I’m hearing mentioned in the news on television that in the question of Al-Qaeda enjoying sanctuary in the Pakistani tribal areas, the Bush administration has “all options on the table” as far as crossing the border into Pakistan itself to do battle with Al-Qaeda forces there.
Do you really think that Bush will take this step? I feel a bit uneasy about this.
What next, the occupation of Mecca itself to use as leverage against fundamentalist Islam? (Do you think that the Bush adminsitration has even considered this option as well?)
Will things get much worse before they get better?
Pakistan is still nominally an ally. Unless we’re willing to sacrifice that alliance, we can’t conduct any military operations there without Musharraf’s permission – which it would be politically problematic for him to grant, even if we would be defending his government from a threat. And, given the situation in Pakistan – government vs. Taliban/al-Qaeda vs. Balochi rebels (in Pakistan and Iran) vs. democratic reformers – even a limited American military presence there could easily get us caught up in a multi-sided civil war. Again.
Relevant recent articles on Pakistan from The Nation:
Besides, if Pakistan’s government falls, India will simply relax and enjoy the Schadenfreude. Why would they invade? What’s to gain? They can’t govern the population, and the attempt would only inflame India’s own remaining Muslim population. Maybe they would formally annex Jammu and Kashmir, but that’s all; and even that would be risky, and pointless since they control the territories already.
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were ALWAYS the biggest supporters of Al Qaeda. Stopping the support of Al Qaeda was never that large a priority. This is nothing new. We didn’t attack Pakistan because Musharraf was and probably still is better than anything we could put in place to replace him.
And yeah, Pakistan has nukes.
Invading Iran is stupid and pointless. It’s a target for people who’ve drunk the Kool Aid.
Chief Justice Chaudhry has been reinstated to the Supreme Court. While this should put an end to the protests over his ouster, it also represents an obstacle to Musharraf’s plans to stay in power for another five-year term – and if not he, then who will lead the country?
According to this analysis, the military-mosque alliance that has kept Musharraf in power is unraveling. One sign is last week’s seizure of the Red Mosque by the army.
Not with nukes involved. I didn’t hear anyone suggest invading the Soviet Union when Comminism started to collapse, either. What could India get that’s worth losing cities ?
Pakistan’s next? Hugo Chavez has been working for years to make Venezuela America’s number one enemy and he’s going to be passed over again? He’s becoming the Richard Burton of American enemies.
Pakistan both is, and is not, a serious threat. A nuclear armed Islamic state sounds like a four-alarm fire in an anthrax factory, but simply on the facts, no real direct threat to us. How would they deliver a nuke, Federal Express? And, silly as it may sound, they are just nukes, we got thermonukes, and can plop them down pretty much wherever. If you protected by an armored division, you ought not panic if a guy a mile away cobbles together a crossbow.
But the perception of threat makes the threat. Say “nuclear armed Islamic state” and a thousand sphincters slam shut, there will be demands to Do Something At Once, and that fear and trepidation is, in and of itself, a threat. Fear breeds stupid.
Recall that, in the chaotic period between Revolution & Rule, nobody is really in charge of those missiles. Either the soldiers in charge will wait for orders from a Legitimate Authority that no longer exists, or the weapons are in the hands of rebels, who lack the know-how to use them.
And who have no guarenteed line of communication to their Leaders.
And who may not even understand what they have.
BTW–how are these nukes to be delivered?
And, have you considered that India might very well be willing to launch first?
