Pakistan Update: Musharraf out?Foreign fighters okay...

With the DNC bent on taking over all branches of US government, fulling overdue promises of "tough love" by yanking the US troops out of Iraq, ignoring Lebanon, and Pakistan's peace deals further inflaming Afghanistan under NATO's command, it can be said that Middle East allies for the US might be getting to be an endangered species.

Quietly behind the scenes, and out of the western media spotlight, Pakistan is steadily traveling the yellow brick road to rogue and defiant ally-in-name-and-money-only status... content just to silence bombs in their back yard while allowing Taliban/AQ and fellow ilk militants to ping pong back and forth across the Afghanistan border at will.

Two deals were cemented over the past month, involving exchanging of prisoners and, in theory, either exiling or handing over foreign militants. However S. Waziristan Taliban leaders have made it abundantly clear that they have no intentions of halting their jihad battles on Afghan soil.

“First, we will not accept such a ban. But we hope the peace deal will be inked without a clause that puts restrictions on mujahideen to cross the border (into Afghanistan),” Abu Zakwan, Taliban commander in the Kotkai area of South Waziristan, told Daily Times on Saturday. Using the alias of Abu Zakwan, the commander said that government negotiators are asking for a pledge to stop cross-border attacks, but the Taliban were not committing to such an agreement.

Jihad centre: He said Waziristan was serving the region as “centre for jihad” and people from across the country were being trained for holy war “against the United States”.

To date, the peace deals have not resulted in any militants of note being either expelled or turned over to the Pakistan govt. Indeed, all they've done is add to the terrorists in the region, using their get-out-of-jail-free cards as an exchange for Pakistan Army hostages. As predicted, the militants deny knowing of any foreign fighters' whereabouts. Mehsud claims they are not harboring Zawahiri, OBL or ilk. Indeed, he insists Bin Laden is dead. I've seen this story on quite a few blogs, however not one link to the original story works. Take away what you wish from that note.

Meanship Nawaz Sharif continues his pressure on PPP's Zardari to not only oust Musharraf, but calls for trials for sedition. In today's Khaleej Times, he suggests that Zardari's party has agreed to expel Musharraf from the Presidency. Thus far, there has been no comment or confirmation from the PPP representative, nor PM Gilani.

One can safely say that Pakistan's efforts to curb jihad violence may offer temporary benefits for them... however making deals while they continue to foster jihad against the US doesn't benefit us, or the war on Islamic jihad movements, one bit. This would be the same US/Uncle Sam who's shelled out incentive cash, hand over fist, to Pakistan. And now, to add insult to injury, we're about to lose the rare military general ballsy enough to give a silent nod to US operations over Pakistan soil, and incur/endure the wrath of his country.

Pakistan, however, sees Obama with his incentive packages and "talk nice" coming. They have their hands already outstretched, whining that their anti-terror efforts on the behalf of the US costs twice what the US pays in the Coalition Support Fund.

A US Government Accountability Office report issued last week said that of $5.8 billion in US support for anti-terrorism efforts in the Fata between 2002 and 2007, about 96 per cent had gone towards reimbursing the Pakistani military, three per cent on border security and one per cent on development aid projects.

Talking to Dawn, sources said the $5.8 billion Pakistan received from the CSF was reimbursement of what the country had already spent.

“It is not easy to deploy 100,000 troops in a troubled area,” said one diplomatic source. “Look, how the Americans are spending billions of dollars on maintaining troops in Iraq. If the Americans feel that the Iraq war is draining their resources, imagine how it affects Pakistan.”

I have to ask... just how many times has Pakistan has deployed troops, especially in that number? Last year was filled with western media, accusing Musharraf of not doing anything. Yet now we are to believe that they're in the red, deploying troops on our behalf at every turn? Apparently the Pakistanis believe the US should carry the financial load of maintaining peace in their own tribal regions.

There is a smidgen of validity in that argument, of which they will have no problems in convincing a naive POTUS Obama that smidgen is much larger in US dollars. Tho many tribal elders may not seek war against the US or the west, they do harbor and benefit from those who do. However Pakistan's internal battles did not begin with America's more prominent presence in the Middle East. Nor will they end when we withdraw and come home. Jihad was there before we came, and will always be there.

Come the era of a possible President Obama in the WH, there are very different positions on the ME political chess board now. NATO falters in Afghanistan, and NATO alliance countries refuse to pony up the needed troops. Iraqis and US forces in Iraq are making headway, but live under the threat of having their progress reversed the moment a DNC leader takes the oath of office. Lebanon is morphing before our very eyes, with the Hezbollah shadow puppet government becoming more powerful with their legislative veto powers just acquired. Last year, Iran has no nuke program via an NIE - a report Obama buys hook, line and sinker. But today even the IAEA is concerned. Still the int'l community that makes up the corrupt and anti-semite UN, dances around significant action. And Obama will make sure US actions are blessed by the corrupt before implementing.

Pakistan, already proving the appeasement path benefits only their own backyard, and that terrorists will not budge on the bigger battle of training jihad, will be perhaps the next President's biggest problem. A President Obama will make nice, pass over more cash, and terrorists and dictators will continue to smile.

Fasten your seat belts, because we're in for a bumpy ride...

UPDATED:Dangerous liaisons, oil & appeasement policyA vision of our future?

There is a slow groundswell in the West. There is no longer a proud and defiant movement to battle the jihad movements who carried out, assisted, or cheered on the 911 bombers that hit US soil in 2001.Instead the US finds itself inexplicably drawn to appeasement foreign policy, driven by war weary denizens.

It is the military families who bear the sacrifices for the war. For the majority, Americans are unaffected… except now – in their minds - in their wallets. Not for the actual war spending mind you, but because of the link from Iraq to the rising price of oil worldwide.

And so we come to the odd 6 degrees of separation between dangerous liaisons, appeasement foreign policy and the price of oil. It's ironic that it will ultimately be gas prices that herd Americans thru the gates to appeasement. But years of "the war is lost" or "this war cannot be won militarily" have taken their toll on the dangerously misinformed US voter.

We are taught Iraq and Bush are the cause for oil prices. They listen to Cindy Sheehan, as she continues the lie that Cheney still owns part of, and profits off of, Halliburton. Too many give a derelict Congress a pass. Increased global demands by a fast developing India and China, an ailing dollar, and topped with speculators fueling commodies are never factored into reality.

Facts tend to be inconvenient to political ends, and mean nothing to the disgruntled. They only know they are paying almost twice the amount they did last year for filling up their gas tanks, and seeing the effect domino into the cost of groceries. We are a nation of blame... as long as it's anyone but ourselves.

And any villain at hand will do. Mostly especially big oil - the industry America so loves to hate. Yesterday we had yet another rerun in Senate Hearings… just as in Nov 2005, Mar 2006 and May 2007, the oil industry execs appear for their annual reaming from Senators, diverting the attention from themselves to wealthy oil barons. Just as nothing happened back in 2005, nor in the decades before, nothing will again be done. But it makes for good political theatre in an election year.

As long as the US equates war on jihad elements with oil, they will support any and all attempts to extract ourselves from that battle... and hang the consequences. This same mentality that ties the two will curtain future military endeavors as a way to guarantee lower gas prices. Therefore a withdrawal from Iraq goes hand in hand with a new approach in foreign policy to accomplish that objective. Appeasement replaces military response.

Thus we come to a vision of our future. A world where our military hesitates to enter Middle East battlegrounds, and diplomats cut deals that ply our enemy with enough incentives to stop the bombs going off daily, achieving a false sense of relative peace.

Americans, desperate for a return to what they see as prosperity lost, are set to elect leadership that will lead us down the rosy path of appeasement foreign policy to accomplish just that end. Even more distressing, that trend is global in nature.

Obama, likely nominee (if you ask him), promises he will be an American President who sits down unconditionally with the enemy. Britain, formerly one of the US's strongest allies, has already placed a pacifist - PM Gordon Brown - at the helm who fits nicely with a President Obama's ideas. Brown has been busy making appointments of diplomats that echo his own sentiments.

____________________________________

UPDATE 5/24/08 - Britain's Foreign Sec'y "queries" Obama's Iran policy

Well now, surprises never cease. While on the surface it appears an Obama Presidency would be a match made in heavey with Britain's PM Brown and Foreign Sec'y Miliband, it's even more likely (and frightening...) that Mr. Obama is too extreme even for the very liberal Brits in power. Oh my...

David Miliband (see "appointment of diplomats" link above) has met with all three Presidential candidates during a trip to the US this week, feeling them out individually on their foreign policy. Apparently, in as polite of terms as possible, he's not terribly impressed with BHO.

Exact accounts of the conversation with Mr Obama differ and there is certainly acute anxiety on the part of the British not to be seen as stoking political controversy in America’s presidential elections. In the past week Mr McCain has repeatedly hammered Mr Obama for what he claims is a “naive” commitment to hold direct talks with foreign dictators.

snip

Mr Miliband, in a press conference with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, reiterated Britain’s support for the united front on Iran adopted by the US and its European allies, which he believes is beginning to pay dividends. “Our position, jointly, has always been that as long as Iran exercises responsibilities, then it will be able to forge a more productive and positive relationship with the international community,” Mr Miliband said.

An aide later told The Times that the Foreign Secretary was being very careful to avoid direct criticism of any presidential candidate’s positions. But the same source added: “We know Obama wants to engage more, but we don’t know what route he will take or what he means by ‘no pre-conditions’. It has not unravelled yet and, when it does, we will be able to see where it converges or conflicts with what we’re doing.”

A Foreign Office spokesman later said: “I just want to stress that David Miliband is not confused about Obama’s policy. It would be quite wrong to say that.”

END UPDATE
__________________________________________



Australia’s Kevin Rudd is certainly more reserved in military use than John Howard, the previous strong US ally. Tho Rudd remains a strong ally in Afghanistan, and rejects Ahmadinejad, he is still a question mark in the march to appeasement foreign policy.

Pakistan, now under the PPP, has already implemented Obama'esque appeasement policy. They have made pacts with Baitullah Meshud in the S. Waziristan area, and finalizing a similar pact with the Maulana Fazlullah in the NWTA.

Mehsud has had Pakistan dancing to his tune over the past few months. At the beginning of the year, militants ravaged Pakistan with numerous suicide attacks and then suddenly proposed a peace agreement. Under immense pressure from its vulnerable domestic political and economic situation, Pakistan accepted the peace deal and then also accepted the militants' demand for the swapping of prisoners.

The world's reaction to Pakistan’s back room deals? Britain's Brown officials predictably applaud Pakistan's appeasement deals. The Taliban themselves are overjoyed. With the agreements, they have again reinforced their numbers, freeing 55 Taliban militants ranging in importance from the lowly fighter to commanders. As if freedom wasn't enough, Islamabad also "paid a sum of 20 million Pakistani rupees (US$287,000) to the militants."

We all must wonder - was the money paid to the freed jihad terrorists provided by the US for their cooperation in the global war on jihad movements? And will future appeasement deals – paying freed terrorists - also be funded by US incentive money? Such is the ugly reality of striking “deals” with the enemy.

A few of these jailed militants are former guests of Club Gitmo, including Muslim Dost. Mufti Yousuf is again running around free, while Maulana Abdul Aziz of the Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) in Islamabad is expected to be released soon. A fighter who promises to drive Pakistan to a Islamic revolution.
Where is the sanity in the Pakistan government letting loose a fighter, determined to evoke revolution?

Qari Ziaur Rahman, another freed militant they say is destined to become legendary, was also released in exchange for Pak military hostages in the Meshud appeasement agreement. Ziaur is in charge of Taliban finances.

The few not applauding this foreign policy movement is the current WH administration, and those countries who will be most affected by this “illusion of peac” - countries (like Afghanistan) who end up with these beasts proliferating in their own back yard because of another country's "truce". Other traditionally liberal countries, also directly affected with an increasing Muslim immigration that refuses to assimilate, have elected new, more conservative leadership (i.e. Italy, France and the Netherlands). Apparently, for those on the direct receiving end of these kinder/gentler tactics, it’s only a matter of time before the truth hits - one side of the parties only honors compromise.

As the US, as well as other western nations, start caving in to the appeasement trend, what is it we can expect from "peace" with such men, again running free? Do we assume that their hatred of the west dissipated with their release? Will the west be left alone if the US pulls out of Iraq, but stays in Afghanistan?

These beliefs are the delusions of the hopeful and naivel. The Taliban and other jihad movements, fresh off a propaganda victory, are recognized, forgiven, released *and* compensated for their "unjust" confinement. They have reprieve to regroup, re plan. Only this time, they may enjoy new financial and political incentives to bolster their cause. They already head back to their respective battlefields, relishing their second chance to fight the US and the west.

The bombs may go dormant in Pakistan and other places temporarily. But the new wave of global leaders, embodied by a President Obama, leads us to a fool’s paradise. A world of dangerous liaisons where the enemy has been enabled financially, politically and militarily by us - their targets. Time is not on our side.

UPDATED: Pakistan cuts 2nd "appeasement" dealAfghanistan royally PO'd

Here we go. Round #-who-can-keep-count. AP's Riaz Khan's headline screams "Pakistan, Militants agree to Peace Deal" in the NWFP, including the hotbed of activity in Swat.

A senior minister in the government of Pakistan's North West Frontier Province said the two sides sealed the 15-point plan on Wednesday during talks in the provincial capital, Peshawar.

Militants agreed to recognize the government's authority, halt suicide and bomb attacks and hand over any foreign militants in the area, minister Bashir Bilour told reporters after the talks.

In return, the government will release prisoners and make limited concessions on the demands of the cleric, Maulana Fazlullah, for the imposition of Islamic law in the region, he said.

Bilour also said that the army would "gradually" withdraw from the area - a key demand of the militants.

snip

Ali Bakht Khan, an envoy for Fazlullah, called on the government to release 202 of his associates from custody within the next two weeks.

"We will follow this agreement and shall cooperate to bring peace to Swat," Khan said.

It was unclear whether either Fazlullah or his commanders, whose men allegedly beheaded captured soldiers and pro-government elders, would face any punishment.

Ah yes, there's that we-will-impose-Islamic-law-and-you-will-not-interfere bit. The common denominator among terrorists. Needless to say the Taliban are happier than a pig in a poke about the negotiations. And why shouldn't they be? The aces fall mostly into their hands. However what comes to mind is again, Barry Rubin's article in the Israeli Insider, where he said:

If the dictators and terrorists are smiling, it means everyone else is crying.

But note this deal bears remarkable resemblance to the truce with Baitullah Mehsud's little deal last month. Per an April 24th, 2008 Dawn news blurb:

Pakistan closing in on pact with militant Mehsud tribe PESHAWAR, Pakistan, April 25 (Reuters) - Pakistan is close to clinching a peace pact with the Mehsuds, one of the most recalcitrant tribes in its tribal region bordering Afghanistan.

“It's now a matter of days before we have an agreement. The talks are in a very advanced stage,” a senior government official involved in the negotiations told Reuters.

A draft of the 15-point accord with the Mehsud tribal elders was shown to Reuters. It included a call for an end to militant activity, exchange of prisoners and gradual withdrawal of the army from South Waziristan. The draft did not explicitly say whether militants should stop cross-border attacks into neighbouring Afghanistan. But it did say Mehsud tribesmen should expel al Qaeda and other foreign fighters from their area within a month and stop their lands being used as a base for attacks.

While the authorities and tribal elders made final touches to the pact, Baitullah Mehsud, who was declared as the leader of the Pakistani Taliban late last year, on Wednesday ordered his followers to stop attacks inside Pakistan. A government official described the ceasefire as part of a series of confidence building measures that will be taken before the agreement is signed. He said the government also planned to lift blockade of Mehsud territory by the military. (Posted @ 16:30 PST)

This earlier agreement has been moving forward with little western press. Prisoners have been exchanged, the Pak military pulled back because Baitullah threatened to halt talks when they didn't, and Mehsud met with with the NWFP Governor yesterday to demand reopening of the roads.

Just how does Afghan Foreign Minister Rangeen Dadfar Spanta feel about Pakistan's new found friendship with their militants? Needless to say, they are quite unhappy, and sound remarkably like the US Cowboy President.

“Anyone thinking that they are able to reach peace in the region through what we call an appeasement policy — we consider it is a wrong and dangerous policy,” Afghan Foreign Minister Rangeen Dadfar Spanta told reporters.

A peace deal with the Pakistani Taliban in 2006 reportedly led to a spike in violence across the border.

Describing the 2006 deal as bad for Afghanistan, Spanta said the government was “extremely and infinitely concerned” about Islamabad’s moves, which officials in Pakistan say have seen troops redeployed in the tribal zone.

He cited media reports as saying the Taliban wanted peace in Pakistan so they would be able to continue jihad in Afghanistan.

“As the victim of terrorism, we have the right to say we’re concerned,” the minister said, adding Kabul had spoken of its fears with Islamabad and Washington.—AFP

While it's highly touted by western media that the US military is on the brink of "breaking", and "spread too thin", it is less reported that the enemy is in the same boat. They are but a shadow of their former selves, reconstituting their organization in Pakistan. If part of these agreements are to again shuffle the fighters back across the borders, Afghani leaders are right to be concerned.

And for what end? Peace talks and truces between the Pak government and their militants do not have a history of success. Afghanistan's concern that this may be merely a bait and switch maneuver is echo'ed by the US and John Negroponte, also citing the last failure with Baitullah Mehsud in 2006. The Afghanis and US/NATO forces will beat the militants back again, and they will - once again - land in the laps of the Pakistanis who seem content merely to get them out of their own back yards.

Fact is, until the Pak govt stops refusing int'l help in controlling these cockroaches (or takes assertive moves to control them theirselves), this ping pong of the enemy will go on, unabated. Yes... Pakistan remains a looming problem for the next POTUS.

Considering the terms of these "truces", one might say it's time to sent our stop watches. To see signs of cooperation at the onset, Mehsud terms dictate he should be expelling foreign fighters within a month. The Fazlullah is supposed to hand them over to the Pak government... but with no stated time frame in the AP article.

From what we've seen of Mehsud's deal in the early weeks, his demands have been fast and furious, and the threats of resuming hostilities remain bubbling ever close to the surface. Yet there is still no line of exiled foreign AQ/Taliban crossing the border to Afghanistan enmasse. Meshud has what he wants. And what of the Pak goverment? They have temporarily quieted the bombs and deaths, and still await bussing of the enemy to anywhere but Pakistan. Yet despite the "peace" deal, the fostering and support of jihad movements - source of Pakistan's bombs - continues. The problem has not been solved. Merely relocated and postponed.

This dependence upon the bad guys to police their own militant buddies contrasts starkly with Iraq military's recent launching of Operation The Lion's Roar - a mission to forcibly expel the foreign elements from their soil. Already in their short history, the Iraqi government has learned that you cannot depend upon those that harbor the foreigners to kick them out into the cold.

But note the word used by Afghanistan's Foreign Minister - "appeasement". This is not a media pundit or candidates for POTUS. This is a word used by a leader who sees the results of "appeasement" in their own back yards. It is a very real result of an oft tried and failed policy.

Which brings us, once again, to our regional ally Afghanistan and their objections to Pakistan's "appeasement" (their words) process. This is a policy that US hopeful, Barack Obama, has every intention of mimicking. The likelihood of a President Obama succeeding in peace with such appeasement deals is just as unlikely as Pakistan will be with theirs.

But obviously, it's extremely likely that he will accomplish royally pissing off our allies...

_________________________________________________

UPDATE MAY 22nd, 2008 - BRITAIN SIDES WITH APPEASEMENT POLICY

According to today Adnkronos article, Britain has decided to back the negotiations with the Pakistani militants.

Britain supports talks between Pakistan’s new rulers and tribal leaders aimed at curbing insurgency along the Afghan border, Foreign Secretary David Miliband told a US audience late on Wednesday.

In a speech to a Washington think-tank, Miliband said there was “no military solution” to the spread of militancy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Miliband and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said at a joint press conference in Washington on Wednesday that promoting democracy was the best way to fight terrorism in Pakistan and neighbouring Afghanistan.

He visited Pakistan last month for talks with the new government and backed the government’s effort to seek a negotiated solution to the insurgency in its tribal region.

But Miliband warned that there should only be reconciliation with those who renounce violence.

Miliband is Britain's youngest foreign sec'y in three decades. Appointed by PM Gordon Brown, he's part of the kinder/gentler British rule that is slowly emerging after the departure of the US ally, Tony Blair. An outspoken "skeptic" of the OIF from the get go, Miliband has been busy shaking up his department, moving diplomats to cover the Asian and Middle East areas more heavily.

He is, evidently, a believer that the days of the US as a superpower are on the decline.

While the world's balance of power is moving from West to East, some have overstated the decline of the United States as the world's superpower, he told the audience.

"In economic terms, and even more so in military terms, the U.S. will have at least another generation as the global superpower," Miliband said. "Nevertheless, this century may come to be known as the Asian century."

Miliband said the United States remains Britain's most important ally, but acknowledged links with a host of other countries are becoming increasingly important.

Our allies... oh joy. Well, he and a President Obama should see eye to eye on the increasing irrelevance of the US in a world dominated by appeasement and politically correct behavior. I guess between the two, they will only piss off our allies who are actually engaging the jihad movement enemies...

Collision course with Pakistan still imminent for next POTUS

I've said this many times... most recently in my March 31st 2008 post, "Pakistan Update: Trouble on the Horizon?". Prior to that, I lambasted the fools who bought, hook-line-and-sinker, the media demonization of Musharraf in "Hating Musharraf. Those chickens comin' home to roost" on Mar 25th.

During the run up to Pakistan's elections, there were few to no western media voices that credited Musharraf for his risky and bold stand, aiding the US against many Pakistan political power houses. The US electorate, dutiful little sheeple they tend to be, bought into the notion that Benazir's PPP party win would magically produce a more cooperative ally - ignoring the history of the party leaders and ministers (as well as Sharif's own sketchy past).

It's almost a month later, and it's becoming even more abundantly clear that the US media and electorate is now getting exactly what they asked for. And for that misplaced faith in the PPP, aided by a relentless piling-on of Musharraf, we're another step closer to the future collision course with the complacent PPP led Pakistani government and a weakened Musharraf. They just do not demonstrate the heart to do much more than talk... An approach that has yielded nothing but a trail of broken truces in the past.

From today's NYTs, "U.S. Commanders Seeking to Widen Pakistan Attacks " by MARK MAZZETTI and ERIC SCHMITT, comes reports of a wisely cautious WH, bent on not riling the new Pakistani govt while simultaneously trying to dance around cleaning out the wasp nests of AQ and neo Taliban that have entrenched themselves in the tribal regions of that country.

American commanders in Afghanistan have in recent months urged a widening of the war that could include American attacks on indigenous Pakistani militants in the tribal areas inside Pakistan, according to United States officials.

The requests have been rebuffed for now, the officials said, after deliberations in Washington among senior Bush administration officials who fear that attacking Pakistani radicals may anger Pakistan’s new government, which is negotiating with the militants, and destabilize an already fragile security situation.

American commanders would prefer that Pakistani forces attack the militants, but Pakistani military operations in the tribal areas have slowed recently to avoid upsetting the negotiations.

Pakistan has given it's tacit nod to remote Predator drone strikes, but have made it abundantly clear they will not tolerate US boots on the ground, nor unsanctioned air strikes. Yet the US lives in a rock/hard place of facts. The areas with the highest threats are the very places the US is most restricted in actions by Pakistan. Instead, Pakistan insists on plodding thru with negotiating with their tribal militant factions... the very same who provide unmitigated aid to AQ and other Islamic jihad movements, as well as murdering the more peaceful tribal elders who do not cooperate.

The WH, however, knows the delicate line it walks. It has no choice but to let Pakistan learn it's lessons... one more time... the hard way.

Administration officials say the risk of angering the new government in Pakistan and stirring increased anti-American sentiment in the tribal areas outweighs the benefits of dismantling militant networks in the region.

“It’s certainly something we want to get to, but not yet,” said one Bush administration official. “If you do it now, you can expect to do it without Pakistani approval, and you can expect to do it only once because the Pakistanis will never help us again.”

This last line is one Cowboy Obama needs to remember, given his previous statements about Pakistan.

Back in August [2007], I said we should work with the Pakistani government, first of all to encourage democracy in Pakistan, and secondly, that we have to press them to do more to take on al Qaeda in their territory," the Illinois Democrat, who now threatens to strike at Senator Hillary Rodham Hillary in New Hampshire after a stunning performance in Iowa, said.

"What I said was, if they could not or would not do so, and we had actionable intelligence, then I would strike."

Obama's military swagger.. whether for show or for real... did not set with with the Pakistani's then. And it's unlikely it will go over any better with the new PPP led Parliament and PM Gilani in this post election era.

On the flip side, a GOP President McCain is in the same position as GWB. Without cooperation from the Pakistanis, and with Musharraf on the ropes, his hands are equally tied.

Either way, the next POTUS faces an uphill battle with the "kinder and gentler" approach the new Pak government has elected to take. Obama will either lose us an ally in the region with his unilaterial proposition, or McCain will find himself looking for incentives to use on Pakistan to get them more motivated in battling the jihad/militant elements.

One undeniable fact - Musharraf's maverick actions with the Pakistan army will be sorely missed.

Pakistan Update Trouble on the horizon?

While most eyes and pundits focus on the battles in Basra, arguing over it's status as progress or a setback, we have what may be the loss of an important ally looming on the horizon.

As I pointed out in my Mar 25th post, Hating Musharraf, the media indoctrination, painting Musharraf as the enemy and the PPP as the Pakistani saviours, is bringing some more of those chickens home to roost. And the latest reports show not only no change in that original assessment, but even more firm assertations to go the path of peace thru negotiations with militants.

Musharraf hasn't thrown in the towel yet, promising cooperation with the new majority at his farewell dinner. But he also specifically made the point that he hoped the new government would recognize that one of it's prime responsibilities was the country's internal and external security.

In the meantime the power duo, Zardari (PPP co-chair) and Sharif (PML-N), tossed Musharraf a bone scrap, taking a "we'll see" attitude towards Musharraf's Presidential future. Their continuing relationship depended upon Musharraf's attitude towards Parliament.

The new PPP PM, Gilani, got a unanimous vote of "trust" from the assembly (including an uncontested Musharraf block... apparently a "no surprise" vote, indicating Musharraf may have noodged them into compliance), then laid out his kinder/gentler rules of engagement for the war on terror. Already his visions appear dashed with the improbability of bringing the differing factions to the peace table. His is a vision not untried in the past.

Mr Gilani, who is due to name the first batch of his cabinet on Monday, said his government was not afraid of “innumerable challenges” facing the country and that “the restoration of law and order and total elimination of terrorism will be (its) first priority”.

“The war against terrorism is our own war because countless of our innocent children and jawans have fallen martyrs as a result of it,” he said.

OLIVE BRANCH: But the prime minister, who discussed the future of Pakistan’s key role in the American-led war against terrorism with two senior US diplomats this week, offered an olive branch to what he described as some people who had chosen the path of violence as a means of expressing their views, asking them to give up their approach and “join us in this journey of democracy”.

“We are ready to talk to all those people who will lay down arms and adopt the path of peace,” he said.

However those with whom Gilani wishes to engage have laid down their own demands, as well as issued violent threats to the local tribal elders.

Local Taliban militants have asked the new government to end relations with the US and enforce Sharia in tribal areas and have warned tribal elders against meeting US officials.

The warning was issued at a public meeting held in Enayet Kalli near Khar on Sunday which was attended by thousands of tribesmen chanting anti-US slogans.

snip

“We hail Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani’s announcement to repeal the FCR,” Maulvi Faqir said, adding that the government should implement Sharia in the tribal region and sever diplomatic relations with United States.

“Taliban are patriotic people and do not want to fight with their own government. We have waged jihad against America. But the country will suffer as long as Pakistan remains an ally of the US in the ongoing war on terror in the region,” Maulvi Faqir said.

The new government, he said, should not repeat mistakes of the previous government and must change its internal and external policies. He said the militants were ready for talks with the government.

The meeting urged the government to remove all new checkpoints from the area and lift a ban on non-customs paid vehicles.

The Taliban leaders warned elders of ‘consequences’, if they met US officials.

A committee comprising local clerics was set up to resolve disputes among tribesmen. The committee was authorised to prepare a mechanism for eliminating un-Islamic practices like interest on loans, robbery and kidnapping for ransom from the region.

Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan spokesman Maulvi Umar told Dawn by phone that the government should formally enforce Sharia in the tribal belt.

Somehow, there doesn't appear to be much change in the militants' demands, nor in their coersive methods. Certainly demands of all diplomatic ties with the US doesn't fit into Gilani's desire to maintain "....strong and close relations also with America and Europe”.

The last truce with Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan's leader, Baitullah Mehsud, in 2006 proved to be yet another farce. And cooperation by the tribal leaders to root out the militants is inevitably followed by a blood bath of the elders, as has been done in the past.

The US most definitely has a concern with the possible loss of Musharraf, and the new gov't kinder/gentler approach.

The US is concerned that a softened approach might let Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other groups expand their base in Pakistan and step up attacks on US forces in Afghanistan.

The Bush administration also is concerned about the political sidelining of President Pervez Musharraf, its longtime ally in Pakistan.

While the previous Musharraf-led military government signed peace deals with the tribal leaders in 2006 — a strategy the CIA chief called ‘absolutely disastrous’ since it allowed Al Qaeda to regroup — the government also periodically conducted military strikes and permitted US missile strikes on suspected Al Qaeda targets.

Gilani, who clearly faces the same problems the previous govt did, talks a good game, but is likely to face the same obstacles that cannot be hurdled with talk alone. What remains to be seen is how this will affect the US-Pakistan relationships... even with a new POTUS.

Hating Musharraf Those chickens are comin' home to roost

Upon the return of Benazir Bhutto, the western media was all a'gog. Hailing her as Pakistan's deliverer from the evil Musharraf. Proclaimed A Hero for Democracy, she was given press passes for her less than stellar, and corruption riddled, past PM terms. Then, upon death, unofficially canonized by the same history challenged media (tho saved from such a real perilous fate by her Muslim religion...).

On the opposite end of the stick was the harsh criticism and journalistic sniping at Musharraf. He stood as the fall guy, demonized for all of Pakistan's failures in controlling the al Qaeda and Taliban in their tribal regions.

Western media then rejoiced at Benazir's PPP party victory in elections... sure that such a change would result in a more democratic Pakistan, and a thorough clean up of the militants in their midst.

Musharraf, who previously had threatened to resign if the Parliament so much as whispered the word "impeach" in his direction, now finds himself politically isolated after the inauguration of the new Prime Minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani.

Not only does Nawaz Sharif have it in for Musharraf, Gilani also has his past beefs with Pakistan's President. Both have been booted out, and/or jailed and arrested by Musharraf - both charged with corruption. And payback for the Prez is proving to be a real bitch as they apply pressure for his ouster.

So it's no surprise that rumours abound regarding his imminent resignation. Who can blame the guy? The western media treated him slightly better than they treat our own President, totally oblivious to the narrow line a Muslim President must walk, and unappreciative for the help he has provided the US. Fact is, Muslim countries do not like to be seen as cooperating overtly with the evil western US. So most aid needed to remain below the NYT's press radar in order to minimize backlash from the Pakistanis themselves.

Well, congratuations, all you history challenged PPP/Benazir lovers. You are about to be granted that "Pakistan" you have craved since Bhutto's return. A Pakistan that rejects your perceived enemy, Musharraf, and comes up with a new way to deal with the militants in their midst....

There's no more military missions. It's negotiate with the bad guys time.

But Mr Negroponte and Mr Boucher scheduled early calls on Mr Sharif and Mr Zardari, both of whom have indicated that the new democratic coalition intends following a very different policy from Mr Musharraf on the war against terror and dealing with jihadi militants.

Both said this week they believed the Washington-backed military assault against the jihadis had failed and that they were keen to try negotiations in an effort to end the wave of suicide bomb attacks.

It must be pointed out that Sharif's past ties to hardline militants is still of great concern, especially given his position of power today. A position made possible by Musharraf's agreement not to enforce the 10 year exile to Saudi Arabia... thereby signing his own political death warrant.

It must also be noted that the history of negotiations with the militants in the tribal regions has produced more broken truces and failures than the joint military attempts.

Which brings us to today... Pakistan has basically elected an "Obama" impersonator... a prime minister who believes in talk over fighting. Mr. "let's talk" Obama, on the other hand, has just boxed himself into a foreign policy corner. His publicly laid out cowboy policy towards Pakistan, threatening to go in without their permission if he has "actionable intelligence", is not going to sit well with Gilani and the new power in Parliament.

Needless to say, this new and lesser approach by a perceived ally will present problems for either candidate landing in the Oval Office. McCain will face resistance for cooperative joint missions, formerly granted by Musharraf on the sly. And the presumed DNC nominee, Obama, is now on a direct collision course with Pakistan unless he starts furiously backpeddling.

These events will give new meaning to Joni Mitchell's lyrics, "Well, don't it always seem to go - That you don't know what you got till it's gone".... The media drove the US into a frenzy of hate against Musharraf.

Yet he shall be sorely missed when those chickens do indeed come home to roost.

From the "HUH?" files

IHT's Bernd Debusmann has one absurd article today, "Hypocrisy never makes for good foreign policy". It's mostly a story of Michael Scheurer, the former head of the "get Bin Laden" unit under Clinton, bemoaning the fact that US leaders - present and past - don't understand the "whys" of the Global Islamic Jihad Movement.

In his recently published book, "Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam after Iraq," Scheuer argues that the United States faces more trouble because its leaders refuse to recognize what drives terrorism.

President George W. Bush argues that terrorists "hate our freedoms, our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote." But polls show that the bedrock of support for militancy among the world's 1.3 billion Muslims is the detestation of U.S. foreign policies.

Scheuer faults U.S. leaders for failing to acknowledge the grievances that bin Laden laid out in precise detail, which were adopted by the followers he inspired. They were: the U.S. presence in the Arabian Peninsula; unqualified support for Israel; U.S. support for states oppressing Muslims, especially China, India and Russia; U.S. exploitation of Muslim oil; U.S. support and financing of authoritarian Arab regimes.

Were one to use Scheuer's route to peace, there would be no US embassies - nay, even a Mickey D's - present in the Middle East, we'd be cut off from Middle East oil supplies, and our trade with China and India would be no more. That's the price, right Scheurer? Just adopt Middle East isolationist policies in order to appease those miffed jihadists, and we're safe?

Well blow it out your ear, Bubba. No wonder we never got Bin Laden under Clinton, with bozos like this at the helm. And to think there was a moment in one article in the past where I thought he might make strategic sense??? Shame on me for that moment of gullibility.

But WAIT.. there's MOOOOOORE! Get this next excerpt.

Polls show that radicals - potential suicide bombers and hostage takers - and moderate Muslims are in favor of moving toward more democracy, a process stifled in many places by authoritarian rulers who enjoy the backing of the United States.

HUH???... try this quote from AP's Cairo division, Jan 12, 2005 on for size:

In a 33-page address last month, bin Laden, the Saudi-born millionaire-turned-terrorist, called for turning Iraq into an Islamic state that would eventually be part of a worldwide Islamic empire.

snip

Bin Laden's message also scoffed at plans for Iraqi elections, saying democracy was un-Islamic.

Just to show that OBL's not the lone wolf on the "democracy is un-Islamic" front:

From The Sidney Morning Herald's Iraqi rebels decree democracy is un-Islamic:

A statement, posted on the website of the Ansar al-Sunna group on Thursday and co-signed by the Islamic Army in Iraq and the Army of the Mujahideen, told Iraqis not to take part in "the farce of democracy and elections". It described democracy as "un-Islamic" and polling booths as "centres of atheism".

Or how about the more recent Dec 28th article in the Daily Times (Pakistan), quoting the Taliban leader (who asked not to be named) when battling JUI-F's Maulana Fazlur Rahman over boycotting the Pakistan elections:

BANNU: A senior Taliban leader warned parties on Thursday against “using religion for electoral gains”, saying they would join parties urging boycott of January 8 polls.

“In Shariah, democracy is un-Islamic. Our movement is completely against what you call democracy in which a small majority can decide irrespective of the fact whether what they have done was good or bad,” the Taliban leader, asking not to be named, told Daily Times in an interview here.

He said the Taliban were “against elements who are using Islam for electoral gains”.

For the definition-of-terrorist-challenged, it can be said that all Muslim jihadists (i.e. "radicals") are seeking implementation of Shariah/Islamic law.

Now let's revisit that inane statement... "the polls show radicals - - potential suicide bombers and hostage takers - and moderate Muslims are in favor of moving toward more democracy..."

Either one must admit the poll results are utterly worthless. Or that this author, or Scheuer... probably both... about dumber than dirt about the global jihad movement. You guys want believe the idiots who conducted that poll? Well, I got some swamp land to sell ya in Baghdad....

It depends on what the meaning of "if Musharraf won't act, we will" is..

It sure didn't take long for the Obama handlers to start their back peddling, spinning Obama's stated "cowboy policy" towards Pakistan as phantom words that never happened.

McCain, presumed GOP nominee, has started to whittle away at Obama's shining armor.

One day after Obama scored double-digit victories in Wisconsin and Hawaii in his drive toward the Democratic presidential nomination, McCain blasted him for advocating a bombing of Al Qaeda hide-outs in Pakistan. "The best idea is not to broadcast what you're going to do, that's naive," said McCain, who also questioned the very notion of "bombing Pakistan without their permission."

Obama camp response?

In a conference call with reporters to respond, Obama foreign policy advisor Susan Rice said that McCain was "misrepresenting and distorting Barack Obama's positions" and argued that the Democrat "never suggested bombing an ally."

"McCain promises more war in Iraq," she said. "Obama will end the war in Iraq and focus on terrorists in Afghanistan."

Really now? Let's see... Obama's promise of unilateral action in Pakistan is replicated all over the news. He's repeated the same promise of unilateral action in debates.

From his Aug 1st, 2007 speech, posted on his own website:

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

snip

Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal. As 9/11 showed us, the security of Afghanistan and America is shared. And today, that security is most threatened by the al Qaeda and Taliban sanctuary in the tribal regions of northwest Pakistan.

Al Qaeda terrorists train, travel, and maintain global communications in this safe-haven. The Taliban pursues a hit and run strategy, striking in Afghanistan, then skulking across the border to safety.

snip

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

Technically, the Obama campaign is correct. He did not use the word "bomb". But now, in this new era of "change", we instead find ourselves regressing to the 90s and the "it depends upon what the meaning of 'is'... is" mentality.

Or in this case, it all depends on what the meaning of "if Musharraf won't act, we will" means...

Just how would Obama act on "actionable intelligence" within Pakistan borders, sans their permission? Would it be predator bombing? Manned aircraft bombing? Boots on the ground?? "Acting" means doing something.

Or perhaps he'd have us believe he's going to have a bunch of diplomats sneak across the border to meet with Bin Laden for talks in secret as "action".

I believe what Obama meant was laid out clearly, just a paragraph or two later in the same speech.

I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America. This requires a broader set of capabilities, as outlined in the Army and Marine Corps's new counter-insurgency manual. I will ensure that our military becomes more stealth, agile, and lethal in its ability to capture or kill terrorists. We need to recruit, train, and equip our armed forces to better target terrorists, and to help foreign militaries to do the same. This must include a program to bolster our ability to speak different languages, understand different cultures, and coordinate complex missions with our civilian agencies.

Obviously Obama considers Bin Ladin a direct threat... one in which he would not hesitate to use military force. So putting two and two together, if Obama enter Pakistan to confront Bin Laden with actionable intelligence, then I for one don't need him to speak the word "bomb", "predator" or "troops" to know that he is talking military action. Only the greatest of fools would assume otherwise.

We went into Iraq to depose Saddam. Obama and ilk liberals like to say we "invaded" Iraq... which they prefer to "liberated" Iraq. They don't use "pro death", opposite of "pro life", for the abortion issue - another Obama serious flaw. They use "pro choice" to minimize the death of a fetus. It's a game of words, words and more words.

Apparently whoever comes up with the best words on the campaign trail is going to win over a duped, media herded electorate. And at this sitting, we have two attorneys and a career Senator/ex POW out there pounding the concrete for the POTUS. Look around. Only two of them, both DNC, are garnishing the majority of the broadcast airwaves. So take a wild guess - who do you think is better at the "words", and getting them spread out to the voting public?

To deny such word play, and mask Obama's stated Pakistan threats, is absurd. Yet the cult-like zombie following, mesmerized by vague promises of change and sweeping social programs because they so *want* to believe, will never figure it out. I, for one am bracing to have our nation and denizens learn lessons, unfortunately, the hard way. We will find no utopia, no squeaky clean pol in Obama. We will only find a naive, pacifist fool, fresh at the onset of his career politician path, who specializes in words.

Islamic jihadists hail Aussie withdrawal under Rudd a "victory"

Mata Musing: This all stems from Howard's election loss, and Rudd's ensuing Iraq military decisions as new Aussie PM. With a possible Dem in the WH come 2009, can another "victory" claim and yet more taunts from the Global Islamic Jihad Movement be far behind? With this new found "victory" mentality and confidence, can more assaults be on the horizon?

I think all of us recognize that, with this enemy, it's not if... but when. But if you are still a doubter, perhaps this Jan 25, 2008 interview with Pakistan Taliban leader, Baitullah Mehsud, may sober you up..

"We want to eradicate Britain and America, and to shatter the arrogance and tyranny of the infidels. We pray that Allah will enable us to destroy the White House, New York, and London. We place our trust in Allah. Soon, we will witness the miracles of jihad. I myself have experienced many miracles. Every time I was determined to do something, I prayed to Allah, and he made it possible. Our jihad is defensive jihad. Our determination is great, and it is directly entirely against Britain and America. The soldiers of heresy who have come here to oppress the Muslims - we will respond to their injustice and tyranny. One of the miracles of jihad will be that sooner or later, we will destroy their countries."

Just remember, voters... you gets what you asks for. I do believe that whomever wins the election - Dem or GOP - they are still "my" President. Because of this shared repercussion of an election, I pray voters are wise. For it's quite possible that our decision this fall - if not so wise - may cost the blood of many others in the determined quest for a one-sided peace.

Sean McCormack speaks the truth, as he did in an Oct 2007 press conference, when he reiterated (INRE the PPK) "you can't negotiate with a terrorist organization." Lest ye think this is partisan rhetoric, the proof lies in Pakistan's recent history. Ryan Crocker and Musharraf attempted to quell violence by negotiations and deals with Islamic jihadists in the tribal regions. Crocker, in an interview, himself admitted, "Well, I think what it showed is there are some people you simply cannot make deals with." (see also Frontline's PBS special, "The Return of the Taliban"). These are not the idle words of pols hoping to rack up votes and gain power. These are from those dealing with the enemy and our allies daily.

And you must also remember another fact - the Taliban are only another al Qaeda with a different patch on their jackets. A rose by any other name...

Translation of the gloating jihadists is provided in it's entirety below. Australia's Mark Schliebs responds (sorta) to the jihad website claims with this story.

.

'Fleeing like a cornered mouse'
January 31, 2008 12:00am

BELOW is the full statement from insurgent group the Jihad and Reform Front posted on a propaganda website on December 5, 2007, translated from Arabic for NEWS.com.au.

The political office of The Conquerors’ Army:

Australia – a new ally fleeing like a cornered mouse

In the name of God All-Merciful, All-Compassionate

“They will not fight against you all together unless it is in fortified villages or behind walls, their valour is great among themselves; you think them whole, but their hearts are scattered because they are an irrational people”. (The Mustering: 14)

Praise God the guide of clouds, revealer of the book and defeater of parties, prayers and peace to the maternal Prophet, to kin and friends, to beloved followers and to those who follow them and walk their path to judgment day.

Now then: -

Despite the deception of their Christian enemies, their allies and spiteful agents the Moslem fighters are going from victory to victory and from strength to strength. This is confirmation of the saying of His Majesty: “Those who struggle in Our cause will be guided with Our ways for God is with the benevolent”. (The Spider: 69). It is upon the Moslem fighter to be truthful, sincere in conscience and to present his work and effort, but victory is from the Lord the Custodian and Victor.

Hence when the cross and its allied corroborators exercise their muscles while a series of collapses of its allies and their withdrawals around the Americans continue these will be the result of painful blows to the Christians at the hands Moslem fighters.

It was not but, almost, yesterday when some allies withdrew and today we see the withdrawal of another Christian ally leaving the Americans drowning alone in this swamp. God willing this ally is Australia, and despite the few numbers of soldiers that this country has in the Christian Alliance its withdrawal will be considered an achievement and victory to be added to the numerous victories of the Moslem fighters, praise God. This is proof of the collapse of the alliance through the kindness of God, the Majesty, and the powerful arms of those heroes who lost their blood and money for God their Lord to please Him, the Almighty.

It is proof that the Moslem fighters have walked the right path to victory and empowerment, God permitting, and toward removing the occupier whomever he be from all Moslem lands and toward establishing rational leadership, God permitting, as our beloved and Imam had promised it will be - rational in the way of the prophets. We look forward to that day and are certain of it with every conviction and ask God Almighty that that day will return our people to glory and victory and that the rule in the land will return to God’s law. This is what we ultimately hope for and seek to achieve and will achieve, God willing, through ourselves sooner, or our sons later.

On this occasion we call on all Moslem fighters from all factions working on the land in beloved Iraq to always, in keeping with their undertaking to Moslem kin, to be as one, rather to be as one hand with their like, to crown these ensuing victories by declaring the unification of all the factions of Moslem fighters in Iraq under one title, and one authority, for they are of one goal, one objective and one religion and every faction is the more aware of its steps and struggles.

We say to them that the eyes of Moslems, their hopes in the Islamic world, after that of God Almighty, are all pinned on you and on your unity. So bring happiness into the hearts of Moslems in the Islamic world through your unification and work towards it as you have had before with your painful blows to the cross and its agents. Do so with your blessed steps towards unification between the factions and formation of fronts, we are pulling your arms and imploring you for further of these steps toward achieving full unification between all factions and fronts. Our path will be opposite to that of the cross and its allies so that the scales will balance in our favour, for we are marching towards unification, towards rallying together and our enemies are marching towards being torn, disbanded, and the successive collapse of the allies.

Thus we will achieve victory after God Almighty grants us success. For, the whole matter is with God as already revealed, but it is up to us to endeavour and to trust in him, the Almighty. In fact, Moslems have not been victorious in the past through the multitude of their numbers nor their disunity, but through unity and trust in their God and this is God’s law for his creatures, and there is no substitution for God’s law. We have every confidence in your honesty, and sincerity to your religion, so come forth with us to pay homage to our Prophet - God’s blessing and peace be upon Him. Thereby we will say to Him as His companions in the troop assault (the trenches) had said: “we are those who have paid homage to Muhammad through Moslem fighting so that we may remain eternal.”

In concluding we ask God the Powerful and Holy to unite the ranks of Moslem fighters in Iraq, in particular and around the globe in general, to protect us from all forms of temptation, and to accept what we have presented, will present and what we achieve in action and sacrifice for His sake that He might add them to our balance of good deeds. The last of our evocation is to the Glory of God who has guided us to this and made enabled us to be guided but not without His guidance. God strengthen you against the Christians, those who supported them, tormented them (sic), scattered their hearts and ranks (sic) and showed us in them your power He is All-hearing, All-responsive.

- The Jihad and Reform Front

al Qaeda... Dangerous defining of the enemy

I find it fascinating how most view every one's favorite "bad guy", al Qaeda. Were I to believe the media, our only problem is Bin Laden and Zawahiri. No one else is the enemy of the west.

Example? When it comes to Benazir's death, it appears there is some sort of a drive to pin it solely on al Qaeda, as if for some reason that magically absolves neo-Taliban leader, Baitullah Mehsud.

This insistence to disassociate these two (INRE Bhutto's death) exposes a larger problem, IMHO. That being the void of understanding of just who and what al Qaeda is, how they operate, and why it is inherently dangerous to attribute every terrorist event vaguely to "al Qaeda".

Just as al Qaeda (or al Qaida) means "the base", it must also be recognized that it is not a single terror group, but an umbrella group. To use an American analogy, al Qaeda can best be defined as an "association" (think AMA, ADA, AARP, etal). Just as the AMA has figureheads and full time employees for the association, al Qaeda has their "association" leaders, Bin Laden and Zawahiri.

Also like American associations, Al Qaeda associate member groups combine *their* individual resources, intel and manpower to cooperate in shared goals - in this case, the various theatres of jihad.

Intellnet.org describes al Qaeda as "a multi-national support group which funds and orchestrates the activities of Islamic militants worldwide."

Back to the AMA (American Medical Assn) analogy. The AMA, like any association, is made up of many member groups. Can the AMA accomplish any of it's particular agenda without the aid of the member groups and their resources? Of course not. Can any of the individual member groups act individually, and not under the banner of the AMA? Of course.

Bringing this same logic to Bhutto's assassination, could Baitullah Mehsud have done this on his own, under the Taliban banner, and not under any "association" with al Qaeda? Yes. But considering the PPP's stance that they would have worked with the MMA/JUI's Maulana Fazlur Rehman on seat adjustment if Benazir was elected, an assassination by Mehsud's Taliban, and hindering the prospect of placing Pakistan under Islamic law via legal means, probably wouldn't have gone over well. Tho Mehsud wanted Benazir dead, it was not necessarily to his benefit to take the credit.

On the other hand, could Mehsud's forces been the supplier of intel, manpower and other logistics for al Qaeda's assassination designs on Bhutto? Absolutely. Nor would it go against Mehsud's plan as he is on record with previous assassination attempts, and his continued desire to kill Benazir. It would be, in fact, a win-win for Mehsud to accomplish his goal to assassinate Benazir, yet let al Qaeda take the rap. Yet they are, for all intents and purposes, one and the same.

All of this goes back to how AQ works... a co-op of like minded militants pooling resources to accomplish a goal. As GlobalSecurity.org's profile states near the end:

Some terror experts theorize that Al-Qaeda, after the loss of it Afghanistan base, may be increasingly reliant on sympathetic affiliates to carry out it's agenda.

If Baitullah Mehsud did supply the physical logistics for AQ's assassination plan, does this also mean we should give Mehsud and his Taliban 'member group associate status' a pass, and only attribute this to al Qaeda? Again using the AMA analogy, this is akin to blaming AMA lobbyists who succeed in getting hotly contested legislation passed that primarily benefits the Women Physicians Congress, yet not holding the WPC liable for their own contribution.

I can hear you now... what's your point, Mata? Well, it's this. We are falling into a label trap - i.e. just focusing our battlefields on those engaged with the labeled "al Qaeda". This narrow definition of the enemy to be pursued proves dangerous when defining our enemies, and most especially, our foreign policy.

Example? Take this nation's attitudes towards the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It was AOK in every one's book to go after al Qaeda in Afghanistan after 911.... even tho what we really did was go after their hosts, the Taliban, instead.

But our Congress felt it was *not* okay to battle those same al Qaeda "umbrella" elements that existed and operated under Saddam's (and the UN's OFF) convenient "blind eye" in Iraq... a country ripe with natural resources (oil and fresh water) and possessing the technology and money to produce bio-weaponry and nuke weaponry. Why? Quite simply because the Iraq umbrella elements didn't label themselves "al Qaeda", and thereby warranted no attention from the US Congress. (i.e. the most well known Iraqi AQ "associate member", Zarqawi).

al Qaeda member groups don't sign contracts, issue press releases or pay dues to be "a member" of this umbrella. While still conducting their own individual local events, they also happily throw in their resources to a shared goal with al Qaeda when approached - thereby joining the association membership without fanfare.

So my point? When we get too specific about labels, we only go after figure heads of the "association", and ignore the lifeblood of the organization - member groups. Lopping off the heads, so to speak, may cause some temporary chaos in the association. But it will continue none the less. And ignoring the very foundation of al Qaeda - their associate members - is no way to fight the global Islamic jihad movement.

Al Qaeda on the ropes in Pakistan

Ray Robison's latest analysis of the "civil war" between the bad guys in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Interesting to know the high risks he points out, and the way he thinks the Musharraf government will go.... that is if Musharraf doesn't get a hair up his tail and resign.

Musharraf threatening to resign?

An obviously frustrated Musharraf lashed out against accusations of voter fraud, and being labeled as the reason PML-N's Sharif was disqualified as a candidate. But, as reported in the Daily Times article, the most stunning comment was Musharraf's vow to resign if the newly elected government moved to impeach him.

Not wanting to believe it from one source, I also checked DAWN today... and it was again mentioned, as well as a few other issues Musharraf wanted to get off his chest.

INRE Musharraf impeachment, an action the PPP threatened as far back as Dec 17th, Musharraf had these comments:

Musharraf also said he would resign if a government that emerged from elections, now scheduled for next month, sought his impeachment.

snip

“If impeachment were their intention and they don't want to go along in a harmonious manner, I would like to quit the scene,” Musharraf said when asked what would happen if Pakistan People’s Party emerged a winner in the elections and mounted a bid to oust him with the support of Sharif's party. “If that happens, let me assure you that I would be leaving office before they would do anything.”

This is not only less than desirable news for the west, I have to question the wisdom of his statement. If they want Musharraf gone, they only have to wave the impeachment flag, and he's out the door. This is a sign of one tired leader. Unfortunately, turning the mantle over begs the question... who will the world inherit in his stead? Benazir's PPP leadership has proven to be even more corrupt, and even less devoted to cleaning out the militants in their midst.

On the other issues, I have previously posted about the dangerous "cowboy policy" advocated by all the leading Dem candidates INRE Pakistan. Musharraf had a few choice words for the Dem candidates as a whole.

President Musharraf said any unilateral action by U.S.-led coalition forces against militants in Pakistan will be regarded as an invasion, Singapore's The Straits Times reported Friday. He said Islamabad will resist any entry by coalition forces in the tribal areas to hunt down militants, regarding that as a breach of Pakistan's sovereignty. “I challenge anybody coming into our mountains. They would regret the day,” he told the newspaper in an interview conducted in Rawalpindi.

To Hillary in particular, INRE her chutzpah in suggesting that Pakistan should share control over their nuke arsenal with the US and Britain:

He criticised Hillary Clinton's proposal to deploy a U.S., and possibly a British, team to safeguard Pakistan's nuclear assets. Her statement, Musharraf said, was an “intrusion into our privacy, into our sensitivity ... She doesn't seem to understand how well-guarded these assets are.”

Per The National Terror Alert Response Center's article, Dec 30th, 2007, the US is already prepared to step in... if needed... to help safeguard Pak's nuke arsenal (HT to Ray Robison).

There are reports that U.S. special forces snatch squads are on standby, awaiting orders to seize or disable Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal in the event of a collapse of government authority or the outbreak of civil war in Pakistan.

The snatch teams, including volunteer scientists from America’s Nuclear Emergency Search Team organization, are under orders to take control of an estimated 60 warheads located in six to 10 high-security Pakistani military bases.

Military sources say contingency plans are being continually being reviewed and re-evaluated to prevent any of Pakistan’s atomic weapons falling into the hands of Islamic extremists if President Pervez Musharraf’s administration appears threatened by civil unrest.

Whether this plan is in place with Musharraf's blessings is a moot point. If the Musharraf govt is threatened by any sort of coup, his blessings would hardly be needed, as his power would be diminished to the point of no influence.

Yet for one proclaiming to be the "experienced" candidate, Hillary's lack of knowledge of this contingency plan, and her utter lack of diplomacy by publicly slapping Musharraf in the face by suggesting Pakistan is incapable of safeguarding their own arsenal, demonstrates again the dishonesty of her candidacy and the question of her ability to be the leader of the free world. That she and other Dems should advocate this "cowboy policy" toward a fragile ally, yet criticize Bush, is the height of hypocrisy.

To compound an already disingenuous "hand of friendship" with an ally, Harry Reid writes yet another infamous letter... this time to Bush... "demanding" that the US should make any Pakistani aid dollars conditional on Musharraf restoring "freedom of the press and of association, free all political prisoners detained during the crackdown, reinstate judges dismissed in November, and support a UN investigation into Bhutto’s death." Not only is it offensive to hear a US Congressman dictate mandates to a foreign ally, one has to wonder why he'd prefer the proven corrupt UN over Scotland Yard....

All this, predictably, went over like a lead balloon.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mohammad Sadiq said conditions should not be put on the “very important” relationship between the two countries.

“We believe that any conditionalities attached to this relationship, or assistance, is not beneficial,” Sadiq said.

“In Pakistan, decisions won’t be taken because somebody demands them. They’ll be taken according to our own laws and the conditions in this country,” he added.

Musharraf had his own, to the point response to Dingy Harry.

"Over the last 6 years, we have received a total of around $9 billion. More than half for fighting terrorism ... If the Americans don't want to pay any more, they should ask other people to help them. But the fight against terrorism would suffer," Musharraf said.

With US "allies" like the DNC, who the heck needs enemies?

I'll wager a guess that Musharraf is looking over the US POTUS selection himself, and not seeing anyone the calibre of Bush with which to ally in the coming terms. And should he not only have to deal with the next "intrusive" US President, but an uncooperative coalition in his own government, he's more than willing to throw in the towel and let the burden of stability and the war with militant lie on other - most likely less adept - shoulders.

Local tribesmen turn on Baitullah Pakistan a'fire with battles against militants

I see that Lt. Col. Caveman and I hit upon the same DAWN article this AM, and he's pretty much said what crossed my mind.... That the attempt of a hostile takeover of the Taliban isn't doing much to win "hearts and minds" of fellow Islamic law tribesmen, and instead creating yet another crack in the armor of the jihad movement. Visit his Ramblings from the Rock and check out his thoughtful overview.

In response to the assassination of eight tribal leaders last week - attributed to Baitullah Mehsud - a jirga... a Grand Council... of "tribesmen from every household belonging to the Wazir tribe was called to come to Wana with arms to prepare for action." In short, they are mad, and not going to take it anymore. Baitullah Mehsud has made himself even more local enemies at a time when he's also currently under siege from the Pak military.

Lt. Col. Caveman, just as Ray Robison has been noting, sees this all as good news. Yet another rift between the Islamic jihad movement resulting in the bad guys fighting the bad guys. And I couldn't agree more.

Despite US candidates mis'accusations of Musharraf's complacency in tamping down the militants - all emanating from the safety of their campaign buses and jets - Pakistan is a'fire with skirmishes. The Pak army is engaging Mehsud in S. Waziristan with warplanes and heavy artillery, and Mullah Fazlullah in NWFP. The Daily Times reports today that the Frontier Constabulary (federal paramilitary group) launched a major operation against local Taliban in Mohmand Agency.

On the other side of the country, Lahore has been hitting the news with today's suicide bombing on the heels of arrests of two high profile terrorists... OBL's Black Guard security coordinator, Dr. Amin al Haq, and Ahsan al Haq, an AQ suicide cell leader.


It's Pak boots on the ground - as it should be. Despite the NYT's non-news of WH discussing options with advisers, the US has no intentions of adding our boys and girls to the fray in Pakistan.

Yet those in Pakistan do not know how our US hierarchy works. They listen to Congress members and Dem Presidential wannabee spew their "cowboy policy" - never realizing that it is the Commander in Chief who controls these decisions. So, until Jan 2009, it's unlikely Pakistan can expect unwelcomed "help".

“Right now we do not plan or really have any vision for operations with our forces into the Fata or into Pakistan,” Brig-Gen Votel told a teleconference at the Pentagon. “That’s a sovereign country; that’s their responsibility to deal with.”

As a senior commander in the field, Gen Votel has direct access to day-to-day military operations in Afghanistan but his statement contradicts those of other officials in Washington who are often quoted in the US media as saying that the United States will send troops into Pakistan if it has “actionable intelligence” about the presence of Al Qaeda or Taliban militants inside the country.

It also has become a major issue in the 2008 presidential race. At least half a dozen key contenders for the 2008 presidential race have said that if elected they would not hesitate to send troops into Pakistan to conduct anti-terrorism operations.

Brig-Gen Votel, however, painted a totally different picture of joint military operations along the Pak-Afghan border. “I would assess our relationship, both from a US standpoint and from an ISAF-Nato standpoint here in our portion of Afghanistan with the Pakistan military and with the Frontier Corps, to be very, very good,” he said.

Nothing can be more striking in contrast. Those that accuse Bush of arrogant aggression are, themselves, guilty of the charge. Under this WH, Pakistan's sovereignty remains their own responsibility. One can only hope the next CIC will continue this wise policy.