.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
5 hours ago
Monday, November 30, 2009
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Sunday, September 20, 2009
The Soviet Chief of General Staff Marshal Ogarkov had opposed the invasion of Afghanistan
The Soviet Chief of General Staff Marshal Ogarkov had opposed the invasion of Afghanistan
When Politicians were wrong and soldiers right
Meeting between CC CPSU officials demonstrates the disagreement over Soviet involvement in Afghanistan.
10 December 1979
“We will reestablish the entire eastern Islamic system [islamizm] against us”, said Ogarkov, “and we will lose politically in the entire world”.
Andropov cuts him off: “Stick to military affairs! We, the Party, and Leonid Il’ich will handle policy!” Ogarkov tried to object: “I am Chief of the General Staff”, but again Andropov stopped him: “No more”.
The KGB Chairman was supported by K. U. Chernenko, M. A. Suslov, D. F. Ustinov, and A. P. Kirilenko. Then L. I. Brezhnev has his word: “Yuriy Vladimirovich should be supported”.
[Refers--- A. A. Lyakhovskiy’s “Plamya Afgana” (“Flame of the Afghanistan veteran”)”, Iskon, Moscow, 1999 )
When Politicians were wrong and soldiers right
Meeting between CC CPSU officials demonstrates the disagreement over Soviet involvement in Afghanistan.
10 December 1979
“We will reestablish the entire eastern Islamic system [islamizm] against us”, said Ogarkov, “and we will lose politically in the entire world”.
Andropov cuts him off: “Stick to military affairs! We, the Party, and Leonid Il’ich will handle policy!” Ogarkov tried to object: “I am Chief of the General Staff”, but again Andropov stopped him: “No more”.
The KGB Chairman was supported by K. U. Chernenko, M. A. Suslov, D. F. Ustinov, and A. P. Kirilenko. Then L. I. Brezhnev has his word: “Yuriy Vladimirovich should be supported”.
[Refers--- A. A. Lyakhovskiy’s “Plamya Afgana” (“Flame of the Afghanistan veteran”)”, Iskon, Moscow, 1999 )
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
US OPERATION PUNY PIN PRICKS-CLICK ON MAP TO ENLARGE
THE ONGOING US OPERATIONS IN AFGHANISTAN ARE AT BEST A POLITICAL STUNT.
KEEPING IN VIEW THE PUNY US FORCE RATIOS NOTHING WILL BE ACHIEVED.
ONLY PRIVATE CONTRACTORS WILL MAKE MONEY CONSTRUCTION ACCOMODATION AND SUPPLYING US FORCES.
THE MAIN LOSER WOULD BE THE US TAX PAYER.
BUT WHO CARES.
Monday, June 22, 2009
life should have been simpler-afghanistn destroyed because a third rate pakistani general wanted US and Saudi Dollars
A PUFF OF AFGHANISTANS NATIONAL PAST TIME NEAR KHOST
Friday, May 1, 2009
Memories of the 1984 Winter Crisis
A simple solution for the USSR to deal with the Afghan crisis , a crisis which was a totally artificial creation of USA,Pakistans military junta and the dirty Saudis was to encourage India to attack and over run part of Pakistani Punjab in 1983 or 1984.
This if done would have solved all USSR's problems and pre-empted Indias present problems.However the Indians and Soviet leaders were a bunch of assorted fools.In 1983-84 the Pakistani army was in no shape to resist Indian Army.However this is what is known as lack of strategic vision.Below are some pictures when pavocavalry was mobilised in the Shakargarh bulge and this scribe was a troop leader just back in the regiment after a discipline problem with the commanding officer on 8 August 1984 and long attachment in 15 SP and in 29 Cavalry.The commanding officer had been posted out pre maturely and replaced by the finest officer who commanded 11 Cavalry after 1971 , Lieutenant Colonel Mian Liaquat Shah from Charsadda.
This if done would have solved all USSR's problems and pre-empted Indias present problems.However the Indians and Soviet leaders were a bunch of assorted fools.In 1983-84 the Pakistani army was in no shape to resist Indian Army.However this is what is known as lack of strategic vision.Below are some pictures when pavocavalry was mobilised in the Shakargarh bulge and this scribe was a troop leader just back in the regiment after a discipline problem with the commanding officer on 8 August 1984 and long attachment in 15 SP and in 29 Cavalry.The commanding officer had been posted out pre maturely and replaced by the finest officer who commanded 11 Cavalry after 1971 , Lieutenant Colonel Mian Liaquat Shah from Charsadda.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
The Key Issue in the so called war on terror
The Key Issue in the so called war on terror
BY
A.H Amin
April 7, 2009 by pavocavalry The key strategic issues in the ongoing global low intensity war are as following:–1-The Islamists are a foreseen culmination ofUS CIAs war against USSR.2-At some stage these irregulars got out of or were manipulated to do so.3-Under the pretext of controlling these terrorists the USA occupied Iraq and Afghanistan.In realigty this is a new Operation Barbarossa against Russia and China.3-The key to the conflict is as following :–a. The conflict has to be turned from a US manipulated simulated game to a real game.b. The issue is simple.Russian intelligence needs to penetrate the Islamist groups and aid them posing as some secret new Al Qaeda.4-In the final outcome Russia gains because the USA and NATO will be exhausted fighting an enemy with no centre of graity.5-Morally this is perfectly OK as USA and NATO in the past used these mad dogs against USSR.
BY
A.H Amin
April 7, 2009 by pavocavalry The key strategic issues in the ongoing global low intensity war are as following:–1-The Islamists are a foreseen culmination ofUS CIAs war against USSR.2-At some stage these irregulars got out of or were manipulated to do so.3-Under the pretext of controlling these terrorists the USA occupied Iraq and Afghanistan.In realigty this is a new Operation Barbarossa against Russia and China.3-The key to the conflict is as following :–a. The conflict has to be turned from a US manipulated simulated game to a real game.b. The issue is simple.Russian intelligence needs to penetrate the Islamist groups and aid them posing as some secret new Al Qaeda.4-In the final outcome Russia gains because the USA and NATO will be exhausted fighting an enemy with no centre of graity.5-Morally this is perfectly OK as USA and NATO in the past used these mad dogs against USSR.
US lackey fails to see Russia in the big three
US lackey fails to see Russia in the big three
Since he is a US citizen he is biased and misses Russia from the big three. I have the conviction that Russia will be decisive role and play hell with EU and USA. All Russia needs to do is to play the Muslims against USA and EU. It suits Russia both ways i.e a US or NATO target eliminated or a Muslim soldier of Allah eliminated ,one enemy less for Russia ! Perfectly Machiavellian and viable ! HA HA HA
Agha Amin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pakistan and a tripolar world
By Shahid Javed Burki WHEN a new government takes office in Islamabad and begins the task of developing a strategy for improving Pakistan’s economic situation, it must equip itself with good understanding of what is happening to the structure of the global economy.This was not done by the administration that held the reins of power in 2002-2007. That was unfortunate since the country lost many opportunities that had become available because of the changing structure of the global economy.The changes that have occurred in the world economic system mean that some of the opportunities that helped a number of Asian economies to develop in the last several decades are not present for Pakistan. Nonetheless, there are still many opportunities available to a ‘catch-up’ economy such as Pakistan’s. To understand what they are, the government should study the evolving system of international production, the changing pattern of trade, the evolving system of global finance, and the demographic changes that are taking place in developed countries. In all of them there are opportunities for Pakistan.Policymakers should also understand the changes that are taking place in the distribution of wealth and economic power in the globe. Some analysts have suggested that the world is moving away from the unipolar system that emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the emergence of the United States as the sole superpower. They believe that the world is moving rapidly towards a three-power system centred on the United States, the European Union and China.Parag Khanna, an American scholar of Indian origin, has put forward, in his forthcoming book, a hypothesis about the structure of the globe that is worth studying. “At best America’s unipolar moment lasted through the 1990s but that was also a decade adrift,” he writes. “The post-cold-war ‘peace dividend’ never converted into a global liberal order under American leadership.“So now, rather than bestriding the globe, we are competing — and losing — in [the] geopolitical marketplace alongside the world’s other superpowers: the European Union and China. This is geopolitics in the 21st century: the new Big Three. Not Russia, an increasingly depopulated expanse run by Gazprom.gov; not an incoherent Islam embroiled in internal wars; and not India, lagging decades behind China in both development and strategic appetite. The Big Three make the rules — their own rules — without any one of them dominating. And the others are left to choose their suitors in the post-American world.”There are many indictors that the Americans are losing the dominant role they once had in the global economic system. One is the establishment of sovereign funds as vehicles for investment by the countries that have surplus capital. Such funds have been created by China and Singapore, several Opec countries and by Norway.In all, sovereign wealth funds control more than $2tn, a figure that could approach $12tn by 2015 according to some estimates. Some of these funds, including the largest, the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, are located in areas geographically close to Pakistan. While the movement of finance is constrained by distance, proximity does bring familiarity on the part of the fund managers. It is not surprising that the sovereign funds in Dubai and Abu Dhabi are supporting a number of very large investments in Pakistan in telecommunications and real estate development. This development has made Pakistan less dependent on American largesse.In addition to the tripolar world, Khanna identifies a number of countries he labels as the second world. These countries are important for the central powers. He believes that it is important for the second-world countries to cultivate relations with the Big Three based on their (the second world’s) strategic interests. Khanna’s list of second-world countries includes Pakistan. How will this new world, dominated by three economic players, look like and what kind of adjustments should Pakistan make to this development? Some clues to formulating an answer to this question have begun to emerge as the Americans, the Chinese and the Europeans have begun to conduct business, both in politics and economics.Two of these three centres of power have their own peripheries which they would want to influence and have already begun to do so. The Europeans will continue to work with their immediate neighbours which include the Soviet Union, the Middle East and North Africa. The Chinese will continue to take interest in East Asia, the Central Asian ‘stans’, the Middle East and the resource-rich countries of Africa and Latin America. It is only the United States that will continue to project its economic and military power across the globe.Let me now get to the second part of the question posed above: What does this rearrangement of the global eco-political system imply for Pakistan? For most of the country’s history, Pakistan has worked closely with the United States. The reason for this is that for the first half century after its birth, the country remained preoccupied with what it perceived to be the Indian challenge.To the policymakers in Islamabad, Washington seemed to offer a way for balancing the growing power of India. It was not often realised that if the United States favoured Pakistan it did so for its own reasons and not to help Pakistan deal with its anxieties. Whenever there was confrontation with India, the US stepped back and did not offer the support Pakistan had hoped for.First under Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in the seventies and later under Pervez Musharraf in the period since 9/11, Pakistan’s foreign policy stance has shifted. In the seventies, Pakistan was successful in developing a close relationship with China and under Musharraf it has been successful in removing the India-centric approach to the making of foreign policy. Nonetheless, the focus remains on the US.Washington’s war against terror after 9/11 and the fact that northwestern Pakistan is one of the three places — the other being Afghanistan and Iraq — that have become the theatres of this struggle has kept Islamabad’s attention focused on Washington.The close strategic alliance with the United States, especially during the rule by the military, also affected economic policies. Pakistan became highly dependent on capital flows from the United States to the extent that it disregarded one of the basic premises of development economics: that sustainable growth is only possible if it is based on mostly internal resources. Dependence on the US produced a roller-coaster ride for the country: the economy performed well when Pakistan was in favour with the United States; it did poorly when the flow of American resources became constrained.But that was not the only dependence Pakistan created for itself. It also tied its export sector closely to the United States. Contrary to what the ‘gravity model of trade’ suggests, the US rather than China and India became the largest trading partner for the country. If the conclusion reached by Khanna in his closely argued book is correct and if the new world order will have three large players dominating the global system in all its manifestations, then it is necessary for Pakistan to reorient its economic policies away from the United States and directed more towards China and Europe.
Since he is a US citizen he is biased and misses Russia from the big three. I have the conviction that Russia will be decisive role and play hell with EU and USA. All Russia needs to do is to play the Muslims against USA and EU. It suits Russia both ways i.e a US or NATO target eliminated or a Muslim soldier of Allah eliminated ,one enemy less for Russia ! Perfectly Machiavellian and viable ! HA HA HA
Agha Amin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pakistan and a tripolar world
By Shahid Javed Burki WHEN a new government takes office in Islamabad and begins the task of developing a strategy for improving Pakistan’s economic situation, it must equip itself with good understanding of what is happening to the structure of the global economy.This was not done by the administration that held the reins of power in 2002-2007. That was unfortunate since the country lost many opportunities that had become available because of the changing structure of the global economy.The changes that have occurred in the world economic system mean that some of the opportunities that helped a number of Asian economies to develop in the last several decades are not present for Pakistan. Nonetheless, there are still many opportunities available to a ‘catch-up’ economy such as Pakistan’s. To understand what they are, the government should study the evolving system of international production, the changing pattern of trade, the evolving system of global finance, and the demographic changes that are taking place in developed countries. In all of them there are opportunities for Pakistan.Policymakers should also understand the changes that are taking place in the distribution of wealth and economic power in the globe. Some analysts have suggested that the world is moving away from the unipolar system that emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the emergence of the United States as the sole superpower. They believe that the world is moving rapidly towards a three-power system centred on the United States, the European Union and China.Parag Khanna, an American scholar of Indian origin, has put forward, in his forthcoming book, a hypothesis about the structure of the globe that is worth studying. “At best America’s unipolar moment lasted through the 1990s but that was also a decade adrift,” he writes. “The post-cold-war ‘peace dividend’ never converted into a global liberal order under American leadership.“So now, rather than bestriding the globe, we are competing — and losing — in [the] geopolitical marketplace alongside the world’s other superpowers: the European Union and China. This is geopolitics in the 21st century: the new Big Three. Not Russia, an increasingly depopulated expanse run by Gazprom.gov; not an incoherent Islam embroiled in internal wars; and not India, lagging decades behind China in both development and strategic appetite. The Big Three make the rules — their own rules — without any one of them dominating. And the others are left to choose their suitors in the post-American world.”There are many indictors that the Americans are losing the dominant role they once had in the global economic system. One is the establishment of sovereign funds as vehicles for investment by the countries that have surplus capital. Such funds have been created by China and Singapore, several Opec countries and by Norway.In all, sovereign wealth funds control more than $2tn, a figure that could approach $12tn by 2015 according to some estimates. Some of these funds, including the largest, the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, are located in areas geographically close to Pakistan. While the movement of finance is constrained by distance, proximity does bring familiarity on the part of the fund managers. It is not surprising that the sovereign funds in Dubai and Abu Dhabi are supporting a number of very large investments in Pakistan in telecommunications and real estate development. This development has made Pakistan less dependent on American largesse.In addition to the tripolar world, Khanna identifies a number of countries he labels as the second world. These countries are important for the central powers. He believes that it is important for the second-world countries to cultivate relations with the Big Three based on their (the second world’s) strategic interests. Khanna’s list of second-world countries includes Pakistan. How will this new world, dominated by three economic players, look like and what kind of adjustments should Pakistan make to this development? Some clues to formulating an answer to this question have begun to emerge as the Americans, the Chinese and the Europeans have begun to conduct business, both in politics and economics.Two of these three centres of power have their own peripheries which they would want to influence and have already begun to do so. The Europeans will continue to work with their immediate neighbours which include the Soviet Union, the Middle East and North Africa. The Chinese will continue to take interest in East Asia, the Central Asian ‘stans’, the Middle East and the resource-rich countries of Africa and Latin America. It is only the United States that will continue to project its economic and military power across the globe.Let me now get to the second part of the question posed above: What does this rearrangement of the global eco-political system imply for Pakistan? For most of the country’s history, Pakistan has worked closely with the United States. The reason for this is that for the first half century after its birth, the country remained preoccupied with what it perceived to be the Indian challenge.To the policymakers in Islamabad, Washington seemed to offer a way for balancing the growing power of India. It was not often realised that if the United States favoured Pakistan it did so for its own reasons and not to help Pakistan deal with its anxieties. Whenever there was confrontation with India, the US stepped back and did not offer the support Pakistan had hoped for.First under Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in the seventies and later under Pervez Musharraf in the period since 9/11, Pakistan’s foreign policy stance has shifted. In the seventies, Pakistan was successful in developing a close relationship with China and under Musharraf it has been successful in removing the India-centric approach to the making of foreign policy. Nonetheless, the focus remains on the US.Washington’s war against terror after 9/11 and the fact that northwestern Pakistan is one of the three places — the other being Afghanistan and Iraq — that have become the theatres of this struggle has kept Islamabad’s attention focused on Washington.The close strategic alliance with the United States, especially during the rule by the military, also affected economic policies. Pakistan became highly dependent on capital flows from the United States to the extent that it disregarded one of the basic premises of development economics: that sustainable growth is only possible if it is based on mostly internal resources. Dependence on the US produced a roller-coaster ride for the country: the economy performed well when Pakistan was in favour with the United States; it did poorly when the flow of American resources became constrained.But that was not the only dependence Pakistan created for itself. It also tied its export sector closely to the United States. Contrary to what the ‘gravity model of trade’ suggests, the US rather than China and India became the largest trading partner for the country. If the conclusion reached by Khanna in his closely argued book is correct and if the new world order will have three large players dominating the global system in all its manifestations, then it is necessary for Pakistan to reorient its economic policies away from the United States and directed more towards China and Europe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
