From the far flung regions of the globe, life goes on (or sometimes not, as the case may be) despite the US election and the Democratic party’s Convention in Denver this week. Here are a few examples from the real war against Islamic terrorists, one in which we are faring badly at the moment:
How would you like to be a politician in Pakistan? I sure wouldn’t:
Eight people have been killed in a rocket attack by suspected militants on a politician’s home in the Swat valley in north-west Pakistan, police said.
Provincial lawmaker Waqar Ahmed Khan, a member of the Awami National Party, confirmed his brother, two nephews and several guards had died in the attack.
Taliban fighters are blamed for the attack. The same Taliban fighters that have regained control over large swaths of territory in Afghanistan because they have a safe haven in Northwest Pakistan. The same Pakistan where an out of control intelligence and security agency, the ISI, is actively aiding and abetting the Taliban in it’s fight against Afghanistan’s government in Kabul and the NATO and US forces which support the Kabul regime of Hamid Karzai.
(cont.)
The New York Times revealed that US intelligence officials had concluded that Pakistan’s powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency was responsible for the July 7 bomb attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul, which killed more than 60 people. As a result, Pakistan’s new prime minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani, finds himself in a tight spot. While angrily dismissing accusations of the ISI’s involvement, Gilani has vowed to act decisively should he be presented with evidence to the contrary. Gilani’s indignation aside, the ISI has long been alleged to support Islamic militants. Daniel Pearl’s assassin, Omar Sheikh, is said to have had ties with the agency. India charges that the ISI supports insurgents in disputed Kashmir and terrorists in India proper. Afghan President Hamid Karzai has openly accused the ISI of backing terrorists in Afghanistan, including those who bombed the Indian embassy.
Which is why the war in Iraq has always been a sham. Pakistan and Afghanistan form the current base of Islamic fundamentalism, an ideology that has long infiltrated the highest reaches of the Pakistani miltray and security forces. The taliban and Al Qaeda could not exist without the support of the ISI, something which George Bush and Dick Cheney knew or should have known (in Bush’s case one can never assume he knows anything beyond what Cheney whispers in his ear). Colin Powell certainly knew it when he (through his deputy Richard Armitage) allegedly threatened to bomb Pakistan back to the stone age if they did not support the overthrow of the Taliban regime and the eradication of Al Qaeda after 9/11, even though just months before Powell had been the driving force behind the Bush administration’s plan to to buy off the Taliban’s support for Al Qaeda with US aid dollars.
If the Democrats were smart (which they are not) they would be making the instability of Pakistan and its continuing ties to the terrorists who are responsible for the 9/11 attacks against the United States a major campaign issue. They would be running attack ads against McCain asking why he supported and continues to support the Bush administration’s war against and occupation of Iraq, when Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan and Afghanistan were and are the true threats to our national security.
I know others here (a nod and hat tip to clammyc) have made this point countless times before, but every time Democrats talk about Iraq we are fighting on Republican territory, and granting McCain the opportunity to reinforce the lies and propaganda spread by the Bush administration. What they should be doing is hoilding hearings about the ISI’s ties to the Taliban and Al Qaeda and running ads asking what the hell are we doing in Iraq when the terrorists who killed 3000 people on 9/11 are safe and growing stronger in Afghanistan and Pakistan? The same terrorists that threaten India, a major ally, trade partner and fellow democracy. This should be one of the central themes of the Democrats’ argument against McCain and his promised continuation of the Bush occupation of Iraq: that the real enemy has been left untouched to grow immeasurably in power and influence as a result the Bush/McCain policies.
Ads should be running every day asking the question why did the Republicans under Bush allow Pakistan to continue to harbor and support our enemies? Why have they opposed energy independence through the development of renewable sources of energy, instead of forcing us to continue our dependence on oil? A policy that led to the illegal invasion of Iraq and promises only more wars in the Middle East as we seek to gain control over the oil there. A policy that promises more terrorist attacks here in the United states because of the death and destruction the use of our military force caused in Iraq, and which we threaten to use against Syria, Lebanon and Iran? A policy borne out of weakness, not strength.
This is the crucial foreign and domestic policy issue of our time. How can we be secure if we do not deal with the threat of fundamentalism in Pakistan and Afghanistan and the security threat that it poses. And how can we grow our economy of we are dependent on dwindling oil resources, while continuing to ignore the development of alternative and renewable energy technologies which can help provide jobs and increase our economic strength in the world, while freeing us from pouring our wealth into the hands of war profiteers and wealthy dictatorial regimes in the Middle East? I hope Obama makes this point, and makes it in a way that everyone can grasp, even the dumbest dittohead who gets his news exclusively from right wing demagogues such as Hannity, Savage, O’Reilly and Limbaugh. Because it isn’t enough just to talk about the failed policies of the Bush years. You must explain what those failures have wrought, and then explain your plan to correct those mistakes in judgment. And to do that you must begin by educating the public that Pakistan and its support (or the support of its military and security apparatus) of the Taliban and Al Qaeda is the real threat, along with our country’s continued reliance on oil resources as the basis for the energy we need. The two are inextricably linked, and it is McCain and the republicans who are tied to those fundamental policy failures.
Empty slogans like “hope” and “change” can only take you so far. Time to roll out the specifics and point out the differences between a President McCain and a President Obama. Here is one issue where the differences are fundamental and critical for our future.
Something to make you feel better:
Makes you wonder why McCain and his fellow Republicans hate ordinary Americans so much, especially those in the military. Maybe, it’s because these volunteers in Uncle Sam’s armed forces lack the financial clout to prosper in civilian life. No ivy league education, etc.
What you write about the Taliban and Pakistan, Steven, is true so why did the US pump over ten billion dollars into Pakistan since 9/11? I mean how stupid can a neocon get?
And, while we are on the mater of stupidity, our current policy of extending the NATO alliance eastwards is a recipe for collective suicide. How will the rich enjoy all their wealth if everything is radioactive? Or do they plan to seek comfort and happiness in mine shafts dug deep in the earth? A la Dr. Strangelove.
I guess I just don’t understand America’s foreign policy anymore.
well, one rather key element of U.S.-Pakistan policy is to retain some leverage and to maintain close contact. What seems to be going on currently is quite complicated and interesting. Essentially, we are the midst of a slow-motion coup, whereby a pro-western president will be elected to replace Musharraf, with the consent of the ISI (so far, they may well have assassinated the new president’s wife, so beware). And, even though this is kind of a coup, it is a coup that will be ratified by an election.
But things are immensely complicated in Pakistan. It is our most difficult foreign policy challenge.
We will soon know if the Obama Campaign’s aversion to specifics will persist until November. If the Convention ends without a sea change in tone I will be very alarmed.
Afganistan and Pakistan are major problems for the US. We are seeing how fatuous are Bush’s “democracy agenda” and “freedom rhetoric.” There was an election in Pakistan and it was about as “free” as could be expected. No one got a majority and the two parties that formed the present government were united primarily in their opposition to Musharif. Now that he has resigned that government is fragmenting. The only check on the ISI was a strong president backed by the military. Now all is drift.
An intelligent approach would have been to condition the aid we have given since 2002 on Musharif breaking the ISI and recreating it with mostly new people, especially at the top. It is folly to place much hope in “democracy” improving the situation in a largely feudal country. Realistically, we should have done what we could to encourage the development of civil society, the education of women, especially, and supported the expansion of democratic forms. But betting the farm on democracy in Pakistan is a bad joke. The situation, post-Musharif, is much worse than before. Any government likely to emerge will have a very hard time reigning in the ISI.
“How can we be secure if we do not deal with the threat of fundamentalism in Pakistan and Afghanistan and the security threat that it poses.”
As an American Jew, I don’t see any significant threat from the fundamentalists. The only threats I see are the Democrats and the Republicans. They are real enemy of humanity. Make no mistake. Everybody else is just amateurs.
.
Kashmir bombings – Sharif pulls out of coalition – Taliban has been outlawed (7 yrs since 9/11) – sounds just about Armageddon in its final stage. Too bad ally Bush has already opted for a strong alliance with nuclear India.
The Iraq nuisance – Maliki demands deadline for pullout of all US troops
BTW where can we find Rice? Right … a US safe house. I would not be surprised Bush catching up on any other event than political. Well the Caucasus is on fire, however America let Putin play his game of chess.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."OK, can we freakin’ take down the ISI already? Screw Afghanistan and the Taliban and al Qaeda. IMHO, going after the culprit is usually a good way to stop a crime-wave. These guys have been at the root of ‘it all’ since before day one, before ground zero, before Bush.
Oh yeah, I forget, they have all sorts of dirty secrets about our leadership’s past activities with the ISI..