"a Pakistani military mindset that will require major Indian overtures before it changes"...

Does the author mean overtures like The Lahore Declaration, where India and Pakistan came within inches of resolving their differences.....until then Army General Musharaff launched Kargil and almost started a nuclear war?

Why in the world would anyone, including India, negotiate with a Government who clearly is trying to use terrorism (1999 Air India Hijacking, the Parlement Bombing, Mumbai etc) as a tool of their foreign policy?

No rush against anti-India militants, says Musharraf: http://public.dawn.com/2010/11/11/no-rush-against-anti-india-militants-says-musharraf.html

The opposite should happen. India should CUT off all trade, transport, transit etc until Pakistan actually goes after the terrorists and army personel that are involved in terrorist attacks.

It seems ridiculous that the Author would ask that India make any sort of overture to Pakistan.....given the history and facts, it should be the other way around.

Every Pakistani jokes "Most countries of the world have a military, in Pakistan a military has a countyr." No one in the army is going to change their mindset - can you imagine what peace might mean for them? A reduction in military budget - the horror! Target the top echeleon of the Pak army via invidualized sanctions. So if you are a a Pak army officer not only is travel restricted but also family members travel to the US etc. At the same time open up avenues for generous civilian/trade cooperation with a caveat of having peace. Thats what'll drive traction on the Pak side. Please note a stcik on its own won't work (ala the 90's) and currently the carrots remain too skewed towards military assistance ($1.5 B for civil admin while $2B for military). Its this lopsidedness towards working with the military that screws over any intentions towards fixing Pak. The civilian admin in Pakistan is a joke I agree but ultimatley they are the ones that you have to incentivize in order to get change.

I'm sorry to say this because Mr. Rashid is a respected commentator, but this article reads like a terrorist ultimatum. The truth behind the bluster is that it is Pakistan that is playing an increasingly losing hand, when it could very easily be playing a winning one. It is Pakistan's choice.

This is nothing new, It is known to whole world but they take it with a bit of salt, why ? Read this

in 1947, Akbar Khan, now a Major-General, had been busy with his plan for conquering Kashmir. Officers and men from Pakistan’s army had been sent on ‘leave’ so that they could recruit 5,000 tribal pathans from the Frontier Province. They had been cantoned in convenient bases where they were equipped with rifles and machine guns, and put under the command of Pakistani officers dressed up as tribesmen. On October 22, they were ferried to Kashmir’s border in 300 commandeered trucks. Here they were debussed, on the main road to Srinagar which was virtually undefended. Operation Gulmarg began to roll.

True, as with most Indian states, Kashmir, too, had its army; maybe ragged and armed with antiquated weapons, but still, adequate for guarding the mountain frontiers against a raiding force. But almost as though acting in concert, all the Muslim personnel in this force had deserted en masse and taken away their weapons. Now they, too, became a part of the invading force.

What this force did to the people of the wayside villages and towns was a foretaste of what lay in store for the people of the Kashmir valley. It was kill, burn, loot, rape, all the way, and it was these excesses that delayed ‘Operation Gulmarg’, which was planned for Jinnah’s triumphal entry into Srinagar on October 26, which was Id day. A day earlier, Jinnah’s secretary, Khurshed Ahmad, had been sent to Srinagar, and Jinnah himself had arrived in Lahore from Karachi to be on hand.

ONE WONDERS WHY, this subterfuge? Why call in tribals to do a job which Pakistan’s own army could have accomplished with ease? The obvious reason is that, at this time, both the Indian and Pakistani armies had British officers as their chiefs, and both were subordinate to an overall commander, Field Marshal Claude Auchinleck. They would not have condoned a clandestine operation.

In the event, on October 26, the tribals were still on the rampage in Baramula, killing, burning, looting. Of Baramula’s 14000 inhabitants, only 3,000 were alive the next day. That was also the day when Hari Singh decided to merge Kashmir with India and two days later Sikh troops were already in action on the Baramula road. The process of hurling back the invaders had begun.

The rest is HISTORY, but a footnote seems appropriate. It is that in 1949, Akbar Khan, now made the Chief of the General Staff of Pakistan’s army, attempted to do what first Ayub Khan, and then Zia ul-Haque, and then Pervez Musharraf, were later to pull off, a military coup. Akbar’s bid failed. He was arrested, dismissed, and sent to jail.

"...manifested in terrorist attacks on Indian diplomats and road workers in Afghanistan and, Pakistan claims, Indian-sponsored unrest in Baluchistan.
Obama cannot afford to keep ignoring this blood feud.

Mr. Rashid,
You are a well respected journalist. By making the above statement are you suggesting that India indeed carries out a proxy war in Balochistan? I hope you will understand how repeated lies (by the pak establishment in this case) creates an illusion of truth in our minds. Are you too falling victim to this delusion? Or are you genuinely convinced of this by the strictest of journalistic standards? Please reply.

The root of issue is Pakistan is an artificial nation..which is more of a cause than..a nation..Pakistan is riding a jehadist tiger which was not created in Afghan Jehad,but in 1947 itself with approval of its founding father Jinnah who send hordes of barbaric Mehsud tribesmen into J&K plundering and raping all the way.This guy even said to his aides that "he dont want to know about the operation"(src: article by Istaq Ahmed,Dailytimes) to maintain like saint like image.Talk about plausible deniability.
Kashmir is the excuse for this hostility.Obsession is an irrational attitude and must not be incentivised like behavioural disorders i.e. Obsessive Compulsive Disorder etc ..it must cured or purged.
Pakistanis would like to fool themselves into believing that Afghan Jehad is the root cause of current Mujahideen business.In fact,it was an on going Pakistani national profession for a long time.Even in 60s,there were groups like Al-Fatah maintained by Pakis for fighting India.The turning point of Afghan jehad is Pakistanis were fascinated by implication of defeating a superpower by asymmetrical means..and some "true believers" in Pakistan Army like Colonel Imam,Kwaja,Gul etc thought this is some Allah intervention.Further,Pakistani Army Jehad doctrine founder specifically says that "jehad is an end to itself" and there is no concrete objective.Jamaat-ul-Dawa literature talks about capturing the Red Fort and hoisting Pak flag etc..So people who "wants" to buy into "All roads leads to Kashmir" is simply delusional, outright malicious(like Paki Af-Pak analysts) and in unimaginative American/British circles sign of expediency and desperation.

If this logic is accepted by Americans..they should consider conditions laid out by AQAP jihadists in the Inspire magazine..
Its conditions even include cutting off Western TV and internet signals to Islamic nations..as a condition for peace... :)
These barbaric Muslims whether it is Kashmiri Sunnis,Pak Punjabis or Palestinians are really afraid of their cultural&spiritual bankruptcy than anything..it is a clash of civilization..and there is no room for negotiation..sooner this is realized the better..

"There's no hope for Afghanistan"

Because the second part of the trope is (as often demonstrated on these threads every day) pretty hopeless itself.

Peace will come when citizens don't care anymore. As long as Indians and Pakistanis give their leaders reasons to pull their strings, they will be used as tools to empower conflict.

If as Mr. Rashid claims that the road to Kabul runs through Kashmir then this would be a bilateral issue directly involving Afghanistan and India. There is no role for Pakistan in this relationship other than for it to vacate the territory of Kashmir it illegally invaded and occupied in 1947 - factually documented in a post above by "BRIJ 3:00 AM ET November 11, 2010". India and Afghanistan as two sovereign nations are fully capable of handling their bilateral relationship to the mutual benefit of their citizens, without Pakistani tutelage and Jihad/Taliban/AQ induced terror campaign clearly emanating from the duplicitous Punjabi dominated Pakistani Army, its kohl eyed Kayani and his ISI handlers.

Flailing as it is Pakistan today is surviving day-to-day on western dole and US taxpayer dollars. Mr. Rashid's time would be better spent on unmasking the evil behind the bloodletting in Karachi and the endless mosque bombings across his native Pakistan.

Mr. Rashid seems to be desperately clutching at the straws as the inherent contradictions of his artificial country are pushing it to the very brink. Nobody, least of all a weakened Mr. Obama can deliver Pakistan's unrealistic megalomaniac ambitions. The US tax payers are fed up with paying the bills for Pakistan's war machine.

A respected Paki journalist should not have to dilute his arguments to the Indian perspective to try and sway American opinion. Very symptomatic of this bending over backwards is the fact that even the picture for the article has been taken from the Indian side!
The American President went to India in the role of a SALESMAN, not that of a STATESMAN. In the Western tradition, the Customer is always right. Also, in the tradition of America Business School education (and big bonuses) it is the Quarterly bottom line rather than long term Gains.
America wants OTHERS, even those regarded as enemies (in ideology) to invest in America. Chinese are a cleaver people – the Government of China buys American bonds. The Americans are cleaver, the American President went to India with an entourage of 500 top businessmen – the idea is to entice India to buy American goods, and to beguile Indians (the Tatas, the Birlas, the Mittals, etc) to invest in India.
Americans are cleaver they know they do not have lure Pakis into investing in America. Every British, America, French, German, Japanese, Arab, (and even those from the Zionist Entity and Indian) from Chief Executive to Personal Secretary knows that wealth in Pakistan is in the hands of Mafia Gangs. As the wealth is mostly ill-gotten, this wealth is neither KEPT nor INVESTED in Pakistan. No country feels the need to attract Paki investments, for Paki wealth NATURALLY goes to England, Dubai, Malaysia, and the USA. Some Paki Mafia Gang bosses, for security reasons, do not even live in Pakia: Musharraf, of the Mafia Gang called Paki Army, lives in London and so does the boss of MQM, Altaf Hussain.
American model for “selling” to Pakia is very simple, but not simple minded, for it is pretty cleaver. Assume America wants to sell something to Pakia for $10, here is a brief version of how the sale will be transacted.
America will announce that it is giving Pakia $10 as Aid. America will then spend $11 on spreading the news of American generosity. The $10 are then handed over to the Mafia Gangs (each gang receives an amount proportional to the service rendered to support American Policy). America then waits for the Paki Mafia Gangs to deposit $22 into their PRIVATE accounts in New York, London, or Dubai. Note: the $22 is squeezed from the poor Paki public. After that, America hands over an item which can be purchased for $5 on the open market, and charges the Pakis $10 for it. Thus, selling to Pakia does not require much salesmanship.

the two elites are the stooppidest of all and have been so for 63 years. That they are at each other's throats is entirely due to British perfidious conceit.

All begins in 1947 and the way the Brits, specifically Mountbaten, went about to abandon British resposibility so cook up and implementing partition.

Mountbatten was givne carte blanche by Cabinet to ditch British responisibility as fast as possible. He ignore former plan to decide partition lines and spend one year for the two parties to agree so have indepence in '48. Mountbatten new better, decided British interest required immediate withdrawl. To delineat the borders he brought ina judge, Cyril Radcliffe, who had never been to India before, and gave him 6 weeks to draw the partition lines. Which he did with a staff of just three and never leaving the Viceregal palace. Moutbatten then annouced the partition on August 15 (the date HE conquered Japan!) and 2 days later made public the Radcliffe lines. Thus start the massive and panicky population movements that led to 4-5 millions dead and many more million lives smashed. As many dead as Slavs killed by Germans 1939-45 Helped by M's cynical decision to withdraw all army and police from Punjab and Bengal .

So Moutbatten's legacy lives on. Trillion$ wasted and lost. Why, why carry on the Brits' revenge on the Indian and Pakistani audacity of seeking independece?

Let us see how did US get where it is today in Afghanistan.

Nobody forced it but it was Pakistan’s democratic government that of its own free will, facilitated relocation of Osama bin Laden from Sudan to Afghanistan in 1996.

Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton’s national security advisor told 9/11 Commission in March, 2004 that ’Pakistani Army was the midwife of Taliban’. UN report on Bhutto killing published in April, 2010 confirmed this fact when it stated that "The PAKISTANI MILITARY ORGANIZED AND SUPPORTED THE TALIBAN TO TAKE CONTROL OF AFGHANISTAN IN 1996“.

Declassified DIA Washington D.C., "IIR (intelligence Information Report) Pakistan Involvement in Afghanistan," dated November 7, 1996 states how "Pakistan's ISI is heavily involved in Afghanistan," and also details different roles various ISI officers play in Afghanistan. Stating that Pakistan uses sizable numbers of its Pashtun-based Frontier Corps in Taliban-run operations in Afghanistan, the document clarifies that, "these Frontier Corps elements are utilized in command and control; training; and when necessary combat“.

Declassified U.S. Department of State, Cable "Pakistan Support for Taliban" from Islamabad dated Sept. 26, 2000 states that "while Pakistani support for the Taliban has been long-standing, the magnitude of recent support is unprecedented." In response Washington orders the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad to immediately confront Pakistani officials on the issue and to advise Islamabad that the U.S. has "seen reports that Pakistan is providing the Taliban with materiel, fuel, funding, technical assistance and military advisors. [The Department] also understand[s] that large numbers of Pakistani nationals have recently moved into Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban, apparently with the tacit acquiescence of the Pakistani government." Additional reports indicate that direct Pakistani involvement in Taliban military operations has increased.

So Pakistani government was in charge of Afghanistan when 9/11 attacks were carried out and hence Pakistani government was responsible for those attacks.

Pakistani ISI Director General Mahmud Ahmad had asked Omar Sheikh (the kidnapper of Daniel Pearl) to send $100,000 from a Dubai bank account to Mohammed Atta (the lead 9/11 hijacker) one year before those attacks. Mohammad Atta used that $100,000 for flight training, living expenses and to purchase flight tickets on the day of 9/11 attacks in US and returned unspent $25,000 back to same Dubai account. Musharraf was forced to retire ISI director General Mahmud Ahmad after Wall Street Journal exposed General Ahmad as the chief financier of 9/11 attacks. Pakistani ISI was heavily involved in planning of 9/11 attacks as corroborated by former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham.

But US government decided to whitewash Pakistan’s role in 9/11 attacks after forcing Pakistan to join its fight against Taliban. After all there was a reason why Richard Armitage threatened Musharraf with 'bombing Pakistan to stone age' if Pakistan did not join US fight against Taliban.

The Afghan war became a war without end the day Bush administration allowed Musharraf to relocate Taliban cadres from Kunduz in November, 2001 where they were trapped against advancing Northern Alliance forces. Musharraf relocated Haqqani’s HQN group to North Waziristan and Mullah Omar’s QST group to Quetta. Haqqani and Mullah Omar from their Pakistani hideouts have been controlling and conducting Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan ever since.

The road to Kabul has been built and paved in Pakistan.

Mr Ahmed Neocon-Zionist America is shouting: “Pakistan should DO MORE”. I have spent a good bit of time trying to understand what that means.

You see, Pakia is already among the most corrupt nations on earth. Is America suggesting that Pakia become even more corrupt? It would be difficult to become even more corrupt! In any case for Pakia to become even more corrupt, America will have to provide even more aid. Am I right?
This might be a parsimonious explanation of why America has periodically increased Aid to Pakia. America honestly wants Pakia to be more DISHONEST.

You see, I happen to believe that Pakis-Afghans are ONE nation. Thus, with half the nation already under foreign occupation, by saying ”Do MORE” does America want Pakia to place even more of its people under American and American mercenary (NATO) occupation. Would it then be illogical to conclude that America wants Pakia to place Quetta and Peshawar also under Hessian occupation?

Most Pakis-Afghans feel threatened from the far side of Panipat, and yet at the request of America, Pakia has moved troops away from the eastern border and thereby become more vulnerable to aggression. By suggesting that Pakia DO MORE, is Pakia being asked to become even less able to withstand Indian aggression?

You see, Pakia is one of the poorest countries in the world. The poverty is created by Mafia Gangs grabbing wealth (converting it into liquid assets = money) and stashing it away in Foreign Bank Counts or buying Palaces in France. And yet, America is telling Pakia to, DO MORE. Is America demanding that Paki Mafias squeeze the Paki people even more?

As far as I can tell the United States is determined to prove the truth of the old saying, that Afghanistan is where empires go to die.

Mr. Rashid,

Nowhere in your article do you mention WATER!

180 million Pakistanis depend on the Indus River basin and the simple fact that the river originates in India along with numerous tributaries that flow through Indian Punjab.

Kashmir is just a nationalistic sideshow... there is nothing the US can do about the geographic reality of Pakistan and the fact that it will never stop its obsession with India due to WATER...

Again, the US can do nothing about that except maybe finance a few desalination plants outside Karachi, but of course the Pakistani military would rather waste billions on building more nukes... that's the sad reality...

For several years now, I've been a great admirer of Ahmed Rashid's writings and incisive analysis. His grip and expertise on issues like Central and South Asia is by far better than most analysts in the entire Indo-Pak subcontinent.

One of the Ahmed's earlier works, a book on the insurgence of the Taliban back in the mid-90s was perhaps the most valuable piece of political literature that could have served as an 'Early Warning System' to counter-act the upsurge of this terrorist outfit that eventually went on to rule over almost the entire stretch of land that constituted Afghanistan. However, not much attention was paid by the powers-that-be of the time and hence that Taliban grew from a regional to a global menace.

I agree with Ahmed's analysis in this particular piece. Whereas Ahmed and I are, for the most part, on the same page vis-a-vis the historical US handling of Pakistan, I do, however, wish to point out that Pakistan's India-obsession is a quagmire of its own making. Minus the perceived 'Indian threat', the Pakistan army as well as the ISI will perhaps have not much else to do.

The US should not and cannot be expected to work on this 'psychological disability' and the dead-end concept that has worked so well for the Pakistani military in terms of exhorting huge chunks of funds in the federal budget as well as directly receiving and using foreign aid as and how it likes to utilize.

While, one is sure, the US understands and comprehends the idea of the 'India scare' that the Pakistani military employs to blackmail the local populace, Washington, other than stopping aid and supplies, cannot really step in and ask Kayani and company to refrain from using scare tactics on their own people. Needless to say, it is an absolutely outrageous mechanism whereby the Pakistani army diverts foreign aid ( mostly US taxpayer's hard-earned dollars ) to terrorists and indulges in dirty tactics that can only benefit the military top-brass.

Secondly, Kashmir is a dead issue. Any future negotiations between India and Pakistan should exclude Kashmir. Why is it that Kashmir appears to be a negotiable matter to Ahmed begs for a response and an explanation from the writer.

Furthermore, realistically speaking, India’s focus of attention is no longer Pakistan. It is now looking toward consolidating its economy and facing the global market forces with utmost resilience and strength. India is decidedly an economic superpower that is growing and prospering by the day. Pakistan, on the other hand, is a lame country that stands in need of direction and encouragement from the international role players on a regular basis. It is, for lack of a better term, a retarded failed state plagued by ‘primitive issues’.

Also, Kashmir stays peaceful as long as ISI does not interfere in its people's affairs. True, India has deployed massive amounts of troops in the area and its policies are insanely atrocious when it comes to treating the Kashmiris, it does not imply that the US can apply pressure on New Delhi and get the issue settled. For most Indians, Kashmir is not even an issue - it is there to be recognized as an integral part of the polity.

Therefore, forget Kashmir and please move on. Life is not all about the past - the present and the future are equally important and pivotal to a nation's existence. Kashmir may be a matter of concern for the ISI but, for all practical purposes, it is something that Washington should not be spending too much time on.

Long story short, if the ISI and the Pakistani army are taken out of the equation, the South and Central Asian regions will be much more 'livable' than they are currently.

The army and the ISI have compellingly orchestrated Pakistan's rather over-ambitious policy for decades now and have manipulated the element of Wahabism to their own advantage, i.e. blending of religion with politics. The US should not be called upon to clean this mess.

As it is, given the economic constraints at home and the declining standard of living of its own citizens, the US needs to pay more attention at home instead of involving itself in further adventures abroad, diplomatic or otherwise.

The writer puts the blame for all the evils on the Pentagon and says that it's up to President Obama to make a choice between chaos and peace. My question to Mr. Rashid is: When will the Pakistanis show restraint and responsibility? When will their leadership step up and demonstrate courage and character and resolve matters amicably not only within Pakistan but outside its frontiers as well? At age 63, isn't it high time that Pakistan grows up and stops acting like a cry baby?

For several years now, I've been a great admirer of Ahmed Rashid's writings and incisive analysis. His grip and expertise on issues like Central and South Asia is by far better than most analysts in the entire Indo-Pak subcontinent.

One of the Ahmed's earlier works, a book on the insurgence of the Taliban back in the mid-90s was perhaps the most valuable piece of political literature that could have served as an 'Early Warning System' to counter-act the upsurge of this terrorist outfit that eventually went on to rule over almost the entire stretch of land that constituted Afghanistan. However, not much attention was paid by the powers-that-be of the time and hence that Taliban grew from a regional to a global menace.

I agree with Ahmed's analysis in this particular piece. Whereas Ahmed and I are, for the most part, on the same page vis-a-vis the historical US handling of Pakistan, I do, however, wish to point out that Pakistan's India-obsession is a quagmire of its own making. Minus the perceived 'Indian threat', the Pakistan army as well as the ISI will perhaps have not much else to do.

The US should not and cannot be expected to work on this 'psychological disability' and the dead-end concept that has worked so well for the Pakistani military in terms of exhorting huge chunks of funds in the federal budget as well as directly receiving and using foreign aid as and how it likes to utilize.

While, one is sure, the US understands and comprehends the idea of the 'India scare' that the Pakistani military employs to blackmail the local populace, Washington, other than stopping aid and supplies, cannot really step in and ask Kayani and company to refrain from using scare tactics on their own people. Needless to say, it is an absolutely outrageous mechanism whereby the Pakistani army diverts foreign aid ( mostly US taxpayer's hard-earned dollars ) to terrorists and indulges in dirty tactics that can only benefit the military top-brass.

Secondly, Kashmir is a dead issue. Any future negotiations between India and Pakistan should exclude Kashmir. Why is it that Kashmir appears to be a negotiable matter to Ahmed begs for a response and an explanation from the writer.

Furthermore, realistically speaking, India’s focus of attention is no longer Pakistan. It is now looking toward consolidating its economy and facing the global market forces with utmost resilience and strength. India is decidedly an economic superpower that is growing and prospering by the day. Pakistan, on the other hand, is a lame country that stands in need of direction and encouragement from the international role players on a regular basis. It is, for lack of a better term, a retarded failed state plagued by ‘primitive issues’.

Also, Kashmir stays peaceful as long as ISI does not interfere in its people's affairs. True, India has deployed massive amounts of troops in the area and its policies are insanely atrocious when it comes to treating the Kashmiris, it does not imply that the US can apply pressure on New Delhi and get the issue settled. For most Indians, Kashmir is not even an issue - it is there to be recognized as an integral part of the polity.

Therefore, forget Kashmir and please move on. Life is not all about the past - the present and the future are equally important and pivotal to a nation's existence. Kashmir may be a matter of concern for the ISI but, for all practical purposes, it is something that Washington should not be spending too much time on.

Long story short, if the ISI and the Pakistani army are taken out of the equation, the South and Central Asian regions will be much more 'livable' than they are currently.

The army and the ISI have compellingly orchestrated Pakistan's rather over-ambitious policy for decades now and have manipulated the element of Wahabism to their own advantage, i.e. blending of religion with politics. The US should not be called upon to clean this mess.

As it is, given the economic constraints at home and the declining standard of living of its own citizens, the US needs to pay more attention at home instead of involving itself in further adventures abroad, diplomatic or otherwise.

The writer puts the blame for all the evils on the Pentagon and says that it's up to President Obama to make a choice between chaos and peace. My question to Mr. Rashid is: When will the Pakistanis show restraint and responsibility? When will their leadership step up and demonstrate courage and character and resolve matters amicably not only within Pakistan but outside its frontiers as well? At age 63, isn't it high time that Pakistan grows up and stops acting like a cry baby?

Instead of viewing Pakistan as a hurdle (which it has always struggled to accept as a reality since 1947), India - as it pretends to be more "responsible" - could take a more positive strategic approach, e.g.
a. Respect Indus Waters Treaty.
b. Not create and mentor Mukti Bahinis...
c. Think in terms of a warm beginnings, and not 'cold start'!!
d. Not violate the UN Charter by suppressing and preventing Kashmiris from exercising their right of self-determination as enshrined in UNSC Resolutions on the subject.
e. Not explode Nukes next to Pakistan's borders (Pokaran) or try the same in Himachal Pardesh may be?
f. Not distort the facts such as 9 out of 13 Army Corps are deployed, oriented towards Pakistan; in their composition these remain Pakistan-specific with all their armoured division, RAPIDS, etc which cannot be used across Himalayas against either China, Nepal, or Bhutan or, across Palk Strait !!!
g. Ask its military junta to assert their relevance in a more constructive role after nuclearisatin of South-Asia, and not through Pro-Active Strategy or look for the space of short, intense war aimed at 'shallow' objectives under a nuclear overhang....

Till the time Indian military capabilities continue to threaten Pakistan with its 2nd largest army, 4th largest airforce and 5th largest navy, the smoke screen of 'peaceful' intentions of India remain awkwardly absurd.

Do we need reminding a basic rule that security calculus is prepared with threatening capabilities in consideration and not the intentions; as intentions can change overnight (which in India's case have also been anti-Pakistan).

Long story short, if the tatil ISI and the Pakistani army are taken out of the equation, the South and Central Asian regions will be much more 'livable' than they kliptc are currently.

The author repeats a common trope of equating Pak Army with Pakistan when he writes 'America's biggest mistake is its failure to recognize Pakistan's near-fatal obsession with India' and then goes on to substantiate this 'obsession' with reference to the Army chief of staff. Pakistan is not obsessed with India, but the army is, or rather pretends to be in order to justify itself, the cost it levies on the country and the status it enjoys at home and among its allies. It doesn't help when writers of this standing take these claims at face value and assume the Pak army speaks for the population.

Remember it is India that refueses to internationalize the Kashmir issue. Why can't US pressure India to change this position? Because US doesn't want to do anything that might damage its relations with the best candidate to balance against China. US is in a dilemma with this because the solution to its biggest present problem (Afghanistan/Pakistan) implies a position that is at odds with the solution to the biggest problem it sees in its future (restraining China).

Kashmiri People are to get their right of self determination, it is not irreversible. India may try to delay the process little further by brutality.

BECAUSE

Have you seen any people in the history after sacrificing their 50,000 people still backed off from their cause? or after such a huge sacrifices they have failed?