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

[C. G. Estabrook]

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...