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.
