« White Russian People Power | HomePage | Cross-Blog Conversation on the Pakistan F-16 Sale »
Saturday, March 26, 20051111846500
Cross-Blog Conversation on the Pakistan F-16 Sale
A post at Dawn's Early Light is hosting an emerging discussion on America's planned arms sale to Pakistan. Pakistan, a truly terrible country, has its army working under rules of engagement that allows it to kill Americans. South Dakota's own Larry Pressler condemned the sale earlier. In this blog, DEL's Bill wrote:
The US agreement to sell F-16s to Pakistan is the opening public gambit in the US bid to strengthen Indian-US relations. I know this sounds completely backwards, but if you would indulge my argument I think you may find it interesting (http://dawnsearlylight.blogs.com/del/2005/03/del_makes_a_...)
Counting an update, there are already three comments. My first thoughts:
- Nitin is right that the China-Pakistan angle is important, but he misunderstands it. PRC-IRP-USA have an old working-alliance going back to Nixon. During the closing decades of the cold war the three worked together to check Soviet power. Nor is America overly concerned about Chinese acquiring technology -- Israel regularly works with China as an American proxy. I think Bush's care for Pakistan relates to this, and particularly the concern that if America abandons Pakistan it will reinforce a Beijing-Islamabad axis.
- Robert is right that Rice is courting regional powers. But this was Powell's aim too, and he was very successful at it. Under GWB America never had better relationships with Russia, India, China, or Japan. It's this tradition which makes the Pakistan sale otherwise puzzling.
- We have to be careful with talk of "containment." Bush is clearly trying to create a sustainable balance to China. But China is emerging as a force for good. Hedging our bets is not containment.
- Bush's generally pro-democracy push also makes the sale strange. Pakistan is a terrible country, combining North Korean proliferation with Saudi repression with BS Saudi-style diplomacy. If America would be able to secure nuclear installations an Islamist government would be a step up from Musharraf.
Go there now.
Update Asia by Blog's Simon agrees with me. Imagine if Cicero came down and shouted, "Mad props on your whack statesmanship." That's what this is like for me.
I'm with Dan. The first assumption that needs addressing is whether China is a competitor or a potential ally. It's early days but the latter is more likely, especially given the closer economic ties betweent the two. Next is dealing with "rising India" - in that you're right that Rice is playing the next decade's game. Also China and India recognise each other's rise and our currently undergoing a rapid rapproachment over such issues as the border and Tibet. It's not about containment, it's about strategic balance.
08:15 Posted by Dan tdaxp in South Asia | Permalink | Comments (15) | Email this | Tags: pakistan
Trackbacks
F-16s can deliver nuclear weapons
From the horse's mouth
Regarding the nuclear capability of the F-16s, he said that was no problem as most of the present-age aircraft are already capable of carrying nuclear weaponry. “We already have this capability.” [Air Chief Marshal Kaleem Sa...
Trackback by: The Acorn | Monday, March 28, 2005
India: Best Ally, Ever
"F-18s never sold to any other countryAdd to Clippings," by Indrani Bagchi, Times of India, 27 March 2005, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1063658.cms (from Free Republic).
At least, that appears to be America's offer
Boeing, Lo...
Trackback by: tdaxp | Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Robi & Nitin's Indian Ocean Horizons: 2005-04-1
In this briefing: The Eternal Triangle (or Square?); Peeling the Skin off the Pakistani Onion; Peeling the Skin off India-Pakistan Relations; India, Energy, and Security; India - a Million Matinees Now; Keeping a Eye on Khan; The FBI is a Trusted Brand...
Trackback by: Winds of Change.NET | Friday, April 01, 2005
Comments
I'd say grow up fellaz and come to www.defencetalk.com/forums for some mature discussion.
Posted by: myst | Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Fascinating link! Thanks!
Posted by: Dan | Wednesday, July 06, 2005
"Pakistan is a truly terrible country"
Whoever wrote this must be really fucking ignorant. You cant just say that unless you've lived there or have any understanding about it.
Posted by: TD | Friday, July 29, 2005
TD, Thank you for the comment.
My understanding of Pakistan is a corrupt and violent military dictatorship that, while an ally of the US, supports terrorism and holds its own people back in an oppressive, retrograde system.
What are your reasons for defending her?
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Friday, July 29, 2005
TD is right. You speak in cliches. By any International standards [a la Transparency I etc etc] Pakiatan is not anymore corrupt than Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Afhganistan, Iran, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan , all in its neighborhood. Musharraf assumed power in a bloodless coup. Less people have died of military action in Pakistan than Afghanistan, Indian Kashmir, Nepal and Sri Lanka.
Pakistan Military has lost ~250 personnel while battling
AL QAEDA on its soil. Ergot it is unheard of that one organization can be losing men while officially supporting its enemy; that is an oxymoron an must have been crafted by a fucking ignorant and biased person. Pakistan does no thold its people back in any retrograde fashion. This administration has raised the per capita GDP to a new high and strives to invest in human development, just read the WB reports if you can opt out of your biased indo-philic shell.
Now that Uzbekistan has kicked US out, it badly needs Pakistan for its Central Asia and Iran Policy.
So shut the fuck up!!!
Posted by: Marc | Saturday, July 30, 2005
I have no problem with corruption as such. Corruption is a way of "buying off" people who are powerful losers in an system. It's often better to buy them off and keep things moving forward rather than having to fight them, make their lives even worse, and waste opportunities for true improvement.
In economics, many types of corruption are known as "side payments," and are a form of peer-to-peer voluntary rule-setting
http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/04/20/bribery_as_a_form_of_horizontal_control.html
My (very indirect) knowledge of Pakistan's military is positive, a traditionally professional class of soldiers.
(They also have orders to kill Americans, but that's a seperate issue...
http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/02/23/pakistan_authorizes_killing_of_american_soldiers.html)
However, it does little good to battle violent extremists with guns when the economic, political, and educational systems serve to funnel men, money, and power into their hands.
It is not "unheard of" for a state to support its own enemies. This often happens after successful subversion attacks that undermine a government from within.
Islam Karimov is a smart man, and didn't keep US forces out. Whether or not it was wise for America to largely abandon Tashkent is another matter.
http://www.cominganarchy.com/archives/2005/06/20/thanks-for-nothing/
America's "central Asian" policy has to be focused on battling unfree states that harbor terrorists. As such, Pakistan can only be a dubious ally.
(http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/02/09/our_enemy_pakistan.html)
Iran's current regime is much better for America than Pakistan's current government. Perhaps America badly needs Iran for a "Pakistan policy"?
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Saturday, July 30, 2005
"You speak in cliches...So shut the fuck up!!!"
So what's your point?
"By any International standards...Pakiatan is not anymore corrupt than..."
What are the "International standards" of corruption?
"Musharraf assumed power in a bloodless coup."
Are you saying that in his defense?
"Ergot it is unheard of that one organization can be losing men while officially supporting its enemy"
So all the madrassas have been closed and the ISI is no longer supporting the Taliban and the terrorists infiltrating into India to commit mass murder? And bin Laden and Zawahiri are not hiding out in Pakistan?
"Now that Uzbekistan has kicked US out, it badly needs Pakistan for its Central Asia and Iran Policy."
I hate to break it to you, but I'm pretty sure that after 9/11 the US made Musharraf an offer he couldn't refuse. Now I don't know if there was a horsehead involved, but there might as well have been. Given Pakistan's role in supporting terrorism, Pakistan is very fortunate.
"So shut the fuck up!!!"
Alrighty then. Three exclamation points? I mean come on, isn't that a bit excessive?
Posted by: phil | Saturday, July 30, 2005
Pakistan helped the US during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, while India supported the Soviet line in the UN, so much for standing up for 'democracy'(india always touts that its a democracy). India has over 300.000 soldiers and BSF personnel in Indian held Kashmir, because given a choice the Kasmiri's do not want to be a part of India.
India promised in the UN that it would allow the Kashmiri's to choose. As yet no Plebiscite has been held.
India touts that its a democracy but in actual fact , there are 4 states in India that want total independence, India keeps them together by force.
Pakistan like any other nation is looking out for itself, Once the soviets withdrew from Aghanistan, the Pakistani's had to cope on their own with 3 Million refugees, The US and UN did not help much.
I have been to Pakistan on numerous occasions, and ocourse they have problems, but as a nation they do not suffer from hunger or starvation, The Madrassahs educate more people than the state, and they have a basic social security system for widows and those unable to work because of disability.
Posted by: Robinson | Tuesday, August 16, 2005
Robinson,
It would have been better if India had not ended Kashmir's sovereignty in the first place. However, reality now is that India is a prospering democracy and Pakistan is a terrorist-sponsoring state.
Pakistan's goal in the anti-Soviet Afghan War was to achieve "strategic depth" by integrating Afghanistan into Pakistan's sphere of influence. Islamabad can hardly complain about the success of that policy (that her allies did not intervene in the refugee situation).
The public/private mix of Pakistani social welfare is besides the point. What matters is Pakistan's speed (slow) and direction (backwards) in economics and politics.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Friday, August 19, 2005
Pakistan has proved to be an instrumental country in enhancing American security. In the past Pakistani governments have facilitated American rapprochement with China, which defused any Chinese military threat. They helped United States win the Cold War by supporting American actions in Afghanistan, that ultimately led to the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Now they are supporting us in the war on terror by attacking religious fanatics hiding in their country.
Pakistan is a victim of terrorism and is paying a very high price for its unstinted support for the United States led war on terrorism.
Pakistan remains a frontline state in the war against terrorism and requires support from United States for being a strong ally. Doubting Pakistan will only destabilize the war on terrorism. Accusations and speculations will not eradicate terrorism but will weaken the moderate's who are fighting the war against terrorism within Pakistan.
Posted by: Proud Pakistani | Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Proud,
Largely in reaction to India's non-aligned/sovietophile Cold War behavior and Pakistan's Muslim faith, Pakistan was an American ally through the conflict with Communism.
However, my supporting the terrorists in Kashmir and being too weak to take on the bin-Ladin aligned tribes in the northwest frontier, Islamabad's present utility is dubious.
I agree that both Pakistan and India have been attacked by terrorists... Pakistani terrorists. It's probably a question of Pakistani weakness rather than duplicity, but in that case we should regard Pakistan as a "failing-state ally," instead of a major ally (like we regard Japan, UK, Israel, India, etc).
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Thursday, September 22, 2005
Oh cut the crap! Your CIA funded Islamic extremists to defeat the Red Army and Pakistan used as a proxy state. Some of you can only be trusted on one thing and that is your double standards. A 'failing-state' doesn't throw up figures of 8% in real terms and I could go on and on. Instead of thanking Pakistan for sacrificing its soldiers and innocent civilians to make America more safe, you thankless bastards just can't seem to let go of the biased opinion.
Posted by: Sid | Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Sid,
The American government helped fund the Islamic Holy Warriros -- the Mujahideen -- who drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan. The Mujahideen were in turn displaced by the Taliban, whereupon they renamed themselves the North Alliance. In the Afghanistan War following 9/11, America restored the Mujahideen/Northern-Alliance to power and has since been attacking Taliban remnants.
I'm not sure what double standards you are refering to. If you mean treating states that help against a common enemy (Pakistan in the 80s) different than treating states that verbally harang us [1], that's a strange "double standard"! Now, it's possible that Pakistan is just condemning us to appease anti-Americans within her borders -- but Pakistan has done little to earn American trust.
[1] http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2006/01/15/pakistan_condemns_strike_says_us_missed_target/
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Dan,
I understand your point of view, but I seriously feel Pakistan is a victim. You have to remember Pakistan is a 3rd world country and does not have the necessary resources to fend off terrorists effectively. So Pakistan is not to blame, it does not have a great deal of control over its borders, it is just a weak ally, a lot of efforts are failing yes, but it is still an ally by heart with good intentions and deserves Americas support and trust. Pakistan does not want to sponsor terrorism. The terrorists have forced their way in. The literacy rate in Pakistan is very low, the government is broke. So its not fair to accuse a country in such a state (where it cannot even help itself) of so many things and call it truly terrible.
Posted by: zeeman | Tuesday, January 08, 2008
z,
Pakistan's surely in a bad position, because of previous decisions... everything from seeking a separating from the rest of India, to the oppression in Bangladesh which severed the country, to the collapse of the public education system, to support of Islamic militancy in Kashmir and Afghanistan, to a habit of violent power overthrows.
Fighting terrorism requires reliable foot soldiers, not high tech gizmos. Unfortunately for Islamabad, she has neither.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Tuesday, January 08, 2008