Murphy’s Law, written by Barbara Murphy, appears monthly in The Golden Times. The column represents the opinion of the author and is not necessarily the opinion of the publisher.
Loose Cannon: Consider Perils Before Cutting Ties With Pakistan
After the killing of Osama bin Laden, many Americans insisted that we had achieved our goal in the 10-year-long Afghan War and it’s now time for our troops to put down their guns and go home.
Many Americans also insist that the circumstances surrounding bin Laden’s death make the case that we should sever ties to Pakistan and keep the $3 billion in aid that we have been sending that country each year.
Bin Laden had been living comfortably for years in the Pakistani town of Abbottabad within clear sight of a major Pakistani military facility. No one believes the civilian government of President Asif Ali Zardari knew bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan. On the other hand, nearly everyone does believe that elements of Pakistan’s army and its intelligent service knew where bin Laden was and protected him.
I wish these folks urging our exit from Afghanistan and the immediate severance of our ties with Pakistan were right, but they are overlooking two terrifying factors: the Taliban and Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.
There are those in this country, even in the government, who contend the Afghan conflict can and must be solved by the “political process” — that is by negotiations with the Taliban that presumably would somehow persuade these Islamic warriors to lay down their arms in exchange for some sort of role in governing Afghanistan.
According to those people who know the area best, these advocates of negotiation are dreamers who refuse to face up to the fact that the Taliban, who are allied with al Qaeda, are determined to regain full control of Afghanistan by any means at their disposal.
Any means includes unrelenting terrorist attacks and, if the Taliban can manage it, use of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, which now includes some 100 nuclear weapons with more on the way. Reporter Andrew Bast wrote in a recent issue of Newsweek: “These are perilous days. At a moment of unprecedented misgiving between Washington and Islamabad, new evidence suggests that Pakistan’s nuclear program is barreling ahead at a furious clip.” He said Pakistan aims to double its stockpile to 200 nukes as soon as possible. A new nuclear facility at Khushab is coming on-line as early as 2013.
The Pakistan government claims its nukes, guarded by 18,000 troops, are secure from terrorist seizure. The U.S. gives aid to Pakistan to help that country keep the nukes secure.
But what happens if the Taliban and or its extremist allies succeed in their goal in taking over Pakistan’s government? That is the most chilling scenario imaginable and the chief reason why the United States and its allies must win the Afghan war by decimating the Taliban who are in Afghanistan and finding some way to destroy the Taliban who are in Pakistan.
We have to keep reminding ourselves that the Taliban are a fanatic, ruthless murderous bunch who have no fear of death whether their own or someone else’s. One out of many examples: two weeks ago, 26 suicide bombers blew themselves up in an attack on government buildings and police stations all across Kandahar City in Afghanistan. According to Philadelphia Inquirer writer Trudy Rubin, an expert on the Afghan-Pakistan relationship, most people in Kandahar believe the bombers were either Pakistani or Afghan youths who trained at Pakistani religious schools. A local police employee told Ms. Rubin there are 12,000 madrassas in Pakistan that produce 120,000 graduates a year. “This produces all the manpower needed to destabilize the area,” he said.
Ahmed Wali Karzai, brother of Afghan’s president, told Ms. Rubin that if the United States pulls its troops out of Afghanistan before dealing with the Pakistan problem, his country will be sent back into civil war, with the Taliban and the Pakistani intelligence service the winners.
Bogdan Kipling, a Canadian columnist based in Washington, DC, argued in a May 11 article in The Inquirer that the U.S.-Pakistan alliance must be preserved. He wrote: “Dangers lurking in the Pakistan-Iran-Afghanistan swath of Asia threaten the United States severely right now and they can only grow nastier if Pakistan is cut loose as happened decades ago.”
Mr. Kipling said he doesn’t know whether Pakistan’s military and intelligence services kept bin Laden hidden in plain sight while telling Washington that they had not a clue where he might be. “But they kept Pakistan’s nuclear weapons out of al Qaeda’s hands and that is vastly more important than any lie about bin Laden,” he said.
Like Mr. Kipling, I believe we must preserve our alliance with Pakistan because cutting Pakistan loose would only make things worse. We must do whatever we can to persuade the Pakistan government to cleanse its military and intelligence services of pro-Taliban and al Qaeda elements.
Also, we must somehow persuade the Pakistanis to join us in an all out effort to destroy the power of the Taliban and keep those 100-plus nukes out of the hands of the Taliban and other terrorists.
Barbara Murphy, 78, writes for The Golden Times about controversial issues each month.
After the killing of Osama bin Laden, many Americans insisted that we had achieved our goal in the 10-year-long Afghan War and it’s now time for our troops to put down their guns and go home.
Many Americans also insist that the circumstances surrounding bin Laden’s death make the case that we should sever ties to Pakistan and keep the $3 billion in aid that we have been sending that country each year.
Bin Laden had been living comfortably for years in the Pakistani town of Abbottabad within clear sight of a major Pakistani military facility. No one believes the civilian government of President Asif Ali Zardari knew bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan. On the other hand, nearly everyone does believe that elements of Pakistan’s army and its intelligent service knew where bin Laden was and protected him.
I wish these folks urging our exit from Afghanistan and the immediate severance of our ties with Pakistan were right, but they are overlooking two terrifying factors: the Taliban and Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.
There are those in this country, even in the government, who contend the Afghan conflict can and must be solved by the “political process” — that is by negotiations with the Taliban that presumably would somehow persuade these Islamic warriors to lay down their arms in exchange for some sort of role in governing Afghanistan.
According to those people who know the area best, these advocates of negotiation are dreamers who refuse to face up to the fact that the Taliban, who are allied with al Qaeda, are determined to regain full control of Afghanistan by any means at their disposal.
Any means includes unrelenting terrorist attacks and, if the Taliban can manage it, use of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, which now includes some 100 nuclear weapons with more on the way. Reporter Andrew Bast wrote in a recent issue of Newsweek: “These are perilous days. At a moment of unprecedented misgiving between Washington and Islamabad, new evidence suggests that Pakistan’s nuclear program is barreling ahead at a furious clip.” He said Pakistan aims to double its stockpile to 200 nukes as soon as possible. A new nuclear facility at Khushab is coming on-line as early as 2013.
The Pakistan government claims its nukes, guarded by 18,000 troops, are secure from terrorist seizure. The U.S. gives aid to Pakistan to help that country keep the nukes secure.
But what happens if the Taliban and or its extremist allies succeed in their goal in taking over Pakistan’s government? That is the most chilling scenario imaginable and the chief reason why the United States and its allies must win the Afghan war by decimating the Taliban who are in Afghanistan and finding some way to destroy the Taliban who are in Pakistan.
We have to keep reminding ourselves that the Taliban are a fanatic, ruthless murderous bunch who have no fear of death whether their own or someone else’s. One out of many examples: two weeks ago, 26 suicide bombers blew themselves up in an attack on government buildings and police stations all across Kandahar City in Afghanistan. According to Philadelphia Inquirer writer Trudy Rubin, an expert on the Afghan-Pakistan relationship, most people in Kandahar believe the bombers were either Pakistani or Afghan youths who trained at Pakistani religious schools. A local police employee told Ms. Rubin there are 12,000 madrassas in Pakistan that produce 120,000 graduates a year. “This produces all the manpower needed to destabilize the area,” he said.
Ahmed Wali Karzai, brother of Afghan’s president, told Ms. Rubin that if the United States pulls its troops out of Afghanistan before dealing with the Pakistan problem, his country will be sent back into civil war, with the Taliban and the Pakistani intelligence service the winners.
Bogdan Kipling, a Canadian columnist based in Washington, DC, argued in a May 11 article in The Inquirer that the U.S.-Pakistan alliance must be preserved. He wrote: “Dangers lurking in the Pakistan-Iran-Afghanistan swath of Asia threaten the United States severely right now and they can only grow nastier if Pakistan is cut loose as happened decades ago.”
Mr. Kipling said he doesn’t know whether Pakistan’s military and intelligence services kept bin Laden hidden in plain sight while telling Washington that they had not a clue where he might be. “But they kept Pakistan’s nuclear weapons out of al Qaeda’s hands and that is vastly more important than any lie about bin Laden,” he said.
Like Mr. Kipling, I believe we must preserve our alliance with Pakistan because cutting Pakistan loose would only make things worse. We must do whatever we can to persuade the Pakistan government to cleanse its military and intelligence services of pro-Taliban and al Qaeda elements.
Also, we must somehow persuade the Pakistanis to join us in an all out effort to destroy the power of the Taliban and keep those 100-plus nukes out of the hands of the Taliban and other terrorists.
Barbara Murphy, 78, writes for The Golden Times about controversial issues each month.
