Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Bush's Pakistan Paradox
As Iraq continues to disintegrate, and our top generals and in-country ambassador predict that U.S. troops will need to die there for decades in order to prevent a full-scale regional blood bath, it is important to recall the reasons why we got into this mess. The marker of what will go down in history as "Bush's folly" is that this idiot of a president invaded a country that had absolutely nothing to do with terrorist attacks on the United States or WMD threats to America while coddling the military junta in Pakistan, which was guilty on both counts.
(For newspaper editors inclined to strike my reference in this syndicated column to our "idiot president" as excessively pejorative, I refer them to one definition of idiot in Webster's New Riverside University Dictionary: "being unable to guard against common dangers and being incapable of learning connected speech.")
Two news stories this week underscore the extreme irrationality and utter moral depravity of the Bush administration in exploiting the 9/11 attack to justify the invasion of Iraq. They both concern Pakistan, the close ally of the Taliban government when Afghanistan hosted Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida terrorist network. And, as opposed to Iraq, Pakistan did have weapons of mass destruction and facilitated their proliferation to "rogue nations." Both examples provide damning evidence that Bush cared not a whit about WMD or about preventing another 9/11-style attack, because the danger of both existed in Pakistan, which he befriended, rather than in Iraq, which he invaded.
The first report details that Pakistan has effectively lifted the minimal house arrest restraints imposed on A.Q. Khan, the father of the "Islamic bomb," who presided over the transfer of nuclear technology to North Korea, Libya and Iran. The second is a devastating New York Times report that the United States failed to attack an important al-Qaida gathering in Afghanistan at which top terrorist leaders were present, out of fear of alienating Pakistan's dictator, Gen. Pervez Musharraf.
Recall that Bush boasted in his 2004 presidential debate with Democratic candidate John Kerry that "we busted the A.Q. Khan network," when, in fact, neither Khan nor any of the top ringleaders of his nukes-for-sale operation have ever been brought to trial. Some had to hold high positions in the Pakistani government in order for the shipment of Pakistan's most highly valued nuclear technology to go unimpeded. Perhaps it is for that reason U.S. agents have never been allowed to interview Khan, let alone subject him to the waterboarding torture reserved for those who wouldn't know a nuke if it hit them upside the head.
While American agents still aren't allowed to talk to Khan, an AP reporter had no difficulty interviewing him this week, reporting that the minimal restraints of his house arrest have been lifted. Thus, he is now, echoing that Southwest Airlines commercial, free to move about the country-if not the world. So, Bush did not bust Khan's network, but on the contrary he allowed it to function for years out of fear of embarrassing Musharraf at a time when Bush was cozying up to the dictator who had quickly pardoned Khan of all possible crimes.
Not offending Musharraf also led the Bush administration in 2005 to jettison a planned attack on a high-level al-Qaida gathering in Pakistan that U.S. intelligence had learned of. Bin Laden's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was in attendance, and the capture of the man thought to be actually running al-Qaida would have allowed Bush to begin making good on his promise to get the perpetrators of 9/11 "dead or alive."
Instead, as The New York Times reported, the mission was abandoned in the final moments, as Navy SEALs in parachute gear sat on C-130 cargo planes, because "it could jeopardize relations with Pakistan." The Times quoted Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University, as saying, "The reluctance to take risk or jeopardize our political relationship with Musharraf may well account for the fact that five-and-a-half years after 9/11, we are still trying to run bin Laden and Zawahiri to ground."
No wonder that top U.S. officials charged with defeating al-Qaida feel frustrated. As the Times reported, "Their frustration has only grown over the past two years, they said, as Al Qaeda has improved its ability to plan global attacks and build new training compounds in Pakistan's tribal areas, which have become virtual havens for the terrorist network."
Heckuva job, Bushie.
Robert Scheer is editor of Truthdig.com and a regular columnist for The San Francisco Chronicle.
© 2007 TruthDig.com
18 Comments so far
Show AllThe real conundrm of Pakistan is that we have to support a dictator like Musharraf despite the facts cited in this article because if a coup of radicals take control we could have a radical Islamic Republic with nuclear weapons and a delivery system. It's a delicate balancing act with no good choices at present.
Jaded, the fact that the US has supported one side or another throughout Pakistan's history is what has gotten us to this place in the first place. As with what happened in Palestine, Pakistani people are sick and tired of the always corrupt dictatorships or the two extremely corrupt, self motivated parties, always following the dictates of the elites and their overlords.
They simply have no one to turn to except the religious parties...
hashfunction has it right. We do have to remember that its some 40 or 50 years of US policy in the region that has led us to this position where we don't seem to have any good choices.
Consistently, across the middle east, its US policy that has set up this situation where in country after country the people feel the only choice to a corrupt government is the religious parties. The same script is being played out in Palestine.
This comes from two sets of US actions. One is the propping up of the corrupt governments by the US. The US consistently says that it couldn't care less if its puppets are corrupt. Instead the only consideration is whether the puppets stick to the current US party line ... anti-communist now morphed to anti-terroists.
The second set of actions is the long train of acts that were designed to crush any opposition from democratic forces or the left in this region of the world. The CIA has worked with most of these governments to always crush any democratic movements or trade union movements or populist movements in the guise of fighting socialism\communism. Of course the puppets were happy to crush these forces that might challenge their rule with US backing.
So, the only opposition that has survived has been the religious groups. The governments generally couldn't touch them because it was always dangerous for a corrupt dictator to be seen to be crushing religious groups connected to the dominant local religion (islam). This meant that the one safe place for people to gather and talk about how to improve their society became the religious movements. And the result has been that the strong political groups that have arisen to challenge the corrupt US puppets has been from the religious groups.
We see this today in Pakistan. And its also exactly the reason why groups like Hesballah and Hamas have the large levels of popular support they have tooday. Its because they are seen as the only alternative to a corrupt regime that represents US interests more than the interests of the people.
Despite all the U.S. rhetoric about freedom and democracy, which nobody in the world falls for it any more, the history of its foreign policy during the past few decades shows that the U.S. has always sided with, protected, and installed dictatorships, similar to the one currently in its embryonic stage in the U.S.
Cheneybush are like the fireman arsonist who sets a building ablaze with hopes of being the hero. Except, in this case, perpetual fear and war mean perpetual profits and public manipulation which means the "boggymen" must be allowed to roam free so the crazies have an "enemy" card to play when necessary. Fifty million dollar bounty on his head and bin Laden still escapes capture? Out of a billion Muslims, not one could use the extra dough? Right.
Need proof? We killed the "leader" of "al Qaeda Iraq" a few months ago, and suddenly all talk of said terror org vanished (until recently.) Why? No boggyman, see? But now Cheneybush are hanging on by their fingernails, so they've started to use the generic "al Qaeda" due to their inability to identify a new boggyman.
COMarc,
I strongly agree. The US and its allies blocked every avenue of protest heading in a leftward direction while allowing protest with a religious flavor, or, for the river analogy, they built levees that blocked any flow to the left and the rising flood of discontent created a rushing torrent in the unblocked religious fundamentalist streambed.
Before this degenerates into another 'we need to support musharraf because of the alternative' argument let me say that the brief periods of democracy in Pakistan , however flawed, were also its most peaceful. If we genuinely encourage democracy in pakistan (unlike our cynical iraqi version) we stand a better chance of containing extremism because a majority of the Pakistani people do not support the jihadi's.
"In the Allah Akbar corner complete with nukes, delivery systems, and vewy important Asiatic fwends (translate China!)The General, Pervez Musharraf.
In the Holy Moley, Christian Crusader corner, complete with lotsa more nukes and lotsa less less sense, The Shrub, George W. Bush.
Are we ready to rummmmmbllllle?!!..."
Gyptian, do you have statistics to prove that most Pakistanis do not support the Jihadists? Although I would prefer to see Pakistan become a democratic nation, it seems like we have no choice but to support Musharaf for the time being. That is only because the alternative seems far more disturbing and dangerous. If Pakistan did become democratic, what would stop the Islamic extremist parties from winning elections, or an Islamist coup to install an Islamist dictatorship? I hope you're right, but I am not so optimistic. This looks too much like Iran in 1978.
Maybe we should let the Pakistanis decide ?? What do you think ?
Statistics is such a misleading term. statistics by whom and for whom. I could easily produce statistics to counter just about ANY claim !
What gives us ( the most violent, aggressive nation in the world) the inalienable right to choose who rules in Pakistan ! Are you suggesting that all 200 million Pakistanis are extremists ? This is exactly the kind of thinking that sucks us deeper into all this muck.
The fact is despite Musharrafs undying support the Pakistani religious parties managed to claim less than 20% of the vote. You can argue that the election was a sham (which it was) but it was totally loaded in favor of musharraf and his cronies and they still didnt make the cut. The Pakistani fundamentalist parties are a creation of the ISI (pakistani intelligence) and for years the successive military governments in Pakistan have used them successfully to foster proxy wars on Afghanistan (Taliban) and in India (Kashmir). These fundamentalists/jihadis/whatever are a creation of the Pakistani dictatorships aided and abetted by us the United States !!
Before anybody takes Robert Scheer's racist rant seriously one should read AQ's reasons for doing what he did. He is nothing if not a patriot and an ultra nationalist. Take a moment to read in AQ's own words. And anyways who says US is the nuclear policeman of the world?
kalis im sorry but i dont see the racism in scheer's rant. I do believe that no nation in the world (especially the US) should posess nuclear weapons. There is nothing patriotic about owning nukes. That ridiculous idea should be put to rest. I also do notice the slant in Scheers article in terms of assuming that somehow we are the worlds policeman given our hoary traditions in the recent past !
Owning 'nukullar' weapons seems to be a badge of honor these days and that is truly sad. The fact is that seems to be the only way to keep the U.S. out of your business !!
"being unable to guard against common dangers and being incapable of learning connected speech."
Sums that up nicely.
Gyptian, RightOn on a half dozen points.
Here is a piece of tinfoil habberdashery, but bear with for a moment. AQKahn was only a cog in that proliferation cabal. He couldn't have pulled off what he "did" without cover that went up through the "leadership" of Pakistan through their patron state, US. I believe (and admit that I have no hard evidence) that Cheney is the pointman for that and many other types of weapons proliferation. That Plame was the real target in the outing of Valerie Plame, because she headed the top-drawer anti-proliferation unit, that the Yellowcake documents were chum in the water to expose her to the VP's office, with the follow-on results. Cheney and Rummy have been integral parts of weapons sales, legal and illegal for decades, their blind backing of Musharef, regardless, is covering one of their own. If you read Sibel Edmonds, she outlines a connection between the PNAC/AEI, AIPAC and elements of the Turkish Government and Armed Forces that she calls the Deep Government or in Turkish, the Gizli Devlet. This is the conduit for Opium from Afghanistan (record breaking crops the last three years) through Iran through Turkey to Europe and the States. They also move arms, masses of them, across much of the MiddleEast and down into Africa. (She discovered this as a translator for the FBI that was fired for exposing the 9/11 coverup) This fits the pattern established by Poppy Bush with Iran/Conta/Coca going back to the post WW2 era in Burma, up through the Viet Nam era golden triangle operations etc.
Tinfoil hat off
Fire away.
"The real conundrm of Pakistan is that we have to support a dictator like Musharraf despite the facts cited in this article because if a coup of radicals take control we could have a radical Islamic Republic with nuclear weapons and a delivery system. It's a delicate balancing act with no good choices at present."
Apparently, the government of Pakistan is already many times on the side of the terrorists and muslim extremists whom they have to appease constantly, the same way your government has to appease the many Christian-fundamentalists living among you.
It has become clear that the Pakistani Intelligence Agency, the ISI, was deeply involved in the planning and financing of the terrorist attacks of 9-11. See the new DVD come out about the "Jersey girls", the widows in New York who took action to get answers about 9-11. Its title is : "9-11: Press for truth" and I think it should be seen widely.
What has happened in Pakistan (regarding Lal Masjid) reflects a tip of the bigger game US and its allies have been playing for decades in the MiddleEast. They have been exploiting the region and the religion for their own interests. The papers of CIA policies and other documents reveal how during the time of cold war US through CIA, in collaboration with ISI set up Madrassas in Pakistan to indoctrinate the Muslim youth to undertake jihad, i.e. kill the communist kafirs in Afghanistan. That's how Al Qaeda has originated. Osama bin Laden became the leader of Al Qaeda and this organization was given millions of dollars and tons of deadly weapons including sophisticated stringer missiles to attack Russian armies in Afghanistan. During Zia ul Haq's regime when Pakistan was playing the game of US in West Asia, Lal Masjid was the major place for indoctrination program and was a conduit for sending Mujahidins to Afghanistan. It was being run by Maulan Abdullah, father of the present Maulan, who was close to Zia ul Haq. Thus religion has been dragged into the world of greed by US and its allies. So those in Lal Masjid are only the small pawns in the bigger game which has begun with the lust for oil. It is only the small pawns that have been killed in order to deceive the world that US, the West and their "major non-NATO ally" (Pakistan) are serious about eliminating terrorists. However, the reality is that the main leaders of Al Qaeda are given safe haven in Pakistan. US and the West do not want to "weaken" the position of their faithful friend, Musharaf, by attacking the main leaders of Al Qaeda. In 2006 an outraged British colonel complained that Pakistan was sheltering Al Qaeda and Taliban. But US strongly says that Pakistan is "our major non-NATO ally".
Let me come to the bigger picture. In their lust for oil and so to control the MiddleEast, US and the West, in collaboration with their dictator friends in the MiddleEast are involved in covert terrorist acts against the sovereign countries that oppose their dominance. Thus, at present there is a US and the West orchestrated regional Sunni-Shia war going on in Iraq and in the ME. There is strong credible evidence suggesting that the US is covertly supplying arms to Iraqi Sunni insurgents loyal to "Al Qaeda in Iraq". These arms are funneled through Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. In September 2003 US military officials told the London Times: "Al Qaeda terrorists who have infiltrated Iraq from Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries have formed an alliance with former intelligence agents of Saddam Hussein to fight their common enemy, the American forces." In February 2005 Pakistan military sources revealed that the US has "resolved to arm small militias backed by US troops and entrenched in the population," consisting of "former members of the Ba'ath Party." These are the same people who are allies of "Al Qaeda in Iraq." Thus, US is playing a double game by outwardly supporting the Iraqi government led by a Shiite and at the same time involving in acts to exacerbate the deterioration of security by penetrating, manipulating and arming the terrorist insurgency. The attacks on Shiites in Iraq have increased after the Shiite towns have come under the US control (they were being protected by Mehdi army of Muqtada Al Sadr). So US and the British forces are not fighting against "Al Qaeda in Iraq", but along with them against the Shiites.
The other thing is the identity of "insurgents" in Iraq is a complex issue. In September 2005 two British soldiers (belong to SAS elite special forces) were arrested and detained by Iraqi police in Basra. Within a matter of hours, the British military stormed the police station with an overwhelming force and "rescued" them. According to Iraqi police sources in Basra the two British men were arrested after failing to stop at a checkpoint and opened gunfire. The police found explosives and weapons in their unmarked car. Interestingly, these men were wearing traditional Arab clothing. British defence sources told that these soldiers belonged to an "undercover special forces detachment…(which was set up to) bridge the intelligence void in Basra, drawing on special forces' experience in Northern Ireland and Aden, where British troops went 'deep' undercover in local communities to try to break the code of silence against foreign forces." But the question is why did they disguise themselves and carry explosives?
According to the investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, US is actively sponsoring al-Qaeda affiliated groups across the entire Middle East to counter regional Shiite Iranian influence. The finances for these covert operations are being funneled by the US and Saudi Arabia (Prince Bandar is the main player). In Lebanon they are funding at least three Sunni jihadi groups, who are connected to Al Qaeda to fight Hezbollah. It is known that US is funding a Pakistan-based terrorist group, Jundullah, to carry out terrorist activities against Iran. Note that the leader of this group was a Taliban fighter.
Thus, there is an unholy triangle: the US at the helm, Saudi Arabia (and the US) providing the funds, and Pakistan providing military intelligence support and becoming a major conduit to supply weapons to friendly terrorist groups fighting for their cause in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. The essence is: Al-Qaeda is still a useful mercenary outfit for US strategy in the MiddleEast and Pakistan is needed as a base for the US-friendly terrorist organisations and as a conduit to supply deadly arms to these terrorists.
Everyone should remember that the full name of Pakistan is "The Islamic Republic of Pakistan". There is no separation of Mosque and state in the country. Sharia law prevails, as witnesses to the death penalty to anyone who leaves Islam, and the ordered gang rapes of girls as punishment for family members "crimes". Some reforms were passed by Musharraf last year, against the violent opposition of fundamentalist groups, but are largely being ignored. Whoever is in power, the laws are repressive to women and minorities. I don't think this will change anytime soon.
Saila is right. The "west" headed by the US and encouraged by Israel, spent the past 50 yrs. discrediting any leftist/socialist leader (Nasr, Arafat, Hafez al assad). The West watered the seeds of Militant Islam to weaken Secular Pan Arab Governments and organizations (Al Qaida is the US's illegitimate child and Hamas is our grand child sired by our very own fair haired boy -Israel) Regular folk use to call this Spitting in the wind way before the spooks named it "Blowback".
If, in a fair election, the people of the middle east elect Islamist Governments, a la Taliban, complete with body part chopping and public beheadings......isn't it in fact freedom?
Farmers back in the day had a little trick for the farm dog that ate the farmer's Chicken. The farmer would tie the carcass of the dead Chicken around the offending dog's neck like a neck lace till it decomposes and falls off. The poor dog, having went through that ordeal wouldn't dare kill a Chicken again. It works on dogs, it is working on Republicans (see how sick they, themselves are of their once dear leader) It sure as hell would work on the Muslims.
In the Mid East Religion has became the "sigh of the oppressed". As for Scheer's article, it is the usual arrogant B.S. and mildly racist. Why a "Islamic Bomb"? Why not just a Pakistani Bomb- they made the SOB with no help from Indonesia? I've never heard any one call Britain's or United States' arsenal a "Christian bomb". Why does he believe Bush didn't attack that so called terror get together out respect for Musharaf? Didn't he ever heard of sovereignty?
Jaalle,
If the people of Pakistan elect a Taliban type government they will have returned the country to the 7th century, with all the wonderful consequences that come with it.
As far as Nasser,Assad, and Arafat were concerned, none of them could be described as elected socialist. Nasser and Assad seized power in military coups and promtly adopted a fascist style dictatorship with themselves as Presidents-for-life. Arafat
put down any challenges to his rule with force, and looted the palestinian treasury of 300million-900 million for his own use.
The Pakistanis should be able to chose their leaders, but should try to move away from a military dictatorship, not towards one.