Will Pakistan revolt?

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

So, it seems Pakistan's potent opposition parties are unhappy with the conditions on American aid. Now they're talking about negotiating with the US over it. While I don't think it's likely, a defeat in Pakistan's parliament could spell overall defeat both for Obama's war efforts in Afghanistan, and peoples' willingness to put up with Afghanistan any longer. Is there a way to keep Pakistan happy and sovereign without adversely impacting our actual goals? I think we can all agree that money we spend there has to have a specific purpose if we're going to spend it all. Can we trust the government to fight the Taliban? Can we expect that, without US conditions on aid, they'll do so in a way that compliments our own efforts across the border?

Comments

[uberarcanist.livejournal.com]

Our central problems in the region stem from our own addiction to interventionism so, if they choose to be dysfunctional, it shouldn't be America's problem.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

And if al Qaeda comes back with force in Afghanistan? If the Taliban starts gaining ground in Pakistan? What of their nuclear arms? I'd say the US has a pretty significant interest in keeping Pakistan stable, and that requires that there not be raids from terrorist organizations next door.

[uberarcanist.livejournal.com]

Does it not seem odd to you that Pakistan has gotten worse, not better, with America's interventionism?

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

So leaving Pakistan to fend for itself will make it better?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It's already collapsed once and may end up doing so again....

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Which would be insanely problematic, considering the weapons they have. I'd say that we have an essential interest in stability there (and so does everybody, really). The question becomes whether our intervention fosters or harms stability. I'd say that it can destabilize, but less than it promotes stability.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

To a degree, yes, but if it gets too expensive and we have to withdraw, all we've done is make it far, far worse....

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

How exactly is the collapse of Pakistan (i.e. why we have Pakistan and Bangladesh) the US's fault again?

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Or maybe some other countries in the world need to pull their head out their ass and realize what they have to lose in Pakistan.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Which they will never do so long as the US is playing global cop. But unless the US plays global cop, we have no one there to watch out for our interests... Basically, a catch-22.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

America's help is always bittersweet. While nations want the goods, arms and cash, what they have to do to get it is bent over.

I know people here will warn about what happens when there is a power vacuum, but the result is natural, like water seeking it's own level. To perpetually hold the water back is an impossible task.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It's not the power vacuum so much as the Taliban re-asserting themselves that worries me. Because that will mean Iran might well end up using nuclear weapons....on the Taliban. The Islamic Republic has been hostile to the Taliban before, and if we get a nuclear Iran that's no more friendly to the Taliban now than it has been...urk.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

The threat of nukes being used (on error or purposely) is always a real possibility. Prevention of taking such a hostile action has always been in the consequences. The fall-out isn't just atomic, but political as well.

As much as two groups might hate each other, I cannot imagine the risk being worth the reward. Given the dire consequences, the only group(s) that could sanely use nuclear weaponry on purpose would have to be one backed so deep into a corner they're left with absolutely nothing left to loose (thankfully Palestine doesn't have nukes), or one that felt so superior that they could survive the atomic/political fall-out (USA).

As much as America portrays Iran as a maverick nation with little regard, the truth is they remain interdependent with it's trading partners. While certainly pushing the limits, I think taking nuclear actions is a line they would not cross.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Unless backed into a corner. The fact is that nuclear arms in the hands of a given state give it far greater power to make international demands and even act militarily. If I'm invading Kuwait, and I have a stockpile capable of killing millions in Europe, Europe is far less likely to get involved, for fear of backing me into that corner. This (and proliferation/rogue actor concerns) are the real reason for restricting nuclear arms.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Given that the Taliban in part came from the Pakistani intelligence agency....no.

If we continue doing what we're doing, we might end up in war with Pakistan, the first time two nuclear powers have ever fought each other. Whoopie.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Relations with India would improve after we installed a U.S. friendly regime. What's a little occupation between one-time friends?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Oh, yeah....brilliant idea. Magnify the problems Iran invasion (which would break us) 10-fold.

Oh, crap, Washington's gonna do it, they always take the path of most fucked-up-ness.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

I actually heard a report on NPR today that says that things were getting better, and the Pakistani military has figured out how to fight the Taliban properly:

1) Get the civilians out of the way
2) Use overwhelming force.
3) Get the civilians back home

They're gearing up for another big offensive.

Here's the report: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113552516

But the interview with the "expert" doesn't appear to be included.

[pmax3.livejournal.com]

The conditions for aid have already been watered down drastically. References to curbing terrorism against India have been quietly dropped. Most people in India think the U.S. is dancing to Pakistan's tunes. I am not saying that is necessarily the right view, but it's how it is seen here. Of course stability in Pakistan is in everybody's interest and India has a stake in the battle against Taliban.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Pakistan is pretty revolting as it is.

But, they have...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

... the best curried spinach.

Pakistan as the source

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Let's not forget that Pakistan spawned the Taliban in the first place. It's their proxy force in Afghanistan. They have a tradition of being the hotbed of terrorism in the Middle East, Europe, and even in America. They need to atone for their cooperation with the CIA in helping to establish terror camps in Afghanistan.

Come to think of it, the CIA needs to atone for their own role in supporting Islamist terrorism.