Pakistan is not _simply_ a client state of the U.S. Were the U.S. willing to really flex its muscles, no doubt it could coerce Pakistan into dismantling the al-Qaeda camps in northern Pakistan and "Azad Kashmir". But no such demand has been made. Why not? Partly because it would probably require a credible threat of war to get Pakistan to comply. And partly because this war has never really been about dismantling the al-Qaeda network. A small part of it was destroyed in Afghanistan; the vast majority of it still exists, and is still very much in business, as recent attacks on India demonstrate.
Instead of pursuing our announced aims - capturing bin Laden and dismantling al-Qaeda - we're now on to entirely unrelated imperial adventures. Al-Qaeda provided a pretext for the rehabilitation of war as a routine instrument of U.S. foreign policy. Only token efforts are being made to find bin Laden, and almost no efforts are being made to dismantle the rest of al-Qaeda.
I wonder why?
MM
>>> uvj at vsnl.com 05/22/02 10:15AM >>>
Michael McIntyre wrote:
> The solution proferred is far too simple: just tell Musharraf to call off
the dogs. >Musharraf doesn't have the power to call off the dogs. Were he
to try to withdraw >support from the militants, shut down the camps, put an
end to the attacks, he would >be removed from power within days. Not that
he has any desire to: this is, after all, >the general who launched the
Kargil offensive in 1999.
The U.S. hardly deserves the title 'super power', if the US can not influence even Musharraf. Why should the US worry about Musharraf's removal? The US can't influence his successors? What is the US afraid of? Al-Qaida taking over Pakistan?
Ulhas