Pakistan: Just Dandy?

DNK

Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2007
Messages
3,562
Location
Saigon
From Moyers' tonight.

Full transcript and online video: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05152009/profile.html

Some excerpts:
all the information that we are relaying as reporters, as the media, as information, really is coming from army press releases, for the most part.

So they're in a position where they can't even independently confirm that an entire military operation took place.


But in Pakistan the estimates for fighters are small. 15 thousand. And the current military operation in the Swat Valley is pitting 15 thousand Pakistani troops against 4 thousand Taliban fighters.


That's what's being said. This is small. And the idea that these 4 thousand Taliban in Swat Valley, you know, can take over the capital of the country, or that they're going to spread into the other provinces, which are ethnic provinces, like the Punjab and Sindh, where they're very, very unpopular.

The North-West Frontier Province is 10 percent of the Pakistan population. That's where this stuff is happening. And most of it is actually happening not in the Province itself, but in the Federally Administrated Tribal Regions. Which are kind of like our Indian reservations. Only 3.5 million people live there. It's the size of, like, New Hampshire. Pakistan is a country as big as California, Oregon and Washington rolled up in one, with a population of 165 million. So to take this threat, which is a threat locally, to the Federally Administrated Tribal Areas, to parts of the North-West Frontier Province, and to magnify it and to say, "Whoa, the Pakistani government is six months from falling, the Taliban is going to get their hands on nuclear weapons." The kinds of things that are being said in Washington, are just fantastical and some kind of science fiction film. How would these guys, with the Kalashnikov machine guns, take over a country that has an army of 550 thousand?

We were- we could have been convinced in a second that Iraq was about to use them. And it's unfortunate that the press did play its part in that problem. And the press is, once again I think, playing its unfortunate part where it is relaying all of these opinions that are coming from intelligence sources or whatever, and ruling this as information. And all of a sudden we're seeing the same sort of almost hysteria.

I get very nervous when I hear people talking about controlling that region. It's not controllable. And nobody has ever controlled it.

That's quite a cast of characters to be caught in the middle of. So Pakistan is under extreme pressures to fit in that geographical location. For the Pakistani security establishment, and my conversation with a lot of people in this security establishment, the Taliban, and the situation in Afghanistan, is about India. They're one and the same conversation. Because influence in Afghanistan, ever since the American-- ever since President Karzai's government in Afghanistan, India has had a greater influence in Afghanistan, which it was missing during the Taliban.

There had never been a government that was so friendly with Pakistan. And then, all of a sudden, one day, who moves in to help Afghanistan rebuild? It's India.

I think, Bill, that winning the hearts and minds part of the Pakistanis is not going to be a tough-- it's not a tough job at the end of the day. Like you were saying, a lot of these people, especially the urban population that we talked about, these large cities are already sold.

And you've had, really, hundreds of thousands of people involved in this movement for the restoration of democracy and the restoration of the rule of law. If this had happened any other place in the world, it would be reported in Washington as a good news story. Here, we've been told that it's a crisis. That it's a sign of instability and nuclear armed nation. I don't understand that.
Interesting perspective on things.
 
All the schools really need to teach is that you can't trust the media... :p

BTW, I like your sig.
 
But in Pakistan the estimates for fighters are small. 15 thousand. And the current military operation in the Swat Valley is pitting 15 thousand Pakistani troops against 4 thousand Taliban fighters.

Raw numbers are not indicative of success, indeed the Pakistani army has gone back to its bad old habit of high intensity kinetic counter-insurgency at brigade level. It won't get the success it wants unless the Taliban (and it really should be Talibans considering there is more than one organization acting under that aegis) stand and fight which seems unlikely considering there earlier modus operandi. Unless they transition over to population-centric tactics and away from the simply killing the enemy mindset which is completely wrong they are going to end up with results like they got the last time i.e ignominious defeat when they tried to move into the ground as well as a population which hates them again. Of course this feeds into the sentiment expressed below:

That's what's being said. This is small. And the idea that these 4 thousand Taliban in Swat Valley, you know, can take over the capital of the country, or that they're going to spread into the other provinces, which are ethnic provinces, like the Punjab and Sindh, where they're very, very unpopular.

That's correct the Taliban are ethnically Pashtun they don't have many friends in Punjab and Sindh outside of the Madrassa's. So its going to be very hard for the Pakistani government to lose popular support and indeed its popular mandate in the area has been shown by the number of people streaming into camps under its protection away from the Taliban. This is unlikely to change until the Talibans(s) move past just being Pashtun and become more inclusive... something that isn't likely to happen considering the region specific nature of their aims and the limitations inherent in having an army made up of predominately small time farmers who are not always available to call up (built around a solid core of actual Taliban but those are fairly small in number).

The North-West Frontier Province is 10 percent of the Pakistan population. That's where this stuff is happening. And most of it is actually happening not in the Province itself, but in the Federally Administrated Tribal Regions.

Correct which Pakistan has only ever had nominal control over.

Whoa, the Pakistani government is six months from falling, the Taliban is going to get their hands on nuclear weapons." The kinds of things that are being said in Washington, are just fantastical and some kind of science fiction film. How would these guys, with the Kalashnikov machine guns, take over a country that has an army of 550 thousand?

It isn't impossible just highly improbable considering that the population at large still has faith in Pakistan and doesn't desire to impose the Taliban(s) brand of Islam on themselves any time soon.

I get very nervous when I hear people talking about controlling that region. It's not controllable. And nobody has ever controlled it.

The only means of rooting out the Taliban and AQ was to attack and destroy whole villages until the Pashtun gave them up. Or at least threaten to to do that. In other words your strategy would have been get in then get out and periodically wash and repeat exactly as the British had done in earlier times.

They're one and the same conversation. Because influence in Afghanistan, ever since the American-- ever since President Karzai's government in Afghanistan, India has had a greater influence in Afghanistan, which it was missing during the Taliban.

Yeah. Karazai was and is still hostile to Pakistan and has more in common with India which didn't support his enemies and which wouldn't potentially support his enemies in the future.

I think, Bill, that winning the hearts and minds part of the Pakistanis is not going to be a tough-- it's not a tough job at the end of the day. Like you were saying, a lot of these people, especially the urban population that we talked about, these large cities are already sold.

They don't like AQ or the Taliban. That doesn't mean that they will be friendly with America it merely means that America has an ally (perhaps in the future an ally more by intent to root out the Taliban and AQ than an actual ally) which currently has more in common with American interests than it does against them. That won't last. The Taliban in Afghanistan and the Taliban in Pakistan are not one and the same entity and are unlikely to continue to have aims which intersect for much longer (the Afghani Taliban require Pakistan's central government to negotiate and deal with the Americans on its behalf if it gets any more successful and wishes to end its current conflict at least in the short term).

And you've had, really, hundreds of thousands of people involved in this movement for the restoration of democracy and the restoration of the rule of law. If this had happened any other place in the world, it would be reported in Washington as a good news story. Here, we've been told that it's a crisis. That it's a sign of instability and nuclear armed nation. I don't understand that.

Pakistan is a basket case... but nobody seems to realize that a large part of the population has always wanted a return to genuine democracy and has always sought it. If the Pakistani army was more successful at maintaining its hold Pakistan wouldn't be so unstable and indeed if the Democratic governments didn't need to deal with an army which saw itself as an integral institution of state with a very real hold, interest and influence over politics then Pakistan would be more secure. You currently have a period where the military which is largely secular in outlook with a high command which are token Muslims and a government which isn't exactly secular but isn't as religious as the Taliban have intersecting political interests in destroying a newcomer which is hostile to both. This has dispelled for a short time at least the mutual enmity of the civilian government to the military and vice versa. I don't believe this will last and I find it more than likely that the military will take back control over a civilian government which has shown thus far an inability to make any tough decisions (it was forced to do this by the Talibans blatant attempts to expand out of the FATA and into the actual provinces which the government exercised control over) but here's to hoping they stay in the same state of mind long enough to deal the Taliban a stinging blow even if I suspect it'll take them a few years to do so and if I question the likelihood of them remaining cordial once this latest crisis is sent pack back to the FATA.
 
I like this article, it really sounds with me, but I don't think that Pakistan is 'just dandy'.

The problems may have lasted for decades now in the FATAs, causing the instability that allowed the Taliban to take root there, but the very fact that these problems have existed for so long makes Pakistan seem a long way from 'just dandy'.
 
It is also apparently not nearly as serious or as dire as the US government wants you to believe it is. Labelling everybody that doesn't like the US "Taliban" or "Al-Qaida" while deliberately keeping the reporters from the region didn't work in Iraq when the "Taliban" were the "Baathists", and it won't work here.

The US caused this.

As usual...

How is 3% of the population armed with Kalishakovs going to overthrow a government with an army of 500,000?

Don't confuse me with facts! The nukes are in jeopardy! We must act now!

Are you seeing a repeat of official propaganda being disseminated as news? Yes! Yes! I think that is exactly what is going on.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss...
 
I get very nervous when I hear people talking about controlling that region. It's not controllable. And nobody has ever controlled it.
Historian says lolwut?
 
The existence of the Taliban is just ridiculous. I can't think of any other way to describe it.

How could all that American military power have failed to eradicate such a pathetic little fighting force? I mean.. I know why... but.. it's kind of like if.. say.. in the first gulf war, Iraq invaded Kuwait, the Americans said "not so fast, Iraq", commited all their military resources to defeat Iraq, and the result of that being an invasion of Syria, and Saddam Hussein somehow controlling an army in Saudi Arabia.

If the Taliban were such a threat to the world in 2001, why do they still exist? We didn't let Nazi Germany control any armies after WW2.
 
Possibly because of the difference between asymmetrical warfare and conventional fighting?
 
That's only one of the reasons, and you know it.
Sarcastic question to which the asker already apparently knows the answer gets a pithy response.
 
Historian says lolwut?
I think they were talking only specifically about the NWF area, maybe just the Tribal Areas. Did the British, etc, ever exert continuous, direct control over these specific regions?
 
I think they were talking only specifically about the NWF area, maybe just the Tribal Areas. Did the British, etc, ever exert continuous, direct control over these specific regions?
I went a little further back than the Brits. Some Greek dude, apparently they called him the Invincible. "Ever" is such a nice word.
 
How about we don't count those with their capitals in the area? :)
Why? The Afghans haven't been able to hold onto their own territory, not the Taliban when they were in charge nor the current government. I think a better delineation would be between the time it was a [crap]hole (now) and when it was a lot cooler, the "land of a thousand cities" as the Chinese called it (before the Mongols).
 
Top Bottom