It is more of a question and I had thought to put it in GQ but realized that it could possibly evolve into a debate.
So that’s the question. Why has the US been, and still is, so soft on Pakistan? I saw the Daniel Pearle documentary last night. Putting together everything that was in it and what is known outside of it, there is more than sufficient evidence that Pakistan is the breeding ground for terrorists.
Facts:
Pakistan supported AQ and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The general population still does.
Pakistan has been a dictatorship for most of its life.
A Q Khan, of Pakistan’s nuclear program sold nuclear technology to Iran. Iran is now evil but Pakistan not so.
Pakistan’s ISI has been actively supporting and creating terrorism against its neighbour.
Pakistan’s government has no control over its ISI.
Pakistan is a nuclear power. Iran only wants to become one.
911 hijackers have been linked to Pakistan.
Terrorists in Britain have links to Pakistan.
So here is what does not make sense. Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with terrorists but was invaded. Pakistan that has been proven to breed terrorists enjoys US support. What gives?
Pakistan allows us to stage covert and overt actions from their territory. So, we give them a pass on the whole hotbed of terrorism thing, to save on gas money.
The same reason we ignore the obvious fact that international Islamic fundamentalist terrorism comes from Saudi Arabia.
Yup. Too important an ally. Iran is significantly less religiously conservative on an overall population basis than Pakistan or SA. It’s just realpolitik.
And while the US goes pretty easy on Pakistan, they also got pretty publicly humiliated when we gave India nuclear technology, but wouldn’t share with Pakistan.
Which, I hasten to add, was the right thing to do. I keep waiting for another coup that will turn the entire subcontinent to glowing glass.
Which is another reson we are soft on them. We are afraid that if we aren’t. the present regime will be replaced by someone crazier. The sort of person who might actually use those nukes.
I still don’t think the original question has been answered. Why are they too important an ally? This feels like a marriage of convenience - much like Iraq was in the 80’s.
As Der Trihs and I pointed out, they’re likely to freak out and someone will install himself as ruler that has no compunction about tossing nukes around.
Therefore, we make nice and help support Musharraf.
I honestly don’t think they’re a very good ally. After all, as the OP points out, they’ve a disturbing tendency to support and provide material help to AQ and their posse.
Pakistan is not a good ally - it’s just the best ally it can possibly be.
Frankly, I think the U.S.'s management of Pakistan is a credit to the Bush administration. Pakistan could turn out so, so much worse. Musharref has managed to stop a number of coup attempts in the past few years - the last one involved high ranking members of his military and government, who were affiliated with al-Qaida.
You want to lay awake at nights worrying about something? Think about the ramifications of an al-Qaida sympathetic government coming to power in Pakistan and controlling a couple hundred nuclear weapons…
Look at a map of Asia. We’re waging a war in Afghanistan. To get troops in, and to support them on a continual basis from aircraft carriers, we need to fly over another country. Russia and China are out of the question, and not just for practical purposes; they’d really rather not quarter and assist US troops that won’t be leaving anytime soon. Plus, those routes would involve flying over at least one other country as well, most likely one of the " 'Stans." That’s a lot of deal-making just to get into Afghanistan.
The only practical options are Iran and Pakistan. And while Pakistan has exactly all the problems you described, Iran–as secular and well-educated as their general population is by comparison–is the political hot button “Axis of Evil” state that seized our embassy and humiliated our nation a generation ago. Their current president was one of the students who masterminded the embassy takeover. We would put an aircraft carrier in the Arctic Ocean and fly over the Urals before we sought an alliance with Khameni and Amenidjad against their ideological love child, Islamic Extremism.
There’s also another reason. American oil interests and the Bush family have long wanted to run a pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan to take advantage of Kazakhstan’s natural resources (mainly natural gas, but petroleum is also a possibility). That’s why the Soviet Union was so keen on controlling Afghanistan in the 70s and 80s; the alternative was to run pipelines through Siberia, a practical impossibility. Kazakhstan would be a wealthy nation if it could get its resources to any of the Western nations that would gladly pay for them.
Remember the 2000 elections? Al Gore made a lot of hay over the fact that he could name nearly every head of state in the world, and that Bush could name about four. One of the four Bush could name was Pervez Musharref, about whom Bush spoke glowingly. While most Westerners regarded Musharref as an illegitimate junta leader, Bush praised him as someone who brought well-needed stability to a volitile region. This was more than a year before 9-11. Bush had definite plans for dealing with Musharref (or whomever would be running Pakistan) well before going in.
I guess it would’ve been ideologically purer to go to Musharref five years ago and say “We need a really big favor, one that’s likely to get you assassinated and make you a pariah in the Muslim world. Oh and by the way, we don’t like your record on civil rights…”
A situation that is extremely worryingly likely, especially if democracy were reintroduced to Pakistan.
Well of course it is. It’s why the west stood by when (democratically elected) Sharif was overthrown in a military coup by someone who wasn’t favourable to the ISI and by extension the Taliban.
I think the true mystery is why anyone in the US electorate believes the nonsense that their government supports democracy abroad.
Kazakhstan could get it’s gas into Russia if it wanted to - hell, it would be easier to make a pipeline into the biggest growth market in the world [urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakhstan-China_gas_pipeline]source
In fact the oil pipeline is due to reach capacity in 2011 source
They even have developed a route for oil to the west source so why buddy up with someone over oil - this is too simplistic and feels like a typical anti bush doctrine.
Afghanistan is the only reason, no other, a marriage of convenience.
