Does the US need Pakistan?

Pakistan seems to think so. The linked article is one of many, in case you're not a fan of LA Times.

According to Pakistan, the US cannot afford to lose it as an ally.

Now, those of you who know me know that I'm typically not a very gung-ho, America F*** Yeah, USA #1 kind of guy. I subscribe to the whole "international community" and "one of many" ideals. I'm also not going to get into accusations of Pakistan collaborating with terrorist organizations, though I'm sure we'll end up there pretty quickly. But seriously, why exactly does the US need Pakistan? There's a major logistical route through Pakistan, and Pakistan reminded us of this by shutting the road down the last time tensions got particularly high.

Other than that, I'm not really sure what Pakistan is contributing. We give them quite a lot of military aid (including a quarter-billion-dollar upgrade for its F-16s, since fighter jets are great for fighting terrorists?) and we do have an interest in the nation's continued stability, as they do have nukes and we'd really prefer they keep an eye on those.

If Pakistan went neutral or hostile, how different would the war look? Would it change more than the war effort?

I don't get it, myself. We need their arch enemy India far more. And India at least has the good grace to act rationally on the international stage. From my pretty uninformed point of view Pakistan is fighting a lot of very old battles where the other side has moved on. A prime example is the absolute lunacy of reinforcing the Indian border while the Taliban is eating them alive from the inside. Especially considering that Pakistan has largely instigated almost every Pakistani-Indian conflict since the initial Civil War.

Basically, I feel like Pakistan needs to figure a lot of things about itself before it can really be trusted as any kind of ally. I've seen a few articles suggesting that we need to stop thinking of them as a military ally and more as a trade partner. This would benefit the both of us far more than the current model.

This is a pretty good article on the whole situation:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arch...

Correction: Pakistan is India's arch enemy. As corrupt and poverty ridden as INdia is, it was there first. And, until China goes, India is the world's biggest democracy. Not that a vote costs much to buy.

I would also rather be allies with India than Pakistan. Luckily our relationship with India is slowly blossoming, at least in the private sector. The small intelligence and defense company I work for has been significantly ramping up our sales to India (in both civilian sectors and their air force) over the last two years.

Note that we've recently replaced most of the supply routes for essentials (ammo, fuel, food) with an overland route from Europe through the northern 'Stans. That's probably what's allowed us to finally express our frustration.

What's the current relationship of the civilian government to the military?

India has also spent a lot of money on weapons over the last few years, and has refused to let the recession stop that. Fiscally irresponsible, sure, but at least they're paying their own way, and while they'll deny it up and down it's because of Pakistan.

I don't know how Pakistan feels about its government right now. They clearly weren't too happy about Musharraf, and a lot of people were pretty upset when Bhutto got assassinated. According to Wikipedia their current guy, Zardari, won by a landslide but that doesn't necessarily mean the people still love him (or ever did). He has a pretty checkered past.

In short, not the most stable place in the world but it's endured worse.

No idea how the military gets along with the government. Under Musharraf there was very little distinction, so there might still be some bad blood over that.

China wants to play big on the international stage, we should leave Pakistan to them and focus on India.

LobsterMobster wrote:

India has also spent a lot of money on weapons over the last few years, and has refused to let the recession stop that. Fiscally irresponsible, sure, but at least they're paying their own way, and while they'll deny it up and down it's because of Pakistan.

No wonder that we're becoming closer, they're a carbon copy of the US.

We would like Pakistan to be stable and not go "hot" with India. As would most of the world. Otherwise I don't actually think we "need" them, honestly. Especially if we're not fighting in Afghanistan.

Pakistan and India still have some animosity. I've heard that India couldn't get the Arrow Missile Interceptor so they are developing their own(with a little help from Israel of course). India's army is by far superior to the Pakistani. I think the Pakistani army is a little outdated. India is way higher on world power list and it has a lot of powerful allies ( I don't think they have other enemies) .

The Indians are probably playing it safe because Pakistan can be unstable and they can't run the risk of someone crazy like Kim-Jon-il would take power. South Korea is now acquiring Iron Dome systems to prevent events like the 2010 Yeonpyeong Island bombing. With a crazy neighbor that has nuclear bombs you wouldn't want to take any risks.

I do agree that the Indian democracy isn't worth much . Here is an article about it but you might not enjoy the google translation ( I think it did ok this time but it's long). My country isn't perfect and that's why I liked this line:

Jacob Maor(Blazer -written as a letter to Indian PM) wrote:

I tried to experience as much of the Indian company to close all its society and all of it's variety. And let me tell you, when I got home I realized I was living live in one of the most civilized countries in the world.

edit:Tried to fix google's translation

I'm not a big fan of the word, "civilized." It doesn't really mean much, and has justified everything from racism to genocide. Give me a specific definition and then we can work with that.

LobsterMobster wrote:

I'm not a big fan of the word, "civilized." It doesn't really mean much, and has justified everything from racism to genocide. Give me a specific definition and then we can work with that.

I guess it's just a form of culture shock. The article covers everything he generally disliked about India.He also mentioned the relatively poor performance of the Indian tourism industry. I never been to India but I heard it's generally smart to avoid the big cities.There are a lot more people going to Thailand and enjoying it .

I don't know much about Pakistan . I'm sure they have a lot of potential but it's considered a hostile state and it's not that politically stable. There are a bunch of terrorist running around freely so I'm not sure it's much of a tourist attraction(there is plenty of desert in Israel) . It got no oil either. It's generally a cheap labor country. In term of it's strategic position it's close to the straights of Oman which is a part of the naval oil artery.

You can generally threaten Iran from it but there are many countries who border Iran. The US seems to be concentrating improving relations with some of them but they are trying not to get the Russian bear angry and try to avoid Georgia (might be smart for a few reasons). I'm not sure the Iranians can cope with a 4-6 front war even with their suicide bombers.

We need Pakistan (sadly...very sadly...) because...

Well...I think its better sometimes to keep your friends close...and your enemies closer.

Pigpen wrote:

We need Pakistan (sadly...very sadly...) because...

Well...I think its better sometimes to keep your friends close...and your enemies closer.

If that's the case, we ought to be giving the entire world a great big hug.

Pigpen wrote:

We need Pakistan (sadly...very sadly...) because...

Well...I think its better sometimes to keep your friends close...and your enemies closer.

By that token, why aren't we snuggling up to Iran?

Paleocon wrote:
Pigpen wrote:

We need Pakistan (sadly...very sadly...) because...

Well...I think its better sometimes to keep your friends close...and your enemies closer.

By that token, why aren't we snuggling up to Iran?

It's probably too late now, they're buddies with Russia (and China?), although Israel still hates Iran's guts so I can see that as a good reason the US doesn't.

Paleocon wrote:
Pigpen wrote:

We need Pakistan (sadly...very sadly...) because...

Well...I think its better sometimes to keep your friends close...and your enemies closer.

By that token, why aren't we snuggling up to Iran?

Because you might lay the ugly/mean girl with enough booze, but you never, ever sleep with the crazy.

Paleocon wrote:
Pigpen wrote:

We need Pakistan (sadly...very sadly...) because...

Well...I think its better sometimes to keep your friends close...and your enemies closer.

By that token, why aren't we snuggling up to Iran?

They smell funny.

With the exception of their president, Iran is hardly the craziest nation in the region.

Pakistan has a seat at the table, so to speak, because they have The Bomb.

I think that it is dirty pool to negotiate the specifics of our 'relationship' based on the threat of nukes getting into the hands of extremists. However, can you blame them? They've had us by the short hairs for quite some time, but finding Bin Laden on their turf left the United States no choice but to confront them on the nature of the relationships with certain extremist groups.

LobsterMobster wrote:

I'm not a big fan of the word, "civilized." It doesn't really mean much, and has justified everything from racism to genocide. Give me a specific definition and then we can work with that.

For me, I'm going to draw the line of 'civilized' near the persistence of a guerrilla/para-military force who tote military grade hardware (fully automatic rifles, RPGs, etc) like they are iPhones or Coach bags. These regions of the world have been in a state of war for generations; it is a way of life to them.

Scratched wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
Pigpen wrote:

We need Pakistan (sadly...very sadly...) because...

Well...I think its better sometimes to keep your friends close...and your enemies closer.

By that token, why aren't we snuggling up to Iran?

It's probably too late now, they're buddies with Russia (and China?), although Israel still hates Iran's guts so I can see that as a good reason the US doesn't.

Israel is only the "little Satan" the USA is the "Great Satan". I doubt they'll hug the US back especially after Obama kicked Mubarak while he was down, intervening in Libya and supporting other revolutions in the Arab world.

CrawlingChaos wrote:

For me, I'm going to draw the line of 'civilized' near the persistence of a guerrilla/para-military force who tote military grade hardware (fully automatic rifles, RPGs, etc) like they are iPhones or Coach bags. These regions of the world have been in a state of war for generations; it is a way of life to them.

By that definition, there are very few civilized countries in the world. The US has people like that.

And while I am not a fan of war, civilizations have been built around it. Just look at the Spartans and the Mongols. Much of modern technology was derived from a military need, and I'm quite sure those guerrillas hanging around in the shrubbery with their AK-47s would absolutely LOVE to have tanks and jets to use instead. We fault the terrorists and insurgents for refusing to wear uniforms but part of that is that they have more pressing uses for that money. If they had enough funding they might form a more conventional military force and fight us that way, without any change to their worldview.

I'd rather not define civility by how cool someone's toys are.

LobsterMobster wrote:
CrawlingChaos wrote:

For me, I'm going to draw the line of 'civilized' near the persistence of a guerrilla/para-military force who tote military grade hardware (fully automatic rifles, RPGs, etc) like they are iPhones or Coach bags. These regions of the world have been in a state of war for generations; it is a way of life to them.

By that definition, there are very few civilized countries in the world. The US has people like that.

And while I am not a fan of war, civilizations have been built around it. Just look at the Spartans and the Mongols. Much of modern technology was derived from a military need, and I'm quite sure those guerrillas hanging around in the shrubbery with their AK-47s would absolutely LOVE to have tanks and jets to use instead. We fault the terrorists and insurgents for refusing to wear uniforms but part of that is that they have more pressing uses for that money. If they had enough funding they might form a more conventional military force and fight us that way, without any change to their worldview.

I'd rather not define civility by how cool someone's toys are.

I think it was Mohandas Gandhi who replied when asked what he thought of "English Civilization" that it was an "excellent idea".

LobsterMobster wrote:

By that definition, there are very few civilized countries in the world. The US has people like that.

And while I am not a fan of war, civilizations have been built around it. Just look at the Spartans and the Mongols. Much of modern technology was derived from a military need, and I'm quite sure those guerrillas hanging around in the shrubbery with their AK-47s would absolutely LOVE to have tanks and jets to use instead. We fault the terrorists and insurgents for refusing to wear uniforms but part of that is that they have more pressing uses for that money. If they had enough funding they might form a more conventional military force and fight us that way, without any change to their worldview.

I'd rather not define civility by how cool someone's toys are.

You make good points, and I agree with you. It is true, there are people like that in the US. The distinction for me is that in the US, it is the exception versus the norm.

Can you go to a farmers market anywhere in the US where patrons are toting AK-47s? Or there are vendors in the back who might have an errant RPG or two? No. My guess is that you can find this in Pakistan.

My point is not to dispute the existence of the toys, but rather the social norms surrounding the acceptable display and use of said toys.

LobsterMobster wrote:
CrawlingChaos wrote:

For me, I'm going to draw the line of 'civilized' near the persistence of a guerrilla/para-military force who tote military grade hardware (fully automatic rifles, RPGs, etc) like they are iPhones or Coach bags. These regions of the world have been in a state of war for generations; it is a way of life to them.

By that definition, there are very few civilized countries in the world. The US has people like that.

You missed the part I bolded. We've got them, but you rarely run into them on your way to buy milk.

And while I am not a fan of war, civilizations have been built around it. Just look at the Spartans and the Mongols. Much of modern technology was derived from a military need, and I'm quite sure those guerrillas hanging around in the shrubbery with their AK-47s would absolutely LOVE to have tanks and jets to use instead. We fault the terrorists and insurgents for refusing to wear uniforms but part of that is that they have more pressing uses for that money. If they had enough funding they might form a more conventional military force and fight us that way, without any change to their worldview.

I'd rather not define civility by how cool someone's toys are.

I think he meant it's about the *region* being in a state of war for generations, not a government being at war. It's civilization in one of the most basic senses of that term: civil order vs. civil disorder.

Robear wrote:

Note that we've recently replaced most of the supply routes for essentials (ammo, fuel, food) with an overland route from Europe through the northern 'Stans. That's probably what's allowed us to finally express our frustration.

What's the current relationship of the civilian government to the military?

I'm a bit late to the party on all this, but while there are overland routes elsewhere, they're not a replacement for the routes through Pakistan. Additionally, so long as we're in Afghanistan, we *need* Pakistan's cooperation, period, full stop.

Paleocon wrote:
Pigpen wrote:

We need Pakistan (sadly...very sadly...) because...

Well...I think its better sometimes to keep your friends close...and your enemies closer.

By that token, why aren't we snuggling up to Iran?

I can't say for certain on this, but there are a lot of things. First among them, however, is rooted in the Iranian Revolution. Khomeini's revolt against Reza Shah is rooted in the corruption he perceived which came from the west(see Niseg's comment above). Since then, they feel like we have poured effort into keeping them down, regardless of the reality of it. The current regime hardliners still think along these lines, and fuel this line of thinking with rhetoric about the great and varied history of the Persian Empire, backing it with strict traditional Shi'a Islam.

AnimeJ wrote:
Robear wrote:

Note that we've recently replaced most of the supply routes for essentials (ammo, fuel, food) with an overland route from Europe through the northern 'Stans. That's probably what's allowed us to finally express our frustration.

What's the current relationship of the civilian government to the military?

I'm a bit late to the party on all this, but while there are overland routes elsewhere, they're not a replacement for the routes through Pakistan. Additionally, so long as we're in Afghanistan, we *need* Pakistan's cooperation, period, full stop.

Paleocon wrote:
Pigpen wrote:

We need Pakistan (sadly...very sadly...) because...

Well...I think its better sometimes to keep your friends close...and your enemies closer.

By that token, why aren't we snuggling up to Iran?

I can't say for certain on this, but there are a lot of things. First among them, however, is rooted in the Iranian Revolution. Khomeini's revolt against Reza Shah is rooted in the corruption he perceived which came from the west(see Niseg's comment above). Since then, they feel like we have poured effort into keeping them down, regardless of the reality of it. The current regime hardliners still think along these lines, and fuel this line of thinking with rhetoric about the great and varied history of the Persian Empire, backing it with strict traditional Shi'a Islam.

I wasn't seriously proposing that. I was just pointing out that "keeping our enemies closer" is a pretty piss poor justification for supporting Pakistan.

Well, there is always the observation that they do have working nuclear weapons, and a Taliban takeover of that government could be fairly unhealthy for the surrounding countries. I don't think they have any way to hit US with a nuke, but they could maybe take out an embassy. Or, I suppose, Israel.

CrawlingChaos wrote:

Can you go to a farmers market anywhere in the US where patrons are toting AK-47s?

Of course not. Our guys carry AR-15s.

OK, that's not fair, but I still don't buy it. To Canada, Americans look like guys carrying assault rifles to their kids' little league game. We have a gun culture, and sure, not everyone buys into it but enough do that we have that reputation. We don't need our guns for the same reasons Pakistanis do - and by the way, when you're trying to characterize the differences between two cultures, "your guess" isn't necessarily sufficient evidence - but these hypothetical Pakistanis wouldn't carry AK-47s because they might feel like blasting someone on the way home, they would because they live in a dangerous place and might need to defend themselves.

Do you really think that "being in danger" is a cherished part of someone's culture? That they have the option to be safe, but choose to be under constant threat? You'd might as well say that Japan is uncivilized. After all, didn't they just get hit by that earthquake? Did you see the pictures? Place was a mess. If they were civilized they wouldn't have done that.

The fact of the matter is that just because something is anathema to us, just because it seems like a nightmarish hell we wouldn't wish on our worst enemies, that alone does not mean it is not civilization. Going to a marketplace with an AK-47 slung over your shoulder isn't so bad, when you consider that there is a marketplace, and commerce, and you can afford not to keep your finger on the trigger.

Don't confuse the tribal areas with the more civilized provinces in Pakistan. Peshawar and Swat are not the whole of the country, nor are the Pashtun all of Pakistani society.

Robear wrote:

Don't confuse the tribal areas with the more civilized provinces in Pakistan. Peshawar and Swat are not the whole of the country, nor are the Pashtun all of Pakistani society.

Yea, the FATA(Federally Administered Tribal Areas) are nothing like the rest of Pakistan. Most of the folks up there aren't really Pakistani; they're Urdus, Pashtuns, and a few Afghanis for good measure.