"Where did the '50% of resources for the military' figure come from"
From Niaz-
"...Our Armed forces will continue to eat up 50% of the resources..."
Why regurgitate a figure read on a forum without validating it? Please see my response to Vinod above and explain where such larger amounts of revenue/borrowing are being hidden and obtained from.
Thanks for the budget link however. It's extensive. Perhaps you can highlight the salient elements WRT defense and security expenditures? Would that include development of your strategic assets?
See page 7 on the link I provided. 'Defence Affairs and Services == 378 billion'.
As for the breakdown within the defence budget, that is irrelevant in the context of the discussion of what proportion of total resources are devoted to defence.
"And the points raised by both Niaz and Muse have been countered and far better alternatives offered, which you have not addressed either... So no, the issues highlighted by Regional development can be far better addressed through raising resources through the reforms I outlined."
Perhaps. Most of your offerings must be carefully scrutinized for culling. The message is typically distortional.
Finish culling before ranting - making pronouncements about the validity of an argument that has already been countered, without addressing the counter-arguments, is intellectually sloppy work.
"No it [the military] does not, for reasons already mentioned in detail..."
It does so we disagree. Complaints of an inability to prosecute an existing war in your west for lack of resources is too-common a theme. Your armed forces, particularly the army, could stand a dramatic restructuring acknowledging your existential threats. Doing so would free resources expensively-maintained and of little use.
The existential threats include India, and therefore the restructuring proposed by the likes of the author and you ignore one threat in favor of your preferred threat. In addition, as pointed out, the 'lack of resources' can be alleviated through the resource generation and law enforcement and civilian institutional reforms mentioned, so that they can step into the void created after the Taliban/extremists are routed by the military. The military is stretched because the civilian side is lacking, and cannot step in to provide governance, development and security. The civilian side is then where the reforms must take place.
I pointed this out already - stop wasting time and actually read the counter-arguments already made.
"They have already been sufficiently 'revitalized' as pointed out earlier..."
Not so IMV. On-going operations in Swat, Bajaur and Mohmand suggest otherwise.
On going operations in Afghanistan after 10 years would also suggest that the US/NATO have no business doling out advice on how to run COIN campaigns either. The operations continue in those agencies in FATA (at a much, much lower tempo and threat level may I add, indicating the initial success at routing out the Taliban/extremists), because the civilian side has not been able to step in to take over security and governance - hence the need for reforms in the civilian side.
A complete absence of combat operations after ten years of afghan taliban warriors within N. Waziristan also suggest as much. These are just the broadest sketches illustrating your dilemmas but are adequate points-of-departure for more.
The absence of operations in NW has already been explained - the resources generated and freed by reforms on the civilian side would allow for the military to then focus elsewhere in FATA.
Virtually any of your military experts (particularly army officers) here would be able to discuss details of necessary operational improvement absent an open forum.
I am sure they would, which would indicate that the military is continuing to focus on operational improvements, just as it implemented a huge amount of operational improvements in the time that Kayani took over from Musharraf. Additional resources generated by the civilian reforms mentioned would potentially allow even more improvements.
Transformation is not an easy nor inexpensive process.
That, in fact, was the argument made by both Xeric and I in response to the author, Muse and Niaz's claims that 'transformation and reform' to a 'modern, high tech and mobile' military focused on COIN would be 'less expensive' than the current resources spent on the military.
Your rejection of such is curious given a background seemingly unsuited for such an appraisal. You've not the expertise to make this judgement IMV. My own experience wouldn't fully prepare me to make this appraisal. Perhaps Shek, who worked in the Strategic Plans division of D.A. might be able to sketch the complexities but it's a full-time topic for any pro. That wouldn't describe you whatsoever. However, I'm open to the possibility that such is desirable. You're not...without merit.
Rejection of what? I have not rejected the need for continued operational improvements. i have questioned the rationale and feasibility of converting the entire military into a COIN force and ignoring the equally existential threat from India. I have expanded upon my arguments on where reforms need to take place (civilian institutions), why they need to take place and how they would assist far more than the authors suggestions. I have yet to see a rebuttal.
"No you don't - your double standards on the NSG exemption to India, refusal to extend trade concessions, unilateral intelligence operations by CIA thugs run amuck, sheltering of Baluch terrorists and facilitating their 'exile and asylum' to Switzerland, sheltering of Taliban terrorists in Kunar, all clearly point to a duplicitous policy of weakening Pakistan and attacking it."
Nonsense. Your demeanor is that of a petulant child. India's NSG exemption took the approval of the 45 nation NSG group. Your singular focus on America illustrates again a distortional proclivity that's counter-productive. India's track record on proliferation made them an excellent candidate.
Your attempt to hide the singularly important role played by the US in convincing the NSG to grant the exemption to India exposes your duplicity and dishonesty. Even ignoring that, the US took a diametrically opposed position when it came to Pakistan on access to civilian nuclear energy to cater to its energy shortfall and increasing demand. That clearly goes against your claim of 'wanting to help Pakistan', since in this instance you clearly did the opposite while bolstering her enemy.
We owe you nothing WRT trade concessions when you are a the recipient of a specific congressional act (Kerry-Lugar) aimed at your economic and social development. We're the most generious enemy you'll ever likely know. A case to be far otherwise can be easily made.
The Pakistani FM indicated that around $300 million has been disbursed to Pakistan out of the KLL so far. And I never claimed the US 'owed Pakistan trade concessions', but your refusal to grant them clearly indicates that the US does not have any intention of 'wanting to help Pakistan'. Refusing trade concessions and handing out meager amounts of aid only indicates a desire to keep Pakistan beholden to US handouts, not a desire to 'help Pakistan'.
"CIA thugs run amuck" might be unnecessary were LeT thugs long-running amuck not a harsh reality and threat to our nation. It cuts both ways and you've at least as much responsibility. Save it for another argument though.
There are no 'LeT thugs running amuck'. What 'LeT thugs running amuck' did Davis or any of his counterparts snare?
We've not sheltered one Balouch terrorist. This was established by you and I in the Wikileak transcripts. Nor have we abetted their flight elsewhere. Your argument remains with the GoA.
We established nothing of the sort. Your denial of the US supporting terrorists is a bald faced lie - your government officials discussed the presence of Brahamdegh Bugti and his terrorist organization, and their being sheltered by the Afghans with the Afghan President. That is clearly established in wikileaks. Even assuming that the poor, naive CIA had absolutely no idea of the presence of these terrorists in territory under the control of the US (despite Musharraf ranting and raving about it every chance he got), the US did nothing after that reported conversation, and the latest news is that the terrorist leader has been facilitated in traveling to Switzerland for asylum.
Further, your implication that we've sheltered terrorists in Kunar is an open slander. Six U.S. troops died recently in combat operations in Kunar. Alluding otherwise fits your dissembling narrative regardless of how often I've posted current orders of battle here.
Pakistani troops have died at the hands of Haqqani and Gul Bahadur in NW - so what is your point? Terrorists in their hundred and thousands continue to repeatedly cross over into Pakistan from Afghanistan to attack Pakistani security forces. Just yesterday 16 security forces were killed in such a cross border attack.
Here's the latest. Educate yourself-
Afghanistan Order Of Battle-Institute For The Study Of War April 2011
It'll only take you a moment to realize that the best part of Task Force Bastogne 1st Brigade Combat Team has three battalions (1-32 Cav, 1-327 and 2-327 Infantry) operating in Kunar.
What does your Orbat have to do with negating the fact that terrorists in their hundreds train and cross over to Pakistan from Afghanistan to attack Pakistani security forces? I do not care where your forces are deployed - they are not stopping terrorists from finding sanctuary in Afghan territory and crossing into Pakistan to attack Pakistani forces. If you can accuse the PA of supporting terrorists by allowing the same, then the same accusation applies to the US.
Qari Ziaur Rahman was captured by your forces with the help of C.I.A. "thugs" and released. He was subsequently promoted as the taliban emir of Kunar operations. No doubt his forces enjoy the benefits of very rugged terrain and porous borders.
Poor policy at the time to pursue dialog with the Taliban. But how does that excuse the US failure to prevent these terrorists from finding sanctuary in Afghanistan and launching cross-border attacks into Pakistan?
What about it?
Were you more informed you'd acknowledge (among many other items) the cooperation by your forces and ours in the border reaches to the extent permissable by GHQ Rawalpindi.
The US needs no 'cooperation from GHQ Rawalpindi' to attack and eliminate these terrorists finding havens on Afghan territory. Our forces are already deployed across the border in Bajaur and Dir. Where are yours preventing these cross-border attacks?
"The admiral would not discuss specifics of his conversations with Kayani. He meets at least quarterly with the Pakistani military leader, he said, and those conversations remain private.
Generally, the admiral said, the Pakistani military is in a difficult fight with extremists in Mohmond province, its third campaign against extremists there.
Yes, they keep running back across the border into Afghanistan where your military is apparently doing nothing.
"...The best defence is both fortification of those regions by development..."
I said EXACTLY that in my comments-
"...I'd counter that the best defense against such (should it be a tangible threat) is the fortification of those regions by development..."
You plagarize if attempting to make this your own. Stop it.
Asinine comments only illustrate the weakness of your arguments.
"...as well as influencing the Afghan government to keep its hands off..."
Doing so by differing means than currently might be helpful. Chicken or the egg in this latest iteration of afghan-Pakistani squabbles. Maintaining a proxy force aimed at Afghanistan holds precedent over the formation of their latest government. Those in Kabul might suggest that Pakistan, too, should "keep its hands off".
Involving Pakistan in the training of the Afghan security forces soon after the invasion, obtaining Pakistani opinion about the leadership being put in place in the Afghan government and hearing out their concerns would have been an excellent way to engage Pakistan in the development of Afghanistan. But of course, the above would have only occurred had the US actually wanted to 'help Pakistan'. You laid the groundwork of an anti-Pakistan regime and intelligence service and military.
Please-no tiresome history lesson again. I've read it too many times from you and it's become a regular feature of your anti-afghan diatribe. That so-called government poses no salient threat to a nuclear-armed Pakistan. If otherwise, your troubles far exceed any capacity for resolution and you'd best surrender immediately.
Then a rag tag group of AL Qaeda and the Taliban 'poses no salient threat to the 'nuclear-Armed military and economic might of the US' ...
Implement your 'words of wisdom' yourself first and foremost.
