On Pakistan

[Stravo]

In light of the revelation that one of the world's most wanted men was chilling out in a Pakistani suburb of a military town 50 miles from the capital what are your thoughts on Pakistan and its goverment? Many elements here in this country have taken to painting Pakistan in an extremely negative light, essentially saying the government and by extension the country has been completely complicit in this and other obfuscations in this so called alliance with the US.

I think back to stories in the past that have shown a government that is divided on itself, there seem to be radical elements in the government that are completely at odds with the public face it wants to present to the world. Add to that the fact that it was only recently under a military junta and when it tried to go democratic things got very ugly you get the picture of a government where it would be very easy to have rogue elements doing things that would be hard to discover or if discovered there was little the government could do about it without touching off strife within the administration. Say for example the Pakistani secret service shooting on Pakistani military forces.

Is this portrayal of a government not truly in control of itself accurate do you think or is it letting the Pakistani's off easy? Are they really complicit in working with terrorist organizations that have great sympathy with the street? Is it simply Pakistan trying to play both sides of the fence, courting the US but also secretly helping out their muslim brothers?

What are your thoughts on this - without devolving into a "Pakistani are traitors" meme.

[Elheru Aran]

The Middle East/Arab world has always been a complicated place politically. It's quite feasible to postulate that the different elements of government in Pakistan are likely up to their own business and only cooperating with each other when it's convenient to them.

The Pakistani government tolerates the American military presence in Afghanistan because they know that in Pakistan vs. the US, they lose-- it's only a question of how long and how much hurt they can put on the US military in that time, but just like Iraq, conventionally the government would fall within weeks probably. It's a simple question of staying in existence.

Are they then 'playing both sides'? Some of the people there almost certainly are; it wouldn't surprise me in the least. Not everybody is, and I doubt the whole government is, obviously. Are they aware of what's going on with whom? Maybe; at least some people are in the know. Are *we* aware? It wouldn't surprise me if somewhere in the CIA they've got papers and testimonies that they could pull out to provide hard evidence that people in the Pakistani military or government are offering assistance to al Qaeda or the Taliban.

I don't believe it's as large an amount of assistance as would justify attacking Pakistan, though-- I imagine it's more along the lines of local military commanders occasionally deciding to turn a blind eye to Taliban movements or quietly allowing a supply depot to be raided, intelligence officers blocking American access to data, etc. Individual actions in other words, not an organized effort backed by the Pakistani government.

Along the same lines, while individual Pakistani officers may be complicit in terrorist acts such as the train bombings in Mumbai, I don't think it's anything that you can honestly blame the entire government for. They're not responsible for the actions of individuals.

So, is Pakistan a friend of the US? Not really. 'Ally of convenience' is the better description... sort of like the skinny little guy in a gang who's picked on by everybody and would dearly love to shank them in the back, but doesn't for fear of getting killed. Playing nice and not picking fights... but not exerting much effort to stop them.

[Simon_Jester]

Unless someone finds evidence connecting Pakistan to a major terrorist attack on American soil, it is flat out not worth the risk of picking a fight with them, mostly because of the nuclear capability but also because an American/American-plus-allies attempt to occupy the country would be a disaster. The population is five times that of Iraq, large areas of the country are mountainous and by custom lawless with long experience as guerilla fighters, and an invasion would give the fundamentalist elements in Pakistan the perfect recruiting environment.

We'd have to be out of our minds to attack them unless they had managed to commit a truly great crime against us. "Sheltering Osama bin Laden," to the extent that Pakistani complicity in that seems likely, is not a great enough crime.

[Big Phil]

Simon, who is suggesting a military invasion of Pakistan?

[Simon_Jester]

I don't know, but if word gets out of any connection between bin Laden and Pakistan, I'd be willing to bet on plenty of jingoists being dumb enough to propose it. Thing is, because of that we can't really resort to ultima ratio regum against Pakistan- and that puts some very sharp limits on exactly how much anyone can do about their actions.

Which does color the whole question of what they're doing and just how much complicity is involved. There's a difference between a government in which one faction conspires to help the terrorists while the rest of the government is strongly opposed to the terrorists, and one where one faction conspires to help the terrorists while the rest of the government shrugs and ignores them because they're not worried about being attacked over the aid supplied to terrorists.

Imagine if Serbia'd had something like Pakistan's deterrent capability in 1914- would they have been more involved in supporting renegades outside their borders, or less? I'd go with "more."

[Skgoa]

When I hear people in the US media rant about how Pakistan is somehow responsible for so many terrorists hiding there, I always wonder how I managed to miss the US invading Germany as revenge for providing the 9/11 attackers a staging ground... That Bin Laden managed to hide under there noses is a proof of their incompetence/negligence, and not a proof that the pakistani president lied when he said he didn't know where Bin Laden was, as at least Maddow and Stewart seem to believe.

[Broomstick]

My feeling on Pakistan is that it's a mix of many things: those who want to work with the US and those who want to oppose it, those who are corrupt and those who are competent and those who are incompetent.

I do believe there were people in the government/military aiding bin Laden. There were others turning a blind eye to goings-on for plausible deniability. There were others who just didn't know.

Politics and international relations can be an ugly, dirty business involving compromise that is both distasteful and necessary. If the benefits of working with Pakistan outweigh the liabilities then the US should work with them. If not, this may be a time to alter relations between the two. That doesn't mean "attack!", just to be clear - we can draw back from helping them and working with them without resorting to violence.

I do hope those making such decisions are rational, logical, and not hasty, however, as the consequences of making a wrong choice could be extremely... unpleasant.

It also would not surprise me if certain military and political people in the Pakistani government have suddenly disappeared in the wake of bin Laden's death, fearing the consequences of aiding him.

[Shroom Man 777]

Pakistan is in a very shitty condition. Consider that AQ and the other extremist factions can seemingly assassinate on whim so many politicians who dissent against their extremism, and how many politicians who stood up for civil rights and religious equality are dead. I think they're pretty screwed up. The floods have ruined them, sectarian violence and extremism is gonna ruin them some more, they're going to be the next crapola in a region chock full of 'em. They need help so badly.

[Spice Runner]

Speaking from an Indian perspective, I think Pakistan is in a rather bad situation at the moment, economically, socially and politically. There is a lot of division in the country as to what direction take going forward. There are many that want reform and equality, but there are also many who want to embrace extremism and intolerance.

Stepping back and looking at the larger picture, the more Pakistan feels antagonized by the U.S., the closer Pakistan is moves to their ally China. I think that is a good thing as China is continues to make tremendous investments in Pakistan's infrastructure and other areas. Although Pakistan is reliant to a large extent to the aid provided by the U.S., I don't see why Pakistan cannot simply look to China to replace the U.S. for aid.

Also I think now is a great time for India to settle some long standing issues with Pakistan such as Kashmir and economic issues. There has already been an open dialogue between both governments and India recently shared intel on the 2007 Samjhauta express bombings with Pakistan where corrupt Indian army elements bombed a cross border train to disrupt relations. Pakistan has also recently agreed to share intel about the 2008 Mumbai suspects. There are several new ideas being floated around about a resolution to the Kashmir issue. If we can see some warming of relations this may lessen some of the support inside Pakistan for using extremists groups as "assets" in a larger geopolitical game on the subcontinent.

However the rotten core still remains. There will still be those ideologues in the Pakistan army and ISI intelligence service who will sympathize with and support the various extremist groups. Also many of these groups do provide charitable, education and other services which the Pakistan government is simply unable to provide. For example the Laskhar e Taiba group runs schools, charities, health clinics among other services under the name Jamaat-ud-Dawa. Then there is Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTPE or Pakistan Taliban for short) who is running a campaign of weekly bombings in Pakistan.

Until the Pakistan government takes a more active role in governing and providing services these various groups will continue to have free reign within the country. The consensus in Pakistan is that the current PakistanPeoplesParty coalition government has pretty much failed in its job to effectively governing the country. On the bright side there is a major election coming up in 2013. Hopefully we might see a more powerful civilian government voted into power that might actually stand up the powerful army and ISI interests.

[Crown]

This is a bit of a 'cheat' (quoting myself) but since no one picked up on this tangent in the OBL is dead thread, this seems a good place as any to bring it up;

Unless I've missed it (which is quite possible since I'm not obsessing over Osama's death), I'm surprised that India isn't making a song and dance about Pakistan at the moment. Wasn't it the Indian PM who once said; "When is America going to realise that every terrorist bomb that explodes has a 'Made in Pakistan' sticker on it?"

It bears some thought surely? Funding Islamic fundamentalism has had a very real way of blowing up in people's faces before, exactly how long until the Indian's officials statement stop being hyperbole (when talking about the wider world and Islamic terrorism and not just India and Islamic terrorism where that statement is obviously true), and start being prophetic?

[Crown]

Pakistan has also recently agreed to share intel about the 2008 Mumbai suspects.

Shouldn't be hard to do, since the ISI planned the thing/trained the people that did it IIRC ...

[Broomstick]

As several people have pointed out, Pakistan is in a messed up, chaotic state in many respects. The problem with doing anything is that there is the possibility of making things even worse - but not doing anything could have the same effect.

I would like to see Pakistan and India develop better relations. Having those two as adversarial neighbors benefits no one (except those who thrive on war).

To some extent, the governments seeking to work with the Pakistan government have to realize that there are some sharply different factions working against each other within that country, and they all have a slice of real power. If you don't understand that, you won't be able to get anywhere and you might as well not bother.

[Sidewinder]

Stepping back and looking at the larger picture, the more Pakistan feels antagonized by the U.S., the closer Pakistan is moves to their ally China. I think that is a good thing as China is continues to make tremendous investments in Pakistan's infrastructure and other areas. Although Pakistan is reliant to a large extent to the aid provided by the U.S., I don't see why Pakistan cannot simply look to China to replace the U.S. for aid.

Problems with China replacing the US as Pakistan's most important ally:

1) Chinese aid ALSO comes with its own strings attached, as many African nations learned the hard way (see Africa-Asia Confidential).

2) China has a significant Muslim minority, and its own problems with Islamist terrorists (see the East Turkestan Islamic Movement).

3) I doubt Pakistan is as important an ally to China, as it is to the US. If its government becomes unstable- say, Pakistan starts and then loses another war with India, leading to public demonstrations against the president- the US is likely to do whatever it can to support the President of Pakistan. China, on the other hand, will likely throw Pakistan to the wolves.

Unless I've missed it (which is quite possible since I'm not obsessing over Osama's death), I'm surprised that India isn't making a song and dance about Pakistan at the moment. Wasn't it the Indian PM who once said; "When is America going to realise that every terrorist bomb that explodes has a 'Made in Pakistan' sticker on it?"

This ignores the fact bin Laden was born in SAUDI ARABIA, like many of the 9-11 terrorists- not Pakistan. Of course, the US can't just go invade Saudi Arabia for this, any more than Saudi Arabia can declare war on the US for the bullshit that bin Laden blames the US for. International politics can best be described as a "clusterfuck" right now.

[Broomstick]

International politics can best be described as a "clusterfuck" right now.

My impression is that international politics have always been thus.

[Sarevok]

Indian contribution would go towards making Pakistan sane and stable. Part of the reason why ISI/Army get away with what they do is India. Pakistan in an extreme case of what could happen with the dilemma about security at any cost. The ISI and Army can justify anything they do in the name of national security. If anyone seeks to curtail their power then that individual or group can be dismissed as unpatriotic traitors.

Pakistan's unrealistic self image as a rival of India has driven country towards a schizophrenic mental state. Remember that the enemy sees themselves as the heroes in their own story. The people who sheltered Bin laden ? They probably see Laden helping them in their fights involving Kashmir. For them it's not about being evil but rather heroically liberating what they see as an occupied lands. Understandings the enemies motivations goes a long way towards removing his will to fight anymore. I think India has the biggest role to play here. Pakistans problems started with India and ends with them. External factors like US got dragged into this fight but they cant end it

[Simon_Jester]

It doesn't help that India is much larger than Pakistan, which requires the Pakistanis to exert far more effort to match a given level of effort by India. To maintain some kind of military parity, Pakistan winds up becoming much more of a "security at all costs" state than its rival.

[Sarevok]

Yeah. This is why unlike India Pakistan has not officially declared a "No First Use" policy about nuclear weapons. On contrary there are hints nuclear weapons will be used if during a war Pakistan's military is pushed back too far.

[madd0ct0r]

Well yeah, it's one of the few case's where MAD is useful defense tactic.

Nobody want's to see Pakistan fail.

By buddying up to America, the USA has a vested interest in the status quo. India dosen't really want a war, peace is too profitable. Same for China.
(None of them necessarily want a prosperous Pakistan though, just a stable one)
There's a lot of local jockeying and bombast, but short of enough outright lunatics taking power, there is no need for war.

of course, same could have been said for germany before WW1.

[Shroom Man 777]

Problems with China replacing the US as Pakistan's most important ally:

1) Chinese aid ALSO comes with its own strings attached, as many African nations learned the hard way (see Africa-Asia Confidential).

Those strings aren't connected to UCAVs that blow the shit up in Pakistan and make the people there pissed off about Pakistan's supposed ally. Those strings don't belong to a nation engaged in a neighboring war that's causing crapola to spill over and ruin crap in Pakistan.

2) China has a significant Muslim minority, and its own problems with Islamist terrorists (see the East Turkestan Islamic Movement).

How big is this compared to other terrorist movements?

3) I doubt Pakistan is as important an ally to China, as it is to the US. If its government becomes unstable- say, Pakistan starts and then loses another war with India, leading to public demonstrations against the president- the US is likely to do whatever it can to support the President of Pakistan. China, on the other hand, will likely throw Pakistan to the wolves.

How is a government that is less willing to support a regime or leader who will repress or quash his own people be a bad thing?

Let me translate:

"public demonstrations against the president- the US is likely to do whatever it can to support prop up the President of Pakistan against the Pakistani people's will"

" China, on the other hand, will likely throw Pakistan to thewolves protesting people rather than propping up a regime, America-style"

How is that a bad thing? You make China sound like a class act, and make America sound like the normal regime-propping... *removes a lot of unpleasant words*... that it is.

This ignores the fact bin Laden was born in SAUDI ARABIA, like many of the 9-11 terrorists- not Pakistan. Of course, the US can't just go invade Saudi Arabia for this, any more than Saudi Arabia can declare war on the US for the bullshit that bin Laden blames the US for. International politics can best be described as a "clusterfuck" right now.

You can't invade a country just because the terrorist was born there.

What does bin Laden's place of birth have to do with anything? He learned how to fight and kill in Afghanistan, and operated there for the majority of his career as a jihadist? Or traveled the Middle East and operated in other countries that aren't the KSA, before settling down in Pakistan and being sheltered by the Pakistanis until the Americans killed him.

His being born in SAUDI ARABIA has as much to do with his acts as Austria has in Schwarzenegger's motorcycle accidents.

Well, technically a lot of Saudis support terrorist activities and the Saudi regime is shit, so my comparison is inaccurate. But hey, it wasn't Saudi intelligence that was aiding and abetting and renting condos out to OBL.

To be honest, I bet the amount of back-biting back-stabbing shit the KSA does as an "ally" to the USA is probably no more or less than the amount of back-biting back-stabbing shit the Pakistani does also as an "ally" to the USA.

[Broomstick]

"public demonstrations against the president- the US is likely to do whatever it can to support prop up the President of Pakistan against the Pakistani people's will"

" China, on the other hand, will likely throw Pakistan to thewolves protesting people rather than propping up a regime, America-style"

How is that a bad thing? You make China sound like a class act, and make America sound like the normal regime-propping... *removes a lot of unpleasant words*... that it is.

The problem with your reasoning is that sometimes the people who want to replace the current corrupt regime are worse than the guys currently in charge. Sure, if a popular protest results in a better government, great, but it doesn't always work that way.

And the US doesn't prop up their guys at all costs - they let Mubarrak twist in the wind after a certain point, for example.

China, on the other hand, has been known to drive tanks over unarmed people sleeping in tents, so it's not like they're particularly responsive to their own people, much less anyone else's. They're not so much better than the US than different.

What does bin Laden's place of birth have to do with anything? He learned how to fight and kill in Afghanistan, and operated there for the majority of his career as a jihadist? Or traveled the Middle East and operated in other countries that aren't the KSA, before settling down in Pakistan and being sheltered by the Pakistanis until the Americans killed him.

His being born in SAUDI ARABIA has as much to do with his acts as Austria has in Schwarzenegger's motorcycle accidents.

Saudi Arabia may have produced him, but they pretty much repudiated him. They revoked his citizenship and wanted him dead as much as the US did. Do we really need to walk down the road of guilt by association, and guilt by accidental relation to a bad guy?

To be honest, I bet the amount of back-biting back-stabbing shit the KSA does as an "ally" to the USA is probably no more or less than the amount of back-biting back-stabbing shit the Pakistani does also as an "ally" to the USA.

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are out for their own interests, no one else's. They will happily work against the interests of any other nation if it serves their purposes and they think they can get away with it.

[Sarevok]

Thing is Saudis wanted Bin Laden dead because he is a potential usurper against the throne. Not because they disagree against his extreme morality. The Saudi royals and their rule is not much different from what Bin Laden preaches. The only reason Bin laden hates his kin is because they made a few pragmatic decisions like allowing Americans in the country.

[Big Orange]

Pakistan is not a monolithic group, it sounds like a fairly small number of men high up in Pakistani's government who harboured/imprisoned Osama Bin Laden for cynical purposes; it demonstrates that the Pakistani state is deeply corrupt, inept, infiltrated and fractured, but not going out of its way to officially attack the US. And in the last decade Pakistan has already gone right down the crapper, with infighting that's turning into civil war, the war in Afghanistan spilling over the leaky/blurred border and a series of big natural disasters that have broken the back of the country's infrastructure.

And many conservatives in the UK, already unhappy at the UK giving financial aid to troubled countries like Pakistan, are livid now:

Uneasy UK rebuffs calls to cut aid to Pakistan

London: Uneasy with what Prime Minister David Cameron called Osama bin Laden's "extensive support network" in Pakistan, Britain has nonetheless refused to cut its multi-million pounds aid to it that is increasingly recognised as willing or unwilling host to terror groups.

Pakistan is set to be Britain's biggest aid recipient by 2015. However, aid to the country – GBP 350 million per year over four years - is tied to the country making progress on reform, tackling corruption and building a more dynamic economy.


After the killing of bin Laden in the shadow of military academy in Abbottabad, there have been many demands from people to cut British aid to Pakistan, including ruling Conservative MPs such as Philip Davies.

He said: "It seems to me that there are certainly some questions about how much Pakistani security forces knew about the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden.”

“Why on earth we would want to be giving billions of pounds to them when there are suspicions they knew about Osama bin Laden's whereabouts for years, God only knows. It is not a country I think we should be giving money to."


Cameron, who famously said during his visit to India last year that Pakistan should not "look both ways" on the issue of terrorism, told MPs in the House of Commons that this was not the time to turn away from Pakistan.

Delivering a vote of confidence in Pakistan's political leadership, in spite of his acknowledging that there were "unanswered questions" over bin Laden's "extensive support network," he said. Britain will ask searching questions on the issue.

He said: "I believe it is in Britain's national interest to recognise that we share the same struggle against terrorism. That's why we will continue to work with our Pakistani counterparts on intelligence gathering, tracing plots and taking action to stop them."

He added: "We don't know the extent of that network so it is right that we ask searching questions about it and we will. Of course there are frustrations and questions that will be asked about who knew what in Pakistan and how could this man live in such a large house in such a comfortable-looking community so close to military installations."

In a statement, International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell said: "British aid to Pakistan is not just aid from Britain, but also aid for Britain.”

“It is in Britain's national interest to help tackle the root causes of extremism such as poverty, inequality and lack of education.”

“Thanks to British taxpayers, another four million children will be educated over the next four years in Pakistan. If you are a child in Karachi, your chance of getting an education is currently worse than in any other city in the world."

Link

[Broomstick]

Thing is Saudis wanted Bin Laden dead because he is a potential usurper against the throne. Not because they disagree against his extreme morality. The Saudi royals and their rule is not much different from what Bin Laden preaches. The only reason Bin laden hates his kin is because they made a few pragmatic decisions like allowing Americans in the country.

So Saudi Arabia has different motivations than the US for wanting bin Laden dead, and the bin Laden hates the US and Saudis for different reasons - allies don't need the same reasons to team up, and allies don't have to much like or agree with one another if they have a common goal.

Of course, once a common goal is achieve, the alliance might go to hell... but probably not htis one. Still too many mutal interests.

[Metahive]

My enemy's enemies are my enemy's enemies, they're not my friends. Teaming up with one evil against another should always be the last resort and never the default option. Saudi-Arabia's vile Wahhabism is one of the main export goods of the kingdom, right after crude oil. That alone should make them allies only in the most extreme of cases.

[Broomstick]

So you're saying the US should cut all ties with the Saudis, or something?

You do realize that they've got the US by the petroleum short hairs, yes? Unless the US can shake it's oil addiction that will continue as long as the Saudis have oil.

As for allying with enemies - we did that with the USSR during WWII, and it was to the mutual benefit of both sides. We didn't have to do that, and neither did they - but it sure was damn convenient. Hence, "ally of convenience".