US had plans to invade Pakistan

[kskiska]

WASHINGTON: In a book that is likely to be released later this month, its author has startlingly revealed that the Bush Administration has firmed up plans to carry out an invasion of Pakistan's North West Frontier Province (NWFP), which is seen as the command centre of the al-Qaeda terrorist network.

George Friedman, the founder and chairman of the well regarded news and analysis service, Stratfor, reveals in his book titled "America's Secret War", the ongoing, but hidden struggle between the United States and its enemies.

The United States will threaten Iran with war if it aids the al-Qaeda. The United States will have to invade northwest Pakistan. There are plans for this already. In addition, if Pakistan collapses due to an invasion, the United States and India will have to jointly occupy Pakistan. The end game is Pakistan," the Daily Times quotes Friedman as saying.

Friedman further goes on to say that his agency predicted the plan to invade the NWFP in December 2003.

He recalls that in February 2004, a Pentagon spokesman categorically said that US forces were "going into Pakistan."

more…
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/871373.cms

[mike_c]

1. the hubris of imperialism....

This would unleash a shit-storm. World war three.

[Copperred]

2. A disintegration of Pakistan is in the interests of the West/India

There is no question that a political disintegration/re-drawing of Pakistan is in the interest of the United States.

1. NWFP & Balochistan continue to wish to join with Afghanistan, which would complete the historical boundries of Afghanistan pre-British.

2. Sindhi nationalists could certainly manage their province better on their own.

3. Punjab/Islamabad which is the dominating, some say, evil force behind Pakistan, would ultimately be left to fend for themselves. Granted they are the ones who control the nukes is my guess.

4. Kashmir and the current LOC would become the India/Afghan border.

Since the very begining of Pakistan the securalist nationalist forces have tried to pull it apart, and time and again the US props up the non secular Islamic militirized government who crush the democratic seeking people.

The reason Pakistan wanted Afghanistan destroyed was so that the "Afghans of Pakistan" (the Balochies & Pashtuns) would not want to continue to reunite. Fact is we cannot build up a strong and stable Afghanistn without having these same Afghans of Pakistan want to rejoin.

A Afghanistan to the Sea....would be the dearest of all friends. Sadly, the US believes it can rule the world....and it does not need friends......real anglo specific thinking if there ever was.....

[allemand]

22. I completely disagree

The scenario you are describing would simply lead to civil war and create a failed state. How can that be in the interests of the West or even in the interests of India?

[Copperred]

23. High-Growth Results.....

There would be no failed state, but finally a natural arrangement that everyone would support. India would start investing in her neighorbors like no tomorrow, as would the West.

NWFP & Balochistan would unite to be an Afghanistan to the Sea...it would lead to finally the opening of Central Asia... and Kabul and Washington would hold hands for hundreds of years to come.

Why do you think the US is having such a hard time in Afghanistan especially on their Southern border? There is a very serious complicating wedge in the middle.

Sindh would be independent, or in union with Punjab as a remaining Pakistan.

Kashmir would be resolved with the removal of the Durand line. Many want this, including Washington, expect there is a nuclear problem.

[allemand]

24. As I see, you even seem to advocate civil war yourself

"Or, if more convienet, not support the state of Pakistan thus letting these groups tear down their oppressor "on their own"."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=879261&mesg_id=879641&page=

The Pakistani Military is conspicuously absent from the scenario you describe above. They would never accept the disintegration of Pakistan.

BTW, there is finally some movement on the issue of Kashmir:

India, Pakistan clear on Kashmir: BBC
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_2-10-2004_pg1_2

[Copperred]

26. I believe in a US foreign policy that gets the right result.

I believe the U.S., at a minimum, should stop all support for the military government of Pakistan. It is not in our long term interests to support it, nor do they look to protect our interests in Afghanistan or globally, so why should I be giving them anything. If the result of that would be the strenghtening of democratic groups, that leads to civil war, that results in the break up Pakistan, I am not against that.

As for Islamic radical elements, that is currently being well supported by the Government of Pakistan, its traditional dogma, and by the almighty ISI, and they need no help from me, you, or you would hope the US government.

If you beleve the Pakistan military is united, u are not aware of the realities of Pakistan or what holds it together. With one quite decisive change in US policy we would see just how united the Pakistan military is.

35-50% of their military is estimated to be Afghans (Pashtuns), or non-Punjabi.

It's in the pudding...the US has to make alot of choices in the next 4 years.... May we make the right ones...and come out on top.

[allemand]

27. So 50-65% of the military would idly stand by and do nothing

against the break-up of their own country? And civil war in a country with nukes, islamists, terrorists and Osama bin Laden should be a good thing and in the interests of the US?

You are probably a Pashtun nationalist. There is nothing wrong with that. Today's borders are often the result of colonialism and past injustice. But changing them is difficult and very dangerous. I don't think that separatism has such a good track record, more often it has brought great suffering to the regions in which separatists operate. In my opinion, if they were really interested in the well-being of their own people, they should concentrate on economic development first. That will make everything much easier later.

[Copperred]

28. I am an American....and no doubt Afghan Nationalists are our friend.....

If I was a betting man, I would have no problem betting on Afghans, Sindhies, and Balochies vs. Punjabies anyday, and especially with the Indian army in the rear.

U seem to imply a fight, a loss of life, is not worth fighting for when a people's liberty is at stake. I agree, the nukes are a problem, but not beyond solution. Islamists are a myth in the context of domestic Pakistani politics if the country is falling apart and their benefactor, the military, is the one falling. I have for sometime been under the assumption that Osama is dead.

Your view is highly idealistic, as if Islamabad is interested in allowing the development of those areas.. ...they know the moment they educate those people they will rise again...for this reason they have worked so hard to Islamize them, and destroy Afghanistan in the first place...

I am 100% corn bred in Ohio, and from a basic American standpoint know what is right and wrong, and who we should or should not be supporting....

Without question, I sympathize with all secular democratic movements wherever they maybe... eventually it is going to come down to the majority of Americans doing just that if we want to get the specter of Islamic terrorism spawned in areas where we have a dominating hand off our back...

...cheers....

-30-

[struggle4progress]

29. How can it be in anybody's interest to redraw Pakistani borders ...

... every few decades? The British partition after WWII drew borders; the Bangladesh crisis removed part of Pakistani; now you think we should do it again?

[thebigidea]

3. I guess Bin Laden wasn't really THAT important.

Besides, Saddam Hussein had a moustache! They make for better villains.

[rooboy]

4. Now I understand why the Chinese leader told his military...

to prepare for war. God help us.

[Ohio rules]

5. Those jobs were outsourced

Pakistan is entering their own lawless badlands.
Our own special forces have been operating there for a few yers now.

[realFedUp]

6. I'm kinda surprised they weren't attacked before Afghanistan...

guess coz they have no oil and some nukes.

[snippy]

7. They probably were threatened with an attack if they did not obey. n/t

[shockingelk]

8. The pakistani gvt doesn't control the region

The trick is getting Pakistan to agree to letting us go after bin Laden there and joining us in the search ... there's too much anti-US and pro-al Qaeda sentiment to do it.

Maybe Kerry can overcome that obstacle.

[Copperred]

9. It's simple.....

If you want to win over Western Pakistan, meaning everything West of the Indus river, you have to help them do what they want.....they want to be rid of Pakistan and to rejoin Afghanistan... To be a friend of Islamabad is to be a enemy of the people you wish to win over..... One wants freedom, and to be in union with Kabul, the other is a power structure based on colonial and US military industrial ideas.... It's a sad situation... Will take real Americans doing right to make it work.... Invading Afghanistan was a start....then we go diverted into Iraq..... We cannot continue to support dictatorship, which Pakistan is, while at the sametime saying we are for liberty.... It's the ulimate white elephant hypocrisy...

[shockingelk]

10. Pakistan is difficult.

al Qaeda is a threat to Musharraf.

There is a lot of public support for al Qaeda in Pakistan, including within parties in the government. People in their intelligence service support al Qaeda.

Pakistan has nukes.

The give and take of working with Musharaff is troublesome - going into those regions without Islamabad's blessing would put huge pressure of Musharaff to retaliate against the UIS, which he wouldn't ... and radicals taking over the government and gaining control of nukes is something that has to be avoided.

What I think Kerry can do is start with a fresh slate and try to undo some of the damage that is making Pakistanis take al Qaeda's side - not be so cozy with Israel and make our intentions in tyhe region clear. Perhaps he can make it less risky for Pakistan to work with us.

[Copperred]

11. Be my guest.....

If you want to support the oppression of 150million plus indigeous people be my guest.....if you want to support ethnic supremecy over all the others (Punjab vs. Sindh, Baloch, Pashtun) be my guest..... What such policies lead to....is well understood.

[shockingelk]

13. didn't say I support Prevez

That, I think is an issue you bring up. :)

I'm rightly pointing out that pursuing al Qaeda in Pakistan is in the interest of the US and it would be good to maneuver in a way that doesn't make the situation in Pakistan worse.

But a question: what are you suggesting we do? Declare war on Pakistan? Launch large operation is Pakistan and hope Musharaff deals with the uproar?

[Copperred]

17. We should do what comes naturaly....

We should be supporting the democratic and securlarist aspiriations of the people of the region like good Americans. These groups in the region were very big in the 50 & 60s, but we turned a blind eye to them and let Zia hulq and others crush them.

Or, if more convienet, not support the state of Pakistan thus letting these groups tear down their oppressor "on their own". None of these groups are Pakistan Nationalists at the core...so it does mean either directlyfor giving the tactical ok that we no longer see Pakistan as important to long term US interests...which, as the objective see...it is not...especially since are true ally in the region is becoming India more and more.

The very complicated issue behind all of this is that the Punjabi dominated Pakistani Generals have nukes....and that does scare the hell out of alot of people with good reason. If they had no nukes, I would suspect Pakistan would be falling apart right now, and the US would be doing nothing to stop it.

The Pakistan military, sadly, is not the creation of ideas that say the Turkish military is... Ultimately, you are building up a beast...that you must one day tear down.....and the people of the region are blaming us, the US, for the whole set of circumstances to begin with.......and that is the problem we face today.

The issue here is that the people of the region know what is going on...so we look like fools...either we stop helping Pakistan the nation state....or help the people of the region find a better way...but don't say you are going to try to do both because that is not possible....they know it and ignore everything we say because we look like fools to them......so why do we keep saying it? The US is definately trying to save face here...that we have no direct role in why Pakistan is what it is...and thus Musharraf this courageous "leader" is all we got.....which is a load of crap.



This says it all:

Standing Up for Democracy: Two (ethnic-Afghan) Pakistani leaders explain why the United States shouldn't abandon the region.

10/16/2003

by Claudia Winkler, Managing Editor, The Weekly Standard

http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/003/254saclr.asp

IN THE TURBULENT and dangerous politics of Pakistan, credible public figures willing to stand up for pluralist democracy are no commonplace. So it was a privilege to meet with Afrasiab Khattak and Asfandyar Wali Khan--middle-aged men who between them have spent more than a decade in prison in the course of their careers opposing military dictatorships--on their recent stop in Washington. Their earnest plea: The United States must remain engaged in their region.

Khattak is a lawyer, writer, and longtime member of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, where he just finished a three-year term as chairman. His duties on the commission included responding to the anguished parents of young Pakistanis recruited to fight for the Taliban, while their government turned a blind eye. "It was a disaster," Khattak said on the "NewsHour" with Jim Lehrer in April 2002. "Thousands of people, sentimental people, simple people, naive people went into another country to fight without any preparation, any planning."

In July, Khattak joined the leadership of the Awami National party, of which Asfandyar Wali Khan is president. Elected to the Pakistani senate last March, Wali Khan is the son and grandson of Pashtun political leaders dating back to the independence struggle on the subcontinent.

The ANP is based in the Northwest Frontier Province, where it confronts an Islamist provincial government with anti-American, pro-jihadist leanings. Yet the party has national aspirations and universal principles. Its leaders see it as a "bulwark against extremism and fundamentalism."

"We spoke up publicly after 9/11 for liberal, democratic, secular
values and held public meetings against the Taliban. We openly endorsed the liberation of Afghanistan," says Wali Khan.

Like all opposition parties in Pakistan, the ANP operates under constant pressure from the government. Although lively, dissenting voices are heard in the press, freedom of assembly is severely restricted, and discriminatory laws have favored the growing religious parties. In the last election, a requirement that candidates hold advanced degrees "eliminated almost half of all former legislators," according to a recent study by the International Crisis Group. Candidates with degrees from the religious "madrasas" were unaffected. The religious parties boasted their best showing at the polls yet.

The Crisis Group report confirms that the government of President Pervez Musharraf, even as it cooperates with the United States to some degree in the war on terrorism, is undermining the moderate secular parties at home and allowing the military to promote the Islamists. The report urges Western aid donors to channel and condition all aid so as to strengthen liberal forces and civil society.

As for my Pakistani visitors, they foresee disaster if the Islamists get their way.

"We see a sort of interaction between the Iranian mullahs and elements in the Saudi monarchy and fundamentalists and their allies in the Pakistani state," says Wali Khan. "They are cooperating to keep the pot boiling in the region. They want the Americans to get bogged down. The problem is, U.S. policy mostly ignores non-state players, including democratic parties."

Afrasiab Khattak agrees. "The main aim of the extremists is to get the United States out of Afghanistan and Iraq. If the United States withdraws without rebuilding, we in the region have had it. And the suppression of liberal forces will start with us, but it will spread far beyond our borders."

Regional expert Elie Krakowski, a senior fellow of the American Foreign Policy Council, notes the implication for U.S. policy. "If we are serious about building civil society in Pakistan," he says, "we have to help people like Afrasiab Khattak and Asfandyar Wali Khan, because they are capable and they are voicing very legitimate and important views. Given the chance, they could make a lot of headway, and this could serve both Pakistan's interest and ours."

END

[allemand]

21. The Awami National Party

The Awami National Party (awami means "people's"), which depends on Pakhtuns of the North-West Frontier Province and northern Balochistan as its political base, won six seats in the National Assembly in the 1990 elections. In the 1993 national elections, the party won three seats in the National Assembly. The Awami National Party was formed in 1986 by the merger of several left-leaning parties including the Awami Tehrik and the National Democratic Party. Khan Abdul Wali Khan was appointed its first president. Wali Khan's political career had been built on the tradition of intense Pakhtun nationalism inherited from his father, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan. Both men were opposed to the creation of Pakistan, and after partition they were imprisoned. In 1956 Wali Khan joined the National Awami Party (NAP), led by a charismatic Bengali socialist, Maulana Bhashani. In 1965 the NAP split into two factions, with Wali Khan becoming president of the pro-Moscow faction. In 1972 the party was strong enough to form coalition provincial governments, with its partner the Jamiat-ul- Ulama-i-Islam (JUI) in the North-West Frontier Province and Balochistan. These governments were short lived. Wali Khan was again jailed, and his party was barred from politics when the Supreme Court upheld the finding of Bhutto that the NAP was conspiring against the state of Pakistan. General Zia subsequently withdrew the charges against the NAP. Wali Khan was released, joined the National Democratic Party, and ultimately formed the Awami National Party.
http://countrystudies.us/pakistan/71.htm

[livinbella]

15. how are the Punjab ethnically different than the others?

Maybe i will learn something today :)

[Copperred]

19. Pakista is FOUR ethnic groups

Pakistan is made up four distict ethnic groups, and share very different histories, cultural and religious traditions.

1. Ethnic Afghans, also known as Pashtuns, dominate NWFP and Balochistan. The Afghans, after being beat by the Arabs, brought Islam to the Subcontinent. Their indigeouns religiont is Pashtunwali.

2. Balochies, who for a very long time dominated Balochistan, for whom it is named after are a nomadic people. Over the last 50 years they have found their areas being heavily populated by Afghans, however, the Afghans and the Balochies get along very well, and in many respects the Afghans protect Balochi interests from Islamabad.

The Afghans and the Balochies are very simliar in customs and while not blood cousins, are friends.

3. The Sindhis, like the Punjabies, were originally Hindus of India. Their nationalist groups wish to have an independent state of Sindh.

4. The Punjabies, the largest ethnic group in Pakistan, dominate the country from a military and economic standpoint. They are very much cushy cushy to the point of disgust with Saudi Arabia and its worldview, and for them they know that without Islam their power dies... they have to push Islam down the throats of all or their own gig is up. They have for many years done their best to subjugate the other three groups, especially the Afghans, whose pure authentic identity is considered a national risk to Pakistan security. Research "Afghans, Pashtun, Bani Israel"

[allemand]

20. Linguistic and Ethnic Groups in Pakistan

"The ethnic composition of Pakistan in the mid-1990s roughly corresponds to the linguistic distribution of the population, at least among the largest groups: 59.1 percent of Pakistanis identify themselves as Punjabis, 13.8 percent as Pakhtuns, 12.1 percent as Sindhis. 7.7 percent as muhajirs, 4.3 percent as Baloch, and 3 percent as members of other ethnic groups. Each group is primarily concentrated in its home province, with most muhajirs residing in urban Sindh."

More:
http://countrystudies.us/pakistan/31.htm

[bloom]

12. The northwest - I gather that is where the Oil Pipeline is going through..

If you've seen "Hijacking Catastrophe" (if you haven't - it's on today on LINK TV 4:30 Central) it illustrates how the recent military bases in Afganistan happen to go right along the pipeline - what do you know.

[Wind Dancer]

14. Yep, amazing isn't it?

The entire southern country has no military bases, just the 2 guarding the pipeline.

[illuminaughty]

32. Great program!

I love Link and Free Speech TV. I have recorded more than 80 hours of programs and I wish more people had access to these channels.

My friend's family is still in Kabul and the situation on the ground is nothing like what is presented by the media. That pipeline has been the major goal since before 9-11. Poppy production is up and we protect that too.

Many on this thread have mentioned the Pashtoon population, but there are Tajik, Hazara, and on and on. The ethnic conflicts in Afghanistan make the Sunni, Shia, Kurd problem seem like the "cakewalk" we were told it would be. Sad, but true. No simple solutions for this region in the future.

[allemand]

33. The pipeline(s) would go through Balochistan

On this map the NWFP is "Province de la Frontiere du Nord-Ouest":

[fedsron2us]

34. These maps say more than a thousand words.

Thanks for posting them.

[varun]

16. Pakistan has WMD, proliferates nukes, harbors Osama...

..and all links to international terrorism lead to Pakistan.

So why did we attack Iraq before Pakistan?

[demoman123]

18. Yes, Pakistan would have made much more sense than Iraq.

But Pakistan doesn't have the Rumallah oil field = $5 Trillion.

[Carolab]

30. Pipelines

and borders

Still, A.Q. Khan fell on his sword for Musharraf--"the network was brought to justice", and all...

[MADem]

25. I don't doubt that a plan is on file

...but I imagine India would have something to say about it. And I wonder how polite those nonaligned folks would be in putting their point across.

Deliver us from idiots, AMEN!!!

[Sterling]

35. India would most likely help out.

I do think if there is anything legit about 9-11 and the war on terror Pak would have been a great place to start the war. However since it's mostly bullshit and 9-11 has the markings of an indside job attacking anyone seems like a big waste of time. That is one thing I never understood about Bush and 9-11.

If he is such a tough guy and the "official" 9-11 story is true why did we not attack the people who actually attacked us? I honestly would have little problem with destroying a country that attacked us first but that does not seem to be the situation we are in.

[gavodotcom]

31. There's probably a plan to invade Canada. Mil. planning isn't done ad hoc

They sit around brainstorming, trying to forecast potential future problems. If you don't think there's a plan collecting dust detailing how Einsenhower or Kennedy would invade Germany, Turkey, Korea, Brazil or Romania, you're crazy.

Obviously, Pakistan would be a huge problem, nuclear bombs and all, if it were to implode. People forget that Musharraf is taking a huge gamble (and one that worked out well for him as he's still in power, to date), to work with the United States against Al-Qaida.

His grasp on the country, though, could quickly erode because of this. In fact, his A-Bomb "Czar" was busted for selling nuclear secrets, and Shiite rebellions have cropped up in Eastern Pakistan. Who knows how firm a grip on power he has--and a lot of that can be directly attribable to his working with the US.

Hopefully, he's spinning how much money he's getting from the US for this support, and not being able to capture Osama is probably working in his favor. Western Pakistan ain't the kind of place to raise your kids, as Elton John would have said. It's just as tribally-controlled as much of Afghanistan or Northern Iraq. In other words, not controlled much at all.

Whether or not Prez Pervez is pro-US is open to debate. What is known, at least to the 9/11 Commission, was that the Pakistani intelligence service was probably the reason Osama wasn't killed during the cruise missle strikes of the Clinton-Era, and they were successful bringing and keeping the Taliban in power pre-9/11. In other words, Musharraf might be pro-Western, but many of his countrymen are not. Many of these same countrymen would like to be in power in Pakistan and have the launch codes as well.

Luckily for Pervez, he was, obviously, also the dude who led the military coup, so he still probably has the loyalty of the army in more than just an official capacity.

He's made steps to consolidate his power, but he hasn't done much to democratize. He's being heavily coerced by the Bush administration to do so in a real sense, since their alliance with Pakistan is not only a reversal of Clinton policies towards Kashimir, but is open to criticism for alligning ourselves with yet another Muslim dictator.

The assissination or removal of a dictator like Musharraf creates a huge power vacuum that could easily lead to a destabilization of Pakistan/US relations. We're currently experiencing that power vacuum as we speak in Iraq.

Our siding with India over the Kashmir border wars during the 90s is yet another reason why, if Musharraf is killed (he's had a couple assassination attempts against him since 9/11?), you probably won't get moderate Pakistani support.

There's also reason to suspect that if a fundamentalist regime were to take hold in Pakistan, that they are definitely not pro-US, because these kinds of people tend not to be. You should be worried if military planners DON'T have a plan to invade or repel a specific country, rather than if they do.

[Robb]

36. "predicted the plan to invade the NWFP in December 2003"

Big deal... I predicted it in November 2001.

[kentuck]

37. Interpret the propaganda.

You'd better turn over Osama if you have him...