Lashkar-e-Taiba sells itself as “The Army of the Good”.  Using that moniker, they advocate fundamentalist Islam rule.  Azam Amir Kasab is apparently a member of “The Army of the Good”.  Now, this is how the “The Army of the Good” spreads its word for the “Religion of Peace”:

It’s kinda blurry, but that’s a rifle he’s carrying.  He’s walking around a hotel in Mumbai, India, randomly shooting tourists.  Now, I’m not sure about you, but I just don’t buy the “army of the good” rhetoric.  Or for that matter, the “religion of peace” one either.  Innocent people are being killed all over the planet in the name of “the religion of peace” while all the other members of “the religion of peace sit idly by and let them prepare.  Often times, assisting them.  This is not a situation of a hand full of rogue religious zealots going full throttle crazy, it’s systematic, it’s world wide, it’s organized.  Many times, it’s supported by the host country’s government.  Mankind can not advance under these circumstances.  If they had their way, we’d be living in the Dark Ages, again.

Now, where this becomes an issue in the United States is two-fold.  First of all, we’ve dealt with the likes of “The Army of the Good”.  It was ugly.  We let our guard down and we’re still paying for the price for that.  We will for a while.

Second, President-elect Barack Obama soothed his primary critics during the election cycle by stating flat-out that he would go into Pakistan to find Osama Bin Laden.  What this presents is a problem.  First of all, Pakistan is our ally.  One of the very few fundamentalist Islam nations to do so.  Our primary supporter in Pakistan is no longer in office.  So, to say the relationship is probably tenuous is pushing it.  They like our money a lot.  But, I’m guessing at this point that’s about it.  US troops have gone accross the border into Pakistan trying to quell problems in Iraq.  This has not been received too well.  To get to the root of the problem, we’d have to go WAY into Pakistan.  At that point, I can pretty well assume our alliance will be no more.  Is Obama willing to do that?  Are the people that supported Obama primarily under the promise of getting us out of war, in Iraq, willing to support him starting another war in Pakistan when they haven’t attacked the US?  The politics of starting a conflict with Pakistan are exactly the same as they were starting the conflict with Iraq.  Only, I would assume, Pakistan is a much more dangerous situation than Iraq was in 2003.  Pakistan has a very fractured military whereas Iraq was ruled with an iron thumb.  When Hussein was driven from power, the Iraqi army disintegrated.  I don’t see that happening in Pakistan.  Even if it does, the many very heavily armed and isolated terrorist cells will be a small war for each and every one of them.  Given all that, the promise of getting Bin Laden by simply invading Pakistan is flawed.  When the troops do begin conflict with Pakistan, he will be long gone again.

So, the Obama reason for entering Pakistan doesn’t hold water.  Would we do it to support India?  I would hope so.  But, it would have to be at India’s request and lead.  This war on “radical” Muslim terrorist groups is not something one single country can deal with.  They’re all over the planet, heavily armed, and in some cases represent the government of the country they’re in.  This would have to be a concerted effort by many governments ready to deal with the consequences for a long time.

And quite frankly, given the fact how many people have forgotten, or just don’t care, about 9/11 any more in the US, I’m not sure we’ve got what it takes to deal with the consequences for more than a couple of years.  If Obama does initialize a conflict with Pakistan, will Keith Olbermann demand he be impeached?  Is Obama willing to put up with his most ardent supporters attacking him?

My gut instinct right now is we’ve done all we can do in Iraq and Afghanistan.  We need to focus on the instability inside Pakistan.  It’s too big of an issue to be ignored under the auspices of being our “ally”.  They’ve got an unstable government, huge terrorist cells, and the nuclear bomb.  It’s more than evident that the Pakistani government can not control their own country.  It’s questionable whether they can control their own government.  Iran has been rushing to be the first fundamentalist country to posses the bomb.  I’d argue Pakistan beat them to the punch.  Whether politically, militarily, or financially, Pakistan needs to be dealt with in a very stern way.  The carnage in Mumbai may be Obama’s first test.  I can expect the Indian government will demand retribution against Pakistan.  How Obama reacts to this could very well determine his future for the next four years as 9/11 did for Bush, whether he likes it or not.  There is no pretty option here.  There is no way he can sweet talk this away.  It will be hard choices probably forcing the US to ally with either India or Pakistan.  Walking the fence is probably not an option any more.

Bush assured a conflict with Iraq when he was a candidate for office.  Two years laters people claimed they had been “lied” to.  No one was lied to.  They simply didn’t listen.  Obama pretty much promised a war with Pakistan.  Were people listening?

I expect that even though Obama has a loaded domestic agenda, his agenda is going to be interrupted by an expensive and politically challenging conflict in Pakistan.  I hope I’m wrong.

Tags: ally, army of the good, Azam Amir Kasab, barack obama, bush, dark ages, fundamentalist, fundamentalist islam, hotel in mumbai, india, iraq, Lashkar-e-Taiba, mumbai, obama, Osama-Bin-Laden, pakistan, religion-of-peace