The Issue of Ukraine: Be Thankful that Putin's place is not Biden By Hafeez Hassanabadi

Pakistan: The Failed Nuclear State

Michael Hughes
June 20, 2012

Ahmed Rashid opens his new book, Pakistan on the Brink, with a quote from Sir William F. Butler’s 1889 biography of Charles George Gordon (also known as Gordon Pasha), which captures the essence of the Pakistani state in such totality and definitude, the citation demands verbatim reproduction:

The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking by cowards.

Be wary of those who maintain otherwise because, if not deranged, such persons are very likely members of the ISI (albeit, they might be both). Be it ineptitude or malfeasance – the naked truth is that Pakistan’s leaders have reduced the country to a nuclear-armed, near-bankrupt, terrorist breeding ground - in short, as Andrew Bacevich recently put it: “Pakistan is the most dangerous country in the world.”

Despite being ranked the 13th most failed state on earth by Foreign Policy magazine, Pakistan plans on increasing military expenditures by another 10% next year, even though a disproportionate amount of the federal budget is already dedicated to maintaining the seventh largest army on the planet and the most insecure nuclear arsenal this side of Pyongyang.

Despite a total lack of quality education, healthcare, public services and social programs due to underfunding, the country’s political elite refuse to institute any meaningful financial reforms. Although solvency rests upon IMF loans and Western aid, only 1.8 million of Pakistan’s 170 million residents actually pay income tax while most of the landed gentry and uber-rich contribute zilch.

And, despite extremists preying upon its own citizens for decades, Pakistan’s military establishment continues to embrace militant jihad as a foreign policy tool. The ISI, for its part, is adept at minimizing “blowback” in the minds of the public and deflecting blame through false narratives against the Indian-American-Israeli troika.

Sitting at the heart of the problem is the fact that Pakistan is a de facto viceregal state led by paranoid military planners obsessed with preparing for a war to end all wars with India. Due to its “strategic depth delusion” Pakistan will forever believe a compliant puppet sitting on the throne in Kabul will somehow save its ass against New Delhi. But while Islamabad is keen on keeping up with its neighbor when it comes to nuke testing, it seems oblivious to the explosive economic growth Bharat has enjoyed due to globalization - a phenomena lost on many Pakistanis, especially the 43% that cannot read.

It has become obvious diplomacy with Pakistan has become an exercise in futility for U.S. policymakers. With or without U.S. funding, despite or because of public opprobrium - Pakistan will not cease to find ways to recruit, indoctrinate and arm young holy warriors. Every regional expert knows Rawalpindi will cling to its strategic depth delusion until well after the state implodes.
With the war in Afghanistan “winding down” as Obama is wont to say, the U.S. doesn’t seem to need Islamabad as an “ally” in the war on terror. But the biggest risk the U.S. and the entire international community now face is the growing radicalization of Pakistan’s military – the gatekeepers of its nuclear program.
The U.S. doesn’t need more strategic dialogue with Pakistan - it needs a strategic containment doctrine for the 21st century customized to the unique risks presented by the Pakistani conundrum, because this will be no “soft landing” - à la the end of the Cold War. The Soviet Union was weak economically but it had strong centralized controls in place, relatively speaking. Pakistan, in contrast, consists of weak, fragmented states within states. Once Pakistan disintegrates it will send Islamists, rogue officers and fissile materials hurling across the region and beyond.
A key success factor for the containment doctrine will be a stable neighborhood, the cornerstone of which will be a legitimate political solution in Afghanistan – one that heavily incorporates Afghan civil society and isn’t simply an alliance between thugs, warlords and an extension of the Pakistani state called the Taliban. It will be critical to work closely with India, China, Russia and others on nonproliferation efforts. Believe it or not Tehran will be highly-motivated to assist. The last thing the Iranians want to see is a region run amok with nuclear-armed Sunni extremists.
Pakistan doesn’t seem to possess any prudent political leaders (that aren’t fools and cowards) that might be willing to play interlocutor to bring about a managed transition. Pakistan has assassinated, exiled or imprisoned most of the country’s moderate elements. To be sure, the Pakistan containment strategy will have to be much more nuanced and executed in much more delicate a manner than could be afforded in the struggle against Moscow. In other words, good luck finding a Gorbachev in Islamabad.
Michael Hughes is a journalist and policy analyst for Examiner.com, The Huffington Post and the New World Strategies Coalition (NWSC), an indigenous Afghan think tank. For similar articles go to www.HughesWorldNews.com.

Back to Top