Posted on 12/04/2010 9:06:34 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Pakistan - a rogue state with a rogue army
2010-12-04 05:30:00
Perhaps the most disturbing piece of information available from the latest Wikileaks disclosures is the United States' realisation about the durability of the links between the Pakistan Army and terrorists. As Anne Paterson, the US ambassador in Islamabad, has noted, no amount of aid from Washington will make the army cut its ties with religious extremists.
Post 26/11, Pak would have responded to an Indian attack: Wikileaks
Equally upsetting for India is its belief that closer Indo-US ties will increase Pakistan's paranoia and make it move closer to the 'Afghan and Kashmir-focussed terrorist groups'. The hint in this assertion that it may be advisable for the US to cool its relations with India is not unlike the earlier observations by General Stanley McChrystal (who has since been dismissed for insubordination) that the growing Indian influence in Afghanistan will 'encourage Pakistani counter-measures'.
Again, the implicit suggestion was that India must terminate its 'development efforts' in Afghanistan so that Pakistan will not embrace the terror groups more closely. This weird logic of Patterson's and McChrystal's analyses negates the time-honoured concept of dealing with terrorists, which is not to submit to their demands since it will only encourage them to persist with their anarchic lawlessness.
Yet, in the case of Pakistan's now widely acknowledged bonhomie with the militant Islamic fundamentalists, the argument of at least a section of the US establishment is that Pakistan will continue to boost terrorism unless India stops even its humanitarian and development efforts in Afghanistan.
So the good guys must be criticised in the mistaken belief that this will induce the bad guys to behave. But the obvious counterpoint is that any such abject retreat before a blackmailer will only persuade the latter to up his demands. Indians are likely to see in this curiously indulgent American attitude a continuation of the pro-Pakistani and anti-Indian policies dating back to the former US secretary of state, John Foster Dulles, during the cold war.
WikiLeaks: Pakistan spy chief shared intelligence with Israel post 26/11
This biased attitude was discernible even after the horrendous Mumbai massacres of Nov 26, 2008, when the US ambassador in New Delhi said there was 'no clear evidence' of the involvement of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in the attack and the US, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand refused to enter the 'blame game' between India and Pakistan. Continuing in this vein in 2009, Hillary Clinton opposed any 'premature dissemination' of Pakistan's role in the carnage.
It is not impossible that this insouciance towards such a grave tragedy was based on the belief that India, rather than the West, will remain the primary target of the terrorists. The apparent weakening of the Al Qaeda and the fact that the US has been able to prevent a repeat of 9/11 seem to have persuaded the West that it is now safer than before.
Since its current seeming invulnerability has been ascribed to improved intelligence and preventive measures, the US and the four other countries sought to blame the failure of Indian intelligence for the Mumbai outrage rather than Pakistan.
It is noteworthy that by leaning towards Pakistan, the US is ignoring its own Kerry-Lugar legislation linking US aid to the assertion of civilian supremacy in Pakistan and the reduction of military influence. Although the army remains so much of a dominant force that it was thinking of toppling yet another civilian president, as a Wikileaks document has revealed, there is no reduction in the quantum of American largesse.
From the earlier turning of the blind eye by the US to Pakistan's complicity in terrorism to the present resigned acceptance of this inconvenient fact, it is obvious that India will have to devise its own solutions to the menace.
US doubts Pakistan will ever fight anti-India groups: WikiLeaks
The threat is apparently greater than any other in recent history. For a start, it is for the first time ever that the army of a country is openly in collusion with the terrorists with the rest of the world not only unable to break this sinister alliance but even to condemn Pakistan in unequivocal terms.
The danger is worsened by Pakistan's stockpiling of nuclear weapons, including - the most chilling of all - tactical battlefield nuclear armaments evidently for use in the event of an India-Pakistan war. This eager compiling of the so-called doomsday weapons is probably the result of India formulating the so-called Cold Start doctrine, which is said to envisage a swift military response to another Mumbai-type outrage.
The belief in Pakistan apparently is that the possibility of such an operation leading to a nuclear conflict will scuttle the Cold Start project.
Apart from the familiar fear of the subcontinent becoming a nuclear flashpoint, a greater apprehension in the US and Europe is the possibility of the weapons-grade material being pilfered by those sympathetic to the jehadi cause to enable the terrorists to build a 'dirty bomb' to target the West.
As a Russian document put out by Wikileaks has said, 'there are 120,000 to 130,000 people directly involved in Pakistan's nuclear and missile programmes...there is no way to guarantee that all are 100 percent loyal and reliable'.
Pak says its nuclear arsenal is safe, criticises WikiLeaks
Apart from the admission of US helplessness in the matter of stopping Pakistan from using terror as a foreign policy tool, there is nothing new in the latest leaks. But what is unnerving for India is that as its hostile and seemingly demented neighbour comes increasingly to be recognised as a rogue state with a rogue army, its sense of humiliation, intensified by despair at India's rise and rise, may force its military to take to a nihilistic path of widespread destruction.
US aid fuels dangerous deal in Pakistan
By Selig S. Harrison
June 29, 2010
“WITH ONE hand, Pakistan scoops up its multiplying millions in US aid. With the other, it buys nuclear reactors from China that will give it the capability to add 24 nuclear weapons per year to its estimated existing arsenal of 70 to 90.”
Pakistan will inevitably provide nuclear weapons to al Queda who will undoubtedly use them sadly against us. I hope there is a pit in hell reserved for A.Q. Khan who gave Pakistan its nuclear weapons and then transferred that technology to N. Korea and Iran.
A.Q Khan is a scape goat. There’s no way he could have done all that given that the Pakistani nuclear-missile programme are the Pakistani military’s turf. Even a six-year old knows that you can’t commandeer a military C-130 and fly it to North Korea.
http://members.fortunecity.com/terrorgate/nuclear.htm
AQK didn’t give Pakistan it’s nukes-the Chicoms did. Khan was an all too willing figurehead for the programme. A celeb-scientist and uber-patriot of sorts.
BO’s WikiLeaks have not only damaged HC but BO’s WikiLeaks have ruined any chance for a success in Afghanistan similar to President Bush’s success in Iraq.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/03/clinton-apologises-uk-wikileaks
However, the cables are far from being a laughing matter for foreign diplomats in Kabul who fear that the portrayal of the president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, and his government in a deeply unflattering light will lead to a further slump in US-Afghan relations.
Suspicions of tensions were fuelled yesterday when a promised face-to-face meeting between Barack Obama and his Afghan counterpart failed to materialise.
It was called off, US officials said, because of bad weather – making it difficult for helicopters to fly Obama to Kabul from Bagram airbase, where he met troops. A videoconference planned in its place was also dropped, officials said, because of the weather. The two spoke by phone.
Hillary Clinton also phoned the Afghan president to reassure him of US support, but it remains to be seen whether the relationship will be weakened.
US diplomats in Kabul are furious with WikiLeaks, and believe it may have done real damage to the vital relationship.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2637216/posts
Wikileaks: Obama’s War On America, Target Hillary Clinton
Big Government ^ | 12-3-10 | Pamela Geller
Posted on Friday, December 03, 2010 8:27:34 PM by FS11
It could not have escaped any lucid American that it was Hillary who was targeted in this WikiLeaks dump. Make no mistake. Hillary was the target. Julian Assange should be tried before a military tribunal. Instead, he is talking to Time Magazine, demanding that Hillary be fired.
Got that? Once again the criminal media is providing aid and comfort to our enemies. It had to strike you as ironic that the New York Times would not publish the 13,000 Climategate emails because they were “private emails,” but they had no problem with the treason of WikiLeaks.
” After this, no nation will work with us. No nation will trust us. People on the ground will not put their lives and their families’ lives on the line for so reckless and feckless an “ally.”
Who is paying for the WikiLeaks state-of-the-art servers, housed in nuclear bomb shelters? Has anyone checked to see if it was Obama’s puppetmaster, George Soros?
The Telegraph reported that Assange was “warned by ‘inside sources in the White House’ not to return to the US as he could be arrested….US government insiders had informed him about discussions to charge him as a co-conspirator to espionage.”
This Telegraph article is from last August. So after the first WikiLeaks terror attack on America, the President of the United States aided and abetted the enemy’s escape.
This is an impeachable offense. Who is going to defend us from the enemy within? Boehner and Issa better start investigating this in January.”
>As Anne Paterson, the US ambassador in Islamabad, has noted, no amount of aid from Washington will make the army cut its ties with religious extremists.<
.
Hey US, wake up to the realization that you’re dealing with Islam and not people that think in a more conventional way. You’re not up against politics or money, you’re up against an uncontrolled religious emotion that wants to destroy you regardless of any goodwill that you may foster toward it.
For your own survival, read the Koran.
Karzai is a bigger sock-puppet than obama. Karzai has no power outside of Kabul.
Karzai is a bigger sock-puppet than obama. Karzai has no power outside of Kabul.
This is VERY significant. Ambassador Paterson is a close friend of Hillary (they went to school together).
ISI isn’t going to cut its ties to the Taliban because ISI is the Taliban.
And whatever way the diplomats prefer to parse the questions and answers, ISI sponsored and supported the attack on Mumbai. They don’t worry about Indian reprisals because they want war. And anyway, they have always gotten away with this kind of thing before.
These are not people who want to govern in peace, they are not interested in building roads and sewage plants and water filtration systems. They want war, and they’ll have it whether their victims understand it or not. We believe that to have a war you have to have two combatants. But you don’t. All you need is one. The other side can either fight back or be a hapless victim.
The fact that Pakistan has an “official” government doesn’t really change anything. It is Talibanistan. Taliban is a Pakistani project. It goes forward whether India is in Afghanistan or not. So, based on that, India has to take actions that will limit Pakistan’s reach and that means increasing its own reach and influence in the countries surrounding Pakistan, and ultimately doing what it can to undermine the enemies in the Pak government. They will have to be both tough and smart.
Walking on eggshells with Pakistan doesn’t work. Surround them, and work within the country to divide the various factions from one another. Really, the US needs India to play bad cop to our good cop. The only real influence we have in Pakistan is our supposed ability to protect them from big bad India.
If it were not for the unpredictability of Pakistan and the fact that they have nukes, we probably would have left Afghanistan long ago.
The ISI is a wing of the army. It has no power of its own.
Pakistan and North Korea are very similar in their approach to their neighbours. They have cowed them down with threats of nuclear war and economic ruin. One gets US food aid, the other gets US military aid.
Keeping the war in Afghanistan running has its advantages for the Pakistani army. For one, there’s an American leash on India. If India threatens military action, the Pakis always have the excuse of pulling out troops from the North-West.
Then there’s the whole issue of military aid and new weaponry. Get US military aid and use your hard currency to buy Chinese weaponry. In 2004, Pakistan was planning to buy about 150 Chinese-built JF-17 fighters. A few years later with US giving F-16s, they have increased their projected purchase to 250 JF-17s.
Wow.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1809255/posts
Sorry I forgot to mention. They plan to purchase about 40 J-10 fighters from the Chicoms on top of that. Fleece Uncle Sam and beef up the dragon.
Do you think the Fool thinks he will run again in 2012?
9 posted on Saturday, December 04, 2010 11:44:50 AM by Kenny Bunk -—————————————————————————————————————————————————
Of course BO is running. He never stops his endless campaign to Destroy America.
India's preception now is that the U.S. is resigned to the Pak Army's nexus with terrorists. India would now probably be forced to devise its own "go-it-alone" strategies to deal with this problem. This will not be in the interests of the U.S.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.