Plans for disintegration of Pakistan up for debate

By Abid Ullah Jan
Nov 20, 2007

It would be un-forgivable if the armed forces of Pakistan ignored the plans being developed in the USA against Pakistan . The neo-cons and their compatriots in India and Israel are rubbing their hands with glee that another General (Musharraf following in the footsteps of Yahya Khan) is providing them another opportunity to strike against Pakistan . Musharraf's efforts to perpetuate himself in power have raised anger and frustration to levels that Pakistan 's military is now seen as the enemy and a legitimate target by the 'esistance'. It is vitally important that the military rises against Musharraf, removes him from power, and put him on trial for treachery. If it did not, it will have to fight a war with India in circumstances very similar to that of 1971. The difference would only be that if the Sixth American Fleet did come, it would come in support of India . + Usman Khalid+    

Frederick Kagan and Michael O'Hanlon presented their strategic plan for disarming Pakistan in the New York Time on November 19, 2007. Written with imperial arrogance and colonial mindset, this piece cannot be contemptuously dismissed because the duo are neo-cons. O'Hanlon is the cheerleader of the "˜surge' in Iraq . With the Brookings Institute and the New York Times standing behind them, there is good reason for Pakistanis and their leadership to wake up.

This back-of-an-envelope military planning from neo-con analysts is aimed at exploiting the unrest and instability resulting from an unpopular dictatorial regime in Pakistan . The authors of the plan believe that chaos and anarchy in Pakistan may well preclude organised state resistance to an invasion. In fact, the concept on which the plan is based is that the armed forces of Pakistan would soon be so unpopular that they may be deemed to be anti-people thus needing foreign forces to protect them from the anger and hate of the people much like in East Pakistan in 1971. The objective of the invasion, the authors of the plan say, is the destruction of the military power of Pakistan . The objective remains the same as it was in the case of war on Iraq and the planned invasion of Iran . Only the strategy for neutralising the military power of Pakistan is somewhat different.

The plan is published in the NY Times with the intention to getting attention from all quarters hostile to Muslims or friendly to India and Israel . Since the White House considers the "˜Surge' as a stunning success, it's natural that Kagan and O'Hanlon will receive a sympathetic ear. Even though their counsel is lacking in rational approach and it seeks to deny the right to self defence and self determination to yet another nation, a president with little interest in rights and freedom is unlikely to be much bothered.

Kegan and O'Hanlon don't really have a plan; they have a dream which they want to sell to the American military. They are also urging the intelligence community to enrol more collaborators and traitors which they refer to in the op-ed as "˜pro-America moderates'. In their rumination, presented as a plan, the duo says: "Given the degree to which Pakistani nationalists cherish these assets, it is unlikely the United States would get permission to destroy them. Somehow, American forces would have to team with Pakistanis to secure critical sites and possibly to move the material to a safer place." The question is: What kind of Pakistanis are they expecting to team up with the invading armies?

In their wishful thinking the authors of the plan for invasion of Pakistan assume that Pakistan 's military will welcome the invasion and support the invading armies: "So, if we got a large number of troops into the country, what would they do? The most likely directive would be to help Pakistan 's military and security forces hold the country's centre "” primarily the region around the capital, Islamabad , and the populous areas like Punjab Province to its south."

The plan is not sure how American forces will be welcomed by the Pakistanis but says "˜somehow' the invading armies "would have to team up with Pakistanis." "˜Somehow' is now in search of a plan. However, that is not a matter for concern for the warlords in the US and other Western capitals who believe as long as the objective is clear (target: Pakistan 's nuclear power), the "˜how' aspect will be taken care of. However, we know from the US experience of massacres and genocide in Iraq , it is not always so simple to invade a country and make gains as these warmongers suggest.

Clearly, they rely on real or contrived dissent, traitors and collaborators, turncoats and opportunist to work with them. One wonders if there are any Generals "“ like those of Saddam Hussain "“ who they are counting on! After all it was senior military officers who revealed the locations of critical sites to their overbearing American masters. Still the scenario of invasion and capturing the prized weapons would not be as simple as we read in the pages of the New York Times. No matter what the sold-out generals may have done at the top level, the idea that the Pakistani military as a whole will cooperate or any faction within it would in fact hand over the crown jewels of Pakistan's national defence for American safe-keeping "” even though doubts exists within Pakistan "” is laughable.

The junior officers have no option but to obey their commanders at the top. However, when they realize that their top leadership is colluding with the United States for invading Pakistan and destroying or removing its nuclear weapons, the revolution/revolt in Pakistan Army would be so fierce that no commander, however senior, would survive. The US warmongers would see all the military discipline that they praise so much go up in smoke. They would see traitors hanged in the streets in Pakistan . There can be little doubt that American officials have already been provided with multiple assurances that the Generals command is the last word in Pakistan and everyone else down the line will obey. However, there is no guarantee that the thousands of junior officers would remain loyal and obey unlawful commands of those they see to be treacherous.

As David Sanger and William Broad noted in the New York Times (Nov 18, 2007) a U.S. sponsored, post-9/11 plan to safeguard Pakistan's nuclear weapons, "has been hindered by a deep suspicion among Pakistan's military that the secret goal of the United States was to gather intelligence about how to locate and, if necessary, disable Pakistan's arsenal, which is the pride of the country."

So, it would seem that while Washington indulges in hair brain schemes for "˜safeguarding' Pakistani nukes, Pakistan's military is not as concerned about the myth of these weapons falling into the hands of militants as they are fearful of America using Pakistan's engineered instability as a ruse for implementing its scheme to disarm  Pakistan of its nuclear weapons.

Kagan and O'Hanlon, sensing that pro-American Pakistanis might be in short supply, have devised a Plan B. This one requires, "a sizable combat force "” not only from the United States , but ideally also other Western powers and moderate Muslim nations." The American warlords are confident that the "longstanding effectiveness of Pakistan 's security forces," will provide sufficient time for a US-led coalition to be deployed. They must remember that no "moderate Muslim" state came to help the US in its war on Iraq whose forces were allegedly equipped with chemical and biological weapons. How and from where would forces come to the rescue of Islamophobes in the case of a new war on a nuclear armed Muslim state?

Now we get to the really interesting part. The suggestion is that that the purpose of the Iraq war was the redraw the map of the Middle East in which Pakistan is also to be split with parts of it going to Afghanistan and the emergence of an independent Baluchistan: ""¦if we got a large number of troops into the country, what would they do? The most likely directive would be to help Pakistan's military [assuming it is working with the invaders] and security forces hold [just] the country's centre "” primarily the region around the capital, Islamabad, [Pakistan's Green Zone] and the populous areas like Punjab Province to its south. [Leaving Baluchistan, NWFP and Sindh alone for redrawing the map of the Middle East which interestingly included South Asia as well. See Ralph Peters Article "˜Blood Borders' - Armed Forces Journal - June 2006]

The war rhetoric surrounds the slogans that the "task of retaking any such regions and reclaiming custody of any nuclear weapons would be a priority for our troops." However, the reality conceded by the authors is telling. They are simply bringing the grand design for undermining Pakistan "“ of which supporting tyrannical rule in Pakistan was one of the key components for seeding crisis and chaos - to the forefront for discussion and consensus building. Now all those Democrats who said Iraq was a distraction from the war on terrorism will be forced on board. Who could guess a few years ago that an engineered, chaotic fall of Musharraf would provide such a golden opportunity to the warlords in Washington ?

In the plans of American warlords, the time for Pakistan is up. It is up to Pakistan 's religious, military and political "leaders," who have facilitated the neo-cons plans thus far, to take a note of the impending war on Pakistan , make necessary course corrections, or get ready to be decimated with the rest of their countrymen or hanged in the streets in case they survive the shock and awe. 

Abid Ullah Jan is the author of "The Musharraf Factor: Leading Pakistan to its Inevitable Demise"