Last night SBS' Dateline aired a segment on the war in Pakistan's tribal areas. It was called "The Battle for Pakistan." If you missed it you can find the video here:

http://video.sbs.com.au/player/news/index.php?mmid=31565&chid=13

You can find a transcript here:

http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline//the_battle_for_pakistan_563568

Some quotes from the transcript:

"The good folk of London are definitely no strangers to terror. …More recently, though, their terrorists have been home-grown, like the extreme Islamist bombers who attacked London's transport system in 2005. They were raised here, in the UK, but had strong links to Pakistan - the place regarded by many experts as the natural home of international terrorism."

"Around 1,500 Pakistani soldiers have already been killed in this war - three times the number of American soldiers who have died fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan."

"…the Taliban now brutally punish people here who don't comply with strict Sharia law. …This was filmed just a few weeks ago in the tribal region of the Swat valley, where recent punishments have included beheadings. And this is one of the 200 girls' schools destroyed by the Taliban. They ordered them all to close and bombed those that refused. But it's not just the rural areas of Pakistan that are coming under the influence of the Taliban. The city of Peshawar is just two hours drive from the capital, Islamabad, and it, too, is now under siege."

Posters here will have their own opinions about the situation in Pakistan. Depending on their ideological pre-dispositions they will attribute blame to the US, George Bush, Western Imperialism, Islam, or whatever.

My own view is this. I do not care which gang of thugs rules Pakistan. If the Taliban takes over so be it.

What I do worry about is the fate of Pakistan's nukes. My guess is that both India and the US have contingency plans to take out Pakistan's nuclear weapons' capability if (when?) a Taliban-like regime seems imminent in Pakistan.

I wonder how this will play out.

"My own view is this. I do not care which gang of thugs rules Pakistan. If the Taliban takes over so be it."

Well, I've got to disagree with you there. I don't care so much about the western-imperialist-zionist-republican-oil-war-machine issues either, but I do hold basic hope that the less brutal thugs will win out in Pakistan.

Of course, the ultimate controlling force is likely to be a nasty dictatorship, however there are degrees of nastiness, and if we ended up with a dictator who was more hung up on securing his own power and less bothered with suppressing women's education (the usual garden-variety dictator) then I'd be happy.

You're right though - I'm sure there are contingency plans in place, though I suspect there would be some kind of action before then. Prior to the recent Republican administration, the US favoured more subtle means of regime change, (or maintaining the regime status quo, or assisting the regime they desire most). My guess would be that there would be subtle negotiations going on with forces opposing the Taliban in an effort to provide them with assistance in the form of information.

Breaking news on Pakistan's war.

According to the NY Times, the Pakistani Government and the Taliban are close to a deal.

See:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/world/asia/16pstan.html?ref=world

In terms of the deal the Taliban will be allowed to impose Shariah law in areas under their de facto control.

--Is this the first step in the "Talibanisation" of Pakistan?

OR

--Is it possible that Pakistanis who have so far escaped falling under Taliban control will be so revolted by the oppression of women and public beheadings that they will resist a full Taliban takeover?

I don't know.

TurnRightThenLeft,

On the whole I would prefer it if the Taliban did not take over Pakistan. Perhaps I should have written:

"I do not care MUCH which gang of thugs rules Pakistan."

It's not a first order issue for me.

You wrote:

"My guess would be that there would be subtle negotiations going on with forces opposing the Taliban in an effort to provide them with assistance in the form of information."

I'm sure you're right. However my guess is that the Islamabad government is so corrupt and inept that no amount of assistance or information will enable them to withstand the Taliban.

Will the US and India be willing to allow the Taliban to take over a nuclear armed Pakistan?

Or will they attempt to destroy Pakistan's nuclear capability in advance of such a takeover?

Your guess is as good as mine.

The irony of the Iraq invasion was that it demonstrated what a strong deterrent nukes are. Pakistan is the source and haven of the world's most resourceful terrorists but, like North Korea, will always have the respect of Western powers.

I think it's more likely than not that the subcontinent will be a radioactive wasteland within my lifetime.

I was watching Al-Jazeera recently and by co-incidence turned it on during a "Pakistan" feature.

Al-J allegedly had a journalist inside a "housing estate"
(in RowlPindi from memory)
for retired paki generals and senior intelligence officials and were interviewing a retired general.

Al-J journo asked something like:
"Is there a war on terror?"

The general replied:
"No, bush just pulled it outta his a_se."

And it went on with the expression of a number of other "interesting" views.

Incidentally, Al-J had pretty much 24hr coverage during the gaza operation broadcasting live from inside and interviewed a lot of significant people from ex prez j.carter to many others. Such a shame that Oz media remains in the grip of <snip>'s

Views of the alleged "White Phosphorous" plumes was pretty specy, but the aftermath of civilian burns victims not something that most of us perhaps would like to see over food.

.. TANGENT ..

" And his Ghost may be heard, as Al_J hangs some sh!te on
pm krudd .. U'll come a Waltzing Matilda with me .. "

..

Hmmm .. "everyone" here is interested to know more about the island up north where the BlakFellas can allegedly speak Indo.

..

Di mana di mana, anak gambing saya?

..

Kpn k sn bOAZy? Tdk usah malu. Ayo ke rumah aja.

;-)

...Adam...

Well Steven, seems to me there's a typical template that's been followed in regimes across the world, be they South American, Eastern European or Middle Eastern.

Typically the ingredients include 1) an impotent, corrupt government. 2) A group of radicals bent on securing power and 3) A strongarm individual capable of securing power via negotiation.

The question is whether there are any generals within Pakistan who command enough loyalty from the military. In which instance, the US provides them with enough assistance to ascend to the top (behind the scenes of course) then he in turn brokers a deal with the Taliban allowing them to wreak havoc on the countryside while he remains ensconced in his citadel telling everyone he's really in charge. The Taliban let him be, content with their spoils and a thin veneer of legitimacy, and he gets the ceremonial position of power. The US is happy, as they have a mercenary type in charge, who theoretically won't get uppity with nukes (though Saddam was thought to be one of these).

I don't know if this template will fit here, but I think some variation of it would be attempted.