Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal catastrophically may fall into the hands of jihadists. But the South Asian version of jihad is a less familiar but no less fearsome variant of the war directed at the Great Satan America, and the Little Satan, Israel.
At one billion people, Hindus, the majority of whom live in the Indian sub-continent, constitute the third largest religion in the world after two billion Christians and 1.5 billion Muslims. Yet, their numbers have not spared Hindus from ongoing, systematic Muslim attacks in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Indeed, the jihad against India's non-Muslims has accelerated within the last few decades. The Indian government and international human rights organizations have done little to address human rights violations and have stood idle despite constant attacks on Hindus. Meanwhile, the media rarely mentions the desecration of Hindu religious sites and the constant intimidation of Hindus. While special concessions have been granted for Muslims in India, the governments of Pakistan and Bangladesh have long supported a policy, based on Islamic law, of religious discrimination against non-believers. Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh are unable to obtain positions of power, have great difficulty procuring business loans, are subjected to spurious blasphemy claims for defaming the prophet Mohammed and are specifically identified as non-Muslims on their passports.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Cromert ||
01/06/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
Hindus have a record of respecting religious minorities in India. Surprisingly there are 100 million Christians and 140 million Muslims, in thriving communities. In stark contrast, Pakistanis have either murdered or forced exile of all but 1% of each community. Hindus formed 20% of the population at Partition. Similarly, in Bangladesh, the Hindu population has halved since 1972. Parsis (exiled Zoroastorians) do even worse.
An obvious fact doesn't sink in with majorities in the West: Islam is inherently oppressive and aggressive, and cannot reform. Still polls of trust for our Muslims consistently reveal a distrust rate of less than 30%. It should be 100%.
Why does one-way respect for the murder-cult continue to pollute the West? Because the majority dislikes the general lack of religiosity in western civilization, and admire Muslim devotion. That blinds them to the fact that when Muslims commence the takeover of the democracies, freedom will be obliterated. Islam prescribes god-sovereignty over the slaves-of-allah, and dictates extreme brutality against "usurpers" who live according to their conscience. Frankly, we need laws that reverse onus in terror cases; accused Muslims must be deemed guilty until they prove themselves innocent, and they must enjoy no protections from self-incrimination and benefit of parole, as long as they remain jihadis.
The tragedy of Benazir Bhutto's assassination should not blind us to the farce that was enacted in Larkana a day after her funeral. For the first time in the annals of dynastic democracy in the subcontinent, the succession issue in a political party was settled on the strength of a Last Will and Testament which, unfortunately, the world will never get to read.
It is undeniable that the major political parties of the region, viz the Pakistan People's Party, Awami League, Sri Lanka Freedom Party and the Indian National Congress, have transformed themselves into proprietorial concerns. It is almost axiomatic that you have to be a Bhutto, a Nehru-Gandhi, a Bandaranaike or a descendant of Sheikh Mujib to secure the top job in these parties.
Earlier there was always the pretence that grassroots pressure and the overriding need for a unifying symbol had catapulted the inheritors into the top job. With the coronation of Bilawal I — there is no better description for his anointment as PPP chairman — political inheritance has lost its democratic pretensions. In death, Benazir turned it into a bequest.
The idea is not to mock the bewilderment of a 19-year-old who has had both his mother and the joys of youthful freedom cruelly snatched away from him. Nor does it behove anyone to wait expectantly for Chairman Bilawal I to come into his own, upstage the decrepit Regent and show that he is the true Bhutto. Bilawal's future has all the makings of a family melodrama, now that Mumtaz Bhutto and the daughter of the late Murtaza Bhutto have also staked their claim on the inheritance. Yet, life in Pakistan is too full of inglorious uncertainties to warrant speculative forward trading.
Indeed, the turmoil in Pakistan over the past fortnight should force liberal India to discard the blinkers with which it views the other side of the Radcliffe Line. Pakistan has shown itself to be a bizarre place, not merely on account of the itinerant suicide bombers who hop from place to place. It is the complete non-existence or breakdown of institutions that should worry Indians who believe "they" are like "us".
For a start, there are no elementary rules of forensic examination. There was no post-mortem examination carried out on Benazir's body because the husband piously declared he didn't want it. To say this is preposterous is a wild understatement; the wilful lapse has ensured that the cause of death will remain a matter of wild conjecture forever, unless the body is cruelly exhumed.
Second, in proffering the incredible theory that Benazir died after an accidental bump in the head — a claim contested by the indignant car manufacturer — the authorities have shown that in the game of cover-ups, brazenness is the rule. Despite photographic evidence of a smartly dressed man in sunglasses pointing a gun at Benazir, sundry military administrators have persisted in following a script that doesn't correspond to reality. That the Government had to call in investigators from Scotland Yard — who are unlikely to find anything because most of the evidence has been destroyed or removed — shows how little credibility the Pakistani state enjoys in the eyes of its own people. The revelation that Benazir planned to release a dossier of the ISI's rigging plans on behalf of the King's Party confirms the extent of the rot.
If these shenanigans were confined to the internal affairs of Pakistan, India could have looked the other way. Unfortunately, the state that presided over the murder of one of its foremost leaders and then tried to cover-up ineptly also happens to be the state that the world must deal with.
For too long, many have tried to make an expedient distinction between the "responsible" and "rogue" arms of the Pakistan State — A Q Khan being the proverbial rogue and Musharraf the modernist. This distinction is notional. We are now dealing with a criminal entity called Pakistan that possesses nuclear weapons and where jihad has entered the bloodstream.
The implications don't need to be spelt out explicitly.
Posted by: john frum ||
01/06/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
tl:dr
They're all nutz, all of 'em.
Posted by: Thomas Woof ||
01/06/2008 5:01 Comments ||
Top||
#2
For too long, many have tried to make an expedient distinction between the "responsible" and "rogue" arms of the Pakistan State A Q We are now dealing with a criminal entity called Pakistan that possesses nuclear weapons and where jihad has entered the bloodstream.
yipes. Blunt truth that kinda makes the hairs stand up.
#3
AQ Khan and Mushy aren't polar opposites. In fact, when Mushy was asked why Khan wasn't in jail, he replied that he was a "national hero." It was only a short time after the first Pak nuke was set off that Mushy commenced his infiltration of Kashmir, which he claimed was only a seasonal placement of troops in lands claimed by Pakistan. That war began 3 months after Mushy held a "peace" summit with the Indian PM.
Among the many dubious ideas that former United States President Ronald Reagan embraced, two were particularly dangerous. The first was that "a limited nuclear war" with the Soviet Union could be fought and won. The second held that the US could reliably secure itself against nuclear weapons by building Star Wars-style ballistic missile defence (BMD).
BMD would detect launches of the enemy's nuclear-tipped missiles using satellites and radars, and then intercept them during flight. This would not only take the sting out of a deadly threat; it would render the enemy's nuclear deterrent ineffectual. If the US took the lead in BMD. it would acquire supreme, unmatched power.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: john frum ||
01/06/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[12 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Dumbass - Star Wars was a bluff from the get-go. It forced the Soviets to face the possiblity of having their enormously expensive nuclear deterrent made obsolete at a stroke, thus giving them the jolt to let a little freedom into their country. And, there is no such thing as a little bit of freedom.
#5
Dumbass. BDM is more against rogue Nuclear states (such as North Korea, Pakistan, Iran and others) who have never signed the ABM treaty and should never be trusted to honor such a treaty given their past record.
We cannot rely on any treaty with Iran which has proven they cannot be trusted to honor any treaty nor rely on mutually assured destruction (MAD) to deter them either - the Mullahs would be more then willing to sacrifice most (if not all) of their fellow Iranians in order to bring about the return of the 12th Imam from his hole in the ground.
And Pakistan is only two steps away from becoming an Iran or worse.
#6
Star Wars never would have worked (but the Soviets didn't know that). Ballistic missile defense is is designed to defend against a few or quite probably ONE missile launched by a terrorist organization or country (NK, Iran). The problem with Star Wars is that the problem of defense did not scale linearly (in terms of computer processing power required - it was an NP problem). BMD is a much simpler problem than the original goal of Star Wars and is feasible. But the key issue - they are two VERY different classes of problem.
#7
CHINESE MIL FORUM > NATIONAL ABM SYSTEMS. Rise of Japanese ABM/BMD and others. Artikle indics that both post-Cold War Amer + Russia now view bipolar mutual destruction as obsolete, requiring substantive changes to long-standing Cold War treatises or protocols.
Pakistan's political crisis, triggered by the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and the ensuing violence sweeping the country, is a worrisome development in South Asia and beyond. Without a doubt, Pakistan's political decay will affect its neighbors, including Afghanistan, just as Pakistan itself for decades has been impacted by conflict spilling over from beyond its (contested) borders.
Indeed, a good deal of Pakistan's turmoil can be traced to the regional sources of instability that have acted as the breeding ground for the military government that has shaped Pakistan since the country's independence in 1947.
From the Indo-Pakistan conflict, which has led to a nuclear arms race, to the internationalized conflict in Afghanistan, to the armed uprising in the disputed territory of Kashmir, Pakistan is today ensconced in a fragile political environment that will likely remain that way for a generation. This unstable political situation will be compounded by numerous internal conflicts, such as ethnic separatism in Baluchistan and Sindh provinces and the recent uprising in the Federally Administrated Tribal Area (FATA) bordering Afghanistan, each of them requiring a distinct political solution.
With Bhutto's assassination, it will be more difficult for Pakistan to transition to a democratic government. More modest domestic political gains from its elections, now postponed until February, should be expected. Certainly, Pakistan's future hinges on whether control of the country will remain with the army or transition back to a civilian government.
Pakistani leader Gen. Pervez Musharraf is here to stay and the United States now needs to rethink its policy toward Pakistan. A clue to his staying power is his pragmatic and delicate handling of foreign policy, particularly with respect to the strategic development of the U.S.-India nuclear pact, widely interpreted in Pakistan as the United States' intention to insure that Pakistan's arch-enemy, India, is the leading power in South Asia.
Under Musharraf, Pakistan has steered an independent foreign policy while maintaining an alliance with the United States, by strengthening ties with Russia, China, Iran and other regional players weary of the "American agenda." Case in point: The United States has not welcomed any warming of tied between Iran and Pakistan, and Musharraf has defied the United States' call to shelve the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline, a proposed $7 billion pipeline to deliver natural gas from Iran to India and Pakistan.
Bhutto went out of her way to show herself aligned with Bush's war on terrorism. Bhutto never criticized U.S. policy that seemed to elevate India in the region, thus many in the Pakistani military elite saw her in a negative light.
So now, how does the United States harmonize regional security imperatives with democratic politics in Pakistan? Should these imperatives be recast in favor of a new Pakistan policy that takes into consideration Pakistan's national security worries, which only partially coincide with those of the United States and thus limit full democratization of Pakistan?
Hectoring Pakistan's civil-military elite about democracy has clearly backfired. Bhutto's assassination has tipped the scales in favor of the ruling politico-military elite focused on national (security) interests. The latter's overriding concern now is to have some breathing space domestically.
It would be a major U.S. foreign policy blunder to indulge Musharraf in bashing Bhutto's internal detractors. The United States needs to seriously consider recasting its India policy in favor of a more balanced approach, while steering clear of Pakistan's domestic politics. Otherwise, the United States risks further alienation of Pakistan's political elite.
Kaveh L. Afrasiabi is a professor of international relations at Bentley College.
Posted by: john frum ||
01/06/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[15 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
It would be a major U.S. foreign policy blunder to indulge Musharraf in bashing Bhutto's internal detractors. The United States needs to seriously consider recasting its India policy in favor of a more balanced approach, while steering clear of Pakistan's domestic politics. Otherwise, the United States risks further alienation of Pakistan's political elite.
How did I know this was coming? I have a better idea. Arm India to the teeth, cut off all funding and military aid to "Pakistan", occupy all Pak nuke sites and destroy/remove everything of value, treat the tribal areas as the enemy ground they are and enact a policy of sterilization from 100 thousand feet.
#4
I have no problem with any part of Excalibur's proposal except Arm India to the teeth. Why arm a country that almost launched an attack on Diego Garcia? Note that I'm not saying that an attack on Diego Garcia would have been wrong (or right, for that matter) - only that it would have been against our national interests. Ironically, Indian irredentism in the form of the conquest of Goa (conquered by the Portuguese) may have touched off Chinese irredentism in the form of the Chinese invasion of India's border areas (conquered by the British). I think we need to understand that India has its own national interests, and for most of the India state's existence (since 1948), they have been contrary to ours.
#5
I have, of course, taken Arm India to the teeth to mean doing this on Indian terms, which is to provide them the latest technology to make the weaponry, and to sell the weaponry to them at cost (which may have been why the Russians are raising prices). The traditional expression for driving a hard bargain is to Jew someone down. A more apt expression would be to Indian (or to Chinese) someone down. Remember that it was the Indians who took Enron for a ride that cost Enron $1b. There's a reason few corporations manufacture in India - sleazy as the Chinese are, the Indians are sleazier.
#9
Why arm a country that almost launched an attack on Diego Garcia?
When was this?
Posted by: john frum ||
01/06/2008 13:24 Comments ||
Top||
#10
There's a reason few corporations manufacture in India - sleazy as the Chinese are, the Indians are sleazier.
Actually it is the poor state of Indian infrastructure (roads, rail, ports, power, water) that really hobbles export oriented manufacture.
Companies like Bechtel, IBM, Intel, HP, Microsoft all have design and development centers in India. If they are comfortable with their intellectual property being developed there, despite the sleaziness, low wage assembly and manufacture would not really be a problem.
Posted by: john frum ||
01/06/2008 14:02 Comments ||
Top||
#11
I don't believe Pakistan can be stabilized.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
01/06/2008 14:45 Comments ||
Top||
#12
#11 I don't believe Pakistan can be stabilized.
Posted by: Deacon Blues
*heh* they said the same thing about Arafat. Soon enough, he was stable
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/06/2008 14:54 Comments ||
Top||
#13
g: Zhang never stops amazing me.
C'mon - why don't you launch into one of your classic anti-American tirades again, and remind us why it was a good idea to come to Israel's rescue in 1973?
During Indira Gandhi's tenure. A former Indian Army officer said his dad's field ambulance unit was all primed to go when orders were given to stand down.
#15
JF: Companies like Bechtel, IBM, Intel, HP, Microsoft all have design and development centers in India. If they are comfortable with their intellectual property being developed there, despite the sleaziness, low wage assembly and manufacture would not really be a problem.
And they have similar centers in China. But how much cutting edge, bet the company development do they have in either country? And as far as I can tell, they have more capital equipment in China than in India. The Chinese might be light-fingered, but the Indians are even more light-fingered. The attitude in both countries seems to be su equipment es mi equipment.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
