So if the so-called experts (although not too many in numbers, contrary to your suggestions) are suggesting x, x must be true? So in that case, Iraq must have had WMDs too then?
World Media and Hysteria Over Pakistan's Collapse
- Thread starter Lankan Ranger
- Start date
So if the so-called experts (although not too many in numbers, contrary to your suggestions) are suggesting x, x must be true? So in that case, Iraq must have had WMDs too then?
Parashuram1
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2010
- Messages
- 954
- Reaction score
- 0
Freund, nobody wants to see your country break. These predictions though might have political intentions behind them, should be taken as a motivation pill. Take a look at your strategic friend, the Chinese. For decades, they were bad-mouthed by Americans and other NATO countries. Chinese took each of these criticisms and worked silently to build themselves up.
Today when they have opened up to the world, they have shown a miracle of a powerful economy, reliable system, strong industrial capacity, strong educated workforce and a surging military might.
You should not take such articles as a mental block but rather as stepping stones to build yourself up. The present situation is dangerous in your country and hence these predictions come out.
REHAN NIAZI FALCON
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2009
- Messages
- 1,868
- Reaction score
- 0
what about israel............... 1st go through yourself before calling us munafiq.......
A disintegrating Pakistan: Choices for US and India
Harold A. Gould
As Pakistan sinks steadily into the pit of political oblivion, it will inevitably drag the US' Afghan policy down the drain with it, because without the availability of Pakistan's logistical and civil infrastructure, and regardless of Gen. David Petraeus's (top US military commander in Afghanistan) vaunted military talents, what remains of America's struggle to wrest Afghanistan from eventual Taliban investiture is almost certainly doomed to failure.
US President Barack Obama's pledge to draw down the American military commitment in Afghanistan may ultimately turn out to be more a Vietnam-like strategic capitulation than a victory lap.
Should this turn out to be the case, in the face of a Pakistani political collapse, what other alternatives will exist which an already war-weary American public will accept?
Viewed in historical perspective, what is gradually taking place before our eyes is the final consequences of flawed political choices which the emergent Pakistani elites made following the nation's founder Mohammad Ali Jinnah's death in 1948, which were compounded by subsequent regimes, and further exacerbated by faulty US Cold War policies towards the South Asia region. In this sense, the story of Pakistan is one of "chickens coming home to roost!"
Put succinctly, the subsequent history of Pakistan has been the systematic rejection of the efficacy of Jinnah's vision of a consensual political mode for Pakistan, in keeping with the multi-cultural, politically accommodative model that alone has proved viable in the South Asian context, literally since the Indus Valley Civilization, and irrespective of whether the regimes in power have been Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim. The political contrast between India and Pakistan makes this clear.
One might say that over the years the Pakistani public allowed itself to be hijacked by Islamic fundamentalism, partially as a means of coping with its phobic fears of "Hindu India" and partially because the lack of socio-religious flexibility left religious extremism, and its political extensions, as the sole doctrinal basis for attempting to achieve a politically coherent state.
Islamic fanaticism, conjoined with military authoritarianism, has ripped Pakistan to shreds and soon will provoke its political disintegration. What alternative is left for US, NATO and Indian strategic policy in the face of a Pakistani political meltdown?
In my opinion, the best option is what I would call strategic consolidation. That is, India, the US and its allies, must "step aside", let the holocaust happen, and try to contain in every way possible its spread beyond Pakistan's borders and the Pashtun region now dominated by the Taliban.
As the dimensions and ramifications of the "implosion" become apparent, the US, NATO and India can deploy their military and diplomatic resources in whatever manner they deem necessary and possible to contain, ameliorate and mediate the undoubtedly pervasive violence that will ensue and must run its course.
With regard to Afghan policy in the face of a Pakistani political meltdown, and an inevitable consequent upsurgence of Taliban militancy in the Pashtun region, former US ambassador to India (2001-3) Robert D. Blackwill has offered a highly imaginative interim solution.
The US, he says, should for the time being consolidate its forces and resources in the non-Pashtun portions of the country where Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazarras predominate and originally formed the core of the Northern Alliance which in concert with the US after 9/11 defeated the Taliban.
His observations concerning the interim realignment of forces in Afghanistan in the face of the worst-case scenario are highly pertinent.
"Washington should accept," he declares, "that the Taliban will inevitably control most of the Pashtun south and east and that the price of forestalling that outcome is far too high for the United States to continue paying."
Even prior to the impending collapse of Pakistan, or indeed if in the end it avoids this terminal fate, Blackwill rightly concludes that "the emergence of a clear division in Pakistan might provide just the sort of shock the Pakistani military apparently needs in order to appreciate the dangers of the game it has been playing for decades."
Leading American commentators, including this one, are now convinced that Pakistan is only a furtive step away from ceasing to be a viable modern state capable of carrying out its responsibilities as a purported "non-NATO ally" of the US in the war against the Taliban, Al Qaeda and other jihadi extremists.
Yes, this implies a comprehensive realignment of forces, resources and strategic orientation towards the Afghan-Pakistan theatre. But in the face of a steadily disintegrating, politically pathological Pakistan state, it is only a matter of time until such a realignment takes place anyway. For US-Pakistan relations, as we have known them, it is indeed the end of the affair.
Harold Gould is Visiting Scholar in the Center for South Asian Studies, University of Virginia
Harold A. Gould
As Pakistan sinks steadily into the pit of political oblivion, it will inevitably drag the US' Afghan policy down the drain with it, because without the availability of Pakistan's logistical and civil infrastructure, and regardless of Gen. David Petraeus's (top US military commander in Afghanistan) vaunted military talents, what remains of America's struggle to wrest Afghanistan from eventual Taliban investiture is almost certainly doomed to failure.
US President Barack Obama's pledge to draw down the American military commitment in Afghanistan may ultimately turn out to be more a Vietnam-like strategic capitulation than a victory lap.
Should this turn out to be the case, in the face of a Pakistani political collapse, what other alternatives will exist which an already war-weary American public will accept?
Viewed in historical perspective, what is gradually taking place before our eyes is the final consequences of flawed political choices which the emergent Pakistani elites made following the nation's founder Mohammad Ali Jinnah's death in 1948, which were compounded by subsequent regimes, and further exacerbated by faulty US Cold War policies towards the South Asia region. In this sense, the story of Pakistan is one of "chickens coming home to roost!"
Put succinctly, the subsequent history of Pakistan has been the systematic rejection of the efficacy of Jinnah's vision of a consensual political mode for Pakistan, in keeping with the multi-cultural, politically accommodative model that alone has proved viable in the South Asian context, literally since the Indus Valley Civilization, and irrespective of whether the regimes in power have been Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim. The political contrast between India and Pakistan makes this clear.
One might say that over the years the Pakistani public allowed itself to be hijacked by Islamic fundamentalism, partially as a means of coping with its phobic fears of "Hindu India" and partially because the lack of socio-religious flexibility left religious extremism, and its political extensions, as the sole doctrinal basis for attempting to achieve a politically coherent state.
Islamic fanaticism, conjoined with military authoritarianism, has ripped Pakistan to shreds and soon will provoke its political disintegration. What alternative is left for US, NATO and Indian strategic policy in the face of a Pakistani political meltdown?
In my opinion, the best option is what I would call strategic consolidation. That is, India, the US and its allies, must "step aside", let the holocaust happen, and try to contain in every way possible its spread beyond Pakistan's borders and the Pashtun region now dominated by the Taliban.
As the dimensions and ramifications of the "implosion" become apparent, the US, NATO and India can deploy their military and diplomatic resources in whatever manner they deem necessary and possible to contain, ameliorate and mediate the undoubtedly pervasive violence that will ensue and must run its course.
With regard to Afghan policy in the face of a Pakistani political meltdown, and an inevitable consequent upsurgence of Taliban militancy in the Pashtun region, former US ambassador to India (2001-3) Robert D. Blackwill has offered a highly imaginative interim solution.
The US, he says, should for the time being consolidate its forces and resources in the non-Pashtun portions of the country where Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazarras predominate and originally formed the core of the Northern Alliance which in concert with the US after 9/11 defeated the Taliban.
His observations concerning the interim realignment of forces in Afghanistan in the face of the worst-case scenario are highly pertinent.
"Washington should accept," he declares, "that the Taliban will inevitably control most of the Pashtun south and east and that the price of forestalling that outcome is far too high for the United States to continue paying."
Even prior to the impending collapse of Pakistan, or indeed if in the end it avoids this terminal fate, Blackwill rightly concludes that "the emergence of a clear division in Pakistan might provide just the sort of shock the Pakistani military apparently needs in order to appreciate the dangers of the game it has been playing for decades."
Leading American commentators, including this one, are now convinced that Pakistan is only a furtive step away from ceasing to be a viable modern state capable of carrying out its responsibilities as a purported "non-NATO ally" of the US in the war against the Taliban, Al Qaeda and other jihadi extremists.
Yes, this implies a comprehensive realignment of forces, resources and strategic orientation towards the Afghan-Pakistan theatre. But in the face of a steadily disintegrating, politically pathological Pakistan state, it is only a matter of time until such a realignment takes place anyway. For US-Pakistan relations, as we have known them, it is indeed the end of the affair.
Harold Gould is Visiting Scholar in the Center for South Asian Studies, University of Virginia
Chinese-Dragon
RETIRED TTA
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 33,932
- Reaction score
- 52
- Country
- Location
My boy you are living in Cloud Cuckoo Land.
One must learn from the experience of others.
When Pakistan destabilized Afghanistan, 25% of Afghanistan's Population took refuge in Pakistan. Surely you are aware of the effect of this huge amount of Refugees on Pakistan's Economy and its Society.
Now you will realize the effect of Pakistan being Destabilized as the Pakistani Refugees will neither get refuge in Iran or Afghanistan and not even with the "Everlasting Friend China!
So where will they go?
^ Mate, ask any Pakistani right now. The idea of getting refuge in India sounds a funny and perhaps comical a idea. Let me tell you something. Despite what western media would have you believe, the ground situation in Pakistan is not as bad as you'd think. What that means is that there's not gonna be any refugee crises, unless things get significantly worse. Look, this is as low as we can go. Terrorism, floods, slow growth, extremely corrupt government, etc. From here on you can only go up. What that means is that things shouldn't get significantly worse, unless of course there's a war or something, which means that there won't be any refugee crises.
But as far as an unstable Pakistan being in India's interest is concerned, I firmly believe that at least the Indian state believes that an unstable Pakistani is in India's interest. I don't know or care what Indian people think regarding this. Look at the current situation right now, an unstable Pakistan isn't causing any major problems to India. The only problem for the Indian state is to prolong the status quo as long as possible. The maximum lifetime for the status quo is until the American forces stay in Afghanistan. Once they get out, things will change VERY VERY quickly. Americans have no interest in staying here forever, contrary to what some Indians suggest, therefore it won't be too long (4-5 more years) till the status quo can last. Some would say that status quo could even change before America gets out. That's debatable and to be seen, but it's guaranteed that it WILL change once US gets out.
But as far as an unstable Pakistan being in India's interest is concerned, I firmly believe that at least the Indian state believes that an unstable Pakistani is in India's interest. I don't know or care what Indian people think regarding this. Look at the current situation right now, an unstable Pakistan isn't causing any major problems to India. The only problem for the Indian state is to prolong the status quo as long as possible. The maximum lifetime for the status quo is until the American forces stay in Afghanistan. Once they get out, things will change VERY VERY quickly. Americans have no interest in staying here forever, contrary to what some Indians suggest, therefore it won't be too long (4-5 more years) till the status quo can last. Some would say that status quo could even change before America gets out. That's debatable and to be seen, but it's guaranteed that it WILL change once US gets out.
Last edited:
Spring Onion
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 41,403
- Reaction score
- 19
- Country
- Location
neither we want you to bother once Invaders are out of the region you will feel bad for your wish to see Pakistan destabilise
Storm Force
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2009
- Messages
- 5,100
- Reaction score
- -66
- Country
- Location
Outsiders Cant help Pakistan be it USA China or India or anyone else.
FIRST pakistan must help themselves.
Do they like their current Pakistan. IS THIS WHAT THEY WANT.
The people of Pakistani must decide..
FIRST pakistan must help themselves.
Do they like their current Pakistan. IS THIS WHAT THEY WANT.
The people of Pakistani must decide..
Spring Onion
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 41,403
- Reaction score
- 19
- Country
- Location
And you show some signs and hand over us those hindu terrorists responsible for killing of train full of Pakistanis on Indian soil.
Spring Onion
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 41,403
- Reaction score
- 19
- Country
- Location
We dont want any outside help.
We only want that outsiders should stop supporting terrorists in Pakistan and should stop poking their nose in our affairs.
We aka Pakistanis are already doing great to improve the situation if you have any doubt please come over to Swat where first snowfall of the winter was enjoyed by Tourists from across Pakistan.
majesticpankaj
BANNED
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2010
- Messages
- 2,877
- Reaction score
- -14
what the hell.....u pakistanis keep crying about third party hand without iota of evidence... to whom ur fooling ??? we don't need to come there.. some US drones might killed us....We dont want any outside help.
We only want that outsiders should stop supporting terrorists in Pakistan and should stop poking their nose in our affairs.
We aka Pakistanis are already doing great to improve the situation if you have any doubt please come over to Swat where first snowfall of the winter was enjoyed by Tourists from across Pakistan.
Paan Singh
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 7,636
- Reaction score
- 0
the whole question is of terror traffic which will be diverted to india if u.s goes.
indian or u.s presence is essential in a-stan.and pakistanis take this as threat to them.let see where this great game goes.
indian or u.s presence is essential in a-stan.and pakistanis take this as threat to them.let see where this great game goes.
desioptimist
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2010
- Messages
- 2,084
- Reaction score
- 0
I agree with the view that pakistan has hit the rock bottom and cant go any further down. Also, USA is on your friendlist, and it helps to be friend of lone superpower.
As far as I can see, pakistani people will get used to it, and things will get better. In medium term,terror strikes will continue, but it wont affect the economy much.
Similar threads
- Article
