Driving home late from work this week I caught the tail end of a fascinating radio interview with David Kilcullen, an Australian security expert who has recently been taken on as a special adviser by US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. BBC Radio 4 "Analysis" programme Please note that the podcast and streaming versions of this programme will only be available until the next one has been broadcast, on Thursday 8th November at 20:30 GMT (15:30 EST, I believe) so if you want to listen yourself you'll need to do it before then.

It was a really good in-depth interview - encouragingly positive on the subject of Iraq, I have to say - and I'd recommend anyone listen to it, no matter what their prior opinions.

Among the things he said that really stood out for me - most of which would have made good debate threads, but hey, I have a life! - was that he predicted that Pakistan would be the next Big Problem in the War on Terror.

This morning, the BBC News website carried this breaking news story - this morning President Pervez Musharraf declared emergency rule, suspending the Constitution. Coincidentally or not, the Pakistani Constitution would have forced him to step down as President in January, and the Supreme Court there had been investigating whether he would have been able to stand again, become Prime Minister instead, or would have to step down BBC article.

Meanwhile, former Pakistani PM (and one-time all-comers hottest female politician ), who was ejected from power amid corruption scandals, Benazir Bhutto returned to Pakistani to mount a campaign to return to power herself last month, only to see her convoy attacked by bombers Another BBC story, seriously crimping her re-election hopes.

All this while large chunks of Pakistani border country are entirely outside the control of the Pakistani government, instead being under the control of the Taliban, who are known to be the harbouring and helping senior al-Quaeda personnell, including Osama bin Laden. Interestingly Kilcullen in his interview said that the Taliban it wasn't a Pakistani problem or an Afghan problem, but essentially a Pashtun tribal movement (the Pashtun tribal areas straddle the border).

Questions for debate

Is David Kilcullen right to point the finger at Pakistan as the next flashpoint in the War on Terror? Why?

What is happening in Pakistan? Domestic house-cleaning, or the last gasp of a Western-backed dictator before the first collapse of a nuclear-armed state into Islamism and/or anarchy?

{Contentious question} With the benefit of hindsight, would it have been better to pursue the Taliban and al-Quaeda leadership into their Pakistani retreat after ejecting them from power in Afghanistan, instead of going into Iraq? What would have been the downside?

Your second question is dead on, Musharraf is a strong man who is steadily losing power. We know that fact and fear what could follow him, though I'm not certain why we couldn't find some other military general or secular leader to mind the store for us. Heck, we could prop him up and protect him, in exchange for allowing our troops to conduct "black ops"in Pakistan against Al-Qaeda. The pro-democracy people will just have to wait as the Islamo-fascist threat is more of a priority right now.

Things definitely don't look promising as Musharraf has declared a national state of emergency. The army has been deployed to state run media and judicial buildings. It will be interesting to see how all this pans out.

Is David Kilcullen right to point the finger at Pakistan as the next flashpoint in the War on Terror? Why?

Yes and no. Yes, Pakistan will be a problem (particularly if the radicals take over the government). I doubt there will be any US military incursions into Pakistan though.

What is happening in Pakistan? Domestic house-cleaning, or the last gasp of a Western-backed dictator before the first collapse of a nuclear-armed state into Islamism and/or anarchy?

This hasn't been a very stable part of the world for a long while. Sharif, the former PM, was charged with attempted murder and Bhutto was charged with corruption and bribery. And let's not forget that just eight short years ago, before 911, this part of the world was nominated most likely to implode as it blasted six nuclear devices in their desert as a show of force (to answer India's five). The ISI has ever remained a secretive, powerful, and Taliban-connected bunch.

{Contentious question} With the benefit of hindsight, would it have been better to pursue the Taliban and al-Quaeda leadership into their Pakistani retreat after ejecting them from power in Afghanistan, instead of going into Iraq? What would have been the downside?

I think it would have been better to concentrate our efforts in Afghanistan than Iraq. But when it comes to Pakistan the issue is a tricky one. The line between Afghanistan and Pakistan is nebulous. There really is no clear, deliniated border, just a Durand line that kind of divides the Pushtan tribes. There have been ongoing sovereignty issues and disputes. Basically, sometimes (for instance, when a US missile hits Taliban but also kills civilians in the process) the area is deemed "Pakistani", but when inconvenient (Taliban hide there and launch attacks on civilians) the same area is deemed Afghani...I don't see much of a way to combat this without the aid of both Pakistani and Afghani forces. Very little the US can do without the consent and cooperation of both...unless we want to declare war on Pakistan, which would be a very bad idea, IMO. Certainly declaring war on Pakistan would have been an egregiously bad idea when we were at war with the Afghanistan Taliban "government"...as Pakistan was in direct cooperation with us, and Musharaf even fired the head of the ISI. They still cooperate with us to a great extent. The alternatives are much worse.

Is David Kilcullen right to point the finger at Pakistan as the next flashpoint in the War on Terror? Why?
He's right. Their "democratic" institutions are rife with corruption. The army has cracked in the face of popular protests sustained by religious leaders before. It can crack again.

I was disappointed how uncritical media coverage of Benazir's assassination attempt was. The Bhutto family is part of the problem. Musharraf's complaints about a conspiracy against democracy are a joke.

In terms of nuclear proliferation some wonks consider leaked information to terrorists a possibility, but what are they going to do with it? They need the infrastructure to build a bomb. Best to keep personnel alive in the event of a coup if AQ gets control of the country and if AQ wants to promptly lose control by risking nuclear Armageddon.

What is happening in Pakistan? Domestic housecleaning, or the last gasp of a Western-backed dictator before the first collapse of a nuclear-armed state into Islamism and/or anarchy?
Here's Musharraf's proclamation:

WHEREAS a situation has thus arisen where the Government of the country cannot be carried on in accordance with the Constitution and as the Constitution provides no solution for this situation, there is no way out except through emergent and extraordinary measures;

There's a straw man in there somewhere. The proclamation doesn't mention the Taliban's expansion in the NW Pakistan Swat Valley and cities. Instead it focuses almost exclusively on the Supreme Court's "obstruction" in the fight against terror and criticizes the same for economic decisions. The Court hasn't looked favorably on privatization cases lately and Musharraf basically blames the justices for demoralizing the police force and civil servants. Again, how ironic.

It looks like Musharraf wants to assert himself in the (military) government, and planned to since the Court took the case. I wouldn't be surprised if we gave him a green light to declare martial law, or at least agreed to ignore his abuse of power, instead of waiting for the Court to decide whether his re-election was legal.

I wouldn't be surprised either...but, quick question...REelection? Was Musharraf elected? I know his followers in Parliament obtained a plurality of elected seats after he obtained power, but I didn't think he was ever formally elected.

I found this troubling, topic related article today:

He was formally recognized as Pakistan's president five years after the coup by Provincial Assemblies. A year before being "elected" president his coup was sort of retroactively legalized by parliament. I quote elected because rigged federal elections aren't new and having the military on your side and U.S. backing can't hurt.

Rice did make an appearance and protested, but I think that's so we can gasp indignantly and rah-rah democracy. I question how far Musharraf will go with the military. I think he risks breaking the ranks (at least among the grunts) if he marches north. If he does march north he must be under tremendous pressure.

1. Kilcullen is right that Pakistan is a very, very dangerous place right now and as NEWSWEEK's cover story of a few weeks ago pointed out it's Pakistan---not Iran---that is the biggest threat to America. All the ingredients to make the world a much more dangerous place is present in Pakistan. General Musharraf is hanging on to power by force. The Taliban and Al Qaeda have found Pakistan an excellent place to hide from the war in Afghanistan and almost certainly is where Osama bin Laden has found a haven to continue his Islamic jihad. The Islamic fundamentalists are growing in number and volume in Pakistan and perhaps most disturbing, when--not IF--Musharraf falls, there is a strong possibility that a regime hostile to the West could replace him and be armed with nuclear weapons no less.

2. What's going on in Pakistan is a military strongman declaring a "state of emergency" just before the country's Supreme Court declares the recent presidential elections illegal. Musharraf is a dictator, not a defender of democracy. He made an obvious and clumsy attempt to cling to power and he may very well be successful for a while. Still, this looks like a move made out of weakness, not strength. The clock is running out on Mr. Musharraf but nobody knows if what follows him will be better or far worse.

Bonus question: It would have been a very tough sell to Pakistan to allow their borders to be breached by U.S. forces pursing Al Qaeda and Taliban. There are powerful elements within the Pakistan intelligence services in sympathy with the terrorists and indeed before the recent bombing that nearly took her life, Benazir Bhutto listed several individuals she thought might be involved in an assassination attempt and the head of the Pakistan intelligence services headed the list.

When Senator Barack Obama suggested a few months ago that as president he would pursue terrorists hiding in Pakistan, it caused an uproar that his proposal was both naive and deliberately provocative to an ally in the War on Terror. However, events are beginning to legitimize what once seemed a radical policy proposal.

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
- Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part II, Act IV, Scene ii, Lines 83-84.

What is happening today in Pakistan is yet another example of the abuse of power. General Musharraf seized power in Pakistan by military coup d’etat; now he finds that he cannot hold it by popular election, and what we are seeing is the inevitable breakdown of civil authority. General Musharraf has suspended the Constitution, dismissed the Pakistan Supreme Court, and arrested the lawyers that oppose him, all in the name of the defense of the nation from terrorism. It cannot be sustained. All authority is an attribute of power. To be used justly, authority must be granted and not assumed, for all power rests with the people. A despot’s authority is tenuous for it is a usurpation, and not a representation, of the public will; it is likewise an excess in the exercise of authority, and an abuse of power. Not even the greatest dictator can sustain his power without popular support; and yet even Caesar was assassinated. General Musharraf may share the same fate.

An update, of sorts. This is a blog post from Barnett Rubin, a poli sci writer on Afghanistan and Director of Studies at the Center on International Cooperation, a left-wing think tank by today's unilateral standard. He wrote from Islamabad:


Here's an opinion from a Pakistani journo, Ahmed Rashid:


Will we ever learn?

Actually, it shouldn't be tricky, but your statement is true.

Before Bush took a steaming dump on all our allies in a stroke of foreign policy brilliance, we had a real coalition in the war against Islamic extremists. So, it would have been easier to provide a democratically elected government the cover we pretend to afford the Iraqi "government". There were many countries that provided support in Afghanistan that likely would have helped provide support for Pakistan. In other words, we would have plenty of help. Right now, we have none because since 9/12/2007 - when the world was united against Islamic extremism - we've become the biggest threat to many of those countries.

The damage Bush has done and the repercussions we are living with is staggering.

Dictators of whatever sort (military, political, economic, industrial) are all of a piece; all are exemplars of the arrogance of power. Considering this perverse nature of power, there seems but little difference between General Musharraf and President Bush when you consider the lengths that they would go to have it and hold it - indeed, they seem very like. Throughout history, many that have wielded dictatorial power have been soldiers, who raised armies to gain and maintain it. (What other purpose, but to seize power, could great Caesar have had in mind when he led his legions across the Rubicon?) Every age has had tyrants that have used, and abused, power; which prompted Lord Acton to remark: “Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely.” To which historical maxim Madame Nhu later retorted: “Power is wonderful, absolute power is absolutely wonderful.”

Hmm. Interesting that you keep mentioning Caesar. Every time you do, it reminds me that throughout history, there has only been one great Republic that has not become an Empire. (The French have been switching between the two for over 200 years.) So far at least - because that Republic is the USA.

But, to answer my own questions:

Is David Kilcullen right to point the finger at Pakistan as the next flashpoint in the War on Terror? Why?

I fear he might be - Pakistan has always been politically unstable and, looking back now at partition, may even be unnecessary. Despite violence and persecution in both directions around the time of Indian independence/partition, and since, the Sikhs are a largely integrated and peaceful minority in India (to the point where there have been leading Sikh politicians in India). So maybe, despite the carnage that led up to Partition and which followed it, there may have been no need for a separate Islamic state at all.

Anyway, that aside, I think Kilcullen is right, and Pakistan should be our number three worry state in the Islamic world after Iraq & Afghanistan (with Iran some way down the list). I think it is a mistake to spend so much time worrying about Iran, though (as with any state with a loony like Ahmedinajad in nominal charge, we can't ignore them altogether).

What is happening in Pakistan? Domestic house-cleaning, or the last gasp of a Western-backed dictator before the first collapse of a nuclear-armed state into Islamism and/or anarchy?

I think Musharraf is definitely on his last legs, and there is definitely going to be continued political turmoil, but I'm not sure that a complete collapse into anarchy is going to happen just yet. (Though I don't rule it out if the cobbled-together coalition government I foresee emerging from the current wreckage itself collapses amind more corruption and scandal.)

{Contentious question} With the benefit of hindsight, would it have been better to pursue the Taliban and al-Quaeda leadership into their Pakistani retreat after ejecting them from power in Afghanistan, instead of going into Iraq? What would have been the downside?

Definitely. I think we should have concentrated on one objective at a time. As it is, we effectively let the Taliban and A-Q off the hook to regroup, and we couldn't or wouldn't devote sufficient resources to Iraq. So we've ended up taking longer and making more mistakes in both places. I am encouraged by Kilcullen's picture of definite progress in Iraq but I can't help thinking it would have happened earlier on if we had spent more time planning rather than rushing to counter the threat of WMDs that weren't there and/or to capitalise on a public appetite for revenge againt anyone or anything after 9-11 to achieve longer standing neocon goals (a friendly Muslim republic/democracy in the middle of the Middle East). That may yet be the end result, but I think the planning for the immediate post-invasion period could and should have been able not only to obtain and keep the goodwill of the Iraqi people, but also to maintain wide international support and participation.

Basically, I think the timing was all wrong in Iraq. Had we finished the Taliban-AQ business in Afghanistan and Pakistan (which would, I think, have taken us until about now anyway), we would have been able to claim a success in the WoT and might be able to go on to persuade the world that this type of success could be duplicated in Iraq. It's doubtful whether Saddam, had he remained in place this long, would have managed to kill more civilians over the intervening period than those that have died (mostly at the hands of insurgents, to be fair to the coalition) since the 2003 invasion, so the Iraqi people may have been no worse off.

Of course, quite how we would have squared, and may yet have to square, having US/UK/NATO/UN forces yomping all over the (notionally, at least) sovereign territory of a UN member without deliberately toppling their government is a thorny issue. If Pakistan continues on it's current course, it won't be an issue because there won't be any government.

It does not get much worse than this. The country where we are nearly sure most of the Taliban and AQ leadership is hiding on the edge of falling into the hands of the islamo fascists. And a country with nuclear arms and missiles to carry them.

We can be sure that the White House and Pentagon etc. are collectively biting their nails over this potential disaster.
You can bet the Taliban and Al Qaeda will go all out to get control there and if it happens then WWIII may be closer than we ever dreamed

Hi Ted.

Could you go into more detail to why it turn into WWIII, as well as why Pakistan is so specifically "dangerous" compared to other nations, such as N. Korea, United States, Russia, China etcetera.

Your knowledge is enlightening, so i would love to hear more of this.

Please don’t patronize me sir.

N. Korea is not real close to ½ the world oil and N. Korea does not have a burring desire to nuke a nearby country as Pakistan just might do under different management.

I’ll let you figure out what country I am referring to.

I am not patronizing you Ted, really, but you need to do more then that. This is a debate forum, I have no problem hearing your quetching about the 'evil world' around you, but i also want to hear what you base this on. Why? When? How come? Etcetera.

Is that to much to ask for Ted? Really?



As a point, you dont see the hypocrisy in whining about "all the dangerous countries" having or wanting nuclear weapons, when you are from the only country in the world that used nuclear weapons against other human beings? I dont know if you have any sort of historic education Ted, but i suggest you look it up as it is only negative for yourself when you complain about Pakistan having weapons they never used, when you sit on a rather large pile of historical rubbish you probably never heard about. Or perhaps it takes one to see one? And this is simple a form of self-projection as you want or hoping that you will use nuclear weapons once again?

I am nor worried about Pakistan with nukes James – but I am worried about Islamic extremists with nukes. Even if they only “got them” from Pakistan.

Please spare me the far left anti- American crap James. You and I know that Israel would be the target. Did you know Saddam was building the worlds longest cannon so he could shoot it at Israel? Do you this that AQ and the Taliban would not like to nuke Israel off the planet.

How many times has Bin laden said he would destroy Israel if he could? And what would happen if war broke out in the ME?

And your stupid insulting comment about the US and nuclear weapons is not worth an answer. Leave it to say that if not for the US you (and a lot of others) might be speaking German, Japanese or Russian today because sure as hell if Stalin or the others had wanted you he could have taken you.

Is David Kilcullen right to point the finger at Pakistan as the next flashpoint in the War on Terror? Why?

It is too early to tell. The United States has tried to play a delicate balancing game with our dictatorial allies in this region (SA and Pak and Egypt)

We have tried to strengthen ties between the nations and in Pakistan's case, tried to get active cooperation.

Musharraf seems to be teetering in between secular democracy foes who see him as an enemy of Pakistani democracy (rightly so) and Muslim extremists who see him as a puppet of the United States. He seems to be on his way out. I wish I felt better about the democracy movement continuing the political tradition of that country instead of the creation of a state-less nation or a theocracy.

What would India do with a neighboring nuclear hostile power falling into the hands of Muslim Fundamentalists? A major war does not seem out of the realm of possibility.

What is happening in Pakistan? Domestic house-cleaning, or the last gasp of a Western-backed dictator before the first collapse of a nuclear-armed state into Islamism and/or anarchy?

There is a real political tug-of-war going on here. And the status quo seems safer to my timid reading of the situation than hoping for the reestablishment of a functioning secular democracy.

{Contentious question} With the benefit of hindsight, would it have been better to pursue the Taliban and al-Quaeda leadership into their Pakistani retreat after ejecting them from power in Afghanistan, instead of going into Iraq? What would have been the downside?

In hindsight it seems like bullying Musharraf and chasing Al Qaeda into the semi-autonomous provinces of Western Pakistan may have worked out in the best interests of us and Musharraf. He might have gotten some political credibility out of blustering at the United States and shedding crocodile tears. We could have created some kind of invented doctrine of hot pursuit (it still would have been more credible than our torture does not equal torture doctrine.

Is David Kilcullen right to point the finger at Pakistan as the next flashpoint in the War on Terror? Why?

I have not the time to read into the links yet but am encouraged from the public responses so far. Any danger that does come will be based more on repression from the army than jihadist attack at this point. Of coarse this could change.

What is happening in Pakistan? Domestic house-cleaning, or the last gasp of a Western-backed dictator before the first collapse of a nuclear-armed state into Islamism and/or anarchy?

The supreme court was about to hand down a decision challenging Musharref on occupying both the head of military and presidential position at the same time. The positions cannot be held simultaneously which is illegal under the Pakastani constitution. This is why military forces focused their energy in the cities as opposed to a border region. Locking up the lawyers served as a necessary albeit pointless pursuit of holding onto power. The judiciary was the target, not the jihadis. What made this event unusual is the move was presumed to convict as the majority of justices were expected to rule against Musharref. In the past the military has always been able to dominate and keep this number from reaching a majority. The irony of the situation is this attempt to overrule Musharref might be the first truly democratic uprising the country has seen in over a decade. Unfortunately the news will not be told that way.

{Contentious question} With the benefit of hindsight, would it have been better to pursue the Taliban and al-Quaeda leadership into their Pakistani retreat after ejecting them from power in Afghanistan, instead of going into Iraq? What would have been the downside?

Yes I think that is a fair assessment. Had a collaboration been partnered earlier, Musharref would have been in a better postion to weather criticisms of western collusion. If the timing was right, and this pairing occurred within 12-18 months of 911, I think America might have been able to use the ourpouring of global solidarity to their advantage. That is compel Musharref to act decisively in combination with NATO forces without suffering from political blowback. Pushing Musharref this hard now is dangerous as aid is still currently coming to the military but the military has yet to divorce itself of cooperating with Taliban contacts. Should this continue public sentiment will sour quickly and be proportionally inverted to western aid.