What Should Be Done About Pakistan?

[Ronojoy1917]

Any sort of invasion would be the worst possible course of action; India would surely be furious if the US plunged Pakistan into a war situation where nuclear weapons are more likely to be launched. Unstable as Pakistan is, and as toothless as the government may be, it is the Army that holds the power and the army that will not allow the country to slide into failed state status. And even though the army may border on the crazy with anti-India paranoia, they are not insane, so I think Pakistan will chug along with a new government that is more palatable to the military. Although it is difficult to perceive true lasting peace between India and Pakistan while the Pakistani Army is still in control, I think relations will improve somewhat in the near future, or at least not deteriorate too much.

I fear more for Afghanistan, because it seems that those who wield power in Pakistan intend to stick with the Taliban for the long-haul, and this will doubtless send the country into utter turmoil when NATO forces withdraw. The subsequent chaos and misery will then most likely be blamed, and rightfully so, on the meddling South Asian neighbors.

 

[aronnax]

How idealistic of you, but misguided. UNSC maybe provides some sort of legal justification, but in reality whenever it does something, it's merely rubber stamping what has been agreed between the principal great powers of today's world - which in things that really matter is precious little.

UNSC does provide legal justification. And this legal justification is good for both the domestic and international reactions. America's reputation was murdered by it's no-questions-asked attempts to conduct international wars without consent from the UN. People at home point out the illegality of the war.
The Libyan intervention, due to the 'rubber stamp' is hard to challenge. When South Africa and other African nations voiced their opposition, they had to acknowledge that although they disagreed, the intervention was not illegal.

Some crises are too fast for the UN to handle, even without the customary Russian stalling, delaying, and monkeywrenching. Other crises threaten the security of some countries far more than they threaten the security of others - but these other countries might abuse their position in the UNSC to block and "legal" response to the crisis at hand just to hurt their rivals.

UNSC has to be reformed then til it can better served urgent diplomatic problems. You call me misguided in my belief in it. But just like your belief in the EU, which itself is the biggest idealistic international relations project, I believe that the UN has her place among diplomacy.

Bugger international law. When vital interests are threatened, relying on the UN to set things right would be like relying on God to answer your prayers - it simply won't happen. Don't you find it odd that the only issues where the UNSC ever finds a consensus are the relatively unimportant ones?

I agree that Russian/Chinese cooperation or at least silent approval should be secured. But if it isn't, the rest of the world (=the US + allies) will have to act anyway. If Pakistani nukes got into the hands of the likes of Al Qaeda, guess who would be the likely target - hint: not Beijing or Shanghai.

No. The world isn't (US+Allies). No, (US+Allies) do not decide when and when not to disregard international law for the 'vital interests' they presume to be good. It's not a surprise that you put more weight on the Amero-European world view than others. You'll find that the other 4 billion people on earth disagree.
If the US wants to safeguard nukes in Pakistan, they better do it with international consent. Otherwise it is just another show of aggressive and thoughtless action on the level of thuggery.

No. When nukes are concerned, no time can be lost on pointless debates with a bunch of anti-Western muttonheads. You know the saying, it's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to get permission. If the world wants to complain about American unilateralism, let it - if it succeeds in disarming Pakistan and neutralizing the threat of its nuclear weapons, I'll wrap myself in the US flag and sing their ugly anthem all day long

And that's why we precisely disagree on this issue. I don't think there is much more we can argue. You believe that America+Europe have the best interest and it's their way or the highway. I believe that this is just one level above imperialism and we need to proceed with more egalitarianism.

 

[Tahuti]

And even though the army may border on the crazy with anti-India paranoia, they are not insane, so I think Pakistan will chug along with a new government that is more palatable to the military.

On the side note, trying to be distinct from India is exactly Pakistan's raison d'etre.

 

[LostInTime]

About the UNSC, a lot of smaller nations base their support on the decision, so even if it seems to be flawed as said, there is a lot of diplomatic gain from it that can't be gained elsewhere. And it's also easier to sell a need for war to the general public with it, who remains ignorant of most UN diplomacy maneuverings anyway. Not every country is as trigger happy as USA.

(compare support for Afghanistan vs Iraq etc.) The UNSC approval makes it easier for a big part of NATO to support a war they wouldn't otherwise join.

And about Pakistan, just get out of there as soon as possible and let India and Russia deal with them. It's a ticking timebomb, so any hostile action there is pointless and could be like sticking your hand in a wasp nest. It's not like there is a lot of oil there anyway