Pakistan: Country and World in Crisis

When the crisis and danger is finally recognized by The New York Times, it becomes even more apparent that the situation is in fact dire. The articles below had been written by me back to March, when the level of the problem in Pakistan became obvious, to all except the Obama administration which continues to tell us that the situation is being monitored and the Pakistani government is on top of things. Hillary Clinton remains the invisible Secretary of State.

"The officials emphasized that there was no reason to believe that the arsenal, most of which is south of the capital, Islamabad, faced an imminent threat."(see below)

Funny, as a concerned outside observer I feel there is an iminent threat.

The problem is that we do not really know who is in charge of the government, or more to the point who do those in charge of the government (and by extension the nukes) hold allegiance to. All this as Pakistan remains our "reluctant ally"


Guest Blog: Pakistan: Time for Contingency Plannin...
Pakistan, the Taliban and Islamabad: Is Anyone Out...
Does President Obama Know About the Goings On In P...
Yesterday Pakistan, Today North Korea
Is Anyone Keeping An Eye On Pakistan?

Pakistan Strife Raises U.S. Doubts on Nuclear Arms (New York Times)

By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: May 3, 2009
WASHINGTON — As the insurgency of the Taliban and Al Qaeda spreads in Pakistan, senior American officials say they are increasingly concerned about new vulnerabilities for Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, including the potential for militants to snatch a weapon in transport or to insert sympathizers into laboratories or fuel-production facilities.

The officials emphasized that there was no reason to believe that the arsenal, most of which is south of the capital, Islamabad, faced an imminent threat. President Obama said last week that he remained confident that keeping the country’s nuclear infrastructure secure was the top priority of Pakistan’s armed forces.

But the United States does not know where all of Pakistan’s nuclear sites are located, and its concerns have intensified in the last two weeks since the Taliban entered Buner, a district 60 miles from the capital. The spread of the insurgency has left American officials less willing to accept blanket assurances from Pakistan that the weapons are safe.

Pakistani officials have continued to deflect American requests for more details about the location and security of the country’s nuclear sites, the officials said.... Sphere: Related Content

Pakistan: Country and World in Crisis

When the crisis and danger is finally recognized by The New York Times, it becomes even more apparent that the situation is in fact dire. The articles below had been written by me back to March, when the level of the problem in Pakistan became obvious, to all except the Obama administration which continues to tell us that the situation is being monitored and the Pakistani government is on top of things. Hillary Clinton remains the invisible Secretary of State.

"The officials emphasized that there was no reason to believe that the arsenal, most of which is south of the capital, Islamabad, faced an imminent threat."(see below)

Funny, as a concerned outside observer I feel there is an iminent threat.

The problem is that we do not really know who is in charge of the government, or more to the point who do those in charge of the government (and by extension the nukes) hold allegiance to. All this as Pakistan remains our "reluctant ally"


Guest Blog: Pakistan: Time for Contingency Plannin...
Pakistan, the Taliban and Islamabad: Is Anyone Out...
Does President Obama Know About the Goings On In P...
Yesterday Pakistan, Today North Korea
Is Anyone Keeping An Eye On Pakistan?

Pakistan Strife Raises U.S. Doubts on Nuclear Arms (New York Times)

By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: May 3, 2009
WASHINGTON — As the insurgency of the Taliban and Al Qaeda spreads in Pakistan, senior American officials say they are increasingly concerned about new vulnerabilities for Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, including the potential for militants to snatch a weapon in transport or to insert sympathizers into laboratories or fuel-production facilities.

The officials emphasized that there was no reason to believe that the arsenal, most of which is south of the capital, Islamabad, faced an imminent threat. President Obama said last week that he remained confident that keeping the country’s nuclear infrastructure secure was the top priority of Pakistan’s armed forces.

But the United States does not know where all of Pakistan’s nuclear sites are located, and its concerns have intensified in the last two weeks since the Taliban entered Buner, a district 60 miles from the capital. The spread of the insurgency has left American officials less willing to accept blanket assurances from Pakistan that the weapons are safe.

Pakistani officials have continued to deflect American requests for more details about the location and security of the country’s nuclear sites, the officials said.... Sphere: Related Content

No Mention During His Daily Television Show

Question: Does President Obama understand that foreign policy is part of his job description? This means more than bowing to the Saudi King, shaking hands with Hugo Chavez and basically giving up the responsibility for the protection of our citizens here and around the world to a decision by committee of world leaders and the United Nations?

While holding a press conference on Monday to discuss the nickels and dimes that he is tasking his departments with shaving off of their budgets, no mention was made of the extremely disturbing news coming out of Pakistan.

To give President Obama some perspective, because according to his minions he has been in office such a short time he shouldn't be expected to be held responsible for anything that goes on there (everything is apparently a result of the failures of the last 8 years), Pakistan is a partner in the war on terror, possesses nukes and is apparently slowly being taken over by the Taliban. Now if we look at the map below, we find that Pakistan, situated between it's arch enemy India and Afghanistan (and again possessing nuclear weapons) is in a strategically very important and dangerous location.



To all of the Obama apologists out there who seem to think that it is way to early in his administration to expect much out of him (I think they believe that would be somewhere in his 4th year if ever), this situation with the Taliban has the potential to morf out of control and affect all of us in some very disturbing ways.

Now while cutting $100 MM over a 5 year period from a few different agencies is all well and good, what Mr. President, is the plan for this spreading problem? Perhaps President Obama doesn't view the spread of Islamic fundamentalist power as a problem. I suppose that could be true as well.

In the event that the Congress and the President have not been briefed by Secretary of State Clinton (who also may possibly not be aware of the situation with more important items on her plate like keeping an eye on her husband), here is a summary:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, April 19 -- A potentially troubling era dawned Sunday in Pakistan's Swat Valley, where a top Islamist militant leader, emboldened by a peace agreement with the federal government, laid out an ambitious plan to bring a "complete Islamic system" to the surrounding northwest region and the entire country.

Speaking to thousands of followers in an address aired live from Swat on national news channels, cleric Sufi Mohammed bluntly defied the constitution and federal judiciary, saying he would not allow any appeals to state courts under the system of sharia, or Islamic law, that will prevail there as a result of the peace accord signed by the president Tuesday.

"The Koran says that supporting an infidel system is a great sin," Mohammed said, referring to Pakistan's modern democratic institutions. He declared that in Swat, home to 1.5 million people, all "un-Islamic laws and customs will be abolished," and he suggested that the official imprimatur on the agreement would pave the way for sharia to be installed in other areas...(Washington Post)

I say it often, but apparently it has to be said over and over and over. President Obama, there is a foreign policy component to you job. Perhaps as important as the economy and health care, because if a rogue nation or terrorist group somehow releases a nuclear device, the economy becomes a little less important.

If you haven't given your answer to the question in the sidebar concerning who you voted for in this past presidential election, and if you would vote the same way if the election were to be held today, please do so! Sphere: Related Content

Concern Over The Spread Of The Taliban

In my blog yesterday I discussed the spread of the Taliban from tribal regions to Pakistan proper, and the danger that this presents in a country whose government is fragile at best. The thinking is that with nuclear weapons under the control of some members of government who may be sympathetic to the Taliban, this is a major concern.

Some who responded to me on this questioned whether my concern for our safety from without was warranted. Where was my proof that there was any reason to be worried? As if 9/11 and the documented attacks before it were not enough, what of the desire of Iran to go nuclear? Is this a figment of our imagination? Take a look at the map and notice where it is that Iran sits. What country's does it border?

Americans have notoriously short memories, and after all 9/11 is almost 8 years removed and we have not had any repeat performances, due in large part to the actions of the Bush administration. That in no way means that we are out of the woods. Far from it.

The Obama Administration Iran Plan

In a realization of one of the fears during the campaign season, this is what it appears that the Obama administration plans to do with Iran:

"On Wednesday — less than 24 hours after his inauguration — the Obama White House Web site announced, inter alia, that they will engage in “tough and direct” diplomacy with Iran “without preconditions” and that he intends to use “the power of American diplomacy” to deal with “Iran’s illicit nuclear program, support for terrorism and threats towards Israel.” (Fox Forum).

Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Are we going to sit at a table and negotiate in good faith with Ahmadinejad? Why don't we include North Korea and Venezuela as well while we are at it. How can you negotiate with documented liars who have stated that their goal is to wipe one of the parties in the negotiation off of the face of the earth.

People can sign anything they want, but if you are fairly sure that they will not adhere to any of it, then what is the point other than a public relations victory at home.

Sphere: Related Content

The Plan To Shut Gitmo Down May Run Into A Headwind While The Taliban Has Not Gone Away, Far from It

In what can only be termed as an extremely disturbing situation in Pakistan, the Taliban is becoming a stronger and stronger influence, not only in the tribal areas but now deeper into the heart of the country. In a front page article in the Sunday New York Times, this penetration and the accompanying spread of terror and brutal punishment for the "violation" of its' own interpretation of how life should be is showing no signs of abating. To the contrary it would seem to be gaining momentum.

What this means for not only the United States but for all of the world is that this spread of the Talibans power, the fear of the politicians and security forces to stand up to it as well as the uncertainty of who in government is actually sympathetic to the Taliban, all places a nuclear arsenal in unknown hands.

This is an area that the Obama administration needs to address immediately. We know that these weapons would not only be coveted, but if obtained would no doubt be attempted to be used.

A Possible Monkey Wrench In The Plans To Close Gitmo

In a story in Newsweek, a Pentagon report that is due to be declassified will reportedly show that some of the detainees that have been released from Guantanamo have gone back to their terroristic ways. If in fact this is the case, can the Obama administration take the chance that a newly released captive perpetrates an attack on us or on our allies. I don't think they can.

For the Obama administration, getting the economy back on track is critical, but let's not forget the dangers from without that have never gone away!

Sphere: Related Content