What Should Be Done About Pakistan?

[Commodore]

Since recent intelligence has indicated that the Pakistani government is heavily supporting the Taliban I was wondering what action, if any, you all think should be taken against them?. Since the NATO is at war with the Taliban*, the NATO nations need to take some action against the Pakistani regime to dissuade them from supporting our enemies.

I do not support any significant military action against Pakistan, but I do think they should be crippled economically to the point their government cannot function. About the closest thing to military action I would support would be a complete blockade on land and sea until Pakistan unconditionally pulls its support for the Taliban and publicly denounces them and apologizes to the entire world for supporting such an organization. This blockade should also be backed up by severe economic sanctions with severe political and economic reprecussions for any nation that violates the sanctions. My goal would be to turn them into an international pariah to the point where they would have no choice but to abandon the Taliban.

If it seems like I'm angry with Pakistan it's because I am. This is a nation that has claimed to be NATO's ally for this entire war, all the while stabbing us in the back. To me, the Pakistani government are just a bunch of filthy, rotten lying criminals that deserve absolutely no respect from the international community.

*You can say "blah, blah, blah we never declared war" but this is a war, no matter how you try to spin it.

 

[Disgustipated]

I'm not that angry with Pakistan. Just have to deal with it. They have their own interests, and we can't expect them to support the United States interests. The war effort is doomed to failure, and we should remove all troops from the region. I suppose I take the libertarian point of view here. If we see terrorist camps spring up in the future, we bomb them. Otherwise leave Afghanistan alone.

 

[Commodore]

I'm not that angry with Pakistan. Just have to deal with it. They have their own interests, and we can't expect them to support the United States interests. The war effort is doomed to failure, and we should remove all troops from the region. I suppose I take the libertarian point of view here. If we see terrorist camps spring up in the future, we bomb them. Otherwise leave Afghanistan alone.

I don't have a problem with them pursuing their own interests. What I have a problem with is the underhanded means by which they are pursuing those interests. Sure, the Soviets did some pretty underhanded things during the Cold War, but they never claimed to be our allies while they were doing it.

 

[kramerfan86]

Any action that destabilizes Pakistan just risks creating a problem that makes the Afghan war look like a minor inconvenience.

 

[Commodore]

Any action that destabilizes Pakistan just risks creating a problem that makes the Afghan war look like a minor inconvenience.

Agreed, but they can't just be allowed to keep doing what they're doing. There needs to be something done that shows them how serious we are about stopping all support to the Taliban.

 

[kramerfan86]

Problem is I dont think there is a magic bullet that is both severe enough to make them act against their own interests yet doesnt harm them to the degree that it risks sending them into chaos. It is so unstable relatively speaking I just dont know how it could be done.

 

[Virote_Considon]

1st major problem with OP: You seem to be under the assumption that, like in good ol' stable US of A, the civilian Pakistani government (i.e. the institution of Pakistan which claims to be NATO's ally) has any real semblance of control over their armed forces (i.e. the institution of Pakistan which is what supports the Taliban, as far as I'm aware). This isn't true. Punishing the civilian government wouldn't help dealing with the real problem - the renegade Pakistani Security Forces, who operate largely by their own rules and not the governments.

2nd problem: You seem to think that turning Pakistan into a pariah state would force them away from the arms of the Taliban - noted pariah organisation - rather than into them. Desperate times calls for desperate measures; not moderate, reasonable measures.
_________________

Anyhow, I'd suggest NATO invades Pakistan, destroys their nukes, neuters the PSF and announces overt regional support for India. Pakistan's going to be no better off for it but at least without their nukes, the world might be.

 

[Commodore]

Problem is I dont think there is a magic bullet that is both severe enough to make them act against their own interests yet doesnt harm them to the degree that it risks sending them into chaos. It is so unstable relatively speaking I just dont know how it could be done.

What about convincing India to threaten Pakistan with invasion? Keep in mind, I would not want to see India actually invade, but maybe the idea of their mortal enemy launching a NATO-backed invasion would be enough to scare Pakistan straight.

@Virote: But the recent reports don't say that it's rogue military units, they say that Taliban support is sanctioned by the Pakistani government.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

Pakistan has good reasons to be angry. If a foreign army killed over a thousand Americans last year the American neo cons who say Pakistan is evil would be crying like crazy. The American operations in Pakistan should be seen as an act of war. The Americans should be thankfull that Pakistan helps the americans build bases instead of dropping bombs on them.

Stop provoking Pakistan and they will stop hating you.

 

[Winner]

Well, Pakistan is an enemy, but for now the West is forced to pretend it isn't because the whole military operation in Afghanistan is dependent on "secure" supply lines through Pakistan. Unless the West is willing to invade Pakistan (ha-ha), there is little we can do.

When the Afghan operation ends, well...

... as I see it, Pakistan needs to be neutralized as a nuclear power by any (I repeat, ANY) means necessary. It far more dangerous that Iran will ever be.

 

[aronnax]

Well, Pakistan is an enemy, but for now the West is forced to pretend it isn't because the whole military operation in Afghanistan is dependent on "secure" supply lines through Pakistan. Unless the West is willing to invade Pakistan (ha-ha), there is little we can do.

When the Afghan operation ends, well...

... as I see it, Pakistan needs to be neutralized as a nuclear power by any (I repeat, ANY) means necessary. It far more dangerous that Iran will ever be.

Why would you say that Pakistan with nuclear bombs is more dangerous than Iran despite not having ever used them.

 

[Winner]

Why would you say that Pakistan with nuclear bombs is more dangerous than Iran despite not having ever used them.

Why would you say a paranoid schizophrenic with a loaded gun is more dangerous than one without it?

I think the question answers itself. Iran is still decades from having a credible nuclear arsenal, if that is its aim. Pakistan has one already, and the country is descending into chaos. There is a great danger Pakistan will become a failed state or an Islamic theocratic dictatorship or a combination of the two.

The world should have a contingency plan in case this starts happening and act decisively to disarm Pakistan. The alternative is nuclear war.

 

[Hehehe]

First you need to understand why Pakistan does what is does. The Taliban is going to win (by "win" I mean that the Taliban won't be defeated militarily and the US is going to withdraw). As you probably know, Pakistan is at odds with India, and thus cannot afford to be sandwiched between two enemies. And this is why they want to be in good terms with Taliban.

When contemplating any possible US action against Pakistan, one must remember that any action that would destabilize Pakistan is off the table, given that Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Second, with the war in Afghanistan, the troops there must be supplied. There are two land routes used to supply them. One is through Russia, and the other is trough Pakistan. The one going through Pakistan was closed some time ago (not sure if it has since been reopened), but it is very much in US interests to have it reopened, because if the only supply route is trough Russia, that leaves US vulnerable to extortion.

Then there's the fact that there's a lot of anti-Americanism in Pakistan, and cooperating with the great Satan isn't an easy thing to sell to the Pakistani public.

TL;DR The US needs Pakistan's help, and pushing Pakistan too hard might end up hurting the US

 

[Winner]

First you need to understand why Pakistan does what is does. The Taliban is going to win (by "win" I mean that the Taliban won't be defeated militarily and the US is going to withdraw).

The *only* reason why Taleban still exists is the Pakistani support for it.

As you probably know, Pakistan is at odds with India, and thus cannot afford to be sandwiched between two enemies. And this is why they want to be in good terms with Taliban.

No, this is the delusional logic that compelled Pakistan to *create* Taleban in the first place. A sane country would have abandoned such policy after learning what kind of regime Taleban wants to establish. Now their anti-Indian paranoia is leading them into direct confrontation with the West, whose support Pakistan used to have.

When contemplating any possible US action against Pakistan, one must remember that any action that would destabilize Pakistan is off the table, given that Pakistan has nuclear weapons.

Not for long.

Second, with the war in Afghanistan, the troops there must be supplied. There are two land routes used to supply them. One is through Russia, and the other is trough Pakistan. The one going through Pakistan was closed some time ago (not sure if it has since been reopened), but it is very much in US interests to have it reopened, because if the only supply route is trough Russia, that leaves US vulnerable to extortion.

This is true, unfortunately.

TL;DR The US needs Pakistan's help, and pushing Pakistan too hard might end up hurting the US

Prudent course of action: disentangle from commitments in Afghanistan, settle accounts with Pakistan. The West has been bombing the wrong country for the past 10 years.

 

[aronnax]

Why would you say a paranoid schizophrenic with a loaded gun is more dangerous than one without it?

I think the question answers itself. Iran is still decades from having a credible nuclear arsenal, if that is its aim. Pakistan has one already, and the country is descending into chaos. There is a great danger Pakistan will become a failed state or an Islamic theocratic dictatorship or a combination of the two.

The world should have a contingency plan in case this starts happening and act decisively to disarm Pakistan. The alternative is nuclear war.

I don't know about Islamic theocratic dictatorship... But I agree in sentiment that nukes in Pakistan is not safe if the state collapses. However, it is not possible to draft said contingency plan without well, making things worse with Pakistan. I'm also sure several other countries (China) will object to countries planning how to invade Pakistan.

The U.S should stop all aid and arms trade with Pakistan. Diplomatic exchanges should be brought down as much as possible. It might be good for the U.S to withdraw her ambassador.

 

[Leoreth]

You cannot be at war with the Taliban. I know, blah, blah.

I hate it that apparently every conflict is now a war. War on Terror, War on Drugs

 

[Winner]

I don't know about Islamic theocratic dictatorship... But I agree in sentiment that nukes in Pakistan is not safe if the state collapses. However, it is not possible to draft said contingency plan without well, making things worse with Pakistan. I'm also sure several other countries (China) will object to countries planning how to invade Pakistan.

Such plans are rarely advertised in the media. And I think the US is already making them anyway. China might object all it wants, it won't matter one bit if Indian support is secured.

The U.S should stop all aid and arms trade with Pakistan. Diplomatic exchanges should be brought down as much as possible. It might be good for the U.S to withdraw her ambassador.

I agree completely.

 

[aronnax]

I'm completely against violating the sovereignty of another nation without permission from the security council and if I had it my way, the U.S would have never found herself in Kabul.
So to actually plan and enact an invasion without international approval is something I oppose.
And don't think China will just sit there and see India invade Pakistan. I doubt China would send her military to stop this hypothetical invasion but she can pull off some damage using economic, trade and diplomatic relations.
And I also think that India would not consider invading Pakistan as well or even seen supporting it in such a situation. It might actually cause and opposite effect of uniting the country in opposition to India and other foreign invaders under a populist warlord.

 

[Hehehe]

The *only* reason why Taleban still exists is the Pakistani support for it.

No, this is the delusional logic that compelled Pakistan to *create* Taleban in the first place.

These two claims are new to me. Can you perhaps provide a source?

A sane country would have abandoned such policy after learning what kind of regime Taleban wants to establish.

Supporting Taliban is very much sane (maybe not moral but it is sane). Pakistan does not want to bet on a losing horse (the US), especially given the high stakes. This is why Pakistan plays for both teams.

Prudent course of action: disentangle from commitments in Afghanistan, settle accounts with Pakistan. The West has been bombing the wrong country for the past 10 years.

I agree with the first statement, nothing will be achieved in Afghanistan. But the reason why many countries, US included, do not want to invade Pakistan is because Paksitan helps counter Indian power (balance of power)

 

[warpus]

I do not support any significant military action against Pakistan, but I do think they should be crippled economically to the point their government cannot function.

That's probably the worst thing you guys could do. It would probably help bring some sort of an ultra-religious party into power.