Posted on 06/03/2002 5:34:10 PM PDT by RJCogburn
The Bush administration seems to be twisting itself into a knot of confusion over the nuclear standoff between India and Pakistan, dispatching an array of diplomats to try to "ease the tensions" between the two countries — without doing anything to eliminate the cause of those "tensions."
The actual solution is quite simple. Bush has the means to prevent this war, and he is probably the only person in the world who can do so. All he needs to do is what he should have done nine months ago.
He needs to take over Pakistan.
After September 11, as part of the so-called "Bush Doctrine," the president declared to the nations of the world: "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists." But Pakistan has been with the terrorists for more than a decade — and it has not given up that allegiance.
Remember that Pakistan's intelligence agency helped create the Taliban and put it in power in Afghanistan. Under American threats, Pakistani leader Pervez Musharraf made a halfhearted about-face and cooperated with the United States in the war in Afghanistan. But Musharraf has been playing a double game. While he nominally cooperates against al-Qaeda, Musharraf's government has supported the same kind of terrorists — including some members of al-Qaeda — as they wage a terrorist war against India.
That war started in earnest less than a month after September 11, when Pakistan-backed rebels set off a bomb outside the Kashmir-Jammu state assembly building. In December — finding that the world did not care about terrorist attacks on India — the rebels got more ambitious, staging a shooting attack on the Indian parliament in New Delhi. Imagine if Osama bin Laden's operatives stormed the capitol building in Washington, D.C., and you will get some idea of the seriousness of this attack.
Under U.S. pressure, Musharraf announced a "crackdown" on the terrorist groups he sponsored, and he rounded up 200 Islamic militants. This proved every bit as effective as the occasional crackdown Yasser Arafat announces against his terrorist friends. Musharraf kept the militants in jail until the world's attention wandered — which doesn't take long — then let them out again. Since then, they have bombed a bus full of women and children and attacked an Indian army outpost.
If you wonder what makes Musharraf think he can get away with this, consider President Bush's most recent statement on the issue: "He must stop the incursions across the Line of Control. He must do so. He said he would do so. We and others are making it clear to him that he must live up to his word." This is exactly how the administration has talked about Yasser Arafat — who, despite his continued support of terrorism, still gets U.S. funding and political support.
Like the war in Israel, the coming war between India and Pakistan is deeply connected to America's interests. For example, how did the sponsor of Kashmir's terrorism, Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence, react when an Afghan warlord declared holy war against the United States on Thursday? Hamid Gul, former head of the ISI, told reporters: "There is certainly a lot of sympathy for him in ISI, but that doesn't necessarily translate into material assistance." How reassuring.
A dictatorship whose powerful intelligence service is sympathetic to a holy war against the United States is not an ally in the War on Terrorism. To think that they are an illusion, and like all foreign policy illusions, this one has deadly consequences. Millions of people may die in a nuclear war that America can prevent.
America must come off the fence and take India's side in this conflict. Pakistan's leaders may delude themselves that they can survive India's superior conventional and nuclear capabilities. But they will not dare to oppose the United States, especially now that American troops are stationed in Pakistan and American planes fly freely through its airspace. As former ISI chief Gul puts it, "The Americans are everywhere here right now."
Pakistan's time is up. It can no longer be trusted to fight against terrorism. The country should be thoroughly garrisoned with American troops; our military and intelligence apparatus should direct all efforts toward gaining control of Pakistan's nuclear weapons; we must subject the country to a de facto occupation. We must stop being "allies" and start giving orders.
The Bush administration launched its War on Terrorism by abandoning Israel to a massive wave of suicide bombings. America should not continue this policy by abandoning another victim of terrorism, India, to a brutal nuclear war.
Bush used this nuanced approach in Afghanistan - made distinctions between Muslim allies and enemies. I don't see any other way to get at the terrorists.
If you are going to use a Vietnam analogy, at least get it right. In Vietnam there were a large number of "anti-communists" mostly Catholic, and they made up the bulk of of South Vietnam. Furthermore, South Vietnam was not a country which had been fomenting and exporting terror accross its borders or which had supported terrorism, or helped fund and train those who attacked the United States. They were themselves under attack by communists who wished to absorb their country and eliminate their religions. In Pakistan, the opposite is true on almost every account. There is no "anti-Islamic" or "pro-west" sentiment upon, or with which to work and build a foundation of cooperation. The cooperation we are getting is only because a military dictator has ordered his subordinates to do if they don't want to end up like the Taliban. Musharif recognized from the beginning that if he opposed us, he would be kicking open the door for India to attack in the name of the war on terrorism and to provide us with bases to use against Afghanistan. They have been the instigators of instability in the region for almost as long as they have been in existence and were finally faced with a deal they couldn't refuse.
The enemy *claims to represent* all Muslims. The enemy does not *in fact* represent all Muslims. Pretending the enemy already does is called *conceeding* the war. Yes, ARVN had double agents in it, and yes Pakistan has Islamicists in the apparatus. But you don't solve that by attacking the entire apparatus. Because the message that sends is that one *cannot* ally with the United States, no matter what, whether you want to or not. You'll just be dusted as a gook whatever you do.
You're right they do not represent all muslims. Just the majority of them (low side 70% to a high side of 90%). Furthermore, that "radical" belief is based on a rather unambiguous religious text which I can tell you have not read (I have - in its entirety - along with a great deal of it and Islams history - just as I have with Communism and its major works). That religious text is where radical Islam springs, and that is the problem. It is not simply a matter of convincing someone that Marx had his head up his ass. Those Muslims that hate us, do so not just because some Imam pointed out a few injustices in poly sci 101, but because they believe their God says they must. You can talk to that wall all day long for all the good it will do you. The Indians, whom I am under no illusion about their friendship towards us, have been trying to do it for 50 years and have gotten nowhere. Are we bound to repeat that mistake? All lot of people on our side thought the Communists could be talked to and convinced as well. They were wrong. The Chinese cooperated with us only to the extent it furthered their aims against the Soviets. Mushariff cooperates to keep his meal ticket. We won the Cold War by attacking the entire apparatus - not directly but economically. Not through discussion, by running them into the economic ground with an arms race they couldn't keep up with. And we came very near to nuclear war, which was only averted when the Soviets were faced down by American military strength and the will to use it. And, unlike Communism, in which most of the populations did not support the ideology, the impetus for Islam is as much from the ground up as it is from the top down.
What you have to do instead is make it possible to side with the US. While also going after the actual known bad guys, as in Phoenix. Not guys whose hair style reminds you of bad guys, or who you suspect are opportunists. The enemy ideology is not opportunism. The enemy ideology is outright war with the US. Opportunists are exactly the political "swing vote" the two sides are fighting over, and you want them on *your* side, not driven into the camp of the enemy.
It is both. You need to re-read your Koran. Muslims are directed to use every craft and deception necessary to defeat the the infidel. And many of those here in the U.S. are here for that reason alone. The entire history of Islam is one of "opportunism" in the face of weakness and obsequiesness in the face of strength. In the Phoenix program, we went after VC leaders, people who were fighting a guerilla war inside a country that did not want what they wanted. Phoenix did not go after, for example, the ARVN and the Government of South Vietmnam (except in a few rare cases in which they took out those who were working for the other side). There is no Guerilla movement in Pakistan to target. The ISI and the government itself is behind them - though they claim not to be. The only ones they have allowed us to go after are non-Pakistanis. Any "Poenix" program in Pakistan would have to start with the top leadership in the military and ISI.
Guerilla style war is all about *aim*, about discrimination, about getting the intel to hit the real baddies, instead of flailing mindlessly at whole sociological groups the baddies belong to and swim among and are trying to mobilize against you. You can't win a guerilla style war by throwing out the distinction between friendly and enemy members of that population at the first step. And you can't a guerilla style war by making it impossible to become your friend.
The aim of Guerilla war is to destabilize existing governments to the point that they can be over thrown by force (usually) or at the ballot box. The purpose is to get the government to retaliate and impose itself on the people in such a way as to inflame the resentment of the general population - much as we have seen in our own country in the wake of 9/11. In order to go after the terrorists or guerillas, new laws and edicts are imposed. This generates, if not sympathy for the guerilla, anger against the government. If it garners both, the result is revolution. If only the later, the result is usually a change of government that may adopt policies more favorable to the Movement. Sometimes the result is the opposite. To destroy a guerilla movement you have to destroy their support network and base of operations. In this case the guerillas are operating against India and their base of ops and support network is Pakistan. And given the nature of this conflict (radical Islam), we are never going to win their "hearts and minds" or make the bulk of the population in Pakistan our "friends," as you so glibly put it. In fact, the token cooperation we have received is threatening to remove those so-called moderates from power in favor of a much more hard-line bunch of fanatics. (you really should look at those links I posted earlier). I would also suggest doing some more study on guerilla warfare. Even the most basic military FM covering Low Intensity Conflict should straighten you out on that. Based on your "swimming" analogy I can only guess that you have misread Mao.
Musharaf is bending over backwards trying to ally with us, taking enourmous heat domestically for it. If we spurn him anyway because he is a Muslim, then no Muslim can take our side, and they are all in Laden's camp. And we aren't going to exterminate 1 billion people, or 100 million people for that. If you drive them all into Bin Laden's camp, he's got exactly what he wants.
Musharaf is bending over backwards to keep his head on his shoulders, as I explained earlier. His motive is entirely self-interest. His control over his own country is tenuous because of it, and he has not cracked down on the real sources of the problem. He has not moved his military into Western Pakistan (prior to the current crisis) because they would not follow those orders if he had. We have not been allowed to go in for the same reasons. I have not suggested that the United State exterminate anyone. Nor will we. But why should we stop India from meting out a just retribution? Stopping them on behalf of Pakistan will not make them our friends or get them to stop terrorizing India. Did going into Bosnia win us any Muslim friends? Anywhere? Not a one, even in Bosnia. How about Kuwait? How about Saudi Arabia? We saved them from Saddam and even now they pay nothing more than lip-service to the war on terrorism and say they will not support action against Iraq. Do you know where most non-Afghan and non-Pakistani Al-qeuda fighters were recruited? Kuwait. Go figure. If we didn't succeed in winning the hearts and minds of Kuwaitis and Saudi after what we did, tell me, where its going to work?
In the present situation, it is not Pakistan or Musharaf that are fomenting war with India. It is the Islamic guerillas in Pakistan. They want India and the US at war with Pakistan, because that drives all of Pakistan into their camp. Bringing nuclear know-how along with it. Driving all of Pakistan into their camp is playing into their hands, not fighting them. If they already had control of Pakistan, as some seem to pretend (incoherently), they wouldn't need any of this monkey business.
Again, you are wrong. The terrorism against India has been going on for quite some time. Longer than the Taliban and Al-queda. Current problems have no doubt been escalated by Taliban and bin-laden adherents showing up, but they don't cross that LOC without the knowledge of the Pakistanis who have about a million troops on that border. The ISI have been funding, training, and running guerilla terrorist ops out of Northern Kashmir for sometime. The recent increase cannot be blamed entirely on a few rogue Taliban (who wouldn't be there in the first place if Pakistani troops hadn't let them cross the border in first coming over from afghanistan and then into Kashmir). And to think all this happened without Musharafs knowledge is niavete. Do you think you maintian power in a country like Pakistan without knowing what is going on around you? The Upper eschelon of his military continue to support him because they know they have no choice right now. But if they thought for a moment that Musharaf had sold out the hopes and wishes and goals they have all shared for so long (you should read some of the things these great military minds have written) Musharaf's body would be floating in the Indus by now. They have been quite careful about when, where and how they have cooperated with us - in spite of the smoke being blown by our own state department and administration.
Pakistan has taken advantage of our presense to notch things up against India. First because they think our having troops in Pakistan will prevent retaliation by the Indians. Second, because they can deny complicity by blaming it on the Taliban and Al-queda, the first they created, they supported. They are engaging in a bit of brinksmanship.
They wouldn't need to goad the Indians into attacking. They'd just pack up some Pakistani-supplied nukes, put them on freighters, sail to New York, and incinerate us. They haven't already done this because Musharaf is not one of them, and they do not yet control Pakistan and its nuclear weapons. He is in their way. They are trying to remove him, by either forcing him to make face-losing concessions and then leading a revolt against him as "the man who lost Kashmir", or by Pakistan losing a war. In either case they will try to overthrow his government and reverse his pro-US policy. The fact that they are trying to remove him ought to be a hint that keeping him around is in our interest not theirs.
Nice theory, but it does't hunt. Lets say the "radicals" in Pakistan get their hands on the nukes that Musharaf is being so responsible with. Who is the biggest threat to Pakistan? Who does the average Pakistani hate most? In both cases the answer is India. They may be crazy, but they are not entirely stupid. If Al-queda got its hand on a stray bomb, or even some ex-Taliban, they might try, as a non-state entity, to attempt something like that, but not the Government of Pakistan - regardless of how radical it became. In the final analysis, those nukes are for India - each and every one of them. The military controls the nukes now and will continue to do so. Pakistan faces a hated foe that outnumbers them in both the conventional and nuclear theater. They need every nuke they have to deal with that threat (which is only a threat because Pakistan keeps antagonizing India, who could easily have taken Pakistan out a long time ago if they were the aggressive bully you made India out to be). For the government to provoke us into massive retaliation for the idiot move of popping a single nuke in some U.S. harbor is beyond stupid. If your object is to defeat A, you don't accomplish that by getting B to eliminate you and not A. And if Pakistan used one of their nukes on us, we would know where it came from because of the distinct signature left by the radioactive residue.
And you have to consider this. They could have made a fortune selling even one bomb to, say, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Syria, etc. They could have gotten any of those country's, or some others, to wipe out their national debt with a one-time cash payment. They haven't done that because they are saving them for India. The only people in a position to "take over" in Pakistan would simply be a different military faction, who's end goal is not to invite suicide by popping a nuke SF Bay.
We don't need a war between India and Pakistan. Which, incidentally, would not end in any occupation because India is not willing to get nuked over the affair. They want just a limited conventional war in Kashmir, contained, to let them sweep guerilla bases across the line of control, a la Sharon on the west bank. They aren't going to run Pakistan. They can barely rule the 100 million plus Muslims they have now. Their transparent inability to keep the peace in Kashmir against guerilla resistence is after all the cause of all of this in the first place. They don't want to (1) get nuked in order to (2) have the privilege of running a super-Kashmir 20 times as large as the problem they've already got.
Nobody needs a war between India and Pakistan. That's right. That's also the logic behind Pakistan ratcheting things up while they have the supposed protection of ally status with the United States. Indian politicians have an increasingly angry population to deal with that all want action taken to stop the terrorism. Best for India's politicians is a limited incursion into Kashmir to stop what the Pakistani govt refuses to. But, Pakistan has threatened massive retaliation (first strike?) if even one Indian soldier crosses the LOC. If Pakistan does not do what is necessary to eliminate further terrorist actions, Indian politicians will be forced to do it even if it means risking nuclear war. That means they have to consider their own massive first strike. A scenario that many in India are ready to go with, especially since the very seat of their government was attacked. Whichever one crosses the threshold will have to pull out all of the stops. There will be no limited exchange. Those nukes won'r just be popped along the borders either. They will be aimed at the other guys nukes. Since Pakistan has the fewest, they will be at a disadvantage, since all will have to be used against Indian nuclear storage facilities if they have any hope of surviving intact. There will be little left over to drop on conventional troops along their border or to threaten Calcutta and New Dehli with. Pakistan cannot wipe out india. India on the other hand can wipe out Pakistan. And both countries military's subscribe to the Soviet / Chinese military doctrine that nuclear weapons are part of the overall weapons inventory and that nuclear war can be fought and won. Furthermore, the average Pakistani and Indian think a nuclear bomb is just a "real big" bomb and ignorant of the overall and long term effects. As for occupying Kashmir or greater Pakistan after an exchange, It won't be necessary. Those left in those areas will be too busy trying to live one more day to cause further trouble for India.
Which means a lost war is not going to eradicate the Islamicist fifth column from Pakistan. It isn't even going to try, except right along the border and in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, and even there only temporarily. But such a war could certainly topple Musharaf's government. What *can* eradicate the Islamicist fifth column from Pakistan? A non-Islamicist government with outside support going after that fifth column, and absolutely nothing else. It must be possible for Pakistanis to take our side and fight against the Islamicists, and they must have an indigenous-rule, political option that takes that line.
A lost war will give those left in Pakistan much more to think about than continuing to antagonize India. As for Musharaf, what evidence is there that he can or will install a completely secular government? None so far. Any attempt to do so would see him thrown from power. If he had the power or inclination to do that, he could stop the border incursions into India. If he can't or won't, we have no right to tell India they can't take action, whatever that action may be. If Pakistan wants to be a nuclear power then it needs to learn how to do so responsibly.
Musharaf is providing one. That is why they are after his head. Why the Indians and some on this board are after is head is another matter - it starts with exactly the same sentiment that screamed "just dust all the gooks" in Nam. *Manipulating* that passion is *exactly* what the whole Islamicist strategy is based on. Stoking it is how they intend to recruit for themselves, and also to *split* political support for war against them, over here.
I'm not after Musharaf's head. But neither do I like running interference for a military dictator, however polished, who is play both sides against the middle. He claims to on board for the war on terror, and yet can't or won't fully cooperate with us, or do anything substantial to stop the cross-border incursions into India. His own military is aiding and abetting the terrorism there. They have protected and provided safe passage to Taliban and Al-qeuda fighters.
They want you and me fighting over this, instead of fighting them. As you can see, it is working like a charm with the Indians, and with all too many right here.
How you manage to twist this back on the Indians is quite the Gymnastic feat. My only opinion is this: If Pakistan wants to keep dicking around and supporting terrorism, then we should stand aside and let the Indians at them. The Pakistani Military, of which he is the head man, created the Taliban, supported Al-queda, and has aided and abetted terrorism against India. If Musharaf can't or won't get a handle on it a stop it, then India has a right to do it for him. Just as we would do in their shoes.
http://www.dawn.com/events/speech/20010919/index.htm
"Some ulema are trying to react on pure emotions. I want to remind them of Islam's early history. The moved from Mecca to Medina (hijrat). Was this (God forbid) cowardice? This was wisdom to save Islam.
Then when the Jews saw that Islam was getting stronger they started to conspire against the muslims. When the Prophet (PBUH) saw this happening he signed a no war pact with his enemies in Mecca. I want to remind you of that pact. At the end of the pact, where his signature was required, the Meccans demanded that he cannot sign it as Prophet Mohammed. The Prophet (PBUH) agreed.
The Prophet explained later that its best for Islam, and it's the right thing to do. And time proved him right. Six months later there was a war with the Jews and the Meccans did not support the Jews and the Muslim forces won. And some time after that Mecca also fell to Islamic mujahideen."
You say that there is no anti-Islamicist opinion to build on in Pakistan. You only show your collosal ignorance of that countries politics by saying so. It will certainly come as news to former Prime Minister Bhutto, who won several elections there as leader of a secularizing center-left party, about as likely to support Islamicists as the Modern Language Association is to endorse Bob Jones University. Half the political spectrum in Pakistan in well to the left of the present dictator, let alone the Islamicists to his own right.
In addition, the army in Pakistan has always put the interests of the nation - especially its foreign policy interests, and particularly including alliance with the US - above every domestic ideological question. There is a 40 year tradition of US Pakistani alliance to build on, not your imaginary implacable hostility. Far from a "final" "deal they couldn't refuse", Pakistan has sought alliance with the US continually, but was spurned by the US after the end of the cold war over missle proliferation issues. The recent move back into our good graces was not a change in Pakistani wishes, but in our willingness to oblige them in return for cooperation against the terrorists. The "trouble" they have stirred up over the years has half of it been at our explicit direction - the part directed northward. Pakistani intel, the bete noir of your version, was the conduit for CIA support for the Afghans in their war against the Soviets. We've been working with them for decades.
The Islamicists are a minority extremist party - actually, a splintered group of parties that don't even get alone with each other - in the Pakistani political system. They command the allegiance of perhaps a quarter of the population, at the outside. South Vietnam had a minority of extremist communists, too, who formed the base of the VC.
I have not only read the Koran, I have studied Islam as a political scientist for over 15 years. I've read all the medieval Islamic philosophers, histories, country study monographs, you name it. I focused on the issue after the Iran hostage crisis and Lebanon interventions, which should quite clearly to me that we were in for a civilizational struggle in many ways as big as the cold war. I certainly did not wake up to all of it yesterday. I studied with, among others, Fazlur Rahman, before his passing - a former minister of education of Pakistan who tried to reform its fundamentalist education system in the 1960s, the author of "Islam and Modernity", and one of the bright lights of moderate intellectual Islam.
As for the cold war, we won it by conversion of the adversary first of all. Yes that means confrontation with true enemies. It also means openness to changes of mind, and attempting to teach a better way to the ideological opponent. (See Rahman on some of the basics of doing so in terms Muslims will understand).
And yes of course there is a guerilla movement in Pakistan to target. The terrorists blowing up French workers building Pakistan new submarines, blowing up US-attended churches, launching other attacks on foreigners in the country, rioting against the government, harboring Laden's associates, and smuggling weapons and insurgents into Kashmir, blowing up the Indian parliament buildings, raiding Indian officers quarters, and the like, are neither choir boys nor Pakistani military officers. They are terrorists operating inside of Pakistan, linked to others operating in India, just like the VC, Khmers, PL in Laos, etc did. Their previous sanctuary was Afghanistan, which we have occupied, but they are still fighting a guerilla war against us there, too. The hundreds of people the Pakistani dictator has kept under arrest after the sweeps of the last few months are not his paid agents; they are his enemies and that is why they are in jail.
Leftist purists in the US in the 1960s did not like us working with South Vietnamese dictators. But those dictators were leading the fight against our ideological enemies trying to destabilize the country, and we quite properly didn't demand that they be choir boys. Which the present dictator of Pakistan is not. But he is willing to take our side against the Islamicists, and toppling him is our enemy's immediate political goal. As is plain to anybody who isn't blinded to conflicts *between* Muslims, by bigotry against all Muslims. Helping them achieve that goal would be flat stupid.
And oh, there sure as heck were VC all through the ARVN hierarchy during the war in Vietnam. That is why bringing ARVN in on an operation often blew its security. They were moles and two-timers. There are moles and two-timers in the Pakistani apparatus, too, whose hearts are with the Islamicists not with the present government. But the guy who has been removing some of the Islamicist generals in the last nine months is the present dictator, who you want to pretend has no domestic enemies and is just a front man for a unitary monolith of Islamicist nutjobs. They wouldn't be trying so hard to topple him if that wer true.
Yes, guerillas want to inflame the sentiment of the general population. But above all they want to force the population to divide along the lines of their choosing, with no room for neutrality. Read Carlos Marighela, or any of the FLN ringleaders in Algeria (I've studied guerilla war as well for the past 20 years). The first target is the moderates. The Islamicists recently assassinated a moderate Muslim leader in Kashmir because he wanted independence through the ballot not the bomb. Can't have that. They want Musharraf gone for the same reason - he is a Pakistani nationalist who wants alliance with the US, not a Islamicist radical howling for our blood. We and India are here cast in the role of the security forces. It is our retaliations that are supposed to inflame the sentiment of the general population of Pakistan. You want to give that to them, by having India attack the whole country. I want to target the bad guys, especially in cooperation with Musharraf, and spare the general population.
Of course we can win their "hearts and minds". You reveal everything about the defeatism at the base of your assessment, and the bigotry at the base of that defeatism, when you declare that we never can have friendly relations with most Muslims. Because you believe they are made our enemies not by Islamicist radicalism, but simply by being Muslims at all. Because you fundamentally believe that the Islamicist radicals do truly represent all of Islam, and therefore do truly speak for all Muslims. You are flat wrong about that. They do lead a party that numbers in the tens of millions, not just a few nutjobs. But they are nothing like a billion people, or 500 million.
To see that a very different sort of Muslim opinion is possible, you only have to look up from your Koran and examine the world about you, or to scan world history. The Islamicists are fundamentalists, with their nose in that old book. They are not the sum of the civilization they arise in. You will not find modern Turkey between the pages of that old book. You will also find rather more in other books, from Avicenna to Muhammad Iqbal to Rahman, than odes to war against the infidel. Islam has had a historical tradition of tolerance in the past and there is no reason it can't have one again. Islam has had a philosophic enlightenment in the past and there is no reason it can't have one again. Islamic countries have had stable and pro-western governments in the past, and there is no reason they can't have them now or in the future.
There simply is no necessary fatal war to the death between all of Islam and the modern west. Bin Laden wants there to be one. And you are ready to conceed it to him, presumably because of how strongly he and men like him represent to you all that is truly revolting in Islamic history, and your own willingness to take that for all of Islamic history. Well, I am not ready to conceed it to him, and neither is the president of Pakistan. We are not giving up on the "hearts and minds" war, as you are. You recognize that doing so "inflames the general population" and so aids the guerilla side and the guerilla strategy. You do it anyway, because you frankly despair of the existence of anything like a moderate Muslim. I can sympathize, but I cannot agree. Sympathize, because lord knows the terrorists do their darnedest to justify such hatred of their entire creed. Not agree, because those terrorists are not their entire creed but ignorant bigots themselves, who frankly don't even know their own traditions.
You admit that we aren't going to exterminate anyone, and then ask why we should let India "mete out retribution". Because it won't get rid of the terrorists, and it will topple the present government, and that will put Pakistan's un-exterminated population and her un-exterminated nuclear weapons "in play", in a scramble the Islamicists want and think they can capitalize on to achieve both a new safe haven and direct control of nuclear weapons. What do we get in return? A sense of righteousness? Some trade. Keep your eye on the ball. The ball is not to attain a sense of righteousness or to wail on people who remind you of those you don't like, it is to keep the real assholes away from the nastiest weapons on the planet. Musharaf, as you practically admit by calling his hold on power "tenuous" and his prime concern "keeping his head", is not one of them. Incidentally, I happen to believe his prime concern in the international security position of the state of Pakistan, and he knows a US alliance is the best thing for that. He is right, and we should accept that as a straight and simple gain.
As for Islamic ingraditude, I think there has been some of it notably from Saudi Arabia, but there is enough of it to go around. Pakistan carried water for us in the cold war for 40 years, and we dropped them like a hot rock when the USSR disintegrated. The Turks have supported us in everything we have asked since the mid 1940s, and half the time we treat them like old rags. But I do not see either Bosnia or Kuwait attacking us, while Laden and company do so. Ingraditude is a vice, but it is not a crime. Winning minds does not mean they love you, it means they no longer want to fight you.
Of course ISI operatives ran the Kashmir war, back when India was a Soviet ally and they were also running the war in Afghanistan. And they did not all stop. Some are allies of the Islamicists, of course. They want to run their own foreign policy and force it on their own government as a fait accompli. They are fomenting war with India, and they expect to seize power in its aftermath. Does Musharaf know this is happening? Undoubtedly. Does that mean he could stop it by wagging his finger? No way. He knows there is such internal opposition and double-game disloyalty in his own apparatus. That doesn't mean he knows which guy is doing what, siding with who, with what ambition against him or each other. That is what politics is made out of, that uncertainty and tactical shifts that complicate it. He faces the same intel problem of all guerilla wars and all intelligence operations - trying to tell his real enemies from others he needs.
And Pakistani military opinion is not driven by romantic sentiment about their brothers in Kashmir. It is a much more hard-nosed thing than that. That is recruiting posters for the men in the streets. They keep their eyes on the security interests of the whole Pakistani state, including its international position and alliances, future power prospects due to economic strength and what not included, and also on their personal prospects of advancement by backing this or that line and this or that "horse" in political power struggles. Issues are weapons to such men, in their competitions with each other. Not blind loyalties that drag them along to destruction.
The Pakistanis are not engaging in brinksmenship with India, because there is absolutely nothing in it for them. Tell me, what exactly have they gotten in return for their "ratcheting up"? They have India ready to attack them, international diplomatic pressure out the wazoo, foreigners fleeing the country, the economy falling apart, and in return they get - what? The moral satisfaction of having killed a moderate Muslim politician in Kashmir? Qui bono? Who benefits? None of this stuff is helping Musharraf. All of it is helping his domestic Islamicist radical enemies, both within the apparatus and outside it. He isn't fomenting it for mysterious unfathomable purposes because he can get away with it right now. They are fomenting it precisely to give him a migraine.
But you can't admit this patently obvious fact, because it requires making a distinction between one Muslim and another Muslim, and that is simply not allowed. They must all be unwinnable hearts dead set against us, to make it easier to justify wailing on all of them without aiming. Hello, that is "off the gooks", nothing more. It was mindless then and it is mindless now.
What makes the radicals in Pakistan radicals is they don't give a tuppenny darn what the average Pakistani thinks, or about the interests of the Pakistani nation. If they did, they would be tractable, because those are things that moderate goals to want it achievable without getting their country plastered. They instead support Bin Laden's program of war off all Muslims against all non-Muslims, and especially against the west. All you have to do is listen to what Bin Laden says to them. It is the duty of all Muslims to seek WMD, and it is the duty of all Muslims to kill Americans. Americans. You and me. The Pakistan operation is about the first of those goals. It is a means to the second. They don't give a rat's rear what happens to Pakistan afterward or as a result. They are looking forward to the day when the whole modern west is a smoking irradiated ruin, and what they can do to get there. That is what makes them "radicals".
As for the idea that Pakistan is just "saving" their nukes, you don't seem to have much of an idea how this works. They have the enrichment process up and running. That means they get the ability to make another 8-10 bombs every year, on top of all the others they are able to make. They aren't proliferating their nukes to every radical bunch of terrorist nutjobs on the planet because they are not themselves a bunch of radical terrorist nutjobs. Contrary to your continual attempts to conflate the Pakistani government with the terrorists. Terrorists aren't deterrable. They don't have a homeland they care about more than they care about killing us. That is why they are dangerous.
If they weren't dangerous for precisely that reason, we wouldn't be in the present war mode over the whole subject. The issue in Pakistan is precisely whether a responsible military of a country (read - deterrable) or a bunch of terrorist nutjobs shall have control of Pakistan's present nuclear potential in the near future. Which is in no way assured or written on stone tablets. If we muck it up, undeterrable nutjobs will get their hands on the things. That is the whole freaking point.
At one point you say "Indian politicians will be force to do it risking nuclear war." You should stop and listen to yourself from time to time. Nobody is forced to risk nuclear war, let alone forced to risk nuclear war over pathetically small issues like this one. OK, the future of mankind, will it all live in an ant-colony totalitarian society in which freedom is a forgotten concept and mountains of skulls stretch to the sky is a thousand murder camps? That might be worth risking nuclear war over. "I might not get re-elected if I don't look tough enough", that is not worth risking nuclear war over. India can put 10 million men in Kashmir, wire and mine everything, sweep the populace into jails, deport every troublemaker whose looks they don't like. They are not "forced" to go to war with Pakistan over Kashmir, and it is dishonest to pretend otherwise. India will go to war with Pakistan over Kashmir because they *want* to, if they do. Not because they "are forced" to risk nuclear war.
Instead, I’ll do this. Square your learned analysis of Pakistan with this little speech by Musharaff (and don’t put words in his mouth when you do like you did with me). A simple concise analysis of this statement is all I ask. Here’s your chance to convince me - don’t blow it. I’m counting on you!
Highlights of General Pervez Musharraf's Address to the Nation, 19 September 2001. President General Pervez Musharraf addressed the nation at 20:30 PST (11:30 EST). His address was broadcasted over Pakistan Television and Radio Pakistan.
“Asalam-o- Alaikum
“I am here to talk about the episode of terrorism that we have all witnessed in New York which involved 45 countries and people of all ages were killed. These were capable Pakistanis and I would like to convey my deep sympathy to their family members.
“America has 3 targets:
Osama Bin Laden (Al-Quaida Movement)
Taliban
International terrorism
“Now I shall share with you the kind of support that they expect from us.
1.Intelligence - Information exchange
2.Use of Air Space
3.logistic Support
“No operations plans are ready or available at the moment.
“Their target from the beginning has been Osama bin Laden, and his movement. Their second target is the Talibaan. This has been their demand for many years - to bring Osama to trial. Now they have also announced a war against terrorism.
“We do not have any details from the U.S of the exact nature of the support from us. But we do know that they have the support of the UN Security Council. The UN resolution specifies punishment for those committing terrorism. This has been supported by all the Islamic countries.
“We in Pakistan are facing a very critical situation. Perhaps as critical as the events in 1971. If we make the wrong decisions our vital interests will be harmed.
“I have discussed all this with my corps commanders, politicians and prominent Pakistanis. Tomorrow I am meeting the tribal chiefs. I have to say that opinions are divided, but the vast majority supports us. I would say that about 15% are tending towards emotional reactions.
“Lets look at our neighbors. They have promised US all cooperation. They want to isolate us, get us declared a terrorist state.
“They have met in Dushanbe with some other countries and plan to try and install anti Pakistani government in Afghanistan. So our neighbor is busy trying to harm us. If you see their television they are busy with propaganda against us.
“I want to tell them to ‘lay off’. Our forces are on full alert and ready for a do or die mission.
“In this situation if we make the wrong decisions it can be very bad for us. Our critical concerns are our sovereignty, second our economy, third our strategic assets (nuclear and missiles), and fourth our Kashmir cause. All four will be harmed if we make the wrong decision. When we make these decisions they must be according to Islam.
“Its not a question of bravery or cowardice. But bravery without thinking is stupidity. Allah has said that he who has ‘hikmat’ has a huge blessing. We have to save our interests. Pakistan comes first, everything else is secondary.
“Some ‘ulema’ are trying to react on pure emotions. I want to remind them of Islam’s early history. The moved from Mecca to Medina (hijrat). Was this (God forbid) cowardice? This was wisdom to save Islam.
“Then when the Jews saw that Islam was getting stronger they started to conspire against the muslims. When the Prophet (PBUH) saw this happening he signed a no war pact with his enemies in Mecca. I want to remind you of that pact. At the end of the pact, where his signature was required, the Meccans demanded that he cannot sign it as “Prophet Mohammed”. The Prophet (PBUH) agreed.
“The Prophet explained later that its best for Islam, and it’s the right thing to do. And time proved him right. Six months later there was a war with the Jews and the Meccans did not support the Jews and the Muslim forces won. And some time after that Mecca also fell to Islamic mujahideen.
“Let me say that I am concerned about Afghanistan and the Talibaan. I have tried to convince world leaders not to impose sanctions on them in the past. I have tried my best, but sadly without much success.
“In the present situation we have been trying to convince the Talibaan to be wise. We have also asked the US for evidence about Osama bin Laden. Also how do we best serve Afghanistan’s interests? By going against the world community or by working with the international community. I am sure you will agree with me that we can only do the later.
“I also know that there are people who are using this to promote their personal agendas. At this time, we have to be make sure that our enemies do not succeed in their designs to harm us. Pakistan is regarded as a fort of Islam. If this fort is damaged, islam will be damaged.
“I ask you to trust me, like you trusted me when I went to Agra.
“May Allah guide and protect us.”
Pakistan Zindabad
Shows that he is focused on international security position of the state of Pakistan.
"about 15% are tending towards emotional reactions"
That is his estimate of the portion of the population controlled by the Islamicists. Not your 70 to 90%.
"look at our neighbors" - He means India. "They want to isolate us, get us declared a terrorist state"
Just like you do. He sees India using the situation as an excuse for war, and avoiding isolation by allying with the US as the way to counter this. His eye is on India, and Pakistani security. While the hotheads were focusing on the US-Bin Laden conflict exclusively, and wanted an emotional anti-US stance based on Islamic solidarity. The primary purpose of the speech is to explain why that would be foolish - why the Islamicists are in fact fools therefore, unable to see and act for the security interests of the state of Pakistan.
Subsequent events have shown him to be entirely correct is this assessment of Pakistan's real interests. He is just showing the foresight required of a statesmen to navigate his country through international dangers. He is effectively saying, we have to ally with the US over Afghanistan and abandon the Taliban, because it is far more important to watch India than to indulge sentiments of Islamic solidarity. Which would only wreck Pakistan's international security position, give India everything it needs to go to war, and leave Pakistan isolated to face that war. In other words, everything that you want to see happen (India attacking Pakistan, us letting it happen), he saw coming and stepped out of the way of it, by allying with the US instead of with the Taliban.
"Our critical concerns are our sovereignty, second our economy, third our strategic assets (nuclear and missiles), and fourth our Kashmir cause. All four will be harmed if we make the wrong decision."
Conspicuously absent are the Taliban, or the Pakistani position in Afghanistan. Which is what he was about to give up, to secure things for these other four. He is explaining to the emotional man in the street why it would be foolish to listen to the Islamicists, who wanted to remain allied to the Taliban and come out against the US - and indeed, to send men into Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban, provide sanctuaries, keep the border open, and deny the US use of bases inside Pakistan. The first, "our sovereignty", is meant to blunt criticism of him as letting foreigners rule the country. The second, the economy, is a hint at the dramatic economic damage that would result from US sanctions if they took the Taliban's side. The third is explaining the military basis of independence, preserving them for deterrence of India. It is a reference to the likelihood that the US would destroy Pakistani strategic forces by air attack if they allied with the Taliban. The fourth - less important than each of the above - is a reminder that even Islamic solidarity concerns council paying more attention to India than to Afghanistan. The purpose of the whole litany of explanation is to show that Pakistan's interests lie with a US alliance directed against India, not with a Taliban alliance that leave Pakistan alone to face both India and the US, without a prayer.
"bravery without thinking is stupidity."
A direct attack on the Islamicists as emotional idiots. They think that being brave enough and strident enough and hating the west enough, is the key to political virtue. He points out that this leads to mindless folly in international security decisions, and would destroy Pakistan's strategic position. He is a military man and a general, calling the Islamicists a bunch of privates. He is claiming to be not inferior to them in bravery, as they say when they call him a lackey of the west, but superior to them in intellect. Which is a perfectly believable "pitch" to the man in the street, trying to decide whether to support Musharraf or the Islamicists.
"We have to save our interests. Pakistan comes first, everything else is secondary."
Another dig at the Islamicists. They are not nationalists and do not have the true interests of Pakistan at heart. They are internationalists who want to merely use Pakistan as ammo in their wider war for Islam as a whole. Everything else is secondary means Islamic solidarity is secondary. The security position of Pakistan, especially in relation to India, is more important than Bin Laden's mad dreams of a world-wide Islamicist uprising. Pakistan should not commit national suicide to favor the interests of an international ideology. This is the traditional nationalist appeal the army has always made in Pakistani politics, and the man on the street gets the point of it loud and clear. The Ladenists are foreigners on their own crusades who just want to manipulate and use Pakistani sentiment. Musharraf and the army are true Pakistani patriots who put their country first. That is the message.
"Some ‘ulema’ are trying to react on pure emotions"
Ulema means learned, the clergy, Islamicist religious leaders in particular. He is criticizing their lack of strategic sense and calculation. In doing so, he is appealing to an old Islamic tradition going back to the middle ages, of seperation between the political rulers of the state - sultans - and Islamic law. The traditional division of duties is that political leaders have discretion over alliances and day to day political matters, while the learned interprete the law. As in our division between executive vs. judicial authorities. He is putting on the mantle of sultan, lecturing the clergy on stepping out of line.
"Was this (God forbid) cowardice? This was wisdom to save Islam."
He refers to a case of such political calculation in the time of the prophet, to show its legitimacy even on their own terms. The political leader alone can make such decisions. That is Islamic, it is not against their traditions. He casts the Islamicists in the role of hot-head critics of the prophet, and nearly claims that they only call him (Musharraf) a coward as they would have called the prophet a coward. He claims to be imitating the prophet. This move is important, because many Islamicists acknowledge the legitimacy only of actions that can be defended either by the text of the Koran or by hadith, sayings and actions of the prophet. Like original intent legalists here, a precedent for the meaning of something must be traced to the founding period to be seen as legitimate by these types. He provides such a trace. He presents his hadith, as a credential. It is like claiming that his action is "constitutional".
"I am concerned about Afghanistan and the Talibaan. I have tried..."
Since he is abandoning them, after Pakistan supported them, he has to show that he knows there is something distasteful involved in it. He refers to past actions trying to show his "heart is in the right place", as far as Islamic solidarity is concerned. But it is quite clear from the whole speech that he is abandoning them in favor of a US alliance because he regards that decision as absolutely necessary for the security interests of Pakistan, especially with respect to India. And the main thrust of the speech is to defend this decision against criticisms of it by the Islamicists. He calls their alternative emotional, stupid, and against the national interest. He defends his course as wise, nationalistic, and Islamically legitimate. He is transparently debating them, precisely because they lead the opposition to the policy he is embarking on, by abandoning the Taliban in favor of a US alliance.
"there are people who are using this to promote their personal agendas."
This is a reference to ambitious self-promoters within the Pakistani apparatus, and would be rival generals, who might be tempted to use his change of policy to make their own bid for power or support, by offering themselves as leaders less willing to do the bidding of the US, or with greater Islamic solidarity. He warns them against doing so, and others against following them.
"we have to be make sure that our enemies do not succeed in their designs"
The reference is to India. He ends as the army usually does, by appealing to the need for internal political unity, especially in the army itself, as absolutely required by the external threat posed by India. We can't afford to snipe at each other while India plots against us all - that is the message. It is tied to the previous point, and so combined becomes a dig at the nationalist credentials of any would-be ambitious rivals tempted to use his shift to make their own power-bid. Doing so would be treasonous, because it would play into the hands of the Indians, trying to isolate us - that is the message.
Then he asks the common man in the street, and the rest of the army, to trust him, as they did when he first took power from the previous corrupt civilian government.
That is my analysis of the speech. It is directed toward potential critics of his pro-US line to his political right. Including some in the army and intelligence apparatus, and especially against the Islamicists. And any who would support them, against his pro-US policy. He paints them as shallow and thoughtless, not able to be trusted with the security interests of the nation. He presents himself as a forward-looking nationalist with his eye on the security ball, meaning on India and what is happening right about now, when everybody else was looking north at Afghanistan and reacting emotionally.
Incidentally, I read the speech when it was first given. I've also followed reports on Musharraf since he took power.
“Then when the Jews saw that Islam was getting stronger they started to conspire against the muslims. When the Prophet (PBUH) saw this happening he signed a no war pact with his enemies in Mecca. I want to remind you of that pact. At the end of the pact, where his signature was required, the Meccans demanded that he cannot sign it as “Prophet Mohammed”. The Prophet (PBUH) agreed.
“The Prophet explained later that its best for Islam, and it’s the right thing to do. And time proved him right. Six months later there was a war with the Jews and the Meccans did not support the Jews and the Muslim forces won. And some time after that Mecca also fell to Islamic mujahideen."
The Prophet explained later that its best for Islam, and it’s the right thing to do. And time proved him right. Six months later there was a war with the Jews and the Meccans did not support the Jews and the Muslim forces won. And some time after that Mecca also fell to Islamic mujahideen.
Keeping JasonC's analysis in mind, I view Musharraf's reference to the Mecca and Jews as pointing to Kashmir and Indians, with the latter initiating hostilities. I don't see him as "preparing a dagger" for the U.S. or Israel with this reference, although I can see how just reading it plain without JasonC's context makes that view perhaps the most plausible.
Very interesting - I'd never read that before. If you have a link, thanks in advance.
Isotopes are traceable by their make-up. Just like you can identify which mines produced which ores, you can identify which reactor produced which radio-active isotopes that are then made into weapons. As It was explained to me, if a nuclear device were detonated, an examination of the residue could be used to traces where it came from, which reactor produced it, down to which hole in the ground the original ore was pulled.
I may not have all the details correct, but that is essentially correct, as far as I know. This is, I believe, one of the ways they keep tabs on nuclear proliferation and who is giving what to whom.
Diehards within the early movement were opposed to this, because it was making peace with infidels and idolators, and seemed to go against what they understood the teachings of Islam to be. Moreover, the order was not based on which was more odious from the standpoint of Islamic theory, which ranks "peoples of the book", including the Jews, above "idolators", including the pagans of Mecca at the time.
Muhammad made peace with idolators when it suited the strategic interests of the movement, of the nascent state he was leading. That is the message. Such decisions must be made on the basis of political calculation, including "move order" (which potential enemy one can handle first). They cannot be made on the basis of ideological purity. That is meant to be the meaning of the hadith.
He has to make such an argument to the Islamicists and their potential supporters because they regularly attack his decision to side with the US against the Taliban as un-islamic. They condemn any peace made with infidels. He responds in effect "the prophet made peace with infidels, it is not forbidden. If the interests of the state require peace with infidels to avoid fighting on two fronts, then I may make peace with infidels." Strategy trumps ideological purity, even in terms the ideological purists demand (hadith, fundamentalist justifications).
Does he mean to insinuate to some of them that it is a tactic? Undoubtedly. Alliance with the US will keep us from being defeated by India. So we should do it. It doesn't mean we've converted to Christianity or renounced Islam. In the long run, in some ultimate religious or civilizational sense, the US too may be a rival. But we cannot possibly take on India and the US simultaneously. And Islamic legitimacy does not require us to try.
That is how I read the hadith portion, which I discussed in my previous reply in summary form.
He would become involved in such an unwinnable two front war if he took the Islamicist's advice and backed the Taliban actively, thus becoming involved in war in the north in Afghanistan, with India ready to pounce. He compares their objections to siding with the US to the early Islamic hotheads' objections to making peace with the pagans of Mecca. See my previous as well, for more context on the hadith portion of the speech.
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.