Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is the clock ticking in Pakistan, too?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is the clock ticking in Pakistan, too?

    Interesting, if unsettling, analysis:


    The Pakistani dilemma
    Apr. 16, 2009
    Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST

    In the current era of ideological polarization, throughout the West, the Right and the Left diverge on almost every issue. One of the few convictions that still unifies national security strategists across the ideological spectrum is that it would be a global calamity of the first order if al-Qaida gets its hands on nuclear weapons.

    Unfortunately, due to the rapid demise of nuclear-armed Pakistan as a coherent political unit, this nightmare scenario is looking more possible than ever. Indeed, if events continue to move in their current direction, it is more likely than not that in the near future, the Taliban and al-Qaida will take possession of all or parts of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

    This week has been yet another bad week in Pakistan. On Monday Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari officially surrendered the Swat Valley - an immense district in Northwest Pakistan that encompasses seven provinces - to the Taliban when he signed a regulation implementing Islamic Sharia law in the area. Following the government's capitulation in Swat, the Taliban now controls 18 out of Pakistan's 30 provinces in its northwest and Federally Administered Tribal Areas that border Afghanistan. Only two provinces remain under full government control.

    With its new territory, the Taliban now controls the lives of some 6.5 million Pakistanis. For their part, the civilians live in a state of constant terror. Since the Taliban took control of Swat in February, executions, public floggings and bombings of girls' schools, restaurants, video and music stores have become routine occurrences. As a merchant in Swat's main village of Mingora told the Wall Street Journal, "We are frightened by this brutality. No one can dare to challenge them."

    And with just 60 miles now separating the Taliban from the capital city of Islamabad, the Taliban are well positioned to continue their march across the country. Indeed, the Taliban appear unstoppable.

    The Pakistani government, for its part, seems both unwilling and incapable of taking concerted action to destroy Taliban forces. Again according to the Wall Street Journal, Taliban fighters are flooding the Swat Valley with thousands of veteran fighters from Afghanistan and Kashmir and setting up training camps throughout the areas. Moreover, they are recruiting - both through intimidation and persuasion - still more thousands of locals to join their lines.

    A further sign of government capitulation came on Tuesday when Pakistan's Supreme Court released Maulana Abdul Aziz, the leader of the Lal Masjid or Red Mosque in Islamabad, from house arrest. In 2007 Aziz used his al-Qaida/Taliban affiliated madrassa to incite an Islamist takeover of the Pakistani capital. It took then-president Pervez Musharraf three months to forcibly take over the Red Mosque. Arguably, Musharraf's actions against Aziz and his followers were the ultimate cause of his political downfall last year.

    According to the online Long War Journal, over the past year, the government has signed capitulation agreements with all of Aziz's Taliban and al-Qaida allies and returned control of the mosque/madrassa complex to the jihadists. At the time of Aziz's attempted overthrow of the Musharraf government and since, the Red Mosque became emblematic of the jihadist war to take over the nuclear-armed state. Aziz's release in turn symbolizes the current government's willingness to surrender.

    For their part, US strategists appear despondent in their assessments of the situation in Pakistan, and its impact on NATO's capacity to stabilize the security situation in neighboring Afghanistan. US Army General David Petreaus, who is responsible for the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, has called the Taliban an "existential threat" to the Pakistani state. David Kilcullen, who advised Petreaus on his successful counter-insurgency campaign in Iraq and now advises the White House, warned last week that Pakistan could fall within six months. The growing consensus in Washington - particularly given the recent unification of command of Taliban forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan under the so-called Council of United Holy Warriors and their open collaboration with al-Qaida - is that Pakistan is a far greater danger than Afghanistan.

    THE US'S assessment of the threats emanating from Pakistan and Afghanistan has been largely the same under both the Bush and Obama administrations. In both cases, the US has identified Taliban/al-Qaida acquisition of nuclear weapons as a primary threat to US security that must be prevented. Both have also asserted that the unimpeded operation of al-Qaida training camps in Afghanistan/Pakistan is a grave threat to US and global security.

    Then too, the US's strategy for contending with these challenges has been similarly focused for much of the past eight years. The US has sought to militarily and politically defeat the Taliban/al-Qaida in Afghanistan by fighting them on the battlefield and cultivating democracy. In Pakistan, the US has sought to defeat the Taliban by strengthening the Pakistani government, mainly through financial assistance to its civilian and military budgets.

    In recent years, the US has also worked to decapitate the Taliban/al-Qaida leadership through targeted assassinations inside Pakistan carried out by unmanned aircraft. Under the Obama administration the US has declared its intention to maintain these strategies but expand them by increasing the number of soldiers in Afghanistan and by increasing its civilian assistance to the Pakistani government to $1.5 billion per year.

    Unfortunately, the US's efforts in Pakistan to date have failed miserably and there is little cause to believe that expanding them will change the situation in any significant way. Both under Musharraf's military dictatorship and under Zardari's civilian government, the Pakistanis have failed to stem the Taliban's advance.

    The Pakistani military and Inter-Service Intelligence agency (ISI) have refused to divert their resources away from fighting India and toward fighting the Taliban. They have refused to take any concerted action against terrorist groups, including al-Qaida, that openly operate on Pakistani soil. Against the wishes of the US, they have continued to surrender territory to the Taliban in the framework of "peace accords." And still today, the Pakistani government and military openly oppose US military action on Pakistani territory, preferring to allow the Taliban to take over the country to permitting the US to help the Pakistani military defeat them.

    What the situation in Pakistan clearly exemplifies is the fact that sometimes there are no good options for contending with international security threats. Once Pakistan became a nuclear power in 1998, the US lost much of its ability to pressure the Pakistani government and military. Washington understood that if it pushed too hard, the Pakistanis could opt to abandon the West and collaborate with the Taliban and al-Qaida, which by then were not only openly operating from Pakistani territory after having taken over Afghanistan with Pakistani support two years earlier. They were also attacking US targets - including the 1998 attacks against the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

    SINCE THE September 11 attacks demonstrated just how dangerous jihadists in Pakistan/Afghanistan are to global security, it has been clear that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is a primary threat to global security. For eight years, the US's chosen methods for staving off the threats have effectively served as little more than holding actions because Pakistan's governments have been both unable and unwilling to wage successful military or political campaigns against the Taliban and al-Qaida.

    Musharraf believed that he could play a double game of at once helping the US in Afghanistan and sheltering al-Qaida and the Taliban in Pakistan. The Zardari government, which exerts little control over the military and the ISI, has simply expanded and intensified Musharraf's policy of capitulating to the jihadists. Due to the Taliban's current control over the territories bordering Afghanistan, Pakistan is no longer in a position to support NATO operations in Afghanistan. And in the meantime, the advancing Taliban forces in Pakistan itself place Pakistan's nuclear weapons and materials in unprecedented jeopardy.

    Given the failure of the US's political strategies of securing Pakistan's nuclear arsenal by supporting Pakistan's government, and fighting the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan, it is becoming apparent that the only sure way to prevent the Taliban/al-Qaida from taking control over Pakistan's nuclear weapons is to take those weapons out of commission.

    The US has two basic options for accomplishing this goal. It can send in forces to take control of Pakistan's nuclear installations and remove its nuclear arsenal from the country. Or, it can destroy Pakistan's nuclear installations. Both of these options - which are really variations of the same option - are extremely unattractive. It is far from clear that the US military has the capacity to take over Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and it also unclear what the ultimate effect of a military strike against its nuclear arsenal would be in terms of lives lost and areas rendered uninhabitable due to nuclear fallout.

    The only other option that is discussed by US strategists today is that India may serve as deux ex machina and destroy Pakistan's nuclear arsenal itself. Reasonably believing that India would be the first target for Pakistan's nuclear weapons - which Pakistan built in order to threaten India - US military strategists do not expect India to sit back and wait for the US to defend it against a Taliban/al-Qaida-ruled nuclear-armed Pakistan.

    For India however, the calculation is not as clear as one might assume. New Delhi knows it can expect the US to support the imposition of various political and military sanctions against it if it were to attack Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Consequently, it is possible that Washington's unwillingness to make a tough but necessary call may mean that no one is willing to make it.

    THE SITUATION in Pakistan of course is similar to the situation in Iran. There, as Iran moves swiftly towards the nuclear club, the US on the one hand refuses - as it does with Pakistan - to make the hard but essential decision to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. And on the other hand, it warns Israel daily that it opposes any independent Israeli operation to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed state. That is, the Obama administration is forcing Israel to weigh the specter of a nuclear-armed Iran against the threat of an abrogation of its strategic alliance with the US in the event that it prevents Iran from becoming a nuclear power on its own.

    In both Pakistan and Iran, the clock is ticking. The US's reluctance to face up to the ugliness of the options at its disposal will not make them any prettier. Indeed, with each passing day the stark choice placed before America and its allies becomes ever more apparent. In both Pakistan and Iran, the choice is and will remain seeing the US and its allies taking swift and decisive action to neutralize nuclear programs that threaten global security, or seeing the world's worst actors successfully arm themselves with the world's most dangerous weapons.
    Source:

    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...icle%2FPrinter
    L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux

  • #2
    An important premise of the article is that:

    if events continue to move in their current direction, it is more likely than not that in the near future, the Taliban and al-Qaida will take possession of all or parts of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
    Do you agree that to be the case?
    L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Castellano View Post
      An important premise of the article is that:



      Do you agree that to be the case?
      Short answer..Yes.

      The opinions expressed from some that Pakistan could become a failed state is I think, optimistic.
      Every Jihadi dropkick in the world will be heading for Pakistan wild eyed at the thought of a whole country to call home and a base from which they can spread their particular type of love to the world..

      It really beggared belief when on Friday last, the news wires and even the radio news here announced that Pak had let the mad cleric of the red mosque out to spew his poison to 3,000 or so faithful at friday prayers.
      Aparently Aziz pledged support for the Taliban and expressed a desire that they should take over Islamabad ASAP, followed by the rest of the country.
      Wouldn't it be amussing if some of that crowd so enthralled were Pak govt officials and senior armed forces personel!

      It seems as if the general population of Pakistan has their head stuck in the sand and the government are nonplussed or maybe even complicit in allowing the crazies to take over so much of Pak.

      When I wonder, will the Pak army come out of their barracks and on whose side will they be when or if they do?

      Due to the seemingly muted stance from the Pak govt and the rest of the world, David Kilcullen's warning may well be the most asute at this time.

      I further wonder how long it will be before the vision of a nuke enabled Taliban/AQ/assorted other Islamocrazies will spook India into action regardless of their current fear of sanctions?

      Will the rest of the world sit back tugging at their forelocks and tut tutting as India goes to war for what they would see as survival.

      Bearing all the above in mind and the spectre of a nuke enabled Iran in the not to distant future, who is going to step up to the plate and who in the political world is going to have the balls to stand up and tell it like it is?

      Europe, where the hell are most of ya?

      Intersting times shortly ahead I think.

      Cheers.
      Last edited by captain; 19 Apr 09,, 17:01.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Castellano View Post
        An important premise of the article is that:

        if events continue to move in their current direction, it is more likely than not that in the near future, the Taliban and al-Qaida will take possession of all or parts of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
        Do you agree that to be the case?
        The answer depends mostly on a question raised by captain here, and I am not fully familiar with the prevailing environment there to answer it conclusively:

        Originally posted by captain View Post
        When I wonder, will the Pak army come out of their barracks and on whose side will they be when or if they do?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by captain View Post
          I further wonder how long it will be before the vision of a nuke enabled Taliban/AQ/assorted other Islamocrazies will spook India into action regardless of their current fear of sanctions?

          Will the rest of the world sit back tugging at their forelocks and tut tutting as India goes to war for what they would see as survival.
          I do not think India will see a "nuke enabled Taliban/AQ/assorted other Islamocrazies" as an existential threat. In fact, they will probably see it as a natural simplification of a problem that has already been plaguing them for decades. As long as it doesn't result in a refugee crisis into India's borders (and it probably won't, as the classes of people most likely to flee would flee for the Gulf and Western countries), India will sit back and watch the natural contradictions resolve themselves.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Castellano View Post
            An important premise of the article is that:



            Do you agree that to be the case?
            No I don't. Even if the country were to fall apart the military would still be in control of the nuclear facilities.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Cactus View Post
              I do not think India will see a "nuke enabled Taliban/AQ/assorted other Islamocrazies" as an existential threat. In fact, they will probably see it as a natural simplification of a problem that has already been plaguing them for decades. As long as it doesn't result in a refugee crisis into India's borders (and it probably won't, as the classes of people most likely to flee would flee for the Gulf and Western countries), India will sit back and watch the natural contradictions resolve themselves.
              You are probably right that India will see it as a "simplifiction of the problem" because there most likely wont be any ambiguity left to be confused about.

              I have seen written recently in the media, on more than one occaision, that the goal of a "proper" sharia compliant Pakistan is to be followed up by a "liberation" of India.

              Wether or not India will sit back is entirely dependant on who is running Pakistan in the future and what is coming out of their mouths.
              I would find it hard to believe that if a coalition of Islamic fundies with a one track mind/dogma are in charge, the language eminating from them would be anywhere near as concilliatory as it presently is between Pak and India. :)

              You are probably also right about the flight of refugees heading anywhere except India especially if the language suggests that either or both countries could end up with significnt areas turned into hot, glass carparks.

              Cheers
              Last edited by captain; 19 Apr 09,, 16:58.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by KRON1 View Post
                No I don't. Even if the country were to fall apart the military would still be in control of the nuclear facilities.
                Which military?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by captain View Post
                  Which military?
                  The military that holds Pakistan together at the barrel of a gun.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by KRON1 View Post
                    The military that holds Pakistan together at the barrel of a gun.

                    You mean the same military that has allowed a large swath of area to be controlled from a military aspect, by an "army" that doesn't answer to the Pakistani army.
                    If this doesn't make people just a little nervous...then they need to pay a little closer attention.
                    Maybe the better question is....was the world "better off" with Musharraf in power???

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Cactus View Post
                      I do not think India will see a "nuke enabled Taliban/AQ/assorted other Islamocrazies" as an existential threat. In fact, they will probably see it as a natural simplification of a problem that has already been plaguing them for decades. As long as it doesn't result in a refugee crisis into India's borders (and it probably won't, as the classes of people most likely to flee would flee for the Gulf and Western countries), India will sit back and watch the natural contradictions resolve themselves.
                      You could not be more wrong. Pakistani nukes falling into the 'Islamocrazies' hands is indeed the worry. As of now, the equation is very clear. The army controls the nukes. If it decides to nuke India, there will be (nuclear) retaliation, which is why they probably won't do anything. Now, once it falls into the Taliban's hands, you don't know what the heck they're gonna do. Smuggle it into India through Kashmir/random port ? Launch the missiles and hope that god will save them from the retaliation ?
                      Anyway, the sudden realisation of having lost large parts of their country seems to have hit the Pak's only now, and guess what ? They're still blaming India for it.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        In a nutshell, Pakistan won't do anything until the Taliban start to seriously threaten the capital/Punjab/Sindh areas. That's what I think. You just have to play a waiting game until Pakistan starts to treat the Taliban threat as a serious battle for survival. I'm pretty sure that if Pakistan actually devoted a decent amount of its resources towards defeating the Taliban it could do it much easier than Western forces in Afghanistan.

                        Then again I could be wrong and the Taliban could just eventually roll through the capital, and Punjab/Sindh regions and manage to take over the entire country

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          posted twice for some reason
                          Last edited by Steezy; 19 Apr 09,, 20:10.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The India PM think Pak's nukes are in safe hands for now.

                            Pak's nukes in safe hands for now, says PM

                            20 Apr 2009 GUWAHATI: Even as concern mounts around the world about the growing anarchy in nuclear armed-Pakistan, prime minister Manmohan Singh on Sunday said India has been assured that Pakistan's nuclear weapons are in safe hands "as of now".

                            The PM did not specify where the assurance had come from. But his comment clearly signified that India has been worried enough to seek reassurance on that count. Significantly, there have been a series of high-level exchanges between India and the US of late. The PM recently met US President Barack Obama at the G20 meet in London, and the problem of terror in Af-Pak (Afghanistan-Pakistan) figured in their discussions.
                            Senior Obama administration officials like US special envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke and chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen also made high-profile visits to the region recently.

                            The PM's comment on Sunday was in response to questions raised by opposition BJP about the unrest in Pakistan and the increasing fire-power of the Taliban in the neighbouring country. ....

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Robert W View Post
                              You mean the same military that has allowed a large swath of area to be controlled from a military aspect, by an "army" that doesn't answer to the Pakistani army.
                              If this doesn't make people just a little nervous...then they need to pay a little closer attention.
                              Maybe the better question is....was the world "better off" with Musharraf in power???
                              The Frontier Corps wasn't able to hold it and the regular army didn't find it worth it to go clear out Swat again. It is a fragile country no doubt. They are playing it the wrong way, but the regular army is still intact and the nuclear weapons will still be under their guard. The only way for the Taliban or AlQ to get their hands on them is to have a whole unit of the guards defect per their order and grab them. I just don't see Pakistan placing their most drestucutve devices in the hands of Taliban sympathizers. That is what the Frontier Corps is and they aren't anywhere near responsibility for them.

                              I dont' think dictatorship is better than democracy... ever.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X