The Pakistani Cauldron is About to Boil Over

The Taliban is moving gradually, but consistently from Afghanistan into Pakistan. President Obama and the U.S. Defense Department are poised to do something about it. Unfortunately, the United States is already to blame for the Taliban surge. U.S. foreign policy has an uncanny way of backfiring; Pervez Musharraf's strange brew of American-backed Pakistani "democracy" is just the latest instance to prove this fact.

With a success equal to that of our achievements in Iraq, the latest installment of Shock and Awe is turning Pakistani hearts and minds against the United States.

Barack Obama's plan of withdrawing most U.S. troops from Iraq is

The feeling of helplessness and revenge is prevalent among a young generation of Pakistani males who have great difficulty determining why they deserve to be struck regularly by the scorpion-like foreign policy of the United States.

on the slow track (284,000 military boots are still on the ground there--142,000 troops). Obama has also had some tough talk of late about Pakistan. Are we going from a two-theater fight to three areas of operation?

Yesterday another suicide bomber attacked in Peshawar, Pakistan--this time at a police checkpoint. At least seven people were killed. In his book Dying to Win, author Robert A. Pape notes that nearly every suicide bombing incident occurs in a country that is occupied by a far superior military force. Pape says:
...what nearly all suicide attacks have in common is...to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory the terrorists consider to be their homeland.

Dying to Win, page 4
Barack Obama, essentially then, will create more suicide bombers--and more terrorists--with his continuation of a failed policy toward Pakistan. Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto died by suicide attack, and the occurrence of such attacks in Pakistan is mounting.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently stated that
the militants' expanding reach in the northwest of Pakistan posed an "existential threat to the democratic government of Pakistan."
Is that amounts to a Democracy these days? A

Is that amounts to a Democracy these days? A puppet government that is largely in power because of overwhelming economic and military support from the United States? No, that's not a democracy.

puppet government that is largely in power because of overwhelming economic and military support from the United States? That is not a democracy. It is becoming more and more of an occupation--so far only by American materiel and clandestine forays by special forces. Soon, however, if Obama gets his way, it will be a third full-fledged occupation. And you thought Bush's defense budgets were huge.

Some of that American materiel, in the form of missiles, has destroyed much of the Pakistan hinterlands. In the process, American actions have, similar

It is becoming more and more of an occupation--so far only by American materiel and clandestine forays by special forces. Soon, however, if Obama gets his way, it will be a third full-fledged occupation. And you thought Bush's defense budgets were huge.

to what we did in Iraq, bred a whole new generation of al Qaeda and Taliban fighters.

A recent PBS Frontline series visited with some of the new young Pakistani fighters. One young man talks of having several members of his extended family killed by a U.S. missile strike. This is why I have become a member of the Taliban, the young man said. The feeling is prevalent among a young generation of Pakistani males who have great difficulty determining why they deserve to be struck regularly by the scorpion-like foreign policy of the United States.

Barack Obama is far more intelligent than George W. Bush ever seemed to be. Yet he and his daft foreign policy seem to be beholden to the same Establishment puppet masters who seem to be wishing and willing for the Pakistani cauldron to boil over.

Update 5/5/2009: Secretary of Defense Robert Gates talks about U.S. troops on Pakistani soil:

Gates said the U.S. was willing to provide all the training and equipment Pakistan's military needed to help combat the growing threat.

"There has been reluctance on their part up to now. They don't like the idea of a significant American military footprint inside Pakistan. I understand that ... but we are willing to do pretty much whatever we can to help the Pakistanis in this situation," he said in the interview. CNN released the transcript to The Associated Press.

Related Articles:

U.S. Concerns Deepen over Pakistan
Evidence that U.S. has Already Made Incursions into Pakistan and that Obama Supports Such Incursions.
America's Possibly Overwhelming Temptation to Enter Pakistan
What Happens if Pakistan Loses Control of Its Nukes?




Comments

  1. Frank, maybe leaping to conclusions is good aerobic exercise, but I now inform you that you are too far from reality ;-)

    There is no possibility of the United States occupying Pakistan. SecDef Gates recently told CNN that allied forces in Afghanistan will top out around 100,000. That's not enough to occupy Afghanistan.

    The big thing to remember about Pakistan is, that country's leaders almost all speak English, and they know a lot more about the USA than our leaders know about Pakistan. That means it's more likely for American policy to be manipulated by Pakistanis than the other way around.

    Even if our guys like Richard Holbrooke think they know better what's good for Pakistan, it's not likely they will outmaneuver the locals.

    Right now, the incentive system is upside down. The more Taliban activity in Pakistan, the more U.S. aid the Pakistanis will get. Naturally, we're seeing lots of scary-looking Taliban activity that Pakistan's government is seemingly powerless to oppose.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Pakistanis are cashing in already."The House Appropriations Committee yesterday approved an emergency spending measure that included $2.3 billion in assistance to Pakistan..."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Richard has nailed it. This is another form of fund raising.

    While suicide bombers may consider the area where the attacks occur to be their homeland, it does not follow that it makes sense to simply turn it over to them. Unless I am mistaken, a lot of other people live there as well. And for that matter, the suicide bombers no longer 'live' there. (Tasteless attempt at humor.)

    Many of Iraq's suicide bombers came from other countries. How is it that they considered Iraq their homeland?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Richard,

    I hope you're right. But we could easily outmaneuver the locals just like we did in Iraq. Either way we look at it--more US incursions into Pakistan or more U.S. aid to the Pakistani government, it's a monumental mess in the making.

    Reach,

    You're probably right that many Iraq suicide bombers were not themselves Iraqis, although the biographies of several of the bombers are not clear. What evidence we have indicates that a significant portion of them have been Iraqis, and most of the rest have been from adjacent countries that are seen as least likely to be occupied next. At any rate, in Dying to Win, Robert Pape reports, by quoting Osama bin Laden, that:
    The latest and greatest aggression...by the Zionist-Crusader alliance...is the occupation of the land of the two Holy Places [Mecca and Medina]. It is essential to hit the main enemy who divided the Ummah [Muslim community] into small and little countries and pushed it, for the last few decades, into a state of confusion...The Muslims don't first and foremost see themselves as Iraqis or Saudis or Jordanians when it comes to the war against America. They see themselves as Muslims.

    Interestingly, prior to American occupation of Iraq in 2003, there had never been a single suicide bombing in Iraq.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Interestingly, prior to American occupation of Iraq in 2003, there had never been a single suicide bombing in Iraq."

    Yeah, it was the land of sunshine and lollipops, wasn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  6. From Matt Yglesias:The Pakistani Taliban are waging a war whose aim is to overthrow the government of Pakistan. And yet somehow we’re the ones pressing the Pakistanis about the need to focus on the threat? It’s weird.Check out the comments on his blog, as people try to figure this out.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Exactly. Very weird.

    That's why I'm worried what The Establishment has up their puppet Obama's sleeve.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog