this is absurd. the problem with these “countries” is that they are not countries at all. to wit:

to the tribal mind, a modern “country” is something like a contemporary Native American reservation filled with people whose entire worldview and vocabulary still presumes that “te world” is the proper object of their consideration. Whereas previously their expansive primitive sense included the whole of the Asiatic landmass, and in reality they could ride as far as their military prowess would carry them, now they are confined to such things like “district adminstrations,” are hemmed in by the effrontery of a national military, are the object of strategic and tactical disinformation campaigns, are forced to parly with the “big tribe” just a couple hundred kilometers to the east in Islamabad. at this they constantly chafe.

to the feudal mind working at the small plot or on the manor of his contemporary lord, politics is country Islam, bread, and the master.

to the elite, they inhabit and plunder – consistent with feudal might/makes/right – what “national infrastructure,” created by the British, that hasn’t been completely co-opted by (1) the tribes or (2) the feudal estates.

and then there is the army.

and then there is the intelligence agency.

the point is, these are not countries because these political boundaries do not comprise populations which ultimately gel enough to be regarded as a cohesive unit. this is not the fault of the colonial/imperial powers: the alternative to the imposition of modern national political and administrative boundaries is just a vast land mass differentiated only by the ability of regional warlords to impose their will in more or less real time. it is not some other, more rational, political organization.

at some point in the later roman empire the emperor of rome decided to pay the ransom for the shah of persia, who had been captured by some horse-&-archer barbarian horde or other. why would he rescue his arch strategic enemy like this? “who else would i be able to appeal to?” was the answer.

the absence of national organization is not reason and compassion and justice, it is chaos and poverty and tribal chauvanism. the problem with pakistan is not too much imperial legacy, it is too *little.*

Instead of being a positive role model, they have given us the Taliban and AQ Khan. What would happen if the country dissolved could be a great disaster, but the greater disaster would be for Islam itself. For eventually from the ashes would rise a people now aware of the pitfalls and traps of the extreme. I think most of the Pakistani’s and indeed the majority of Muslims already know the evil, vile and inhuman nature of Al Qaeda, and the tendency if they follow the extreme, to become evil, vile and inhuman like them. It is not a place many fancy, despite the promise of a better life after this one. It is an illness that, like a tumor, needs to be removed from the host.

Some would have us believe that Israel is made from the same vile stock. That belief does not hold up as true, when given facts and the disinfecting nature of sunlight. The greater risk. If the majority of Pakistani’s can be led to play nice with India, and the Muslim Indians can stay calm, the resolution of the extremes in Pakistan and Afghanistan can be accomplished. But it will require a firm strong and unwavering hand of justice. I am still watching to see indications of firmness, signs of strength and will to justice necessary in the yet to be for real administration of “Oh”.

I think I saw a hint of being serious, but then, after proposing Governor Nipolitano for DHS, I can’t be sure.

The article mentioned a “heated” discussion (mental picture of an aircraft carrier rolling from side to side), but the Paki commander was promising to be more helpful in the future when he left the aircraft carrier. Left unsaid (at least in the article) was what the “or else” would consist of. Anon, and American missiles have been able to pinpoint and target high-value terrorist targets who residing within Pakistan.

I’m also reading that Mullah Omar has been offered asylum in Saudi Arabia both by Karzai and Abdullah (with Bush’s blessings). I guess the Saud’s figure their nutsoid imam’s can out-crazy him so what harm could it do to bring him in from the cold of Pakistan.

Pakistan is running scared. And they should be. Good.

Whatever you may feel about Iraq, I would state unequivocally that Saddam was an enemy and threat to the United States. Sure, arguments are present that no casus belli existed, the threat wasn’t imminent, etc., and those are perfectly valid arguments. However, the clear fact remains that the U.S. had a direct national security interest in Saddam’s Iraq.

What we may see a return with an Obama administration is the Bosnian-Mogadishu-Lebanon syndrome, where Western soldiers are sent into backwater combat zones with vague and impossible orders like “maintain stability” and “prevent genocide.” Without total commitment by the nation-state sponsoring the military intervention, such expeditions and peace-keeping missions are doomed to failure.

As a citizen of the world, would Obama feel a need to act as its policeman? Would he send U.S. troops into situations where the U.S. has no real interest to protect? We know the Left hates the military and abhors intervention, but those were the “neo-con” interventions and the “neo-con” military deployments. Does anyone really think that the Left would hesitate to spend American lives to prop up Chavez’s border, or for “peace-keeping” missions to protect the Palestinians? After all, when you get down to it, the only Western lives being lost are those ignorant-Republican-warmongering-fascist soldiers.

I try to think of failed states the way a capitalist thinks of failed companies, we would be best in the long run to just let them go entirely to pieces and see what assembles out of the remains. Diplomats cannot see past the current state structures (which have been frozen with their current borders by the UN) and thus are unwilling to allow states to die. Humanitarians are loath to stand by while millions (billions) die during the re-organization. Thus we keep trying to maintain the current model through various life-support tactics. I am afraid that the patients are terminal and will pass away despite best efforts. Hopefully the rest of the world does not become infected while providing treatemnt. Non-states are not the future they are the first step toward a future with radically different borders.

Somewhat off-topic, but I often think the UN is Sparta without the discipline, we are Athens without a Pericles and OPEC/Palestine are the Corinthians in full browbeating voice.

Wretchard is right on the money when he writes “Non-State”. That’s exactly the problem, isn’t it?