There were coups in the past. No war will happen if there's another coup.

Worst case scenario... another arab spring or maybe even the US goes in and ``secures the nukes``.

There won't be any way. China is backing Pakistan.

CRAP!
Thats one nasty nest to go haywire aka Libya, Syria and Egypt.

If I were Iran, id be stoking tensions in that little arena, inciting riots and unrest.. this place is a big infection on the USA's ass and Iran could really cause some hurt fo the west.

Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine
First of all, Pakistan is very disconnected from the Middle East. They live in a world of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, India, and occasionally Iran. You don't see the government in Pakistan speaking out against Israel. And when the "Arab Spring" began, nobody even mentioned Pakistan because it is so far removed from the Middle East and its situation.

Middle East is just a (MSM) euphemism for Islamic Nation.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
China is backing Pakistan.

Backing who in Pakistan, the corrupt civilian administration that got admonished by the Supreme Court for not pursuing corruption in high places or the military whcih gave up political power less than an election ago? They are all Pakistanis

But joking aside, there won't be a coup. Zardari will have to go and hide again. They will probably call for an early election as well. Tempest in a teapot.

Pakistan in a nutshell:

Zardari is president because his wife, and former Pakistani President, Benazir Bhutto was assassinated during Musharraf's reign. Her party, the PPP, has been in power ever since.

The PPP and the Bhutto clan are traditionally the civil counterweight to the military. There is either a military government, or the Bhuttos. There is therefore little room for an Arab Spring type popular movement.

The position of president has been SEVERELY restricted by a constitutional amendment during Zardari's presidency. Zardari is also facing a Supreme Court that wants to remove presidential immunity and try him for crimes he was already jailed for, twice, for many years without conviction. Is he guilty of corruption charges? Probably. But why wasnt he convicted the last two times he was in prison?

The military is just pissed because there was a memo leaked to the US by the civilian government basically stating that the military was dominating politics and ready to take over again, officially.

Newsflash: the Pakistani civilian government is always allowed on the whim of the military, and this puppet show will continue to cycle until war erupts between India and Pakistan (unlikely, considering they trade with Most Favored Nation status reciprocally and are in nuclear stalemate) or Pashtun radical nationalism drives the country into civil war.

Alternatively, the semi-autonomous Pashtun radical states bordering Afghanistan, the traditional homestead of global international islamic terrorism, will push the West too far and will cause a war or crippling sanctions, resulting in the biggest sheet show the world has seen in fifty years.

Originally posted by NightShift
Zardari is president because his wife, and former Pakistani President, Benazir Bhutto was assassinated during Musharraf's reign. Her party, the PPP, has been in power ever since.

Benazir was a Prime Minister, not President. The President of Pakistan, when not under military rule, is a figurehead like the monarch in the UK.

The PPP and the Bhutto clan are traditionally the civil counterweight to the military. There is either a military government, or the Bhuttos.

Not quite true. Nawaz Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League is a strong contender for democratic power. Nawaz Sharif served as the Prime Minister more than once. The last military coup led by Gen. Musharraf was against the Nawaz Sharif government. Benazir's PPP was in the opposition that time.

The position of president has been SEVERELY restricted by a constitutional amendment during Zardari's presidency.

It is always the case in Pakistan during civilian rule. When military takes over, they pretend they are working under the same constitution, pass amendments to the constitution giving the nominal executive head, the President, actual executive power. When the civilian rule is restored, all those amendment are either annulled or declared void by the Supreme Court.

Zardari is also facing a Supreme Court that wants to remove presidential immunity and try him for crimes he was already jailed for, twice, for many years without conviction. Is he guilty of corruption charges? Probably. But why wasnt he convicted the last two times he was in prison?

The problem is most Pakistan politicians, be it the PML or the PPP, are corrupt, except that Zardari was a magnitude higher than the rest. No Pakistani politican wants another convicted for corruption, because they can face similar fate. So inevitably corrupt politicians, but only those in the opposition, are merely incarcerated mostly as political vendetta rather than anything else and let go. Once the corrupt are out of power, people too lose the enthusiam to see them punished.

However, the attitude of the people to political corruption may be changing these days.

The military is just pissed because there was a memo leaked to the US by the civilian government basically stating that the military was dominating politics and ready to take over again, officially.

The relationship between Pakistan's military and civilian goevrnements has always been an uncomfortable one. In the past the civilian governments had to tread carefully because there was always a looming threat of a coup. However, with the US playing a significant role in the restoration of democracy in Pakistan and also having a sizable military presence in neighbouring Afghanistan, some idiot in the govenrment seems to have threatened the military leaders that they can be checked by appealing to the US. Now, that is a very bad move. Pakistanis are a proud people and they won't tolerate anyone who asks foreigners to interfere in their internal affairs, notwithstanding their governments' habit of meddling in neighours' affairs. They would prefer a military rule to a democracy propped up by foreign military. In fact, the last military rule they had under Gen, Musharaff was hardly unpopular and it was only the embarassment the US had to face for actively allying with a military dictator that saw an end to that regime.

This issue, of the Pakistani government requesting US help to thwart a possible coup, becoming public is a great embarassment to the Gilani govenrment and could even see them lose the next election, if one is called in the near future.

A star to you and a bump for the corrections/analysis to be read by others.

I'd like to ask some questions, if you might be kind enough to answer.

What is the line between the ISI and the general military? Should we assume that the foreign policy of the ISI is tacitly approved by the military leadership?

What is the relationship between the military and the supreme court?

Has the jihadist element in the Western provinces spiralled out of the ISI's control? What level of control was there prior to 9/11? The rise of the Taliban? Prior to the Soviet invasion?

Originally posted by NightShift
What is the line between the ISI and the general military? Should we assume that the foreign policy of the ISI is tacitly approved by the military leadership?

The ISI, as suggested by the name Inter-Services Intelligence, is drawn from the military and is headed by a Lt. Gen. However, the head of the ISI reports directly to the executive head (President/Prime Minister). So that sort of bypasses the military heirarchy.

During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan when the West decided to fund Afghan Mujahiddeen, they chose to deal directly with the ISI rather than the government of Pakistan, which meant the ISI slowly became independent, in day-to-day operations, from the Pakistan government. Since then it has grown very powerful and is sometimes referred to as the state-within-the-state.

As for foreign policy, there are little strategic differences across the Pakistan spectrum, military, civilian or ISI. However there are significant differences over shortterm tactics in achieving these strategic objectives. In these tactics usually the military and civilian leadership are in agreement while the ISI differs. The problem when the ISI differs is that they just go ahead and execute their plans leaving the military and the civilian leadership in an extremely embarassing position.

What is the relationship between the military and the supreme court?

Pakistan's courts are fairly independent and don't hold any special relationship to the military. However since they never had a stable political system, the independence of the judiciary is corroded with judges being impeached during both civilian and militray rule.

The recent move by the Supreme Court to ask the government to continue investigation into the corruption of Zardari and the military demanding the same has little to do with any cooperation between them and more to do with matching their eastern neighbour, India, in their fight against corruption in high places. Psychologically, competing with India is a huge factor for the Pakistani elite and the last thing they want to be seen as is being more tolerant of political corruption than their neighbour.

Has the jihadist element in the Western provinces spiralled out of the ISI's control? What level of control was there prior to 9/11? The rise of the Taliban? Prior to the Soviet invasion?

No one controls the Balochs of Balochistan or the Pashtuns of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (formerly the North-West Frontier Province). They are fiercely independent people, much like the tribes of Afghanistan. They yield no space to outsiders in either legal or cultural spheres. The only thing any outside power (for them the government of Pakistan is an outside power) is allowed to control is commerce. They are more like Afghans in their attitudes than the Sindhis and Punjabis of Pakistan.

However their independent nature was not a problem for Pakistan, since the government of the Pakistan or that of the states never tried to interfere with the customs and traditions of the tribes and were quite content to restrict their control to the urban areas. However all that changed when Pakistan decided to support the Afghan Mujahiddeen against the Soviets. They needed the cooperation of the locals in Balochistan and NWFP to set up the training camps for the Mujahiddeen. That is where the interaction of ISI with the tribal elders began. Considering that the Mujahiddeen were quite respectful of the traditions of the locals, it wasn't a big problem either. The money flowing didn't hurt either. So the ISI developed excellent working relations with the locals and even earned their trust. But that is a far cry from them controlling these areas. They can certainly get the cooperation of these people provided they are in agreement, something that would be difficult for the Pakistani government or the military in the best of scenarios, but simply cannot make them do things like betraying their allies.

While the press likes to portray them as Jihadists, they are actually traditionalists who are fiercely opposed to outside interference in their affairs. As long as the rest of the world leaves them alone, they don't care what the rest of the world's beliefs are. Jihadists and Taliban are popular only because they are the only ones willing to recognise their right to live their lives as they see fit in their lands.

The best hope for Pakistan is that the US reaches an agreement with the Afghan Taliban to concede them autonomy in the non-urban regions of Afghanistan akin to what the tribes of Pakistan in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa enjoyed until recently. Once that happens peace will be restored on both sides of the border.