Posted on 04/17/2006 8:22:38 PM PDT by Flavius
BY DAVID WOOD c.2006 Newhouse News Service
\ More Stories by David Wood
WASHINGTON -- While the United States struggles to rein in Iran's nuclear ambitions, a more frightening nightmare is simmering right now in Pakistan, where a weak but nuclear-armed government is being buffeted by radical Islamist influences, terrorism and several bloody insurgencies.
Among all the perils the U.S. faces, "Pakistan is the most horrific and the hardest one to do anything about," said Charles D. Furguson, a senior nuclear proliferation expert at the Council on Foreign Relations who served as a naval officer on a nuclear missile submarine.
The nation does not have enough troops to speedily and simultaneously "lock down" all of Pakistan's nuclear weapons sites if that became necessary because of civil strife, an attempted coup or a terrorist attack, officials and outside analysts said.
The president's only option might be nuclear -- a desperate attempt to destroy Pakistan's weapons rather than risk their falling into terrorists' hands and ultimately detonating in an American city.
"To date we don't have anything that can get there quickly, except for a nuclear weapon," Assistant Defense Secretary Peter C.W. Flory told a panel of the Senate Armed Services Committee March 29. He was speaking generally about targeting terrorists in possession of nuclear weapons, not about Pakistan in particular.
By "quickly," officials mean one to four hours. "For that small, highly important set of targets ... a goal we have set is to be able to address those targets in one hour anyplace" with ballistic missiles, Marine Gen. James E. Cartwright, who commands all U.S. strategic missiles and bombers, told the senators.
Pakistan's loss of control over some or all of its nuclear weapons has been quietly discussed and war-gamed at senior levels in the Defense Department. But given the political sensitivity of discussing possible armed intervention in an allied country, Pentagon officials declined to answer questions. A spokeswoman, Lt. Col. Tracy O'Grady-Walsh, said, "Unclassified answers do not exist."
Though Pakistan is considered a close ally in the war on terrorism, its military and secret intelligence service have worked closely with radical Islamist insurgents operating in Kashmir, and with al-Qaida and the Taliban in next-door Afghanistan prior to Sept. 11, 2001. Starting that fall, the United States began using Pakistan as a major base for the war in Afghanistan and demanded that Pakistan cut its ties with Islamist groups.
Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who seized power in a 1999 coup, has tried since 2001 to gingerly rein in domestic Islamists who are violently opposed to Pakistan's cooperation with the United States. Musharraf's dilemma, analysts said, is to respond to U.S. pressure without provoking an open revolt.
Last month Musharraf launched operations against jihadists along the Afghan border, where they have long operated openly; a few days later a terrorist suicide bomber detonated a bomb near the U.S. consulate in Karachi, killing American diplomat David Foy among others.
Pakistan announced in May 1998 that it had successfully conducted five nuclear tests. It is thought to have between 30 and 52 nuclear bombs and missile warheads, according to data compiled by the Natural Resources Defense Council, a nonprofit research organization in Washington.
Pakistan is not as unstable as it sounds, said Ashley J. Tellis, who recently directed strategic planning for South Asia in the White House and was a senior adviser to the U.S. ambassador to India. The Pakistani military has tight control over its nuclear weapons and it is "highly unlikely" that anything could crack that control, said Tellis, currently at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.
But the risk must be considered, because failure would mean a "stealthy" terrorist nuclear attack on the United States, said John Gordon, a retired Army officer who is a strategic analyst at RAND Corp., a nonprofit think tank that works primarily for the Pentagon.
"If you fail to secure nuclear weapons in a country that may be torn by a civil war, coup attempt or insurgency, you fail massively," Gordon said.
There has been little public discussion of the issue, he said, because "it is painful to think through a problem like this. The nuclear thing is still in a really hard-to-do box."
According to analyses by operations experts, it would require tens of thousands of American troops to "kick in the door" and seize Pakistan's nuclear sites. The United States has neither the troops nor the airlift capacity to get to Pakistan within days, let alone the hours required in a crisis.
"We lack the military capability," said Bruce Nardulli, a specialist in ground warfare at RAND. "These sites would have to be brought down and secured, locked down, simultaneously, in the middle of a huge conflict and among a hostile population. You'd need an army much larger than what you have today."
The United States currently has 176,125 soldiers and Marines deployed in world hotspots, including 21,775 in Afghanistan and 131,350 assigned to Iraq, according to a recent count provided by the Army Operations Center at the Pentagon.
Army Col. Chris Hughes, director of the operations center, said there are "sufficient forces on alert" to handle any crisis. Those forces include a 6,000-man "ready brigade" of the 82nd Airborne Division designed to launch within 72 hours, said Maj. Tom Earnhardt, a division spokesman.
But some believe a Pakistan mission could demand more, faster.
Pakistan's nuclear weapons are believed to be kept, disassembled, at six separate missile and air bases. Other sites would have to be guarded in a crisis, including the nuclear reactor facility at Joharabad and the Kahuta uranium enrichment facility in northern Pakistan, which is believed to be producing plutonium.
Finding and securing such sites is a mission shared among the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, the U.S. Special Operations Command and the U.S. Strategic Command under Gen. Cartwright. It requires fresh and precise intelligence, something the United States lacked in Iraq and elsewhere, U.S. officials acknowledge.
"We've been surprised before," Flory said in his Senate testimony.
The U.S. Special Operations Command declined a request for interviews. But others think an operation to secure Pakistan's nuclear weapons is beyond the reach of a few teams of commandos.
U.S. intervention could be complicated by opposition from elements of Pakistan's army, which is slightly larger than the U.S. Army. Pakistan's military is considered highly professional and well equipped, and has well developed air defenses that would make a U.S. air assault or paratroop landing risky.
"We'd be swallowed up in that country," said George Friedman, author of "America's Secret War" and founder of Strategic Forecasting Inc., a private intelligence firm.
"We'd have tremendous difficulty occupying it with speed, we'd have tremendous difficulty supplying our forces -- there are large cities and terrifically bad terrain, and we don't have enough troops," Friedman said.
"I can't think of a worse place to fight."
Problems like this never arose during the Cold War because both the United States and Soviet Union had secure nuclear forces and because each held the other in the thrall of mutual deterrence: If one side attacked, it would be vulnerable to a devastating nuclear retaliation.
But if Pakistan's nuclear weapons got loose, "deterrence" would be useless. Whom would the United States threaten with destruction?
If a nuclear bomb were detonated in Manhattan, "You'd have to know, did it happen with the approval of the (Pakistani) government, or was it a rogue within the government, or was it stolen?" Furguson said.
"Do you still bomb Islamabad in retaliation," he said, "especially if we don't have clear evidence they did it?"
I suspect the second any Islamic revolt starts up the Pakistani supply of 20 aircraft delivered nuclear bombs will either disappear in a big blast or simply be snatched by US SOF operating out of Afganistan. Fear Iran, Pakistan jitters is just PR smoke put out by the Do Nothings.
Let's not forget India's simmering stake in this long gestation of nuclear power balance.
They have a multitude of over-educated and pent up power strategists dying to break from the stranglehold of long past decisions that they find themselves trustees of.
Pakistan is our little yellow dog. Ain't no one messin with our yellow dog.
Oh yeah. Excellent analysis. I should of though of that.
Pakistan is not as unstable as it sounds, said Ashley J. Tellis.....
Sure thing, Mr. Tellis. That's why A Q Khan can't be fully held responsible for his role in nuclear proliferation. Musharraf can't risk upsetting his "stable" population by punishing their hero.
bttt
LOL. Does Evelyn Wood have a creative writing course now? Anyway, could you kindly not write sentences like this when I have a headache. Also, "simmering stake in this long gestation..." geeze. Did you mean simmering steak? Now THAT would make sense.
Maybe there's an opening for a frustrated restaurant reviewer to come out of this Aragaedon?
oh yes!!!I hope someone can enlighten me on how one man could manipulate system controlled entirely by the military upper hierarchy without the generals ever knowing!!!!
so much for restraining or punishing AQK,who is nothing more than a scapegoat.
Ofcourse an yellow little dog,which has been Beijing's oldest pal & arms buyer for close to 50 years.
And neither is Tom Cruise.
So, how many US boomers do you think are deployed against Pakistan at any given time?
I'd replace 'Pakistan IS our little yellow dog' with 'Pakistan HAS ALWAYS BEEN our little yellow dog.' The thing with Pakistan is that Pervez Musharraf is basically ruling that nation while sitting directly beneath a really sharp, and really large, sword of Damocles. The level of Islamic radicalism and sympathy in that nation is one of the largest in the world, and without Mushy things could get hairy very quickly. If Mushy goes (and there are those who would want nothing more than blowing him up in the name of Allah, usurpation, or Vanilla icecream withdrawal) then we face a really big problem. The problem is that mushy is not an invincible immortal, plus his need for security is so great that he is one of the best protected heads of state in the globe. Thus every single day has a chance of Mushy going byebye.
What happens then? Well, Pakistan becomes America's problem number one. It has a considerable number of Jihadi, coupled with a segment of the population being sympathizers, and with the world's most prolific number of Madarassas that are spewing forth anti-US rhetoric and vitriol (as well as building new generations of Jihadi). It also has the Pakistani intelligence agency, the ISI, which is a very powerful cabal with a lot of clout (and top people who think they can run the country very well should Mushy go to the great Islamabad in the sky). Then there is the military, whcih has some 'interesting' generals (and I don't mean interesting in their love of chocolate-chip cookies and honeywine). Add nuclear weapons and you have an interesting situation should Mushy go. Pakistan is the only nation that already has the 'Islamic bomb.'
When that happens (when, not if...... unless Mushy perfects soul-transference between bodies) then we will need to ensure that our little yellow dog has a very strong muzzle around its maw, as well as Grade-A made in the US of A shears around its b@lls just in case we need to clip them pronto.
Anyways, a smooth transition in Pakistan WHEN Mushy 'leaves' (voluntarily or otherwise) is key, because if that doesn't happen we will have a situation that will make the mad rantings of Iran's crazy president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seem like a daffodil bouquet from a Sister of the Third Order of St Francis.
You have a pronounced knack for dropping megatonnage thoughts in a few choice words.
And our undying admiration for your content -rich thoughts.
! I know! I'll apply for a fortune cookie copy writer position...you'll be my "ghost".
If one is at ground zero it no longer matters.
Excellent overview. Leaving the contigency exit scenarios out is a master-stroke of omission.
Shame we can't just snatch A Q Khan, and find out who else has the goods. But no, we have to play "nicey nice" with these jerks.
Wooooh.....too much to think about.
It is also sad that we have to consider a dictator as our best hope for that country forward.
A Democratic Pakistan was still the best bet. The 30% radicals carried their voice through political participation. Now, they have no other way to express but through actions. Unfortunately, not the kind of actions we like to see.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.