What To Do With Pakistan Now?

[Dino Velvet]

The millions and millions of dollars we give to these characters. I can't figure out whether they are my ally or my enemy. Bin Laden gets set up like The Fresh Prince Of Bel Air and the Pakistani gov't claims they had no knowledge. Either their gov't are complete liars or totally incompetent, or both. If so, what are we buying from them and how do they justify the money and aid we give them? I realize they have been victims of Islamic Terrorists too but this whole Bin Laden affair is unacceptable.

[hippifried]

Pakistan's only commitment to us, as far as binLaden goes, was non-interference. They weren't going to go out of their way to look for him. They have their own problems. They didn't interfere, & we gave them plausible deniability. Even Steven.

[w1s2x3]

We can cut back on their payoffs... then again the more radical groups could get in power and control their nukes. So much for state department policy favoring "stability" over freedom.

[robertlouis]

The millions and millions of dollars we give to these characters. I can't figure out whether they are my ally or my enemy. Bin Laden gets set up like The Fresh Prince Of Bel Air and the Pakistani gov't claims they had no knowledge. Either their gov't are complete liars or totally incompetent, or both. If so, what are we buying from them and how do they justify the money and aid we give them? I realize they have been victims of Islamic Terrorists too but this whole Bin Laden affair is unacceptable.

More than 30,000 Pakistani civilians have died as the direct result of terrorist action. They have suffered more than any population on earth. Any issue that the west may have certainly isn't with the Pakistani people.

As for the government, they are weak because the nutters in the army are always waiting in the wings for any opportunity to take over - look at the history over the 65 years of Pakistan's existence, almost 50% of that time under military rule. Then there is the ISI, the intelligence service, entirely out of control and riddled with leaks delivered by Al Qaeda and other terrorist sympathisers. Add a huge amount of corruption in high places and you have all the necessary ingredients for a failed state.

But the last thing the region or the world needs right now is for Pakistan to implode. That would be a disaster. I thought that the carefully calculated tones of Hillary Clinton's first speech after Bin Laden's death set things as well as possible under the difficult circumstances. I only hope that the assassination hasn't set a process in train which could set up a potential international conflict in the region which could easily involve China and Iran as well as the obvious protagonists Pakistan and India.

As I've said before on this subject, be careful what you wish for.

[onmyknees]

More than 30,000 Pakistani civilians have died as the direct result of terrorist action. They have suffered more than any population on earth. Any issue that the west may have certainly isn't with the Pakistani people.

As for the government, they are weak because the nutters in the army are always waiting in the wings for any opportunity to take over - look at the history over the 65 years of Pakistan's existence, almost 50% of that time under military rule. Then there is the ISI, the intelligence service, entirely out of control and riddled with leaks delivered by Al Qaeda and other terrorist sympathisers. Add a huge amount of corruption in high places and you have all the necessary ingredients for a failed state.

But the last thing the region or the world needs right now is for Pakistan to implode. That would be a disaster. I thought that the carefully calculated tones of Hillary Clinton's first speech after Bin Laden's death set things as well as possible under the difficult circumstances. I only hope that the assassination hasn't set a process in train which could set up a potential international conflict in the region which could easily involve China and Iran as well as the obvious protagonists Pakistan and India.

As I've said before on this subject, be careful what you wish for.

And I thought Panetta's comments were far more accurate regarding thier "ignorance"...The Pakistani government are the most duplicitous bunch of characters on the face of the earth....They're cut from the same cloth as Karzai. They've been fucking us over for years. Yes they live in a dangerous neighborhood but for every terrorist they turn over...they allow 3 to escape. They protect people in the North who are directly assisting our enemies in Afghanistan. They've sold nuclear secrets to some pretty unsavory characters that now have far reaching implications. While I think your analysis is partially correct it is flawed in this regard... Why do people like you always find it necessary to lecture us about how we shouldn't blame "The Arab Street" as if they love Americans. I speak as an American...you're a Brit, but the Pakistani people do not like Yankees one bit, so this silliness that we shouldn't have a problem with the people is bunk. They take Americans hard earned tax money by the billions and repay us with scorn . The time may be at hand where they're going to have to choose sides...Americans are not thrilled with their most recent negligence or incompetence. Our government may be content to straddle the line with the Pakistani government, but Americans are going to have something to say about that.

[robertlouis]

And I thought Panetta's comments were far more accurate regarding thier "ignorance"...The Pakistani government are the most duplicitous bunch of characters on the face of the earth....They're cut from the same cloth as Karzai. They've been fucking us over for years. Yes they live in a dangerous neighborhood but for every terrorist they turn over...they allow 3 to escape. They protect people in the North who are directly assisting our enemies in Afghanistan. They've sold nuclear secrets to some pretty unsavory characters that now have far reaching implications. While I think your analysis is partially correct it is flawed in this regard... Why do people like you always find it necessary to lecture us about how we shouldn't blame "The Arab Street" as if they love Americans. I speak as an American...you're a Brit, but the Pakistani people do not like Yankees one bit, so this silliness that we shouldn't have a problem with the people is bunk. They take Americans hard earned tax money by the billions and repay us with scorn . The time may be at hand where they're going to have to choose sides...Americans are not thrilled with their most recent negligence or incompetence. Our government may be content to straddle the line with the Pakistani government, but Americans are going to have something to say about that.

Sorry, who's lecturing? I was only adding some facts, and with the best will in the world, most of your complaints continue to be with the corruption and endemic weakness of Pakistan's government. Most Pakistanis are too busy subsisting in primitive conditions to waste time thinking about their own country's politics, let alone what goes on in the west.

All the polls seem to suggest most Americans don't like Muslims, so why shouldn't the converse apply?

And a faulty generalisation, my friend. Pakistanis are not Arabs.

[Stavros]

For once the cricketer turned politician Imran Khan has a potent response to this weeks events, although onmyknees and others will chafe at his claim that Pakistan has received 'only $28bn in aid from the US'. His passionate article is linked below.

Pakistan suffers from many things: it was always going to be smaller than India, but the loss of East Pakistan in 1971 aggravated its inferiority complex; meddling in Kashmir and Afghanistan to prove that it must be 'taken seriously' has actually drained precious resources and led the country into a political cul-de-sac with absurd expenditures on nuclear weapons and a suicidal pact with Islamic extemists.

The country began its nuclear development in the 1950s through the education of scientists (AQ Khan was educated in West Germany); but its original intention was to use nuclear power to provide 25% of the country's energy; the programme was 'hi-jacked' by the military under Zia ul-Haq with the consequence that today the energy produced from nuclear power is less than 5% of the country's needs. The money has all been spent on 'weaponisation' to combat the 'threat from India'.

The US has been a supporter of Pakistan now for more than 30 years, partly because of Pakistan's proximity to Afghanistan and partly because the legacy of Nehru and the Non-Aligned Movement meant the US saw India as a pro-Soviet country and therefore unreliable on Afghanistan and the Cold War. Because of India's border disputes with China, Pakistan has also developed strong ties with China and the Chinese in recent years have helped with the nuclear industry and other military affairs. This relationship is now at a crossroads. If the fractured government in Pakistan turns against the US because of the 'violation of its sovereginty', Pakistan will always have China there to support it, but probably not with the $1bn in cash sent from the USA; but if the Chinese were to change their position, Pakistan would have to find a way of growing up and dealing with its issues without external support.

I don't know how this is going to pan out. The US does have its supporters in the MIlitary and the ISI in Pakistan, and not just for the money; but it remains to be seen how damaging the week's events have been, and whether or not this will strengthen the anti-American factions in the key insitutions: the army and the ISI. If this faction -or factions- gains the upper hand it would relieve the border areas of the drones and the 'war' against the militants in Waziristan, it would mean that Mullah Omar, who lives in a safe house in Karachi can either sue for peace or embolden the Taliban to go back to an all-out war to regain the country, but this at a time when internal critics of Karzai dont want him to negotiate with any faction from the Taliban, be it Omar or more moderate factions.

If the US does reduce its commitment to Pakistan and Afghanistan, the theory is that the extremists will have been strengthened, and that the potential for Pakistan and Afghanistan to become training camps for international jihadis will have been boosted, and the mission to kill or capiture bin Laden be seen as a negative in the regional context. However, bin Laden's mission was directed against the US because of its presence in Saudi Arabia in the 1990s and its support for Israel -this agenda does not really apply to groups in Pakistan, but Kashmir and Afghanistan are issues, and in both cases reflect Pakistan's need to be considered an equal to India. Thus, a sad irony would be that fewer attacks would take place in the west (revenge attacks by supporters of OBL notwithstanding) but more attacks would take place in India, and Afghanistan would revert to the inter-tribal warfare it has known for so long.
Economically, India is racing ahead of Pakistan, Pakistan and Afghanistan do have resources to mine and profit from, but with politics in command, their short to medium term future looks bleak.

I think that if Obama has been strengthened this week, he should consider a new deal for the US which maintains the progressive withdrawal from Afghanistan, and reduces substantially its military and financial commitment to Pakistan;there are dangers in this, but politically Pakistan is now so corrupt, so prone to internal division, that the country needs to sort itself out, the US cannot do that, and cannot afford to either.

This is the link to Imran Khan's article:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...m-2278033.html

[russtafa]

We have lots of pakis that work as taxi drivers,security guards,and super market check outs but there are only so many taxi ,security guard,check out jobs.Now we are full up for these jobs.