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.

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.

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.

"Change" promises new & bigger "cowboy" policy Candidates "swagger" on Pakistan

That word "change" has been bandied about by all wannabee CIC's... regardless of party. At this point, the media has provided the majority of coverage to the Democratic primary. Perhaps because it offers more entertainment value with a black and a woman running for the WH. Or, more likely, because the media is pushing for a Dem victory.

What is decidedly vague is just what "change" is being proposed... save in one arena. Foreign policy.

After Benazir's assassination, a WaPo editorial graded the wannabees' response as both aisles rushed to the front line to appear "Presidential".

THE ASSASSINATION of Benazir Bhutto presented U.S. presidential candidates with a test: Could they respond cogently and clearly to a sudden foreign policy crisis? Within hours some revealing results were in. One candidate, Democrat John Edwards, passed with flying colors. Another, Republican Mike Huckabee, flunked abysmally. Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican John McCain were serious and substantive; Republicans Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani were thin. And Barack Obama -- the Democratic candidate who claims to represent a new, more elevated brand of politics -- committed an ugly foul.

Read above link in full for specifics. But overall, what was demonstrated by most is a picture of the typical arrogant pol, consumed not only with looking good on the campaign trail, but exposing their complete ignorance of middle east history and their unique challenges. Huckabee - currently the media GOP darling - was downright embarrassing on his lack of current events.

Following the Benazir assassination photo op came the round robin of Dem wannabees, assuring the voting public they are still out to get Bin Laden... at any price. And that includes putting unwelcome US boots on the ground in Pakistan.

Washington: In a tough message to Pakistan, leading Democrat Presidential hopefuls on Sunday supported pursuing al Qaeda militants in the troubled country even without Islamabad's permission if the US had "actionable intelligence".

Mr. Popular, and the first to promise "change" is Obama.

Back in August, 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."

The problem with Obama is that we'd all like him to be as good as he says he is. But the San Diego Union Register's Robert Caldwell had an interesting column on Jan 6th, Obama in Perspective, exposing the gap between Obama's words/promises and actual record. It appears the young rock star pol not only vacillates, but has a distinct knack of avoiding votes on the tough issues. It should concern the American voter as to why.

Obama is still the presidential contender with a one-page resume. The Illinois state legislature and half of one term in the U.S. Senate is scant preparation to be president of the United States. In his brief Senate tenure, Obama has no legislative accomplishments, mainly because for most of that short time he's been running for president.

snip

Foreign policy and national security are a president's top responsibilities, especially in time of war. Obama is devoid of experience in either field. His gaffes – threatening to invade Pakistan, offering prompt negotiations with anti-American despots – bespeak his amateur standing on matters vital to the safety and security of the American people.

Obama's inconsistency on Iraq is amply documented. He's been alternately for and against withholding funding for the troops, for and against setting timelines for withdrawal, and for and against a quick retreat from Iraq.

Whatever one's views on Iraq strategy and homefront support, these vacillations on a war in progress don't inspire confidence; in Obama's judgment, his grasp of Iraq realities and his constancy of purpose. Whatever this is, it isn't leadership.

snip

Obama's record also raises another disturbing matter – his penchant for ducking tough issues. In the Illinois Legislature, Obama compiled a record of voting “present” on controversial and politically explosive bills. However politically convenient, this isn't leadership. Obama's three years in the U.S. Senate are similarly devoid of any leadership examples on legislation of consequence.

Jointly, all three Democrat candidates (Clinton, Obama, Edwards) have voiced - in their own ways - a unilateral strike strike if Bin Laden could be pinpointed, or there were evidence of an "imminent strike" (liberal translation = nothing short of a smoking gun). Hillary, adept in the two-step, forked tongue Clintonesque approach, answered more cautiously. A savvy that speaks to the advantage of co-habitation in the WH.

However, Hillary did strike a word of caution saying any actionable intelligence that would lead to a strike inside Pakistan's territory must be given the "most careful consideration" and pointed to military tension between India and Pakistan.

Then, alluding to the oft-referred to "co-presidency" with the word "WE"...

"We did take action similar to what has been described about 10 years ago, based on what was thought to be actionable intelligence, sending in missiles to try to target bin Laden and his top leadership who were thought to be at a certain meeting place. They were not taken out at the time," Hillary said in a Democratic debate in New Hampshire ahead of the critical primary in that state on Tuesday.

"So we have to be very conscious of all the consequences," she warned.

Any points she scored with stepping cautiously INRE US boots in Pakistan was pretty well nullified a few days ago in Manchester when she proposed that the US and Britain should babysit Pak's nuke arsenal.

“So far as we know right now, the nuclear technology is considered secure, but there isn’t any guarantee, especially given the political turmoil going on inside Pakistan,” Clinton said during a Democratic debate here.

If elected president, the US senator said, “I would try to get (Pakistan President Pervez) Musharraf to share the security responsibility of the nuclear weapons with a delegation from the United States and, perhaps, Great Britain, so that there is some fail-safe.”

Richardson had the chutzpah to suggest Musharraf depose himself. Thank heavens he's far down in pecking order.

What with all the bru-ha-ha on Pakistan, and every candidate weighing in multiple times daily on all MSM, just how does Pakistan feel about being a foreign policy issue?

Incensed. And with ample reason. The NYT's broke a story about WH strategy discussions that included options of extended covert ops in Pakistan. While it's the responsibility for a CIC to have plans for *any* (even if unused) contingency, discussion is hardly a definitive action. But just hearing that the mere discussion has taken place ... and from the media and not the WH officials... had Pakistan in an uproar.

Needless to say, the loose lips of candidates freely dictating to Pakistan their militant intents, and Bush's discussion options, have been the focus of a few Pakistani editorials. Some dissing not only Bush's "naivety" for merely discussing escalated covert ops and criticizing how the Afghan/Iraq wars were waged, but slapping the wannabees pretty hard as well.

AMERICAN threats to intervene in Pakistan militarily have become a routine affair. This time, however, the threat has come after some gap and has evoked the usual response by the Foreign Office spokesman. Islamabad, he said, would not allow America to intervene militarily in Pakistan, because fighting terrorism in Fata and elsewhere was the government’s responsibility. One does not know who to pick up first for some plain speaking. The naivety being show by the Bush administration is amazing. Its stand suffers from a fundamental flaw: it wants quick results without having a full grasp of the intricacies of the situation. This is not a job that can be done in a hurry. The Taliban represent a movement which has existed in Afghanistan and Pakistan for decades. Its military and ideological roots lie in the anti-Soviet resistance movement which was armed and funded by the US. In the wake of the Soviet withdrawal, Washington washed its hands of the Afghan imbroglio. This enabled the ISI to fill the gap and use the Taliban for its own purposes.

Another DAWN article by Amjad Mahmood calls the candidates (and media) "irresponsible".

LAHORE, Jan 7: Opposing any action by foreign troops on Pakistani soil, the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) has urged foreign countries to desist from making “irresponsible” statements about Islamabad’s nuclear programme as it was well-protected.

Briefing the media after a meeting of the central working committee of the PML-N here on Monday, party patron Nawaz Sharif reiterated its offer of calling on President Musharraf for steering the country out of the crisis it is in provided the latter sought no public office in the future setup.

He said the working committee expressed its serious concern at reports of proposed foreign military action inside Pakistani territory, and vowed to safeguard sovereignty of the country against any such transgression.

He also urged foreign countries to desist from making reckless statements about Islamabad’s nuclear programme, saying the country had a strong command and control system in place for the safety of its nuclear assets.

Herein lies a reality check that I'm sure goes over the head of most misinformed American voters. Before Bush was the "devil or Satan" incarnate, Clinton held that title (see, among others, the 1998 World Islamic Front Statement). And when Bush leaves office, the next CIC will be the next Satan/devil... or perhaps devil'ess. The only way to avoid that would be the foolish move to pull all US interests - from military installation to embassies - out of all lands desired by the jihad movement to be governed by Islamic law.

While Pakistan's population has battles within over national Islamic law, the differing parties can unite on one issue... and that is an anger over America's promises to increase meddling in their affairs.

The reckless statements of the candidates prove that our next president (most assuredly if a Dem) are starting their candidacy with a lie upfront. On one hand they assure us they intend to "mend" int'l relations and start a more hands off policy for military action - on the other, they promise to be even more "cowboy" than their accusations of the Bush policy.

And they expect us to be just stupid enough not to notice the difference.

Split in Pakistan's MMA alliances

Had to wonder when the Maulana Fazlur Rahman of the MMA Pak coalition would speak up.

And here he is... reiterating much what any Islamic law advocate does.

BANNU, Jan, 5: The chief of his own faction of the Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam, Maulana Fazlur Rehman has alleged that rulers are trying to create a war-like situation in Waziristan, Swat and other parts of the county to please their American masters.

Speaking at a public meeting at the sports complex on Saturday, the JUI leader said that the reports of attacks on him were just rumours spread by the government’s quarters to create panic.

Maulana Fazl said that the United States and its European allies had imposed an undeclared war on the ummah. He said at this critical time when the whole world was afraid of America’s material strength, only the ulema had accepted the challenge.

He said western powers were trying to defame Islam by launching propaganda against it and Muslims were being portrayed as terrorists. But, he said, the five-year tenure of the religious parties’ government in the NWFP had proved that Muslims were peace loving and did not believe in terrorism.

snip

He said the MMA had raised its voice in parliament against the passage of what he called ‘un-Islamic laws’ such as women rights bill and changes in curricula.

snip

The JUI leader called upon people to come forward and join the camp of the ulema to steer the country out of the crisis.

This appears to be a half-hearted attempt by the Maulana to sound engaged on Baitullah Mehsud's behalf, as Mehsud was under siege this past week by warplanes. I use the phrase, "sound engaged" as my mind wanders back to Ray Robison's analyses, "The War on Terror Comes to Pakistan".

Musharraf, though certainly stepping on a lot of toes with his emergency declaration, has used this time to redeploy his forces, which were stagnant on the border with India, into combat. For the first time, he is sending large scale maneuver forces backed by artillery, tanks, and air support into regions controlled by al Qaeda and the sympathetic Taliban. His forces have reportedly driven the Taliban and al Qaeda forces of Maulana Fazlullah into the hills. The Pakistani military has even followed these terrorists into the administered areas which Musharraf effectively turned over to the Taliban over a year ago.

There are indications that Fazlullah himself had no real interest in an armed takeover of the Swat valley, where the bulk of the fighting has been located. It appears very much like he was driven to it by al Qaeda forces coming in from the tribal areas and imposing their will on the "young Taliban" to take more land in Pakistan.

This is an indication that al Qaeda is desperate, has redirected forces once meant for Iraq and is willing to crush the same people who have hosted them in Pakistan. In effect, they are doing the same thing in Pakistan that led to their defeat in Iraq. Only this time, they have no other strong support base to fall back to if they lose the Pakistan tribal regions.

The most critical indicator is that the MMA, the extremely militant Islamic party that opposes Musharraf, has remained mute as the army has slaughtered its Taliban and al Qaeda brethren. Did no one in the media notice this? Not one journalist noticed that the jihad block of the Pakistan government was silent about the slaughter of the Taliban in Swat? And they call President Bush "incurious"?

MMA's JUI emir, Maulana Fazlur Rahman, is speaking up now... no longer silent. But still lifts nary a digit to physically aid his brethern in arms. Instead, he's doing a stump speech, lobbying for votes and attempting to unite the religious based parties in order to gain power to instill Islamic laws. The JUI party of the MMA was not in support of boycotting the upcoming elections, seeing a weakened Musharraf as a window of opportunity. This attitude, however, is not shared by the majority of the MMA coalition groups.

The Maulana Fazl (alt sp) is no newcomer to Pakistan politics. It was under Benazir's previous PM terms that he created the Taliban at her request with Mullah Omar. That relationship, according to Pak's Daily Times, still remained intact even before her recent death.

Questioning the logic of the APDM decision, the Maulana said it should first gauge public response to the decision. Otherwise, they would find themselves alone after the start of the process, he warned the alliance.

He said that he had talked with PPP chairperson Benazir Bhutto on telephone and there was a possibility of seat adjustments with her party.

The JUI would be breaking against the tide of five other MMA coalition parties by not boycotting. Again, this leads to (viable?) rumours of dissention among the leadership of the strict Islamic movement in Pakistan, and documented supporters of AQ in the past.

In case the MMA breaks up, JUI (F) will suffer the most in elections, particularly in the NWFP, where it had won maximum seats in 2002 because of the electoral alliance with other religious parties, especially the Jamaat-i-Islami.

“If other parties in the coalition don’t go by Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s decision to contest the election, and the alliance breaks up because of differences, we’ll not repent our policy,” the MMA leader told Dawn.

Interestingly, chief of another faction of JUI, Maulana Samiul Haq, also dissociated himself from the boycott call.

About the APDM’s demand for restoration of Supreme Court to its pre-Nov 3 position, Maulana Fazal said: “We support the independence of judiciary and not restoration of judges. The sacked judges, including the Supreme Court Chief Justice, had taken oath under PCO. The present lot has also done the same.”

With powerhouse Maulana Fazl bucking his MMA buds, turning a blind eye to the siege on Baitullah, it's apparent he's banking on an election victory. And considering the Maulana's stance on the judges and oaths, mentioned above - one that mirrors Musharraf's - one has to wonder if, as Robison suggested, there is some behind the scenes' agreement with the elected President?

Mehsud spokemen says it ain't me, babe...

Per the ChannelNews Asia story today, Alleged Al-Qaeda official Mehsud denies killing Bhutto: spokesman, Baitullah Mehsud's press mouthpieces are busy denying any involvement in the incident involving Benazir's death.

"He had no involvement in this attack," spokesman Maulana Omar said in a telephone call. "This is a conspiracy of the government, army and intelligence agencies."

snip

"It is against tribal tradition and custom to attack a woman," Omar said.

He said the transcript released by the government, allegedly of a phone call between Mehsud and a militant discussing Bhutto's death after the fact, was a "drama" and expressed sadness over her assassination on Thursday.

He said it would have been "impossible" for militants to get through the security cordon around the campaign rally where she was killed.

"Benazir was not only a leader of Pakistan but also a leader of international fame. We express our deep grief and shock over her death," Omar said.

Not guilty for "tradition" of not targeting women? There is evidence supporting that "tradition". Baitullah and his previous ally, Qari Hussain Ahmad, went to battle for control last summer over disagreements with Ahmad's brutal methods and excessive killing of women and children. Baitullah was not at all pleased, and neither was Afghan Taliban spiritual leader, Mullah Omar.

The internal battles between these Taliban elements exposed what Ray Robison has been repeating for months now... that the global Islamic Jihad movement is splitting at it's base. These summer battles were part of a larger inter-Taliban family war.

But would this "tradition" of hands-off women extend to Benazir? Only this October, Baitullah had this to say of both Musharraf and Benazir. From one of Bill Roggio's stories at the LongWarJournal:

"My men will welcome Bhutto on her return," Baitullah told a Senator. "We don’t accept President General Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto because they only protect the US interest and see things through its glasses. They’re only acceptable if they wear the Pakistani glasses."

It is also noted that he had publicly made threats on Bhutto's life, even before she returned and, according to Anthony Bruno at CrimeLibrary, instructed AQ operatives to kill Benazir in Karachi. Perhaps he spoke more clearly of his methods with his January statement, "As far as jihad is concerned, we will continue to wage it. We will do what is in the interest of Islam.". And that may very well involve murder of a female politician, publicly advocating western notions.

Also a released transcript of the conversations between Mehsud and one referred to as Maulvi Sahib (which, translated I believe means Mr. Cleric) seems to indicate Baitullah doth protest too much... Transcript, courtesy and HT to Lt. Col. Caveman at Ramblings from the Rock.

Maulvi Sahib (MS): Asalaam Aleikum (Peace be with you)
Baitullah Mehsud (BM): Waleikum Asalam (And also with you)
MS: Chief, how are you?
BM: I am fine.
MS: Congratulations, I just got back during the night.
BM: Congratulations to you, were they our men?
MS: Yes they were ours.
BM: Who were they?
MS: There was Saeed, there was Bilal from Badar and Ikramullah.
BM: The three of them did it?
MS: Ikramullah and Bilal did it.
BM: Then congratulations.
MS: Where are you? I want to meet you.
BM: I am at Makeen (town in South Waziristan tribal region), come over, I am at Anwar Shah's house.
MS: OK, I'll come.
BM: Don't inform their house for the time being.
MS: OK.
BM: It was a tremendous effort. They were really brave boys who killed her.
MS: Mashallah (Thank God). When I come I will give you all the details.
BM: I will wait for you. Congratulations, once again congratulations.
MS: Congratulations to you.
BM: Anything I can do for you?
MS: Thank you very much.
BM: Asalaam Aleikum.
MS: Waaleikum Asalaam.

"Yes, they were ours..." Speaks volumes to the involvement.

So what is this consistent and deliberate attempt by both media and some members of the Pakistan ministry to portray Taliban tribal leader Mehsud as AQ instead of mentioning his newly created position as head of Pakistan Taliban (aka Tehrik Taliban-i-Pakistan)? And why would Baitullah and the Taliban not wish to take credit for a successful mission? For despite Benazir's actual cause of death, the events - if meant to take her life - were ultimately successful.

My only guess at this time is if Baitullah and the Taliban claim responsibility, they invite more of what Musharraf is already doing... running thru the tribal areas with heavy military to clean house... all while their former allies, MMA militants, stand idly by. Obviously the tribal belt and Taliban cannot afford any more rifts and divides. Throwing all of Pakistan into chaos offers them no benefit, and instead makes them the target of their own countrymen.

However, AQ... everyone's favorite "catch all" terror group... can always benefit from even false claims of responsibility, and any ensuing chaos. So it's entirely possible that Baitullah gave the orders to kill, and planned never to take credit for the event but remain sheltered from condemnation under the AQ umbrella of confession.

Lt. Col. Caveman has a very interesting perspective on Pakistan's behind the scenes path. He suggests Musharraf needs and desires a PPP (Benazir's party) PM. What I find especially interesting is the second to last paragraph. Her death was quite inconvenient to the election/power-sharing plans. But the vengeful nature of Pakistanis against a perceived AQ plot (not necessarily Taliban) for her murder may provide the popular support Musharraf needs to widen the fight not only the tribal Taliban, but to AQ in total.

Getting the election over and done with and getting a PPP Prime Minister into power to establish a popularly elected coalition against Al Qaeda and the foreign Taliban is crucial to Musharraf if he is to begin using US assistance to bring the war to Al Qaeda in the FATA region.

His Army can prevent any infiltration of insurgents out of the FATA region and American high tech UAVs and airpower can systematically destroy Al Qaaeda/foreign Taliban safe havens all in the name of retribution and vengence for Bhutto's assassination.

The end result is this buys Musharraf a few more years until subsequent elections where he and the PPP will have to answer to the people again. If successful, his popularity will increase as will the PPP's, Al Qaeda and foreign Taliban will be significanlty degraded if not defeated, and Pakistan will once again be united, moving forward with economic projects to enhance his country's wealth to include several oil pipelines, here and here the recently completed (and soon to be enhanced) port in Gwadar to bring these oil supplies and other goods to the Arabian Sea and to the international market.

Noting the route of both of these pipelines, especially the one from the Caspian Sea, it is critical to the future prosperity of Pakistan to assist Afghanistan in it battle against the Taliban. However, until Bhutto's assassination, he has not had the popular support to wage full up war against Al Qaeda.

Her assassination and the upcoming January elections may change all that. One can only hope that Pakistan can go forward with US assistance in a battle against Al Qaeda as the FATA region is Al Qaeda's current unassailable base from which it continues its campaign of exporting terror and economic depression, not only in Pakistan, but also in Afghanistan and to the rest of the world.

I like the way this guy thinks.... Thanks for the link to his blog, Ray.

Pakistan/Benazir/Taliban/AQ analyses A MUST Read for amateur strategists!

I always wait on pins and needles for American Thinker's Ray Robison to layout some thoughtful and sage analyses. Here, INRE the Global Islamic Jihad Movement (including all factions of Taliban, AQ, etal), plus neatly tied up with Benazir's death and Musharraf's behind the scenes action, is a DO NOT MISS analysis... The War on Terror Comes to Pakistan.

As the world digests the news of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, claims by an alleged al Qaeda spokesman that it is behind the political mass murder cannot be idly dismissed. For the War on Terror has come to Pakistan, and AQ has been losing. Our media have not paid much attention, but you can be certain AQ knows. Whether or not AQ had a hand in the mass murder, it hopes to benefit from it.

continue reading at link above

Ray sheds light on how and why the Maulana stands by idly while Musharraf sends his military into SWAT to clean house of the militants... despite the Maulana's own radical beliefs.

And if Ray is, again, proven correct, this is good news indeed.

Pakistan casts eyes on Baitullah Mehsud & Maulana Fazlur Rahmen NOTE: See Correction at end of post

It was only yesterday that I blogged my own top suspect of the bombing that resulted in Benazir's death (whether shot, schrapnel or head injury...). My assessment was based on the recent history of new Taliban leadership.

It didn't take as long as I thought for Pakistan to start looking in the same direction that I was looking.

The government released a transcript Friday of a purported conversation between militant leader Baitullah Mehsud and another militant.

"It was a spectacular job. They were very brave boys who killed her," Mehsud said, according to the transcript.

A side comment? Or a leader congratulating his forces for a job "well done"? There's more.

On Friday, Interior Minister Hamid Nawaz told The Associated Press that the government had evidence that al-Qaida and Taliban were behind the suicide attack.

Later, Cheema blamed Mehsud, described him as an "al-Qaida leader" and said he was also behind the Oct. 18 bombing against Bhutto's homecoming parade through Karachi that killed more than 140 people.

Mehsud is a commander of pro-Taliban forces in the lawless Pakistani tribal region South Waziristan, where al-Qaida fighters are also active. His forces often attack Pakistani security forces.

This fall, he was quoted in a Pakistani newspaper as saying that he would welcome Bhutto's return from exile with suicide bombers. Mehsud later denied that in statements to local television and newspaper reporters.

Cheema said Mehsud was "behind most of the recent terrorist attacks that have taken place in Pakistan."

snip

He named others as Fazlur Rehman, the leader of an Islamist opposition party; former Railways Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, a close ally of President Pervez Musharraf; and former Interior Minister Aftab Sherpao, who narrowly escaped a suicide bombing last weekend that killed 56 people.

So the Maulana is in bed with Baitullah. No surprise there. But again, a recap of history between Maulana Fazlur Rehman (aka Rahman) and Benazir. They were partners in the creation of Mullah Omar's Taliban. Rehman often considered "the father of the Taliban". Which would make Benazir akin to "the mother of the Taliban". All too many are either unaware of this fact, or simply choose to forget it.

As I mentioned yesterday, if these many successful acts can be traced to an obviously well-connected Baitullah (possibly with Pakistani security departments),Pakistan is in for a very rocky road. When you add the very well connected Fazlur Rehman to the mix, it becomes even more disconcerting.

CORRECTION NOTE: Pardon me for misreading. So quick to assume that one radical was in bed with another.... LOL Apparently they consider the Maulana Fazlur Rahman to also be under threat of death. That's an odd one. I must check into his latest alliances, as he is - to my knowledge - still a staunch ally of Mullah Omar. This would put him on the same team as Baitullah. What's up? I'll find out what I can...

Benazir assassinated the finger pointing and analyses start

“We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahadeen,” Al-Qaeda’s commander and main spokesperson Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid told Adnkronos International (AKI) in a phone call from an unknown location, speaking in faltering English. Al-Yazid is the main al-Qaeda commander in Afghanistan.

It is believed that the decision to kill Bhutto, who is the leader of the opposition Pakistan People's Party (PPP), was made by al-Qaeda No. 2, the Egyptian doctor, Ayman al-Zawahiri in October.

Death squads were allegedly constituted for the mission and ultimately one cell comprising a defunct Lashkar-i-Jhangvi’s Punjabi volunteer succeeded in killing Bhutto.

AQ family of terrorist groups claims responsibility for Bhutto's death, along with many others, in Thursday's suicide/assassination of the former PM. No surprise as she has been warned, and advised by Pak intelligence of multiple plots and threats since her return to the country.

But this time, they succeeded.

Already the US media cable channels are on the 24/7 round robin of speculation wrapped in the tidbits of news.... soliciting ho hum, boring comments from Presidential hopefuls on the campaign trail. As if such shines much light on their qualifications. What can any from any country say but to offer condolences and concern about the Global Islamic Jihad Movement. The same that so many refuse to recognize as a threat to US security.

MSNBC's Ann Curry and host started the finger pointing this AM, subtly blaming Musharraf for providing inadequate security for Benazir. It demonstrates a naivety unbecoming any news professional to assume that any public figure, choosing to appear out in the open despite known threats, can be protected at all costs. It takes only one suicide bomber or sniper with a well adjusted scope to thwart even the best of security measures. But finger pointing is what the media does best... under the guise of "seeking the truth".

Andrea Mitchell, within minutes, suggests that Musharraf will "again" have to impose "martial law" to control the country. Major faux pas for Mitchell as Pakistan was not under "martial law", but "emergency rule". The difference between the two is startling. Again, another not-so-subtle swipe at Musharraf.

Newsweek/WAPOs Lally Weymouth is on Fox News, suggesting that gunning down targets is not the hallmark of terrorists, and that the location of the assassination seems to point fingers at the Pakistani military... indirectly implicating Musharraf who is in control of the Pakistan military. Weymouth also did not hesitate to demonstrate her psychic skills by emphatically predicting that Bhutto would have won the PM position in the upcoming election.

Weymouth was one of the last journalists to interview Benazir. Her feature article clearly painting a good guy (Benazir) - bad guy (Musharraf) picture becomes obvious with the title itself... "Two Leaders, On a Collision Course".

She was highly critical of President Pervez Musharraff, claiming he had allowed the Taliban and Al Qaeda to regroup and spread throughout Pakistan. "I feel like one night they're coming to come knocking at my door," Bhutto said. She was determined to prevail in the country's Jan. 8 presidential elections. "She didn't seem afraid," Weymouth recalls. "She was more concerned about restoring democratic rule to her country, and on getting the international community to make sure the elections were free and fair."

It's rather disingenuous to assume one can stop the proliferation of the Global Islamic Jihad Movement. Even in the US, we have cells and jihadists, waiting for their moments of fame. It's also rather absurd to hear the following excerpt/words from what I would consider the "mother of the Taliban", as created under the Maulana Fazlur Rahman and Mullah Omar.

Why has Musharraf allowed the terrorists to grow so strong in this country? He's got to answer this, because as far as I'm concerned some of the people around him have sympathy for the militants … You have to remember all of this traces itself back to [former military ruler] Zia ul-Haq. He put together a structure in Pakistan to aid, abet, support, sustain and nourish the mujahedin. Part of that structure he put in place was the ruling party. They are the core support for the militants. Those people hosted them, became friends with them—can they break all those bonds that are three decades old? [The militants] have reorganized. They could not do that unless there is some support from the government or intelligence [agencies].

A charge from an aspiring and corrupt politician that recent reviews of history can prove she, herself, was also guilty of the same. This will not, however, sway Weymouth's seemingly rooted belief that Musharraf, the bad guy, and his military are guilty of assassination.

Perhaps it goes over Weymouth's head (and other media as well) that the two leaders agreed on controlling or eliminating the jihad movement from their midst. And when one is in power, dealing with the inevitable compromises (as we see in our own Congress), reality and the record belies the other's election promises. Not only has Bhutto already put her own "compromise" strategy to rest with her previous admins, but witness our own 2006 round of election promises from an anti-Iraq freedom Democrat party. Pols promise anything to get the job.

What *is* true of the headline is the "collision" course of Benazir/Musharraf was that it really was a combination to create an even greater majority of Pakistan, united and tired of Jihad bloodshed.

As is usual, the media gives the true bad guys a complete pass of responsibility.

Note most predictions, ignorance and speculation rendered by the media on Pakistan follow one path always... to discredit Musharraf. Why they wish to destablize the only remaining US ally in power in Pakistan is a mystery. There are few alternatives that are as acceptable. Certainly not ex-PM Sharif. However I believe their attempts to pin Bhutto's death on Musharraf will prove fruitless.

But there is another direction to cast eyes. It was just 4 days before Christmas that I posted about some new developments in the Pakistan jihad movement... the appointment of a new Taliban commander, Baitullah Mehsud. Mehsud's brother, Abdullah Mehsud (killed by Pak forces in July 2007), was behind the first assassination attempt against Sherpao... also a member of Benazir's PPP.

Baitullah has already laid out plans to kill Benazir for "three major offenses against Islamists".

First, she supported the Pakistani military attack on Lal Masjid (the Red Mosque) in Islamabad on July 10, 2007—Lal Masjid was considered a hotbed of Islamist radicalism; one hundred and sixty-four Pakistani special-forces commandos stormed the mosque and madrassah, killing at least 20 and injuring over 100. Second, Bhutto has made it clear that if she takes power in Pakistan, she will allow American forces to search for Osama bin Laden inside Pakistan's borders. Third, she has said that if elected, she would allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to question A. Q. Khan.

This fact and proximity to Benazir makes me wonder if assassination orders can be traced to Zawahiri directly. Or is it a Mehsud order, with Zawahiri's nod of approval? The above quoted statement/confession uses the word "we". But brothers in jihad are all one in the same. Yet it is always so simple for the media to blame "al Qaeda" for all jihad woes, never recognizing the intrinsic threads between the jihad movement and their leaders. Jihad,in fact, is not just one named terrorist group.

Why would I first think of Mehsud? Within days of Baitullah's command, a major AQ leader managed to elude Pakistani custody, and the two officers responsible for the security were arrested. There is no doubt that Musharraf's government and courts - or a government under any leader in that country - has a high potential of infiltration of the Global Islamic Jihad Movement. This is true of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and even Saddam's Iraq.

Baitullah, tho has sworn allegience to the Taliban's Mullah Omar in the past, still maintains close ties to OBL/Zawahiri's AQ. And again, one of Baitullah's fixations is on A.G. Khan... the father of the Pakistan nuke programme who admitted selling the technology to Libya, Iran and N. Korea. Benazir never missed an opportunity to declare she would turn over Khan to the IAEA for questioning... something that Musharraf has refused to do to date.

I'm not a fan of the Benazir the media glorifies - ignoring her past and her involvement in the creation of the Taliban in the early 90s, and the corruption charges. Yet her death is a loss to Pakistan - another progressive voice for freedom lost. But in a region where countries and leaders walk a fine line - between being able to govern and move towards a Muslim democracy, and survival itself - Benazir's hope to be purely a pro western PM was most likely a pipe dream. Even as she learned when helping to create the Taliban, any future ministry under her governance would advise financial support and a hands off policy towards the jihad movement in exchange for the right to live to govern another day.

As pundits seek someone other than AQ to blame, economists are busy hitting the airwaves with the repercussions on the oil and financial markets. Most see no major upheaval. For in reality, assassinations and murders in the jihad movement's perceived Caliphate are nothing new.

I personally think that the biggest story is being missed. That being the rapid succession of several plots under Baitullah Mehsud in such a short time. If this new commandant can engineer a successful escape (perhaps with the help of loyal security elements within the system), followed so quickly by a successful assassination, then close eyes should be kept on another important target to Mehsud... A.G. Khan - who is allowed to move about Pakistan with some freedom, tho kept under watch.

Benazir's death is tragic, and not unexpected. But A. G. Khan - breaking free from the eyes of Musharraf and held in the fold of Mehsud, the Taliban and AQ - will be beyond tragic. It will be disastrous.

A new era of power struggles in Pakistan...the same ol' players

Nawaz Sharif has returned to Pakistan. And unlike his previous attempt, where he was immediately deported, he now has a tentative welcome from Musharraf.

It's hard to tell whether Sharif unpacked, or prepared files to run for PM in the Jan elections first. But there's no denying Sharif is back, and again ready to take control... and pontificating all the "right" phrases.

On his return on Sunday, Sharif vowed to “continue his fight against dictatorship”.

In his brief address at the airport in Lahore, he said: “Pakistan was not created for dictators or emergencies. It was created for democracy and the rule of law. I am here to play my role in ridding the country of dictatorship and bringing back the rule of law.”

About boycotting the next elections, he said the All Parties Democratic Movement - an alliance of parties opposed to Musharraf's rule - would assess the situation after the expiry of the four-day notice it had given to the government.

“But the movement is committed to democracy and constitutionalism. That is why it has demanded restoration of the judiciary to its pre-Nov 3 position.”

Musharraf declared a state of emergency in Pakistan on 3 November, citing rising extremism and an unruly judiciary. He sacked several Supreme Court judges who had shown judicial independence and replaced them with other judges.

Sharif, told the crowd that he had not come to the country under any deal.

“My roots are among the masses and I will never ditch them. I will live and die for the people of Pakistan,” he said amid a thunderous applause.

What a laugh... the words "democracy and constitutionalism" now bandied about by Sharif is truly a publicity campaign that belies Sharif's history. This is no pro-western, pro-freedom leader, as he or unsuspecting, history challenged western media would have us believe.

Even from the not-so-western-friendly Al Jazeera profile site

As chief minister of the populous Punjab from 1988 to 1990, Sharif challenged Bhutto, who became prime minister after Zia's death in an aeroplane explosion.

Sharif - with the military's blessing - was elected prime minister after Bhutto's dismissal in 1990, but after three years he was sacked on corruption charges following differences with Ghulam Ishaq Khan, the then-president.

Instead of accepting the dismissal, Sharif launched a scathing attack on Khan, considered his former mentor and top representative of the military-led establishment.

Second term

Sharif bounced back to the premiership in 1996 after the dismissal of Bhutto's second government on corruption charges.

He then won a massive two-thirds majority in 1997 elections, which emboldened him to take on the army - the institution which has ruled Pakistan for more than half its existence since independence 60 years ago.

Sharif also moved to increase the powers of his office, reversing a constitutional amendment that allowed the president to dismiss the prime minister.

Later, Pakistan's western allies grew concerned when he sought to introduce sharia (Islamic law), with himself as the so-called "commander of the faithful".

Let's review... Changing the constitution to increase his power and insure he couldn't be canned as PM, corruption charges (like Bhutto), and convicted (with life sentence imposed) for hijacking, attempted murder and terrorism. Then, of course, there's that pesky attempt to instill Shariah law in Pakistan. Sounds like a staunch freedom & democracy lover to me... not.

This is no new welcome entity in Pakistan. Sharif, who appointed Musharraf as chief of the army, did work side by side until they parted ways over Sharif's personal power quest and plans for making Pakistan a strict Islam nation.

So the big three are back... slugging it out for Pakistan's future. AQ is building up in Afghanistan, wearing Taliban insignias. And this would not make Musharraf a happy camper.

The battles for Pakistan, and for Lebanon - where pro Syrian/Hezbollah and pro-democracy govt entities, sans a stepped down President, battle for control while the country remains under control of the military - are two important one's to be watched. Both nations are important in the battle to contain the global Islamic jihad movement.

The next GWOT battlefront is... again... Afghanistan?

Several articles in a row here help to support my old, tried and true "human cockroach" theory of the global Islamic jihad movement... and may just lead us full circle right back to Afghanistan.

First, back to my cockroach analogy three years ago this month... an excerpt below.

But I return to the cockroach theory as a foundation for the ever-ongoing-debate between Bush's "aggressive" response on the WOT, and that Kerry guy's suggestion that we call the Orkin man... aka, the UN... to take care of the task for us.

Lest you think my analogy is far fetched... allow me to quote from one pest control site on how to kill cockroaches:

Roaches can't help the fact that to most humans, they are unwanted company. It's funny, though, how these pesky insects can often make a grown man or woman scream, tremble and run for cover. If you have a roach problem and the Raid TM just isn't working, and if you want to get rid of roaches in your house, we have a 5 step cure that's proven to work.

Step 1: Cut down on their food supply

Step 2: Hit'em Where They Hide!

Step 3: Monitor, Monitor, Monitor! If you don't know where they are, how can you kill all of them? By using monitors (sticky traps),you can easily find "pockets" of roach hiding places, you may even find them in places you never thought of.

Step 4: Dry Up Their Water Supply

Step 5: Keep Them Out! To prevent roaches from migrating from your neighbor's place to yours, seal up common roach entryways. (Mata Musing: even better, help your neighbors kill the infestation to minimize the risk of reentry to your home)

The resemblance is uncanny, yes?

Next train of thought... there is no doubt that the disgust of the united tribes of Iraqis with the Sharia law advocates in their midst has led to a very unwelcoming environment for the ambitious jihadists. They are leaving Iraq in droves.

And where are they going? Ray Robison's usual spot on analyses say they are reappearing back in Afghanistan, and reuniting as a new wing of the Taliban.

From Robison's Nov 2nd article in the American Thinker...

Faced with the looming conflict with the Maulana, Al Qaeda is concentrating its forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The New York Times describes a new influx of foreign fighters into Pakistan and Afghanistan. As always, the Times spins the hollowest analysis to portray defeat for the United States. But there are some questions the Times didn't bother to ask or answer, beyond the usual "the U.S. made them do it" tripe anyway. Chiefly, "why are they coming to Afghanistan"?

As the Times notes, many of these new foreign fighters in Afghanistan are being placed in leadership positions within the Taliban, usually under newer, younger Taliban commanders. The article even notes that this is a somewhat "new" vs. "old" battle for Taliban leadership. The Times fails to realize the obvious, that these are al Qaeda fighters, and instead refers to them as new Taliban recruits. But the timing of this "new phenomenon" makes the reality self-evident.

These fighters were meant for Iraq but the core al Qaeda leadership has realized that the war there is lost. They are no longer sending the new recruits in large numbers. In the current environment, only small teams can go unmolested in the Iraqi lands al Qaeda used to control. Since al Qaeda can no longer send large numbers of fighters to Iraq and since their Taliban support base is slipping away at home they have one option left to them.

Al Qaeda is attempting a hostile takeover of the Taliban.

Which brings us full circle to the Guardian's post today, outlining peril for Afghanistan... at risk of another fall to the Taliban's charms.

The Taliban has a permanent presence in 54% of Afghanistan and the country is in serious danger of falling into Taliban hands, according to a report by an independent think tank with long experience in the area.

Despite tens of thousands of Nato-led troops and billions of dollars in aid poured into the country, the insurgents, driven out by the American invasion in 2001, now control "vast swaths of unchallenged territory, including rural areas, some district centres, and important road arteries", the Senlis Council says in a report released yesterday.

On the basis of what it calls exclusive research, it warns that the insurgency is also exercising a "significant amount of psychological control, gaining more and more political legitimacy in the minds of the Afghan people who have a long history of shifting alliances and regime change".

It says the territory controlled by the Taliban has increased and the frontline is getting closer to Kabul - a warning echoed by the UN which says more and more of the country is becoming a "no go" area for western aid and development workers.

The council goes as far as to state: "It is a sad indictment of the current state of Afghanistan that the question now appears to be not if the Taliban will return to Kabul, but when ... and in what form. The oft-stated aim of reaching the city in 2008 appears more viable than ever and it is incumbent upon the international community to implement a new strategic paradigm before time runs out."

What the recent-current events-challenged Guardian pundit has failed to put together is just who comprises this *new* Taliban. He instead assumes it's the same ol' Saturday night beer drinking buddies who's tied up with some locals in dire financial straits.

The insurgency is divided into a largely poverty-driven "grassroots" component and a concentrated group of "hard-core militant Islamists", says the Senlis Council, which has an office in Kabul and field researchers based in Helmand and Kandahar provinces in southern Afghanistan.

Yet if the tarot card reading of news is correct, those hard core militants described above are, in reality, ostracized AQ types - relocating their jihad efforts from Iraq back to Afghanistan. And if Robison is again, correct, they may just be facing internal battles the original Taliban founding members. And that group has their roots firmly entrenched in Pakistan... along with the support of the old Bhutto Pak govt.

All this has been going on for more than a month. Now add Musharraf's reasoning for emergency rule for terrorist control, an odd fellows alliance with the Maulana Fazlur Rahman after the release of the 61 terrorists by the so-called democratic judiciary ousted by Musharraf, and maybe there shouldn't be so much head scratching about Musharraf's emergency rule after all. Could it be he has had a wary eye on the AQ hostile takeover in Afghanistan, and it's effect on Pakistan?

This means it could be bad guys battling bad guys, Pakistan's involvement (overt or subtle), as well as the existing NATO forces. All putting the new Taliban/AQ in their crosshairs.

One thing is for sure. We may be coming full circle to a rejuvenated Afghan battlefront. And again, I believe Arab democracy will prevail in that country. But I think the players and the war game strategy are going to be very different this time around.

Bhutto's Niece Drops the goods on Her Aunt in India

Aunt Benazir's false promises

Bhutto's return bodes poorly for Pakistan -- and for democracy there.

Good Lord, I'm trying hard to not simply post the entire article here. It's MUST READ!

Ms. Bhutto's repeated promises to end fundamentalism and terrorism in Pakistan strain credulity because, after all, the Taliban government that ran Afghanistan was recognized by Pakistan under her last government -- making Pakistan one of only three governments in the world to do so.

And I am suspicious of her talk of ensuring peace. My father was a member of Parliament and a vocal critic of his sister's politics. He was killed outside our home in 1996 in a carefully planned police assassination while she was prime minister. There were 70 to 100 policemen at the scene, all the streetlights had been shut off and the roads were cordoned off. Six men were killed with my father. They were shot at point-blank range, suffered multiple bullet wounds and were left to bleed on the streets.

My father was Benazir's younger brother. To this day, her role in his assassination has never been adequately answered, although the tribunal convened after his death under the leadership of three respected judges concluded that it could not have taken place without approval from a "much higher" political authority.

I have personal reasons to fear the danger that Ms. Bhutto's presence in Pakistan brings, but I am not alone. The Islamists are waiting at the gate. They have been waiting for confirmation that the reforms for which the Pakistani people have been struggling have been a farce, propped up by the White House. Since Musharraf seized power in 1999, there has been an earnest grass-roots movement for democratic reform. The last thing we need is to be tied to a neocon agenda through a puppet "democrat" like Ms. Bhutto.

Blessings on you, Fatima. Your words ring true, and with all that I know. Blessings upon your loved ones.

Fatima Bhutto is a Pakistani poet and writer. She is the daughter of Mir Murtaza Bhutto, who was killed in 1996 in Karachi when his sister, Benazir, was prime minister.

Hillary: Powder Room Politics

Kathleen Parker pens an article today about the dark side of daring to attack Hillary Clinton's "gender" - that it in fact will help get her elected. I found myself recoiling and repeating the words "no way!" However, Mrs Parker does have a point, and I've seen it myself. It is aptly coined the Politics of "The Girl's Bathroom" (her title much more dignified). Nonetheless it is a dicey analysis which could go just about any which way.

And yes, I did learn decades ago that I wasn't at all like the usual "Hillary" voter. The very idea of being in a restroom surrounded by the usual Hillary voter makes my skin crawl. During the 80s when dark tales of "rape and incest and repressed memories" were making the rounds, sure enough, the Hillary Voter was chiming in with exaggerated and falsified stories of "me too!" in the world of the Grrl's club. ick. And when the girls in the office were deciding to join in on a class action lawsuit against our company based on "gender", again I was saying "ick". And when I was in high school during the launching of the Feminist Crusades and routinely being asked to be a "role model" for the feminist cause, I was that one chick pissing the restroom-cluckees off.

I learned that among the chick set, I was in a minority.

So, Mrs. Parker's analysis has merit, but I think that merit principally applies to the very young and the 60+ age set. I found that my specific generation didn't fit the template. My specific generation found ourselves on the short-end stick of receiving any type of largesse resulting from "sex preferences": we had to work our butts off to get ahead on our merits, and usually braving through various types of discrimination.

We had the guys to deal with, who were generally ticked off at women over being stereotyped as "bad evil men"; and the chicks, given all sorts of preferential treatment and still complaining over not having been handed the Fortune 500 head positions. My generation bore the brunt of the squeeze.

My generation typically enjoys every single hard question posed to the Hillarys of the world. "Finally!" we say to ourselves.

That is, yes, women will vote for Clinton because she's a woman —if men target her as a woman.

Now THAT'S a sentence worth talking about. Yes, she appears to have female genitalia. But if in fact women will vote for Hillary because she's a woman and because men are targetting her "as a woman"; this underscores that women can't think for themselves and are stuck in an adolescent quagmire of still wishing to have a voice and attention inside the Grrl's Powder Room. Their focus is not upon truth or facts, but of "fitting inside a feminist template" - proving themselves to FEMALES. AS FEMALES.

Which then also means that Hillary too is attempting to prove herself as a FEMALE to FEMALES, while plying her "victim" status.

There's no way around this, Mrs. Parker's point has merit. However, the best way to deal with this is to continue to expose her follies. Focus on these. She'll continue to take her exposures to the Powder Room corner of politics. And the wives of Obama and Edwards will continue to stand in the Powder Room pointing out her exposures to the assembled chick clique.

Factually, even the chick clique would rather be out on the high school grounds acquiring newer experiences and tales of victimhood or victory among the man world to take back to the Powder Room.

Cue here: The manly man.

Addendum: Big "awwww" for Bhutto sent to the Powder Room with her clique. lol.

Works for me! :)

Pakistan: Citizen demands Musharraf step down

That citizen would be, Mrs. Bhutto, making such a demand. Furthermore, she and her demonstrators are threatening not to even vote in January.

Steve, at Sweetness & Light nails it best:

Gee, what a shock. We’ve never seen this before, have we?

First the demonstrations demanding elections. Then, once elections are scheduled, the opposition boycotts them anyway.

It’s almost as if they really don’t want a legitimate representative government.

Bhutto Needs Her Head Examined

You bet I'm furious. Here Mrs. Corrupt returns to Pakistan and plans to stage a "MLK" proto-type walk to the Capital stirring already volatile tempers. She has shown me she is NO (n.o.) leader. She is a grandstanding puppet of powers behind the scenes.

She is now under House Arrest again.

I really do thinks she wishes to see blood spilling all over the streets of Pakistan, the Pakistani army diverted from capturing and pursuing the Taliban/AQ network -- to dealing with the chaos she creates.

And, she does look like a vampiress.

snort.

What's really going on in Pakistan?

So far the media and special interest think tanks, like the CFR, have been telling us that Musharraf's suspension of the Constitution and cleaning house of Pak's judicial system have been for threats to his power. Ala, the Supreme Court declaring him ineligible for re-election as President.

The CFR's an example of this with their take in a Nov 9th analyses "Bhutto-Musharraf Test of Wills":

Musharraf’s state of emergency and suspension of the constitution was largely prompted by fears of an unfavorable ruling from the Supreme Court on his reelection as president. He went on to dismiss Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and several other judges who refused to give legal sanction to the emergency. Musharraf then arrested hundreds of protesters, shut down independent television news outlets, and placed political opponents and social and human rights activists under house arrest (CSMonitor). Protests have continued, with Chaudhry leading calls for a popular uprising (AsiaNews). As this Backgrounder points out, such dissent from members of the country’s judiciary is unprecedented and lawyers are emerging as a powerful pro-democracy group in the country.

Naturally, this leaves most of us victims of the western press as to wondering just what kind of friend is Musharraf anyway.

But there's more to the emergency measures story than we're hearing. And a H/T to Ray Robison for a couple of posts with some insight on how this all ties in together, along with the rise of the AQ takeover of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

On Nov 8th, Robison posted there was more evidence that Musharraf was declaring war on AQ.


Quotes from the Pakistan Tribune reveal that the corruption in Pak's Supreme Court had not only gotten out of hand, but that they released 61 high profile terrorists prior to his firings.

Security Sources reveal that alleged terrorists who were earlier released by Supreme Court are being arrested again and raids are underway in this regard.

Well-placed Sources told Online that President Musharraf has said that 61 alleged terrorists were released on the orders of SC, however orders have been issued to re-arrest them.

It has been told that all of the 61 are said to be high-profile terrorists.

Further, it has also been disclosed that various have been arrested who are involved in terrorist activities in Swat and other parts of the countries. They have been kept secret and under the possession of Intelligent Agencies.

On the other, Leaders and Activists of defunct Jehadi Organisations are being traced and re-arrested again who were earlier released.

Meanwhile crackdown is still continuing in various parts of the country till the complete ouster of terrorists and extremists.

I'd say that, in itself, is probably enough reason to clean house in the Supreme Court. But, as Robison points out, there's probably an old familiar face lending a hand in identifying some of the jihadi insiders.... Bhutto's old pal, and father of the original Taliban, Maulana Fazlur Rahman.

Per the Italian newspaper, Adnkronos International, the Maulana sanctions the state of emergency... and oh yeah, there's a few names deleted from the prospective list of detainees. Can you say "pay off"?

However Pakistan's intelligence agencies are believed to have deleted the names of PPP leaders and those of the Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Islam religious party led by Maulana Fazlur Rahman, from the prospective list of detainees.

Maulana Fazlur Rahman, who is also the leader of the six-party religious alliance MMA, has expressed approval for the Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) issued by Musharraf under the state of emergency and told reporters that he has no problem with it.

Robison's assessment? It may just have a lot to do with the old vs new Taliban battles stoking up in Afghanistan.

A few months ago, the Maulana would have been the first guy arrested as an international terrorist, al Qaeda and Taliban supporter. However, he has flipped and is now supporting Musharraf, although he does so circumspectly lest his change of allegiance set off alarm bells with his jihad buddies.

Understanding this is key to understanding the Musharraf emergency declaration. He has aligned the forces to begin the fighting in earnest but has to "shape the battlefield" by securing those institutions that are supposed to be for democracy but instead are infested with jihad sympathizers, i.e. the courts and media.

Lest ye think Bhutto's out in the cold here, the NYT's scratches it's head in how quickly the Pakistani drama queen can change her mind and hit the party scene. By last night, she was free from the house arrest restraints, and the "guest of honor at a high-flying diplomatic reception in the Parliament building here, greeting ambassadors and exchanging nods before television cameras...".

Even the Times is figuring out that the best power play she can launch is one that works.

It is such flourishes that lead to questioning in Pakistan about the strength of her democratic ideals in practice, and a certain distrust, particularly amid signs of back-room deal-making with General Musharraf, the military ruler she is said to oppose.

“She believes she is the chosen one, that she is the daughter of Bhutto and everything else is secondary,” said Feisal Naqvi, a corporate lawyer in Lahore who knows Ms. Bhutto.

Bhutto's not a fool. So despite all the posturing over the state of emergency measures in Pakistan - fueled by Pakistan's corrupt Islamic judiciary releasing high profile terrorists - we are apt to see at three of the four old power houses, again cooperating in Pakistan. That would be Musharraf, Bhutto and the Maulana.

And it will be, once again, a tenuous relationship founded on controlling the fate of neighboring Afghanistan, as well as themselves.