RUPEE NEWS: Recording History, Narrating Archives, Strategic Intellibrief Analysis: Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | новости рупии | 卢比新闻 | Rupi Nyheter | ルピーニュース | اخبار روپیہ

Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | новости рупии | 卢比新闻 | Roepienieuws | Rupi Nyheter | ルピーニュース | Notizie di Rupia | PAKISTAN LEDGER | پاکستاني کھاتا | RUPEE NEWS | December 29th, 2008 |  Moin Ansari | اخبار روپیہ | معین آنصآرّی |

In the 60s it used to be called parity. During the 80s the Nixon tilt towards Paksitan was revived. Then President Clinton wanted India to be a natural ally of the US and Pakistan just a temporary helper in the Afghan mess. With the Bush Administration’s failure in Iraq and war making, thier entire policy has been thrown out the window.

Barack Obama’s team talked about hyphenating the India Pakistan relationship. In English this means that events in Kabul and Karachi affect events in Kolkota. Therefore it is impossible to ‘dehyphenate” the American policy from US-Pakistan relationship and US-India relationship.

Linking Afghanistan, Pakistan and India together in the same security equation, Obama has made known a dual strategy of outwitting the Taliban while ensuring Indo-Pakistan peace, even if it means the Pakistan-based masterminds of the recent 67-hour Mumbai terrorist attacks are not brought to justice.

This strategy is likely to make things more difficult for Indian security, both by reinforcing U.S. dependence on the Pakistani military (more than three-quarters of all NATO supplies for the war in landlocked Afghanistan are transported through Pakistan) and by seeking to co-opt the Taliban behind the cover of a surge of U.S. forces. Japan Times. Monday, Dec. 29, 2008, New Afghan strategy will compound U.S. problem, By BRAHMA CHELLANEY

Barack Obama’s team has talked about resolving Kashmir and establishng a rubust relationship between India and Pakistan, so that Islamabad can concentrate on helping the US in her battle in Afghanistan.

But an institutionalized US mediatory mission in South Asia hyphenating Afghanistan, Pakistan and India is an altogether different proposition. It not only linked India and Pakistan but it also held out the danger of constant US meddling in Indian policies. The intriguing thing is why the US has projected its “regional strategy” doctrine at this juncture, knowing fully well that Delhi will find it disagreeable. Asia Times: South Asia descends into terror’s vortex By M K Bhadrakumar.

The Bush policy in South Asia is a total failure. The Western pressure on Pakistan is not working and will not work. Pakistanis cannot be expected to walk the plank towards the deep end. It will not happen.

The idea of becoming subservient to India is abhorrent. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto

… Pakistan, which is vastly experienced in handling Washington’s “pressure”, began ably working on Rice and the US military and political establishment. By last week, Islamabad seemed to have concluded that the US pressure had all but run its course. Actually, by gently holding out the threat to the US that the Afghan operations would grievously suffer unless Washington restrained Delhi from precipitating any tensions on the India-Pakistan border, Islamabad seems to have neatly pole-vaulted over Rice to appeal straight to the Pentagon, where there is abiding camaraderie towards the Pakistani generals.

The Pakistani generals’ calculation proved correct when the Pentagon made it abundantly clear to Delhi that it wouldn’t allow the Pakistani generals to be “distracted” at this juncture. Speaking from Camp Eggers in Afghanistan on December 20, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, laid down the ground rules for India. He said the overarching strategy for success in Afghanistan must be regional in focus and include not just Afghanistan, but also Pakistan and India. Continuing in this seemingly innocuous vein, Mullen explained that the three countries must “figure a way” to decrease tensions between them and the “regional strategy” here is aimed at addressing long-term problems that increase instability in the region. Asia Times: South Asia descends into terror’s vortex By M K Bhadrakumar.

Admiral Mike Mullen came to Pakistan to tell the Pakistani Government to allow India to attack targets in Pakistan.

Mullen then referred specifically to Kashmir as a problem where reduction of tensions “allowed the Pakistani leadership … to focus on the west [border with Afghanistan]“. He expressed apprehension that the terror attack in Mumbai might “force the Pak leadership to lose interest in the west”, apart from bringing India and Pakistan closer to a nuclear flashpoint. Curiously, Mullen gave credit to the Pakistani top brass for cooperation in the Afghan war, which “has had a positive impact” on the ground.

US hinting at Kashmir mediation
Mullen probably hoped to rattle Delhi by confirming what many American “experts” have been recently suggesting, namely, the US is working on a “regional strategy” in South Asia, which grouped Afghanistan, Pakistan and India together. He virtually corroborated a recent hint by US Senator John Kerry (who is expected to chair the powerful Senate Committee on Foreign Relations) that Obama would be appointing a special envoy for South Asia in an unprecedented move.

Delhi finds such ideas completely unacceptable. Delhi traditionally rejected any outside “third-party” mediation in India-Pakistan disputes. Having said that, successive governments in Delhi tacitly acquiesced with a US mediatory role in India-Pakistan relations in the recent years since the Kargil conflict in 1999. To be sure, Delhi’s pragmatism was based on the belief that it wouldn’t be a bad idea if the US used its influence on Pakistan to moderate its policies on the range of issues generating India-Pakistan tensions – Pakistani support for cross-border militancy and terrorism, in particular. In other words, Delhi preferred to selectively avail of the US mediatory role in areas where it stood to gain. Asia Times: South Asia descends into terror’s vortex By M K Bhadrakumar.

When asked to stand down for a bit, General Kiyani showed Admiral Mike Mullen a picture of a n IAF Mirage-2000 locked in the sights of a Pakistani F-16.  Admiral Mullen was informed that “We will shoot down the next one that violates Pakistani airspace”. The Indian Air Force has since then backed off.

Also, Islamabad has exposed the fallacy in Indian thinking that it occupies the pride of place as the US’s “natural ally” globally, while Pakistan was a mere collaborator in an anti-insurgency war on the Afghan tribal tracts. In turn, the events have also helped Islamabad highlight the complexities of the US-Pakistan relationship, which is far from a client relationship. This comes particularly helpful for Islamabad since there is an air of uncertainty about the policies towards Pakistan under the new administration in Washington. At a minimum, Obama would have noted that the Pakistani generals are no easy pushover. The fact of the matter is that the Rice mission to the region in the wake of the Mumbai attacks brought out the limits to the US’s capacity or willingness or both to “pressure” Pakistan.

Significantly, amid all the fracas over the Mumbai attacks and despite repeated Indian calls to isolate Pakistan in the world community as the “epicenter” of terrorism, Washington is quietly putting together a new multi-billion dollar aid package for Pakistan, and CENTCOM is drawing up a new five-year plan committing $300 million assistance annually to the Pakistani military.

Kerry, while on a recent visit to Islamabad, made the commitment to speed up the “mid-life upgradation” of Pakistan’s F-16 aircraft capable for delivering nuclear weapons. He said the US considered a “vibrant, strong, economically viable” Pakistan to be “vital for peace and stability in South Asia”.

Therefore, it comes as no surprise that Islamabad has weathered the US “pressure” over the Mumbai attacks. In Islamabad’s estimation, the focus in Washington is turning to the gala inaugural ceremony of Obama on January 20, followed by several weeks during which no major US foreign policy initiatives need to be expected as the new administration settles in. Thus, Islamabad has shrewdly judged that sooner, rather than later, the international community will begin counseling Delhi to engage Pakistan in a spirit of dialogue. Asia Times: South Asia descends into terror’s vortex By M K Bhadrakumar.

In public, Pakistani leaders have vowed in recent days not to attack first or be the aggressor in any conflict, but have warned India that it should not believe it can get away with launching even a “surgical” strike inside Pakistan. 

“We will be compelled to respond if it happens,” said the Pakistani foreign minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, according to Pakistan’s state news agency. “If war is imposed, we will respond to it like a brave, self-respected and self-esteemed nation.” The New York Times

Enough is Enough: Pakistan ends war with “Taliban”. Moves forces to real enemy on Eastern front

Nor should there be Western expectations that political pressure and economic incentives would persuade any government in Pakistan to compromise on vital national issues, in particular its nuclear and strategic programmes that provide credible deterrence against Indian and any other foreign aggression.

Western discrimination against Pakistan on strategic issues, epitomised by the Indo-US nuclear deal, and the periodic unrealistic demands for the surrender or elimination of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, reinforce the common Pakistani view that the West is conspiring with India to weaken and destabilise, if not dismember Pakistan. Ambassador Munir Akram

The Indians now agree with Henry Kissinger. It is dangerous to be America’s enemy, but it is disasterous to be America’s friend. The ride for India has come to a bumpy end with all the parties wet in Winter. It was fun when it lasted but the middle of winter make it difficult to enjoy the cold and the wetness.

Hype of US-India ties: The Bush administration made the Indian leadership feel “special”. The Indian establishment felt comfortable with the US’s regional policy, which it fancied as working in favor of its aspirations to emerge as the pre-eminent power in the Indian Ocean region. Delhi had no problems with the creeping “militarization” of the Bush administration’s regional policy; more precisely, the Pentagon’s “muscling” or ”encroachment” into a striking number of aspects of the US government, including its foreign policy, as Thomas A Schweich, former senior State Department official with hands-on experience on Afghanistan, put it in a devastating article last Sunday in the Washington Post

What mattered to Delhi was that the US regional policy regarded India as a counterweight to China. Equally, Delhi was not perturbed that the cold warriors in Washington were relentlessly pursuing a policy of encirclement of its traditional ally Russia or pressing for a regime change in Iran, India’s close friend. In fact, Delhi cut adrift from the regional politics and single-mindedly focused on its strategic partnership with the US, which, it felt, if carefully nurtured, would take care of India’s two main challenges on the foreign policy front, namely, its adversarial relationships with China and Pakistan, and elevate India altogether from the morass of its regional milieu.

The US-India nuclear agreement signed in September, the burgeoning military-to-military cooperation, the prospect of “inter-operability” between the two armed forces – all this elevated US-India ties to the level of a veritable alliance.

Delhi took in its stride the status of a key “non-NATO ally” that the US regional policy ascribed to India’s arch-rival Pakistan – comfortable in the estimation that the Pakistani connection after all was a passing need of the US in the context of the Afghan war, whereas India was the US’s “natural ally”.

Meanwhile, Delhi systematically began harmonizing its own regional policies with the US’s strategy, especially with regard to rolling back its cooperation with Iran while boosting security ties with Israel, distancing itself from the trilateral format involving Russia, China and India, and reducing to a minimum its involvement with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

India signed up with a “quadrilateral alliance” involving the US, Japan, Australia and India in a bizarre containment strategy toward China, which, of course, annoyed Beijing. Some in the Indian strategic community openly threatened to play a “Tibet card” against China, confident in the strength of the US-India strategic partnership. Hubris crept into the Indian mindset, which was indeed a startling sight, altogether new to the millennia-old largely benign Indian civilizational temper.

In February, when visiting US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates suggested an Indian military deployment in Afghanistan, it was received with careful attention and empathy. Asia Times: South Asia descends into terror’s vortex By M K Bhadrakumar. Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.

Barack Obama’s Democratic Party is the new face of the younger Americans. This is not your Daddy’s Democratic Party. Its new leader fully understands that almost all Indians did not vote for him. Barack Obama faced comments from the Indian Prime Minister which pretty much dismissed his candidacy. President Bush’s popularity ratings are the highest in the world in India.

On his watch, Karzai has been unable to banish corruption-a scourge that many Afghans view as their chief burden to bear in an unstable and increasingly violent country.

In the face of a weak central government, the Taliban has stepped in, creating shadow governments in remote and not-so-remote provinces. The Taliban moves in and doles out its unique form of brutal but bribery-free justice-and Afghan locals have been begging for some system of justice for more than half a decade now. The Taliban is also bulking up in provinces that border Kabul, where insurgents have threatened to “draw a noose” around the Afghan capital. US News. No Longer the Forgotten War, Afghanistan Will Be a Hard One for Obama to Win By Anna Mulrine, Posted December 29, 2008

There used to be a strange sense of “Group Think” in the old Democratic Party. It goes something like this. India is a Democracy and therefore peace loving and other states in the region need to hear the voice of Delhi. All notions of nationalism in neighboring states are based on on paranoia.

Ms. Hillary Clinton actually voiced these type of sentiments during the campaign trail. Bill Clinton of course is hot and heavy into this thinking. He was the first president who made inroads into India. Indians think that Clinton’s visit to Delhi was akin to Henry Kissinger’s trip to China.

Therefore there is a huge dichotomy to be dealt within the US administration. With Hillary Clinton running the Department of State, and Bill Clinton influencing his wife–the old Democratic Line may be challenged with the Obama Teams new ideas for South Asia.

The India-Pakistan confrontation following the Mumbai attacks is the fourth such crisis in the last two decades. While India says it has provided enough evidence to Pakistan, Islamabad says what it has been given cannot be taken to a court of law for prosecution. Also, there is still no solid evidence that the Mumbai attacks were planned by a Pakistani group; or that the attackers were all Pakistanis. The audio recording of one of the attackers, available online, includes the use of Hindi words not in the Pakistani lexicon.

There is a strong sense in Pakistan that the Indian government’s allegations are designed to deflect attention away from India’s own security lapses, to safeguard against erosion of electoral support for the ruling party and to utilise the crisis to further de-legitimise the Kashmiri insurgency. Ambassador Munir Akram

The question is “Will Hillary Clinton” listen to Obama and Bruce Riedel or will  Clinton’s state department be held hostage to the Clinton legacy which tiled American policy towards India?” Hillary Clinton has to recognize the Pakistani nationalism which thinks of India as the big bully of South Asia. As Ambassador Munir Akram said. Statements by President Asif Zardari and editorials in the New York Times cannot make the Pakistani people believe that “India is not the enemy” and that Indian intentions towards Pakistan are benign.  

a comprehensive strategy against terrorism in South Asia must also seek to end state terrorism, state-sponsored terrorism and Islamic as well as Hindu extremist violence, including that perpetrated by Hindu fascist organisations like the RSS, against Muslims in India. Ambassador Munir Akram

To further reinforce the message, Pakistan has moved about 50,000 troops to the Eastern front effectively leaving the Taliban and Pakhtun tribals to deal with the US occupation.

The Department of Defense has repeatedly lobbied for a greater State Department role in rebuilding Afghanistan. On a recent trip to the region, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates publicly rebuked the United Nations, saying that the U.N. special envoy in Afghanistan had not been given the resources, “both people and money, that he needs to do his job.” He also noted that NATO has left Afghanistan to “bear a disproportionate part of this burden” of war. “NATO is a military alliance. It’s not a talk shop,” he said. US News. No Longer the Forgotten War, Afghanistan Will Be a Hard One for Obama to Win By Anna Mulrine, Posted December 29, 2008

The situation in Kabul remains grim with the fall of the capital imminent.

South Asians will watch the year end in a pall of gloom. The region is fast getting sucked into the vortex of terrorism. The Afghan war has crossed the Khyber and is stealthily advancing towards the fertile Indo-Gangetic plains.

Whatever hopes might have lingered that Barack Obama would be a harbinger of “change”, have also been dashed by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The Financial Times of London reported on Monday that in an exclusive interview Rice prophesied that the incoming Obama administration might have little option but to follow the current US approach on a range of foreign policy issues. Significantly, her prognosis figured in the course of a foreign policy review that primarily focused on Russia, Iran and Afghanistan. Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey. Asia Times: South Asia descends into terror’s vortex By M K Bhadrakumar

Even with 20,000 new US forces in the region, the indefatigable Taliban cannot be sent back to their homes.

Indian illusions shaken up: The past four-week period has also shaken up Indian illusions regarding Washington’s regional policies. It is plain to see that the US never really abandoned its “hyphenated” policy towards India and Pakistan as South Asia’s two important rival powers, both of which are useful in their own ways for the pursuit of the US’s geostrategies.

Within hours of the Mumbai attacks, Rice rushed to Delhi to commiserate. She promised quick action to bring the terror machine to book. She urged Delhi to exercise restraint while she worked on the Pakistani leadership to cooperate with India. She then flew to Pakistan. Two other top US officials followed up Rice’s mission in the following weeks. Delhi waited patiently though evidence began to pile by the hour that the terrorists had set out from Pakistani soil in a well-orchestrated operation of high professional skill that would have been possible only with the connivance and support of the security establishment in Islamabad. Asia Times: South Asia descends into terror’s vortex By M K Bhadrakumar. Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.

Pakistani defense based on missile nuclear deterrent. Hatf, Shaheen, Ghauri, Babar and Abdali are far more advanced then previously thought

In a chilling wake up call for the Indian planners, analysts paint a grim picture for Bharat. Here is M K Bhadrakumar latest in  the Asia Times South Asia descends into terror’s vortex.

India running out of options
With Pakistan’s recalcitrance and Mullen’s veiled threat of reopening the Kashmir file, a sense of frustration is gripping Delhi. Pakistan has ignored India’s tough posturing. The faltering Indian security agencies, which have been in a state of appalling decline in recent years, seem to have failed to put together any hard evidence of a Pakistani involvement in the Mumbai attacks.

The Pakistani generals count on Washington to rein in India. And Delhi is fast running out of options. In the spirit of its “strategic partnership” with the US, if Delhi counted on Washington to read the riot act to Islamabad, it is dismayed to see that Washington is more interested in restraining India rather than do any arm-twisting on Pakistan. Rice increasingly looks like an angel beating her wings in vain, while the Pakistani generals have ensured that the imperatives of the Afghan war leave the Pentagon no option but to be supportive.

At the same time, India is heading for a crucial, tightly fought parliamentary election within a few months and the government cannot afford to appear to be weak and rudderless. The majority opinion in the country somehow has convinced itself that the Pakistani security establishment perpetrated the terrorist attacks in Mumbai. The government faces potentially damaging criticism in the competitive domestic politics that its US-centric foreign policy has run into a cul-de-sac. The powerful pro-US lobby in Delhi’s strategic community and the corporate media already looks confused. The fizz in the US-India strategic partnership is fast vanishing. The much-touted US-India nuclear deal, hailed as a historic achievement of the government, already looks jaded and something of an embarrassment.

Obama’s war priorities
Thus, the challenge facing Obama is having to reconcile the almost irreconcilable contradictions in the US’s South Asia policy. Surely, his number one priority will be to stave off defeat in the war in Afghanistan. Obama’s Afghan strategy is to double the level of US forces in Afghanistan from 32,000 troops at present and to try to arrest and incrementally reverse the Taliban’s steady gains in the recent period. Clearly, the US intends to engage the Taliban politically and is no longer averse to accommodating the Taliban in the power structure at some point in the next year or two, but this has to be from a position of strength. No doubt, 2009 is a decisive year of the war.

At the same time, Afghanistan is heading for presidential elections in 2009. Hamid Karzai has stated his intention to seek another five-year mandate. In 2004, the US was in a commanding position and could dictate the course of Afghan politics. But that is not quite the situation today. Even Karzai is showing the gumption to openly mock at the US’s Afghan strategy. Asked by the Chicago Tribune last week about Obama’s description of Karzai as weak and spending too much time in a bunker, the Afghan president snapped back, “Bunker? We are in a trench, and our allies are with us in the trench. We were on a high hill with a glorious success in 2002 … We must now look back and find out as to why we are in a trench, or if you’d like to describe it, as a bunker.”

Four years ago, it was unthinkable that Karzai would have used such biting sarcasm against the US ambassador in Kabul, Zalmay Khalilzad, let alone Bush. Karzai asked, “Why are we in a bunker?” He then went on to tear the US war strategy to pieces for its mindless and excessive use of force, and concluded, “And if this behavior continues, we will be in a deeper trench than we are in today. And the war against terrorism will end in a disgraceful defeat.”

Clearly, in these troubled times ahead, Obama cannot afford to get tough with the Pakistani generals. He will need all his charm to coax them to cooperate for the successful conduct of the war, and they can be a difficult lot indeed as the recent destruction of the NATO’s supply convoys amply testify. Besides, Pakistan holds the trump card in any political reconciliation involving the Taliban. Arguably, Pakistan has a crucial say in the election of the next Afghan president as well. After all, the onerous duty falls on Islamabad to orchestrate the participation of over 4 million Afghan refugees who are living in Pakistan in the election process, and these ethnic Pashtuns could be a decisive vote bank in determining who the next Afghan president will be.

Of course, much will also depend on Obama’s adherence to the “Great Central Asia strategy”, which aims at rolling back Russia, Iran and China’s regional influence. If he is genuinely keen to work out a durable Afghan settlement, he will need to take help and cooperation from Russia, Iran and India in putting together a credible inter-Afghan reconciliation. In fact, such an approach – broad-basing the search for an Afghan settlement – will help reduce Obama’s dependence on Pakistan. Delhi will welcome such an approach by the Obama administration. But would the cold warriors in Washington allow Obama to opt for a change of course? Unlikely. Indeed, against the backdrop of the Afghan war, there has been a creeping takeover of the US foreign and security policy in South Asia by the generals in the Pentagon who are probably today quite in a position to devour Obama’s call for change.

Reality check for India
All this adds up to a harsh reality for Delhi: it might as well abandon any hopes that Obama will turn the screws on the Pakistani generals. On the contrary, the Pakistani generals may have concluded that it is their turn to expect that the US puts pressure on Delhi to behave with restraint. (Of course, there is no guarantee that such terrorist attacks as on Mumbai do not repeat.) The Pakistani generals may not think it sufficient enough if the US restores an even-handed approach to relations with the two South Asian rivals. Conceivably, they may insist on US mediation in India-Pakistan disputes, especially on the Kashmir issue. They will insist that unless Pakistan is free of its threat perceptions on its eastern border, the armed forces will remain far too “distracted” to concentrate on the war in Afghanistan.

That is why, the denouement of the current crisis over the Mumbai terrorist attacks will be of critical importance for India. Delhi is beginning to feel disenchanted by the US role in the crisis. Using unusually tough language, Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee hinted that India’s patience with Pakistan was wearing thin. Speaking in Delhi on Tuesday, Mukherjee made plain his displeasure with the US mediation in the current crisis. He said, “While we continue to persuade the international community and Pakistan, we are also clear that ultimately it is we who have to deal with this problem. We will take all measures necessary as we deem fit to deal with the situation.”

Mukherjee added, “We are not saying this just because we are affected but because we believe that it will be good for the entire civilized world and also for the Pakistani people and society. This terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan is the greatest danger to the peace and security of the entire civilized world.”

But all indications are that Pakistan is not impressed by the Indian rhetoric. It seems to think Indian politicians are grandstanding in an election year. But, just in case Delhi may spring a surprise, Pakistani army chief General Ashfaq Kiani has warned that the armed forces would give an equal response “within few minutes” if India carried out any surgical military strikes. “The armed forces are fully prepared to meet any eventuality, and the men are ready to sacrifice for their country,” he reportedly said.

As Delhi and Islamabad dig in, Obama will have a hard time balancing the US’s regional policy. However, one positive outcome will be that the US-India relationship will emerge out of this phase as a more mature process, having shed the false expectations and the rhetorical hype of recent years. A new government will also be assuming office in Delhi by next May and it is bound to take a fresh look at the “strategic partnership” with the US.

It is highly unlikely that any new leadership in Delhi will emulate current Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s ardor for India’s strategic partnership with the US. India will also have drawn its lessons from the current crisis. The return to an independent foreign policy may become necessary – almost unavoidable. The year 2009 may well prove to be a formative year of readjustment in India’s post-Cold War foreign policy. Asia Times: South Asia descends into terror’s vortex By M K Bhadrakumar. Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.
Pakistan’s JF-17 Thunder Fighter Plane. US sanctions and external existential threats forced Pakistan to go nuclear

Neglected issues for the new Pakistani government. Eliminating food, fuel subsidies, keeping out the IMF, stopping the US drones, and halting the Indian & Afghan mercenaries coming from across the border
Beyond the Pakistani made JF-17 Thunder Fighter Plane, Chinese made J-10s. When will PAF acquire the J-11s
Pakistan defense based on missile nuclear deterrent hataf shaheen babar and abdali

Pakistan’s 500 Al-Khalid tanks have been in production since 2001. Newer generation tanks now being exported via IDEAS 2008
Has Indian been thrown out of Tajikistan? Why was Russia angry at India?
The declining Indo-Russian relationship. Delhi scrambles for new arms sources but they come with strings
American loose nuclear devices cause concern in Pakistan. The US must improve its control processes
Al Khalid Tanks
a missile program that is the envy of South Asia.
Pakistan a US ally faced American sanctions and developed its own JF-17 Thunder fighter which will move towards the 4th generation fighters of the world and opens up an export potential worth billions of Dollars 
Northern Areas are part of Pakistan and were never part of Kashmir
Why did Buddhism disappear from South Asia? A summary of Buddhist Hindu wars 
KASHMIR Junagarh & Manvadar Kashmir and Junagarh is Pakistani territory  
Kashmir: Does the article of accession exist? 

The Pathans of Pakistan
Moderate Muslim are building fantastic iconic structures. Bigots are blind to Islamic science & technology. Muslim progress is hidden because Islamphobes are cannot bear to see Muslim modernity

Erase the Durand Line
The Pakistan Bilawal will inherit in 2014

 LEDGER | پاکستاني کھاتا | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی | DefensebriefsIntellibriefs Translate to: RSS feed: | RUPEE NEWS | December 31st, 2008 | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی | اخبار روپیہ |Save/Share