Pakistan’s escalating Taliban war
Does a series of audacious attacks mean the Taliban and other militants could seize the nuclear-armed state?
Conflict in Pakistan is on the rise.
(Corbis/Jim Barber)
Pakistan’s security forces have been caught “flat-footed time and again” in the last two weeks, said Syed Shoaib Hasan in BBC News, as a series of “brazen” Taliban-linked attacks have killed more than 100 people. An Oct. 12 attack on the army’s central headquarters in Rawalpindi especially “defies the imagination,” but after several attacks on Lahore, including a U.N. food office, “nothing has seemed safe or out of reach.” (Watch the aftermath of the latest Lahore attacks.)
The move “toward full-scale war” is bad news for the U.S., said The Washington Post in an editorial, because it means the growing power and ambitions of the Taliban are aimed at “gaining control over a nuclear-armed state,” not just the Pashtun areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan. That makes the Obama team’s assessment that al Qaida is more dangerous than the Taliban “badly out of date,” especially now that Pakistan is finally joining the fight.
After the “audacious attack” on Rawalpindi, the army could make a concerted push to “crush” the militants, said Andrew Marshall in Reuters. But the “overwhelming likelihood” is that Pakistan will stay “locked in a stalemate for months or years,” with the military unable to quash the “loose alliance” of Taliban and other militant groups, but with “no real risk that state control will crumble and Islamists will seize power,” either.
Well, just in case, the Obama administration has persuaded Congress to triple aid to Pakistan, said The Wall Street Journal in an editorial, to $7.5 billion over five years. This would have been “an easy diplomatic win,” if House Democrats hadn’t insisted on sticking “a gratuitous thumb in the eye of Pakistani national pride” by tying the aid to specific benchmarks. Now Pakistan’s angry, just when we need influence there. So much for “smart power.”
Show: Oldest | Newest
11 Comments
Posted by Tomas, Thursday, October 15, 2009, 2:00 pm So, what will our humbled Nobel prize winner do now? Be manipulated by Europe, or the Taliban, or Osama bin Laden? Decisions. Decisions. All bold action talk, no action.
Posted by Ken, Thursday, October 15, 2009, 2:03 pm The media creamed Candidate Obama for his speeches that were not backed by any specifics. They said he had ideas, but no plans to make them a reality. Seems this is true now. Gitmo, he's still thinking about it. Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, New Orleans, health care, taxes, job creation...on and on. He told us good stories that we wanted to hear, but if he truly had bold actions and progressive plans, wouldn't he have done any of them by now? He fooled us, big time. Right, Tom, all talk, no bold action. He would have done something by now.
Posted by Karen, Thursday, October 15, 2009, 2:07 pm Harsh, guys. He HAS done a lot. Been to Europe a bunch of times. Been to Denmark. Lots of speeches. Weekly parties at the WHouse. Got a dog. Took wife to NYC. Been on TV more than all presidents, combined, before him. Spent more money that ALL presidents before him and he did it in 9 months!! Going to NOLO, for a quick visit, then to SF for a 2 fundraiser, and to Houston for PR work. Those Air Force One pilots are getting a work out. He is on the jet more than in the Oval Office. He made an ad for George Lopez. Went on Letterman. That's a lot
Posted by Karen, Thursday, October 15, 2009, 2:07 pm 2 million dollar fundraiser. symbols don't work on this blog
Posted by Mike, Thursday, October 15, 2009, 3:05 pm Taliban somehow looks like it's going to take over nuclear Pakistan and India goes into fullscale invasion mode. China intervenes on Pakistan's behalf due commercial ties and antagonism towards India. Then we've really got problems. Thanks for focusing the military effort on Iraq there GWB.
Posted by dj spellchecka, Thursday, October 15, 2009, 4:13 pm undiscussed here at the week are the troubling ties between the pakistan intelligence agency and the taliban...
Posted by Randall Thorpe, Thursday, October 15, 2009, 7:58 pm Be afraid. Be very afraid. Give Pentagon more money. Give government more power.
Posted by Christine, Friday, October 16, 2009, 8:29 am Yes, I imagine any president would easily be able to take over eight years of the previous administration's mess, immediately convince hostile congressmen and senators to reverse party decisions, and fix decades, centuires, of Middle Eastern conflict. While I'd certainly like to see instant change, I'm not that naive.
Post a Comment