Tuesday, July 16, 2019
04:03 PM (GMT +5)

Go Back   CSS Forums > General > News & Articles

News & Articles Here you can share News and Articles that you consider important for the exam

Reply Share Thread: Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook     Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter     Submit Thread to Google+ Google+    
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old Saturday, October 17, 2015
IqbalZafa's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Lahore
Posts: 92
Thanks: 133
Thanked 34 Times in 26 Posts
IqbalZafa is on a distinguished road
Default "The Definition of Insanity is US AfPak Startegy"

****The following article appeared in foreign policy.com****


Donald Trump is right: America’s leaders are stupid. They’re nothing but a bunch of losers. Well, at least when it comes to Afghanistan and Pakistan. That’s the only conclusion to be reached following two big developments this week.

The first was President Barack Obama’s announcement that the United States will decelerate its military drawdown from Afghanistan. Instead of preserving only a small force of about 1,000 troops, the new plan will station 9,800 in the country until 2016 and 5,500 into 2017. Their mission will be limited to training Afghan forces and supporting counterterrorism operations. This will help promote, in Obama’s words, an “Afghan-led reconciliation process” leading to a “lasting political settlement” that will make Kabul “a stable and committed ally.”

If that sounds too good to be true, that’s because it is. The new policy is at best a band-aid and — given the likely cost in blood and treasure — not a pain-free one. David Galula, the French military scholar who is the ideological godfather of the U.S. counterinsurgency, understood years ago that support from a neighboring country could easily sustain an insurgency. The U.S. mission in Afghanistan cannot succeed as long as the Pakistan Army continues to tolerate and sponsor the Afghan Taliban, the Haqqani network, and other terrorist groups. The U.S. intelligence community has been saying precisely that for years.

At one level, Obama appreciates the problem. “Sanctuaries for the Taliban and other terrorists must end,” he said on Oct. 15, adding that he would discuss the matter with Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif when he visits Washington next week. The White House and the U.S. foreign-policy establishment still believe that Islamabad just needs to be convincingly persuaded about the merits of cracking down on terrorist organizations.

But let’s cut the crap. The central problem confronting the United States in the region is no longer al Qaeda or the Taliban. It’s the Pakistan Army, which has always pursued its own objectives over those of the country it is meant to defend. The Army has a 40-year history of supporting terrorists against Afghanistan, India, and (more recently) Americans. Even in the absence of a smoking gun, there is little doubt that the Army and its intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) directorate, sheltered Osama bin Laden and protected Taliban leader Mullah Omar. This policy of supporting terrorism has been driven by a warped ideology, political imperatives, and corporate interests. The Army has long used Islamism and imagined foreign threats to consolidate its political primacy and shore up its commercial interests, which range from cement to telecommunications.

Sharif offers little help. Anti-government protests engineered by the Army in 2014 forced him to relinquish foreign and security policy to the military, in what many Pakistani commentators described as a “soft coup.” Today, few seriously believe that the prime minister calls the shots in Islamabad.

Pakistan has been steadily increasing fissile material for its nuclear stockpile and now produces enough for between 16 and 20 warheads per year. Its justification was initially New Delhi’s nuclear program, except that India produces material for only around 5 warheads per year. India has a stockpile of an estimated 90 to 110 warheads in reserve; Pakistan is thought to have between 110 and 130 (though some experts believe it’s possible “to calculate a number twice this size”). But it’s not an arms race if only one party is racing.

Since seeking nuclear parity with India now has little credibility as an excuse, Pakistan has resorted to several flimsy reasons to justify its nuclear expansion. The one that gained the most traction blames an Indian Army doctrine, Cold Start, which would have involved punitive incursions into Pakistan following a terrorist attack. The Indian Army certainly considered Cold Start in 2004 — but the Indian military or government never formally adopted it. Pakistani strategists, many with ties to the military, have also blamed India’s defense spending, military modernization, and even its purportedly belligerent rhetoric as reasons for Islamabad to rely on nuclear weapons to compensate for the growing disparity between the two countries. These have never been more than convenient pretexts for a Pakistani nuclear arms buildup.

The real reason for Pakistan’s nuclear expansion isn’t India — it’s for blackmailing the United States. So fearful has Washington been of Pakistan’s nukes being sold, stolen, lost, sabotaged, or accidentally used that during George W. Bush’s administration, it reportedly spent as much as $100 million trying to secure the arsenal. Since 2001, the Pakistan Army has also received more than $20 billion in military support from the United States, even as it has continued to support groups like the Haqqani network that have killed hundreds of Americans. This is the greatest shakedown in history.

What makes this ploy all the more brilliant is that the blackmail victim doesn’t even realize it. Take the second major AfPak development of the week. According to the Washington Post’s David Ignatius and the New York Times’s David Sanger, the White House is considering relaxing controls on Pakistan’s access to civilian nuclear technology, equipment, and fuel in exchange for promises that it will limit its nuclear weapons program. (The White House has publicly downplayed the possibility of a deal.) As Ignatius hints, such an agreement is closely linked to Pakistani cooperation on Afghanistan, possibly a sweetener for Pakistan to bring the Taliban back to the negotiating table.

But even dangling the offer of “nuclear mainstreaming” — as advocates of the policy have described it — is an awful idea. Forget for a moment that Pakistan is a state sponsor of terrorism or that such a deal risks incentivizing bad behavior. The deal also continues the long track record of the United States raising Pakistani expectations and then not delivering, a history of disappointment that has long fanned anti-Americanism in the country. A nuclear agreement of this kind will face resistance from within the U.S. government, not to mention Congress, given Pakistan’s history of duplicitous nuclear proliferation. Even then, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the powerful 48-nation international nuclear cartel of which the United States is a member, will almost certainly veto it.

Furthermore, there is no guarantee that Islamabad will keep its end of the bargain. Washington would be helping Pakistan in the near term in exchange for a long-term commitment to limit its nuclear program, a promise that Islamabad has shown no prior interest in keeping. Ultimately, energy-starved Pakistan has far more to lose from its continued nuclear isolation than the international community has to gain from such a deal. The onus therefore is on Pakistan to show its bona fides — come clean about its past proliferation activities, stop supporting terrorism as a state policy, and adopt a stabilizing nuclear posture — before nuclear mainstreaming can even be considered. Finally, if such an agreement were to be realized, it would rock U.S. relations with India, which — despite a far better proliferation track record — had to jump through a number of legal, procedural, and political hoops between 2005 and 2008 to be allowed to import civilian nuclear technology, fuel, and equipment. The immense goodwill for the United States in India that was generated by that deal would be lost overnight.

The proposed agreement to mainstream Pakistan’s nuclear program and the failure to address the Pakistan factor in Afghanistan are, in Trump’s parlance, just dumb, dumb, dumb. The White House seems completely removed from South Asia’s political and security realities. It’s quaint, almost funny, that U.S. officials and experts still worry about a “rogue commander” with “radical sympathies” seizing control of a Pakistani nuclear bomb. The Pakistan Army radicalized and went rogue many years ago.



Cream rises to the top, so does dead froth.
__________________
Cream rises to the top but so does dead froth!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to IqbalZafa For This Useful Post:
Anam Akram (Sunday, October 25, 2015)
  #2  
Old Sunday, October 18, 2015
IqbalZafa's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Lahore
Posts: 92
Thanks: 133
Thanked 34 Times in 26 Posts
IqbalZafa is on a distinguished road
Default

Pakistan to maintain full spectrum nuclear deterrence, FO asserts


ISLAMABAD: Pakistan’s nuclear policy is shaped by evolving security dynamics of South Asia, thus taking all necessary measures to maintain a full spectrum deterrence capability in order to safeguard our national security, the Foreign Office said on Wednesday.

A recent*article published in The Washington Postclaimed that Pakistan and US were conducting negotiations to finalise an accord which will lead to a civil nuclear deal between the two countries.

Reacting to the report published in US media, the FO spokesperson stated: “Pakistan’s nuclear policy is shaped by evolving security dynamics of South Asia, growing conventional asymmetry, provocative doctrines and aggressive posturing by India, which obliges us to take all necessary measures to maintain a full spectrum deterrence capability in order to safeguard our national security, maintain strategic stability and deter any kind of aggression from India.”

The spokesman added that “as a responsible nuclear state, Pakistan remains actively engaged with the international community, including the United States, on nuclear stability and security issues”.

Pakistan seeks peace and strategic stability in South Asia as corner stone of its policy and considers conflict resolution as a means to achieve this end, he added.

“This policy has been reiterated by Pakistan’s highest decision-making body, the National Command Authority (NCA), chaired by the prime minister, in its meeting on September 9, 2015.”

Earlier, an article published by The Washington Post quoted a source familiar with the talks between Pakistan and United States and said that, “Pakistan has been asked to consider what are described as ‘brackets’.”

The newspaper further suggested that Pakistan would agree to restrict its nuclear program to weapons and delivery systems that are appropriate to its actual defence needs against India’s nuclear threat. “Pakistan might agree not to deploy missiles capable of reaching beyond a certain range,” it quoted as an example of the accord between the two countries.

The sources, however, said the negotiations between the US and Pakistan on the agreement would be slow and difficult due to the fact that Pakistan covets its nuclear programme and it is not yet clear if the country would eventually be willing to accept the limitations that would be required.

It revealed that the issue is being discussed quietly in advance to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s upcoming visit to Washington on October 22, 2015.

"Any progress would break a stalemate that has existed since the United States detected Pakistan’s nuclear program in the mid-1980s, and especially after Pakistan exploded its first weapon in 1998," the article reads.

Source:http://www.dawn.com/news/1211527



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
__________________
Cream rises to the top but so does dead froth!

Last edited by Man Jaanbazam; Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 04:11 PM. Reason: source
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old Monday, October 26, 2015
Waqas Kandwal's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 424
Thanks: 40
Thanked 153 Times in 108 Posts
Waqas Kandwal is on a distinguished road
Default

Why cant` Americans understand that every state has its own interests - compromises cant` be made on them.
Why did`t they stop INDIA from making nukes at first place? Had that be done, there would have been no exploitation of poor "naive" American at the hands of a "canny", "dubious" Army.
__________________
A moment of pain is worth a lifetime of glory.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old Monday, October 26, 2015
IqbalZafa's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Lahore
Posts: 92
Thanks: 133
Thanked 34 Times in 26 Posts
IqbalZafa is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Waqas Kandwal View Post
Why cant` Americans understand that every state has its own interests - compromises cant` be made on them.
Why did`t they stop INDIA from making nukes at first place? Had that be done, there would have been no exploitation of poor "naive" American at the hands of a "canny", "dubious" Army.
Relational power my friend...

"Cream rises to the top but so does dead froth."
__________________
Cream rises to the top but so does dead froth!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The News: Political Economy: Opinion & Analysis redmax News & Articles 413 Tuesday, February 11, 2014 02:40 PM
Required Journalism Notes in Softcopy zaigham shah Journalism & Mass Communication 58 Monday, October 21, 2013 02:26 AM
Vocabulary building waleedmansoor English (Precis & Composition) 0 Wednesday, September 26, 2012 12:44 PM


CSS Forum on Facebook Follow CSS Forum on Twitter

Disclaimer: All messages made available as part of this discussion group (including any bulletin boards and chat rooms) and any opinions, advice, statements or other information contained in any messages posted or transmitted by any third party are the responsibility of the author of that message and not of CSSForum.com.pk (unless CSSForum.com.pk is specifically identified as the author of the message). The fact that a particular message is posted on or transmitted using this web site does not mean that CSSForum has endorsed that message in any way or verified the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message. We encourage visitors to the forum to report any objectionable message in site feedback. This forum is not monitored 24/7.

Sponsors: ArgusVision   vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.