If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed. Thanks for reading!

The decision to make public a presidential order of last July authorizing American strikes inside Pakistan without seeking the approval of the Pakistani government ends a long debate within, and on the periphery of, the Bush administration. Sen. Barack Obama, aware of this ongoing debate during his own long battle with Sen. Hillary Clinton, tried to outflank her by supporting a policy of U.S. strikes into Pakistan. Sen. John McCain and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin have now echoed this view, and so it has become, by consensus, official U.S. policy.

Its effects on Pakistan could be catastrophic, creating a severe crisis within the army and in the country at large. The overwhelming majority of Pakistanis are opposed to the U.S. presence in the region, viewing it as the most serious threat to peace.

Why, then, has the U.S. decided to destabilize a crucial ally? Within Pakistan, some analysts argue that this is a carefully coordinated move to weaken the Pakistani state yet further by creating a crisis that extends way beyond the badlands on the frontier with Afghanistan. Its ultimate aim, they claim, would be the extraction of the Pakistani military’s nuclear fangs. If this were the case, it would imply that Washington was indeed determined to break up the Pakistani state, since the country would very simply not survive a disaster on that scale. (more…)

George W. Bush seems terribly confused these days (and not just because he can’t decide whether the U.S. supports the Kurds in Iraq, opposes the Kurds in Turkey, encourages Kurdish terrorism in Iran or does all three simultaneously). With Pervez Musharraf declaring emergency rule in Pakistan, the Bush Doctrine has come face to face with a genuine challenge: should the United States toss in its shameful support for Pakistan’s authoritarian Falstaff or… well, not?

The latter, it seems, has become the favored option in Washington. (more…)