The bbc article below soft-sells the situation, but the la time's article presents a clearer picture of the grim situation:
close to a failed state, lat, 1-31-08
risk of state failure,bbc, 1-31-08
canada is pulling out, http://www.javno.com/...
uk in a afghanistan for decades, bbc, 6-20-07
Judging by the reports by retired generals and objective observers, iraq is also a failed state.
Unknown to most americans, we have also instigated social breakdown in somalia, and kenya, as well as iraq and afghanistan. The next place we should look for state failure is pakistan, where our support for the dictator musharraff is driving our next foreign policy failure forward.
Musharraf Fears his own people more than US or Taliban
Alex Wierbinski, Berkeley, Ca., January 12, 2008
edited 1-24-08
When musharraf was more secure with the army, the isi, and his grip on civil society was firm, musharraf was our boy in pakistan, "fighting terror."
Or was he? Are we only now seeing the real musharraf, the musharraf that supported the taliban, the musharraf who maintained peace with the mountain folk, the musharraf who gained power by crushing civil democracy in lowland pakistan?
The simple answer is yes. Bush's desire to project power blinded him to the grim and delicate realities of power in pakistan, Afghanistan, and iraq. Those failures alone should drive us to examine our distorted world-view and values to find the causes of our foreign and domestic breakdowns. Let's start with Bush and Musharraf. Bush knowingly embraced musharraf exactly because musharraf is a dictator, and bush expected his purchase of the dictator would assure compliance with american directives.
Unfortunately for bush's plans, he failed to realize that that the army and isi had long ago made deals with the taliban and mountain folk: they are partners. That's why musharraf is unwilling as well as unable to do our bidding in the mountains. That's why musharraf is finally revealing his hand, and calling for talks with his allies, the people who still run Afghanistan: the taliban.
Consider that all of our relationships with the arabic middle east are based on our support of various systems of tyranny, starting with the arabian kings, princes, and emirs, and ending with military dictators like Mubarak and Musharraf.
In the meantime, musharraf has seized complete power in the lowland cities where the adherents of western democracy live. The real threat to musharraf's power is secular civil society, the adherents of democracy. Unlike the mountain tribes, who have until recently just wanted to be left alone, the city folk want to take back the government Musharraf has stolen from them. Musharraf has dealt with them with mass arrests, by clubbing and shooting them in the streets, by closing the supreme court and re-opening it with his tools on the bench, as well as shutting down the free press.
Oh, and killing benizar bhutto, who was our hand-picked representative of secular corruption and american influence. Bhutto did not represent democracy by any stretch of imagination. No great loss there. It is clear that pakistanis all suspect Musharraf with being indirectly, if not directly, responsible for her death. It is apparent from the first assassination attempt on bhutto that the government provided light security, and may have withdrawn security before the bombing.
Beneath all of this american-inspired dissarray in Pakistan is the not-so-hidden fact that we have already lost the war in Afghanistan. No great loss there, as our vision for Afghanistan could never be made to fit the "facts on the ground," as bush likes to say, in either our country or theirs.
The net result of all this is that a new balance of power is rising in the middle-east and south asia on the ashes of our failed dictatorships and kings, and it will no longer place american interests at its center. Bush has accelerated this inevitable process by exposing the contradiction between our stated values, our real goals, and our methods. Our hypocrisy has been openly exposed, and has deeply discredited our nation. This discredit engulfs all of our regional allies by making enemies of average muslims across the middle-east, and good people around the world.
The american strategic situation in the middle-east and Pakistan is melting down in the streets, in arabic capitals, and most importantly, in the hearts and minds of muslims across the region and around the world. The deterioration of our military, political and cultural superiority is accelerating.
The immediate affect of our cupidity, blunders, and violence is Iran has assumed predominate influence in Baghdad, south, and west iraq. That's the only reason we are staying in iraq. When we leave iraq, a Shiite government will quickly emerge who's #1 ally is Iran.
Afghanistan is lost. The taliban controls every area where we do not have military supremacy. Where we have no guns, we have no authority.
Pakistan does not have a stable basis of leadership, either in the "democracy" movement, nor the military. Pakistan is heading to a showdown between musharraf, the people, the mountain people, and the army.
If Pakistanis are left to their own devices, it is likely the mountains will remain semi-autonomous, Afghanistan will be ruled by the Taliban and allied with pakistan, and the army will move behind a thin democratic veneer, as in turkey. That does not suit our plans.
The us is pushing for military action in the mountains. If the army responds, and does go to war, they will not be able to contain their civil war to the mountains, and it will spread across pakistan. It is likely that the army would find itself confronted in the cities by civil society while being bogged down in the mountains. It is highly unlikely that the side that "wins" will be able or willing to remain our bitch.
We have already seen how our liberal use of naked violence has worked out in iraq and Afghanistan. Elements in american society and government are now calling for attacks on iran as well as on the Pakistani mountain folk. Our war failures, and the subsequent waves of destabilization that have ensued are shifting regional alliances across the middle east.
Our interventions have turned up the heat on Saudi arabia's a bubbling domestic revolution, who's aim is to remove the heads of leaders who serve the west. In response, the saudis have significantly altered the trajectory of their foreign policy.
Mubarak will die as dictator of egypt, and when he does the next regime will withdraw from their american alliance, repeal their recognition of israel, and accelerate the rise of an independent middle-east.
The new, independent middle-east is going to be very hostile to american interests. The new middle-east is going to consider american intervention in their domestic affairs as an act of war. The new middle-east is going to use their oil as a global check against american influence.
Expect russia, china, and india to be very helpful and supportative of the new regimes that rise from the ashes of our "globalization" empire.
In short, we are observing the chaotic bloody birth of a brand-new post-colonial (post-globalized also works) middle-east that is going to take its rightful place in their region and the world.
We have fought this for decades with invasions, assassinations, and dictators, but now the whole region has reached the breaking point, and the era of western control of the middle-east is over, except for another couple of bloody wars, and maybe a revolution, possibly a civil war or two.
Expect the saudis to move the crown to an independent, anti-american prince when the king dies, or face even more serious threats from their "subjects." Expect egypt to form an islamic democracy after they reject mubarak's son, gamial.
Bush knows now that his vain attempt to reassert american dominance over middle-eastern oil, and the nations that sit on top of it, has failed. The failure of bush's iraqi and afghani adventures has destabilized all of our regional allies, while enhancing the influence and power of Iran.
I still put the chances at 30% that bush will provoke a war with iran. If this occurs, I put the chances at 50-50 that bush will attempt to "postponed" the '08 election.
Besides inflaming the middle-east, american foreign policy has destabilized the global balance of power.
A new era of a global struggle for empire is emerging out of the failed lies of our "globalization" fraud.
Apparently americans will not recognize that what we call "globalization" is no more than a modern version of the old british empire. Our great difference was that our terms of victory were primarily economic, and we generally avoided direct intervention, instead relying on dictators, kings, or elites. Now our imperial corporate state is directly dictating the terms of our victories over weaker states from the decks of our own tanks.
We will maintain the lie of globalism to cover our empire, until we actually lose control of our empire, and another nation, maybe china or russia, seizes the dominant position and employs the term "globalism" to simultaneously justify their aggressions, while hiding the reality of their thieving empire.
So don't act surprised when the world does the same thing to us that we have done to them for the last 50 years: steal our resources, our labor, our rights, and our right to form our own government, and calls it "globalism."
To do this they will first have to engage and defeat our armies, then our dictators and kings, and finally our global corporations that are stealing their resources, labor, rights, and money, not to mention their governments. Looks like it's already happening.
Should be a great fight, if you like fights.
If you don't like fights, you failed a long time ago.
Also See:
Failed war, Failed State: Iraq, committee, 6-13-07
Short list of paki links
List of bhutto death links
Full list of paki links
Recent Iraq News:
NPR; deal allows us troops in iraq for decades, 1-24-08
Minister Sees Need for U.S. Help in Iraq Until 2018, nyt, January 15, 2008
quakers: why are we building permanent bases in iraq?, 12-05-07
global security: iraq facilities, no date
Democrats Say Leaving Iraq May Take Years, nyt, 8-12-07
US had No Post-War Plan for Iraq, BBC, Oct 27, 2007