The Battle of Pakistan

Christopher D. Geisel writes for The American Thinker about the opening salvo in the Battle for Pakistan,

The assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto means that the nuclear-armed Islamic Republic of Pakistan is now a battleground just as important as those in Iraq and Afghanistan in the global war against the radical Islamists.

He notes that radical islamists must be desparate to open this new front when considering their situation in Iraq,

While Iraq is by no means fully stabilized as of yet and while there is no certainty that Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki's government will be able to achieve the national reconciliation viewed as critical to the long term peace and stability of his fledgling constitutional democracy, there are still good reasons to be optimistic about the future of Iraq.

And Afghanistan,

Meanwhile, we have witnessed the lasting success of the 2001 liberation of Afghanistan from fundamentalist Taliban control. With everything that we have heard about a resurgent Taliban, which has stepped up deadly attacks against America and its NATO allies there, they have been unable to significantly undermine President Hamid Karzai's constitutional government.

He is saying that Al Qaeda chances of success are Iraq and Afghanistan are now minimal, so they had to open a new front. However, he notes that while Afghanistan and Iraq were global offensives against radical islamist, Pakistan is their counter-offensive.

But now the first major new front in the global conflict has been opened not by the forces of freedom but by the Islamists. December 27, 2007-while not the first day of the attempt by radicals to destabilize Pakistan-is the day of the first great success for the forces of darkness there, the beginning of what may evolve into a significant counter-offensive.

He goes on to point to the ultimate objective of assasinating Bhutto,

Moreover, as the first woman to be elected leader of a Muslim state, Bhutto represented the ultimate antithesis of the radical Islamist vision of restoring an Islamic caliphate, ruled by sharia law, with women treated as second-class citizens. When looking at the consequences of Bhutto's assassination, perhaps even more important than the blow to liberal democratic reform is the immediate destabilizing effect on President Musharraf's government.

While I generally agree with Mr. Geisel's premises, I note that Somalia was another front opened by radical islamists; however, that too was cut short by Ethiopia. Algiers may also be another front that was attempted to be opened or is still being opened.

But, I definitely agree that Pakistan was an extremely bold move which puts radical islamists closer to their ultimate desire, nuclear weapons. Politically, they have a great chance of success in Pakistan by formenting a civil war in which the US can only give Musharraf indirect assistance.

The people of Pakistan would not welcome American forces in their country in the slightest, even if we had the numbers to surge their, which we do not. However, indirect assistance may be enough. Supporting aerial reconnaissance and attack aircraft to Musharraf forces may allow him to once and for all defeat radical islamists.

The opening of the Pakistani front in the Long War by radical islamists in order to acquire nuclear weapons was bold indeeed; however, it also opens up radical islamists to direct attacks in what was once a safe haven where they were able to train and export terror to their other fronts. A counter-attack against their counter-offensive is the only way to defeat them wholesale. Bold actions require bold reactions. I hope the US is not too tired in these early stages of the Long War to take advantage of the opening radical islamists just gave us.