july 26, 2005
Is the War
on Terror Headed to Pakistan?
The London bombing, with its Pakistani connection, has
again thrust the spotlight on Islamabad as a dubious,
and some would say, double-dealing “partner”
in the war on terror. I’ll explain why, in a few
paragraphs. First, some interesting background…
For years, a confidential U.S. military source has told
me repeatedly what has since become conventional wisdom:
Osama bin Laden has been living across the border
from Afghanistan in the mountains of Pakistan, and he
has eluded capture with the assistance of Pakistan’s
military.
His lair is a high altitude location that can be assaulted
only by dropping commandoes from aircraft. The rugged
terrain and high altitude environment would make such
an assault an extremely difficult task. But my source
says the biggest factor preventing the nabbing of
bin Laden is that it would have to be a secret incursion
into Pakistani territory without Pakistan’s knowledge.
He says American commanders in Afghanistan know that members
of Pakistan’s military pass information to bin Laden.
Consider that when U.S. forces crossed into Pakistan
earlier this month and killed 24 terrorists on Pakistani
soil, Pakistan did not thank us.
General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's military ruler,
reportedly told U.S. Central Command Chief Gen. John Abizaid
that “we want our borders to be respected in
the war on terrorism and will not put up with future border
breaches."
My source says the Pakistanis are such an unreliable
ally that the U.S has resorted to installing its own
clandestine network of operatives inside Pakistan
in order to nab high value al-Qaeda figures and spirit
them out of the country without the Pakistani government’s
knowledge (and interference).
So to what degree can we still call Pakistan an ally
in the war on terror?
Musharraf told the Financial
Times of London Monday that “the command
and control system of al-Qaeda in his country has been
destroyed, excluding any possibility that the terrorist
network could have carried out this month's bombings in
London and Egypt.”
This claim is laughable, and either Musharraf
is really that out of touch with reality, or he’s
playing a double game in which he hopes to hang on to
power by trying please both us and the forces within his
military who support bin Laden. I vote for the latter.
The secular Musharraf, in his role as modern version
of the last Czar of Russia, presides by force over an
unruly Islamic nation that largely despises him and the
war on terror.
Pakistan is considered by terror experts to be the
most radicalized Muslim state in the world. In fact,
the word Taliban, which means “student,” and
which we associate with Afghanistan, actually refers to
the Pashtun tribesmen, both Afghan and Pakistani, who
left radical Madrassas (Islamic religious schools) to
fight Jihad in Afghanistan; first against the Soviets
and then against Americans.
Musharraf could never win a fair election in Pakistan.
Osama bin Laden would stand a much better chance, were
he Pakistani.
Pakistani Scholar Ahmed Rashid told the German magazine
Der Spiegel
Monday that “Pakistan remains the global
center for terrorism and for the remnants of al-Qaeda,
which is (sic) still very strong here.“
The attack on London is just the most recent display of
that.
Strategic guru George Friedman has predicted that the
war on terror would conclude in Pakistan. We may not be
nearing the end of the war on terror, but Pakistan seems
to be where the conflict is headed next.
