Pakistani politics (catch all)

[Ron Humphrey]

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"

Was not a suggestion and definately not a good idea

[S-2]

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.

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]

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

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

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.

[Ray]

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_ml...901_index.html

[Ron Humphrey]

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]

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

PAKISTAN: New Dawn or New Nightmare?
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5C...paper2609.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]

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 - 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]

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]

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]

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]

Long War Journal, 25 Jun 08: Northwest Pakistan Descends into Chaos

The Pakistani Taliban continue military operations in the tribal agencies and the settled regions of the Northwest Frontier Province despite ongoing negotiations to sign a peace agreement with the government. Forces loyal to Baitullah Mehsud overran a town previously run by pro-government tribal forces, and beheaded 22 Pakistanis. In Peshawar, the provincial capital, police and government officials have said the Taliban is close to taking control of the city.....

[jonSlack]

AFP - Musharraf resigns as Pakistan president

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]

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]

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]

David,

What potential pitfalls are there in the road ahead?

[Jedburgh]

PSRU, 17 Sep 08: The Politics of Revenge: The End of Musharraf and the Future of Pakistan

....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]

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]

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]

ICG, 13 Mar 09: Pakistan: The Militant Jihadi Challenge

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]

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.