U.S. National Security Policy and Pakistan
Glenn Greenwald had a thought provoking diary posted on Tuesday (Is Iran "the most active state sponsor of terrorism"?) on his blog Unclaimed Territory. For me, what was most compelling was not the question of whether or not Iran is truly a threat (I have dealt with the U.S.' demonization of Iran in depth on this blog, and I think effectively unmasked the neocons propaganda and lies in this regard) or the rhetoric and fear mongering continually spewing forth from Bush as regards Iran, but the implications of parts of Bush's recent speech before the American Legion National Convention -- which drew directly from the White House's just released National Strategy for Combating Terrorism (NSCT) document.
In his speech before the American Legion Bush stated that
.... we have made it clear to all nations, if you harbor terrorists, you are just as guilty as the terrorists; you're an enemy of the United State, and you will be held to account.
In his post Greenwald quoted Section V. of the just released White House (NSCT) anti-terrorism document which says exactly the same thing; if you harbor terrorists, you are just as guilty as the terrorists; you're an enemy of the United States, and will be held to account. (www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/print/20060831-1.html)
In light of ABC's recent report that U.S. intelligence suggests that Bin Laden is hiding in Waziristan Pakistan, with the knowledge of the Pakistani government, one would expect pretty serious consequences for Pakistan and their leaders.
Today's Seattle Times reports that Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf met Wednesday in Kabul and signed a "cease-fire" pact aimed at ended clashes between Islamic extremists and Pakistani troops in the border provinces. The pact "requires foreign extremists to leave the tribal area of North Waziristan or take up a peaceable life there (.)" (Seattle Times, 9/7/06). On CNN.com it is reported that "under the deal, Pakistani troops would halt (their) military campaign and militants would halt attacks on Pankistani forces in northern Waziristan and stop cross-border raids into Afghanistan targeting U.S. and Afghan troops. "
This is all good and fine, and both leaders (Karzai and Musharraf) seemed to be pleased with the cease fire, (although Karzai expressed an attitude more akin to "wait and see") however, the complication comes from statements supposedly made to ABC by officials within the Pakistani camp (specifically those made by Maj. General Shaukat Sultan) that Bin Laden would not be subject to capture if he agreed to "live a peaceful life." ABC quoted Sultan as saying he (Bin Laden) "would not be taken into custody ... as long as one is being like a peaceful citizen." (CNN.com, 9/7/06).
Pakistani Ambassador to the U.S. Mahmound Ali Durrani refuted these comments, saying that General Sultan had been "grossly misquoted in a section of U.S. media today." (CNN.com) The idea that Maj. General Sultan was misquoted was echoed by the Pakistani Foreign Ministry who disputed "a statement attributed to the spokesperson of the president by ABC News that Osama Bin Laden will not face capture in Pakistan if he agrees to lead a 'peaceful life'." Durrani also added the following statement :
Pakistan is on the hunt for Osama bin Laden and his associates. If he is in Pakistan, today or any time later, he will be taken into custody and brought to justice. No amnesty has been granted to Osama bin Laden. (CNN.com)
In response to critics that Pakistan has not done enough to fight terrorism Musharraf has insisted that he would not let his country become a sanctuary for terrorists.
There seem to be at least a couple of problems with this and other similar statements coming out of Pakistan. First, the fact that Pakistani leaders are referring so frequently to what will or will not happen to Bin Laden leads one to believe that they do have knowledge of his whereabouts, and that he is in Pakistan, whether Waziristan or elsewhere. If he were not, then why is there so much discussion about how his capture or exposure will be handled? Second, Pakistan has in the not too distant past been implicated in the moving and hiding of al-Qaeda and its' agents. There is a history here.
In 2003-2004 it was widely rumored that Bin Laden had a safe haven in Pakistan. Dr. Ajai Sahni, who is executive director of the Institute for Conflict Management, an anti-terrorism foundation in India, was quoted by Charles R. Smith about the Pakistan connection to al-Qaeda :
The fact is significant factions of the Pakistani army and the Inter Services Intelligence -- with the backing of various Pakistani terrorist groups -- have been actively facilitating the relocation of the al-Qaeda from Afghanistan to Pakistan. (NewsMax.com, 7/26/03)
So, what does all this mean? If U.S. intelligence believes Bin Laden is in Pakistan, as apparently they do, then why don't they coordinate actions to capture him?
Musharraf has said that his country will not become a sanctuary for terrorists, but he doesn't seem to be going out of his way to prevent this. Indeed, he has ruled out allowing NATO and U.S. forces from crossing into Pakistan saying that this would ignite a popular uprising (Seattle Times, 9/7/06). While journalists such as Peter Bergen claim that Pakistan is "a country where the U.S. military is not welcome," the fact remains that Musharraf allowed the United States to utilize several airstrips and Pakistani airspace during Operation Enduring Freedom in late 2001; most notably, the air base at Bareder near Peshawar, and the airfield in Pishin just north of Quetta in the Baluchistan Province. (AP, 9/26/01)
If Musharraf indeed does not know of Bin Laden's whereabouts, it is likely that high ranking officials within Pakistan do. Longtime CIA operative Gary Schroen told Henry Schuster of CNN back in 2005 that although he doesn't think Musharraf knows where Bin Laden is, he does believe that members of the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI do know;
I can only speculate, but it is based on almost 20 years of dealing with the Pakistani military and the ISI officers. I think at some level, probably the colonel level, there are officers probably in ISI who know where Bin Laden is. (CNN.com , 5/31/05)
Further, The Albionmonitor reported in March of 2003 that former ISI leaders likely know of Bin Laden's whereabouts:
....two men who most likely know bin Laden's whereabouts are former four-star generals who headed the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) and who established close links with the fugitive: Mehmud Almed and his notorious predecessor, Hamid Gul. (http://www.albionmonitor.com/0303a/binladenhide.html)
The same piece states that General Gul was a frequent visitor of Bin Laden in the aftermath of the Soviet/Afghan war and that he probably enjoys more support within the Pakistani army's rank-and -file than Musharraf himself, due to ethnic roots.
Whatever the nature of the ISI's or Musharraf's intelligence on Bin Laden, it will be interesting to see how Bush and the Pentagon respond to news surfacing from Pakistan in the coming weeks. It has been mentioned elsewhere that Washington has close ties to Musharraf, specifically through General Mahmoud Ahmed, who was reportedly instrumental in the coup that brought Musharraf to power in 1999, and in the days just before 9/11 met with then CIA Director George Tenet, as well as the Pentagon and members of the National Security Council and the State Department . It is also significant that General Ahmad reportedly authorized an ISI agent, Saeed Sheikh, to wire-transfer $100,000 to Mohamed Atta's bank accounts in Florida. (Griffin, New Pearl Harbor, p.109).
Without getting carried away into making elaborate correlations, suffice it to say that U.S./Pakistan relations have in the past been more than somewhat suspicious. It is for this reason that Bush's statement to the American Legion that those who harbor terrorists will be "held to account" is relevant. If Pakistan is knowingly harboring Bin Laden, shouldn't they be "held to account?" And what does this mean? Does it mean military intervention, sanctions, or simply a loud public denouncement? If harboring terrorists groups such as al-Qaeda would lead to Afghanistan being bombed into oblivion, one would think that harboring Bin Laden (reportedly the world's most sinister terrorist) would earn Pakistan a similar treatment.
Whatever the implied punishment, I don't suspect we will see Pakistan suffering anything of the sort in the near future, whether they are knowingly harboring Bin Laden or not. If Bin Laden's presence there is confirmed and Bush fails to act on his promise, then I think we as a nation have to ask ourselves why.
I am just so disgusted to read this article . Who the bloodyherll is Osama a reality or just an imaginary personality created by U.S.A. It an other American excuse to enter Pakistan inorder to trap Iran for Oil. This talibinzation was started by Amercian's very FBI may be with the help of some generals and when their motive was completed, they killed on of the key icon of their conspiracy , Late Gen Zia-ul-Haq. ISI would never ever have encouraged osama's presence in Pakistan i-e if there is any real Osama. America has been playing this game and is the biggest supplier of weapons to these Talibans it created. There is no weaponry factory in Afghanistan , from where do they get this huge bulk of Weapons , obviously American government plus the few fake Talibs have been exploiting young men's mind by provoking them in the name of religion. U.S here is playing a dummy role, the U.S government is supplying weapons to Talibs behind the curtains. The latest surveys says that America yearly exports 40% of the total weapons and this is an on the record figure, the question is where this weapon is exported? Obviously Mr Bush can give the answer to this question as he knows pretty well. This is again a pseudo episode and a fake stunt that US government's want to pull in the name of terrorism to riun the peace of Pakistan. The incident of 9/11 was planned by U.S them selves, How can men with weapons can clear the security at the airport and how can U.S's high technology failed to destroy the plane in the air and how come there was not a single jew present inside the world trade centre that day ? In his speech Bush says"we have made it clear to all nations, if you harbor terrorists, you are just as guilty as the terrorists; you're an enemy of the United State, and you will be held to account" well he should better hold his own self and his own government for an account as he is the one who has been supporting the Talibs, American governemnt is the one who created Osama(i doubt if there is any) and in the past give weapons and money to these talins to fight out the russians as America was afraid that Russians might wins the race by capturing the iranian Oil and other middle eastern countries. America is the one who created Israel in the middle eastern countries, jews were the people who didnt have any homeland , America gave them a piece of land so that it can act as America's body gaurd there. After wards U.S created Iraq against Iran and eventually attacked Iraq when failed to break Iran so that it can create its own base near Iran. The U.S government also tried to destroy iran by appointing his puppet Shah of iran but the revolution in Iran didnt let the American government's plans flourish there. And now after this failure they have created a base in Afghanistan, base in iraq and are trying to enter Pakistan by stupid fake reasons , have the support of Indians and simply wants to control the oil of all the middle eastern countries especially Iran
USA's governement has been planning these giant conspiracies from ages and is successfully implementing them through lies and force. Unfortunately the name of islam and muslims have been detoriated by them so that people should think of them as terrorists where as the biggest terrorist in the world is the U.S govenment followed by the Israel. If all of us start studying history of last 100 years everything will become crystal clear. I would recommend a book by Robert Fisk " war of civilization" conquest of middle east.
Bush is the Biggest Osama Bin laden and his government is the only Terrorists in the world
Posted by
Anonymous |
10:56 AM