Pakistani Nukes
31 December 2007
Some background
Pakistan is the only Muslim nation with a nuclear arsenal. The country has been ruled in recent decades by dictatorships dependent on our support — a pattern familiar to those who study American foreign policy. Even during those periods of civilian rule, the government tended to be corrupt. The recent assassination of Benazir Bhutto has everyone concerned about political instability. In particular, we are worried that Muslim 'radicals' may get their hands on the bombs and threaten the US, Israel or possibly some European country. Not long ago, Barack Obama, a supposedly 'liberal' and 'antiwar' candidate, raised the possibility of sending US troops in, should the radicals gain the upper hand. Although the topic has not yet surfaced as a major item of public discussion, you can be sure that our brave and virtuous leaders are discussing it in private. My instinct is that it would be disastrous to invade under any circumstances. However, unlike Iran and Iraq, we know for sure that these weapons exist, so that we must discuss this conundrum with great care. I am only starting this article as a placeholder; I will add to it as time goes by.
Although one might argue that it is water under the bridge, we should first remind ourselves of our considerable blame for the current mess in Pakistan. During the Cold War, we were so blinded by the supposed Soviet threat, that we enlisted the aid of Pakistani dictators and/or Muslim radicals to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. In fact, there is a blurred line between the Pakistani military and jihadis such as the Taliban or even Al Qaeda. It is well known that many high-ranking members of the ISI, Pakistan's intelligence organization, are confirmed Islamic fanatics, who, among other activities, have been tormenting the Indians in Kashmir. We turned a blind eye as Pakistan acquired nuclear weapons, since they were our 'allies' against the Soviets. We have supported the various military dictators for the same reason, paying only lip service to democracy. Notice that much of this happened under Jimmy Carter, who was our most 'liberal' president of recent decades, which shows that labels mean nothing when it comes to American foreign policy. For years, there has been a bipartisan consensus among the elite in favor of American Imperialism, which continues today with the refusal of the Democratic Congress to stop the war in Iraq.
But what to do now?
But what to do now about Pakistan's nuclear weapons, especially if radicals appear close to seizing power? First, note in the Washington Post article below that the Islamic radicals remain a fringe as political parties. The real power continues to reside in the military. It does not seem that there is any sweeping popular movement to fear, as was the case in Iran, when Khomeini was able to take over the apparatus of government. The real question seems to be whether the religious radicals within the military may take over and what they might do. We know that some of the top officers are fervent believers in the doctrine of Jihad, so that having them in power might presumably be like having Mullahs in power. Even so, it seems difficult to believe that anybody in the Pakistani military would attack the US or even Israel. The Pakistani military seems fixated on India. In particular, Kashmir seems the likelier flashpoint.
A preliminiary list of ideas
To be continued, when I have read more articles and done more thinking. Perhaps it would be convenient to list ideas as they occur, with bullets:
Gareth Porter points out that the Pakistanis have refused to tell us where their nuclear weapons are located, making any kind of an improbable commando raid even more unlikely. (Remember Jimmy Carter's rescue effort in Iran?)
A full scale invasion to fight the Taliban and 'stabilize' the country needs to keep some important facts in mind. For example, Pakistan has 170 million inhabitants, compared to Iran's 65 million or Iraq's 27 million. Most of them are fervent Muslims as well as nationalists, who would hate our presence as much as the Iraqis. Furthermore, the terrain is inhospitable to a massive invasion, the only thing our military is good at. After the initial blitz, the situation would quickly deteriorate into the meat grinder of guerilla warfare, as in Iraq, where the locals have the upper hand. Basically, invading Pakistan would make Iraq look like a picnic and would be a supreme act of folly (which doesn't mean we wouldn't do it).
Taking this into account, I agree with Porter that neocons like O'Hanlon and Kagan are effectively nuts. Our only hope is to start a dialogue with Muslim nations to work out a peaceful coexistence. This cannot happen if we bomb their people whenever we perceive (or hallucinate) a 'threat'. With all the fuss over the now debunked Iranian nuclear program, few pundits were fair enough (or brave enough) to point out how rational would have been an Iranian bomb, given that we had invaded their neighbor on false pretexts, killing hundreds of thousands. But that invasion also showed the American military to be a paper tiger when it comes to guerilla warfare or anything resembling colonial conquest, as should have been proved in Vietnam. Factor in that our debt-ridden house-of-cards economy is about to come crashing down, and it's clearly time for all Americans to swallow a reality pill. Working out a peaceful coexistence with the Muslim world would include, not only fair oil deals and promoting true democracy, but also dealing with the festering wound of the slow but relentless Israeli strangulation of the West Bank. We have to consider the big picture and the true sources of Muslim radicalism.
The article by the Pakistani Foreign Minister shows another side of the Pakistani reluctance to crush the radicals, as advocated by our brave think-tank chickenhawks. The Pakistani government does not have the luxury of bombing the hell out its people with a massive air force, as we sometimes do with others. Unlike us, they simply must take 'collateral damage' into account when fighting the radicals, especially when those Taliban 'radicals' blend with the large Pashtun ethnic group, or the 'minds and hearts' of the people will be lost — precisely what happened in Vietnam. We cannot expect any government to commit suicide. In general, it is shocking how little we Americans take 'collateral damage' into account. We simply demagogue to ourselves that 'our cause is just' and then do whatever we damn well please (as long as the victims are foreigners). This callous attitude dates back to Hiroshima and the Dresden bombings, if not sooner.
Do not have any illusions about Bhutto's democratic credentials. She was part of the 'elective feudalism', which currently counts as the 'opposition' in Pakistan. Read Dalrymple's article.
Naturally, American presidential candidates are trying to make hay out of the Bhutto assassination. Here is a typical example of rhetorical vacuity, from John McCain: I've been to Waziristan, I knew Benazir Bhutto, I know Musharraf very well. And if were president of the United States I would be on the phone right now and I know the best way to address the situation. Meanwhile, Hillary is touting her 'foreign policy experience' — which includes voting the blank check for Bush's Iraq fiasco — and she is speculating recklessly about Bhutto's murderer. Is this what we want from the president (as compared with, say, some hack establishment pundit in the New York Times or Washington Post)?
In the VOA article, the Pakistani military assures us that their nuclear stockpile remains secure from terrorists. I hope we can believe them! That is surely the key point. Under the circumstances, it would make the most sense to take their word for it, barring other reliable evidence. Thus, there is no immediate danger, and we should concentrate on stabilizing Pakistan, not through heavy-handed intervention, but by cooling our support for Musharraf, while supporting the democratic process and making it clear to Pakistanis that we want them to be in charge of their destiny. Sometimes less is more. There is an attitude deeply engrained in our politicians and pundits, whereby the fact that we are the 'sole superpower' means that we must always take vigorous action. This action generally gives us a choice between blatantly supporting 'our man' or throwing him overboard, both having frequent catastrophic consequences. The wiser third path is often to keep a cool and cautious distance, lending help where it is genuinely constructive, while remaining respectful of public sentiment in foreign countries. Radical takeover becomes more probable if we interfere. See Bacevich, Beito and Horton, and listen to Margolis. (Indeed, Al Qaeda and other radical Muslim groups may be trying to bait us, by drawing us into their territory, where they can bleed us to death, just as in Vietnam. So far, we are already bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, with little real progress. How can there be 'progress', if we are a hated occupier? Our presence swells the ranks of radicals, as does our support for dictators. Let's just get out of the Muslim world and let them solve their own problems. We only make it worse. At most, our role should be limited to containment.)
The Margolis interview informs us of ethnic and tribal tensions in Pakistan, reminiscent of Iraq. For instance, the Bhuttos are the ruling clan in Sindh province, whereas most of the military are from Punjab. (How many senators and congressmen know this?) Margolis thinks that part of the motivation of Bhutto's campaign was to return to power and avenge the death of family members at the hands of the military. Moreover, what we call 'Taliban' are Pashtuns and elicit the loyalty of millions of members of this ethnic group. Do we really want to get involved in these ugly politics, which we barely comprehend and are far too clumsy to handle? The cunning Brits may have had a fighting chance at such Machiavellian politics, but surely not the fools we elect. Margolis also provides further assurance on the safety of the nukes from radical hands, as long as Pakistan stays together. The nukes are disassembled, well-protected and well-hidden, from radicals as well as from us. The radicals wouldn't know what to do with the pieces if they found them (and they would have to find all of them). The real danger is if Pakistan comes apart, and India feels it must intervene, which could provoke a nuclear exchange. Margolis also assures us that the Pakistani military is highly disciplined and shows no sign of coming apart, with radical factions grabbing the nuclear weapons. The generals seem more worried about their deteriorating public image and with having to fight their fellow countrymen. All in all, increased democracy seems the solution, though without heavy-handed US intervention. Can we facilitate the process without taking sides?
A few more points, which can be found in the articles below. In Raimondo's blog post 'Worse than I thought', he shows a video that suggests that Bhutto's assassination was not the work of Al Qaeda but of operatives within the Pakistani military. This could portend a coup against Musharraf. It certainly is suspicious that an autopsy of Bhutto was denied, along with the CIA's offer of added security. Moreover, we should realize the magnitude of the aid package to Musharraf: up to $1 billion a month, according to Margolis. If the military dictatorship we support can knock off the opposition with impunity, then we should seriously re-examine our policy, even from a cold-blooded realpolitik point of view. Another point is that many commentators seem to agree that Benazir Bhutto was promoted by the US merely to put a facade of democracy on the Musharraf dictatorship. If she was really 'our woman', then it will be interesting to see if 'our man' does anything about the fact that people under his command murdered her. It will also be interesting to see if we care, or if all our pawns are expendable as we blindly grope our way. Heck, thousands of troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians were expendable. Nothing new here. Finally, Margolis makes the point that Al Qaeda is popular in the Muslim world primarily as a symbol of resistance to US meddling, not as the vanguard of a global caliphate, or some other crazy neocon delusion. If we stopped supporting repressive dictators, then Al Qaeda's popularity might subside. Unfortunately, we are addicted to wanting control now, which leads to a heavy-handed policy that makes such control ever more elusive. Subtlety seems to be beyond the American brain, at least at the official level.
Pat Buchanan reminds us that most of the recent elections in the Muslim world have put Islamic radicals into power. So is promoting democracy in the Muslim world such a good idea? This is a huge topic, but in light of all the preceding statements, my basic feeling is as follows (and as of today). We should just leave the Muslim world alone. Let them elect whom they wish. The present support for so-called radicals primarily reflects frustration at repressive governments bolstered by US meddling. There is no chance that the Muslim world will become a military threat to the West any time soon. The terrorist threat must be dealt with through police work and cooperation. Calming Muslim passions through democratic empowerment will most likely help. This may even deflect universal hatred of the USA into a healthy competition between rival Muslim groups. In any event, it is futile to try to control the Muslim world and form it in our image. We may have to accept some small hypothetical nuclear threat in order to take the only sane and rational course. Policy is always a matter of balancing probabilities. We cannot allow ourselves to fixate fanatically on some dread scenario and ignore the big picture. We should promote democracy but not with a military sledgehammer. Note that after the initial revolutionary fervor, Iran has actually been trying to make peace overtures to us, which we have arrogantly dismissed. For God's sake, we need to get off our self-righteous crusading horse and leave the Muslims alone. They will sell us their oil, whether or not we have military bases in the Middle East. As for Israel, it had better come up with a two-state solution soon, more or less along the 1967 borders. It is their only hope! We both need to be bold and enlightened and take a chance. We must lay aside our fears and treat our adversaries as humans. Fair discussion is true courage. Bombing is cowardly and futile. We are not so different from the Muslims. We are all consumed by existential fears. We need to rise above that and think for a change.
Justin Raimondo: Panic Over Pakistan
Justin Raimondo: Worse than I thought
WP: Pakistan's Islamic Parties Struggle for Support
Gareth Porter: O'Hanlon-Kagan on invading Pakistan
WP (22 Jul 07): WH would consider direct assaults in Pakistan
Paki FM: U.S. strikes would be 'completely counterproductive'
William Dalrymple: Pakistan's flawed and feudal princess
VOA: Pakistani military assures nukes remain secure
Andrew Bacevich: Bush's best-laid plans
Beito & Horton: Ron Paul Is Right About Pakistan
Antiwar Radio: Eric Margolis on Pakistan
Eric Margolis: No one to fill Bhutto's shoes
Pat Buchanan: US is impotent with Pakistan
Doug Bandow: Misguided Meddling in Pakistan
Charley Reese: The Bhutto Mistake
Could U.S. special forces snatch the Paki nukes?
UPDATE (04 Jan 08): I don't know whether to laugh at this or what. Could some American commandos really brush aside the tough Pakistani army, Rambo-style, and seize the nukes, should Islamic radicals seem on the verge of power? Do we still indulge in such hubris, even after the fiasco in Iraq?
SPECIAL FORCES ON STANDBY
OVER PAKI NUKE THREAT
The Herald, 31 December 2007
If there is any truth to this, I suspect that there is an untold part of the story. Specifically, we may be prepared to pre-emptively nuke all Pakistani military facilities which might contain components of their nuclear arsenal. But could we even know all the locations? I doubt it. Frankly, I think that Indian commandos, who know the region and their adversary much better, would have a better chance at pulling this off — and I don't think they can either.
Gordon Prather: Special Forces on Standby
NYT: U.S. considers new covert push within Pakistan
Scott Ritter: The Pakistan Conundrum
Back to the Home Page
