| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
While the United States "reimburses" Pakistan billions of dollars for its "efforts" in the "war on terror," Alexander Downer takes a more realistic view.
"Pakistan 'less than robust' at combating extremism," by Craig Skehan in the Sydney Morning Herald (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):
The Howard Government has accused elements of Pakistani military intelligence of continuing to support Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan, where two Australian soldiers have been killed in the past month.Foreign Minister Alexander Downer complained that some members of the Pakistani army were "less than robust" in combating Islamic extremism.
"And we've been concerned about some elements of the Pakistani intelligence services and their links to the Taliban," Mr Downer said.
He said the Taliban - deposed in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the US because it had given sanctuary to al Qaeda - was originally a creation of Pakistani intelligence agents.
Such ties have their origins in the 1980s when the US channelled billions of dollars to Islamic militants fighting Soviet troops in Afghanistan.
The Australian Government believes some members of the Pakistan military's Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) still provide covert support to pro-Taliban forces.
As well as increased violence in Afghanistan, forces referred to as local "Pakistani Taliban" have been stepping up attacks, including suicide bombings, in recent months.
Posted by Robert at November 6, 2007 8:42 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Eight years ago, President Clinton pressured and persuaded Pakistan President Nawaz Sharif to try to withdraw Pakistani Army forces and scale back the Pakistan Army-backed jihad against India in Kashmir. Army chief Pervez Musharraf and his supporters responded by overthrowing Sharif and taking control of the government, where he has remained for the past 8 years. Given this history, we cannot expect much anti-jihadi effort from him as the leader of Pakistan, although we might get a little grudging cooperation by maintaining constant pressure.
On the other hand, polling in Pakistan has indicated that Osama bin Laden is popular with 46% of Pakistanis, compared to 38% for Musharraf and 9% for George Bush. So, we cannot expect much from a democratic process there either.
Perhaps our best hope is that, if people in Islamic countries wish to live with a seventh century mind-set, the western nations will avoid giving them 21st century technologies that can be used against us. It is a pity that so little was done to prevent Pakistan from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Posted by: Karl2![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 6, 2007 10:05 AM
Taliban Linked To The Koran.
No News at 11.
(Or any other time.)
Posted by: profitsbeard at November 6, 2007 10:13 AM
Well put Karl2. The question, however,is what can the world do to protect itself from the WMD and technology that can easily slide into the eagerly waiting hands of terrorists, who know it's only a matter of time before the Pakistani cookie crumbles.
Musharraf is right when he says he's the best bet for bringing and keeping things under control in Pakistan. "Apres mois le deluge".
Whatever action needs to be taken, needs to be taken now, while there is a functioning authority in Pakistan, or even a semblance.
Posted by: Dunk at November 6, 2007 10:22 AM
Of all the complaints about Bush and this administration, I would say that the biggest mistake was in forming an 'alliance' with Pakistan. During their devastating earthquake, no country was more forthcoming with aid than America, but they still hate us. Over the last 5 years, no country has given them more money than America, but they still hate us.
We should have fought against the Taliban THROUGH Pakistan from India. Pakistan IS the Taliban. It is absurd that America says 'we are fighting against the Taliban, but we can't fight in Pakistan (a sovereign nation)'.
After 9/11 there was only ONE country in the world that recognized the Taliban - Pakistan. So what does the Bush administration decide to do? We ask them if they are for us or against us. If you are for us, we will give you billions of dollars and military hardware and intelligence. If you are against us, you will feel the full might of our military. What are they going to say?
How stupid is that? The Indians hate the Islamic militants more than anyone, and they would be more than willing to fight against them 'on our side'.
To me it is a 'no brainer'. Why are we giving the Taliban 10 billion dollars, military equipment, and intelligence while saying that we are fighting against them?
Pakistan is not our friend, we should cut off all funding and ally ourselves with India IF we are serious about stopping Islamic extremism in that particular region. Allying with Pakistan makes our mission MORE difficult, not LESS.
Posted by: ThackerAgency at November 6, 2007 10:22 AM
Karl2 wrote:
"Eight years ago, President Clinton pressured and persuaded Pakistan President Nawaz Sharif to try to withdraw Pakistani Army forces and scale back the Pakistan Army-backed jihad against India in Kashmir. Army chief Pervez Musharraf and his supporters responded by overthrowing Sharif and taking control of the government, where he has remained for the past 8 years."
------------------------------------------------
You mean, we can blame Bill Clinton for Musharraf, too? I remember reading about Mushy's military coup.
--
CT yank
at November 6, 2007 11:05 AM
The enduring characteristic of President Bush's administration is a pathological inability to distinguish friend from foe - both at home and abroad. It is as if we have made a child Commander-in-Chief.
Posted by: Havoc at November 6, 2007 11:10 AM
"less than robust"
I am sick and tired of diplomatic words. Why can't government functionaries use more accurate landuage? I would use "aiding and abetting."
Posted by: Pelayo at November 6, 2007 11:44 AM
Cut off all funding, chase the Taliban/Al Qaeda from Afghanistan into Pakistan, follow them destroying everything in our path until we hookup with the Indian army ont he other side.
It worked in Europe in 1945 and it can work here in 2007. If we let our troops do the job, and fight to win victory. We can win hearts and minds afterwards.
It's a good thing we didn't have a bush in the Whitehouse to lead the fight against Germany.
And the next time a muslim country suffers a natural disaster (earthquake, mudslide, tsunami etc) let them get help from their fellow muslims. I'll not send a single nickel.
Posted by: walterc at November 6, 2007 12:47 PM
Cut off all funding, chase the Taliban/Al Qaeda from Afghanistan into Pakistan, follow them destroying everything in our path until we hookup with the Indian army on the other side.
It worked in Europe in 1945 and it can work here in 2007. If we let our troops do the job, and fight to win victory. We can win hearts and minds afterwards.
It's a good thing we didn't have a bush in the Whitehouse to lead the fight against Germany.
And the next time a muslim country suffers a natural disaster (earthquake, mudslide, tsunami etc) let them get help from their fellow muslims. I'll not send a single nickel.
Posted by: walterc at November 6, 2007 12:48 PM
"Pakistani intelligence services linked to Taliban"
..or is it the other way around...
at November 6, 2007 1:22 PM
The Pakistani ISI is responsible for the Taliban's usurpation of the government in Afghanistan in the first place. It has often been pointed out that the Pakistani ISI is full of Islamists (who generally are enthusiastic supporters of bin Laden and the Taliban mujahideen, etc.), so this article really isn't telling us anything we didn't already know (evidently with the exception of the Bush Administration). But it does confirm much of what we suspected about the place.
I think even Benazir Bhutto may have given up hope for Pakistan (it's safe to assume there is none ditto the remainder of Islamia).
Posted by: pythagoras at November 6, 2007 2:26 PM
lol @ topic understatement
Ummm, where the hell has the FM BEEN for the past 7 years?
That aside, the game can easily come full circle at this point. Though I doubt it, W has a golden opposrtunity here...
Ok pervez...ya want money? We need favors.
1) Hunt down obl & aq...kill them all & bring me their heads
2) Take out the taliban...NOW
Oh, that's gonna take some time? No problem...in the mean time:
3) We get aq kahn, alive, unharmed, & no conditions, for questioning under our terms, & to hell with the feelgooders pi$$in' & moanin' about "torture" when they obviously don't even know what it IS after that pathetic snivelling over the great panty raid. Screw them.
4) nukes are put under our charge for safekeeping until the problem blows over-ALL of them. He knows India won't try anything unless attacked so that excuse won't fly either. (India didn't go nuke over pakistan, theywent nuke because of the communist occupation forces in mainland china who still occupy some Indian territory)
All 3 conditions must be met or no deal.
Being left high & dry now is the lastthing mush can afford-it's too late for him to change sides now. (That's the adavantage to keeping friends close, and enemies closer...maneuver)
10 to 1 it'd light a fire under his @$$...but the wimps on the right fare no better than the crazies on the left, so no possibility of the KISS principle being applied anytime soon.
(Damn, we need to purge political correctness NOW- without doing that, everything else is a waste of time).
Another golden opportunity about to be missed.
Scary thing is...the left would've been far worse than this if they ran things.
God help us all.
lol
at November 6, 2007 3:31 PM
"The US reimburses Pakistan billions of dollars"
When Musharraf finally abdicates to Paris or wherever, wonder if there will be hundreds of millions of dollars in Swiss bank accounts, like Yasser Arafat and Idi Amin somehow accumulated?
Posted by: A_Nonny_Mouse at November 6, 2007 9:22 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)