Writing a position paper on counter-terrorism....

This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only".

In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Writing a position paper on counter-terrorism....
Topic Started: Jan 22 2009, 07:59 PM (128 Views)
Ulgania	Jan 22 2009, 07:59 PM Post #1
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse Posts: 4,041 Group: Members Member #450 Joined: June 3, 2008	I'm writing a paper on counter-terrorism measures, and Pakistan's stance. Of course, I'm bringing up the obvious subjects of Bhutto's assassination attempts (and the upheaval it caused), Musharraf's change in policy post-9/11, the semi-autonomous tribal regions, actions related to India, and ethnic strife in the country itself. I was thinking of also adding the way state became the USA's partner in the region to help counter a USSR threat, and how that had negative implications on the modern state. As well, I'm considering bringing up AQ Khan's means of acquiring nuclear technology and how the ICC tried to act on it, but failed. Should I cut that list down? Or is there anything I'm leaving out? The whole paper only needs to be about 1 page, single-spaced.



Tristan da Cunha	Jan 22 2009, 08:04 PM Post #2
Science and Industry Posts: 6,792 Group: Veterans Member #86 Joined: November 1, 2004	Hmm if I were writing that paper I'd ramble a little bit about how Pakistan shouldn't even exist as a country, and how "Pakistan" shouldn't even exist as a word. Then I'd ramble a bit more about how the US on Sept 12th, 2001 should've immediately capitulated to Bin Laden's totally reasonable demands of closing down our military bases in Saudi Arabia, thus immediately bringing an end to the "War on Terrorism" with ~2000 unfortunate American casualties but averting any additional loss of lives and untold billions of dollars wasted. Don't know if that's what your professor is looking for though :P



Ulgania	Jan 22 2009, 08:23 PM Post #3
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse Posts: 4,041 Group: Members Member #450 Joined: June 3, 2008	Actually my college is representing Pakistan at the Harvard Model United Nations Conference. I'm in the legal committee, and since we all have write position papers it helps to get in the position of that country. Since it's from the 'point of view' of the Pakistani government I don't think the dissolution of the state would go over very well :lol: Seriously though, it's pretty much what we do here, except it's going to be 3,000 college students trying to be civil towards each other while they're not drunk off their asses.



New Harumf	Jan 23 2009, 10:01 AM Post #4
Bloodthirsty Unicorn Posts: 9,638 Group: Forum Mods Member #177 Joined: October 8, 2005	Ulgania Jan 22 2009, 08:23 PM Actually my college is representing Pakistan at the Harvard Model United Nations Conference. I'm in the legal committee, and since we all have write position papers it helps to get in the position of that country. Since it's from the 'point of view' of the Pakistani government I don't think the dissolution of the state would go over very well :lol: Seriously though, it's pretty much what we do here, except it's going to be 3,000 college students trying to be civil towards each other while they're not drunk off their asses. Screw the paper and drink heavily. Or, take ALL your points, and just bullet them in and outline document. Or, cut way down the number of points, pick ONE terrorist group, and post your position on counter-terrorism against that group. Or, generalize your position on counter-terrorism (this would be my choice). Pros, cons, preferences.



Ulgania	Jan 23 2009, 02:34 PM Post #5
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse Posts: 4,041 Group: Members Member #450 Joined: June 3, 2008	The Americans, who have meddled in the affairs of the region are our allies in this war on a group that we used to support. But, what can we say? We're getting $8 billion per year with no strings attached! Alluha Ackbar! Wait... I forgot we're actually an Islamic Republic with a secular government. MY BAD. What I have so far.



Tristan da Cunha	Jan 23 2009, 02:49 PM Post #6
Science and Industry Posts: 6,792 Group: Veterans Member #86 Joined: November 1, 2004	The professor better give you an A+ on that.



A.Q.	Jan 23 2009, 08:29 PM Post #7
Beautiful Snowflake Posts: 906 Group: Members Member #429 Joined: April 13, 2008	Pakistan is a confusing place. You have the whole array of Indo/Aryan peoples, Persians, Central Asians, and Turks all squeezed into one little country. I think they still have three official languages, and the only binding factor of the state is Islam and a hatred for India. With no sense of national unity or history, there is little sense of motivation to end the ethnic and political strife. Pakistan's military (which ranks up there as one of the largest in the world) is perpetually distracted on the Indian border and on Kashmir, so it has no men or equipment to spare on the volatile Northwest Territory/Afghan Border.



Ulgania	Jan 23 2009, 10:57 PM Post #8
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse Posts: 4,041 Group: Members Member #450 Joined: June 3, 2008	I actually have it completed and submitted. It's not really getting graded per se, but we all need to write them to get into the conference. It's not really that big a deal, I just wanted to get my facts straight. Also I've learned enough about Pakistan that I've pretty much lived there vicariously since independence.



Draxis	Jan 24 2009, 12:54 AM Post #9
Captain Posts: 1,356 Group: Map Makers Member #271 Joined: August 20, 2006	Just say this... "Terrorism is bad. Counter Terrorism is good. Give us more money." And walk away.



Al Araam	Jan 24 2009, 05:10 AM Post #10
Demigod of Death & Inactivity Posts: 3,486 Group: Global Mods Member #102 Joined: February 19, 2005	Al Qalaa Jan 23 2009, 08:29 PM Pakistan's military (which ranks up there as one of the largest in the world) is perpetually distracted on the Indian border and on Kashmir, so it has no men or equipment to spare on the volatile Northwest Territory/Afghan Border. Furthermore, the Pakistani Military has a history of getting involved in domestic politics. They have been rather less successful in getting what they want than other militaries with the same idea, like the Turkish Army, but that hasn't slowed them down much. So it wouldn't surprise me if the Pakistani Government itself is more than a bit hesitant to provide them with any guns, money, or equipment. The chances they'll end up being utilized to kill or arrest politicians is almost as great as the chance they'll be used on Indians in Kashmir or militant extremists in the frontier provinces and tribal areas, if not greater. Also, as of a few months ago, to cooperate with US raids into Pakistani territory was effectively to commit political suicide for any Pakistani politician. Americans weren't particularly well liked for propping up Musharraf, the military dictator who was so recently displaced, and their image was not helped by reports of Predator drones unloading Hellfire missiles into Pakistani schools and mosques in the frontier provinces on a fairly regular basis. Obama's ascent to the Presidency might have some impact there, but a lot of damage has already been done. Couple that with the fact that the Pakistanis were in bed with the Taliban for an extended period of time and the fact that they feel threatened by the ruling "Northern Alliance" in Afghanistan, who they feel are too close to their enemies the Indians, and you start to get a very vague idea of the complexity of the issues presented by combating terrorism in Pakistan. Edit: It's also useful to remember that extremists have actively targeted a number of sites in Islamabad. They're capable of inflicting real harm to Pakistan in its own heartland seemingly whenever the fancy strikes them. Pakistan is now making an attempt to secure the frontier provinces and tribal areas. The reason that these areas enjoy such great measures of autonomy is because Islamabad has experienced significant difficulties in enforcing its will upon them in the past. The terrain is hellacious, and those defending it would have a great advantage in fending off an attacker even if they had not lived in the area for all of their natural lives. Effectively securing and occupying the area would be a monumental feat with the lines of supply forced to follow narrow, winding tracks stretched hundreds upon hundreds of miles across some of the most formidable mountains in the world. Edited by Al Araam, Jan 24 2009, 05:19 AM.



Ulgania	Jan 24 2009, 12:48 PM Post #11
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse Posts: 4,041 Group: Members Member #450 Joined: June 3, 2008	Aye, I've taken that all into consideration for my paper. In the field of counter-terrorism, Pakistan probably serves a bigger role in the world, and has a more unique outlook than many other countries. I'm sure many of the Arabic/Islamic countries are able to have similar issues, but Pakistan also has nuclear technology provided by the wonderful AQ Khan



Rhadamanthus	Jan 24 2009, 01:29 PM Post #12
Legitimist Posts: 12,945 Group: Admin Member #19 Joined: January 13, 2004	Kiev-Volhynia Jan 24 2009, 05:10 AM Americans weren't particularly well liked for propping up Musharraf, the military dictator who was so recently displaced, and their image was not helped by reports of Predator drones unloading Hellfire missiles into Pakistani schools and mosques in the frontier provinces on a fairly regular basis. Obama's ascent to the Presidency might have some impact there, but a lot of damage has already been done. Obama has already ordered drone strikes in Pakistan, and the Pakistani military is already complaining that this undermines their efforts. Remember that Obama was an early supporter of the policy of launching strikes into Pakistan without local permission, and IIRC, advocated it even prior to the Bush administration's use of the policy. If he is going to have any sort positive impact on relations with Pakistan, he will have to reverse this policy ASAP.



Al Araam	Jan 24 2009, 03:56 PM Post #13
Demigod of Death & Inactivity Posts: 3,486 Group: Global Mods Member #102 Joined: February 19, 2005	Yes, repeated violation of a nation's sovereignty generally is not the preferred manner of building a strong working relationship with that nation's government. It doesn't get much more basic than that. I guess this means that we can look forward to more unauthorized cross-border strikes into other countries as well, such as the one into Syria under the Bush Administration...


« Previous Topic · Off-Topic · Next Topic »