US fears terrorists might provoke India, Pakistan conflict

[mayfair]

Unless the terrorists attack Congress/BJP/Third Front/Left HQs in Delhi and take out some very senior leaders, it's foolishly naive to expect any worthwhile response from the cowards at the helm. Even then I have my doubts, once a gutless vermin forever a gutless vermin.

 

[Phenom]

Congress in its present state is inept to take back pok but problem is that bjp is equally inept. kargil was perfect opportunity that was thrown by bjp.

Leader like indira gandhi is required now or we should import putin lol.

^^ IMHO, it's not about a party, i.e. Congress or BJP, per se, but more about a personality.

We need personalities like Indira Gandhi, Maneckshaw, Sardar Patel, Lal Bahadur Shashtri, or a little back into the past, Netaji Subhash Bose, or further back, someone like Porus (apologies to the many others whom I have missed).

It takes courage to fight and to take on the unknown.

+1,

India desperately needs a leader like Indira Gandhi, despite all her mistakes she was probably the best leader independent India has had.

 

[johnee]

I just came across 2 very good analyses about Pakistan terrorism:

A thought just occurred to me.

The Parliament attack in 2002 sort of set the stage and created a model that showed that a hot war involving the Indian military could be triggered by a terrorist attack in India.

The Mumbai massacre of 2008 clearly had official backing of the Packee army/ISI and was said to eb an attempt to provoke war - or at least to provoke a situation in which Pakistani army troops do not have to be deployed in the West and can come and sit in the east citing an India excuse. In this scenario - there is a tacit acceptance of the following premises:

For the Pakistan establishment and military it is better and safer to provoke war with India. Nobody claims that Pakistan will win such a war, but the premise is that India cannot pursue the war and win because of Pakistani nuclear weapons and international pressure. Pakistani establishment spokespersons have clearly stated that any India Pakistan war will be short lived and interrupted by international pressure. It is assumed that India would be rational and not pursue war to the extent that nuclear war would occur.

One of the statements that has been associated with Pakistani military action near the Afghan border is that it is an "American war" and that only America is interested in fighting that war and that the Pakistani army, led by some traitors (like Musharraf) have got the Pakistani army involved in fighting America's war that is unpopular in Pakistan. Naturally, doing what is unpopular is clearly worse than doing what is popular in Pakistan - i.e fighting India. Therefore the choice of fighting India is a good choice.

Clearly war with India is not seen as something that will destroy Pakistan. Some Pakistanis are confident that the war will be limited and that it is a gamble worth taking. There is lack of clarity in the Pakistani viewpoint here. While Pakistanis flaunt their nuclear deterrent, there does not seem to be a great wish to use the nuclear bombs right away at the beginning of the war.

Why do I say this? ( I accept I could be wrong, but here is my reading on this).

1) The Pakistani establishment is looking to survive conflict. They see the conflict in the West as dangerous to their survival. They are more confident of surviving a conflict in the east because they do not seriously expect it to go nuclear and state that the war would end in weeks.

2) Kaiser Tufail's account sates that India air action was noticeably lower when Pakistani F-16s were in the air. But Pakistan had to wind down the use of F-16s as the spares kept for war reserves were beginning to get consumed. This can only mean that Pakistan was preserving its F-16s in 1999 for war with India. The moot point is whether they were all being kept for a nuclear role. If F-16s were flying CAPs in 1999 when Pakistan was running out of spares it means two things. First the F-16s were being used for a very conventional air defence role and not being reserved for nuclear war only. The second point is that the F-16 were still ready for war with India in 1999 at a time what Pakistan had allegedly been under military sanctions for years. But I digress.

The Americans, for their part are telling Pakistanis that the war at the Afghan border poses as much of a risk to Pakistan - or perhaps a greater risk than India. The Americans are urging Pakistanis to fight the war at the Durand line because it is in their (Pakistani) interest and that it is not an American war.

So is the war at the Durand line a purely American war? Or is it dangerous to Pakistan?

There is no doubt that it is an American war. To that extent the Pakistanis are correct. But are the Americans right in saying that Pakistan has a stake in that war? What does Pakistan gain or lose by not fighting that war? What does Pakistan gain or lose if they fight the war?

By fighting the war in the West the Pakistan army are being forced to fight against Islamic soldiers - and the so called Taliban, Many (or most) also happen to have been Pakistani nationals and the area is indisputably Pashtun). So Pakistan is fighting a war in an area that used to provide the Pakistan army with the second largest number of soldiers, Pashtun soldiers next only to Pakjab in numbers. This is bad for the morale and integrity of the Pakistani army and they are naturally reluctant to fight the war. Fighting India unites the Pakistani "nation". Pakistanis are not being fought and Muslims are not being fought (never mind the kafir Muslims of India). India is the "ideal enemy" for Pakistan.

What can happen if Pakistan does not fight near the Durand line? As long as the US sits in Afghanistan, the Durand line regions is going to get occupied by battle hardened Pashtuns from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Pakistan will not have control on them. Pakistan hopes that the US will get out. The US wants Pakistan to retake control of those areas and stop anti-US activities from occurring. Somehow, using the clout only the US has, it has managed to make the Pakistani army fight a war that the latter do not want to fight. It has taken effort, much money and plenty of bribes.

And now the US is still worried that the Pakistani army will wriggle free. They feel it could wriggle free by means of a horrendous terrorist attack on India that Pakistan can use to move its troops away to the east, whether or not India responds to that attack. Of course things get more complicated for the US and Pakistan if India responds, but the US loses even if India does not respond. Pakistan will still go right ahead and move out 100,000 troops to the Indian border. That is what Gates is worrying about.

But why does he say it in public?

Here is my take.

Who in Pakistan would want to attack and provoke India?

1) The Pakistan army/ISI/Establishment and its JuD/LeT allies along with Hamid Gul and his ilk
2) Would the Taliban (bad Taliban) who are fighting the Pakistani army want to provoke India? What's in it for them? One could argue that if the bad Taliban attacked India the pressure they face from the Pakistan army would reduce as Packee troops move off to the east.

In my view it is only group 1 that has the biggest motive and ability to carry out an attack on India. And they are under intense US pressure and they are vulnerable to US pressure as well.

The "bad Taliban" do not have as strong a motive and do not have the organization to do that. In fact I believe the bad Taliban could do with Indian help for a free Pakthunistan.

I do not believe that the packee army/establishment will carry out a terror attack in India now - when the US has more or less stated that any future terror attack in India is already being blamed on Pakistan before it occurs. That means the Packee army will continue to fight America's war for the time being. In exchange the US will keep the Duand line intact. Pakhtunistan will not be formed and the "old world order" with "nation states" like Pakistan and Afghanistan will be "respected" and intact.

In the long term that is not good for India and not good for Pashtun. IMO

Pakistan is a peculiar place. The reason is that they have limited the ways in which they can suffer the consequences of their actions. Let me explain:

India is afraid to go to war. Why? because Bangalore might get bombed by a few Ding-dongs. What is wrong with that? The stock market might crash. Engineers working in software companies there might die. We have to protect their lives. Some of our soldiers will die. Leaving young wives and children behind. These tug at the heart of the public and the policy makers and we are paralyzed. Most discussions I see here are limited to What packees might do rather than addressing this basic handicap (I dont mean handicap in a negative sense).

packees on the other hand have no such compunctions. They want Jihadi canon fodder to fight India. They will gladly set up a few more madrassas, get poor kids educated there, make them into Jihadi yahoos and send them over. Many will get Pest-e-shaheeded at the border. packees dont give an F. They want to pretend to the US that they fight the taliban. So they will flatten a few villages, produce 1.5 internal refugees who live in squalid tents with no water, food or sanitation. Pakistani rulers dont give an F, their public doesnt give an F. Jernails order soldiers to "fight the extremists" and the ISI arms these very same extremists who blow up in mess halls killing those soldiers. The Jernails dont give an F. Amreeka will cut off Aid to Pakistan and sink their economy, Nobody in Pakistan is unduly worried because none of the ruling classes give an F. Zardari will retire to his chateu in france, Blahwall is happy in London, Nawaz will go to his father-in-law's place in Saudi Barbaria and Ashphuck will build a mansion inside fortified defence enclave. The rest of the people will rot outside.

This is precisely what is happening between NoKo and SoKo. And this is precisely the reason why Pakistan plays brinksmanship so well. It is not that they are good at doing that, it is just that they dont care about the consequences even if they fail.

This my friends is the biggest handicap India has and the biggest reason why Indian worldview is idiotic. The discussion ends up along the lines of:

India: We shall make peace because, you will get blah blah and blah.
Packee: We want more
India: Here have more
Packee: We want still more
India: Okay have still more
Packee: Heh, I just set fire to your metorpolis
India: Why the F would you do that? You dont get anything now!
Packee: Okay, we dont give an F.
India: :-? Okay have some more

While the land idea and the Alantique idea vaguely tries to solve this problem, what is needed is a scalpel, not a shovel. So Atlantique gets shot down, ***** lose a plane, a few afsars and a few abduls. Who gives an F?

There should be retribution. Targetted retribution. When I say retribution it needs to be across the spectrum. Leak details about secret foreign currency stashes of all Netas. Take videos and photos of dalliances with Motormas and put them on the web. Of the Netas, of their kids, of their wives, husbands and friends. Bump off the ISI case afsars. Bump off their relatives. Bump off every Jihadi who recruited anyone. After every terror attack, bump off some jernail. It doesnt need to be ones related to the plot. Bump some random one off -- that will give them enough incentive to go find out what ISI is upto.

Now suddenly they have a reason to play ball.

 

[Maitreya Shyam]

No attack in india because there was a terrorist attack in pak mehran base on 23 may 2011

 

[Maitreya Shyam]

Do one more mumbai and you will loose balochistan:- ajit doval