.Warning that Pakistan is in danger of collapse within months
PAKISTAN could collapse within months, one of the more influential counter-insurgency voices in Washington says.
The warning comes as the US scrambles to redeploy its military forces and diplomats in an attempt to stem rising violence and anarchy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
"We have to face the fact that if Pakistan collapses it will dwarf anything we have seen so far in whatever we're calling the war on terror now," said David Kilcullen, a former Australian Army officer who was a specialist adviser for the Bush administration and is now a consultant to the Obama White House.
"You just can't say that you're not going to worry about al-Qaeda taking control of Pakistan and its nukes," he said.
As the US implements a new strategy in Central Asia so comprehensive that some analysts now dub the cross-border conflict "Obama's war", Dr Kilcullen said time was running out for international efforts to pull both countries back from the brink.
When he unveiled his new "Afpak" policy in Washington last month, the US President, Barack Obama, warned that while al-Qaeda would fill the vacuum if Afghanistan collapsed, the terrorist group was already rooted in Pakistan, plotting more attacks on the US.
"The safety of people round the world is at stake," he said.
Laying out the scale of the challenges facing the US in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Dr Kilcullen put the two countries invaded by US-led forces after the September 11 attacks on the US on a par - each had a population of more than 30 million.
"But Pakistan has 173 million people and 100 nuclear weapons, an army which is bigger than the American army, and the headquarters of al-Qaeda sitting in two-thirds of the country which the Government does not control," he told the Herald .
Added to that, the Pakistani security establishment ignored direction from the elected Government in Islamabad as waves of extremist violence spread across the whole country - not only in the tribal wilds of the Afghan border region.
Cautioning against an excessive focus by Western governments on Afghanistan at the expense of Pakistan, Dr Kilcullen said that "the Kabul tail was wagging the dog". Comparing the challenges in the two, he said Afghanistan was a campaign to defend a reconstruction program. "It's not really about al-Qaeda. Afghanistan doesn't worry me. Pakistan does."
But he was hesitant about the level of resources for, and the likely impact of, Washington's new drive to emulate an Iraq-style "surge" by sending an extra 21,000 troops to Afghanistan.
"In Iraq, five brigades went into the centre of Baghdad in five months. In Afghanistan, it will be two combat brigades [across the country] in 12 months. That will have much less of a punch effect than we had in Iraq.
"We can muddle through in Afghanistan. It is problematic and difficult but we know what to do. What we don't know is if we have the time or if we can afford the cost of what needs to be done."
Dr Kilcullen said a fault line had developed in the West's grasp of circumstances on each side of the Durand Line, the disputed border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
"In Afghanistan, it's easy to understand, difficult to execute. But in Pakistan, it is very difficult to understand and it's extremely difficult for us to generate any leverage, because Pakistan does not want our help.
"In a sense there is no Pakistan - no single set of opinion. Pakistan has a military and intelligence establishment that refuses to follow the directions of its civilian leadership. They have a tradition of using regional extremist groups as unconventional counterweights against India's regional influence."
In the absence of a regional diplomatic initiative to build economic and trade confidences before tackling the security issue, the implication, Dr Kilcullen said, was that India alone could not give Pakistan the security guarantees Islamabad required.
The special US envoy Richard Holbrooke has been charged with brokering a regional compact by reaching out to Iran, Russia and China, and Dr Kilcullen said: "This is exactly what he's good at and it could work.
"But will it? It requires regional architecture to give the Pakistani security establishment a sense of security which might make them stop supporting the Taliban," he said.
"The best case scenario is that the US can deal with Afghanistan, with President Obama giving leadership while the extra American troops succeed on the ground - at the same time as Mr Holbrooke seeks a regional security deal," he said. The worst case was that Washington would fail to stabilise Afghanistan, Pakistan would collapse and al-Qaeda would end up running what he called 'Talibanistan.'
"This is not acceptable. You can't have al-Qaeda in control of Pakistan's missiles," he said.
"It's too early to tell which way it will go. We'll start to know about July. That's the peak fighting season … and a month from the Afghan presidential election."
SMH
The warning comes as the US scrambles to redeploy its military forces and diplomats in an attempt to stem rising violence and anarchy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
"We have to face the fact that if Pakistan collapses it will dwarf anything we have seen so far in whatever we're calling the war on terror now," said David Kilcullen, a former Australian Army officer who was a specialist adviser for the Bush administration and is now a consultant to the Obama White House.
"You just can't say that you're not going to worry about al-Qaeda taking control of Pakistan and its nukes," he said.
As the US implements a new strategy in Central Asia so comprehensive that some analysts now dub the cross-border conflict "Obama's war", Dr Kilcullen said time was running out for international efforts to pull both countries back from the brink.
When he unveiled his new "Afpak" policy in Washington last month, the US President, Barack Obama, warned that while al-Qaeda would fill the vacuum if Afghanistan collapsed, the terrorist group was already rooted in Pakistan, plotting more attacks on the US.
"The safety of people round the world is at stake," he said.
Laying out the scale of the challenges facing the US in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Dr Kilcullen put the two countries invaded by US-led forces after the September 11 attacks on the US on a par - each had a population of more than 30 million.
"But Pakistan has 173 million people and 100 nuclear weapons, an army which is bigger than the American army, and the headquarters of al-Qaeda sitting in two-thirds of the country which the Government does not control," he told the Herald .
Added to that, the Pakistani security establishment ignored direction from the elected Government in Islamabad as waves of extremist violence spread across the whole country - not only in the tribal wilds of the Afghan border region.
Cautioning against an excessive focus by Western governments on Afghanistan at the expense of Pakistan, Dr Kilcullen said that "the Kabul tail was wagging the dog". Comparing the challenges in the two, he said Afghanistan was a campaign to defend a reconstruction program. "It's not really about al-Qaeda. Afghanistan doesn't worry me. Pakistan does."
But he was hesitant about the level of resources for, and the likely impact of, Washington's new drive to emulate an Iraq-style "surge" by sending an extra 21,000 troops to Afghanistan.
"In Iraq, five brigades went into the centre of Baghdad in five months. In Afghanistan, it will be two combat brigades [across the country] in 12 months. That will have much less of a punch effect than we had in Iraq.
"We can muddle through in Afghanistan. It is problematic and difficult but we know what to do. What we don't know is if we have the time or if we can afford the cost of what needs to be done."
Dr Kilcullen said a fault line had developed in the West's grasp of circumstances on each side of the Durand Line, the disputed border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
"In Afghanistan, it's easy to understand, difficult to execute. But in Pakistan, it is very difficult to understand and it's extremely difficult for us to generate any leverage, because Pakistan does not want our help.
"In a sense there is no Pakistan - no single set of opinion. Pakistan has a military and intelligence establishment that refuses to follow the directions of its civilian leadership. They have a tradition of using regional extremist groups as unconventional counterweights against India's regional influence."
In the absence of a regional diplomatic initiative to build economic and trade confidences before tackling the security issue, the implication, Dr Kilcullen said, was that India alone could not give Pakistan the security guarantees Islamabad required.
The special US envoy Richard Holbrooke has been charged with brokering a regional compact by reaching out to Iran, Russia and China, and Dr Kilcullen said: "This is exactly what he's good at and it could work.
"But will it? It requires regional architecture to give the Pakistani security establishment a sense of security which might make them stop supporting the Taliban," he said.
"The best case scenario is that the US can deal with Afghanistan, with President Obama giving leadership while the extra American troops succeed on the ground - at the same time as Mr Holbrooke seeks a regional security deal," he said. The worst case was that Washington would fail to stabilise Afghanistan, Pakistan would collapse and al-Qaeda would end up running what he called 'Talibanistan.'
"This is not acceptable. You can't have al-Qaeda in control of Pakistan's missiles," he said.
"It's too early to tell which way it will go. We'll start to know about July. That's the peak fighting season … and a month from the Afghan presidential election."
SMH
posted by madtom at 10:00 AM
8 Comments:
Mad Tom,
Central Asia is a bit of my specialty.
After the Soviet Union broke up, the US conducted a secret operation in Kazakhstan where they removed much of the Kazakh's Soviet nuclear material. For Pakistan, if the government is in danger of being overtaken by the Taliba/al Qaeda, the US needs to remove the Pakistani nukes, and secondly, give the country back to India. Let the Indians take care of them.
What about the big Cuban news today, Obama lifting travel restrictions. Here's what i said at Hot Air:
This is a good move. Flood the country with Americans, and end the isolation. Bans/sanctions have always been an example of foreign policy hypocrisy, similar to naming Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as partners against terrorism, when we all know those are two of the biggest terrorist-enabling-and-producing nations on the planet.
What did sanctions ever do to Iraq except cause the suffering and deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.
What have US policy and isolation done to Cuba, except to help keep the country regressed back to the 1950s.
I'll take exception with only the last line. It's not the US or the embargo that has kept Cuba behind. It's the dictator and family that who are at fault. They and they alone are responsible for the Cuban nightmare.
Hi Mad Tom,
I said "help keep" - isolating Cuba, isolated it.
Of course, the main prevaricators of Cuba's woes have been the Communist and Castro, but isolating Cuba, did indeed isolate Cuba. Any ways, the policy towards them was hypocritical compared to how the US treated other communist regimes such as China.
Well, I hope your family can re-visit their old homeland. There will be many happy reunions. I think we'll see an influx of Cuban players entering MLB in the coming years.
'They and they alone?" What, Cubans aren't capable of taking any responsibility? Taking in any Cuban with the guts to swim for it has served Cuba poorly. The Cubans with some initiative and spine are here. Better had they stayed and strung up that bearded jackass decades ago. It's the same with Mexico. Revolution is hard, getting the hell out and coming to where the Revolution was won by others is easier.
Other communist regimes did not nationalize the property of US citizens. I have not seen if this administration has an opinion on the debt that the Cuban government owes those rightful owners. My family lost property, property that my grandfather on my fathers side, crippled with polio, worked to buy. He helped the war effort back in WWII. The US needed a way to break the sugar quota, so my grandfather made a machine to make lollypop sticks, which they stuck into a ball of sugar and called it a "candy", an so helped break the quota and win the war...
With the money he purchased property. Property that should be mine today..and I want inheritance. A corner bayfront lot, worth millions today.
Will, What can I say. For the most part I agree, yet it's so easy to say that from here, not from inside. Little known fact is that there are thousands of Cuban patriots, either dead or rotting in jails. The castro regime in vicious, turning sons against fathers and brother against brother. Not only that but expert in breaking in slaves. They used those same skills against us an turned the entire island into a plantation...
In the end I am for the current plan to open Cuba back up. But remember that it's not the US that kept Cuba closed, it was the regime, and they will continue to do it no matter what Obama does or does not do.
"but isolating Cuba, did indeed isolate Cuba."
And helped win the cold war. Or would rather the USSR had won that? It did more than just isolate the average Cuban. We were/are just the casualties.
News Flash. the cold war was not so cold.
It's not that easy here, either. We are on the way to our own Worker's Paradise. The move was too slow to really get the attention until the O man hit the scene. I better not say more. I already get too many check marks on the 'how to identify a terrorist' checklist.
I know, I have had you on my list for a long time.
Post a Comment
<< Home