Concerns about assassination attempts on President Musharraf’s life, the likelihood that bin Laden is in Pakistan and that resurgent Taliban and al Qaeda forces strike from across the border are the supposed pretexts for a secret U.S. plan for a spring invasion of Pakistan involving thousands of forces, many of them already in Afghanistan. US sources refuse to comment on the story and Musharraf’s government denied to Reuters that it would support such a plan, rejecting the need for US forces to cross into Pakistan to find bin Laden. Of course, this “spring offensive”, as it is reportedly called in internal Defense Dept. documents, is timed very conveniently for the spring Republican offensive against the Democratic Presidential aspirant, it goes without saying.

This follows the age-old pattern of the U.S. propping up an unpopular dictator who serves our strategic interests in the face of popular opposition. In so doing, as always, we will further inflame that opposition. (The irony is that, as the WMD argument in Iraq evaporated, the dysadministration fell back on the mroal righteousness of toppling a tyrannical dictator there.) The Pakistani fundamentalist oppositon, by all indications, have their finger on the trigger of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. This makes it likely that a U.S. invasion force would not be wise stopping short of seizing control of Pakistani A-bombs once these events are set in motion, either with covert commando action or an overwhelming commitment of conventional force, or both. It seems clear that the US would not even try to obtain any international support before launching such a bullheaded scenario, although it might easily grow to involve nternational forces. Would India be drawn into the armed conflict — for example, finally deciding to seize Kashmir on the excuse that it is an Islamist haven? Would other Islamist forces rush to Pakistan’s defense against the US incursion?