Friday, March 09, 2007
Squeezing Musharraf and hunting bin Laden
Captain Ed thinks that we are going into Pakistan, covertly, to hunt OBL.
It seems as if Dick Cheney's visit to Pakistan meant something rather significant for Musharraf. With AQ more active than any time in the last five years, and with Musharraf sitting on his hands, Cheney's visit was meant as an ultimatum for action. If Musharraf won't fight terrorists, then we have less interest in preventing his destabilization. Musharraf responded by arresting two senior members of the Taliban outside of Waziristan, and his lack of response thus far to American operations in Waziristan seems to indicate acquiescence to the new American policy.
Read the whole thing, and wonder what might be the political implications if we did indeed capture or kill bin Laden this year.
12 Comments:
By 
Tiger, at
Fri Mar 09, 08:37:00 AM:
Why is it the administration has such a slowwwwwwwww learning curve?
You mean this hasn't been done already?
By Gordon Smith, at
Fri Mar 09, 09:45:00 AM:
Well let's see. We've encouraged nuclear proliferation in the area, strengthened Musharraf's hold on power, undermanned (along with NATO partners) the border to minimize incursions from the south, and our President has gone from "Dead or Alive" to "I don't really think that much about him to be honest".
Now we want to get him and we want to hold Pakistan accountable? I'm confused.
By 
, at
Fri Mar 09, 10:07:00 AM:
"If Musharraf won't fight terrorists, then we have less interest in preventing his destabilization."
Dude, almost everything I've read says most Pakistani people support the goals of jihad and jihadists. Musharraf is riding a tiger. It's likely that when Musharraf leaves the scene, someone more terrorist-friendly will end up running the show. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Jihadists would have no compunctions about using them. Connect the dots.
By allen, at
Fri Mar 09, 12:31:00 PM:
For those too young to remember, for decades following the fall of Germany a substantive genre of “histories” was produced by reputable authors, examining the possibility that Hitler evaded death or capture. Naturally, in the absence of evidence and untainted testimony, such conclusions would arise. The West can thank much of the perceptual confusion to the lack of transparency in the CCCP, the repository of Hitler’s scant physical remains.
Mark Steyn declared bin Laden’s death in November 2001, if memory serves. Given the obsessive need for attention of such men as bin Laden and his failure to appear in the limelight, this is a reasonable conclusion. Recall, while the Russians were within a few hundred meters of his bunker complex, Hitler was still appearing in PR films. One poignant episode includes his decorating baby-faced boys of the Hitler Youth. As Zarqawi demonstrated, even with the net closing, the allure of stardom is irresistible.
However, bin Laden the icon has proven useful in the past. He again may prove useful in dealing with Pakistan’s Wahhabist and Taliban dominated provinces. If NATO (US) has any genuine desire to see Afghanistan stabilized (admittedly, a highly subjective perception) the border with Pakistan must be stabilized concurrently. If “The Search for bin Laden” provides the avenue in, then, Geraldo will not be disappointed.
Much conjecture revolves around futurity. Work has been ongoing in Pakistan for a very long time, awaiting the political will and/or pretext for physical intervention.
By Atlas Shrugs, at
Fri Mar 09, 12:45:00 PM:
A Zeisen Pesach!
Are you even Jewish?
:)
By The Mechanical Eye, at
Fri Mar 09, 03:55:00 PM:
Mark Steyn declared bin Laden’s death in November 2001, if memory serves.
I suppose that settles everything! At least according to the CIA, bin Laden has been supplying us with audio tapes since then. Admittedly the CIA is of dubious authority these days, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and suggest that the agency is more knowledgeable about bin Laden's current body processes than a Steyn column.
Also: oh why on earth did we lose our priorities about capturing bin Laden and eliminating Al Qeada?
I recall that one of the arguments against the Iraq War was that we'd lose focus on Afghanistan and AQ proper; the retort at the time was that the United States could surely do both.
That we have to go back into the wilds of northern Pakistan and essentially finish what we collectively forgot about is yet another dispiriting reason why I now despise the Iraq war.
DU
By allen, at
Fri Mar 09, 04:13:00 PM:
“I suppose that settles everything!”
No, it doesn’t; nor was it meant to. It was merely one of any number of reasonable possibilities, given the evidence to hand. That is the point of blogging, I think.
By allen, at
Fri Mar 09, 04:59:00 PM:
While not bin Laden, al-Qaida’s number “one” or number “two” man in Iraq has been captured, depending on the report.
Insurgent leader nabbed in Iraq raid
Big Al Qaeda Fish Hooked in Iraq
Report: Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, leader of Islamic State of Iraq, captured
Drudge’s bold headline: FBI ‘Misused Patriot Act’
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Fri Mar 09, 05:36:00 PM:
IMO, Pakistan is the most dangerous nation in the world.
For all it's bluster, Iran is surrounded by Sunni enemies. Plus, they have no nukes.
North Korea is kinda crazy, but has way more to gain than lose by being reasonable. (Plus it is influenced by more level-headed China). NK's a huge nuclear dissemination threat, but less likely to act themselves.
Pakistan meets all the criteria. It has nukes, hates our guts, harbors the Taliban, and is plenty radical. A strongarm dictator is just about our only ally there.
By , at
Fri Mar 09, 05:53:00 PM:
Why didn't we get Osama?
Simple. Because he took off for Pakistan early in the war.
Pakistan has nukes, and would go to war with us if we tried to get him.
What is likely now is that Musharaff as noted is riding the tiger, his days are numbered, and his successor will openly back bin Laden. That would a be a winner the Pakistani people, the military and Muslims world wide.
Very likely we are being assisted by India's spy network throughout the region, which wants US patronage and protection from the China-Pakistan-Islamist axis; not the least of which that Axis wants large chunks of India under Pakistani or Bangladeshi rule.
Ask yourself what changed?
Answer: India.
By Christopher Chambers, at
Fri Mar 09, 06:42:00 PM:
"Read the whole thing, and wonder what might be the political implications if we did indeed capture or kill bin Laden this year"
Gee whiz--isn't that the plan? I wouldn't put it past these criminals in the White House. The talking points memo has already gone out (but not to Rudy or Mitt yet)...
By Pax Federatica, at
Sat Mar 10, 12:42:00 AM:
Read the whole thing, and wonder what might be the political implications if we did indeed capture or kill bin Laden this year.
For starters, the "cut-and-run" crowd here at home would likely extend their anti-Iraq-war rhetoric to Afghanistan as well, on the grounds that our casus belli in Afghanistan (i.e. getting bin Laden) has been achieved, and therefore we no longer have any more business continuing to meddle in Afghanistan than we do in Iraq. Never mind the unfinished business of ensuring that a reasonably stable government is in place first. (I know, many anti-war types haven't even waited for bin Laden's death to make this argument, but it's bound to take on additional momentum once bin Laden is out of the picture.)
Furthermore, unless the American public perceives the continued U.S. presence in post-bin Laden Afghanistan as something more substantial than refereeing civil strife and marking time until the Afghan government is ready to work without a net, support on the homefront is bound to wither just as it has with the war in Iraq, for the same reasons.
Therefore, I would imagine most of the GOP presidential candidates are at least privately hoping we don't get bin Laden until around October of next year, for reasons that should be obvious to all.
