Warning that Pakistan is in danger of collapse within months

[friendly_iconoclast]

Source: Sydney Morning Herald

Warning that Pakistan is in danger of collapse within months
Paul McGeough
April 13, 2009

PAKISTAN could collapse within months, one of the more influential counter-insurgency voices in Washington says.

The warning comes as the US scrambles to redeploy its military forces and diplomats in an attempt to stem rising violence and anarchy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"We have to face the fact that if Pakistan collapses it will dwarf anything we have seen so far in whatever we're calling the war on terror now," said David Kilcullen, a former Australian Army officer who was a specialist adviser for the Bush administration and is now a consultant to the Obama White House.

"You just can't say that you're not going to worry about al-Qaeda taking control of Pakistan and its nukes," he said.....

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/warning-that-pakistan-is-in-danger-of-collapse-within-months-20090412-a40u.html

---

Note that this is not a News Company (ie Rupert Murdoch) paper

[drm604]

1. K&R

Interesting, and disturbing, article.

[friendly_iconoclast]

2. Note also CIA director Panetta's visit to India and Pakistan last month

The WH is not saying much about this issue, and for good reason:
If this isn't a nightmare scenario, nothing is.

Pakistan has FAR more nuclear weapons in existence than Iran could ever hope to build,
and the Iranians have been known to display a smidgen of sanity on occasion.

The Taliban/AQ consortium, not so much.

[JI7]

14. but at least we killed Saddam

[robinlynne]

3. And let's not forget that Bush pumped billions into that country.....

much of which went to the taliban and al queda

[Turbineguy]

6. At least we don't

have to depend on Bush to sort it out.

[Auggie]

4. This is a world concern, not just a problem for the U.S.

[AlbertCat]

19. Great! 1st, a depression, then a world war. Where have I heard that before?

[sarcasmo]

5. Big time nightmare, do we know where the nukes are located?

We better find out fast.

[Turborama]

41. Yes

I think you might find this article quite interesting...

Obama’s Worst Pakistan Nightmare - What to do About Pakistan's Nuclear Arsenal
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x429872

[sarcasmo]

43. Thanks, for that article, then we better take out said nukes and do it now.

[Turborama]

44. Sorry, just noticed that was the wrong link. Here's the one I was trying to share...

I had the other article open and must have copied and pasted that one by mistake...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x429668

:blush:

[Demeter]

7. Given Our Economy, so Might We!

Times are tough all over. You have to prioritize and concentrate on the battles that you can't afford to lose.

[niceypoo]

8. My, my... this is going to get interesting..

So glad we dont have a half witted madman running the show anymore.

[Diclotican]

9. friendly_iconoclast

friendly_iconoclast

This is bad news.. Very bad news if you ask me.. If Pakistan was to fall into the hands of a taliban style regime, then I for one would be afraid, really afraid.. Because if Pakistan, with all it weapons, most important nuclear weapon was to be in the hands of TALIBAN, you never know how would use it... If you thing a nuclear weapon is bad in the hands of Iran, who for all its fault still have a stable regime... Then just think about Pakistan, with a regime like taliban, who would be riddled with fractions, with every possible difference.. Then I would not be surprised if the Intelligence agency's in many places of the world, would be on high alert for a long time... Not to say India, who already have their hands full with extremists at the border..

Diclotican

[cap]

10. worse than that... our supply lines for Afghanistan run through Pakistan

the port of Karachi is very important... and the Khyber Pass is very important.

If we dont watch out, our military could end up isolated in Afghanistan... like as in another Dien Bien phu

[Diclotican]

15. cap

cap

Many have already pointed out who dangerous the US, and NATO forces for that sake are because most, or not everything is passed by the Khyber pass. It is an dangerous, and very important part of the whole transport to NATO and US forces in Afghanistan. And as some have pointed out, if the Khyber pass was to be closed down, the whole Enterprise in Afghanistan could be in jeopardy.. Because where should the NATO forces and US forces then have their equipment from?.. The Khyber pass is one of the most important gateway into Pakistan/Afghanistan.. Even Alexander the Great, who conquered Afghanistan (of sorts) for more than 2500 year understand ed the importance of the Khyber pass.. And if Pakistan was to fall.. What with the forces in Afghanistan.. They could not exactly force they way the whole way to Karachi either.. That would be a long, bloody war with a lof of dead allied soldiers before Karachi, or the indian border was ever been to be seen.. And climbing true the top of the world, to either Iran or Russia, or other central asian states is maybe not in the cards?.. I for one doubt that Iran or Russia want thousands of americans or NATO forces on their ground, even if it was to transport them to safety and with a lot of security in place... I would be very tempting for NATO to get into a power of sorts in central asia, if they have to flee Afghanistan...

And then I have not even been thinking about the hwy equipment that NATO and US have in Afghanistan.. What should happened to all of that?.. You can airlift just that much, and even the C5 Globemaster have their limits to what they can transport.. Either they have to be send by land, true The Khyber pass.. By other means into central asia, or blown up where they are been leaving behind.. The soldiers, and maybe most of their weapons can be saved, but every hing else, who can't be handheld, would it maybe be necessary to destroy..

And just think about the ripple effect in the area if NATO/US forces was to have to leave in a hurry... Afghans would be rather angry about the whole affair, and i WOULD not believe that the government of Kharsai would survive long after the last NATO/US forces was out of Kabul, on their way to leave Afghanistan.. That country have always been a dangerous place in most cases, even when peace are there.. But if ten of thousands of NATO forces was to leave, by road, by air and so on, any NATO forces would be killed before the last NATO soldier was leaving for Russia (if Russia would approve thousands of NATO forces on their territory..

Dien Bien phu would be a piece of cake, compared to Afghanistan.. Specially if NATO/US forces have to force they way true the Khyber pass and down Pakistan to the sea...

Diclotican

[friendly_iconoclast]

13. I agree- Bad, bad juju here- maybe WW I (version 2.0)

I can envision all too clearly a South Asian "Western Front". Or given the terrain, Austria-Hungary
vs Italy. Times ten. With nukes.

Or, after a while- "Verdun with nerve agents".

And this is not the only recent source of similar statements.
Go research this from the various news sources, people.

We need to watch this very, very carefully.

[Diclotican]

20. friendly_iconoclast

friendly_iconoclast

For them who survived the GREAT WAR, the trenches of World War 1 was something they never forgot.. It was 4 year with a nightmare that most of our grandfathers, and there fathers would have nightmare if they ever was in the trenches.. And for most of the country, where most of the fighting was the damage to their "soul" was great.. Even in the prospect of been occupied by germany, many european country was scared stiff to do something.. French, Belgia and so on, was hewely damaged by World War 1.. And millions of young men was killed to retake a kilometer of dirt. In most cases maybe 100-200 1700 meter with dirt..

If it was ever to be a war in Pakistan, where the NATO forces have to defend them self against the Taliban/Al-Qauda I would believe it to be a type of "the western front" in the central asia area.. As it was between Austria-Hungary and Italy in the first world war.. Fighting and living in thousands meters over the sea.. And in WW1 more was killed by the environment and accidence in the winter, than by enemy fire...

Or, as you point out, after a while, when a stalemate is there, then maybe even other weapons, like nerve agents.. And in worst of scenario also nuclear weapons used... Verdun was a nightmare, both for the germans, and both for the allied forces.. And even decades after World ware one, you could find people who was harmed by the gas used.. And even today, more or less 100 year after the first world war, you can still find bones from the dead soldiers.. Even today, in the old trenches you can find bones from dead soldiers.. It was horrible then - and central asian war in the style of WW1 would be a nightmare who would hunt they who survived for decades to came.. As the Iraq war already is given them who is damaged by the war...

And, in World War ONe, most western country have the possibility to make the draft.. And was using it to have enough "canon fodder" to the war.. And even then the war fatigue was one of the reasons the war ended in 1918.. A war in asia, would be reason to have a draft even in US.. I doubt that even if every able man in Europe was drafted to armered duty, it would be enough to have a impact.. We need US, and US need NATO I guess... And if a type as you point out the bloodshed would be horrible...

We need to watch this carefully.. And I would not doubt for a second, if Pakistan was to fall in the hands of the TALIBAN type of regime, NATO in Afghanistan would be in trouble.. More trouble than we might believe..

Diclotican

[rwenos]

23. I don't see the WW1 Analogy

Afghanistan is very mountainous and has few roads. You correctly state the Khyber Pass is necessary for transporting any land-based supplies. It would be impossible to maintain a land war in Afghanistan without a free and open Khyber Pass.

But I don't get the trench warfare analogy here. Pakistan is a funnel, extending northeast from the mouth of the Indus River, and extends far into the Hindu Kush and Tora Bora -- VERY tough to invade from the ground. And the Russian experience with carpet bombing in Afghanistan is not encouraging. (Translation -- it did not work.)

But just as the Pakistani lowlands are tailor made for the classic American tank warfare in open country, the mountains are virtually unassailable any way other than by air. Same with Afghanistan. Thus, I see a Predator- and helicopter-gunship oriented air war, supported by telemetry from geosynchronous satellites, with Special Forces ground forces present to paint radar onto select targets. And lots of ground forces to occupy territory where hostile forces could be neutralized by such close air tactics.

In sum, a bloody messy expensive war in Pakistan. But not much like the Somme or Paeschendale, with slit trenches, artillery barrages and "over the top" infantry charges.

[friendly_iconoclast]

27. That's why I mentioned Italy vs Austro-Hungary in WW1

Not to mention the various Indo-Chinese wars.

If the Pak central government falls, Indian intervention is a certainty.

[Diclotican]

32. friendly_iconoclast

friendly_iconoclast

And if India was to be involved in that war... All hell is loose for sure.. India have a far bigger military than Pakistan and if Pakistan was to fall, in the sense of a central government.. Then I would guess the indian government "Just have" to secure their own border.. And the grab some land from Pakistan, who they might claim to be Indian....

Diclotican

[Diclotican]

31. rwenos

rwenos

Well, if you look at the history of world war one, not just the western front,who are the most known because of the great battles who are known in most of europe, and most of the world.. You would still se parts of world ware one, who was as horrible as anything you can think about in Afghanistan. Specially on the eastern front, where Russia and Germany most important had a bloody war going on for years.. And if you think the Great war was horrible in the west, it war far worse in the east, because in east it was no rules at all.. Germans and russians hated each other with a great passion. Even more than in West, where it was rules (sort of) and where germany and the allied forces do had their limits to what they wanted.. And where the two sides also had similar weapons, because both sides was industrialized and could not just been bullied the same way as Germany was doing in the east with Imperial Russia. Off course this is not the whole story, most because my limited knowledge about World ware one.. For some reason, world ware two have been more in my interest than world ware one.. And my knowledge of world ware one is somewhat limited I am afraid...

The Russian experience with carped bombing was limited, that is true, but the whole story was not because the russian bombers/fighters was not doing their work as believed. But most because the supply of a steadily time of Stingers from the US.. In 1984 the "freedom fighters" of Afghanistan was more or less blown to pieces and the soviet red air force was more or less dominant in the sky.. When the US government was giving the "freedom fighters" a new toy named Stinger, the whole concept of aerial fighting get into a another league. Because then the Soviet air force discovered that they could be hit by the new weapon.. And many russians ended in a gruesome bang or if they was so unlucky to survive a crash, in the hand of the afghans.. Who even members of CIA had their objections about.. But in the 1980s the Soviet air force, and ground forces got a new too, the MI24 Hind, who is nicknamed as the tank in the sky.. But even the MI24 Hind get into trouble when the "freedom fighters" was using the Stinger.. A weapon even the US military forces doesn't had before the afghans got it for some reason... The USAF for it case, was more or less bombing Tora Bora to the ground, not that was killing to many of the top leaders/commanders in TALIBAN and Al-Qauda exactly.. But it was a amassing show of military power then.. But that was maybe also the reason to bomb Tora Bora in first place maybe?

It is true that both Afghanistan and Pakistan is very difficult to invade.. The most known man who was doing this with some reasonable luck was as I know it Alexander the great.. But he was in many cases an extraordinary man, who still today in that area of the world is been talked about with admirasion... 2500 year after the death... Most other invaders have chosen other path, or not going true Afghanistan/Pakistan all together, because of the danger.. Even the great Mongols who for the most part crushed everything in its path had their hand full in that area of the world.. And choose for the most part by ruling by dynasties from local tribal leaders..

The mountainous areas of both Afghanistan and Pakistan would be troublesome for anyone who wanted to control the area, and who had not the support of the areas tribal areas.. And I guess if Pakistan was to crumble, the US would no be to welcome in any parts of Pakistan at least.. Even the big pockets of US dollar, could not bribe enough tribal areas to let american forces travel true the Khyber pas and down to the plains of the Pakistani lowlands.. And I am afraid that both the US and NATO forces had to fight, literally all way to the sea.. And even if US was to use all their Almighty air force to cover the forces who was heading southbound from the Khyber pass I doubt that would be enough to really carve out a road to safety for the military forces who would be leaving Afghanistan... The ony other road out of that hell would be to leave true Russia.. And I would be very sure to believe that Russia would have some objection about that... And even that the Russia army are not what it once was, when figging on home front, the russians tend to get the upper hand..
And I have not even get into if NATO/US have to leave in the winter. That would be a sure nightmare in most cases.. It can be really cold in Afghanistan, and with a lot of snow... Many ciy's and villages is more or less closed out from the rest of the world when winter came, and I am not sure if NATO/US forces have the capacity to both fight guerrilla forces, and survive a cold long brutal winter at the same time... But of course, the afghans would also be more smart, and stop the fighting, or most of it to the spring again..

US do have a Lot aye in the sky, who can help them.. But even the smartest, and most deadly of Predators can't be all over the place. And it is a lot of area to cove, even with the help of aircraft who can lurck over the area 12-24 hour a day.. Like your predators, who can be in the air as long as you want it - if you had the fuel to do it.. And it is correct that US do have a lot of special forces in many areas, who hit pretty hard when wanting to do it.. But even them can't be over all the area. Specially in a area where for the most part the public tend to be supportive of Taliban/Al-Qauda. Specially on the border, who at the outside look more than just sympathetic to the case of Taliban and Al-Qauda.. On the Pakistan side of the border, for the last 7 year the Taliban have had have more than just little of sympathy from the pakistani public.. Even government officials have been supportive of what Taliban have been doing.. And today, most of the border areas in the north of Pakistan are in no control of the government in Islamabad..

Off course, a modern war would be different from the Somme, and Paeschendale and a lot of other horrible trench warfare from world ware one.. Most because the tecnices used today is so different from what the great powers had in 1914-1918.. Even in world war two, most germans was using horse and carriage to get equipment around. And the same was true for the allied too.. Compared to the equipment of today, the world war two equipment would be like living in the dark ages.. But even with the domination of equipment you might loose a war. If you doesn't have the support of the public in the area you want to get control over... But even with the modern weapons, the tanks, and smart weapons, it Will still be a bloody hard war where possible ten of thousands soldiers of both sides would be killed, for what outcome?.. World War one killed millions of young men, and the diases after the war took also many millions... A modern war in that area would kill millions, and maybe hundred of thousands of soldiers of both sides... Specially if both parts was to use unconventional weapons, like gas, and nuclear weapons.. And Taliban, would be more than able to use a nuclear device if they ever got a hand on it...

Diclotican

[wordpix]

11. can the news get any worse? The * war on terror has just given us an explosion of recruits in the

last 8 yrs. Shit. :nuke:

[MindMatter]

12. Nice job, Neocons

You pissed away 8 years in a country that didn't even have any WMDs. You wasted all your energy blathering about Iran, which is a decade away from having nukes. And you ignored the one immediate threat to the USA.

Brilliant job, guys.

[ShareTheWoods]

17. How is Pakistan a threat to the US?

They have no delivery means to send a nuke here unless it is sneaked in. You can bet we watch their nukes closely
since there are so many extremists residing there.

[Sailing]

22. Unless North Korea decides to sell them some missiles. (nt)

[corpseratemedia]

25. via India

since our IT infrastructure is outsourced there.

India will be the proxy USA if the Pakistani govt. collapses

[varun]

37. Delivery as a dirty bomb

with scores of British citizens training in Pakistani terror camps, it will happen sooner or later. Transportation of nuclear material to the West - to be used as a dirty bomb.

[ShareTheWoods]

48. The crazies are trying to deliver a dirty bomb now

They don't need any excuses, so it's not a greater threat regardless of our action/inaction.

Bloodthirsty, brainwashed and devoid of any value of life, the jihads will infest us for as long as we allow
their teaching of hate and murder to continue.

[RDANGELO]

16. The meltdown started after the invasion of Iraq.

This was always the biggest reason not to invade Iraq. The destabilization of nuclear Pakistan.

[sledgehammer]

18. The headline of the article is over-alarmist

If you read the entire article, there is hardly mention of a collapse, or any real reasons to justify the claims. The collapse of Pakistan has been "predicted" for many years now with grave apocalyptic images, and so far the nukes are still in the custody of the Army. This all reminds me a bit of the "Iraq/Iran are going to destroy the world" hysteria.

Having said that, both Pakistan and the US have made major mistakes in their handling of militant groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan. And Pakistan has made irreparable mistakes in the last 35 years in allowing religion to being firmly planted in politics. Certainly there is some sympathy toward militant groups within Pakistan's borders, and within the military establishment. Handing over control of Swat to the mullahs is frightening.

But...the political situation is more stable right now than it has been for years. There's a ruling government and an opposition cooperating on nearly everything (extremely rare). There is some optimism from the recent successful Long March (which got called off after the government met the demands of restoring the judiciary, and not a shot was fired). The Army leadership is probably the least "Islamist" it has been for around two decades thanks to some "cleansing" and retirements. The Supreme Court has taken strong action in response to a video of young girl being flogged, and this action has met with near universal applause.

And, most importantly, there is finally some (however minute it might be) backlash beginning against Taliban/extremism. No doubt Pakistan is a conservative Muslim country, but even conservatives are realizing they are not extremist. They've seen images of flogging and schools being blown up, and they know it is not representative of conservative Islam, but of extremist Islam. InKarachi, the mostly secular and highly powerful MQM political party has publicly announced that it will never let the extremists take control of the city (mainly because it threatens their political power, but also because a massive majority of Pakistan has no interest in seeing extremists have authority). And so far, they have succeeded very well.

Yes, Pakistan is in a tough situation. It faces perhaps a never-ending civil war against extremism. The North is in a very, very delicate situation. But if there ever was a time in the last two decades for Pakistan to face the situation, it is now.

Note: The President still has to sign the "accession" of Swat to the mullahs. He is expected to sign it, and that is a serious mistake. If he reneges on the deal, it means a long, protracted battle. But maybe this is Pakistan's 1861 and tough decisions need to be made, however painful. Unfortunately though, we have no Lincoln in sight!

[friendly_iconoclast]

28. Actually, I hope you are right.

But the loss of even the polite fiction of central government control over Swat is a sign
of deep, deep trouble.

Remember, the mullahs are a bunch of fundies with a 650 C.E. mindset. They're even crazier than
our fundies (who have at least made it up to the Thirteenth Century or so.), and perceive the conquest of
Swat as "See, Allah IS on our side!".

If it looks like they will be taking over, the Indians will intervene and all bets are off.

[sledgehammer]

46. Yep, giving in to the fundos would be a huge mistake

The bill is being debated in parliament now.

Of course, religious groups have made statements like anyone who opposes it is an apostate, and is thus asking to be killed. Unfortunately, nothing seems to scare these militant nuts - they will use all violence to achieve their goals. Pakistan's poor domestic and foreign policies, coupled with society's ignoring of the growing Islamic influence, are largely responsible for this situation.

[Turborama]

39. Religion has been firmly planted in Pakistan's politics since it's "creation" in 1947

I cannot understand why Britain isn't playing a larger role in helping to sort out Pakistan's problems, seeing as it is only a country because of their drawing of an arbitrary line, in haste, prior to their departure in 1947 and that an increasing British demographic are of Pakistani origin with strong ties to Pakistan.

Muslims and Hindus alike had been hungering for independence from Britain, but not ethnic nationhood. What happened in 1947 was not just the creation of a new kind of nation. It was the creation of a new kind of people. Suddenly, hundreds of millions of people were categorized and forced to define themselves by religion - which had heretofore been a largely private and incidental matter for most of the people of India. People who had no religious belief at all suddenly found themselves
defined entirely by a faith they didn't hold.

INDIA-PAKISTAN PARTITION POISON

This, along with the very similar partition of Palestine done by the United Nations the same summer, represented the creation of a new sort of person, the religious-political individual. In many respects, the twin partitions led to the invention, by Britain and the United Nations, of the designation of "Muslim" as a political category imposed on hundreds of disparate peoples with few real common interests - a fiction that meant little before 1947, but has scarred the world since.

Blame Gandhi and Churchill for a split that poisoned the world
by Doug Saunders, Globe & Mail, July 14, 2007

MUMBAI - Sixty years ago this week, a bespectacled British lawyer named Cyril Radcliffe arrived in India for the first time in his life to take on a simple three-week job. His solitary task, finished on Aug. 13, 1947, would have a few immediate results - hundreds of thousands of people slaughtered, millions mutilated or raped and tens of millions forced out of their homes and livelihoods.

In a larger sense, his little job created the biggest problem in the world today. The mosque wars in Pakistan this week, the nuclear-arms race between India and Pakistan and much of the al-Qaeda threat can be traced to his short stay here. Radcliffe's job was to draw two lines on a sheet of paper. The lines, across the eastern and western flanks of the soon-to-be-independent nation of India, would attempt to demarcate areas that contained at least 50.1 per cent Muslims from ones that had a majority of Sikhs, Hindus or members of other faiths. He was, in a coldly bureaucratic way, giving life to the nations of India and Pakistan - an act of partition, or religious segregation, that only months before had seemed unpopular and dangerous to the majority of the continent's Muslims and Hindus, and unthinkable to the retreating colonial masters in London.

=snip=

"The independence was a great moment for all of us, but we cannot be happy about the way it forced us all to be either Muslims or Hindus, not anything else," shopkeeper Gulzar Bajwar tells me in Bandra, a neighbourhood that was once happily mixed but has become violently segregated since the 1990s, when Hindu extremists drove Muslims out, often shouting at them to "go home to Pakistan."

=snip=

http://www.orwelltoday.com/indiadivideconquer.shtml">Full article

(Pakistan's) Troubling Historical Roots
By Shahid Javed Burki

=snip=

For a number of reasons Pakistan bore the brunt of the sloppy way the British departed from the subcontinent. A series of mistakes were made and a series of willful steps were taken by the administration in New Delhi that deeply influenced the way Pakistan evolved as a state, and as a nation. Among the burdens Pakistan had to carry was the need to accommodate a large number of refugees who arrived in the country soon after partition. It was the partition of the province of Punjab and the attendant displacement of people and the arrival of more than a million refugees to Karachi, the new capital, that left Pakistan with a host of problems.

These were obviously not foreseen in 1947 and Pakistan is still tackling them nearly sixty years after its birth. The first mistake the departing British made was to task Sir Cyril Radcliffe to draw the new border between the two emerging states. Radcliffe was a lawyer with practically no knowledge of India and absolutely no familiarity with the disputes among the country’s many communities. Also, he is reported to have had little taste for consultations. “Free speech is all right as long as it does not interfere with the policy of the government,” he told one of his biographers.

Having entrusted such an enormous task to be completed within a short period of time, the Delhi administration failed to shelter Radcliffe from political influence. The myth of total impartiality was later advanced by Radcliffe and Lord Louis Mountbatten, India’s last viceroy, in the aftermath of independence. However, there is now enough evidence available to historians that “there is no question, as people like Ronnie Brockman and Campbell-Johnson maintain, that kept aloof.” As the historian Alastair put it: “There is no way that the Government of India would have allowed somebody with so little experience of India to make the key decisions. Radcliffe was a barrister following a brief.” The brief was provided by Mountbatten.
The word that Radcliffe was coming under the influence of Mountbatten who, in turn, was listening to Jawaharlal Nehru reached Mohammad Ali Jinnah as the Boundary Commission was about to conclude its labor. Jinnah dispatched Chaudhri Muhammad Ali to consult Radcliffe’s associates but by then it was too late. Radcliffe’s mind had been made up for him.

After appointing an uninformed barrister to draw the boundary line and then influencing him to demarcate it in favor of India, the British administration in New Delhi made the third mistake by not anticipating a total breakdown in law and order that was about to take place in the western parts of the United Provinces and in Delhi and Punjab. The situation was exacerbated by Mountbatten’s decision not to announce the final boundary until after the two countries, India and Pakistan, had already come into existence.

=snip=

http://www.pakistanlink.com/Letters/2004/July04/16/03.html">Full article

Wikipedia has quite a thorough overview on the "Radcliffe Line", too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radcliffe_Line



Wanting to learn more about what happened during that period, I'm considering doing this three book deal from Amazon for $46.22, unless someone can give a personal recommendation of a better read on this subject...?

http://www.amazon.com/Shameful-Flight-Years-British-Empire/dp/0195151984/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239605377&sr=1-1">Shameful Flight: The Last Years of the British Empire in India

http://www.amazon.com/Indian-Summer-Secret-History-Empire/dp/0312428111/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_c">Indian Summer: The Secret History of the End of an Empire

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Partition-Making-India-Pakistan/dp/0300143338/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b">The Great Partition: The Making of India and Pakistan



Edited to delete repetition.

[sledgehammer]

45. Well, it was way more liberal before the 1980s

Religion was not even a fraction a part of the political/social life as it is today. Pakistan was on its way to becoming a progressive Muslim nation (somewhat akin to Malaysia today).

Alcohol was available for all, and served on the national airline and clubs/lounges. No one even mentioned Sharia at all - it was a non-issue. Sectarian and religious tensions hardly existed.

It was in the mid/late 1970s when ZA Bhutto (ironically the most socially liberal leader in Pakistan's history) took a few steps to appease the religious right (e.g. declaring the Ahmadi sect as officially non-Muslim, banning alcohol, etc). No one had ever entertained the religious right before, and this was a move by ZA Bhutto to save his leadership.

And in the late 70s, Pakistan was led by the military dictator Zia-ul-Haq, who was a strict Wahabi and had strong ties with Saudi Arabia. He allowed the construction of madrassas, initiated the creation of religious/sectarian political parties, and created a sympathy for militant Islam within the Army. Note: This was all done with the blessing and encouragement of the US, because it worked perfectly with the plan to get Pakistan to fully support the Mujahideen.

Since the 1980s, it's been pretty downhill. However, one positive aspect is that the religious political parties have never received any significant share of parliamentary seats, except for the one election under Musharraf's term. Otherwise they've always had a handful of seats in the National Assembly, and a few seats in the Frontier Provincial Assembly.

[closeupready]

21. This 'influential' voice in DC was a neocon Bush adviser.

so I'm not sure what his thoughts were with regard to WMD's in Iraq and mushroom clouds, :eyes: , but given his CV, take this with a grain of salt.

[EFerrari]

34. A pilllar of salt. n/t

[maxanne]

24. sounds like a timely

justification for the escalation Obama wants to perpetuate in Afghanistan.

Gotta keep justifying all that money we spend on defense.

[humus]

26. You can best serve civilization by being against what usually passes for it.

"More than at any other time in history, we are at a crossroads.
One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness,
the other to total extinction.
Let us us hope we have the wisdom to choose correctly."
-- Woody Allen

[BlooInBloo]

29. Obama certainly inheirited a dangerous world.

[Kablooie]

30. Could a new surprise WWIII be right around the corner? Well, it will take care of the economy.

[gulfcoastliberal]

33. Terrorized families getting blasted in their homes & cars by US UAVs aren't helping stablize things.

Hard to imagine being capable of massively clusterfucking for the worse the clusterfucks that are Afghanistan & Pakistan... but I guess that's what our foreign policy does best.

[EFerrari]

35. With no disrespect to the OP, this story was posted here last week.

Wednesday or so. Someone seems to be pushing it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

38. No offense taken, I did read some think-tank type saying much the same

..recently, so I posted *this* when I read it at the SMH site.

Listen up, this is not "Saddam has WMDs". The Pakistani government is far more unstable than
anyone is publicly saying. If it falls to the Talib/AQ, things will get very bad very quickly,
and will be out of everyone's control. More to the point:

The present Pakistani government is looking more and more like the South Vietnamese government of 1973-1975,
or Russia's provisional government of 1917 under Kerensky.

It is not a situation that can be reversed by the US and/or NATO, only by the Pakistanis themselves.
And if they don't do it, it's bad news for everyone.

[northernlights]

40. seems almost the opposite to me

We see identical stories posted 2, 3, 4 times in a day. Just look at the Bo coverage yesterday.

But this incredibly important story occasionally emerges briefly -- a few hours it seems at best -- and then vanishes, followed by one group of people freaking out because of Obama's plans to increase our presence in Afghanistan.

I replied in here many times that Pakistan is on the verge of collapse and that the Taliban and al Qaeda were poised to take over it -- along with its nuclear arsenal. And that is the reason all along that Obama throughout his campaign said that Afghanistan was the real front and that he intended to pull us out of the disaster that is Iraq and focus there.

That is the main reason why, as sad as I am personally to see us increase our presence in Afghanistan, I've understood the necessity of it.

If it's staying at the surface now, maybe it's because Obama has started making good on his campaign intentions to increase our presence there. Or maybe it's because the situation in Pakistan has deteriorated to where it cannot be ignored. Or both.

[ronnie624]

47. Indeed.

It smacks of the manufacture of consent for the escalation of U.S. involvement in the region.

As a poster up-thread noted, this article in no way makes a case for the imminent "collapse" of Pakistan. It seems contrived to spread fear and uncertainty.

[Fovea]

36. What are our real interests in the region?

What is the likelihood of stabilizing Pakistan, occupying Afghanistan, and training the Iraqis in time?

Which of these three missions would failure to perform result in millions of deaths in the region in a single day?

What are the chances of stabilizing Pakistan without stabilizing Afghanistan?

Who would be the big winners in the region in this horror scenario?


That would be in order,
Our interests are stealing more oil, selling arms, and stopping nuclear holocaust.
Only one of these is compelling, IMO.

I put our strategy in the region as having about a thirty percent chance of not being a massive FUBAR that ends brightly.
If we cannot completely pacify the tribal areas, the whole region is due for a really bad day.
Our chances of stabilizing Pakistan without first stabilizing Afghanistan are far better than the reverse.
I'd ask what the Dubya admin was thinking RE Musharref, but a question well asked answers itself- in this case with the
single word counter query-- Thinking?

If things go all squidly, Iran will not be a big winner because Israel *and* Saudi Arabia would go rogue on it.
The answer in my opinion would likely be Iraq, because the straits of Hormuz will be on fire for a bit.
They have reserves, and will have the lions share of the pipeline traffic for oil from the peninsula to the Med for a while.
Jordan and Syria would have enhanced influence on the non glowing parts of the region.

Wahabbists would call a fatwa on the Saudi Royal Family, and things would go bad from there.
There would be two Islamic republics in the region, one shia, one sunni. That would look much like the quote
from Terry Pratchett-- "Even the Scots took time out from killing their ancient mortal enemies, the Scots."


The only world power besides India who might see it in their interest to help us out of this box is China.
Russia, not so much. Most of the other players are automata, with no real agency.

[Turborama]

42. "West warned on nuclear terrorist threat from Pakistan"

Similar story, different headline...

Paul McGeough
April 11, 2009

The next few months will be crucial in defusing a global terrorist threat that would be even deadlier than the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, a leading Washington counter-terrorism expert warns.

David Kilcullen — a former Australian army lieutenant colonel who helped devise the US troop surge that revitalised the American campaign in Iraq — fears Pakistan is at risk of falling under al-Qaeda control.

If that were to happen, the terrorist group could end up controlling what Dr Kilcullen calls "Talibanistan". "Pakistan is what keeps me awake at night," said Dr Kilcullen, who was a specialist adviser for the Bush administration and is now a consultant to the Obama White House.

"Pakistan has 173 million people and 100 nuclear weapons, an army which is bigger than the American army, and the headquarters of al-Qaeda sitting in two-thirds of the country which the Government does not control."

Compounding that threat, the Pakistani security establishment ignored direction from the elected Government in Islamabad as waves of extremist violence spread across the whole country — not just in the tribal wilds of the Afghan border region.

More: http://www.watoday.com.au/world/west-warned-on-nuclear-terrorist-threat-from-pakistan-20090413-a4ac.html?page=-1