War with Pakistan

Pakistan has long been a concern on this blog -- both for its pre-9/11 ties to al Qaeda and its horrible nonproliferation record.

What should be done about Pakistan?

Like the Washington Post's editorial board, former Iraq Study Group co-chair Lee Hamilton sounds like he's calling for war against Pakistan -- or at least invocation of the Bush Doctrine.

The Christian Science Monitor reported some of his recent comments on July 19:

"I think that our relationship with Pakistan needs to be reconsidered, reevaluated.… What has driven our relationship with Pakistan has been the fear that the alternative to Musharraf would be a radical government with a nuclear bomb. I think that fear is overstated…. I believe it is necessary for the United States to be able to go after the sanctuaries in Pakistan," he said.

When he was asked whether such action could cause the Musharraf government to fall, Mr. Hamilton responded, "It is a risk, and it is a risk I would be willing to take."

Hamilton continued:

"The thing that is most worrisome to me about Al Qaeda is the sanctuary. It seems to me that, if anything, we have learned that we must not permit the terrorists to have a sanctuary from which to regroup, train, plan, and launch strikes within Europe or here or elsewhere," Hamilton said.

Listen carefully and you can hear the drums of war beating.

They may not be pounding for Iran.


Note: Photo credit, US Department of State

Visit this blog's homepage.

Spin: state of the art, 2007

The Washington Post has a story today about George W. Bush's flip-flops on foreign policy, especially the negotiations with Iran, North Korea and Syria. The neocons are not happy. Ledeen:

"I have never seen an administration with such an enormous gulf between the president's public statements and its actions," said Michael A. Ledeen, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "Presidential statements should reflect policy. They don't seem to in this administration."

And Bolton:

John R. Bolton, Bush's former ambassador to the United Nations, said the Berlin meeting "was clearly a shift" that yielded a deal rewarding North Korea for bad behavior.

Bolton was further disturbed by reports last week about administration officials backing off assertions about North Korea's uranium enrichment. "There's a risk that the administration looks weak through the media spin," Bolton said

Former Representative Lee Hamilton welcomes the Bush administration to the "reality-based community":

"The realities of the situation are becoming more apparent to them. . . . Presidents begin to focus very much on their legacy, and he recognizes that insufficient progress has been made on some of these international issues."

Former Senator Warren Rudman is quoted saying almost the same thing:

"Any administration, including this one, has to face reality that changes over time."

As recently as December, the President himself explained at length the preconditions for American negotiations with Iran and Syria. After explaining how these states must first suspend uranium enrichment and stop supporting terror or insurgency, here's Bush's simple conclusion about engagement:

And the truth of the matter is, is that these countries have now got the choice to make. If they want to sit down at the table with the United States, it's easy -- just make some decisions that will lead to peace, not to conflict.

Don't get me wrong, I'm pleased that the Bush administration has reversed itself, but the fairly blatant flip-flop and neocon opposition should be noted.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Point-Counterpoint

In March 2003, when the US attacked Iraq, I did a lot of interviews for local media. In the very first one, for radio, I said that this war had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks. Those were the first words out of my mouth.

Wednesday, the 9/11 Commission reported that they had found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Saturday's Washington Post discusses the political implications of this finding. After all, Bush provoked war on the basis that Iraq was central to the war on terror.

Point:

[Vice President Dick] Cheney, on CNBC, said the media had been irresponsible in reporting the commission's findings. "What they [the commission] were addressing was whether or not they [Iraq] were involved in 9/11," he said. "They did not address the broader question of a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in other areas, in other ways."

Counterpoint:

In fact, commission spokesman Al Felzenberg on Friday confirmed that the commission was addressing the broader relationship. "We found no evidence of joint operations or joint work or common operations between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government, and that's beyond 9/11," he said.

Point:

Cheney said Thursday in a television interview that he "probably" knew things about Iraq's ties to terrorists that the commission did not.

Counterpoint:

Late last week, commission leaders invited Cheney to provide intelligence reports that would buttress the White House's insistence that there were close ties between Hussein and al Qaeda, a commission member said. Commission Chairman Thomas H. Kean and Vice Chairman Lee H. Hamilton told the New York Times they wanted to see any additional information in the administration's possession...

Sounds like the 9/11 Commission is calling the administration's bluff.

Readers might want to note a Pew Research poll finding that Americans are more-and-more starting to see the Iraq war as a hindrance to the overall war on terror in their minds.