ISRAELI ATTACK ON IRAN MAY UNITE PAK GOVERNMENT WITH MILITANTS, ISRAELI PLAN?

Recent reports strongly suggest that Israel and the United States a plotting a nuclear attack on Iran.  

I believe this would unite the Pakistani military and the so-called Islamist revolutionaries, they will then unite to oppose such a war crime against Muslims.

Such an event could also lead to the end of the Saudi regime, so it wouldn't necessarily be all bad!  Is this part of the Israeli plan?

UNITED STATES MERCENARIES IN PAKISTAN

There have long been reports of United States mercenary forces making war in Pakistan but the recent deaths of three of the culprits provides the corpus delicti of the crime.  The bodies are there and they were somehow making war with orders from the imperialist 
warlord Obama.

The details of the incident have been reported broadly and hardly matter.  Obama has new wars in Yemen and Pakistan or at least broadening wars in those countries and Afghanistan.  Meanwhile the muddled conquest of Iraq is complete enough and enough of a failure to withdraw, but not really, soon.  



No wonder the military budget has flown past six hundred billions.


This has led to little real concern in the imperialist press and the VIP-National Security Caste seem to think a ground war in Pakistan is the way to go. 

MY AWESOME IGNORANCE ABOUT PAKISTAN AND AFGHANISTAN

     I seem, as a citizen, required to understand what is going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan and yet my ignorance is so magnificent regarding these two nations.  All I know is pretty much based on war talk in the media.; Even the "news" may be misleading rather than truly informative.  Yet there are these two wars that my nation of residence seems to be involved in, how to get a handle on it.

      I would like to believe, the experts, but it seems that the more the official experts talk the less I know.  I am unconvinced they even know what they claim to be so expert about.  Usually they are skillful salespeople, selling a war or a policy or an illusion that serves power.  In otherwords they are applied intellectuals.  They found jobs casting illusions that benefit the powerful and the legal
thieves of society.

    Looking at a map helps me understand an unknown land.  I like trying to remember some of the names of cities and regions and I don't even know if Pakistan and Afghanistan have provinces or states or what as interior subdivisions.  How many people live there, what are their cultures and languages?  I am comprehensively ignorant about all of that.  I think we American citizens generally are ignorant about it.

  We have no business making wars where we are so darn ill informed and ignorant.  It is a rule of thumb that if you want a disaster plunge into something you know nothing about with a "fine" plan nonetheless.  "Fools rush in where angels dare not tread."  That is a fine summation of how Os ama taunted and the U.S. took the bait.
That was disaster number one, the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.  Only Bush also created the second disaster by invading and occupying Iraq.



   I do know that when I saw those first videos attributed to O-sama Bin L -aden that I saw the mountains of Afghanistan all around him and I thought to myself that he certainly wasn't waiting there, that he was probably in some other country and just trying to draw the United States into a ruinous war, similar to the Russian debacle during which Os-ama and the US were allies and when the seeds of AQ were formed in the womb of the US inspired Jihad.  


   Of course the story today is that Osam-a Bin L aden was in Afghanistan and that a botched effort to capture or kill him led to his escape, if he is even alive, to Pakistan.  Still, my view that he was trying to "draw the enemy in deep" seems supported by the facts.  The United States has been in Afghanistan for nearly a decade and has little to show for it except the prospects of a Vietnam-style war or withdrawal without being defeated on the field of battle.

A corrupt puppet government like Karzai's mirrors the governments
supported in the ill fated Republic of Vietnam.  Is Karzai more like the Diem brothers?  If that were true he might make peace with the Taliban and be replaced by his American sponsors if they don't like such a solution.  On the other hand if he is more like Thieu he could end up with a nice fortune in France, after he escapes just before those touching helicopter evacuations at the U.S. embassy. 



  Of course this is a blog about Pakistan but I have come to the conclusion, correct or not, that Pakistan can establish effective control over Afghanistan and that with the civil war in Pakistan that it will surely do whatever it can to snuff out the AQ variants and Taliban variants that try to overthrow the Pakistani state.  I have heard again and again how there is no real border between Afghanistan and Pakistan and about how Pakistan sees Afghanistan as
an area under a sort of proxy control.  So if this is true then let the sovereign be King, so to speak.


I have this image of the Pakistani infantry and military as a meat grinder that can systematically eliminate any perceived enemy from Pakistani soil once that decision is made.  I also believe this will be very hard on the populations in Waziristan.  Whether or not the Taliban or AQ variants can survive the offensive of the Pakistani army is yet to be seen.

The bombing campaign in Pakistan by the insurgents seems very limited and yet it has had the psychological effect of shutting down the schools.  On the other hand it has probably united a majority against the insurgents?  I really don't know. 

So it is in Pakistan, in a sense, that Afghani AQ variants, if they exist, will be defeated.  Of course I don't know if the Pakistani government would like the Afghan Taliban taking over again or not.  That may have to do with its policies towards Pakistan.

It seems the United States should get out of Afghanistan in cooperation with Pakistan rather than remain in a futile counterinsurgency for two decades or more.  Eight years ago Bush could have made a go at getting AQ in Afghanistan and the border regions but he didn't even try.  Eight years later the more simple AQ problem has metastasized and spread throughout the region and the world.  The United States has gotten itself into a bigger mess by just messing around in Afghanistan for so long.  Maybe the US should be doing more economic and social help and let the Pakistanis and Afghans handle their own affairs.   

FULL SCALE CIVIL WAR

A lot has happened since my last post in November. What appeared to be an inevitable civil war has certainly broken out and I am reluctant to blame this on the United States, at least in the short run. Pakistan is at war with itself and the ruling elites have been and remain somewhat independent of the requirements of the Anglo-American world order, such as it is. Pakistani elites are in a life and death struggle with the so-called Taliban. 

The devastation has already been quite significant and it is obvious why such a war was avoided as long as possible, to precisely avoid such a terrible toll to the people of Pakistan.


Obviously, the Pakistani army is likely to be able to defeat the Taliban in any conventional war.  Whether or not a guerilla war will develop despite government victory in conventional warfare is yet to be seen. 
 

ARE THINGS GETTING WORSE IN PAKISTAN BECAUSE OF US ATTACKS?

It seems that a lot of people are against the United States attacking targets inside Pakistan. Musharaff used to warn against it and does Mr. Bhutto ie. Yousaf Raza Gilluni, the current President of Pakistan. Some countries seem to take very negatively to having others carrying out military operations within their borders. More importantly, the Pakistani public is incensed at U.S. attacks.

The upshot is that if the United States continues to attack Pakistani targets it could lead to a support of the Pakistanis for an Al Qaeda like takeover of Pakistan. Pakistan is already very sensitive about its border with India and that same sensitivity can be seen with regard to all of its borders.

If this was the AQ strategy back on 9/11 I am impressed. Does AQ hope to get all of Pakistan because Bush invaded and now Obama wants to continue the occupation of Afghanistan? Attacking Pakistan sounds like the worst way to go unless you want an AQ regime with nukes and a nuclear war. Very bad idea, really.

United States air attacks on Pakistan seem to be intensifying. Is this going to be part of a Bush-Cheney No-Exit Strategy before the inauguration.

NUCLEAR THREATS A ZEALOT IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND DICK CHENEY CASTING EVIL SPELLS

The United States made its first nuclear threats just before it dropped Big Boy and Little Boy on Japan way back in 1945 or was it '46. It hasn't stopped making nuclear threats since then and the latest one I heard about is the threat to level the Northwest Tribal areas of Pakistan if some sort of plot hatched there, is actually executed in the United States proper.

[This seems like an odd thing upon which to trigger a nuclear strike, any sort of attack on the United States that has some sort of connection to Northwest Pakistan. It just isn't a prudent targeting method. ]

Leveling a mountainous area may be contraindicated, by the way. I don't think it is realistic to really flatten mountains or to even bomb guerillas in these particular mountains. It's like trying to hit a fly with a sledge hammer. You're going to do a lot of damage, but not to the fly.

The annihilation of Islamic villagers with nuclear weapons would unleash a new level of confrontation for the United States both at home and abroad. If you want to pump up the Islamic revolution a hundred fold then nuke the North West Territories. If Bush does this I wouldn't be surprised if there were high fives in Al Qaeda circles.

Let me spell it out plain and simple. Nuking the North West Territories in Pakistan will make Al Qaeda look good or even better than they look to some now. Other strains of opposition to the United States will also be
supercharged.

One way Al Qaeda works is by responding to crises and setbacks with broad recruiting due to the sympathy engendered by attacks on those targets somehow thought of as being defended by Al Qaeda. So a big crushing blow will create a huge insurrectional response, both almost immediately and then in a crescendo new recruits.

A nuclear attack will not be forgiven by these people. I really don't think so. They will rally to whatever anti-U.S. organization most appeals to them. Often that is Al Qaeda but there are others and the lesson is we are doing something unjust or all these very different organizations wouldn't exist to oppose the U. S..

So we are creating other potent opponents by nuking anyone and especially by wiping out villages and such. This was supposedly one reason the United States invaded Iraq for, to stop the eradication of mountain villages along with the villagers in them. Now we want to wipe out villages with the blunt instrument of nuclear weapons, not finesse it with poison gas like Saddam. I suppose progress is inevitable.

Are there organizations to oppose Haiti or Hatian Imperialism? Of course not because Haiti is on the receiving end of imperialism.

What is truly bizarre is how nuclear devastation can be discussed as if it is a minor technical operation in the coordination of international affairs. There is no real public debate or understanding of this current threat by Bush and it looks like he is the emperor, the Senate and House have nothing to do with the guidance of the ship of state. It's the doctrine of the unitary executive. I call it presidential dictatorship The input of the people, corrupted as it is by special interests is left out of the equation except as a factor to be managed.

These are troubling times. I worry what Bush may do in some sort of religious delusional state, perhaps after a long conversation with the deity! I worry what the Metternich and Svengali and Machiavelli all rolled up in one, Dick Cheney will contrive. You can bet he is contriving some sort of war. Oh, yeah!

The consequences of a nuclear attack are likely to be negative in many areas and would simply open up the world to a new level of terror and violence. Not only would the military effects be uncertain in the target area but the political and ecological considerations are likely to
be catastrophic. I wonder how many U.S. embassies would be imperiled by the consequent protests. Would some celebrate in the streets? Who knows? Will a nuke be lobbed at us by someone out there for this sort of thing? Who knows? Just don't forget to "duck and cover"!

REMEMBER THE "CHINA SYNDROME"? WHAT ABOUT THE PAKISTAN SYNDROME?

Remember the "China syndrome" scenario for the most serious sort of meltdown in a nuclear reactor. The core of the nuclear reactor melts into a molten ball and starts burning a hole through the earth as if on the way to China. Of course the molten slag doesn't get very far and the term "China syndrome" is but another bit of poetic terminology. Chernobyl was a meltdown of sorts and of course the ecological destruction has been enormous contaminating many thousands of square miles.

What about Pakistan? Of course the nation of Pakistan is not a nuclear reactor. It will not melt down into slag. Yet it does seem to be a nation on the brink of an islamic revolution could sweep away Musharaff and possibly anyone in its path. I am most unhappy about this possibility.

So it will be a meltdown for Musharaff and Bhutto and Sharif? The new Islamic revolution will be quite pleased with itself and potentially acquire substantial military assets including nuclear weapons. So it is difficult to imagine the United States and perhaps others standing by and letting this happen. Unfortunately the Bush-Cheney obsession with Iraq has distracted from very real problems with Pakistan, problems that affect the war in Afghanistan and which
threaten to rapidly explode into a remarkable catastrophe, a Pakistani version of Al Qaeda with nukes.

It would be another Islamic revolution in Pakistan. It would have a lot of assets and might be a lot more conservative than so-called Islamists without assets. What do you think?

I do not doubt the bravery of the Pakistani leaders. Bhutto has been most impressive, but it doesn't look like Musharaff will work with her as I had imagined was the hidden American plan. Instead, he seems to want to run the show on his own. This could narrow his base and erode his ability to remain in power. Of course at any point assassins could finally finish him off. I can see he would be concerned about Bhutto getting killed possibly as she organizes against him but he is also a repressive dictator if reports of how he has rounded folks up are to be believed.

We keep on hearing that there are reliable replacement Generals in the wings! Is this an expression of overconfidence? Of course I don't know what degree of legitimacy Bhutto has. It is remarkable that there are such courageous political movements like with the lawyers and the PPP. It seems to be a level of political consciousness and concern and activism unlike anything I have ever seen in the United States.

Would an Islamist revolution in Pakistan lead to military offensives in Kashmir and war with India? Is anyone in the White House thinking about these things? Isn't the obsession with Iran also a distraction from the Pakistani meltdown.