Who the hell are the good guys, and who the hell are the bad guys?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 07:39:46 PM
Who the hell are the good guys, and who the hell are the bad guys?
HA! The answer is NO.
assuming you're operating from a frame of reference based on presumed advantages to US foreign policy:
Bad Guys:
Al Quaeda in Pakistan
Baluchistan Separatists
NWFP Tribal Chiefs & Warlords
Less-bad Guys:
The government
The Really Bad Guys (and the reason none of the rest of it means much):
The ISI, probably the world's shadiest (and most effective) state-run intelligence service, who are pulling strings on all sides of all the conflicts Pakistan is entangled in.
that's my understanding of it. Cain, I'm sure, will have elaborations and corrections.
Unless something drastic has happened very recently and I missed it (ie; over Xmas, since I haven't been watching the news lately), ECH has it. Almost every bad thing that has been said of Al-Qaeda is true of the ISI, and several other things besides. For example, at least Al-Qaeda doesn't run secret prisons (yet).
Everything else is pretty much jockeying for influence on the national level, and not really that interesting or even important, except perhaps the military, who are basically indistinguishable from the ISI anyway. Both fund Islamic terrorist groups at home and abroad, deal in nuclear weapons tech secrets, carry out proxy wars against the elected government if it does things they don't like, move massive quantities of heroin etc etc
Quote from: Cain on December 29, 2009, 08:42:14 PM
Unless something drastic has happened very recently and I missed it (ie; over Xmas, since I haven't been watching the news lately), ECH has it. Almost every bad thing that has been said of Al-Qaeda is true of the ISI, and several other things besides. For example, at least Al-Qaeda doesn't run secret prisons (yet).
Everything else is pretty much jockeying for influence on the national level, and not really that interesting or even important, except perhaps the military, who are basically indistinguishable from the ISI anyway. Both fund Islamic terrorist groups at home and abroad, deal in nuclear weapons tech secrets, carry out proxy wars against the elected government if it does things they don't like, move massive quantities of heroin etc etc
Thanks. Kinda figured.
Also, thanks to ECH.
I was doing some reading on the Chechen jihadis not that long ago. Guess who started moving the Afghan mujahideen into Nagorno-Karabakh to act as special forces for the talent-strapped Azerbaijani army? And guess who then transported them into Dagestan and Chechnya once they started getting ideas above their station about what to do now that the war was over? Pakistan rightfully gets a lot of shit for stirring trouble in Kashmir, but they were trucking mujahideen mercenaries everywhere, back in the day. I haven't even begun to look into some of the central Asian civil wars, but I'd be willing to bet they had a hand in them all.
you left out Taliban, aren't they are a pretty active force in Pakistan now?
Quote from: Cain on December 29, 2009, 08:59:20 PM
I was doing some reading on the Chechen jihadis not that long ago. Guess who started moving the Afghan mujahideen into Nagorno-Karabakh to act as special forces for the talent-strapped Azerbaijani army? And guess who then transported them into Dagestan and Chechnya once they started getting ideas above their station about what to do now that the war was over? Pakistan rightfully gets a lot of shit for stirring trouble in Kashmir, but they were trucking mujahideen mercenaries everywhere, back in the day. I haven't even begun to look into some of the central Asian civil wars, but I'd be willing to bet they had a hand in them all.
Any particular reason we pretend these assbags are our allies?
Meh. Puppets of the ISI and military. Unruly puppets, and probably only a select few in the military are in on it...but, well, who funds the mosques and charities and religious parties who legitimate the Pakistani Taliban's ideology and provide a steady steam of recruits? Who created the tribal zones in Pakistan to be their own state within a state where they could do as they pleased with no official oversight? Who got them all the guns and jeeps?
I suspect all these questions have a common answer.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 09:01:09 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 29, 2009, 08:59:20 PM
I was doing some reading on the Chechen jihadis not that long ago. Guess who started moving the Afghan mujahideen into Nagorno-Karabakh to act as special forces for the talent-strapped Azerbaijani army? And guess who then transported them into Dagestan and Chechnya once they started getting ideas above their station about what to do now that the war was over? Pakistan rightfully gets a lot of shit for stirring trouble in Kashmir, but they were trucking mujahideen mercenaries everywhere, back in the day. I haven't even begun to look into some of the central Asian civil wars, but I'd be willing to bet they had a hand in them all.
Any particular reason we pretend these assbags are our allies?
When the Trans-Afghan Pipeline gets built, a warm water port in a stable country, to sell oil to America would be nice. Oh, and the Pakistani Army somehow managed to pull strings in America to get....F-15's or 22's, I'm not sure, at a time when they shouldn't have been sold, due to an arms embargo due to their nuclear program, but they got them anyway, somehow. Blackmail is an ugly word, but so is "assassinating your previous head of state for being a pain in the arse", as is "selling nuclear missiles without the safety manuals to North Korea", all of which have not troubled the consciences of the ISI much.
You'd think if it was as simple a matter as who controlled the pipeline and making sure a rogue warlord didn't put a hole in it, that the USA would have sided more unequivocally with ISI and not gone so hard after the Taliban. I mean, sure, they can't be trusted, love teh jihad more than teh dollar, but the ISI, as always, pulls the strings, and without Pakistani support the Taliban insurgency would've been dead in the water years ago. So I think it has more to do with who in Washington knew what Pakistan was up to in the 80s and 90s, but turned a blind eye and signed on the arms deals anyway, because lots of those people are still around, in one capacity or the other.
Or....I'm just too tired and haven't thought through the geopolitics clearly enough.
I'm pretty sure I'm missing something, but I'm not sure what. China or Turkey related, maybe.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 09:01:09 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 29, 2009, 08:59:20 PM
I was doing some reading on the Chechen jihadis not that long ago. Guess who started moving the Afghan mujahideen into Nagorno-Karabakh to act as special forces for the talent-strapped Azerbaijani army? And guess who then transported them into Dagestan and Chechnya once they started getting ideas above their station about what to do now that the war was over? Pakistan rightfully gets a lot of shit for stirring trouble in Kashmir, but they were trucking mujahideen mercenaries everywhere, back in the day. I haven't even begun to look into some of the central Asian civil wars, but I'd be willing to bet they had a hand in them all.
Any particular reason we pretend these assbags are our allies?
That's a good question. I also wonder if an expanded alliance with Pakistan undercuts a long-time alliance with India... or do we not need them anymore? (um. With the notable exception of having a cheap and convenient place for US business interests to off-shore call centers?)
No, we like India, because they've fought wars with China in recent history, and have the population to stand up to them.
We also don't trust India, because sooner or later they're going to want to exert that force in other areas of interest, not to mention their past dalliances with the USSR but for now, they're useful as allies of some sort.
Quote from: Cain on December 29, 2009, 09:51:51 PM
No, we like India, because they've fought wars with China in recent history, and have the population to stand up to them.
We also don't trust India, because sooner or later they're going to want to exert that force in other areas of interest, not to mention their past dalliances with the USSR but for now, they're useful as allies of some sort.
And their navy is SO CUTE! :lulz:
Well, everyone has to start somewhere.
I'm also presuming the US friendship with India isn't exactly predicated on the hope they will sail between the PLA(N) and Taiwan, to defend the latter from the former, and more like move 400,000 troops to the border, and go "grrrr" and stuff, if needed. Or parade some nukes or something.
Quote from: Cain on December 29, 2009, 09:51:51 PM
No, we like India, because they've fought wars with China in recent history, and have the population to stand up to them.
We also don't trust India, because sooner or later they're going to want to exert that force in other areas of interest, not to mention their past dalliances with the USSR but for now, they're useful as allies of some sort.
So, how long can anyone be an ally of both India and Pakistan?
Quote from: Cain on December 29, 2009, 09:56:16 PM
Well, everyone has to start somewhere.
I'm also presuming the US friendship with India isn't exactly predicated on the hope they will sail between the PLA(N) and Taiwan, to defend the latter from the former, and more like move 400,000 troops to the border, and go "grrrr" and stuff, if needed. Or parade some nukes or something.
India isn't going to fuck with China's game. If they had, they'd have done it over the Cipro scam.
As long as they remain the sole superpower.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 09:58:08 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 29, 2009, 09:56:16 PM
Well, everyone has to start somewhere.
I'm also presuming the US friendship with India isn't exactly predicated on the hope they will sail between the PLA(N) and Taiwan, to defend the latter from the former, and more like move 400,000 troops to the border, and go "grrrr" and stuff, if needed. Or parade some nukes or something.
India isn't going to fuck with China's game. If they had, they'd have done it over the Cipro scam.
So long as the State Department keeps recommending them for advanced nuclear reactors, I'm pretty sure the Indians will tell the White House they'd march on Beijing on their own. They wouldn't do it, of course, but hey, when someone's handing out goodies for free, why bother telling them anything but what they want to hear?
Quote from: Cain on December 29, 2009, 09:15:58 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 29, 2009, 09:01:09 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 29, 2009, 08:59:20 PM
I was doing some reading on the Chechen jihadis not that long ago. Guess who started moving the Afghan mujahideen into Nagorno-Karabakh to act as special forces for the talent-strapped Azerbaijani army? And guess who then transported them into Dagestan and Chechnya once they started getting ideas above their station about what to do now that the war was over? Pakistan rightfully gets a lot of shit for stirring trouble in Kashmir, but they were trucking mujahideen mercenaries everywhere, back in the day. I haven't even begun to look into some of the central Asian civil wars, but I'd be willing to bet they had a hand in them all.
Any particular reason we pretend these assbags are our allies?
When the Trans-Afghan Pipeline gets built, a warm water port in a stable country, to sell oil to America would be nice.
This is also why the separatists in baluchistan are such a potential problem. Gwadar is the port they need to be the terminus of the pipeline, and Gwadar would also most likely end up being the capital and/or primary port of an independent or autonomous Baluchistan. One reason it's a potential problem is that the Baluch actually have a pretty legitimate claim of ethnic and cultural distinctness from pakistan, and were actually part of the sultanate of Oman recently enough that there are still Baluch of older generations who have dual citizenship. The ties of the region to Pakistan are flimsy and not long-standing at all.
The other reason it's a potential problem is that an honest-to-god Baluch armed insurgency would likely force Iran to take a much more active and overt hand in the Afghanistan conflict. There's reason to believe that would be good for Afghanistan, in the long run, but current US foreign policy is pretty dead-set against allowing Iran to drastically expand their influence in that part of the world.
Yeah, Iran had a bit of input on the original invasion plans (I believe it was something to do with Hazara loyalties, since the Hazara are Shiite and a pretty big constituency in Afghanistan), but since then have been consistently left in the cold, so they've effectively washed their hands of the whole thing. Which is why the Iranian-Afghan-Pakistan border is a free-for-all when it comes to drugs and arms right now. No ISAF troops in those Afghan border regions either, not that they'd be much use anyway.
Either way, Iranian troops tromping around near a pipeline isn't going to make the American government happy, and despite the rumours of support for Jundullah, which I suspect is due to their opposition to Iran rather than their regional ambitions, neither will the Baloch insurgency. The Russians had lots of problems with nationalist types controlling energy terminals just after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and I suspect others have learnt from their example.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/27/detained-americans-pakistan-nuclear-power-map
QuotePolice are trying to determine whether five Americans detained in Pakistan had planned to attack a complex that houses nuclear power facilities.
The young Muslim men, who are from the Washington DC area, were arrested in Pakistan earlier this month. Pakistani police and government officials have made a series of escalating and, at times, seemingly contradictory claims about the men's intentions. US officials have been far more cautious, but they, too, are looking at charging the men.
A Pakistani government official alleged on Saturday that the men had established contact with Taliban commanders and had planned to attack sites in Pakistan. Earlier, however, local police accused the five of intending to fight in Afghanistan after meeting militant leaders.
The men allegedly had a map of Chashma Barrage, a complex that along with nuclear power facilities houses a water reservoir and other structures, said Javed Islam, a senior police official in the Sargodha area of Punjab province where the men were arrested.
He stressed that they were not carrying a specific map of a nuclear power plant, but a map of the whole Chashma Barrage. The detained men had also exchanged emails about the area, Islam claimed. "We are also working to retrieve the deleted material in their computers," he said.
Pakistan has an arsenal of nuclear weapons, but also has nuclear power plants for civilian purposes.
Any nuclear activity in Pakistan tends to come under US scrutiny after the main architect of its atomic weapons programme, Abdul Qadeer Khan, was accused of leaking sensitive nuclear secrets. But, as militancy has spread in Pakistan, officials have repeatedly insisted that the nuclear weapons programme is secure.