Survival of the Fittest

*******
Tier 4 Defense: At a certain stage in future, Pakistan will have to decide as to when and how to start re-arming the freedom fighters in Afghanistan. It is necessary to do it in order to keep our Western border, relatively less vulnerable. It is time that the plans must be prepared and links should be established for the time when it comes.
**************

Your lot never learns and never gives up on its stupidity.

`` India must buy the idea that the aggression on Pakistan, by anyone, will have formidable and dire consequences for India.``

Haven`t heard a funnier joke in recent times.

Mr S Mohammed,

Your article can be summarized Pakistan Vs the Whole World by threatening India.

5 Tiers:

Tier 1: `` India must buy the idea that the aggression on Pakistan, by anyone, will have formidable and dire consequences for India.``

What more can Pakistan do? Isn`t it bankrupt trying to fight the ``freedom`` struggles in India already. Sounds more like Saddam in 1991, I`ll take Israel out if anybody touches me. We know what happened to him. I don`t think anybody besides the US and Russia have the balls to assert that. Not even China. Pakistan tu kis khait ki mulli hai!

Tier 2: Make it impossible to police Pakistan in a post-war scenario.``

I think the world, the educated people of Pakistan know this already all too well about the lawless NW Frintier region. What a splendid idea and turn it into a national Pakistani model. Lets see how many French, German, or even Chinese companies would want to do business in that environment.

Tier 3: Heavily arm Kashmir ``Freedom Fighters`` 2.0 (By S. Mohammed Inc)

Again, what more can Pakistan do? Isn`t it bankrupt already. By the way, if India does attack it will probably be in the plains of Sindh or Punjab where its conventional forces have tactical superiority and presence of Pakistani civilians make using a tactical nuclear option by Pakistan on Pakistani soil difficult. The mountinous route to China is more of a symbolic path.

Tier 4: Re-Arm Afghan fighters.

Yeah, this time they would stand up to an American coalition.

Tier 5: Help the 17 ``Freedom movements`` in India

Again (the seventeenth time), wouldn`t Pakistan be 17 times more Bankrupt.


Satire

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

If the two countries continue to squable with each other like teenagers, both countries will lose in the long term. No matter what scenrio.

Only the outsiders will benefit.

Lets not become ``Northern Alliance`` for the outsiders.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

All this talk of Pakistan being ``next`` is nothing more than the latest in the long chain of grandoise claims of self-importance. Starting from being a bulwark against communism to the only route to the warm waters of the Indian oceans, Pakistani imaginations have no limits to their quixotic sense of destiny.

Pakistan is not `next`. It already has been. Foreign forces have bases on our soil. A constitution rapist is ready to drop his underwear at the first ring of a telephone from Washington. Donor agencies have a chokehold on our economy and here we are dreaming about being `next`. Hallelujah!!

later
-sac

P.S:``Survival of the fittest`` will ensure that the author`s genes will not trouble humanity`s future generations!

Mr. Mohammad:
This is an example of a very tendentious analysis by a jihadist mindset.
It is interesting that you start by saying that the world has changed since Sept. 11 but in your listing the objectives of the new American game, the threat of international terrorism figures nowhere on the list. Do you believe that the attack on WTC was engineered to provide a context for fulfilling the objectives listed by you?
And when you give reasons why Pakistan may become a target of America, you fail to mention that it is the current operational headquarter of Al Qaeda, the original stated reason for the United States going into both Afghanistan and Iraq.
As per your scenarios, you have missed the most likely ones:
Case A: The current leadership realizes the tight spot in which it is and adapts Pakistan`s policies and programs to suit the American interests - this is something that it has been doing very shrewdly thus far.
Case B: The current leadership is toppled by the military-political elements opposed to the policy of accomodating American interests and the Americans respond by destroying Pakistan`s nuclear arsenal or delivery system or both.
Case C: Saner elements prevail in Pakistan and it stops arming and training jihadis for Kashmir, thereby paving the way for normalising relations with Pakistan.
And Pakistan is certainly not the first or second on the American list, those spots are taken by Syria and Iran. The Americans would rather have a friend in Pakistan than an enemy and, given their past and current experience, they have every reason to believe that this is not difficult to achieve.
P.S. Are you Urstruly?

Dear Readers,

I must remind you that the impetus for a debate in this article is not to discuss an India vs. Paksitan scenario, but to discuss whether Pakistan can develope a credible detterent against any non-Indic agression to itself or not.

Please try to keep your input as objective and to the point as possible. I appreciate and look forward to hostile comments, as long as they are objective.


Thank you.

Dear Chowk Staff

Please correct the name of the author as Urstruly in this article.

Thank you.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Pakistan Nuclear Capability -- with the Jihadi hordes controlling 40% of the country -- is definitely a THORN on the side of the US-Israeli Axis.

This capability is SAFE -- as long as the US Republican Guards OCCUPY Pakistan which they do currently -- under the pretext of securing Afghanistan -- which will NEVER be secured enough --

Pakistan uninvited GUESTS are not leaving any time soon -- that`s for sure

THE QUESTION -- what will happen to that Nuclear Capability -- if Pakistan has true democracy ie an elected not selected Parliament -- and an elected not selected Chief of State –

a MAN of dignity -- not a an army shoeshine boy -- in charge of the government – and then the Parliament/NA asks the Americans to get out –

will that Nuclear capability then be gutted by the departing American GUESTS before/after they leave the country?

There are ONLY TWO CHOICES for Pakistan -- either remain occupied and remain a vassal of the United States --

and keep the Nuclear Capability in a safe `LOCKBOX` --

or get together with India in solid friendship of common National Interests -- with a solid regional defense pact -- forget Kashmir -- forget Afghanistan -- have mutual slashing of the back-breaking defense budget -- modernize education -- modernize the infrastructure and communication – and BAN the the two religions out of politics!

and then ease out the Americans gently and safely -- like a bottle of nitroglycerine -- having good relations with the Americans as a sovereign state -- not that of a Master and a Slave –

and keep the Nuclear Capability in a safe `LOCKBOX` --

Now folks – which option do YOU think -- the ‘sagacious’ -- the ‘pragmatic’ --Army of Pakistan will choose?

I stopped reading this article after the first sentence. So the world order collapsed, did it. The world order where a dictator can come to power by force, and proceed to build luxurious palaces for himself, steal billions of dollars, torture and kill anyone who questions this theft?

And Mr. Mohammed bemoans this. I think you and others like you need to get your heads out of your ass.

...hahahahha...dumbass pakis harboring delusions and paranoia..what else is new?....

#5 by harish_hyd

I am so sick and tired of listening to your PM always saying that his patience is running thin, he has been saying this everytime there is some kind of attack either by freedom fighters or your own security forces which you guys blame it on terrorist. Frankly, it sounds funny now everytime he says that, everyone knows Hindus can`t fight.
Just like Gandhi said HINDUS ARE COWARDS and Muslims are bullies.

Actually, unlike the other replies so far, i think S Mohammed has done a decent job of identifying Pakistan`s options in case it is ``next``. However, I dont think the US will go after Pakistan, for the following reasons:
a) US economy is in bad shape; cannot justify another war at this time
b) 2004 is election year in US; cannot justify another war at this time, that too against Pak
c) Pak has no oil or other wealth to foot the US bill, in case of war
d) US does not need to go to war against Pak to acheive its objectives. There are many options other than war that US has against Pak.
In the (unfortunately) unlikely event that the US would want to wage war against Pakistan, they would not do so right away. First, they would put Pak in the list of rogue nations, then impose economic sanctions for a decade and see if they can get the UN to do something similar. Imagine the effect on Pakistan if the US refused to import textiles from it. The US can also go for degrading Pakistan militarily and economically - deny it spares, new weaponry, threaten action against any country such as France that may want to supply Pak with weapons... encourage (a la Kurds) the Sindhis and Balochis to revolt against the Punjabis (not much effort required given the coming severe water scarcities), play off one general against the other, one politician against the other - the options are endless. Alternatively, the US could gain control of Pakistan economically, politically and militarily (for its nuclear weapons) by posing as a friend, asking it for its bases (I am sure Pak would offer US army bases if only to spite India), allowing IMF to interfere with the economy, have the politicians in its pocket.

The US could also encourage strikes on training camps in PoK by India... the US would care two hoots about Pak using nukes on India and even less if India nuked Pakistan...

Once again, in the unlikely event of a US war against Pak, the US or India would have to be stupid to want to `police` Pak. Their aim would be to first control its nuclear assets, and take out the jihadis, never mind the collateral damage. The army being disciplined would surrender anyway. In fact, appointing the surrendered army general as the ruler of Pakistan, or one of the pliable politicians as the ruler of Pakistan and taking control of ISI files, would mean that the new ruler would do the policing and fall over himself/herself to do America`s bidding.

Re: S Mohammad

A point of clarification. Contary to what you wrote, Iraqi borders were not established in the post-second world war period. They were demaractated by the League of Nations. In 1918, at the conclusion of the First World War, the territory of present day Iraq was a province of the Ottoman empire. Iraq was given to the British and they ruled it as a mandate from 1918 to 1921, when it was given its independence by the British.

Your analysis, to say it politely, is flawed and your reasoning is based more fantasy than on any emperical rationalizations. Your article does raise some valid questions, but your response is, at best, shallow and seems more like a justification to right a wrong than seek to explain a viable answer to the question your article attempts to analyze.

Secondly, the graphic of the Pakistani flag with the title of the article and its content, seems to convey a very mixed message; one of national insecurity and faux national importance. It was a poor choice and a poor decision.

More detailed reponse will follow later.

Ciao

I belive that the author certainly has quite an imagination.

What I am surprised by is the addition of the Pakistani flag to

THIS article while there have been many more deserving ones

on CHOWK.

Pakistan is already under control. Bases/Airports and US FBI raids

already occur in that country. Pakistanis are cooperating

with the US in almost all areas. AND getting paid for it.

Actually Kashmir deserves to be next. It is a thorny issue that impacts

over a billion people. Let us wait and see......


Ras

Good article in that it exposes the open criminality, lack of vision and concern for anything normal in the pakistani ruling elite. It helps us undestand why institutions in Pakistan are named after warlords like Mahmud of Ghazni or bin Qasim. Why mass murderers and thugs like Hafiz Saeed are considered great thinkers.

The logic is similar to an article written by a mafia chieftain or a warlord. Whose throat can I cut so I will survive? Whom can I threaten and intimidate so that I am not threatened?

In case of Pakistan the answer is always the same: India. No indians will be surprised at this point in time. Perhaps, poor hapless Afghanistan can now be added to the list of victims. No afghani will be surprised either.

And, yes, you can keep threatening the indians, maybe even for the next decade. You will get your handouts from the Saudis, the chinese and the US from time to time. Your people will plunge deeper and deeper into extremism. Every pakistani will be strip searched at every international airport. The word pakistani will begin to mean terrorist in all languages of the world.

And in the end of all this you will be destroyed. As the technology gap between you and your neighbors widens, as the world gradually comes to a consensus that there no other means available, finally, you will be occupied and your poisonous culture taken apart. So enjoy your fantasies of self-importance, keep up your delusional ranting and keep going down the road you have been travelling....

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

HAHA!! Why would America want to attack Pakistan if the ruling generals agree to mere requests?

Re: Urstruly/S.Mohammad

The geo-political order of the world started to change on the night the Berlin Wall fell down in November 1989. The period from 1989 to 1991 was a period of flux, where the United States was grappling with the demise of the Soviet Union and the issues/questions of its power in a unipolar world. The period of 1991 to 2001 was a period, when the United States had finally spelled out its political vision and adopted, in the words of Madeline Albright, the notion that it will support and favor unilateralism or/and multilateralism based on its interests. The Iraq war/conflict/invasion did not alter the geo-political world order, though it did severely jolt the nature of its status quo ante bellum.

There is no denying that there is a distinction in international relations, which can be classified into an ante bellum Iraq and post bellum Iraq politics. The international geo-political order of the post-second world period has not collapsed, but it has been altered. There is nothing new in this alteration, because traditionally international order has periodically undergone changes and amendments throughout history. The post-second world war order was based on the premise of a bi-polar world politics dominated by the Soviet Union and the United States and was a struggle of economic and ideological proportions. This order, in any case, had to change given the fact that the Soviet Union was no longer a viable entity and hence, this geo-political order was already in the process of change years before the Iraqi crisis underlined the fait accompli.

The notion that a Hobbesian state of nature has replaced this order, with the stronger states influencing the weaker states, is a fallacy. The present international order is based on the precedents of the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), the Treaty of Vienna (1815), the Treaty of Versailles (1919), the Potsdam Declaration of 1945 and the Helsinki Accords of 1971. The present geo-political order is the synthesis of all these treaties and though it has been, no doubt, influenced by the situation in Iraq, it has still been able to maintain its basic principles.

Westphalia made the principle of state sovereignity invioable in international relations and all the treaties, which have followed since then, have sought to keep and maintain this principle in international relations. Westphalia also established a balance of power, which all nations were supposed to obey and this gave the term, ``concert of Europe`` - nations could change their geo-political positions within the limits of this balance of power; they could challenge it, but not break it. Vienna and Versailles were designed expressively revert the status quo, in international relations, to an ante bellum state. Vienna was created to roll back the effects of the French revolution and to revoke the territorial changes made in Europe, in favor of France, as a result of the Napoleonic wars. Versailles` intent was similar and if the ``war guilt`` clause of the treaty is ignored and its punitive economic reparations imposed by a revanchist France on Germany omitted, then Versailles is a classic treaty based on the ideals of Westphalia upholding the principles of balance of power and seeking to revise an order that had been imbalanced by a war. Potsdam is similar, because it too sought to establish the balance of power and it too upheld the principle of state sovernity. The Nurenberg trials were conducted with this in mind and the Nazis sentenced, were charged not so much as with holocaust of the European Jewry, but with the invasions of Austria, Czech Sudeten lands, Poland and France, which had broken the principles of Westphalia.

Helsinki Accords of 1971, were an understanding between the Soviet Union and the United States on how to govern their bi-polar relations in the post Potsdam/post second world war period and the geo-political time period, you have argued that was destroyed by the United States` and British military actions in Iraq. Helsinki had a clearly defined intent and it was to create the ``rules of the game`` between the United States and the Soviet Union and it was done, by dividing Europe into two spheres of influence; east and west symbolized by the division of Germany and the city of Berlin itself. The Soviet invasions of Czechoslavkia in 1968 and Hungary in 1956 had made Helsinki necessary. Helsinki was an attempt to prevent a war breaking out between the two super power protangonists, and thus, allowed them unresistricted freedom of action within their own spheres of influence, without challenging or seeking to ingress their influence in another`s sphere of influence.

Hence, Helsinki accords (or understanding) ended in 1989-1991, with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Since then, there has been no major international treaty re-establishing the ``rules of the game`` and thus, the United States invasion of Iraq was argued in this light; on the nature of its de jure or non de jure status. What is presently happening, geo-politically speaking, is that the United States is, by the fiat of its invasion, seeking to create a new understanding in international affairs, which legitimizes the nature of its unipolar supremacy in the world. Iraq is the test case, which will set the paradigms that will govern the international relations and the debate over Iraq is not so much about the rhetorical reason/justifications for this war, as it is about maintaining the sancity of Westphaila.

The fact that the United States has returned to the cloak of the United Nations, by asking for a consensus to remove the economic sanctions on Iraq, testifies to the fact that, having altered the balance of power in its favor, the United States wishes to use the institutions of balance of power structures, to ordain its actions with an international legitimacy; the system has not collapsed, as much has it been re-ordered to reflect the post-Helsinki/Soviet Union realities in the geo-politics of the world. The disagreement of the United States and France-Germany (and EU) was over this issue and that is; whether the new geo-political reality will be uni-polar power based (United States) or a revised order of multi-polar power based politics (Europe/EU with the United States dominating the geo-politics of the world). Europe wants to replace the Soviet Union in the geo-political power equations and the United States is against this idea, but no one is seriously seeking a collapse of the post-second world geo-political order, as you had suggested and hence, the system is in a period of transition and not in a state of decline or has been revoked in its intent.

As to your your contentions about the control over world energy resources, ``a tight control over world trade and economics – with right combination of military power and control over energy resources`` and crushing any ideological movements that resist this new order, there is nothing new in this development, because it has been a historic norm. It is the lesson of history and from Romans to Muslims to Spain to Britain to Russia and United States, all have attempted to achieve this feat; it is called the ebb and flow of history. When this happens internationally, it is called hegemony and when it happens internally, in a country, it is called an economic monopoly or a cartel; but the intent is the same! There is nothing unverving or sinister about this development.

I will not comment on the India-Pakistan nature of the argument, as it will be, no doubt, attract the most attention! I simply wanted to comment on the geo-political hypothesis of your argument and through my answer, suggest that it was based on a flawed understanding. In your defence, had you been aware of the history of the evolution of international geo-politics, you would have not made such naive asseration that the post-second world paradigm has collapsed!

In this sense, I have to agree with the comments of dost-mittar # 17 and tahmed # 12.

Thank you, for reading this long post, contary to your wishes, but I hope that it has made a point for you to ponder.

Ciao

Mullah urstruly,

Let me get this. The best way for pakistan to survive is to threaten others ? Are there no alternatives ?

Oh... i don`t know... may be something like..... you know... DEVELOP AND PROSPER ECONOMICALLY, BECOME AN ECONOMIC POWERHOUSE ????? Oh... i know why these are not alternatives. Because pakiland is infested with jihadi pinheads like mullah urstuly and his ilk.

Huh? Second line of Defense-Military Preparations - tiers 2 to 5 have already been operationalized for last many years by Pakistan. What is new and how did they make Pakistan more secure?

As for tier 1-
``If there is a credible, overwhelming and persistent threat to Indian integrity, defense, and economic interests, from Pakistan- in case a third party (in this case, US) threatens the security of Pakistan - India will act as a deterrent in a bid to defend both; and thus Pakistan can avert an aggression. ``

I never thought I would hear a Pakistani making a case for pre-emptive strike by India on his country. Thats what you are doing, Urstruly, and I thought you were intelligent.

If India considers an attack on Pakistan by `others` as inevitable, and thus India`s being dragged into the conflict by Pakistan as inevitable, why will India wait passively for that day and not prefer to choose the time and place for Indo-Pak conflict?

Also, if India feels it is under more imminent threat from conflict with Pakistan than it feels presently, then it will take even more aggressive measures than presently to reduce Pakistani offensive capability, it will not simply sit around waiting to be attacked.

Thus of tiers 1-5 you have listed, India can well take up some of these preemptively, doing Indian sava ser on Pakistani ser, like it is doing in defense spending presently.

Thus India can possibly invest a lot more in fomenting internal disorder in Pakistan, it can commit itself to disrupting the Pakistani economy, and to allying even more closely with those who are threatened by Pakistani nukes like Israel, for joint contingency plans to nullify them. India, knowing that Pakistani nukes came from China may even declare its intention to nuke China in retaliation for a Pakistani nuclear attack.

Afghanistan maynot have been in a position to challenge Pakistan`s robberbaron or highway robber mentality, but India is not Afghanistan.

Pakistan`s defence lies in good economic and diplomatic relations with India and rest of the world, not in becoming a international delinquent.

The best way U.S can scr**w pakistan is impose economic sanctions, refuse all paki exports, cut off foreign aid and refuse to provide any writeoffs of any pakistan`s debt. And then watch the show from distance.

Meanwhile, U.S can export as many sophisticated arms to India thereby making any military adventure against India impossible. India should withdraw from Indus water treaty unilaterally and cut off all water supply to pakistan. Also U.S should make sure that no paki gets out of pakistan. I mean no country gives visas. The idea is to box pakistan in to a jail and watch the jihadi inmates eat eachother OR cr@p to survive. This is the best way to force pakistan in to submission OR make irrelavant.

Dear Readers,

Thank you, very kindly for your input so far. Here is my answer to some of your interactions; I must respond before it gets out of hand.

Tuntunia #1

I have a feeling that you were not looking for a reply.

Nazarhayatkhan # 2

If the two countries continue to squable with each other like teenagers, both countries will lose in the long term. No matter what scenrio.


I agree. The rhetoric of Ministries of Foreign Affairs of both countries have become a laughing stock around the globe. Both of them have lost credibility among the diplomatic circles as well. But you must understand that in case of India the intended audience of the communiqués from Foreign Ministry is its domestic population. Currently, the only thing that is keeping the Indian political system from falling apart is anti-Pakistanism in particular and anti-Muslimism in general. At international level, the post-Kargil era of Indo-Pak relations effectively ended with 9/11 and with Pakistan`s acceptance to take part in the so-called ``war against terrorism`` – and along with it the anti-Paksitan rhetoric for international audience has lost its credibility and need. On Pakistani side, Pakistan being a weaker and more vulnerable nation facing a ferociously aggressive neighbor, it has no option but to take every threat seriously.

Kamla # 3

My brotherly advise to you is to try to write a post that is not more than three lines. Quality, my friend, is important than quantity. Look at my posts, they are a masterpiece of English prose with razor edge analyses and eloquence. One day you will too get there –

Satire # 4 wrote: Lets see how many French, German, or even Chinese companies would want to do business in that environment.

Personally, I am against doing any business with Western countries because it is never done on equitable terms. Our best trading partners should be third world, under a Chinese umbrella (for a short while). Anyway, my contention in the article was based on a post-war scenario. In a post war scenario, the foreign investment, or expectation of it is meaningless – therefore that leaves us with only one choice i.e. to create a credible deterrent so that the war never happens in the first place. And that is the intention of this article i.e. figure out ways so that the war does not happen.

Sac # 6 writes: Pakistani imaginations have no limits to their quixotic sense of destiny.

In my humble opinion, it is always good to have limitless imaginations. As I wrote in the article `` It is the nature of this beast i.e. defense planning, that it is done with keeping the worst-case scenarios in mind. No war, in the history of mankind, is ever fought with the best of intentions; rather every war is fought with the worst ones. So when nations formulate their strategic defense plans, they do so with the worst-case scenarios in mind.``, I think that what we need most at this time is a limitless imagination with an iron will to follow it through. I don`t think that we should sit on our butts hoping that it will never happen, while American media and government officials are openly threatening Pakistan with ``consequences`` despite it being a willing partner to fight their new wars for them, are we left with a choice?


Arjunm # 7 : Then why are the pakis still importing whole missiles from the north koreans?

I don’t see any problem with that. Since when and how making preparations for defense has become a moral issue? If West can have full diplomatic and economic ties with apartheid states like South Africa and Israel, then we have every right to do whatever is possible to defend ourselves from an aggressive neighbor.

Most of the CAR oil is in the western region of Kazhakstan and its headed west through Georgia/Turkey.

Not so. Please look at the map, most of the oil is on the Eastern shore line of the Caspian sea. One scenario that I have already discussed at Chowk a year ago was the flow of oil, which is extracted on the Western shores of Caspian, through Iraq for the South East Asian markets (instead of going to Turkey and Red Sea route). But in that case one caveat was that there is approximately 200 - 300 miles of territory of Iran that separates the Central Asian region from the Iraq. Whereas for the oil extracted on the Eastern shores, the best route is through Afghanistan or Iran. I think, in near future both Iran and Afghanistan will have to face a very aggressive pressure from USA for a safe passage of this oil to the Arabian Sea. There is nothing new about American intentions, Soviets tried to do the same thing for 50 years before.

http://www.infoplease.com/atlas/asia.html

The rest of your comments assure me that my thinking is on the right track.

Thanks for your input.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

re: Urstruly

There will be more comments later on, and I would appreciate if you could hold your rebuttals till a time, when I have finished (in a day or two) and then we can get into a discussion on the topic. I will respond to: Pakistan in the food chain and Part II of the article, which covers tiers of defence and your recommendations on the domestic politics of Pakistan.

Ciao

It is evident that Pakistan`s turn will come soon so there is no use in hiding our necks in sand and showing the pink side up.

We should strengthn our economic and military ties with the Far Eastern countries (China) and the EU. China is the largest trade market and we can gain mutual benefit from them.

We should support the overseas muslim movements (especially in the west) and try to maintain close links so that in case we are attacked, they may start strong resistance there.

I agree with the author the Bush is a blessing in disguise for muslims because now is a chance for us to get re-united. Remembet the Ottoman empire, its been gone only for 80+ years. Lets work for a united ummah

and verily Allah knows best.

FerozK & Ras Siddiqui on Flag

The picture of flag on the side of the article title has a special significance. This particular picture of Pakistani flag is no ordinary picture of an ordinary Paksitani flag. It, as a matter of fact, is ``war insignia`` i.e. our war time flag. During a state of emergency when our international borders are threatened our Armed Forces are given this war insignia, which is an elogated version of Paksitani flag. The length to breadth ratio in this case becomes 1:2. My intention by posting this particular figure along with my article is to stress on the importance of the issue and that it should be dealt with war like emergency basis.

hrrehman:
``I am so sick and tired of listening to your PM always saying that his patience is running thin``
.....so are most Indians.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

For anyone looling to understand how india came to be occupied by waves after waves of invaders, the answers are right here.

America does not have to come to conquer Pakistan. It already has. Who do u think controls your bases ? Who controls your Army ? How many ships does one need to close all Pakistani Ports ?

The destiny of Pakistan was more or less determined at its birth. Pakistanis talk about its strategic importance geographically. Well Pakistan never took advantage of Geographic situation. As a matter of fact it squandered the opportunity. On your East you have India with whom you have had a running conflict for more than 50 years without one iota of benefit for Pakistan. In the West you have Afghanistan and even the most friendly Pashtuns consider half or your country (west of Indus) as their own. As a matter of fact Afghanistan`s writ is obeyed more in NWFP and Balauchistan then Pakistan`s. Shia Iran your other western neighbor has no love for you. Guess they do not like there shia brothers being labeled as Kaffirs and murdered. So what does Pakistan have. Nuisanse and Buffer value for the region.

Pakistan should realise what it is. It is like a prostitute. It has to bare itself when US gives it a few dollars. It has to have dance when the Saudis give it a few Dinars.

Real strength in this day and age comes from a strong Economy. For strong Economy the nations needs a good Education System. And Education mean enquiry and exposure to current and new ideas. If your head is buried in sand or worse still in sand jokey`s ass, all you are going to end up with is a stinky head.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Urstruly bhai. Ba`d az salam...
I understand that this article is war planning for a worst-case scenario and i agree with most of it with that in mind. however, wouldn`t it be better --and more of a credible treat against US interests--which as we all know are equal to Zionist interests--be for pakistani to develop the capability to take out...ISRAEL instead of India if our survival as a nation is threatened? Will the Zionist hawks in the US state dept then think of taking us out if they knew that the cost would be no more israel?

The Israelis are very clever and they have a plan called Nuclear Suicide whereby if they ever feel that the existence of their state is threatened they will nuke and take out as many of the surrounding arab/muslim nations as possible. they have abt 400 nukes so thats a lot of muslim ciies turned to rubble. THAT is why at present no muslim country attacks israel. if pakistan can therefore ensure--by as you say builiding up its nukes and missile delivery systems--so that if we are going to go israel too is going to go--that will be our biggest card in the pack and ensure we do not become the next iraq.

North Korea`s leader said something v clever the other day--the war on iraq has taught us that the only way to protect yourself from usa aggression is to have nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver.

since we can`t hit the usa with our nukes at present we can hit the country they hold dearer than all else--as sharon said last year `we jrws control america` --i.e. israel.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Layman # 9 :

You have raised some very important issues. I will try to answer them one by one.

Your first issue is that ``US doesn`t have to impose a war because there are other methods to achieve its objectives``.

Yes there are arguments for and against this assertion, which are regularly discussed in media around the globe. Personally, I do not think that Pak Army will ever bow down to a level as low as nuclear disarmament. So far they have played their cards sensibly. But keep in mind that ``an attack on Pakistan`` is not a figment of my imagination; instead US media, its politicians, its government officials, its think tanks and ordinary people put forth this scenario on almost daily basis. Even President Musharaf in a public rally has openly admitted that he thinks that Paksitan might be next. And as I elaborated before, the strategic planning is done with keeping the worst case scenario in mind; and it is done prior to when something happens. In my opinion a credible Pakistani deterrent is necessary for the security and prosperity of whole region.


Your second issue is that US can achieve its goals of nuclear disarmament through economic noose tightening.

I have discussed this briefly in the article. It will not work this time because of two reasons:

1. It did not work in the past 3 ½ years, between 9/11 and our nuclear tests. And it will not work again because the econo-politics along with geopolitics of the world has changed 180 degrees after US aggression on Iraq, as I discussed in the article.

2. The economic noose tightening will create extreme internal turmoil, which may cause a change of leadership. In that case the nuclear assets might get compromised; and that fails the purpose of tightening of noose in the first place. And now when Pak Army has gone as far as almost turning against its own people to fulfill American demands, I don’t think it is left with a wide playing field.

Your third issue is regarding Policing Pakistan

As I wrote in my article, the post war policing of Pakistan is an inviolable objective. It is absolutely necessary to make sure that the objective (disarmament) for which war was imposed in the first place, has been achieved. And in addition there is no chance of re-arming for an extended period of time. Your contention that Pak Army will surrender and disarm is baseless, because you are sifting this scenario through the prism of Iraqi debacle. Paksitan is no Iraq, politically, socially, and militarily. On the other hand I think a strong polarization will occur with in the army if the question of disarmament is ever raised. And that again may cause a compromise of nuclear assets.

ferozk:

my friend first a digression…you are driven, focused and precise in your interacts…(take this in the light of our long running arguments re: your articles…the duracell-effect;))

now your post # 21:

Europe wants to replace the Soviet Union in the geo-political power equations and the United States is against this idea, but no one is seriously seeking a collapse of the post-second world geo-political order, as you had suggested and hence, the system is in a period of transition and not in a state of decline or has been revoked in its intent.

---this does not address the inherent adversarial role of bipolarity governing relations between nations following the demise of the League (of Nations)…and (admittedly) while this itself was a ‘transition’…failure of a new game plan and role-playing amidst nations post 89-91 has not helped matters either…

…perhaps you can articulate this new relationship in a post?… between the US and unified Europe...with the rest of the world voting with euros or dollar…along the desperately needed eco-reform as articulated by sohail(SR).…a friendly but fierce and competitive world wide competition between euro and dollar for domination…with an emphasis on ideology-less eco-fights…will look for your reply along scores of knee-jerk responses that portions of this article will certainly generate...

urstruly:

…your canvas is wide but choice of colours and brush strokes do not entirely succeed in conveying the big picture well to the viewer…cannot say with certainty whether it is deliberate or by default…

rgds.

t

Urstruly:

Chill out bro. Going by America`s track record since 9/11, the next victim will be a defenseless dictatorship that either harbors terrorists who target Israel or USA only. As long as Pakistan prevents terrorist attacks against US and Israel from its soil, Pakistan will remain a strategic ally and pal of Uncle Sam.

And if things do come to a standoff, India will dare not cross the line of control. The flying time for a nuclear warhead perched atop a Ghauri or Shaheen missile is just 5-10 minutes from Lahore to any part of India. A few people believe that threat of nuclear retaliation will dissuade Pakistan from using its nukes. Hahahaha.. No country builds nukes just for the heck of it. Ancient wisdom tells us:

``Jo Mukka Larraayi ke baad yaad aye, ussay apnay hi munh par maar lena chaahiye``

(A boxer who forgets to use his best punch during the bout, should punch himself in the face).

You get the drift.. If it comes to war, Pakistan will use its nukes without any fear of consequences. If we perish, we shall take 1 billions Indians with us. This puts the heat on India for preventing full-scale war. But ostensibly the Americans are not threatened by this posture. So it is also necessary to raise the cost of war for them as well. A couple of ICBMs parked in Islamabad (as well as New Delhi) will do the trick.

Urstruly: Stop taking threats seriously. Awaken to the new world... a world in which nuclear deterrence ensures relative peace.

Well a very good article where the Statagies has been discussed. I hope if some
of the following stategies are missing in American War Plans they might just picked
some tips from your article. Pakistani Desk working in Pentagon would be contacting
you soon mate!.
You have discussed the schemes of American case wise where your Case-1
Calculated Elimination of Top Leadership-- is not a bad idea but Mushraff now
Bushraff is American Front Man which ofcourse is in the `Supreme National
Intrest of Islamic Republic` so I fail to understand why Americans would like to
get rid of Pres.Mushraff whos not only the President but an army Chief well not
in the immediate future.Well it might be helpful for BB and Nawaz Sharif if any
accidents occur with due respect to Zardari.CASE-II and III:India attacks Pakistan -
Anglo-American Coalition provides support : that makes sense US if they want to
attack Pakistan would for sure use India but I don`t agree that US Marines would
take part in it.Indian Army to my best of knowledge wants to attack Azad Kashmir
as soon as possible but ther Establishment is double-minded about it ; they think
Pakistan would use its Nukes . If US ask India for an offensive Indians would
need a gurantee that Pakistan wont be using her nukes! and for that Indians would
ask US to target Pakistani Nuclear Installations in Chasma and Khushab (www.fas.com).
And ofocurse the secondry target would be : Air Force Installations in Sargoda.
CASE-IV: Limited War and Embargos : well thats what Pakistanis have been expecting
for years to be honest an attack on Azad Kashmir followed by sanctions but if I could
remember correctly our Military Officals have already made it clear that `there won`t
be any limited conflicts`.
Now to your Doctrine Sir!So, in order to defend Pakistan, it must achieve two objectives:
1. India must buy the idea that the aggression on Pakistan, by anyone, will have
formidable and dire consequences for India. I think thats is understood by Indians too
and they know what will be the impact if in-case India helps or be a partner to anyone.
2. Make it impossible to police Pakistan in a post-war scenario. (My friend the country
is not Policed Pre-War it can`t be Policed ever).First Line of Defense – Politics & Debate:
Gosh! you sounds like Nasir ullah Saab except he can`t read or write. Well yes we need
reforms and thats what Mushraff did ! We need political stability for about 10-15 years
in this country and then we could soften the amendments I think! Pakistan Army is
never been prepared to really defend `our country` we have been trained to attack. Remember
1965? who really attacked India? 71 yeah its our own fault! Bangolis hated us coz` we didn`t
had local support. Pakistan I agree need to be Economically and Politically strong and for
that we do need `Nukes` but whats more imporant is to keep a common Pakistani `happy` and
for that we have to `look at the ditribution of finances to our provinces` and by spending
more on heath care then anythin else coz` it has been proved that for a country to `really reduce
povert` one has to need to spend more on `health care facilities`. Some times I think we
need a Dictator but at times I am ashamed to look at our Gentleman Officers attitude!
especially when theres an Army Dictator. We need to work a lot the bigger threat to us
is not India or United States but our `Justice System` and the `feudrals,officers (with wifes),
and ofcourse selfish people` bottomline is our biggest enemy is : OUR OWN SYSTEM WHICH
IS BASED ON HYPOCRICY. I wonder how many people comes up with a Docterine to
get rid of this menace! or do we really need Mao or Atatruks?
As far as US is concerned they wont be attacking Pakistan coz` first they need to
take care of Oil Rich Countries secondly, we have nukes ( remember the N.Korea`s Policy
of Pre Emption) we could always take some notes from them after all we are partners! thirdly,
US need Dollars to finance wars :Pakistan is a poor country (maybe this is why they didn`t attack us).

Urstruly: You ignored my question. Let me (patiently) repeat it:

So the world order collapsed, did it (per your opening line). The world order where a dictator can come to power by force, and proceed to build luxurious palaces for himself, steal billions of dollars, torture and kill anyone who questions this theft? And Mr. Mohammed bemoans this.

(If you are unable to provide a rational answer, I will be glad to provide you one. If rationality is what you are interested in, i.e.).

nasah # 13


I did not quite understand your cryptic post - probably you were in a Kamala state of mind when you wrote it. Judging by your previous post I think you are the greatest proponent of Korean nuclear deterrent to save it from US agression. If you are willing to extend this to Paksitan as well, then we are in agreement.

tahmad 32

I stopped reading this article after the first sentence.

Well shouldn`t you? Keep in mind, and remember that you and your ilk is descendent of those, who used to supply horses, liquor, and their women to British Tommys as they invaded Hindustan, so we expect nothing less from you too.

Liberal democracy, economically sound, fiscally viable and paying off the debt is the order for defending Pakistan against possible foreign invasions and internal hopelessness. The contribution from Pakistanis is to ascertain the dominance of ethics over morals. Freedom of beliefs, rituals and propagating morals profusely brings nothing to the table in international matters; liberal democracy does.

Firstly, let me give credit to the author for a fairly detailed and comprehensive analysis of security situation in Pakistan. The author has written this article with a set of implicit assumptions in mind and given those assumptions, his inferences are not far from the likely scenarios. USA will never attack Pakistan in all likelihood, but then the author, I believe, wants to discuss the contingency plan if it did. From a purely strategic point of view, this article provides a window into the mind of some Pakistani military strategists who run the country. The only point IMO, is the validity of the basic premise or the underlying assumptions which seems dubious to me. For instance, author implicitly assumes that there is no way out but to pursue a path of indefinite existential military confrontation with India. The author also fails to consider the possible Indian countermoves to his proposed plans. The biggest factor that the author discounts is the relative economic and military asymmetry that exists between the two countries which gives India a natural advanage in any of the above scenarios. It would be nice to see an article of similar type from Indian perspective of what all things it can do if Pakistani strategists do indeed go along with a similar plan. I will post a little game-theory based analysis of my own somewhat later on this board.

#41 by HisExcellency on April 24, 2003 11:34am PT
And if things do come to a standoff, India will dare not cross the line of control. The flying time for a nuclear warhead perched atop a Ghauri or Shaheen missile is just 5-10 minutes from Lahore to any part of India. A few people believe that threat of nuclear retaliation will dissuade Pakistan from using its nukes. Hahahaha.. No country builds nukes just for the heck of it. Ancient wisdom tells us:

I agreee we will kill all Hndus but all they will accomplish is maybe 10% of muslims in the world. Islam will survive and thrive while it will be a doomsday for Hindus.

#39 by dost-mittar on April 24, 2003 11:33am PT
hrrehman:
``I am so sick and tired of listening to your PM always saying that his patience is running thin``
.....so are most Indians.

So why don`t you guys do something about it instead of always saying
``AB KI MAAR KE DEAKH`` u weak hindu cowards.

temporal

I submitted this article when Baghdad had not fallen yet. It was hard to focus on anything, in those days, while watching the rape of a nation, live, 24/7. This is one of my worst pieces of writing. I guess I dont perform well, when under pressure.

Dost-Mitter # 17

You could have argued more convincingly and objectively had you not been so angry; Tagodia-ism disseminates anger, and not reason. Anyway, here are answers to some of your questions:

You say It is interesting that you start by saying that the world has changed since Sept. 11 but in your listing the objectives of the new American game, the threat of international terrorism figures nowhere on the list.

As a matter of fact I argued that the world changed when the writ of International Institutions like UN ended when US crossed the Iraqi border on March 19, 2003. In my humble opinion, the rest of the world, including non-Muslim world has rejected American assertion that this war is because of world terrorism. Today, on April 24, 2003, the discussion that whether the American aggression on other countries is because of international terrorism or international terrorism is because of American aggression is nothing but a chicken and egg discussion. I don’t think Americans are stupid. What they have done in Iraq and Afghanistan is a sure shot way to increase international terrorism and not to reduce it – but they are willing to accept it as a cost to maintain their prosperity. I am sure that they must have done the cost benefit analysis before making the civilization collapse.

You say : Do you believe that the attack on WTC was engineered to provide a context for fulfilling the objectives listed by you?


Answer: Why does it have to be a matter of ``belief`` even after two years? Is it a dogma?

You say: And when you give reasons why Pakistan may become a target of America, you fail to mention that it is the current operational headquarter of Al Qaeda, the original stated reason for the United States going into both Afghanistan and Iraq.


Answer: The obvious evidence does not corroborate your claim. As a matter of fact, most of the Al-Qaida leadership was and still is being captured by Pakistani authorities and duly handed over to US. In retaliation Pakistan has been subjected to some of the worst terrorist attacks in its history in the last two years. I don’t think Paksitan is a suitable country at this time, to establish their operational basis here.

You say: Case C: Saner elements prevail in Pakistan and it stops arming and training jihadis for Kashmir, thereby paving the way for normalising relations with Pakistan.

Your Case A and Case B are two scenarios that I have discussed in my article, but not under separate heading. As far as your Case C is concerned, there was a section in my article titled ``The Best Defense``. In that section I argued that the best defense that Pakistan can have is the establishment of good, reliable and honest political relations with India. But later I realized that it was not possible; this demands a cost that Pakistan cannot pay. The cost is Kashmir. Even if Pakistan wants to, now it can`t pay, because Kashmir problem is out of its hands also. Do you think the Kashmiris who have lost 80,000 of their men, women and children to the Indian aggression will settle for anything less than independence from Indian occupation? I don’t think so. On the other hand India wants to oppress these people at all costs – whether it takes murder or rape – to keep the integrity of its domestic political system and keeping it from collapsing for good. So I deleted that section from the final version of the article, because I had to work with in the constraints that we have and not on my wishful thinking. I personally think that Pakistan`s Kashmir policy is the most sensible and democratic. Pakistan demands a right for vote for Kashmiris. Pakistan did not kill 80,000 Kashmiris. Pakistan doesn`t impose its will on Kashmiris by raping their women and children. According to my common sense, it seems to be pretty reasonable.

Are you Urstruly

Guilty as charged, Sir.

Actually Naqshbandi brings out an important point. If the US decides to attack Pakistan, why should it care if Pakistan threatens to hit India?

They may consider India a better partner than Pakistan, but I don`t think Americans will lose sleep over Indian deaths if their objectives are fulfilled.

Actually, the US government would use Pakistani action of threatening India as yet another example of the need to take it out and claim moral righteousness.

Typical win win situation for the US.

HAHA!! IT IS FUN LETTING MY IMAGINATION RUN RIOT.

I think the most interesting thing about the interchange is the repeated calls for violence towards hindus, extermination of hindus, discussion about cowardice of hindus etc.

In contrast, most netters discuss Pakistans ruling elite as a problem, not all of islam.

What can one say? I guess only that I am glad we have 1/2 a million soldiers near the border. And that a sizeable section of the indian security elite understands the use of economic, social and military forces all combined to neutralize the epicenter of terrorism next door.

urstruly #43 I assume you did not read my post #45 before you responded. So, I will give you another chance to provide a rational answer to my question.

Insulting my ancestors while avoiding the question is not a rational response, so I will ignore your post #43 (I could deliver a response to you in person, if you wish, but I will not enter into this verbal bs on the internet).

So, for the third time, I ask you this question: Why do you bemoan the fact that the US and UK kicked Saddam out of power?

writers of articles such as these would have a lot more credibility if once in a while they directed their ire against groups such as jamat islami and muslim brotherhood and against governments in places like iran, sudan and nwfp. americans would find it much harder to do what they are doing in the islamic world if religious conservatives were not running around trying to kill the likes of naguib mahfouz, dr akhtar hameed khan, asma jehangir or anyone else who happens to have a minor disagreement with their nihilistic vision of islam. kind of hard to believe that these people who provided ideological moorings for the rule of zia and taliban have suddenly turned into jeffersonian democrats who believe in the first amendment. i believe that in part, their anti-americanism stems from the fear that americans will succeed in lowering the influence of mullahs in muslim societies. fat chance of this however. only people who believe that raj was good (i.e. fools) believe that people who are cutting funding for primary schools to give themselves half a trillion dollar tax cut will do anything positive abroad.

Just cut the Indus water treaty unilaterally and see what Mullah urstruly comes up with ....... hahahahahahaha ..... No war, nothing, just unilateral withdrawl from Indus water treaty by India. As it is, large parts of India are already suffering with drought.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

tahmad32 # 45 and # 52

You are asking a loaded question. No matter how I answer the question, as it is asked, first, I will have to accept the notion that opposing the agression on Iraq automatically means supporting Saddam. I don`t buy this bs. If you rephrase your question by disconnecting these two unrealted notions, I will reply.

Allama Iqbal said it very well

Taqdeer ke qazi ka fatwa hai azal se
hai jurm-e-zaifi ki saza marg-e-mafajat

I think it explains the difference in stance taken by Bush administration on Iraq and North Korea.

Asfand Siddiqui
Sacramento CA

Pankaj #50
``For instance, author implicitly assumes that there is no way out but to pursue a path of indefinite existential military confrontation with India``

Pankaj, the same sad premise underlies the whole article, just like a someone telling his wife, no I cannot settle down and build a house, I have to keep my knife out and spend all night and day prowling and prepared to attack others or we will be killed.

``The biggest factor that the author discounts is the relative economic and military asymmetry that exists between the two countries which gives India a natural advanage in any of the above scenarios``

Wish someone could knock on his grave and enquire of Mr. Jinnah, what did he visualize as the source of security of his new nation given this asymmetry from birth?

Did he perhaps expect to get a Pakistan equal to India in size and assets, ie 2/3 of India`s Muslims, namely those who chose to be Pakistanis would get control over 1/2 of India(leaving the other half for the remaining 70% Indians who were nonMuslims and 1/3 remaining Muslims who remained Indians)? Since that didnot happen, is there the Hindu `problem` he tried to solve actually a problem that has no solution? What does game theory say :)?

urstruly #57 Taking Saddam out of the Iraq war, as you want me to do, is like taking the bride out of the marriage, the deceased out of the funeral, the criminal out of the crime. To complain about the Iraq war while ignoring Saddam and the rape of Iraq under his regime indicates a lack of concern with either reality or with the real life issues facing real life people.

So, if you have any intellectual integrity, I think you would face up to the question I posed, rather than trying to water it down by taking out inconvenient facts.

sac # 6

your response was funny

Reply Urstruly

”…you must understand that in case of India the intended audience of the communiqués from Foreign Ministry is its domestic population.”

Yeh cheez jo hai dimaaakarsee…

More broadly – I don’t see why the US would want “Regime Change” in Pakistan. Please note that they only reluctantly did this war thing in Iraq – for ten years they basically sat there issuing versions of ‘anybody but Soddom Hoosayn, we’ll deal with ANYBODY who replaces him, no questions axed, yes sir, absolutely ANYBODY…’ with no comments on democracy etc. (which is indeed going to be inconvenient for them, albeit impossible to entirely avoid for domestic political reasons).

Current situation in Pakistan seems ideal for them. Enough ‘political activity’ to give the natives the feeling that they are doing something meaningful, yet not enough to really change the rules of engagement with the US, a head honcho who is increasingly dependent on them (and hence an increasingly dependable ally) and….

…best of all…

a reliable and convenient target for Pakistani khunnas right next door (run by people who ALSO, when it comes to these things, have to limit their actions to what the US allows).

To spell it out, every time the US twists Pakistan’s tail Pakistan can get a little mental relief by sending a bomb to India. Yet how this helps Pakistan, or India, or really anybody but the US is hard for me to see.

I am enjoying your responses by the way, and am still taking notes on style and strategy. One day I myself aspire….Khair

rrehman:
You are too late by a year. I used the same expression last year to describe Vajpayee`s statements. It`s time to put up or shut up.

Urstruly:
....No, I am not angry at all.
Regarding American objectives, it depends upon whether you are referring to the objective of the Iraqi invasion or the wider objective of the neocon establishment in Washington. The objective of the former was clearly to remove Saddam and had very little to do with fighting international terrorism; indeed they had wanted to remove Saddam all along and 9/11 merely provided a convenient pretext, regardless of the fact that Saddam had terrorised no one except his own people and certainly not the Americans.
But your article deals with the wider American agenda towards the Islamic world in general and Pakistan in particular. Here, one cannot ignore the critical importance of the American psyche in the post 9/11 world which is governed by a fear of international terrorism. The Americans have decided that they must use their military and economic muscle to act as the supercop in the world. I am much against this new development but it is there, nonetheless. Your ignoring of this objective prejudices your analysis.
The way I see it the Americans will (unsuccessfully, in my opinion!) try to play the bad-cop/good-cop routine in the middle east. All attention will now be on the Palestine issue; they have already twisted Arafat`s arm to let Abbas have his way...now wait for their leaning on Sharon to moderate his position. I think that the Americans will now dictate, not mediate, a solution to the Palestinian issue, more or less identical to what was almost agreed upon by Arafat and Barak at Camp David under Clinton. They hope that a Palestinian state will satisfy the moderate elements in the Arab world.
So, where does Pakistan come into this? It doesn`t. Not for now, anyway. They will lean on Syria and Iran to make sure that these two states do not create too many obstacles to a deal in Palestine. Pakistan`s turn will come later, if at all, and that would be purely in the context of international terrorism.
As far as Al Qaeda is conerned, Pakistan is running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. It has allowed the FBI operatives a relatively free hand in operating on its territory while a sympathetic populace, especially in the NWFP, and friends in high places is letting Al Qaeda operate in Pakistan. Can you name any country where more Al Qaeda operatives are found than in Pakistan?
As regards Kashmir, the insurgency will probably continue even if Pakistan stops arming and training jihadis. But I think the Pakistani establishment is not certain of that. They are afraid that if thei support to jihadis is withdrawn, Indians will be able to pacify Kashmiris and will then have no incentive to come to the negotiating table.
It is time that the two countries stop living in the past and face the future. If they do not sort out the mess between themselves, they will continue to be the pieces of chess rather than be players themselves on the international chessboard.

urstruly,

.... don`t worry, nothing is going to happen to pakistan...... why? ...... because, inspite of the mullahs, who have grown into a full blown case of hemmoroids from a minor anal itch, most pakistanis are decent folks who want to live and let live .........actually, the people of lahore seem to be having more fun than folks in any godforsaken hick town in the midwest - heera mandi still rocks way past your bed time and, as god is my witness, the ladies are prettier than they were twenty five years ago .............these people are not ready to die for god or kashmir, although they will kill for a good nihari or phaja`s paye ..........

.............it is the dang mullahs who are misleading these people into the fire of jannah............ all we need to do is turn down the volume on the masjid loudspeakers, shut down mansoora and akora khatak, open up ismailjee`s liquor store on canning road, pass a law against women covering up their faces in public (unless they are sinfully ugly), and declare basant the main national holiday .......... and everything will be just fine .......nobody is going to bother a civilized nation that lusts after indian actresses instead of kashmir ............ not to get off the subject, but i still don`t understand how a nation of perhaps the ugliest people on earth can produce such beauties ............

........ seriously, if pakistanis would just pipe down and stop being the standard bearers of a dangerous and defunct ideology, nobody would care if we had all the nukes in the world ............

This whole debate is at best rhetorical - The era of nation states is dead - welcome the age of teh MEGA STATE between a UNited Europe, United States, and perhaps later China and INdia other nations will be at the whims and fancy of these larger states....

The other nations can and will be brutalized or subjugated or at best mainupulated - because they lack the critical mass to protect their interests....

Iqbal was right - the stupidity of the muslims is beyond comprehension....
Consequently they will suffer the ravages of the MEGA-STATES.... - Self preservation is an instinct that does not influence the minds of cockroaches - because tehy lack the grey matter to think collectively.....

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Pakistan is not next, hence there is nothing to worry about.

Infact, Pakistan was the first country on the radar screen, and Musharraf wisely changed directions. Before Afghanistan fell, Pakistan had switched qiblas from the Taliban. So Pakistan will not be, ``invaded,`` since an invasion is not required.

Unfortunately, Afghanistan and Iraq did not change directions and were, ``liberated.`` Afghanistan may end up being better off, but could it have been any worse off? However, Iraq and the USA will be in a mess, soon enough. The Shia maulvis will take over Iraq democratically any day, and the USA will be trying to fight them off with the likes of their beloved Chalabi (who is wanted in Lebanon and in Jordan where he has a 22 year jail sentence).

The only country(s) interested in attacking Pakistan are India and Israel. USA has no interest in attacking Pakistan. It infact has an interest in a prosperous Pakistan. That would open up its oil field access to central Asia. It would put nukes in control of a prosperous country rather than a poor one. And all said and done, everyone in the USA realizes that Pakistanis are far more sophisticated than Arabs and thus are a better choice for leading the Muslim world. And Pakistan doesn`t have a direct issue with Israel.

India will not attack Pakistan, now, because it cannot. That last stand-off was a watershed point in our military relations. If what my military colleagues tell me is correct, the day Pakistan test fired the missile during the stand-off was the day India was to attack. All of them had worked days and nights straight for the counterattack. But wisely, India does not want to get nuked, neither do we.

This leaves Israel. Israel would love to take out Pakistan`s nuclear arsenal, since it is afraid it may end up with Arabs. So it would love to launch a surgical strike against it. It could basically nuke all of Pakistan with its missiles from Tel Aviv, since its nuclear program is second only to USA`s and way way ahead of anything us South Asians have. However, nuking a country is not good public-relations.

So Israel could target a strike against the nukes. Infact it tried in 83/84. But Pakistanis have being doing this excercise for decades now. Protecting Kahuta et al. is the first lesson fighter pilots and air defence people are taught. And if legend serves correctly, even French ambassadors and civilian flights have not survived a trip over or around Kahuta.

So you can sleep comfortably Urstruly. Pakistan will not be attacked, because India and Israel cannot attack it, regardless of how much they want to. And the USA, which can attack it, doesn`t want to, or already did pre-Afghanistan.

Now if Israel and India planned a joint attack.....and USA looked the other way....hmm.....for that please see
http://63.194.130.82/cgi-bin/show_article.cgi?aid=00001508&channel=leafyglade%20inn&start=0&end=9&page=1&chapter=1

Asif # 34

Oh! God I cannot suggest using nukes against anyone, be it Israel or India. I do not beleive in the concept of ``pre-emption`` either. However, I do beleive strongly that nuclear technology does provide a cost efficient, logical, and extremely effective deterrent, though.

As far as Israel is concerned, I think one day the sanity will prevail - because Israelis may be be able to nuke any other Arab country in their neighborhood, yet they cannot nuke the Palestinians. The core of the problem will always be there. If South Africa can change, then I beleive Israel can also change (and so will India towards Kashmiris).

Since, Israelis are people of book, we in accordance with Sunnah of our Prophet (pbuh) should spare no effort to find a peaceful solution where all parties can live in peace.

We (Jews & Muslims) must understand that the source of this evil, which harms both Jews and Muslims is Europe. Jews must understand that the state of Israel is the humane version of Hitler`s Final Solution. The hatred towards Jews, in Europe was prevalent in each and every country prior to Hitler and it was written on the wall that Jews have to take the reverse-exodus back to where they came from in the Europe. This concept is not new. When Caliphate collapsed in Spain, each and every Muslim in the country was either killed or forced out of Europe. Similarly, India wants, each and every Muslim thrown beyond Hindukush. And similarly the future of Muslims in America and in Europe is also bleak. I do not see any signs of hope. Muslims will eventually have to leave the Europe and America. Some nations suceed in expelling the weak and vulnerable and get away with it, while other continue until they succeeed - it is probably an anthropological issue. We should make Europe realize that first they all (not just Hitler) comitted horendous crimes against humanity by the way they treated Jews, and then they have inflicted immeasurable pain on Muslims of Palestine by establishing a cruel, inhuman, and aparthied state like Israel in their land. A great historical injustice that Europeans did to Muslims is being perpetuated and enforced by the Americans. Jews must also made to realize that a nation who has survived Holocaust can not be apathetic towards their fellow human beings. Sometime I really doubt that Holocaust ever actually happened.

plz stop spreading rumours.nothing will happen to pakistan.musharraf and Bjp is getting sensible now.will safe guard their interest.

#26 by sadna

Huh? Second line of Defense-Military Preparations - tiers 2 to 5 have already been operationalized for last many years by Pakistan. What is new and how did they make Pakistan more secure?

Yes I agree, but the purpose and objective of establishing tier 2-5 defenses was different. Now the rules of game have changed. Pakistan now faces a bigger threat than India, therefore, we must enforce what we have, with a different objective in mind. When I was in the process of conceiving this thesis, I tried to work out solutions with in the constraints that we have and figuring out all the comparative and competitive advantages that we have.

You further write, quoting me As for tier 1- ``If there is a credible, overwhelming and persistent threat to Indian integrity, defense, and economic interests, from Pakistan- ………. thus Pakistan can avert an aggression. `` I never thought I would hear a Pakistani making a case for pre-emptive strike by India on his country. Thats what you are doing, Urstruly, and I thought you were intelligent.

I don’t think that I am making a case for a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan by India instead I am proposing that even a thought of it will have dire consequences for India.


If India considers an attack on Pakistan by `others` as inevitable, and thus India`s being dragged into the conflict by Pakistan as inevitable, why will India wait passively for that day and not prefer to choose the time and place for Indo-Pak conflict?

The purpose of the doctrine of deterrent that I have proposed is to not let India sit by passively. It will force India to act in our favor if such conflict should ever occur with a third party.

Thus of tiers 1-5 you have listed, India can well take up some of these preemptively, doing Indian sava ser on Pakistani ser, like it is doing in defense spending presently.

My estimate is that Pakistan can achieve such a deterrent by spending 1.5 – 2 Billion US dollars, spread over next three years. Pakistan’s current Forex exceeds probably 12- 16 Billion dollars. I think it will be an extremely wise investment on Pakistan’s part. I am all for reducing the man power of the armed forces and invest the saving into Missile and war technology. The shortage of manpower can be compensated by creating a people’s militia as I proposed in the article.


Thus India can possibly invest a lot more in fomenting internal disorder in Pakistan, it can commit itself to disrupting the Pakistani economy, and to allying even more closely with those who are threatened by Pakistani nukes like Israel, for joint contingency plans to nullify them.

This is already happening and we are well aware of that. Some maderchod fifth columnists among our ranks, however, try to down-play this by turning it into a Hindu-Jew-conspiracy theory, but here we have a Hindu confirming it.


Pakistan`s defence lies in good economic and diplomatic relations with India and rest of the world, not in becoming a international delinquent.

I agree. But it is not in the nature of man to give in to the tyranny of other, we are no exception. I think if India starts treating Kashmiris like human beings, there is a chance that Pakistani attitudes might also soften. You might be aware, of tens of my posts on Chowk where I have proposed certain steps that India should take to establish just and humane relationship with Kashmiris, and these steps DONOT by any stretch of imagination constitute a separation from India; but as long as Hindu religious nuts are ruling your country, I do not see any chance of that happening.

#64 by dost-mittar on April 24, 2003 7:53pm PT
rrehman:
You are too late by a year. I used the same expression last year to describe Vajpayee`s statements. It`s time