View Story | 184 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Crossed fingers for Pakistan
"A person is as free as they believe themselves to be off." - Fortune cookie
by The Termite on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 10:40:57 AM PDT
Um....
Whoa.
n/t.
"Steve Holt pays his property taxes. John McCain does not." - Steve Holt
by cookiesandmilk on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 10:44:55 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
by The Termite on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 10:49:34 AM PDT
to both Pakistan's nukes and Musharraf's rule according to a report from Stratfor today. I read the intro on Stratfor's web site, but I do not subscribe. (Stratfor.com)
I would presume we have their weapons targeted by conventional means for destruction if they are threatened, because we can't hold off Pakistan's military.
"It's the planet, stupid."
by FishOutofWater on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 11:09:03 AM PDT
I mean aside from them having the means to attack the locations.. they've traditionally been a secular and moderate force in Pakistani politics, similar to the Turkish military.
You could say the same thing about the Russian military or whoever, right? Where's the pattern of behavior?
by unfounded on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 12:47:25 PM PDT
we must have a plan to deal with that contingency.
I am not suggesting that we would do anything if Pakistan replaces one "moderate" military leader with another. However, if we had evidence that weapons might be transferred to Al Qaeda, we would do something.
by FishOutofWater on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 01:13:24 PM PDT
in anticipation of the release of these stories? That is, did Musharraf know this was going to come out and clamped down in advance to prevent the sort of massive protests that may still occur anyway? This might help explain the otherwise surprising timing of Musharraf's move.
Sick of candidate diaries? Kasama!"Tell no lies. Claim no easy victories" -- Amilcar Cabral
by Christopher Day on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 01:19:44 PM PDT
I think Musharraf is simply trying to hold onto power by any means necessary.
He is completely detached from reality at this point.
If this deal is true, I'm sure it took place with the Army directly whether Musharraf approved or not.
His days are definitely numbered.
John McCain
by dbratl on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 01:38:44 PM PDT
The TimesOfIndia is a pretty crappy newspaper. Tell me when this article turns up on The Hindu.
John Mccain - The death of social security
by horatius on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 02:18:31 PM PDT
If there are any updates to this story, please post as comments using UPDATE in the subject line, and I will post to the diary upon my return.
by The Termite on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 10:54:32 AM PDT
It is a very important developing story -- even if "BREAKING!!" is (thankfully) not in the title.
Save your tears for the living
by immanentize on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 10:58:22 AM PDT
The operative part of the Stratfor article:
As we have discussed a number of times, the United States delivered a very clear ultimatum to Musharraf after 9/11: Unless Pakistan allowed U.S. forces to take control of Pakistani nuclear facilities, the United States would be left with no choice but to destroy those facilities, possibly with India's help.
That sentence does not merit the highly provocative article title.
Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.
by Simplify on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 12:39:38 PM PDT
Just yesterday on Diane Rehm's show they talked about control of Pakistan's nukes, and the experts on the show said the nukes are dispersed, and putting them in places where the US knows where they are would completely wipe out their value because, the Pakistanis suspect, we would tell the Indians.
And the Times of India is just repeating one source, Stratfor. All this is based on Stratfor, and at this point, I see no other corroboration or support outside of Stratfor.
The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.
by DHinMI on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 11:02:30 AM PDT
Amazing if it is true, and moreover, if it is true, and Pakistani nukes are under foreign, let alone American control, Musharraf is a walking dead man.
I mean, there will be a line at the door to scalp him, starting with the islamists who've tried before to kill him, going to the military figures nominally under his command, to the ISI, the intelligence service that is essentially the shadow government in Pakistan, to....hell, wait 'til the Pakistani people get hold of this news.
That's not something Mushrraf could ever have afforded to do, regardless of what threats the US laid on him after 9/11.
I mean, as a national leader, who caves in like that?
And I'm saying this as a guy who has family in India, well within range of those Pakistani nukes.
I just find it hard to believe, that even under threat of getting bombed back to the stone age, Musharraf would have allowed the US to emasculate Pakistan in that manner.
and if it is true....get ready for Indian nationalists chomping at the bit to have a go at the Pakis, get ready for....i mean, there are a ton of dominoes there that could be put in play. and the what ifs of the situation are endless, like the one where India, suddenly in a position of strength, takes advantage, and Pakistan in self-defense plays the nuclear card, is the US to blame for allowing the card to be played. Obviously I'm getting way ahead of myself, but if this story is true, "Whoa" might be the only appropriate comment.
by pmukh on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 11:20:39 AM PDT
something does not need to be multi-sourced to have a very profound impact. Indeed, I really do not much care about the truth of the indian report, but it is the fact of it that is so interesting (and potentially dangerous).
by immanentize on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 11:25:32 AM PDT
It's Stratfor only, it's just the India Times reporting on the reporting.
by DHinMI on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 12:26:47 PM PDT
This point you are making rather, in fact, proves my point.
The story is that it is being reported. I suppose that if stratfor (which has a great track record on strategic issues) is debunked thoroughly and quickly the "Indian Report" will have no effect.
Otherwise, not so much.
by immanentize on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 01:01:30 PM PDT
great track record on strategic issues.
I forget what its called, but there is a classic con where you say one thing and then its opposite in a complicated way and then you wait for the sucker to confirm one end or the other.
That's what there predictions have always struck me as, like "We expect the Mahdi Army to extend there control throughout southern Iraq unless internal divisions prevent Sadr from consolidating his power."
Not a real example, but all their predictions tend to use language like this.
by dbratl on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 01:46:56 PM PDT
To further incite anti-Musharraf sentiment and finally put an end to his reign.
by dbratl on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 01:40:33 PM PDT
Hadn't thought of that. Excellent hypothesis.
by DHinMI on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:25:57 PM PDT
...for some other sources to corroborate, but I can't recall Stratfor missing the mark as badly as they'd miss it if this story proved untrue.
by The Termite on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 11:36:05 AM PDT
NUKES, don't we use Pakistan as an air supply route?
Guess Bhutto didn't work out so well.
"...fighting the wildfires of my life with squirt guns."
by deMemedeMedia on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 12:49:33 PM PDT
We have no vested interest in a nuclear confrontation between Pakistan and India. Why would we leak that information to India?
By us being there, we would be protecting Musharaff from elements within his own government and providing him needed resources. So it seems to me that Musharaff has every reason to see our vested interest in the region as benefiting him. We are probably more trustworthy for him than his own intelligence service is because we really have little regard for who's running Pakistan so long as they keep a lid on the radicals. On the other hand the intelligence services are but another player in the internal political games.
--- Photography, Politics, and Chicago
by sterno on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 12:05:01 PM PDT
...that you assume it's Musharraf and NOT the intel services who control the nukes, and that the control of the nukes is completely independent of the intel services. I'm not sure that's the case.
by DHinMI on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 12:28:06 PM PDT
including all of the players in this great game.
i do wonder whether the story is in itself an attempt to rob musharraf of legitimacy, regardless of veracity. it makes sense why the times of india would push it, but what the american government's move is, and why is pretty opaque to me.
surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat
by wu ming on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 01:23:27 PM PDT
The US has been keeping a tight lid on Pakistan's nukes for quite some time now.
What I don't get is why all the nonsense in the news lately? Another non-story I suppose to raise the fear levels in middle America.
Impeach!
by mosesfreeman on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 11:19:16 AM PDT
there's a WORLD of difference there
by pmukh on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 11:22:09 AM PDT
I don't think that any news outlet reported we were in control of the weapons before this. Though I invite anybody to prove me wrong.
by The Termite on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 11:34:46 AM PDT
soon after 911 to physically control Pakistan's nuclear sites. It wasn't in the news, but it's widely known in military circles. Pakistan's nukes have been a high security priority for a long time.
by mosesfreeman on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 07:04:46 PM PDT
That's news to me.
Any links?
If it is that easy to simply deploy special forces to control nuclear sites, why on earth is every Republican in this country so breathlessly eager to bomb Iran to pieces before it has nuclear sites worth controlling? In other words, if it's that easy, what the fuck are we worried about?
And yes, that's a partially rhetorical question.
by The Termite on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 07:54:03 PM PDT
It's a completely different scenario. Musharraf will tolerate a certain amount of US involvement in exchange for US aid and support. Iran on the other hand, is beyond the pale. We have no carrots for Iran, and therefore little leverage.
It isn't "easy" per se, it's easy to control Pakistan's nukes because Musharraf tolerates it... it serves his larger purpose of staying in power to tolerate it.
No way could we do the same thing in Iran... that situation is completely different.
I don't have links... but ask your friends in the military (especially the Marines), you'll find it's as I have said.
by mosesfreeman on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 10:36:10 PM PDT
I find their claims a bit extreme and unverifiable.
by dbratl on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 01:36:15 PM PDT
Whoa...
And I'd add a "Holy Shyte" just for good measure.
Mariachi Mama Candidate Bickering Moratorium! Signatory to the Carnacki Petition
by kredwyn on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 01:44:53 PM PDT
Bush now has MORE nukes. Ready to launch, one country away from Iran, right near Russia. And quite possibly not safeguarded in the same way as "our" nukes are - there's no telling, he might be able to launch them single-handedly or with only Darth Cheney's approval.
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. - George Orwell
by kyril on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 02:25:39 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 184 comments