-
Who’s Politicizing Benghazi?
May 9, 2013 | 6 comments
-
A Tale of Two Teams and Two Stars
January 10, 2013 | 8 comments
-
Mitt Romney Just Got Himself Elected President
October 3, 2012 | 17 comments
-
Obama to Gays and Hollywood: Show Me the Money!
May 9, 2012 | 13 comments
-
Ruinous Obama Austerity
May 9, 2012 | 2 comments
The Spectacle Blog
It’s not every day that you see the president of an independent, sovereign country take to the pages of an American newspaper with an op-ed arguing that his government is not collaborating with and protecting terrorists.
But then again, I’m not sure there’s another country quite like Pakistan, which has been double-dealing in Afghanistan and in the war on terror for years, and which now has been caught knowingly harboring and protecting the world’s most wanted terrorist, Osama bin Laden.
Oh, Pakistan’s president, Asif Ali Zardari, denies this in an op-ed in today’s Washington Post. “Some in the U.S. press,” he argues,
have suggested that Pakistan lacked vitality in its pursuit of terrorism, or worse yet that we were disingenuous and actually protected the terrorists we claimed to be pursuing. Such baseless speculation may make exciting cable news, but it doesn’t reflect fact.
Pakistan had as much reason to despise al-Qaeda as any nation. The war on terrorism is as much Pakistan’s war as it is America’s. And though it may have started with bin Laden, the forces of modernity and moderation remain under serious threat.
President Zardari is absolutely right: Al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist groups are a serious threat to the civic health and stability of Pakistan. And the United States does need to work closely with Islamabad to combat these threats.
But Zardari is being disingenuous when he skirts the issue of Pakistani complicity in protecting bin Laden. The plain fact is that bin Laden was not, as U.S. intelligence analyst had thought — and as I had reported here at the American Spectator Sunday night — hiding in distant, underground caves.
Instead, he was living in a plush and well populated residential area (Abbottabad) 31 miles northeast of Pakistan’s capital city of Islamabad. And it simply defies credulity to believe that bin Laden was living there without the knowledge and acquiescence of key members of the Pakistani military and political class.
To be sure, bin Laden reportedly was without phone or Internet access, and thus likely had no real command and control authority or ability. Still, the fact remains that our Pakistani “allies” were protecting bin Laden, even though they knew we wanted him — dead or alive as former President Bush put it.
Does this mean we should cut off relations with Pakistan and target them in the war on terror? Of course not. We need Pakistan’s help and collaboration. And, as President Zardari rightly observes, Pakistan has as much to fear from Islamic terrorists and Islamic extremism as we do.
But we also have to be honest and forthright — with ourselves, with our Pakistani partners, and with the world — about Pakistani double-dealing and complicity with the enemies of the civilized world. We need to make clear to President Zardari that turning a blind eye to terrorists — and especially the world’s most heinous and most wanted terrorist, Osama bin Laden — is simply unacceptable and will not be tolerated.
Beyond rhetorical protestations, though, there are other more tangible steps that we can take, including leveraging our billions of dollars in foreign aid to Pakistan to demand more honesty and transparency about terrorist networks within Waziristan.
Moreover, as Bing West suggests, the United States can and should use this occasion “to step up its attacks against other terrorists inside Pakistan, especially along the Afghan border.”
By finding and killing bin Laden in a well protected (and obviously well known) Pakistani compound, the United States has seized the moral high ground, and our Pakistani friends — including President Zardari — know it. We must press our advantage to demand more tangible action by them against al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
View all comments (11) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by John R. Guardiano
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/05/03/demand-more-of-pakistan
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Too Many Tims| 5.3.11 @ 1:55PM
With friends like them who needs enemies?
PattyMor| 5.3.11 @ 2:06PM
Ah, Mr. 10% is carping and complaining about the U.S. doing a raid without telling them. Its too rich. The Pakistanis have been double dealing for some time. In case you don't know, Zadari got his knickname, from skimming 10% off the top.
Oldefarte| 5.3.11 @ 3:17PM
Sorry, Jim, but I'm disagreeing with you on this one. What if the roles were reversed, and the US contained the residence of a terrorist that had bombed/destroyed Pakistan's [say] capitol building etc. Would our political leaders be able to claim that they were completely unaware of said terrorist's existence or residence? Give me a break, please. Its been the dirty little secret for years that Pakistan is a terrorist instigator/supporter, and that its intelligence is complicit in same, and this situation only prooves same. Stop being politically correct with this issue and call a spade, a spade. Additionally, the computer hard drives confiscated at UBL' s compound should lend tons of information regarding not only persons/individuals/governments involved in both the fighting and monetary elements of UBl's vast network [and many many of them will have to exit their closeted secrecy of deceipt shortly]!!!!!!!!
bobmontgomery| 5.3.11 @ 7:05PM
Let's talk about Yemen. Let's talk about Iran. Let's talk about Syria. Let's talk about Eastern Libya.
the refudiator| 5.3.11 @ 10:27PM
Let's talk about ending all foreign aid. Now.
Occam's Tool| 5.4.11 @ 1:45AM
End foreign aid to those who deserve it not.
The coagulating bandage used to save Congresswoman's Giffords life was developed and designed in...anyone...anyone...anyone.
That's right. Ron Paul and Jimmy Carter's least favorite country.
Clint| 5.4.11 @ 7:47AM
End Big Government Confiscated Foreign Aid AmericanTaxpayers' Money Welfare Payments to all of These Parasite Countries, including Fanatic Neo-ChickenhawkIsrael Firster AgendaBoy Tool Job's Israel.
Join The IDF, if You're such an Israel Firster Go Girl, Tool Job.
Occam's Tool| 5.4.11 @ 1:49AM
Oh, and the Pakistani Government IS in bed with terrorists. And Clint's Catholic. The Sun rises in the East. Obama's half Black. Michelle has a Fat Ass....
Clint| 5.4.11 @ 7:48AM
You got a problem with my Catholicism Jew Boy Tool Job ?
Bring It Israel Firster Punk Ass.
BARBBF| 5.4.11 @ 8:24AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related
Rich Rostrom| 5.4.11 @ 2:42PM
Pakistan has given us many other Al-Qaeda operatives, such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed. Why would they do that and shelter Osama? There is a faction in Pakistani intelligence that has dealings with the Taliban, but that is because they see the Taliban as a force they can use in Afghanistan against suspected Indian influence. They don't care about Al-Qaeda.
As to how Osama could hide in Abbottabad... Pakistan is a violent Third World country, where most important and wealthy men live in semi-fortified compounds. There was nothing remarkable about the Osama house.
And in that part of the world, private homes are *very* private, by long tradition. Kipling, writing of 19th century Lahore, called it "the City where each man's house is as guarded and unknowable as the grave."
There was almost certainly a cover story for local consumption: the house was occupied by some exiled warlord or chief from Afghanistan or Waziristan, who was in refuge from political rivals, tribal feudists, drug traders, the CIA, Iranian agents, perhaps even some element of the Taliban.
And it is clear that Al-Qaeda maintained very tight security around it. No phone or internet connection, and only one ultra-trusted courier going in and out.
No guards to speak of. That kept down the number of Al-Qaeda who knew. Also, U.S. analysts assumed Osama's location would have lots of guards, so the Abbottabad house escaped notice.
The Abbottabad location was clever: an area under firm Pakistani control, and therefore *not* focused on by U.S. intelligence which has built up a net all through the border area.
We'll learn more from the intelligence gathered in the house. Perhaps where Osama was between 2001 and 2005, and how he was moved to the house.
But there's no reason to jump to any conclusions about Pakistan.