I read in the Pakistani press that Al Qaeda number two Ayman al-Zawahiri has been desperately trying to assassinate the Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf. Zawahiri's apparent obsession with a Musharraf ouster has reportedly created a division in Al Qaeda. Zawahiri's critics would rather leave Musharraf alone and concentrate on building up Al Qaeda's political position in the country, and also on consolidating its military positions along the Afghan-Pakistani border. These jihadists don't want to get into a big gun battle with Musharaff, fearing a massive crackdown by the Pakistani forces against Al Qaeda.
Zawahiri, however, may prove the more canny strategist. He seems to realize that the big challenge for Al Qaeda is to up the ante. Certainly Iraq is a big prize, and the radical Muslims are hoping that the Reid-Pelosi alliance in the U.S. can engineer a troop withdrawal before the Iraqi military is capable of defending the country. This would give the Islamic radicals and their Sunni insurgent allies a shot at toppling the Shia government. Since Islamic radicals already control Iran, if they were to seize power in Iraq they would have two major states, one Shia-run and the other Sunni-run, in their clutches.
Pakistan, however, is the big prize, in some ways even more important than Iran. The reason is that while Iran feverishly attempts to build a nuclear weapon, Pakistan already has a whole arsenal of nuclear weapons. If Musharraf falls, there goes America's anti-terror strategy in the region. Suddenly the situation in Afghanistan becomes untenable, and Pakistan's deadly arsenal moves into unsafe hands. Pakistan illustrates the danger of America placing such high hopes on one man, an unelected general whose popularity seems to diminish by the day.
I don't see any alternative to our support for Musharaff, but long-term I think the United States needs to start cultivating traditional Muslim leaders who are supported by their people. Then we wouldn't be risking catastrophes of the kind we had with the Shah in Iran in 1979. I hope Musharaff won't prove to be the new Shah, with another Khomeini-style regime, this time equipped with nuclear weapons, preparing to assume power in Islamabad.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 6)
1. cwI found real hot Britney Spears Nude video :) Enjoy..
..
http://sexy-tube-world.net/view.php?Britney_Spears_Nude
..
..
swuzltypss at 5:08PM on Jan 23rd 2009
2. ljI found Extreme Britney Spears Nude video :) Enjoy..
..
http://sexy-tube-world.net/view.php?Britney_Spears_Nude
..
..
zhbxkdpzmi at 10:38AM on Jan 24th 2009
3. A well written piece. So, what does our 'next move' there look like?
AND:
Why has a subject so very important as this subject, gone for so many hours without a response?
Your analysis seems simple enough. So, again, WHAT are we doing about it?
Where is the forum for relevant ideas?
Can we start one here?
warren currier at 9:27PM on Jul 27th 2007
4. The column summs it up nicely. Why don't Reid and Ms. P. see this, they are smart people too. they seem to be blinded by politics of put the dems in power. It could just as easily be the opposite party in power saying the same things in three years.
There are people we can negotiate with and there are people we cannot. Osama and the Taliban we cannot talk with at this time because of their beliefs on women, economics and basic freedoms. They are also so dug in as to be non-responsive to common sense. Good column, pass it on.
111 at 11:48AM on Jul 27th 2007
5. Why is a mosque a sacred target when some attacks originate from them?
Why can't the borders be secured and let the Iraqui's do what they will?
Dick Hawkins at 5:05PM on Jul 27th 2007
6. I think Reid and Pelosi see it but as in Pelosi's case visit heads of state - it's supposed to be the Executive Branch that sets Foreign Policy with the "guidance of Congress". Bush couldn't obviously care less as seen by the Republican's who carry his message go to see foreign leaders without rebuttal shows.
I haven't seen any intelligence Al Queada has an in with Sunni or Shiite tribes to any great extent. The last leader having been assasinated with information given by a Sunni as to his whereabouts. Neither Sunni - nor Shiite trusts Al Queada to leave once one or the other is broken. They know the "Deal" - Al Queada desires long term in Iraq and neither Sunni nor Shiite want to keep fighting them after American's leave. Iraq is not Afghanistan or Somalia. Al Queada is there to be sure - but in alliance? I'm not certain. At the behest of Iran? Most likely. But Iran already has terrorist or Army groups to put in place there. Their goals are at odds with one another. If in collusion they dance around one another in the short term and hope they can take Al Queada out in the long term. May be a false hope.
Musharaff should make the move to irradicate Al Queada from the badlands - he's thought of it, but many lower officers and the intelligence community depend on Al Queada secretly. Musharaff depends on them to inform on uprisings he wouldn't know of otherwise. He's in a dilema. His best bet may be to make a coalition with Bhutto who's still in exile such as she's offered.
John at 12:53PM on Jul 27th 2007
7. If Dinesh's article demonstrates anything, it is the utter stupidity of the Bush/Cheney invasion of Iraq, a nation which posed no threat to the United States whatsoever. Had Bush/Cheney sent more troops to Afganistan instead of saving them up for Iraq, Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar would most likely have been captured at Tora Bora, al-Qaeda would be on the ropes and the Taliban would not be staging a resurgence.
The sooner these nitwits are impeached and removed from the Oval Office, the better for America and for the world.
emelpe at 1:14PM on Jul 27th 2007
8. Bottom line - If Musharraf goes down, then we have no choice but to go in. I see no other palatable alternative.
Do we have enough 'boots' for such an endeavor?
vegastracon at 1:21PM on Jul 27th 2007
9. we don't have the "boots" or the political capital for a Pakistan invasion, but NATO does. But would NATO, or another temporal alliance, mobilize for this widely despised Presidency? Not bloody likely.
mw
michael white at 1:40PM on Jul 27th 2007
10. "Bush administration officials are voicing increasing anger at what they say has been Saudi Arabia’s counterproductive role in the Iraq war. They say that beyond regarding Mr. Maliki as an Iranian agent, the Saudis have offered financial support to Sunni groups in Iraq. Of an estimated 60 to 80 foreign fighters who enter Iraq each month, American military and intelligence officials say that nearly half are coming from Saudi Arabia and that the Saudis have not done enough to stem the flow." (Greg Hambrick)
http://news.ccpblogs.com/2007/07/27/saudis-give-iran-the-day-off/
Iraq being attacked on numerous fronts, and the branch is creaking under (nuclear) Pakistan. What a dilemma.
vegastracon at 1:57PM on Jul 27th 2007
11. Dinesh has a good analysis, however he clearly shows a lack of understanding of the growing ideological dispute between the Sunnis specially of the Wahabi/Salafi School that in Saudi Arabia gave an edict(Fatwa)yesterday that it would be all right to bomb and raze to the ground Shia religious symbols (the tombs of Hussain and his half brother Abbas in Iraq). Al Qaeda in Iraq has consitently tried to drive the wedge in the Shia Sunni ideological schism deeper by targetting shias. If the situation came to a point where the US were to withdraw from Iraq, the Shia population would recede behind a Shia predominant area which also has the majority of oil resources within that area. A Shia government even with an independent stance against Iran would be ideologically inclined to view Al Qaeda as an enemy than a possible ally at any stage.
The theological differences between the Shias and Wahabi/ Salafi branch of the Sunni Sect are in effect irreconcilaible.
A Abbas at 12:00PM on Jul 29th 2007
12. Sad but true; The world seems to be moving towards Amegeddon. Ask the presidential canidates this...' What would be your response if Al Qaeda managed to set off a nuclear bomb in a large American City'. Wait for another one? Invade Iraq and quess that they are responsible? There are at least a billion Islamics world wide Of that amount 6% are concidered radical. Do the math. How many would have to be annihilated to convince the Moslems to retreat and the rest to rid themselves of these radicals? Did we forget the WTC so soon?
MUSLIMS WILL NOT STOP UNTIL THEIR STREAM OF FUNDS ARE STOPPED AND THOUSANDS ARE KILLED,AND THEY ARE CONVINCED THAT THEY WILL BE DESTROYED .... WHAT STOPPED JAPAN?.. GERMANY...........RUSSIA?...........BRUTE FORCE! THE RULES OF WAR .
RULE ONE: DO NOT ENTER A BATTLE FIELD UNLESS YOU ARE PREPARED TO ANNIHILATE THE ENEMY! ANYONE THAT SHOOTS AT YOU IS THE ENEMY! ANYONE THAT HAS A WEAPON IS YOUR ENEMY (SURPRISED ?) RULE TWO: ONCE THE ENEMY SERVES NOTICE OF THEIR INTENTIONS..........THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS! RULE THREE: YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO ATTACK AND DEFEND YOURSELF WITH WHAT EVER MEANS IS AT YOUR DISPOSAL! A DEAD ENEMY IS NOT A THREAT! RULE FOUR: NEVER FIGHT AN ENEMY ON THEIR TERMS! RULE FIVE: THE ENEMY WILL BE A THREAT UNTIL THEY REALIZE THAT THEIR CAUSE IS HOPELESS! RULE SIX: THE ENEMY WILL NOT CAPITULATE UNTIL THEY LEARN A LESSON THAT THEY WILL NEVER FORGET. RULE SEVEN: THE SOONER THAT LESSON IS LEARNED THE SOONER THE ENEMY WILL SURRENDER! RULE EIGHT: THEIR AREN'T ANY NONCOMBATANTS! RULE NINE: MANY WILL DIE! RULE TEN: MANY DID IN THE WORLD TRADE CENTER! THE CHARACTER OF THIS WAR IS A DISGRACE! WE ARE INVITING THE ENEMY TO ATTACK BECAUSE WE INVITE THEM TOO!! WHERE ARE THEY GETTING THEIR WEAPONS FROM?? ONE AMERICA GI IS NOT WORTH A THOUSAND MOSQUES.........THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY AMERICANS ON THE GROUND...........Read my AOL Journal
http://journals.aol.com/campmor2000/THENEXTHOLOCOST/
Holocaust at 4:07PM on Jul 27th 2007
13. Sad but true; The world seems to be moving towards Armageddon. Ask the presidential candidates this...' What would be your response if Al Qaeda managed to set off a nuclear bomb in a large American City'. Wait for another one? Invade Iran and Pakistan and quests that they are responsible? There are at least a billion Islamic's world wide Of that amount 6% are considered radical. Do the math. How many would have to be annihilated to convince the Moslems to retreat and the rest to rid themselves of these radicals? Did we forget the WTC so soon?
MUSLIMS WILL NOT STOP UNTIL THEIR STREAM OF FUNDS ARE STOPPED AND THOUSANDS ARE KILLED,AND THEY ARE CONVINCED THAT THEY WILL BE DESTROYED .... WHAT STOPPED JAPAN?.. GERMANY...........RUSSIA?...........BRUTE FORCE! THE RULES OF WAR .
RULE ONE: DO NOT ENTER A BATTLE FIELD UNLESS YOU ARE PREPARED TO ANNIHILATE THE ENEMY! ANYONE THAT SHOOTS AT YOU IS THE ENEMY! ANYONE THAT HAS A WEAPON IS YOUR ENEMY (SURPRISED ?) RULE TWO: ONCE THE ENEMY SERVES NOTICE OF THEIR INTENTIONS..........THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS! RULE THREE: YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO ATTACK AND DEFEND YOURSELF WITH WHAT EVER MEANS IS AT YOUR DISPOSAL! A DEAD ENEMY IS NOT A THREAT! RULE FOUR: NEVER FIGHT AN ENEMY ON THEIR TERMS! RULE FIVE: THE ENEMY WILL BE A THREAT UNTIL THEY REALIZE THAT THEIR CAUSE IS HOPELESS! RULE SIX: THE ENEMY WILL NOT CAPITULATE UNTIL THEY LEARN A LESSON THAT THEY WILL NEVER FORGET. RULE SEVEN: THE SOONER THAT LESSON IS LEARNED THE SOONER THE ENEMY WILL SURRENDER! RULE EIGHT: THEIR AREN'T ANY NONCOMBATANTS! RULE NINE: MANY WILL DIE! RULE TEN: MANY DID IN THE WORLD TRADE CENTER! THE CHARACTER OF THIS WAR IS A DISGRACE! WE ARE INVITING THE ENEMY TO ATTACK BECAUSE WE INVITE THEM TOO!! WHERE ARE THEY GETTING THEIR WEAPONS FROM?? ONE AMERICA GI IS NOT WORTH A THOUSAND MOSQUES.........THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY AMERICANS ON THE GROUND...........Read my AOL Journal
http://journals.aol.com/campmor2000/THENEXTHOLOCOST/
Holocaust at 4:19PM on Jul 27th 2007
14. "THE RULES OF WAR."
Wow! Are those our rules, or are those the rules of the enemy? (Or both?)
vegastracon at 4:25PM on Jul 27th 2007
15. When we first took Baghdad, Iraqis friendly to us warned us that we would have to resolve the issue of Palestinian justice if we wanted success in Iraq.
Jimmy Carter has written that the majority of Israelis and the majority of Palestinians are in favor of the "roadway to peace" proposals of the U.S. and the U.N.
I think we should stop all financial and military aid to BOTH sides until they come to their senses, stop listening to radicals on both sides, and get guaranteed independence for both Israel and s Palestinian state. That is what the U.N. voted for in the first place, back in 1947.
Bob Rose at 4:38PM on Jul 27th 2007