Are we at war, then?

Associated Press reporting (you can read an article in the New York Daily News here) sketches a hair-raising portrait of events now transpiring in Pakistan.  

Today, the Pakistani government condemned the on-going drone attacks made by US forces within Pakistani territory.  In the last three days, the US has conducted three such attacks, killing 27 persons including an unspecified number of "suspected militants."  Altogether, the US has conducted 7 such attacks in the last 2 weeks.

Are we at war with Pakistan?

Here's a little snippet from the NYDN article:

The Pakistani government and parliament have repeatedly asked the U.S. to stop the strikes.
The ongoing attacks are also complicating efforts for the U.S. and Pakistan to come to an agreement over reopening the supply routes to NATO and American forces in Afghanistan. American airstrikes inadvertently killed 24 Pakistani soldiers in November, prompting Islamabad to block U.S. and NATO supply lines running through its territory.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/u-s-drone-strikes-kill-18-suspected-militants-pakistan-article-1.1089500#ixzz1wsyyPB7u

The US first began the drone attacks in 2004, and has accelerated them since President Obama came to office.  There have been 297 drone attacks in the last 8 years.  Late last year, the CIA halted the attacks after a mistaken strike killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.  But now they're back at it.  Civilians have died, including children, although there are no reliable numbers.  It's in the hundreds by most accounts. 

Are we at war, then?  Because it's starting to look that way.  We just may be tripping into a war with a nuclear-armed nation of 175 million people right in the middle of a boiling hot kettle.

We better think this over, people. 

Pakistan isn't Cambodia.  Pakistan isn't Laos.

This is deep water, here.

Pakistan flood disaster

So, I need to underscore that, today, we're doing what we're doing for Pakistan out of pure humanitarian need. There's one other point I would like to make which is extremely important, and it was made today by both the foreign minister, Qureshi, and Dr. Rajiv Shah, the head of AID, USAID, at the Asia Society Conference this morning of NGOs.

They both said that this was a manifestation of global warming, that the melt off the Himalayan glaciers they both thought it was possibly linked to the fires outside Moscow. And Dr. Shah said very clearly that he thinks the world should expect more of this kind of event.

I know that sounds almost like a science fiction movie, but I think it's worth your viewers recognizing that we're at the... we're... we may be in the process of seeing a dangerous new trend. I'm not sure about that. Our focus tonight is emergency rescue and relief, but I thought that's important to mention. --US Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke on PBS Newshour, August 20, 2010

At times, the allure of head-in-the-sand obliviousness is like a verdant oasis amid the endless dunes of Sahara.  Especially when one contemplates the nightmare unfolding in Pakistan.  But, just as the lush green of a desert mirage proves phantasmal, so does our attempt to limit our own awareness prove futile and pointless.  Folks, it's out there:  hell on Earth.  And it's coming our way.

End times?  Well, as much as I want to avoid going off the deep end into eschatological panic, at some point we might just have to face up to it:  the gift of our existence, our time as a species, may be expiring.  No need to recount all the unprecedented disasters that pile up, with horrifying and accelerating frequency, one on top of the other.  We can all see what is happening.

Twenty million people in Pakistan are left homeless from the floods that are occurring now, at the beginning of the monsoon season. For those of us lucky enough to live in a calm and peaceful part of the world, that is unimaginable suffering. 

My employer is donating to the Pakistan Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and is urging myself and my coworkers to do the same.  I'll be writing a check forthwith. Should you, dear reader, be so inclined, you can make online donations here:

• International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies

Or, you can donate through your cell phone, as described here:

• Mobile Commerce Daily

The other day, as I was walking around the neighborhood, a cry of distress roused me out of my ambulatory reverie.  I looked up and saw a middle-aged woman crouched down on the sidewalk, next to a man, presumably her husband, who was stretched out, full-length on the concrete.  He had just fallen, flat on his face.  The woman was panicked.

Myself, some bike riders, and several other pedestrians dashed across the street to help.  It turned out that the old gentleman had tripped on the uneven walkway, but was unhurt.  Initial fears of cardiac arrest or some other catastrophe were unfounded.  We helped him to his feet, dusted him off, and dispersed.  But I came away from the incident buoyed by the responses of the people at the scene. 

I'll tell you, folks, I haven't given up hope that we still have a promising future ahead of us.  But, if we are entering the Final Days, if humanity has crossed the point of no return, all that is left to us is to choose how it will end.

If I may, I'd like to suggest that we face whatever is to come nobly, with compassion for each other, for ourselves.  When we see people in need, whether it is an old gentleman on the sidewalk along Division Street, or twenty million desperate Pakistanis, let's do what comes naturally.

Video warriors

Anybody catch Lara Logan's report on 60 Minutes last night? The report was a titillating hint at what we, as US taxpayers, are buying with our untold billions of dollars in defense expenditures.

In an all-too-brief, and in my opinion, terrifying exposé, Ms. Logan reported on the new fighter/surveillance drone technology being employed by the US Air Force. In brief summary, these drones are the unmanned aircraft that we occasionally hear about striking targets in Iraq or Afghanistan (or even Pakistan). They are operated by US pilots from Creech Air Force base near Las Vegas, some 7500 miles away from the battlefield, using satellite technology. They can remain airborne for up to 24 hours at a time, all the while tracking potential targets. The report showed declassified video of these drones striking targets (not only convoys and vehicles, but individuals) with bone-chilling accuracy from altitudes of 50,000 feet.

I don't doubt that the prevailing emotional response to the report by many Americans was triumph. But at the risk of calling into question my patriotic blood-lust, I found the report to be troubling.

First of all, I find the concept of killing people in a manner which very much resembles the action in any "first-person shooter" video game to be disturbing. These pilots are in absolutely no danger of being killed or maimed themselves, sitting at their glorified game consoles, dealing death and destruction on people thousands of miles away. Even though the airmen that Ms. Logan interviewed insisted that they were fully engaged, that their safety afforded them clearer judgment and allowed them to call upon mental facilities that are unavailable in more immediate combat, it occurs to me that there is a danger of detachment; an avoidance of consequence. Is it easier to kill a man when he appears only as an animated image on a computer screen? Are the dangers of mistaken attack heightened when the attacker is relying solely on imagery projected from thousands of miles away?

Secondly, are we sure that we want this kind of technology, this awesome military power in the hands of our government? So far as we know, these drones are in use only in the "problem" regions of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. So far as we know... but, of course, everything that was in Ms. Logan's report was cleared by military officials. What if we were to learn that these drones were being used to watch, for example, the US-Mexican border? Or what if they had been used to watch post-Katrina New Orleans? Or what if, in some restive American future, they were used to watch unruly gatherings of American citizens?

In Ms. Logan's report, we see footage of drones striking trucks, armored vehicles, even two men running in the dead of night, all allegedly legitimate targets on the battlefield. But here's the rub, people: If they can do it to Afghanis or Pakistanis or Iraqis, they can do it to you.

Rockin' and rollin' in Pakistan

Pakistan, Pakistan. All the rage is about Pakistan.

Pervez Musharraf offers to "un-retire"

It's been roughly nine months since Pakistanis showed Pervez Musharraf the door and things haven't been going so well.

The new civilian government is proving ineffective at suppressing Taliban elements in the mountains bordering Afghanistan. Indeed, the Taliban's influence is growing to the point where it is now imposing Sharia law on swaths of territory formerly controlled by the government in Islamabad. The Pakistani military is reportedly "unhappy" about the way the government has handled the situation.

Musharraf said in an interview recently that he'd be willing to return to power, if asked. Pakistanis should not discard the offer out-of-hand.

Always willing to lend a hand

Musharraf is a fascinating, inscrutable individual. You don't get to the top of the jungle gym in Pakistan unless you know how to rumble, certainly. So no one should doubt that the man is capable and formidable. He made his bones in the Pakistani military, climbing all the way to the top of that formidable organization, then went on to seize power over the entire government in a bloodless coup back in 1999. Post 911, Musharraf played Junior like a fiddle, promising support in Junior's Global War on Terror in exchange for huge infusions of US military aid. Those dollars shored up Musharraf's support with the king-maker military and, at the same time, kept the dastardly Indians at bay. He's shown considerable skill in playing the Western media. (He even made an appearance on the Daily Show.)

But the superhuman political dexterity required to stay on top of the shifting sands of Pakistani politics proved to be beyond him. Indeed, it has so far proved to be beyond anyone.

Pakistan: Oh, very young

Pakistan itself has only been a nation since 1947. Birthed from the receding British Empire, Pakistan was formed as the mostly Muslim portion of what the British referred to as "India." It was a chaotic and violent birth. Territorial disputes with India set the two nations immediately at odds. The state of Kashmir is still contested, one of the world's military hot-spots. Pakistan has fought three bloody wars with India in the last 60 years, and both countries are packing nuclear heat.

The country has never had a particularly stable government, alternating between short-lived civilian governments and military juntas throughout. But, now, with other parties taking interest in her fate, Pakistan begins to resemble a very big, tottering domino that, if she falls, could set in motion a series of events that the world has not seen since the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.

Everybody wants to play

Asia is a big place, but there are a lot of very big fish in the pond. Pakistan is at the geographic convergence of many competing hegemonies.

The deadly rivalry with India is still simmering, of course. It could erupt at any time. When I was in Delhi back in 2001, the Indian Parliament was attacked by gunmen, a shootout ensued and people were killed. Then, there was the recent attack by gunmen in Mumbai that killed at least 101 people. In both these cases, although never proven, the gunmen were suspected of having ties to Pakistan.

But there is also Iran, to the west, which is emerging as a regional power in the post-Saddam vacuum. An unintended consequence of Junior's filthy war. Iran is growing in power and influence even as Pakistan totters.

China, to the east, has always had a certain contempt for India and is therefore an interested party. If India were to calculate that instability in Pakistan provided opportunity to settle some old scores, the Chinese, already dimly alarmed at India's economic and political emergence, would undoubtedly feel compelled to weigh in.

Of course, anything that concerns the Chinese also concerns the ever-suspicious Russians. And Russia has no love for the Taliban, having not only been defeated in her Afghanistan adventure in the '80s, but also having suffered barbaric terrorist attacks from Islamic radicals.

Then, there is the good, old USA and her client state Afghanistan. An unstable Pakistan, with large swaths of territory used as home base for the Taliban would seem intolerable from their perspective. Anti-American sentiment in Pakistan is strong (another gift of Junior's imbecilic foreign policy) and so any efforts the US makes in the region have a strong possibility to backfire.

Pervez for Prez

With Pakistan right in the middle of a mind-blowingly complex situation, it would behoove all parties involved to do what they can to facilitate stability. And, historically, stability in Pakistan means the Pakistani military.

Pity the poor Pakistanis who would undoubtedly view the rights and liberties enjoyed by Westerners as unattainable under the less-than-gentle hand of military dictators. But, in the interests of peace, perhaps a strict military government, with the backing of interested parties (which are virtually everyone) could provide some stability and stem the growing tide of Islamic radicalism represented by the Taliban.

You just gotta know the right people...

Pervez Musharraf has shown his ability to play off the various factions and maintain a degree of national unity. It might be best for all of us if he were back in power.

It's "roller coaster" time in Pakistan

The world was rocked yesterday by the assassination of Pakistan's Benazir Bhutto. According to reports on CNN, Bhutto was shot between 3 and 5 times by a gunman as she raised herself through the moon roof of a vehicle to wave to the crowd that had just attended a rally. Security forces attempted to apprehend the gunman, who then detonated a bomb that he had strapped to himself. Bhutto was taken to a hospital and within 45 minutes of the event, was reported dead.

This event commits everyone remaining, from Pervez Musharraf, to Pakistan Muslim League leader Nawaz Sharif, to Junior Bush, and Pakistan's Waziri warlords, to a terrifying course of brinkmanship where none can back down, back out, or even control events. It's like being on a roller coaster ride without a safety strap. The ride has started, and for better or worse, everyone is going to complete the circuit.

Responsibility for the event is currently being attributed to Al Qaeda. And it could well be that some group of zealots that pay homage to Osama bin Laden are, in fact, behind it. But Al Qaeda is a convenient catch-all that can be tagged with responsibility for anything. (I'll talk about that in a future post.)

Without accusing anyone, let's look at how this event affects each of the key players that are still in the game.

Pervez Musharraf and the Pakistani military: National elections are currently scheduled in Pakistan for January 8th. Bhutto was the main opposition candidate to Musharraf and the most realistic possibility for unseating him. Bhutto had no political heir apparent, so the Pakistan People's Party now has no leader to run against Musharraf. Rather convenient for Pervez, yes? On the other hand, Musharraf's international credibility can ill-afford another blow against it. It seems highly unlikely that such a cagey player as Musharraf would even entertain such a dangerous notion as assassinating Bhutto. That is, unless Musharraf were absolutely desperate...

Nawaz Sharif: The leader of Pakistan's third political entity, the Pakistan Muslim League, had no love for Bhutto. She was a rival to power; she was "western friendly." And, let's be real, she was a woman.

Junior Bush: On its face, this is a disaster for Junior. Bhutto offered a legitimate friendly face for the American public. If Bhutto had won the January 8th election, the distaste that many Americans have for Musharraf and his heavy-handed tactics could have gone away, leaving Junior a free hand to cut shady deals with a new partner that would have been much more palatable to the American public. But those dreams are gone; and if there is one thing at which Junior and his band have proven themselves adept it is capitalizing on disaster. Remember how, after the worst terrorist attack in the history of the United States occurred on his watch, Junior used the occasion to ram through unprecedented powers for the executive branch? And with the Al Qaeda name tag on this assassination, Junior will undoubtedly point to the event as he looks to intimidate Congress during the next legislative session.

Waziri Warlords: These are the kingmakers in Pakistan. These warlords, from their bases in northwestern Pakistan, along the Afghan border, operate more or less autonomously. Musharraf learned an expensive lesson about meddling in their affairs when, at Junior's behest, he tried to crackdown on them back in 2004. The proud Pakistani military was humiliated in the rugged terrain and Musharraf's prestige with his primary constituency was badly damaged. In fact, Musharraf has yet to recover from this disastrous move. The warlords hated Bhutto and many suspect that they were behind the assassination attempt in Karachi earlier this year.

We will probably never know who, exactly, was behind this killing. All we can do is look at who benefits. Oh yeah, and hang on to your hats, folks! The ride is just getting under way.

"Riding the Tiger" in Pakistan

Hold on to your hats, folks. Events in Pakistan are accelerating at a frightening pace, hurling us all straight toward the gaping maw of a world war that could make the horrors of World War II seem like a sunny picnic in Tivoli Gardens.

Pervez Musharraf: The man of the hour

On November 3, Pakistan strongman and Bush ally Pervez Musharraf suspended that country's constitution, arrested Ifitkhar Muhammad Chaudhry, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and shut down all television stations not run by the state. In a statement straight out of Bizzaro World, Musharraf cited the need to "preserve the democratic transition" as his justification.

Already, civil unrest, in response to Musharraf's heavy hand, has led to violence and hundreds of arrests. And the fragmented opposition to Musharraf is starting to coalesce. Chaudhry, who somehow gained access to a cell phone while in custody, called for massive demonstrations. And former Prime Minister, and recent political exile Benazir Bhutto (currently under house arrest) vowed to join the protests herself, with all of her supporters.

The wild card in the whole mess is the Pakistani military. In the past, they have been loyal to Musharraf. He has delivered for them in the form of American dollars which the Bush administration has forked over in the name of "fighting terrorism." But, on the other hand, Musharraf humiliated the military by forcing them into a fight for which they were not trained or prepared in northwest Pakistan as an offensive against al Qaeda. That foray ended in a humiliating concession, and undoubtedly hurt Musharraf's standing with the military.

The most frightening aspect of these developments is this: the United States has almost no leverage in affecting the outcome of this crisis. Poor, overwhelmed and underwhelming Condoleeza Rice has been desperately trying to prevent a Turkish invasion of Iraq, and, even though experts have seen this crisis coming for months (according to the Brookings Institute's Stephen Cohen), she seemed to be caught flat-footed. Rice has tut-tutted at Musharraf's strong arm tactics, saying she is "disappointed," but there are really no options available. American diplomatic capital in the region has already been exhausted trying to manage the disaster in Iraq, prop up the Karzai regime in Afghanistan, and pressure Iran on the nuclear power issue. In fact, Musharraf has been probably the most reliable ally up to this point.

Quoting Mr. Cohen from a discussion with PBS' Margaret Warner:

Well, we're riding a tiger, and we're trying to tell the tiger, "Go this direction and that direction," not much leverage. In a sense, we can throw a piece of meat here or there, but that tiger is going to go whichever way it wants, and the tiger is going to pursue its own interest. I don't think we have much leverage. We can play around with the aid. We can offer, perhaps, more economic and educational aid. We can make some of the military conditional. I think we should do that. That would be trying to influence Musharraf around the margins, but basically we're stuck with him, and he's stuck with us.

It would be unfair to saddle the Bush administration with all of the responsibility for our impotence. Although Bush exacerbated the situation with his cowboy foreign policy, US policy toward Pakistan has long been neglected for the sake of convenience. Let's face it: America loves a strongman (as long as he is our strongman). But now, we are faced with a hair-raising crisis that has huge implications for us as a nation, and the most we can do is protest lamely and keep our fingers crossed.

One can only imagine that India's military is on high alert at this very moment. After all, India and Pakistan have fought 3 wars in the last 60 years and both countries have nuclear weapons.

Iran, of course, will be watching the situation with interest and concern; an unstable Pakistan on Iran's eastern frontier could not be viewed as a positive development, but the shift of international focus, away from Iran, could provide her with certain opportunities.

This is also true for Turkey, which is still mulling its Iraqi incursion.

Hapless Hamid Karzai, forgotten in the imbroglio, can only sit in his office in Kabul and hope for the best.

And then, there is China, that shares a ~300 mile border with Pakistan. China has probably the least at stake, and the most to gain. Pakistan holds China's ancient rival, India, in check, and continues to be a diplomatic liability to the United States. And Chinese leverage in the crisis is substantial, being a nominal ally of Pakistan.

Make no mistake: this is a full-blown global crisis. A few miscalculations or misinterpretations could lead to any number of horrifying events.

Here's a random doomsday scenario: Musharraf forsakes restraint completely and starts shooting people down in the streets. This leads to rogue elements of the Pakistani military declaring for the opposition, which in turn leads to a civil war between forces loyal to Musharraf and "constitutional" forces. India seizes the opportunity, and invades the Pakistani held portions of Kashmir. Turkey takes advantage of the chaos and rolls into Kurdish Iraq. Iran suddenly invades southern Iraq to "reunite" the Shiites of Basra with their Persian brethren. The Taliban strikes at Kabul and executes Karzai and his cabinet. China warns off India and mobilizes on its Indian border. Isreal strikes at Syria. Condi Rice bursts into tears on Meet the Press, and US troops hunker down around the Green Zone in Bagdad.

Guess what, everybody? It's World War III!