The current issue of Time Magazine has Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the cover, and an article by Joe Klein entitled, “The State of Hillary: A Mixed Record On The Job.” On Joe Scarborough the other morning, they discussed this article (major H/T to Bronwyn’s Harbor for the video):

How cute is Joe Scarborough calling Secretary Clinton his “girlfriend”?? Repeatedly? Evidently, he has NO idea how much competition he has, does he?

And Scarborough makes a great argument about Hillary Clinton “not going rogue.” Of course she is taking the tack Obama has directed her to take. It is not a surprise that Obama would want her to do the HARD work while he “flying at 40,000 ft”.

Just to be clear on Pakistan, the White House does back Secretary Clinton on what she said there. While it may not be the language Mika wants her to use (and honestly, could Hillary Clinton say anything of which Mika approved? Just asking, in a snarky kind of way.)

Don’t even get me started on the whole election thing, though. Don’t even get me started. Good for JOE for pointing out – AGAIN – that the media played a huge role in how she was treated, as we all know already.

The remarks by General Petraeus were telling, telling indeed. That, along with the relationship she has developed with our military personnel is exactly why I contend she would have gotten to Fort Hood tout suite after the tragedy there. Because she truly cares about those serving in uniform. She, unlike our President, has made that support crystal clear.

Okay. About this “unnamed White House source” crapola. I am referring to the “Unnamed White House sources” who claimed Secretary Clinton had made big mistakes in foreign policy since becoming Secretary of State reminded me of the “Unnamed McCain aides” who made the most outrageous, and false, allegations about Gov. Sarah Palin, including that “she didn’t know Africa was a continent.” That is to say, I just cannot take their claims seriously. Especially when one of those high up in the Obama Administration, Jon Favreau, has demonstrated just how much he respected Hillary Clinton when he posted a photo of himself groping a life-size Hillary Clinton cutout on Facebook. Yeah, right. I’m not buying what they’re selling. I’ve seen plenty from those folks already, and have been singularly unimpressed. Whatever.

Anyway, it was an interesting discussion about Secretary Clinton, the work she is doing, and Joe’s undying love for her. All I can say about that is, join the club, Joe, join the club.

Speaking of Secretary Clinton, Saturday is when she commissions the assault ship, USS New York. There will be video available later, which I will then put up. For more on the USS New York, its 7.5 tons of steel from the World Trade Towers, and the emotions it elicits, please watch the video below:

Very moving, and powerful. Great thanks to those who serve aboard this state of the art vessel, and who sought to serve aboard this ship. The motto of the ship is apt: Strength Forged Through Sacrifice. Never Forget.

They won’t forget, and neither will we.

May this ship and its crew have smooth sailing for years to come.

(Photo by Michael Loccisano/Getty Images North America)

UPDATE: Here is the link to NavyTV’s video of the Commission of the USS New York.

This should be a great game, too – two former Cleveland Indians pitchers will face off on the mound: CC Sabathia for the Yankees (19-8 regular season record; 3-0 postseason with a 1.19 ERA). At 6′7″, Sabathia is an imposing presence on the mound. Cliff Lee will be pitching for the Phillies (14-13 regular season; 2-0 postseason with a .074 ERA).

The Yankees will seek their revenge against Cliff Lee, who won against the Yankees in their season opener at the brand new stadium. Each team will have its work cut out for it to win against either one of these stellar pitchers. And each team has very good players coming up to the plate against them.

All in all, it should be an exciting series. Let’s hope so, anyway, with good officiating (THAT would be a change), great plays, and no injuries,

Below is a good review of the upcoming game, the pitchers, and the players:

<a href=”http://msn.foxsports.com/video?vid=ac3b28fb-a563-4171-a786-73a9970759f6&from=IV2_en-us_foxsports_articles” target=”_new” title=”Rosenthal: World Series preview”>Video: Rosenthal: World Series preview</a>

More on Pedro Martinez on Thursday. That will be fun. (The guys above already touched on it – “Who’s Your Daddy” chant by the Yankee fans will be explained.)

First Lady Michelle Obama and Dr. Jill Biden will also be on hand for this game as it will serve to honor returning veterans and their families. Oh, yay – I cannot even get away from the Obamas when watching my diversion from politics! Sheesh. Oh, well – hopefully we won’t miss home runs, or strikeouts, or stolen bases because they are focusing on those two. Just saying.

Believe it or not, this IS an Open Thread, and not just for baseball! What’s on your mind? Rep. Grayson calling Linda Robertson, Bernanke’s adviser, a “whore”? Obama playing as much golf in the first 9 months as Bush did in 34 months? The bombing in Pakistan? Let’s have it!

And if you ARE a baseball fan, hope to see you here later on!

O P E N   T H R E A D   T O O

John Batchelor’s show begins at 10 p.m. ET. Then, at 10:30 p.m. ET, DON’T MISS LARRY JOHNSON TONIGHT on the Batchelor show, via KFI 640 AM.

Check out the full slate of guests and topics tonight. John Batchelor’s KFI show begins at 7:00 p.m., so tune in early.

If this is your first time listening, you’ll want to visit the site early in case you need to download an easily installed program to hear the show.

The two pincers putting the squeeze on Pakistan are 1) its mainstream majority population, and 2) its extremist, fundamentalist minority that is now getting armed to the teeth and swept up by the Taliban. In between is the Pakistani Army, which has no experience in counterinsurgency operations and is using conventional warfare to fight the well-armed Taliban, blowing up entire towns and dwellings, which has caused a massive refugee crisis — the largest of its kind since Rwanda — and for which Pakistan made NO advance preparations.

Here are some illuminating videos I’ve found that I’d like to share with you because they taught me so much. Included in the first two are Hillary Clinton’s statements.

From WorldFocus.org, an excellent backgrounder on the Swat Valley crisis, with these explanations to set up the video:

United Nations figures show that over 1.45 million people have been displaced by ongoing violence in Pakistan since May 2.

The immense strain of this humanitarian crisis is challenging the Pakistani government as it tries to avoid internal dissent against the consequences of its anti-Taliban military campaign.

The U.S. has pledged more than $100 million dollars in emergency assistance for Pakistan.

Ahmad Kamal, Pakistan’s former ambassador to the United Nations, joins Martin Savidge to discuss the situation in the refugee camps and how the military campaign is going.

From Hillary Clinton’s statement, posted at the State Department’s Web site:

Humanitarian Aid to Pakistan

[...]

Americans can use technology to help, as well. Using your cell phones, Americans can text the word “swat” — to the number 20222 and make a $5 contribution that will help the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees provide tents, clothing, food, and medicine to hundreds of thousands of affected people. And before I came over here, we did that in the State Department. So we are making some of the first donations to this fund.

President Obama and I hope that individuals who have fled the conflict will be able to return home quickly, safely, and on a voluntary basis. Some have already gone back to their communities. And as they do, the United States stands ready to help Pakistan’s government support displaced persons as they rebuild their lives.

But as long as this crisis persists, our assistance will continue. We face a common threat, a common challenge, and now a common task. And we know that the work ahead is difficult, but we have seen an enormous amount of support and determination out of the Pakistani government, military, and people in the last weeks to tackle the extremist challenge. And we’re confident that with respect to the humanitarian challenge the people of Pakistan and their government, as well as the international community, can come together and forge not only the assistance that is needed, but stronger bonds for the years ahead. …

These two CNN videos are CRITICAL to view. The first gives you great background information on what’s going on in Pakistan, and the second discusses the disturbing developments in Pakistan’s nuclear weapons arsenal:

Crisis in Pakistan 2:25
CNN’s Ivan Watson reports on the first pictures from the battles between Pakistan’s army and the Taliban.

Is Pakistan adding nukes? 1:57
CNN’s Chris Lawrence looks at satellite photos that indicate Pakistan is building a nuclear reactor.

UPDATE: “Pakistan Is Rapidly Adding Nuclear Arms, U.S. Says“

[...]

During a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, Senator Jim Webb, a Virginia Democrat, veered from the budget proposal under debate to ask Admiral Mullen about public reports “that Pakistan is, at the moment, increasing its nuclear program — that it may be actually adding on to weapons systems and warheads. Do you have any evidence of that?”

It was then that Admiral Mullen responded with his one-word confirmation. Mr. Webb said Pakistan’s decision was a matter of “enormous concern,” and he added, “Do we have any type of control factors that would be built in, in terms of where future American money would be going, as it addresses what I just asked about?”

Similar concerns about seeking guarantees that American military assistance to Pakistan would be focused on battling insurgents also were expressed by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the committee chairman.
“Unless Pakistan’s leaders commit, in deeds and words, their country’s armed forces and security personnel to eliminating the threat from militant extremists, and unless they make it clear that they are doing so, for the sake of their own future, then no amount of assistance will be effective,” Mr. Levin said.

[...]

One other interesting tidbit here in Qatar is that many Arabs who have moved in and around Pakistan believe that President Zardari is no longer “Mr 10%.”

They call him “Mr. 20%.”

It is difficult to tell who is playing what game when it comes to Pakistan but they get their billions anyway making fools out of Americans yet again. Now to hear of a double game being played by Zardari as told by his late wife’s niece, Fatima Butto, The Taliban bogeyman, How Pakistan’s president is scamming the West.:

President Asif Ali Zardari, less than a year into his reign, has managed to engage Pakistan’s armed forces, the seventh largest army in the world, in a guerrilla war with the newly formed Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, our very own Taliban, in the North West Frontier Province. Rumors of Talibanization air daily on Pakistani television, radio and print media: The barbarians are at the gate, we are told, and warned that if there was a time to rally around the nation’s oleaginous president, a man known locally as “President Ghadari” or traitor in Urdu, this is it. However, the time for scaremongering has past — it is precisely President Zardari’s politically expedient use of national hysteria that has seen American drones welcomed over Pakistan’s airspace and has birthed a war that this government cannot win.

[snip]

In 2008, months after taking power in a hastily organized parliamentary election, Zardari drew upon Pakistan’s overwhelmingly anti-American sentiment and empowered the nascent domestic Taliban, which entered prominence roughly at the same time that the president did, by capitulating to their demands for sharia law in the Swat Valley (the very same region that the government is now, one month later, bombarding with American assistance).

With one hand, Zardari gave the militants what they wanted — no vote or referendum was held — and Taliban law was imposed on the Swat Valley by force. With the other, Zardari pointed a crooked finger at the rise of fundamentalism and capitalized on a golden opportunity to bring the nation’s elite back into the government’s obsequiously pro-American fold.

[snip]

Zardari’s double game may have brought him billions more in American aid and assistance — U.S. envoy Richard Holbrooke being the president’s loudest champion in Washington, warning Congress that if billions of dollars are not delivered immediately to Pakistan the war on terror will be in mortal danger — but it has lost him Pakistan.

Read the article here.

::::::

From John Batchelor’s blog. Every Sunday, hear Larry Johnson on John Batchelor’s nationally syndicated radio show, aired on KFI-AM.

So, what does Barack Obama do with the military commander running the show on the ground in Afghanistan who asks for 30,000 troops but is only provided 21,000 (courtesy of Barack of course)? You fire his ass and replace him with a hard charging officer with extensive experience in military special operations.

Stanley McChrystal was named today by Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, as the Commander, International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and Commander, U.S. Forces Afghanistan (USFOR-A). So what does this mean?

Stan McChrystal is an excellent tactical commander. He is not a desk jockey keen on sitting back at headquarters and politicking for a better job. But in terms of a strategic visionary, he’s not very good. He has no more clue about what to do in Afghanistan than McKiernan, the General he has replaced.

I heard some news report claiming McChrystal is an “expert in counter insurgency.” That is a load of horseshit. I had a conversation in Iraq (I was on the ground with the force commanded by McChrystal) and asked one of the troopers about the counter insurgency effort. During this period the level of attacks against American forces was spiraling ever higher. The troop looked at me and simply stated, “We don’t do counter insurgency, we do counter terrorism.”

And he was right. The forces under McChrystal’s command have NONE, ZERO experience with counter insurgency ops. That requires building links to local forces, employing local personnel in your operations, and supplementing military ops with civil affair ops. Counter terrorism is more raw–find the bad guys and kill them.

If we look to what happened in Iraq for guidance we will see that the worm turned when we really did focus on counter insurgency ops backed by money to pay tribal leaders to keep their teenage and young adult males gainfully employed in activities that did not entail building and planting roadside bombs.

I am sure General McChrystal will work hard. But he does not know Afghanistan and certainly has limited experience with counter insurgency ops. I am not sure that General David Petraeus, a West Point classmate of Mcchrystal, is thrilled with this. Will be interesting to watch.

It is about time!

Islamabad:

A young Pakistani woman has floated a group on a popular social networking website to say “no to Taliban” against the backdrop of an upsurge in activities by militants demanding the enforcement of Islamic law in the country.

“This group officially denounces all political parties that support Taliban, Shariah courts and violence against women. We also denounce mullahs of all denominations. We are tax-paying citizens of Pakistan and we say no to Taliban,” reads the introductory note on “A Voice Against Shariah Apologists” on Facebook.

So far, 425 Pakistanis have joined the group created by Tazeen Jay, who lives in Karachi. Tazeen, an active blogger, has also hosted a blog voiceagainstshariahapologists.blogspot.com which is tagged as “Pehle Insaaniyat, Phir Shariyat” (First humanity and then Shariah or Islamic law).

“Lets work at mobilising as many people as possible to make this protest significant. The Talibans have got to go!” wrote Asma Shahab, the co-founder of the group.

For Ibrahim Nasar, a Pakistani living in Washington, the group didn’t go far enough. He suggested that the group “adopt a harder stance against the militants. “I have joined this group, but disagree with its slogan ‘pehley insaaniyat, phir shariyat’. Instead it should be replaced with these words: ‘Insaniyat, never shariyat’,” he wrote.” Others quoted in the article have equally strong statements about rejecting and saying no to Taliban.

Quite a number of serious and informed observers predict a spike in mass casualty violence hitting this week in Pakistan. President Obama is about to have both collective and separate meetings with Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari — and many believe that Taliban insurgents will be attempting to send the message that both leaders are weak and that the place to discuss the future of the region is not in Washington, but in the region with Taliban leaders.

Others think that some of the violence will be orchestrated by forces loyal to President Zardari and/or related to the military in order to extract military assistance and aid concessions from Obama and his team.

The mounting tensions in Pakistan were brought home to me personally when I learned that the United States Central Command has rejected on security grounds the visit of Patrick Cronin to Pakistan today. Cronin is Director of the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense University and Senior Adviser and former Director of Studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and also served as Director of Studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

To be clear, although Cronin had received clearance for the Pakistan visit from those in command in Pakistan, his visit was yesterday rejected because “facts on the ground had changed” and CENTCOM refused to override. The fact is that it easier today to visit Baghdad than Pakistan.

Cronin’s visit to Pakistan was important not only for his own assessment of what is taking place in Pakistan — but his relations with key parts of the Pakistan military and intelligence establishment and his ability to speak with the lesser known parts of these security bureaucracies as a policy intellectual and to some degree an American national security bureaucrat. Cronin is respected by both Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. and is known to be a useful source of counsel to the operations run by Robert Gates, Dennis Blair, Mike Mullen, Richard Holbrooke, and David Petraeus.

From my vantage point these last couple of days in Qatar, one can readily sense the gap in tension and concern between serious policy players in the Middle East who are concerned about trends in Afghanistan and Pakistan and those in Washington, who despite the increased reportage on the region, seem to be buffered from the make-or-break realities immediately upon the US and its allies.

Cronin was traveling to Pakistan with support and backing of U.S. Central Command — and when I arrived with Patrick Cronin on Sunday night in Doha, he said to me that the U.S. military authorities who were organizing part of his trip refused to allow him to stay in a hotel and were insisting he stay on the military compound. In other words, the intelligence in hand at Central Command fears an uptick in suicide bombings over the next week directly targeting hotels and high population centers where foreigners populate.

Another former senior US government official at the conference I am attending in Doha told me that Obama and Petraeus may be pushing over the next week or two a hard core push by the Pakistan military in the Swat region. Zardari and the military are resisting — and believe that the deal signed and ratified with the Taliban now running Swat can’t be undone — but word is that the US is insisting that this deal with the Taliban not stand. The price for action if Zardari concedes will be massively increased aid and lots of “helicopter gun ships” which the Pakistan military thrives on.

Another issue that is vigorously percolating right now is the controversial use of drone attacks to attack the minor and mid-level operations leadership of al Qaeda and Taliban insurgent groups. Some like National Defense University military expert Patrick Cronin believe that the tactical US military success of knocking out Taliban and related insurgents and disrupting operations that they have planned is blinding General Petraeus and other senior Obama administration officials from the fact that these drone attacks are fueling the growth and popularity of the insurgency — and that the tactical is undermining the strategic.

In other words, some believe that we are potentially on the verge of seeing the Pakistan government collapse and run a serious risk of Taliban/al Qaeda takeover of the Pakistani government because of the corrosive results of drone attacks.

Cronin reported to me that these drone attacks should only be used in the most extreme cases — preferably when either al Zawahiri or bin Laden are in their sites — or those at the very highest echelon of American targets. The rank and file should not be, in his view, the primary casus belli for unrelenting drone attacks — which have killed too many other innocent victims. The Taliban, in response, have been able to successfully combine the public outrage over the drone attacks with an anti-American nationalism that is appealing to a broader array of Pakistani citizens.

Regional envoy Richard Holbrooke is working to get the pieces of a sensible Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy together — but he must get the U.S. military operations that are undermining key strategic interests under control. Holbrooke does not yet have an arrangement with Petraeus that subordinates the military operation entirely to the course that Holbrooke is crafting with Obama’s confidence and support.

One other scary issue that is lurking the more that Obama and others publicly state that they have high confidence in the locked down state and security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons arsenal is what Pakistan’s working doctrine is when Pakistan goes on “high alert.”

Such “high alert” status can be triggered in an escalation with India or if the Pakistan military fears that the Taliban have made too many inroads and must be shut down — and declares martial law.

In such a case, Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine states that their nukes go mobile — and are moved “on trucks,” according to one knowledgeable source.

This person said to me, “what roads do you think would be safe in Pakistan?”

So, while President Obama is correct to say that the nuclear stockpile is secure for now, any one wanting to give Taliban insurgents a helping move could trigger another Mumbai-like terrorist attack, or create other sorts of high casualty incidents to goad the military alert level to move up.

And then what was secure no longer will be — as a matter of deeply embedded security doctrine.

One other interesting tidbit here in Qatar is that many Arabs who have moved in and around Pakistan believe that President Zardari is no longer “Mr 10%.”

They call him “Mr. 20%.”

– Steve Clemons

O P E N   T H R E A D   T O O

John Batchelor’s show begins at 10 p.m. ET. Then, at 10:30 p.m. ET, DON’T MISS LARRY JOHNSON TONIGHT on the Batchelor show, via KFI 640 AM.

Check out the full slate of guests and topics tonight. John Batchelor’s KFI show begins at 7:00 p.m., so tune in early. Here are the topics and fellow guests during Larry’s appearance:

If this is your first time listening, you’ll want to visit the site early in case you need to download an easily installed program to hear the show.

GO HERE to view the full line-up of guests and topics tonight on KFI, from beginning to the program’s conclusion.

UPDATE #1: Here’s CNN’s coverage of the press conference:

NEXT UP: A video and text from the State.gov Web site, followed by fascinating reports on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and a direct interview with a top Taliban leader:

CNN has done some great reports on Pakistan, including the meeting with a Taliban leader aired last night on AC360:

I think that we Americans need to stop exaggerating the level of threat to the United States that originates or will originate in Afghanistan.  The temptation to see the activities and scheming of takfiri jihadis as parts of a world war between the Islamic "House of War" and the rest of us has caused us to begin to re-design our society(ies) for total war against an all powerful and virtually eternal enemy.  This is nonsense.  Islam, Islamdom, and Islamicate Civilization are much given, as are other such cultural constructs, to revivalism in a pattern that recurs over centuries as memory of the costs of each revival fades from the living collective mind.  The present phenomenon of Islamic zealotry is not something new.  It is something old come again.  This wave of revivalism has peaked and will decline under the pressure of local government and religious establishments, foreign military intervention and the competition presented by other forms of Islam, each with its claim to universal authenticity and its own circle of adherents. 

In Afghanistan there is always war; war for resources, honor, leadership, authenticity of Islamic identity.  The causes of war are endless.  There are many different peoples in Afghanistan;  Pushtun, Tajik, Uzbek, Hazara, Turkmen, Nuristani, etc. etc. etc.  Many of these groups speak mutually incomprehensible languages.  They are mostly Sunni, but some, like the Hazara, are Shia.  What we see now in Afghanistan is NOT a "theater of war" in  a "global war on terror."  Rather, it is a continuation of the ancient Afghan pattern of traditional warfare among the peoples, their groupings old and new, and sectarian definitions of Islamic truth.  The minions of the Al-Qa'ida related zealot groups are scattered and hidden in the "landscape" of ever shifting conflict that is Afghanistan.  They are like raisins in a cake.  These "raisins" are a danger to the United States.  They are a danger but not an "existential" threat to our "way of life" as they are sometimes described.  Americans are not going to experience a mass conversion to the Al-Qa'ida version of Islam.  Such a conversion would be a threat to our "way of life" but it will not happen.  Nuclear, biological or chemical weapons in the hands of Al-Qa'ida?  The "dirty bomb" thing?  None of these threats are existential threats to the United States.  The US is too big a country for that.  The Soviet Union with its thousands of hydrogen bombs was an existential threat to the United States, but not Al-Qa'ida.  Americans in their obsession with self tend to confuse personal survival with group survival.  In this case, the group under consideration is the American polity.  That entity is in no way threatened existentially by the raggedy jihadis in Afghanistan or their better dressed fellow enthusiasts elsewhere.  For true Muslims, the survival of the 'Umma is all important.  The base line truth is, as Cieran says, that attacks with 50kt. weapons would be met with retaliation with multi-megaton weapons.  That would be the end of Islamdom in many places.  It would not be the end of Islam but Muslim polities would suffer to an extent that few can imagine.  Faced with that truth only a handful of fanatics would even consider such a thing.  Therefore, it is the handful of fanatics that should be the objects of our attention.  They are dangerous to us at the individual, familial and local levels. 

President Obama in his announcement of policy with regard to Afghanistan, said that our goal would be to disrupt, disorganize and destroy our enemies.  That is an appropriate goal given the actual size and intensity of the threat.  Forget about nation building in Afghanistan.  Forget about generational commitments of vast amounts of treasure that we no longer possess.  Forget about Cheney's nonsensical 1% solution.  This sounds like a half-baked "lift" from the Israeli Right.  A decent regard for the opinion of mankind would point to the wisdom of infrastructure building aid for the Afghans on a multi-national basis.  Past that point we should focus on killing and disrupting the adherents of tiny sects that opt for violent action against what they see as unbelief.  Most Afghans, indeed most Pushtuns do not want an unending war with the US.  They are more than willing, like Willie Sutton, to go where the money is.  The goal of policy in Afghanistan should be to pit the majority(ies) against the handful of people who actively threaten us.  Is this war?  Yes.  It is my kind of war.

In Pakistan the problem is very different.  There, a developed post-colonial state is threatened by a reversion to ancient forms of conflict.  Once again, the Pushtuns of the mountain and hill country seek to impose their will on the people of the plain of the Indus watershed.   The nuclear arsenal of Pakistan makes a victory of the hillmen unacceptable to the US.  As I wrote at the National Journal blog this week, a return to Pakistan Army control of the government and imposition of government control over the border country seems the only acceptable solution and the United States should stop impeding that outcome.  — pl

Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: The Financial Times reports that President Obama’s assurances last night in the press conference — that besieged country’s nuclear weapons are “in safe hands” — have merit.

Pakistan’s senior civil and military officials are sharing tightly held information about the country’s nuclear weapons programme with western countries in a bid to allay fears about the security of warheads in the face of a Taliban advance.

Pakistani officials presented this as a move to satisfy the west that its weapons would not fall into Taliban hands. “We have renewed our pledge to keep our nuclear weapons safe,” said a senior Pakistani official. The briefings were aimed, he said, at “reassuring” the international community that there were adequate safety measures “to keep a complete lid on our weapons”.

On Wednesday night, the Pakistani army claimed it had halted the latest Taliban incursion in the Buner district, 100km north-west of Islamabad, after two days of fighting. At dawn on Wednesday, the army, which has been accused in the west of failing to challenge the militants, airlifted troops behind Taliban lines and, it claimed, forced them to retreat.

“We have successfully blocked the Taliban advances and confined them just to a pocket,” Rehman Malik, the interior minister, said.

The Taliban’s territorial gains beyond Pakistan’s border regions in recent months and the lack of resistance put up by the country’s army have raised fears – particularly in India – that nuclear weapons might fall into the hands of religious extremists.

Although the whereabouts of Pakistan’s weapons are secret, analysts say that some are placed far from the Indian border to allow Islamabad adequate response time in the event of an attack from its old enemy, and fellow nuclear power, India.

Western diplomats said yesterday a Taliban advance on Islamabad threatened to bring militants perilously close to some of Pakistan’s main nuclear installations. But they doubted militants were capable of overwhelming heavily protected installations.

At the weekend, Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, described the toppling of the Pakistani government and capture of nuclear weapons as “unthinkable”.

US officials in Islamabad have assured that the threat of “loose nukes” is small.

Western diplomats say the nuclear programme resides in a “ringfenced” part of the military under the command of a well-respected general and protected from rogue elements within the army that might seek to capture a weapon. Although improvements in the locks and decoupling of weapons systems have been made, Pakistan has not complied with the high level of security recommended to it.

Worries over the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons date back to 2004 when the proliferation network of Abdul Qadeer Khan, founder of the nuclear programme, came to light.

One of the dangers identified by the international community was that one of AQ Khan’s scientists might helpextremists gain a “dirty bomb”. Since then, the Pakistani military has tightened monitoring of individual scientists and introduced new inventory systems to track individual components of the bombs.

Some analysts say the greatest threat to nuclear security is from within the army itself. … Read the rest of the section on the military vulnerability.

There are differing views from expert bloggers. For one perspective, check out Larry’s fellow guest on Sunday’s John Batchelor Show, Bill Riggio, who writes for and maintains the Long War Journal, a remarkable blog that tracks every significant story coming out of Pakistan.

For a contrasting perspective, check out Juan Cole’s Informed Comment (h/t PM317) here and here (”Pakistan Crisis and Social Statistics”).

Here’s an example of the differing perspectives. In “Pakistani Army Takes Capital of Buner, Pushing Back Taliban Advance; Obama Considering More Aid, Cole wrote:

[...]

On Wednesday morning, it was announced that the Pakistani military had taken control of Dagar, the capital of Buner district. Fighting remained heavy in the area, with 70 militants claimed killed and another 350 or so still holding out in parts of the district.

The operation in Buner was launched after Pakistani intelligence intercepted a telephone call between Pakistani Taliban leader Mawlana Fazlullah and one of his commanders indicating that their plan was to feign a withdrawal from Buner and then to launch a surprise takeover. The Tehrik-i Taliban-i Pakistan (TTP) stands accused of killing or kidnapping local NWFP security personnel and kidnapping adolescent boys from villages for induction into the TTP paramilitary.

High Obama administration officials appear to have worked themselves into a frenzy about events in Malakand, and propose dealing with it by giving Islamabad more money more quickly than planned and also training Pakistani troops in counter-insurgency. Some US officials suspect duplicity on the part of the government of Pakistani President Asaf Ali Zardari. I take it that means they think the Pakistani military is sanguine about the spread of Talibanism in Malakand because the Pakistani Taliban might be useful in projecting Pakistani influence in the southern Pushtun areas of Afghanistan, which Islamabad considers its “strategic depth.” …

In “Pakistan Crisis and Social Statistics,” Cole asserts that the Obama administration and Western media are being hysterical:

Readers have written me asking what I think of the rash of almost apocalyptic pronouncements on the security situation in Pakistan issuing from the New York Times, The Telegraph, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in recent days

Cole repeatedly minimizes the capabilities of the Taliban in both articles.

In contrast, Riggio writes in “Taliban still in control in Dir”:

The Taliban are in control of much of the northern district of Dir despite claims by senior Pakistani officials that the region was secured after a day’s fighting.

The Pakistani military operation, which began on April 26, focused on the Madain region in the southern portion of the district of Dir. The Madain region hosts the home town of Sufi Mohammed, the pro-Taliban cleric who is behind the Malakand accord, the peace agreement that established sharia in Malakand, Dir, Chitral, Swat, Shangla, Buner, and Kohistan and put an end to military operations in Swat.

“The government’s writ seems non-existent for nearly 20km from the southern tip of the district,” the BBC reported. Security checkpoints have been abandoned in many regions outside of Timergara, the main city in Lower Dir. The Taliban often patrol the region and establish checkpoints to monitor traffic.

The Taliban are in control of the Chakdara-Talash region and the main road that connects Dir to the Taliban hotbed of Kabal, a sub-district in Swat. This region is used to allow Taliban forces in the Bajaur Tribal agency to link up with their brethren in Swat. Dir also borders Afghanistan, and serves as a conduit for Taliban forces transiting the border.

The reports from Dir conflict with triumphant statements made by Pakistani political and military officials on April 27, just one day after the operation began. Interior Minister
Rehman Malik claimed Dir was under complete control of the security forces. Army Spokesman Major General Athar Abbas said the military successfully completed the Dir operation and claimed 75 Taliban fighters and 10 security personnel were killed during the fighting.

But the Taliban have disputed Abbas’ claim that 75 fighters, including a commander named Maulana Shahid, was killed. A Taliban spokesman claimed Shahid was alive, and that only four Taliban fighters were killed. The military often inflates Taliban casualties and claims senior leaders are killed. These leaders more than often appear in the media and mock the Army.

The Pakistani military has relied on artillery and helicopter and air strikes to target the Taliban, and rarely can confirm enemy casualties. The heavy-handed tactics result in villages being leveled and the alienation of the civilian population.

The military and government’s claims of a quick victory in Dir are disputed by Pakistani civilians on the ground.

…

My inclination is to stick with Hillary’s concerns as well as those expressed by Bill Roggio at the Long War Journal. Roggio is a frequent guest on John Batchelor’s program. Check our site on Sundays for promos of the show, and Larry Johnson’s regular appearances.