Does that U.S. “retribution plan” for Pakistan still stand?

September 27, 2010

flagburningOne of the more interesting details in the advance reports of Bob Woodward’s “Obama’s Wars” is that Washington had prepared a “retribution plan” in the event of a major attack on the United States which is traced back to Pakistan.

“While no contingency plans exist for dealing militarily with a collapse of nuclear-armed Pakistan, there is ‘a retribution plan’ in place, developed by the Bush administration, if the United States suffers another 9/11-style terrorist attack,” according to the Los Angeles Times. ”That would involve bombing and missile strikes to obliterate the more than 150 al Qaeda training and staging camps known to exist, most of them in Pakistan, which presumably would suffer extensive civilian casualties.”

“Some locations might be outdated, but there would be no concern, under the plan, for who might be living there now. The retribution plan called for a brutal punishing attack on at least 150 or more associated camps,” the Times of India quoted Woodward as saying.
 
The idea that the Americans would take drastic punitive action if a major attack were traced back to Pakistan has been around for a while, and is one that worries many Pakistanis. But I’ve not seen it spelled out quite so clearly before in black-and-white.
 
Some important questions then.
 
1) Does that plan still stand?
 
2) Does it apply only to al Qaeda, or has it been updated to take account of threats from other Pakistan-based groups? 
 
Take, for example, the failed car-bombing of New York’s Times Square in May by Pakistani American Faisal Shahzad, who said he was working with the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, or Pakistani Taliban.  While mainly based in Pakistan’s tribal areas bordering Afghanistan, the Pakistani Taliban also have a strong presence in the city of Karachi, so if you want to take punitive action against them, where do you draw the line?
 
What also of other militant groups such as the al Qaeda-linked Jaish-e-Mohammed , based in Pakistan’s heartland Punjab province and with alleged connections to the 2006 “liquid bombing” plot to bring down multiple airliners over the Atlantic? Or of the Punjab-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, which in the 2008 attack on Mumbai for which it was blamed, showed it had organisational skills comparable to al Qaeda to mount a spectacular assault, and which has also been linked to overseas plots?
 
The idea that al Qaeda was somehow a unitary organisation representing a unique threat to the United States has come to look very dated since 9/11.  Does that mean the “retribution plan” has also been overtaken by events?
 
3) To what extent can Pakistan prevent Pakistan-based militants from plotting attacks on the United States, when it can’t even prevent bombings of its own cities? Does the  “retribution plan” attribute responsibility to Pakistani authorities for failing – according to the United States – to “do more” to tackle militants?
 
4) How far could Pakistan withstand U.S. punitive action even if this were limited to its tribal areas? The country is already looking pretty shaky after devastating floods and the economy is in a shambles. A shift to civilian democracy that was supposed to bring stability has been sorely undermined by weak governance, which has seen the balance of power shifting increasingly back towards the Pakistan Army. Taliban militants have been trying to exploit political instability by stoking sectarian tensions, bombing Shi’ite rallies in the cities of Lahore and Quetta this month.  And anti-Americanism is already running  high, exacerbated by public hostility to U.S. drone bombings in the tribal areas.  The risk would be that intensified U.S. bombings could increase instability in Pakistan to such an extent that Washington would end up with an even bigger security threat – a nuclear-armed country slipping out of control.
 
Of course everyone remembers former president Pervez Musharraf’s comment that Washington had threatened to bomb Pakistan back into the stone age if he did not cooperate after 9/11. But I’ve never been entirely clear what that meant.  Bombing a nuclear-armed country into a state of chaos, or indeed attempting to invade it, are unlikely policy options for Washington as it tries to extract itself from two unpopular wars while also fretting about neighbouring Iran’s own nuclear ambitions.  Yet bombing suspected al Qaeda camps in the tribal areas could simply increase instability without eradicating militancy.
 
So where does that leave the United States and its “retribution plan”? Where are the red lines that would demand an immediate and powerful U.S. reaction? Would it depend on the size of the attack, the intensity of public reaction, or electoral imperatives at the time?  Does anyone know? Does Pakistan?
 
In strategic thinking about the relationship between India and Pakistan, one of the biggest worries has always been that both countries do not know where the other’s red lines lie when it comes to the use of nuclear weapons.  Even more worrying, they think they do. That thinking probably applies too to the United States and Pakistan - that they don’t know where each other’s red lines lie – either in terms of Washington’s ability to absorb another attack, or in Pakistan’s ability to withstand the U.S. reaction.  You would have to hope that they know they don’t know, and that the “retribution plan”, if it still exists, never has to be put into practice.
(Reuters photo: Protesters burn U.S. flag in Peshawar) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

Comments

Myra,

Violence begets violence. We need to be a little more analytical than using war as an instrument of foreign policy.

If destroying 1 innocent civilians generates 10 militants and more anti-western sentiment, we have to ask ourselves, if retribution will work facing an adversary that hides behind civilians.

In the new face of the battle field the so-called enemies are much weaker, decentralized and way outarmed and operate in an assymetrical fashion, fueled by philosophy and ideals, like Al-Qaeda.

The U.S. needs to develop more precision based, small tactical, stealth based units that are more highly effective and using Gurkhas and such and accurately target and pinpoint trouble anywhere on the globe and react quickly on actionable intelligence, without incident. The use of drones has been highly successful. The war planners need to develop this philosophy of precision, where enemies can be eliminated quickly and cheaply, without mobilizing ground forces and making a large scene.

The better the U.S. can do this, the less that innocents will suffer, the less ant-western sentiment that will be generated and less likely there is any threat to destabilizing a sovereign nation like Pakistan.

Good technology, intelligence and planning is the key to delivering pinpointed retribution to militant groups anywhere. It is not acceptable that innocents suffer.

Posted by G-W | Report as abusive
 

Well attacking PK is a very wishfull thinking. But it is not going to happen. Pakistan can not afford this kind of attacks in its own territory. As far as starting a open war aganist PK, that is not going to happen. Nato knows the potential of Pakistan. I believe Pakistan has a declared policy that they wount attack any country but if they are attacked by a country or an alliance of countries then, as long as they can stand the first blow they will retaliate by firing their thermonuclear devices.

If that policy of Pakistan still holds then Nato will have to get concreate assurances from PK Generals that they wount retaliate.

Posted by agtagola | Report as abusive
 

Pakistan must remain prepared for any impending US attack, while there must be a strategic dialogue between the two countries. There must be a clear red line, and complete, clearly defined retaliation plan in case of any attack. If Pakistan cannot hit back it will be a message to India that Pakistan is an easy game. Pakistan Military should have a task force, even a unified command to analyze and anticipate such an attack, ways to thwart it, and retaliate if attacked.
As for the redlines, last time in Angoor Adda raid on sept 2008 Pakistan Military reacted sharply. This time on sept 2010, similar situation has arisen but no sharp response from Pak Army. Maybe the level of cooperation and tacit approval is involved. The question of red line is important, as US keeps pushing Pakistan beyond normal limits, it should also be prepared to absorb any potential hits too. It should be a two way traffic.

Posted by Umairpk | Report as abusive
 

I believe that the “Retribution plan” is very much intact & has been altered to factor in the TTP & other terror outfits. The “Red line” will be a successful terror attack on US soil, irrespective of the size. The retibutory strike by the US will be designed to cripple the various tarror outfits, irrespective of their location in Pakistan & needless to say, it will be devastating for Pakistan. I also hope that it never comes to that.

Posted by Mortal1 | Report as abusive
 

@Myra
Your article has a number of misstatements such as “taliban stoking secterian tensions” or “the balance of power shifting towards Pakistan army” etc and lumping karachi Pashtoons with Pakistani Taliban. Though your article does include several groups which are operating in the Pashtoon territories of afghanistan and Pakistan. Perhaps you could considered the year 2010, which is not the George W and Musharaf Din, the texan and the Indian who took over the presidency of two respective countries. Things have moved on since than, the Pakistani Army is stronger than ever before and the civilian Govt. placed by the USA in Pakistan and tolerated by the Pakistan Army is the weakest the country ever had. The Pakistan nuclear strike capability is stronger and fully automated. The aggressor, even the USA is going to receive the reciprocal response without the involvement of the Pakistani staff, i.e., no red painted telephone lines for communication within or with the outside world. The USA use of overwhelming techniques of Jamming, are equally unworkable on the mechanised system. On top of that USA is currently the weakest Super Power the world has ever seen. The USA is no longer concerned with Afghanistan, AlQuaeda or Pakistan terrorist Groups, their main concern is the soaring power of China which is fast becoming the National Security Issue, the rest is just the cover screen.
Mr Obama with his clintonian foreign policy experts and the ‘clowns’ (the four star General Mcchrystal words not mine) now gathered in the Pentagon are in shambles. Who else if not Bob Woodward to enter the arena and tell the inside story. CNN and Aljazeera are going to follow. Mr Obama is getting rid of the economic team and after Nov. 5 elections, is going to address the military chiefs and the clintonians, they have brought the guy nothing but failure after falure. He has no magical recipes in his kenyan bag which he dears very much. And now you want to remind him of the bag of worms that George W, the texan left for him. Has he not had to deal with lots of disasters one after another not of his making but the leftovers from the most incompetent administration that the USA has ever been. How much can you accomplish with a General in Afghanistan who is a cancer patient. Even collin Powel told a lie during his illness and then left?
Why should a terrorist group attack the USA when numerous easy targets are now available to them throughout the world. The USA has also no interest to take a military venture towards Iran, the USA is simply tring to have bases near to China, in case the Chinese one day become hostile together with Russia, the bear, and act against the USA militarily.
Rex Minor
PS Have you in your memory seen Israel defying the USA and humiliating the President of the USA as we are witnessing now.

Posted by pakistan | Report as abusive
 

@Umair,

Why don’t you suggest a solution to your militant problem. If India or U.S. is attacked, should we just sit back and act like easy game too? Your state agencies continually lie, govern ineffectively and give a half-axxed effort on the war on terror and in many instances even assist the enemy, while claiming to fight it.

What should India do the next time, a brave godly “mujahideen” attacks and butchers innocent unarmed civilians in broad daylight, while they are having coffee or just shopping? Should India just be easy game and sit back?

What would you tell the people of India while their loved ones get slaughtered by Pakistani based militants?…..just sit back and eat it up?!!

That is the problem with you Fauji’s…you guys talk a big game fighting terrorists that threaten your roti, but you Fauji’s turn a blind eye to militants that attack NATO and India….this is a real problem.

You claim to be fighting terrorism, while in the same breath are complicit and allow the terrorism, as long as it fits your “strategic depth” doctrine against India and Afghanistan. You can’t claim one thing and want to keep another, for the sake of national interest. This mindset will always bring the redline more into focus than ever.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too. There will be huge price to pay for dancing with the devil.

Posted by G-W | Report as abusive
 

Rex:” The Pakistan nuclear strike capability is stronger and fully automated. The aggressor, even the USA is going to receive the reciprocal response without the involvement of the Pakistani staff”

-I agree with you, with Pakistan possessing second strike status, multiple weapons storage sites and delivery options Pakistan is able to absorb a strike and launch a counterstrike of its own. And with PALs (Permissive Action Links) and greater command and control by Strategic Plans Divisions, Pakistan’s nuclear assets remain credible and secure. Hopefully all these factors are enough to deter any external aggression.

Posted by Umairpk | Report as abusive
 

@G-W
“What should India do the next time, a brave godly “mujahideen” attacks and butchers innocent unarmed civilians in broad daylight, while they are having coffee or just shopping? Should India just be easy game and sit back?”

Come on G-W, don’t you know Islam is the religion of believers and every non-muslim is a Kaafir. And kaafirs are there to be butchered. Islam is greatest and rest all are kaafirs and deserve to be killed. India, USA, Europe, etc are all Kaafirs and hence it is legitimate for Islamic mullahs to preach hatred against them. Pakistan history books in some places nowadays very correctly teach “Bharat haraam hai” (India is unacceptable). Because India is Kaafir. C so simple it is. And Kaafirs have NO right whatsoever to defend themselves. And Taliban, Al-qaida, PA, ISI are all bogeys created by USA to defame the God made Islam. It is just a bunch of people in “Holy” lands instigating violence against Kaafirs. And since it is NOT against Law in holy Islamic lands to Kill kaafirs so their state agencies fully support these groups instead of eliminating them so as to uphold and spread Islam. What’s wrong with that? Let there be Allah’s rule everywhere and those who don’t accept shall be killed. And if Kaafirs talk of the violence by muslims against non-muslims then it is their cold war visions. And if their loved ones are killed by great Islamic forces then they should not take things seriously for the simple reason that kaafirs are not Holy muslims.
So stop asking stupid questions. U r a kaafir and should accept supremacy of Islam.

BTW, Rex, U have lectured enough on investigating deep and blowing away bogies in wind. Can you please enlighten us on the HOW TO INVESTIGATE DEEP? Thanks!!

Posted by 777xxx777 | Report as abusive
 

Will bombing the 150 sites actually impact the ability of terrorists or is it just window dressing for audience back home?

Posted by nvrforgetmbai | Report as abusive
 

Lastly, people on this site tend to over estimate the decline of USA. The facts are as follows:
The size of US GDP is $15 trillion. The second largest economy China has GDP of $5 trillion. So despite China’s higher growth rate, it will have long way to go before it catches up to the US. When u are that large then many sins including their large deficit tends to be forgotten.

US spends $550bn annually on its military more than next 14 countries combined. Given size of defense budget, a few billion of aid to Pakistan is unlikely to break their backs.

The greatest strength of the US lies in its diversity and ability to attract, absorb and integrate immigrants from all across the world. This leads to high level of entrepreneurship and innovation – companies like Google, Apple etc.

While they are licking their wounds in Afghanistan and Iraq, it would be unwise to underestimate the country and its ability to bounce back from this disaster.

Posted by nvrforgetmbai | Report as abusive
 

Starting on a lighter note, reading the post, I was initially amused that there was no India Pakistan nexus – till I came to the last para. Myra lived up to her reputation – everything at some point or other must some sort of India – Pakistan angle, no matter how vague.

True to type again – Umair’s main point about the plan is that it will send India a wrong signal about Pakistan!!! Then of course he goes on how Pakistan is the, (sorry, that shuld read) THE, nuclear power capable of withstanding all comers under all circumstances and will deliver the knock out punch to anyone and everyone.

It doesn’t get funnier.

The cake must of course go to this gem “On top of that USA is currently the weakest Super Power the world has ever seen.” (Rex) It is still a super power with enough clout and firepower to overwhelm most any country in the world. Which category will one put Pakistan in – potential super power, wannabe super power, or just power, no power, or migraine?

As far as I know the current no 2 world power will take another 40 years to catch up. How weak is that?

Posted by DaraIndia | Report as abusive
 

Atleast Pakistan is not Iraq or Afghanistan, if attacked Pakistan can,must and will retaliate with full force.

777
“Islam is the religion of believers and every non-muslim is a Kaafir. And kaafirs are there to be butchered. Islam is greatest and rest all are kaafirs and deserve to be killed. ”

-No sir, you are wrong. Islam is a religion of peace that does not preach the killing of innocents. The topic under discussion is that If US has plans to attack Pakistan and its potential outcome. For Pakistan it is a simple case of external aggression, it doesnt matter who you are. If you attack us, we will hit back. If you have a problem with us, come knock our door, we will open our house let you in, serve you and sit down talk and listen, try to sort it out. Choice is yours, you want to fight or you want to negotiate. I have always beleived that nuclear weapons act as deterrent, balance of power sets an equilibrium, when two powers are equal militarily or economically, one party knows that delivering a punch to the other would leave its own noose bloody. In case of Iraq and Afghanistan US did not hesitate, againts Pakistan US would have to think twice.
While a US naval carrier strike group would be on standby to sieze Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, in such a scenario intelligence estimates fail to predict if the mission will be a success or failure. Toying with Pakistan’s soveringty is like playing with fire. It doesnt seem to be a good idea for US or India either. If Pakistan has to stop India, it would have to stop US first.

Posted by Umairpk | Report as abusive
 

@DaraIndia wrote:
“It (US) is still a super power with enough clout and firepower to overwhelm most any country in the world.”

- The US has almost lost to a rag tag lightly armed Taliban in Afghanistan. IED attacks, post traumatic stress, now soldiers are turning to locals for hashish. Atleast after a terrified day they can smoke and sleep at night. Super power huh? come on! They couldnt even overpower the province of Kandahar’s few districts part of one of poorest country of the world, let alone others. BTW I have admiration for USA and its people and for anyone else, we have no enmity with anyone. We would only like to live with honour and dignity. Thats it!

Posted by Umairpk | Report as abusive
 

As per Lt. Gen Khalid DG Strategic Force Command, following are the redlines of use of nuclear weapons by Pakistan:

In India Pakistan conflict:

1. India moves to destroy a large portion of Pakistan Armed Forces.
2. India captures large amount of Pakistan territory.
3. India enforces a naval blockade of Pakistani ports or choke economically (include water problem).

These are thr rough red lines, I would get the pdf document study by a think tank and share when i find. But this is more or less an Idea of the redlines that exists and if anyone crosses them Pakistan would prepare for a nuclear strike (hypothetical scenario). Much of it stands true for US as well, for Pakistan it would be a case of use them or loose them.

Posted by Umairpk | Report as abusive
 

Myra

Your questions are certainly thought provoking:

1) Does that plan still stand?

2) Does it apply only to al Qaeda, or has it been updated to take account of threats from other Pakistan-based groups?

It would be a good idea to also discuss what potential contingency plans does Pakistan have. Lets be clear that Pakistan’s Strategic Plans Division/Strategic Force Command of the Army incharge of ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads as well as National Command Authority have also evolved in last 5 years. I am sure a lot of scenarios are dealt with and Pakistan is better prepared to deal with anything. So bring it on!

Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine is primarily based on US nuclear doctrine – intended to neutralize conventional superiority, first use and willingness to have tactical use of nuclear weapons.

PURPOSES:
1. Strategic Equalizer of Power Asymmetry
2. Deterrent against Conventional War
3. Facilitator of Asymmetric Warfare
4. Security Guarantor in Absence of Ally Support
5. Instrument to Legitimize Military Power etc.

While Pakistan should continue to work against terrorist groups, there should be clear message that any attack on Pakistan would be intolerable and unacceptable and will be punished.

Posted by Umairpk | Report as abusive
 

There are people who are surprised to see today’s Germany and ask themselves who after all was the victor of the world war 2, the allies or Germany. The stregnth of a country depends upon its people, the german leaders realized this after the defeat and today’s Germany is second to none in Europe and an industrial joint in the world. The Japanese followed the same course and do not need quantification of their stregnth. Chinese have been following the same philosophy and the results are obvious. They have the fastest commuters train in the world. The USA is today on its knees, living on borrowed money from China and the good old saudis and dying the prolonged death of an elephant. Its economy mostly relied on weaponry and war machinery, the infra structure worst among the industrialised countries. Its economy and labour force rely on the green card import of humans mainly for menial jobs. On top of that they are plagued with illegal hispanic immigrants. Today a man with a kenyan father is their President, tomorrow perhaps a mexican or a cuban. With regard to India, every sixth person in the world is supposed to be an Indian. it is marching on like a turtoise with the trumpet of democracy with complete disregard for the dignity of a human,together with the caste system, the super Brahmans and the low caste flunkiers. The farmers are the poorest, unable to have a livelyhood from the leased land, whereas, the upper class receiving maximum from the so called nine percent growth per annum. The Kashmiris are not even graded yet, the sikhs were crushed with a massive military force, and other ethnic groups are going to meet the same fate if they use the tool of democracy and demonstrate against the central Govt. Pakistan is another anamoly in the mosaic, still kowtowing the declining super Power,which refused to aid Pakistan in its war with India, despite having a defence Pact. The pakistani leaders were not fully conversant with the flexibility of the english language. The CENTO pact was designed to support the USA in emergency and not the other way around. Infact, the world is now told that the USA generals gave threats to the former President in his own residence. Cooperate with the USA or stzone age. A Pashtoon General would not allow the American Generals, including Collin Powel to get away from the country if such threats are given in his home. A pashtoon is today living in the stone age. What can be worst than what they have today, the mountains and sorrounded by the USA and NATO soldiers. I am sorry Umair,Pakistan nuclear arsenal is no longer a deterrance, when India openly and the USA privately threatens Pakistani leaders. Pakistan leaders should have the courage to initiate the first strike or shut up and mind its own business, doo not get involved in foreign affairs, sack the Foreign Minister,develop its own citizens to become a NATION, provide free education and work, work and work. There are no short cuts for progress, uniting the citizens with a sense of purpose and not slogans. India is the adversary but not the enemy. Most of the Indian people are struggling to even have a single days meal. Their middle class lives on junk food and with diabatese, the highest in the world. I am not a Pakistani citizen nor have any affiliation with India, I do not say things with anger or bitterness but with the hope that India and Pakistan have will one day find a way to overcome the historical injustices and live like neighbours.
From the USA more threats and more sanctions are going to flow towards the rest of the world. Apart from the marshal plan, we have seen nothing good from the USA, o’h yes they are experts in the industrial espionage and this has not gone undetected in Europe. The Chinese are now receiving direct from Europe the most innovative inventions and the Indian friends should compare the GDP numbers on a quarterly basis. The USA bounce back period is long gone. Sooner or later Mr Obama is going to surprise all of us and leave the whiote house prematurely, if things do not improve
Rex Minor

Posted by pakistan | Report as abusive
 

Actually, Umair how do u use your weapons against the US? I do not think u have intercontinental missiles to deliver payload to US soil. So what do u plan to do with ur weapons if US crosses red line?

Posted by nvrforgetmbai | Report as abusive
 

@Umairpk

“No sir, you are wrong. Islam is a religion of peace that does not preach the killing of innocents. The topic under discussion is that If US has plans to attack Pakistan and its potential outcome. For Pakistan it is a simple case of external aggression, it doesnt matter who you are. If you attack us, we will hit back. If you have a problem with us, come knock our door, we will open our house let you in, serve you and sit down talk and listen, try to sort it out. Choice is yours, you want to fight or you want to negotiate. I have always beleived that nuclear weapons act as deterrent, balance of power sets an equilibrium, when two powers are equal militarily or economically, one party knows that delivering a punch to the other would leave its own noose bloody. In case of Iraq and Afghanistan US did not hesitate, againts Pakistan US would have to think twice.”

My post above was a taunt to Rex’s description of Islam in one of the other articles. So please do not get hyper. It was Rex who said Islam is religion of believers and rest all are non-believers and will get punished on judgement day and so on, in one of the other articles. So my post above is just a taunt (satire) at him. I have myself read Quran and I know what Islam is and I have never meant a word against Islam. I agree Islam, or for that fact all religions do, preach peace and harmony, not an iota of doubt in that. Still u feel hurt then accept my deepest apologies to you.

U only replying to part of question here. U say if India/US attack Pakistan. But u did not tell what to do if another 9/11 or Mumbai traces back to Pakistan. What has Pakistan done till now to prevent another 9/11 and/or Mumbai happening. And if done then is it sufficient? Honestly tell has Pakistan done anything to prevent another Mumbai? Does India/US have a right to defend themselves or not? Do you mean that because Pak has nukes so Pak can threaten anyone and go on permitting criminal activities on its land directed against other countries? Do you think permitting and aiding criminal activities, directed against other countries, by state agencies of Pakistan is an appreciable thing? Do you think another 9/11 or Mumbai will be an appreciable thing is Pakistan?

India for long has been wanting peace. Is Pakistan ready for it? Cementing LOC as border should remove fears from Pakistan mind that India will grab its land or something like that then why ur politicians are not ready for it despite that India is more than ready for it? Don’t know about US but fear from India is completely hypothetical, rubbish, and created as a BOGEY by your state agencies and politicians so as to suck up your bloods and have heavenly lives for themselves. U r going down the path of Mynammar or may be even North Korea. I don’t think anyone is going to be foolish enough to nuke Pak, not because of Pak but because nuking Pak will certainly effect India as well and in current scenario no one wants to disturb India’s positive economic progress specially in times of recession. So ur nukes are not the deterrent it is India’s growth prospects that save Pak from any such stupid act. Nuking any country is horrible in my opinion. Why punish future generations for acts of current ones.

I hope the message of peace gets through. Break your mind’s shackles and come out and c through bogeys created by your politicians and state agencies. Why does your parliament spend 60% time on discussing hatred campaigns against India and not on discussing development in Pakistan. Picture should be clear to you. You are a nice educated guy who for most of times talk sensible (for some times EVERYONE of us lose sense in anger). But any other country like Pakistan has right to defend itself and please understand that Pakistan cannot go on allowing criminal activities on it soil directed towards other countries and escape.

“Toying with Pakistan’s soveringty is like playing with fire. It doesnt seem to be a good idea for US or India either.”

Certainly NOT for India. India is a land of Bhuddha and Mahavira so we mean friendship and not fights. Fights in past have given us nothing fruitful (I hope a day comes when pakistanis also realise this). We do not wish to waste our resources on trivial fighting. However like Pakistan, India also has legitimate right to DEFEND itself from any external threats.

Posted by 777xxx777 | Report as abusive
 

I would not be surprised if Pakistan DOES have a intercontinental ballastic missile. So that notion of Umair to strike US may be a distant truth. but of course not confirmed.

Posted by 777xxx777 | Report as abusive
 

Rex, for once I would agree with you Rex that it is the economics that make a super power and not military. USA was super power because it kept its economics going through wars. And Indians have enormous respect for Germans for their sheer superiority in technology.

India, unlike Pakistan, knows the goal is the inclusive growth and the wheel is moving in right direction. Mistakes of past should not hamper future though. If we keep bickering about past then nothing useful will come out. Current laws like making farmers a stake holder in Corporate projects in return for farmer’s land is a landmark of Indian democracy. But yes divisive voices will be shut whether someone likes it or not we don’t care. If u want to remain inside Indian democracy and fight for your rights PEACEFULLY then there can be solutions as is the current example of farmers in UP state. Only trouble is population explosion and has to be dealt with immediately. As for caste system that cannot be eradicated in one day. It takes generation. Most guys from our next generation do not worry much about caste but yes we cannot just kill the older ones to eradicate caste system. So just wait and watch.

And thanks for FIRST time saying India is not enemy to Pakistan although I would argue to your adversary impression.

Posted by 777xxx777 | Report as abusive
 

777xxx777,
My sense is that Pak does not have ICBM so if US attacks them, they will retaliate by nuking India. Waiting for someone to confirm the same. That is what I am trying to understand.
They might try to nuke Afghanistan but honestly whats the point.

Posted by nvrforgetmbai | Report as abusive
 

I hope there are no such plans, because with the demise of the terrorists, a large number of civilians would have to lose their lives. We need to focus on uprooting the terrorists from our borders, so that this threat can be evaded.

Posted by SZaman88 | Report as abusive
 

Why is the assumption there that it will be a military plan?

The US has no interest in being embroiled in another war in the region, especially when Pakistan can be brough to its knees without ever firing a single shot. And that’s exactly what the US will do when (not if) it gets fed up with Pakistani intransigence.

At that point, you can bet that the Pakistanis themselves will take out the camps or give the US tacit permission to do the job. If you think that’s implausible, just think of how far the Predator strikes campaign has come along.

For all their bluster, even the Pakistan Army knows that Pakistan could not survive more than a week or two without foreign assistance. Merely delaying the cheques a few weeks would cause trouble for Pakistan. Sincerely, threatening to cut them off altogether would cause panic in Rawalpindi.

Posted by kEiThZ | Report as abusive
 

1) Does that plan still stand?
Based on Clinton’s statement after Shazaad’s cute stunt, I would say, Yes.

2) Does it apply only to al Qaeda, or has it been updated to take account of threats from other Pakistan-based groups?
Why would it be restricted to AQ?

3) a)To what extent can Pakistan prevent Pakistan-based militants from plotting attacks on the United States, when it can’t even prevent bombings of its own cities?
To a large extent, but cannot guarantee.

b)Does the “retribution plan” attribute responsibility to Pakistani authorities for failing – according to the United States – to “do more” to tackle militants?
All retribution is blind. You can however, expect some video footage to emerge from some caves showing PM Gilani personally directing the jihadis.

4) How far could Pakistan withstand U.S. punitive action even if this were limited to its tribal areas?

Pakistani leadership may not be able to resist calls for destroying the “allies” of the West. If the leadership succumbs to extreme domestic pressure, they will embark on a mis-adventure against India.

5) Red lines?
US: Any successful terror attack originating in Pakistan, according to Clinton.

India:
I have it from some credible sources that Mumbai was way past the red line. Indian strategic think-tank used to believe that a stable Pakistan is in it’s own interest. They no longer believe so. The consequences of this strategic overhaul would be felt over the next decade.

Pakistan:
This is a bit problematic. It is pretty much in a perpetual state of war with India. On evidence of it’s jihadi tactics against India, I’d say that Pakistan doesn’t have much faith in it’s own conventional warfare capability. The nuclear red-lines are problematic too. Pakistan HAS lost a significant amount of strategic territory to India over the years. By their own doctrine, they should have nuked India some time ago. Besides, their nuclear doctrine seems to be vulnerable to “salami tactics”.

Posted by trickey | Report as abusive
 

The US should have hit Pakistan in 2001 itself. There should have been no choice given to Musharraf. Pakistan was the real backbone of global Islamic terrorism. Afghanistan was the breeding ground for Pakistan’s radical elements. Pakistan is the root. Afghanistan is simply a branch. By attacking Afghanistan, the US only managed to remove some leaves from the branch. The root is still in tact. If the US had taken Pakistan on in 2001, where there was sufficient justification and world support, by now it would be Pakistan and not Afghanistan, that would be undergoing restructuring. The US willfully got cheated. I think now they know for sure that Pakistanis will betray anyone. It is a good lesson learned, although belatedly.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

Umair,

Please read what I have said again. The US has the firepower to obliterate most countries in the world. That it failed in Iraq and Afghanistan in its political aims is not the point. The point is it destroyed the armed might of the countries. Failure was political not militarily. It was in fact accused of reducing rubble to rubble, in case you care to remember.

I maintain, Pakistan, India and a host of countries cannot defy the US militarily without having their war machines reduced to toast. However, the problem with the US is that it has got so used to going in, pulverizing everything and then walking away leaving others to clean up the mess, that when it was left on its own in Iraq and Afghanistan, it failed miserably to achieve its political aims.

Posted by DaraIndia | Report as abusive
 

This talk of nuclear retaliation is ridiculous. Even the topic at hand (hittin a few hundred AQ camps) is not sufficient to cross Pakistan’s nuclear red-lines.

Umair,

You may be suicidal. That does not mean the generals in Rawalpindi share your mentality or your IQ for that matter.

They know the day they launch one non-conventional attack (even if it’s a chem/bio strike) against US forces, is the day Pakistan ceases to exist.

Keep in mind that US doctrine generally calls for no-first strike, but for massive and overwhelming retaliation and escalation to a nuclear response for all WMD threats. One would hope for your sake that even if things get hot, that your generals aren’t that imbecilic (to their credit, I don’t think they are….it’s just you and your bluster).

Pakistan’s response would be predictable and painful. Cut off all co-operation with NATO on Afghanistan. Stop co-operating with the US on counter-terrorism efforts. And possibly start proliferating again.

The US, of course, would then ratchet up economic pressure and push to make Pakistan a global pariah. They would also continue strikes on Pakistani territory. And given the reliance on US technology, the mere lack of spares, is quite likely to make the PAF unable to mount a credible deterrent against a few carriers parked off the coast.

That’s how it plays out if the US goes unilaterally. But more than likely they won’t. They’ll be hopping mad. They’ll call and threaten to bomb Pakistan back to the stone age…again. And Pakistan will cave (nuclear weapons and all…they had those the last time around too)…and give the US the necessary access it needs to do what needs to be done. The military will then overthrow the civilian government, blaming them for not sticking up for Pakistan’s sovereignty (after having encouraged them to cave to the US). And all will be well after that.

Posted by kEiThZ | Report as abusive
 

@trickey,

It’s interesting that you say Mumbai crossed India’s red-line.

I would dispute that argument. From my conversations with Indian diplomats, military officers, etc. they certainly don’t reflect that view.

While the attack was certainly a scar on the national psyche, most I have talked to recognize Mumbai for what it is, another step in a series of attacks directed by Pakistani authorities against India’s centres of gravity (Mumbai/economic, Bangalore/technological, Delhi/political, Jaipur/tourist, etc.). Several have stated to me that a military response in response to such a campaign would be disproportionate, prone to escalation (possibly even nuclear escalation), and possibly beyond the Indian command and decision-making structures ability to handle (because all out war is quite likely in this scenario).

What is likely though is that India is probably studying how to neutralize such threats more covertly….targetting their fund-raising and recruitment centres overseas, possibly using covert forces to disrupt them inside Pakistan, and stepping up efforts to neutralize collaborators at home.

Also, the Mumbai attackers made one huge mistake. They targetted foreigners. This now means that India has suddenly made friends with virtually every intelligence outfit in the West and will get their co-operation in cracking down on these outfits, while nicely getting to advance its narrative of Pakistan as the global epicentre of Islamist terrorism.

Notice all the visa restrictions on Pakistanis? Notice how much harsher the tone from the UK and the US has gotten of late? You can bet that the newfound kinship the West has with India (all being victims of Pakistan-based terrorism) is having some impact.

The Mumbai attackers shot Pakistanis in the foot by targetting Westerners. They ensured that every Westerner sees himself as a Mumbaikar. Coverage on CNN was almost as similar to 9/11. And I’m not exaggerating. The attackers lost their case in the court of global public opinion by their excesses.

There’s no longer much tolerance for Pakistan based terrorism. Even against India. Why? Simply put, the rest of the world has too much invested in India. These days, attacks in India will inevitably end up killing a few foreigners which means that any attack on India is just as likely to draw Western anger. For this reason, India never has to worry about Pakistan again. The rest of the world will take care of Pakistan from here on in….if for the simple reason that it’s in their best interest to do so.

Just wait until attacks in India start killing Chinese businessmen. That’s when the real fun will start for Pakistan.

Posted by kEiThZ | Report as abusive
 

Has everyone really gone insane and mad. Are we really discussing nuking some people and destroying generations. Come on don’t get so much foolish. Stop posting about the bloody nukes any further. We don’t want nukes. Nukes are dangerous for EVERYONE’s survival. Even discussing the possibility of nuking any country is sheer madness.

Posted by 777xxx777 | Report as abusive
 

@Keithz,

At the end of the day, it seems, that India, the U.S. and the world are supposed to absorb strikes and hold their sidearms in their holsters, while they get an ear or a finger cutoff, just because Pakistan has nukes.

At the end of the day, this amounts to nuclear blackmail by Pakistan. Pakistan wants to be in a convenient spot where its militants carryout attacks against India, U.S. or the west for assymetrical warfare, but at the same time, want to reserve the right to retaliate with nukes if any country chooses retribution.

It seems that Pakistan has become like North Korea, but we just don’t know or don’t want to talk about it.

Pakistan is not doing enough to stop the militants like the haqqani’s and hekmatyars. I don’t think India will ever strike Pakistan over Mumbai sized attacks, but countries should certainly consider indirect modes of retaliation, as mentioned on earlier blogs by keithz, such as seizing banking accounts of Pak military companies world wide and ceasing all formes of military and monitary aid.

Most Pakistani’s are innocent fodder in the eternal war between the Elite and Clerics of Pakistan and the West. Unfortunately, most Pakistani’s as innocent as they are, are too deep in propaganda to question their own elites and clerics.

“Just wait until attacks in India start killing Chinese businessmen. That’s when the real fun will start for Pakistan.”

–>Chinese won’t do anything. They won’t care about sacrificing a few individuals for communism, that is the cost of business to them. They still hate India a lot more and will continue anti-India encirclement.

What China fears most is a South Indian Union, which will create a manufacturing workforce larger than China’s

Posted by G-W | Report as abusive
 

@G-W
“What China fears most is a South Indian Union, which will create a manufacturing workforce larger than China’s”

I guess you mean South Asian. Yes thats true. Thats the only fear China has for now so it is in its own interest to keep the neighbours fighting and wasting their respective resources. Unfortunately Pakistanis will never get this. Not at least in near future.

Posted by 777xxx777 | Report as abusive
 

Further to my last point, that is why China is working hard to stop a south Indian Union by stoking separatist, Maoist and other Anti-India movements. Last but not least, they have given considerable effort to keep Pakistan an enemy of India. China would not stand for peace between India and Pakistan. Pakistan is easily pawning itself off for China’s interest’s.

Posted by G-W | Report as abusive
 

@777,

The silly Pakistani’s have always had an opportunity to progress, manufacture and do great things. Sadly, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka…all of these countries can achieve greatness together…eliminate terrorism and bring all of their people out of poverty and simultaneously address sovereignty issues and social issues.

So much good can be achieved by a South Asian Union, but everybody is not willing to jump on board the Indian success train, but choose instead to be pawns, whores for hire or proxies of militantism or be Chinese stooges.

Nothing personally against China, at least they are somewhat organized and have their stuff straight, even though all the humans there are equally worthless. State controlled capitalism is better than none.

The south asian countries need to look at themselves and ask what has been achieved for their people by working against each other and ask what potential has been lost.

It is never too late to look to the future and leave the past behind and choose progress. When people have jobs, financial success, some control over their destiny, many great things can be achieved for over 1.7 billion asians.

The Europeans have Union, there is no reason why the South Asians cannot put their difference aside. There is a lack of political and moral will.

Posted by G-W | Report as abusive
 

Umair,

I see that you’re back to your silly & immature nuclear breast thumping. I’m curious to know, in the hypothetical event of US jets flying over your country & targeting terrorist camps, exactly how will you use your nukes against them? And in the unfortunate event of your generals being as stupid & suicidal as you are, do you really think that Pakistan exists after such a collosal blunder?

Posted by Mortal1 | Report as abusive
 

Pakistan has had all the nukes and infrastructure even before 2001. That is why Musharraf boldy launched the Kargil offensive in 1999.

So if Pakistan can hit back at the US now in retaliation for any strikes, it could have done the same in 2001 when Armitage asked Musharraf that question. If Pakistan decided to jump ship and align itself with the US then, what makes anyone think it will not do so this time if the US attacks it?

Pakistanis generally thump their chests a lot. As days go by, the US is going to encroach more and more into Pakistan and simply destroy its militant bases. Pakistan has been weakened tremendously by its own internal chaos and instability. The floods have made things even worse. In this scenario, the US might be worried that its priorities will not be met. Before Pakistan caves in and decides not to support the US efforts anymore, it would be prudent on the part of the US to go in and take out as many militants as possible directly.

Pakistan wouldn’t do anything to the US. What might happen in a weakening Pakistan will be a split in the ranks – those who want to play it safe by aligning with the US and those who will not. The latter will be the radical side of its military. The US might drive a wedge between these two groups and create more chaos. Without support from a divided military, the militant groups will run helter-skelter. The US might simply stamp out all those randomly running elements by weakening the Pak military. It can lead to civil war like situation due to uncontrollable inflation caused by weak economy and the natural calamity.

Obama is getting desperate as well. He needs to do something concrete before closing the shop in Afghanistan. The Taliban are not coming around and so long as they rely on the Pak military not much will happen. Time is running out. Therefore, the recently launched US air strikes into Pak territory is a starting point. It will get deeper as a weakened Pakistan simply looks on. Protests will be launched and effigies will be burnt. But the US is getting desperate.

Pakistan will not dare attack the US in retaliation. There are enough in its culture who can switch sides if things tilt in ther enemy’s favor. They have been doing this since the time of Muhammad Bin Qasim. They will simply rewrite their history and duck under the table. It is a survival technique that they have perfected over centuries. Most converted to Islam to save themselves from the raiding hordes from Central Asia. So it is not new. Many Pakistanis pride themselves with their “resilience.” It is actually their flexible spines that they are referring to. They can bend over backwards if the situation demands. I would not take their claims seriously. They can be nuclear armed for as long as they want. But they will do nothing when their floor is rocking.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

G-W: “The Europeans have Union, there is no reason why the South Asians cannot put their difference aside. There is a lack of political and moral will.”

A lot of maturity is needed before reaching the status of the EU. And EU happened much after two terrible World wars and a cold war. They suffered enough to realize that unity is the best way to survive. They had been in conflict for centuries with each other prior to that. Better life, more wealth and openness has led to their union.

It is not possible in the sub-continent to make a system based on voluntary membership. There are many dividing barriers to that – religion, language, ethnicity, caste, class, illiteracy, poverty, corruption etc. In India unity was forced by forming a nation out of many diverse regions. Over the years, people have learned to tolerate each other and move on. By itself, it would not have happened. So India lucked out.

We can simply co-exist as good neighbors. Only Pakistan seems to have problem with that. All other countries seem to be getting along with us all right. There will always be issues with neighboring nations. But they can be sorted out through negotiations. Pakistan believes in using force to achieve its ends and has not learned any lesson from its past failures.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

The Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College
Strategic Studies Institute
United States Army War College
122 Forbes AvenueCarlisle, Pennsylvania     
January 16, 2008
Pakistan’s Nuclear Future: Worries Beyond War.
Edited by Mr. Henry D.Sokolski 
 
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.arm y.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=832 

download here:  http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.a rmy.mil/pubs/download.cfm?q=832  

Today, Pakistan’s strategic deterrence strategy consists of five major elements:

(1) An effective conventional fighting force and the demonstrated resolve to employ it against a wide range of conventional and sub-conventional threats.
(2) A minimum nuclear deterrence doctrine and force posture.
(3) An adequate stockpile of nuclear weapons and delivery systems to provide for an assured second strike.
(4) A survivable strategic force capable of withstanding sabotage, conventional military attacks, and at least one enemy nuclear strike.
(5) A robust strategic command and control apparatus designed to ensure tight negative use control during peacetime and prompt operational readiness (positive control) at times of crisis and war.

Should India
push Pakistan to the brink—whether by attacking,
occupying, destroying, or strangling—Pakistan’s NCA
could very well decide to use nuclear weapons.

As the military crisis deepened with India
in January 2002, Kidwai told a pair of Italian physicists
that Pakistani nuclear weapons would be used only “if
the very existence of Pakistan as a state is at stake.”
Kidwai elaborated: “Nuclear weapons are aimed solely
at India. In case that deterrence fails, they will be used
if:
a. India attacks Pakistan and conquers a large part
of its territory (space threshold);
b. India destroys a large part either of its land or air
forces (military threshold);
c. India proceeds to the economic strangling of
Pakistan (economic strangling);
d. India pushes Pakistan into political destabilization
or creates a large-scale internal subversion in Pakistan
(domestic destabilization).”
Much of this applies to US as well.

Posted by Umairpk | Report as abusive
 

Keith:”You may be suicidal. That does not mean the generals in Rawalpindi share your mentality or your IQ for that matter. They know the day they launch one non-conventional attack (even if it’s a chem/bio strike) against US forces, is the day Pakistan ceases to exist.”

-Keith the red lines are clear, only if Pakistan’s very existence is threatened will Pakistan cross the nuclear threshold.

Posted by Umairpk | Report as abusive
 

@Gentlemen
Reading your comments I almost felt as if I am sitting in a military base sorrounded by several generals and staff officers discussing various scenarios of confronting the enemy with Nukes! For a moment I even imagined of a super power which is now in control of the world by policing it and punishing the culprits as and when they do not keep the peace. I then suddenly woke up and realised that you guys were talking about the declining power in the world and the country Pakistan which has just been hit by a flood of biblical dimensions, “the words of the German Foreign minister”, and for the same country yesterday a million odd dolars were collected in a local shopping centre. I thought the article was referring to the USA and Pakistan, and not India. But you guys belong to a lynching mob and i am sure if Pakistan is ever engaged in a war with any country, it should expect the intrusion of the Indian military through ther back door similar to what happened in former East Pakistan.
777 says that he has studied Quraan themn he must have also read that the God’s words” Fear me and no one else”. It is this commandment which the muslims are supposed to follow and no one can defeat them.
Let us also look at your judgement;
A number of arabs studying in Hamburg technical college, one day left for the USA , trained themselves in flying and later took the suicide mission to create the so called sept. 11 attack.
The USA under the leadership of George W went after the Bin Laden believed to be responsible for the attack, and asked the Afghanistan Govt. to hand over the arab culprit who in their view had caused the death of the americans in a single day. No proof was provided and the Afghanistan govt. refused to hand over Bin Laden. The Northern Alliance cooperated with the USA and the regime change took place.We all know the details of the invasion. The lady in the USA admin. is of the opinion that bin Laden escaped over the mountains to the Pashtoon territory so called under the control of Pakistan. Like many of you guys she also believes that ISI has been playing double game of maintaining contact on both sides of the border. The USA competent four star general recognise the hopeless situation which his ancestors equally faced centuries ago and got fired by throwing abuses at the entire military apparatus of the current administration. Someone propsed the herioc General of jewish descent to complete the mission. Throughout history the Pashtoons have never negotiated, they do not know how. They are not like the Pakistani commander who surrendered in East Pakistan and was later seen having a cup of afternoon tea with his adversary. This is precisely the dilemma, the americans have the choice to keep on fighting and die one by one or leave while they can. The choice is theirs. Even mr Karzai does not have more stemina to oppose the Pashtoon tribes who if necessary can annhilate his entire tribe. Therefore he was genuine when he said today that his own son wants to leave Afghanistan. Mind you Mr Karzai belongs to one of the stronger Pashtoon tribes in the south. Now Myra raises the spectacle of retribution by the USA against Pakistan if another attack occurs in the USA. In other words in her opinion the USA exit strategy is to obtain assurance from the so called Talibans that they would not undertake an attack on the mainland. This is a very simple requirement which Mr Karzai can arrange as long as the foreigners leave the country and agree to pay compensation to the families who have suffered casualties from the foreign troops.
No retribution is necessary for Pakistan. However, if the lady messes it up then we would be sitting here next year and discussing the tragedy.
Now with regard to Pakistan delivery system, it is an open secret that both North Korea and Pakistan have intercontinental missiles to reach most cities of the world. These countries have been partners and have shared technologies. For India to avoid the repeat of attacks by the Kashmiri groups operating outside their country is to have a dialogue with the Kashmiris and sort out the mess or let the Kashmirisbecome independent. Those who are looking at the European Union should not forget that it is the people of europe which wanted peace and no more wars. I do not notice this spirit among the Indians and Pakistanis. Both countries need to achieve a genuine democracy in their respective countries and not continue to live in the opast. There is no reason why the secular states cannot achieve the Union which we are experiencing in Europe. Mind you even during this process the slovaks separated from the checks andbelgium is most probably going to split in two, the french speaking valonians from the dutch speaking flanders:
Have a nice day.
Rex Minor

Posted by pakistan | Report as abusive
 

@Rex
“777 says that he has studied Quraan themn he must have also read that the God’s words” Fear me and no one else”. It is this commandment which the muslims are supposed to follow and no one can defeat them.”

Yes I have read it. And i advise u to read Bhagvad Gita in which Hindu Lord Krishna tell Arjun that human race must fear Lord only and no one else. So the teaching is same in Hindu and Islam religion that human race must fear the almighty (one can choose to call it by any name) only. But how does that translate into the fact that non-fearing people are unbeatable. Beats me. May be your definition of defeat is different from mine. Of course it is true that no one can suppress other one infinitely but defeats are often defined in terms of military invasions. But if you choose to define it differently then its your wish.

And talking of Pashtoons. Pashtoons would have been f****d hard in their a***s by red army of soviet had it not been for, most hated now, America and its CIA supplying large quantity of weaponry, specially anti-aircraft guns, and strategic support against soviets. How cleverly u have missed this detail in history. As for combat abilities Ireland’s IRA is/was far far superior to Pashtoons’ combat capabilities. Pashtoons can be defeated even now if Pakistan wants to.

Posted by 777xxx777 | Report as abusive
 

rexminor:
if Pakistan is ever engaged in a war with any country, it should expect the intrusion of the Indian military through ther back door

I will repeat myself from previous post for the terminally slow:

Contrary to what most Pakistanis think India is not interested repeat “NOT INTERESTED” in taking over Pakistan. BJP/RSS have accepted that fact as have most Indians. Who would want to be saddled with a cesspool of terrorism? We have plenty of poor in our country why add 160 million more especially when they come with extremism free. No thank you. We would rather you stew in your own soup. India has absolutely no desire even in our wildest dream (more like nightmare) to reunite with Pakistan.

Posted by nvrforgetmbai | Report as abusive
 

Keith,
The following article is validation of what I have been told. Straight from the strategic community:

http://in.news.yahoo.com/columnist/nitin _pai/11/solving-the-pakistan-problem

Posted by trickey | Report as abusive
 

For those who keep harping that India will take advantage and launch attacks on Pakistan if and when Pakistan is at war with any country……..please give just one example.

In fact there have been numerous such occassions, when the Pak army was committed to fighting along with the US against the Soviet occupation, again recently when it moved troops from the eastern flank to the west to take on the insurgency and Taliban in Swat recently.

The day Pakistanis and their mentors, sympathisers and friends open their eyes to the fact that India wants no part of Pakistan nor does it want Pakistan to be weak and collapse, maybe then and only then will they be able to think constructively about improving relations. For your collective information – India moved on a long time ago. Its policies are no longer Pak centric, unlike that of the Pak Army Chief, who unfortunately calls the shot in a ‘democratic’ Pakistan.

Posted by DaraIndia | Report as abusive
 

Myra,

You gave a sudden twist to the U.S. “retribution plan” for Pakistan by adding India-Pakistan red lines. Perhpas you did for your audience and you can see the effect.

It is however important to ask if India will be under attack by pakistan should US attack it. The plan proposes attacking the terrorist camps in Pakistan by the USA. It is no where enough of a threat to the existence of Pakistan and therefore will not activate Pakistan’s response against any one.

With regards to India-Pakistan, it can be safely said alomost nothing will activate the nuclear response by either country. They will just growl at each other. This is a good and bad. Good because nuclear deterrent prevents conventional wars. Bad because under the cover of nuclear deterrent, covert operations can be launched.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

nvrforgetmbai: “My sense is that Pak does not have ICBM so if US attacks them, they will retaliate by nuking India. Waiting for someone to confirm the same. That is what I am trying to understand.”
***No, Pakistan will not retaliate against India using nukes! A conventional war by the USA against hundreds of camps is not going to make Pakistanis push NUKE buttons. That is a too low a threshold for this response and is equivalent of a Samson option? Even if the USA bomb Queta, nuke buttons will not be pressed. Once Pak pushes nukes against India, you can Imagine India doing the same consistent with its no-first-attack policy and more importantly USA will do the job and Pakistan will be history. Lahore and othe towns bordering India would be safest places.

Back to the main issue: Attacking 100s of camps in Pakistan etc. in event of future attack in the USA will not solve the problem any way. Countries are becoming superpower by economic status and they can be brought down by the same tool. So why to use bombs against Pakistan when non-violence works.

Posted by rehmat | Report as abusive
 

nvrforgetmbai
Pakistan’s future ICBM Taimur is secret and is to deter threats by NATO etc, currently SHAHEEN-III with a range of 4000-4500KM and GHAURI-III are the replacements. Pakistan made very quick progress during mid 90s on ballistic missile technology.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/wmd-missile s/20154-pakistans-future-icbm-taimur.htm l

Rehmat:
“Once Pak pushes nukes against India, you can Imagine India doing the same consistent with its no-first-attack policy and more importantly USA will do the job and Pakistan will be history. Lahore and othe towns bordering India would be safest places. ”

-Pakistan is here to remain, the idea of Pakistan will live, Pakistan’s use of nukes is governed by a doctrine and certain defined thresholds with a second strike capability. Which means both an ability to absorb and withdstand a nuclear strike and launch a nuclear counterstrike.

India might not be interested to attack or occupy Pakistan or wage a war since Pakistan is now fairly stronger a nuclear power. But from Pakistani point of view a peace treaty with India cannot be signed until 16 December 2071 a 100 years after Dhaka fell. It would take a century to build some trust between the two countries after what happened in 1971.
Before India complains about terrorism, it must look at the treatment Muslims are given in India. Treated as second class citizens, alienated, called traitors, and subjected to riots, communal violence and massacres in Gujrat and elsewhere. Add to that Kashmir dispute and terrorism is what you get. Afghanistan and Kashmir dispute, all smoking guns, LeT, Taliban trace back to Soviet Afghan war.

And rightly pointed out by Rex, India will take full advantage in case Pakistan is engaged in a war by another country.

I have personally come to a conclusion that some people in India, writers, politicians, military, can be labelled as true enemies of Pakistan. Not all Indians but still a few of them, and Pakistan must deal with those enemies and neutralize them. Today Indians say we dont have any intentions to attack Pakistan. Better to speak the truth and state that we dont have the balls to attack Pakistan. Because if you do you know what is going to happen to you.

Posted by Umairpk | Report as abusive
 

nvrforgetmbai:
“Contrary to what most Pakistanis think India is not interested repeat “NOT INTERESTED” in taking over Pakistan. BJP/RSS have accepted that fact as have most Indians.”

-It is with immense pleasure to learn that after it took us to detonate 5 nuclear bombs on 28 May 1998, finally you people along with your defense minister George Fernandes at that time accepted the fact that you can’t take over Pakistan. Otherwise you were going to teach Pakistan a lesson. (words of George Fernandes after 11 May 1998).

Posted by Umairpk | Report as abusive
 

Fact check
USA is 12000 KM away from Pak. So i repeat my question, how do u retaliate to any attack by US.

“Today Indians say we dont have any intentions to attack Pakistan. Better to speak the truth and state that we dont have the balls to attack Pakistan.”

As repeated ad nauseum, we are not interested in attacking Pakistan. Would appreciate it if u culd return the sentiment.

Posted by nvrforgetmbai | Report as abusive
 
 

@777
Let me follow your definition of defeat. The NATO countries operating in Afghanistan, all of them are the defeated Nations during the world War 2, with the exception of the Brits and the USA , and therefore they are getting the biggest beating in the valleys of the Pashtoon land. You are also in a delusion to suggest in history that the USA and the CIA provided a great help to Pashtoons to beat the Russians. Every Pashtoon is equiped with a weapon which they make themselves, copying the Russians, chinese and the western weaponry. They did receive a supply of stingers and that enabled them to defend themselves against the Russians air power. Air Power has been the major headeach for them throughout history. If you believe that this help enabled them to defeat the Russians then you are living in a cuckoo land. They learn to shoot at five years age and practice to pierce the small coin with a bullet. Their snipers , one or two engage the whole platoon of marines and do not take any casualty. I wish you should see the videos taken by France 24 reporters who are sometimes immbedded with the USA marines and sometimes with the Pashtoon snipers. The USAhas taken the beating on the battle ground from the smallest number of commandoes from certain tribes, their complete force still in tact and awaiting some major engagement with the enemy and you are stating about the pakistan Army. pakistan Army as a whole does not have the metal of a national Army, I have commented earlier, and you likemany earlier commentators from Pakistan stated that the Pakistan army would be able to take over Waziristan in a matter of days. What we have witnessed is the hit and run tactics of the Americans, the NATO and Pakistan Army. They have not gained an inch of the Pashtoon land, instead as I forecasted, no Pakistan Govt. like the Afghan Govt. can now operate without the approval of the Pashtoon tribes. The Pshtoons are the worlds largest group of tribesmen numbering over sixty millions who live in the triangular shaped territory of around 250,000 sq. miles, starting from Swat,Dir in the north along the Indus and right down to baluchistan and spreading to herat, taking three fourth of today’s Afghanistan and the whole of todays Pakhtoonkhwa of Pakistan.
It is sad that the lessons of vietnam were not learnt by the USA leaders, and the reputation of the marines had to to suffer the greatest defeat in their history right in afghanistan. What a sad endfor the marines!!!
I have even forecasted that in the next fifty years the pashtoons will have no choice but to leave their bunkers and roll out across the entire asian sub-continent. The Indian army would then have the possibility to confront these warriors, similar to their ancestors who occupied the indian sub-continent.
And where the American leaders are looking for the exit you are imagining about defeating these people. I am sorry about your judgement and wishful thinking. the Nukes dfo not make America stronger than the Russians, the Chinese and even India and Pakistan. Diuring the cuban crises Mr Khuraschav had indicated to the USA president the minutes the Russians needed to destroy most of American cities. Today there are many more countries who are in a position to destroy most of the USA, and you guys still talk about the Super power?
have nice dreams and a good day.
Rex Minor

Posted by pakistan | Report as abusive
 

nvrforgetmbai
“As repeated ad nauseum, we are not interested in attacking Pakistan. Would appreciate it if u culd return the sentiment.”

-For a moment let me become an Indian and you become a Pakistani. Just keep in mind my country attacked your country about 39 years back and you lost half of your country.
But still, I state we do not intend to attack India, nor do we support non-state actors who intend to attack India. What we tend to do is to defend Pakistan from any future Indian attack.

“Fact check
USA is 12000 KM away from Pak. So i repeat my question, how do u retaliate to any attack by US. ”

-Ok, so US is 12000 KM away and sends its aircraft carrier, naval warships off the Pakistani coast and launches Tomahawk cruise missiles, USAF B-2 bombers or B-52s from high altitude will be problematic. But Pakistan could neutralize and counterattack the US Navy with C-802 anti-ship missiles, Harpoons, submarines, etc. If it is the fight for survival, everything would be done. And you know a couple of hundered US service members returning in body bags will dent their resolve.
I told you before, the resolve to put up a fight sometimes help dodge the war. Maybe US would not attack in first place. But if it does, I can assure you there will be a stand. And lets remember diego Garcia and US service members stationed there, maybe Pakistan Air Force could knock out Diego Garcia, 2200 KM south of India, a facility used by the U.S. where it operates a large naval ship and submarine support base, military air base, communications and space tracking facilities, and an anchorage for pre-positioned military supplies for regional operations aboard Military Sealift Command ships.

Posted by Umairpk | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •