Paking It In: The Coming Fall Of Pakistan

[Wahid]

By William S. Lind, Published By Counterpunch, Front Page Art By Caniglia

The riots in Pakistan are hardly news anymore: if they appear in the paper at all, it is on page C17, between a story on starvation in the Sudan and a report that Mrs. McGillicuty fell down the stairs. The riots continue nonetheless, seemingly unconcerned that the rest of the world is no longer watching.

Perhaps it should. Periodic riots are normal in parts of the world; England was famous for them in the 18th century. But when rioting continues day after day, it can serve as a sort of thermometer, taking the temperature of a population. Pakistan, it would seem, is running a fever, one that shows little sign of breaking.

On the surface, the rioting is a protest against cartoons of Mohammed. Throughout the Islamic world, the anti-cartoon demonstrations are both an expression of rage at Islamic states' impotence and a demonstration of Islam's power outside the state framework. But in Pakistan, the immediate target of the riots is all too evident: Pakistani President Musharraf and his working relationship with America's President Bush (in Pakistan, Musharraf is often called Busharraf).

After 9/11, when Bush announced that anyone in the world who was not with us was with the terrorists, Musharraf had to make a strategic choice. He had to make it fast, since America wanted to attack Afghanistan, and it needed Pakistan's help to do so. Musharraf chose to ally with Bush. That choice has paid Pakistan dividends internationally, but at a price: Musharraf's legitimacy at home became dependent on the Pakistani people's view of America. In effect, Musharraf reincarnated himself as a political satellite of Bush.

Not surprisingly, America's popularity among Pakistanis was not helped by our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The Taliban was largely a Pakistani creation, and its fall was not welcomed in Pakistan, especially when Afghanistan's American-installed President, Mr. Karzai, quickly cozied up to India.

Then, the strong American response to Pakistan's disastrous earthquake turned Pakistani opinion around. Only America really came through for the tens of thousands of people de-housed by the catastrophe, and other people noticed; when mullahs in radical mosques denounced the Americans, their congregations told them they were wrong.

Of course, America blew it in classic American fashion, with the Predator strike on homes in a Pakistani border town. As always, the target wasn't there, because, as always, we depended on intelligence from "systems" when only humint can do the job. The resulting Pakistani civilian deaths threw away all the good will we earned from the earthquake response and made America the Great Satan once more. Musharraf paid the political price.

If the riots continue and grow, the Pakistani security forces responsible for containing them will at some point go over and join the rioters. Musharraf will try to get the last plane out; perhaps he will find Texas a congenial place of exile. If he doesn't make that plane, his head will serve as a football, not just of the political variety.

A new Pakistani government, in quest of legitimacy, will understand that comes from opposing Bush's America, not getting in bed with it. Osama will be the new honorary President of Pakistan, de facto if not de jure. Our, and NATO's operation in Afghanistan will become strategically unsustainable overnight. That nice Mr. Karzai will, one hopes, find a seat on a C-17.

The fall of Pakistan to militant Islam will be a strategic disaster greater than anything possible in Iraq, even losing an army. It will be a greater disaster than a war with Iran that costs us our army in Iraq. Osama and Co. will have nukes, missiles to deliver them, the best conventional armed forces in the Moslem world and an impregnable base for operations anywhere else. As North Korea's Dear Leader has shown the world, nobody messes with you if you have nukes. Uncle Sam takes off his battle rattle and asks Beijing, or somebody, if they can possibly sponsor some talks.

That ticking sound Mr. Bush hears is not Mr. Cheney's pacemaker. It's the crocodile, and he's getting rather close.



http://www.jihadunspun.com/intheatre...ist=/home.php&

[snakelegs]

on top of all this, there are the baluchis, sindhis and pakhtuns, many of who are fed up with the central government and demanding a degree of autonomy.
if i was musharraf i would run away from home.
pakistan's future does not look good. very sad country.

[Wahid]

on top of all this, there are the baluchis, sindhis and pakhtuns, many of who are fed up with the central government and demanding a degree of autonomy.
if i was musharraf i would run away from home.
pakistan's future does not look good. very sad country.

never heard of those names
are they tribes?

also any input on this stroy from bros/sis... it could be very significant in forming an islamic state but i wouldnt put it exacly like the author said

[HeiGou]

never heard of those names
are they tribes?

also any input on this stroy from bros/sis... it could be very significant in forming an islamic state but i wouldnt put it exacly like the author said

Pakistan was originally thought up as an idea by a group of students in Cambridge. The name comes from an ancronym - P for Punjab, A for Afghanistan, and K for Kashmir, and S for Sind. These were the majority Muslim regions of British India that would go to form an independence Muslim state as these students decided that Muslim could not live safely in a Hindu India. Anyway two other regions were overlooked by these gentlement - Baluchistan and East Bengal. When Pakistan was formed it included Baluchistan and what is now Bangladesh, but only part of "Afghanistan" (meaning the land of the Pashtuns rather than what is usually referred to as Afghanistan) in the North-West Frontier Agency, and only part of Kashmir as the Indians occupied the rest. There is, de facto, another "ethnic" group in the Muslims from the rest of India, referred to as Muhajirs.

Since being formed, the concept of Pakistan has been challenged by each of the major ethnic groups except the Punjabis. Some Pashtuns have always had a desire for a Pashtun-dominated state that would include Afghanistan and the NWFP.

The Bengalis were discontented with the share of revenues in the new Pakistan. Western Pakistan (ie Pakistan) took a disproportionate share of Federal spending, even though East Pakistan (Bangladesh) produced most of the foreign exchange. The language language issue favored the West, not the East. And so Bangladesh, with Indian support, split off to become an independent country in some of the worst post-War fighting. Much worse than Yugoslavia.

The main port is Karachi which is in Sind. But it is dominated by Muhajirs and they have demanded that Karachi be made a province of its own. The Muhajir Qaumi Movement was formed to support this. In 1986 and 1987 there was massive rioting and intercommunal bloodshed as the MQM shot it out with pretty much everyone else to control Karachi. They did not win.

Baluchistan has been in revolt pretty much consistently since 1955 when the government of Pakistan abolished the tribal and feudal fiefdoms there and united the province as one unit. These uprising have been put down very thoroughly and brutally. They last petered out in the 1970s, with some Communist inspiration, but they are now starting up again due to unhappiness with the division of oil and gas revenues in the province - the Federal government gets most of them.

Kashmir has been an on-going problem with an alphabet soup of groups opposed to India or India and Pakistan.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[waji]

Asalam u Alikum

14 Aug 1947 when Pakistan appeared on the World map many Indians polititions said that Pakistan would not last more than 6 months why they said as there was partition, not only land but army,banks money and other goods were also divided amongs Pakistan and India. and Pakistan got nothing arms goods were old one's were given then no office stationary was given by them and most important the leaders of India refuse to give the share of Pakistan in the money but due to the hunger strike of Gandhi they gave the 25 crore and promised to give 50crore later but the uptill now there later hasn't came with all this difficulty still Pakistan made a start and Defended her borders with great Strenth
This all view of history of Pakistan is just to tell u from where we started and now where we r
Alhamdulillah i can say that where we r now with that start, no country ....... no country had progressed like this . Sindh, Balouchistan, NWFP, Punjab are provinces of Pakistan
So Pakistan is not bad that can i say
Insha'Allah
Walikum as Salam

[HeiGou]

[QUOTE=wkas;202199] Pakistan got nothing arms goods were old one's were given then no office stationary was given by them and most important the leaders of India refuse to give the share of Pakistan in the money but due to the hunger strike of Gandhi they gave the 25 crore and promised to give 50crore later but the uptill now there later hasn't came with all this difficulty still Pakistan made a start and Defended her borders with great Strenth [/quite]

No arms? Pakistan got an equal share of the British Indian Army - perhaps even a little more as the British favored the people of the North-West for recruitment. No stationary? Come on now. Pull the other one. You are complaining about a piddling 25crore - what is that worth? Two weeks of US aid to Pakistan?

As for Pakistan and its borders, well, India does not want to annex any part of Pakistan and never has. Pakistan failed to keep the Indians out of East Pakistan and so Bangladesh was formed. Pakistan failed to keep India out of Kashmir and so that province remains divided.

This all view of history of Pakistan is just to tell u from where we started and now where we r
Alhamdulillah i can say that where we r now with that start, no country ....... no country had progressed like this .

Sure. South Korea was as poor as Pakistan in 1965 - and of course back then Bangladesh was part of Pakistan. Look at it now. No country has progressed like Pakistan. Except maybe some African ones.

[Wahid]

Found this interesting peice from google

----------------------
Washington Times
June 9, 2000

Pakistan's Nuclear Arsenal Underestimated, Reports Say

By Ben Barber, The Washington Times

Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is far larger than previously suspected and may be five times as large as that of India, according to U.S. military and intelligence reports.

Instead of the previous estimates of 10 to 15 nuclear weapons, the new estimate is that Pakistan has built from 25 to 100 bombs and has the missiles and jet planes to deliver them.

A Senate aide with a strong intelligence background confirmed the report of Pakistan's upgraded nuclear status, which first appeared in NBC News reports this week.

William Triplett II, a Capitol Hill specialist in proliferation, described the report as highly credible.

"You've got an incredible change in the nuclear balance of terror in South Asia where we think it matters," he said.

Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni, commander of the U.S. Central Command, which covers South Asia, said the previous belief that the Indians were quite far ahead of the Pakistanis in their nuclear balance has been unfounded.

"Don't assume that the Pakistani nuclear capability is inferior to the Indians," said Gen. Zinni, according to a spokesman at his Florida headquarters at MacDill Air Force Base.

India, which was previously reported to have from 20 to 100 nuclear bombs, or the fissile material ready to make those bombs, may have as few as five completed bombs, which are not ready to be mounted on missiles, according to U.S. intelligence and military sources cited by NBC and confirmed by Mr. Triplett.

India set off a nuclear blast in 1974, but then kept its nuclear program under wraps until May 1998, when it set off five explosions shortly after the nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party came to power.

Pakistan, which has received extensive nuclear and missile technology and material help from China since the 1980s, responded a few weeks later with six explosions of its own.

The United States, which was taken by surprise at the emergence of two new, nuclear-armed states, has failed to convince the two through entreaties and sanctions to abandon their nuclear programs.

Pakistan's Foreign Ministry Thursday rejected the report of its advanced nuclear-weapons program, calling it "removed from reality," in a statement read to The Washington Times.

Pakistan's reported nuclear supremacy over India "is an extraordinary assertion in view of the fact that in comparison with a few Pakistani nuclear facilities, India has a vast nuclear program comprising dozens of nuclear installations outside international safeguards, which have been operating to produce fissile materials over decades.

"This report will encourage India to defy efforts to prevent a nuclear buildup and promote nuclear and missile restraint in the region.

"Pakistan's nuclear capability is modest and solely aimed at deterring aggression."

The Pakistani Foreign Ministry also rejected reports that Pakistan's arsenal of U.S.-built F-16 jet planes and Chinese-designed M-9 and M-11 missiles are far ahead of India's Russian jets and nascent Agni missile program in terms of capacity to deliver nuclear payloads.

The State Department refused to comment on the report "because it is an intelligence matter," said spokesman Philip Reeker on Wednesday.

An Indian official in Washington said Wednesday that the report was "very serious."

"This confirms, to an extent, the feeling we always had that Pakistan was concentrating on an ambitious weaponization program and obtaining materials and technology from any place they can, using means fair and foul."

He said the report justified India's decision to become the world's first new nuclear state since China's first blast in 1964.

"Our tests in 1998 exposed Pakistan's grand designs in that sector," he said.

Stephen Cohen, a former State Department official and Pakistan expert at the Brookings Institution, said that even if the report is true, it was unlikely Pakistan's numerical advantage in nuclear bombs would be used in a conflict.

"Both countries have had nuclear weapons for 10 years," he said in an interview Thursday.

"Both think it is unacceptable to have a nuclear weapon dropped on their cities or to attack the other side. Nuclear weapons are primarily psychological and political weapons."

Mr. Cohen questioned the report, wondering whether it could be "disinformation" like that of the early days of the Cold War, when each side used reports of a missile gap to justify an arms race.

"Right now, neither side is crashing with an arms race and there is no evidence either side has deployed weapons on the field," he said.

But the report of Pakistan's nuclear superiority could turn "a nuclear arms crawl into

http://www.fas.org/news/pakistan/200...09pakistan.htm

[HeiGou]

Pakistan's Nuclear Arsenal Underestimated, Reports Say

It hardly matters. The important number is one. A country with one nuclear weapon is vastly different from a country with none. A country with one hundred nuclear weapons is marginally different from a country with one.

[Wahid]

It hardly matters. The important number is one. A country with one nuclear weapon is vastly different from a country with none. A country with one hundred nuclear weapons is marginally different from a country with one.

well that wasnt the whole point of the artical, and yes it dose make a difference if u have 1 or 100.. if u got one u can only do so much damage before the other side wipes u outa existance(if it comes to nuke war)..
what dosnt make that much difference is that if u have 100s vs thousands of nukes since 100s is more than enough for any detterance

[waji]

Mr HeiGou
i m not a lier and i and telling the truth, for a new country think 25 crore rupees r enough well and u said the example of south korea now tell me there was one language and one way of life and wereas Pakistan has different way of life and different langauge in this manner i m telling u how much Pakistan has progressed no other country has
Think again with open mind
Peace