Article

2005-02-07 Afghanistan/South Asia

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 Fred 2005-02-07 00:00:00 AM|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Dangerous thoughts, Fred. The same could be said of Matathir. Wasn't the son (?) of his successor part of the network? He had to be part of it as well.

I never thought that the network was shut down. As I posted last year, it probably is at somewhere between 10 and 25% of its former effectiveness. It was lucrative for Pakistan and serves the goals of many in Dar al Islam from Malaysia to Mauritania. There are people right now working hard to make it bigger and better than before.

Posted by 11A5S 2005-02-07 12:56:32 AM|| 2005-02-07 12:56:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 The way I see things;
Pakistan was created as the world's only Islamic Republic, a nation whose people formed a nation simply because they were Muslim. The motto of the Pakistani Army is "Jihad in the way of Allah", and since the Army has been the most dominate member of the oligarchy that rules Pakistan, they have done everything they can to assist the Ummah.

After the Soviets left Afghanistan, the Paks and Saudis simply redirected the entire infrastructure of training camps, madrassas and armed Jihadi militias that had been set up for the Afghan Jihad, to other fields of battle, most notably Kashmir. The ISI proxies like Lashkar-e-Taiba trained Jihadis from all over the world, while madrassas like Binori indoctrinated students who then went back home to form the leadership cadre of the various Jihadi and Islamist groups working towards the Caliphate.

The Taliban were assisted in taking over Afghanistan with Saudi money and Pakistani forces, providing a glimpse of what the Khalifah would like like. While this was going on, nuclear technology was sold to brotherly Muslim nations, and traded with North Korea in exhange for long range missiles like the No-Dong, which was rebranded as the Ghauri (A Muslim warlord who invaded India a thousand years ago and brought Islam to the sub-continent).

While Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have problems with Salafist-Jihadists who fight against the state, the raison d'Ãªtre of the two states is to unify and strengthen the Ummah into a super-power.

Posted by Paul Moloney 2005-02-07 2:41:32 AM|| 2005-02-07 2:41:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 The question that needs to be raised, then, is what do we do about it? And where exactly do other friendly components of the Ummah we've seen over the years like Iran and bin Laden fit into this equation? Are they part of the plan, temporary allies, enemies, or what? And once we determine that, what do we do about it?

Posted by Dan Darling 2005-02-07 3:32:36 AM|| [http://www.regnumcrucis.blogspot.com] 2005-02-07 3:32:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 I think of Iran, Al Qaeda (Salafist-Jihadists), and the Pak/Saudi axis as akin to different mafia families. They do business together and think alike, but they all picture themselves wearing the Jewelled Turban and being surrounded by dancing girls and learned holy men.

As for what should be done, it's questions like that that make me glad i'm not in charge! I would not have chosen to attack Iraq, but now that America and the UK and Australia are there, we will need to concentrate on that for at least a few years.

Using my crude analogy, it looks like America is going to tackle the 'former Soviet client states' mafia (Iran, Syria, North Korea), while going easy on the 'cold war allies' mafia of Riyadh and Islamabad.
It isn't practical to take both on at the same time, so I think the latter will be safe to continue their current activities, as long as they make a few cosmetic reforms and speak some comforting rhetoric.

Posted by Paul Moloney 2005-02-07 4:19:33 AM|| 2005-02-07 4:19:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 We could do it multilaterally, Israel/Syria, India/Pakistan and US/MK.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-02-07 7:34:15 AM|| 2005-02-07 7:34:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 My 2 cents is that CIA, MI6 or whoever (you know, the guys with the Death Ray) should throw a monkey wrench into the works by sabotaging shipments, providinging false bomb plans, causing "work accidents", and so on all in an effort to raise the cost of the programs to unsustainable levels.

Posted by Spot 2005-02-07 8:49:13 AM|| 2005-02-07 8:49:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#7
Pakistan was created as the world's only Islamic Republic, a nation whose people formed a nation simply because they were Muslim. The motto of the Pakistani Army is "Jihad in the way of Allah", and since the Army has been the most dominate member of the oligarchy that rules Pakistan, they have done everything they can to assist the Ummah.

Let's not forget the conceit of taking the name "Land of the Pure".

Posted by Robert Crawford 2005-02-07 9:33:58 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-02-07 9:33:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Pakistan was created as the world's only Islamic Republic

Pakistan was founded by whiskey drinking secularist Jinnah as a refuge for the Muslims of India, of whatever degree of religiosity. Unifiying the Ummah was emphatically NOT Pakistans Raison d'tre, at least not at the beginning, for the best of its leadership. Maybe that dream has failed, and its too late for Pakistan to survive as anything else, but lets NOT make such a huge decision on the basis of anything less than a complete view of the subcontinents history, and with a full view of Pakistani society, (yes, nuggets are fun, but theyre not the best nutrition).

I wouldnt "trust" Perv farther than I can watch him, but our policy in general should not be based on trust, not even for folks we like.

For now the best thing seems to be to hold Perv accountable for specific behavior. Whether democracy is a reasonable strategy i dont know - it has a lot to do with whether the old secular "left" in Pakistan has anything to offer besides corruption - even RB hasnt made that clear, and RB (thanks Paul, Fred, Dan) has the best coverage of Pakistan ive seen anywhere.

And I dont know that anyone has an alternative. If anyone thinks Rummys "Army youve got" can manage occupying even a significant part of Pakistan theire loonier than any of the nutballs we read about in the Urdu press. The occupation army of choice seems to be India's, and I dont really think theyre very interested in the job assigned to them. It would be a horrible mess even for them - they would have few friends on the ground in Pakistan, even among the secularists. It would in all likelihood shake the Indian state to its foundations - I cant see them doing it short of the most profound existential threat, which simply isnt there yet. And probably wont be. Despite the Khan network, the Pakistani state has NOT gotten on well with Iran - the Afghan civil war was largely fought between Paki proxies on one side and Iran/Russia/India proxies on the other. Without support from IRan, Pakland is isolated from the Muslim heartland (esp now with a US ally in power in Kabul - the secularist-authoritarian-russophile leaders of central asia have no love for Pakistan. A regime change in Iran would leave Pakistan even further isolated. That would, youd think, be an argument for India to support us on Iran. That they dont (have they?) is another sign that they dont take "Pakistan as sword arm of the Ummah" very seriously.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-02-07 10:07:04 AM|| 2005-02-07 10:07:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Note also - Pakland has supported the jihadis in Afghanistan, and then in Kashmir - dominance in the Afghan hinterland, and the situation in Kashmir are strategic priorities for ANY Pakistani state, whether Salafist, sufist, whiskey drinking or whatever. That KSA has funded that shows KSAs religious motivation, NOT Paklands. Arguably it looks more like the Pakis have used religion to scam money out of KSA for local Paki interests.

Im not denying that there has been serious Salafist penetration of the ISI, the Pak army, and other parts of Pak society, but to argue that Paki is a Salafist state based on their quests for Kashmir and their goal of dominance in Afghanistan, this worldly strategic objectives, is to make ANY Pakistani leadership appear jihadi.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-02-07 10:13:38 AM|| 2005-02-07 10:13:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 The FIRST thing that has to happen is that we Christians have to stop apologizing to the muslims - or anyone else for that matter - about our beliefs. We should not necessarily be "in your face" antagonistic, but we should NEVER apologize. It makes us look weak and encourages the muslims to treat us with contempt. Secondly, we need to get serious about our own religion. You don't find that much in churches these days - it's all more a club that people belong to rather than a serious religious experience with Almighty God. After that, nature will take its course. Islamofascism is its own worst enemy - everything is based upon hate, and that can only go so far. The arabs are not creative, only adaptive. Once we quit apologizing, they'll be left in the dust, the world's third-class citizens, by their own behavior. We may need their oil, but we don't need, nor should we accept, their sh$$.

Posted by Old Patriot 2005-02-07 4:27:55 PM|| [http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2005-02-07 4:27:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 My understanding or the Pakistan political situation is that there are three power centers: The Army/ISI, the Feudals (who own most of the arable land), and the Islamists. It would make sense for the Islamists to infiltrate the Army and ISI, because then the Feudals position would become untenable. The Feudals probably control 90% plus of the capital in the country, so they can bribe the Army/ISI and Islamists and play them off against each other. Of course the Army and ISI infiltrate and use the Islamists to their own ends. Sounds like a Mexican standoff to me.

Posted by 11A5S 2005-02-07 4:37:13 PM|| 2005-02-07 4:37:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Damn, now it makes sense 11A5S, I was afraid it was a complex thing. Now who has got the water bag?

Posted by Shipman 2005-02-07 5:24:33 PM|| 2005-02-07 5:24:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 I thought I left it with that Gunga Din kid.

Posted by 11A5S 2005-02-07 5:35:59 PM|| 2005-02-07 5:35:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Very interesting analyses. But Liberalhawk, do you possibly mean deobandis instead of salafis? I seem to recall that Salafi=Wahabbi=Saudi heresy, whereas Deobandi=Pakistani heresy.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-02-07 7:28:35 PM|| 2005-02-07 7:28:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Sounds like a Mexican standoff to me.

I'd buy that analysis if Pakistan were a closed system. When you toss in the fact that the madrassas that are brainwashing the Paks' youth are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Saudi oil tick monarchy the picture becomes significantly murkier. I'd wager heavily that purchasing control of Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal is a top priority of the jihadi arm of the Saudi royal family.

The situation's laregely hopeless. Jihadis whether in the form of a state or a state-backed group will gain possession of nuclear weapons and in all liklihood use them. Best we can do is slow them down while trying like heck to avoid kicking off WW III. That'll happen soon enough of its own accord.

Posted by AzCat 2005-02-07 7:29:31 PM|| 2005-02-07 7:29:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 AzCat: I never said that Mexican standoffs last forever. When they do end, they tend to end rather spectacularly.

Posted by 11A5S 2005-02-07 9:02:53 PM|| 2005-02-07 9:02:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 trailing wife;
There isn't a great deal of difference between Deobandis and Salafists, except the former grew out of the Hanbali school of thought while the latter rejects all other schools of thought. It is an important point though.

Nevertheless, the Taliban were Deobandis and they had the full support of the Saudis, Bin Ladin, Hawali and other Salafis.

Posted by Paul Moloney 2005-02-07 9:35:22 PM|| 2005-02-07 9:35:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Point taken 11A5S but "standoff" implies some sort of stasis whereas the situation inside Pakistan to me looks a lot more like a steadily growing hardline Islamist influence.

Posted by AzCat 2005-02-07 10:29:59 PM|| 2005-02-07 10:29:59 PM|| Front Page Top

23:58 trailing wife
23:54 .com
23:52 Alaska Paul
23:46 eLarson
23:45 .com
23:29 Classical_Liberal
23:23 PBMcL
23:22 CRazyFool
23:10 Alaska Paul
23:10 .com
23:08 Alaska Paul
23:06 gromky
23:05 Phil Fraering
22:53 jackal
22:47 Alaska Paul
22:46 mom
22:35 Alaska Paul
22:29 AzCat
22:29 Matt
22:14 RWV
22:09 Anonymoose
22:05 Jeamp Ebbereting9472 aka Jarhead
22:05 Frank G
22:03 Jeamp Ebbereting9472 aka Jarhead