Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Why do we support Pakistan?

suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2014 11:04:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Actually I kind of know the answer, most of the free world nations in the cold war support Pakistan because the US support it, but why did the US choise to support it at the first place is kind of mystery to me (instead of let's say India).

Sure the world was not really see the real threat of Islam at the time, but America is a secular democratic nation shouldn't that suppose to be a bit closer to the Indian stance? How did the US ever chose to support the theocratic Islamic state instead of her more liberal neighbour who, for a time, even share the same enemy (China)?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 1:04:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/24/2014 11:04:34 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Actually I kind of know the answer, most of the free world nations in the cold war support Pakistan because the US support it, but why did the US choise to support it at the first place is kind of mystery to me (instead of let's say India).

Sure the world was not really see the real threat of Islam at the time, but America is a secular democratic nation shouldn't that suppose to be a bit closer to the Indian stance? How did the US ever chose to support the theocratic Islamic state instead of her more liberal neighbour who, for a time, even share the same enemy (China)?

On an ideological level I am curious too.

My own stance is that ideology outside of realpolitik cannot explain it. The realpolitik answer is that we support both Pakistan and India and will actively seek for them to antagonize each other, because this allows us to better control the situation. This is what we did in the Middle East (openly supported Iraq, supplied Iran arms through illicit means, i.e. Iran-Contra).
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 1:09:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 1:04:41 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
On an ideological level I am curious too.
Cooperation with Pakistan is in our best interests. Obama strengthened ties in an attempt to decrease the circulation of nukes, and provide a life line for fighting the Taliban when the US leaves.

My own stance is that ideology outside of realpolitik cannot explain it.
Pakistan has a very ideological and in general, well meaning administration. It is plagued with a bunch of problems. It inherited most of them from its wars with India and the troubles in Afghanistan. They were once very liberal, even having a woman president.
The realpolitik answer is that we support both Pakistan and India and will actively seek for them to antagonize each other, because this allows us to better control the situation.
I don't understand. By creating chaos we create control? India actually is a hell of a lot less cooperative than Pakistan, but they are also more sovereign.
This is what we did in the Middle East (openly supported Iraq, supplied Iran arms through illicit means, i.e. Iran-Contra).
We went back and forth between aiding Iraq and Iran
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 1:27:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 1:09:14 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/25/2014 1:04:41 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
On an ideological level I am curious too.
Cooperation with Pakistan is in our best interests. Obama strengthened ties in an attempt to decrease the circulation of nukes, and provide a life line for fighting the Taliban when the US leaves.

Irrelevant to ideology.

My own stance is that ideology outside of realpolitik cannot explain it.
Pakistan has a very ideological and in general, well meaning administration. It is plagued with a bunch of problems. It inherited most of them from its wars with India and the troubles in Afghanistan. They were once very liberal, even having a woman president.

So according to you, what IS this ideology?

The realpolitik answer is that we support both Pakistan and India and will actively seek for them to antagonize each other, because this allows us to better control the situation.
I don't understand. By creating chaos we create control? India actually is a hell of a lot less cooperative than Pakistan, but they are also more sovereign.

By weakening both India and Pakistan through protracted antagonism, we make them both weaker economically, as instead of focusing on economic improvement, they instead focus on destroying their adversary. As so much of modern military potency deals with economic efficiency (most of which is a product of technological advancement, which is expensive), a weaker economy is easier to dominate than a stronger one.

This is what we did in the Middle East (openly supported Iraq, supplied Iran arms through illicit means, i.e. Iran-Contra).
We went back and forth between aiding Iraq and Iran

Thank you for corroborating my claim.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 1:34:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 1:27:33 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/25/2014 1:09:14 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/25/2014 1:04:41 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
On an ideological level I am curious too.
Cooperation with Pakistan is in our best interests. Obama strengthened ties in an attempt to decrease the circulation of nukes, and provide a life line for fighting the Taliban when the US leaves.

Irrelevant to ideology.
Ideology is irrelevant to why we support Pakistan. When has ideology ever influenced US foreign policy, outside of the War on Terror. I don't mean to bash on my own country, but the majority of our alliances are strategic, not ideological

My own stance is that ideology outside of realpolitik cannot explain it.
Pakistan has a very ideological and in general, well meaning administration. It is plagued with a bunch of problems. It inherited most of them from its wars with India and the troubles in Afghanistan. They were once very liberal, even having a woman president.

So according to you, what IS this ideology?
Islamic liberal democracy. It is expressed pretty well in the constitution, and the anthem shows the more Islamic based culture. It's entirely on Allah, but never uses the word. Like Israel, Pakistan guarantees equal rights, while allowing sectarian laws. Conflict of intrests? Maybe, but people support it in Israel.


The realpolitik answer is that we support both Pakistan and India and will actively seek for them to antagonize each other, because this allows us to better control the situation.
I don't understand. By creating chaos we create control? India actually is a hell of a lot less cooperative than Pakistan, but they are also more sovereign.

By weakening both India and Pakistan through protracted antagonism, we make them both weaker economically, as instead of focusing on economic improvement, they instead focus on destroying their adversary.
Economic development of Pakistan is the top priority of the ITA. Developing their resources is IN the United States interest.
As so much of modern military potency deals with economic efficiency (most of which is a product of technological advancement, which is expensive), a weaker economy is easier to dominate than a stronger one.
Not everything should be about domination, nor is that on every congressman's mind.

This is what we did in the Middle East (openly supported Iraq, supplied Iran arms through illicit means, i.e. Iran-Contra).
We went back and forth between aiding Iraq and Iran

Thank you for corroborating my claim.
You're welcome
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 1:39:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 1:34:24 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/25/2014 1:27:33 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Ideology is irrelevant to why we support Pakistan. When has ideology ever influenced US foreign policy, outside of the War on Terror. I don't mean to bash on my own country, but the majority of our alliances are strategic, not ideological

We are in agreement here.

The realpolitik answer is that we support both Pakistan and India and will actively seek for them to antagonize each other, because this allows us to better control the situation.
I don't understand. By creating chaos we create control? India actually is a hell of a lot less cooperative than Pakistan, but they are also more sovereign.

By weakening both India and Pakistan through protracted antagonism, we make them both weaker economically, as instead of focusing on economic improvement, they instead focus on destroying their adversary.
Economic development of Pakistan is the top priority of the ITA. Developing their resources is IN the United States interest.

Why?

As so much of modern military potency deals with economic efficiency (most of which is a product of technological advancement, which is expensive), a weaker economy is easier to dominate than a stronger one.
Not everything should be about domination, nor is that on every congressman's mind.

Domination, i.e. eliminating any and all opposition to your claim to power, is the goal of any political actor. The realpolitik explanation for this is that it is the only way to ensure that the threat is eliminated, whatever that threat may be.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 1:42:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 1:04:41 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/24/2014 11:04:34 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Actually I kind of know the answer, most of the free world nations in the cold war support Pakistan because the US support it, but why did the US choise to support it at the first place is kind of mystery to me (instead of let's say India).

Sure the world was not really see the real threat of Islam at the time, but America is a secular democratic nation shouldn't that suppose to be a bit closer to the Indian stance? How did the US ever chose to support the theocratic Islamic state instead of her more liberal neighbour who, for a time, even share the same enemy (China)?

On an ideological level I am curious too.

My own stance is that ideology outside of realpolitik cannot explain it. The realpolitik answer is that we support both Pakistan and India and will actively seek for them to antagonize each other, because this allows us to better control the situation. This is what we did in the Middle East (openly supported Iraq, supplied Iran arms through illicit means, i.e. Iran-Contra).

what you're trying to say is "Pakistan is weaker" "so the US support them against India domination of the region" :D

I think it's kind of make sense but India is not that strong when they're just gained independent from the British Empire. Pakistan inhabited one of the richest and most developed land of the British India, despite be a bit smaller (with Eastern Pakistan, and not drastically smaller as it is today). So geopolitically speaking, India is attractive too in that sense.
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 1:47:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 1:39:32 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Economic development of Pakistan is the top priority of the ITA. Developing their resources is IN the United States interest.
Why?
They have resources that we need, and aren't being extracted or the means of production are broken. Pakistan has received a lot of foreign aid lately, with its developing resources. I know we invested in a solar farm and a couple mines recently.

As so much of modern military potency deals with economic efficiency (most of which is a product of technological advancement, which is expensive), a weaker economy is easier to dominate than a stronger one.
Not everything should be about domination, nor is that on every congressman's mind.

Domination, i.e. eliminating any and all opposition to your claim to power, is the goal of any political actor. The realpolitik explanation for this is that it is the only way to ensure that the threat is eliminated, whatever that threat may be.
Whenever people make a claim suggesting "we're all out for power", I always am forced to bring up Socrates. Thracymachus said something similar in Socrates vs Thrasymachus, in their debate about justice. Thracy made the common "self benefit" argument, where Plato contended that there are two other types or rulers. The three rulers are as follows.

1) Those who rule for self benefit (power) (domination)
2) Those who rule based on honor (tea bagger coming to power)
3) Those who rule to prevent another from ruling. Close to 1), but different in the fact that the ruler isn't motivated based on gain, but on potential loss.

There are a rare amount of "political actors" who simply aren't looking for power, but the prevention of being ruled over by someone worst than themselves. Rule motivated by fear/
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 1:47:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 1:42:31 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 7/25/2014 1:04:41 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/24/2014 11:04:34 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Actually I kind of know the answer, most of the free world nations in the cold war support Pakistan because the US support it, but why did the US choise to support it at the first place is kind of mystery to me (instead of let's say India).

Sure the world was not really see the real threat of Islam at the time, but America is a secular democratic nation shouldn't that suppose to be a bit closer to the Indian stance? How did the US ever chose to support the theocratic Islamic state instead of her more liberal neighbour who, for a time, even share the same enemy (China)?

On an ideological level I am curious too.

My own stance is that ideology outside of realpolitik cannot explain it. The realpolitik answer is that we support both Pakistan and India and will actively seek for them to antagonize each other, because this allows us to better control the situation. This is what we did in the Middle East (openly supported Iraq, supplied Iran arms through illicit means, i.e. Iran-Contra).

what you're trying to say is "Pakistan is weaker" "so the US support them against India domination of the region" :D

I think it's kind of make sense but India is not that strong when they're just gained independent from the British Empire. Pakistan inhabited one of the richest and most developed land of the British India, despite be a bit smaller (with Eastern Pakistan, and not drastically smaller as it is today). So geopolitically speaking, India is attractive too in that sense.

1) I agree India is attractive, but from a realpolitik calculus it is something we do not control.
2) You may make arguments about how "strong" India is, but vis a vis China which has a much, much smaller antagonist in Taiwan, it becomes IMHO clearer what effects such antagonism may have in geopolitics.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 1:52:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 1:47:10 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/25/2014 1:39:32 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Economic development of Pakistan is the top priority of the ITA. Developing their resources is IN the United States interest.
Why?
They have resources that we need, and aren't being extracted or the means of production are broken. Pakistan has received a lot of foreign aid lately, with its developing resources. I know we invested in a solar farm and a couple mines recently.

I have issues with equating resource extraction efforts to actual economic development. Countries like Japan and most of east Asia for that matter developed their economies despite an almost utter dearth of actual resources (outside of labor).

As so much of modern military potency deals with economic efficiency (most of which is a product of technological advancement, which is expensive), a weaker economy is easier to dominate than a stronger one.
Not everything should be about domination, nor is that on every congressman's mind.

Domination, i.e. eliminating any and all opposition to your claim to power, is the goal of any political actor. The realpolitik explanation for this is that it is the only way to ensure that the threat is eliminated, whatever that threat may be.
Whenever people make a claim suggesting "we're all out for power", I always am forced to bring up Socrates. Thracymachus said something similar in Socrates vs Thrasymachus, in their debate about justice. Thracy made the common "self benefit" argument, where Plato contended that there are two other types or rulers. The three rulers are as follows.

1) Those who rule for self benefit (power) (domination)
2) Those who rule based on honor (tea bagger coming to power)
3) Those who rule to prevent another from ruling. Close to 1), but different in the fact that the ruler isn't motivated based on gain, but on potential loss.

There's a difference between "self-benefit" and "benefit for a nation". It is extremely rare if not impossible to find a political actor that does not seek to advance the interests of its constituency, as the constituency would find the politician to not be doing his or her job.

There are a rare amount of "political actors" who simply aren't looking for power, but the prevention of being ruled over by someone worst than themselves. Rule motivated by fear/

Those people are still motivated by power, i.e. they want the power to prevent less-capable rule.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 1:55:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 1:47:10 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/25/2014 1:39:32 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Economic development of Pakistan is the top priority of the ITA. Developing their resources is IN the United States interest.
Why?
They have resources that we need, and aren't being extracted or the means of production are broken. Pakistan has received a lot of foreign aid lately, with its developing resources. I know we invested in a solar farm and a couple mines recently.

Resourcewise you will have far more to extract from, if it was India not Pakistan that your government support during the '60 (or something, not sure). India is far richer in natural resources and labour, is far less developed, and thus is mush more profitable for developing.


As so much of modern military potency deals with economic efficiency (most of which is a product of technological advancement, which is expensive), a weaker economy is easier to dominate than a stronger one.
Not everything should be about domination, nor is that on every congressman's mind.

Domination, i.e. eliminating any and all opposition to your claim to power, is the goal of any political actor. The realpolitik explanation for this is that it is the only way to ensure that the threat is eliminated, whatever that threat may be.
Whenever people make a claim suggesting "we're all out for power", I always am forced to bring up Socrates. Thracymachus said something similar in Socrates vs Thrasymachus, in their debate about justice. Thracy made the common "self benefit" argument, where Plato contended that there are two other types or rulers. The three rulers are as follows.

1) Those who rule for self benefit (power) (domination)
2) Those who rule based on honor (tea bagger coming to power)
3) Those who rule to prevent another from ruling. Close to 1), but different in the fact that the ruler isn't motivated based on gain, but on potential loss.

There are a rare amount of "political actors" who simply aren't looking for power, but the prevention of being ruled over by someone worst than themselves. Rule motivated by fear/

Power is like a currency, it a medium to an final commodity - in a sense, yes, nobody wield power for the sake of power. That's doesn't mean that they don't seek power, even if they're ultimately want something else.
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 1:57:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 1:55:26 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 7/25/2014 1:47:10 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/25/2014 1:39:32 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Economic development of Pakistan is the top priority of the ITA. Developing their resources is IN the United States interest.
Why?
They have resources that we need, and aren't being extracted or the means of production are broken. Pakistan has received a lot of foreign aid lately, with its developing resources. I know we invested in a solar farm and a couple mines recently.

Resourcewise you will have far more to extract from, if it was India not Pakistan that your government support during the '60 (or something, not sure). India is far richer in natural resources and labour, is far less developed, and thus is mush more profitable for developing.
Apparently not in the resources we need. A US politician once categorized American conservatives obsession with India as "Gahndi Syndrome" . India is poor, has a low HDI, and recieves little FDI do to little resource wealth, besides spices and rice.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 1:58:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 1:55:26 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 7/25/2014 1:47:10 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/25/2014 1:39:32 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Power is like a currency, it a medium to an final commodity - in a sense, yes, nobody wield power for the sake of power. That's doesn't mean that they don't seek power, even if they're ultimately want something else.

Fully agree and well put.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Oromagi
Posts: 857
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 2:09:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/24/2014 11:04:34 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Actually I kind of know the answer, most of the free world nations in the cold war support Pakistan because the US support it, but why did the US choise to support it at the first place is kind of mystery to me (instead of let's say India).

Sure the world was not really see the real threat of Islam at the time, but America is a secular democratic nation shouldn't that suppose to be a bit closer to the Indian stance? How did the US ever chose to support the theocratic Islamic state instead of her more liberal neighbour who, for a time, even share the same enemy (China)?

It's a good question because today India seems like a much more democratic, Western leaning state than Pakistan. The short answer is that much has changed since the early days of the Cold War.

I'm sure there is much scholarship on the subject to which I pretend no expertise.

Consider that when India and Pakistan gained independence, Indian and British sentiments were rather bitter. India felt betrayed and weakened by British support for an independent Pakistan. The US was already deep into her special relationship with Britain so an American alliance felt too British to India and the US was careful to maintain British good will by leaving India be. Further, Socialist ideologies were more popular in India than in a very Muslim state like Pakistan. Therefore, the US preferred Pakistan.

As Russian influence grew in Iran and Afghanistan through the 70s, Pakistan began to look like the last domino to the Persian Gulf. Even though Pakistan was radicalizing and de-Westernizing after losing Bangledesh in '71 and the coup in '77. The US chose to increase and exploit Pakistani dependency rather than acknowledge India as an increasingly preferable partner.

Today, the US relationship with Pakistan is almost toxic. Like Egypt, the army is essentially bribed into friendship while popular opinion becomes increasingly hostile. We find ourselves allied with a nation willing to harbor our most hated enemy and we don't trust even the military enough to aid in our hit on bin-Laden. The cost of foreign aid seems cheap compared to the fear of an unallied nuclear nation, but I can't help but think that if China really wants to be Pakistan's sponsor, the wisest move may be to let them deal with the revolutionary generation to come while we quietly improve ties with India.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 6:24:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 2:09:22 AM, Oromagi wrote:
At 7/24/2014 11:04:34 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Actually I kind of know the answer, most of the free world nations in the cold war support Pakistan because the US support it, but why did the US choise to support it at the first place is kind of mystery to me (instead of let's say India).

Sure the world was not really see the real threat of Islam at the time, but America is a secular democratic nation shouldn't that suppose to be a bit closer to the Indian stance? How did the US ever chose to support the theocratic Islamic state instead of her more liberal neighbour who, for a time, even share the same enemy (China)?

It's a good question because today India seems like a much more democratic, Western leaning state than Pakistan. The short answer is that much has changed since the early days of the Cold War.

I'm sure there is much scholarship on the subject to which I pretend no expertise.

Consider that when India and Pakistan gained independence, Indian and British sentiments were rather bitter. India felt betrayed and weakened by British support for an independent Pakistan. The US was already deep into her special relationship with Britain so an American alliance felt too British to India and the US was careful to maintain British good will by leaving India be. Further, Socialist ideologies were more popular in India than in a very Muslim state like Pakistan. Therefore, the US preferred Pakistan.

As Russian influence grew in Iran and Afghanistan through the 70s, Pakistan began to look like the last domino to the Persian Gulf. Even though Pakistan was radicalizing and de-Westernizing after losing Bangledesh in '71 and the coup in '77. The US chose to increase and exploit Pakistani dependency rather than acknowledge India as an increasingly preferable partner.

Today, the US relationship with Pakistan is almost toxic. Like Egypt, the army is essentially bribed into friendship while popular opinion becomes increasingly hostile. We find ourselves allied with a nation willing to harbor our most hated enemy and we don't trust even the military enough to aid in our hit on bin-Laden. The cost of foreign aid seems cheap compared to the fear of an unallied nuclear nation, but I can't help but think that if China really wants to be Pakistan's sponsor, the wisest move may be to let them deal with the revolutionary generation to come while we quietly improve ties with India.

couldn't expect a better answer, thank you, and very well done.