Pakistani politics (catch all) [Archive]

SWJED

04-29-2007, 06:15 AM

28 April Real Clear Politics commentary - The Beginning of the "Talibanization" of Pakistan? (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/the_hasbah_bill_in_nwfp_the_be.html) By Ahmed Humayun.

Repeated attempts at passing the Hasbah Bill in the legislative assembly of the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) of Pakistan have raised the specter of national implementation of Sharia law. Introduced by the religious party coalition of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), this legislation outlines new religious laws that are to be enforced by a "morality police." Though the law has been rejected as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, and Pakistani President Musharraf has voiced his opposition, the MMA has vowed to continue in its attempt to set up structures of religious oversight and enforcement.

What are the prospects of the establishment of religious laws enforced by a morality police in Pakistan? Some observers evince considerable concern. By historical standards the religious parties did extraordinarily well in the October 2002 provincial and national elections: while they typically garner between 5 and 8 percent of the popular vote, this time the parties collected 11.1 percent. Widespread popular disaffection with the Musharraf regime has substantially weakened Musharraf's domestic political viability. He could be forced to make significant concessions to the religious parties or otherwise be overthrown. The MMA, or elements in the army sympathetic to it, will then replace Musharraf and move to institute religious law...

Jedburgh

05-03-2007, 02:02 PM

This should also have people concerned:

BBC, 2 May 07: Pakistan Downplays Radioactive Ad (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6616225.stm)

...Officials on Wednesday were keen to reassure the outside world that the latest incident in no way has the makings of another nuclear scandal, and that no radioactive material had been stolen, lost or gone missing....

....This could have been before the creation of Pakistan, and may relate to nuclear material that could not be taken under our charge," Zaheer Ayub Baig, information services director of Pakistan's Nuclear Regulatory Authority, said in a letter to the BBC.

Mr Baig said that the adverts were merely a public awareness campaign to make people aware of the dangers of radiation from material that might have been used in hospitals and industrial plants.

He said the advertising campaign was being expanded.

"There is nothing to worry about," Mr Baig said....

tequila

05-03-2007, 02:16 PM

Dressed in Black: A Look at Pakistan's Radical Women (http://www.jamestown.org/news_details.php?news_id=240)- Jamestown. Good stuff on how women's auxiliaries of radical Islamist groups are scoring major IO victories against the secular Pakistani state.

Radical women in Pakistan are increasingly being used by male jihadi groups and extremists, including religious political parties, to serve their interests and promote their cause. This year's protests by women clad in black burqas of the Jamia Hafsa seminary in front of the Lal Masjid, in the capital city of Islamabad, is proof of a trend that is becoming more alarming, threatening and unprecedented in Pakistan's history ...

Jedburgh

05-07-2007, 01:45 PM

Posted on Bill Roggio's The Fourth Rail: Taliban Operations in Bajaur ( http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/05/taliban_operation_in.php)

...Less than two months after the Pakistani government negotiated with the Taliban in Bajaur, the Taliban have openly flexed their muscles in the troubled tribal agency. On Satuday, “militants,” described as Taliban but very likely the Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi (TNSM - the Movement for the Implementation of Mohammad's Sharia Law), or Pakistani Taliban, set up check points and harassed the locals for not being sufficiently Islamic. The TNSM deployed over 250 fighters along the roads in Bajaur, at one point no less than 3 miles from Khar, the agency headquarters....

tequila

05-15-2007, 11:06 AM

Interesting Jamestown article about maneuverings in Waziristan between Pakistan, al-Qaeda, and the tribes:

Pakistan is experimenting with the Taliban yet again. The primary focus of the effort is to de-link the Taliban from al-Qaeda and bring them back into the Pakistani sphere of influence. Uzbek militants have been the first “casualty” of this re-alignment. Potentially, remaining Arab militants will be next. Tribal forces in South Waziristan under the leadership of Maulvi Nazir are at the forefront of this “movement.” Extremist notions of religion remain their bread and butter, but new political objectives also guide their activities on the ground. This, in short, defines the neo-Taliban phenomenon. It is critical to understand the background, motivations and alliances of Maulvi Nazir to fully comprehend what is transpiring in the region ...

Good backgrounder from the BBC used in the above analysis: Pakistan's tribals - Who is Killing Who? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6529147.stm)

tequila

05-15-2007, 11:24 PM

Moderator's Note

Today, 23rd December 2012, a number of threads commenting on Pakistani politics have been merged. The title was originally on General / President Musharraf's removal from power.

London Times analysis (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article1787871.ece)on the recent violent turn in the recent Pakistan Supreme Court crisis, which is morphing into a general challenge to Musharraf's rule. A massive general strike (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/05/15/pakistan.karachi/) has paralyzed several cities in response to ethnic violence (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/c5a669d915cb27fdc0d01892d43d949d.htm) widely seen as being perpetrated by the General's backers.

The clashes and violence in Karachi this weekend have given a major new turn to the ongoing protests at the removal of Pakistan's Chief Justice, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry.

What had been a peaceful protest for the independence of the judiciary has turned violent and been transformed into a general pro-democracy movement. The Government's attempts to curb the demonstrations in Karachi have had the opposite effect: increasing immensely the pressure on General Musharraf and galvanising the opposition parties.

There are now widespread demands for Musharraf to hang up his uniform and give up power and my hunch is that he will not last the year. This is the worst crisis since he took power in 1999. It is a crisis of legitimacy and it is distinguished by the fact that the protests are entirely secular and democratic in their character.

The U.S. has put most of its eggs in the Musharraf basket. What next?

SWJED

05-16-2007, 10:08 AM

16 May Washington Post - Suicide Bombing Kills 25 in Pakistan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051500264.html) by Griff Witte and Kamran Khan.

A suicide bomber detonated his charge inside a crowded restaurant during the lunch hour here on Tuesday, killing 25 people and adding to a string of violent episodes that have badly shaken the government of President Pervez Musharraf.

In just four days, Pakistan has been the scene of urban rioting that killed 40, a border clash with Afghanistan, the death of a U.S. soldier and the suspected assassination of a top official at the Supreme Court.

Although not all of the incidents have been related, they have underscored the diverse challenges to Musharraf's authority. As Islamic militants have carried out attacks aimed at undermining his rule, pro-democracy advocates have taken to the streets to condemn what they see as authoritarian tactics. Calls for the president's resignation have grown louder, and there is open talk that the country could descend into broader civil disorder...

goesh

05-23-2007, 02:34 PM

http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/23/200392.aspx

Radical Clerics Challenge Pakistan

tequila

05-23-2007, 02:36 PM

Alternatives to Musharraf (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/18/AR2007051801601.html)- Washington Post, 21 May.

U.S. policy toward Pakistan since September 11, 2001 has made its president, General Pervez Musharraf, indispensable. This is unfortunate -- and leaves us unprepared for rapid political change in a complex, nuclear-armed state of 165 million people.

Our business-as-usual approach has run up against a dynamic situation in Pakistan. The protests inspired by Musharraf's sidelining of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry have turned violent, dissatisfaction with Pakistan's government and its legacy of official impunity is growing, and social, economic and regional divisions are not being addressed.

Rumors abound that Musharraf will declare martial law and suspend elections scheduled for the fall, or that he is negotiating a power-sharing arrangement with Benazir Bhutto and her Pakistan People's Party. Military leaders in Pakistan, however, have a limited shelf life, and the U.S. government should be prepared for an unexpected transition ...

SWJED

05-25-2007, 09:22 AM

25 May Washington Post editorial - Pakistan's Peril (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/24/AR2007052402121.html).

After nearly eight years in power, Pakistani strongman Gen. Pervez Musharraf appears to be weakening. Mass demonstrations broke out against him this month in Punjab, the country's political heartland; tens of thousands at a time are turning out to cheer a Supreme Court judge who tried to investigate human rights abuses and then rejected the general's demand that he resign. Extremist groups, including the Taliban, are steadily strengthening, especially in areas near the Afghan border. Support for the government in the U.S. Congress, which has signed off on more than $10 billion in aid since 2001, is steadily fading amid persistent reports that the Pakistani army is failing to stop, and may even be supporting, Taliban operations against U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Not only Gen. Musharraf and his dogged supporters in the Bush administration have reason to worry about these developments. One reason the general is unpopular is his alliance with the United States, and the candidates to succeed him and control Pakistan's nuclear arsenal include Islamic fundamentalists and anti-Western generals. Gen. Musharraf appears inclined to use force to bolster his regime -- demonstrators have been attacked by party militias or police in several cities -- and that may seem preferable to the extremist alternatives...

SWJED

05-28-2007, 09:55 AM

28 May Washington Post - Teetering Musharraf Buoyed by U.S. Alliance (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052700977.html) by Griff Witte.

As confidence in Gen. Pervez Musharraf falls at home and abroad amid allegations he is moving away from democracy and becoming increasingly autocratic, the Pakistani president has had at least one unwavering ally: the United States.

Pakistanis -- particularly opposition figures -- are watching for signs that that will change. Any indication of weakening support from the United States, they say, could spell the end of Musharraf's teetering administration. But policymakers and analysts here and in Washington insist that is unlikely because the United States lacks a Plan B in Pakistan and is uncomfortable with alternatives to a man who has been considered a vital ally since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001...

SWJED

05-29-2007, 09:39 AM

29 May LA Times - Musharraf's Grip Falters in Pakistan (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-musharraf29may29,1,1848012.story?coll=la-headlines-world) by Laura King.

When President Perez Musharraf survived back-to-back assassination attempts in 2003, he might have thought the worst was behind him. But now, after easily quelling any threat to his power during eight years of military rule, the general appears trapped in a labyrinth of his own making.

His attempt 2 1/2 months ago to sideline Pakistan's independent-minded chief justice touched off nationwide protests that have coalesced into a full-blown pro-democracy movement. Islamic militants have established a firm foothold in the tribal borderlands, and vigilante-style followers of a radical cleric here in the capital have been kidnapping police officers and menacing those they consider to be promoting a licentious lifestyle...

Jedburgh

06-07-2007, 12:26 AM

ICG, 6 Jun 07: Pakistan: Emergency Rule or Return to Democracy? (http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/asia/south_asia/crisis_alert_pakistan_emergency_rule_or_return_to_ democracy_6v07.pdf)

...In 1999, Musharraf declared a state of emergency and dissolved the parliament through a military coup.1 After having himself elected president through a rigged referendum in April 2002 – the referendum was itself an unconstitutional device – he oversaw deeply flawed national elections later that year. The resulting parliament gave Musharraf a vote of confidence and allowed him to retain his post as army chief. That parliament ends its five-year life in October. Musharraf's five-year term as president also ends that month.

Musharraf could opt for one of three choices:

- He could attempt to retain absolute power, as he seems presently inclined, through electoral rigging and constitutional manipulation. As a first step, he would obtain another five-year presidential term by using the present, lame-duck assemblies as the Electoral College, rather than, as the opposition insists, the successor assemblies scheduled to be elected this year....

- Musharraf could opt for a power-sharing agreement with former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and her Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), which would likely win at least a simple majority in a free and fair parliamentary poll....

- Musharraf could step down as army chief and the military could opt for a democratic transition, with free and fair elections as the essential first step....

AdmiralAdama

06-18-2007, 05:10 PM

Pakistani Religious Affairs Minister says proper reaction to UK granting Salman Rushdie a knighthood is suicide bombing

Pakistan on Monday condemned Britain’s award of a knighthood to author Salman Rushdie as an affront to Muslim sentiments, and a Cabinet minister said the honor provided a justification for suicide attacks.

“This is an occasion for the (world’s) 1.5 billion Muslims to look at the seriousness of this decision,” Mohammed Ijaz ul-Haq, religious affairs minister, said in parliament.

“The West is accusing Muslims of extremism and terrorism. If someone exploded a bomb on his body, he would be right to do so unless the British government apologizes and withdraws the ‘sir’ title,” ul-Haq said. ...

Jedburgh

06-19-2007, 04:09 PM

CACI Forum, 7 Jun 07: Waziristan and the Uzbeks (http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/inside/forum/CACI_2007_0607a.html)

....The fact of the matter is, Taliban Mullah Nazir declared a Jihad against some Uzbeks, but not by any means all Uzbeks, and certainly not all foreign fighters. The al Qaeda Arabs, for example, were incontestably not on the target list at all. In really, there are two main groups of Uzbeks in Waziristan. The Taliban, according to Pakistan's News International, were only fighting the "bad Uzbeks," who are part of a splinter terrorist movement called the Islamic Jihad Group, or IJG, a radical group which broke away from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan in 2004.

The IMU is the other main group of Uzbeks, and it was not targeted. The IMU is led by Tahir Yuldashev, and is closely aligned with al Qaeda and the Taliban. Yuldashev is believed to sit on the al Qaeda global shura and has tactical control over perhaps 500 fighters in Waziristan. These Uzbeks were not targeted in the fighting; in fact, Yuldashev is reported to have a close relationship with Osama bin Laden, and some of his IMU Uzbeks are believed to serve on bin Laden's "Black Guard," his personal corps of bodyguards. Mullah Nazir is not only close to Yuldashev, but to other known al Qaeda operatives in Jihadistan as well, including Khadr al Kanadi.

In fact, far from being a "success story" of the peace deals, the recent fighting illustrates how completely out of control the entire frontier is becoming. Yes, some Jihadis are killing some other Jihadis, and that's a good thing at the tactical level. But in the big picture it's not a significant win. It can be compared to the Mafia families of New York having a gang war -- the stronger gang will eventually come out on top with consolidated control, more local respect, few if any enemies, and a more focused agenda. The north of Pakistan is a very dangerous place, and the momentum now is running in the wrong direction.

goesh

06-25-2007, 06:20 PM

It reminds me of that Al Pacino movie Scarface and the scene in which he blows away his boss and a crooked cop and assumes control of the fictional cocaine dealing family. He then asks the dead boss's bodyguard if he wants a job and the bodyguard says, "Sure" and then thanks Pacino for the job. The rank and file of the ostracized group will simply follow a new leader, no questions asked.

SWJED

07-17-2007, 03:58 PM

17 July Washington Post - Pakistani Government Seeks to Salvage Peace Deal (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/16/AR2007071601041.html) by Griff Witte.

The Pakistani government plans to try to salvage a controversial peace deal in the remote tribal zone North Waziristan, despite a decision by Taliban fighters to renounce it and declare war against the army, officials said Monday.

The Taliban has accused the government of violating terms of the 10-month-old deal by setting up checkpoints and carrying out operations against suspected insurgents. But government officials on Monday disputed that assertion and said they will continue to uphold their end of the agreement...

SWJED

07-23-2007, 08:14 AM

23 July Washington Post - Fighting Intensifies In Pakistani Tribal Area (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/22/AR2007072200366.html) by Griff Witte and Imtiaz Ali.

Fighting intensified between the Pakistani army and insurgents in a volatile tribal area near the Afghan border Sunday, a week after the collapse of a controversial cease-fire.

At least 19 extremist fighters were killed in the battle, which involved army helicopters strafing positions in North Waziristan, security officials said. The fighting began Saturday when insurgents attacked an army checkpoint, prompting a battle that continued through the day Sunday and into the night, said an official in Miram Shah, the area's main town. Residents also reported hearing artillery being fired in the area Sunday night...

SWJED

07-24-2007, 07:55 AM

24 July NY Times - U.S. Military Options Draw a Chorus of Protests in Pakistan (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/world/asia/24pakistan.html?ref=world) by Salman Masood.

American assertions that military action remained an option to quell militants in Pakistan’s frontier regions drew mounting protests from the government and its critics here on Monday, as clashes continued in the tribal areas where the United States says Al Qaeda has been allowed to set up a safe haven.

The Pakistani military said Monday that its forces in North Waziristan had killed 35 militants in battles since the day before, though reporters and residents in the tribal town of Miramshah expressed doubts about the military’s claim. The military spokesman, Maj. Gen. Waheed Arshad, said two soldiers had been killed and 12 wounded in fighting since Sunday night.

Fresh fighting erupted a little over a week ago in the tribal areas, when the Taliban renounced a truce in the aftermath of a government raid on a radical pro-Taliban mosque here in the capital. The government of the Pakistani president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, has tried to stitch up the truce. The militants demand that troops pull out of posts in the tribal areas.

The Bush administration has recently stepped up its criticism of the peace deal with the militants, using it to press General Musharraf, its longtime ally, into taking more forceful action against what it calls sanctuaries of Qaeda fighters and their helpers...

tequila

07-29-2007, 02:33 PM

Pakistan's Musharraf, Rival Discuss Sharing Power (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/28/AR2007072800269_pf.html) - 29 July, Washington Post.

Pakistan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Pakistan?tid=informline)'s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Pervez+Musharraf?tid=informline), and former prime minister Benazir Bhutto (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Benazir+Bhutto?tid=informline) appeared to draw closer to an improbable alliance Saturday, with a top Musharraf adviser confirming that the two had met and pronouncing the exchange "very successful."

The Pakistani news media reported the meeting Friday, but the government denied it at the time. On Saturday, however, federal minister Sheikh Rashid said the usually bitter rivals had held discussions in the United Arab Emirates (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/United+Arab+Emirates?tid=informline) aimed at creating a power-sharing arrangement. Representatives for Bhutto, who has been living in exile since 1999 and leads the country's largest opposition party, would not confirm the meeting for the record but also would not deny it.

Musharraf has been struggling in recent months with vigorous challenges to his eight-year rule. They have come both from Islamic extremists waging a violent insurgency as well as from moderate forces looking to oust the president and end military rule through upcoming elections.

With his popularity in decline, Musharraf badly needs allies. Bhutto needs a way back into the country without facing criminal charges relating to alleged corruption. She has said she wants to return for a third term as prime minister, even though that is now barred by the Pakistani constitution.

While the two leaders have vastly different visions for Pakistan, both are regarded as moderates. An alliance would probably be welcomed by the United States and other Western powers that are hoping that moderate forces can unite to battle rising militancy in Pakistan.

"The country is in a serious crisis," Rashid said in an interview on Pakistan's Dawn News television station. "So we have to move fast, and we have to move to national consensus."

Negotiations have been reported for months, but a face-to-face meeting indicates they have reached an advanced stage ...

Interesting developments - meetings between Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto now confirmed, as have been rumored for weeks. Interesting to see if a Bhutto-Musharraf alliance will coopt a significant portion of the civilian opposition that is the greatest threat to Musharraf.

davidbfpo

07-29-2007, 07:49 PM

I recently attended a seminar in London and the audience were reminded by both official and un-official speakers that the secular parties in Pakistan last had 85% of the popular vote. Interestingly a similar % supported the government's action at the Red Mosque, when polled by a popular, privately owned TV station.

Whether a Bhutto-Musharraf agreement will be finalised, let alone endorsed in an election is a moot point.

dabidbfpo

Jedburgh

08-01-2007, 12:31 PM

ICG, 31 Jul 07: Elections, Democracy and Stability in Pakistan (http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/asia/south_asia/137_elections__democracy_and_stability_in_pakistan .pdf)

....Influential international actors, particularly the U.S. but also the EU, should rethink the wisdom of relying solely on the military. That policy is largely responsible for growing anti-U.S. sentiment among pro-democracy Pakistanis, who view Washington’s support for Musharraf’s authoritarian regime as hypocritical and unjustifiable. Full restoration of democracy would best serve the interests of both Pakistan and its Western friends. Supporting a deeply unpopular military regime is no way to fight terrorism and neutralise religious extremism. Pakistan’s two most popular national political parties are pragmatic, centrist groupings, whose political interests dictate the diminution of militant forces in the country. They are the international community’s most natural allies.

The choice in this election year is stark: support for a return to genuine democracy and civilian rule, which offers the prospect of containing extremism, or continued facilitation in effect of a slide into military-led, failing-state status prone to domestic unrest and export of Islamic radicalism domestically, regionally and beyond.

Nat Wilcox

08-01-2007, 06:05 PM

Obama 'would strike' in Pakistan

Mr Obama said Pakistan must do more to end terrorist operations US presidential candidate Barack Obama has said he would order military action against al-Qaeda in Pakistan without the consent of Pakistan's government.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6926663.stm

tequila

08-01-2007, 06:17 PM

Awesome. Can't wait for the Pakistani press to get ahold of this.

Jedburgh

08-15-2007, 02:38 PM

GWU's National Security Archive, 14 Aug 07:

Documents Detail Years of Pakistani Support for Taliban, Extremists (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB227/index.htm)

A collection of newly-declassified documents published today detail U.S. concern over Pakistan's relationship with the Taliban during the seven-year period leading up to 9-11. This new release comes just days after Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, acknowledged that, "There is no doubt Afghan militants are supported from Pakistan soil." While Musharraf admitted the Taliban were being sheltered in the lawless frontier border regions, the declassified U.S. documents released today clearly illustrate that the Taliban was directly funded, armed and advised by Islamabad itself.

Obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the National Security Archive at George Washington University, the documents reflect U.S. apprehension about Islamabad's longstanding provision of direct aid and military support to the Taliban, including the use of Pakistani troops to train and fight alongside the Taliban inside Afghanistan. The records released today represent the most complete and comprehensive collection of declassified documentation to date on Pakistan's aid programs to the Taliban, illustrating Islamabad's firm commitment to a Taliban victory in Afghanistan.

These new documents also support and inform the findings of a recently-released CIA intelligence estimate characterizing Pakistan's tribal areas as a safe haven for al-Qaeda terrorists, and provide new details about the close relationship between Islamabad and the Taliban in the years prior to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. Declassified State Department cables and U.S. intelligence reports describe the use of Taliban terrorist training areas in Afghanistan by Pakistani-supported militants in Kashmir, as well as Pakistan's covert effort to supply Pashtun troops from its tribal regions to the Taliban cause in Afghanistan-effectively forging and reinforcing Pashtun bonds across the border and consolidating the Taliban's severe form of Islam throughout Pakistan's frontier region.....

Ken White

08-15-2007, 03:02 PM

read most all of 'em.

Thank you for providing them.

tequila

08-24-2007, 09:34 AM

Musharraf foe wins right to return (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-sharif24aug24,1,2458576,print.story?coll=la-headlines-world)- LATIMES, 23 Aug.

Pakistan's Supreme Court ruled Thursday that former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, a bitter foe of the country's president, can return from exile to lead his opposition party in parliamentary elections.

The ruling was the latest in a series of political blows to President Pervez Musharraf, an army general who has ruled unchallenged for most of the last eight years but for whom very little has gone right in recent months.

Pakistan's political turmoil is being closely watched in Washington. Musharraf, 64, is considered a crucial ally in the United States' war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, but the depth of his commitment to quelling Islamic radicals has been questioned by some Bush administration officials and outside observers.

Sharif, whom Musharraf ousted in a military coup in 1999 and banished the following year, has emerged as the politician perhaps best positioned to pose a strong challenge to the president, whose popularity is at an all-time low ...

tequila

08-26-2007, 03:45 PM

Double bombing kills at least 42 in Hyderabad (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/26/AR2007082600432_pf.html) - WASHINGTON POST, 25 Aug.

Two bombs exploded Saturday night in the southern Indian city of Hyderabad, killing at least 42 people and seriously injuring about 50, officials said.

The first bomb went off just after 7:30 p.m. in an amusement park during a laser light show, killing nine people in an area filled with families.

About 10 minutes later, a second bomb tore through a popular restaurant, according to news reports. Television images showed terrified families grabbing their children and jumping over security barriers to get out, while thick plumes of black smoke and dust clouded the air. Bloodied victims rushed from the scene of the attack, in the city's popular Kothi market.
[Two other bombs were defused in the city later Saturday, one under a footbridge in the busy Bilsukh Nagar commercial area, and another in a movie theater in the Narayanguba neighborhood, a police official said, according to the Associated Press. Late-night movie showings were canceled across the city.

["Available information points to the involvement of terrorist organizations based in Bangladesh and Pakistan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/pakistan.html?nav=el)," Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy, the chief minister of Andhra Pradesh state, where Hyderabad is located, told reporters Sunday after an emergency state Cabinet meeting, the AP reported. He did not name the groups.]

One has to wonder if this is aimed at undermining relations between Pakistan & India. Rapprochement with India has been one of Musharraf's principle achievements.

davidbfpo

08-26-2007, 09:47 PM

An outrage in India comes as no great suprise as the prospect of elections loom in Pakistan.

In an odd way the re-appearance of an external threat to Pakistan could help Musharraf. Even possible American military action across the border. An external threat bolsters the role of the Pakistani army and their claim to be the national guardian.

It does not take long to find suitable suspects for such an outrage, then I am no expert on India (where a terrorsit trial recently concluded after a ten year plus trial process).

davidbfpo

tequila

08-29-2007, 12:00 PM

Musharraf nears deal with Bhutto (http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,,2158268,00.html)- Guardian, 29 Aug.

General Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistan president, and Benazir Bhutto, his exiled rival, have almost reached a power-sharing agreement, a minister said today.

The two have been conducting not-so secret negotiations for months on such a deal, with Ms Bhutto, who has lived outside of Pakistan since 1998, calling for Gen Musharraf to step down as head of the army and become a civilian president.

Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, the railways minister and a close ally of the general, said the issue had been settled.
"There is no more uniform issue. It has been settled and the president will make an announcement," Mr Ahmed told a news conference.

The pressure on Gen Musharraf and Ms Bhutto, who twice served as prime minister, to strike a bargain intensified when the supreme court last week ruled that Nawaz Sharif, the prime minister overthrown by Gen Musharraf in 1999, can return from exile in London.
Mr Sharif has said he intends to go home before the start of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, beginning in mid-September. He has been gaining popular support, whereas Ms Bhutto may have damaged herself politically in being willing to strike a deal with the highly unpopular Gen Musharraf. Behind the scenes, the US has been pushing the two to make a deal ...

davidbfpo

08-29-2007, 10:36 PM

If the Bhutto-Musharraf "deal" is finally concluded and then accepted by her party and the military - that is the first stage.

Next follows the presidential election, which Musharraf is reported as hoping will be the current national parliament and the provincial assemblies - not a direct, popular vote. Most sources suggest Musharraf can "fix" this vote, assuming that the supreme court do not intervene and the "fixers" accept the ir orders.

Then in late 2007 - early 2008 is the national, popular election for the national parliament and the provincial assemblies. When Bhutto & the PPP offer themselves to the voter, against a collection of opponents, the religious parties, Musharraf's "shell" party (PML-Q) and Nawaz Sharif & the PML.

Who will win then? Again most sources do not predict what will happen.

Is a Bhutto-Musharraf coalition a vote winner? What happens if the popular vote, with no "fixing", does not elect Bhutto?

I think Musharraf would not survive long, especially if Sharif won. Or the army "had enough" and replaced him or the elected government.

Watch and wait is one option. Ensuring a free vote in the elctions is something Pakistan's friends can help with. A election monitoring mission, not under EU / US / NATO auspices, my own preference is for a Commenwealth-led mission, with EU / US / NATO support (money).

Now back to my armchair.

davidbfpo

tequila

09-05-2007, 10:17 AM

Pakistani capital on high alert / suicide blasts in Rawalpindi (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pakistan5sep05,1,5197250.story?coll=la-headlines-world)- LATIMES, 5 Sep.

Police stepped up security and put this capital on high alert Tuesday after apparent twin suicide bombings in a nearby army garrison city killed 25 people and injured more than 60.

The double blasts struck at the heart of Pakistan's military establishment in Rawalpindi, which adjoins Islamabad and is home to President Pervez Musharraf and other senior government figures.

Although there was no claim of responsibility, officials suspect that the morning bombings were linked to the volatile situation in the region along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan, where government forces have been battling Islamic militants with ties to Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

The explosions also heightened the political tension gripping Pakistan as Musharraf, whom the White House regards as a key ally in its battle against terrorism, fights to keep his job amid a sharp drop in popularity.

The military -- the power base for Musharraf, who is the country's top general as well as its president -- also has been hit by setbacks and embarrassments. On Thursday, for instance, as many as 200 soldiers were taken captive by suspected militants in the border region of South Waziristan.

Striking Rawalpindi "shows that the militants have grown stronger and bolder, and that's the message they want to convey," said Talat Masood, an analyst and retired lieutenant general. "What is happening in tribal areas where they have abducted more than 100 soldiers proves that they have become stronger."

The first explosion occurred about 7 a.m., during the morning rush hour, on a bus traveling near the military headquarters and only a few miles from Musharraf's residence and office. Television video showed the bus reduced to little more than a charred frame hung with bits of flesh and clothing.

Officials speaking on condition of anonymity said the bus was full of civilian and military employees of the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, the army's powerful intelligence outfit. But publicly, authorities said only that the passengers worked for the Defense Ministry ...

Are we finally seeing the "end of the affair" between Islamist radicals and the Pakistani security services? If Musharraf and the Army eventually choose to abandon them and ally with Bhutto or other secular forces in Pakistani society, this could be a pivotal moment.

tequila

09-10-2007, 09:32 AM

Sharif deported from Pakistan (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070910/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_politics;_ylt=ApWGRsbwjWFMrO6cjXuubCqs0NU E)- AP, 9 Sep.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was deported Monday hours after he had landed in Pakistan from seven years in exile hoping to campaign against the country's U.S.-allied military ruler, officials said.

About four hours after he arrived on a flight from London, Sharif was taken into custody and charged with corruption, but then quickly spirited to another plane and flown out of Pakistan toward Jeddah in Saudi Arabia, an intelligence official said.

An official in President Gen. Musharraf's office confirmed Sharif was deported but did not divulge his destination. Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity as they were not authorized to speak to media. There was no immediate formal confirmation from the government.
Pakistan's Dawn News TV and ARY TV networks also reported that Sharif's destination was Jeddah.

Sharif's deportation came despite a landmark Supreme Court ruling last month that the two-time former premier, whose elected government was ousted by Musharraf in a 1999 coup, had the right to return to Pakistan and that authorities should not obstruct him.

"It is a violation of the constitution, and it is a violation of the court order under which Nawaz Sharif was allowed to arrive and stay in Pakistan," Sadique ul-Farooq, a close aide to Sharif told The Associated Press ...

JJackson

09-10-2007, 02:40 PM

In Pakistan Musharraf is in an impossible situation; he came to power by coup, is not popular, leads a state created & defined by religion - during the dissolution if colonial India - and has the much larger & more powerful ‘old enemy’ to his south. His situation was comparatively stable pre 9/11; he had the India problem to his south - but domestically could command popular support here. To his north he had a Muslim Taliban which was not a problem to him until the US issued its ‘you are either with us or against us’ ultimatum. Scared of the US aggressively taking sides with India he acquiesced and joined Bush’s ‘war on terror’ - initially not domestically popular but manageable. As US Islamophobia increased and disastrous policy initiatives unfolded in Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon and Somalia being ‘in league’ with the US has considerably weakened him domestically emboldening the Supreme Court to defy him and the already quasi-independent north to disown him completely. To take aggressive action in the north – where intelligence is very poor – at a time when he is trying to reposition himself as a candidate for democratically elected President will make him unpopular to the point that his rigging of the elections will need to be so blatant it risks severe civil disobedience. Obama - and others - statements regarding uninvited military action within Pakistani sovereign territory aren't helpful and provide a propaganda bonanza in the tribal areas. The problem is – as always – backlash; have we not learnt from all our interventions into the domestic politics of other countries propping up corrupt regimes because they profess some antipathy to our current ideological bet noir (for last century read Communism and for this Islamism) risks popular overthrow with the new power swinging the other way and blaming America with a vengeance for their previous suffering. What kind of nuclear Pakistan do you think will emerge if we push Musharraf to a point he cannot contain his own very Muslim people? Not that I necessarily think getting rid of him is a bad thing he is a nasty piece of work but following the usual US ‘lesser of two evils’ logic he is - currently - our nasty piece of work.

Some links:
US documents show Pakistan gave Taliban military aid:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,,2149588,00.html
Some insight into the pre 9/11 relationship between Pakistan & Taliban Afghanistan.

Generals Waiting in the wings:
http://www.dawn.com/2007/09/07/top4.htm
Musharraf needs to step down from the Army to run as a civilian for President, this article discusses who he may pick to replace himself. Given the role of the military in Pakistani politics not an insignificant decision.

Humour - Pakistan-style: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6984262.stm
An interesting look at the juxtaposition of roles amongst those jocking for the PM's job.

davidbfpo

09-11-2007, 08:53 AM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/11/wpak211.xml

A distraction from Washington's grand design, by
Ahmed Rashid (who is an excellent reporter / analyst)

Nawaz Sharif is not part of the American script for the war on terror and the future of Pakistan, written by mandarins in the US State Department. He is considered neither fish nor fowl, too close to the fundamentalist mullahs and too unpredictable.The real script is to save the beleaguered Gen Pervez Musharraf, and involves another former prime minister in exile - the fragrant Daughter of the East, Benazir Bhutto. When in a few weeks' time she repeats yesterday's homecoming saga from London, the very police that manhandled Mr Sharif will welcome her and she will be allowed to lead a procession to her hometown.That is because the West is desperate to bring her and Gen Musharraf into a loveless marriage so that the general can combat the terrorists and the lady play democracy. This, they hope, can keep the crumbling edifice of military rule going for a few more years or at least until Osama bin Laden is winkled out of his home in the tribal regions of North and South Waziristan.And that is where the whole plan falls apart because in a country like Pakistan, a failing state hovering over the abyss, there are too many loose ends to tie up.Ms Bhutto's popularity has plummeted since it became apparent that she is trying to cut a deal with the army. The more she is seen as part of some Bush game plan, the more she is mistrusted by a populace that hates the army as much as it hates the Americans.Then there is the crumbling morale in the army. Two weeks ago US and Nato forces in Afghanistan were shocked to discover that 300 Pakistani soldiers - their erstwhile partners in the war on terrorism - had surrendered to the Taliban in Waziristan without firing a shot.Soldiers in the badlands controlled by the Taliban and al-Qa'eda are deserting or refusing to open fire. The White House is panic-stricken. That is because Gen Musharraf in his hubris has utterly failed to convince Pakistanis or the army that Pakistan has to fight not America's war, but its own war against ever-expanding extremism.Pakistan's own Taliban are running wild in large parts of the country, beheading women, burning video shops, launching suicide bombers against army convoys and taking over law and order in towns just 100 miles from Islamabad.On Sunday the Pakistani Taliban issued a letter warning legislators from the ruling Pakistan Muslim League that more than 300 suicide bombers were ready to kill them if they voted for another five-year stint for Gen Musharraf in the presidential elections.The other loose cannon is the supreme court, which may well rule in the next few days that Mr Sharif has every right to return to Pakistan and that Gen Musharraf cannot stand as president and also remain army chief.If that happens, Gen Musharraf's only course would be to impose martial law and dismiss the chief justice - which would almost certainly plunge Pakistan into an even deeper unknown.The West would like to see an orderly transition to some kind of watered-down democracy headed by Gen Musharraf and Ms Bhutto, so that its two major concerns - persuading the army to confront the Taliban and keep its nuclear weapons under lock and key - are safeguarded.However, that agenda looks increasingly at risk. By sending Mr Sharif into exile, Gen Musharraf and his Western allies have only bought themselves a little time but they may find that they have only speeded up the meltdown of Pakistan.

davidbfpo

09-11-2007, 09:07 PM

Links to stories / analysis on Pakistan:

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\09\11\story_11-9-2007_pg7_42

Analyst looks at the US incursion option into FATA

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/subcontinent/2007/September/subcontinent_September444.xml&section=subcontinent&col=

Child suicide bomber

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/subcontinent/2007/September/subcontinent_September431.xml&section=subcontinent&col=

Clashes in South Waziristan

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/the_twilight_nears_for_musharr.html

US analyst writes

davidbfpo

Rex Brynen

09-12-2007, 03:51 AM

Terror Free Tomorrow, Pakistanis Reject US Military Action against Al Qaeda; More Support bin Laden than President Musharraf: Results of a New Nationwide Public Opinion Survey of Pakistan, 11 September 2007.

Nearly three quarters of Pakistanis oppose unilateral American military action to pursue Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters based inside Pakistan. Moreover, a third or more of Pakistanis have a favorable view of Al Qaeda, the Taliban and bin Laden. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf is also the least popular political leader in Pakistan today (38% favorable)—falling considerably behind bin Laden (46% favorable).

These are among the many significant findings of a new nationwide public opinion survey in August covering both rural and urban as well as all four regions of Pakistan.

tequila

10-10-2007, 02:12 PM

Not sure where to put this in the many Pakistani threads, but an interesting read.

Increasing Talibanization in Pakistan's Seven Tribal Agencies (http://jamestown.org/news_details.php?news_id=279)- Jamestown Foundation.

The government of President Pervez Musharraf is facing policy failure in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan. Taliban forces and their sympathizers are becoming entrenched in the region and are aggressively expanding their influence and operations (especially in Tank, Dera Ismail Khan and Swat Valley in the North-West Frontier Province). A lethal combination of Musharraf's political predicament and declining public support, a significant rise in suicide attacks targeting the army and the reluctance of soldiers deputed in the area to engage tribal gangs militarily further exacerbates this impasse ...

jcustis

10-18-2007, 10:28 PM

CNN's reporting a bomb detonated near the Bhutto convoy recently, killing over 110 people. Seems someone isn't happy she returned.

davidbfpo

10-19-2007, 07:20 AM

From the (London) Daily Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/18/wpak418.xml

This takes you to a report on the bombing in Karachi, Q & A on Benazir Bhutto and newsreek of the attack.

Note Benazir Bhutto's husband blamed an un-named Pakistani intelligence agency; if true - "large pinch of salt" required - they killed twenty plus police officers and over a hundred civilians.

davidbfpo

davidbfpo

10-19-2007, 07:28 AM

From a previously unknown website:

http://www.pakistanpolicy.com/

A longer report, analysis and comment. Anyone read this site before? 'Home' refers to tewo authors both Pakistanis based in the USA.

davidbfpo

jcustis

10-19-2007, 09:31 AM

goesh

10-19-2007, 05:33 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21374344/

"Bhutto: No surrender to militants
Former Pakistani prime minister says two plotters thwarted in deadly blast"

davidbfpo

10-20-2007, 07:57 PM

It seems a smaller explosion drew the cameras' attention to the second, larger and more destructive one. How does that sound David?

I'm curious to know how close Bhutto was to being killed, and what the effect of that might have been. She may be meeting destiny anyway in the coming weeks and months, but what would her death do to Pakistan across the longer term?

From JCustis

There has now been an explosion in news reporting and comment.

The original reporting suggested two explosions, one originating from a parked vehicle and the other by a suicide bomber. Now it is reported two suicide bombers, with several heads recovered. In Benazir Bhutto's TV speech she stressed why had the street lights gone out just before the attack and so reduced her security. Latest reports are that her security "stood firm" and stopped the second bomber. A bomber with 14 kilos of explosive, so a large bomb (true Stan?).

The slow passage of the her convoy through packed crowds is hardly an easy task for securing any VIP movement, let alone in Pakistan where the threat was so high. Hence the use of the high platform armoured truck and the lucky timing she was on the toilet at the time of the attack. The loss of lighting at the time of the attack suggests - to this "armchair" commentator - that the attackers timed the attack at the location - without sight of the target!

Ms Bhutto was lucky this time. I am no bomb expert, would she have survived sitting high up in an armoured truck? Let alone any secondary explosions - with shrapnel etc. I had the impression the cameras noted the first smaller and then went to the larger vehicle fireball - a secondary explosion (as reported now, not initially).

On the camera aspect now. After five hours slow progress and several camera teams in the convoy further back - the first explosion would alert the cameramen. Did they note the street lighting failure?

The death of Benazir Bhutto would mean her party, PPP, would have no leader and little popular appeal to the electorate - in the parliamentary elections due in January 2008. She is the "glue" holding it together and probably the chief reason the PPP gets funding (a proportion from abroad).

Dispite all her faults I feel her murder would make secular and parliamentary politics very difficult to sustain in Pakistan. As Nawaz Sharif has been excluded from Pakistan - what choice would the Pakistani voter have? Very little. Musharraf's party has little credibility.

Campaigning for Ms Bhutto in the election campaign now becomes problematical. No more "pressing the flesh" and public kept back at meetings.

If the state / party cannot protect such a figure as Ms Bhutto, will anyone else come forward?

In a perverse way given that the secular parties have substantial support and few Pakistanis want to see a Taliban like regime - the murder of Ms Bhutto could strengthen secular rule - if someone takes the lead. Not Musharraf!

davidbfpo

goesh

10-22-2007, 12:44 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21416647/

"Pakistan: No foreign involvement in blast probe
Bhutto seeks help with investigation into bloody attack that targeted her

Updated: 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - A senior government official on Monday rejected a call from former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto for U.S. and British experts to help investigate the devastating suicide attack on her homecoming procession."

She ain't too bright IMO.

davidbfpo

10-25-2007, 01:20 PM

From the IISS (London) a succinct analysis on this fragile nation:

http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-comments/past-issues/volume-13---2007/volume-13--issue-8/volatile-pakistan

davidbfpo

goesh

10-30-2007, 11:18 AM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21539920/

Suicide attacker kills 5 near Musharraf's office

goesh

11-01-2007, 06:39 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12913301/

Bhutto leaves Pakistan as new violence erupts
Opposition leader heads to Dubai; 60 alleged militants killed in fighting

updated 33 minutes ago
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - Security forces killed at least 60 militant supporters of a pro-Taliban cleric in Pakistan’s northwest, the army said Thursday, hours after a suicide attack on an air force bus killed eight and wounded 40.

Brian Hanley

11-01-2007, 08:04 PM

Al Qaeda has one visible route today to world power and their aim to reinstate the Caliphate, which is the game plan they tried to ignite with the 9-11 attacks. That is to take over Pakistan, and by doing so gain control of the army and its nuclear weapons. (No I don't believe Musharraf's declarations Pakistan's nukes are secure in the event of a transition for one second.)

That is why they must either kill Bhutto and terrorize her supporters into acquiescence or drive her out of the country and cause her supporters to give up. (If they were smart they'd kill her and her family wherever they are and I'll bet they want to.) Musharraf is the inheritor of Zia's army support, and that was built by catering to the Islamists. They know it, and know that he owes his throne to them.

If Al Qaeda loses decisively in Pakistan and gets wiped out there, then their day is done. But it doesn't look like that now. Knowing that Musharraf has sided against them, they are playing the brinksmanship game as only fanatics can do. Watch that one carefully. Al Qaeda doubtless has already made plans for how they will deploy Pakistan's nukes. And they're the kind of fanatics that believe that a good muslim will be happy to die for the cause and bad muslim should be killed because he's in the way.

The game in Pakistan is the big game. Personally, I don't think Bhutto has a chance, although I wholeheartedly support her. Here constituency is not militant, they are mostly sheep who want nice lives and hope to be cared for by a parental state figure. (This tendency is the great hobgoblin of the developing world.)

goesh

11-02-2007, 03:17 AM

I'm trying to compose a poem about red circles drawn on a map of Paki nukes in anticipation of a successful fundamentalist coup but the real key to Paki stability is cut off Taliban funding via disrupting the opium flow/cash, so to my hammer and tongs way of thinking, the SFers and other 'crews' need to be hunting a different kind of prey. A late night thought anyway......

tequila

11-03-2007, 05:33 PM

Amazed that no one has posted on Musharraf's declaration of a state of emergency in Pakistan.

The constitution has been suspended. Eight dissenting Supreme Court justices have been arrested, including Iftikhar Chaudhry, head Supreme Court justice and nominal leader of the "lawyers' movement" that really crystallized middle class opposition to military rule in the past few months.

Benazir Bhutto has landed in Karachi but apparently is sitting on the tarmac. She already came out against possible declaration of a SOE on Wednesday and swore that the PPP would resist it.

Condoleeza Rice has declared U.S. "disappointment" in the move. Admiral Mullen had declared previously that a SOE would cause the U.S. to review whether or not to continue aid to the military.

My reaction is that General Musharraf was afraid that the Supreme Court would not sign off on his recent election as president, and this spurred the move. The increasing Islamist attacks on the security forces gave him his pretext.

However, I think that by doing this he has shorn the Pakistani army of all its possible allies in the country. The political parties, the middle class, the civil service, the Islamists --- all are now lined up against him. Can the army stand alone when all these sectors of society are against it? Will the army stay loyal to the general?

Things are not looking good.

davidbfpo

11-03-2007, 07:44 PM

The state of emergency in Pakistan is well covered in this link:

http://www.pakistanpolicy.com

No doubt there will be much comment in the UK papers tomorrow and beyond.

Meantime here's my initial reaction. Violence is spreading in Pakistan, mainly in NWFP and the willingness of the security forces to fight remains questionable. From my experience of Kashmiri Pakistanis they all too often prefer "sitting on the fence" and take a long time to become active.

Watch and wait on the dice Musharraf has thrown.

davidbfpo

davidbfpo

11-03-2007, 11:35 PM

BBC-News website has this updated account of Pakistan:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7077310.stm

How the Taliban and other violent groups opposed to Musharraf react is unclear. Let alone the impact on the situation in Afghanistan.

davidbfpo

davidbfpo

11-04-2007, 12:15 PM

Within an editorial in The Daily Telegraph (London) an interesting paragraph, was this the "straw that broke" Musharraf's "back":

Gen Musharraf made up his mind to declare emergency law after hearing that the chief justice planned to summon the head of Pakistan's intelligence agencies this week to ask why hundreds of people were being held without charge.

The editorial: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/04/wpak104.xml

An interview or remarks by Benazir Bhutto: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/04/wpak304.xml

davidbfpo

Rex Brynen

11-04-2007, 03:00 PM

Things are not looking good.

Agreed--in fact, I think they're looking very bad. Judging from some of the arrests that are now being reported (including Gen. Hameed Gull, the former head of ISI) there are already serious splits in the national security establishment.

The fact that martial law seems to have been imposed over an issue of Musharraf's personal power (the impending Supreme Court ruling on his reelection) rather than on an issue of policy or principle is likely to further fracture his military support base--and, for that matter, sap the willingness of individual soldiers to fight regime opponents, including pro-Taliban elements in the FATA.

tequila

11-04-2007, 04:31 PM

I think the rubber will meet the road when the first massive public demo gets underway in Karachi or Islamabad - either from the PPP or the lawyers' movement.

How will it go? Will Musharraf order mass arrests? Will the security forces hold? If demos do go off, I cannot see how Musharraf can tolerate them if they continue --- they could paralyze the cities and really crystallize public opinion against him.

Rex Brynen

11-04-2007, 04:53 PM

Much will depend on who is demonstrating, and how big the numbers are.

One can imagine a situation with big numbers, a broad coalition (including the PPP, some of the various Pakistan Muslim Leagues, the judges and lawyers, and--critically--ex-military types) that local security forces on the ground simply refuse to confront. If so, it then could go downhill rapidly for Musharraf.

I'm far from a Pakistan expert (at all), but I suspect we see 5 scenarios at this point:

1) Musharraf rides out the initial storm of opposition, consolidates, and filled with new purpose and a strengthened position goes after radical islamist opponents with new effectiveness. Odds: very low.

2) Musharraf hangs on to power with badly damaged legitimacy. Elements of the army waver, are disloyal, or are simply poorly motivated. Radical recruitment and influence bolstered. Odds: moderate

3) Opposition grows and broadens at such a rate that elements in the military refuse to support Musharraf. Caretaker government pledges elections, in which elements of broad opposition coalition maintain cooperation, resulting in strengthened, redemocratized central government. Odds: very low.

4) Opposition grows and broadens at such a rate that elements in the military refuse to support Musharraf. Replaced by another military figure. No rapid transition to democracy; instead new military regime attempts bargains with PPP or others to broaden support base. Looks like the situation a year or two ago. Odds: low-medium

5) Opposition grows and broadens at such a rate that elements in the military refuse to support Musharraf. Caretaker government pledges elections. Opposition fragments, elections are controversial and the results indecisive. Political infighting abounds, sapping political and governmental capacity. Odds: moderate.

The odds of #4 increase if radical Islamist groups engage in spectacular violence in the next few weeks, alarming senior military leaders about the viability and effectiveness of a Musharraf government.

Anyone more knowledgeable than I able to highlight what I may have missed?

davidbfpo

11-04-2007, 08:18 PM

Further to the commentary.

What will be the impact of greater instability in Pakistan on the supply lines for NATO forces in Afghanistan? Business is business yes and it is profitable for the locals. A more hostile Pakistan could reduce co-operation.

I would suggest the secular parties will not make any alliances with the religious parties - helped by their strength being in NWFP (smallest province by population?). It is quite possible the professional groups will take the lead in organising any street protests. A revolution led by lawyers and judges!

Who will the secular parties, professional groups and "moderates" fear the most - the religious / radical / Taliban groups or the unsteady state?

The longer an election is postponed the worse it will be. Yes, some form of election monitoring can be offered and better if not seen as "Western". I'd suggest the Commonwealth first. No-one else seems qualified, so I'd exclude ASEAN, OIslamic Conference and OSCE. Oh yes, the UN remains.

davidbfpo:)

Brian Hanley

11-05-2007, 02:00 AM

I think Al Qaeda is going to get Pakistan. I've thought that for quite a while. If they don't it will be because they have a dictator. Unfortunately, our nation is pretty darn lacking in realpolitik thinking these days on both sides of the aisle.

Things are going to get pretty interesting for the next president. (And the American public.)

tequila

11-05-2007, 02:41 AM

Some new info in the latest update from the NYTIMES (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/world/asia/04cnd-pakistan.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print).

In Karachi, Ms. Bhutto, who returned to Pakistan from Dubai hours after emergency rule was imposed, spent Sunday at her residence there. Leaders of her party, the Pakistan People’s Party, said she would fly to Islamabad on Sunday to hold talks with other opposition parties on how to proceed. But Ms. Bhutto did not show up here.

In interviews with foreign broadcast outlets, she called on the Musharraf government to lift what she called “martial law” and to hold elections.
Sympathizers of Ms. Bhutto, who came back to Pakistan with the backing of the United States and the specific mandate of bringing a democratic face to Pakistan, said her options for influencing the situation were limited.

Ms. Bhutto’s most potent weapon — the potential to rally large numbers of demonstrators — was now in severe trouble, said Najem Sethi, the editor in chief of The Daily Times.

Organizing large protests under emergency rule, and after the bomb attack on her arrival procession Oct. 18 that killed 140 people, would be very difficult for her, he said.

“She will be very critical,” Mr. Sethi said. “But she is not going to participate in protests. She’s going to make a token representation. Behind the scenes she will work with the government for election as soon as possible.” Enver Baig, a senior leader of her party, said that the group’s strategy in the immediate future would be announced Monday.

Benazir sitting at home and apparently unwilling to risk organizing of large street protests removes the PPP from play. Certainly some PPP leaders might be willing to go along with the lawyers in organizing street rallies, but the PPP or the PML have always been top dogs at getting massive numbers in the streets, and might be the only bodies able to do so in the face of a state of emergency. But if Benazir will not go along, then Musharraf can breathe much easier.

jcustis

11-05-2007, 09:50 PM

This all may make no difference. Based on my very limited read of the situation, and it's impact across the larger spectrum of issues we face vis-a-vis Afghanistan, Iran, AQ, etc., it looks like the US is hosed.

Rex Brynen

11-05-2007, 11:10 PM

Does Musharraf face risk of a coup? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7079445.stm)
By M Ilyas Khan
BBC News, Karachi
Monday, 5 November 2007, 17:52 GMT

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was forced to dismiss rumours circulating on Monday that he had been placed under house arrest, just two days after he declared emergency rule.

So far, coups in Pakistan have been against civilian governments
As things stand, there is little reason to believe that Gen Musharraf, who is both president and head of the army, is in imminent danger of being removed from office by force.

davidbfpo

11-06-2007, 07:52 AM

The (London) Daily Telegraph, under this title Pakistan: the world's most dangerous country, has this column:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/06/wpak306.xml

JCustis - the interests of the USA may not be met by Pakistan today, neither the USA or the wider Western interest can afford to see this dangerous country lost.

BBC Radio 4 has just had a small item on what happens to Pakistan's nuclear weapons and contingency plans to ensure they do not fall into untrustworthy hands.

Here the press are reporting the parliamentary elections will take place in January 2008, partly as external pressure is exerted.

davidbfpo

davidbfpo

11-06-2007, 07:59 AM

Stephen Cohen is an acknowledged expert commentator on Pakistan, particularly it's army and has written an excellent review:

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2007/1105_pakistan_cohen.aspx

davidbfpo

tequila

11-06-2007, 09:30 AM

Cohen's analysis is, if anything, too optimistic. He still holds that a voluntary, distinguished retirement is a possibility with Musharraf. If that was the case, there would have been no need for declaration of a state of emergency. Musharraf appears to have convinced himself that the country cannot survive without himself at the helm.

The U.S. should dissociate itself from him posthaste. Clinging to Musharraf will only ensure that Pakistani public opinion of the U.S. goes down with him. One perhaps one could argue that it couldn't possibly sink any further, but my reading of history tells me that things can always be worse, especially in Pakistan.

The massive crackdown on the lawyers' movement appears to be having an effect (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/world/asia/06pakistan.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print), but I wonder if events may turn nasty in Rawalpindi:

Angry protests by thousands of lawyers in Lahore and other cities on Monday demonstrated the first organized resistance to the emergency rule imposed by the Pakistani president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/pervez_musharraf/index.html?inline=nyt-per). But the abrupt arrests of many of them threatened to weaken their challenge.

The real test of whether the opposition to General Musharraf will prevail appears to be several days off: The leader of the biggest opposition political party, Benazir Bhutto (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/benazir_bhutto/index.html?inline=nyt-per), has pledged to lead a major protest rally on Friday in Rawalpindi, the garrison city adjacent to Islamabad, the capital.

The Musharraf government’s resolve to silence its fiercest opponents was evident in the strength of the crackdown by baton-wielding police officers who pummeled lawyers and then hauled them by the legs and arms into police wagons in Lahore.
At one point, lawyers and police officers clashed in a pitched battle, with lawyers standing on the roof of the High Court throwing stones at the police below, and the police hurling them back. Some of the lawyers were bleeding from the head, and some passed out in clouds of tear gas.

It was the second time this year that Pakistan’s lawyers emerged as the vanguard of resistance to the government. In the spring, the lawyers mounted big rallies in major cities when General Musharraf tried to dismiss the chief justice, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/iftikhar_mohammad_chaudhry/index.html?inline=nyt-per), who has now been fired.

How long the lawyers can keep up their revolt now without the support of opposition political parties, which so far have been lying low, remains in question ...

davidbfpo

11-12-2007, 05:34 PM

Found on the independent RUSI website, a London "think tank" (they have other roles) and well connected to the Ministry of Defence, Foriegn & Commonwealth Office and Whitehall generally, a new review of the position:

http://www.rusi.org/research/studies/asia/commentary/ref:C473826483022F/

There are other comments on recent developments in the region.

davidbfpo

Norfolk

11-18-2007, 05:13 PM

From the International Herald Tribune and the Associated Press, 18 November:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/18/asia/pakistan.php

Quote:

Scores killed in sectarian violence in Pakistan

International Herald Tribune, The Associated Press
Published: November 18, 2007

ISLAMABAD: Fierce battles between Sunni and Shiite Muslims in Pakistan's volatile northwest have left 91 people dead, officials said Sunday, despite the imposition of a state of emergency justified in part by the need to quell sectarian unrest.

Combatants used mortars and other heavy weapons in the Shiite-majority town of Parachinar late Saturday and early Sunday, an intelligence official told The Associated Press, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

Continuing to defy the United States, Pakistan's president, General Pervez Musharraf, declined to tell a senior American envoy when he would lift a two-week-old state of emergency, Pakistani and western officials said.

In a two-hour, face-to-face meeting Saturday with Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, who urged the president to end the emergency, Musharraf said he would do so when security improves in the country.

Negroponte is the United States' second highest ranking diplomat.

In a news conference before he left Pakistan on Sunday, Negroponte said it would take time to determine whether the U.S. message had an impact.

"In diplomacy, as you know, we don't get instant replies," he said. "I'm sure the president is seriously considering the exchange we had."

The military said Sunday it would send soldiers to control the outbreak of violence in Parachinar. In a statement, the military said 91 people, including 11 security personnel, had been killed over the weekend.

The violence began Friday when gunmen attacked a Sunni mosque. Sunni militiamen retaliated by attacking Shiites, the police said.

Separately on Sunday, a passenger train was attacked near Peshawar, the capital of North-West Frontier Province, killing one passenger and injuring three, The Associated Press reported, quoting a railway official.

-Unquote

The article goes on to describe Negroponte's meeting with the Pak Army's 2i/c, both alone once and at least twice in the company of Gen. Musharraf. It seems quite plain that the U.S. is very much attempting to shore up the Pakistani Government's position, and that position is clearly deteriorating at an accelerated, and accelerating, pace.

tequila

11-19-2007, 01:48 AM

Michael O'Hanlon and Fred Kagan (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/opinion/18kagan.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&ref=opinion&pagewanted=print)provide a good primer on what not to do in Pakistan.

I'd like to figure out what planet these gentlemen are living on nowadays. It must be the same place from which they intend to bring in the thousands of extra American troops and "moderate Muslim" forces they will use to invade Pakistan.

And people actually mocked Obama for saying something far less insane.

Tom Odom

11-19-2007, 02:54 PM

Tequila,

I always look for key phrases like "crack international" troops--then I know we have a used car salesman involved.

It is amazing how clear the world is when you never participate in it.

Scary, really scary...

Tom

Rex Brynen

11-19-2007, 04:34 PM

goesh

11-21-2007, 12:19 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21909129/

"updated 2:27 a.m. ET, Wed., Nov. 21, 2007
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - When Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte visited Pakistan last weekend, he met once with President Pervez Musharraf, for two hours. But before he left town, he held three meetings with a lesser-known figure: Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani, the deputy army chief.
..................................
"To understand the power of Pakistan, you have to understand that it's the military that matters. And they are kingmakers here," said Shireen M. Mazari of the Institute of Strategic Studies in Islamabad. "

davidbfpo

11-21-2007, 10:01 PM

Another website reported today that the current series of Pakistan -v- India cricket matches attracts more attention from the public than politics.

At first I was sceptical, but a colleague who has just returned from Pakistan stated the State of Emergency and politics was disregarded by most Pakistani's. Politicians are held in low esteem and reported that Musharraf was finished.

I recall The Economist earlier this year reported that Pakistan only had two working national institutions: the Army and the national cricket team.

So perhaps cricket is more important to the "man in the street".

davidbfpo

tequila

11-22-2007, 02:38 AM

In my darker moments, I sometimes wonder what percentage of the population of the United States would care if there was a military coup in this country, or if the Constitution was suspended. If the economy kept ticking along and the Super Bowl was played, would enough people care to make a difference?

I think the average Pakistani (if there is such a thing in such a factionalized place) knows that there will, in the end, not be a real place for him at the table once the players are done shuffling pieces. The game will be played out amongst the Army's corps commanders, the machine politicians of the PML-Q and PPP and PML-N, the United States, and the Chinese. The lawyers may play a small role as well. But either way, none of these groupings truly represents a broad cross section of the Pakistani public.

goesh

11-22-2007, 10:29 PM

- in my darker moments, I'd say about 8% and in other moments, 9%

davidbfpo

11-24-2007, 11:18 AM

Reported on the link the return of Nawaz Sharif to Pakistan; Benazir Bhutto's main secular rival and a man who opposes military rule. Interesting to note his return is a few days after Musharraf visited Saudi Arabia, where Sharif has been in exile.

http://www.pakistanpolicy.com/

Elsewhere the BBC report two suicide bomb attacks in Rawlpindi, including a blast on a packed bus at an ISI site.

davidbfpo

tequila

12-07-2007, 03:30 PM

Pakistani forces take cleric's complex (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-swat7dec07,1,5677893,print.story?coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=3&cset=true)- LATIMES, 7 Dec.

Security forces blew up the home of a fugitive pro-Taliban cleric Thursday after capturing two militant-held towns in northern Pakistan, the army said.

Security forces faced no resistance in taking cleric Maulana Qazi Fazlullah's complex, which includes a seminary, hostels and a mosque, army officials said. The complex, near the town of Mingora, was abandoned when about 400 troops and police moved in, backed by tanks and helicopter gunships.

Maj. Gen. Nasir Janjua said Fazlullah's home was blown up but the entire complex would not be demolished.

"This has been built with the donations from our sisters and brothers," he said. "The people should decide its usage in the future."

Fazlullah has called for a holy war against the government.

Since Wednesday, troops have swept into the towns of Khawazakhela and Matta in the scenic Swat district, where Fazlullah's supporters have taken up arms in response to his calls for strict Islamic law. Some fled before the towns were overrun ...

Retaking Swat's towns is a key step. If Fazlullah can be captured or killed, this could be a big step towards reclaiming Pakistani Army control over the more settled areas of the FATA.

davidbfpo

12-07-2007, 10:57 PM

Reported in the UK and the USA, in a way that arouses some concern:

In the UK Guardian, referring to Frederick Kagan's writing on 1/12/07:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,,2220126,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12

On a US blogsite and written by Richard Sale, ex-UPI intelligence writer (id'd in a comment on the blogsite):

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2007/12/sale-on-pakista.html

On National Review Online by Henry Sokolski, on Pakistan's nuclear options due to the changing situation, especially the India-US relationship:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDY4NjM2M2FjYzk5YWRjYTFhZjI5MDlhZTgzODk3YTI=

Which cites a longer analysis by Thomas Donnelly on intervention options to secure Pakistan's nukes and he dismisses them:

http://www.npec-web.org/Essays/20060528-Donnelly.pdf

All very interesting and curious by their timing. Worst case scenario commentaries, which serve what interests? Or do they reflect increasing pessimism - in Washington - about the prospects in Pakistan?

davidbfpo

tequila

12-27-2007, 01:38 PM

NPR reporting that Benazir Bhutto has been assassinated by a suicide bomber at a campaign rally in Rawalpindi. :eek: Twenty others killed.

I've also seen a Bloomberg report that she survived, but NPR is reporting now that their sources are Pak military and government spokesmen.

edit: Confirmation now received from members of Bhutto's party, the PPP. The PPP is blaming Musharraf and the military for, at the least, not providing adequate security.

Reports also indicate that shots were fired and that these may have killed Bhutto rather than the blast - apparently the assassin may have fired first and then blew himself up.

redbullets

12-27-2007, 01:45 PM

Mainstream media is saying that she was killed. Earlier report was from a press statement by her husband saying she was critically injured.

jcustis

12-27-2007, 03:30 PM

Can anyone point me to any products (perhaps an NIE of sorts) that details Pakistan's nuclear capabilities? I'm thinking that despite hearing a lot about it, I don't know crap about yield, packaging, or delivery vehicles in the inventory.

MattC86

12-27-2007, 03:39 PM

. . .better than nothing. I read a CRS report on it last summer when I worked in Congress, I just found it online from another source:

"Indian and Pakistani Nuclear Weapons" http://www.ndu.edu/library/docs/crs/crs_rs21237_17feb05.pdf

Matt

jcustis

12-27-2007, 04:31 PM

Gracias.

tequila

12-27-2007, 05:15 PM

MattC86

12-27-2007, 05:59 PM

With Bhutto gone, one wonders exactly how Washington will react. The policy of using Bhutto and elections as a cloak of legitimacy for Musharraf was already largely wrecked by Bhutto and Musharraf being unable to come to terms, leading directly to the declaration of the SoE and the movement of Bhutto into opposition. Now with Bhutto dead, this strategy is completely gone --- what are American options? Back Musharraf to the hilt? Who else?

Some very heavy sweating going on in McLean, Foggy Bottom, and the White House right now.

Question for you, Tequila. Do you think Washington has any other options? We were wary of Bhutto in large part because of her poor relationship with Pakistani security services, and what we really seem to be cultivating is the cooperation of the security services, and particularly trying to keep the ISI out of bed with the extremists. I feel like the cooperation with Bhutto was a veneer of supporting legitimate democracy - and as you said - was a ploy for Musharraf's legitimacy.

A few months ago an author in Foreign Affairs wrote that the ISI and others in the security services maintain their ties with fundamentalist groups not for ideological reasons but because they think eventually the US will side with India and bail on Pakistan. They're hedging their bets, essentially. And so the solution for the US, instead of embargoing F-16s and such to try to force democracy, is to continue to support Musharraf and the security services while gently pushing towards democracy.

Given that, what other options do we have? I don't know that this changes Washington's policy at all, given that even when espousing cooperation, we supported Musharraf.

Matt

jcustis

12-27-2007, 06:49 PM

This is not an original question as I read the bits on another board. Am I, however, the only one who sees some parallels with the Shah of Iran, who also at one point had a handle on his military?

Are there things to be learned from his capitulation that can help folks at Foggy Bottom avoid repeating history? Or are these issues to much a matter of apples-oranges?

davidbfpo

12-27-2007, 07:13 PM

For the West, principally the USA & UK, Ms Bhutto's murder is a loss and for Pakistan makes the forthcoming national parliamentary elections even more difficult to envisage as a contest for popular support. I remain convinced the West needs to see how the Pakistani electorate vote - before making any long-term decisions.

For Pakistanis their focus will be on how the Army react, to the murder and holding the elections in January 2008.

Other nations have a vital interest in Pakistan's future. China is Pakistan's longstanding ally and it was reported that when the Red Mosque militants seized a van of Chinese workers that was "the straw that broke the camel's back". Then there is India, who clearly wants stability and restrictions on cross-border activity in Kashmir.

We tend to overlook the Saudi influence, with their clear support for Nawaz Sharif and their reported brokering of political deals. How much does real politic influence Saudi policy compared to religion? I assume India's growing economy relies on Saudi oil supplies too. Anyone seen a good analysis of the Saudi factor?

Do not overlook that the Rawlpindi rally was necessary to keep Ms Bhutto in the public eye, as restrictions remain on local press & TV reporting.

Given the previous attack on Ms Bhutto and the risk with any public appearance her personal security seems odd. From the photos I've seen the public was allowed too close, why did she emerge from the sunroof to wave etc at people outside the venue?

What happens in the more militant areas will be interesting to watch. Will the Pakistani Taleban celebrate publically, will a militant group claim responsibility for the murder? Any public celebration or claim in NWFP or FATA could provide Musharraf with a public event to base a national security / stabilization campaign instead of the usual "stop & go".

Pakistan needs to see the Pakistani Army and locally recruited forces out of their forts and roadblock bunkers. With a propaganda campaign similar to "This murder was wrong and all Pakistan condemns it. Where do you stand?"

The NWFP, FATA and Baluchistan have a small population compared to the rest of the country. The religious parties were strongest in those areas.

I am not fearful about the security of Pakistani nuclear weapons, internal Army authority and discipline is not an issue (very different from confronting militants in the FATA often by locally recruited forces). Those who call for a SF raid - as seen in some comments - are crazy.

What impact upon Pakistani women will the murder have? I simply do not know, it is a male dominated society and very few, if any women appear in film footage of Bhutto's rallies. The western orientated class is tiny, mainly middle class professionals in the cities.

For those called into work today, as others suggest, I'd go home. The decisions necessary remain in Pakistan and not Foggy Bottom or Whitehall. If anything on reflection Ms Bhutto's murder reduces any immediate and short term Western influence.

davidbfpo

davidbfpo

12-27-2007, 07:16 PM

From the (London) Daily Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=VUNKQFPR3LMPZQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQ WIV0?xml=/news/2007/12/27/db2702.xml&page=3

davidbfpo

davidbfpo

12-27-2007, 07:33 PM

From JCustis

This is not an original question as I read the bits on another board. Am I, however, the only one who sees some parallels with the Shah of Iran, who also at one point had a handle on his military?

Are there things to be learned from his capitulation that can help folks at Foggy Bottom avoid repeating history? Or are these issues to much a matter of apples-oranges?

In reply we, in the West, find it hard to understand how a society like Iran can chose a theocratic dictatorship - which is what Ayatollah Khomeni clearly offered. This comment was made at a Whitehall conference recently by Prof. Christopher Andrew, an intelligence historian.

It is a long time since I read about the Iranian revolution.

What I do recall is that the West, in particular foreign policy experts, did not realize how unpopular the Shah's rule was. That we relied on the intelligence relationship with Savak (secret police), a relationship fraught with problems. The flow of propaganda from Ayatollah Khomeni in Paris, mainly audio tapes, which radicalized many missed out by the Shah's reign. Even the Imperial Guard at the end failed to support the Shah, although my recollection is that the Iranian Army did not have an internal security role like the Pakistani Army. The Shah's reforms only too late we found were without a foundation for such a conservative and religious society.

Pakistan is very different and despite all its problems has a strong national desire to be democratic. Secondly, it is far more open society, more diverse and many live abroad (not just in the UK). Finally they play cricket!

davidbfpo

tequila

12-27-2007, 08:09 PM

MattC86

12-28-2007, 04:14 PM

David/JCustis:

Oh, btw, JCustis, I sent you a pm the other day.

I agree completely with what David said. Pakistan's human rights record may not be enviable, but I don't think it really compares with the abuses of SAVAK - an organization that had near-complete, Gestapo like powers of arrest and torture by the end of the Shah's regime. Plus the Shah was not just widely thought of as an American collaborator - it was known the US kept him in power. The US and Britain had deposed PM Muhammed Mosaddiq in 1953 in Operation Ajax, and the Iranian people remembered that we had eliminated a legitimate, democratizing figure (although he was a socialist) and reinstated the Shah (who had taken a conspicuous vacation during the whole affair).

Plus, the last Shah (Muhammad or Muhammad Reza, can't remember) was the latest Pahlavi dynasty Shah, and none of the Pahlavis had much legitimacy at all except from the barrel of a gun - the original Pahlavi was a military usurper from the Cossack Brigade.

And, frankly, before the Pahlavis the Qajars were illegitimate and could not control the decentralized countryside population, and the Safavids before them. . . Iran/Persia has a long history of governments that cannot truly control the countryside; something we should (but appear not to) take into consideration in our policy-making towards them. . .

. . .the point being that I think the situations are historically quite different. Musharraf has his legitimacy problems, his human rights issues, and his unpopularity, but I think they all pale in comparison to that experienced by the Shah. Another issue is that there really isn't a central resistance figure for the population to rally around, which immensely benefits Musharraf - the opposition is fractured among itself; the old divide-and-conquer maxim. The importance of the Khomeini in the Iranian Revolution cannot be overstated. Not only was he a real living counter to the Shah, but he was careful to accommodate the moderates, fundamentalists, and even liberals in his opposition to the Shah (before purging them in the aftermath). There's no such figure right now in Pakistan, and I don't think Bhutto will accomplish that as a martyr (nor do I think she would have had she survived and become PM again).

Plus there's the considerable differences in the historical power of the ulama in Iran versus Pakistan, etc., etc.

Tequila: To play devil's advocate, I think the reason we have and will continue to support the military is fear of the unknown. I think the US is fairly confident that the Pakistani military is less prone to instability and perhaps less likely to generate conflict with India or anyone else (as opposed to the occasionally belligerent Indian military leadership: "If we go to war - jolly good," one Indian CoS commented during the Operation "Brasstacks" nuclear standoff) than fickle democratic governments, and there is a real fear of what a true democracy in Pakistan might do. Devil we know versus the one we don't kind of thing.

Pakistan is really in a bad spot. As India modernizes and integrates into the global economy, with major possibilities for the future (economically and politically, as the country becomes a regional power), Pakistan continues to stagnate. Economically and politically, it resembles the foundering Middle East rather than developing South Asia. The population will become more hostile both towards India (and even its erstwhile ally China) as they modernize and Pakistan goes nowhere, and they fear the US still really supports India.

Granted, none of that offers an alternative solution. I think your idea is the right one, but fear of what could happen if democratization is really carried out will keep scaring US policymakers into supporting the military and hoping for stability.

We'll see.

Matt

tequila

01-02-2008, 03:59 PM

Dr. Barnett Rubin has an excellent post on Pakistan here (http://icga.blogspot.com/2008/01/pakistans-power-puzzle.html). Worth reading in full, with I think a fully accurate diagnosis of Pakistan's problems. I think he hits the nail on the head w/regards to the disintegration of the military's legitimacy in the Pakistani public sphere. Sadly, I think his words about American policy towards Pakistan are also on point.

Jedburgh

01-02-2008, 09:56 PM

ICG, 2 Jan 08: After Bhutto’s Murder: A Way Forward for Pakistan (http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/asia/b74_pakistan_bhutto.pdf)

Gravely damaged by eight years of military rule, Pakistan’s fragile political system received a major blow on 27 December 2007, when former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated. Her murder, days before the parliamentary elections scheduled for 8 January 2008 and now postponed to 18 February, put an end to a U.S. effort to broker a power-sharing deal with President Pervez Musharraf which the centre-left Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP (http://www.ppp.org.pk/)) leader had already recognised was unrealistic. Her popularity and the belief Musharraf and his allies were responsible, directly or indirectly, have led to violent countrywide protests.

Stability in Pakistan and its contribution to wider anti-terror efforts now require rapid transition to legitimate civilian government. This must involve the departure of Musharraf, whose continued efforts to retain power at all costs are incompatible with national reconciliation; an interim consensus caretaker government and a neutral Election Commission; and brief postponement of the elections to allow conditions to be created – including the restoration of judicial independence – in which they can be conducted freely and fairly.

Bhutto’s death has drawn the battle lines even more clearly between Musharraf’s military-backed regime and Pakistan’s moderate majority, which is now unlikely to settle for anything less than genuine parliamentary democracy. Many in Pakistan fear that the federation’s very survival could depend on the outcome of this struggle....
Complete 12 page ICG Policy Brief at the link.

tequila

01-03-2008, 11:48 AM

I like the Bush Administration's push here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/02/AR2008010202972_pf.html), but we should not be reaching out to Musharraf so much as trying to convince Kiyani and the corps commanders that billions in American aid without Musharraf is better than Musharraf in control, Pakistan in ashes, and no American aid.

The Bush administration has launched a behind-the-scenes campaign to persuade Pakistan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/pakistan.html?nav=el) to free democratic activists and lawyers, lift press restrictions and allow international observers into polling stations to ensure that the delayed parliamentary election is deemed credible by Pakistanis and by the international community, according to U.S. officials.

In their first conversation since the assassination of Benazir Bhutto last week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called President Pervez Musharraf on New Year's Day to discuss the importance of the election next month as a means of restoring stability in a nuclear-armed country that is also on the front line of fighting extremism. Other U.S. officials and diplomats in Islamabad are engaged in an intense diplomatic push this week, officials said ...

JJackson

01-03-2008, 04:05 PM

Finally they play cricket!

David:
Bravo (or should I say hear, hear). It should not be overlooked that the British Empire survived for along time and this was the gold-standard litmus test. Ball tampering and political assasination both fall squarely into the 'just not cricket' catagory and the sooner the rest of the world re-introduces the cricket test the better.

Rex Brynen

01-08-2008, 03:59 AM

Pakistanis Want Larger Role for Both Islam and Democracy (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/440.php?lb=hmpg1&pnt=440&nid=&id=)

Majority Reject ‘Talibanization’ and Favor Reform of Madrassas

Growing Perception that US Threatens Islam

An in-depth survey of Pakistani public opinion reveals majority support for a moderate and democratic Islamic state, though a small but significant minority shows sympathy for Islamist militant groups.

Most Pakistanis want Islam to play a larger role in Pakistani society. However, a majority also favors a more democratic political system, rejects ‘Talibanization,” and supports recent government efforts to reform the madrassah system by focusing more on science and mathematics. Majorities have little sympathy for Islamist military groups and most would like to see the Federally Administered Tribal Areas integrated into Pakistan.

The survey also found that Pakistani attitudes toward the United States are negative and that there is a growing perception that the United States is hostile toward Islam.

The survey was conducted from Sept. 12-18, just before President Pervez Musharraf declared a six-week state of emergency and before the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. The sample included 907 Pakistani urban adults, selected using multi-stage probability sampling, who were interviewed at home in 19 cities. The margin of error is +/- 3.3 percent.

It was conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org in collaboration with, and with financial support from, the U.S. Institute of Peace.

JJackson

01-08-2008, 03:25 PM

The PIPA report linked to by Rex above is on the whole much what I expected on most points but is rather scarier for US foreign policy that you might glean from the quote box.

Given that the US Administration views Pakistan as a ‘strong ally in the war on terror’ it must be disconcerting to learn that

Q:
How much do you trust the following countries to act responsibly in the world…the US?
A:
A great deal 7
Somewhat 16
Not very much 15
Not at all 49

Q:
Thinking now about US actions around the world, please tell me if you think the following are or are not US goals. To weaken and divide the Islamic world.
A:
Is a goal 86
Is not a goal 5

Three out of four even believe that it is a US goal to “spread Christianity in the Middle East.” Seventy-five percent said this was definitely (53%) or probably (22%) a US goal, while only 10 percent said that it was not.

Views of the Taliban’s activities are remarkably mixed and poorly defined.
When asked about the Taliban’s attacks on NATO troops, approval rose to 30 percent (12% strongly), disapproval dropped to 15 percent (9% strongly), and 18 percent expressed mixed feelings. Once again a large 37 percent did not take a position.

Probably the worst of the bunch is the following question, there were 15 threats in total (I have omitted those that are domestic - please follow Rex’s link for the full table). Given Pakistan is a nuclear power because of India’s bomb and has been to war with them with major tensions as recently as 2003 it is worrying to see them ranked 3rd with the US in the top two slots.

Here is a list of possible threats to the vital interests of Pakistan in the next ten years. For each one, please select whether you see this as a
critical threat, important but not critical or not an important threat at all.

The US military presence in Asia 72-12-6 (Crit-Imp-N/Imp)
The US military presence in Afghanistan 68-15-6
Tensions between India and Pakistan 53-26-12
Closer relations between India and the United States 53-24-11

India’s growing influence in the world 44-27-18
Activities of al Qaeda 41-21-14
Tensions between Afghanistan and Pakistan 40-27-21

Closer relations between India and China 23-37-25

The possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons 16-34-37
The development of China as a world power 10-32-51

And then you have this

“Which do you think is more likely to be true: Osama bin Laden is somewhere in Pakistan; somewhere in Afghanistan; or in some other country?” Only 2 percent said they thought he was in Pakistan, while 18 percent picked Afghanistan. Thirteen percent supposed he was in some other country, and another 8 percent volunteered that he was in the United States. A majority declined to venture a guess.

Next, respondents were asked to “suppose the Pakistani government learned that Osama bin Laden was in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and found his exact location.” Even under these circumstances, a 39 percent plurality thought the government should not attempt his capture; only 24 percent thought the government should.

All in all the US government do not seem to have fully won over the Pakistani people. Other parts of the survey show them strongly in favour of democracy and the rule of law – albeit a more Islamic type of law than present – which again is not a good sign if they ever manage to get free and fair elections with candidates reflecting their true views (or at least those expressed in this survey).

Jedburgh

01-26-2008, 01:28 PM

CACI, 25 Jan 08: Pakistan's Crisis: Incremental Steps Toward Sustainable Democracy (http://www.isdp.eu/files/publications/pp/08/ik08pakistanscrisis.pdf)

The following recommendations are issued:

• Prepare for a possible international rescue operation in cooperation with the World Bank to avoid failure of the Pakistani economy due to the present unrest.

• Support any Pakistani government’s effort to eradicate militant groups not only in the NWFP and FATA, but also in Punjab and elsewhere across the country.

• Support cautiously any measure of a symbolic nature, which aims at and seems viable as a contribution to conciliation, like establishing an independent commission for investigating the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

• Promote an agreement between the political actors in Pakistan, including, if necessary, the military, if it can lead to an orderly election procedure.

• If Musharraf goes ahead with his plans for elections on February 18, foreign disapproval should be cautious and withheld if it does not seem inevitably to lead to faulty elections.

• Create preparedness for financial support but also demand the emerging government to initiate a policy of reforms and structural changes of the existing feudal system.

• Prioritize the building of state institutions instead of focusing narrowly on the electoral process.

• Not focus one-sidedly on border security. It is becoming increasingly evident that Quetta and Karachi are also becoming safe-havens for Al-Qaeda and other militants.

• There is a need to change the “strategic mindset” on border security and start viewing the Afghan-Pakistan border as an opportunity rather than a problem. The economic synergy that exists across the Durand Line between Afghan and Pakistani traders is the key to the development of FATA and neighboring communities.
Complete 22 page paper at the link.

davidbfpo

01-26-2008, 02:29 PM

This report is a good summary of the situation in Pakistan and the problems faced by those who need to help. Note no mention is made of any role for the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia, but China is included.

The final remarks are odd, suggesting the EU can act quicker than the USA, as that would involve Congressional hearings on any aid package.

I simply cannot see any likely Pakistani government seeking such an aid package from the West or a coalition, in all it's forms. The West needs to regain a far better image, footage of the aid to Azad Kashmir after the earthquake comes to mind.

Would any Pakistani politician accept such a proposed aid package in principle now? I suggest no. Nor the Army.

davidbfpo

JJackson

01-26-2008, 03:56 PM

Musharraf is in London and addressing the RUSI.

BBC story http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7209611.stm

The RUSI has a link to an .mp3 of the speech and Q&A - but it did not work for me - http://www.rusi.org/events/past/ref:E4794DB1E93E7C/

Analysis here http://www.rusi.org/research/studies/asia/commentary/ref:C479AEE81E8F91/

davidbfpo

01-26-2008, 07:42 PM

The RUSI analysis alas reflects more of the Whitehall - Westminster "village" (London, UK) thinking than a hard look at the options. The final sentence is telling:

'In real terms, however, no one other than Musharraf will have the power to take decisions that will affect the future of this struggle'.

Since Pakistan has consistently followed a "stop & go" policy since 2001 over GWOT and internal militancy - led by the man at the top, Musharraf, this is hardly encouraging. Yes, he is a brave man; yes, he has the power and has he taken the decisions? Yes, consistently *stop & go". I leave aside incompetence of junior ranks, Rashid Rauf's escape for example, and the suspect divided loyalties of ISI.

What happens when Musharraf goes, peacefully rather a violent departure (which cannot be excluded)?

Sorry RUSI analyst the time is past for comfortable words.

davidbfpo

JJackson

01-30-2008, 03:02 PM

The RUSI have repaired their link to Musharraf's speech, but it was not all that interesting. He seemed bent on using the time to try and justify his position, and past actions, while offering assurances that nobody would tamper with the elections on his watch. I was not entirely convinced and it appears he may not have convinced ex Chief Justice Chaudhry either.

Musharraf lambasted by ex-judge
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7196482.stm

MattC86

01-30-2008, 03:29 PM

I leave aside incompetence of junior ranks, Rashid Rauf's escape for example, and the suspect divided loyalties of ISI.

What happens when Musharraf goes, peacefully rather a violent departure (which cannot be excluded)?

Sorry RUSI analyst the time is past for comfortable words.

davidbfpo

I think the fundamental issue with US policy re: Pakistan is the country's geopolitical location, right on the fault line dividing policy towards the Middle East, GWOT, and particularly AQ and Afghanistan, and on the other side US policy towards India and Asia. As India rises and we try to strengthen our ties with them, that inherently strengthens the anti-Western factions in ISI and elsewhere in Pakistan who are convinced we're going to drop them in favor of India. Too much support for Pakistan, particularly military aid and direct support of Musharraf damages our growing relationship with India.

I think that's why there truly isn't an option other than Musharraf at this point. Musharraf, while I think regarded warily by the Indians, at least had done enough to combat the extremism that India does not object too heartily to him, and I think both the US and India believe that a true democratic process in Pakistan would be very anti-Indian, if not (given the attitudes and public opinions listed above) pro-extremism.

Matt

Ray

01-30-2008, 05:40 PM

MattC86 - Unfortunately our policy since the 1970s in Pakistan has always been the shortsighted one of supporting the military, even when it lined up against the rest of Pakistani society. The Pakistani military likes to promote the idea, which it likely believes, that it is the only truly effective institution that holds Pakistan together. Of course the fact that it often hobbles any other institution that could present a threat to its dominance may have something to do with the truth of that statement.

Short-term, I would push Musharraf to continue with elections, to release all political prisoners, and reinstate the fired Pakistani Supreme Court and all judges. In essence, reverse course on the State of Emergency. Ensure that he does not re-declare another State of Emergency in the wake of today's riots and violence.

Work to ensure that the upcoming elections are seen as genuinely legitimate.

Ask the Pakistani military to choose between a President Musharraf and continued U.S. support. Push Musharraf to resign and retire to the U.S. or the UK and appoint a genuine caretaker government to run elections and then give way once elections give rise to genuine civilian rule. Reward Kiyani and the corps commanders with lavish modernization programs for their conventional arms, COIN training, and as many slots at Leavenworth and CGSC and all the other American schools as we can find. Build up the Frontier Corps and the Special Services Group, with American Special Forces trainers embedded if possible with the SSG. The more long-term links we can build between Pakistani and American officers, the better - we need a Pak military that is linked with the U.S. Do whatever's necessary to wean Pakistan's military from the civilian economy, to which it is increasingly wedded to the detriment of both the economy and the integrity of the officer corps.

At the same time, increase massively the amount of aid that the U.S. gives to Pakistani civilian and secular institutions. Do what we can to help professionalize and modernize Pakistani secular education and civil service, push through preferential trade for Pakistani textiles and industrial products to increase employment. The civilian sector in Pakistan should be built up to the point where its institutions can effectively counterweight the military and the Islamists, who draw most of their institutional strength from the former - that is the ONLY way out of this vicious cycle of continuous crisis in South Asia.

Pakistan has never had a true democracy or had a truly democratic govt. A check of its history from independence will bear witness. The military has always been the final arbiter. Musharraf's book leaves no doubt regarding this fact. Thus, if the US has backed the military govts, it was but only giving way to realpolitik and to ground realities!

With the Pakistani Army filling top and middle order bureaucratic slots with serving and retired Army officers as "baksheesh" (reward), the influence of the Army was ensured in all departments and institutions of democracy. Therefore, there was hardly any scope for building democratic institutions and traditions, though the current Chief of the Army has given instructions that all Army personnel in civil organisations should be reverted to the Army.

Even if the elections are held free and fair, the shadow of the Army will remain, no matter who forms the govt.

None of the Pakistani politicians are clean and none have statesmanlike capabilities. They are merely local feudal satraps and petty lotus eaters with "national appeal". And all are anti US, and those who appear to be pro US, including Musharraf, are merely living up a façade.

The Pakistanis are anti US because they are Moslems and even the moderate Moslem is very devoted to the injunctions of the Quran and the Hadiths. Rare is the Moslem, who looks at the world events without seeing it, even if slightly, from the Moslem point of view. Therefore, to expect any Pakistani govt to have a free flow action against the terrorists, or assist without reservation against the Taliban, would be asking for something that is not feasible in its true form. Islam does not permit Moslems killing Moslems. It is haram. That is the reason why Musharraf, even though he appears to be pro US, is puss-yfooting with actions in FATA.

The elite in Pakistan are secular, so long as the interest of Islam does not clash. Secular education will tone down the fundamentalist bent of mind, but it can never churn up totally secular thinking people.

Pumping massive aid and increasing employment will not change the mindset and wean away the people from Islamic causes. There are enough studies to the effect that indicate that poverty is not the sole reason that encourages people to be wedded to the fundamentalist ideology.

The Pakistan Army can never be weaned away from meddling into every democratic institution of Pakistan because a tiger which has tasted human blood cannot stop being a maneater. Given a chance, it will revert to its ways.

Bangladesh is an example where it was formed to uphold democracy since the tenets of democracy was trampled, but Bangladesh's Pakistani Army stalwarts grabbed power at the first instance it presented itself to the Bangladesh Army!

Musharraf is the only choice since a known devil is better than an unknown friend.

Ken White

01-30-2008, 06:11 PM

I think, quite accurate. Thanks.

Jedburgh

02-08-2008, 04:22 PM

The Jamestown Foundation's Terrorism Monitor, 7 Feb 08:

The Impact of Pashtun Tribal Differences on the Pakistani Taliban (http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2373954)

....There is no denying the fact that tribal affiliations play a major role in the formation of Taliban groups and the choice of commanders. The Taliban and other jihad advocates often claim that they believe in the concept of a common Muslim ummah (community) and reject the division of their religion into groups based on ethnicity, language, geographical borders and tribes. In practice this is easier said than done. In tribal societies such as that of the Pashtuns inhabiting Pakistan and Afghanistan, even ideologically-driven radical Taliban and jihadist fighters gravitate toward their own tribe and local commander whether fighting U.S.-led Coalition forces or the armed forces of Pakistan.

tequila

02-14-2008, 10:13 AM

No surprise for us Pakistan watchers:

In Tribal Pakistan, Religious Parties Founder (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/world/asia/14pstan.html?ref=world&pagewanted=print)- NYTIMES, 14 Feb.

...

The religious parties that for the last five years have governed the North-West Frontier Province and Baluchistan Province, which border Afghanistan and the tribal areas, are foundering.

Since being swept to power in 2002 on a wave of anti-Americanism and sympathy for the Taliban (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/t/taliban/index.html?inline=nyt-org) after the American invasion of Afghanistan, the mullahs here have found that the public mood has shifted against them.
People complain that they have failed to deliver on their promises, that they have proved just as corrupt as other politicians and that they have presided over a worsening of security, demonstrated most vividly in a rising number of suicide attacks carried out by militants based in the nearby tribal areas.

“They did not serve the people,” said Faiz Muhammad, 47, a farmer whose son was killed in the bomb blast on an Awami political gathering on Saturday.

The shift in mood here may be a bellwether of larger trends nationwide. The religious parties held 59 seats in the 342-member Parliament, making them a kingmaker at critical times, like helping President Pervez Musharraf (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/pervez_musharraf/index.html?inline=nyt-per) to extend his military rule. But this time their number may fall to single digits, according to some estimates ...

Jedburgh

02-15-2008, 01:50 PM

CEIP, 13 Feb 08 (event transcript): The Pakistani Army and Post-Election Scenarios (http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/0213_transcript_pakistan_army.pdf)

....the subject that we are going to explore this morning is the changes that are taking place within Pakistan, particularly in its political fortunes, and the role that we expect the Pakistani military to play.

For those of you who follow Pakistan, you know clearly that the military is probably the most important institution in Pakistani society because it has been the most organized institution, the most stable institution for many years. And that is both a source of strength and weakness. It’s a source of strength because it holds the country together in uncertain times and makes the military a particularly attractive partner for foreign nations, especially the United States. But it’s also a source of weakness because an overly strong military can, in a sense, choke out civilian institutions that require space to flourish. And we are at a moment in Pakistan’s history where the Pakistan military really has to make some fundamental choices about its own role in the state and its willingness to allow the state to, in a sense, function as we expect modern states to.

The jury is still out on whether the Pakistan military will, in a sense, choose what the international community expects of it. But those are the issues that we will explore in some detail this morning.....

tequila

02-19-2008, 09:33 AM

Initial returns show a major victory for PML-N and the PPP - Musharraf's party, the PML-Q, looks to have been utterly routed.

If the results hold up, this is the end for Musharraf and of the Army's involvement in politics, at least for this particular cycle, especially if Gen. Kiyani continues the trend removing the officer class from government and the economy. The next major test will be the struggle for power between Sharif and the PPP --- can they cooperate and form some sort of effective accomodation, or will they operate true to form and squabble ineffectively while the country burns?

Pakistanis Deal Severe Defeat to Musharraf in Election (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/world/asia/19pstan.html?hp=&pagewanted=print)- NYTIMES, 19 Feb.

Pakistanis dealt a crushing defeat to President Pervez Musharraf (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/pervez_musharraf/index.html?inline=nyt-per) in parliamentary elections on Monday, in what government and opposition politicians said was a firm rejection of his policies since 2001 and those of his close ally, the United States.

Almost all the leading figures in the Pakistan Muslim League-Q, the party that has governed for the last five years under Mr. Musharraf, lost their seats, including the leader of the party, the former speaker of Parliament and six ministers.

Official results are expected Tuesday, but early returns indicated that the vote would usher in a prime minister from one of the opposition parties, and opened the prospect of a Parliament that would move to undo many of Mr. Musharraf’s policies and that may even try to remove him.

Early results showed equal gains for the Pakistan Peoples Party, whose leader, Benazir Bhutto (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/benazir_bhutto/index.html?inline=nyt-per), was assassinated on Dec. 27, and the Pakistan Muslim League-N, the faction led by Nawaz Sharif (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/nawaz_sharif/index.html?inline=nyt-per), like Ms. Bhutto a former prime minister. Each party may be in a position to form the next government.

The results were interpreted here as a repudiation of Mr. Musharraf as well as the Bush administration, which has staunchly backed him for more than six years as its best bet in the campaign against the Islamic militants in Pakistan. American officials will have little choice now but to seek alternative allies from among the new political forces emerging from the vote ...

Added:

PML-Q concedes defeat (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PAKISTAN_ELECTION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-02-19-05-26-27).

Pakistan's ruling party conceded defeat Tuesday after opposition parties routed allies of President Pervez Musharraf in parliamentary elections that could threaten the rule of America's close ally in the war on terror.

Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, head of the Pakistan Muslim League-Q, told AP Television News that "we accept the results with an open heart" and "will sit on opposition benches" in the new parliament."

"All the King's men, gone!" proclaimed a banner headline in the Daily Times. "Heavyweights knocked out," read the Dawn newspaper ...

davidbfpo

02-19-2008, 11:50 AM

From the CEIP transcript and the chair's final comments:

'Both speakers, I think, made a very compelling case that Pakistani politics is going to remain uncertain and possibly unsettled irrespective of how these elections come out. And if that is the case - and I believe that to be true – then I think General Kayani is going to be faced with some very interesting dilemmas, which is to what degree can he implement his vision for a gradual Pakistani military disengagement from matters of governance and matters of state because the argument has always been that the incentives for the military to intervene are either formally or informally in Pakistani politics always rise with the degree of confusion or the degree of excessive competition. And so, this is one thought that I think is worth pondering.

The second is that there also seems to be a general sense that Pakistan is – at least, the Pakistani people seem to be tiring of the counterterrorism operations that are currently underway. And this is obviously a complex business and whether they believe that this is Pakistan’s war is still, in a sense, an open question. And again, I think this points to a second
set of dilemmas. That is, at a time when the U.S. is leaning hard on the Pakistan army and particularly General Kayani to do more as the phrase often goes, how does General Kayani navigate between these competing pressures of exhaustion, tiredness, a desire for disengagement from within and continuing pressures from above?

I suspect these wil be the issues on which we will have many more opportunities to reflect, particularly after the election results are out'.

davidbfpo

Ron Humphrey

02-20-2008, 02:51 AM

Can't remember who it was Plato, Aristotle, or one of those guys talked about societies going through phases (dictatorships, autocracies, democracies, etc)

Which one do we see Pakistan in and will it follow the patterns he spoke of?

davidbfpo

03-06-2008, 11:39 AM

There are numerous threads on Pakistan, especially since President Musharraf declared a State of Emergency and Ms Bhutto was murdered. I thought it time to start a new thread whether the national parliamentary elections mark a new start for Pakistan.

There have been many editorials and analytical pieces on Pakistan, some of which have appeared on SWJ Blog.

No-one doubts the crucial role of Pakistan and yesterday a retired Pakistan Air Force officer stated 'Pakistan is the eye of the storm in international terrorism'.

I am no expert on Pakistan, but I do watch it closely. For the UK Pakistan is very much the "eye".

davidbfpo

davidbfpo

03-06-2008, 12:13 PM

The International Crisis Group's resident analyst in Islamabad, at a meeting in London recently took an optimistic view.

Militancy has been spreading since 2002, as space was ceded to them by the state and the absence of active secular parties. The "Mullah" parties lost support, note some stood and otehrs boycotted the election, as unlike recent elections this was free and fair on the day. Observers had noted pre-vote rigging and ex-ISI officers now admit the '98 & '02 elections were rigged.

Note whilst the election had a low turnout (32% is the figure I recall), in NW Frontier Province there was a 46% turnout (where a "Mullah" party had been in power and lost control of the provincial government).

The crisis of governance in Pakistan, with the State of Emergency and rising political violence, had been contained by the election and the militants had been defeated at the ballot box. I especially liked the phrase "Suicide attcaks do not win hearts and minds".

Poloitical agreement was needed (still undecided today) on the supremacy of parliament, constitutional democracy - with the Presidents power to dismiss governments removed and resoring judicial independence.

There was no a clear national will - shared by the public and parties - and a legitimacy to tackle extremism; all parties recognised the need for stability.

The role of the US & UK post-election was being criticised in the local press as de-stabilising and interfering with the political process. The same people, I expect this meant diplomats, had only weeks ago been working with President Musharraf and the army - who had not supported democracy till the very end.

The transition to democracy would be a "bumpy ride".

davidbfpo

03-06-2008, 12:36 PM

Yesterday in London a retired senior Pakistani Air Force spoke to a small meeting on The Talibanisation of Pakistan. He had a different view compared to the ICG analyst, but was also optimistic.

Pakistan had a pluralist tradition since independence and 99% of the population is "moderate" who reject extremism. 'A nation makes war and the election is a good sign. We cannot alone foot the bill'.

It was vital to drop the phrase 'Islamic terrorism', this phrase infuriates many and assist AQ's ideology. To identify and reduce the root causes, there was no military soloution - that does not win minds. 'The Army is not short of resolve, it is ready to do it's job and is doing it' (numerous threads comment on this and would be sceptical on this). Grasping history and language was necessary.

The blame for extremism could be attributed to the Afghan War, against the Soviets, when the USA 'created the monster of extremism and then walked away' (a point few outside Pakistan I'd expect to agree with).

There were 100 AQ leaders in Pakistan and 5000 Taliban fighters who crossed the porous boder into Afghanistan' by implication from sanctuaries in Pakistan.

Six steps were outlined:

1) The US / UK must not send troops across the border
2) Appreciate the Pakistan Army is involved in a bloody conflict, with 1k dead
3) The collateral damage from bombing no longer just had a local impact
4) Pluralism is needed by Pakistan (as envisaged by it's founders)
5) Pre-emption is only a tactic
6) The roots causes include resolving the Palestine question

davidbfpo

davidbfpo

03-06-2008, 01:42 PM

Eight page open sourced report on militancy in NWFP and FATA on this link:
http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/nefapakanalysis0308.pdf

(Not sure about NEFA's bona fides, although some contributors are credible).

davidbfpo

davidbfpo

03-23-2008, 10:32 PM

Taken from http://counterterrorismblog.org and by a respected analyst, Farhana Ali, under the headline Congressional Briefing: Where is Pakistan Heading?

Excellent review and challenges spending US$ millions on development and military aid in NWFP. Interestingly advocates, if not reveals, the work of a US NGO in the area.

davidbfpo

davidbfpo

04-02-2008, 05:34 PM

Under the headline A Balancing Act in Pakistan

The new government in Islamabad has wasted little time making clear its disapproval of Washington's policy toward Pakistan and its strategy on counterterrorism. The visit by two top U.S. State Department officials on the same day the new Pakistani prime minister was sworn in was widely criticized in Pakistan. New York Times correspondent Jane Perlez writes that the three-day trip by Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte "turned out to be [a] series of indignities and chilly, almost hostile, receptions," signaling challenges ahead in engaging Pakistan's newly elected government.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/a_balancing_act_in_pakistan.html

davidbfpo

Steve Blair

04-04-2008, 01:17 PM

Thanks for keeping us updated on this stuff.

Ray

04-04-2008, 06:41 PM

If one goes by the events and news, it is too early to know exactly how things will pan out.

The visit of Negroponte on the day the Prime Minister was being sworn in has not gone down well with the Pakistan people of the media. It appeared as if the US was there to dictate terms and was in the 'driver's seat'.

The PM, Gilani said, after a gap of some days, that terrorists will be taken to task, but had a rider that he would be ready to talk to them!

Musharraf was more categorical and uncompromising.

Nawaz Sharif is known to be with the Islamists and more so, having lived in exile in Saudi Arabia, the home of Wahaabism!!

Therefore, the power centres are in contradictory voices.

Musharraf's position is shaky.

Gilani cannot survive without Nawaz Sharif's Support.

And Nawaz Sharif is no friend of the WoT.

Therefore, one has to wait and watch.

tequila

04-04-2008, 09:13 PM

Musharraf was more categorical and uncompromising.

I find this one dubious. I think Musharraf and the ISI viewed the militants with a discriminating eye - some had to be killed, but others could still be useful. Certainly many in Baluchistan and the NWFP believed that the ISI still maintained relationships with several violent Islamist groups in those areas.

Ray

04-05-2008, 06:36 PM

I find this one dubious. I think Musharraf and the ISI viewed the militants with a discriminating eye - some had to be killed, but others could still be useful. Certainly many in Baluchistan and the NWFP believed that the ISI still maintained relationships with several violent Islamist groups in those areas.

All govt keep their options open and Musharraf would be no exception.

Intelligence agencies too have to keep their options open. After all, information is paramount for policy makers!

What I meant was the public face and we must give him his due - he did make pronouncements that did not endear him to the Moslem people of Pakistan, The election is the indicator.

Any other in Pakistan would have played to the gallery!

Of course, at the same time, one has to admit that he had compulsions - rid Pakistan of the label of being a rogue state, bring the economy to a level worth reckoning, get Pakistan acceptable in the comity of nations, bring the heat in the neighbourhood a notch lower!

The elections in Pakistan has indicated that Islam is stronger than the good brought about in Pakistan by Musharraf.

davidbfpo

04-05-2008, 10:36 PM

Posted on http://www.pakistanpolicy.com and citing http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/03/AR2008040304029_pf.html

“Collaboration is growing between Taliban commanders in Afghanistan such as Haqqani, who has tribal roots in Paktika province, and Pakistanis such as Baitullah Mehsud, a commander in South Waziristan who is reorganizing the Taliban with help from agents in Pakistan’s intelligence service, according to U.S. military officials. Mehsud, the CIA has said, is responsible for the assassination of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto in December.”

This suggests we are back again to the policy of Musharraf - stop and go (as I've termed the policy before). I accept there could be other explanations, for example a new government's inability to control ISI actions.

davidbfpo

davidbfpo

04-05-2008, 10:42 PM

Nawaz Sharif is known to be with the Islamists and more so, having lived in exile in Saudi Arabia, the home of Wahaabism!! And Nawaz Sharif is no friend of the WoT. Therefore, one has to wait and watch.

Ray,

I know one London based analyst, who stated before the changes in Pakistan since late 2007, that Sharif would pursue a 'more nuanced policy on the GWOT and better serve Pakistani interests'.

Secondly, there are few, if any comments on the Saudi gopvernments policy on Pakistan (a major gap in all the analysis I've seen).

Third, Sharif is often described as a secular politician in the West. Is that a mistake?

davidbfpo

Ray

04-06-2008, 05:19 AM

AFAIK, Sharif is a neutral person in so far as jingoism as a policy is concerned.

However, one does not know how far has Saudi Arabia influenced him.

Further, the environment has changed drastically from the time he was the PM. There are too many contradictory issues in Pakistan that have to be resolved and which defies resolution given the anti US and pro Islam sentiment that is manifesting itself there.

bourbon

04-06-2008, 07:37 AM

Ray,please help me to better understand the points you are making:

What I meant was the public face and we must give him his due - he did make pronouncements that did not endear him to the Moslem people of Pakistan, The election is the indicator.
What pronouncements are you speaking of? How did it not endear him to the "Moslem people of Pakistan"? (Btw, isn't "Moslem people of Pakistan" a redundant term?) How is the election the indicator?

The elections in Pakistan has indicated that Islam is stronger than the good brought about in Pakistan by Musharraf.
How so? What is the Islamic voting block that defeated Musharraf?

Further, the environment has changed drastically from the time he was the PM. There are too many contradictory issues in Pakistan that have to be resolved and which defies resolution given the anti US and pro Islam sentiment that is manifesting itself there.
Please elaborate on this. What is the pro Islam sentiment that is manifesting itself there?

Don’t get me wrong, I have a cynical realist affinity for strongmen, warlords, and dictators. But that’s all predicated upon said strongman/warlord/dictators ability to advance the national interest of the United States, instead of goat-rope it.

Ray

04-06-2008, 10:42 AM

[QUOTE=bourbon;44090]Ray,please help me to better understand the points you are making:

What pronouncements are you speaking of? How did it not endear him to the "Moslem people of Pakistan"? (Btw, isn't "Moslem people of Pakistan" a redundant term?) How is the election the indicator?

Pakistan has minorities and so I emphasised the Moslem aspect.

He has over the years tried to rationalise Islam in the internationally accepted context. That has not gone down well. Pakistan has benefited immensely under Musharraf. It surfaced from nearly being declared a rogue state and got accepted in the comity of nations, it survived from being a failed state and what is important is that it got military hardware for its strategic requirements beyond being anti terrorist oriented and most importantly, with IMF, WB and US economic assistance it revived its economy. All thanks to Musharraf pragmatism. And yet his Kings Party was humiliated!! All because he was seen as assisting forces which were anti Islam as his effort in the WOT that allowed, as the Pakistanis perceived, as a free run for the US!!

How so? What is the Islamic voting block that defeated Musharraf?

It does not mean the fundamentalists. It means that Islam is the core of Pakistani society. They perceived the assistance to the US as anti Islam, wherein not only Islamic forces were battled by the govt, but also Islam ideals were relegated to kowtow to non Islamic pressures in the WoT.

Please elaborate on this. What is the pro Islam sentiment that is manifesting itself there?

Superficially it is not apparent. However, the a study of the Pakistani media, especially the vernacular media would indicate the anger of the average Pakistani who feel that they are sold out.

One may like to visit
http://www.defence.pk/forums/index.php
where apparently educated Pakistanis post.

bourbon

04-06-2008, 10:43 PM

Ray, thank you for elaborating, I can better understand the points you are advancing.

That said, while I agree with the arguments you make about some of the advances and benefits brought to Pakistan under Musharraf, we differ in our perspective on it.

Pakistan’s newest ambassador at-large (and some say soon to be ambassador to Washington) told me anecdote that has greatly influenced my perspective on the matter, and I think illustrates Musharraf's thinking on the matter. I am paraphrasing the story here, so the details will probably differ but the moral of the story remains.

It’s a story about a man who is hired to guard the village mill by killing the rats that are raiding the grain. He had been out of a job for some time but is now making good money and can provide for his family and clan. One day his buddy visits him on the job, and asks him how the new gig is going. They chit-chat for awhile, and soon the visitor asks the guard why he didn’t just kill the three rats who are raiding the grain. The guard calmly turns to him and retorts: “Why would I want to put myself out of a job, by killing off all the rats?”

This is perspective was completely counterintuitive to everything I had been taught in life. But I think it offers a conceptualization whereby we can see where Musharraf’s incentives lay. As Tequila notes, Musharraf and the ISI, as have most Pakistani administrations, have found militants to be useful at times. So the historical precedent lay, and good evidence remain that they have not abandoned this paradigm.

Post 9/11 the United States undertook a campaign of promoting democracy throughout the world. This policy was an affront to Musharraf and the military’s control of the country. The incentive lay for them to promote Musharraf as sole bulwark standing against militant control of the country and its nukes. At the same time U.S. cash flowed into Pakistan creating the economic expansion you noted. Memory remains of similar aide and its economic benefits in the 1980’s, as does the memory of how quickly it stopped flowing once the Soviet threat disappeared and the economic doldrums of the 1990’s that ensued.

Why kill all the rats?

Ray

04-07-2008, 05:59 AM

Ron Humphrey

04-07-2008, 03:49 PM

Very precise is the analogy. No quibbles on that.

That is exactly what he was doing - running with the hares and hunting with the hounds and it was not giving the desired results as far as the WoT was concerned.

However, from the Pakistani point of view, he did raise a failed state to a worthwhile status.

The point that one should bear in mind is as to why Musharraf is more useful than the elected leaders. Musharraf's existence was totally at the munificience of the US. Thus, he had to operate within the paradigm allowed!

The elected leaders are not beholden to the US and instead will have to play to the gallery and the gallery is not with the West.

To bring these elected leaders to heel will require a far greater an effort than what was necessary to rein in Musharraf.

But then, I could be wrong!

I do think however that there is also the paradigm shift on our side, which is to say now that you have been elected deal with the problem. If not it can be dealt with for you.

For every change there is a balance shift and if a new Pakistani government chooses not to address considerations which a lot more countries than the US are concerned about then they may find that the pressures they face will be much different than those Musharraf did.

What those might be or how they happen really are dependant on the soveriegn governments decisions and actions. I'd say the balls literally in their court and all the other players are already warmed up.

It could be interesting.

Ray

04-07-2008, 05:36 PM

[QUOTE=Ron Humphrey;44172]I do think however that there is also the paradigm shift on our side, which is to say now that you have been elected deal with the problem. If not it can be dealt with for you.

Do forgive me, but that is where is the disconnect of the western way of thinking and the Oriental one.

True there is election and a coalition of convergent party is in power. But, will they accept that the problem is of their won creation? They will consider it as US bequeathed! Therefore, while they are ready to assist, the problem, as far as they are concerned is that of the US and they are the sufferers!

For every change there is a balance shift and if a new Pakistani government chooses not to address considerations which a lot more countries than the US are concerned about then they may find that the pressures they face will be much different than those Musharraf did.

Given the situation, the ISAF has more to lose than the Pakistan. The pressure will be the same since nothing extraordinary has been done for Afghanistan to change the equation! The promised financial boost is yet to materialise!

Ron Humphrey

04-07-2008, 05:54 PM

[QUOTE]

Do forgive me, but that is where is the disconnect of the western way of thinking and the Oriental one.

True there is election and a coalition of convergent party is in power. But, will they accept that the problem is of their won creation? They will consider it as US bequeathed! Therefore, while they are ready to assist, the problem, as far as they are concerned is that of the US and they are the sufferers!

This was exactly what I was trying to get at. The reality that it is a disconnect between ways of thinking will not unfortunately mean that that won't be the thinking anyway. At least from many of the areas where that thinking comes out in the public sector.

This would or will bring out the second issue you described. It is at that point I think the shift may take place. Unlike the devisiveness of the Iraq war in the political realm almost noone within the political or public realm in the west disagrees with operations needing to be conducted in Afghanistan. I mean after all that's where OB and Zawahiri are, right. Thus the pressure change in that I don't see the lack of popular support for dealing with AQ and the Taliban and thus the expectation for the new Pakistani government to do something besides say (Not our Problem).

Seeing as it won't be their fault would it follow that they wouldn't have to fear the same popular backlash and as such should we go ahead and take care of the problem we "caused":confused:

Ray

04-08-2008, 09:03 AM

tequila

04-08-2008, 09:40 AM

I have to argue that this analysis sounds quite reductionist at its heart.

One has to understand the Islamic mindset. Unlike other people, Moslems think that their loyalty is first to Islam and then to the nation. This is a singular and powerful difference from the mindset of the rest of the world. That is why the issue of the ummah and the Caliphate keeps re-surfacing regularly.

Nationalism is a rather recent phenomenon in world history and was brought as a Western import to South Asia. India and Pakistan did not exist as nations before 1947, and indeed most postcolonial countries have struggled with continuing issues of nationalism vs. older identities. India, for instance, still struggles with numerous insurgencies that appeal to just such identities.

As for the idea of the ummah and the Caliphate, I'd argue that the former has more weight than the latter, which has not existed in a coherent political form since 820 or so. The lack of such unity indicates the relative strength of religious identity alone as an indicator of political identity.

In fact, one Pakistani lamented soon after the London carnage as to why Pakistani boys (British born) prefer to wear Arabic clothes in preference to the accepted Pakistani men’s wear! But then, such Pakistanis, as the one who lamented, are rare! It indicates the overpowering influence of Arabia on the mindset.

Every Pakistani man in my neighborhood wears Pakistani clothes at home. I'd wager this is the case for most Pakistanis in Pakistan as well. If you have any hard data on this, I'd like to see it.

It is also common to find Pakistanis, including in the educated and literary realm, rejecting history and reinventing the same to reengineer a new identity shorn of the ancient history! There is a definite desire to align itself with the origins of Islam, the deserts of Arabia is preferred to the bounties of a green Pakistan! Odd, but the lure of being ‘pure’ is a very strong emotion that underlines the Islamic existence!

Invented histories invoking ancient glories are not isolated to Muslim Pakistanis. Indeed, the seeking of specious connections to one's religious antecedents has a long history in non-Muslim countries. The Crusades could be seen as a form of this. Also it's doubtful that Jesus was as paleskinned as this guy, but yet this is the most common image of him as propagated by Western artists (he probably looked a lot more like this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bf/RFJesus.jpg)):

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/CLI/R40~Jesus-Christ-Posters.jpg

Ray

04-08-2008, 10:28 AM

I have to argue that this analysis sounds quite reductionist at its heart.

Nationalism is a rather recent phenomenon in world history and was brought as a Western import to South Asia. India and Pakistan did not exist as nations before 1947, and indeed most postcolonial countries have struggled with continuing issues of nationalism vs. older identities. India, for instance, still struggles with numerous insurgencies that appeal to just such identities.
Nationalism is not new to Asia or is it? Sub continental history, I believe does indicate nationalism as also sub nationalism. That is as far as I know.

Insurgencies have nothing to do with such simplistic reasoning as nationalism. It is more complex than that. To wit, religion, economic health etc. It is a subject by itself. For the Westerner, let us ask if the Israeli Palestine conflict only about nationalities?

As for the idea of the ummah and the Caliphate, I'd argue that the former has more weight than the latter, which has not existed in a coherent political form since 820 or so. The lack of such unity indicates the relative strength of religious identity alone as an indicator of political identity.

Every Pakistani man in my neighborhood wears Pakistani clothes at home. I'd wager this is the case for most Pakistanis in Pakistan as well. If you have any hard data on this, I'd like to see it.
I quoted a Pakistan who felt otherwise. What is the men's wear they wear? I have also seen the comment from Lahori from WAB. Do search it out! I am not here to change you opinion. I just wrote what I know and heard. If you are a Pakistan, I am sure you will know better about Pakistanis in the UK.

Invented histories invoking ancient glories are not isolated to Muslim Pakistanis. Indeed, the seeking of specious connections to one's religious antecedents has a long history in non-Muslim countries. The Crusades could be seen as a form of this. Also it's doubtful that Jesus was as paleskinned as this guy, but yet this is the most common image of him as propagated by Western artists (he probably looked a lot more like this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bf/RFJesus.jpg)).
If you think I have hurt you, that was not my intention.

But do let me know if there was anything called Pakistan in history before 1947 or was there any history that is singularly different from the annals of history that was taught during the British Raj?

If you are a Pakistani, say so, so that I can be clearer knowing that you will understand the issues more lucidly.

tequila

04-08-2008, 11:04 AM

Nationalism is not new to Asia or is it? Sub continental history, I believe does indicate nationalism as also sub nationalism. That is as far as I know.

My position is that it is relatively new. Modern nationalism only really took hold as a political phenomenon in most Asian countries in the 19th century. Modern nationalist mass movements arose only in the 20th.

Insurgencies have nothing to do with such simplistic reasoning as nationalism. It is more complex than that. To wit, religion, economic health etc.

I agree - indeed, that is largely my point. To say that only Muslims ("unlike other people") have some sort of befuddled loyalty to religion first, then nation ignores the fact that almost everyone has mutiple, competing identities that often subsume loyalty to nation to other needs. My old football coach used to end every practice with a prayer, where he intoned "God first, then family, then country." Oddly this gentleman was not Muslim - he was a Presbyterian WASP.

But do let me know if there was anything called Pakistan in history before 1947 or was there any history that is singularly different from the annals of history that was taught during the British Raj?

Was there a unified nation called India in history before 1947? I know for a fact that the history taught in India nowadays differs from what was taught during the Raj, and that this is a matter of some controversy (http://www.iht.com/articles/2002/10/15/rhindu_ed3_.php).

And no, you have not hurt me, don't worry. :D I'm not Pakistani, nor Muslim, nor of subcontinental descent, as if that matters. You'd be better off just addressing my arguments.

Ron Humphrey

04-08-2008, 05:50 PM

RAY,

One might perhaps listen to what our esteemed Senator Bayh had to ask today at the briefings:(

Ray

04-08-2008, 06:04 PM

The idea of Nationalism and sub national pining is not new to Indian history. A study of Indian history would indicate that it manifests itself even in the modern context and has foundation. However, it is a truism that political India as it is today, was but an entity only after the British arrived. And independence, carved out another country – Pakistan!

It may not lead to correct conclusions if one was to confine one concept to nationalism to the period of the British Raj merely because one understands it better.

The present mindset, in both India and Pakistan does draw heavily upon ancient history as motivators for present problems that embarrass both countries as weak and beyond redemption. That is why, there is the rise of the ultra conservative elements in both India and Pakistan. And that aspect does impinge upon the political thinking and actions of the people of India and Pakistan. The terrorist influx into India, well before 9/11, has sadly weaned many a secular Indian to veer on ultra nationalism, fortunately not in the violent way of a jihad. I cannot comment on Pakistan in the context of their apprehension that the US is hell bent in making it a vassal state. Personally, I feel that that has a tinge of paranoia!

Therefore, to ignore the same and confine oneself to modern history alone would be an error.

One has to understand the interplay of history, ancient and modern, and the craving to find respectability after years of colonialism to rid the guilt of being impotent to remove the feeling of a second class citizen of one’s own land. This aspect cannot be ignored. A self flagellation, if you will! Self pity is a very strong emotion!!

In it lies the verity of why the evil of terrorism find respectability amongst a large majority in Pakistan. It is their subconscious that imagines that it is time for rectification of their previous impotence to fight the earlier enslavement!

It maybe flawed when viewed in the realpolitk realm, but it is real!

In so far as religion goes and that some feel that religion comes first, apart from Moslems, I would not really know. But having seen the cross section of Indian society, the vast majority does not care a fig about religion. And instead, do put their country above religion since the workings of the country affects their lives more intimately than religion. Religion cannot fill the stomach, but a country’s policies do! Religion is taken to be for inner peace while the external peace is left to the govt.

One example of a WASP would not make a summer. But, as far as Islam goes, it does claim Dar ul Islam is the panacea for all ills of the world and the Moslems do believe in that. New religions seem to be more exuberant. Possibly there is the urgency to make a stamp on the world to say that they too exist! It would do wonders if one watches QTV (Quaran TV) to understand Islam! However, a word of caution. One must know Islam or else one could add to their numbers. Very convincing and very powerful!

Saying a prayer is not a stamp of religious supremacy or that one’s religion is the sole religion. It is merely an action to rejuvenate the soul and the resolve, and so it is not usual that your coach ended sessions with a prayer. Though it appears irrational, religion does actually gives one that extra 'oomph' when faced with the impossible!

I know for a fact that when I was in school, I read Indian history and British history too and all was well! And yet today, there is a huge controversy of Indian history in India since it is believed that Left wing historians have hijacked the issue. It has more to do with politics than history since the Moslems who are a huge vote bank in India and can change political fortunes have to be appeased! However, it is still not tweaked to make it appear totally different from the history taught earlier.

It maybe worth your while to read Pakistan's Sustainable Development Policy Institute’s study on “The State of Curricula and Textbooks” and “Re-writing the History of Pakistan, in Islam, Politics and the State: The Pakistan Experience”, to realise the extent history has been turned on its head in Pakistan and how Islam and injustices done to it, has been ingrained in developing minds.

Here again is an indication of how the West is catching the Bull, not by the horns, but by something else! The West is fretting over madrassas. If the complete education system is geared to sing paeans to Islam and its supremacy over other religions and the injustice done to them, then why only blame the madrassas?!

The whole system is convinced that Islam has got the wrong end of the stick and everyone else is to blame for the same!

This aspect has to be kept in mind before cranking in West driven solutions into Pakistan.

Ray

04-08-2008, 07:02 PM

Sift the garbage from this link and then see the sentiments

http://www.defence.pk/forums/strategic-geopolitical-issues/10812-americans-attack-fata-if-musharraf-steps-down.html

In fact, check the forum and observe how everything and every action seems to find a solution in Islam and ummah!

Unbelievable that such an abstract thing as religion can be taken as a panacea for all ills over economic and realpolitik!

Ron Humphrey

04-08-2008, 07:28 PM

Unbelievable that such an abstract thing as religion can be taken as a panacea for all ills over economic and realpolitik!

Understanding that sentiment is it actually so hard to identify with the fact that individuals always deal with much of their own lives in a manner reflective as to how it affects their spirit. In otherwords whether one ascribes to any given faith or even the existance of faith the reality remains that most anyone we might meet throughout this world will have something which guides them that can not be given a physical form but rather is simply the way it is :for them.

This is where I can buy what you say about misinterpretation of one group by others and the subsequent issues that arise. If as you say there is a large element on self-pity or I might even say victimization of those within countries such as Pakistan or Afghanistan Then does it not naturally follow the a large part of how this must be addressed in the arena of emotion/thought (spirit). And does that not generally point out the role that much of the current religious role played by certain factions have focused on using.

People always look for answers somewhere and they always seek out that which comports most with what they want to think but does it really mean they are impossible to address in other ways as well. Especially if one manages to slightly adjust the paradigm within which they find themselves.

Ray

04-08-2008, 07:46 PM

No, it is not impossive to address the others' misconceptions and fears.

One has to be educated enough of the sensibility and apprehensions of those who have to be placated.

Ron Humphrey

04-08-2008, 08:35 PM

No, it is not impossible to address the others' misconceptions and fears.

One has to be educated enough of the sensibility and apprehensions of those who have to be placated.

The question is how those who approach it feel as to their abilities to understand vs what those they are addressing think about those abilities.

On another note just in case there happen to be any pols hanging out please pass on that this:

This was exactly what I was trying to get at. The reality that it is a disconnect between ways of thinking will not unfortunately mean that that won't be the thinking anyway. At least from many of the areas where that thinking comes out in the public sector.

This would or will bring out the second issue you described. It is at that point I think the shift may take place. Unlike the devisiveness of the Iraq war in the political realm almost noone within the political or public realm in the west disagrees with operations needing to be conducted in Afghanistan. I mean after all that's where OB and Zawahiri are, right. Thus the pressure change in that I don't see the lack of popular support for dealing with AQ and the Taliban and thus the expectation for the new Pakistani government to do something besides say (Not our Problem). (emphasis added)

Seeing as it won't be their fault would it follow that they wouldn't have to fear the same popular backlash and as such should we go ahead and take care of the problem we "caused":confused:

Was not a suggestion and definately not a good idea

S-2

04-09-2008, 01:30 AM

Brigadier,

"It is at that point I think the shift may take place. Unlike the devisiveness of the Iraq war in the political realm almost noone within the political or public realm in the west disagrees with operations needing to be conducted in Afghanistan. I mean after all that's where OB and Zawahiri are, right."

Ron Humphrey raises an interesting and reasonably accurate conclusion, at least in America, WRT Afghanistan vs. Iraq. Usually the key way to approach this is to ask a question about GWB. The knee-jerk response will invariably be about Iraq. Afghanistan is a liberal afterthought hesitantly broached, if at all. I don't know that there's strong support for OEF within our citizenry, but there's absolutely less friction directed against it.

"Seeing as it won't be their fault would it follow that they wouldn't have to fear the same popular backlash and as such should we go ahead and take care of the problem we "caused"

I'm grateful, Ron, that you don't actually wish to unilaterally resolve Pakistan's identity crisis...along w/ their raging insurgency.:D

Pakistanis need to "find themselves" first.

"If as you say there is a large element on self-pity or I might even say victimization of those within countries such as Pakistan or Afghanistan..."

Pakistani defense chat rooms will generally verify this in only a brief stroll.

"...Then does it not naturally follow the a large part of how this must be addressed in the arena of emotion/thought (spirit). And does that not generally point out the role that much of the current religious role played by certain factions have focused on using."

Ron, could you elaborate a bit on this here? I'm a bit unclear on your point. Thanks.

Ron Humphrey

04-09-2008, 04:01 AM

I'm grateful, Ron, that you don't actually wish to unilaterally resolve Pakistan's identity crisis...along w/ their raging insurgency.:D

Pakistanis need to "find themselves" first.

Agreed 120 % provided the understanding that the do nothing about it approach isn't the counter option. Must be a balanced and nuanced approach

They will have a hard time getting through some of whats going on but it never hurts to lend a helping hand when called upon. Especially if its in one's own interests to do so.

"...Then does it not naturally follow the a large part of how this must be addressed in the arena of emotion/thought (spirit). And does that not generally point out the role that much of the current religious role played by certain factions have focused on using."

Ron, could you elaborate a bit on this here? I'm a bit unclear on your point. Thanks.

I will give my best shot:wry:

At the base of it is somewhat of a psychological approach to cause and effect. The reference to spirit or emotion or whatever one might call it (the intangibles) is simply a direction from which to approach the real issues which must be taken into account. Know your enemy, know yourself, know the populous and be willing to look at the areas you may not be comfortable addressing out loud because more likely than not they will be the ones the enemy chooses to use.

If hearts and minds can be loosely attached to spirituality for the purposes of analysis the can we accept that the conditions which most humans look to faith for are those for which there are no readily available answers. Dreams, aspirations, disappointments, anger,frustration, etc. These are things we all deal with every day of our lives and for many the choice to look to their faith for guidance is a large part of what helps them get through the day.

I propose that Fundamentalist in any form look to those facets within their particular faith which can allow them almost completely intangible bonds with the followers which they then manipulate in order to create more tangible bonds. Consider Stockholm syndrome but rather than taking the individuals hostage they in essence create the same type of association with their converts through these other methods.

In order to counter this type of thing it seems reasonable that one must consider which of the aspects of the faith have been hijacked and seek out the more base truths within that Faith to counter it. This is where the extremist greatest weakness is to be found as they have necessarily skewed that which they say they represent in order to accomplish their intended goals. The toughest thing to get across to many is simply that for most of these movements they lost the war the moment they crossed that line but there are so many battles going on many on the outside don't see it.

That's not a question of if but rather when. The larger any movement they build becomes the more it will come in confrontation with not only other societies and cultures but even within the very cultures its seeks to represent. Devout students of their faith will see it for what it is and fight it in their own ways. Eventually they weaken it to a point at which it no longer presents quite the threat it once did.

That said if left to its own devices it can and has been so determined in its orientation that for a while it may overwhelm or even eliminate those who seek to stand in its way. That probably works a lot better in more tribal societies with middle-eastern constructs then it would or does in western and even possibly Asian countries.

When we entered the picture large scale it forced them to adjust to new paradigms where simple assassinations, buy offs, marriages, etc just don't cut the mustard. In order to maintain their base they have had to grow it as well as join with any one else they could find who wants to fight. This has however cost them much more than they would like to admit as so many of those with whom they have aligned had agendas which were very apparent. This in turn brought them more attention from the larger religious base than they could really afford. Add in such friendly faces like Zarqawi who liked killing so much he could have been nominated for Psycho of the year and now things aren't quite as rosy as they were before.

Finally add in the those darn westerners who not only didn't leave after coming over but are actually working hard at helping the populous they need as recruits to find ways within their societies to build new ways of life and that includes the opportunities to be more educated in Faith and thus less likely to be as easily swayed by previously successful methods of manipulation. All in all not good for them and much better for all others effected.

The approaches to battle are always much clearer than the wars themselves and in this it just seems prudent to not leave any part of whats behind the scenes completely out of the planning.

I know I probably just made it less clear and more than likely vastly over simplified much of it but as one has to start somewhere I tried.:o

Ray

04-09-2008, 09:05 AM

Ron,

It appears that I have not been able to grasp what you want to convey. I apologise for the same.

I wonder if I have been able to explain what I wanted to convey.

My contention is that the current impasse in Afghanistan, merely from the Pakistani point of view (I am not touching on Iraq since it is a separate issue and so is Afghanistan’s approach to the issue), is because Pakistan’s inputs, which is a major player in this, is being looked at with ‘western’ sensibilities. In other words, western values and perceptions are being templated into the mindset of seeking a solution.

I am stating that the influence of Islam in Pakistan is paramount, be it with the govt or with the people. Islam was the raison d’être for the creation of Pakistan and it is the core issue that engines Pakistan and Pakistan politics. Even the issue of Kashmir, which is a territorial question, has Islam as its be all and end all.

Therefore, my contention is that no matter which govt comes, Islam and its interest will not be far behind.

Therefore, there is good reason for understanding how and where Islam works into the Pakistani mindset and to neutralise the same within the govt as also with the people. It requires the West to comprehend and emulate how the Godless Communist China has ingratiated itself with the Pakistani govt and the people.

Some backgrounders:

http://www.twq.com/05winter/docs/05winter_haqqani.pdf

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/7/8/9/0/p178901_index.html

Ron Humphrey

04-09-2008, 01:04 PM

Ron,

It appears that I have not been able to grasp what you want to convey. I apologise for the same.

I wonder if I have been able to explain what I wanted to convey.

[/url]

apologize for having been not quite so clear as I perhaps should have.

I think you may find that we are in agreement for the most part.

The fact that Islam or as I prefer to say Faith(this is because by making this differentiation one might be able to avoid some pre-established prejudices while considering the arguments) is at the base of Pakistani societal interactions and as such must be taken into much greater account when dealing with their government. That said I'm not sure it differs that much in the approaches which must be used in any interactions with foriegn powers.

We have a saying here (It takes one to know one) and this is a truism in my opinion which fits. The only long term solutions for Pakistan and others is from within. That includes not only political but also social issues which must be addressed. If the greater contributing factor to social instability is found to be in power struggles between groups using competing interpretations of Islam and it's fundamentals to support themselves then it seems to make sense that the ultimate change must take form from within those groups.

There must be a definitive demarcation to a more reasonable(taken in the loosest sense) form of faith which allows for governance of said larger society to lead in a more secular less ideologically driven way so as to allow for those within its borders to continue to worship as they wish without necessarily changing the underlying societal norms. This in turn results in various changes such as the more refined study of their given faith for personal growth while at the same time further seperating expectations of the governance to be the arbitor of all that is their faith.

It may seem counter-intuitive but in order to acheive greater freedom for their government to govern they have to stop looking to it for religious guidance as well as become more educated in what they themselves truly believe. Religion must be seperate from government if only because it is only in this manner that it both the church and the state may flourish. The government however has no business in defining the role of religion because this at best engenders nothing less than dictatorship of faith.

The face of any society is it's accepted moree's and this face only change's as those moree's adapt to changing conditions. This and this alone is the area where anyone from the outside can truly have a lasting effect on those societies.

George L. Singleton

04-09-2008, 01:18 PM

Here is an analysis from an Indian think tank as a backgrounder.

PAKISTAN: New Dawn or New Nightmare?
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers27%5Cpaper2609.html

While the West maybe resolved about the issues of Afghanistan, AQ and OBL, it may not be the perception in Pakistan, be it their masses or their political leaders.

One has to understand the Islamic mindset. Unlike other people, Moslems think that their loyalty is first to Islam and then to the nation. This is a singular and powerful difference from the mindset of the rest of the world. That is why the issue of the ummah and the Caliphate keeps re-surfacing regularly. In fact, one Pakistani lamented soon after the London carnage as to why Pakistani boys (British born) prefer to wear Arabic clothes in preference to the accepted Pakistani men’s wear! But then, such Pakistanis, as the one who lamented, are rare! It indicates the overpowering influence of Arabia on the mindset. It is also common to find Pakistanis, including in the educated and literary realm, rejecting history and reinventing the same to reengineer a new identity shorn of the ancient history! There is a definite desire to align itself with the origins of Islam, the deserts of Arabia is preferred to the bounties of a green Pakistan! Odd, but the lure of being ‘pure’ is a very strong emotion that underlines the Islamic existence!

That said, the fact that Moslems are being killed by infidels and even Moslems (Pakistan Army) revolts the Islamic sensibilities. Within that mental makeup, the Pakistani govt has to function, be it Musharraf or the new govt.

Therefore, as I see it, the new govt, in any case is shaky, since there is no clear mandate and cannot be seen to be with the US or the West as their vote base is of the Islamic mindset which is oblivious to realpolitik and are shackled to Islam as the supreme guide.

I am afraid the West has to work the issue of Afghanistan on its own and with help from Pakistan which does not compromise the govt. They will still have to run with the hare and hunt with the hound whether they like it or not, because they require western funds to shore them up as also western weaponry to be able to keep up with India.

Islam has several branches and forms, so there is no single ummah or line of central tendency as some self serving extremist Islamics would have the world believe.

"Economic" Muslims put the wallet first, not Islam. We have a growing number of both Pakistani and Indian "economic Muslims" here in the USA and they like making a profit, having good homes, cars, better educations for their children. Many in fact are at least in part assimilating by marrying Christians even though the original Muslim in the marriage may, in some cases, continue to practice Islam.

The Agha Khan variety of Islam is charity, education, better world health focused and deals heavily in and has become a part of the world's free enterprise system. Yes, they are small compared to other Muslims branches, but they are a good working example of a type of Islam that is not terrorist in slant.

Summaried, your overview to me could have said: The world today is dealing in a religiously focused propaganda war, whether the world wants to admit this more clearly and openly or not. The difference is that civil governments, the US, UK, Germany, France, et al have to fight the propaganda war without stomping on freedom of religion for those who for whatever reason adhere to various varieties and forms of Islam.

I think our civil governments need to focus on freedom of majority Chrisitan religions here not being interfered with by extremist Islamics and their ideology. We can civilly do that without becoming church states, but remaining pluralistic nations open to all religions as long as violence and insurrection is not allowed, ever, by minority religions.

marct

04-09-2008, 02:54 PM

Hi George,

Glad to see you back!

Summaried, your overview to me could have said: The world today is dealing in a religiously focused propaganda war, whether the world wants to admit this more clearly and openly or not. The difference is that civil governments, the US, UK, Germany, France, et al have to fight the propaganda war without stomping on freedom of religion for those who for whatever reason adhere to various varieties and forms of Islam.

Or any other religion. Setting it up as solely being freedom of religion in a Christian-Islam context is dangerous since it implies a dichotomy rather than a multiplicity (FYI - here's the 2001 census breakdown of religion for Canada (http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo30a.htm) - possibly misleading unless you read the definitions).

I think our civil governments need to focus on freedom of majority Chrisitan religions here not being interfered with by extremist Islamics and their ideology. We can civilly do that without becoming church states, but remaining pluralistic nations open to all religions as long as violence and insurrection is not allowed, ever, by minority religions.

But you are already implying a church state in the way you construct that argument. Freedom of Religion is like pregnancy - you can be a little bit free (or pregnant). Interference in the non-harmful practice of any religion by any group of extremists - Muslim, Jewish or Christian - should be the guiding principle rather than merely catering to the majority de jour.

Marc

Ray

04-09-2008, 04:23 PM

apologize for having been not quite so clear as I perhaps should have.

I think you may find that we are in agreement for the most part.

The fact that Islam or as I prefer to say Faith(this is because by making this differentiation one might be able to avoid some pre-established prejudices while considering the arguments) is at the base of Pakistani societal interactions and as such must be taken into much greater account when dealing with their government. That said I'm not sure it differs that much in the approaches which must be used in any interactions with foriegn powers.

We have a saying here (It takes one to know one) and this is a truism in my opinion which fits. The only long term solutions for Pakistan and others is from within. That includes not only political but also social issues which must be addressed. If the greater contributing factor to social instability is found to be in power struggles between groups using competing interpretations of Islam and it's fundamentals to support themselves then it seems to make sense that the ultimate change must take form from within those groups.

There must be a definitive demarcation to a more reasonable(taken in the loosest sense) form of faith which allows for governance of said larger society to lead in a more secular less ideologically driven way so as to allow for those within its borders to continue to worship as they wish without necessarily changing the underlying societal norms. This in turn results in various changes such as the more refined study of their given faith for personal growth while at the same time further seperating expectations of the governance to be the arbitor of all that is their faith.

It may seem counter-intuitive but in order to acheive greater freedom for their government to govern they have to stop looking to it for religious guidance as well as become more educated in what they themselves truly believe. Religion must be seperate from government if only because it is only in this manner that it both the church and the state may flourish. The government however has no business in defining the role of religion because this at best engenders nothing less than dictatorship of faith.

The face of any society is it's accepted moree's and this face only change's as those moree's adapt to changing conditions. This and this alone is the area where anyone from the outside can truly have a lasting effect on those societies.
__________________

Ron,

There is merit in what you have stated.

While in agreement with what you have stated, there is one issue where I would like to differ. That is Faith as you so aptly put it.

When dealing with most other nations (non Islam), Faith really does not matter, more so, with countries having multi-faith population.

As far as Pakistan is concerned, it is an interesting case. Though Islamic, it does not have the flexibility as say, Turkey or even Egypt or Jordan. Short of repeating myself, I would still like to state that the raison d’être for Pakistan is Islam. I have enunciated the same in my article, ‘Military Involvement in the Political Development of Pakistan” in PINNACLE, the ARTRAC Journal of the Indian Army Vol2 No Oct 2003. Sadly, it is not available on the internet or else it would indicate why and to what extent Islam is the be all and end all of decisions in Pakistan. The magazine maybe available in your military library, as there is an exchange programme in vogue or so I learn. You may like to also peruse Ayesha Jalal’s “The State of Martial Rule” (Cambridge) and Tan Tai Yong’s “Punjab and the Making of Pakistan” (South Asia vol xvii, 1995).

You are absolutely correct that the problems in Pakistan have to be solved from within. But the issue is that in so far as Afghanistan, no govt can abandon the tenets of Islam and no govt can appear fighting and killing fellow Moslem. And yet, the terrorists operating in Afghanistan, FATA and NWFP are but Moslems!

Pakistan, as I see it, is in a Catch 22 to situation. They are aware that the terrorists are creating havoc within Pakistan and de-stabilsing the country and yet cannot fight them with the vigour needed since they are fellow Moslems. I read somewhere that the ISI was actually assisting Mehsud! If true, it is very odd that a terrorist creating mayhem against Pakistan is being assisted by the ISI! It maybe recalled that both Musharraf and the current govt are engaging in the WoT but have done deals, and have stated that they will do so again, with the terrorists! And yet, they require the US assistance in money and weaponry and yet cannot abandon Islamic tenets where one does not fight fellow Moslems!

This is the dichotomy that prevents the Pakistan govt from applying itself wholeheartedly to eliminate the menace of the terrorists.

The unfortunate part of the Pakistani governance, be it military dictatorship or democracy, is that they cannot separate State from the Faith.

Islam alone is holding Pakistan as a single entity. There is immense resentment amongst the non Punjabi elements against Punjab cornering all the 'goodies'. Bangladesh, too, came into being because of the dominance the Punjabis want to assert in the governance of Pakistan and the Punjabis are the majority in the Armed Forces, which is the defacto arbiter of Pakistan's destiny. This aspect is also mentioned by Musharraf in his book.

The way out, as I see it, to ensure Pakistan is not used as a base for terrorists to sally forth into Afghanistan is to send in more ‘training teams’ into Pakistan to ‘train’ the Army and the Paramilitary in COIN and at the same time under the guise of training mount operations against the terrorist in the lair. That way, the ISAF interests are served and the Pakistani govt, in turn, does not lose face amongst the population.

Ray

04-09-2008, 04:53 PM

Islam has several branches and forms, so there is no single ummah or line of central tendency as some self serving extremist Islamics would have the world believe.

"Economic" Muslims put the wallet first, not Islam. We have a growing number of both Pakistani and Indian "economic Muslims" here in the USA and they like making a profit, having good homes, cars, better educations for their children. Many in fact are at least in part assimilating by marrying Christians even though the original Muslim in the marriage may, in some cases, continue to practice Islam.

The Agha Khan variety of Islam is charity, education, better world health focused and deals heavily in and has become a part of the world's free enterprise system. Yes, they are small compared to other Muslims branches, but they are a good working example of a type of Islam that is not terrorist in slant.

Summaried, your overview to me could have said: The world today is dealing in a religiously focused propaganda war, whether the world wants to admit this more clearly and openly or not. The difference is that civil governments, the US, UK, Germany, France, et al have to fight the propaganda war without stomping on freedom of religion for those who for whatever reason adhere to various varieties and forms of Islam.

I think our civil governments need to focus on freedom of majority Chrisitan religions here not being interfered with by extremist Islamics and their ideology. We can civilly do that without becoming church states, but remaining pluralistic nations open to all religions as long as violence and insurrection is not allowed, ever, by minority religions.

Let my being from India not lead anyone to template the usual Indo Pak equation. I am from a family that is multi-faith and it is international not only in location but marriage.

One is aware of Islam and its sects and one is also aware of the intersect rivalry.

The Islam in the US is not Islam in the world. US, indeed, is the melting pot and it indeed, changes the mindset. My own family, that is in the US, bears proof and interfaith marriage is not needed!

It is commendable that Economic Moslem believes in the theory that 'In God we trust, but we turst the $ more'!

HH Aga Khan’s benevolence is legendary in India and his sect is beyond participating in the identity crisis of Islam.

It is not the propaganda war that is my concern, it is merely the solution in Afghanistan that I am addressing vis a vis Pakistan.

A war in the name of religion is the last thing that is on my mind. What is on my mind is a solution to the issue of Afghanistan which given the religious overhang in Pakistan is not quite resulting in the peace and stability that is desirable in the sub continent.

Indeed, if you can stomp on Islam of Pakistan and obtain the results that you desire, I will be the last one to say no!

Just go ahead as Davy Crocket said - Be sure you are right, then go ahead!

davidbfpo

06-26-2008, 08:12 AM

Captured via another thread is a Canadian think tank publication, which had several short pieces on Canada's role in Afghanistan and this longer, thoughtful piece on Pakistan (plus several tables of stats). Quick read over breakfast and will return to read again: http://www.carleton.ca/cifp/app/serve.php/1153.pdf

davidbfpo

Jedburgh

06-26-2008, 09:24 PM

Long War Journal, 25 Jun 08: Northwest Pakistan Descends into Chaos (http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/06/northwest_pakistan_d.php)

The Pakistani Taliban continue military operations in the tribal agencies and the settled regions of the Northwest Frontier Province despite (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/02/asia/02pstan.php) ongoing negotiations to sign a peace agreement with the government. Forces loyal to Baitullah Mehsud (http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2370054) overran a town previously run by pro-government tribal forces, and beheaded 22 Pakistanis. In Peshawar (http://watandost.blogspot.com/2008/06/taliban-in-peshawar.html#links), the provincial capital, police and government officials have said the Taliban is close to taking control of the city.....

jonSlack

08-18-2008, 01:49 PM

AFP - Musharraf resigns as Pakistan president (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gk6dXIkPSQi2-tgtSMFU3usLnuhw)

ISLAMABAD (AFP) — Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf resigned on Monday, bringing down the curtain on a turbulent nine years in power to avoid the first impeachment in the nuclear-armed nation's history.

The key US ally, who seized power in a 1999 coup, announced the move in a lengthy televised address, rejecting the charges against him but saying he wanted to spare Pakistan a damaging battle with the ruling coalition.

The departure of the former general set off wild celebrations at home, yet it was far from certain what would come next for a nation whose role in the "war on terror" has been increasingly questioned by Washington.

davidbfpo

08-18-2008, 09:58 PM

President Musharraf's departure has been expected for several days and the Pakistani High Commissioner in London has just been interviewed by the BBC Newsnight programme. He effectively said Musharraf's time had ended, Pakistan had to unite to fight terrorism, not with helicopter gunships, but with "hearts & minds". The Pakistani Foriegn Minister was in the UK recently and at a private meeting with the Pakistani / Kashmiri community in Birmingham, was at his most animated when talking about why Pakistan needed to fight terrorism.

Yes, this all could be partisan "spin" (both the diplomat and minsiter are Bhutto or PPP loyalists). Persauding the Pakistani public is the task they have set themselves. A slow process maybe, although terrorist attacks can rapidly change public opinion e.g. after the hotel bombs in Amman, Jordan.

Watch, wait and wonder.

davidbfpo

davidbfpo

08-18-2008, 10:19 PM

For those who want a glimpse into the future visit this: http://pakistanpolicy.com/ with its viewpoint on possible candidates. I just had to laugh at some (sorry Pakistan).

davidbfpo

jcustis

08-19-2008, 05:49 AM

David,

What potential pitfalls are there in the road ahead?

Jedburgh

09-17-2008, 08:15 PM

PSRU, 17 Sep 08: The Politics of Revenge: The End of Musharraf and the Future of Pakistan (http://spaces.brad.ac.uk:8080/download/attachments/748/Brief39.pdf)

....The aim of this briefing note is to examine Musharraf's fall from grace, the man that a few years ago was seen as the savior of Pakistan is now reviled across the country, with some calling not only for his impeachment but his death. The paper focuses on Musharraf's decade in power, looking at his role in transforming Pakistani society and also highlighting where the former commando went wrong. The approach may appear paradoxical and contradictory but the purpose is to show what was arguably done well and what was arguably done poorly. The reason behind such an approach stems from uncertainty over how Musharraf’s legacy in Pakistani history: was he Pakistan’s savior or was he simply another military dictator. In the second part of the paper, an examination of the role of Nawaz Sharif and the Pakistan Peoples' Party is provided specifically the role played by Sharif and the PPP in the impeachment process. It is noteworthy that despite the electoral failure of the pro-Musharraf Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q) in the February 2008 election it appeared that Musharraf was secured in his position as President, (Nawaz Sharif within weeks left the newly formed coalition government and Zardari appeared willing to work with Musharraf).4 And yet, somehow Zardari and Sharif managed to put their differences aside and with support from Pakistani civil society organizations joined forces to topple Musharraf. In part three, some ideas as to where Pakistan might be heading, and whether the removal of Musharraf will end the crisis that Pakistan appears to be constantly immersed in are offered. That is, Pakistan is forever dealing with crises (mainly internal) that undermine its ability to develop and grow because it is perpetually unstable.....

davidbfpo

02-14-2009, 10:06 PM

An interesting report on local Pakistani police action aginst Taliban suspects in Karachi: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7886460.stm

Could fit elsewhere, but here it sits.

davidbfpo

George L. Singleton

02-15-2009, 04:47 AM

Allegations of a Taliban take over of the City of Peshawar are largely exaggered.

Peshawar today is a sprawling city of around 3 million.

Yes, the Taliban in limited numbers, they are not a formal army never forget, have attacked during the past 18 months as guerillas and renegades northern and south bound road tunnels in and out of the outer edges of the city. They have done revenge beheadings, suicide bombings, murdered a contract US AID official who was as are all US citizens in the area "restricted to barricks" figurative and thus not allowed to go out into the countryside to do their developmenet work in person.

But, the Frontier Corp has division(s) of troops there; the Pak Air Force HQ is there; in short, even with insurgency problems in the lower ranks of some parts of the frontier police and elements of the Frontier Corp, you still have the regular Pak Army plus now pinpoint command and control kill capability with armed drones.

No, I don't think Peshawar will fall, but remember: Most all people in Northern Pakistan are Pukhtuns, ethnically, and therefore traditionally not friendly to any central government of Pakistan.

But the Puktuns are outnumbered nationally in all of Paksitan about 11 to 1, so think about those stats before assuming or believing the Taliban, in the hundreds, maybe in the middle thousands, are an effective army. They are a pain in the ass terror and guerilla force.

Jedburgh

03-14-2009, 04:15 PM

ICG, 13 Mar 09: Pakistan: The Militant Jihadi Challenge (http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/asia/south_asia/164_pakistan___the_militant_jihadi_challenge.pdf)

The recent upsurge of jihadi violence in Punjab, the Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP), the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and Balochistan’s provincial capital, Quetta, demonstrates the threat extremist Sunni-Deobandi groups pose to the Pakistani citizen and state. These radical Sunni groups are simultaneously fighting internal sectarian jihads, regional jihads in Afghanistan and India and a global jihad against the West. While significant domestic and international attention and resources are understandably devoted to containing Islamist militancy in the tribal belt, that the Pakistani Taliban is an outgrowth of radical Sunni networks in the country’s political heartland is too often neglected. A far more concerted effort against Punjab-based Sunni extremist groups is essential to curb the spread of extremism that threatens regional peace and stability.....

George L. Singleton

03-14-2009, 08:02 PM

Jedburgh, let me have some time this weekend to put together some info which, unhappily, I think will reinforce your comments...even though I wish it wasn't so. It likely is.

George L. Singleton

03-14-2009, 11:12 PM

ICG, 13 Mar 09: Pakistan: The Militant Jihadi Challenge (http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/asia/south_asia/164_pakistan___the_militant_jihadi_challenge.pdf)

Lord Curzon, the viceroy of India, created the NWFP by removing it from the Punjab's administration in 1901. Todays Punjab is both in Pakistan but also in India, overlays both Pakistan and India across their common border.

Punjabis historically are viewed by many Pukhtuns as landlords and business userpers who took and take advantage of Pukthuns and the NWFP. Allegations are endless and some, no doubt, are true, but clearly not all.

The Taliban, who are Sunnis and Pukhtuns, began under that name around 1978 when the last King of Afghanistan was overthrown as a prelude to and a part of the USSR invasion of Afghanistan. *The old USSR saw Afghanistan as a stepping stone to warm water ports on the Arabian Sea, among other objectives and goals. I wrote about this in a 1985 paper for my Air Force Command and Staff College as best I can recall.

Now: It is my opinion, as I cannot be the know-it-all, now or ever, my opinion that the Taliban are not a numeric threat in Punjab today, but do have cells which may amount to some 3,000-6,000 members of a hard core nature, together with a few, not a huge number of madrassas and a hospital or two they run for public charity and image purposes in the Lahore area...Lahore area is where the Taliban inside Pakistan "were founded or began from."

In today's Pakistan (Lahore area), across the border into Indian Punjab/Gujirat State and up into Pakistan Administered Kashmir, back across the Durand Line into Afghanistan, there and in related Northern Pakistan areas delineated in some of the included Internet references herein, as well as in the City of Karachi [where around 1.5 million Pukhtuns reside, some of whom may well be joining the Taliban today...but these are mainly the poorest of the poor Pukhtuns who are within Karachi which is a city of over 14 million today population.

What I see since studying this area closely ever since 9/11, based in large part on feedback in the form of responding open letters to the editors of both DAWN but more particularly the Peshawar FRONTIER POST, as well as interpersonal e-mails to me (my e-mail address is on every letter published in Pakistan by me, which now number around 200, majority in the FP, about 40+ in DAWN)...is a blame game of Pukhtuns as the essentially have nots against Punjabis, who are clearly the wealth "haves" of Paksitan. The Taliban benefit from, propoganda wise and feeds off of all acrimony from Pukhtuns against Punjabis. In general much confusion to us as outside observers as to which Pukhtuns are revolutionary nationalists [separatists who want to found a Pakhtuwananland comprised of parts of Pakistan and most all of Afghanistan] vs. which Pukhtuns are hardcore murderous terrorist Sunni Muslim extremists.

All this said, I suggest a careful...but selective of the topic of Pukhtuns in Punjab to fit against the topic of this thread...reading of all the attachments.

I don't see a huge "army" of Taliban organized in and in control of the Punjab area of Pakistan. I do see a quasi-urban guerilla attempt to falsely, my opinion, create this impression.

Concluding this short intro note to some cited research background reading for those of you interested in this thread please note that the Northern/Frontier areas of Pakistan have never been under effective central government control, nor do I think they ever will be under such control.

What I do see is the Taliban and al Qaida stirring up propaganda alleging violation of Pakistan's "soverignty" when drones and such are used to knock out the Taliban wherever they may be. Even the Government of Pakistan, first Musharraf, now Guiliani, pretend to resent and oppose such strikes...when in fact it serves their security purposes even more than those of NATO.

Thus, I tend to ignore and blow off the baloney Pak media tirades about drone strikes, and say more power to more drone strikes!

As for the masses, the majority of Pakistanis who are not Pukhtuns, about 85% (these statistics are arguable) other identities, really don't like the Pukhtuns nor their "areas" of Pakistan and only wish they would dry up and blow away. Those Pakistanis who claim differently are either easily freightened or in fact Pukhtuns who reside largely in Karachi, where they are a large but still distinct minority.

Good reading and I will look for discussion from you guys and gals now.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/2982887/Taliban-opens-new-front-in-Pakistan.html

http://www.france24.com/en/20081204-lashkar-e-taiba-militant-mumbai-attacks-pakistan?ppcseid=4004&ppcsekeyword=pakistan+report&mmtctg=1195908872&mmtcmp=33598292&mmtmt=5&mmtgglcnt=1&gclid=CPf_7YWxo5kCFRKAxgoddjFwpg

http://www.foreignaffairscommittee.org/includes/content_files/PakAfghanistan.pdf

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071025072152AAkpNwz

"The vast majority of Pashtuns can be found in an area stretching from western Pakistan to southwestern Afghanistan. Additional Pashtun communities are found in Northern Areas, Azad Kashmir, and Sindh province of Pakistan as well as throughout Afghanistan. There are smaller communities in Iran, India, and a large migrant-workers community in the countries of the Arabian Peninsula. Important metropolitan centers of Pashtun culture include Peshawar and Kandahar. In addition, Quetta and Kabul are ethnically mixed cities with large Pashtun populations. With 1.5 million ethnic Pashtuns, Karachi is the largest Pashtun city in the world.

Pashtuns comprise over 15.42% of Pakistan's population or 25.6 million people. In Afghanistan, they make up an estimated 42% of the population or 12.5 million people. The exact measure of these figures remains uncertain, particularly those for Afghanistan, and are affected by approximately three million Afghan refugees (of which 81.5% or 2.49 million are ethnic Pashtuns) that remain in Pakistan. An unknown number of refugees continue to reside in ****Iran. A cumulative population assessment suggests a total of over 40 million across the region."

**** Iran/UN suggest about 300,000-500,000 non indiginous to Iran Pukhtuns remain inside Iran, with Iran having a pushy plan in effect to move them out and back into Afghanistan as fast as they can. During 2008 I think between 60,000 and 100,000 Pukhtuns were resettled back into Afghanistan from Iran, while maybe 400,000 Pukhtuns were resettled from refugee camps inside Pakistan back into Afghanistan also during 2008.

www.wiscnetwork.org/getpaper.php?id=224

http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com/2006/12/politics-of-afghan-war-in-western.html

Ron Humphrey

03-14-2009, 11:57 PM

but thanks for posting them.

Just one question for clarification. Of the as you say approximate 40 million how many would probably fit more into the category of have moved and integrated into their current places vs those who are more likely to return should the environment change to their liking.

I ask this because it would seem likely that such a determination would help delineate those who are in the (must be approached as external supporting populace) vs (those who may very well end up physically involved in popular movements within the actual AO.

George L. Singleton

03-15-2009, 01:03 AM

Ron, I just edited my post to give you some ballpark numbers of displaced Pukhtuns who are thought to still, currently be in Iran and inside Pakistan but who in both cases are from and would return to or "be" returned to Afghanistan in due course.

***Nearly half the world's refugees are from war-torn Afghanistan and Iraq. UNHCR said there are 3.1 million displaced Afghans, most in neighboring Pakistan and Iran. Pakistan within the past 7 years since 9/11 said they had around 7 million Afghan refugees in camps, many born in Pakistan since they were displaced during the USSR invasion and war. So, if the UNHCR numbers are in the ball park in 2009, then millions have either gone back into Afghanistan...or gone to yet other nations...tracking all this is very foggy and uncertain just now.

Overseas Pukhtuns in general only go back to either Pakistan NWFP or Afghanistan to visit family/relatives, but seem in the main happier and are clearly better off in places like the US, Holland, the UK, Spain, Italy, France, Canada, and Australia. Those numbers right this second I don't have a handle on.

As for how many would ever return home, your bottom line question, I would repeat myself that those who managed to go "West" are happy to stay where they are, for good, if the host nations will let them remain.

Russia, I must note, has allowed zero Afghan or Iraqi refugees and wants none!

Ron Humphrey

03-15-2009, 04:12 AM

It helps

davidbfpo

05-03-2009, 11:44 AM

This item appeared on SWJ Blog, alas system does not allow me to comment there and so moved here. I am sure this 'moment' will cause some debate here.

SWJ Blog link: http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=7220 and cites: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/01/AR2009050102824.html

Earlier another SWJ Blog had an item 'Two weeks to go" citing General Petraeus: http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=7216

This expat-run Pakistani website has some different views: http://watandost.blogspot.com/
One article by Juan Cole (not a regional expert) rightly IMHO cites statistics that the Pakistani Taliban are a tiny minority and has a David Kilcullen critique of drone attacks.

The objective of this story - which I'm sure has been inside 'the Beltway' for weeks - is to further influence the Pakistani military (army) and Pakistani government.

I note much of the recent, reported Pakistani military action has been led by helicopter gunships, artillery and para-military forces (Frontier Constabulary). Where are the "boots on the ground" of the army? Not that this army is ready, willing and equipped.

Is this the 'moment of truth'?

davidbfpo

05-04-2009, 10:42 AM

An update from The Daily Telegraph today that the "truce" has broken down: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/5272081/Pakistan-peace-deal-with-Taliban-is-dissolved.html

I note that President Zadari is due to visit Washington DC soon. Is this really good crisis management for Pakistan, that he leaves for several days? Let alone the image it portrays in Pakistan - yet again the USA issuing orders?

Would it not be more diplomatic and effective to meet halfway?

Then there's the deluge of articles on SWJ Blog.

Amidst the media furore and Western diplomacy have we overlooked how the Chinese and Saudis see the current situation? I expect India is watching carefully and trying to avoid anything that seems hostile.

davidbfpo

goesh

05-04-2009, 05:31 PM

- the call is Obama's to make and I think he is more interested in projecting an image of control and being on top of things, regardless of the image problems it creates for Zadari as you have pointed out. This could be the mark of a new President with only 100+ days of foreign affairs experience but I bear in mind he is a Chicago politician.

Ken White

05-04-2009, 05:42 PM

This could be the mark of a new President with only 100+ days of foreign affairs...it proves yet again, for about the 44th time, that domestic politics will most always trump international relations requirements, no matter the long term (thankfully deferred to another administration) domestic cost. :mad:

We have a good political system and I wouldn't change it but it does have some induced and acquired drawbacks...:rolleyes:

George L. Singleton

05-04-2009, 11:54 PM

David et al:

Pakistan since 1947 has been on again, off again in efforts to subdue and rule the northern areas of Pakistan, which is heavily Pakhtun peoples, predominently Sunni.

While non-Pakhtuns are also majority Sunni elsewhere in Pakistan, what I get off line in direct one on one e-mails are hopes that the Pak Army will stay the course,which it has never, ever done in all it's flip flop history, always bailing out on pretext of India threats, or Kashmir mess, or both, sheer stupidity which the people of Pakistan even today tend to swallow as if it were true...which it is not.

One historial footnote: It was in about 1964/65 when the more radical mullahs started to push into the NWFP their efforts to push out all other faith systems except a more radical version of Sunni Islam....even though there were and still are pockets of ####es in the northern areas, too.

The allegations of "terrorists" having been created by the 1980s Afghanistan war with the old USSR has some validity in that refugee camps of over 7 million Afghans did open up inside Northern Pakistan starting in the 1980s during that war and now a couple of generations of hopeless, poorly educated, desperate for work or a vocation refugees inside Pakistan make a good recruiting ground for both the Taliban and al Qaida.

davidbfpo

05-05-2009, 10:58 AM

This article is on SWJ blog, the author Ahmed Rashid is a widely repected writer and lives in Karachi and worth a read: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/04/AR2009050402943.html

davidbfpo

goesh

05-05-2009, 01:23 PM

The NY Times and their 'source':

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30571961

"The one thing that impressed him were the missile strikes by drones — virtually the only American military presence felt inside Pakistan. “The drones are very effective,” he said, acknowledging that they had thinned the top leadership of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the area. He said 29 of his friends had been killed in the strikes."

However.....

"
The drone attacks simply prompted Taliban fighters to spend more time in Afghanistan, or to move deeper into Pakistan, straddling both theaters of a widening conflict. The recruits were prepared to fight where they were needed, in either country, he said. "

Per davidfpo and his link to the Ahmed Rashid article, I cringe at the thought of a blank check given to Pakistan in light of the known collusion between Pakistani Security forces and the Taliban. What a mess. Obama wants to bump up the numbers of incountry forces by 20K. Fine, but if I were Joe Taliban I would then ease up with the border crossings/engagements but up the martyrdome operations and focus more on fighting in Pakistan for a while. If collusion is as strong as some suspect, any blank check, if it comes down to that, will be spent quickly with few tangible results.

George L. Singleton

05-05-2009, 09:40 PM

Concur with the Goersch opinion herein.

Pakistan has total systemic monetary/fiscal back up long standing which comes from a combination of Saudi Arabia and China.

It is the "seachange" needed in policy, action, and consistent words...read words as internal propaganda by the Pak government and Army which is needed now, not US "bucks."

If we provide night goggles and helicopters, based on private e-mails I have been getting from Swat and other Northern Pakistan areas over the past three weeks, the helicopters will again be used when ground forces, the Pak Army, on the ground is really what is needed to seize, take, and hold, hold long term, as in forever, the Northern lands, all the Northern lands.

Yes, the terrain in Pakistan is rugged and awful, but a few thousand terrorists are no more "able" to take and hold it than the Pakistani Army, which is much larger and better equipped.

Think: Why do the locals help the Taliban, even al Qaida, vs. the Pakistani Government and Army? Pakistan has it's own "trust" issues internally, let alone with the USA/NATO.

All the Pakistani bullroar over India is absurd and thinking Pakistanis now know this and want action within Pakistani, too.

Why is the Pak Government, hence their Army, still in such limited actions without a long term, sustained assualt action(s) against the Taliban and al Qaida? My answer is because they, the Pak Government/Army, intend to continue using and living with the terrorists rather than putting them out of business once and for all.

davidbfpo

05-06-2009, 10:30 AM

Written by a UK commentator, Anatol Lieven, after / during a visit to Pakistan, he cites being in Sindh last week and gives some of the context amidst the pakistani public - which George S. reports upon: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6221874.ece

davidbfpo

davidbfpo

05-08-2009, 05:21 PM

Perhaps rather long (narrow column explains why) and detailed commentary. The author is a Pakistani, resident in Florida: http://watandost.blogspot.com/2009/05/fighting-taliban-fascism-what-is-to-be.html Covers all the issues quickly.

The website is now my favourite website for Pakistani comments.

davidbfpo

davidbfpo

05-09-2009, 04:14 PM

Prince Turki al-Faisal was in Washington DC, in late April and was interviewed by the Washington Post, his remarks did not reach the UK and now there is a tony article on their website. This is a short summary: http://www.topnews.in/army-could-topple-nonperforming-government-pakistan-exsaudi-intelligence-chief-2158764 and a longer one on a Pakistani forum: http://forum.pakistanidefence.com/index.php?showtopic=82266

I note the forum has a comment that General Kiyani visited Saudi Arabia two weeks beforehand. Is this a sign of the little-reported "hidden hand" of Saudi Arabia?

davidbfpo

davidbfpo

05-09-2009, 08:41 PM

A less pessimistic viewpoint by an American analyst, his one page article appeared on www.emergingmarkets.com (registration req'd) or you can view a seminar given on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v18JJLpuSD8 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_j4daAwMnU .

davidbfpo

jmm99

05-09-2009, 08:44 PM

Hello David,

After visiting the Watandost site, I can see why you chose it. Dr Taqi's article from yesterday (http://watandost.blogspot.com/2009/05/fighting-taliban-fascism-what-is-to-be.html) is a good one. I wonder how many folks in our Beltway know what he is talking about ?

Turki speaks for one branch of the House of Saud. A WAG is that some of these considerations are in play.

1. Is it better for the Kingdom to have Pakistan's nuks under the control of more moderate Muslims (the Paki forces), under the control of AQ-Taliban types, or left in a state of uncertainty ? The last is long-term impossible, since the Kingdom (which is best at writing checks - a old comment by Turki) will need a nuk-equipped ally if Iran develops a regional nuk capability.

2. Will the ISI go with the Paki forces, go with the AQ-Taliban or remain an uncertain quantity ? That would seem the immediate short and medium term question.

An en masse ISI defection into a mainstream Paki effort vs AQ-Taliban would give that effort all the actionable intelligence it needs to start, as Taqi's quote of the poet says:

Begin -
to begin is half the work,
let half still remain;
again begin this,
and thou wilt have finished.

Wana88

05-10-2009, 01:47 AM

...all the way to the bank.

Either our babu in d.c. are naive/stupid/getting kick backs or smoking some serious stuff.

1)Pakistan has never come close to being a failing or failed state. Sure, eventually it may accelerate down this path but not yet.

2) Pakistan has a professional standing military whose bloody record against its own --Muslim-- citizens is well known within the country. The arguments offered by Islamabad to the West ring hollow: its reluctance to leverage the army against its own people has nothing to do with humanity or concern for its citizens. All one has to do is ask the Baluchis whose insurgency against the state began in the early '70s and ZA Bhutto (the elected PM) let the Punjabi led military run loose in Baluchistan to brutally put down the rebellion by killing 1000s of the most downtrodden citizens of the most exploited region of the country. BTW, this insurgency still continues like a smoldering fire notwithstanding the effectiveness of brute force by the Pak military. Bugti's assassination by the Pak military under Musharaff notwithstanding his hideout in the wilds of Baluchistan and amongst his loyal tribal elements only serves to confirm how violently "efficient" this military is when it chooses to be. Don't forget what this military did to the unarmed citizenry in East Pakistan when they wanted to secede. They were able to break free and form Bangladesh thanks to Indian intervention to stop the slaughter of East Pakistanis at the hands of West Pakistanis. All Muslims by the way. In short, the Pak Army has its tentacles everywhere and can act when it suits their interests.

3) The so-called rogue elements (LeT, TTP, AQAM etc) all have linkages to the ISI and beyond, & the military. They would not last without the support/logistics/training by the army.

4)The nukes are the least of our worries for now. The army also has a very firm control over the delivery mechanisms as well as the devices.

5)While the Paks are quick to blame the US for their problems, there is enough blame to go around within this state: an autocratic "democratic" system of feudals (many of whom still have slaves/serfs/indentured peasants), their sycophants, namazis: all corrupt to the core. Zardari vs Nawaz Sharif. Both corrupt to such a degree (millions of $) that is just unbelievable in a state where the per capita income is maybe $300 a year. Zardari has fewer allies and as a shia is at a long term disadvantage; while Wahhabi lover Sharif has been in bed with the Saudis (the financiers of global wahhabism aka salafi-jihadi jihad bin saif wa jihad bin hijra (far more effective than by saif).

6) As long as the troublesome/country bumpkin Pushtuns are dying, it was an ideal situation to milk for all it was worth. The Pakistani babu/fauji all want the gravy train from d.c. to continue. Exaggeration of the internal situation and throw in cries of “the sky is falling, please help us we’re a nuke state” seemed to have resonated and the big bucks are about to flow in to grease the palms of all those involved in this scam. All at the expense of those refugees from Dir, Bajaur, Swat, Buner etc. Some dislocation estimates have passed the milion mark.

7) Those Punjabis and muhajirs who have the arrogance to think that this is game of chicken little w/the west is containable, might soon wake up one day to realize that they’ve bitten off more than they can chew. By that time it maybe too late. The Pushtuns, Baluchis and Sindhis are all watching this tamasha unfold from their vantage points. They are all watching and waiting to see how the Army led State addresses this humanitarian crisis caused by non-state elements (to include AQAM) with support from segments of the state apparatus. How the army helps or sacrifices them all in the name of the almighty dollar.

8) The people of the NWFP, Baluchistan, and Sind are watching and know that ultimately they are all potential pawns of a corrupted state and they don’t like it one bit. I’m sure there are many Bengalis (above the age of 47 or so) who can empathize with this latest Pakistani tamasha that causes excessive hardship for its own citizens.

Ron Humphrey

05-10-2009, 02:36 AM

Always wondered what the narrative for supporting those multiple parties looking to go against the Pakistan govt would look like.

Guess thats one way of looking at it:eek:

jmm99

05-10-2009, 06:50 PM

Besides the Madaris (Madrassas) Takeover (http://thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=22050), Zardari is at least sounding tough:

Govt to take over all Madaris: Zardari
Sunday, May 10, 2009
By Muhammad Saleh Zaafir

WASHINGTON: President Asif Ali Zardari has announced that his government would take over all Madaris as part of Madaris reforms and separate the students from extremists and they would be imparted modern education along with religious education.

He also pledged to take the ongoing military operation against insurgency to its logical conclusion.
....
Zardari pledged to mount an all-out war against the Taliban extremists, vowing to kill the militants in a military offensive.

“This is an offensive — this is war. If they kill our soldiers, then we do the same,” Zardari told PBS public television during a visit to Washington.

Pressed on whether Pakistan’s stated goal of “eliminating” militants meant killing them, Zardari replied in the affirmative.

“Eliminate means exactly what it means,” he said.

davidbfpo

05-12-2009, 10:07 PM

Found via Zenpundit (hat tip) a comment by an ex-CIA Station Chief in Kabul, so of interest: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/graham-e-fuller/global-viewpoint-obamas-p_b_201355.html

JMM,

I will only accept Zadari's policy statements on education in madrassahs when something is done, apart from rhetoric. This is more "playing to the gallery" and irrelevant.

davidbfpo

jmm99

05-13-2009, 02:14 AM

that actions speak much, much louder than words - and that Zadari's rhetoric may well show a politician in a weak position.

As to Graham E. Fuller, bio is here (http://people.bu.edu/arn/CK/Speaker%20Info.htm). He was the political officer at Kabul (dip cover, I presume) from 1975 to 1978 (http://www.chowk.com/interacts/5137/1/0/360).

In 2002, he wrote an article for Foreign Affairs, "The Future of Political Islam (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/57806/graham-e-fuller/the-future-of-political-islam)" (also his later book) (# in [] by JMM):

Summary -- The mantra that the war on terrorism is not a war on Islam ignores one crucial fact: [1] Islam and politics are inextricably linked throughout the Muslim world. [2] Islamism includes Osama bin Laden and the Taliban but also moderates and liberals. [3] In fact, it can be whatever Muslims want it to be. [4] Rather than push secularism, the West should help empower the silent Muslim majority that rejects radicalism and violence. [5]The result could be political systems both truly Islamist and truly democratic.

Strictly, my opinions.

1. Correct - starts and ends with the Koran and interpretive texts.

2. True, but there are many more conservatives (not necessarily bad).

3. True - but within the limits set by #1.

4. If the "majority" is "silent", how can one infer that it "rejects radicalism and violence" ? Secularism seems a dead letter in many Islamic countries, but that could change, I suppose.

5. Probable as to "truly Islamist" (or close to it); doubtful as to "truly democratic", especially in Arab countries.

As to Pstan-Astan (at your link), I can find some points where agree, some disagree - and most that I'd really have to think about. E.g., this sounds good, but is it not as Utopian as the dreams of some US nation builders, etc. ?

What can be done must be consonant with the political culture. Let non-military and neutral international organizations, free of geopolitical taint, take over the binding of Afghan wounds and the building of state structures.

-------------------------

Western academia has a fixation on Muslim moderates and liberals. They exist and also write good rhetoric. I'd deal with the conservatives.

Wana88

05-25-2009, 07:23 PM

Interesting article, if one overlooks the "socialist" site, on the current situation in Pakistan vis-a-vis the Pushtuns:
Apologies for not being able to link this, but here is the site/article

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/may2009/paki-m25.shtml

Two million rendered refugees by fighting in Pakistan
By Vilani Peiris
25 May 2009

"There is virtually no independent reporting from the conflict zone, but from all reports fighting has been fierce, with Pakistani military forces using F-16 fighters, helicopter gunships, and heavy artillery to bomb, blast, and strafe suspected insurgent positions with little, if any, concern for civilian life."

Wonder why the double standard when it comes to human life: When there is an airstrike by USAF in Herat (which caused civilian casualties, many being used as human shields by "Taliban") there is an uproar and demands for US apologies etc. Yet, when the Pak --Punjabi/Mohajir--led military engages in relentless, and indiscriminate, bombing with artillery etc. in Swat, Buner etc, causing more casualties that the MSM is reporting (in their defense, their access is restricted) they are cheered on.

Al Qaeda has got its wish ...Pushtuns have been suckered and now pay the price for their misplaced "hospitality."

Wana88

05-29-2009, 01:03 PM

The perspective of the Wali of Swat on the situation in Swat etc.:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090529/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan_the_wali_of_swat

QUOTE:

"Aurangzeb has harsh words for Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's former military ruler under whose watch Swat's situation began deteriorating. He claims Musharraf let the Taliban run roughshod in Swat because it would help win more U.S. aid.
The military has no choice but to fight the Taliban now, he says, but the problem should have been taken care of years ago, before it metastasized

George L. Singleton

05-29-2009, 02:03 PM

David:

The individual Pakistanis and family unit(s) grassroots level up as suggested in detail by the journalist who survived the Lahore blast in the FRONTIER POST office...which was basically leveled...is the fight and win your own war model most likely to succeed now.

Support for the Pak Army is growing even among the Pakhtuns. While Zadarai is on again off again, somehow his military have managed thus far to remain on the attack from all sources I have within Pakistan as a lay writer and reader on this good site.

GLOBAL HUJRA ONLINE is "off the air" with automatic notice that it's owners have "Exceeded their bandwidth" which is a coincidence (?) from date and timing of the Lahore blast. I thought that site was out of Canada, run since 1987 by an ethnic Pakhtun college professor, but that may or may not be the case in 2009?

Friday, weekend time may generate more dialogue on your posting(s). Events change and expand so much daily inside Pakistan.

Have a Pakistani national friend who is now in process of becoming a US citizen...his younger generation family are in business here where I/we live. He is having an impossible time trying to sell his Karachi home to end his affairs there, stuck in Karachi with no buyers as of last e-mail I had from him.

Have a good weekend...the SEC College Baseball Tournament ended last Sunday, my pick made but lost the final game, Vanderbilt University baseball team. But, Regional baseball games begin today, Friday, 29 May, when Vanderbilt plays Middle Tennessee State University at the University of Louisville, KY...and Alabama plays Oklahoma State at Clemson in South Carolina.

davidbfpo

06-07-2009, 09:01 PM

BBC News reports on public opinion changes: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8085680.stm and the Daily Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/5469969/Pakistani-government-victory-as-public-opinion-turns-against-the-Taliban.html

A reporter returning to Pakistan: http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2009/06/shock-good-news-pakistan.html

Alongside reports of barbers being busy back at work in the Swat Valley: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8083320.stm.

Tribal fighters attack Taliban in FATA: http://watandost.blogspot.com/2009/06/jaag-utha-pakistan.html and the converse in Bajaur: http://watandost.blogspot.com/2009/06/return-of-militants-in-bajaur-agency.html

Maybe spin and wishful thinking, but just like other countries Pakistan can "flip flop".

davidbfpo

George L. Singleton

06-08-2009, 01:50 AM

David et al:

I believe the tide has started to turn our way inside Pakistan. What could hurt is if the Pakistani Government again flip flops and does not keep troops permanently in all areas where the Taliban are and have been driven out.

This has been the biggest problem all along, fight, then withdraw, then Taliban come back all over again.

George

BBC News reports on public opinion changes: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8085680.stm and the Daily Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/5469969/Pakistani-government-victory-as-public-opinion-turns-against-the-Taliban.html

A reporter returning to Pakistan: http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2009/06/shock-good-news-pakistan.html

Alongside reports of barbers being busy back at work in the Swat Valley: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8083320.stm.

Tribal fighters attack Taliban in FATA: http://watandost.blogspot.com/2009/06/jaag-utha-pakistan.html and the converse in Bajaur: http://watandost.blogspot.com/2009/06/return-of-militants-in-bajaur-agency.html

Maybe spin and wishful thinking, but just like other countries Pakistan can "flip flop".

davidbfpo

davidbfpo

06-25-2009, 04:10 PM

A video clip, which has interesting moments: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8117220.stm

Apologies to those who cannot view (usually Rex).

davidbfpo

George L. Singleton

06-25-2009, 05:02 PM

Earlier this week in June, 2009 Pakistani President Zardari announced that a large Pakistani military force will permanently remain inside Swat to back up the local police and stop the damnable returns of the Taliban which happen when the Pak military fights and then withdraws.

Long overdue but better late than never.

davidbfpo

06-25-2009, 09:27 PM

If this story is true: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/5638142/Pakistans-Asif-Zardari-faces-army-rebellion-over-India-detente.html

then it is immaculate timing and worrying.

davidbfpo

davidbfpo

06-25-2009, 10:34 PM

Pakistani Air Force personnel arrested for links to terrorists and some sentenced to death: http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=81332

Not seen this type of story before, although long suspected in open sources that loyalties are under strain.

davidbfpo

davidbfpo

06-25-2009, 10:36 PM

The BBC is really busy, try this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8116691.stm (includes Ahmed Rashid and an Indian diplomat). One theme is loyalty around nukes.

davidbfpo

davidbfpo

06-25-2009, 10:42 PM

Is just like us: http://watandost.blogspot.com/2009/06/pakistani-soldier-by-richard-j-douglas.html (ex-DoD Dep. Asst. Sec.).

Somewhat different viewpoint and the human level, not the US$ billions that have been provided.

davidbfpo

George L. Singleton

06-26-2009, 03:49 AM

David, your last post deals with survivor benefits, and is an area I am both familiar with and have advocated in behalf of all Pakistani military families since shortly after 9/11.

George Singleton
US Department of Veterans Affairs Civil Service Retiree
(Diplomat, American College of Healthcare Executives)
and USAF, both active and reserve years, retiree...
these seemingly to us Yanks pedantic credentials are
meant for our friendly overseas Pakistani military
readership/other SW Asian friendly military readership
and all Taliban who will change sides readership, too.

davidbfpo

06-26-2009, 09:56 AM

BBC reports on an attack on Pakistani Army in Azad Kashmir: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8120184.stm

Given the declaration of war upon Pakistan by LeT this makes sense, assuming it is not a loner or another group. Another thought, is LeT discipline has broken down; yes, all armchair speculation.

In Pakistan itself IIRC the pattern of bombing was the military first and then ISI buildings. Yes, excludes the mainly civilian targets hit.

davidbfpo

davidbfpo

06-26-2009, 11:50 AM

An interesting article as there is a strong Indian viewpoint - in a Pakistani paper: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\06\22\story_22-6-2009_pg7_13

davidbfpo

George L. Singleton

06-26-2009, 12:40 PM

An interesting article as there is a strong Indian viewpoint - in a Pakistani paper: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\06\22\story_22-6-2009_pg7_13

davidbfpo

Looks to me like a bunch of smoke screen actions in Kashmir to try to divert attention and also to try to build the psychology to keep "all" Pak eastern front troops in place vs. moving more of them to the Afghan border.

Movement of more and more troops to the Afghan/FATA/Swat/Waziristan areas is not stoppable and has been underway for some weeks now.

My "studied" opinion, others opinions may differ, but this is mine as a close "watcher" and recipient of within theater direct personal e-mails as combined sources of my opinions and observations.

davidbfpo

06-30-2009, 09:59 AM

On the BBC a report that local opposition to the Pakistani Army is widening: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8125725.stm

More (of course) on: http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=7681

davidbfpo

davidbfpo

06-30-2009, 10:09 AM

Interesting comment: http://counterterrorismblog.org/2009/06/swat_analysis_focus_shifts_to_1.php I noted the references to police action in Punjab.

davidbfpo

davidbfpo

06-30-2009, 10:21 AM

The ex-Pakistani Ambassador in the USA and High Commissioner in the UK, Dr Maleeha Lodhi, where she is widely admired, has written this article: http://thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=185627

Interesting that she notes the public change to hostility towards the Pakistani Taliban enabled the new campaign, which is seen as legitimate state action. Not a response to Western pressure. Retaining that public support will be essential. How the Pakistani state and Pakistani Army respond to this 'window of consent' is unclear.

davidbfpo

George L. Singleton

07-01-2009, 02:05 AM

David...I say the best response by the Pakistani government is to move more Pak troops from Indian border to Afghan border and kill a huge number of Taliban and al Qaida. These backward rural folks like to be with a winner, whoever it may be, and the Gov't of Pakistan can most effectively keep popular support by flat out fighting long term, occupying former loosely governed northern provinces, and using the big stick regularly against the terrorists.

Trying to dialolgue with and coddle the terrorists will not, has not, and never will work. It is a Catch 22 best delt with, my view, by perpetual pro-active military action.

You can't operate a civil society under terrorist occupatin, and it is equally hard to do so under Pak rule...unless you defeat, occupy, and then administer using formerly unused locals to run local governance but keeping them all on a short reign.

davidbfpo

07-01-2009, 09:46 PM

From this: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/07/pakistani_army_rejec_1.php and http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/29/AR2009062904241.html .No pakistani Army plan to attack. Pondering this, tactical or a return to the 'stop, start' approach? In view of the local conditions, with Pakistani legitimacy being challenged, is this a wise move?

davidbpo

George L. Singleton

07-02-2009, 12:55 AM

Please note the growing number of Pakistani Pakhtun ethnic background Army/Special Forces obituaries I continue to post (another today, July 1) on SWJ. These deaths are evidence that the war is indeed hot. What you and others are running into is the verbal stuff the Pak government puts out, retracts, puts out, etc. to pacify factions of the fractured population, primarly in the northern areas of Pakistan.

My view, in any case.

davidbfpo

07-02-2009, 11:53 AM

In this CCO newsletter thread: http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=7697 there is a short interview with Robert Armitage and this is his first Q&A, which is very interesting on the interaction with ISI (my emphasis added; note rest of interview is behind a 'wall'):

MM: What, if anything, surprised you taking on the challenges of Afghanistan and Iraq?
RA: Well, they’re completely different places. I found that Afghanistan was an absolutely necessary war; they struck us, and we had to strike back. What surprised me was how quickly we morphed from a fight against al Qaeda—that is, from foreigners (Uzbeks, Pakistanis, Saudis, even Uighers)—to the Taliban after coexisting with the Taliban for so long. The Taliban wasn’t really fighting us too much; they weren’t helping us, but they weren’t fighting us, either—so again how quickly that morphed was the big surprise. The second surprise was frankly how successful we were for the first 4 years—almost 5 years—at keeping the ISI (Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence) relatively out of it. They were so shocked with the speed at which we invaded Afghanistan that I think the ISI felt it was only a matter of time till we prevailed. But as we broadened our scope to the Taliban, we both brought out some antipathies that Pashtuns have against foreigners, and we also made it more difficult to be able to accomplish our “objective.” So how do you declare victory when you completely change the target?

davidbfpo

07-02-2009, 10:27 PM

The ex-Pakistani Ambassador in the USA and High Commissioner in the UK, Dr Maleeha Lodhi, where she is widely admired, has written this article: http://thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=185627davidbfpo

Support for the author comes from opinion polling (face to face) in Pakistan: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brasiapacificra/619.php?nid=&id=&pnt=619&lb= Nice graphics, although I am a little sceptical about polling in Pakistan.

davidbfpo

tequila

07-12-2009, 03:34 PM

Looks like Pakistan is opting to go down the enemy-centric route for its Waziristan operation (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/255/story/71669.html).

Pakistan's forthcoming military operation in Waziristan will rely on air power rather than on ground offensives, an approach that isn't likely to eliminate the homegrown extremists and probably will disappoint Western allies, according to Pakistani officials and analysts.

...

Artillery, jet fighters and attack helicopters will be used to wear down the Islamist guerrillas, but ground forces will play a limited role in the mountainous landscape of Waziristan, which strongly favors guerrilla warfare and where the Taliban are deeply entrenched, the officials and analysts said. U.S. pilotless drones, which are armed with missiles and sophisticated technology to home in on individuals, might augment Pakistani air power.

...

"The nature of the operation is totally different from what we did in Swat," said a senior Pakistani security official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. "It is just blocking the entrance. Nothing goes in, nothing comes out. We'll keep punishing (the enemy) with long arms, air (power), Cobra (helicopters).

...

A security expert who's knowledgeable about Pakistan's plans said that the aim of the South Waziristan move was to "disrupt" and "punish" Mehsud's network, not to engage in a ground battle that could lead to significant casualties among soldiers. He said ground troops would be used for "search and cordon" incursions against high-value targets: Mehsud and his senior commanders. The expert asked not to be identified, as he wasn't authorized to speak publicly on the matter.

Any bets on the success of this particular strategy?

marct

07-12-2009, 03:45 PM

Any bets on the success of this particular strategy?

It *might* work, in the short run, if it is co-ordinated with coalition efforts in Afghanistan and, at the same time, tied in with local "uprisings" against the Taliban (i.e. people either switching sides - again - or getting fed up with them). I think a lot with depend on sending a co-ordinated message in both the IO and kinetic spheres.

goesh

07-13-2009, 03:25 PM

- they'll just spend more time on the Afghan side of the fence for a while, its in their DNA

George L. Singleton

07-14-2009, 12:31 AM

...and the US Marines are waiting for the bums on the Afghan side of the border!

Touche!

tequila

07-14-2009, 12:13 PM

I'll just throw my own guess: it won't work. Airstrikes and SSG raids didn't work before, and it won't work again, except to absolutely convince everyone in South Waziristan that Islamabad is their enemy, not their government.

I don't care if you kill Beitullah Mehsud with one of these strikes, as I expect we will one of these days. The TTP will not overrun Pakistan, but it is successfully creating its own zone where the Pakistani government by its own admittance cannot go. As long as this occurs, the Swat Valley op will have to be done again and again and again. The TTP must be challenged comprehensively in its own territory by adequately resourced government troops unafraid of close combat.

George L. Singleton

07-14-2009, 05:08 PM

Concur...if you read other postings I did today, 7/14/09 you will find similar remarks, in more detail, by me together with a link to related article in 7/14/09 WASHINGTON POST.

davidbfpo

07-14-2009, 07:16 PM

I've not combed the web for support, but my understanding is that two full divisions and five SF groups were deployed for the operation.

Now according to the IISS Military Balance Pakistan has eighteen infantry divisions and one SF group (with three batts). Thanks to George's monitoring we know that the Frontier Corps SF (no numbers) and Azad Kashmir troops (with M113 APC) were deployed.

Residents are reported to be returning, note in small numbers compared to the previously reported 2m displaced: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8150109.stm

davidbfpo

George L. Singleton

07-15-2009, 12:57 PM

Leave it to the Scotland Yard folks to take the time to read the details and fine print to recognize unique elements of the Pak Army now in the Pak/Afghan/Swat fight against the Taliban and al Qaida.

Folks I hear from privately in Lahore indicate that some of the divisions David mentions came from previous postings on the Pak/India border, and about time, too.

davidbfpo

07-15-2009, 06:32 PM

An interesting review article on changes in Pakistan, note it cites a "bottom up" from a general in Bajaur Agency using a different approach to the Army and Frontier Corps doing COIN: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/65200/haider-ali-hussein-mullick/lions-and-jackals?page=show (note the author's blogsite opens and then freezes computer).

davidbfpo

davidbfpo

07-15-2009, 08:48 PM

I missed the BBC TV Panorama documentary on the battle for Swat Valley, broadcast 28th June: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00l967g Commentary aside some good film of both sides. Grim on Taliban tactics: flogging a teenage girl, beheading soldiers and an attack on a mosque. Leaving aside 170 girls schools burnt out.

davidbfpo

davidbfpo

07-16-2009, 10:10 AM

An interesting report on the civilians leaving South Waziristan to escape the conflict: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8152366.stm

davidbfpo

davidbfpo

07-21-2009, 05:08 PM

A play on the Monty Python phrase in 'Life of Brian' and added here as an indication why Pakistanis ask what has the nation-state done for me. From a woman's point of view too: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/opinion/19kristof.html?_r=2

Could funding this be seen as people to people and life-changing? So to mutual advantage. With Pakistan providing matching funds. Once can but dream!

davidbfpo

davidbfpo

07-22-2009, 09:01 PM

What I found puzzling (being polite) is that the NYT article is based on a presentation by ISI. Yet more evidence IMHO of the "stop and go" strategy used so often by Pakistan before.

Question(s) Pakistan is in crisis and needs to deploy more of it's army internally. Is there a current threat from India? A better way exists in Afghanistan in talking to (our) Taliban. Send us more US$ and we can help you, not our own people. Trust us (ISI).

You got me persauded, thanks NYT.

davidbfpo

davidbfpo

07-23-2009, 04:20 PM

The Australian has followed up the NYT & ISI article, with an interview with a Pakistani NWFP ANP politician (the ANP are in the national coalition government), who comments:

These are mere mock operations in order to convince NATO and the US that Pakistan is serious (about fighting) extremists and that Pakistan is not the mother of extremism, in fact, extremists are being protected and promoted with the object of destabilising Afghanistan, to compel America to seek Pakistani support, give them dollars and, ultimately, make Afghanistan a stooge state of Pakistan.

Regarding the failure in the Swat valley to get any leaders:

Unless the principal germs -- who have sown the seeds of extremism -- are eradicated, how can we claim the disease has been eradicated? There should be precise operations and hot pursuit of these leaders (but) I am afraid they're being protected

The full article: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25821004-2703,00.html

davidbfpo

davidbfpo

07-23-2009, 08:33 PM

An interesting comment by a retired Pakistani Army brigadier, who served in the FATA for both military intelligence and ISI: http://watandost.blogspot.com/

davidbfpo

George L. Singleton

07-24-2009, 12:53 AM

David, thanks for posting the Brigadier's article.

What jumped out at me most was:

The likely hideouts are the Dawar area of North Waziristan, Upper Orakzai Agency and the Pakhtun areas of Balochistan. However, if the operations are conducted in both Waziristan agencies, than Zhob and other Pakhtun areas of Balochistan are going to be places where the militants will flee.

Two schools of thought on over advertising in the open the operations before begun in N. and S. Wazirstan:

1. To let the civilian population know to "get out of the way and out of the area" to lower collateral damage/deaths.

2. To warn the key leadership of al Qaida and the Taliban so they could seek shelter elsewhere while letting their men be killed in the future fighting.

Jedburgh, too, has had a series of very informative posts the last few days, in particular, in my opinion. I am too stupid to keep up the adroit, well informed useful info you guys seem to roll over and toss out casually.

All of you keep up the good information and experience sharing. I note a growing number of US company grade and early field grade join-ups on SWJ. This is very encouraging.

Also note a few, would like to see more, Canadians and down unders registering. The more the better.

What I would really like to see are some still serviing, perhaps too much to ask for, Pakistani and Afghan officers and NCOs offering their views and suggestions.

It would uniquely also be helpful to hear from a few regular Army officers in Iran on how they flush out and deal with al Qaida cells which I read of late are being rooted out.

Too, the Saudi Royal family officers currently serving as to how they are containing and controlling the Wahabbi terrorist training camps and schools inside Saudi Arabia.

My wish list could go on and on.

davidbfpo

07-26-2009, 10:01 PM

A radical cleric, Sufi Mohammad, who brokered a failed peace deal in Pakistan's Swat valley has been arrested, officials say: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8169385.stm

davidbfpo

George L. Singleton

07-27-2009, 02:57 AM

A martial law firing squad?

davidbfpo

07-27-2009, 09:07 AM

George,

I would suggest the very fact the cleric's arrest has been revealed means he will not "disappear" and there is no martial law in Pakistan. On reflection others have been arrested and have "disappeared". Arrested by who, ISI, police, para-military or Army?

What will be important is how long he is held and what he is charged with at court.

More details on his arrest, note he was reported to be in "protective custody" in May 2009 and was then released: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/07/pakistan_detains_suf.php

davidbfpo

JarodParker

07-30-2009, 08:29 PM

Possible good news from Pakistan. Hopefully the Pakistani government will support/monitor them so they don't get wiped out by the Taliban or become a rogue militia themselves.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090730/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan_militia

George L. Singleton

07-31-2009, 06:58 PM

Perhaps a clear cut war fighting zone where this cleric was captured needs a fast court process as under martial law, shoot on sight, etc?

davidbfpo

04-30-2011, 08:29 AM

Peter Oborne, one of the UK's best reporters IMHO, has been in Karachi, Pakistan's commercial capital and a huge city beset with problems:
In the last 60 years the population of Karachi has risen from 300,000 to nearly 20 million. The pressure for homes, water and food - compounded by high levels of unemployment - has lead to furious conflict between the rival ethnic groups, with around 1300 people killed in gangland violence last year.

His report is based on following an ambulance driver, employed by a charity and a shorter period with a police inspector, who states:
...at least 100 of his officers have been killed in the past year.

The title of the thread comes from his closing comment - worth fast forwarding to, if twenty five minutes cannot be spared.

The film clip on: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/unreported-world/4od#3180510

The written summary is on: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/unreported-world/episode-guide/series-2011/episode-4

The links do work in the USA and a SWC viewer responded:
They should stop making cop shows about Americans and make cops shows about Karachi cops. That was something.

Tukhachevskii

04-30-2011, 01:29 PM

There was also this short lived fly-on-the-wall documentary by Channel 4 (iirc) a few years ago called, appropriately enough, Karachi Kops (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-06K9fG_LU)

carl

04-30-2011, 05:35 PM

The human material is there. Those two guys are worthy of all the best adjectives, brave, dedicated, noble even. For real. The question is, can Pakistan figure a way to allow men like that to rise and have broader influence?

That ambulance driver, a unprepossessing middle age man, has to be the coolest, most fearless guy for a 5 block radius. The traffic he drove in and the things he did in it were hair raising.

blueblood

05-01-2011, 04:17 AM

Here is another example of a Karchi cop Amir Khan who is affectionately called Chulbul Pandey (A fictional cop from an Indian movie). This guy is really popular but I think he got transferred.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oDDAS4ET2M&feature=related

cowboy14

09-27-2011, 08:38 AM

Yeah he is very popular throughout the south asia

davidbfpo

12-24-2011, 12:14 AM

Moderator's Note

Given the crossover between Pakistani politics and the Pakistani military many posts could fit in either. This is the main thread for comments on Pakistani politics and for the Pakistani military refer to:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=8282

davidbfpo

12-24-2011, 12:57 AM

Our occasional correspondent Hamid Hussain has provided a commentary (on attachment) on Pakistan's emerging political situation, notably the guided emergence of Imran Khan's political party and yes, the role of the military / ISI.

The title is my own and reflects some of Hamid's pessimism.

omarali50

12-24-2011, 02:30 AM

This is an old post now, but may be of interest: http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2011/11/imran-khan-the-12th-man-rises.html

Also see about more recent events: http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/12/22/pakistan-what-next/

and http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/12/20/imran-khan-a-very-punjabi-takedown-in-kasur/

http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/12/19/zardari-back-in-pakistan/

and on a lighter note: http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/12/22/don-zardari/

omarali50

12-24-2011, 02:32 AM

Ken White

12-24-2011, 03:41 AM

The US consistently turns to Ivy League educated 'analysts' who confuse New Jersey with El Salvador. Heaven forbid we'd listen to anyone who actually lived there... :rolleyes:

carl

12-25-2011, 12:59 AM

and need I add...as usual an excellent post from Hamid Sahib. I wish the US just asks him instead of wasting money on Harvard educated "analysts" who confuse Pakistan with El-Salvador on a regular basis..

Omar: Hamid Sahib speaks of "a lot of pressure within the military from below especially from junior officers". From what I remember reading, some of the junior officers are restive because they want more overt support for the Islamists and an open break with the US. Is that more or less correct or are there other or different things?

omarali50

12-26-2011, 01:36 AM

Omar: Hamid Sahib speaks of "a lot of pressure within the military from below especially from junior officers". From what I remember reading, some of the junior officers are restive because they want more overt support for the Islamists and an open break with the US. Is that more or less correct or are there other or different things?

I think that is exactly what Hamid sahib means. I would add that in all these matters it is very important (in my humble opinion) to avoid looking at these pressures as primary facts. GHQ has its own "think tanks" and it is not only subject to such pressures, it very systematically creates such ideas in the first place. It is indeed possible that the very top officers may on occasion wish to change policy A or B and may face grumbling from junior officers because said change is contrary to the narrative they have been taught all their life (two-nation-theory, Islamism, "national interest" being nuclear bombs, kashmir jihad and domination of Afghanistan, etc etc) but keep in mind:
1. Military discipline is still intact and it is very much possible for senior officers to dress up a U-turn in words that satisfy (or at least publicly shut up) Junior officers. (in the short term).
2. It is impossible to imagine that in 10 years GHQ could not have caused a gradual shift in opinion using the various levers at its disposal, IF that was the intent (long term).

And the same goes for politics. Anti-American or anti-Indian pressure is not a permanent god-given fact of life (except in a fringe, and that kind of thing happens in every country). It is cultivated and kept bubbling at whatever is considered "the optimum temperature". Not completely under control, but not as out-of-control as sometimes projected. That is also my main beef with "analysts" like Anatol Lieven. A lot of BS about devolution and grass-roots democracy is actually part of well thought out calculations about how to undermine political parties that threaten to disrupt the "proper" balance between the dominant military intelligence agencies and the political class.

See also: http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/12/25/the-rise-and-rise-of-imran-khan/