Weapons of Mass Destruction

I read, with much concern, today's report in the NY Times (Pakistani Strife Raises U.S. Doubts on Nuclear Arms). I have great faith in the honesty and integrity of the Obama administration. I have no reason to believe that this time around, the government is fabricating information to suit its own needs.

Yet, one can't help but be struck by how much the language in the article sounded like the weapons of mass destruction language, part 2. For example, we are now told that "keeping the country's nuclear infrastructure secure was the top priority", that the United States "does not know where all of Pakistan's nuclear sites are located", that "American officials are less willing to accept blanket assurances from Pakistan that the weapons are safe". We are advised that Pakistani officials continue to "deflect the American requests for more details about the location and security of the country's nuclear sites", calling the American concerns for the safety of the nuclear arsenal by the Americans as "overblown rhetoric", and dismissing our fears as "American paranoia".


I don't know about you, but does this not sound like a conversation that could have been pulled from the early Bush years in the ongoing dialogue with Iraq? We spent the past 8 years fighting a war of illusion while we have come closer and closer to nuclear disaster in Pakistan. This time around the threat appears real, imminent and a clear and present danger to the security of the region, and ultimately to our own country. That is the one and only true predicate for putting our soldiers in harms way in Pakistan, or anywhere else. Let's hope this time we have our facts right, and take appropriate steps to assure the continued safety of the arsenal, the country and the world at large.