Article

2003-10-24 India-Pakistan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Paul Moloney 2003-10-24 12:27:47 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Everyone is corruptible when they're all competing for the bejeweled turban...

Posted by Brian 2003-10-24 2:13:14 AM|| 2003-10-24 2:13:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Re Afghan - My impression is that Rahabani is not as bad as Abu Sayaf, and was long considered an enemy by the Taliban and its supporters. In particular he was willing to ally with Russia, India and Iran pre 9/11, so he's no pal of the ISI. Not a pal of afghan womens rights either, but thats another story. It might have been better if Massoud had lived, but he didnt, and we are stuck with dealing with whats available in afghan. I dont know enough about mutawakil to comment - it does strike me that in afghan people routinely switch sides - its more a tribal society than an ideological one, despite Taliban efforts to change that.

Pakland is a different story, of course. I appreciate your point of view, but my impression from other sources is that the Paki army is NOT 100% jihadi, there are substantial elements who, if not Kemalist, genuinely see the logic of and support Perv's reversal of alliances. Like Perv they want to get the maximum out of the US and give the least possible - but they WILL give if pressed. As opposed to hardline elements, and the bulk of the ISI, which are still pulling in the opposite direction. So Pak policy is a mass of contradictions - they'll arrest AQ arabs in Punjab and Karachi, and even hesitantly in NWFP, but wont touch Taliban. They'll reluctanty cooperate with US activities on the border, but wont openly let the US cross the border, and do as little as possible themselves (with the most hardline elements surreptiously cooperating with the Taliban) Perv wavers between an olive branch to India, limiting infiltration to Kashmir, but never stopping it. Arresting local jihadis when they get out of hand, or threaten vital state interests. Refusing to align with secularist parties against the fundies, but apparently trying to split the fundies to make his rule easier.

As for the US we will put up with this, in the absence of a clear alternative, and with so many balls in the air elsewhere. AS long as we are getting SOME cooperation - which we are.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-10-24 9:22:09 AM|| 2003-10-24 9:22:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 That may be so but the policy cannot be entirely faulted. It is at least an attempt to try and reach out to the religious right and see if the rightwing would be amenable to becoming a part of the process of governance.

I agree. You can't wish them away and you can't kill them. So what to do? I understand that it's tough to let them play in the democracy game if their goal is to undermine democracy. But we have groups like that here in our own congress (that actively try to undermine democracy) and we manage. Granted, they don't go around killing people, so it's not the same. But, as they say, you catch more flies with honey and you might as well try. If it doesn't suceed then go on to plan B.

Posted by B 2003-10-24 9:52:35 AM|| 2003-10-24 9:52:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Liberalhawk,
I agree with everything you said about Pakistan's dual policy, I guess our ownly point of disagreement is that I don't see it as acceptable that while we are pumping billions of dollars in a futile attempt to stablise Afghanistan and sure up Karzai, the entire Taliban leadership is right across the border openly recruiting Jihadis which launch raids which have killed 4 Americans and 400 Afghans this year.
I also see the continued operating of hundreds of Jihadi training camps in Pakistan as highly dangerous, because even if the different Emirs know to keep their attacks on America strictly rhetorical, it is only a matter of time before some of their followers 'go rogue' and attack Western targets again.
And the difference between Jihadis and Pragmatists in the Pakistani Army is over played really, they have a lot more in common than not. The both feel maintaining the Armies dominant role over the country is vitally important, they both want the country to continue spending 30% or more of it's budget on them, they both support the proxy war/Jihad in Kashmir, they both support the sharing of weaponry with states like North Korea, and the Generals all expect to retire to huge mansions, built on land confiscated from peasants. In fact, the military creator of the Taliban, Major General Nasarullah Babar, was as secular as they come, and a strong supporter of Benazir Bhuttos party, but that didn't prevent him for getting the idea of bringing the Taliban to power.
At the very least, when it comes to their region, the Pakistani Army is 100% Jihadi in the feelings towards India, and the secular types and the Jihadi types both believe it is in Pakistans interest to disintergrate India, dominate Afghanistan, and become the dominant regional player in both Central Asia and South Asia. The only difference between them is the rhetoric they use, and the fact that the Secularists might drink wine at home and the Islmamists don't.
BTW, before he seized power in a military coup in Pakistan, General Zia ul Haq was a secularist, known for his drinking, and helping to put down the Black September revolt by the Palestinians in Jordan. But once he became leader, he opened the Jihadi genie in the country, sponsoring radical madrassas, changing the ciriculum of ordinary schools to include political indoctrination, introducing the Huddod ordinance and the blasphemy law. But he was never pious in his private life. He also cultivated all the current Generals, and one of the promising officers that he was particularly supportive of, was a young Musharaf, who was rapidly promoted by Zia, along with a handful of other officers who are known as Jihadis. Going forward to 1999, when Musharaf was brought to power in a military coup, Pervez actually had nothing to do with it himself (he was in an airplane circling over Karachi when it occured), but the very same Jihadi Generals he was buddies with led the coup, and then put Musharaf in power because he was a more acceptable face than them.

Posted by Paul Moloney 2003-10-24 7:15:19 PM|| 2003-10-24 7:15:19 PM|| Front Page Top

21:25 Aris Katsaris
07:53 Raptor
06:32 Tony (UK)
02:40 R. McLeod
00:20 Stephen
00:18 Korora
23:38 Anonymous
22:57 Bomb-a-rama
22:45 Pappy
22:45 Uncle Joe
22:41 Rafael
22:16 Robert Crawford
22:14 Robert Crawford
22:12 Robert Crawford
22:07 Yukonbill
21:52 CrazyFool
21:48 Super Hose
21:45 Denny
21:45 Bomb-a-rama
21:45 Steve White
21:39 Bomb-a-rama
21:38 Super Hose
21:38 Steve White
21:34 Super Hose