MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
|
|
Pakistan defends role, questions 'unilateral' US action
By AmericanDreamer on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 3:28pm |Today's WashPost.
URL:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/pakistan-defends-role-condemns-unilateral-us-action/2011/05/03/AFrZ4lgF_story.html?hpid=z2
- 2489 reads
Comments
They want Bush back, billions in US aid and no pesky questions about international terrorist leaders receiving sanctuary.
by NCD on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 10:36pm
Pakistan has not been able to get its story straight about whether the ISI helped the U.S. pinpoint Osama's location or simply didn't have a clue where he was. Both claims ring false. As Panetta told Congress, "they're involved or incompetent." Either way, they've screwed the pooch:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/pakistan-faces-backlash-if-it-colluded-with-al-qaeda-1.1099395
Pakistan didn't dare "condemn" the unilateral U.S. action. It merely expressed "concern" and warned the U.S. not to use it as a precedent. Fortunately, there's been little public outrage about the killing of bin Laden because most Pakistanis don't believe he's dead. Hey, keep it that way. By all means, don't release photos of his body!
by acanuck on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 3:19am
Fortunately, there's been little public outrage about the killing of bin Laden.
I wouldn't speak too soon on that, turns out right now I have open an second browser tab and on the home page of the NYT there's a photo with the caption Hundreds offered prayers for Bin Laden on a street in Karachi, declaring him a martyr and then I am rieminded of this article which had a photo on top of a protest in Quetta Monday and I've seen others elsewhere.
The problem as I see it has always been it's not in the numbers of sympathizers with radical jihadism but that that mindset is a minority but a minority that is in control of certain sectors of the country. And the government always has had to be duplicitious in many ways to have that democracy hang together, always by fingernails. Also those sectors are often where the most poor and most uneducated predominate so that there is easy manipulation. I.E., the Northwest provinces inhabitants are small in number but have caused much havoc (compare something like Ku Klux Klan and sympathizers, mebbe.)
Plus a glance at the media in India yesterday I saw that they were really rubbing it in, that's never a help, pushes the buttons of Pakistani fence sitters on any issue, kneejerk reaction against anything India says/does.
by artappraiser on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 4:02am
I've been googling "bin Laden backlash" and "bin Laden protest." Yes, there have been a few reported demos -- perhaps 100 or so people in Karachi (with neatly printed English-language signs, handed out by the activist group Pasban), a few dozen people in Quetta (heartland of the Pakistani Taliban) and two dozen marchers in Gaza.
That's it! It's been well over 48 hours. Under "backlash" almost all I got was X "braces for backlash," Y "warns of backlash." Osama's death is NOT resonating in the Muslim world. I think I know why. Because even his supporters understand the U.S. had the right to kill him.
In the Muslim/Arab world, I believe, there's a tradition of tit-for-tat retribution that in some way supplants arguments of moral or legal justification. A lot of people sympathized with bin Laden, agreed he was waging the good jihad -- but the fact that he killed nearly 3,000 Americans incurred a blood debt he remained liable for. It's why sharia has the odd provision that, if you can come to a monetary settlement with the family of someone you've killed, you can escape prosecution.
Bin Laden, of course, never repented or offered any payment. So the U.S. gets a free pass on killing him. I found it interesting that imam of the Al-Azhar mosque denounced the U.S. -- but for violating Muslim tradition by burying bin Laden at sea, not for murdering him!
Does what I'm saying make any sense to you? You gotta admit the protests have been damned sparse.
by acanuck on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 4:29am
On 9/9/2011, bin Laden snuck a few "journalists" in to see Massoud, head of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, and in the "interview" they exploded a bomb out of their video camera and killed him.
Why is that any different from what we did to bin Laden?
by Desider on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 5:56am
Yes it makes sense, as you seem to be talking about the general Pakistani public, that you are pleasantly surprised there is such low key reaction. I guess I am talking about a different angle, example I just read here:
Because it's never been the attitudes of the majority Pakistani public or even the conservative Islam segment that are the main source of of Pakistan's problems, it's the Pashtun jihadis and their friends. I just don't see how it changes their situation that there aren't mass protests in the streets about the Bin Laden op, that's not much solace. Keeping in mind the main thing that drove Bin Ladenism and still drives his sympathizers, to distraction, to holy war, is the interference and boots on the ground of infidels on Muslim lands. I just don't think the fact that there are no major demonstrations is any solace to Pakistani government or rule of law, to establishing a state where terrorist incidents aren't common and where tourism and international commerce can go on, as the problem figures all along that matter don't like that it happened, it is another major thing to rile them, to more suicide bombings, etc. If it is indeed the case that ISI or retired ISI knew of Osama's refuge, (and it may not be, )the main driving reason as always is the hold jihadis down below a boiling point that would mean a lot more damage to the country at large than they already have. That's what I meant by the cournty always hanging on by its fingernails.
by artappraiser on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 4:19pm
Good points. It is pretty important to note that another thing that gets Pakistani jihadis going is Kashmir - in a BIG way. It seems to me there is a more direct line of causality between 9/11 and the conflict in Kashmir than any other factor. That's why the ISI supported the Afghanistan terror bases in the first place.
Notice, the statement you highlight doesn't mention American occupations at all. Their expressed worry is the integrity of the Mujahideen. Maybe some of the Arab foreigners are motivated by our presence in "Muslim lands", but I think the motivations of Pakistanis are far more regional than you are giving them credit for.
by kgb999 on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 5:00pm
Pakistani involvement is so sketchy, it gives them all the elbow room to deny any involvement in assisting the US locate and kill Osama. An in the arab world, assisting the US to kill an arab looses face...something both the US and Pakistan are desparately trying to avoid. So the more confusing their role, the better they'll be able to deny any involvement. Besides, this operation was so secret Congress was left in the dark, so I suspect no one but the inner most circle will know for sure if Pakistan was or was not involved, and they aren't using meaningful sentence structure to explain any coherent details about who, what when, where and how.
by Beetlejuice on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 10:39am
Don't have the quote handy ... but I am quite certain members of Congress were notified before the operation.
by kgb999 on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 5:40pm
Don't think so. Prove me wrong.
by acanuck on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 6:42pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/01/osama-bin-laden-dead-killed_n_8...
by kgb999 on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 6:58pm
Well played, sir. Probably just Boehner, Reid, Pelosi, McConnell, and the heads of two or three relevant committees. But that counts as informing Congress these days. The real risk was probably letting Biden in on what was going down.
by acanuck on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 10:35pm
Under federal law, a Presidential Finding, which is highly classified, must be issued when a covert intelligence operation gets under way and, at a minimum, must be made known to Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and the Senate and to the ranking members of their respective intelligence committees—the so-called Gang of Eight. Money for the operation can then be reprogrammed from previous appropriations, as needed, by the relevant congressional committees, which also can be briefed.
by we are stardust on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 11:25pm
Thanks for the info. They probably had about five minutes' heads-up. Not quite enough time to reallocate the funds. In the end, it'll probably come out of health care.
by acanuck on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 11:48pm
It already comes out of health care.
by kyle flynn on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 1:58am
It was definitely only the top - maybe only the 4. It kind of sucks, but I don't see how to approach it differently. We have idiot Republicans who tweet their own position when visiting troops in a war zone.
(nod to the Biden joke ... lol!).
by kgb999 on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 11:29pm
It turns out he's the one who (apparently unwittingly) outed Seal Team Six as the hit squad. In his speech, Obama was careful not to say which unit carried out the job.
by acanuck on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 1:54am
by artappraiser on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 2:02am
Addendum, from today's WashPost: "Pakistani military, government warn U.S. against future raids":
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/pakistan-questions-legality-of-us-operation-that-killed-bin-laden/2011/05/05/AFM2l0wF_story.html
To which I hope the Administration reply is "Your concern is noted."
Which, in this case, roughly translated out of diplospeak, means "Thanks, but no thanks, you two-faced, lying sons of b******. We'll do what we believe we need to do to protect ourselves and innocents from other countries as well, including your own. We normally favor and prefer notification as a courtesy to the host government. If you had proven yourselves remotely trustworthy over the years we would not view the situation in remotely the same way. Got it?"
by AmericanDreamer on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 10:34am