This is one of those days which makes a guy glad to be alive--that is if he is a maven of how much can go wrong in the world all at the same time. So much has gone so terribly out of whack in the past twenty-four or so hours that is hard to decide what most tickles the brain, that is, what deserves the virtual ink.
It is quite tempting to take a few shots at that LST (large slow target) named "Pakistan." It is a hoot and a half to contemplate that less than a couple of dozen Mighty Warriors Of The One True Faith can take over a major naval air installation. That these Glorious Fighters Of The Koran can hold off assorted Pakistani military forces for seventeen hours, destroying a pair of P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft, gifts of the American people delivered only last June, in the process.
Not since a similar commando unit hit and held the Pakistani army's headquarters a couple of years ago has the Islamic Republic been so humiliated. It is presumed that the Great Strategists of Islamabad are down on their prayer rugs giving thanks to the deity that the Taliban trigger-pullers did not hit a certain facility only ten klicks over, conveniently adjacent to an airbase where nuclear weapons are stored. For such small favors, the Pakistanis should give great and prolonged thanks.
For the rest of us, the Taliban raid raises the long standing questions regarding the security of Pakistan's arsenal of one hundred or so nukes to new heights. After all, the night squad which cut its way through a pair of barbed wire fences and used low tech ladders to scale a wall were not in the same league as the men of Boat Six of Great Abbottabad Raid fame. If a handful of jihadists with nothing more sophisticated than RPGs, AKs, and a willingness to die could storm the heavily guarded naval airfield, is it impossible for a similar group to do the same at either a nuclear weapons depot or manufacturing facility?
On the upside, such muscular measures might not be needful given the omnipresence of ideological soulmates within the Pakistani military and intelligence services. Or the direct method might be obviated by the Pakistani version of the hoary Mexican approach of "silver or lead." It is not unthinkable, considering the prevalence of corruption in the Islamic Republic, that the promise of silver might trump the threat of lead.
On another continent, the ardent observer of frothing wars and failing states must feel a pleasant glow contemplating the attack over the weekend by Sudanese forces on the contested oil center of Abyei. The Khartoum regime has maintained with a straight face that its attack complete with air strikes and armored units was "retaliation" for the ambush last week of a UN convoy escorted by Sudanese army personnel. To the not yet officially independent state of South Sudan, the occupation of Abyei constituted an act of war.
Abyei was supposed to have voted as to which side it would join--Sudan or South Sudan--at the same time as the overall referendum on Southern independence. This did not occur because Khartoum insisted on including a nomadic tribe of Muslim affiliation among those franchised to vote in the election. This demand was vetoed by the southerners. As a result, the Abyei question has not been settled. Nor is it likely to be settled by means other than the violent.
The UN has done the expected--denounce the attack and demand Khartoum withdraw its forces. Assorted advocates for South Sudan (mainly George Clooney and assorted NGOs) are making predictable noises regarding the US and UK doing something to compel Khartoum to back down. And, to insure the decibel level of rhetoric is high enough, spokesmen for South Sudan are warning darkly that the occupation of Abyei bodes well to restart the war between South and North which ended in 2005 after twenty-two years and hundreds of thousands of lives due to the diplomacy of the US and UK.
Just what the US or UK can do short of using highly kinetic coercive diplomacy to gain Khartoum's adherence to our policy requirements is unclear. What is clear is that neither Washington nor London are in any hurry to send warplanes or troops anywhere beyond current theaters of operation.
The upcoming meeting between President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron has some potential for both sparks and amusement. The two leaders are not in perfect tandem regarding what is being done in Libya to say nothing of what should be done. The British and French are all in favor of more hairy chested efforts than those made to date. In earnest of this intent, both have announced the deployment of helicopter gunships to the country. The British will operate Apaches and the French machines of local manufacture from carriers in the Mediterranean.
Both states (the British more vocally) want the US to come back to Libya in a larger and more noise producing way than has been the case in recent weeks. The redeployment of American A-10 and AC-130 aircraft is much desired by Whitehall. While more muted in their stance, there is little doubt that M. Sarkozy's government would be very happy to see the weight of the US more heavily on the scales in favor of the rebels.
There is no indication that President Obama is in a mood to honor the requests. Certainly, there is no evident pawing of the ground in favor of more and more high profile operations visible at the Pentagon.
This contretemps gives added importance to a little noticed event scheduled to occur during the Obama-Cameron meeting. Reportedly the US and UK will establish a joint national security entity which will coordinate the perceptions and plans of the two countries to allow more effective joint and combined actions globally. Considering the negative view held by Mr Obama regarding the "special relationship" between the UK and US, this is a surprising development. If the reports are confirmed by events, it is a most welcome one as well.
While such a joint body may easily be nothing more than a pro forma exercise in policy futility, there is some chance that it will evolve into a genuine mechanism for meshing together the national security strategies and programs of two natural allies. It might even point in the direction of growing to include several UK descended states--Australia, New Zealand, Canada and India--along with the US and UK into a tightly integrated political/military bloc which would be virtually unchallengeable in years to come.
Now, that sort of "international community" is one which is very pleasant to contemplate. It gives the Geek a warm feeling and, being a sensitive sort of guy, he will end this post on this potentially very high note.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
For someone who is a strong believer in the Anglosphere, an entity (of which I suppose ECHELON is the start) which Churchill called for in his Fulton speech, this is welcome news. I look with concern the US turn towards China and other despotic regimes whilst the cultural links with the West are marginalised. Given that the UK (coming hat-in-hand for apaches, toilet paper and anything else the US army may deign to provide) is second in strength among the US's allies in the actual fighting, I find your mention of Obama's disdain for the so-called special relationship a puzzle. The Brits seem to go out of their way to provide the cover and will to get their hands dirty for nothing whilst few others seem to be as accommodating. the US has even seen fit to publicly declare their disinterest if the Argentinians decide to reinvade the Falklands. That's a special relationship (like a master-slave-dominatrix). I cut Obama a lot of slack, but from immediately calling the British Ambassador to come and claim the bust of Churchill to his repeated snubs of Brown to his insulting familiarity to the Queen, he has shown to be anything but a friend of the UK.
The Geek is a very strong advocate of the "special relationship" as has been demonstrated in posts too numerous to mention here. He is also a very, very strong believer in a bloc comprised of the "English" polluted states, particularly the US, the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India. This group would be well neigh onto unbeatable in the "Game of Nations" should it be brought into existence. The adherence by other, similarly predicated democracies such as some in the Caribbean region might join as well but in any even the criteria for membership is not only linguistic but, more importantly, the shared norms, values and imperatives of world view which can be traced back in major way to their roots in that "sceptered isle."
Post a Comment