This morning coming to work, I was listening to CNN radio, and one news item struck me as quite remarkable. Today US has shot down a UN SC condemnation of Israel’s attack in Syria by saying Israel has a right to defend itself (by being proactive and destroying targets in another sovereign nation!).
Now, while US has been engaged in the same attitude of preemptive strikes for quite some time, this “courtesy” is rarely extended to another country. I remember, post 9/11, India had wanted to use the same privilege and attack targets inside Pakistani part of Kashmir, which India alleged were terrorist training centers.
If you look at the similarities, they are quite striking. Both the Palestinians and Kashmiri people are in the process of armed struggle for freedom. Both Syria and Pakistan support the struggles of Palestinians and Kashmiris, respectively. Chances are that both countries, either encourage or turn a blind eye towards these training centers and people crossing over the borders. Israel had always been, and India is fast clamoring to be the blue-eyed boy of US Administration, and both of them are extremely strategic for US interests in the respective areas. India more so because of its economic clout and increasing dependancy of US economy on Indian resources.
The one major difference between Syria and Pakistan, hopefully, is that while Syria is a good fornothing cry baby who is clearly unable to secure its airspace, Pakistan knows exactly how to secure its borders and give a befitting response should India decide to experiment with this adventure. Having tactical nuclear weapons is merely an icing on the cake. Therefore the way the world community deals with Pakistan is invariably different than how they will deal with Syria, or anyone for that matter.
However, this discussion is not to discuss military issues arising from this incident… but the political fall-out of the latest position adopted by the US.
Are there any serious repercussions which Pakistan should be aware of and plan for?
Do you think India will renew its efforts to gain some political legitimacy for its efforts to quelsh the freedom struggle in Kashmir by pre-emptive strikes inside Pakistan?
*]Will US be forced to come clean on this issue through a uniform policy on pre-emptive strikes to deal with “terrorism/freedom fights”?
Excellent post Faisal, you carved out some good analogies b/w the two...
While the danger of attack in Syria is intermittent, and could be expected soon, I dont think Pakistan needs to worry about that.
India is doing that even as we speak, but they havent been able to draw out much success, partly due to the fact that they say they do not want to involve the world in their 'internal' problems.
Yeah... previously India would say that the Kashmir issue is best resolved through direct dialogue between India and Pakistan, lately it has changed its tone once more to say the issue is "settled" and needs no dialogue. Seems like India is gaining more confidence on this matter... and with the latest situation developing in Israel-Syria issue, gives rise to the question, whether India will use the new geo-political realities to give some more teeth to its fight against Kashmiri freedom struggle. I am not sure the answer, which will be revealed in the coming weeks and months is something which I personally am looking forward to. Its sounds like a pretty intriguing, and to some extent, damning times ahead for us.
Re: Israel's strike in Syria - Any similarities for Pakistan?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
Are there any serious repercussions which Pakistan should be aware of and plan for?
[/quote]
Yes..it has been & we have been prepared for defence....always. I am sure you have heard PAF shooting down Indian spy plane last year.
[quote]
1. Do you think India will renew its efforts to gain some political legitimacy for its efforts to quelsh the freedom struggle in Kashmir by pre-emptive strikes inside Pakistan?
[/quote]
Didn't they(Indians) plan to do that(pre-emptive strikes) last year? Why didn't plan go on? Answer: Nukes.
[quote]
1. Will US be forced to come clean on this issue through a uniform policy on pre-emptive strikes to deal with "terrorism/freedom fights"?
[/QUOTE]
Nah..Uncle Sam still gotta get through Iraq and Afghanistan.
Seriously, I have serious doubts about the performance of Pakistan Army in any conventional war with India. Thats the reason why the Pakistanis are trying to avoid any direct confrontation with the Indians. The Pakistan Army which once used to be a professional institute now is just like any other institute in Pakistan. The attention of Army has bee diverted from their original duties to taking control of the various Government departments. During the Kargil fiasco, the Army asked the officers from their EME Core to volunteer for the fight, but very few people showed up. Similarly, when the Air force cadets were told that there was an emergency situation, and they might be required to strike Indian positions, according to a brother of my friend (who is in PAF), many cadets started crying. The thing is that, at the moment not only the Indians are ahead of us in conventional weapons, but also their spirits are high after the Kargil war, whereas the self confidence of the Pakistan Army seems to be on the downward side. The Pakistan Army of today seems similar to the Egyptian Army of the Israeli-Middle Eastern war, which ran away from the battle field due to the failure of the Air conditioning of their tanks.
Well, the military readiness or otherwise, of Pakistani armed forces is perhaps a discussion more suited for the 'Military' forum. At the moment the focus needs to be political fall-out for Pakistan. I am sure we will shortly see serious behind-the-doors discussions going on between US, Pak, Ind and UN on this and related issues.
In its present course, Pakistan is not planning to back out of its "political and moral" support for Kashmiris (clearly by taking a very liberal definition of "political and moral") and India definitely is trying to figure out a way to stop the bleeding in Kashmir.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by zaavia: *
During the Kargil fiasco, the Army asked the officers from their EME Core to volunteer for the fight, but very few people showed up.
[/QUOTE]
zaavia bhai, how are you doing? long time no see??
both you and I know that EME soldiers are not meant for fighting. Being a graduate student, you must have had a better insight into senior officers, where me being an undergrad in EME witnessed the training of the EME cadets, which was far inferior to their counterparts in PMA etc.
Yaar, still the EME core is an important part of the army, and they are also needed once the country goes to war. If the situation such arises they should participate fully in the war, but the thing is that the morale doesnt seem to be that high in the Army nowadays...and the "Jazba" factor seems missing...
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Spock: *
zaavia bhai, how are you doing? long time no see??
both you and I know that EME soldiers are not meant for fighting. Being a graduate student, you must have had a better insight into senior officers, where me being an undergrad in EME witnessed the training of the EME cadets, which was far inferior to their counterparts in PMA etc.
[/QUOTE]
1- as long as US needs Pakistan's committment for its global "fight against terrorism" and as long as Pakistan continues playing lackeys to US whim, it needs not worry about any fall out from this incident. We've seen it before when Pak & India came close to an all out bout and yet US pressured India to back off.
2- India had tried to an approving nod from US for its own logic of pre-emptive strikes and could only secure a cold shoulder from US. They should better be smart enough not to start whimpering again.
3- US does what it considers right for its own interest. That doesn't mean others would be allowed to have same set of rules of engagment.
Right now the only 2 hotspots in the world are middle east & sub-continent where the possibilities of pre-emptive strikes are very much into equation. And in both theaters, US is pulling the strings for both parties involved. Apart from this, there's no other active theater on world's diplomatic scene which woud warrant a possiblity of pre-emptive strikes and hence no chance of any pressure on US about formalizing a clear cut policy of pre-emptive strikes.
another difference between pakistan and syria vis a vis india and israel is that, pakistan is nuclear armed...since pakistan is weaker as compared to india in conventional terms therefore pakistan's nulear threshold is lesser...any conventional war, might turn into a nuclear holocaust, which is also one of the reasons deterring india from attacking pakistan...
[QUOTE]
whereas the self confidence of the Pakistan Army seems to be on the downward side.
[/QUOTE]
thas exacty wat someone else said to one of ma relatives said to ma cuz.. that our juzba is not tha same as in 1967, an ma cuz replied who is in the army.. his response "humarey under wohi juzba hai jo us wakat thaa.. buss.. humara mulak humein awaz to dey.."
so.. meanin if we ppl loose confident in the army.. then.. well wat can i say.. it is all about tha country workin together..
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by zaavia: *
Indians their spirits are high after the Kargil war,
[/QUOTE]
firslty indians have not gained anythin.. theyre still the samee cowards.. all they do is talk.. but no action.. but still we have to stay carefull.. coz americans are involved..
americans main problem is pakistan.. firstly coz it is one of the only muslim country which has nuclear and most educated and powerful islamic force.. it will not go straight after pak at tha moment.. coz it has other things it needs to do.. e.g... make frnds with surroundin countries.. and india.. well its just a puppet..
russia has well become kinda american frnd.. but not that much.. and China is another prob for US.. and india.. not a prob yet.. coz if india does go ahaed.. there is a chances of internal problems.. such as.. hindu vs muslims..
india.. even though big.. but not stable.. and pakistan.. is also not that stable.. but it is growin fast.. so.. india is goin to think before it attacks.. coz if india attacks.. then chaina (well hopefully) will help... coz china needs pak.. for its economical an education reasons.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by cheebu: *
coz if india does go ahaed.. there is a chances of internal problems.. such as.. hindu vs muslims..
india.. even though big.. but not stable..
india is goin to think before it attacks.. coz if india attacks.. then chaina (well hopefully) will help... coz china needs pak.. for its economical an education reasons.
Allah hafiz
[/QUOTE]
Firstly you should take this Hindu vs Muslims out of yr mind. This was the idea behind the attacks in Kashmir and who the Kashmiris helped each time, is for everyone to see.
Secondly, Your is the only country in the world that thinks India is not stable.
Would you like to elaborate how and why China needs Pak for its economica and educational reasons