Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Can he do it? Or is it too little, too late...
1 posted on 05/30/2002 10:39:02 AM PDT by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: mhking
He's forced to do this now since there is only a week left until expiration of the untimatum. Can he do the rare thing and get the ultimatum withdrawn, or get Musharrif to initiate a civil war in his own country? He might get the date of expiration of the ultimatum extended.
2 posted on 05/30/2002 10:42:32 AM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mhking
I DO NOT want to see Rumsfeld in Kashmir. That area is about as insecure a region of the world as there is. Not only is he not safe, but an incident involving him could be just the spark lacking to this point.
3 posted on 05/30/2002 10:46:49 AM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mhking;all
Cross-linking:

The India-Pakistani Conflict... some background information-

4 posted on 05/30/2002 10:47:23 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mhking
Send Dodd, Lieberman and Biden. Maybe they won't come back.
7 posted on 05/30/2002 11:11:06 AM PDT by jrlc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mhking, noswad, swarthyguy
What a waste of time. Sad that even Rumsfeld is beholden to a demonstrated failing doctrine of foreign policy initially hatched by Kissenger and amplified by successive waves of appeasers, believers in Fukuyamaian logic of exception to historical and geopolitical processes, and, the almighty US based, but utterly non-nationalistic and non-patriotic "global" corporate community. The time for us to return to a policy of DEFINITE allies and taking DEFINITE sides in geopolitical struggles that will ultimately force us to take the sides we now avoid, was yesterday. Like the UK 1919 - 1939, we foolishly believe in temporary constructs such as the UN (just like the unltimately failed League of Nations) to allow us to shirk our responsibility to CONTROL to the maximal level of our capability factors that shall ultimately coalesce into the next great powers conflict. With the forgoing set into place, does anyone care to give me an opinion regarding which country, India or Pakistan, we must take the side of immediately?
9 posted on 05/30/2002 11:32:53 AM PDT by GOP_1900AD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mhking

10 posted on 05/30/2002 11:36:04 AM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mhking

12 posted on 05/30/2002 11:38:11 AM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mhking
Where's Jesse at? We can solve two problems at once here.
15 posted on 05/30/2002 11:45:20 AM PDT by TADSLOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mhking
I think this brewing war is fully preventable and I wish Rumsfeld well in stopping it. I have some suggestions about how that might be brought about. Two levels - immediate security matters and linked longer term political ones.

Pakistan for its part should not only agree to police camps inside its territory, but should allow third party observors in that process. Whoever seems appropriate - Turks or Indonesians or Canadians or some mix. The idea is to reassure India that the actions being taken are not just window dressing, and to give credibility to Pakistani claims that they are trying seriously. India for its part should cease its provocative moves along the border and drp the present war threat. Again, observed doing it by third parties.

But those will not be enough. They do not address the real problem, of private parties in Pakistan and in Kashmir trying to bring about a war and conducting their own foreign policies, trying to foist them on the Pakistani state. The principle involved in stopping that must be that states determine control of territories according to international security concerns, and specifically that they are not determined by identity group politics, populist local sentiment, or campaigns of violence. However, when violence is not used, populist concerns deserve to be heard. Which in this case means -

For its part, Pakistan should renounce all territorial claims to Indian-occupied Kashmir. Seeking control of the territory of a foreign state is a belligerent act, whatever slogans are used to justify it and by whatever means it is pursued. Since Pakistan transparently does not want war with India, it should stop acting belligerently in this respect by leaving open a claim to territory controlled by India. The basis of every maintained peace is the recognition of the existing military facts on the ground, instead of trying to change those facts.

In return, India should renounce its claims to Pakistan controlled Kashmir. And it should also state a willingness to deal with any local Kashmir political groups that renounce violence, while retaining the right to use force within its territory - including Indian-occupied Kashmir - against any political groups that resort to violence. Nothing to violence, any reasonable degree of local autonomy to peaceful political processes.

The real test in all of this is whether rational states planning their foreign policies according to their real interests - including their powerful interest in maintaining peace between states - are really in control of their foreign policies. Because the terrorist idea is essentially that of "privatizing" foreign policy, subsuming it under identify group politics that operate without any rational control, on blind passion. Which is not a livable idea in a nuclear world, whatever pieties of populism and nationalism peddled over the last 200 years say about it.

"Self determination" is only compatible with civilization if pursued by peaceful political means exclusively. Pursued via privatized terrorist violence, it leads directly to an anarchic war of all against all - and in this technological era and even more so in future ones, to the destruction of all who engage in it.

Can the US bring about such mutual concessions? I think so, if we are willing to bring our full power to bear. We can deter India, if Pakistan cannot. Especially so when Europe and Russia entirely agree with us in the matter. It would be madness for India to persist in a war policy if we organize all the great powers against that course, and back it up with a real willingness to make India pay if they persist in their present course to war. Great powers cannot make war on allies of other great powers lightly.

There is comparatively little difficulty with Pakistan, where our leverage is enourmous. If we insist, and threaten to let India proceed if the Pakistani's do not follow our lead in the matter, then Pakistan would be crazy to turn us down. Especially when we can offer real benefits in return for renouncing claims to Indian-controlled Kashmir.

The passions of a crazies who want Islam to be at war with the world (there are such crazies on both sides of this one, Islamicists allied to Bin Laden, and Islam-haters who want Ragnorok) need not control the foreign policies of nuclear powers. They cannot be allowed to substitute their murderous passions for reason.

17 posted on 05/30/2002 12:16:58 PM PDT by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: All

On NOW at RadioFR!

6pm PDT/9pm EDT- Listen to Radio FreeRepublic live tonight, as Luis Gonzales interviews G. Edward Griffin and discusses his book 'The Creature From Jekyll Island. A Second Look At The Federal Reserve'. Find out the true nature of our monetary system and how it affects you!

Click HERE to listen LIVE while you FReep!


23 posted on 05/30/2002 6:09:55 PM PDT by Bob J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mhking
If anybody can do it, Rumsfeld can! BTW,I read something in one of the British newspapers months ago that makes me laugh every time I think about it. In England,they refer to the secretary as "strong meat"! hehehe! So now when I see Rumsfeld's name in the media,mentally I think of Don "strong meat" Rumsfeld!
24 posted on 05/30/2002 8:59:04 PM PDT by Lady In Blue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mhking
I heard that Mansoor guy say tonight that the terrorists will probably do something terrible when Rumsfled shows up. Something that could 'trip' the whole shooting war off. Maybe we ought to pray for Rumsfeld.
25 posted on 05/30/2002 9:02:53 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson