Pakistan- what next?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Rumpelstiltskin, May 12, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Be handy if it distracted 'foriegn fighters' from crossing over the border to our neck of the woods.

    I fear we're still the preferred target though.

    What are Chaudry's political leanings?

    If there is conflict in Pakistan, will that affect the number crossing into Afghanistan, or the focus of the extremist groups in the area?

    What next? Likely Pakistan will remain a dictatorship and USA will support the dictator.

    However, there is another option,20867,21378237-2703,00.html

    In this case though the affair could end by hard-core islamists at power in Islamabad. Taking into account that Pakistan has nuclear weapons...

    So, any interference is too risky.
  3. Good links Sergei. More here:
    click bottom for more.

    Essential question is, is Mush keeping a lid on the Islamists, or is his dictatorship encouraging them by stifling legitimate political dissent?

    Are we in a lose-lose situation here?

    If Pakistan fell apart, would there be an argument for a Pashtunistan, composed of the ungovernable S. of Afg and the ungovernable N. of Pak? Hermetically sealed from the rest of the world, and non-nuclear...

    I reckon Central Asia needs a Congress of Berlin, sharpish. Our UK/Russian Great Gaming (plus Stalin's redrawing of map in the various 'Stans) wasn't greatly handled, in retrospect...
  4. Sister Condy can say what she likes pour encourager les autres but the reality is that the US is 'fur coat and no knickers'. She knows that they won't take a blind bit of notice and neither would she want them to. Musharraf may not be quite the military strongman they would want but he is their military strongman.
  5. I suppose that gen.Musharraf is controlling the islamists by allowing (if not ecouraging) to faight agains USA and NATO in Afghanistan. So their energy is being spent mainly not in internal political battlefield but outside the country.

    It depends on the definitions of 'victory' and 'defeat' in Pakistan. If the main objective is American interests (and it's a logical objective) then there are good chances to 'win'. If so called 'true democracy' is meant then the most probable result is the 'defeat'.

    I don't think that Pakistan would break up (at least in the near future).

    I believe that the best solution would be preseving of current borders in central Asia. There are too many other problems in the region to create new ones.
  6. Rather they would want he is their b@s+@**
  7. When you consider that more than 50% of Pakistan's territory (IIRC) is in more or less open armed revolt against the state, I'd suggest its stability leaves much to be desired.

    And, further north, aren't the ineptly-drawn borders part of the problem? Though I recognise Russia has every reason to leave this Pandora's Box well alone. Ditto China & Xinjiang/E Turkestan
  8. Absolutely. I'm sure the US would be well aware that they play with the hornets' nest that is Pakistan at their peril. Lose Musharraf and as sure as night follows day the military will get back involved properly and one general isn't necessarily like another. Remember it was Zia that brought in Sharia law.
  9. I guess that stability of the borders in the region is in common interests. While there are more Tadjiks in Afghanistan than in Tadjikistan unlikely the Great Tadjikistan would emerge and Afghani Uzbesks unlikely would join to Uzbekistan. Pushtuns always have their state - Afghanistan. Pushtuns in tribal areas of Pakistan don't want independence (at least there is no movement for it). They rather seek more autonomy.

    Indeed Russia (it was called Soviet union that time) had a very negative expereince in Afghanistan. While from military point of view the war was essentially successfull, politically it was a disaster and in fact stimulated collapse of USSR.

    Russia just has agreed new gas and oil pipe-lines with Turkmenistan and Kazakstan. So Russian influence in central Asia rather is growing.

    Influnce of China in the region still is not huge. For China Kazakhstan is the most interesting country form many points of view. Kazakstan is a stable state with fast developing economy. However, Chinese investments here are not very big. I suppose that China would be more involved in central Asia, but later.

    As for USA, then our American friends are losing their position in the region step by step and inevitable withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan would be another mark of this process.
  10. From the Telegraph.

    This can't be good news.

    Pakistan has atomic weapons and the means to deliver them.

    It has, up until now, either been compliant or capable of making a satisfactory pretense of being compliant with the wishes of Washington.

    Chaos gripped the streets of Karachi yesterday as gun battles left at least 31 people dead and hundreds more injured, threatening a complete breakdown of law and order in Pakistan's largest and most volatile city.

    It was the bloodiest escalation of the two-month long saga which began when the president attempted to sack the country's chief justice in March. The ensuing challenge by lawyers and opposition parties to Gen Musharraf's eight-year rule has left the president - a key Western ally in the "war on terror" - desperately clinging to power.

    Opponents believe he had hoped to create a compliant judiciary ahead of elections which he has promised to hold later this year. But what started as a political confrontation has now lit Karachi's tinderbox of ethnic rivalry.

    Yesterday's violence erupted as Iftikhar Chaudhry, the suspended chief justice, flew in to Karachi Jinah International Airport to address a rally.

    "Pakistan on brink of disaster as Karachi burns" by Isambard Wilkinson and Massoud Ansari in Karachi, Sunday Telegraph
    Last Updated: 11:37pm BST 12/05/2007;jsessionid=Z3XGKJGCKUALVQFIQMGCFF4AVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/05/13/wpak13.xml
  11. Agree with you there Dixie....... Any unstable nation with a nuclear capability is not a good idea. Be interesting to see what the US says about this... not doubt it wil park a carrier fleet off said nations shores and threaten them with UN Sanctions 8O 8O
  12. Probably should have the Indians go in during the chaos and grab the nuclear weapons. :)
  13. The U.S. would most definatly encourage Indian attacks on Pakistan if it thought it in its own short and blinkered interest. But not one to smile about I would have thought.