Pakistani Nuclear Thresholds

RajeshG · Post by **RajeshG** » 29 Aug 2003 23:09

Originally posted by narayanan:

"Regardless of which precise nutcase is behind such an attack, Pakistan becomes ParkingLotStan immediately and without waiting for investigations etc. So it is entirely in Pakistan's interests to ensure that no such attack or even the possibility thereof ever occurs".

Sorry couldnt resist a small diversion - from the godfather..

Don Corleone : But I am a very superstitious man and if some unlucky accident should befall him... if he should get shot in the head by a police officer or if he should hang himself in his jail cell or if he's struck by a bolt of lightning then I'm going to blame some people in this room. And that, I do not forgive. But that aside, I swear on the souls of my grandchildren that I will not be the one to break the peace that we have made here today...

Kuttan · Post by **Kuttan** » 29 Aug 2003 23:21

Sunil:

To further refine the debate:

You are arguing that Pakistan has set "redlines" of nuclear threat.

I am arguing that Pakistan is in no position to set redlines of any sort - related to threatening the US or any other nation.

Because the blackmail equation blows up right in the Pakis' faces. See Don Corleone reasoning above.

Its is MORE critical to Pakistan's survival (and I mean that not in a loose national sense, but in a very literal DayGlo ParkingLot sense) to find and avert any inkling of any scheme to conduct WMD attacks against any of the YYY, than it is to the survival of any of the YYY.

So - it may be horrible for any of us to countenance the destruction of a population center - one in the civilized world I mean. However, the Pakis have a self-created Ultimate Frankenstein Monster - themselves. They BETTER keep their ears to the ground and catch ANY bright ideas among the nutcases.

Thus, if a WMD weapon gets developed in TSP, there is, say, a 25% chance that any of our cities may get hit - as opposed to 25% for the US, 25% for Israel, and 25% for the rest of the world.

But for TSP, in any of these events, there is a 10000% chance of total, utter, end-of-all-ends destruction. The combined arsenals of the US, India, Israel and Britain will hit TSP. Why Britain? Simply because if the US goes to war, Her Majesty's Government will jump along for the ride..

(that just to tweak Johann - couldn't help it :p Its my Evil Twin - comes on and types such things in my gentle, kind posts. :whine: )

Ashutosh · Post by **Ashutosh** » 29 Aug 2003 23:50

Another non-redline is sale of arms to India?

Ashutosh · Post by **Ashutosh** » 29 Aug 2003 23:53

kgoan, Pakistan exists only on paper. The very fact that we can't talk about Pakistan without bringing in the analogy of several quarrelling wimmen over some wierd issue is another way of saying that TSP ceases to exist as an independant state.

What they are quarreling about seems to be the big question mark ...

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 30 Aug 2003 00:03

Originally posted by sunil s:
Johann,

Yemen isn't a de-facto nuclear weapons state, indeed it is difficult to imagine how it might become one in a short interval of time.

That is exactly why it should work well as a control.

Yemen has many of the other elements that make Pakistan dangerous, and therefore important.
- a center of regional destabilisation
- a major operational base for al-Qaeda
- a likely location of some senior al-Qaeda leadership

- highly influential Islamist political parties
- highly conservative tribal areas under only nominal central suthority
- significant relationships and sympathies with al-Qaeda in sections of the intelligence community and among a number of senior commanders
- a government that attempts to balance US demands with the the demands of these other figures. The relationship with the US is very mush focussed on the person of the Yemeni president.

As I said earlier the potential WMD threat is a top priority, but there are also other threats that are a priority.

- disrupting al-Qaeda's operational side. Actual terrorist attacks do more to undermine public confidance and approval ratings than the survival of al Qaeda' Majlis Shura. Israel's experience shows that the decapitation of mature, well-resourced groups does not supress the threat.
- denying the Islamists a revolutionary victory and a new set of secure bases which would necessitate a large conventional campaign to destroy.

Your model is overly nuclear-centric, but its difficult to say exactly how much so without examining the control.

Kuttan · Post by **Kuttan** » 30 Aug 2003 01:28

Johann, Yemen is not a good "control" (I assume you mean in the "control group" of a hypothesis test) because there is no reason to believe that the Yemeni GOVERNMENT is one which goes around attacking other nations. No global ambitions evident.

Yemen bears some similarities to today's Iran in this respect.

In fact the external manifestation of US/UK policy conveys the idea that Yemen and TSP are equivalent, viz, weak, "I am a poor country onlee" type nations brutally exploited by the evil Al Qaeda, and powerless to stop them - and hence deserving of the greatest US/UK kindness and largesse.

These things may be accurate with respect to Yemen (though I doubt how far they will go) but they are 180 degrees out of phase with reality with respect to Pakistan.

Pakistan is a US-funded, US-developed, US-UK-trained terrorist state ruled by a confirmed murderer and Mentor of Osama bin Laden. And that's why they are being protected until the Statute of Limitations expires on 9/11 lawsuits, and the Nov. 2004 elections are over.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 30 Aug 2003 01:41

Narayanan - what makes you think the Yemeni government is so innocent?

Both the YAR and PDRY fought several vicious proxy wars with their neighbours since the 1960s.

Kuttan · Post by **Kuttan** » 30 Aug 2003 01:48

Mmmm! True. But I thought all that is long over, and anyway it was a North Korea-South Korea type civil war, wasn't it? Or is that just me looking at NYemen-SYemen as Americans might view Indiapakistan?

I don't see Yemenis involved in international terrorism (except for about 3 in the 9/11 case) and, especially, I don't see a culture of mega-rich Generals or the equivalent of the RAPE class from Yemen, as I see from Pakistan. My impression is that Yemen is rather uniformly poor.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 30 Aug 2003 01:56

Yemen's current President was a Lt. Col. in the Army before he took the Presidency of the North in a coup - from another former colonel. Salih is now a serving 3 star officer.

The second most powerful person in Yemen, the vice president is the two star armoured division commander who defends Sa'ana. The President's power derives from the loyalty of the Army which was very much influenced by the Egyptian model, as well as his influence with the tribal confedrations of the south.

Yemen's principal intelligence organisation has officers who have betrayed defectors from al-Qaeda, officers who were recorded chatting with al-Qaeda personnel in Rome and cheering them on.
There are al-Qaeda suspects in attacks who are arrested and sometimes 'escape', and some cases where real cooperation is given but must be kept quiet to avoid embarassing Salih, because they circumvent an unreliable state machinery.

It has influential political parties headed by people who are personal friends of OBL.

There's not much difference between your defence of President Saleh and Yemen and the boilerplate defence of Musharraf and Pakistan.

*

The PDRY got involved in Oman - it was one of the most intensive British COIN operations. They were tough, motivated b@stards and they were very well equipped with automatic rifles, mortars, even some artillery.

*

The majority of al-Qaeda's Arab recruits come from Yemen. Most of them ended up assigned as guerillas rather than classic terrorists. There are some notable exceptions like Bin al-Shibh.

There are other ties as well. Bin Laden's father was born in Yemen. The Saudi 'muscle' on the 9/11 flights all came from the province on the Yemeni border. Bin Laden's fourth and favourite wife is the daughter of an important Yemeni tribal leader in the south.

Yemen is as 'poor' as Pakistan's NWFP, Baluchistan or FATA.

Sunil · Post by **Sunil** » 30 Aug 2003 01:57

Hi Johann,

Your model is overly nuclear-centric, but its difficult to say exactly how much so without examining the control.

I am proposing a model that relies on a backdrop of WMD based deterrence.

A look at US treatment of Yemen to its treatment of Pakistan would show that US-Pakistan ties are subject to far greater care. In the post 9-11 environment Yemen and Pakistan have been treated very differently, the extent of mollycoddling of Pakistan - most notably of President Pervez Musharraf - has been far far in excess of anything reserved for yemen.

I think this underscores two vital differences in US perceptions of Yemen.

1) The Yemenis themselves are not in need of such soft handling. The government of Yemen is not as unstable as the Pakistani government. This makes sense to me - as unlike Pakistan - Yemen is actually a functioning democracy and

2) The consequences of a fall of an overtly pro-US government in Sa'ana do not have the same serious consequences to the US (as the fall of Pervez Musharraf).

I also feel that there is a vast difference between Yemen's contributions to Al Qaida and Pakistani contributions. While Yemen has contributed a vast amount of the cannon fodder for Al Qaida's jihads, the Pakistanis have provided the bulk of the managerial staff. This is the model Indians have seen evidenced in Afghanistan and Kashmir.

The only country that the Yemenis could plausibly consider invading is Saudi Arabia. The current Saudi posture in the Asr is far in excess of anything required to defeat Yemeni intentions. Such a conflict however is not expected to go nuclear - we do not hear US presidents telling us that "Asr is the most dangerous place on earth".

The nuclear angle completely and totally alters the situation.

Sunil · Post by **Sunil** » 30 Aug 2003 02:22

Narayanan,

My model proposed here with redlines is a deterrence model. I am working to the assumption that the USG does not want the deterrence model to breakdown. The Soviet Union relied on precisely this point to ensure the workability of their deterrence paradigm. The Russians and Chinese for their part even today rely on this.

To that end, ie. to maintain deterrence - a rhetorical emphasis on the day-glo Pakistan is a great idea. If ever any serious sign emerges of Pakistan attempting a nuclear shenanigan, I am sure we will see US Government officials talking about this (recall what George Kaka said recently during the India-Pak `Standoff'?).

However this should not become a limitation to discussing the implications of the deterrence model itself and its boundaries. Without prejudice to any counter-proliferation efforts that may be underway - the fear of Pakistani nuclear weapons falling into the hands of an Al Qaida sympathizer is very real.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 30 Aug 2003 02:27

Yemen's 'stability' is not institutional.

Salih provides the stability and 'democracy' of Ayub, Zia or even ZA Bhutto in their peak years.

Like Pakistan, Yemen's threat to its neighbours (including Oman, past whom most oil flows out of the Persian Gulf) is not primarily conventional. It is the creeping threat of instability that the leadership will not control because it would jeopardise their own positions.

The assumptions that have been made on this thread about Yemen strongly echo many of the well meaning assumptions made about Pakistan.

I'm not asking for instant off-the-cuff answers. Take the time to study the country. There are answers that can illuminate Pakistan, and the Western dilemma there.

Sunil · Post by **Sunil** » 30 Aug 2003 02:41

Johann,

There is an unbridgable difference of scales between Yemen and Pakistan. This limits Yemen's utility as a control.

To give a crude example, stablizing Oman against Yemeni intervention is nowhere nearly as complicated as stablizing Afghanistan against Pakistani interventions.

As regards Yemen's lack of `institutional' stability, I have come to the view that `institutional' factors can also become a limitation in the pursuit of policy aims. A case in point being Pakistan's ISI, which as we all accept has `institutional' problems.

Kuttan · Post by **Kuttan** » 30 Aug 2003 04:56

Johann: Point conceded about Yemen being as deserving of Daisy Cutters as Pakistan.

You forgot the incident where the company or whatever of Yemeni soldiers got wiped out, trying to go arrest Al Qaeda types. Probably ambushed after betrayal too.

Well... another reason to be in Iraq, I guess, with Airborne Divisions.

********************************

Kuttan · Post by **Kuttan** » 30 Aug 2003 06:23

Sunil: Try as I might, I can't imagine George Bush sitting in the Oval Office or wherever he conducts his weekly pow-wow and going as follows:

GWB: "Don, how're we doin' against the Al Qaeda?"
DR: "Mr. President, our boys are winning. They've contained the Al Qaeda entirely inside Pakistan for the past 3 months. Afghanistan is a free country, sir."
GWB: Don, we lost another boy yesterday there, didn't we? What do I tell his mother, why our boys are still over there, and that - Osama - why's he still at large?"
DR: "Sir, Osama is in Islamabad under the protection of the Pakistani President's Intelligence Service. Our men are not permitted to go arrest him. If you give us the word, sir, we can have Osama dead inside 36 hours."
CP: "Err... Mr. President, President Musharraf of Pakistan is our frontline ally in the war against terror. We have to make sure we don't undercut his position in Pakistan, Sir!"
DR: Colin, you know damn well that Musharraf is a terrorist and a liar.
GWB: Sorry to interrupt, gentlemen, but Colin, has President Musharraf torn down those terrorist camps on the Indian border yet?
CP: Sir, President Musharraf is doing all he can to reduce cross-border militancy, but he faces tough opposition.
GWB: Why don't we send a brigade from the 82nd Airborne and help President Musharraf out by taking out those camps, Don?
CP: SIR!!!! WE CAN'T DO THAT, Sir! If those camps are destroyed, President Musharraf may be overthrown by supporters of the Al Qaeda!
DR: Colin, Mr. President, we can make sure that neither the Al Qaeda nor anyone else walks into downtown Islamabad for the next fifty years.
CP: Mr.President, the Pakistanis have made it clear that if we attack the terr.. I mean militant camps, or attack Al Qaeda assets inside Islamabad, Pakistani weapons will fall into Al Qaeda hands and we can expect a nuclear attack on an American city withing a month. We can't afford to take that risk, Sir!!!

********************************

And here's where I have the problem. According to Sunil or Johann, this is the model for Gee-Dubya's response:

Model 1:

GWB: "Yes, Colin, you explained all that to me last week. My head is still spinning with all them complicated linkages. Call up Tony in London and ask him to write my next speech - conveying the right message to President Musharraf and assure him of our support - and oh! Don! Find me six C-130s to send President Musharraf to show him our support and admiration! Anything to keep those nukes out of Al Qaeda hands! Move, guys, move! I have to run to the boys' room now, excuse me... "

**********************************
Model 2:
My model for President Bush's response:

GWB: Condi, how much do we know about the Pakistani nukes?

CR: Mr. President, we know where every one of their weapons is. In fact, they are all out of Pakistan, as you know. We also have every one of their nuclear experts under surveillance. There is some fissionable material at their lab in Kahuta, but we have 2 KH-35s monitoring that site, and we've got NEST trucks surrounding that lab.

GWB. Excellent, Condi. Double the resources you're putting on tracking their nuke capabilities. Don, Condi, lets meet tomorrow, same time. Bring me a white paper for cleaning these ****s out of Pakistan within the next 30 days. Threaten us with nukes, eh? We need to show these **** ********s where they get off - a lesson to all them savages in those parts. I'm tired of these ****s pushing us around, Don. Ain't no one messes with Texas, heh? Oh, Colin, tell Musharraf that those 6 C-130s are coming, all right. Don't tell him what we're sending in the C-130s.

And Oh! tell Richard Amirtaraj to step by tomorrow. Condi, send Musharraf a copy of the Bush GOAT Doctrine again - remind him that ANY usage of a weppun of mass destriction EENYHWHERE in the world, and he and all his damn tribes will be trying to gather their molecules together in the stratosphere on the way to meet their Houris!

(mutters) "Bring 'em on! More the merrier! They ain't seen nuthin yet!"

CR: YES SIR Mr President!!!!

*******************************

Of course I've never been in the White House, but somehow Model 2 seems more plausible than Model 1.

kgoan · Post by **kgoan** » 30 Aug 2003 10:43

N, perhaps we ought to go easy on "daisy-cuttering" the Yemenis just yet!

Johann:

cCould you explain what this "Yemen" business you're talking about. There is a difference between "Yemen" and "Yemeni".

Example:

1. The majority of the hijackers came from the region of Asir which *borders* Yemen. It is however, part of Saudia.

2. Asir was originally one of those little desert kingdoms ruled by the desendents of Ahmed ibn Idris. In 1922 ibn Saud conquered the area and incorporated them into the Kingdom. However, this area has long been trouble for the Saudis because Idris was a Sufi, and the Wahabbis indulged in their usual massares etc.

3. The so-called OBL link to "Yemen" is via one of the Asir tribes, specifically the major al-Ghamdis tribe. I think 5 or 6 of the 9-11 hijackers were al-Ghamdis. bin Ladens "Yemeni" wife is from this tribe.

I want to clarify this because many of your posts on this thread can be completely *misleading* if people are not aware of the subtleties of the Saudi/Yemeni border. Further, it conflates "Yemen" the country with Yemini tribes which are part of Saudia. Like mistaking Pakhtoon tribes in Pak with Afghans.

This "Yemeni" crap is nearly *identical* to what the Paks did to the Pakhtoons and the Afghans. The Yemenis have taken as much crap from the Wahabbi/Saudis as the Pakhtoon and Afghans have from the Paks.

This is not to say the Yemenis are all saints any more than it discounts the role of Afghan warlords in Afghanistan. But the real problem lies in Pakistan *not* Afghanistan or Pakhtoons. Similarly, the real problem is Saudia and the Wahabbis. The Yemenis are victims as much as the Afghans and Pakhtoons are.

Therefore, if people want to understand the "Yemeni tribes", Yemen and Saudi *use* the Pakistan-Pakhtoons-Afghan analogy. You won't go far wrong. With Saudis and Wahabbis playing the role of the Pak and their Mullahs.

The Saudis took over Yemen tribes (like the Paks took over Pakhtoon tribes that were historically Afghan). They then proceeded to destroy the Yemeni Sufi tradition and replace it with their Wahabbi poison. Then when these dudes make problems, the *Saudis* blame the Yemenis!!!!

Like the Paks claiming the Taliban were due to Afghans being nutcases.

Discussing these issues require a bit more research. For example, (and on a completly different issue), when S. Yemen fell, I think we lost a potential equivalent of Tibet in the Arab world. Of course, we were in no position then to do anything about it. Unlike Tibet. However, Yemen is still, possibly, if not a "partner" then a long term strategic "friend" along the lines of Iran and that other country that we don't discuss as much as we should here - Vietnam.

I would suggest people look up the IN's "gateways to the Indian Ocean" stuff to get what I mean. There are no grounds to diss them arbitrarily, or to buy Western/Saudi notions of Yemen.

Kuttan · Post by **Kuttan** » 30 Aug 2003 16:27

Thanks, kgoan, for that well-researched post. We 4-year-olds are in no position to conduct such research. But I see now the

Western/Saudi notions of Yemen.

The real analogy is between Yemen and AFGHANISTAN, then. And we all know that Daisy Cutters are verboten in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia because they might annoy western-client Generals and Sheikhs - and thus cause discomfort to the good Bankers in Geneva, London and Noo Yoik.

SO! We Must use Daisy Cutters on Yemen, just as we used Daisy Cutters on Afghanistan. Gotta use'em somewhere, now that its harder to just GIVE them to the Pakis or Saudis.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 30 Aug 2003 18:06

Narayanan, since we mostly believe that the center of Al Qaeda is somewhere in Pakistan, why isn't model 2 happening? Its not happening is what leads one to postulate model 1.

Kuttan · Post by **Kuttan** » 30 Aug 2003 18:43

Sorry, Arun. That's not the correct logic. The realism of Model 2 in relation to what we can see of President Bush's general demeanor, merely refutes the possibility of Model 1.

I've posted (a few posts above) why the present situation is completely consistent with Model 2.

Sunil's best counter to what I posted about US policy is that "The US has changed since the 1950s-60s" and the people making policy today are different from those in the 1950s-60s. But HOW are they different? The US is more dominant militarily in the world today than in 1962. The US has less near-term memory of what it feels like to get into a war where tens of thousands of soldiers are killed overseas, than it did then (were people then sort of inured to war death? maybe..)

But when faced with blackmail that would lead to a loss of American freedom of action, American policy has always "erred" if at all, on the side of "taking the bull by the horns" and as Tagore put it:

Give me the strength never to bend my knees before insolent might

This is fundamental to the American psyche as I know it.

We (meaning Indians) may not always agree with their definition of "insolent might" vis-a-vis themselves, but this is clearly how Americans feel. They are not particularly given to empathizing with their enemies until the enemies are thoroughly crushed. BIG difference with the "ejikkated Injun" candle-kissing mentality.

This does NOT mean that Americans all rush off across minefields yelling "Jeeeeehhhaaaaad" IF there are other options. But they stay focused, and get "even" and go on and really persist until they kick bu** in the end. No "benevolence" until after the surrender.

I cannot see anything about the present President George Bush to suggest that he's different in this respect. So I must reject Model 1.

As you say, that brings us to "why is Model 2 not visible in US actions?"

Please read both my post about the role of the Iraq war in reviving Musharrogance, and my snake-mongoose model following that.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 30 Aug 2003 19:32

Dunno about blackmail, but the US was seen to be retreating from Beirut and from Somalia - that was actual physical threat. According to Cuban-Americans, Castro has successfully blackmailed the US with the threat of opening the floodgate of refugees. Let us also see how North Korea plays itself out.

Kuttan · Post by **Kuttan** » 30 Aug 2003 19:37

Arun: Lebanon and Somalia never threatened the US with attacks on US soil. As for Castro, well, what is more remarkable is the 40-plus year unremitting hostility, isn't it? Except for the Cuban-American community in Florida, there is really no one who has particular reason to keep starving Cuba.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 30 Aug 2003 21:15

As you say, that brings us to "why is Model 2 not visible in US actions?"

Narayanan,

I find your logic quite compelling. But will you please expand on your thoughts a little more so that it is clear to 2 year old me.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 30 Aug 2003 21:46

OK, lets invert the question : what are the US redlines vis-a-vis Pakistan?

These are not redlines :

1. Support of Taliban
2. Hosting of Al Qaeda
3. Perhaps even being managers of 9/11
4. Helping N. Korea with nukes.
5. Helping Iran with nukes.
6. Continuing to destabilize Afghanistan
7. Failing to clamp down on US-designated terrorist orgs.
8. Continuing the heroin trade
9. Terrorizing India
10.Providing training grounds for terrorists who strike at
Western targets.

I'm sure I've missed a few.

Contrast, e.g., with US policy w.r.t. Libya; this despite US oil corporations having a strong interest in Libya - there is no such strong US economic interest in Pakistan. Reagan had Qaddafi's home bombed, and Qaddafi's infant daughter was killed. Has the US even kicked one of Musharraf's dogs?

Is the only US redline against Pakistan a WMD use on US soil? Why is Pakistan given so much more leeway than any other country?

Prof Raghu · Post by **Prof Raghu** » 30 Aug 2003 22:00

Originally posted by Arun_Gupta:
Why is Pakistan given so much more leeway than any other country?

*Partial* cross-post of Greg Palast interview:
Palast on Baghdad and BEMAKID Musharraf

NOTE: BEMAKID = Berzerker Maniac Killer-Dictator
________

"One of my favorite lines of the war was Condoleezza Rice saying it was immoral to leave that butcher in Baghdad for the last 12 years. I’m thinking, wait a minute, lady –- he’s been there 24 years. The first 12 years when he was our butcher, where we got our chops. In fact, one of the other stories that I broke in the book, and for BBC, was that I do know that Saddam was trying to build an atomic bomb, because he got $7 billion from the Saudis to build an "Islamic" bomb.

BUZZFLASH: When was this? What time frame?

PALAST: Again, that’s the question. This was in the 1980s, before the "axis of evil," when Saddam was our butcher and he was fighting Iran, which, at that time, was the "epicenter of evil." Now he never completed his bomb program, and the money was moved over to that berzerker maniac killer-dictator, Musharraf of Pakistan. And we’re doing it again. We have cuddled up to Osama to get his help in Afghanistan. We cuddled up to Saddam to get his help against Iran. Now we cuddled up to Musharraf to buy his temporary affections against the Taliban, who, don't forget, he put into power in Afghanistan.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 30 Aug 2003 22:11

Sriman, your post illustrates that the US cozied up to whomever served its interests, no matter how nasty. It also illustrates that the US turned sharply against former "allies" when they no longer served its interests. E.g, Iraq fighting Iran was very much what the US wanted to happen, and it was no smoke-and-mirrors war.

With Musharraf, though he keeps promising 400% and 500% and, at least to us, it appears that his apparent serving the US needs is a facade that even a 4-year old can see through. (Well, perhaps a precocious 4-year old.) That is the fact that is sought to be explained.

Of course, one POV is that we misperceive, and Musharraf is indeed serving US interests. But then we have to understand, for instance, how helping Iran and N. Korea with nukes is actually in US interests.

So, the question remains, what is the US redline vis-a-vis Pakistan.

Kuttan · Post by **Kuttan** » 30 Aug 2003 22:38

The one interpretation I am willing to state of the US-TSP blackmail equation (subject to change w/o notice since I am a 4-yr-old) is that:

1. The US has removed the nukes - but promised Mush that he would live if he peacefully permitted the removal of weapons.

2. He can be removed any time - hence no hurry.

3. US is in no hurry to have a Mush-2 in power in TSP because then they would have to explain all the "birds and bees" facts of life to them again. AND, far more importantly, the cat would be out of the bag, so to speak, about the nukes being gone. Its like keeping the embezzler as CEO because if he's fired the company will collapse.

4. Recent TSP uppityness was due to the perception that the US is not in a position to send many more troops to TSP - due to Iraq quagmire and growing domestic unease over troop deployments abroad. Mush suddenly feels like he has a few months clear to flex his biceps with no real danger.

IOW, the US protection of Mush has nothing to do with nukes or Paki threat of WMD use against the US or Israel.

Which doesn't make it any prettier - it just makes the US protection of Mush siller, because the net result is to strengthen the terrorist enterprise and make terror attacks against the people of the United States far more likely.

As long as the leaders of the terror enterprise (i.e., Mush, Aziz, Gul, Mustafa Ahmed, Nasir) are free, the terror enterprise will only grow, no matter how many Al Zubeidahs and Khalid Sheikhs are arrested after the fact of each terror attack.

The longer Pakistan remains as One Nation Under Terrorism, ruled by the military junta, grassroots resentment will only grow, and more and more suicide jehadi fodder will gravitate towards the terror schools, simply because there is no other job, and its so easy to blame someone else. And with this increases the probability that the next regime will be utterly fundamentalist.

The best protection for the world is what we've recommended often: break Pakistan into 6 tribal pieces.

Mudy · Post by **Mudy** » 30 Aug 2003 22:55

My "reliable" interpretation - future manufacturing unit is capped or made useless but old jewels are intact, number range from 4-6.
Paki army can still dance wearing those jewel. Best bet for India is let jewel lose its shine.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 30 Aug 2003 23:06

Thanks N^3 for the expansion. Makes sense if one combines it with the nook nood theory. To keep Paki H&D and the wider Islamic H&D intact (and thereby reduce the immediate headache to itself what if Iraq, Afghanistan et. al), the US could plausibly resort to this course of action. But does this completely discount the possibility that Musharaff has not told the US that there may be one or more nukes that may be unaccounted for inspite of his full cooperation with the US?

RajeshG · Post by **RajeshG** » 30 Aug 2003 23:18

Maybe the reasons are much simpler. Taliban + OBL did not need WMD before, why should they need them now ? All they need is a state sponsorship. Afghanistan cannot give that to OBL due to US troops nor can pakistan as long as Mush is in power. As long as Mush cooperates there is no reason to remove him. Kashmir-terrorism is nice to fix but not a show-stopper. WMD doesnt have to be in the picture at all.

Kuttan · Post by **Kuttan** » 30 Aug 2003 23:23

L Dev: I doubt if anyone in the US administration believes anything Mush says. In fact their statements about Pakistan are pretty openly contemptuous (e.g., the "400%"). And that's the political leadership. People assigned to tasks like "find out how many nukes Pakistan has, and where" probably use much more reliable techniques, and when they go in to de-nuke, I'm sure they do a thorough job.

That's the other thing. According to Seymour Hersh, way back in Nov. 2001, American-Israeli teams had been training to remove Paki nukes - and immediately after 9/11, the Israelis came over the US for training and went off to the Mideast.

Again, my point is that the incentive scheme is structured so that it is BETTER for Mush to not have any nukes at all.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 30 Aug 2003 23:29

Originally posted by Rajesh_G:
Maybe the reasons are much simpler. Taliban + OBL did not need WMD before, why should they need them now ? All they need is a state sponsorship. Afghanistan cannot give that to OBL due to US troops nor can pakistan as long as Mush is in power. As long as Mush cooperates there is no reason to remove him. Kashmir-terrorism is nice to fix but not a show-stopper. WMD doesnt have to be in the picture at all.

But Rajesh, it doesn't look like Musharraf is cooperating with non-sponsorship of Taliban + OBL any more than Musharraf has clamped down on cross-border terrorism.

RajeshG · Post by **RajeshG** » 30 Aug 2003 23:47

Originally posted by Arun_Gupta:
But Rajesh, it doesn't look like Musharraf is cooperating with non-sponsorship of Taliban + OBL any more than Musharraf has clamped down on cross-border terrorism.

Hello Arun,

1. He doesnt say OBL is our guest.
2. He hands over Zubeidah types periodically.
3. Engaged pakistan is better then 6 small states with one-eyed-mullahs as willing hosts.

That perception by itself is enough deterrence. Everytime US gets impatient hand over another Khaled-Zubeidah or some such thing. My guess is if there is another spectacular hit on US soil Mush will hand over OBL the next day - OBL is his hukum-ka-ikka.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 31 Aug 2003 01:41

K Goan,

Glad you are interested in a serious discussion on Yemen.

The problem comparing Yemen's government to the Taleban or the ultra conservative Pashtun tribal leadership is that the Yemeni government is *not* Islamist.

Like their patron Nasser, they described themselves as secular. It is essentially a military government that seeks to survive by balancing relations with domestic Islamists on one hand with American demands on the other. Not very different from the Pakistanis in that regard.

The similarity grows when you look at the track record of Yemen's Public Security Organisation. Their officers too rarely wear beards or skull caps, but have the same odd difficulties as the ISI in providing concrete help, although its less powerful rivals do not. Like the ISI one of the PSO's chief functions is internal political surveillance and control in governmental areas. Like the ISI they depend on the fundamentalists in tribal areas, keeping them loyal with money and guns.

*

Regarding some of your specific comments -

The most active area of al-Qaeda activity is the Ma'areb in former South Yemen, and is about as far as you can get from Asir. They have the active protection of the local tribes.

Bin Laden's youngest wife is from Ibb, the daughter of Hamad Abdel-Fatah Al-Sadah. Ibb is about 80 miles south of San'aa.

Bin Laden's own father came from the Hadhramut, roughly mid-way between the two. The Bin Laden family collectively rejected him in 1994, but there's no doubt that he inherited his piety from his father who set great faith by the 'purity' of the Wahabbi interpretation. Bin Laden's father left Yemen long before the oil boom and the explosion of Saudi religious influence.

I absolutely agree that some of the most radical public figures in Yemen such as al-Zindani, the head of Islah derive a great deal of strength from the support of the Saudi religious establishment.

But thats true of the publicly Islamist figures in Pakistan as well. Does Fazl-ur-Rehman's support from the Gulf make Musharraf less of a con man?

People like Zindani and Tariq bin Nasir bin Abdullah al-Fadli are influential not just because they have a line to oil money, but because their fathers before them wielded religious and political power in the tribal confedrations.

When the Ikhwan captured Medina one of the first things they did was smash the prophet's tomb as they felt it was overly idolatrous. Riyadh feared as late as the 1950s that the Hejaz would secede.

I dont think Yemen is any more or any less susceptible to Wahabbism taking root than any other part of the Arabian peninsula that al-Saud and his Wahabbi chums could reach, through conquest up to 1930 and through other means since the 1970s.

Al-Saud has depended on Wahabbism to keep its subjects loyal, but they have historically had problems living up to the standards they promote, leading to periodic bouts of severe tension.

Its hardly surprising that some of their subjects and Wahabbi adherents worldwide would be willing to use the power of Wahabbism to knock them off their perch.

Y. Kanan · Post by **Y. Kanan** » 31 Aug 2003 05:16

Originally posted by Arun_Gupta:
Of course, one POV is that we misperceive, and Musharraf is indeed serving US interests.

In one unexpected sentence, illumination!

There you have it gentlemen. Thank Arun for putting the entire puzzle together for you, in one startling sentence.

I said this before, when I first started posting here a few months back. I said it was clear that Pakistan was in fact doing a fine job of stamping out anti-American terrorists and that the only real terrorist threat that continues to emanate from that place is against us.

What used to be a base for terrorists of every stripe is now simply a base for anti-Indian and to a lesser extent anti-Russian terror. The jehadis that were not smart enough to redirect their energies against India (and Russia) are dead, in hiding, or run out of the place.

So the Pakis are still killing and terrorizing to be sure, but the victims are only Indians and some Russians now. Which is perfectly fine with the Americans (even encouraged by them).

Thus all this nonsense of nuclear redlines, America owning Paki nukes, and convoluted explanations why Washington puts up with blackmail is simply misguided chatter. Pakistan is doing a fine job serving the interests of the United States. Or at least Bush & his cronies anyway.

Which is why we have no choice but to crush them ourselves, even if it means angering the Americans.

Sunil · Post by **Sunil** » 31 Aug 2003 05:41

Whoa.. what a thread... its going all over the place. I have not seen a thread shake so much from the deemed course so much since the Bharat Romance Forum.

Narayanan,

> Model 2.

Lets assume for a moment now, that per Model 2, the president believes his NSA. He agrees that all possible surveillance exists on Pakistani nuclear initiatives and that at any given instant time the US is well appraised of Pakistan's nuclear posture.

Assume for a moment he has total confidence in his intelligence community (something *no* potentate worth his salt has). I find it difficult to believe this is the case - especially under the backdrop of the failures of Sept 11 and the comedy of errors in Iraq - but as I have taken my thinking cap off-- I will assume that he has 100% .. no.. make that 400% confidence in the intelligence communities to maintain a 24-7 watch on roughly 2000 something personnel connected with the Pakistani nuclear program.

Can he guarentee that the next move he makes against Al Qaida will not result in a calamitous act of terror? How can he be positively sure of that? Can he be absolutely certain that by unknown means Al Qaida terrorists won't turn up in the possession of a much larger dirty bomb - say somewhere in CA? or how about Chechnya? What makes him totally sure that sort of thing won't happen when he say -- orders a predator to kill some `terrorist' in Waziristan?

Now there are two possibilities

a) He knows it - because the Pakistanis have laid it all out for him. They have set up a list of things he can/cannot do.

b) He doesn't know it - and is blundering around in minefield and it is merely a matter of chance that nothing has happened. So the risk is extraordinarily high that he will trip up some hitherto unseen redline and either cause the fall of the Musharraf government or cause the Jihadis to send a nasty reminder - horrific terrorist attack a soft target somewhere.

Frankly I have trouble buying his Texan airs, all that folksy charm and the Hiya-howdy-doo jazz. I feel back in the confines of his home - he most likely pronounces Worcester as Wooster.

I think Sept 11 is the biggest crisis to confront a US administration after 1962. I feel it will be handled with the same care and caution.

There is however a crucial difference. The US economy of today is very different from the US economy of 1962. You say that there are less people with an even vague memory of conflict, but that is precisely the point. Barring a small minority - no one has the enthusiasm for that sort of wet stuff now. Even those supportive of aggressive action will find themselves hard placed to deal with the possible consequences on the domestic front. A brief look around tell you that peoples' minds are unsized to deal with this crisis. Even someone like TSJ with military service says he fears the worst if another terrorist attack takes place.

I am not saying that Americans are cowards, only that they are not the kind that tolerate this sort of adventurism. That was my take-home from the Somalia episode. The American people are capable of laying down their lives for the country, but they will not take high risks unquestioningly. With the evolution of public debate - which has occured in great measure after 1962- the questions have become a lot tougher.

Johaan,

> Yemeni security service encounters the same problems as the ISI.

Differences in the sheer size of the Yemeni intelligence service and the ISI vividly illustrate why no comparison is possible between the two.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 31 Aug 2003 06:03

Somalia was of no consequence to the American public. In fact, Boustros Ghali (remember him?) demanded an American presence there if we were to take action in Bosnia. According to him, if we were going to care about white muslims we were going to care about black muslims as well("wogs" was what he said, direct quote). That little shenannigan cost Boutros his job. Unfortunately it also cost Rwanda a lot too because it made Clinton gun shy.

But that's all right, because no American saw any of this as a direct threat. The Kobar towers, the USS Cole, The Marine barracks in Beruit, all of this while teeth grindingly annoying and upseting to the American public was seen as "foreign problems" and of no direct concern to the American public.

Thanks to the WTC, Americans now see this problem as of direct consequence. More on this later. Must now go get pizza and adult beverages.

Kuttan · Post by **Kuttan** » 31 Aug 2003 07:41

Like TSJ, I too have a midnight deadline, and I am reduced to stretching logic enough to ask "midnight where"? and arguing for "Hawaii" as answer.

So let me just toss this one grenade to keep sunil busy, and get back maybe noon tomorrow when I wake up after the present scramble.

a) He knows it - because the Pakistanis have laid it all out for him. They have set up a list of things he can/cannot do.

Sunil: What American President, post-9/11, can AFFORD to base American policy on what Pakistani dictators lay out or promise?

If he does not attack all out, what possible logic does he use to rationalize that the Al Qaeda WON'T attack with WMD?

Remember - the BIG QUESTION OF 9/11 is:

Why did the Al Qaeda conduct those attacks, knowing that they would bring massive retaliation and the end of all their bases, etc.?

Didn't it mean that they had ALL their attacks plans already dispersed to the final attack locations?

This organization had OBVIOUS interest in developing WMD (remember all the videos about dogs being poisoned with chemical weapons? Remember the Paki nuke Xerox scientists working with Ummah Tameer Nau?) So WHY did they go ahead with 9/11??? No other WMD plot has been reported as being frustrated so far. How come?

Which of course brings us back to square one with the blackmail implications of THAT question.
**********

P.S. Ouch! Just realized that TSJ is going to see all that stubbon defence of Americans by Yours Truly, and no time to go delete all those posts! :p

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 31 Aug 2003 08:35

Sorry - to intrude into this "scientific" thread, but I am a believer in some kind of "grand unified theory". I recall starting a thread about Pakistan - but the whole topic shifted to Indian muslims.Here we have a topic about Pakistan's nuclear threat and I see a significant number of posts about why Yemen should be considered dangerous.

Yemenis are Arabs culturally and share with Arabs the view of intrusion by "Western civilization" into their way of life. That is whre Al Qaueda used to get its strength from.

Pakistanis are culurally similar to Indians and do not share a "defeated by the West" perception. Pakistanis have a "defeated by Hindus" hang-up.

The main similarities betwen Pakistan and Yemen are that both are Islamic states, apart from all the instability that Johann has described. Over the past few decades Pakistan has gradually attempted to get Arab help for its anti-India war in exchange for support to Arabs in their "Anti-West" cause.

Al Quaeda used to be far weaker than Pakistan, but te AQ hated the US enough to hit the US. Pakistan did not hate the US enough. But Al Quaeda and Pakistan are now beginning to see eye to eye. What Al Quaeda can gain from Pakistan is far far more than what Pakistan can get from Al Quaeda.

I have a casual and cheerful "whatmeworry" attitude as I type this. Pakistan's threat to India cannot get any worse because of Al Quaeda cooperation with Pakistan. But Al Quaeda's threat to the West is significantly magnified by Pakistan's cooperation with Al Quaeda.

Like I said. Whatmeworry?

Kuttan · Post by **Kuttan** » 31 Aug 2003 10:06

That's interesting. I wonder how the US ever got entangled with Yemen, anyway. Could it be, just could it be, that Yemen was dragged in by the US' wonderful ally, UQ, to extract UQ from whatever mess was created in Aden?

Yes, the USS Cole was attacked in Aden harbour, but was that before or after said dragging?

(Yes, Johann, I know, but can I resist posting this once it has occurred to me?)

I can't recall Yemen ever being on the US threat horizon any more than, say, Turkmenistan or Azerbaijan was. In fact, less.

Anyway, my question about "why was 9/11 approved when it was approved?" remains. Two situations come to mind:

1. The Taliban was under UN sanctions and hurting.
2. The TSP was on the verge of collapse.

Which was the trigger? If it was #2, then of course one can reason that the US is cowed down, having learned lesson, and is trying not to make same mistake again, by giving Protection Money to TSP.

Ha! Likely indeed!

The other implication of #2 is that TSP is squarely behind 9/11 and hence should be converted to ParkingLotStan.

Now if its because of #1 (Taliban was hurting) well... The Taliban is history. Why should the US tolerate any foot-dragging from TSP? I would expect the US to kick Opinions in TSP and get them to move faster to rout out the remnants of the Taliban.
***********************

Now my sleep-deprived brain wanders off in another direction - Oh! Here it is:

In Thrissur, there is a legend of the Naraanath Bhranthan (that means: the Loonie from the House of Narayanan, I suppose) I am keenly aware of this, having gone to school for several years in Thrissur and being reminded of this often whenever my classmates lost arguments or their wickets to me. :o

One of the legends is that the NB used to roll rocks up the biggest hill in town, just for the pleasure of watching them roll down again.

Sounds like me trying to explain Nook-Nood Certainty to sunil here.

The other legend is more relevant here:

There used to be this horrible jungle there (I think its a story to scare us 4-year-olds) behind the big temple, and anyone who was unfortunate enough to have been caught outside the temple doors, by accident or design ( the temple has a very large, very high-walled perimeter) after they closed at nightfall, was dead - because the fierce tigers, lions, wolves, bears, walruses, hippopotamii etc, would come eat them.

Well, NB apparently p.o.'ed someone (must have got him out LBW for 0) and being an absent-minded person, was esaily conned and trapped outside the walls at nightfall. As per custom for such things in Thrissur, he was given a plantain-leaf pack of rice as his last meal.

NB sat down and started eating. Being absent-minded, he ate one rice grain per hour. The fierce animals, observing the Geneva Convention and the Laws of Sportsmanship in Eating people called Narayanan etc., did not attack him, since he was eating. Very strong tradition, where I come from - never bother anyone who is eating.

Well, morning came, and NB was very much alive and lived happily ever after, rolling rocks uphill and clapping happily as they rolled back down (on to the Mercedes Benzes of his enemies, hopefully).
*****************************************

How is this relevant? I think Musharraf is like NB in that he's trying to drag on the US pre-occupation with Eyerak as far as possible. When the US is satisfied with Eyerak, next stop is the Riyadh Parking Lot - then the Islamaintbad Parking Lot.

kgoan · Post by **kgoan** » 31 Aug 2003 14:41

Johann, thanks for that post. Do you have a comment on the following:

From what I understand so far there seems to some sort of "civil conflict" (civil war is too strong) in Saudia, specifically in the Hijaz region which takes in Mecca and Medina.

It seems to me that the Wahabbi brand of Islam imposed on the Hijazi (from the al-Najd central region) by the Sauds is being carefully challenged by the Hijazi. It seems to have begun when the Saudis and Wahabbis buldozed Mohammed's house in Medina and accelerated considerably in the post 9-11 period.

(Yes - folks, while our intellectual "giants" talk about the monolithic "Islamic threat", the internal debates within Islam has reached the stage where one lot (the Wahabbis**) can actually bulldoze the Prophets house!! Yeah, yeah I'll stop. No point in having all our Islamic "experts" flock in here for a flame war!

)

**If I understand the terminology correctly, "Wahabbis" are what others call them. They seem to call themselves the "Ikhwan" which means "Brotherhood".

The Hijazi seem to have slowly gained - shall we say "allies" among certain sections of the Yemeni tribes who are as fed up with the Saud's and the Wahabbis. The interesting thing is that there also seems to be a section of the Sauds themselves who are fed up with the more fundamentalist strain of the Wahabbis - if only because they're a threat to the Sauds themselves.

BTW, this wouldn't be a the first time that Saud and Wahabbi have clashed. In 1931 a bunch of Wahabbi's started a rebellion because ibn Saud allowed the Shiites to practise their rites. They wanted all these "little infidels" crushed. al-Saud put down the rebellion in the al-Hasa region quite savagely.

It seems to me that the situation gets more complicated because some Yemeni tribes are quite Wahabbi dominated. It seems as if there are actually three sides involved: The Hijazi who have some Yemeni allies, the radical lot who also have Yemeni allies and the al-Sauds themselves, who don't care about anything as long as their position is maintained.

BTW - from what I understand these sides don't have hard boundaries. The situation seems to be very, very fluid. With everyone positioning themselves for tomorrows winner, they seem to switch sides as and when it suits them - except for the hardline radicals.

Now throw into this mix US pressure and the possibility that one side, the radicals, might get access to Paks nukes. That level of power would tilt the scales.

Therefore when Sunil talks of Pak blackmail: It may not be limited to Pak. i.e. Pak blackmail might not be just "we'll give Osmam nukes". It might be far more subtle and involve Paks swinging the balance in Saudia itself.