Pakistan: The Ignored Threat

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Foreign Affairs
Posted on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:27:43 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

2 years ago, we learned a good deal more about how untrustworthy the U.S. "ally" Pakistan can be, and how the Bush Administration has chosen to turn a blind eye about what Pakistan is up to. Today, the NYTimes drops another shoe:

Four years after Abdul Qadeer Khan, the leader of the world’s largest black market in nuclear technology, was put under house arrest and his operation declared shattered, international inspectors and Western officials are confronting a new mystery, this time over who may have received blueprints for a sophisticated and compact nuclear weapon found on his network’s computers. Working in secret for two years, investigators have tracked the digitized blueprints to Khan computers in Switzerland, Dubai, Malaysia and Thailand. The blueprints are rapidly reproducible for creating a weapon that is relatively small and easy to hide, making it potentially attractive to terrorists.

It sure would be nice to be able to interrogate A.Q. Khan about this:

[E]ven as inspectors and intelligence officials press their investigation of Dr. Khan, officials in Pakistan have declared the scandal over and have discussed the possibility of setting him free. In recent weeks, American officials have privately warned the new government in Pakistan about the dangers of doing so. “We’ve been very direct with them that releasing Khan could cause a world of trouble,” a senior administration official who has been involved in the effort said last week. “The problem with Pakistan these days is that you never know who is making the decision — the army, the intelligence agencies, the president or the new government.”

(Emphasis supplied.) That inspires confidence no? Well, at least we DO know that the Bush Administration accepted Pakistan's decision to NOT allow the U.S. to interrogate Khan about his activities. To this day, no American has been permitted to present a question to Khan.

Pakistan's ties to Al Qaida and the Taliban are well documented. It is no wonder that Afghani President Hamid Karzai has declared:

President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan threatened on Sunday to send soldiers into Pakistan to fight militant groups operating in the border areas to attack Afghanistan. His comments, made at a news conference in Kabul, Afghanistan, are likely to worsen tensions between the countries, just days after American forces in Afghanistan killed 11 Pakistani soldiers on the border while pursuing militants.

“If these people in Pakistan give themselves the right to come and fight in Afghanistan, as was continuing for the last 30 years, so Afghanistan has the right to cross the border and destroy terrorist nests, spying, extremism and killing, in order to defend itself, its schools, its peoples and its life,” Mr. Karzai said. “When they cross the territory from Pakistan to come and kill Afghans and kill coalition troops, it exactly gives us the right to go back and do the same,” he said. “Today’s Afghanistan is not yesterday’s silent Afghanistan,” he warned. “We have a voice, tools and bravery as well.”

You think someone might want to ask the Presidential candidates about this? Me neither. More fun to chase the trivia. Tim Russert, may he rest in peace, has led the Media down this primrosse path of pathetic punditry.

Speaking for me only

< Elections in the Internet Age | Hillary The Icon >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Pakistan: The Ignored Threat | 14 comments (14 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

There's so much that has been lost (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:48:11 AM EST

during the Bush administration. I don't really want to interrogate A.Q. Khan. I know why he is considered a national hero. It is because he delivered the bomb to Pakistan and saved them from the evils of India. He can do no wrong and now in fact can save other middle east nations from their own perceived evil. The ruling administration of my own country has focused on war as a means to solve the world's problems and contributed to this way of thinking. I don't for one minute believe that America can solve all the world's problems, we contribute to the conversation though and when we focus on creating a better life for each of us in every day small yet most personally impacting ways others join us in that focus, and the landscape of war on earth has an opportunity to become different and even much less desireable.

Remember when Dubya.... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Dadler on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:38:48 AM EST

...put nuclear bomb plans on the internet, too?

Worst. Administration. Ever.

And why would anyone be surprised that Pakistan, or any other nation, gives us the finger like this. Imagine if we actually worried about America and the problems of Americans and trying to mitigate those? Imagine if we focused on turning our nation into something that the rest of the world WANTS to emulate for moral reasons instead of financial.

Imagine, imagine, imagine.

But, we've chose to bankrupt ourselves in every possible way.

The Bush administration has (none / 0) (#2)
by oculus on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:48:46 AM EST

revived its interest in capturing Bin Laden before Jan. 20/09. I suppose dealing w/Khan will have to wait.

One thing I just don't get (none / 0) (#3)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:13:13 AM EST

When it comes to Iran we don't always know who is making the decisions either. It makes it tough in holding Iran accountable for certain things like when an IED has items it is made out of from Iran. Who with power got the stuff to Iraq because everyone with power in Iran is not complicit or condoning of such things. Pakistan is the same flippin sort of problem but Pakistan is nothing to worry about while Iran is everything to freak out about.


We don't need Iran's o.k., at present, (none / 0) (#4)
by oculus on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:17:10 AM EST

for our military occupation of Iraq and/or our military presence in Afghanistan. We need Musharraf and have to ignore his failings, such as replacing the judges, and, until quite recently, retaining his military position whilst also being the President.


: I don't think or feel that we need (none / 0) (#5)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:28:14 AM EST

Musharraf as much as we have been led to think we need Musharraf. The Pakistan military is so loyal and military that I'm told they may even be able to put our own to shame in those departments. They will follow their leader, whoever that is. I think and feel that our current administration identifies with Musharraf and has conversations with him that make sense to the NeoCons in charge right now and that is why he is such a perceived need and asset. His failings are the failings they wish they could get away with.

One positive thing (none / 0) (#6)
by joanneleon on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:08:59 AM EST

It's nice to hear Karzai saying things like this:

"Today's Afghanistan is not yesterday's silent Afghanistan," he warned. "We have a voice, tools and bravery as well."

If only we had focused our effort on Afghanistan and bin Laden...

And, BTW, when Bush now says that he wants to focus on getting bin Laden, so that he can take care of him before his presidency ends, it makes me sick. I feel certain that he and Cheney decided to leave bin Laden out there in order to use him as a tool of their fearmongering. Is there anything these men did that was truly in the interest of this country and the American people? I don't think so.

Pakistan is trying (none / 0) (#7)
by allpeopleunite on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:18:13 AM EST

Pakistan is in a volatile situation in terms of government and is trying its hardest to fight terrorism. The Pakistani civilian and military have taken a beating from terrorism and are more than willing to have it eradicated, however it is simply impossible to do so.

: That's Factually Untrue (none / 0) (#14)
by Niffari on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:57:42 PM EST

Pakistan, under Musharraff, has been deeply unstable for a variety of factors. These factors have led Pakistan to be an unreliable ally in the fight against terror.
First, Musharraf came to power years ago with the aid of fundamentalists despite the fact that he is not a devout muslim and is clearly pro-western. He, obviously, abandoned them after 9/11 and sided with those he could exploit. That unfortunately was us. We have funnelled billions into Pakistan with little reward. It is commonly known that the Pakistani-Afghan border is a haven for Al-Quaida.
The Pakistani military is remarkably ineffective in dealing with militants in its own country because it cannot do so. Musharraff is not a popular figure in almost ANY quarters these days. He controls the military and has a basic deal with the tribes that he won't bother them if they won't bother him. The hinterlands are barbaric as a result.
In addition, corruption is rampant in Pakistan and Musharraf is no exception. The rule of law doesn't exist in most areas except for perhaps in the cosmopolitan centers. The abuse of impoverished women, sexual slavery and child labor and exploitation are rife in Pakistan. They are a clear and undisputed testament to a lack of a functionong, accountable government.
Pakistan is a deeply flawed nation with too many people out for personal profit and disinterested in true democracy. Its leader is illegitimate and an embarrassment to us. Karzai is absolutely right to threaten incursion into Pakistan. Hopefully the U.S. will move on this and provide support to the Afghan people.

Why Now, This Is Old News (none / 0) (#9)
by squeaky on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:42:26 AM EST

It was not until 2005 that officials of the I.A.E.A., which is based in Vienna, finally cracked the hard drives on the Khan computers recovered around the world.

NYT

The existence of the compact bomb design began to become public in recent weeks after Switzerland announced that it had destroyed a huge stockpile of documents, including weapons designs, that were found in computers belonging to Friedrich Tinner and his two sons, Marco and Urs, all arrested as part of the Khan investigation.

Tinner, was arrested in 2004, and the computers were cracked in 2005. It seems strange that all this is big news today. I guess that it is that "officials" had known this for some time (since 2005?) but decided to reveal it in recent months.

But it was only in recent months that officials have begun to confirm that they had found the electronic design for a bomb itself among material seized from some of Dr. Khan's top lieutenants, a Swiss family, the Tinners.

I do not trust Bush, Hadly, Sanger, or the NYT.

Mohamed ElBaradei is on record as saying that we will not get anywhere with Iran, until Bush is out of office. Best to wait before getting too alarmed, imo.

And Pakistan borders Iran (none / 0) (#10)
by Demi Moaned on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:54:36 AM EST

One reason I find this obsession with nuclear Iran so intolerable is that we have turned a blind eye to so much else in the region.

How many Americans do you suppose (none / 0) (#11)
by andgarden on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:38:53 PM EST

even know who A Q Khan is? Probably about as many as those who knew about Osama before 9/11.

WaPo article (none / 0) (#12)
by waldenpond on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:16:55 PM EST

On Pakistan asking for patience. Power struggle:

["The legacy of the past," Haqqani points out, is that "democratic governments in Pakistan have been set up for failure." The generals act without consulting them -- like the corps and intelligence commanders, appointed by Musharraf, who struck a truce with the notorious Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud and then allowed him to hold a news conference at which he promised to intensify attacks on Americans in Afghanistan.]

[the new government has developed a five-point plan for combating extremism in the tribal areas that includes economic development, political reforms and negotiations with tribal leaders who might be turned against the Taliban. It has suspended negotiations with Mehsud and announced that it will not agree to any cease-fires that do not include a halt to attacks in Afghanistan as well as in Pakistan and the expulsion of foreign fighter]

A concise summary of nukes in Asia (none / 0) (#13)
by wurman on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:28:06 PM EST

The USSR spent the last part of the 1950s & early 1960s assisting China with a nuclear weapons program in exchange for Chinese uranium ore. On Oct. 16, 1964, China detonated a nuclear device, launched a nuclear warhead capable missle on Oct. 25, 1966, & tested a hydrogen bomb June 14, 1967.

India most likely began a nuclear weapons program in response & detonated Smiling Buddha on May 18, 1974.

Pakistan set up a program in Jan 1972 and is believed to have had the ability to detonate a nuclear device since about 1986 and did set off 5 devices on May 28, 1998. This extensive series, followed by a 6th on May 30, is often thought to be a response to a sequence of tests by India.

For the most part, nuclear proliferation is a "given" process. In the 1940s General Groves (old-time Atomic Energy Commission) & other folks with severely limited understanding, knowledge, & education about nuclear physics & weapons grade industrial technology were of the foolish opinion that the "bomb" could & should be kept secret.

Oppenheimer, Szilard, Fermi, Bohr, etc., knew otherwise. It is not possible to keep science a secret--the stuff is plain as day to any competent researcher. The industrial technology (such things as the ability to machine metals, build centrifuges, construct reactors) is only a matter of assigning enough resources to get the job done.

For reasons that cannot be understood, Edward Teller (Dr. Strangelove, if you will) led the opinions of all-to-willing rightwingnutz political conservatives down a foolish path of "pretend" secrecy.

Any nation willing to commit the resources to a nuclear project can have a "bomb" in a few years.

So...what's with all the Bu$hwa about Korea & Iran & ???? It's a foreign policy shell-game in which really stupid political functionaries attempt to convince their even more stupid followers that doing "stuff" can keep A.Q. Khan & Pakistan from arming nations X, Y & Z with more sophisticated weaponry. The capability to produce smaller, lighter & more powerful nukes is not secret, not particularly well hidden (though any specific set of plans may be more or less findable), & requires only the money, the time & the commitment to "get 'er done."

And, as pointed out up-thread, the Bu$hInc thugs published bomb plans on the internet some time ago.

In actuality, after China developed nuclear weapons, the US, UK, FR, & the old USSR were mostly OK with the general idea of other Asian nations acquiring weapons as a deterrent to China. It is convenient that India & Pakistan could retaliate very quickly at very close range in the event China began a launch sequence.

In my opinion, based on some knowledge & long observation, the facts that Israel, Pakistan, & China have nukes is mostly just fine with the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, & Langley.

--------writing only for myself