I am posting this older article from consortiumnews.com by guest writer Ivan Eland for many reasons.
Not because we are losing in Afghanistan because Bush began pulling the needed troops from that theater where they were needed to reposition them for the invasion in Iraq, a war that had been planned long before the actual invasion and designed not by military commanders whom should have been the leading source of such an expedition but instead by civilian politicians and by the neo-conservative cartel known as the Project for a New American Century which began this process in 1999 and it’s high ranking membership included the likes of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush and a large part of Bush’s cabinet.
I am not posting this because Bush has lied to us from the beginning of this by saying that if they, Iraq would allow UN inspectors in to do their job it could be avoided. The truth is they were allowed in and did have the open ended ability to do their job. Or that he knew where all the stock piles of chemical weapons existed but would tell no one, not even the UN in Iraq who asked many time for the location. But then he couldn’t tell them because the stock piles didn’t exist and according to him the UN inspectors were not there.
I am not posting this article because Bush and his team was well briefed on the al Qaeda threat when he took office but chose to put them last on his list of priorities, well below tax cuts for the rich. Nor am I this posting due to the fact that he had in hand a briefing on Bin Laden Determined to use Hi-jacked Planes to attack inside the United States but ignored them.
Rice stated before the Senate that had they know Bin Laden intended to use aircraft as missiles they would have taken action but it was Rice who removed Richard Clark from his post as the terrorist czar to a position where he had no say and no one in the Administration would listen to him and his warnings. If they had they would have know that Bin Laden had already tried just such a thing on American soil but failed and his belief that they would try again.
We all know there were no WMD’s, Iraq had not connection to al Qeada until we invaded and they had nothing to do with 9/11. We also all know that the ruling powers who stole the White House in 2000 needed an event equivalent to Pearl Harbor to initate their agenda of military use to control the oil rich nationals that were not currently cooperating with us. The first of course was Iraq.
No I am posting this because we are openly stating our intent to involve our power in Pakistan, our ally. An for this I quote the BBC Monday July 23, 2007
Pakistan has responded angrily to suggestions from the United States that American forces might be sent into Pakistan to strike at Osama Bin Laden.Abdul Quader Kahn, the father of Pakistan’s nuclear program, the one selling nuclear plans to Iran, Syria, Libya, and North Korea during the entire time of the war and well before is considered a national hero and has never been prosecuted for his crimes. In fact he still has his Headquarters in Dubai where he freely travels and his companies worldwide selling the parts are still running. As put recently by one CIA agent, “It’s like a Nuclear Wal-Mart.”
No the reason I’m posting this is because Pres. Misharraf is on the edge of losing his American backed position and this will give Pakistan to the radical Islamic groups such as the Taliban, al Qaeda and just plain American haters. Even of a more scary nature is that this will leave our troops in Afghanistan isolated and Pakistan under radical rule and with nuclear weapons. With this turn of events included with the chess game being played by the Bush Administration with Iran and Syria we are facing an all out war in the Middle East…Do any of you feel we are ready for this?
I will now stop wasting your time and post the article.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/053007a.htmlHow Bush Risks an Islamist BombBy Ivan Eland
May 30, 2007
Editor's Note: Among the many catastrophes surrounding George W. Bush's Middle East wars is possibly the bitterest irony of all -- that he is laying the groundwork for radical Islamists to get an atomic bomb via the collapse of Pakistan's pro-U.S. dictator Pervez Musharraf.
In this guest essay, the Independent Institute's Ivan Eland looks at how Bush's bungled policies in Afghanistan and Iraq are leading inexorably to an even worse disaster:The Bush administration has failed to capture or kill Osama bin Laden or to win the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, the administration has also missed the chance to maintain a stable nuclear-armed Pakistan.
Like the U.S. policy toward the Shah’s Iran in the 1960s and 1970s, the Bush administration, despite a rhetorical commitment to spread democracy around the world, has put all of its eggs in the basket of an autocrat unlikely to survive—in this case, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.
Although Musharraf has used the U.S. war on terror to play the United States like a fiddle, the Bush administration believes there is no better alternative. Unfortunately, backing Musharraf could create a nuclear-armed Pakistan controlled by radical Islamists.
Unfortunately, Pakistan probably has already been “lost,” and U.S. policy has played an important role in its demise. U.S. policymakers have repeatedly underestimated the consequences of the deep unpopularity engendered by profligate U.S. government meddling in the affairs of other countries.
In Iran, although the Shah’s government was brutal, the regime also became so identified with its unpopular U.S. benefactor that the United States became a major contributing factor in its collapse and replacement with a militant and enduring Islamist substitute.
The Bush administration, with its macho bravado, has had a tin ear for the ramifications of anti-U.S hatred. After 9/11, instead of using the attacks as a justification to go after Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the Bush administration had the opportunity to eliminate the Taliban in Afghanistan, take full advantage of Musharraf’s limited-time offer to give the U.S. military free reign in Pakistan to hunt down bin Laden and al Qaeda, and then withdraw from the region.
Instead, the Bush administration allowed mission creep to take its eyes off the prize of taking down al Qaeda. The U.S. mission in Afghanistan turned to nation-building, counterinsurgency, and cutting off the drug trade. The continued occupation of Afghanistan by non-Muslim forces and the close U.S. support for the dictator Musharraf in neighboring Pakistan, predictably revved up Pakistani Islamic militants and gradually turned them against his regime.
In an attempt to discreetly court these militants to support his government and to maintain the flow of U.S. military aid to ostensibly fight them, Musharraf allowed these groups to operate in the wild tribal regions of western Pakistan on the Afghan border and even reached a truce with them to withdraw the Pakistani government’s military forces from these areas. This wink and nod policy has allowed both al Qaeda and the militant Taliban to recover and step up attacks from these safe havens.
Given Musharraf’s unenthusiastic pursuit of al Qaeda in Pakistan, why does the United States continue to support him? The answer is mainly a fear of “instability”—read, any change of leadership in a nuclear weapons state.
The United States fears that the only alternative to Musharraf in a nuclear-armed Pakistan is the Islamic militants; but this outcome is actually more likely if the unpopular United States continues to zealously back Musharraf. At the same time Musharraf’s popularity has faded. He has faced mass protests across Pakistan for his increased despotism and his suspension of the country’s chief justice.
Musharraf feared that the judge, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, might issue rulings that would interfere with his attempt to have the parliament elect him to another five-year term. In addition, several former Pakistani generals have talked openly about overthrowing him in a coup.
But it may be too late to control a coup and reestablish military rule. The Islamists have been strengthened by Musharraf’s suppression of alternative non-Islamic opposition parties; Musharraf has said that their leaders—exiled former prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawa Sharif—will not be allowed to return for upcoming parliamentary elections.
The Bush administration should change policy and end the occupation of Afghanistan, which would cool the Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan and the Islamic militancy in Pakistan. In addition, the United States should threaten to cut off aid to Pakistan unless Musharraf and his intelligence services make a genuine attempt to capture or kill bin Laden.
With a cooling of militant Islam in the region, Musharraf should have more leeway to pursue bin Laden without an Islamist backlash. Finally, the United States should press Musharraf to genuinely open Pakistani elections to non-Islamist parties and allow their leaders to return from exile. These actions would further erode support from the Islamist radicals.
Unfortunately, keeping the Islamists around, but contained, has been good for the autocratic Musharraf regime. The problem is that the instability caused by this policy can no longer be contained.
Like the Shah of Iran, Musharraf must use increased violence to put down popular protests, thus further fueling the spreading uprisings. The Shah’s Iran and Pakistan have one important difference, however: Pakistan has nuclear weapons.
Tragically, the Bush administration may eventually give the world an Islamist bomb.
Ivan Eland is Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute and Assistant Editor of The Independent Review. Dr. Eland has been Director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office, Evaluator-in-Charge (national security and intelligence) for the U.S. General Accounting Office, and Investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee.