USA shows its true colours, sells F16s to Pakistan; Envoy summoned

Nuvneet Kundu

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2016
Messages
1,459
Likes
2,613
Never said India should not object. Use max leverage to block the deal. At the end they will look at their interest and we need to move on.
Fair enough. I was just miffed that almost all Indians on social media were saying something to the tune of "American is a sovereign country it can do what it wants". I don't mind if we oppose the deal and our opposition doesn't generate desired results but to recommend that we should not object in principle is a very defeatist thing for Indians to say.
 

spikey360

Crusader
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
3,525
Likes
6,578
Country flag
Some people still can't get out of their slave mindset.
Screaming about containing China. China is already contained. Have we ceded any territory after 1962? China dare not attack us, only raise some claims every other year. No one is stopping us from making similar claims.
As for String of Pearls, what is stopping us from making our own Chain of Gold? We have more trade and strategic relations with Chinese than Yankees. US is a hemisphere away. No use being their friend more than neighbouring China. Just cut the Aksai chin umbilical cord to Pakistan, and foment trouble in Tibet, see how they fall in line.
 

garg_bharat

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2015
Messages
5,078
Likes
10,139
Country flag
Honestly India should look to work with China. I prefer rail lines, roads open. Let two peoples experience each other. Initially they will see more negative side but eventually they will see positive side as well.

I want millions of Chinese tourists to come to India. Let us stop being paranoid.

USA is investing in the stability of Pakistan. Let them.
 

roma

NRI in Europe
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
3,582
Likes
2,538
Country flag
very good points made by posters on the last two pages, especially

my take on it is that the sales catalyses a kind of mini arms race, or more suitably , simple one upmanship based on the f16 , if pack gets them , we must get better and so the main beneficiary again are the arms sellers not India nor packland

however , we can keep in perspective ..... i remember Benazir back in the 1990s crying on tv that they had paid for the f16's but didnt receive a single one of them

so the usa has been sensitive on the issue

but what version of f16 and what comparison to what the same usa is willing to sell india both in terms of quality and quantity

so the perspective is that while it is correct to have objected to it as it unnecessarily raises the stakes, nevertheless they are getting 8 pcs while we are getting much more and better stuff

not a great situation and again the economic giants, namely the arms dealers , not the countries per se but the company ceo's are the big winners in all of this .....they are making money out of both india and pack , while keeping the relative strength of india over pack , more or less undisturbed

@angeldude13@Abhijat@Ancient Indian @anupamsurey@aliyah @Alien@angeldude13 @Abhijat@Ancient Indian@anupamsurey @aliyah
@Alien @Aravind Sanjeev @A chauhan @airtel
@asingh10 @asianobserve @Bahamut @BATTLE FIELD@bose @Bornubus @brational @blueblood @Blackwater@Blood+ @bhai-117 @Bangalorean @bengalraider @cobra commando @Chirag @Chris Jude @Chinmoy @Cadian@DingDong @ersakthivel @FRYCRY @Gessler @garg_bharat @guru-dutt
@gpawar @Hari Sud @hit&run @HeinzGud @indiandefencefan @I_PLAY_BAD @Indian Devil @Indibomber @Jangaruda @jackprince@Kunal@Kshatriya87 Biswas@LETHALFORCE@laughingbuddha @mhk99 @maomao@Navneet Kundu @Neil @Nicky G @OneGrimPilgrim@pmaitra @parijataka
@PaliwalWarrior @Pulkit @Rowdy@Razor@Rashna @[email protected]
@Sakal Gharelu Ustad @Srinivas_K @sunnyv @sgarg@sabari @Sameet2
@saik @sorcerer @sydsnyper @Sridevi @SREEKAR @Screambowl
@Sylex21 @TejasMK3@The enlightened @tejas warrior @tharun @thethinker @tsunami @VIP @Vishwarupa @Vishal Guts @Yusuf@Yumdoot @Zebra
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,885
Likes
48,597
Country flag
This may also be done to keep Pakistanis as a US customer not losing them to China?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Aravind Sanjeev

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2014
Messages
68
Likes
69
Nothing surprises here.
The USA never have had a true color to begin with. This was always the strategy of United States -making others feel dilemma about its side. The truth is, it doesn't have one, just bunch of things done for its quick strategic interests.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,885
Likes
48,597
Country flag
Everything Is business for USA. There is no concern for emotions when it comes to national interests


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

dhananjay1

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2013
Messages
3,291
Likes
5,544
US has always supported Pakistan, whether it's slaughtering Bangladeshis, spreading Jihad in Kashmir, testing nuclear weapons, hiding Osama, nothing seem to change American attitude towards Pakistan. It's the stupid Indians who think that US is some sort of 'bastion of freedom' that would support India just because they play democracy-democracy. :laugh: Indians have been believing Hollywood propaganda a bit too much.
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
5,015
Likes
2,311
Country flag
This may also be done to keep Pakistanis as a US customer not losing them to China?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Or This may also be done to keep Pakistanis capable to counter India since China didn't do enough in this area.
 

Bahamut

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
2,740
Likes
2,259
Or This may also be done to keep Pakistanis capable to counter India since China didn't do enough in this area.
If they want to counter India then well that the end of our partnership to counter China .We can build a relationship with china and even be partner if the agree not to interfere in IOR .Double containment will not work this time.
 

sorcerer

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
26,919
Likes
98,471
Country flag
Or This may also be done to keep Pakistanis capable to counter India since China didn't do enough in this area.
Or .this may also be done to keep pakistanis capable to counter china via East Turkestan when the need arise. China is doing more than enough to piss o the terrorists in East Turkestan
 

sorcerer

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
26,919
Likes
98,471
Country flag
The US has to throw a bone to Pakistan every once in a while to get their cooperation and a bit of leverage.

Remember that if India and Pakistan ever get into a major skirmish again......the only country that can talk to both parties before everything goes over the brink is the US. Let me tell you that having the US intercede is much better for India than having China involved.
.
US will interfere anyway as US wants pak whole to sustain its interests in the region. The stakes are high if pak goes on war with India.


Its surprising that so many in this forum talk about the US using India to contain China. Actually the ultimate in regional containment is China's policy of using Pakistan to contain India.

So India should not over-react to these situations. It may even help India's case if the US has some influence with the Pak establishment
US is "trying" to use India to counter china.
So far US has been diplomatic in dealing ..showing lots of "understanding" as US has burned it big time before,when they took things for granted.

It never helped india with case of US having influence in pak etablishment. US played with the intel and used its own schemes to create unrest in the region. From funding for pak to sharing intel..US cannot be trusted at all.

china using pak to contain India..its a long established fact and India has taken care of itself and the china pak alliance for a looooooooooong time. C'mon US denies India the support when India needed it the most in Kargil Skirmish- This is a reality India faced.

India knows the so called "Commitment" of US towards "regional peace" in Asia:pound::pound:. :D :D and such will benefit US alone ..nor India, china or pak.

US can learn a few things from India pak and china on how 3 nuclear nations are keeping relative peace in the region..
 

sorcerer

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
26,919
Likes
98,471
Country flag
Falconistan: The Long History of Pakistan and US F-16s

Last week, the U.S. Department of Defense notified U.S. lawmakers of an intent to supply eight Block-52 F-16 fighters to Pakistan. The possibility of the United States supplying Pakistan with eight new F-16s was made public in November 2015, but has run into stiff opposition in the U.S. Congress. In the days prior to the notification, Senator Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, wrote Secretary of State John Kerry to convey his opposition of the use of U.S. taxpayer money to fund the delivery of F-16s to Pakistan and expressed his belief that Pakistan needed to do more to target militant groups in the region.

The U.S. first mooted the supply F-16s to Pakistan in the early 1980s and under very similar circumstances: President Ronald Reagan exercised executive authority, despite opposition from Congress, to agree to the sale of F-16s to Pakistan in order incentivize Pakistan’s assistance to the United States in Afghanistan. However, with the Soviet Union’s defeat in Afghanistan in 1989, U.S. reliance on Pakistan quickly waned. The Pressler Amendmentcame into effect in 1990, as a result of which the United States slapped sanctions on Pakistan on account of the country’s undeclared nuclear weapons program and canceled the supply of approximately 30 F-16s that Pakistan had already purchased.

The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, D.C., refocused U.S. interest in the region and established Pakistan as a central cog in the U.S. war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. For its commitment to support U.S. efforts in Afghanistan, the George W. Bush administration agreed to release the previously blocked F-16s to Pakistan, refurbish the country’s existing F-16 aircraft, and sell Pakistan new F-16 Block-50/52 aircraft worth approximately $3 billion.


Last week’s statement announcing the prospective sale of eight F-16s to Pakistan follows a well-established pattern of the U.S. attempting to induce Pakistani action through incentivization. A few observations can be made to provide context around the proposed supply of F-16s to Pakistan.


First and perhaps most obviously, the announcement comes at a time when the U.S. again seeks Pakistan’s cooperation in bringing the Taliban to the negotiating table with the Afghanistan government. A previous attempt at negotiations last year, under the aegis of Pakistan, ended abruptly when it was revealed that the Taliban’s reclusive leader, Mullah Omar, had been dead for over a year.

It remains to be seen as to whether or not the Pakistanis wield sufficient influence over the Taliban, which is in the throes of an internal leadership struggle following the announcement of Mullah Omar’s death. However, the U.S. no doubt feels that it must do what it can to coax Pakistani action on the Afghan front. The thinking of the Obama administration appears to be that a promise to supply of F-16s, a key demand of Pakistan’s for some time, might induce favorable action from Pakistan.

Second, U.S. concerns over Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program remain unabated. Indeed, even as the Obama administration appeared ready to supply the eight F-16s to Pakistan, the State Department’s deputy spokesman underscored U.S. concerns over the reported rapid growth of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons stockpile and its induction of the so-called tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs) to its arsenal. The U.S. has reportedly considered offering Pakistan a civil nuclear deal in exchange for its commitment to roll back its TNWs. It is not inconceivable then that the supply of F-16 fighter aircraft could be part of a broader U.S. approach to elicit commitments from Pakistan on Afghanistan and on nuclear security.:facepalm: Indeed, the Carter administration:crazy: contemplated the sale of F-16s to Pakistan with the hope that it could convince Pakistan to scale back its nuclear weapons program.

Third, the announcement underscores the transactional nature of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship, despite the rather curious language in the notification, which describes Pakistan’s as a “strategic partner.” The United States’ past dealings with Pakistan show that although Pakistan desires a more broad-based strategic relationship with the U.S. in order to effectively counter India, the relationship continues to be anything but strategic and is unlikely to transform into one anytime soon.

Fourth, despite considerable strategic convergence between the United States and India in the Indo-Pacific, the announcement highlights that a gulf still exists between the two countries on Pakistan. The Indian government is unhappy with the sale, which will augment Pakistan’s nuclear delivery capabilities, and chided the U.S. for its perceived lack of sensitivity toward the potential threat the sale presents to India’s security. Many in India view the United States’ inducements as incentivizing Pakistan’s bad behavior in the region.

And lastly, domestically, the announcement further brings into focus the schism between the Obama Administration and Congress on a host of issues, including foreign policy. The Obama Administration has since moved Congress for approval of the deal, but it is likely that it will run into opposition from lawmakers of both political parties. The Obama Administration could potentially invoke the national security waiver to override Congressional resistance over the supply of the F-16s to Pakistan. There is likely a sense of urgency in the Obama Administration and anxiety in Islamabad to conclude the deal prior to the U.S presidential elections in November.

There are other, less significant factors that may influence the U.S. decision to supply the F-16s to Pakistan, including U.S. concerns over Pakistan’s sustained and significant drift into China’s sphere of influence. But ultimately, the notification follows a familiar pattern in U.S.-Pakistan relations, with the U.S. attempting to incentivize Pakistani compliance or action on key U.S. national security interests. The results of these inducements have historically been mixed, at best, or have failed. Of course, if the history of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship is any guide, it will be worth waiting to see if any of the eight F-16s eventually do actually end up in Pakistan, the recent notification notwithstanding.
http://thediplomat.com/2016/02/falconistan-the-long-history-of-pakistan-and-us-f-16s/
 

sorcerer

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
26,919
Likes
98,471
Country flag
Falconistan: The Long History of Pakistan and US F-16s

Last week, the U.S. Department of Defense notified U.S. lawmakers of an intent to supply eight Block-52 F-16 fighters to Pakistan. The possibility of the United States supplying Pakistan with eight new F-16s was made public in November 2015, but has run into stiff opposition in the U.S. Congress. In the days prior to the notification, Senator Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, wrote Secretary of State John Kerry to convey his opposition of the use of U.S. taxpayer money to fund the delivery of F-16s to Pakistan and expressed his belief that Pakistan needed to do more to target militant groups in the region.

The U.S. first mooted the supply F-16s to Pakistan in the early 1980s and under very similar circumstances: President Ronald Reagan exercised executive authority, despite opposition from Congress, to agree to the sale of F-16s to Pakistan in order incentivize Pakistan’s assistance to the United States in Afghanistan. However, with the Soviet Union’s defeat in Afghanistan in 1989, U.S. reliance on Pakistan quickly waned. The Pressler Amendmentcame into effect in 1990, as a result of which the United States slapped sanctions on Pakistan on account of the country’s undeclared nuclear weapons program and canceled the supply of approximately 30 F-16s that Pakistan had already purchased.

The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, D.C., refocused U.S. interest in the region and established Pakistan as a central cog in the U.S. war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. For its commitment to support U.S. efforts in Afghanistan, the George W. Bush administration agreed to release the previously blocked F-16s to Pakistan, refurbish the country’s existing F-16 aircraft, and sell Pakistan new F-16 Block-50/52 aircraft worth approximately $3 billion.


Last week’s statement announcing the prospective sale of eight F-16s to Pakistan follows a well-established pattern of the U.S. attempting to induce Pakistani action through incentivization. A few observations can be made to provide context around the proposed supply of F-16s to Pakistan.


First and perhaps most obviously, the announcement comes at a time when the U.S. again seeks Pakistan’s cooperation in bringing the Taliban to the negotiating table with the Afghanistan government. A previous attempt at negotiations last year, under the aegis of Pakistan, ended abruptly when it was revealed that the Taliban’s reclusive leader, Mullah Omar, had been dead for over a year.

It remains to be seen as to whether or not the Pakistanis wield sufficient influence over the Taliban, which is in the throes of an internal leadership struggle following the announcement of Mullah Omar’s death. However, the U.S. no doubt feels that it must do what it can to coax Pakistani action on the Afghan front. The thinking of the Obama administration appears to be that a promise to supply of F-16s, a key demand of Pakistan’s for some time, might induce favorable action from Pakistan.

Second, U.S. concerns over Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program remain unabated. Indeed, even as the Obama administration appeared ready to supply the eight F-16s to Pakistan, the State Department’s deputy spokesman underscored U.S. concerns over the reported rapid growth of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons stockpile and its induction of the so-called tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs) to its arsenal. The U.S. has reportedly considered offering Pakistan a civil nuclear deal in exchange for its commitment to roll back its TNWs. It is not inconceivable then that the supply of F-16 fighter aircraft could be part of a broader U.S. approach to elicit commitments from Pakistan on Afghanistan and on nuclear security.:facepalm: Indeed, the Carter administration:crazy: contemplated the sale of F-16s to Pakistan with the hope that it could convince Pakistan to scale back its nuclear weapons program.

Third, the announcement underscores the transactional nature of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship, despite the rather curious language in the notification, which describes Pakistan’s as a “strategic partner.” The United States’ past dealings with Pakistan show that although Pakistan desires a more broad-based strategic relationship with the U.S. in order to effectively counter India, the relationship continues to be anything but strategic and is unlikely to transform into one anytime soon.

Fourth, despite considerable strategic convergence between the United States and India in the Indo-Pacific, the announcement highlights that a gulf still exists between the two countries on Pakistan. The Indian government is unhappy with the sale, which will augment Pakistan’s nuclear delivery capabilities, and chided the U.S. for its perceived lack of sensitivity toward the potential threat the sale presents to India’s security. Many in India view the United States’ inducements as incentivizing Pakistan’s bad behavior in the region.

And lastly, domestically, the announcement further brings into focus the schism between the Obama Administration and Congress on a host of issues, including foreign policy. The Obama Administration has since moved Congress for approval of the deal, but it is likely that it will run into opposition from lawmakers of both political parties. The Obama Administration could potentially invoke the national security waiver to override Congressional resistance over the supply of the F-16s to Pakistan. There is likely a sense of urgency in the Obama Administration and anxiety in Islamabad to conclude the deal prior to the U.S presidential elections in November.

There are other, less significant factors that may influence the U.S. decision to supply the F-16s to Pakistan, including U.S. concerns over Pakistan’s sustained and significant drift into China’s sphere of influence. But ultimately, the notification follows a familiar pattern in U.S.-Pakistan relations, with the U.S. attempting to incentivize Pakistani compliance or action on key U.S. national security interests. The results of these inducements have historically been mixed, at best, or have failed. Of course, if the history of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship is any guide, it will be worth waiting to see if any of the eight F-16s eventually do actually end up in Pakistan, the recent notification notwithstanding.
http://thediplomat.com/2016/02/falconistan-the-long-history-of-pakistan-and-us-f-16s/
 

Nuvneet Kundu

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2016
Messages
1,459
Likes
2,613
Except most of the money is being paid by US taxpayers. Pakistan is only on the hook for $200 mill.
Nope, they receive around 3 billion ever year under various pretexts (IMF funds, World Bank loans, private donations, USAID, military aid, NATO allowance, civilian infrastructure development funds, vaccination aid, education aid and private bribes). Just last week Obama released 850 million under some pretext.
 
Last edited:

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top