Earthside Comments: The first link and excerpt here should be a blazing warning to the American people, the Pakistani people and the rest of the world interested in peace.
The Bush regime is threatening to involve the U.S. even more deeply in the political affairs of Pakistan -- on the side of the murderous dictator, Pervez Musharraf. More Bush arrogance and meddling will certainly mean more chaos, more violence and even more anti-Americanism around the world.
We include a report demonstrating just how disgustingly slimy and degraded is Bush-pal Musharraf, blaming Bhutto for her own death.
Then two articles, one from the perspective of the left and one from the libertarian right, counseling against any escalation of U.S. involvement in Pakistan.
Link: U.S. Considers New Covert Push Within Pakistan | New York Times
President Bush’s senior national security advisers are debating whether to expand the authority of the Central Intelligence Agency and the military to conduct far more aggressive covert operations in the tribal areas of Pakistan. ...
... Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and a number of President Bush’s top national security advisers met Friday at the White House to discuss the proposal, which is part of a broad reassessment of American strategy after the assassination 10 days ago of the Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto. There was also talk of how to handle the period from now to the Feb. 18 elections, and the aftermath of those elections.
Several of the participants in the meeting argued that the threat to the government of President Pervez Musharraf was now so grave that both Mr. Musharraf and Pakistan’s new military leadership were likely to give the United States more latitude, officials said. But no decisions were made, said the officials, who declined to speak for attribution because of the highly delicate nature of the discussions.
Link: Musharraf: Bhutto is Responsible for Death | Reuters/msnbc.com
Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf conceded that a gunman may have shot Benazir Bhutto but said the opposition leader exposed herself to danger and bore responsibility for her death, CBS News said on Saturday.
Musharraf was also quoted as telling the CBS "60 Minutes" program to be broadcast on Sunday that his government did everything it could to provide security for Bhutto, who was killed last week in a gun and suicide-bomb attack after a political rally.
"For standing up outside the car, I think it was she to blame alone. Nobody else. Responsibility is hers," Musharraf said in the interview taped on Saturday morning.
Link: US Military Escalation Gets Underway In Pakistan | Tom Hayden/CommonDreams.org
The US government is considering direct military intervention in the tribal areas of Pakistan, risking an escalated conflict with Pashtun nationalism in the name of crushing al Qaeda. An essay in last week’s Washington Post, a front page story in today’s New York Times and reports from the Real News Network all confirm that a decision to intervene is near. The Times confirms that as many as 50 American personnel, whether special forces or CIA, already operate clandestinely inside the Pakistani border.
Democrats have called no hearings nor raised significant voices of opposition to the unfolding plan. In New Hampshire last night, Sen. Barack Obama repeated his endorsement of unilateral US military intervention in Pakistan if “actionable intelligence” exists. His Democratic rivals did not dissent.
The consequences of the possible escalation are extremely unpredictable. The alleged al-Qaeda militants are embedded in complex tribal networks in a remote mountainous area. Military action could inflict severe casualties and damage to these traditional communities and inflame anti-American sentiment across Muslim Pakistan. It might accelerate the disintegration of the US-backed Musharraf dictatorship which currently possesses nuclear weapons. Musharraf and the Pakistani military have steadfastly opposed direct American intervention for the past five years.
Speculation is rife that US support for the ill-fated return of Benezir Bhutto to Pakistan was based partly on an understanding that she would endorse and legitimize an expanded US presence in her country. If neither the American embassy nor the Musharraf regime could save her from death at a public event, it is unclear how successful American special forces will be in the wilds of South Waziristan.
There is virtually no public discussion of the implications of American support for a military dictatorship that imprisons Pakistani lawyers while harboring anti-US jihadists. Instead of enforcing the existing Leahy Amendment [1997] which bans military assistance to human rights violators, the US has spent approximately $10 billion in five years supporting the Musharraf regime, alienating a majority of Pakistanis, and lending credence to the claims of Muslim extremists. Having contributed to, or at least failing to have prevented Pakistan’s fall into chaos, “senior officials” quoted by the Times now are blaming al-Qaeda for plotting all along to achieve “the big prize, creating chaos in Pakistan itself.”
It is ironic that Democrats like Obama, whose campaign was built around questioning the intelligence justifying the Iraq War would now be arguing for a preventive war in a sovereign country if evidence gathered by intelligence sources is merely “actionable.”
The further irony is that the “war on terrorism” is escalating without meaningful discussion or dissent in the midst of the most open and democratic of American processes, the presidential debates.
Congressional hearings and questioning by the presidential candidates might stall, circumscribe or prevent the escalation. An alternative policy of reducing US military assistance to Pakistan and demanding the full restoration of civil liberties there, while seeking diplomatic de-escalation in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Palestine is being ignored in the march towards a wider quagmire.
Link: Hands Off Pakistan | Sheldon Richman/Future of Freedom Foundation
“The assassination of Benazir Bhutto was not an attack on this brave woman alone; it was an attack upon democracy, freedom and the United States.” This statement by Asa Hutchinson, former undersecretary of homeland security, was typical of the reaction of the American political and media establishments.
The claim that the assassination was an attack on democracy and freedom is dubious because Bhutto’s two spells as prime minister of Pakistan were not notable for either one. Whether it was an attack on the United States depends on what that means. It certainly was not an attack on the American people. How could it be construed that way, unless one has such an imperialist notion of “our interests” that nothing can happen in the world without impinging on them?
But if by “United States” we mean the policies of the current administration, then indeed it was such an attack. Bhutto, after all, favored bringing U.S. military forces into Pakistan, according to Michael Scheuer, a former CIA analyst and region specialist. If that’s an option President Bush planned to exercise, the loss of Bhutto is a grave blow to his policy.
It is during a crisis that the establishment hoists its true colors for all to see. With few exceptions, the most prominent voices in politics and the news media are chanting in unison that Bhutto’s assassination proves that the United States needs to be more involved in Pakistan than it has been.
Could the United States be more involved? American presidents have been meddling in Pakistani politics for a long time. After the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979 both Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan regarded the brutal military dictator Gen. Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, who had come to power by overthrowing — and later executing — Bhutto’s father, the elected prime minister, Zulifqar Ali Bhutto, as a key ally. Once again the U.S. government used the Cold War as an excuse to back a despot.
Shortly before the current Pakistan president, Pervez Musharraf, staged a coup and named himself chief executive, Bill Clinton had pressured then-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to get Musharraf, who was then the head of the army, to pull his forces out of the part of Kashmir controlled by rival India. Sharif was thus perceived as a puppet of the United States. That could not have helped his fortunes.
Since 9/11, of course, Musharraf has been crowned a key ally in Bush’s “war on terror.” Some $10 billion in cash and arms has poured into the dictator’s coffers. The largess did not slow down when Musharraf suspended the constitution, sacked the Supreme Court, declared martial law, and arrested lawyers and civil-libertarians — all to fight terrorism and protect democracy.
When even Bush couldn’t escape the fact that the Pakistanis were outraged about Musharraf, his administration tried to engineer an unlikely political marriage between the dictator and Bhutto. Whether her death came at the hands of Musharraf’s security forces, parts of which have notorious ties to radical Islamic elements, or al-Qaeda and the Taliban, the murderers’ opportunity has the mark of bumbling U.S. interventionism all over it. Before someone calls this a “blame America first” point of view, note that former Bush UN ambassador John Bolton told Fox News, “We in effect helped — helped — precipitate this dynamic that led to her tragic assassination.”
What is so fascinating is how impervious the political and media establishments are to the lessons of reality. After all that’s happened, the dominant voices still insist that Bush redouble efforts to determine Pakistan’s future. The arrogance and pretense of knowledge displayed by such people are astounding. Haven’t they learned that America’s political leaders can’t possibly know what they would need to know to run Pakistan? Their meddling here creates one mess after another — how can they hope to succeed there?
But Pakistan is the most dangerous country in the world, we’re told incessantly. If that’s true, it’s all the more reason for the United States to keep its hands off. Intervention only creates and provokes enemies. That endangers the American people, precisely the opposite of what the Bush administration says it wants to do.
Comments