Ocotillo
08-13-2006, 06:54 PM
Friends And Allies (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115549077062304 239)
by digby
Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. George W. Bush, September 20, 2001
U.S. and European officials described Pakistan yesterday as the hub of a plot to down transatlantic flights (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/11/AR2006081102053.html), saying the young British men allegedly behind the planned attacks drew financial and logistical support from sponsors operating in Karachi and Lahore.
At least 17 suspects in British custody for the aviation plot have family ties to Pakistan, and several had traveled there in recent months to seek instructions and confer with unknown conspirators, intelligence officials said yesterday, discussing several elements of the investigation on the condition of anonymity.
Pakistan's government, portraying itself as a reliable ally against terrorism, said it had made at least seven arrests connected to the plot but insisted that the conspiracy was centered in neighboring Afghanistan. Two of the men in custody there were British citizens.
[...]
U.S. intelligence analysts say they believe that the principal remaining leadership of al-Qaeda is hiding in Pakistan. Despite increased cooperation between the Islamabad government and Western powers since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, they say, the number of extremists inside the country may be on the rise and elements of Pakistan's intelligence services remain sympathetic to their cause.
On Friday, the British government portrayed Pakistan's cooperation as vital in undoing the alleged bombing conspiracy, but some U.S. officials said that five years after the Sept. 11 attacks, they are far from countering, or even understanding, the level of threat emanating from Pakistan's lawless regions and bustling cities.
[...]
Two intelligence sources suggested that Pakistan had replaced Afghanistan as a center for terrorist activities and expressed frustration with the attempts of Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, to exert control over huge swaths of territory.
The senior administration official did not play down the problem but insisted that the situation is better today than it was five years ago. "Prior to 9/11, the whole region was a safe haven," the official said. "You see attempts from Pakistan to affect this, but it's still part of a long-term element of our battle against terrorism." Pakistani officials say the country's efforts are sincere and pursued at major cost in lives and money.
Ok. let's be generous here and say that the Pakistani government is doing the best it can. The population is probably the most sympathetic to al Qaeda of anywhere in the world. It's the epicenter of al Qaeda philosophy. It's not easy even for a military dictatorship to deal with this and it's more helpful to have them at least ostensibly on our side than otherwise.
But this makes absolutely no sense at all (http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Pakistan-plans-big-nuclear-expansion/2006/07/25/1153746832280.html):
Pakistan is building a new nuclear reactor that could produce enough plutonium for 40 to 50 nuclear weapons a year, a report said.
It said the major expansion of its nuclear program could prompt an intensified arms race in South Asia.
But US officials and congressional aides, who confirmed the Pakistani plan, said it was unlikely to derail a nuclear cooperation accord with India or the sale of US-made F-16 jets to Islamabad.
News of the planned new Pakistani facility was confirmed as the US Congress faced targets for action this week on both an Indian cooperation accord and the F-16s deal.
"We have been aware of these plans, and we discourage any use of that facility for military purposes such as weapons development," White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters.
He said the administration "discourage(s) expansion and modernisation of nuclear weapons programs, both of India and Pakistan," nuclear rivals who refused to sign the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.
While US officials knew about the reactor project, congressional aides said the US Congress was largely unaware until a report in the Washington Post on Monday citing an analysis of satellite photos and other data by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security.
The analysis concluded Pakistan was building a second larger heavy water reactor at its Khushab complex that could produce enough plutonium for 40 to 50 nuclear weapons a year.
Construction apparently began sometime after March 2000.
But the analysis said Pakistan did not appear to be hastening completion, possibly due to shortages of reactor components or weapons production infrastructure.
The administration preferred to keep the project quiet because public disclosure "probably will aggravate concerns in India" as well as on Capitol Hill, one US official said.
Are you feeling safer?
And then there was the inexplicable decision to allow acknowledged nuclear proliferator AQ Khan to skate with a televised apology. This from an administration that continues to make a fetish of ensuring that nuclear weapons do not find their ways in to the hands of terrorists or nations hostile to the US.
So, last week we have what appears to be a rather elaborate but low tech terrorist plot unravelled that shows that terrorists are still operating out of Pakistan. Pakistan is also ramping up its nuclear operations with the knowledge of the administration, which kept that knowledge from the US congress until a couple of weeks ago.
Why is this not considered a problem by anyone in Washington? Do they honestly believe that this combination of al Qaeda, nuclear weapons and a tenuous military dictatorship whose intelligence services are sympathetic to bin Laden is not worth worrying about ---- while we obsess over Iraq and Iran?
Apparently. It's one of those issues that has confounded me from the beginning. Al Qaeda style Islamic fundamentalist terrorism is a real threat. Their methods are designed for maximum effect and are almost guaranteed, if successful, to create a disproportionate and inchoate response. And yet the country that is the hive of such terrorism (with a government police force that is reputed to be sympathetic to it) is considered to be an ally on the par of Great Britain --- which is a target just like the US. It makes no sense and it's one of the primary reasons that we can be sure that the neocons are no more serious about terrorism than they have ever been.
Repeat after me --- these people do not really care about terrorism. They never have. If you read their manifestos from before 9/11, terrorism is a footnote. They ignored Richard Clark and the CIA when they took office. Bush told his briefer on August 6th 2001 "ok, you've covered your ass" when he was told "bin Laden determined to strike in the US." They think that terrorism is only threatening as part of an official nation state apparatus. They are completely rigid in their thinking, refusing to consider new evidence, even decades after they've been proven wrong.
And not only do they not see terrorism as a real threat, their own obsessions with toppling middle eastern states virtually guarantees that terrorism will continue to rise. Their unearned reputation for competence in this area is another case of Republican upisdownism in full effect.
by digby
Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. George W. Bush, September 20, 2001
U.S. and European officials described Pakistan yesterday as the hub of a plot to down transatlantic flights (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/11/AR2006081102053.html), saying the young British men allegedly behind the planned attacks drew financial and logistical support from sponsors operating in Karachi and Lahore.
At least 17 suspects in British custody for the aviation plot have family ties to Pakistan, and several had traveled there in recent months to seek instructions and confer with unknown conspirators, intelligence officials said yesterday, discussing several elements of the investigation on the condition of anonymity.
Pakistan's government, portraying itself as a reliable ally against terrorism, said it had made at least seven arrests connected to the plot but insisted that the conspiracy was centered in neighboring Afghanistan. Two of the men in custody there were British citizens.
[...]
U.S. intelligence analysts say they believe that the principal remaining leadership of al-Qaeda is hiding in Pakistan. Despite increased cooperation between the Islamabad government and Western powers since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, they say, the number of extremists inside the country may be on the rise and elements of Pakistan's intelligence services remain sympathetic to their cause.
On Friday, the British government portrayed Pakistan's cooperation as vital in undoing the alleged bombing conspiracy, but some U.S. officials said that five years after the Sept. 11 attacks, they are far from countering, or even understanding, the level of threat emanating from Pakistan's lawless regions and bustling cities.
[...]
Two intelligence sources suggested that Pakistan had replaced Afghanistan as a center for terrorist activities and expressed frustration with the attempts of Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, to exert control over huge swaths of territory.
The senior administration official did not play down the problem but insisted that the situation is better today than it was five years ago. "Prior to 9/11, the whole region was a safe haven," the official said. "You see attempts from Pakistan to affect this, but it's still part of a long-term element of our battle against terrorism." Pakistani officials say the country's efforts are sincere and pursued at major cost in lives and money.
Ok. let's be generous here and say that the Pakistani government is doing the best it can. The population is probably the most sympathetic to al Qaeda of anywhere in the world. It's the epicenter of al Qaeda philosophy. It's not easy even for a military dictatorship to deal with this and it's more helpful to have them at least ostensibly on our side than otherwise.
But this makes absolutely no sense at all (http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Pakistan-plans-big-nuclear-expansion/2006/07/25/1153746832280.html):
Pakistan is building a new nuclear reactor that could produce enough plutonium for 40 to 50 nuclear weapons a year, a report said.
It said the major expansion of its nuclear program could prompt an intensified arms race in South Asia.
But US officials and congressional aides, who confirmed the Pakistani plan, said it was unlikely to derail a nuclear cooperation accord with India or the sale of US-made F-16 jets to Islamabad.
News of the planned new Pakistani facility was confirmed as the US Congress faced targets for action this week on both an Indian cooperation accord and the F-16s deal.
"We have been aware of these plans, and we discourage any use of that facility for military purposes such as weapons development," White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters.
He said the administration "discourage(s) expansion and modernisation of nuclear weapons programs, both of India and Pakistan," nuclear rivals who refused to sign the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.
While US officials knew about the reactor project, congressional aides said the US Congress was largely unaware until a report in the Washington Post on Monday citing an analysis of satellite photos and other data by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security.
The analysis concluded Pakistan was building a second larger heavy water reactor at its Khushab complex that could produce enough plutonium for 40 to 50 nuclear weapons a year.
Construction apparently began sometime after March 2000.
But the analysis said Pakistan did not appear to be hastening completion, possibly due to shortages of reactor components or weapons production infrastructure.
The administration preferred to keep the project quiet because public disclosure "probably will aggravate concerns in India" as well as on Capitol Hill, one US official said.
Are you feeling safer?
And then there was the inexplicable decision to allow acknowledged nuclear proliferator AQ Khan to skate with a televised apology. This from an administration that continues to make a fetish of ensuring that nuclear weapons do not find their ways in to the hands of terrorists or nations hostile to the US.
So, last week we have what appears to be a rather elaborate but low tech terrorist plot unravelled that shows that terrorists are still operating out of Pakistan. Pakistan is also ramping up its nuclear operations with the knowledge of the administration, which kept that knowledge from the US congress until a couple of weeks ago.
Why is this not considered a problem by anyone in Washington? Do they honestly believe that this combination of al Qaeda, nuclear weapons and a tenuous military dictatorship whose intelligence services are sympathetic to bin Laden is not worth worrying about ---- while we obsess over Iraq and Iran?
Apparently. It's one of those issues that has confounded me from the beginning. Al Qaeda style Islamic fundamentalist terrorism is a real threat. Their methods are designed for maximum effect and are almost guaranteed, if successful, to create a disproportionate and inchoate response. And yet the country that is the hive of such terrorism (with a government police force that is reputed to be sympathetic to it) is considered to be an ally on the par of Great Britain --- which is a target just like the US. It makes no sense and it's one of the primary reasons that we can be sure that the neocons are no more serious about terrorism than they have ever been.
Repeat after me --- these people do not really care about terrorism. They never have. If you read their manifestos from before 9/11, terrorism is a footnote. They ignored Richard Clark and the CIA when they took office. Bush told his briefer on August 6th 2001 "ok, you've covered your ass" when he was told "bin Laden determined to strike in the US." They think that terrorism is only threatening as part of an official nation state apparatus. They are completely rigid in their thinking, refusing to consider new evidence, even decades after they've been proven wrong.
And not only do they not see terrorism as a real threat, their own obsessions with toppling middle eastern states virtually guarantees that terrorism will continue to rise. Their unearned reputation for competence in this area is another case of Republican upisdownism in full effect.