Capacitor, I’m not sure what you’re suggesting. Do you mean we should intervene directly (i.e., with troops) and engage in street fighting with the Islamists within Pakistan in order to ensure that Musharraf’s government doesn’t fall?
I wouldn’t say that this is the worst idea for the scenario we’re considering, but I’d fear that this might lead to a real South Vietnam-style quagmire.
If it’s so incredibly necessary that Pakistan not have a government, then why involve India at all? We (US) could take on Pakistan. Of course, anyone compromising Pakistan’s nat’l security/government would be pretty bad for everybody in general…
Actually, we would be encouraging war between two nuclear armed third worldish countries that believe in REINCARNATION.
How do you figure? IMHO this is a good thing. If thousands of pro-Taliban Pakistani have decided to go to Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban, that means they won’t be in Pakistan destabalizing the government.
From what I understand from talking to some of the Pakistanis at my work, the majority of middle-class, moderate Pakistanis don’t want them there. Apparently they have had problems for years with people crossing from Afghanistan and spreading pro-Taliban Islamic fundamentalists rhetoric.
You’re assuming that (1) All of these radical young men will volunteer and make it across the border to Afghanistan (2) Most or all of them will be killed, so that they don’t come back and start raising hell, and (3) Their relatives back home won’t become extremely pissed off at the US and at Musharraff’s government, blaming them for the deaths of their brothers/sons/cousins.
How great a proportion of the Pakistani population is “middle-class” and “moderate”? Your coworkers may very well feel that way, but I suspect that they represent an extremely tiny cross-section of Pakistani society.
[Han Solo]You know, sometimes I even impress myself[/Han Solo].
On the other hand, I shouldn’t have been quite so snide towards minty green:
No mention of any role India would play, but the article does emphasize that . . .
We do not want other people fighting our causes, we will pay heavily later. This is not the same as figthing with other people with greivances against the same enemy.
These 5,000 seminary students are raw recruits heading into a foreign land in winter. That foreign land is Afghanistan, which is very hostile land, even to people who live there. Somebody is setting up 5,000 chumps to die in the cold, and we will undoubtedly hear a lot of propaganda about it too.
Our enemies use naive young people as their catspaws, cynically sending them to their deaths, all in hope of starting a world wide religious war.
Okay, I admit I catch the OP assumimg that radicals Muslims who are at least Taleban sympathizers, have taken over Pakistan. My bad. I’m not interested in debating this scenario so I’ll just duck out now.
What possible value are you proposing that India could offer us in Afghanistan? I can’t figure the premise of the OP at all.
The fact that they have serious disputes with Pakistan is relevant in Afghanistan how?
My thinking was this: If Islamabad fell to a fundamentalist regime and our ostensible ally either ordered us to get out or turned against us, then we would have no hope of winning this war without allying ourselves with another major power in the vicinity. My general impression is that Russia and China are being just about as helpful as they ever will right now as it is, and in any case either one would represent a deal with the devil (help out in Afghanistan? Sure! Just look the other way in Chechnya/Xinjiang/Tibet/Taiwan). In the dire scenario I’m imagining, India may offer the only potential alliance that’s at the same time effective, palatable, and possible to begin with.
The fact that they have serious disputes with Pakistan is relevant in that India has the most to lose from a crazy nuclear-armed regime next door, and therefore there would be no question of their willingness to help us in this scenario.
As far as I’m aware, India would love to invade Pakistan. They are just waiting for a reasonable excuse to do it, they are champing at the bit. They’d even be prepared to eat Pakistans 5 or 6 nukes in the process.
They wouldn’t need to be encouraged or “unleashed”, they would do it tomorrow given the slightest opportunity.
However, I know quite a few ordinary Pakistanis (not middle class ones) and the impression I get is that most of them think the Taliban are “a bunch of arseholes” - this is a quote from a Pakistani I know. They will shed no tears when the Taliban are gone. We can ignore the people in the north of the country who are all from the same tribes as the Taliban and are a small minority in Pakistan.
If asked, most Pakistanis would say they oppose the US bombing campaign but this is because they don’t like to see fellow muslims being bombed not because they have any love for the Taliban. But their feelings aren’t so strong that there is any real danger of Musharraf being overthrown. I could be wrong of course, the unexpected can always happen, but I don’t think the people of Pakistan are really (deep down) in their heart-of-hearts all that bothered about the Taliban.
In the event that there was a coup and Musharraf was ousted by some pro-Taliban, hardline group I wouldn’t be surprised to see Indian troops in Islamabad about 5 minutes later.
But India wouldn’t be so keen to get involved in Afghanistan. They would see this as America’s problem, although they would be more than happy to help in any way possible, short of actual military help. They would assume that America is more than capable of dealing with the military angle on their own.
In fact, India is probably actively hoping that there is a coup in Pakistan thus giving them an excuse to invade.
Why?
Bacause Pakistan is insisting that the new Afghan government contains some Taliban members. Many of the terrorists active in Kashmir are OBLs boys so India would like to take over Pakistan in order to prevent the new Afghan government containing any extremist Islamics at all.
This is, of course, just my take.
If this is true, then why hasn’t India invaded already? There have been any number of incidents (cross-border Kashmir separatist attacks, terrorist bombings, actual armed clashes between Indian and Pakistani troops), some quite recent, which would provide a pretext for some Indian Curtis LeMay to get it on, if in fact your characterization of India’s attitudes is even remotely accurate.
There have been border skirmishes it’s true but nothing to warrant a full scale invasion of another nuclear power.
The only reason India hasn’t invaded Pakistan is because they haven’t had an internationally justifiable reason for doing so. A pro-Taliban regime coming into power in Pakistan, at this sensitive time, would give India an excuse to invade.
Who would object? Not us. Not Russia. China may but they’ve got their own problems with Islamic Extremists so they’d probably acquiesce in the end rather than fight an actual war over it.
I don’t think India would want to stay in Pakistan, of course, as an occupying power. But they would like to see a friendlier government in Islamabad. And they would like to get rid of Pakistans nuclear capability if they could.
The UN is supposed to sit back while India annex’s Pakistan?
Well, if we accept the premise that the permananent, veto-wielding members of the UN Security Council–i.e., the US, Russia, China, Britain, and France–have no problem with it, then yeah, that looks to be about the shape of it.
Well, which is it? India would invade Pakistan given the “slightest opportunity”, or India would invade Pakistan given, say, a first-order threat to India’s national security (on the order of an apparently imminent Pakistani nuclear first strike, say).
By “slightest opportunity” I meant “slightest internationally justifiable opportunity”.
To clarify, xanakis, do you mean that India would love to invade that portion of Kashmir claimed by Pakistan, or that India would love to invade Pakistan proper? If it’s the latter, then invade to what purpose?
Does this really make sense even to you? U’re basically saying that since OBL in Afghanistan is pursuing anti-India policies, India would “love” to take over Pakistan just coz it lies on the route from India to Afghanistan.
I think u’ve got it completely wrong. Its Islamic hardliners inside Pakistan who would “love” to invade India. And guess what, as recently as 1999 in Kargil, they even attempted an invasion. Now that is a first rate excuse as any to invade Pakistan. So why do u think India refrained from “invading” Pakistan then?
And India would definitely not hope for any coup ousting Musharraf right now. Coz that would “unleash” the Islamic hardliners on India and (surprise, surprise) the US, Pak’s long time ally. Musharraf is definitely the lesser evil as far as India is concerned especially if u consider the nuclear aspect.
As an aside, Why are u, xanakis, so anti-India, that u are even willing to entertain this seemingly far-fetched idea while giving no evidence whatsoever to support ur claims?
I can’t believe that people are actually discussing this ridiculous proposition. While there may be extremists in India and Pakistan who would like to invade neighbouring countries I am pretty sure that the majority of the subcontinent’s population does not want to go to war. My father’s generation remembers hiding in ditches during air raids and no-one wants to go through that again.
Why is it fun to imagine scenarios in which one billion people are dragged into war because of five thousand extremists?
Unfortunately, the majority of people of any region rarely get any input on war before the fact. The US didn’t want to go to war a couple of weeks ago, but here we are. I don’t agree with xanakis’s view that India would invade Pakistan as a jolly jingoistic expedition. My premise is that India would feel so threatened by certain events that it would feel it had no choice but to do so. Furthermore, I submit that in doing so, it would have a certain convergence of interests with the US and with other powers in the region, thereby making the scenario even more likely.