Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
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."
36 Comments so far
Show AllIf Pakistan collapses, the US should be held responsible for maintaining security within Pakistan. Why? We have divided the Pakistan military. We have rigged their elections. We have increased fundamentalist fervor. We have interfered with Pakistan's access to oil. We have broken most sovereignty laws along Pakistan's borders. We are trading nuclear technology with India. We have several of the world's largest military bases close to Pakistan's borders.
Had enough of American interventionist policies yet? You betcha!
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in his moccasins - Native American proverb.
All points well taken.
Al Qaeda is of course not going to get a hold of Pakistan's nukes. That's just pure propaganda to justify invading Pakistan. Pakistan's military is a state within the state and it will never let anyone touch its beloved nukes. That's what the Washington hysterics don't want anyone to know.
Agreed on the security of Pakistan's nukes, which is arguably the best ANYWHERE in the world. Their designs are modular, and the components are scattered through the country, at secret locations. To assemble a usable nuke would require obtaining components from more than half-dozen locations.
The Pakistan military know full well the kind of society they work within, and have planned accordingly.
Nice job, guys.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in his moccasins - Native American proverb.
WTF,
"Agreed on the security of Pakistan's nukes, which is arguably the best ANYWHERE in the world."
Would you please give us some collaborative articles presenting evidence of your claim?
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL34248.pdf
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/terrorism/stanleypaper.html
And a zillion more. Try doing some research on the NCA (National Command Authority). This is not a secret, and anyone who knows how to use google and google earth can figure it out.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in his moccasins - Native American proverb.
Yes, of course, the Pakistani military know their nation and its complexities better than any fat-ass Washington bureaucrat or politico.
"The Pakistan military know full well the kind of society they work within, and have planned accordingly."
Ah, so that's why Pakistani society has solved so many of its problems and is not beset with major strife, bombings, shooting sprees, and assassinations.
Oh wait, yes it is. Must be the fault of Pakistan's military, which knows the country *so* well.
It may be possible that the people in the chain of command of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal are competent, trustworthy, and not religiously fanatic. But most of Pakistani government in general has not proven to be competent and trustworthy, why should its military be any better?
If you asked the same questions about your own country's military (wherever that is), you will find that some arms of the service have done a good job, and some others which have clearly lacked leadership vision, but I sense that you are unable to see this. Pakistan's NCA has done a good job, and should not be lumped with other questionable components of Pakistan's military or public leadership.
A good example of incompetency is US nuclear weapon stewardship, where weapons, triggers, navigation systems and delivery platforms are stored in the SAME ROOM. Call it one-stop shopping for terrorists. Admittedly the arming mechanisms are superb in their design and damn-near impossible to crack.
Did you know that if Albuquerque New Mexico was to secede from the US, it would become the world's third largest nuclear power, with the ability to turn most of the lower 48 and Mexico (and parts of Canada) to glass within hours?
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in his moccasins - Native American proverb.
Don't forget that B-52 that flew through several states with a nuclear bomb on board that nobody noticed, or the time, I forget when, one of our bombers dropped a nuclear bomb off the coast of Spain accidentally and it had to be recovered. I think nuclear weapons should go, period. But I don't think, unless I see a news report to the contrary, that Pakistan has as many elaborate safeguards in regard to separation of nuclear components as you think. Pakistan's military is seriously paranoid about India, and of course India has nuclear weapons as well. I would think Pakistan would store its nuclear weapons in a way they can be quickly used to retaliate.
Just a little perspective: Mr. Bush is the culprit who engineered this global mess. However, Mr. Obama seems pleased to take over the roll.
I don't want to be associated with the failures of this government. I did not vote for any in the past or present administrations. Indeed, my little voice was squeaking in the wilderness warning of the problems which are manifesting.
I disagree.
The US should not be held responsible for Pakistan's collapse. These lovely folks have been beheading, maiming and hanging each other since time immemorial. Their leaders periodically suffer this fate, often times at the hands of their closest confidants, or worse, their family.
There is no part in the world that America has not exerted its influence, with a positive or negative effect. All these people are not carving their brother's insides because of a hint of his alliance with us.
Love
Zero
I suspect that India and the U.S. will be forced to fight in Pakistan. Holbrooke is a hawk and lacks the delicate sophistication needed to defuse Pakistan. Imagine how worried India must be with an unstable hostile nuclear power on it's doorstep. Those responsible for the American Empire need to be replaced now before they enable a catastrophe. Cripple the five big banks and we cripple the elites. It's not so complicated.
Actually, the biggest banks are now in China, according to a Financial Times list of the top global banks. The banks are globalized in any event and the central banks united under the BIS umbrella, and yes, it is complicated.
If Pakistan collapses, the worst possible thing that could happen is the ISI gaining control of that nation's nukes.
It's called "regime change" in CIAese. Bet that an appropriate stooge (like Kharzi) is waiting in the wings firmly leashed to both the CIA and its Pakistani division the ISI.
Poet
Its unfortunate that our insidious foreign policy with regard to Pakistan has brought that country to the brink of disaster. The Pakistani military and ISI will not lose control over the country even if it means fighting their Jihadist brothers. The Pakistani people as always suffer the consequences of this neo-great-game.
The Pakistani military is entirely India-obsessed and will do everything it possibly can to gain advantage over its perceived rival. While this rivalry probably had some truth in the past, in the present day context the Indian economic engine is in hyper-drive and im willing to guess most Indians would be more than happy to settle their differences with Pakistan and im sure the Pakistani people feel the same. Unfortunately none of this is in their control and therein lies the problem.
Another "Mission Accomplished?" Heckuva Job!
Pakistan is being deliberately destabilized, but to what end? That is unclear.
The destabilization process began almost immediately after Musharraf was forced to relinquish power.
All the accusations against Pakistan - connections to Taliban,etc - were equally the case when Musharraf was in power, so it seems fair to wonder why they are suddenly such a big issue.
There are very bad historical precedents for destabilizing countries. Cambodia anyone?
It's rumored that the neocon Republicans gave Pakistan the atomic bomb. If they gave Saddam his nerve gas I suspect they might just have given the A-bomb away too.
As usual, the U.S. backed the local dictator, Pervez Musharraf, because he had all the troops. He got tossed out, just as the Shah of Iran got tossed out before him.
There are three forces destabilizing Pakistan: our country, terror-bombing from the skies, our Pakistani allies who are deep into the heroin trade, where the Pakistani army is wiping out whole villages, and the Viet Cong, who are wiping out the government infrastructure in liberated areas one murder at a time.
And we helped toss out both of them. Islamic terrorism is good for business.
From what I've read, Pakistan's atomic bomb is pretty much home grown, thanks to the study, work, and spying abroad of A.Q. Khan.
The problem of radical Islamic groups started under the Carter-Brzezinski plan, was exacerbated under Reagan and Bush I, continued to fester under Clinton, accelerated remarkably due to pressure brought by the Bush II regime, and will explode under further pressure from Obama. We're fighting a monster of our own making, and our attempts to fix the problem only worsen it. People will naturally band together to fend off foreign occupiers and avenge the deaths of innocent civilians. In Vietnam we won all the battles and lost the war, and we still haven't learned.
"The special US envoy Richard Holbrooke has been charged with brokering a regional compact by reaching out to Iran, Russia and China"
Weren't we just brokering deals with Russia and China AGAINST Iran, because Iran wants to generate nuclear power ?
Screw Israel, with their "oh no, if Iran has nuclear *knowledge*, no more American Jews will feel safe to emigrate to Israel, we can't have *that*".
Let's concentrate on the 100 nuclear weapons not falling into al-Qaeda hands, shall we ? Play ball with Iran.
Man, we are living in Orwells 1984. Whom we are at war with is what they say it is, the real history goes down the memory hole.
China, Russia and Iran are part of the SCO, although Iran is not an official member.
Their history is connected in interesting and Orwellian ways.
The Soviets were our ally in WW II, and then our enemy, and we continued to provide aid and trade to them covertly according to Larry McDonald who was then killed by the Soviets in the KAL 007 disaster in 1983 after trying to expose this. We also allowed them to get the nuclear technology to make up a good Cold war (they in turn provided it to Maos China). Oppenheimer led the Manhattan Project and was a Communist Party member. Connect the dots.
Our allies in China were betrayed as we allowed them to be taken over by the Communists who were being armed by the Soviets while funds Congress appropriated to aid the Nationalists were not used . Of course, a number of State Department officials and others in government advising on policy were made up of Communists, but efforts to expose this was thwarted in the 50's, but revealed to be true in 1995 with the release of classified records that the MSM ignored.
Now since Jimmy Carter and the Trilateral Commissions (TLC) reign of power, whats happened. The Islamists took over Iran in 1979 due to our refusal to help the Shah and our warning to the Iran military that if they intervened to protect the Shahs regime that the US would not supply them with weapons or parts for their existing weapons. Read "A Century of War" by William Engdahl.
The Shahs crime was he wanted to use nuclear power which would have made Iran more independent than we wanted, and Iran was developing too fast, and more importantly, we needed a new enemy for when the Cold War was ended. That couldn't be the Shah because we had overthrown the Democratic President of Iran in 1953 to get the Shah in power in the first place. This now puts Iran in the Soviet-China camp.
Osama never gets caught after 9/11, yet Saddam gets caught and hung, because he invaded Kuwait, which had always been part of Iraq until the British decided they wanted Kuwaits oil. Kuwait had been slant drilling into Iraqs oil fields, and after getting permission from the Bush Asst Secretary of State who said the US would not intervene in any conflict, he invaded.
In the 1950's we supported the Baath Party of whom Saddam belonged in Iraq which allowed him to be President, and also in the Iran war in the 1980's (we also armed Iran), and gave him chemical weapons to use against the Kurds who were supporting Iran. His crimes against the Kurds were not prosecuted for this reason. The Kurds are now on our side.
Anyways, we used Al Qaeda to help destabilize the Balkans for Clinton/NATO's war on Serbia in the 90's, and got us a big base in Kosovo, and our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in recent years were to fight Al Qaeda there instead of here, and got us big bases over there.
We created Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, using Pakistans ISI and Saudi money, before the Soviets invaded in 1978. This lured the Soviets into Afghanistan, and then when the Soviets withdrew after many years and broke up, we did not resist the Talibans takeover in the 90's since we thought they could stabilize Afghanistan faster and allow our pipelines to be built faster(we later found out that the region did not have as much oil and gas as first thought).
The Taliban at one point offered to hand over Osama who had made Afghanistan his new home, but we refused because we were afraid of making Saudi Arabia unhappy (LOL), then after the Taliban eliminated poppy production Osama goes into action, the Taliban is out, and poppy production has never been higher (we blame the Taliban of course), and Osama is nowhere to be found. The US sends an additional 17,000 troops in Afghanistan under Obama out of fears of Al Qaeda in Pakistan, yet they get deployed to the province growing most of the poppy, and not near Pakistans border.
Since Jimmy Carter every President has helped Pakistan develop nuclear weapons and allowed them to export technology to Iran and North Korea. Read Deception by Levy and Scott-Clark. And that Bhutto asassination last year that destabilized Pakistan and ended the Bush and Mush marriage was a bit suspicous. Obviously, someone is setting the table to do Pakistan, using nukes and Al Qaeda as the pretext.
Of course, the master mind in the TLC era is the cofounder of the TLC and Jimmy Carters NSA adviser, Obamas mentor and adviser, Brzezinski himself. He treats all this as part of The Great Game.
so zbig is Big Brother?
The article misses the most obvious factor driving events. Radical ISI elements seek Pakistan's total & immediate disintegration. Loyal to Allah, eager to be free of the West, they revile General Pasha who they take orders from as they work for God's Will, Sharia throughout the land. Mumbai is alleging that an attack is coming 'from' Pakistan druing the Lok Sabha elections. They know this ahead of time?
Truckloads of Taliban arrived in Dunar province a few days ago, 60 miles from Islamabad. The Drones are driving them into the cities.
The Pakistani Army ALSO is riddled with Muslims who put Allah's Will before all else, and it is his will that the US backed government fall.
And fall it shall,
It is the will of Allah.
West LA Fade Away
I just keep seeing that final sequence in "wargames" when everyone watches all the possible ways the world can end in a high speed blur. Fun stuff nuclear doom.
There was an unflattering article on this man Kilcullen more than a year ago on CD. The fact that Obama has kept him on in the government is yet another fact that makes you shake your head and slump in your chair.
"... yet another fact that makes you shake your head and slump in your chair."
Man, you just nailed the reason I have stopped posting as many comments as I used to--I'm too damned discouraged...
I've gotten by pretty well for decades with the giddy assumption that the American empire could collapse within a few months. Every new dent in the armor is a cause for celebration.
Maybe my serotonin levels are too high because of the regular tryptophan in my diet, but I see no reason to stop encouraging and building a world that grants nothing to the the rotting empire and its lackeys but the hell they deserve.
It is the hunger for power that drives these so called nations.
Might is right, and they cant get off unless their woman are draped in curtains and they dont see a manufactured enemy. Any enemy. Indian. American. Russian. I have said in a different post recently, that is how parts of humanity survive, by creating a distinction between their clique and others. Evangelists. The Bushit Cabal. Hardline Islamists. Strict Catholics and Mormons and others like them, whose reason for existence solidly depends on converting others to their views.
This region is isolated enough that people can create their own reality. The problem becomes when the rabid few cast their universal aspirations and get some sheep to follow them.
What fucking difference are we going to make there, if a couple of westerners go to Afpak and instigate the women here to learn?
None whatsoever.
They only get our attention when they make it into a region that does not go by their barbaric dictums and slaughter some innocents.
Stop that from happening.
Zardari is a guest of a few days on the Pakistani Leadership hot seat. It is clear he will meet the most brutal of ends. In a recent news segment on Link TV, when asked what he thought of Zardari, a regional strongman in pakistan replied "Who is he? He is a man with a very small following. A nobody." (approx quote)
He will be killed, like the others prime-ministers/presidents who have dared to defy a faction of the Pakistani power strata. Any faction. The people here are proud of spilling the blood of their manufactured enemies. They will tell you of their crimes against humanity while thumping their chests.
Let the banks fail. Secure the borders around AfPak, if you can find them. Monitor all movement to and from the region and deny access to anyone who has been there to other parts of the world. Pull our troops out of the actual areas themselves, leave them there for peripheral containment. Better yet, contain them with the drones. Deny them airspace access outside their borders. Easier said than done, of course.
Yes, Iran is part of the equation. The good thing about Iran is that their intelligent masses have seen some of what western peace can bring, and a segment of their populace would like their own version of it in their country. They may not have the power now, but hopefully they can make some difference soon.70% of their college graduates do not major in Islamic Studies, like the UAE.
I have constantly heard that there will be radical factions everywhere in the world, and you can never get rid of them. Then the intelligensia of the world must develop a mechanism that prevents the extremists from grabbing power. Socially and Economically. Educate the world with that doctrine. (If we are to do that, we have to buy into it first). And hopefully we can prevent this Mach5 Downward Spiral
Yeah my solutions are simplistic. Maybe we can start with these general ideas and work on the details.
Love
Zero
""The safety of people round the world is at stake," he said." .. Kilcullen
Actually the safety of people in South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan) is at stake. Lets not make this about us as usual !! If i were South Asian i would hate us too.
"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,"
"You just can't say that you're not going to worry about al-Qaeda taking control of Pakistan and its nukes,"
"The safety of people round the world is at stake,"
"This is not acceptable. You can't have al-Qaeda in control of Pakistan's missiles,"
------------------------
Anybody else find this piece a bit too hysterical?
but that's the 'norm' now isn't it???????????????????
The real problem would not be what al Qaeda would do if it gained control of Pakistan's nukes. India would likely vaporize Pakistan the moment Muslim radicals gained control of the country.
Hmmm: I wonder just which country's meddling led to this abyss?