The State of Pakistan

[COMTONDAJATT]

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22274

Amazing article by William Dampryle about 'Descent into Chaos: The United States and the Failure of Nation Building in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Central Asia'
by Ahmed Rashid

Some especially salient passages

Rather than diminishing, the threat from al Qaeda and its affiliates has grown, engulfing new regions of Africa, Asia, and Europe and creating fear among peoples from Australia to Zanzibar. The US invasions of two Muslim countries...[have] so far failed to contain either the original organization or the threat that now comes from its copycats...in British or French cities who have been mobilized through the Internet. The al Qaeda leader...is still at large, despite the largest manhunt in history....

Afghanistan is once again staring down the abyss of state collapse, despite billions of dollars in aid, forty-five thousand Western troops, and the deaths of thousands of people. The Taliban have made a dramatic comeback.... The international community had an extended window of opportunity for several years to help the Afghan people—they failed to take advantage of it.

Pakistan...has undergone a slower but equally bloody meltdown.... In 2007 there were 56 suicide bombings in Pakistan that killed 640 people, compared to just 6 bombings in the previous year....

In 2008, American power lies shattered.... US credibility lies in ruins.... Ultimately the strategies of the Bush administration have created a far bigger crisis in South and Central Asia than existed before 9/11.

Comments, thoughts, anyone else got articles or read books on the subject?

 

[oJaLa]

Just a couple of things about this thread. First of all, the article does not only focus in on Pakistan; instead it focuses in on Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asia. True, it emphasizes more on the first two, but don't you think the thread title is a little misleading? Also, its a somewhat generalized article, so it brings up a lot of issues that branch off all over the place.

Nonetheless, I feel like this article does bring up a lot of good points. Yes, violence and bloodshed has increased in Pakistan; but a lot of that can be pointed towards the government. When I say pointed, I don't mean blame. Yes, Pakistan's government has had its corrupt moments, but what government hasn't? I believe one of the biggest problems that makes a huge difference between the rise on violence in Afghanistan vs the rise of violence in Pakistan is funding. America provides much MUCH more funding to Afghanistan to do the same thing that they want Pakistan to do. Pakistan receives only a couple of million, and they have to squander to get the job done. Therefore, it is much harder for them to combat these "militants" in the frontier.

 

[COMTONDAJATT]

Just a couple of things about this thread. First of all, the article does not only focus in on Pakistan; instead it focuses in on Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asia. True, it emphasizes more on the first two, but don't you think the thread title is a little misleading? Also, its a somewhat generalized article, so it brings up a lot of issues that branch off all over the place.

Nonetheless, I feel like this article does bring up a lot of good points. Yes, violence and bloodshed has increased in Pakistan; but a lot of that can be pointed towards the government. When I say pointed, I don't mean blame. Yes, Pakistan's government has had its corrupt moments, but what government hasn't? I believe one of the biggest problems that makes a huge difference between the rise on violence in Afghanistan vs the rise of violence in Pakistan is funding. America provides much MUCH more funding to Afghanistan to do the same thing that they want Pakistan to do. Pakistan receives only a couple of million, and they have to squander to get the job done. Therefore, it is much harder for them to combat these "militants" in the frontier.

I don't feel it is very generalized. Its focus was Pakistan and the situation within it. This is not about corruption as much as it is about bad, really bad decisions taken by its leaders. What do you mean by funding? If memory serves me correct we gave Pakistan billion of dollars in aid in the past few years.

I think the article pretty much argued that there are elements within the government and military establishment who are actively aiding Taliban and extremist factions because they feel like it is in their favor in destabilizing India and Afghanistan. These "militants" are no longer in the frontier, they are in the Swat Valley, the villages of Punjab and Azad Kashmir.

Army insiders say that General Ashfaq Kiyani, the current chief of staff, who is already involved in a full-scale conflict with the Pakistani Taliban in the frontier tribal areas, does not feel sufficiently strong to open a second front with the jihadis in the Punjab; while Zardari, even though he may wish to be rid of Lashkar and the Punjabi jihadis, cannot afford to be seen to cave in to Indian pressure. It is a classic South Asian catch-22, which allows Lashkar to continue functioning with only cosmetic restrictions, whose main function is to impress the US. Yet the fact remains that until firm action is taken against all such groups, and training camps are closed down, the slow collapse of the Pakistani state will continue, and with it the safety of Western interests in the region.