Pakistan: The Real Teetering Domino of the Middle East
We're used to seeing Iraq and Afghanistan in the news, but recently, reports from the greater Middle East's teetering domino, Pakistan, have appeared on the front pages of newspapers across America.
Today's New York Times features a three-page article by Mark Mazzetti and David Rohde detailing the strength of al Qaeda on the border of Afghanistan. According to the article, "Leading terrorism experts have warned that it is only a matter of time before a major terrorist attack planned in the mountains of Pakistan is carried out on American soil."
The title of the Times' piece, "Amid U.S. Policy Disputes, Qaeda Grows in Pakistan," raises important questions: What should be America's policy towards this nation armed with nuclear weapons and possessing the rocket technology to deliver them? How should we conduct relations with this country populated by almost 150 million Muslims? Given that even staunch Bush/Cheney supporters now admit colossal blunders in the Middle East, the United States cannot afford a misstep in dealing with Pakistan.
The dilemma is that fighting the Taliban on Pakistani soil jeopardizes what currently stands for stability in the Pakistani government. As we know from our 1979 experience in Tehran when extremists seized the U.S. embassy and ousted the shah, governments can collapse in a flashpoint. The sad truth is that the Bush/Cheney administration's endless record of poor decisions in the region should disqualify them from even attempting to address the complex issue of U.S.-Pakistani relations.
Think of the mistakes they have made. Hamas has been democratically elected in the Palestinian territories. Iraq is an endless see-saw of good news and mostly bad news. The Iranian government publicly thumbs its nose at the international community. In Afghanistan, a resurgent opium industry thrives and a fragile government struggles to maintain power.
Bush/Cheney only has six months left. But that would be plenty of time to make the situation in Pakistan worse. The best course of action would be for our feckless Congress to assert itself. Traditionally, the executive branch has dictated U.S. foreign policy. But through the power of the purse, Congress should tie any future funding of administration initiatives to having a greater voice on what decisions are made regarding Pakistan. Congress should also seek a role for the United Nations on this issue, particularly the voices coming from the Security Council. I believe firmly that it will be important to consider a broad range of opinions of this critical issue of American military action on Pakistani soil.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
And as if things were not bad enough in this nation where we should be applying healing balm, Obama announces he will attack them. An object lesson in how to help the cause of Wahabi extremists.
Good work Barry, keep it up.
http://gre
Hey, Chaffee, I'm sure you read Seymour Hersh's latest piece on Iran and how the US has been funding groups, particularly Balochi Sunni (aka al-Qaeda) and others to spark a war with Iran? Not like this is anything new. We know it's been going on since at least the 1980's when America gave Pakistan's ISI billions to train, equip and arm militants to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. These US funded miltants went on to become the Taliban and al-Qaeda all with the active support of the US, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. In fact, the sickest part is that America is still doing the same thing. For the past 6 years America has been paying Pakistani tribesmen to kill other Pakistani tribesmen, and all it does is fuel the unrest. Don't you get it sir, we (America), have been playing both sides for many years. It's almost as if Washington doesn't ever learn the lesson that paying warlords, or Balochi Sunni, or Iraqi Sunni, or Pakistani tribesmen to fight other Pakistani tribes does not work. If America really cared, it would pursue a foreign policy of peace.
And, by the way, Chaffee, are you aware that opium production in Afghanistan skyrocketed coincidentally in the 1980's when the US got involved in that country and then again after the 2001 invasion. Funny how that works? I guess you never wondered where the money came from to fund US covert operations?
We can fix the "problem" with Pakistan, and, indeed, the wider Islamic World vis a vis the war on terror if we wanted to, but the effort needs our heart in it.
Here are the ways "the problem" can be fixed:
1) Nominate Pakistan (and India) for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council.
2) Treat Pakistan as an equal partner, not a junior partner, in its alliance with the U.S., much like our alliance with Japan.
3) Show more respect to the Islamic faith: designate holidays, increase education of things Muslim in schools, much like there is an awareness and respect in this majority Christian nation for Judaism.
4) Cancel the nuclear deal with India. To Pakistanis, it is like pushing their faces into the mud. We are humiliating the Pakistanis by promoting this deal. It should not be offered to either India or Pakistan.
The result: When the people of Pakistan see that they are being treated equally and fairly by the U.S., they will then have the "heart" to pursue the war on terror with exceptional zeal. And they can tell doubters in their own country that the rewards for the sacrifices being made are rewards of respect and recognition for their great religion, Islam and a recognition of dignity and importance of their nation.
When people anywhere are empowered and given importance, their favorable reaction can be exponential!
EQUALITY IS THE KEY
"The dilemma is that fighting the Taliban on Pakistani soil jeopardizes what currently stands for stability in the Pakistani government
Yes, the Administration's foreign policy- if it can be called that, which I doubt- abounds in such conundrums. Strengthening al-Maliki's Dawa party means we are effectively pro-Iranian, which then we deny by threatening to attack Iran (and causing oil prices to skyrocket, which makes Bush's oil friends happy, but dooms Republicans' electoral prospects in much the same way that Herbert Hoover's did). Our call for free elections in Palestine- well, we know what happened. We encouraged the bombs to fall on Beirut so Israel could root out Hezbollah, whch predictably made them more popular than ever, and we wound up fruitlessly vying with the civilian wing of that terrorist group for Lebanese support as reconstruction workers- trying to undo the damage we encouraged!
As Patrick Fitzgerald exploded after Scooter Libby's lawyer burst into tears: "Madness! madness!"
There really is nothing left to say.
While our country is bogged down in other wars in Iraq and Iran, the Pakistan situation could blow up. At the close of the Bush years, the world is a much more dangerous place. Pakistan is a friend of convenience at best. At worst, it is the Islamic state with WMD that your mother always warned you about.
I gotta say, realistically, I doubt the Taliban can take-over Pakistan or even a significant part of it. Why? Pakistan is not Afghanistan. Afghanistan had gone through a horrific Soviet war and then a civil war and close to disintegrating. Pakistan has a powerful military, which, if unleased, could wipe the floor with the Taliban. Even the Frontier Corps could probably handle them. The problem is that it could to this point and our admin. dropped the ball. Some pressure (such as aid being contingent to confronting the Taliban) would have made a huge difference, but Iraq proved to be too much of a distraction for Dubya's short attention span.
I don't think any of these states are on the brink or failed states. We need to keep in mind that events have happened and dealing with those events is not easy. A truly failed state disintegrates as Somalia and Ethiopia indicate (breakaway regions, famine etc.), but even these countries can be saved or revive themselves. At this point, making any (largely military) aid for Pakistan contingent on its war with the Taliban will make a difference. Of course, now that the Taliban there has threatened rich and middle class people in Peshawar, the govt. is ready to act. So much like our own govt. (i.e. Katrina).
Pakistan shows the limitations of the WAR on terror. Using War as the model in the fight against terrorists.
Our military cannot operate within Pakistan. At least not without the partnership of Pakistan.
What is needed is full scale cooperation with portions of the Pakistani military and political operations. As well as excellent intelligence sources.
In other words POLICE ACTIONS.
We have to work WITH Pakistan. But if we make it an us vs them, especially us v s Islam we can get nowhere.
We have a lot of what Pakistan needs or desires. The foreign operatives of Bin Ladin and his crew are just that: Foreign. And there should be a way to split them off from their protectors and allies in the tribal areas.
I would be willing there are any number of Taliban who rue the day they ever heard the name Osama Bin Ladin.
It is a relationship ripe for treachery.
But the bungling of Cheney and Bush and Rice make it unlikely any success will be forth coming in the near future.
That's incorrect, Pakistan does have nukes and has reasonably accurate missiles as well, however they DO NOT have the ability to launch nukes on those missiles, miniaturization of nukes so that they can be affixed to a missile is even more technically challenging as making a plain nuke. If Pakistan wanted to use nukes it could only be done via airplane, as per Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Point 2, the Pashtun are the world's largest tribal group, like other moutain people they are fierce and warlike. They are a significant minority in Pakistan and in fact in going after Taliban violates Pakistan's own constitution and will lead to turmoil. Pashtuns are beaten Alexander the Great, The Bitish Army and the Soviet Red Army.
Was anyone else as dismayed as I was in the recent spectacle of American Troops protecting the Poppy fields from the Taliban? (who burned them when they were in power BTW)
Here we are now, 7 years later and WE are playing the part of the "muscle" for the Heroin producers.
It really is Vietnam all over again.....
memo to Senator Chafee:
Pakistan is part of "South Asia", not the "Middle East". I know it adds spice to your article, but please at least get the facts in your title straight.
"The best course of action would be for our feckless Congress to assert itself."
Too bad you aren't still in Congress.
Sen. Obama has spoken of taking a tougher line with Pakistan over al-Queda and related anti-Western groups. I wish he would explain it better now before the election. The deep problem is that no one has a good answer about how to deal with Pakistan as to al-Queda so far. Perhaps the only leverage is to control their exports to our country until they cooperate. We loosened trade with them to get their support but it seems not to have done much.
Certainly the situation in Pakistan is intolerable. And certainly something needs to be done.
But Bush/Cheney/Rice have should themselves fully incapable of doing anything right. All actions need to be put off until after January. Obama has my support because I HOPE he has the intelligence and good judgment to handle this situation.
Because this IS where the war on Terrorists must be fought.
Pakistan is not in danger of falling under the control of al Qaida. The fundamentalists in the Tribal regions are almost as foreign to the Pakistani elites as they would be to Americans. But, al Qaida and the Taliban obviously have major sympathizers in Pakistani government, particularly in their Intelligent Services and Army.
Bush has screwed this up almost beyond belief.
There is no question that the Taliban was created by Pakistan. And has been supported by Pakistan since the Afghan war. Without Pakistan's support they would have long been destroyed.
Yet Bush has continued to subsidize and finance the Pakistani Army. A percentage of wose funds go directly to our enemies. The rest to the border with India for high tech weapons.
I don't know the solution, although I suspect it might be obvious once that fool Bush leaves office. But I do know what would make the situation immeasuarbly worse:
And attack on Iran
Judging by the multitude of mistakes made by our current administration. Our Congress should write a law making it impossible to our current Executive Branch of government to make any foriegn policy moves without the oversight of a secret Congressional panel to be set up of an equal number of Democrats and Republicans. Thus making it close to impossible for our standing in the world to go down any further.
This is unfortunate but our country must be protected from the people that have come very close to destroying our country.
Our standing in the world may even rise just from the passage of this law.
No, the President will declare this panel an unconstitutional intrusion on his Article II powers. He would be close enough to correct to make it a non-option.
If our country must be protected from his folly, he must be impeached.
And the case for impeachment, in my opinion, is airtight.
It is obligatory.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
