Pakistan - Destabilization & Division

Pakistan has always elected democratic governments. But only its military dictators receive overwhelming arms and funding from the socially progressive secularists of the world. If Zia ul Haq for example had not been bolstered, life would have been very different, including for those on 9/11.

Its not like there was no precedent. 20 years ago:

More of the same ole, same ole

edit: requires subscription. will search another link.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Regardless SAM, most people outside of the West or westernized nations such as India, Israel, etc. don't really care much about the fact that they have a military dictator, monarch, or parliamentary 'democracy' (emphasis because it is usually an oligarchy in disguise).

What normal, everyday people want are leaders who care for them and their causes. Most of the people in South America, Africa, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and Western Asia have no problem with benevolent dictators, not even with the idea of it. It is those leaders, either elected from a pseudo-democracy or military force, who usurp the people's rights and whom sell out their own citizens to foreign governments whom most people have a problem with. Governments should be measured mainly by their actions and fruits of their influence, not necessarily their structure.

Do not misconstrue this post for judging my stances on this issue. I have not posted my views as of yet.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The relevance is not what the people want. The relevance is what the socially progressive, liberal secular humanist states declare they want. Strangely, what they claim they want is very different from what they practise. If you look at the states they bolster, they all have right wing extremist fascists in power. If you look at the ones they oppose, they have democratically elected governments they want to overthrow and replace with puppets. When you support states who are throwing people in prison for insisting that a state belongs to all its people and opposing one that says racism is wrong and everyone should have equal rights regardless of religion or ethnicity, then simultaneously calling yourself democratic or secular is somewhat of an anachronism.

Perhaps some western 'civilisation' would be a very good idea.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree SAM, there is unfortunately much hypocrisy in the call of Western states for freedom, democracy, and human rights, while the practice at home and abroad is quite opposite.

I mean that democracy is not the overall solution it is propagated to be. Many people outside the West would prefer a benevolent dictator to a corrupt parliamentary 'democracy' any day. Westerners act as if they have reached 'the end of civilization' or the 'pinnacle of civilization' whereas this is just propaganda basically. All empires fall eventually, we see the capitalist societies falling as we speak.

I caught your quote: 'What do you think of 'Western civilization?' 'I think it would be a good idea.' -Gandhi

 

You sell them short.

That's the authoritarian's standard excuse, and one the US uses often - the US has overthrown democracies in many places, and used that excuse of "normal, everyday people don't really want democracy in these places" almost every time.

Benevolent dictators, eh? That's how the US media described the Shah of Iran, reinstalled; August Pinochet; Rios Montt.

 

We helped save Afghanistan from the Russians, who did destroy it, and the Taliban helped destroy it further. Iraq was already in sad shape, but that was Bush's war, and he was possibly the most unpopular president in history. If we helped create the Taliban, then we have a responsibility to remove that threat from the region. If you haven't noticed, Taliban actions also kill innocent people, all wars kill innocent people, and create refugees. I guess they get a pass though, because we committed the unthinkable crime of daring to cross their sacred borders as infidels.

 

The Kashmir issue is a legacy of Colonialism. There have been no major problems since 2001. Until now.

 

South America has gone democratic. The dictators were not benevolent. Perhaps the dictators thought that they were a benevolent influence on their nations but objectively few dictators appear benevolent even when compared to the chaos of corrupt democracy.

I only know of one dictator who's rule looks preferable to democracy and that is the dictator of Singapore.

Pakistan's experience with democracy has not been good but in general Democracy produces better government for the people than Dictatorship does. New forms of democracy should be tried because Democracy also has been disappointing and clearly has not been perfected yet.

 

True, and as an Indian, I prefer participatory government to any other. Fortunately for better or worse, there is no two party system in either India or Pakistan. In the long term view, the more diffuse the power at the top, the better it is for the people.

 

Interesting dynamic now is, Western powers all want to outline solution, but can only send force of arms and destruction of property, military "solution". Money and aid helpful, but like a patient in hospital cannot stay in bed forever.

Now doctors are sick, no money left and "solution" is big illusion of Western ideal, to get rich and go broke together. Eastern people not sure, do we go for broke like West, or wait for West to fall apart?

When only "viable" solution is invasion and destruction, to fight distant, remote intangible threat, West is lost for solution already. Now just talk left, and big supply of guns, from West with only viable industry, which is more guns and weapons for everybody, to make "secure".

Ha ha, big funny joke.

 

what is your first language werzil?

 

Latin, but speak many language, some fluent. Not much Hindi.

 

That doesn't tell us much, the arms trade being what it is. Pretty much every party you mention in your post has been using American military equipment for quite some time.

 

So is Pakistan itself.

Militant Islam in general, with all of its creations, seems to be a reaction to colonialism and its aftermaths.

That doesn't mean it isn't a serious factor, and a bad influence.

I doubt that it's true, anyway. With all the AKs floating around, the Russian and Chinese stuff, and the local supplies, why would they be using expensive and relatively ill-supported US weaponry?

 

Indeed yes.

Still, there was clearly a period of relative calm, where "militancy" did not become a serious internal issue, until US intervention.

 

I guess Sioux militancy, Haitian militancy, etc were also a reaction to colonialism and its aftermath. Western militancy, however, is expansionist in nature, thus this creates a problem. Occupation and invasion naturally breed resistance, especially when a once independent people are subjected to it.

Some Western people, especially those who swallow all the lies from the American media oligarchy, enjoy using thoughtless phrases such as 'militant Islam,' 'Islamist,' fundamentalist Muslim,' 'political Islam,' etc. These words generally have no concrete meaning and convey a general lack of knowledge of the ground realities.

Simply look at my previous post, it seems that my post was excised to satisfy the prejudiced notions which people have concerning. Everyone who quoted my previous post, you forgot the most important line which was at the very end.

My main point still stands. It is not dictatorship which is the main problem, it is injustice under whatever guise it may originate from, whether dictatorship, monarchy, pseudo-democracy, etc.

However, what we can observe in the specific case of the Pakistan, Afghanistan region, there is a concerted campaign by foreign powers (India, Israel, US, and Afghan/NA Karzai collaborators) to destabilize and divide Pakistan. The over-arching trend seems to be toward Balkanization of the region to make it easier to control. This is very dangerous as it will weaken the central authorities in the region and allow unprecedented meddling from neighbors: India, Iran, Russia, and US forces. The project for the New American century (developed by an American think thank tied to the CIA) displays a map in which there exists an independent Balochistan (i.e. like a puppet American client state such as Kuwait) and larger Afghanistan including Northern Pakistan (under direct US military supervision), and with Indian control over the Muslim population of Kashmir. Naturally, this should worry the people of the region and this topic has been popular in debates throughout the region. For the time being, the enemies of the Muslim people of Southwest Asia have been successful in their occupation of Afghanistan and client control of Pakistan (the strongest Muslim military power in the world, with the nuclear weapons and the capacity to deliver).

However, what they do not realize is that form mutual suffering, they are slowly pushing towards the unification of Pakistan and Afghanistan into a larger federation. Massive influx of Afghani refugees into Pakistan and Pakistani Pukhtoon internally displaced people into the other provinces of Pakistan is breeding massive sympathy for the Afghani/Pukhtoon cause throughout the region, even the wider Muslim world.

Pakistani flags are openly being displayed in protests in Afghanistan and Kashmir, and likewise with Afghani flags in Pakistan in a show of massive solidarity. There have been protests in the two nations including more than a hundred thousand people at a time in open opposition to US plans for the region. naturally, the American media have avoided covering these protests or even engaging the discourse in the streets of Pakistan and Afghanistan. What the US doesn't realize is that in destabilizing and attempting to divide a people, they are enraging the entire populace of the region into open opposition to their policies.

The Americans have done more for Afghani, Pakistani solidarity than ever been accomplished without them. They are sowing the seeds for their own demise, not only in Pakistan, but Afghanistan, and indeed the wider Muslim world.

 

I think you are Pakistani and I think you are the only Pakistani who writes at Sciforums. I would like to understand Pakistan better. I would like it if you would write more on Pakistani politics including the politics you don't agree with. I am sure a few others would also like it. Of course most Americans only want simple cartoon caricatures of good guys and bad guys with whom the USA is entangled in a international drama with the USA being the primary good guy; you can't change their minds.

I am curious which Pakistani ethnic group you are from.

The US politics is complex as every nations politics is complex. I think you have a few details of US politics wrong. The president and the media may refer to the appointed head of the CIA as the CIA and the media may quote that the CIA says such and such based on what the CIA's public spokes person says but the head of the CIA and the spokesperson really belong to the president while the CIA is comprised of a large group of people with diverse opinions who stay in the CIA for decades.

My understanding based on a few questionable sources is that most people in the CIA had contempt for PNAC and for the Bush administration's foreign policy team. The CIA definitely had nothing to do with PNAC. PNAC was a bunch of guys who thought that Clinton and the elder Bush were too reluctant to use force. My reading is that the CIA is wary of using force and understands the the 1950s and 1960s are over and the use of force is much less likely to produce the intended results in this era than it was in that era.

One of the guys who circulated a partition map of Pakistan is former colonel Ralph Peters who now is just a media gadfly allied with Fox TV and PNAC type people.

I think there was an earlier map put out by some other PNAC type person.

For the time being the uSA has returned to Bush the elder/Clinton type of foreign policy and the PNAC types are on the outside of power. Bush the elder and Clinton are still to heavy handed and nasty to the world for my tastes but they are not as reckless as the PNAC types.

Trying to carve up Pakistan would be reckless. Everybody would see through it except for the idiots that supported Bush the younger. PNAC and Israel backers and the arms industry may welcome an escalation of hostilities between the USA and everybody loyal to Islam but they are a minority and most Americans do not want war with Islam in general even though the majority of Americans still think that the USA experienced an unprovoked attack by the Extremist fringe of Islamic people.

I don't think the Obama administration will make any attempt to break up Pakistan. This does not mean that they will not make stupid mistakes regarding Pakistan that will have bad consequences for both Pakistanis and Americans.

 

No you can't change stupidity and ignorance I'm afraid but you are right Diamond is an asset to these boards offering insight and perspective into matters that only come second hand to most of us here.

 

Thanks for the information regarding PNAC and the CIA, I will attempt to research this matter for myself and reach a conclusion at a later date.

Despite what American leaders have been saying, American military actions have been very aggressive and unprovoked against Pakistan and Pakistani, Afghani civilians in the region. The common consensus among all spectrum of thought in Pakistan is that the US is pushing for the destabilization and destruction of Pakistan, as StrawDog very expertly conveyed in his OP. The Pakistani and Afghani civilians are the main victims of what seems to them as a constant genocide and ethnic cleansing of native Pukhtoons (in Pakistan and Afghanistan). This is why the idea that America wants to spread its influence and control over large swathes of Pakistan's sovereign territory is very frightening for the people of the region. The vast majority of the people of the region oppose any and all interference by the Americans.

As regards to mistakes, I don't believe any of the policies by any American administration in recent years have been mistakes. The goal seems to be a very deliberate weakening and nullification of any self-determination by Muslim states, something which the false-flag operation of 9/11 allows them to pursue with immunity. As I stated before, I don't believe the American security apparatus is capable of such great failure as witnessed on that tragic day. I believe the few in power within the US are willing to sacrifice the many, both clueless Americans and clueless Muslim people, to feed their aspirations of global domination and control. I believe this is all about control, and sadly the few people in the West and Muslim world who attempt to be the voice of logic and peace are shunned. Make no mistake, the destabilization and nullifying of Pakistan is a goal for the US.

 

The insistence on 9/11 being "false flag", and the odd assumption that anyone in such an operation would care whether their targets were Muslim or not, distracts you from the larger pattern.

Your religion is not important to those guys.