| Author |
Topic:
Martial Law in Pakistan and what it means for the war on terror
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
11/5/07 8:40pm
Subject:
RE: Martial Law in Pakistan and what it means for the war on terror
|
What I was saying was that yes, America's means of engagement are simply incompatible with what's required to get any form of meaningful traction with India.
I'm not sure if this is exactly true. Was it just last year that the US proclaimed India to be a "most trusted member of the nuclear community?" (or whatever the specific terminology used was)
Of course, we all know that such a proclaimation is nothing but ceremony. Well, almost nothing but ceremony. Such a designation opens the door for India to start having access to the latest in nuclear power technology. But, more importantly in India, the population ate it up. If an entire country could glow with pride, India would be beeming in this case. The message was quite clear- India could be trusted with "the bomb," while the undesireables (ie Iran/Pakistan) were beneath India herself.
With the caste system still existing full force in India, this was brillant, and was precisely what needed to be done to get traction with India. Over the last couple of years, the US has actually advanced relations with India leaps and bounds above what they used ot be, and light years ahead of when India fell to the Soviet sphere of influence.
Of course, India and Pakistan are bat-guano crazy against each other, but the idea is to get them working for us as mcuh as possible rather than against each other.
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
11/5/07 9:01pm
Subject:
RE: Martial Law in Pakistan and what it means for the war on terror
|
Mr44, not being involved in any international capacity building you're unqualified to comment on the truth or lackthereof of any statement pertaining to it.
The US' reputation is "We're rich, we're powerful, do as we say". The Indians don't and won't appreciate this, as evidenced by their sensible decision to reject the craptastic PISCES system (which is effectively a way of funnelling their data to Langley).
Most Asian countries are proud, and the arrogance of US foreign relations does not go down well. The only reason the US gets anywhere - and PISCES is part of this - is because of the almightly dollar.
Sorry Mr44, you just don't have the experience and exposure to comment.
E_S
-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Darth Mischievous
Registered:
Oct '99
|
Date Posted:
11/5/07 9:05pm
Subject:
RE: Martial Law in Pakistan and what it means for the war on terror
|
Ender_Sai posted:
Mr44, not being involved in any international capacity building you're unqualified to comment on the truth or lackthereof of any statement pertaining to it.
The US' reputation is "We're rich, we're powerful, do as we say". The Indians don't and won't appreciate this, as evidenced by their sensible decision to reject the craptastic PISCES system (which is effectively a way of funnelling their data to Langley).
Most Asian countries are proud, and the arrogance of US foreign relations does not go down well. The only reason the US gets anywhere - and PISCES is part of this - is because of the almightly dollar.
Sorry Mr44, you just don't have the experience and exposure to comment.
E_S
Attacking the messenger a bit, E_S?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
11/5/07 9:12pm
Subject:
RE: Martial Law in Pakistan and what it means for the war on terror
|
DM, if you have nothing of substance to add..? 
Mr44 was wrong. He wasn't basing his comments of knowledge, experience of facts. I said as much.
E_S
-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
11/5/07 9:13pm
Subject:
RE: Martial Law in Pakistan and what it means for the war on terror
- Date Edited:
11/5/07 9:20pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Mr44
|
Mr44, not being involved in any international capacity building you're unqualified to comment on the truth or lackthereof of any statement pertaining to it.
Let me guess, and your position as an immigration clerk in Australia makes you an expert in US foreign relations and State Department issues, eh?
Since I hadn't made a comment on what I have or haven't done, I think you need to simmer down a little there and focus on the statement that I presented.
Sorry, "because I say so" isn't good enough.
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
11/5/07 9:20pm
Subject:
RE: Martial Law in Pakistan and what it means for the war on terror
|
Well give me some examples of this "traction" at the operational level, and I don't mean lofty public rhetoric, I mean actual working outcomes?
E_S
-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
11/5/07 9:39pm
Subject:
RE: Martial Law in Pakistan and what it means for the war on terror
- Date Edited:
11/5/07 9:40pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Mr44
|
Well hey, how about I give examples provided to Senators and members of the Australian Parliment, prepared by the Australian Research Service.
I mean, who would know more about US and Indian relations than the Australian government, right?
original .pdf file:
[link=www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/RP/2001-02/02rp20.pdf]HERE[/link]
external non-pdf link:
nonpdf link
As the Australia government itself claims:
"Under the new Bush Administration Indo-US relations have developed at a pace few have foreseen..It was a reflection of the improvement in bilateral relations under the new US administration that India was one of the few countries that were informed..(regarding NMD-the missile defense system).."
The section in question starts at page 10 in the document, and outlines quite a few specific instances.
But you're correct. Your own Parliment, as well as myself, probably don't know what we are talking about.
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
11/5/07 10:03pm
Subject:
RE: Martial Law in Pakistan and what it means for the war on terror
- Date Edited:
11/5/07 10:22pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Mr44
|
Oh, but wait. It was probably improper of me to hijack the Australian government like that.
How about we set aside the views of the Australian Parliment, and focus on others?
How about Mr Burns here, U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs?
HERE
"In the past decade, both President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush recognized this opportunity and acted to construct a completely new foundation for U.S. ties with India. Our relationship with India now is our fastest-developing friendship with any major country in the world. I have visited India eight times in the last two years to help construct this partnership."
How about Sec. Paulson, who also spoke at a Council function?
HERE
No, don't like him? How about this policy paper, which as the disclaimer says, isn't affiliated with the government, but which examines quite a few examples, both positive and negative:
HERE
I suppose it wouldn't hurt to mention here, that as a paying member of the Council on Foreign Relations, I get invited all the time to see speakers like these who come to the Chicago branch, as well as access to their policy seminars. Of course, I'm not able to see every speaker or partake in every panel, but I do get out to quite a few. I'm confused though... Does this fall under professional qualifications, or simple personal interest?
In December, the former acting Prime Minister of Russia, Yegor Gaidar, is giving a presentation about life in Russia after the Soviet collaspe. I'm sure he's going to have some insight about the internal workings of Russia, being the former Prime Minister and all....
What I'm really looking forward to is seeing Ambassador Pickering speak at the Hotel Intercontinental. You may know Thomas Pickering as the US's ambassador to the UN from 89-92. I'll wait and see if a former UN ambassador says anything that might disagree with you.
I would simply caution you about dismissing anyone's views based on an assumption you have, or warn you about becoming so entrenched in your own self worth that you automatically marginalize anyone who disagrees with you. If I posted something that was incorrect or false, please explain why, as everyone has their own background and expertise around here. But again, what do I know? I don't base anything on knowledge, experience, or facts.
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
11/5/07 10:49pm
Subject:
RE: Martial Law in Pakistan and what it means for the war on terror
|
Those papers don't judge working level engagements or the traction those engagements get. For example, you could point to glowing, breathless praise between the US and the Philippines and I could tell you first hand that the working relationship is rocky and the US is building resentment. I could also point out that in the context of the war on terror part of the reason why the US did get traction with Pakistan under Musharaff was that Musharaff needed US gifting to shore his rule up.
I could point, for example, to how the US has no real influence in Beijing despite the very recent announcement of the establishment of a hotline between Beijing and Washington.
Working level engagements are what count, because they're the ones that let a senior official in, say, the CIA call his counterpart agency and say "We know there are terrorists in Cityville, we want you to pick them up" and get results. Executive level statements are political and don't reflect what's truly happening on the ground.
That paper from he APH focusses heavily on defence and it doesn't really focus on how India took to defence cooperation and exchanges with the US out of concern for China, not a mutual love of awesomeness and democracy etc. It doesn't mention India rejecting PISCES, for example, which is a key US counterterrorism programme and a worthless one to boot.
(Why? It's slow, it's not a border management system despite being promoted as one, it's imcompatible with everythign and it exists purely to spy for Langley. Also, the Pakistan article cites it as being "effective" - pull the other one)
Yet India and the US say they're great pals, so the relationship must have traction.
The problem is that the US, with it's money, isn't actually doing much worthwhile and isn't getting the results it really should be getting. Gonk was right to suggest the US should be investing more time, effort and resources in building a degree of self-reliance and compatibility in India as a natural partner in CT matters. However, this requires a fundamental shift in US policy away from arrogant dictation to respectful equity.
Incidently I would point out that despite the public statements against Mr Musharaff's new direction and undemocratic tendencies, the working relationship between the US and Pakistan is, by all accounts, strong. It needs to be, for both sides - the US, because of the geographic benefits and Pakistan because it gives legitimacy, resources and assurancs to a weak state.
-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
11/6/07 2:19am
Subject:
RE: Martial Law in Pakistan and what it means for the war on terror
|
That's all well and good, but I think you should take a step back and remember what the purpose of the Senate is. There's been a disturbing trend of certain people not being able to separate themselves from their message, and the forum is the worse because of it, especially after all the work that's been put into it.
You need to re-evaluate your own thought process if your first reaction is to lash out when someone questions anything you say. Your entire "I'm an expert schtick, but I can't say why" only goes so far, and to be honest, you've been given a pass for far too long.
Just look at your above response. A random statement about a Washington-Beijing hotline that had nothing to do with the topic. The Nation and Wikipedia... Seriously? You question my knowledge, ability, and experience, and then come back with a Wikipedia article? Is that what is passing for intricate policy experience? Or maybe, just maybe, you read about Pisces somewhere, and it had nothing to do with working in the Australian office of immigration? Let's see. On one hand, a research paper from the Australian Parliment-Presentation by the US Sec. for Foreign Affairs-Speech given by US Treasury Secretary... on the other hand, a Wikipeida article... Hmm, no wonder I don't have the proper qualifications, I was setting my sights too low.
What it illustrates is that everyone is equal in the forum, and the focus should be on the information being presented, not on the person presenting it?
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
11/6/07 4:33am
Subject:
RE: Martial Law in Pakistan and what it means for the war on terror
- Date Edited:
11/6/07 4:39am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Ender_Sai
|
Mr44 they're just reporting on what I said.
And I see you're also not familiar with our approach to promoting border management and border security in the region, where PISCES is not only an impediment, it's a curse. As I'm spending my days doing that, I'm actually talking about first hand accounts on PISCES rather than anything else. The only reason I linked Wiki was that I checked google to see if PISCES was public. Seeing it was and that the Wiki piece was sourced from US Govt publications, I linked it.
The China reference was to illustrate that publicly lauded, high end annoucements aren't as important as one thinks.
And FWIW, Immigration is also part of our whole of govt. border security team. Since movements is what PISCES purports to do, and movements are our business, I have more than just a "hey look, an article is making a reference" familiarity here.
E_S
-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
11/6/07 11:55am
Subject:
RE: Martial Law in Pakistan and what it means for the war on terror
|
|
It's nice to see the fruit of a successful exchange. So warm and fuzzy, it's like a cute puppy.
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DarthKarde
Registered:
Jun '02
|
Date Posted:
11/6/07 4:18pm
Subject:
RE: Martial Law in Pakistan and what it means for the war on terror
|
As entertaining as this little mod fight has been perhaps we should return to the subject of Pakistan.
I had a very interseting conversation today with a Pakistan colleague who took a very different perspective on this to what almost everyone in the West is saying. He was scathing of the notion that we need to back Musharraf because the alternative is is Taleban style government. He believes that we should support Musharraf over a return to civilian government and that Musharraf is absolutely right to target the judiciary who he regards as much of a problem as terrorists. He contended that in the decade prior to the Musharraf coup the country had been run into the ground and it's wealth squandered by the institionalised corruption of the entire political establishment while with a so called independant judiciary any court verdict could be bought. He claims that under Musharraf's rule the government has functioned more effectively in almost every sphere, that much needed infrastructure projects have been carried out and that basic government services have improved beyond recognition. He said that the lives of the vast majority of Pakistanis had improved over the last 8 years and aside from radical islamists the only people really oppossed to Musharraf are the political old guard, the corrupt judiciary and the rich who bankroll them.
While this was of course the opinion of just one man I don't doubt that there is much truth in what he says. We, in the west, are often guilty of believing that concepts like democracy and an independant judiciary can be applied anywhere but democracy is about more than holding elections and a judiciary that can be bought is no better than one that serves the state. In countries like Pakistan there is a strong case that a benevolent dictator (and whatever he is Musharraf is no despot) is better than a corrupt democracy.
-----signature-----
The UK Independance Party - http://www.ukip.org The Freedom Association - http://www.tfa.net Better Off Out - http://www.betteroffout.co.uk Say NO2ID and the database state - http://www.no2id.net/
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
11/6/07 4:27pm
Subject:
RE: Martial Law in Pakistan and what it means for the war on terror
|
Good points, DK, and I think it's also worth noting that really, there's been no widespread movement against Musharaff at the civilian level. Reports about discontent fuelled by the judiciary are often exaggerated and most "presure" applied to the General to restore democracy has come from without.
What did your friend advocate as a way forward for Pakistan, DK?
E_S
-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
ShaneP
Registered:
Mar '01
|
Date Posted:
11/6/07 7:24pm
Subject:
RE: Martial Law in Pakistan and what it means for the war on terror
|
|
Wasn't Bhutto forced out before because of corruption and scandal?
-----signature-----
It was as if a million middle-aged virgins just farted with rage and were suddenly silenced.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
