US & Pakistan: The Growing Tensions

Afghan Journal | Analysis & Opinion | Reuters.com

In conducting a raid deep inside Pakistan to take out Osama bin Laden, the United States pushed the boundaries of military operations, inter-state ties and international law, all of which are the subject of a raging debate in the region and beyond.

One of less talked-about issues is that the boots-on-ground operation by the U.S. Special Forces also blows a hole in a long-held argument that states which have nuclear weapons, legitimately or otherwise, face a lower chance of a foreign strike or invasion than those without them. Thus the United States didn’t think twice before going into Afghanistan within weeks of the September 11 attacks or striking against Libya now because there was no nuclear threat lurking at the back of the mind. Even Iraq was a more tempting target because it was not known to have a well-established nuclear arsenal although the whole point of the invasion was that it had weapons of mass destruction. That only turned out to be untrue.

And conversely there is a belief that the United States or some of the other Western powers such as a newly-assertive France wouldn’t take on North Korea because of the nuclear weapons it holds. It is simply too dangerous and even in the case of Iran those who favour action say the time to do it is now while it is still developing the weapons, not when it has completed the programme.

But the May 2 raid in a compound in a Pakistani garrison town tests that logic and shows the limits of nuclear deterrence, as Elbridge Colby, who served recently in the office of the U.S. Secretar of Defense on START negotiations wrote in Real Clear World’s Compass blog. Pakistan has a powerful nuclear arsenal, growing at a rate that will make it the fourth-largest in a decade behind only the United States, Russia and China. It has the delivery systems, both missiles and aircraft, to fire these weapons and a huge professional army to support the nuclear programme. Yet all that nuclear infrastructure did not stop the United States from breaching its air space, inserting soldiers in the ground right under the Pakistani military’s nose, hunting down bin Laden and his associates in the house and flying away with his body. All without Islamabad’s consent, according to the version put out by both sides.

Things could have spun out of control, the Pakistani military could have engaged the Special Forces with unpredictable results. The air force according to reports did scramble its fighters, so there was always the chance of a fight. Yet as Colby says it is striking – and a lesson for others – that America seemed willing to take its chances against a nuclear-armed power. It shows that nuclear weapons do not provide blanket protection.

“Countries that have nuclear weapons can still be confronted and operated against without escalation to nuclear use, particularly when the objective pursued is limited and discriminate, and especially when that objective is connected to a truly vital national interest,” he writes.

In Pakistan’s case, of course realistically speaking, there was no chance it would contemplate the use of nuclear weapons against the United States and that must have been factored into U.S.President Barack Obama’s calculus as he took the decision to proceed with the operation, Colby says.

Nevertheless a message has been delivered to nuclear states and those trying to acquire weapons that they can be challenged.

Nuclear bluff will only work against weak and close nations like india. US is far strong and far away for any nuclear threat from pakistan.

The bluff will also not work if the bluffing nation is already sold out to the other nation.

Regards,
Virendra

US has the advantage of being far away from Pakistan, that discounting the fact that the US is the most powerful force in the world.

India is Pakistans neighbor and India is not a quarter as good as US in terms military power.

But I agree with the bluff part. I have always maintained Indis needs to call Pakistans bluff on nuke and it's supposedly low threshold.

Well bluff is all they have.......for now, but for how long, US is out of question and with India developing anti-ballistic missiles, their bluffs won't work in future.

Kabul attackers toted juice, weapons from Pakistan - World Wires - MiamiHerald.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/15/wo...sed-group.html

U.S. Blames Pakistan-Based Group for Kabul Attack

Oh it is so really surprising that the attack has been traced to the country of 180 million fighting for the future of the worlds 7 billion. I cannot believe this. Surely american propaganda

Pakistan PM cancels US visit after Obama refuses to meet him

Islamabad: Pakistan Premier Yousuf Raza Gilani has called off a planned visit to the US at the eleventh hour after President Barack Obama refused to meet him on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session.

The Prime Minister’s House announced yesterday that Gilani had called off his visit as he intended to personally supervise relief operations in flood-hit areas of Sindh, but the Dawn newspaper quoted its sources as saying that one reason for the move was the US President’s “refusal to meet” Gilani on the sidelines of the UN session in New York.

Gilani has now directed Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar to represent Pakistan at the UN General Assembly session.


There were indications that the strained relations between Pakistan and the US had led to Gilani cancelling his trip to America, where he was to address the UN General Assembly session, the daily reported. The Pakistan embassy in Washington and the Consulate General in New York had “tried hard to arrange a meeting between Prime Minister Gilani and President Barack Obama but failed,” the report said.
The visit was cancelled at the “eleventh hour” and “all arrangements related to the trip, such as issuance of tickets to members of the delegation and their hotel bookings in New York, had been finalised,” the report said.

Supervision of flood relief efforts is an excuse, because only this week the Prime Minister had a couple of days’ trip to Iran,” a journalist who was to accompany Gilani to New York, was quoted as saying.

Gilani had yesterday responded to the US criticism of Pakistan’s efforts in the war on terror by saying that it was “now time that they (United States) should do more” in the campaign against terrorists.

He said Pakistan had “sacrificed much in battling the menace of terrorism” and the country should not be “pressurised to do more.” Pakistan-US relations hit a new low after the covert US raid that killed al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden in the garrison city of Abbottabad in May.

US officials, including Vice President Joe Biden and Defence Secretary Leon Panetta, have recently called on Pakistan to do more against terrorists.
Panetta blamed Pakistan-based militants for the latest Taliban attack on the US embassy in Kabul while Biden described Pakistan as an unreliable ally in the war on terror.

The US has renewed pressure on Pakistan to act against the Haqqani network, which has been linked to the attack on the American embassy in Kabul. The US says the Haqqani network of Taliban has safe havens in Pakistan’s tribal belt near the Afghan border

Pakistan PM cancels US visit after Obama refuses to meet him | Firstpost

Obama also refuses to meet Indian PM, yet the latter is still going ahead with his US visit.

give me a source................. please

obama refusing to meet Indian PM

as they say in america are you kidding me

Another diversionary tactic to divert attention of the thread

What a mockery is being made of pakistan in the world but they are shameless creatures.

I think this is also a cultural thing among certain nations perhaps. they don't understand protocols at times - they don't get that you can't just " hook up" with the leader of the free world .... UN is not a college campus to be meet world leaders of US caliber on a " side line". Plus who looks forward to meeting up with your perpetual begging for money relatives?