Funny, but just today Pakistan's nuclear capacity found it's way into the news again. Seems they have been busier than most people might have assumed. By recent accounts, Pakistan has probably achieved nuclear (warhead) parity with India. That's not particularly alarming in itself as Pakistan maintains the 'nuclear card' as a deterrent to India's overwhelming advantage in conventional forces and to a lesser degree, India's geographic insulation. The latter deals primarily with delivery system capability, which remains questionable where Pakistan is concerned. Still, that conventional superiority that India possesses comes with a risk. It creates an imbalance (similar to the overwhelming conventional forces of the Soviet Union in eastern Europe during the warmer chapters of the Cold War) and such asymmetrical relationships have the capacity to initiate a nuclear option by the weaker antagonist. That's the real downside of deterrence as it leaves Pakistan with a 'first use' option virtually by default.
It is also important to remember that India's nuclear ambitions were not fueled by issues with Pakistan, but rather China. These two fought some rather sharp border clashes in (I believe) the 1980's. India's need for a credible deterrence against China actually created Pakistan's own need against a nuclear-armed India. This was what the theory of 'non-proliferation' was hoping to avoid, but who is going to surrender the option first, or better yet, actually believe the intentions of the other party? That's exactly why we carried on a Cold War with the Soviets for some 40-odd years. Trust is hard to find here.
Oh -- World view of India and Pakistan is not concurrent with the antagonist's view of each other. India is also viewed as a 'status quo' power. Pakistan isn't. That makes for an unhealthy assumption or two.
On Afghanistan -- I alluded to the Texas electrical co-ops of the 1940-50's. Just to be clear, they were not financially successful, but they were established just the same.
Something to consider: Afghanistan's literacy rate runs about 25-28%. That may be optimistic. This plays well into the hands of the fundamentalists because ignorance and fear are a formidable force and they know how to use it. They've been pretty successful at it with us. Can't get on a plane without getting your spleen photographed. Egypt's literacy runs about 66.4%. Democracy requires educated participants. America has been fiddling around with the concept for over 200-years and it is still screwed up. For Afghanistan, we need to forget the adults and put a hard press on the children. It will take at least a generation (maybe 30 years) to form a nucleus of a literate public in that country. Turn on the juice -- turn off the rhetoric. Only then will the Afghan people really control their own destiny.
No, not an easy task. But then the really difficult jobs never are.
No comments:
Post a Comment