The meltdown that is apparently happening in Pakistan since the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and the affect it is having on the U.S. is extremely fascinating to watch.
On the one hand, reports are coming out of Washington articulating things that have been obvious for years - such as:
The debate [on enlarging the CIA presence in Pakistan] is a response to intelligence reports that Al Qaeda and the Taliban are intensifying efforts there to destabilize the Pakistani government, several senior administration officials said.
This has been the elephant in the room, er White House, since at least 2004. Though no one has articulated what exactly the U.S. is going to do about it.
Of more significant interest, to me at least, is the question of American empire insinuated in this statement:
Several of the participants in the meeting argued that the threat to the government of President Pervez Musharraf was now so grave that both Mr. Musharraf and Pakistan’s new military leadership were likely to give the United States more latitude, officials said. But no decisions were made, said the officials, who declined to speak for attribution because of the highly delicate nature of the discussions.
The real question is whether the U.S. will in fact take military, or even covert CIA, action if given said latitude. Or, will we continue to buckpass the problem to the same crowd of local ineffectual leaders as been our policy? This is a core problem of the U.S.'s schizophrenic empire identity complex. Instead of acting like the greatest economic and military power ever known on the planet, we consistently demonstrate extreme conservatism to commit the resources necessary to fulfill strategic objectives.
No comments:
Post a Comment