After much bluster and genocidal threats, US President Trump has announced a 14 day cease fire with Iran. This Pakistan mediated ceasefire in which Pakistan has been characterized as more of a go between rather than a credible neutral mediator is already quite fragile. The hostilities between Iran and Arab states of UAE, Kuwait and Bahrain have not yet come to an end with report of continued targeting of infrastructure in these Arab states by Iran and UAE's retaliation on Iran's Lavan Islands as of Monday morning. Israel has also refused to include Lebanon in a any ceasefire. It operations in southern Lebanon continue as usual.
Any ceasefire does take some time to come into effect while the communication to stop hostilities trickle down to local units. In the case of Iran, due to its decentralized regional command, there is the added issue of all commanders agreeing to the temporary ceasefire. So we will have to wait for a couple of days to see if this cease fire settles in and holds. Israel however is unlikely to give up on its objectives in Lebanon so easily, hence we still need to wait and see how this pans out. There are already some voices in Israel's security establishment criticizing Trump for his decision. Israeli President Netanyahu is also facing criticism from opposition politicians for failing to achieve his objectives. As analyzed earlier, Israel's achievable objective was primarily "Mowing the grass", which, one can argue has been achieved to a great extent. The collapse of Iran's government could not be realistically expected to happen by arial bombardments and decapitation of its leadership has so far not been able to bring about internal fracture.
One cannot rule out an eventual weakening of the governance structures in Iran over a period of time. But for now it seems the Islamic State has won the war by not losing it. The control of Hormuz strait which it has de facto achieved and will hope to convert into a de jure agreement with USA may be problematic for the Arab states, Asian states and pretty much most of the world. Iran hopes to recover its war damages from the revenue from transit fees. This means the bystander Asian nations who had no role in this war and whose interests were set aside by US and Israel while initiating this war will have to foot the bill for this war in perpetuity. Iran may also seek to use access to Hormuz as a leverage to force Asian nations to resume normal economic relations with it.
The biggest economic loser in this War other than Iran and gulf states is indeed the large energy hungry Asian economies. India for now appears to have made a mistake by not being able to maintain its neutrality in this war. Its dependency on the Gulf monarchies for economic needs and on Israel for defense needs put it in a difficult situation. Its traditional warm relations with Iran were already under stress under the weight of US economic sanctions on Iran. Its current situation is in making for a long time ever since the 2010 Obama era sanctions on Iran. Complying with those and later sanctions on Iran and Russia has lead to weakening of its energy sovereignty over the years. Hence India's position as a supplicant of USA in international relations has been solidified thanks to US sanctions regime and unwillingness of India leadership to develop any kind sanctions evasion mechanisms like China has done. India's relations with Iran in particular and increasingly its relations with Russia have become subject to US Veto.
We will have to see how this cease fire holds and whether a lasting settlement is achieved during the negotiations between Iran and USA over the course of next weeks. The differing perceptions between Iran and USA on what has been agreed to as the draft 10 point proposal from Iran does not bear much confidence in this era of social media diplomacy, where the state leaders seem to make all kinds of often contradictory statements in social media, for one to make any coherent sense of their intentions. But even this temporary fragile cease fire has come as a respite to everyone and a hope of seeing and end to this latest West Asian conflict exists. Asian nations need to get involved in this peace process at least now and not just leave it to the principal actors because much is at stake for them. The prospect of another war in West Asia over unresolved differences exists and their economic interests and immigrant population in the Gulf are both at risk if this happens.
Barak Obama President of the United States had during his recent trip to India given Indians a lecture on upholding religious tolerance. He showed us article 25 of our own constitution. For those of us who thought this was a one off comment he repeated his "concern" in the so called National Prayer Breakfast which was started by a Mormon Evangelist Abraham Vereide. He said "Michelle and I returned from India -- an incredible, beautiful country, full of magnificent diversity -- but a place where, in past years, religious faiths of all types have, on occasion, been targeted by other peoples of faith, simply due to their heritage and their beliefs -- acts of intolerance that would have shocked Gandhiji [sic], the person who helped to liberate that nation". He did not single out any one faith at least not explicitly. But if anyone wants to know what he really meant in these two speeches one needs to read this press release(Feb 6, 2015) by United States Commission on International Religious Freedom.
The press release after quoting Obama's two speeches goes on to mention this "The President’s concerns come at a time of increasing abuses against India’s minority religious communities. Hindu nationalist groups, such as Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), have assaulted these communities and forced community members to convert. In just the last three months, five churches were attacked in Delhi; Hindu nationalists reportedly forcibly converted Christians and Muslims; and a mob of more than 5,000 people attacked the majority-Muslim village of Azizpur, Bihar, killing three Muslims and setting about 25 houses on fire. In addition, on February 5, police detained hundreds of Christians demonstrating against attacks on churches in New Delhi, including John Dayal, a human rights activist, who testified on April 4, 2014 before the Tom Lantos Commission on 'The Plight of Religious Minorities in India.'"
So while Obama has not singled out any religious community this press release by USCIR which is also incidentally headed by a Mormon Katrina Lantos Swett makes it clear what it was all about. American right wing churches which do not want any breaks to be brought about in their evangelist activities, do single out Hindus, who they intend to convert. Any resistance is pre-empted by pointing out incidents some of which may not even be true to weave a story which is used as persecution propaganda. Indians need to be aware of how the west is an active participant in the religious discord in our country. Barak Obama's lecture to India on religious freedom squarely equates it with freedom to evangelize which is the real concern not religious "Bhai Chara".
Notes:
1) To know about what really happened in Azizpur read this.
2) About the assault and forced conversion by RSS I don't know where this story came from. I presume it refers to the so called 'Ghar Wapsi'. A typical report condemning 'Ghar Wapsi' is here. It says "Clearly, the force involved in conversions across the religious spectrum, need not be physical. It can be psychological, social, and as is often the case, economic."
3) Minority commission of UP report on the 50 so called 'Ghar Wapasi" was covered by India today here. It talks about "lured". Not that luring is in anyway more respectable. But if the commissions recommendation were to be implemented that would put so many evangelists churches in the dock.
4) John Dayal is a more or less discredited figure who appears regularly to testify against India in such forums.
Ever since 26/Nov Mumbai attacks in the year 2008 the people of the subcontinent are being lead to believe that there are some rogue ISI elements who have been out of control of the Pakistani Army and who have not severed there links with the terrorists and Taliban and who have possibly planned and carried out the attacks. Mr Ahmed Rashid a well respected author and journalist who is an Afghanistan/Pakistan expert had argued in 2008 immediately after that attacks that the attacks were perhaps planned and executed by the al-qaeda along with "disbanded LeT". He had written in an article for BBC "Al-Qaeda is looking for some relief and a diversion... This strategic diversion ploy for the sake of al-Qaeda and its surrogates is the principle motive behind the Mumbai terrorist attacks." He went on to say "Charges that the Pakistan government, army or its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) were behind the attack appear unfounded." In the words of the Pakistani government after they finally agreed that the attack was planned in and executed from Pakistan, they were "non state actors".
However in the same year before Mumbai attacks while discussing his book Descent into Chaos in the Conversations With History program with Harry Kreisler Mr Rashid had categorically stated that "there is no rogue ISI". The so called rogue ISI was created to continue supporting Taliban while avoiding detection by the CIA of its activities. Retired Army generals, and ISI men who had worked with the Taliban were given "part time" jobs to go on a "vacation from home for 4 weeks 5 weeks" and work with the Taliban.
Ahmed Rashid - "There is no Rogue ISI" (26:02)
All this has been in public domain for quite sometime it is also in the US government's knowledge for a. long time that Pakistan is supporting the Taliban and keeping it as a "Strategic Asset". A 2007 Congressional Research Service report RS22632 titled "Pakistan and Terrorism: A Summary"released by Wikileaks in Feb 2009 in its summary mentions that "The outcomes of U.S. policies toward Pakistan since 9/11, while not devoid of meaningful successes, have neither neutralized anti-Western militants and reduced religious extremism in that country, nor have they contributed sufficiently to the stabilization of neighboring Afghanistan. Many observers thus urge a broad re-evaluation of such policies."
The report says "Throughout the opening months of 2007, Administration officials, U.S. military commanders, and senior U.S. Senators issued further incriminating statements about Pakistan’s assumed status as a terrorist base and the allegedly insufficient response of the Islamabad government." it goes on to say "The United States also remains concerned with indigenous extremist groups in Pakistan, and with the ongoing 'cross-border infiltration' of Islamist militants who traverse the Kashmiri Line of Control and other borders to engage in terrorist acts in India and Indian Kashmir. Many analysts consider such activities conceptually inseparable from the problem of Islamist militancy in western Pakistan and in Afghanistan. Domestic terrorism in Pakistan, much of it associated with Islamist sectarianism, has become an increasingly serious problem affecting major Pakistani cities. Separatist violence in India’s Muslim-majority Jammu and Kashmir state has continued unabated since 1989 with some notable relative decline in recent years. Many experts reject efforts by the Pakistani government and others to draw significant distinctions between U.S.- and Indian-designated terrorist groups fighting in Kashmir and those fighting in western Pakistan and Afghanistan, and in Pakistan’s interior".
The report clearly raises doubt on Pakistan's intentions by stating that "Numerous experts raise questions about the determination, sincerity, and effectiveness of Pakistani government efforts to combat religious extremists. Doubts are widely held by Western experts, many of whom express concerns about the implications of maintaining present U.S. policies toward the region, and about the efficacy of Islamabad’s latest strategy, which appears to seek reconciliation with pro-Taliban militants." The report is so damning that I can go on quoting from the report but it is rather better if the interested reader reads it himself/herself. It is also in my view one of the main inputs if not the cornerstone of the subsequent Obama government's policy in Pakistan as I have covered below.
Mr Rashid's assertions in the interview to University of California Berkley, and the picture of a typical handler of this "ISI within ISI" fits well people like Hamid Gul a retired ISI chief with links with both Taliban and LeT founder Hafees Saeed. He openly conducts meetings with Hafees Saeed and other Jehadi outfits in Pakistan on a supposed pro Kashmir and anti India platform. There is no dearth for such India baiters in Pakistan who fit the bill of these "ISI within ISI" operatives. The narrative since Mumbai asking for restraint from the people of India and from the GOI at the face of all provocations has been that al-Qaeda and Taliban affiliates "want to divert attention from the west of Pakistan to the east". On the face of it this argument seems logical and valid. US war in Afghanistan would have been jeopardized by any Indo-Pak flareups, so it was valid for the US to make this argument. But the odd price for this restraint will have to be paid by innocent citizens of India. The perpetrators of Mumbai are still not punished and Hafees Saeed is a free man.
Frankly there are so many diversions in the diversions that no one can say what the real story behind Mumbai is. Was it to divert Pakistan from the west? Or was it planned with an assumption that no trace will be found as to who was behind that attacks? Did the ISI within ISI get embolden with its success in hoodwinking the CIA and felt it was time to punish India as a warning to keep out of Afghanistan? Was the planning for the attack done with full knowledge that there will be no military response from India after all Pakistan had built up conventional and nuclear military since 9/11 with US military aid. Is it wrong to suspect that the real perpetrators were pretty much the establishment itself rather than any rogue elements?
But what is interesting is to note the response of the United States and India to these Mini ISI's activities. While India replied under the time tested "good faith policy"(I am not sure if it has ever worked) and resumed uninterrupted and un-interruptible dialog with Pakistan. US also had "time tested"(never worked?) response in the lines of continuing to provide aid carrots to its "strategic ally".
Obama government replaced the Bush government in Jan 2009. Under Obama's watch AF-PAK policy was formulated. Under this policy an attempt was initially made to include India too which the Indian government declined. The idea was to engage the whole region for solving Pakistan's problems. India did not want to be clubbed so as to avoid any external pressures on its own national interest, especially pressures to "resolve" Kashmir as an incentive to Pakistan for stop supporting the terrorists. But never the less all said and done after Mumbai we still started dialog with Pakistan "in spite of terrorism". In US a policy change was perhaps undertaken and Afghanistan was brought back in focus. A military surge was ordered but unfortunately at the same time a withdrawal date was announced thus emboldening the Taliban and its friends to dig in and fight it out.
On the aid front United States had now installed an old Pakistan friend and India-baiter Ms Robin Raphel as Ambassador responsible for the targeted civilian aid to "improve the image of United States". At the same time it seems the Pakistani concerns as mentioned in the Congressional Report were being addressed during the drafting of the so called Kerry-Lugar bill sanctioning civilian aid of $1.5 billion per year. When the US congress was pushing President Bush to be tough on Pakistan after his years of leniency for inaction on Taliban as per the CRS report "In response to U.S. congressional signals of a possible shift in U.S. policy toward Islamabad, the Pakistani National Assembly’s Defense Committee unanimously passed a resolution threatening to end or reduce Islamabad’s cooperation on counter terrorism if U.S. aid to Pakistan were to be made conditional." later the report says "Other analysts, however, including those making policy for the Bush Administration, believe that conditioning U.S. aid to Pakistan has a past record of failure and likely would be counterproductive."
The Kerry Lugar bill does impose certain restrictions. For civilian aid it requires a certification each year by the special representative to Pakistan (Robin Raphel) to certify that "principal objectives" are being met in order to release the full quantum of $1.5 billion, but is also allows up to $750 million to be released without such certification. The bill also puts a certification requirement for certain military assistance. Limitation on Security-related Assistance for fiscal years 2011 through 2014 and a limitation on Arms Transfers for fiscal years 2012 through 2014. Why arms transfers we allowed for another year without certification requirement? I don't know.
Bulk of the arm purchases of conventional variety by Pakistan from the US had already taken place during the Bush-Musharraf years. A CRS report of 2012 on this subject says "Major U.S. arms sales and grants to Pakistan since 2001 have included items useful for counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations, along with a number of big ticket platforms more suited to conventional warfare.In dollar value terms, the bulk of purchases have been made with Pakistani national funds, but U.S. grants have eclipsed these in recent years." it goes on to say "The Pentagon reports total Foreign Military Sales agreements with Pakistan worth about $5.4 billion for FY2002-FY2010 (in-process sales of F-16 combat aircraft and related equipment account for about half of this).", It should be remembered that in the 90's the US had denied arms sales to Pakistan. The sale of F16s were done under the garb of using them in counter terrorism operations.
It is always possible for the US government to block transfer of weapons already contracted. A CRS report of Aug 2009 says ", all government-to-government agreements or licensed commercial contracts for the transfer of defense articles or defense services may be halted, modified, or terminated by the executive
branch should it determine that it is advisable to do so. In this context, should the Bush Administration decide that actions taken by the government of Pakistan are contrary to the national security interests of the United States, the President can suspend or terminate existing arms sales agreements or prevent the delivery of weapons previously ordered, as he deems appropriate. The Congress can also pass legislation that would suspend, modify, or terminate any arms sale contract should it choose to do so."
Of course none of these weapons sales were ever suspended. All this while the ISI within the ISI continued to support Taliban and blunt the US army's efforts. Under Obama's watch Osama Bin Laden was found in a safe haven within the garrison town of Pakistan, again the so called "rogue elements" in ISI were blamed to have provided support to him without the knowledge at the "highest level". Then in 2011 there was a border skirmish between Pakistani forces and the American forces in which 24 Pakistani soldiers were killed. In response Pakistan blocked the supply routes and threatened to evict US from the Shamsi air base. After US apology the blockade was lifted. But the US government had to take some action too so the aid was reduced for a while.
Obama's second administration has now taken office. After the cooling down period of 2011-2012 the relations between Pakistan and US are back on track. Pakistani foreign minister visited US in January and during an interview with Charlie rose said that relations are much better now. I believe they were assured of support from the US government of continued aid and assistance despite their chequered history. The statement from newly appointed Secretary of State John Kerry in which he said "aid cut will be unkind" should be indicative.
While all this was going on there was an incident on the LOC in January 2013 in which two Indian soldiers were killed there bodies mutilated and one dead body beheaded by the Pakistani army as claimed by India and as usual denied by Pakistan. This incident was supposedly in response to a previous incident in which one Pakistani solder was killed in cross border firing by India which was in response to Pakistani shelling in which three civilians had died which India claims was to enable cross border infiltration. When India protested to Pakistan about the beheading incident the Pakistani FM denied any role of her Army and in the wake of Indian Army Chief's statement that "we reserve the right to retaliate at the time and place of our choosing" did not miss the opportunity of her US attention to blame India of "war mongering ".
While all this is important the most important story here is, and what even Mr Ahmed Rashid is now pushing in the west is, that before exiting Afghanistan USA should get a peace settlement done between Pakistan, Taliban and the Afghanistan government to avoid any post withdrawal conflict between the regional players via their proxies in that country. So the mini ISI has pretty much succeeded in ensuring that its interests in that country are served through the Taliban and also ensured that any talks should not happen without its knowledge. One should be reminded that the Pakistanis had detained Mullah Baradar when they found that he was talking to Afghanistan government without their knowledge. In Sep 2011 Burhanuddin Rabbani who was holding peace talks with the Taliban on behalf of the Afghan government was killed in a suicide attack.
What ever happens in Afghanistan after american withdrawal, I am afraid history is witness, that whenever western countries have interfered in this region for their strategic reasons even if it was for a reason as morally justified as stopping terrorism, the effect has been detrimental to the citizens of the subcontinent. In their "strategic interest" the tilt has well and truly always been in favour of the establishment in Pakistan at the detriment of India. So I doubt if the LeT will be eliminated or the perpetrators of Mumbai be punished by the time US exists Afghanistan. Time will tell and as they say history will be the judge. But one thing is for sure to me after hearing Mr Rashid and seeing what all has happened since his interview in 2008, there is no Rogue ISI only a clever indirection. I wonder who was deceived. Was it the US government? Was it the Indian Government? Or the people of the subcontinent?
Mr Barack Obama has taken oath of his second term in office of the President of United States Of America. His first speech after his oath on 21 January was much appreciate in the media. I could not keep myself from comparing this speech with the speech he gave in 2009 after taking office of his first term and the most important aspect which I was looking for and found, was the skipping of terrorism from any direct mention in his latest speech. In his speech in 2009 he had made a very substantial reference to terrorism when he had said "Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred." where as in the speech of 2013 he has said that "This generation of Americans has been tested by crises that steeled our resolve and proved our resilience. A decade of war is now ending.". He went on to say "We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war." and "...we are also heirs to those who won the peace and not just the war; who turned sworn enemies into the surest of friends - and we must carry those lessons into this time as well."
President Obama is no doubt one of the best Orators of our times in the world so his speeches are always interesting to listen to. His latest speech should not come as a surprise to any listener because it was long known that USA was looking for an exit strategy in Afghanistan since the day Mr Obama was sworn in. He winded up Iraq and had to do the same in Afghanistan. Iraq was a war against a regime which could be ended once an alternative regime was established. Ending of wars is always welcome to the people who suffer the pains of war, except for the fact that Afghanistan was a war like no other war. It was not a war against a nation it was a war against certain organizations and group of people with a certain ideology who in Mr Obama's own terms were a "far-reaching network of violence and hatred". USA may have run out of appetite for war and do not want to fight a perpetual war, but I wonder if their war in Afghanistan has really succeeded. Osama Bin Laden was found in Abbottabad and as we hear about the various drone strikes which USA does with in Pakistan, that they have managed to get several al-qaeda terrorists. But unfortunately the Taliban leadership and several members of al-qaeda leadership have survived. Other banned organizations like the LeT, the Jaish-e-Mohammad and other al-qaeda affiliates still survive and we all know where all these outfits find a mostly comfortable home. It is is within Pakistan.
From the day the Americans threatened war on Taliban the Pakistani establishment has played a double game with them. It has been established and commented on by many journalists that when the ISI chief under Parvez Musharraf, Mahmoud Ahmad was sent to Taliban leadership to make them break links with al-quaeda he instead encouraged them to dig in and fight it out. He was later sacked by Musharraf. After the US invasion in Afghanistan Taliban leadership was provided a sanctuary in Pakistan. We all know in which circumstances Osama Bin Laden was found within the Pakistan garrison town close to their most important military academy. The Pakistanis continued to support Taliban to regroup and fight NATO forces in Afghanistan while at the same time supporting NATO supply lines in Pakistan in exchange for money. When USA attempted to pursue and punish the Pakistani armed forces supporting the Taliban in 2011 they were greeted with an angry Pakistani reaction which lead to the closure of these very supply lines, which eventually lead to a US apology. I am reminded of an interview of Hamid Gul the Ex ISI Chief of Pakistan who was one of the master minds of the first Afghan Mujahideen war against the soviets. He continues to openly support the terrorists invading Kashmir. In his interview he mentions by attacking Pakistani forces "the Americans have shot themselves in the foot" since their supply lines run from Pakistan he also threatens the countries north of Afghanistan to desist from providing an alternative route to the Americans because "the fallout will be on them.. this is an irregular warfare .. which can travel across borders".
A lot has changed since the 2011 incident the relations between USA and Pakistan have normalized again, there is talk of settlement with Taliban and centrality of Pakistan's role in it. The 21 January speech of Mr Obama hints at the possible settlement with Taliban which US is contemplating. This is a victory of sorts for the Pakistani ISI. They were saving Taliban as a possible asset to be used once the US exits. They also did not allow any direct negotiations between Taliban and the Afghan government lest they come to an agreement which is not acceptable to them. As being stabbed in the back goes the Obama administration also has its share of people with dicey record when it comes to Taliban I am hinting at the so called "Lady Taliban" Ms Robin Raphel. More about her later but there is little doubt as many journalists and Afghanistan experts and even Afghans themselves have said Pakistan is the problem as far as fighting the Taliban is concerned in Afghanistan.
Coming back to the Obama speeches. As speeches of Mr Obama go I am reminded of a speech he gave to college students in Mumbai during his 2010 India visit. Mr Obama was asked by a student a very pertinent question perhaps stated in such blunt terms that Mr Obama had to use an equally blunt answer. The question was "Why is Pakistan so important to America that it does not declare it a terrorist state?". The answer along with a lot of other explanation was that "Pakistan is a Strategic country, not just for the United States but the world."
When I heard this term "Strategic" in this speech as I was listening to it recently, after having read quite a bit about the history of western influence in Pakistan I was immediately reminded of the effect these influences and interference have had on the people of the subcontinent. It is well known that the very first interference was by the British in creation of Pakistan when after the 1942 quit India movement by the Congress they had firmly decided to support Muslim League in their demand for a separate state. A friendly Muslim state of Pakistan in the subcontinent gave them "strategic" leverage over USSR and it also gave them an ally in the Muslim world. It has been written that the British strategic interest also drove their Kashmir policy. I wonder if Mr Nehru was hood-winked into approaching the UN by Lord Mountbatten when the west had no interest in making the aggressor Pakistan vacate Kashmir for a plebiscite to take place under Indian administration, as Nehru had intended to do. One needs to keeping in mind that the Maharaja had acceded to India after Pakistani aggression in order to save the population of Kashmir from the invaders and Nehru had in Shekh Abdulla's own words no obligation to promise a plebiscite in the first place.
It was also for strategic reasons that the west armed the Pakistani Army and Air Force during the 50's and 60's and confident of their new found strength they planned another invasion in Kashmir ostensibly to raise a revolution which lead to the 1965 war. Is it also for strategic reasons that Pakistan Army was propped up for all these years in ways that allowed it to usurp power from the civil administration all too frequently in Pakistan. There was another "strategic" reason that the west had for providing aid and arms supply to Pakistan during the 80's. It was the first Afghan war that USA fought covertly along with Pakistan against USSR in Afghanistan. That war as we all know is the genesis of the current radical "Islamic Terror" that the world is facing. The current breed of terrorists who have been waging a war on Indian on behalf of the Pakistani's are all a result of the lessons learned by Pakistani Army and the networks built by them with these forces. The rise of Taliban in Afghanistan provided the Pakistani's with a ready supply of afghan fighters to be sent into Kashmir.
One would have thought that 26/Nov attacks in Mumbai would be a turning point in how India would be looking at its policies towards terror emanating from Pakistan. One had imagined that the tolerance for western military and financial support to Pakistan would no longer be so high within the Indian leadership and there would be considerable pressure put on the Americans to link their aid to progress on fighting all kinds of terrorists with in Pakistan. But it seems the support continues. Robin Raphel the wife of late Pakistan ambassador Arnold Lewis Raphel who was killed along with Zia-ul-Haq in the plane crash in 84, is a member of the Obama administration's Af-Pak diplomatic group. Ms Raphel is ex CIA and a known Taliban sympathizer before 9/11. She is infamous in India for her comments about Kashmir in the 90's when she had said "US did not recognize the instrument of accession, as meaning that Kashmir was an integral part of India.”. Ms Robin is responsible for the civilian aid that Pakistan gets from USA as per the provisions of the Kerry-Lugar bill. After the shock of finding Osama bin laden in Abottabad USA had slowed down the disbursements, but after the Dec 2012 talks between USA and Pakistan the aid in her own words "is expected to pick up pace".
The Pakistani Army uses the military aid and reimbursements it gets for building is strengths in conventional and nuclear warfare against India. Substantial portions of aid for civilian purpose and war effort reimbursements is alleged to be siphoned off for other purposes. So all in all my conclusion is that historically the western powers and China have for strategic reasons of their own kept the Pakistani military on steroids which allows them to punch well above their weight. Their self confidence in defeating any military response from India allows them to continue supporting terror in Kashmir and elsewhere against us. So I wonder, especially in the aftermath of the recent incidents in LOC in January 2013, if the Indian leadership will ever ask the western and eastern friends of Pakistan that when it comes to terrorism "Are you with us? Or are you against us?".
