What Should Be Done About Pakistan?

[GamezRule]

I propose overrunning the region with radioactive monkeys.

 

[Winner]

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.

I honestly don't understand why people still care about the UNSC. Is a military action that's been rubber-stamped by 5 permanent members, of which 1 is the global hyperpower, 1 a lapdog of this hyperpower, 2 self-centred cynical dictatorships, and the last one a defunct former great power with illusions of grandeur, in any way more "moral" or "just"?

I hardly think so.

So to actually plan and enact an invasion without international approval is something I oppose.

Why? If Pakistan starts disintegrating and the danger that nuclear weapons might fall into the hands of some very bad people increases sharply, there simply won't be time to spend months discussing the issue in the UNSC with Russia and China stalling just to pee off the West a little. The US and India would be stupid beyond belief if they waited.

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 that would be nothing compared to the danger of a failed-state Pakistan full of nuclear-armed warlords next to its borders. And China knows very well that in the long term, stable relations with India are more important than a dusty hellhole it needs to constantly prop up. One North Korea is enough, I think.

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.

Depends on the context.

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

General knowledge. Taleban started as a pet project of the Pakistani intelligence service and it never actually stopped supporting it. It has hindered and sabotaged the Western effort to crush Taleban at every step (though admittedly the US shot itself in the foot big time when it went on an adventure to Iraq before finishing the job in Afghanistan).

Taleban could be defeated fairly quickly if it lost its safe bases inside Pakistan and the support it gets from the Pakistani intelligence.

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.

But Taleban wouldn't have stood a chance if it wasn't for the Pakistani support. The prudent course of action for Pakistan should have been to backstab Taleban, help in its destruction, and then reap the benefits of Western gratitude. Afghanistan would remain under Western influence and thus incapable of acting against Pakistani interests.

Instead, Pakistan managed to royally pee off the West, which now doesn't trust Pakistan as far as it could throw it. The West is now looking to India as the main strategic ally in the region, and Pakistan is left isolated. Even if the Taleban won back control over Afghanistan (which it won't), it would be a really poor ally compared to the West.

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)

But India is much more valuable, especially if China's power keeps growing. Pakistan doesn't have any value to the West beyond its role in the Afghanistan operation and the general Western interest to prevent instability from spilling over in Asia.

I propose overrunning the region with radioactive monkeys.

That will happen on its own once India and Pakistan settle their differences.

 

[Hehehe]

General knowledge. Taleban started as a pet project of the Pakistani intelligence service and it never actually stopped supporting it. It has hindered and sabotaged the Western effort to crush Taleban at every step (though admittedly the US shot itself in the foot big time when it went on an adventure to Iraq before finishing the job in Afghanistan).

Taleban could be defeated fairly quickly if it lost its safe bases inside Pakistan and the support it gets from the Pakistani intelligence.

I do not think that the idea that Pakistani support is the only thing keeping Taleban alive is general knowledge. I, for one, did not know this. If it indeed is general knowledge, then I suppose providing a reliable source is easy. Insurgents are hard to completely defeat because of the nature of asymmetric warfare.

As for the Pakistani links to Taleban, Pakistani intelligence service has infiltrated Taleban and does (did?) provide the west with intelligence. But this infiltration goes both ways, as some agents probably turned (I am in no way denying that Pakistani intelligence may be supporting Taleban intentionally too)

But Taleban wouldn't have stood a chance if it wasn't for the Pakistani support. The prudent course of action for Pakistan should have been to backstab Taleban, help in its destruction, and then reap the benefits of Western gratitude. Afghanistan would remain under Western influence and thus incapable of acting against Pakistani interests.

If you can prove the first sentence, then I suppose you may be right.

 

[NickyJ]

Darn, I couldn't find a "Bomb Pakistan" song.

 

[wolfigor]

Pakistan has good reasons to be angry.

....

Stop provoking Pakistan and they will stop hating you.

You know, if really Pakistan government and military really did care about what you wrote things would be very different.
Pakistan has only to lose the aid (military and economic) that USA give them every year: renounce to it and they'll be free from the arrogant Americans.

The reality is that Pakistan government and military doesn't give a crap about it and prefer to get a lot of dirty US$ in their pockets and advanced US military technology for their anti-Indian paranoia.

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.

Vulnerable to another extortion: Pakistan collaboration doesn't come for free.
Between 2002–2010, Pakistan received approximately 20.7 billion $ in military and economic aid from the United States.

 

[kochman]

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

Especially since they have nuclear weapons...

 

[Incodcito]

Nothing different should be done. America needs the supply lines into Afghanistan among other things. When the US leaves, it will be forced to continue to prop up and support the Pakistanis because of its nukes.

Which is a shame... that money would be better spent cultivating a relationship with India.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Vulnerable to another extortion: Pakistan collaboration doesn't come for free. Between 2002–2010, Pakistan received approximately 20.7 billion $ in military and economic aid from the United States.

But as Pakistan has closed the land route, the USA
and other Western countries should stop paying.

There are far better uses for foreign aid i.e. to help
people suffering from diseases and tsunamis etc.

 

[bathsheba666]

Pakistan has the bomb.

The West is well practised at coming up with inaction in the face of that.

 

[Winner]

Because so far it has only dealt with countries which can be... well, negotiated with. If Pakistan was about to collapse completely (Somalia style) or if a really nasty Islamists were to seize power, than the world would have to act in order to disarm Pakistan.

Especially since there's allegedly a widespread conviction among the Pakistani military elite that if Pakistan were to fail, it would be better to go out with a bang ( ).

 

[kochman]

Nothing different should be done. America needs the supply lines into Afghanistan among other things. When the US leaves, it will be forced to continue to prop up and support the Pakistanis because of its nukes.

Which is a shame... that money would be better spent cultivating a relationship with India.

The USA no longer uses Pakistan for supply routes... for several months now.

 

[Joecoolyo]

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

Why not?

They're attacking us, we're attacking them. Sounds like a war to me.

 

[Disgustipated]

The drugs never attacked us. Inanimate objects are incapable of that.

Terrorists on the other hand, did attack us, and many have the message that they want to destroy America and the West. Declaring war on them is perfectly legitimate.

 

[Joecoolyo]

I was talking about the Taliban not the drugs.

Though I don't mind the term for the drugs, not everything needs to be literal.

 

[Core Imposter]

Let me chime in here to point out the difference between the neoconservative position on Pakistan which is of course to immediately invade, and the conservative position which is to immediately get the heck out leaving behind only a phone number (which should of course be disconnected asap).

 

[History_Buff]

I do not think that the idea that Pakistani support is the only thing keeping Taleban alive is general knowledge. I, for one, did not know this. If it indeed is general knowledge, then I suppose providing a reliable source is easy. Insurgents are hard to completely defeat because of the nature of asymmetric warfare.

It is if you've ever read anything about Afghanistan or the Taliban. Pakistan isn't just trying to hedge their bets; the Taliban is effectively a Pakistani organization. It was started by an Afghan in exile in Pakistan, funded by Pakistan, and it's fighters are mainly Pakistani.

You'll note that the Taliban only became an effective force after Pakistan decided that Hekmatyar (the previous Pakistani puppet, and a butcher if there ever was one) was never going to achieve control of the country.

As for the Pakistani links to Taleban, Pakistani intelligence service has infiltrated Taleban and does (did?) provide the west with intelligence. But this infiltration goes both ways, as some agents probably turned (I am in no way denying that Pakistani intelligence may be supporting Taleban intentionally too)

The ISI doesn't need to infiltrate the Taliban, nor can it's agents really be turned. They are the same people, with concurrent goals.

 

[aronnax]

I honestly don't understand why people still care about the UNSC. Is a military action that's been rubber-stamped by 5 permanent members, of which 1 is the global hyperpower, 1 a lapdog of this hyperpower, 2 self-centred cynical dictatorships, and the last one a defunct former great power with illusions of grandeur, in any way more "moral" or "just"?

Mostly because this isn't the Cold War era anymore where nations can gung-ho into another country without expecting resistance. Shooting first and asking questions second. International actions must be enacted with international legitimacy. Not because a handful of countries decide that they have the prerogative to barge into a country.

Yes, I agree that the UNSC isn't the perfect set-up and is widely unfair. But I think that agreement by the SC, including the 11 other temporary nations gives these actions more 'right' than violating international law.

Why? If Pakistan starts disintegrating and the danger that nuclear weapons might fall into the hands of some very bad people increases sharply, there simply won't be time to spend months discussing the issue in the UNSC with Russia and China stalling just to pee off the West a little. The US and India would be stupid beyond belief if they waited.

And that would be nothing compared to the danger of a failed-state Pakistan full of nuclear-armed warlords next to its borders. And China knows very well that in the long term, stable relations with India are more important than a dusty hellhole it needs to constantly prop up. One North Korea is enough, I think.

Which is why it's far better for China to be included in action to keep nukes in Pakistan from falling in the wrong hands than otherwise. I believe that China understands the threat of nuclear weapons in the wrong hands and would work to keep them out. Yes I know China and Russia enjoy vetoing things like this. But unlike Syria while tragic, the deaths of civilians means little to Moscow and Beijing, nuclear weaponry would make them more amicable.
I don't think that China is just going to let the US and India slide in with no resistance. I expect China to want more checks and balances that the operation isn't there to undermine China, such as including Chinese troops, using UN peacekeepers, etc.

Yes, finding a solution in which China and Russia can agree on will take time. But better than being criticised by the world for A) Another American violation of sovereignty. B) Indian War of Aggression
At least, give diplomacy a week before going gung-ho.

Depends on the context.

Agreed.

 

[Incodcito]

The USA no longer uses Pakistan for supply routes... for several months now.

Oops

 

[Winner]

Mostly because this isn't the Cold War era anymore where nations can gung-ho into another country without expecting resistance. Shooting first and asking questions second. International actions must be enacted with international legitimacy. Not because a handful of countries decide that they have the prerogative to barge into a country.

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.

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.

Yes, I agree that the UNSC isn't the perfect set-up and is widely unfair. But I think that agreement by the SC, including the 11 other temporary nations gives these actions more 'right' than violating international law.

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?

Which is why it's far better for China to be included in action to keep nukes in Pakistan from falling in the wrong hands than otherwise. I believe that China understands the threat of nuclear weapons in the wrong hands and would work to keep them out. Yes I know China and Russia enjoy vetoing things like this. But unlike Syria while tragic, the deaths of civilians means little to Moscow and Beijing, nuclear weaponry would make them more amicable.

I don't think that China is just going to let the US and India slide in with no resistance. I expect China to want more checks and balances that the operation isn't there to undermine China, such as including Chinese troops, using UN peacekeepers, etc.

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.

Yes, finding a solution in which China and Russia can agree on will take time. But better than being criticised by the world for A) Another American violation of sovereignty. B) Indian War of Aggression

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

At least, give diplomacy a week before going gung-ho.

If we're lucky, the diplomacy is already in full swing. Pakistan is getting more unstable with every passing day, so I'd be surprised if the Americans hadn't already discussed possible 'solutions' with the Chinese, the Indians, and others. International relations are the ultimate iceberg, what we actually see and hear of in the media is less then 1% of what's really going on.

 

[Tee Kay]

Pakistan has been in bed with China since 1950. They cooperate more closely than most people think.