Myths About Pakistan - Part I: Nukes Up For Grabs
|
We recently talked about the media hype about Pakistan being the most dangerous country in the world. This post is going to present (and debunk) a related myth about Pakistan, which is floating around in the media these days.
"Implosion in Pakistan could lead to a Taliban regime with a nuclear arsenal." |
The image you get from (international) news channels and newspapers is that if Musharraf "falls"; overnight Islamabad will be overrun by bearded lunatics who would storm the presidential palace, get access to the keys to paki nukes (that Musharraf was guarding with his life), and then wrap the nukes around their bodies and dance around a fire chanting "Death to America".
First of all, Musharraf is not the be-all and end-all of the Pakistani army, which -- like any highly organized institution -- has well-defined rules and fall back procedures strictly followed by the generals. There has never been a coup within the army in the more than 50 years of it's history. In fact, the ultimate power in the army doesn't even lie in the hands of any single person (be it the chief of the army staff), but its the top ranked generals who have the ultimate say. Its the generals on whose support Musharraf is who he is today and the day majority of these generals withdraw their support would be the last day of Musharraf. If that happens, history has shown us that the Pakistani army will go through the motions in a very graceful manner - politely telling the chief that his services are no longer needed and he could voluntarily retire and make way for the next big gun.
Lets go back to the night of 12th October 1999, when the then prime minister (Sharif) installed the then Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) director (Ziauddin) as the chief of the army staff while the current chief (Musharraf) was out of the country. Was there a split within the army? No. Was there any trouble in resolving the conflict on who is the "real" top gun? No. Army as an institution resolved the crisis quickly and gracefully with the generals leaning towards supporting Musharraf in this particular case. In any such power struggle, once the popular support of the generals is established the game is essentially over. Most of the country was peacefully asleep when the generals took down the prime minister, rejected his nominated chief of army, and welcomed Musharraf back into the country. People wokeup only to read about it in the papers next morning - not a single gun fired, not a single drop of blood shed.
Top Pakistani military officers who were presidents have stepped down before. Gen. Ayub Khan made Gen. Yahya Khan chief of the army and the president on 25th March 1969. Why then is the media trying to portray an image that if Musharraf "falls" Pakistan is going to turn into Talibanistan with a bring-your-own-nukes after-party?
On the other hand, all the Afghan militants combined (let alone the small Taliban elements near the border) could hardly match the much more sophisticated weaponry and troop strength of the highly organized Pakistani army (lets not confuse gorilla warfare in tribal areas with full scale combat). Independent analysts have consistently ranked Pakistani army amongst the world's top ten (regardless of the disputes over these rankings) and agree that the Pakistani Army has proved quite effective when operating in defence e.g. the militarily inconclusive war of 1965 with the "bigger" rival India. In short, the Taliban militants taking over Islamabad is almost as likely as Mexico taking over Washington or Poland taking over Berlin.
First of all, Musharraf is not the be-all and end-all of the Pakistani army, which -- like any highly organized institution -- has well-defined rules and fall back procedures strictly followed by the generals. There has never been a coup within the army in the more than 50 years of it's history. In fact, the ultimate power in the army doesn't even lie in the hands of any single person (be it the chief of the army staff), but its the top ranked generals who have the ultimate say. Its the generals on whose support Musharraf is who he is today and the day majority of these generals withdraw their support would be the last day of Musharraf. If that happens, history has shown us that the Pakistani army will go through the motions in a very graceful manner - politely telling the chief that his services are no longer needed and he could voluntarily retire and make way for the next big gun.
Lets go back to the night of 12th October 1999, when the then prime minister (Sharif) installed the then Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) director (Ziauddin) as the chief of the army staff while the current chief (Musharraf) was out of the country. Was there a split within the army? No. Was there any trouble in resolving the conflict on who is the "real" top gun? No. Army as an institution resolved the crisis quickly and gracefully with the generals leaning towards supporting Musharraf in this particular case. In any such power struggle, once the popular support of the generals is established the game is essentially over. Most of the country was peacefully asleep when the generals took down the prime minister, rejected his nominated chief of army, and welcomed Musharraf back into the country. People wokeup only to read about it in the papers next morning - not a single gun fired, not a single drop of blood shed.
Top Pakistani military officers who were presidents have stepped down before. Gen. Ayub Khan made Gen. Yahya Khan chief of the army and the president on 25th March 1969. Why then is the media trying to portray an image that if Musharraf "falls" Pakistan is going to turn into Talibanistan with a bring-your-own-nukes after-party?
On the other hand, all the Afghan militants combined (let alone the small Taliban elements near the border) could hardly match the much more sophisticated weaponry and troop strength of the highly organized Pakistani army (lets not confuse gorilla warfare in tribal areas with full scale combat). Independent analysts have consistently ranked Pakistani army amongst the world's top ten (regardless of the disputes over these rankings) and agree that the Pakistani Army has proved quite effective when operating in defence e.g. the militarily inconclusive war of 1965 with the "bigger" rival India. In short, the Taliban militants taking over Islamabad is almost as likely as Mexico taking over Washington or Poland taking over Berlin.
