For how many years have I been singing this warning? 39 replies

Please wait...

emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

16th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#1 9 years ago

Pakistan on course to become Islamist state, U.S. experts say

As I have been saying for years we have been backing the wrong horse and should have been cozying up with India instead. Now IMHO we need to get all our people, equipment, and assets out of the country ASAP.

Pakistan on course to become Islamist state, U.S. experts say

WASHINGTON — A growing number of U.S. intelligence, defense and diplomatic officials have concluded that there's little hope of preventing nuclear-armed Pakistan from disintegrating into fiefdoms controlled by Islamist warlords and terrorists, posing the a greater threat to the U.S. than Afghanistan's terrorist haven did before 9/11.

"It's a disaster in the making on the scale of the Iranian revolution," said a U.S. intelligence official with long experience in Pakistan who requested anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly.

Pakistan's fragmentation into warlord-run fiefdoms that host al Qaida and other terrorist groups would have grave implications for the security of its nuclear arsenal; for the U.S.-led effort to pacify Afghanistan ; and for the security of India , the nearby oil-rich Persian Gulf and Central Asia , the U.S. and its allies.

" Pakistan has 173 million people and 100 nuclear weapons, an army which is bigger than the American army, and the headquarters of al Qaida sitting in two-thirds of the country which the government does not control," said David Kilcullen , a retired Australian army officer, a former State Department adviser and a counterinsurgency consultant to the Obama administration.

" Pakistan isn't Afghanistan , a backward, isolated, landlocked place that outsiders get interested in about once a century," agreed the U.S. intelligence official. "It's a developed state . . . (with) a major Indian Ocean port and ties to the outside world, especially the (Persian) Gulf, that Afghanistan and the Taliban never had."

"The implications of this are disastrous for the U.S.," he added. "The supply lines (from Karachi to U.S. bases) in Kandahar and Kabul from the south and east will be cut, or at least they'll be less secure, and probably sooner rather than later, and that will jeopardize the mission in Afghanistan , especially now that it's getting bigger."

The experts McClatchy interviewed said their views aren't a worst case scenario but a realistic expectation based on the militants' gains and the failure of Pakistan's civilian and military leadership to respond.

"The place is beyond redemption," said a Pentagon adviser who asked not to be further identified so he could speak freely. "I don't see any plausible scenario under which the present government or its most likely successor will mobilize the economic, political and security resources to push back this rising tide of violence.

"I think Pakistan is moving toward a situation where the extremists control virtually all of the countryside and the government controls only the urban centers," he continued. "If you look out 10 years, I think the government will be overrun by Islamic militants."

That pessimistic view of Pakistan's future has been bolstered by Islamabad's surrender this week for the first time of areas outside the frontier tribal region to Pakistan's Taliban movement and by a growing militant infiltration of Karachi , the nation's financial center, and the industrial and political heartland province of Punjab, in part to evade U.S. drone strikes in the tribal belt.

Civilian deaths in the drone attacks, the eight-year-old U.S. intervention in Afghanistan and U.S. support for Pakistan's former military dictatorship also have sown widespread ambivalence about the threat the insurgency poses and revulsion at fighting fellow Muslims.

"The government has to ratchet up the urgency and ratchet up the commitment of resources. This is a serious moment for Pakistan ," said Sen. John Kerry , D- Mass. , the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman, on April 14 in Islamabad . "The federal government has got to . . . define this problem as Pakistan's ."

Many Pakistanis, however, dismiss such warnings as inflated. They think that the militants are open to dialogue and political accommodation to end the unrest, which many trace to the former military regime's cooperation with the U.S. after 9/11.

Ahsan Iqbal , a top aide to opposition leader and former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif , said the insurgency can be quelled if the government rebuilds the judicial system, improves law enforcement, compensates guerrillas driven to fight by relatives' deaths in security force operations and implements democratic reforms.

"It will require time," Iqbal told McClatchy reporters and editors this week. "We need a very strong resolve and internal unity."

Many U.S. officials, though, regard the civilian government of Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari as unpopular, dysfunctional and mired in infighting. It's been unable to agree on an effective counterinsurgency strategy or to address the ills that are feeding the unrest. These include ethnic and sectarian hatreds, ineffective police, broken courts, widespread corruption, endemic poverty and a deepening financial crisis, they said.

Pakistan's army, meanwhile, is hobbled by a lack of direction from the country's civilian leaders, disparaged for its repeated coups and shaken by repeated defeats by the militants. It remains fixated on India to ensure high budgets and cohesion among troops of divergent ethnic and sectarian allegiances, U.S. officials and experts said.

Many officers and politicians also oppose fighting the Islamist groups that Pakistan nurtured to fight proxy wars in Afghanistan and Kashmir , and because they think the U.S. is secretly conspiring with India to destabilize their country.

Alarm rose in Washington this week after the parliament and Zardari agreed to impose Islamic law in the Swat district, where extremists have repelled several army offensives; closed girls' schools; and beheaded, hanged and lashed opponents and alleged criminals.

The government's capitulation handed the militants their first refuge outside the remote tribal area bordering Afghanistan , and less than 100 miles north of Islamabad . Taliban fighters also advanced virtually unopposed from Swat into the Buner district, 60 miles north of Islamabad .

Buner is close to a key hydroelectric dam and to the highways that link Pakistan to China , and Islamabad to Peshawar , the capital of the North West Frontier Province , much of which is already under Taliban sway.

Many U.S. officials and other experts expect the militants to continue advancing.

The Taliban "have now become a self-sustaining force," author Ahmed Rashid , an expert on the insurgency, told a conference in Washington on Wednesday. "They have an agenda for Pakistan , and that agenda is no less than to topple the government of Pakistan and 'Talibanizing' the entire country."

Iqbal, the adviser to Sharif, disagreed. While militants will overrun small pockets, most Pakistanis embrace democracy and will resist living under the Taliban's harsh interpretation of Islam, he said.

"The psychology, the temperament, the mood of the Pakistani nation does not subscribe to these extremist views," Iqbal said.

The U.S. intelligence official, however, said that Pakistan's elite, dominated since the country's independence in 1947 by politicians, bureaucrats and military officers from Punjab, have failed to recognize the seriousness of the situation.

"The Punjabi elite has already lost control of Pakistan , but neither they nor the Obama administration realize that," the official said. " Pakistan will be an Islamist state — or maybe a collection of four Islamic states, probably within a few years. There's no civilian leadership in Islamabad that can stop this, and so far, there hasn't been any that's been willing to try."

Several U.S. officials said that the Afghanistan - Pakistan strategy that President Barack Obama unveiled last month is being called into question by the accelerating rate at which the insurgency in Pakistan is expanding.

The plan hinges on the Pakistani army's willingness to put aside its obsession with Hindu-dominated India and focus on fighting the Islamist insurgency. It also presupposes, despite doubts held by some U.S. officials, that sympathetic Pakistani military and intelligence officers will sever their links with militant groups.




Ipse

The Great Charm

50 XP

14th April 2007

0 Uploads

5,446 Posts

0 Threads

#2 9 years ago

Took Pakistan a long enough time to get pissed off about all the US missiles bombing Pakistani villages. Looks like they aren't going to take it anymore. I hope that Pakistan finds all of its nationalism, and then start protecting their soverignity. Pakistan > India




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

16th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#3 9 years ago
Dr. Awesome;4866029Took Pakistan a long enough time to get pissed off about all the US missiles bombing Pakistani villages. Looks like they aren't going to take it anymore. I hope that Pakistan finds all of its nationalism, and then start protecting their soverignity. Pakistan > India

Spare me your morality bullhit.

If Pakistan was not willingly harboring and helping the Taliban and Al Qaeda and refusing to do anything about we would not be forced to.

You dont want to be attacked? Dont harbor terrorists.

And Pakistan wants to defend their territory? Be my guest, open fire on us. I hope you fucking do .




Phoenix_22 VIP Member

46 and 2, are just ahead of me

255,785 XP

23rd September 2004

0 Uploads

24,266 Posts

0 Threads

#4 9 years ago

Anlushac11;4866052Spare me your morality bullhit.

If Pakistan was not willingly harboring and helping the Taliban and Al Qaeda and refusing to do anything about we would not be forced to.

You dont want to be attacked? Dont harbor terrorists.

And Pakistan wants to defend their territory? Be my guest, open fire on us. I hope you fucking do .

Sorry to knock you off your (momentarily brief) nationalistic high-horse, but getting involved in Pakistan would be a monumentally idiotic move. When Osama runs into southern China are we going to invade them as well? How about if he runs into northern India, western Nepal, southeastern Tajikistan, are we going to invade them as well?

Trying to track down one person by invading countries with our army is idiotic and trying to spread our military into Pakistan would make Afghanistan worse (not that it will get better anyway), not to mention we would have the same type of success as we have with Afghanistan (little to none).

Do any of you people that think like this actually believe we can keep doing what we do? America's era of imperialism is over, we need to focus on our own problems and let these countries figure their own shit out. Carry out covert operations to capture Bin Laden, but quit invading countries that will just end up hating us even more.




Karst

I chose an eternity of this

50 XP

6th January 2005

0 Uploads

4,505 Posts

0 Threads

#5 9 years ago

Anlushac11;4866052Spare me your morality bullhit.

If Pakistan was not willingly harboring and helping the Taliban and Al Qaeda and refusing to do anything about we would not be forced to.

Willingly? More like helplessly watching as militants gain power in remote areas. Islamabad's arm isn't long enough to cover a country of 150 million people. And no, no one is forcing the US to violate Pakistani airspace and conduct bombings that nearly always cause civilian casualties. Do you really think the number of militants killed in these operations outweigh the Pakistanis getting really angry about them?




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

16th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#6 9 years ago
Phoenix_22;4866073Sorry to knock you off your (momentarily brief) nationalistic high-horse, but getting involved in Pakistan would be a monumentally idiotic move.

Since you dont have a clue what the hell you are talking about maybe you should go somewhere and buy a clue?

We have involved in Pakistan for oh ten years now? Ever since Pervez Musharraf took office? The current government is trying to appease the US and the Taliban and the two goals are not compatible and they have been giving in to the Taliban.

Pakistan, our so called partner in the war on terror, has been letting Taliban and Al Qaeda operate at will in the border tribal regions.

When Osama runs into southern China are we going to invade them as well? How about if he runs into northern India, western Nepal, southeastern Tajikistan, are we going to invade them as well?

India tolerates Islamic extremists even less than we do.

China has been having their own problems with Islamic militants but Islam is a very small minority in China. China does what they usually do, crush the area under a military thumb.

Nepal is the home of the famous British mercenaries the Ghurkas. If the Islamic extremists feel safe there more power to them.

Typically the extremists do well in areas where there is very little central authority and chaos and lawlessness is rampant.

Trying to track down one person by invading countries with our army is idiotic and trying to spread our military into Pakistan would make Afghanistan worse (not that it will get better anyway), not to mention we would have the same type of success as we have with Afghanistan (little to none).

Invade Pakistan? Did you even read the post? Its about getting the hell out of Pakistan, not invading them.

Do any of you people that think like this actually believe we can keep doing what we do? America's era of imperialism is over, we need to focus on our own problems and let these countries figure their own shit out. Carry out covert operations to capture Bin Laden, but quit invading countries that will just end up hating us even more.

Fine let them figure their own shit out. Solve your own problems. But when the problem becomes too big and starts causing problems in other countries then someone needs to step in..is that someone going to be you? Apparently not, your more willing to sit and talk and do nothing and attempt appeasement. Maybe you will be able to talk your way into a "Peace in our time" treaty.




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

16th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#7 9 years ago
Karst;4866104Willingly? More like helplessly watching as militants gain power in remote areas. Islamabad's arm isn't long enough to cover a country of 150 million people. And no, no one is forcing the US to violate Pakistani airspace and conduct bombings that nearly always cause civilian casualties. Do you really think the number of militants killed in these operations outweigh the Pakistanis getting really angry about them?

Maybe you didnt seen the news recently about how the Pakistani government had given the US covert approval for the strikes and how some of the drones were being controlled from bases in Pakistan.

IIRC it was part of the Diane Feinstein incident.




Karst

I chose an eternity of this

50 XP

6th January 2005

0 Uploads

4,505 Posts

0 Threads

#8 9 years ago

Anlushac11;4866112Maybe you didnt seen the news recently about how the Pakistani government had given the US covert approval for the strikes and how some of the drones were being controlled from bases in Pakistan.

IIRC it was part of the Diane Feinstein incident.

That doesn't mean the local population supports it. And the local population is where militants recruit their members.




Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#9 9 years ago

Pakistan is another unfortunate example of the US backing dictatorships and harsh regimes for the sake of order and open markets. They always threw themselves behind totalitarian military regimes (Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, Generals Armas and Fuentes) for that purpose...

Now we jump to the current months. Dictator Musharraf was finally ousted by a relatively moderate political movement. Their government's actions have only reinforced an ugly fact. Musharraf's regime wasn't keeping their people placated because he was modernizing and keeping order- he simply paid off local leaders to keep quiet and shut up. That approach of simply sweeping all their troubles under the rug to please the Americans, who didn't mind this approach either, simply built up troubles until they simply couldn't keep dissent down.

Now if the government tried to enact actual change in their earliest years after Mohammad Ali Jinnah's death, they may have made some progress in curtailing the fanatics in their country. Unfortunately the West didn't want none of that and wanted a quick solution, and that opened the way for military regimes and corrupt governments to install themselves unopposed to the United States.

And the US has supported India for years... the problem is that India isn't convenient for operations in Central Asia. Pakistan is more near.




Von Mudra

Lo, I am Mudra, za emo soldat!

50 XP

25th September 2004

0 Uploads

7,064 Posts

0 Threads

#10 9 years ago

We truely do need to cozy up to India more....I've been saying this for awhile too, Anlushac, you're not alone. Pakistan is just a state ready for collapse, while india is a commonwealth, its economy is vibrant, and its people are not tribalistic to the extent of pakistan.