Having issued directives to guide his administration's preparations for war, on Thursday, September 20, President Bush addressed the nation before a joint session of Congress. "Tonight," he said, "we are a country awakened to danger." [80] The President blamed al Qaeda for 9/11 and the 1998 embassy bombings and, for the first time, declared that al Qaeda was "responsible for bombing the USS Cole." [81] He reiterated the ultimatum that had already been conveyed privately. "The Taliban must act, and act immediately," he said. "They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate." [82] The President added that America's quarrel was not with Islam: "The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them." Other regimes faced hard choices, he pointed out: "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
President George W. Bush, Thursday, September 20, 2001:
"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
My summary and some quotes from Pakistan makes a deal with the Taliban:
Pakistan has worked a deal with the Taliban; reportedly, Islamabad will have more influence in southwestern Afghanistan, and the Taliban will be stronger for their coming push on the Kabul.
Interestingly, the Taliban will be able to use Pakistani terroritory (notice my ingenious spelling) for military movements in support of its war in Afghanistan.
Since Al Qaeda allegedly does not get along well with Pakistan (I question the sincerity of the animosity on both sides), one result of this deal supposedly has been the cooling of relations between the Taliban and Al Qaeda, with reported tension over ideological differences.
Despite their most successful spring offensive last year since being ousted in 2001, the Taliban realize they need the assistance of a state actor if they are to achieve "total victory".
...
Al-Qaeda does not fit into any plans involving Pakistan, but mutual respect between the al-Qaeda leadership and the Taliban still exists. All the same, there is tension over their ideological differences, and al-Qaeda sources believe it is just a matter of time before the sides part physically as well.
It is in this context that we now address US plans for hot-pursuit of Al Qaeda into Pakistani terroritory. Reports in Shadow boxing on Pakistan's border talk of a US that is very distrustful of Pakistan's "ability to conduct any credible military operations against militant hideouts". (Personally, I think that should have been phrased "intention to conduct....")
Keep in mind that with 1) Pakistan allowing the Taliban use of Pakistani terroritory for military movements, and with Al Qaeda reportedly 2a) leaving the area due to a desire to get closer to new war zones in Iraq and elsewhere and 2b) having a falling out with the Taliban, this hot-pursuit could wind up being a non-issue: Al Qaeda will be elsewhere, and the Taliban, while basing in Pakistan, will be fighting deep in Afghanistan. Consequently, the report sums up:
Pakistan will most likely do all it can to stall NATO and the US over the hot-pursuit issue, and should foreign forces eventually swarm over the border, they will in all probability be too late: the Taliban will be busy deep in Afghanistan, and al-Qaeda will be operating from Iraq.
With that under consideration, the following is significant: in the context of a response to remarks by an Indian official about hot pursuit of terrorists in Kashmir...('Hot pursuit' will meet effective response: FO):
ISLAMABAD, March 5: Amid an international clamour over hot pursuits inside its territory, Pakistan on Monday sent out a stern warning that any aggression across its borders or across the Line of Control would be countered effectively.
"There should be no doubt in any one’s mind that any attempt to indulge in hot pursuits would receive a befitting response. Everyone should know that we have the capability and determination to deal with such threats and defend our borders," Foreign Office spokesperson Tasnim Aslam categorically stated while responding to a question at a weekly news briefing here.
She said this when her attention was drawn to a statement by the Indian defence minister that India would chase any misadventure from the soil of Pakistan.
(See also Pakistan Warns: Stern Response to Any Aggression.)
So, let's summarize:
1) The Taliban and Al Qaeda are having a falling out. This was predictable. Theirs are closely-related Islamofascistic ideologies; each will, sooner or later, accuse the other of apostasy, of polytheism, or of something. That's the nature of the beast.
2) Pakistan is America's ally, and America is fighting the Taliban. But, Pakistan is working a deal with the Taliban that will be tremendous help for the Taliban's upcoming operations, as Islamabad hopes to garner a say in Afghanistan's future, which Islamabad must think belongs to the Taliban.
3) The US is planning for hot pursuit, with both ground and air units, of Al Qaeda terrorists into Pakistani terroritory. Pakistan hasn't explicitly referred to this, but doesn't seem to like it. On the other side, the US hasn't explicitly said that American forces will go after Taliban forces in Pakistan, but that seems to be developing.
4) Pakistan has assured the world, in the context of India and Kashmir, that it can protect all its terroritory, and will do so against any incursions. But, Pakistan has not consistently protected its terroritory against incursions by Al Qaeda, and not at all, it seems, against incursions by the Taliban.
Analysis:
1) Who cares? We knew it was going to happen sooner or later. If we could afford to leave them alone together long enough, they'd wipe each other out; no big loss.
2) Which side is Pakistan on?
3 & 4) If Pakistan can protect all its borders, why don't Pakistani forces go after Al Qaeda along the frontier with Afghanistan? If they really do have a significant military capability along all their borders, then they've been deliberately negligent in the War on Terror. I repeat my question: Which side is Pakistan on?
Maybe Pakistan isn't as hostile to Al Qaeda as Islamabad wants us to believe.
Al Qaeda is still close with the Taliban, and the Taliban has always been close to Pakistan. If Pakistan is willing to protect its borders against foreign incursions, will they fight US or NATO forces going after Al Qaeda inside of Pakistan? What about if US or NATO forces are going after Taliban forces inside of Pakistan? We know that Islamabad has given the Taliban the green light to operate there.
According to the reports, the US has talked about going after Al Qaeda, not the Taliban, in Pakistan. So, if our troops come under fire, and then the bad guys start getting clobbered and decide to run to Pakistan, are we going to stop at the border until we determine whether it's Al Qaeda or the Taliban?
Are we going to permit the Taliban a safe haven to regroup, rearm, reorganize, etc?
As Benjamin Netanyahu said, "It's the regime, stupid."
From US, Pakistan to take stock of their bitter-sweet ties:
WASHINGTON, March 5: The second session of the US-Pakistan strategic dialogue will be held in Islamabad next week at a time when relations between the United States and one of its key allies in the war against terror seem to be deteriorating rapidly.
...
The first session of the strategic dialogue was held in April last year in Washington where both sides agreed to enhance their efforts to fight terrorism and pledged to increase bilateral trade.
...
But the situation has changed so rapidly during the last six months that 2006 seems like another era. Since the Democratic victory in November’s congressional elections, Pakistan has been constantly targeted for its alleged failure to rein in Taliban and Al Qaeda militants hiding in the tribal belt.
Wait a minute!
Am I to understand that the Democrats are the ones pushing this issue?
I thought the Democrats were the ones who were going to be soft on terror if they got into power somehow.
Are the Democrats pointing this out to Bush, and Bush didn't know? Perhaps the people connecting the dots for Bush on where Al Qaeda and the Taliban have been based were the same ones connecting the dots prior to 9/11.
Or, has Bush been the one being soft on terror by not pressing the issue with Pakistan? And, now the Democrats are compelling Bush to do something?
Or, has the loss of Congress caused Bush to take his obligation to fight this War on Terror more seriously?
Those terrorists have been thriving in Pakistan the past few years; and they were there long before 9/11. Pakistan for many years was on the State Department's list of countries that sponsor terror.
Wasn't it amazing how quickly Islamabad saw the light in September of 2001?
By about noon eastern time (in the US) on September 11, 2001, it was pretty obvious to anyone with a television turned on that America was going to be kicking somebody's ass (pardon my language) really soon. And, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan knew what was going on right next door -- they had been buddies with the Taliban the whole time. America is a naval power, and the shortest way from the sea to Afghanistan is through Pakistan. Islamabad figured all this out pretty quickly.
I wonder why it has been taking us so long to figure things out....
The issue of Taliban resurgence in the tribal belt was discussed in bilateral meetings in 2006 as well but behind closed doors. In public both sides insisted that they had excellent cooperation on all issues.
This has changed. Now Pakistan is blamed, not only for its own failures but also for those of the Karzai government as well. And it is not just the Democrats who criticize Pakistan. Senior administration officials also do so.
The former director National Intelligence John Negroponte told a Senate committee on Jan 12 that the leaders of Al Qaeda had found a secure hideout in Pakistan from where they were rebuilding their strength.
His successor, retired vice admiral Michael McConnell, identified Pakistan as a "major source" of religious terrorism at a Senate hearing last week and said that Osama bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al Zawahri were probably also hiding on the Pakistani side of the Pak-Afghan border.
Director of the Defence Intelligence Agency Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples told the same hearing that "Pakistan-based militants' continued attacks against India undermine Pakistan's ability to make lasting peace with its neighbour".
Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, the outgoing top US commander in Afghanistan, called for direct US military strikes on alleged terrorist hideouts inside Pakistan and, according to Senator Diane Feinstein, Vice President Dick Cheney delivered a similar message to President Musharraf when he met him in Islamabad a week ago.
"It's the regime, stupid." I'm glad to see somebody is starting to catch on to what Netanyahu was trying to tell us.
President George W. Bush, Thursday, September 20, 2001:
"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
Mr. President, are you sure there isn't a third option?
10 comments:
But it's NOT just the regime. Any successor regimes will certainly be as Islamic, probably as anti-Western, and possibly as devious.
What USA should do is to stop dealing with the Muslim world on the shabby, corrupt - and futile - principle that these Pakistani, Saudi, etc. regimes are "our bastards". They're not any more, if they ever were.
I simply don't believe that the US couldn't pick up bin Laden & Co. tomorrow if they wanted to. But they obviously don't. Why not?
But, as I can see it, even the Americans are against that absurd war with Iraq. Statements as that made by President Bush should never be uttered: with us or against us? It just makes us wonder whether we are being bullied. On the other hand Bush and Co. have acknowledged all this is based on mistakes (lies?)why must we believe everything that administrations says if we know for sure that most of it isn't true?
War on terror? That's a new aspect deriving from the war on Iraq, on Afghanistan. The initial motivations were WMD. Terror came afterwards. I believe this needs a deep analysis.
Interesting comments! :)
Anticant:
I think the problem is that any successor regime would probably be more anti-Western -- a lot more.
A main reason for this is the diversity of opinion right within the Saudi Royal Family and within Musharraf's regime.
Many members of the Saudi Royal Family are very pro-Al Qaeda, but the family is also very westernized. So, the Kingdom's allegiances are split, and, no matter who comes to power, it can't be too much on one side or the other.
"Regime change" might just mean eliminating the Saudi Royal Family altogether, and that could leave people in charge far more agreeing with the ulema.
Mushy's regime is riddled with people who side with the terrorists. So much so that an assassination or a coup could easily leave a regime in place much closer and openly so to the Taliban.
I think this is a very legitimate concern, and one to which we are being held hostage.
Meanwhile, Al Qaeda has nukes....
Jose:
In Part I, I follow a bread-crumb trail to the absurd suggestion that President Bush and Al Qaeda are, in a way, de facto allies against a perceived threat from Iran.
Afghanistan was because of 9/11. For a review of why we attacked Iraq, see Iraq's Armchair Quarterbacks.
I agree that the invasion caused instability which allowed the chaotic terror. Al Qaeda has taken advantage of this to bog us down in Iraq; Al Qaeda has a seemingly unlimited number of suicide bombers there that they would not have otherwise had.
But, the decision to go in was based on far more than that.
You're absolutely right, though; the statements that have been made make us wonder. Some of these statements are as far out-of-touch with reality as to be almost politically-correct.
You know, yankee doodle, there's too much talking about 3000+ American troops killed, and almost nothing about the hundreds of thousands who have died because of the war, because of the sanctions, because of mistakes (lies?).
When someone tries to correct a mistake, one must unavoidably go to the root of the problem. Otherwise the mistake will grow up non-stop, and soon people will only focus on the immediate problems, without realising those problems are a consequence of those mistakes.
I am sure the regimes in power now in the ME did never come to think that their countries could be subject to radical changes. This is another side of the problem that should be considered. Comfortable systems of government can be radically changed overnight. Comfortable systems that were instaured thanks to the help from the succesive American Administrations - not only Bush's -whose only objective was to safeguard the interests of the big oil corporations.
That is the big Bush's mistake, the mistake hat has no possible redressing at this stage of the issue.
Hiya YD.."It's the regime, stupid."...I never heard that one actually...fascinating overview...I wouldnt trust any of these "players" further than I could throw a piano and not quite sure what the "end game" is anymore..........great post.
If al Qaeda has nukes it's solely due to the crass ineptitude of the US government in not concentrating all its efforts on hunting them down and running them in immediately after 9/11, instead of using that atrocity as an excuse to invade Iraq. They have put not just the USA, but all of Europe, at increased risk, and it is for this criminal negligence that Bush & Co. should be impeached.
I agree with anticant. Why have the world powers not dedicated themselves to chase Al Qaeda out of each and every redoubt or hide-out they have got into? Many lives would have been saved and much less money would the operation have cost, and that would have, indeed, been war on terror.
Jose,
I feel very bad for the Iraqis that are dying there. I felt bad for them under Hussein, too. News services weren't reporting all the torture under Hussein. They weren't reporting all the Iraqis that died by his death squads and in his prisons and in his military strikes on domestic opposition.
And, for all of Iraqi oil wealth, Hussein wasn't building schools and other public works projects for his people, like America is; he was financing terror against Israel and building up an army to threaten his neighbors with.
Having said all that, as an American, my greater concern is for the thousands of US citizens that died on 9/11, and how to prevent future repeats of that. As an American, my concern is for the three thousand American war dead, and the many thousands wounded.
And, I would like to point out that the fact that such regimes run much of the Middle East is not America's fault. The people in the Middle East are the ones to blame for what kind of government they have.
In principle, that means America can be held accountable for (and only for) the kind of government America has. But, I am going to hypocritically deviate from that principle and blame that on the people in the Middle East. People who dislike Bush need to understand that Bush might not have gotten re-elected if people had not been so concerned about terrorism. So anyone making noise about the "Bush Regime" can blame Bin Aladdin for it.
Bottom line: I'm finger-pointing at the Middle East, not totally as a matter of principle, but in part just because I'm tired of the finger-pointing at America. :)
WHT,
A good point, calling them "players". Have you read Trifkovic?
Anticant and Jose,
To some extent, agreed. The interlude in Iraq has allowed Al Qaeda to escape with its "crowd pleasers", and it has allowed the Taliban to regroup, strengthen, and go on the offensive. That business should have been decisively finished already.
I would like to see NATO offer more troops for Afghanistan, and place fewer restrictions on what their troops there can do. The threat from that place is a threat to the whole world, not just to America.
In defense of Bush's decision to invade Iraq, it was known for many years that Hussein had chemical weapons, had used them on his own people, and supported terrorism, although the little evidence linking him to Al Qaeda was questionable. It was known throughout the 1990's that he was working on nuclear weapons in violation of the cease-fire, and had been doing so in the 1980's as well.
Logically, the threat of a nuke getting into the hands of terrorists is more grave with a nation that sponsors terror behind it, and Iraq seemed to have been making progress. Iraq seemed to be a significant potential threat for further serious problems, in addition to having been in continuous violation of its cease-fire accord with the UN.
Many of the world's leaders thought so, too, and that's why the reports coming out were credible and cause for concern to so many others besides just Bush and Blair.
For info on Al Qaeda's nukes, see Nuclear Strike on US Imminent?.
Sorry, yankee doodle, I cannot go on in this discussion. I can see you are definitely wrongly informed about what happened in Iraq before, during and after the illegal invasion, and I am afraid I am not going to waste any more of my time.
Perhaps a little more research would do you good.
Post a Comment