Army and the President

#197 Posted by bulleya on October 12, 2007 3:56:33 pm


.......in any case, pakistan is in big trouble in the coming five to ten years.....it is destabilizing at all ends.


HAHA..how far we've come...less than 5 years ago you were telling indians to quickly hand over kashmir on a platter and make peace with pureland because pureland, with uncle sam's wind in it's sails, was on the rise and very soon it could afford to fuel the islamic terrorism in kashmir forever.


roses are red
violets are blue
the jihadis you created
are now beheading you.

majmudar/dost-mittar/zeemax/hamim2 mian#:.......one should never get into an offensive battle, unless one is 200% sure, one will win it.....

based on this, the worst battles to get into are against civilian insurgencies, in areas where the insurgents have popualariy...one need not be a great historian or critical thinker like hamdim2 mian to understand this point.....

.....in the past many decades there has been perhaps only one insurgency against civilians that has succeeded (british against malays?)....these are not my words, these are the words of the only sane politician left in usa, i.e. bill clinton.....

...from the algerians agaisnt the french, the vietnamese against the americans, the pakistanis against the bengalis, the indians against the kashmiris, the soviets against the afghanis, the russians against the chechnyans, the americans against the iraqis and the americans against the afghanis, can anyone name a single war against civilians, where the invading or occupying army(s) have succeeded?

at best, for them, they have accepted decades of stretched out insurgencies requiring hundreds of thousands of troops (india in kashmir, usa in iraq), or have lost outright (soviets in afghanistan, pakistan in bengal)........

....based on this, how in the world will pakistan win in waziristan.....this is made more difficult by the fact that the country (and members of the military itself) are totally against it; unlike the case of indains in kashmir.....

.......so, if one is in a losing offensive battle, that is never going to end, the morality of it being wrong or right becomes immaterial.......what is the point of being in a losing offensive battle?.......none whatsoever.....

.......this brings up the question: if ordinary mortals like myself can see the above, and can predict the loss of such battles even before they start, then why cannot individuals with much more experience in military strategy, like rumsfeld, bush, cheney, musharraf, ashfaq kayani, and hamidm not see this.......why are they on the forefront of cheering on every such battle, with total disregard to the embarrasments they face when their ideas are defeated.....

.......the answer is quite simple.......they are pushing an ideological or personal agenda.......they know they are going to lose such battles and wars, but realize that any small victory will increase their personal position, even if it results in long term losses for their countries.......with the remote chance that if they do end up winning then it will be of great personal advantage to them.......

.......bush cannot get out of iraq, even though he knows he has lost it, because it would be political suicide.....musharraf wants to remain in waziristan, because it keeps him on the good side of the usa and of the western world (and of the powerful israeli lobby).....and at the moment, he has calculated that the advantages of being on the good side of the usa, more than couterbalances the loss of popularity in pakistan.......

.......in the short run, these attacks on waziristan may earn musharraf five years in power.......however, in the logn run, they will destabilize pakistan, because they go against pakistan's majority opinion, and because such attacks bring in counterattacks, i.e. they result in explosions inside pakistan........i was to have a meeting in a building, which was two miles away from the explosion that took place which blew up the army bus a few months ago....

.....so pakistan needs to turn this miltiary conflict into a political conflict.....if for no other reason, because it will lose the military battle, or will be drawn out into a decade long battle, much like india in kashmir.......

.......as for orthodoxy spreading in pakistan.......it will only happen if pakistan keeps bombing waziristan and they become more and more popular, or if pakistan govt. tries to push ata-turk down pakistan's throat.......as i have been saying, pakistan is neither an orthodox nor a secular state of people........

.......in any case, pakistan is in big trouble in the coming five to ten years.....it is destabilizing at all ends.....when people (like hamidm2 mian) start cheering violence (be it in lal masjid or in waziristan) as the means of solution of a problem, the country is in trouble.....

its about time, pakistan stopped fighting usa' wars.....it made this mistake during the soviet occupation of afghanistan, to a great loss to pakistan.....and is doing so again.......in both cases pakistan has (or will be) left holding the bag........

pakistan has survived for 60 years, with tribal area folk not causing any trouble in pakistan.......it can continue the same way........let the americans and waziristanis fight it out and bomb each other.......pakistan should remain a neutral party........both usa and waziristanis need to have their heads examined in this conflict.........

Sorry, Instead the last para should be:

Furthermore, for the sake of a casual reader, masadi is asserting that one tries to destroy (or co-opt) a popular movement by inducing a leadership that one can control (directly or indirectly). IN SUCH A PROCESS OF INDUCTION THE MAINSTREAM MOVEMENT GETS (VOLUNTARILY OR OTHERWISE) TAINTED WITH THE PUBLICIZED CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LEADERSHIP. This leadership need not necessarily be 'jihadist'. So his theory is more general than what it seems from his statement.

Masadi:

"When you coopt a true people's movement from the true resistance and lay it by hook or crook (with great outside support) on the feet of those that least deserve to carry the label (i.e. the Jihadists) you end up mainstreaming the fringes."

This is a great observation. But it is also very subtle. Its validity (or feasibility) may be contextual and needs to be butressed through emperics. I doubt chowk interactors will reflect on it seriously because of the time-pass nature of chowk. If you want chowkies to see the importance of this observation you need to hammer on it day in and day out. Put it forth from different angles and through simple examples (perhaps even where an example is an article bt itself). I believe that the Iranian case fits in, more or less, with your observation .... Afghanistan?

Furthermore, for the sake of a casual reader, masadi is asserting that one tries to destroy (or co-opt) a popular movement by inducing a leadership that one can control (directly or indirectly). This leadership need not necessarily be 'jihadist'. So his theory is more general than what it seems from his statement.

#180 Posted by cliftonbridge

figuring out your gender is the first step for me before I respond to your posts.

its good to see you still comprehend some desi words despite your total slavery to the white man

post#191:

I did not mean to address that post to myself but to tahmed sahin. lol!

dm#183:

Context samjha karo, tahmed saheb. The comparison had been made between the insurgencies in the two countries and the armies fighting them. Here, there is no similarity, your India-Pak same-same mantra, notwithstanding. There are a lot of BJP supporters in India, its army and, indeed, here at chowk, just as there are jihadi supporters in Pakistani army, public and here at chowk. But unlike the Pakistani army which is fighting the jihadis, the Indian army is not fighting the BJP supporters in India but its enemies.

#189 hmmmmm...monkey-man..er..I mean amreekan slangwala babu arjun... is trying to do logic...ha! ha!

Monkey-man wisdom for today: The world thinks BJP is the same as GOP. And macaca arjun is an amreekan because he can say american slang (or so he thinks) like "put lipstick on a pig".

inbred retard: modi is in the BJP, the BJP isn't modi.

o gaandu arjun agar US BJP ko GOP samajhte to taire hero Modi Ko Visa deny nahi karti

HP writes "I think the point that I made is still not clear to Asadi. Let me try it again. You cannot let a country (be it Pakistan or any other) fall in to the hand of these criminals."

I got your point very well the first time what is unrelated to this point is your support of the (miserable)FerozK position that will ONLY strengthen the Jihadists, just like the US occupation force (Pak Army)'s action in Waziristan. When you coopt a true people's movement from the true resistance and lay it by hook or crook (with great outside support) on the feet of those that least deserve to carry the label (i.e. the Jihadists) you end up mainstreaming the fringes. So, look at the bigger picture, if the farce US war on terror proceeds unabated it will require a few countries to come under the influence of just such forces (the Jihadists) that the US purports to fight while strengthing them by their policies in order to get a war without end; therefore we must combat the farce to take away the life support of these parasites. The (miserable) FerozK's advice is more of the same BS that Bush & co have been practicing and it has done more to strengthen than weaken the Jihadists- that my friend is a fact and more of the same will produce more of the same...that was my point.

Now to the "bigger of the two evils". When a force like the US occupation force (aka Pakistan Army) is so deeply entrenched in Pakistani institutions, whichever way they are overthrown and a new "force" or "farce" comes to dominate, it is inevitable that they will not be so deeply rooted and so much easier to support. Regarding the Taliban they emerged after a whole history of vesting the mujahideen and their farce unto a nation with great outside support which continued throughtout the Taliban era thanks to the Pakistani regime(s). Without this history and support those fools wouldn't have lasted much longer. I for one do not support the US interference in or invasion of Afghanistan and what exists now in that country is hardly a poster-child for why the Taliban needed to be checked....

#183 Posted by tahmed32 on October 12, 2007 7:17:45 am

prophetboy: nobody outside your paki echo chamber buys the comparison between the BJP and the taliban supporting islamofascist MMA that rules half of your provinces. the world, outside of pureland, regards the BJP as something like the GOP.

While Pakistanis are busy being drama queens, India is moving ahead...Not picking quarrels over claimed injustice with the rest of the world..but rather joining the rest of the world in the real battle - the battle to make sure our grandchildren will have a better life, or even a planet to live on....Indian scientist wins Nobel Prize for work on global warming (personally, I think Al Gore deserved it more, but the Nobel Prize is not above practical considerations, notably encouraging Indians and Chinese to join in the real battle by recognizing those working to this end in India or China).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7041747.stm

dm: the main difference between hindu fanatics and muslim fanatics is that the former stick to bullying minorities within India and are too cowardly to take on anyone else (note the way Advani changed his tune when Pakistan showed in 1998 that it was not easy pickings like Babri masjid).

dm #175 " believe that there is a lot more support for the jihadis in the Pakistani army personnel and the public "

the comparison should be with support for hindu extremists in india (not support for kashmir separatists in india)- and given the popularity of BJP in India relative to the poor showing of their counterparts (i.e. religious parties) in Pakistan, I think your beliefs do not tally with the reality.