The fine art of US-Pakistan diplomacy: "We will bomb you back to the stone age!"

Of course Musharraf had to consider that the US could have destroyed Pakistan (probably with indian complicity) and that Afghanistan as a strategic backyard for Pakistan would be lost anyway.

Far more interesting is the fact that he makes US blackmail strategies public in his memoires and that he is keeping mum about China´s contemporary reactions. Perhaps the General knows that the Bush administration will inevitably attack Iran and consequently only the pivotal alliance with China will be able to protect Pakistan from US-Indian aggression.(Saudi-Arabia has also intensified her relationship with China in order to build up (very,very late I have to say) a hedging position against uncontrollable US-Israeli-Indian predominance)

P.S.
Although I have sorrow feelings about Musharraf being confronted by reckless and evil threats of a superpower he should also be aware that once you have onetime lost your honour no amount of money will ever be able to buy it back. Hopefully he restores his honour by changing course and giving way for a new and energetic military leader who can make a clean break with the pitiful ways of the past.

Violet Oboe said:

P.S.
Although I have sorrow feelings about Musharraf being confronted by reckless and evil threats of a superpower he should also be aware that once you have onetime lost your honour no amount of money will ever be able to buy it back. Hopefully he restores his honour by changing course and giving way for a new and energetic military leader who can make a clean break with the pitiful ways of the past.

Click to expand...

Pakistan's present position (mostly poor, military dominated, fundamentalist in parts, lacking strong institutions) will not be solved by another military ruler. I can't say that it will be solved by demoracy either. Overall, I would say that PAkistan needs to have a strong military ruler who is more comited to building up Pakistan rather than persuing catty rivalries with India and other nations around it. A strong military ruler with good intentions could set the country on the right course by gradually eliminating his own power by establishing an independent judiciary and a credible school system to get the kids out of madrassas. But more than a "clean break" will be necessesary for Pakistan to move forward because judging by previous example, a "new and energetic" leader will quickly fall into the model of all of Pakistan's previous rulers.

IDonT said:

He did the right thing to acquice. He is the President of Pakistan therefore his main job is to see the betterment of the Pakistani People. Would you rather he not accept and have Pakistan bomb.

Lets see how it works (remember its 2001):

1.) Pakistan is labeled as the Country that supported the Taleban. Not very hard to tie it with Alqaeda in the media.
2.) US proceeds PAkistani Air Capmpaign. PAF is no match.
3.) What can Pakistan do, retaliate with Ballistic Missiles (nukes)? Against who, no US base is within reached. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and UAE bases are, but a nuke attack there will kill more of those country's citizens than americans. Don't forget that Pakistan will be attacking a sovereign country with nukes.
4.) Now the 4,000 lb bull in the China Shop, India. Do you really think India will not take advantage of the situation? With US support and Pakistan's weakened state, it can easily take Jammu and Kashmir.
5.) US will send Delta Force to Balochistan to help the insurrection their

At the end Pakistan will be isolated, defeated, with millions hungry and cold, its borders and lands invaded or separated...but you still have your honor.

Click to expand...

Thats not what I said but anyway... let me take your logic to it's conclusion

1. Was Saddam attacked because he supported AQ or because he opposed
them ?

2. What would you NOT be prepared to do to ensure that Pakistan was
not attacked.

I'm not arguing with you, I'm genuinely interested.

FreeAsia2000 said:

Thats not what I said but anyway... let me take your logic to it's conclusion

1. Was Saddam attacked because he supported AQ or because he opposed
them ?

2. What would you NOT be prepared to do to ensure that Pakistan was
not attacked.

I'm not arguing with you, I'm genuinely interested.

Click to expand...

In 2001, this was Pakistan's standing in the world.

1.) It was a pariah state because its full support of the Taleban. Remember, it was it the provided the Taleban with military and diplomatic support before 9/11.

2.) Saddam was attacked because Bush hated him. 9/11 was just an excuse.

3.) If the world strongest military is threatening me with destruction on one hand and offering me with a nice economic, diplomatic, and military aid incentive with the other, I would chose the easier path.

IDonT said:

In 2001, this was Pakistan's standing in the world.

1.) It was a pariah state because its full support of the Taleban. Remember, it was it the provided the Taleban with military and diplomatic support before 9/11.

2.) Saddam was attacked because Bush hated him. 9/11 was just an excuse.

3.) If the world strongest military is threatening me with destruction on one hand and offering me with a nice economic, diplomatic, and military aid incentive with the other, I would chose the easier path.

Click to expand...

Thanks you've answered question 1 but not question 2. Essentially you've accepted that the US will attack you if it dislikes you and not because you support AQ or even won't join in any war against them

What would you NOT be prepared to do in order to avoid attack by the US ?

FreeAsia2000 said:

Thanks you've answered question 1 but not question 2. Essentially you've accepted that the US will attack you if it dislikes you and not because you support AQ or even won't join in any war against them

What would you NOT be prepared to do in order to avoid attack by the US ?

Click to expand...

Free Asia, I'm sorry I don't understand the question. But I think you mean that there will be a line that a particular country has to draw where it has to go against U.S. interest and risk an attack. If that is the case, then here is my response.

The US is a country that you want as your ally and you don't want as your friend. If your country has a deep relationship with the US, it will protect you no matter what the world says (Israel), provide you with credible nuclear strike capability (UK and Trident Missiles), give you the best technology (Japan). On the other hand, going against it is very fatal Iraq, North Korea, etc.

All countries in the world seek to maximize its gain. All countries from the powerful to the weak, yes that even includes the US. In the terms relevant to this topic, it is up to an individual country to do the calculations between the cost of going against the US (diplomatic isolation, crippling economic sanctions, and war) vs the reward of siding with the US (military sales, economic aid, open economy). In this terms, assuming all parties (US and another country) has all the information, the answer is no brainer. It pays to be on the good side with the US.

Now there will come a time, when leaders and their miscalculate. Either through bravado, nationalism, honor, or over estimation of their military prowess. When they believe that the costs of going against the US can carried. That is when something bad happens. That is when war comes. It is up to each individual nation to answer that.

In terms of this topic, Pakistan was in a weak position while US was in a strong position. The US recognizes this and used very attractive incentives along with a very credible threat to close the door to war from the Pakistani leadership's options. It has worked and both sides gain. US wanted access to Afghanistan and Pakistan got economic and military aid. Sun Tzu said the best victory is gained without fighting. Both sides won without fighting.

For those of you who think other wise, who are blinded by pure patriotism and are willing to give your lives to the "honor" of Pakistan, consider this. Dying for something is far easier than living with the consequences of your actions.

@dear IDonT:
Yes IDonT the USA is a very peculiar state indeed, there exists a bright and a dark side of her simultaneously and every nonamerican statesman faces the intricate problem to perceive the moment when Dr. Jekyll turns suddenly into Mr. Hyde.

The examples of US ´generosity´ you are mentioning are not very convincing either:

1. The UK got Trident II D5 from the US but they are only leased to them and after 2-3 years have to be returned (of course for maintainance purposes:rofl: )and additionally (this is the worst kept secret in Britain!) US Navy officers stationed in Royal Navy bases keep the Trident digital firing codes in custody! Without permission from Washington the UK cannot fire a single Trident in anger!
(although some experts maintain that London has got at least one independent ´emergency code´ per submarine on active mission for a substrategic strike with one MIRV but this would not really create a credible independent deterrent only a pitiful figleaf for british politicians)

2. Japan has indeed got some miltech from the US but that is only a miserable fraction of the dual use hightech that the japanese gave away in return. Tokyo has paid a very high price in financing the giant US deficits (hundreds of bn $ every year!) and the japanese economy suffered enormously under the new found sudden competitiveness of US industry. Of course the US promises to protect Japan from the ´big bad dragon´ and ´old growly bear´and morons like ´Elvis´ Koizumi and his Sancho Pansa Shinzo Abe believe in these american fairy tales more than in their old shinto gods but unfourtunately the japanese people will awake one day recognizing that they are only an expendable pawn in Uncle Sam´s global chess game.

3. I have to concede IDonT that Israel is a slightly different matter regarding her powerful lobby of ´coreligionists´ in the US. The relationship between Israel and the US can be described as symbiotic and consequently the behaviour of Washington cannot be compared with usual patterns in international relations even with allies. Nevertheless judging US foreign policy only from the perspective of this ´special case´ would be certainly not justified.

on a side note regarding to Pakistan:

I was walking on 70th street and 1st avenue today and saw an NYPD guy blocking an entrance. So I asked him what's going on. Apparently, Musharraf is having a talk further up, so they are putting in security (obviously). It was pretty tight, I think it was at a hospital between 70th and 69th street on york avenue? Anyhow, I wasn't allowed to go in, but it was still quite interesting. The man is certainly going all out to promote his book.

tphuang said:

on a side note regarding to Pakistan:

I was walking on 70th street and 1st avenue today and saw an NYPD guy blocking an entrance. So I asked him what's going on. Apparently, Musharraf is having a talk further up, so they are putting in security (obviously). It was pretty tight, I think it was at a hospital between 70th and 69th street on york avenue? Anyhow, I wasn't allowed to go in, but it was still quite interesting. The man is certainly going all out to promote his book.

Click to expand...

Well I've ordered the book and so has virtually everybody else I know
so he's going to make a hefty packet !

His book has been greeted with some amusement in Pakistan. He seems
to have been a bit of a romeo in his salad days.

I'm going to be meeting one of his close relatives this weekend so it
should be fun seeing how his relative's are viewing all of his revelations

Lets see how it compares to other great books like 'Our Defense Cause' by Lt General M. Attiqur Rahman

IDont thanks man but you still haven't answered the question. Lets just leave it shall
we since I don't (no pun intended) want to argue