ThePiousPriest
05-02-2011, 11:52 AM
As the revelry from last night begins to subside, many questions will be asked about the operation. How was it carried out? Why was he in Pakistan? What involvement will we have in Pakistan? While many of us would hope that President Obama would decide now that it is a good time to come home and start to restore some of our liberties, the current political environment will not allow for it.
1: Questions will be raised about Pakistan's involvement/complicity in Bin Laden hiding in the country. Pakistan's government is claiming they gave consent http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/05/02/exp.nr.pakistan.obl.reaction.cnn?hpt=T2
However, many sources are claiming that the US did not tell any other agencies and that only select few of people knew.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13256676
"Another senior US official said that no intelligence had been shared with any country, including Pakistan, ahead of the raid.
"Only a very small group of people inside our own government knew of this operation in advance," the official said."
This is simply Pakistan trying to save face for all of this. The fact that Bin Laden, figuratively speaking, could throw stones at the Pakistan Military Academy from his location does not bode well for their country.
This will also bring into question: "We gave Pakistan all of this money, and he was living right under their noses? why do we keep giving them money." This will strengthen Ron Paul's position of fighting against Foreign Aid as this is a case in point he brought up with discussing this in his new book. This will cause strain to develop between Pakistan and the United States.
This leads to my next point of where does the actual government of Pakistan stand? There is plenty of questions to be raised in this regards, as many believe Pakistan is willing playing both sides in this conflict:
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/05/201152104652958379.html
"The reality was that the Pakistani government deliberately supported the takeover of extremist parties – such as the Islamist MMA alliance in 2003 – and facilitated the comeback of the Taliban, all the while profiting handsomely from generous US aid and the lifting of nuclear sanctions.
This was despite the fact that democratically elected governments in both Afghanistan (Karzai's 2004 election was accepted as free and fair) and India complained vociferously of the Pakistani military's support of extremist groups in both their countries."
So obviously there will be tension and a willingness to interfere more with Pakistan.
2. An event will happen to call into question the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and the United States will act in order to "secure nuclear weapons"
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/world/asia/01policy.html
"For the Obama administration, the assessment poses a direct challenge to a central element of the president’s national security strategy, the reduction of nuclear stockpiles around the world. Pakistan’s determination to add considerably to its arsenal — mostly to deter India — has also become yet another irritant in its often testy relationship with Washington, particularly as Pakistan seeks to block Mr. Obama’s renewed efforts to negotiate a global treaty that would ban the production of new nuclear material.
The United States keeps its estimates of foreign nuclear weapons stockpiles secret, and Pakistan goes to great lengths to hide both the number and location of its weapons. It is particularly wary of the United States, which Pakistan’s military fears has plans to seize the arsenal if it was judged to be at risk of falling into the hands of extremists. Such secrecy makes accurate estimates difficult."
To doubt Obama's willingness to curb Nuclear Proliferation, is foolish as Obama makes this one of his goals. In his speech at Prague in 2009:
“So, finally, we must ensure that terrorists never acquire a nuclear weapon. This is the most immediate and extreme threat to global security. One terrorist with one nuclear weapon could unleash massive destruction. Al Qaeda has said it seeks a bomb and that it would have no problem with using it. And we know that there is unsecured nuclear material across the globe. To protect our people, we must act with a sense of purpose without delay.
So today I am announcing a new international effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years. We will set new standards, expand our cooperation with Russia, pursue new partnerships to lock down these sensitive materials.
We must also build on our efforts to break up black markets, detect and intercept materials in transit, and use financial tools to disrupt this dangerous trade. Because this threat will be lasting, we should come together to turn efforts such as the Proliferation Security Initiative and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism into durable international institutions. And we should start by having a Global Summit on Nuclear Security that the United States will host within the next year. (Applause.) “
This would be on par with Wilson seeking to “make the world safe for Democracy” or Roosevelt with the “Four Freedoms”. As Al Qaeda has already announced their intention to acquire Nuclear Weaponry or has possibly acquired is a sobering notion to entertain. Increasing their knowledge of Nuclear Weaponry by means of increased cooperation with elements of the Pakistani Government or striking against the Pakistani Government with the intention of showing the world that “Al Qaeda is not dead” seems a likely path for Al Qaeda to undertake.
With Obama showing no plans of letting up in the War on Terror, it is probable to assume Pakistan will be Obama's next target.
1: Questions will be raised about Pakistan's involvement/complicity in Bin Laden hiding in the country. Pakistan's government is claiming they gave consent http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/05/02/exp.nr.pakistan.obl.reaction.cnn?hpt=T2
However, many sources are claiming that the US did not tell any other agencies and that only select few of people knew.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13256676
"Another senior US official said that no intelligence had been shared with any country, including Pakistan, ahead of the raid.
"Only a very small group of people inside our own government knew of this operation in advance," the official said."
This is simply Pakistan trying to save face for all of this. The fact that Bin Laden, figuratively speaking, could throw stones at the Pakistan Military Academy from his location does not bode well for their country.
This will also bring into question: "We gave Pakistan all of this money, and he was living right under their noses? why do we keep giving them money." This will strengthen Ron Paul's position of fighting against Foreign Aid as this is a case in point he brought up with discussing this in his new book. This will cause strain to develop between Pakistan and the United States.
This leads to my next point of where does the actual government of Pakistan stand? There is plenty of questions to be raised in this regards, as many believe Pakistan is willing playing both sides in this conflict:
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/05/201152104652958379.html
"The reality was that the Pakistani government deliberately supported the takeover of extremist parties – such as the Islamist MMA alliance in 2003 – and facilitated the comeback of the Taliban, all the while profiting handsomely from generous US aid and the lifting of nuclear sanctions.
This was despite the fact that democratically elected governments in both Afghanistan (Karzai's 2004 election was accepted as free and fair) and India complained vociferously of the Pakistani military's support of extremist groups in both their countries."
So obviously there will be tension and a willingness to interfere more with Pakistan.
2. An event will happen to call into question the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and the United States will act in order to "secure nuclear weapons"
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/world/asia/01policy.html
"For the Obama administration, the assessment poses a direct challenge to a central element of the president’s national security strategy, the reduction of nuclear stockpiles around the world. Pakistan’s determination to add considerably to its arsenal — mostly to deter India — has also become yet another irritant in its often testy relationship with Washington, particularly as Pakistan seeks to block Mr. Obama’s renewed efforts to negotiate a global treaty that would ban the production of new nuclear material.
The United States keeps its estimates of foreign nuclear weapons stockpiles secret, and Pakistan goes to great lengths to hide both the number and location of its weapons. It is particularly wary of the United States, which Pakistan’s military fears has plans to seize the arsenal if it was judged to be at risk of falling into the hands of extremists. Such secrecy makes accurate estimates difficult."
To doubt Obama's willingness to curb Nuclear Proliferation, is foolish as Obama makes this one of his goals. In his speech at Prague in 2009:
“So, finally, we must ensure that terrorists never acquire a nuclear weapon. This is the most immediate and extreme threat to global security. One terrorist with one nuclear weapon could unleash massive destruction. Al Qaeda has said it seeks a bomb and that it would have no problem with using it. And we know that there is unsecured nuclear material across the globe. To protect our people, we must act with a sense of purpose without delay.
So today I am announcing a new international effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years. We will set new standards, expand our cooperation with Russia, pursue new partnerships to lock down these sensitive materials.
We must also build on our efforts to break up black markets, detect and intercept materials in transit, and use financial tools to disrupt this dangerous trade. Because this threat will be lasting, we should come together to turn efforts such as the Proliferation Security Initiative and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism into durable international institutions. And we should start by having a Global Summit on Nuclear Security that the United States will host within the next year. (Applause.) “
This would be on par with Wilson seeking to “make the world safe for Democracy” or Roosevelt with the “Four Freedoms”. As Al Qaeda has already announced their intention to acquire Nuclear Weaponry or has possibly acquired is a sobering notion to entertain. Increasing their knowledge of Nuclear Weaponry by means of increased cooperation with elements of the Pakistani Government or striking against the Pakistani Government with the intention of showing the world that “Al Qaeda is not dead” seems a likely path for Al Qaeda to undertake.
With Obama showing no plans of letting up in the War on Terror, it is probable to assume Pakistan will be Obama's next target.