Posted on 06/04/2002 7:32:52 PM PDT by swarthyguy
True.
Do you think India is playing brinkmanship as well? They outnumber and outgun Pakistan considerably. If India were to advance, as it threatens, Pakistan's only resort could be nuclear, and then obviously India would respond. But aren't Pakistan's non-diplomatic choices pretty much all or nothing?
Pakistan has the choice to stop arming terrorists and guerillas in Kashmir. That's a non-violent solution as well. In fact, it would remove all threat of war. But, they don't want to do that. So, they are left with an all or nothing situation.
IMO, India knows that they have to sit and take it. They are just going to grumble a lot while doing it.
Careful, comments like that are likely to go to my head! In fact, I can feel my cranium swelling as I type. ;-]
" And Pakistan, neither, break it up into a rump Pakistan and allow the parts that wish to join india or be independent the option to do so. It created the Taliban, has offered alqaeda a haven..."
You are a real piece of work, you know that? First, you infer that this whole mess started with the US fighting communism in Ashcanistan, then you point out that Pakistan created the Taliban. All this stuff is a red herring.
Your solution to this whole mess: have India and the US attack and break up Pakistan. The fact that Pakistan has nukes is the "elephant in the room" you don't don't want to talk about because you gloss that fact over as blackmail and say nothing about the implications of a nuke exchange.
Vajpayee floated the idea of a joint India-Pakistan patrols of the LOC. He has stepped up to the plate and is showing real leadership. And why would Mush decline the offer after turning his back on the taliban? I doubt he gained many islamic friends after he pulled that.
I disagree, if only on the grounds that Central Asia is a halfway house on the way to the Middle East.
China is even now trying to step up its influence in the Gulf region.
Who told you that?? Rumsfeld is most definitely headed to India. Not as a tourist, either.
Unfortunately, that is the alternative to not bowing to nuclear blackmail. And, the immediate consequences would be catastrophic, both to our security and our economy.
So the US pressures India to give in to nuclear blackmail. Because although the long-term consequences are horrible to contemplate, they are long-term.
While I understand the reasoning of the Administration, sometimes it's better to go to war earlier rather than later. And, breaking up Pakistan is a great place to start.
But, who knows ...
The two main players in the Cold War were the United State and the Soviet Union. Alignment of the rest of the world's nations hinged on these players as well as their local situations. But this is the top of Alliance Pyramid. It is also key to remember that Communist countries fell into two camps - those that accepted Soviet leadership of World Communism and those that followed their main rivals, the Chinese.
The Sino-Soviet split began with the Korean War with the North Koreans becoming a direct proxy of the Chinese - much to Stalin's annoyance. It progressed through the Vietnam War where the Soviets managed to take over control from the Chinese, because Ho Chi Mihn did not want Communist Vietnam to become a puppet of the Chinese like North Korea. This greatly annoyed the Chinese, so much so that they themselves "Invaded" Communist Vietnam after we were gone. However, before the end of the War, we Nixon and Kissenger managed to take advantage of the Sino-Soviet split, by fostering good relations (good being a relative term here), with China, so as to upset the Strategic balance against the Soviets. Also, China was not in the business of trying to export Communism all over the rest of the world, as were the Soviets. This alignment has been a part of our foreign policy ever since (though not so much now, and I see an effort on Bush's part to shift it back over to non-communist Russia now that the geo-political landscape has changed).
Now, as part of that alignment came the situation between Pakistan and India. China views India as a huge threat right smack on their southern border. China does not like having neighbors in cannot control. India has never, as far as I know, been particularly fond of China. If you are going to take side in the Sino-Soviet conflict, the natural result is that you cannot align with both of them. Aligning with China was more important because of the counter-weight they provide in the overall Cold War battle. This, of course, did not endear us to the Indians. Russia, naturally, took advantage of the fact that the Indians wanted a superpower on their side to help keep Chinese from getting any ideas about expanding in their direction. The Russians wanted a proxy state on China's southern border that it could arm and use to threaten China.
Then there's poor 'ol Pakstan. Well, the Chinese armed them to keep India off balance and to act as a spoiler close to the Soviet's Southern border, who could help control some key overland access points to the sub-continent. Our "alignment" with Pakistan had everything to do with the Sino-Soviet conflict and later Afghanistan, and nothing to do with any animosity against India (which certain Indian Journalists don't seem to understand). Fortunately, the Indians were smart enough not to become a Soviet proxy state by allowing them to build ports and airbases. They did, however arm themselves to the teeth with the Soviet Union's, and now the Russians help.
Pakistan's salad days as a spoiler in that region who could count on Chinese, and to a certain extent, U.S. support, are rapidly coming to a close. It is doubtful that China is going to let themselves be drawn into that mess. The Sino-Soviet conflict is moot, except for a few lingering border issues. China does not want to jeopardize its trade, with us or others, by suddenly, and publicly jumping in on the side of terrorism, which it does if it overtly supports Pakistan. China, I think, will stay on the sidelines and pick up any pieces that fall its way, that don't require their direct involvement.
As I stated earlier, I think Pakistan will find itself faced with two choices quite soon: making a serious effort in the war on terrorism, or being left to fend for themselves against the Indians - who will clean their clock, conventionally or otherwise.
For the record, I tend to agree with swarthyguy's sentiments on most of these issues. Like I said, the author has the facts right as far as I understand them, but I don't agree with the conclusion he's drawn from them, which I read as being a knee-jerk reaction based on hold-over Cold War sentiments. IMHO. Thanks for Pinging me to the thread Swarthy.
Best Regards, PsyOp.
Gcruse, a history primer pour vous.
The US policy is very rational and reasoned but at what potential future cost for Americans?
Quite a way with words, and I can't say I don't sympathize with their frustration.
Remember this: If you help someone destroy their number one enemy, just make sure you are not no.2 on their list. We made that mistake with the Afghan Mujahadeens, i hope we will not do the same faux pas with the Pakistanis (especially when the ISI could easily 'lose' an atomic device to some jehadi group).
Second thing: Although i agree with him that a nuclear blast over St. Louis would have the widest contamination effect, i still maintain that the best 'terrorist' target would be NYC, especially Manhattan or smack in the middle of WallStreet. Why? Such an attack would not only bring the economy to a grinding halt, possibly for a very long time; but also it would have a great pychological effect, both to the West and the Jehadis. Such a strike would have more 'oomph' to the kooks than nuking america's breadbasket.
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.