Dump Pakistan?

Ralph Peters:

WHAT Washington calls "strategy" is usually just inertia: We can't imagine not supporting Pakistan because we've "always" supported Pakistan.

No matter how shamelessly Pakistan's leaders looted their own country, protected the Taliban, sponsored terror attacks on India, demanded aid and told us to kiss off when we asked for help, we had to back the Paks.

Because that's just the way things are.

Well, now that Islamist marauders are sweeping the country with violence as the generals in Rawalpindi mull "To be or not to be" and President Ali Asif Zardari knocks back another scotch behind closed doors, perhaps we should consider an alternative approach to this splintering, renegade state.

A better strategy's obvious. But Washington has trouble with the obvious. At our pathetic State Department, habit trumps innovation every time. And the Pentagon can't seem to see beyond the immediate battlefield.

What should we do? Dump Pakistan. Back India.

Washington's deep thinkers will cry, "But China might move in!"

If China wants Pakistan, let Beijing have it. That would be fun to watch. Take on the Taliban? Given China's ghastly ineptitude in dealing with its Uighur Muslims, more power to 'em.

Anyway, China knows that India's the prize. Indian neutrality is essential to any future conflict with the United States. Beijing isn't going to do anything to drive New Delhi into a closer relationship with Washington (and the US Navy).

So set the "China syndrome" fears aside. Move on to the integrity issue: We claim -- or used to claim -- that we're serious about combating terrorists and punishing their backers.

Yet, we've been abetting the forces of terror by supporting Pakistan unreservedly. Islamabad merrily sponsors terror attacks on India, knowing that America will step in and convince New Delhi not to retaliate.

...

Of course, there's also the issue of the Pentagon's bewildering incompetence in placing 50,000 of our troops at the end of a 1,500-mile supply line through Pakistan, rendering our forces virtual hostages of Islamabad.

The answer's another dose of common sense: Instead of increasing our troop numbers in Afghanistan, cut them. Instead of embracing the hopeless task of building a modern nation where no nation of any kind has ever existed, concentrate exclusively on killing al Qaeda terrorists and the hard-line Taliban elements who help them.

Instead of pretending the Kabul government has any validity, arm the factions with which we share common interests. We're really not obliged to cut massive welfare checks for our enemies.

Our sole mission in Afghanistan should be killing terrorists. To that end, we need a smaller, lethal, unfettered force, not more agricultural experts and con-game contractors.

...

Even with a smaller force it does not really address the supply line problem. In fact what Peters proposes would require even more troops to guard the supply line. If the sole mission is to kill terrorist, doesn't that mean we should be sending even more troops into Pakistan where most of them are hiding? It makes more sense to teach Pakistan forces how to fight the terrorist and protect their own people from them. The question really is whether Pakistan has a government and an army willing to do that. We may find out this week.