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

[John W.]

Kwlvkishbuin isnwhjtnw wibgwraenmo qianan wqnqgi  JUITJKAB jaitbbgio!!!

Sent from my iPhone


On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 3:42 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>wrote:

And it's rather hard to deny that Afghans and Pakistanis have a right to
> resist an invading army. --CGE
>
>
>
> Robert Naiman wrote:
>

>  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 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/20090329/ecfaf45f/attachment.html