U.S. aid was used on defence against India, says Musharraf

[tarunraju]

you are right Tarun, our focus should mainly be China but with USA and China both arming Pakistan;Pakistan can't be ignored. We are more likely to have a conflict with Pakistan than China, who will also want the same and will supply Pakistan to this end like they are doing now.

Let's say you're driving to Hyderabad from Delhi. Nagpur comes en-route, and you have business to take care of in both cities. Are you going to make two separate trips? Of course not. You're going to stop over at Nagpur, finish your work, and proceed down to Hyderabad. That's where we stand. In the process of arming ourselves against China, we're automatically arming ourselves against Pakistan. So we don't particularly need to worry about Pakistan.

The objective laid out between us is not effective deterrence against China (alone), it's building a capability to thwart a two-pronged attack (fighting a war on two fronts simultaneously). So it also tells you that our procurements will surpass what is required to effectively face China (which naturally will invite reactions from all over, if done abruptly), hence it has to be a gradual change.

 

[Sabir]

Let's say you're driving to Hyderabad from Delhi. Nagpur comes en-route, and you have business to take care of in both cities. Are you going to make two separate trips? Of course not. You're going to stop over at Nagpur, finish your work, and proceed down to Hyderabad. That's where we stand. In the process of arming ourselves against China, we're automatically arming ourselves against Pakistan. So we don't particularly need to worry about Pakistan.

The objective laid out between us is not effective deterrence against China (alone), it's building a capability to thwart a two-pronged attack (fighting a war on two fronts simultaneously). So it also tells you that our procurements will surpass what is required to effectively face China (which naturally will invite reactions from all over, if done abruptly), hence it has to be a gradual change.

Tarun, not fully agreed with first part of your post. As an example, due to geographical barrier any major tank battle is not possible between India and China. On the otherhand it is highly possible between India and Pakistan and world witnessed such incident in Past. Again Geographically Pakistan is in much better position to lunch an attack against India. So we have to make efficient strategy against possible enemies. Strategic preparation is not just arming yourself to counter the enemies but do the proper homework, provide for efficient transport and communication and a thorough analysis of your enemy's strength and weekness.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

expanding on what Sabir said, cruise missiles would also be more effective from the pakistani-Indian side than than the Chinese-Indian side.

 

[tarunraju]

Tarun, not fully agreed with first of your post. As an example, due to geographical barrier any major tank battle is not possible between India and China. On the otherhand it is highly possible between India and Pakistan and world witnessed such incident in Past. Again Geographically Pakistan is in much better position to lunch an attack against India. So we have to make efficient strategy against possible enemies. Strategic preparation is not just arming yourself to counter the enemies but do the proper homework, provide for efficient transport and communication and a thorough analysis of your enemy's strength and weekness.

To begin with, geographically Pakistan is in no better position to launch attacks against India than China is. So China-specific preparation (equipment) gets that part covered.

Secondly, our MBT programme isn't static. Of course Arjuna is on the brink of being termed a failure, not because of its competitiveness with the T90s we buy from Russia like bread and eggs, but our inability to mass-produce Arjuna.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Tarun for China our focus is more towards the naval/air and strategic weapon side for Pakistan the focus is more towards the artillery and armor side but air power would play a role in both theatres.

 

[Antimony]

Before Taliban ‘shariat’ was not there because there was no Government, and no law enforcement. When Taliban came into power, they were able to setup a Government, and enforce the law and order. Even before Taliban, women were still covering themselves up in the shuttle cock Burqa and were not allowed to leave their homes. The ‘stifling version of Shariah’ you are talking about has lot more to do with the Pathan culture than with the religion. They have been living their lives like this and they will continue to do so. Any attempt to bring about a sudden change in their culture and custom will only result in the retaliation from these people.

Girl schools were closed down only in 1996. It also became illegal for Male doctors to treat female patients at around that time. through the Taliban diktat.

There was no difference between Hikmatyar and Masood. You are calling Hikmatyar an ‘animal’ only because he happened to be closer with Pakistani administration. This is not a good way of discussing things.

Oh come on Qsaark, you know better than that. Hekmatiyar is a treachourous, sadistic, acid throwing SOB, who probably killed more Afghans in his fight for Kabul than the other warlords combined. Pakistan has nothing to do with it.

I would say that Pakistan initial support for him was tactically sound given that he is Pashtu and Massoud was not, were it not for his extremely violent exploits coupled with his extreme incompetence in actually battling the soviets.

You seriously cannot compare him to Massoud

This you need to tell to the Afghan people who are not willing to support the occupation forces no matter what the occupation forces want to do for them. Certainly, those who are living in Afghanistan and resisting the occupation know better about the occupation forces and their good or bad deeds more than you and I do.

Good point. But the fact remains that the US can do either of 2 things:

1. Walk away and leave the country to the mercy of a resurgent Taliban. Gels well with the plans of Pakistan and maybe China, but ultimately would drag the country back to ruin and have a spillover effect into the neighbouring countries
2. Stay to ensure a continuation of power and meanwhile try to do some reconstruction. A dificult path, given the Afghan nature of being suspicious of "occupiers". Does not gel with Pakistan or China plans and bound to make Iran and Russia uneasy, but probably good for the long term benefit of Afghanistan. This is what they are trying out and I would like to see how it turns out.