Posted on 12/03/2008 9:42:20 AM PST by Xth Legion
WASHINGTON: The United States has set the stage for punitive internationally-backed strikes by India against terrorist camps in Pakistan if Islamabad does not act first to dismantle them by rejecting President Zardari’s alibi that non-state actors were responsible for the last week’s carnage in Mumbai.
The game-changer, outlined by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, among others, robs Islamabad of the fig leaf that Zardari used in his interview on Larry King Live that ''stateless actors'' are holding the whole world hostage and Pakistan was not to blame. Rice said in effect that the excuse does not absolve Pakistan responsibility for terrorist acts that originate from its territory,“ Rice said.
Although US officials have not outright approved immediate punitive Indian strikes against terrorist targets in Pakistan, it is clear Rice has bought time for Islamabad to prove its bonafides. Pakistan has a ''special responsibility'' and needs to act ''urgently'' she said, even as India has indicated it will wait for a Pakistani response to its demands before any punitive action.
In Washington, experts pressed the administration to expand the scope of punitive strikes to an international level to avoid making it an India-Pakistan issue, particularly since the death toll included citizens of ten countries.
''Rather than simply begging the Indians to show restraint, a better option could be to internationalise the response. Have the international community declare that parts of Pakistan have become ungovernable and a menace to international security,'' Robert Kagan, an influential analyst with the Carnegie Endowment, said.
''Would such an action (strikes) violate Pakistan's sovereignty?'' Kagan asked in an op-ed, and answered, ''Yes, but nations should not be able to claim sovereign rights when they cannot control territory from which terrorist attacks are launched.''
Rice echoed this outlook more discreetly and cautiously.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesofindia.indiatimes.com ...
We told Mullah Omar to hand over Bin Ladin or face the consequences.
India should tell Pakistan the same. Hand over the perpetrators, even if they happen to be ISI. Especially if they are ISI. And if we’ve any spine at all, we should back them up.
This may get messy.
Not quite.
It starts when the murderers are not punished with a wink and a nod.
Clean up your act, Pak, or we will have to do it for you.
This is how “Obama”’s birth certificate act could end before completion.
Sic em! Post haste.
President Zardari, what would your wife do?
Oh that’s right, she was assassinated by a “stateless” entity too.. huh? I guess It’s no one’s fault, It’s everyone’s fault.. except for those who knowingly harbor the sickness that engulfs Pakistan and the Middle East and seeks to rule the world.
“The United States has set the stage for punitive internationally-backed strikes by India against terrorist camps in Pakistan if Islamabad does not act first to dismantle them by rejecting President Zardari’s alibi that non-state actors were responsible for the last week’s carnage in Mumbai.”
Pakistan should get the same ultimatum that Afganistan got after 9/11. You get them or others will.
The Bush Doctrine is still in force. Very good development.
Better that we should do it; if India were to act, Pakistan would reply with nuclear weapons, OR the current Pakistani leader would be replaced by his religious fanatic opposition, with pretty much the same effect.
If we do it, Pakistan blusters and shouts, then they get over it.
LeT is a “stateless actor” with according to one report an 80 hectare base near Lahore. It’s good to see that no one is buying this Pak charade.
For God’s sake, nuke Pakistan already! Stop the cancer!!
question is what type of time frame are we looking at here . .
i think there was 1.5 months or something like that bwtn 9/11 and when we starting dropping ordinance on the Taliban
Not sure what you mean by "it."
What most likely happens, I think, is that it will become a joint operation between the US and Pakistan to gain control of the "tribal regions."
Pakistan actually has a positive interest in this, as they've been struggling to deal with these regious for years -- just not the resources to handle it properly.
I suspect that the US contribution would be primarily airstrikes, intel, and logistical support; whereas the Pakistanis would provide most of the boots on the ground. However, US SOF would probably be allowed to operate in-country as well, looking for those "special targets." (That would be "officially allowed," as I suspect we've long had folks operating within those regions.)
If he moves against the Islamic militants he'll likely be joining his wife in short order and civil war would probably erupt.
If he continues to stall and protest Pakistan's innocence, he'll soon be receiving a visit from the Indian military and who knows where that could lead.
Either way, things look ominous for that country.
I'm guessing you left off the /sarcasm tag because you thought it would have been redundant....?
Which version?
It’s an absolute mess but Pakistan does not have civilian control over their military or intel (ISI).
That’s a big problem and puts the Pakistani government in a very bad bind. They can neither gain control over these entities locally, control a whole region of the country (big troop losses when they tried) or convince India they will take action themselves (and handover mob leaders/terrorists.)
India has a better chance of getting Pakistan to hand over Mullah Omar.
All of these guys are protected in Pakistan by the ISI and sympathetic military.
Like all military plans, things do not always follow the script. You are talking about two nuclear powers in the region with a bad history between them.
Pakistan would be foolish to consider the thought of a nuke attack on India. India would level Pakistan with one hell of a nuke strike and millions of rough and hard trained Indian force. Pakistan would cease to exists.
Thanks India for using the truth serum on that little muslim POS! It’ll get the shackles up of the liberal pukes in this country.
I think it was Victor Davis Hanson who once wrote an excellent article on having to deal with a situation wherein there are no "good" options, meaning that we must identify and pursue the "least worst" option.
The situation in Pakistan certainly has all of the necessary characteristics of such a mess.
The truly worst-case situation would be if India decides that Pakistan will do nothing, so India will take action on its own. This would almost certainly result in open warfare between Pakistan and India. The likelihood of escalation is high, and there's a good possibility that the war could escalate beyond a two-nation clash.
The problem, then, is to address India's legitimate complaints while at the same time defusing the impetus toward direct action by India.
One part of the "solution" (if we can call it such) is to emphasize that the US has identical interests in addressing Pakistan's "stateless actors." So we could in some sense offer ourselves as proxies for India -- mediators with serious firepower, if you will.
By accusing "stateless actors" Zardari has at least opened the door to cooperation with the US and/or others to control the "stateless" regions in Pakistan that are supposedly home to the animals in question.
This could potentially mollify India enough to keep things from boiling over.
The other problem, which is at least as serious, is as you state: "All of these guys are protected in Pakistan by the ISI and sympathetic military."
As things currently stand, the ISI and sympathetic military are not openly operating against the Pakistani government. Any action with respect to the tribal areas would have one of two effects:
1) they'd still do nothingn overt, or;
2) more likely, they would go into open opposition.
Failure to act will probably result in war, so we'll have to deal with either or both of these scenarios.
The better case is the first -- it allows relative freedom of action. The second case is more difficult, especially as it raises the possibility of a coup, and subsequent war with India. But we would have to operate on the assumption that the attempted coup could be controlled.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.