| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| Ralph Peters: Just Walk Away |
| 2009-05-05 |
| WHAT Washington calls "strategy" is usually just inertia: We can't imagine not supporting Pakistan because we've "always" supported Pakistan. No matter how shamelessly Pakistan's leaders looted their own country, protected the Taliban, sponsored terror attacks on India, demanded aid and told us to kiss off when we asked for help, we had to back the Paks. Because that's just the way things are. Well, now that Islamist marauders are sweeping the country with violence as the generals in Rawalpindi mull "To be or not to be" and President Ali Asif Zardari knocks back another scotch behind closed doors, perhaps we should consider an alternative approach to this splintering, renegade state. A better strategy's obvious. But Washington has trouble with the obvious. At our pathetic State Department, habit trumps innovation every time. And the Pentagon can't seem to see beyond the immediate battlefield. What should we do? Dump Pakistan. Back India. Washington's deep thinkers will cry, "But China might move in!" If China wants Pakistan, let Beijing have it. That would be fun to watch. Take on the Taliban? Given China's ghastly ineptitude in dealing with its Uighur Muslims, more power to 'em. Anyway, China knows that India's the prize. Indian neutrality is essential to any future conflict with the United States. Beijing isn't going to do anything to drive New Delhi into a closer relationship with Washington (and the US Navy). So set the "China syndrome" fears aside. Move on to the integrity issue: We claim -- or used to claim -- that we're serious about combating terrorists and punishing their backers. Yet, we've been abetting the forces of terror by supporting Pakistan unreservedly. Islamabad merrily sponsors terror attacks on India, knowing that America will step in and convince New Delhi not to retaliate. Apart from the myriad Pak-backed terror strikes in Kashmir, we've seen gruesome attacks in New Delhi and, most recently, in Mumbai. Pakistan's intelligence services did everything but put up billboards announcing that they were behind the terrorists. India prepared to strike back. But we stepped in every time. As long as Pakistan's obsessed India-haters know there won't be any penalties for terrorism, they'll keep at it. The formula isn't hard to figure out. Suppose we just left Pakistan, even withdrawing our embassy personnel? Without us to protect them when they go rogue, would Pakistan's murky intel thugs still launch terror strikes on India? Pakistan would have to behave responsibly at last. Or face nuclear-armed India. And Pakistan's leaders know full well that a nuclear exchange would leave their country a wasteland. India would dust itself off and move on. Of course, there's also the issue of the Pentagon's bewildering incompetence in placing 50,000 of our troops at the end of a 1,500-mile supply line through Pakistan, rendering our forces virtual hostages of Islamabad. The answer's another dose of common sense: Instead of increasing our troop numbers in Afghanistan, cut them. Instead of embracing the hopeless task of building a modern nation where no nation of any kind has ever existed, concentrate exclusively on killing al Qaeda terrorists and the hard-line Taliban elements who help them. Instead of pretending the Kabul government has any validity, arm the factions with which we share common interests. We're really not obliged to cut massive welfare checks for our enemies. Our sole mission in Afghanistan should be killing terrorists. To that end, we need a smaller, lethal, unfettered force, not more agricultural experts and con-game contractors. Bottom line: Let India deal with Pakistan. If the Chinese want to engage, just smile. Focus on killing our enemies, not buying them ice cream. And get serious about strategy. How is it that the leaders of the most powerful state in history think like small-time operators? Briefing Washington audiences, I warn them that, when the boss tells them to think outside the box, he really means, "Come back with new reasons why I was right all along." It's time for some genuine outside-the-box thinking. Because the Pakistani box looks increasingly like a coffin. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #7 Long-term we absolutely DO need to build strong ties with India. It's certainly more important than Pakistan. Bigger, more civilized, more educated, English is generally spoken. And the Chinese already have them in their cross-hairs (see Nepal actions.) Short term, we cannot abandon Pakistan. Not while we have to supply a major Afghanistan operation (unless we REALLY support India and open a new INDIAN supply route through Islamabad.) Hillary (and Zero) need to walk gently right now. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2009-05-05 13:03 |
| #6 I hope someone in Washington is reading this. Sadly, it will probably be many years before this becomes common knowledge "inside the beltway". |
| Posted by: Scooter McGruder 2009-05-05 08:27 |
| #5 In agreement with ALL of the above. Adding to Barry's problems is the recently released news that (as predicted here) the train has finally reached the station and China no longer desires to buy additional US debt. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-05-05 07:54 |
| #4 You want people to betray things while you prosecute them? Moon under the feet. Betrayal on global scale will get someone killed around here. |
| Posted by: newc 2009-05-05 02:31 |
| #3 I still call Washington DC the whore of babylon. |
| Posted by: newc 2009-05-05 02:26 |
| #2 As long as Pakistan's obsessed India-haters know there won't be any penalties for terrorism, they'll keep at it. The formula isn't hard to figure out. Now that Obama is in power, I wonder how long that dynamic will remain. Just as Israel has quickly grown up and realized they need to quit looking to the USA for approval and protection and take responsibility for their own safety, India may quickly come to the same conclusion. There is no longer any reason for these countries to fear a reaction from the Obama administration, as it would probably be little more than a sternly worded letter written by UN bureaucrats or at worst sanctions. I would not be surprised if we see many of the European nations quickly grow up as well. America has become a corrupt banana republic. I'm not sure exactly on what day we woke up and realized that our government is little different than that of Hugo Chavez or Robert Mugabe, but woke up we did. And I suspect that other countries are beginning to also process this reality. Obama has printed so much money in the last 100 days, that what will it matter if he offers them trillions of US dollars? If American citizens continue to be helpless to stop the out right theft of the wealth of those who produce goods and services the promises of aid from the US will be about as meaningful as promises from Zimbabwe. |
| Posted by: Jumbo Slinerong5015 2009-05-05 01:27 |
| #1 I like this thinking. But, we do need lines of communication into Afghanistan for the time being. Obama's strategy of ramping up there while simultaneously challenging the Paks seems potentially contradictory. Regardless, we do need to make it clear that India is a real ally while whatever we do with Pakland is transactional. |
| Posted by: JAB 2009-05-05 00:58 |