The NIE-formatted discussion seems to square with what Bill Roggio has reported about Taliban and Al Qaeda successes in North and South Waziristan, and how that (and US attempts to stabilize Afghanistan and reach AQ on the other side of the border) affects Pakistani politics. The regional actors (US - India - Afghanistan - Pakistan - AQ) have such different focuses. And the diverse and conflicting agendas of the Pakistani factions are almost too complex to contemplate.

Without benefit of hindsight, it's almost impossible to discern a course for American actions that are likely to serve American interests. It comes down to supporting Musharraf or looking past him, to -- what? Either way, a vehemently anti-US government, or further descent into the Gap, could result. "Who Lost Pakistan?" -- a possible theme that's just in time for November 2008.

The problem with making predictions about Pakistan is that all the data that would seem to predict their rapid descent into Islamicist chaos would also indicate that they should already be there. Scientifically speaking, any hypothesis that cant account for the current state is very suspect for predicting the future.

Basically we dont have a very good idea of how strong Musharraf's hold on power is- we only have anecdotes and polls that indicate his nation is strongly fundamentalist and anti-American. But all politics are local, as they say.

Pakistan is a strange country and its military and leadership have always been drawn from the relatively well educated Punjabis and allied tribes (that had long term exposure to the British) tend to be extremely realist in their attitudes and reasonably pro-western.

The Taliban and AQ have always been associated with the minority Pashtuns. No matter how much the average Pakistani may hate the West, it doesnt follow that there will be a mass uprising ushering these backwoods tribes into power over a nation of 170 million.

Musharraf has problem at home, but his relationship to the US is probably not as critical as we'd think (its always about us!) If that is indeed that case, it follows that should Musharraf lose power there will not automatically be a rabid anti-America, pro-terrorist replacement.

Do the Baluchis and the Pashtuns get along?

Or do they fight the government and each other?

In the present case of Pakistan, I think it not far fetched to make a quick comparison to Iran in 1979. Back then, the US Administration made the critical error of backing out from its support of the Shah, who faced similar problems to that of Musharraf. The result was a quick and total collapse.

My prediction is don't for a second expect this US Administration to make the same mistake.

Even though Musharraf faces a multitude of challenges, he maintains the power necessary to retain his grip on power, as evidenced by the total lock down of Islamabad during President Bush's recent state visit. As long as Musharraf can count on US support, his regime remains secure. This support takes many forms, all of them well known and in the open.

So basically I'm saying expect more of the same. The biggest variable is not internal Pakistani politics, rather the change of US Administrations in 2009, and the resulting US policy changes toward internal Pakistani politics that that will entail.

Hi everyone,

The upshot of the draft is that the best scenario depends on the US stop backing Musharraf and backing free and fair elections. As someone said, I don't think anyone has the stomach to take this route.

Btw, the situation this time is different. Do take a look at this well-informed blog

And why doesn't "anyone have the stomach"? Just for a moment, consider the high stakes risk. Simply wishing for a "free and fair" election is pretty unrealistic, in the face of the internally mighty Pakistani Army. Even if the US Administration were to back away from politically (and economically) supporting this military dictatorship, expect it to put up a fight. And it is precisely that fight where so many things can potentially go wrong.

As far as past Islamic dictatorships and US support is concerned, Iran in 1979 is an example of an internal revolution made viable by a passive withdraw of US political support, and Iraq 2003 an example of an active political overthrow by US force of arms. From a US perspective, both are considered major debacles of foreign policy.

It will be up to the next US Administration to consider any changes to its relationship with Pakistan. If anything, the situation with regards to Iraq should be settled before seeking any changes elsewhere in the Middle East and South Asia.

I read your blog and thought I could tell you about something else which would be useful for seeing maps and directions in India.

I am writing to tell you about MapmyIndia.com, a free interactive maps and directions portal for all India. See the map of connaught place, new delhi, get directions in mumbai from nariman point to juhu airport, and find nearby ATMs in kormangala, bangalore.

As a company and individual enthusiasts, we dream only of solving the problem of reliable directions and navigation for India. For your blog specifically, you can map enable it by using our youtube-style embeddable maps, and links to specific searches (of maps, directions, local and eLocation) on MapmyIndia.

Do give us feedback, suggestions, or get involved yourself by mailing me back at tarun@mapmyindia.com or marketing@mapmyindia.com.

And if you find the different services useful, we would be grateful to you for writing and telling your readers about us.

Warm Regards,
Tarun Gupta
The MapmyIndia Team
For directions in India, just search print and go with MapmyIndia.com

I would disagree that it was US support withdrawn that made the Shah fell or Khomeni rise. More likely, the failure of the Shah to continue payments to the bazaar and Imam class, and the incendiary effect of Khomeni's cassette tape speeches circulated in Iran, coupled with ambitious military officers seeking a better position from Khomeni explains a lot.

US influence in the case of Iran was probably not very decisive. Pro and Anti Americans make the same mistake -- ascribing God like powers to the US.

I don't think either the US OR China has much influence in events in Pakistan either. Tellingly, AQ under Zawahari has decided to attack Chinese nationals and Chinese influence. Suggesting that both Chinese presence (they share a border) is unpopular and that China is a prop of the Musharaff government.

Very, very dangerous. And very likely the only option the US will have is to strike against the Pakistani nuclear arsenal without warning.

Yes great swaths of the tribal areas are under Taliban/AQ control. Yes Chinese nationals are being driven out by the expedient of AQ killing them. Yes US has very little influence: it pays off almost no one, and has no capacity to kill people.

Who would you rather have as an enemy in Pakistan? Zawahari, or GWB? Who controls the streets, the men, and the guns? (mostly, Zawahari). Who controls the Army? (Only sometimes, Musharaff).

I tend to agree with Jim Rockford here. US influence was probably not decisive with the Shah, though we might have had secret influence that might have made a bigger difference than anything I know about. And we had reason to be upset at the Shah. He was central to the oil embargo that hurt us badly. He cleared it with Kissinger first, and Kissinger wasn't interested enough to care what he was talking about, Kissinger said something to the effect of "You want to make some money? OK, sure." Afterward we got really mad at him, and also at the king of saudi arabia. Within a few years the Shah was deposed and died of a brain tumor, and King Faisal was killed by his nephew who was a CalTech student.

It's likely the USA had no decisive influence on either event. But most of the saudis thought it was CIA mind control that made the nephew kill his uncle, and a lot of people thought the USA was central to the iran thing (even though we wound up with something far worse for us). It was probably useful in the short run for us that people thought we were so powerful.

And we don't have that much influence in pakistan, and of course china doesn't yet. We can send drones anywhere we want in pakistan and blow up anybody we want provided we can find them. That's a sort of influence. If I knew a foreign country was flying robot planes in the USA and at any moment somebody thousands of miles away watching a TV screen might tell one of them to blow up my house, it would definitely affect my opinions about that country.

We're bribing an unknown number of government officials etc in pakistan, with an unknown amount of money. And we have a history of friendly relations from back when india was "unaligned" but friendly with the russians. That might possibly still count for something. At least Bush didn't add Pakistan to his Axis of Evil.

I still maintain it is a nontrivial mistake to confuse Al Qaeda/Taliban and their allies with the majority of Pakistanis. All they share in common is a hatred of the US. So does the faculty of Berkeley but we dont worry about Zawahiri being appointed regent.

We need to be careful about the paradigms we construct. Its entirely possible that Musharaff can be chased out of Pakistan and replaced by a new leader who may or may not oppose the US, may or may not be fundamentalist, but almost certainly will not be in the pocket of Al Qaeda. That is simply not the political reality in Pakistan. Stranger things have happened, but this would be equivalent to the Hispanic lobby taking over the US government. Being a significant social movement does not necessarilly equate to being a realistic threat to actually seize power.

I wrote about Pakistan a few days ago. The 1917 Russian Revolution is a useful example of what happens when a violent idealistic minority ideology allied with a freedom-seeking majority overthrows a hated tyrant. So too is the 1979 Iranian Revolution. A totalitarian ideological terror state forms. This cannot be allowed to simply happen with a nuclear power such as Pakistan. Elections do need to be fair in Pakistan. Pakistan lost to some degree its right to determine its future when it chose to become a nuclear power. Musharraf has to step away from power. But Mushy can't be abandoned by his allies or stripped of power, for that would form a vacuum for Al Qaeda to fill. Bhutto and Sharif must not stir up violent or revolutionary passions because the result will be Al Qaeda dominance of Pakistan and many dead western-educated Pakistanis. It is not even clear to me that revolution can be avoided if Mushy loosens the reins of power. No doubt it's a bad situation. But I believe there is wiggle room as a result of Pakistan's official withdrawal from the border provinces. Any exploitation by Afghan troops or the like would need to happen before Al Qaeda's insurrection metastasizes through Pakistan.

BTW, I reject the argument that the timetable is in America's hands. Al Qaeda's insurgency is advancing resolutely towards Islamabad. The assassins have a vote in when they will revolt.

"The 1917 Russian Revolution is a useful example of what happens when a violent idealistic minority ideology allied with a freedom-seeking majority overthrows a hated tyrant"

I think the difference here is between political minorities and ethnic minorities. Saddam's takeover might be a better example, but Sunni Iraqis were and are far more numerous, historically powerful, and in control of the military than the Pashtuns are in Pakistan.

Dear Mark

Simply wishing for a "free and fair" election is pretty unrealistic, in the face of the internally mighty Pakistani Army. Even if the US Administration were to back away from politically (and economically) supporting this military dictatorship, expect it to put up a fight. And it is precisely that fight where so many things can potentially go wrong.

Most Pakistanis are inclined to say, so be it. Not sure if propping up Musharraf will make the situation any better.

And a word of caution to the rest: comparison with historical incidents---like the Shah or the Tsar---is nice for academic purposes. The extant situation in Pakistan is very different. We should be careful in applying those analogies to a different place, a different time, in different circumstances.

The last time there were "free and fair" elections, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif were swept into power. While the ideals of democracy are great, Pakistan's civillian rulers have proven they're NOT up to it.

Both Bhutto and Sharif were corrupt as all get-out, taking bribes out the wazoo, and enriching their personal bank accounts to the tune of about a billion dollars each. Neither of them did anything substantial for the country as a whole, or even their home districts. [Larkana, Bhutto's hometown, is rotting fiefdom.]

Bhutto and Sharif went into exile after their rules. The only way they should be let back into the country is to face a fair & open trial for their misdeeds while in power. The instinct for justice needs to come first. Without it, "democracy" can't exist.

I think that in the ideal situation, democracy is great. But, in Pakistan's case, the military's done a better job at running the country and making the best of a really lousy situation. Pakistan is a country only because a bunch of people were "united" on the basis of religion, and just about nothing else. As above, justice -- and doing the right thing -- needs to be ingrained in people before democracy will be successful. I don't think that's present, due to a lot of cultural and religious factors.

Nathan, that is a terrifying sentiment. Before the usual suspects show up i'll jump in and ask if our own government lives up to this standard of noncorruption (or any administation really). Democracy and the ideal just dont cross paths very often, or ever.

Our nation really needs to evaluate our supposed devotion to democracy. If we only approve when the result is favorable to the US, we really arent supporting democracy at all.

This was a horrible mistake Paul Bremer and by extension Rumsfeld and Bush made in Iraq- Bremer cancelled local elections the military were spearheading in a fear the the 'wrong people' would take power. That is a terribly short-sighted way of doing things, because this basically guarantees the 'wrong people' will eventually take power. We lost momentum and good will trying to craft the circumstances where a pro-US regime was certain to take power. To this day local elections havent taken place in much of Iraq, not exactly the best way to sell our vision of democracy.

We have to learn to walk the walk, and sometimes that means short term we will lose out. On the other hand, we need to establish a rule that nations that truly do elect democratic regimes will bear the responsibilities for their actions. If Pakistan were to elect anti-American fundamentalists, there must be penalties for that, economically and politically. We havent been very good at that either.

There is nothing inherent about democracy that safeguards against corruption. The need to obtain majority consensus probably encourages certain forms of corruption (the distribution of public benefits to increase political support) Corruption is stopped by vigilant adherence to the rule of law. I do not get the sense that Pakistan has had a good rule of law in any of its governments.

As an aside, Pakistan appears to have entered what Plato described as the oligarchy stage. The military has taken control, but its attention has turned away from creating order to obtaining wealth. This type of government can stand only so long as its military strength is not retarded, factions are avoided, and its greed is kept in check.

Nitin:

Please don't misunderstand me. The perspective I presented was a current US one, to be sure. The topic referred to prediction. That is my very short and concise prediction. As such, I used the reference of Iran (and Iraq) as a recent failed case of change in the Middle East, the reason being that they share(d) many of the same military and political dynamics. (I lived in Iran in 1975.) This is a case where the US played a leading role.

Of course, there is the example of Turkey, where there remains a strong military and a record of military dictatorships. (I toured Turkey during one such reign.) Today, it maintains a viable democracy. However, the biggest difference here is the relationship with the US. US involvement with Turkey has never reached the same degree as it did with Iran and today's Pakistan. That difference is crucial.

Expecting a foreign policy change from the current US Administration and its relationship with Musharraf is absolutely unthinkable. And without that change, in spite of all the challenges to Musharraf and all the low intensity violence and the high court rulings, his rule will remain. Understand that, for now.

PD Shaw:
I'm amused by your reference to Plato and Pakistan. For it is Musharraf's political contention that he is acting as "a Guardian" of Pakistan, by means of the army's removal of the the past, corrupted democracy.

I don't think there are any good options, and we should resign ourselves to striking without warning when not if AQ/Taliban take control.

I ask myself, how much POWER does Bhutto or Sharif have? The answer, is zero. No men in the street with guns ready to kill on their orders. No network of assassins. No military men with guns ready to kill on their orders.

Like it or not, that is the reality of power in Pakistan. Court rulings, parliaments, constitutions are nothing. Men with guns ready to kill on command IS power and the only power that counts inside that country.

Who has that power? Pakistan's military, though less than you'd imagine. They won't take on the Taliban/AQ in Waziristan and turned over sovereignty to those organizations there. They have refrained from attacking the Taliban and AQ because they fear defeat, possibly through defections. Over 100 military men have been taken prisoner in recent weeks by the Taliban/AQ. Suggesting that the power of those organizations is greater than that of the military.

Very likely an AQ/Taliban control over Pakistan is inevitable. US response is not.

Would most Pakistanis prefer the Taliban and AQ? Sure. They promise an Islamist regime (always popular in Pakistan). Killing Americans (again always popular). Killing Chinese or chasing them out of the country (again, popular). Pakistanis are NOT like us: deeply tribal, polygamous, ignorant (literacy rate is under 50%) and deeply jihadist. Of course Osama is wildly popular there as in all Muslim communities.

Only the common glue of killing as many Americans as possible will unite the fractious, feuding Pakistan. It's very weakness and divided nature makes it hideously dangerous. The one thing all Pakistanis agree on is that killing as many Americans as possible is a good thing, and that we are weak and unable to respond appropriately.

I don't think there are any good options, and we should resign ourselves to striking without warning when not if AQ/Taliban take control.

I agree there are no options we can take with guaranteed good results. And I agree with a lot of your analysis here.

But the sentence I quoted -- what kind of strike are you talking about?

I look at a map of pakistan, and I wonder, if we wanted to invade and occupy pakistan, where would we start? Pakistan's neighbors are india, china, afghanistan, and iran. Frankly the only one of those that politically looks like we could invade through it is afghanistan, and there are certain geographical problems there.

Should we send in the marines to establish a beachhead? Take karachi for our port and then push 700 miles to islamabad, fording the indus as needed? That doesn't look very good.

Maybe the tajikstan approach is better after all. Mass our forces there and cross a little strip of afghanistan, sweep through the northern areas, and it's only 200 miles to islamabad. Our ground supply route would be similar to afghanistan. Since we wouldn't want to depend on turkey under the circumstances, we'd go through the dardanelles into a couple of our small unstable friendly nations, cross a sea, through a couple more small unstable friendly nations, and we're almost there. No, I think the indian ocean beachhead looks better after all. Maybe we could try it both ways.

OK, want to settle for airstrikes? Maybe nukes?

Here's an idea! We could invite india, china, and iran to invade pakistan for us. A new alliance of the willing! Just make sure pakistan doesn't use those nukes....

Like you said, no good options.

J Thomas

No need to drive to Islamabad for now. The problem is in Talibanistan, which is for all purposes a separate state. Unless too much time passes.

Oh, and the Afghans need to do it. They have a beef with the Taliban that the Islamic countries will accept. NATO and US don't.

I may be in the minority here, but imo the status quo with Pakistan and even the tribal regions is about the best we could hope for at the moment. Sometimes there just arent good answers.

Dumping hundreds of thousands of US troops against the border, or worse- crossing it (as some of the anti-Bush contenders pretend they advocate) would be an unmitigated disaster. Every hand would be turned against us in the most rugged terrain on earth hundreds of miles from supply lines. Our presense in Afghanistan would become precarious.

Right now we are able to quietly flit across the border with drones and probably SF, we have the Pakistani military as at least something of a wild card against AQ (and at best a blocking force), and a Pakistani government that at least isnt actively hostile, and in fact has handed us more senior AQ leadership then anyon else in the world.

Im not sure how much more we can expect under the circumstances. Defying (much less striking) the Pakistani government isnt going to raise our esteem in the area- and that lack of good will is what is preventing us from reaching our goals in the first place.

No need to drive to Islamabad for now. The problem is in Talibanistan, which is for all purposes a separate state.

Sure, for now. The issue is, what happens when Musharaf falls?

Publicly he's been our only supporter in pakistan. Maybe whoever comes out on top will choose to be friendly to us, but from US-centric viewpoint it looks like one of the big things huring Musharaf is his support for us. If that's true the next guy might naturally make the opposite mistake.

And then suppose there's a period when nobody in particular is coercing everybody else -- that might be an ideal time for pakistani nukes to go missing.

So of course we'd be tempted to move in and try to force a favorable outcome. We might think, particularly with uncertainties about the nukes, that we had no choice.

Kind of like the way we went into iraq, where most of the people who would have opposed it for most rationales figured we couldn't let Saddam have nukes and he was about to get them so there was no choice.

I agree with Mark Buehner that this would not be a great opportunity for US military might, assuming he thinks we'd do better not to invade even when the pak government under Musharaf fails. But if we did attack in that circumstance we'd have to take islamabad and we'd have to go wherever the nukes might be.

Or else accept a failed invasion. We haven't been very good at that kind of acceptance.

Have the over-stretched US military invade Pakistan? That's hilarious.

Have the Afghan Army invade Pakistan? That's even more hilarious.

AQ and the Taliban conquering Pakistan? I've a side ache coming on from all this laughter.

Please, no more of this foolish talk...