It is hard for most Americans to fathom why the U.S. military should be involved in either Afghanistan or northwest Pakistan for anything other than the targeting of terrorist networks. And since drones can do most of that dirty work, few feel it is vital to engage in the long and difficult task of nation-building in that part of the world. These are distant, backward places whose sheer disconnectedness relegates them to the dustbin of globalization, and nothing more.
If only that were true.
Read the rest of the column at World Politics Review.
The book reviewed in the piece is Monsoon: The Indian Ocean and the Future of American Power.
Monday, October 18, 2010 at 11:05AM 
Reader Comments (3)
In the case of Pakistan, it may be "nation dismantling" before you can do the building part. This has been one of your themes, cleaning up the unjust and destructive borders the withdrawing British left behind. Pakistan may be the worst case, because it is not only bad for its residents but a threat to its neighbors and the world. There are probably a few viable small countries embedded in the zombie-state that Pakistan has become. But ... there is the problem of the nukes. On the other hand, the Soviet Union had nukes, and people said it could not go on as it was, but it could not be broken up. It turns out the first was true and the second was not. Pakistan will probably have to navigate a similar course. What can the USA do to help that process along and have a rational and orderly take down and not a catastrophic failure? Imagine an end state in 20xx, then build backwards ... .
That's a scenario I intend to pursue via Wikistrat, because to do it seriously would require lots of subject-matter experts working together. But I feel some remapping is inevitable. Much like in Sudan, you've got this resource-rich south that sees no reason to stay with the north, so a lot of the answer starts with the question, "What kind of regional environment would be required for Pakistan to devolve peacefully into a far looser confederation?"
If we were really smart and daring, we'd start the process by allowing for a Pashtun state-within-a-state to emerge in Afghanistan, forcing the issue. And if India were really smart/conniving, it'd do same on Kashmir, realizing a bigger payoff lay in a Baluchistan/Sindh land bridge to Iran.
Convince all the stakeholders that the asset (Pakistan) is worth more broken up than in one piece. It is less than the sum of its parts.
The Pashtuns get to abolish the Durand Line and link up with their cousins in Afghanistan. Sindh and Baluchistan get a six lane highway and double track railway and oil pipeline from Mumbai to Tehran through their territory. India and Iran get an end to a permanent headache.
I suppose it boils down to: What is in it for the Punjabis? How do you buy out the ISI and Army and the Punjabis who will be landlocked and still poor? What do you put on the table for them? I almost wonder if a cash buyout for the top fifty families would literally do it.
If you pull the two rotten teeth at either end of Eurasia (Pak and NK) all kinds of stuff just falls into place. Or, at least, it is set on a track to fall into place.
How about that great big Indian Army with suddenly nothing to do ... It could go back to its old role pre-1914 and pre-1941 as a regional police force. Just what the world needs, and 800 lb SysAdmin gorilla ... .
Non-expert speculation reaching the edge of the tabletop ... .
Genuine regional expertise now needed for a proper answer ... .