And who is going to stop this escalation? Not Obama, he agrees with it. mike532 [ Republicans for Obama ] wrote: > Pakistan, United States: Brink of War? > > http://www.truthout.org/article/mustafa-qadri-pakistan-united-states-brink-war > The US steps up border raids into Pakistan, creating a game of > brinkmanship between troops from both countries. (Photo: Anjum > Naveed / AP) > As the United States steps up border raids into Pakistan, troops > from both countries have commenced a deadly game of brinksmanship. > Although aimed at asserting each other's military presence along the > Pakistan-Afghan border, the skirmishes risk outright hostilities. > > U.S. strikes in Pakistan are nothing new. Washington has conducted > unilateral missile strikes since soon after its invasion of > Afghanistan in October 2001. American pilotless surveillance planes > have been flying over the restive border with near impunity for much > the same time. > > From Air to Ground > > But the tone of the U.S. presence changed this year. In July, > President George W. Bush approved covert ground raids into suspected > militant hideouts in the Waziristan region of Pakistan, much of which > is a Taliban stronghold. Militants use the region as a sanctuary from > which to strike foreign and Afghan troops in neighboring Afghanistan. > Thus far, U.S. forces attempted at least three ground assaults. The > only confirmed ground invasion of Pakistan, on September 3, led to the > deaths of around 20 civilians, including women and children. No > militant leaders were believed captured or killed in the raid. > > This ground assault led to unprecedented rhetoric from Pakistan > condemning the United States. Even Chief of Army Staff Gen. Ashfaq > Kayani, normally quite evasive with the media, said that the Army > would defend Pakistan's territory. The Pakistani government summoned > the U.S. ambassador to the foreign office and blocked NATO supplies > vital to the multinational force's continued operation in Afghanistan. > > Pakistan averted two other attempted ground raids when its border > forces fired warning shots at U.S. helicopters ferrying commandos into > Waziristan. On the most recent occasion, Pakistan and U.S. troops > exchanged fire for five minutes. Pakistan�s government later claimed > that its army fired flares, not bullets, at the helicopters, but this > explanation did not sound very convincing. > > Ostensibly, Washington fears that Waziristan - and other tribal > regions - could become a staging area for further attacks on the > United States if the Pakistani army doesn�t root out pro-Taliban > forces. But Washington doubts whether Islamabad is capable of doing > the job. > > More broadly, U.S. policy in the region is increasingly shaped by > its failure to establish unequivocal dominance in Iraq. With the War > on Terror overshadowing U.S. foreign policy for the foreseeable > future, the next U.S. president will have to deliver victory in some > form to a skeptical public. That is the ultimate legacy of the > September 11 hijackers, and the Bush administration. > > The Next Target > > That victory will most likely not come out of the violence and > political mess of Iraq. Although the Bush administration and both > presidential candidates support a significant, continued military > presence in Iraq, the United States has accepted that it can�t control > the entire country by direct military force. It may have had some > success in marginalizing al-Qaeda in Iraq - after initially spurring > its growth - but it has also been forced to accept Shia domination of > domestic politics. > > Iran was seriously mooted as the next frontline and even now > experiences tremendous diplomatic pressure from Washington. But it�s > difficult for the United States to promote the Shia state as the next > front in the War on Terror, however much Israel or its lobby in the > United States may favor this path. Iran doesn�t pose an immediate > threat, nor would it afford a quick and easy military campaign. > Rather, war with Iran would almost certainly lead to a severe > disruption of global energy supplies and the world economy. > > Pakistan, in comparison, is an irresistible target. The United > States claims to have evidence that the government supports jihadis > that wage war against the United States and NATO in Afghanistan. Even > a limited, covert war, directed at militants, not the Pakistan Army, > is arguably the easiest sell the United States has ever had to make > since the 1990 war with Iraq. The only factor preventing all-out > conflict is Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. > > Escalation > > U.S. raids and missile strikes may be an attempt to see how far it > can go with Pakistan. After Pervez Musharraf stepped down as > president, the United States felt uninhibited by the concern that its > Pakistan interventions were impairing a staunch ally. There have been > as many missile strikes this year as in the previous seven. > > Pakistan has engaged in loud rhetoric decrying the attacks and > asserted it won�t tolerate intrusions into its territory. Strong > public criticism was inevitable to placate a population deeply > resentful of the U.S. presence in the region. Both civilian and > military leaders have to guard against forces, such as rival > politicians or upstart officers, using the crisis to leverage power. > > Even internationally, if Pakistan hadn�t condemned the U.S. > attacks, it would have tacitly acknowledged that it can�t address the > militant problem on its own. That would be an open invitation to more > interference from foreign armies and, potentially down the road, > international isolation as a failed state. > > Pakistan, as it currently exists, relies on U.S. patronage for its > survival. There�s very little it can do if the United States decides > to step up its military presence in Pakistan. According to the State > Department, the United States has given Pakistan $2.4 billion in > "security assistance" and $3.4 billion in economic assistance over the > past seven years. Pakistan has obtained a raft of loans and credits > from international financial institutions like the World Bank and the > Asian Development Bank since its rehabilitation by the United States > after September 11. > > Despite the cold-headed realism, there�s a real danger that future > confrontations between Pakistan and U.S. troops could escalate into > outright hostilities. The Pakistani army�s rank-and-file is deeply > uneasy about military operations that have killed several thousand > fellow citizens and Muslims at the behest of Washington, not > Islamabad. Pakistan border posts may welcome any future U.S. intrusion > into Pakistan as an opportunity to assert their country's > independence. > > U.S. and NATO commanders in Afghanistan also resent what they see > as Pakistan's unwillingness to stop militants from attacking their > troops from hideouts in Pakistan. U.S. Marine Gen. James E. Cartwright > recently told Congress that 30-40% of the attacks in Afghanistan come > from Pakistan, an increasing proportion. American commanders may not > need much persuasion to fire on Pakistani forces if they are seen to > be getting in the way of militant targets. Even a standoff could > accidentally escalate into all-out hostilities. > > If substantial casualties ensue, Islamabad and Washington might be > hard-pressed to soothe popular calls for revenge. > > --------- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
