90 Comments

1. Dave:

At this moment, the critical elements are neither India nor Pakistan. It is the USA.

One wild card is whetehr or not the Bush administration comments to a specified course of action between now and the time Obama takes office.

The other and looming wild card is Barack Obama. If he goes in knowing full well that
none of his experience prepares him for this,
then his team may be able to come up with a viable solution.

If on the other hand BHO goes in thinking he is the smartest guy in the room and can charm
hostilities into “kumbaya”, the defecation will encounter the oscillation.

The needed character trait is called humility. Let us pray that Obama has some of it.

Nov 27, 2008 - 11:16 pm 2. NahnCee:

Do we really think that forcing India to align with Pakistan is a Petraeus plan or are B Hussein and the NY Times taking that good soldier’s name in vain and hiding behind his proven success? What’s a general to do, if he is being misquoted by a newly-elected proven liar of a Commander in Chief?

Nov 27, 2008 - 11:18 pm 3. wretchard:

I don’t know what Gen Petraeus thinks and were I in his shoes, what alternatives would be open to me? The solution to Pakistan it seems, must begin with creating a core constituency whose natural aspiration is something other than the Jihad or mayhem. You have to organize a group whose interests line up with peace, tolerance and prosperity. That will require stabilizing a very fluid situation, building some latticework within the bowl of Jell-O that Pakistani politics has become. This doesn’t guarantee a cure for the patient. But stabilizing the patient is merely the necessary, not the sufficient prerequisite to a solution.

The alternatives are ghastly. If Pakistan falls to pieces and rogue elements get their hands on nukes or attack India unrestrained, we could be looking a regional nuclear war. But on the other hand, protecting the ISI and the Jihadis from the consequences of their actions will encourage them. If India doesn’t hit back hard, the “teen gunmen” will be back. Ultimately fixing Pakistan will require more effort than anyone is willing to invest. Obama’s strategic problem — not Petraeus’ — is that he has worked harder than anyone to discredit a sustained Global War on Terror when a multi-decade effort is the only thing that will work. He came to office promising to work miracles and now he will find that his gestures cannot calm the winds or still the oceans. What this means is that Petraeus won’t get the fuel and infrastructure to fight this over the long haul. Providing the political support for that effort is Obama’s job. And Obama has taken a wrecking ball to the very concept of a long war on terror. David Kilcullen estimated it would take 30 years to fix Pakistan. It’s like a ramshackle building that has to be fixed and shored up one step at a time. There are no magic bullets here. At least there isn’t one labeled “restrain India, get full cooperation from Islamabad”.

Nov 27, 2008 - 11:41 pm 4. Elroy Jetson:

Is India the new Israel? I tremble at the thought. A nation of 170 million at its doorstep with a large population of terrorists plus some within its own borders can make for huge problems in the country of over 1 billion.
China must be persuaded to realize that it is not in their best interests to have war raging between India and Pakistan. Its not helpful to their own economic situation. Do the Chicoms realize that? Pakistan must be pressured from all sides. Maybe Obama was right.
Interesting times we live in.

Nov 28, 2008 - 12:42 am 5. Ivan:

Anyone who believes that India and Pakistan are going to kiss and make up is not living in the real world. I say this as an Indian: most of us don’t care what becomes of Pakistan. The only interests we have is that their problems should not spill over onto us. For many years the Americans cultivated the Pakistanis as some sort of bulwark against Communism. The Chinese on the other hand used the Pakistanis to triangulate against India taking advantage of the Pakistan’s blood-feud against India. The Indians have handled Kashmir within these constraints for decades. Now it seems that some strategists are thinking of a quid pro quo; Kashmir for Afghanistan. Has it occured to these idiots that the Pakistanis have been playing both ends for all the juice they can get? And where is Obama going to get the cash to payoff the Pakis? India can take many more Mumbais; a couple of hundred dead is no big deal and we’ll use the opportunity to learn and perfect our systems. But in no way are we going to sign up to any quixotic American plans, especially since its clear that their staying power doesn’t last more than two election cycles. The problem with Pakistan has always been Islam and no one but Father Time can do anything about that.

Nov 28, 2008 - 1:22 am 6. ADE:

It takes a village.

But to be a Jihadi, it takes a dying village.

There is no Al Q. There is no Pakistan. There are just lots of dying villages.

So there will be lots of Jihadis, blaming me for the death of their village.

Pakistan cannot fight AQ, because they would have to fight every village from Morocco to Manila.

Let the villages die. If they have nukes, nuke them first.

The solution to Pakistan it seems, must begin with creating a core constituency whose natural aspiration is something other than the Jihad or mayhem.

Exactly. It will take time, and projection of Western values. The price? 50m dead Pakistanis, unfortunately.

And they know this.

ADE

Nov 28, 2008 - 2:17 am 7. wretchard:

I wouldn’t be so fatalistic, though it’s tempting, in these difficult times. But here’s the thing. Decisions about embracing carbon trading, killing coal power plants, preventing oil drilling, stopping missile defense, canceling future combat systems, creating health entitlements, giving terrorist suspects full rights and deploying 20,000 men to Afghanistan have to be consistent with a world in which the supplies go through Pakistan and reliance placed on Islamabad to suppress terrorist activity. It’s one thing to say, “Pakistan must be pressured on all sides”. It’s another to square that intent with all these other campaign promises. Obama’s policies are either wise in the aggregate or foolish in totality. Because all these moving parts are going to be working in the same engine, operating in the same reality you have to calculate where the mass of the mechanism is going.

The incident in Mumbai will focus attention on the usefulness of linking a rapproachment with India to a fight against al-Qaeda. Here’s my intial impression. The very same forces we want Islamabad to fight will wreck any attempts at improving relations with India. There should be no surprises here other than that we didn’t see it coming.

Nov 28, 2008 - 2:26 am 8. CPT. Charles:

Well noted, wretchard.

The fantasy world that Dear Leader spun for his followers, that fantastic ‘green’ world is about to hit the maxim I have used in an attempt to wake people up.

‘You can have any viewpoint, any opinion you desire as long as you remember this: reality doesn’t GIVE A SHIT what you think.’ This is what all my years in the military [at all three levels...] has taught me.

Having ideals is all well and good, but they MUST be tempered with the real. Just as a sword, fashioned from a lump of metal, must be quenched in a bath of salt water. Otherwise it will be just a worthless toy, destined to shatter when matched against a blade of real worth.

So then, what will The One do…? Beats the hell outta me; IMHO, I don’t think he even knows, even though he’ll be damned if he’d admit it. Doubtlessly his team of 300 [?] foreign policy ‘experts’ are toiling away even as I write these words. Well, whatever. He’s got less than 60 days to come up with a plan that WON’T result in the Indian Subcontinent being set on fire…good luck with that.

All things considered, I’d see to your own well-being first; the next few years promises to be a very rough ride…for everyone.

As for the 52% that voted for hope and change, they’re about to get the latter, but scant little of the former. Unfortunately, they’ll soon discover what a demagogues’ promises are worth.

Pity they didn’t read the fine print concerning the ‘no refund’ policy.

Nov 28, 2008 - 4:42 am 9. Mongoose:

Knowing India, I should say that Ivan catches the stance of Indians most accurately. Truly, at time we might have handled India more wisely and respectfully.

But to Ivan I would, in our defense, say that in the Cold war our resolve lasted far beyond two election cycles. We are capable of perseverance across generations in long battle against vicious foes that well know the weaknesses of democracies. Few nations have ever undertaken anything like the Cold War. The results surprised us as much as they did anyone. So, Ivan, please take that into account in your political calculus.

How did this happen? This is a key question for our times, and this is the one issue that we are dancing around in this post.

True, here was more balance between the parties, and, frankly, the Democrat party was not the tool of dark interests. Politically, McGovern and Wallace both were shown the door. Reagan rallied the line at a crucial point of generational change. There was an abiding notion that all that was dear was at stake.

What has changed is the Democrat party and with it the nature of Americans. The Left and their long war to demoralize the West appears to finally have reached the tipping point.

How is it to be undone?

Perhaps Bush realized that somehow he had to attempt to place us in a footing for the long war, one that would hold across generations and through political change. Perhaps much of the puzzlement that conservative have felt toward some of his actions and policies come from not understanding this and seeing the challenges that he is up against. We still do not know if he succeed, it is just to early to tell.

This is the truly central challenge for Obama (or more precisely his puppetmatsers). Is he even aware of what is at stake?

The immediate need is to constant;y hold the Democrat’s feet to the fire, to not left them amplify their electioneering slander and disinformation of the past campaign.

It is about all we can do at this point.

As an aside, Ivan, I would point out that India too will face the same sort of internal issues should she decide to face the new scourge head on.

Nov 28, 2008 - 5:59 am 10. exhelodrvr:

It could work to India’s advantage, though. The Indian government could use this to wrest “bennies” from the U.S. – trade agreements, military aid, etc. – in exchange for not ratcheting up the tension with Pakistan. I suspect that is being explored as we post. If that can be done in such a way as to minimize the internal political ramifications, it provides an “out” to all three players.

Nov 28, 2008 - 6:05 am 11. Ruby Red:

exhelodrvr said, “The Indian government could use this to wrest “bennies” from the U.S. – trade agreements, military aid, etc. – in exchange for not ratcheting up the tension with Pakistan”

That’s a stupid business model. For one thing, we’re going to have a trillion dollar deficit this time, so we don’t have two cents to rub together. Second, it’s a bit like two guys standing in a puddle of gasoline, and one of them says, “If you give me some money, I won’t flick this lighter and create sparks.”

ADE said, “Let the villages die. If they have nukes, nuke them first….It will take time, and projection of Western values. The price? 50m dead Pakistanis, unfortunately.

You are a man of the the West, and you have revealed your Western values here. 50 million dead brown people isn’t the price for imposing western values, that nuclear genocide is the western value you wish to impose.

Wretchard said, “If Pakistan falls to pieces and rogue elements get their hands on nukes or attack India unrestrained, we could be looking a regional nuclear war.”

If Pakistan falls to pieces it would be the result of more indiscriminate US bombing which pushes the people into the hands of the Taliban-like extremistsm, with the exception that they would control nuclear weapons. The jihadis know this, which is why they execute terrorist attacks across the globe in an attempt to provoke the US into dropping the bombs. And the worst part is that the response the terrorists most dearly want from us appeals directly to the masculine impulses of our current C-in-C.

Nov 28, 2008 - 6:49 am 12. DB:

So Afganistan/Pakistan is the next nexus of the Long War. The Iraq campaign lasted a couple of decades, starting in 1990. The Af-Pak campaign began in 2001…30 years is a long time, but not that long.

Nov 28, 2008 - 7:12 am 13. geoffgo:

Wretchard,

After the financial “bail-outs” subside with the C-level perps keeping their jobs along with their spa perks, the real elephant in the foreign affairs room would appear to be our current/future financial condition.

The US, if a corporation in any bankrupcy proceeding would be considered way past broke, no? Chapter 7, not 11. It’s evermore a question of putting good money after bad.

Given the US taxpayers is, or will soon will become the major shareholder in most major financial, banking and automotive companies (list may be incomplete), then the electorate will be deciding industry strategy/policy and judging corporate performance/behavior though the votes of their elected representatives. Congress?

Digging out of this “default status” could take US 20 years of concerted effort, all near prescient…with no further waste, fraud and abuse, plus a revamp of all entitlement programs. I’m doubtful.

And in this long-term weakened condition, if the US and/or its interests are further wounded by WMD attack(s) (or even another major natural disaster), then most of our international generosity must begin to be redirected to the homeland by necessity, no? Even hopefully our UN contribution?

What then happens in countries almost entirely dependent on US aid to survive? What happens in Egypt, Pakistan, Iraq, the Horn, et al?

Nov 28, 2008 - 7:17 am 14. DB:

This writer for the Asia Times has some interesting thoughts about the drone attacks deep into Pakistan.

The US strikes deeper in Pakistan
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JK21Df01.html

On the one hand, it is the first such attack to take place outside of the semi-autonomous tribal areas, that is, in territory directly ruled by Islamabad….But on the other hand, the strike also signifies that there is now a genuine alliance between the Pakistani military and US forces against the common foe of al-Qaeda and the Taliban….

Whether al-Saudi is indeed dead is not so much the point. What matters is that the Pakistanis had passed on to the Americans information of al-Qaeda’s shura (council) in Jani Khel….

Al-Qaeda is likely to spread out south into the cities, instead of going north to the tribal areas. The result could be the bloodiest of all battles in urban centers….As a possible portend of things to come in this new phase of urban warfare, on Wednesday a trusted member of Musharraf’s former team, retired Major General Amir Faisal Alvi, former commander of the elite commando unit Special Services Group (SSG), was assassinated by a group of armed men in the capital Islamabad.

Nov 28, 2008 - 7:28 am 15. whit:

The US and its allies are still hoping the Pakis have the will to resist the Islamists. The Indians are telling us that Pakistan is not an ally and never was but it’s not clear what the implications of accepting the Indian POV are.

Its interesting that while the Indians were quick to blame Paki infiltrators for this latest atrocity, some western “experts” are saying that it looks as if these were homegrown terrorists. Does it really matter?

Perhaps the world prefers to tolerate the occasional atrocity.

Nov 28, 2008 - 7:37 am 16. Peter Boston:

This is a very long war that will not end in 30 years or 300 or 3,000. Not for so long as one human being speaks the name of Allah or whatever he is called at the time.

Since at least 4,000 B.C. the progenitors of today’s Allah worshipers have sacrificed their first born sons as a votive offering to Ba’al. Archeological digs across the Middle East and North Africa constantly unearth mountains of urns in separate layers each hundreds of years old containing only the burnt bones of male children. Ba’al – Al’lah has been consuming human life, and the human spirit, for a very long time.

Nov 28, 2008 - 7:42 am 17. whit:

The conundrum:

The BBC Worldservice just featured a Muslim academic from Bombay who said that when Islam is scapegoated after attacks like this, more Muslims are driven to extremism.

So, are we being told that although Jihadists are waging war, resistance is counterproductive.

Resistance is futile… Submit or face the consequences.

Nov 28, 2008 - 7:51 am 18. Zim:

If Pakistan falls to pieces it would be the result of more indiscriminate US bombing which pushes the people into the hands of the Taliban-like extremistsm, with the exception “that they would control nuclear weapons. The jihadis know this, which is why they execute terrorist attacks across the globe in an attempt to provoke the US into dropping the bombs. And the worst part is that the response the terrorists most dearly want from us appeals directly to the masculine impulses of our current C-in-C.”

-Ruby Red

After years of reading stuff like yours I am soon going to get an answer to my question of “What would you do different to, as you say, indiscriminate bombing?”. You may come to deny him, but Obama is a man of the left. He will soon take over and we shall see how different things are.

I propose that one of us will be disappointed, and it won’t be me.

Nov 28, 2008 - 7:51 am 19. Ruby Red:

DB said, “So Afganistan/Pakistan is the next nexus of the Long War. The Iraq campaign lasted a couple of decades, starting in 1990. The Af-Pak campaign began in 2001…30 years is a long time, but not that long.”

There isn’t gonna be a 30 year Long War or a 100 year Long War like McCain wanted. Newsflash: A Presidential Election has intervened. We’re going to wrap up the war in Iraq in sixteen months, there won’t be a war in Iran, there won’t be a war in Syria or Georgia or Pakistan or China or India. Even the Afghanistan thing which Obama is pushing was probably just to get him elected. We can’t bail out every CEO and his dog when we’re bleeding $12 billion a month in a war. This is the first wartime Presidential transition since 1968, and the key thing to remember is that the war belongs lock, stock, and barrel to George W. Bush. Him and his PNAC buddies wanted it, just like an elective you take in high school. Regime Change 101. So here we are. By simple virtue of the fact that Obama’s first impulse really is to talk rather than fight, in four years (assuming that Mavericky Maverick You Betcha lady wins) the country will be at peace.

Nov 28, 2008 - 7:53 am 20. CPT. Charles:

Ruby Red: ‘…appeals directly to the masculine impulses of our current C-in-C’.

A minor note…those masculine impulses have kept us from experiencing further repeats of 9-11, especially after we rid ourselves of the ‘thoughtful and nuanced’ policies of the previous administration.

What lies ahead will be an attempt to garner co-operation and sanity from the leadership of Pakistan and India in dealing the current crisis…providing both sides can act in good faith and actually want a solution.

As to what ‘may’ be needed to bring ‘peace and stability’ to this region, don’t set aside the ‘ugly’ option. This isn’t about three five-year old kids fighting over the same Power Ranger. This is about working out a problem between parties that have CENTURIES of hatred, murder and mayhem on their respective ledgers, and damn little trust and goodwill.

For good or ill, the ball’s in Pakistan’s court, not India’s. Hopefully all parties can see their way to making the right choices. Consult some non-PC history books as to what happens if the wrong choices are made…the results are neither clean, nor pretty, but they do tend to rather final, resolution-wise.

Ask, Carthage, the Eastern Roman Empire, Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany [to name a few...], if you can find a reliable spirit medium.

Nov 28, 2008 - 8:04 am 21. CPT. Charles:

RR: …’there won’t be a war in Iran, there won’t be a war in Syria or Georgia or Pakistan or China or India’.

Would that you were right.

RR: ‘By simple virtue of the fact that Obama’s first impulse really is to talk rather than fight, in four years (assuming that Mavericky Maverick You Betcha lady wins) the country will be at peace.’

I never thought I would see a bigger fool than C4; take a bow Ruby, you’ve earned it.

Nov 28, 2008 - 8:14 am 22. Talking?:

wow. Obama will talk first. That is a stunning new development in foreign policy, what a tremendous new insight, political science is revolutionized… of course his original gaffe of unbelievable proportions “no pre-conditions” was back-tracked in a flash.

very funny that ‘we’ll wrap-up the Iraq war 16 months’. I guess that is due to the ‘healing’ obama has wrought since winning the election??? of course, when he last had something to say about it the war was unwinnable and the surge would only make things worse. You’re absolutely right. With flawless insight and perception like that world peace will be on us in a trice. He’ll be just like Chamberlain in your fantasy world, peace in our time.

I can only hope the Obama’s somewhat moderate approach (retaining Gates, etc.) is proof that netroots crazies like you are condemned to disappointment and coming up with explanations of why the continuation of current policies is now much wiser ;> sort of like CNN referring to Iraq as a humanitarian mission now. classic, you couldn’t make this stuff up.

Nov 28, 2008 - 8:27 am 23. Peter Boston:

How quickly we forget. Of course, for the many whose education has been limited to Gender and Oppression studies they never learned.

Neville Chamberlain was the Great Talker of the Left, and thoroughly loved and admired by them too. Chamberlain talked to Hitler and brought Peace in our Times.

What was it? 100 million torn bodies later that “arms and a man” did enforce peace on his fellows?

Nov 28, 2008 - 8:31 am 24. Mongoose:

CPT C: I think it boils down to a case of, er,ah, “Leadership Envy”, so far as RR is concerned.

Nov 28, 2008 - 8:43 am 25. mezzrow:

“We should fire at them and take out a few of their cities—Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta,” he said. “They should fire back and take Karachi and Lahore. Kill off a hundred or two hundred million people. They should fire at us and it would all be over. They have acted so badly toward us; they have been so mean. We should teach them a lesson. It would teach all of us a lesson. There is no future here, and we need to start over. So many people think this. Have you been to the villages of Pakistan, the interior? There is nothing but dire poverty and pain. The children have no education; there is nothing to look forward to. Go into the villages, see the poverty. There is no drinking water. Small children without shoes walk miles for a drink of water. I go to the villages and I want to cry. My children have no future. None of the children of Pakistan have a future. We are surrounded by nothing but war and suffering. Millions should die away.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200203/landesman

I don’t know if the link will work for you, but it’s time to revisit this and remember who is now holding the wheel of the Pakistani government. What has become of the Brigadier in the interim?

This post from many years ago has affected me as strongly as the “Three Conjectures” of our esteemed host here at BC. Things stick for a reason – even though we may not be aware of the reason until many years following the time the seed is planted. I look forward to reading the thoughts of Wretchard and our other wonderful contributors to this form. The link above still resonates deeply with me.

Nov 28, 2008 - 9:14 am 26. marymcl:

Ruby Red is aptly named and turning up everywhere the past couple of days.

Forget her. I read somewhere (probably in the comments to a previous BC post) the suggestion that India make an immediate and substantial commitment to the Afghan theater and thereby force Islamabad get serious about Waziristan. I’d rather see that than nuclear war in South Asia, though the latter looks more inevitable all the time. One of the things I’m thankful for these days is the fact the only nukes in this hemisphere are ours.

NahnCee – I had exactly the same reaction to seeing General Petraeus’s name attached to Obama’s plan. It has Fall Guy written all over it. Does anyone really believe the incoming CIC 1)has changed his assessment of the surge, and 2) has the maturity/humility/insight to separate his political embarrassment over the one thing he’s been manifestly wrong about from the man who made it happen?

Nov 28, 2008 - 9:24 am 27. Alexis:

I don’t see why the United States should restrain India at all. The more the West attempts to restrain India, the less India will be willing to listen to the West. If India lets itself get restrained, it can be “played against the middle”. But if India lashes out, Pakistan could be forced to beg for any help it can get.

According to my estimation, India can blockade Karachi anytime it wants. India may be in a position to impose upon Pakistan what John F. Kennedy imposed upon Cuba, a full naval blockade that can grind Pakistan’s economy to a halt. Such an option falls short of open war and far short of nuclear war. A blockade is an intermediate step that forces Pakistan to either escalate or capitulate, and either eventuality would be to India’s advantage.

Nov 28, 2008 - 10:09 am 28. exhelodrvr:

Alexis,
“I don’t see why the United States should restrain India at all. … A blockade is an intermediate step that forces Pakistan to either escalate or capitulate, and either eventuality would be to India’s advantage.”

Why restrain?
1) Risk of escalation between India and Pakistan, for its own sake,

2) and the potential effect that escalation would have on the situation in Afghanistan.

Pakistan escalating from a blockade might work to India’s advantage militarily, but not politically or economically.

Nov 28, 2008 - 10:18 am 29. whiskey:

Teresita — military spending is a drop in the bucket compared to social spending. See Wretchard’s post on the Heritage Foundation charts. Current spending is only about 4% of GDP, up only a bit from the Clinton Lows. We can and should spend a LOT more.

Wretchard — I think you are using the wrong model, and overestimate the power and control of the Western Press and the US on India.

Israel is dependent on US support and is a tiny country of no more than 5 million Jews. India has about a billion people, and depends mostly on foreign direct investment which can dry up in a flash with these attacks ongoing. Particularly outsourcing.

India cannot afford an Israeli solution, does not trust Obama, who is pro-Jihad, Pro-Muslim, and pro-Pakistani. He traveled to Pakistan one summer as a College Student, on an Indonesian Passport, something India’s pols are well aware of. Obama can offer India … WHAT?

HE’s on record as canceling the nuclear agreement, and is viewed as a pro-Jihad stooge for Pakistan. What exactly can he offer the pols of India to restrain them? NOTHING.

Therefore, India will act, and act in it’s own way. Likely to “solve” the Pakistani problem ala the way the Allies solved the German problem in WWII and how the US solved the Japanese problem then also. By killing about half the population, in a total defeat that produces extreme pacifism. Unless Pakistan caves and surrenders some ISI and cut-out terrorists to satisfy India for the moment.

It’s a globalized economy. India NEEDS Foreign Direct Investment, but does not depend on US military assistance, and can in any case get military equipment from either it’s native efforts or the Russians who sell to anyone or the Europeans who for that matter despite their pacifist outlook have robust military sales.

Yes, bottom line we are looking at a nuclear war with India and Pakistan. This was inevitable once nukes spread. What? They will just sit there and not be used? Let’s be sensible folks.

As for the US, this is the big “uh-oh” moment. Obama will now have to PROVE he is not pro-Jihad, a secret Muslim to US voters by being more tough than Bush on Jihad, Muslims, etc. because of his pre-existing softness and pro-terror sentiments. It was easy when the assumptions of terror ending “just because” were all around, a massacre in Bombay and a nuclear war between India and Pakistan will scare the hell out of everyone. If Obama was smart (he’s not) he would call for racial-religious profiling of Muslims in the US. I’m sure it will be called for soon by someone.

Just like Green idiocy was tossed overboard quickly in Europe as recession looms, so too will Obama’s kumbayah stuff get dead quickly at Bombay.

Nov 28, 2008 - 10:24 am 30. Mongoose:

Marymcl: That your astute character assessment of Obama is correct goes without saying, but it still is unclear who is really in control in this incoming administration. I have a very hard time believing that Obama possesses the depth to mastermind in his “ascent”. This crisis might help flesh this out, but deciphering it all may prove is problematic.

It may be that whatever cabal is behind him is in the end as incompetent, misinformed and arrogant as he is — they might even be loonier if the Soros bunch are the puppeteers.
Or perhaps they even do have a real grasp what is before us, have more information than we do in fact, and imagine that crises can be harnessed to whatever horrid schemes they hatch.

Is it gears within gears, schemes within schemes, or is this more delusional tranzis overreaching and another free-for-all of Leftist/Democrat bubbling?
Whatever it is is, the whole lot are soon to have a cold and abrupt visit from reality. The masks may slip for a second; it may be our best chance to see behind them.

There could well not be anything at all behind the cloudy campaign rhetoric, or worse, they could actually have been swayed by foreign actors.
Worse still, they could act with confidence in their own abstractions, knowledge and abilities.

Petraeus, Gates and any other honorable person in government now has to face this whirlwind of filth. I do not envy them: Failure and rascals loom on all round them.

We are about a great deal aobut our new “leaders”.

Nov 28, 2008 - 10:53 am 31. dan:

without war, in which pakistan is bloodied badly enough that its national psyche is crippled, I can’t see how wretchard’s consciousness can be forged. these attacks may be simply the result of ISI (or other intel service) manipulation, but the fact is Pakistan is saturated with the worldview that occasionally expresses itself in these groups. this *is* pakistan. history teaches that personality is as fundamental in a nation as in an individual, and pakistan;s problem – whatever the pain it’s had to endure – is that it’s an assh*le.

probably musharaff was the best hope for the country; in retrospect he probably should have found some other, more direct way of maintaining his coup without resort to manipulating the judiciary, thereby making himself more vulnerable to Western-style criticism. that was a blunder. but now pakistan’s will has been expressed in the re-ascension of really disgusting people like Sharif. this is not a vindication of justice. this is bad news.

in any case, eventually this cycle must stop. the longer it festers, the more degeneracy is spread, the more groups mushroom, the more socio-political anxiety enervates the national virtu. [sic] like a dog, islam/russia respects force; it does not understand Anglo-Saxon words. let us, therefore, for once vindicate the Left and get India to rock Pakistan. As for Kashmir, just take the goddamn place.

Nov 28, 2008 - 10:53 am 32. Mongoose:

Whiskey: Great notions, but do you really believe that Obama would do that?
I doubt it.

Even if he could, is he really the one wielding the power? Would his “backers” allow it? It seems counter to their interests.

Would be humorous though: a palace revolution led by the man that was actually elected? The Democrats are really that smart?
Coulda fooled me.

Nov 28, 2008 - 11:02 am 33. twobyfour:

Hollywood? Pfeh!

Bollywood!

Strike terrorism with iron hand, Bollywood stars tell politicians

Nov 28, 2008 - 11:04 am 34. Brock:

If India decides to reach for a “final solution” on Pakistan, I hope their first move its to offer everyone in the Pakistani military full rank and authority within the Indian military in exchange for temporary surrender and the keys to the nuclear bunkers.

Pakistan and India have very much in common, culturally and historically. It’s clear to me that while the past 50 years have obviously been rocky, but prior to that they were one nation and one people. The Muslim issue really shouldn’t be an issue either, since there are nearly as many Muslims in India as Pakistan. Reunification would (theoretically) an excellent way to solve the Kashmir issue once and for all with a single Kashmir province, plus they could put back together the Sindh and Punjab (provinces that were broken up by the 1947 division).

Further, it’s also clear that only certain sub-populations within Pakistan have a jihadi bent; not everyone. Like Iraq I expect that most of Pakistan would prefer a peaceful and democratic future.

What the odds of that happening are, I have no idea. I don’t know nearly enough about the Indi-Pak relations on the ground to know whether the Indian military could accept Pakistani officers, or if the Pakistani military would agree to it.

Nov 28, 2008 - 11:13 am 35. fred:

Pakistan is quite possibly one of the most unstable states in the world today. It is that way because the Islamists want it that way and they have the run of the store right now. I can see no good coming out of this, except that in a shooting war with India I hope the Indians kick their asses but good. I consider that a good outcome, because there really are no good options left with the Pakis from our end. Anyone who favors us is going to have a short political life. How can we win in that kind of miasma? We can’t. So, the best thing for everyone, in the long run, is for the Islamists to overreach and get chopped to pieces.

Nothing cows the jihad quite like military defeat. And a defeat at the hands of the pagan Hindus would be very humiliating indeed for the Muslims. I’ll be laughing about it. Also, I think a lot of outside actors will get in the mix to nix the Paki nukes if we get wind that they are winding them up. Again, the best outcome is for them to have their toys broken. Afghanistan will be better off in the long run if Paki gets busted.

Nov 28, 2008 - 11:15 am 36. heather:

The New York Times should understand that General Petraeus is not Gandalf. Or Frodo.

Events, dear boy. Events.

As to Pak fingerprints. They are all over the grenades and the offshore boats at Mumbai.

By the way, what is the US Media doing? I have watched this on the India streaming video. I know that my Canadian fellows have no idea what is going on. But a billion Indians do.

Nov 28, 2008 - 11:31 am 37. NahnCee:

So, just exactly how would it affect our being able to get supplies into Afghanistan if Pakistan were to be bombed back to the Stone Age? It’s my admittedly fuzzy understanding that everything has to go by truck through a few high passes like the Khyber Pass but if Islamabad and its jihadist-favoring military were a pile of smoking rubble back there, how is that going to affect the Kyber Pass up there?

I think we should lance the boil while the lancing is good, and encourage India to sit on Pakistan and to sit hard.

I’m reading this morning on InstaPundit some comments out of India by Indians. The word “anger” is being used and the level of pissed-offedness appears to be similar to what AMericans were feeling after 9/11. One of the writers commented admiringly about how America “went after them without regard to the niceties of geographic location” and hopes that India will be similarly stalwart and agressive in its response. I think we should encourage that mindset and that reaction, and then deal with details like getting enough bullets into Afghanistan when it happens.

Oh, and in case everyone has forgotten, Obama is *not* President quite yet, and really, this is Bush’s party still to do with as he likes for another month or so.

Nov 28, 2008 - 11:43 am 38. exhelodrvr:

Nahncee,
Not at all practical to use force for long-term use of those supply lines.

They are very easy to interdict due to the number of chokepoints and the nature of the terrain. And bombing them back “into the Stone Age”, even if acceptable politically, would of course destroy the infrastructure necessary for the supplies to get through.

Nov 28, 2008 - 12:04 pm 39. twobyfour:

Heather, mark me as one who does have some idea.

Fingeprints? Whole ISI paws are all over it! The exact motive is still unclear, though jihad is motive on its own in their [strike]thinking[/strike] patterns.

ISI miscalculated. Instead of fear in the hearts of their enemies, they stroke anger and there is a whole can of whupass lying somewhere about to be open.

Nov 28, 2008 - 12:13 pm 40. wildiris:

Wretchard, regarding the possible use by Pakistan of nuclear weapons, do you have any information on the status of their nuclear arsenal? Much has been made of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, but something that I have not seen addressed yet is the fact that nuclear weapons do have a finite shelf life. Once constructed, they still need care and maintenance in order to remain functional. While it is a given that Pakistan has in the past demonstrated that it possessed functioning nuclear devices, what is the estimate that those weapons are still in working order today

Nov 28, 2008 - 12:19 pm 41. buddy larsen:

And there’s, this, too, of course.

Nov 28, 2008 - 12:23 pm 42. Alexis:

exhelodrvr:

The reasons you give are also reasons for the West to force India to become al-Qaeda’s punching bag forever. If Pakistan always wins from the West’s fear of escalation, Pakistan will have no incentive to do anything against al-Qaeda and every incentive to blackmail the West over and over again.

India needs a means to retaliate against Pakistan short of all-out war. If the West keeps on restraining India out of a fear that Pakistan would cut off supplies into Afghanistan, India’s patience will wear thin.

Anything that would give a green light to terrorism against India would be counterproductive.

Nov 28, 2008 - 12:40 pm 43. vb:

Doesn’t the NYT piece contradict Obama’s previous statement that he would be in charge of strategy and General Petraeus would be in charge of tactics?

Nov 28, 2008 - 12:40 pm 44. Alexis:

Although there are many advantages for India in having close strategic and commercial ties with the United States, India has the option of renewing its ties to Russia and telling the Americans to buzz off.

If anything, India would have an easier time ferrying supplies into Afghanistan than the United States, if only because India’s diplomatic relations with Russia have been far warmer than American-Russian relations.

India looks upon itself as a superpower and it will not look kindly upon anybody who dares to question its right to defend itself from Pakistani aggression.

Nov 28, 2008 - 12:55 pm 45. sirius_sir:

A strategic pivot by Pakistan’s military away from a focus on India to an all-out effort against the Taliban and their associates in Al Qaeda, the thinking goes, would serve to weaken the militants who are fiercely battling American and NATO forces in Afghanistan.

It was just such a strategic pivot by the Sunni tribes in Anbar that turned things around in Iraq. But that pivot didn’t occur in a vacuum, it needed the elixer of self-interest and the support provided by the Surge to succeed.

But the correlation is far from exact, starting from the reason that U.S. Forces have (as far as I know) little to no direct connection with the Pakistani military. The government of Pakistan should be persuaded/pressured to show evidence of good faith; we could strongly suggest they promote the aforementioned ‘pivot’ by consenting to an in-country advisory/overseeing relationship with our military.

As noted already, the effort to reform Pakistan will take time. And it will be made all the more difficult because of entrenched interests in the Pakistani military and intelligence organs that go counter to ours. But the government of Pakistan must be made aware that its interests in this matter parallel our own. The worst outcome would be to allow it to play–or continue to play–both sides against the middle.

No, let me amend that conclusion. The worst outcome would be to allow it to continue playing that game until the country implodes and/or the region explodes.

Nov 28, 2008 - 1:07 pm 46. Peter Boston:

Massacre in Mumbai: Up to SEVEN gunmen were British and ‘came from same area as 7/7 bombers’ Mail.com

The British foie gras glitterati are probably as big a threat to the idea of individual liberty as the Pakistani Islamists.

Nov 28, 2008 - 1:08 pm 47. 13times:

One possible way for India to confront Pakistan without the risk of a border war would be to join the NATO/US coalition in Afghanistan. India could easily place 5000 troops along the SWAT border and then directly assault the Islamists.

Nov 28, 2008 - 1:11 pm 48. Peter Boston:

If we begin with the premise that Pakistan’s political leadership had a hand in the massacre then we must go to basic principles: that political leaders are motivated by their desire to satisfy the constituency that keeps them in power.

If the premise is true than the situation in Pakistan is much worse than it appears. Leaving motherships in plain site that can be connected to both Pakistan and the terrorists creates the probability of retaliation against Pakistan by India.

That is a huge risk for the Pakistani leadership to assume willingly, and if true, means that Pakistani mucky mucks see war with India as better for their careers than facing off with the Islamists.

Either event forecasts escalating instability and Taliban belligerence in the tribal areas and in Afghanistan.

Nov 28, 2008 - 1:23 pm 49. whit:

Here’s an interesting article by Bill Roggio Analysis: Mumbai attack differs from past terror strikes

Nov 28, 2008 - 1:43 pm 50. fred:

All peoples and all nations in the crosshairs of jihad have a right to defend themselves against it. What right do we have to tell jihad victims that they cannot fight back? Just because we are afraid to take action is no reason to suppress the self-preservation instincts in others.

If India can tie this back to Pakistan, then the policy of India is their affair, not ours. We’ve demonstrated a lack of will to do the smack down on Pakistan’s Islamist population, as long as we have been able to blackmail and threaten its government. Well, now we don’t have as much leverage with Pakistan’s government as the Islamists do. Popular will in Pakistan tends to be biased in favor of the Taliban and al Qaeda. Our influence is waning quickly, which makes things far more violent in Afghanistan.

I believe there is such a thing as collective guilt, and in certain Muslim countries, like Pakistan, it fits. If India wants to go to war with Pakistan, I am hoping India is as brutal as it needs to be in prosecuting that war.

Nov 28, 2008 - 2:08 pm 51. Ruby Red:

Fred said, “Nothing cows the jihad quite like military defeat. And a defeat at the hands of the pagan Hindus would be very humiliating indeed for the Muslims. I’ll be laughing about it.”

I saw this same sort of thing in 2006 when Lebanon and Israel went at it. Everyone is getting their popcorn and surfing the news sites for early signs of a shooting war like little boys waiting for the fireworks show. Bush doesn’t look like he’s gonna do anything so they’re egging Obama on, with nearly two months yet to go. They’re even dragging out the old “nuke Mecca” fantasy again. There was an attack on India’s parliament a while back that nearly led to a nuclear war, but it was defused by that silly Obamunist practice of talking it out without preconditions. A May 29, 2002 DIA report says a nuclear war between India and Pakistan could lead to the demise of 12 million human beings initially and millions more human beings would die later from radiation poisoning. Some other alleged human beings safe over here a continent away will be laughing about it. Far be it from me to judge, they will have to answer to the only power in the universe which outranks human beings.

Nov 28, 2008 - 2:21 pm 52. exhelodrvr:

Fred,
“then the policy of India is their affair, not ours.”

Whether or not India accedes to our desires is their decision, but when what India (or any other nation) does has an effect on the U.S., then it most certainly is our affair.

Nov 28, 2008 - 2:36 pm 53. Cannoneer No. 4:

Laying waste to the Islamabad region rubbles the road network over which trucks must roll between Karachi and Torkham. Nuke Rawapindi and Pakistan Army is decaptitated, meaning they all sit down in their cantonments awaiting orders to attack India while the Taliban rampages on the North West Frontier.

Around 80-85% of OEF’s petroleum, oil, and lubricants comes from three refineries in the Islamabad region. No go juice = nothing moving. Dismounted infantry hunkers down and rustles goats for a living until choppers and trucks start moving again. Fobbits lose weight.

But, on the bright side, we now have options. We can now be jerked around, extorted, and pay mordida to Russia and Uzbekistan again.

Indians are pissed. The Taj will be their WTC. They have always had the capability to destroy Pakistan, but not without causing themselves more trouble than Pakistan is worth. Radiation from targets in Pakistan will blow downwind back on India. And India, having broken Pakistan, must now buy it, and they don’t want it any more than South Korea wants North Korea, for much the same reasons.

If ISI is behind Mumbai, I’d like to see India mobilize and move out to their General Defense Plan positions along the Pak border and just set there while the Paks sweat. Lashkar e Toiba is mostly about Kashmir, so the Indians could justify a major incursion into Pakistan-controlled Kashmir.

What I’d really like to see is a surge into Afghanistan of 20,000 Indian boots on the ground, with their own logistics based in the Iranian port of Chahbahar, coming up that road they just built across Nimruz. That would be the end of Pakistan’s strategic depth.

India is the Great Power in that part of the world. Unleash the real Great Game players.

Nov 28, 2008 - 2:40 pm 54. exhelodrvr:

Alexia,
“If the West keeps on restraining India out of a fear that Pakistan would cut off supplies into Afghanistan, India’s patience will wear thin.”

If supplies going through Pakistan are cut, the war in Afghanistan is almost certainly lost. That is the primary issue for the United States, and by the transitive property of terrorism the rest of the world, at this point. So unfortunately, Pakistan does have some leverage. That may not be “fair” to India, but it is the reality for now. India also has leverage, though, in that they could go back to Russia, or escalate with Pakistan. Which is why it is vital for the U.S. to find some middle ground that is attractive to both Pakistan and India. Even if that means “bribing” India.

Nov 28, 2008 - 2:42 pm 55. Herb:

What happens when the Indian Street decides enough is enough and decides to solve it’s muslim problem? I suspect that the distribution of the 15% of the whole which is said to be muslim isn’t uniform. Some areas will suffer greatly others less so. All will suffer.

Now how will the Pakistani Street react? How will the Pak gov’t react? Maybe Mezzrow’s Brigadier (#25) should call his office.

Mobs aren’t rational. Nations may behave rationally but that isnt guaranteed. Somebody up the thread said the only way that the Pak polity can be fixed is probably to nearly kill it. This can easily lead to that.

Those of us who live in civilization sometimes can only watch these things play out and hope the fallout (in multiple definitions)isn’t too bad.

The Mumbai incident raises the possibility that the assumption underlying “Three Conjectures” may be incorrect or too limited. What if the attacked party is India or China? How many times can they make the Pak rocks dance?

Would they be less constrained than an American president who has an ambition to be viewed positively by history? Israel is forced by survival to do whatever it takes. We’re still a half a world away and armed to the teeth. Distance and strength lend themselves to restraint. India is close and the memory of the Partition is closer.

This set of circumstances worries me more than anything since 9/11, probably because it looks very professional and very Pakistani.

Nov 28, 2008 - 2:51 pm 56. sirius_sir:

If we begin with the premise that Pakistan’s political leadership had a hand in the massacre…

That is a dangerous assumption, one the Islamic extremists may wish we jump to.

Why not instead begin with the premise that whoever perpetrated this atrocity did so with the intention of scuttling the Pakistani government’s recent attempt to make peace with India over Kashmir?

Nov 28, 2008 - 2:54 pm 57. twobyfour:

RR, Mecca will be nuked. It is inevitable. By whom? Very likely by Iran. Why? Because no one has the guts to pulverize Iranian production facilities right now. Which would mean Iran will get their nukes, but also Jordan, Saudis, et all will get their own-likely from Pakistan… after all Saudis financed it, which would raise the temp in the region and one day the missiles would fly cris-crossing the skies. All that despite of unicorns in your field of vision.

Also, the war between India and Pakistan can be delayed by talks for now, but that would likely result in more Mumbai-like attacks.
The more delayed it would be and more jihadi attacks have to be endured, the more likely it will shift from a conventional war to a nuclear war–the bigger price tag will be attached in lives and treasure once the festivities start. If you look at history, it always works that way.

It is the unwillingness to confront evil head on and when it is in initial stage that results in far more evil to be perpetrated as a result.

Nov 28, 2008 - 3:04 pm 58. NahnCee:

“If India can tie this back to Pakistan, then the policy of India is their affair, not ours.”

In the last few years, we’ve given India quite a few jim-dandy toys. I don’t know if there were any strings attached to those toys — like “to be used to nuke Iran only” — but if a bomb falls on Khan’s house and he can hold up a fragment afterwards inscribed “made in USA” that might possibly make it partially our business.

Although, if Mexico or Canada had been pulling the same stunts against us that Pakistan routinely pulls against India (can you imagine a bunch of Canadians trying to shoot up the DC Senate, for example?), I’m pretty certain-sure we would have gone in and put a stop to it a long time ago. Without regard to the “niceties of geographic location”.

If we Americans get pissed off and go after the bad guys to make them quit doing what they’re doing, it seems to me we have absolutely no right at all, whatsoever, to forbid India doing the same thing in righteous self-defense. Nor do we have the right to forbid them using whatever materiel we have supplied them with that’s more better than the stuff we’ve supplied Pakistan with.

It would be fun, however, to watch India insert some boots on the ground in Afghanistan and start kicking Pakistani ass from that angle.

Nov 28, 2008 - 3:39 pm 59. twobyfour:

@ 58. NahnCee

“…we have absolutely no right at all, whatsoever, to forbid India doing the same thing in righteous self-defense”

The same applies to Israel.

Nov 28, 2008 - 3:45 pm 60. buddy larsen:

@ sirius #56 –exactly so. That’s the starting point of a true investigation.

Food for thought –the so-called saarc contains one-half of the world’s population. Framed so, this is no sideshow –this is THE show. The sideshow is the western hemisphere, eurasia, mideast & Africa.

Nov 28, 2008 - 3:56 pm 61. Ruby Red:

Nahncee said, “In the last few years, we’ve given India quite a few jim-dandy toys. I don’t know if there were any strings attached to those toys — like “to be used to nuke Iran only” — but if a bomb falls on Khan’s house and he can hold up a fragment afterwards inscribed “made in USA” that might possibly make it partially our business.”

At first I was going to respond to the “Iran will nuke Mecca” post up there a ways, but this one is better. There is something called the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The US signed it in 1968 and it was ratified by the Senate, so it has the force of law until we formally withdraw. Under the NNPT we agree not to transfer “nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices” and “not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce” a non-nuclear weapon state to acquire nuclear weapons. If you insist this is being done by the US in India despite the clear injunction in the NNPT not to do so, that is either an indictment of the current Administration, or it is a process indicator of the asserters’ sheer ignorance, or it is a terminological inexactitude of the sort that made Pinocchio’s nose grow.

Nov 28, 2008 - 4:39 pm 62. NahnCee:

Wretchard, in a democracy, Ruby would have been voted out. I wish you would, too.

Nov 28, 2008 - 6:27 pm 63. twobyfour:

Treaties are not suicide pacts. Once they are in that category, they are no longer treaties if only one side would adhere to them.

…

Can someone rid us of this medlesome RR idiot?

Nov 28, 2008 - 6:49 pm 64. Frau Jedöns:

I had exactly the same reaction to seeing General Petraeus’s name attached to Obama’s plan. It has Fall Guy written all over it.

Couched in Clintonian words, the next president’s proposed SOS called Gen. Petraeus a liar. How does that work into the equation?

Nov 28, 2008 - 7:44 pm 65. cjm:

maybe obama will go to pakistan and not come back.

Nov 28, 2008 - 8:40 pm 66. cjm:

start hitting the families of terrorists, and the problem stops within a week. two generations back should do the trick (although three generations is traditional).

Nov 28, 2008 - 9:06 pm 67. Lifeofthemind:

The US needs to ensure the survival of our army in Afghanistan. We would benefit from the Indians placing an army to the West of Pakistan but that just duplicates the problem. How is the Indian army expected to get to Afghanistan or get supplied once it is there? Now if the Pakistanis cannot provide America with a secure route from the sea to the Khyber Pass then we may have to consider writing down our investments in Pakistan and supporting an Indian move through Lahore to the Khyber. If the Pakistanis see this as an existential problem than they might secure transit rights for the Indians and Americans but frankly I doubt it. In all probability Pakistan dissolves and hundreds of thousands or more will die until some new structure is established. We need to be working now on how to keep our army alive during the coming implosion. We may have to march to the sea. What route should it be, East through the Khyber or South to Karachi? While many would hope for a coordinated move on Iran that option is clearly no longer on the table.

Nov 28, 2008 - 9:26 pm 68. marymcl:

@64 Frau Jedons – “How does that work into the equation?”

It doesn’t. At the time Hillary was playing up to the anti-war voters, for all the good it did her in the end. The Hillary and Obama psychodrama is something else all its own.

Nov 28, 2008 - 9:37 pm 69. bob:

Far be it from me to judge, they will have to answer to the only power in the universe which outranks human beings.

Ruby Red

To the contrary, in the great chain of being we seem to occupy the lowest rung of the rational species, those with a first glimmer of light.

We are just begnners.

Nov 29, 2008 - 12:10 am 70. bob:

beginners

We are not even good spellers.

I could quote Coleridge in defense of the above assertions.

Nov 29, 2008 - 12:12 am 71. Scott M:

Islam will keep waging war on non-Muslims until they have reason to believe Muslims cannot afford the consequences. These half-measures and dithering will eventually bring war to far more people than a swift and terrible response to the latest Muslim attack. It’s best for Islam and the rest to see they will not win. They can’t be talked out of their plans, no matter how badly we hope that to be true.

Nuke Pakistan ASAP.

Nov 29, 2008 - 12:36 am 72. james wilson:

Arafat did not pursuade the West. The West pursuaded Arafat to play the mind games of the Left. He became the first to play, if not the last.

Nov 29, 2008 - 1:13 am 73. buddy larsen:

“Begnner” makes a pretty good word –in fact an excellent word, for a particular state of being.

Nov 29, 2008 - 6:22 am 74. Ruby Red:

Two by four said that treaties are not suicide pacts. I get this a lot. If I quote “turn the other cheek” they say the Bible is not a suicide pact. If I say Congress shall not prohibit the practice of Islam they say the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Well now the same guy that says I’m an idiot now says the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is not a suicide pact and we should pull out so we can transfer nuclear weapons to other countries. Guess what genius? If we do that, Russia will say “the NPT is not a suicide pact” and transfer nukes to Cuba , Bolivia, and Venezuela. Then China will say “the NPT is not a suicide pact” and transfer nukes to North Korea, Burma, and Vietnam. And pretty soon every tin-pot dictator in the world will have thirty or forty nukes pointing at the four winds. And some of these dictators might decide he needs cash and sell half of his stockpile to al Qaeda. But why would that be wrong? After all, the dictator could say, “My people need money to buy food, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is not a suicide pact.”

Nov 29, 2008 - 7:31 am 75. marymcl:

@61 The Sappho of Turgid Prose wrote “….it is a process indicator of the asserters’ sheer ignorance, or it is a terminological inexactitude of the sort that made Pinocchio’s nose grow.”

Look, we’re simple people here. If you’re going to call someone a stupid liar, do it in plain English, OK?

To paraphrase Dion and the Belmonts – Ruby, Ruby, when will you be gone….

Nov 29, 2008 - 10:10 am 76. Ivan:

Mongoose, if you are still following the thread I hear you. The truth is the Indians did their darnest to piss off both the Americans and the Israelis. I recall that in the mid 80s the Indians could have stopped the shipment of F16s to Pakistan as promised by St Reagan by working with the pro-Israel lobby. But Indira Ghandhi couldn’t turn down the anti-Israel rhetoric for something as trivial as national security, she had her standing among the useless Non Aligned Movement to consider. Nonetheless its sad that with the brain trust the Republcans had, they couldn’t figure out that they were cultivating a bunch of vipers in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Perhaps they had bought the Shia Islam is bad while the Sunni Islam is good rubbish. A weekend with VS Naipaul’s books would have set them straight though. As for loosing Pakistan; it is not yours to lose. These things happen of their own accord and the best protection is the Lawrence Auster solution: keep the Muslims in their own lands, dont understand them, dont help them, dont feed them. The Ummah will come around when they realise that they don’t grow enough food to feed themselves. Altruistic Americans should employ their resources to save their fellow Christians and other minorities living under the Muslim yoke.

Nov 29, 2008 - 10:58 am 77. twobyfour:

@ 74. RR

Okay, I will make it simple for you so there may be a remote chance that you’d understand.

1. It was never in the interest of US to proliferate nukes. The only exception would be if the nukes were already proliferated and a counterbalance was needed in a specific region. US would still retain the control of the armaments. That was the case of deployment of warheads into territory of NATO members, to counterbalance Soviet tactical nukes deployed in Czechoslovakia, Poland and Bulgaria.

2. The proliferation is presently facilitated by two signatories: Russia and China, the purpose being “triangulation” and power ploys. The proliferation is mostly not direct (at least on the surface), but miscellaneous partial subsystems are being delivered. Some notable exceptions: North Korea. Pakistan acquired complete blueprints for nukes from China. Again, China sought to triangulate its enemy–India. India got the intel and decided to fast track its own nuke program. Earlier in 20th century, lookup Cuban Crisis.

3. No proliferation of similar kind is facilitated by US. Allied countries deployment has strict rules and is not clandestine. If India, for instance, were to become a part of an alliance/treaty similar to NATO, then it may be possible to upgrade their existing nuclear arsenal by the modern US tech. The same conditions–US would keep control of the deployed arsenal. Once again, the US policy was always to counterbalance, not to create a strategic advantage by deployment to a region that was previously nuke free and not part of treaties.

In summary: NPTs are not suicide pacts in the sense that they are binding US not to respond to proliferation by others.

Nov 29, 2008 - 1:03 pm 78. larkspur:

From the few posts I’ve read on BC I take it the overriding theme is geopolitical strategery, big boom-boom weaponry and prognostications regarding same. I’ve enjoyed the thoughtful commentary all along. What stands out in this current article is that there is little or no discussion [I did not read every single post] about the default or root cause problem here: demographics and religion. The only peaceful solution in coexisting with Islam is for them to have their territory– Pakistan and Bangladesh in this case– *religiously separate and apart from* India herself. Ditto Moslems in Europe, America and elsewhere. I don’t know how you partition or eject 150M Moslems from India, but without some idea of long term demographic solution a very ugly and messy war is likely, as many here have indicated. Separationism, with its own baggage, is the most humane and effective goal I can think of. Bloody attacks and clashes are a perpetual and amply documented attribute of Islamic culture, all the way back to the 7th century. There is no sane reason to believe this Koran-dictated imperative or behavior will change now or in future.

If all of India’s Moslems were somehow crammed into Pakistan and Bangladesh (and other “historically Islamic lands”) it would probably do little to ease tensions between them and the adjacent infidels. But at least there would be a maintainable *territorial separation* that would make terrorist attacks much less likely and perhaps make trade and political relations easier. Would the aftermath of a nuclear exchange provide a better platform for starting over?

All the talk about nukes and geopolitics is fascinating, but for all of its history and for the future the practical problem of a supremacist and merciless “world faith” in our midst is something we must contend with on our terms. We have yet to set those terms civilizationally or in any other meaningful way.

Nov 29, 2008 - 3:24 pm 79. twobyfour:

@ 78. larkspur

The separation (oh I can see RR and Obots in general screaming apartheid pusher at you) may be a workable modus vivendi for a period of time, but ultimately, as long as Islam exists, the confrontation is inevitable–it is a fundamental concept of Islam that it must rule the world.

The trouble is that no one wants to present this alternative, to touch it, lest he/she be called a racist.

So everyone with a degree of power is cowardly waiting for an atrocity so terrible that it would make constituencies say: “to hell with all this racism crap!”.

Nov 29, 2008 - 3:40 pm 80. sirius_sir:

Territorial separation has limited utility when those you would separate from are hell-bent determined to establish a world caliphate.

Nov 29, 2008 - 4:19 pm 81. larkspur:

twobyfour:

That sentiment seems unavoidable these days: the sort of “Wouldn’t it be grand if *something* would come along, by God’s grace, that would solve these intractable problems for us– a plague, nanotech mishap, asteroid, whatever”. Especially from liberals who like to think about population control the way some of us think about using a can of Raid. Ergo their delight in global climate funk! Fun to mull over in its morbid way, but kind of like wishing for a tornado to blow away all evidence of your debts and wrong-doing. Ultimately it is an evasive, pass-the-buck approach. Most generations never see changes of that magnitude, fortunately.

I agree that the greater conflict you refer to may be inevitable, if only on the grounds of the cyclical nature of history. So we “wait around” for something terrible, not much to be done in the meantime, esp. for civilian observers, and we fret over what we might do in the aftermath, how things might take shape. This is still a relatively powerless position, but I have no doubt it does us good to bat ideas around and take away what we will from the more fertile discussions.

The folks who scream “racism!” all the time are wearing out their own binding and many, of all races, are beginning to see this even as things get more extreme (desperate?) at the other end of the spectrum. Unfortunately, all serious communal delusions end up badly. A good case in point is the attack by opponents of Prop. 8 (CA) against the Mormons and other funders, while at the same time they would not dare touch the black community and what was probably their decisive voting pattern in this case. It doesn’t get much more starkly hypocritical than that. Can you imagine the reaction of basically the same tribe of liberals to an amendment to ban Moslem immigration?

sirius– The Nazis were pretty hell-bent, too, as I recall.

Nov 29, 2008 - 4:59 pm 82. sirius_sir:

The Nazis were pretty hell-bent, too…

Yes, and in retrospect the idea of isolationism wrt to them seems rather naive as well.

Nov 29, 2008 - 5:42 pm 83. larkspur:

sirius- Agreed. So the only alternatives are to suffer through the coming ages with the status quo mentality (appeasement, immigration and birthrate inundation, urban friction, etc.) or smash them to rubble once they start getting *really* crazy. Even if the latter is more plausible or less naive than isolationism, it is good to have a number of conceptual options on the table. There are also historical precedents for this type of response.

Nov 29, 2008 - 6:13 pm 84. sirius_sir:

larkspur– We are on the same page. Suffering through with the status quo mentality carries with it the possibility that at some point we will have no options left but extreme measures. The person who obstructs all interim efforts seldom will take this fact into account. Instead, it is we who try to defuse the situation by confronting the danger early on who are regarded as uncivilized bruts.

Nov 29, 2008 - 6:41 pm 85. marymcl:

@30 mongoose

I’ve been thinking over your remarks about who’s really running the show and what they’re going to do. Lots of terrible ifs accumulating, aren’t there?

I’ve been trying to take an admittedly perverse comfort in the Clinton fast-track into the Obama administration – better the devil you know, yes? Not to mention who else do they have available? The world is blowing up just in time to ruin the inauguration and he knows he’s weak on Experience. And frankly I doubt he believes in the wit and wisdom of Lunchbucket Joe any more than we do.

Which leads me to believe we could all do worse than say a prayer to St. Michael he doesn’t let Jimmy Carter get his hands on anything important. I do fear that as a real possibility.

Nov 30, 2008 - 8:32 am 86. Mongoose:

Marymcl; Yes, with you on all that. However the Clintons are not much better, i am afraid. This New development in India just hows how right Bush was. Get I remain in that 25% how respect him.

If you ask me, Carter got us into this mess in the first place.

Nov 30, 2008 - 12:20 pm 87. marymcl:

86 mongoose – All too true. The crazy part is, the very things that make Carter such a disastrous possibility – his “peace-making” junkets, his cozy regard for the likes of Yasser Arafat, his “weathering” (or some such whitewash) of the hostage crisis – are what may well recommend him to the new administration. Both the anti-war left and the muddled middle regard him as some kind of elder statesman. Look at all those houses he built for poor people….(I actually heard someone say that recently) He could do a lot of damage as a special envoy somewhere.

Nov 30, 2008 - 3:50 pm 88. Mongoose:

Well he would mostly damage Obama, or so I would hope.

He has become that crazy, vaguely corrupt, half Uncle some of us have.

The real question about Cater is why did it take us so long to figure out what a jerk this guy really is. During his term we often heard “Well he means well, he is just in over his head”. That was not true. He is — and was — a vicious little socialist One Worlder.

Nov 30, 2008 - 5:11 pm 89. Tom Holsinger:

There is a Powerline post quoting an email from an anonymous State Department officer to the effect that this Mumbai atrocity was not a rogue ISI operation. It was an official ISI operation. Here is the link and a quote:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/11/022200.php

“We are really crippled by thinking that the ISI is out of control – it is a myth that has skewed our Pakistan policy for years. It’s part of a larger problem that I go into below. We may not like the implications but the ISI is following its directed policy. It is a branch of the Pakistani military. The military’s current Chief of the General Staff (Kayani) was previously head of the ISI. The current head of the ISI (Pasha) answers directly to him.

… The problem inside the United States government is that if we admit that the ISI is not some rogue element, then the implications are almost too horrible to contemplate. Yet that is precisely the problem that we face. The “rogue element” excuse is used to write off Pakistani assistance to the Quetta Shura (the Taliban’s leadership council), refusal to go after certain tribes providing assistance to AQ, etc.

This is a specific problem that has hampered Bush Administration thinking. Until we get past our faith-based policy on Pakistan we’ll see more and worse coming from Pakistan.

The larger problem — one that particularly haunts Europe and the Left in the US — is the failure to admit that terrorist ideology has a geopolitical dimension. Whether it comes from Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or even Russia, there is often a state offering silent (and sometimes not-so-silent) assistance.

In fact, more than we would like to admit, those states are actually directing the attacks. If one believes that these are just “disaffected” actors then it’s easier to think law-enforcement can solve the problem.

It’s a lesson that many of us on the Right have forgotten since 9/11, and one that most on the Left never learned. Who knows what our mysterious new President thinks? He was still captive to the Ayers/Wright clique on 9/11. Let’s hope he’s learned a few things since then.”

If true, this means that Pakistani state support for terrorism will not cease until the Pakistani state ceases to exist. And that Pakistan poses an existential threat to India, so India’s only viable policy towards Pakistan must be that of Rome towards Carthage:

“Pakistan delenda est.”

Nov 30, 2008 - 6:06 pm 90. Steynian 292 « Free Canuckistan!:

[...] THE NYTIMES notes the inconvenient truth. Barack Obama’s plan to enlist Pakistan in the fight against [...]

Dec 1, 2008 - 2:28 pm

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.