In an "I am too tougher than Hillary" speech, Sen. Barack Obama warned Pakistan yes terday that as commander-in-chief he might act unilaterally if Islamabad didn't do more against the terrorists there. "Let me make this clear . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, I will," the Democratic presidential candidate told a Washington audience in his first comprehensive speech on terrorism. There's nothing wrong with Sen. Obama (D-Ill.) talking tough on terrorism - though he's seemingly coming to it a little bit late in the campaign. But there are a couple of things in his proposal that should be addressed.
First, there was little new in Obama's proposition for fighting al Qaeda. In fact, he might be alarmed to learn that he's basically taken a long-standing page from the Bush administration's playbook in the War on Terror. President Bush has already made it clear on numerous occasions that he'd do what whatever was necessary to kill or capture al Qaeda operatives - especially the likes of Osama bin Laden - if we had actionable intelligence to do so.
But an attack on Pakistan's terrority that isn't unauthorized by that nation's government - which is what Obama seemed to be suggesting - is a pretty risky proposition, especially if it involved a large number of U.S. troops pouring over the Afghan border into Pakistan. Taking this sort of large-scale action - or any other unilateral action - without prior consultation with Islamabad could easily lead to the downfall of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's government.
Musharraf is already on shaky ground. His government has faced a number of crises in recent months - including the seizure of the Red Mosque, terror attacks and the (now overturned) firing of a the country's top justice - leading to a serious slide in his popularity. The fall of Musharraf's government might well lead to a takeover by pro-U.S. elements of the Pakistani military - but other possible outcomes are extremely unpleasant, including the ascendance of Islamist factions. The last thing we need is for Islamabad to fall to the extremists. That would exacerbate the problem of those terrorist safe havens that Obama apparently thinks he could invade.
And it would also put Pakistan's nuclear arsenal into the wrong hands. That could lead to a number of nightmarish scenarios - a nuclear war with India over Kashmir, say, or the use of nuclear weapons by a terrorist group against any number of targets, including the United States.
The best route for dealing with Pakistan is mild pressure and cooperation - not threats. Musharraf hasn't been a perfect ally, but for the moment he's our best bet for fighting terrorism, especially al Qaeda, in Pakistan. And we have seen cooperation from Musharraf on al Qaeda. Pakistan has turned over hundreds of al Qaeda operatives to the United States. Indeed, more Qaeda bigs have been captured on joint operations in Pakistan than anywhere else.
Last fall, a U.S. Predator drone fired a missile at a compound in Pakistan where al Qaeda No. 2 Ayman al Zawahiri was reported to be dining. The strike - coordinated with Pakistan - missed Zawahiri by just a few hours. And, as result of recent events in Pakistan, Musharraf has sent at least two brigades of the Pakistani army back into the tribal area along the Afghan-Pakistan border to engage the militants that have found safe haven there.
The best way to fight extremism, terrorism and insurgencies is with indigenous forces: They know the streets and the terrain - and have the inside track with the locals on getting intelligence on the bad guys.
Of course, our Special Operations Forces (SOF) and CIA paramilitary intelligence operatives, who speak the local language, know the culture and move stealthily in small units can really help local forces process targets, too. In fact, it's very likely that U.S. SOF and CIA operations officers are in Pakistan now, operating with Pakistani forces against extremists and terrorists, including al Qaeda. There's no reason to doubt that this sort of cooperation from Musharraf will continue - especially after the wake-up call he got after being under the gun from Islamic extremists and terrorists in recent weeks.
While the United States should keep every option on the table for fighting terrorism, including the use of unilateral action when necessary, it's critical we work with allies in the War on Terror as much as possible.
Posted by: ryuge ||
08/02/2007 08:20 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11131 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
This belongs in Opinions. I will be hitting the tip jar this weekend. :-)
#2
Last fall, a U.S. Predator drone fired a missile at a compound in Pakistan where al Qaeda No. 2 Ayman al Zawahiri was reported to be dining. The strike - coordinated with Pakistan - missed Zawahiri by just a few hours. And, as result of recent events in Pakistan, Musharraf has sent at least two brigades of the Pakistani army back into the tribal area along the Afghan-Pakistan border to engage the militants that have found safe haven there.
Tipped of by the ISI comes to mind!!!!!
Posted by: Paul ||
08/02/2007 9:28 Comments ||
Top||
Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-KS) walked out of a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee because she couldn't stand to listen to what retired General Jack Keane, former vice chief of staff of the Army, was saying.
"There is only so much you can take until we in fact had to leave the room for a while...after so much frustration of having to listen to what we listened to," Ms. Boyda explained to reporters later.
What did Gen. Keane say to so upset Ms. Boyda? He'd visited contested neighborhoods in Baghdad in February, and again three months later: "What you see is a stark contrast. All the schools are open. The markets are teeming with people...There is an attempt to provide essential services to the population where in '06 there were none."
"Those kinds of comments will in fact show up in the media and further divide this country instead of saying, here's the reality of the problem," Rep. Boyda said. "And people, we have to come together and deal with the reality of this issue."
It is difficult to say which is the more remarkable: that Ms. Boyda, whose military experience is zero, imagines she knows "the reality of this issue" better than does Gen. Keane; or that she is appalled by good news from Iraq.
Like the Copperheads of 1864, Democrats today think defeatism is their ticket to political victory. Like the Copperheads after Sherman captured Atlanta, they may be in for grave disappointment.
#1
If she cannot stand to remain in the meeting, doing here job, then doesn't that violate her oath of office and prove she is incapable of fulfilling the duties of a congressperson? Of course, the D after her name is proof enough that she lacks honesty, humanity and a brain.
#2
Like the Copperheads of 1864, Democrats today think defeatism is their ticket to political victory.
Given the present value of copper, perhaps we should call today's "Peace Democrats" leadheads.
#3
See also CAL THOMAS' commentary > DEMOCRATS ARE/HAVE INVESTED IN DEEFATISM. Amerika is still AMerica, the USSA is still the USA in 2007 - iff Lefties + Globalists want OWG + SWO, just say so.
'Anyone who believes that Israel can maintain its current hold on all the West Bank is living in a dream." These confident words were spoken by embattled yet defiant Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, as he addressed a recent gathering of Jordan Valley farmers. One might think that with the obvious Iranian and Hizbullah threats hanging over Israel's head and the ominous warnings of a senior IDF officer regarding the Hamas buildup in Gaza, Olmert would be placing his focus elsewhere. Nonetheless, the issue of the demographic threat to Israel caused by its presence in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) has returned to the front pages.
In order to judge this issue rationally, avoiding the emotional diatribes frequently launched by those on both sides of the issue, it is crucial to examine the facts. As Olmert rightly emphasizes, "Everyone understands that the State of Israel can't exist without a Jewish majority."
The leader of the Free Patriotic Movement, Michel Aoun, gained his "Christian credibility" with his dual calls for returning sovereignty to Lebanon and returning the Lebanese state to its role.
Translation: The expulsion of the Syrian army from Lebanon, disbanding the militias, and fighting corruption. The General's followers are almost repeating the same calls today in all their detail, with no regard for the advancements that have taken place since Aoun became president of an interim military government when there were complications surrounding the election of a successor to the previous president Amin Gemayel two decades ago.
The crux of the General's positions was his staunch objection to the Lebanese reaching, through their representatives from all sects, a new pact to end the civil war when they convened in the Saudi city of Taif, under Western patronage (American and French in particular) and regional patronage (Saudi and Syrian in particular). He considered the agreement that led to a new constitution as assigning the Lebanese situation to Syria; an assignment that paved the way towards a political direction which did not give Aoun a role since he decided from the beginning that he was not concerned with it. He did not notice the political aspect of the agreement which redistributed authority on the basis of maintaining coexistence in a final nation for all its sons and organizing Syrian military withdrawal from Lebanon and disarming all militias. The agreement also mentioned organizing the armed Palestinian presence in Lebanon and the confrontation with Israel. It escaped the General, then as well as now, that Lebanese Muslims accepted once and for all a final allegiance to Lebanon and that the Christians let go of their dream of a private nation and that everyone accepted providing concessions to save this settlement.
Two decades ago, the General fought a "war of elimination" to check the Lebanese Forces because it covered and supported the Taif agreement and announced its willingness to facilitate its implementation, etc. Afterwards, the General rushed into a "war of liberation" and issued a decree thereby dismissing those MPs who participated in the election of a new president under Taif. When President René Mouawed was later assassinated, Aoun described him as a "former MP" who lost his mandate with the implementation of the Taif agreement.
During his exile in Paris, Aoun focused on the "Syrian occupation" and on the Lebanese agents that supported the Taif agreement. He vowed to expose administrative and government corruption, but could not find a link between this corruption and the Syrian presence which, by sidestepping the Taif stipulations, set up military and administrative structures parallel to the authorities and funded with public funds. He considered those who supported the agreement, regardless of their involvement with the authorities at that time, responsible for the corruption and indulgences in matters of authority. According to Aoun, those who were part of the command structure under Syrian patronage and those who opposed it, particularly the Christians, were one and the same.
Upon his return to Lebanon from exile, Aoun found himself in direct clashes with the agents that supported Taif and thereby worked to organize a Syrian withdrawal; those who later organized themselves into what is now called March 14th. At the same time, he rushed into an "understanding" with Hezbollah and into an alliance with the Amal movement; the two fundamental Shiite powers in Lebanon. These two powers publicly deny any intention of amending the Taif agreements but, along with the allied General, do not hesitate to consider the cabinet which is headed by a Sunni and which the Taif agreement gave executive powers to be monopolizing authority, regardless of the internal balance of power that the last elections allocated and that controls the make up of the cabinet. This is the crux of the current crisis, and the crux of the campaign against the current government which has made decisions (from abiding by resolution 1559 to the international tribunal to resolution 1701) stipulated in the framework of Taif (Lebanon's sovereignty and letting go of false security on one hand, and the extension of the nation's authority and disbanding the militias and ending parallel military and security structures and their use of public funds on the other). It is here that the difficulty in solving this current crisis lies, because it pits a movement calling itself sovereign and adhering to the Taif agreement against a movement which wishes to reexamine the details of the agreement.
When Aoun accused the former president Amin Gemayel who, like him, was exiled in Paris, and blamed him for what happened during the past two decades, he told the former president that everything that he had done had amounted to nothing compared to what Aoun had done. Aoun was alluding to everything that happened since Gemayel chose him to head an interim government: the refusal to accept the Taif agreement as a settlement between the Lebanese to end the war, entering into any adventure for the sake of a settlement, including the infamous "understanding", no matter what risk of explosion it may entail. However, since the General has assured us that he is the only one eligible to hold the upcoming presidency, and that the choice is between him and chaos and war, his calls for the politics of virtue ring hollow.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/02/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11130 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
