The nightmare scenario is Bin Laden getting a nuclear warhead and smuggling it into the US via the rather porus mexican border. Or using the drug smugglers to do the donkey work.

No need to worry. Obama is in the Big Chair now and he'll invite the Taliban to a discussion (without predconditions) and they'll talk out a solution, without threats or big sticks, or ever getting to the war stage.

One possibly positive scenario: widening the war will see an end to Pakistan being a safe haven for the Taliban operating in Afghanistan. Turning the conflict into a broader regional one could bring them out where they can be crushed en-mass.

Shiat. Although sometimes I wonder, given that Pakistan is what it is, and the ISI is what it is, how Islamic terrorists don't have nuclear material yet...

On the other hand, what we might be seeing is the beginning of the first civil war to involve nuclear weapons.

I get the impression that what the fundamentalists hate most are those muslims they consider apostate, and if the Taliban get hold of a nuke, they might well use it on Islamabd rather than Delhi or Tel Aviv or Washington.

Smart power diplomacy.

Hilary's running it.

We're ok.

Don't worry.

I spent quite some time in Dubai. In the evenings I watched quite a lot of Emirates TV includding the religious programmes. I wanted to learn about Islam, what made it tick. Several times I saw and heard Islamic professors explain that whilst they respected the Christians and Jews, as being People of the Book, they had a duty to destroy the Hindus, as being pagans.

So, which way do the prevailing winds move over southwest Asia?

Wasn't the creation of Pakistan by the retreating British Empire a colossal mistake ? Why concentrate all the Muslims in one region and give then another state?
Oh, the wonders of social engineering!

Do you really think it was within the power of the already disinterested British to prevent the split between India and Pakistan? The nationalists in both communities made the historical outcome an inevitability. It was a bloody tragedy, but it was also unavoidable.

Agreed Sunil - it wasn't in the Brits power to stop it even if there had been the political will. Correct me if I'm wrong I thought it was existing politics combined with Jinner's desire for a powerbase even though not a strict Muslim himself that drove the creation of Pakistan?

The report guesses there are between two and four thousand Taliban fighters in the Swat valley and that Pakistan's army has a presence of about twelve thousand men. Assuming those numbers are correct, the obvious implication is that the Pakistan 'army' is so unorganized, ill-equipped and poorly trained as to be undeserving of the name 'army'. Another rather obvious implication is that their command has been infiltrated by the Taliban - which would rather seem to reinforce the view that they were unorganized, ill-equipped and poorly trained in the first place.

However the main failure this points to is an ethical failure. If you have reason to place a high value on the lives of the people in the Swat valley, then you do everything you possibly can to lead your fellow men to equip, organize and prepare themselves to defend those people from the monsters. What you don't do is fire off a few shells vaguely in their direction and hope that you don't need to do any fighting today. There is no way the commanders of an army can escape what is ethically required here, unless they simply don't give a shit. In which case they are already dead.

Could it be anything other than a simple matter of time now before the Taliban have the outskirts of Peshawar and Islamabad in their sights?

"Obama is in the Big Chair now and he'll invite the Taliban to a discussion (without predconditions) and they'll talk out a solution, without threats or big sticks, or ever getting to the war stage."

Although there are obviously global implications, this is first and foremost a problem for people where the action is in Pakistan and for those who claim the responsibility for fixing it. It is not the responsibility of the U.S President.

This time last year, many westerners were gabbling about how democracy would save Pakistan.

Pakistan, like modern Iraq, isn't a state in the same way England or Poland are. It is artificial and has no organic nature.

I am sure that there are any number of plans to deal with Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. From a number of countries. However, if I might suggest, that is not the salient question. The question on point is; "Which country is possibly willing to carry out any of those plans?". Is the sum of likely actors >0?

I can conceive of only one, India. And I think we may see a decision on that matter in a relatively short period of time.

Nations plan for all sorts of eventualities. However, even when the scenarios that were the impetus for the plans comes to pass; it becomes a matter of will. No First World nation has the political will to take strategic military action today against a Muslim opponent, especially one with nuclear weapons. Indeed, even after being struck with nuclear weapons, they may not retaliate in the absence of a confession from the attacker plus ironclad proof and the permission of the UN Security Council.

We live indeed in Interesting Times. Unpleasant and extremely dangerous, but interesting.

Subotai Bahadur

Of course Swat had a great deal of autonomy and independence from Pakistan propper until it was disolved as a princely state in 1969. Such is the patchwork hodgepodge nature of India and Pakistan

The nightmare of Pakistan going nuclear inches inexorably ever closer. For example, look at what I just read in the Guardian.co.uk:

Police: Bicycle bomb kills 5 in northwest Pakistan

Not quite on the scale of Hiroshima or Nagasaki yet, it seems.

Although there are obviously global implications, this is first and foremost a problem for people where the action is in Pakistan and for those who claim the responsibility for fixing it. It is not the responsibility of the U.S President.

Right, because the POTUS's job description has nothing about protecting our interests here and abroad, and Pakistan has not previously been an ally in the WoT, and the Taliban hiding out there has nothing to do with them fleeing the war efforts in Afghanistan. The POTUS is supposed to focus on national issues and ignore all those messy imperial entanglements, because people like Ron Paul understand history! If the POTUS was supposed to focus on issues of state and security, we'd have maintained sovereign states who see to their own domestic issues, and would have come up with something like a Congress to handle domestic matters at a Federal level, there's be historic accounts of the founders engaging pirates in the Middle East with Congressional approval post-fact, and we'd have had a standing navy to deal with international interests abroad, and we'd have put language in the Constitution to make the POTUS the Commander in Chief, given him war powers, the ability to make treaties, the Executive in charge of appointing and managing ambassadors and emissaries, and our Founders (like Franklin, Adams, and Jefferson) would have had ambassador creds on their resumes!

But back in reality-land...

Worst case is not necessarily a nuclear war with India. It as, as others have suggested, a nuke in the hands of Al Qa'eda, used in Europe or the U.S.

That is what AQ has been trying to do (and get) for a long time, even if Plume was married to an idiot and was a not-spy, outed by a not-perjurer.

Gives whole new nuanced meaning to "imminent" dough-nit? Ya think if Obama uses the word imminent that it will take on the nuanced meaning Bush meant when he used it, or will the press treat the new boss the same as the old boss?

These are not the droids you're looking for.

Any time a rogue, unstable and possibly inimical state gets access to nuclear weaponry, it's of concern to the United States.

We didn't ask for that task, mind you -- just as we don't ask for the responsibility for sending aid to disaster-hit areas -- but it's our task nevertheless.

Of course there's a plan to deal with a hostile, nuclear Pakistan. Hell, there's probably a plan to deal with a hostile, nuclear Britain. (Which, considering the way Britain is accommodating radical Islam, is probably A Good Thing.)

It is the responsibility of people living in the Swat valley of Pakistan - and particularly those 'army' officers charged with defending them - to ensure the monsters are destroyed.

Would either of you suggest it is not?

Nowhere is it stated in the linked-to article that the Taliban are anywhere near getting access to Pakistan's nuclear weapons yet. The Taliban are running around the mountains in the Swat valley killing Pakistani people. It is therefore the responsibility of the Pakistani President, not the U.S. President.

Reality check yourselves.

No there is not, and any Administration would be unlikely to impliment them even if they did exist. A disintegrating Pakistan is not a situation we're likely to leap into, fears of nuclear weaponry or otherwise. Most likely, we'd sit back, make some threats, desperately try to contact trustworthy people inside, and pray.

Mike,
The problem with isolationism is that nuclear fallout and non-state actors don't sign treaties.

While I completely agree that the correct party to deal with the monsters would be Pakistan, it ain't happening.

Just as most people would believe that the actors who should be protecting your life and property are the law enforcement officers of your town or city, what would you propose the people do when those officers are incapable of fulfilling their duties? Isn't that one of the situations where we are glad there's a second amendment right?

On the matter of non-state actors getting their hands on fissile materials, when Pakistan's ISI (and presumably other government security bodies) is riddled with Taliban supporters, you don't need to assume that the Taliban will need to raid a bunker and break in. If they ask nicely, they'll probably even get issued with a government truck to haul it away.

Hell, 8 years ago, if you had the money, AQ Khan would have delivered you a dial-a-yield device on the bed of a pickup truck.

It'd be really lovely to sit back and say "Hey, it's Pakistan's problem and they have to fix it" but we all know that's not likely to happen; and to think otherwise is foolish.

"Just as most people would believe that the actors who should be protecting your life and property are the law enforcement officers of your town or city, what would you propose the people do when those officers are incapable of fulfilling their duties? Isn't that one of the situations where we are glad there's a second amendment right?"

Are you in a position to see to it that Pakistani civilians are supplied with firearms?

"It'd be really lovely to sit back and say "Hey, it's Pakistan's problem and they have to fix it" but we all know that's not likely to happen; and to think otherwise is foolish."

So volunteer for the fight. It's your judgement call.

Mike, I'm taking about the principle involved. We can debate what the Pakistan government should be doing to eradicate the international threat of terrorism until we're blue in the face, but the fact is that we have no expectation that they will undertake the task.

Consequently, we have to consider the whether the US Government should fulfill what I believe is one of its few legitimate functions; to wit - the protection of the US Public. If you concede that this is a legitimate role of government, the discussion becomes one of how that government should pursue that aim.

As I commented before, isolationism would be one policy to adopt, but I don't think it's realistic, because non-state actors indulging in asymmetric warfare do not participate in diplomacy, do not observe the Geneva Conventions, and seem to be pretty uninterested in following anything recognizable as 'moral' behavior in the Western sense of the word. If you believe that 'offshore intervention' is unacceptable as policy, you have to concede that the measures the US would need to take to successfully implement Fortress America would make Homeland Security and PATRIOT seem very tame.

So, from a practical point of view, Swat ain't going to be cleaned up by the good burghers of Swat Province. And seemingly, not by the Pakistani army either. Assuming something *can* be done to deny these non-state actors access to nuclear devices, who's going to do it?

I have absolutely no problem with preemptive military strikes if we have legitimate reason to believe that we are at risk of attack. There is no reason to wait for that attack to occur; giving the other fellow the first swing makes no sense, especially where nuclear weapons are concerned. But we should be clear about what we're doing, and why: we are protecting ourselves because we have the right and the power to do so. The last thing we should do is to try to dress up our actions by claiming (or, worse yet, actually believing) that we are bringing "the blessings of liberty" to some benighted foreign land cursed by a repressive government.

If Iran appears close to having working nuclear weapons, we should promptly and effectively take them out. I don't care if the Iranian people are horribly governed; that's their problem, and they can deal with it (or not), as they choose. If the Taliban appears close to gaining access to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, we should take out that arsenal, by whatever means necessary. But that's the end of it: no occupation, no "nation-building", no being the world's policeman scouring the globe for evildoers to slay.

I would call this a "robust isolationism": stay out of other nations' affairs as much as possible, but take a realistic view of when and where we are at serious risk and deal with it. No apologies necessary.

(But no, Mr. du Toit, it is most assuredly not "our task" to send aid to disaster-stricken areas, if by that you mean that our government should spend tax dollars doing so. That "task" properly belongs to individuals freely helping others in need, not to politicians stealing the property of their own citizens for such purpose.)

Well, Laird, that's the type of 'isolationism' I can support.

I have to say that I think it's as inappropriate to call it that as it is for the American left to label itself as 'liberal'.

I agree with you in one other respect - we shouldn't clothe it as bring 'freedom to oppressed peoples of the world', if it's bringing 'sturm und drang' down on people we believe to be a threat to the nation's wellbeing, we should have the stones to couch it in those terms.

"I would call this a "robust isolationism": stay out of other nations' affairs as much as possible, but take a realistic view of when and where we are at serious risk and deal with it. No apologies necessary."

It used to be called "non-interventionism", but since World War II, anyone who didn't believe the U.S. should be the global crusader for *insert cause here* became ip so facto stupid, blind "isolationists."

I know very well what you are talking about Bod - and look, I agree with you as to the practical facts on the ground amounting to the imperative that 'something should be done'. As to who should do what, I'm unsure.

"If you concede that this is a legitimate role of government, the discussion becomes one of how that government should pursue that aim. "

This is where I alight from the train. You've marked up an entirely separate discussion there with a bearing on this problem that I don't dismiss out of hand.

Back in the 1950's and 1960's Pakistan was not badly governed - at least it was less wildly statist than India was.

However, since then Pakistan has gone down the drain.

As for the modern economic stats - they are vile. Whatever one is looking at (economic growth, government deficit, inflation stats, whatever) they numbers are terrible.

Of course one can win a war with a backdrop of a messed up economy - but it is a lot harder.

Also the battle line is blurred.

In Vietnam it was (whatever clever-clever people may claim) a struggle of Communists versus non Communists and (again contrary to the wonderful people) the non Communists were in the majority - so that war was winnable (do not get me started on why it was lost).

In Pakistan (like Irag and Afghanistan) almost everyone is a Muslim - it is a matter of how exactly they interpret Islam and ........

Very complex - not a good situation long term.

If memory serves, once upon a time (after they were separated from India) there were two Pakistans. "West Pakistan" is now simply "Pakistan"; "East Pakistan" is now "Bangladesh". Other than a bout with mass starvation back in the '60s Bangladesh has been pretty quiet. Why is Pakistan such a problem (to us, anyway) and Bangladesh not? Aren't they both Muslim countries?

I read all of the comments here quite closely enough to trying to understand what these people are trying to talk and I was surprised to understand ONE thing that I could NOT understand a single thing what everyone here is trying to suggest. Everyone seems to be lost whenever the term "Pakistan" and "Muslims" come to their minds. Why is it so confusing? What really bothers them in addition to the nukes, Taliban, etc.?

FIVE REGIONAL CITIES OF PAKISTAN should be upgraded with in the provinces in the country. Regional cities of Dera Ismail Khan in NWFP, Gawadar/ Qalat in Balouchistan, Sukkar/ Larkana in Upper Sind, Jehlam/ Rawalpindi and Multan in Punjab province. These regional cities have been ignored by the federal and provincial governments although these cities have their own history, culture and languages.Dera Ismail Khan in south of Pakhtun khwa/MWFP is under seige, Multan/DG Khan in south of Punjab is next target of religious extremists,Sukkar/ Larkana is being rule by criminals, Gawadar/ Qalat is trouble some. The people of these regions have to travel to provincial capitals for every small issue and requirement of the daily life which should be provided in nearby cities. A good number of population travel to big cities for their survival to earn livelihood as the local feudal own majority land and keep the common man as their slaves. Creation of regional government and upgrading of the regional cities will save a lot of money and time of the poor people of these regions. Circuit benches of the High Courts are already working in these areas and only requirement is the additional staff of different departments involved in additional work at the provincial capitals. The concern authorities should immediately consider to upgrade the regional cities. And immediate attention should be given upgrade/build the airports,TV station, civic center, libraries,hospitals, educational institutes and investment opportunities for Pakistanis living abroad and foreign firms to create jobs in the area as majority population in rural Pakistan do not have enough resources to survive. It’s remind me the condition of pre Islamic revolution of Iran in Shah time when the rural Iran was ignored and the capital Tehran was developed in a way to call it Paris of Middle East with modern life style. Couple of other big cities like Isfahan and Caspian sea was taken care of because of foreign tourists but rural area was ruled by cruel police and intelligence. Then what happen rural population supported the Islamic revolution and moved to Tehran and other big cities later on. The new government after revolution developed, built and upgraded the rural areas of Iran accordingly. A fund to upgrade/build these regional cities in Pakistan should be intoduced by public and private sector and Pakistani government, our foreign friends and Pakistanis living abroad may be asked to participate in this development mission in the country..KHWAJA AFTAB ALI,( former secretary, Iranian embassy, Saudi Arabia,1979-88) Advocate High Court & I.P. Attorney-first & the only Pakistani lawyer who earned Intellectual Property laws scholarship in USA,presently residing in Florida, USA. all_languages@hotmail.com