the streets protesting against any militant movement in their area since they believe that it would bring with it, Indian retaliation through shelling.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I enjoy your smugness.

Ok, I am wrong.

Our military completely depends on money allocated to them from our government.

As the sign says in the Fort William Officers' Institute toilet, in not very Edwardian English,

"We aim to please;
You please to aim."

Do give this a thought. Apart from raising your social standing, adopting this might have other fringe benefits.

Joe are you arguing for the VSDOC Doctrine or against?

It sounds like you are building a case for a resounding FOR (with mundane deviations/modifications, as long as the essence remains intact), but with you I can always expect a last minute rassagulla ....

Outspend.

Outlobby.

Outwait.

Outgrow.

Outsize.

Outfriend.

Outwait.

Watch.

Watch.

Watch.

Wait.

Move.

Just now, you are on Watch and Wait.

 

[vsdoc]

As the sign says in the Fort William Officers' Institute toilet, in not very Edwardian English,

"We aim to please;
You please to aim."

Do give this a thought. Apart from raising your social standing, adopting this might have other fringe benefits.

I was there in 1989 being interviewed by a panel of Brigadiers for AFMC.

 

[Developereo]

The Americans will retain 4-6 bases in Afghanistan as their next objective is full spectrum domination of Eurasian Hinterland and is therefore beyond Afghanistan. For such objective attainment, it is important for Afghanistan to attain a measure of stability. Indian use of Afghanistan as a proxy base for sponsoring terrorism in Pakistan will have to stop at a particular stage.

When the center of gravity shifts to Iran and Central Asia, Pakistan would certainly become less prone to attacks from Indian sponsored terrorism from Afghanistan. We as Pakistan must therefore remain steadfast in our efforts to maintain and sustain our strategic interests.

It could go the other way round, too.

There is a school of thought in the US which advocates a scaled down military presence around the world. Partly due to economics, but also because American long range capability continues to improve at a good pace.

Part of that strategy advocates "outsourcing" some of the policing to local lieutenants. India would be one such.

Now, before Indians jump all over me, these lieutenants need not be traditional "allies", but simply countries where the confluence of interests is wide and deep enough to allow a good level of trust. The local lieutenant would have much leeway in how it conducts affairs locally, and the US would turn a blind eye, as long as the broader US interests were not affected.

 

[RazPaK]

As the sign says in the Fort William Officers' Institute toilet, in not very Edwardian English,

"We aim to please;
You please to aim."

Do give this a thought. Apart from raising your social standing, adopting this might have other fringe benefits.




Just now, you are on Watch and Wait.

Sarcasm and dull wit aside you do realize that you have in the past claimed the PA of being a government within a government.

Let's take a stroll down memory lane before charming us with your intellect again.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sarcasm and dull wit aside you do realize that you have in the past claimed the PA of being a government within a government.

Let's take a stroll down memory lane before charming us with your intellect again.

Is it just I, or is there a perceptible upward movement in the level of English the young man is dishing out? Is Edwardian English catching? Quelle horreur!

Dull wit! Ooh, that stung! Clever little mangu payya here.