Regardless of the fact that the advocates of two-nation theory have finally realized after half a century that the division of United India was not a good idea for international peace, there is a need to correct mistakes. India's democratic strength for the last 59 years has proved that its existence was fully justified. On the contrary, Pakistan emerged as a failed state for one single reason that a country which was founded by assembling almost 8 different nations in the name of Islam, was unable to justify its existence. Since its formation, Pakistan has been a country full of conspiracies, discrepancies, controversies and corruption. Pakistan could not prove its worth as a state and remained just a piece of land occupied by certain opportunists who turned the entire country into their personal property. The military rulers of Pakistan captured power of this country on numerous occasions thereby proving that the country was not founded for welfare of people living on its soil but for the beginning of a new era of fascism under the disguise of Islam. Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his imminent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual and raises him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. Whoever has seen in the religious politics of the Fascist regime nothing but mere opportunism has not understood that Fascism besides being a system of government is also, and above all, a system of thought. Pakistan, therefore, became an example of such Fascism. The military dictators turned the country into a paradise for looters, corrupt politicians, greedy bureacrats, incompetent administrators, uneducated reformers, militant jihadi groups, religious cults, bogus scholars and above-the-law intelligence agencies.  The socalled democracy which prevailed for almost 13 years out of 59 years of its existence in Pakistan produced sophisticated looters of national wealth who used new mechanisms to deprive the country from standing on sound footings. Similarly, the socalled politicians of the country who were rather farmers-turned politicians or businessmen-turned politicians or retired-army-personnel-turned politicians controlled the fate of this country. Such people called the shots. The result is very visible that Pakistan has now become a danger to the entire humanity. Had it been a matter limited within the jurisdiction of Pakistan, there would have never arisen any need to raise any voice, but, the situation is more worse than that.  Today's Pakistan has turned into a typical Fascist regime without any ideology. The President of this country wears an army uniform, the Chief Justice of its Supreme Court is treated like an ordinary clerk and pushed on the road by local policemen, the Intelligence agencies rule the country and function beyond any legal boundaries, the socalled religious scholars have become preachers of radical Islam through brainwashing techniques with an aim to produce terrorists, bureacracy has become a tool in the hands of those who use money to do what they want, foreign policy is nothing but pretence and false statements, economy is based on assumptions and above all, this country has gained nuclear power through backdoor. The whole world has become vulnerable to terrorism. The question is who is masterminding such terrorism? Who is providing all possible support to terrorism? Who is creating terrorist minds? Who is a threat to international peace? The answer is very simple............Pakistan. Pakistan's religious groups are responsible for masterminding the international terrorism. The Tablighi Jamat has been busy for the last 75 years in producing brains who hate Non-Muslims and as such the militant Jihadi groups based in Pakistan are nothing but "fruits" of such brainwashing techniques used by Tablighi Jamat since long. Similarly, support in terms of financial and otherwise is coming from state-owned intelligence agencies. Creation of Taliban and Al-Qaeda are glaring examples of such support by the Pakistan-based intelligence agencies. World's most wanted man is considered as a "Guest" on the soil of Pakistan. Now that Pakistan has nuclear power, is it not correct that entire humanity is vulnerable to any possible disaster? A country which is possessed by forces which are not answerable to any one and which is beyond any legal system is indeed a great threat to the entire world. Pakistan has, therefore, become a burden. This burden needs to be off-loaded by way of its disintegration. Pakistan should be divided into 5 parts or more to crush the terrorist network which has gained its deep roots in present geographic form of Pakistan. My book titled "DIVIDE PAKISTAN TO ELIMINATE TERRORISM" advocates necessity of Pakistan's disintegration. An Independent Pakhtoonistan, Baluchistan, Sindhudesh, Jinnahpur and Punjabistan will prevent the current nourishment and spread of terrorism from the soil of Pakistan.

Friends:

Two quick points.

First, Gabriele Zamparini has just written to tell me that the Chomsky.Info website is the work of Pablo Stafforini.  (A) Gabriele is correct, of course.  (B) Believe it or not, I actually knew this, though mis-recalled it.  (Long story here.)  Thanks for the wake-up.  My apologies to both gentlemen.

Second, one more point about George Washington University's Jerrold Post: Among the books that the professor of "political psychological profiling" has authored are these three:

- Political Paranoia: The Psycho-politics of Hatred (Yale, 1997)
- The Psychological Evaluation of Political Leaders, With Profiles of Saddam Hussein and Bill Clinton (University of Michigan Press, 2003).
- And Barry Schneider, Know Thy Enemy: Profiles of Adversary Leaders and their Strategic Cultures (Air Force Counter Proliferation Center, 2003)

Now.  Don't you find it interesting that Post would construct one of his profiles of Bill Clinton?  You know, I often felt that upon taking office in January 1993, the Clinton Administration and the larger civil society that surrounded it were subjected to an extensive "covert" campaign of destabilization of the kind that the Dirty Tricksters of the U.S. Government quite typically subject "enemy" states -- like Venezuela and Iran and the Occupied Palestinian Territories today, for example. 

The possibility that this was so, and, indeed, the possibility that it would be again, beginning in January 2009, is worth considering, it seems to me.

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

 

SGTR et al.:

Gabriele Zamparini, emissary of the excellent Cat's Blog (see, e.g., "Dissent this! -- Part 1: ZNet between numbers and parallels") as well as The Cat's Dream body of filmmaking and the Chomsky.Info website, just called to the attention of a bunch of us two "profiles" of Jerrold M. Post, the director of the Political Psychology Program at George Washington University. 

Zamparini begins with these paragraphs from Reuters, and adds the gloss "Isn't that great how science has improved and can answer even the most challenging questions of our time?"

  Insecurity, "malignant narcissism" and the need for adulation are driving Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's confrontation with the United States, according to a new psychological profile.
  Eventually, these personality traits are likely to compel Chavez to declare himself Venezuela's president for life, said Dr. Jerrold Post, who has just completed the profile for the U.S. Air Force.
  Chavez won elections for a third term last December. Since then he has stepped up his anti-American rhetoric, vowed to accelerate a march towards "21st Century socialism" and suggested that he intends to stay in power until 2021 -- a decade beyond his present term.
  But Post -- who profiled foreign leaders in a 21-year career at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and now is the director of the Political Psychology Program at George Washington University -- doubts that Chavez plans to step down even then. "He views himself as a savior, as the very embodiment of Venezuela," Post said in an interview.

So I turned to the Jerrold Post profile at George Washington University (D.C.).  It contains a wealth of compromising positions.  Evidently, Jerrold Post can whip-up a profile of any leader at the drop of hat -- on condition that Washington seeks to destabilize the regime and the civil society that surrounds it.

Post "has devoted his entire career to the field of political psychology," it begins.  First he spent 21 years at the CIA, where he "founded and directed the Center for the Analysis of Personality and Political Behavior, an interdisciplinary behavioral science unit...." He was a "founding member of the International Society of Political Psychology," and is the current chairman of the "Task Force for National and International Terrorism and Violence" at the American Psychological Association. He "has published widely on crisis decision-making, leadership, and on the psychology of political violence and terrorism, and recently has been addressing weapons of mass destruction terrorism: psychological incentives and constraints, as well as information systems terrorism."  Among the figures about whom Post has constructed "political psychology" profiles are Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, Yasir Arafat, Osama bin Laden, and Kim Jong Il.  And, of course, now Hugo Chavez.

Nor would I be surprised to learn -- depending on the length of Post's career -- that Post has also profiled several of the following figures: Fidel Castro, Sukarno, Tito, Ayatollah Khomeini, Muammar al-Qadhafi, Mikhail Gorbachev, Manuel Noriega, Nelson Mandela, the Assads (father and son), Omar al-Bashir, Robert Mugabe, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  We probably should toss in the leadership of Hezbollah and Hamas, too.

Looking up and down Jerrold Post's work, it appears that any state or population targeted by the Super Insecure, Super Narcissists headquartered in Washington (with branch offices in London, Paris, Berlin, Jerusalem, Brussels, Ottawa, Tokyo, and Canberra) will suffer the most malignant traits of these regimes projected onto them.

Exactly as the Failed States Index works. 

Jerrold M. Post, George Washington University
"Venezuela's Chavez seen wanting office 'for life'," Bernd Debussmann, Reuters, June 26, 2007 (as posted to the Washington Post website) 

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

FYI, a recent report on how Somalia (like most of these states) has been turned into a plaything of powerful "actors...following their own foreign policy agendas".

I agree with David that traditional weak states (Somalia etc) is no threat to "countries half a world away". Instability can cross borders, that is fairly well-known, but not around half the planet. As far as I know that has never happened. I also think that with the traditional definition of "weak state" (control of its borders, monopoly on the use of force, etc), the US is not a weak state. In that sense, it's the strongest state in the world. Then we can discuss the power within states between the state's institutions and private power. Then clearly the US is not as strong anymore, as private interests have very strong influence over state policy and action. If we align "weak state" with democracy, the US doesn't come out well. As is well-known by now, there is a big gap between public policy and public opinion in the US. But more to David's point above, that "weak states" according to this list, is states that are heavily influenced by external actors. A lot of blame can be put on the US, but not all blame. In Iraq they pretty much have 100% of the blame, but not in places such as Afghanistan. The Soviet Union/Russia also is to blame. Though as we know, "Taliban" was supported by the US as a client army to fight the Soviets, the Soviets also did a lot of damage to the country. As to Africa, I don't know enough about specific cases, but generally we can say that conflicts today were shaped during the Cold War. Most countries weren't ideologically aligned with the US or SU, but acted as one depending on who supported them with money and weapons. A country's leadership could be loyal to the US one day, and the Soviets the next. Clearly they both are to blame for many of the horrible wars and civil wars that have been fought in Africa for the last decades. Naturally the ex-colonial powers are also to blame as societies there have been shaped by the policy and actions of the UK, Belgium, France, Netherlands etc. We (the "West") are champions in blaming our victims for conflicts and instability. The truth, however, is that we are to blame for a large portion of the conflicts that has happened in Africa (and other places). This was a quite peaceful continent before we decided to colonize it. Then it was the usual divide and conquer strategy. This strategy has since born many conflicts. Rwanda and Congo are perhaps the worst cases, but there are many others. So to sum up my thoughts, if this is what David tried to imply above, I agree with him. In most cases states aren't weak because their people is "backwards", "traditional" or any other euphemisms, but because outside actors have intervened for their own profit, and put groups of the populations up against each other to be able to easier reap the benefits. Where there were no obvious "groups", they created some (Hutu/Tutsi for example). One brilliant example is Iraq. Before the US invaded Shiites and Sunnis had few problems with each other (most still don't), but the US successfully managed to create a civil war between them, to create a pretext for staying and easier take advantage of the country's resources. Pangaea Oslo, Norway

 SGTR Wrote

The piracy taking place out of Somalia 

 

 Peace would have returned to Somalia if left alone. It was not left alone. US invaded the country again through it's proxy Ethiopia.

  Anyone who is getting his information from Non US Media and/or Internet knows this simple fact. It's  a pity SGTR is not one of them. He seems to be still getting his info from those who sold him Iraq's WMDs.

SGTR 

 

Well then, should we total up our "Shining Example" to the world, carbon emissions, economic sanctions, undermining of UN through veto, support of despotic regimes, toppling of democratic regimes, disregard for international treaties and conventions… 

SGTR, I can't see where peterson isn't reasonable with his findings.. explain :) Depending of the perspective angle you envision sucess Canada could be a failed states too, it was unable to nourish socialist value and to oppose to the US threat to global peace.

It appears that "the threat of terror" is about to become less veiled for inhabitants of countries at the top of the list.

David, you pose a preposterous question. I seriously doubt you are as ignorant as you are letting on to the regional implications of failed states and how those regional implications easily domino into global effects . The piracy taking place out of Somalia and harboring of terrorists under the Taliban are blaring examples which I am sure, again by the tone and implication of your post, will be twisted into anti-U.S., anti-Western rhetoric.