Posted on 06/04/2002 7:32:52 PM PDT by swarthyguy
May 31, 2002 is likely to turn out as fateful a day in history as September 11, 2001, when the superpower was attacked on its home turf.
On the former day, the sole superpower virtually yielded to nuclear blackmail by Pakistan (conveyed by its ambassador to the UN). Instead of taking Pakistan to task as was done in 1990, the US chose to keep silent on the issue. Worse, the US administration obliged Pakistan by recalling its staff from the subcontinent.
Whether this was a momentary loss of nerve on the part of Washington or a permanent cerebral stroke incapacitating the superpower, the next few weeks will tell, as deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage and defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld visit the subcontinent.
The advisory of US and western powers to their nationals verged on utter panic. It also brought out two factors which will affect the future, irrespective of any policy reversal by the United States and possible recovery of its confidence. First, in spite of the non-proliferation treaty, the counter-proliferation strategy and the Security Council summit resolution of January 1992, the US and its nuclear allies are in no position to impose nuclear discipline on Pakistan.
The message is loud and clear to other potential rogue states that if they could clandestinely acquire nuclear weapons, then the US and the rest of the international community would keep off. It would confirm the potent role of nuclear weapons in international relations.
The western leaders praised General Musharraf for more than four months for his speech of January 12, 2002 and his commitment to stop cross-border terrorism. Then, on May 31, 2002 they spoke about the possibility of an Indo-Pak war consequent upon the continuing cross-border terrorism. In other words, the sole superpower and its allies were not able to prevail upon Pakistan to abide by its commitment and invoke Security Council resolution 1373 (which mandates states not to support terrorism).
Further, Bin Laden, Mullah Omar and the leadership cadres of the Al-Qaida and the Taliban are today in Pakistan and regrouping their forces. In spite of Pakistan being an ally of the US, the terrorists were able to move from Afghanistan to Pakistan in November-December 2001 before the Indo-Pak border stand-off began and while the Pakistani army fully manned the Afghan border.
Out of 22 leaders of the Al-Qaida, only two are accounted for. Most of the high profile operations of the elite US and British forces on Afghan-Pakistan border have been futile.
The US vice-president and the director of FBI have asserted that new terrorist threats are inevitable and cannot be stopped. Yet, they seem oblivious of the fact that today the epicentre of terrorism is Pakistan, from where the Al-Qaida is busy plotting new attacks on the US.
The Al-Qaida used to proclaim that they had defeated one superpower (the Soviet Union) and they would surely defeat the second (the US). The US’s current indulgent behaviour towards Pakistan would appear to validate their claims.
Lastly, by giving in to Pakistani nuclear blackmail, the US has allowed the nuclearisation of terrorism, thereby encouraging the Al-Qaida and the jehadis to continue their terrorist activities behind the shield of Pakistani nuclear capability. Today, the Al-Qaida and the Taliban may have lost Afghanistan, but they have successfully established themselves in the safe haven of Pakistan, thanks to General Musharraf’s brilliant strategy of claiming to be an ally of the US, while in practice supporting and sustaining the operation of the terrorist groups.
This strategy is derived from the one successfully practised by the Al-Qaida and the jehadis in the eighties in Afghanistan. They derived their weapons, skills and other resources from the US for the purpose of overthrowing Soviet occupation and used them successfully against the US itself. Similarly, using General Musharraf’s professed alliance with the US, the Al-Qaida will derive the necessary wherewithal to wage its war of terrorism.
In this respect, General Musharraf has been hunting with the American hound even while running with the jehadi and Al-Qaida hares.
In these circumstances, the world, as well as India may have to adjust themselves to a new international security paradigm in which the sole superpower does not have the will to commit itself to a war against terrorism or towards effective countering of nuclear blackmail. The present Indian strategy is based on certain assumptions of superpower behaviour.
The May 31 events call for a radical reassessment of our assumptions. The possibility of the US not pursuing the war against terrorism or countering nuclear blackmail has to be factored in our calculations. Many may rejoice in the sole superpower losing its nerve and abdicating its responsibility.
Others may be disoriented by it. For the Al-Qaida and the jehadis, this will be a morale booster and it will be logical to expect them to initiate more terrorist attacks both against India and the US.
The former is far more vulnerable than the latter. It is also possible the Americans may treat this as a temporary loss of nerve and return to their normal superpower behaviour pattern. In that event continuity will be restored, though at significant cost to the US image and credibility.
If that is the case then Bush is smart not to ask for a declaration of war. I see that he has backed off of Iraq, now this Pakistan thing, his harping on Israel not to defend itself, weird enough war as it is without getting the inept congress in on the action.
We never expected to get more than flyover rights, an air base or two and some logistical support from Musharraf or his generals, despite their very public pronouncements of full support. This is why we made arrangements for other bases in Russia and some of the other Stans. We know he let many of the people we were after escape into his country and then proceed to Kashmir. But our immediate mission was to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban and Binnies boys. We knew some of them would escape and that we would have to hunt them down elsewhere.
Don’t for a minute think that Bush, Rumsfeld or Rice didn’t understand this going in.
Well, things are winding down in Afghanistan, We have bases there now as well in a few neighboring countries, including Russia, with whom we have a new understanding. Meanwhile Musharraf still only plays lip service to the war on terrorism by denying us access into areas where we know the bad guys are hiding, while rounding up the usual harmless suspects as if we don’t know what he is doing.
We also know that Musharraf and his military are responsible for ratcheting up the incursions into India. We know he thought he could get away with it, thinking that our presence would deter India. He was wrong. When India demanded that the Pakistani military better do something, we seconded their position and added, I’m sure, a few more demands regarding the people we were after. Musharraf promised to “do something”. We told everyone we thought he was sincere, even though we didn’t really believe it (do you think Bush and Putin only talked about our missiles?). Essentially we gave Musharraf a chance to put up or shut up. He’s done neither.
Meanwhile, he has managed to royally piss off a heavily armed neighbor with which his country has a running and bitter feud. We have in several statements backed India’s complaints to Musharraf, while asking the Indians not to do anything rash - yet.
India has stated that the presence of U.S. troops, personnel, diplomats and citizens in either country will not be a deterrent should they decide they need to take drastic action. We have not rebuked them for those statements, instead, we have taken them at their word and told our people in India, and Pakistan, to leave if they don’t want to risk the mother of all sun-burns.
Rumsfeld is not going to India. Why? Because we have nothing much to say to India. Rumsfeld is going to Pakistan to talk to Musharraf. Why? Probably to tell them do a quick inventory of their nuclear arsenal and do a little math. He may even have taken the Bush’s copy of Eight Days in October as an audio-visual aid. Or, maybe, Sum of All Fears. They are probably going to be told to real serious about fighting terrorism real fast. That or face the music with India. Rumsfeld will tell them that the calculus doesn't work in their favor and that the prevailing winds blow from west to east across Afghanistan and Pakistan - so Musharraf will know which way the breeze he’s swinging in blows....
Nuclear Blackmail? I think not.
If, after Rumsfeld returns home, you hear of U.S. Troops “re-deploying” to Afghanistan from our “ally” to the east... Then grab a beer, pop some corn, and tune in CNN, cause its gonna be quite a show. Hey! We may even get some live shots from the International Space Station! Won’t that be cool........ I’m looking forward to the show.
Here’s something worth reading from Musharraf: http://www.dawn.com/events/speech/20010919/index.htm
Who says? Personally, I would trade Los Angeles for a bowl of crispy noodles.
I wish that was the case. Sadly the men of US (or any other special forces from the Brit SAS to the Israeli Sayeret to the Russian Spetsnaz) are this: amazing people who are braver than most humans can comprehend, and are highly skilled technicians who can accomplish that which is normally not possible in a largely unorthodox manner.
Sadly however, they are not supermen!
Getting into Pakistan (even a nuked Pakistan) would be a logistical nightmare, and the operationw ould be rife with dead US soldiers. Also, and this is actually more important, Pakistan has set up a myriad of mobile launchers and secret launch sites in a bid to hide their nukes from the Indian RAW and the Israeli Mossad intelligence services. And they have accomplished that! I doubt our US services are that much better than those (especially when you consider Israel and India face the threat of 9-11+ every single day, ranging from Katushya rocket attacks from Lebanon into Israel to ISI funded Kashmiri extremists into India).
Also the US intelligence service was fooled in 1998 by the Indians who had been tracking our spy satellites and making us think their nuke test sites were agro-farms! Remember, without good intelligence even the best spec-ops soldier is for naught! He can still be shot, wounded and even killed.
Think Somalia, although we killed over a thousand of them we still suffered an effective ambush and many American dead. All due to bad intelligence and complacency. A similar example occured in Afghanistan when some of our spec-ops were ambushed due to poor intelligence, and several men died.
Now imagine for a moment what a foray deep into Pakistan would entail for a band of men, especially when they have to infiltrate hostile territory, ferret out mobile launchers and hidden IRBMs, and either dismantle them or blow them sky high. The very thought itself is prohibitive.
You need honed intelligence. And even with that i really do not think it is possible to take down ALL of the Pakistani nukes. And remember this.... you only need one low yield kiloton device set off in a place like WallStreet to put the US in an economic tailspin that it would probably never recover fully from.
And all that these terrorists want is just one bomb. Not an arsenal. And i think in the event of a defeat the Pakistani ISI would be willing to provide that one nuke as an end-game strategy.
Whihc is why i hope that you belief is correct. That our men are supermen. Sadly i believe they are not supermen.... just super-trained men. And to get rid of Pakistani nukes we would need an actual ubermensch, a true superman!
Hence the answers to your question. Is it possible: yes, however so improbable are the chances of success that it might as well be totally impossible. Is it difficult: So difficult it brings a new meaning to the word!
However that was not the funny part
The joke came when this chap decided to interject and post a question about the matchup between the Pakistani airforce and the USAF! Yep, you heard me right. Pakistani jets versus American raptors!
Well, people started posting left right and center; and the gist fo the discussion was that due to the Pakistani's 'superior pilot training' they would win the Americans.
Ok, lets look at this. The best plane the Pakistanis have is the F-16A. And this version was sold to them by the US in a manner that was meant to minimize high tech. Hence the F-16s sold to them could only carry SideWinders (they could not even carry sparrows) and had no BVR capability. The rest of their planes are just peices of flying junk.
And they expect these laughable museum artifacts to tango with AMRAAMS and Phoenixs that can shoot them while they are still in Pakistani airspace?
And India has Su-30s and enhanced Mig-29s (not the monkey models that Iraq had during the gulf war), and some of India's frontline jets have RAM coatings that reduce Radar signature by 70%, making them stealthy and a nightmare for Pakistan. And the sukhois with their R-77 AMRAAM-ski just makes matters worse for the Pakistanis.
Now, if the Pakistanis cannot face stealthy Su-30MKIs that can shoot them down 80 miles away, how are they to face a true Stealth aircraft like US has. B2s will be dropping JDAMs on Lahore and Karachi before they can pray to Allah thrice.
It is just a sign of how pathetic these folk are. They cannot even match India's military might, especially in the air, and now they expect to be able to best the USAF! Talk about picking a fight with a rabid dog, and then deciding to leave that fray and enter into a scrap with a rabid BEAR!
At this rate the Pakistanis will be saying they can face the USAF, the RAF, the Russians and the French combined! Although in second thought they may actually be able to beat the French. :D
I hear the reason the French built the Rafale manouevrable fighter was to have a fast jet to exit the theater of war with. And expensice escape pod! Haha.
However a bigger haha for the Pakistanis if they think their measely lil' airforce can best massed F-15s firing salvos of AMRAAMS with Orions and Hawkeyes flying as information linkages! It would be suicide.
However remember the mantra of the Muslim: With aLLAH anything is possible!
Have we lost a potential ally in India now? If America had supported a nuke war there in favor of India, what would have been the opinion of India? Better? I don't think so either.
One thing is for sure, the administration's rhetoric on terrorism is as satisfactory as Hoover's rhetoric on the 1929 crisis. Though both administration were good, they need to show a bit more resolve to the people.
If those statements were for real then that's still bad news for us.
You got it - for India - " You are either with Pakistan or you are with us " America chose Pakistan as a frontline state against "communist expansionism and has paid a price with September 11 and still trying to "prove" to India that they are useful. Till US dumps Pakistan - lock stock and barrel and converts it into a wasteland - India can never be friends with America.
China taking over the Moon or Mars before we get there, NOW that's something I worry about. China should wait until we build the first moon colony, then let us open the first Wal-Mart in space so they can sell their crap there; saves them the $$$.
I presume this chat was in english, and so the chatroom was based somewhere in the West?...and to what extent do you think their attitudes reflect Pakistani natives (in-country)?
Regardless, the scary thought is if they grasp so little about air combat, it begins to explain the vacuum in their understanding of nukes, hence their likelyhood to use something they have no clue about the outcome.
All valid points. I'm sure that the powers that be did everything possible to keep Musharraf in power, because his replacement would be far worse. They also pressured India not to attack because it could lead to nuclear war and that would be catastrophic to all of us. In short they tried to contain events.
However, in doing so - in avoiding war, the US let Pakistan's nuclear blackmail stand. And, that sets a dangerous precedent. It establishes a situation where if you have the bomb, no one can stop you from doing anything. I'm sure the Iraqis and Iranians paid close attention. And, who knows who else.
It's just a tough situation. If you let Pakistan's nuclear blackmail stand, things will get worse. If you let India destroy Pakistan in a nuclear war, the 'current world order' collapses.
Very frightening. I wonder what the US would do? Here's a little tidbit from a professor who created nuclear war models.
If you had only one bomb, where in the US would you drop it?
Answer: St. Louis, Missouri. It might contaminate the Missisippi/Missouri river system and harm the US breadbasket.
So the question is: Al Queda reports that there's a bomb somewhere in the US? What does the US do?
Al Queda
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.