• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Instability In Pakistan- Merged Thread

Vern corruption is a way of life in that part of the world and Bhutto wasnt any different,thats not to say that she might not have been a capable leader. You have to remember that in their culture having a woman as leader would be anathema to the religious conservatives.Throw in her statements against AQ/Taliban and there was plenty of incentive to kill her. The plus from their standpoint is chaos in the political arena which may cause blowback to Musharraf. By trying to kill off the major competition the islamists might be looking for more gains in Parliament or even positioning a conservative politician to be in line to takeover.This is the Syrian modus operendi kill your opposition to improve the position of your chosen candidate.
 
T6,

So I would Imagine that the army on the streets IS a more stable alternative.

Sometimes I have often wondered what would Iraq be like today had Saddam not been removed. While he routinely thumbbed his nose at the west, and was a brutal dictator, he did keep that country and its population in line.  Brutal way of going about it, but in line. Now, AQ/Insurgents have the run of the place. A breeding ground for who knows what.

Same thing I would apply to Pakistan. Not that the west would be interested in Musharraf's removal, but if somehow, he was assassinated, or stepped down, who would fill the void? Who would keep that population in check? With some of the stats posted on these news articles, over 50% of the population are anti American?

I am being rather general with my opinion, but should that western backed government of Musharraf fall, what would we be facing? TO me, his only option IS to put the army on the streets. Democratic and free elections are going to have to wait.
 
tomahawk6 said:
Vern corruption is a way of life in that part of the world and Bhutto wasnt any different,thats not to say that she might not have been a capable leader. You have to remember that in their culture having a woman as leader would be anathema to the religious conservatives.Throw in her statements against AQ/Taliban and there was plenty of incentive to kill her. The plus from their standpoint is chaos in the political arena which may cause blowback to Musharraf. By trying to kill off the major competition the islamists might be looking for more gains in Parliament or even positioning a conservative politician to be in line to takeover.This is the Syrian modus operendi kill your opposition to improve the position of your chosen candidate.

I agree with you 100% regarding the corruption and general cultural ideals at play. I STILL find it ironic that a reporter would argue a country better off with a military dicatator-general who loves to repress the population when it suits his agenda as better for democracy than someone who, although not perfect, did embrace the democratic process and allow the people to speak to it.

I'm quite convinced that her disclosure of being acceptable to allowing US forces to attack Al-Qaida encampments within Pakistan's borders provided a HUGE impetus in her assasination. Most of us knew it was only a matter of time.

I suggest that this reporter did as well. Why is it that? Why did we know that it was only a matter of time? Because, even with corruption allegations etc dodging her, she would have been a more acceptable democratic alternative to the current regime who, admittedly, was quite willing to step up the fight against the Islamic radicals and terrorists who are currently being harboured within Pakistan's borders.

Being female? Not so much I'd wager. It may have been a factor with the extremists, but not with the general population of Pakistan who have elected her twice before.

I wonder how many of the moderate Ismalics are today viewing her as a martyr? I'd wager quite a few million. Another ironic twist in the land of jihadi and Al-Qaida made martyrs -- for the opposite reasons.

 
If Musharraf goes another General will takeover. If a civil war errupts I suspect that the radicals could come to power. For that to happen there has to be one central leader for all to rally around if that person emerges then the game could be over. Other than OBL I dont see one Mullah or politician with the street cred to pull it off, at this point in time. A plan is in place to prevent the nuclear arsenal from falling into the hands of the radicals and to destroy the ballistic missiles. There is a Plan B and a Plan C as well. India will not tolerate an islamist government in Islamabad. The fall of Musharraf could ignite war with India. I dont see many positives in the event that Musharraf is killed or flee's the country.
 
The radicalization of Pakistan's youth has occured to a much greater degree since the last time she won an election. In today's climate I am not sure that she could have won with multiple candidates in the race.As for Musharraf being a bad guy because he is a dictator I dont buy it. A civilian couldnt run the country without the support of the military,which is also the same type of relationship between the Turkish political parties and the Turkish Army.The rise of the islamists in Pakistan is quite troubling and wont be going away without bloodshed.
 
tomahawk6 said:
The radicalization of Pakistan's youth has occured to a much greater degree since the last time she won an election. In today's climate I am not sure that she could have won with multiple candidates in the race.As for Musharraf being a bad guy because he is a dictator I dont buy it. A civilian couldnt run the country without the support of the military,which is also the same type of relationship between the Turkish political parties and the Turkish Army.The rise of the islamists in Pakistan is quite troubling and wont be going away without bloodshed.

Well, as I said earlier ... we'll never know now will we?

As for Musharref ... yes he and his supporting military are doing a lovely job dealing with Islamists, in that they aren't. Lots of aires about it though. There's a man that can speak out of both sides of his mouth simultaneously; leading to another irony in that, in a truley democratic world -- he'd have made a wonderful politician.
 
They are doing quiet a bit of fighting against islamists lately, last month offensive had alot of casualties on both sides. There is just so much going on in that country it is hard to concentrate on one thing. Uprisings, securing cities and borders, Kashmir etc.

Bhutto was very weak when she was prime minister before, don't forget the ISI supported the Taliban when she was in office on her second term. She was in self imposed exile for years, why would she be any stronger now than before? She would have been a bad replacement for Musharaf.
 
meni0n said:
They are doing quiet a bit of fighting against islamists lately, last month offensive had alot of casualties on both sides. There is just so much going on in that country it is hard to concentrate on one thing. Uprisings, securing cities and borders, Kashmir etc.

Bhutto was very weak when she was prime minister before, don't forget the ISI supported the Taliban when she was in office on her second term. She was in self imposed exile for years, why would she be any stronger now than before? She would have been a bad replacement for Musharaf.

I didn't mean to infer that she would be stronger than before IF elected again --

I did mean to infer that she expressed an open willingness to allow the US to attack Al-Qaida within Pakistan's borders (thereby giving that nation a much needed boost in assistance in addressing those very concerns about all the "stuff going on there" that you have mentioned above).

Musharraf ... he's had years now to do this ... but continues on his merry way with that "little bit of fighting" ... Yes, he does talk the good talk to both the East and the West out of both sides of his mouth. Every so often, he antes up a little attack upon a small portion of those being harboured within the borders for the benefit of the West -- doesn't equate to one actually trying to do something serious to address the problem. That just equals a game of cat and mouse which is entirely dependant upon whether he's concerned with what the West or the extremists think that day.
 
And, as if we're not busy enough over there, shared with the usual disclaimer....

Border duty could shift to NATO after Bhutto death
Saira Peesker, CTV.ca, 28 Dec 07, updated 18:02 ET
Article link

Plunged into chaos after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, NATO troops may soon be working double duty in the lawless border region between Pakistsan and Afghanistan.

Until now, the 41,700-strong NATO force fighting Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan has relied heavily on Pakistan's help to control the flow of insurgents over the lawless border between the two countries.

Prolonged instability following Thursday's assassination of the former prime minister could leave NATO's already strained forces with more responsibility in the dangerous region, says a former Canadian high commissioner to Pakistan.

"If the Pakistani government is occupied with trying to stay afloat, it will be much less concerned with the Taliban and the people in the tribal areas," Louis Delvoie, a former Canadian diplomat in Pakistan, told CTV.ca.

"For Canadians operating in Kandahar province, the solution is not going to come from Pakistan."

Pakistan has been rocked with chaos since the suicide attack on the moderate-leaning Bhutto, who died along with 20 others during a campaign stop leading up to the Jan. 8 elections.

President Pervez Musharraf will now likely turn his attention to regaining political stability -- away from quelling the flow of fighters, weapons and money towards the Taliban, the Islamist group struggling to regain power after being overthrown by a U.S.-led coalition in 2001.

Worry among the troops

Currently, about 100,000 Pakistani troops patrol the border, which at 1,500 kms. is approximately as long as the divide between the United States and Mexico.

According to CTV's Murray Oliver, who is stationed with Canadian troops in Afghanistan's Kandahar province, many soldiers believe border control could simply evaporate without Pakistani assistance.

"Behind the scenes, definitely there is a lot of worry, a lot of concern," Oliver told CTV's Canada AM on Friday.

"(The) Pakistani troops... are just about the only thing that manage to go keep al Qaeda and Taliban forces from moving freely back and forth into Afghanistan."

If things were to seriously escalate, Canada might even find its 2,500 troops stuck in Afghanistan, according to foreign affairs expert Eric Margolis.

"Pakistan is the world's staging area for military operations in Afghanistan and if things get too bad, these NATO forces could be isolated," he told CTV Newsnet on Thursday.

Insurgency could change focus

While many observers say the situation in Pakistan is bad news for Canadian troops, one retired general thinks otherwise.

Much like Pakistan's troops may be pulled away from the border regions, the insurgents may also be drawn into the fray in central Pakistan, suggested Canadian Maj.-Gen. (Ret.) Lewis MacKenzie -- one of the few experts predicting the threat to NATO soldiers in the region could actually decrease.

"If anything, I think it will be less threatening to our troops," he told CTV.ca on Friday.

"The folks up there on the northwest frontier enjoy killing infidels, but would enjoy a lot more taking over Pakistan. It's not going to happen, but I imagine it's their strategic intent."

MacKenzie said he expects many of the region's insurgents to be drawn into a war for power in central Pakistan, with the potential to reverse the direction of the flow of militants.

"It's fun running around Afghanistan taking on NATO, but it doesn't accomplish all that much for them," he said.

Musharraf seen as minimally effective

Despite the large number of Pakistani soldiers stationed in the border regions, international pressure has continued to rain on Musharraf to do more to quell the flow of fighters, who are often trained at facilities in Pakistan's lawless tribal regions.

Despite earning the support of the U.S. government in exchange for using Pakistan as a base for Afghanistan operations, the former army leader has continually failed to uphold his promise to stifle Taliban bases within Pakistan, said University of Toronto political science professor Aurel Braun.

"The government of Musharraf promised time and again they were going to both bring about democracy in Pakistan and fight extremism in Pakistan, particularly the lands adjoining Afghanistan," he told CTV Newsnet on Friday. "The Musharraf government has done neither.

"We have coddled a dictatorial regime in the hope they will be changed . . . What is very important here is... for the rest of us to learn the right kind of lessons. Among these lessons I would suggest is that we look for alternatives to dictators."

Protecting Canadian forces

Canada's military must prepare for a worst-case scenario, said Braun, something that may eventually involve pushing into Pakistan itself.

"At some point, NATO might have no choice but to act in a trans-border fashion in Pakistan in order to protect the emerging democracy in Afghanistan and to protect its own forces," he said.

That, however, would involve an increase in troops -- a long, labourious process that involves parliamentary approval and months of politics.

As far as MacKenzie is concerned, the current situation is only one of many worthwhile reasons that NATO countries should dedicate more troops to Afghanistan.

"If this doesn't stimulate them to commit more troops, nothing will," he said, noting there's little the current deployment of soldiers could do to prepare for an influx of insurgents.

"The consciousness of a possible increase in threat is probably keeping them busy, but there's very little they can do. They just don't have the resources... You don't talk about going on alert in a war zone, you're on alert all the time."
 
Me thinks AQ/TB forces seem to be gaining strength and momentum.

This war will be 7 yrs old in 2008, and it has not really even begun yet, IMHO anyways.

Pakistan is going to get worse. Ole Pervez has had AQ/TB attacks against him, as he is seen as a western sympathiser or puppet by many. 160,000,000 people, many already radicalised, now a power vacuum, and some bitter and beyond twisted feelings between many.

In deed, a very dangerous place, and not getting better.

Yes, we should be concerned about the security of the +100 nukes these people have.

Regards,

Wes
 
So the best options for the west, for the war on terror, to maintain stability in the region..... is for Musharraf to maintain his power, put troops on the streets, or declare marshall law. For all the criticism from the west for him doing so a month ago, it seems to be what is needed. Failure to rein in the islamists through every means possible will only result in the fall of that government and a very big win for the terrorists, which, IMHO, who are winning the biggest aspect of this..... the propaganda war. After all, even if all the top AQ/Taliban leaders are caught or killed......how are we to stop the ideology of extreamism? We are powerless to stop it, IMHO.
 
Cheshire said:
So the best options for the west, for the war on terror, to maintain stability in the region..... is for Musharraf to maintain his power, put troops on the streets, or declare marshall law. For all the criticism from the west for him doing so a month ago, it seems to be what is needed. Failure to rein in the islamists through every means possible will only result in the fall of that government and a very big win for the terrorists, which, IMHO, who are winning the biggest aspect of this..... the propaganda war. After all, even if all the top AQ/Taliban leaders are caught or killed......how are we to stop the ideology of extreamism? We are powerless to stop it, IMHO.

I hope that you're not suggesting above that Musharraf is actually going to attempt "rein in Islamists through every means possible." I fail to see why he would start now.  His failure to seriously attempt to rein them in thus far is a big factor in why their radical ways are and have been spreading amongst the population.

The criticism in the west a month ago of his using the Army in the streets was exactly that he was using it against the moderate population -- rather than against the terrorists or Islamacists. I don't see him switching tactics to deal with Al-Qaida or Islamacists any time soon. Ergo, nothing will be solved. The moderate populace may indeed be "made stable" by the callout of the Army ... but you can bet your butt that Al-Qaida and their supporters aren't concerned with the Army holding down the moderates for them while they continue with their actions in the border regions uninhibited.
 
We are powerless to stop it, IMHO.

Powerless?  Unwilling, more like.

The whole thing will have to get alot more frightening
to the europeans before real progress is made.

I fail to see why he would start now.

Good point Vern - maybe he'll run out of other options. >:D
 
There are no good options. One of our democrat presidential hopeful actually suggested that we force Musharraf from power.Absolutely clueless. The one pro-islamist politician left standing is Nawaz Sharif. Anyone begin to see what is going on here ?
 
So Sharif's the guy to watch?

Pakistan's answer to Ahmedinejad?

I agree the Dems seem out to lunch.
When Nancy Pelosi took her new job she immediately
started making refence to the "Arab Nation".

Hand her a towel - She'll toss it in.

 
Flip said:
So Sharif's the guy to watch?

Pakistan's answer to Ahmedinejad?

I agree the Dems seem out to lunch.
When Nancy Pelosi took her new job she immediately
started making refence to the "Arab Nation".

Hand her a towel - She'll toss it in.


:rofl:

Very true Flip! Arab nation, ha!
 
Here is an article from an Indian news outlet which makes for interesting reading. How much of this is accurate?

Monster she created came back to take her life
29 Dec 2007, 0424 hrs IST , Pradeep Thakur , TNN

NEW DELHI: It was the year 1996. Benazir Bhutto as prime minister of Pakistan had asked Pervez Musharraf, then her Director General of Military Operations, to rehabilitate Al Qaida chief Osama bin Laden in Jalalabad from Sudan.

Bin Laden, who had shifted base to the African country after the Afghan war, had been thrown out by Khartoum after intense American pressure. Musharraf brought the Al Qaida mastermind to Jalalabad, a city in eastern Afghanistan, and rehabilitated him.

That — a decade later — Al Qaida should claim responsibility for Bhutto’s assassination marks not just a cruel irony, it also underlines once again the risk of Frankenstein’s monster turning upon the master.

Bhutto’s return to Pakistan this year may have been marked with her claim to wipe out terrorism, but the fact remains that it was her interior minister, Major General (retd) Naseerullah Babar, who played a key role in raising the Taliban and consolidating Al Qaida in Afghanistan. The reason: a desire to secure strategic depth by controlling Pakistan’s western border, and to have a say in future Afghanistan affairs.

The present day terrorism in India, and now turning on Pakistan, can, to an important extent, be traced to that fateful decision taken by the Bhutto government.

Taliban soon became host to a menacing jihadi conglomerate — the Qaida-led International Islamic Front (IIF) — the components of which included anti-India gangs like Lashkar-e-Taiba, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, which later became Jaish-e-Mohhamed, HuJI and others.

The objective of the group was to establish Sharia rule in this important region of Asia, and it was determined to go to any length, even acquire weapons of mass destruction, to realise it.

After the collapse of Taliban post-9/11, this terror infrastructure led by bin Laden moved to Pakistan, and has added to the radicalisation which has claimed so many innocent lives, including that of the former prime minister. A look at the history of militancy in the subcontinent also brings out the fact that Islamic fundamentalism is a direct result of the efforts of hardline Sunni groups to subdue Shias, Ahmadias and others. Fundamentalist Sunni outfits like Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP), which went after Shias, enjoyed the patronage of influential sections of the Pakistan establishment.

There was an overlap of objectives, of course. Former Pakistan president General Zia-ul-Haq, follower of Deobandi sect of Sunnis, set up SSP in 1979 to not only counter the Shias but marginalised pro-democracy forces seeking an end of his brutal military regime.

Some of the radical elements of the SSP parted ways and formed Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) in 1996. LeJ, which is suspected to have carried out the attack on Bhutto at the behest of Al Qaida, is nothing but the armed wing of SSP like Jaish-e-Mohamed and HuJI which had also branched out of SSP. The connections of all jihadi groups with each other are obvious whether they are fighting in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq or India.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Monster_she_created_came_back_to_take_her_life/rssarticleshow/2659917.cms



 
Well that's two mothers of the monster now.

Today it's Bhutto, on Wednesday it was the US due to their support of the mujahadeen during the Russian years.

We can spin anything to have it caused by anyone ... should we neglect the fact that circumstances were different then than they are now.

Perhaps, had the US' crystal ball been fully operational during the Russian years and they could see a couple decades into the future -- things may have been different. And, should Bhutto's crystal ball a decade ago been any clearer than that of the US, she may have made different decisions as well.

It is just so easy to sit back and armchair quarterback with the benefit of hindset revealed by the future's actions.

Actually, let's just flip the blame for birthing the monster all the way back to the British Raj -- for if the Brits had never left ... we may not be where we are today. Now we're up to three mothers -- I'm quite sure there's more.

OBL is OBL -- he is his own beast -- plain and simple.
 
Cheshire said:
So the best options for the west, for the war on terror, to maintain stability in the region..... is for Musharraf to maintain his power, put troops on the streets, or declare marshall law. For all the criticism from the west for him doing so a month ago, it seems to be what is needed. Failure to rein in the islamists through every means possible will only result in the fall of that government and a very big win for the terrorists, which, IMHO, who are winning the biggest aspect of this..... the propaganda war. After all, even if all the top AQ/Taliban leaders are caught or killed......how are we to stop the ideology of extreamism? We are powerless to stop it, IMHO.

Four items in today’s Globe and Mail caught my eye:

1. A lengthy “Essay” by Doug Saunders suggesting, correctly, I suspect, that we have very limited options in Pakistan – none of them very good;

2. An article by columnist Marcus Gee suggesting, again correctly, I think, that “we” (that Western “we” I often say doesn’t really exist) misjudged what Benazir Bhutto might accomplish in some sort of alliance with Musharraf – her credentials were suspect;

3. Another opinion piece, this one by Irshad Manji explaining in a bit more detail why Bhutto represnted the triumph of hope over experience; and

4. Finally, an unscientific poll showing that about ⅔ of the Globe readers who bother to respond to such questions think (the nonexistent) Western “we” should stop giving aid to Pakistan. Saunders, in (1), above, explained why that’s a dumb idea.

I’m afraid that Cheshire is right: Musharraf is the best choice – not an especially good choice, perhaps, but the best of a bad lot, all the same.


 
Back
Top