Perils of Pakistan -- Will It Prove to be Obama's Cambodia?

President-elect Obama has committed himself to stepping up the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is not an overstatement to say that he will risk his whole presidency, and perhaps even unwittingly put nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists who might use them to attack the United States, if he leaps too far into neighboring Pakistan in pursuit of elusive victory.

The rub, as the Vietnam and Iraq wars showed us all, is unintended consequences. Our military leaders can, and almost certainly will, make a strong case to Obama that there is no way to defeat the Taliban and their allied tribes in Afghanistan without cleaning out their sanctuaries just over the Afghan border in Pakistan.

I can hear frustrated U.S. commanders on the ground in Afghanistan making the same kind of argument to Obama's team tomorrow that I heard yesterday in Vietnam when I was a combat correspondent there.

I could empathize with this lament, for example, that I heard in 1968 from a 9th Division infantry battalion commander, whose mission was to rid his area -- South Vietnam's rice bowl, the Delta -- of the stealthy Viet Cong guerrillas: "I can have my kids chase the Viet Cong all day and all night. But whenever they catch up to a good number of them, they just run over the border into Cambodia where we can't go. All I'm really doing down here is buying time with my kids' lives for the diplomats to settle this thing."

His was among the impressive military arguments I heard for either invading Cambodian border sanctuaries or getting the United States out of the otherwise unwinnable Vietnam War.

President Lyndon Johnson resisted invading Cambodia. He had concluded that this would only widen the war, infuriating an already skeptical Congress. Early on in Johnson's presidency he confided to Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, but not the public, that he saw the war as a no-win. Secret tapes of Johnson's conversations, since made public, document him saying this to McNamara on Feb. 26, 1965: "I don't think anything is going to be as bad as losing, and I don't see any way of winning."

His successor, Richard Nixon, who took office in 1969 after the Vietnam War had ruined Johnson's presidency, including his dream of building a Great Society, rushed into Cambodia where Johnson had feared to tread.

First, Nixon authorized, without telling the public, secret bombings of Cambodia, which had tried to stay neutral. Then on April 30, 1970, Nixon announced he had ordered the invasion of Cambodia with U.S. and South Vietnamese troops to "clean out" the enemy's border sanctuaries.

Now think "Pakistan" to hear the same ring. Four days later -- on May 4, 1970 -- National Guardsmen killed four student anti-war protesters on the campus of Kent State in Ohio.

Those two events, coming right on top of each other, mobilized anti-war lawmakers in Congress to curb the president's war-making powers and to cut off the money the South Vietnamese army needed to continue fighting the war after U.S. troops left the field under Nixon's Vietnamization strategy.

The military defeat Johnson had feared all along, without saying so publicly, came in 1975 when Communist North Vietnam conquered capitalist South Vietnam.

Nixon's invasion of Cambodia, even though his announced purpose was just to clean out the border sanctuaries, contributed to Cambodia's political turmoil.

The invaders also failed to achieve the military objective of finding and destroying the Communist headquarters in Cambodia known as COSVN for Central Office for South Vietnam.

The Communist Khmer Rouge in the aftermath of the invasion toppled the pro-American leader of the country, Lon Nol, and wiped out the upper classes in a bloodbath that some reports estimated murdered 2 million Cambodians. Again, unintended consequences.

Fast forward to Pakistan today. President Asif Ali Zardari, husband of Benazir Bhutto, a Muslim moderate who was assassinated in December while campaigning in parliamentary elections, is already complaining about U. S. military strikes against alleged al Qaida and Taliban targets in Pakistan's border regions.

An American-led ground invasion of Pakistan under the same "clean out" rationale Nixon used could cause such political turmoil that the bad guys might get their hands on one or more of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimates Pakistan has at least 60 nuclear weapons.

Imagine a worst case scenario of terrorists sneaking just one nuke into New York City and setting it off at lunch hour. Thousands of people could be incinerated, skyscrapers toppled and the air poisoned for years.

The Bush administration, Congress and the media have been rightly faulted for not worst-casing the American invasion of Iraq before it was ordered in 2003. History warns that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Obama needs to look long and hard at the worst unintended consequences of leaping into Pakistan. While he's at it, the new president should consider what would happen if U. S. forces captured or killed Osama bin Laden. Osama's deputies would feel compelled to retaliate against the United States in a spectacular way. Does Obama want another 9/11? Better to keep American fingerprints off the deed if it is done.

George C. Wilson is a veteran national security reporter. This has been cross-posted at CongressDaily.

Comments

[brodon]

Probably not.

If anything goes wrong on Obama's watch, the Left will just continue to blame Bush.

[larry278]

A lot of radical progressives are naming areas where Obama will fail. What do we do if he doesn't fail? We'll have egg on our faces, big time. Has anybody thought of what to say if Obama proves us wrong?

[Vedanti]

Hmmm .... anf how exactly does anyone get in the huge nukes into the country, find out how to detonate it ?

Just after 9/11, people talked about the possibility of "breif case" nukes could be used this way - Pakistan doesn't have anything close to it.

So, I guess your comments are just fearmongering.

[BDuPont]

Cambodia, Shembodia.

If you color every situation in terms of the last war (which you now understand only in hindsight), then you will surely lose the current war. These self-proclaimed experts need to stop squawking.

[SaulZ]

This is a good article overall, but I have one complaint and that is against the entire print and electronic media and even the USA think tanks.

All of them make us believe that getting hands on Pakistani or nuclear assets of any country for that matter is as easy as getting your hands on a $100 toy on one of the shelves of Toys R Us. Well, it is technology stupid. Using nuclear device ain't that simple. Ask any nuclear scientist about it.

The only purpose an assumption like this could have is to continue raising fear factor in the USA and other western countries of a 'Muslim Bomb' that can be dropped on them. This is utterly nonsence.

A much more realistic threat is someone getting hold of a nuclear device from Ukraine and under full supervision of CIA / pentagon explode it in a remote corner of the western world. That event could be used to put the blame on Pakistan and then 'let us go for the scoundrels'. Another more realistic situation is extremist Hindu Government coming to power in India and exploding a nuclear bomb on Pakistan under smallest of pretexts that can be totally condoned by the world after painting Pakistan in the total negative.

[katherine2]

Why can't Pakistan's sovereignty be respected? Zardari did cooperate with Indian intelligence and did some apprehension in Pakistan with those responsible for the Mumbai massacre. Gates himself has said that the Afghani people need to be won over, an US military incursion next door wouldn't be too conducive in achieving that. Ultimately, the countries which house terrorists should be the ones to clean up. They should be allowed to with international assistance, but not through direct American military intervention- especially in a nuclear armed Pakistan.

[exhale09]

And your point is what? Stay the coarse? Just leave? Got an alternate solution to offer?

The difference between Vietnam and Pakistan is...
Vietnam had not attacked the US.
Vietnam was not threatening the US.
Vietnam did not have Nuclear weapons.

Al Qaeda and Bin Laden did and are. Pakinstan does have Nuclear weapons.

[SaulZ]

Dear exhaleo9:

Are you trying to imply that Al Qaeda and Bin Laden have a relationship with Pakistan?

If yes then your logic is totally flawed. Al Qaeda and Bin Laden have no realtionship with Pakistan. If at all, they have same relationship as they have or had with the USA. Al Qaeda and Bin Laden were supported by the USA and the rest of the 'free world' during Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 80s and then forgotten by all including the USA and Pakistan.

[gsc 99]

Saulz,

Al Qaeda and Bin Laden have an old and deep relationship with Pakistan. How can you justify the logic that CIA "forgot" Al Qaeda and that is reason they should be allowed to spread terror. Al Qaeda is a victim here?

It started with Benazir Bhutto's creation of Taliban with the help of a retired military general, Naseerullah Babar who was her Interior Minister in the late 80, and early 90's. This was in the vacuum created by Soviets leaving Afghanistan. Pakistan has been using "terror" as state policy to press India on Kashmir and in Afghanistan to create strategic depth.

That policy has now backfired because sooner or later this Fankenstein was to turn on Pakistan itself. Benazir Bhutto was probably assassinated by one of the same ilk that she help create.

[Vedanti]

Hahahaha ..... nice joke.

We all know the relationship that Al Queda has with Taliban.

Taliban was funded, trained, supported by Pakistan in their "strategic depth" initiative. ISI has had a very close relationship with both Taliban and Al Queda. ISI used Al Queda training camps to train Pakistani terrorists that were sent out to kill people in Kashmir and other parts of India.

Oh yes, the mujahideen were created by Pakistan with the help of CIA and Saudi money. But Pakistan decided to go solo with Taliban and Al Queda. Pakistan has more culpability for 9/11 than Saudi Arabia, for eg.

[RockySoldier]

agreed.

[Alethia]

This is a great article, Mr. Wilson. Thank you. The Cambodia/Pakistan correlation is quite a correct comparison.

We must be careful how to eradicate terrorism in Afghanistan without causing untold destruction to the governments and people there and in Pakistan. And also we must be vigilant not to cause the populace of those countries to go over to the side of the terrorists.

Obama's initial ideas are good. Reduce or eliminate the tensions between Pakistan and India and Afghanistan to get them all to cooperate on fighting terrorism.

But the Mumbai masscre with all its awful carnage has thwarted that process. The terrorists have scored a victory to keep India and Pakistan from getting closer.

Adroit and forceful diplomacy must be put into motion double time to reverse this, Pakistan must root out terrorism from its soil as best it can (it is in an extremely difficult situation) and the innocent people of India and Pakistan,and Afganistan, must stay fixed on the goal of reconciliation.

[FalconerHK]

While I agree with the general concept of your post, I get really tired of the whole "loose nuke going off in New York" nonsense. We've had eight years of pointless fear mongering. That, coupled with "at least they've kept us safe" are the two levers used to pry our civil liberties away from us.

Facts:

1. It was the Bush administration that ignored warnings leading up to 9-11. They didn't keep us safe; they failed to prevent the largest terrorist attack in US history. "Bin Laden Determined to Strike In US".

2. Less than 5% of all cargo containers entering the US are screened. Security is apparently less important than Wal-Mart's import efficiencies.

3. Our coasts are unguarded. For every 150 miles of coastline, we have ONE sworn officer to patrol them. Again, not a priority.

4. People are virtually strip-searched when boarding aircraft, yet every day 90,000+ airline employees get out of their cars, show an ID, and work on airplanes. We've all seen the movies where the saboteur easily gets past the guards using a fake pass or other deception.

So if you want to talk about really scary stuff, there it is. But we're not truly concerned.

It's also possible that a volcano could erupt in the middle of Los Angeles, or Canada could invade Manhattan. This episodic hysteria is pointless and only makes us vulnerable to manipulation by those who seek power over us.

[dolphindance25]

Mr. Wilson, interesting scenario, but you don't provide any logistical evidence to support the claim that spreading the war to the tribal regions of Pakistan could in any way lead to extremists getting their hands on nuclear weapons. The political system Pakistan has problems, that's obvious, but their army is still a large and powerful army. They're not stupid; they keep their nukes locked up tight over there. I'd like to hear a scenario where this would happen. And are you also suggesting that bringing OBL to justice is a bad thing? I think the Bush administration has been clear: attack us, we'll get mad at you for a bit, but eventually we'll lose interest so don't worry too much...

[gifu]

The USA is still the only world power that has actually had the audacity to use nuclear weapons against our fellow humans on this planet. Who are we to be so fearful of what others might do to us? We are the bullies.

[Shrinath]

Ah, finally someone who has indeed attacked the ground realities. The Pakistani society is indeed very fragile and the biggest recruiting ground for Islamic terrorists. It is widely documented as the de facto boot camp for the new recruits. Wrapping up Iraq, should be primary motive. In the meantime devise a strategy along with allied countries and prepare an assault plan. It could be strategic attacks with specific intelligence gathered. HumInt has to be bolstered. The terrain in western Pakistan is very hilly. Satellite imagery can only help so much. I do not think an all out assault in the region so close to the economic collapse would be advisable. I hope that the Obama administration will consider this issue from all angles before trying anything.

[gifu]

We can't even stop gang violence in our own cities. Osama bin Laden is ......wher­e??? Good luck!

[nomoredead]

We face a bigger threat to the US population from the drug war that is spilling over from Mexico.

[Shrinath]

Yeah, well the DEA is under staffed and over worked. You are mixing two different issues. Though they are violent, the drug war is predominantly the work for the civilian police force. All the cocaine and other drugs need a raw material, poppy, which is grown in the fields of Afghanistan. Where do you think Taliban gets is majority funds from? Stop looking at incidents in such isolation.

[Citizen-Jane]

Obama is a student of history too. I don't think that he is in to repeating the mistakes of the past. And he is open learning lessons from them.
Best case scenerio what if Obama gets this problem right, and it doesn't go down the way you've laid it out George. That's possible too. :-)
Your article was a fascinating read. But let's see what will really happen.
That'll start Jan. 20th, 2009

[hotwire]

Yeah George, you just wait till Jan 20th, Obama will talk em' right into submission. That's all they need, just a little TLC.