Pakistan Added to List of State Sponsors of Terrorism

In 1992, US Ambassador Nicholas Platt advised Pakistan's leaders that if Pakistan continued to support terrorist leaders in India or Indian-administered territory, "the Secretary of State may find himself required by law to place Pakistan on the state sponsors of terrorism list." What if Pakistan would have been added back in 1992?
 
Assuming a butterfly net;

How would the USA get at Afghanistan post 9/11?

Or would Pakistan have to be the first target on the list - two nuclear states going to war?
 
My first thought is that the U.S. would lose a friend in Pervez Musharraf. At political risk to himself and probably at personal risk, too, the guy helped my country the United States with anti-terrorism missions.

Now, were some of these missions and efforts misguided, like the ramp up of drone flights? Yeah, I think they were. But you'd have to really envision a high-trajectory world for none of the anti-terrorism efforts to be misguided.
 
My first thought is that the U.S. would lose a friend in Pervez Musharraf. At political risk to himself and probably at personal risk, too, the guy helped my country the United States with anti-terrorism missions.

Now, were some of these missions and efforts misguided, like the ramp up of drone flights? Yeah, I think they were. But you'd have to really envision a high-trajectory world for none of the anti-terrorism efforts to be misguided.

Musharraf was no friend to the United States.
 
He reeeally was. He had to certainly deal with a balancing act, because that is what Pakistani governance is, but Musharraf was absolutely vital to the Afghan war effort.

Fuck Musharraf, he helped out the Taliban and looked the other way when Bin Laden set up camp in Abbottabad.
 
And he may have faced a similar situation as with drug cartels in Mexico.

Some leaders in Mexico may have rather decided they would rather have a few, relatively well-behaved (emphasis on relative) cartels, then a wild west situation.

It's like a doctor trying to damage-control and make the best of a situation in which the patient is injured in several different ways, and a number of other professionals do this kind of thing, too.

Now, the politician may play poker and early on make a statement, we will have rule of law, we will not make deals. But if a deal crosses his her desk six months later that significantly improves things, without foreclosing future improvement? Well, his or her citizens would certainly be interested in that deal.

And the Herb Cohen principle of a president, governor, or mayor not negotiating for himself or herself, but rather appointing someone to negotiate.

Now, I am an idealist! So, if you have better alternatives, please share them.

And I don't know all the details about Mushariff, far from it. But he did allow U.S. and UK military units to operate in his country.
 
Kaiser, you have a real point.

The 'airlift of evil'
Nov. 29, 2001
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3340165

But I'm going to still raise my point of better alternatives as above.

Understand that I loathe justifications of the sort: we need to do a little terrorism in order to prevent greater terrorism. To me, this is a type of moral and intellectual laziness and more about after-the-fact justification than anything else.

And I'm not saying you do. But I tend to receive either these types of justifications or someone who throws up their hands in despair, when what I want is someone in there pitching.

So for you or anyone else reading this, please get in there and pitch some better alternatives. And just like so many other issues, this is an area too important to be left to the quote-unquote experts.
 
Last edited:
but Musharraf was absolutely vital to the Afghan war effort.

On both sides. :)

More seriously, the Taliban supporters were probably far more in the Intelligence service (hugely) and Army (some) than in the President's office.

But Pakistan was an 'ally', and allies get totally different treatment (unfortunately). Even more so for Saudi Arabia, where most of the money for those groups comes from. (Again, it's not the government doing the supporting, but they're not cracking down hard on the flow, either.)
 
Top