The myth of Talibanistan

[bemildred]

Apocalypse Now. Run for cover. The turbans are coming. This is the state of Pakistan today, according to the current hysteria disseminated by the Barack Obama administration and United States corporate media - from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to The New York Times. Even British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said on the record that Pakistani Talibanistan is a threat to the security of Britain.

But unlike St Petersburg in 1917 or Tehran in late 1978, Islamabad won't fall tomorrow to a turban revolution.

Pakistan is not an ungovernable Somalia. The numbers tell the story. At least 55% of Pakistan's 170 million-strong population are Punjabis. There's no evidence they are about to embrace Talibanistan; they are essentially Shi'ites, Sufis or a mix of both. Around 50 million are Sindhis - faithful followers of the late Benazir Bhutto and her husband, now President Asif Ali Zardari's centrist and overwhelmingly secular Pakistan People's Party. Talibanistan fanatics in these two provinces - amounting to 85% of Pakistan's population, with a heavy concentration of the urban middle class - are an infinitesimal minority.

The Pakistan-based Taliban - subdivided in roughly three major groups, amounting to less than 10,000 fighters with no air force, no Predator drones, no tanks and no heavily weaponized vehicles - are concentrated in the Pashtun tribal areas, in some districts of North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), and some very localized, small parts of Punjab.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KE01Df01.html

[sledgehammer]

1. Just coincidence?

A very, very similar article to the above (at least the first few parts):

http://www.juancole.com/2009/04/readers-have-written-me-asking-what-i.html

Regardless, I agree with both articles. The threat is way overblown.

However, the problem is that these Taliban nuts are extremely violent and are ready to attack at will anywhere in Pakistan. That's what scares people. They are a nuisance to civilian life. But they don't have a chance at toppling the government (not even close).

BTW, one mistake in the article you quoted:

"At least 55% of Pakistan's 170 million-strong population are Punjabis. There's no evidence they are about to embrace Talibanistan; they are essentially Shi'ites, Sufis or a mix of both."

This is wrong. The vast majority of Punjabis are Sunni. Shias form only 20% of Pakistan's population, and it's pretty evenly divided throughout the country (with slight skewing in the Northern Areas).

[bemildred]

2. Interesting indeed.

The points made (largely) are obvious, nevertheless the similarity is noticeable. Maybe Pepe forgot that he had read Cole.

It's the basic conumdrum (in my view) or modern political life, the increasing capability to do violence at the level of individuals and small teams. You used to have to raise an army to make a really big mess. Now it just takes a few with the right weapons. But that just means that a few people can make a big mess, it doesn't mean they can take over. The result seems to be a kind of deterrence, and the fragmenting of empires large and small.

Edit: let me add that the number of Shiia given raised my eyebrows too.

[yurbud]

3. even if it was in danger, our military presence would just make it worse

Those who otherwise wouldn't side with Taliban might be tempted to out of nationalism if they didn't like us napalming their grandma then lecturing them about human rights and democracy--and telling them how little they deserve to get of the income from the pipelines passing through their countries.

[yurbud]

4. even if it was in danger, our military presence would just make it worse

Those who otherwise wouldn't side with Taliban might be tempted to out of nationalism if they didn't like us napalming their grandma then lecturing them about human rights and democracy--and telling them how little they deserve to get of the income from the pipelines passing through their countries.

[sledgehammer]

6. US military action in Muslim countries...

...has been a prime recruiting tool for Taliban et al in the last decade.

It's best to let Pakistan fight this battle. There is no way the army, govt, and civilian population will let Taliban take over. It will be a tough period for Pakistanis, but I think public opinion is now in favor of military action.

Religious parties have only once had representation of any significance (during Musharraf's time), and that was completely washed away in the 2008 elections.

Pakistan is a conservative Muslim country. It just took Pakistanis a long time to figure out the difference between conservatism and extremism. Now they have to act upon it, by individually shunning extremism. That will help a lot in this battle.

[brindis_desala]

5. It is impossible to tell whether Brzsenzski's dangerous

gambit(drawing off the radical Arab dissidents threatening to topple Egypt and Saudi Arabia to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan) also had an ulterior aim of undermining Pakistan. At this stage the point is moot as the neocons have blundered us into an unmanageable end game. What seldom gets reported is that our alliance with the Taliban and our funding them through Pakistan caused India great anxiety and consternation (Think Kashmir). Although India has so far resisted joining the Anglo/America/Israeli "War on Terror" it has stepped up its Afghan presence exponentially as it shares Israeli concerns about a reactionary Muslim alliance dominating the region.

[yurbud]

7. what would be the motive for intentionally undermining Pakistan?

[brindis_desala]

8. Read Tariq Ali. "Pakistan on the flight path to American power"

But it may be less about "American Power" than more paternal Western Imperialism.

Julian Lindley-French, senior scholar at the Centre for Applied Policy, University of Munich writing in the Nato Review: "There can be no systemic security without Asian security and there will be no Asian security without a strong role for the West therein.
< >
Europeans and North Americans are going to have to think about a much bigger world than that for which the Alliance has prepared of late. Europeans are going to have to rehabilitate coercion, if their non-coercive means and tools are to work. And the Alliance is going to have to do more with the resources that are available."

[bemildred]

9. I think the point is that Zbig, being a good "realist", is a true friend to nobody.

Spreading chaos among the imperial dominions and outlying regions in a good thing in itself. "Realism" is a zero-sum game. Hobbesian, it is.

[brindis_desala]

12. Indeed. Zibby pretends to be "democratic" but is a

pale aristocrat of the most faded order.

[closeupready]

11. During the Cold War, India was allied with the Soviet Union; Pakistan with the US.

And one way or another, the Soviets wanted a port on the Indian Ocean.

[closeupready]

10. OMG, thank you so much for posting this. I have been trying to say the same thing for months.

Of course, sheeple only listen to the propaganda, and I am a 'conspiracy theorist' or worse. Good to read this. :hi:

[laststeamtrain]

13. K & R - n/t.

[liberalpragmatist]

14. Yes and no

I agree that the odds of Pakistan being a Taliban-governed state are extremely unlikely. In the last elections, the hard-core Islamists won only 2% of the vote.

That being said, religious extremists are powerful in much of the countryside - including in parts of Pakistani Punjab - and the Pakistani government is extremely weak. I think a Lebanon-type situation is quite possible - with the federal government only controlling major cities, with various secessionist or other factions holding onto other cities, and Pakistani Taliban and other extremist groups controlling much of the NWFP, parts of Baluchistan and other parts of the countryside.

I'm unsure about US involvement. On one hand, Pakistan needs lots of aid, and lots of non-military aid. And I *do* think that the U.S. has an interest in preventing the spread of the Taliban, who do pose a threat to the U.S. and our allies as a training ground for terrorism. That being said, I recognize that drone attacks inflame the situation, as does much of the U.S. presence. But at the same time, the Pakistani military has lots of elements that are very sympathetic to the extremists and so far the military has been unwilling to really act against them.

So it's a big clusterfuck of a situation, and I haven't really heard anyone - U.S. or Pakistani - give a credible answer.

[bemildred]

15. You make sound points.

The problem is that the Pakistani military does not resemble that in Lebanon. The Pakistani military appears to be large, well-trained, and well-equipped, relatively speaking. To the extent that that appearance is real, the Taliban can do no more than annoy it at their own peril. It is also worth noticing that the Taliban in Swat do not match up well with Hezbollah in Lebanon. The notion that the Taliban in Swat represent a "threat" to the USA is fatuous, on the order of the "threat" Grenada posed to us back in Raygun's term. If the "militant" peasants of Swat are a "threat" to the US, what are we to make of China or Russia, which have the ability to do more than just annoy?

[liberalpragmatist]

16. It's not that the peasants themselves are a "threat"

But that a large Taliban-sanctuary, like pre-9-11, can be used as a base for terrorism. Not all of that is going to be primarily aimed at the U.S. - a lot would be aimed at India, a lot at the Pakistani government and at Afghanistan, and a lot to Britain and Europe. So many of our allies would be threatened and the U.S. would be at some risk, though admittedly not as much.

Now, it's a valid point to say that the "war on terror" frame is useless - it turns what really should be a nuisance into an organizing principle and grants terrorists more power than they actually have. But while one can logically argue that terrorism shouldn't be such a big concern, the practical matter is that it is - terrorism is a sign of instability and enacts a toll far greater than its casualties would suggest - in economic and psychological damage, it can be immense.

Now, that's not to say I embrace the war on terror frame. But I do think we have an interest in minimizing extremism in Pakistan the best we can, as it really can destabilize both the entire South Asian region and, the United States by extension.

And while the Pakistani army is large and well-trained, the government still has very little control over many parts of the country. Which is why the Lebanon analogy holds.

Again, I disagree with many aspects of US policy in the region - I think the drone attacks are unhelpful and I think that some pullback and refocusing on humanitarian aid may be the best approach. But I think the situation is genuinely complicated and I don't think anybody - the Pakistanis included - really have any good answers.

[bemildred]

17. But you cannot occupy and police the whole world.

And therefore there have always been and always will be "empty places" that can be used as bases for "terrorism". I can name a dozen right now off the top of my head. It's the old cities against the nomadic barbarians story updated to modern times. Except the barbarians do not have the upper hand militarily, or any liklihood of achieving it unless they stop being barbarians. India is entirely capable of fending for itself. As are any of the other developed countries, and it is wrong in any case to claim that we have the means or power defend them from their own indigenous tribes and what have you. Pakistan will reach it's own accomodation internally and with its neighbors when we stop meddling. Just like SE Asia after we got expelled from Vietnam.

Edit: I do agree that Pakistan looks fractured internally, the civilian government weak, but that has always been so, it's really only an issue because of the military enterprise we are pursuing next door in Afghanstan, and the consequent desire to do something about the "safe havens" in the tribal areas. If we remove ourselves from Afghanistan, as we easily could, then the "threat" posed by the "Tribal areas" would evaporate too.

[liberalpragmatist]

18. And you may well be right

... I'm not sure where I stand on the issue right now. I think both sides make some good points.

[bemildred]

19. Well, it's a pleasure discussing it with you, in any case. nt