facebook Twitter RSS Feed YouTube StumbleUpon

Home | Forum | Chat | Tours | Articles | Pictures | News | Tools | History | Tourism | Search

 
 


Go Back   BanglaCricket Forum > Miscellaneous > Forget Cricket

Forget Cricket Talk about anything [within Board Rules, of course :) ]

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 2, 2010, 10:40 PM
al Furqaan's Avatar
al Furqaan al Furqaan is offline
Cricket Sage
 
Join Date: February 18, 2004
Location: New York City
Favorite Player: Mominul, Nasir, Taskin
Posts: 20,735
Default Very cogent and concise definition of the "Pakistani Problem"

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/...iref=obnetwork

Editor's note: Fawaz A. Gerges is a professor of Middle Eastern politics and international relations at the London School of Economics, London University. He is author of "The Far Enemy: Why Jihad Went Global."

London (CNN) -- On a recent visit to India, British Prime Minister David Cameron had this to say about Pakistan, historically a close friend of the West's: "We cannot tolerate in any sense the idea that this country is allowed to look both ways and is able, in any way, to promote the export of terror, whether to India or whether to Afghanistan or anywhere else in the world."

Seen by the Pakistani government as a slap in the face, Cameron's remarks almost caused a diplomatic breach in relations between the two countries. His remarks followed the leaking of U.S. documents on the WikiLeaks website in which Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency was accused of secretly aiding and inflaming the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan, and they engendered a heated debate in Western capitals on whether Pakistan is a friend or a foe.

The dominant narrative in the West now is that Pakistan is a foe, playing a double game, guiding the Afghan insurgency with a hidden hand even as it receives more than $1 billion a year from Washington for its help in combating al Qaeda and like-minded groups.

"The burden of proof is on the government of Pakistan and the ISI to show they don't have ongoing contacts" with the militants, said U.S. Sen. Jack Reed, a Democrat on the powerful Armed Services Committee who visited Pakistan this month.

During a July visit to Pakistan, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton publicly aired Washington's suspicion and mistrust of its ally by stating that she believed that someone in the Pakistan government knew where al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden was hiding in the country's tribal regions along the border with Afghanistan.

Clinton's statement was an implicit indictment of Pakistan's double game; it was met with angry denials by Pakistani leaders, who said the U.S. undervalued their support and sacrifice in battling al Qaeda.

What this simplistic argument neglects is that Pakistan serves its own vital national interests and cooperates with the West only to advance those interests.

An underlying premise in inter-state relations is that nations have only interests and no permanent friends. That is the game nations have played since the establishment of the state system in the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Pakistan's foreign policy is a case in point.

Throughout the Cold War rivalry between the U.S.-led Western alliance and the Soviet camp, Pakistan allied itself with the West and fought devastating wars against India, its strategic rival and a close friend of communist Russia. The Pakistan leadership leveraged the Cold War to extract military and technical aid from the United States and the Western powers.

When Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan, Pakistan acted as America's spearhead in the fight against the "evil empire," and its Inter-Services Intelligence agency was in charge of the CIA's expansive campaign to train, arm and guide the Afghan mujahedeen, including the bin Laden contingent of the Afghan Arabs.

More than any other power, Pakistan played a key role in the armed resistance that turned Afghanistan into Russia's Vietnam. In return, Pakistan's security forces received logistical and financial aid from the U.S., but more important, Pakistan gained the upper hand in Afghanistan, becoming a paramount arbiter of its neighbor's internal affairs.

After the Soviet forces retreated in defeat in 1989 and Afghanistan plunged into all-out civil war, Pakistani leaders felt deserted by the U.S. and had to pick up the shattered pieces and bring about a measure of stability to the war-torn country. Once the Soviet Union collapsed, the U.S. had no interest in either Afghanistan or Pakistan, relics of the Cold War.

Pakistan relied on the Taliban, a student-led Islamic-based social movement that burst into the scene and imposed a draconian order wrapped in an Islamic emirate in Afghanistan in the 1990s. Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency nourished a close connection with the Taliban and consolidated its hegemony over the broken country.

Although Pakistan was a close friend of the U.S.'s from the 1950s until 1989, the 1990s marked the beginning of suspicion and distrust between the two countries. The Pakistani leadership, particularly the security apparatus, felt scorned and abandoned by its former superpower patron, which cut Pakistan off from military aid because of its nuclear weapons program and threatened to impose sanctions on it.

There is more to the relationship between Pakistan and the West than the simple dichotomy of "either/or."

For example, since last year, U.S. officials say the Pakistani military has launched a powerful offensive against the Pakistan Taliban, who are allied with the Afghan Taliban, because the former began to threaten the current Pakistani government. (The Pakistani military has suffered more than 2,000 casualties, and hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens have been displaced.)

The Pakistani military insists that it is waging all-out war against both al Qaeda and its extremist allies -- the Pakistan Taliban -- and U.S. officials concur that they have seen a shift in the country's attitudes toward the Taliban in the past 18 months.

On the other hand, the Pakistan military appears to be reluctant to attack the Afghan Taliban, as the West demands, because it wants to leverage the Taliban in any future settlement in Afghanistan. For the Pakistani leadership, the Afghan Taliban are an important bargaining card, a strategic reserve on which they could rely when Western troops exit the war-torn country.

Like their Western nemesis, the Afghan Taliban bitterly complain that the Pakistanis are playing a "double game" with them and say that they "feed us with one hand and arrest and kill us with the other." There is no love lost between Pakistan and the Taliban, a relationship based on self-interests and political considerations.

Pakistan's strategic rivalry with India outweighs any pressure exerted by the West on Islamabad to end support for the Afghan Taliban. Pakistan's conduct via Afghanistan is driven by geostrategic concerns and fear of Indian influence in its backyard, not by intrinsic hostility or friendship toward the West or the Afghan Taliban.

If the Western powers want to drive a wedge between Pakistan and the Afghan Taliban, they must address Pakistan's geostrategic concerns and interests via India. An effective settlement of the Afghan-Pakistan conflict must be region-wide and involve India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and China, an almost impossible mission.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Fawaz A. Gerges.
__________________
Bangladesh is a stronger team with Shakib al Hasan.
Bangladesh is a stronger team without Shakib al Hasan.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old October 3, 2010, 01:07 AM
Neel Here's Avatar
Neel Here Neel Here is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: March 17, 2009
Favorite Player: Aravinda DeSilva, Lara
Posts: 2,765

a very shallow analysis of the matter, something that can be written in a weekend with a few newsweek and NYT articles as source. does not delve into the feudal structure which allows the senior military officers , industrialists, politicians and top bureaucrats to come only from the feudal landed gentry class.
to understand pakistan, you have to understand it's internal social structure and economics. looking at it from outside with western glasses is not going to help.
__________________
Anything can be sacrificed for truth,
nothing is too valuable to sacrifice truth instead.
-- Swami Vivekananda
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old October 3, 2010, 04:24 AM
al Furqaan's Avatar
al Furqaan al Furqaan is offline
Cricket Sage
 
Join Date: February 18, 2004
Location: New York City
Favorite Player: Mominul, Nasir, Taskin
Posts: 20,735

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neel Here
a very shallow analysis of the matter, something that can be written in a weekend with a few newsweek and NYT articles as source. does not delve into the feudal structure which allows the senior military officers , industrialists, politicians and top bureaucrats to come only from the feudal landed gentry class.
to understand pakistan, you have to understand it's internal social structure and economics. looking at it from outside with western glasses is not going to help.
its actually one of the more intelligent attempts to explain the situation. this doesn't mean its the correct one. personally, i think pakistani society has degenerated beyond any "easy" solutions. there are too many problems top to bottom to fix anytime soon. i hardly think teh situation will get better anytime before the next 20-30 years.

however, i can't help but feel your sole objection to this analysis is that he hints at "solving" the Kashmir issue. apart from that, Gerges' analysis is actually spot on, one with hardly any flaw, if any at all.
__________________
Bangladesh is a stronger team with Shakib al Hasan.
Bangladesh is a stronger team without Shakib al Hasan.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old October 3, 2010, 05:31 AM
Neel Here's Avatar
Neel Here Neel Here is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: March 17, 2009
Favorite Player: Aravinda DeSilva, Lara
Posts: 2,765

oh dear ! in fact I hadn't even noticed that he had mentioned kashmir. you should take that tin foil hat off sometime you know, get some cool air there and all.
__________________
Anything can be sacrificed for truth,
nothing is too valuable to sacrifice truth instead.
-- Swami Vivekananda

Last edited by Neel Here; October 3, 2010 at 05:42 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old October 3, 2010, 07:12 AM
ammark's Avatar
ammark ammark is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 17, 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 6,078

As moderator: Neel, please share your deeper insight to the issue with us instead of asking Al Furqaan to remove his tin foil cap.

As myself: Could you please go into greater depth as to how this author's writeup simply glosses over and misreads the problems in Pakistan?

I actually find this article to be "more intelligent" an analysis than most other write-ups that seem never to mention a government's need to address internal conflicts and political dynamics. What you said about Pakistan's feudal structure holds true, but I would also argue that if you were to eliminate Pakistan's elite structure, India and the greater world would be faced with a far deeper morass than what is being held together by the existing corrupt feudal overlords.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old October 3, 2010, 07:28 AM
Tigers_eye's Avatar
Tigers_eye Tigers_eye is online now
Cricket Savant
 
Join Date: June 30, 2005
Location: Little Rock
Favorite Player: Viv Richards, Steve Waugh
Posts: 25,146

Not easy solution but honesty is lacking hence the demise. For several countries but Pak is leading the way!!
__________________
The Weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is an attribute of the Strong." - Ghandi.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old October 20, 2010, 12:38 PM
al Furqaan's Avatar
al Furqaan al Furqaan is offline
Cricket Sage
 
Join Date: February 18, 2004
Location: New York City
Favorite Player: Mominul, Nasir, Taskin
Posts: 20,735

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neel Here
oh dear ! in fact I hadn't even noticed that he had mentioned kashmir. you should take that tin foil hat off sometime you know, get some cool air there and all.
thats the only reason i can see why any non-prejudiced Indian would have any issue with the article in question.

i'll go ahead and challenge you to produce an example of a similar article (similar in scope, i.e a PhD dissertation doesn't count, but an abstract of a PhD dissertation is certainly acceptable) that touches on more aspects of the geo-politics of Pakistan. can you find a more balanced, and here is the key, a more thorough explanation? you can even provide one yourself.

to pretend that Pakistan can be explained without the influence of afghanistan is retarded. to pretend that pakistan can be explained without the influence of India is the definition of unintelligent. to pretend that pakistan can be explained without the influence of the US is prepesterously stupid and dim-witted.

this same situation would exist regardless of whether pakistan is a "feudal" society or not, whatever that means to begin with. no nation on earth, let alone pakistan, is governed by any class other than the "elite". even in communist china, the leadership is nothing other than the elite members of "the party".

your second homework assignment is to provide an example of any society, state, parish, nation, province, county, or state in which the paupers rule over the princes.
__________________
Bangladesh is a stronger team with Shakib al Hasan.
Bangladesh is a stronger team without Shakib al Hasan.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
BanglaCricket.com
 

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Partner Sites | Useful Links | Banners |

© BanglaCricket