Bad Trouble in Pakistan

Pakistanis are reflected in water pooled at the site of a suicide bombing Tuesday. (Photo: AP)

Bad Trouble in Pakistan
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Columnist

Tuesday 05 May 2009

America's attention has for several years been focused on the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for good reason. Thousands upon thousands of American troops, along with tens of thousands of civilians, have been killed and maimed. The consequences for the world from these ongoing wars weigh heavily upon everything from global foreign policy to international economics to energy. A butterfly can flap its wings in Baghdad or Kabul, and half the planet will feel the breeze.

But a suicide bomber in Pakistan rammed a car packed with explosives into a jeep filled with troops today, killing five and wounding as many as 21, including several children who were waiting for a ride to school. Residents of the region where the attack took place are fleeing in terror as gunfire rings out around them, and government forces have been unable to quell the violence. Two regional government officials were beheaded by militants in retaliation for the killing of other militants by government forces.

As familiar as this sounds, it did not take place where we have come to expect such terrible events. This, unfortunately, is a whole new ballgame. It is part of another conflict that is brewing, one which puts what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan in deep shade, and which represents a grave and growing threat to us all. Pakistan is now trembling on the edge of violent chaos, and is doing so with nuclear weapons in its hip pocket, right in the middle of one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the world.

The situation in brief: Pakistan for years has been a nation in turmoil, run by a shaky government supported by a corrupted system, dominated by a blatantly criminal security service, and threatened by a large fundamentalist Islamic population with deep ties to the Taliban in Afghanistan. All this is piled atop an ongoing standoff with neighboring India that has been the center of political gravity in the region for more than half a century. The fact that Pakistan, and India, and Russia, and China all possess nuclear weapons and share the same space means any ongoing or escalating violence over there has the real potential to crack open the very gates of Hell itself.

Recently, the Taliban made a military push into the northwest Pakistani region around the Swat Valley. According to a recent Reuters report:



The United States, already embroiled in a war against Taliban forces in Afghanistan, must now face the possibility that Pakistan could collapse under the mounting threat of Taliban forces there. Military and diplomatic advisers to President Obama, uncertain how best to proceed, now face one of the great nightmare scenarios of our time. "Recent militant gains in Pakistan," reported The New York Times on Monday, "have so alarmed the White House that the national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones, described the situation as 'one of the very most serious problems we face.'"

The rest: http://www.truthout.org/050509R

and they have the 'big one'

"Peace" seems so unlikely now. Thanks for posting this.

. . . to Pakistan's stability. But, there's a bit of disagreement about to what extent all of that threatens the Pakistan government and their control over the nation's defenses and the military. The Army chief has been steadfast in his support of the civilian government and there's even talk today of a possible power-sharing agreement between Sharif and Zardari. That would make the government even more secure against some sort of inside revolt from the less moderate elements of the Taliban that Sharif has influence and ties with.

My view is that the danger is in the U.S. assuming that overt and unilaterally initiated militarism by American or NATO forces inside of Pakistan is a rational and sustainable solution to the uprisings there. Petraeus has already requested 'wartime' control over resources flowing to Pakistan which traditionally flow through the policy direction of the State Dept.. I worry that the 'danger' or 'threats' to the U.S. will be overblown into a paranoid posturing to 'defend' and 'protect' Pakistan's nukes. The first objections and adverse reactions would come from the Pakistanis themselves. The counterproductive nature of our military forces make them an anathema to whatever reconciliation which would be required to put a lid on the unrest.

Kerry-Lugar was just introduced in the Senate and should provide funding for Pakistan to take up the job of confronting the violence themselves. Of course, there will still be the prospect that these funds will be siphoned off like Musharraf used to. But, it is America's grudging battle against al-Qaeda (fought mainly against Taliban sympathizers and resistance fighters) which is the fuel that keeps the violence burning in a self-perpetuating cauldron of attacks and reprisals. The closer we get to the government there, the more resentment we generate to whatever cause we intend - even in our defense of the very democratic institutions and political process that would sustain them.

the US behavior. Obama declare that he will respect the sovereignty of Pakistan. That's mean that announced money is just a part of the real investment of the US government: in accord with the Pakistan government, a lot of undercover operations.

. . . we are already seeing an adverse reaction to the collateral effects of some of the raids. It's less clear how that reaction will affect support for the present government. I think there's a tightrope that has to be walked between whatever they do for U.S. support and the natural antipathy Pakistanis will feel toward escalated U.S. military activity beyond the Afghanistan border. Whether Zardari or any other leader there can manage the politics of a closer relationship with the Obama administration (and how the Pakistan public reacts to that) remains to be seen.

Very, very scary! :scared:

People are fleeing the area en masse. Not a good sign at all.

They said that the Taliban are taking over police stations and military outposts.

and makes as much sense as anyone I've ever heard. David Kilcullen. This is the BookTv segment:

http://www.booktv.org/watch.aspx?ProgramId=FV-10417

Charlie Rose also has an interview with him up at his site:

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/8726

fwiw

No wonder it's a mess. He's Bushco all the way.

I say we make Pakistan an offer they can't refuse and make them sell us all their nukes.
&&&&&&&&&&&

And all this time I thought it was Iran and N Korea that were our biggest problem. But who knows when we have the likes of Betrayus in charge. We are in trouble, deep trouble.

maybe this developing situation is what he was referring to. In any event, this situation is drop dead serious and must be contained. We've been able to diffuse a routine Pakistan/India show in nuclear brinkmanship but this is entirely different.

I don't believe Russia or China or India wants the Taliban with nuclear weapons in Pakistan. Perhaps we will see an alliance of these countries militarily or otherwise coming together to help resolve, or at least contain this.

...there is just no way, regardless of what D.C. wants, postures or motions, that India will simply sit by and watch as Pakistan descends into anarchy and the religious nutters get their hands on the nukes...they will intercede in some fashion or another before that happens...which may, perversely, cause the 'worst-case scenario' to come to pass anyway...