January 10, 2008

No one could save Benazir, why we need to save pakistan?

No one could save Benazir Bhutto, why we need to save Pakistan? I just read the head line of Time magazine. Does it mean Pakistan should be taken care or let chaos rule the Pakistan? Sometimes I feel international community let chaos rule the country so that in the shake of peace, they can control the country. Is international community equally interested in every unstable state? Obviously not. Our neighbouring countries Sikkim and Tibet have been swallowed by Asian super power India and China. Dalai Lama raised the voice, but nobody listened at that time. Now it has become a history, there is no more Tibet. We know very well the story of Sikkim. Now we have the biggest fear that Nepal is going to be the next Sikkim.
Pakistan itself is a powerful Asian nation which has a long history of military rule. Even now it's under military rule. Musharraf is using the treat of the extremist to prove his utility and still ruling the Pakistan. Why world needs to take care of this country? Do they want to bring democracy? No. They want to take care of nuclear power. Pakistan is the least stable nuclear country which has nuclear material for about 60 nuclear bombs. Pakistan has numerous militants group and chaos has flared across the country. And the worst thing, Pakistan shares the boarder with Afghanistan, where Al Quaida leader Bin Laden is hiding. So United States is in the first row to take care of this thing. Though its nukes are protected by 10,000 elite troops, it's hardly known where are those secret locations. That's why US special troops have trained for the worst-case scenario. If Pakistan goes into complete chaos and goes out of control of Mushharaf, U.S. troops will dash in to secure them.