Third Party & Independents: Archives

The sale of F-16s to Pakistan was suspended for (good) political reasons. Those conditions have changed. The sale will not fundamentally alter the balance of power on the Indian subcontinent.

The airframe itself is only part of the deal and perhaps not even the most important part. The sale of U.S. planes means an ongoing relationship with the USAF and the U.S. in general. Not only pilots have to be trained. The F-16 is an industry onto itself. Ground crews have to be trained, facilities developed and partnerships formed. All this ties the country’s military establishment to the U.S. and helps build stability. I don’t recall instances of U.S. fighter aircraft being used against U.S. allies. The worst case scenario was Iran after the fall of the Shah and even in this case the aircraft sales didn’t “come back to bite us.” That’s because sophisticated aircraft are not like other arms. They require constant repair and parts and the training I mentioned above. When the relationship with the U.S. is broken, the performance is degraded the next day.

Beyond all that, we have a definite pecking order in sales. Only our most trusted and stable allies (Netherlands, Norway etc) get the most advanced and even they don’t get the whole package. A few advances make a big difference.

That is probably what George Bush was thinking.

From what I am hearing - it is going to save jobs here in the U.S. -temporarily- because only the first few planes (12?) will be built here. The rest are going to be built in INDIA.
Does that make sense?
India building fighter jets for Pakistan?
Make them trading partners so they won’t kill each other??
Everybody else is trading arms - why not them?

Jack, so how does the US argument for selling F-16’s to Pakistan saddle up to the US insisting the EU not sell weapons to China?

Sounds like more duplicitous Bush policy to me with money and campaign contributions being the movtivating force, since the contradictory foreign policy appears self-evident.

Thanks for the post Jack.

Yeah, that all sounds pretty thorough and makes sense from that standpoint.

But what about the irony? Isn’t the Bush Doctrine to go after not only the terrorists but the countries who harbor them. Seems like arguably the #1 harborer of terrorists and/or WMD black markets is getting off easy, and getting some toys.

Not that many people who have thought critically about the Iraq war think the terrorism claims were a legitimate justification for pre-emption.

“And the big winner of such a deal is the US defense contractors who will build and sell those F-16’s and other military hardware to both India and Pakistan.” You hit the nail right on the head! In my humble opinion, we should not be selling F16s or any other weapons to anyone, especially dictators. Did anyone here see “Fahrenheit 911”? The Bush family and the Bin Ladin family have ties going back decades. Pakistan is, in all likelihood, harboring Osama Bin Ladin or at least being willfully ignorant of what is going on in parts of that country. It is beginning to seem (hard as it is to believe) that the Bush administration does not want Bin Ladin brought to justice. Perhaps this new deal is part of a deal to keep the whole mess under wraps.

And I agree, it is totally hypocritical of us to sell arms (or fighter jets) to a dictator while opposing the sale of arms to China and Iran. Now, if it were American defense companies who were making the sale, then I guarantee you that the White House would be all for it.

It is what they want to sell and how much. The Chinese can make or buy most of what they want from others. What they need and want from the Euros is battlefield command technologies. Most of these technologies are actually American or developed in cooperation with the U.S.

We share this only with our close Nato allies. We won’t be selling such capabilities to the Pakistanis. And, by the way, we won’t be sharing those technologies with any firms that sell to the Chinese. That is something they need to think about. If the firms sell to China today, there are those that will ensure that they will get no new technology now and forever. Any firm considering subcontracting on the JSF, for example, would be wise to think twice and then think again before taking the fast buck/Euro from China.

The second thing is the relative size of the embrace. The U.S. military is many times more comprehensive than all the European militaries combined and many times that of any particular Euro country. The European follow up (the connections I was talking about) cannot be as comprehensive as the U.S. There are also the relative sizes of the Pakistanis and the Chinese. In the Pakistani case, you can argue that the sales will help influence and tie the Pakistani Airforce to that of the U.S. In the Euro-China, case the influence would flow in the other direction.

European suppliers are free to try to peddle their inferior Mirages and Gripens to the Pakistanis or most any other place around the world. They were strong competitors in the recent sales in Poland and they actually won contracts in Hungary and Czech Republic. The Chinese market is one that we are all staying away from with good reason.

China’s bellicose behavior in recent days hasn’t made it a more attractive partner and even most Euro media and such publics that think about such things are against lifting the ban. It is just a bad idea.

Jack:

You don’t know much about Mirages or Gripens, do you?

As for the sale itself. This will just motivate Pakistan more NOT to find Bin Ladin. If Bin Ladin were found the next day, Pakistan will go back to being the country that abuses women, has a dictatorship, tortures prisoners and Allah knows what else. Another Great Victory on the War on Terror.

Aldous

I know that neither the Gripen nor the Mirage is as versatile as the F-16 or comes with what amounts to a 20-year warranty by the world’s most effective Airforce. I also know that proponents of the Gripen or Mirage often compare their products to older generation F-16s when trying to sell their products because they know about improvements made on newer versions. I also know that the F-16 is flown by more airforces worldwide than any other multipurpose fighter and that means that they are more compatible with others.

In all fairness, the Gripen and Mirage are good planes. Just not as good an all around deal as the F-16.

Jack:

The US is only selling the F-16A/B Models and not the C/D/E which you are refering to. Also, while it is true that many US Allies use F-16s, it is also true that the US has a history of using them for blackmail. This is what they did to Chile when the Chileans had problems with Argentina. The US stopped supplying spare parts and Chile lost their entire AirForce. It would be the height of stupidity for Pakistan to buy anything but a Token amount.

Anyway. What is your comment on my Bin Ladin Observation?

Oh and the Grippen is the better fighter according to some pilot friends of mine.

The “blackmail” possibility you mention proves one of the realpolitik reasons why it is in U.S. interest. I don’t have a problem with that and I would assume that buyers could figure out the score.

Your other comment about the technology also should allay fears that the U.S. might be selling too much. On the other hand, I hear that the fighters we plan to sell to the Pakistanis are block 50/52 and newer ones than the originals. Block 50/52s are CD. But this is reaching around the end of my expertise on this subject.

I care less about bin Laden than I used to. It would have been great to capture or kill him soon after 9/11. Now I am not sure about the utility of capturing him. In the wake of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, I fear that his detention could cause us more trouble than it would be worth in some parts of the world. In addition, he seems to be unable to run his terror organization effectively. If he were to be replaced, we might get a more able or virile leader in his place. It might be best if Osama developed a wasting disease that led to his death slowly. So our best strategy is to keep him away from regular medical attention and let his bad kidneys run him down. We could celebrate of his death sometime later.

There is more to a plane than what pilots think or even the plane itself. So much is related to the follow up and relationships. The question is, if you actually have to use the planes, do you want to have the experience of the U.S. military, which like it or not has a lot of experience in these things, or do you want the backing of the airforce of Sweden, which has never fired a shot in anger.

You may appreciate the irony of the conspiracy theory that some of the technology that went into the Gripen was supplied by the U.S. during the 1980s in return for Swedish assistance in getting help to Polish patriots resisting communism during marshal law and its aftermath. But I don’t know if that is true.

I have all reason to believe that the Bush administration, and probably the majority of Congress, has no intention of capturing Osama bin Laden, or else he is already captured/killed and the public has not been informed. Drawing on the comparisons made in a recent thread between George Orwell’s “1984” and the current US government, it seems almost obvious that the administration treasures the supposed threat posed by “terrorists”. Like the government in “1984” that constantly needed to have a war to fight in order to sustain public approval for government (social contract), the US government has cherished the threat posed by terrorists since 9/11, as they were searching for an enemy after the fall of “Communism”.

I feel embarassed to say this, but I would recommend the movie “Canadian Bacon” to anyone reading this thread. As far as entertainment value is concerned, it was a horrible movie, but its message is clear. A post-USSR American president is facing re-election with a severely low approval rating in the polls because of his lack of “success” compared to the prestigious Reagan administration. In order to boost approval, the cabinet conjurs a war with Canada, using media propaganda, to create the needed enemy of America. Furthermore, a cabinet official had earlier sold technology to Canada that controlled all of America’s nuclear weapons (telling the Canadians that it was only a weather-forecasting machine), in order to gain government revenue in light of the loss of threat from the USSR. The official later starts the countdown of the missiles (still aimed at Russia) and blackmails the president for 1 trillioin dollars for the codes. There are actually some funny quotes in light of the recently created War on Terror and the war in Iraq, considering the movie was made in 1995 before these wars. While this movie is quite horrible, it sheds some light on the way the government is actually working.

Sorry I brought up the movie, but I truly believe that the Bush administration is doing quite the same thing with America’s perceived threats. Therefore, I think that because the government is so strictly controlling much of the world’s actions, they wouldn’t possibly worry about the threat caused by the Pakistani military. If any of you haven’t read it, Noam Chomsky’s recent book Hegemony of Survival is a great read on topics like this.

^^^^

Hegemony or Survival is a great book

Sorry, I wrote Hegemony of Survival. As Paul D said, it’s Hegemony or Survival. Probably the most informative and revealing (while obviously biased) book I’ve read.

Arms races are inherently dangerous international games as history since WWII amply demonstrates. While Pakistan cannot effectively use the F16’s against our forces for more than an initial first strike capacity, the potential of an arms race between Pakistan and India, already underway for a couple decades now, has got to be perceived as a real threat to China. Anykind of nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan will have radioactive consequences for the nations East of it given jet stream.

Then there is Russia which found it unprofitable to keep up the arms race with the US, but, may find it very economically stimulating to produce weapons for sale (taking after the US). Selling modern weaponry to a military dictator sets an example that we cannot defend against in public opinion if others do the same. So, in essence, at the very least, Bush is demonstrating an extreme lack of leadership toward world stability and peace. In fact, he is leading the way in the opposite direction.

On the other hand, David, arms races increase deterence. Increasing delivery systems for the two countries means there will be fewer small-arms conflicts.

Gandhi, yes, that is historically true. But, Bush has provided this military dicatator Musharraf billions of dollars in payment and now F-16’s. While Musharraf appears to see the wisdom of MAD’s deterrent value, Musharraf will not live forever. For that matter, Musharraf, as history shows, could be overthrown, and replaced by another military dictator not nearly as reasonable, and not nearly as reciprocating toward to the US and India, and Afghanistan for that matter.

Upgrading weaponry of military dictators appears to be an historically and highly ignorant thing to do. The Middle East is becoming more unstable with each passing month and China, regardless of whether it acts responsibly or not, threatens the economic standing of the US. Arming military dicatators in the middle of this region, appears to me to be like laying landmines in the path of the future without mapping where they are for future journeys in that area.

Great. Another country were selling weapons too. Who cares how this looks to others. Obviously we havent cared so far. So I do find the hypocrit part suprising.

What I am REALLY looking foward to is seeing which turns on us first. Irans planes havent had a chance ‘yet’. Now I dont think were gonna have problems, or goto war with Iran, Syria, Pakistan or India. Why? Because with them we can guarentee the WMD’s, and a chance they’d be used.

I dont see why anyone can get upset. Obviously they havent heard our newest motto. “Do as I Say, not as I do.” I hope someone mentions this to the EU so they dont sell China weapons. Good friends selling weapons to opposing sides in a potential conflict. Maybe both sides worked out the whole China-Taiwan thing ahead of time (kidding). But hey, after this no one would pay attention to that the weapons came from friends on the sidelines (which would last how long?).

Ah yes, “Arms for Peace”

I should point out the during the 70’s and 80’s the world sold weapons to every MiddleEast Country with Oil. Now we are fighting heavily armed Insurgents….

The belief that these weapons won’t come to haunt you is the height of Fantasy-Based thinking. And remember Pakistan has nukes now…

Bush doesn’t get everything he wants.

What about Congress? Don’t they have to approve this deal? Why haven’t we heard anything from or about them?

Dawn, that is a great question. I don’t know what Congress’ role, if any, is available for review and approval of the executive approving American arms sales to foreign countries. I suspect, that the executive is free to do so without prior approval and if Congress deems it not in public interest, they would need to pass and injuction bill prohibiting the sale. But, I will need to search for the answer to be sure.

Pakistan remains a frontline state in the war against terrorism and requires all out support from the United States of America.
Pakistan is a victim of terrorism and is paying a very high price for its unstinted support for the United States led war on terrorism.

Therefore I fully support the sale of F16 to Pakistan and hope that this partnership is greatly enhanced in the years to come as Pakistan will prove to be an instrumental country in enhancing American security

Yes I agree- Pakistan has come a long way and is heading in the right direction economically and politically and has made some very difficult decisions in its fight again terrorism.
Pakistan is also a strategic and important country in South Asia and is in the interest for United State to have stable and strong Pakistan.

John and Stephen, the only thing wrong with your comments is the short-sightedness of time. If Musharraf is overthrown tomorrow, as many dictators have been throughout history, or if he is assasinated next week, (there surely are a number in Pakistan who would love to take him out), or he has a mild walking stroke that impairs his personality and judgement, then what?

You will most probably get another military dictator who has absolutely no inclination to work with the West, and believes they can find much better uses for those F-16’s than what Bush had in mind. Arming military dictators is inherently very dangerous to our long term interests as history has demonstrated again and again.

…and believes they can find much better uses for those F-16’s

Like give them to bin Laden, whom he’s allowed to take up residence in Pakistan - maybe with a couple nukes loaded up.

And again,

If we are so interested in helping our new ally Pakistan, and making it more stable, wouldn’t investment in something like a dam, or the electrical grid, or housing, or jobs development, or jobs training, or university building, or road building or anything that doesn’t involve giving them more weapons seem like a good idea?

If we’re talking about giving them technology that makes them reliant on us, then electrical technology is always the most burdensome. Look at Iraq’s electrical grid as a case in point. They were crippled because they relied on foreign parts.

Julia

David

I totally disagree with you and your statement.
Post 9/11 commission has actually stated that the United States should now engage with Pakistan in the long term -military, economically and politically as it is in our interest and this is the policy which is being pursued by the government.
Musharraf is fighting terrorism and Pakistan has as a result suffered themselves. Therefore we should be grateful and help as much as we can as many people have suffered as a result on the war on terroism in Pakistan.

Steven, thanks for your comment. You support selling weapons to military dictators who break their promises to their people, fine. But, if Musharraf broke his promise to his people about stepping down as military leader, what makes you think he will keep his promises with the US?

At some point, the US is going to tell him or his successor NO! And if he gets pissed off, he will have those F-16’s to express his anger with. Doesn’t make much sense to me.

And above, another commentor said, why not, as you suggest, reward Pakistan, but, with non-military rewards? They certainly need a lot of other technology, infrastructure, and trade agreements in addition the many billions of dollars Bush has already given Musharraf. Rather a valid point, I though.

Hi

I had the oppurtunity to vist Karachi, Islamabad and Lahore last year and was pleasantly surprised.
It is such a nice country to visit and has totally changed my perception of Pakistan.

I think that we should invest and create jobs for the population and help in infrastructure, power, education and trade agreements. This will benefit the people more.

Jane Walsh, thanks for your comment. You are right, the people is what it should be about, not the dictator, and your ideas for helping them are by far more humanitarian than F-16’s.

Some people are very naive here. Pakistan is an unstable dictatorship which has for the last 20 years been sponsoring terrorism around the world. It (the Pakistani ISI) continues to train and fund terrorists and send them to India and Kashmir to try and destroy the (secular) democracy it hates. How would the USA feel if India were to arm an evil dictatorship which existed on the border with it. A country which has made numerous incursions into its territory.

Bush and Rice have got this one completely wrong. They should have let Pakistan rot & implode. Instead they are propping up a failed state and when it all goes belly up, it is India that will have to deal with the fallout.

Raj

You are very naive in your statement which I feel is very biased and incorrect.
I have been in Pakistan and it is not at all unstable as you make it out to be. The people are very friendly and warm, the food is great and the scenery and sites are breathtaking.
The majority of people support President musharraf , the economy is booming, the GDP is set to grow over 7% this year and over 8% in the next few years, alot of foreign companies are investing in that place and the hotels were full of foreigners.
This is hardly the picture you are trying to paint. I suggest you go and visit before you state such blatant incorrect information.

It sounds to me like Raj may be from India, and you could hardly blame him for his anger with Pakistan. That being said, Raj, there was an amazing study that came out of India that compared cities with the exact same demographics of muslims and hindus. Some cities were always violent, some were always peaceful. What they found, was that the cities who were peaceful, had leadership who actively sought ways to build friendships across the divide. (It was that simple).

Pakistan’s west border is very unstable. I think Jane would agree that the tribal rape of the woman in Pakistan was not the sign of a well-functioning country. However, allowing Pakistan to implode would hurt India. The best thing for India is a strong, and normalized Pakistan. The best way to have good neighbors is to have a country with solid employment. THe best way to get solid employment is not through F-16s but through infrastructure development.

Are you suggesting that any country where a rape takes place is not a well-functioning country???

This India-Pakistan argument reminds me of a conversation I had at work a while ago with an Indian co-worker (coincidentally named Raj).

I was trying to come up with an example of an issue in dispute where both sides focused on different facts to support their sides. I made the mistake of using Kashmir as my example.

Me: For example, Kashmir is a disputed area where…
Raj: No, it’s not.
Me: What to you mean? It’s very much in dispute.
Raj: No, since 1947, Kashmir has been Indian… (continuing with the Indian side of the argument).

He was so invested in his side of the debate that he would not even acknowledge that there was a debate, while presenting his debating points! Very bizarre.

Lawnboy, excellent example. I wish Kashmir could just be its own country. Let the people rule themselves if there is such a conflict.

Steven,
I meant, in a country where there is tribal law, and men think its perfectly okay to punish a 14 year old for fraternizing with someone of a more important tribe (without evidence) by gang-raping his older sister, you have a screwed up country.

However, as evidence it’s getting better, the men were prosecuted. And as evidence Pakistan has a long way to go, they were recently set free.

Of course, we can compare this to Iraq, where Sadr’s militia went onto a college campus and beat the crap out of a bunch of students for dancing (a Christian girl lost an eye). The student’s demanded a trial, and the leader of Basra said “They apologized, what more do you want?”

A TRIAL! THEY WANT A TRIAL! They know who put out her eye, they want him tried before a court!

Argh. Iraq is such a mess.

I just want to reply to a few comments made by Jane.

“I have been in Pakistan and it is not at all unstable as you make it out to be”. I didn’t make out anything…I just said it was an unstable dictatorship, that’s pretty much a fact. Pakistan (as opposed to India) hasn’t had stable government with bouts of civilian rule followed by overthrows by the military.

“The people are very friendly and warm, the food is great and the scenery and sites are breathtaking ” . I don’t really doubt this, but the policies of successive Pakistani governments has been to try and destabilize India.

“The majority of people support President musharraf , the economy is booming, the GDP is set to grow over 7% this year and over 8% in the next few years, alot of foreign companies are investing in that place and the hotels were full of foreigners.
This is hardly the picture you are trying to paint. “. Well maybe this will continue but I fear that because there is no true democracy & stability it may only be a blip. I note that the Karachi Stock Exchange crashed a few days ago and investors were rioting in the streets. Over the border a real (long term) change is taking place…where American ideals are admired & respected.

Pakistan has had or continues to have major difficulties in areas such as drug trafficking, nuclear proliferation, religious intolerance, sponsoring terrorism, human rights & poverty. Maybe we should attempt to help Pakistan overcome these by a combination of carrot and stick, but at the moment all I see is carrot and no stick.

Jane , just because some people in Pakistan were nice to you doesn’t change the reality of the situation in South Asia. May be you should visit India too.

Whenever India has offered the hand of friendship to Pakistan it has regretted it ( Kargil invasion by Pakistani sponsored forces most recently). I hope India treads very carefully in its longing for peace with Pakistan this time round. The US selling F16s to Pakistan is a senseless decision and in no way helps to build confidence between the two countries.

I agree with Bush that by giving F-16 to Pakistan to match the advanced Fighter aircraft in the Indian airforce which is about four times the size does not in any way alter the balance.
By matching the 2 countries conventional arms will increase the chances of peace as they will be less likely to go to war.

I also agree with Julia and think that the Kashmir should be allowed to choose its own future as stated in a United Nations resolution requesting India to allow the people of the Kashmir to choose their future.

This will bring peace to South Asia !

Raj

“Pakistan has had or continues to have major difficulties in areas such as drug trafficking, nuclear proliferation, religious intolerance, sponsoring terrorism, human rights & poverty. Maybe we should attempt to help Pakistan overcome these by a combination of carrot and stick, but at the moment all I see is carrot and no stick.”

Lets just start off with “religious intolerance”

Can you explain what happened in India in Gujrat wher thousands of innocent women and children of the minority religous groups were raped , killed and burned alive just because they were from a different religion.
This recieved wide coverage in the international media

People in glass houses should not throw stones is the quote which comes to mind

John, it’s not about balancing conventional forces. The F-16 is the most advanced delivery platform for nuclear weapons that Pakistan has. The embargo on them was put in place when we thought Pakistan might have nukes. Now we know for sure they do.

Jane,

“Lets just start off with religious intolerance”

I hope you’re not trying to equate Pakistan with India since there is a world of difference when it comes to religious tolerance between the two countries. People in India are free to worship unlike Pakistan. For example Ahmadis (a sect of Islam) are being persecuted in Pakistan because they deemed to be unIslamic but are free to practice in India.

The Indian President is a Muslim and Muslims are represented in all strands of politics, media & sport. Of course there are isolated incidents (just as in America eg LA riots or bad policemen beating up blacks) but if you start to equate India with Pakistan you are seriously wrong. By the way I suppose you’ve also heard of the ethnic cleansing of thousands of Kashmiri (Hindu) Pundits which also occurred in India.

This shows there are issues on both sides in India but overall despite the faults (& the interference from external sources), India is a multi ethnic tolerant state where religious rights are enshrined in law …in some respects, Muslims in India have greater rights than in the USA ( i.e. Islamic based personal law is enshrined in the overall law ).

Jane, so stop trying to equate Pakistan with India. You just show your total ignorance of the whole area by trying to take that line. This is also the error made by Bush & Rice, who try and take a middle road when they need to stand on the side of democracy and freedom. Unfortunately their actions don’t equate with an ethical foreign policy.

John, if you had two neighbors who were constantly threatining to kill each other, would your solution be to give them both guns? To “ensure the peace”?

Julia,

I can see what you’re saying to John but if you don’t mind I’d like to make a small correction to you statement.

India has never threatened Pakistan….Pakistan has consistently threatened (& runs a proxy war) against India. India has a no first use Nuclear policy whereas Pakistan says they would launch first. India has granted Pakistan most favoured trading nation status, Pakistan has not reciprocated. Do you notice the trend ? India bends over backwards for peace, Pakistan normally takes advantage of the peace gestures (Kargil).

Hence I believe a more correct statement (to John) would be , you shouldn’t give the gun to the neighbor threatening to kill his neighbor.

Pakistan has half the army as compared to India, Its Airforce is about the 3rd of the size, Its Navy is also about the third the size than India.

The equipment India has is far more advanced and they budget of the Indian Army is about 4X the size of Pakistan.

And you want us to believe that Pakistan threatens India !

If so than it is not saying much about the state of the Indian army

India has border disputes with Pakistan, China and Bangladesh. It has launched military action against its own people in Kashmir and Assam.

There have been violence against Muslims, Christians and also against their own Hindu untouchables.

Raj- I suggest you read up the facts before talking about freedom and democracy and religous tolerance

Steven

“And you want us to believe that Pakistan threatens India !”

Yes…because its true.

“India has border disputes with Pakistan, China and Bangladesh. It has launched military action against its own people in Kashmir and Assam.”. In these disputes the other countries have been the aggressors.

“I suggest you read up the facts before talking about freedom and democracy and religious tolerance”
My comments were not to equate India with Pakistan because on all these aspects India is light years ahead of Pakistan.

What was Clinton thinking?

“Most Favoured Trading Nation” status to CHINA, at the same time closing factories and opening them up again in China.

Are we mad in the West or what?