Political Commentary, War Commentary

A “Troubled Marriage”?

6 Comments

No, Pakistan is essentially at war with us, and has been for many years.

More thoughts from Stanley Kurtz:

Unfortunately, it’s now time to at least begin thinking about what the United States should do in case of either an overt anti-American coup within Pakistan’s army, or in case Kayani himself is forced to effectively break relations. Although liberation from Pakistan’s double-game and reversion to honest hostility might come as a welcome relief to some, I see no good scenario here.

Should anti-American elements in Pakistan’s army displace Kayani, they would presumably hold our supply lines to Afghanistan hostage to a cessation of drone attacks. The step beyond that would be to cut off our Afghanistan supply lines altogether. Our minimum response to either of these moves would likely be a suspension of aid (on which Pakistan’s military is now dependent) and moves to provide India with technology that would give them major advantages over Pakistan. Pakistan may run eagerly into the arms of China at that point.

These developments would pose many further dangers and questions. Could we find new supply lines, and at what geo-strategic price? Should we strike terrorist refuges in Pakistan, perhaps clashing with Pakistan’s own forces as we do so? Would Pakistan actively join the Taliban to fight us in Afghanistan? In short, would the outcome of a break between America and Pakistan be war–whether low-level or outright?

There is no good or easy answer here. If there is any single spot it would be hardest for America to walk away from conflict, Pakistan is it. Bin Laden was not alone. Pakistan shelters our greatest terrorist enemies. An inability to strike them there would be intolerable, both in terms of the danger posed for terrorism here in the United States, and for the safety of our troops in Afghanistan.

Yet the fundamental problem remains Pakistan’s nuclear capacity, as well as the sympathy of many of its people with our enemies. Successful clashes with Pakistan’s military may only prompt sympathizers to hand nuclear material to al-Qaeda. The army is virtually the only thing holding Pakistan together. A military defeat and splintering of the army could bring an Islamist coup, or at least the fragmentation of the country, and consequent massive expansion of its lawless regions. These gloomy prospects probably explain why our defense officials keep counseling patience, even as the insults from Pakistan grow.

Pakistan has always been the biggest problem since 911 (and before, actually, though we didn’t realize it). It would be an impossible military task to conquer the country, absent massive carnage, but I wonder if there would be some way to take away the nukes?

6 thoughts on “A “Troubled Marriage”?”

  1. I’ll repeat what I said in a prior thread – Pakistan is not at war with the USA or the West; it is solely at war with India. They will use us AND fund terrorism simultaneously becasue both activities (in the short term) help them fight India and dominate Afghanistan (which helps them fight India).

    The problem with Pakistan is that there is no central command and control over the nation which weeds out mutually exclusive strategies for fighting India (such as both funding and protecting terrorist groups and working with the USA). Disbanding the ISI won’t create this central authority; and moreover disbanding the ISI is impossible because there is no central authority powerful enough to disband it (or de-fund it, thanks to their involvement in the Afghan opium trade).

    Pakistan isn’t a singular nation like England or France, and it lacks the history or culture that will allow it to every cohere into one. It’s a fucking acronym for Christ’s sake. (Punjab-Afghan-Kashmir-Sindh … and Balochistan contributes the “tan”, I guess.)

    To paraphrase Henry Kissinger, “When I want to speak to Pakistan, who do I call?” There’s no one at the other end of that line.

  2. You can create a central command in Pakistan but apparently no one in the US has the stomach for what it would take. Other countries are and are more than willing to step in where we won’t.

  3. It is interesting the the Taliban are attacking the Pakistani military over the death of Bin Laden. Seems like punishment for the military not living up to their end of the agreement.

  4. In the event of another big Mumbai-style attack against India-and there will be one-don’t have any doubts about that, the USA should join India in any retaliatory action against the Pakis. There are many people in India today who think Pakistan is a mistake. I think the USA should help India at least reduce the size of the problem. In helping India, we should pay special attention to Waziristan. I think an aerial version of Sherman’s March to the Sea would solve the problem nicely.

  6. I’m not going to argue this one way or the other, but I am going to note that the “nation” of Pakistan is a geopolitical fiction. There’s a territory on the map by that name, but it’s really two or three different “nations” (for values of nationhood). There are definitely major factions (tribal, religious, political, combinations of the preceding, &tc.) at war with the West, with Western Civilization, with Christendom, and indeed with the United States.

    I’ve quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms2.blogspot.com/2011/06/re-troubled-marriage.html

Comments are closed.