Last week, Pakistan basically ceded a bunch of territory to the Taliban in exchange for a cease fire. However, it didn’t take long for the militants to try to extend their control outside of that area, seizing the neighboring Buner district.
Is the Pakistani government on the road to capitulation? Given the ties between the Taliban and al Queda, what options does the world have for preventing the Taliban from obtaining Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal if this happens?
While Obama’s missile strikes may have achieved their military objectives, they’ve apparently inflamed the local populace. I don’t see how any interference from the US would aid matters. It would simply add fuel to the fire, increasing the odds of the Taliban achieving power. Should the rest of the world step up to the plate? And will they?
I’d think that Irans Revolutionary Guard are the more likely route to terrorists gaing NWs,seeing as they actually are terrorists themselves just as much as any Hamas or Taliban.
I think the OP is speculating on the Taliban gaining control of the government in Pakistan which is a nuclear armed state already.
Iran is still likely several years from having a nuke (probably).
I would bet dollars to dimes that if the Taliban look to be about to take control of the Pakistan government the US will attack. No freaking way in hell the US will let them have nukes. We have the added benefit of having a large military force next door (and growing finally) so are already set to go there. Additionally, the US is already at war with the Taliban so from a global perspective the US would not even need to dither for months “making its case”. If the Pakistan government was that seriously on the ropes they might even invite the US in.
Heck, I bet India would freak and attack if the US didn’t.
Whatever the case there is no way in hell the US will let that happen.
That’s hard for me to imagine because the people would go nuts. Musharraf lost control of the country because he was seen as being too close to the U.S., after years of trying to balance concessions to the public and the U.S. and everything else.
If Al Qaeda does ever get a nuclear weapon, yes, I think Pakistan will be the way. Islamic fundamentalists already run the show in Iran and have something tangible to lose if one of their enemies gets spooked enough to intervene. Not so in Pakistan, and I think the ties between religious loons and the ISI are complicated enough that something could happen.
Sure but if it looks like the jig is up anyway what would the Pakistan government have to lose by calling in the US? Maybe damned if they do, definitely damned if they don’t.
If the jig is up and the civilian government calls the U.S., I think the army leadership would probably have them killed, whereas if they just give up they might be able to flee the country.
Not necessarily. I don’t have any great inside knowledge of the Pakistani army and how they relate to the Taliban, but the army is often at odds with civilian leadership. Musharraf was a general who took over in a coup, remember. The country shouldn’t be confused with a Western democracy where the military and elected officials are generally on the same page.
I agree that nukes will come to Al Qaeda via Iran, if anyway.
Remember the Taliban wasn’t our enemy and the Taliban didn’t really care about exporting the Islamic Revolution like Iran does.
The Taliban simply was getting money from Osama Bin Laden and liked it. In exchange they gave him a home. Remember George W Bush didn’t go into Afghanistan to help the Afghanis or anything. His ultimatium was “give us Osama and we’ll leave you alone.” If the Taliban had turned over Osama, most likely the US wouldn’t have done anything to the Taliban. Certainly the other nations in the area wouldn’t have been as receptive to US troops in the area if the Taliban co-operated with us.
Iran was very anti-Taliban and only co-operates with them today in the principle of “my enemy’s enemy is my friend.”
Pakistan from the first day of it’s independence has only had nominal control over it’s Northwest Territories. Basically it was "You acknowledge us as your nation and we’ll just leave you alone.
Islamabad was built at a “new capital” similar to Washington DC, Brasilia or Canberra specifically to send a message to India, about Pakistan’s claim on Kashmir. (You’ll notice how close it is to that area)
The nation’s center is located in Karachi, and that is where most of the economic drive is. This is far removed from the political center of Islamabad and the problem NW regions and Kashmir. Lahore the “second city” of Pakistan and also an economic area is vulnerable to India being so close to it.
So at best I could see a Taliban-LIKE take over of the NW areas, that were never really in Pakistan’s control. But even then that brings the Taliban into conflict with India because now they are on the Kashmir border.
Pakistan has no interest in selling it’s nukes. Libya tried to buy nukes and was told to “Go make your own.” Other nations who tried this got similar rebuffs. These nukes are a matter of pride to Pakistan as the “Islamic Bomb” makes Pakistan the leader in the Islamic world, at least military. A place it wouldn’t have without the weapon.
Very, very unlikely. They know quite well that we’d nuke them if that happened, and it wouldn’t matter how much plausible deniability they had or how little evidence we had.
No fucking way Iran would give AQ nukes. See this week as an example. AQ is mostly Sunni. Iran is mostly Shia. The Sunnis in Iraq this week specifically targeted Irani Shia on pilgrimage. AQ is unstable enogh of an organization that if Iran gave them a bomb, they may find that Tehran is the city ending in a glowing ember.
Except that Iran has been attempting to supply Hamas, a Sunni religious movement, with weapons, and Hizballah, the Iranian-controlled Shi’ite organization, has been providing Hamas with training.
Remember - the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I guess we’ll have to see who Iran considers their biggest enemy.
There is a huge difference between supplying conventional weapons and nuclear weapons which fundamentally alter the balance of power and make the group impossible to control; not to mention the possibility of nuclear retaliation if the group were to actually use their nukes against a nuclear power or its allies. Frankly talk about Iran supplying AQ with nukes is a repeat of the propoganda/hysteria about “mushroom clouds” and the like in the run-up to the Iraq war.
I don’t think Pakistan would supply terrorists with nukes either but if the Pakistani state were to collapse there is a possibility some weapons could fall in the hands of terrorists. This is also far-fetched but less so than Iran handing over nukes to AQ.
There is no doubt that Pakistan is currently the least stable of all the nuclear-weapons states. There are those who claim that Iran will be the most generous nuclear-weapons state if and when it has nukes. But the father of the Pakistani weapon, A Q Khan, is also the father of state-sponsored nuclear proliferation, and remains a hero in Pakistan. So I’m of the view that yes, Pakistan is more likely to proliferate to a non-state actor than any other nuclear (or potentially nuclear) state. Worrying about Iran right now is like having been in Fargo, North Dakota 3 weeks ago and cautioning about how to get rid of 1.2 million sand bags, rather than worrying about the height of the flood.
And both we and the Soviets spent decades arming various terrorists/rebels/factions/etc to the teeth - but not with nukes. Governments simply don’t do that.
I sometimes wish that the media would do their research before they wrote their drivel.
Swat was one of the Princely States of British India and in 1947 came under Pakistani overlordship. Swat always had Shariah and when the state was formally annexed by Pakistan in 1969, Shariah was replaced by Pakistani law (which is based upon the law of British India, itself based upon the common law of England and Wales) which was a very unpopular move, and various Federal Governments have “promised” to restore Shariah many times, and always reneged on it. The last such promise was in 1994, and was reneged on as well. One of the reasons why the Federal Government has been treating the whole issue with kid gloves, there is or was some support for the idea of Shariah.
Incidentally, the article is wrong in another way, it was not the Federal Governmnet which agreed to the deal, it was the provincial government, which is a different party, and as of yet the agreement has been withrawn from the Senate.
In anycase Swat is a sideshow, it is an effect not a cause, the centre of gravity is FATA and that is where a very major operation has been going on since August.\
