Onward to Pakistan!

Blogger Daniel Drezner pulls together lots of the latest on the possibilities of a U.S. spring military excursion into Pakistan. It's not just a contingency plan, apparently, but a genuine action item. Read the whole thing, as they say.

Comments

[Ara]

This is a perfect test for all those whiners who kept saying "why are we in Iraq, we should be going after Al Qaeda." Well, we are now, so let's get behind it.

[Jack]

This falls into the "I'll believe it when I see it" category. I have a hard time imagining that Bush would want to risk destabilizing Pakistan in an election year since, whatever the ultimate outcome might be, it wouldn't be good in the short-run.

[Whiner]

After two years I'm still saying "Why are we in Iraq? We should be going after Al Quaida."

[LB]

During an election year, destabilizing Pakistan might be worth the risk. If the Bushies show us a Osama-on-a-pike = Win. If he grabs a living Osama, will the Democratic candidates make noises about international justice, ect? = Win.

[Ara]

I'll believe you're honest, Whiner, if you support a move into Pakistan. That's my point.

By the way, I bet Osama's dead.

[thoreau]

Well, if we had Pakistani cooperation I'd probably be all in favor of rooting out Al Qaeda strongholds in Pakistan.

If we didn't have Pakistani support, I imagine a lot of people here would probably say we should go anyway. But, and you can call me a UN-loving French-wannabe anti-American-sovereignty pinko lefty peacenik, I think one should exercise a little discretion before doing a military operation on the soil of a nuclear power without that country's permission. Call me what you will, but I want Pakistani cooperation before we do such a thing.

Anyway, as long as we get Pakistani cooperation I'm all in favor of it.

There, I just supported a possible military action. Bet some of you never thought that would happen. But, hey, what can I say, this one might actually be in our national self interest.

[joe]

You know what would be great time to start this operations?

LAST FUCKING MARCH!!!!!!

[thoreau]

Joe-

Last March we were too busy dealing with people who hadn't attacked us. Geez, where are your priorities? We had to get them out of the way before going after more Al Qaeda operatives, i.e. the people who really did attack us.

[Della]

The plan to invade Pakistan as if there would be no consequences is insane. They are a nuclear power, if they were being invaded why wouldn't they use those weapons? What do you think they have these weapons for in the first place? Pakistan isn't Iraq: i.e. It's not a poor starved nation with no weapons of mass destruction where the populace wanted to get rid of their leader anyway.

Intellectually it would be interesting to see what happened, although I forsee that the results would be disasterous.

[Brian]

This "whiner" has no problem with the military going after Al Qaida in Pakistan. Or Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philipenes, France, or Montana, if that's where they are.

At least, I have no problem with that in principle.

I just hope the intelligence as to the location of Al Qaida is more reliable than the intelligence regarding Iraqi weapons programs.

[thoreau]

Della-

My understanding of the article is that this wouldn't be a "regime change" operation, it would be one where the US goes into certain border areas to round up Al Qaeda. If it's done with the consent of the Pakistani government then it wouldn't be nearly as risky as the scenario you worry about.

[fyodor]

Ara,

It's rather ridiculous to claim that opposition to the Iraq campaign necessitates support for a Packistani campaign to be consistent. They could easily both be bad ideas.

I'll say this: IF Pakistan is harboring al-Qaeda (i.e., protecting them), it sure makes more sense to go into Packistan as a response to 9/11 than it did to go into Iraq. Note, that's a relative statement. Whether it's on balance a good idea to do it compared to not doing it is another matter.

On which I'm undecided.

[Jack]

LB, you are right that if Bush gets Osama this year, the only question will be whether his winning margin is above or below 20%. But I am relatively sure that Karl Rove is balancing that possibility against what effect precipitating a nuclear exchange in South Asia might have. I mean Bush would still win, of course (it's not like most of the American electorate cares about the deaths of foreigners), but it might push his margin down to single digits.

[andursonne]

"I mean Bush would still win, of course (it's not like most of the American electorate cares about the deaths of foreigners),"

Wow. Gee, thanks, asshole.

[Dan]

You know what would be great time to start this operations? LAST FUCKING MARCH!!!!!!

Why? Oh, right, because that way we could have delayed the Iraq war even longer. Because, for some odd reason, people like you think it was vital to U.S. interests for Iraq to remain a WMD-seeking totalitarian state for as long as humanly possible.

Anyway, what makes you think we could have done this last March? Musharraf was against it -- and while we can't be certain just exactly who controls Pakistan's nukes, it's a safe bet that whoever it is doesn't want the United States invading Pakistan.

[Andrew]

OK...everyone agrees, this is a great idea?

[Les]

andursonne, why do you believe that most of the American electorate cares about the death of foreigners?

Dan, don't you agree that seeking WMD's is significantly different than actually procurring or even having WMD's?

[dj of raleigh]

> This is a perfect test for all those whiners who kept saying "why are we in Iraq, we should be going after Al Qaeda." Well, we are now, so let's get behind it.

[dj of raleigh]

> ...destabilizing Pakistan might be worth the risk.
If he grabs a living Osama, will the Democratic candidates
make noises about international justice, ect? = Win.

[dj of raleigh]

> Intellectually it would be interesting to see what happened, although I forsee that the results would be disasterous.

[Dan]

Dan, don't you agree that seeking WMD's is significantly different than actually procurring or even having WMD's?

Conspiracy to commit murder is significantly different from murder, too. It is, nevertheless, a good idea to stop the conspirator -- and not by sending inspectors to his house every couple of months to see how his plans are coming along. 🙂

In any case, it makes absolutely zero sense to wait until *after* your enemy has nuclear weapons before taking action against him. That's just insane. You act *before* the country gets nuclear weapons. Since we cannot know how long it will take a given country to acquire nukes, the sensible thing to do is act, as soon is practical, upon learning they are attempting the acquisition.

[Les]

I agree with all of that, Dan. But what evidence is there that Iraq was working on nuclear weapons? For that matter, what evidence WAS there?

Just so you know, I'm not set on any opinion regarding the justification for invading Iraq. I'm just looking for answers, playing devil's advocate, that kind of thing.

[Jean Bart]

Frying pan; fire.

[Douglas Fletcher]

A number of people on this posting don't seem to get what's going on here. The troops going into Pakistan wouldn't be going there to topple the government, they would be going in to round up the Al Queda and Taliban remnants who are still a threat to both the governments in Pakistan and in Afghanistan. There is also apparently peripheral support of this from the Indian government, who are hoping to be able to deal with Pakistan over the issue of Kashmir without another outbreak of Islamic terrorism in that area to complicate the matter.

It looks to me like a case of do it now or you'll have worse trouble to take care of in the future.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Jack, I understand your trepidation about possibly destablizing Pakistan, but I'd say that when the President of the country can hardly roll down the street without car-bombs going off left and right, they're pretty close to the edge already.

[Jack]

Douglas, I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I realize that the *goal* of this operation would not be to destabilize Pakistan, it's just that depending how it's done, it *could* destabilize the country. If the Pakistani military leadership and ISI are kept out of the loop, that may be the final straw that leads to Musharraf's removal. (I mean the US didn't intend for the Khmer Rouge to take over Cambodia either, but hollowing out the Lon Nol regime didn't help.)

Andursonne, can you point to any case where the deaths of innocent foreigners attributable to US military or diplomatic action actually had negative repercussions for an American president? (If you're going to say Vietnam/LBJ, you'd be wrong. It was outrage over American casualties that cost him the presidency.)

[Strategery]

Hunting Al-Qaida in Pakistan: good idea.

Telegraphing the plans ahead of the hunt: bad idea.

[Dunlap Amy]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 210.18.158.254
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/20/2004 05:21:10
The words of truth are always paradoxical.