The Pakistan Problem

Great Debates
21

erislover wrote:

See, this is exactly why I think that staging a war against the Taliban from a base in Pakistan would be a nightmare. Reminds me of the situation in Vietnam: no true “front line,” the VC operating in our midst, and no way to tell our friends from our enemies. The only way it could possibly work would be to wall off the US military completely from the Pakistani population. Otherwise, you risk constant terror attacks on US troops by Taliban-sympathetic Pakistanis.

The risk of getting into a quagmire is high.

22

I think that an all-out opportunist attack by India is out of the question if only because there is a large Islamic minority living there, Indian politics are incredibly violent as it is without more fuel being added to the fire.

23

I have enjoyed reading this debate because I am very concerned about the part to be played by Pakistan in this situation myself. General Musharraf is between a rock and a hard place and it seems he will choose the rock.

The few Pakistani statesmen I have seen commenting on the extent of Pakistan’s commitment to the US have equivocated on every aspect except intelligence support. Even this is risky because of their intelligence service’s links with Taliban.

Now the General is intimating that some US troops could be allowed to use a base in Pakistan despite opposition from a significant minority of the population…

And a minority it is, because according to General Musharraf the proportion of the population who sympathise with Taliban is 10-15% and not 66%.

I read this figure in The Times this morning and I have found you a CNN page which quotes the General directly.

The relevant paragraph is the penultimate one. Many thanks for an interesting read.

24

You know, Nost, I was searching for the article I read that prompted me to use that figure. Now I wonder if I didn’t misread a different article which mentioned that two-thirds of Pakistan was anti-us, or if I simply misread the whole damn thing, as seems to be the case.

:frowning:

25

Yes, I’ve been reading sources from PBS to the Pakistani news service and I must admit that I misinterpreted figures to a large degree (I became an urban legend in my own mind ;)). Some things that led to my confusion were the relations between Pakistan and the Taliban, the anti-US sentiment expressed by the Pakistani public, and the history of the Taliban itself.

None-the-less, anti-US sentiment is strong in much of the Pakistani population, and even 10% Taliban support is a staggering number when we consider that the existing Pakistani government isn’t even five years old (I think the coup was in 1999!).

This is a very dangerous situation. I read some comments on a pakistani message board where rumors were flying that the government of Pakistan had already closed an airport for US troops, and also read some interviews with people rallying on the street saying they would take violent action if the US put troops in Pakistan. Another poster confirmed that the airport was closed, but had nothing to say about US troops.

This is a very precarious situation, but damn if it isn’t the only one we have right now. Afghanistan is a land-locked country that shares large borders with ex-soviet states and pakistan. The russian states have already expressed no support in terms of airspace or a staging ground.

What worries me more is that I just read about existing attempts to overthrow Pakistan (again!) by some russian and Iranian forces for lucrative trade routes, not to mention afghanistan. It struck me as something of a conspiracy theory, but when we are dealing with the motivations of civil unrest, the truth of a conspiracy can be irrelevant.

More concern comes from Pakistan-India relations which are still tense. India expressed some statements that Pakistan itself is a source of terrorism in their feud, and hopes to undermine US faith in Pakistan.

:frowning:

26

From what I can tell, people here in India are gearing up for serious repercussions should anything happen in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Here's the the rub as far as Indians are concerned. Kashmir is a political issue. However, 50 years of Islamic ideology in Pakistan has given a religious colour to the whole issue.

Pakistan openly supports militants inside Kashmir. Any retaliation against terrorism is painted in Pakistan as being an attack against Islam. Further, Pakistan routinely points out that India has a big military presence in Kashmir. What it fails to point out, is that Pakistan has a similar presence on its side of the border and it regularly attacks Indian positions to help these terrorists infiltrate.

Given this background, Indians are extremely wary of the kinda rhetoric coming out of Pakistan vis-a-vis the US. There's nothing coming out of Washington which even recognizes Pakistans part in this whole terrorist operation.

Given the help the US may recieve from Pakistan, Its very difficult to envision the US acting against Pakistan for its part in this scenario. Which is bad for the Indian cause against Pak-sponsered terrorism.

And if the US does the right thing and does act against Pakistan, It'll likely cause a huge unrest inside Pakistan leading to an anti-US and an anti-India backlash. India would likely have dire consequences. Again very bad for India.

As far as India is concerned, the US made the wrong choice in seeking Pakistans help as far as terrorism goes.
27

That may not be true forever. There were reports just today that Uzbekistan and Tajikistan are letting in some of our military planes. They have reason enough to hate bin Laden, so they might yet come around.

28

But we do suspect that the same terrorists that infiltrate into Kashmir have strong connections to the ones in Afghanistan. We know Pakistan is involved and we know that its government has not taken the steps it should have to put a stop to it in the past.

It’s going to be a difficult political game to play out. We can’t put too much obvious pressure on the Pakastani government because we need them for our operations in Afghanistan. But we will also need them to shut down the terrorist activities in its own nation, including the ones causing problems in Kashmir. They both feed from the same hate. We cannot seperate one type from the other because they are in the same network at some level.

India is going to be asked for great patience and resolve in the coming days.

29

erislover, you probably are an Urban Legend for all I know, and 10% of 135 million people is still a percentage to be reckoned with. If and when the first US plane touches down in Pakistan we will know the strength of feeling in that country regarding an ‘infidel’ presence on their soil.

I have seen mixed messages on BBC, where some Pakistanis are pragmatic about the matter and see a US presence as the lesser of a couple of evils, and other commentators and members of the public are less optimistic, to put it mildly, that the US will be warmly received.

TruthFinder, I do not recall where I read this but the US is aware of concerns in India, which goes without saying really, and since diplomacy is invariably English for quid pro quo, which also goes without saying, I would be surprised if the US is not in a huddle with India as we speak. The US must perform a balancing act with India and Pakistan, and I hope no-one falls off the wire.

domina, I have also read reports of Tadzhikistan and Uzbekistan offering air bases to the US but they are, I believe, unconfirmed. Since both these countries depend to some extent on Russia for military support, I am waiting to hear something from Moscow (not personally you understand :slight_smile: ) which backs up these reports.

Blackclaw, I am not sure where Kashmir fits exactly into this scenario, and someone is going to require the wisdom of Solomon to sort that one out. I don’t have enough information to comment myself on that issue but it worries me no end.

Is there a Kashmir expert in the house? No offence intended to Blackclaw. :slight_smile:

30

I think TruthFinder could be who you are looking for.

31

First of all, in answer to Sofa King, I also believe that Zia was killed by the CIA… it isn’t a very firm belief, but it’s based mainly on the mysterious circumstances surrounding his death and the fact that the U.S. would have had a good motive and… well that’s about it. Evidence suggested that he had been assassinated and everyone surmised that the only organisation brilliant enough to have carried that out and left no trace was the CIA. But at any rate everyone hated Zia by then and were practically rejoicing at his death so I don’t really see the relevance.

Secondly, the majority of people in Pakistan are not anti-U.S. and not pro-Taliban. Those who are, are considered fundamentalists and extremists and are criticised and ridiculed by everyone else. Unfortunately they also happen to be the more outspoken and violent ones, as is usually the case with any minority.

Riots and protests were expected after Pakistan’s decision to help the U.S., but they occurred on a much smaller scale than had been expected. (In the same way that hate crimes in the U.S. were only to be expected after the terrorist incident, but, in my opinion at least, occurred on a smaller scale than one would have thought.)

Thirdly, the Pakistani government has always supported the U.S. fight against terrorism. In the past, they handed over two terrorists to the U.S., one of whom was the Pakistani named Kansi who shot two CIA agents in Washington D.C. and then disappeared without a trace. Pakistan notifed the U.S. of his whereabouts (I heard that he had been hiding in Afghanistan at first - his mistake was returning to his home village where he thought he would be safe) and helped in his arrest. I forget who the other terrorist was (Ramsi?) - I heard him mentioned on CNN. So it really isn’t that surprising that the Pakistani government would agree to cooperate with the U.S.

Of course there will be opposition in Pakistan - just as many Americans are opposed to military action against Afghanistan. But, according to my parents, this opposition has so far proved to be much weaker than originally expected.

And as for Kashmir, that is a pretty controversial issue about which few of us are really well-informed. I don’t think it is fair to blame Pakistan alone for this conflict. Frankly, both I and several Americans whom I know agree that many Indian reporters seemed, in the days following September 11th, overly eager to turn public opinion against Pakistan, in order to gain more support concerning the Kashmir issue. You see, for the people of the sub-continent it always boils down to Kashmir. But that’s probably something for a different thread…

32

erislover wrote

I’ve been in Pakistan. I’ve been fortunate to meet socially and professionally with the man who ran their navy and now is the ambassador to Jordan, as well as several generals and ex-generals. I’ve met with the chancellors of two of their largest universities. Also met with several business leaders. I’ve also met many average people. I’m the type that I like to wander and see what real life is like when I travel and I’ve seen a lot of average real-life people there. I’ve been in the cities where you see the protests on TV: Karachi, Islamabad, Peshawar. I count a number of Pakistanis and Pakistani-Americans as good friends.

My opinion from those personal experiences is that anti-US sentiment is not as you describe. I was fortunate enough to experience only friendly people. Complete strangers who took me into their homes and gave me food. Children who saw me on the street (I’m white and stuck out like a sore thumb there) who would say “Hello, How are you?” and it was clear that these were the only english words they knew but were going out of their way to be friendly.

Yes, there is sentiment in Pakistan that the U.S. (and Russia) created havoc in Afghanistan. Yes, there is sentiment that when the chips were down, Russia helped Pakistan and the U.S. did not. Yes, there is sentiment that the opium traffic that flows from Afghanistan and through Pakistan that’s left many addicts in it’s path is the result of the U.S. But in general, the U.S. is well-considered.

There is definitely a religious tone in the air there, god is mentioned in newspaper articles, in common speech, etc. Not every other sentance, but enough that you notice it. Which was weird for my American ears, especially since I’m an atheist.

But the average person there is not a religious anti-American zealot. Or at least not in my experience.

33

pennylane wrote

I was in India when this happened (and I’m Indian), so I saw the Indian media coverage. If reporters seemed to blame Pakistan, it was only because India’s been facing the same terrorist problem for 10+years (only, Pakistan calls them “freedom fighters”) and the whole incident sparked a “thats what I’ve been trying to tell you all this time” feeling. In fact, when Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee visited the US last year, he alluded to the terrorist problem and said something to the effect of “terrorism is a very real threat and the US should not think that distance offers security”.

34

Found the speech I referred to in my last post.

http://www.indianembassy.org/special/cabinet/Primeminister/pm_september_14_2000.htm

35

Well you see, kentsubra, I’m Pakistani and I can tell you that Pakistani media coverage, including articles written on Kashmir by Pakistani reporters, presents a very different story from what one is led to believe in India. I’ve seen both sides (after reading many posts on the CNN message board’s Kashmir thread) and I can’t fully believe what either of them say. Both Indians and Pakistanis seem equally guilty, to me at least, of trying to manipulate and distort the truth. I don’t think any of us really know what that truth is. At least I wouldn’t claim to know after having been exposed to such obviously biased reports from both sides.

36

agreed pennylane. point well taken.

Sorry didnt mean to hijack the OP.

37

No problem. I’m glad both you and Pennylane are here.

I have recently become aware of another complication in this entire problem. I knew that the Northern Alliance does not trust and dislikes the Pakistani government because the Alliance blames the Pakistani government for the creation of the Taliban. But I did not realize that the distrust and dislike was a two way street. The Pakistani government is warning the US and Russia against arming the Northern Alliance.

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010926/wl/attacks_pakistan_warning_3.html

I have heard rumors that the Northern Alliance has received aid from India, but I do not know if this is true.

But with the Pakistani government politically opposed to the Northern Alliance any role that they play in aiding the US in Afghanistan has suddenly become more problematic. The Northern Alliance had seemed to be a path through which the US could deal with the Taliban and not be seen as an outside oppressor.

It appears that Pakistan government is hedging against the overthrow of the Taliban regime and that the US is placating Pakistan by claiming that the overthrow of the Taliban is not the explicit goal of the US. (Although if it happens, the US will probably not be overly upset.)

But I am beginning to wonder if it is possible to untangle Bin Lauden from the Taliban. If attacking one, is attacking the other. I also wonder if it is possible to untangle the Kashmir issue from the Taliban since the same Islamic Centers seem to fuel both movements.

38

One point to consider that wasn’t directly stated was Pakistan has 135 million people. We have 275 million that is nearly 1/2 as big as us.

It is a small country with a BIG population.

39

blackclaw said

I dont know if its true either. But I do wish governments all over the world would give a rest to the “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” theory. It has invariably come back and bit them in the ass, and India is no exception. It happened with Indira Gandhi and Punjab, and to a lesser extent with LTTE.

40

Ah, but it is a remarkably effective solution for the present, and it certainly isn’t one to abandon just because after the common enemy disappears things return to normal. This is clearly an overall gain for both parties, and a sound military tactic, I think.

Our enemy only bites us in the ass because he is our enemy, and was so before and will be after the alliance. No suprise there, I think, unless an alliance made strictly to vanquish a common foe is supposed to have some other lasting effect. Heck, cartoons don’t even imply that. Bad guys stay bad, even if we need their help-- and they, ours-- to escape from a volcano. Or something.

:smiley: