[...] Pakistan is far less resilient than it was a few years ago. Even as Pakistani officials bluntly criticize Holbrooke for linking Afghanistan and Pakistan in his ‘AfPak’ strategy, some Pakistanis already see a chronic ‘Afghanization’ of their nation. Current realities include a collapse of law and order in parts of the country, state institutions riddled with corruption and ineffectiveness, a justice system that cannot deliver, a crashing economy with severe joblessness, increasing ethnic tensions and a strong separatist movement in Baluchistan province.
However, the real fear is that under such enormous external and internal pressures, there are no guarantees that the army will stay committed to a democratic system. More so, the military may not remain as united as it has been for the past six decades. What many Pakistanis fear and constantly talk about is not a traditional generals’ coup that may end democracy, but a colonels’ coup that could bring in a pro-Islamist and anti-Western coterie of officers linked to Islamic groups that would then negotiate a compromise with the Pakistan Taliban. That could put Pakistan’s nuclear weapons into the wrong hands. Neither a partial U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan nor a strategy of only using drones to target al-Qaeda could hope to handle such a regional catastrophe.
And a complete American departure would seal the region’s fate.
There it is. I have yet to hear of anyone with more than superficial knowledge of Central and South Asia who doesn’t have the same nightmares. A change of course is urgently needed, yet so bad — so meaningless and nasty — has the debate over Afghanistan become that I’m seriously considering shutting off comments for this post simply because the mere thought of the inevitable, ill-informed and America-centric blather about COIN this and CT that and the safe haven myth and yadda yadda yadda makes my stomach turn.
Then again, fuck it — fire away, what do I care.
I think it’s notable, too, that UNAMA and NATO Defense Ministers are all on board, and hoping the U.S. doesn’t vaccilate (or however it’s spelled).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8322486.stm
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/24/world/europe/24nato.html
It’s also interesting to see how some people have reacted virulently against regionalist arguments, as if they don’t matter.
Do the Baloch and the tribes in the FATA have any sense of connection to Pakistan? In general, do they identify themselves as part of a Pakistani nation? If not, then I wonder how wise it is to ignore any considerations about self-determination and insist upon a border that splits the Baloch, splits the Pashtuns, and grants sovereignty to Pakistan over areas that it has been incapable of governing.
But, if they really want to be part of Pakistan, well, I guess there is hope of some reconciliation. Do they want that?
Schmedlap, before the Brits, all of Pakistan and the Punjab and Kashmir in India were part of Afghanistan, although the Afghans faced many wars with Sikh separatists (who would ally themselves with the Brits against the Afghans and any other anti British groups in South Asia.)
Boloch and the tribes in FATA do have a historic connection to historic Afghanistan. Perhaps a question whether Afghanistan should be administered from Islamabad or Kabul.
Jari, the solution to Afghanistan is obvious. It is VP Biden’s “death star” and “drone army” plan which Nibras Kazimi describes:
http://talismangate.blogspot.com/2009/10/biden-monologues.html
Surprised you haven’t figured it out yet.
Schmedlap:
Your question prompted me to dig up my trusty old copy of Akbar Ahmed’s Social and Economic Change in the Tribal Areas (bought in Peshawar in 1981 when I was 20!). And sure enough, just as I remembered, on page 16 there is a very handy diagram illustrating the world-view of of one Malik Shahzada of the Mohmand tribe. There are eight concentric circles in the diagram, each representing a layer in Mr. Shahzada’s identity: sub-section (Musa Kor), section (Shati Kel), sub-clan (Wali Beg), clan (Halimzai), tribe (Mohmand), ethnic group (Pathan), and finally, on the outermost ring, nation/state (Pakistan).
Whatever you think of Ahmed’s work, I think we can safely say that when it comes to the Pashtun, self-determination, loyalty, and identification with nation/state are complex issues.
BTW, ICG just put out a new report on FATA:
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6356&l=1
As usual, the recommendations are excellent, but of course not what the Pak army wants to hear.
Jari,
“…inevitable, ill-informed and America-centric blather about COIN this and CT that and the safe haven myth and yadda yadda yadda makes my stomach turn.”
Yes well the internal debates in Democracies since the Ancient World are no doubt so frustrating compared to the minutes of a Brussels meeting or the EU’s internal “debates”.
Perhaps we could just turn this all over to the security council. My personal preference is to leave these matters in the capable hands of the Duchess of Grand Fenwick and her wise and experienced minister Tully Bascombe. Tully won his war, and she kept the peace.
Americans (or their haters) are going to be Amero-Centric. Probably Finland is pretty Finn-Centric, very so say around …1940.
I would be interested now in real world to know why the safe haven is a myth. Really. If I missed the post on it, sorry.
The ICG recommendations all seem geared towards integrating the FATA/NWFP with the rest of Pakistan. Do you think in the long-term, from the standpoint of the people in those provinces, that integration with Pakistan is preferable to autonomy?
So Obama “dithers” and we start hearing this crap. Coincidence? I thnk not.
Keep dithering, Obama! Don’t give the bloodsuckers what they want. Damn, just when you think the guy can’t do ONE thing right…
Really, the world is a sucker for Pakistani doomsday fantasies. Can you guys jump any higher?