The biggest story of the day

posted at 10:39 pm on June 30, 2007 by Allahpundit

It’s much bigger than, but also very much related to, what’s going on in Glasgow right now. I won’t waste your time here with commentary; we’ve written on this topic again and again and again and again. Everyone knew the “peace deal” Musharraf struck with the tribal elders in the border areas last year was a naked stab at appeasing the Taliban and would end in disaster. Everyone, that is, except him.

And now he knows it, too.

The Pakistani president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, was warned this month that Islamic militants and Taliban fighters were rapidly spreading beyond the country’s lawless tribal areas and that without “swift and decisive action,” the growing militancy could engulf the rest of the country.

The warning came in a document from the Interior Ministry, which said Pakistan’s security forces in North-West Frontier Province abutting the tribal areas were outgunned and outnumbered and had forfeited authority to the Taliban and their allies.

“The ongoing spell of active Taliban resistance has brought about serious repercussions for Pakistan,” says the 15-page document, which was shown to The New York Times. “There is a general policy of appeasement towards the Taliban, which has further emboldened them.”

The document was discussed by this country’s National Security Council on June 4 while General Musharraf was present, the document notes…

“It’s a policy of appeasement,” said Brig. Mahmood Shah, who was the senior Pakistani government official in charge of security in the tribal areas until last year. “It hasn’t worked. The Talibanization has increased in the past year.”

Read all of it and see what it’s gotten them.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

“There is a general policy of appeasement towards the Taliban, which has further emboldened them.”

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

gmoonster on June 30, 2007 at 10:46 PM

In a series of recommendations, the document called for the local enforcement agencies to tackle the militants “head on.” But it gave no suggestion how that was to be done. It suggested blocking FM radio transmissions by extremists and called for a media campaign to mobilize public opinion.

They need the unfairness doctrine.

MT on June 30, 2007 at 10:47 PM

I refuse to acknowledge this as the most important story of the day until Paris Hilton weighs in on it with her astute foreign policy analysis.

Jack M. on June 30, 2007 at 10:51 PM

Gee…Appeasement doesn’t work, eh? Now someone please remind the Democrats, huh?

“Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it” comes to mind…

I don’t like to say it, but I don’t believe Musharraf will leave office alive. Only a matter of time, me thinks, and then what will happen in the region?

JetBoy on June 30, 2007 at 10:54 PM

Pelosi, Reid and Edwards will ignore this. As will most of the media.
I will keep saying it, you cannot “work” with people who say ” We do not want anything from you.We want to kill you”.

bbz123 on June 30, 2007 at 10:55 PM

Personally If I was in charge Thank God I’m not I would give Tehran more control against the Taliban.

American8298 on June 30, 2007 at 10:58 PM

Predictable heh! What happens when the Talis overthrow the government and gain control of Pakistan’s nukes?

rockdalian on June 30, 2007 at 10:59 PM

Musharraf was supposed to fear us after 9-11 and crack down on these clowns.

How much of this appeasement was done with Bush’s blessing?

Valiant on June 30, 2007 at 11:01 PM

Appease the crocodile in hopes it will eat you last. Just don’t mistake a small rabid crocodile for an actual big badass crocodile, because that little rabid crocodile might starve in his nest long enough to eat you first.

Lord help us if the Taliban gets a hold of the Pakistani football.

SilverStar830 on June 30, 2007 at 11:02 PM

Peace! Peace in our time!

spike on June 30, 2007 at 11:04 PM

The taliban spreading, taking control, and in a country with nukes. How long will it take before we are in Pakistan? Besides the covert stuff.

boomer on June 30, 2007 at 11:04 PM

They won’t we move forces across the border and take control of there weapons, we let Tehran enter Afghanistan.

American8298 on June 30, 2007 at 11:06 PM

They won’t we move forces across the border and take control of there weapons, we let Tehran enter Afghanistan.

American8298 on June 30, 2007 at 11:06 PM

Could you try that again in English? I can’t make heads or tails of it.

Freelancer on June 30, 2007 at 11:13 PM

Do celebrities only care about reflecting life?

… or …

Will Rageboy be the eye in the storm?

Tune in next week for another exicting episode of …

Pakistan on the Brink

Dusty on June 30, 2007 at 11:13 PM

Can’t Musharraf be bought? I mean, can’t the US just give him, I don’t know, $10 or $20 billion for Pak’s nukes. We could make him a deal that if India nuked Paki we would restrain from nuking Pakistan, too.

AZCON on June 30, 2007 at 11:14 PM

For over a year Tehran has been trying to tell the American people that they don’t want a war but they wish to help, sorry I’m bias I do love the Persian people.

American8298 on June 30, 2007 at 11:15 PM

Pakistan is a nightmare nobody wants to talk about. If Tehran gets nukes it’ll be bad geopolitically, but I at least expect they’ll use them (or more accurately the threat of them) as nations traditionally do, and not give them away to terror groups. Pakistan, alternatively, already has them, and if the Islamists manage to grab power, Al Qaeda will get them.

Maybe Musharraf will crack down harder on his own. Or maybe he’ll be a bit less squeamish about letting the US and NATO hit the Taliban in Waziristan now (hey, we can dream). But if all else fails, let’s pray we and/or the Indians have some no-holds-barred contingency plans for rapidly and decisively eliminating the Pakistani weapons if the Islamists do seize control.

Blacklake on June 30, 2007 at 11:17 PM

If I read the article correct, sounds like there’s trouble for sure. Sounds like we need to send another couple of BILLIONS..

Legions on June 30, 2007 at 11:17 PM

Could you try that again in English? I can’t make heads or tails of it.

Freelancer on June 30, 2007 at 11:13 PM

Us the US and the Brits invade Pakistan we let Iran enter and help stabilize Afghanistan.

American8298 on June 30, 2007 at 11:20 PM

Over the history of mankind, appeasement has never worked with people like this. WHY in heck do world leaders, politicians, and pundits, continue to waste time with that policy?

csdeven on June 30, 2007 at 11:21 PM

Crush the Iranian nuke program, and capture the Paki nukes.

There’s the answer in 10 words.

Bush is simple.

That’s simple.

profitsbeard on June 30, 2007 at 11:24 PM

I can’t find my copy of the Road Map to Peace anywhere.

Last is First on June 30, 2007 at 11:30 PM

Us the US and the Brits invade Pakistan we let Iran enter and help stabilize Afghanistan.

We do what? And then Iran does what?

Pablo on June 30, 2007 at 11:32 PM

I hope that if Musharraf’s fails and the Islamists get control of Pakistan’s arsenal we are able to evacuate Musharraf along with a complete list of their nuke locations. Hopefully our military and government will be ready to take immediate action before the nukes can be relocated… to American cites.

FloatingRock on June 30, 2007 at 11:34 PM

I don’t like it but I have noticed somewhat of a pattern both US and our allies have been taking with the terrorist. The pattern is, if the local gen pop support the terrorist instead of taking the old school methods needed to make them fear US more than the terrorist (hearts and minds sounds good feels good but, in reality if the average muslim must choose between love & life? Life will win all day every day and those hearts and minds are all for naught, its survival instinct 101). But anyway the pattern I have seen is when the gen pop don’t swing our way we back out and let the terrorist have the area then when the gen pop has had enough of the Jihad we return.

This does seem to be working so far the draw backs is it is the slow road to china and our allies maybe in different shape but the US gen pop is a fast and furious type (most especially when we have no leader willing to rally the gen pop, the old levers of Hollywood are long long dead even hostile). Americans will fight hard and brutal but the slow dreary stay the course even thou less casualties and less civilian deaths in the end is just not our style. Now if we could somehow hustle the Euro’s into the occupation phases and let US run offensive that would be the perfect balance but that is a pipe dream at best, not going to happen.

C-Low on June 30, 2007 at 11:38 PM

We do what? And then Iran does what?

Pablo on June 30, 2007 at 11:32 PM

what part did you not understand this time?

American8298 on June 30, 2007 at 11:44 PM

The part I didn’t understand is the part about Iran helping us out instead of attacking us from the rear.

FloatingRock on June 30, 2007 at 11:47 PM

Russia as you remember from your world history book got screwed by us the US when they were in Afghanistan.

American8298 on June 30, 2007 at 11:50 PM

what part did you not understand this time?

The part where you’ve lost your mind.

Iran is not going to stabilize anything.

The bottom line is, the US has no clue what it’s doing in the Middle East. Most of the west has no clue, unfortunately.

reaganaut on June 30, 2007 at 11:52 PM

[American8298 on June 30, 2007 at 11:20 PM]

You love of the Persian people is commendable, but you can’t let that alone influence who you make deals with. Your suggestion that Iran could help stabilize Afghanistan, though, only shows your naiviete in applying the term stable.

The reason Afghanistan is unstable is because two entirely different and completely opposite forces of “stability” are vying for supremacy in Afghanistan. Iran’s might be able to stabilize Afghanistan but it would hardly be a help to what we, and presumably the vast majority of Afghanis, want as a result.

Absent the counterweight the US provides in Afghanistan for the SOP in that part of the world to make various superficial and fleeting tribal deals, Afghanistan would devolve back into the same deal making mess that they had lived in for centuries. Absent the counterweight the US provides, Pakistan has been doing it for the last few years with the Taliban, which I should note is an umbrella that Al Qaeda conveniently uses and the Tabliban consents to.

That type of thing might have been useful and pragmatic in the olden days but the Taliban and Al Qaeda is intolerant, uncompromising, barbaric and oppresive to a degree rarely seen in history. There is no appeasing them nor should there be any. There are no good Tabliban or Al Qaeda except dead ones.

Dusty on June 30, 2007 at 11:52 PM

Iran won’t attack us they no we have the power to level there cities.

American8298 on June 30, 2007 at 11:53 PM

We go after the Talis, drive them out of Afghanistan and into the border areas, Pakistan rolls over, the Talis get nukes. Simple.
I wonder if India will care about this.

TinMan13 on June 30, 2007 at 11:54 PM

Iran won’t attack us they no we have the power to level there cities.

Is that for real? I mean, aside from the spelling errors, I assumed it was common knowledge that the US could level every city on Earth.

Not that we’d need to…. I really don’t know why I’m responding to a 12 year old though, get to bed, little buddy…

reaganaut on June 30, 2007 at 11:56 PM

Oh yeah, and that includes the Iranian mullah’s “students of knowledge” old farts version.

Dusty on June 30, 2007 at 11:57 PM

American8298 on June 30, 2007 at 11:53 PM

Put down the hash pipe Bud.

Guardian on June 30, 2007 at 11:57 PM

Iran won’t attack us they no we have the power to level there cities.

Someone hasn’t been paying attention.

Pablo on June 30, 2007 at 11:59 PM

Reaganaut, I suspect English is not American8298′s native language. I could be wrong, though.

Dusty on July 1, 2007 at 12:03 AM

Okay sorry I can’t spell to your level of ignorance, please except my dearest apologies.

American8298 on July 1, 2007 at 12:04 AM

American8298 on June 30, 2007 at 11:20 PM

Uh…dude? Honestly, I now understand that your English is … a work in progress. But if you said that you think it would be wise for the U.S. and Britain (as if) to invade Pakistan, and then “turn it over” to Iran, so that the very reasonable people who run that fine country could then stabilize — ? — Afghanistan somehow through their far-sighted governance of Pakistan, then you must be f**king retarded.

The proof of retardation will be when you ask me why I think that.

(H/T to Pablo for his characteristic restraint.)

Jaibones on July 1, 2007 at 12:04 AM

you got me I’m just a dumb redneck and i’m retartded thorry.

American8298 on July 1, 2007 at 12:11 AM

Now if we could somehow hustle the Euro’s into the occupation phases and let US run offensive that would be the perfect balance but that is a pipe dream at best, not going to happen.
C-Low on June 30, 2007 at 11:38 PM

I like that idea.

csdeven on July 1, 2007 at 12:13 AM

American8298 on July 1, 2007 at 12:04 AM

Iran is not a US and Brit ally, so we don’t understand why you think they would help stabilize Afghanistan.

csdeven on July 1, 2007 at 12:16 AM

American8298, I’ll think about it when the Iranian President stops chanting “Death To America” OK. As far as I’m concerned this ongoing unpleasantness all began with the Iranian revolution in 1979 and continues today with Iran arming our enemies with munitions that are killing our soldiers in Iraq on a daily basis. Now understand that little of this concerns the Iranian people who I understand are pawns of a bloodthirsty government. If the Persian people throw off the yoke of radical Islam and understand that people in the Middle East can indeed live together without killing each other because of religion I’d love to see them work with everyone for peace.

Buzzy on July 1, 2007 at 12:18 AM

Iran is currently helping us stabilize Iraq. If by stabilize you mean providing high explosives to the terrorists to blow up Americans. With Allies like these…

BDavis on July 1, 2007 at 12:19 AM

If Islamists take control of Pakistan’s arsenal and we’re unable to destroy it, instead choosing a ground invasion for whatever reason, the Islamists will be unlikely to hesitate using them, even on their own soil, if they think they can wipe out most of our troops. Even if they only have one or two nukes left before a ground invasion, our troops would have to spread out thin and dig in deep in hardened nuke bunkers while moving ahead in phases.

It would very likely be the most deadly military battle in world history and have global repercussion. If at any time Iran felt that we were weakened and felt that overtly attacking us from the rear might finish us off, I have little doubt that they would.

A more plausible scenario would be that we would just take out Pakistan’s nukes from the air, assuming we had their locations, and might send in Special Forces teams to make sure the job was finished.

Once that job is finished, our options would be wide open on how the world chose to deal with the Islamists, assuming that we don’t allow Iran to get their nukes.

Assuming that the Islamists hadn’t already gotten their hands on the nukes and Musharraf invited our assistance, we could take a lot of pressure off him by invading Wazaristan.

FloatingRock on July 1, 2007 at 12:26 AM

American8298, if you’re not a troll I would advise not to take any of this personally. I’m sure that over time, if you continue to read and learn about Jihad and terrorism, you’ll understand why we’re reacting the way we are to your comments above.

FloatingRock on July 1, 2007 at 12:32 AM

After Bush open his big stupid month and named Iran one of the Axis of evil! How the fuck would that make you feel? Even though they offered to help the US after September 11, 2001 track down and kill the people responsible. Remember I’m a retard that can’t spell.

American8298 on July 1, 2007 at 12:33 AM

FloatingRock-

Which is why our special forces’ contingency plan for seizing the Paki nukes should be an ongoing operation, now.

Every site should be on a strike map, every officer (and his family) should be named and known, every road and airport and bunker and communications band and position needs to tagged and targetted.

Waiting until it occurs, and then trying to slap together a plan is madness.

Let’s hope the War College workers are not pissing away our tax dollars.

profitsbeard on July 1, 2007 at 12:37 AM

Right on, Profitsbeard.

FloatingRock on July 1, 2007 at 12:48 AM

Blacklake on June 30, 2007 at 11:17 PM

If Tehran gets nukes it’ll be bad geopolitically, but I at least expect they’ll use them (or more accurately the threat of them) as nations traditionally do, and not give them away to terror groups. Pakistan, alternatively, already has them, and if the Islamists manage to grab power, Al Qaeda will get them.

American8298 on June 30, 2007 at 11:20 PM

Who do you think is ALREADY in control in Iran? Who exactly do you think is the biggest State sponsors of terrorism? Who created and perfected the whole current Muslim Death Cult?

Pop quiz: Which country’s leader thinks it’s his destiny to bring about the end of the world in order to bring forth the Muslim Messiah and thinks the US is the “Great Satan?”

Enough now please…

The key to Pakistan is India, their mortal enemy. India has the most skin in the game and the best intelligence on Pakistan. Any solution includes India. We better be cheek-to-cheeck with them right now because the minute India thinks radical Muslims are about to get control of Pakistan’s nukes, they might launch a massive first strike.

TheBigOldDog on July 1, 2007 at 1:30 AM

“It’s a policy of appeasement,”…“It hasn’t worked…”

What a shocker. I always thought appeasement was the best course of action.

F15Mech on July 1, 2007 at 1:40 AM

Sorry, I forgot to include the back quote.

F15Mech on July 1, 2007 at 1:42 AM

F15Mech on July 1, 2007 at 1:42 AM

His problem is, he figured he had to try. The ISI are nearly all radicals. He must have cut a deal with his own Intelligence agency; stop trying to kill me and I’ll leave you alone in waziristan.

The CIA used to gauge how radical the ISI and Pakistan were by using what they called “the beard index.” They kept count of the number of ISI officers and senior army officers with beards to get a sense of the radical winds.

The CIA funneled all the support for the Afghan war against the soviets through the ISI. The ISI would then funnel the money and arms to the most radical Mujahadeen groups. After the Soviets left and the civil war broke out, the ISI backed (and fought alongside) the Taliban. So, they are the Taliban in many ways.

So, it looks like appeasement bought him some time.I only hope he used it to consolidate power in the Army (much less radical in general) and selectively purge some of the worst elements.

Now that I reflect on it a little, what we may be seeing here is the pretext he needs to now wipe them out…. time will tell.

TheBigOldDog on July 1, 2007 at 1:57 AM

Over the history of mankind, appeasement has never worked with people like this. WHY in heck do world leaders, politicians, and pundits, continue to waste time with that policy?

csdeven on June 30, 2007 at 11:21 PM

It makes no sense to me, but they’re usually the same type of people who always want to give Communism another chance, and it’s never worked either. (Understatement of the year.) I guess liberalism really is a mental disorder.

ReubenJCogburn on July 1, 2007 at 2:12 AM

…and named Iran one of the Axis of evil! How the fuck would that make you feel?

American8298 on July 1, 2007 at 12:33 AM

If I were named as part of the Axis of Evil, my feelings would be based upon my appraisal of those who named me as such. If I feared them enough, I would probably tone down my rhetoric and actions for a while and hope that they let me survive. I might also try to divide the American population by offering to:

help the US after September 11, 2001 track down and kill the people responsible.

Thus giving some talking points to the American left to persuade those who don’t know any better that I’m actually an innocent victim.

As it appears right now, their simple and transparent strategy might actually work… but hopefully not for much longer.

FloatingRock on July 1, 2007 at 2:43 AM

…and named Iran one of the Axis of evil! How the f**k would that make you feel?

American8298 on July 1, 2007 at 12:33 AM

If I were named as part of the Axis of Evil, my feelings would be based upon my appraisal of those who named me as such. If I feared them enough, I would probably tone down my rhetoric and actions for a while and hope that they let me survive. I might also try to divide the American population by offering to:

help the US after September 11, 2001 track down and kill the people responsible.

Thus giving some talking points to the American left to persuade those who don’t know any better that I’m actually an innocent victim.

As it appears right now, their simple and transparent strategy might actually work… but hopefully not for much longer.

(I already posted this once and it didn’t show up, so I censored the one swear word just in case it causes a delay while it waits for approval, or something. Sorry if it winds up double posting.)

FloatingRock on July 1, 2007 at 2:55 AM

As it appears right now, their simple and transparent strategy might actually work

I meant to say that it might actually be successful, not that it might work. Obviously, so far their strategy is working.

FloatingRock on July 1, 2007 at 3:01 AM

I hope FOX News get a Paris Hilton quote and then NBC News gets one from Silky Pony’s wife! Then we will be fully up-to-date!

sabbott on July 1, 2007 at 3:28 AM

Well the Taliban know from experience they can’t succeed in Afghanistan against the U.S. military, so they might as well focus on Pakistan. Musharraf is a wuss. Good strategy on their part, IMO.

infidel4life on July 1, 2007 at 3:33 AM

More love from the religion of peace.
If I am a repeater I apologize.

Islamo-fascist poopy heads.
Be vigilant!!!
Be careful!!!

Sammy316 on July 1, 2007 at 5:34 AM

That kind of admission from the Pakistan government is stunning. No matter how badly Pakistan is portrayed by the likes of New York Times, it’s still is an important ally in the war on terror. It should be encouraged to adopt the right policies.

Long time lurker here. First time poster. Cheers guys.

promachus on July 1, 2007 at 6:10 AM

Regardless of what American8298 is trying to say or not say, if the Taliban take control of Pakistan, they would then have the bomb and the missiles to use them.

Zorro on July 1, 2007 at 7:09 AM

One thing the leaders in our country better understand is that the Arabs are not like the Russians. The Russians care about their children….Muslums send their children out with bombs strapped to their bodies to blow themselves to pieces. Whether Musharraf likes it or not, we should just go into northern Pakistan and start bombing “the villagers” back a few centuries.

lynnv on July 1, 2007 at 8:36 AM

It is nothing that a Peacekeeper missile elimination under the confines of the START treaty couldn’t fix. We take care of his problem for him (and the entire region) and we also comply with the treaty by eliminating an item of inspection (1st stage of the missile). With a clear understanding of the threat radical Islam provides to Western Civilization I believe in the old concept to make an omelet sometimes you have to break some eggs. Cruel and ruthless, but what can you expect for an old SAC guy.

KC-135A on July 1, 2007 at 9:11 AM

Troll Alert

HA community,
Please stop responding to American8298

Thank you.

TunaTalon on July 1, 2007 at 9:27 AM

After Bush open his big stupid month and named Iran one of the Axis of evil! How the fuck would that make you feel? Even though they offered to help the US after September 11, 2001 track down and kill the people responsible. Remember I’m a retard that can’t spell.

American8298 on July 1, 2007 at 12:33 AM

Isn’t it interesting how your grammar suddenly became (almost) 100% correct when you started slamming Bush and the US.
Troll.

Coronagold on July 1, 2007 at 10:05 AM

AP—You missed this gem in the article:

The diplomat, who was not authorized to speak for attribution, called the document “an accurate description of the dagger pointed at the country’s heart.”

Wow—Chuck Schumer works for the Paks now?

Steve LLamabutcher on July 1, 2007 at 10:09 AM

Can’t Musharraf be bought? I mean, can’t the US just give him, I don’t know, $10 or $20 billion for Pak’s nukes. We could make him a deal that if India nuked Paki we would restrain from nuking Pakistan, too.

AZCON on June 30, 2007 at 11:14 PM

I hope that if Musharraf’s fails and the Islamists get control of Pakistan’s arsenal we are able to evacuate Musharraf along with a complete list of their nuke locations. Hopefully our military and government will be ready to take immediate action before the nukes can be relocated… to American cites.

FloatingRock on June 30, 2007 at 11:34 PM

Many won’t get these… I just wanted to say…,

Hahaha…!

Rugged Individual on July 1, 2007 at 10:48 AM

I predict that American8298 who is obviously an Iranian and not an American is going to be doing a hella lot of crying when the US and Israel finally get tired of Iran and start bombing the pukes back to the stone age.

doriangrey on July 1, 2007 at 11:09 AM

Who do you think is ALREADY in control in Iran? Who exactly do you think is the biggest State sponsors of terrorism? Who created and perfected the whole current Muslim Death Cult?

The key to Pakistan is India, their mortal enemy. India has the most skin in the game and the best intelligence on Pakistan. Any solution includes India. We better be cheek-to-cheeck with them right now because the minute India thinks radical Muslims are about to get control of Pakistan’s nukes, they might launch a massive first strike.

TheBigOldDog on July 1, 2007 at 1:30 AM

I certainly didn’t intend to deny Iran’s investment in terrorism. Terrorism is obviously an inherent part of Iranian geopolitical strategy. However, when it obtains nuclear capability (and at this point I do believe that’s a when, not an if), I tend not to believe that Iran will have motivation to place those hard-won weapons in the hands of its terrorist agents, for a wide variety of reasons. Despite the rhetoric about wiping Israel off the map, I believe Iran’s nuclear aspirations involve deploying their weapons in a more-or-less typical military arrangement, then using the gravity they provide to dominate the politics and economics of the region.

This would be a horrible development in and of itself, and I suspect the spectre that Iran could potentially use terrorists as an unconventional platform for some sort of nuclear delivery would even be a fear they’d enthusiastically leverage. However, I doubt very much it would actually happen, just as I doubt they’d actually launch a first strike on Israel.

On your points regarding India, I agree with you completely. Should Pakistan turn Islamist, India’s concerns would dwarf even ours.

Blacklake on July 1, 2007 at 11:14 AM

Wow—Chuck Schumer works for the Paks now?

Steve LLamabutcher on July 1, 2007 at 10:09 AM

Not likely. The statement in question was almost entirely true. Chuck Schumer couldn’t tell you what he ate for breakfast without dissembling at some level.

Blacklake on July 1, 2007 at 11:19 AM

Bttom line, what is gonna get done about it? I don’t think the US and it’s only ally great Britain need yet a third theatre of operations in Pakistan, until we get the other two under control. We certainly know, that know other nations will join our coalition of the willing.

paulsur on July 1, 2007 at 11:36 AM

Musharraf will crack down, will step down, or he will be kicked down. Then, who will control Pakistan’s nuclear weapons? India will not accept hate-filled muslim clerics or warlords from Pakistan “hunting for bear” with nuclear bombs.

saved on July 1, 2007 at 11:56 AM

The key to Pakistan is India, their mortal enemy. India has the most skin in the game and the best intelligence on Pakistan. Any solution includes India. We better be cheek-to-cheeck with them right now because the minute India thinks radical Muslims are about to get control of Pakistan’s nukes, they might launch a massive first strike.

TheBigOldDog on July 1, 2007 at 1:30 AM

Excellent observation. Agree 100%

infidel4life on July 1, 2007 at 2:41 PM

That’s some scary crap.

On the plus side, HA seems to have attracted its first Persian troll. Do we keep a hall of records somewhere?

My thoughts are: if we don’t already have an idea where each and every Pakistani (and everybody else’s) nukes are, then we ought to pack up the CIA and bring em all home. Surely that’s about priority number one for those guys. Not that i feel at all confident we’d be able to round them all up when push comes to shove.

And secondly, India has got to be thinking “whoa nelly”–in its Hindi equivalent. Doesn’t the presence of India present some sort of MAD scenario to even the Taliban, pretending they get ahold of the nukes? I’m afraid the answer is no.

TexasDan on July 1, 2007 at 6:49 PM

tend not to believe that Iran will have motivation to place those hard-won weapons in the hands of its terrorist agents

They ARE terrorist agents. They are looking for a holocaust to fulfill their religious prophecy. They can’t be deterred from using them. MAD does not work when one side is actively trying to end the world so that their Messiah can come.

Think I am kidding? This is from the Daily Telegraph:

The most remarkable aspect of Mr Ahmadinejad’s piety is his devotion to the Hidden Imam, the Messiah-like figure of Shia Islam, and the president’s belief that his government must prepare the country for his return.

One of the first acts of Mr Ahmadinejad’s government was to donate about £10 million to the Jamkaran mosque, a popular pilgrimage site where the pious come to drop messages to the Hidden Imam into a holy well.

All streams of Islam believe in a divine saviour, known as the Mahdi, who will appear at the End of Days. A common rumour – denied by the government but widely believed – is that Mr Ahmadinejad and his cabinet have signed a “contract” pledging themselves to work for the return of the Mahdi and sent it to Jamkaran.

Iran’s dominant “Twelver” sect believes this will be Mohammed ibn Hasan, regarded as the 12th Imam, or righteous descendant of the Prophet Mohammad.

He is said to have gone into “occlusion” in the ninth century, at the age of five. His return will be preceded by cosmic chaos, war and bloodshed. After a cataclysmic confrontation with evil and darkness, the Mahdi will lead the world to an era of universal peace.

This is similar to the Christian vision of the Apocalypse. Indeed, the Hidden Imam is expected to return in the company of Jesus.

Now, do you really think they’ll act responsibly with the power of the atom?

TheBigOldDog on July 1, 2007 at 7:33 PM

This appeasement is different in degree, but not in kind, from the Americans’ own. I would have them convert the mosques in North America to wedding chapels, fertility clinics, and maternity wards–and adult toy stores, too, just to keep the whole production running smoothly. Really, it would be better to deal with Islam presently, rather than to allow its influence to continue growing, and to perhaps let Islam get altogether out of hand. If Islam’s influence continues to grow, I may eventually have to become an imam in self-defense. I’ll be p1ssed at the inconvenience and humiliated at having to preach such nonsense. Being in an angry frame of mind won’t make me a very kindly imam; you won’t like me or my fatwas. So run along, and put an end to this “Islam” rubbish right away, hmmmm?

Kralizec on July 1, 2007 at 9:12 PM

Jetboy: “I don’t like to say it, but I don’t believe Musharraf will leave office alive. Only a matter of time, me thinks, and then what will happen in the region?”

Prediction: There will be an American nuclear strike on Pakistan centering on the tribal areas and the nuke weapons storage sites if the Pakistani government falls to Al Qaeda.

georgej on July 2, 2007 at 12:54 AM