The Future of Pakistan?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: AE Geopolitical Institute
Forum Discription: Implications of Strategic Policies.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=25368
Printed Date: 21-May-2024 at 03:20
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: The Future of Pakistan?
Posted By: Kevin
Subject: The Future of Pakistan?
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2008 at 05:59
|
In concerns to the future of Pakistan I really deeply ponder what is going to happen since alot in the nation seems to be heading in a very negative direction with Pakistan facing a strong Islamic insurgency in the countryside to the West towards Afghanistan in conjecture to the frequent acts of militants against both government and civilian targets destabilizing the national government. combined now with a worsening economic crisis in which there seems to be little easy way out of. To make matters worse also political fighting and in the governmental bodies is occurring again after short-lived cooperation in addition to election of Bhutto's corrupt widow to the Presidency. So with all of this I ponder what is going to occur in Pakistan in the coming months and couple of years with all of this posing a major crisis and with little way out, espeically due to the Pakistani governments political ineptness? |
Replies:
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2008 at 14:16
|
How might the future of Pakistan affect geopolitics along her borders and in the geographies nearest her interests? Most specifically, how might it affect India? Also, what may be the effects of Pakistan's ISI support for Islamists who now seem entrenched inside her sovereign territory? Pakistan has been willing to permit this situation in order to redirect Islamist attention to counter great power influence in Afghanistan, whether USSR or NATO/US...both of whom have had favorable military relations with India. I have not been convinced that either the USSR or NATO have been direct threats to Pakistan, but that is the way ISI sees it. Maybe Sparten can elaborate on Pakistan's security concerns.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2008 at 13:41
|
With Mr 10% incharge we are screwed economically and politically.
Strategically; Pakistans aims and objectives are set by institutions rather than individuals. The aims are to ensure a complient and non-threatening gov in Kabul, arrest and obstruct Indian influence in Gulf and S Asia generally and link up as much as possible with C Asian nations and their economys.
------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2008 at 15:05
|
Developing econmic ties with central Asia seems a sound idea. Wanting a non-threatening government in Kabul is understandable, but I would have thought the best way to achieve that was simply not to interfere. But why 'compliant'?
And why, above all, to 'arrest and obstruct Indian influence in the Gulf and S. Asia generally'? ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2008 at 20:14
|
1) As far as Afghanistan is concerned, even a neutral friendly but not Pakistani-line toting government is seen as a threat since it could form alliences and have interests that are against us. Having India and China as neighbours, means that our resources meagre as they are, are anyways streched to the limit as it is, thus we need the west to be an asset. Also, many things in Afghan interests are detrimental to us, for example a dam on the Kabul river would be a boon to them, for both agriculture and power generation, yet a disaster for us since the Kabul is one of the main tributaries of the Indus. Most of Afghan consumer items, and foodstuff and machine tools are from Pakistan, we have a preferential trade agreement with them in all but name, for example we recently sold them several thousand tractors at rip off prices. Being a land locked country means that Afghan trade is carried out from Pakistani ports, under a very beneficial agreement, the last thing we want is too see that go to someone else.
Finally, the vex issue of Afghan claims to Pakistani lands, while Pakistani Pashtuns are highly integrated into Pakistani society, 4 Presidents have been Pashtun, the claims and the fillial ties can cause problems as seen in FATA recently.
2) In the gulf and C Asia, the Indians and we are often competeing for the same markets; and resources, the Indians have much more resources than we do. Both of us get most of our oil from the ME, unlike the Indians we have an agreement with the Saudis whereby in exchange for military hardware and expertise (we provided them with DU rounds when the US blackballed that IIRC), we get oil at discounted rates, and they buy our wheat, and factory products and invest in Pakistan generally. The Indian would love to have that; at our expense, and they are a much bigger market, keeping their influence at a minimum is thus a major aim.
The services sector in the gulf wants educated, english speaking, politically reliable (meaning non-western) professional, the only sources; us and the Indians, and usually where it there are Pakistanis providing services (often the work is outsourced to Pakistani companys) there are no Indians and vice versa.
As for C Asia, the Indians see it as part of their orbit (at least the Southrern and Eastern States) and want to build up bases and influence there; they actually built an airbase in Tajikistan, until the Tajik gov under pressure from Pak Gov closed it down. Secondly, the Indians want access to its energy resources for their own needs, while we would like those resources to go through Pakistan (something they want to avoid) and ideally they would serve Pakistan first, once again since the size of India precludes an open competition, we have to employ other means.
------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2009 at 01:38
|
Since Sparten's last post, there have been developments in Pakistan that are difficult to analyze. See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/world/asia/23buner.html?hp - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/world/asia/23buner.html?hp
Is there a real possibility that Pakistan is now a failed state? Have ISI and other clandestine services failed the country, or are Islamist interests in the ascendency in the security services? Do the security services in fact run the military, and by extension the government?
How will the ascendency of Islamists in Pakistan, and the possibility of their seizing the mechanisms of the state affect geopolitics on the Subcontinent?
Who may wind up in control of the nuclear assets of the Pakistan military?
How is India going to view that? (If the Taliban-style Pakis are not thinking about that, thay may want to start, and fast.)
What are the views here?
|
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2009 at 02:27
GAWD... i hate too think of it as such!
I'm afraid it seems that way. Extremists in ISI has always had me concerned.
I hope Spaten can clear that up with out me unduly speculating on that?
This has never been a sole concern for the US alone. How it might affect the region depends on how Russia, China, India, Iran, US and to a certain extent Saudi Arabia handle this? This also might sound a little strange to mention at this point, but this might be the spur that gets the US and Iran too really start talking to each other? Then again, maybe not? But i think a bunch of Sunni extremists finally having nukes in their hands might actually scare the bejeebies out of Tehran to put their antagonist political rhetoric aside and open there eyes to the possible new reality of a so much possibly greater regional threat then the US has ever been to them?
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
I imagine... Pretty much nearly anything that it takes to keep that from happening?
I think if a person was looking too make a killing with investments, then they might want too heavily invest in Eisai Inc. and Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. stock? Specifically... Aciphex.  |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2009 at 02:35
|
I think there are Islamist sympathies, and a lack of other options. Democracy has been tried and failed, military coups have been tried, but aren't sufficient, there is probably a lot of people thinking why not give the Taliban a go? If you are a poor villager, you don't have anything to loose. Its only the educated wealthy that will experience a major downside.
Not very much. The US will cease to be Pakistans ally, but we might see a strengthening of internal security in Pakistan. China is highly unlikely to change its stance, and Paks western border will quiten down. So the balance of power will probably remain fairly similar.
Even if Taliban take over, I doubt that the Pakistan military will be defeated. The Taliban do not have the strength to beat them in a straight fight. The military is much more likely to walk a neutral line, and therefore the nukes will remain in their control.
What can India do about it? If they attack Pakistan, the military & Taliban will unite against India and the Talibs victory will be assured. If the Talibs take power, then India attacks, same deal. Zadari is in my opinion too weak to survive against such opposition. ------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2009 at 02:40
|
One other thing may have been overlooked. With the possibility of Islamist influences controlling Pakistan and it's nuclear weapons, what might be the concerns of the Chinese in all this?
Elements of China's Islamic population might be susceptible to influence from a nuclear armed Pakistani state either controlled by, or unduly influenced by, Islamist ideology. Pakistan may go from a Chinese client/ally to an adversary that is viewed as a threat.
Hemmed in by 1,000,000,000 nuclear armed Hindu Indians to the south and east, and by 1,300,000,000 nuclear armed Chinese Communists to the north, any bets as to how a failed Pakistan will fare over time?
|
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2009 at 02:46
So, then Pakistan IS a failed state? It will remain in some levitated condition as an uncertain (and therefore threatening) entity on two great powers' borders? Those powers will be OK with that?
Is your opinion that Pakistan, in it's present condition, would be capable of waging a successful war against India? Do the Indian elites, or the Chinese Communist Party give a crap about the desires of the poor villagers of Pakistan?
Doubtful. A perceived threat is a threat, and poor villagers, in that event, will get it and have to take it as poor villagers always do. If poor villagers are the constituency of importance in Pakistan, then it is a failed state.
|
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2009 at 02:52
|
I think the biggest question is: If the Taliban do take power in Pakistan how will they survive ideologically?
Will highly-diverse Pakistan change the Taliban?
I can't see an Afghan style Taliban government ruling cities like Karachi without a major dose of realism injected into them. How will they rule fuedal Punjab? How will they deal with India and Hindu minorities? China and Buddhist minorities? ------------- |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2009 at 02:58
Define failed state. I doubt they'd be threatening towards China, and Pakistan has always been threatening towards India.
No-one gives a crap about poor Pakistani villiagers, that's a large part of the problem. I do believe the Pakistan military is capable of waging a sucessful war against India, not that it would be in their best interests at the moment. Fighting India is easier than fighting Taliban, entirely because the Indians fight conventional war, and no-one has pro-india sympathies. People have issues fighting against their own people. ------------- |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2009 at 03:12
The US government works. Even at its worst point it has never, for example, had a victorious political party punish a city that voted for the opposition by withdrawing all municipal services - and that happened 20 year ago.
If the KKK could provide security, and the US government was so corrupt that its non-functional, then maybe. They're both awful, which is worse than the other.
In Pakistan I have always been pro-military. Especially now only a dictatorship can provide a viable alternative to the Taliban ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2009 at 13:06
Since my last post there is a situation where there is a different party in power in the Frontier and the Centre and they disagree on strategy. The Frontier Governmnet was against the operation and they foolishly agreed to the Swat compromise. Swat incidentally is different from the whole FATA issue and I'll get onto that in a minute.
As of right now a MASSIVE operation is going on in FATA with upto 5 divisions and the ENTIRE Northern Command of the Air Force committed
( http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009%5C04%5C23%5Cstory_23-4-2009_pg1_9 - http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\04\23\story_23-4-2009_pg1_9
and
http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009%5C04%5C21%5Cstory_21-4-2009_pg7_31 - http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\04\21\story_21-4-2009_pg7_31 )
and
http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009%5C04%5C20%5Cstory_20-4-2009_pg1_4 - http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\04\20\story_20-4-2009_pg1_4 )
The armys opinion on the issue is that the centre of gravity is in FATA and that Swat is merely a result of the problems in FATA. That is why the concentration is in FATA as opposed to Swat. Once FATA is cleared (and there are encouraging signs, 5 of the seven agencys have been either cleared or are in the process of being). Swat will be settled then.
Incidentally, Obama insistance on sub serviance to India (as so eloquently put by Holbrooke) ihas pretty much ended hopes of Pakistani cooperation in Afghanistan. He would be well advised to change his rhetoric, Holbrooke is known as the "great Balkeniser" and that worries Pakistani officials.
*Swat was a princely state under British India and was ruled by Sharia. When it was annexed to Pakistan in 1969, Sharia was replaced with Pakistani law; a very unpopular move and various Federal Governments have agreed many times to restore Shariah and then renaged, the new Shariah agreement is a rehasing of previous agreements that were made (in the 80's and in 94) and then renaged on the promises. Which is why the Government has taken a kid glove approach to the issue, it is or at least was based upon popular demand and I have a sneaky suspicion that they want the thing to come to a head now.
------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2009 at 14:08
|
Spartan,
Thanks for the information on that.
|
Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2009 at 19:48
|
@Sparten
Dear Sparten so what do you say about the past proposed alliance between the two nations (PAC) now?
I am sure that most of the people around have realized that it's nearly impossible to deal Afghanistan without considering Pakistan and vice versa.
The situation in Pakistan today is considered worse than of Afghanistan, as the bigger your governmental is divided, the easier it's infiletrated.
I mean when you share your power with a force which made itself to be recognized, would mean sharing your country and dividing it in two fronts.
One held by the so called conservative extreamists and the other again divided into several parties, where they have a fight of there own for the rule of their piece.
The same condition could had been applied on a Taleb-Karzai alliance, but the only difference is that both Taleb and Karzai are more conservative rather than liberal, while the two fronts in Pakistan are like Sky and Land, one pure conservative and the other a pure liberal.
How could they reside side by side in a situation where the Pak Taleban are on offense and the government on defense.
I am sure that considering a confederation between Afghan-Pak is way out of question now rather then 1-2 years back when things could had changed if both nations had helped each other.
Now the only concern is that how long will it take the US to confront the harsh reality and start its offense agaist the Pak Taleban with the help of Pak government? ------------- 
|
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2009 at 19:54
|
As a reminder, we need to keep the topic on geopolitics and neither dwell on the passions involved, nor on what "might have been."
Just a reminder, that's all.
|
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2009 at 01:01
This is precisely my worry. Treating Afghanistan & Pakistan as the same entity. The Taliban on both sides are seemingly united, or at least united behind the same goal. Their opposition is totally divided and hardly even talking to each other. Karzai & Musharaf didn't get along, Mushy was ousted by civilian pressure inside Pakistan, that pressure itself is highly divided, the PPP & Muslim League are more interested in their own power struggle and their own personal gain. No-one trusts the US, and the US doesn't know who it can trust. Not a good situation. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2009 at 22:27
|
The US is being an idiot in this, and so is everyone. I spoke to a friend of mine in Buner (the so called conqered district) and apparently it was a couple of hundred Taliban who came and are now retreating. The media is making this sound worse than it really is. Please, 30 Taliban in one place, not a collapse make.
It seems that a military operation is on the cards now. http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/nwfp/04-military-operation-against-swat-militants-on-the-cards-qs-01 - http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/nwfp/04-military-operation-against-swat-militants-on-the-cards-qs-01 PS. Looks like FC has tanks now, or at least the T-69 which has been retired from the army for about 15 years.------------- |
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2009 at 23:17
They do seem to have a knack for it! It used to be trust, but verify. Now it's verify before you trust! |
Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2009 at 01:39
Well as said by Quintus Horace that "An alliance with the powerful is never to be trusted." so I guess your first line is perfectly placed and as far as the US is concerned I guess it still do have the cards that world even don't know about it.
I mean just look at Musharaf, honestly he was descended from the SKY as the new ruler (just like the ferry tales) no one knew about him, same goes with Karzai again descended from SKY by US forces and no known background.
So they always have people for certain times, but the question is that till what time we will be expecting the US to do something for its benefits in our countries rather than thinking of we ourselves doing something for our own country.
-------------
|
Posted By: Suren
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2009 at 04:48
Pakistan will join to the motherland India!
------------- Anfører |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2009 at 12:05
|
Pakistan will fire its nuclear missiles in all directions before it comes to that. ------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2009 at 14:14
 (Although I am not so sure how funny that is.) |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2009 at 16:10
|
Its not funny. If there is one thing Pakistanis of all stripes will not tolerate, its being under Indian domination. Obama administration wants Pakistan to in essence aquiece to that. Big problem ------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2009 at 16:30
In conversation (purely social not official) with a few officers who are at the US Army War College, there is some thinking that longer term US policy in south Asia must be based on India. This goes far beyond insurgent warfare, and is predicated more on commercial and strategic interests - particularly anticipated markets and lines of communication across the Indian Ocean.
Over the past 2-3 years, the view is that, ongoing, Pakistan may not be able to control it's own territory, may not be able to exist as a unitary state entity, and might at some time engage India militarily. I think this goes beyond the Obama administration.
These officers are not on the General Staff; they are army/AF lieutenant colonels and Navy commanders, but I assume they are hearing something in their year long program.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2009 at 16:45
|
My own reading is that the whole assumptions that the US military has on S Asia are flawed. India has as much trouble controlling its territory as Pakistan (in fact probably more, there is about 50% of Indian Territory not in Indian Gov control), that is not the issue however.
I would say that the US Army has tried to have an understanding of the various ethnic and regional affliations and the understanding is very shallow (Ralph Peters is an example), hell I am from the region and I don't get all of it. On the issue of longer term US interests and Indian commercial interests, well I think you have to read my earlier posts. ------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2009 at 17:01
|
I second Sparten.
The only thing joining India right now is the fear of the unknown. There are many people with interest in keeping the union (the untouchables and other religious minorities for example). There is nothing that connects Tamil Nadu or west Bengla with the Punjab or Gujurat. West Bengal could eventually join Bengladish in a union which is going to be more common sense than remaining with India. Tamil Nadu has a totally different social dynamics and economy than the rest of India. The possibility of India disintegrating into many small states is much higher in my opinion than the Pakistani government falling.
AL-Jassas
|
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2009 at 18:33
|
Social conversation is one thing, actual policy quite another. Is the official attitude of the US government that Pakistan has to be seen as less valuable to US interests than India? I don't know that.
However, US engagement on the ground in south Asia cannot be a long term goal. The interests of the US are not that great there; the cultural disconnects far too enormous. The US will not stay in Afghanistan all that long. Afghanistan long term has no meaning for the US. The broader strategic thinking will be, as it has to be, grounded in commercial connections and on the navy. So far, indigenous insurgencies in India do not seem to be threatening to break up the country, and India's coastline is the more important one.
|
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2009 at 22:42
|
Actually the social conversation is what has been happening since 99.
Since the Clinton administration the trend of strengthening ties with India and undermining ties with Pakistan has been ongoing. Only when Bush Jr. realised that the key to Afghanistan was in Pakistan did the relations became better.
Israel has played alot in this trend of the relations and with US approval many top secret technology were sold from the US via Israel (the AWACS systems and rocket systems) and in many cases without the approval of the US.
Even today despite all what is happening the US still sees in India an ally and in Pakistan a red herring at best. While it claim to support Pakistan on its war on terror it simply gives little support to Pakistani causes, it says nothing to India about its active support to Balochi organizations, it says nothing to India about the continuing repression of Kashmiri people even after violence has all but ended (only 500 militants remain there from the once mighty 10s of thousands and all because of Pakistan).
AL-Jassas
|
Posted By: Suren
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2009 at 05:26
 ------------- Anfører |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2009 at 07:35
|
I think US policy towards India will be more dominated by the situation in east asia than in central/west asia. India, China, and the US (including its effective imperial vassals of S Korea, Japan, Taiwan etc) have a nice little three way balance of power in the region. It'd be hard seeing the US and India cosy up too much, because neither of them would like what the other could to in East/South East Asia with increased influence. It really depends on how much the US & India distrust China, and what they think they can get away with that (a) they don't mind the other one getting away with, and (b) won't push minor nations to cosy up with China as insurance against a US-India alliance. ------------- |
Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2009 at 13:59
Motherland
 Dear Suren,
India never was the motherland of Pakistan but a foster mother
 .
As far the the integration of Pakistan with India is concerned, in my opinion that would be the last thing India would want, as right now India can not control just 13.5% (138,188,240) of it's population (The Muslims), how in the world would it be able to control twice larger 26% (138,188,240+173,000,000=311,188,240) population.
The only outcome of it would be another break away country where the winner would be Pakistan with taking all it's land back + (PLUS) the muslim land of today's India.
So if US is planing such an integration, I can only say that they just want to repeat the English policy of "Divide and Rule".
And for sure that's why Pakistan is so gladly helping out US, if what you say has to be taken serious.
 -------------
|
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2009 at 16:45
|
Gharanai, There is no intimation of "integration" of the two countries. That would not be either possible or desireable on the part of either one. The point was which country was likely to be the more important one on which to base US policy going forward. You are assuming the US has far more power than it does by bringing this up. We can't even find Osama, either in his cave or in that Pakistani army hospital we sometimes hear about.
|
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 27-Apr-2009 at 01:21
|
I'm not sure the US is even looking for Osama, I'm not sure it ever has been.
------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 27-Apr-2009 at 01:25
I am not sure either. If you got him, what would you do with him? Kill him and you create a Moslem super martyr. Arrest him, and he becomes a media super star.
Better that he just withers away and becomes irrelevant.
|
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 10-May-2009 at 14:36
|
Heres a question, what if pakistan crumbles.....
------------- 
|
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 10-May-2009 at 15:23
Who knows? You would have to guess at it, but in the event of no presence of order in areas like Kashmir, India might assert it's own control over territory it considers vital. Strategically, China has interests as well, and would be likely to act in those interests.
Pakistan's collapse would be a catastrophe on a number of possible levels with unpleasant consequences for everyone. Pakistan has made it's own bed by swallowing the insurgent "cancer pill." The country has constructed it's own second front - on it's own soil. Any army knows you fight the war on someone else's soil if at all possible.
Sparten may have better insight. I can't pretend to understand the complexities of internal politics on the subcontinent. It is a bit easier to try if there are fewer power centers involved. The more players, the messier and more uncertain the future. But I tend to be pessimistic by nature.
|
Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 11-May-2009 at 21:55
You can say at a time like now it would be a disaster for the region surrounding it Afghanistan, India, Iran and China would be most effected with really bad consequences.
So I guess all these countries would be very much happy to get to gather and avoid such a situation rather than sit a side and watch.
-------------
|
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 11-May-2009 at 23:27
Just like Bangladesh! Countries don't have motherlands people do. ------------- |
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 11-May-2009 at 23:35
Although Pakistan has crumbled before, the precedent being Bangladesh, there is little(very) chance yet in spite of the prevalent conditions. ------------- |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 12-May-2009 at 12:55
Pakistan won't crumble. That would mean India has won. I have thought that the only thing keeping Pakistan together for the last 20 years was a refusal to let India win, and it will continue to work. The Taliban can't take and rule Pakistan without making serious ideological changes. Pakistan is too diverse and too chaotic. A better question is what will Pakistan do to the Taliban? ------------- |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 12-May-2009 at 14:38
|
Omar I've been wondering what the average Pakistani feels about the Taliban. Prior to the current backwash it seemed to me that the Taliban were given sympathy, especially since they were partially a creation of Pakistan and got much of their recruits from within Pakistan. Now that the tables have turned is there more animosity towards the Taliban? BTW, I don't mean to sound more then just a curious observer.
------------- |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 13-May-2009 at 09:03
|
That's a good question really. As I said above, Pakistan is incredibily diverse, and as such there will be an incredible range of opinions. If we look at wealthy Pakistanis, defined as those who can afford a decent education. This minority will be pretty well opposed to the Taliban, but not to the extent that westerners might usually expect. That is to say they oppose them, but also understand them, and when discussing with someone who doesn't that understanding may make them sound more pro-Taliban than is actually true. Even in this group which has the most to loose from the Taliban they are unlikely to be seen as an ultimate evil, rather just another form of bad government. As people get poorer they become less educated and I'd expect statistically are more likely to think better of the Talibs. Less educated people are far less likely to understand global ideas or opinions, and far more likely to support Taliban ideology even if not the Taliban themselves. Really poor & uneducated people are not likely to think badly of the Taliban at all, they will be considered forigners (at least in Sindh & Punjab) but they really don't have much to fear from them. Last time my dad was in Pakistans he was talking to the Dhobi (washerman) I think. The Dhobi started the conversation and asked my dad what bricks were used in America. My dad replied that he'd never been to America and didn't know. The Dhobi was surprised because he knew that my dad had come from an Aeroplane, and therefore was an American. From his point of view everyone who came from an Aeroplane, drove a good car, owned a walled house, was an American. The Dhobi proceeded to explain the War on Terror as being a fight between the Americans and the foriegners - where foriegners where Afghans, Iranis, Arabs, and other non-Pakistanis living in Pakistan. He didn't think the war had much to do with the average Pakistani, but did say that "We might have to deal with the Americans". That is to say, his demographic of poor Pakistanis may have to teach the Pakistani rich & actual Americans a lesson in the future. So for him at least the Taliban were foreign, but not as bad as the rich/westerners (westerners and Paki rich being equivalent in his view). I understand his point too, the Pakistani elite have caused much more suffering to ordinary Pakistanis than the Taliban threaten to. If anyone else wishes to correct me on anything feel free to do so. ------------- |
Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 13-May-2009 at 16:08
Very well stated, I guess you have just summarized a very big theory into few paragraphs.
The poor people on on both sides (AF-PK) has always been suppressed either by their own government or by foriegn powers.
That's what brings in an idealogy of change in mentality of these section of the sociaty, these people don't realy want Taleban or any other fundamentalists but only want a change in their own way of life, now whether it is in the name of Taleban or Mujahideen, when ever the people of this region has seen that suppression has crossed the limits they have stood against the authority and have brought changes.
If you provide them something better than what Taleban can, for sure they will support you. These people are like children who will run to who ever has the chocolate.
You see back in Taleban's gov shop keepers used to go for prayers, keeping their shops open bacause no one dare to pick up a penny or a thing, while now the foriegner who have came in the name of bettering that situation, themselves lives behind barricades. When people go out of their home they don't believe that they may come back.
So what do you think, whom will these people prefere without knowing how bad the Taleban could be to the rest of the world (as thought by west).
You know it was back in 1980s and 90s when the US did the same, they used Afghans against the Soviets and once they got their job done they said now we are safe so let the Afghans die, same thing is with these people they say if we are living in a better condition then let the world burn, who cares (a simple mentality of a poor person who don't even know how to manage feed his family at the end of the day).
-------------
|
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 13-May-2009 at 16:56
|
I stand in appreciation to both of your answers Omar and Gharanai. I did think that there had existed a self-interest (as understood in a realistic and not moralist fashion) in sponsoring or supporting the Taliban. After reading your posts the support they receive is dependant on the type of Pakistani or Afghan you are; whether you live in a centralised city or at border regions for instance. My next question - If the Taliban were about to overrun not only Swat but regions further south, how would you feel about them? ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 13-May-2009 at 19:24
|
It interests me that Omar's description of the situation is not unlike the split in attitudes of the Russian people to the Communist era. ------------- |
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 14-May-2009 at 02:28
I read the above post twice and still feel pricked by the notion that there exists an underlying semi-revolutionary current opposed to the detached elite and americanism. I will except maybe to a degree the Baloch and Pakhtun. I feel the bulk of Pakistanis are somewhat conditioned to the anarchy and abusive authority that surrounds them. Why else would they continually elect and support the same old corrupt overlords, feudals and elite that they are supposedly dismayed with. Even the one man from the judiciary who stood up for the down trodden wasn't extended sufficient support by the common man, who's party centric attitude prevents him in acting in the capacity of a citizen. Just look to the president, a man one wouldn't trust to change the tyre on his car lest he ran away with it. When people were voting for the PPP they were well aware of the American political investment in the leadership of the party, but it never obstructed anyone, so how can they be anti American. Ignorance can't be pleaded anymore because of access to multitude of independent news media and wide ranging coverage that keeps even the nomad in touch with current affairs. So i will quote Umar bin al-khataab: A govt is a reflection of its people. The following story comes to mind as an illustration; where a King argued with his minister about the strength of charachter of his subjects, the minister thought that the King had too much faith in his people. So the King devised a plan to prove his point. He boasted to the minister that his people would never tolerate oppression and injustice, as such he decreed that the taxes be raised with immediate effect. This caused the people difficulty but they persevered and uttered not a word. Hmmn...thought the King, it wasn't enough, so he raised them a bit further. Again, time passed, no real outcry and the people plodded along to their daily business. The king was taken aback, this is not what he expected. So to add to their hardship he ordered them to give a number from there daily hours to work at the mine just outside the city. Time passed and the king was really disheartened and shy of his minister, when suddenly he thought of something that might just do the trick. He ordered his soldiers to hit the citizens on the head with shoes as they crossed the bridge leading out of the city to the mine. The next evening he went to the bridge to observe the effect of his decree in a somewhat hopefull mood. Once there he saw a long line of people getting the treatment as they crossed the bridge in a pretty orderly fashion, but suddenly there was some commotion and two men broke from the back of the line and rushed at the soldiers. Excited by this the king too rushed to get close to the action, only to see the men stop and implore the soldiers to hit them first as they had to later fetch some livestock from the nearby village before dark. -A peoples condition does not change unless they change it themselves.
The other thing i do not understand is how the US can be held responsible for the fall out of the post soviet era. The Afghans and the Pakistanis used the US out of their own self interest, as the US did conversely. I mean they weren't obliged to rebuild the country or assist in any way, allthough it may have been the prudent thing to do. It was a simple marriage of convenience. I think the two nations are as much in the habit of short term fixes as the US. I wonder what will happen if the taliban were to shift into the Punjab or other major cities, will the US continue to swat the Taliban fly where ever it sits on the body of Pakistan, and at what point will Pakistanis say stop! hmmn...let's rethink this. ------------- |
Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 14-May-2009 at 08:57
|
@Malizai_
Good example and to be honest I agree with you that the people also have to change their mentality and way of life, but the sad tradition is that we in Afghaistan always follow a path to the extream, I mean when Communism came we implemented more than any other communist country in the world, same with Sharia Laws of Islam we followed it to the extreams that Suadi Arabai itself didn't and now same is going on with the Democracy, people are following and implementing it to the extreams that is not even available in US and Europe.
And as far as I think (regarding Taleban in Punjab) the US strategy may have just changed and is now considering to stablize Afghaistan (by a Karzai-Taleb gov) and make a new battlefield to the east so to get a step closer to India and China.
Which is supported by the corrupt Pakistani government and who is selling their land and people in return for dollars.
As far as the people of Pakistan is concerned, majority of them don't like US and will support ANYONE who apposes the US, which means certainly the Taleban.
So there is going to be anotehr bloodsheed in the region while the American Arms Dealers are spending billions of dollars for this to happen ASAP. -------------
|
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 14-May-2009 at 14:20
|
some brilliant post all round thanks; Omar, Malizia and Gharani
-------------
|
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 14-May-2009 at 15:10
|
Yes indeed Malizai, a peoples condition will not change unless they change it themselves. This is a most powerful mindset. One has to believe that they have a purpose to fight for and that they are willing to sacrifice for that purpose. From basic necessities to needs more sophisticated, the people of the area are seemingly now in a clash of needs, survival and even ideology. I think, had the US not been involved in Afghanistan the Taliban still would be more than welcome by Pakistan. But, does there eventually come a point of resistence from Pakistan itself? When will the collective spirit say we are either for the"Taliban" or we are something else, and 'that' something else is opposed to them? If for nothing else then for the sake of territorial integrity and a system of government dear to you. I do believe that Pakistan does need to re-evaluate her prerogatives and figure out what her goals should be. Who it identifies with. Going back to my unanswered question: If the Taliban were about to overrun not only Swat but regions further south, how would you feel about them? This question can't be avoided. Muslims of the area can't continously say we give up because they are muslims too. That is not how survival works. If you are being attacked you have a right to defend yourselves. If you create mischief you will face the consequences. If your house is not in order someone will come and build a new house, for themselves, where yours used to stand. As numerous civilians are fleeing. Pakistan is in a crisis of close to one million internally displaced people. Swat and Dir provinces have seen the brunt of it. If I were Pakistan my geopolitical strategy would be to invest in massive media prop and gain civil support for the military as every Taliban stronghold is pounded. While this is going on the government should clamp down on religious schools in the Northwest, thus diminishing raw fanatical recruits. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 14-May-2009 at 15:58
Why do you think the Afghan market is big enough or important enough for US (or any other) arms dealers to invest billions of dollars in it?
Sometimes you seem to lose complete touch with reality. Even with heroin Afghanistan doesn't have enough money to excite a major arms dealer, and the minor ones don't have billions of dollars. ------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 14-May-2009 at 16:37
|
Hello to you all
First of all, claiming all Pakistanis support the Taliban or even a majority of them who live in areas affected by them is totally wrong. I know people from all over Pakistan except the Northern territories and they don't like Taliban and many even hate them except one or two. I know a guy from Swat, not a professor or a wealthy businessman but a taxi driver who hates them beyond description and he was blaming us Saudis for strenthening them and even outright support.
If the Taliban were that popular they would have won again the 2008 provincial elections in NWFP but they lost and lost and guess who won? The most secular of all Pakistan mainstream parties the PPP. This is their position in what is supposed to be their base. In other regions of Pakistan their support is minimal to nothing. Punjabis don't care about the situation there nor Sindhis who are about 80% of the people in Pakistan.
The problem in Pakistan is the government failed to step in and stop them when it should have done back in 2001-2002 and even 2000 when the problems really began. It left these areas unchecked, refused to believe the danger coming and growing from those areas and when Musharraf began to take action the same people who are leading the attacks today cried foul then and even gave full support to the Talibans and their sympathyzers.
As for the Taliban bringing security and what not, the Taliban way to achieve this was effective and it was to punish any suspect regardless if he was guilty or not. If people left their shops open during prayer time it is because Taliban killed people who dared walk in the market during prayer time in the first place. The same situation exited in pre 2003 Iraq when Saddam did practically the same policies and they worked.
Pakistan will not fall and the situation there is definitely not bleak, India on average is a much worse place to live in than Pakistan yet India is smart, people don't hear about Bihar or Jharkhand but they hear about Bombay and the other glittering cities of India.
Finally, over 1 million people fled the fighting, if they really wanted the Taliban you would have seen them already in Peshawar and Mardan but they were fought off from Buner largely by the people themselves and then with the help of the Pak army. You would have found tens of thousands volunteering in their ranks but this didn't happen. People began to flee well before the operation started.
AL-Jassas
|
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 14-May-2009 at 17:50
|
I don't know where you get off with your cemented generalizations saying that all Pakistanis supporting the Taliban is wrong dear Al-Jassas. From my understanding it is correct to assume that previous Pakistani governments and a wide spectrum of Pakistani society did indeed support their own creation - the Taliban. Maybe you mean over the last year and not the previous ten. Surely the recent upheavals in both societies have changed matters. And...that is what I'm trying to find out. How the current Paksitani or Afghan on AE feels about this. Not long ago in this very thread Omar stressed: I think there are Islamist sympathies, and a lack of other options. Democracy has been tried and failed, military coups have been tried, but aren't sufficient, there is probably a lot of people thinking why not give the Taliban a go? He also stated: In Pakistan I have always been pro-military. Especially now only a dictatorship can provide a viable alternative to the Taliban.
In case someone has missed one of the underlying gists of this arguement, I do believe that there does exist a passive, laissez faire mentality in Pakistan. Especially when: People have issues fighting against their own people, which was also brought up by Omar. This is nothing new. The same problems have existed and are faced by many other countries the world over. Any time a society at large caves into stagnation and pacivity they have already lost the first battle. There enemies broke down the gates, sort of speak. You reap what you sow. Best to know who the enemy is and confront them at every opportunity. Still, destiny is within each person's heart to find. As has already been hinted at in this thread but not said - You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
I still think Pakistan can win this round but its the future rounds that need utmost diligence. A clear vision is necessary so that the majority can identify with and support. One that's is beneficial to future geopolitical interests. ------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 14-May-2009 at 19:06
It is an emotional position. As stated elsewhere, great powers that have come to Afghanistan for a reason (almost always gepolitical) have always left when it became apparent that Afghanistan was not worth the trouble. The "Afghan market" is not important enough to interest any investment.
|
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 15-May-2009 at 03:17
|
I think that this would be very difficult for them to do. In order to move into other regions, with different cultures, and different political structures they would have to become a good deal more flexible than they currently are. I've already asked this question twice in this thread, how will the Taliban cope with Pakistan. What I personally think about them would depend on how they change, what they do, and how they come to power. Because I can't see them making big inroads with their current mindset, and I can't see them making big inroads into regions where the Army enjoys popular support.
I wouldn't be surprised if underlying issues were similar with just a different outward projection (ideology)
A government is a reflection of its people, but it is far from being a perfect image. If we run with this notion too far then revolutions would never occur. A government or succession of governments probably better reflects what people agree upon, or are used to, which given that the military is about the only functioning arm of the government in Pakistan we could deduce that the only thing that Pakistanis really agree upon is resisting India. Don't go and publish a paper on that deduction but there is probably some truth in it somewhere. Furthermore, and this applies to Al Jassas too, I'd be extremely hesitant before I said that elections in Pakistan represent anything in particular. I would say they are rigged, but they certainly aren't that well organised, they definitely aren't representative. If there are 180 million people in Pakistan, 58% of voting age, we have about 120 million voters, 50% literacy, 60 million voters, then huge voter apathy, perceived and actual corruption, polling booths are certainly not a safe place either, were looking at maybe 20-30 million. Elections in Pakistan are no way of gauging what people think.
Groups inside Pakistan will frequently do that, I can't think of a time when a whole subcontinent nation has ever done that though. There are so many different agendas getting them all to agree on something is like herding cats.
If the government was sufficently organised and just, and did things like provide basic services, even Mullah Omer would leave the Taliban.
That's true. My uncle has a mate who (during Taliban times) had some buisness in Kabul. He drove there in one stretch got there early in the morning and went to sleep in his car. At midday he was woken up by a Talib knocking on his window with an assult rifle telling him it was time for Friday Prayer. He didn't dare not go.
Exactly ------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 15-May-2009 at 09:43
|
Hello Omar Well while your right about elections not being a perfect gauge all over Pakistan, I think in NWFP they are. It has the most dynamic provincial assembly in all of Pakistan and the PPP or the muslim league doesn't have the same grip as other provinces. Because of this I think that elections can tell us at least something about the situation there. The problem of the state in Pakistan is that it never really tried to exert its influence outside the big cities. The countryside is outside their control and this was for political reasons. What makes everything worse is that when one challanges the status quo (Mukhtar Bibi for example) the parties no matter how different they are side with the zamindars and the fuedal lords. The Taliban in their advance in NWFP used this as one of their main propaganda methods even though the situation there is much better than other parts of Pakistan. Every one is Taliban in their eyes and it is the idea that unites them not blood and when someone breaks this they break with them.
Pakistan needs two things, either a political party that is willing to exert influence outside the cities or a Saddam like dictator who distroyes the entire political system and uses brute force to bring the state to the countryside. Either way this is the only way Pakistan will ever break this damned cycle.
A toothless state is not going to survive in the wild.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 15-May-2009 at 16:04
I am sorry for not clearifying my comment in the first place but I guess I mentioned the word "region" and within that region comes the biggest importers of American made weaponary (The Middle East) and I am sure that you won't NOW claim that they (The Middle East) too don't have enough stockpile of money and markets for a deal with the US.
-------------
|