No announcement yet.

Pakistan's break-up could destabilise region: report

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Pakistan's break-up could destabilise region: report

    do the pakistani people agree with this article? should india work for stable
    pakistan ?

    Pakistan's break-up could destabilise region: report

    By Amir Mateen

    WASHINGTON: "Should the (United States) military be tailored to seize and occupy nations, such as Pakistan, whose disintegration could destabilise a region," asks The Los Angeles Times in its Sunday edition. The report mentions this as one of the concerns that the Pentagon has while reshaping its global military strategy. It says that the new Pentagon management team assembled by Defence Secretary Donald H Rumsfeld has completed a sweeping strategic analysis that is expected to recommend a new approach to America's military strategy.

    The key questions that are being addressed at the Pentagon are: Will the enemy of the future field familiar conventional forces, such as those of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein? Will there be a larger opponent, such as China, in a fight primarily centred in the air and sea?

    The Pentagon is contemplating a concept known as the two-war doctrine, which stipulates the need for heavy ground forces, a reduced role for large aircraft carriers and the trimming of fighter force that is so dear to the air force leadership.

    What should be a matter of concern for Pakistan is that the fears about a nuclear war between India and Pakistan and about Pakistan's breaking up are being increasingly mentioned in American media as well as strategic reports.

    In fact, one of the favourite themes of war-gaming among Pentagon officials is about Pakistan's disintegration. This was mentioned in Pentagon's 'Joint Vision 2020', the core planning document of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the excerpts of which were leaked by The Washington Post some time ago. This was one of the many reports that have come out of the US establishment, painting doomsday scenarios for Pakistan.

    The war games are used to ask how the US military might respond to some of the biggest questions it faces: "Will Pakistan and India engage in nuclear war-or, perhaps even worse, will Pakistan break up, with its nuclear weapons falling into the hands of Afghan mujahideen"? The Pentagon, it said, is looking at Asia as the most likely arena for future military conflict, shifting away from its traditional focus on Europe.

    The US military's favourite way of testing its assumptions and ideas is to run a war game. Increasingly, the major games played by the Pentagon take place in Asia, on an arc from Tehran to Tokyo. The report quotes a Pentagon official saying, about two-thirds of the forward-looking games staged by the Pentagon over the last eight years have taken place partly or wholly in Asia.

    Another report in The New York Times, published on Sunday emphasizes the increasing focus towards Asia. It says that for a man who has occupied the White House for just 12 weeks, George Bush has already had more than his share of bad luck in Asia.

    So far there has been a mid-air collision with China, a maritime collision with Japan and a diplomatic collision with the two Koreas. "The only thing we've missed is a nuclear confrontation between India and Pakistan", one of Bush's senior foreign policy advisers have been quoted as saying. Obviously, the latest tiff with China will have its impact on the US policy towards South Asia as well. Indians have done well by explaining their point of view through Jaswant Singh's recent meeting with President Bush.

    Pakistanis are far behind in putting across their interpretation of events. There are reports of further exchanges between Washington and New Delhi in the weeks to come. The next month will have India's Foreign Secretary Chokila Iyer visiting Washington. There is also the possibility of Defence Secretary Rumsfeld or, as per their recent understanding, US Joint Chiefs of Staff visiting India later this year. India is doing a good job in keeping itself in favourable position in the ongoing strategic review.

    Reports suggest that the China issue has exposed some serious gaps in the Bush administration's thinking about Asia. They posed questions of how to balance engagement and containment, how to balance relationship with one country without estranging the other, how to defend American interests without trouncing Asian sensibilities and how to protect American trade without compromising security.

    The Times argues that the China crisis broke out before the new administration had time to draw a road map for the region - never an easy task in territory that mixes rich and poor, chip plants and water buffalo, ancient enmities and an absence of security alliances. And the president's own chairman of the board style has left leaders in the region uncertain how much of what they are seeing is his own policy, or indeed which of his advisers has his ear. It further says that the biggest lesson to be learnt from the China crisis is that of all the world's cauldrons of brewing trouble, none is bigger than Asia and few can boil over faster.


    I believe that Pakistan is certainly going Afghanistan's way...its a matter of time before someone like Mullah Omar rules the country and imposes Taliban-brand of Islam on Pakistan. (Read my post "Talibans taunt Islamabad").
    However, I don't think the break-up of Pakistan is in India's interest. Having said so I am also of the view that a strong and stable Pakistan is also NOT in India's interest.I think, Pakistan in its present set-up, governed by coup-leaders and largely discarded by the world is in India's interest.


      Utter bull****, and link please.
      And chilli keep your opinions to yourself nobody cares what all you indians think.

      You can't fix stupid. So might as well troll them!


        same here ...


          Good to hear that we both agree that your opinion is not worth it as long as it is not objective or logical.

          You can't fix stupid. So might as well troll them!


            /* Delete those 3118 posts of utter junk */

            delete from gupshup_posts where user_name = 'CM' ;

            /* I don't want to see them again */


            [This message has been edited by chilli (edited April 17, 2001).]


              >>delete from gupshup_posts where user_name = 'CM' ;<<

              Chilli that was funny.
              CM, on a serious note Pakistan has been broken up before.
              It could well happen that an indepent Pakthunistan comprising parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan will materialise, with the central asian states carving up the rest of Afghanistan.
              Though I grant you it is going to be a big mess.
              I believe the worst assumption Pak army made was that they thought they could control the afghans.


                Today Pakistan is in a confused state of mind. Sooner or later it has to open door to Taleban and go for self-destruction.

                It's a sorry state that India will have to pay a big price in this suicidal game plan of Pakistan.


                  Again its the same pattern, any news on pakistan braking up makes you indians feel good about your selfs.


                    Look andhra india has 14 independence movements.
                    It is absolutely pointless to discuss this, as it has been discused before.

                    CROIRE A L'INCROYABLE
                    You can't fix stupid. So might as well troll them!


                      Well, I am Muhammad Omer Iqbal, based in Lahore; and a very patriotic Pakistani as most of you would have noticed on other message boards.

                      Given Pakistan's current state, and a very similary history in 1971 - namely the fact that public was upset of the Army then in East Pakistan and is not happy with the Army in current day Pakistan - it might not take much long before ordinary people, who are dying of hunger, may accept Indian or American or for that matter any country's soldier on its territory. In East Pakistan, people welcomed the Indian soldiers because they wanted to get rid of Army crimes. In current day Pakistan, the situation is slightly better, but heading fast towards a similar scenario.

                      American interest? They have no other ally to use in South Asia. The closest are Saudi Arabia, too far in the west and Japan, too far in the east - nothing in central/south east asia. Also, India wants to become a global power themselves, which means a security threat for Pentagon. If this region gets across the local enmity, its global crisis for United States.

                      Indian interest? They don't want Pakistan to break up and then be taken by Taliban for instance. They know they can't handle Islamic fundamentalism. Given the current happenings on Pak-Afghan border, and given the diplomacy that has kept Afghanistan away from penetrating into Peshawar with force, it is eminent that if Pakistan broke, Afghans will push themselves in. Getting NWFP, where they enjoy a lot of support with the locals.

                      Pakistan; a study of history is scary; mirror image of public discontent as was in 1971 in East Pakistan. People are upset and willing to rise if there were a forceful leader. Millions of people dying of hunger. Frankly speaking, my personal opinion is that American takeover for stabilization of Pakistan would be better for this country. It will remove poverty, it will better the institutions and it will also make economy much better.

                      I mean just look at us, our railway infrastructure is that of the British, roads, telephone, telegraph, bureaucracy, most of our laws are dated back to 1909. Except for Mr Shahbaz Sharif doing in Lahore what he did, Pakistan hasn't improved any further in last 20 years. As far as amenities development is concerned, we only built dams; that also under military government. In fact all that happened, happened so under military; and Pakistan broke under military too! And ofcourse the Islamic bomb - thanks to which we're dying, but our brothers wanted to show the West how strong Muslims are; forgetting completely that wars in modern day are won on economic grounds more than on the military grounds.

                      People are literally dying. Give an advertisement for a telephone operator, and there will be a line of around 100 people, many of whom would be graduates. There is not even a SINGLE institution working properly.

                      It is very scary indeed.


                      [This message has been edited by oiqbal (edited April 25, 2001).]


                        Why the hell do all the idiots in the world have to come to gupshup AND ESPECIALLY PAK FORM!!

                        /* ^You mess wid me....I mess wid U^- AlCapone *\


                          well idiots have the right to exchange views
                          and ideas may be we can learn something or unlearn something



                            it is neither in best interest of pakistan or india to see the other one break up... which will be an increasing problem for both countries.

                            the difference is that there aren't any freedom movement running in pakistan so the break up of pakistan is not that likely as it is of India.

                            Nehru said that they needed Kashmir to be part of India otherwise all else will fall apart.. the day Kahsmir gains its independence (an increasingly likely prospect) the rest of the freedom movements gain heart and you have india breaking up in at least four parts.

                            Independant Assam
                            Independant Tamil (south India and north Sri Lanka)