fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
Pakistan lacks a Taliban strategy
* CNN security analyst says if Islamabad breaks up or Taliban take over that is a much bigger deal than Afghanistan
LAHORE: Both Pakistani politicians and the military lack a strategy on how to deal with the Taliban, CNN national security analyst Peter Bergen has said.
I dont think, said Bergen while speaking about Pakistans historic and current impact on the politics of Afghanistan, the Pakistani establishment knows what theyre going to do with this problem, and when I say the establishment, I mean the political-military establishment. I dont think they have a real plan. I think theyre surviving day-to-day.
Asked, why America was providing economic as well as military assistance to Pakistan, he said, Pakistan is where the Taliban are headquartered. Pakistan is where Al Qaeda is headquartered. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Pakistan has proliferated nuclear weapon technologies to other rogue states. And its going to be the fifth largest country in the world with perhaps 200 million people by 2015.
Deal: If this country breaks up or if the militants were to take over that is a much bigger deal than Afghanistan.
Bergen said he believed the Pakistani Taliban were different from the Afghan Taliban. Whereas the Afghan Taliban led by Mullah Omar were fairly clear that the Pakistani government was not their main enemy and did not want to unnecessarily antagonise the Pakistani government. The Pakistani Taliban on the other hand seem to have a different tack.
Bergen said in Pakistan there was a weak elected civilian government and a strong un-elected military government that continued to have a veto over national security policy.
Asked about US options in Pakistan, he said, they were fairly limited. The US has some leverage in Pakistan, but it doesnt [have the option] of occupying Pakistan and it never will. I think the problem is not that the US doesnt have a strategy to deal with the militants. I think the problem is that the Pakistanis dont really have a coherent strategy. If they dont have a coherent strategy, its really hard for the United States to support their strategy. They waver between essentially military expeditions and appeasement, and neither is very successful.
Asked if the US would simply invade the Tribal Areas, he said, The only circumstance under which that would be even remotely possible is if there was another major terrorist attack in the US that was traceable to the FATA.
Bergen said he believed that while the US drone programme was a tactical success it was probably a strategic error. What happens, he explained, is that all the militants move further into Pakistan because theyre trying to escape these strikes, and they further destabilise the Pakistani state. At the end of the day, an unstable Pakistan is more of a strategic error for the United States than an unstable Afghanistan.
daily times monitor
* CNN security analyst says if Islamabad breaks up or Taliban take over that is a much bigger deal than Afghanistan
LAHORE: Both Pakistani politicians and the military lack a strategy on how to deal with the Taliban, CNN national security analyst Peter Bergen has said.
I dont think, said Bergen while speaking about Pakistans historic and current impact on the politics of Afghanistan, the Pakistani establishment knows what theyre going to do with this problem, and when I say the establishment, I mean the political-military establishment. I dont think they have a real plan. I think theyre surviving day-to-day.
Asked, why America was providing economic as well as military assistance to Pakistan, he said, Pakistan is where the Taliban are headquartered. Pakistan is where Al Qaeda is headquartered. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Pakistan has proliferated nuclear weapon technologies to other rogue states. And its going to be the fifth largest country in the world with perhaps 200 million people by 2015.
Deal: If this country breaks up or if the militants were to take over that is a much bigger deal than Afghanistan.
Bergen said he believed the Pakistani Taliban were different from the Afghan Taliban. Whereas the Afghan Taliban led by Mullah Omar were fairly clear that the Pakistani government was not their main enemy and did not want to unnecessarily antagonise the Pakistani government. The Pakistani Taliban on the other hand seem to have a different tack.
Bergen said in Pakistan there was a weak elected civilian government and a strong un-elected military government that continued to have a veto over national security policy.
Asked about US options in Pakistan, he said, they were fairly limited. The US has some leverage in Pakistan, but it doesnt [have the option] of occupying Pakistan and it never will. I think the problem is not that the US doesnt have a strategy to deal with the militants. I think the problem is that the Pakistanis dont really have a coherent strategy. If they dont have a coherent strategy, its really hard for the United States to support their strategy. They waver between essentially military expeditions and appeasement, and neither is very successful.
Asked if the US would simply invade the Tribal Areas, he said, The only circumstance under which that would be even remotely possible is if there was another major terrorist attack in the US that was traceable to the FATA.
Bergen said he believed that while the US drone programme was a tactical success it was probably a strategic error. What happens, he explained, is that all the militants move further into Pakistan because theyre trying to escape these strikes, and they further destabilise the Pakistani state. At the end of the day, an unstable Pakistan is more of a strategic error for the United States than an unstable Afghanistan.
daily times monitor