Deadliest threat

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2929.shtml

Deadliest threat
By Budd Saunders
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Feb 8, 2008

The History Channel presented a program titled, "The Seven Deadliest Threats To Humanity." Not surprisingly the number seven deadliest threat against humanity is, (what else?) humanity. I had already figured that out beforehand.

The human race has done more to contribute to our destruction than any other single factor. Take, for just one example, the mess Bush has made in the Middle East and Afghanistan. I'm really worrying about that. But then, isn't everyone? There's only one promise Bush has ever made about that mess that has come true. He said that he would leave the wars he has started to the next president. In fact, he's leaving the entire world in a mess to the next poor soul who succeeds him.

There's one part of the Bush's mess in the Middle East that really bothers me, but you probably wouldn't notice it because reporting on the Iraq war has been relegated to the back pages of newspapers. The TV networks are carrying more on Britney Spears next drunk than any battle in Iraq. CNN, which claims to be the "most trusted name in news," offers very little besides endless accounts of celebrity mess-up and the crime du jour. And the characters over at Fox want Bush to use tactical nukes. Fox is just following Cheney's lead.

The so-called "news" media have informed us that the "surge" (euphemism for "escalation") has been working, and how well the Iraqi Army and police are doing, and other such positive stories, but they're mostly damn lies. The enemy only moved out of the area around Bagdhad and headed to another city, and push comes to shove, they will move to another, as we chase them round and round. The Iraqis say they have units that will attack the city of Mosel without US support. That should be an interesting move on their part. I wonder how much we'll hear about it.

But what is just about everyone's biggest worry: nuclear weapons in the Middle East?

It's known that Israel has nuclear capability. They won't admit it but they do. It has been discovered, much to Bush and Cheney's disappointment, that Iran has stopped trying to develop its own nuclear weapons. Saddam lied to everyone that Iraq had WMDs. He didn't have nukes or any other WMDs. The poor guy was just trying to bluff Iran and delayed telling his generals until the war started. Bless his heart, the bluff worked so well he got hanged for his efforts. But what about Pakistan, a country that does have nuclear weapons, has tested them, and is supposed to be our ally? It's not the most stable country in the mess Bush has stirred up over there. Since the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, Pakistan has become even more unstable. So who's in charge of their weapons of mass destruction? Is there a possibility that, in the unrest and accompanying violence throughout the country, someone might start pushing buttons? I've worried about Cheney pushing buttons to take out Iran, but I've also been worried about Pakistan's nuclear stockpile.

According to news I've been able to dig up, a retired general named Khalid Kidwai is in charge of protecting Pakistan's nuclear weapons. He has set up a "stringent security system." No one, he insists, is going to take over those weapons. This includes the Taliban, al Qaida or anyone else. Kidwai has a division of 10,000 troops who are "prepared for any contingency." There is a command and control system which is based on the security information that we gave them.

Kidwai said that after the September 11 attacks on the U.S., he asked for the intel and the money to set up the security system. He stipulated that no one, not even the U.S., would enter Pakistan. He also said that Pakistan would never initiate an attack on any country and had the weapons solely as a deterrent. We gave him $10 million.

The Pakistanis have established a fail-safe procedure for use of nuclear weapons. Any decision to use them would have to be approved by a 10-member National Command Authority. The members are both military and political leaders of the country. The authority is chaired by the president. If they make a decision, Kidwai said, he hopes it will be unanimous, but a majority of the representatives could authorize an attack.

Despite our assurances, given with the $10 million, that we would respect Pakistan's wishes, you can bet the U.S. has plans to go in if the situation in the country worsens. Pakistan has already told us that they will not allow our troops into the region in the northwest, which is the stronghold not only of the Taliban, but also where "al Qaida" regroups. So, of course, it's where we most want to go.

In any case it is worrisome to think what might happen.