New York Times Leader

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Pakistan is Said to Pursue Role in Afghan Talks.” It describes an offer by Pakistan to mediate with Taliban tribes whose influence extends over both Pakistan and Afghanistan. Some of these tribes, especially the Haqqani network, are the most lethal in the fight against the United States in southern Afghanistan.

The head of Pakistan’s army, General Kayani, has made the offer to several leading U.S. generals, in an effort to maintain the peace when the United States leaves the region. The Haqqani tribes has links with many in the Pakistan army and intelligence services. However, the United States is most concerned with the link between the Haqqani and Al Qaeda. If this link can be severed, they might be persuaded to tacitly approve the talks.

Pakistan’s main concern remains India, and they see Afghanistan as a second front that they don’t want to open. Whether this can work in the United States favor remains to be seen.

The political considerations in all this jockeying for position are profound and complex. In my opinion, the shifting alliances could eventually work against the United States. And, in fact, this article concludes with the observation, “The United States is pretty worried about seeing a deal emerge that suits everyone other than us.”

8H358GEY9563

The lead story in today’s New York Times is titled, “Deaths of 3 G.I.s in Pakistan Show Low-Key U.S. Role.” The article describes the background of military assistance to the Pakistanis, a sensitive topic since it intrudes upon Pakistan’s national sovereignty and since many in the population view the United States with suspicion.

Apparently, the men killed were part of a  Special Operations unit, and they were travelling in a dangerous area to help mark the opening of a new school for girls, built with U.S. funds. The Taliban typically destroy any attempts to educate the female population as inconsistent with the Koran.

The article hypothesizes one reason the soldiers were killed — as retaliation for the increasing number of drone attacks against Pakistani targets. There was also some question of betrayal among the government forces since the soldiers were well camouflaged and protected by a cordon of vehicles.

Despite this setback, the attack tends to show the effectiveness of President Obama’s increased attention to the region, the area where many believe Osama bin Laden is holding out. Otherwise, there would have been no perceived need to retaliate.

However, the sensitivities of the Pakistani government are another matter, and we can only hope to continue to downplay our role behind the scenes.

The lead story in The New York Times this morning is titled, “NATO Ministers Support General on Afghan War.” It describes a decision by defense ministers from NATO to support General Stanley McChrystal in his recommendation to add 40,000 new U.S. troops in Afghanistan. General McChrystal made a suprise visit to the meeting to explain his point of view.

The article points out, however, that this point of view has not been widely supported among the political leadership of NATO countries, a significant caveat. General McChrystal, however, is continuing to lobby, an action that conflicts with our country’s tradition of civilian leadership of the Armed Forces. He was not originally scheduled to make any appearance here, and his continued insistence, at a time when the White House is undergoing a series of meetings to evaluate his recommendation, is becoming redundant and suggests an effort to box President Obama into a decision in his favor.

Vice President Joe Biden, who supports a more focused counterterrorism approach, as opposed to counterinsurgency, seems to have much of history on his side, if not the military-industrial complex. It has been widely quoted that there are only about 100 combatants from Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, compared to Pakistan where they have established training camps — and where Osama bin Laden is hiding out.

The Vice President has been widely praised for his acumen on foreign policy, and I’m hoping that President Obama will listen to him.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Pakistan Attacks Show Tightening of Militant Links.” It describes a new alliance in Pakistan among Al Qaeda, the Taliban and local militant groups including those devoted to fighting India’s presence in Kashmir.

The article analyzes the recent takeover of the Pakistan Army headquarters as well as the assault on two Pakistani military training centers and a federal investigations building on Thursday. It found cooperation between Pakistan militant groups is increasing in a combined attempt to overthrow the government and forestall a planned government attack on Taliban and Al Qaeda strongholds in the Waziristan provinces.

In my opinion, this unholy alliance represents one more setback to American efforts in Pakistan. By combining their objectives against India, the United States and the civilian Pakistani government, the militant groups have become a powerful force to be reckoned with, not just guerilla bands carrying out isolated attacks. Even more ominously, the article notes that the Pakistani population supports the militant groups because they view the Americans as an occupying force.

This alliance could make it even more difficult for the Pakistani government because of its ties with the military, intelligence forces and throughout society. Leaks and inside connections will make it nearly impossible to mount a surprise attack, and militant support among the citizenry will ensure their ability to melt away into the population during any sustained operation.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Militant Network is Intact Long After Mumbai Siege.” It describes the efforts of India and Pakistan to arrest the terrorists responsible for attacking two five-star hotels, a cafe, train station and Jewish institution in Mumbai, India. The article is frightening in its implication of future conflict between the two nuclear-armed nations.

Apparently, the terrorist group, Lashkar-e-Taiba (or Lashkar for short) continues to operate with impunity in Pakistan and maintains unofficial relations with the Pakistani intelligence agency, ISI, as well as the Pakistani military. In addition, the government refuses to arrest the head of Lashkar, Hafiz Saeed, despite Indian intelligence regarding his participation in the Mumbai plot.

Lashkar also boasts wide membership, up to 150,000, among the Pakistani people as well as support for its mission to liberate the Muslim majority in Kashmir, currently under Indian control. More ominously, Lashkar is planning future attacks, and, if successful, it would most likely generate an Indian military response.

The mind boggles at the current possibilities of nuclear or otherwise horrific combat these days including between Iran and Israel, India and Pakistan, and, last but not least, between Al Qaeda and the United States. Any single one of these events would be enough to start a conflagration that would be difficult to control.

Hopefully, while President Obama works on health care and other domestic matters, he’s keeping his eye on the ball overseas.

The lead article in today’s New York Times was titled, “Economic Pillar in Pakistan Area is Among Missing.” It describes the failure of landlords in the Swat Valley to return to their homes after the Pakistani Army fought to expel the Taliban.

Apparently, despite the success of the Pakistani Army in battles around the major towns, the landlords do not feel secure about returning home. The police force and medical services are non-existent, and the Taliban are continuing a policy of burning down landlord homes and kidnapping them. When the landlords flee, the Taliban redistribute their holdings to the peasants. While the Pakistani military claims that 478,000 people have returned after the fighting, there is no independent verification of the statistic.

In my opinion, this does not bode well for the Pakistani government. The Taliban are creating a constituency of peasants who support them after benefiting from this redistribution of wealth. The top Taliban leadership has been unaffected by the fighting, and they can now recruit liberally from the population base of the region. All they need to do is outwait the Pakistani Army as the Army is overextended on its other border with India.

In addition, there is support for the militant ideology throughout the governmental and intelligence structures of the nation, and the fight against the Taliban is still stained with an image as a proxy war on behalf of the United States. Plus, as long as the Taliban, and Al Qaeda, have a safe haven in Pakistan, the fighting in Afghanistan will be of no avail.

Today’s lead story in The New York Times is alarming, and we seem to be complicit in its development. Apparently, the size of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is increasing rapidly, and we are supporting their government with several billion dollars every year.

Ostensibly, our aid is supposed to help them fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban, but Pakistan’s not like the United States where every dollar is strictly appropriated and accounted for. We need to build safeguards into the monetary aid we supply, and we have failed to do so.

The story is also alarming because Pakistan “has more terrorists per square mile than any place on Earth,” and because it estimates that there are approximately 2,000 people in Pakistan’s nuclear program who possess critical information on how to build a nuclear weapon.

The crux of the matter revolves around the sovereignty of the Pakistani government. Ideally, we should be able to go in there with our own military, root out Al Qaeda in the northwest provinces and institute fail-safe measures to protect their nukes.  However, Pakistan has its own way of doing things, and they even had a peace treaty with the Taliban militants until just last week.

The Pakistani government is increasing its nukes as a deterrent because of the current instability, the same reason why we wish they wouldn’t.

The lead story in today’s New York Times is titled, “Shaky Pakistan Seen as Target of Qaeda Plots.” It describes a new regional focus of Al Qaeda in Pakistan as opposed to more high-profile attacks in the United States and the West.

The article, frankly, is disturbing. According to recent intelligence, Al Qaeda seems to be work to destabilize Pakistan in light of Taliban gains in the Swat Valley and Buner. Plus the organization seems to have developed the sophistication to know when to cloak its activities and when to broadcast them. As a foreign group, their violent tactics could backfire in Pakistan so they have wreaked their havoc under the cover of regional groups.

As evidence of Al Qaeda’s presence, the article cites a truck bomb destroyed on April 19 after a U.S. Predator missile hit it. The size of the explosion indicated a significant number of explosives clearly designed for a suicide bomber.

Though the article discounts the possibility of the Taliban and Al Qaeda taking over the Pakistani government, that is the clearly expressed aim of both groups. Only the size of the Pakistani Army and the use of advanced technologies, such as the Predator drone, seem to be standing in their way.

Another benefit of Al Qaeda’s participation with Taliban regional groups involves recruiting. Apparently, as the Taliban take over more territory, Al Qaeda benefits from an increased applicant pool because they can recruit with impunity behind the Taliban lines. This additional recruiting seems to be particularly important in replacing senior Al Qaeda leadership killed off by the United States.

At least, we’re staying up to date with Al Qaeda strategy and thus can take steps to counter it.

Today’s lead article in The New York Times is titled, “Pakistani Forces Prepare to Fight Taliban in Valley.” It describes a new effort by the Pakistani Army to fight the Taliban in the Swat Valley.

The new fight comes after a peace accord, largely ceding the Valley to the Taliban and allowing the setup of Shariah courts to enforce Islamic law. But the Taliban took advantage of the truce to infiltrate additional regions, raising alarm from both the central Pakistani government and the United States.

A recent video showing the flogging of a young Pakistani women by the Taliban has become a public relations disaster for them. But perhaps the most important lesson of recent events involves the futility of trying to appease evil.

Just as appeasement failed to prevent World War II, appeasement of the Taliban will not result in a lasting peace for Pakistan. Apparently, the Pakistani government now realizes this immutable fact.

The success of the new offensive by the Pakistani Army remains to be seen. The United States remains deeply unpopular in the region, but the unpopularity of the Taliban is growing,  too. One can only hope that the local population will soon see where their true interests lie.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Pakistani Strife Raises U.S. Doubt on Nuclear Arms.” It describes American fears about the Taliban and their ability to steal a Pakistani nuclear weapon.

This article includes a lot of details about Pakistan’s nuclear program and infrastructure as well as the reasons for U.S. insecurity about the matter. Apparently, Pakistan possesses 60 to 100 nuclear weapons, and they are widely dispersed throughout the country. The President, Asif Ali Zardar, is titular head for their security, but they are controlled in reality by the head of the army, General Kayani, the former head of Pakistan’s intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI.

There are many valid reasons for the U.S. fear. The United States has never been fully informed about the locations of all the nuclear weapons. An inter-government program to ensure the security of the nukes is years behind schedule. And the insurgents increasing power in the country increases the possibility of someone infiltrating the security personnel.

The scenario that might occur: rising tensions with India will lead to the transport of nuclear weapons (as it has done before), and this is when they are most vulnerable.

A scary thought to say the least. And Pakistani assurances have been proven wrong in the past, such as when they denied that their scientist, Abdul Khan, might be responsible for selling nuclear technology on the black market. That turned out to be true.

It remains to be seen what the U.S. can do other than worry …