Nerve Endings Firing Away

I have been keenly following the Presidential debates and have been taken aback by the amount of blatant rhetoric that the candidates indulge in. Since 9/11, the extent and amount of empty rhetoric has drastically increased and thanks to George Bush, terrorist attacks are always ‘imminent’ (hence vote Republican, eh!) I had believed that this was a Bush & Co. strategy and given the state of the Iraq war, I had hoped future candidates would rely less on such rhetoric. Unfortunately, there is no significant decline in bluster and gorilla-esque thumping of chests while sprouting redundant lines like ‘we’re going to win the global war on terror’ (notice how no one mentions how).

What is more surprising is that the candidates are now talking about Iran and even a possible preemptive tactical nuclear strike. I don’t necessarily believe in pacifist talk of showing the other cheek hoping the terror regimes will ultimately kiss it but to be aware of which terror regime is an imminent threat is Foreign Policy 101. Few years back, they named three countries in the axis of evil and invaded the least threatening one (and are still fighting to survive).

Among all the macho talk to invading countries and causing regime changes to avoid fighting them at home (whatever that means), I have yet to see them mention Pakistan. Nitin calls it the tough question for Presidential hopefuls and I think apart from a passing mention, the candidates are never really grilled on Pakistan. Gregory Scoblete writing for TCS Daily makes the rare mention of Pakistan as a possible threat for the United States. Even a cursory reading of his column reminds us of Pakistan’s actions in recent times that have endangered the United States instead of being the much-publicized ally in the war on terror. The nuclear technology that Iran and North Korea brandish around today finds its origins in Pakistan thanks to A.Q Khan’s peddling them in the open market. A.Q. Khan if you remember, the father of Pakistani science was subsequently granted a pardon (the U.S. seems strangely satisfied with that outcome).

Bin Laden has always been rumored to be in Pakistan and his Taliban (read Al Qaeda) cohorts seems to have been given free access between Pakistan and Afghanistan. The recent ‘peace agreement’ with the militant tribes in the Northwest provinces in Pakistan does more than rub in America’s face that Pakistan is not really serious about the so-called war on terror. If Musharraf can overnight shift allegiance from his ardent support for the Taliban (one of the only three in the world that did) to the ‘devil’ United States, what makes the United States think he won’t go the other way to save his political ass? Heck, there is plenty of support even right now in the Pakistani establishment that identifies with the numerous jihadi outfits all over the world. Isn’t it strange how most of them touch base in Pakistan before heading back to their ‘adopted countries’ to plan terror attacks? This certainly cannot happen without the acquiescence or at least the knowledge of the Pakistani establishment.

The writing is clearly on the wall and no amount of arguments in defense of Pakistan has so far managed to convince us otherwise. So why don’t the Presidential candidates answer questions about Pakistan? More importantly, why aren’t they asked such questions? As Scoblete says:

The terrorist network on its [Pakistan] soil, the uncertain allegiance of its military and intelligence forces, its evident willingness to proliferate, and the precariousness of Musharraf’s regime most directly threaten the lives of Americans. The tough questions that surround our Pakistan policy don’t get any easier if we ignore them. The people who are vying to lead our country owe us their answers.