The baseless days are back again

(They never went away, stupid!)

General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, chief of Pakistan’s army and a lot more besides, has declared that “India’s “allegations” against Pakistan “baseless”.”

Baseless. That quintessentially Pakistani word. It is the word for every reason, for every season. In fact, it should be declared that country’s national word. And officially be made part of the national curriculum. After all, it punctuates the country’s history.

18 thoughts on “The baseless days are back again”

  1. says that India may be looking to offer the Obama admin to deploy 120,000 Indian troops to Afghanistan:


    I bet Pakjihadi strategic thinkers never considered this possibility, when they planned these attacks. This prospect – or the revival of it – might give them some sleepless nights, I’m sure.

  2. Sanjay,

    Thats great news!

    Now how reliable is I am hoping its true!


    Whats your take on this? Perhaps Indians must generate public opnion to support this


  3. 120,000 troops for Afghan fight? That’s nice! We won’t fight our fights but fight someone else’s!! Apparently Muzzaffarabad is on Afghan border. Of course, UPA will never do it.

  4. If the Orbat news turns out to be true, then Clearly the Americans would be the biggest gainers (by chance or otherwise) of the Mumbai attacks. In the current scenario, selling this idea to the Indians would be very easy indeed. Of course, the commies would be absolutely enraged, but that would be inconsequential.

  5. Nah, more like a trial balloon at this stage. Will wait to see if something more comes off it. Too many issues and practical concerns at this point – ranging from mission objectives to logistics – that need first to be sorted out.

  6. anonymous coward – brahma chellaney is ignoring the elephant in the room, which makes the world of a difference between israel’s gaza action and india’s non-action – pakistani nukes.

  7. Chandra:
    The Afghan theater of war is more India’s than it is the US’. It has always been. A battle of attrition on Pakistan’s western border, led by India rather than NATO, will be the best thing that can happen to India’s national security.
    IIRC, the then Prime Minister Vajpayee had offered troops to the US for its fight in Afghanistan after 9/11, an offer that was declined in favor of Pakistan’s promise to join with US in its war on terror. Colin Powell made a historic blunder in trusting Musharraf:

    “I have done everything for Afghanistan and the Taliban when the whole world was against them. We are trying our best to come out of this critical situation without any damage to them.” … He also says that by bending on Afghanistan, he has saved Islamist militancy in Kashmir, the region disputed between Pakistan and India. (emphasis mine; you can read Musharaff’s entire speech here)

    If the Orbat report were true, I hope Obama and Gates wouldn’t repeat Powell’s blunder.

  8. Note all the news reports about Pak suddenly closing the Khyber Pass with an unannounced/unplanned operation against the militants there. Also, note the words of the Pak officials who said that this supply route would be closed until they deemed the area sufficiently clear of militants. To me, it almost looks like a pretext for an arm-twisting threat by Pak, trying to flex its muscle and show how it can cut off the supply lifelines to US/NATO if it so chooses.

    It’s time to break Pak. They’re a total liability for the outside world. The only ones who benefit from Pak’s continued existence are jihadis, and nobody else.

  9. RF, it’s one thing to say Afghanistan is important strategically to India. It’s another thing to say Afghan war against al Qaida/taliban is important to us more than to US/Euro-region!! It surely is not. Our terrorists are in Pakistan proper. Even if Afghan falls into taliban hands, our terrorists and their masters will in Pakistan. Our fight is with Pakistan and its terrorists – of course we don’t seem to want to do anything about it.

    Also, I don’t think Sri Vajpayee offered troops to US for Afghanistan attacks to take out Taliban in 2001. It was access to bases and ports. He may have thought about it later on, but Pakistan had a veto by then. Troops were surely considered for Iraq war in 2003 but Sri Vajpayee decided against it because lead up to the war was so controversial. And surely he went along with US appeasement of Pakistan after Parliament attack and base-raid that killed women and children in J&K. Manmohan seems to be following the same American script. If he continues as PM next year, we might as well see another Agra summit….

  10. Am currently watching our “response” from India in dismay. We’ve gone from pressuring Pakenstein to act to defending our armed forces’ “forward positioning”. They flew a few sorties and we went into defensive mode. This talk of restraint is a thin veil for cowardice. Our patience is always “almost at its end”. We’re a bunch of eunuchs – and everyone knows so. Which allows that apology of a general to nonchalantly make his “baseless” statements. He knows we don’t have the stomach or cojones for even a garden-variety shooting match. Oh for a disastrous attack on the Viraat right about no. I’d like to see what it would take for us to finally go postal and bite the head off of this tiresome little gnat called Pakistan.

    For our sake I hope we keep trading with China and not get into a spat with them over Arunachal or Sikkim. We’ll be sent home flatter that a Gujarati roti.

  11. From the Wall Street Journal on Pakistan… Does one need to say more probably the best summary of Pakistan I have ever read

    “a country that has impoverished the great mass of its own people, corruptly enriched a tiny handful of elites, served as a base of terrorism against its neighbors, lost control of its intelligence services, radicalized untold numbers of Muslims in its madrassas, handed the presidency to a man known as Mr. 10%, and proliferated nuclear technology to Libya and Iran (among others) has, nevertheless, made itself a power to be reckoned with. Congratulations.”

    Read full story

  12. I’ve never quite seen the logic of the Afghan deployment, and sincerely hope that NATO/ US are always involved to give us cover, at least to use their predators/ drones against the inevitable attacks.

    In terms of background this is where I’m coming from:

    an RD joke about a military police officer, always picking a scrawny guy to go with him on weekend patrol duties at the nearby nightspots/ bars, explained:

    “when youre drunk, wild and in a fighting mood, and see 2 MPs coming towards you, one big and the other little, who do you go for?”

    It somehow looks to me like we’re desperately volunteering to be the scrawny guy on bar patrol.

    I can see some logic if there is a law of conservation of militancy that postulates that the number N of jihadis is fixed. OTOH if the presence of “ancient adversary” on 2 fronts just induces more nuts to take to this (N increasing dramatically) and we continue to do as poor a job of securing our mainland as we do now, I see only more trouble ahead.

    But this page is hosted by an acknowledged realist, not chest-thumping jingoist. I trust he must have made the necessary calculations/ gameplans. Most other commenters too seem better informed than me.

    So I hereby abide and hold my peace on this matter. I absolutely hope you guys are right and I am wrong.


Comments are closed.