Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Give Musharaff a deadline?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Give Musharaff a deadline?

    Give Musharraf A Deadline
    INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

    Posted 2/27/2007

    War On Terror: Turns out that Vice President Cheney's secret showdown in Islamabad included a CIA presentation of "compelling" evidence proving al-Qaida leaders are operating inside Pakistan.

    The evidence was shown to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf over lunch in his palace. It must have been hard to swallow, because our "good partner" has denied that al-Qaida has made a comeback on his soil. Don't look here, he has insisted, look next door in Afghanistan.

    Now we have electronic intercepts of al-Qaida leaders operating in Pakistan, and satellite photos of new terror training camps there. Yet we're still trusting Musharraf to take care of business.

    In the latest VIP visit, we warned that Congress could cut off aid to his regime if he doesn't produce results. But we still left it up to him to take out al-Qaida leaders and their camps. The U.S. message, in so many words, was: Here's the evidence. We know they're here inside your country. Now will you please do something about it?

    Such deference in the face of photos and intercepts begs the question: Who is running this war? Right after 9/11 it was clear. "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists," President Bush warned Pakistan and other Muslim nations. "From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

    It's bad enough we've restrained our Afghan-based troops from raiding those Pakistani camps and shutting them down. Now we've reportedly taken missile strikes off the table after Musharraf complained about a failed drone attack on an al-Qaida safe house.

    So now we're completely reliant on Pakistan to fight our war, even as Pakistan harbors our top enemies and exports terrorism to Britain and (almost) to America. There's something else wrong with this picture: Musharraf has emphatically denied al-Qaida's presence inside Pakistan, ignoring evidence presented to him by NATO commanders in Afghanistan.

    The fact that we found out otherwise without any boots on the ground, from miles in space, indicates that Musharraf has not been anywhere near as aggressive as he says he's been in hunting down our enemies and cracking down on their bases and camps. In other words, he's been playing us for suckers, stringing us along for more economic and military aid.

    The following facts are no longer in dispute:

    1. Before 9/11, Pakistani intelligence husbanded al-Qaida, even introducing Osama bin Laden to Mullah Omar in Kandahar.

    2. Before 9/11, the Pakistani government formally recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

    3. After 9/11, the Pakistani military helped bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders escape from Tora Bora, secretly escorting them across the border into Pakistan.

    4. As Musharraf assured Washington he was cracking down on al-Qaida subgroups in Pakistan, Western journalists such as Daniel Pearl found out that their bank accounts in fact had not been frozen and their recruiting offices had not been closed as promised.

    5. Musharraf then banned foreign journalists from traveling to Quetta and Peshawar and other Taliban and al-Qaida strongholds where they could confirm his story that Pakistan was free and clear of the Taliban and al-Qaida.

    6. Then, last year, he surrendered that northern tribal region to militants protecting al-Qaida and the Taliban in what he called a "peace deal." He even gave captured fighters amnesty, releasing thousands from custody so they could rejoin the jihad.

    Since his truce, al-Qaida and Taliban attacks on U.S. and NATO troops across the border have more than tripled. Now add an attack on the vice president to the list.

    While we've been coddling Musharraf, the Taliban and al-Qaida have been able to regroup, rebuild and reattack because they enjoy a secure sanctuary largely free of attack within Pakistan.

    The longer we wait on Musharraf to act, the longer bin Laden has to train and export more terrorists to the West and communicate with cells already in place. Every second counts, and yet we are dragging this out in a very dangerous game.

    Musharraf will no doubt now send troops to those camps, but how can we be sure Pakistani intelligence won't just tip them off before the troops arrive? There are rumors that someone in Islamabad may have tipped off the Taliban to Cheney's travel plans. His stay at the Afghan base hit Tuesday by a suicide bomber was top secret.

    Regardless, we must now set a deadline for results. If Musharraf doesn't deliver, the answer isn't sending another U.S. dignitary to twist his arm.

    Besides, who's left to send? We have already sent the president, the vice president, the defense secretary, the CIA deputy (and the director before him), the secretary of state, the CentCom commander, the head of counterterrorism for State, among others. At this rate, the administration will have to turn to Jimmy Carter.

    It's plain that high-level visits to Islamabad haven't worked. We need to act unilaterally — hit those camps with overwhelming force — and apologize later. The security of the U.S. depends on it.

    Today in Investor's Business Daily stock analysis and business news

    Is Washington being irresponsible and selfish here?

    It has utterly ignored for decades terrorism against India. It wants a few high ranking AQ/ Talib that Pakistan obviously hides. Yet in exchange for tid bits aka AQ #7, 9, 14 once or so a year, Pak demands heavy arms against India. Which Washington obliges duely.

    Is the US taxpayer subsidizing agression against India for a few AQ top hands?

  • #2
    What I find amazing, is that the U.S. has evidence that Pakistan is supporting (or turning the other way... same thing in my mind) terrorism, yet the U.S. is about to supply Pakistan with large military contracts, in which most equipment is meant to fight a war against India, not terrorists/insurgents etc... Yet, it is India who has been fighting Muslim extremism for years and year.

    Messed up imo!

    Comment


    • #3
      What I find amazing, is that the U.S. has evidence that Pakistan is supporting (or turning the other way... same thing in my mind) terrorism, yet the U.S. is about to supply Pakistan with large military contracts, in which most equipment is meant to fight a war against India, not terrorists/insurgents etc... Yet, it is India who has been fighting Muslim extremism for years and year.

      Messed up imo!
      Precisely. Does'nt make sense here too.

      Return of the Taliban - Google Video

      Longish video here, but one gets the picture. Focus on the War on terror should have been Pakistan from a decade ago. It looks this state will disintegrate. With drastic consequences for India. The concept of propping a stable Pakistan is not just working. US has poured almost 30 Billion US into Pakistan (since 911). To what end?

      Comment

      Working...
      X