The Washington Post and New York Times today feature above-the-fold front-page articles about the deteriorating situation in Pakistan. Both pieces are disturbing, the Times account more so because it explicitly raises the prospect of an anti-American “colonels coup” against Pakistan’s army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. With all the bad news coming out of this part of the world, and plenty of trouble here at home, it’s easy to ignore stories like this. Yet these two reports are among the most alarming and important we’ve seen in a long string of bad news from Pakistan and the Middle East.
Both articles make plain the extraordinary depth and breadth of anti-American sentiment among the commanders and the rank-and-file of Pakistan’s army. While America’s insistence on keeping the bin Laden raid secret, as well as our ability to pull it off without Pakistani interference, are the immediate causes of the anger, it’s obvious that a deeper anti-American sentiment as well as some level of sympathy for al-Qaeda are also at work.
Even now Pakistan’s army is forcing American operations out of the country. They have blocked the supply of food and water to our drone base, and are actively “strangling the alliance” by making things difficult for Americans in-country.
Unfortunately, it’s now time to at least begin thinking about what the United States should do in case of either an overt anti-American coup within Pakistan’s army, or in case Kayani himself is forced to effectively break relations. Although liberation from Pakistan’s double-game and reversion to honest hostility might come as a welcome relief to some, I see no good scenario here.
Should anti-American elements in Pakistan’s army displace Kayani, they would presumably hold our supply lines to Afghanistan hostage to a cessation of drone attacks. The step beyond that would be to cut off our Afghanistan supply lines altogether. Our minimum response to either of these moves would likely be a suspension of aid (on which Pakistan’s military is now dependent) and moves to provide India with technology that would give them major advantages over Pakistan. Pakistan may run eagerly into the arms of China at that point.
These developments would pose many further dangers and questions. Could we find new supply lines, and at what geo-strategic price? Should we strike terrorist refuges in Pakistan, perhaps clashing with Pakistan’s own forces as we do so? Would Pakistan actively join the Taliban to fight us in Afghanistan? In short, would the outcome of a break between America and Pakistan be war–whether low-level or outright?
There is no good or easy answer here. If there is any single spot it would be hardest for America to walk away from conflict, Pakistan is it. Bin Laden was not alone. Pakistan shelters our greatest terrorist enemies. An inability to strike them there would be intolerable, both in terms of the danger posed for terrorism here in the United States, and for the safety of our troops in Afghanistan.
Yet the fundamental problem remains Pakistan’s nuclear capacity, as well as the sympathy of many of its people with our enemies. Successful clashes with Pakistan’s military may only prompt sympathizers to hand nuclear material to al-Qaeda. The army is virtually the only thing holding Pakistan together. A military defeat and splintering of the army could bring an Islamist coup, or at least the fragmentation of the country, and consequent massive expansion of its lawless regions. These gloomy prospects probably explain why our defense officials keep counseling patience, even as the insults from Pakistan grow.
An important question here is just how Islamist the anti-American elements of Pakistan’s military now are. Is the current trouble primarily a matter of nationalist resentment at America’s killing of bin Laden, or is this a case of outright sympathy for al-Qaeda and the Taliban in much of the army?
The answer is probably a bit of both. The difficulty is that the precise balance may not matter that much. We’ve seen in Egypt that a secular the military is perfectly capable of striking up a cautious alliance with newly empowered Islamist forces. The same thing could happen in Pakistan in the advent of an anti-American military coup. Pakistan may not be ethnically Arab, but it’s continued deterioration may be the unhappy harbinger of the so-called Arab Spring’s outcome, I fear.
At any rate, it’s time to begin at least gaming out worst-case scenarios in Pakistan.
Another thing that should happen if Pakistan effectively withdraws from the War on Terror (oops, sorry about that) would be to publish the text of the ultimatum that Colin Powell made to the Pakistani Ambassador days after 9/11, and then state that the U.S. position is that the ultimatum still stands.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf Pakistan went bottoms-up, doesn't that mean that American forces are effectively *trapped* in Afghanistan?
Can one imagine the price the Russians would charge for us to leave via their territory in that situation?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDoes Pakistan have a Navy? Does it depend on any sort of goods and supplies from outside of Pakistan? Would be a shame if there to be some form of blockade, or harbors were to be mined as a result of their foolish actions. It would be a total shame if some congressional hothead were to suggest that Pakistans assets here in the US be frozen.
Go ahead, put out troops in direct harm and Watch what happens.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Pakistani economy has never been great while the population has exploded. The best qualified people have emigrated while the Army has diverted huge amounts of money to their own projects and state-within-a-state.
My bet is on dissolution of the country. Certainly Balochistan will leave in a heartbeat as well as the frontier regions. The army could try a brutal suppression as in East Pakistan in the 1970's but it probably wouldn't work either. The rump state would be populous and poor.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think you may be onto something about dissolution of the country. Breaking it up (via supporting local independence movements) into smaller countries presumably at least some of which will become well governed and peaceful may be the only way forward.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd it is not just a handful of nukes that they have. I believe I recently saw a number north of a hundred.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDave,
"Can one imagine the price the Russians would charge for us to leave via their territory in that situation?"
Let "Don Michael Corleone" show us all the way.....
[Senator Pat Geary is demanding a large bribe from Michael Corleone for a Nevada gaming license]
Senator Pat Geary: I can get you a gaming license. The price is $250,000....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMichael Corleone: Now, the price of a gaming license it less than $20,000. Is that correct?
Senator Pat Geary: Yes.
Michael Corleone: So why would I ever consider paying more than that?
Senator Pat Geary: Because I intend to squeeze you. I want your answer and the money by noon tomorrow. And one more thing. Don't you contact me again, ever. From now on, you deal with Turnbull.
Michael Corleone: Senator? You can have my answer now, if you like. My final offer is this: nothing. Not even the fee for the gaming license, which I would appreciate if you would put up personally.
Agree with Tom D - publish the 9/12 ultimatum and tell the Pakis to fish or cut bait.
Next, take out the Paki nukes and help the Indians overrun Pakistan.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think the argument being presented here is somewhat flawed. Pakistan Has not been a US ally from just a few years back, It has been a US ally since the 1950's and there's a long history to this bittersweet relationship. Pakistan has paid a huge price for its allegiance to America in the Afghanistan operations and the war on terror. So far some 40,000 people (Including Military personnel and civilians) have lost their lives from anti terrorist operations and terrorist attacks after 9/11. Pakistani's have suffered more than the US in a war that was not even their's to begin with, just for being allies with the US. Drone attacks in Pakistan might be successful to some extent for the US but the collateral damage they cause brings more hatred towards the US. Besides they are open violations of Pakistani airspace. On one hand the US is fuelling anti-state emotions by intensifying the attacks, the damage being caused on the ground has to be borne by the Pakistani state, both in terms of collateral damage and anti-state/anti american sentiments. The US needs to step back and cooperate more with the Pakistani Military and Intelligence instead of imposing its own agenda in their home.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat 40,000 number seems awfully high. Can you cite a source for that?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePakistan has a tendency to exaggerate things. I am sure they suffered some casualties but nowhere near 40k. Perhaps as little as 10k. But they are fighting demons of their own creation just like the Frnakenstein Monster. You see these taliban were created by Pakistan albeit at the behest of us to defeat Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
But once that war was over, instead of disbanding them they kept them, trained them, armed them sent them over to Kashmir to fight India and they called them 'freedom fighters'. Rest of the world ignored them as they are only attacking India. But things changed after 9/11 and the definition of a terrorist with it. Under international pressure Pakistanis stopped the infiltration of these fighters into India and the monster they created turned against them and started devouring them. Even now it is not too late for them. They know who motivates and leads this monster but they wont go against it because they still believe they can use it against India once we leave Afghanistan and meanwhile if they suffer a few casualties, so be it. That is the great game Pakistan is playing.
Regarding the inflation of figures, it comes naturally to Pakistan as they are trained to lie. When there were floods last year they claimed they suffered $50 billion damages where as in truth it is no more than 5 billion. And what did they do with all the aid that was given to them? They bought more F16s to fight India!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA war that was not even theirs to begin with? Violations of Pakistani airspace?
Al Qaida (and other terrorist organizations operating from within Pakistan) have made a mockery of Pakistani sovereignty for many years, attacking the American homeland, U.S. and allied forces operating in Afghanistan (with UN approval)and launching attacks agianst innocent people living peacefully in several other nations.
If Pakistan is unwilling to eliminate the threat posed by terrorists that are operating from its soil, it has no legitimate objection to the U.S. acting in self defense against those who have declared war on the United States, who attacked us on 9/11 and who have attempted several other attacks since.
Pakistan needs to decide which side it is on and it needs to decide quickly. A wrong decision will mean that Pakistan will become a pariah state, one that is formally designated as a supporter of international terrorism. (As things stand, that is but a simple statement of fact.)
In that event, Pakistan can look forward to a future of international ostracism, economic and trade sanctions, suspension of air and sea commerce, etc. (See North Korea for a relevant example.)
The Pakistani military high command increasingly reminds me of the militarist hotheads who dictated Japanese policies during the 1930s and 1940s. I hope they come to their senses before it is too late. If not, Pakistan is headed for the abyss.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAttention NR suits: In a world where, inevitably, Islamist America haters are going to get their hands on nukes but lack sophisticated delivery systems, NYC and other port cities are not going to be the safest places to be. Especially NYC.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThese are some rather bold suggestions that while I agree with overlooks one rather significant factor, our current President.
Should Pakistan shift into a declared enemy role I would suggest there is an abundance of evidence on how this administration would treat them.
The very next day following such a declaration we would demand that India surrender any claim to Kashmir.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAll this talk about Pakistani sacrifices in the war on terror have to be taken with a pinch of salt. These terrorists exist because the PA/ISI do not want to get rid of them.
The drone attacks happen because the PA does not want to do the dirty work itself. Please read Farhat Taj's article about how the locals welcome the precise drones. OTOH when the PA did a campaign, they used artillery, choppers, and planes to flatten entire villages causing a huge amount of collateral damage. They hype up the drones to keep their people hostile to the US. This is a part of their strategy to demonize the US among the masses, while taking our Billions.
The anger about violation of Pakistani Air-Space is a non-sequitur. The writ of the Pakistani State (or whatever passes for it) does not run more than 100 miles West of the Indus. These areas where the Taleban live are quasi-independent (Anarchic might be more appropriate). If the Pakistani State can not (or does not want to) fix the problem, the US has no option than to take the matters in its own hands. Why complain about loss of sovereignty when you never had it in the first place.
The US should stop recognizing the Durand Line and chase the Taleban across the border in to Pakistan. We should also support an independent Balochistan. The rump left behind will be much easier to deal with.
Also there is almost unanimous consensus (but for the Chinese) that Pakistani nukes will eventually haunt us. It does not have to be a working nuke; dirty bombs will be fine. In this context, denuking Pakistan should be the free-world's number one priority. The Chinese will object but we need to stand up for the sake of our children. They should not live under the specter of nuclear terrorism because our leaders were given the run around for a decade by the Pakistanis.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePakistan has a tendency to exaggerate things. I am sure they suffered some casualties but nowhere near 40k. Perhaps as little as 10k. But they are fighting demons of their own creation just like the Frnakenstein Monster. You see these taliban were created by Pakistan albeit at the behest of us to defeat Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
But once that war was over, instead of disbanding them they kept them, trained them, armed them sent them over to Kashmir to fight India and they called them 'freedom fighters'. Rest of the world ignored them as they are only attacking India. But things changed after 9/11 and the definition of a terrorist with it. Under pressure Pakistanis stopped the infiltration of these fighters into India and the monster they created turned against them and started devouring them. Even now it is not too late for them. They know who motivates and leads this monster but they wont go against it because they still believe they can use it against India once we leave Afghanistan and meanwhile if they suffer a few casualties, so be it. That is the great game Pakistan is playing.
Regarding the inflation of figures, it comes naturally to Pakistan as they are trained to lie. When there were floods last year they claimed they suffered $50 billion damages where as in truth it is no more than 5 billion. And what did they do with all the aid that was given to them? They bought more F16s to fight India!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePakistan has a tendency to exaggerate things. I am sure they suffered some casualties but nowhere near 40k. Perhaps as little as 10k. But they are fighting demons of their own creation just like the Frnakenstein Monster. You see these taliban were created by Pakistan albeit at the behest of us to defeat Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
But once that war was over, instead of disbanding them they kept them, trained them, armed them sent them over to Kashmir to fight India and they called them 'freedom fighters'. Rest of the world ignored them as they are only attacking India. But things changed after 9/11 and the definition of a terrorist with it. Under international pressure Pakistanis stopped the infiltration of these fighters into India and the monster they created turned against them and started devouring them. Even now it is not too late for them. They know who motivates and leads this monster but they wont go against it because they still believe they can use it against India once we leave Afghanistan and meanwhile if they suffer a few casualties, so be it. That is the great game Pakistan is playing.
Regarding the inflation of figures, it comes naturally to Pakistan as they are trained to lie. When there were floods last year they claimed they suffered $50 billion damages where as in truth it is no more than 5 billion. And what did they do with all the aid that was given to them? They bought more F16s to fight India!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWait a minute. This cannot be a serious article. Everyone knows that Obama has made the world love us, particularly the muslim world. Pahkeestan is part of the world and Pahkeestan is muslim so Pahkeestan must love us because of Obama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePahkeestahn will probably cease to be a functioning country within the next decade. We would be wise to build our ties with India, and give Seal Team 6 lots of practice in penetrating nuclear weapons depots and destroying them utterly.
All of this, of course, explains why we are bombing Libya.
No. Wait. What I meant was, why are we bombing Libya again? All of the strategically important countries in the region...Iran, Pahkeestahn, Egypt, Syria...seem to be getting a pass while we pursue a goofball dictator who was pretty well contained.
Unless, of course, Obama's Middle East Strategy is to turn as many nations as possible over to Islamists. This will serve as the Left's acceptable counter-weight to American superpower dominance. Help the Islamists rise to power. Undermine Israel. Weaken the U.S. Destabilize the region.
Blame the Republicans.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSome how, Some way, the MSM is going to blame this on the Palin/Zionist/anti-global-warming Complex.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse