Posted on 12/23/2006 11:07:10 PM PST by SmithL
Quick! Name the country we turn into a parking lot the next time al-Qaida's network pulls off a 9/11. If your knee jerks toward Pakistan instead of Iran, your instincts are sound because conditions are falling into place for that scary scenario to unfold.
No, we won't be toppling a regime - much less nation building - anytime soon in a country of 170 million Muslims (eight times the size of Iraq). But the United States could readily find itself unleashing the "gravest possible consequences" (remember that spooky Cold War phrase?) inside Pakistan's borders - specifically the federally administered tribal areas that border Afghanistan.
This swath of remote mountain ranges has never been effectively governed by distant Islamabad, but it's where the Taliban have - according to The New York Times - recently set up a virtual mini-state. The tribal areas are also where most terrorism experts believe Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida's senior leaders operate openly in secure sanctuary.
This mini-state grew out of a series of peace deals that Pakistan's government felt it had no choice but to offer to thousands of Taliban fighters who've taken up permanent residence in the tribal areas since fleeing Afghanistan. The accords offered the warriors respite from the Pakistani military in exchange for a cessation of cross-border attacks into Afghanistan.
But the net result has been even more frequent incursions, plus the Taliban have used brutal terrorist tactics to subdue any opposition from the indigenous tribes, executing dozens of local leaders who dared stand up to them.
Worse, as the Taliban's grip grows stronger, the mini-state becomes a regional magnet for jihadists eager to get a crack at the 40,000 American and NATO troops operating next door. That means Afghanistan gets far bloodier in 2007, just as Iraq's civil war hits its stride.
Here's the scary scenario: We pull back our troops from combat in Iraq, which means we let the sectarian violence run to its logical conclusion. The downside? Lots of ethnic cleansing forces a de facto partitioning of that fake state. The upside? Iraq stops serving as the central front in the long war on radical extremism because: (a) foreign fighters are driven out by the locals and (b) American military personnel are increasingly off-shored on naval vessels.
Then imagine rising domestic pressure here for a similar pullback in Afghanistan. At that point, we've granted the global jihadist movement the same truce that Pakistan offered the Taliban. Naturally, the Taliban would interpret that standoff as a sign of weakness and eventually its embedded ally, al-Qaida, resumes plotting offensive actions against the American homeland.
This scenario would come close to restoring the pre-9/11 status quo between America and radical Islam, swapping out Iraq for Iran as the Persian Gulf rogue slated for containment. Like the apartment superintendent who sprays for cockroaches in one unit, only to see them migrate to the next apartment over, President Bush's multiyear war on terror would end up feeling like a very expensive stalemate.
Now imagine some al-Qaida affiliate lights off a nuclear device inside the United States. While our intelligence agencies can't quite pin down Tehran as the ultimate source (or North Korea, for that matter), we're once again burying thousands of corpses in some major American city. Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden publicly praises Allah from his lair in northwest Pakistan.
Then think about what a sitting U.S. president feels compelled to do next.
Americans, madder than hell, want al-Qaida to know that we're just not going to take it anymore. But they're also convinced that invading large Muslim states get us nothing but thousands more casualties and radicalized regimes.
With John McCain or Rudy Giuliani, the tough-guy approach would be clear: Going nuclear gets you nuclear in return. But don't assume it would be any different for Hillary Clinton as she reaches for Margaret Thatcher's mantle or Barack Obama as he stretches for his own JFK-like mystique.
Sound incredible?
Let me remind you that America's the only government in human history to employ nuclear weapons against an enemy state, and with the Taliban back in the mini-state-sponsoring saddle, a politically correct target now exists.
I neither advocate this possible response nor condemn it. I just think it's essential we know what path we're on in this long war because, under the right conditions, nothing remains unthinkable.
Thomas P.M. Barnett is a distinguished strategist at the Oak Ridge Center for Advanced Studies and the senior managing director of Enterra Solutions LLC. Read his blog at www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/. Contact him at tom@thomaspmbarnett.com.
Hillary isn't worthy of being in the same sentence as Margaret Thatcher.
"Hillary Clinton as she reaches for Margaret Thatcher's mantle"
Hillary can try stretching to reach Lady Thatcher's mantle but she will never achieve it.
Lady Thatcher=courage, dignity, honor, loyalty, honesty,
shall I go on?
Hillary=none of the above
Amen
One is in Tehran.
The other is in Riyadh.
Tributaries are located in Damascus the mountain regions of Pakistan.
These are the places we should strike first and hardest.
Leave it so no stone stands upon another.
L
btt
It's a long ways alright. 80-90 miles from Islamabad to Peshawar, and another 20-30 to the Kyber Pass. By comparison, Austin to Houston is about 160 road miles (the other estimate is as the predator flies). Austin to Dallas about 195 miles. Austin to El Paso is 575 miles.
And yes I know the roads are much worse there and the terrain a bit more rugged.
The so-called "downside" is what should've been done from the very beginning.
No, it sounds like the distinguished strategist has been out picking mushrooms. I tend to over-imbibe myself this time of year so I can't really say much. T for Texas, T for Tennesee. Pass the magic Kool-Aid, I want to see it too! falalalalalalalala
"I just think it's essential we know what path we're on in this long war because, under the right conditions, nothing remains unthinkable."
This author and his fellow "journalists" should have thought about this before they trashed Bush and screwed our country with years of enemy propaganda during a time of war...it may be too late and too little now.
I think they should label this guy "hysteric drama queen" rather then "distinguished strategist".
"distinguished strategist" of what marketing? Hype? Hysteria?
Y'know, I find it interesting when conservatives posit the notion that a Democrat wouldn't use nuclear weapons if the situation called for their use. That's interesting given the fact that the two times in our history that nuclear weapons have been used as a weapon, it wasn't a Republican President who gave the order.
I have no doubt that given the provocation, a Democrat President would act accordingly.
Nobody in the MSM seems to have a clue what is really going on in Pakistan.
To start with, Musharaff leads a Damocles life, and rules a multi-divided country, with violent enemies everywhere, a strong Islamist opposition in parliament, and an unreliable military and secret police. His predecessor, Zia, was responsible for most of the problems. But one false move, and Perv gets it, and somebody far worse takes over.
So long ago, the US set on a course with Perv, to gradually do the following, to our mutual advantage:
1) Strengthen Perv's rule while weakening his political enemies.
2) Cleanse his military and the ISI of Islamists. Then strengthen them to support Perv.
3) Return the Waziristans and Pakistani Baluchistan to central government rule.
4) Suppress and control the madrassas.
5) Democratically weaken and knock out of parliament as many of the Islamists as possible.
6) Once the Chinese have completed a state-of-the-art deep water port in Baluchistan, make it available to US warships.
Again, this is a process of gradualism. Several times, Perv has overreached a little and had to draw back, but in every way, the US is trying to make his so much stronger that eventually he will actually rule his country.
As a good leader, what better thing could he do than unite his nation, purge fanatics from positions of power, economically and militarily modernize and improve, and raise its prestige from a 4th world nation to a player on the world stage?
This is why we have to look at the big picture when we see something that looks discouraging from Pakistan. Trust in gradualism, and you will see things getting better and better.
BTW, don't put any stock in the idea of an independent Baluchistan. It is far too valuable for both its port and its minerals for Pakistan to voluntarily give it up. If Iran is compelled to surrender its part of Baluchistan in the future, it is almost inevitable that it will just enlarge Pakistan.
Reminds me of that old Joni Mitchell song:
"Bomb Peshawar and Put Up a Parking Lot"
So? One could argue that they ought to be nuked just as they already are, without waiting for further pretexts.
Unfortunately for U.S., the "right target" for her would not be Jihadists in Iran/Syria/Pakistani hinterlands but either Mormons in Salt Lake City or Baptists in Alabama...
Shrillary looking for a "Belgrado" moment.
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.