I do not expect these debates to be brief due to explanations involved.
Ah...well, if it must be done
Bro, this is why I abhor deception. Current leadership (Military and Civilian) have kept people in the dark on lot of matters. This is not good. People just do not know the facts and continue to speculate.
Regarding civilian casualties; they do occur unfortunately but it is unwise to assume that mostly they die. Civilians are not the target of the drones; terrorists are who are hiding in civilian dominated areas.
It's a good thing we have established that the drone strikes are being carried out with the blessings of GoP and PakMil. Having said that and despite agreement with you on Government's double standards and deception, I have to say that there are matters of National Security that just cannot be revealed to the public. However, drone strikes and agreements with the US are not matters that should be kept private especially since they are creating hatred and animosity against the US.
And I have deep reservations on the criteria which determines a person to be a militant by the US. That is why I believe they require ground level assistance from PakMil, if not already covertly provided. Every single Man/Woman/Child that they have executed through drone strikes are labelled extremists or terrorists, this is not fair.
This is where the confusion lay. What are our interests in Afghanistan? We want Afghan Taliban back in power? Do you think that this will be easy after all the investment US have made in Afghanistan thus far? What about the Afghans who do not wish Afghan Taliban back in power?
Our policy should be to convince/coerce Afghan Taliban to reach a settlement with the current Afghan government because like it or not - this Afghan government does have worldwide recognition. As long as the Haqqani offshoot of Afghan Taliban will continue to target US interests in Afghanistan and use Pakistani regions for its interests, we cannot expect peace to prevail and our relationship with US to normalize.
Too many 'what's' and 'ifs' in 2 paras. Starting from the beginning, our interest in Afghanistan in the late 60's and early 70's was strategic depth to shelter us from any possible invasion by the super power next door. Also, since the early days, we have been in competition with Iran & India for influence over our neighbours to ensure that their country is not used for anti Pakistan missions or activities such as which are currently prevalent in BLA & TTP. We were quite successful in our endeavours externally (not speaking on the influx and consequences in uncontrolled and unchecked temporary migration of refugees as that is beyond the scope of this discussion) as recently as 2001. After 2001, we were not given ample time to convince the Talibaan to hand over OBL to the US without any proof of his involvement in 9/11.
The US will not lay waste her investment in Afghanistan, but neither would we. We quite literally understand the dilemma of the super power but she also needs to understand our insistence on being the bigger stake holder. And apparently, majority of the Afghans still support Talibaan, otherwise they would be very hard pressed to find recruits ever ready to fill their ranks and fallen comrades. I am sure if we are given our due share, we would be able to convince Mullah Omer and Haqqanis to settle the issues with the US Government.
As long as the US Government fail to realize our legitimate concerns vis-a-vis Afghanistan and involvement of external agencies operating from within Afghanistan to destabilize Pakistan, there can be no viable solution. The solution has to ensure both aggrieved are reasonable redressed, Pakistan even more so because we cannot just pack away and leave like the US can and did last time.
We have an obligation to stay committed to the decision that our former leadership took after 9/11. Keep in mind that after this decision US was not expecting Pakistan to support any faction of Taliban (Pakistani and Afghani). If Pakistani interests do no co-align with those of US, then this should have been conveyed to US when presented with the choice in the first place. Clearly Musharraf thought differently then our current leadership (Military in particular).
The understanding that was reached with the US post 9/11 is still not very public. How do we know that we committed to work even against those Talibaan that we actually considered our strategic depth? Or perhaps Musharraf & Co. realized that it was futile to reason with the super power as she had already decided on the course of action and that with passage of time, Pakistan would be able to reason with the ally. Maybe Musharraf had no other option but to buy time for the sake of Pakistan?
Commitment is commitment. Deal is a deal. Remember Sulah hudaibiya? Holy Prophet (PBUH) upheld the commitment to its fullest.
Do you know the beauty of Sulah-e-Hudabiya? I believe that it was a written agreement and not a verbal one. Islam strongly encourages documentation of all commitments. As otherwise, different parties would eventually deduce different meaning from the commitments for their individual advantages. In the case of Pak-US commitment, nothing was documented so everything is hearsay, more or less.
When you will not upheld a commitment, clearly their will be consequences.
Consequences will effect both sides, it is not a one way street. When advantages were/are shared by all sides, so will be the losses.
This is a myth.
Read this excellent report:
An Introduction of the Taliban
Ok, well....you have your POV on the matter, I have mine. I still say Talibaan were nothing without PakMil. They may have initiated as a group but ISI made them what they became and it was because of support by PakMil that they achieved what they did.
So you realize that we do not control them. Good.
Now explain to me that how 'this lack of control' serves Pakistani interests? What the hell Pakistan is doing in WOT then? Do you realize the mess we have created with this duplicity?
This shows our lack of resolve to work with International Community on the Afghan issue. This is why we are facing the backlash. Does our current leadership (Military and Civilian) realizes that our Afghan policy will redefine our future course of relationship with lot of countries who have participated in WOT?
Have we forgotten that under the rule of Afghan Taliban, Afghanistan became a staging ground for terrorist activities worldwide and it culminated in to 9/11. Now you will say that 9/11 was an inside job, right? Please don't.
Pakistani interests will be better served with strong relationship with lot of countries involved in WOT.
Yes, to start off, I would say that 9/11 was an inside job. Otherwise such as attack was just not possible. All the signs are there for those who want to understand the truth.
To understand how 'lack of control' serves any country, consider the example of China, do we control them? Do we influence their foreign policy? Yet the relationship with them still serves Pakistan. Similarly despite lack of control, the relation is beneficial for Pakistan even if all they do is ensure that agencies such as RAW/CIA/MOSSAD/KGB etc. are unable to indulge in anti Pakistan activities.
A stable Afghanistan will ensure the no terrorism is planned on their soil but it will take time and it will take the will of Afghans, eventually, to elect the correct leadership.
And on what basis have you assumed that TTP does not have relationship with Mullah Omar led Taliban?
TTP was formed to put pressure on Pakistan to stop it from cooperating with US on the Afghan front of WOT. And it seems as if TTP has succeeded in its purpose.
Read about TTP here:
http://www.nctc.gov/site/groups/ttp.html
Funny thing is that TTP operates even in Afghan Taliban dominated regions.
Please dude, read up what Mullah Omer as said about TTP, read up how he has denounced the organization. Do not engage me in debates to which clear answers are available. TTP are not linked to Talibaan, they are terrorists being trained, equipped and financed by RAW/CIA.
Oh yes! Afghan Taliban makes the wisest of the decisions. And my Pakistani brethren blindly fall for them.
You have to understand that most of them are not very west friendly, most of them are not educated in the western system and they are highly suspicious of the activities of the west as they have been bitten time and again by the west. It is our duty to persuade them and to tell them where they are making mistakes as polio vaccine is an absolute must and so are the other vaccinations and stuff.
I do not trust these figures. Our current leadership (Civilian in particular), which is corrupt to the core, have the habit of putting the blame of its mismanagement and shortcomings on others.
US have given lot of aid to Pakistan during WOT; 18 billion USD in total. Musharraf was good at bargaining with others. Our current leadership (Military and Civilian) is not unfortunately.
Pakistan also have not managed to develop a powerful lobby in US for its benefit since independence. The end result is that US does not understands Pakistani needs properly. On the other hand, both India and Israel maintain strong lobbies in US and this benefits them.
Yes, I acknowledge that Pakistan have paid a high price in WOT. But the threat of militancy had to be kept in check. Otherwise, it would have turned in to a Frankenstein Monster for us.
However, lack of clarity over policy for WOT and Afghanistan (in our part) have resulted in current mess.
1) The figures of losses of US$ 80 Billion which includes wear & tear of transport network, foreign investment, tourism, mobilization and activity by PakMil, armaments & military equipment used, wear & tear to the military equipment, loss of life, loss of assets and revenue due to terror war etc., has been compiled by the Finance Ministry with the help of Defence Ministry/Foreign Ministry etc. The figures may have been estimated on occasions but they cannot be off the mark by much.
2) Of the 18 Billion that the US states it has provided to GoP, 46% is deducted as overheads....GoP has been provided only around 50-55% of that alleged 18 Billion in 'aid' which is roughly equal to US$ 10 Billion. Furthermore, most of the 'aid' has actually been reimbursements for the cost incurred by the Military on this US terror war. Do not be fooled by the propaganda this easily my friend.
3) You think Pakistan does not have a strong lobby in Washington, I would slightly amend it and say that the nexus of anti Pakistan lobbies in Washington especially that of India & Israel far outweigh our strong lobby in Washington and thus we are unable to convince them on many matters.
4) How did the 'supposed' threat of militancy harm us prior to 9/11? How were these so called militants (I would encourage the word freedom fighter for the Talibaan fighting invading forces as opposed to terrorists/extremists or militants who are involved in terrorism in Afghanistan and in Pakistan?
Bro, this is the bone of contention between US and Pakistan. Mullah Omar is not yet in the position to dictate his terms to US. Where is his government?
And we should persuade Mullah Omar to work with the International Community, if we do not wish to target his forces and allies. This is the least we should do.
Also, Taliban holds no power over ISAF in military context. ISAF have demonstrated the capability to increase its strength in Afghanistan on its own terms. And it will withdraw from Afghanistan on its own terms. Mark my words.
Had Mullah Omer's Talibaan been weak, the US would not have initiated a process of negotiations with them nor would it have exerted so much pressure on Pakistan to begin a war with the Haqqanis. This is the reason of contention I agree, but we do not want to engage 50k Talibaan fighters that we consider our asset, plain and simple.
The US thought that they could simply hold negotiations without Pakistan in Qatar, where did they get with that attempt? Without Mullah Omer and Haqqanis, there is not Talibaan and so without them there is no negotiations. The US Govt. has also vocally accepted pressurizing Pakistan to bring the Haqqanis to the negotiating table. However, Pakistan has declined the unreasonable demands as Pakistan has been consistently undermined in the whole process while at the same time the US attempts to give India a much bigger and undeserved role in Afghanistan. Are we supposed to take it all sitting down?
I have marked your words and now you mark mine, Soviet Union left Afghanistan upon Talibaan's terms and so will this super power!
US conveyed to him that he should withdraw from Kuwait. Saddam did not listened. US then gave him a deadline. Saddam did not listened. Get the memo?
Ok so there are only 3 possibilities here:
1 - Saddam considered US threats to be bluff
2 - Saddam thought he was strong enough to fight of the US & NATO.
3 - Saddam was actually in cahoots with US, and his actions gave them the opportunity to establish permanent Military bases and presence in Saudi Arabia & Kuwait.
One can simply write off atleast point number 2, point no. 1 has some merit but it is actually point no. 3 that holds the most substance.
Israel attacked Iraq in 1981. Iraq was a mediocre military power back then.
And it remained so after too.
However, during Persian Gulf War 1991, Iraq fired 39 Ballistic Missiles in to Israel to make a statement.
None of which hit any of the desired targets even though the Scuds were considered pretty good. They were intentionally fired into uninhibited deserts of Israel. Again, doesn't this arouse suspicion? There was hardly any loss from all the scuds that Iraq fired into Israel, Saudi Arabia & Kuwait combined.
I would also like to know the progress of Iraqi Military from 1981 to 1991 as you believe they achieved excellence from mediocre capability during that term.
Afghan war offers different kind of challenges. Their is no uniformed military group to be targeted. Afghan Taliban can easily blend with civilians and have support from Pashtun populace. In addition, Afghan Taliban enjoys Pakistani support. This further complicates the situation. And Afghan territory favors guerilla warfare. Furthermore, US have not deployed massive firepower in Afghanistan due to its geography. If Afghanistan had been connected with the ocean, then situation would have been different.
Look mate, America did whatever it could do conventionally but was not able to defeat the Talibaan. But for the purpose of argument here, by you reasoning Iraqi military should have resisted the invasion a lot more....albeit their shortcoming as per my conclusion in equipment, training and most probably dedication and patriotism.
You expect US to do everything for Pakistan in the light of the duplicity of its foreign policy vis-a-vis Afghanistan? You sure are deluded, Sir.
No my friend, I do not want the US to do everything but I want them to acknowledge everything and to stop the smearing campaign that they have unleashed against Pakistan PakMil and ISI. Furthermore, I want them to reimburse the losses we have sustained because of their arrogant war and to continue repair works until everything settles down in 20 odd years.
Iraqi Airforce was not weak. It was equipped with latest French and Soviet Jets of that time. And many nations did not had BVR capabilities during 1990s. Pakistan have also acquired this capability recently (after 2001).
And you are wrong if you think that Iraqi Airforce was inept. It is just that US approach to air combat had significantly changed after Vietnam. USAF evolved in to a force capable of striking with precision and avoid harm.
All state of the art airforces were either equipped with BVR Missiles or would have procured them after the first encounter with a BVR armed adversary. Iraq was a spent force without means to fight a war.....that too with a super power.
And that's a new one for even you.....USAF evolved to avoid harm, harm to whom? USAF officials then agreed, civilans strongly disagree.
Saddam had the capability to hit back too during early 1990s. His forces downed some Coalition Aircraft and fired 90 Ballistic Missiles during Persian Gulf War 1991. Some of these missiles were aimed at Coalition military bases and they did hit them. Saddam even attempted to break the coalition by targeting Israel.
Answered above.
You need to establish this then.
Because Operation Neptune Spear showed otherwise. Now even if you argue that our defensive network is stronger on the Indian front, their are many loopholes in our defensive capabilities that US can easily exploit.[/QUOTE]
Well, I believe I asked you to not discuss OBL Operation simply because where you are adamant the operation was genuine, I am highly sceptical and believe it was all a drama with the help of GoP & Military. Lets wait for the OBL commissions report ok?
I have. Your point is baseless.
Lol....ok
And US defensive network is no joke either.
If launchers are deployed in this fashion:
- Their is little hope. That is 48 interceptors in one place.
Also, US is working on the capability to distinguish between a decoy and the real target.
It is stupid to target strongly defended regions. It makes sense to target the weakest links in a battle. Surely you are not a strategist.
Pakistan follows 'minimum credible deterrence' doctrine due to its limited resources. Pakistan will have limited options in a conflict with a much greater military power. Pakistan will be forced to calculate its options very very carefully.
Lets agree to disagree as there are capabilities on both sides that are undeclared. Let's also be realistic, a military conflict b/w the US and Pakistan will just not happen. But if it does then my opinion is that we will annihilate their military bases on land and sea in a diameter of 5k-8k. the losses that we incur are beyond the point of this debate.
And US never does its homework?
Every nation does its homework.
Their arrogance was their downfall in Vietnam and their arrogance is their downfall in Afghanistan. They failed to understand the regions and the inhabitants. The same is happening all over again in Pakistan.
This shows how much clueless you are.
US acquired S-300 system in 2004 from Croatia. By this time, US had already developed PAC-3 and used it in combat.
And I asked you to do some digging on THAAD. I did not asked for your generalization about it.
Read about THAAD here;
Lockheed Martin · THAAD
THAAD is one of the most advanced, successful, and potent AM system in existence. It is a masterpiece of evolution of AM capability of US.
How many Jets & IRBM/ICBM/SRBM/LACM/SLCM etc. has PAC3 shot down? How many has THAAD shot down? When have they faced an adversary that is actually some good with these technologies? And how did you measure their success?
Don't tell me you read brochures!!
I do not expect these debates to be brief due to explanations involved.
Ah...well, if it must be done
Bro, this is why I abhor deception. Current leadership (Military and Civilian) have kept people in the dark on lot of matters. This is not good. People just do not know the facts and continue to speculate.
Regarding civilian casualties; they do occur unfortunately but it is unwise to assume that mostly they die. Civilians are not the target of the drones; terrorists are who are hiding in civilian dominated areas.
It's a good thing we have established that the drone strikes are being carried out with the blessings of GoP and PakMil. Having said that and despite agreement with you on Government's double standards and deception, I have to say that there are matters of National Security that just cannot be revealed to the public. However, drone strikes and agreements with the US are not matters that should be kept private especially since they are creating hatred and animosity against the US.
And I have deep reservations on the criteria which determines a person to be a militant by the US. That is why I believe they require ground level assistance from PakMil, if not already covertly provided. Every single Man/Woman/Child that they have executed through drone strikes are labelled extremists or terrorists, this is not fair.
This is where the confusion lay. What are our interests in Afghanistan? We want Afghan Taliban back in power? Do you think that this will be easy after all the investment US have made in Afghanistan thus far? What about the Afghans who do not wish Afghan Taliban back in power?
Our policy should be to convince/coerce Afghan Taliban to reach a settlement with the current Afghan government because like it or not - this Afghan government does have worldwide recognition. As long as the Haqqani offshoot of Afghan Taliban will continue to target US interests in Afghanistan and use Pakistani regions for its interests, we cannot expect peace to prevail and our relationship with US to normalize.
Too many 'what's' and 'ifs' in 2 paras. Starting from the beginning, our interest in Afghanistan in the late 60's and early 70's was strategic depth to shelter us from any possible invasion by the super power next door. Also, since the early days, we have been in competition with Iran & India for influence over our neighbours to ensure that their country is not used for anti Pakistan missions or activities such as which are currently prevalent in BLA & TTP. We were quite successful in our endeavours externally (not speaking on the influx and consequences in uncontrolled and unchecked temporary migration of refugees as that is beyond the scope of this discussion) as recently as 2001. After 2001, we were not given ample time to convince the Talibaan to hand over OBL to the US without any proof of his involvement in 9/11.
The US will not lay waste her investment in Afghanistan, but neither would we. We quite literally understand the dilemma of the super power but she also needs to understand our insistence on being the bigger stake holder. And apparently, majority of the Afghans still support Talibaan, otherwise they would be very hard pressed to find recruits ever ready to fill their ranks and fallen comrades. I am sure if we are given our due share, we would be able to convince Mullah Omer and Haqqanis to settle the issues with the US Government.
As long as the US Government fail to realize our legitimate concerns vis-a-vis Afghanistan and involvement of external agencies operating from within Afghanistan to destabilize Pakistan, there can be no viable solution. The solution has to ensure both aggrieved are reasonable redressed, Pakistan even more so because we cannot just pack away and leave like the US can and did last time.
We have an obligation to stay committed to the decision that our former leadership took after 9/11. Keep in mind that after this decision US was not expecting Pakistan to support any faction of Taliban (Pakistani and Afghani). If Pakistani interests do no co-align with those of US, then this should have been conveyed to US when presented with the choice in the first place. Clearly Musharraf thought differently then our current leadership (Military in particular).
The understanding that was reached with the US post 9/11 is still not very public. How do we know that we committed to work even against those Talibaan that we actually considered our strategic depth? Or perhaps Musharraf & Co. realized that it was futile to reason with the super power as she had already decided on the course of action and that with passage of time, Pakistan would be able to reason with the ally. Maybe Musharraf had no other option but to buy time for the sake of Pakistan?
Commitment is commitment. Deal is a deal. Remember Sulah hudaibiya? Holy Prophet (PBUH) upheld the commitment to its fullest.
Do you know the beauty of Sulah-e-Hudabiya? I believe that it was a written agreement and not a verbal one. Islam strongly encourages documentation of all commitments. As otherwise, different parties would eventually deduce different meaning from the commitments for their individual advantages. In the case of Pak-US commitment, nothing was documented so everything is hearsay, more or less.
When you will not upheld a commitment, clearly their will be consequences.
Consequences will effect both sides, it is not a one way street. When advantages were/are shared by all sides, so will be the losses.
This is a myth.
Read this excellent report:
An Introduction of the Taliban
Ok, well....you have your POV on the matter, I have mine. I still say Talibaan were nothing without PakMil. They may have initiated as a group but ISI made them what they became and it was because of support by PakMil that they achieved what they did.
So you realize that we do not control them. Good.
Now explain to me that how 'this lack of control' serves Pakistani interests? What the hell Pakistan is doing in WOT then? Do you realize the mess we have created with this duplicity?
This shows our lack of resolve to work with International Community on the Afghan issue. This is why we are facing the backlash. Does our current leadership (Military and Civilian) realizes that our Afghan policy will redefine our future course of relationship with lot of countries who have participated in WOT?
Have we forgotten that under the rule of Afghan Taliban, Afghanistan became a staging ground for terrorist activities worldwide and it culminated in to 9/11. Now you will say that 9/11 was an inside job, right? Please don't.
Pakistani interests will be better served with strong relationship with lot of countries involved in WOT.
Yes, to start off, I would say that 9/11 was an inside job. Otherwise such as attack was just not possible. All the signs are there for those who want to understand the truth.
To understand how 'lack of control' serves any country, consider the example of China, do we control them? Do we influence their foreign policy? Yet the relationship with them still serves Pakistan. Similarly despite lack of control, the relation is beneficial for Pakistan even if all they do is ensure that agencies such as RAW/CIA/MOSSAD/KGB etc. are unable to indulge in anti Pakistan activities.
A stable Afghanistan will ensure the no terrorism is planned on their soil but it will take time and it will take the will of Afghans, eventually, to elect the correct leadership.
And on what basis have you assumed that TTP does not have relationship with Mullah Omar led Taliban?
TTP was formed to put pressure on Pakistan to stop it from cooperating with US on the Afghan front of WOT. And it seems as if TTP has succeeded in its purpose.
Read about TTP here:
Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) - Terrorist Groups
Funny thing is that TTP operates even in Afghan Taliban dominated regions.
Please dude, read up what Mullah Omer as said about TTP, read up how he has denounced the organization. Do not engage me in debates to which clear answers are available. TTP are not linked to Talibaan, they are terrorists being trained, equipped and financed by RAW/CIA.
Oh yes! Afghan Taliban makes the wisest of the decisions. And my Pakistani brethren blindly fall for them.
You have to understand that most of them are not very west friendly, most of them are not educated in the western system and they are highly suspicious of the activities of the west as they have been bitten time and again by the west. It is our duty to persuade them and to tell them where they are making mistakes as polio vaccine is an absolute must and so are the other vaccinations and stuff.
I do not trust these figures. Our current leadership (Civilian in particular), which is corrupt to the core, have the habit of putting the blame of its mismanagement and shortcomings on others.
US have given lot of aid to Pakistan during WOT; 18 billion USD in total. Musharraf was good at bargaining with others. Our current leadership (Military and Civilian) is not unfortunately.
Pakistan also have not managed to develop a powerful lobby in US for its benefit since independence. The end result is that US does not understands Pakistani needs properly. On the other hand, both India and Israel maintain strong lobbies in US and this benefits them.
Yes, I acknowledge that Pakistan have paid a high price in WOT. But the threat of militancy had to be kept in check. Otherwise, it would have turned in to a Frankenstein Monster for us.
However, lack of clarity over policy for WOT and Afghanistan (in our part) have resulted in current mess.
1) The figures of losses of US$ 80 Billion which includes wear & tear of transport network, foreign investment, tourism, mobilization and activity by PakMil, armaments & military equipment used, wear & tear to the military equipment, loss of life, loss of assets and revenue due to terror war etc., has been compiled by the Finance Ministry with the help of Defence Ministry/Foreign Ministry etc. The figures may have been estimated on occasions but they cannot be off the mark by much.
2) Of the 18 Billion that the US states it has provided to GoP, 46% is deducted as overheads....GoP has been provided only around 50-55% of that alleged 18 Billion in 'aid' which is roughly equal to US$ 10 Billion. Furthermore, most of the 'aid' has actually been reimbursements for the cost incurred by the Military on this US terror war. Do not be fooled by the propaganda this easily my friend.
3) You think Pakistan does not have a strong lobby in Washington, I would slightly amend it and say that the nexus of anti Pakistan lobbies in Washington especially that of India & Israel far outweigh our strong lobby in Washington and thus we are unable to convince them on many matters.
4) How did the 'supposed' threat of militancy harm us prior to 9/11? How were these so called militants (I would encourage the word freedom fighter for the Talibaan fighting invading forces as opposed to terrorists/extremists or militants who are involved in terrorism in Afghanistan and in Pakistan?
Bro, this is the bone of contention between US and Pakistan. Mullah Omar is not yet in the position to dictate his terms to US. Where is his government?
And we should persuade Mullah Omar to work with the International Community, if we do not wish to target his forces and allies. This is the least we should do.
Also, Taliban holds no power over ISAF in military context. ISAF have demonstrated the capability to increase its strength in Afghanistan on its own terms. And it will withdraw from Afghanistan on its own terms. Mark my words.
Had Mullah Omer's Talibaan been weak, the US would not have initiated a process of negotiations with them nor would it have exerted so much pressure on Pakistan to begin a war with the Haqqanis. This is the reason of contention I agree, but we do not want to engage 50k Talibaan fighters that we consider our asset, plain and simple.
The US thought that they could simply hold negotiations without Pakistan in Qatar, where did they get with that attempt? Without Mullah Omer and Haqqanis, there is not Talibaan and so without them there is no negotiations. The US Govt. has also vocally accepted pressurizing Pakistan to bring the Haqqanis to the negotiating table. However, Pakistan has declined the unreasonable demands as Pakistan has been consistently undermined in the whole process while at the same time the US attempts to give India a much bigger and undeserved role in Afghanistan. Are we supposed to take it all sitting down?
I have marked your words and now you mark mine, Soviet Union left Afghanistan upon Talibaan's terms and so will this super power!
US conveyed to him that he should withdraw from Kuwait. Saddam did not listened. US then gave him a deadline. Saddam did not listened. Get the memo?
Ok so there are only 3 possibilities here:
1 - Saddam considered US threats to be bluff
2 - Saddam thought he was strong enough to fight of the US & NATO.
3 - Saddam was actually in cahoots with US, and his actions gave them the opportunity to establish permanent Military bases and presence in Saudi Arabia & Kuwait.
One can simply write off atleast point number 2, point no. 1 has some merit but it is actually point no. 3 that holds the most substance.
Israel attacked Iraq in 1981. Iraq was a mediocre military power back then.
And it remained so after too.
However, during Persian Gulf War 1991, Iraq fired 39 Ballistic Missiles in to Israel to make a statement.
None of which hit any of the desired targets even though the Scuds were considered pretty good. They were intentionally fired into uninhibited deserts of Israel. Again, doesn't this arouse suspicion? There was hardly any loss from all the scuds that Iraq fired into Israel, Saudi Arabia & Kuwait combined.
I would also like to know the progress of Iraqi Military from 1981 to 1991 as you believe they achieved excellence from mediocre capability during that term.
Afghan war offers different kind of challenges. Their is no uniformed military group to be targeted. Afghan Taliban can easily blend with civilians and have support from Pashtun populace. In addition, Afghan Taliban enjoys Pakistani support. This further complicates the situation. And Afghan territory favors guerilla warfare. Furthermore, US have not deployed massive firepower in Afghanistan due to its geography. If Afghanistan had been connected with the ocean, then situation would have been different.
Look mate, America did whatever it could do conventionally but was not able to defeat the Talibaan. But for the purpose of argument here, by you reasoning Iraqi military should have resisted the invasion a lot more....albeit their shortcoming as per my conclusion in equipment, training and most probably dedication and patriotism.
You expect US to do everything for Pakistan in the light of the duplicity of its foreign policy vis-a-vis Afghanistan? You sure are deluded, Sir.
No my friend, I do not want the US to do everything but I want them to acknowledge everything and to stop the smearing campaign that they have unleashed against Pakistan PakMil and ISI. Furthermore, I want them to reimburse the losses we have sustained because of their arrogant war and to continue repair works until everything settles down in 20 odd years.
Iraqi Airforce was not weak. It was equipped with latest French and Soviet Jets of that time. And many nations did not had BVR capabilities during 1990s. Pakistan have also acquired this capability recently (after 2001).
And you are wrong if you think that Iraqi Airforce was inept. It is just that US approach to air combat had significantly changed after Vietnam. USAF evolved in to a force capable of striking with precision and avoid harm.
All state of the art airforces were either equipped with BVR Missiles or would have procured them after the first encounter with a BVR armed adversary. Iraq was a spent force without means to fight a war.....that too with a super power.
And that's a new one for even you.....USAF evolved to avoid harm, harm to whom? USAF officials then agreed, civilans strongly disagree.
Saddam had the capability to hit back too during early 1990s. His forces downed some Coalition Aircraft and fired 90 Ballistic Missiles during Persian Gulf War 1991. Some of these missiles were aimed at Coalition military bases and they did hit them. Saddam even attempted to break the coalition by targeting Israel.
Answered above.
You need to establish this then.
Because Operation Neptune Spear showed otherwise. Now even if you argue that our defensive network is stronger on the Indian front, their are many loopholes in our defensive capabilities that US can easily exploit.[/QUOTE]
Well, I believe I asked you to not discuss OBL Operation simply because where you are adamant the operation was genuine, I am highly sceptical and believe it was all a drama with the help of GoP & Military. Lets wait for the OBL commissions report ok?
I have. Your point is baseless.
Lol....ok
And US defensive network is no joke either.
If launchers are deployed in this fashion:
- Their is little hope. That is 48 interceptors in one place.
Also, US is working on the capability to distinguish between a decoy and the real target.
It is stupid to target strongly defended regions. It makes sense to target the weakest links in a battle. Surely you are not a strategist.
Pakistan follows 'minimum credible deterrence' doctrine due to its limited resources. Pakistan will have limited options in a conflict with a much greater military power. Pakistan will be forced to calculate its options very very carefully.
Lets agree to disagree as there are capabilities on both sides that are undeclared. Let's also be realistic, a military conflict b/w the US and Pakistan will just not happen. But if it does then my opinion is that we will annihilate their military bases on land and sea in a diameter of 5k-8k. the losses that we incur are beyond the point of this debate.
And US never does its homework?
Every nation does its homework.
Their arrogance was their downfall in Vietnam and their arrogance is their downfall in Afghanistan. They failed to understand the regions and the inhabitants. The same is happening all over again in Pakistan.
This shows how much clueless you are.
US acquired S-300 system in 2004 from Croatia. By this time, US had already developed PAC-3 and used it in combat.
And I asked you to do some digging on THAAD. I did not asked for your generalization about it.
Read about THAAD here;
Lockheed Martin · THAAD
THAAD is one of the most advanced, successful, and potent AM system in existence. It is a masterpiece of evolution of AM capability of US.
How many Jets & IRBM/ICBM/SRBM/LACM/SLCM etc. has PAC3 shot down? How many has THAAD shot down? When have they faced an adversary that is actually some good with these technologies? And how did you measure their success?
Don't tell me you read brochures!!