[Peace-discuss] "Believe nothing until it's officially denied"

[John W.]

I wrote a poem on this theme many years ago.  When I exercise my own "right
of last resort" to retaliate against a fellow human being who has actually
done me harm, I incur the wrath of the criminal justice system.  When a
government official or powerful potentate exercises the "right of last
resort" to do just about ANYTHING s/he wants to do, it's perfectly OK, even
laudable in some quarters.

Might makes right.  That's the "rule of law" in one three-word sentence.



On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 4:56 PM, C. G. Estabrook <carl at newsfromneptune.com>wrote:

       Petraeus: Military Reserves 'Right of Last Resort'
>        for Threats Inside Pakistan
>
> The head of Central Command speaks with FOX News, as the Obama
> administration
> prepares to step up the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban along the
> Pakistan-Afghanistan border.
>
>        FOXNews.com
>        Monday, March 30, 2009
>
> The U.S. military will reserve the "right of last resort" to take out
> threats
> inside Pakistan, but it would prefer to enable the Pakistani military to do
> the
> job itself, Gen. David Petraeus said Monday in an exclusive interview with
> FOX
> News.
>
> The commander of U.S. Central Command was interviewed as the Obama
> administration prepares to step up the fight against Al Qaeda and the
> Taliban
> along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.
>
> Asked about lingering concerns that Pakistan is not fully on board,
> Petraeus
> told FOX News' Bret Baier that the  U.S. military is putting "additional
> focus"
> on rooting out ties between Pakistan's intelligence service and the
> Taliban.
>
> One incident of obvious cooperation between the Pakistani intelligence
> community
> and extremists has already been uncovered, he said. "There is a case in the
> past
> year or so that we think was unambiguous. There appears to have been a
> warning
> prior to a Pakistani operation," Petraeus said.
>
> But he said trust between the two countries will be key as President Obama
> seeks
> more Pakistani cooperation and calls for billions in aid to the country.
>
> "I think we are building that kind of trust. And that's the way I think is
> the
> best description for that. And it's hugely important that that trust be
> built,"
> Petraeus said, pointing to "gradually increasing intelligence sharing"
> among
> Afghan, Pakistani and U.S. forces along the border.
>
> Obama, in unveiling his regional plan for Afghanistan and Pakistan on
> Friday,
> said the U.S. will "insist that action be taken, one way or another, when
> we
> have intelligence about high-level terrorist targets."
>
> He added on Sunday that "we're going after" such targets, though the U.S.
> will
> need to work with Pakistan's government to do so. He did not specifically
> say
> U.S. troops could be sent into the country.
>
> Asked about the president's comments, Petraeus signaled that all options
> would
> be on the table.
>
> "I think we would never give up, if you will, the right of last resort if
> we
> assess something as a threat to us, noting that what we want to do is
> enable the
> Pakistanis, help them, assist them to deal with the problem that we now
> think,
> and their leaders certainly now think, represents the most important
> existential
> threat to their country, not just to the rest of the world," he said.
>
> The Pakistanis have expressed frustration over unmanned U.S. drone strikes
> to
> take out terrorist targets inside their border.
>
> But Petraeus said the U.S. is mindful of perceptions in the region.
>
> "It's hugely important that we be seen as good neighbors, as friends,
> certainly
> fierce warriors who will go after the enemy and stay after them -- but also
> as
> individuals who try to avoid civilian casualties whenever possible and are
> seen
> again as supporting the people and trying to help them achieve a better
> life,"
> Petraeus said, specifically referring to the fight on the Afghan side of
> the
> border.
>
> On the Pakistani side, Petraeus acknowledged an effort to put a halt to any
> collaboration between Taliban members and individuals in Pakistani
> intelligence.
>
> "There are some relationships that continue. It is not as clear as one
> would
> like. There's certainly additional focus on that," Petraeus said.
> "Obviously,
> we've had these conversations with our counterparts (in Pakistan)."
>
> Obama has announced that he's sending 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan and
> is
> requesting $1.5 billion a year for the next five years in aid for Pakistan
> -- he
> is also planning to call for $2.8 billion just for Pakistan's military.
>
> As to threats elsewhere in the region, Petraeus said Iran is still "some
> years
> away" from a nuclear weapon.
>
> "They have low-enriched uranium that is about the amount that would be
> required
> perhaps to make a weapon, but there are many, many more steps that are
> required.
>
> You have to highly enrich it," he said. "But are they a threat? Certainly."
>
> Petraeus also dismissed online speculation that he is considering a run for
> office (the speculation was fueled by a posting, later revealed to be a
> joke,
> that he is planning a 2010 speaking engagement at the University of Iowa).
>
> "I do not (have interest in running for office)," Petraeus said. "Not at
> all.
> And I've tried to say that on numerous occasions."
>
> He said he's not heading to Iowa.
>
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/30/petraeus-military-reserves-right-resort-threats-inside-pakistan/
>
>
> C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>
>> I think you're right, and of course I hope you are, but the trouble is
>> that
>> there are people in the Pentagon and the State Department working hard
>> this
>> weekend on the contingency plans for taking effective control of Pakistan.
>> The administration has made it clear in its peculiarly misleading media
>> blitz
>> this week (you pointed out the significance of the Friday announcement)
>> that
>> Pakistan, not Afghanistan, is the real problem. The "stopping terrorism"
>> excuse is a front -- the real task is neutralizing opposition to effective
>> US
>> control of the region.
>>
>> They're looking at how taking control of an insufficiently active
>> comprador
>> government was done in S. Vietnam, how the US client Zia-ul-Haq arranged
>> for
>> martial law in Pakistan, and how Musharraf did it.  The consequences of
>> such
>> a move were set out by Tariq Ali (author of "The Duel: Pakistan on the
>> Flight
>> Path of American Power" [2008]) and Steve Cohen (formerly of UIUC) in a
>> discussion a year ago:
>>
>> "Tariq Ali: I think it is a dysfunctional state rather than a failed one,
>> but
>> the notion of jihadi terrorists capturing the nuclear facility is
>> nonsense.
>> They would have to capture the Pakistan army first. This consists of half
>> a
>> million men. The nuclear facility is the most heavily guarded place in the
>> country. A handful of senior officers know the codes. So its safe. And its
>> worth repeating that except for a short period following the break-up of
>> the
>> country in 1971, the command structure of the army has never been broken.
>> Even in 1971, the generals responsible for the debacle were asked politely
>> to
>> resign, which they did. Jihadis could only capture the nuclear facility if
>> the army wanted them to and there is no likelihood of that at the moment.
>>
>> "Stephen Cohen: I can provide a gloss on Tariq Ali’s answer - I’ve looked
>> at
>> the question of failure closely in my recent book on Pakistan and
>> concluded
>> that it had failed in pieces, but not comprehensively, as had Afghanistan
>> (which was in some ways a murdered, not a failed state) and several
>> African
>> states, which are hardly states in any sense of the word. Yet, the nuclear
>> assets are perhaps still vulnerable, one scenario for Pakistan would be a
>> falling out among the military, or perhaps a politician trying to divide
>> the
>> military - in these cases, short of total state failure, nuclear assets
>> could
>> be important in a power struggle, and who knows what would happen to them.
>> This is, of course, a distant possibility, and Ali is correct in
>> emphasising
>> the unity of the armed forces. However, there’s a lot of concern that
>> under
>> stress unpredictable things could happen, and Pakistan’s earlier record as
>> the wholesaler of nuclear technology to other states does not inspire
>> confidence.
>>
>> "Tariq Ali: Cohen is right to say that a split in the army could have
>> catastrophic results, but this is unlikely unless the US decided to invade
>> and occupy the country. That would split the army but it is as long a shot
>> as
>> jihadis capturing the nuclear weapons. True that Pakistan sold nuclear
>> technology in the world market on the assumption that everything was now
>> for
>> sale. They weren’t alone. Yeltsin’s Russia did the same.
>>
>> "Stephen Cohen: The fact that we are even talking about this is comforting
>> to
>> me in a perverse sense: the last sentence of my Idea of Pakistan stated
>> that
>> Pakistan could, soon, become America’s worst foreign policy nightmare -
>> I’m
>> not pleased to have anticipated this catastrophe."
>>
>>
>> http://www.brookings.edu/interviews/2008/0213_pakistan_cohen.aspx?rssid=cohens
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Robert Naiman wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think U.S. ground troops fighting in Pakistan in any numbers in
>>> the
>>>  forseeable future is a likely prospect. There are people in the U.S.
>>> government who would very much like to do this, but the Pakistani government
>>> and military have made very clear that this is a red line that
>>> they have no intention of allowing the U.S. to cross.
>>>
>>> There are many bad things ahead, but this is not likely to be one of
>>> them.
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Mar 29, 2009, at 10:52 AM, "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  [That maxim is ascribed to a number of experienced journalists, from the
>>>> late I. F. Stone to Alex Cockburn's father, Claud.  Like the psychoanalyst,
>>>> the observer of governments should always ask why
>>>> something is denied. --CGE]
>>>>
>>>> Obama Rules Out US Troops In Pakistan
>>>>
>>>> WASHINGTON (AP) — As he carries out a retooled strategy in Afghanistan,
>>>> President Barack Obama says he will consult with Pakistan's leaders before
>>>> pursuing terrorist hideouts in that country...
>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090401/97530946/attachment.htm