What's new

Pakistan's collapse, America's problem

Neo

RETIRED

New Recruit

Joined
Nov 1, 2005
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Pakistan's collapse, America's problem
By Frederick W. Kagan and Michael O'Hanlon
Published: November 19, 2007

WASHINGTON: As the government of Pakistan totters, we must face a fact: The United States simply could not stand by as a nuclear-armed Pakistan descended into the abyss. Nor would it be strategically prudent to withdraw our forces from an improving situation in Iraq to cope with a deteriorating one in Pakistan. We need to think - now - about our feasible military options in Pakistan, should it really come to that.

We do not intend to be fear mongers. Pakistan's officer corps and ruling elites remain largely moderate and more interested in building a modern state than in exporting terrorism or nuclear weapons to the highest bidder. But then again, Americans felt similarly about the shah's regime in Iran until it was too late.

Moreover, Pakistan's intelligence services contain enough sympathizers and supporters of the Afghan Taliban, and enough nationalists bent on seizing the disputed province of Kashmir from India, that there are grounds for real worries.

The most likely possible dangers are these: a complete collapse of Pakistani government rule that allows an extreme Islamist movement to fill the vacuum; a total loss of federal control over outlying provinces, which splinter along ethnic and tribal lines; or a struggle within the Pakistani military in which the minority sympathetic to the Taliban and Al Qaeda try to establish Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism.

The scientists speakAnother scary germReform and consumer safety
All possible military initiatives to avoid those possibilities are daunting. With 160 million people, Pakistan is more than five times the size of Iraq. It would take a long time to move large numbers of U.S. forces halfway across the world. And unless we had precise information about the location of all of Pakistan's nuclear weapons and materials, we could not rely on bombing or using Special Forces to destroy them.

The task of stabilizing a collapsed Pakistan is beyond the means of the United States and its allies. Estimates suggest that more than a million troops would be required for a country of this size. Thus, if we have any hope of success, we would have to act before a complete government collapse, and we would need the cooperation of moderate Pakistani forces.

One possible plan would be a Special Forces operation with the limited goal of preventing Pakistan's nuclear materials and warheads from getting into the wrong hands. Given the degree to which Pakistani nationalists cherish these assets, it is unlikely the United States would get permission to destroy them. Somehow, American forces would have to team with Pakistanis to secure critical sites and possibly to move the material to a safer place.

For the United States, the safest bet would be shipping the material to some place like New Mexico; but even pro-American Pakistanis would be unlikely to cooperate. More likely, we would have to settle for establishing a remote redoubt within Pakistan, with the nuclear technology guarded by elite Pakistani forces backed up (and watched over) by crack international troops. It is realistic to think that such a mission might be undertaken within days of a decision to act. The price for rapid action and secrecy, however, would probably be a very small international coalition.

A second, broader option would involve supporting the core of the Pakistani armed forces as they sought to hold the country together in the face of an ineffective government, seceding border regions and Al Qaeda and Taliban assassination attempts against the leadership. This would require a sizable combat force - not only from the United States, but ideally also other Western powers and moderate Muslim nations.

Even if we were not so committed in Iraq and Afghanistan, Western powers would need months to get the troops there. Fortunately, given the longstanding effectiveness of Pakistan's security forces, any process of state decline probably would be gradual, giving us the time to act.

So, if we got a large number of troops into the country, what would they do? The most likely directive would be to help Pakistan's military and security forces hold the country's center - primarily the region around the capital, Islamabad, and the populous areas like Punjab Province to its south.

We would also have to be wary of internecine warfare within the Pakistani security forces. Pro-American moderates could well win a fight against extremist sympathizers on their own. But they might need help if splinter forces or radical Islamists took control of parts of the country containing crucial nuclear materials. The task of retaking any such regions and reclaiming custody of any nuclear weapons would be a priority for our troops.

If a holding operation in the nation's center was successful, we would probably then seek to establish order in the parts of Pakistan where extremists operate. Beyond propping up the state, this would benefit American efforts in Afghanistan by depriving terrorists of the sanctuaries they have long enjoyed in Pakistan's tribal and frontier regions.

The great paradox of the post-Cold War world is that we are both safer, day to day, and in greater peril than before. There was a time when volatility in places like Pakistan was mostly a humanitarian worry; today it is as much a threat to our basic security as Soviet tanks once were. We must be militarily and diplomatically prepared to keep ourselves safe in such a world. Pakistan may be the next big test.

Frederick W. Kagan is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Michael O'Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Pakistan's collapse, America's problem - International Herald Tribune
 
They dont care about musharraf and they sure dont care about Pakistan, all they care is about the nuclear weapons. There long time wish to destroy them seem to turn into a reality no thanks to our political forces both the government and the opposition.
Pakistani people may choose anyone from moderate to extremist, and sure whoever comes in according to the will of the people will rule pakistan and its strategic assets. But to think that a extremist would use them against US is stupid. Pakistanies as a whole are not stupid that they do something like this and sure US has no ******* rite to worry about pakistan nukes specially when their own are on a plane that they dont even know about. Its the responsibility of musharraf government to stop posing nukes as a threat and as a tool of blackmailing the west.
 
Pakistan's collapse, America's problem
By Frederick W. Kagan and Michael O'Hanlon
Published: November 19, 2007


Frederick W. Kagan is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Michael O'Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Boy, these two guys must be really bored at their jobs!
what collapse! whatever happens it will be a smooth transition.
 
Reason why many Americans support their governments (very expensive) foreign policy is due reports like these, I wonder if Pentagon rewards reporters like these guys to write anything that would sell and get public support for their actions. ;)
 
This is so repulsive. i mean do they really think that all pakistani's are stupid and that we are so divided that we will just let our country fall apart and not do anything to stop it. I really regained hope for our great nation after the earthquake that happened. no matter how many differeces we had with each other in those days the entire nation came togather and became one. Even the millitants in Balochistan stoped there attacks on the millitary. i would just dismiss this as hogwash.
 
This is so repulsive. i mean do they really think that all pakistani's are stupid and that we are so divided that we will just let our country fall apart and not do anything to stop it. I really regained hope for our great nation after the earthquake that happened. no matter how many differeces we had with each other in those days the entire nation came togather and became one. Even the millitants in Balochistan stoped there attacks on the millitary. i would just dismiss this as hogwash.

YOU may dismiss it brother, but, the danger is real.
 
Its a worst case scenario - and quite a few things have to come to pass before anything close to the "collapse" becomes imminent, but that same approach can be applied to any country.

Opinion from the US continues to based upon "headlines and opposition statements", rather than realistic assessments of the threat of collapse.

How about an assessment of the anti-Islam bigots in the West, quite a few of whom exist in the rank and file of the US military as well (judging by the popularity of Fox News and the Pat Robertsons), revolting against the army to seize control of the US nukes to attack Muslims? That sort of hatred "turning the Muslim world into a giant parking lot" is expressed quite often.
 
Repulsive ??? what repulsive. How many people have come to streets to protest for political jugglers ???? people have now become more mature to understand the tactics of politicians no one wants to get cut in pieces and beaten during rallies that too for just for the looters.
Rest assured we are not going to throng the streets whoever comes to power and whoever going to lose the power.
For common man its two square meal with dignity and good future for his children which unfortunately none of the leaders or governments be it civil or military had done. So we are better without coming to roads and streets.
The only one you are seeing or will see will be those who have some materialistic gains from these political parties and personalities.
 
America has overplayed its hand in the world and cannot have what it wants, infact before the Iraq and Afghanistan fiascos at best people would have said the us of a could not have everything it wants (being an alleged uberpower) now most people would say it will have nothing it wants.
our problem is that we listen too much to this rubbish and worry about it. american policy was largely based on the force of GI joe, but most people would now beat them with their shoes.

america is a busted flush, its all wind and hot air and they are souding as stupid as the common wealth and little britain
 
Every white boy say something about Pakistan, its become headline in world media circus. Paranoid..
 
Look guys to me it seems clear that Americans have there eyes on our Nuclear assets aand they shall be coming up with some proposals to make coalition force in order to secure our weapons. To such a proposal, the best counter could be to decline and form a anti terrorist coalition force with China.

By stationing Chinese special forces, Americans will surely feel betrayed and Pakistan can have there revenge for 1971 and many other times. In that context Americans will start funding more and more militants against Pakistan China anti terror forces.

In the end we ll have to bleed but this sacrifice will pay benefits for future generations by securing our home.

I hope you would agree to it.
 
Boy, these two guys must be really bored at their jobs!
what collapse! whatever happens it will be a smooth transition.

you cant blame the people when Pakistan's president came out and said if i go nukes will fall into wrong hands.:enjoy:that really helped pakistans image abroad.
 
I remember these kinds of theories have been floated since 1990’s. Even maps were drawn up of the world indicating no Pakistan. As far as I remember Pakistan was supposed to end up by around 2010-15 according to one article I came across.
If it were for these people entire world map would be rewritten according to their wishes. Simple answer it is not going to happen.
Also to destroy Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal one needs to know where it is? Even Americans don’t know its locations. They have not been able to take control of Afghanistan and are planning about Pakistan :rofl:.
 
1.The topic header is absurd. If, God forbid, Pakistan should collapse then firstly it will be Pakistan's problem. And then the Ummah's.

2. If it does collapse, it will be per design of the Western Christian Civilization led by the Yankees.
 
1.The topic header is absurd. If, God forbid, Pakistan should collapse then firstly it will be Pakistan's problem. And then the Ummah's.

2. If it does collapse, it will be per design of the Western Christian Civilization led by the Yankees.

Dude

You are talking about a country of 170 million people not some small banana republic

I agree with ejaz007.. Absolutely a nonsense thread
 
Back
Top Bottom