Stone, here is the thing, I do no think the Taliban will have any official role in Pakistan and have never argued such. Nor do I think the election results are particularly relevant because I do not think the elctorate will be in contol of anything. What worries me is the level of Islamic radicalism that has infiltrated the Pakistani national security establishment. It is extensive. As social stability in Pakistan breaks down, and I believe it will, the national security establishment will move to the forefront and we are likely to see another military coup. Rather than following the Turkish model what we are likely to see is something along the lines of the Iranian model but with a Sunni rather than Shia leadership.

An interesting Op-Ed piece was in the Washington Times today. The piece is titled "An Existential Crisis" and was written by Arnaud de Borchgrave, an "editor at large" for the Washington Times and the United Press International.

While I do not agree with all of Borchgrave's comments in the piece, he raises a few interesting points. He sees Pakistan facing an existential crisis of the sort I have been predicting for some time. I gave Pakistan two years fromt he time Mushareff steps done. He has been gone two months and already the cracks are spreading.

It's a 50/50 chance it could go one way or the other, but I still feel they will be more like Turtkey in the future.

Well, Pakistan will either endure or it will not endure so I guess you are correct, its a 50/50 chance.

On the other hand, I am pretty much predicting an almost 100% chance that it is going to collapse. I guess history will determine which of us is correct.

Here si the thing though...Pakistan will not collapse in a vacuum. Its collapse is certainly going to impact its neighbors and other countries not so close. For instance, the collapse of Pakistan almost certainly dooms Afghanistan. It is likely to cause increased friction with India as Islamic militants seize on the disorder to step up their attacks on India forces in Kashmir and to launch further attacks into India itself. A little mentioned potential source of friction, though I have mentioned it previously, involves the further spread of Islamic militantism into China's far western territories. Few people in the West are aware the Chinese are engaged in a serious effort to keep a lid on Islamic fundamentalism in its western provinces. The old Soviet Union faced similar troubles with its SOuth Eastern republics, problems it largely sidestepped with the collapse of th Soviet Union. The remnant of the that issue can be observed in the Russian conflict with Wahhabists in Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia, and North Ossetia.

If Pakistan collapses because it now has a democratic government what hope is there for the world. There are divisions in Pakistan as there are in other countries but it has existed for over fifty years as a united country. It has acquired nuclear weapons and is vital for the war in Afghanistan and the Muslim world.

I think Saudi Arabia, China, Russia and the USA will not let it collapse.

You seem to think there is no hope for the world but democracy. I believe you are mistaken. As I have said before, there is nothing inherently sacred about democracy. Nor is a democratic form of government necessarily the best form of government. You style yourself an historian, Aus. Surely you know that history is replete with examples of nondemocatic governments that were stable for excedingly long periods of time. I think one could actually make an argument in support of the position democracy is less stable as a form of government than are many, if not most, other forms of government. Democracy relies on an educated populace motivated to suspend a certain amount of individual interest in support of the common interest. When circumstances change so as to make that reliance unrealistic democratic governments tend to collapse either into chaos or totalitarianism.

THis is somewhat disingenuous, Aus. By juxtaposing the two statements you appear to suggest Pakistan has existed as a dmocratic society for all this time. Nothing could be further from the truth. Pakistan is rife with divisions and has remained intact largely because the Pakistani government has been controlled by the Pakistani military and that military was used to impose unity on the nation. A democratic government, with its reliance on civilian rule, is unable to maintain that coerced unity and as a result the natural fault lines within the country are expanding. Make no mistake, Aus, Pakistan will dissolve into chaos in the next 22 months. The military will likely stage a coup and openly sieze power again. The civilian government will be ousted and its members killed, jailed, or exiled. However, I do not believe it will be able to impose calm and unity on the county this time because it has been complicit with the Islamic militants and this complicity has emboldened long time seperatists within the federally administered tribal regions and the northwest frontier territory. It has also deeply concerned ethnic goups, like the Baluchs, who practice a different version of Islam than do the heavily Salafist influence tribal areas and military and thus can anticipate further mistreatment by a military government.

Not nearly so much as you think, Aus. Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is still rather small and its removal or destruction is likely to be a far easier task than stabilizing the country. SImilarly, the nuclear program itself could be dismantled by the destruction of facilities and the deaths of key personnel. Furthermore, despite the political rhetoric from the US and Pakistan, Pakistan is more a hinderance than a help in the current conflict in Afghanistan and with the broader Muslim world. Pakistan actively supports the insurgency in Afghanistan and shelters the insurgent leaders. It exports Islamic radicalism throughout the region. It foments conflict with India. In short, we may be better off without Pakistan.

I think you are wrong. Saudi Arabia is powerless to stop any such collapse. Moreover, Saudia Arabia is part of the problem. It has exported to Pakistan the very sort of Islamic fundamentalism that has tugged free the threads of Pakistani society. China is not going to be able to stabilize Pakistan either. Nor is Russia. Nor is the United States. The only option available to China and Russia is a full scale invasion and occupation of Pakistan, something neither is going to do. A similar option is available to the United States and it is rather unlikely to exercise it either. The cost is simply too high and it is unlikely to be effective. On the othe hand, the United States could potentially help by continuing to target the insurgent leaders who are operating in Pakistan and by training the Pak military to counter insurgent activity inside Pakistan. I have a rather dim outlook for success in such an effort though simply because the Pakistani military is, as I have said, corrupted by Islamic radicalism at the highest levels and so it will nto be an honest participant in an effort to counter an Islamic insurgency.

SPM thinks Pakistan is going to go the way of Turkey. I disagree. Pakistan is far, far more likely to go the way of Iran. Instead of being a SHia dominated theocracy, it will be a Sunni one. WIth Pakistan, the Salafists will have the kernel of the Caliphate they seek to recreate. Lets hope we do not allow them to make it a nuclear armed Caliphate.

Lawmage, You are right This is true of most new countries. USA and Australia were not denocratic in the sense of each person having a equal vote for thier first fifty years.

However there were great leaders like Washington, and Lincoln that move their country towards Democracy. Pakistan and India had great leaders also,like Mohatma Gandhi, Ram Moham Roy both of whom reform but did not abandon their religious roots. It was Muslim traders who dominate early India. However when the Hindus became the majority they opposed democracy . The movement towards independence seem to threaten them. Until a leader Muhammad Ali Jinnah appeared. He fought for partition. Eventualy Nehru accepted this but the division was to be determine by the vote of their state legislatures. Sometimes as in Kashmir this was dominated by a minority religion,this led to fighting in many states bewteen Muslim, Hindus and Sikhs.. Muslims were forced to migrate or be killed..Even where the majority of the inhabitants were Muslim as in Kashmir the hindu ruller with the support of the army forced it to join India. A plebiscrite was called for but never implemented.

Therfore Pakistan was foundede because of religion. The disputes with India over Kashmir has made it more religious. The Pakistan Army and government has kept this division. There is a new secular movement but it will be hard to grow in strngth while thier is conflict with India over kashmir. This is the reason why Pakistan acquired Nuclear facilities..

You say in answer to my statement

Once again you think a dream and a religion can be destoyed by milirary action. If any country try to destroy Pakistan nuclear programn it would cause a backlash in the whole Muslim world.If this lead to the collapse of Pakistan you say I think you understimate the power and wealth of Saudi Arabia. It dominates Pakistan and many Western Universitities. It was vital to the change in power in the government of Pakistan.I do not think it would occupy Pakistan but it would have the same defacto control that America has on many other countries like the Philippines.

To avoid Pakistan being a more extreme Muslim state co=operation is needed between the USA, China and Russia on this issue. Russia has strong influence on India and could cause It to rethink the Kashmir question. Western aid to Pakistan woulr reduce the influence of Saudi Arabia. This could then lead to a more secular but still Muslim state like Turkey.