Thursday, December 27, 2007
Karachi shuts down
Stratfor reports that Karachi has essentially shut down, and that rumors of civil war are flying:
A source in Karachi, Pakistan, told Stratfor on Dec. 27 that everything in the city has shut down in the wake of opposition leader and former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto’s assassination. Cars reportedly are on fire all over the city, even in the quiet residential areas where such events normally do not occur. Even journalists in Karachi are staying off the streets, and people have had to abandon their cars and walk home because of the burning cars in the streets. The source was not aware of any military presence in the streets of the city.
The source added that rumors are flying about a civil war in Pakistan; some Sindhis in the town of Sheikhapura have been shouting in the streets, calling for separation from Pakistan.
The key is the army. It is the most respected national institution, and probably the only force remaining in Pakistan today that can stabilize the situation. If it divides over the Bhutto assassination or the management of its aftermath, things could get very grim in a hurry.
4 Comments:
By 
, at
Thu Dec 27, 08:20:00 PM:
The past two World Wars had their tipping point. The kindling was in place and a spark set it off. It was an unknown known that in retrospect was obvious but at the time perhaps trivial. Is there a tipping point approaching here? If Pakistan goes up our options at containing their nukes dwindle to destroying totally any possible nuke location or armed retrieval of said nukes. Would we choose to do nothing? Are we that impotent?
If the Balkans, Pakistan, and Israel all go up at once do we have enough troops to manage all these fires? Have we cut a deal with India to manage Pakistan for us thus freeing up troops for elsewhere. Do we have an alternate supply line into Afghanistan if Pakistan is no longer available? It could literally be overnight.
Does the average citizen understand the gravity of what is going on in the world as we speak? If not, is it the fault of a President who has not prepared the American public for such a scenario or the MSM who spend more time denigrating the very institution that protects their speech? Is there a leader amongst the blathering crowd of Presidential hopefuls who can distill the danger to a disinterested public?
By , at
Thu Dec 27, 11:02:00 PM:
if only we had a large number of troops in the area, whose current mission is winding down, that could help out with things in pakiland, if so invited. hint.
By , at
Fri Dec 28, 12:36:00 AM:
Getting involved in Pakistan, on the ground, would be a huge mistake.
Our army is, by an order of at least a magnitude, too small.
Pakistan's population is greater than (occupied) post WWII Germany and Japan together.
If the Pakistani nuclear arsenal appears to be slipping into the hands of al Qaeda (which is part of their plan), then we move to strike with air power alone.
And this all plays into the (Taliban/al Qaeda) strategy of getting us OUT of Afganistan. If Pakistan descends into civil war and chaos (a distinct possibility at this moment), our forces in Afganistan are in a truly precarious position with respect to logistics.
-David
By , at
Fri Dec 28, 11:05:00 AM:
"If the Pakistani nuclear arsenal appears to be slipping into the hands of al Qaeda (which is part of their plan), then we move to strike with air power alone."
I say that we physically seize them. (the warheads/nuclear material parts, anyway) But then, I'm pretty aggressive when it comes to dealing with foreign powers.
