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

Sun Mar 29 15:34:39 CDT 2009

Obama's lying policy looks like producing the catastrophe Ali & Cohen warn of.

---- Original message ----
>Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 15:05:35 -0500
>From: Robert Naiman <naiman.uiuc at gmail.com>  
>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] "Believe nothing until it's officially denied"  
>To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
>Cc: Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
>
>Perhaps even more troubling than Obama's speech was last week's NYT  
>report in which US officials are now openly accusing elements of the  
>Pakistani military not just of "links" but of active collaboration and  
>support of terrorist acts inside Pakistan, such as the bombing of the  
>Indian Embassy in Kabul. I don't have any reason to doubt that the  
>accusation is true. But making it openly may imply momentum for  
>certain kinds of action which could be quite explosive.
>
>For example, clearly they want to step up the drone attacks inside  
>Pakistan, for which it seems they currently have a "secret"  
>understanding with the Pakistani military. From the point of view of  
>those taegeting the strikes, if you hit a meeting, that's a jackpot.  
>Now suppose they have intelligence that such a meeting includes  
>Pakistani military intelligence officials. Is that "back off, too  
>hot?" Or is that "double jackpot?" If the latter - which seems likely  
>- it's easy to see how there could be a nasty backlash.
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>On Mar 29, 2009, at 2:17 PM, "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>  
>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 compreh 
>> ensively, 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 t 
>> o them. This is, of course, a distant possibility, and Ali is correc 
>> t in emphasising the unity of the armed forces. However, there’s a l 
>> ot of concern that under stress unpredictable things could happen, a 
>> nd 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 Afgha 
>>>> nistan,
>>>> President Barack Obama says he will consult with Pakistan's  
>>>> leaders before
>>>> pursuing terrorist hideouts in that country...
>>
>_______________________________________________
>Peace-discuss mailing list
>Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss