Tempting Fate In Pakistan
There is absolutely no questioning the fact that Waziristan is a region rife with support networks and training grounds for guerrillas that ultimately operate against foreign forces along the Afghan frontier. It is also certainly not a stretch to say that elements within the Pakistani military infrastructure don’t merely ‘tolerate’ them but aid them. The ISI, for example, has a significant history of aiding the Taliban.
That said; the BBC has learned that President Bush has, within the last two months, personally authorized US military incursions into Pakistan to confront guerrillas without first obtaining the approval of the Pakistani government. While the attacks have been primarily carried out by air, ten days ago US troops crossed the Pakistani frontier to carry out a ground assault in violation of Pakistani sovereignty.
While some might cheer such bravado, Bush’s failure to obtain the approval of Islamabad was, in truth, a mistake. The US ambassador to Pakistan may have been summoned after news of the ground assault reached the capital and politically admonished for it, but the reality remains that the Pakistani government isn’t actually in control of the country, and that is something that Washington is aware of.
Unfortunately, to believe Pakistan’s ‘ghost government’ stupid enough not to realize that the US has worked diligently to split their attentions by stirring things up in Kashmir and aiding in India’s nuclear development, is a stretch. Such actions are precisely why the likes of the ISI continue to allow militants in Waziristan to operate freely, because they represent both a deterrent against their own destabilization and a proxy force used to ensure Pakistani influence in the region. In fact, even the now sainted Benazir Bhutto used the Taliban for the latter.
As Dexter Filkins wrote not too long ago in New York Times Magazine…
“So here was Namdar — Taliban chieftain, enforcer of Islamic law, usurper of the Pakistani government and trainer and facilitator of suicide bombers in Afghanistan — sitting at home, not three miles from Peshawar, untouched by the Pakistani military operation that was supposedly unfolding around us.
What’s going on? I asked the warlord. Why aren’t they coming for you?
“I cannot lie to you,” Namdar said, smiling at last. “The army comes in, and they fire at empty buildings. It is a drama — it is just to entertain.”
Entertain whom? I asked.
“America,” he said.”
Pakistan is not Iraq. Not only is it a nuclear power, but a nation with considerable covert and overt military experience. That said, it is important to remember that Mr. Bush will be leaving office this winter. Therefore, the likely blowback that the provocation of the Pakistani military establishment will produce will not be his problem, and that is a very dangerous reality given the fact that he still has over three months left in White House.
Want to bookmark or share this entry?
This entry was posted on Thursday, September 11th, 2008 at 6:49 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 11th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
13 millions Pashtuns in Afghanistan, the main group making up the Taliban and 25 or so million Pashtuns in Pakistan, many in the military, is it any wonder there’s support for the insurgency in Afganistan. While not all Pashtun clans are allied, they do share a common culture and tradition and are likely to combine to resist outside threats.
What Bush is attempting is futile…and dangerous.
September 11th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
The final foolish move that will cost America dearly is Bush/Cheney’s last desperate attempt to kill Bin Laden. They still have not figure out that you can not kill a legend. Al-Qaeda is not just Bin Laden anymore. Actually, I believe Bin Laden’s death by American plan will rouse his base inciting the worst rash of terrorist attacks we have yet experienced.
Ever since the bombing in India this summer, I’ve been watching the Kashmir situation (thanks to the BBC), but I never understood it was the US working behind the scene. Talk about playing with fire. I still believe the first nation to nation nuclear confrontation will be between Pakistan and India. It is the weakest link.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Salros… I didn’t understand almost any of your comment…
And what Bush is attempting was the right course of action seven years ago, I do not think that it is the wiser of decisions now, but it is a decision that should’ve been made a long time ago.
And there have been numerous attempts to come to an agreement over allowing military action within Pakistan’s borders that have failed. Though sending Condi only ensures that an agreement will not be reached.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Dear Mr. Good,
There is an interesting, analytical article in “The India Post” by Sonali Huria on the subject:
http://indiapost.com/article/perspective/3545/
September 11th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
[quote comment="64732"]The final foolish move that will cost America dearly is Bush/Cheney’s last desperate attempt to kill Bin Laden. They still have not figure out that you can not kill a legend. Al-Qaeda is not just Bin Laden anymore. Actually, I believe Bin Laden’s death by American plan will rouse his base inciting the worst rash of terrorist attacks we have yet experienced.
Ever since the bombing in India this summer, I’ve been watching the Kashmir situation (thanks to the BBC), but I never understood it was the US working behind the scene. Talk about playing with fire. I still believe the first nation to nation nuclear confrontation will be between Pakistan and India. It is the weakest link.[/quote]
i agree with your comment wholeheartedly, though the way i took it may not necessarily be the way you had meant it..i agree that you can not only not kill a legend, but that any attempt to try and kill bin laden will instigate horrific repercussions…al-qaeda is not just bin laden, you are bang on there. whether bin laden is dead or alive makes no difference really, because his legacy and the ideas he has installed in his faithful followers will live on..i don’t know if one would classify it as a religion, it would almost seem as such now, but it is definitly a mission to destroy western culture and their way of life..it is ironic that the u.s. has so many ties with the one they have found reason to wage war against (but after i saw the movie i am about to tell you of it is beginning to make sense…). i haven’t been on this site too long so i have not read too many past posts yet, but i am wondering if anyone has seen the movie “where in the world is osama bin laden?” (2008) it is funny (funny, as in strange, not funny ha ha) that this evening i watched this movie and then logged on to find this post…anyways, the movie stars and is directed by morgan spurlock, the same man who spawned “super size me” a few years back, and i highly recommend it to anyone who is following the battle overseas…it certainly gives valid insight into how those living in the epicentre of this nightmare percieve us, this war, and life in general…
September 12th, 2008 at 1:45 am
“Cannot”.
Also, Kashmir has been disputed long before the US got involved.
September 12th, 2008 at 5:19 am
[quote comment="64740"]Salros… I didn’t understand almost any of your comment…
And what Bush is attempting was the right course of action seven years ago, I do not think that it is the wiser of decisions now, but it is a decision that should’ve been made a long time ago.
And there have been numerous attempts to come to an agreement over allowing military action within Pakistan’s borders that have failed. Though sending Condi only ensures that an agreement will not be reached.[/quote]
Pakistan is a sovereign country. You are not permitted, no matter what doctrine you cite, to cross into another country without its permission. US incursions into Pakistan risk inciting a spirit of nationalism that could give extremist an opportunity to seize the heart and soul of the Pakistan people.
Why do you thing Bush/Cheney have the military probing so hard right now? Winter is coming and the US has only a month or so before Waziristan turns white. Bush/Cheney want Bin Laden and I believe Republicans feel if Bin Laden is killed, the Republicans increase their chances to be elected.
As to the comments about Kashmir and the unresolved tension between Pakistan and India. When you throw hunger/starvation (remember the rice shortage) into this situation, war is not an unlikely outcome. If conflict between Pakistan and India does occur, most experts believe nuclear weapons will be used. And if the US is inciting flames in Kashmir as Matt’s piece suggests, the strategy may backfire.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Salros, I don’t think you understand how ineffective the Pakistani government is in many places throughout it’s own nation. There are cities that are run by “tribal leaders” whom are better called war lords running the show. I do not understand how a national government, that is still in its infancy, would not accept help to either quell the insurgency of those that do not want this government to succeed while making their borders secure for everyone.
I think there’d be a media frenzy (even worse than there was) if something like Columbine or Virginia Tech happened in Canada and perpetrated by U.S. citizens. I’d like to think you’d want your government to act to help make sure something like that is not/will not happen. Which is why I don’t understand how people in Afghanistan and Pakistan would not want to stop fighters from crossing the border to hide.
It’s nothing more than guerrilla warfare, except this time they have a “home free” clause on the Pakistani border.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:14 am
NYmike, you’ve made my point. The ineffective nature of the Pakistani government has allowed the Taliban sympathizers to secure more influence making the “tribal leaders” more powerful which is leading to more instability. If this trend is not neutralized then internal problems could flare out of control.
Why would a nation not accept American help? Our reputation for actually following up and really being there for the people Americans promise to support is not very good. As well, the more civilians the American Military kill with bombs and missiles, the greater the hatred for America grows and the seeds of discord create another generation of fanatical American killers.
You seem to have a fairly good grasp of what is happening in that part of the world. But saying, “It’s nothing more than guerrilla warfare” does not fully describe what is actually happening. Pakistan is now the most dangerous place in the world and could easily evolve into an anti-American government.
The Taliban are Pushtuns, who account for almost 48 percent of the Afghan population and their area is mainly the southern half of Afghanistan and now western Pakistan. To rule Afghanistan, the rulers have to have the support of the Pushtun; all the rulers of modern Afghanistan since its founding in 1747 have been Pushtuns, even President Karzai. The present fight being wage is for the heart and soul of the Afghan people. American had the opportunity to transform the Afghan way of life in the first couple of years after the war. Now, Afghanistan is a Narco state once again and the rural population has very little compassion for the American plan (oops, I should say Coalition). The great tragedy of the Neocon strategy was not finishing what they started. Unfortunately, I believe America did things backwards. America should have taken responsibility for developing a strong Afghanistan while leaving the world to deal with Sadam.
September 12th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
[quote comment="64831"]Unfortunately, I believe America did things backwards. America should have taken responsibility for developing a strong Afghanistan while leaving the world to deal with Sadam.[/quote]
Amen. The invasion of Afghanistan made sense, Iraq I’ve been against since the minute war was declared. Even better, Bush already declared victory in Iraq… I think that’s kinda funny in its own right.