We Chased Them To Pakistan...Yea, That Worked genre: Just Jihad & Polispeak
While the decider in chief runs about the country spouting the dangers of al Qaeda “IN" Iraq, virtually all other experts on the subject are pointing to Pakistan and just how difficult and daunting it will be for anyone to flush them out of their remote hideouts. The latest expert to voice such concerns is James Clapper, an intelligence expert with the Pentagon.
"I think our objective will be to neutralize, not eliminate, but certainly make this safe haven -- as we have the others -- less safe and less appealing for AQ," Clapper told a joint session of the House armed services and intelligence committees.
But Clapper, undersecretary of defense for intelligence, presented the task of eliminating al Qaeda's influence in the region as a long-term project that would hinge on U.S. economic aid to the local populace and contributions of military assistance including sophisticated surveillance equipment to the Pakistani military.
"This is going to be a long-haul process," he said. "I don't think we'll have any demonstrable change within (a) three-year time frame."
Added Clapper, "It's not just ... putting bombs on targets."
"Al Qaeda is now in a part of Pakistan that is largely inaccessible to Pakistani forces, the Pakistani government. Always has been. And it is a very difficult operating environment for them," said Edward Gistaro, the top U.S. intelligence analyst on transnational threats.
"It is just a very difficult environment for outside forces to operate in," he added.
For me, the most notable information offered regarding the situation in Pakistan is the statement that we shouldn’t expect any demonstrable change in the next three years. If one endeavors to put two and two together, then the reports suggesting that al Qaeda may be poised to attempt another strike against the United States become more troubling. If the planning for such a strike is being administered from Pakistan, then should we assume that for the next three years we lack the means to significantly disrupt that activity?
Perhaps the focus of the Bush administration on Iraq is a distraction intended to lull al Qaeda in Pakistan into complacency in order to allow the United States to execute a clandestine strike. What’s more probable is that I’m grasping at straws in my search for any shards of logic which I can then attach to the President’s incongruous rhetoric and his indiscernible rationale.
If the situation turns out to be the former, I’ll happily offer the President kudos. If on the other hand, the latter were to prove accurate…well…that would simply be more of the same. I hope I’m pleasantly surprised.
Tagged as: al Qaeda, George Bush, Musharraf, Pakistan, Pentagon, War On Terror
Daniel DiRito | July 26, 2007 | 1:56 PM
Comments
1 On July 26, 2007 at 11:55 PM, Ejaz Asi wrote —
I am at loss of words trying to comprehend the puzzle that US can not win democracy and peace when it exactly has been destroying the very roots of peace and democracy in foreign countries. How easily Americans can be doped into a war only one man believes in and can get away with that? May be because the ones being killed are bearded men or sunni-shiites murderes etc... And now, US wants to invade Pakistan for what reason? Because the insanity has found its permanent ally: USA.
Here's a simpler and safer advice for anyone or everyone who genuinely believes in Peace and Democracy in Pakistan/Iraq/Afghanistan from someone who's seen it all:
You don't send them bombs and weapons, give them education and economic improvements.
It's the only chance given to US and western powers to show their greatest and sincerest concern and honesty towards making the world a safer and better place. You subject a nation to supported-wars and conflicts, subject them to ignorance and darkness, this is what you'd get out of them after many years. You want love, give 'em some first.
Trackback Pings
© Copyright 2024
Post a comment