US Military Escalation in Pakistan Gets Underway

The US government is considering direct military intervention in the tribal areas of Pakistan, risking an escalated conflict with Pashtun nationalism in the name of crushing al Qaeda. An essay in last week's Washington Post, a front page story in today's New York Times and reports from the Real News Network all confirm that a decision to intervene is near. The Times confirms that as many as 50 American personnel, whether special forces or CIA, already operate clandestinely inside the Pakistani border.

Democrats have called no hearings nor raised significant voices of opposition to the unfolding plan. In New Hampshire last night, Sen. Barack Obama repeated his endorsement of unilateral US military intervention in Pakistan if "actionable intelligence" exists. His Democratic rivals did not dissent.

The consequences of the possible escalation are extremely unpredictable. The alleged al-Qaeda militants are embedded in complex tribal networks in a remote mountainous area. Military action could inflict severe casualties and damage to these traditional communities and inflame anti-American sentiment across Muslim Pakistan. It might accelerate the disintegration of the US-backed Musharraf dictatorship which currently possesses nuclear weapons. Musharraf and the Pakistani military have steadfastly opposed direct American intervention for the past five years.

Speculation is rife that US support for the ill-fated return of Benazir Bhutto to Pakistan was based partly on an understanding that she would endorse and legitimize an expanded US presence in her country. If neither the American embassy nor the Musharraf regime could save her from death at a public event, it is unclear how successful American special forces will be in the wilds of South Waziristan.

There is virtually no public discussion of the implications of American support for a military dictatorship that imprisons Pakistani lawyers while harboring anti-US jihadists. Instead of enforcing the existing Leahy Amendment (1997) which bans military assistance to human rights violators, the US has spent approximately $10 billion in five years supporting the Musharraf regime, alienating a majority of Pakistanis, and lending credence to the claims of Muslim extremists. Having contributed to, or at least failing to have prevented Pakistan's fall into chaos, "senior officials" quoted by the Times now are blaming al-Qaeda for plotting all along to achieve "the big prize, creating chaos in Pakistan itself."

It is ironic that Democrats like Obama, whose campaign was built around questioning the intelligence justifying the Iraq War would now be arguing for a preventive war in a sovereign country if evidence gathered by intelligence sources is merely "actionable."

The further irony is that the "war on terrorism" is escalating without meaningful discussion or dissent in the midst of the most open and democratic of American processes, the presidential debates.

Congressional hearings and questioning by the presidential candidates might stall, circumscribe or prevent the escalation. An alternative policy of reducing US military assistance to Pakistan and demanding the full restoration of civil liberties there, while seeking diplomatic de-escalation in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Palestine is being ignored in the march towards a wider quagmire.

Tom Hayden is the author of Ending the War in Iraq (2007)

Comments

[laurenc]

dear tom hayden:

I hope you see now that just because the young people like him, Obama is extremely flawed. His policies on coal/nuclear energy and free trade are execrable. Please support the far more progressive John Edwards, who could still get the nomination.

[Guitarsandmore]

I have no faith in any so called "actionable intelligence" the CIA might provide about Al Qeada. It's all too convenient and bound to be lies.

I have had my own fair share of phony accusations leveled at me by government employees and am still waiting for them to prove any of them.

Someone got to the Democratic candiates - all of them, otherwise they wouldn't be marching in lock step all of a sudden. Write to Edwards and tell him to break ranks again.

[kimk3]

Good article. First of all, KPFK did a show on under-reported stories of last year and apparently bin Laden is not even wanted for 911. He's off the radar screen. Bush, et al., don't want him. Could it be the Saudi connection? It's hard to imagine what the current administration is going to do in Pakistan except for cause more trouble.

And all the candidates are lame. Obama is an excellent speech-giver with no real substance that I can see. I'm sure any of them would be better than Bush, et al, but not much.

[hrayovac]

C'mon Hayden, you've been respected in this, the land of the free, for 48 years, ever since Port Huron Statement, and now you're saying that you're not sure if the Muslim brotherhood is alleged or not? The alliance between Hitler and Middle East fascists dating back before you were born isn't provable? Look I am with you about our participation in these fascist regimes a la Dulles but call them who they are. Nazis.

[Listen2me]

Exactly why a lot of disillusioned Democrats are giving money to and planning to vote for or caucus for Ron Paul. This column explains it.

[stlrfan]

Look out folks, since the NIE took the steam out of the bomb Iran crowd, the destabilization of Pakistan maybe the neocon fallback.

[peterg76]

Are they really going after bin Laden, or trying to eliminate what's left of Pakistani democracy? (Which have they historically done more of?)

[Prut]

The first 15 minutes of the Democratic debate last night was all about who Clinton, Obama and Edwards wanted to bomb and invade. It was sickening. They spent the rest of the time talking about change. Too bad moderator Gibson did not ask the obvious question: "Last year American voters, frustrated with the war in Iraq and Bush constitutional abuses, elected a Democratic congress that promised change, and what we got instead was an escalation of the war and a congress that greased the way for the president to do as he pleases. Why should American voters believe any of you would change anything?"

[jdm58]

The threat of a nuclear attack on U.S. soil was discussed,with the likelihood of such an attack exceeding 50%, according to statistics quoted in last nights democratic debate. It might therefore behoove our government to hunker down, start protecting our own ports, and take care of business at home, instead of continuing to meddle in areas where we historically tend to:
escalate instead of deter violence.
misread the size and determination of the enemy.
chose the wrong side to support.
allow oil and MIC interests to trump human rights, creating more enemies.
With the majority of our National Guard, military personnel and emergency response equipment spread out overseas, our homeland feels starkly underprotected. Or are we supposed to rely on the coast guard to protect our coasts, and local police and fire departments as first responders?

[usna73]

Mr. Hayden you are confusing your metaphors. Obama is correct and we are at war with Al Qaida. The unprovoked attack on Iraq was simply wrong.

I have no confidence in the Bush Administration to successfully manage any relationship with Musharraf. Yes he is undeserving, illegitimate and corrupt.

None of this can be allowed to undermine the pursuit of those who masterminded the attack on the U.S.and the murder of our civilians.

While I have much to agree with you about, delivering justice to Bin Laden, et al; is not one of them. There is no statute of limitations here, nor is there any law on the books which should halt our "hot pursuit."

Don't confuse politics with duty, and please don't underestimate the ability of Navy Seals.

[desmirl]

We have an out-of-control Unitary Executive, an out-of-control Pentagon, and an out-of-control Military/Industrial Complex. And the Democrats are complicit because they are TOO CHICKEN to raise an objection to further military destabilization of an already shaky region. Bush and his minions are going to get a lot more people killed before next January.