Next Stop, Warzirastan?

McQ, this morning, at Q&O links a story from CNN…

U.S. forces should go into Pakistan to rout al Qaeda from the safe haven it has found in the mountains on the border with Afghanistan, a co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group said.

Former Rep. Lee Hamilton, who also served as the vice chairman of the 9/11 commission, says the Iraq war distracted the United States when it had al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden on the run in the tribal region between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

He says it’s now time to finish the job.

“This has to be carefully calibrated, worked out with the Pakistanis, but I am very concerned that you have a safe haven in Pakistan today where they (al Qaeda) can regroup, rethink, and get ready for more attacks,” Hamilton said on CNN’s “Newsroom” on Wednesday.

[…]

“I think we have to find ways and means, perhaps it’s use of covert actions, perhaps it’s use of special operations, perhaps it’s the pursuit of the Taliban when they’re in Afghanistan, to let us go after them as they move back into Pakistan.

“Whatever it is, I do not find acceptable a sanctuary for al Qaeda in Pakistan. We have to be able to go after them.”

McQ is thoughtful, in response:

Well yeah, that would be nice, except we’re talking about invading the territory of an ally. And if you think Iraq is a mess, just follow Hamilton’s advice and push into Pakistan. Introducing US forces into Pakistan is not the way to solve this problem, nor has it ever been. In fact, for Pakistan’s shaky government, it might be all she wrote. And the possibility then, of a nuclear armed Islamic state (and possibly a radical one) might become reality.

He dives into this more deeply than my edits would seem to suggest.  And I would advise you to go read the whole thing.  But the thrust of his comments seems to me all wariness born of this whole situation involving so many unanswered questions. I tell him in the responses:

But, I wonder if, in this case, considering all the ramifications, isn’t an impossibility. There is so obviously a great deal going on here that we don’t know about.

Even whether not our not knowing is by design of our supposedly Allies is an outstanding question. (Put another way, I don’t entirely trust Musharraf.)

As for Pakistan being able to mount operations to take care of things on their own side of the border because it’s their job, agreed, so far as your logic takes this.

However; one of the outstanding questions is the loyalties of Pakistani troops. Certainly, at least a few of them are going to find their loyalties divided between the semi-popular and shaky government, and their religion.

And in any event…that those bases for al-Qaida exist in the region, suggests an inability on Musharraf’s part to deal with the issue. It would be a difficult task for our military, even when we find ourselves so much better equipped than the Pakistani army to deal with it.

On the other hand ….assuming we stay out of Pakistan… if the government of Pakistan is that shaky… what is the ability of al-Qaida to attack and defeat that government from those bases in Warzirastan, thereby obtaining nukes for their own purposes? Certainly, the worst of all possible outcomes.

And for the record, McQ has my complete agreement when he says:

…this “Iraq was a distraction” argument doesn’t work either. Pakistan has always been a haven for the Taliban and even if we had the entire force in Afghanistan that we have in Iraq, that wouldn’t change.

Quite correct.  Indeed, my take on that point has always been that Iraq has always been a prelude and a precondition for the rest of it… whatever “the rest if it” entailed.  Eliminating al-Qaida from the region, which, after all, is the ultimate goal, would have been an impossibility, without Iraq having been quelled first.