The Pakistan Problem

Great Debates
1

If the US is going to succeed in any form of military action in Afghanistan it will need the aid of Pakistan. The use of its air space is vital to the effort and the ability to use Pakistani territory for staging and supply routes is just as vital if any lengthly campaign is to be conducted. We need the diplomatic ties that Pakistan has with the Taliban. We need Pakistan’s coroperation in shutting off the supply of arms to the Taliban and to Bin Laudin’s organization.

And Pakistan needs us. Their economy is on the brink of disaster. The recent military take over of the government has isolated Pakistan from the rest of the world. Pakistan is increasingly finding itself without allies while facing up against a very dangerous opponent in India.

But the crux of the problem is this; many of the reasons that Pakistan is vital to our effort is because Pakistan played such a large role in the creation of the Taliban.

http://www3.cnn.com/WORLD/9610/05/taleban/

General Pervez Musharraf, ruler of Pakistan, had close ties to the Taliban in recent years. They provided him, until recently, with at least one secure border and at least one ally in the region.

http://www.blonnet.com/businessline/2001/07/13/stories/041355rr.htm

But the same radical Islamic (not truly Islamic in my opinion) centers that gave the Taliban their religious training have also spawned militant groups that are fighting for the independentence of Kashmir thus bringing Pakistan to the edge of conflict with India. These same militant groups are the ones pledging support for the Taliban and rallying for war against the US.

These factors have lead to a point where I fear Pakistan may suffer a civil war. General Pervez Musharraf needs to reign in the militants. Failure to do so risks conflict with India and maybe even the US and Western world. But the militants have widespread support in Pakistan. To move against them General Pervez Musharraf risks the overthrow of his government widespread loss of life.

Our new allies in the Northern Alliance of Afghanistan warn us not to trust Pakistan. They point to Pakistan’s support of the Taliban in the past and of its continuing reluctance to reign in the militants waging a war of terror in Kashmir

Adding to all these complications is the worst complication of all. Pakistan is a nuclear power. They have the capability of hitting their neighboring states, including India which is also a nuclear power.

What should we do? The Pakastani government may try to play all sides as long as possible in an attempt to ensure its own survival. Do we pressure them to risk enraging the militants? Do we trust them even if they do? Are we prepared to fight alongside a dictatorship in trying to wipe out the militants that have already declared a jihad against us for even thinking about striking back?

More info
http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2001/04/09042001115329.asp
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/south/09/19/pakistan.address/

2

Man, this is a screwed up situation. :frowning:

Blackclaw: Are you concerned that a civil war triggered by “the great satan” in Pakistan would allow India to take advantage?

If so, this is a touchy scenerio that the US really has to ponder.

3

I wonder about this problem quite a bit. I can just imagine staging our troops in Pakistan, moving the bulk of them into Afghanistan, and boom! civil war erupts behind us and around our base of operations.

We will be forced to split resources to help control the militants and continue the operation in Afghanistan.

I am not without a sense of conspiracy in this whole “Pakistan pledges use for staging ground” affair. After all, Pakistan also considered the Taliban an official government… the only ones, in fact, who considered the Taliban an official government. Why are they so quick to turn?

Well, they didn’t have much choice if they wanted to survive themselves… but of course, that sort of answer will be unsatisfactory to militants who would push their agenda at any cost.

The whole friggin’ area is a mine field, and America will-- in the beginning-- walk in alone.

Will it be WW3? Hmmm… Unlikely, I think. Hopefully the whole situation immediately surrounding that geographic location can be diffused while we clean up the war on terrorism with steadfast humanitarian efforts for Afghanistan.

But no more handing out guns to people, christ. You’d think our policy makers took a history class or FIVE before they made it into office. :rolleyes:

4

Hmmm…US props up dictator in the Middle East. Dictator is toppled by militant Muslim group. Militant Muslim group seethes with resentment of US. Now why does that ring a bell?

Are we in danger of creating “another Iran” in Pakistan?

5

We invade Pakistan. Occupy the country, overthrow the government, establish a beachhead to park our aircraft carriers and stage our troops. Quash the nuclear threat. From there we decide about Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq. This is America’s New War. Worldwide public opinion is at an all-time high.

I keep thinking of bombing, bombing, bombing: the usual suspects. It escalates the situation, yes. Pebbles and terrified locals. Minimized American risk.

But smoking the shadowy enemy out of holes? A patient and protracted war? We need to go over there and take control.

6

Meanwhile, in the real world…

…world opinion would turn completely if the US tried anything like what you’re suggesting. Which is assuming the US could ‘occupy’ Pakistanl, which is just not realistically possible without massive casualties and months of bloody fighting.

7

Occupy Pakistan, my left buttock. That country has tactical nuclear weapons. Incidentally, Billy, why the hell would you ant to invade Iran? That country will soon be an ally of ours as their enemies appear to be our enemies.

8

Moving into the Middle East with our troops is what I’m parsing from the military analysts’ words. I don’t see how else we will deal with Pakistan when we wage war. I apologize for trotting out my worst case, but it is running through my head. Here’s where I posted it.

9

It won’t happen. Time and time again it’s been proven that trying to occupy another country breeds hatred, martyrs and body-bags. Occupation presupposes a large army that you’re willing to put semi-permanently in another country and supply indefinitely (which the US currently doesn’t have, unless the military was to be expanded hugely to meet other commitments).

IMHO, it also presupposes large casualties and ongoing guerilla warfare by the locals. A large chunk of the US public wants blood now (understandably), but I can’t see it accepting sons and daughters dying manning roadblocks or checkpoints in a foreign country in three years’ time.

10

India has a fair share of hawks on the Kashmir issue, but with nuclear weapons in place I belive we can expect rational actions from India’s government.

If the militants, however, should find themselves under fire, they may expand their operations inside Kashmir as both a haven and launching point of attacks. Wars have a nasty habit of not staying inside national boundaries.

The absolute nightmare scenario is one where the radical militants get ahold of a nuclear weapon from elements of the Pakistani military that are sympathatic to their cause because of the US presence. If you want to keep yourself awake at night run through the possibilities from there. Pakistan, like any nuclear power, has safe guards in place. But I’m not sure of their effectiveness. There are also technical difficulties that need to be overcome if one wants to convert a missile warhead into something that can be set off with a switch or a timer. So it’s not a likely scenario. But after last Tuesday, I don’t rule out unlikely scenarios.

Or the Pakistani government could be overthrown by the militant factions and obtain control of the Pakistan nuclear stockpile. In a scenario where US troops are based in Pakistan when this happens, India suddenly finds itself in a nuclear confrontation with opponents who are not “rational” by our standards with limits on India’s retailitory options for fears of harming US personnel.

11

Pakistan is reacting surprisingly pro-US. President Musharraf has stated that any US attacks would not be on Islam itself.

Course, talk is cheap, we’ll see how he responds if his own citizens take to the streets. He may be trying to get rid of the militants in Pakistan as well.

Bet Al Gore is writing a thank-you to the supreme court right now thanking them for keeping him out of this intractable mess.

12

Pakistan leader tries to prepare his people for cooperation with the US.

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010919/wl/attack_pakistan_dc_26.html

Pakistan and Afghani troops deploy along the border.

http://us.news2.yimg.com/f/42/31/7m/dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010917/wl/attack_pakistan_dc_23.html

13

The Kashmir war(its not just a conflict) has been going on for decades now.And I think its been reported less and very badly in the western media. And also remembering that the countries in hitlist of the Taliban and support militants are in this order 1)USA 2) Israel 3)India
So,India has enough reasons to worry.

14

There’s a big difference between saying “President Musharraf is pro-US” and “Pakistan is pro-US.” You are assuming Musharraf speaks for a unified Pakistan, an assumption open to considerable doubt.

One of the networks showed footage from a “middle-class Pakistani school” featuring a bunch of teenage Pakistani boys telling the interviewer that if the US took out bin Laden, that “other bin Ladens” would spring up to take his place. They declared that they were ready to fight the US themselves.

I’m pretty sure that Musharraf doesn’t speak for these Pakistanis, at least.

15

More info

India wants to help US pin down terrorists camps in Pakistan. Pakistan Gov cracking down on some militant offices.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/09/19/inv.afghanistan.camp/

16

**

The myth of the omnipotent US military still endures. BB, hate to tell you but this isn’t RISK.

The US would have no support from anyone in this. And the US, by itself, would be hard pressed to hold Pakistan. The CIA says Pakistan has 22 million men fit for military service, and theres no doubt they’d almost all fight an invasion, plus millions more pouring in from all over. I’d reckon a good dozen countries at least would declare war on the US, easily doubling that number.

The US military combined, including file clerks, is less than half a million. Add the entire national guard and it’s maybe a miilion.

So what you’re saying is that we’re going to put every military resource we have, abandoning our bases in Europe and Asia completely, so we can start a land war on brutal, unfamiliar terrain, outnumbered 20 or more to one.

And that’s just the first phase of your plan. Next, we take on Afghanistan, Iran … :rolleyes:

17

Furt, the CIA site may say that Pakistan has 22 million men fit for active service (out of 35 million available), but it also says just as clearly that the USA has 70 million theoretically available. The estimated %age of that 70 million that are actually fit to fight is not given, but if it is the same as Pakistan’s then the USA has a potential army of 44 million.

Not that I’m endorsing invading anything anywhere, I’m just pointing out that you were comparing apples & oranges in the headcount. The rest of your post makes perfect sense. :slight_smile:

18

Not at all. If the US was really and truly invading, it seems more than likely that pretty much everyone able to squeeze a trigger would fight as much as they could. PLus, as I said, thousands upon thousands from other nations.

In contrast, I heartily doubt that the US would be able to recruit *any *of its citizens for such a campaign, given that Pakistan was not behind the WTC attack, and that nobody, including our own media, would support it.

Even if we drafted, oh, say 5 million, the cost to the taxpayer of feeding and suppling that huge number – at a distance of thousands of miles, with no help from anyone in refueling – would bust our budget.

19

I don’t know if this is even worth pointing out, but there is a widespread belief among my Pakistani-American friends that the United States was behind the death of Pakistani strongman Zia al-Haq.

Their proof? “The American ambassador was on the plane with Zia when it went down.”

20

Pakistan is not pro-US, they are pro-Pakistan. It so happens that cooperating with the US instead of sticking up for the Taliban may save Pakistan from economic disaster. But they aren’t cooperating because they are our good buddies.

The population of Pakistan is approximately two-thirds Taliban sympathizers. Waging war on the Taliban (should it come to that) from Pakistan is going to be a nightmare for both the new Pakistani Prez and ourselves.

This is a huge problem for both the current government of Pakistan and for the US. The Taliban knows this, and they also know that the Russian states won’t allow troops to be staged inside their borders, and we really cannot apply any pressure to them to “make” them do it. Pakistan is our only hope right now, and I think the Taliban knows this, and that’s why they are being uncooperative. It is in their favor to be stubborn.

It is our weakness if we want to maintain some form of diplomacy.

But really, I don’t see the US invading all of Pakistan. At worst I think we may capture a beachhead and some nearby land that borders Afghanistan for the fight, then get the hell out. Again, this is a worst-case scenario (well, pakistan throwing their nukes, then India throwing their nukes, then Israel invading Palestine— that’s a worst case scenario, but you get the picture).