Failure to Act Ensures Failure to protect life–where security trumps sovereignty
With more and more evidence pointing to Pakistani militant groups being responsible for last weeks Mumbai Massacre, many, including myself, are beginning to wonder if international rights of sovereignty can be ignored for the sake of global security. Bob Graham, former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and senior intelligence advisor to Barack Obama, came out with a report as part of a government panel’s investigation on the likelihood of a weapon of mass destruction reaching American soil. What they found was startling. “it was our conclusion based on 250 interviews with academics, scientists, and military and political intelligence officials, that it is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be used in some place in the world prior to the end of the year 2013. We also found that it was more likely that that weapon would be biological than nuclear. We also found that our margin of safety has been diminishing…there have been changes in the environment in which we have been operating particularly as it relates to biological weapons which have become more accessible to potential terrorists.” Graham goes on to say in an interview with Newsweek Magazine that the WMD will most likely come out of Pakistan.
Research by Graham and others has shown that potentially catastrophic biological weapons could become available to terrorists with ease. He cites the 1918 flu epidemic that killed over 40 million people. Imagine for a moment if terrorists released a biological weapon containing the influenza in several US cities. The casualties would be unprecedented–a 9/11 of exponential proportions. The United States could never recover from such an attack. How much longer can we really take the ideological viewpoint that all nations boarders are sanctified and should always remain respected? Is this notion of holiness worth the potential loss of hundreds of millions of people? Absolutely not. Pakistan has been an unstable government since the moment it broke away from India. Bangladesh seceded from Pakistan not long before Pakistan’s independence and the country is still devastated from Afghani refugees during the Cold War and Pervez Musharraf’s dictatorial reign. Many analysts believe that the Pakistani militants received aid from not only Al-Qaeda, but former Pakistani military officials as well. While it may not be President Zadari’s fault that these attacks occurred in Mumbai and attacks against NATO forces in cross-boarder raids in Afghanistan keep occurring, it is his responsibility to quell them. If he cannot stop his country from continuing to be a safe-haven for terrorists, Pakistan’s sovereignty is void.
The stakes are simply too high. A weapon of mass destruction striking a civilian target is simply unacceptable. It falls to the international community to end this potential threat to global security. Failure to act simply ensures a failure to protect lives. I don’t suggest an invasion of ground troops to Pakistan in it’s northwest provinces or Kashmir region, but what I do approve of is the use of highly advanced technology such as the predator program to locate and eliminate terrorist combatants with high precision. If we do not intervene and not only eliminate terrorist cells, but also support the Zadari presidency, it is more than feasible that a rogue militant group with Pakistani army support could stage a coup–and gain control of the 6th largest nuclear power. While ground troops in Pakistan might eventually be necessary to prevent future exponential 9/11′s from occurring if air attacks are unsuccessful, it should be a last resort. Finesse is paramount. Heavy bombing and incursions by international forces through ground troops will only increase the number of terrorists and give new wind to their cause as civilian casualties would ensue. The first step for the international community should be sound intelligence. No cross border predator attacks should be permitted without solid evidence that said attack will significantly cripple Al-Qaeda forces. Such attacks could have minimal progress so it might behoove the international community to involve the UN and draft a resolution. If analysts determine that we are not safer and less likely to be struck by a WMD out of Pakistan after a year, a more significant force will be necessary–one that could involve ground intervention in western provinces and the Kashmir region.
The cost of preserving democracy globally is sometimes worth the expense of sovereignty. While the decision to use military force is certainly not an easy one, it is necessary. An unstable nuclear power is a threat to global security. If NATO and the west don’t take the reigns in solving the problem, expect India to–as they would likely be the first target of Pakistani militants with a nuclear weapon. India’s response, would be far less finessed than a NATO one.
