Article of Nuclear Risk in Pakistan, US and Israeli Response

If those refugees set up where the 5,000 jehadis from Pakistan are camping, then they may or may not be safe. But they aren't that stupid, and we can tell the difference from a refugee camp and a military encampment. One has lots of blue tents and crying babies in it. The other doesn't.

Why don't you just admit it though: you do not care whether those refugees get any food or not. If you did then you would not tell us to just send food across the border. Every bit of food that has crossed the border for the past several weeks has been stolen by the Taliban. They raided the UN's World Food center in Kandahar and stole the 16 tons of food that was stockpiled there for the populace. They are looting all aid convoys they encounter. None of the food being sent there from Pakistan is getting to the refugees.

The Taliban has been in a mad dash to store as much food for the winter as possible, because that will be the key to their survival into spring. Either you didn't know this (which would mean that either you've been ignoring the news for the past few weeks or you're in total denial), or you have no real intention of seeing any Afghan refugees eat this winter.

They will get no food unless we either drop it to them from the air or escort it to them on the ground. That is the grim reality, ignore it or not.

 

glynch:

We wouldn't even contemplate stealing Pakistan's nukes unless we thought there was a very good chance that a fundamentalist/military coalition would stage a successful coup there fairly soon. I suggest you do a little research on Pakistan's opposition groups (to the Musharaf regime). They are more widespread than CNN is letting on. All I'm asking is for you to do some independent research. You will be shocked and terrified if your research leads you anywhere but CNN...

Those nukes are not safe. Whoever leaked the info on the SF operation we had brewing to steal them should be shot - and I mean that, they should be taken out and shot as traitors. It is not unlikely that at least some of those Pakistani nukes will end up here because of that treason.

For the record, though, I would not advocate such an operation unless there was a very good chance that Musharaf will fall. I believe there is a very good chance that he will fall. Although, I would support every effort to prevent his demise before I would order such an operation. I would only order it if a coup appeared imminent, or shortly after a coup. But I would keep the teams on a moments' notice...

Mango? Links for glynch to study?

 

Glynch,

You summed up Musharraf's problem with your opening statement:
<i>Treeman, Pakistan is our ally. </i>


There are several underlying issues that cause a linkage between the Taliban and a significant number of Pakistani citizens.

1) The Taliban are predominately Pashtoon/Pathan/Pushtan; which are the major ethnic group in the adjoining border areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

2) The ISI of Pakistan trained and supported the Taliban for military operations. There are reports that former ISI officers are still in advisory positions to the Taliban at this moment.

3) The Taliban draw huge support from the Islamic schools (madrasas) in Pakistan.

4) The ISI used terrorist bases and networking in Afghanistan to train the <i>freedom fighters</i> for Kashmir. This enabled Pakistan to keep a bit of separation between Pakistan and the terrorism in Kashmir.


The US supposedly has Musharraf (and Pakistan) as allies. Musharraf realigned his key commanding officers so that he would have more support in keeping his commitments to the US.


<A HREF="http://www.dawn.com/2001/11/06/nat3.htm">The Tehrik-i-Nifaz-i-Shariah Muhammadi on Monday temporarily suspended the process of sending volunteers to Afghanistan
</A>

Why is Musharraf allowing this leakage of support for the Taliban? Why haven't his supposedly stronger commanders cracked down on this issue? Probably because Musharraf & Co feel the sentiment in Pakistan is against doing that.


<A HREF="http://www.saag.org/papers4/paper339.html">PAKISTAN: the gathering storm</A>

<A HREF="http://www.subcontinent.com/sapra/terrorism/terrorism20010914a.html">Compelling Pakistan to Co-operate</A>


Note the date on the following link:
<A HREF="http://www.ipcs.org/issues/articles/375-pak-kapila.html">Pakistan – The Costs of Taliban Sponsorship</A>



Mango

 

Thank you, Mango. Nice to know I'm not just imagining all this... Didn't think I was.

 

glynch,

I do not appreciate the implication that I shaded the discussion with only Indian based links because other links would not support the position.

Since you seem to think that the Indian based analysts can't be objective, here are three replacement links from other sources.

<A HREF="http://www.isis-online.org/publications/terrorism/pakassist.html">ISIS Issue Brief
Securing Pakistan's Nuclear Arsenal: Principles for Assistance</A>

<i>
...........is probably manageable. However, these are not normal times. Pakistan's decision to cooperate with the United States in responding to the September 11th terrorist attacks threatens to throw Pakistan into turmoil. The threat to Pakistan's stability is difficult to judge, and the U.S. actions appear currently to be reducing such a possibility. Nevertheless, the war on terrorism is expected to be long and drawn out, potentially subjecting Pakistan to further instability. In addition, the Pakistani military and intelligence services may still have strong ties to the Taliban in Afghanistan. Like the Pakistani population, many among the rank-and-file and perhaps the officer corps of the Pakistani military could be sympathetic to fundamentalist causes and hostile to the United States. Such insider threats could pose one of the most vexing problems in the current crisis......</i>



<A HREF="http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/afghan2/Afghan0701-02.htm">III. PAKISTAN'S SUPPORT OF THE TALIBAN</A>

<A HREF="http://www.afghan-info.com/Research_Articles/Analysis_Pakistan_Taliban.htm">Pakistan in awkward position over backing Taliban</A>
<i>.........
Pakistan had already angered Washington by failing to press the Taliban to turn over Osama bin Laden, the Saudi militant accused of blowing up two U.S. embassies. The sanctions were a new attempt to get hold of bin Laden.

Regardless, there is no sign Pakistan has shifted its policy on the Taliban. While it joined in opposing destruction of the statues, Pakistan took days to make a comment and sent its interior minister to hold talks with Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar only on the day U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan arrived in Islamabad to discuss the issue.......</i>

As the story above noted, the diplomacy route that you advocate was tried prior to 9-11 and it failed.


After scratching the three Indian based articles, there are three non-Indian links and a Pakistani newpaper article to support the position that there is considerable intertwining of Pakistan-Afghanistan-Taliban. That makes it very difficult for Musharraf to really support the US actions as he promised.


Mango