Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

US Military Escalation Gets Underway In Pakistan

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-06-08 02:44 PM
Original message
US Military Escalation Gets Underway In Pakistan
Edited on Sun Jan-06-08 03:05 PM by Breeze54
US Military Escalation Gets Underway In Pakistan

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/06/6205/

by Tom Hayden

Published on Sunday, January 6, 2008 by

The US government is considering direct military intervention in the tribal areas of Pakistan, risking an escalated conflict with Pashtun nationalism in the name of crushing al Qaeda. An essay in last week’s Washington Post, a front page story in today’s New York Times and reports from the Real News Network all confirm that a decision to intervene is near. The Times confirms that as many as 50 American personnel, whether special forces or CIA, already operate clandestinely inside the Pakistani border.

Democrats have called no hearings nor raised significant voices of opposition to the unfolding plan. In New Hampshire last night, Sen. Barack Obama repeated his endorsement of unilateral US military intervention in Pakistan if “actionable intelligence” exists. His Democratic rivals did not dissent.


The consequences of the possible escalation are extremely unpredictable. The alleged al-Qaeda militants are embedded in complex tribal networks in a remote mountainous area. Military action could inflict severe casualties and damage to these traditional communities and inflame anti-American sentiment across Muslim Pakistan. It might accelerate the disintegration of the US-backed Musharraf dictatorship which currently possesses nuclear weapons. Musharraf and the Pakistani military have steadfastly opposed direct American intervention for the past five years.

Speculation is rife that US support for the ill-fated return of Benezir Bhutto to Pakistan was based partly on an understanding that she would endorse and legitimize an expanded US presence in her country. If neither the American embassy nor the Musharraf regime could save her from death at a public event, it is unclear how successful American special forces will be in the wilds of South Waziristan.

There is virtually no public discussion of the implications of American support for a military dictatorship that imprisons Pakistani lawyers while harboring anti-US jihadists. Instead of enforcing the existing Leahy Amendment <1997> which bans military assistance to human rights violators, the US has spent approximately $10 billion in five years supporting the Musharraf regime, alienating a majority of Pakistanis, and lending credence to the claims of Muslim extremists. Having contributed to, or at least failing to have prevented Pakistan’s fall into chaos, “senior officials” quoted by the Times now are blaming al-Qaeda for plotting all along to achieve “the big prize, creating chaos in Pakistan itself.”

It is ironic that Democrats like Obama, whose campaign was built around questioning the intelligence justifying the Iraq War would now be arguing for a preventive war in a sovereign country if evidence gathered by intelligence sources is merely “actionable.”

The further irony is that the “war on terrorism” is escalating without meaningful discussion or dissent in the midst of the most open and democratic of American processes, the presidential debates.

Congressional hearings and questioning by the presidential candidates might stall, circumscribe or prevent the escalation. An alternative policy of reducing US military assistance to Pakistan and demanding the full restoration of civil liberties there, while seeking diplomatic de-escalation in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Palestine is being ignored in the march towards a wider quagmire.

~~~

Tom Hayden is a former state senator and leader of Sixties peace, justice and environmental movements. He currently teaches at Pitzer College in Los Angeles. His books include The Port Huron Statement , Street Wars and The Zapatista Reader.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-06-08 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. I want to hear Biden's take on this. I fear, as usual, this administration is
not seeking his advice, but just storming on in...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-06-08 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Not just "this admin" either...
:banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-06-08 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
3. Why is Obama talking about bombing Pakistan?!?
:wtf:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knitter4democracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-06-08 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
4. Bad. Bad idea.
We seem to be on another collision course to war, but what can we do this time when everything didn't work last time?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-06-08 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Well; don't vote for any warmongers, as a start!!
I won't be!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knitter4democracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-06-08 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. I won't either. That's a first step.
*sigh* It's just getting ridiculous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-06-08 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
6. I think I've run out words. Things are just going to keep being fucked up, and keep getting more
fucked up, and no one is going to put a stop to any of it.

sw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-06-08 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Hopefuly we can elect a sane president, not a war monger!!
Edited on Sun Jan-06-08 03:41 PM by Breeze54
I hear you scarletwoman. My jaw dropped as I listened to Obama in the debate last night.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-06-08 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. We need a sane president (NOT a Repub!) and someone who knows HOW to
deal with situations like this to diffuse it -- not exacerbate it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-06-08 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Exactly!
That seems to rule out Clinton and Obama, in my book!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 10th 2024, 05:37 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC