Egypt's Spring Revolution (2011-2013)

[carl]

We've created a tremendous conflict of interest for Pakistan that is tearing at the fabric of the government's ability to keep a handle on things as they seek to balance their interest in maintaining positive relations with the US against their interest in being able to exert control over Afghanistan through their Pashtun agents.

Pakistan believes it to be a vital national interest. Every nation gets to pick their own positions on such things.

This is not about the ISI or the Army, they are agents of this vital national interest, not the determiners of it.

I would never say that Pakistan has a right to an unstable Afghanistan

Bob's World:

All of these things listed above you have said, and they bring to my mind two questions. First, do you believe the Pak Army/ISI is correct in it's view that it must exert control over Afghanistan, is that actually a vital national interest of Pakistan? Second, I restate my original question, is the Pak Army/ISI's desire to exert control over Afghanistan one we should honor any more than India's desire that they don't?

[Bob's World]

Bob's World:

All of these things listed above you have said, and they bring to my mind two questions. First, do you believe the Pak Army/ISI is correct in it's view that it must exert control over Afghanistan, is that actually a vital national interest of Pakistan? Second, I restate my original question, is the Pak Army/ISI's desire to exert control over Afghanistan one we should honor any more than India's desire that they don't?

I believe that Pakistan's position is reasonable, as is their position in regards to the Durrand line. Most military professionals doing a basic assessment of the terrain and the threat would probably come to the same conclusion. If Pakistan is reduced down to just the Indus river valley a quick push by India could foreseeably take their entire country. They would cease to exist as a nation. A fearful, nuclear armed state with its back up against the Hindu Kush and a rival nuclear state to their front is NOT a healthy situation for anyone. I think there are workable solutions, but before the US can get to sitting down and discussing workable solutions we to first be willing to recognize their reasonable perspective in regards to what their national interests are and how highly they prioritize them.

Second, to rephrase your question a bit: Is sustaining a set of conditions that supported a workable situation of deterrence between India and Pakistan one that I think is more important than disrupting that balance to grant India a clear advantage? I have to go with sustaining the status quo. Like our own Cold War with the Soviets, it was sometimes a bit dicey, but it worked. I can't imagine if some external power would have come along and ceded Canada into the Warsaw Pact, allowing the Russians to positions military forces all along our northern border, that we would have said "oh, ok."

We probably would have seen such a situation as threatening our national survival and we would have broken out our complete bag of dirty tricks to do whatever it took to put things back as they were before. Perhaps not a perfect example, but I want to try to convey how big of an issue i believe this to be for Pakistan. We just do not understand all of the dynamics of the relationship between India and Pakistan to go in and make major alterations like we have.

Pakistan is in a tough situation, and India is just one of their concerns. They also have the Pashtuns and the Baluchs to balance. One more mess Great Britain cobbled together as they executed their passage of lines at the end of WWII and said "Here you go Yanks, good luck!"

[davidbfpo]

Bob's World just stated:

One more mess Great Britain cobbled together as they executed their passage of lines at the end of WWII and said "Here you go Yanks, good luck!"

Yes the British exited South Asia in 1947, ending that imperial era, although we stayed in a few other places till later (more in a moment). At no stage did we conduct a handover to the USA and wish you luck IMHO.

The UK did stay around South Asia, notably through the Cold War, remember CENTO? Effectively the UK relied on diplomacy, although we offered a nuclear umbrella to India after the Indo-China conflict (1961 IIRC) and after 1967 our East of Suez role dwindled. The USA for mainly Cold War reasons got involved in Pakistan, with a dribble of aid into Afghanistan.

IMHO the USA between 1947-1980 paid very little attention to South Asia, you had your own distractions elsewhere in South-East Asia and only returned when the USSR intervened in Afghanistan.

[davidbfpo]

A number of the latest threads (including my own last) have strayed from the focus on Egypt and moved a long distance to the east.

Can we please stay on the unfolding situation in Egypt and the Arab World?