The nightmare scenario
James Forsyth 7:38pmBruce Reidel chaired Obama’s review into Af-Pakl policy which makes this piece by him explaining how jihadis could take over Pakistan worth paying attention to. Here’s his scenario for how it could happen:
“Extremist forces are beginning to align. The spread of their influence could come easily. To secure power, the Taliban—currently concentrated in the tribal areas west of the Indus and all along the border with Afghanistan—would need to move east. This would take them from the Pashtun-dominated regions into the Punjabi heartland, where they need to gain significantly more support. There is good evidence this is already happening. The Pakistani Taliban is now coalescing with the Punjab-based Lashkar-e-Taiba. Though differences between the organizations remain (they have no common leader or agreed-upon agenda other than jihad against India and the West), they could well overcome their differences and make overthrowing the government their common priority.Terrorist leaders would likely be able to tap into the deep anger among landless peasants as well. In the India-bordering provinces of Punjab and Sindh, where they already have a great deal of support, the extremists could mobilize a mass movement similar in some respects to that which toppled the shah of Iran in 1979. Press reports suggest antilandlord agitation has been a part of the extremists’ success in the last year in Swat and elsewhere. And in this way the current civilian government would be swept from power and the army would be pressed to make an accommodation with the new Islamist leadership. Since many in the army back the jihadists already, a deal with an Islamist movement would be attractive, especially if the Islamists made promises of protecting the army’s interests (which might or might not be kept later). The new government would be composed of representatives of the Pakistani Taliban, LET and possibly the Islamist political parties that have contested electoral power in the past.”
As Reidel goes on to point out, the consequences of this would be horrendous. You would have a nuclear armed state actively supporting terrorism against India, the United States, Israel and the West in general. It is impossible to see how this could end in anything other than disaster. For all the gravity of the economic situation, I strongly believe that the international situation is actually more worrying and more dangerous.
Hat tip: Reihan Salam
Previous
Moraymint
June 30th, 2009 8:59pm Report this commentYes, for some time I have been significantly more anxious about events in Pakistan than I have been about the global economic crisis (and that's saying something).
The scary thing is that our own political elite are now so utterly wrapped up in their own pathetic version of student politics, what chance is there of them addressing foreign and defence policy right now? After all, they've been clueless in this respect for the past decade; why would they suddenly get real now?
The past 12 years of Labour (mis)rule have proved to be an unmitigated disaster for this country; I defy anyone to cite evidence to the contrary.
On the specific issue of taking steps to secure and defend the British way of life; here, the Labour Party's performance has been little short of criminal.
logdon
June 30th, 2009 9:41pm Report this commentNot forgetting we've got two million of them here.
Despite the fact that 80% percent of terrorist activity in Britain is of Pakistani origin we actually increased immigration to around 240,000 last year with a substantial number from Pakistan.
If military action occurs on the Sub Continent who will they show allegiance to?
We've seen already the reaction to the Iraq War.
Fifty two Londoners died at the hands of British Islamists who had never even been there. Imagine what would happen if some kind of insurgency blows up on their home turf?
Even if we were not involved we are still the west, the infidel and kuffar, you only have to read the sites to guage the antipathy and separation.
This, as Reidel points out is serious. Cameron talked of civil war. He may be closer to the truth than any of us thought.
Jim
June 30th, 2009 10:05pm Report this commentThis sounds like a scam to get more donations from the west. The Pakistani army and the terrorists have been working together for years. Who cares if they kick out their nominal leaders, the feudal Bhuttos et al. The point is, would they use their weapons to attack the west? The answer is no, they don't have the range. Nor are they ever likely to have. Just leave the whole place to collapse in on itself, it's what they want.
Peter
June 30th, 2009 11:33pm Report this comment"You would have a nuclear armed state actively supporting terrorism against India, the United States, Israel and the West in general."
Which I would hope any right-thinking India, US or Israel would threaten to nuke into a bowl of glowing glass at the merest sign of belligenance amd mean it. Wouldn't expect the EU to have the orbs to do it.
Ivo Bligh
July 1st, 2009 12:42am Report this commentWhilst the situation in Pakistan is indeed grave, Reidel's scenario may be a gross exaggeration. It must be remembered that Pakistan is a country of various ethnicities who don't get along at the best of times; the Sindhis (which include the Karachites), for instance, quarrel incessantly with their Punjabi counterparts. Pakistan's history of politics and power has been by and large dominated by the Punjabis and the Sindhis - and thus, to throw the Pashtuns into the mix throws into the equation questions of identity, ethnicity and so forth.
The real danger to Pakistan is if the Punjabis and Sindhis begin to form significant Talibanesque movements of their own. I somehow dont see them being taken over in the way the speaker describes.
drakes drum
July 1st, 2009 7:08am Report this commentWe can all sleep easy in ou beds knowing that Paddy Ashdown and co are calling for OUR nuclear capability to be scrapped!
Safe in the knowledge that this country, apparantly, has learnt nothing about the Second World War and how prepared this country was-by allowing our defence capability to be almost zero!
Safe asleep knowing that we are safe, guarded by Gordon Brown and his new Secretary of State for Defence Col: Blimp himself!
Whilst the enemy within, muslim fundamentalism,is growing in strength. We are reducing our capabilities.
It is going to get ugly and this time, with Obama in charge, we will not be able to call on the USofA to help us.
I fear that he has taken his father's side and hates this country for what we did in Kenya and I do not believe he will lift a finger to take on muslim fundamentalism he will just prevaricate and talk, talk, talk.
Let us all pray that we get our general election before the events, outlined by Bruce Reidel,and others, come to pass.
If this was to occur before that general election. That will be the reason they will never call one.
Then it will be a case of rolling over and hope they tickle us!
Take to the hills!
TomTom
July 1st, 2009 8:41am Report this commentRussia, China, USA have a vested interest in containing this problem and would presumably destroy any nuclear arsenal with a joint attack. It is more important to keep India stable than to tolerate further instability in Pakistan and it may take severe punishment to re-awaken the world to the folly of sacrificing economic development for weapons far too advanced for the economic base to serve the interests of landowning elites
C Powell
July 1st, 2009 8:59am Report this commentWhich is why we should stop immediately all travel from Pakistan: no more visas to so-called "students", much closer scrutiny of those British citizens travelling there etc., etc. The British government's duty is to protect its citizens but I agree with Moraymint that it has failed utterly in this.
Rhoda Klapp
July 1st, 2009 10:08am Report this commentSurely Obama can go there and make a speech so that all will be sweetness and light again?
..what's that? You mean it has always been a disaster and never was sweeetness and light? That people leave there to live in Luton? Blimey.
Minnie Ovens
July 1st, 2009 10:29am Report this commentlogdon makes a good point.
It seems we are involved in a catastophic war in Afghanistan where the enemy pick the place and time to fight and then retreat to their side of "the border".
For them this can take year, five or fifty.
The West does not have a similar luxery.
What is risible is that we are "fighting for the West's freedom" or other banal and simplistic words to that effect.
The actual battlefront is alrady much closer to home, thanks to successive governments and their immigration, diversity and appeasement policies.
7/7? We didn't seem to learn from that so we wait, rather as they did in the 1939/40 Phony War .
Hysteria
July 1st, 2009 5:56pm Report this commentRhoda - you have it right - Mr Obama will just tell everyone to get along and play nicely, all the Taleban and fellow travllers will say "Gee - he's right - we really ought to live in the 21st C" - and bingo - problem solved.
Back to top