BF2S Forums Charlie Wilsons War

blaming the US for the taliban is like blaming the UK for bush.

I just dont think we should be doing it conventionally.

throw money at the afghan government.  use our intelligence agencies for oversight and clandestine ops.  use SOCOM troops for surgical shit.  keep a token conventional military presence, just in case that fan gets some shit on it. 


money will fix the root of terrorism, which is poverty and lack of education.

the agenies and special ops working together will do the footwork. 

Im sure there are holes in this plan.  But its fucking waste of life, time and money to just "send troops"

although, this would work a lot better in urban areas like pakistan and iraq where the populations are in the cities for the most part.

Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-07-23 17:25:37)

Turquoise wrote:

We've been throwing a lot of money at Pakistan.  I don't see much progress coming from that.

instead of writing a reply to disgaree, Ill just post a paper I turned in last week.  do what you want with it.  compliments are always welcome

In the area of the world in what is today considered the Middle East, two nations, Iran and Pakistan, are on separate paths that will eventually lead to drastic political, economic and social change.  In order to determine the location in which these two nation-states are placed upon the J Curve, a number of factors must be analyzed and considered. When compared to each other though, today, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is in far greater danger of becoming a failed state than the Islamic Republic of Iran.  Despite the two nation’s shared histories, border and cultural similarities, Pakistan finds it self lower on the left side of the J Curve. Today, both these countries serve as the focus of foreign policy for many nations with a vested interest in the region.
In order to place Pakistan and Iran in their respective positions on Ian Bremmer’s J Curve measurement of political openness and stability, one must evaluate several factors and potential outcomes.  Iran and Pakistan are both comparable as well as dissimilar in their individual circumstances.  Both nations’ societies face instability, but for differing reasons.  Both are at the center of attention of the worlds last remaining super power, although Pakistan’s government is considered an ally while the Iranian government strives to further isolate itself from the west.  Both Iran and Pakistan have moderate, secular elements in societies dominated by Islam, with election processes that are neither fair nor completely transparent.  Although both governments are legitimized by elections, Iran is governed by the religious elite that seek to consolidate their hold on power by undemocratic means and Pakistan by a military elite with ties to tribal groups that are aligned with the Taliban and Al Qaeda (1).
The individual relationships that Iran and Pakistan have with the United States and the west are where they draw their biggest differences.  Iran is generally perceived as an aggressive nation undermining American interests while attempting to dominate the region and shift the balance of power in favor of the Islamic Republic, while Pakistan is seen as a hesitant, but integral ally in the global war on terrorism.  The strongest reason that supports Pakistan’s potential imminent collapse into social, political and economic chaos is the fact that in order for a nation to make any significant movement from the left side of the J Curve to the right, a nation must first undergo a period of instability as it makes its way from being a rigid and closed society to a more open and fair one (2).  Iran and Pakistan both meet elements of the criteria that is necessary to undergo the movement down the “J”, but for the most part, Pakistan’s conditions outnumber those of Iran.
Iranian society is relatively stable, although many consider it a pariah in the world community.  This isolation, in turn, enforces the stability that the religious elite need to govern.  Barring external foreign intervention, Iran’s transition towards a stable and open society will more than likely occur later rather than sooner.  Pakistan, on the other hand, is in the midst of political turmoil even today.  Political and government institutions and structures are run by a repressive military elite, centers of population are controlled by elements friendly to terrorist organizations in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), the powers of the Pakistani Supreme Court have been suspended and members of the media and opposition groups have been illegally detained or murdered, just to name a few concerns that the people of Pakistan are presently facing.  Given all these conditions, Pakistan is on its slide down the steep side of the “J”.
Pakistan has had a short and tumultuous history with democratic rule ever since the inception of the modern Islamic Republic in 1947.  Pakistan’s military has long been the real power behind the government throughout the 60 years of its existence.  Revisions made over the years in the Pakistani constitution have allowed the president to dismiss elected officials at will.  Even during what many consider to be Pakistan’s closest resemblance of democratic rule during the 1990’s, corruption and human rights violations ran rampant while the military still largely controlled institutions that are considered vital for a democratic society.  Corruption was so rampant in Pakistani society that many welcomed the 1999 coup that brought the current president and former army chief Pervez Musharraf into power (3).
Today, Musharraf is not as popular as he might have been before (4).  Although Pakistan has enjoyed over 10 billion dollars in direct foreign aid from United States since the September 11th attacks(5), the Pakistani government has shown an unwillingness or inability to fully contain the elements aligned with the Taliban and terrorist organizations within its own borders.  In fact, recent arrangements with the government, as well as a rigged election perpetrated by members of the Inter-Services Intelligences (ISI, a prestigious branch of Pakistani military intelligence) have given a form of autonomy to the Taliban-like tribes in the FATA.  These tribesmen take advantage of that fact and are active members of the Afghani insurgency.  Any attempt at cracking down on the tribes that are engaging NATO and Afghan forces will further bolster their relatively weak position in mainstream Pakistani society and dwindle down Musharraf’s already receding popularity.
The Pakistani people are fed up with military rule.  Riots and protest have been a common occurrence throughout Pakistan’s urban centers.  Attacks and detentions of the free media are likewise as common.  In the most recent elections (which were finally held after a long postponement followed by a declared state of emergency and the assassination of one of the strongest opposition voices, exiled former prime minister Benazir Bhutto.), the leading opposition parties won first and second place in the number of seats in the National Assembly while Musharraf’s party won a distant third (although the Pakistani Supreme Court has yet to determine whether or not Nawaz Sharif, a leader in one of the opposition parties as well as a political rival of Musharraf, is eligible to hold a political seat due to a prior conviction)(6).
    American influence will most likely play a key role in assisting Pakistan’s transition from a military ruled society to one of civilian rule and transparency.  Pakistan’s strategic position and significance in the American led war on terrorism cannot be stressed enough.  This is why a stable, democratic Pakistan is in the best interest of American foreign policy makers and subsequently, global stability.  Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is all the more reason why transitioning the Islamic Republic to the right side of the J Curve is so important.  The ability for the Islamic Republic to handle the shock of a changing political landscape and still maintain control of its weapons of mass destruction in way that is acceptable for the world community will be tested, given the volatile environment and notoriety of Pakistan’s illicit weapons trade.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is likewise on a slide down the left side of instability.  But Iran’s reasons for this change, although some similar to Pakistan’s, have more to do with outside influence and intervention than domestic dissent.  Even though Iran finds itself in a position located higher on the J Curve than their Pakistani neighbors in terms of stability, they still are much closer to the very nadir of the curve than most other nations in the world community.  Since the inception of the Islamic Republic in 1979, Iran has seen severe shock to its system and has recovered.  The religious conservative elite that guides the nation has rejected all influence from the west, particularly the United States, who they view as their greatest enemy (7).  In this rejection follows isolation from the world community and solidarity among Iranians which only strengthen the hold that the clerics have on the government.  But, there is a strong moderate voice in Iran as well.  Although Iran holds free and open elections, opposition parties have the ability to be banned from running by the Guardian Council, the upper house of the Iranian parliament (Majlis), half of whose members are chosen by the Ayatollah (Supreme Leader of Iran, unelected).  Voter turnout has been decreasing steadily as a sign of disenchantment with the Iranian government, even after huge numbers of ballots were cast during the 90’s for a brief period of moderate reformist rule in the government.
In their quest for the ability to produce nuclear power and quite possible weaponry as well, the Iranian government has further isolated itself among the world community.  Any outside obstruction, be it through economic sanctions or offensive military operations, will be counter productive for the transition from a theocratic to secular Iran.  Change in Iranian society is bound to happen. But, unless it is brought upon by outside military intervention, the shock to Iranian society will occur from within and much later than Pakistan.     
Truth be told, changes have been occurring quite recently within Pakistani society that only further support the inevitable slide from the left to the right of the J Curve.  Pakistan’s economy has improved greatly within the last few years, although recently there has been a downturn.  According to the Index of Economic freedom, Pakistan scores just slightly lower than the rest of the region (8), while Iran stands much lower (although Iran could afford a lower ranking in its economic freedom due to its vast oil profits.). Islamabad is ahead of the race towards instability for a number of key reasons, the most important being that any form of military dictatorship, be it though strongman, junta or political vanguard, is inherently unstable.  Not to mention the direction Pakistan has taken lately in curbing civil rights.  Pakistan scores lower than Iran in relation to civil liberties according to the Freedom House Index (9).  This, coupled with so many other factors could only mean change is imminent. Iran, although ruled by a religious oligarchy, is still a land that attempts to be ruled by law (law guided by religious dogma, though) while Pakistan is a nation administered by military rule, with an illusion of democracy.    Hopefully, a transitioning Pakistan will be a peaceful one if the world supports the change.

Good paper, GS.

What do you think would happen if we seized Pakistan's nukes, and then conquered the tribal areas that have the Taliban in them?

Well...  you said that, for a nation to be able to move further along the J Curve, they need a chaotic transition, an upheaval of sorts.  Why not take out the extremists, remove the dangerous WMDs, and then pull back to the borders of Pakistan and watch the flames rise?

God Save the Queen wrote:

throw money at the afghan government.  use our intelligence agencies for oversight and clandestine ops.  use SOCOM troops for surgical shit.  keep a token conventional military presence, just in case that fan gets some shit on it. 


money will fix the root of terrorism, which is poverty and lack of education.

the agenies and special ops working together will do the footwork. 

Im sure there are holes in this plan.  But its fucking waste of life, time and money to just "send troops"

although, this would work a lot better in urban areas like pakistan and iraq where the populations are in the cities for the most part.

That was the lesson I was referring to. Once the Muj beat the Russkies, we stopped funding them. That led to a power vacuum that the Taliban moved in to fill.

We didn't support the Taliban...we supported the mujahedeen (different group, more closely aligned to the Northern Alliance than anything else).

God Save the Queen wrote:

FEOS wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

throw money at the afghan government.  use our intelligence agencies for oversight and clandestine ops.  use SOCOM troops for surgical shit.  keep a token conventional military presence, just in case that fan gets some shit on it. 


money will fix the root of terrorism, which is poverty and lack of education.

the agenies and special ops working together will do the footwork. 

Im sure there are holes in this plan.  But its fucking waste of life, time and money to just "send troops"

although, this would work a lot better in urban areas like pakistan and iraq where the populations are in the cities for the most part.

That was the lesson I was referring to. Once the Muj beat the Russkies, we stopped funding them. That led to a power vacuum that the Taliban moved in to fill.

We didn't support the Taliban...we supported the mujahedeen (different group, more closely aligned to the Northern Alliance than anything else).

fuckin a

fuckin b

the point is to scale down military action, not expotentially increase

military action would turn those friendly in pakistan away.  thats the military elite.  we may not want them to run the country but we do want to maintain positive control of their arsenal.

not very.  the military is the power behind the government right now.  now, if the military collapses, which is unlikely, thats when things would get bad. 


only 5% of pakistanis polled supprted the tribal parties.

I saw this movie the week it came out, I must have been the only person under the age of 55, I swear. ALL OLD PEOPLE. EVERY ONE OF THEM WHITE HAIR.

it was lol

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

Tom Hanks pisses me off.

^best post in this thread

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

The Taliban rose to power and beat off everyone else

Actually, THIS is.