PPP's Manifesto

[Energon]

I really hope the USA isn't that stupid. Bill Clinton in his memoir has detailed the nuclear crisis his administration averted in 1999 which was caused by what seemed to be a communication breakdown between the political leadership under Nawaz Sharif and the Pakistan Army under Pervez Musharraf. This disconnect between the two institutions (when the nation wasn't under military control) has always plagued Pakistan, and the American administrations who have served as Pakistan's patrons in the past have been well aware of this.

It would be downright moronic to forget the history and start supporting a non-military leader thereby reestablishing an administrative rift that may well lead to another miscommunication in the nuclear arena.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I really hope the USA isn't that stupid. Bill Clinton in his memoir has detailed the nuclear crisis his administration averted in 1999 which was caused by what seemed to be a communication breakdown between the political leadership under Nawaz Sharif and the Pakistan Army under Pervez Musharraf. This disconnect between the two institutions (when the nation wasn't under military control) has always plagued Pakistan, and the American administrations who have served as Pakistan's patrons in the past have been well aware of this.

It would be downright moronic to forget the history and start supporting a non-military leader thereby reestablishing an administrative rift that may well lead to another miscommunication in the nuclear arena.

I believe the US is doing exactly that, though it is not stupid, the idea is (or at least was) to have a pliant leadership - there is no doubt that BB was allowed back into the country, and the NRO was written to allow her to contest the elections, on the insistence of the US. Musharraf detests her, as do most in the military, for selling out Pakistan every opportunity she gets to curry favor with the West. So this was in no way their idea.

No one in their right mind can believe the drivel from the West about "moderate forces joining hands" when they back a corrupt, ego maniac like BB - she will do what she has always done, as is apparent from her manifesto.

The question is whether Musharraf's emergency, and the support of the military for it and him, has thrown a spanner in the works of BB running away with the elections and bringing the military under her (US) control. The "reforms" she has outlined for the military would do exactly that, and a few years of handpicked chiefs, and the US gets what it wants.

 

[Tang0]

The US has proven numerous times in the past that it does have an interest in pliant leadership(Basically every operation the CIA undertook from 1950 -1985 or so), but I think they know quite well that BB would not stay in power in long, even if she was to be elected. BB was mostly a play to avert criticism in Bush's outright support of Pakistan's current leader. Things then went on a downhill slide from there, Terrorism, the imposition of an emergency, all of this made for headlines. As far as news companies are concerned, the only good news is bad news. Now Bush finds himself in a sticky position, to support musharraf now would be as much as saying "Ah, sure we support military dictators, but that is because Uncle Sam knows best." He can do that when the media is looking the other way, or the country does not matter that much. Neither of those things are true in this situation. So he sticks his hands in his pockets and whistles about the "Inevitable victory of Democracy" and cringes inside.

The Pentagon wants a strong military leader to help in the war on Terror, the CIA wants somebody they have enough info on to analyze and predict, and Bush wants all of this to go away. This notion that the US wants a weak Pakistan is entirely unsupported. The US wants to maintain the status quo vis-a-vi India, and it wants to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but neither wish implies that the US also wants Pakistan run by an idiot. The only people getting any type of boost from this are the Democratic candidates for president, who point at the headlines and go "Look how much the Republicans have screwed things up internationally! Its not just the war in Iraq!"

Another thing, there is not one iota of evidence that the US wishes or even has serious contingency plans for engaging in some type of offensive military action against the government of Pakistan. All of the news reports come from "Analysts and Think-Tanks" not from a reputable government source. So people, stop with the "US plans to invade" posts.
For those who point to Iraq or Afghanistan, I let history speak for itself. The U.S had clearly adversarial relationships with those nations for at least 5 years before it committed to military action, and both of those nations were isolated from the international community and their neighbors. Neither of those factors apply to Pakistan.

Bye the way, if the US wanted Pakistan to be backward and corrupt, why would they be giving all of this money and equipment to the PA?

What are the long term goals of the US then concerning Pakistan?
In generally this order they are:
1. Stop proliferation of weapons technology out of Pakistan.
2. Diffuse Pakistan-India teinson to avoid nuclear holocaust.
3. End terrorist presence in the north western provinces, use Pakistan as a base for WoT.
4. Stop theoretical Islamic Extremest government (AKA Iran)
5. Set up Pakistan as a client state for US technology and Weapons, or simply reduce the influence of China in Pakistan.
6. Use Pakistan to offset price rises for Indian IT support, services.

Now, not all of those goals necessarily benefit the people of Pakistan, but most of them don't hurt them directly. Uncle Sam is always looking out for his own As* first an foremost. That does not however make the US a massive monolithic evil empire either.

 

[roadrunner]

Numbers 2 and 5 sound false. The others are minor. The US doesn't have much in the way of long-term goals in Pakistan, except for geostrategy and the TAP pipeline.

 

[Tang0]

I am not sure you understand the effect a nuclear war would have in the subcontinent? Why in the world would the US not want to avoid such an occurrence? Fallout, hundreds of millions of dead people, humanitarian disaster of enormous potential.... As for no. 5, the US knows Pakistan can't afford its' weapons now, but would rather Pakistan not buy them from China, or engage in development projects with China who is an obvious competitor. I really have no clue about the pipeline, it has yet to appear in any major discussion of Pakistan in the US, so I don't think it is that big of an issue, but that is just my perception.
As for not having significant long term goals, you are right, Pakistan is not a major focus of the US in the long term. As a superpower, the US has plenty of other things to worry about. However, the state department and the Pentagon have long terms goals for even countries of minor import, usually they don't get accomplished, but thats just the way things go.

 

[fatman17]

I think after 9/11 Pakistan would remain on the US geo-strategic radar for a long time to come. it cannot afford not to. it is how they go about it is the issue. support the pak military thru the pentagon (as is the case) or support the people of pakistan with massive economic aid.

 

[roadrunner]

I am not sure you understand the effect a nuclear war would have in the subcontinent? Why in the world would the US not want to avoid such an occurrence? Fallout, hundreds of millions of dead people, humanitarian disaster of enormous potential.... As for no. 5, the US knows Pakistan can't afford its' weapons now, but would rather Pakistan not buy them from China, or engage in development projects with China who is an obvious competitor. I really have no clue about the pipeline, it has yet to appear in any major discussion of Pakistan in the US, so I don't think it is that big of an issue, but that is just my perception.
As for not having significant long term goals, you are right, Pakistan is not a major focus of the US in the long term. As a superpower, the US has plenty of other things to worry about. However, the state department and the Pentagon have long terms goals for even countries of minor import, usually they don't get accomplished, but thats just the way things go.

For number 2). Indo-Pak tensions are beneficial to the US. The Kashmir conflict is a relic of colonialism. It keeps India and Pakistan fighting. It slows the growth of both countries. Money is spent on military, more equipment needs purchasing, development in more important areas is slowed. Cynical, yes, but using history as a guide, and the fact that capitalism required the ruthless elimination of competitors to succeed, the US would want to keep these tensions, at the very least as a leverage tool, to make either country more compliant.

For number 5), the US won't sell good technology to Pakistan. Once China gives Pakistan technology of a particular standard, the US will then come and say, "why not buy this from us?" In other words, it does want Pakistan as a market, but not for its technologies. It would prefer to take business away from China when it comes to billion dollars in tge form of aircrafts and so on.