Terror Inc.

[Michael McIntyre]

Pakistan is not just an "accessory".  Pakistan is the fons et origo.  Al-Qaeda has not been scattered, nor are its operative in hiding, because it was never simply concentrated in Afghanistan.  It continues to pursue its primary aim - the war to "liberate" Kashmir from India - without missing a beat.  Why, then, when the question turns to Pakistan, do you suddenly declare that the fight "needn't all be through military means".  My question about what we do about al-Qaeda and its Pakistani patrons isn't rhetorical or a sloppy analogy.  If we're serious about the declared aim of the war in Afghanistan - rolling up the al-Qaeda terror network, NOT replacing Taliban because it was a horrid plague on the people of Afghanistan - then what we do about Pakistan is the next question we have to face.  But then, really rolling up the al-Qaeda network in its entirety was never the Bush administration's aim.  That should have been clear as soon as the Bushies locked arms with Pakistan.  !
We!
've now chosen new enemies, none of whom have any substantial links to al-Qaeda.

So, two serious questions:
(1) On 9/10, did you favor a war to remove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?  If not, why not?
(2) Are you serious enough about war as a means of destroying al-Qaeda to extend the war to Pakistan?  If not, what other means to you propose?

As far as the Nazi analogy goes, fighting Afghanistan while allying with Pakistan is like allying with Nazi Germany to remove the Iron Guard in Rumania.  Would it be glib to note that fighting Rumania is NOT fighting fascism at its source?

Michael McIntyre


>>> dperrin at comcast.net 05/04/02 09:40 AM >>>
Michael McIntyre:


> Let's make it plain.  Pakistan is the patron and sponsor of both Taliban
and al-Qaeda.  If you're serious about going after the source of he terror,
then you take on Pakistan, you don't make it your ally in the fight against
terror.  The principal target of al-Qaeda and its associated organizations
is not the United States, but India.  After our war started, just to show
they were still in business, two of these organizations, Jaish-e-Mohamed and
Lashkar-e-Taiba, mounted two terrorist attacks on India: an Oklahoma City
style bombing on the state legislative building in Srinagar, and an armed
assault on the parliament building in New Delhi.

I totally agree with you. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are accessories, and I
think that Bush and co. have been confused on the former and soft on the
latter (though hostility to the Saudi throne is growing in DC). Taking on
the likes of al-Qaeda will not be an easy nor simple, straightforward task,
and one must resist all manner of propaganda and rhetoric on all sides. But
the US is certainly a target, and I've no doubt will be again (though I hope
not). Still, the US response sent the Taliban to the hills and scattered,
for the time being, al-Qaeda. Its operatives are not strutting about in
Afghanistan, terrorizing the locals, but are in hiding. That is a positive
thing. And, yes, removing the Taliban was the first and necessary step in
this process, as they were state sponsors of al-Qaeda's violence. Going
after those in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia will be much tougher, but it
needn't all be through military means.

As I've said before, instead of simply chanting "No War," the "left" should
have seen that al-Qaeda and the Taliban are not the Vietnamese or the
Sandinistas, considered them a mortal enemy, not only to progressive Western
values but to millions in the region, supported hitting them back, but in
concert with pressuring the US to alter its relations with the Arab world
and especially with Israel. This, I believe, would have paid huge dividends,
and would have placed the "left" in a unique position to advance the
arguments that need to be advanced. Instead we have ired, 60s-era chants,
and Stalinist groups taking the lead in organizing "resistance" to the
overthrow of the Taliban. This is quite sad.

Again, would you be so glib if we were talking about the Nazis? The US at
the time did little to prevent their rise in Germany (indeed, many
businesses helped feed their power), was silent about the death camps, and
at home oversaw its own version of anti-Semitism and deep racism, and had a
recent history of violent intervention in Central America. Yet, the left of
that period had little trouble seeing the greater threat, and saw it early,
before the tanks rolled. When the US finally did battle, I don't recall
reading about the left clearing its throat, saying, "Yes, well, umm, what
about slavery? What about the Indians?"

DP