The common cause of Bush and al Qaeda
This is so obvious, but, hey, at least Lee Hamilton came out and said it:
U.S. forces should go into Pakistan to rout al Qaeda from the safe haven it has found in the mountains on the border with Afghanistan, a co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group said.
Former Rep. Lee Hamilton, who also served as the vice chairman of the 9/11 commission, says the Iraq war distracted the United States when it had al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden on the run in the tribal region between Afghanistan and Pakistan…
Declassified portions of the National Intelligence Estimate released Tuesday reported that al Qaeda has “protected or regenerated key elements” of its ability to attack the United States while in this region.
Experts may debate al Qaeda’s capacities and capabilities, but what is clear is that the Iraq War — which, remember, has now been going on for more than four years and could go on for years and years to come, has pulled America’s own capacities and capabilities away from the far more pressing task of rooting out al Qaeda.
To be sure, al Qaeda — which should not be understood to be akin to a multinational with branches around the world controlled directly from central office — has been significantly debilitated. One cannot know for sure — one without access to the intelligence, that is — but there is general agreement among experts that bin Laden’s organization is not what it once was.
Still, one must speak not just of al Qaeda but of “al Qaeda,” that is, the symbol (or ideal) that al Qaeda has become. Bin Laden may not be dead, but he is already a martyr, a hero to be emulated, if not worshipped. Hence the various copycat organizations, or cells, and other organizations loosely affiliated with, or that wish to be affiliated with, whatever the reality, al Qaeda. This is a serious threat — if a group of “al Qaeda” followers detonate a radiological bomb in the middle of an American city, it won’t much matter what they call themselves or whether their affiliation with al Qaeda is real or imagined.
But now, if the NIE is to be believed, the real al Qaeda may be building itself up again in a new safe haven across the border from its old one. And that is where the U.S. and its allies — which, in terms of Afghanistan and the war on terror, include more than the meager “coalition of the willing” that followed Bush on his misadventure into Iraq. Here we have Canada and Europe, many in Asia, and many others. But they — my own country, Canada, in particular — are focused on Afghanistan. It is the U.S. that would need to lead a refocused war against al Qaeda in Pakistan, but would that happen with Iraq still such a significant drain on American resources, military and otherwise?
For it is that war in Iraq, Bush’s war, that has both weakened the U.S. and strengthened al Qaeda — and it will continue to do so for as long as the U.S. remains in such large numbers, that is, as an occupying force grappling with a complex civil war, as well as with al Qaeda (or “al Qaeda”). For al Qaeda, what is better than the Iraq War? And yet Bush continues to wage that war and to support yet more war in Iraq and perhaps with neighbouring Iran? Does that not mean that Bush is, in essence, supporting al Qaeda (and “al Qaeda”)?
Yes. Yes it does.
That is the dirty truth about the Iraq War.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
9 Responses to “The common cause of Bush and al Qaeda”
Michael – I am not so sure about trying to tackle Pakistan at this time. The only way to rout out AlQaeda in the mountains along the border is with ground troops. Aerial bombing will not do the trick.
We are hard pressed to field enough ground troops in Iraq and Afganistan. Where are we going to get sufficient numbers to do the job right in those mountains? Pakistan tried with 80,000 troops and failed miserably. I know we are better but…
Even if Musharraf cooperated in such an invasion most of Pakistan would not. We would have tens of thousands of new mujahideen pouring in to help AlQaeda. I’m not sure whose side the Pakistani army would be on in such an invasion. I think enough of them would be suspect to put our mission in jeopardy.
These things are not as simple as many warriors think. Look at our cakewalk in Iraq. We are still in a 50-50 proposition in Afganistan after 6 years. We are asking for a lot of trouble by taking on Pakistan at this time. Doing so will put even more pressure on our military in Iraq and Afganistan. Just think what opening up another muslim front will do for AlQaeda/Islamic militant recruiting. Taking on Pakistan at this time will free Iran to be even MORE aggressive.
People have a lot of faith in the US military but this organization is not omnipotent. I vote to “keep our powder dry” in Pakistan for the forseeable future. Let Musharraf try to contain AlQaeda to minimize the potential damage they can cause.
[...] House Link to Article iraq The common cause of Bush and al Qaeda » Posted at The Moderate Voice » [...]
[...] Clark Link to Article george w bush The common cause of Bush and al Qaeda » Posted at The Moderate [...]
Well Jdeldelle, I think the main point wasn’t about the viablility of invading Pakistan, more about how Bush has made terrorism a bigger threat by using ham handed policies. Terrorists thrive in weak countries and chaotic political climates. So what does he do, makes a HUGE chaotic mess with little to no gov’t to keep the order.
Had he gone about dealing with them like the international criminals they are instead of using 9/11 to live out some fantasy about fixing the world and going to war on a whim, we’d be in a much better place. Maybe his dad presiding over the fall of the Soviet Union, our last real signifigant threat, was inspiring him to take down something big and leave his mark on history. Someone should have told him you go to war with the enemies you have, not the ones you wish you had.
The Pak-Afghan border country has long been out of the reach of the Pakistani government and has long been a haven for terrorists. This isn’t the first time we are being told that it is a refuge for al-Qaeda as well as other terrorists.
To be sure we get rid of them, yes, we should go in on foot, but there’s nothing wrong with de-Earthing the entire region first using B-52s, anti-personnel bombs as well as high explosives…
The wild frontier
I think special ops would need to be used — that’s what we had in there when OSB was spotted a few years ago. The problem is that al queda and OSB are now surrounded by loyal tribesmen, who won’t be bribed into giving out information.
[...] US forces should go into Pakistan to rout al Qaeda from the safe haven it has found in the mountains on the border with Afghanistan, a co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group said. Former Rep. Lee Hamilton, who also served as the vice … …more [...]
Seems I’ve heard about this guy that was running for president here a few years ago that had an idea of expanding the special forces by 20k. Yeah, he also hinted at the very thing Hamilton espouses in this post, but was called a defeatist, was said he’d weaken the US, and was a flip flopper.
I didn’t vote for him because he had no shot of winning my state, and had my own reservations about him, but on this issue I agreed with him.
Does this mean he’s right now?
Going into Pakistan with troops and covert forces is not the kind of invasion that appeals to Bush and Cheney. We might actually achieve our objectives and get out. Iraq is more their style, but they may not have a choice, since it’s become so obvious that Musharraf has been stringing them along and not disturbing Al Qaeda:
http://ajliebling.blogspot.com/2007/07/straight-talk-about-taking-out-al-qaeda.html