Who is the most important man in the world?
What will happen when he is gone?
What is being done now to prepare for it?
Who would benefit? (Cui Bono?)
Do the words "Non-Proliferation", "Geo-Political", "Radical Islamism", "Pre-emption", "Global Warming", "Peak OIL", and "Nuclear War", belong in the same sentence?
They do if my crystal ball is working properly.
Who is the most important man in the world?
He is not the President of the United States, the Premier of China, Saudi Arabia's King, President of Iran, Prime Minister of the U.K, or Israel, nor even the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank. All of whom would be replaced, in the event of their electoral loss, resignation, or death, with near complete continuity in policies.
The most important man in the world turned 63 years old last week. He currently directs the affairs of a state that borders China, India, Iran, and Afghanistan, comprised of 166 million people spread out over incredible mountains, coastal plains, and ports on the Arabian Sea. A land mass roughly twice the size of California. He has several dozen Nuclear missiles and submarines capable of delivering them at his command. He came to power in a military coup in 1999 and has survived several assassination attempts and an unknown number of plots since.
He is General Pervez Musharraf of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
He was scheduled to have run as a 'civilian' in elections in 2006, marking the "end of military rule", but they were delayed until 2007, and a decision to delay them further is now pending.
Why is this man more important than any other single person on the planet?
In addition to Nuclear weapons, it is because of the fragile nature of his position, the delicate balance of his politics, his country's location,(in between those who have OIL and those who want it) and it's population. (97% Muslim, 3/4 of which are Sunni)
A successful assassination would radically alter the entire world's economic and military political balance of power within minutes, due to the large and influential minority of Wahabbists within the ruling Pakistani military and intelligence services, as well as their high proportion of the populations of several key regional provinces.
This condition is not new, it has existed for over 6 years now, but Musharraf's age, the evolution of Pakistan's political enviroment, and the impact of the "War on Terror" upon it, suggest that great changes are coming, whether they occur over a period of years or seconds.
Powerful states do not make and execute strategic plans based upon what might happen at any minute. Those plans are 'contingency' in nature and diligent powers have them in abundance. Geo-Political or "Geo-Strategic" plans are based upon what is likely to occur and/or possible to engineer, over a period of a few years up to a several decades.
Such plans are far easier to execute without the blinding glare of a spotlight shining upon them. Which is why the focus of western media is fixed upon the military/political matters of the 'War on Terror' and the OIL producing nations of the Middle East, especially in their relation to Israel. While the focus of the media in economic matters centers upon China and the tangential concommitant issue of OIL supply/price, trade balances, currency values, and their U.S. Treasury Bond reserves.
With few exceptions, the spotlight lands upon Pakistan and Musharraf only when the 'message' is negative and/or demeaning. (i.e. the UK's current 'plane-terror' plotters, though 'homegrown' are of "Pakistani-descent", Indian accusations following the Mumbai bombings of 11 July 2006, the Bush Administration's supportive/enabling deal with India (a Non-NPT signatory) over Nuclear fuel supply in March 2006 while simultaneously denying similar support to Pakistan (an NPT signatory) during the very same trip and amidst mass media coverage of a suicide-bombing, killing a U.S. diplomat in Karachi just a few days prior to Bush's arrival, and as seemingly trivial as tampering with the ball during an international cricket match) Even the regularly recurring assertions in the U.S. media of Osama Bin Laden residing in the mountains of Pakistan that border on Afghanistan, carries implied criticism and suspicion of Musharraf's commitment to the W.O.T. and/or competence.
What will happen when Musharraf is gone?
It is entirely possible that at age 63, Musharraf could live and function in his key role for another ten to twenty years, but the odds are against it. It is also entirely possible that he could be killed at any minute. This 'contingency' is duly prepared for by the U.S., U.K., and India, whose armed forces ring Pakistan. A small contingent of U.S. troops has operated within Pakistan since 2001.
In the next five to ten years, the delicate balance between Pakistan's evolving democracy, characterized by fits and starts, it's Wahabbist minority, part of the Sunni majority, Musharraf's military rule, and his tenous public commitment to the U.S.' 'War on Terror', complicated verily by natural disasters and the decades old hostilities with India over Kashmir, will be extremely difficult to maintain.
Therefore if another sufficiently Pro-Western military figure can be groomed and positioned to take control after Musharraf, it is being done now. Though I see no evidence of this as yet, which may well be on purpose.
It is far more likely that Middle East powers, India, China, and the U.S. (with it's wholly-owned subsidiaries, the U.K. and Israel) are preparing for the eventuality of an actively anti-West, and Nuclear capable, Wahhabist military regime to come to power in Pakistan during the next decade. Their public foreign policies and antagonistic pronouncements, indeed seem geared to guarantee such an outcome.
The impact of a nuclear-powered Sunni Wahabbist Muslim, anti-Western, regime in Pakistan, bordering India, China, Afghanistan, and Shia-dominated Iran (with or without nuclear weapons) will radically transform the nature of geo-political relations between the Muslim world and the West. With China, as is to be expected, perfectly positioned to play both sides against the middle.
Ironically, a radical Sunni regime in Pakistan could be somewhat useful to the West in offsetting the ascending power of Shia Muslims now centered in Iran, as was Iraq in the 1980's and 1990's. But the converse would be even more transformative. An alliance between Iran and Pakistan, especially if bolstered by Chinese and Russian military, economic, and diplomatic support, could render U.S. military forces in the Persian Gulf region, "persona non grata", and effectively force their removal.
Faced with such a possibility, the current U.S. conflict with Iran over their quest to produce nuclear weapons becomes even more important and fraught with the dangers of miscalculation.
But the U.S. has a redoubt. . . . India.
U.S. military, economic, and nuclear-related aid to India has already begun, and will increase in the coming years. Though it should be remembered that India's population of 1.1 Billion people includes 176 million Muslims. And also that India has a long history of military antagonism and economic competion with China in addition to Pakistan.
Would the U.S. really allow geo-political events to transpire which would necessitate the removal of their armed forces from the Middle East?
Not a chance in Hell.
Hence the continuing construction of 17 "enduring" but permanent bases in Iraq. U.S. ground and air forces are going to be there until they are either destroyed by military attack or a non-OIL based technology is developed to power automobiles and electricity plants.
In a word, DECADES.
And thus you have the rationale for the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, just six months after the concept of "pre-emption" was announced in the "U.S. National Security Statement" of 2002.
The U.S. self-declared "right" to use "pre-emptive" force before any perceived 'threat' can become "imminent", now includes Nuclear weapons, removing the historic 'taboo' on the first use.
Would the U.S., with it's history and it's position as the most able military, economic, and industrial power on the planet, use Nuclear weapons to attack Iran or Pakistan?
Iran? Never. A capitalist nation does not use a force against an opponent that would destroy the natural resources it wishes to exploit in the future.
Pakistan? Possibly. As it does not have the world's second largest oil and natural gas reserves that Iran possesses.
But why would the U.S. attack Pakistan with Nuclear weapons when their ally, India, is perfectly capable of doing so?
THAT IS THE QUESTION.
I suspect that the U.S. and China, with the full support of all the other OIL-dependent, capitalist democracies and the OIL producing nations, are working to create and exploit a war between India and Pakistan in the next five to ten years.
The combination of growing demand for OIL by the U.S, EU, China, Japan, (India), the growing economic interdependence between the U.S, EU, China, Russia, and Japan, the large poor populations involved, economic competition, nuclear weapons, and 'Radical Islamism' will present an opportunity to "kill many birds with a few stones".
Would "they" (the "Powers that Be") really conspire to 'engineer' a Nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan in order to break the 'taboo' on the use of such weapons, eliminate Pakistan as an Islamic-nuclear power, and permanently cripple India, the main future economic competitor of China, at the cost of up to several hundred million lives?
You Bet Your Ass They Would.
stephenhsmith
26 August 2006
