omarali50:
Do you think Pakistan will pull out of its' death spiral before the catastrophe comes?
Printable View
omarali50:
Do you think Pakistan will pull out of its' death spiral before the catastrophe comes?
My usual optimistic take is that the ruling elite is fond of skating close to the edge and have nothing to sell except nuisance value, so they do take risks. but they are not suicidal.
Also, even if the state is in trouble, the people are not worthless. They find ways to survive. No alternative is obvious. So we will survive.
On the other hand, there is this:
http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrin...=9&dt=1/7/2011
Since this is "from the horse's mouth", it tells me that the superthinkers at GHQ are going to try a new high jump (as friend Kamran Shafi would put it).
I like that. It is kind of poetic.Quote:
Originally Posted by omarali50
A good commentary by a Pakistani on FP:http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts...akistani_state
This says it all:Quote:
The cancer of fanaticism that consumed Taseer's life is a product of two generations of Pakistani state actions, starting with General Zia-ul Haq's offering up the country as an assembly line of warriors for the war in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union in the 1990s, and continuing with General Pervez Musharraf's offering up the same country as a staging ground for a war against those very warriors. The role of the war in Afghanistan and America's presence in the region is inescapable. It has helped catalyze and deepen the pre-existing groundswell of a radicalized the mainstream Pakistani narrative. This mess has been more than thirty years in the making. It is clear that no amount of externally-stimulated counterinsurgency or counterterrorism will do the trick. More is needed, much more. And all of it has to be organic and local. This, more than any other, is the greatest of intergenerational struggles.
David, I will start by saying that I wish both you and Mosharref Zaid well. You are fair and well intentioned and Mosharraf sahib is a pragmatist who is trying to find some way to get from A to B and will write whatever helps. Since I think getting to B will be an improvement, I am with him too.
But, and there is always a but, the statement above is not really accurate. Among ourselves, wouldnt it be better to know the truth? I know the favored liberal propaganda line is that America is responsible for the jihadis, but I know many of the people involved in that wonderful period and I can tell you, the Americans would have been equally happy if the Afghan operation was staffed by hobbits..it was our brilliant General Zia who understood the potential for Jihad and made sure it was funded to the max; also, we accelerated recruitment and training AFTER the Americans left in 1991, so its a bit disingenuous to blame them for the growth of the jihadi menace. Finally, Musharraf's choice did not occur in a vaccum. The international terrorist network that our own intelligence agencies had facilitated had carried out an act of terrorism in the US. Whatever America's evil reasons for encouraging this menace for many years, it was now time to change course. What would Mosharref recommend? Staying the course with the jihadis was not an option. The crisis is not because America has "destabilized the region". The violence is due to jihadists refusing to go quietly into that good night. It would be perfectly accurate to say that they would never have gone quietly, though one can also say that their departure has not been well handled. But what is Mosharraf Zaidi's theory about how this could have been done without causing violence in Pakistan?
The elite is in trouble and deserves to be in trouble. American interference has been ham-handed and poorly handled...but better handling would not have prevented violence. There are three sources of violence: one is the element of violence seen in every third world country where a small corrupt elite lords it over the mass of the people. Second is the added layer of violence caused by Islamist fanatics in many different Muslim countries because their ideal society is incompatible with current worldwide trends. The third is absolutely unique to our nation: it is the army's own arming and training and financing and ideologically supporting the most fanatical and vicious elements in the country in some insane scheme to wrest Kashmir from India and project power into Afghanistan and beyond. They did this with no awareness of the fact that they were arming and training the very people who would drive them out of their plush houses in Islamabad and Defence housing estates. For that we can thank the National Defence University and other islands of unadulterated bull#### where people like Musharraf learned that the "complex strategic threat from India" necessitated arming and training these killers.
The problem is, the jihadis have no solution. Their "solution" is going to be a bloodbath with no stopping point. If the elite (corrupt, worthless, whatever, they are still our relatives and friends) does fall apart and run away to wherever they have stashed the cash, then we are in for a very violent disaster...one that may only be settled after china sends in those special forces they are training in Inner Mongolia for this eventuality (I hear the Chinese are very far-sighted....though this rumor too may turn out to be a liberal delusion)..
Omar Ali,
In your opinion who are the main supporters of the extremists in the Pakistan now? Why?
Who in Pakistan opposes the extremists? Why?
For both questions I know the answers are not easy, but in general terms (which is generally misleading), what populace groups and what government officials/organizations support and resist?
As you wrote, the extremists don't have a solution, they only offer blood shed and suppression of any learning and culture. It puzzles many of us as to why the extremists appear to have such a large following in Pakistan. People are rarely rational, so we shouldn't be surprised, but they're not normally suicidial either.
Is the Pakistan media afraid to tell the truth? What publications or other means informs peoples opinions there?
The rumor on the Chinese coming to the rescue is interesting, and it is the first I heard of it, but I guess it is believable to the people who see constantly see positive press reports about the Chinese despite their abysmal human rights record. Addtionally the Chinese went on record saying they only do business, they don't get involved in internal politics (not entirely true), but do the Pakistanis really think it is in the Chinese best interest to intervene in an ethnic conflict where there is no foreseeable end? Only we would do that.
Always enjoy reading your comments.
Londonistani writes as ever an on the ground comment that is worth reading on Abu M:http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawam....html#comments
He ends with:I can vouch for the fact that this is not Bob's World writing under an alias.Quote:
If events such as the killing of Taseer are the symptoms of a failing state, would a succeeding state be the solution? In a word, yes. Pakistan's antidote, if it arrives, will come in the form of good, effective governance, social justice, accountability and transparency. At the end of the day, only Pakistanis can achieve those things for their country.
David,
Good post, and topic that has been discussed at length. Three questions for the community.
1. What is a failed state?
2. What happens after a state has failed?
3. Does foreign intervention only delay the natural evolution of the political process?
I think we have seen instances where the executive leadership has failed (the Philippines under Marcos) and a subsequent state emerged that was a little better. Perhaps the same in Romania? Poland? etc., but that depends on how you define failed State.
We have also seen the examples of Somalia where a subsequent State hasn't truly emerged, and the failed State status of Afghanistan after the communist government collapsed, where the bloodshed was stopped by the intervention of the Taliban.
What happens if the State fails in Pakistan? What would it look like? How would a new government emerge?
Bill, to answer your earlier question about who supports extremism in Pakistan, my view is this:
1. In most modern states (perhaps all of them), most of the population follows the lead of the national security apparatus in deciding who is an enemy and who is a friend. The RARE exception is a narrowly-based and extremely unpopular regime that can, over time, lose so much credibility that their view does not influence most people. This is not about the daily "poll ranking" of the President of the US, its about totally losing faith in the state system as such (a rare and near-terminal event). In other words, I devalue the worth of surveying the population to find out who is enemy and who is friend. That does not mean no other factor plays a role, but its to emphasize that the state's propaganda is more important than almost any other factor.
2. The Pakistani population follows the lead of the Pakistani state. The state has identified Hindus, Jews and their agents as the enemies of the imaginary Ummah and its vanguard state (Pakistan). That deep state is the "supporter of extremism" that counts. There are several other powerful factors in play (and their powerfulness is a testament to the relative failure of the state) but even now, even today, nothing counts as much as what the deep state wants.
3. The deep state is not some imaginary abstraction. There is a very real apparatus of brain-washing, its organized, its operators know what they are aiming for. If you need to know who they are, check out: http://criticalppp.com/archives/33954
4. I know the above link is a partisan website with a very definite agenda. I just urge you to give thought to the possibility that the same may be said of the supporters of the deep state, but Western observers are trained to regard "mainstream media" as more or less free and middle of the road and to discount conspiracy theories about secret cabals. THat is a good policy in general, but always keep in mind that there ARE exceptions Sometimes, the paranoid DO have enemies...
I agree the media is the means to shape opinion and radicalize the populace, and it is also the means to send the message that cripples the radical message. Since apparently there is no dissenting voice against this extremism in the Pakistan media (I'm guessing, I don't know), then maybe he who controls the media is the one who controls the State or pseudo state?
I would add that the media in Pakistan is reasonably free and liberal opinion does still exist. My point was that the "deep state" deploys real power to push forward a certain worldview that they consider very important to the survival of Pakistan (they are wrong in my opinion). This worldview supports extremism. This worldview may have privately changed in some people at the top in GHQ (maybe), but they have neither publicised this change of heart, nor asked their many many agents in the media to do so...that is the single most powerful factor in this equation.
Having said that, its possible that we are past some point of no return. I hope not, but maybe. Maybe they cannot publicly change their position because they have genuinely lost control of the situation. But in that case, we must start from this fact: that they have lost control of the situation. We cannot have it both ways..that they control the country and yet they cannot use their resources to influence ideology against the "extremists"...something is wrong with this picture.
Omarali50:
I read that the public education system in Pakistan teaches the worldview favored by the "deep state." Is that true?
IPCS, 7 Jan 11: Reading Pakistan I - Who Killed Salman Taseer?
IPCS, 10 Jan 11: Reading Pakistan II - Four Implications of Salman Taseer's AssassinationQuote:
Yes, of course the security guard pumped bullets into Salman Taseer, the Governor of Punjab, who stood against the Blasphemy laws in Pakistan. But, did he really kill Taseer? Or is he only an expression and an instrument of a larger narrow religious chauvinism?
Salman Taseer was not assassinated for political reasons. His assassination was a culmination of his opposition to the blasphemy law in general, and more specifically, his efforts to commute the death sentence of Aasiya Bibi, awarded by the lower court on charges of blasphemy.
Quote:
A voice of reason against the abuse of blasphemy law in Pakistan has been brutally silenced. What are the implications? If his assassination is a loss to the moderate voices in Pakistan, who stands to gain? What does this loss and gain mean for the future of Pakistan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
Absolutely true.http://www.cfr.org/publication/20364...extremism.html
I have several comments on the following blog that may be of interest: http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/01/...tion/#comments
I dont know, but the thought has crossed my mind that America will not manage to turn the army in any significant way...I think the US wants to get out and the army will provide a relatively soft exit and thats about it. The mess that follows will be China's headache (and India's). Maybe thats not such a catastrophe. The Chinese start out with less baggage and they are more businesslike and ruthless. Hopefully, they will guide their local agents into some simulacrum of stability.
I am ranting and raving a little, so I will drop it for now. I really dont know how this will turn out. But if you want to know the deep state's latest attempt at humor, check out: http://aq-lounge.blogspot.com/2011/0...rom-abyss.html
Interesting article in DAWN: "The Rise of Mehran Man":
The rise of urbanized middle classes in India, China, Pakistan, and Russia may lead to greater prosperity and democratization, but also to increased political instability, radicalism, and hyper-nationalism as well. Germany and Japan in the early 20th century provide cautionary examples of how rising prosperity does not necessarily equate to greater liberalism, especially if economic conditions turn. The current economic crisis in Pakistan might be just such a turning point, and not for the better.Quote:
Often, perceptive foreigners spot social trends that escape us because we are too close to them to see the changes going on around us. For instance, Burke identifies the shift away from English, and sees ‘Mehran man’ as urban, middle class and educated outside the elite English-medium system. He sees Muslims being under attack from the West, and genuinely believes that the 9/11 attacks were a part of a CIA/Zionist plot. Actually, my experience is that many highly educated and sophisticated people share this theory.
Burke continues his dissection of the rising Pakistani middle class: “Mehran man is deeply proud of his country. A new identification with the ummah, or the global community of Muslims, paradoxically reinforces rather than degrades his nationalism. For him, Pakistan was founded as an Islamic state, not a state for South Asian Muslims. Mehran man is an ‘Islamo-nationalist’. His country possesses a nuclear bomb….”
Mehran man’s views about the region and the world reflect contradictions and confusion. While India is home to Bollywood and IPL cricket, it is also viewed as the historic enemy. And while increasingly Islamic jihadis who kill Pakistanis are seen as terrorists, those who kill westerners or Indians are called freedom fighters. Small surprise, then, that public opinion in Pakistan no longer favours a pro-western agenda.
In his encounters with army officers, Burke sees a growing alienation from western goals and aims. According to him, the army is now full of Mehran men, and this has dramatically changed the institution’s orientation.
I think the Mehran Man business is overrated. its true enough of army officers but the vast majority of Pakistanis are still urban poor or rural peasants, not "Mehran man". Mehran Man is ruling the place right now, but the basis for this creation is almost entirely imaginary (including extremely silly books like Indus Saga, and of course, the blessed "two-nation theory"). Mehran man will have to compromise with the reality of Pakistan's Indian and Afghan origins (with persian high culture thrown in) a bit more or he (and his women) are in for very serious trouble...
Pakistan I think can be described as an egg that moves around as the wind blows and a variety of players armed with a variety of weapons try to hit it. Some clearly want to smash the egg and re-assemble it very differently. Bit by bit those overseas, including those of Pakistani heritage, shrug their shoulders and are less inclined to help the egg survive.
US, UK and other Western players policy has been to shore up the 'egg', but as we know it has also given the military players some weapons and loads of US$.
Earlier Bill asked:Remarkably the Pakistani state is quite resilient and it is civil society, especially the secular parts, that are being battered. The state will survive. Look like? A more Islamic state, in reality not the current rhetoric, without affecting the power of the urban and rural rich (assuming they stay). Yet another period of 'emergency' and with little role for the West.Quote:
What happens if the State fails in Pakistan? What would it look like? How would a new government emerge?
Isn't the big danger though that the Indians will panic or be provoked beyond endurance? What would happen then is beyond bad.
No, the big danger is that Pakistan will become more overtly Islamist, will finally be cut off from international assistance, and will then fall into serious disorder due to the Islamist's inability to provide basic services and manage existing internal conflicts...(I assume that China will not pick up the tab; that in turn is based on the assumption that the Chinese know how to count money)
India cannot do anything dangerous (and will not do anything dangerous) as long as Pakistan is a functioning state. If it falls into disorder, they will face piracy, illegal immigration and terrorism threats like everyone else in the neighbourhood.
The US has the least to worry about, but will pull its hair out and invest large amounts up to that point as if it has a lot to lose. WHen you play worldcop long enough, you start to believe your own responsibilities are very serious.
I recognize the possibility that the overt Islamist takeover will be so ruthless that they will actually organize a functioning state. But it will not be the international threat that is being imagined. It will still barely keep its head above water while shooting thousands to maintain order.
A dystopian (and satirical/exaggerated) vision of that state is at http://accidentalblogger.typepad.com...-2022omar.html
Hat tip to Circling the Lion's Den for drawing attention to the pakistani news report on:Link:http://circlingthelionsden.blogspot....idnappers.htmlQuote:
..Colonel Imam, the former Pakistani ISI officer responsible for training many of the current leaders of the Afghan Taliban, including leader Mullah Omar, has been found murdered outside the town of Mir Ali in North Wazirstan.
One wonders how those within ISI who sympathise with the Taliban - the Pakistani variety - will react. Note the report implies those responsible are renegades. What will be more interesting is the reaction amongst the local populace.
USIP, 1 Feb 11: Reforming Pakistan's Police and Law Enforcement Infrastructure: Is It Too Flawed To Fix?
Quote:
An effective police force is critical to countering insurgency. In Pakistan, an understaffed and underequipped police force is increasingly called on to manage rising insecurity and militant violence. This report evaluates the obstacles to upgrading the existing police system and recommends traditional and innovative reform options, including major restructuring of the total civilian law enforcement infrastructure, without which the police force cannot be effectively improved. Because Pakistan’s police capacity has direct implications for the country’s ability to tackle terrorism, the United States and its allies would realize counterterrorism dividends by helping law enforcement efforts through modern training and technical assistance.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...DMSKchOBEgbNnA
We go after the Taliban and Al-Qaeda because they kill innocent men, women & children in Afghanistan. They whine, weasel, and defend the same people who're killing off their government, and their country bit by bit. The duplicity, apologism, and excuses that go with their defense of this scum is disgusting and immoral.
Like the man said, "It is as clear as the sun in the sky.", that duplicity and immorality, yet we refuse to see it. What does that say about us?
Keep in mind that they have no vocabulary for dealing with this. Many middle class pakistanis are already asking if this assassination was carried out by Blackwater to "malign Pakistan". I am not kidding.
Again, what people in the US frequently miss is the fact that these views are not fringe views. They are not even Glenn Beck style bull#### (where the bull####ter knows he is bull####ting and nobody in the policy establishment really believes his shtick)..in Pakistan, the lunacy is mainstream. Scratch Shuja Pasha and he probably believes its all a Jewish-Hindu plot too. Kiyani sahib is probably smarter, but even he wont have the vocabulary with which to challenge this discourse, so if his officers start the zionist conspiracy BS, he will just mumble and change the subject and pray that everyday mundane needs will keep most people working without going completely bonkers.
http://content.usatoday.com/communit...-in-pakistan/1
Not bad at all. In fact, one of the better statements a high official in the US has made (the usual bit about "what Pakistanis desire" can be safely ignored). At least he openly questioned the blasphemy laws and stated the criteria by which a civilized nation should be judged.
Not that it will do much good. Zardari is courageous enough in a street brawler kind of way, but seems to lack the ability to deliver, and the army is focused on "beating India". They are not going to wake up until somebody drives them out of their housing societies. And they have the US over a barrel, or think they do, so why change course?
A former colleague of mine is an Ahmadi Muslim who was born in Lahore around 1947. He said the persecution made possible under Pakistan's blasphemy laws is what caused his family to leave the country. Intisar became a naturalized American citizen and a U.S. Army pharmacist who retired as a major.
If you are curious about the Pakistani middle class response: http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/...ti-assasinated
This is NOT one of the deep state's network of websites. Those (PKKH, Ahmedqureshi.com, rupeenews, etc) must be going deep into conspiracy mode by now but I have not seen them yet..
They just make crap up rather than looking at the truth. It's fairly pathetic and venal.Quote:
Originally Posted by omarali50
I don't like seeing how they're going to lie to themselves & cause a real war. Once Pakistan falls to the crazy militants, there will be a war, because that's what they want. Pakistan will be devastated. There is no scenario that has them winning anything. The militants will kill anyone who stands in the way of their fanatic goals, that's what they do, and that's all they're good for. They like to claim religion whenever they blasphemously & evilly claim to be killing in the name of god, so it's fairly ironically stupid that people listen to them over those matters. Little do they seem to understand that no one wins when everyone is setting out to kill people they don't agree with. Any religious dogma that advocates killing unarmed civilians as an answer to disagreement is a false theology that is not good, that has whatever good that was there corrupted like spoiled milk.
The bottom line is Pakistan is going to fall to these maniacs because they lack the will and decency to stop murderers. They're worrying about the CIA when they really need to be worrying about what $2 billion worth of bombs dropped on them would look like. That aside from what we could euphemistically refer to as a cost savings, because we wouldn't need to spend another $2 billion the next year for sure if they choose to give the rest of the civilized world no better options.
The fact is that not even MAD protects them, because they just won't get that far ever.
Tom Ricks at Best Defense pointed out this story from the Asia Times.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/MC25Df01.html
The story states that Mr. Bin Laden has been moving about both sides of the Durand Line frequently in recent months visiting many people including Hekmatyar (sic). The author of the story thinks he is up to something and speculates at to what.
This seems to me an important thing and I wonder what others around here think.
Carl,
Strip away the historical, interesting angle there is a lot of speculation here about OBL's movements, based on alleged multiple sources within the Jihadist groups, groups that IIRC do not have a history of talking to outsiders. What I did not was that Gulbuddin Hekmatyar is alleged to have had a visit, after the much rumoured talks with NATO and others. That I call exposure and high risk.
Overall, not convinced.
Hat tip to Circling the Lion's Den, a story I've not seen reported elsewhere, despite the prominence of the original attack, in March 2009:Link:http://circlingthelionsden.blogspot....a-cricket.htmlQuote:
Police in Lahore, Pakistan, have announced that another six members of the gang that attacked the Sri Lankan cricket team in March 2009 have been arrested following a tip-off.
Note Circling is not persuaded those arrested are TTP, preferring LeT. There's also the reported arrest of a Bali bombs suspects (back in October 2002) in Pakistan and his likely transfer to Indonesia. Well-timed arrests due to the cricket match between India and Pakistan.
Now will we see those arrested appear in court charged?
An interesting commentary by you.Quote:
Originally Posted by omarali50
While the article does indicate some of the reasons for the malaise, what, in your opinion can stem the rot.
The Pakistani websites seem to be spouting venom against the US for the drone attacks, manipulating the Pakistani govt and leaving it a vague suggestion that the US is running Pakistan. They are however silent on the US financial and military aid that keeps Pakistan afloat.
I am not sure what the Urdu media has to say since I do not know the Urdu script.
It is not that Pakistan is a failure. It appears that the Govt and even the Army are rudderless and have lost their vision. While encouraging the fundamental elements as s 'strategic weapon', they are allowing them to dismember Pakistan with unending bombing and massacre.
What is the answer to bring Pakistan back to the reality of the environment and bring back its stability?
From the point of view of the "paknationalists", things are not going too badly. US and NATO funding for various needs has been helpful, but other sources do exist and will step in when and if the NATO infidels leave. For example, Saudi Arabia and the gulf states are going to need a lot of mercenaries in the coming days and where else will they get them? China is getting rich so fast it changes as you blink. Hopefully,they will pay in the next phase. Islamist insurgents create an ongoing problem, but the good jihadis are still behaving and the bad ones mostly kill civilians. Its not the end of the world.
I write this with some bitterness, because I think they are mistaken. But they are not COMPLETELY mistaken. So the mess goes on. You can check out my views at
http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/03/...imar-republic/
you can see some of the paknationalist viewpoint at
http://www.ahmedquraishi.com/2011/03...united-states/
I must add that I have heard the argument (from leftist friends who credit the US with great Machiavellian abilities) that all these websites are CIA fronts...I find that hard to believe, but its a good time to say "how would I know"...
Thank you.
The major players/ factors in the arena of Pakistan and its stability, as far as I see, are Pakistan Government, the Army, the ISI, the good and bad jihadis, the growing sub-nationalism, the internecine historical rivalry between the Sunnis and the Shias, the targeting of the Sufis and the marginalising of the minorities to include the Ahmediyas.
Then there are the external factors, namely, the US and its actions in Afghanistan, the historical baggage in the form of India, Iran, China (to include China's fear of Islamic assistance to the Uyghurs), the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia.
We will discuss their involvement and effect on the situation later.
The so called democracy appears to have lost the authority (if one goes by the websites of Pakistan) and even the Army appeared to have lost out with the people after the Raymond Davis case, where the US cleverly used the Sharia to get out a rather tricky situation. This apparently infuriated the people more since they could not condemn the provision of the Sharia and yet at the same time, found it difficult to accept the 'escape' of a 'killer' of Muslims. The sacked Foreign Minister did only inflamed the situation.
The manner in which assassin of the Governor of Punjab was feted and the killing of the Christian minority Minister does indicate that the fundamentalists are on the ascendancy and the Govt writ is negligible.
The never ending bombing of mosques, shrines etc gives the impression that either the internal intelligence agencies are defunct or they are in collusion.
The militant fundamentalist organisation escape security scrutiny since they cover themselves with the guise of being philanthropic organisations.
Then the Courts seem to have taken a lax view towards those who are apprehended for these acts of crime.
To an external observer, it appears as if the Government has lost its grip over governance.
The US has its own agenda chalked out. For good or for worse, it would be naive to believe that the US will leave Afghanistan lock, stock and barrel, after so many have been sacrificed and so much money has been invested. It must also be remembered that they came into Afghanistan, not merely to get rid of the AQ, but for greater strategic reasons as follows:
a) to link the Caspian oil to Gwadar. It would do marvels for the US economy as also establish US presence in an area that is strategically important. (One may peruse Dick Cheney's Defence Policy Guidelines and the Oil Policy, when he was the Secretary of Defence).
b) have a hold over Balochistan wherein having a clear route for the oil pipeline to Gwadar, as also have a leverage over Pakistan and also, Iran - present to both some sort of a 'threat in being'.
c) neutralise China from Gwadar so that the Straits of Hormuz is 'safer' as also eliminate any possibility of the Chinese establishing electronic surveillance over US actions in the Middle East.
India, has it own agenda, as is reported in the Pakistani media. It is obvious that if Balochistan is in a state of unrest, it is to India's advantage since the Pakistani Army would be dispersed in the NW and Balochistan and thereby the pressure on Kashmir would be less.
China, is in a overdrive to compete with the US and without oil it will slow down the pace. They are also aware of the problems that could arise in using the Indian Ocean route to including the chokepoints of the Straits of Hormuz and Malacca. Therefore, the requirement of Gwadar, and a safe and secure route through Balochistan to the Karakorum and into East Turkmenistan. They have also organised a route through Myanmar and a direct route to East Turkmenistan from the Caspian. Hence, it indicates the importance China places in so far ensuring an uninterrupted oil supply.
Another fear of China and which is usually not spoken of, is the fear of the influence of the world wide fundamentalist movement having an adverse effect on the Uyghurs. This fear has pressured China to fast pace the demographic change in East Turkmenistan through Han migration, forced assimilation through marriage, depriving Uyghurs of white collar jobs subtly by rejecting them since they do not know Mandarin. This discrimination has spurred Uyghurs opting for education in Mandarin instead of their native language. They are forgetting their culture, traditions, customs and language. Soon, the threat of Islam would be a matter of the past. This forcible assimilation is not new to the Han Chinese. They have done so throughout history wherein today the Han Chinese population is said to be at 97% in China. That this has been feasible is because they converted the 'eastern barbarian' and the 'western barbarians'. The forcible assimilation is well documented in Olsen's An Ethnohistorical Dictionary - China.
As far as Iran is concerned, it is concerned about the Balochis since Eastern Iran has the same ethnic mix. That apart, the historical divide of Shia Sunnis also impact the relationship. The recent happenings in East Iran sort of soured the relations.
We are well aware of the equation Pakistan has with the Middle Eastern countries.
If this be the scenario, then what would be the Pakistan's strategy to balance all these contradictions, if you will, and emerge unscathed so to say.
Nobody will emerge unscathed.
I am personally a hippie liberal at heart, so I just wish everyone would just get along. But if it aint gonna happen, it aint gonna happen.
What if an "unthinkable" happened; and the US were to withdraw all armed forces (and aid) from South Asia and the Middle East.
In that posited scenario, what would the geopolitics of India, Pakistan and the adjacent regions look like ?
Regards
Mike
Mike:
If I can chime in. I think we are in the odd positions of saving Pakistan from the Pak Army/ISI. If we were to get out completely as you postulate, the Pak Army/ISI would get all puffed up with their mightyness and take actions that would eventually cause a showdown with India. That would be too horrible to contemplate.
The 'unthinkable' that the US will quit Middle East is unthinkable so to say :D
US economy is powered by Oil and even if the US can find other sources within the US, it will not use up its 'strategic reserve' and will depend on outside sources, mainly the Middle East.
If the US quits Afghanistan, then there is good reasons to believe that China and Russia will move in, maybe directly or through proxies. It is believed that there are large untapped deposits of mineral resources in Afghanistan. Russia will be interested since it will open an avenue to the Indian Ocean, through Iran, with which it has an ambivalent relationship and would do its utmost to keep China out. This is feasible since China supports Sunni Pakistan and there is the real threat of a Greater Balochistan, sponsored by Pakistan since such a movement will distract the Balochis and would curb their anti Pakistan activities.
India will not be abandoned by the US. The US interest in India is vast, given the market and the fact that it is the bulwark of US interest against China. India geographical shape wherein it juts in, into the Indian Ocean is ideal to keep the eastern and western flank of the Indian Ocean under check. The Andaman and Nicobar Islands of India is like a sentinel over the Malacca Straits as also a checkpoint to ingress into the Bay of Bengal, hence Chinese sea route interests in Myanmar. It is, however, a moot point as to how much India will bend to allow a free access to the US of her facilities, even though it will be a salutary check on Chinese interests in Myanmar, Sri Lanka and even Gwadar.
In the event the US quits South Asia, it will not abandon its covert activities in Pakistan. Pakistan, unfortunately, is on the boil. Subnationalism and sectarian activities, apart from the fundamentalists, are at work in Pakistan and this is dangerous for the polity and integrity of the nation. There is no telling if the US, assisted by other, will not give these activities a churn so as to 'immobilise' Pakistan.
China, on the other hand, will assist Pakistan to maintain status quo, enforce its writ in Balochistan, for obvious reasons, though it will not be too discomfited if the areas where the Islamic fundamentalists are kept on the boil, since it will ensure that these divisive interests do not manifest itself in East Turkmenistan.
It is obvious that such a scenario of instability in Pakistan will not keep the Govt or the Army calm. Given the fact that the US would have pulled out its troops and there would be no threat in the western half of Pakistan, it would use the fundamentalists as the 'strategic weapon' to not only heat up Kashmir through its proxies, but also undertake terrorist act within India to keep India on tenterhooks.
It would then be the ideal scenario for war between India and Pakistan, and given the delicate situation in Pakistan, could lead to a nuclear exchange.
Therefore, it would be to no one's interest that the US should leave the region, lock stock and barrel.
An insightful comment IMHO and opens with:Ends with:Quote:
The two successive attacks last week on pro-Taliban cleric Maulana Fazlur Rahman, who heads Pakistan's largest religious party, Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam Fazl (JUI-F), caught many observers by surprise. Yet these attacks against a strong supporter of the Taliban give credence to increasing evidence of rifts among the Taliban factions in Pakistan, whose central leadership - insofar as one can say the movement has a central leadership - is underground, and their organizational structure shattered in face of the increasing number of drone strikes and military operations. Yet this division masks new efforts by Taliban supporters in the Pakistani government to bring some militant groups, including the group Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) back in the fold, as the country's military and security services plan for the future.
On other threads IIRC we have discussed the impact of talks with the Afghan Taliban, including arrests of leaders and Pakistan's relations with others.Quote:
Indeed, while no one can deny Pakistan's connection with the Taliban and other groups, both local and foreign, analysts and security officials believe some fighters have escaped the grip of the country's intelligence services, leading in part to the rash of recent attacks on government installations and even pro-militant figures. Even as Pakistan re-orients its strategy towards militants as part of their planning for Afghanistan's future, these "splinters" may continue to wreak havoc with the government's best-laid plans.
Link:http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts...an_in_pakistan
I still remain puzzled how serious strategists in Pakistan, overwhelmingly still military-dominated, see a positive national role for "splinters", who might just set off a crisis, even war with India.
Note I do not dismiss talking to insurgents, which the UK has followed in secret, well sort of secret to the public, in Northern Ireland and of course the much mooted talks with the Afghan Taliban of late.
Maybe we should blame the West.
Our strategic horizon, in the times of the great maharaja Ranjit Singh, was limited to Northern India, Afghanistan and maybe Tibet (which one of Ranjit Singh's generals offered to conquer after he conquered Ladakh). But starting in 1953, our "brightest officers" were sent to study at American institutions of strategic learning. They came back with half-baked theories which they proceeded to teach in their own "National Defence University". From such seeds grew poisonous fruits like "strategic depth" and Shireen Mazari. The rest is history.
Islamofascism and Islamist extreme and murderous factionalism (exemplified by the Kharijites and now the TTP) have always been present (actually or potentially) in the Islamicate world and were available for use, but without the generous assistance of the University of Nebraska, would we have reached such brilliant heights?
Now, the genie is out of the bottle. And our Rommels and Guderians have no clue what to do, and more important, no vocabulary with which to construct an alternative. I think (and hope) that the pressure of economic necessity will give birth to alternatives at some point. Until then, we are condemned to more of the same.
The only rays of hope are that Indian "strategic thinkers" like B Raman seem to have more sense than Shireen Mazari and may actually help rather than hinder the transition. And the Chinese pulitburo (though not necessarily the PLA) is reasonably sane. On such thin threads hangs our fate....
http://www.economist.com/node/18488344
The Article summed up four troubling threads that have a negative impact on Pakistan:Quote:
The future would look brighter if there were much resistance to the extremists from political leaders. But, because of either fear or opportunism, there isn’t. The failure of virtually the entire political establishment to stand up for Mr Taseer suggests fear; the electioneering tour that the law minister of Punjab took with a leader of Sipah-e-Sahaba last year suggests opportunism. “The Punjab government is hobnobbing with the terrorists,” says the security officer. “This is part of the problem.” A state increasingly under the influence of extremists is not a pleasant idea.
1. Pakistan's strategic position
2. Islam's role in the nation
3. A useless government
4. Dominance of the Armed Forces
http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/04/...s-he-is-sorry/
Read and weep.
by positing two things ("Let's Pretend the Unthinkable 02"):
1. US withdraws military forces and military aid from South Asia and the Middle East.
2. US continues trade and commerce and economic aid in South Asia and the Middle East.
Why would any nation refuse to trade with the US under those circumstances, and elect a "Shut the Door" policy vs the US ?
Is there any military advantage to the US by continuing military forces and military aid in South Asia and the Middle East - other than to enhance US military operations in South Asia and the Middle East ?
Let's also be clear: "Never Again, but ..." (re: military force) does provide exceptions for presently-undefined "extreme cases".
Regards
Mike
You are more well versed on the subject than me. Nonetheless, if I may play the Devil's Advocate.Quote:
Originally Posted by omarali50
One wonders if the Rommels and Guderians do not have a clue or is it that they are being rutted in the niche that has become sort of a legacy from the very start when Pakistan became a Nation?
As I see it, the whole issue of the Army vs the Government (or governance) stems from the 'animosity' that was there between the 'sons of the soil' of what became Pakistan and the Mohajirs. This apparently has manifested itself, subtly, if you will, in the flow of Pakistan's short history.
The 'sons of the soil' of Pakistan, mostly illiterate or of the feudal strain and of the Army, were the inheritors of what became Pakistan. On the other hand, the Mohajirs, being educated and having expertise from their profession in undivided India in the bureaucratic, judicial and commerce realms, usurped the reins of power of what became Pakistan. It was, thus. obvious that this was not to the liking of the macho 'sons of the soil'.
The Mohajirs, being astute, realised that they were rootless in comparison. And therefore, they had to find ways and mean to establish their relevance to the State of Pakistan. Nothing could be better for ensuring their 'stamp' on Pakistan than having their language, Urdu, as the National Language. And there is no doubt, a National Language plays a major part to smoothen the rough edges and gives an ascendancy apart from subtly suggesting a supremacy of the group (the same is the case in India, where Hindi has been made the Official [note: note National] Language of India).
That apart, the Mohajirs laid great emphasis on Islam as the raison d'etre for Pakistan. None could dispute that since it would be blasphemous to do otherwise (note how conveniently Jinnah's address to the Constituent Assembly on 11 Aug 1947 was conveniently forgotten as soon as it was given). Thus, it established an anti Indian (read Hindu) psychology, so as to divert the attention from them being the rootless lot who had usurped the rightful place of the 'sons of the soil'.
Not to be outdone, the 'sons of the soil' made hay in the Kashmir vacillation by sending in tribal hordes, backed by their Army. They, thus, turned the tables on the Mohajir by championing Islam and the anti Indian sentiments churned by the Mohajirs as the cause.
In the bargain, the Army (read: sons of the soil) established their equal relevance to Pakistan and as a 'power centre' of Pakistan.
And then the story continued throughout the history of Pakistan with the see saw of civil vs the military in governance and power peddling.
Zia, went one step further. He incorporated the fundamentalists as the flag bearers of Islam when he unleashed them against the Soviets. Thereafter, he institutionalised these fundamentalists as a 'strategic weapon'.
However, the 'strategic weapon', became unemployed after the overthrow of the Soviets in Afghanistan. They could have created problems within Pakistan, and so they were vectored into Kashmir.
OBL ruined the Kashmir roadshow by organising 9/11.
US came down heavily in Afghanistan and the fundamentalists were on the run.
The Pakistan Govt, playing ball reluctantly with the US in the WoT, did some damage to the fundamentalists' infrastructure. The fundamentalists, finding their space narrowing, not only struck against the ISAF with vengeance but also against Pakistan. Initially, they targeted the Govt machinery and not finding adequate results or reaction, turned to make Pakistan a total chaos, by splintering into various group with various agendas and started targeting the population and fanning internecine sectarian rifts in the form of bombing Shia, Sufi, Ahmediya etc shrines and prayer places, while whipping up religious frenzy and recruiting 'religious warriors' in their various madrassa, well funded by the Saudis preaching the Wahabi doctrine that brooks no quarters to be given to the 'enemy'.
In this total internal and external confusion created by the fundamentalists and the fact that the 'strategic weapon' could not be forsaken for future use, the Pakistan governance and the Guderians and Rommels, while having all good intentions to bring in stability, have been reduced to a state of paralysis. They are at sixes and sevens and are not finding a solution how to resolve the contradictions of keeping afloat the bonhomie with the US and at the same, keep the fundamentalists on its right side.
It is a Catch 22 for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmm99
If the US quits ME and South Asia, it will hand it over to Russian and Chinese who will corner the areas under its 'sphere of influence'.
Already the Chinese are operating in large number in the Gilgit Baltistan area and it has the Gwadar port, next to the Straits of Hormuz, under its influence.
As per one source, about 15 tankers carrying 16.5 to 17 million barrels of crude oil pass through the strait on an average day, making it one of the world's most strategically important choke points. This represents 40% of the world's seaborne oil shipments, and 20% of all world oil shipments.
The strategic importance of the Straits of Hormuz is thus established and relinquishing this advantage (US has a naval base in Bahrain) would have serious consequences to the US wanting to remain as the sole superpower.
If India comes into the Russian 'sphere of influence', then the effect requires no elaboration.
I'll "bombard" you tomorrow - re: this ...
As to the last sentence ("India comes into the Russian 'sphere of influence'"); no way. You (India) cozing up to a Russki is about as likely as you mating with a skunk.Quote:
from Ray
If the US quits ME and South Asia, it will hand it over to Russian and Chinese who will corner the areas under its 'sphere of influence'.
Already the Chinese are operating in large number in the Gilgit Baltistan area and it has the Gwadar port, next to the Straits of Hormuz, under its influence.
As per one source, about 15 tankers carrying 16.5 to 17 million barrels of crude oil pass through the strait on an average day, making it one of the world's most strategically important choke points. This represents 40% of the world's seaborne oil shipments, and 20% of all world oil shipments.
The strategic importance of the Straits of Hormuz is thus established and relinquishing this advantage (US has a naval base in Bahrain) would have serious consequences to the US wanting to remain as the sole superpower.
If India comes into the Russian 'sphere of influence', then the effect requires no elaboration.
So, "Nyet": the Indo-Aryans of the Old World and the very mutant Indo-Aryans of the New World still have lot to talk about - and achieve a commonality.
My reason for not being more explicit is that I spent too much time tonite on this, Field Artillery, Ping and Booze, which may give you some idea of from whence I come.
In fact, you may want to PM me and see where both of us stand. For me, in summary, a "back woods" regional lawyer (ala Davy Crockett) - as from Rajastan > Delhi > Rajastan (you get the idea, I'm sure).
Regards
Mike
Mike:
Does your refined hypothetical include cutting Israel loose?
yes.
Putting it as you have makes it look harsh - cutting the rope to someone staying afloat in a life preserver comes to my mind image. That's not a criticism BTW. We do need a change from the suger-coated doubletalk of the BeltwayQuote:
from Carl
Does your refined hypothetical include cutting Israel loose?
But withdrawing military forces and military aid from a region has to mean exactly that - if that is the proposition.
Continuing with what we (US) have become accustomed to in the Middle East and South Asia (oil, minerals, Israel, etc.) is a major reason why the US is unlikely to withdraw military forces and military aid from the Middle East and South Asia. And, of course, to those who believe that the US must be the sole superpower (e.g., control of Hormuz as Ray points out), that is another major (in fact, probably sufficient) reason not to withdraw.
I expect what role the US will play in the future will be determined by economics, not by the logic or illogic of futuristic propositions.
Regards
Mike