Posted on 11/30/2008 12:38:37 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
US, India face Pak blackmail on terror
1 Dec 2008, 0054 hrs IST, Chidanand Rajghatta, TNN
WASHINGTON: The United States and India face tactics bordering on blackmail from a militarized Pakistan - where civilian control is still very dodgy - as they coordinate efforts to eliminate terrorism in the region, according to analysts and officials on both sides.
In what is turning out to be an elaborate chess game in the region, Islamabad on Saturday made its "Afghan move" to counter the US-India pincer, telling Washington that it will have to withdraw some 100,000 Pakistani troops posted on its western borders to fight the al-Qaida-Taliban and move them east to the Indian front if New Delhi makes any aggressive moves.
In Washington, Pakistan's ambassador to the US Hussain Haqqani said there is no movement of Pakistani troops right now, but if India makes any aggressive moves, "Pakistan will have no choice but to take appropriate measures."
Stripped of complexities, Pakistan is conveying the following message to the US: If you don't get India to back down, Pakistan will stop cooperating with US in the war against terror. Consequently, this also means Pakistan will use US dependence on its cooperation to wage a low-grade, asymmetric, terrorism-backed war against India.
Pakistan's withdrawal of troops from the Afghan front would obviously undermine the US/Nato battle in Afghanistan and allow breathing space for Taliban and al-Qaida. It would also ratchet up confrontation with India, which is at low ebb right now because Islamabad has been forced to engage on its western front and this minimizes Pakistan-backed infiltration into Kashmir, allowing India to tackle the insurgency in the state.
In fact, some experts surmise that the terror strike on Mumbai may have been aimed at precisely this - taking the pressure off Pakistan on its Afghan front, where it is getting a battering from US predators and causing a civilian uprising on its border, and allowing Islamabad to return to its traditional hostile posture against India on its eastern front.
The US-India-Pakistan tangle was the subject of intense debate among analysts on Sunday talk shows, with some analysts like former CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin expressing apprehension that al-Qaida could be achieving its objective of getting some relief through such proxy attacks.
Vexed US officials have been in constant communication with their Indian counterparts to deal with the complex situation arising from what both sides privately agree has become a chaotic country dominated by rogue elements from its military and intelligence services.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been speaking with India's External Affairs Minister regularly to get a sense of India's mood and moves, worried that any overtly aggressive response by New Delhi will undermine US effort in Afghanistan.
President Bush and President-elect Barack Obama have also spoken to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to show US support, but also to moderate Indian response. Both Washington and New Delhi are starting to realise that the Pakistani military still calls the shots in Islamabad behind the civilian façade, officials here concede privately.
The weakness of Pakistan's civilian leadership was fully exposed on Saturday when the country’s army chief once again overruled a civilian government decision - this time to send the Director General of its spy agency ISI to India to coordinate the investigation into the latest terror attack on Mumbai.
Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari explained it away saying there was a miscommunication and Islamabad only meant to send a ''Director'' and not Director-General, at Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s request. But no one was fooled by the ''clarification'' -- the reversal of the earlier decision came after a midnight meeting Pakistan’s Army Chief Pervez Kiyani, a former ISI chief himself, had with Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani.
Pakistan’s threat about troop withdrawals from the Afghan front also followed the Zardari-Kiyani-Gilani meeting, leaving little doubt about the real power center in Islamabad despite the recent return to democratic rule.
The situation is made even more complex by the transition process in the US where President Bush is winding down from the White House and President-elect Obama is readying to take charge. Both sides have made the Pakistan problem a top priority as they coordinate response, tactics, and communication relating to developments in the region.
The latest attacks on Mumbai also threatens to torpedo Obama's stated objective of promoting good ties between New Delhi and Islamabad, so that Pakistan can focus its energy on the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan that are controlled by Islamic extremists.
But hardliners in Pakistan's military and strategic circles, who resent what they see as the country's civilian government doing Washington's bidding and fighting what they argue is a US war, are against this. The terror strike on Mumbai evidently has several objectives - one of them being to cause a rift between Washington and New Delhi and damage US-India ties.
While Pakistan's fledgling civilian government has made all the right moves and noises about cooperation with India, officials here reckon it is being continuously undermined by the hard-line military whose importance, and lavish funding, depends on keeping up a hostile posture against India.
Even in the political sphere, Pakistan's continued existence as a single entity is premised on enmity with India, the glue which keeps the country together. Some Pakistanis have suggested in recent months that take away animosity against India, then Pakistan's founding itself becomes questionable.
Already, many Pakistanis are starting to question the relevance of a country where more people are killed in intra-religious warfare between Shias and Sunnis than in Hindu-Muslim communal riots in India. Two of Pakistan's four territories are wracked by insurgencies, and the intelligence community's reading is that resurrecting the hostile posture against India is one way the hard-line elements in Pakistan hope to contain this domestic conflagration.
While Pakistan is playing its one desperate Afghan card, both India and US can separately bring Pakistan to its knees in no time. The US and its allies are dependent on Pakistan for supplies to its troops in Afghanistan, but they can also plug the economic plug on the country and cause it to collapse in no time. India controls Pakistan's lifeline and jugular with river waters that originate in India and flow into Pakistan.
But punishing Pakistan with this levers would also throw the country into absolute chaos and bring extremists elements to the fore leading to a Somalia kind of situation -- with nuclear weapons in the mix. This is the fear that Pakistan is exploiting to stay afloat and stave off sanctions from the west and punishment from India.
The solution, analysts say, is to get Pakistan's civilian leadership to exert control over its hard-line military and intelligence which functions on its own existential agenda.
This is easier said than done. America's foremost strategic guru Henry Kissinger told Fareed Zakaria's GPS program on CNN, which devoted an entire hour to the crisis, that Pakistan's civilian government had made good statements vis-à-vis ties with India,"but its capacity to implement them is questionable."
I gotta say that this event in india has really got my intrest. This is turning into quite the global chess match. I really do think we(USA) are on the brink of winning it bigtime, or losing it bigtime. It’s the worst possible time for us to lose Bush in the white house. I think the events of the next year or two will seal our(USA) fate for the following 50 years.
The Taliban were rabble. The Pakistani army is well-equipped and nuclear capable. They would not be easy-beats.
And besides, Afghanistan is far from won. Get back to me when it is safe for the US to declare victory and withdraw.
The British couldn’t conquer Afghanistan, neither could the Soviets. It remains to be seen if America and her allies can.
There are some sizeable Christian populations there who might disagree. That is they would if they could. But they can't because they're dead.
If we (as in the Western World) are really intent in pi$$ing the muslim world off royally, then might as well get it over with and vaporize the Moon Rock in Mecca, glass over Medina, and help the Jews bulldoze the Dome of the Rock. No point being superficial about it, might as well do it properly and be thorough.
Sounds like a plan to me. We could be done by Friday next I'm sure.
Rage Boy will doubtless have fits: all the better. From the look of his photo he’s about due for a seizure or a myocardial infraction anyway.
Personally I'd rather see him have a brand spanking new 7.62mm anus installed at high velocity in the middle of his forehead.
L
You could be right. Winning big time would take a great President: instead, His Excellency is in play. As you say, a terrible time for GWB to be leaving office for good.
Yeah sure. And the iraqis lasted what, 2 weeks? THey were elite, suppposedly. And and with WMDs too, remember?
I really think we should change tactics. Instead of trying to irradicate every last fanatic...build fortresses every 500 miles or so. Fortresses equipped with major missiles and very nice air bases. Then just sit back and play “whack-a-mole”.
> Yeah sure. And the iraqis lasted what, 2 weeks? THey were elite, suppposedly. And and with WMDs too, remember?
I would point out that the war in Iraq is far from over, too. You weren’t just fighting Saddam Hussein’s mob: you are fighting just about every nutcase in the Middle East.
What makes you think Pakistan would be any different?
THat’s my point. I’m saying it would be the same...with the only difference being that the nukes would need to be taken out first. But this “event” in india means that we have an excuse to do so, and it would be very nice if we could also get india to do the heavy lifting.
It just seems to me that the time is ripe for a creative person to work some magic and get things accomplished.
> THat’s my point. I’m saying it would be the same...
Why would the Indonesians not get involved? On how many fronts do you think the US can feasibly fight all at once? The Wehrmacht came a-cropper with a two-front war.
And why wouldn’t Afghanistan and Pakistan just become one huge theater?
I’d like to see militant islam go the way of the dodo. But there is little to be gained by being reckless.
Indonesia? I don’t think they have much of a navy. So I don’t expect to see them doing a beach landing like D-day in WWII. They’re stranded out there in the ocean. Let’s not worry about indonesia.
We’re already doing a two front war. Iraq and afghanistan. Pakistan would be the same war as afghanistan, except we’d (hopefully) have the indians helping out.
> Indonesia? I don’t think they have much of a navy
You’re kidding, right? Indonesia is a country made up of islands: a huge coastline to defend.
They have a HUGE navy. And they have good SEAL-like special forces. And they have a good Marines-style force.
> So I don’t expect to see them doing a beach landing like D-day in WWII.
Probably a good thing you don’t run the War Department, ay.
(JANES is your FRiend.)
OH no! The indonesians are going to invade!
not likely.
Do they have subs? Carriers? Doubtful. Not even worth looking up to verify.
> Do they have subs? Carriers? Doubtful. Not even worth looking up to verify.
Their navy includes Frigates, Corvettes, Submarines, Fast Attack Craft, Minesweepers, Landing Transport Ships, Support Vessels and Training Ships.
It is one of the largest navies in the world, and they are very capable. Most of their vessels are either Dutch or British manufacture, and reasonably modern.
Like I said, it’s probably a good thing you are not in charge of the War Department, ay.
They were beaten by the Indian Army the last few times there was a conflict. The Indians had to be pulled off by the superpowers. The Indian army has twice the troops, and India has 5 times the population of Pakistan.
It all depends on whether Pakistan lets loose with a few nukes on Indian cities. If they do, then the Indians are going to go into Pakistan like Rome went into Carthage.
We were in Iraq to fix the place up and make them like us. If our objective was to just kill everybody, to "create a desert and call it peace", we could have done that in two weeks. The only thing stopping us was that we didn't want to do that.
They have 7 frigates, 22 corvettes, and a bunch of patrol craft and such. Relative to other Third World countries that's huge. Relative to the Indian Navy (156 ships including a carrier, guided missile cruiser, 8 guided missile destroyers, etc) they are tiny. Relative to the US Navy, they are insignificant.
Whatever. If they were that scary, we’d have heard stories about them flexing their muscles by now. We havn’t. So they aren’t.
> Whatever. If they were that scary, we’d have heard stories about them flexing their muscles by now. We havn’t. So they aren’t.
You’ve heard of the Bali bombings, surely? Those were done by militant islamic extremests from Indonesia.
You’ve heard of Timor Leste? That entire area has been in an uproar for decades. That’s Indonesia’s military at work.
Neither have engaged in the WOT in any big way yet (Bali was a nasty incident, to be sure. But nothing of that scale has happened since.) It’s probably best that Indonesia doesn’t engage in the WOT: they’re a military dictatorship run by generals with plenty of muslims under their command.
Kurukshetra War and Kali Yuga ping...
To be added or removed to this ping list, please FReepmail.
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.