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.
True.
Do you think India is playing brinkmanship as well? They outnumber and outgun Pakistan considerably. If India were to advance, as it threatens, Pakistan's only resort could be nuclear, and then obviously India would respond. But aren't Pakistan's non-diplomatic choices pretty much all or nothing?
Pakistan has the choice to stop arming terrorists and guerillas in Kashmir. That's a non-violent solution as well. In fact, it would remove all threat of war. But, they don't want to do that. So, they are left with an all or nothing situation.
IMO, India knows that they have to sit and take it. They are just going to grumble a lot while doing it.
Careful, comments like that are likely to go to my head! In fact, I can feel my cranium swelling as I type. ;-]
" And Pakistan, neither, break it up into a rump Pakistan and allow the parts that wish to join india or be independent the option to do so. It created the Taliban, has offered alqaeda a haven..."
You are a real piece of work, you know that? First, you infer that this whole mess started with the US fighting communism in Ashcanistan, then you point out that Pakistan created the Taliban. All this stuff is a red herring.
Your solution to this whole mess: have India and the US attack and break up Pakistan. The fact that Pakistan has nukes is the "elephant in the room" you don't don't want to talk about because you gloss that fact over as blackmail and say nothing about the implications of a nuke exchange.
Vajpayee floated the idea of a joint India-Pakistan patrols of the LOC. He has stepped up to the plate and is showing real leadership. And why would Mush decline the offer after turning his back on the taliban? I doubt he gained many islamic friends after he pulled that.
I disagree, if only on the grounds that Central Asia is a halfway house on the way to the Middle East.
China is even now trying to step up its influence in the Gulf region.
Who told you that?? Rumsfeld is most definitely headed to India. Not as a tourist, either.
Unfortunately, that is the alternative to not bowing to nuclear blackmail. And, the immediate consequences would be catastrophic, both to our security and our economy.
So the US pressures India to give in to nuclear blackmail. Because although the long-term consequences are horrible to contemplate, they are long-term.
While I understand the reasoning of the Administration, sometimes it's better to go to war earlier rather than later. And, breaking up Pakistan is a great place to start.
But, who knows ...
The two main players in the Cold War were the United State and the Soviet Union. Alignment of the rest of the world's nations hinged on these players as well as their local situations. But this is the top of Alliance Pyramid. It is also key to remember that Communist countries fell into two camps - those that accepted Soviet leadership of World Communism and those that followed their main rivals, the Chinese.
The Sino-Soviet split began with the Korean War with the North Koreans becoming a direct proxy of the Chinese - much to Stalin's annoyance. It progressed through the Vietnam War where the Soviets managed to take over control from the Chinese, because Ho Chi Mihn did not want Communist Vietnam to become a puppet of the Chinese like North Korea. This greatly annoyed the Chinese, so much so that they themselves "Invaded" Communist Vietnam after we were gone. However, before the end of the War, we Nixon and Kissenger managed to take advantage of the Sino-Soviet split, by fostering good relations (good being a relative term here), with China, so as to upset the Strategic balance against the Soviets. Also, China was not in the business of trying to export Communism all over the rest of the world, as were the Soviets. This alignment has been a part of our foreign policy ever since (though not so much now, and I see an effort on Bush's part to shift it back over to non-communist Russia now that the geo-political landscape has changed).
Now, as part of that alignment came the situation between Pakistan and India. China views India as a huge threat right smack on their southern border. China does not like having neighbors in cannot control. India has never, as far as I know, been particularly fond of China. If you are going to take side in the Sino-Soviet conflict, the natural result is that you cannot align with both of them. Aligning with China was more important because of the counter-weight they provide in the overall Cold War battle. This, of course, did not endear us to the Indians. Russia, naturally, took advantage of the fact that the Indians wanted a superpower on their side to help keep Chinese from getting any ideas about expanding in their direction. The Russians wanted a proxy state on China's southern border that it could arm and use to threaten China.
Then there's poor 'ol Pakstan. Well, the Chinese armed them to keep India off balance and to act as a spoiler close to the Soviet's Southern border, who could help control some key overland access points to the sub-continent. Our "alignment" with Pakistan had everything to do with the Sino-Soviet conflict and later Afghanistan, and nothing to do with any animosity against India (which certain Indian Journalists don't seem to understand). Fortunately, the Indians were smart enough not to become a Soviet proxy state by allowing them to build ports and airbases. They did, however arm themselves to the teeth with the Soviet Union's, and now the Russians help.
Pakistan's salad days as a spoiler in that region who could count on Chinese, and to a certain extent, U.S. support, are rapidly coming to a close. It is doubtful that China is going to let themselves be drawn into that mess. The Sino-Soviet conflict is moot, except for a few lingering border issues. China does not want to jeopardize its trade, with us or others, by suddenly, and publicly jumping in on the side of terrorism, which it does if it overtly supports Pakistan. China, I think, will stay on the sidelines and pick up any pieces that fall its way, that don't require their direct involvement.
As I stated earlier, I think Pakistan will find itself faced with two choices quite soon: making a serious effort in the war on terrorism, or being left to fend for themselves against the Indians - who will clean their clock, conventionally or otherwise.
For the record, I tend to agree with swarthyguy's sentiments on most of these issues. Like I said, the author has the facts right as far as I understand them, but I don't agree with the conclusion he's drawn from them, which I read as being a knee-jerk reaction based on hold-over Cold War sentiments. IMHO. Thanks for Pinging me to the thread Swarthy.
Best Regards, PsyOp.
Gcruse, a history primer pour vous.
The US policy is very rational and reasoned but at what potential future cost for Americans?
Quite a way with words, and I can't say I don't sympathize with their frustration.
Remember this: If you help someone destroy their number one enemy, just make sure you are not no.2 on their list. We made that mistake with the Afghan Mujahadeens, i hope we will not do the same faux pas with the Pakistanis (especially when the ISI could easily 'lose' an atomic device to some jehadi group).
Second thing: Although i agree with him that a nuclear blast over St. Louis would have the widest contamination effect, i still maintain that the best 'terrorist' target would be NYC, especially Manhattan or smack in the middle of WallStreet. Why? Such an attack would not only bring the economy to a grinding halt, possibly for a very long time; but also it would have a great pychological effect, both to the West and the Jehadis. Such a strike would have more 'oomph' to the kooks than nuking america's breadbasket.
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.