Taliban Suicide Attack Kills 60 In Pakistan

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Foreign Affairs
Posted on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:54:54 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The world is a dangerous place:

More than 60 people were killed Thursday when two suicide bombers attacked Pakistan’s largest weapons manufacturing complex, just north of the capital, the deadliest attack by the Taliban in their escalating campaign against the government.

The attack came just days after the resignation of President Pervez Musharraf left two rival political parties in the governing coalition haggling over the question of succession and added a new layer of turbulence to an unstable, nuclear-armed nation. Neither party has been eager to take on the campaign against the militants, which is seen here as an American conflict foisted on Pakistan.

Some "Serious People" think we do not have enough issues in the world and need to take on Russia by expanding NATO to Georgia and the Ukraine. I disagree.

< Intrusive New FBI Surveillance Guidelines Proposed | Forget Who, When? Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Taliban Suicide Attack Kills 60 In Pakistan | 29 comments (29 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I continue to be very surprised that (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by inclusiveheart on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:09:28 AM EST

Musharaf's resignation has not been addressed by either party.

His exit creates an obvious void and certainly if I understood all of the Bush rhetoric about his importance over the years also creates a gaping hole in Bush's war on terror effort.

Void? (none / 0) (#4)
by gaf on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:17:45 AM EST

What kind of void does his exit create?
Maybe now there isn't a dictator governing the
country, but other than that, I don't see what is the void you are referring to?


The kind of void (none / 0) (#13)
by cawaltz on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:59:04 AM EST

that could leave us in the cold. Bhutto's party was very sympathetic to the Taliban pre 9/11. There are some reports that it was Pakistani influence that helped initially place them in power in Afghanistan.

That said, I think that we need to recognize the power shift there not attempt to prop up another figure of power to our benefit.


Musharaff (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by gaf on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:12:01 PM EST

Musharaff also was very sympathetic to the Taliban pre 9/11. Mush's top army chiefs & secret service chiefs are still sympathetic to the Taliban.

Bush arm-twisted Mush & also gave Pakistan a lot of money in exchange for helping the USA. The same agreement will be continued with the new party in power.

The reason all Pakistan parties are sympathetic towards the Taliban is 2-fold

It's a religion thingy. The hard-liners in the country won't stand for Pakistan opposing a Muslim group to support anything non-Muslim
Taliban helps Pakistan in it's clandestine war against India. Terrorist training camps in Pakistan which train jihadis train them for both the terrorism in Kashmir & also the terrorism in other parts of the world.

It is a power void. (none / 0) (#16)
by inclusiveheart on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:10:29 PM EST

I am not saying that I wanted him to stick around, but especially when dictators exit there is a tremendous vacuum of power that typically creates such an intense rush for other people to fill it - to grab the power - that chaos often ensues.

Iraq was a good example of that. Love him or hate him Saddam Hussein kept Iraq together. Tito is another example.

The Bush Administration gave Pakistan's nuclear weapons program the green light probably assuming that their favorite dictator would stay forever.

Now what are we looking at? A huge country with a multitude of political factions some of which are extremist and powerful without a head of state and they have nuclear arms.

That's just a tiny bit scary don't ya think?


Head of State? (none / 0) (#19)
by gaf on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:20:44 PM EST

Huh - No head of state?
In Pakistan, India, England etc, the most powerful person is traditionally the Prime Minister rather than the President. For eg, in India, the President is actually a token post - sort of like the VP in the US. Mush was a dictator & hence the PM's role was insignificant during his time.

Now the PM of Pakistan is Yousaf Raza Gillani. He was sworn in in March.

He is from the PPP - it's not an extremist party.

And US green lighting the Pakistani nuclear program?
When did that happen?

Pakistan's nuclear program has mostly been done by China not the USA. USA has been just helping Pakistan guard it from extremists since 2001. I believe that will continue.

Mush resigning was for only 1 reason - he would have been impeached had he not resigned. He had already stopped being the actual head of state since March on.


So what you're saying is that (none / 0) (#21)
by inclusiveheart on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:59:22 PM EST

going from a military dictatorship to a parliamentry system is going to be a smooth transition? I have a hard time believing that. Hope you are right, but I find that very hard to believe.

And on the nuclear green light front - Bush lifted the sanctions we had been imposing on Pakistan in an effort to curry favor from Musharraf.

I don't think that comparing the UK and Pakistan makes much sense given the fact that Musharraf was a dictator - the UK hasn't had a military dictator that I can think of. Kings and queens yes - but no dictators.


: No (none / 0) (#31)
by gaf on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:10:26 PM EST

going from a military dictatorship to a parliamentry system is going to be a smooth transition
No - that's not what I am saying that.
I am saying the Mush resigning is a non-event from the perspective of the transition. The transition started in March, when the prime minister was sworn in. Mush resigned because he was threatened with impeachment. He stopped being the Head of State in March itself.

I don't think that comparing the UK and Pakistan makes much sense given the fact that Musharraf was a dictator
I didn't really compare the political sit in Pak & UK. I just said that like the UK or India, in Pak, President is supposed to be a token post.

Note re: Russia and NATO--Many supplies to NATO (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by jawbone on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:41:47 PM EST

troops in Afghanistan come into that country through Russia. And, our supply lines otherwise come through Pakistan (mostly from Karachi),then overland on trucks driving some challenging topography--and now facing assaults designed to cut the supplies from Pakistan.

So, that would leave Russia in a very important position, geographically and strategically.

If we want to bite off our collective nose to spite our face, go for it, BushCo and NeoCons and Russia fearmongers. Not gonna help.

Moon of Alabama has several fascinating posts on just how dangerous the supply route into Afghanistan is and how precarious our position will be if we actually place the number of troops needed in Afghanistan into that country.

The Russian FM (iirc) actually mentioned the supply route issue when he said NATO needs Russian as much as Russia needs NATO nations' acceptance.

This post looks at the supply conumdrum--takes an amazing amount of fuel to keep our military moving and safe--or just go to the home site link and scroll around.

The Quickest Way (4.50 / 2) (#15)
by BDB on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:09:54 PM EST

to become a second class country with a second class economy is to overextend our military and overspend our treasury trying to bend the world to our will. As a practical matter, we have no military available to fight Russia (not that we should want to). We're in debt to our eyeballs to the Chinese.

We cannot continue to use the military as a means of keeping cheap foreign goods and oil flowing. We cannot always shape the world to our liking. As Andrew Bacevich said:

I think there's a tendency on the part of policy makers and probably a tendency on the part of many Americans to think that the problems we face are problems that are out there somewhere, beyond our borders. And that if we can fix those problems, then we'll be able to continue the American way of life as it has long existed. I think it's fundamentally wrong. Our major problems are at home.

If we become a second class nation it's not going to be because of the Russians, it's going to be because we don't invest in our infrastructure, don't ensure living wages, don't have a decent healthcare system and refuse to regulate our financial and other systems in any rational way.

: Nobody's looking for a fight with Russia (5.00 / 0) (#24)
by pmj6 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:05:49 PM EST

But we do need a common understanding as to what our mutual obligations and responsibilities are.

: What Are We Supposed To Do? (none / 0) (#30)
by BDB on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:17:25 PM EST

I agree they're awful. Is that all you wanted?
But as a practical matter we cannot at this moment in history do very much to reign them in. We are in no position to hurt them militarily, economically, or politically. So what are we going to do then, issue threats everyone knows we can't back up (which is what we've been doing)? That will sure raise our standing.
It's our boneheaded foreign policy that has put Russia (and China and Iran) into these positions of power. So instead of trying to control what we can't (Russia), let's stop doing stupid things around the world that empowers these folks. That's the only thing within our control.

Maybe Now (none / 0) (#1)
by OxyCon on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:05:10 AM EST

Pakistan will get serious about eradicating these insane people, instead of being so hospitable to them.

: Which insane people? (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by kdog on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:42:44 AM EST

You need to be more specific....the terrorist whackjobs who blow themselves up or the Washington advisor whackjobs who order others to drop bombs.

: Not new (none / 0) (#5)
by gaf on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:21:39 AM EST

This isn't new. These kinds of attacks have been happening right since the time Bush twisted Musharaff's arm & forced Pakistan into helping him.
People high up in Musharaff's army, Pakistan's secret agency etc are all pro-Taliban. Hence the lackluster effort from Pakistan in helping the US.
However, the radicals don't like even these token efforts by Musharaff & hence these attacks have been happening for quite some time now.

This looks more like a "message"... (none / 0) (#2)
by p lukasiak on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:05:34 AM EST

I suspect that this is a "message" attack (i.e. making sure that the post-Musharrah leadership understands what its in for if it comes after al Qaeda/Taliban sanctuaries) rather than a "crisis" inducing attack....

The Taliban is Russia's fault now? (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:28:24 AM EST

I love that (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Dadler on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:54:58 AM EST

Since Russia invaded Afghanistan decades ago to defeat what we armed and, ironically, turned into the Taliban.


: No (none / 0) (#25)
by pmj6 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:11:47 PM EST

There was nothing even remotely resembling the Taliban at the time of the Soviet invasion. The Soviets invaded because they thought the CIA was scheming to overthrow a local ruler friendly to USSR. This was still during the warmongering and expansionistic Carter administration.

Given that the Soviet military... (3.00 / 1) (#22)
by pmj6 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:00:22 PM EST

...is responsible for the massive flow of refugees into Pakistan and an utter disorganization of the Afghan society, the two preconditions for the rise of the Taliban, it has to be said they are not exactly blame-free here. This would be true whether or not the US supported any of players in the conflict, because even if it did not, Pakistan and others likely would for their own reasons.


Well, It Can't Be Ours (none / 0) (#11)
by BDB on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:57:02 AM EST

can it? Nothing ever is.


Was that you addressed in my point? (none / 0) (#29)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:29:43 PM EST

Really?


Hope? (none / 0) (#9)
by mmc9431 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:46:08 AM EST

The only hope I have left of an Obama administration is that our foreign relations will improve. Somehow I can't imagine him appointing anyone worse the Condi.

We need to get out of the "hawk" mode and realize that we can't control the world. We also can't be the international military.

Hopefully we'll be able to invovle the world rather than the unilateral approach of the Bush Administration.

I agree with BTD. (none / 0) (#12)
by Christy1947 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:58:11 AM EST

With the departure of Musharraf, Pakistan has a number of the same nation building issues that other places such as Georgia, have, which have been smothered by military rule. Another one that is going to be a mess before it settles, but in a country with nukes in it. Not good.

The Good News (4.00 / 1) (#18)
by BDB on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:19:05 PM EST

is that there seems to be bipartisan support for taking military action against Pakistan. So we can continue to wage unwinnable wars even if we pull out of Iraq.

Forget Iran, IMO, the next U.S. war will be an expansion of the current one in Afghanistan and the scary part is that it's almost as likely to happen under Obama as it is under McCain because all of the serious people agree that we just cannot let this stand.

I don't think I've ever agreed with Pat Buchanan, but he's right, IMO, Afghanistan will be the new Vietnam and all of D.C. is rushing into it, looking to save the Iraq fiasco by winning the "good" war.

Well the time to do that was 2002 and thanks to Bush that opportunity has already been missed and it's folly to pretend it hasn't been. We don't have the strategic advantages or the resources we had six years ago. To pretend otherwise is to deny reality, something we've gotten too good at as a nation, IMO.


All of Which Is To Say (none / 0) (#20)
by BDB on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:20:46 PM EST

I agree with you - this isn't good. It's a mess.

No wonder we're looking to revive big bad evil Russia, we've made quite the mess. Which is not, of course, to say that Russia is some paragon of virture, only that we are making things worse (and empowering Russia, China and Iran as we do it).


: I think "big, bad, evil Russia"... (none / 0) (#23)
by pmj6 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:02:32 PM EST

...is doing a bang-up job of reviving itself, thank you very much.

Yup--they're all counting on Afghanistan to be the (none / 0) (#28)
by jawbone on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:43:41 PM EST

Next Good War, the next big thing for our nation to "feel good" about. Ooof.

Several analysts have been pointing out how difficult it will be.


: the Brits when they were Empire couldn't bring (none / 0) (#32)
by Christy1947 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:13:02 PM EST

what we think of Order to Afghanistan either. That is a place which will run its own way or no way. I just hope that we have the sense to get Bin Laden and then get out of Dodge and let the Afghans work out their internal order themselves. It may need a quarantine since the taliban is the world's largest supplier of opium for heroin and are working to make the horse themselves.