Afghanistan, Pakistan and India

[Amon]

Alright, thanks.

It doesn't look like anything interesting happened in the past couple of days, then... I'll just disappear for now while sorting out some things and hoping I'll be a better messenger next time.

[Amon]

Why. WHY is discussion on this board still so dead?

Mehsud declared war on Pakistan, making him enemy #1 for Islamabad

Ugh... I'm stuck here. Pakistan has reportedly offed its number one enemy in the Taliban. What is this supposed to mean? Will someone else simply assume his role? I doubt this will have any other outcome, but I guess I'd be disappointed if this is the case.

[John]

> Why. WHY is discussion on this board still so dead?

It's an interesting question, and one I've thought about as well.
Here are some possible answers:

• This board is very serious, not given to easy banter, especially
  among women. This is related to something I've said before: My web
  site is like a porn site, in that a lot of people read it but don't
  like to admit it. The material that I write about is anathema to
  Democrats and Republicans alike, and even people who agree with it
  are often not in a position to admit it, and in some cases might put
  their jobs in jeopardy.
• Most boards that are popular usually have some really cheery
  person, usually but not always female, who asks people a lot of
  questions to provoke debate. I definitely am not capable of filling
  that role myself.
• Perhaps enough time has not yet passed.

> Mehsud declared war on Pakistan, making him enemy #1 for
> Islamabad
> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 7944.story

> Ugh... I'm stuck here. Pakistan has reportedly offed its number
> one enemy in the Taliban. What is this supposed to mean? Will
> someone else simply assume his role? I doubt this will have any
> other outcome, but I guess I'd be disappointed if this is the
> case.

Mehsud is like bin Laden for the US. There are people who believe
that if we killed bin Laden, the terrorists would simply disappear.
That's silly because, as you say, someone else would just step to
take his place.

The Taliban in Pakistan are radical Islamist Pashtuns. It's a
movement that comes from the people, not from a single leader like
Mehsud. His death will cause some of the Islamists to become
discouraged, but there will be plenty of others for whom Mehsud's
death will be a call to arms from Allah himself -- a call for
revenge.

On balance, the killing of Mehsud is probably bad news for Pakistan.

John

[burt]

:Why. WHY is discussion on this board still so dead?

Just not to leave you alone...
This is VERY hard to follow what is going on on Asia for me, just because I'm not a specialist about these countries, but I'm reading carefully what John writes.

Mehsud is like bin Laden for the US. There are people who believe that if we killed bin Laden, the terrorists would simply disappear. That's silly because, as you say, someone else would just step to take his place.
On balance, the killing of Mehsud is probably bad news for Pakistan.

Now I have something to say.. I agree: killing of Mehsud wouldn'd change anything only in a worse direction.
No matter the men, let's keep this site at the limit of psychosocial AND generational questions.

At some time, group of people NEED heroes to kill other people, and we don't know why (see Erich Fromm who wrote a splendid book about the destructivity of men)
If you kill the hero, the group revotes for a new one, this would be silly to kill the top-directors of the banks to solve the problem, any social action is produced by the groups (even dictators are, as a matter of fact, elected...).

The groups and the generations PRODUCE the event, NOT the men, NOT the countries in itself, sorry for the ones who think that we may be important, we are NOT, we are part of a stupid herd, because we are men.
This is where GD Theory interests me, because it is above our loneliness, this is a Theory NOT reality, but, on my point of view, it gives me a marvelous frame for THINKING, and John is doing a wonderful job in explaining reactions of people (thanks to him, by the way).

OUR ONLY possibility, on my point of view, is to see it, to understand it, to take some distance with what we think the "facts" are, NEVER believe the large medias.
THINK and protect our families is the only goal we can have WITH HUMILITY.

Regards

Forget about killing ben laden (or giving him more importance than the ones he has in the REALITY) or killing whoever. It never changed the direction of the story to kill men (even genocides like Armenians, for exemple).

Burt

[John]

[humphreyhawksley]

Pakistan is going through the transition that should have begun during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and really taken hold after 1989. This time it might work. It might not. But at least the enemy is identified and the long-term goal is established. I suspect if it does work less blood will be shed than in the American Civil War and the First and Second World Wars. If that is the case, then they will have done a lot better than us in building institutions and good governance.

[John]

Dear Humphrey,

> Pakistan is going through the transition that should have begun
> during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and really taken hold
> after 1989. This time it might work. It might not. But at least
> the enemy is identified and the long-term goal is established. I
> suspect if it does work less blood will be shed than in the
> American Civil War and the First and Second World Wars. If that is
> the case, then they will have done a lot better than us in
> building institutions and good governance.

Generally speaking, it's impossible to implement major structural
changes in government except during and immediately after a major
Crisis war. At that time, the war survivors are rebuilding the
country after the war, and are determined that a new war so horrible
should never happen again. Once the younger post-war generations grow
up and take power, political bickering takes hold, and it's much
harder to get things done.

Thus, the major structural changes to Pakistan's government would
have occurred shortly after Partition.

Afghanistan's troubles didn't end in 1989. To the contrary,
Afghanistan had a very bloody civil war from 1992-96, leading to rule
by the Taliban. Major governmental changes in Pakistan at that time
would have been very difficult or impossible to implement

Like China and the U.S., Pakistan is in a generational Unraveling or
post-unraveling era, where political bickering and government
paralysis are paramount. You can see this governmental paralysis in
the U.S., and in other countries as well, with Israel and Japan being
some of the worst examples.

Meanwhile, the Taliban, al-Qaeda and other radical Sunni Islamists,
joined with Sunni Islamist Punjabis, are frightening the hell out of
ordinary Pakistanis, as is apparent from today's terrorist bombing in
Islamabad.

The question today is not so much whether Pakistan's leaders can
govern, but whether the Pakistan government can even survive.

** Is Pakistan's government close to total collapse?
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... 20#e090420

Meanwhile, anti-Americanism continues to grow in Pakistan, and a war
with India could be triggered at any time. It almost began last year
after the Mumbai bombings.

Pakistan is frequently referred to as the most dangerous country in
the world. With its government in paralysis, all we can do is wait
until some event triggers something a lot more serious.

John

[Haxi]

I will read time to time that.....