What Do We Do about Pakistan’s Nukes?
If Pakistani border posts fired on NATO troops before they called in last week’s air strike, the simplest inference is that Pakistan provoked the whole incident in order to wrong-foot the United States. This seems to be Pakistan’s answer to American charges that its intelligence services helped set up the Sept. 13 attack on our Kabul embassy by the al-Haqqani network, as outgoing JCS Chief Michael Mullen charged on Sept. 22.
How does Pakistan get away with it?
In this morning’s “Spengler” column at Asia TImes Online, I observe that Pakistan has successfully deployed the “Blazing Saddles” defense against the United States: take yourself hostage and point a gun at your own head. “One step closer and the [N-word] gets it!,” the black sheriff tells a prospective lynch mob in Mel Brooks’ 1974 classic. Much as I admire Rick Santorum, his notion that we must be Pakistan’s friend because Pakistan has nuclear weapons is the wrong way to look at it. On the contrary, the U.S. should call the bluff, and threaten Pakistan with dismemberment and state failure in the event that it fails to control the terrorists who infest its military and intelligence services. It is a win-win proposition.
As I wrote:
If America puts a figurative gun to the head of the Pakistani government and orders it to extirpate the radical Islamists in the military, two outcomes are possible. One is that Islamabad will succeed. The second is that it will fail, and the country will degenerate into chaos. That is the scenario the American policy is supposed to avoid at all costs, but it is hard to see why America would be worse off. If the elements of Pakistani intelligence that foster terrorism cannot be suppressed, it is clear that they are using resources of the central government to support terrorism. In the worst case, they will continue to foster terrorism, but without the resources of the central government. From America’s vantage point, a disorderly collapse of Pakistan into a failed state is a better outcome than a strong central government that sponsors terrorism. At worst, a prolonged civil conflict between American-backed elements of the Pakistani military and Islamist radicals would leave the radicals weaker than they are now.
Pakistan’s congenital incapacity to be a “friend” of the United States stems from the fact that it is an artificial state in constant danger of fragmenting into ethnic components, and America’s objectives in Afghanistan exacerbate its problems. We have painted ourselves into a corner:
America’s misguided attempt to stabilize Afghanistan allows Islamabad to blackmail the United States by threatening to promote instability. If the United States accepts Afghan instability as a permanent condition and uses its in-country capability to wear down its enemies in a standing civil war, it can turn the tables by threatening to export the instability to Pakistan. Pakistan has been truncated before, when it lost Bangladesh. It could happen again. The object is not to dismember Pakistan, but rather to persuade Islamabad to behave. If this seems harsh, it is worth recalling that Washington has done this sort of thing before. The Reagan administration did its best to prolong the Iran-Iraq war.
As for the nukes: in the worst case, send in U.S. forces and take them away. That’s not as far-fetched as it might sound, as Jeffrey Goldberg and Marc Ambinder report in the December issue of The Atlantic. China’s presence in Pakistan complicates matters, but the Chinese have more to lose from Pakistani terrorism than we do (Pakistan’s intelligence services are training Muslim Uyghur separatists for infiltration into China’s Xinjiang province next door).
If you decadent Americans invade Pakistan and attempt to remove their nukes, it will lead to the end of the American Empire, Insha’Allah. Pakistan is a country of 180 million people. If you try to invade Pakistan, our Holy Warriors will decimate your invading Crusader forces. You already have a $15 Trillion National Debt; if you invade Pakistan you will go bankrupt, completely. Your Dollar will become worthless. Your stock market and economy will crash etc.
The weakening Americans are on their way out of the Middle East and Asia. Our Ummah has defeated them. The decadent Americans have mercilessly slaughtered millions of innocent men, women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan; but to no avail. Our Holy Warriors have defeated you; they have outlasted you; they have broken your spirit; they are sending you home broken and bankrupt. Our Holy Warriors defeated the Americans and toppled the American Empire, just like we previously defeated the Russians and toppled their Soviet Empire.
It is our time now. This is the Islamic Great Awakening. We are returning to our roots. We are overthrowing the illegitimate pro-Western and pro-Zionist puppets who the Americans and Zionists put into power and kept them in power to suppress us, to suppress the will of the people. We are no overthrowing the illegitimate dictators, and in their place we are establishing Islamic states ruled by the Sharia, all over the Muslim world. We are winning everywhere — Tunisia, Libya, Morocco, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Turkey, Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya, Kosovo, Nigeria, Sudan, Londonistan, Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels, Dearborn, Minneapolis, Patterson, Chicago, Philadelphia etc.
The Ummah numbers 1.6 billion souls; the decadent Americans are only 310 million. We outnumber you more than 5 to 1. We will defeat you, even if it takes a 100 years. You will never conquer us. We will resist until you are forced to retreat. The imperialist American infidels are on their way out of the Islamic Middle East. We defeated them. We swallowed the Crusaders up and spit them out, and sent them home with their tail between their legs, exhausted and bankrupt.
Today we will be victorious in Egypt, Insha’Allah. You Westerners are hypocrites. You say you want “democracy” in the Middle East. Well than you must support the results of the election in Egypt, irregardless of whether you like the results or not. If the majority of Egyptians support us — and they do — then how can you impose on us the secularists, liberals and leftists? That is not democracy. That is not the will of the people. Today the Americans and the Zionists will tremble in fear when they see the results of the election.
Allah is on our side. Our victory is inevitable. The Jihad and the Sharia are unstoppable! Allahu Akbar! Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Koran is our law. Jihad [holy war] is our way. Dying for the sake of Allah is our highest hope. Jihad is our path, Prophet Mohamed is our leader, and the Quran our constitution.
Islamatroll,
I’m allowing this one post. If you continue to repeat yourself pointlessly, I shall be forced to spam you.
Allahu Akhbar!
Witness the glorious struggle between our Tanzeem shaheed and the Great Satan in Philadelphia yesterday afternoon. Yes, the Eagles could not win against the Patriots but Vince Young was stellar, filling in for fallen martyr Michael Vick. The glorious Tanzeem shocked and humiliated the Great Satan’s leader Tom Brady by taking a 10-0 lead in the first quarter. They then lost momentum and were defeated, 38-20 but the glorious early victory is to be savored.
I think you a fat 47 year old white guy living in his mother’s basement……
Cool recitation Dude.
Have you seen John Candy do it in that movie with Tom Hanks, Ohh–What was the name of that?
You know the one—where they’re building the mini bridge over the river whatever.
Perhaps my favorite movie ever: Volunteers. Funny from beginning to end.
Hey IslamolondonSaudiBritabia; All you had to was——”Silence—–
I Kill You”.
I thought Ollie Okbar was a chocolate snack. Sorry.
All Mouth, If the last islamofacist were to be killed and none were left to carry the fight that muslim would scream “WE WON!” even as he died from lead poisoning from an American soldiers bullet.
All Mouth, as in the islamos will talk about their victory even as they drag their tails off in defeat.
All Mouth, The islamo’s are so overmatched the United States of America has to fight them with one hand tied behind their backs to please the euros and the UN it’s like the USA is pulling it’s punches so the l’il guy can pretend to be a big shot.
All Mouth like the screaming liberals they never shut up about their prowess, their victories and their hate, scream about injustice and the other party who is so evil yet all the time they kill and maim civilians and each other in horrible ways all to please their overly sensitive g0d.
I think he’s trying to be funny. I laughed anyway, from the get go when I read Londonistan, Saudi Britannia, Eurabia. That at least has the ring of truth unfortunately. To begin with we are leaving the Middle East after winning, although by doing so we may be throwing victory away. Also we are hardly a broken military, I think we are the best trained, best supplied, most experienced military the world has seen since the end of WWII. That was us then BTW. Winning wars tends to do that. True spilling American blood and spending tons of money we don’t have for the sake of a bunch of ungrateful Muslims has left us war weary. Leaving and scaling back our military after a long period of war is a pattern we have followed since 1776 and will repeat again and again. However we always seem to bounce back when the need to respond to new aggressors arises.
The war didn’t bankrupt us either, that’s a Dem talking point that doesn’t bear up to scrutiny. The Pentagon plans to spend $107 billion in Afghanistan next year, 0.0075 of the nation’s $14.1 trillion GDP. That’s around $100 billion for troops in Afghanistan while spending $2 trillion for Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, and other domestic spending. I fear far worse economic damage will result from the Islamists’ “victories” in Egypt and other areas where Sharia will be replacing common sense than what we are going through. Good luck with all that. The so called “Democracy” protests were actually food riots that morphed into anti-government riots, look for Egypt to be starving soon. Finally, irregardless isn’t a word, regardless of what you may have heard. Regardless of Egypt’s elections the radical Mullahs will take over and your Democracy will be short lived. It will be very lucky to last the thirty years Iran’s did, it may not even outlasts Turkey’s which with the absence of a free press could already be declared dead.
Hate to break it to you, Islamist in Londonistan, but Israel alone could defeat all of the Muslim nations, combined. Only the intervention of the Western nations you decry has saved the Arab countries so far – but no farther, I suspect, if Iran deludes itself into thinking it is anywhere near a match for Israel.
Of course, because of the potential cost in human life, mostly Arab, I hope Iran does not do something stupid. But I also must work hard to suppress the urge to hope that Iran does, because, personally, I would enjoy watching the Israel Army’s victory parade through downtown Teheran.
“I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.”
David – I don’t think America at this juncture has the stomach (or the President) to do what you suggest. Maybe a future President will do it covertly. (BTW – Why do you let Islamist from Londistan spout off here?)
Islamist,
You and your ilk are driving the world towards a horrific war, and one you will most certainly lose. The Muslim world exports oil, ignorance, fanaticism, violence and damn little else. You are the product of a hopelessly backwards and parasitical culture that is obsessed with antisemitic, genocidal pipe dreams fueled by humiliation brought on by Islamic impotence and ineptitude in nearly all areas of human endeavor . Have a nice day, chump.
Don’t feed the trolls! These shaheed-wannabee types are quite headstrong in believing their own absurd rhetoric and cannot be argued with. They must be mocked relentlessly. Witness my feeble attempt at an AllahPundit tribute above.
Perhaps the real problem with nuclear weapons is, they are an old technology that is now available to anyone who can afford the price. Pandora’s box has opened, and there’s no way to put this menace back. We can bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities and take nukes away from Pakistan, but the threat will turn up somewhere else. Is there a way to neutralize the threat rather than removing it?
As a retired US Army nuclear weapons officer, I still have a few colleagues on Active Duty with whom I frequently correspond. They tell me that Pakistani
soldiers in border posts frequently fire across the borders toward US aircraft, and they frequently give safe harbor to the Islamic terrorists of all names.
Thus the only surprise is that for once US choppers fired back instead of turning tail and running away, as they have been instructed to do by their political bosses. The solution to this problem is simple; turn India loose and let the Indians dismember Pakistan once and for all.
India has absolutely no intention of taking on Pakistan as long as the United States behaves like a weenie rather than a superpower. Obama’s fecklessness has led India to appease Pakistan. Only the US can get between China and India and make sure that the Pakistan mess doesn’t turn into a Sino-Indian confrontation.
While China values Pakistan as the “anti-India” I suspect they have taken lessons from the U.S.-Pakistan experience and will not let the Pakistanis pull their tail into a war with India. China always prefers to initiate conflict on its own terms.
Mr. Goldman,
You are a more avid scholar of history than I. Do I remember correctly that, some decades ago, China briefly invaded tiny neighboring Vietnam to “punish” her over some border incident, and that the Chinese did not do that well?
True, but India will be forced to respond to paki aggressions if forced to. The Pakistanis hate the Indians more than they hate the USA and India and Pakistan have a long history of conflict.
It does not help the peace issue that they share a common border and that Pakistan sponsors / supports terrorist activities in Indian (e.g. Mumbai, etc).
If Pakistan goes terrorist the wackos there WILL LAUNCH ON INDIA; they simply will not be able to help themselves.
An Indian to a Pakistani islamist is as an israeli jew is to a member of Hamas; they are genetically, socially, religiously, culturally programmed to engage in killing Indians (and jews); they simply cannot help themselves.
And radical islamists are suicidal and cannot wait to engage in sexual relations with all those virgins in heaven.
Let India deal with Pakistan.
JA: “If Pakistan goes terrorist the wackos there WILL LAUNCH ON INDIA; they simply will not be able to help themselves.”
Launch maybe, but more likely the Islamists in the Paki military will smuggle some Paki nukes out of there before our forces can destroy them. Then we have terrorists with nukes in unknown locations instead of terrorist sympathizers with nukes in known locations.
India has no desire to get involved with Pakistan’s dismemberment. They have more than enough Muslims inside India already and enough internal problems to not bite off more.
No, we should be out of Afghanistan and let Pakistan stew in its own juices.
“How does Pakistan get away with it”? Because America elected a Black Muslim as president, thats why.
Barack Obama is not a Muslim. He’s just the next worst thing.
Yeah, we should just send in a SOF team and take Pakistan’s nukes. Do you really think its that easy? How stupid would be the Pakis be if they told us where they were at? How dumb would they be if their security was so weak that anything short of a main force attack would succeed?
The US clearly would require a big force to secure Pakistan’s nukes.
While suppressing the native Pak population of 177 million.
For THAT job, I estimate a force of around 3.5 million will be needed.
Iraq’s population is 60 million, so presumably, at most, we would need a force three times the size of the one we needed for Operation Iraqi Freedom. But I seriously doubt that we would need anywhere near that size a force because I am confident that, unlike in Iraq, we would keep our mission limited – i.e., destroy the nukes and leave.
We would limit the mission? HA!!! The plan in Iraq was to smash and leave. How did that work out? Afghanistan? Smash and leave. Still there, aren’t we?
Radiation monitors, four to six man team, laser designator a known location and grid square with Air Support provided by a trio of BUFFs with stand off munitions.
Boxes of nuclear waste material deposited at hundreds of locations throughout Pakistan. Laugh as the Americans waste time and energy hunting.
We already know where they are. Unlike other rogue nuke powers we have been on the ground there since day one. Difficult to move them undetected. You doubt that that this mission has been planned for years? The first you hear of it will be when it is done.
We already know where the nukes are? Really? Because we’ve been on the ground there for years? Hard to move them without being detected?
Umm, we were on the ground in Pakistan for a decade and couldn’t find Bin Laden hiding less than a mile from a Pakistani military academy.
You really think the Pakis couldn’t put a weapon on a deuce-and-a-half and drive it off somewhere undetected?
Hell, we watched the Soviets for decades and didn’t find everything. We sent inspectors into Iraq for years and Saddam still managed to hide stuff from us.
Get a clue.
Yeah, if we liked the invasion of Iraq, we’ll just love Pakistan.
The Pakistanis are the most extremist, most Islamist, most terrorist-sympathizing, bunch of Muslims on the planet. At least half of Pakistanis thought that Osama bin Laden was cool.
Invade Pakistan to try to remove Pakistan’s nukes, and the Pakistani army will have sufficient warning time to either use their own nukes in retaliation or even supply some to anti-American or anti-Israeli terrorists. This runs the risk of igniting a regional nuclear war.
Meanwhile the Pak population of 177 million will be so riled up that there will be a thousand new applicants for every job posting by al-Qaeda. al-Qaeda’s recruiting headquarters will look like Wal-Mart on Black Friday.
Invading Pakistan with an army, is one option we should take off the table right now.
If the USA does not already have covert assets in place ready and able to seize or neutralize the Pakistani nuclear capability, that would be Administrative malpractice of the highest degree. We had years and years to see this coming.
Am I the only one in favor of quarantine, sanctions, and the cutoff of bales and bales of our cash to Pakistan? Or…the precise order is unimportant…sanctions, and quarantine, alternating with the closure of our cash spigot to the Paki’s? Surely not. But where are these voices? Let Congress know.
Their (the Paki’s) value to America seems ….only….. their (temporary) geograpical advantage enabling shorter U.S. supply lines to Afghanistan. They’re forcing us now to air-suppply a higher percentage (reading this morning’s WSJ) and using a longer surface re-supply line via the Black and Baltic Seas (cf: WSJ’s good map). Why do we Americans put up with this double-game B.S.?
( Side Note: Hillary was quoted as being outraged, or some such, at that recent disputed NATO incident….she hasn’t got the wit to wait until the dust clears….her priorities?…getting rid of her?….that’s another subject…)
Lastly, if the Iranians are squirming mightily at looming sanctions and financial restrictions, doesn’t that indicate that they will indeed work? The Iranians’ main lever seems to be the sea route for their oil sales. Hence, they’ll also work against the Paki’s.
With discipline (not exactly our strong suit, granted) we Americans will move into our touted gas reserves. The Iranians and the Saudi’s need our cash to support their 20th Century-acquired lifestyles away from the dunes and into urbanization…..then the shoe’s on our foot, and we Americans are not held hostage to Muslim/Islamist oil.
So much pussey-footing going on……
Why do we Americans put up with this double-game B.S.?
Well, when the Turks pulled it in 2003 it got the ball rolling, no actually it most probably started in 1983 when the “Realists” Baker and Weinberger turned tail in Lebanon after the Beirut bombing.
The reality is that Pakistan is a component of a backward tribal region which extends into Iran with it’s Baluchi east areas.
The only entities that every pacified this regon were Alexander and later the Mongols….unsympathetic conquerors who were not squemish about “collarteral casualties”.
Even the Soviets failed because although they had advanced weaponry and few scrupples, were restrained from interdicting Pakistan…by the threat of US/Chinese retaliation. Then there was the Pakistani nukes…compliments of the Chinese.
The reality of Pakistan is that it is governed from Abbotabod rather than Islamabad…
I suspect #1 is not so much a troll as a satirist…
“As for the nukes: in the worst case, send in U.S. forces and take them away.”
Sorry if I’m in the minority here, but are you insane? I’m sure the Pakistani military would be prepared for just such an event (well, at least the more radical elements of it). Therefore, not all of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons would be in one place. Pakistan currently has roughly 100 nuclear weapons. It wouldn’t be hard to hide perhaps three or four of them in places we know nothing about. So let’s say we do go in and try to get the weapons, but only get 96 of them. Not a bad average for any military operation, unless you know that those missing four nuclear bombs could wipe out New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, or any of a number of other cities in America. The bombs would NOT have to be fired at the United States. They could simply be brought here by cargo ship and easily detonated in an American port. Are YOU willing to run that risk? What IS an acceptable risk to you if American cities are on the line? The ISI is not stupid. I’m sure they have contingencies set up to prevent us from simply taking the nuclear weapons away from them. So unless you’re sure, and I mean REAL SURE, that you can get every single one of those weapons, do not glibly say that we can just “take them away” from the Pakistanis.
Do you not think we have moles within the ISI?
If not, why don’t we?
What kind of CIA/NSA/alphabet soup of national security are we running, anyway?
“What kind of CIA/NSA/alphabet soup of national security are we running, anyway?”
I am sure you mean this with tongue firmly planted in cheek. Nevertheless, our vaunted intelligence services missed the fall of the Soviet Union by a long shot. They had absolutely no inkling of the looming 9/11 disaster. They cannot make up their mind on just what Iran is up to with their nuclear program. And they scream and gnash their teeth on what a huge security breech it was that some desk jockey in Langley got exposed to the press as…well…a desk jockey! That anyone could put any serious measure of trust in these organizations is beyond me.
CR….see my #16,if the numbering doesn’t change. I seem to be clicking challenged…..
re 13. Libertyship46
This is the best argument for continued “engagement” with Pakistan.
As long as we have out military and diplomatic people talking to their Paki counterparts, we can at least keep track of who is in charge over there. Keep tabs on who has the codes to the nukes. Keep talking faec to face with our moles and contacts inside the ISI and Pak mil.
There is a serious danger in leaving Pak to ‘its own devices’ (pun intended) – after a few years we have no clue who has authority over their nukes. We need to have an updated list of all those people so we can find and kill them.
The world is not black and white. Sometimes we need to act friendly to an enemy to stay close enough to get the information we need to protect outselves.
Isolationism became obsolete in 1941, and is even more stupid when dealing with nuclear weapons.
The usual analysis of war in the Hindu Kush and Pakistan is that, well, ‘you just can’t win’, even Alexander the Great pulled back.
Well, National Geographic has great photos of that whole area. I ask you, who WANTS to conquer that area for more than a couple of weeks?
The Americans went a step too far with Afghanistan, in attempting to make a tribal society ‘democratic’, like Eleanor Roosevelt. As to Pakistan, the USA and the West must stop sending ‘aid’ to that benighted, primitive country. I suspect that China is in the background, promising lots of goodies that will replace American aid. At the same time, Obama plays golf, presenting a weak and foolish front to the world. The State Department, glorying in ivy league intellectuals support, this American stance.
As long as the USA lets the State Dept run its foreign affairs, and has Obama as its Commander in Chief, there is not much anyone can do. I would suspect India is preparing itself for a grand cataclysm.
Last: I don’t blame Karzai for shuffling over to the Taliban/Pakistan side. He doesn’t want to share the fate of the Shah of Iran, or Mubarak, or Khadaffy, all American ‘allies.’
Exactly.
As regards Afghanistan, go in, destroy the enemies, leave, with a stern warning to the survivors that ‘well be back’ if they misbehave, and them leave them to their tribal society as we monitor with satellites and drones, and internet eavesdropping etc. We don;t have a snowball’s chance of changing without moving 10 million Americans there.
To think of the lives and limbs we have wasted there, never mind the money, sickens me.
The reason we can’t do the same with Pakistan is the nukes, and that is a big, big problem.
The lesson here is ‘don’t let bad guys get nukes. Ever.’
I wouldn’t put it past Obama’s people to have thought this out already, and would put even money on a USA action to neutralize Iran before the election. It’s Obama’s only chance to get reelected – so he may go along with his advisers, against his own incompetent geopolitical judgement- for no other reason than to get reelected.
I wouldn’t put it past Obama’s people to have thought this out already, and would put even money on a USA action to neutralize Iran before the election.
Funny you should mention Iran, Michael…
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/report-explosion-rocks-iran-city-of-isfahan-home-to-key-nuclear-facility-1.398312
Invading Pakistan would just spark off a nuclear war in South Asia.
Pakistan has 3 backers, the USA(albeit, like you say, a reluctant one since the end of the Cold War), Saudi Arabia and China.
The US should dismantle Saudi Arabia- an easier option.China will unravel in the not too far future ( notwithstanding Kissinger’s opinions). Islam,the Tibetans AND the Chinese themselves demanding SOME economic and political rights will create a China half of todays size.I for one feel that the US should therefore concentrate on Saudi Arabia.Once that is taken care of then Pakistan’s end would begin.
I know some people feel that an Arabia lead by the House of Saud is the best option for America. I don’t think so. SA is the biggest sponsor of terrorism, Bush knew it then and Obama knows it now.
Regards
Sarat Kumar
….am standing by, waiting for your explanations how you’d have done so much better in each of those mighty situations you mentioned….given the same conditions and inherent deception of those times…..
To the CIA desk jockey trying to sound intimidating;
Apparently I could have just sat on my thumbs doing nothing, occasionally throwing a dart at the wall and I could have reached the same conclusions as your vaunted “intelligence” apparatus. And I would have done it for mere $millions, not $billions. I call that a far better return on value.
Mr.Goldman, you wrote in your Asia Times essay :
“The 100 million Muslim Uyghurs in Xinjiang constitute the greatest threat of a breakaway province within China’s borders, and Beijing has complained that Pakistan’s intelligence services are training Uyghur terrorists for infiltration into China.”
It is my belief that there are not so many muslims in China. Wikipedia numbers approx. 21 mil. of which only 10 mil. or so live in Xinjiang, and only approx. 8 mil. are Uyghurs.
I suppose that was a typo?
There exists and have existed since day one, several contingency plans for handling Paki Nukes. Most of the conventional ones are multi-division level efforts. SOF is good but this is a big effort and they don’t do multi thousand of guys kind of things….messes with their minds.
Still within our grasp, though fading quickly as force structure approaches 1933.
What is more important, who are we? Are we the superpower or not? If we are, we need to act like it. Need a route into Afghanistan? take it (a 50 mile wide swath between Iranian border and Karachi.) Then make it very very clear what happens to anyone who tries to interdict the route.
“But they won’t like us anymore.” They don’t now.
I remember POGO…”we have met the enemy and it is us”.
It sounds lovely, until you are faced with the ugly logistics of actually pulling off such a feat. A better method is containment.
If it worked on the Soviets, it will work here. Back out, and let them know that there are dozens of MIRV ICBMs with their name on it. Let them know that if they allow any aggression our way, we will respond disproportionately. They will implode due to their own sick theocracy. It will take time, but it is much more humane and much less expensive in the long run.
They made their bed. Let them lie in it.
There are too many nutballs in Pakistan for me to be comfortable with containment, although there certainly is a case to be made, especially if they are encircled by India. Scaring the pants off the Pakistanis just might work, but they have to know that in the worst case we will go in and take the nukes away from them.
David — this will not end well for Israel. Once again, some of the folks that profess to be Israel’s best friends in D.C. ala McCainiac and Graham with their regime change agenda are gonna get Golani Brigade guys killed.
excellent work Mr. Goldman
I have never heard of appeasement being a positive thing or producing desirable results.
The only practical way to eliminate Paki nukes is to blow them in place.
That is all.
Find out where the nukes are stored and bomb the site with those really big bombs.
22. blert
The only practical way to eliminate Paki nukes is to blow them in place.
That is all.
I say we let SkyNet do it. And give it control over an autonomous network of gatling gun armed Terminators and missile and laser-armed drones.
Walk away completely!! Let Paki intel know we are watching their nuke facilities by satellite, and that we will use ICBM’s if they try to transport the weapons. Or a 30 day bombing campaign to bury the facilities right after the Iranian campaign finishes up-then WALK AWAY!!! We need to get back to the unconditional surrender form of warfare, it really is less messy politically.
Re: “If you decadent Americans invade Pakistan and attempt to remove their nukes, it will lead to the end of the American Empire, Insha’Allah. Pakistan is a country of 180 million people. If you try to invade Pakistan, our Holy Warriors will decimate your invading Crusader forces.”
Dear holy warrior of Islam, you want a fight with the crusader infidels, bring it on… we’ll be happy to oblige you… as soon as we stop laughing hysterically at your ridiculous attempt at intimidating us, that is.
The nuclear Pandora’s Box has been opened in the Islamic world, thanks to Dr. A.Q. Khan, and there’s no going back. Launching a military operation into Pakistan would only provide justification to our enemies for touching off WWIII, and would not solve the problem. In any case, a nuclear Pakistan isn’t as big a threat to us as it is to Europe. As far as we are concerned, we should read Islamabad the riot act, and let them know that if a nuke sourced to their stockpile goes up in America or the nation of one of our allies, their pathetic excuse of a country will be turned into a radioactive parking lot by our counterstrike. Just one “boomer” (ballistic missile submarine) would be sufficient to return them to the stone age, permanently.
The best grand strategy concerning Pakistan and the Islamic world generally would be to isolate it, to wall it off and fold it back upon itself. The first world, which is for the most part a source of order in the world, should do its best to isolate itself from sources of disorder, of which the dysfunctional Islamic world is a major one. Obviously, this would mean an end to nation-building and other such exercises in futility, not to mention many other changes. Of course, until the Islamist in Chief Obama is gone, none of this is likely to happen.
Re: “There are too many nutballs in Pakistan for me to be comfortable with containment, although there certainly is a case to be made, especially if they are encircled by India. Scaring the pants off the Pakistanis just might work, but they have to know that in the worst case we will go in and take the nukes away from them.”
David, I respect your views enormously, but in this case, you are mistaken. We cannot unring the Pakistani nuclear bell. As much as we might like to believe otherwise, our enemies are far-from-stupid, and they have considered the possibility that someone (India being the main threat) would mount an operation to seize their nuclear arms stockpile. Islamabad has surely laid contingency plans to avert or counteract such a raid or attack. Even if, against all odds, we could seize all of their devices, they would simply regroup and make new ones, or purchase them from an ally. Most well-informed analysts believe that one or more nukes is already in the hands of a non-state actor, and DPRK, Iran, and similar sources also have to be considered. At most, we could buy ourselves some time by staging the kind of raid you envision, and at worst, we would be lighting off WWIII.
It seems that much of the known Islamic world is already engaged in warfare or violence of some kind, or preparing to do so – but we should not go in search of further entanglements in that part of the world. We have enough problems as it is, and our military is neither large-enough nor strong-enough to wage conventional war in yet another third world hotspot. Not without a national mobilization (including the draft) on the order of what we did in WWII, at any rate.
Containment is an imperfect option, I agree, but it is in fact the best one we have at present. It can work, because not every Islamist, despite appearances, is all that anxious to meet Allah up close and personal just yet. We shouldn’t be shy about letting them know that we can arrange the meeting, as the Marines like to say, but that the decision is theirs.
re: “Barack Obama is not a Muslim. He’s just the next worst thing.” Beg to differ, David; there is no conclusive proof that Obama is not a Muslim… that is, unless you take the man at his word – which is something I am unwilling to do. No one knows what lies in a man’s heart, except that man and Obama can change religions and beliefs as often as he changes clothes. What is important are his actions, which are consistent with those of a Muslim. De jure, is he Muslim? Who knows? De facto, he has long since proven himself to be Islamic, by both word and deed. Far as I am concerned, you know a man not only by what he says, but more importantly by what he does.
Who has conclusive proof they are not a Muslim? When I go to the bank they ask for an ID of me, not of all the people I am not.
Under the Muslim religion, Obama was born a Muslim. Under U.S. law, just a guy. He got baptised at 27. That’s pretty conclusive.
I would say this: for a Muslim, Obama doesn’t know squat about the culture or its history and he never will. Obama is a man who sees some things through rose colored glasses and others with disdain. He is the opposite of a pragmatic rationalist. Being a man who is hopelessly biased is probably the single thing Obama has most in common with a middle eastern Muslim; that culture, generally speaking, is devoid of faculties or traditions for self-criticism, being Marxist Critical Pedagogues in all but name centuries before Paulo Freire came along.
This is also called failure since being a Muslim is not an automatic road to success. One has to do more than show up; one has to swing the bat and hit home runs. If the middle east was a soccer league they’d be Third Division.
Send in the troops and take them away. Right.
I understand these things are on mobile launchers and are moved regularly, at least the missles. If the warheads move too, the mission amounts to, “seize the country, find the warheads, and take them away.”
Only if the warheads are in one or a few specific, fixed locations- all of the warheads- could you hope to capture all of them quickly. “If”, if they’re all there; if you can get in quickly; if you can get in without their defenses being alerted; if you can get them out cleanly; if they’re not booby trapped; etc.. Miss one and their best revenge is to give it to Al Quida (sp). Miss a few and India will be hit, and AlQuida might get a couple.
In the meantime, you are at war with a now unified Pakistan. The rest of the Muslim world too, most likely. Your allies have disowned you. 100,000 Americans are cut off in Afghanistan. Tens of thousands more Americans are in Muslim countries and in serious trouble, many will be arrested and/or kidnapped.
And just by mentioning this pea-brained idea some Pakistanis have been made more paranoid about the U.S., and their security will probably be increased.
DUMB!
Interesting concept, Mr. Goldman. From here in northern Israel, it sounds not bad. If the US forces miss one nuke-firing capacity, though, it would get interesting.
More to the point, I don’t see any post-Obama President even willing to consider such a move..
“Islamofascist” – vague. They are really “Later Verse Enthusiasts.”
US State Dept. should approach Pakistan: “For the sake of Allah, don’t do anything with the nukes! The hawks say if one nuke is detonated in the West, the reply will be a set of candy dishes where before were Holy Cities! We can’t talk them out of it!”
Around 10th Century, if memory serves as I read it years ago, doctrine changed. Before, a Muslim living outside Dar al-Islam was deemed an apostate. The change was to consider Muslims living outside Sharia lands as not apostates but colonists, and expected to be so. Perhaps the West should assist Later Verse Enthusiasts of any degree of enthusiasm to comply with 9th Century doctrine and move them to Sharia lands. As colonists and prevented by the Koran to feel allegiance to anything non-Muslim, can they ever be a citizen anyplace in Dar al-Harb?
I always love it when some ZBW start going on about how many Muslims there are or how many Paks. We don’t want to stay, and we don’t have to put more on the ground other than to do our goal. Here are somethings to consider:
Pak is only an issue when the West sells them transport. Stopping visas to Pak would go a long way to isolating the threat.
No more aid: let them starve in Islamic purity. Nancy Birsall made the point that soft power doesn’t work when the leaders might loose their jobs. On the other hand it does work when it takes away their tools of government, here graft.
Forbid them use of the financial system. Israel could starve Hamas out by merely not giving their tax revenue.
The US, has liberal guilt and fails to hold the country and its people in anyway responsible for its situation. My concern, is that the US and others are waiting for enough provocation to make the place look like the bottom of a used Shak N’ Bake bag.
The threat of Nukes is more a chess game than an actual threat because nuclear war will affect a huge part of the planet in a bad way if actually deployed.
Of course, people who blow themselves up by habit might actually deploy such nukes which IS the scary thought O’ the day.
Yikes.
Nukes have a bad rep, but our latest generation devices are very efficient and therefore quite ‘clean’ in terms of fallout and residuals, and extremely accurate as well.
The Paki nukes are a more crude type and would cause significant fallout, and their missiles are not very accurate.
We should nuke first to save the planet.
It is scary for me to see how many “appeasers” comment here. Unless trolls, and I doubt that, far too many refuse to – or are incapable of – learn[ing] from history.
Dealing with bullies, and that’s exactly what Pakistan is, is quite simple. Once threatened, hit the bully hard and keep hitting until they back down. But be prepared to hit again if they stir again, making threatening moves. Talk to them, by all means, but always be prepared to hit if one must. And if they ever escalate the hitting, there is no other recourse than destroying them. Completely. All else is posturing and fecklessness. IMO. Of course “our betters” have created an industry attempting to discover “more humane” methods than these. As if.
David,
Hats off to you for not whistling past the graveyard, but instead examining both the unpleasant reality of Pakistan and even the more unpleasant reality of devising a suitable U.S. policy. I think this discussion is useful and is hopefully being conducted at a more detailed level by government and military staffs.
I realize that you didn’t intend to produce a full blown analysis and operational plan but, although I don’t have the answers, here are some concerns I have with your discussion of significant military action (as a plausible alternative) against Pakistan:
1. Does the operation envision an acceptable amount of Pakistani nukes, other WMDs (ex. biological weapons from their fairly sophisticated pharmaceutical/biotech industry (http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/pakistan/biological/index.html)) and other dangerous portable weapons systems which will not be destroyed or seized by U.S. forces in a military action but will instead pass to terrorist groups, etc.? Pakistan produces a MANPAD, the ANZA (http://www.defence.pk/forums/wmd-missiles/1318-anza-mark-iii.html), which seems fairly sophisticated.
2. We seem to have a fair capability (based on media reports) to track various terrorist groups in Pakistan to support targeting for drone strikes. Is there any indication that our intelligence base gives us the comprehensive picture we would need to target the weapons discussed in #1 above, as well as take on the Pak Army, and various terrorists and militias?
3. Contra the commenter who seems to believe that this operation could be conducted by a few U.S. Forward Air Controllers, a few other tech guys and some B-52s, I would think a lot more force, including conventional ground forces, would be needed to even get close to assuring destruction/seizure of an acceptable amount of the items mentioned in #1 above. How will such forces enter into and be supplied w/in Pakistan (through India, amphibious assault, etc.)?
4. In general, I wish you would write a lot more about China/East Asia. In your AT column outing yourself (as DPG, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/KD18Aa01.html) you identified a part of your goal as addressing Europeans, Muslims, Americans and Asians. In any case, I’m not convinced that China is so spun up about the threat of Radical Islamic terrorism and Uyghurs that they are ready to abandon Pakistan. Pakistan seems to be a useful distraction to China’s past and possible future enemies. Your discussion of the possible Chinese deployment of 11,000 soldiers to Gilgat-Baltistan indicates that they assign a high value to Pakistan.
I don’t agree with the commenters who fear we’d have to fight 100 million screaming Pakistanis. If the problems in points 1 to 4 could be solved (big if) I would expect that we’d see more centrifugal tendencies than in Afghanistan.
I think this column is the best argument for decisive action now … against Iran, so we are not faced with two or more Pakistans in the future.
I have to add that I am experiencing a bit of schadenfreude from the irony of Obama prosecuting a cross-border war against a country supporting insurgents and terrorists. I remember how, in the 2008 election, his minions willfully misconstrued the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment (intended to throw a spotlight on Iranian support for global terrorism and in particular against U.S. forces in Iraq … the legislation endorsed some financial sanctions against Iran and called for military action against their operatives in Iraq) as some kind of Gleiwitz Incident by GWB intended to start a war with Iran (would that he had). Of course it apparently didn’t occur to or didn’t bother Obama and his supporters that he had the back of the IRGC and made it that much harder for our soldiers engaged in Iraq … such things are small change when history has anointed you as the one to transform America.
our Pakistan problem is we try to apply our western and democratic thinking to tribal cavemen. (sometimes very cunning but still tribal cavemen)
if the USA was not waging a war/nation building/stupidity in Afghanistan would anyone be even talking about Pakistan.
the problem is the drones are targeting the foot soldiers the real threat is in congress the senate and the white house.
the USA needs new leaders (ones that understand and uphold and will return the country to the constitution, they need to be found) then isolate the enemies …all of them and support the friends (that list is increasingly becoming smaller …I believe it is down to Israel and Canada).
pressure but stop worrying if so called “allies” don’t support isolation of the enemy. if they don’t support then they are not allies. All freedom loving people have a very narrow path politically so if they do not want to be free then it is unlikely they are allies.
look how clinton appeasement in north korea worked out. why is this formula still being applied to Iran and Pakistan.
get all the troops and embassy out of Afganistan and the embassies out of those other sh!tholes and turn off the lights.
An Establishment drone gets taken to task:
http://streetwiseprofessor.com/?p=5795#comment-85098
In the spirit of intellectual honesty, after reading some of the pro-intervention comments above, I’m willing to listen to the other side of the argument. Those of you who advocate seizing or destroying Pakistan’s nukes in place, go ahead and convince me.
49erDweet, re: “Dealing with bullies, and that’s exactly what Pakistan is, is quite simple. Once threatened, hit the bully hard and keep hitting until they back down. But be prepared to hit again if they stir again, making threatening moves.” In principle, we agree… but what you have described is a state of mind, not an actual plan. Care to be more specific?
Rather than list all of the problems attendent to an invasion, perhaps it is easier to recall all of the unforeseen difficulties which accompanied the invasion of Iraq in 2003. It is one thing to talk about invading a nation, quite another to do it. The same applies to mounting a large-scale spec ops raid, or a punitive raid in force of some kind. The “cleanest” option from our standpoint is using air or missile assets to take out Pakistani nukes. However, how can you be certain you’ve gotten all of them? History shows that air and missile strikes often fail to take out their targets as predicted, or do so at less than optimal effectiveness.
One last consideration: the late military strategist John Boyd reminds us that in war, the order of priority should be upon moral, mental and only then physical factors. Having the moral high ground is critical. Responding to a Pakistani attack, we have it; invading preemptively we may not. Bush could have invaded Pakistan in the days and weeks after 9-11; he had the political and moral capital to do so – but he squandered his chance. Ten years later, are the 9-11 attacks justification enough? This writer thinks so, but what about others?
I’ll await replies…
Georgiaboy61 (I’m also a “61″ vintage),
I concur with a lot of your comments and reservations (see my #35 above) but if we oppose the possible COA of decisive military action to remove Pakistani nukes then we perhaps have the obligation to come up with a plausible alternate strategy that will be effective for at least medium-term. What’s the answer: blockade, containment, diplomatic engagement, UN;-)? I don’t know.
For me, the only good thing about the Pakistan problem is that it makes the Iranian problem look solvable …
Seems like it would be a fairly easy country to blockade. 175MM people with very little of their own energy resources. While Iran is next door, it’s not like they have extra refined product production to share.
They are self-sufficient in natural gas courtesy of Baluchistan.
Hence, their auto fleet is massively into CNG.
Financially Pakistan receives Gulf remittances in the billions from construction labor.
Said boom is over.
blert, I dunno about you, but after the Senate passed this bill giving the military the right to detain any American anytime including on our soil I’m checking out. No more comments, anywhere, under any pseudonym, from any IP, not even a Starbucks. Screw it. If the banksters want to arrest everybody I’m not giving them an IP to home in on, at least.
Re: “I concur with a lot of your comments and reservations (see my #35 above) but if we oppose the possible COA of decisive military action to remove Pakistani nukes then we perhaps have the obligation to come up with a plausible alternate strategy that will be effective for at least medium-term. What’s the answer: blockade, containment, diplomatic engagement, UN;-)? I don’t know. For me, the only good thing about the Pakistan problem is that it makes the Iranian problem look solvable …”
As for anything being “solvable,” I have my doubts as long as Obama occupies the Oval Office, but leaving those aside for a moment, let me offer the following:
1. We shold not hesitate to talk with Pakistan – or Iran for that matter – but we should bear in mind the limitations of diplomacy. Col. Ralph Peters (USA, ret.), has argued that modern-day diplomacy of the kind western nations use, is nothing more than a form of Kabuki theater, and I agree with him. What good comes from carefully negotating an agreement, when your enemy has no intention of honoring it? Indeed, the Koran mandates that believers negotiate with infidels when Muslims do not possess the upper hand, but commands them to ignore such agreements once conditions change in favor of Islam. That is, historically, Muslims do not regard agreements with infidels as binding. So why enter into them, save perhaps as legal cover with the UN?
2. Given #1 above, our policy should focus almost entirely on what is being done (or not done) by our adversaries, and should ignore (with qualified exception) what is being said. TR applies – speak softly and carry a big stick. Our nuclear “stick” is much bigger than theirs, and we should remind them of it often. We also possess superior conventional forces, though not by as big a margin as some believe (our military is rather on the small side, given what’s being asked of it, and such plans as these).
3. Our policy should be one of containment, upgraded to blockade and economic quaratine if conditions warrant. Pakistan could be sealed off from the sea fairly easily, but land is another matter. Sealing off Pakistan by land is probably impossible, but we might be able to apply enough pressure to prevent critical imports, such as food and energy, from entering or leaving. However, her neighbors in Iran and Turkey might take offense, and jump in on the side of their coreligionists. That should factor into our policy. We do not presently have the means to fight a large-scale war in Pakistan, should it come to that. We would need the support of European allies, Israel, India, or both.
4. I advocate a more unconventional path modeled on convert operations against carefully selected targets, along the lines of what Israel is now doing to Iran. There are a lot of ways to cripple or make less effective a nuclear program, short of all-out war. Needless to say, we can’t leave fingerprints on any of this, or it blows back onto us, and we invite retailiation.
5. The danger isn’t over there, it is here. Neither Pakistan nor Iran possesses a delivery system of sufficient sophistication and technological advancement to mount a nuclear attack against us via an ICBM or strategic bomber. They know this, so an attack – should one come – is likely to be via one or more nukes smuggled into a U.S. city, or perhaps one or more fired at us from a Club K-type system, perhaps on a freighter in the Gulf of Mexico, or the like. We should be alert to missile attacks, too, because who is to say that the Chinese or Russians haven’t sold them a delivery system?
The Muslims also know that we can be hurt via our allies, since our economies are so tightly networked. Therefore, a nuclear strike against Europe, say France, or even against one of the big oil terminals in the ME or South Asia, would be very damaging to us, without actually hitting us directly. Therefore, we need to get France, the UK, Germany, et al. onboard. We can’t have them shaking our hands, and then turning around and supplying Iran with high-speed centrifuges, for example, as happened before. Of course, Israel should be our partner in these efforts also, since they will be affected by our policy choices in the region. Last, and perhaps most important, we need the Indians as allies. They know Pakistan in a way that we do not, and they have many incentives to ally with us.
6. We should inform our enemies and would-be enemies that if we are attacked, our response will be “Roman,” which is to say annihilating.
Islamabad, Tehran, etc. should know that we will not hesitate to turn their nations into radioactive glass, should they hit us with a nuke or other WMD. They’ll be much less likely to pull on superman’s cape, if they think they’ll get exterminated for doing so.
7. For the time being, I believe we should sit tight and see what develops, while working up contingency plans behind the scenes. We should also be building an alliance in case the balloon goes up.
8. If possible, it is in the interests of the United States to build better relations with Russia, especially concerning the threat posed to the developed world by the large belt of Islamic African, ME, and S. Asian nations that borders the Russian Federation. There is some evidence that Russian political leaders are starting to wake up to the threat, and that they may be open to a reproachment between the old Cold War rivals. Russia is the northern flank of any effort in Pakistan, and should be secured. Obviously, Putin and company have ample means of causing mischief should they choose to do so, and having Russia jump in on the side of Pakistan and/or Iran makes it a whole new ballgame.
The Russians regard us with suspicion, perhaps rightly, thanks to our opposition to their invasion of Afghistan – but that was then, this is now. Our interests and theirs have changed. Perhaps a strategic reallignment is possible. We blew a historic opportunity to build a better relationship with Moscow during the 1990s, by siding against Russia’s longtime regional ally the Serbs, who are Christian, and with Muslims in the Balkans. We should have sat that one out, but Clinton, that fool, wasn’t smart enough to do that. Maybe we’ll make beter choices next time. All I know is that we don’t want to make an enemy of Russia. Moscow these days is much more interested in getting rich, than in waging war – and we should strive to keep it that way. What is our move if Moscow is against action being taken against Islamabad? That’s a question that needs to be asked. We should also ask it of India and other actual/potential allies.
Oh, BTW, we can’t undertake anything like an invasion, blockade, etc. as long as we have forces trapped in Afghanistan, which is landlocked and separated from the sea by Pakistan. That is, unless we want to attack now, while we have forces in the enemy’s rear. It is almost a certainty that an attack on Pakistan would drag Iran and perhaps other Muslim nations, into the fight. Such a war wouldn’t remain “limited” for long in my view.
Cripes allmighty! I wrote a book… sorry about that, folks…. I’ll keep it shorter next time.
The problem is not Pakistan. It is Afghanistan. It is currently our Chosin Reservoir. BO has been trapped. The control on Pak nukes is India. Let those two figure that out. We need to just get out of Afghanistan. Mission accomplished – we are not retreating we are advancing in another direction – we are surrounded but it is a great opportunity. Let a tribal country remain as it has for years. We have no national interest here after killing the bad guy. Getting out is simple – just get out – tell Pakistan we are moving out and do not interefere with our movement to do so. Keep all the stuff on the road to the pass. We are coming out by air. No more money as we do not need either of you – Afghanistan or Pakistan and throw in the Russian allied other stans. We need to take control and do what we need to do.
The best & ONLY way to deal with Pakistan is to encourage it’s disintegration as a state. The easiest way to do do this is to actively support the insurgency in Balochistan (the Afghans & Indians would be only too willing to help). An independent Balochistan would solve the problem of supply routes to Afghanistan as well as trigger demands for similar entities like Pakhtunistan (erase the Durand Line) in the West and Balwaristan in the North. Sind may also have similar aspirations.
As an Indian, it pains me to say that the Indian government in 1998 (lead by the Hindu right wing govt) made a great strategic blunder when it declared itself a nuclear power forcing Pakistan to follow suit and unneccesarily making the region even more volatile than before.
The Israeli govt offered the Osirak option to do away with Pakistans nuclear program to then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.Rajiv being the craven milquetoast mommys silver medalist(his late mother was grooming his late unlamented forcible vasectomy enthusiast brother Sanjay for the post) refused the offer and ended up screwing up Kashmir and relations with Sri Lanka and got killed by the LTTE in the process.
The current Indian political establishment is a joke.I dont see any one who the courage of Indira Gandhi(she was a socialist and Kissinger hated her but she did tear Bangladesh away from Pakistan) or the strategic vision of Narasimha Rao(who used the seperatist group MQM in Pakistan to set Karachi aflame,set the Indian economy on a free market path and navigated post cold war Indian foreign policy towards a more pro West approach by thawing relations with U.S and establishing full diplomatic relations with Israel).
It was the schizophrenic “Hindu nationalist” BJP which attacked Pakistan in words but appeased it in action -by bungling the 1999 kargil war,did nothing while terrorists from Pakistan ran amuck in Mumbai,Delhi and Hindu sacred sites and negotiated with hijackers while encouraging much hyped border crossing and “normalization” of relations!26/11 and other security disasters are the fruits of their feckless policies.
The grizzled ,tough and bellicose politicians are shunted aside in favor of the gutless and craven to be manipulated by Sonia Gandhi.
So dont expect any bold moves from the Indian side just yet!
As nature has it: If those 180 mill. islamic heroes go for trouble we have the necessary tools at hand: Napalm is a time-honored tool to domesticate hordes of rogue savages. Trust me I have seen it work…