| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Michelle Malkin" |
| Date: |
12 Sep 2007 12:23:37 PM |
| Object: |
The Pakistan Conundrum |
The Pakistan Conundrum
BY Scott Horton
PUBLISHED September 11, 2007
If you listen to the charlatans who regularly appear on American mass
media as counterterrorism "experts"-you know, the ones who couldn't explain
the difference between a Sunni and a Shi'a Muslim, nor locate Waziristan on
a map-you'll hear them feverishly talk about the major centers of the
terrorist threat. The litany will start with Iraq, and move quickly on to
Iran and Syria. If you listen to those who actually have developed expertise
in the area, however (and who rarely, if ever, make appearances on the
media), you'll see a quick focus on one country. It's been called "America's
most important non-NATO ally," and its leader is feted and received in the
White House and makes an appearance on the "Daily Show." It's Pakistan.
Consider this:
a.. We don't have to fret over whether Pakistan has a nuclear
arsenal and delivery system. There's no doubt about it. It does. And it's
been the world's best agent of proliferation for twenty years.
b.. Today, on 9/11, every New Yorker asks: Where is Osama bin Laden,
and why has he not been brought to justice? And the answer is: he is
lounging comfortably in Pakistan, surrounded by friends and admirers.
c.. Where have the Taliban been permitted to regroup, draw fresh
recruits and launch attacks on NATO troops, including young Americans, in
Afghanistan? In Pakistan, of course. Indeed, the Taliban is often seen as
the brainchild of some key players in Pakistan's military intelligence, the
ISI, who continue to this day to maintain close relations with it.
a.. Where has Al Qaeda itself been permitted safe harbor, been given
facilities to conduct
a.. its operations, communicate with its various arms, raise fresh
recruits, and plot its strategies of terror and mayhem? In Pakistan,
of course.
In the meantime, what has American policy been towards Pakistan? For most of
the last six years, a combination of confusion, restraint, and simply
absence. Like the residence of the American ambassador in Islamabad-vacant.
Remember Ambassador Crocker-he was on Capitol Hill testifying
yesterday-about Iraq. He was sent to Baghdad, and when he went, the
President said he was needed because it was the "front line of the war
against Al Qaeda?" Nonsense. So the post which really was the front line of
the war against Al Qaeda, Pakistan, was left vacant for months. If you
wanted one act to summarize the stupidity and simple-mindedness of the Bush
Administration's counterterrorism policies, there's a good one.
American policy towards Pakistan has been an unmitigated disaster. American
omissions and misdirections have been a key reason for the resurgence of
terrorist camps in Afghanistan and around the world.
More recently, thanks to one of the more thoughtful reassessments to come
from Condoleezza Rice, the U.S. has replaced a ridiculously dysfunctional
policy towards Pakistan with something that seems much more reasonable. But
it may be a classic case of "too little, too late."
You can look in despair for sensible analysis of the Pakistani situation in
U.S. papers. Occasionally we get something in the New York Times from their
widely-respected veteran, Carlotta Gall. And we have the far-too-infrequent
contributions of the best writer on things Pakistani, Ahmed Rashid. To get
the general lay of the land, you've got to track Rashid's writings in the
Daily Telegraph. So here's the latest from today's Telegraph:
Nawaz Sharif is not part of the American script for the war on terror and
the future of Pakistan, written by mandarins in the US State Department. He
is considered neither fish nor fowl, too close to the fundamentalist mullahs
and too unpredictable. The real script is to save the beleaguered Gen Pervez
Musharraf, and involves another former prime minister in exile-the fragrant
Daughter of the East, Benazir Bhutto. When in a few weeks' time she repeats
yesterday's homecoming saga from London, she will be welcomed by the very
police that manhandled Mr Sharif and she will be allowed to lead a
procession to her home town.
That is because the West is desperate to bring her and Gen Musharraf into
a loveless marriage so that the general can combat the terrorists and the
lady play democracy. This, they hope, can keep the crumbling edifice of
military rule going for a few more years or at least until Osama bin Laden
is winkled out of his home in the tribal regions of North and South
Waziristan. And that is where the whole plan falls apart because in a
country like Pakistan, a failing state hovering over the abyss, there are
too many loose ends to tie up.
Now Barney Rubin tells us that those are some "loose ends." "None other than
every principle of legitimacy of the state in Pakistan." U.S. policy has
finally been brought to address this core vulnerability. But the
follow-through is missing.
Rashid gives us a glimpse of just how badly things are still going
internally in the war on terror, aside from the vaudeville of Pakistani
politics:
Then there is the crumbling morale in the army. Two weeks ago US and Nato
forces in Afghanistan were shocked to discover that 300 Pakistani
soldiers-their erstwhile partners in the war on terrorism-had surrendered to
the Taliban in Waziristan without firing a shot. Soldiers in the badlands
controlled by the Taliban and al-Qa'eda are deserting or refusing to open
fire. The White House is panic-stricken. That is because Gen Musharraf in
his hubris has utterly failed to convince Pakistanis or the army that
Pakistan has to fight not America's war, but its own war against
ever-expanding extremism.
On an important anniversary, 9/11, the attention of the American political
community is focused on Iraq and the lingering chimera of an absurd vision
that would have brought American democracy to the Middle East. This never
had anything to do with counterterrorism. It was a distraction.
There is a real, severe, terrorism threat. Its heart lies in what Rashid
calls the "Badlands" of Pakistan. And Bush and his team want to dish up to
us Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Iran-anything but the real core of the threat.
Today of all days they shouldn't be permitted to get away with this con
game.
.
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: The Pakistan Conundrum |
13 Sep 2007 12:28:53 AM |
|
|
In article <IK-dncQhO6IcvXXbnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
The Pakistan Conundrum
<snip>
On an important anniversary, 9/11, the attention of the American political
community is focused on Iraq and the lingering chimera of an absurd vision
that would have brought American democracy to the Middle East. This never
had anything to do with counterterrorism. It was a distraction.
There is a real, severe, terrorism threat. Its heart lies in what Rashid
calls the "Badlands" of Pakistan. And Bush and his team want to dish up to
us Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Iran-anything but the real core of the threat.
Today of all days they shouldn't be permitted to get away with this con
game.
This sums up exactly what I have been saying for the past five years.
Iraq is nothing but a waste of lives, money, and time. Bush and his
neocon cronies belong in prison for their crimes.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: The Pakistan Conundrum |
03 Oct 2007 06:16:09 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:28:53 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <IK-dncQhO6IcvXXbnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
The Pakistan Conundrum
<snip>
On an important anniversary, 9/11, the attention of the American political
community is focused on Iraq and the lingering chimera of an absurd vision
that would have brought American democracy to the Middle East. This never
had anything to do with counterterrorism. It was a distraction.
There is a real, severe, terrorism threat. Its heart lies in what Rashid
calls the "Badlands" of Pakistan. And Bush and his team want to dish up to
us Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Iran-anything but the real core of the threat.
Today of all days they shouldn't be permitted to get away with this con
game.
This sums up exactly what I have been saying for the past five years.
Iraq is nothing but a waste of lives, money, and time. Bush and his
neocon cronies belong in prison for their crimes.
They will never be charged. In the meantime, their stock portfolios
have never looked better.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: The Pakistan Conundrum |
03 Oct 2007 06:16:53 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:28:53 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <IK-dncQhO6IcvXXbnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
The Pakistan Conundrum
<snip>
On an important anniversary, 9/11, the attention of the American political
community is focused on Iraq and the lingering chimera of an absurd vision
that would have brought American democracy to the Middle East. This never
had anything to do with counterterrorism. It was a distraction.
There is a real, severe, terrorism threat. Its heart lies in what Rashid
calls the "Badlands" of Pakistan. And Bush and his team want to dish up to
us Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Iran-anything but the real core of the threat.
Today of all days they shouldn't be permitted to get away with this con
game.
This sums up exactly what I have been saying for the past five years.
Iraq is nothing but a waste of lives, money, and time. Bush and his
neocon cronies belong in prison for their crimes.
They will never be charged. In the meantime, their stock portfolios
have never looked better.
In short, they're objective supporting evidence crime does
pay-handsomely.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
