With a Friend Like This...

Pakistan is one of the most frustrating countries for the US to deal with in the war on terror. It's a massive state sponsor of Islamic fundamentalism - something we found out the hard way when we had to subcontract their ISI to get into Afghanistan in the '80s. It has nuclear weapons, and thus has intentionally and unintentionally become a potential source of nuclear proliferation. And even if it becomes completely intolerable to American interests, it is far too massive for the US to invade.

Why has our Pakistan policy gone so badly?

First of all, America is not the hub of all international interests. Especially Pakistan's. Pakistan has plenty of built-in faults, like its hodgepodge of ethnic groups and a virtually permanent state of inferiority to its rival. Consequently, Pakistan's overriding motives are maintaining internal stability and checking India.

Which means that unless we can convince Pakistan we're going to destroy them, or give them real advantages against India, it's going to be really hard to get Pakistan's government to act the way we want. Let alone its people, which the government often has had a hard time getting to act the way it wants.

Until now, we've gotten Pakistan to ignore it's natural interest of exploiting Islamic sentiments to shore up support in the lawless Northwestern Frontier and check India by bribing them with military aid to India. Given the returns, however, this doesn't make much sense in the long run - India is a far more valuable ally than Pakistan, to be frank. Nevertheless, we need Pakistan's cooperation to deal with Afghanistan and terrorism in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. Obama has suggested a policy of intervening in Pakistan without the government's permission. This makes sense when it is absolutely vital to, say, killing key al Qaeda members or existential threats to Afghanistan, but it is not a cure-all replacement for Pakistani cooperation. Indeed, even using this method when it is vital could have dire consequences - either it will induce a government extremely hostile to US interests, or US intervention could induce internal unrest and destabilization in Pakistan, especially given the fragile nature of Pakistan's parliamentary governments. Either way, worse for the US at this point.

It's important to note that nobody really wants Pakistan to collapse - its neighbors don't want to deal with the refugees, al Qaeda doesn't want to lose the shield of protection (if Pakistan were already in anarchy, there'd be no reason not to cross the border and mess around), China doesn't want to lose a client, Iran doesn't want to fight off the Baluchis, Saudi Arabia doesn't want to lose the ISI as a partner, and India doesn't want to lose a common enemy. Finally, the vast majority of the world doesn't want loose nukes. Even if they become more hostile, until they start handing out nuclear weapons, they're probably an enemy we want intact.

Also, if you believe Jared Diamond, this collapse is inevitable since Pakistan is committing ecological suicide.