Former Pentagon official Michael Rubin criticized Pakistan’s army chief Asim Munir for his nuclear threats, likening him to Osama bin Laden and calling for significant diplomatic repercussions.
Former Pentagon official Michael Rubin has sharply criticized Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, over his recent nuclear rhetoric, describing Islamabad’s behavior as that of “a rogue state.” Rubin’s comments come in light of Munir’s alarming statements, which he claims echo the sentiments of extremist groups like the Islamic State.
The controversy erupted following Munir’s assertion that if Pakistan “goes down, it would take half the world down with it.” These remarks were reportedly made during a meeting in Tampa, Florida, attended by U.S. military officials, raising concerns about the implications of such threats.
In response to Munir’s comments, India has formally condemned the threat of nuclear war. The Indian Foreign Ministry issued a statement highlighting that nuclear saber-rattling has become a common tactic for Pakistan and expressed regret that such statements were made on the soil of a friendly third country.
Rubin emphasized the gravity of the situation, stating, “Pakistan’s threats on American soil are completely unacceptable.” He articulated his concerns in an interview with the news agency ANI, where he compared Munir to Osama bin Laden, saying, “Asim Munir is Osama bin Laden in a suit.” This stark comparison underscores the seriousness with which Rubin views Munir’s rhetoric.
According to Rubin, the nuclear threats posed by Pakistan could potentially provide cover for terrorist factions to “go rogue” with nuclear weapons. He argued that Pakistan represents a unique challenge that transcends traditional diplomatic disputes, asserting that the ideological motivations behind terrorism are often overlooked by American policymakers.
“Americans look at terrorism through the lens of grievance,” Rubin explained. “They don’t understand the ideological underpinnings of many terrorists.” His remarks suggest a need for a deeper understanding of the complexities surrounding terrorism and its motivations.
Rubin further questioned whether Pakistan is capable of fulfilling its responsibilities as a sovereign state, given Munir’s provocative rhetoric. He stated, “The Field Marshal’s rhetoric is reminiscent of what we’ve heard from the Islamic State,” indicating a troubling parallel between Munir’s statements and those of extremist organizations.
In light of these concerns, Rubin proposed that the international community should contemplate a “managed decline” for Pakistan, which could involve recognizing breakaway regions such as Balochistan. He even suggested the possibility of future military intervention to secure Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, stating, “It’s coming near time when, in a future administration, other SEAL teams should enter Pakistan to secure its nuclear weapons because the alternative is simply too great to bear.”
Rubin’s stance on Pakistan’s status in the international arena is equally critical. He argued that there is no justification for the United States to continue viewing Pakistan as a major non-NATO ally. “Pakistan should be the first major non-NATO ally to be listed as a state sponsor of terrorism,” he asserted, advocating for a reevaluation of Pakistan’s role within U.S. Central Command.
In a call for severe diplomatic action, Rubin stated, “Asim Munir should be persona non grata in the USA and never get an American visa, along with any Pakistani official, until Pakistan explains itself and apologizes.” His comments reflect a growing frustration with Pakistan’s nuclear posturing and its implications for global security.
As the situation unfolds, the international community will be watching closely to see how Pakistan responds to these criticisms and whether it will take steps to address the concerns raised by Rubin and others.
Source: Original article