|December 28th, 2007, 02:48 PM||#3|
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
For anyone who doesn't have a clue what this means here is a good interview of the editor of Threatswatch.org by FrontPage....
Here's only a part of it.........
FP: What does this tragedy mean for the region?
Schippert: Again, the loss of Bhutto is not only a loss for Pakistanis, but also for the rest of the world hoping Pakistan can stabilize and modernize and lose itself one day of the threat of an al-Qaeda which strengthens and grows on its fertile grounds.
Her assassination comes at particularly high cost for Afghanistan and Hamid Karzai, who was in Pakistan attempting to build upon the strained, angry relations between the two countries. For every measure of instability within Pakistan, there is an equal measure of violent attacks into Afghanistan from within the Taliban-al-Qaeda Pakistani lairs. Recall that Musharraf's ceding of the Waziristan Agencies in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas was based on a written agreement that cross-border attacks into Afghanistan would be halted. They rose 300% overnight. An even weaker Pakistan ripped and distracted by internal unrest beyond the tribal areas spells trouble measured in blood for Afghanistan.
Equally concerned is India. Should al-Qaeda gain control of Pakistani nuclear weapons, the first target will not likely be New York, Tel Aviv or Baghdad, but rather New Dehli. If al-Qaeda can successfully decapitate the whole of India's political class, an insurgency by Indian Muslims could be successfully and swiftly launched, breaking India up into pieces while simultaneously and successfully resolving the Kashmir conflict - which is still teeming with al-Qaeda-aligned terrorist groups. Any Indian retaliatory strike can be plausibly acceptable considering the gains and the dutiful expansion of a new caliphate.
FP: What then does this mean for the United States and the West?
Schippert: For the US going forward, we may be approaching a time where the US needs to determine if it is going to continue to support Musharraf wholly and stay largely out of Pakistan or confront the danger full-on and unleash a full assault on the tribal regions held by al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Perhaps a recognition that at the end of the day there truly is no defeating al-Qaeda within Pakistan by Pakistan, and that it will require American boots on the ground and assets in the air - whether convenient or not, pleasant contemplation or not. We may be nearing that crucial decision point.
Also keep in mind that, if history is a guide, the decision may be made for us. Consider the recent history of Pakistani leaders who have appointed a new Chief of Army Staff - such as Musharraf did in appointing General Kiyani to take his place. It would not be a stretch of the imagination to contemplate Kiyani overthrowing Musharraf thinking him too divisive for his country to survive. Recall the unspoken synergy of mutual anger held both by Bhutto supporters and al-Qaeda for Musharraf. With her assassination, it could be a perfect storm brewing for al-Qaeda in Pakistan - one that could eclipse the synergistic anger that manifested after Lal Masjid assault and the arrest of Supreme Court Chief Justice Chaudhry.
Recall also that Musharraf himself was appointed Chief of Army Staff by Nawaz Sharif. General Musharraf dispatched of him in short order in a bloodless coup shortly after.
History can tell us many things. But what it cannot tell us is often more troubling. We are now in uncharted waters with an increasingly unstable nuclear power while a bloodthirsty international terrorist organization thrives within its borders. Not even the fall and breakup of the Soviet Union can compare in potential perils.
The coming week is critical, and all events in Pakistan warrant the closest attention.
|Thread Tools||Search this Thread|