Hitler (very exited) Und Bridgwater ist die letzte Fühlung das wir haben in Somerset!
Interviewer (voice over) What do you think of Mr Hilter's politics.
Yokel I don't like the sound of these 'ere boncentration bamps.
Posted on 05/02/2011 6:35:43 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
After Osama: Stop feeding the beast
Bin Laden's discovery in a wealthy suburb of Abbottabad raises questions over US military funding to Pakistan.
Leila Hudson
After years of former Pakistani military dictator General Musharraf assuring the world that bin Laden was either dead or in Afghanistan, he was found and dispatched by US special forces in the town of Abbottabad, a mere 30 miles - 50km - as the crow flies from the capital Islamabad.
Abbottabad is a colonial era army "cantonment" or garrison town and home to the Pakistan Military Academy PMA Kakul, less than two miles from the compound in question. To put it in perspective, it is like capturing Carlos the Jackal just down the road from West Point or Sandhurst.
The notion that Pakistan’s all pervasive Army-controlled Inter-Services Intelligence was unaware of bin Laden's presence beggars belief.
Although Bush-era National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley feigned total surprise about the location and its implications in an on-air interview after the news broke, Wikileaks, as well as other sources such as investigative journalist Bob Woodward's most recent book, tell a very different story. By 2008, the United States political and military leadership had lost all remnants of faith in the trustworthiness of the Pakistani military and its intelligence wing, the ISI, internally acknowledging that it consistently "hunted with the hounds and ran with the hares", including the Afghan Taliban, the Haqqanis, and the Lashkar-e-Taiba - and was involved in planning terrorist attacks from Kabul to Mumbai.
Pakistani intelligence has had a close relationship with bin Laden since the early 1980s, when he acted as a courier, transferring funds from Saudi intelligence and its establishment to the Pakistani Jamaat-e-Islami to support the anti-Soviet jihad. It is no surprise that bin Laden chose to relocate to eastern Afghanistan, an area within Pakistan's sphere of influence, in 1996 - after he was expelled from Sudan under US pressure. Of course, the relationship has never been smooth - Pakistan's opportunism alienated al Qaeda just as much as such behaviour alienated the United States - but also made it just as indispensable.
Funded by the US taxpayer
Despite this, the United States continued to funnel billions to the Pakistani armed forces in sophisticated weapons and cash - most recently a US$2billion package announced in October 2010 under the State Department’s Foreign Military Finance Program. The US is paying, not only for the use of Pakistan as a logistical corridor to its troops in Afghanistan, but for the privilege of conducting an increasingly aggressive covert counter-terrorism campaign on Pakistani soil - often against the Pakistani government's client groups.
Analysis by SISMEC, the New America Foundation and others showed a massive increase in drone strikes in the tribal area of North Waziristan after the summer of 2008, largely aimed at pro-ISI groups such as the Haqqani network.
Most recently, US security contractor Raymond Davis was held in Pakistan for almost two months (17 January to March 16, 2011) after fatally shooting two alleged ISI agents, when he was believed to be surveilling the LeT in Lahore. As for Davis' claim that he thought he was being robbed, well that one's for the birds. The Davis saga came at the same time that the Obama administration was reportedly finalising plans for the killing of Osama bin Laden, a coincidence that we are sure we will be hearing more about.
America's first attempt to kill Osama bin Laden came 13 years ago in August 1998, when President Bill Clinton launched "Operation Infinite Reach" in retaliation for the suicide bombings that devastated US embassies in Nairobi and Daressalam. Sixty six cruise missiles were launched from the Arabian Sea at camps in eastern Afghanistan to kill Al Qaeda’s senior leadership who were due to meet in a shura council. Pakistan's military leadership was informed by US counterparts shortly before the missiles entered their airspace, just in case they mistook it for an Indian attack (India and Pakistan had just tested nuclear weapons earlier in May). Shortly after, bin Laden cancelled his planned meeting. Many US officials believe the Pakistani Army and the ISI tipped bin Laden off.
Covert operations
It is this long and frustrating history that explains why the US chose to conduct this mission covertly and unilaterally. In spite of face-saving Pakistani claims of joint execution, it was conducted in much the same way the US might have in a semi-hostile country, such as Syria in October 2008, rather than its proclaimed "Frontline Ally" in what used to be called the "War on Terror". It seems that Pakistani authorities had no clear idea of what was going on until it was all over, and a US helicopter bearing the SEAL team and bin Laden’s body touched down at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan.
There is an inevitable question about timing. Why on earth did it take the US so long to succeed? The standard, official defence was that this was a rugged area, filled with implacably hostile tribesmen. Today, questions are being finally asked about the Pakistani Army's complicity. The truth is deeper, and more unpleasant, and has much to do with the ways in which dictators around the world manipulate US policy with embarrassing ease.
For almost seven years after 9/11, General Musharraf, a warmonger who seized power in a coup in 1999, assured Bush that he was the only man who could hold back the violent fundamentalists and prevent them from seizing control of Pakistan's government and its nuclear weapons. The US should not push too hard, but rather leave Musharraf to crush the extremists.
The reality was that the Pakistani government deliberately supported the takeover of extremist parties - such as the Islamist MMA alliance in 2003 - and facilitated the comeback of the Taliban, all the while profiting handsomely from generous US aid and the lifting of nuclear sanctions. This was despite the fact that democratically elected governments in both Afghanistan (Karzai's 2004 election was accepted as free and fair) and India complained vociferously of the Pakistani military's support of extremist groups in both their countries.
Eventually a newly amalgamated Pakistani Taliban turned on their former patrons in the government. Despite this, Pakistan continued to support the Afghan Taliban, the Haqqani group, and the LeT, and the political leadership in the US continued to enrich a militarist dictatorship that fanned the flames of extremism at the cost of thousands of Asian and American lives.
A new approach
Since Bush's final year in power, freed from the baleful influence of Donald Rumsfeld, the US has taken a much firmer line with Pakistan's military - calling its bluff by acting more directly against extremists, and demanding ever greater accountability (for example the Kerry-Lugar bill) for the billions in assistance poured into Pakistan. However these measures were totally inadequate for the stew of militarism, illiteracy, and bad governance.
The Arab Spring has eroded many of the conventional assumptions about the relationship between dictators, Islamists and the West. In Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Syria, we heard dictators playing the Islamist card for three decades - "support us unless you want the terrorists to win". The reality has been quite different. Dictators from Musharraf to Mubarak have relied on terrorists and extremists to bring in the US aid they so desperately need to survive. In the case of the Pakistani Army, they have been only too happy to feed the hand that bites them.
Musharraf, having worn out the patience of both the Pakistani public and his US patrons was finally forced out in August 2008. He has been replaced with a weak civilian government that has served as little more than a useful facade for an army that remains addicted to both jihad and US money. It is a stark warning of what the Arab Spring in Tunisia and Egypt can turn in to unless people remain vigilant.
Today, the US continues to lavishly fund the Pakistani military, while using drones and secret soldiers such as Raymond Davis to attack the extremist forces that the same regime supports. It is up to the US to stop feeding the beast.
Leila Hudson is associate professor of Near Eastern Studies, Anthropology and History and director of the Southwest Initiative for the Study of Middle East Conflicts (SISMEC) at the University of Arizona.
Johann Chacko is an MA candidate in the Near Eastern Studies Department at the University of Arizona and a SISMEC Research Assistant who has worked in the private sector as an open source analyst of military conflicts.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
i read somewhere that the mansion was built in 2005 specifically to hide osama bin laden, theres no telephone wires at all. Who own the building and who been feeding Osama?
I have been saying this for quite a long time now.... =.=
It’s obvious the Paki military was PROTECTING OBL.
we may have gotten all our information from Pakistan. You know...he is here...do not implicate us...thank you very much
f-ing Paks , they got some explainin to do......
We should forgive them only if they turn over Mullah Umar ,
Ayman Sawahiri , and Adam Gahdan . In short order !
If not , we need to break diplomatic relations and fully side with India 100%
Hitler (very exited) Und Bridgwater ist die letzte Fühlung das wir haben in Somerset!
Interviewer (voice over) What do you think of Mr Hilter's politics.
Yokel I don't like the sound of these 'ere boncentration bamps.
Here is one time where I agree with al-jezeera. This is a great excuse to get out of Pakistan and out of Afghanistan.
Let me get this right.
We’re supposed to celebrate the death of Osama Bin Laden by turning Pakistan and Afghanistan over to the Taliban?
Who came up with this idea, Osama’s former press secretary?
And my fellow FReepers, good grief, get a grip.
We remain engaged in areas like this. 09/11 is what happens when we don’t.
Why should you send military aid to a country which still manages to BUY BILLIONS of US dollars worth of weaponry from China??? The Pakis have long used “the Taliban will take over the nukes” argument to keep the taps in Washington flowing. Nobody has questioned how they spent it or how they have managed to build their nuclear weapons capability or buy arms from China.
If anything, by allowing the Pakis to hunt with the hounds and run with the hares, you are ensuring that Islamic groups will maintain their influence in Afghanistan. The Pakistani army is a two-faced beast-suave and cosmpolitan on the outside-Islamist on the inside. No amount of US aid or “support” will change that.
There is not ONE Islamist group in Pakistan which is remotely capable of challenging the military. The most capable ones are those which were spawned by it.
I do agree with that, but I think we should stick around in Afghanistan. Better we fight them there than over here.
Of course, but I think that needs to be delinked from providing military aid to the likes of Pakistan. Which roughly translates into getting tough with Islamabad which is the only way to remotely come close to ending this thing.
The road to victory in Kabul lies in Islamabad.
Do you think it would be best to cut off relations with Pakistan, declare them a terrorist state and go negative on them constantly?
To my way of thinking, our relationship with Pakistan has brought a modicum of peace to the region. There haven’t been any close calls to a nuclear confrontation between it and India in about the last ten years. What changed? I believe it was our elevated engagement that did.
What’s worse than paying Pakistan large sums of money, and having an open dialogue with them? IMO, it would be cutting off those funds and alienating it’s leadership.
What was one of the worst problems we had with Iraq? Wasn’t it that we didn’t have a good network of spies inside the nation? We didn’t know what was going on there. That led to us speculating what was actually happening.
I know much is made about spreading around payments to foreign powers. When the chips are down, I understand that type of thinking. It’s still my take that in the overall scheme of things, those payments are little more than greasing the skids for our military.
I’m not convinced that the Pakistanis didn’t know what was taking place during this raid. I’m not convinced they didn’t cooperate with us. I’m not convinced they aren’t happy to have the guy swimming with the fishes now.
Sure this foreign power isn’t identical to our own. Sure it has to deal with unpleasant players. It’s populace is such that it is never going to reflect our goals in perfect harmony.
I still say that the relationship we have with Pakistan today is much better than it could be. And that isn’t just providing a better climate for the U. S. It’s also helping other nations in the region.
We go over Pakistan’s borders regularly. They look the other way, or make some pointed comments. That’s for domestic consumption. They can’t afford to look like our puppet. That’s okay. It’s to be expected.
We’ll probably continue to disagree on this. I do understand where you are coming from, and I don’t think you’re unreasoned to raise the questions you do. I think they are natural questions to ask, and issues to raise.
It seems to me that keeping Pakistan in the loop prevents China from using it to neuter India. While you could point out that it it really doesn’t prevent that, I do think there is evidence to buttress the idea that Pakistan is a much better global player today than it was ten years ago.
Laden is dead. Did Pakistan cut off relations with the U. S.? Aren’t we benefiting from this considerably?
Umm, I really think you need to update your information about Pakistan. China HAS BEEN USING PAKISTAN FOR MORE THAN 50 years to neuter India. Their nukes, their missiles, fighters, ships and soon submarines are all from Beijing. Pakistan is China’s insurance policy just as North Korea is in the Far East.
This has happened irrespective of US aid. I had this same argument six years ago on here with folks who said that giving Pakistan F-16s would deter it from buying Chinese fighters. In 2005, Pakistan wanted to buy 150 JF-17s fighters from Beijing; two years later they raised than to 250. So tell me again, do you seriously think the US has been able control Pakistan’s ties with China? I’ve observed, read and discussed this relationship for over a decade and I can tell you that the answer is a RESOUNDING NO.
About Pakistan’s future, again, is the country broke?? You are ok with sending American money to a country which still has funds to buy Chinese weaponry and build more nukes and missiles?? Are you serious. We are not discussing Haiti here. If anything Pakistan has and is blackmailing the US with the line that we are too dangerous to be confronted (since we have nukes) and if left on our own, we will spoil your party in Afghanistan (and by extension central Asia).
Pakistan is first and foremost an army with a country. The Army is in everything, IT IS PAKISTAN. It cooperates with the US since it knows the consequences of not doing so. The same goes for avoiding war with India.
About having known/cooperated on the operation against Osama, I ask you a very simple question-if you were a Paki general who knew where Osama was, where would you have wanted him get killed/captured? Any sane observer of Pakistan will tell you that Osama getting killed in the Swat Valley would have caused far less of a headache than getting killed in Abbotabad.
About declaring them a terrorist state, has the US policy of appeasement (that is what it is) worked?? By claiming that artificial states such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are vital for stability and arming them, the US is endangering its long term interests. People like me crowed on here for years that Osama was most likely holed up somewhere in the urban areas of Pakistan. At the risk of being seen as pompous, everything I have said about Pakistan-be it sponsorship of terrorism, nuclear proliferation or its supposed risk of falling to extremism, has come true.
In conclusion-
Pakistan is and has been a rational state. It will not cut off ties with the US for the same reason that no sane nation will. There is no Islamic group in the country which is anywhere capable of dislodging the military, so the dialogue argument doesn’t stand. The real threat to Pakistan in the long term is not a loony taking over but, it is ethnic fragmentation-Sindh and Baluchistan are already in turmoil. As long as the army runs a semi-feudal state, the threat remains; it happened once before in 1971. This time there are nukes involved.
And the blunt fact is no amount of pleasantries, dollars and F-16s will change the Pakistani army’s attitude. It lives for the near term, not the long term.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.