The most vital region in this world today, for U.S. interests at least, remains a maze of cloud-shearing piles of rock and sweeping valleys, both checkered by impoverished towns and men clutching AKs — but this pile is hundreds of miles from Kabul.
So the logic follows: One can not tolerate an unstable Afghanistan for fear that it will become the Mecca of a perverted Islam once more; and, one cannot hope to stabilize Afghanistan without also addressing Pakistan; and Pakistan, we must understand, has almost no hope of winning its internal battle with a radicalized Pashtun militia known as the Taliban unless it engages its entire military in the exercise.
But the bulk of the Pakistani military remains tied down in the Punjab, protecting the heartland from an Indian invasion; according to Farukkh Saleem, executive director of Pakistan’s Centre for Research and Security Studies, 80 percent to 90 percent of Pakistan’s military assets are in use countering the Indian threat.
Sameer Lalwani, a colleague of mine at the New America Foundation, has put forward a net assessment of the nation’s capacity to wage a counter insurgency (COIN) campaign in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and the Northwest Frontier Province.
Leaving aside the strategy of COIN for the moment, Lalwani — comparing the terrain, population size, language difference and a range of other factors — contends that an effective campaign will require 370,000 to 430,000 more troops than presently involved. It’s a redeployment that’s unconscionable to the Pakistani military; such a move would leave Pakistan vulnerable to its vicious rival.
Thus, Kashmir, the dispute at the center of the bloody fissure between India and Pakistan, remains the most important region to the U.S. interests — and, ironically, it exists as one of the few conflicts over which we cannot wield significant influence.
There has not been a call for U.S. mediation, the boisterous Indian population likely won’t stomach American pressure, and there is no need to reiterate the loathing Pakistanis feel toward the United States. Particularly, the Pakistani military — with whom power ultimately resides and which has the capacity to undermine any progress — is well steeped in distrust of the U.S.
The conflict was born from the bloody partition of India and Pakistan as the queen’s bankrupted empire sought to liquidate following World War II. Though it receives less attention than the sister conflict born from the death of the British realm — Israel/Palestine — it is likely the more severe of the pair. Between 35,000 and 50,000 have died since 1989, when the Mujahadeen victors in Afghanistan sought to make the princely state into the next theater of holy war.
Kashmir is the most important example of why the U.S. cannot afford to accept the anarchy we find and allow to simmer in many parts of the world. Somalia, Juarez, Haiti: We have become too globalized and are combating problems too transmittable for the humble foreign policy that George W. Bush espoused as a candidate.
Indeed, the defining struggle of our time — unlike those of previous generations, which pitted competing imperial aggressions and ambitions and competing capitalist and communist ideologies against one another — our challenge and foe exists outside the state system; it is the battle against lawlessness, backwardness and statelessness.
One can’t help but think: Had John F. Kennedy’s attempt to negotiate a solution with Prime Minister Harold McMillan for Kashmir in 1963 proven fruitful, we might be living in a substantially less terrifying world. Perhaps it ought to be a lesson to us. Mediate and assist more, even if interests do not appear to be at stake — who knows when they might be.
Brian Till, a columnist for Creators Syndicate, is a research fellow for the New America Foundation, a think tank in Washington.
The analysis provided is incorrect; the Pakistan Army's sole purpose is to maintain power over civilian governments, and it does so by acquiring weapons to maintain a war-like situation in Kashmir, and to harbor terrorist training camps in Kashmir. With these arms the Pakistan Army has attacked India several times since Pakistan's independence only to be beaten back. Pakistan has been under civilian rule for only half the time since its independence from Britain. UN Resolution 38 (1948) adopted by the Security Council at its 229th Meeting held on 17 January 1948 is clear: Pakistan must first withdraw its troops from Kashmir. It hasn't done so, and so the situation drags on. And Indian Kashmir has held elections regularly; who can say the same of Pakistan? Even a few days ago the Pakistan Army tried to scuttle the Karry-Lugar Aid Bill because it had clauses insisting that the aid shouldn't be used against India. It isn't Kashmir that must be solved; it's DEMOCRACY in Pakistan that must be assured and protected.
In reply to lcdrmandingonamvet , I am neither WASP nor an American, and neither do I live in a tree. According to Brian Till "It's a redeployment that's unconscionable to the Pakistani military; such a move would leave Pakistan vulnerable to its 'vicious rival'." "Vicious Rival" forsooth; who started all these Indo-Pak wars? Why, the Pakistanis, as they themselves admit, as a regular reading of their Dawn newspaper will show. Who fosters terrorist training camps? Pakistan. Who distinguishes "Friendly terrorists (i.e., anti-Indian and anti-US, but pro-Pakistan Army)" from "hostile Terrorists" (i.e., anti-Pakistan Army). Pakistan again.
Yes, the sentiment is admirable. Give us Kashmir, or we'll blow up buses in London. Give us "Palestine", or else we'll fly planes into WTCs. Give us Chechnya, or we'll blow up people in Spain. What actually ails these people? A clue is obtainable from
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn...
OIC -- 40 years of failure
By Tayyab Siddiqui
Sunday, 04 Oct, 2009
........... OIC members represent 22 per cent of the world population, have two per cent of the world's GDP, 1.3 per cent of the world trade and only 1.5 per cent of the investments. Twenty five per cent of OIC population does not have access to medical facilities or safe drinking water.
Half of the population lives below the poverty line classified as the most poor. No Muslim country is in the top list of the Human Development Index or in any other global economic indicators.
This depressing picture of the Islamic countries is not limited to the economic and social spheres, in the realm of education and technology the facts are equally disappointing.
The OIC member countries possess 70 per cent of the world's energy resources and 40 per cent of available raw material but their GDP is only 5 per cent of the world GDP. Muslim countries miserably lag behind in education and technology.
They produce only 500 PhDs each year as compared to 3,000 in India and 5,000 in the United Kingdom. None of their educational or research institutions or centres of excellence find place in the top 100 in the world. .....
..... The Muslim world has abjectly failed to grasp the demands and requirements of the 21st century. The absolute need to introduce and embrace modern technology has not dawned on its leaders, reflecting their distressing intellectual poverty.....
..... Unless OIC members are willing to face the present challenges boldly and demonstrate political will to assert their role in the world affairs, the OIC will continue to fail its members. The current crisis between the West and the world of Islam is yet another opportunity for the OIC to prove its relevance by playing a constructive role by building bridges through an informed dialogue between Islam and other faiths.....