Wednesday, September 17, 2008

AIR TRAVEL MAY BE DANGEROUS IN NEXT TWO WEEKS PARTICULARLY FOR PAKISTANI KEY PERSONS

ON 17 AUGUST 1988 ONE AIR CRASH HAD DECISIVELY AND SUDDENLY ALTERED PAKISTAN'S STRATEGIC AND POLITICAL SCENARIO.

ONE BULLET FIRED ON 27 DECEMBER 2007 HAD DONE A SIMILAR FEAT.

ANOTHER SUCH INCIDENT MAY ALTER THE WHOLE SCENARIO.

THE QUESTION IS WHOSE PLANE WILL CRASH ?

THAT MAN WHO DEFIES THE USA OR THAT MAN WHO APPEASES THE USA !

13 comments:

Zeemax said...

Yemen US Embassy attacked with RPG launchers after car bombing the security gate. 14 dead.

Dangerous times, indeed. Thanks for your advice Pavo. Will take Air Blue on the next domestic trip!

Majumdar said...

Pavo/Zee sahibs,

Travel by air by all means but make sure there are no mangoes on board.

Btw, why are you so sure about the next two weeks part. Anything really strategically important this time window?

Regards

Zeemax said...

majumdar,

Pavo gave the time window by experience. I agree.

Things are heating up. There was an incident yesterday at 3:00 am when US Blackhawks and Apaches with British special units and US Marines on board again landed in the same Angoor Adda of Sept 3, and were fired upon by both Pakistan Army and Tribal Militants 'combined'. The units left in their choppers after that.

Something has to give at this point, and soon. It always happens.

Zeemax said...

majumdar,

Remember when I said on Chowk that Pakistan Army and Pakistani Taliban should fight together against USA and Nato in Afghanistan? Everyone thought I was mad.

Hasn't it come true?

Sure, some people (not you) will still think it's a 'drama'.

cliftonbridge said...

I wonder if thats still how it works. Afterall Mush did survive against all odds.

Majumdar said...

Zee sahib,

Unfortunately Pakistan is caught between a rock and a hard place. The option you advocate is hardly feasible, an outright confrontation with NATO will be too expensive for Pkaistan given its precarious economic position. The other option, joining USA fullt-time will entail heavy casualties and popular discontent.

The third option -Romair's- let the TTP and NATO sort out problems between themselves is perhaps the least painful one but that would virtually mean abdicating at least temporarily sovereignty over large parts of the NW.

Regards

Zeemax said...

Majumdar,

An outright confrontation is not the idea. It is strategic defiance. Shirin Mazari terms it 'Non-lethal Response'. In practical terms it can be downing of pilotless planes in Pakistani airspace. US will certainly not opt for all-out war in response, but the message will be sent and diplomacy put to work to smooth out wrinkles.

"Let the TTP and NATO sort out problems between themselves" is not an option at all because as you rightly say it will mean abdicating sovereignty - though in my opinion losing not only FATA but probably entire NWFP. I also differ with 'temporarily'. It will be permanent. What would they have left to expect from Pakistan after that?

Zeemax said...

cliftonbridge,

Musharraf is still under Army protection. Some say 'protective custody'. I think he will have a huge security problem if he decides to live permanently in Pakistan.

Majumdar said...

Pavo/Zee sahib,

I understand there has been a fairly large number of displaced persons in Waziristan, Swat and Bajaur. What is the magnitude, where would all these people end up and what could be the security implication for Pakistan.

Regards

pavocavalry said...

the hard fact remains that the muslims were saved by english east india company......now agai the same game is on.....pakistan being a result of british decision to divide india as a punishment for the congress having opposed the brits many times in between 1930 and 1939....having said that .....pakistan was not the result of any revolutionary struggle......thus with this legacy its elite is not willing to pay any sacrifice......being a bunch of all opportunists.....the army also was a mercenary force which collaborated with brits and later americans...there are two hard choices....defiance.....which is difficult for the hopeless military and political elite....or Collaboration....a bloody extended civil war .....this is more convenient for the elite ...the feudals who were pimps of the britishers and are now pimps of americans and the military which depends on USA......THE ISLAMISTS ARE ALSO A DIFFICULT lot .....no one will accept them internationally.....THE BEST SOLUTION IS TO PITCH USA AGAINST RUSSIA AND CHINA.........but for that the pakistani leadership does not have the statesmanship

pavocavalry said...

security implications for pakistan are grave...the war as USA wanted has assumed a civil wars character....punjabis versus pashtuns........a severe strategic dislocation for pakistan....general kiani is the most unfortunate chief in pakistans history...the challenge he faces is gigantic......

Majumdar said...

Amin sahib,

I beg to differ on Pakistan being a British construct. The partition was much a choice of Hindoos as of Muslims. There were wide differences in the outlook of the two communities long before MAJ (pbuh) made the Pakistan demand or CRA coined the word Pakistan. Lala Lajpat Rai a diehard INC man made this proposal very early in the 1920s. I agree with much of the rest that you have written.

Regards

Zeemax said...

Majumdar,

... displaced persons in Waziristan, Swat and Bajaur. What is the magnitude, where would all these people end up and what could be the security implication ...

The Bajaur refugees are around 400,000 in Mardan and Nowshera. Waziristan's maybe 150,000 in Bannu/Kohat.Dera Ismail Khan. Swat's in tens of thousands in Dir/Malakand.

The implications are I guess the same as in the Afghan refugees' case, who eventually moved to the large Pushtun centers of Peshawar and Karachi in search of work - and many ended up adding to these cities' underworld.