Why did it take a (another) crisis to bring Pakistan into focus (again)?
It took the death of
Benazir Bhutto, 1953-2007, to finally put the focus on Pakistan, where it should have been all along, and where the signs of danger were mounting.
Bhutto’s death comes less than two months after a
state of emergency was declared by
Pervez Musharraf,
Pakistan’s dictator. Those developments brought into focus U.S. aid to Pakistan, which amounts to $10 billion, but the
why did it take a crisis? Pakistan’s unrest will certainly impact U.S. efforts in
Afghanistan.
Last week Congress passed legislation
setting limits on aid to Pakistan, which got little coverage because it was more important for the media to spin Bush's legacy as a "
mixed bag" as opposed to total failure.
During Pakistan’s state of emergency, an aide to Condi Rice said,
"Thank heavens for small favors" (that Pakistan is distracting from Iraq). Ha ha?
Obviously, they weren’t completely distracted, at least not in the spin sense. In early October, the White House issued a report claiming that
Al Qaeda was trying to boost its efforts in the U.S.. It’s puzzling why Bush would want to draw focus to this given his
failure to capture Osama bin Laden and the complete
collapse of his so-called foreign policy.
Oct. 24, 2007 | The Bush administration once imagined that its presence in Afghanistan and Iraq would be anchored by friendly neighbors, Turkey to the west and Pakistan to the east. Last week, as the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan continued to deteriorate, the anchors themselves also came loose.
In a September 2006 speech, Senator Kerry
summed up the impact of Bush’s failed policies:
Iraq has made America less safe. The terrorists are not on the run. Terrorist acts tripled between 2004 and 2005. Al-Qa-da has spawned a decentralized network operating in 65 countries, most of them joining since 9/11. Only Dick Cheney could call this a success.
The situation in Afghanistan deteriorates steadily. The Taliban now controls entire portions of southern Afghanistan, and across the border Pakistan is one coup away from becoming a radical jihadist state with nuclear weapons. Only George Bush could declare this “mission accomplished.”
At a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in July, Senator Kerry spoke (
opening statement) “On The Future Of Pakistan.” (
Video):
We also have a five year, $750 million dollar plan for winning over the local population in this area, but real concerns have been raised about whether that money can actually be put to good use. We will be very interested to hear your views on the Administration’s strategy for dealing with this very real threat in both the short and long term.
We must also consider the role of U.S. aid in advancing our interests. Since 9/11, we have given Pakistan roughly $10 billion dollars in aid—and likely billions more in covert assistance. Roughly 75% of this aid has gone to reimbursement of counter-terrorism expenses and other security assistance. We clearly have a right to expect more in return for the massive amount of aid we are providing for the fight against terrorism.
We have also reached a critical period for the future of democracy in Pakistan. It is clear that reinforcing our strong commitment to democracy, human rights, and respect for the rule of law is in the best interests of Pakistan and the United States.
President Musharraf’s term is set to expire this fall, and under Pakistani law the National and Provincial Assemblies must conduct new presidential elections by October, with new legislative elections to follow. The Pakistani Supreme Court may have to rule on whether President Musharraf can stay on in his role as chief of the military, and whether he can legally be re-elected by a lame duck Parliament. Now that Chief Justice Chaudhry has been reinstated to the Court, there appears to be a strong possibility that it will rule against President Musharraf on these questions.
We need to be prepared for this eventuality, and the possibility that President Musharraf may leave or be forced out of office. In fact, although he may be hedging on this now, President Musharraf has said in the past that he will relinquish his military role, and Khurshid Kasuri, the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, said during his recent visit that President Musharraf was still planning to do so. We must make it clear that we expect President Musharraf to live up to his promise.
It is also critically important that the upcoming elections are free and fair, and we should work to ensure they are conducted transparently and legitimately. This will send a very important message of support to the people of Pakistan, who are increasingly insistent on restoring true democratic rule, and will help to undermine extremists. We must also continue to raise our strong concerns over unexplained disappearance of some 400 people, the arrest of hundreds of political activists from opposition parties, and the recent crackdown on the media.
<…>
It is also critically important that the upcoming elections are free and fair, and we should work to ensure they are conducted transparently and legitimately. This will send a very important message of support to the people of Pakistan, who are increasingly insistent on restoring true democratic rule, and will help to undermine extremists. We must also continue to raise our strong concerns over unexplained disappearance of some 400 people, the arrest of hundreds of political activists from opposition parties, and the recent crackdown on the media.
Finally, we must also consider Pakistan’s relationship with India, especially when it comes to Kashmir, the security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, and the current status of our efforts to ensure that the proliferation disaster we experienced with the A.Q. Khan network is never repeated.
Speaking of
A.Q. Khan. Remember during the 2004 debates when Bush
A.Q. Khan to justice:
BUSH: Libya has disarmed. The A.Q. Khan network has been brought to justice.
And, as well, we're pursuing a strategy of freedom around the world, because I understand free nations will reject terror. Free nations will answer the hopes and aspirations of their people. Free nations will help us achieve the peace we all want.
In fact,
Musharraf pardoned Khan. Here's
Rice then on the pardon:
Rice said Bush did not misspeak when he said that the network of Pakistan's A.Q. Khan -- the founder of Pakistan's nuclear program who was caught selling secrets on the global black market -- had been "brought to justice."
Khan is living in a villa and was pardoned this year by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. None of Khan's co-conspirators have been brought to trial.
Asked how that could be interpreted to mean Khan has been brought to justice, Rice said, "He has been brought to justice because he's out of business."
Rice defended Bush's contention during the debate that 100,000 trained Iraqi security forces are on duty, a figure that has been disputed by some Democrats in Congress.
In July, it was reported that
A.Q. Khan was no longer under house arrest, and he was still off limits for
questioning:
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan --Pakistan's government on Wednesday rejected a former premier's proposal to let the United Nations question A.Q. Khan, the disgraced nuclear expert who headed a smuggling racket that sold nuclear secrets to Iran, North Korea and Libya.
Local media reported that former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto said Tuesday that if she returned to office she would give the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog direct access to Khan -- a remark likely to stir controversy in the run-up to elections.
Khan is viewed as a national hero for helping develop Pakistan's atomic weapons.
Pakistan has won praise from the United States for its cooperation in shutting down Khan's network after it was exposed in 2004. But President Gen. Pervez Musharraf's refusal to let foreign experts speak directly to Khan has sustained suspicion of a cover-up.
So let’s recap: Osama bin Laden is still on the loose, terrorism is on the rise, we losing the war in Aghanistan and Pakistan, a country with nuclear arms, is in crisis. Bush's policies have made the world a lot more dangerous.
Here is an excerpt from the
Presidential debate, September 30, 2004:
KERRY: I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are.
But we also have to be smart, Jim. And smart means not diverting your attention from the real war on terror in Afghanistan against Osama bin Laden and taking if off to Iraq where the 9/11 Commission confirms there was no connection to 9/11 itself and Saddam Hussein, and where the reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction, not the removal of Saddam Hussein.
This president has made, I regret to say, a colossal error of judgment. And judgment is what we look for in the president of the United States of America.
I'm proud that important military figures who are supporting me in this race: former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili; just yesterday, General Eisenhower's son, General John Eisenhower, endorsed me; General Admiral William Crown; General Tony McBeak, who ran the Air Force war so effectively for his father -- all believe I would make a stronger commander in chief. And they believe it because they know I would not take my eye off of the goal: Osama bin Laden.
Unfortunately, he escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. We had him surrounded. But we didn't use American forces, the best trained in the world, to go kill him. The president relied on Afghan warlords and he outsourced that job too. That's wrong.
LEHRER: New question, two minutes, Senator Kerry.
"Colossal misjudgments." What colossal misjudgments, in your opinion, has President Bush made in these areas?
KERRY: Well, where do you want me to begin?
First of all, he made the misjudgment of saying to America that he was going to build a true alliance, that he would exhaust the remedies of the United Nations and go through the inspections.
In fact, he first didn't even want to do that. And it wasn't until former Secretary of State Jim Baker and General Scowcroft and others pushed publicly and said you've got to go to the U.N., that the president finally changed his mind -- his campaign has a word for that -- and went to the United Nations.
Now, once there, we could have continued those inspections.
We had Saddam Hussein trapped.
He also promised America that he would go to war as a last resort.
Those words mean something to me, as somebody who has been in combat. "Last resort." You've got to be able to look in the eyes of families and say to those parents, "I tried to do everything in my power to prevent the loss of your son and daughter."
I don't believe the United States did that.
And we pushed our allies aside.
And so, today, we are 90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the cost: $200 billion -- $200 billion that could have been used for health care, for schools, for construction, for prescription drugs for seniors, and it's in Iraq.
And Iraq is not even the center of the focus of the war on terror. The center is Afghanistan, where, incidentally, there were more Americans killed last year than the year before; where the opium production is 75 percent of the world's opium production; where 40 to 60 percent of the economy of Afghanistan is based on opium; where the elections have been postponed three times.
The president moved the troops, so he's got 10 times the number of troops in Iraq than he has in Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden is. Does that mean that Saddam Hussein was 10 times more important than Osama bin Laden -- than, excuse me, Saddam Hussein more important than Osama bin Laden? I don't think so.
So where are we today? There is a
resurgence of the Taliban and Bush is bogged down by a
$15-Billion-a-month unjust and catastrophic war on Iraq, costing the lives of more than one million Iraqis and 3,900 U.S. troops.
What did everyone who put their faith in Bush expect, that he would continue being the arrogant, stubborn person he is, unwilling to listen, inflexible to change despite the realities, and everything would be alright in the world?
Senator Kerry continues to offer sound strategies for reversing the disasters of the Bush administration. In June, he called for a spoke about a Kerry new approach to fighting terrorism (
audio):
What are these myths and misconceptions? There are four principal fallacies that led us into this disastrous war in Iraq—and one that is still being used to justify our presence there today.
The most obvious is the notion that defeating terrorists is primarily a military effort focused on nation-states. The phrase “war on terror” purposefully brings to mind troops deployed to fight armies in battle. And this very mindset tempted the Administration to choose traditional targets like Iraq instead of hunting down non-state actors in Afghanistan. In fact, we now know that some in Don Rumsfeld’s Pentagon initially considered bombing Iraq first instead of Afghanistan because military planners couldn’t find enough Taliban targets to bomb—a vivid illustration of the flaws of an exclusively military-driven, state-centered approach divorced from the actual threats we faced then and still face today.
Make no mistake, the military clearly has a role to play -- sometimes even against another government. Exhibit A is Afghanistan -- where we were right – and we were unified – in overthrowing a regime that harbored the terrorists who attacked our homeland. But this is the exception. Don’t take my word for it. There’s a reason why the Army’s own counterinsurgency manual written by General Petraeus makes clear that using massive military force risks playing into our enemies’ hands. And Osama Bin Laden himself has declared that his strategy is to “provoke and bait” the United States into protracted “bleeding wars” that drain our resources and our national will while painting us as the aggressor in the eyes of the Muslim world. He’s gotten exactly what he wanted in Iraq.
And we know that conventional military force is not the most effective way to destroy terrorists hiding out in sovereign nations. Getting that job done largely falls to our intelligence agencies and special operations forces, and it will always hinge on coordination with countries where terrorists hide – exactly the areas in which we are the least equipped to work effectively. Why does that matter? Because make no mistake, if an attack on America is ever hatched in a Pakistani neighborhood in London, we won’t be bombing Buckingham Palace—we’ll be working with MI5 to hunt down the perpetrators.
Then in early December, Kerry gave a major foreign policy speech defining a
strategy for Afghanistan (
audio), noting the importance of Pakistan’s involvement:
Finally, we must recognize that Afghanistan cannot be fully stabilized unless Pakistan and others fully join the effort. As long as the Taliban and Al Qaeda have a sanctuary right next door, we’ve got a problem—and so do the people giving them sanctuary. 80% of suicide bombers in Afghanistan now originate in Pakistan. We should bolster efforts to root out extremists in the tribal areas—in part by supporting a “frontier corps” made up of local tribesmen who know the terrain. At the same time, we should ensure that our $750 million aid package actually reaches the people we seek to influence. As we seek to spread economic opportunity, we should push the Pakistani government to do the same and also integrate these areas into national political life.
Pakistan also needs to be part of a regional dialogue designed to help stabilize Afghanistan. It is no secret that real tensions exist between Presidents Musharraf and Karzai. We have to redouble our efforts to bring about cooperation between these two governments. You can’t have a free flow of extremists along their wide-open border. This cooperation must be one of the central tasks of our diplomacy today. Both Pakistan’s and Afghanistan’s futures depend on it. Pakistan fears India is trying to improve relations with the Karzai government at its expense. U.S. and international community efforts to build trust between these two neighbors, including in Kashmir, could go a long way towards relieving Pakistan’s need to hedge its bets in Afghanistan. Ultimately, Pakistan must make a strategic decision to support a stable Afghanistan.
Ultimately, a Pakistan headed down the path of civilian democracy is best equipped to deal with extremism. It is in our vital security interest to help foster a government with the strength and legitimacy to fight terror. Now that Musharraf has taken off his uniform, we must push him to lift the state of emergency, restore the rule of law and judicial independence, free all political prisoners, and hold verifiably free and fair elections consistent with the Constitution.
That’s why Joe Biden and I introduced a resolution that calls for the suspension of aid for strategic weapons systems not directly tied to counterterrorism, if Musharraf does not follow through on his promise to take these critical steps toward civilian democracy. We need to look at how the billions of dollars we provide to Pakistan can most effectively advance our interests. Our massive Coalition Support Funds should be reviewed to ensure accountability and transparency. At the same time, less than 10% of our aid goes to development and humanitarian assistance. We should target more of our aid to projects that directly help the Pakistani people.
Democrats
do, but the media rarely give them
their due. Along with spinning the actions of the worst president ever to come up with a
mixed baq of nonsense, here is the media’s priority:
MSNBC and
WSJ are using Bhutto’s death to pimp idiocy from Rudy Giuliani, “
a C-plus Mayor who has become
A-plus myth," a guy who was criticized for an idiotic move by his
and who continues to show his ignorance on issues like Iraq.
For those of us looking for sincerity and sound judgment in the wake of this tragedy, here is Senator Kerry’s statement on the death of Benazir Bhutto:
BOSTON, MA- Sen. John Kerry, (D-Mass.), issued the following statement about the murder of Former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto today. Kerry is the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Near East and South and Central Asian Affairs, which includes Pakistan. He introduced a Sense of the Senate Resolution expressing concern for Ms. Bhutto’s safety in the fall of this year.
"This is both a horrific and heartbreaking tragedy, and a lightning bolt wakeup call for anyone who had taken their eye off of the turmoil in Pakistan. Teresa and I send our deepest condolences to Ms. Bhutto's family. Benazir Bhutto returned home after years in exile knowing fully that she was taking a great personal risk to fight for change and democracy. When I met with her this fall just days before her return to Pakistan, she raised the issue of her own personal security. Subsequent to the bombing and assassination attempt that greeted her return home, I spoke to Secretary Rice about ways the United States might work with President Musharraf to ensure her safety.
“Her loss underscores the fragility of the situation in Pakistan and the perils of a volatile mix of unrest, tension, radicalism, and nuclear weapons. Her killing embodies everyone’s worst possible fears and reinforces how tenuous the circumstances in Pakistan really are. The loss of Ms. Bhutto demands of the United States and our allies an urgent focus on developing a Pakistan strategy that will crush extremists and provide freedom, peace, and security for the country that mourns her loss today."
Agree Senator Kerry, this horrible tragedy is "a lightning bolt wakeup call."
As the Pakistan fades from the news, I hope our leaders aren’t lulled back to sleep.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
