Is the Capital and Class list moderated? Is there any possibility that this continual barrage of nonsense masquerading as analysis - by a self-important but sadly uninformed boon to anybody who wants to run down Marxism, communism or indeed clear thinking - will be abated? Freedom of expression, yes, but the litany of abject rubbish that has gushed forth since September 11th really is torture!
Paul
<<< David Morgan <[log in to unmask]> 10/18 6:33a >>>
Now I've heard everything.
This post shows such an alarming lack of knowledge of South Asian history as to be truly
breathtaking, not to mention its internal contradictions
Dave
-------------------------------------
Karl Carlile wrote:
> Pakistan has been seeking to extend its regional power base in Central Asia. The
> attack on Afghanistan by US/UK imperialism constitutes a response to this Pakistani
> colonialism. Without Pakistan's support there would have been no Taliban regime in
> Afghanistan. Pakistan's strategy is the extension of its influence, even control,
> over Afghanistan by ensuring that a compliant force, the Taliban, is in power. In
> this way Pakistan would have significantly extended its strategic influence within
> central Asia. This strategic advantage would have been of geopolitical and commercial
> significance. Under these conditions Pakistan would have significant influence over
> the fuel and other resources in Afghanistan. Its influence, even colonisation, of
> Afghanistan would have strengthened its position concerning its relationship with
> India over the Kashmir question.
>
> An expanded Pakistan would be better placed to further extend its influence over the
> entire Central Asian region. This would provide Pakistan with immeasurable political
> and commercial power. This would mean its increased influence over the surrounding
> countries. Perhaps even the further colonialist expansion of Pakistan beyond
> Afghanistan into neighbouring Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The Pakistani bourgeoisie
> hoped to realise these imperialist ambitions through the exploitation of Islamic
> fundamentalism. Through the exploitation of Islamic fundamentalism it hoped to
> create a Pakistan that extended its tentacles into all of Central Asia --an Islamic
> Central Asian state or federation. The realisation of this ambition would have
> better placed it to proceed to the colonisation of Kashmir. It is these ambitions
> that constitute the greatest danger to the Indian state. Consequently India utilises
> Kashmir as a political device to thwart Pakistani ambitions.
>
> However the Taliban have been proving to be less than fully compliant. The Taliban
> government has been proving a growing concern for Pakistan. The Taliban even
> entertain ambitions of its own that are not entirely congruent with Pakistani
> ambitions.
>
> Given this state of affairs the US/UK attack on Afghanistan is essentially an attack
> on Pakistan. It is the expansionist Pakistani state that US/UK imperialism is seeking
> to contain. US/UK imperialism cannot tolerate the emergence of a Pakistani regional
> power in Central Asia possessing increasingly significant geo-political and
> economic power.
>
> Musharraf has been cleverly exploiting the domestic unrest in Pakistan provoked by
> Western intervention in Afghanistan to pressurise US imperialism into accepting the
> installation of a new regime in Afghanistan acceptable to Pakistan in the aftermath
> of the expected fall of the Taliban. If Pakistan is getting its way, and it looks
> like it is, this means that Washington has been expending considerable resources in
> an attack on the Taliban regime of which the end result will be a new Afghani regime
> more compliant to Pakistan while possessing greater international credibility. In a
> sense, then, the US will have undertaken a politically delicate intervention to
> further the interests of Pakistan while weakening its own imperialist interests. If
> this turns out to be the case then the terrorist attack on New York and Washington
> will have had its desired effect. It will have provoked an over-reaction from the
> Bush administration leading to the weakening rather than the strengthening of US
> imperialism. However this will intensify capitalist contradictions that will make the
> global situation potentially more explosive. Rather than its military intervention
> leading to the defeat of Islamic fundamentalism it may lead to its growth. The result
> in the long run, among other things, will be more terrorist activity. Clearly the
> terrorist attack on New York and Washington and the character of Bush's reaction to
> it is an expression of the weakness of US imperialism.
>
> Under these conditions the attack on Pakistan, through its attack on Afghanistan,
> will have played right into the hands of Pakistan. Obviously the situation is very
> delicate. One misconceived move by Pakistan could see its entire strategy collapse
> like a house of cards. This is particularly true because of the unstable political,
> social and economic conditions that obtain in Pakistan. The recent Musharraf coup
> d'etat together with Pakistan's expansionist strategy are confirmation of this
> instability.
>
> Regards
> Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group)
> Be free to join our communism mailing list
> at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
|