Pakistan, where is your sovereignty?

[civfanatic]

I hope they do well... the Pakistani nation and the Pakistani people have always been very friendly towards us.

If someone gave me soft loans, free ballistic missiles, free fighter jets, free infrastructure, etc., I would be very friendly towards them as well.

 

[pmaitra]

@CivFanatic,

Wait till Ernesto sees your new avatar.

P.S.: Sorry, OT.

 

[Virendra]

Islam extremist can find soil in any country that is poor, depressed and led by corrupted government. Pakistan people are not born to be radical, and most of them are not. They just need to find a way to get their life back on track.

My friend, you are trying your best to balance your viewpoint here between criticizing terrorism and sympathising with the misery of Pakistan.
But poverty, depression and corruption are a common sight in India as well and so many nations - in fact the entire "so called" third world. How many Pakistans are you seeing today??
This is not due to their poverty, credit goes to their mindset, their ideology that they had ever since the birth of Pakistan. All three countries - India, Pakistan and China attained Independence in 1947-48. That time we had the same issues and same challenges facing us. You can see who stands where today. Our little neighbor chose to go the wrong way - obsessive hatred. There is no way they can excuse themselves on their own follies.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[Virendra]

If someone gave me soft loans, free ballistic missiles, free fighter jets, free infrastructure, etc., I would be very friendly towards them as well.

Bang on target !!

 

[Ray]

When one sells one's soul to a foreign country, then one sells his destiny to it.

 

[Ray]

Terrorism itself is a horror.

Islamic terrorism is more powerful. Because not only is the dangers posed by terrorism inherent, the religious indoctrination mix that is churned is more powerful since it produces a rich and powerful chemistry that sincerely makes the adherent believe they are second to none and that to die for the religion is a greater boon than to be worried about the temporal life and it attendant comforts.

It is not that such a feeling is not there in adherents of other religions. The difference is that in Islam that feeling is commonplace and not reserved for a spiritually inspired and indoctrinated elite.

That is why, without hesitation, the most oddest are found undertaking suicide bombing/ terrorism for Islam i.e. Children, the educated, the illiterate, the poor, the rich, et al.

Poverty per se is not what breeds terrorism.

Indoctrination does, religious indoctrination does more.

 

[Blackwater]

Osama Bin Laden's Killing is exciting news around the world. The evil finally dies. But put this news aside, I'm surprised to find Laden was killed at a city so close to the capital-Islamabad, and was killed by a foreign force-American Seals Special Force, instead of Pakistani soldiers.

Pakistan is an independent country. But a foreign country's military air craft, drones can fly everyday above her sky; foreign troops can choose when, where, who and how to attack their target, eliminate their enemies in her territory. While thousands of innocent Pakistanis fall victims of such "collateral damages", Pakistan government just sit there idle with empty "protesting". How ironical it is. Isn't it a little shameful?

Pakistan people deserve better life. But the government needs to act like one for Pakistan people. As an observer, I just hope Osama's death is the end of miserable period for Pakistan and all Muslim countries around the world, and the beginning of peace and prosperous for good people living in that land.

I would say Your Q should be " Pakistan where is your virginity." ??

After this operation pakistan lost its virginity and will be f.u.c.k.e.d hard by all.

 

[pmaitra]

I would say Your Q should be " Pakistan where is your virginity." ??

After this operation pakistan lost its virginity and will be f.u.c.k.e.d hard by all.

They lost it in '72!

 

[Virendra]

I'm beginning to brainstorm, which way is worse for India - a pakistan enslaved to US or a pakistan enslaved to China?
What would be the difference in Pakistani behavior when western influence wanes and it comes under Chinese sphere more than ever?

Regards,
Virendra

 

[Yan Luo Wang]

If someone gave me soft loans, free ballistic missiles, free fighter jets, free infrastructure, etc., I would be very friendly towards them as well.

I won't look a gift horse in the mouth.

If they are friendly to us, then I am thankful for that.

I'm beginning to brainstorm, which way is worse for India - a pakistan enslaved to US or a pakistan enslaved to China?
What would be the difference in Pakistani behavior when western influence wanes and it comes under Chinese sphere more than ever?

China doesn't want to "enslave" anyone.

For the sake of argument however, China wants stability in the region, and would work towards that end. However, the Indian President also thinks that China wants to keep India "off balance".

Those are the pros and cons. You can decide for yourself which way it might go.

 

[Ray]

Osama Bin Laden's Killing is exciting news around the world. The evil finally dies. But put this news aside, I'm surprised to find Laden was killed at a city so close to the capital-Islamabad, and was killed by a foreign force-American Seals Special Force, instead of Pakistani soldiers.

Pakistan is an independent country. But a foreign country's military air craft, drones can fly everyday above her sky; foreign troops can choose when, where, who and how to attack their target, eliminate their enemies in her territory. While thousands of innocent Pakistanis fall victims of such "collateral damages", Pakistan government just sit there idle with empty "protesting". How ironical it is. Isn't it a little shameful?

Pakistan people deserve better life. But the government needs to act like one for Pakistan people. As an observer, I just hope Osama's death is the end of miserable period for Pakistan and all Muslim countries around the world, and the beginning of peace and prosperous for good people living in that land.

Here is an interesting article that could possibly help in understanding.
how a nation sell its soul to another nation.

It is by the Editor of PURPLE BERET, Atul Bhardwaj, who is ex Indian Navy and a graduate of the Kings College, London.

MORTGAGED MILTIARIES


We understand that the "monopoly over means of violence" is the sole preserve of the state. This makes the armed forces merge their identity with that of the state and work in the best of the state. The state's legitimacy to order violence is based on its sovereign right to act in the best interest of its people. But the international order is not as simple as we theorise it to be. There are various internal and external pressures that the state is subjected to. Some states capitulate to these pressures and subordinate their people's interests to a bigger power, what the history identifies as the "empire". In such states one witnesses an unholy nexus, where the military - market oligarchies appropriate the powers of the state and work towards maximizing their parochial interests and personal aggrandizement.

The mortgaged militaries draw the manpower and budgets from within their nation, but their primary allegiance is to the empire where they become a part of the global elite force that protects the imperial interests. This is happening in countries like Pakistan and Egypt, where the armed forces hold the reins of power

The empire manipulates control over the centre of gravity through education and cultivation of the officers in subordinate states. The US Department of Defense (DoD) runs the IMET (international military education and training) programs where the brightest officers from third world countries are trained and indoctrinated

India is smugly satisfied that its democracy and apolitical military are its best bulwark against any upheaval in its civil - military matrix. Almost no thought is being given to the fact that massive alterations in foreign and economic policy also demand a concomitant course correction in the way military is handled by civilian authorities

The mortgaged militaries draw the manpower and budgets from within their nation, but their primary allegiance is to the empire where they become a part of the global elite force that protects the imperial interests. This is happening in majority of the countries like Pakistan and Egypt, where the armed forces hold the reins of power but take orders from the United States of America.

The questions pertain to the equation that the military's top brass has with its nation and the levels of control that are exercised on it by the state and the empire. This question is of prime importance to democracies as well as dictatorships in the developing world that work within the ambit of imperial settings. As Tarak Barkawi, Senior Lecturer in War Studies in the Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Cambridge argues, "The global organization of force is most adequately captured by imperial rather than nation-state terms"¦ The coercive power of states has international and transnational dimensions."

Barakwi's theoretical framework needs much greater attention, especially in relation to countries like Egypt and Pakistan that have been closely working in coalition with the United States and also in context of India that has moved much ahead in terms of developing 'robust' military ties with the American military-economic empire. Such enquires are important to understand civil-military behavior in the developing world, where both the International relations discourse as well as policy formulations (dominated by the realist school) almost dismiss the presence of an empire in international order. The neglect of the empire and its influence on the armed forces is even more prominent. This partly results from the elite's reluctance to admit the limitations imposed by the imperial setting on their perceived independence - and also due to American expediency to avoid linkages with words like 'empire' and 'imperial' that could hamper the sale of the 'American dream' in the developing countries. The military sociology in the West did look at the civil-military dimensions, primarily due to the specter of military coups in Latin America, Asia and Africa. Here again, the arguments by military sociologists, remain limited to the internal and cultural factors that determines a national army's proclivity to intervene in politics.

One aspect of armies in the developing world is that they remain dependent on military equipment and training from the developed world. Military alliances with the empire come at a price. Apart from the monetary cost that the empire extracts from the military that it undertakes to equip and train, it also demands certain allegiance to its own cause. Such external influences have far greater influence on militaries of the third world. Military officers from the developing world are lured to be a part of the global "band of brothers" rather than their own state or people, creating a separate entity within the nation-state. More often than not this is done by encouraging them to directly take over the reins of power in their countries and also by making them active players in running various businesses. Let's take the example of Egyptian military to understand these linkages.

The empire manipulates control over the centre of gravity through education and cultivation of the officers in subordinate states. The US Department of Defense (DoD) runs the IMET (international military education and training) programs where the brightest officers from third world countries are trained and indoctrinated. Tarak Barkawi's seminal work on the subject states that between 1955-1981 roughly 400,000 Third World officers were trained by US during various stages of their career. He further adds, "In recent years U.S. forces have been training approximately 100,000 foreign soldiers annually. This training takes place in at least 150 institutions within the U.S. and in 180 countries around the world. State Department financing for foreign militaries to buy U.S. weapons, services and training was over four billion dollars in 2003, with an additional 2.3 billion for Eastern Europe and former Soviet republics." It is through such progammes that the US has been able to have more pliable officers who are cultivated to cater to the US interests more than their own national interests. Omar Suleiman, the Egyptian spy chief, who was anointed to the position of Vice President during the Cairo crisis is known to be close to CIA. He was trained at the U.S. Special Warfare School at Fort Bragg. Omar Suleiman was one the most trusted lieutenants of Hosni Mubarak. Suleiman continues to be a key man in the post Mubarak political dispensation in Egypt primarily to make sure that the Egyptian army that receives all its tanks and fighter planes from American, in addition to $1.5 billion aid, remains positioned at the top even above people's power. This will ensure that the American hegemony remains undisturbed in Egypt.

The chequered history of the U.S. Army School of the Americas (SOA), located in Fort Benning, Georgia in training military dictators of Latin America is a case in point. Since its creation in 1946, some 60,000 Latin American military officers graduated from the school. And majority of them were at some stage or the other implicated in serious human rights violations. The SOA was also called as the "School of Assassins" and the "School of Coups." This bad publicity led the US government in 2000, to change the name of the school to Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, (WHINSEC). From time to time the empire grants the armed forces in military states to assert their independence for a limited period of time as a part of its appeasement policy. This is also done to reinforce the realist paradigm. Such pretexts help the subordinate armed forces to sell wars and purchase expensive military equipment from the empire.

The acceptance of imperial imperatives on national militaries actually defeats the realist argument that states are primarily governed by their national interest and the development of force levels is directly proportional to the threat perceptions or in case of bigger developing countries, on capabilities and capacities. But the problem is that even these threat perceptions and capability determinants are rarely decided independently in the developing world. More often than not the international and national security agenda points are raised in major think tanks and policy institutes that are largely based in the West. It is for these reason that immediately after the Pokharn II nuclear blasts in 1998, the Indian Defence Minister, George Fernandes publicly announced "China as India's enemy number one". This statement was largely reported to maintain Indian leadership as the 'good guys' in American strategic calculations.

The point in all this is that strategically, India has been literally forced to 'look east' and behave like a 'mature power' by restraining its responses to all provocation by Pakistan. Because it suits America that India should concentrate on China, therefore the entire strategic discourse in the country has begun to spin around the dangers posed by China. Not many are willing to see the US strategy behind provoking a Indo-Chinese tussle. The examples of how Pakistani army was mortgaged to the US national interests after independence is just brushed aside as an aberration. In the 1950s both the UK and USA offered Pakistani military, assistance but along with the aid they also presented them with some grim threats scenarios vis-a-vis India - how India was ready to gobble them up. Pakistan fell for the bait. And now we have a Pakistan that stands disintegrated. The Pakistan army has been appropriated by Pentagon - its nation has been weaned away by fundamentalists - and its state is nowhere in sight. In nutshell, the obsession with India has brought Pakistan nothing but misery and for the US the Indo-Pak rivalry has brought abundant military manpower that is ready to die for US national interests both in Afghanistan as well as in Pakistan. "When George Bush offered Musharraf a "no-brainer" post 9/11, Pak rejoiced for having become a key ally in GWOT. It enjoyed US equating it with India. It became the recipient of the largest US aid to it ever. Little did it know at that time that it was mortgaging its sovereignty to buying all these goodies. Drone attacks in Waziristan...and now Raymond Davis....probably more to come,"states former Indian Naval officer Cmde Ravindra Ravi.

A similar strategy is being adopted in relation to India and China. India is almost on the verge of swallowing the pill that China is India's main threat and all its energies need to be directed in fighting it both verbally and militarily. India is being led on a path where it develops an obsessive compulsive disorder and is driven to take all actions in order to prevent perceived takeover of its territories by China. This is what the US induced in the Pakistani mental makeup and now the Indian minds are being targeted to become another Pakistan in the region. Apart from visions of grandeur and regional power status, F-16s and other military equipment are being dangled to coax India into having the pill. Pakistan was lured into the imperial setup through the same machines and even a promise of nuclear weapons by the US.

According to Late K Subhramanyam, "The link between the CIA and Dr A.Q. Khan, has been exposed by the disclosures of Ruud Lubbers, the former Dutch prime minister. The fact is that in spite of his known record, not only was he allowed moving freely between China, Pakistan and Europe, but he was also rescued for the second time from Dutch authorities in 1986 by CIA intervention. That would indicate that the CIA had an interest in Khan throughout the period." According to former US national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski "permissiveness of nuclear proliferation was the price to be paid to obtain Pakistani support for the anti-Soviet campaign."

Such statements disclose the fact all those long reams of papers produced by various think-tanks on non-proliferation have to be read with a pinch of salt. Nuclear proliferation and democracy are issues that are not as important as the expansion and sustenance of the empire. Pakistani and Indian nuclear weapons that do not have the potential to threaten Washington are used as political tools to arm twist and in some cases to lure the leadership in the developing world to tow the US agenda, according to Tarak. As President Eisenhower put it, "The US could not maintain old-fashioned forces all around the world", so it sought "to develop within the various areas and regions of the free world indigenous forces for the maintenance of order, the safeguarding of frontiers, and the provision of the bulk of the ground capability". After the trauma of the Korean War, for Eisenhower, "the kernel of the whole thing" was to have indigenous forces bear the brunt of any future fighting."

You might as well read the article since it is very interesting. Though dated, I was reading it just this morning.

The article is at;
http://purpleberet.com/details/cs_detail.aspx?id=165

 

[pmaitra]

I'm beginning to brainstorm, which way is worse for India - a pakistan enslaved to US or a pakistan enslaved to China?
What would be the difference in Pakistani behavior when western influence wanes and it comes under Chinese sphere more than ever?

Regards,
Virendra

Very good point.

Pakistan had chosen to be a client state to safeguard interests of both USA as well as PRC in the region. USA and PRC do not always have common interests. PRC has helped Pakistan in many ways. However, PRC cannot afford the top brass of the Pakistani Army and ISI the luxury of gifts and donations the way US can. Pakistan's economy isn't geared up to stand up on its own feet. US stopping aid to Pakistan will create more sufferings for the people and invite a backlash from the public itself. This time, expect Pakistani Army crackdown on protesters all over.

Another caveat is that Pakistan might sell nukes to anyone who will shell out the money. Invade India to divert public ire maybe? We do not know.

What do other members have to say on this?

 

[Ray]

Also read this:

THERE are some great mysteries in the world. What causes gravity? Is there a scientific theory of everything? Who was Jack the Ripper? How did the Egyptians build the pyramids? And that favourite of amateur psychologists and borderline misogynists, what do women want?

Add another great mystery to that list: what is the Pakistani security establishment thinking?

Afghanistan is increasingly a puzzle. We are fighting the Americans because we want them to accept they can't defeat the Taliban, which they can't defeat because we wouldn't let them even if they knew how. And we can't/won't let the Americans win because the Taliban are the only Pakhtuns capable of resisting the Northern Alliance which is in thrall to the Indians as far as we are concerned.

Get it? You start with the premise India is Enemy No 1 and somehow you end up fighting the only superpower in the world.

Sure, the ghairat brigade loves it, but what's the exit strategy? Y'know, if things don't go according to plan.

The Americans have one. They wrap up combat operations in Afghanistan, hole up inside massive military bases across the country, fly more drones and have dozens of special ops teams ready to take out bad guys, ramp up homeland security back in the US, guarantee a prostrate exam to anyone trying to enter the US who even looks like he's been to Pakistan and Afghanistan, and smack Pakistan around for being bad.

All this talk of a face-saving exit tends to obscure the fact that in the real world it's having options that ultimately matters and not necessarily having options that look good.

What's our fallback plan? Y'know, in case the Americans don't get how right and wise we are and why they need to shake hands with the Taliban? Oh, right, we don't need to worry about that because it will never happen. And in any case, hugging the Afghan Taliban while thumping over the head the Pakistan Taliban is an entirely workable strategy. Never mind how. Get with the programme, it can be done.

Oh, and look what's got the boys with toys clapping their hands in glee now. It's a 60km rocket. Whatever for?

Well, India has been nattering away about the Cold Start doctrine and integrated battle groups (IBGs) and what not. So we've pre-empted all that. By developing a missile capable of carrying a tactical nuclear weapon. Now if India thinks about short, quick thrusts into Pakistani territory, we'll nuke those darn IBGs. High five!

Umm, wait a minute. 60km. Suppose India does deploy its integrated battle groups after it's figured out how to assemble them at some indeterminate point in the future. Now what?

Does young Nasr, the short-range missile, get dropped on Pakistani territory or Indian? A nuke being dropped on our own territory, however 'tactical' and 'small'? Surely not. Even we're not that crazy. Right?

Right, it must be Indian territory. But to fire one of those things in the hope of hitting something of value in India, you'd need to keep the little Nasrs close to the border. And being a short-range weapon, you'd effectively be placing it in the hands of mid-tier commanders.

So let's recap. To counter an Indian threat, Cold Start, that doesn't even exist yet, we've gone and developed a delivery system for a tactical nuclear weapon that can only be delivered somewhere along the Pak-India border.

The Americans and Russians figured out half a century ago that miniature nuclear weapons are a horrible idea. The whole point about nuclear weapons is to act as a deterrent. If you attack my country, I guarantee I'll visit so much damage on your country in return that you really shouldn't even think about attacking me.

And that's precisely what we've claimed our nuclear programme is for. We even refer to it, all chest puffed out and steely-eyed, as credible minimum deterrence. But in the blink of an eye we've gone from nuclear weapons as a deterrent to nuclear weapons as an instrument of war.

If you were an Indian strategist, you may think, hang on, maybe the generals in Pak didn't think their nuclear deterrent was enough to prevent Cold Start being deployed, so they went ahead and developed a specific response to Cold Start. Maybe the deterrence they talk about isn't as strong as they want us to think, our hypothetical Indian strategist may think.

But if deterrence breaks down "¦ never mind, it's too awful to contemplate. And all of this, all of this, has happened with the army patting itself on the back for being so clever.Just how extreme can the 'India as the enemy' paradigm get? Brace yourself.

As India pulls away from us economically and diplomatically, we won't be able to strategically compete with them. But because India is the enemy, our boys will need to find a way of competing.

But how? There are essentially two routes, flagged by Rifaat Hussain in his chapter in Maleeha Lodhi's new book.

The first, soft, option is to try and put our own house in order: look inwards, reform, fix the security situation, get the economy going again. The quickest route to economic revival would be to trade with India. The second option: double down on the jihad option to 'balance' India's growing power. It's a tried and tested strategy, it's low-cost, we already have the infrastructure and to ramp it up would take minimal effort.

What about the disastrous blowback here that would be all but certain? Doesn't matter. Remember, India is the enemy.

Between the soft and hard options, do you want to bet which one our boys will likely pick to compete with India strategically?

And if that's not scary enough, try thinking about how long before our boys will be 'forced' to choose. Five years? Seven? 10 or 15?

Good luck, Pakistan.
http://criticalppp.com/archives/47396

This is from DAWN, Pakistan, but for some reasons, ever since OBL was sorted out, Pakistani websites are being timed out when I want to reach them.

 

[Yan Luo Wang]

However, PRC cannot afford the top brass of the Pakistani Army and ISI the luxury of gifts and donations the way US can.

True, we cannot replace the USA's role in Pakistan.

We have neither the economic, nor the military strength to do so.

I think the USA will continue to be the main sponsor of Pakistan, while China supports them where we can.

 

[bose]

My post is not a question need answer. It's a question to express my concern and disappointment of Pakistan's current status. Pakistan makes her own destiny. Neither China nor USA can determine where she needs to go.

Pakistan and only Pakistan have to clean their house or else other(s) will get into their house and clean it for the world, as simple as that. If Pakistan has any little bit of self respect remaining they have to stand up and do the needful. I see very difficult time for Pakistan in future.

 

[civfanatic]

Invade India to divert public ire maybe? We do not know.

This is not 1965. They cannot try such a stunt in this day and age (I mean the Pakistan Army and "conventional forces". They can still, theoretically, send some "irregulars" into Kashmir to stir up trouble, a la Kargil. But even that will be much more difficult nowadays).

I actually predict that a full-fledged civil war will occur in Pakistan within the next 10 years.

 

[bose]

China must use its influence with Pakistan and save it from definite downfall. Sleeping with Terrorist will bring great pain & despair for Pakistan.

 

[Rahul92]

I hope at least now USA will stop giving free goodies to pakistan

 

[Pokemon]

I'm not in the position to say particular country is asset or liability of China. But a country can't take care of itself is a liability for the whole world, not only for China or USA. In that regard, I hope Pakistan grow more self sustainable that can share prosperity together with her neighbor, India.

Under current scenarios, pakistan is surely an asset to china as it used to be for U.S sometimes back.. China has some leverage on pakistan and most importantly she dont need to beer an economic burden due to pakistan. But once america corners pak, it will be different for China to support Pakistan and hence will be a liability.

 

[ejazr]

The first thing is who exerts the most significant control over Pakistan. That institution is responsible for Pakistan's soverignity as well.

The question as has been answered again and again that the Army/ISI establishment is the paramount body that decides everything especially when it comes to security and foreign policy issues. The parliament, judiciary, executive - the three pillars that generally exert control of a sovereign country have no where near the influence as compared to the army/ISI and have been corrupted by it again and again.

Its not the democratically elected leaders that have any say in this. And other than the brief period where Zulfiqar Bhutto was elected in 1970s, there has been not a single stable democratically elected government in Pakistan that has completed its full term. Even now, the only reason why the PPP govt. has survived till now is they have surrendered decision making completely to the Army/ISI.

And being an extremely ideological state where Islam is used for political and foreign policy tool doesn't help either. In a realist world, being strong ideological never helps and this applies to Pakistan as well. One of the reasons China moved away from being a strongly ideological Communist state under Mao towards a more pragmatic and less ideological state under Deng Xiaoping.

While China's ideology was/is Communism; Pakistan's is the Two Nation theory--and until it realizes the failure of this ideology and become more pragmatic like China on its own ideological moorings, the decline will continue.