You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
India-Pakistan
Ceding the Fall of Pakistan
2007-07-05
Posted by:ed

#9  The MMA received only 10% of votes in Pakistan's last federal election. They are despised in much of Sindh and the Punjab. They have no chance of increasing their votes, and no reason to since the leading parties are kissing Islamofascist butt. I support a return to the economic boycott of Pakistan. It was only removed after 9-11, under Saudi counsel.
Posted by: McZoid   2007-07-05 18:19  

#8  Buy the nukes from Mushariff and arrange for him to exile somewhere then let history take it's course. It'll be ugly in the short term but without oil money or even a dominant ethnic group they'll never become another Iran. They'll probably dissolve into three or four nations.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2007-07-05 17:00  

#7  So, damned if we do and damned if we don't, eh? Why does this seem to be the principal hallmark of dealing with Islam? As with Saudi Arabia, in Pakistan we enter the usual Islamic hall of mirrors. The near-infinitude of irrational and hair trigger Islamic sensibilities makes it almost impossible to gauge Cause and Effect with any accuracy. The fact that Muslims display an almost congenital immunity to any comprehension of Cause and Effect only serves to complicate matters worse.

Rather than waste time aimlessly wandering through Islam's maze of deceit and perfidy, I'd much sooner see us exit their hall of mirrors. Alexander's solution to the Gordian knot springs to mind.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-07-05 15:11  

#6  Zen, consider the possibility that Bush's visible efforts to prop up Musharraf are having the opposite effect, by design or not.
Posted by: lotp   2007-07-05 14:54  

#5  I'm confident that our military has contingency plans for disabling or appropriating Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. A major concern is that the radicals would wait patiently until a less assertive (read: democrat) administration is in place who would be far more hesitant to approve of such measures.

It is cold consolation that Islamic radicals consistently overreach themselves. We can only hope that Musharraf's downfall—which at this point seems inevitible—comes while there is a republican administration presiding. Ironically, Bush's insistence upon propping up Musharraf may ultimately work against him. Better to remove our bolstering support—such that Mussharaf falls—and proceed to confiscate Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, than risk having the threat go unanswered by those less willing who might follow his depature from office.

Ending Pakistan's ownership of nuclear weapons is second only to preventing Iran's acquisition of them. Both represent a strategic calamity in the making.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-07-05 14:52  

#4  ... or perhaps the nukes are even now being smuggled out of Pakistan, greased by the distribution of truckloads of Benjamins.

In the long run would it really matter? The most difficult hurdle, the initial development, is long past so Pakistan, Iran (soon), or other similar regimes will be able to replace the weapons. Perhaps not as soon as they've been removed but certainly not long thereafter. The rules of the game have changed in a very fundamental way.
Posted by: AzCat   2007-07-05 13:29  

#3   My rough summary:
Contrary to popular perception, al-Qaeda is not necessarily against free elections. And elections in Pakistan – without Musharraf's interference – may fall more overwhelmingly in favor of radical Islamists than many suspect. This statement is a gross under-estimation of Pakistani popular support for Islamofascism. Everything I've read since 2001 indicates it's overwhelming but temporarily under Musharraf's lid.
And when Pakistan as we know it falls, it will surely most likely become run by al-Qaeda and/or al-Qaeda aligned Islamists. An Islamist figure such as former ISI (Pakistani military intelligence) Director Hamid Gul can be expected to rise to grasp the official levers of power within Pakistan. A figure such as bin Laden will never publicly hold such official title, as an “al-Qaedastan” would draw too much international ire. Hamid Gul and Aslam Beg have openly called for a Pakistani military and nuclear alliance with the Iranian mullah regime. [The] 'best-case' is one in which Musharraf no longer controls Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal, but a trustworthy General seizes control of at least the nuclear weapons.
or perhaps the nukes are even now being smuggled out of Pakistan, greased by the distribution of truckloads of Benjamins.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2007-07-05 13:05  

#2  Most likely there are contingency plans. If the donks get elected, these plans may never be implemented.
Posted by: JohnQC   2007-07-05 10:11  

#1  If this guy is right, that's damned worrisome for us and even moreso for India. I wonder if we've got any contingency plans for going in there and getting the Pak nukes.
Posted by: Mac   2007-07-05 10:00  

00:00