« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Musharraf Bails on Anti-Terror Talks
Now that's how you show you're committed to fighting terrorism: by pulling out of a tribal council convened to... fight terrorism.
That's what Gen. Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan announced today. Indicating his displeasure with accusations from the U.S. that he's acquiesced to the entrenchment of al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters in his country's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), Musharraf cited "engagements" preventing him attending a joint Afghan-Pakistan tribal conference aimed at cracking down on jihadists. On Monday, President Bush and Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai expressed high hopes for the joint "jirga," conceived of by the three leaders in 2006.
So: jirga on preventing terrorism? No go. Deal with FATA leaders that U.S. intelligence believes led to the reconstitution of al-Qaeda in Pakistan? Probably still in place.
Why would anyone think Musharraf is less than 100 percent committed to fighting al-Qaeda?
Comments (10)
SPENCER wrote on August 8, 2007 2:15 PM:No surprise here; Musharraf and Karzai hate each other, Bush will never attack Al-Qaeda on the Afghan border for fear of a Pakistani coup (the reason why BinLaden escaped Tora Bora), and Bush's diplomatic dysfunction will continue unabated throughout the Middle East.
markg8 wrote on August 8, 2007 2:26 PM:If Bush had any balls he'd immediately freeze all military aid going to Musharraf's military. He's not using those F-16s to go after Al Qaeda anyway. It'd take Perv about an hour to clear his schedule if he did.
Dreggas wrote on August 8, 2007 2:41 PM:What's this? Oh that's right it's naive and irresponsible to talk about taking care of bin laden if musharraff won't....
Yossarian wrote on August 8, 2007 3:20 PM:Ahm, is this news? Everyone with half a brain would have told you that this guy Mushassaff sic would do this. He isn't committed to this whole war on terror just like prez bush ain't committed to it. All of this is just fluff. Read the article in this month's Foreign Affairs about Pakistan by Daniel Markey and you will see how this whole thing is setup to play out.
mbbsdphil wrote on August 8, 2007 3:36 PM:Why would any national leader not do something in order to show his or her independence from external pressure or to bolster his or her domestic political standing? Puhleeze. Every national leader is forced into that bind. Bush, the Deciderer, lives in it.
Ordinarily, when a political leader of one country wants to influence the leader of another, he or she does it quietly; if done publicly, it's through bolstering a foreign leader's domestic standing (the source of their power and ability to do what you want done).
The surest way to get a foreign leader to Just Say No is to browbeat them in public for not obeying you. Unless, of course, you don't really want them to do what you say, but just want to tell your own political base that you tried ever so hard.
mbbsdphil wrote on August 8, 2007 3:39 PM:Why would any national leader not do something in order to show his or her independence from external pressure or to bolster his or her domestic political standing? Puhleeze. Every national leader is forced into that bind. Bush, the Deciderer, lives in it.
Ordinarily, when a political leader of one country wants to influence the leader of another, he or she does it quietly; if done publicly, it's through bolstering a foreign leader's domestic standing (the source of their power and ability to do what you want done).
The surest way to get a foreign leader to Just Say No is to browbeat them in public for not obeying you. Unless, of course, you don't really want them to do what you say, but just want to tell your own political base that you tried ever so hard.
bp wrote on August 8, 2007 3:48 PM:I am surprised at how regularly some commenters make the point that if a foreign leader does not march in lock step with us in the war on terror then...choose your own conclusion. Put yourself in Islamabad (capital of Pakistan) - note the choice of name - and ask yourself why a Pakistan leader whose grip on power is tenuous will openly work with the US with all the Presidential candidates sounding off about him. Outside the Democrats no one else is going to play Bush's game. He can't browbeat anyone abroad. So: stop the delivery of the F16s which, by the way, had been paid for years ago. You really think that frighten the Pakistanis? Get real. The only thing we can do is bomb people, send in special forces and do other macho stuff. It shows how little respect we have for Pakistanis. And it shows how little leverage we have abroad.
Yossarian wrote on August 8, 2007 3:56 PM:Dear bp, it isn't how little respect we have for the Pakistanis it's how little respect we have for sovereignty of others. Even Obama is talking about bombing Pakistan without consulting them first. And no matter what Dodd (Idiot) or Hillary (repukelican before flip flopping to become a dem) say about Obama's speaking out on this, they will do the same thing if they were given the chance. Dodd and Hillary didn't say we shouldn't do that they just said hey you shouldn't say it out loud. What does that say about our respect for other's sovereignty?
sc: free = as in we only believe in US being free
Color wrote on August 8, 2007 4:00 PM:Why would ANYONE think anyone associated with George W Bush would be comitted to destroying Bin Laden and Al Queda? LOL! Some people are daft.
bp wrote on August 8, 2007 6:15 PM:Yossarian:
Thanks. I despair of anyone looking at the war on terror in broader terms than how will it affect us. The Europeans have had two major terror attacks in Barcelona and London and they responded with a lot more maturity. We want our people, who are as tough as they come, to live in fear and have knee jerk responses. We need to use our heads.