Article

2008-01-03 India-Pakistan

Stratfor: Pakistan, Bhutto and the U.S.-Jihadist Endgame

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 Delphi 2008-01-03 08:35|| || Front Page|| [11131 views ] Top

#1 He took enough action to keep the Americans at bay, not enough to force his Islamist enemies to take effective action against him.

I don't know, maybe that is what we needed until we could get a firm foothold in the middle east. You can't swallow more than you can chew.

I remember reading on rantburg, many years ago, snide comments about Perv and not understanding. It seemed that Perv was cooperating as best he could. But as I become more informed, I began to understand.

That said, there is little interest in looking backward. We need to look forward from where things stand today. It seems to me that Pakistan is still a difficult problem because, even though Perv is bad, the Islamists are worse. My mother used to use the phrase, jumping from the fat into the frying pan. We don't live in a perfect world. It's worth remembering that when we deal with the Perv The Power Whore.

Posted by Whomong Guelph4611 2008-01-03 11:27|| 2008-01-03 11:27|| Front Page Top

#2 We need to go after the ISI. Kill them individualluy, but in large nubmers, starting with what leadership we cna get to, and continuing with the "middle management" who are supporting the Talib and other radicals and tribalists.

Suspend Executive Order 11905, Sec. 5(g), 12036, Sec. 2-305 2-309 (the Ford and Carter prohibitions on assassination), and the parts of EO 12333 2.11 and 2.12 which limiit assassination, for the territorial area of Pakistan. The President may modify or rescind the assassination ban in the E.O. by executive order. Furthermore, as provided in the language of the law, the suspension need not be published in the federal register due to triggering of the clause regarding "an attack on the continental United States..."

All we need is a president with balls enough to do it, and a CIA that has the courage to act operationally instead of cowering behind their desks in Langely and engaging in political putsches against the president and his policies.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-01-03 12:02|| 2008-01-03 12:02|| Front Page Top

#3 Stratfor repackages the obvious, dresses it up with Jack Bauer lingo ("command cell", right) and sells it as intelligence.

The United States lost interest in Afghanistan after the fall of the Soviet Union, but the Pakistanis did not have that option. Afghanistan was right next door.

"(T)he Pakistanis did not have that option." I do not even know where to start with this: There is the self-important and reproachful tone and there is the cart-before-the-horse. You know what? Pakistan had the option of not trying to turn its neighbor into a proxy, the option of not attempting to subvert Kashmir, the option of not arming dark ages fanatics to act as proxies in both places, the option of entering the modern world and leaving religion to people's own conscience. Lots of options.

Heaven spare us from Stratfor analysts. May they return to the sophomore poli-sci classes where they will earn the B- grades they deserve.

Posted by Excalibur 2008-01-03 12:58|| 2008-01-03 12:58|| Front Page Top

#4 "You know what? Pakistan had the option of not trying to turn its neighbor into a proxy,"

Except that ran the risk of it becoming a Russian or Indian proxy.

When the Brits ruled the Indus valley they tried to maintain hegemony in Kabul. The strategic logic is very strong.

" the option of not attempting to subvert Kashmir,"

Again, given the proximity of Kashmir to Pakistans pop centers, the genuine legal complexity of the Kashmir situation, and the precarious political legitimacy of the Paki state, Im not sure that was a feasible option.

Stratfor isnt talking about the Paki states as it SHOULD have evolved from 1947, but as it WAS in 1991.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2008-01-03 14:37|| 2008-01-03 14:37|| Front Page Top

#5 OS - do they even have enough Urdu speakers, enough knowledge of the place, to really penetrate well enough to do that? (dont answer if you think its inappropriate to do so)

Posted by Liberalhawk 2008-01-03 14:38|| 2008-01-03 14:38|| Front Page Top

#6 the genuine legal complexity of the Kashmir situation

There is actually nothing legally complex about Kashmir.

According to the UK's Indian Independence Act of 1946, the Ruler of each Princely State, (who owed allegiance to the King-Emperor) had to chose either India or Pakistan. All 565 signed the Instruments of Accession.
The Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir signed the instrument of accession. This was witnessed by Lord Lois Mountbatten, cousin to the current Queen and the last Viceroy of India.

This legally made Kashmir part of the Indian Union.

Nehru further insisted on elections and the pro-Delhi party led by Sheik Abdullah won by a landslide.

It was Mountbatten who encouraged Nehru to go to the UN instead of continuing with the war until all the Pakistanis were driven out.

Thinking they had an iron-clad case (the accession was legal according to the terms of the Independence law), the Indians were rudely introduced to big power geopolitics in the UN security Council.

Posted by john frum 2008-01-03 15:48|| 2008-01-03 15:48|| Front Page Top

#7 You know what? Pakistan had the option of not trying to turn its neighbor into a proxy, the option of not attempting to subvert Kashmir, the option of not arming dark ages fanatics to act as proxies in both places, the option of entering the modern world and leaving religion to people's own conscience

Yes, and we can thank Pinky and her husband for much of that. I like Stratfor because they do good summaries. But I do think that there is a tendency to pretend that somewhere out there, there is a "pefect solution" if found, would magically wipe away all problems. Some situations are just very difficult to solve and thus remain problems for a very long time. Sometimes you have to accept that thee is no great solution and you have to simply accept the best available one and keep moving forward.

Yes, liberalhack. All can be blamed on America and Britians because the poor little non-white people have no control over their savage impulses.

Posted by Whomong Guelph4611 2008-01-03 16:24|| 2008-01-03 16:24|| Front Page Top

#8 Pakistan also had the option to develop into a normal state. It choose, quite rationally, to radicalize its youth, producing the cannon fodder for jihad. It is now paying the price for that.

When you're a smaller state, like say Canada, you just have to learn to live with your more populous, richer, more powerful neighbor.

What you don't do is actively fund, train and equip insurgent groups to attack your neighbor, trying to break it up. You don't try to match your neighbor militarily with aid provided by other states. You don't attack your neighbor 4 times. You don't inculcate your youth with hatred and send them across your border to kill and maim. You don't counterfeit the currency of your neighbor. You don't send drugs across the international border as state policy. You don't neglect spending on health, education, infrastructure to fund a military machine and jihad.

Pakistan made all these choices....

Posted by john frum 2008-01-03 16:25|| 2008-01-03 16:25|| Front Page Top

#9 john frum - well said. Like they say, you reap what you sow.

Posted by Whomong Guelph4611 2008-01-03 16:36|| 2008-01-03 16:36|| Front Page Top

#10 Every problem can be solved if you're willing to get medieval enough.

Posted by rjschwarz 2008-01-03 16:46|| 2008-01-03 16:46|| Front Page Top

#11 Ask the Carthaginians...

Posted by rjschwarz 2008-01-03 16:46|| 2008-01-03 16:46|| Front Page Top

#12 E: "(T)he Pakistanis did not have that option." I do not even know where to start with this: There is the self-important and reproachful tone and there is the cart-before-the-horse.

I think you are reading into this what isn't actually there. Friedman is saying that Pakistan did what was good for Pakistan which was to use the Taliban to secure its rear area in Afghanistan, and the US did what was good for the US, which was to end its multi-billion grants of weaponry to the Afghans mujahideen via Pakistan - the Afghans had gotten what they wanted and the US had gotten what it wanted. Friedman isn't talking about morality - he is talking about interests.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2008-01-03 17:23|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2008-01-03 17:23|| Front Page Top

#13 RJS: Ask the Carthaginians...

That's a good rant, but no Republican president could get away with a Carthaginian solution unless we were hit by nukes - and maybe not even then. Would Iraq have been resolved a lot sooner if we had aped Hafez al Assad and exterminated Fallujah? Maybe. But we will never know, because it's not on our list of permissible options. And that's that.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2008-01-03 17:27|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2008-01-03 17:27|| Front Page Top

#14 I'm not saying the solutions are practical or even remotely likely, and certainly not desirable. Going medieval doesn't have to lead to Carthage though they make the best example.

I believe that since the Geneva convention and the UN and our attempts to civilize war and stop it the weaker parties in conflicts (the Palestinians for example) have learned they can start wars and keep them simmering without the fear of being smashed as they would have in the old days. This has not helped the peace and if more nations took the gloves off their smaller neighbors would stop the nonsense and in the long run the butchers bill would be smaller.

Posted by rjschwarz 2008-01-03 18:13|| 2008-01-03 18:13|| Front Page Top

#15 A .338 LaPua doesn't require cultural penetration, just line of sight, good positioning and observation point a mile away.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-01-03 18:40|| 2008-01-03 18:40|| Front Page Top

#16 ITAR-TASS > INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM LINKED TO BENAZIR BHUTTO MURDER.

"A LEGAL BASIS HAS BEEN CREATED FOR THE WORLD" - any and all world secret services should collude and join in common efforts, with final actions to be base on state-of-the art technologies [information sharing]. READ - THE ORGANIZATION, BUREAUCRATIZATION, INSTITUTIONIZATION, and of course GOVERNMENTIZATION OF ANTI-TERROR = OWG???

Posted by JosephMendiola 2008-01-03 20:38|| 2008-01-03 20:38|| Front Page Top

#17 ASIA TIMES > DON'T COUNT YOUR VICTORIES BEFORE THEY'RE WON, + GO DIRECTLY TO JIHAD, DON'T PASS GITMO; + TOPIX > 2007: THE YEAR THE COLD WAR [truly?] ENDED.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2008-01-03 21:15|| 2008-01-03 21:15|| Front Page Top

23:59 anonymous5089
23:58 Steven
23:56 anonymous5089
23:47 twobyfour
23:47 Steven
23:47 Eric Jablow
23:38 trailing wife
23:35 Steven
23:34 www
23:33 trailing wife
23:30 Whomong Guelph4611
23:25 Speamble Barnsmell1128
23:23 Whomong Guelph4611
23:21 Barbara Skolaut
23:21 twobyfour
23:17 twobyfour
23:05 Crazyhorse
22:54 FOTSGreg
22:39 Elitist Washington Bureacrat
22:36 Karen Tintori
22:34 SteveS
22:21 Mahmoud, Maintenance Tech 3rd Class
22:18 BA
22:13 JosephMendiola