Obama's Concern about Pakistan Justified in New Report

[AntiFascist]

In a speech last August on counterterrorism policy at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Barrack Obama declared that he would use military force against Al Qaeda operatives hiding in tribal areas of Pakistan if that nation did not move more aggressively against them first:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-obama2aug02,0,5330469.story?coll=chi-newsbreaking-hed

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama said. "But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. ... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."

...

His declaration also followed revelations last month that the Bush administration made a last-minute decision in 2005 to abort a special forces raid to capture senior Al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan's tribal areas amid fears the operation might jeopardize relations with Pakistan. The disclosure stirred criticism of the White House, and in his speech Obama called the decision to abort "a terrible mistake."

...

"I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan," Obama said.

He outlined his views at a time when Senator Clinton sought to depict him as naive in international affairs.

Following Obama's speech, White House spokesman Tony Snow continued to defend President Bush's policy saying "We think that our approach to Pakistan is not only one that respects the sovereignty of Pakistan, but also is designed so that we are working in cooperation,"


A recent report by the World-Check Terrorism and Insurgency Research Unit entitled "Pakistan's Al-Qaida-Taliban Nexus" draws the following conclusion:

http://www.world-check.com/media/d/content_experttalk_reference/Expert_Talk_Pakistan080207.pdf

The Al-Qaida Pakistani Taliban nexus likely intends to
perpetuate terrorist violence both in Pakistan and in the
West in order to consolidate and secure its stronghold in
the Pakistani tribal region. Operations in Europe and the
US have certainly been planned and progressed to
advanced stages, and attacks in Pakistan continue to
take place regularly.

While it will be necessary to target the al-Qaida and
Taliban leadership that constitutes the locus of Jihad
globally, a military strategy to achieve this aim does not
seem likely and until another solution is found, the world --
West and East – can anticipate more terrorist violence to
ensue.

The report discusses the assassination of Benazir Bhutto as a watershed in the political history of the country, and how this and other threats "signify that the Taliban are not randomly attacking people, but pursuing a broad agenda and employing a systematic strategy to eliminate secular political leadership in Pakistan.

As the events have played out in Pakistan, this report would seem to indicate that Bush's strategy is impotent and that the West and East can anticipate more violence as a result. If Obama's suggestions had been acted upon, then perhaps it could have helped to prevent the assassination and subverted al Qaeda's plans in Europe and the US which apparently have now progressed to "advanced stages".

[AntiFascist]

1. kick

:kick:

[Scurrilous]

2. Good find.

Thanks for posting! :thumbsup:

[thoughtcrime1984]

3. Again, Obama is prescient

On Iraq, and now Pakistan. I'm not surprised.

[Barack_America]

4. I'll kick this. Another example of being RIGHT on day one! n/t

[unc70]

10. There is not RIGHT in PK. Just many wrong, worse, and unexpected

By chance, I have several close friends originally from or currently living in Pakistan and a couple more who were posted there as US diplomats, represented NGOs, or have other experience that make their perspectives of value. Various in-country reports and regular reading of the Pakistani and Indian press convince me that only the naive and the totally clueless can have any confidence that they or anyone knows how to resolve this mess.

I had started to describe some of the things that others have advocated and which seemed reasonable to me. After watching tonight's Business Pakistan and catching up reading the PK press, I realized I really need to follow my own advice.

[unc70]

5. I know a bit about PK. My experts caution everyone.

They know most of the players, are unhappy with Musharraf, but fear that any action or obvious pressure by the US would only make matters worse. Corruption is growing, the poor are becoming desparate, inflation has overtaken the economic gains that followed the forced return of PK citizens from the US.

While there are possible paths through this mindfield, it will not be easy for anyone.

No saber rattling by anyone, please. No ultimatums in public.

[AntiFascist]

6. Sorry, I don't buy it...

the biggest threat to America is the military-inudstrial-oil complex itself.

Neocons have been fostering terrrorism in the Middle East since the end of the Cold War, and even before. The actions of al Qaeda have been a tremendous cash cow for everyone involved. Look at the recent budget proposals for the War on Terror.

I have no doubt that the Shadow Government would make it difficult for us to make progress against al Qaeda in Pakistan. A good first step would be to expose all the corruption driving our own government. Take a peek at the INSLAW thread!

[AntiFascist]

7. You should pay particular attention to Indira Singh's testimony...

regarding Ptech and the history of drug and other money laundering to finance terrorism.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2836046&mesg_id=2837680

[fujiyama]

8. It's ironic that people always praise Hillary for her foreign policy "experience"

but one of the things that drew me to Obama was his statements on foreign policy. Hillary's policies reflect more of the status quo - which is pouring billions into Pakistan without likely seeing ANY results. Obama realizes the seriousness of Pakistan and the long term history of Pakistan's involvement in terrorism.

[AntiFascist]

9. Don't be fooled....

Hillary Clinton has considerable experience with the nexus of organized crime and terrorist financing, and not in a good way.

[unc70]

11. So you like anti-war Obama threats to attack yet another country

if we decide that its government has not made substantial enough efforts to capture or kill enough alleged terrorists within its borders, many its own citizens. Doesn't that sound like a jolly good idea.

How clueless can you be? Do you really know anything about Pakistan? And why did you link to a fluff document written from a great distance, little more than a gloss of recent newspaper reports from The Dawn and other regional sources? I am not impressed.

[AntiFascist]

12. Why don't you provide links or at least quotes to the sources you cite?

This is an interesting op-ed here:

http://www.dawn.com/2008/02/09/op.htm

The old cultural and social practices, customs and traditions of the jagirdari and tribal system which have been validated by religion, are now under threat. Dress, music, dance, eating habits and lifestyle are all challenging the old value system.

Women want to marry according to their choice. They like to get an education and want to work outside their homes. When religious and old social value systems fail to check these changes, the guardians of conservative mores resort to violence and try to stop new trends. Here, violence is justified by religious scholars to uphold the outdated system of a feudal and tribal society.

The key question remains: is there any hope for changing the structure of the state? Perhaps no, because all political parties like to use religion and exploit the sentiments of the people to win elections. Religion and politics will remain an integral part of Pakistan. To defeat old and conservative traditions will take a long time because at present liberal and secular forces are too weak to resist and combat the established set-up.

Frankly I don't care for interfering in another nation's affairs in order to affect liberal change within the time period of single administrations. I think such change can come about more slowly through economic and cultural incentives.

What I feel is desparately needed, and the type of 'change' I would like to see in US foreign policy is an end to the ultra-right wing, corrupting policies that created al Qaeda in the first place and continue to support shadowy characters such as A.Q. Khan and the illegal sharing of nuclear technology (for example). What is desparately needed is a cleanup operation where all these criminal elements and influences are put away once and for all. Radical Islamic forces have been brainwashed into thinking that they must fight Western imperial forces, when in fact it is this radicalization itself which feeds our incentive to go to war and continues the neoconservative/neoliberal agenda.

I don't know if Obama exactly sees it this way, but at least he doesn't have a history of participating in the traditional war machine.

[unc70]

13. You and I probably agree on a lot,

I agree with you that we need to drastically change the face of US foreign policy. I see no chance of that really happening, no matter who is elected. Yes, with Obama or Clinton we will see some pull-back from the extremes of the current administration. Each admin since WWII has followed this same pattern; with all Carter's emphasis on human rights and such, even he did his part. I see scant difference in their votes, their statements, and their likely course of actions. Yes, he made a speech in 2002; so he was against the war before he was in favor of it. They both see continuing military operations in Iraq, Obama just doesn't include anti-terrorism and special ops in his definition of "combat troops".

I have little confidence in Obama. His ability to eloquently deliver speeches written by others is not enough. His performance in debates are unfocused, rambling, and often contradictory with what he said in recent speeches. Obama seems two different people; one is the creation of speech writers, tele-prompters, and media promotion - the rock start; the second, the talented athlete, the quick student who did well seemingly without needing to study, the charmer acting outside rules and confident in the power of his quick smile and a plausible story.

You might want to examine Obama's foreign policy team. They do not inspire me.

----

BTW you asked above for links to or quotes from my sources. These sources are very private and I hesitate to say more without getting their explicit permission. When I have more time, I will see what I can do further in that discussion.

Just using news.google.com and searching on Pakistan will give you a lot of different views.

[Emit]

14. AntiFascist

You are aware, aren't you, that Brezinski has endorsed Obama and has been touted as one of Obama's foreign policy advisors?

Afghanistan

Main article: Operation Cyclone

Brzezinski, known for his hardline policies on the Soviet Union, initiated a campaign supporting mujaheddin in Pakistan and Afghanistan, which were run by Pakistani security services with financial support from the CIA and Britain's MI6. This policy had the explicit aim of promoting radical Islamist and anti-Communist forces to overthrow the secular communist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan government in Afghanistan, which had been destabilized by coup attempts against Hafizullah Amin, the power struggle within the Soviet-supported parcham faction of the PDPA and a subsequent Soviet military intervention.
~snip~

During the 1960 presidential elections, Brzezinski was an advisor to the John F. Kennedy campaign ...

For the 1968 presidential campaign, Brzezinski was chairman of the Hubert Humphrey Foreign Policy Task Force...

During the 1960s Brzezinski acted as an adviser to Kennedy and Johnson administration officials. ...

For the 1968 presidential campaign, Brzezinski was chairman of the Hubert Humphrey Foreign Policy Task Force...

Out of this thesis, Brzezinski co-founded the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller, serving as director from 1973 to 1976. The Trilateral Commission is a group of prominent political and business leaders and academics primarily from the United States, Western Europe and Japan. Its purpose is to strengthen relations among the three most industrially advanced regions of the free world. Brzezinski selected Georgia governor Jimmy Carter as a member. ... Carter announced his candidacy for the 1976 presidential campaign to a skeptical media and proclaimed himself an "eager student" of Brzezinski. Brzezinski became Carter's principal foreign policy advisor by late 1975 ... After his victory in 1976, Carter made Brzezinski National Security Adviser ...

In 1985, under the Reagan administration, Brzezinski served as a member of the President’s Chemical Warfare Commission....

In 1988, Brzezinski was co-chairman of the Bush National Security Advisory Task Force and endorsed Bush for president, breaking with the Democratic party (coincidentally hurting the career of his former student Madeleine Albright, who was Dukakis's foreign policy advisor). ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski

The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser

Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998
Posted at globalresearch.ca 15 October 2001

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs <"From the Shadows">, that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

[AntiFascist]

15. It is exactly that quote by Brezinski which gives him credit...

for understanding the true threat of Islam:

B: "Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries."

Keep in mind that neoconservatives (Dick Cheney et. al.) were in direct opposition to the Reagan conservatives who were cutting back on defense spending after the end of the Cold War and closing down military bases. They wanted to continue on and basically conquer the rest of the world. Neocons were somewhat justified in their desire to protect American oil interests in the Middle East. Even Carter acknowledged the importance of protecting the Persian Gulf. Radicalizing part of Islam and blowing the threat all out of proportion has worked in their favor.

All I can say is that the world is a much different place now. Right-wing mafiya corruption seems to be a much bigger threat now than Communism or even Socialism. We can ramp down on our dependence on foreign oil. (Clinton, to her credit, has even stressed this.)

[Emit]

16. And it's Brzezinski's actions here, I suppose, which gives him credit for understanding

how to radicalize elements of Islam:

CNN PRESENTS
Encore Presentation: Soldiers of God
Aired January 1, 2002 - 15:00 ET

LEON HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: While U.S. pledging to help rebuild Afghanistan, the chances of post-war stability appear to be much stronger than the last time America was involved in an Afghan conflict. In the late '80s, hard-line Islamic warriors, with the aid of the United States, defeated the Soviets after a bloody 10-year war.

But once America's Cold War nemesis was expelled from Afghanistan, the U.S. picked up and went home, a decision that would come back to haunt America. The roots of terror in Afghanistan now as CNN PRESENTS "Soldiers of God," from CNN's acclaimed "Cold War" series.

~snip~

U.S. National Security Adviser Brzezinski flew to Pakistan to set about rallying resistance. He wanted to arm the Mujahedin without revealing America's role. On the Afghan border near the Khyber Pass, he urged the Soldiers of God to redouble their efforts.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRZEZINSKI: We know of their deep belief in God, and we are confident that their struggle will succeed. That land over there is yours. You will go back to it one day, because your fight will prevail and you'll have your homes and your mosques back again, because your cause is right and God is on your side.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BRZEZINSKI: The purpose of coordinating with the Pakistanis would be to make the Soviets bleed for as much and as long as is possible.

~snip~

BRZEZINSKI: We started providing weapons to the Mujahedin, from various sources again -- some -- for example, some Soviet arms from the Egyptians and the Chinese. We even got Soviet arms from the Czechoslovak Communist government, since it was obviously susceptible to material incentives; and at some point we started buying arms for the Mujahedin from the Soviet army in Afghanistan, because that army was increasingly corrupt.

BRANAGH: Brzezinski sought the help of Gen. Zia-ul-Haq, Pakistan's military ruler. Pakistan always had a keen interest in Afghanistan. Pakistan wanted a friendly and strongly Islamic neighbor.

The U.S. Congress had earlier cut U.S. military aid to Pakistan. Gen. Zia had a bad human rights record. He was developing a nuclear bomb. He had failed to curb drugs trading. Now, the Americans set aside their displeasure.

~snip~

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0201/01/cp.03.html




On the whole, IMHO, we're just trading neocons for neoliberals.

Don't misunderstand, I'd still prefer a Dem in office and a Dem majority in the House and Senate, but, let's face the facts before we experience the resulting let down of our built up hopes for change.

[AntiFascist]

17. There is a big difference between....

radicalizing Muslims in order to fight off an invasion of their own country (Soviet), and radicalizing Islam in order to create a Judeo-Christian enemy to fight.

Also, there are different kinds of neo-liberals. Will Marshall, on the DLC thinktank website(PPIonline.org), argues that agression can be used in a constructive way to "drain the swamp" of the Middle East". Brezinski, on the other hand, seems to argue for bringing together moderate Islamic and Israeli voices to barter for peace in the ME.

These are his comments from 2006:

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001559.php

...

5. "The solution can only come if there is a serious international involvement that supports the moderates from both sides, however numerous or non-numerous they are, but also creates the situation in which it becomes of greater interest to both parties to accommodate than to resist because both of the incentives and the capacity of the external intervention to impose costs. That means a deliberate peace effort led by the United States, which then doubtless would be supported by the international community, which defines openly in a semi-binding fashion how the United States and the international community envisages the outlines of the accommodation."

...

That we start talking to the Iraqis of the day of our disengagement., We say to them we want to set it jointly, but in the process, indicate to them that we will not leave precipitously. I asked Khalilzad what would be his definition of precipitous and he said four months and I said I agree. Are you saying to the Iraqis, we intend to disengage by some period? We need to."

9. "As far as Iran is concerned--and with this I'll end--thanks to Iraq, I think we have made an offer to the Iranians that is reasonable. I do not know that Iranians have the smarts to respond favorably or at least not negatively. I sort of lean to the idea that they'll probably respond not negatively but not positively and try to stall out the process. But that is not so bad provided they do not reject it.

[Emit]

18. Perhaps

But the decision back in the late 70's appears to have been the starting point:

Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1523838,00.html

~snip~
Understanding terrorism as policy construct, oil, and why we are in Iraq.

In 1979, a group of powerful people from various countries gathered together in Jerusalem to promote the idea of "international terrorism" as a sort of policy construct. It was a forum set up by Benjamin Netanyahu and was officially known as the Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism. The idea was originally formulated to blame terrorist activities on the Soviet Union as a continual pretext to protect the free enterprise areas of the world dominated by U.S. based multi-national corporations from being taken over by host states as national companies. Some prominent attendees were as follows; George Bush Sr., Ray S. Cline (former Deputy Director for Intelligence at the CIA), Henry M. Jackson (Sen. from Washington State), Richard Pipes (professor and Russian expert in Reagan's Security Council), Sir Hugh Fraser (Conservative MP and former British Undersecretary of State for Colonies), Paul Johnson (former editor of New Statesman), Maj. General Schlomo Gazit (former military intelligence chief of Israel), Lt. Gen Aharon Gazit (Israel), Shimon Perez, Manachem Begin, and Benzion Netanyahu (Cornell University professor emeritus) among others. Interestingly enough, operations of the US helping the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in an attempt to get the Soviet Union to step into a quagmire and experience their “Vietnam” was underway...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2807145

And with regard to your comment about different types of neo-liberals, while I agree, I think it is important to point out some more interesting quotes from Brzezinski. From his book “The Grand Chessboard” (1997):

“The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America’s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.” (pp. 24–25)

“America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America’s power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being.” (pp. 35–36)

“Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.” (p. 211)

Recall the neocon PNAC plan with their "New Pearl Harbor" reference.

I should, too, point out that I am an Obama supporter by default. Kucinich nor Edwards made the cut in my precinct caucus and I ended up standing with the Obama crowd.

[AntiFascist]

19. The Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism you cite...

is evidence for a clear indictment of the neoconservative movement, but I don't see Brzezinski's name (sorry I had been misspelling it before :blush:) on the list of participants.

The language he uses in the "The Grand Chessboard" is disturbing, but he may have been speaking in terms of the Clintonesque neo-liberal DLC position, at the time, shadowing that of PNAC. In today's political climate, people may be so sick of the Bush Admin's neocon failures that it would not be difficult at all to "fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues" opposed to that of the PNAC plan.

I also came to support Obama via Edwards. One can hope that he doesn't have too many preconceived 'corporate' influences for his foreign policy and that he will shape it based on the desires of his following.

[Emit]

20. Yes, Brzezinski's name wasn't on the list of attendees, but the timing of the JCIT event

coincided with his involvement in arming the mujahadeen fighters in Afghanistan against the Soviets. I'm sorry if I did not make that clear from the example I posted.

We can rationalize this because we want -- NO, NEED -- a Democratic President and majority in the House and Senate -- but we need to be aware of these connections.

My support of Edwards was based on similar reasoning. This link is helpful: http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/barack-obama-vs-hillary-clinton-records-on-transparency-lobbyists-and-ethics/