Comments on: Pakistan http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/09/19/pakistan-3/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=pakistan-3 n. the principle of good order<br /><br /> "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:25:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: James_Nostack http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/09/19/pakistan-3/comment-page-1/#comment-14143 James_Nostack Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:02:19 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/09/19/pakistan-3/#comment-14143 Oh, of course! It's why I said I agree with the analysis. I guess what I'm saying is that allowing the problem to fester <i>also</i> undermines our strategic goals: Pakistan might break apart if we do nothing, too. (This isn't an excuse for the United States to break Pakistan on purpose--to burn the village in order to save it.) It's a <i>possibility</i> that the idea is to humiliate Pakistan over this mess so that, in the future, they will take more steps themselves: "If we pick a fight with the tribal areas, we'll look pretty bad to our own people, but that's still better than looking completely helpless when the Americans violate our sovereignty." This is a pretty abusive way for America to treat its client, particularly such a fragile client. But if the Taliban and al-Qaeda could end up hugely destabilizing Pakistan anyway, maybe forcing Pakistan's hand, isn't as bad an idea as it first appears? That's the best case I can make for this, but overall I agree it would still be an unwise gamble. Oh, of course! It’s why I said I agree with the analysis. I guess what I’m saying is that allowing the problem to fester also undermines our strategic goals: Pakistan might break apart if we do nothing, too. (This isn’t an excuse for the United States to break Pakistan on purpose–to burn the village in order to save it.)

It’s a possibility that the idea is to humiliate Pakistan over this mess so that, in the future, they will take more steps themselves: “If we pick a fight with the tribal areas, we’ll look pretty bad to our own people, but that’s still better than looking completely helpless when the Americans violate our sovereignty.”

This is a pretty abusive way for America to treat its client, particularly such a fragile client. But if the Taliban and al-Qaeda could end up hugely destabilizing Pakistan anyway, maybe forcing Pakistan’s hand, isn’t as bad an idea as it first appears?

That’s the best case I can make for this, but overall I agree it would still be an unwise gamble.

]]> By: Adam01 http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/09/19/pakistan-3/comment-page-1/#comment-14141 Adam01 Fri, 19 Sep 2008 13:27:05 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/09/19/pakistan-3/#comment-14141 "Yet in order to promote regional stability, doesn’t something need to be done to prevent these guerrilla groups from digging in and consolidating their power? And if so, what’s to be done?" I think it would be a mistake to view the need to do "something" as equivalent to actions that could potentially destabalize the Pakistani state. I'm all for killing/capturing these militants whenever and wherever feasible, but actions that lead to the destabilization of a nuclear armed state of 170 million, that constitutes our only real logistics corridor to support our Afghan operation simply outweigh the benefits. We should be wary of setting up a false dichotomy here: our options are not good vs. bad; rather they are bad vs. awful. “Yet in order to promote regional stability, doesn’t something need to be done to prevent these guerrilla groups from digging in and consolidating their power? And if so, what’s to be done?”

I think it would be a mistake to view the need to do “something” as equivalent to actions that could potentially destabalize the Pakistani state. I’m all for killing/capturing these militants whenever and wherever feasible, but actions that lead to the destabilization of a nuclear armed state of 170 million, that constitutes our only real logistics corridor to support our Afghan operation simply outweigh the benefits. We should be wary of setting up a false dichotomy here: our options are not good vs. bad; rather they are bad vs. awful.

]]> By: James_Nostack http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/09/19/pakistan-3/comment-page-1/#comment-14139 James_Nostack Fri, 19 Sep 2008 12:32:54 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/09/19/pakistan-3/#comment-14139 I agree with your analysis, but this does raise the question of how American military forces can ever go after the Taliban, who are already conducting cross-border raids on Afghanistan, or against Al-Qaeda. In seven years, Pakistan has amply indicated that it is unable to police these regions. It could simply be that the strategic goal of promoting what little regional stability remains stands at odds with the tactical goal of capturing Bin Laden and eliminating the Taliban. Yet in order to promote regional stability, doesn't <i>something</i> need to be done to prevent these guerrilla groups from digging in and consolidating their power? And if so, what's to be done? I agree with your analysis, but this does raise the question of how American military forces can ever go after the Taliban, who are already conducting cross-border raids on Afghanistan, or against Al-Qaeda. In seven years, Pakistan has amply indicated that it is unable to police these regions.

It could simply be that the strategic goal of promoting what little regional stability remains stands at odds with the tactical goal of capturing Bin Laden and eliminating the Taliban. Yet in order to promote regional stability, doesn’t something need to be done to prevent these guerrilla groups from digging in and consolidating their power? And if so, what’s to be done?

]]>