In the long run, the most lasting effect of the Mumbai terrorist attacks might be the further instability of Pakistan. If it is ever put together, there is a good chance this assault, which seems to have been tightly organized and highly sophisticated, might have been coordinated from within the inner chambers of Pakistani Intelligence. It is known of course that the attackers entered Mumbai by way of boats, and India had warning of the potential for such attacks for some time. Still, if it does turn out to have been coordinated by Pakistani intelligence agents, what would be the purpose of such an act? Why would they take such a risk at destabilizing their own country?
The only possible answer would be to overthrow the current Democratically elected regime and see it replaced with-the Taliban, perhaps? All it would take would be a flare up of tensions with India to the point of war-a war Pakistan could never hope to win.
I seriously doubt that most Pakistani intelligence agents are devout Muslim, either fundamentalist or otherwise. However, they might deduce that the Taliban might be easier to manipulate, in the sense that such as the Taliban would be much more inclined to increase the power of the state intelligence apparatus in order to maintain their own control. The Taliban would be the public face of national power, but they could also be easily removed, with little to no objections from the population once they've had a taste of the way they tend to wield power.
Still, if this is what is going on, its a dangerous game that could backfire. Not everyone among the Taliban leadership might be so unsophisticated and generally naive as the Pakistani Intelligence might assume.
I find it telling that this attack occurred in a period of transition within the United States government. Bush's hands are all but tied, and Obama is now relatively restrained insofar as his ability to respond. The only way Bush could muster a response would be by working in concert with Obama. Otherwise, we could end up with another Somalia fiasco, only this time much worse, flavored with the threat of a nuclear standoff.
In the meantime, this attack, while occurring on Indian soil, was actually a blow struck at the international community, with Orthodox Jews being the targets of the most vicious assaults. India almost has to respond in order to save face. Could that be the overall intention?
India should take back Pakistan and say "experiment's over."
ReplyDeleteWhat makes you think India wants to up its percentage of the Muslim population? If anything, they would probably prefer to do it the other way around, round up all the Muslims in India and tell them "get your asses to Pakistan and don't bother to turn around and wave goodbye when you get to the border."
ReplyDeleteWell, my answer is both irredentist and practical.
ReplyDeleteI said "take back Pakistan" - what happens to the people there can be a refugee problem for Iran to deal with.
Mohandas K. Gandhi got himself shot by a Hindu nationalist assassin after he GAVE away half of India's national treasury to the Muslims, as well as most of Hinduism's holiest sites in the upper Ganges region, so that Pakistan could be born.
Indians can be pushed really far.
Really, really, really far.
But they're not all Gandhi.
It would be practical if it were only possible. That's just the problem. The logistical problems coupled with the threat of world-wide sanctions for "human rights" violations puts such a scenario in the realm of fantasy. Even my far more practical scenario would be almost equally impossible.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that Gandhi was an ass, but that's water under the bridge now. It's like saying the Nineteenth Amendment was a mistake. It might well have been in some respects, but try to appeal it and see what you get.
So what did you think of my take on the events in Mumbai? Let's deal with the at-least somewhat plausible.
I suspect that what the ISI wants, ultimately, is what they had under the Haq regime: expanded influence if not hegemony in Afghanistan; an ISI-friendly military government in Pakistan; and a powerful nation's patronage against India. They're certainly going about that last part wrong if they want the US to continue its alliance, but perhaps they consider China a better strategic partner now.
ReplyDeleteFeral Child-
ReplyDeleteChina could definitely be a factor, and it could also be a method of taking troops away from the Afghan border by necessitating their positioning at the eastern border, thereby leaving the US and coalition forces in Afghanistan weaker and less protected from a full fledged movement of Taliban and Al-Queda fighters into Afghanistan.
Mainly, though, while all of those are possibilities, I can't help but think their main goal is to destabilize the current democratically elected regime, which they are probably correct in viewing as corrupt and workign at odds against their own interests.
The only question is how long it will take for them to be overthrown, how will it come about, and who will replace them-be it yet another incarnation of the Musharraf military dictatorship, or a fundamentalist Taliban type movement.
I have this idea the latter would be more to their liking, as they might consider them more naturally dependent on an all-pervasive police state intelligence service, while under a military or other secular based dictatorship, they would be more restrained in the power they could wield.
I just don't see anything good coming from all this, though it could blow over I guess. This part of the world seems to view these types of events with a shrug, which is beyond my comprehension.
Obama and Hillary both had better bring their A games when they take their respective offices. Of course in their case "A game" might not be something we should hope for.
So what do you do anyway when two allies are at each others throats? Since both of these entities are not exactly what you would call great lovers of and steadfast allies of America, come what may (especially Pakistan) this could get messier by the minute.
There's the trick, Pagan. I don't believe Pakistan has been our ally since the Soviets left Afghanistan. What cooperation we've gotten has been from fear that we'd ally with India, or at least not interfere should their cold war with India turn hot.
ReplyDelete"Ally" is a poor term in this part of the world for America in any event. While India has been aligned against us (meaning they sometimes aligned with the Soviets on certain issues) a few times since independence, India has never been a fundamentally hostile state. India is pluralistic, secular de jure, and now is increasingly oriented toward a free market, all traits that it shares with America. Pakistan has never been pluralistic, secular, or encouraged a free market.
Moreover, Indians at large seem to be indifferent to America or like us. Pakistanis at large seem to be indifferent to America or hate us.
I've viewed Pakistan as an enemy bending over not to antagonize us since 2001. India isn't a friend, but it's not an enemy.
Finally, India, which rewards science, education, and commercial energy, will be a great power in the coming century. Pakistan, which sponsors madrassas, will never be a great power. Where should we align? We're not losing power, but others are gaining it faster than we are in relative terms.
Oh yeah, without a doubt India would be a more natural ally, but the ramifications of any alliance in this matter would be gravely serious. It would reverberate throughout the Islamic world, all nations of which are generally eager (or at least their populations are) to jump to the conclusion that any such alignment is proof of a "war against Islam". That's the main reason any administration will have to tread carefully.
ReplyDeleteThis could get gravely serious, and America has every reason to try to put a lid on it, while certain other nations that might have something to gain from all out hostilities should be watched carefully.
Oil could easily double in price by the barrel, for just one example, if the Middle East became further embroiled and destabilized. Iran therefore stands to gain something from hostilities if they result in further anger at America and the West from the Muslim populations. Russia also could benefit. The recent drop in oil prices has put a crimp in their style, or threatens to. Nothing like a war or rumor of same to make the Islamic natives restless and influence the futures markets all over again.