Why
Barack Should De-Escalate
On Pakistan
By
Tom Hayden
08 January,
2008
Zmag
As predicted, Barack Obama's
advocacy of unilateral military intervention in Pakistan if there is
"actionable intelligence" against al-Qaeda is giving legitimacy
to the Bush administration's gathering plan for an escalation.
Obama's position
is a revival of John Kerry's 2004 argument that the U.S. should have
pursued Osama bin Ladin into Tora Bora but instead was distracted by
the war in Iraq.
The position
balances Obama's dovishness on Iraq, making him more credible to the
national security establishment. If a U.S. missile or counter-terrorism
strike happens to kill bin Ladin, Obama can share credit. But the dangers
are extremely high, requiring caution and pragmatism from a potential
president. The American target in South Waziristan, Baitullah Mehsud,
is categorized vaguely as an "al Qaeda associate" by U.S.
officials. More deeply, he is an authentic leader of the Mehsud tribe,
and an attack on him would further inflame Pashtun nationalism against
the U.S. There is no evidence that Mehsud ordered the assassination
of Benezir Bhutto, as the Musharraf regime initially suggested. Nor
is it clear how the mujahadeen in South Waziristan pose a direct threat
of another 9/11 attack against the U.S. What is absolutely clear is
that the U.S. and NATO have failed to militarily defeat the Pashtun-based
Taliban in Afghanistan, and any new American intervention in Pakistan
will mobilize millions of Muslims against both the Musharraf dictatorship
and its American backers. That means a three-front military quagmire
in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, with no known resources to contain
Iran -- which represents strategic drift on a grand scale.
Fortunately,
Obama's position contains a loophole, the requirement that there be
"actionable intelligence," which can allow him to back away
from a commitment to an escalated and probably futile war.
At the moment,
Obama is responsible for creating a bipartisan climate of support for
a military intervention in a period of panic after the assassination
of Benazir Bhutto. He can de-escalate the rush to war by calling for
immediate hearings into the crisis in Pakistan, including independent
voices from that country who fervently oppose the deepening secret war
by the U.S. The hearings should probe the dangers of a Pakistani backlash
against the U.S plan, the nature of the alleged enemy, and the costs
and benefits of an expanded war.
It would
be a tragic irony if Obama supported Bush's failed policies and backed
a new pre-emptive war against a sovereign country. The real question
is whether the Bush policies have destabilized Pakistan fatally and
presented anti-American elements a new opportunity to bleed American
troops, overextend our military capacity, drain the American treasury,
and further isolate America as a rogue state in the eyes of most countries
in the world.
With whatever
finesse is required, Barack needs to back off. There is no more reason
to rush to war in Pakistan on the basis of uncertain evidence than there
was in Iraq in 2002.
Tom
Hayden is author of WRITINGS
FOR A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY, THE TOM HAYDEN READER, forthcoming
from City
Lights Books, www.citylights.com.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.