Taliban extend hold, advance near Pakistan capital - Clinton: Pakistan 'mortal threat' to world

[Turborama]

Source: AP

By ZARAR KHAN – 32 minutes ago

ISLAMABAD (AP) — Taliban militants have extended their grip in northwestern Pakistan, pushing out from a valley where the government has agreed to impose Islamic law and patrolling villages as close as 60 miles from the capital. Police and officials appear to have fled as armed militants also broadcast radio sermons and spread fear in Buner district, just 60 miles from Islamabad, officials and witnesses said Wednesday.

Pakistan's president signed off on the peace pact last week in hopes of calming Swat, where some two years of clashes between the Taliban and security forces have killed hundreds and displaced up to a third of the one-time tourist haven's 1.5 million residents.

Critics, including in Washington, have warned that the valley could become an officially sanctioned base for allies of al-Qaida — and that it may be just the first domino in nuclear-armed Pakistan to fall to the Taliban. "The activities in the Swat do concern us. We're keeping an eye on it, and are working daily with the Pakistan military," Maj. Gen. Michael S. Tucker told Pentagon reporters in a 35-minute videoconference call from Afghanistan.

=snip=

Swat Taliban spokesman Muslim Khan could not be reached for comment. Khan said recently that al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and other militants aiming to oust the U.S. from Afghanistan would be welcome and protected in Swat — a statement the government condemned. He also said the militants want to see all of Pakistan under Islamic law — a cry echoed by several other Islamist firebrands.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hkiMxbHNH0BqgpWA2ZG6VD6wVTmAD97NL28O0

---

Clinton: Pakistan 'mortal threat' to world

Source: UPI

Nuclear-armed Pakistan is becoming a "mortal threat" to the world, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the House Foreign Affairs Committee Wednesday. "Pakistan poses a mortal threat to the security and safety of our country and the world," Clinton said. "And I want to take this occasion ... state unequivocally that not only do the Pakistani government officials, but the Pakistani people and the Pakistani diaspora ... need to speak out forcefully against a policy that is ceding more and more territory to the insurgents ... ."

Taliban militants Tuesday took over the northwestern Pakistan district of Buner, just 60 miles from the capital of Islamabad. Militants were patrolling its streets with no signs of government law enforcement personnel, Pakistan's English-language newspaper Dawn reported. The move came after the Taliban last week imposed Shariah, or strict Islamic law, in the neighboring Swat Valley as part of a peace agreement with the government.

"(We) cannot underscore the seriousness of the existential threat posed to the state of Pakistan by the continuing advances now within hours of Islamabad that are being made by a loosely confederated group of terrorists and others who are seeking the overthrow of the Pakistani state," Clinton said.

"I don't hear that kind of outrage or concern coming from enough people that would reverberate back within the highest echelons of the civilian and military leadership of Pakistan," Clinton said.

From: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/22/Clinton-Pakistan-mortal-threat-to-world/UPI-34481240421045/

[cosmicone]

1. Bye Bye Pakistan and hello Talistan n/t

[oxygen destroyer]

37. "Land of students"?

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Making concessions with the Taliban: Give'm an inch, they'll take the Capital.

[EFerrari]

3. I woke up cynical this morning. Why isn't the Pakistani Government

in emergency mode? Is this how they'll hold Obama up for more $?

[Igel]

31. For a bunch of reasons.

They have more pressing concerns: (1) The elite are busy fighting for their own personal honor and over what's left. Sometimes they blindly follow the law--often a good thing, bu sometimes not so good--esp. when it does political harm to somebody. For instance, Chaudhry and his fellows are still sticking it to Musharraf whenever possible, and probably don't have any great love for Zardari. There's no unity at the upper levels of government. (2) They are more outward looking--their old enemies are the Indians, and they really have had trouble recommitting to fighting their own homegrown insurgency. Even when it's obvious they have a problem, the knee-jerk reaction is to blame foreigners. It saves honor and prevents fights.

Some assume that the Islamists can be controlled: Sharif, for instance, has no trouble being allied or friendly with rather extremist Islamic parties when it helps him. It's unclear to me if he actually thinks they might be a problem or if he likes them or thinks they're forever going to be marginal.

It's feudal: Many people have few loyalties to the government, and more to their local tribes. So many aren't ready to die for the central government.

It's tribal: The tribes are varied and sundry, with the problem that tribalism doesn't make for a very strong central government (or requires a very strong central government). Another reason not to die for the central government--perhaps one's tribe, perhaps not. And since the government hasn't distributed the largesse evently, there are intertribal tensions. Note that one tribe is "Muslim", and that crosses ethnic boundaries and has been growing.

It's poor: The government hasn't been able to provide education for the masses, so the Islamic parties have, including the Taliban. This makes for a bit of loyalty to the Islamic parties, which mitigates animosity towardst he uber-Islamic Taliban; and it gives the less moderate Islamic parties an entree into making sure that the democratic system is subverted from the bottom up.

There's a relative lack of initiative, vis-a-vis the government. Only too late have some districts set up their own militias, and those are where there are strong central tribal governments. In places like the Punjab that's not going to happen. They expect the government to help them, and not to help the government.

Corruption: Both in enforcement of laws, nepotism, distribution of wealth and benefits, etc., etc. Sometimes it's tribal (= ethnicity), sometimes it's tribal (= religion). This creates a lot of antagonism.

[Turborama]

32. Interesting input, thanks...

Can we add to that a distinct possibility Zardari essentially won the election by default, is therefore totally unqualified for the position he holds and waaay out of his depth?

[SpartanDem]

33. nm

[SpartanDem]

34. nm

[EFerrari]

38. Thank you, Igel!

[saigon68]

46. Corruption: Both in enforcement of laws, nepotism, distribution of wealth and benefits, etc

Where Have I seen That?

[riverdeep]

4. We had a chance to stop the Taliban, Bush decided to go for the Iraq war instead.

And now, Obama is faced with another steaming pile of shit the former occupier of the White House left for him. An Islamic fundamentalist group that believes in martyrdom with access to nuclear weapons is the worst of all possible scenarios.

[No More Bushbots]

7. YES! We have a winner!

:applause:

[EFerrari]

8. That was another group in Afghanistan. n/t

[riverdeep]

16. Weren't the Taliban hosting Al Qaeda?

What other group are you talking about?

[EFerrari]

18. The Taliban in Afghanistan and the Taliban in Pakistan

seem to be two different if related groups. They have different aims and a different command structure. They're not interchangeable, in other words.

[EFerrari]

19. Here is an interview with Ahmed Rashid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWsmJIwe9Q4

It's in depth if you want to go into weeds on the topic of Pakistan and it's neighbors (Afghanistan, India). He's the most knowledgeable journalist on Pakistan that I've ever listened to, fwiw.

[Turborama]

23. Thanks, I love "Conversations With History". I'm considering getting his book, have you read it?

Did you see the discussion Fareed Zakaria had with him at the weekend? If not, I posted it here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x299363">CNN: Fareed Zakaria & Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid discuss if Pakistan is in danger of collapse

Zakaria had a discussion with Holbrooke too, which I posted here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x299359">CNN's Fareed Zakaria & Holbrooke discuss how bad the crises in Afghanistan & Pakistan really are


(edited to fix typo)

[EFerrari]

24. Thanks for the link.

The first time I saw Rashid was by accident, on CSPAN. He was talking to an audience of mostly American journalists and his disgust/frustration was palbable -- unusual for such a well mannered man.

I haven't read him but would like to. He really seems to know what he's talking about. :)

[Bragi]

43. I'm reading it now

"Descent into Chaos" is well written and well researched. It just came out in paperback. It's a must read if your interested in the topic.

- B

[Turborama]

53. Thanks for the recommendation, Bragi. I'm going to order it from Amazon.

Have you read anything on how Pakistan was 'created' via the partition of India? There's 3 books I'm considering buying and am not sure which one to get...

1. Indian Summer: The Secret History of the End of an Empire
2. India After Gandhi: The History of the World's Largest Democracy
3. The Great Partition: The Making of India and Pakistan

[Cass]

10. You hit it square on the head.

We had the chance to control them and the region but Bush insisted on jumping ship and going into Iraq leaving the Taliban to regroup and flourish again. The effects of the Bush reign will be felt for decades....he and his lackeys were an incredibly destructive force.

[riverdeep]

17. Another thing people forget,

those heady days directly after 9/11, we had the world's support, including from many Muslim quarters. We had a genuine coalition of the willing and we could have taken out the worst elements and used diplomacy and bartering to take care of the rest. But Cheney and Bush knew better...

[Cass]

26. Excellent point. The resources and goodwill he squandered is mind-blowing.

I have often thought that Bush might have secured himself a halfway decent legacy if he had stayed in Afghanistan and finished the job there instead of running off to Iraq. Like you say, he had much of the world behind him and he could have made significant progress in that area if only he would have tried. But he and his pals had another agenda. History won't be kind to Bush and Cheney especially if the Taliban gets anywhere near Pakistan's nukes. What a nightmare scenario.

[Jawja]

48. And when Dick Cheney slithers out of his

hole to criticize Obama and to claim the Bush Criminal Government "Kept us Safe," this fact needs to be brought up loud and clear.

[TheCoxwain]

5. This is a real tragedy .. Bush spent U.S. blood and treasure with the aim of preventing

Al Qaeda getting NUKES from Saddam ( Who never had them in the first place)

While Al Qaeda/Taliban took hold inside Pakistan. Pakistan has the Nukes.

[bdamomma]

6. very dangerous situation.

[Phoonzang]

9. If the fundamentalists do take over Pakistan and gain access to nuclear weapons

what are we going to do? We'll be left with very few options, most of them ugly.

[truebrit71]

21. India will step in before that happens...with force most likely...

...and it will NOT be pretty...

[Snazzy]

30. and sadly, some are chewing at the bit to do just that

Most Indians I have met are sane however. Where is then Indian gov. right to left right now, I wonder; not up on it anymore and should be. But I'd expect after the Mumbai terrorism, and the never ending Kashmir angst, some await an excuse. Now with nukes available, woot!

[closeupready]

69. India hasn't been able to take Kashmir. What makes anyone think they'll re-annex Pakistan? LOL

Don't underestimate Pakistan's military. They may not have much money, but India's hatred for Pakistan is matched by Pakistan hatred in return.

[iandhr]

11. The are many reasons why

what I am about to suggest might be a bad idea

LET INDIA TAKE CARE OF THEM

[truebrit71]

22. That would get very bloody, very quickly...

..but I think that is the way this thing is headed...besides India has alot more skin in the game than we do at this point...the shit will hit the fan in 12-18 months...maybe less...

[closeupready]

70. Like they have done in Kashmir? ROFLMAO

:rofl:

[Bragi]

12. Are the Taliban really much of a threat?

There is considerable debate among those who know this stuff about whether the Taliban actually presents much of a threat.

For example, see "How Dangerous are the Taliban" in the current issue of Foreign Affairs magazine.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/64932/john-mueller/how-dangerous-are-the-taliban

- B

[stillcool]

14. One day it's negotiations with 'mid-level'...

Taliban people, the next day they are the baddest mofo's in the world. I think anyone that opposes the presence of the United States is the "Taliban" in Afghanistan/Pakistan. You would think there would be some room for the United States to negotiate with the various factions in the region and give them something in exchange for the safety and security of American business interests in the area. Why do we always have to go the Dictator route?

[Turborama]

20. Interesting article, thanks for the share. Have you seen this yet?

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/pakistan802/video/video_index.html">Frontline: Children of the Taliban

This is another documentary that gives a good insight into what's been going on there, too:

http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/general/2008/12/200812211123302404.html">Pakistan's War#

[Romulox]

13. I heard they took babies right out of their incubators! nt

[closeupready]

15. Yep. You nailed it. I guess you've been here before - did you get the t-shirt?

:rofl: Same crap, different day.

[Turborama]

29. No offence meant, but it'd be naive to link that story to what's actually happening in Pakistan.

Have a look at the links above and watch/listen to people who know what's going on there right now to see what I mean.

[Turborama]

25. Clinton: Pakistan 'abdicating to Taliban'

Al Jazeera English

Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, has accused Pakistan's government of "abdicating to the Taliban" by agreeing to the enforcement of Islamic law in part of the country.

Clinton's criticism came in comments to the US House Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday.

"I think that the Pakistani government is basically abdicating to the Taliban and to the extremists," she said.

Read more: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/04/200942217162264694.html

[enola fay]

27. Scary...

If only we hadn't neglected Afghanistan from the beginning instead of pouring all of our resources into a pointless war in Iraq.

[drchoice22]

77. You are right, but at this point what can we do? we're broke and overstreched

[inwiththenew]

28. This won't end well

I don't think India will stand idly by while this happens.

[SpartanDem]

35. To think

the naive pacifist crowd just want us to wash our hands and leave. Basically following shrubs policy of ignoring the region.

[Turborama]

36. Precisely, and look how that worked out... n/t

[Coventina]

45. I think what we see on this thread, and on DU in general

is extreme antagonism towards any idea that there are real terrorist threats.

This is because Bushco used the fear of terrorism to manipulate the American people and to bring on the horror that is the Iraq war.

Now, many on the left are so set that any warnings or cautions are just propaganda, that they just won't listen. It's all babies & incubators or plastic sheeting & duct tape.

Another Bush legacy that will be extremely damaging.

[bemildred]

47. Crying wolf over and over can have that drawback.

Doing it some more is not the solution to that situation. I have no doubt that the terrorist threat is real. I just object to being propagandized about it. There are a boatload of other real threats out there too, and you can't just run around all day gibbering in fear about one of them.

[Coventina]

51. ITA. The problem is, what is propaganda, when the press has let us down so badly?

I find these stories about the Taliban advance on Islamabad extremely worrisome. The idea of a nuclear-armed Taliban is completely unacceptable to me.

Are these press reports just lies trying to make us afraid? If so, completely despicable. But if they are truth then it is information that we need to know.

I'm not saying that I want us fighting in Pakistan on top of everything else. I'd be inclined to let India "handle it", but if these stories are true, something has to be done.

[bemildred]

52. I look for dispassionate exposition. The absence of emotional or inciting language.

I agree the situation is worrisome, Pakistan is disintegrating, a nuclear-armed Taliban is "not acceptable". Though if it happens we are f**king well going to have to accept it anyway. You can't just pre-emptively nuke Pakistan because your policies have failed there, and you gotta talk it over with Russia and China first anyway, they might object, and you don't really want to get in a war with the Pakistan military, they are like the best shot to protect the nukes. It took a long time to screw this up and there isn't going to be any magic fix.

I will get to the point where I think direct unilateral intervention is worth considering when I see the Pakistani military being routed in open combat on their own ground, and still refusing aid. We ought to be talking to our friends in Russia and China and India about that.

I've been wondering if the Admiral is in Pakistan precisely to discuss these issues with them again.

[Coventina]

54. Now that we have a COMPETENT administration,

I hope they are doing all you suggest in your post (talking to Pak, India, China & Russia).

I might not always agree with Obama, but they seem to be more on the ball than Bushco, who were always breaking things & then scratching their heads over what to do about it.


*sigh*

In my darker moments I seriously believe that the US will never fully recover from those 8 years.

[bemildred]

56. Nothing lasts forever, not even the damage Bush did.

I'm still sizing Obama up, it's a truly ugly situation, you gotta see how things play out, but I like what I see.

[Turborama]

57. Good points, well made.

"This is because Bushco used the fear of terrorism to manipulate the American people and to bring on the horror that is the Iraq war."

I find myself wondering sometimes how many people are acting with a broad brush approach due to irrational anger fomented from what you've so succinctly stated above...

Let's face it, the opinion polls at the time stated that the vast majority of Americans were behind the (illegal) invasion. Due to the law of averages, surely there must be some people here who fell into that trap and are now acting under the influence?

[bananas]

75. Yup. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. Pakistan: Troops sent to Taliban-threatened area

Pakistani paramilitary forces have been deployed to protect government buildings and bridges in a district near the capital that has come under the Taliban's sway, an official said Thursday.

The six Frontier Constabulary platoons arrived in northwestern Buner on Wednesday, days after militants from the neighboring Swat Valley began infiltrating the area in large numbers, establishing checkpoints, patrolling roads and spreading fear.
...
Syed Mohammed Javed, a top government official who oversees the area covered by the peace deal, confirmed that the platoons had been sent to Buner, but he would not say if it was in direct response to the Taliban infiltration.

He did not specify the number of troops involved, but a platoon typically has 30 to 50 members.

Also Thursday, dozens of militants armed with guns and gasoline bombs attacked a truck terminal elsewhere in northwestern Pakistan, burning five tanker trucks carrying fuel to NATO troops in Afghanistan, police said.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hkiMxbHNH0BqgpWA2ZG6VD6wVTmAD97O1QQO0

[Delphinus]

40. I thought with the boy king gone,

this bullshit of labeling countries like this. "Mortal threat to the world" - only if they're talking about us.

[Prometheus Bound]

41. When I heard Michelle Obama expose this in a speech, I had hopes we'd see an end to this shit.

"Think! Listen!" she implored during an impassioned introduction of her husband today, "The game of politics is to make you afraid, so that you don't think!"

Her introduction was a super-charged version of Barack Obama’s stump speech, which has increasingly vilified the bleak status quo of a rigid Washington establishment. But where he, highlights hope, his wife warned today of the consequences of fear. Jabbing a pointed finger in the air, she derided a political system in which "every decision that we've made over the past 10 years wasn't FOR something, but was because people told us we had to fear something."

She put a hard edge on her husband’s "war that never should have been waged" applause line, too, exclaiming, "We are in this war because for eight years; we were told to be afraid!"

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/16/320324.aspx

[bemildred]

44. Yeah, fear makes you stupid.

People who try to scare the bejesus out of you are trying to make you stupid and they are not your friends.
:thumbsup:

[Prometheus Bound]

61. Yup. 3000 armed students vs the world's 7th largest armed force.

3000 poorly armed students vs Pakistan's 1.4 million much better equipped armed forces.

Somehow I don't feel in "mortal peril".

There are reasons for Pakistan's 'capitulation' in Swat that have to do with India and Afghanistan, not lack of military power.

[closeupready]

66. Also has to do with the natural topography of that region of the world.

Many parts of Pakistan are every bit as mountainous and inconquerable as Afghanistan. A little factoid people don't want to recognize.

[bottomtheweaver]

50. I'd like to hear more of that.

It's tragic the way they shut her down and I hope she finds her way back to where she was when she gave that speech.

[Odin2005]

42. Shit.

This is not good at all. :(

[bottomtheweaver]

49. Damn. And she was doing so well there for a few minutes.

Now it's back to plugging WW 4.

[The2ndWheel]

55. Well, the US Government has to be somewhere militarily

Name a decade when that hasn't been the case. I guess Pakistan is as good a place as any for the 20-teens.

[closeupready]

67. Yes, but all this occupation is going to do is bankrupt the US.

n/t

[Zhade]

58. The fucking DOMINO THEORY again?

NT!

[Prometheus Bound]

59. Oh, you're right. Third para. "The first domino".

Dusting off the old 60s propaganda vocabulary book.

[ohio2007]

60. Well, heads are rolling

Video: Swat Taliban Behead Pakistani Soldiers.

<delete link>
Sorry
Nobody wants to see what the righteous are doing to the sectarian government troops.

Guess it can be labelled 00 propaganda

[Raskolnik]

63. Do you think the government of Pakistan falling to religious extremists

like the Taliban would not present a grave threat to hundreds of millions of people in the region, and threaten global stability in general?

[ronnie624]

64. Yeah, that's some scary shit.

Can you tell everyone, again, how that's supposed to go down?

And be specific, please.

[Raskolnik]

71. I'm not sure I understand your question.

Are you asking me to explain how it may be possible for a group of religious extremists to take effective control of the government of Pakistan?

[ronnie624]

74. My question is not about theoretical religious extremists.

The object of fear-mongering on this thread is very specific. I'm asking how the Taliban will seize control of the Pakistani government. That is what many seem to fear.

[closeupready]

68. Like it or not, the government controls neither Pakistan nor the nukes. The military DOES.

Always has. THAT is what people need to be concerned about, and as long as we are financing the military (which we are), I'm not worried.

[Raskolnik]

72. I agree with that for the most part.

That split of authority has been workable thus far only because the interests of the civilian government and the military have not diverged enough to cause an unreconcilable conflict. But, if the civilian government's interest diverge enough from the those of the military, there's going to be a pretty damn big problem, no?

[closeupready]

73. Problem for who though - what happened in Sharif's case was he was removed from office.

This is traditionally what happens in Pakistan. If the military doesn't like the direction the government takes, they take over. It's not a great system by any means. However, it says to me that since the military wants to continue receiving US aid, they will ensure the nukes remain firmly in their control. I honestly don't have an answer as to what sorts of policies it would be beneficial for us to adopt towards our relations with Pakistan. I do wish we'd stop dropping bombs on them, as if the lives of their civilians mean nothing.

[w4rma]

62. She's right... (nt)

[closeupready]

65. These threads have become so silly to me, because people here can be so ignorant.

Pakistan has 100 nukes. India is going to handle India and any non-nuclear states in the vicinity, not Pakistan. The UN should mediate any resolution of hostilities between these two states.

What is to discuss here?

Bottom line: Hillary is taking shots at Pakistan on behalf of her husband, who hated Sharif because he tested nukes in violation of the Clinton administration's demands NOT to. Well, hey, Hillary - your husband was fine letting India get away will a ton of bullshit. I really wish Obama would have chosen a reasonable broker for SoS. She is so full of it.

[drchoice22]

76. At this point what can we do?

Bush got us bogged down in iraq, we are fighting just to keep the lid on the bottle in afganistan.

On the homefront our economy is in a death spiral, the government has no money to keep fighting these bush wars, we have swine flue , hurricane season coming up unemployment rising.

Our military is too expensive and streached to far!

Let pakistan deal with it for christ sake.

WE CAN'T POSSIBLY fight in iraq, afginstan, pakistan and iran all the while our entire economy falling apart. GIVE ME A BREAK!

[Vidar]

78. Which explains why we're in two other countries instead.

[ohio2007]

79. Pentagon seeks wartime powers for dealing with Pak

Sounds like the limited boots on the ground will expand if/when pakistan starts its collapse

WASHINGTON: The Obama administration wanted Congress to give wartime authorities to US military commanders dealing with Pakistan, US officials told a congressional panel.Under the new proposal, the US Central Command will have the same unfettered authority in its dealings with Pakistan as it enjoys in the combat zones of Iraq and Afghanistan.The Centcom will also have complete control over US military assistance for Pakistan and will not have to consult other US departments or agencies before disbursing those funds.

Traditionally such military aid flows through the State Department and is subject to Foreign Assistance Act restrictions.

.....

Under the proposal, Centcom chief Gen David Petraeus will control the military funds earmarked for Pakistan. The funds will be used for counterinsurgency training and for providing equipment such as night-vision goggles, helicopters and intelligence capabilities.

The new programme will significantly expand and accelerate US military training and equipping of Pakistan’s security forces.
It will allow US trainers to reach beyond the tribally recruited Frontier Corps and Pakistani Special Forces
to include the regular Pakistan Army’s 11th Corps, which is stationed along the Afghan border.
The Pentagon seeks ‘this unique authority for the unique and urgent circumstances we face in Pakistan —for dealing with a challenge that simultaneously requires wartime and peacetime capabilities,’ Secretary Gates told the Senate Appropriations Committee.

US lawmakers, however, voiced concerns about giving the Pentagon complete control over war funds meant for Pakistan.

‘We question the appropriateness of providing foreign assistance for Pakistan under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defence,’ said Senator Daniel K. Inouye, the committee chairman.


.....


http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/12-pentagon-seeks-wartime-powers-for-dealing-with-pakistan--bi11

Politicians want to wage the war and handcuff the ground commanders trying to win it.
hmmm
Deja Vu without a Gulf of Tonkin resolution vote .


maybe not