Washington Post Advocates Attacking Nuclear-Armed Pakistan
Needless to say, Katherine Grahm must be doing cartwheels in her grave:
If Pakistani forces cannot -- or will not -- eliminate the sanctuary, President Bush must order targeted strikes or covert actions by American forces, as he has done several times in recent years. Such actions run the risk of further destabilizing Pakistan. Yet those risks must be weighed against the consequences of another large-scale attack on U.S. soil. "Direct intervention against the sanctuary in Afghanistan apparently must have seemed . . . disproportionate to the threat," the Sept. 11 commission noted. The United States must not repeat that tragic misjudgment.
And here, folks, are my favorite remarks from the WP's own comment thread:
Once again. the Post reveals its warmongering point-of-view, and a childish understanding of foreign policy. Someone needs to give the Post an "Olmert Award" for pseudo-macho stupidity. With our recored of inept military action in the area, the most likely result will be a nuclear-armed Islamic state. That will have unthinkable effects on India and the region. Will US troops go in to try to grab the nukes? And if that fails? I suspect American aircraft carriers and other military assets are within range. Attacking ANOTHER Islamic state is probably the stupidest thing possible, although one can never underestimate the neocons.
I’m not really surprised that the Post’s editors are stupid enough, after everything we've seen, to suggest attacking a country armed with nuclear weapons.
I just cannot believe that that so many readers are falling for the same old tricks all over again.
Actually, scratch that. I do believe it. I never believed that most of my fellow commentators here really opposed the Iraq war in 2003. They just turned against it when they finally realised they were losing.
Now, Cheney is pushing for war against Iran, but others in the Administration resist. Yet they all agree it would be politically smart to stimulate a bit of US jingoism in time for the election campaign. They feel the urge to double down…why not compromise on Waziristan?
Given the time necessary to place troops and pump up the war fever, the drumbeat would have to start about now. Let the word go forth to the neoconservative outlets that sold the Iraq war. Just do what you did in 2002-3. The lemmings will follow...trust us.
It is incredible that the Post can run this editorial and not once mention the impact the war in Iraq has had on our ability to conduct military operations in Pakistan or Afghanistan. Not only is it incredible, it is hypocritical for your editorial to run this editorial while backing Bush on Iraq. Sometimes I wonder if the editorial board reads the news stories that the Post runs.
What kind of nuts are you guys at the Post? Attack a nuclear nation? Overturn an unstable Pakistani government and perhaps turn it over to the supporters of al Qaeda? That's what's likely to happen if we start attacking inside Pakistan. My, wouldn't Qaeda love to have nukes for its terror operations! What is it about the Post and Bush that lead them into moves that empower our worst enemies?
Of course, if Pakistani terrorists nuked us, we'd nuke them back to the stone age. But is that a process we want to go through?
(via Kevin Drum)