Fox Analyst Flays "Friend" Musharraf

It is a rare occurrence when I must side with the usually left-leaning State Department on any issue that directly involves national security. However, when it comes to calls from certain quarters for the Bush administration to aggressively pressure Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to wage all out war on Islamic radicals hiding in the mountainous Afghanistan/Pakistan border, I found myself siding with Richard Boucher, Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs rather than Fox News military analyst Colonel David Hunt. Ordinarily I appreciate Col. Hunt’s blunt assessments and aggressive posture towards engaging the enemy with full purpose and force rather than limited rules of engagement, but Col. Hunt’s recommendations for conducting the War on Terror within Pakistan are fraught with dangers that he either minimizes or ignores in his online columns and cable news interviews.

A summary of a new threat assessment leaked to the Associated Press this week highlighted the reality that the Taliban and al Qaeda have regrouped and regained strength nearly on par with pre-9/11 levels, thriving in their mountain hideouts in the tribal regions of Pakistan’s northwestern border with Afghanistan. What to do about that reality is, next to Iraq, the most hotly debated issue in Washington. Counterterrorism and intelligence officials believe Musharraf has not done enough to root out the terrorists while accepting $100 million from the U.S. each month ostensibly to develop the local economy in the tribal areas where many find the money alternatively offered by terror groups and border smugglers irresistible. Musharraf has insisted that Pakistani forces execute all counterterrorism raids and operations within Pakistan, and the amount of success he has achieved forms the crux of the debate between the State Department’s approach toward Pakistan and the approach favored by Col. Hunt and others.

In his latest column at FoxNews.com, Col. Hunt wrote the following:

This week, we learned that in 2005, great guys from Seal Team 6, Special Forces, and other terrific Special Operations Organizations were sitting on a runway in Afghanistan, all geared up, ready to go and capture and or kill much of al Qaeda's top leadership. You remember al Qaeda; they’re the ones who killed us on September 11, 2001. Our supremely brave, conditioned and trained men were fully rehearsed, totally committed and ready to kick some serious al Qaeda [expletive].

They call him Rummy … or at least I do. He's the former and totally incompetent Secretary of Defense, who less than two years after 9/11 — two years after the president says “we will hunt them down” — decides that this mission was to be canceled. He makes this bone-headed decision because it might be “dangerous” and it might piss off the president of Pakistan. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Hey, Mr. “Ask and Answer Your Own Questions,” everything about war is dangerous and General Musharraf is not our friend.

I do not fault Col. Hunt for his dislike of former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld or for his desire for Special Forces operations like the one he described to act swiftly and lethally to eliminate Bin Laden or other terrorist leaders. From a counterterrorism and military perspective, the idea that a Special Forces team had a specific location to hit within Pakistan and was prepared to strike but was denied the opportunity for political reasons is incredibly frustrating. It is easy for those of us who work in intelligence or related fields to conclude that though such an operation might anger Musharraf, the ends would justify the means, especially if Bin Laden were captured or killed. Yet that is precisely where Col. Hunt’s assessment of the missed opportunity and the risk to Musharraf drifts from understandable disappointment to dangerous miscalculation.

Col. Hunt’s assessment that “General Musharraf is not our friend” is shared by many within the intelligence and counterterrorism community, but it is based on unrealistic expectations for “friendship” in the War on Terror, as well as a dangerous underestimation of the Muslim power vacuum that would occur in nuclear-armed Pakistan should Musharraf lose control or be assassinated. Although Musharraf may not be the “friend” that Col. Hunt understandably hopes for, considering the seething cauldron of Islamic radicalism that surrounds him within his own population it is remarkable that he has survived to assist the U.S. as long as he has. Assistant Sec. of State Boucher defended Musharraf’s contributions to the War on Terror during a House committee hearing yesterday, as excerpted from the Washington Post:

At the hearing, Boucher said that Pakistan has "captured more al-Qaeda than any country in the world, and lost more people doing that." He added that Pakistani authorities had killed or captured three of the top 10 Taliban commanders in the border area over the past six to nine months -- and caught several more in the past week.

Boucher said that Pakistan has about 85,000 troops stationed in the border area, with Washington reimbursing Islamabad for its $100 million monthly expenses. Musharraf has promised the tribal leaders $100 million annually for 10 years, and the United States has pledged another $150 million annually for five years, in an effort to promote economic development as an alternative to smuggling and terrorism.

"These were all joint efforts with Pakistan that led to the elimination of some of the top Taliban leaders who had been operating from Pakistan to support the insurgency in Afghanistan," Boucher said.

He said that there are signs "every now and then that there's not a wholehearted effort at all levels in all institutions in Pakistan" -- a reference to news accounts of Pakistani intelligence officials supporting terrorists.

"We've raised those when we need to," Boucher said. When asked about Musharraf's role, he said, "I think if Pakistan was not fighting terrorism, there'd be no way we could succeed in Afghanistan or in terms of the security of our homeland."

The State Department and intelligence community are nearly always at odds over strategy and alliance issues, and nowhere is that more evident than in the debate over how much pressure the U.S. should apply to Musharraf to wage war against Islamic radicals within his own country. In addition to the contributions Musharraf has made as outlined in part by Asst. Secretary Boucher, Musharraf recently showed courage in raiding a radical mosque and killing a barricaded Islamic radical cleric, actions that were wildly unpopular In Islamabad and caused riots. He has reportedly survived fourteen assassination attempts, and yet continues to mount Pakistani military operations against Taliban and al Qaeda leaders in the tribal regions. In this precarious position reality dictates that losing Musharraf, regardless of his perceived level of “friendship” with the U.S., would be far more dangerous to world stability and our national security than his continued allegedly half-hearted engagement in the War on Terror.

Col. Hunt was quick to criticize Musharraf and to call for American military strikes within Pakistan regardless of the potential ramifications for Musharraf’s continued control over Pakistan’s nuclear weaponry and resources. Such rash action might satisfy our desire for revenge on Bin Laden and it might very well weaken al Qaeda greatly for many years. However, as recent plots in Britain, Indonesia, the Philippines, and other nations have demonstrated, al Qaeda’s leadership may be holed up in Pakistan’s mountains, but its ideology and followers have formed a global movement. By striking within Pakistan without the consent of President Musharraf, America would undermine his authority and control over his country and embolden radical Islamists to gain control of Pakistan’s military and nuclear weapons through a coup or other violent action. Would America be safer with a Pakistani leader who, though far from being a perfect “friend”, at least keeps nuclear weapons and material out of the hands of Islamic terrorists, or with the alternative; a radical Islamist Pakistani leader who opens Pakistan’s nuclear resources to the highest bidding terrorist organization?

If a U.S. War on Terror, waged by the U.S. inside Pakistan, would create no other repercussions than making Musharraf angry, as Col. Hunt simplistically assumed, then it would be well worth doing, and doing immediately. Unfortunately, war carries multiple dangers, and angering Musharraf is not the reason we have forestalled sending our Special Forces into Pakistan. The simple truth is that Musharraf’s stability in Pakistan has earned him the right to demand that Pakistan’s military conduct all operations within its border. One wonders how Col. Hunt might respond if he were President of the United States and a terrorist group, later discovered to be holed up in the Rocky Mountains near Denver, flew planes into government buildings in Islamabad, killing 3,000 Pakistanis. Would “President Hunt,” when contacted by an angry Musharraf, agree to allow Pakistani forces to operate inside the U.S. and attack the terrorists hiding in the Rocky Mountains? It is not likely. “President Hunt” would rightfully expect to be respected and would likewise rightfully assure Musharraf that the U.S. military would handle any such operation within our borders. Why would Col. Hunt expect Musharraf to act any differently when given the same type of request?

For a military man steeped in the culture of respect for authority, it is surprising that Col. Hunt would demonstrate so much contempt for the authority of a foreign president of a nuclear power with a population of 165 million who has, lest it be forgotten, taken high profile terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed into custody and turned them over to American intelligence operatives. The information gleaned from those prisoners has been the most significant contribution to our knowledge of the enemy in the War on Terror, and Musharraf’s military operations against al Qaeda in Pakistan made that possible. While Musharraf holds onto his fragile control over Pakistan, America should patiently assist this “friend” rather than cast stones at him. Who among world leaders is a perfect “friend?” Let him cast the first stone. Secretary Rumsfeld, also a far from perfect Defense Secretary, clearly had more significant reasons for not sending Special Ops into Pakistan than making Musharraf angry, reasons that continue to shape current American restraint in order to preserve a known and stable leadership in Pakistan.

Technorati Tags:
Musharraf, Pakistan, al Qaeda, War on Terror, Bush Administration, Colonel David Hunt, State Department, Richard Boucher, Taliban, Counterterrorism

Pakistan Wheels and Deals with Taliban: Pirated U.S. Missile Technology Used Against NATO Aircraft

Have you ever wondered what happened to the cruise missiles fired on orders of then-President Clinton into Afghanistan in 1998 in his less than half-hearted attempt to strike at Osama Bin Laden? According to Afghani Taliban and Al Qaeda sources interviewed by the Asia Times Online, some of those high tech missiles never detonated and were then retrieved by Pakistani military units near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. If you have read Tom Clancy’s novel The Sum of All Fears, in which Arab terrorists (not the ridiculous Hollywood version with white supremacist villains) acquire a nuclear bomb when an Israeli Air Force fighter jet loses a nuclear bomb that does not detonate on an Arab farm, you can envision what Pakistan did with these armed and fully intact U.S. cruise missiles.

Pakistani military scientists took note of the sophisticated sensors utilized in the cruise missiles and reportedly did what China has been doing with Microsoft software and Motion Picture Association recordings for years: they made illegal copies. The copied sensors were then successfully fitted to an unknown number and variety of existing Pakistani missiles, which greatly enhanced the capabilities of Pakistani offensive and defensive weaponry.

The Taliban, meanwhile, had long sought more sophisticated weapons to utilize against U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan after 2001 in their efforts to return to power and oust President Karzai. According to the Asia Times Taliban sources, the Taliban acquired older Soviet model SAM-7s (Surface to Air Missile) in 2005, and received immediate training from Al Qaeda operatives. However, those ancient anti-aircraft missiles were largely ineffective against high tech coalition fighter jets and bombers because they lacked an important technological capability: heat-signature tracking and exhaust decoy sensors. The Taliban needed to seek help with resolving this sensor disadvantage and they turned to their natural ally and protector, Pakistan, the alleged American ally in the War on Terror, and its stock of pirated U.S. cruise missile sensors. In a new deal struck between Pakistan's government and the Taliban, Pakistan has reportedly provided the Taliban with pirated sensor technology the Taliban is using to upgrade its arsenal of SAM-7s.

As Syed Saleem Shahzad, Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief, noted: the introduction of SAM-7s equipped with the copied sensors ironically could alter the dynamics of the NATO battle with the Taliban. This shift could give the Taliban important advantages in much the same fashion as the Afghani resistance forces benefited from the U.S. gift of Stinger missiles in their historic fight against Soviet occupation. American and NATO planes would be under constant threat from American sensor equipped SAMs. For a stunning series of photos of a next-generation SAM-7 (SAM-14) terrorist attack on a DHL courier jet in Iraq, click here. These photos and the accompanying account of the attack on an Airbus 300, illustrate that terrorists in Iraq, equipped by Iran (and by some accounts, Pakistan), are in possession of even more sophisticated SAMs than the Taliban’s modified version.

Shahzad reported that the Pakistani government (he does not specify at what level) has formed an alliance with the Taliban:

Using Pakistani territory and with Islamabad's support, the Taliban will be able safely to move men, weapons and supplies into southwestern Afghanistan. The deal. . . will serve Pakistan's interests in re- establishing a strong foothold in Afghanistan (the government in Kabul leans much more toward India). . . . Despite their most successful spring offensive last year since being ousted in 2001, the Taliban realize they need the assistance of a state actor if they are to achieve "total victory".

Taliban commanders planning this year's spring uprising acknowledged that as an independent organization or militia, they could not fight a sustained battle against state resources. They believed they could mobilize the masses, but this would likely bring a rain of death from the skies and the massacre of Taliban sympathizers. Their answer was to find their own state resources, and inevitably they looked toward their former patron, Pakistan.

Interestingly, also reported today was the announcement by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell that the CIA has “compelling” evidence that Bin Laden and his second in command Ayman al Zawahri are currently in Pakistan and are reestablishing al Qaeda training camps in the provinces bordering Afghanistan. While Pakistan makes mostly symbolic occasional arrests in the War on Terror to placate America and retain enormous amounts of financial aid, it is simultaneously forming logistical alliances with and providing pirated weapons technology to our Taliban enemy. While playing this duplicitous game of “(Evil) Axis and (Naïve) Allies,” Pakistan may also be providing Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda’s senior leadership safe haven within Pakistan’s borders with the tacit approval of the Islamabad government. These factors should make more clear the reasons why Vice President Cheney and Stephen Kappes, CIA Deputy Director, made separate visits this week to Islamabad to confront President General Musharraf, presumably with a diplomatic pouch full of satellite imagery and ultimatums.

Spy the News! has previously documented Pakistan’s growing threat to the region, its minimal efforts to capture and extradite Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives, and its fear of radical Islam within its population. Pakistan’s pirating of U.S. missiles to improve its own defense capabilities occurred pre-9/11 and, while patently dishonest, should have been a predictable response to the recovery of abandoned multi-million dollar missiles that, like their mission itself, failed spectacularly. However, Pakistan’s provision of this missile technology to the Taliban in its fight against the Karzai government and American and NATO forces is inexcusable for an alleged post 9/11 ally.

The Bush administration, beyond the personal visits and verbal warnings of the Vice President and CIA Deputy Director, must send a clear message to Pakistan that not $1 in U.S. financial aid (Pakistan is the second leading recipient of U.S. financial aid) will be given to Pakistan until Pakistan, with NATO assistance if requested, destroys every Taliban and Al Qaeda camp within Pakistan’s borders, including all mobile anti-aircraft batteries infesting the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Pakistan pirated the sensors for those SAMs and must now atone for the traitorous act of supplying them to terrorists engaged in conflict with the U.S. and NATO.

Pakistan currently meets most of the criteria set forth by President Bush to justify the invasion of Iraq: Offering safe haven to terrorists; documented proliferation of nuclear weapons technology or materials; arming and funding known terrorist organizations (state sponsor of terror), including the new cooperative agreement described in this post and in the Asia Time Online. Clearly, generous American financial aid has not moved Pakistan reliably into the American camp in the War on Terror. It is time to invest elsewhere until Pakistan reforms itself and swings both legs over the fence it has been straddling. President Bush received much liberal criticism for the following ultimatum in November 2001, but it should be repeated to and accountability demanded from the country that holds the key to defeating the Taliban and Al Qaeda but refuses to turn it or provide it to those who will:

A coalition partner must do more than just express sympathy, a coalition partner must perform. . . . That means different things for different nations. Some nations don't want to contribute troops and we understand that. Other nations can contribute intelligence-sharing. ... But all nations, if they want to fight terror, must do something.

Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity. . . . You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror.

It is time for Pakistan to give its final answer.

Liberal Reaction to Failed Taliban Attack on U.S. Vice President: "Better Luck Next Time"

The major news story yesterday was a suicide bomber’s detonation outside the secured perimeter at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan, during Vice President Cheney’s visit with military personnel there, but the attack was only half the story. The unabashed disappointment expressed by liberals to the fact that the attack failed was perhaps the aspect that deserves the most attention.

To summarize the incident liberals cheered, the bomb killed at least 23, including one U.S. soldier, one South Korean soldier, and one U.S. contractor. The remaining 20 victims were reportedly Afghani civilians, many of them truck drivers employed to deliver goods to the Bagram base, waiting in line to go through security screening for entry to the base. The bomber did not penetrate security and detonated outside the checkpoint, thus it would appear the Taliban claim that Vice President Cheney was the target of the attack was likely mere political bluster. The U.S. Military put forth the following statement that best describes a plausible motive for the rush by the Taliban to claim the attack targeted the Vice President:

"We actually think that their tying it to the vice president's visit ... was an attempt to draw attention away from the fact that the attack killed so many Afghan civilians, including a 12-year-old boy," said Lt. Col. David Accetta, a U.S. military spokesman.

Attacks at sites where high level U.S. dignitaries are visiting understandably receive extensive international coverage. However, the bombing also served to reveal something very ugly and despicable in American society: personal disdain for a vice president that has become so vitriolic that members of the opposing party are unashamedly disappointed when an alleged assassination attempt of the U.S. Vice President by a foreign enemy fails.

Consider this historical hypothetical comparison which should help place the liberal reactions to the claimed attack on Vice President Cheney quoted below in proper perspective:

It is February 1945, and after 4 years of brutal war in Europe and the Pacific, America has suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties fighting a war against ideologies bent on the destruction of America. Vice President Harry Truman decides, at great personal risk, to visit U.S. troops at an air base in the Pacific preparing for a spring offensive against Okinawa. Keeping his intended destination secret, Truman arrives at the Pacific base, greets and dines with soldiers, offering them encouragement and continued support. During Truman’s visit, an enemy combatant approaches a security checkpoint at the Pacific base and detonates a suicide bomb that kills 23 people, including 2 Americans. Truman is taken to a prepared shelter until base security is confirmed, and then, in courageous fashion, continues with his visit and later flies to Manila to meet with a cooperative but somewhat embattled local leader, all while still in mortal danger from further attempts on his life. When news reaches America that the enemy claimed it had attempted to assassinate Truman but failed, many Americans write letters to the editors of local and national newspapers expressing their disappointment that the enemy had not shown more competence and succeeded in “killing Truman over there so we won’t have to do it here.”

Of course, in February 1945, no true American of any party would have harbored such thoughts or wishes against Truman regardless of political persuasion or war opposition (a negligible phenomenon in that war). Yet in today’s supposedly “enlightened” liberal society, disappointment and write-in expressions of anger that Vice President Cheney survived the attack at Bagram were the reactions of such a high number of readers of a highly popular liberal blog, the Huffington Post, that the web site managers were forced to shut down the reader comment thread for an article titled, “Over 20 Die in Attack on Cheney” after reader comments containing wishes that the Vice President had been killed filled 12 pages, as reported by World Net Daily. WND also successfully captured the comments before they were deleted by Huffington Post site managers.

For the record, the Huffington Post acted responsibly by closing the thread and deleting the comments, as they could potentially be a legal liability should some reader determine, based on the shared support of so many fellow readers, that he/she should attempt to do what the Taliban failed to accomplish. Thanks to World Net Daily, we have a representative sample of how personal, irrational, and truly un-American the anti-Cheney (and anti-Bush, which is actually even more acerbic) sentiment in the Democratic Party has become:

Better luck next time! (TDB)

Dr Evil escapes again ... damn. (truthtopower01)

So Cheney is personally responsible for the deaths of 14 innocent people ... and then he waddles off to lunch!! What a piece of sh--! (fantanfanny

Jesus Christ and General Jackson too, can't the Taliban do anything right? They must know we would be so gratefull (sic) to them for such a remarkable achievement. (hankster2)

Hey, Thalia, lighten up. I, for one, don't wish Cheny (sic) had been killed. I wish he had been horribly maimed and had to spend the rest of his life hooked to a respirator. Feel better now? (raisarooney)

Let's see ... they're killing him over there so we don't have to kill him over here? (ncjohn)

And they missed!? Oh, Hell. Like Mamma used to say, I guess it's the thought that counts ... (Anachro1)

You can never find a competent suicide bomber when you need one. Mark701)

Amazingly Democrats wonder why Republicans question their patriotism. As much as Republicans disliked Bill Clinton, hopefully even the liberal left can recognize that impeaching a man for perjury is a lesser level of disdain than wishing that terrorists had killed him while in office. Expressing such wishes verbally or in writing actually constitutes a felony under federal law, hence the Huffington Post’s wise decision to remove such comments from the blog. Republicans were not particularly fond of President Carter, but would have responded with unanimous condemnation and retaliatory force had he been sitting on the reviewing stand with Anwar Sadat when Sadat was assassinated in 1981. The idea of anyone attacking or killing our elected leaders should produce nothing but outrage and a determination to prevent that from happening to any of them, anywhere they may go, in war time or periods of peace.

More disturbing is the realization that many so-called Americans would ever wish for an enemy to determine who holds office by circumventing our democratic process through assassination. We choose our leaders and we should condemn and thwart any effort that takes that choice out of our control.

Many conservatives have argued that liberals are rooting against American success in Iraq and Afghanistan, and expressions of ignorant and inflammatory vitriol, as demonstrated by Huffington Post readers, provide additional evidence that such observations are accurate. Clearly the majority of readers commenting on the incident at Bagram Air Base hate Vice President Cheney on the same level as the Taliban, as they too wished to see him dead.

Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton have declared that Iraq is “Bush’s war,” which has become a phrase used interchangeably with “Iraq War” throughout the liberal media. Framing the war in that manner assures that actually winning in Iraq or defeating terrorists anywhere will hurt Democratic chances in 2008, hence they cannot be expected to do anything to tangibly improve national security or lead to military victory in the Middle East. They simply cannot afford to allow President Bush to succeed in any way, and their personal hatred for the Bush/Cheney team trumps all other instincts, even their own survival. After all, if the Taliban reportedly hoped to kill Vice President Cheney, why would Democrats think they would be immune from such attempts if they were in office?

Terrorists don’t distinguish between our parties and call cease fires on Americans during Democratic administrations. Apparently forgotten are the seizing of our embassy in Tehran in 1979, the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998, the bombing of the USSS Cole in 2000, and other attacks during the Carter and Clinton administrations.

The liberal Vice President Cheney haters, in their rabid desire to blame him for everything from global war to global warming, should focus on organizing enough votes to elect a vice president they can support rather than wish radical Islamic terrorists would eliminate a man they failed to defeat politically. Americans should be united in our gratitude that the Vice President was not hurt, not because it was “Dick Cheney, “ or “Darth Cheney,” as liberals like to call him, but simply because he is America’s Vice President, regardless of party affiliation. A phrase the ACLU has not yet litigated against because it contains no God reference, E Pluribus Unum, states perfectly the unity with which America should respond when its leaders are targeted for assassination: Out of many, one.