Selig Harrison notes something that almost no one knows, not in Congress, not in the press, and not, it seems, many others: that since 9/11/2001 the Bush Administration has given Pakistan the equivalent of $27.5 billion dollars. That makes Pakistan, after Iraq, the largest recipient per annum of American aid. The next time someone begins to squawk to you about "all that aid to Israel" -- an unshakeable ally in the war of self-defense against the Jihad, as of course it must be, given it is also the victim of the earliest, and best publicized, of the Lesser Jihads begun after World War II (along with that against Hindus in Kashmir), remember this. Growing Muslim wealth and power has, of course, made for dozens of Lesser Jihads, all of which should be correctly seen as local manifestations of the same impulse arising out of the texts, teachings, attitudes, and atmospherics of Islam.
27.5 billion dollars from America to Pakistan? For what, exactly? What has been the great achievement? How is Al-Qaeda doing in Pakistan? Why, it is doing just fine, thank you. An occasional pretend pinprick, nothing serious, a handful of people possibly killed, often the wrong people. Much huff-and-puffing for the endlessly -- at least until now -- gullible Americans, who have decades of trusting faith in those fine Pakistani generals, those terry-thomased mustachioed ramrod-straight graduates of Sandhurst. Or at least that was how those American generals who for decades preferred them to the Indians, to Nehru and Menon and Mrs. Gandhi, saw them. And by the way, wasn't Islam a "bulwark against Communism"? And wasn't Saudi Arabia, just like Pakistan, the true-bluest friend America could ever have? What, me worry?
Someone in Congress, and someone running for office, and many in the press, should be asking this question: what have we got for that $27.5 billion tossed off to Pakistan? Years ago, with American military money, the Pakistani ISI funded "Doctor" A. Q. Khan in his little project, the results of which are by now well-known in Pakistan itself and also in those countries it helped, such as North Korea and Iran. But it doesn't stop, does it? Right now the Americans are supplying Pakistan with F-16s, capable of doing all kinds of damage, carrying all kinds of weapons. Why? How long do the endlessly credulous or terminally confused (about Islam, about everything having to do with Islam) get to run things? When will someone start pulling the dimwitted from their well-appointed sinecures in the "intelligence" services, and allow for a takeover by those who are well-versed in the doctrines and practice of Islam, who cannot or will not be fooled -- not by Musharraf, not by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, not by kinglet Abdullah of Jordan, not by Mubarak, not by any Sunnis, and not by any Shi'a akin to those -- Chalabi, Allawi, Kanan Makiya, Rend al-Rahim -- who managed to assure the Americans that once they deposed Saddam Hussein all manner of things would be well?
What have we got for that $27.5 billion? Al-Qaeda is not "on the run" in Pakistan, and for that matter, the Taliban are not "on the run" in Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda was never damaged very much by the Pakistani forces. How could those forces, deeply Islamic (see General Malik's book on Jihad), have acted against those who are the brave paladins of Islam? Oh, a few cosmetic operations, designed to keep the Americans happy and supplying that money, cancelling those debts, sending those F-16s and all the other goodies that the army wants -- that's okay. That's understandable. But nothing real need be done. Musharraf could hardly believe it himself, but it turns out to be just as the Arabs always said -- you can get away with anything with the Americans. They're the dream customers in the souk. They'll never get it. They'll never understand. So keep on fooling them. Keep on buying time. Keep on pocketing that aid and those planes. And of course, watch as the Taliban come back, as they have, in Afghanistan. Watch, as they have, the Al-Qaeda forces regroup -- still under the same effective management -- after the Americans have spent, in the last five years, all over the world, close to a trillion dollars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, in continued Jizyah-aid to Egypt, Jordan, "the Palestinians," and in hugely expensive "Homeland Security" measures. Yet those measures never seem to include anything that might make Americans the slightest bit more aware of the doctrines of the belief-system of Islam that underlie the need for that Homeland Security, or, supposedly, for all those incredible aid packages and expenses in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and all the other places where "hearts and minds" are to be won through the expenditure of Infidel money, money, money.
The hideousness of it all will not end until the smug bearers of Stupidity have their goddess publicly exposed, and themselves smitten in public debate. And if they try to raise themselves up from the ground with still more idiocy, then let them be smitten again. They are a menace. They are causing tremendous squandering and waste with their miscomprehension, their willful ignorance, their trustingness, their cruel waste of men, money, materiel. Smite them again, show up the hollowness of their phrases ("cut and run" for example), the shallowness of their analysis, the obtuseness of their understanding.
I make a lot less than 27.5 billion dollars and could have advised the government what they would get.....
27.5 BILLION dollars to just one member of cesspoolia??? This is the most colossal waste of money in history. But that's OK-the stupid US taxpayers have unlimited pockets, so the government can just shake more out of them to hand over to these murderous, ungrateful losers. I guess the USSR was bound to collapse because we were smart enough not to hand over perfectly good money to an enemy seeking to enslave us. With Islamania, however, it's a different story. We will mindlessly keep on subsidizing their murderous activities until every last one of us is either bowing to Illah or dead.
WHEN WILL WE LEARN?????
Whether or not the USA should be assisting the current government of Pakistan is a perfectly valid question. But I take great issue with suffestions that the USA "created" the Taliban.
The US government helped the Mujahadin fight the Soviets after Russia brutally invaded Afghanistan in Dec '79. The Soviets withdrew in defeat in 1990. For the next six years, the Mujahadin engaged in fratricidal slaughter as the various factions jockeyed for power.
The USA threw up its hands in frustration and abandoned all efforts to influence events in Afghanistan in 1992. It wasn't another two years (1994) until the Taliban even existed as an organization.
The suggestion that the USA "created" the Taliban is not only patently false, it is essentially Left-wing propaganda designed to psychologically condition Americans into accepting blame for 9-11. How unfortunate that such propaganda has found a home in such as stellar institution as Jihad/Dhimmi Watch.
Assalamau Laikum all,
Hugh says "If someone is consistently right, and almost everyone else is consistently wrong about a matter, at what point should that person be listened to with attention and respect?
This is exactly what I have been saying to about having faith in Ahmadi Islam. I have been consistently right ...and all of you have been consistently wrong about Ahmadi Islam.
At what point are you going to listen to me with attention and respect?
Naseem,
Personally, I feel a certain affinity for the Ahmadi, who are indeed non-violent and who are persecuted so in Pakistan.
But you as a person come off very differently, with your smugness, your insulting behavior and your spelling of America with a 'k'. If anything, your words have been sufficiently repelling to have undermined the good name of the Ahmadi among the people here.
At what point are you going to listen to me with attention and respect?
When you renounce Islam, that's when.
Then we at long last can see in you the potential for moral goodness. As you know, all Moslems are grotesquely immoral people. To believe in such crap, they are by self-definition that.
I give you Abu Afak, and a hundred million since then.
DID HUGH REALLY WRITE THIS? It supports the Left and the conspiracies to perfectly. I don't think he wrote it. I want to see Hugh reaffirm that he wrote this before writing anything else.
I'm a political conservative, and I voted for Reagan twice.
But the article's basic point is well taken. The U.S. did not create the Taliban government per se. But the U.S. did arm Islamist extremists, not just in Afghanistan but all over the Muslim world, to go fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. In fact, I remember reading about it in National Review, a RIGHT-WING magazine, as far back as 1980. Back then, the National Review wasn't worried about the threat from the Islamists; they were criticizing the Carter Administration for not doing ENOUGH to boost the Muslim Brotherhood! The Left is absolutely, 100% right about that.
Janes Information Group, hardly a left-wing outfit, had an article about that only ONE WEEK after 9-11. Here is an excerpt (the full article is still somewhere on their website):
"The origins of last Tuesday s attack on the United States arguably have their roots in the 1970s. At this time, during the height of the Cold War, a Washington shamed by defeat in Vietnam embarked on a deep, collaborative enterprise to contain the Soviet Union.
"The genesis of the policy came to a head following the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, when President Jimmy Carter set up a team headed by National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski to employ its death by a thousands cuts policy on the tottering Soviet empire, especially the oil- and mineral-rich Central Asian Republics then ruled by Moscow.
"A marriage of convenience
"Thus began the US-love affair with Islamists in which short-term profit motivated all parties concerned, but the deadly ramifications of which are haunting the world today and the effects of which were brought home starkly to America earlier this week [this was written Sept. 16, 2001].
"This marriage of convenience, consummated in an alliance with Islamic fundamentalists, particularly suited the Pakistani military junta of General Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq, which was looking for greater strategic depth and economic influence in Afghanistan and Central Asia.
"The flip side of the wily general's agenda was that this alliance with the US would also strengthen Pakistan's military capabilities with respect to rival India with the induction of sophisticated US weaponry at throwaway prices. This was also the time when Pakistan made great strides in developing its covert nuclear capability through a combination of clandestine transactions, outright theft and forging closer military and nuclear relations with China, all connived at by Washington.
"The US-led proxy war model was based on the premise that Islamists made good anti-Communist allies. The plan was diabolically simple: to hire, train and control motivated Islamic mercenaries. The trainers were mainly from Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, who learnt their craft from American Green Beret commandos and Navy SEALS in various US training establishments. Mass training of Afghan mujahideen was subsequently conducted by the Pakistan Army under the supervision of the elite Special Services Group (SSG), specialists in covert action behind enemy lines and the ISI.
"Pakistan's current military ruler, General Pervez Musharraf, spent seve n years with the SSG and was also involved in training Afghan mujahideen. Provided he co-operates, he will prove a useful guide to the US in hunting down terrorists inside Afghanistan.
"The entire anti-Soviet operation, headed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and held together on the ground by the ISI, was supported by generous donations from the US State Department, Western governments, Saudi Arabia and a handful of commando experts from the UK Special Air Service (SAS), while surveillance training, communication and first aid help came from France.
"Israel provided weapons like rifles, tanks and even artillery pieces, captured during its many wars with the Arab states, while Sudan and Algeria contributed committed mujahideen and religious motivation. The entire operation was, inexplicably but amusingly, christened the Safari Club...."
You notice that part of this covert operation was not just the jihadists but also the appropriate "religious motivation." You know what that means.
Here's an example we learned about recently: Just last year, Australia banned some Islamist hate literature, like the book "Join the Caravan," which called for unleashing violence against infidels. But when was that book published? And which specific infidels was it talking about? It was published in 1979, and the infidels it was talking about were the Soviets. It had been part of this propaganda offensive to stir up Muslims to fight Communists. But those "stirred up Muslims" didn't go into retirement after the USSR fell. They went looking for new targets. And on 9-11, they found one.
Janes Information Group is one of the leading analysts of military information issues in the world. Only days after 9-11, they had traced the entire lineage going all the way back to the Carter Administration's alliance with Islamists, an alliance that the Reagan Administration extended even further.
I reaffirm that I wrote this. But my general endorsement of Selig Harrison does not mean that I necessarily endorse every word he writes, or charge he may make. I don't know enough about the early history of the Taliban. I do know that it is a creature of Pakistan, and the I.S.I., and that for decades many in Washington found Pakistan's generals, including Zia ul-Haq, to their liking, and were remarkably negligent in the matter of A. Q. Khan, and furthermore thought that it was right to back anyone at all as long as they were fighting the Red Army. That was a mistake.
A little more on Pakistan, our "ally" in the "war on terror," from today's report on Cheney's visit, and his attempt, the umpteenth by a visiting American, to make Musharraf pull up his ever-drooping socks.
The story in The Times, p. A9 -- "Cheny Warns Pakistan to Act Against Terrorists" -- includes this:
"The Pakistani government lashed out Monday wiht a series of statements insisting that 'Pakistan does not accept dictation from any side or any source."
And later in the story, which bears the subtitle "Reports That U.S. Aid May be In Jeopardy," there is this piquant detail:
"Mr. Musharraf alluded to those payments i nhis recdently published memoir, in which he wrote, 'Those who habitually accuse us of 'not doing enough' in the war on terror should simply ask the C.I.A. how much prize money it has paid to the government of Pakistan.' When asked about that assertion, C.I.A. officials have declined to answer."
So there is it. Pakistan, that has withdrawn its forces from the northwestern region and allowed Al Qaeda to come back in, and allowed the Taliban, too, to regroup and resurrect itself in Afghanistan, where other reports in The Times tell of village elders being rounded up and killed for daring to want the Taliban to merely leave their villages alone.
Pakistan is ruled by a meretricious government, with meretricious rulers, whether generals or zamindars who are only slightly less bad than the generals. Its masses, idiotized by Islam, long accustomed to the habit of mental submission that Islam requires, more than any other non-Arab Muslims, in a state created for Muslims, and run by, and for Muslims and for the greater glory of Islam, have largely jettisoned any pre-Islamic or non-Islamic history or indeed, any other conceivable identity that might conceivably modify, or nuance, or dilute, the identity provided by Islam -- that is, save among the Baluchis of Baluchistan, with their tribal identity kept intact, not least because of the ruthless measures taken against them, for their quite modest demands, by the implacable Pakistani generals who are spending far more time suppressing the Baluchis than they are suppressing Al Qaeda and the Taliban elements still in Pakistan.
The jig should be up. It should not be Cheney using the threats of Congress cutting aid -- it should be Cheney saying that the Administration itself will end all aid, military and economic, if there is not a complete reversal. And it might add, for good measure, that the children of the zamindars and the generals, including the accountant son of Musharraf himself, may all find themselves booted out of the West, and condemned to life imprisonment in the hell of Pakistan.
That might get some attention. Yes, I know that's not the kind of thing we do, in order to preserve ourselves, in the advanced West. It smacks of extortion, of collective blackmail. Of exerting pressure on rulers by telling them the futures of their children in the West will be imperilled.
No, it's not what we do. But it is what we should be thinking about doing. That, and a good deal more.
So if Muslims are fighting Muslims in Baluchistan that is a bad thing and we should try to stop it but we should run out of Iraq so fast that is looks like the jihadis beat us so that Muslims can fight Muslims there?
If this guy Selig Harrison is so smart then surely he must know that Musharraf is a figurehead/double agent of the US and ISI. The US doesn't want to fight Pakistan and the ISI doesn't want to directly fight the US so we both pretend that Musharraf is in charge. Musharraf tried to get two clerics in Islamabad arrested but the police and the army balked. He ordered the Paki air force to bomb the madrassa in Islamabad that they were hiding in but they declined. A "head of state" who orders his air force to bomb his own capital city ... and they just say no. He is in no position to dictate surrender to the Paki army in Baluchistan.
The US did not create the Taliban. They were created by the ISI after the US lost interest in Afghanistan. They came out on top in the civil war. Just like the ICU came out on top of the civil war in Somalia.
We have gotten something out of our cooperation with Pakistan. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed for one. If we wind up trading Osama Bin Laden Afghanistan for Pakistan who wins? (Hint: Its not us.)
I do know that it is a creature of Pakistan, and the I.S.I., and that for decades many in Washington found Pakistan's generals, including Zia ul-Haq, to their liking, and were remarkably negligent in the matter of A. Q. Khan, and furthermore thought that it was right to back anyone at all as long as they were fighting the Red Army. That was a mistake.
The Taliban (Talib literally means religious student) is basically a Pasthu dominated Mujhahideen force that had leaders who fought the Soviets and also had many people from the Deobandi seminaries in Pakistan. They came to power in 1996 with the help of the government of Pakistan, after driving out the warring factions of warlords (some of them who are part of the current Northern Alliance). Even though the US government did not directly involve in the creation of the Taliban, i tend to think the US establishment may have given its tacit approval in its creation.
Please read the interview with the former head of the ISI from two different sources and draw your own conclusions.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/feb/12inter.htm
http://www.pakistan-facts.com/staticpages/index.php?page=2002122312295195
Ishwar,
Thank you for destroying any and all of your credibility by endorsing the views of Hamid Gul, who explicitly denies in the interview link you posted that Bin Ladin had anything to do with 9-11.
Steven,
The CIA indeed promoted Jihadist propaganda as it aided the Mujahadin war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. This can certainly be seen as short-sided, particularly in retrospect.
But again it needs to be stated, the USA had nothing whatsoever to do with the creation or the eventual success of the Taliban.
All US aid to Pakistan had been terminated in 1990 due to that country's nuclear program. The aid wasn't resumed until 2001. US aid to Afghanistan was terminated in 1992. The Taliban were formed in 1994 among Afghan refugees studying in the madrassas of Peshawar and Quetta in Pakistan....and captured the country in 1996 with the help of the Pakistani ISI. NO US AID PROFRAMS existed at this time to either country.
Most of the Mujahadin elements which the USA HAD assisted during the 80s war against the Soviets either fought the Taliban and were defeated, or joined them as Johnny-come-latelies.
The ideology of the Taliban was their own. It would certainly have existed had the CIA never engaged in its 1980s propaganda efforts to galvanize Muslim opposition to the Soviet invaders.
To put the imprimature of the USA on the Taliban is not only factually wrong...it serves to validate the enemies of America who insist we deserved what we got on 9-11.
The United States did not create the Taliban, and if that is what Selig Harrison charges, then I did not mean to endorse it. If he charges, on the other hand, that eager American agents, so quick to ignore the menace of Islam, and acting as if it were 1955 and the only thing that mattered was to weaken the already much-weakened Red Army, and who could not see Pakistan as the natural enemy, rather than natural ally, of the United States that it made mistakes, and one of those mistakes was in the way in which those madrasas in Pakistan were looked upon with indifference or even benignly, then who could disagree?
The Pakistani military has American equipment and relies on the United States for resupplying that equipment, or providing parts. Are you suggesting that from 1990 to 2001 there was no aid from the United States to Pakistan at any time? That the Americans gave no aid, or did not serve as the encouraging conduit for aid from anyone else? And there was no sending of military equipment, no refurbishing, no spare parts that were so essential to Pakistan, during that eleven-year-period? Is that what you maintain?
DID HUGH REALLY WRITE THIS? It supports the Left and the conspiracies to perfectly. I don't think he wrote it. I want to see Hugh reaffirm that he wrote this before writing anything else.
Posted by: sandy
Come on Sandy, you don't have to be on the left to see that this is reality. (Actually if you are on the left you would not see this either). The point being this is exactly what is going on.
I'm completely and totally anti lefty, but I have the sense to know that the US is funding its own demise, and has been for decades.
Add Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kosovo and Bosnia to this list of those who are benefiting with US aid. Time to open our eyes and ask what the hell are we thinking? The US did not create the Taliban, but they most certainly contributed to it, knowingly or not. They are contributing and I contend knowingly in the Balkans, and will continue to do so, until their supporters tell them that they know what they're doing and they need to stop. Until then you'll see more of the same.
It all comes down to the same thing: modern American administrations and presidents not taking the time, or making the effort to learn from America's own past dealings with Jihad since its birth and applying the lessons learned. It doesn't matter if it's nutty Dihmmi Carter or Reagan or Clinton or Bush Sr. or Jr. -- they've all made the same mistake. Reagan was excellent in many ways, but he made the same mistake in not gaining a fundamental understanding of Islam and what it has always wrought over its entire existence, based on its foundation texts.
No doubt, whoever is president next, will still not learn from the wisdom of Jefferson and Churchill, and Patton et al. They openly recognized the enemy and read the enemy's playbooks and took action or commented upon the facts as they are and won. Jefferson the Quran, Churchill the nazi materials/plans, Patton -- Rommel's ATTACKS, et al.
Great scene from the film PATTON. George C. Scott is overlooking the battle where his troops are destroying the unstoppable Desert Fox. How could this be? The brilliant Rommel pretty much invented the playbook for modern mechanized warfare!
Patton (Scott) looks through is field classes and then drops them and says excitedly: "Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!"
It should be like this in the Modern World's battle against Jihad.
Abe:
The battle against jihad is not going to be a tank battle ... at least the tanks that really matter in this struggle are gas tanks.
HUGH: "Are you suggesting that from 1990 to 2001 there was no aid from the United States to Pakistan at any time? That the Americans gave no aid, or did not serve as the encouraging conduit for aid from anyone else? And there was no sending of military equipment, no refurbishing, no spare parts that were so essential to Pakistan, during that eleven-year-period? Is that what you maintain?"
RESPONSE: There appears to have been a small resumption in 1996...but the spigot wasn't turned on again in earnest until 2001.
Since we're in agreement on the origins of the Taliban, I have to ask you with all due respect and with genuine curiosity: would you agree that
there are alternatives for leadership in Pakistan who could be much worse than Musharraf?...that a radical Islamic regime in Pakistan, should one come to power, would be more inclined to proliferate its nuclear technology and openly assist the Taliban in Afghanistan?
Ishwar,
Thank you for destroying any and all of your credibility by endorsing the views of Hamid Gul, who explicitly denies in the interview link you posted that Bin Ladin had anything to do with 9-11.
My intent on posting the links was to give a brief perspective on the birth of the Taliban to corroborate a point Hugh was making. That does not mean i endorse Hamid Gul's views. He explains how the Taliban came to being.
There are many posts on this web site from Jihadis, Mullah's, Islamists. Their posting here does not means that people here endorse their views.
"Abe:
The battle against jihad is not going to be a tank battle ... at least the tanks that really matter in this struggle are gas tanks.
Posted by: Malta_1565"
I agree, no tanks are required. Alternative energy and cutting off the middle east oil stranglehold is crucial. Tanks and troops are the wrong way to fight. It is a different kind of war. And not only gas tanks as a better weapon, but the American taxpayer's pocketbook in terms of aid and military support to Islamic regimes needs to be brought in.
Minus all the billions of currency and the amazing amounts of weaponry paid for by the American taxpayer and thrown away as unrecognized jizyah tax, as Hugh rightly comments on as foolishness, the Islamic world would largely collapse and begin to feed on itself.
The gas tank issue is a concrete subject that Americans can directly relate to, so it should be emphasized for publicity sake. Likely many more will appreciate it if the tap of their tax dollars was turned off in a very public way to those countries that don't appreciate it. Compensate the delusional unthinking liberal whiners with increased opportunity to funnel their own money to Pakistani arms and crazed clerics and "Palistinian" maniacs leading chants of "Death to America" if they so desire.
When we read the Islamic texts and honestly study how the muslims act and conduct themselves, America and the rest of the Modern World will have "read their book" and easily defeat them.
When we read the Islamic texts and honestly study how the muslims act and conduct themselves, America and the rest of the Modern World will have "read their book" and easily defeat them.
Exactly! and knowing how they think. Which is also one of the reasons i posted the interviews with Hamid Gul (even though i didn't explicitly state it). Now this is thinking in the Pakistani establishment. This guy was Musharaff's mentor. No matter how much help is given in terms of money and equipment, you can expect very little return over investment because the Pakistani mindset is like that of Hamid Gul.
"...would you agree that there are alternatives for leadership in Pakistan who could be much worse than Musharraf?...that a radical Islamic regime in Pakistan, should one come to power, would be more inclined to proliferate its nuclear technology and openly assist the Taliban in Afghanistan?"
-- from a posting above
Yes. Hamid Gul would be one. That nice General Malik for another. But between the covert assistance now given the Taliban, and those who might "openly assist" it I find little difference. ONe would wish that the American government to make judgments based on a realistic understanding of Islam. One would wish it to understand the meretriciousness, toward Infidels, and especially toward the colossally, crazily, endlessly generous and naive policymakers in Washington, throwing our wealth away on all kinds of unnecessary Jizyah to Muslim sharks who could, of course, be getting their handouts from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the U.A.E., Qatar, and other Muslim oil and gas states. By my rough count -- I use an abacus not a computer, about a trillion dollars ahs gone from the United States alone, spent on the supposed wellbeing of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, the "Palestinians," over the past few decades, with 90% of it being spent in the five years since that "war on terror" started to be fought so idiotically.
I can think of many ways that money might have much more effectively been spent, not on Jizyah, not on building roads in Afghanistn (the better for people, including the Taliban, to move around), and other infrastructure that always and everywhere make people more rather than less susceptible to the full message of Islam (it is not the poor and illiterate villagers that are the problem, but the half-educated Muslims, including those in the West, who know something of the world and resent it, resent the Infidels their power and way of life, and resent the fact that Islam is not, and they are not, where they should be. They know that "Islam must dominate and is not to be dominated." They know that they, the Believers, are the Best of People and should lord it over Infidels. How dare those Infidels resist? How dare they think they can continue to put up obstacles to the spread of Islam? How dare they think that their legal and political institutions, man-made, answering to mere puny, mistaken, insignificant mortal man, should be prefereed to the institution of the Shari'a, the Holy Law of Islam? How, really, dare they?
Pakistan is hopeless. The only thing to do is somehow to threaten the regime with a total economic war and military blockade, and aid to India in any future conflict, that will force it to give up those weapons. If it does give them up, it can be our little secret. No need to tell the Pakistani masses. Pretend it never happened.
Who'll know? We'll know. That's who'll know.
Alot of valid points in there Hugh.
But for a moment, just for devil's advocacy, let's look at things from Musharraf's viewpoint...
1) He's faced with a huge Islamist consutituency in his own country who are ready to resort to mass violence should he sufficiently antagonize them. In short, he's doing a delicate balancing-act to maintain control over a fractious and disaffected country.
2) He's allied with an America that is hopelessly divided, an America that appears to be casting its lot with the party of appeasement...and an America that is preparing for defeat in Iraq. Under such conditions, how far behind is the defeat of Karzai in Afghanistan? Musharraf is hedging his bet, and who can blame him.
Personally, I don't think much of Musharraf. I think he's quite obviously a double-dealer. But he has turned over more Al Qaeda suspects to the USA than any other country and has periodically attacked their sanctuaries in the NWFP. This is fact.
If you don't think that an ACTIVE SUPPORTER of the Taliban and Al Qaeda ruling in Islamabad would be any different than Musharraf, then again, I think you're mistaken.
I think we should be leaning on him alot harder than we are. We could certainly consider cuts in assistance. But I think it would be a mistake to burn our bridges completely, just as I think it would be a mistake to cut our ties with Jordan and Egypt.
I just don't happen to believe in divesting ourselves of allies (even half-hearted ones) in the middle of a war.
Musharraf looks so earnest, sincere, so ramrod-straight in bearing. How can he deceive us? You know the old English air: Men Were Deceivers Ever? Well, Pakistani Generals Were Deceivers Ever.
He has had five years, and $27.5 billon dollars, to start getting things straight. And he hasn't. Not at all.
But let's pretend he is straightforward, doing his best, etcetera. What then? His best, apparently, is that the President of Pakistan, General Musharraf, gives new meaning to the American military's recruiting poster. That's right: Musharraf is an army of one.
Why are we relying on Pakistan if, at most, we have bought ourselves An Army of One?
When will someone start pulling the dimwitted from their well-appointed sinecures in the "intelligence" services, and allow for a takeover by those who are well-versed in the doctrines and practice of Islam, who cannot or will not be fooled --
That someone would have to be the American voter.
Probably the best point you've made yet: 'What good is he if he can't deliver?'
My question here is what good is there in keeping alliances that aren't real?
These Islamic states accept money from the US, and who wouldn't? They pay lip service that they care, but their actions speak volumes for where their alliances really are.
Why would anyone continue to fund this, when they can clearly see that to continue will bear no fruit. It doesn't matter if you're right in the middle of a war or not, you have a side to be on and if the people you thought were your friends aren't, then treat them the way they should be treated.
There is no convenient time to blow up old alliances, especially when they are in name only.
The way (IMO) to deal with the Pakistan issue would be to support its break up into Sindh, Baluchistan, Punjab, Giligit and Baltistan, and of course NWFP and Waziristan are autonomous. The Balochis have for long wanted to break away from Pakistan. Same for the Sindhis and also the Shias in Giligit and Baltistan. All of them will revolt against the ruling Punjabi elite. That will keep the Punjabi Pastho alliance in check. And it can be done way cheaper than spending all the money (around 70-80 million dollars per month) to protect Musharaff and his regime.
Look at this study done by the UK Ministry of Defence
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/5388426.stm
It claims, the only way to make Pakistan give up supporting terrorism is to dismantle the ISI.
Cornelius,
I definitely don't endorse everything that the BBC says.
When will someone start pulling the dimwitted from their well-appointed sinecures in the "intelligence" services, and allow for a takeover by those who are well-versed in the doctrines and practice of Islam, who cannot or will not be fooled...
Such dimwit-pulling is not in the offing, not even pursuant to a policy shift. These are government employees with rights according to the HR Manual, and also by case law.
All federal employees should be contractors, that way they can be let go without undue bother.