StrategyTalk.org

[JLK]

The U.S. has a complicated relationship with Pakistan. On one hand, it needed Pakistani cooperation for the campaign in Afghanistan. In addition, Pakistani cooperation appears to be politically and geographically necessary in order for U.S. oil companies to have ready access to the Central Asian oilfields.

On the other hand, many in the U.S. are upset that Pakistan clandestinely turned itself into a nuclear power, and are concerned that Pakistani nuclear technology could fall into the wrong hands. Israel and its supporters seem to be quite worried at the prospect of Pakistani nukes being deployed in Saudi Arabia. There is a general consensus that Osama bin Laden is hiding somewhere in Pakistan, and that the Pakistani religious schools or madrassas are the most fertile breeding ground for Islamic terrorists in the world today. The Pashtun tribal areas of Pakistan have been an effective refuge for Afghan Taliban freedom fighters.

This makes Pakistan a real conundrum for U.S. policymakers. The oil companies want that pipeline placed into operation, but the pro-Israel lobby wants the country to be disarmed. Several recent stories have led me to suspect that there are those in the U.S. who would like to see the problem solved in the same ingenious manner as the Gordian knot was untied: By cutting it into pieces.

The oil pipeline is currently planned to extend southward through Afghanistan, entering Pakistan near the city of Quetta, and extending southward to the Indian Ocean. This takes it through the Pakistani province of Balochistan (see map).

The Balochis have their own language and a distinct culture, and there has been an active independence movement for some time. For the past few weeks, I have been posting in a Balochistan discussion forum in order to learn more about the region. Balochistan also extends into Iran, and the Iranian Balochis are alienated from the central government somewhat because they are primarily Sunni Muslims while the rest of Iran is Shi'ite.

I've been wondering for the past few weeks about a scenario where the U.S. supports an independent Balochistan, which would become an ally and client state of the U.S. The oil pipeline becomes a reality, and the U.S. would be free to pressure the rest of Pakistan all it wants over the nuclear issue and the madrassas without it affecting that aspect of U.S. plans. The new country of Balochistan would actively assist the U.S. in the Pashtun border region, making life more difficult for Al-Qaeda. And the U.S. could use Balochi nationalist ferver to undermine Iran as well.

As I have pointed out in other threads, there is evidence that the U.S. has been trying to arrange a peace with "moderate elements" of the Taliban. If this succeeds, the Pashtun areas of Balochistan could be ceded to Afghanistan, providing a goodwill offering to the Taliban, who would be expected to support the pipeline as well. Alternatively, the Pashtun areas in Pakistan and Afghanistan could be combined in an independent Pashtunistan.

After toying with this idea, I was surprised to see this article in Asia times, which mentions the idea of an independent Pashtunistan and Balochistan. Of course, nothing is said about the oil pipeline or the broader strategy that is discussed above.

So now I am really wondering whether something like this is in the works. The obvious question or course is how the U.S. could pull something like this off without going to war with Pakistan.