David Seaton's picture

    Pakistan: the beckoning abyss

    By David Seaton on Tue, 09/14/2010 - 5:39am |

    I wrote this text in 2007 right after the assaination of Benazir Bhutto, long before Pakistan's state-breaking floods, and I like it better today than when I wrote  it:

    If someday 9-11 becomes little more than a curious footnote to much greater tragedies, the men and women who gutted the language and credibility of power will be responsible for every drop of blood shed.

    In common speech, "nightmarish" often means to clearly see what is tragic and dreaded coming and not be able to do anything stop it or to even soften its effects. In nightmares the dreamer sees the unnameable approach, rustling and twittering in the dark of bedroom night and tries to escape, dragging impossibly leaden feet. The relentless pull of gravity toward the object of dread is the stuff of nightmares.

    As we enter the inauspicious year of 2008 the situation in Pakistan could be fairly called "nightmarish". We are being daily drawn deeper into a cauldron of molten misery and an abattoir of hemorrhaging violence: a civil war in a country where there are atom bombs and where the men who broke the skyline of New York live and work.

    Benazir Bhutto's death, in itself, is not in any way the end of the world. Corrupt and intriguing, she was no Joan of Arc... or the real solution to anything. What is significant about her assassination is the will to chaos that it manifests and the casual ease with which it was carried out. That will to chaos and its clockwork precision of execution is certainly not going to stop at eliminating one politician. In the butchering of Benazir Bhutto we begin to see the tragic and futile waste of lives, political capital and military power of invading and occupying Iraq. Now when they might be needed desperately, that capital, those lives, that power and the will to use them may no longer be at hand.

    Because at some point a decision is going to have to be taken... Pakistan with its atomic bombs, home away from home for Osama bin Laden, cannot be allowed to turn into a "failed state"... I use the passive tense "cannot be allowed", but somebody is finally going to have to bell the cat and that cannot be done in the passive tense. If the situation continues to deteriorate, and who imagines it won't, "surgical strikes" and "special forces" are not going to be enough, it would require a multinational force of hundreds of thousands of men to take, occupy and literally smother anarchy and rebuild a collapsed state of many millions of citizens. This would surely require a return to universal military service in both the USA and NATO in order to pull off. At this point I feel I am writing political fiction. After Iraq an effort of such magnitude is unthinkable.

    As I write these words, I can feel how even the language necessary to describe the action which may finally be inevitable, may have become impossible to use through the neocon-speak travesty of Iraq. All the sophistries and bad faith used to needlessly invade Iraq and to unjustifiably try to start a war with Iran have emptied the credibility from American speech so that every statement coming from Washington rings with the sinister cynicism of "arbeit macht frei". If someday 9-11 becomes little more than a curious footnote to much greater tragedies, the men and women who gutted the language and credibility of power will be responsible for every drop of blood shed.

    Cross-posted from http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com

    Comments

    Fine essay, as per usual, David.

    But couldn't we focus on saving a few thousand lives over there right now in their time of tragedy? Rather than sweat over the question of how many of them we're going to have to kill in the future because of our indifference in the present.

    This of course isn't a criticism of you, more like a collective look in the mirror...


    by Obey on Tue, 09/14/2010 - 10:39am

    I awoke this morning to your nightmarish scenario, replete with a cauldron of molten misery and an abattoir of hemorrhaging violence. Ick.

    Now, are you advocating for U.S. intervention in Pakistan's internal affairs? Can't we just leave them alone, or are you going all imperial on us? Pak. is a modern and capable nation and doesn't need us to have their own perfectly good civil war.


    by Rootman on Tue, 09/14/2010 - 12:23pm

    So "a multinational force of hundreds of thousands of men to take, occupy and literally smother anarchy and rebuild a collapsed state of many millions of citizens" requiring "a return to universal military service in both the USA and NATO in order to pull off", eh? As far as I know, there's not much difference between Afghanistan and Pakistan except Pakistan has nukes. Also, whatever happens in Pakistan has no impact on the US so I think you're paddling up shit creek without a paddle...no one in the US will be willing to be part of a multinational force when Pakistan doesn't pose an immediate threat. It sounds way too Korean peninsula and we all know how that went over. Besides even if a USA and NATO multinational force were to be created, the US would demand to be in charge and NATO has been growing both reluctant and impatient with the US thinking only they have the ability to control a multinational force. Finally, just look at how well the US has accomplished nation building in both Iraq and Afghanistan...a serious effort in wasting time and resources that served no useful purpose.

    While something needs to be done, it has to be from within Pakistan, not from outside. The only way to neutralize their nukes would be pre-emptive strikes on "known" munitions storage areas, but at best, we're only guess where they "may" be. One or a few could survive and be used in retaliation.

    But this is what we get when we back a military regime that overthrew a duly elected leader. Perhaps that's the key, but for Pakistan it's too late to make right what we did wrong. And since that region of the world is more at home with small, little tribal areas of only a single ethnic group, I can't see how one could possibly waltz in and redecorate the country as a whole. There's a big disconnect between what we envision as a commnity and their visions...both are mutually exclusive.


    by Beetlejuice on Tue, 09/14/2010 - 1:14pm

    I agree with pretty much everything you said except "whatever happens in Pakistan has no impact on the US". That's absolutely not true.


    by Atheist (not verified) on Tue, 09/14/2010 - 1:24pm

    Pakistan has virtual no strategic importance to the US. They don't share a border with Iran so the US can't mount spy/reconnaissance missions like Turkey during the Cold War. And that part of the world doesn't have much to offer other than cheap resources and labor. The only real issue would be a destabilized Pakistan would keep the Middle East in a state of disarray for years, not to mention heighten border clashes with India where a tactical nuke strike would be far more a possible scenario. But that's more of a UN issue than it is a US one.

     


    by Beetlejuice on Tue, 09/14/2010 - 3:23pm

    Um, Beetle, take a look at a map. Iran and Pakistan meet in Balochistan. They are actually collaborating (along with China) on building a port there.


    by acanuck on Tue, 09/14/2010 - 3:38pm

    Ooops! I should have verified first before I stuck my foot in my mouth.


    by Beetlejuice on Tue, 09/14/2010 - 8:43pm

    1. Any UN issue is a US issue.
    2. Elements in Pakistan have almost definitely been aiding the Taleban and quite probably Al Qaeda. I'm definitely not in favor of invading Pakistan, but these groups most definitely would like to cause us great harm (putting it mildly).
    3. Any state with a tactical nuke is a concern in my book.

    by Atheist (not verified) on Tue, 09/14/2010 - 3:39pm

    And what Army? The US is washed up, used and abused. Besides, the public isn't in any mood to spend billions more on futile wars.


    by Beetlejuice on Tue, 09/14/2010 - 8:45pm

    There are many things that might happen in this life. Hundreds of thousands of American or NATO troops occupying Pakistan is not one of them. 

    I have an active imagination, but this scenario requires ingestion of very specific pscyho-active chemicals. Muslim. Atomic bombs. 170 million. Mountains. India. WTF David?

    Rebuild a collapsed state of 170 million Muslims, with bombs, next door to enemy India??

    A draft in the US and Europe? 

    Forget how Iraq has changed things. This storyline wasn't possible back in 2000. 


    by quinn esq on Tue, 09/14/2010 - 1:27pm

    What my fellow Canadian said. Not gonna happen, and not even remotely a good idea.


    by acanuck on Tue, 09/14/2010 - 2:45pm

    agree, but we might one day give india the wink wink.  not a good idea, agree there too.  but when has that ever stopped us foreign policy?


    by anna am on Tue, 09/14/2010 - 3:39pm

    Don't give Pakistan any ideas. Evidently they already think of India what most of the rest of the Middle East think about Israel (i.e., that they're the puppet masters behind everything).


    by Atheist (not verified) on Tue, 09/14/2010 - 3:46pm

    In what way, anna, would a nuclear exchange that kills millions on both sides benefit U.S. foreign policy? And you're assuming India is eagerly awaiting the U.S. wink-wink. It's not. India's leaders have shown much restraint in the face of Pakistani-based terrorism. Pakistan's civilian leaders have struggled to bring their intelligence services under control, but they realize another war with India would be their last.


    by acanuck on Tue, 09/14/2010 - 4:35pm

    well, acanuck, all i can say is you make a lot of assumptions about what i might be assuming.  and i think it's perhaps debatable that India has shown remarkable restraint, the pakistanis at least tell a very different story regarding  goings on in kashmir.

    but then again, perhaps you're right.  and you're definitely right if what you actually mean by restraint is that india has so far not unleashed any nukes. 

    for my part, i tend to think they're already at waging a proxy war in kashmir, and that this situation has serious negative potential.  while it hopefully won't come to the point you suggest (and as we've seen by us example, countries that possess nuclear arms are perfectly capable of waging very nasty wars without using them), i have no doubt where the us would come down if the struggle were to enlarge. short of encouraging a nuclear showdown, that is. 

    responding the david's points, the truth is that india has far more to fear from pakistan as a failed state than us does, and very well may have more interest in imposing order at some point in time than we will.  and it would be a great burden off the us's back if they did. 


    by anna am on Tue, 09/14/2010 - 6:13pm

    Despite its military superiority, India is the last country anyone should look to to "impose order" on Pakistan. As I imply downthread, the very concept of imposing order militarily is stupid in the extreme.


    by acanuck on Tue, 09/14/2010 - 6:33pm

    I think we are now powerless to really do anything at all today. In 2001 that was not the case, American power, for good, or evil, has been pissed away. We owe this to the neocons.


    by David Seaton on Tue, 09/14/2010 - 4:23pm

    What do you mean? Stop a civil war and rebuild Pakistan? Never could have done that. Defeat Pakistan militarily? Not a big deal.


    by Rootman on Tue, 09/14/2010 - 4:32pm

    It's that old hammer-and-nail thing. Everyone thinks their role is crucial in dealing with problematic countries. So the military sees the solution as defeating their armies in battle. Politicians (and political pundits) clamor for regime change; replacing the govt will do the trick. People who fancy themselves realists concede the need for "nation-building."

    It's all froth. Govts and their ideologies and alliances come and go; a nation's internal dynamics endure and eventually reassert themselves. And it's delusional to think any outside force -- much less a purely military one -- can change that. A decade on, and untold human suffering later, Iraq and Afghanistan are reverting to what they always were. Except poorer and a lot more pissed off. Let's not run the failed experiment again with Iran or Pakistan.


    by acanuck on Tue, 09/14/2010 - 5:04pm

    It's like Bullwinkle, trying to pull a rabbit out of that hat.

    Time for a new hat.

    And yes, this is "Geo-Politics by Bullwinkle," a full credit course.

    Come right in. 


    by quinn esq on Tue, 09/14/2010 - 5:35pm

    In general, I think you're right. In this case in particular though, I have to wonder if Seaton isn't pulling his version of a Wolfrum. (He often says inscrutable things in my opinion.) I've never thought of the military as one of the tools in his toolbox, but maybe I'm giving him too much/not enough credit (depending on your point of view).


    by Atheist (not verified) on Tue, 09/14/2010 - 7:19pm

    Based on Seaton's photo, he lives in an aluminum foil house, and thus has trouble getting a good cellular connection. That contributes to his essays being a hemorrhaging caldron of steamy earwax that one tries to escape, dragging impossibly leaden feet.


    by Rootman on Tue, 09/14/2010 - 7:45pm

    Did you know that saying she had "steamy earwax" was one of the sexiest compliments that a Norseman could give his wife? 

    I think maybe Articleman needs to come in here and read you the DagBlanged Rules, young man.


    by quinn esq on Wed, 09/15/2010 - 12:09am

    Just saying that the post was a big turn-on to me. Comes in here with his steamy earwax hangin out and then y'all complainin about harassment?


    by Rootman on Wed, 09/15/2010 - 7:39am

    What I have been trying to say in my clumsy fashion, is that once upon a time, say in the year 2000, with the Cold War over, the USA had many options and might have gone down in history in quite a different way then it is going to go now. Most if not all of these options have been lost because of a toxic political/media/economic system. I think that this is not a good thing, but that is the way it is.

    In the year 2001, when NATO invoked Article Five and the hole in the ground in New York was still smoking, the USA and its allies had some chance of straightening out Af/Pak, but that opportunity was all lost in Iraq.That failure is going to be seen as the point of inflexion of America's decadence, just as the sinking of the "Invincible Armada" was Spain's.

    These last nine years have accelerated America's decline as a power by at least 20 years. I really do believe that George W. Bush should be put on trial in The Hague, but of course that will never happen.


    by David Seaton on Wed, 09/15/2010 - 1:22pm

    Yes!  We are the new Spanish Armada!  I never thought about it in those terms, but you've hit the nail on the head!


    by Beetlejuice on Wed, 09/15/2010 - 1:39pm

    Latest Comments