skip to main |
skip to sidebar
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.
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"!
Posts
