What has this got to do with what I posted? I agree Musharraf was the best thing that happened to us in a long time but he is not here any more so we have to make do with what we have.
And well, nothing the Government could do so far (atleast the drama for our benefit) to eradicate the menace of drone strikes. There comes a point when democracy is just not the right answer.
My point is valid. It is important to understand that what went wrong in our foreign policy vis-a-vis USA and WOT.
Did the current leadership (military and civilian) succeeded in convincing Obama administration to give up drone strikes? Why did these drone strikes started occurring much more frequently in Post-Musharraf era?
Here;
Pakistan: Drone attack in Pakistan: 2005-2012
Musharraf rule ended in mid of 2008.
For several years, the current leadership (including General Kayani) have been complicit with these operations. One of our own airbases was being used for this purpose. But this complicity was
clandestine in nature. The leadership decided to keep entire nation in the dark about the ground realities of these operations. The official approach was acceptance of drone strikes (from inside) and protesting against it (from outside). What kind of policy is this? What kind of impression we were leaving on the foreigners with this policy?
Following happened in the aftermath:
1- US became bold
2- Anti-US, Anti-Governmental, and Anti-Kayani sentiments arose within Pakistan when revelations about this kind of clandestine dealing came from foreign sources
3- After the revelation, US adopted measures to ensure continuation of drone strikes on unilateral basis, in case Pakistani cooperation ends in this regard. And we have witnessed this trend since 2011.
Their is one additional strategic blunder on the part of our current leadership (military in particular); Kayani refused to do anything about North Waziristan upon US insistence. Once again, no reasonable explanation have been given for this decision. Typical argument is that we lack in resources. Seriously? Everybody buys this BS?
If we lack the resources to conduct military operations in just the Waziristan region of the country, how we will be able to manage to fight a full-scale war with a far greater military power?
If we are clandestinely supporting some Taliban factions (under the argument of protecting our interests in Afghanistan), then why conduct propaganda about commitment to WOT at international level? Please keep in mind that scope of WOT is not just restricted to TTP. It extends to Al-Qaeda and its affiliates (Taliban and vice versa) who have taken refuge inside Pakistan from Afghanistan. Musharraf acted against most of these anti-state elements and un-welcomed guests. Kayani does not. Now of course, US may have taken some steps against Pakistan in response to lack of cooperation from Kayani on the WOT front with respect to North Waziristan due to its growing frustation. And our media sources pick on and highlight such steps and signs of frustation of US to conduct Anti-US propaganda.
Our gullible nation falls for the misreporting rather easily. US have made this clear many times that (FULL) Pakistani cooperation is needed to succeed in the Afghanistan front of WOT.
On top of all of the above, Osama Bin Laden was found in Abbottabad. This further infuriated US against Pakistan. Don't you think that this is a sign of major failure on the part of Pakistan? Even more disturbing thing is that many in Pakistan believe this to be a false flag operation. Once again, I note that a clear cut explanation from Pakistani leadership (military in particular) is lacking regarding the 'ground realities' of this particular operation as well.
How many times, our current leadership (military and civilian) will keep Pakistani populace in the dark?
You see! Their is a clear lack of vision and commitment in our current 'competent' leadership (military and civilian) in handling the foreign affairs and also the matters of national security.
Is it wise to keep the populace in the dark on important matters?
Musharraf was very open about his decisions at least. He kept the Pakistani populace informed on important decisions he took vis-a-vis WOT. And Musharraf preferred to handle the terrorism related issues in Pakistan with mostly Pakistani assets and not with direct US involvement. He even created a counter-terrorism unit of the Pakistan military.
Bro, when Musharraf took a decision at national level to ally with US in WOT. His successors should have upheld Musharraf's policy. But you know; Pakistani are famous for falling short on commitments.
US gave us a choice from the beginning: With US or Against US.
If Taliban was the choice, why didn't Pakistani populace made this clear during 2001? Pakistani people were sleeping?
Now we suddenly remember our Afghan interests in Post-Musharraf era?
This nation really does need leadership which is competent in the matters of foreign affairs and this nation also needs to understand the importance of commitment. Point fingers at others is easy. US does this and that - is not an argument.
When presented with choices, Pakistani foreign policy related decision should be based on internal consensus and upheld on long term basis. This is my standing on this issue.
In Pakistan, neither their is unity, neither their is discipline, and neither their is faith.
Is US responsible for this whole mess? I don't think so.
Yet again you post pictures from a war in which the target country had no real defense against the form of aggression.
Iraq may have been defenceless in 2003. But it was far from defenceless in 1991. What happened back then?
We, on the other hand, have the ability to annihilate the bases of enemy forces around us including Aircraft Carriers. We, unlike Iraq, have the ability to strike back! And therein lies your deterrent. That's how you prevent wars.
These are your assumptions. Try striking a US Carrier Group and see what happens. Also, try targeting US military bases in Afghanistan and see what happens. US will hit back hard. Temporary gains (if any), will result in complete and utter destruction of Pakistan.
Like I said, it is not wise to pick up a fight with a nation that is capable of annihilating you.
To think of it, citizens of a bloody Nuclear Power accepting bullying and defending it!
Thanks to our internal issues. Pakistani populace is not in good shape.
It was a simple lesson for you, first grade Soviet weaponry got the better of US tech of the same era or better, plain and simple. As I had said earlier, Iraq was operating 30 year old and heavily downgraded technology while the US was using the latest tech. There was no match at all. Iraq had nothing that could disable an M1 Abraham effectively. Why do you insist on bringing up Iraq again and again?
Bro, Iraq was not 30 years behind US during 1991. Forget 2003. Focus on the Persian Gulf War 1991 instead which is a much more fair example to consider. And read this:
IRAQI MILITARY CAPABILITIES, 1990
At the time of the invasion of Kuwait, the Iraqi armed forces were, by any measure, a formidable and battle-tested fighting force. Iraq began the crisis with one of the world's larger armies, equipped with great numbers of tanks, armored personnel carriers and artillery, some of which were state-of-the-art models. It had a sizable air force with many top-line fighters and fighter-bombers (F-1s, MiG-29s and Su-24s) and a modern air defense command and control (C2) system. During the last six months of the Iran-Iraq war, the Iraqi army had demonstrated a capability to conduct multi-axis, multi-corps, combined-arms operations deep into hostile territory. The staff could conduct long-range planning; coordination of air and artillery preparations; timing of movements and operations; coordination of complicated logistics requirements; and movement of supplies, equipment, and troops to the right place at the designated time. They had developed excellent operational security and deception.
Iraqi armed forces were structured similarly to the British forces, but their operations were modeled more closely on Soviet armed forces. The senior military echelon in Iraq is the General Headquarters (GHQ), which integrates operations of the Republican Guard, Army, Navy, Air and Air Defense Forces, and Popular Army. It is dominated by ground force officers.
Iraqi ground forces were the largest in the Persian Gulf at the time of the invasion of Kuwait. They included the Republican Guard Forces Command, the regular Army, and the Popular Army. Iraqi ground forces had more than 5,000 main battle tanks, 5,000 armored infantry vehicles, and 3,000 artillery pieces larger than 100mm. These forces were supported by enough heavy equipment transporters to move a three-division heavy corps at one time. Iraqi troops were well practiced in conducting short-notice division moves across considerable distances, as well as other tactical operations.
The Iraqi military supply and transportation infrastructure was extensive and well-equipped, with ample supplies of ammunition, water, food and fuels. A modern transportation system had been built inside Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war to ease unit movement to and from combat areas and to keep them supplied. The logistic system was a hybrid of the Soviet system, in which materiel is delivered forward from higher echelons before it is needed, and the British system, in which lower echelons draw materiel as needed. In the Iraqi system, materiel was sent automatically from GHQ to the corps, based on estimated consumption requirements. Once at the corps depot, divisions and brigades drew replenishment supplies. (Source: Report to US congress on Persian Gulf War 1991)
Please educate yourself on the matters of history. Iraq was very powerful during early 1990s. USSR and China expected a long battle during Persian Gulf War 1991. Instead they were shocked by US performance. US had completely revolutionised its power projection capabilities after the debacle of Vietnam. We actually witnessed the birth of Shock and Awe warfare concept. Read about it here:
http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Ullman_Shock.pdf
Saddam was a fool. He thought that he would pull of another Vietnam. He decided to fight US on its strong points. And he ended up dead.
You are advocating similar approach. If you are so confident about taking on US head-on and crushing its military might, why don't you take the initiative? Set an example for the entire nation by shooting down US drones and sending the US Carrier Group packing from Arabian Sea. What are you trying to prove on PDF?
When was the last time the US actually attacked an enemy that could fight back? Iraq....come on man, Iran was able to get the better of Iraq through sanctions.
You need to learn a lot about Iraq. Forget 2003. Focus on what Iraq used to be in early 1990s.
War with Iraq left Iranian military capability in severely degraded form. I understand that Iran did not got funds and support like Iraq and therefore was not in the position to quickly reform and rebuild its military might in the manner of Iraq. Iran has progressed because it remained untouched by wars since late 1980s.
Afghanistan....... Cambodia could have invaded it.
I never use Afghanistan as an analogy.
Still, you think that Cambodia had the resources to take on Taliban at its strong point and capture the whole country in 2001? Northern Alliance with backing from several regional powers failed in this task actually.
This was Taliban prior to US invasion:
You know what's really shocking? The appearance of a Chinese attack sub in the middle of the largest US Naval exercise....you know what else is shocking? The test flight of the 5th gen Chinese stealth fighter atleast 5 years ahead of anybody's expectancy. You know what else is surprising? The ability of China to shoot down satellites, you know what else is shocking? The existence of Carrier Killer missiles that forced the USN to rethink strategy of defending her big boats! There are many other too.
Are we talking about China?
Sawal Gundam; Jawab Channa!
However, to address your curosity;
- Thanks to that submarine related incident, US have significantly improved its ASW capabilities in recent years. US can now even track Russian Akula Class submarines.
- Chinese 5th generation fighter is far from deployment phase at the moment. In comparison, US already maintains a fleet of 5th generation fighters.
- Yes, China have developed the capability to shoot down satellites. In contrast, US is testing X-37B and similar vehicles to conduct spying operations.
- The effectiveness of Chinese ASBM technology remains to be seen. ASBM does not sounds like a very good concept to me. And US is constantly improving its AM capabilities with passage of time.
But the most important point is that China learned a lesson from Persian Gulf War 1991. We did not.
Iraq was, perhaps, a big power amongst Muslim countries but it does not mean that it was Iraq that was strong, it meant that the other Muslim countries were excruciatingly weak. Not a very good example my friend.
Nice excuse.
That's what you got from my post? Shame on your understanding and reasoning skills.
Let me explain again. Iran is not a major power, but it has the ability to strike back and so it will most likely never be attacked and if attacked then it will retaliate and give same amount of pain to the attacker. That's how nations with pride think. Same is the case with North Korea, Russia or China.
If by the ability to strike back, you mean Ballistic Missile Arsenal - then sorry to disappoint you - these are not a war winning weapons.
Read this case:
http://www.airdefenseartillery.com/online/2010/ADA In Action/IraqFreedom/OIF/1stPAC3Engage.pdf
Do you understand that how crucial the incident described in the above link was? If US C&C system had been knocked out earlier, the entire war effort would have been affected or delayed. Did any media source highlighted this fact?
But US is now prepared to defend against Ballistic Missile threats.
Regardless, Iran is firm on its foreign policy matters.
Iran is an example of a true nation. Iranian populace is united, disciplined, and faithful.
Russia, China, and North Korea also have a firm standing on their foreign policies related matters.
F-117A......still, pride of US Military!
Combat losses occur during wars. Stronger side is not immune to losses. But building equipment is lot easier and cheaper then building an entire nation. And Serbia suffered immense damage.
Lol......Ironically, you have failed to realize that to give USA hell on earth all we need to do is equip Talibaan, who incidentally are not the enemies of the US as they have claimed, with Baktar Shikan and ANZA MKIII systems. That will be the test that a former Super Power failed!!!!
So the plan is to fight through Taliban? No comments.
You are scared of a handful of TTP/BLA terrorists? The whole US is scared shitless of Haqqanis alone......just arm Haqqanis and give them a free hand, they will deliver TTP/BLA to you within months!
Kayani seems to be doing a lot for Haqqani already. If according to the rumours, TTP and BLA have taken shelter in Afghanistan, then Haqqani should deliver them to Pakistan military without second thoughts. But we keep waiting.......
You seriously lack the ability to understand posts, it is sad.
I categorically placed emphasis on the fact that everyone who is posted on foreign duty is competent, competency is irrelevant because almost everyone placed on important positions is competent and trained for such tasks. What we need is patriots on top of competency.
Yes, we have highly competent leadership (military and civilian). It really knows how to
mismanage affairs.
![MuZammiL Dr. s[1]n](/data/avatars/m/32/32258.jpg?1370382459){kind=avatar}
) ... 
marorr do ... 
( here this " mundi " means " gardan " of that pimp parrot , so don't let your mind go towards any other body organ of the parrot ) 
