TW: I will give the neocons credit, they are truly consistent regardless of circumstances. Bill Kristol buddy and fellow Iraq war proponent, Robet Kagan, opines today about the need for another war. This would involve the US uniting with un-named allies to invade and pacify large swathes of Pakistan including not only the border areas with Afghanistan but also parts of Kashmir. So, Kristol will deploy our Marines and Navy to Somalia, Kagan will open up another front in the GWOT.
Furthermore, Kagan opens a new can of worms suggesting "sovereign rights must be earned, not taken for granted" and thus states guilty of fomenting terror (as decided by the US apparently) should be subject to invasion. Certainly W. Bush used this ex post facto with Iraq as a basis for invasion but turning it into formal policy would be a new stretch, a bridge too far one might say or alternatively mere insanity. I could name about 30 countries which would need a good neo-con type ass kicking if one were to apply the principle uniformly.
While Pakistan has been and will be a huge source of tension, invading Pakistan is probably one of the last things we will be doing. The odds of Kagan's proposal seeing the light of day would be slim to none I would hope due to amongst other reasons: no one else joining this coalition of the willing, Pakistan presumed lack of interest in the concept, our lack of forces to implement the idea, and finally the fact the all neo-cons will on Jan 20 be forcibly interred at Guantanamo leaving no one to propose such fantasies.
From Kagan via WaPo:
"...Rather than simply begging the Indians to show restraint, a better option could be to internationalize the response. Have the international community declare that parts of Pakistan have become ungovernable and a menace to international security. Establish an international force to work with the Pakistanis to root out terrorist camps in Kashmir as well as in the tribal areas. This would have the advantage of preventing a direct military confrontation between India and Pakistan. It might also save face for the Pakistani government, since the international community would be helping the central government reestablish its authority in areas where it has lost it. But whether or not Islamabad is happy, don't the international community and the United States, at the end of the day, have some obligation to demonstrate to the Indian people that we take attacks on them as seriously as we take attacks on ourselves?
Would such an action violate Pakistan's sovereignty? Yes, but nations should not be able to claim sovereign rights when they cannot control territory from which terrorist attacks are launched...Would the U.N. Security Council authorize such action? China has been Pakistan's ally and protector, and Russia might have its own reasons for opposing a resolution. Neither likes the idea of breaking down the walls of national sovereignty -- except, in Russia's case, in Georgia -- which is why they block foreign pressure on Sudan concerning Darfur, and on Iran and other rogue states. This would be yet another test of whether China and Russia, supposed allies in the war against terrorism, are really interested in fighting terrorism outside their own borders. But if such an action were under consideration at the United Nations, that might be enough to gain Pakistan's voluntary cooperation. Either way, it would be useful for the United States, Europe and other nations to begin establishing the principle that Pakistan and other states that harbor terrorists should not take their sovereignty for granted. In the 21st century, sovereign rights need to be earned."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/01/AR2008120102438.html
No comments:
Post a Comment