President Bush, what is your opinion on Pakistan!

Um, no questions. After my high visibility state dinner with the queen, I am off to play conductor for a little orchestra in Virginia.

I will get back to you on this other stuff.

Absolutely anything could happen there, but how many assassination attempts can any government official be reasonably expected to avoid? That's one of my bigger fears about Pakistan -- that it goes from being ruled by one military guy, to dozens of military guys, every one of them equal parts paranoid, vengeful, & ambitious.

It's an excellent question, and a tough one. I hope by now we've learned that force of arms alone isn't nearly enough. Perhaps we can do something with textile tariffs to engage Pakistan economically? When you have enough people exchanging enough money, all of a sudden violence becomes a bad idea to a greater number of people. Might be a way to get an intel network up.

...Don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud, huh, Kevin?

I'm actually in strong substantive agreement with this post, but it goes to show you how dangerous it is that the rhetoric of actual threats has been degraded by Iraq which was, uh, not one at all.

I'm all for a "serious discussion", "paying attention" and "rebalancing" with regard to Pakistan. But, let's cut to the chase. What should we be doing differently?

IMHO George Bush deserves credit for his handling of Pakistan. You may recall that during his first campaign he was embarassed by not being able to identify Pakistan's leader. Nevertheless, Bush speedily made Pakistan an ally when we particularly needed their support to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The trouble is that our relations are tied to Musharraf. If he's overthrown, Pakistan could become a nuclear-armed enemy overnight.

I'm all for taking action to avoid this situation, but what should we do?

Why is it so hard to decide what to do with Pakistan?

Pakistan is run by a dictator. It is hotbed of religious fanaticism and fundamentalism. It is the world's larget producer of terrorists.

The only sane option for us is to use the full force of our miltary to engineer a regime change in Pakistan and bring freedom, democracy, and rationalism to the people there.

Bushies WANT an unstable far-east. A radicalized Pakistan means a likely nuclear war with India. Which means a China with a big mess on their front doorstep. Which means a China that delays further industrial development, which means continuing cheap labor for US Outsourcing.

ex-lib: "I'm all for taking action to avoid this situation, but what should we do?"

And I'm all for sending you there. Ready to go?

It's not just Pakistan that's a worry. The US had better be concerned about India too... it is rapidly shifting in the direction of radical Hinduism.

>"When you have enough people exchanging enough money, all of a sudden violence... "

That would be a rational response. Unfortunately, religous extremism does not respond to 'rational'.

I think it's probably wrong thinking to assume there *is* a U.S. foreign policy that will "propel" Pakistan towards a status quo that will be more beneficial to America than what's there now -- anything active posture we take towards Pakistan is likely to make things worse, at least at the moment. Our best bet may be keep an eye on things but to generally leave them the hell alone and give Musharaf some room to distance himself from us.

You may recall that during his first campaign he was embarassed by not being able to identify Pakistan's leader. ...
Posted by: ex-liberal on May 14, 2007 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

Embarrassed?

No.

He was PROUD of his ignorance. And FoxNews used it to bash Gore for being too "intellectual" and mean-spirited.

The US had better be concerned about India too... it is rapidly shifting in the direction of radical Hinduism.

This is not supported by facts. Even if I am wrong, what does a radical Hindu do? Kill less cows? Eat more vegetables?

A radical Hindu, by definition, is no threat to anyone except to a religious fanatic from another religion who would want to kill him if he did no convert.

And Fox is doubly impressed by the fact that he knows even less after six and a half years of playing president!

PROUD of his ignorance

I've always been uncomfortable with the idea of a preznit that knows more about the world than I do...

A radical Hindu, by definition, is no threat to anyone except

a) A Moslem in his village who's bothering nobody
b) A member of a lower caste that gets too upptity
c) an uppity woman

A radical Hindu, by definition, is no threat to anyone except to a religious fanatic from another religion who would want to kill him if he did no convert.

Umm, no. They're dangerous to any non-Hindus living in India, particulary Muslims, and those Msulims have lots of friends elsewhere. The last few years they've led riots against Valentine's Day of all things.

"Conservative forces in the Middle East and South Asia have cracked down on shops marketing Valentine's Day.
In the Indian capital, Delhi, several people were reported injured when stores selling romantic cards and gifts were attacked by right-wing militants. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2757473.stm

"ex-liberal" wrote: IMHO George Bush deserves credit for his handling of Pakistan.

"ex-liberal" has long since demonstrated by his/her/its bad faith commentary that his/her/its "HO" on George Bush (or anything else) isn't worth a bucket of piss.

Americans will rue Bush's fecklessness for some time to come...which is why they won't trust Republicans on national security for a generation. It's a small comfort that Bush has wrecked the Republicans' decades-long branding effort (all it is, really) on national security along with everything else.

It's been clear for years that Pakistan is one bullet away from becoming an unstable extremist government with a nuclear weapon.

Pakistan has been an unstable extremist government with nuclear weapons (and an active proliferator) for quite some time.

thersites

Your ignorance shows.

Yeah we should send our F18s to bomb those who riot against Valentines Day!

Nuclear aggression by a third rate power would be suicide. Hopefully, the world will never need an object lesson to internalize that fact. If it has to happen, it would be better if it happened sooner rather than later, when more countries have nukes and the risk of global nuclear war would be greater. Providing terrorists with nukes, intentionally or not, would certainly constitute nuclear aggression. Ownership has its responsibilities.

Radical Hindus are presently trying to lynch Richard Gere for enthusiastic kissing.

It's hard to figure out what the total package of our Pakistan policy should be (or should have been). But some parts of it are clear:

1) Nuclear nonproliferation as an overarching foreign policy goal.

In the case of them that don't have nukes, it means trying to maintain that status. In the case of those of us that do, that means (a) cooperating with Russia in reducing the number of nukes the Big Two have, and (b) doing what we can to ensure that India, Pakistan, and other lesser nuclear powers don't expand their arsenals.

We've been doing a terrible job here.

2) Avoiding conflicts elsewhere that might interfere with giving Pakistan our full attention when the time comes.

Blew that one, big time.

3) Doing whatever we can to sell our alliance with Pakistan as being with Pakistan, and not specifically with Musharraf.

Everyone knows we prefer Musharraf to a radical Islamic regime, but we need to do whatever we can to make sure that, in case of coup, we haven't totally alienated his successors.

4) Taking a 'dry up the sea' approach to terrorism, rather than a militaristic approach.

In other words, we should have spent the last 5.7 years exploiting the combination of end-of-millenium widespread goodwill towards America and widespread post-9/11 sympathy for us in the Islamic world to ensure that the vast majority of Muslims would rather help us than the terrorists, thus constraining their freedom of movement and enabling us to track them down via intelligence methods.

This would have been the right strategy generally, but in Pakistan it would have made us more palatable with the strongly Islamic majority.

An Islamist coup in Pakistan would have been a problem no matter what, but we've made it into a much bigger problem over the past six years.

ex-lib, George Bush didn't cleverly turn "Pakistan" into an ally on the war on terror, he agreed to become the political and economic patron of Pakistan's dictator in return for his regime agreeing to not openly oppose US policy in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pakistani citizens -- you know, the nation apart from Musharaf and a few other generals -- are vehemently opposed to the US and sympathize with radical Islamism. And it's not even that clear that Musharaf is living up to his part of the deal: the former Taliban and Al Qaeda operate pretty much out in the open in parts of Waziristan. So basically Bush's great "success" in Pakistan has been to make America into an even greater hypocrite on the world stage as it props up one autocrat while decrying less convenient ones elsewhere, all while the guys who attacked us on Sept. 11 rebuild their training camps and go on with business and usual.

Way to go, W!

...George Bush deserves credit for his handling of Pakistan... ... ex-laxat 1:42 PM

it is rapidly shifting in the direction of radical Hinduism.

No it isn't. A handful of right-wing cranks does not a revolution make.

Besides, for all the shamefulness of anti-Muslim 'riots' in India, a stain on the nation's conscience, it is hardly a danger to the external world the way Pakistan's state-sponsored terrorist factory is.

Mike: Bush's policy toward Pakistan has always been one of expediency over principle.

Yep.

Bush's support has made it impossible to impose sanctions for Pakistan's efforts to spread nuclear weapon technology

Bush has restrained the spread of nuclear technology. The A Q Khan network had been spreading nuclear weapons technology during the Clinton Administration. Bush stopped them.

Incidentally, imposing sanctions hasn't been terribly effective at stopping countries from developing nukes.

gregor,

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, nor am I advocating any particular action against Hindus, fundamentalist or otherwise. Just trying to correct the apparent misperception that Hindu Fundamentalists are somehow silly and harmless.

For all that groups like Hamas or Hezbollah or the Revolutionary Guard are dangerous and destabilizing, my sense has long been that they pale in comparison to the ISI.

Indeed, the ISI is the actual enemy and always has been. Which makes the Iraq Invasion all the more incredible.

I was opposed to the Iraq War, but now that the damage has been done, we just can't wish it out of existence. The brutal truth is that there are no good answers now.

I disagree, DK. By packing up Al, ex-lib, mhr, and egbert and shipping them post-haste to Iraq, led by Dubya in his codpiece, the war will be won overnight. Anyone who disagrees hates freedom.

C'mon, troops. Chaaaarge!

thersites

Fundamentalism in all its forms should be rightly deplored, and all attempts should be made to eradicate it, but let us not confuse the fundamentalism of Al Queda with the radicalism of the Hindus who just want to undo the affects of centuries of foreign rule, an enterprise which I think is indeed silly and attracts the likes of those in this country who swear by Falwell and Robertson. Of course there are practices in Hinduism which are quite loathsome and barbaric, but that discussion is different from what to do with Musharraf.

"ex-liberal" wrote: Bush has restrained the spread of nuclear technology.

Tell that to North Korea, dumbass.

Incidentally, imposing sanctions hasn't been terribly effective at stopping countries from developing nukes.

Funny...it seems to have worked in Iraq and Libya.

You're just telling obvious lies because you get sick kicks out of pissing decent people off, aren't you, "ex-liberal"? Shame on you.

Even if I am wrong, what does a radical Hindu do?

Uh, he assassinates Gandhi, for one thing. Destroys mosques and murders thousands of Muslims for another.

Really, how ignorant does one have to be to not have any knowledge of the atrocities committed by Hindu nationalists over the last 60 years?

gregor: that discussion is different from what to do with Musharraf.

Agreed (with one caveat) but it's foolish to discount or trivialize them because they haven't attacked us, only others.

Caveat: Fundamentalists the world over enable one another, and anything that will help rile them up in Pakistan is a serious concern, even if you don't care what happens inside India itself.

I think you guys are quite ignorant about origins of Hindu nationalism and, in general, the history of India. This is not the forum to discuss this subect, but the history is clear that the 'atrocities' committed by 'radical' Hindus against muslims have in general been reactions to various atrocities committed by the other side.

ok, I'm an ignoramus.
But in your spare time, google the phrase "Caste Violence"

gregor, you are right that this is not the forum to discuss, but I'd like to point out that Muslims in India are far from a majority and as such are not very likely to stir up the kind of trouble that Hindu nationalists tend to bring down.
I'd also like to point out that a number of major news organs(WaPo, WaTimes(?!?!) et al) have, in their reporting about the flare-ups of religious violence in India, tended to suggest that the Muslims are the ones getting screwed and/or slaughtered. After 9/11, and in spite of the tendency of those news outlets to not be particularly pro-Muslim.

But it is surely the case that any conflict between India and Pakistan has enormous potential to both spread out in the larger region, and become nuclear.
If you aren't concerned about that it, well, in my opinion, yours aren't very well formed.

No, it's not like this is a brand new problem. In fact, this is just a more virulent replay of the problems we've had for the past 50 years, as our "foreign policy elite" has allied us with one dictator after another, all of whom disliked us and created problems for us while they were taking our money and weapons.

And the chances are pretty good we're going to ride this baby into the ground. Our learning curve is so flat it might as well be an ice rink.

Yes, it's hard to think of a policy that gets the Pakistanis to do what we (think) we want them to do. But it's not hard to think of a policy which allows us to view with equanimity the prospect of Pakistanis running their own government.

If we didn't depend on weapons sales to the Pakistani military, and if we allowed Pakistani textiles into our markets, it would make a big difference. If our students could get job training and college when they need it, they'd be happy to let the Pakistanis run the looms.

So it's not that hard to think of some changes we could make all on our own that would improve things.

disputo: "Really, how ignorant does one have to be to not have any knowledge of the atrocities committed by Hindu nationalists over the last 60 years?"

Once again, Dubya manages to set the bar ever lower. How dare you be so elitist as to know something about the world--something we haven't told you to think?

are these Hindoo folks Shi'a or Sunni?

No, gregor, you are the one who is ignorant of the history of the subcontinent. This ignorance was illustrated by your bigoted statements in your very first comment where you treat the Hindu as some one-dimensional racist caricature:

Even if I am wrong, what does a radical Hindu do? Kill less cows? Eat more vegetables?

Next you'll be telling us how you love Jews because they make lots of money.

Our problem with Pakistan is our problem with Islam in general.

As long as we can't say that fundamentalist religion is wrong in its entirety, and as long as we can't say religion has little or no place in the modern world, we'll be seen as hypocritical and antagonistic.

One of the extraordinary and unappreciated elements in Islam is that if you simply reject religion outright, at least as an element of governance, you will be more likely to be respected than if you associate yourself with some other religion.

I think it's because atheism opens you up to the death penalty and represents having the courage of your convictions.

With that in mind, however, the only realistic approach to Pakistan seems to me to be to seize their nuclear arsenal before someone else does.

cld: the only realistic approach to Pakistan seems to me to be to seize their nuclear arsenal before someone else does

Can I assume you're joking? How are you going to accomplish this?

I don't pretend to know the solution but we can start by acknowledging that the root of the problem is 100+ years of imperial meddling, first by the British and then by the US. We use these dictators when they serve our purpose, and then find we've created a Frankenstein's monster. Musharraf is not an admirable man, but he is a man in a nearly untenable position, and we've helped put him there.

It seems like reaching out a hand of peace to Pakistan and to Muslims in general, might be a good first step, instead of trying to kill our way to peace. Of course, that might be problematic, given that we are slaughtering dozens of innocent Afghanis and Iraqis every week. Prime Minister al-Maliki complained recently that that the killing of innocent Iraqis by U.S. troops had become a "daily phenomenon" because the troops "do not respect the Iraqi people. They crush them with their vehicles and kill them just on suspicion. This is completely unacceptable."

As long as we have boneheads like Bush, Cheney, ex-liberal, Norman Rogers and egbert, who think our foreign policy should consist of mass murder sprinkled with torture, the bloodletting will never end and an American city will be vaporized in our lifetimes. Count on it.

Can I assume you're joking? How are you going to accomplish this?

No, I'm not joking. I can't imagine how it might be accomplished, but I can easily imagine there might be no other solution before something blows up.

If they set one off, what then is the solution? Nuke them back? We could never be sure where all the bombs had gone off to at that point.

Well, Al, still waiting to hear how the killing is going. Surely there must be some "Islamosfascist" shopkeeper or something you can murder in your neighbourhood. Or don't you have the necessary willpower to stay the course to final victory?

No? Not hearing much from you about this. And yet just this morning you were advocating this as the logical solution to the world's problems. How about children? I hear they are easy to kill?

Bush has restrained the spread of nuclear technology... ex-lax

U.S. Soldier Shot to Death in Pakistan
May 14, 2007
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 2:56 p.m. ET
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) -- Militants opened fire Monday on a group of U.S., Afghan and Pakistani military officials meeting near the Afghan border, killing one American and a Pakistani soldier, the Pakistani army spokesman said.
Three American soldiers, four Pakistani troops and an Afghan interpreter were wounded....

ex-liberal: delusional and a serial liar, even to himself.

Conservatives and liberal hawks routinely lie about, overestimate, overstate, and overreact to fantasized threats, ultimately creating even greater threats through their incompetence, worship of ignorance, arrogance, and mendacity.

We are paying the price.

Just as we paid the price in Vietnam, in Iran, and in Cuba.

The dirty little secret that nobody wants to acknowledge is that the US doesn't have a foreign policy answer to rising Islamic Fundametalism.

Iraq has demonstrated our military weakness, and we've certainly been lousy dimplomats the last few years.

Probably the best strategy would be to concede that Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan will become hotbeds of Islamic funadmentalism and try to containment coalition of India, Turkey, the Saudis, Russia, and China, all of whom have just as much to fear from Islamic fundamentalism as we do.

Iraq has demonstrated our military weakness

almost right.

Bushco has used Iraq to demonstrate our miltary weakness. Heckuva job!

Bushies WANT an unstable far-east. Posted by: osama_been_forgotten

Huh? Do you mean unstable Middle East, which we already have?

I think anyone with an iota of sense (and maybe even the shit-for-brains Bushies) wants a stable Far East, which would mean stasis if not improving relations with N. Korea for all, China keeping its money-grubbing mitts off Taiwan, and Japan and S. Korea strengthening their already robust economies.

Bush has restrained the spread of nuclear technology. The A Q Khan network had been spreading nuclear weapons technology during the Clinton Administration. Bush stopped them.

Really? What a fascinating take on history. Given that Khan helped Pakistan develop its nuclear weapons during the Reagan and Bush years and aided other countries during that time as well, it puzzling how you would try and pin this on Clinton, then portray Bush as some kind of savior when, in fact, his own saber-rattling has pushed both North Korea and Iran toward quicker development of nuclear weapons.

And now we have an ACTUAL unstable Islamic country with nuclear weapons in Pakistan versus an IMAGINED nuclear regime in Iran -- and you're advocating regime change for the imaginary threat but not for the real threat, just because it's politically embarrassing for Bush and your desperation agenda?

Let me ask, has your doctor ever talked with you about serum level testing to try and balance out your meds?

Pakistan is building a new reactor capable of 40-50 nuclear weapons per year and not one peep from the Bush regime or his lickspittle propagandists.

This is not to excuse any thing that India does, although Bush is trying to reward them for their nuclear weapons big time. Bush is certainly not restraining anyone's nuclear program. In fact, now other countries in the Middle East are looking to nuclear development:

Six Arab states join rush to go nuclear
Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, UAE and Saudi Arabia seek atom technology
By Richard Beeston, Diplomatic Editor
The move, which follows the failure by the West to curb Iran’s controversial nuclear programme, could see a rapid spread of nuclear reactors in one of the world’s most unstable regions, stretching from the Gulf to the Levant and into North Africa.
The countries involved were named by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as Algeria, Egypt, Morocco and Saudi Arabia. Tunisia and the UAE have also shown interest.
All want to build civilian nuclear energy programmes, as they are permitted to under international law. But the sudden rush to nuclear power has raised suspicions that the real intention is to acquire nuclear technology which could be used for the first Arab atomic bomb....
Given Bush's penchant for launching wars against Arabs, can they be blamed?

trex, a troll fighter as good as you should spell it T-Rex.

Thank Mike, I'll consider it!

Get it On (Bang a Gong)

Thank Mike, I'll consider it! Posted by: T-Rex (formerly trex?)

Agreed! Trex is the brand name for a patently ugly synthetic decking material made primarily with recycled plastic grocery bags, reclaimed pallet wrap and waste wood. Anyone that posts like you do deserves to be associated with either the gigantic carnivore or Mark Bolan.

One thing that we could do if we wanted to moderate the government of Pakistan is pressure India to give Kashmir to Pakistan. It's a majority Muslim province and India's reasons for holding it are almost entirely symbolic.

This is similar to the idea, widely accepted, that an Arab-Israeli peace settlement would help reduce anti-American terrorism

The dirty little secret that nobody wants to acknowledge is that the US doesn't have a foreign policy answer to rising Islamic Fundametalism.

I think that really should be limited to rising fundamentalism in the ME. There's an interesting article in the month's Atlantic about the killing of the most notorious member of Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines. His group were a bunch of loser thugs for the most part with no discernible political/religious agenda.

So, other than the "usual suspects" in the ME, a relative handful of malcontents in SE Asia, and mostly amateur "jihadists" in the EU and even here, there is no real change in the level of animosity vis-a-vis the West that hasn't existed since WWI. They're all just a bit more effective at striking out now and a truly world-wide 24/7 media circus gives these people a visibility they wouldn't have had 30 or 40 years ago.

Iraq has demonstrated our military weakness,

Not really. Our military, as expected, kicked the shit out of the Taliban (though we did not go for the coupe de grace) and the hapless Iraqi military.

Going after a "group" like al Qaeda is not a task for the military per se. It is muscular police work. If we'd just let the FBI, CIA, Interpol,our and our allies respective special ops people handle these things, we probably could have destroyed al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and could continue to pursue it wherever it and its fellow travellers are found. You don't need Bradly Fighting vehicles and the like to do this kind of work.

. . . and we've certainly been lousy dimplomats the last few years.

Definitely.

Probably the best strategy would be to concede that Iraq,

If we'd just gotten rid of Saddam, he sons, a few others at the top, and the faydeen, but offered to help rebuild its oil industry (it's never produced to capacity) and repair the remaining damage from the first Gulf War, it's unlikely Iraq would have become as radicalized as it seems to becoming.

One of the things that they learned in Germany and Japan after WWII is that just because the local postmaster was a member of the Nazi party or totally devoted to the emperor, it didn't mean that either was some sort of psychopath like Himmler. The deBaathification of Iraq was a major fuck up for the same reason. The guy that ran the local waterworks may have been a Sunni and a Baath party member. That doesn't mean he was willing to die for Saddam or even Allah. Or wasn't until we, in affect, said he was an outlaw and overstayed our "welcome" by a couple years.

Afghanistan, and Pakistan will become hotbeds of Islamic funadmentalism and try to containment coalition of India, Turkey, the Saudis, Russia, and China, all of whom have just as much to fear from Islamic fundamentalism as we do. Posted by: mfw13

We will continue to have problems with the ME, not Islam per se, as long as we give Israel carte blanc to do what it likes with the Palestinian majority, as long as we meddle in the region otherwise, and as long as we remain cripplingly dependent on oil.

It really is that simple and has been so since 1973. We've had over 30 years to address this, and haven't done shit really.

Al, how's the massacre going? You could start with Muslim puppies if people are too icky for you.

Oh, were other people supposed to do the killing for you? Don't seem to have much to say for yourself now, considering you were calling for mass murder this morning.

Pakistan is a ticking time-bomb and the same kind of ethnic cauldron as Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course part of that destabilization is the support the U.S. gives Baluchi tribemen on the Iranian-side of the border even though it also sitrs up Baluchi nationalism in Pakistan. Don't be suprised to see U.S. troops and commandos in Pakistan grabbing the launch codes for Pakistan's nuclear weapons if a radical Islamic government succeeds Musharaff. As duplicitous as he has been, he's better than the alternative.

Don't be suprised to see U.S. troops and commandos in Pakistan grabbing the launch codes for Pakistan's nuclear weapons . . .Posted by: Sean Scallon

Why? Pakistan doesn't have ICBMs and needs oil as much as everyone else does. So, who are they going to hit? India? Israel? Not likely as they'd probably retaliate in kind. And just where are we going to insert these "U.S. troops and commandos" and, most important, how would they be extracted once they've got those "launch codes"? I kind of doubt they're sitting in a warehouse somewhere along Pakistan's border or coast.

Why hasn't anyone suggested that we use the one piece of leverage we have on Pakistan: eliminate our textile-import bans, conditional on Pakistan's continued good behavior? This may be our only lever, but it could be a tremendously powerful one of both the carrot and stick variety -- because it would directly influence not just the government's behavior, but the average Pakistani citizen's attitude toward Islamic extremists.

Ah, but that might turn off textile workers in the South Carolina primary, so all candidates in both parties are firmly standing against it (as they did in 2004). Nothing like the rationality of the American political process, yes indeed. Lee Atwater may end up being indirectly responsible for the destruction of human civilization.

Dilan Esper

India is not a theocracy. There is no reason for it to give a part of it to Pakistan, Kashmir or any other state, just becuase its majority is Muslim. Kashmir is a part of India ans must remain so.

Al? How's my little mass murderer? Time for dinner yet?

gregor:

India may not be a theocracy (though the government certainly tolerates a certain amount of theocratic violence against Muslims), but the Kashmiri Muslims don't want to live under its rule, which is why India has never held the referendum that it promised.

But you miss the bigger point. If we push India to give Kashmir to Pakistan, that will substantially reduce anti-Americanism in Pakistan.

In contrast, it will cost India little except pride and the symbolism of lording over Muslims who don't want to be ruled by Delhi anyway.

Indians who want to keep Kashmir no matter what the Kashmiris think are the subcotinent's equivalent of militant Israeli settlers.

I'm never able to quite make up my mind just what our policy toward Pakistan ought to be.

You can't figure it out, and neither can every US administration since Truman, apparently! Let's take a stab at a simple idea, shall we?

A big chunk of Pakistani identity is tied up in being not-India. That includes, unfortunately, some clinging to a brand of Islam which nobody understands--read VS Naipaul's "Among the Believers" and "Beyond Belief" for the Pakistani chapters. The ISI is a parasite which has evolved to exploit this quirk of Pakistani character, and has increasingly dominated the only institutions of power which have shown any durability in Pakistan: the armed forces.

A happy, stable, prosperous Pakistan would be the kiss of death for these vermin, and they know how to keep that enemy at bay: jihad! Your beloved Musharraf is not a reformer, he is the product of that very army culture! He made his bones fostering the Kashmiri jihad, and only moderated his public image in the wake of 9/11. Note that Osama and Zawahiri are still free, and have re-organized in the past 6 years! Yes, they caught a few of the lower orders, but what good has it done us? Are our soldiers home? Is the Taliban vanquished? Is Afghanistan free and stable? Hell, no!

It does no good to pander to Musharraf or to play these silly games supporting him out of fear of his successor. Whoever that turns out to be, he couldn't possibly be any worse than Musharraf, because Musharraf is as bad as they get anyway!

If we push India to give Kashmir to Pakistan, that will substantially reduce anti-Americanism in Pakistan.

By increasing it in India? If India lost Kashmir I imagine it would lead to exceptional violence throughout the country.

And I've read Muslims have a particular animosity toward Sikhism, so I can't see that lessening the bloodshed.

cld:

I doubt Indians would end up being that ticked with an agreement that gave them peace and security with a dangerous neighbor. However, given that we aren't worried about India harboring transnational Muslim terrorists, I'd take the risk of pissing them off. Who are they going to turn to, anyway? China?

Mike wrote:

"Bush trashed our old foreign policy and replaced it inane verbiage. Pakistan is no more an ally than any other dictatorship and Bush's support has made it impossible to impose sanctions for Pakistan's efforts to spread nuclear weapon technology. This is another huge failure of the Bush regime."
_________________

There is also the little matter of the land line of communications for our troops in Afghanistan. Every drop of our fuel comes through Pakistan. We don't have the airfields or aircraft to sustain our troops from the air. Seems like everyone in Pakistan is playing a very dangerous game.

JeffII wrote:

"Going after a "group" like al Qaeda is not a task for the military per se. It is muscular police work. If we'd just let the FBI, CIA, Interpol,our and our allies respective special ops people handle these things, we probably could have destroyed al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and could continue to pursue it wherever it and its fellow travellers are found. You don't need Bradly Fighting vehicles and the like to do this kind of work."
_____________________

And just which country was going to allow our police and CIA to go after Al Qaeda with any vigor? If that had been the solution, the Clinton Administration would have used it.

...If we push India to give Kashmir to Pakistan, that will substantially reduce anti-Americanism in Pakistan....

Posted by: Dilan Esper on May 14, 2007 at 8:57 PM | PERMALINK

Do you idiots that make suggestions like this know anything about these people, the area, the history, anything?

You think if you make it Christmas for them today they'll forget all the feelings they've had for us for so long. Children talking.

These people aren't as stupid as you want to think them to be. In fact, in diplomacy, and negotiation, and inter-ethnic dealings, they are way more experienced. They do it every day.

They'd see right through that one, and thank you very much. OK. Next move?

And India? They'd never be able to see us as an ally without looking over their shoulder whenever we got too close.

Ever heard the expression "perfidious Albion"? That's where the US is right now without doing anything more to reinforce.

...If that had been the solution, the Clinton Administration would have used it.

Posted by: trashhauler on May 15, 2007 at 12:21 AM | PERMALINK

Israel did. Present US laws don't allow it but that hasn't stopped this administration doing anything they want; they've just chosen all the wrong options, and illegally, too. With what has happened in Europe, the Middle and Far East, there could be a pretty broad international anti-terrorist web by now, without having to go wild-west, anti-liberty, shoot 'em up cowboy.

But that's not how the US works. Particuarly the present day Republicans. Ans derfinitely not this admininstration.

I doubt Indians would end up being that ticked with an agreement that gave them peace and security with a dangerous neighbor.

Now that I think of it, Kashmir contains India's northwesternmost border. They would have to consider the potential loss of contact with Central Asian energy suppliers.

Where do you guys come from?

Why should India give Kashmir to any country? It's like saying that if USA lets Iran rule over Iraq our mid-east problems would be resolved immediately and all muslims will begin to love us.

There is no 'symbolism' is Kashmir being a part of India. It's real. And India wants to lord over Kashmiris just as much as USA wants to lord over California.

What kind of idiots are you?

Do the only thing America can do to become popular in Pakistan - immediately renounce baseball as a national pastime, introduce cricket as the one true religion, invite the Pakistani Cricket Team to an inaugural Test series and let them wallop you as much as they want (except for when they get better odds at the bookies and so have an "unaccountable defeat").

Oh, and somewhere in there you have to beat England, India, South Africa and Australia at cricket too. Especially India.

It's a pity you missed your chance with the World Cup being held in the West Indies.

Then, and only then will America have any influence with ordinary Pakistanis.

Ah, yes, all sorts of suggestions for others to show the political will to solve our problems for us overseas when we don't even have the political will to solve ours at home. We don't have the political will, for instance, even to secure our southern border. Yet we're asking Pakistan to secure its border; asking Syria to secure its border; Iran to secure its border; etc., etc., etc.

given that we aren't worried about India harboring transnational Muslim terrorists, I'd take the risk of pissing them off.

Sheer genius, Dilan. It's just common sense: the terrorists want something, give it to them. Then they'll stop being terrorists. And if we just keep doing that, terrorism will die out worldwide!

In fact, too bad George Bush senior didn't have such sage counsel back in 1991--all that effort to kick Saddam out of Kuwait could've been saved!

Gregor, what the fuck is your problem here apart from an obvious "I hate Pakistan" jag?

Quite frankly you add nothing to this discussion except a an arrogance that would make you suitable for a White House appointment?

Or are you just a former Soviet flunky who's pissed becuase the ISI did more to fuck you over in Afghanistan than the CIA ever managed in the entire history of the cold war?

Either way what kind of a fucking idiot are you?

Anyone who thinks that there is any way of "pushing" India to give Kashmir to Pakistan short of full out military defeat has been smoking too much of some of that province's finest product. Personally, I've always thought independence to be the best option, but that's not going to happen either.

Have to be careful with Islamicist branding.

Pakistani government since Zia has been Sunni fundi, more or less. 30% of the population, including the Bhuttos, are Shia. Chaos in Pakistan may be Iraq-like chaos with role reversal: Sunnis in the majority, Shias in the "insurgency", with nukes, etc. thrown into the equation.

At any rate, would love to see a discussion of this point and how it should color our view of Pakistan.

gregor: What kind of idiots are you?

Nothing like the idiot you are if you think Kashmir is analogous to California.

All said and done - "Radical" Hindus did not fly the planes into the world trade center and the pentagon.
Neither did the Hindus blow up innocent bystanders in Indonesia, England, Phillipines, Iraq, Spain, India, Thailand, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Tanzania, Sudan, Russia..........more to come.

I sincerely hope that those of you advocating America push India into relinquishing Kashmir, do not work for the State department.

Because - an Independent Kashmir is not in American inrerest. Imagine another independent radicalized [thanks to 17 years of jehad] Islamic state in a very, very, very volatile region...now aht could go wrong there?

AJ: I sincerely hope that those of you advocating America push India into relinquishing Kashmir, do not work for the State department.

Yeah, it's not as if the current state department is sending sophisticated military equipment to a radical Islamic state like Pakistan . . . oh, wait, yes they are.

Nevermind.

Neither did the Hindus blow up innocent bystanders in Indonesia, England, Phillipines, Iraq, Spain, India, Thailand, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Tanzania, Sudan, Russia..........more to come.

Sure, being beaten to death or otherwise murdered, as Indian Hindus have done to innocent Indian Christians and Muslims, is much less horrific than getting blown up by a bomb and killed instantly.

The families of these Christian and Muslim victims feel much better now that you have explained it all to them, AJ.

"Radical" Hindus did not fly the planes into the world trade center and the pentagon.

But they do engage in retaliatory bombing of innocent civilians, liar.

. . . Panse’s motive was to avenge the deaths of Hindus killed in terror attacks.

Panse decided after the Varanasi blasts to engineer explosions in Muslim-dominated areas in central Maharashtra with the target of killing at least 300-400 Muslims in each incident.

A closer look at all the recent blasts that have occurred in central Maharashtra reveal a pattern which seems to fit with Panse’s plan. All blasts (including the ones in Malegaon on September 8 ) occurred between 1.45pm and 2.00pm at the most prominent mosque in these towns, just after the Friday prayers, when attendance is maximum.

Anonymous -
Hindu violence against Muslims is a reaction.

Anonymous -This is a discussion about, what is in the American interest/s?
So, as long as those hindus do not strap themselves with explosives and target Americans and/or American interests...who gives a damn.

AJ: Hindu violence against Muslims is a reaction.

Hey, dimwit, Mulsim violence against the West is a reaction to . . .

. . . the West stealing their land and giving it to the Jews because the anti-Semitic West didn't want to absorb more Jewish people into their countries . . .

. . . the West's support of murderous dictators who tortured and killed their own people with US complicity . . .

. . . the West's ubiquitous murder of innocent civilians under the rationalization of "collateral damage" . . .

. . . the West's direct involvement in the illegal imprisonment and torture of innocent civilians . . .

. . . the West's lies about Iraq's involvement in terrorism as a justification for brutalizing that country and its population . . .

. . . the West's numerous invasions of or interferences with Middle Eastern states . . .

. . . the West's blind eye to the mass murder of innocent civilians through Saddam's use of WMDs essentially supplied by the West . . .

...who gives a damn.

Exactly what one would expect from a bigot who thinks human rights are only for himself and people exactly like himself and that the rest of the human race is merely a group of expendable domestic animals existing solely to service his kind.

Anonymous - Then we are in agreement, the West is to blame for the Muslim rage, and the genocidal invasions of India by Muslim hordes is to blame for the current rise of Hindu fundamentalism?

1. Kashmir is not California. It shouldn't have been part of India to begin with; the partition was drawn wrong because the territory was ruled by a Hindu prince at the time. But Kashmiris hate India and have never wanted to live under Indian rule.

2. Kashmir has little strategic significance to India. There are few resources-- most of the territory is inaccessible mountains. Further, it is one of the most indefensible borders India has.

3. Whether India could be pushed to give it back is an untested hypothesis. Maybe US pressure would work, maybe not. Either way, I think Pakistanis would trust us a little more if we did something about the issue they care about more than anything else.

4. Just because a terrorist wants something doesn't mean it is a bad idea. Al Qaeda wanted us to pull our troops out of Saudi Arabia before 9/11. I sure wish we had.

5. I see a lot of emotion from India's supporters here regarding Kashmir-- "it's ours! it's ours!"-- and very little argument as to why in heaven's name it should be Indian territory.

AJ: . . . genocidal invasions of India by Muslim hordes . . .

Genocidal?

Hordes?

Are you talking about something that happened hundreds or thousands of years ago or recently?

Either way, stop sniffing glue in your mommy's basement.

The glue is twisting your perception of reality.

Dilan: I see a lot of emotion from India's supporters here regarding Kashmir-- "it's ours! it's ours!"-- and very little argument as to why in heaven's name it should be Indian territory.

That's because India is the only nation that believes that a legal basis exists for its "control" of Kashmir.

The region is divided among three countries in a territorial dispute: Pakistan controls the northwest portion (Northern Areas and Azad Kashmir), India controls the central and southern portion (Jammu and Kashmir) and Ladakh, and China controls the northeastern portion (Aksai Chin and the Trans-Karakoram Tract). India controls the majority of the Siachen Glacier (higher peaks), whereas Pakistan controls the lower peaks. India controls 101,387 km² of the disputed territory, Pakistan 85,846 km² and China, the remaining 37,555 km².

Though these regions are in practice administered by their respective claimants, India has never formally recognised the accession of the areas claimed by Pakistan and China. India claims those areas, including the area "ceded" to China by Pakistan in the Trans-Karakoram Tract in 1963, are a part of its territory, while Pakistan claims the region, excluding Aksai Chin and Trans-Karakoram Tract.

Pakistan argues that Kashmir is culturally and religiously aligned with Pakistan (Kashmir is a Muslim region), while India bases its claim to Kashmir off Maharaja Hari Singh's decision to give Kashmir to India during the India-Pakistan split. Kashmir is considered one of the world's most dangerous territorial disputes due to the nuclear capabilities of India and Pakistan.

The two countries have fought several declared wars over the territory. The Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 established the rough boundaries of today, with Pakistan holding roughly one-third of Kashmir, and India two-thirds. The Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 began with a Pakistani attempt to seize the rest of Kashmir, erroneously banking on support from then-ally the United States. Both resulted in stalemates and UN-negotiated ceasefires.

More recent conflicts have resulted in success for India; it gained control of the Siachen glacier after a low-intensity conflict that began in 1984, and Indian forces repulsed a Pakistani/Kashimir guerrilla attempt to seize positions during the Kargil War of 1999. This led to the coup d'etat of Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan.

The region is divided among three countries in a territorial dispute . . .

This would not be true if India was indeed legally and physically in control of Kashmir.

Some people, however, can't be bothered by facts.

Anonymous -
" The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history."
The above is how Will and Ariel Durant describe the invasion of India by Muslim hordes [their words] in The History of Civilization.

anonymous,

I don't see where you support your argument about legality.

AJ: "The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history."

Again, how does this relate to anyone living in the last 100 years, much less today ("current rise of Hindu fundamentalism"), so as to justify violence in the name of retaliation or even simply the increase in Hindu fundamentalism you refer to.

----

It was an argument about the lack of legality.

Nice to see you are paying attention.

In any event, perhaps you didn't see the bold-faced text above, despite the fact that it really, really stands out.

Just because Pakistan lays a claim to Kashmir and has tries to severe it from India does not mean that Kasmir is not a part of India.

I see many anti-Indians here continue their shameless anti-India tirade here.

History shows that Americans' support of Pakistan over India in every past crisis has not bought USA anything but troubles, culminately finally in 9/11, which after all was conceived and planned in Pakistan.

No one outside India has the right to tell India to give Kashmir to Pakistan, and I hope that any such efforts prove to be as futile as they have been in the past.

Giving Kashmir to Pakistan will be viewed by the Islamicists as the first in what they hope is a long series of steps towards a Caliphate from Bangladesh to Turkey.

From Wikipedia,

Ranbir Singh's grandson Hari Singh, who had ascended the throne of Kashmir in 1925, was the reigning monarch in 1947 at the conclusion of British rule of the subcontinent and the subsequent partition of the British Indian Empire into the newly independent Union of India and the Dominion of Pakistan. As parties to the partition process, both countries had agreed that the rulers of princely states would be given the right to opt for either Pakistan or India or—in special cases—to remain independent. In 1947, Kashmir's population "was 77 per cent Muslim and it shared a boundary with Pakistan. Hence, it was anticipated that the Maharaja would accede to Pakistan, when the British paramountcy ended on 14-15 August. When he hesitated to do this, Pakistan launched a guerilla onslaught meant to frighten its ruler into submission. Instead the Maharaja appealed to Mountbatten[9] for assistance, and the Governor-General agreed on the condition that the ruler accede to India."[10] Once the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession, which included a clause added by Mountbatten asking that the wishes of the Kashmiri people be taken into account, "Indian soldiers entered Kashmir and drove the Pakistani-sponsored irregulars from all but a small section of the state. The United Nations was then invited to mediate the quarrel. The UN mission insisted that the opinion of Kashmiris must be ascertained, while India insisted that no referendum could occur until all of the state had been cleared of irregulars."[10]

In the last days of 1948, a ceasefire was agreed under UN auspices; however, since the plebiscite demanded by the UN was never conducted, relations between India and Pakistan soured,[10] and eventually led to two more wars over Kashmir in 1965 and 1999.

Consequently, as Pakistan refused to remove its' army from an illegally seized territory the people were not allowed to democratically express their sentiment.

Since Pakistan apparently had little trust that either the Maharaja or the Muslim population were interested in having any part of them, they seem to have intentionally screwed up the possibility of having a certain decision so they could carry in internecine conflict.

Which seems like standard operating procedure in the Islamic world.

Anonymous - You need to review the regios history.
Islamic rule of India was supplanted by the British, who, as you know left as recently as 1947.
The eve of their departure was mrked by Hindu - Muslim riots, which resulted in the death of a million people on both sides.

gregor: I see many anti-Indians here continue their shameless anti-India tirade here.

And I see a bigot who lies repeatedly about India's legal claim to Kashmir who continues his shameless anti-Muslim tirade here.

AJ: . . . which resulted in the death of a million people on both sides.

AJ: . . . Hindu - Muslim riots, which resulted in the death of a million people on both sides.

Meaning that both sides were equally involved and were equally harmed, by your own description, lending no support whatsoever to your implicit claim that current terror acts by Hindus constitute [justified] retaliation for unilateral Muslim-on-Hindu violence.

Anonymous - My assertion is that the Hindus have been fighting the Muslims as recently as 1947. And, that the Hindus still see the Muslims as the aggressor; esp, since the Muslims have yet to apologize or even acknowledge the wrongs committed by their coreligionists against the Hindus for nearly eight hudred years.

p.s. the imam of Delhi's Jama Masjid, who is one of the most powerful Muslim leader in India said a few monthe ago, "Islam has ruled Hindustan [India] for eight hundred years and inshaallah we will rule again"

gregor:

You are projecting. The issue isn't that Pakistan "lays a claim to Kashmir". It's that the Kashmiris themselves hate India, view it as an illegitimate government, and were forced to live under Indian rule because of an error made in the Partition. In fact, INDIA (along with China), not Pakistan, has expansionist fantasies, including retaking the parts of Kashmir that are in Pakistan, and, perhaps, Pakistan itself.

"No one outside India has the right to tell India to give Kashmir to Pakistan, and I hope that any such efforts prove to be as futile as they have been in the past."

It's not a matter of what people have a "right" to do. It's that the US can make it in India's interest to negotiate with Pakistan or, more properly, to allow the Kashmiris to decide their own future, which India has repeatedly agreed to but has never permitted.

In any event, you are wrong. Sustained pressure on India on the Kashmir issue has not been tried. We should try it.

"Giving Kashmir to Pakistan will be viewed by the Islamicists as the first in what they hope is a long series of steps towards a Caliphate from Bangladesh to Turkey."

Now that's just ridiculous.

cld:

If you believe that India was ever or is ever going to hold that plebiscite, you are crazy. They know what the result would be. The Kashmiris HATE the Indian government and don't want to live under its rule-- a fact that doesn't seem to matter one bit to India's defenders here.

What they would love to do, however, is have Pakistan cede their portion of Kashmir to India, and then double-cross the Pakistanis and indefinitely occupy the entire province.

AJ: My assertion is that the Hindus have been fighting the Muslims as recently as 1947.

Your assertion is woefully outdated.

Hindus have been terrorizing Muslims (and Christians) as recently as 2007.

Neither Muslims nor Christians have done any more harm to Hindus in the last century than Hindus have done to Muslims and Christians.

Hindu terrorists are not attacking Muslims because Muslims hordes have engaged in the slaughter of Hindus (your claim), but simply because they, like their Muslim counterparts, enjoy violence.

There is no more legitimacy to Hindu terrorism than Muslim terrorism and the idea that there is more legitimacy to Hindu terrorism was clearly implicit in your comments and you reached far back into the historical record to come up with reasons that are long dead and have been superseded by more recent events in which Hindus had the upper hand and imposed the greater violence.

dilan,

If that's so self-evident why did Pakistan go so far out of its way to prevent the plebiscite from being held in 1948?

Seems pretty obvious they didn't think it would go their way.

Your notion of what India would 'love' to do seems remarkably like what Pakistan actually did do.

And the first question here was of legality. Legally it was agreed that it would be the sovereigns of the princely states who would make the decision. The maharajah chose India. Legally that ends the matter.

1. India has no expansionist 'fantasies'. Indian military has never fought any war of aggression to acquire any land from a foreign nation. To defend its territories like Kashmir is not expansionist.

2. That the islamicists have dreams of a caliphate from Bangladesh to Turky is based on teh statements of a number of Islamicists.

gregor: To defend its territories like Kashmir is not expansionist.

Kashmir isn't its territory.

So, invading it was expansionist.

cld: If that's so self-evident why did Pakistan go so far out of its way to prevent the plebiscite from being held in 1948?

It didn't.

Nothing that Pakistan did or didn't do has ever stood in the way of the UN-mandated plebiscite.

It is India that has made demands not lawfully recognized as a prerequisite to the plebiscite.

And the first question here was of legality. Legally it was agreed that it would be the sovereigns of the princely states who would make the decision. The maharajah chose India. Legally that ends the matter.

No, it doesn't, because the only authority who could sign for India, Montbatten, inserted a requirement to hold a plebiscite and that India's lawful sovereignty over Kashmir was not valid until such a plebiscite had been held.

If Montbatten had no authority to sign, then the maharajah's choice was never accepted and therefore void.

If Montbatten did have authority to sign, then his signature with conditions is binding on India, for whom he signed.

You are deliberately misstating the historical facts and misrepresenting the historical documents.

Your notion of what India would 'love' to do seems remarkably like what Pakistan actually did do.

You have pointed to nothing that Pakistan did to prevent the plebiscite. Merely claiming they did something, without describing what they did (which is impossible, of course, because they didn't do anything to prevent it), is an inconsequential argument. Pakistan actually did nothing to prevent the plebiscite, then, so your predicate being false results in your conclusion being false. More importantly, India has done everything in its power to prevent the plebiscite, which it can do since it has control over the vast majority of the population. India could hold a plebiscite anytime it wanted to, since it controls the territory with the vast majority of the population, but it refuses to do so. Pakistan has taken no action and has no ability to prevent such a plebiscite from occurring.

Quit trying to blow smoke up our asses.

I am still waiting for gregor and others to provide any evidence that the Kashmiris actually WANT to live under Indian rule or think that India's government is fair to them. Absent evidence of that, there is a very good reason to think that the Indians aren't going to have the plebiscite because would lose it.

anonymous,

Except they're holding about a third of Kashmir illegally. Suppose the Kashmiris vote to stay with India, or for independence, what does that do to the status of their stolen property, some of which the Pakistanis blithely gave to China?

Your argument rests on something Mountbatten did? I thought you decried these colonial intrusions. The organization of the state was feudal and isn't it your view that respect for the natural way they do things would require the population not to be consulted?

And if the population is to be consulted in Kashmir, how is that fair for the other princely states where they were not? That's how Al Gore got in trouble in Florida. Is it your view that all of India needs a do-over? That is the view of Jamaat-e-Islami, the Islamist organization trying to destroy India.

Pakistan assaulted Kashmir before any plebiscite could be made. You have to answer why.

Following their assault they retained a significant part of Kashmir on no legal basis at all.

If they had withdrawn there could have been no impediment to holding the plebiscite, world opinion would have demanded it, yet they did not withdraw. You have to answer why.

It is in this way that Pakistan chose to continue in a manner that specifically prevented a resolution.

The whole problem stems from Pakistan's assault and attempted military conquest of all of Kashmir. Independence is a different question. Is it your view that the conflict is actually a conspiracy between India and Paksitan to prevent Kashmiri independence?

Public opinion polls in Kashmir indicate the idea of independence is really popular, not association with India or Pakistan, invalidating any notion of the legitimacy of Pakistan's interest.

What I don't see are polls that ask if it's one or the other, India or Pakistan, which would it be. Considering the state of Pakistan it's hard to imagine anyone eager join the party.

But, if Kashmir were independent, what would happen?

All of the violence coming across the border now is a product of Islamic fundamentalism. Muslims in Kashmir have as little use for this as Indians. The Islamists won't stop at what they'd see as a first step, and they particularly loathe Sikhism. The violence would keep up just as it is now so Kashmir would necessarily need support from India. The Islamists would call them a puppet of India insisting the government wasn't legitimate unless it imposed Sharia law and would continue their bombing forays into India and Kashmir.

The next step is that Kashmir and India would form a NATO-like defense pact.

Consider this interview in light of this interview,

and this article, Revolution in the Pakistani mountains.

And in between somewhere there's a deposit of about fifty nuclear bombs.

1. India did not invade Kashmir. It used its military to prevent Pakistan from taking it over. Only in the mind of a Pakistani or a Pakistani supporter or a Jihadist is this a definition of 'invasion'.

2. Mountabtten was a representative of the colonial imperialists. Even if he put some conditions on the Indian ownership of Kashmir, India does not have to follow it, because it is an independent nation. This is the simple answer. Of course there is a more complex answer, but it's not necessary.

1. India didn't need to invade Kashmir. It was snatched from Pakistan because it was ruled by a Hindu prince.

I am sure that if the leader of Bombay in 1947 had been Muslim, Hindus would gladly espouse the principle that Pakistan should rule the city.

2. The Indians do not "have" to have a plebiscite, I suppose, but as long as they don't, they are basically running dictatorial occupation of Kashmiris who hate them. And no, you don't have to be a "Jihadist" or a Pakistani to see this. As far as being a Pakistani "supporter", it happens that despite the fact that India has had an admirable commitment to representative government while Pakistan has had way too many military dictators, India has pursued 60 years of unmitigated belligerence towards its neighbor, including 3 wars, covertly inducing the schism that produced Bangladesh, developing nuclear weapons (which forced Pakistan to obtain their own to prevent India from attempting to conquer it), and refusing to permit Kashmiris their right of self determination.

In other words, on the India-Pakistan issue, India has perpetrated 60 years of pure evil, which is what you can do when you have a stronger country and believe that your neighbor's territory should have been yours to begin with by religious as well as territorial mandate. It is amazing and inspiring that Pakistan has been able to bravely resist India's despicable conduct for six decades with all of its problems, especially when India has been able to succeed in defaming the Pakistanis as a bunch of terrorists.

Dilan,

'snatched from Pakistan'? The Maharajah was a Dogran, a people who have lived in Kashmir since time immemorial, and probably before.

I am sure it would be a better world if whatever you smoke were legal, but that simply isn't the world we live in.

I will, however, place your remarks in a file of evidence I am collecting that the internet as a whole is such a complex device it intersects with parallel universes, similar but different, where things like that might actually be real.

I would ask you, also, to think of why it is that virtually every where on Earth where an Islamic nation shares a border with a non-Islamic nation, they're at war.

What is the common denominator?

Delusional Dilan needs a dictionary. He needs to understand the meaning of terms like 'snatching', 'pure evil', etc.

Pakistanis do not need India to defame them as terrorists. Everyone knows where Talibans were trained, where the Madarsas, that teach impressiobale minds to hate everyone except muslims, are, where Khalil Sheikh Mohammand had a base, where Daniel Pearl was murdered and the country of origin of AQ Khan who has done quite enough to make the world a dangerous place, all without an iota of assistance from India.

gregor:

That is a classic group libel. Obviously, there are plenty of Hindu terrorists who have killed innocent civilians who were born and trained in India. That doesn't make everyone in India a terrorist. Nor does the fact that many Northern Irish joined the NRA make everyone in Northern Ireland a terrorist, or the fact that many Tamils joined the Tamil Tigers make every Tamil a terrorist, etc.

Similarly, the fact that Pakistan has been the nest of its share of terrorists does not make the Pakistanis nothing but a bunch of terrorists.

But by labeling the Pakistanis as a bunch of terrorists, India and its fans can justify 60 years of belligerence, including 3 wars and the acquisition of offensive nuclear weapons-- belligerence that was not motivated by Pakistani terrorism but rather by the fact that many Indians think there never should have been a Pakistan in the first place.

Dilan Esper

Your reading of history is quite erroneous. The three wars that you mention were all started by Pakistan. Of course has a right to defend itself, and it takes some chutzpah to classify this as 'belligerence'.

As for charge of 'group libel', it's quite rich coming from a person who claims that 'India has perpetrated 60 years of pure evil'.

From India Defense,

Pakistan's Inter Service Intelligence is working with Bangladesh's intelligence agencies to facilitate cooperation between north-east militant groups like United Liberation Front of Asom and other jihadi outfits in South Asian regions, besides Tamil rebels in Lanka, US intelligence service Startfor has said.

In its latest forecast titled 'India: The Islamisation of the Northeast', it observes that there is a growing Islamisation in the region -- spurred by ISI, and instability in neighbouring Bangladesh which is giving foreign powers (China and Pakistan) a gamut of exploitable secessionist movements to use to prevent India from emerging as a major global player.

Stratfor says there exists a strong nexus between ISI and Bangladesh's intelligence agencies. There are growing indications, says the report, that these two agencies are working clandestinely in Bangladesh to bring all the north-east-based insurgent outfits and jihadi elements under one umbrella.

"The ISI has facilitated cooperation between ULFA and other north-eastern militant outfits; with the LTTE in Sri Lanka, Islamist militant groups in Jammu and Kashmir, Islamist groups in Bangladesh and a growing number of Al Qaeda-linked jihadi groups operating in the region," it adds.

. . .

Political conditions in Bangladesh, observes the report, appear to be indirectly contributing to the empowerment of Islamists there.

Using the Pakistani military regime as an example, Bangladeshi Army chief Lt Gen Moeen U Ahmed is reasserting the army's role in Bangladeshi politics -- which have long suffered from a bitter political feud between Awami League, led by Sheikh Hasina, and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, led by Begum Khaleda Zia, it said.

With both party leaders driven into exile, a political vacuum has started to take root in the country, and Bangladesh's Islamist parties are anxiously waiting to fill it, the report adds.

As a result, it forecasts, New Delhi is facing a "bleak situation" in which the ISI's manoeuvres and Bangladesh's political troubles are sure to further constrain India's ability to dig itself out of the militant trap Pakistan has set for India with the help of Bangladesh.

gregor:

India the state has perpetrated the evil. Not the Indian people.

In contrast, you say that the Pakistanis are terrorists, because a few of them are.

The second is a group libel; the first is criticism of a government.

As for the claim that Pakistan started the wars with India:

1947-- this was the conflict over Kashmir. Both sides claimed it. Each country occupied a portion of Kashmir and attacked the other side. Nobody "started" it.

1965-- India claimed provocation from Pakistani covert operations in Kashmir, and attacked. India started it.

1971-- India fomented the secession of Bangladesh, then massed troops on the border and attacked Pakistan. India started it.

1999-- India again claimed provocation from Pakistani operations in Kashmir. It's been pretty well established that Pakistan sent its military over the line of control, so you can say Pakistan started this one.

So there's now been 4 wars, and India started 2 of them (including forcing the secession of a Pakistani province-- IMAGINE if Pakistan did that to India!), Pakistan one, and one was started by both armies racing into Kashmir at the same time.

In addition, though, India's acquisition of offensive nuclear weapons was intended, in part, to enable the country to defeat an annex Pakistan in a future conflict. Had India not done this, those alleged Islamists in Pakistan that cld doesn't like wouldn't have access to nuclear weapons, because Pakistan developed them as a defensive measure in response to India's idiotic and egotistical decision to obtain the bomb.

Look, the bottom line is that if India wanted to get along with Pakistan, it could. Pakistanis don't want to conquer India. However, plenty of Indians do feel that the partition should have never happened. And that's why India finds it so important to continue ruling over Kashmiris who hate India.

Just to get all our cards on the table, do you think the partition was a good idea? Do you think Pakistan should be part of India?

Dilan

India did not force the secession of Pakistan. As usual you are purposely ignorant of the atoicties committed by the Pakistani army against the Bengalis in East Pakistan- the murders of the political dissidents who had won the election but were not allowed to form the government, the mass rape of Bangali female college students and other women by the West Paksitani soldiers and the other atrocities too numerous to mention here, and the flood of refugees into India that the suppression of the Bangladeshi freedom movement caused.

Your history of other wars is just as ignorant.

Most of the Indians don't care about Pakistan and have no designs on Pakistan. Why would they want to acquire an essentially failed state populated with unusually large number of irrational fundamentalists who have produced such a large number of terrorists? However, Indians do reserve the right to defend their sovereignity.

You are essentially spouting the official Pakistani government positions, which are nothing but miststatements of historical record to bolster the Pakistani army which has made such a mess of the country.

History of the last sixty years has shown that despite so many factors aginst it, Indians have largely adhered to democratic and secular values without which a large nation like India cannot survive. This history has included Muslim men and women in high government positions.

Sadly, the history of Pakistan has just been the opposite, replete with coups and military dictators ,official hanging of a prime minister, state mandated exile of opposition leaders, and suppression of minorities, including de-facto decimation of Hindus. It is laughable that you are calling Indian actions 'pure evil', while not deviating an iota from the official Pakistani government line.

You do not have any facts on your side but just propaganda.

For the edification of the various factions here, this article on what Islam wants is a good read.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=28290

Some typical passages from the article, which is an interview with a Muslim cleric.

Equality of men and women is stupidity. What men can do, women cannot do. Women are weak physically and mentally compared to men. Men have to take care of women all the time.

ALL INDIAN HINDUS WILL BE CONVERTED INTO ISLAM

I answered your question in the previous post.

India has the right to acquire any weapons that it can. With Pakistan on one side and China on the other, there is no reason for India not to prepare for any eventuality, especially since Pakistani army likes to beat the drums of war whenever the pakistanis start making any noise about its incompetence and strong arm tactics.

even if kashmiris hate india, it does not follow that india should give kashmir to pakistan. would you want pakistan to give baluchistan to afghanistan or Iran? Your demand is ridiculous.

For the last time, Indians do not have any desire to conquer the failed state of Pakistan. Pakistan is politically corrupt, economically more undeveloped than India, and culturally and intellectually backward, and there is no advantage for India to have anything to do whatever with Pakistan apart from defending India against the periodic wars that Pakistan likes to start against India. And since Indian government is a democratically elected government unlike Pakistan's, the Indian state does not have any designs on Pakistan either.

To 'reconquer Pakistan', it would have to have been conquered in the first place, when, I think we can recall, it was closer to the other way around.

I don't see any evidence that Kashmiris would rather be associated with Pakistan than India. They'd rather be independent, but given a choice between Pakistan and India it's hard to imagine anyone opting for Pakistan.

India's nuclear weapons program had at least as much to do with continued Chinese designs on parts of it's northern border.

Pakistan only exists at all because Muslims refused to live in a country where they couldn't feel they were lording it over everyone else.

gregor and cld:

You both put too much faith in the fact that India is a democracy. That is, as I said, something aobut India about which there is much to admire, especially given the challenges that India has faced in its 60 years of existence.

Nonetheless, democracies do very bad things sometimes. Bellicose foreign policies that are unwise in the long run get pursued by democratic governments just as they do by dictatorships. Israel, for instance, has large swaths of voters who support the dream of "greater Israel".

The acquisition of nuclear weapons by India is a great example of that. It is hugely popular within the country, for reasons that have as much to do with status as security. (India is a very large country that has something of an inferiority complex when it comes to its relationship with the rest of the world, because it has been unable to attain "great power" status.) The result, of course, was that Pakistan HAD to get the bomb, because they were justifiably fearful that the next war would be nuclear if they didn't.

As far as the Kashmiris are concerned, their preference should count. The problem with India's position is that it doesn't. And if you think they won't vote for Pakistan, have the plebiscite and see. All this bluster about Kashmiri opinion doesn't mean much if you aren't willing to do that.

Finally, gregor, note cld's comment-- he thinks Pakistan shouldn't have existed. I would suggest to you that many Indians feel exactly the way cld does. And that has a lot to do with why India has never made peace with its neighbor.

The truth is, India has wasted a lot of capital and energy over the last 60 years trying to preserve its rule over a province where it isn't wanted. The fact that India is a democracy doesn't really justify that or make it wise.

hey dilan

Your concern about India wasting a lot of energy over the last 60 years trying to preserve its rule over a province is quite touching.

You talk as if Pakistan is so innocent and peaceful and it just wants peace with India. That's just not supported by historical record. Pakistan has created problems not just for India, but arguably for the rest of the world. The case can easily be made that if Pakistan was indeed a peaceful nation, a large percentage of the terrorists that threaten world peace all over the globe would not exist either.

The gist of your argument is that the fact that India is doing all it can to defend its sovereignity is proof positive that India does not want to have peace with Pakistan. This argument is unsupported by facts, logic and common sense.

Even if 100% of Indians think that Pakistan should not have been created, it does not mean that India has designs on Pakistan. This argument can easily be extended to say that since 100% of Pakistanis think that Hyderabad in the Indian south should have been a part of Pakistan and so Pakistan has designs on a part of India and can never achieve peace with India. This sort of reasoning is nonsense.

You need to understand history from an unbiased perspective. And of course you have to supplement your knowledge of history with some understnding of logic. Otherwise you will keep on repeating the Pakistani generals' lies and propaganda.

I've never said Pakistan shouldn't have existed, I was simply pointing out why it existed.

Why would it be fair to hold a plebiscite in just part of Kashmir and not all of it? What of the population of Kashmir inside Pakistan, which has undergone substantial population movements? Should they vote, and who among them gets to vote?

If Kashmir became independent it wouldn't decrease their claim on the part on the Pakistani side, but would rather increase the immediacy of it as it eliminated India, (which is not to say it would decrease the legitimacy of India's claim as opposed to Pakistan's which is wholly illegal).

And, if you want a plebiscite, it's important to remember that the Baluchis were never consulted as to whether they wanted to be in Pakistan or not and have strongly resented their inclusion ever since. That's the entire southern third of the country. Will they be allowed a plebisicite?

And what if either of them vote for independence from Pakistan, can you imagine Islamabad going along with it?

Israel, for instance, has large swaths of voters who support the dream of "greater Israel".

--show us that poll, outside religious fanatics the notion is treated as childish.

And to think that Mr. Dilan Esper is actually a lawyer, if the poster here is the same person as the one whose name appears when you google the it. And a USC Law graduate to boot!

Plebiscite or not, there have been elections and polls. Your burden is to find Kashmiri opinion that they are not represented in Delhi.

Interesting results from a poll in 2002,

They also believe the unique cultural identity of the region should be preserved in any long-term solution, and there is virtually no support for the state of Jammu and Kashmir being divided on the basis of religion or ethnic group.

. . .

There is a general consensus across the regions that it is not possible to hold democratic elections while violence continues - 65% agree while 34% disagree.

A very clear majority of the population - 65% - believes the presence of foreign militants in Jammu and Kashmir is damaging to the Kashmir cause, and most of the rest take the view that it is neither damaging nor helpful.

Overall, two thirds of people in Jammu and Kashmir take the view that Pakistan's involvement in the region for the last ten years has been bad. Only 15% believe it has been good for the region, while 18% say it has made no real difference.

On the issue of citizenship, overall, 61% said they felt they would be better off politically and economically as an Indian citizen and only 6% as a Pakistani citizen, but 33% said they did not know.

. . .

People in all regions are in general agreement that 'the unique cultural identity of Jammu and Kashmir - Kashmiryat - should be preserved in any long-term solution'. Overall, 81% agree, including 76% in Srinagar and 81% in Jammu.

There is also widespread consensus on the types of proposals which will help to bring about peace in Jammu and Kashmir. More than 85% of the population, including at least 70% in each region, think the following will help to bring about peace:

* Economic development of the region to provide more job opportunities and reduction of poverty - 93%
* The holding of free and fair elections to elect the people's representatives - 86%
* Direct consultation between the Indian government and the people of Kashmir - 87%
* An end to militant violence in the region - 86%
* Stopping the infiltration of militants across the Line of Control - 88%
. . .

Views are also split on the issue of granting more autonomy to Kashmir. Overall 55% support 'India and Pakistan granting as much autonomy as they can to both sides of Kashmir to govern their own affairs. However, while the majority in Srinagar and Leh support this, the majority in Jammu oppose this policy.

There are also mixed views about the role and impact of the Indian security forces. In Srinagar and Leh, at least nine out of ten believe that security forces scaling down their operations in Jammu and Kashmir would help to bring peace, whereas in Jammu opinions are reversed.

There are clearly different perceptions of the behaviour of the Indian security forces. Nobody interviewed in Leh or Jammu believes that human rights violations by Indian security forces in Jammu and Kashmir are widespread, whereas in Srinagar 64% of the population think they are widespread.

Perceptions are different with respect to human rights violations by militant groups in Jammu and Kashmir. 96% of those in Jammu believe such violations are widespread whereas only 2% of those in Srinagar believe they are widespread (although 33% believe they are 'occasional').

Here is an excellent article about the extraordinary non-democracy enjoyed by the residents of the Pakistani side of Kashmir.

And now that I think of it, this region borders the Northwestern Territories and Afghanistan, I wonder if India would take it if Pakistan tried to give it to them.

Here is a more recent poll, from 2005, which may represent the low water mark of India's popularity,

90.1% of Kashmiris want nothing to do with Pakistan.

One of the interesting parts is this,

What do Kashmiris perceive as the real issues? The survey gave them five options - development, education, health, tourism and azadi - and asked them to rank these in order of priority. Interestingly, most respondents insisted that several of these were equally important and hence ranked more than one of them No. 1. There is, therefore, no sharp distinction in the relative rankings given to these issues, with one exception. Only 55.3% ranked azadi at No. 1 (singly or jointly), against 90.1% for education, 82.9% for development, 80.3% for tourism and 73.7% for health. This confirms the earlier indication that gaining independence is not really top-of-the-mind for Kashmiris.

Is it not extraordinary that the percentage of respondents who ranked education as of greatest importance to the future of Kashmir is exactly equal to the percentage who want nothing to do with Pakistan?

The complexities behind the two polls are discussed, rather headspinningly, here.

Exceptionally long comment I just dropped in is being 'held for moderation' perhaps forever because of all the links.

So I will break it into parts. Anyone watching, please feel free to cut out the extranea.

Plebiscite or not, there have been elections and polls. Your burden is to find Kashmiri opinion that they are not represented in Delhi.

Interesting results from a poll in 2002,

They also believe the unique cultural identity of the region should be preserved in any long-term solution, and there is virtually no support for the state of Jammu and Kashmir being divided on the basis of religion or ethnic group.

. . .

There is a general consensus across the regions that it is not possible to hold democratic elections while violence continues - 65% agree while 34% disagree.

A very clear majority of the population - 65% - believes the presence of foreign militants in Jammu and Kashmir is damaging to the Kashmir cause, and most of the rest take the view that it is neither damaging nor helpful.

Overall, two thirds of people in Jammu and Kashmir take the view that Pakistan's involvement in the region for the last ten years has been bad. Only 15% believe it has been good for the region, while 18% say it has made no real difference.

On the issue of citizenship, overall, 61% said they felt they would be better off politically and economically as an Indian citizen and only 6% as a Pakistani citizen, but 33% said they did not know.

. . .

People in all regions are in general agreement that 'the unique cultural identity of Jammu and Kashmir - Kashmiryat - should be preserved in any long-term solution'. Overall, 81% agree, including 76% in Srinagar and 81% in Jammu.

There is also widespread consensus on the types of proposals which will help to bring about peace in Jammu and Kashmir. More than 85% of the population, including at least 70% in each region, think the following will help to bring about peace:

* Economic development of the region to provide more job opportunities and reduction of poverty - 93%
* The holding of free and fair elections to elect the people's representatives - 86%
* Direct consultation between the Indian government and the people of Kashmir - 87%
* An end to militant violence in the region - 86%
* Stopping the infiltration of militants across the Line of Control - 88%
. . .

Views are also split on the issue of granting more autonomy to Kashmir. Overall 55% support 'India and Pakistan granting as much autonomy as they can to both sides of Kashmir to govern their own affairs. However, while the majority in Srinagar and Leh support this, the majority in Jammu oppose this policy.

There are also mixed views about the role and impact of the Indian security forces. In Srinagar and Leh, at least nine out of ten believe that security forces scaling down their operations in Jammu and Kashmir would help to bring peace, whereas in Jammu opinions are reversed.

There are clearly different perceptions of the behaviour of the Indian security forces. Nobody interviewed in Leh or Jammu believes that human rights violations by Indian security forces in Jammu and Kashmir are widespread, whereas in Srinagar 64% of the population think they are widespread.

Perceptions are different with respect to human rights violations by militant groups in Jammu and Kashmir. 96% of those in Jammu believe such violations are widespread whereas only 2% of those in Srinagar believe they are widespread (although 33% believe they are 'occasional').

Here is an excellent article about the extraordinary non-democracy enjoyed by the residents of the Pakistani side of Kashmir.

Now that I think of it, as this region borders the Northwestern Territories and Afghanistan, I wonder if India would take it if Pakistan tried to give it to them.

And here is a more recent poll, from 2005, which may represent nadir of India's popularity,

90.1% want nothing to do with Pakistan.

One of the interesting parts is this,

What do Kashmiris perceive as the real issues? The survey gave them five options - development, education, health, tourism and azadi - and asked them to rank these in order of priority. Interestingly, most respondents insisted that several of these were equally important and hence ranked more than one of them No. 1. There is, therefore, no sharp distinction in the relative rankings given to these issues, with one exception. Only 55.3% ranked azadi at No. 1 (singly or jointly), against 90.1% for education, 82.9% for development, 80.3% for tourism and 73.7% for health. This confirms the earlier indication that gaining independence is not really top-of-the-mind for Kashmiris.

Is it not extraordinary that the percentage of respondents who ranked education as of greatest importance to the future is exactly equal to the percentage who want nothing to do with Pakistan?

The complexities behind the two polls are discussed, rather headspinningly, here.