Resistance is the first step towards Iraqi independence

Ah.. now he is the expert on Arab-Israeli politics...

Air Marshal kay azeem karnamay!

Romair #80 you assume that politics reflects human likes and dislikes. however, as the saying goes, politics makes strange bedfellows. reflect on this a bit and you will realize that the answer to the question ``what lies behind the arab-israeli conflict`` is not (as you say) due to arabs and israelis liking or disliking each other. the correct answer in fact is..... 42.

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

................this morning i woke up on the same side of the bed, my vente latte tasted the same, and the goofy starbucks guy assured me that there was no major policy change as far as suiciders, ayrabs and iraquis were concerned .................. and why should there be?........... as far as i can tell america has had a consistent foreign policy for the past hundred years based on the support for freedom, democracy and capitalism .............but first and foremost the government has to protect the interests of the american people........... and if in the short run america has to play ball with unavoury characters like musharraf and hosni mubarak, so be it ...........i don`t think the president of the united states should be engaged in a beauty contest with mother teresa .............

............ it is shameful how quickly the world has forgotten the debt it owes america for liberating europe and japan, and then saving the world from the evil of communism ............ now it is facing islamism - an equally perverse, dangerous and intractable enemy of freedom - and it has to do what it has to do to prevent it from spreading like the plague ............

............. it is also silly to keep on insisting that somehow the terrible regimes in the arab world are there because of america ............ nonsense!.......... they are part of a long tradition and have been there since the time of abu bakr.............like tahmed, i believe that the reason lies in the book .............

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

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

Romair #21

Thank you Hamid for helping me out here. I do have some time now so let me answer you the best I can. I am glad that you qualified your pitch with the following statement.

“This is how colonialism is carried out after WWII. No county now goes and physically occupies others. I doubt UK would try to physically occupy anyone now. Countries just control the resources of other countries, through autocratic regimes.”

What I was referring to was the fact that after its own colonial experience America has been very reluctant to take on colonies. The only attempt it made at colonization was in the Philippines, which it abandoned. As a matter of fact dissolution of the British colonial empire was part of the price that America exacted out of Britain for help in the Second World War – ref. “Empire the Rise and Demise of the British World Order”, by Niall Ferguson.

Regarding countries in the Middle East, what do you think about Turkey, which has been a staunch American ally from the beginning of the cold war and America has never attempted to subvert its democracy. For the rest of the Middle Eastern states you can fault America for looking out for its own interests which are intense because of the oil. As far as the criteria of using pro US dictators, that was definitely true thru out the Cold War years. During these years the only criteria used was how to check Soviet influence and gain American economic advantage. All the examples you have quoted fall into this category. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union a new doctrine emerged, the US intervened to punish aggressors. Wars in Bosnia, against Serbia, in Somalia, first Gulf War all fall in this category. But no nation building took place, no martial plans, no institution building, the vanquished were left to their own devices. Even before the Afghan war Bush had declared no nation building, fact of the matter is that Iraq is the first country, which was assured nation building after the war and now Afghanistan has been added to that list.

I believe that 911 has had a profound impact on this nation’s psyche and for the first time ever is it trying to address what Musharraf has so eloquently referred to as “the root causes of terrorism”. Regarding elections, which America has continuously demanded, you just have to look towards Latin America. Right from Juan Peron’s time in Argentina to the present most Latin American countries have faced American pressure for elections. But did these elections further the cause of freedom in these countries? Of course not! Rule of Law, freedom of press, good governance are far more important then just elections. Having free and fair elections today in Afghanistan or Iraq would not bring about greater liberty, the results would be similar to those in Iran after the revolution. Point being that democracy is majority opinion. So if the majority is ignorant, then God help the nation.

As far as invading Pakistan is concerned, there is really no reason for it. Pakistan has and should invite America with open arms – please help us get rid of the Jehadis, the sectarian gangs, drug traffickers, the criminals, religious fanatics, the vederas, the feudals, rehabilitate the madrassahs the tyranny of the army and the bureaucracy. Help us in establishing rule of law, better schools and hospitals, better infrastructure, pollution control. The way they are working in Iraq, if we could recruit them to do the same in Pakistan, I would be the last to object.

NazarHayatKhan #55: “Above is only an hypothesis and is open to discussion.”

Ijaz_gul #64: “Nazar, I agree with you.”

Let me attempt at, ``discussion, and also do something, which I always wanted to do in the military, but the protocols never allowed it, i.e. discuss geo-politics with people who were far senior to me, and had attended Defence Colleges, but who presented a theory or theories that didn’t appeal to me (Ijaz_gul, were you in the Army?)

Before I start, a question: Is this the Defence College theory, or an independent analysis on your part?

Let’s take it one by one:

1. “The next threat to Pakistan is from the Pashtoon Talibanic drive from the West. It is going to be ideoligical + religious coersion + sporadic guerilla warfare. It is going to be spread over time.”

What is your analysis based on? How will this drive get established in Pakistan?

I would say this analysis is based more on a dislike for the Taliban than anything else. The dislike is valid. I dislike them also. But they are not nearly as powerful as you are making them out to be. I think the Taliban are, without external support, at best, a simple small military force in Afghanistan. They cannot drive into Pakistan from the West. Nor have they ever been able to.

The Taliban weren’t able to make inroads into Pakistan, even when they were ruling Afghanistan. How will they make inroads now? They are having trouble making inroads into their own country. And would never have had the success they had, if Pakistan and Saudi Arabia not assisted them.

FATA has had plenty of opportunities to join with Afghanistan. Yet it never does so. Nor will it will never do so. Neither will NWFP. They are not stupid. At best, FATA will play one against the other, like they do nowadays. Pakistan has its own demographics now. The largest Pathan city now is actually Karachi. And NWFP has other ethnic groups also, other than Pathans. And there is no way a popular vote even among NWFP Pathans, would join want a union with Afghanistan. For the simple reason that the economic standards of Pakistan are so much higher than that of Afghanistan that no one from FATA or NWFP will even migrate to Afghanistan. Much less join with it. FATA loves its free electricity. And the NWFP leaders enjoy air-conditioning.

Pakistan should carry out even more economic development in FATA areas. And to take control of the place, forcefully if it has to - which it is doing now. Their leaders are complaining here and there, but they will never join Afghanistan. And their population will be very pro-Pakistan if they get some more jobs.

2. “While it can fuel the Talibanic drive into Pakistan through Afghanistan from the west, it can put coersive + military + diplomatic pressure from the East. A two-front pressure.”

The second part of this is correct. But not the first part. The Taliban have no love for India. The Northern Alliance does have love for India. If India is going to carry out any kind of drive into Pakistan from the West, it will be through the Northern Alliance, not through the Taliban. And what exactly can the NA do to Pakistan. Nothing much. They cannot even control the warlords within Afghanistan. What are they going to drive in on? Two tanks and a old Mig-17?

And why would the NA create a Talibanic drive into Pakistan? They will continue to carry out border skirmishes with Pakistan, with India’s assistance. I think Ahmadmadani’s theory maybe valid, regarding stopping Pakistan’s water from Afghanistan with the help of India. That would be serious threat. So India’s interests lie in supporting NA and not Taliban.

Taliban are thus far more dependent on Pakistan than vice-versa. And even Afghanistan is far more dependent on Pakistan than vice-versa.

3. “If Pakistan continues to fuel the religious militancy in Kashmir - it is only providing inroads and legitimacy to this Taibanic drive into Pakistan.”

This is correct. However, it won’t be a Talibanic drive. It will be locally manufactured religious drives. Taliban are a spent force. They never had any power, without external support.

4. “The net result of this unthoughtful policy will be that, in due course of time, the areas falling West of Indus will fall back to Afghanistan - their historical position..”

Why and how? This is quite a stretch of a statement. What is it based on? Why would NWFP and Baluchistan fall back into Afghanistan? Once again, what does Afghanistan have to offer them? Is the MMA interested in riding in its Pakistani Pajeros and on PIA, or is it interested in driving on the broken streets of Kabul? And are the Baluchi tribal leaders interested in making money off Pakistan’s Sui Gas pipelines or are they interested in being a part of the mess in Kandahar?

If anything these areas would be better off falling into Iran than Afghanistan. And even that is a stretch.

There is only one way for NWFP to join Afghanistan, and that is if the Afghans themselves migrate in such large numbers that they change the demogrphics. But that migration has stopped. And even when it did occur, the migrated Afghans wanted to stay in Pakistan, not join Afghanistan; just like Pakistani migrants into USA don`t want USA to join Pakistan.

5. “And areas falling East of Indus, Punjab & Sind, will merge into their historical parts across the border - thus fusing into their original Punjab & Sind civilizations”

Why would this happen? Based on what? What would Muslims in Pakistan’s Punjab gain from falling into India? Would they gain economically, religiously, politically? Ditto for Sind? The Sikh’s in India’s Punjab and the Kashmiris in India’s Kashmir have tried hard to break away from India. Why would a guy in Lahore try to go in the other direction?

6. “If lessons from history are to be learnt, India & Pakistan should sign a peace treaty & fight against this common ideological threat from the West - it will be good for the domestics of both countries as well.”

India and Pakistan should sign a peace treaty, but due to other reasons - not the ones you have mentioned. And I don’t see any common threat from the West. Iran is not a threat. Afghanistan is not a threat. Those guys can barely look after themselves. The only way Afghanistan will be a threat is if India and Pakistan use it to fight each other, i.e. strategic depth. Local powers always fight their wars in others’ lands.

And why would India be interested in signing a peace treaty with Pakistan, if it wants to crush Pakistan between East and West, as you suggested? If India is powerful enough to crush Pakistan, what kind of peace treaty would it be interested in?

7. “Pakistan has no threat from India because of its secular democratic make up + the rules of engagement are clearly defined - Conventional and/or Nuclear - sufficient detterence to prevent a war.”

Pakistan, at the moment, has only threat from India. No other country, the last time I checked, was threatening Pakistan, or can threaten it, within its neighbourhood. Iran is not a threat. Neither is Afghanistan. Neither is China. Nor Russian through Afghanistan. And there is no threat along the seacoast.

Secular make-ups have nothing to do with threats. Secular countries have carried out as big, in fact bigger, war threats as religious countries. Secular countries are as possessive of pieces of lands as religious countries.

The rules of engagement are somewhat defined right now, between India and Pakistan, due to nuclear deterrence. But India is clearly carrying out massive arms build-ups with equipment that can only be used against Pakistan. This can have two intentions a) get Pakistan into an arms race and damage its economy b) somehow redo the balance of power in India’s favor, which it used to be before nuclear deterrence.

In my opinion, Pakistan should do the following:

- Get out of Afghanistan completely. Let them do whatever they want. And do whatever we want. Build a fence or something. Afghans cannot threaten anyone. We can threaten them far more than they can threaten us. Unless we still assume that Ahmad Shah Abdalis and Ghaznavis are Mughals are going to come screaming through the Khyber pass again. The world has evolved beyond that

- Solve its own internal problems, including economy, extremism, feudalism, etc.

- Try newer approaches in dealing with India. If India continues its one-sided arms build-up with tanks, aircraft, ships (how can these be used against China?), then Pakistan will have to counter these. Somehow it has to get India to stop the arms race, through whatever means possible – economic progress, peace treaties etc.. Or Pakistan can naively assume that these are just for decoration, like the French and British did about Germany

- Limit its military to defensive equipment, and not get into an arms race with India, while simultaneously being aware of any threat from India

- Recognize Israel, and get that lobby off its back

- Open up visas and trade with India

Pakistan’s problems and solutions do not lie in India or Afghanistan. They lie inside Pakistan. They will not be created due to Afghanistan or India. Nor will they be solved in Afghanistan and India. Peace treaties, foreign invasions, Talibanic waves from the West etc. cannot do any damage if Pakistan has a strong economy and is stable internally. And if Pakistan is not stable internally, no amount of peace treaties will help. Strong countries do not sign peace treaties with weak opponents. They only sign them with strong opponents.

And rich areas do not fall into poorer areas. Its always the other way around. For all of Pakistan’s faults, still, its Pathans are much better off than Afghan Pathans. Its Punjabis are running the country, while Indian Punjabis have attempted to break away. Its Kashmiris are doing ok, while Indian Kashmiris are in trouble. Its Muhajirs are the richest group in the country, with the highest education rate, while Indian Muslims (the ones who didn’t hijrat) are amongst the bottom of the development index in India etc.

Hence I have no fear of Pakistan breaking apart due to external (Afghani or Indian influences), and falling into Afghania and Hind. I do think it could implode internally due to economic problems. In such a case, it would be an Bangladesh type scenario, i.e. provinces breaking up, and not joining India, but becoming independent.

Do keep in mind that even Bangladesh did not join with India, after breaking from Pakistan. And if anything, Afghans should be more afraid of any religious wave coming from Pakistan, than vice-versa. After all, the Taliban were trained in Pakistan, and then ruled Afghanistan. MMA was not trained in Afghanistan. It is locally trained.

Would be interested in your comments......

Romair, I am not an armyman, but belong to that rare breed of civilians specialising in Strategy. Though the wordings of my theory are not the same as Nazar, the end mens relationship is the same. After 9/11, I was of the opinion that Pakistan as an allymust insist that the Norhtern Alliance shouls not move south beyond Herat, Mazar and Kabul. If they do, then Pakistan`s interests are in severe jeapordy and ethno-religious factors would come into play. Pashtuns had been losing influence in Afghanistan since the times of Zahir Shah and one reason for widespread support by ethnic Pashtuns to Taliban was this factor. Marginalisation in face of NA presence in the Pashtun belts would trigger these sub nationalist feelings. Unfortunately it has happened so and USA has allowed it, implyng that their presence in Afghanistan has not been in Pakistan`s interests.

Secondly, US interests in Central Asia are intense to achieve which, it may not hesitate to redraw geographies. This she could achieven not through militancies but allowing the ethnic divides to precipitate. This could even happen in Saudi Arabia along sectarian divides. Just a few days ago, why has the oil pipeline gone to the Medditeranean via Turkey?

Though Tariq Ali`s article implies a long haul for USA in Iraq, the same is the case with Pakistan. The most difficult question is how Pakistan can take a time jump and get out of the mess. Modernisation of FATA and PATA are steps in the right direction. I agree with you that a prosperous tribal region serves Pakistan`s interests.

I hope I am well understood.

Romair # 88

You give such a long post; one does not know which part to respond. It all takes time. And please do not associate me with Armed Forces views which I left over a decade back - and differed fundamentally. Also no worthwhile comprehensive analysis is done in armed forces insitutions of higher learning - old papers are dug out and rehashed.

What I said was simply a worst case seceneio - as an observer of real politic - while taking no sides either for India or for Pakistan. There is no need to get immediately excited about it - these things take years, even decades - and get evolved with own dynamics - and could take different shape with a different outcome.

Basically, what the hypothesis tries to highlight is that now Afghanistan is a part of the Indo-Pak conflict. And the Taliban idealogy has/could have linkages with religious extremistism in Kashmir.

Now this brings up a situation where the alleged/real x-border infiltration by Pakistan could be matched by the alleged/real problems created by India on the Pak-Afghan border.

FATA areas are already loosely adminstered by Pakistan - Durand line issue remains. Farthest reaches of NWFP & Baluchistan do have seminaries - strong Taliban influence.

Taliban, even during the height of their power, with Pakistan as the closest ally, did not agree to accept the Durand Line.

Now read my post # 55 - it may make more sense.

............ first we had air marshall romair who, in addition to everything else, is an expert in geo-politics, and now we have our first self-professed civilian strategist ............ my god, they are crawling out of the wood works!

............. with great pomp and vigor these sophomoric sophists talk about fata and pata and the tribal belt without stopping to think why do we even have this ``tribal`` nonsense ....... this is the twenty first century and even the horrible hindoos are talking about discarding their dhotis for space suits......... what is wrong with us?............. what causes the mohammadens to be mired in tribes, clans, sects and flocks?.............what is keeping us from shutting down dara adam khel and transporting those idiots to guantanamo or putting them to work digging ditches in karachi?............ is this some kind of an exercise by liberal anthropologists to keep the noble savage around so that he can make life miserable for the rest of us?............isn`t it time we did away with these social experiments?

............ so now, in addition to charging zionist windmills and fighting hindoo demons, we are going to start worrying about the northern alliance ............ there is no dearth of enemies for the beleaguered ummah, is there?..........the faithful are surrounded by all kinds of bad people intent on doing them harm and stealing their camels?............ why?............. what do we have that the rest of the world wants?......... oil, they say......... what about pakistan?.......... the islamic bomb, they cry............oh, for god`s sake, get real!......... how schizophrenic can you get!........ the truth of the matter is that it is much easier to blame others for all your problems than to try and fix them yourself ......... the disease is worse than we thought and needs radical surgery by white men in pith hats.........

NazarHayatKhan #91: ``And please do not associate me with Armed Forces views which I left over a decade back - and differed fundamentally``

I think anyone who spends such a large part of their lives in the Armed Forces (or any other institution or comapny) is influenced by it, one way or the other, for the rest of their lives. They will either be too positively inclined towards what they learned there, or too negatively inclined. I think one learns something positive from every experience one has. Even from the negative experiences.

``Also no worthwhile comprehensive analysis is done in armed forces insitutions of higher learning - old papers are dug out and rehashed.``

I would tend to agree with you. Though I do think some original thought does come out. I think Musharraf and his team handled 9/11 as well as they could have, and showed a lot of far-sightedness. So that was quite original.

But you are correct in that not nearly as much out of the box thinking takes place, as it should. Most of the exposure in the Armed forces is in the non-combat branches, but they by tradition and policy don`t end up in commanding positions.

``What I said was simply a worst case seceneio - as an observer of real politic - while taking no sides either for India or for Pakistan``

This is fine. And this is how things should be analyzed, i.e. objectively, with no biases. But the analysis has to have a sound foundation. Your analysis is a Talibanic wave coming into Pakistan, and then eventually Pakistan breaking up into two pieces, with the West joining with Afghanistan and the East joining with India.

I really cannot see how this could happen. Pakistan has far more chance of breaking up due to a bad economy, or due to the frustration of the smaller provinces with a dominating Punjab, then due to a Talibanic wave.

And even when Pakistan breaks up, why in the world would India be interested in including 140 million more Muslims into its population. It already doesn`t know what to do with the 150 million Muslims it currently has. I doubt India would accept a union of Pakistani Punjab and Sind with India. Its interest is only to get Pakistan to give up on Kashmir, which would be achieved if Pakistan broke up.

``FATA areas are already loosely adminstered by Pakistan - Durand line issue remains. Farthest reaches of NWFP & Baluchistan do have seminaries - strong Taliban influence.``

I think you and I maybe reading the word, ``Taliban`` differently. If by Taliban you mean, ``internal religious extremism,`` then your remarks make more sense. But if by Taliban you mean, the actual Taliban, then I do not agree.

The Taliban were a creation of Pakistan, educated in Pakistan, armed by Pakistan, who were able to rule over Afghanistan because the Afghanis were fed up with the Northern Alliance warlords. They are now a spent force. They can at most cause trouble within Afghanistan, and that too if they have Pakistani support.

Local religious extremism remains a problem in Pakistan. But that is due to reasons different than Taliban. I really cannot see Pakistan being Talibanised. It is too far beyond that stage. It could turn into something like Iran though.

Pakistan is far too powerful in comparison to Afghanistan. And Afghanistan needs Pakistan for trade routes. The only theory that still appeals to me is Madani`s water stoppage theory. FATA is unstable, but they know where their priorities lie. They are much wealthier being with Pakistan, and not with Afghanistan.

And I still don`t see why India would be interested in any kind of peace treaty with Pakistan, if it can crush Pakistan outright.

ijaz_gul #89: ``Romair, I am not an armyman, but belong to that rare breed of civilians specialising in Strategy.``

Hmm. Your comments have all the characteristics of someone who is (was) in the army. You are the first person, on this site, whose military background I have been incorrect about. I was able to pick out NazarHayatKhan as an ex-PAF pilot who moved to PIA, after reading one paragraph of his reply. And I can usually pick out children of military officers also, from their replies. Was your father in the military?

I agree with your views on Northern Alliance, and their influence in Afghanistan. However, I think Pakistanis are overly concerned with Afghanistan. Afghanistan cannot do anything to Pakistan, even under NA. They are too weak. If anything, they should be afraid of Pakistan.

I think Pakistan should disassociate itself from Afghanistan. Nothing good, ideologically or materially, has come from there, into Pakistan, other than pomegranates and melons. We have housed 3 million of their citizens, fought the Soviets with them, and they still dislike Pakistan. So, it would be better for both, if we disengaged, and went our separate ways. We have caused too many problems for them, and they for us.

``Secondly, US interests in Central Asia are intense to achieve which, it may not hesitate to redraw geographies.``

I don`t think the USA wants to redraw Pakistan. In fact, on the whole, I would say the USA has been quite fair with Pakistan, since 47. It hasn`t overly helped us, but hasn`t overly harmed us, either . Do keep in mind that there are 190 countries in the world. And while the USA seems very important to Pakistan, Pakistan is just another third world country to the USA, which becomes important for a year out of every fifteen years.

The USA needs all the friends it can get in the Muslim world. And the last thing it would want is a broken Pakistan with nukes.

I think the future, is a USA linked with India, but still not openly anti-Pakistan. I think Pakistan needs to heavily tilt to China now. Start teaching Chinese, get into the Chinese economy, anything and everything. And develop good relations with Iran and Bangladesh.

So disengagement from Afghanistan, re-establishment of good relations with Bangladesh and Iran and a heavy tilt to China should be the policy. And wrt to India, not getting into an arms race, but keeping an open eye towards India`s offensive arms purchases. And opening trade with India.

I think us Pakistanis look too much outside our borders for problems and solutions. The problems are incorrectly blamed on Afghanistan, and Taliban, and USA and Israel, and India. When in fact, the real problems are within Pakistan.

And we incorrectly try to find solutions to domestic problems in foreign policies also - better relations with Afghanistan, recognition of Israel, friendship with India and what not. These will help, but will never be a major problem-solver. No third world country ever came out of the third world just through foreign policy. Taiwan is in an acitve cold war with China, yet it is out of the third world. South Korea is in a warm war with North Korea, yet it is out of the third world. While Bangladesh has no war with its neighbor, and is still in the third world.

I think Pakistan`s solutions only lie in its internals and in its people. If we can improve our human resource base and economy, it will not matter one bit, what happens in India and Afghanistan and USA. They will then be forced to have decent relations with us. If we cannot make these domestic improvements, then the only treaties any country will sign with us will be treaties heavily tilted against us.

Romair # 92

I think I touched a bee-hive. It requires a face to face discussion; and I really do not have the time for long posts. There are number of little misperceptions/misunderstandings that need to be addressed.

We will discuss it some times.

I admire your energy; but you need to take a little piece at a time to discuss.

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

Romair, Yea my father was once upon a time. I was just 5 when he passed away. I was crazy about joining the forces but could not. Problem; Knocked knees that could not stop me from climbing, though my slipping in mountains may have had something to do with it.

Most of my thoughts do not conform to the establisment. Taliban in my thought were an unnatural conception and therefore stillborn. The venom they produces is splashed all ove. Efcourse, Pakistan must take the blame AND FOOT THE BILL. These thoughts amply reflect the dissention and need not be expanded any further.