Article

2009-01-04 India-Pakistan

The emerging union of Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by john frum 2009-01-04 08:33|| || Front Page|| [5 views ] Top
File under: Govt of Pakistan

#1 The sun is rising, breaking the dawn of freedom, heralding the realisation of the Strategic Depth objectives as the guarantee for peace and security of the entire region.

They're passing around the strong stuff at the Officer's club

Posted by john frum 2009-01-04 08:43|| 2009-01-04 08:43|| Front Page Top

#2 Purdy much all 'ye need to know:

The PIAU will thus provide the 'Strategic Depth' to the states

Posted by .5MT 2009-01-04 09:28|| www.cybernations.net]">[www.cybernations.net] 2009-01-04 09:28|| Front Page Top

#3 Strategic depth of six feet under sounds about right...

Posted by M. Murcek">M. Murcek 2009-01-04 10:07|| 2009-01-04 10:07|| Front Page Top

#4 Beg and Hamid Gul (formerly ISI chief) are the two major proponents of an Islamist Pakistan. The United States knows them both very well, having worked with both during the involvement in Afghanistan. Both have sought to destroy the Pakistan democracy, and both belong in jail.

Posted by Balthazar 2009-01-04 10:44|| 2009-01-04 10:44|| Front Page Top

#5 Both reflect the attitudes of the Pakistani praetorian class

Posted by john frum 2009-01-04 13:11|| 2009-01-04 13:11|| Front Page Top

#6 gravitated the three countries to come together, as the bastion of power, to defeat and deter the common enemies
I'm thinking glass from the Persian Gulf to the Indian border.

Posted by Darrell 2009-01-04 13:24|| 2009-01-04 13:24|| Front Page Top

#7 This is nothing "emerging". If you look over the course of history, before the British (and Russians) carved up areas with arbitrary lines on maps, one can see where cultural influences extended by looking at language, culture, and traditions. If you add up the Farsi speaking regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan, you can see an area that was naturally culturally "connected" to what we know as Iran. Drawing of borders has created artificial political boundaries where no such cultural boundaries existed before.

Same with other areas, too. See where Uzbek or Tajik is the dominant language and notice that when Russia drew the borders of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Azerbaijan they intentionally chopped the regions up to reduce the cultural identity. The Azeri regions of Iran should really be part of Azerbaijan. The Arabic speaking regions, part if Iraq. Iran "should" extend further Eastward and include regions of what is now Afghanistan and Pakistan. There "should" be a Kurdistan that includes some of what is now Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Turkey.

What was done at the end of WWI and continued after was to actually set the stage for more strife by arbitrarily chopping up regions without regard to (or in many cases any knowledge of) the people and cultures living in those regions.

It turned proud people into ethnic minorities. imagine if 10 US states were given to Mexico, 10 to Canada, and a chunk if Mexico and French speaking Canada were given to the US. It would turn many Americans into ethnic minorities in Canada and Mexico and the same with Canadians and Mexicans that would now find themselves on the American side of the line. It would set the stage for resentment and unrest.

Posted by crosspatch 2009-01-04 13:47|| 2009-01-04 13:47|| Front Page Top

#8 What on earth gave the retired gentleman the idea that Iran needs strategic depth? john, I think they've been passing round the strong stuff in the Pure Officers' Club for a number of decades. No wonder the Army of the Pure loses every war it starts!

Posted by trailing wife">trailing wife 2009-01-04 13:52|| 2009-01-04 13:52|| Front Page Top

#9 People were drawing lines on subcontinental maps long before the British or Russians came on the scene.

There were borders between the Delhi Sultans, the Moghuls, the Sikhs etc and the Persians. The Peacock throne in Tehran that the Shahs sat on is actually war booty from India.

2500 years ago there was a border between the Persian lands held by Alexander's satrap Selucius Nicator and the Indian Emperor Chandragupta Maurya.

There may be Persian words and a Persian derived script in Urdu but a Hindi speaker will have a conversation with an Urdu speaker and both will think the other is speaking 'their' language.

A Punjabi Urdu speaking Pakistani like Beg has far more in common culturally with an Indian across the border than an Iranian.

There will always be cultural mixing between regions but political borders have always been there.

Posted by john frum 2009-01-04 14:03|| 2009-01-04 14:03|| Front Page Top

#10 An example of cultural mixing/changing: Saddam's manipulations (Arab vs Kurd) in the Kirkuk region.

Posted by tipover 2009-01-04 14:19|| 2009-01-04 14:19|| Front Page Top

#11 Also the outer political borders of the Indian subcontinent are determined by geography. The mountains and deserts that divide the subcontinent from Persia were the natural border between the states. Pakistan is firmly subcontinental.

Posted by john frum 2009-01-04 15:25|| 2009-01-04 15:25|| Front Page Top

#12 Iran can only gain depth from her enemies by moving the entire nation East. Pakistan by moving her entire nation west. This guys concept of depth make little sense.

Posted by rjschwarz 2009-01-04 18:48|| 2009-01-04 18:48|| Front Page Top

#13 "There will always be cultural mixing between regions but political borders have always been there."

That is true but there really was no notion of the nation state as we know it today. A political boundary was basically the land under the control of a king or emperor. The authority of that person went down through individuals who controlled smaller areas, maybe landlords or warlords or others who bound the people bound to the land by an oath of loyalty.

We can't place our notion of nation state into the culture of people who pretty much still live they way people did in medieval Europe with local lords holding peasants in oaths of loyalty (bayat).

Posted by crosspatch 2009-01-04 20:10|| 2009-01-04 20:10|| Front Page Top

#14 ya'll thinkin about this too deep.
Them man is a total loon!
That may be a requirement to be a "Chief of Pakistan Army Staff" but it's undeniable he's a fricking loon!

Nuff said.

Posted by 3dc 2009-01-04 20:35|| 2009-01-04 20:35|| Front Page Top

#15 That man once had command of Pakistan's nuclear weapons

Posted by john frum 2009-01-04 20:55|| 2009-01-04 20:55|| Front Page Top

#16 John, India has my condolences...

Posted by 3dc 2009-01-04 21:21|| 2009-01-04 21:21|| Front Page Top